Abatacept inhibits inflammation and onset of rheumatoid arthritis in individuals at high risk (ARIAA): a randomised, international, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs) and subclinical inflammatory changes in joints are at high risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis. Treatment strategies to intercept this pre-stage clinical disease remain to be developed. We aimed to assess whether 6-month treatment with abatacept improves inflammation in preclinical rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: The abatacept reversing subclinical inflammation as measured by MRI in ACPA positive arthralgia (ARIAA) study is a randomised, international, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial done in 14 hospitals and community centres across Europe (11 in Germany, two in Spain, and one in the Czech Republic). Adults (aged ≥18 years) with ACPA positivity, joint pain (but no swelling), and signs of osteitis, synovitis, or tenosynovitis in hand MRI were randomly assigned (1:1) to weekly subcutaneous abatacept 125 mg or placebo for 6 months followed by a double-blind, drug-free, observation phase for 12 months. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with any reduction in inflammatory MRI lesions at 6 months. The primary efficacy analysis was done in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included participants who were randomly assigned and received study medication. Safety analyses were conducted in participants who received the study medication and had at least one post-baseline observation. The study was registered with the EUDRA-CT (2014-000555-93). FINDINGS: Between Nov 6, 2014, and June 15, 2021, 139 participants were screened. Of 100 participants, 50 were randomly assigned to abatacept 125 mg and 50 to placebo. Two participants (one from each group) were excluded due to administration failure or refusing treatment; thus, 98 were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. 70 (71%) of 98 participants were female and 28 (29%) of 98 were male. At 6 months, 28 (57%) of 49 participants in the abatacept group and 15 (31%) of 49 participants in the placebo group showed improvement in MRI subclinical inflammation (absolute difference 26·5%, 95% CI 5·9-45·6; p=0·014). Four (8%) of 49 participants in the abatacept group and 17 (35%) of 49 participants in the placebo group developed rheumatoid arthritis (hazard ratio [HR] 0·14 [0·04-0·47]; p=0·0016). Improvement of MRI inflammation (25 [51%] of 49 participants in the abatacept group, 12 [24%] of 49 in the placebo group; p=0·012) and progression to rheumatoid arthritis (17 [35%] of 49, 28 [57%] of 49; HR 0·14 [0·04-0·47]; p=0·018) remained significantly different between the two groups after 18 months, 12 months after the end of the intervention. There were 12 serious adverse events in 11 participants (four [8%] of 48 in the abatacept group and 7 [14%] of 49 in the placebo group). No deaths occurred during the study. INTERPRETATION: 6-month treatment with abatacept decreases MRI inflammation, clinical symptoms, and risk of rheumatoid arthritis development in participants at high risk. The effects of the intervention persist through a 1-year drug-free observation phase. FUNDING: Innovative Medicine Initiative.

Safety Profile of Upadacitinib up to 5 Years in Psoriatic Arthritis, Ankylosing Spondylitis, and Non-radiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis: An Integrated Analysis of Clinical Trials.

INTRODUCTION: This integrated analysis of the phase 2/3 and phase 3 SELECT trials describes the safety profile of upadacitinib, an oral Janus kinase inhibitor, for up to 5 years of exposure across psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) (including pooled axial spondyloarthritis [axSpA]). METHODS: Safety data from five trials of upadacitinib in PsA (2 trials), AS (2 trials), and nr-axSpA (1 trial) were analyzed up to a data cut-off of August 15, 2022. One PsA study included adalimumab as an active comparator. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were summarized for PsA (pooled upadacitinib 15 mg once daily and adalimumab 40 mg biweekly), AS (pooled upadacitinib 15 mg), nr-axSpA (upadacitinib 15 mg), and pooled axSpA (pooled upadacitinib 15 mg from axSpA trials). TEAEs were reported as exposure-adjusted event rates per 100 patient-years (E/100 PY). RESULTS: A total of 1789 patients (PsA, n = 907; AS, n = 596; nr-axSpA, n = 286) received ≥ 1 dose of upadacitinib 15 mg for 3689 PY of exposure or adalimumab (n = 429) for 1147 PY of exposure. Overall TEAEs and serious TEAEs were highest in PsA and numerically higher with upadacitinib versus adalimumab; rates were similar between AS and nr-axSpA. In PsA, higher rates of serious infection, herpes zoster (HZ), lymphopenia, and nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) were observed with upadacitinib versus adalimumab. Rates of malignancy excluding NMSC, adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular events, and adjudicated venous thromboembolic events were comparable between upadacitinib and adalimumab in PsA and were similar across diseases. CONCLUSION: Higher rates of serious infection, HZ, lymphopenia, and NMSC were observed with upadacitinib versus adalimumab in PsA; slightly elevated rates for most of these TEAEs were seen with upadacitinib in PsA versus axSpA. Upadacitinib 15 mg demonstrated a generally consistent safety profile across disease states with no new safety signals identified. TRIAL REGISTRATION: SELECT-AXIS 1: NCT03178487; SELECT-AXIS 2: NCT04169373; SELECT-PsA 1: NCT03104400; SELECT-PsA 2: NCT03104374.

Psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis are a group of diseases that cause pain and inflammation of the joints and/or spine. Safety data were combined from five studies: two in psoriatic arthritis, two in ankylosing spondylitis, and one in non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis. Patients were treated with upadacitinib or adalimumab for up to 5 years. Adalimumab was only used for patients participating in one of the two psoriatic arthritis studies. Side effects from treatment were more common in patients with psoriatic arthritis than those with ankylosing spondylitis and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis; more patients with psoriatic arthritis had side effects with upadacitinib than adalimumab. A similar number of patients across treatment groups and diseases had side effects that made them stop treatment. The number of cancer cases (except cancer of the upper layer of the skin), cardiovascular issues, and blood clots were similar between the upadacitinib and adalimumab groups in psoriatic arthritis and across diseases. Serious infections, painful rashes that cause blisters (herpes zoster, also commonly referred to as shingles), low levels of white blood cells, and cancer of the upper layer of the skin were more common with upadacitinib than adalimumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis; overall, these events occurred more often with upadacitinib in patients with psoriatic arthritis than with ankylosing spondylitis and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis. Our results showed that the safety of upadacitinib was generally similar across diseases, and patients could tolerate it well for up to 5 years. No new safety risks were found with upadacitinib treatment.

Safety and Efficacy of Upadacitinib in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Refractory to Biologic DMARDs: Results Through Week 216 from the SELECT-CHOICE Study.

INTRODUCTION: The safety and efficacy of upadacitinib 15 mg (UPA15) through week 216 was evaluated in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from the long-term extension (LTE) of the phase 3 SELECT-CHOICE study. METHODS: Patients with RA refractory to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) were randomized to UPA15 or abatacept (ABA) for 24 weeks. During the open-label LTE, patients on ABA switched to UPA15 at week 24, and those on UPA15 continued treatment. The safety and efficacy of continuous UPA15, and ABA to UPA15, are summarized through week 216. RESULTS: The LTE was comprised of 91.4% (n = 277/303) of patients that initially received UPA15, and 89.6% (n = 277/309) that initially received ABA. Of patients on UPA15 in the LTE (n = 547), 28.3% (n = 155/547) discontinued the study drug by week 216. Relative to other adverse events of special interest, and largely consistent with previous findings at week 24, higher rates of serious infection, COVID-19, herpes zoster, and elevated creatine phosphokinase were reported, while rates of malignancy excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC), NMSC, major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), and venous thromboembolism (VTE) were low. Long-term safety data with UPA through week 216 aligned with previous observations and no new safety risks were identified, including in patients who switched from ABA to UPA15. Proportions of patients achieving 28-joint disease activity score based on C-reactive protein (DAS28[CRP]) < 2.6/ ≤ 3.2, clinical disease activity index (CDAI) and simple disease activity index (SDAI) low disease activity/remission, ≥ 20%/50%/70% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology (ACR20/50/70) response criteria, and Boolean remission were maintained or improved with UPA15 through week 216. Improvements in the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), patient's assessment of pain, and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) were also maintained or improved with UPA15 through week 216. Across all efficacy endpoints, similar results were observed in patients who switched from ABA to UPA15 versus continuous UPA15. Patients with an inadequate response to ≥ 1 prior tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor (UPA15: n = 263/303, 86.8%; ABA to UPA15: n = 273/309, 88.3%) showed similar responses to the total population. CONCLUSIONS: The long-term safety profile of UPA was consistent with previous findings and the broader RA clinical program. Compared to the primary analyses at week 24, efficacy responses were maintained or further improved with UPA15 through week 216 in patients with RA. Trial registration, ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03086343.

A long-term study looked at a drug named upadacitinib to treat people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), a disease that causes joint pain and damage. The study included patients whose RA was not improved by other injectable medicines. The study compared upadacitinib with another drug called abatacept. After 24 weeks, patients who were taking abatacept switched to upadacitinib, and patients taking upadacitinib continued on upadacitinib treatment for over 4 years. The researchers looked at how well the treatments worked over the long-term and if there were any side effects. The side effects with upadacitinib treatment in this long-term study were similar to side effects reported in previous studies with upadacitinib. The researchers also found that upadacitinib helped to lessen the symptoms of RA over time and helped patients complete their daily activities and reduced their pain and tiredness. This was true for patients who switched from abatacept to upadacitinib after 24 weeks and for patients who took upadacitinib from the start of the study. Patients who had not responded to other medicines also had similar improvements with upadacitinib. In conclusion, upadacitinib can help people with RA over the long term and no new safety risks were found.

Efficacy and safety of upadacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response or intolerance to biological treatments: results through 5 years from the SELECT-BEYOND study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib over 5 years among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in a long-term extension (LTE) of the SELECT-BEYOND phase 3 trial. METHODS: Patients refractory to ≥1 biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) received upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg once daily or placebo, in combination with background conventional synthetic DMARD(s). At week 12, patients randomised to placebo were switched to upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg. All patients who completed the week 24 visit could enter the LTE for up to 5 years. Efficacy was analysed as observed and by non-responder imputation through week 260. Treatment-emergent adverse events per 100 patient-years were summarised over 5 years. RESULTS: Of the 498 patients randomised, 418 (84%) completed week 24 and entered the LTE. Of those who remained in the trial (n=80, upadacitinib 15 mg; n=81, upadacitinib 30 mg), 36%/36% and 81%/77% randomised to upadacitinib 15/30 mg were in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) remission or low disease activity at week 260, respectively (as observed). Approximately 47% of all patients who began in high disease activity demonstrated a CDAI improvement >12 at week 260 with upadacitinib 15/30 mg. Functional and pain-related outcomes also showed comparable improvements with both doses. Numerically higher rates of anaemia, herpes zoster and creatine phosphokinase elevation were observed with upadacitinib 30 mg vs 15 mg. No new safety issues were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Upadacitinib 15/30 mg continued to be effective in treating clinical and functional outcomes in patients with RA. The safety profile observed over 5 years was consistent with earlier study-specific and integrated assessments of upadacitinib treatment.