Patient-Reported Outcomes in Psoriatic Arthritis Patients with an Inadequate Response to Biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs: SELECT-PsA 2

Vibeke Strand, Filip Van den Bosch, Roberto Ranza, Ying-Ying Leung, Edit Drescher, Patrick Zueger, Christopher D Saffore, Apinya Lertratanakul, Ralph Lippe, Peter Nash, Vibeke Strand, Filip Van den Bosch, Roberto Ranza, Ying-Ying Leung, Edit Drescher, Patrick Zueger, Christopher D Saffore, Apinya Lertratanakul, Ralph Lippe, Peter Nash

Abstract

Introduction: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) has a major impact on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs), important components in the assessment of therapeutic efficacy. We evaluated the impact of upadacitinib on PROs in PsA patients with inadequate responses or intolerance to biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARD-IR).

Methods: Patients enrolled in the phase 3 SELECT-PsA 2 randomized controlled trial (RCT) received 56 weeks of oral upadacitinib 15 mg QD, upadacitinib 30 mg QD, or placebo switched to either dose of upadacitinib at week 24. PROs included patient global assessment of disease activity (PtGA), pain, physical function (HAQ-DI), health-related quality of life (SF-36 physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) component summary and domain scores), fatigue (FACIT-F), psoriasis symptom severity (SAPS), and work productivity (WPAI). Mean changes from baseline in PROs, improvements ≥ minimum clinically important differences (MCID) and scores ≥ normative values, and maintenance of improvements were assessed.

Results: At weeks 12 and 24, patients treated with either upadacitinib dose reported statistically and nominally significant improvements from baseline across all PROs versus placebo (p ≤ 0.05), except the WPAI absenteeism domain, which were maintained or further improved to week 56. A significantly greater proportion of patients receiving either upadacitinib dose reported improvements ≥ MCID and scores ≥ normative values versus placebo (nominal p ≤ 0.01) in most PROs at weeks 12 and 24, with clinically meaningful improvements continuing to week 56. Improvements ≥ MCID were reported as early as week 2 in PtGA, pain, and HAQ-DI.

Conclusions: Upadacitinib provides rapid, clinically meaningful, and sustained improvements in PROs reported by bDMARD-IR PsA patients. SELECT-PsA 2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03104374.

Keywords: Activity; Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs; Pain; Patient-reported outcomes; Physical function; Psoriatic arthritis; Quality of life; Upadacitinib; Work productivity.

© 2021. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Mean changes from baseline in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, and FACIT-F through 56 weeks (MMRM). a PtGA. b Pain. c HAQ-DI. d FACIT-F. CI confidence interval, FACIT-F Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue, HAQ-DI Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, LS least squares, MMRM Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measurement, PBO placebo, PtGA Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity, UPA upadacitinib
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Week 12 SF-36 domain scores in comparison to age- and gender-matched normative values (MMRM). p values nominal. A/G age-gender adjusted, BL baseline, BP bodily pain, DMARD disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug, GH general health MH mental health, MMRM Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measurement, PBO placebo, PF physical functioning, RE role-emotional, RP role-physical, SF social functioning, SF-36 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, UPA upadacitinib, VT vitality
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Proportion of patients reporting improvements ≥ MCID and NNTs in PROs at week 12 (NRI). a PROs excluding SF-36. b SF-36 PCS, MCS, and domains. *p ≤ 0.01 and †p ≤ 0.001 versus placebo. p values nominal. aReported only for patients with investigator-determined psoriatic spondylitis at baseline. bMean of BASDAI questions 5 and 6. NNT not calculated for non-significant results for upadacitinib versus placebo. MCID definitions: ≥ 1-point decrease (PtGA, pain, and morning stiffness), ≥ 0.35-unit decrease (HAQ-DI), ≥ 4-point increase (FACIT-F), ≥ 0.05-unit increase (EQ-5D-5L), ≥ 1.1-point decrease (BASDAI), ≥ 2.5-point increase (SF-36 PCS and MCS), and ≥ 5-point increase (SF-36 domains). BASDAI Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index, BP bodily pain, EQ-5D-5L EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level index score, FACIT-F Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue, GH general health, HAQ-DI Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, MCID minimal clinically important difference, MCS mental component summary, MH mental health, NA not available, NNT number needed to treat, NRI non-responder imputation, PBO placebo, PCS physical component summary, PF physical functioning, PRO patient-reported outcome, PtGA Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity, RE role-emotional, RP role-physical, SF social functioning, SF-36 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, UPA upadacitinib, VT vitality
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Proportion of patients reporting PRO scores ≥ normative values at baseline and week 12 and age- and gender-matched normative values in SF-36 domains (NRI). a PROs excluding SF-36 domains. b SF-36 domains. *p < 0.05, †p ≤ 0.01, and ‡p ≤ 0.001 versus placebo. p values nominal. The percentage at 12 weeks might or might not include the same patients that achieved that outcome at baseline. BL baseline, BP bodily pain, EQ-5D-5L EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level index score, FACIT-F Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue, GH general health, HAQ-DI Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, MCS mental component summary, MH mental health, NRI non-responder imputation, PBO placebo, PCS physical component summary, PF physical functioning, PtGA Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity, PRO patient-reported outcome, RE role-emotional, RP role-physical, SF social functioning, SF-36 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, UPA upadacitinib, VT vitality

