Search

ObjectivesTo define the instruments for the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society–Outcomes Measures in Rheumatology (ASAS-OMERACT) core domain set for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).MethodsAn international working group representing key stakeholders selected the core outcome instruments following a predefined process: (1) identifying candidate instruments using a systematic literature review; (2) reducing the list of candidate instruments by the working group, (3) assessing the instruments’ psychometric properties following OMERACT filter 2.2, (4) selection of the core instruments by the working group and (5) voting and endorsement by ASAS.ResultsThe updated core set for axSpA includes seven instruments for the domains that are mandatory for all trials: Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score and Numerical Rate Scale (NRS) patient global assessment of disease activity, NRS total back pain, average NRS of duration and severity of morning stiffness, NRS fatigue, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Function Index and ASAS Health Index. There are 9 additional instruments considered mandatory for disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) trials: MRI activity Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) sacroiliac joints and SPARCC spine, uveitis, inflammatory bowel disease and psoriasis assessed as recommended by ASAS, 44 swollen joint count, Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesitis Score, dactylitis count and modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score. The imaging outcomes are considered mandatory to be included in at least one trial for a drug tested for properties of DMARD. Furthermore, 11 additional instruments were also endorsed by ASAS, which can be used in axSpA trials on top of the core instruments.ConclusionsThe selection of the instruments for the ASAS-OMERACT core domain set completes the update of the core outcome set for axSpA, which should be used in all trials.

This study characterized real-world demographic and baseline clinical characteristics, as well as treatment persistence and adherence, in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who had newly initiated tofacitinib treatment.This retrospective cohort study included patients aged 18 years or older in the IBM MarketScan™ US database with at least one tofacitinib claim (first = index) between December 14, 2017 and April 30, 2019; PsA diagnoses on/within 12 months pre-index; and no diagnoses of rheumatoid arthritis any time pre-index. Patients were continuously enrolled for 12 months pre-index and 6 months post-index, with no pre-index claims for tofacitinib. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics on the day of index, and history of advanced treatments (including tofacitinib monotherapy or combination therapy), were recorded. Outcomes at 6 months post-index included tofacitinib persistence (less than 60-day gap without tofacitinib treatment) and adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC] and medication possession ratio 80% or higher).Of the 10,354 patients with tofacitinib claims within the study period, 318 patients with PsA met the inclusion criteria. More than 60% of patients received tofacitinib monotherapy post-index, with a mean duration of PsA of 760.5 days at index. For patients who received tofacitinib combination therapy post-index, methotrexate was the most common concomitant conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. At 6 months post-index, persistence was similar in patients receiving tofacitinib monotherapy (69.8%) versus combination therapy (73.1%); adherence (as measured by PDC ≥ 0.8) was numerically lower in patients receiving tofacitinib monotherapy (56.8%) versus combination therapy (65.5%).This analysis of US-based claims data described patients who had newly initiated tofacitinib treatment an average of 2 years after PsA diagnosis, with approximately two-thirds of patients receiving tofacitinib monotherapy. Observed rates of tofacitinib persistence were similar across patients who received tofacitinib monotherapy and combination therapy 6 months after initiation; adherence rates were numerically lower in patients receiving monotherapy.Tofacitinib is a drug approved to treat patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) that has been shown to improve PsA symptoms and quality of life in controlled clinical trials. However, there is not much information on everyday use of tofacitinib outside of clinical trials in the USA. This study is one of the first to describe the characteristics of patients with PsA in the USA who take tofacitinib, including their typical age, sex, where they live, how long they have had PsA, and how they use tofacitinib. Use of tofacitinib included how patients followed tofacitinib prescription timings and dose (adherence) and how long they took tofacitinib for after it was prescribed (persistence). We used data collected from a US health insurance claims database (IBM MarketScan™) for patients with PsA and at least one claim for tofacitinib. In total, 318 patients were included and over 60% of them received tofacitinib therapy only (monotherapy; no conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug [csDMARD] therapy). For patients treated with both tofacitinib and a csDMARD (combination therapy), methotrexate was the most common drug prescribed. Six months after their first prescription of tofacitinib, around 70% of patients were still taking tofacitinib (monotherapy or combination therapy). However, a slightly lower number of patients taking tofacitinib monotherapy were taking it as originally instructed (adherence 57%), compared with those taking tofacitinib combination therapy (adherence 66%). Our results provide valuable information on the use of tofacitinib in US real-life settings outside of clinical trials and could help to improve the quality of care for patients with PsA.

BACKGROUND: The current core outcome set for ankylosing spondylitis (AS) has had only minor adaptations since its development 20 years ago. Considering the significant advances in this field during the preceding decades, an update of this core set is necessary.OBJECTIVE: To update the ASAS-OMERACT core outcome set for AS into the ASAS-OMERACT core outcome set for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).METHODS: Following OMERACT and COMET guidelines, an international working group representing key stakeholders (patients, rheumatologists, health professionals, pharmaceutical industry and drug regulatory agency representatives) defined the core domain set for axSpA. The development process consisted of: i) Identifying candidate domains using a systematic literature review and qualitative studies; ii) Selection of the most relevant domains for different stakeholders through a 3-round Delphi survey involving axSpA patients and axSpA experts; iii) Consensus and voting by ASAS; iv) Endorsement by OMERACT. Two scenarios are considered based on the type of therapy investigated in the trial: symptom modifying therapies and disease modifying therapies.RESULTS: The updated core outcome set for axSpA includes 7 mandatory domains for all trials (disease activity, pain, morning stiffness, fatigue, physical function, overall functioning and health, and adverse events including death). There are 3 additional domains (extra-musculoskeletal manifestations, peripheral manifestations and structural damage) that are mandatory for disease modifying therapies and important but optional for symptom modifying therapies. Finally, 3 other domains (spinal mobility, sleep, and work and employment) are defined as important but optional domains for all trials.CONCLUSION: The ASAS-OMERACT core domain set for AS has been updated into the ASAS-OMERACT core domain set for axSpA. The next step is the selection of instruments for each domain.

Background: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and ulcerative colitis. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily monotherapy after methotrexate withdrawal. Methods: OPAL Balance was an open-label, long-term extension study of tofacitinib in patients with psoriatic arthritis who participated in the OPAL Broaden and OPAL Beyond phase 3 studies. This 12-month, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, methotrexate withdrawal substudy (50 centres, 14 countries) included patients from OPAL Balance who completed tofacitinib treatment for 24 months or more (≥3 months' stable tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily) and were receiving methotrexate (7·5–20 mg/week). Patients were blindly randomised (1:1) using interactive response technology and received open-label tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily with either placebo (tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily plus placebo group) or continued methotrexate (tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily plus methotrexate group). Patients were masked to placebo or methotrexate, with identical capsules used. Coprimary endpoints were changes from substudy baseline in psoriatic arthritis disease activity score (PASDAS) and health assessment questionnaire-disability index (HAQ-DI) at month 6 in all randomised patients with one or more substudy drug dose. Safety was assessed throughout. No specific statistical hypothesis (either superiority or non-inferiority) was tested. The study (OPAL Balance) is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT01976364) and is complete. Findings: Between Oct 30, 2017, and May 20, 2019, 180 patients from OPAL Balance who were eligible for the substudy were randomly assigned to treatment (90 patients received tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily plus placebo and 89 patients assigned to tofacitinib plus methotrexate; one patient was not treated because of randomisation error). At month 6, least squares mean (LSM) changes in PASDAS were 0·23 (SE 0·08) for tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily plus placebo and 0·14 (0·08) for tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily plus methotrexate (treatment difference LSM 0·09 [95% CI –0·13 to 0·31]), and changes in HAQ-DI were 0·04 (0·03) and 0·02 (0·03), respectively (treatment difference 0·03 [–0·05 to 0·10]). Rates of adverse events, discontinuations because of adverse events, adverse events of special interest, and laboratory changes were generally similar between treatment groups, although liver enzyme elevations were more common with tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily plus methotrexate than tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily plus placebo. Flares of worsening symptoms was reported in one (1%) of 90 patients in the tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily plus placebo group (recorded as psoriatic arthropathy). Interpretation: Some patients with psoriatic arthritis who are stable on tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily with background methotrexate might be able to discontinue methotrexate without clinically meaningful changes in disease activity and safety.

Background: There is evidence that patients and physicians are frequently misaligned in their perspectives on psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treatment priorities, which may be associated with increased disease activity, greater disability, and poorer health-related quality of life of PsA patients. Objective: To identify factors associated with patient–physician misalignment in satisfaction with PsA disease control. Methods: In a cross-sectional survey of physicians and their patients with PsA from the United States and Europe, satisfaction with disease control was examined and classified as satisfied, neutral, or dissatisfied. Bivariate and multivariate regression analyses explored alignment in satisfaction between physicians and patients. Results: There were 656 PsA patient–physician pairs included in the analysis. Misalignment occurred in 20.6% of cases. Greater disease impact, worse physician-reported disease severity, and lower patient-reported involvement in treatment decisions were associated with misalignment. Conclusion: Greater patient–physician engagement may improve satisfaction, alignment, and outcomes in PsA disease control.

