Explore the vast range of titles available.

\"Preface This book started out as an interesting set of conversations with some very insightful and intelligent people. For twenty-five years, I've studied supply chains in almost every industry, including oil and gas, automotive, electronics, industrial production, and even financial services. And every time I met with executives, I met with the same statements: \"We're different-- you don't understand.\" But in the end, after spending enough time with these executives, it became clear that the same principles of supply chain management applied. Perhaps a different context, different terminology, but in the end, the same rules applied. When I started dabbling in healthcare, I originally encountered the same sets of objections. \"Healthcare is different,\" I would hear, \"After all, you have to consider the patient.\" But as I spent more and more time with healthcare executives, I only rarely heard the patient mentioned in the discussion. More often than not, the discussion focused on compliance, reimbursement, diagnosis-related groups (DRGs), and other terms that had very little to do with patient care. And as I studied the industry more, it became clear that organizations in the healthcare value chain, from the patient through hospitals, wholesalers, through insurance payers, manufacturers, and finally research and development (R&D), were not very well connected at all\"-- Provided by publisher.

ObjectiveTo estimate the incidence of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients with psoriasis who had received a continuous treatment with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) compared with phototherapy.MethodsA retrospective non-randomised study involving patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, who were prescribed at least 5 years of bDMARDs or at least three narrow-band ultraviolet light B (nb-UVB) phototherapy courses, and did not have a diagnosis of PsA at enrolment. Development of PsA in each patient was assessed by a rheumatologist according to the Classification for Psoriatic Arthritis criteria. The annual and cumulative incidence rate of PsA was estimated by using an event per person-years analysis. Cox proportional hazards models were undertaken to assess the hazard risk (HR) of PsA after adjustment for confounders.ResultsA total of 464 psoriatic patients (bDMARDs, n=234 and nb-UVB, n=230) were followed between January 2012 and September 2020 (corresponding to 1584 and 1478 person year of follow-up for the two groups, respectively). The annual incidence rate of PsA was 1.20 cases (95% CI 0.77 to 1.89) versus 2.17 cases (95% CI 1.53 to 3.06) per 100 patients/year in the bDMARDs versus phototherapy group, respectively (HR 0.29, 0.12–0.70; p=0.006). The variables independently associated with higher risk of PsA were older age (adjusted HR 1.04, 1.02–1.07), nail psoriasis (adjusted HR 3.15, 1.63–6.06) and psoriasis duration >10 years (adjusted HR 2.02, 1.09–3.76); notably, bDMARDs treatment was associated with a lower risk of incident PsA (adjusted HR 0.27, 0.11–0.66).ConclusionsbDMARDs treatment may delay or reduce the risk of incident PsA in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis.

In an analysis of the primary outcome of this phase 3 trial, patients with early relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma who received axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel), an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, as second-line treatment had significantly longer event-free survival than those who received standard care. Data were needed on longer-term outcomes. In this trial, we randomly assigned patients with early relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma in a 1:1 ratio to receive either axi-cel or standard care (two to three cycles of chemoimmunotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell transplantation in patients who had a response). The primary outcome was event-free survival, and key secondary outcomes were response and overall survival. Here, we report the results of the prespecified overall survival analysis at 5 years after the first patient underwent randomization. A total of 359 patients underwent randomization to receive axi-cel (180 patients) or standard care (179 patients). At a median follow-up of 47.2 months, death had been reported in 82 patients in the axi-cel group and in 95 patients in the standard-care group. The median overall survival was not reached in the axi-cel group and was 31.1 months in the standard-care group; the estimated 4-year overall survival was 54.6% and 46.0%, respectively (hazard ratio for death, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54 to 0.98; P = 0.03 by stratified two-sided log-rank test). This increased survival with axi-cel was observed in the intention-to-treat population, which included 74% of patients with primary refractory disease and other high-risk features. The median investigator-assessed progression-free survival was 14.7 months in the axi-cel group and 3.7 months in the standard-care group, with estimated 4-year percentages of 41.8% and 24.4%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.67). No new treatment-related deaths had occurred since the primary analysis of event-free survival. At a median follow-up of 47.2 months, axi-cel as second-line treatment for patients with early relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma resulted in significantly longer overall survival than standard care. (Funded by Kite; ZUMA-7 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03391466.).

AbstractObjectiveTo evaluate and compare benefits and harms of three biological treatments with different modes of action versus active conventional treatment in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis.DesignInvestigator initiated, randomised, open label, blinded assessor, multiarm, phase IV study.SettingTwenty nine rheumatology departments in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, the Netherlands, and Iceland between 2012 and 2018.ParticipantsPatients aged 18 years and older with treatment naive rheumatoid arthritis, symptom duration less than 24 months, moderate to severe disease activity, and rheumatoid factor or anti-citrullinated protein antibody positivity, or increased C reactive protein.InterventionsRandomised 1:1:1:1, stratified by country, sex, and anti-citrullinated protein antibody status. All participants started methotrexate combined with (a) active conventional treatment (either prednisolone tapered to 5 mg/day, or sulfasalazine combined with hydroxychloroquine and intra-articular corticosteroids), (b) certolizumab pegol, (c) abatacept, or (d) tocilizumab.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was adjusted clinical disease activity index remission (CDAI≤2.8) at 24 weeks with active conventional treatment as the reference. Key secondary outcomes and analyses included CDAI remission at 12 weeks and over time, other remission criteria, a non-inferiority analysis, and harms.Results812 patients underwent randomisation. The mean age was 54.3 years (standard deviation 14.7) and 68.8% were women. Baseline disease activity score of 28 joints was 5.0 (standard deviation 1.1). Adjusted 24 week CDAI remission rates were 42.7% (95% confidence interval 36.1% to 49.3%) for active conventional treatment, 46.5% (39.9% to 53.1%) for certolizumab pegol, 52.0% (45.5% to 58.6%) for abatacept, and 42.1% (35.3% to 48.8%) for tocilizumab. Corresponding absolute differences were 3.9% (95% confidence interval −5.5% to 13.2%) for certolizumab pegol, 9.4% (0.1% to 18.7%) for abatacept, and −0.6% (−10.1% to 8.9%) for tocilizumab. Key secondary outcomes showed no major differences among the four treatments. Differences in CDAI remission rates for active conventional treatment versus certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not abatacept, remained within the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 15% (per protocol population). The total number of serious adverse events was 13 (percentage of patients who experienced at least one event 5.6%) for active conventional treatment, 20 (8.4%) for certolizumab pegol, 10 (4.9%) for abatacept, and 10 (4.9%) for tocilizumab. Eleven patients treated with abatacept stopped treatment early compared with 20-23 patients in the other arms.ConclusionsAll four treatments achieved high remission rates. Higher CDAI remission rate was observed for abatacept versus active conventional treatment, but not for certolizumab pegol or tocilizumab versus active conventional treatment. Other remission rates were similar across treatments. Non-inferiority analysis indicated that active conventional treatment was non-inferior to certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not to abatacept. The results highlight the efficacy and safety of active conventional treatment based on methotrexate combined with corticosteroids, with nominally better results for abatacept, in treatment naive early rheumatoid arthritis.Trial registrationEudraCT2011-004720-35, NCT01491815.

Risankizumab, an interleukin (IL)-23 p19 inhibitor, was evaluated for safety and efficacy as induction therapy in patients with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease. ADVANCE and MOTIVATE were randomised, double-masked, placebo-controlled, phase 3 induction studies. Eligible patients aged 16–80 years with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease, previously showing intolerance or inadequate response to one or more approved biologics or conventional therapy (ADVANCE) or to biologics (MOTIVATE), were randomly assigned to receive a single dose of intravenous risankizumab (600 mg or 1200 mg) or placebo (2:2:1 in ADVANCE, 1:1:1 in MOTIVATE) at weeks 0, 4, and 8. We used interactive response technology for random assignment, with stratification by number of previous failed biologics, corticosteroid use at baseline, and Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's disease (SES-CD). All patients and study personnel (excluding pharmacists who prepared intravenous solutions) were masked to treatment allocation throughout the study. Coprimary endpoints were clinical remission (defined by Crohn's disease activity index [CDAI] or patient-reported outcome criteria [average daily stool frequency and abdominal pain score]) and endoscopic response at week 12. The intention-to-treat population (all eligible patients who received at least one dose of study drug in the 12-week induction period) was analysed for efficacy outcomes. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. Both trials were registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03105128 (ADVANCE) and NCT03104413 (MOTIVATE), and are now complete. Participants were enrolled between May 10, 2017, and Aug 24, 2020 (ADVANCE trial), and Dec 18, 2017 and Sept 9, 2020 (MOTIVATE trial). In ADVANCE, 931 patients were assigned to either risankizumab 600 mg (n=373), risankizumab 1200 mg (n=372), or placebo (n=186). In MOTIVATE, 618 patients were assigned to risankizumab 600 mg (n=206), risankizumab 1200 mg (n=205), or placebo (n=207). The primary analysis population comprised 850 participants in ADVANCE and 569 participants in MOTIVATE. All coprimary endpoints at week 12 were met in both trials with both doses of risankizumab (p values ≤0·0001). In ADVANCE, CDAI clinical remission rate was 45% (adjusted difference 21%, 95% CI 12–29; 152/336) with risankizumab 600 mg and 42% (17%, 8–25; 141/339) with risankizumab 1200 mg versus 25% (43/175) with placebo; stool frequency and abdominal pain score clinical remission rate was 43% (22%, 14–30; 146/336) with risankizumab 600 mg and 41% (19%, 11–27; 139/339) with risankizumab 1200 mg versus 22% (38/175) with placebo; and endoscopic response rate was 40% (28%, 21–35; 135/336) with risankizumab 600 mg and 32% (20%, 14–27; 109/339) with risankizumab 1200 mg versus 12% (21/175) with placebo. In MOTIVATE, CDAI clinical remission rate was 42% (22%, 13–31; 80/191) with risankizumab 600 mg and 40% (21%, 12–29; 77/191) with risankizumab 1200 mg versus 20% (37/187) with placebo; stool frequency and abdominal pain score clinical remission rate was 35% (15%, 6–24; 66/191) with risankizumab 600 mg and 40% (20%, 12–29; 76/191) with risankizumab 1200 mg versus 19% (36/187) with placebo; and endoscopic response rate was 29% (18%, 10–25; 55/191) with risankizumab 600 mg and 34% (23%, 15–31; 65/191) with risankizumab 1200 mg versus 11% (21/187) with placebo. The overall incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar among the treatment groups in both trials. Three deaths occurred during induction (two in the placebo group [ADVANCE] and one in the risankizumab 1200 mg group [MOTIVATE]). The death in the risankizumab-treated patient was deemed unrelated to the study drug. Risankizumab was effective and well tolerated as induction therapy in patients with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease. AbbVie.

Antibodies targeting interleukin (IL)-23 and IL-17A effectively treat moderate-to-severe psoriasis. ECLIPSE is the first comparator study of an IL-23p19 inhibitor, guselkumab, versus an IL-17A inhibitor, secukinumab. The primary objective of this study was to show superiority of clinical response at week 48 for guselkumab versus secukinumab. In this phase 3, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, comparator-controlled trial at 142 outpatient clinical sites in nine countries (Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Spain, and the USA), eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had moderate-to-severe plaque-type psoriasis, and were candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy. Eligible patients were randomly assigned with permuted block randomisation using an interactive web response system to receive either guselkumab (100 mg at weeks 0 and 4 then every 8 weeks) or secukinumab (300 mg at weeks 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4, and then every 4 weeks). The primary endpoint, the proportion of patients in the intention-to-treat population who achieved 90% reduction or more from baseline of Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 90 response) at week 48, and major secondary endpoints (the proportions of patients in the guselkumab group and in the secukinumab group who achieved a PASI 75 response at both weeks 12 and 48, a PASI 90 response at week 12, a PASI 75 response at week 12, a PASI 100 response at week 48, an Investigator's Global Assessment [IGA] score of 0 [cleared] at week 48, and an IGA score of 0 or 1 [minimal] at week 48) were to be tested in a fixed sequence to control type I error rate. Safety was evaluated in patients who received one or more doses of study drug from week 0 to 56. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03090100. This study was done between April 27, 2017, and Sept 20, 2018. 1048 eligible patients were enrolled and, of these, 534 were assigned to receive guselkumab and 514 to receive secukinumab. The proportion of patients with a PASI 90 response at week 48 was greater in the guselkumab group (451 [84%]) than in the secukinumab group (360 [70%]; p<0·0001). Although non-inferiority (margin of 10 percentage points) was established for the first major secondary endpoint (452 [85%] of patients in the guselkumab group vs 412 [80%] of patients in the secukinumab group achieving a PASI 75 response at both weeks 12 and 48), superiority was not established (p=0·0616). Consequently, formal statistical testing was not done for subsequent major secondary endpoints. Proportions of patients with adverse events, infections, and serious adverse events were similar between the two treatments and, in general, safety findings were consistent with registrational trial observations. Guselkumab showed superior long-term efficacy based on PASI 90 at week 48 when compared with secukinumab for treating moderate-to-severe psoriasis. This finding could assist health-care providers in their decision making process when selecting a biologic for treating moderate-to-severe psoriasis. This study was funded by Janssen Research & Development.

