Search

Abstract Background The HLA-DRB1 shared epitope (SE) is a risk factor for the development of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and the production of anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs) in RA patients. Our objective was to examine the real-world effectiveness of abatacept versus tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with RA who were SE and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody (anti-CCP3) positive. Methods Abatacept or TNFi initiators who were SE + and anti-CCP3+ (> 20 U/mL) at or prior to treatment and had moderate or high CDAI score (> 10) at initiation were identified. The primary outcome was mean change in CDAI score over six months. Analyses were conducted in propensity score (PS)-trimmed and -matched populations overall and a biologic-experienced subgroup. Mixed-effects models were used. Results In the overall PS-trimmed (abatacept, n = 170; TNFi, n = 157) and PS-matched cohorts (abatacept, n = 111; TNFi, n = 111), there were numerically greater improvements in mean change in CDAI between abatacept and TNFi but were not statistically significant. Similar trends were seen for biologic-experienced patients, except that statistical significance was reached for mean change in CDAI in the PS-trimmed cohort (abatacept, 12.22 [95% confidence interval (95%CI) 10.13 to 14.31]; TNFi, 9.28 [95%CI 7.08 to 11.48]; p = 0.045). Conclusion In this real world cohort, there were numerical improvements in efficacy outcomes with abatacept over TNFi in patients with RA who were SE + and ACPA+, similar to results from a clinical trial population The only statistically significant finding after adjusting for covariates was greater improvement in CDAI with abatacept versus TNFi in the bio-experienced PS-trimmed cohort..

Abstract Introduction The impact of upadacitinib on rheumatoid arthritis (RA) symptoms was evaluated during the first 12 weeks of treatment via patient-reported outcomes (PROs) using a mobile health application (app). Methods Participating rheumatologists from the CorEvitas RA Registry (prospective, observational cohort) recruited patients with RA initiating upadacitinib treatment. A modified version of the ArthritisPower® app was used to collect PROs, including the Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3), duration of morning joint stiffness, and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-Fatigue 7a Short Form at baseline and weeks 1–4, 8, and 12. RAPID3 responses over time were assessed using Kaplan–Meier estimation to determine the proportion of patients achieving disease activity improvement and minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Results were analyzed for all patients initiating upadacitinib and a subsample of TNF inhibitor (TNFi)-experienced patients with moderate to severe disease at baseline. Results A total of 103 patients with RA initiating upadacitinib (62.1% TNFi-experienced) were included. At week 12, 53 patients (51.4%) completed the study and provided PRO data via the app. Among all patients, improvements in RAPID3, pain, morning stiffness, and fatigue were observed at week 1 and were maintained or further improved through week 12. At week 12, 37.5% of patients achieved RAPID3 low disease activity. Starting at week 1, improvements in RAPID3 disease activity category (19.4% of patients) and achievement of MCID (16.3%) were reported, with nearly 50% of patients achieving these outcomes by week 4 (RAPID3 category: 48.8%; MCID: 49.2%) and 60% by week 12 (RAPID3 category: 59.6%; MCID: 59.8%). TNFi-experienced patients generally reported similar outcomes. Patient-reported medication convenience and compliance were generally high. Conclusions In this real-world cohort of patients with RA, treatment with upadacitinib was associated with early and significant improvement in RAPID3, pain, morning stiffness, and fatigue regardless of prior TNFi experience. Clinically meaningful improvement in RAPID3 patient-reported disease activity was observed as early as week 1, with continued improvement reported through week 12.

Abstract Introduction Currently there is limited data to drive clinical decision making regarding the choice of biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD); thus, head-to-head comparisons are needed to help guide prescribing. In recent years, significant advancements have helped clarify the mechanistic basis of the clinical associations of autoantibodies in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This study evaluated the effectiveness of abatacept versus tofacitinib in anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP+) patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods CorEvitas (formerly known as CORRONA) Registry patients aged ≥ 18 years, who were CCP+ before initiating abatacept or tofacitinib (December 2012 onwards through October 2019), had 6-month follow-up data (baseline and 6-month Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI]), and were not in remission at index were included. Patients were frequency matched 1:1 by prior biologic use before propensity score matching (PSM). Primary (mean change [D] in CDAI) and secondary outcomes 6 months after index were compared using mixed-effects models adjusted for variables that remained unbalanced after PSM. Results Following PSM, most baseline characteristics for 291 patient pairs were well balanced between treatments, although fewer patients initiating abatacept versus tofacitinib received prior non-TNFi biologic DMARDs, and patients initiating abatacept versus tofacitinib had a higher physician global assessment score, patient-reported fatigue, and modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ). In adjusted analyses, there were no significant differences in mean [D] from baseline in CDAI at 6 months with abatacept versus tofacitinib (P = 0.936). Patients naïve for b/tsDMARDs initiating abatacept had a numerically greater mean [D] in CDAI at 6 months versus tofacitinib, although this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.662). There were no significant differences for any secondary outcomes. Conclusions In adjusted analyses, CCP+ patients with RA initiating treatment with abatacept versus tofacitinib did not show a statistically significant difference in reducing disease activity or improving patient-reported outcomes.

Objective Uptake of treat-to-target (TTT) strategies for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management is low. Our objective was to understand the heterogeneity in patients’ conceptualisation of RA treatment to inform interventions improving TTT uptake.Design Eligible participants recruited from an online research registry rated 56 items (on 5-point scales) reflecting concepts raised from patient interviews. Using items describing adhering to physician recommendations to create a binary criterion variable for medication adherence, we conducted a principal components analysis on the remaining items using Varimax rotation, describing how these factors predict adherence over and above demographic characteristics. We further use optimal sets in regression to identify the individual concepts that are most predictive of medication adherence.Results We found significant heterogeneity in patients’ conceptualisation of RA treatment among 621 persons with RA. A scree plot revealed a four-factor solution explained 38.4% of the variance. The four factors expected to facilitate TTT uptake were (% variance explained): (1) Access to high quality care and support (11.3%); (2) low decisional conflict related to changing disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (10.1%); (3) endorsement of a favourable DMARD risk/benefit ratio (9.9%); and (4) confidence that testing reflects disease activity (7.2%). These factors account for 13.8% of the variance in full medication adherence, fully explaining the only significant demographic predictor, age of the patient. The individual items most predictive of poor adherence centre on the lack of effective patient–physician communication, specifically insufficient access to information from rheumatologists, along with the need to seek information elsewhere.Conclusion Patients’ conceptualisation of RA treatment varies; however, almost all patients have difficulty escalating DMARDs, even with access to quality information and an understanding of the benefits of TTT. Tailored interventions are needed to address patient hesitancy to escalate DMARDs.

Objective Despite proven benefits, less than half of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are treated using a treat‐to‐target (TTT) strategy. Our objective was to identify critical discrepancies between rheumatologist and patient mental models related to the treatment of RA to inform interventions designed to increase implementation of TTT. Methods We developed rheumatologist and patient mental models using the Mental Models Approach to Risk Communication. We conducted semistructured interviews to elicit views related to RA treatment decisions with 14 rheumatologists and 30 patients with RA. We also included responses (n = 284) to an open‐ended question on a survey fielded to augment qualitative descriptions from the interviews. Interviews were transcribed and coded independently by two members of the research team. Results Rheumatologist and patient mental models for RA treatment are significantly more complex than the TTT model. Both consider domains (system factors and patient readiness) outside of disease activity measurement, target setting, and risk versus benefit assessment in their decision‐making. Furthermore, specific factors were found to be unique to each model. For example, the physician model stresses the importance of evaluating disease activity over time and patient adherence. In contrast, patients discussed the impact of chronic disease weariness, medication‐related fatigue, the importance of feeling adequately informed, and stress associated with changing medications. Conclusion We found several discrepancies primarily related to information gaps and differences in how patients and physicians value trade‐offs that can serve as specific targets to improve patient–physician communication and ultimately inform interventions to improve uptake of TTT.

Objective It is unknown how the relationship between disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and cardiovascular (CV) events may change over time. We examined the potentially time‐varying association of RA disease activity to CV events. Methods We used the CorEvitas prevalent RA registry. The Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score category, averaged within each 6‐month window since enrollment, was the exposure, and the outcome was major adverse CV events (MACEs). We used marginal structural models to estimate the hazard ratio (HR), comparing each CDAI score category with remission, allowing for differential association over time. We predicted MACE‐free survival under several CDAI score scenarios. Results We found 44,816 eligible patients (77% female; mean age 58 years) with a crude event rate of 5.3/1000 person‐years (median follow‐up 3.4 years). The strongest association between higher CDAI score and MACEs was observed during the first 6 months of enrollment (HR for CDAI score low 2.29 [95% CI: 1.21‐4.36], moderate 2.81 [95% CI: 1.46‐5.43], and high 2.99 [95% CI: 1.48‐6.02]). These estimates gradually diminished; by year 5, the HRs were 1.00 (95% CI: 0.49‐2.05) for low, 1.18 (95% CI: 0.51‐2.71) for moderate, and 1.04 (95% CI: 0.45‐2.40) for high CDAI score. Predicted MACE‐free survival suggested a potential decrease in MACEs with a hypothetical earlier transition to remission. Conclusion The association of higher disease activity with CV events may be stronger earlier in the disease course of RA. Interventional studies may be warranted to precisely determine the effect of disease activity suppression on CV events in RA.

Objective This study’s objective was to test whether an online video intervention discussing appropriate treatment escalation improves willingness to change treatment in people living with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods We conducted a controlled, randomized trial among patients with RA enrolled in ArthritisPower, a United States patient registry. We recruited participants by email and surveyed their assessment of disease activity (patient global), satisfaction with disease control (patient acceptable symptom state), attitudes about RA medications, decisional conflict (decisional conflict scale), and willingness to modify RA treatment (choice predisposition scale, higher scores are better) if or when recommended by their rheumatologist. Intervention groups watched educational videos relevant to a treat‐to‐target (T2T) strategy, whereas control groups viewed vaccination‐related videos as an “attention control.” We compared the between‐group difference in patients’ willingness to modify RA treatment (primary outcome) and difference in decisional conflict about changing RA treatment (secondary outcome) after watching the videos using t tests. Results Participants with self‐reported RA (n = 208) were 90% White and 90% women, with a mean (standard deviation) age of 50 (11) years, and 52% reported familiarity with the RA T2T strategy. We found a significant improvement in between‐group difference in willingness to change RA treatment among intervention versus control participants (0.49 [95% confidence interval 0.09‐0.88], P = 0.02). The effect size (Glass’s delta) for the intervention was 0.48. Decisional conflict about treatment change decreased, but the between‐group difference was not significant. Conclusion This novel educational patient‐directed intervention discussing appropriate treatment escalation was associated with improved willingness to change RA treatment if or when recommended by a rheumatologist. Further studies should evaluate whether this change in patients’ predisposition translates into actual treatment escalation.