ObjectivesTofacitinib is a Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and ulcerative colitis, and has been investigated in psoriasis (PsO). Routine pharmacovigilance of an ongoing, open-label, blinded-endpoint, tofacitinib RA trial (Study A3921133; NCT02092467) in patients aged ≥50 years and with ≥1 cardiovascular risk factor identified a higher frequency of pulmonary embolism (PE) and all-cause mortality for patients receiving tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily versus those receiving tumour necrosis factor inhibitors and resulted in identification of a safety signal for tofacitinib. Here, we report the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), PE, venous thromboembolism (VTE; DVT or PE) and arterial thromboembolism (ATE) from the tofacitinib RA (excluding Study A3921133), PsA and PsO development programmes and observational studies. Data from an ad hoc safety analysis of Study A3921133 are reported separately within.MethodsThis post-hoc analysis used data from separate tofacitinib RA, PsO and PsA programmes. Incidence rates (IRs; patients with events per 100 patient-years’ exposure) were calculated for DVT, PE, VTE and ATE, including for populations stratified by defined baseline cardiovascular or VTE risk factors. Observational data from the US Corrona registries (including cardiovascular risk factor stratification), IBM MarketScan research database and the US FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database were analysed.Results12 410 tofacitinib-treated patients from the development programmes (RA: n=7964; PsO: n=3663; PsA: n=783) were included. IRs (95% CI) of thromboembolic events among the all tofacitinib cohorts’ average tofacitinib 5 mg and 10 mg twice daily treated patients for RA, respectively, were: DVT (0.17 (0.09–0.27) and 0.15 (0.09–0.22)); PE (0.12 (0.06–0.22) and 0.13 (0.08–0.21)); ATE (0.32 (0.22–0.46) and 0.38 (0.28–0.49)). Among PsO patients, IRs were: DVT (0.06 (0.00–0.36) and 0.06 (0.02–0.15)); PE (0.13 (0.02–0.47) and 0.09 (0.04–0.19)); ATE (0.52 (0.22–1.02) and 0.22 (0.13–0.35)). Among PsA patients, IRs were: DVT (0.00 (0.00–0.28) and 0.13 (0.00–0.70)); PE (0.08 (0.00–0.43) and 0.00 (0.00–0.46)); ATE (0.31 (0.08–0.79) and 0.38 (0.08–1.11)). IRs were similar between tofacitinib doses and generally higher in patients with baseline cardiovascular or VTE risk factors. IRs from the overall Corrona populations and in Corrona RA patients (including tofacitinib-naïve/biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-treated and tofacitinib-treated) with baseline cardiovascular risk factors were similar to IRs observed among the corresponding patients in the tofacitinib development programme. No signals of disproportionate reporting of DVT, PE or ATE with tofacitinib were identified in the FAERS database.ConclusionsDVT, PE and ATE IRs in the tofacitinib RA, PsO and PsA programmes were similar across tofacitinib doses, and generally consistent with observational data and published IRs of other treatments. As expected, IRs of thromboembolic events were elevated in patients with versus without baseline cardiovascular or VTE risk factors, and were broadly consistent with those observed in the Study A3921133 ad hoc safety analysis data, although the IR (95% CI) for PE was greater in patients treated with tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily in Study A3921133 (0.54 (0.32–0.87)), versus patients with baseline cardiovascular risk factors treated with tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily in the RA programme (0.24 (0.13–0.41)).

Objective Qualitative research exploring patient preferences regarding the mode of treatment administration for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is limited. We report patient preferences and their reasons across PsA treatment modes. Methods In this global, cross-sectional, qualitative study, interviews were conducted with adult patients with PsA in Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK, and the US. Patients were currently taking a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD). Patients indicated the order and strength of preference (0-100; 100 = strongest) across four modes of treatment administration: oral (once daily), self-injection (weekly), clinic injection (weekly), and infusion (monthly); reasons for preferences were qualitatively assessed. Descriptive statistics were reported. Fisher's exact tests and t-tests were conducted for treatment mode outcomes. Results Overall, 85 patients were interviewed (female, 60.0%; mean age, 49.8 years). First-choice ranking (%) and mean [standard deviation] preference points were: oral (49.4%; 43.9 [31.9]); self-injection (34.1%; 32.4 [24.8]); infusion (15.3%; 14.5 [20.0]); clinic injection (1.2%; 9.2 [10.0]). Of 48 (56.5%) patients with a strong first-choice preference (ie point allocation ≥60), 66.7% chose oral administration. Self-injection was most often selected as second choice (51.8%), clinic injection as third (49.4%), and infusion as fourth (47.1%). Oral administration was the first-choice preference in the US (88.0% vs 38.0% in Europe). The most commonly reported reason for oral administration as the first choice was speed and ease of administration (76.2%); for self-injection, this was convenience (75.9%). The most commonly reported reason for avoiding oral administration was concern about possible drug interactions (63.6%); for self-injection, this was a dislike of needles or the injection process (66.7%). Conclusion Patients with PsA preferred oral treatment administration, followed by self-injection; convenience factors were common reasons for these preferences. Overall, 43.5% of patients did not feel strongly about their first-choice preference and may benefit from discussions with healthcare professionals about PsA treatment administration options.

Introduction Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). We report the interim safety, tolerability, and efficacy of tofacitinib in PsA patients in OPAL Balance, a 3-year, open-label, long-term extension study (data cut-off: August 2017; database not locked, data may change). Methods Eligible patients from two phase (P) 3 (P3) tofacitinib PsA studies (OPAL Broaden, NCT01877668; OPAL Beyond, NCT01882439) entered OPAL Balance ≤ 3 months after completing the P3 study or discontinuing for reasons other than study-drug-related adverse events (AEs). Patients received open-label tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID), with adjustments to 10 mg BID permitted post-month (M) 1. Certain concomitant conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs were allowed. Primary endpoints were incidence/severity of AEs and laboratory abnormalities, and changes from baseline in laboratory parameters (reported up to M36 and M30, respectively). Efficacy (clinical/patient-reported outcomes) was reported through M30. Results A total of 686 patients were treated; at data cut-off, 68.2% remained in the study. Mean (range) treatment duration was 641 (1–1032) days; total treatment duration was 1153.2 patient-years. By M36, 79.6, 13.8, and 8.6% of patients reported AEs, serious AEs, and discontinuations due to AEs, respectively. Five deaths occurred; one within the risk period (incidence rate [IR; patients with events/100 patient-years] 0.1). IRs for AEs of special interest were: all (non-serious and serious) herpes zoster, 1.7; serious infections, 0.9; opportunistic infections, 0.3 (all disseminated/multi-dermatomal herpes zoster); malignancies excluding non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC), 0.8; NMSC, 1.0; major adverse cardiovascular events, 0.3; pulmonary embolisms, 0.1; and arterial thromboembolisms, 0.4. No patients had deep vein thrombosis. Alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase levels were elevated ≥ 3-fold the upper limit of normal in 4.0 and 2.2% of patients, respectively. Changes in laboratory parameters were generally stable over time, although lymphocyte counts decreased slightly. Efficacy was maintained through M30. Conclusions In this interim analysis of OPAL Balance, tofacitinib safety and efficacy in patients with PsA appeared to be consistent with those of the P3 studies. Efficacy was maintained over time. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01976364. Electronic Supplementary Material The online version of this article (10.1007/s40744-020-00209-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users., Plain Language Summary In many countries, tofacitinib is an approved medicine that can be used to treat psoriatic arthritis (PsA). In the study reported here (OPAL Balance), adult patients with PsA took tofacitinib for up to 3 years. We report a planned interim analysis, i.e., an analysis of information collected before the study finished. This early information suggests that the safety of tofacitinib, and how well it improved symptoms and quality of life (efficacy), was similar in this long study as in shorter studies. Information from the finished study will be reported later. OPAL Balance started on 17 February 2014. This interim analysis includes information collected by 31 August 2017. Before joining, patients had finished a 6-month or 12-month tofacitinib study (OPAL Broaden or OPAL Beyond). Patients in OPAL Balance took a 5 mg tofacitinib pill twice a day, but if PsA symptoms did not improve after 1 month, they could take a 10 mg pill twice a day. They could also take other medicines (including methotrexate or corticosteroids). Of the 686 patients who took tofacitinib, 546 (80%) experienced side effects over 3 years. These were considered serious for 95 patients (14%) and caused 59 patients (9%) to leave the study. Five patients died from causes not related to tofacitinib. Known tofacitinib side effects, including shingles (herpes zoster), serious infections (needing hospitalization), infections in patients with weakened immune systems, cancer, heart (cardiovascular) problems, and vein blockages (embolisms), were each reported by fewer than 20 patients. Most blood test results and tofacitinib efficacy were stable over 2.5 years. Electronic Supplementary Material The online version of this article (10.1007/s40744-020-00209-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

To compare perceptions of disease control and treatment satisfaction between patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in North America and Europe, and between participating countries within each region.Data were collected from patients with self-reported PsA diagnoses using an online survey. Results from questions on perceptions of overall health, disease severity, PsA symptoms, PsA impacts, and treatment satisfaction/preferences were reported using descriptive statistics and Chi-square tests.A total of 456 patients from North America (Canada, n = 155; US, n = 301) and 417 patients from Europe (France, n = 123; Spain, n = 135; UK, n = 159) were included in this analysis. Patients in North America were more likely to rate their overall health as excellent/good compared with those in Europe (49 vs. 14%), but also rate their disease as severe (27 vs. 15%). Despite treatment, patients in North America and Europe still experienced musculoskeletal (92 vs. 91%) and skin/nail (62 vs. 58%) symptoms. Similar proportions of patients in North America vs. Europe experienced a social impact (81 vs. 85%); more patients in Europe vs. North America experienced PsA-related work impacts (83 vs. 74%). Satisfaction with PsA medication was more common in North America (89%) vs. Europe (79%), and more common in Spain (91%) vs. the UK (82%) or France (66%). Across all regions and countries, ≥ 75% of patients agreed that symptoms were controlled. However, ≥ 66% wished they had more medication choices, and ≥ 84% wanted to change something about their medication.Although perception of overall health and disease severity varied, many patients from both regions still experienced symptoms despite receiving medications for PsA, wished they had greater choice of medications, and/or would like to change an aspect of their medications. While these survey findings are subject to selection bias, they do indicate there is scope to improve the treatment of PsA.Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a disease that can cause joint pain and stiffness, and is often associated with a skin rash called psoriasis. These symptoms can affect quality of life, and patients and doctors should work together when choosing treatment. There has not been a lot of information on what patients think about their disease and their medicines. We found that patients from different regions and countries had different opinions, and that treatment of PsA can be improved. For example, patients in North America were more likely to say that their overall health was excellent or good, compared with patients in Europe. However, more patients in North America than in Europe described their PsA disease as severe. Similar numbers of patients in both regions experienced impacts on their social life due to their PsA, but patients in Europe were more likely to report that PsA affected their work life compared with patients in North America. More patients in North America than in Europe were satisfied with their medicines, but patients across all regions and countries still had symptoms even when they took medicines. Many patients also wished they had more options and wanted to change something about their medicines. These findings were based on an online survey. Patients from North America (Canada and the US) and Europe (France, Spain, and the UK) answered questions about their PsA disease and medicines. We only compared answers between patients from North America and Europe, and between countries within each region.

