Dataset Information

Impact of Tocilizumab Monotherapy on Clinical and Patient-Reported Quality-of-Life Outcomes in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Tocilizumab (TCZ) monotherapy has been proven as an effective treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in clinical trials. However, there are limited data available regarding the effectiveness of TCZ monotherapy in real-world clinical settings in the United States. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of TCZ monotherapy on disease activity and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in a US-based observational cohort of patients with RA seen in routine clinical practice.

Methods

Eligible patients had active RA, no prior use of TCZ, and initiated TCZ as monotherapy. Changes in disease activity and PROs were assessed 1 year after TCZ initiation for the overall cohort and stratified by number of prior tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis; 0, 1, or ≥2). Primary outcomes were change in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI); change in patient global disease activity, pain, fatigue; and the proportions of patients with improvement in modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ), morning stiffness, and EQ-5D.

Results

Of 255 eligible TCZ monotherapy initiators, 9.4% were TNFi naive, 36.5% had one prior TNFi, and 54.1% had ≥2 prior TNFis. Clinical and PRO measures indicated that patients were substantially impacted by their disease at baseline. The median decrease in CDAI from baseline to 1 year was 9.8 and median patient global and pain scores improved by 10 mm, indicative of clinically meaningful improvement; the median fatigue score improved by 5 mm. Approximately 26% of patients reported clinically meaningful improvement in mHAQ, 54% experienced improvement in morning stiffness, and 20% to 36% experienced improvement in EQ-5D domains (walking, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression). Improvements were similar across TNFi groups.

Conclusions

Patients with active, refractory RA who initiated TCZ monotherapy experienced improvements in both composite disease activity scores and PROs at 1 year, regardless of prior TNFi exposure.

Funding

Corrona, LLC and Genentech.

SUBMITTER: Harrold LR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5696293 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of upadacitinib (UPA) monotherapy vs MTX on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with RA who were MTX-naïve or who had an inadequate response to MTX (MTX-IR).MethodsPROs from the SELECT-EARLY and SELECT-MONOTHERAPY randomized controlled trials were evaluated at Weeks 2 and 12/14. Patients were ≥18 years of age with RA symptoms for ≥6 weeks (SELECT-EARLY, MTX-naïve) or diagnosed RA for ≥3 months (SELECT-MONOTHERAPY, MTX-IR) and received UPA monotherapy (15 or 30 mg) or MTX. PROs included Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), pain visual analogue scale, HAQ Disability Index (HAQ-DI), morning stiffness duration/severity, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)-Fatigue (SELECT-EARLY), health-related quality of life (HRQOL) by the 36-iem Short Form Health Survey and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI; SELECT-EARLY). Least square mean (LSM) changes and proportions of patients reporting improvements greater than or equal to the minimum clinically important differences and normative values were determined.ResultsIn 945 MTX-naïve and 648 MTX-IR patients, UPA monotherapy (15 mg, 30 mg) vs MTX resulted in greater reported LSM changes from baseline at Weeks 12/14 in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, morning stiffness duration/severity, FACIT-F (SELECT-EARLY), HRQOL and WPAI (SELECT-EARLY). These changes were statistically significant with both doses of UPA vs MTX at Weeks 12/14 in both RCTs. Improvements were reported as early as week 2. Compared with MTX, more UPA-treated MTX-naïve and MTX-IR patients reported improvements greater than or equal to the minimum clinically important differences and scores greater than or equal to normative values.ConclusionAmong MTX-naïve and MTX-IR patients with active RA, UPA monotherapy at 15 or 30 mg for 12/14 weeks resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in pain, physical function, morning stiffness, HRQOL and WPAI compared with MTX alone.Clinical trial registration numberSELECT-EARLY (NCT02706873) and SELECT-MONOTHERAPY (NCT02706951) are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The phase III MONARCH randomized controlled trial (NCT02332590) demonstrated that in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), sarilumab (anti-interleukin-6 receptor monoclonal antibody) monotherapy is superior to adalimumab monotherapy in reducing disease activity and signs and symptoms of RA, as well as in improving physical function, with similar rates of adverse and serious adverse events. We report the effects of sarilumab versus adalimumab on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS:Patients with active RA intolerant of, or inadequate responders to, methotrexate were randomized to sarilumab 200 mg plus placebo every 2 weeks (q2w; n?=?184) or adalimumab 40 mg plus placebo q2w (n?=?185). Dose escalation to weekly administration of adalimumab or matching placebo was permitted at week 16. PROs assessed at baseline and weeks 12 and 24 included patient global assessment of disease activity (PtGA), pain and morning stiffness visual analogue scales (VASs), Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID), and rheumatoid arthritis-specific Work Productivity Survey (WPS-RA). Between-group differences in least-squares mean (LSM) changes from baseline were analyzed. p?<?0.05 was considered significant for PROs in a predefined hierarchy. For PROs not in the hierarchy, nominal p values are provided. Proportions of patients reporting improvements greater than or equal to the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and achieving normative values were assessed. RESULTS:At week 24, sarilumab treatment resulted in significantly greater LSM changes from baseline than adalimumab monotherapy in HAQ-DI (p?<?0.005), PtGA (p?<?0.001), pain VAS (p?<?0.001), and SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) (p?<?0.001). Greater LSM changes were reported for sarilumab than for adalimumab in RAID (nominal p?<?0.001), morning stiffness VAS (nominal p?<?0.05), and WPS-RA (nominal p?<?0.005). Between-group differences in FACIT-F and SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS) were not significant. More patients reported improvements greater than or equal to the MCID in HAQ-DI (nominal p?<?0.01), RAID (nominal p?<?0.01), SF-36 PCS (nominal p?<?0.005), and morning stiffness (nominal p?<?0.05), as well as greater than or equal to the normative values in HAQ-DI (p?<?0.05), with sarilumab versus adalimumab. CONCLUSIONS:In parallel with the clinical efficacy profile previously reported, sarilumab monotherapy resulted in greater improvements across multiple PROs than adalimumab monotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02332590 . Registered on 5 January 2015.

