Search

Background: Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic, debilitating, inflammatory disease. Contemporaneous real-world data can be used to elucidate the clinical treatment of pediatric patients and how treatment strategies compare with adult hidradenitis suppurativa patients. Objective: The objective of this study is to evaluate clinical and treatment characteristics of pediatric and adult HS patients. Methods: HS adult and pediatric patients were identified in 3 the United States administrative claims databases during the study period between 2016 to 2021. Patients were required to have 2 diagnostic codes for HS and have at least 365 days of prior observation time to the first HS diagnosis. Results: Pediatric and adult HS treatments were similar. The proportions of subjects treated with topical and oral antibiotic or oral antibiotic alone or topical medication alone or surgery alone covered 90% of the treated pediatric subjects and 91% of treated adult subjects. The remaining proportion of subjects received other treatment combinations. Limitations: The databases represent subjects with commercial or government insurance coverage and thus do not necessarily represent the broader US population. The databases do not capture information about medications obtained without insurance. Conclusions: Although subtle differences exist, this study confirms that topical and systemic therapeutic treatment of HS in adults and adolescents is very similar.

Abstract Background Biologic therapies are often prescribed for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have inadequate responses to or are intolerant of methotrexate (MTX) and patients with poor prognostic indicators. This post hoc analysis evaluated effectiveness and safety of intravenous golimumab + MTX vs golimumab without MTX in RA patients. Methods AWARE, a real-world, prospective and pragmatic, Phase 4 study, compared effectiveness and safety of golimumab and infliximab in biologic-naïve and biologic-experienced patients. All treatment decisions were at the discretion of the treating rheumatologist. Effectiveness was evaluated by mean change in CDAI scores at Months 6 and 12. Safety was monitored through approximately 1 year. Results Among 685 golimumab-treated patients, 420 (61%) received concomitant MTX during the study and 265 (39%) did not receive MTX after enrollment; 63% and 72%, respectively, discontinued the study. Relative to golimumab without MTX, golimumab + MTX patients had shorter mean disease duration (8.7 vs 10.0 years) and a lower proportion received prior biologics (60% vs 72%); mean ± standard deviation (SD) baseline CDAI scores were similar (30.8 ± 15.1 and 32.6 ± 15.4). Mean ± SD changes from baseline in CDAI scores at Months 6 and 12, respectively, were similar with golimumab + MTX (− 10.2 ± 14.2 and − 10.8 ± 13.8) and golimumab without MTX (− 9.6 ± 12.9 and − 9.9 ± 13.1). The incidence of adverse events/100 patient-years (PY) (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 155.6 (145.6, 166.1) for golimumab + MTX and 191.2 (176.2, 207.1) for golimumab without MTX; infections were the most common type. The incidence of infusion reactions/100PY (95% CI) was 2.1 (1.1, 3.6) for golimumab + MTX versus 5.1 (2.9, 8.3) for golimumab without MTX; none were considered serious. For golimumab + MTX versus golimumab without MTX, rates/100PY (95% CI) of serious infections, opportunistic infections, and malignancies were 2.6 (1.5, 4.3) versus 7.0 (4.4, 10.6), 0.9 (0.3, 2.0) versus 2.6 (1.1, 5.0), and 3.0 (1.7, 4.7) versus 1.0 (0.2, 2.8), respectively. Conclusions Mean change in CDAI score in the golimumab without MTX group was generally similar to that of the golimumab + MTX group through 1 year, regardless of prior biologic therapy. Adverse events were consistent with the known IV golimumab safety profile. These results provide real world evidential data that may assist healthcare providers and patients with RA in making informed treatment decisions. Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov NCT02728934 05/04/2016.

Abstract Introduction To assess changes in the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) outcomes related to social, mental, and physical well-being after approximately 1 year of intravenous (IV) golimumab or infliximab treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using real-world evidence from AWARE. Methods AWARE was a prospective, noninterventional, multicenter, observational, U.S.-based phase 4 study of 1270 RA patients who initiated treatment with IV golimumab or infliximab. PROMIS-29 and PROMIS short form (SF) Fatigue 7a and Pain Interference 6b questionnaires were administered at baseline and infusions 2, 5, and 8 (approximately weeks 4, 28, and 52 for IV golimumab and weeks 2, 22, and 46 for infliximab). Mean changes from baseline in all PROMIS-29 domains and respective SFs and response rates for achieving ≥ 3, ≥ 5, or ≥ 10-point improvements were determined. Results Among all patients, baseline mean ± SD PROMIS T-scores were consistent between treatment groups and indicated worse physical function (38.2 ± 6.8 IV golimumab, 38.0 ± 6.9 infliximab), more pain interference (63.0 ± 7.6 IV golimumab, 63.9 ± 7.8 infliximab), and greater fatigue (58.4 ± 9.9 IV golimumab, 59.4 ± 10.0 infliximab) in these patients vs the general U.S. population (T-score = 50). Through the 8th infusion of either treatment, IV golimumab- and infliximab-treated patients achieved meaningful improvements (≥ 3-point improvement in T-scores) in all PROMIS-29 domains and respective SFs, and the proportions of patients with ≥ 3, ≥ 5, or ≥ 10-point improvements in T-scores increased from infusion 2 through infusion 8. Conclusions RA patients treated with IV golimumab or infliximab achieved comparable improvements across social, mental, and physical well-being PROMIS measures. Additionally, PROMIS detected meaningful clinical changes in patient-reported outcomes in both treatment groups. ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT02728934.

Objective Patient‐reported outcome (PRO) data have assumed increasing importance in the care of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), yet physician‐derived disease activity measures, such as Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), remain the most accepted metrics to assess disease activity. The possibility that newer longitudinal PRO data might be used as a proxy for the CDAI has not been evaluated. Methods Using data from a large pragmatic trial, we evaluated patients with RA initiating golimumab intravenous or infliximab. The classification target was low disease activity (LDA) (CDAI ≤10) at the first visit between months 3 and 12. Data were randomly partitioned into training (80%) and test (20%) data sets. Multiple machine learning (ML) methods (eg, random forests, gradient boosting, support vector machines) were used to classify CDAI disease activity category, conduct feature selection, and assess feature importance. Model performance evaluated cross‐validated error, comparing different ML approaches using both training and test data. Results A total of 494 patients were analyzed, and 36.4% achieved LDA. The most important classification features included several Patient‐Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System measures (social participation, pain interference, pain intensity, and physical function), patient global, and baseline CDAI. Among all ML methods, random forests performed best. Overall model accuracy and positive predictive values for all ML methods were approximately 80%. Conclusion ML methods coupled with longitudinal PRO data appear useful and can achieve reasonable accuracy in classifying LDA among patients starting a new biologic. This approach has promise for real‐world evidence generation in the common circumstance when physician‐derived disease activity data are not available yet PRO measures are.