Introduction/Objectives Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is a chronic inflammatory immune-mediated condition. We compared AS diagnosis, treatment, and burden in Central Eastern European countries (CEE), where this has been less researched, and the United States (US) from a real-world perspective. Methods Point-in-time survey of rheumatologists and their AS patients was conducted in the US (Apr–Oct 2018) and CEE (Aug–Nov 2019) via physician- and patient-completed record forms, including clinical and patient-reported outcomes. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, t-tests, Fisher’s exact tests, and generalized linear models. Results In total, 487 patients were recruited from 88 rheumatologists in the US and 922 patients from 126 rheumatologists in CEE. Time from onset of symptoms to final AS diagnosis was longer in CEE than the US (4.2 vs 2.7 years, p p p p p p p Conclusions AS patients in CEE vs the US faced slower diagnosis and worse access to biologics, disease activity, and QoL. Whether early access to biologics can improve symptoms, QoL, and daily activities in AS patients in CEE remains to be seen. Key Points• The study provided evidence on the real-world approach to the diagnosis, treatment, and burden of axSpA (axial spondyloarthritis) in CEE compared with the US.• The study reported patients in CEE experienced longer delays in diagnosis and poorer access to biologics than in the US.• This may have resulted in higher disease activity, greater levels of pain, and poorer outcomes, as reported by patients with axSpA in CEE.

BackgroundAnkylosing spondylitis (AS) impacts quality of life. We assessed patient-reported outcomes (PROs), pain, fatigue, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and work productivity in a phase III trial of tofacitinib.MethodsAdults with AS and with inadequate response/intolerance to ≥2 non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs received tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily or placebo for 16 weeks. Afterwards, all received open-label tofacitinib until week 48. Change from baseline to week 48 was determined for PROs: total back pain; nocturnal spinal pain; Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) overall spinal pain (Q2); Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue; BASDAI fatigue (Q1); AS Quality of Life (ASQoL); Short Form-36 Health Survey Version 2 (SF-36v2); EuroQoL-Five Dimension-Three Level health profile and Visual Analogue Scale; and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire. Improvements from baseline ≥minimum clinically important difference, and scores ≥normative values at week 16 were evaluated.ResultsIn 269 randomised and treated patients, at week 16, there were greater least squares mean improvements from baseline with tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily versus placebo in BASDAI overall spinal pain (–2.85 vs –1.34), BASDAI fatigue (–2.36 vs –1.08), ASQoL (–4.03 vs –2.01) and WPAI overall work impairment (–21.49 vs –7.64) (all pConclusionsIn patients with AS, treatment with tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily resulted in clinically meaningful improvements in pain, fatigue, HRQoL and work productivity versus placebo to week 16, which were sustained to week 48.Trial registration numberNCT03502616.

Objective: Tofacitinib is an oral JAK inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). To better understand tofacitinib treatment responses, we used group-based trajectory modeling to investigate distinct disease activity trajectories and associated baseline variables in patients with active RA. Methods: This post hoc analysis used data from a phase III study of methotrexate-naive patients receiving tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily. Changes in the 4-variable Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) from baseline to month 24 were used in group-based trajectory modeling to identify distinct disease activity trajectories. Patient and disease characteristics, changes in radiographic progression and patient-reported outcomes, and safety up to month 24 were compared among trajectory groups. Results: From 346 methotrexate-naive patients, 5 disease trajectory groups, defined by DAS28-ESR scores, were identified, which progressed from high disease activity (HDA) to remission (group 1, n = 28), to low disease activity (LDA) rapidly (group 2, n = 107), to moderate disease activity (group 3, n = 98), to LDA gradually (group 4, n = 46), or remained in HDA (group 5, n = 67), at month 24. At baseline, groups 1 and 2 generally had lower disease activity and more favorable patient-reported outcomes, compared with other groups. Improvements in radiographic progression and patient-reported outcomes over 24 months were generally consistent with DAS28-ESR–predicted disease activity trajectories. Adverse event rates were generally comparable across groups. Conclusion: Distinct phenotypic subgroups identified heterogeneity in patients with RA normally analyzed as a single population. Trajectory modeling may enable separation of clinically meaningful subsets of patients with RA, and may help optimize treatment outcomes.

Objective.The Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) Core Domain Set for randomized controlled trials and longitudinal observational studies has recently been updated. The joint counts are central to the measurement of the peripheral arthritis component of the musculoskeletal (MSK) disease activity domain. We report the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 2018 meeting’s approaches to seek endorsement of the 66/68 swollen and tender joint count (SJC66/TJC68) for inclusion in the PsA Core Outcome Measurement Set (COS).Methods.Using the OMERACT Filter 2.1 Instrument Selection Process, the SJC66/TJC68 was assessed for (1) domain match, (2) feasibility, (3) numerical sense (construct validity), and (4) discrimination (test retest reliability, longitudinal construct validity, sensitivity in clinical trials, and thresholds of meaning). A protocol was designed to assess the measurement properties of the SJC66/TJC68 joint count. The results were summarized in a Summary of Measurement Properties table developed by OMERACT. OMERACT members discussed and voted on whether the strength of the evidence supported that the SJC66/TJC68 had passed the OMERACT Filter as an outcome measurement instrument for the PsA COS.Results.OMERACT delegates endorsed the use of the SJC66/TJC68 for the measurement of the peripheral arthritis component of the MSK disease activity domain. Among patient research partners, 100% voted for a “green” endorsement, whereas among the group of other stakeholders, 88% voted for a “green” endorsement.Conclusion.The SJC66/TJC68 is the first fully endorsed outcome measurement instrument using the OMERACT Filter 2.1 and the first instrument fully endorsed within the PsA COS.

Objective.To evaluate the effect of baseline risk factors on radiographic progression in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who had an inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) and were treated with tofacitinib or adalimumab (ADA).Methods.Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of PsA. OPAL Broaden was a 12-month, double-blind phase III trial. Patients received tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID; n = 107), tofacitinib 10 mg BID (n = 104), or ADA 40 mg once every 2 weeks (n = 106), all with 1 background csDMARD. Radiographs (baseline and Month 12) were scored using the van der Heijde-modified total Sharp score (mTSS) for PsA. Radiographic nonprogression was defined as an increase from baseline in mTSS ≤ 0.5, ≤ 0, or ≤ 0.66. Changes from baseline in mTSS and nonprogression (≤ 0.5 increase from baseline in mTSS) were analyzed by baseline C-reactive protein (CRP) > 2.87 or ≤ 2.87 mg/l. Baseline predictors of radiographic progression were analyzed.Results.At Month 12, > 90% of patients receiving tofacitinib or ADA met all radiographic nonprogression criteria. Mean changes from baseline through Month 12 in mTSS, erosion, and joint space narrowing scores were close to 0. Changes in radiographic outcomes were minimal, irrespective of baseline CRP levels > 2.87 or ≤ 2.87 mg/l, with a small numerical difference observed for tofacitinib 5 mg BID. A significant relationship was observed between baseline CRP level and increases from baseline in mTSS > 0.5 at Month 12.Conclusion.Elevated CRP levels at baseline were associated with greater structural progression. Changes in radiographic outcomes were minimal regardless of CRP levels. [Clinical trial registration number (www.ClinicalTrials.gov): NCT01877668]

Objective Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This post hoc analysis evaluated tofacitinib persistence in patients with RA in long‐term extension (LTE) studies up to 9.5 years. Methods Data were pooled from two LTE studies: ORAL Sequel (NCT00413699) and Study A3921041 (NCT00661661). Patients received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID), as monotherapy or with background conventional synthetic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs. Kaplan‐Meier estimates for tofacitinib drug survival and reasons for discontinuation were evaluated. Baseline factors were analyzed as predictors of persistence. Results In 4967 tofacitinib‐treated patients entering LTE studies, mean (maximum) treatment duration was 3.5 (9.4) years. Median drug survival (95% confidence interval) was 4.9 (4.7, 5.1) years. Estimated 2‐ and 5‐year drug survival rates were 75.5% and 49.4%, respectively. Median drug survival was similar between the tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID groups, and slightly higher for patients receiving tofacitinib monotherapy versus combination therapy. Overall, 50.7% of patients discontinued tofacitinib; of these, 47.2% were due to adverse events and 7.1% for lack/loss of efficacy. An increased risk of discontinuation was associated with baseline diabetes, hypertension, negative anticyclic citrullinated peptide (anti‐CCP), negative rheumatoid factor (RF), and inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi‐IR). Conclusion Median drug survival of tofacitinib‐treated patients participating in LTE studies was approximately 5 years and was similar for tofacitinib dosed at 5 and 10 mg BID. Reduced drug survival was associated with negative anti‐CCP/RF status, TNFi‐IR, and certain comorbidities. These data support tofacitinib use for long‐term management of RA.

BackgroundPain is a core domain of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). This post hoc analysis evaluated time to pain improvement and the impact of baseline pain severity on pain response in patients with PsA receiving tofacitinib.MethodsData from two trials (NCT01877668; NCT01882439) in patients receiving tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily, placebo switching to tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily at month 3 (placebo-to-tofacitinib) or adalimumab (NCT01877668 only) were included. Improvement in pain (≥30%/≥50% decrease from baseline in Visual Analogue Scale pain score) was assessed; median time to initial (first post-baseline visit)/continued (first two consecutive post-baseline visits) pain improvement was estimated (Kaplan-Meier) for all treatment arms. A parametric model was used to determine the relationship between baseline pain severity and time to pain response in patients receiving tofacitinib.ResultsAt month 3, more patients experienced pain improvements with tofacitinib/adalimumab versus placebo. Median days (95% CI) to initial/continued pain improvements of ≥30% and ≥50%, respectively, were 55 (29–57)/60 (57–85) and 85 (57–92)/171 (90–not estimable (NE)) for tofacitinib, versus 106 (64–115)/126 (113–173) and 169 (120–189)/NE (247–NE) for placebo-to-tofacitinib. Pain improvements were also experienced more quickly for adalimumab versus placebo. Predicted time to ≥30%/≥50% pain improvement was shorter in patients with higher baseline pain versus lower baseline pain (tofacitinib arm only).ConclusionsIn patients with PsA, pain improvements were experienced by more patients, and more rapidly, with tofacitinib and adalimumab versus placebo. In those receiving tofacitinib, higher baseline pain was associated with faster pain improvements.

