Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background The occurrence of health events preceding a psoriatic arthritis (PsA) diagnosis may serve as predictors of diagnosis. We sought to assess patients’ real-world experiences in obtaining a PsA diagnosis. Methods This retrospective cohort study analyzed MarketScan claims data from January 2006 to April 2019. Included were adult patients with ≥ 2 PsA diagnoses (ICD-9-CM/ICD-10-CM) ≥ 30 days apart with ≥ 6 years of continuous enrolment before PsA diagnosis. Controls were matched 2:1 to patients with PsA. Health events (diagnoses and provider types) were analyzed before PsA diagnosis and additionally stratified by presence of psoriasis. Results Of 13,661 patients, those with PsA had an increased history of coding for arthritis and dermatologic issues (osteoarthritis [48% vs 22%], rheumatoid arthritis [18% vs 2%], and psoriasis [61% vs 2%]) vs those without PsA. Diagnoses of arthritis, axial symptoms, and tendonitis/enthesitis increased over time preceding PsA diagnosis; notably, a sharp rise in psoriasis diagnoses was observed 6 months before PsA diagnosis. Rheumatology consults were more common immediately preceding a PsA diagnosis. Dermatologists were unlikely to code for arthritis and musculoskeletal issues, while rheumatologists were unlikely to code for psoriasis; general practitioners focused on axial and musculoskeletal symptoms. PsA was most commonly diagnosed by rheumatologists (40%), general practitioners (22%), and dermatologists (7%). Conclusions Rheumatologists, general practitioners, and dermatologists diagnosed two thirds of patients with PsA. Musculoskeletal symptoms were common preceding a PsA diagnosis. Greater awareness of patterns of health events may alert healthcare providers to suspect a diagnosis of PsA.

Treatment guidance and real-world data assessing the management and burden of isolated proctitis (IP) are limited. We aimed to understand disease burden in ulcerative colitis (UC) patients with different degrees of disease extension, focusing on IP. A cross-sectional survey, with retrospective data collection, of physicians and their consulting patients was conducted in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States between January 2020 and March 2021. Data were drawn from the Adelphi Real World UC Disease Specific Programme™. Physicians reported clinical presentation and treatment history for patients with UC. Patients were stratified according to their disease extension into IP (non-refractory (never received an immunomodulator (IM)/advanced therapy (AT)) or refractory (received an IM/AT)) and more extensive UC (MEUC) groups. Analyses were descriptive. Among patients with IP (  = 221) and MEUC (  = 1607), respectively, the most common symptoms were abdominal pain (33.8% and 26.0%), bowel urgency (22.7% and 23.6%), and fatigue (22.7% and 23.8%). Physicians also commonly reported passing mucus (19.0%), tenesmus (15.7%), and rectal bleeding (15.3%) among patients with IP. Following diagnosis, 21.3% of IP and 42.8% of MEUC patients had received an IM, and 33.5% of IP and 68.9% of MEUC patients had received an AT. According to derived total Mayo scores, at consultation, 40.3% (95% confidence interval: 33.7, 47.1) of IP and 50.4% (47.9, 52.9) of MEUC patients were in remission; the lowest proportion of patients in remission was among refractory IP patients (35.0% (25.8, 45.0)). Patients with IP experienced a range of symptoms, with many requiring treatment beyond the guideline-recommended first-line conventional therapies. In addition, the majority of IP patients with IM and/or AT experience were not in remission.

Background To describe variations in treatment patterns, clinical outcomes, patient-reported outcomes (PRO), and physician and patient satisfaction in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC) treated with tofacitinib in a real-world setting. Methods Data were drawn from the Adelphi UC Disease Specific Programme™, a point-in-time survey of physicians and their consulting patients in the US and Europe. For inclusion in this analysis, gastroenterologists completed medical record forms for the next seven consecutive consulting patients with confirmed UC, plus a further two patient record forms for patients treated with tofacitinib. Those same patients then completed a patient-reported questionnaire. Results Gastroenterologists (n = 340) provided data for 2049 patients with UC, including 642 patients receiving tofacitinib. Physicians’ most frequent reason for choosing tofacitinib was overall efficacy (71.3% of patients). The proportion of patients in remission increased with length of treatment, from 13.7% at [0, 4) weeks to 68.3% at [52 + ] weeks. Both physicians and patients reported that the Mayo components of stool frequency and blood in stool were reduced with time on treatment. Improvement in symptoms (bloody diarrhea, abdominal pain/cramps, urgency, rectal bleeding, fatigue/tiredness) was reported in the first weeks of treatment, and increased with time. At week [52 + ] , mean score reductions from treatment initiation to current in overall symptom severity, pain, and fatigue were 2.2 (to a current mean score of 1.1), 2.2 (to 0.9), and 2.1 (to 1.0), respectively. Comparing patients at weeks [0, 4) and [52 + ] (all PROs, p  < 0.0001), the increase in EQ-5D-5L index total score was 0.29 points and in SIBDQ total score was 20.5 points; percent reductions in WPAI absenteeism was 34.4%, presenteeism 26.8%, overall work impairment 40.9% and activity impairment was 28.3%. These changes reached the thresholds for minimally clinically important differences. The majority of physicians (91.9%) and patients (93.5%) were satisfied with tofacitinib at week [52 + ] . Conclusion Patients with moderate-to-severe UC treated with tofacitinib show considerable improvement in symptoms and quality of life from tofacitinib initiation to one year and beyond, with high rates of remission. Physicians and patients report satisfaction with UC control at recommended doses in a mostly biologic experienced population.

