Patient-reported outcomes from a phase 3 study of baricitinib versus placebo or adalimumab in rheumatoid arthritis: secondary analyses from the RA-BEAM study

Edward C Keystone, Peter C Taylor, Yoshiya Tanaka, Carol Gaich, Amy M DeLozier, Anna Dudek, Jorge Velasco Zamora, Jose Arturo Covarrubias Cobos, Terence Rooney, Stephanie de Bono, Vipin Arora, Bruno Linetzky, Michael E Weinblatt, Edward C Keystone, Peter C Taylor, Yoshiya Tanaka, Carol Gaich, Amy M DeLozier, Anna Dudek, Jorge Velasco Zamora, Jose Arturo Covarrubias Cobos, Terence Rooney, Stephanie de Bono, Vipin Arora, Bruno Linetzky, Michael E Weinblatt

Abstract

Background: To assess the effect of baricitinib on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX).

Methods: In this double-blind phase 3 study, patients were randomised 3:3:2 to placebo (n=488), baricitinib 4 mg once daily (n=487), or adalimumab 40 mg biweekly (n=330) with background MTX. PROs included the SF-36, EuroQol 5-D (EQ-5D) index scores and visual analogue scale, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), patient's assessment of pain and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire-Rheumatoid Arthritis (WPAI-RA), and measures collected in electronic patient daily diaries: duration and severity of morning joint stiffness (MJS), Worst Ttiredness and Worst Joint Pain. The primary study endpoint was at week 12. Treatment comparisons were assessed with logistic regression for categorical measures or analysis of covariance for continuous variables.

Results: Compared with placebo and adalimumab, baricitinib showed statistically significant improvements (p≤0.05) in HAQ-DI, PtGA, pain, FACIT-F, SF-36 physical component score, EQ-5D index scores and WPAI-RA daily activity at week 12. Improvements were maintained for measures assessed to week 52. Statistically significant improvement in patient diary measures (MJS duration and severity), worst tiredness and worst joint pain were observed for baricitinib versus placebo and adalimumab at week 12 (p≤0.05).

Conclusions: Baricitinib provided significantly greater improvement in most PROs compared with placebo and adalimumab, including physical function MJS, pain, fatigue and quality of life. Improvement was maintained to the end of the study (week 52).

Trial registration: NCT01710358.

Keywords: outcomes research; patient perspective; rheumatoid arthritis.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: ECK has received grant/research support, consulting support or speaker bureau fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biotest, Bristol Myers Squibb, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., Janssen, Eli Lilly and Company, Genentech, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis and UCB. PCT has received grant/research support or consulting support from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Pfizer, Takeda and UCB. YT has received grant/research support or speaker bureau fees from AbbVie, Astellas, Asahi Kasei, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly and Company, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Kyowa-Kirin, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, MSD, Pfizer, Santen, Takeda, Taisho-Toyama, Teijin and UCB. CG, AMD, TR, SdB, VA and BL are employees of Eli Lilly and Company, and all except AMD are shareholders of Eli Lilly and Company. AD is a consultant for Eli Lilly and Company. JVZ is a consultant for Eli Lilly and Company. JACC is a consultant for Eli Lilly and Company. MEW has received grant/research support or consulting support from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Canfite, Corrona, Crescendo Bioscience, Genzyme, Idera, Infinity, Lycera, Eli Lilly and Company, Medimmune, Merck, Merck/serona, Momenta, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi and UCB.

© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Change from baseline over time for the patient-reported ouctomes collected by the daily patient electronic diaries (data and either SD or 95% CIs are presented in online supplementary file 5). (A) Duration of Morning Joint Stiffness: data are mean duration of morning joint stiffness in minutes, based on daily diary entries. Daily question: ‘Please indicate how long your morning joint stiffness lasted today’. Indications of statistical significance based on analysis of median difference. (B) Severity of Morning Joint Stiffness: data are LS mean scores for severity of morning joint stiffness, based on daily diary entries. Higher values indicate greater severity with numeric rating scale anchors (0–10). Daily question: ‘Please rate the overall level of morning joint stiffness you had from the time you woke up today’. (C) Worst Tiredness: data are LS mean scores for Worst Tiredness, based on daily diary entries. Higher values indicate greater tiredness with numeric rating scale anchors (0–10). Daily question: ‘Please rate your tiredness by selecting the one number that describes your tiredness at its worst in the last 24 hours’. (D) Worst Joint Pain: data are LS mean scores for Worst Joint Pain, based on daily diary entries. Higher values indicate greater pain with numeric rating scale anchors (0–10). Daily question: ‘Please rate your joint pain by selecting the one number that describes your joint pain at its worst in the last 24 hours’. LS, least squares; NRS, numeric rating scale.p Value versus placebo: *p≤0.05; **p≤0.01; ***p≤0.001.p Value versus adalimumab: + p≤0.05; ++ p≤0.01; +++ p≤0.001.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Change from baseline over time for the FACIT-F. Higher scores indicate less fatigue. Range=0–52. FACIT-F, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue; MCID, minimum clinically important differences.p Value versus placebo: *p≤0.05; **p≤0.01; ***p≤0.001.p Value versus adalimumab: +p≤0.05; ++p≤0.01; +++p≤0.001.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Change from baseline for the physical and mental component score for the SF-36. (A) Physical component score: data in table are % patients who met or exceeded the minimum clinically important difference in SF-36 PCS (≥5 points). Higher scores indicate improvement. (B) Mental component score: data in table are % patients who met or exceeded the minimum clinically important difference in SF-36 MCS (≥5 points). Higher scores indicate improvement. p Value versus placebo: *p≤0.05; **p≤0.01; ***p≤0.001.p Value versus adalimumab: +p≤0.05; ++p≤0.01; +++p≤0.001.