References

    1. McGagh D, Coates LC. Assessment of the many faces of PsA: single and composite measures in PsA clinical trials. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2020;59(Supplement_1):i29–i36. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kez305.
    1. Husni ME, Merola JF, Davin S. The psychosocial burden of psoriatic arthritis. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2017;47(3):351–360. doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2017.05.010.
    1. Kavanaugh A, Helliwell P, Ritchlin CT. Psoriatic arthritis and burden of disease: patient perspectives from the population-based multinational assessment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (MAPP) survey. Rheumatol Ther. 2016;3(1):91–102. doi: 10.1007/s40744-016-0029-z.
    1. Coates LC, Kavanaugh A, Mease PJ, et al. Group for research and assessment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis 2015 treatment recommendations for psoriatic arthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016;68(5):1060–1071.
    1. Gossec L, Baraliakos X, Kerschbaumer A, et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis with pharmacological therapies: 2019 update. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79(6):700–712. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217159.
    1. Singh JA, Guyatt G, Ogdie A, et al. Special article: 2018 American College of Rheumatology/National Psoriasis Foundation guideline for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2019;71(1):2–29. doi: 10.1002/acr.23789.
    1. Parmentier JM, Voss J, Graff C, et al. In vitro and in vivo characterization of the JAK1 selectivity of upadacitinib (ABT-494) BMC Rheumatol. 2018;2:23. doi: 10.1186/s41927-018-0031-x.
    1. RINVOQ™ (upadacitinib) prescribing information (AbbVie, Inc, North Chicago, IL, USA). 2020 November 12, 2020. . Accessed 12 Nov 2020.
    1. European Medicines Agency. Summary of product characteristics-RINVOQ™ 2021 March 11, 2021. . Accessed 11 Mar 2021.
    1. Burmester GR, Kremer JM, Van den Bosch F, et al. Safety and efficacy of upadacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (SELECT-NEXT): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10139):2503–2512. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31115-2.
    1. Fleischmann R, Pangan AL, Song IH, et al. Upadacitinib versus placebo or adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate: results of a phase III, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(11):1788–1800. doi: 10.1002/art.41032.
    1. Genovese MC, Fleischmann R, Combe B, et al. Safety and efficacy of upadacitinib in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis refractory to biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (SELECT-BEYOND): a double-blind, randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10139):2513–2524. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31116-4.
    1. Smolen JS, Pangan AL, Emery P, et al. Upadacitinib as monotherapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to methotrexate (SELECT-MONOTHERAPY): a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 3 study. Lancet. 2019;393(10188):2303–2311. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30419-2.
    1. van Vollenhoven R, Takeuchi T, Pangan AL, et al. Efficacy and safety of upadacitinib monotherapy in methotrexate-naive patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (SELECT-EARLY): a randomized, double-blind, active-comparator, multi-center, multi-country trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2020;72(10):1607–1620. doi: 10.1002/art.41384.
    1. Mease PJ, Lertratanakul A, Anderson JK, et al. Upadacitinib for psoriatic arthritis refractory to biologics: SELECT-PsA 2. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021;80:312–320. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-218870.
    1. McInnes IB, Anderson JK, Magrey M, et al. Trial of upadacitinib and adalimumab for psoriatic arthritis. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(13):1227–1239. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022516.
    1. van der Heijde D, Song IH, Pangan AL, et al. Efficacy and safety of upadacitinib in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (SELECT-AXIS 1): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2/3 trial. Lancet. 2019;394(10214):2108–2117. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32534-6.