ObjectivesSeveral therapies are used for the treatment of rareautoinflammatory conditions like cryopyrin-associated periodic fever syndromes (CAPS), hyperimmunoglobulin Dsyndrome (HIDS)/mevalonate kinase deficiency (MKD) and tumour necrosis factor receptor-associated periodic syndrome (TRAPS). However, reviews reporting on treatment outcomes of these therapies are lacking.MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted using Embase, MEDLINE, MEDLINE-In Process and Cochrane databases to identify the randomised/non-randomised controlled trials (RCTs/non-RCTs) and real-world observational studies of CAPS, HIDS/MKD and TRAPS published as full-texts (January 2000–September 2017) or conference abstracts (January 2014–September 2017). Studies with data for ≥1 biologic were included. Studies with <5 patients were excluded.ResultsOf the 3 342 retrieved publications, 72 studies were included (CAPS, n=43; HIDS/MKD, n=9; TRAPS, n=7; studies with ≥2 cohorts, n=13). Most studies were full-text (n=56), published after 2010 (n=56) and real-world observational studies (n=58). Among included studies, four were RCTs (canakinumab, n=2 (CAPS, n=1; HIDS/MKD and TRAPS, n=1); rilonacept, n=1 (in CAPS); simvastatin, n=1 (in HIDS/MKD)). Canakinumab and anakinra were the most commonly used therapies for CAPS and HIDS/MKD, whereas etanercept, canakinumab and anakinra were the most common for TRAPS. The available evidence suggested the efficacy or effectiveness of canakinumab and anakinra in CAPS, HIDS/MKD and TRAPS, and of etanercept in TRAPS; asingle RCT demonstrated the efficacy of rilonacept in CAPS.ConclusionsCanakinumab, anakinra, etanercept and rilonacept were reported to be well tolerated; however, injection-site reactions were observed frequently with anakinra, rilonacept and etanercept. Data on the use of tocilizumab, infliximab and adalimumab in these conditions were limited; thus, further research is warranted.

Background There are limited real-world data on the diagnostic experiences of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), including medical care sought and potential barriers to diagnosis. We aim to describe patient experiences related to receiving a PsA diagnosis. Methods Ours was a mixed-method, 2-phase study. Phase 1 comprised concept elicitation and cognitive interviews with clinical experts and adults diagnosed with PsA to develop a cross sectional, web-based survey. US adults with a self-reported PsA diagnosis were recruited through a patient support community (CreakyJoints), an online patient research registry (ArthritisPower), and social media outreach. In Phase 2, the online survey collected data on sociodemographics, clinical symptoms, disease burden, and diagnosis history of survey respondents with PsA. Results Of the 203 respondents included, 172 (84.7%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 51.6 (10.8) years. The time between seeking medical attention and receiving a diagnosis was < 6 months for 69 respondents, 6 months to 4 years for 68 respondents, and ≥ 5 years for 66 respondents. Most respondents sought care from general practitioners (79.8%) and rheumatologists (66.5%). Common initial symptoms that led respondents to seek medical attention were joint pain (70.0%) and stiffness (53.7%). Among the initial symptoms that led respondents to seek care, joint pain, swollen joints, and sausage-like fingers or toes (indicating dactylitis) were more common among respondents with shorter time to diagnosis, whereas stiffness, fatigue, enthesitis (indicated by foot problems, tendon and ligament pain), and back pain were more common among respondents with longer time to diagnosis. Common misdiagnoses were psychosomatic issues (26.6%) and osteoarthritis (21.7%). Respondents with shorter times to diagnosis had lower frequencies of misdiagnosis. Conclusions Respondents with PsA reported delays in diagnosis and misdiagnoses on their journey to a PsA diagnosis. Symptom differences, such as enthesitis and stiffness, were noted among respondents with shorter vs longer time to diagnosis. Increased understanding of diagnostic barriers may lead to earlier diagnosis and appropriate management to improve outcomes.