Bimekizumab is a monoclonal IgG1 antibody that selectively inhibits interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F. We assessed the efficacy and safety of bimekizumab in patients with active psoriatic arthritis who were naive to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). BE OPTIMAL was a 52-week, phase 3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, active reference (adalimumab) trial done at 135 sites (hospitals, clinics, doctors' offices, and research centres) in 14 countries. Eligible patients were 18 years or older with a documented diagnosis of adult-onset psoriatic arthritis that met the Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis for at least 6 months before screening. Participants were randomly assigned with an interactive-voice and web-response system on the basis of a predetermined randomisation schedule (3:2:1, stratified by region and bone erosion number at baseline) to bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks, placebo every 2 weeks, or the reference group (adalimumab 40 mg every 2 weeks), all administered subcutaneously. At week 16, patients randomly assigned to placebo switched to bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients reaching 50% or greater improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR50) at week 16 (non-responder imputation). Efficacy analyses included all patients who were randomly assigned (intention-to-treat population); the safety analysis set comprised patients who received one or more doses of treatment. Data are presented to week 24 (preplanned analysis). This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03895203. Between April 3, 2019, and Oct 25, 2021, 1163 patients were screened and 852 were randomly assigned to bimekizumab (n=431), placebo (n=281), and reference (adalimumab; n=140) groups. At week 16, significantly more patients receiving bimekizumab (189 [44%] of 431) reached ACR50 response versus placebo (28 [10%] of 281; odds ratio 7·1 [95% CI 4·6–10·9], p<0·0001; adalimumab 64 [46%] of 140). All secondary hierarchical endpoints were met. Treatment-emergent adverse events up to week 16 were reported in 258 [60%] of 431 patients receiving bimekizumab, 139 [49%] of 281 patients receiving placebo, and 83 [59%] of 140 patients receiving adalimumab. No deaths occurred. Bimekizumab treatment had superior improvements in joint, skin, and radiographic efficacy outcomes at week 16 compared with placebo in patients with psoriatic arthritis who were naive to biologic DMARDs. The safety profile of bimekizumab, including the occurrence of fungal infections, was consistent with previous phase 3 studies in patients with plaque psoriasis, and with IL-17A inhibitors. UCB Pharma.

ObjectivesTo compare the benefits of a tight-control/treat-to-target strategy (TC/T2T) in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) with those of usual care (UC).MethodsPragmatic, prospective, cluster-randomised, controlled, open, 1-year trial (NCT03043846). 18 centres were randomised (1:1). Patients met Axial Spondylo Arthritis International Society (ASAS) criteria for axSpA, had an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) ≥2.1, received non-optimal treatment by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and were biologic-naive.Interventions(1) TC/T2T: visits every 4 weeks and prespecified strategy based on treatment intensification until achieving target (ie, ASDAS <2.1); (2) UC: visits every 12 weeks and treatment at the rheumatologist’s discretion.Main outcomePercentage of patients with a ≥30% improvement on the ASAS-Health Index (ASAS-HI). Other efficacy outcomes and adverse events were recorded. A health economic evaluation was performed.Statistical analysisTwo-level mixed models were used to estimate efficacy outcomes. Cost-effectiveness was assessed by the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for TC/T2T versus UC.Results160 patients were included (80/group). Mean (SD) age was 37.9 (11.0) years and disease duration was 3.7 (6.2) years; 51.2% were men. ASDAS at inclusion was 3.0 (0.7), and ASAS-HI was 8.6 (3.7). ASAS-HI improved by ≥30% in 47.3% of the TC/T2T arm and in 36.1% of those receiving UC (non-significant). All secondary efficacy outcomes were more frequent in the TC/T2T arm, although not all statistically significant. Safety was similar in both arms. From a societal perspective, TC/T2T resulted in an additional 0.04 QALY, and saved €472 compared with UC.ConclusionTC/T2T was not significantly superior to UC for the primary outcome, while many secondary efficacy outcomes favoured it, had a similar safety profile and was favourable from a societal health economic perspective.Trial registration number NCT03043846.