Background Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis. Here we report the final analysis of Oral Psoriatic Arthritis Trial (OPAL) Balance, a 36-month long-term extension study, with a 12-month methotrexate withdrawal substudy, that assessed tofacitinib safety, tolerability, and efficacy in patients with active psoriatic arthritis. Methods For this open-label, long-term extension study, which was run at 124 centres in 16 countries, eligible patients had participated in the OPAL Broaden or OPAL Beyond phase 3 studies. Patients could enter OPAL Balance up to 3 months after completing one of the qualifying studies or discontinuing for reasons other than an adverse event related to study drug. In OPAL Balance, patients received open-label tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily, with increases to 10 mg twice daily for inadequate symptom control allowed from month 1, and reductions to 5 mg twice daily allowed thereafter for safety. Specific conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs could be continued concomitantly. The primary endpoints were incidence and severity of adverse events, the incidence of laboratory abnormalities, and changes from baseline in laboratory parameters. Participants who were eligible could enter the randomised, double-blind, methotrexate withdrawal substudy (open-label tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily plus either masked placebo or masked methotrexate); safety data from which are included here (up to month 48). Efficacy was reported up to month 36 (substudy data excluded). The risk period for safety outcomes was the time from treatment exposure to the last dose plus 28 days or date of last observation. OPAL Balance is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01976364) and is now complete. Findings Between Feb 17, 2014, and March 28, 2016, 686 patients were enrolled and given tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily (179 patients were treated in the substudy and 453 [66%] of 686 completed the long-term extension study or substudy; mean treatment duration 794·6 days [SD 329·2] in long-term extension study, 879·0 days [396·6] in long-term extension study plus substudy). The mean age of participants in the all tofacitinib group was 48·8 years (SD 11·8) and 370 (54%) of 686 participants were female. Up to month 48, 574 (84%) of 686 participants reported all-cause adverse events, 115 (17%) reported serious adverse events, and 78 (11%) discontinued due to an adverse event. Six patients died, one within the risk period (incidence of 0·1 patients with events [95% CI 0·0–0·3] per 100 person-years). The incidences of adverse events of special interest, reported as number of patients with events per 100 person-years, included: 1·7 (1·2–2·5) for herpes zoster (non-serious and serious); 1·0 (0·6–1·6) for serious infections; 0·4 (0·1–0·8) for opportunistic infections; 0·7 (0·4–1·2) for malignancies (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer [NMSC]); 0·9 (0·5–1·5) for NMSC; 0·2 (0·1–0·6) for major adverse cardiovascular events; 0·1 (0·0–0·3) for pulmonary embolism; and 0·4 (0·1–0·8) for arterial thromboembolism. No deep vein thromboses occurred. Laboratory parameter changes were as expected with treatment. Efficacy was sustained up to month 36. Interpretation This analysis supports the long-term safety (up to 48 months) and efficacy (up to 36 months) of tofacitinib in patients with psoriatic arthritis, which were consistent with previous phase 3 studies.

ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy/safety of tofacitinib in adult patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS).MethodsThis phase III, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study enrolled patients aged ≥18 years diagnosed with active AS, meeting the modified New York criteria, with centrally read radiographs, and an inadequate response or intolerance to ≥2 non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Patients were randomised 1:1 to receive tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day or placebo for 16 weeks. After week 16, all patients received open-label tofacitinib until week 48. The primary and key secondary endpoints were Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society ≥20% improvement (ASAS20) and ≥40% improvement (ASAS40) responses, respectively, at week 16. Safety was assessed throughout.Results269 patients were randomised and treated: tofacitinib, n=133; placebo, n=136. At week 16, the ASAS20 response rate was significantly (pConclusionsIn adults with active AS, tofacitinib demonstrated significantly greater efficacy versus placebo. No new potential safety risks were identified.Trial registration numberNCT03502616

We read with interest the recently published European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) with pharmacological therapies1 and the associated systematic literature research (SLR)2; we welcome the clarity that they offer for patient care. We would like to bring three points to your readers’ attention to correct and clarify the narrative supporting Recommendation 7 (Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors). Recommendation 7 states: “ … Our SLR indicated tofacitinib may have similar efficacy as the TNFi adalimumab for joint involvement, but numerically lower efficacy in skin psoriasis.1,15,72 … Safety signals exist for some infections, especially herpes zoster, as well as a recent signal for deep vein thrombosis especially with a high dose of tofacitinib which is not approved for PsA, but also the usual 5 mg twice daily dose particularly in those with cardiovascular risk factors and older patients.15,72,73” Regarding the statement: “ … as well as a recent signal for deep vein thrombosis especially with a high dose of tofacitinib which is not approved for PsA …”: We would like to respectfully correct this statement, as this signal was seen for pulmonary embolism (PE) rather than deep vein thrombosis (DVT); this was observed in the 10 mg twice daily dose of tofacitinib, …

Background Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic immune-mediated inflammatory musculoskeletal disease, manifesting as peripheral arthritis, enthesitis, dactylitis, spondylitis, and skin and nail psoriasis. A core set of domains for measuring the impact of PsA has been developed, including pain, patient global assessment, physical function, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and fatigue. To understand the impact of PsA on health domains from a patient’s perspective, a global survey was developed and results reported in the context of the 12-item Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease (PsAID-12) questionnaire. Methods An online patient-based global survey was conducted by The Harris Poll in Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Spain, Taiwan, the UK, and the US between November 2, 2017 and March 12, 2018. Eligible patients were ≥ 18 years old with a diagnosis of PsA for > 1 year, had visited a rheumatologist/dermatologist in the past 12 months and reported using ≥ 1 synthetic/biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug for PsA. Patients reported on PsA severity and symptoms, and the impact of PsA on HRQoL. After survey completion, responses were aligned with PsAID health domains. Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests were conducted. Results This analysis included 1286 patients from eight countries. Most patients (97%) reported musculoskeletal symptoms relating to PsA in the past year. Common moderate/major impacts of PsA were on physical activity (78%), ability to perform certain activities (76%), work productivity (62%), and career path (57%). Skin/nail symptoms occurred in 80% of patients. Overall, 69% of patients reported that PsA had a moderate/major impact on emotional/mental wellbeing, 56% on romantic relationships/intimacy, and 44% on relationships with family and friends. Social impacts included emotional distress (58%), social shame or disapproval (32%), and ceased participation in social activities (45%). Over half of all patients experienced unusual fatigue over the past 12 months (52%). The health domains that patients reported as being impacted by PsA aligned with life impact domains of the patient-derived PsAID health domains. Conclusion These results highlight the impact of PsA on multiple health domains from a patient perspective that should be considered during shared decision-making processes between healthcare providers and patients.

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic, inflammatory disease. The effects of PsA real-world treatment patterns on patient-reported outcomes in the US and 5 European countries (EU5; France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK) were evaluated. Respondents from the 2016 National Health and Wellness Survey received advanced therapies (e.g., biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [DMARDs]), other therapies, (e.g., conventional synthetic DMARDs), or no treatment. Assessments included demographics, disease severity (patient-reported), comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index), health status (Short Form-36 Health Survey), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), work productivity (Work Productivity and Activity Index), and treatment adherence (Morisky Medication Adherence Scale-8). Overall, 1037 respondents from the US and 947 respondents from the EU5 were included. Of these, 21.7% US and 7.3% EU5 respondents received advanced therapies; 16.6% and 28.5%, other therapies; and 61.7% and 64.2%, no treatment, respectively. During treatment with advanced or other therapies, 40.8–54.7% US and 57.7–58.9% EU5 respondents self-reported moderate or severe PsA. Respondents receiving advanced therapies had the highest Charlson Comorbidity Index score (US, 1.25; EU5, 1.42); the lowest scores were with no treatment (0.52 and 0.49, respectively). Employment was lowest with other therapies (US, 47.7%; EU5, 41.1%). Overall work impairment was reported by 57.9% US and 62.6% EU5 respondents receiving advanced therapies. Medication adherence was generally low in the US and medium in the EU5 (Morisky Medication Adherence Scale-8: low, US 40.1–46.7%, EU5, 29.0–35.2%; medium, US 29.3–36.1%, EU5 37.8–49.3%; high, US 23.8–24.0%; EU5, 21.7–27.0%). Advanced and other therapies reduced PsA severity; however, > 40% of respondents reported moderate or severe PsA during treatment. Better management and adherence may reduce unmet need and disease burden. Further work is required to improve PsA diagnosis and time to treatment initiation. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00296-018-4195-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objective Optimal targeted treatment in rheumatoid arthritis requires early identification of failure to respond. This post hoc analysis explored the relationship between early disease activity changes and the achievement of low disease activity (LDA) and remission targets with tofacitinib. Methods Data were from 2 randomized, double-blind, phase III studies. In the ORAL Start trial, methotrexate (MTX)-naive patients received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily, or MTX, for 24 months. In the placebo-controlled ORAL Standard trial, MTX inadequate responder patients received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily or adalimumab 40 mg every 2 weeks, with MTX, for 12 months. Probabilities of achieving LDA (using a Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI] score ≤10 or the 4-component Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate [DAS28-ESR] ≤3.2) at months 6 and 12 were calculated, given failure to achieve threshold improvement from baseline (change in CDAI ≥6 or DAS28-ESR ≥1.2) at month 1 or 3. Results In ORAL Start, 7.2% and 5.4% of patients receiving tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg twice daily, respectively, failed to show improvement in the CDAI ≥6 at month 3; of those who failed, 3.8% and 28.6%, respectively, achieved month 6 CDAI-defined LDA. In ORAL Standard, 18.8% and 17.5% of patients receiving tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg twice daily, respectively, failed to improve CDAI ≥6 at month 3; of those who failed, 0% and 2.9%, respectively, achieved month 6 CDAI-defined LDA. Findings were similar when considering improvements at month 1 or DAS28-ESR thresholds. Conclusion In patients with an inadequate response to MTX, lack of response to tofacitinib after 1 or 3 months predicted a low probability of achieving LDA at month 6. Lack of an early response may be considered when deciding whether to continue treatment with tofacitinib.

