Upadacitinib in Rheumatoid Arthritis and Inadequate Response to Conventional Synthetic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs: Efficacy and Safety Through 5 Years (SELECT-NEXT).

OBJECTIVE: To report 5-year efficacy and safety of upadacitinib (UPA) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from the phase III long-term extension (LTE) of SELECT-NEXT. METHODS: Patients on stable conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs were randomized to UPA 15 mg once daily (QD), UPA 30 mg QD, or placebo for 12 weeks. Following this, placebo-randomized patients were switched to UPA 15 mg QD or UPA 30 mg QD in the LTE; UPA-randomized patients continued their original dose. Blinding remained until dose switching from UPA 30 mg QD to UPA 15 mg QD because of approval of UPA 15 mg QD; the earliest switch occurred at week 168. Efficacy (as observed) and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) are reported through 5 years. RESULTS: Overall, 611 (92%) randomized patients entered the LTE; 271 (44%) discontinued the study drug by 5 years, primarily because of adverse events (16%). Clinical outcomes improved or were maintained at 5 years; 51% and 43% of patients achieved Clinical Disease Activity Index remission and 75% and 66% achieved Disease Activity Score in 28 joints based on C-reactive protein < 2.6 among those initially randomized to UPA 15 mg QD and UPA 30 mg QD, respectively. Proportions of patients achieving ≥ 20%/50%/70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria responses increased from week 60 through 5 years. Results were similar regardless of initial randomization to UPA or placebo. TEAEs, including TEAEs of special interest, were consistent with earlier analyses and other SELECT studies. Malignancies (excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer), major adverse cardiovascular events, and venous thromboembolic events were reported infrequently. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION: The 5-year benefit-risk profile for UPA in RA remains favorable. (SELECT-NEXT; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02675426).

Rheumatoid arthritis secondary non-responders to TNF can attain an efficacious and safe response by switching to certolizumab pegol: a phase IV, randomised, multicentre, double-blind, 12-week study, followed by a 12-week open-label phase.

OBJECTIVE: To study the efficacy and safety of certolizumab pegol (CZP) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had discontinued an initially effective TNF inhibitor (TNF-IR). METHODS: A randomised 12-week double-blind trial with CZP (n=27) or placebo (n=10) followed by an open-label 12 week extension period with CZP. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of the 2 groups were similar. ACR20 response (primary end point) at week 12 was achieved in 61.5%, and none of CZP and placebo-treated patients, respectively. Weeks 12-24 showed a maximum effect for CZP at 12 weeks, and that placebo patients switched blindly to CZP attained similar results seen with CZP in weeks 0-12. Since this result was highly significant, study inclusion was terminated after entry of 33.6% of the originally planned 102 patients. Adverse events occurred in 16/27 (59.3%) CZP subjects and 4/10 (40%) placebo subjects. There were no serious adverse events, neoplasms, opportunistic, or serious infections. CONCLUSIONS: This first, prospective, blinded trial of CZP in secondary TNF-IR shows that the ACR20 response rate observed with CZP was higher than that reported in most previous studies of TNF-IR. Additionally, CZP demonstrated good safety and tolerability. This study supports the use of CZP in RA patients who are secondary non-responders to anti-TNF therapies.

Durable control of psoriatic arthritis with guselkumab across domains and patient characteristics: post hoc analysis of a phase 3 study.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate patterns of stringent disease control with 2 years of guselkumab across key disease-identified domains and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in subgroups of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) defined by baseline characteristics. METHOD: This post hoc analysis of DISCOVER-2 (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03158285) evaluated biologic-naïve PsA patients (≥ 5 swollen/ ≥ 5 tender joints, C-reactive protein [CRP] ≥ 0.6 mg/dL) randomized to guselkumab every 4 weeks (Q4W); guselkumab at Weeks 0 and 4, then Q8W; or placebo with crossover to guselkumab Q4W at Week 24. Achievement of American College of Rheumatology 50/70% improvement (ACR50/70), Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) 0, dactylitis/enthesitis resolution, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)-Fatigue response (≥ 4-point improvement), HAQ-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) response (≥ 0.35-point improvement), PsA Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) low disease activity (LDA), and minimal disease activity (MDA) was assessed at Weeks 24, 52, and 100 in subgroups defined by sex and baseline medication use, body mass index, PsA duration, swollen/tender joints, CRP, and psoriasis severity/extent. Patients with missing categorical response data were considered nonresponders. RESULTS: 442/493 (90%) guselkumab-randomized patients completed treatment through Week 100. Significant multi-domain efficacy of guselkumab versus placebo was shown across adequately sized patient subgroups. A pattern of continuous improvement was observed across key PsA domains and PROs within patient subgroups: 65%-85% of guselkumab-randomized patients had enthesitis/dactylitis resolution, 50%-70% achieved complete skin clearance, 60%-80% reported meaningful improvements in function/fatigue, 40%-65% achieved PASDAS LDA, and 35%-50% achieved MDA at Week 100. CONCLUSION: Patients with active PsA receiving guselkumab demonstrated durable achievement of stringent endpoints associated with disease control across key PsA domains and PROs, regardless of baseline characteristics. Key Points • Among biologic-naïve patients with highly active psoriatic arthritis (PsA), efficacy of guselkumab across stringent disease endpoints and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at Week 24 was consistent regardless of baseline demographics and disease characteristics. • Within guselkumab-randomized PsA patient subgroups, major improvements in joint disease activity, complete skin clearance, dactylitis/enthesitis resolution, clinically meaningful improvements in PROs, and achievement of low overall disease activity were maintained through Week 100. • Durable stringent endpoint achievement indicating disease control was observed with guselkumab, regardless of baseline patient or disease characteristics.

Improvements in Patient-Reported Outcomes Through Six Months of Guselkumab Treatment in Patients With Active Psoriatic Arthritis: Real-World Data From the CorEvitas Psoriatic Arthritis/Spondyloarthritis Registry.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate patient-reported outcomes after 6 months of on-label guselkumab use in patients with rheumatologist-diagnosed active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) enrolled in the CorEvitas PsA/Spondyloarthritis Registry. METHODS: This analysis includes registry participants who initiated and persisted with on-label guselkumab (after US Food and Drug Administration approval for PsA; 100 mg at weeks 0, 4, and every 8 weeks) at their 6-month follow-up visit (On-Label Persisters). Among patients not meeting response criteria at baseline, responses at 6 months were determined for patient-reported outcomes, including patient-reported pain (0-100 mm visual analog scale), patient global assessment of arthritis + psoriasis (PtGA; 0-100 visual analog scale), and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI; 0-3). Unadjusted, nominal P values were calculated via single-proportion, one-sided test (H0 = 0%; α = 0.05). RESULTS: Of 90 On-Label Persisters, most had treatment-resistant PsA (92.2% and 73.3% previously received ≥1 and ≥2 biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, respectively), with mean (SD) baseline patient-reported pain, PtGA, and HAQ-DI scores of 57.0 (24.6), 50.3 (24.4), and 0.9 (0.6), respectively. Among those with patient-reported pain and PtGA scores of at least 15 at baseline, 40.2% (33/82) and 46.8% (36/77), respectively, achieved at least 15-mm reductions at 6 months; among those with HAQ-DI scores of at least 0.35 and more than 0.5 at baseline, respectively, 30.4% (21/69) achieved improvements of at least 0.35 and 10.3% (6/58) achieved scores of 0.5 or lower at 6 months (all nominal P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Pain and physical function are important contributors to health-related quality of life. In this real-world population of patients with treatment-resistant PsA and 6 months of persistent guselkumab treatment, clinically meaningful improvements in pain and physical function were achieved by approximately 40% and 30% of patients, respectively.

Efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis by previous treatment: post hoc analysis of phase II/III trials.

BACKGROUND: This study sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with distinct treatment histories. METHODS: Pooled phase II/III trial data from patients who received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily or placebo, as monotherapy or with conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), were analyzed post hoc. Separate evaluations were conducted for populations with a prior inadequate response (IR) to: 1) non-methotrexate (MTX) csDMARDs only (non-MTX csDMARD-IR; n = 537); 2) MTX (MTX-IR; n = 3113); and 3) biologic (b)DMARDs (bDMARD-IR; n = 782). Efficacy outcomes included rates of response (American College of Rheumatology 20/50/70% response criteria) and remission (Disease Activity Score in 28 joints derived from 4 measures, erythrocyte sedimentation rate [DAS28-4(ESR)] < 2.6) at month 3, and changes from baseline in DAS28-4(ESR) and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index scores. Safety was assessed up to month 24. RESULTS: At month 3, efficacy was generally improved with tofacitinib (both doses) vs placebo in each population. Generally, efficacy outcomes with tofacitinib were numerically more favorable in non-MTX csDMARD-IR vs MTX-IR or bDMARD-IR patients. Over 24 months, crude incidence rates for adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, and discontinuations due to AEs were generally numerically lower in non-MTX csDMARD-IR and MTX-IR vs bDMARD-IR populations; rates for AEs of special interest were generally similar across populations. CONCLUSIONS: Tofacitinib provided clinical benefit across patients with rheumatoid arthritis with a range of prior treatment experience but may have greater efficacy and an improved benefit/risk profile in those with fewer prior treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00147498/NCT00413660/NCT00550446/NCT00603512/NCT00687193/NCT00976599/NCT01359150/NCT00847613/NCT00814307/NCT00853385/NCT00960440/NCT01039688/NCT00856544.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Sham-Controlled, Clinical Trial of Auricular Vagus Nerve Stimulation for the Treatment of Active Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Preliminary evidence suggests that vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) may have some benefit in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA); however, prior studies have been small and/or uncontrolled; this study aimed to address that gap. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial enrolled patients aged 18 to 75 years with active RA who had failed conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and were naïve to biologic and/or targeted synthetic DMARDs. All patients received an auricular vagus nerve stimulator and were randomized 1:1 to active stimulation or sham. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at week 12. Secondary endpoints included mean changes in disease activity score of 28 joints with C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI). RESULTS: A total of 113 patients (mean age 54 years; 82% female) enrolled, and 101 patients (89.4%) completed week 12. ACR20 response at week 12 was 25.0% for active stimulation versus 26.9% for sham (difference vs. sham, -1.9; 95% CI, -18.8, 14.9, P = 0.823). The least square mean ± SE change in DAS28-CRP was -0.95 ± 0.16 for active stimulation and -0.66 ± 0.16 for sham (P = 0.201); in HAQ-DI it was -0.19 ± 0.06 for active stimulation and -0.02 ± 0.06 for sham (P = 0.044). Adverse events occurred in 17 patients (15%); all were mild or moderate. CONCLUSION: Auricular VNS did not meaningfully improve RA disease activity. If VNS with other modalities is pursued in the future for the treatment of RA, larger, controlled studies will be needed to understand its utility.

Six-Month Persistence and Multi-domain Effectiveness of Guselkumab in Adults with Psoriatic Arthritis: Real-World Data from the CorEvitas Psoriatic Arthritis/Spondyloarthritis Registry.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this work is to evaluate treatment persistence and clinical outcomes after 6 months of on-label guselkumab use in patients with rheumatologist-diagnosed active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) enrolled in the CorEvitas PsA/Spondyloarthritis Registry. METHODS: Participants with PsA who initiated and persisted with on-label guselkumab use post-Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for active PsA (7/13/2020; subcutaneous 100 mg at weeks 0, 4, and every 8 weeks) at their 6-month follow-up visit (occurring through 3/31/2023) comprised the primary analysis population (On-Label Persisters). Hierarchical, multiplicity-controlled primary and secondary outcomes were mean (95% confidence interval) changes from baseline at 6 months in clinical Disease Activity Index for PsA (cDAPSA; primary), Physician Global Assessment (PGA) of arthritis and psoriasis (visual analog scale [VAS] 0-100), patient-reported pain (VAS 0-100), and percent body surface area with psoriasis (%BSA). Paired t tests determined changes that were statistically significantly different from 0 (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Among 114 patients who initiated on-label guselkumab and had eligible baseline and 6-month visits, 90 (78.9%) had persistent use. Among these On-Label Persisters at baseline, mean duration of PsA symptoms = 13.6 years; mean cDAPSA, PGA, and patient-reported pain = 22.0, 42.3, and 57.0, respectively; 94.4% had a history of psoriasis (mean BSA 7.6%); and 18.9% and 73.3%, respectively, previously received 1 or ≥ 2 biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. The mean change (improvement) in cDAPSA was - 5.4 (- 8.5, - 2.3; p < 0.001) at 6 months. Significant mean improvements in PGA (- 19.0 [- 24.2, - 13.8]), patient-reported pain (- 9.1 [- 14.4, - 3.8]), and %BSA (- 5.1 [- 7.6, - 2.7]) were also observed (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world PsA population, generally characterized by longstanding, treatment-resistant, active disease at baseline, persistent guselkumab use in nearly 80% of patients with on-label use was accompanied by significant improvements in joint and skin symptoms and patient-reported pain at 6 months. These registry data support results from randomized clinical trials demonstrating the efficacy of guselkumab in improving PsA signs and symptoms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02530268.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Multicenter Efficacy and Safety Study of Methotrexate to Increase Response Rates in Patients With Uncontrolled Gout Receiving Pegloticase: 12-Month Findings.

OBJECTIVE: To assess 12-month safety and efficacy of pegloticase + methotrexate (MTX) versus pegloticase + placebo (PBO) cotherapy in a PBO-controlled, double-blind trial (A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, efficacy and safety study of methotrexate to increase response rates in patients with uncontrolled gout receiving pegloticase [MIRROR RCT]). METHODS: Patients with uncontrolled gout (serum urate level [SU] ≥7 mg/dl, oral urate-lowering therapy failure or intolerance, and presence of one or more gout symptoms [one or more tophi, two or more flares in 12 months, gouty arthropathy]) were randomized 2:1 to receive pegloticase (8-mg infusion every 2 weeks) with blinded MTX (oral 15 mg/week) or PBO for 52 weeks. Efficacy end points included proportion of responders (SU level <6 mg/dl for ≥80% of examined month) in the intent-to-treat population (ITT) (all randomized patients) during month 6 (primary end point), month 9, and month 12; proportion with resolution of one or more tophi (ITT); mean SU reduction (ITT); and time to SU-monitoring pegloticase discontinuation. Safety was evaluated via adverse event reporting and laboratory values. RESULTS: Month 12 response rate was significantly higher in patients cotreated with MTX (60.0% [60 of 100] vs. 30.8% [16 of 52]; difference: 29.1% [95% confidence interval (CI): 13.2%-44.9%], P = 0.0003), with fewer SU discontinuations (22.9% [22 of 96] vs. 63.3% [31 of 49]). Complete resolution of one or more tophi occurred in 53.8% (28 of 52) versus 31.0% (9 of 29) of MTX versus PBO patients at week 52 (difference: 22.8% [95% CI: 1.2%-44.4%], P = 0.048), more than at week 24 (34.6% [18 of 52] vs. 13.8% [4 of 29]). Consistent with observations through month 6, pharmacokinetic and immunogenicity findings showed increased exposure and lower immunogenicity of pegloticase when administered with MTX, with an otherwise similar safety profile. No infusion reactions occurred after 24 weeks. CONCLUSION: Twelve-month MIRROR RCT data further support MTX cotherapy with pegloticase. Tophi resolution continued to increase through week 52, suggesting continued therapeutic benefit beyond month 6 for a favorable treatment effect.

A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study of Methotrexate to Increase Response Rates in Patients with Uncontrolled Gout Receiving Pegloticase: Primary Efficacy and Safety Findings.

OBJECTIVE: To assess efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity of pegloticase plus methotrexate (MTX) versus pegloticase plus placebo cotreatment for uncontrolled gout in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial. METHODS: This study included adults with uncontrolled gout, defined as serum urate ≥7 mg/dl, oral urate-lowering therapy failure or intolerance, and presence of ongoing gout symptoms including ≥1 tophus, ≥2 flares in the past 12 months, or gouty arthritis. Key exclusion criteria included MTX contraindication, current immunosuppressant use, G6PDH deficiency, and estimated glomerular filtration rate <40 ml/minute/1.73 m2 . Patients were randomized 2:1 to 52 weeks of pegloticase (8 mg biweekly) with either oral MTX (15 mg/week) or placebo. The primary end point was the proportion of treatment responders during month 6 (defined as serum urate <6 mg/dl for ≥80% of visits during weeks 20-24). Efficacy was evaluated in all randomized patients (intent-to-treat population), and safety was evaluated in all patients receiving ≥1 blinded MTX or placebo dose. RESULTS: A total of 152 patients were randomized, 100 to receive pegloticase plus MTX, 52 to receive pegloticase plus placebo. Significantly higher treatment response occurred during month 6 in the MTX group versus the placebo group (71.0% [71 of 100 patients] versus 38.5% [20 of 52 patients], respectively; between-group difference 32.3% [95% confidence interval 16.3%, 48.3%]) (P < 0.0001 for between-group difference). During the first 6 months of pegloticase plus MTX or pegloticase plus placebo treatment, 78 (81.3%) of 96 MTX patients versus 47 (95.9%) of 49 placebo patients experienced ≥1 adverse event (AE), most commonly gout flare (64 [66.7%] of 96 MTX patients and 34 [69.4%] of 49 placebo patients). Reports of AEs and serious AEs were comparable between groups, but the infusion reaction rate was considerably lower with MTX cotherapy (4.2% [4 of 96 MTX patients, including 1 patient who had anaphylaxis]) than with placebo cotherapy (30.6% [15 of 49 placebo patients, 0 who had anaphylaxis]) (P < 0.001). Antidrug antibody positivity was also lower in the MTX group. CONCLUSION: MTX cotherapy markedly increased pegloticase response rate over placebo (71.0% versus 38.5%) during month 6 with no new safety signals. These findings verify higher treatment response rate, lower infusion reaction incidence, and lower immunogenicity when pegloticase is coadministered with MTX.

Improvement in disease activity among patients with rheumatoid arthritis who switched from intravenous infliximab to intravenous golimumab in the ACR RISE registry.

Infliximab and golimumab are intravenously (IV) administered tumor necrosis factor inhibitors approved to treat moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with concomitant methotrexate. Owing to differences in biologic construct, patients with IV-infliximab treatment failure may benefit from switching to IV-golimumab. Utilizing the ACR's Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE), a large electronic health records registry based in the USA, we assessed RA disease activity in patients switching from IV-infliximab to IV-golimumab. This retrospective, longitudinal, single-arm study included adults (≥ 18 years) with ≥ 1 RA diagnosis code between 2014 and 2018 and ≥ 1 IV-infliximab prescription within 6 months of a new IV-golimumab order (index date). Longitudinal assessments of disease activity using the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) were calculated in patients continuing IV-golimumab for 6-9- and 9-12-months post-switch. Paired t-tests evaluated significance of mean improvements during the follow-up periods. Most RA patients with disease activity assessments during the 6-month follow-up (N = 100; mean age: 65.3 years; 81% female; 74% white) demonstrated moderate-to-high disease activity (CDAI: 73% [38/52]) at enrollment. On average, patients showed significant improvement in disease activity within 6-9 months of switching; mean CDAI scores improved from 21.3 to 14.1 (p < 0.0001) and were durable through 9-12 months of treatment. Real-world patients with moderate-to-high disease activity who switched from IV-infliximab to IV-golimumab demonstrated significant and sustained improvements post-switch as measured by the CDAI. Key Points • This study used real-world data from the Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE) registry to evaluate the efficacy of directly switching from intravenous (IV)-infliximab to IV-golimumab to control rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity. • Most IV-infliximab patients had moderate-to-high disease activity at the time of the switch. • On average, IV-golimumab was effective in improving RA disease activity after switching from IV-infliximab as measured by the Clinical Disease Activity Index. • These data suggest that real-world RA patients with persistent symptoms despite treatment with IV-infliximab may realize improved disease control with a switch to IV-golimumab.

A multicentre, efficacy and safety study of methotrexate to increase response rates in patients with uncontrolled gout receiving pegloticase (MIRROR): 12-month efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, and pharmacokinetic findings during long-term extension of an open-label study.