    1. Ogdie A, de Wit M, Callis Duffin K, et al. Defining outcome measures for psoriatic arthritis: A report from the GRAPPA-OMERACT Working Group. J Rheumatol. 2017;44(5):697–700. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.170150.
    1. Mease PJ, Woolley JM, Bitman B, et al. Minimally important difference of Health Assessment Questionnaire in psoriatic arthritis: relating thresholds of improvement in functional ability to patient-rated importance and satisfaction. J Rheumatol. 2011;38(11):2461–2465. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.110546.
    1. Krishnan E, Sokka T, Hakkinen A, Hubert H, Hannonen P. Normative values for the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index: benchmarking disability in the general population. Arthritis Rheum. 2004;50(3):953–960. doi: 10.1002/art.20048.
    1. Hewlett S, Dures E, Almeida C. Measures of fatigue: Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multi-Dimensional Questionnaire (BRAF MDQ), Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Numerical Rating Scales (BRAF NRS) for severity, effect, and coping, Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire (CFQ), Checklist Individual Strength (CIS20R and CIS8R), Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), Functional Assessment Chronic Illness Therapy (Fatigue) (FACIT-F), Multi-Dimensional Assessment of Fatigue (MAF), Multi-Dimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI), Pediatric Quality Of Life (PedsQL) Multi-Dimensional Fatigue Scale, Profile of Fatigue (ProF), Short Form 36 Vitality Subscale (SF-36 VT), and Visual Analog Scales (VAS) Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2011;63(Suppl 11):S263–S286. doi: 10.1002/acr.20579.
    1. Webster K, Cella D, Yost K. The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) Measurement System: properties, applications, and interpretation. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:79. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-1-79.
    1. Ware JE, Jr, Kosinski M, Bjorner JB, et al. User’s manual for the SF-36v2 health survey. 2. Lincoln: Quality Metric Incorporated; 2007.
    1. Strand V. Clinically meaningful improvements may be interpreted in multiple ways. In: White Paper for OMERACT/Cochrane Pain Meeting.
    1. Ware JE, Jr, Kosinski M, Bayliss MS, et al. Comparison of methods for the scoring and statistical analysis of SF-36 health profile and summary measures: summary of results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Med Care. 1995;33(4 Suppl):AS264–AS279.
    1. Armstrong AW, Banderas B, Foley C, et al. Development and psychometric evaluation of the self-assessment of psoriasis symptoms (SAPS)—clinical trial and the SAPS—real world patient-reported outcomes. J Dermatol Treat. 2017;28(6):505–514. doi: 10.1080/09546634.2017.1290206.
    1. Strand V, Boers M, Idzerda L, et al. It's good to feel better but it's better to feel good and even better to feel good as soon as possible for as long as possible. Response criteria and the importance of change at OMERACT 10. J Rheumatol. 2011;38(8):1720–1727. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.110392.
    1. Salaffi F, Stancati A, Silvestri CA, Ciapetti A, Grassi W. Minimal clinically important changes in chronic musculoskeletal pain intensity measured on a numerical rating scale. Eur J Pain. 2004;8(4):283–291. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpain.2003.09.004.
    1. Anderson JK, Zimmerman L, Caplan L, Michaud K. Measures of rheumatoid arthritis disease activity: Patient (PtGA) and Provider (PrGA) Global Assessment of Disease Activity, Disease Activity Score (DAS) and Disease Activity Score with 28-Joint Counts (DAS28), Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI), Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), Patient Activity Score (PAS) and Patient Activity Score-II (PASII), Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data (RAPID), Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index (RADAI) and Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index-5 (RADAI-5), Chronic Arthritis Systemic Index (CASI), Patient-Based Disease Activity Score With ESR (PDAS1) and Patient-Based Disease Activity Score without ESR (PDAS2), and Mean Overall Index for Rheumatoid Arthritis (MOI-RA) Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2011;63(Suppl 11):S14–36. doi: 10.1002/acr.20621.
    1. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35(11):1095–1108. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002.
