You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 4, Issue 1
  • Baseline patient characteristics associated with response to biologic therapy in patients with psoriatic arthritis enrolled in the Corrona Psoriatic Arthritis/Spondyloarthritis Registry

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Psoriatic arthritis
Original article
Baseline patient characteristics associated with response to biologic therapy in patients with psoriatic arthritis enrolled in the Corrona Psoriatic Arthritis/Spondyloarthritis Registry
  1. Philip J Mease1,
  2. Chitra Karki2,
  3. Mei Liu2,
  4. Arthur Kavanaugh3,
  5. Christopher T Ritchlin4,
  6. Doquyen Hoa Huynh5,
  7. Jacqueline B Palmer6 and
  8. Jeffrey D Greenberg2,7
  1. 1 Rheumatology Clinical Research Division, Swedish Medical Center and University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
  2. 2 Corrona, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA
  3. 3 University of California San Diego, San Diego, California, USA
  4. 4 Allergy, Immunology and Rheumatology Division, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, USA
  5. 5 Scripps Health, San Diego, California, USA
  6. 6 Novartis Pharmaceuticals, East Hanover, New Jersey, USA
  7. 7 Department of Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, New York University School of Medicine, New York City, New York, USA
  1. Correspondence to Professor Philip J Mease; pmease{at}philipmease.com

Abstract

Objectives To compare baseline characteristics between patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who achieved and did not achieve minimal disease activity (MDA) with biologic therapy in the US-based Corrona Psoriatic Arthritis/Spondyloarthritis Registry.

Methods Patients with PsA aged ≥18 years enrolled between March 2013 and March 2016 who were receiving biologics at enrolment (baseline), not in MDA and had ≥2 follow-up visits were included. Patients were classified as those who remained on their index biologic and achieved MDA at the second follow-up visit (MDA achievers (MDA-A)) and those who did not (MDA non-achievers (MDA-NA)). Demographics, clinical characteristics, patient-reported outcomes and medication history were compared between groups.

Results Of 148 patients with PsA who met the inclusion criteria, 34 (23.0%) and 114 (77.0%) were classified as MDA-A and MDA-NA, respectively. At baseline, most patients (96.6%) were receiving tumour necrosis factor inhibitors, and both groups were similar in age, sex, race, medication history, enthesitis and dactylitis counts, disease duration and comorbidities. Compared with MDA-A, MDA-NA had significantly worse mean tender joint count (7.2 vs 3.4), patient-reported pain (51.2 vs 35.7), patient-reported fatigue (54.1 vs 42.4), physical function (Health Assessment Questionnaire, 1.0 vs 0.6), Bath Ankylosing Disease Activity Index (5.0 vs 3.4) and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (4.0 vs 2.0) scores (all p<0.05).

Conclusions Approximately one in four patients achieved MDA with their index biologic at the time of the second follow-up visit. Both groups were similar in several baseline demographic and clinical features; however, patients who did not achieve MDA generally had worse tender joint counts and patient-reported outcomes.

  • psoriatic arthritis
  • observational study
  • biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs
  • minimal disease activity
  • index biologic

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

https://doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2017-000638

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors All authors participated in the interpretation of data, critical review and final approval of the manuscript.

    • Funding This work was supported by Novartis Pharmaceuticals, East Hanover, NJ. In the last 2 years, AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Crescendo, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Gilead, GSK, Horizon Pharma USA, Janssen, Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sun-Merck, UCB and Valeant have supported Corrona through contracted subscriptions. The study design and conduct were the result of a collaborative effort between Corrona and Novartis, and financial support for the study was provided by Novartis. Novartis participated in the interpretation of data, review and approval of the manuscript.

    • Competing interests PJM has received research grants from Celgene, Novartis, AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Lilly, Pfizer and UCB; and consulting fees from Celgene, Corrona, Novartis, AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Genentech, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Pfizer and UCB; and speakers bureau fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Genentech, Janssen, Pfizer and UCB. ML is an employee of Corrona. CK was an employee of Corrona at the time of this study. AK has conducted clinical research sponsored by Amgen, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. CTR has received research grants from Amgen, Janssen Pharmaceutica Products and UCB; and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, Lilly, Pfizer and UCB. DHH has received speakers bureau fees from AbbVie and Bristol-Myers Squibb. JBP is an employee of Novartis. JDG is an employee and shareholder of Corrona and has received consulting fees from Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Novartis and Pfizer.

    • Patient consent Obtained.

    • Ethics approval The Corrona PsA/SpA Registry and this analysis were approved by local institutional review boards at participating academic sites and a central institutional review board (the New England Institutional Review Board) for private practice sites.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Presented at Portions of this manuscript were based on work previously presented at the 2016 American College of Rheumatology/Association of Rheumatology Health Professionals Annual Meeting (Abstract No 1702).