BACKGROUND: Publications suggest immunomodulation co-therapy improves responder rates in uncontrolled/refractory gout patients undergoing pegloticase treatment. The MIRROR open-label trial showed a 6-month pegloticase + methotrexate co-therapy responder rate of 79%, compared to an established 42% pegloticase monotherapy responder rate. Longer-term efficacy/safety data are presented here. METHODS: Uncontrolled gout patients (serum urate [SU] ≥ 6 mg/dL and SU ≥ 6 mg/dL despite urate-lowering therapy [ULT], ULT intolerance, or functionally-limiting tophi) were included. Patients with immunocompromised status, G6PD deficiency, severe kidney disease, or methotrexate contraindication were excluded. Oral methotrexate (15 mg/week) and folic acid (1 mg/day) were administered 4 weeks before and during pegloticase therapy. Twelve-month responder rate (SU < 6 mg/dL for ≥ 80% during month 12), 52-week change from baseline in SU, and extended safety were examined. Efficacy analyses were performed for patients receiving ≥ 1 pegloticase infusion. Pharmacokinetics (PK)/anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) were examined and related to efficacy/safety findings. RESULTS: Fourteen patients were included (all male, 49.3 ± 8.7 years, 13.8 ± 7.4-year gout history, pre-therapy SU 9.2 ± 2.5 mg/dL). Three patients were non-responders and discontinued study treatment before 24 weeks, one patient exited the study per protocol at 24 weeks (enrolled prior to treatment extension amendment), and 10 remained in the study through week 52. Of the 10, 8 completed 52 weeks of pegloticase + methotrexate and were 12-month responders. The remaining two discontinued pegloticase + methotrexate at week 24 (met treatment goals) and stayed in the study under observation (allopurinol prescribed at physicians' discretion); one remained a responder at 12 months. At 52 weeks, change from baseline in SU was - 8.2 ± 4.1 mg/dL (SU 1.1 ± 2.4 mg/dL, n = 10). Gout flares were common early in treatment but progressively decreased while on therapy (weeks 1-12, 13/14 [92.9%]; weeks 36-52, 2/8 [25.0%]). One patient recovered from sepsis (serious AE). Two non-responders developed high ADA titers; fewer patients had trough concentrations (Cmin) below the quantitation limit (BQL), and the median Cmin was higher (1.03 µg/mL vs. BQL) than pegloticase monotherapy trials. CONCLUSIONS: Pegloticase + methotrexate co-therapy was well-tolerated over 12 months, with sustained SU lowering, progressive gout flare reduction, and no new safety concerns. Antibody/PK findings suggest methotrexate attenuates ADA formation, coincident with higher treatment response rates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03635957 . Registered on 17 August 2018.

Sustained and improved guselkumab response in patients with active psoriatic arthritis regardless of baseline demographic and disease characteristics: pooled results through week 52 of two phase III, randomised, placebo-controlled studies.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy through 52 weeks of guselkumab, an interleukin 23-p19 subunit inhibitor, in subgroups of pooled psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients from the DISCOVER-1 and DISCOVER-2 trials defined by baseline patient characteristics. METHODS: Adults with active PsA despite standard therapies were enrolled in DISCOVER-1 (≥3 swollen and ≥3 tender joints, C reactive protein (CRP) level ≥0.3 mg/dL) and DISCOVER-2 (≥5 swollen and ≥5 tender joints, CRP ≥0.6 mg/dL, biological-naïve). Randomised patients received 100 mg guselkumab at weeks 0, 4, and then every 4 or 8 weeks (Q4W/Q8W) or placebo. Guselkumab effects on joint (ACR20/50/70), skin (IGA 0/1, IGA 0), patient-reported outcome (Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index/Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue) and disease severity (minimal disease activity/PsA Disease Activity Score low disease activity) endpoints were evaluated by patient sex, body mass index, PsA duration, swollen/tender joint counts, CRP level, percent body surface area with psoriasis, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score, and conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug use at baseline. RESULTS: Baseline patients characteristics in DISCOVER-1 (N=381) and DISCOVER-2 (N=739) were well balanced across randomised groups. At week 24, 62% (232/373) and 60% (225/375), respectively, of guselkumab Q4W-treated and Q8W-treated patients pooled across DISCOVER-1 and DISCOVER-2 achieved the primary endpoint of ACR20 response versus 29% (109/372) of placebo-treated patients. Guselkumab treatment effect at week 24 was observed across patient subgroups. Within each patient subgroup, response rates across all disease domains were sustained or increased at week 52 with both guselkumab regimens. CONCLUSIONS: Guselkumab Q4W and Q8W resulted in robust and sustained improvements in PsA signs and symptoms consistently in subgroups of patients defined by diverse baseline characteristics. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT03162796, NCT03158285.

Pegloticase in Combination With Methotrexate in Patients With Uncontrolled Gout: A Multicenter, Open-label Study (MIRROR).

OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy and safety of pegloticase in combination with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with uncontrolled gout in an exploratory, open-label clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03635957) prior to a randomized, controlled trial. METHODS: A multicenter, open-label efficacy and safety study of pegloticase with MTX co-treatment was conducted in patients with uncontrolled gout. Patients were administered oral MTX (15 mg/week) and folic acid (1 mg/day) 4 weeks prior to and throughout pegloticase treatment. The primary study outcome was the proportion of responders, defined as serum uric acid (sUA) < 6 mg/dL for ≥ 80% of the time during Month 6 (Weeks 20, 22, and 24). All analyses were performed on a modified intent-to-treat population, defined as patients who received ≥ 1 pegloticase infusion. RESULTS: Seventeen patients were screened and 14 patients (all men, average age 49.3 ± 8.7 years) were enrolled. On Day 1, mean sUA was 9.2 ± 2.5 mg/dL, and 12 of the 14 patients had visible tophi. At the 6-month timepoint, 11/14 (78.6%, 95% CI 49.2-95.3%) met the responder definition, with 3 patients discontinuing after meeting protocol-defined treatment discontinuation rules (preinfusion sUA values > 6 mg/dL at 2 consecutive scheduled visits). All patients tolerated MTX. No new safety concerns were identified. CONCLUSION: In this study, an increased proportion of patients maintained therapeutic response at 6 months when treated concomitantly with MTX and pegloticase as compared to the previously reported 42% using pegloticase alone. These results support the need for a randomized study of MTX or placebo with pegloticase to validate these open-label findings.

Re-establishment of efficacy of tofacitinib, an oral JAK inhibitor, after temporary discontinuation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVE: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This post-hoc analysis evaluated the effect of temporary discontinuation and reinitiation of tofacitinib on disease control in patients with RA in the vaccine sub-study of the long-term extension (LTE) study ORAL Sequel (NCT00413699). METHODS: The sub-study of ORAL Sequel was a randomized, parallel-group, open-label study. Patients who received tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily for ≥ 3 months in ORAL Sequel were randomized to receive continuous (tofacitinib monotherapy/with methotrexate) or interrupted (tofacitinib withdrawn for 2 weeks post-randomization then reinitiated as monotherapy/with methotrexate) treatment. Efficacy assessments included ACR20/50/70 response rates, change from baseline (∆) in C-reactive protein (CRP), Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-4 [ESR]), Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), Patient Global Assessment of arthritis (PtGA), Pain (Visual Analog Scale [VAS]), and Physician Global Assessment of arthritis (PGA). Safety was assessed throughout. RESULTS: The sub-study included 99 patients each in the continuous and interrupted treatment groups. ACR20/50 response rates, ∆CRP, ∆HAQ-DI (day 15), ∆DAS28-4 (ESR), ∆CDAI, ∆PtGA, ∆Pain (VAS), and ∆PGA were significantly worse in interrupted vs continuous patients during dose interruption, but were generally similar to pre-interruption/continuous treatment levels 28 days post-reinitiation. A numerically higher proportion of interrupted patients reported adverse events (49.5%) vs continuous patients (35.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Tofacitinib efficacy can be re-established after temporary withdrawal and reinitiation. The safety profile of patients who temporarily discontinued tofacitinib in the sub-study was consistent with previous tofacitinib LTE studies over 9 years. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00413699 Key Points • In this sub-study of the long-term extension (LTE) study, ORAL Sequel, the efficacy of tofacitinib was re-established after temporary withdrawal (2 weeks) and reinitation of treatment in patients with RA. • Patients with RA who temporarily discontinued tofacitinib had similar safety events to those reported in previous LTE studies. • The results of this sub-study were consistent with a post-hoc analysis of pooled data from two LTE studies, ORAL Sequel and A3921041, which assessed the efficacy of tofacitinib following a treatment discontinuation period of 14-30 days.