References

    1. Carr A, Hewlett S, Hughes R, et al. . Rheumatology outcomes: the patient’s perspective. J Rheumatol 2003;30:880–3.
    1. Strand V, Cohen S, Crawford B, et al. . Patient-reported outcomes better discriminate active treatment from placebo in randomized controlled trials in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology 2004;43:640–7. 10.1093/rheumatology/keh140
    1. Klarenbeek NB, Güler-Yüksel M, van der Kooij SM, et al. . The impact of four dynamic, goal-steered treatment strategies on the 5-year outcomes of rheumatoid arthritis patients in the BeSt study. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:1039–46. 10.1136/ard.2010.141234
    1. Drossaers-Bakker KW, de Buck M, van Zeben D, et al. . Long-term course and outcome of functional capacity in rheumatoid arthritis: the effect of disease activity and radiologic damage over time. Arthritis Rheum 1999;42:1854–60. 10.1002/1529-0131(199909)42:9<1854::AID-ANR9>;2-F
    1. Aletaha D, Smolen J, Ward MM. Measuring function in rheumatoid arthritis: identifying reversible and irreversible components. Arthritis Rheum 2006;54:2784–92. 10.1002/art.22052
    1. Smolen JS, Aletaha D, Grisar JC, et al. . Estimation of a numerical value for joint damage-related physical disability in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:1058–64. 10.1136/ard.2009.114652
    1. Kekow J, Moots RJ, Emery P, et al. . Patient-reported outcomes improve with etanercept plus methotrexate in active early rheumatoid arthritis and the improvement is strongly associated with remission: the COMET trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:222–5. 10.1136/ard.2008.102509
    1. Gossec L, Dougados M, Dixon W. Patient-reported outcomes as end points in clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis. RMD Open 2015;1:e000019 10.1136/rmdopen-2014-000019
    1. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in Medical Product Development to support labeling claims. Secondary Guidance for Industry: Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims. 2009. (accessed 17 Apr 2017).
    1. Fries JF, Spitz P, Kraines RG, et al. . Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1980;23:137–45. 10.1002/art.1780230202
    1. Sokka T. Morning stiffness and other patient-reported outcomes of rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice. Scand J Rheumatol Suppl 2011;125:23–7. 10.3109/03009742.2011.566437
    1. Smolen JS, Landewe R, Bijlsma J, et al. . EULAR recommendations for themanagement of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biologicaldisease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2016 update. Ann Rheum Dis 2017:1–18.
    1. Keystone EC, Taylor PC, Drescher E, et al. . Safety and efficacy of baricitinib at 24 weeks in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response to methotrexate. Ann Rheum Dis 2015;74:333–40. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-206478
    1. Tanaka Y, Emoto K, Cai Z, et al. . Efficacy and safety of Baricitinib in Japanese patients with active rheumatoid Arthritis Receiving Background Methotrexate therapy: a 12-week, Double-blind, randomized Placebo-controlled study. J Rheumatol 2016;43:504–11. 10.3899/jrheum.150613
    1. Fleischmann R, Schiff M, van der Heijde D, et al. . Baricitinib, Methotrexate, or combination in patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis and no or Limited Prior Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug Treatment. Arthritis Rheumatol 2017;69:506–17. 10.1002/art.39953
    1. Dougados M, van der Heijde D, Chen YC, et al. . Baricitinib in patients with inadequate response or intolerance to conventional synthetic DMARDs: results from the RA-BUILD study. Ann Rheum Dis 2017;76:88–95. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-210094
    1. Genovese MC, Kremer J, Zamani O, et al. . Baricitinib in patients with refractory rheumatoid Arthritis. N Engl J Med 2016;374:1243–52. 10.1056/NEJMoa1507247
    1. Taylor PC, Keystone EC, van der Heijde D, et al. . Baricitinib versus Placebo or Adalimumab in Rheumatoid Arthritis. N Engl J Med 2017;376:652–62. 10.1056/NEJMoa1608345
    1. Bruce B, Fries JF. The Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). Clin Exp Rheumatol 2005;23(Suppl 39):S14–18.
    1. Ramey D, Fries J, Singh G. The Health Assessment Questionnaire 1995: status and review Spiker B, Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. 2nd ed Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1996:227–37.
    1. Wells GA, Tugwell P, Kraag GR, et al. . Minimum important difference between patients with rheumatoid arthritis: the patient’s perspective. J Rheumatol 1993;20:557–60.
    1. Navarro-Compán V, Smolen JS, Huizinga TW, et al. . Quality indicators in rheumatoid arthritis: results from the METEOR database. Rheumatology 2015;54:1630–9. 10.1093/rheumatology/kev108
    1. Cella D, Yount S, Sorensen M, et al. . Validation of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Scale relative to other instrumentation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2005;32:811–9.
    1. Strand V, Burmester GR, Zerbini CA, et al. . Tofacitinib with methotrexate in third-line treatment of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: patient-reported outcomes from a phase III trial. Arthritis Care Res 2015;67:475–83. 10.1002/acr.22453
    1. Keystone E, Burmester GR, Furie R, et al. . Improvement in patient-reported outcomes in a rituximab trial in patients with severe rheumatoid arthritis refractory to anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy. Arthritis Rheum 2008;59:785–93. 10.1002/art.23715
    1. Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NM, et al. . Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ 1992;305:160–4. 10.1136/bmj.305.6846.160
    1. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473–83.
    1. Kosinski M, Zhao SZ, Dedhiya S, et al. . Determining minimally important changes in generic and disease-specific health-related quality of life questionnaires in clinical trials of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2000;43:1478–87. 10.1002/1529-0131(200007)43:7<1478::AID-ANR10>;2-M
    1. Strand V, Singh JA. Newer biological agents in rheumatoid arthritis: impact on health-related quality of life and productivity. Drugs 2010;70:121–45. 10.2165/11531980-000000000-00000
    1. EuroQol Group. EQ-5D-5L User Guide. Version 1.0. 2011. (accessed 1 Jul 2012); (accessed 17 Apr 2017).
    1. Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996;37:53–72. 10.1016/0168-8510(96)00822-6
    1. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, et al. . Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res 2011;20:1727–36. 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x
    1. Reilly MC, Zbrozek AS, Dukes EM. The validity and reproducibility of a work productivity and activity impairment instrument. Pharmacoeconomics 1993;4:353–65. 10.2165/00019053-199304050-00006
    1. Smolen JS, Kremer JM, Gaich CL, et al. . Patient-reported outcomes from a randomised phase III study of baricitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to biological agents (RA-BEACON). Ann Rheum Dis 2017;76:694–700. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-209821
    1. Schiff M, Takeuchi T, Gaich C, et al. . THU0623 Patient-Reported Outcomes from A Phase 3 Study of Baricitinib in Patients with Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Had Received Limited or No Treatment with Disease-Modifying anti-Rheumatic Drugs: Table 1. Ann Rheum Dis 2016;75263:419.1–419.
    1. Emery P, Blanco R, Maldonado Cocco J, et al. . Patient-reported outcomes from a phase III study of baricitinib in patients with conventional synthetic DMARD-refractory rheumatoid arthritis. RMD Open 2017;3:e000410 10.1136/rmdopen-2016-000410

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe