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.

Which advanced treatment should be used following the failure of a first-line anti-TNF in patients with rheumatoid arthritis? 15 years of evidence from the Quebec registry RHUMADATA.

BACKGROUND: Since 2000, advanced therapies (AT) have revolutionized the treatment of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Randomized control trials as well as observational studies together with medication availability often determine second-line choices after the failure of first Tumor Necrosis Factor inhibitors (TNFi). This led to the observation that specific sequences provide better long-term effectiveness. We investigated which alternative medication offers the best long-term sustainability following the first TNFi failure in RA. METHODS: Data were extracted from RHUMADATA from January2007. Patients were followed until treatment discontinuation, loss to follow-up, or November 25, 2022. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression models were used to compare discontinuation between groups. Missing data were imputed, and propensity scores were computed to reduce potential attribution bias. Complete, unadjusted, and propensity score-adjusted imputed data analyses were produced. RESULTS: 611 patients (320 treated with a TNFi and 291 treated with molecules having another mechanism of action (OMA)) were included. The mean age at diagnosis was 44.5 and 43.9 years, respectively. The median retention was 2.84 and 4.48 years for TNFi and OMAs groups. Using multivariable analysis, the discontinuation rate of the OMA group was significantly lower than TNFi (adjHR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.44-0.94). This remained true for the PS-adjusted MI Cox models. In a stratified analysis, rituximab (adjHR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.18-0.84) had better retention than TNFi after adjusting for patient characteristics. CONCLUSION: Switching to an OMA, especially rituximab, in patients with failure to a first TNFi appears to be the best strategy as a second line of therapy.

Identification of Gaps in Quality of Care and Good Practice Interventions in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Insights From a Literature Review and Qualitative Study of Nine Centers in North America.

OBJECTIVE: Quality of care (QoC) delivery in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) continues to suffer from various challenges (eg, delay in diagnosis and referral) that can lead to poor patient outcomes. This study aimed to identify good practice interventions that address these challenges in RA care in North America. METHODS: The study was conducted in three steps: (1) literature review of existing publications and guidelines (April 2005 to April 2021) on QoC in RA; (2) in-person visits to >50 individual specialists and health care professionals across nine rheumatology centers in the United States and Canada to identify challenges in RA care and any corresponding good practice interventions; and (3) collation and organization of findings of the two previous methods by commonalities to identify key good practice interventions, followed by further review by RA experts to ensure key challenges and gaps in RA care were captured. RESULTS: Several challenges and eight good practice interventions were identified in RA care. The interventions were prioritized based on the perceived positive impact on the challenges in care and ease of implementation. High-priority interventions included the use of technology to improve care, streamlining specialist treatment, and facilitating comorbidity assessment and care. Other interventions included enabling patient access to optimal medication regimens and improving patient self-management strategies. CONCLUSION: Learnings from the study can be implemented in other rheumatology centers throughout North America to improve RA care. Although the study was completed before the COVID-19 pandemic, the findings remain relevant.

Real-World Effectiveness and Safety of SDZ ETN, an Etanercept Biosimilar, in Patients with Rheumatic Diseases: Final Results from Multi-Country COMPACT Study.

INTRODUCTION: COMPACT, a non-interventional study, evaluated the persistence, effectiveness, safety and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial-spondyloarthritis (axSpA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treated with SDZ ETN (etanercept [ETN] biosimilar) in Europe and Canada. METHODS: Patients (aged ≥ 18 years) who have been treated with SDZ ETN were categorised on the basis of prior treatment status (groups A-D): patients in clinical remission or with low disease activity under treatment with reference ETN or biosimilar ETN and switched to SDZ ETN; patients who received non-ETN targeted therapies and switched to SDZ ETN; biologic-naïve patients who started SDZ ETN after conventional therapy failure; or disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD)-naïve patients with RA considered suitable for treatment initiation with a biologic and started on treatment with SDZ ETN. The primary endpoint was drug persistence, defined as time from study enrolment until discontinuation of SDZ ETN treatment. RESULTS: Of the 1466 patients recruited, 844 (57.6%) had RA, 334 (22.8%) had axSpA and 288 (19.6%) had PsA. Patients had an ongoing SDZ ETN treatment at the time of enrolment for an observed average of 138 days (range 1-841); 22.7% of patients discontinued SDZ ETN through 12 months of study observation. Overall, all the patients receiving SDZ ETN showed good treatment persistence at 12 months with discontinuation rates of 15.2%, 25.7% and 27.8% in groups A, B and C, respectively. Across all patient groups, no major differences were observed in the disease activity and PRO scores between baseline and month 12. Injection-site reactions were low across the treatment groups. CONCLUSION: These results support the effectiveness and safety of SDZ ETN treatment in patients with RA, axSpA or PsA in real-life conditions. The treatment persistence rates observed were consistent with previously published reports of patients treated with reference or other biosimilar ETN. No new safety signals were identified.

Effectiveness of a treat-to-target strategy in patients with moderate to severely active rheumatoid arthritis treated with abatacept.

BACKGROUND: To compare a treat-to-target (T2T) approach and routine care (RC) in adults with active to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiating subcutaneous abatacept. METHODS: A 12-month cluster-randomized trial in active RA patients treated with abatacept was conducted. Physicians were randomized to RC or T2T with a primary endpoint of achieving sustained Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) low disease activity (LDA) at two consecutive assessments approximately 3 months apart. Additional outcomes included Simple Disease Activity Index (SDAI), Disease Activity Score 28-CRP (DAS28-CRP), Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3), and the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI). Time to achieve therapeutic endpoints was assessed with survival analysis. RESULTS: Among the 284 enrolled patients, 130 were in the T2T group and 154 in RC. Primary endpoint was achieved by 36.9% and 40.3% of patients in T2T and RC groups, respectively. No significant between-group differences were observed in the odds of achieving secondary outcomes, except for a higher likelihood of CDAI LDA in the T2T group vs. RC (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.33 [1.03-1.71], p = 0.0263). Compared with RC, patients in the T2T group achieved SDAI remission significantly faster (Kaplan-Meier-estimated mean [standard error]: 14.0 [0.6] vs. 19.3 [0.8] months, p = 0.0428) with a trend toward faster achievement of CDAI LDA/remission, DAS28-CRP remission, and HAQ-DI minimum clinically important difference. CONCLUSIONS: Patients managed per T2T and those under RC experienced significant improvements in RA disease activity at 12 months of abatacept treatment. T2T was associated with higher odds of CDAI LDA and a shorter time to achieving therapeutic endpoints. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Name of the registry: ClinicalTrials.gov. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: NCT03274141 . Date of registration: September 6, 2017.

Factors Associated With Maintenance of Remission Following Change From Combination Therapy to Monotherapy in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Some patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who persist in remission may decide to stop their therapy. We evaluated baseline characteristics associated with remaining in remission or low disease activity (LDA) following medication withdrawal. METHODS: The Study of Etanercept and Methotrexate in Combination or as Monotherapy in Subjects With Rheumatoid Arthritis (SEAM-RA) was a phase III, multicenter, randomized withdrawal, double-blind, controlled study in patients with RA on methotrexate (MTX) + etanercept (ETN). If remission (Simplified Disease Activity Index [SDAI] ≤ 3.3) was sustained through a 24-week run-in period, patients then entered a 48-week double-blind period and were randomized 2:2:1 to receive MTX monotherapy, ETN monotherapy, or continue combination therapy. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify baseline factors associated with remission or LDA at the end of both periods. RESULTS: Of 371 patients enrolled, 253 entered the double-blind period. After adjusting for other factors, covariates associated with achieving SDAI remission at the end of the run-in period included younger age, longer duration of MTX treatment, and less severe clinical disease variables. Covariates associated with maintaining remission/LDA at the end of the 48-week double-blind period included lower patient global assessment of disease activity (PtGA), lower C-reactive protein, rheumatoid factor (RF) negativity, longer RA duration in the MTX arm, shorter duration of ETN treatment, and lower magnesium. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate patients with overall lower disease activity are more likely to remain in SDAI remission/LDA after switching from combination therapy to monotherapy. RF-negative status and lower PtGA scores were strongly associated with increased likelihood of remaining in remission/LDA with MTX or ETN monotherapy. (SEAM-RA; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02373813).

Effectiveness and Safety of Tofacitinib in Canadian Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: Primary Results From a Prospective Observational Study.

OBJECTIVE: The Canadian Tofacitinib for Rheumatoid Arthritis Observational (CANTORAL) is the first Canadian prospective, observational study assessing tofacitinib. The objective was to assess effectiveness and safety for moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Coprimary and secondary outcomes are reported from an interim analysis. METHODS: Patients initiating tofacitinib from October 2017 to July 2020 were enrolled from 45 Canadian sites. Coprimary outcomes (month 6) included the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI)-defined low disease activity (LDA) and remission. Secondary outcomes (to month 18) included the CDAI and the 4-variable Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR)/C-reactive protein (CRP) level to define LDA and remission; the proportions of patients achieving mild pain (visual analog scale <20 mm), and moderate (≥30%) and substantial (≥50%) pain improvements; and the proportions of patients achieving a Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index (HAQ DI) score greater or equal to normative values (≤0.25) and a HAQ DI score greater or equal to minimum clinically important difference (MCID) (≥0.22). Safety was assessed to month 36. RESULTS: Of 504 patients initiating tofacitinib, 44.4% received concomitant methotrexate. At month 6, 52.9% and 15.4% of patients were in CDAI-defined LDA and remission, respectively; a similar proportion of patients achieved outcomes by month 3 (first post-baseline assessment). By month 3, 27.2% and 41.7% of patients, respectively, were in DAS28-ESR-defined LDA and DAS28-CRP <3.2; 14.7% and 25.8% achieved DAS28-ESR remission and DAS28-CRP <2.6. By month 3, mild pain and moderate and substantial pain improvements occurred in 29.6%, 55.6%, and 42.9% of patients, respectively; 19.9% and 53.7% of patients achieved a HAQ DI score greater than or equal to normative values and a HAQ DI score greater than or equal to MCID, respectively. Outcomes were generally maintained to month 18. Incidence rates (events per 100 patient-years) for treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, and discontinuations due to AEs were 126.8, 11.9, and 14.5, respectively, and AEs of special interest were infrequent. CONCLUSION: Tofacitinib was associated with early and sustained improvement in RA signs and symptoms in real-world patients. Effectiveness and safety were consistent with the established tofacitinib clinical profile.

Effects of Disease-Worsening Following Withdrawal of Etanercept or Methotrexate on Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results From the SEAM-RA Trial.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: The effect of treatment withdrawal on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) whose disease is in sustained remission has not been well described. This analysis aimed to compare PRO changes in patients with RA following medication withdrawal and disease worsening. METHODS: SEAM-RA (Study of Etanercept and Methotrexate in Combination or as Monotherapy in Subjects With Rheumatoid Arthritis) was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized withdrawal, double-blind controlled study in patients with RA taking methotrexate plus etanercept and in remission (Simple Disease Activity Index ≤3.3). Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity, Patient's Assessment of Joint Pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, and 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey were evaluated for 48 weeks following methotrexate or etanercept withdrawal. Treatment differences for patients with versus without disease worsening were evaluated using a 2-sample t test for continuous end points and log-rank test for time-to-event end points. RESULTS: Of 253 patients, 121 experienced disease worsening and 132 did not. All PRO scores were similar to those of a general population at baseline and deteriorated over time across the study population. The PtGA and Patient's Assessment of Joint Pain values deteriorated less in those on etanercept monotherapy compared with methotrexate monotherapy. More patients with versus without disease worsening experienced deterioration that was greater than the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for all PROs tested. In patients with disease worsening, PtGA deterioration more than the MCID preceded Simple Disease Activity Index disease worsening. CONCLUSIONS: Etanercept monotherapy showed benefit over methotrexate in maintaining PRO scores. Patients with disease worsening experienced a more rapid worsening of PtGA beyond the MCID versus patients without disease worsening.Categories: autoinflammatory disease, biological therapy, DMARDs, rheumatoid arthritis.

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.

Post-switch Effectiveness of Etanercept Biosimilar Versus Continued Etanercept in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients with Stable Disease: A Prospective Multinational Observational Study.

