Improved patient-reported outcomes in psoriatic arthritis patients treated with abatacept: Results from a phase iii trial

Aún no traducido Aún no traducido
Categoría Estudio primario
RevistaAnnals of the Rheumatic Diseases
Año 2017

Este artículo no está incluido en ninguna revisión sistemática

Este artículo es parte de los siguientes hilos de publicación
  • ASTRAEA [Active PSoriaTic ARthritis RAndomizEd TriAl] (10 documentos)
Cargando información sobre las referencias
Background: In the Phase III ASTRAEA study (NCT01860976), abatacept (ABA) significantly increased ACR20 responses, with benefits on other musculoskeletal symptoms in patients (pts) with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA).1 As PsA impacts HRQoL, assessing treatment (tmt) effect using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is important. Objectives: To explore the effect of ABA tmt using PROs in intent-to-treat and post hoc analyses of ASTRAEA. Methods: Pts were randomized (1:1) to SC ABA 125 mg weekly or placebo (PBO) for 24 weeks (W). At W16, pts without ≥20% improvement in joint counts started open-label ABA. Adjusted mean changes from baseline (BL) to W16 (all pts) and W24 (responder analysis) in Short Form-36 (SF-36; physical and mental component summary [PCS, MCS] and individual domains using spydergrams), pain VAS and HAQ-DI scores, Dermatology QoL Index (DLQI) and FACIT-Fatigue scale (FACIT-F) were evaluated in the total population and subgroups stratified by BL CRP level and prior TNFi use. Proportions of pts reporting improvements ≥minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in SF-36 summary (≥2.5) and domain (≥5.0), FACIT-F (≥40) and HAQ-DI (<-0.22) scores and ≥normative values in SF-36 summary (≥50) and domains, FACIT-F (<40) and HAQ-DI (<0.5) at W16 were analysed in the total population. Results: In the total population, improvements in all PROs were numerically greater for ABA (n=213) vs PBO (n=211) at W16 and W24 and significant for SF-36 PCS at W16 and HAQ-DI at W24 (Table). At W16, improvements in all SF-36 domains were numerically greater with ABA, and significant for physical function, bodily pain and vitality. A higher proportion of pts receiving ABA vs PBO reported improvements ≥MCID in SF-36 PCS, MCS, SF-36 domains, FACIT-F, HAQ-DI (Fig) and DLQI (not shown) at W16. The proportion of pts whose scores were ≥normative values at W16 was higher with ABA vs PBO in SF-36 PCS, MCS, FACIT-F and HAQ-DI scores. At W24, improvements in SF-36 domain scores accrued in both groups, with numerical differences in favour of ABA except in social function. Improvements in PROs were greater with ABA tmt in BL CRP>upper limit of normal (ULN) vs CRP≤ULN and in TNFi-naïve vs -exposed subpopulations. Conclusions: Abatacept treatment improved many PROs in pts with active PsA, with larger benefits in the CRP>ULN and TNF-naïve subpopulations. (Figure Presented).
Epistemonikos ID: 0b740ddbe1967ede43380bcd1faab7ac22940d35
First added on: Feb 15, 2022