Background and aim

Liver histology changes are the current gold standard for evaluating non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), but are limited by their invasiveness and variability for sampling and interpretation. We evaluated noninvasive biomarkers as an indication of histologic changes in NASH.

Methods

Associations between 12-month biomarker and NASH Clinical Research Network histologic score changes in 339 patients with NASH in the EMMINENCE trial was examined with multivariable models and partial canonical correlation. A meta-analysis of 17 NASH trials including 3717 patients examined associations between these same changes and histologic response within treatment groups, and treatment effects on biomarkers and on liver histology. Biopsy measures assessed were changes in ballooning, steatosis, inflammation, and fibrosis, NASH improvement without worsening of fibrosis, and fibrosis improvement without worsening of NASH. All analytic methods suggest that a combination of aspartate aminotransferase (AST), cytokeratin-18 (CK-18 [M30 or M65]), and hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c) changes best predicts overall liver biopsy changes in response to interventions.

Results

The weighted average of standardized mean changes (0.403 × AST, 0.314 × CK-18, 0.283 × HbA1c) facilitated comparisons of within-group responses and treatment effects among studies included in the meta-analysis. This composite in EMMINENCE discriminated between patients with and without NASH resolution without worsening fibrosis with area under the receiver-operator characteristic curve of 0.7880, and for fibrosis improvement without NASH worsening of 0.7553.

Conclusion

A composite score based on changes in AST, HbA1c, and CK-18 could serve as a surrogate for liver histologic improvement and an effective objective, noninvasive tool for comparative assessment of treatment effects of novel interventions.

Objectives

Evaluate risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) with tofacitinib versus tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with or without a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in ORAL Surveillance.

Methods

Patients with RA aged ≥50 years with ≥1 additional CV risk factor received tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg two times per day or TNFi. Hazard rations (HRs) were evaluated for the overall population and by history of ASCVD (exploratory analysis).

Results

Risk of MACE, myocardial infarction and sudden cardiac death were increased with tofacitinib versus TNFi in ORAL Surveillance. In patients with history of ASCVD (14.7%; 640/4362), MACE incidence was higher with tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day (8.3%; 17/204) and 10 mg two times per day (7.7%; 17/222) versus TNFi (4.2%; 9/214). HR (combined tofacitinib doses vs TNFi) was 1.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 4.14; interaction p values: 0.196 (for HR)/0.059 (for incidence rate difference)). In patients without history of ASCVD, MACE HRs for tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day (2.4%; 30/1251) and 10 mg two times per day (2.8%; 34/1234) versus TNFi (2.3%; 28/1237) were, respectively, 1.03 (0.62 to 1.73) and 1.25 (0.76 to 2.07).

Conclusions

This post hoc analysis observed higher MACE risk with tofacitinib versus TNFi in patients with RA and history of ASCVD. Among patients without history of ASCVD, all with prevalent CV risk factors, MACE risk did not appear different with tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day versus TNFi. Due to the exploratory nature of this analysis and low statistical power, we cannot exclude differential MACE risk for tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day versus TNFi among patients without history of ASCVD, but any absolute risk excess is likely low.

Trial registration number

NCT02092467.

Background

Clinically relevant endpoints cannot be routinely targeted with reasonable power in a small study. Hence, proof-of-concept studies are often powered to a primary surrogate endpoint. However, in acute heart failure (AHF) effects on surrogates have not translated into clinical benefit in confirmatory studies. Although observing an effect on one of many endpoints due to chance is likely, observing concurrent positive trends across several outcomes by chance is usually unlikely.

Methods

Pre-RELAX-AHF, which compared 4 relaxin doses with placebo in AHF, has shown favourable trends versus placebo (one-sided P < 0.10) on six of nine clinical endpoints in the 30 μg/kg/day group. To illustrate evaluation of multiple, correlated clinical endpoints for evidence of efficacy and for dose selection, a permutation method was applied retrospectively. By randomly re-assigning the treatment group to the actual data for each of the 229 subjects, 20,000 permutation samples were constructed.

Results

The permutation P value for at least six favourable trends among nine endpoints in any dose groups was 0.0073 (99.9% CI 0.0053-0.0093). This is higher than would be expected if the endpoints were uncorrelated (0.00026), but much lower than the probability of observing one of nine comparisons significant at the traditional two-sided P < 0.05 (0.74). Thus, the result was unlikely due to correlated endpoints or to chance.

Conclusions

Examining consistency of effect across multiple clinical endpoints in a proof-of-concept study may identify efficacious therapies and enable dose selection for confirmatory trials. The merit of the approach described requires confirmation through prospective application in designing future studies.

Introduction

Urolithiasis causes a significant impact on health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Patients with kidney stones have high levels of stress and anxiety. Symptom resolution often requires treatment. Travel distance is a barrier to care but little is known about its effects on HRQOL. We hypothesize that increased distance to treatment site is associated with decreased HRQOL.

Methods

Patients with a history of stones were enrolled at 11 tertiary centers as part of the QOL Stone Consortium of North America. HRQOL data were obtained using the Wisconsin Stone Quality of Life questionnaire (WISQOL). We calculated distance between patient and treatment site using national ZIP codes. We used linear models to evaluate the effect of distance on HRQOL, while also considering demographics data, stones/symptom status, and distance.

Results

Of the 1676 enrolled patients, 52% were male, 86% non-Latino White, and the mean age was 53 years. Mean distance to treatment site was 63.3 km (range 0-3774), with 74% reporting current stones and 45% current symptoms. WISQOL score and distance were negatively correlated for patients reporting current stones and symptoms (p=0.0010). Linear modelling revealed decreased WISQOL scores for patients with symptoms as distance increased from treatment site (p=0.0001), with a 4.7-point decrease for every 100 km traveled.

Conclusions

Stone disease imposes significant burden on patients' HRQOL due to a variety of factors. Patients with active stone symptoms report worse HRQOL with increased distance to their treatment site. Possible etiologies include travel burden, increased disease burden, decreased healthcare use, and delays in care.