INTRODUCTION: To better inform clinicians about the use of etanercept biosimilar (SB4) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), COMPANION-B, a prospective real-world observational study, evaluated the effectiveness of the voluntary switch from originator (etanercept, ETN) to SB4 in patients with stable RA (low-disease activity/remission). METHODS: The study recruited adult patients (18 years or older) with RA (2010 American College of Rheumatology criteria) prescribed ETN as their first or second biologic for at least 6 months across 14 sites in Canada and five in Australia. Patients had stable disease (Disease Activity Score-28 using erythrocyte sedimentation rate [DAS28-ESR] less than 3.2) at enrollment with no evidence of flare within the previous 3 months. Concomitant disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) were permitted. Patients could elect to continue ETN or voluntarily switch to SB4 in consultation with their doctors. The primary effectiveness measure was the proportion of patients with disease worsening (defined as a DAS28-ESR increase of at least 1.2 from baseline and minimum score of at least 3.2 or a defined modification in RA treatment) during 12 months of follow-up. The secondary effectiveness measure was the proportion of patients with disease worsening at month 6. Serious adverse events (SAEs) and non-serious adverse reactions (NSARs) were recorded. RESULTS: Of 163 patients enrolled, 109 elected to continue on ETN and 54 switched to SB4; 65.8% of patients received non-biologic DMARD(s), 52.6% methotrexate, and 10.5% oral corticosteroid(s). At month 12, the proportion of patients with disease worsening was comparable in the ETN group (22.8% [95% CI 15.0-32.2]) and SB4 group (17.6% [95% CI 8.4-30.9]). Similarly, the proportions of patients with disease worsening were also comparable at month 6 (ETN: 7.9% [95% CI 3.5-15.0]; SB4: 7.8% [95% CI 2.2-18.9]). SAEs were low and similar across both groups (ETN: 8.7%; SB4: 5.7%). NSARs were slightly higher in the SB4 vs. ETN group (13.2% vs. 2.9%). CONCLUSIONS: SB4 demonstrated comparable effectiveness to ETN over 12 months in patients with stable RA who voluntarily switched to the biosimilar in a real-world setting.

Impact of Methotrexate Discontinuation, Interruption, or Persistence in US Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Initiating Tofacitinib + Oral Methotrexate Combination.

PURPOSE: Using data from real-world practice, this analysis compared outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiating treatment with an oral Janus kinase inhibitor, tofacitinib, in combination with persistent, discontinued, or interrupted treatment with oral methotrexate (MTX). METHODS: This retrospective claims analysis (MarketScan® databases) included data from US patients with RA and at least one prescription claim for tofacitinib, dated between January 1, 2013, and April 30, 2017. Eligible patients were continuously enrolled for ≥12 months before and after treatment initiation, and initiated tofacitinib in combination with oral MTX, with at least two prescription claims for each. Patients were grouped according to treatment pattern (MTX-Persistent, MTX-Discontinued, or MTX-Interrupted). Tofacitinib treatment persistence, adherence, and effectiveness, as well as all-cause and RA-related health care costs, were assessed. FINDINGS: A total of 671 patients were eligible for inclusion; 504 (75.1%) were MTX-Persistent; 131 (19.5%), MTX-Discontinued; and 36 (5.4%), MTX-Interrupted. Rates of tofacitinib treatment persistence, adherence, and effectiveness at 12 months were similar between the MTX-Persistent and MTX-Discontinued cohorts. The percentage of patients switched from tofacitinib to another advanced disease-modifying antirheumatic drug within 12 months of tofacitinib initiation was greater in the MTX-Persistent cohort compared with that in the MTX-Discontinued cohort. RA-related health care costs at 12 months post-initiation were significantly greater in the MTX-Persistent cohort compared with those in the MTX-Discontinued cohort. IMPLICATIONS: The findings from this analysis of real-world data indicate that patients who initiate tofacitinib in combination with oral MTX may discontinue MTX and still experience outcomes similar to those in patients who persist with MTX, with lesser RA-related health care costs. These results support those from a previous clinical study on methotrexate withdrawal in patients with RA (NCT02831855).

A Bridge Too Far? Real-World Practice Patterns of Early Glucocorticoid Use in the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To describe patterns of glucocorticoid use in a large real-world cohort with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and assess the impact on disease activity and treatment. METHODS: Data are from adults with new RA (≤1 year) recruited to the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort (CATCH) and are stratified on the basis of whether a person was prescribed oral glucocorticoids within 3 months of study entry. Disease activity was compared over 24 months. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used for adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of escalation to biologics separately for 12 and 24 months, with random effects terms to account for prescribing patterns clustering by study site. RESULTS: Among 1891 persons, 30% received oral steroids. Users were older, were less often employed, and had shorter disease duration and higher disease activity. Disease activity improved over time, with early glucocorticoid users starting at higher levels of disease activity. Participants with early oral glucocorticoids were more likely to be on a biologic at 12 months (aOR = 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-3.7) and 24 months (aOR = 1.9; 95% CI, 1.3-3.0). Despite Canadian clinical practice guidelines to limit corticosteroid use to short-term or 'bridge' therapy, 30% of patients who used oral glucocorticoids still used them 2 years later. CONCLUSION: Early steroids were prescribed sparingly in CATCH and were often indicative of more active baseline disease as well as the need for progression to biologics.

Real-life drug persistence in patients with rheumatic diseases treated with CT-P13: a prospective observational cohort study (PERSIST).

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to report results from PERSIST, a real-life, observational, prospective cohort study of CT-P13, an infliximab (IFX) biosimilar, for treatment of patients with RA, AS or PsA who were biologic naïve or switched from an IFX reference product (IFX-RP; Remicade). METHODS: Adult patients were recruited during usual care at 38 sites in Europe and Canada and enrolled by their physicians after meeting eligibility criteria according to the country-approved label for CT-P13. Primary outcomes were to determine drug utilization and treatment persistence and to assess safety. Patients were followed for up to 2 years. Data were analysed and reported descriptively. RESULTS: Of 351 patients enrolled, 334 were included in the analysis (RA, 40.4%; AS, 34.7%; PsA, 24.9%). The safety analysis set comprised all 328 patients treated with CT-P13. The majority (58.2%) of patients received CT-P13 monotherapy, most (72.6%) by dosing every 6 or 8 weeks. The mean treatment persistence was 449.2 days; 62.3% of patients completed 2 years of treatment. In all, 214 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 38.4% of patients. Most TEAEs were of mild or moderate intensity; 13 were severe. The most commonly reported TEAEs were drug ineffective (9.5%) and infusion-related reactions (5.2%). The most frequently reported infection-related TEAEs were upper respiratory tract infections (3.0%), nasopharyngitis (2.1%) and bronchitis (1.5%). No patients experienced tuberculosis. CONCLUSION: Drug utilization and treatment persistence with CT-P13 were consistent with historical reports of IFX-RP in this patient population. Safety findings did not identify new concerns for CT-P13 in the treatment of patients with RA, AS or PsA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02605642.

Associations Between Safety of Certolizumab Pegol, Disease Activity, and Patient Characteristics, Including Corticosteroid Use and Body Mass Index.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of baseline and time-varying factors on the risk of serious adverse events (SAEs) in patients during long-term certolizumab pegol (CZP) treatment. METHODS: Safety data were pooled across 34 CZP clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and plaque psoriasis (PSO). Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to investigate the association of baseline patient characteristics with risk of serious infectious events (SIEs), malignancies, and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). Cox modeling for recurrent events assessed the impact of time-varying body mass index (BMI), systemic corticosteroid (CS) use, and disease activity on SIE risk in RA and SAE risk in PSO. RESULTS: Data were pooled from 8747 CZP-treated patients across indications. Cox models reported a 44% increase in SIE risk associated with a baseline BMI of 35 kg/m2 or more versus a baseline BMI of 18.5 kg/m2 to less than 25 kg/m2 . Baseline systemic CS use, age of 65 years or more, and disease duration of 10 years or longer also increased SIE risk. Older age was the only identified risk factor for malignancies. The risk of MACEs increased 107% for BMI of 35 kg/m2 or more versus BMI of 18.5 kg/m2 to less than 25 kg/m2 and increased 51% for men versus women. Higher disease activity, older age, systemic CS use, BMI of 35 kg/m2 or more, and baseline comorbidities were SIE risk factors in RA. Age and systemic CS use were risk factors for SAEs in PSO. CONCLUSION: Age, BMI, systemic CS use, and disease activity were identified as SIE risk factors in CZP-treated patients. Risk of malignancies was greater in older patients, whereas obesity and male sex were MACE risk factors.

Efficacy and safety of tofacitinib modified-release 11 mg once daily plus methotrexate in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis: 24-week open-label phase results from a phase 3b/4 methotrexate withdrawal non-inferiority study (ORAL Shift).

OBJECTIVES: To report the efficacy, safety and patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) of tofacitinib modified-release 11 mg once daily plus methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from the open-label phase of Oral Rheumatoid Arthritis Trial (ORAL) Shift. METHODS: ORAL Shift was a global, 48-week, phase 3b/4 withdrawal study in patients with moderate to severe RA and an inadequate response to methotrexate. Patients received open-label tofacitinib modified-release 11 mg once daily plus methotrexate; those who achieved low disease activity (LDA; Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI)≤10) at week 24 were randomised to receive blinded tofacitinib 11 mg once daily plus placebo (ie, blinded methotrexate withdrawal) or continue with blinded tofacitinib 11 mg once daily plus methotrexate for another 24 weeks. Efficacy, PROs and safety from the open-label phase are reported descriptively. RESULTS: Following screening, 694 patients were enrolled and received tofacitinib plus methotrexate in the open-label phase. At week 24, 527 (84.5%) patients achieved CDAI-defined LDA. Improvements from baseline to weeks 12 and 24 were generally observed for all efficacy outcomes (including measures of disease activity, and response, LDA and remission rates) and PROs. Adverse events (AEs), serious AEs and discontinuations due to AEs were reported by 362 (52.2%), 20 (2.9%) and 41 (5.9%) patients, respectively. No deaths were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Tofacitinib modified-release 11 mg once daily plus methotrexate conferred improvements in disease activity measures, functional outcomes and PROs, with most (84.5%) patients achieving CDAI-defined LDA after 24 weeks of open-label treatment; the safety profile was generally consistent with the historic safety profile of tofacitinib.Funded by Pfizer Inc; NCT02831855.

Efficacy of Long-Term Treatment with Once-Daily Baricitinib 2 mg in Patients with Active Rheumatoid Arthritis: Post Hoc Analysis of Two 24-Week, Phase III, Randomized, Controlled Studies and One Long-Term Extension Study.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate long-term efficacy of once-daily baricitinib 2 mg in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis who had an inadequate response (IR) to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) or biologic DMARDs (bDMARD). METHODS: Data from patients treated with baricitinib 2 mg daily in two 24-week, phase III studies, RA-BUILD (csDMARD-IR; NCT01721057) and RA-BEACON (bDMARD-IR; NCT01721044), and one long-term extension study (RA-BEYOND; NCT01885078), were analyzed (120 weeks). The main outcomes were achievement of low-disease activity (LDA; Simple Disease Activity Index [SDAI] ≤ 11), clinical remission (SDAI ≤ 3.3), Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) ≤ 0.5 and improvement from baseline of ≥ 0.22, and safety. Analysis populations included (1) all patients and (2) never-rescued patients. Completer and non-responder imputation (NRI) analyses were conducted on each population. RESULTS: In RA-BUILD, 684 were randomized (229 to baricitinib 2 mg, 180 of whom completed RA-BUILD and entered RA-BEYOND). In RA-BEACON, 527 were randomized (174 to baricitinib 2 mg, 117 of whom completed RA-BEACON and entered RA-BEYOND). In RA-BUILD-BEYOND, 85.1% (63/74, completer) and 27.5% (63/229, NRI) of csDMARD-IR patients treated with baricitinib 2 mg achieved SDAI LDA; 40.5% (30/74, completer) and 13.1% (30/229, NRI) were in SDAI remission; 62.2% (46/74, completer) and 20.1% (46/229, NRI) had HAQ-DI ≤ 0.5 and 81.1% (60/74, completer); and 26.2% (60/229, NRI) achieved ≥ 0.22 change from baseline at week 120. In RA-BEACON-BEYOND, 86.5% (32/37, completer) and 18.4% (32/174, NRI) of bDMARD-IR patients treated with baricitinib 2 mg achieved SDAI LDA; 24.3% (9/37, completer) and 5.2% (9/174, NRI) were in SDAI remission; 50.0% (19/38, completer) and 10.9% (19/174, NRI) had HAQ-DI ≤ 0.5; and 73.7% (28/38, completer) and 16.1% (28/174, NRI) achieved ≥ 0.22 change from baseline at week 120. Rates of adverse events of special interest were consistent with previous reports. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term treatment with baricitinib 2 mg demonstrated efficacy for up to 120 weeks and was well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01721057, NCT01721044, and NCT01885078.

Etanercept or Methotrexate Withdrawal in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients in Sustained Remission.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in whom remission is achieved following combination therapy with methotrexate plus etanercept face an ongoing medication burden. This study was undertaken to investigate whether sustained remission achieved on combination therapy can be maintained with either methotrexate or etanercept monotherapy, as assessed following discontinuation of one or the other medication from the combination. METHODS: Of the 371 adult patients with RA who received combination therapy with methotrexate plus etanercept, remission (defined as a Simplified Disease Activity Index [SDAI] score of ≤3.3) was sustained in 253 patients through a 24-week open-label period. These 253 patients then entered a 48-week, double-blind period and were randomized to receive either 1) methotrexate monotherapy (n = 101), 2) etanercept monotherapy (n = 101), or 3) methotrexate plus etanercept combination therapy (n = 51). Patients who subsequently experienced disease-worsening received rescue therapy with the combination regimen at the same dosages as used in the initial run-in period. The primary end point was the proportion of patients in whom SDAI-defined remission was maintained without disease-worsening at week 48 in the etanercept monotherapy group as compared to the methotrexate monotherapy group. Secondary end points included time to disease-worsening, and the proportion of patients in whom SDAI-defined remission was recaptured after initiation of rescue therapy. RESULTS: Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of the RA patients were similar across the treatment groups. At week 48, SDAI-defined remission was maintained in significantly more patients in the etanercept monotherapy group than in the methotrexate monotherapy group (49.5% versus 28.7%; P = 0.004). Moreover, as a secondary end point, sustained SDAI-defined remission was achieved in significantly more patients who received combination therapy than in those who received methotrexate monotherapy (52.9% versus 28.7%; P = 0.006). Time to disease-worsening was shorter in those who received methotrexate monotherapy than in those who received etanercept monotherapy or those who received combination therapy (each P < 0.001 versus methotrexate monotherapy). Among the patients who received rescue therapy, SDAI-defined remission was recaptured in 70-80% in each treatment group. No new safety signals were reported. CONCLUSION: The efficacy of etanercept monotherapy was superior to that of methotrexate monotherapy and similar to that of combination therapy in maintaining remission in patients with RA. SDAI-defined remission was recaptured in most of the patients who were given rescue therapy. These data could inform decision-making when withdrawal of therapy is being considered to reduce treatment burden in patients with well-controlled RA.

Trial of Upadacitinib or Abatacept in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Upadacitinib is an oral selective Janus kinase inhibitor to treat rheumatoid arthritis. The efficacy and safety of upadacitinib as compared with abatacept, a T-cell costimulation modulator, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis refractory to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are unclear. METHODS: In this 24-week, phase 3, double-blind, controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive oral upadacitinib (15 mg once daily) or intravenous abatacept, each in combination with stable synthetic DMARDs. The primary end point was the change from baseline in the composite Disease Activity Score for 28 joints based on the C-reactive protein level (DAS28-CRP; range, 0 to 9.4, with higher scores indicating more disease activity) at week 12, assessed for noninferiority. Key secondary end points at week 12 were the superiority of upadacitinib over abatacept in the change from baseline in the DAS28-CRP and the percentage of patients having clinical remission according to a DAS28-CRP of less than 2.6. RESULTS: A total of 303 patients received upadacitinib, and 309 patients received abatacept. From baseline DAS28-CRP values of 5.70 in the upadacitinib group and 5.88 in the abatacept group, the mean change at week 12 was -2.52 and -2.00, respectively (difference, -0.52 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.69 to -0.35; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P<0.001 for superiority). The percentage of patients having remission was 30.0% with upadacitinib and 13.3% with abatacept (difference, 16.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 10.4 to 23.2; P<0.001 for superiority). During the treatment period, one death, one nonfatal stroke, and two venous thromboembolic events occurred in the upadacitinib group, and more patients in the upadacitinib group than in the abatacept group had elevated hepatic aminotransferase levels. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with rheumatoid arthritis refractory to biologic DMARDs, upadacitinib was superior to abatacept in the change from baseline in the DAS28-CRP and the achievement of remission at week 12 but was associated with more serious adverse events. Longer and larger trials are required in order to determine the effect and safety of upadacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. (Funded by AbbVie; SELECT-CHOICE Clinicaltrials.gov number, NCT03086343.).

Long-term effectiveness and safety of infliximab, golimumab and golimumab-IV in rheumatoid arthritis patients from a Canadian prospective observational registry.

BACKGROUND: Long-term clinical registries are essential tools to evaluate new therapies in a patient population that differs from those in randomized clinical trials. The objectives are to describe the profile of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients treated with anti-TNF agents in Canadian routine care. METHODS: RA patients eligible for treatment with Infliximab (IFX), golimumab (GLM) or intravenous golimumab (GLM-IV) as per their respective Canadian product monographs were enrolled into the BioTRAC registry between 2002 and 2017. Study visits occurred at baseline and every 6 months thereafter. Effectiveness was assessed by changes in disease activity. Safety was evaluated by the incidence of adverse events (AEs) and drug survival. RESULTS: Of the 890 IFX-, 530 GLM- and 157 GLM-IV-treated patients, the proportion of females ranged from 77.0-86.6%, the mean ages from 55.8-57.7 and the mean disease duration from 6.5-8.6 years. A significant decrease in baseline disease duration and disease activity parameters (DAS, TJC, SJC, HAQ, AM stiffness, MDGA, PtGA, CRP, ESR) was observed over time. Treatment with IFX, GLM- and GLM-IV significantly improved all disease parameters over time. The incidence of AEs was 105, 113 and 82.6 /100 PYs and the incidence of SAEs was 11.7, 11.2 and 4.68 /100 PYs for IFX, GLM- and GLM-IV-treated patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Differences in baseline characteristics between patients treated with an anti-TNFs over time shows the evolution of treatment modalities over time. All treatments significantly reduced disease activity and improved functionality in a similar fashion. The incidence of adverse events was consistent with the safety profiles of IFX and GLM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00741793 (Retrospectively registered on August 26, 2008).

An open-label randomized controlled trial of DMARD withdrawal in RA patients achieving therapeutic response with certolizumab pegol combined with DMARDs.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this trial was to compare effectiveness of certolizumab pegol added to conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) in RA patients, followed by continuing vs discontinuing background csDMARDs after treatment response. METHODS: Patients with active RA who had certolizumab pegol added to their existing csDMARD regimen due to inadequate response were eligible. At 3 or 6 months, patients who achieved a change (Δ) in DAS28 of ⩾1.2 were randomized to continue combination therapy (COMBO) or withdraw csDMARD therapy (MONO) (unblinded). The primary outcome was non-inferiority of stopping vs continuing csDMARD(s) in terms of maintaining ΔDAS28 ⩾ 1.2 or achieving DAS28 low disease activity at 18 months (non-inferiority margin: 15 percentile units). RESULTS: A total of 125 patients were enrolled, 88 randomized to COMBO (n = 43) or MONO (n = 45). No significant differences were observed between groups in baseline age, gender, race, RF status or prior biologics (16% vs 11%). Although the rate of ΔDAS28 ⩾ 1.2 and/or DAS28 low disease activity achievement at 18 months was clinically comparable between the two groups (72% vs 69%), non-inferiority assumptions were not met [absolute risk difference (upper limit of 90% CI): 2.6% (19.1%)]. Similar baseline-adjusted improvements were seen in DAS28 (COMBO vs MONO: -2.3 vs -2.1; P = 0.49) and all endpoints were not statistically different including 59% vs 56% achieved DAS28 low disease activity, 69% vs 59% ΔDAS28 ⩾ 1.2, and 41% each remission. CONCLUSION: Among RA patients achieving a therapeutic response on combination therapy with certolizumab pegol and csDMARDs, withdrawing csDMARDs was not non-inferior to maintaining csDMARDs but improvements were sustained in both groups at 18 months.