Refine
Document Type
- Article (3)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3) (remove)
Keywords
- Rheumatoid arthritis (3) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (3)
Assessment of individual therapeutic responses provides valuable information concerning treatment benefits in individual patients. We evaluated individual therapeutic responses as determined by the Disease Activity Score-28 joints critical difference for improvement (DAS28-dcrit) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients treated with intravenous tocilizumab or comparator anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents. The previously published DAS28-dcrit value [DAS28 decrease (improvement) ≥ 1.8] was retrospectively applied to data from two studies of tocilizumab in RA, the 52-week ACT-iON observational study and the 24-week ADACTA randomized study. Data were compared within (not between) studies. DAS28 was calculated with erythrocyte sedimentation rate as the inflammatory marker. Stability of DAS28-dcrit responses and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) good responses was determined by evaluating repeated responses at subsequent timepoints. A logistic regression model was used to calculate p values for differences in response rates between active agents. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs; pain, global health, function, and fatigue) in DAS28-dcrit responder versus non-responder groups were compared with an ANCOVA model. DAS28-dcrit individual response rates were 78.2% in tocilizumab-treated patients and 58.2% in anti-TNF-treated patients at week 52 in the ACT-ion study (p = 0.0001) and 90.1% versus 59.1% at week 24 in the ADACTA study (p < 0.0001). DAS28-dcrit responses showed greater stability over time (up to 52 weeks) than EULAR good responses. For both active treatments, DAS28-dcrit responses were associated with statistically significant improvements in mean PRO values compared with non-responders. The DAS28-dcrit response criterion provides robust assessments of individual responses to RA therapy and may be useful for discriminating between active agents in clinical studies and guiding treat-to-target decisions in daily practice.
Objectives: To investigate the prevalence of depressive symptoms in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients using two previously validated questionnaires in a large patient sample, and to evaluate depressive symptoms in the context of clinical characteristics (e.g. remission of disease) and patient-reported impact of disease.
Methods: In this cross-sectional study, the previously validated Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and Beck-Depression Inventory II (BDI-II) were used to assess the extent of depressive symptoms in RA patients. Demographic background, RA disease activity score (DAS28), RA impact of disease (RAID) score, comorbidities, anti-rheumatic therapy and antidepressive treatment, were recorded. Cut-off values for depressive symptomatology were PHQ-9 ≥5 or BDI-II ≥14 for mild depressive symptoms or worse and PHQ-9 ≥ 10 or BDI-II ≥ 20 for moderate depressive symptoms or worse. Prevalence of depressive symptomatology was derived by frequency analysis while factors independently associated with depressive symptomatology were investigated by using multiple logistic regression analyses. Ethics committee approval was obtained, and all patients provided written informed consent before participation.
Results: In 1004 RA-patients (75.1% female, mean±SD age: 61.0±12.9 years, mean disease duration: 12.2±9.9 years, DAS28 (ESR): 2.5±1.2), the prevalence of depressive symptoms was 55.4% (mild or worse) and 22.8% (moderate or worse). Characteristics independently associated with depressive symptomatology were: age <60 years (OR = 1.78), RAID score >2 (OR = 10.54) and presence of chronic pain (OR = 3.25). Of patients classified as having depressive symptoms, only 11.7% were receiving anti-depressive therapy.
Conclusions: Mild and moderate depressive symptoms were common in RA patients according to validated tools. In routine clinical practice, screening for depression with corresponding follow-up procedures is as relevant as incorporating these results with patient-reported outcomes (e.g. symptom state), because the mere assessment of clinical disease activity does not sufficiently reflect the prevalence of depressive symptoms.
Clinical trial registration number: This study is registered in the Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien (DRKS00003231) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02485483).
Background: Methotrexate (MTX) remains the anchor drug in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment, but is poorly tolerated or contraindicated in some patients. There is a wealth of data supporting the use of abatacept in combination with MTX, but data on alternative conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) combinations with abatacept are scarce.
Methods: In this post-hoc exploratory analysis, efficacy and safety data were extracted from abatacept RA studies in which combination with csDMARDs other than MTX was permitted: three interventional trials (ATTAIN, ASSURE, and ARRIVE) and one real-world study (ACTION). Patients with moderate-to-severe RA received abatacept in combination with MTX, hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, azathioprine, or leflunomide for 6 months to 2 years according to the study design. Change from baseline in physical function (Health Assessment Questionnaire—Disability Index (HAQ-DI); all studies) and 28-joint Disease Activity Score (C-reactive protein) (DAS28 (CRP); ATTAIN, ARRIVE, and ACTION), American College of Rheumatology response rates (ATTAIN), and safety were assessed for individual and pooled csDMARD combinations for each trial. A meta-analysis was also performed on pooled data for HAQ-DI and DAS28 (CRP) across interventional trials.
Results: Across all four studies, 731 patients received abatacept plus one non-MTX csDMARD (hydroxychloroquine n = 152; sulfasalazine n = 123; azathioprine n = 59; and leflunomide n = 397) and 2382 patients received abatacept plus MTX. Mean changes from baseline in HAQ-DI scores for abatacept plus MTX (all csDMARDs pooled) vs abatacept plus a non-MTX csDMARD were –0.54 vs –0.44 (ATTAIN), –0.43 vs –0.43 (ASSURE), and –0.39 vs –0.36 (ARRIVE). Mean changes from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) and ACR response rates were also similar with abatacept plus MTX or non-MTX csDMARDs. Data for individual non-MTX csDMARDs (pooled across studies) and real-world data were consistent with these findings. Rates of treatment-related adverse events and serious adverse events, respectively, for abatacept plus one non-MTX csDMARD vs abatacept plus MTX were 35.7% vs 41.7% and 2.4% vs 2.3% (ATTAIN), 58.0% vs 55.9% and 4.2% vs 1.7% (ASSURE), and 38.1% vs 44.3% and 0.6% vs 2.9% (ARRIVE).
Conclusions: Abatacept in combination with non-MTX csDMARDs is clinically effective and well tolerated in patients with moderate-to-severe RA, providing similar benefits to those seen with abatacept plus MTX.