Background:Treatment effect on pain is a priority for patients (pts) with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and physicians. As pain is multidimensional, there is growing interest to understand the mechanisms of pain relief during treatment. Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of PsA. Previous analyses showed that the effect of tofacitinib on pain in pts with PsA was partially mediated through improvement of inflammation as assessed by C-reactive protein (CRP) and Swollen Joint Count (SJC). Additional potential inflammation-associated mediators that might contribute to tofacitinib’s effect on pain include enthesitis and skin disease.Objectives:To describe the interrelationship between pain, tofacitinib treatment and potential inflammatory-associated outcomes, using mediation modelling.Methods:Data from two Phase 3 studies (OPAL Broaden [NCT01877668]; OPAL Beyond [NCT01882439]) of pts with active PsA treated with tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID) or placebo were used; pts were tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-naïve or had previous inadequate response to ≥1 TNFi. All pts were treated continuously with a single conventional synthetic DMARD. Analyses were completed using pooled and individual study data at Months 1 and 3 (using mean scores across visits). Mediation modelling seeks to explain mechanisms underlying observed relationships between independent and dependent variables via other variables (mediators). This initial model included: treatment as the independent (explanatory) binary variable (tofacitinib 5 mg BID vs placebo); pain, measured by Patient’s Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS, 0–100 mm), as the dependent (outcome) variable; mediators were: pt-reported Itch Severity Index (ISI); CRP; SJC; Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI); and enthesitis, measured by Leeds Enthesitis Index (LEI) or Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada Enthesitis Index (SPARCC). The final model was revised based on results of the initial model.Results:The initial model (N=329; pooled data) showed that tofacitinib treatment affects pain mainly indirectly via ISI, CRP, SJC, PASI and enthesitis (LEI), with 16.0% (p=0.53) attributable to the direct effect. The indirect effect via SJC (Conclusion:The majority of tofacitinib treatment effect on pain in pts with PsA is collectively mediated by itch, enthesitis and CRP, with itch being the main mediator of treatment effect (~37%), using mediation modelling analyses.Acknowledgments:Study sponsored by Pfizer Inc. Medical writing support was provided by Eric Comeau of CMC Connect and funded by Pfizer Inc.Disclosure of Interests:Peter C. Taylor Grant/research support from: Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, and Gilead, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly and Company, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer Roche, and UCB, Kurt de Vlam Grant/research support from: Celgene, Eli Lilly, Pfizer Inc, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Andrew G Bushmakin Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Lara Fallon Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: Merck, AbbVie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, UCB Pharma, Celgene, Sanofi, Regeneron, Arena, Sun Pharma, Biogen, Pfizer, EMD Sorono, Avotres and LEO Pharma, Joseph C Cappelleri Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Ming-Ann Hsu Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Philip J Mease Grant/research support from: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB – grant/research support, Consultant of: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB – consultant, Speakers bureau: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB – speakers bureau

Background:Current treatments for PsA have proven effective in reducing patient (pt)-reported pain;1,2however, residual pain often remains. Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of PsA.Objectives:This descriptive analysis evaluated the effect of tofacitinib, adalimumab and placebo on residual pain in pts with PsA whose inflammation was attenuated after 3 months of therapy.Methods:Data were included from OPAL Broaden (NCT01877668), a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 trial of 12 months’ duration in pts with PsA.3Pts were randomised to receive tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID), tofacitinib 10 mg BID, adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneous injection once every 2 weeks or placebo. This analysis assessed pts with ‘residual pain’ at Month (M)3. Residual pain was considered as pain in pts with complete attenuation of inflammation at M3, defined by a swollen joint count (SJC) of 0 and CRP levels Results:Demographics and baseline disease characteristics have previously been reported in the primary study, and were generally similar between treatment groups.3At M3, 100/422 (23.7%) pts with PsA had achieved SJC of 0 and CRP Conclusion:Changes from baseline in pain and absolute pain at M3 suggest that in pts with PsA whose inflammation has been completely attenuated, tofacitinib might have an effect on residual pain not obviously attributable to inflammation. However, the sample population was small, and there were large standard deviations. To confirm these results and to understand the mechanisms by which tofacitinib may improve residual pain, a meta-analysis will be performed using individual participant data from pts with rheumatic disease who have participated in tofacitinib randomised controlled trials.References:[1]Gladman et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2007;66:163-68.[2]Gladman et al. Arthritis Care Res 2014;66:1085-92.[3]Mease et al. NEJM 2017;377:1537-50.Acknowledgments:Study sponsored by Pfizer Inc. Medical writing support was provided by Mark Bennett of CMC Connect and funded by Pfizer Inc.Disclosure of Interests:Maxime Dougados Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cyxone, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB Pharma; Director of Imaging Rheumatology BV, Clifton Bingham Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Consultant of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Peter C. Taylor Grant/research support from: Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, and Gilead, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly and Company, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer Roche, and UCB, Lara Fallon Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, John Woolcott Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Yves Brault Shareholder of: Pfizer France, Employee of: Pfizer France, Lisy Wang Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Meriem Kessouri Shareholder of: Pfizer France, Employee of: Pfizer France

Background Pain is a core domain of psoriatic arthritis (PsA).1 Rapid, sustained pain reduction is a priority for patients (pts) and physicians when choosing treatment. Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of PsA. Objectives This post hoc analysis aimed to estimate time to clinically meaningful pain improvement with tofacitinib. Methods Data were analysed from 2 Phase 3 studies of tofacitinib in pts with active PsA and an inadequate response to ≥1 conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) (OPAL Broaden; NCT01877668; 12-month study), or to ≥1 tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (OPAL Beyond; NCT01882439; 6-month study). Pts treated with tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID) and placebo (PBO) advanced to tofacitinib 5 mg BID at Month 3 (PBO-tofacitinib), in combination with csDMARDs, were included in this analysis. Current arthritis pain severity was reported by pts using a 100 mm visual analogue scale, where higher scores indicated greater severity of pain. Pain improvement was defined as the first post-baseline improvement of ≥30% (meaningful change), ≥50% (substantial change) or ≥70% relative to baseline.2 Time-to-event analyses were performed using a Kaplan-Meier (KM) method on pooled data. Descriptive analyses of the rate of improvements by study were performed. Results Overall, 354 pts were available for analysis. Rates of pain improvement over time with tofacitinib 5 mg BID were approximately the same in both studies (Figure). By Month 1, ≥40% of pts experienced ≥30% pain improvement, and by Month 2, approximately 55% of pts experienced ≥30% pain improvement (Figure). KM analyses showed that pts receiving tofacitinib 5 mg BID achieved improvements in pain severity of 30–70% significantly faster compared with pts in the PBO-tofacitinib group (Table). The median time to ≥30% pain improvement was 55 days in the tofacitinib 5 mg BID group and 106 days in the PBO-tofacitinib group (pts switched to tofacitinib 5 mg BID at Month 3; p=0.0132). Similar trends between treatment groups were observed across other pain improvement thresholds. Conclusion In pts with active PsA, faster, clinically meaningful pain improvements were reported in pts receiving tofacitinib 5 mg BID vs pts receiving PBO who switched to tofacitinib 5 mg BID at Month 3. After switch from PBO to active treatment, pain improvement was observed in line with pts receiving active treatment from Day 0. To achieve pain improvement at greater thresholds, longer duration of active treatment was required. References [1] Orbai aM, et al. Ann Rheum Dis2017;76:673-80. [2] Dworkin RH, et al. J Pain2008;9:105-21. Acknowledgement This study was sponsored by Pfizer inc. Medical writing support was provided by Karleen Nicholson, PhD, on behalf of CMC Connect, a division of McCann Health Medical Communications Ltd, Macclesfield, UK, and was funded by Pfizer inc. Disclosure of interests Alexis Ogdie Grant/research support from: (To my university) Novartis, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, Consultant for: abbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Corrona, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Pfizer, and Takeda, Consultant for: abbVie, amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Corrona, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer inc, Takeda, Consultant for: abbvie, amgen, BMS, Celgene, Corrona, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, Consultant for: abbvie, amgen, BMS, Celgene, Corrona, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, Kurt de Vlam Consultant for: Pfizer inc, Consultant for: Johnson & Johnson, andrew G Bushmakin Shareholder of: Pfizer inc, Employee of: Pfizer inc, Joseph C Cappelleri Shareholder of: Pfizer inc, Employee of: Pfizer inc, Philip J Mease Grant/research support from: abbVie, amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN and UCB, Consultant for: abbVie, amgen, BMS, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, inc., Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN and UCB, Speakers bureau: abbVie, amgen, BMS, Celgene, Genentech, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Roy Fleischmann Grant/research support from: abbVie, amgen, astraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celtrion, Genentech, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer inc, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Consultant for: abbVie, amgen, astraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celtrion, Genentech, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer inc, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Peter C. Taylor Grant/research support from: Celgene, Galapagos, Eli Lilly, UCB, Consultant for: abbVie, Galapagos, Gilead, Eli Lilly, Pfizer inc, Valderilio F azevedo Grant/research support from: abbVie, GSK, Janssen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pfizer inc, UCB, Consultant for: abbVie, GSK, Janssen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pfizer inc, UCB, Lara Fallon Shareholder of: Pfizer inc, Employee of: Pfizer inc, anna Maniccia Shareholder of: Pfizer inc, Employee of: Pfizer inc, John Woolcott Shareholder of: Pfizer inc, Employee of: Pfizer inc