    1. Hinz A, Kohlmann T, Stobel-Richter Y, Zenger M, Brahler E. The quality of life questionnaire EQ-5D-5L: psychometric properties and normative values for the general German population. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(2):443–447. doi: 10.1007/s11136-013-0498-2.
    1. Kviatkovsky MJ, Ramiro S, Landewe R, et al. The minimum clinically important improvement and patient-acceptable symptom state in the BASDAI and BASFI for patients with ankylosing spondylitis. J Rheumatol. 2016;43(9):1680–1686. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.151244.
    1. Reilly Associates. Work productivity and activity questionnaire specific health problem V2.0 (WPAI-SHP) 2010.October 29, 2020. . Accessed 29 Oct 2020.
    1. Reilly MC, Zbrozek AS, Dukes EM. The validity and reproducibility of a work productivity and activity impairment instrument. Pharmacoeconomics. 1993;4(5):353–365. doi: 10.2165/00019053-199304050-00006.
    1. Strand V, Crawford B, Singh J, et al. Use of "spydergrams" to present and interpret SF-36 health-related quality of life data across rheumatic diseases. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68(12):1800–1804. doi: 10.1136/ard.2009.115550.
    1. Siwek J, Newman DH. Introducing medicine by the numbers: a collaboration of the NNT group and AFP. Am Fam Physician. 2015;91(7):434–435.
    1. Coates LC, Orbai AM, Azevedo VF, et al. Results of a global, patient-based survey assessing the impact of psoriatic arthritis discussed in the context of the Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease (PsAID) questionnaire. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18(1):173. doi: 10.1186/s12955-020-01422-z.
    1. Sunkureddi P, Doogan S, Heid J, et al. Evaluation of self-reported patient experiences: insights from digital patient communities in psoriatic arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2018;45(5):638–647. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.170500.
    1. Ogdie A, Michaud K, Nowak M, et al. Patient's experience of psoriatic arthritis: a conceptual model based on qualitative interviews. RMD Open. 2020;6(3):e001083. doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2020-001321.
    1. Tillett W, Dures E, Hewlett S, et al. A Multicenter nominal group study to rank outcomes important to patients, and their representation in existing composite outcome measures for psoriatic arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2017;44(10):1445–1452. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.161459.
    1. Strand V, Mease PJ, Soriano ER, et al. Improvement in patient-reported outcomes in patients with psoriatic arthritis treated with upadacitinib versus placebo or adalimumab: results from SELECT-PsA 1. Rheumatol Ther. 2021 [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Strand V, de Vlam K, Covarrubias-Cobos JA, et al. Effect of tofacitinib on patient-reported outcomes in patients with active psoriatic arthritis and an inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in the phase III, randomised controlled trial: OPAL Beyond. RMD Open. 2019;5(1):e000808. doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2018-000808.
    1. Ritchlin C, Rahman P, Kavanaugh A, et al. Efficacy and safety of the anti-IL-12/23 p40 monoclonal antibody, ustekinumab, in patients with active psoriatic arthritis despite conventional non-biological and biological anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy: 6-month and 1-year results of the phase 3, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised PSUMMIT 2 trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73(6):990–999. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204655.
    1. Deodhar A, Helliwell PS, Boehncke WH, et al. Guselkumab in patients with active psoriatic arthritis who were biologic-naive or had previously received TNFalpha inhibitor treatment (DISCOVER-1): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2020;395(10230):1115–1125. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30265-8.
    1. Strand V, Kaeley G, Bergman M, et al. Efficacy of secukinumab on patient-reported outcomes in patients with active psoriatic arthritis stratified by prior tumor necrosis factor inhibitor use: post hoc analysis from a phase 3 trial. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10):Abstract 1363.
    1. Kavanaugh A, Marzo-Ortega H, Vender R, et al. Ixekizumab improves patient-reported outcomes in patients with active psoriatic arthritis and inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors: SPIRIT-P2 results to 52 weeks. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2019;37(4):566–574.

Source: PubMed

3
Suscribir