Patient-reported outcomes of upadacitinib versus abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 12- and 24-week results of a phase 3 trial
Martin Bergman, Namita Tundia, Naomi Martin, Jessica Suboticki, Jayeshkumar Patel, Debbie Goldschmidt, Yan Song and Grace Wright
Published, Version of Record (VoR)CC BY V4.0, Open
Abstract
Clinical trials Health care Pain Patients Rheumatoid arthritis TNF inhibitors Values
Background In previous clinical trials, patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with upadacitinib (UPA) have improved patient-reported outcomes (PROs). This post hoc analysis of SELECT-CHOICE, a phase 3 clinical trial, evaluated the impact of UPA vs abatacept (ABA) with background conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) on PROs in patients with RA with inadequate response or intolerance to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD-IR). Methods Patients in SELECT-CHOICE received UPA (oral 15 mg/day) or ABA (intravenous). PROs evaluated included Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA) by visual analog scale (VAS), patient’s assessment of pain by VAS, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), morning stiffness duration and severity, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI), and EQ-5D 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) index score. Least squares mean (LSM) changes from baseline to weeks 12 and 24 were based on an analysis of covariance model. Proportions of patients reporting improvements ≥ minimal clinically important differences (MCID) were compared using chi-square tests. Results Data from 612 patients were analyzed (UPA, n=303; ABA, n=309). Mean age was 56 years and mean disease duration was 12 years. One-third received ≥2 prior bDMARDs and 72% received concomitant methotrexate at baseline. At week 12, UPA- vs ABA-treated patients had significantly greater improvements in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, morning stiffness severity, EQ-5D-5L, 2/4 WPAI domains, and 3/8 SF-36 domains and Physical Component Summary (PCS) scores (P<0.05); significant differences persisted at week 24 for HAQ-DI, morning stiffness severity, SF-36 PCS and bodily pain domain, and WPAI activity impairment domain. At week 12, significantly more UPA- vs ABA-treated patients reported improvements ≥MCID in HAQ-DI (74% vs 64%) and SF-36 PCS (79% vs 66%) and 4/8 domain scores (P<0.05). Conclusions At week 12, UPA vs ABA treatment elicited greater improvements in key domains of physical functioning, pain, and general health and earlier improvements in HAQ-DI. Overall, more UPA- vs ABA-treated patients achieved ≥MCID in most PROs at all timepoints; however, not all differences were statistically significant. These data, however, highlight the faster response to UPA treatment. Trial registration NCT03086343, March 22, 2017.
Patient-reported outcomes of upadacitinib versus abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 12- and 24-week results of a phase 3 trial
Creators
Martin Bergman - Drexel University
Namita Tundia - AbbVie
Naomi Martin - AbbVie
Jessica Suboticki - AbbVie
Jayeshkumar Patel - AbbVie
Debbie Goldschmidt - Analysis Group
Yan Song - Analysis Group
Grace Wright - Grace C Wright MD PC; Association of Women in Rheumatology; United Rheumatology, New York, NY, USA.
Publication Details
Arthritis research & therapy, v 24(1)
Publisher
BioMed Central
Resource Type
Journal article
Language
English
Academic Unit
Medicine (Graduate)
Web of Science ID
WOS:000815483800003
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85132857378
Other Identifier
991019168682204721
UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
This publication has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:
InCites Highlights
Data related to this publication, from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool: