Search

Abstract Introduction We aim to assess the association of patient-reported pain and remission or low disease activity (LDA) at 3 months (M) in patients receiving baricitinib or other treatments in RA-BE-REAL. Methods RA-BE-REAL reports on patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who were prescribed, for the first time, baricitinib (cohort A) or a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) (cohort B-TNFi) or any other mode of action (OMA) (cohort B-OMA). Pain was measured using the visual analogue scale (VAS) (0–100 mm) and clinically meaningful pain improvement thresholds of ≥ 30%, ≥ 50% and ≥ 70% from baseline to 3, 6, 12 and 24 M. Results At 3 M, the mean change from baseline (CFB) pain VAS of patients in remission/LDA was − 32.6 mm (cohort A), − 27.3 mm (cohort B-TNFi) and − 28.0 mm (cohort B-OMA). Almost half the patients who were in remission/LDA receiving baricitinib achieved ≥ 70% pain relief. At 3 M, the proportion of patients in remission/LDA with pain VAS ≤ 20 mm was 62.1% (cohort A), 55.0% (cohort B-TNFi) and 55.6% (cohort B-OMA), while for those not in remission/LDA, it was 8.5% and 8.7% (cohort A and B-TNFi, respectively) and 5.3% (B-OMA). More patients on baricitinib achieved pain improvement in all analyzed thresholds than patients in cohort B-TNFi and B-OMA at 3 M. At 24 M, − 26.2 mm (cohort A), − 20.8 mm (cohort B-TNFi) and − 16.0 mm (cohort B-OMA) mean CFBs in pain measurement were observed. For baricitinib and the other treatments, residual pain decreased with achievement of remission/LDA and was sustained up to 24 M. Conclusions Patients in remission/LDA receiving baricitinib are more likely to achieve pain control than patients receiving TNFi/OMA.

Background The psoriatic arthritis (PsA) Observational Study of Persistence of Treatment (PRO-SPIRIT) assesses effectiveness and persistence of real-world PsA treatments. Ixekizumab (IXE) is an interleukin (IL)-17A inhibitor (i) (IL-17Ai), approved for the treatment of adult PsA.Methods The aim of this predefined interim analysis was to report baseline characteristics along with early (3-month) descriptive and comparative real-world effectiveness in patients with PsA prescribed with advanced treatment including IL-17Ai; IXE or secukinumab (SEC), IL-12/23i, IL-23i, tumour necrosis factor (TNFi) or Janus kinase (JAKi).Results 1192 patients across 6 countries were analysed. At baseline, patients receiving IXE had longer disease duration and higher previous biological/targeted-synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs experience than patients starting TNFi and SEC 150, and less concomitant conventional-synthetic DMARD use than TNFi and JAKi. Comparative analyses at 3 months showed that: (a) versus TNFi, IXE exhibited similar improvement in clinical Disease Activity in PsA (cDAPSA) but significantly greater improvement in body surface area affected by psoriasis (BSA) and global assessments (physician GA, patient GA (PatGA)); (b) versus IL-12/23i and IL-23i (pooled), IXE showed significantly greater improvement in cDAPSA and PatGA; (c) IXE was as fast as JAKi in improving joint disease activity. Ad hoc analysis indicated that more patients with active psoriasis (BSA ≥3%) achieved minimal disease activity with IXE than JAKi or IL-12/23i. The responses to SEC varied by dosage.Conclusions This study confirms the rapid 3-month effectiveness of IXE on joint disease activity—as fast as TNFi and JAKi (cDAPSA), and exceeding IL-12/23i and IL-23i—along with clear benefits to skin.