Project description:BackgroundThe effects of filgotinib on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from 3 trials in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis were investigated.MethodsMethotrexate (MTX)-naïve patients received filgotinib 200 or 100 mg plus MTX (FIL200+MTX, FIL100+MTX), filgotinib 200 mg monotherapy (FIL200), or MTX monotherapy through 52 weeks (NCT02886728). Patients with inadequate response (IR) to MTX (MTX-IR) received FIL200+MTX, FIL100+MTX, adalimumab 40 mg +MTX (ADA+MTX), or placebo (PBO)+MTX (rerandomized to FIL200+MTX or FIL100+MTX at week 24) through 52 weeks (NCT02889796). Patients with IR to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD-IR) received FIL200 or FIL100 or PBO with background stable conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs for up to 24 weeks (NCT02873936). PROs included Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) physical/mental component summary (PCS/MCS), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire-Rheumatoid Arthritis (WPAI-RA), and Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA). Data are reported as least-squares mean changes from baseline with standard error to the timepoint representing each study's primary endpoint. All statistical comparisons are of filgotinib groups vs their respective control groups.ResultsAt week 24, among MTX-naïve patients, change from baseline (standard deviation) in HAQ-DI was - 1.00 (0.03; P < 0.001) with FIL200+MTX, - 0.94 (0.04; P < 0.01) with FIL100+MTX, and - 0.91 (0.04; P < 0.05) with FIL200 alone compared with - 0.81 (0.03) with MTX alone. At week 12, among MTX-IR patients, change from baseline in HAQ-DI was - 0.69 (0.04; P < 0.001 vs PBO+MTX, P < 0.05 vs ADA) with FIL200+MTX, - 0.57 (0.04; P < 0.001 vs placebo) with FIL100+MTX, and - 0.60 (0.04) with ADA vs - 0.40 (0.04) with PBO+MTX. At week 12, among bDMARD-IR patients, change from baseline in HAQ-DI was - 0.50 (0.06; P < 0.001) with FIL200+csDMARD and - 0.46 (0.05; P < 0.001) with FIL100+csDMARD vs - 0.19 (0.06) with placebo+csDMARD. Changes in SF-36 PCS and MCS, FACIT-Fatigue, WPAI, and PtGA tended to favor filgotinib over PBO, MTX, and ADA. Greater proportions of patients experienced clinically meaningful differences with either dosage of FIL in combination with csDMARDs (including MTX) and with FIL200 monotherapy vs comparators.ConclusionsFilgotinib provided improvements in PROs across patient populations. These findings suggest filgotinib can be an effective treatment option for patients with insufficient response to MTX or bDMARDs and patients who are MTX-naïve.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov , FINCH 1, NCT02889796 , first posted September 7, 2016; FINCH 2, NCT02873936 , first posted August 22, 2016, retrospectively registered; FINCH 3, NCT02886728 , first posted September 1, 2016, retrospectively registered.

Project description:BackgroundAtopic dermatitis imparts a substantial patient burden, including itch, sleep disturbance, and decreased health-related quality of life.ObjectiveThis analysis evaluated changes in patient-reported outcomes of disease-specific signs/symptoms and health-related quality of life in adult and adolescent patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis treated with once-daily oral abrocitinib 200-mg or 100-mg monotherapy.MethodsPooled data from one phase IIb (NCT02780167) and two phase III (NCT03349060, JADE MONO-1; NCT03575871, JADE MONO-2) monotherapy trials in adult and adolescent patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis were analyzed. Patient-reported outcome assessments included: global severity, itch, and multi-item measures that assess other signs and symptoms of atopic dermatitis. Additional patient-reported outcome assessments measured depression, anxiety, fatigue, disease-specific and general health-related quality of life, and work and general productivity among employed patients.ResultsOverall, 942 patients were included in this analysis. Improvements were observed from the first post-baseline assessment to week 12 across all patient-reported outcomes, including Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) score of 0/1 (35.5%, 19.8%, and 5.9% for 200 mg, 100 mg, and placebo, respectively), ≥ 4-point improvement in Night Time Itch Scale (NTIS; 57.0%, 42.7%, and 12.7%), change from baseline in Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) score (- 11.4, - 8.2, and - 3.4), 1-point improvement in Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (PSAAD; 75.2%, 65.1%, and 33.5%), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scales (HADS) anxiety (- 2.0, - 1.7, and - 1.0) and depression (- 1.7, - 1.3, and - 0.1).ConclusionsAbrocitinib monotherapy improved disease-specific signs/symptoms and health-related quality of life across multiple domains as reported by adult and adolescent patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, complementing clinician-reported efficacy and safety outcomes.Clinical trial registrationNCT02780167 (registered 23 May, 2016), NCT03349060 (registered 21 November, 2017), NCT03575871 (registered 3 July, 2018).