Introduction
Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) experience substantial disease burden and reduced quality of life [
1]. PsA is associated with comorbidities such as obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease [
2]. Joint damage occurs in many patients, impairing physical function [
3,
4]. Even in patients with oligoarticular PsA (≤ 4 involved joints), many patients report impairment of quality of life despite having few active joints involved [
5]. Several studies have indicated that beginning treatment early in disease course is important for achieving optimal outcomes [
6‐
9]. The goal of PsA treatment is to improve the signs and symptoms of the disease by achieving remission (REM) or low disease activity (LDA), and improving quality of life [
10].
Many biologic therapies used for the treatment of PsA directly target inflammatory cytokines like tumor necrosis factor (TNF), interleukin (IL)-12/IL-23, IL-23, and IL-17 [
1]. However, these treatments must be administered by injection and can be associated with significant adverse events, particularly infections [
11]. Apremilast is an oral phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor with a unique immunomodulating mechanism of action. Inhibition of PDE4 elevates intracellular cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) levels, thereby modulating the inflammatory response by reducing the expression of TNF, IL-23, IL-17, and increasing the pro-inflammatory activity of IL-10 [
12]. In phase 3 studies, treatment with apremilast was associated with achievement of Clinical Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (cDAPSA) treatment targets at week 52 in patients with PsA, particularly for patients with moderate disease activity [
13,
14]. In addition, there is evidence for real-world effectiveness of apremilast in studies of patients with PsA and psoriasis (PsO) [
15,
16].
Apremilast is approved in Canada for the treatment of adults with PsA who have had an inadequate response to, were intolerant to, or had a contraindication to a prior disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) [
12]. No prospective real-world studies with apremilast in the Canadian population for treatment of PsA have been reported. To better understand the 12-month effectiveness, tolerability, and sustainability of apremilast treatment in real-world settings, the APPRAISE study evaluated clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with PsA receiving routine clinical care in Canada for up to 12 months.
Methods
Study Design
APPRAISE (NCT03608657) was a prospective, multicenter, observational study that enrolled adult patients with active PsA who were prescribed apremilast per routine care between July 2018 and March 2020 in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Nova Scotia. A maximum of 30 days was permitted from apremilast treatment initiation to the screening/baseline visit. Patients were treated as per regional policies and the product monograph. Patients were followed from treatment initiation to 12 months, with suggested follow-up assessment visits every 4 months and a follow-up call 12 months after the end of the study. Sites were selected on the basis of their expertise in treating patients with PsA, access to apremilast through local reimbursement options, and their ability to collect and report data for this study at the required quality standards. APPRAISE was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki’s general ethical principles with the study protocol approved by either regional or institutional ethics boards. The study protocol was approved by the Canadian Shields Ethics Review Board (#18-05-00) and the University Health Network Research Ethics Board (18-6022). Informed written consent was obtained from each patient prior to any study-related procedure.
Eligibility Criteria
This study enrolled adult patients (≥ 18 years of age) with active PsA who satisfied the Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis (CASPAR). The decision to initiate apremilast was made by the prescribing physician prior to and independent of patient enrollment in the study. There were no limitations on concurrent treatment. Patients were excluded if they were pregnant/planning to become pregnant or breastfeeding.
Endpoints
The primary endpoint was achievement of REM or LDA at month 12, defined as a cDAPSA score ≤ 13. cDAPSA is calculated as the sum of swollen joint count (SJC [0–66]), tender joint count (TJC [0–68]), and Patient’s Global Assessment of PsA (PtGA); visual analog scale (VAS [0–10 cm]), and pain (VAS [0–10 cm]). cDAPSA categories are defined as high disease activity (HDA), > 27; moderate disease activity (ModDA), > 13 to ≤ 27; LDA, > 4 to ≤ 13; and REM, ≤ 4.
Clinical assessments at months 4, 8, and 12 included change from baseline in cDAPSA, SJC, TJC, patient assessment of pain (0–100 mm VAS), body surface area (BSA), and Physician Global Assessment of PsA (PhGA) (0–100 mm VAS); and presence of dactylitis (assessed by individual physician assessment) and enthesitis (assessed by the physician using the Leeds enthesitis index).