Background Pain is a priority for patients (pts) with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and physicians. Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of PsA. As pain is a multidimensional phenomenon, there is growing interest in understanding mechanisms of pain relief during treatment. Objectives To examine the potential role of inflammation in the effect of tofacitinib on pain in pts with PsA, using mediation modelling. Methods Data were from the Phase 3 OPAL Broaden (NCT01877668) and OPAL Beyond (NCT01882439) studies of pts with active PsA treated with tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID) or placebo; pts were tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-naive or had previous inadequate response (IR) to ≥1 TNFi. All pts continued on a stable dose of a single conventional synthetic DMARD. Analyses used pooled and individual trial data (mean scores from Months 1, 2 and 3). Mediation modelling seeks to explain mechanisms underlying an observed relationship between independent and dependent variables via other explanatory variables (mediators). In this model, pain (100 mm visual analogue scale) was the designated dependent variable, treatment (tofacitinib 5 mg BID vs placebo) the independent variable and inflammation, measured by swollen joint count (SJC) and C-reactive protein (CRP), was a mediator. The primary model designated treatment effect on pain mediated via CRP/SJC as an indirect effect and treatment effect not attributable to CRP/SJC as a direct effect. Models were re-specified based on initial results; model invariance by population (TNFi-naive vs TNFi-IR pts) was assessed. Results In the pooled analysis (N=469), 25.9% (p 0.05), respectively. The treatment effect on pain not attributable to CRP/SJC (direct effect) was 74.1% (p Conclusion While inflammation, as assessed by CRP/SJC, was a significant mediator of the overall treatment effect on pain in tofacitinib-treated pts with PsA, the majority of the treatment effect was not attributable to CRP/SJC changes. When mediators were assessed individually, only CRP was a significant mediator in the pooled analysis. In the re-specified model, CRP-mediated effects differed in TNFi-naive vs TNFi-IR pts, but this was not statistically significant. These results suggest that CRP/SJC-associated inflammation only partially explains pain in PsA; other potential mediators need to be identified to better understand the treatment effect of tofacitinib on pain. Acknowledgement Study sponsored by Pfizer Inc. Medical writing support provided by AG McCluskey, PhD, of CMC Connect; funded by Pfizer Inc. Disclosure of Interests Peter C. Taylor Grant/research support from: Celgene, Galapagos, Eli Lilly, UCB, Consultant for: AbbVie, Galapagos, Gilead, Eli Lilly, Pfizer Inc, Philip J Mease Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN and UCB, Consultant for: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Genentech, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Andrew G Bushmakin Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Joseph C Cappelleri Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Roy Fleischmann Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celtrion, Genentech, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Consultant for: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celtrion, Genentech, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Lara Fallon Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, John Woolcott Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Alexis Ogdie Grant/research support from: (To my university) Novartis, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, Consultant for: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Corrona, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Pfizer, and Takeda, Consultant for: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Corrona, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Takeda, Consultant for: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Corrona, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, Consultant for: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Corrona, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, Valderilio F Azevedo Grant/research support from: AbbVie, GSK, Janssen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Consultant for: AbbVie, GSK, Janssen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Kurt de Vlam Consultant for: Pfizer Inc, Consultant for: Johnson & Johnson

Background:Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) can significantly impact quality of life. Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor under investigation for the treatment of adult patients (pts) with AS. The safety/efficacy (including pt-reported outcomes [PROs]) of tofacitinib in pts with AS was assessed in a Phase 3 trial (NCT03502616).1Objectives:To evaluate the effect of tofacitinib on pt-reported pain, fatigue, overall health and work productivity in pts with active AS enrolled in the Phase 3 trial.Methods:Pts with an inadequate clinical response or intolerance to ≥2 oral NSAIDs were randomised in a double-blind fashion to tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID) or placebo (PBO) for 16 weeks. At Week (W)16, all pts received open-label tofacitinib 5 mg BID up to W48. Least squares (LS) mean changes from baseline (Δ) up to W48 are reported for the following outcomes: pt assessment of nocturnal spinal pain, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Short Form-36 Health Survey version 2 (SF-36v2; W16 and W48 only), and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI; W16 and W48 only).Results:At W16, there were greater improvements from baseline in pain (total back pain [previously published1] and nocturnal spinal pain) and fatigue (FACIT-F total score; experience and impact domain scores) with tofacitinib vs PBO (p≤0.05; Table 1); improvements were observed as early as W2. Also, improvements in SF-36v2 physical component summary (PCS) (Table 1), and physical functioning, role-physical, bodily pain, general health and social functioning domains (Figure 1) were greater with tofacitinib vs PBO at W16 (p≤0.05). Similarly, improvements in WPAI scores at W16 were greater with tofacitinib vs PBO (p≤0.05), except for % work time missed (Table 1). Improvements with tofacitinib continued up to W48 (Table 1/Figure 1). Generally, pts receiving PBO who advanced to tofacitinib at W16 reported similar improvements after switching to tofacitinib (Table 1/Figure 1).Table 1.PROs at baseline and Δ at W16 and W48Baseline,mean (SD) [N1]Δ, W16,LS mean (SE)Δ, W48,LS mean (SE)Tofacitinib5 mg BID (N=133)PBO(N=136)Tofacitinib5 mg BIDPBOp valueTofacitinib5 mg BIDPBO→tofacitinib5 mg BIDNocturnalspinal paina6.8 (1.9)6.8 (1.9)-2.67 (0.20)-0.84 (0.20)-3.52 (0.23)-3.01 (0.23)FACIT-Ftotal scorea,b27.2 (10.7)27.4 (9.3)6.54 (0.80)3.12 (0.79)0.00089.54 (0.90)7.35 (0.89)FACIT-F experience domaina8.9 (4.3)8.7 (4.0)2.85 (0.36)1.29 (0.36)0.00074.22 (0.40)3.40 (0.40)FACIT-Fimpactdomaina18.3 (6.9)18.8 (5.9)3.68 (0.49)1.81 (0.49)0.00285.32 (0.54)3.95 (0.54)SF-36v2 PCSb,c33.5 (7.3)33.1 (7.0) [135]6.69 (0.59)3.14 (0.59)8.81 (0.720)7.39 (0.71)SF-36v2 MCSc39.4 (11.1)39.8 (12.7) [135]3.45 (0.91)2.13 (0.92)0.25297.07 (0.93)6.35 (0.92)WPAIc% activity impairment56.5 (23.4)56.0 (21.4)-19.03 (1.97)-5.63 (1.97)-27.37 (2.34)-19.77 (2.31)% work time missed9.9 (22.4) [81]11.5 (24.6) [88]-3.65 (2.66)0.88 (2.62)0.1784-8.10 (2.14)-5.79 (2.05)% impairment while working48.4 (26.3) [79]49.6 (22.2) [85]-19.83 (2.27)-6.94 (2.30)-25.35 (2.77)-23.00 (2.66)% overall work impairment50.8 (27.4) [79]53.5 (23.1) [85]-21.49 (2.51)-7.64 (2.56)-27.63 (3.01)-23.22 (2.90)aMMRMbGlobal type I error-controlled endpointcAnalysis of covariance model for W16 and MMRM for W48MCS, mental component summary; MMRM, Mixed Model for Repeated Measures; N, number of pts in full analysis set; N1, number of pts included in the analysis (if different from N); SD, standard deviation; SE, standard errorConclusion:In pts with active AS, improvements in spinal pain, fatigue, overall health and work productivity were greater with tofacitinib vs PBO at W16; improvements continued up to W48. These PRO findings support the primary efficacy results of this Phase 3 trial,1 and add to the overall understanding of the benefit/risk profile of tofacitinib in patients with AS.References:[1]Deodhar et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2020; 72 (S10): Abs L11.Acknowledgements:Study sponsored by Pfizer Inc. Medical writing support was provided by Emma Mitchell, CMC Connect, and funded by Pfizer Inc.Disclosure of Interests:Victoria Navarro-Compán Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis, James Cheng-Chung Wei Speakers bureau: Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Filip van den Bosch Shareholder of: AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Marina Magrey: None declared, Lisy Wang Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Dona Fleishaker Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Joseph C Cappelleri Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Cunshan Wang Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Joseph Wu Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Oluwaseyi Dina Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Lara Fallon Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Vibeke Strand Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Corrona, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, GSK, Ichnos, Inmedix, Janssen, Kiniksa, Merck, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Regeneron, Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi, Scipher, SetPoint Medical, UCB

Background:Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). It was approved in the United States (US) in December 2017 for use in combination with non-biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).Objectives:This analysis of real-world data assessed demographic and baseline clinical characteristics, as well as treatment persistence/adherence, in patients (pts) with PsA who had newly initiated tofacitinib treatment.Methods:This retrospective cohort study included pts aged ≥18 years in the Truven MarketScan™ US Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Claims and Encounters database with ≥1 tofacitinib claim (first = index) between 14 December 2017–30 April 2019, and PsA diagnoses (≥1 inpatient or ≥2 outpatient [30–365 days apart]) on or within 12 months pre-index. Pts were continuously enrolled for 12 months pre-index and 6 months post-index, with no pre-index claims for tofacitinib. Pt demographic and clinical characteristics on the day of index, history of advanced therapy treatment (≥1 claim for biologic DMARDs or apremilast within 12 months pre-index) and tofacitinib treatment regimen (monotherapy or combination therapy [≥1 claim for conventional synthetic DMARDs or apremilast on or within 90 days post-index]) were recorded. Outcomes at 6 months post-index included tofacitinib persistence (Results:Of 17 321 pts receiving tofacitinib, 440 pts met the inclusion criteria for the overall cohort, with 315 pts included in the sub-cohort. In the overall cohort, pts were mostly female, with a mean age of 52.3 years and a mean PsA duration of 738 days (data not shown). Most pts were exposed to ≥1 advanced therapy within 12 months pre-index (mean = 1.1; range = 0–4); most commonly secukinumab (Table 1). Overall, 60.7% of pts received monotherapy and 39.3% of pts received tofacitinib combination therapy post-index; most commonly methotrexate (data not shown). At 6 months post-index, persistence was similar in pts receiving tofacitinib monotherapy vs combination therapy; adherence was slightly lower in pts receiving tofacitinib monotherapy vs combination therapy (Figure 1). Results were similar in the sub-cohort (Table 1, Figure 1).Table 1.History of advanced therapy on or within 12 months pre-index in pts with PsAAll pts(N=440)Pts with no RAa(N=315)Pts exposed to advanced therapy, n (%)b Any advanced therapyc336 (76.4)241 (76.5) Secukinumab113 (25.7)91 (28.9) Adalimumab93 (21.1)58 (18.4) Apremilast81 (18.4)59 (18.7) Etanercept70 (15.9)47 (14.9)Unique advanced therapy prescriptions Mean (SD)1.1 (0.8)1.1 (0.8) Median (IQR)1 (1–2)1 (1–2) Range0–40–4Number of unique advanced therapies, n (%) 0104 (23.6)74 (23.5) 1214 (48.6)153 (48.6) 2100 (22.7)73 (23.2) ≥322 (5.0)15 (4.8)aExcludes pts with a diagnosis of RA on or within 12 months pre-index and within 6 months post-index; bPts with ≥1 claim for biologic DMARDs or apremilast within 12 months pre-index; cOther advanced therapies reported in IQR, interquartile range; N, number of pts per cohort; n, number of pts per category; SD, standard deviationFigure 1Conclusion:This analysis of US-based claims data indicated that pts newly initiated tofacitinib treatment an average of 2 years after PsA diagnosis, with the majority (>60%) of pts receiving tofacitinib as monotherapy. High levels of persistence and adherence to tofacitinib were observed 6 months after treatment initiation. Findings were similar when pts with PsA who also had a diagnosis of RA were excluded. Data were limited in that claims data cannot confirm that pts took the medication for which they filed a claim.Acknowledgements:Study sponsored by Pfizer Inc. Medical writing support was provided by Gemma Turner, CMC Connect, and funded by Pfizer Inc.Disclosure of Interests:Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Sun, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Sun, UCB, Pamela Young Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, David C Gruben Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Lara Fallon Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Rebecca Germino Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Arthur Kavanaugh Grant/research support from: Pfizer Inc.

