Dataset Information

What Does It Mean to Be a British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-Based Composite Lupus Assessment Responder? Post Hoc Analysis of Two Phase III Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) is a validated global measure of treatment response in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) clinical trials. To understand the relevance of BICLA in clinical practice, we investigated relationships between BICLA response and routine SLE assessments, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and medical resource utilization.

Methods

This was a post hoc analysis of pooled data from the phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled, 52-week TULIP-1 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02446912; n = 457) and TULIP-2 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02446899; n = 362) trials of intravenous anifrolumab (150/300 mg once every 4 weeks) in patients with moderate-to-severe SLE. Changes from baseline to week 52 in clinical assessments, PROs, and medical resource use were compared in BICLA responders versus nonresponders, regardless of treatment assignment.

Results

BICLA responders (n = 318) achieved significantly improved outcomes compared with nonresponders (n = 501), including lower flare rates, higher rates of attainment of sustained oral glucocorticoid taper to ≤7.5 mg/day, greater improvements in PROs (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue, Short Form 36 Health Survey), and fewer SLE-related hospitalizations/emergency department visits (all nominal P < 0.001). Compared with nonresponders, BICLA responders had greater improvements in global and organ-specific disease activity (Physician's Global Assessment, SLE Disease Activity Index 2000, Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index Activity, and joint counts; all nominal P < 0.001). BICLA responders had fewer lupus-related serious adverse events than nonresponders.

Conclusion

BICLA response is associated with clinical benefit in SLE assessments, PROs, and medical resource utilization, confirming its value as a clinical trial end point that is associated with measures important to patient care.

SUBMITTER: Furie R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8596929 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Duloxetine has demonstrated efficacy in chronic low back pain (CLBP). We examined the predictors of response to duloxetine for CLBP. PATIENTS AND METHODS:This was a post hoc analysis of pooled data from 4 double-blind, ran-domized, placebo-controlled trials of duloxetine (60 mg/day for 12-14 weeks) in adult patients with CLBP. Primary outcome was proportion of patients with ?30% reduction in Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) average pain ("pain reduction") at 12-14 weeks. The proportion of patients with ?30% and ?50% (secondary outcome) pain reduction in duloxetine and placebo groups was compared. Variables for responder analyses were early improvement (?15% pain reduction at Week 2), sex, age, baseline BPI average pain score, duration of CLBP, and number of painful body sites according to the Michigan Body Map (?2 vs 1 [isolated CLBP]; 1 trial); relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. RESULTS:Compared with placebo (n = 653), a greater proportion of duloxetine-treated patients (n = 642) achieved ?30% (59.7% vs 47.8%; P < 0.001) and ?50% pain reduction (48.6% vs 35.1%; P < 0.001). Among duloxetine-treated patients, early improvement was associated with greater likelihood of ?30% (RR [95% CI], 2.91 [2.30-3.67]) or ?50% (3.24 [2.44-4.31]) pain reduction. Women were slightly more likely than men to achieve ?30% (RR [95% CI], 1.14 [1.00-1.30]) or ?50% (1.17 [0.99-1.38]) pain reduction. Response rates were similar between age, CLBP duration, and baseline BPI average pain score subgroups. Patients with ?2 painful sites were more likely to respond to duloxetine 60 mg relative to placebo than patients with isolated CLBP (RR, duloxetine vs placebo [95% CI]: ?30% reduction, ?2 painful sites 1.40 [1.18-1.66], isolated CLBP 1.07 [0.78-1.48]; ?50% reduction, ?2 painful sites 1.51 [1.20-1.89], isolated CLBP 1.23 [0.81-1.88]). CONCLUSION:Early pain reduction was indicative of overall response. Patients with multiple painful sites had more benefit from duloxetine than patients with isolated CLBP.

Project description:BackgroundMonoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway, including the fully humanized monoclonal antibody (IgG2Δa) fremanezumab, have demonstrated safety and efficacy for migraine prevention. Clinical trials include responders and nonresponders; efficacy outcomes describe mean values across both groups and thus provide little insight into the clinical benefit in responders. Clinicians and their patients want to understand the extent of clinical improvement in patients who respond. This post hoc analysis of fremanezumab treatment attempts to answer this question: what is the benefit in subjects who responded to treatment during the two, phase 3 HALO clinical trials?MethodsWe included subjects with episodic migraine (EM) or chronic migraine (CM) who received fremanezumab quarterly (675 mg/placebo/placebo) or monthly (EM: 225 mg/225 mg/225 mg; CM: 675 mg/225 mg/225 mg) during the 12-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled HALO EM and HALO CM clinical trials. EM and CM responders were defined as participants with a reduction of ≥ 2 or ≥ 4 monthly migraine days, respectively. Treatment benefits evaluated included reductions in monthly migraine days, acute headache medication use, and headache-related disability, and changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL).ResultsOverall, 857 participants from the HALO trials were identified as responders (EM: 429 [73.8%]; CM: 428 [56.7%]). Reductions in the monthly average number of migraine days were greater among EM (quarterly: 5.4 days; monthly: 5.5 days) and CM (quarterly: 8.7 days; monthly: 9.1 days) responders compared with the overall population. The proportion of participants achieving ≥ 50% reduction in the average monthly number of migraine days was also greater in responders (EM: quarterly, 59.8%; monthly, 63.7%; CM: quarterly, 52.8%; monthly, 59.0%) than in the overall population. Greater reductions in the average number of days of acute headache medication use, greater reductions in headache-related disability scores, and larger improvements in HRQoL were observed among EM and CM responders compared with the overall populations.ConclusionsFremanezumab responders achieved clinically meaningful improvements in all outcomes. The magnitude of improvements with fremanezumab across efficacy outcomes was far greater in responders than in the overall trial population, providing insight into expected treatment benefits in participants who respond to fremanezumab in clinical practice.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02629861 (HALO EM) and NCT02621931 (HALO CM).