Introduction Real-world studies describing biosimilar initiation or switching in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are limited. The aim of this study was to assess treatment patterns and effectiveness of real-world patients with RA initiating infliximab biosimilar IFX-dyyb (CT-P13; Inflectra ® ) in the USA. Methods This observational study evaluated patients with RA from the CorEvitas RA Registry who initiated IFX-dyyb and had Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) recorded at baseline and 6 months. The primary outcome was reaching low disease activity (LDA; CDAI ≤ 10) at 6 months in patients with moderate or high disease activity (CDAI > 10) at baseline. Secondary outcomes were change at 6 months in CDAI and certain patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Patient data were stratified by prior treatment: biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (tsDMARD)-naïve, reference infliximab (IFX-REF) or IFX biosimilar, or a non-IFX biologic or tsDMARD. Results Of 318 patients initiating IFX-dyyb, 176 had baseline and 6-month CDAI scores; 73 (41%) switched from IFX, 61 (35%) switched from another non-IFX/biologic/tsDMARD, 32 (18%) were naïve to biologics/tsDMARDs, and 10 (6%) switched from an IFX biosimilar. Among patients with moderate or high disease activity at baseline, 32.9% (95% CI 22.9, 42.9) achieved LDA at 6 months. Mean 6-month change from baseline in CDAI was − 1.8 (95% CI − 3.3, − 0.3) overall; − 4.7 (− 7.6, − 1.7) in patients who switched from a non-IFX biologic/tsDMARD, − 4.1 (− 7.8, − 0.3) in biologic/tsDMARD-naïve patients, and 1.1 (− 0.4, 2.6) in patients who switched from IFX-REF/IFX biosimilar. Other clinical outcomes/PROs improved at 6 months. Of the IFX-dyyb initiators, 68% remained on IFX-dyyb at 6 months. Conclusion In this real-world population of patients with RA initiating IFX-dyyb, the majority switched from IFX-REF or a non-IFX biologic/tsDMARD. CDAI remained stable in patients switching from IFX-REF/IFX biosimilar and improved in patients switching from a non-IFX biologic/tsDMARD and in biologic/tsDMARD-naïve patients. Plain Language Summary Infliximab is an effective treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Biosimilars—biologic drugs designed to be very similar to the originator products—are now available that may be more affordable with matching efficacy and safety. IFX-dyyb is a US Food and Drug Administration-approved infliximab biosimilar but little is known about its use in real-world clinical practice in patients with RA in the USA. This study used data from a large observational registry to look at treatment patterns and effectiveness of IFX-dyyb in adults with RA. One hundred and seventy-six patients were included who had data available at both baseline and at 6 months. Most patients (47%) switched to IFX-dyyb from the originator infliximab or another infliximab biosimilar; 35% switched from another RA treatment, and 18% were new to treatment. Six months after starting IFX-dyyb, 68% of patients were still receiving treatment. A measure of clinical disease activity remained stable in patients who switched from originator infliximab or another biosimilar, while this measure improved in patients switching to IFX-dyyb from other treatments or starting treatment for the first time. Other clinical measures and patient-reported outcomes such as pain and fatigue also improved over 6 months with IFX-dyyb. This real-world study of patients with RA initiating IFX-dyyb in the USA adds to our knowledge of the use of biosimilars in this patient population.

ObjectiveTo examine patterns of tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) use in TNFi-naive and TNFi-experienced patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in the USA.MethodsAll patients aged ≥18 years with PsA enrolled in the Corrona Psoriatic Arthritis/Spondyloarthritis Registry who initiated a TNFi (index therapy) between March 2013 and January 2017 and had ≥1 follow-up visit were included. Times to and rates of discontinuation/switch of the index TNFi were compared between TNFi-naive and TNFi-experienced cohorts. Patient demographics and disease characteristics at the time of TNFi initiation (baseline) were compared between cohorts and between patients who continued versus discontinued their index TNFi by the first follow-up visit within each cohort.ResultsThis study included 171 TNFi-naive and 147 TNFi-experienced patients (total follow-up, 579.2 person-years). Overall, 75 of 171 TNFi-naive (43.9%) and 80 of 147 TNFi-experienced (54.4%) patients discontinued their index TNFi; 33 of 171 (19.3%) and 48 of 147 (32.7%), respectively, switched to a new biologic. TNFi-experienced patients had a shorter time to discontinuation (median, 20 vs 27 months) and were more likely to discontinue (p=0.03) or switch (p<0.01) compared with TNFi-naive patients. Among those who discontinued, 49 of 75 TNFi-naive (65.3%) and 59 of 80 TNFi-experienced (73.8%) patients discontinued by the first follow-up visit; such patients showed a trend towards higher baseline disease activity compared with those who continued.ConclusionsThe results of this real-world study can help inform treatment decisions when selecting later lines of therapy for patients with PsA.

