Risk of extended major adverse cardiovascular event endpoints with tofacitinib versus TNF inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a post hoc analysis of a phase 3b/4 randomised safety study.

OBJECTIVES: Compare the risk of extended major adverse cardiovascular (CV) event (MACE) composite outcomes and component events in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with tofacitinib versus tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in Oral Rheumatoid Arthritis Trial (ORAL) Surveillance. METHODS: Patients with RA aged ≥50 years and with ≥1 additional CV risk factor received tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg two times per day or TNFi. MACE (non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), non-fatal stroke or CV death (MACE-3)) was extended by sequential addition of CV events (hospitalisation for unstable angina (MACE-4), coronary revascularisation (MACE-5), transient ischaemic attack (MACE-6), peripheral vascular disease (MACE-7)), heart failure (HF) hospitalisation (MACE-8) and venous thromboembolism (VTE; (MACE-8 plus VTE)). HRs (tofacitinib vs TNFi) were evaluated for MACE and individual components. RESULTS: HRs for MACE-4 to MACE-8 with combined and individual tofacitinib doses versus TNFi were similar. Risk of MACE-8 plus VTE appeared similar with tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day versus TNFi (HR 1.12 (0.82 to 1.52)), but higher with tofacitinib 10 mg two times per day versus TNFi (HR 1.38 (1.02 to 1.85)). Risk of MI was higher with tofacitinib versus TNFi, but difference in risk of other individual CV events was not suggested. Across extended MACE definitions, risk appeared higher with tofacitinib versus TNFi in those with atherosclerotic CV disease or age ≥65 years. CONCLUSION: In ORAL Surveillance, risk of composite CV endpoints combining all ischaemic CV events and HF did not appear different with tofacitinib versus TNFi. The totality of CV risk was higher with tofacitinib 10 mg two times per day versus TNFi, driven by an increase in VTE. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02092467.

Understanding the psychosocial determinants of effective disease management in rheumatoid arthritis to prevent persistently active disease: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: According to epidemiological studies, psychosocial factors are known to be associated with disease activity, physical activity, pain, functioning, treatment help-seeking, treatment waiting times and mortality in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Limited qualitative inquiry into the psychosocial factors that add to RA disease burden and potential synergistic interactions with biological parameters makes it difficult to understand patients' perspectives from the existing literature. AIM: This study aimed to gather in-depth patient perspectives on psychosocial determinants that drive persistently active disease in RA, to help guide optimal patient care. METHODS: Patient research partners collaborated on the research design and materials. Semistructured interviews and focus groups were conducted online (in 2021) with patients purposively sampled from diverse ethnicities, primary languages, employment status and occupations. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: 45 patients participated across 28 semistructured interviews and three focus groups. Six main themes on psychosocial determinants that may impact RA management were identified: (1) healthcare systems experiences, (2) patient education and health literacy, (3) employment and working conditions, (4) social and familial support, (5) socioeconomic (dis)advantages, and (6) life experiences and well-being practices. CONCLUSION: This study emphasises the importance of clinicians working closely with patients and taking a holistic approach to care that incorporates psychosocial factors into assessments, treatment plans and resources. There is an unmet need to understand the relationships between interconnected biopsychosocial factors, and how these may impact on RA management.

Abatacept in individuals at high risk of rheumatoid arthritis (APIPPRA): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, parallel, placebo-controlled, phase 2b clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with serum antibodies to citrullinated protein antigens (ACPA), rheumatoid factor, and symptoms, such as inflammatory joint pain, are at high risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis. In the arthritis prevention in the pre-clinical phase of rheumatoid arthritis with abatacept (APIPPRA) trial, we aimed to evaluate the feasibility, efficacy, and acceptability of treating high risk individuals with the T-cell co-stimulation modulator abatacept. METHODS: The APIPPRA study was a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, parallel, placebo-controlled, phase 2b clinical trial done in 28 hospital-based early arthritis clinics in the UK and three in the Netherlands. Participants (aged ≥18 years) at risk of rheumatoid arthritis positive for ACPA and rheumatoid factor with inflammatory joint pain were recruited. Exclusion criteria included previous episodes of clinical synovitis and previous use of corticosteroids or disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated permuted block randomisation (block sizes of 2 and 4) stratified by sex, smoking, and country, to 125 mg abatacept subcutaneous injections weekly or placebo for 12 months, and then followed up for 12 months. Masking was achieved by providing four kits (identical in appearance and packaging) with pre-filled syringes with coded labels of abatacept or placebo every 3 months. The primary endpoint was the time to development of clinical synovitis in three or more joints or rheumatoid arthritis according to American College of Rheumatology and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology 2010 criteria, whichever was met first. Synovitis was confirmed by ultrasonography. Follow-up was completed on Jan 13, 2021. All participants meeting the intention-to-treat principle were included in the analysis. This trial was registered with EudraCT (2013-003413-18). FINDINGS: Between Dec 22, 2014, and Jan 14, 2019, 280 individuals were evaluated for eligibility and, of 213 participants, 110 were randomly assigned to abatacept and 103 to placebo. During the treatment period, seven (6%) of 110 participants in the abatacept group and 30 (29%) of 103 participants in the placebo group met the primary endpoint. At 24 months, 27 (25%) of 110 participants in the abatacept group had progressed to rheumatoid arthritis, compared with 38 (37%) of 103 in the placebo group. The estimated proportion of participants remaining arthritis-free at 12 months was 92·8% (SE 2·6) in the abatacept group and 69·2% (4·7) in the placebo group. Kaplan-Meier arthritis-free survival plots over 24 months favoured abatacept (log-rank test p=0·044). The difference in restricted mean survival time between groups was 53 days (95% CI 28-78; p<0·0001) at 12 months and 99 days (95% CI 38-161; p=0·0016) at 24 months in favour of abatacept. During treatment, abatacept was associated with improvements in pain scores, functional wellbeing, and quality-of-life measurements, as well as low scores of subclinical synovitis by ultrasonography, compared with placebo. However, the effects were not sustained at 24 months. Seven serious adverse events occurred in the abatacept group and 11 in the placebo group, including one death in each group deemed unrelated to treatment. INTERPRETATION: Therapeutic intervention during the at-risk phase of rheumatoid arthritis is feasible, with acceptable safety profiles. T-cell co-stimulation modulation with abatacept for 12 months reduces progression to rheumatoid arthritis, with evidence of sustained efficacy beyond the treatment period, and with no new safety signals. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb.

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial.

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome.

Use of coronarycomputed tomography for cardiovascular risk assessment in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

Immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) are recognised risk factors for accelerated atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD), particularly in younger individuals and women who lack traditional CVD risk factors. Reflective of the critical role that inflammation plays in the formation, progression and rupture of atherosclerotic plaques, research into immune mechanisms of CVD has led to the identification of a range of therapeutic targets that are the subject of ongoing clinical trials. Several key inflammatory pathways implicated in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis are targeted in people with IMIDs. However, cardiovascular risk continues to be systematically underestimated by conventional risk assessment tools in the IMID population, resulting in considerable excess CVD burden and mortality. Hence, there is a pressing need to improve methods for CVD risk-stratification among patients with IMIDs, to better guide the use of statins and other prognostic interventions. CT coronary angiography (CTCA) is the current first-line investigation for diagnosing and assessing the severity of coronary atherosclerosis in many individuals with suspected angina. Whether CTCA is also useful in the general population for reclassifying asymptomatic individuals and improving long-term prognosis remains unknown. However, in the context of IMIDs, it is conceivable that the information provided by CTCA, including state-of-the-art assessments of coronary plaque, could be an important clinical adjunct in this high-risk patient population. This narrative review discusses the current literature about the use of coronary CT for CVD risk-stratification in three of the most common IMIDs including rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis and systemic lupus erythematosus.

Efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis: update for the practising clinician.

Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, including tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib and filgotinib, are increasingly used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). There has been debate about their safety, particularly following the issuance of guidance by regulatory agencies advising caution in their use in certain patients. The registrational clinical trials and registry data of JAK inhibitors did not identify a difference in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), venous thromboembolism, malignancies or infections (other than herpes zoster) with a JAK inhibitor versus a biologic DMARD. In the ORAL Surveillance trial, which enrolled patients >50 years of age with ≥1 cardiovascular risk factor, tofacitinib was statistically inferior to TNF inhibitors for the occurrence of MACEs and malignancy. Further post hoc analysis of the data revealed that an age of ≥65 years, a high baseline cardiovascular risk, a history of smoking, sustained inflammation, disease activity and suboptimal treatment of cardiovascular comorbidities all increase the risk of these outcomes. The guidance issued by regulatory agencies should be carefully considered to ensure appropriate and safe treatment of patients with RA without undertreatment of patients who might benefit from JAK inhibitor, as well as biologic, treatment. As always, the risks associated with the use of these agents, treatment goals, costs and patient preferences should be discussed with the patient.

Unmet need in rheumatology: reports from the Advances in Targeted Therapies meeting, 2023.

The Advances in Targeted Therapies meets annually, convening experts in the field of rheumatology to both provide scientific updates and identify existing scientific gaps within the field. To review the major unmet scientific needs in rheumatology. The 23rd annual Advances in Targeted Therapies meeting convened with more than 100 international basic scientists and clinical researchers in rheumatology, immunology, infectious diseases, epidemiology, molecular biology and other specialties relating to all aspects of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. We held breakout sessions in five rheumatological disease-specific groups including: rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), axial spondyloarthritis (axSpa), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), systemic sclerosis (SSc) and vasculitis, and osteoarthritis (OA). In each group, experts were asked to identify and prioritise current unmet needs in clinical and translational research. An overarching theme across all disease states is the continued need for clinical trial design innovation with regard to therapeutics, endpoint and disease endotypes. Within RA, unmet needs comprise molecular classification of disease pathogenesis and activity, pre-/early RA strategies, more refined pain profiling and innovative trials designs to deliver on precision medicine. Continued scientific questions within PsA include evaluating the genetic, immunophenotypic, clinical signatures that predict development of PsA in patients with psoriasis, and the evaluation of combination therapies for difficult-to-treat disease. For axSpA, there continues to be the need to understand the role of interleukin-23 (IL-23) in pathogenesis and the genetic relationship of the IL-23-receptor polymorphism with other related systemic inflammatory diseases (eg, inflammatory bowel disease). A major unmet need in the OA field remains the need to develop the ability to reliably phenotype and stratify patients for inclusion in clinical trials. SLE experts identified a number of unmet needs within clinical trial design including the need for allowing endpoints that reflect pharmacodynamic/functional outcomes (eg, inhibition of type I interferon pathway activation; changes in urine biomarkers). Lastly, within SSc and vasculitis, there is a lack of biomarkers that predict response or disease progression, and that allow patients to be stratified for therapies. There remains a strong need to innovate clinical trial design, to identify systemic and tissue-level biomarkers that predict progression or response to therapy, endotype disease, and to continue developing therapies and therapeutic strategies for those with treatment-refractory disease. This document, based on expert consensus, should provide a roadmap for prioritising scientific endeavour in the field of rheumatology.

Consensus on the assessment of systemic sclerosis-associated primary heart involvement: World Scleroderma Foundation/Heart Failure Association guidance on screening, diagnosis, and follow-up assessment.

Introduction: Heart involvement is a common problem in systemic sclerosis. Recently, a definition of systemic sclerosis primary heart involvement had been proposed. Our aim was to establish consensus guidance on the screening, diagnosis and follow-up of systemic sclerosis primary heart involvement patients. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed to investigate the tests used to evaluate heart involvement in systemic sclerosis. The extracted data were categorized into relevant domains (conventional radiology, electrocardiography, echocardiography, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, laboratory, and others) and presented to experts and one patient research partner, who discussed the data and added their opinion. This led to the formulation of overarching principles and guidance statements, then reviewed and voted on for agreement. Consensus was attained when the mean agreement was ⩾7/10 and of ⩾70% of voters. Results: Among 2650 publications, 168 met eligibility criteria; the data extracted were discussed over three meetings. Seven overarching principles and 10 guidance points were created, revised and voted on. The consensus highlighted the importance of patient counseling, differential diagnosis and multidisciplinary team management, as well as defining screening and diagnostic approaches. The initial core evaluation should integrate history, physical examination, rest electrocardiography, trans-thoracic echocardiography and standard serum cardiac biomarkers. Further investigations should be individually tailored and decided through a multidisciplinary management. The overall mean agreement was 9.1/10, with mean 93% of experts voting above 7/10. Conclusion: This consensus-based guidance on screening, diagnosis and follow-up of systemic sclerosis primary heart involvement provides a foundation for standard of care and future feasibility studies that are ongoing to support its application in clinical practice.

Subclinical Systemic Sclerosis Primary Heart Involvement by Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Shows No Significant Interval Change.

OBJECTIVE: Subclinical systemic sclerosis (SSc) primary heart involvement is commonly described. Whether these findings progress over time is not clear. The study aimed to investigate cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) interval change of subclinical SSc primary heart involvement. METHODS: Patients with SSc with no cardiovascular disease underwent two CMR scans that included T1 mapping and quantitative stress perfusion. The CMR change (mean difference) and association between CMR measures and clinical phenotype were assessed. The study had a prospective design. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients with SSc participated, with a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 33 (17-37) months (10 [32%] in the diffuse subset, 16 [52%] with interstitial lung disease [ILD], and 11 [29%] who were Scl-70+). Four of thirty-one patients had focal late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) at visit 1; one of four had an increase in LGE scar mass between visits. Two patients showed new focal LGE at visit 2. No change in other CMR indices was noted. The three patients with SSc with increased or new LGE at visit 2 had diffuse cutaneous SSc with ILD, and two were Scl-70+. A reduction in forced vital capacity and total lung capacity was associated with a reduction in left ventricular ejection fraction (ρ = 0.413, P = 0.021; ρ = 0.335, P = 0.07) and myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) (ρ = 0.543, P = 0.007; ρ = 0.627, P = 0.002). An increase in the N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide level was associated with a reduction in MPR (ρ = -0.448, P = 0.042). Patients on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) had an increase in native T1 (mean [SD] 1208 [65] vs. 1265 [56] milliseconds, P = 0.008). No other clinically meaningful CMR change in patients receiving DMARDs or vasodilators was noted. CONCLUSION: Serial CMR detects interval subclinical SSc primary heart involvement progression; however, this study suggests abnormalities remain largely stable with follow-up.

Analysis of Disease Activity Metrics in a Methotrexate Withdrawal Study among Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Treated with Tofacitinib plus Methotrexate.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this analysis was to assess disease activity metrics using a variety of disease outcome measures following methotrexate (MTX) withdrawal in ORAL Shift, a phase 3b/4 study of tofacitinib with/without MTX, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) achieving Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI)-defined low disease activity (LDA). METHODS: Patients aged ≥ 18 years with active RA and an inadequate response to MTX received open-label tofacitinib modified-release 11 mg once daily plus MTX for 24 weeks. In the double-blind MTX withdrawal phase, those who had achieved CDAI LDA (≤ 10) at week 24 were randomised 1:1 to receive tofacitinib monotherapy or continued tofacitinib plus MTX. Efficacy analyses were performed in subgroups defined by whether remission and/or LDA had been achieved at week 24 with: Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, erythrocyte sedimentation rate [DAS28-4(ESR)], Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3), CDAI and Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI); or DAS28-4[C-reactive protein(CRP)] < 2.4/ < 2.6/ < 2.9/ ≤ 3.2. RESULTS: Five hundred and thirty patients received treatment in the double-blind MTX withdrawal phase. Proportions of patients achieving each disease activity criterion at week 24 varied by metric. Across disease activity metrics [excluding DAS28-4(ESR) remission], 58-89% of patients per group, and numerically more patients receiving tofacitinib plus MTX, achieved the same criterion at week 48 as at week 24. Differences between groups in least squares mean change from baseline (Δ) DAS28-4(ESR) from week 24-48 favoured tofacitinib plus MTX (nominal p values < 0.05). RAPID3 and DAS28-4(CRP) estimated a higher proportion of patients with acceptable disease state versus DAS28-4(ESR), CDAI remission and SDAI remission. CONCLUSION: Response rates at the beginning of the double-blind phase varied across metrics. A consistent trend towards higher response rates with tofacitinib plus MTX was observed across metrics after randomisation, with nominal differences in DAS28-4(ESR) responses. Compared with continued combination therapy, MTX withdrawal did not lead to a clinically meaningful reduction in the response to tofacitinib. DAS28-4(CRP) and RAPID3 were the least stringent metrics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02831855.

EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2022 update.

OBJECTIVES: To provide an update of the EULAR rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management recommendations addressing the most recent developments in the field. METHODS: An international task force was formed and solicited three systematic literature research activities on safety and efficacy of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and glucocorticoids (GCs). The new evidence was discussed in light of the last update from 2019. A predefined voting process was applied to each overarching principle and recommendation. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned to and participants finally voted on the level of agreement with each item. RESULTS: The task force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations concerning use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); GCs; biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab including biosimilars), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, sarilumab and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs, namely the Janus kinase inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib, filgotinib, upadacitinib. Guidance on monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and tapering in sustained clinical remission is provided. Safety aspects, including risk of major cardiovascular events (MACEs) and malignancies, costs and sequencing of b/tsDMARDs were all considered. Initially, MTX plus GCs is recommended and on insufficient response to this therapy within 3-6 months, treatment should be based on stratification according to risk factors; With poor prognostic factors (presence of autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions or failure of two csDMARDs), any bDMARD should be added to the csDMARD; after careful consideration of risks of MACEs, malignancies and/or thromboembolic events tsDMARDs may also be considered in this phase. If the first bDMARD (or tsDMARD) fails, any other bDMARD (from another or the same class) or tsDMARD (considering risks) is recommended. With sustained remission, DMARDs may be tapered but should not be stopped. Levels of evidence and levels of agreement were high for most recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: These updated EULAR recommendations provide consensus on RA management including safety, effectiveness and cost.

Risk of major adverse cardiovascular events with tofacitinib versus tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with or without a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: a post hoc analysis from ORAL Surveillance.

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.

Geographic Analysis of the Safety and Efficacy of Filgotinib in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: Global clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) often do not recruit enough patients from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds to identify any potential differences in treatment outcome across such groups. To overcome this limitation, using data from five previous clinical trials and two ongoing trial extensions, this study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of filgotinib in patients with RA across geographic regions. METHODS: This was a post hoc, exploratory analysis of data from male and female patients with RA meeting the 2010 RA criteria as defined by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology. Data were analyzed from phase 2 (DARWIN 1-2) and phase 3 (FINCH 1-3) clinical trials, as well as two long-term extension studies (DARWIN 3, FINCH 4), of filgotinib. Efficacy endpoints included ACR 20%/50%/70% improvement (ACR20/50/70) responses, disease activity score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein [DAS28(CRP)], Clinical Disease Activity Index scores, Boolean remission, and change from baseline in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI). Safety data were presented as exposure-adjusted incidence rates per 100 patient-years of exposure of treatment-emergent adverse events. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, at week 12 a greater proportion of patients receiving filgotinib 200 mg (FIL200) or 100 mg (FIL100) achieved ACR20 (p < 0.01), with similar outcomes in most regions. Overall, the reduction in HAQ-DI with FIL200 or FIL100 was greater than with placebo (p < 0.05) at week 12. Compared with placebo, at week 24 the proportions of patients achieving DAS28(CRP) ≤ 3.2 were greater for both doses of FIL, as seen in most regions (p < 0.01). Safety outcomes did not indicate regional or ethnic differences in the safety profile of filgotinib. CONCLUSION: Filgotinib efficacy and safety in patients with RA were generally consistent across geographic regions. GOV TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT02889796; NCT02873936; NCT02886728; NCT03025308; NCT01888874; NCT01894516; NCT02065700.

Clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis recruit too few patients from diverse ethnic backgrounds to be able to identify differences in treatment outcomes. In adults with moderate-to-severe active rheumatoid arthritis who do not tolerate or have responded poorly to other advanced treatments, the Janus kinase inhibitor filgotinib can be used alone or in combination with the immunosuppressant methotrexate. Using data from 4695 patients with rheumatoid arthritis from five previous clinical trials and two ongoing trial extensions, this paper examined the efficacy and safety of filgotinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis across geographic locations worldwide.Patients were grouped by region: North America, South and Central America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, East Asia, South and Southeast Asia, and Other (South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, and Israel). The efficacy of filgotinib in treating the symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis was assessed using several measures of disease activity, with changes in patient quality of life determined using a health assessment questionnaire. Safety data were reported as the rates of side effects experienced by patients.Across different geographic regions, no major differences in filgotinib treatment response were observed. Rheumatoid arthritis disease activity levels were consistently lower in patients receiving filgotinib than in patients receiving placebo. Across the regions examined, quality-of-life scores also improved to a greater degree in patients receiving filgotinib compared with placebo. The rates of side effects, including infections, were similar irrespective of region. The number of deaths was low, mostly resulting from cardiovascular events, infections, and malignancies.This study demonstrates that the efficacy and safety of filgotinib are consistent in patients with rheumatoid arthritis from a broad range of geographic regions and ethnic backgrounds.

Efficacy and Safety of Filgotinib in Patients with High Risk of Poor Prognosis Who Showed Inadequate Response to MTX: A Post Hoc Analysis of the FINCH 1 Study.

INTRODUCTION: This exploratory analysis of FINCH 1 (NCT02889796) examined filgotinib (FIL) efficacy and safety in a subgroup of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX; MTX-IR) who had four poor prognostic factors (PPFs). METHODS: Patients with MTX-IR received placebo up to week (W)24 or FIL200 mg, FIL100 mg, or adalimumab up to W52; all received MTX. Efficacy and safety data were stratified by four PPFs versus fewer than four PPFs: seropositivity, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP) ≥ 6 mg/L, Disease Activity Score in 28 joints with CRP > 5.1, and erosions on X-rays. RESULTS: At baseline, 687/1755 patients had four PPFs. At W12, whether with four PPFs or fewer than four PPFs, response rates on all American College of Rheumatology (ACR) measures were significantly greater with FIL200 and FIL100 versus placebo. At W52, FIL200 ACR20/50/70 response rates remained at least numerically higher versus adalimumab in both subgroups. At W52, FIL200 reduced modified total Sharp score (mTSS) change versus adalimumab in patients with four or fewer than four PPFs. CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk (four PPFs) patients with MTX-IR RA, FIL200 and FIL100 showed similar reductions in disease activity versus placebo at W12 as in patients with fewer than four PPFs. mTSS in patients receiving FIL200 changed little from W24 to W52, while that in patients receiving FIL100 progressed comparably to patients who received adalimumab. Tolerability was comparable across treatment arms and subgroups.