Long-term sustainability of response to upadacitinib among patients with active rheumatoid arthritis refractory to biological treatments: results up to 5 years from SELECT-BEYOND.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term sustainability of response to the Janus kinase inhibitor upadacitinib among patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response or intolerance to biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD-IR) in the SELECT-BEYOND phase 3 trial. METHODS: Patients on background conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) were treated once daily with upadacitinib 15 mg or placebo. Patients who completed the week 24 visit could enter a long-term extension of up to 5 years. The sustainability of response was assessed based on achievement of Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) and Disease Activity Score 28-joint count using C-reactive protein (DAS28 (CRP)) targets and evaluated up to week 260 in all patients receiving the approved upadacitinib 15 mg dose, including those randomised to upadacitinib 15 mg and those who switched from placebo to upadacitinib 15 mg at week 12. RESULTS: In this bDMARD-IR population, 45% (n=104/229) and 79% (n=172/219) of patients treated with upadacitinib 15 mg plus background csDMARD(s) achieved CDAI remission or CDAI low disease activity (LDA) at any point during the 5-year study, respectively. Of those who achieved CDAI remission/LDA, 25%/43% maintained their initial response through 240 weeks of follow-up after first achieving response. Most patients who lost remission or LDA were able to recapture that response by the cut-off date. Similar overall results were observed for SDAI and DAS28 (CRP). No strong predictors of response were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Over three-quarters of bDMARD-IR patients achieved CDAI LDA with upadacitinib, and almost half of those maintained LDA through 240 weeks of follow-up. Remission was achieved by nearly half of all patients and maintained in approximately a quarter of those achieving remission. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02706847.

Neurology's vital role in preventing unnecessary and potentially harmful pediatric studies.

INTRODUCTION: Regulatory authorities recognize two human populations: adults and children defined as <18 years. For drug approval, they demand separate studies. But humans mature slowly during puberty. The 18th birthday is an administrative limit that does not correspond to a physiological change. Separate drug approval before/after the 18th birthday reflects the children-are-therapeutic-orphans concept that emerged after 1962. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has backed away from this concept for antiepileptic drugs, but sticks to it in other areas. In contrast, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) is continuously expanding its demand for 'pediatric' studies. Parents hesitate increasingly to let their children participate in questionable studies. AREAS COVERED: Neurologists challenge the children-are-therapeutic-orphans mantra. Young patients do not need separate proof of efficacy & safety, but appropriate dosing recommendations. Minors should be treated as human beings, instead of being abused in questionable studies. EXPERT OPINION: Young patients with multiple sclerosis and other neurological diseases deserve studies with therapeutic intentions. 'Pediatric' careers have emerged in academia, regulatory authorities, and pharmaceutical companies. Institutional Review Boards/ Ethics Committees should suspend questionable 'pediatric' studies and reject newly submitted ones. The medical professions should distance themselves from questionable 'pediatric' research that reflects massive conflicts of interest.

COVID-19 and Treatment and Immunization of Children-The Time to Redefine Pediatric Age Groups is Here.

Children are infected with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as often as adults, but with fewer symptoms. During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS) in children (MIS-C), with symptoms similar to Kawasaki syndrome, was described in young minors testing positive for COVID-19. The United States (US) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defined MIS-C as occurring in <21-year-olds, triggering hundreds of PubMed-listed papers. However, postpubertal adolescents are no longer children biologically; the term MIS-C is misleading. Furthermore, MIS also occurs in adults, termed MIS-A by the CDC. Acute and delayed inflammations can be triggered by COVID-19. The 18th birthday is an administrative not a biological age limit, whereas the body matures slowly during puberty. This blur in defining children leads to confusion regarding MIS-C/MIS-A. United States and European Union (EU) drug approval is handled separately for children, defined as <18-year-olds, ascribing non-existent physical characteristics up to the 18th birthday. This blur between the administrative and the physiological meanings for the term child is causing flawed demands for pediatric studies in all drugs and vaccines, including those against COVID-19. Effective treatment of all conditions, including COVID-19, should be based on actual physiological need. Now, the flawed definition for children in the development of drugs and vaccines and their approval is negatively impacting prevention and treatment of COVID-19 in minors. This review reveals the necessity for redefining pediatric age groups to rapidly establish recommendations for optimal prevention and treatment in minors.