Abstract Introduction RA-BE-REAL has the overall aim of defining a profile of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) starting baricitinib or any other targeted synthetic (ts) or any biologic (b) disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) for the first time, and the primary objective of estimating time until discontinuation from any cause (excluding sustained response) of the initial treatment. Methods RA-BE-REAL is an ongoing, prospective, observational, 36-month study in patients with RA initiating treatment with baricitinib (cohort A) or any other tsDMARD or any bDMARD (cohort B) for the first time. The primary objective is to assess the time until treatment discontinuation from any cause (excluding sustained response) at 24 months, (i.e., the rate of discontinuation of initial baricitinib or ts/bDMARD). Patient profiles of each cohort are described and compared. Post-baseline data are descriptively analyzed. This manuscript presents baseline and interim (6-month) outcomes for European patients with RA participating in the global RA-BE-REAL study. Results Data from 1074 patients (cohort A: 509; cohort B: 565) were analyzed. For cohorts A and B, respectively, the 6-month cumulative incidence (95% confidence interval) of treatment discontinuation was 16.5 (12.9–21.1) and 23.3 (19.1–28.2), and the proportions of patients achieving remission were 25.6% and 18.5%. At baseline, mean patient age was 59.1 and 57.0 years (p = 0.010) and mean disease duration was 10.0 and 8.9 years (p = 0.047), respectively. The proportions of patients exposed to ts/bDMARDs at any time before study entry were 51.9% and 39.1%, and the proportions of patients initiated on monotherapy were 50.9% and 31.2%, respectively. Conclusion In real-world settings, patients with RA initiating treatment with baricitinib were older and had longer disease duration than those initiating treatment with any other tsDMARD or any bDMARD. Initial descriptive data regarding treatment discontinuation (including reasons for discontinuation), effectiveness, and treatment patterns will be enriched as the study progresses.

Abstract Introduction The objective of this study was to evaluate treatment patterns in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with a focus on the utilization of baricitinib, an oral highly selective Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor, in an Italian real-world setting. Methods This observational retrospective analysis was based on data collected in selected Italian administrative databases. Patients aged ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of RA defined by hospitalization discharge diagnosis (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 714.0) or by disease exemption code 006 for RA in 2018 were included. The index date (ID) was defined as the date of first prescription for a drug indicated for RA during the inclusion period. Patients without a prescription for biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) before the ID were considered to be b/tsDMARD naïve. A further analysis was performed on patients only receiving baricitinib. Results A total of 41,290 RA patients were enrolled, of whom 55.6% were not treated with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) or b/tsDMARDs, 39.4% were receiving therapy with csDMARDs, and 5.0% were using b/tsDMARDs. In the latter group, 2.7% (n = 56) were receiving therapy with baricitinib. In 2018, 13.2% of csDMARD-treated patients switched to b/tsDMARDs, of whom 4.3% (n = 93) of these switched to baricitinib. In total, 149 patients (mean age ± standard deviation 57.6 ± 12.1; 12.8% male) had a baricitinib prescription, of whom 51% were b/tsDMARD naïve. At baseline, 61.7% of baricitinib users were receiving combination therapy with csDMARDs plus corticosteroids, 26.2% were receiving combination therapy with corticosteroids, and 8.1% were receiving combination therapy with csDMARDs; 4% were receiving baricitinib monotherapy. During follow-up, the proportion of patients receiving baricitinib monotherapy increased to 38.9%, while 26.9, 18.8, and 15.4% of baricitinib users received combination therapy with corticosteroids, csDMARDs plus corticosteroids, and csDMARDs, respectively. Conclusion This study provides a current view of the treatment patterns in Italian patients with RA in a real-world setting of daily clinical practice, with a focus on baricitinib utilization.

The effectiveness of incorporating an audience response system (ARS) in improving the learning environment and student performance was assessed in a didactic biomedical science course at a large US dental school. Instructors and students were surveyed for their experiences of using Top Hat-based ARS in a multi-disciplinary biomedical science course. Average exam scores and grade distribution for challenging sections on immunology and developmental biology were compared before and after incorporating ARS. Pearson's chi-squared test, likelihood ratio test, Student's t-test and Fisher's exact test using beta regression model were used to assess statistical significance (p < 0.05). Student survey results with 78% (82/105) response rate, indicated that incorporating ARS improved student engagement, reinforced lecture material, and prepared them better for exams (p < 0.0001). Sixty seven percent of student respondents recommended continued integration of ARS questions in lectures (p < 0.0001). Although faculty survey data (n = 5, 100% response rate) were not statistically significant, the majority of faculty agreed that real-time feedback through ARS allowed them to appropriately pace lecture delivery and restructure forthcoming material. The average exam scores and grade distribution for challenging sections showed modest improvement after incorporation of ARS (p < 0.05). There was no significant correlation between final course grades and ARS grades for participation or correctness. Incorporating the ARS in a multi-disciplinary biomedical science course is perceived by faculty and students as an effective instructional approach that improves the learning environment, teaching strategies, and student performance.