Background:Tofacitinib is an oral JAK inhibitor for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA).Objectives:To assess tofacitinib 5 mg BID as monotherapy after methotrexate (MTX) withdrawal vs with continued background MTX in patients (pts) with PsA.Methods:OPAL Balance (NCT01976364) was an open-label (OL) long-term extension (LTE) study of tofacitinib in pts with PsA who participated in Phase (P)3 studies (OPAL Broaden,NCT01877668; OPAL Beyond,NCT01882439). Pts who completed ≥24 months’ tofacitinib treatment in the LTE (stable 5 mg BID for ≥3 months) and were receiving oral MTX (7.5–20 mg/week; stable for ≥4 weeks) entered the multicentre, 12-month, double-blind, MTX withdrawal substudy. Pts remained on OL tofacitinib 5 mg BID and were randomised 1:1 to receive placebo (tofacitinib monotherapy, ie, blinded MTX withdrawal) or MTX (tofacitinib + MTX; same stable doses). Primary endpoints were changes from substudy baseline (Δ) in PASDAS and HAQ-DI at Month (M)6. Secondary efficacy endpoints were assessed at all time points. Safety was assessed throughout the substudy.Results:Of 180 pts randomised, 179 were treated (tofacitinib monotherapy n=90; tofacitinib + MTX n=89). Pt characteristics were similar between treatment arms. At M6, least squares mean (LSM) (standard error [SE]) ΔPASDAS was 0.229 (0.079) for tofacitinib monotherapy and 0.138 (0.081) for tofacitinib + MTX, and LSM (SE) ΔHAQ-DI was 0.043 (0.027) and 0.017 (0.028), respectively (Figure 1); no clinically meaningful differences were observed. Efficacy and pt-reported outcomes were generally similar between treatment arms at M6 and M12 (data not shown). Rates of pts achieving minimal disease activity, and maintaining an absence of enthesitis and dactylitis, were sustained to M12 in both treatment arms (Figure 2). Adverse event rates (Table) and laboratory parameters were comparable between treatment arms, but liver enzyme elevations were more common with tofacitinib + MTX.Conclusion:No clinically meaningful differences in efficacy and safety were observed in PsA pts who received OL tofacitinib 5 mg BID as monotherapy after MTX withdrawal vs with continued MTX. Safety was consistent with previous P3 studies. The substudy was an estimation study and not powered for hypothesis testing.Table.Safety outcomes to Month 12Pts with events, n (%) AEs of special interestTofacitinib monotherapy N=90Tofacitinib + MTXN=89AE43 (47.8)41 (46.1)Serious AE4 (4.4)3 (3.4)Discontinuations due to AE3 (3.3)4 (4.5)Death00 Herpes zoster (serious/non-serious)1 (1.1)2 (2.2) Serious infection02 (2.2) Opportunistic infectiona01 (1.1) Malignancy (excl. NMSC)a1 (1.1)1 (1.1) NMSCa00 Major adverse cardiovascular eventa00 Venous thromboembolismc00 Arterial thromboembolismc1 (1.1)0 Gastrointestinal perforationa00 Interstitial lung diseaseb00Laboratory parametersdALT ≥3×ULN05 (5.6) ALT (IU/L), mean (SE)-2.7 (1.6)2.5 (1.3)AST ≥3×ULN03 (3.4) AST (IU/L), mean (SE)-1.5 (1.2)1.7 (0.8)Reviewed by independentaexternal/binternal adjudication committeecPer Standardised MedDRA Query termsdWithout regard to baseline abnormalityALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; ULN, upper limit of normalAcknowledgments:Study sponsored by Pfizer Inc. Medical writing support was provided by Christina Viegelmann of CMC Connect and funded by Pfizer Inc.Disclosure of Interests:Peter Nash Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Laura C Coates: None declared, Philip J Mease Grant/research support from: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB – grant/research support, Consultant of: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB – consultant, Speakers bureau: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB – speakers bureau, Alan Kivitz Shareholder of: AbbVie, Amgen, Gilead, GSK, Pfizer Inc, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim,,Flexion, Genzyme, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Regeneron, Sanofi, SUN Pharma Advanced Research, UCB, Paid instructor for: Celgene, Genzyme, Horizon, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Flexion, Genzyme, Horizon, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Regeneron, Sanofi, Dafna D Gladman Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen Inc., BMS, Celgene Corporation, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB – grant/research support, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen Inc., BMS, Celgene Corporation, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB – consultant, Frank Behrens Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Janssen, Chugai, Celgene, Lilly and Roche, Consultant of: Pfizer, AbbVie, Sanofi, Lilly, Novartis, Genzyme, Boehringer, Janssen, MSD, Celgene, Roche and Chugai, James Cheng-Chung Wei Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Eisai, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB Pharma, Dona Fleishaker Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Joseph Wu Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Cunshan Wang Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Ana Belen Romero Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Lara Fallon Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Ming-Ann Hsu Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Keith Kanik Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc

Background:Long delays in the diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and in receiving advanced therapies signify a critical unmet need. Little is known about delays or treatment patterns in Central Eastern European (CEE) countries.Objectives:To describe patient time to diagnosis of and its treatment patterns in CEE and the US.Methods:Data were collected via a cross-sectional survey of rheumatologists in Czech Republic, Poland, Russia, Ukraine (Sept–Dec 2019) and US (Jun–Aug 2018) via physician-completed patient record forms. In consecutive patients with a physician-reported diagnosis of AS, rheumatologists recorded patient demographics, clinical features, time to first consultation and diagnosis and treatment history. Data were compared for CEE vs US using t-test for independent samples (continuous outcomes) and Fisher’s exact test (categorical outcomes). Low rates of HLA-B27 and sacroiliitis at diagnosis may reflect combining non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis under the diagnosis of AS in real-world practice.Results:209 physicians (121 CEE; 88 US) provided data for 1363 patients (876 CEE; 487 US). While some demographic differences existed between regions, estimated prevalence of HLA-B27 in patients with AS was the same between US and CEE. Not all patients were stated to have sacroiliitis at diagnosis (Table 1). Time to first consultation and time to diagnosis were longer in CEE, with more patients experiencing a delay due to another condition initially being diagnosed (Table 2). At diagnosis a similar proportion of patients in CEE and US were prescribed NSAIDs, with higher use of csDMARDs in CEE. bDMARDs were more commonly prescribed at diagnosis in the US, with increased usage continuing after diagnosis (Figure 1).Table 1.Patient demographic and clinical characteristicsCEE(n=876)US(n=487)P value*Demographic characteristicsAge, mean (SD)45.4 (12.7)46.4 (14.1)0.21 (TT)Male, n (%)6319 (72.0)344 (70.6)0.62 (FE)BMI, mean (SD)25.9 (4.1)27.4 (4.5)Full time employment, n (%)460 (53.9)342 (70.8)Caucasian, n (%)853 (97.4)393 (80.7)Clinical features at diagnosisHLA-B27 positive, n (%)592 (67.6)329 (67.6)1.00 (FE)Inflammatory back pain, n (%)712 (82.0)369 (76.7)0.02 (FE)Sacroiliitis identified by X-ray, n (%)598 (68.9)272 (56.5)Back pain >3 months, n (%)427 (49.2)225 (46.8)0.46 (FE)Physician perceived severity, n (%)0.02 (FE)- Mild69 (8.7)20 (5.1)- Moderate414 (52.1)233 (59.1)- Severe312 (39.2)141 (35.8)*Statistical test legend: TT=t-test; FE=Fisher’s Exact.Table 2.Patient diagnosis journeyCEE(n=876)US(n=487)P value*Time from first symptoms to first consultationα, mean months (SD)27.7 (53.7)18.5 (57.1)0.02 (TT)Time from first consultationαto diagnosis, mean months (SD)17.8 (48.6)6.0 (13.2)0.02 (TT)Reasons for delayβ, n (%)- Other condition initially diagnosed108 (33.3)9 (11.8)- Waiting for referral to correct HCP69 (21.3)22 (28.9)0.17 (FE)- Needed test conducting to confirm diagnosis100 (30.9)21 (27.6)0.68 (FE)*Statistical test legend: TT=t-test; FE=Fisher’s exact;αFirst consultation with any healthcare professional about AS symptoms;βDelay defined as >3 months from first consultation to diagnosis.Conclusion:Time to diagnosis was three times longer in CEE vs the US. Despite similar prescription of NSAIDs at diagnosis in US and CEE, a greater proportion of patients currently received NSAIDs and csDMARDs in CEE, while bDMARD use in the US was greater. This suggests different treatment approaches and differences in medication access across the regions.Disclosure of Interests:Tatiana Korotaeva Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Consultant of: Abbvie, BIOCAD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BIOCAD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, UCB, Oluwaseyi Dina Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Elizabeth Holdsworth Employee of: Adelphi Real World, Lara Fallon Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Gary Milligan Employee of: Adelphi Real World, Sophie Meakin Employee of: Adelphi Real World, Lisy Wang Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Radu Serban VASILESCU Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Joseph C Cappelleri Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Atul Deodhar Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myer Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myer Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB

Background:With multiple disease domains affected in PsA, clinical and patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are important to assess disease improvement following treatment. Rapid, meaningful improvements in disease activity are a priority for physicians and patients (pts). Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of PsA. Higher proportions of pts achieved responses in PROs and clinical measures when treated with tofacitinib for 3 months vs placebo (PBO).1-5Proportions of responders were also similar between tofacitinib and adalimumab (ADA) after 3, 6 and 12 months.2,3,5Objectives:To determine the time to initial response using responder definitions for selected PROs and clinical endpoints in pts with active PsA treated with tofacitinib, ADA or PBO switching to tofacitinib.Methods:In this post hoc analysis, data were collected from two Phase 3 studies (OPAL Broaden [12 months;NCT01877668]; OPAL Beyond [6 months;NCT01882439]).3,4Pts receiving tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID), subcutaneous ADA 40 mg once every two weeks (Q2W; OPAL Broaden only), or PBO switching to tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg BID at Month (M)3, were included. Responder definitions included: HAQ-DI ≥0.35-point improvement from baseline (BL), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) total score ≥4-point improvement from BL, minimal disease activity (MDA) yes/no composite response (meeting at least 5 of 7 criteria) and PsA Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) post-BL score of ≤3.2 and >1.6-point improvement from BL. First post-BL data were collected at Week 2 (eg for HAQ-DI) or M1. Time-to-event analyses were performed using the Kaplan-Meier (KM) method, with pts censored at the last observed visit. Log-rank tests compared time to initial response across treatment groups.Results:KM analyses show days to initial response (Figure 1, Figure 2). Time to initial HAQ-DI response was significantly different between treatment groups in OPAL Broaden (pConclusion:Times to initial response in functional ability and disease activity were similar in pts treated with either tofacitinib or ADA. Time to initial response prior to first post-BL observation (Week 2 or M1) was not estimable in this analysis. These results may help physicians better understand the time frame for a meaningful response in pts receiving tofacitinib.References:[1]Strand et al. RMD Open 2019;5:e000808.[2]Strand et al. RMD Open 2019;5:e000806.[3]Mease et al. NEJM 2017;377:1537-50.[4]Gladman et al. NEJM 2017;377:1525-36.[5]Helliwell et al. Arthritis Res Ther 2018;20:242.Acknowledgments:Study sponsored by Pfizer Inc. Medical writing support was provided by Eric Comeau of CMC Connect and funded by Pfizer Inc.Disclosure of Interests:Dafna D Gladman Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen Inc., BMS, Celgene Corporation, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB – grant/research support, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen Inc., BMS, Celgene Corporation, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB – consultant, Laura C Coates: None declared, Joseph Wu Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Lara Fallon Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Ming-Ann Hsu Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Andrew G Bushmakin Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Elizabeth Bacci Employee of: Evidera, Joseph C Cappelleri Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Philip Helliwell: None declared

Objectives To describe characteristics, treatment patterns and persistence in patients with RA treated with tofacitinib, an oral Janus kinase inhibitor, in Canadian clinical practice between 1 June 2014 and 31 May 2017. Methods Data were obtained from the tofacitinib eXel support programme. Baseline demographics and medication history were collected via patient report/special authorization forms; reasons for discontinuation were captured by patient report. Treatment persistence was estimated using Kaplan–Meier methods, with data censored at last follow-up. Cox regression was applied to analyse baseline characteristics associated with treatment discontinuation. Results The number of patients with RA enrolled from 2014 to 2017 was 4276; tofacitinib utilization increased during that period, as did the proportion of biologic (b) DMARD-naïve patients prescribed tofacitinib. Of patients who initiated tofacitinib, 1226/3678 (33.3%) discontinued, mostly from lack of efficacy (35.7%) and adverse events (26.9%). Persistence was 62.7% and 49.6% after 1 and 2 years of treatment, respectively. Prior bDMARD experience predicted increased tofacitinib discontinuation (vs bDMARD-naïve, P < 0.001). Increased retention was associated with older age (56–65 years and >65 years vs ⩽45 years; P < 0.05), and time since diagnosis of 15 to 730, 613, 667 and 592 days, respectively. Conclusion Since 2014, tofacitinib use in Canadian patients with RA increased, especially among bDMARD-naïve/post-1 bDMARD patients. Median drug survival was ∼2 years. Likelihood of persistence increased for bDMARD-naïve (vs bDMARD-experienced) patients and those aged ⩾56 (vs ⩽45) years.

Background Previous analyses have indicated misalignment between Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) patients and their physicians can be frequent, and can result in worse disease severity and health-related quality of life1,2. Factors associated with this misalignment have not been determined. Objectives To assess patient-physician misalignment regarding satisfaction with PsA disease control and identify factors associated with this misalignment. Methods Data were drawn from the Adelphi PsA Disease Specific Programme, a real-world survey conducted in 2015 across the US, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK. Patients had physician-confirmed PsA and had to have been receiving their current synthetic-DMARD (biologic naive) or biologic therapy for at least 6 months. Physicians and patients independently provided information on satisfaction with disease control on a 5-point scale (very satisfied/satisfied/neither/dissatisfied/very dissatisfied). Physician and patient reports of satisfaction were compared to assess levels of misalignment. Physicians also provided information on demographics and disease history/severity. Patients provided information on involvement in treatment decisions, EuroQol-5D Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-5D), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) and Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI). Factors associated with misalignment were analysed by a multivariate logistic regression modelled using predictors identified as significant in univariate logistic regression. Data entered in the analyses included demographics, time diagnosed, treatment history, disease severity, flaring, pain, patient-reported involvement in treatment decisions, EQ-5D, WPAI, HAQ-DI. Results 519 physicians (331 rheums, 188 derms) provided data for 2467 PsA patients, 656 meeting all inclusion criteria. Mean age was 49.9 (SD 12.1) years, mean disease duration 6.7 (6.2) years, 53.8% patients were male and 66.1% employed. Satisfaction with disease control was generally high amongst both patients (78.3%) and physicians (91.9%) with alignment in 79.4% of cases. In 16.8% of cases there was misalignment where patients were dissatisfied but physicians satisfied. Multivariate logistic regression showed that worse HAQ-DI (OR [95% CI]: 0.54 [0.38–0.77], p=0.001), worse EQ-VAS (OR 1.03 [1.02–1.04], p Conclusions Satisfaction with disease control was generally high for both patients and physicians; however, misalignment was not rare. Patients had higher levels of symptoms/increased impact on activities where there was misalignment. An independent factor associated with misalignment was patient-perceived involvement in condition management. Improving patient-physician engagement in overall disease management may lead to greater patient satisfaction and patient-physician alignment. References [1] Desthieux C, et al. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)2017Oct;69(10):1606–1611. [2] Furst DE, et al. Clin Rheumatol2017Sep;36(9):2045–2054. Disclosure of Interest L. Gossec Grant/research support from: UCB, Lilly, Pfizer, BMS, Consultant for: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche UCB, A.-M. Orbai Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Horizon, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Consultant for: Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, S. Lobosco Employee of: Adelphi Real World, R. Moon Employee of: Adelphi Real World, O. Massey Employee of: Adelphi Real World, J. Piercy Employee of: Adelphi Real World, J. Cappelleri Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: Pfizer, L. Fallon Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: Pfizer, P. Young Employee of: Pfizer, A. Romero Employee of: Pfizer, M.-A. Hsu Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: Pfizer

Background With the availability of a greater range of Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) treatment options, it is increasingly necessary to understand their use and impact on disease control in real-world practice. Objectives To assess treatment patterns and their impact on clinical outcomes among PsA patients currently receiving conventional/targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (cs/tsDMARD) or biologic DMARD (bDMARD). Methods A point in time survey was conducted in 2015 across the US, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and UK. Patients had physician-confirmed PsA and had to have been receiving their current cs/tsDMARD (bio naive) or bDMARD (1st or 2nd line) for ≥6 months. Physicians provided information on demographics, treatment history, disease severity, clinical measures included body surface area (BSA), joint count, flare/remission status. Student t-tests, Pearson’s chi-squared and Fisher’s exact tests were used to compare physician-reported patient profile variables, clinical status and treatment outcomes. Results 519 physicians (331 rheums,188 derms) provided data for 2467 PsA patients, 1463 of whom met the inclusion criteria (1136 EU, 327 US). No significant differences were observed between EU and US patients in demographics (male 52.6%, mean age 49.0 years), disease duration 6.3 years; disease severity 29.1% moderate to severe). In the EU, 32.3% patients were on cs/tsDMARDs, 55.4% 1st-line bDMARD, 12.3% 2nd-line bDMARD vs 21.7%, 58.4%, 19.9% respectively in the US. Time in months (mo) from diagnosis to first cs/tsDMARD was similar in the EU and US (EU mean 4.7 mo; US 8.1 mo, p=0.24), from 1st cs/tsDMARD to 1st bio (EU 37.4 mo; US 29.4 mo, p=0.15). Patients in the EU received more cs/tsDMARDs prior to bDMARD initiation than US patients (mean 1.4 v 0.8; p Patients receiving cs/tsDMARDs had a worse clinical profile than those on 1st-line bDMARD in all areas other than joint count. Patients on 2nd-line bDMARD had more symptoms, more affected joints and more likely to flare vs 1st-line bDMARD. They had more affected joints but were less likely to flare vs cs/tsDMARD. These findings were directionally similar in the EU and US (table 1). BSA was higher for cs/tsDMARD patients than for any bDMARD patients. Conclusions Only 39%–60% of patients were considered by physicians as in remission, revealing a considerable unmet need in both the EU and US in patients treated with cs/tsDMARDs and bDMARDs. Further research is needed to identify patients on cs/tsDMARDs who may be a candidate for advanced therapy and to recognise patients who might fail on bDMARD who therefore may benefit from a different therapeutic alternative. Disclosure of Interest A.-M. Orbai Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Horizon, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Consultant for: Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, L. Gossec Grant/research support from: UCB, Lilly, Pfizer, BMS, Consultant for: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche UCB, S. Lobosco Employee of: Adelphi Real World, R. Moon Employee of: Adelphi Real World, O. Massey Employee of: Adelphi Real World, J. Piercy Employee of: Adelphi Real World, J. Cappelleri Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: Pfizer, L. Fallon Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: Pfizer, P. Young Employee of: Pfizer, A. Romero Employee of: Pfizer, M.-A. Hsu Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: Pfizer