PROs at months 4, 8, and 12 included PtGA (0–100 mm VAS), achievement of Patient-Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) total score, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), 36-item Short-Form Health Survey version 2 (SF-36v2) physical component summary score (PCS) and mental component summary score (MCS), and work productivity index scores. To determine PASS, patients responded to this single question: “If you were to remain for the next few months as you were during the last week, would this be acceptable or unacceptable to you?” with a binary (Yes or No) response [
17]. The TSQM (version 1.4) is a validated 14-item self-administered patient questionnaire that assesses patient satisfaction with treatment; scores range from 0 to 100, with a higher TSQM score indicating greater patient satisfaction [
18]. There are four domains that make up the TSQM: effectiveness, side effects, convenience, and overall satisfaction. A TSQM license was obtained for this study (Opportunity #2806168). For information regarding or permission to use the TSQM, please refer to IQVIA at
www.iqvia.com/TSQM or TSQM@iqvia.com.
Common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and AEs leading to discontinuation were also assessed.
Statistical Analysis
Baseline patient demographics were summarized descriptively. Outcomes at months 4, 8, and 12 were analyzed by paired Student’s t test or McNemar’s test. Data are presented as observed. SF-36 domain scores were transformed to T scores using a mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10.
Discussion
In this real-world study, apremilast demonstrated effectiveness for the treatment of PsA. After 12 months of treatment, significant improvements were observed in multiple measures of disease activity, including cDAPSA, SJC, TJC, pain VAS, and BSA. Of patients with enthesitis and dactylitis at baseline, 60% and 100% reported enthesitis and dactylitis to be resolved, respectively, at 12 months. Treatment satisfaction was high, with two-thirds of patients reporting overall satisfaction at month 12 based on the validated TSQM. This is consistent with results from the randomized, placebo-controlled UNVEIL study that demonstrated mean global satisfaction scores of approximately 60% with apremilast at 1 year in patients with chronic plaque PsO [
21]. The proportion of patients who reported an acceptable disease state increased from 26.3% at baseline to 68.0% at month 12 with apremilast treatment. Improvements were also seen in physical function, as measured by HAQ-DI and SF-36. Changes in HAQ-DI were not, on average, clinically meaningful (as defined by a minimal clinically important difference of ≥ 0.35) [
22]. However, it should be noted that the HAQ-DI is associated with several limitations in evaluating patients with PsA and establishing a standard for clinically meaningful improvement is difficult [
23]. Despite this effectiveness and treatment satisfaction, approximately 40% of patients discontinued by month 12. Discontinuations were mainly due to lack or loss of effectiveness and AEs. Most TEAEs were mild to moderate in severity (> 95%) and the most common TEAEs were diarrhea, headache, and nausea, consistent with the known safety profile of apremilast [
24‐
27]. Collectively, these results show many practical benefits of apremilast treatment in clinical practice.
APPRAISE complements phase 3 clinical trial data of apremilast [
13,
28]. Pooled data from the PALACE 1–3 studies showed that 46.9% of patients with ModDA and 24.9% with HDA at baseline achieved cDAPSA treatment targets of REM or LDA at 52 weeks [
13]. In APPRAISE, the proportions of patients achieving REM or LDA increased from a quarter (24.5%) at baseline to half (53.8%) at month 12. Achievement of cDAPSA treatment targets was associated with improvements in other PsA manifestations in PALACE 1–3 for up to 5 years as well [
13,
28], in line with the improvements in SJC, TJC, enthesitis, dactylitis, and skin involvement seen at month 12 in APPRAISE. Notably, the proportions of patients in REM/LDA increased from week 16 to 52 in PALACE 1–3 [
13] but decreased from month 4 to 12 in APPRAISE. The high rate of discontinuations in APPRAISE may have been a factor in this observation.