Abstract Background The aim of this retrospective study was to examine the longitudinal association between disease activity and radiographic damage in a cohort of patients with early RA (symptom onset

**Background/Objectives:** This article compares the effectiveness of baricitinib (BARI) 4 mg (oral, Janus kinase [JAK] 1/2 inhibitor) versus other targeted synthetic/biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, in combination with methotrexate (MTX), in moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis patients with inadequate response (IR) to MTX. **Methods:** A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the interventions of interest. Bayesian network meta-analyses (NMA) were used to compare American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses at 24 weeks. A series of prespecified sensitivity analyses addressed the potential impact of, among others, baseline risk, treatment effect modifiers, and trial design on treatment response. **Results:** Nineteen RCTs were included in the NMA (primary analysis). For ACR20, BARI 4 mg + MTX was found to be more effective than adalimumab (ADA) 40 mg + MTX (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.33), abatacept (ABA) 10 mg + MTX (IV/4 weeks) (OR 1.45), infliximab (IFX) 3 mg + MTX (IV/8 wks) (OR 1.63), and rituximab (RTX) 1000 mg + MTX (OR 1.63). No differences were found on ACR50. For ACR70, BARI 4 mg + MTX was more effective than ADA 40 mg + MTX (OR 1.37), ABA 10 mg + MTX (OR 1.86), and RTX 1000 mg + MTX (OR 2.26). Sensitivity analysis including 10 additional RCTs with up to 20% of patients with prior biologic use showed BARI 4 mg + MTX to be more effective than tocilizumab (TCZ) 8 mg + MTX on ACR20 (OR 1.44). Results for all sensitivity analyses were consistent with the direction and magnitude of the primary results. Key limitations include the time span in which trials were conducted (1999–2017), during which patient characteristics and treatment approaches might have changed. **Conclusion:** This NMA suggests that BARI 4 mg + MTX is an efficacious treatment option in the MTX-IR population as evidenced by the robustness of results.

Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs are recommended for use particularly in rheumatoid arthritis patients who had an inadequate response to methotrexate but they are costly. In this article, we estimated the number needed to treat and treatment costs associated with the use of baricitinib and adalimumab in moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis patients who are inadequate responders to methotrexate. We used Efficacy data (American College of Rheumatology indices) from the RA-BEAM trial. For both DMARDs, the number needed to treat was calculated with reference to placebo, using the (American College of Rheumatology indices (ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 response at 24 weeks)). Direct medical costs (therapy costs of medication) were the only costs considered in the base case analysis. However, administration and monitoring costs were included in the sensitivity analyses. Baricitinib had a lower cost per number needed to treat (ACR20: €10,846.08; ACR50: €12,942.72; and ACR70: €18,506.88) compared to adalimumab (ACR20: €21,124.45; ACR50: €23,945.22; and ACR70: €45,445.77). The most significant cost difference in favor of baricitinib was observed using ACR70 index (−€26,938.89). Sensitivity analysis confirmed these results. This analysis demonstrates that baricitinib represents a more cost-effective option in comparison to adalimumab in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate in Italy and based on Italian costs.

A major issue in developmental biology is to determine how embryonic tissues respond to molecular signals in a timely manner and given the position-restricted instructions during morphogenesis, of which Meckel’s cartilage is a classical example. The ex-vivo explant model is a practical and convenient system that allows investigation of bone and cartilage responses to specific stimuli under a controlled manner that closely mimics the in vivo conditions. In this protocol, the explant model was applied to test whether Meckel’s cartilage and surrounding tissues are responsive to the Endothelin1 (Edn1) signaling molecule and whether it would rescue the phenotype of genetic mutations. The system allows a high degree of manipulation in terms of the concentrations of exogenous compounds added to the explant, time points with regards to measuring mandibular development, and the method of application of exogenous molecules and teratogens.

Previous evidence from tooth agenesis studies suggested IRF6 and TGFA interact. Since tooth agenesis is commonly found in individuals with cleft lip/palate (CL/P), we used four large cohorts to evaluate if IRF6 and TGFA interaction contributes to CL/P. Markers within and flanking IRF6 and TGFA genes were tested using Taqman or SYBR green chemistries for case-control analyses in 1,000 Brazilian individuals. We looked for evidence of gene-gene interaction between IRF6 and TGFA by testing if markers associated with CL/P were overtransmitted together in the case-control Brazilian dataset and in the additional family datasets. Genotypes for an additional 142 case-parent trios from South America drawn from the Latin American Collaborative Study of Congenital Malformations (ECLAMC), 154 cases from Latvia, and 8,717 individuals from several cohorts were available for replication of tests for interaction. Tgfa and Irf6 expression at critical stages during palatogenesis was analyzed in wild type and Irf6 knockout mice. Markers in and near IRF6 and TGFA were associated with CL/P in the Brazilian cohort (p