Active-comparator trials are important to inform patient and physician choice. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of monotherapy with either ustekinumab or adalimumab in biologic-naive patients with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease. We conducted a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, active-comparator, phase 3b trial (SEAVUE) at 121 hospitals or private practices in 18 countries. We included biologic-naive patients aged 18 years or older with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease and a Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score of 220–450, who had not responded to or were intolerant to conventional therapy (or were corticosteroid dependent) and had at least one ulcer of any size at baseline endoscopic evaluation. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1; via an interactive web response system) to receive ustekinumab (approximately 6 mg/kg intravenously on day 0, then 90 mg subcutaneously once every 8 weeks) or adalimumab (160 mg on day 0, 80 mg at 2 weeks, then 40 mg once every 2 weeks, subcutaneously) through week 56. Study treatments were administered as monotherapy and without dose modifications. Patients, investigators, and study site personnel were masked to treatment group assignment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who were in clinical remission (CDAI score <150) at week 52 in the intention-to-treat population (ie, all patients who were randomly assigned to a treatment group). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03464136, and EudraCT, 2017-004209-41. Between June 28, 2018, and Dec 12, 2019, 633 patients were assessed for eligibility and 386 were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive ustekinumab (n=191) or adalimumab (n=195). 29 (15%) of 191 patients in the ustekinumab group and 46 (24%) of 195 in the adalimumab group discontinued study treatment before week 52. There was no significant difference between the ustekinumab and adalimumab groups in the occurrence of the primary endpoint; at week 52, 124 (65%) of 191 patients in the ustekinumab group versus 119 (61%) of 195 in the adalimumab group were in clinical remission (between-group difference 4%, 95% CI –6 to 14; p=0·42). Safety for both groups was consistent with previous reports. Serious infections were reported in four (2%) of 191 patients in the ustekinumab group and five (3%) of 195 in the adalimumab group. No deaths occurred through week 52 of the study. Both ustekinumab and adalimumab monotherapies were highly effective in this population of biologic-naive patients, with no difference in the primary outcome between the drugs. Janssen Scientific Affairs.

BackgroundUpadacitinib is a Janus kinase inhibitor under evaluation for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). We evaluated upadacitinib in patients with PsA and prior inadequate response or intolerance to at least one biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD).MethodsIn this 24-week randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial, 642 patients were randomised (2:2:1:1) to once per day upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg, placebo followed by upadacitinib 15 mg or placebo followed by upadacitinib 30 mg at week 24. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response at week 12. Achievement of minimal disease activity (MDA) was assessed at week 24. Treatment-emergent adverse events are reported for all patients who received at least one dose of trial drug.ResultsAt week 12, significantly more patients receiving upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg versus placebo achieved ACR20 (56.9% and 63.8% vs 24.1%; p<0.001 for both comparisons). At week 24, MDA was achieved by more upadacitinib 15 mg-treated (25.1%) and 30 mg-treated patients (28.9%) versus placebo (2.8%; p<0.001 for both comparisons). Generally, the rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were similar with placebo and upadacitinib 15 mg and higher with upadacitinib 30 mg at week 24. Rates of serious infections were 0.5%, 0.5% and 2.8% with placebo, upadacitinib 15 mg and upadacitinib 30 mg, respectively.ConclusionIn this trial of patients with active PsA who had inadequate response or intolerance to at least one biologic DMARD, upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg was more effective than placebo over 24 weeks in improving signs and symptoms of PsA.Clinical trial registration number NCT03104374