APPRAISE is one of few real-world evidence studies of apremilast, particularly apremilast treatment of PsA. The results of APPRAISE are aligned with the findings from the real-world APOLO study. APOLO was an observational, prospective study of apremilast in 106 patients with PsA in Belgium (NCT03096990) [
15]. In APOLO, improvements were seen in enthesitis, dactylitis, SJC, and TJC over 12 months of treatment. Reported TEAEs were also similar between APOLO and APPRAISE; 45.3% of patients experienced any TEAE in APOLO and the most common TEAEs were diarrhea, nausea, and headache. The mean time since PsA diagnosis was 7.3 years in APOLO compared to 5.5 years PsA duration in APPRAISE. The shorter duration of PsA in APPRAISE, as well as the higher prevalence of oligoarticular arthritis, supports apremilast use earlier in disease progression. Despite the lower number of joints involved with oligoarthritis compared to polyarthritis, patients report impaired quality of life. The collective efficacy results from APPRAISE support the potential for apremilast to improve quality of life in these patients through the improvement of clinical outcome measures as well as patient satisfaction measures.
Additional real-world studies have supported the safety and effectiveness of apremilast for the treatment of psoriasis [
29,
30]. High rates of comorbidities have been reported in these studies, including hypertension and other cardiovascular diseases, depression, diabetes, and cancer [
29‐
31]. Similarly, comorbidities were high in the APPRAISE population at baseline, particularly cardiometabolic comorbidities, and approximately 20% of patients reported depression at baseline. Despite this, there were no new reports of TEAEs of MACE in APPRAISE. The real-world safety profile of apremilast in patients with psoriasis was similar to the profile seen in patients with PsA in APPRAISE, supporting consistent drug safety across patient populations [
29]. In addition to safety and effectiveness, one study of apremilast use in Quebec found that treatment persistence was comparable between apremilast and biologics and use of apremilast resulted in significant healthcare savings [
32].
Limitations
The study was limited by a lack of racial diversity. COVID-19 restrictions impacted in-office assessment visits, necessitating reliance on virtual visits. However, all sites were encouraged to have patients return to clinic for an in-person visit at month 12 for a full assessment. In addition to limiting clinical assessments, the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted PROs. Real-world evidence studies do not have the rigor of randomized, placebo-controlled studies. Although reflective of a real-world treatment environment, the lack of limitations on concurrent treatment may confound the results. Reasons for apremilast initiation were not captured. Fatigue is an important aspect of PsA that was not directly captured in this study. Additionally, fibromyalgia and chronic pain syndrome were not evaluated, which may have impacted patient pain scores. Effectiveness assessments in this study were limited to 12 months, limiting the interpretation of long-term effectiveness and safety. The study also is limited by as-observed aggregate analyses and loss of patients over time. Apremilast was initiated at the clinical discretion of the treating physician, and there were no limitations for threshold of disease activity. As a result, some patients were in LDA at the beginning of the study. Because of this, some patients may not have shown a higher degree of disease improvement that is observed in phase 3 studies that include patients with moderate to high disease activity.
Conclusion
In this real-world analysis, patients with PsA who continued apremilast treatment in Canada achieved improvements in clinical and PRO parameters after 4 months, and the majority reported being satisfied with their achieved disease state. Consistent rates of improvement in meaningful clinical disease measures, such as pain, tender and swollen joints, and dactylitis resolution were observed at 8 and 12 months as well. Apremilast demonstrated effectiveness over 12 months in patients with PsA in Canadian clinical practices, with an efficacy and safety profile consistent with previously reported clinical data.
Declarations
Conflict of Interest
Vinod Chandran has received grant/research support from and/or served as a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen Inc., Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma. His spouse is an employee of AstraZeneca. Louis Bessette has received grant/research support from and/or served as a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen Inc., Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi, Novartis, and UCB Pharma. Carter Thorne has served on an advisory board for AbbVie, Amgen Inc., Celgene, Eli Lilly, Medexus/Medac, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, and Sanofi; and has served as a consultant for Centocor, Medexus/Medac, and Merck. Maqbool Sheriff has served on an advisory board and received honoraria from AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, and Sandoz. Proton Rahman has served as a speaker for and received honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen Inc., Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma. Dafna D. Gladman has received grant/research support from or served as a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Sabeen Anwar has received grant/research support from AbbVie, Amgen Inc., Eli Lilly, Janssen, and Pfizer; and has served as a speaker or consultant for AbbVie, Amgen Inc., Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Pfizer. Jennifer Jelley, Anne-Julie Gaudreau, and Manprit Chohan are employees of and stockholders in Amgen Inc. John S. Sampalis is an employee of JSS Medical Research.