Background Although canakinumab has demonstrated efficacy in multiple trials in patients with periodic fever syndromes (PFS), the evidence on initiation of canakinumab among PFS patients in real world setting is not well understood. We aimed to characterize the reasons for canakinumab initiation among patients with PFS, specifically, cryopyrin-associated periodic syndrome (CAPS), hyperimmunoglobulin D syndrome/mevalonate kinase deficiency (HIDS/MKD), TNF receptor-associated periodic syndrome (TRAPS) and familial Mediterranean fever (FMF). Methods Physicians retrospectively reviewed the medical charts of PFS patients prescribed canakinumab between 2016 and 2018. Information collected included patient clinical characteristics, reasons for previous treatment discontinuation and canakinumab initiation. The results were summarized for overall patients, and by children (< 18 years) and adults and by subtype of PFS. Results Fifty-eight physicians in the US (rheumatologists, 44.8 %; allergists/immunologists, 29.3 %; dermatologists, 25.9 %) abstracted information for 147 patients (children, 46.3 %; males, 57.1 %; CAPS, 36.7 %; TRAPS, 26.5 %; FMF, 26.5 %; HIDS/MKD, 6.8 %; Mixed, 3.4 %). Overall, most patients (90.5 %) received treatment directly preceding canakinumab (NSAIDs, 27.8 % [40.0 % in HIDS/MKD]; anakinra, 24.1 % [32.7 % in CAPS]; colchicine, 21.8 % [35.9 % in FMF]), which were discontinued due to lack of efficacy/effectiveness (39.5 %) and availability of a new treatment (36.1 %). The common reasons for canakinumab initiation were physician perceived efficacy/effectiveness (81.0 %; children, 75.0 %; adults, 86.1 %), lack of response to previous treatment (40.8 %; children, 38.2 %; adults, 43.0 %) and favorable safety profile/tolerability (40.1 %; children, 42.6 %; adults, 38.0 %). Within subtypes, efficacy/effectiveness was the most stated reason for canakinumab initiation in HIDS/MKD (90.9 %), lack of response to previous treatment in FMF (52.4 %) and convenience of administration/dosing in CAPS (27.1 %). Conclusions This study provided insights into how canakinumab is initiated in US clinical practice among PFS patients, with physician perceived efficacy/effectiveness of canakinumab, lack of response to previous treatment and favorable safety profile/tolerability of canakinumab being the dominant reasons for canakinumab initiation in all patients and in children and adults and PFS subtypes. Notably, the favorable safety profile/tolerability of canakinumab was more often the reason for initiation among children versus adults.

IntroductionSecukinumab is a fully human anti-interleukin 17A monoclonal antibody approved for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in the United States. Few studies have investigated prescribing patterns among rheumatologists who have initiated secukinumab for the treatment of patients with PsA in real-world settings. This US medical chart review describes clinical and treatment characteristics of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were prescribed secukinumab and rheumatologist-reported reasons for prescribing secukinumab in clinical practice.MethodsThis US medical chart review included patients with physician-diagnosed PsA aged ≥ 18 years initiating secukinumab after January 15, 2016. Eligible rheumatologists used online forms to collect patient demographics, disease characteristics, comorbidity profiles, and treatment histories before or on the date of the first secukinumab prescription recorded in the medical chart. Information on reasons for secukinumab prescription and dosing was also collected.ResultsMedical charts from 153 patients with PsA who initiated secukinumab were reviewed by 46 rheumatologists between July 7, 2017, and August 11, 2017. Overall, 53.6% of patients were male, mean (standard deviation) age was 47.3 (11.5) years, and 24.8% were biologic naive. The most common reasons for secukinumab prescription among biologic-naive and biologic-experienced patients, respectively, were efficacy/effectiveness of secukinumab (84.2%) and failure of other prior biologics (80.9%). Nearly all patients (94.1%) received a loading regimen, including 150 mg every week (32.7%) and 300 mg every week (61.4%). Overall, 145 patients (94.8%) received ≥ 1 maintenance dose, of whom 49.7% received 150 mg every 4 weeks and 50.3% received 300 mg every 4 weeks.ConclusionsAt the time of the chart review, most patients with PsA who initiated secukinumab were biologic experienced, although one-quarter received secukinumab as first-line biologic therapy. Efficacy/effectiveness of secukinumab and failure of other biologics were the most common reasons for initiating secukinumab.FundingNovartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ.Plain Language SummaryPlain language summary available for this article.