Efficacy and safety of intravenous golimumab plus methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis aged < 65 years and those ≥ 65 years of age.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of intravenous golimumab + methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) aged < 65 years and those ≥ 65 years who were enrolled in the GO-FURTHER study. METHODS: In the phase III, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled GO-FURTHER trial, patients with active RA were randomized to intravenous (IV) golimumab 2 mg/kg + MTX or placebo + MTX at weeks 0 and 4, then every 8 weeks thereafter (with crossover to golimumab at week 16 [early escape] or week 24 [per-protocol]). The final golimumab infusion was at week 100. Assessments included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response criteria. Efficacy and adverse events (AEs) were monitored through 2 years. Efficacy and AEs were summarized for patients aged < 65 years or ≥ 65 years; AEs were also summarized for patients < or ≥ 70 years and patients < or ≥ 75 years. RESULTS: In GO-FURTHER, 592 patients were randomized to receive placebo (n = 197) or golimumab (n = 395), 515 were aged < 65 years and 77 were ≥ 65 years. At week 24, ACR20 response rates were greater for golimumab + MTX patients compared with placebo + MTX for patients < 65 years (61.6% vs 31.3%, p < 0.001) and those ≥ 65 years (69.5% vs 33.3%; p < 0.01). Infections were the most common AE through week 112 (51.6% in patients < 65 years; 55.3% in patients ≥ 65 years); upper respiratory infections were the most common infection in patients < 65 years (13.2%) and those ≥ 65 years (11.8%). Serious AEs occurred in 17.7% in patients < 65 years and 25.0% of patients ≥ 65 years and included malignancies, pneumonia, fractures, acute pancreatitis, cellulitis, and bacterial arthritis. CONCLUSIONS: In GO-FURTHER, ACR response rates were similar between patients < 65 years and patients ≥ 65 years within each treatment group. AEs in elderly patients were similar to the known safety profile of IV golimumab. Immunosenescence is known to increase the risk of infections in the elderly. Elderly patients had a numerically higher incidence of serious infections. Six malignancies occurred in golimumab-treated patients, all in patients < 65 years. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00973479 . Registered September 9, 2009.

Biosimilars Have Arrived: Rituximab.

A biosimilar is a biologic product that is highly similar to a licensed biologic ("originator") such that there are no clinically meaningful differences in safety, purity, or potency between the biosimilar and the originator. As patent protection and data exclusivity for the biologic rituximab expire, several potential biosimilars to rituximab are in development, which could soon lead to the availability of numerous rituximab biosimilars. Biosimilars are evaluated using thorough and rigorous analyses of the potential biosimilar versus the originator biological to confirm similar structure, function, and clinical efficacy as well as safety. Approval of a biosimilar is based upon the totality of the evidence demonstrating similarity to the originator. An understanding of the process of the interchangeable designation of a biosimilar is important in the context of patient outcomes. We conducted an analysis of the properties and benefits of rituximab in the treatment of inflammatory diseases, the development and approval of biosimilars, and the potential benefits of rituximab biosimilars. PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for "biosimilar" and "rituximab" and regulatory and pharmaceutical company web pages were screened regarding biosimilars in development and specific guidelines developed for the approval of biosimilars. The results indicate that, at present, six rituximab biosimilar candidates are undergoing comparative clinical development, and two were recently approved in the European Union. Our analysis indicates rituximab biosimilars are expected to have a continuing role in treating inflammatory conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis.

Ethnographic Observational Study of the Biologic Initiation Conversation Between Rheumatologists and Biologic-Naive Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients.

OBJECTIVE: This ethnographic market research study investigated the biologic initiation conversation between rheumatologists and biologic-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis to assess how therapy options, particularly mode of administration, were discussed. METHODS: Consenting rheumatologists (n = 16) and patients (n = 48) were videotaped during medical visits and interviewed by a trained ethnographer. The content, structure, and timing of conversations regarding biologic initiation were analyzed. RESULTS: The mean duration of physician-patient visits was approximately 15 minutes; biologic therapies were discussed for a mean of 5.6 minutes. Subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) therapy options were mentioned in 45 and 35 visits, respectively, out of a total of 48 visits. All patients had some familiarity with SC administration, but nearly half of patients (22 of 48) were unfamiliar with IV therapy going into the visit. IV administration was not defined or described by rheumatologists in 77% of visits (27 of 35) mentioning IV therapy. Thus, 19 of 22 patients who were initially unfamiliar with IV therapy remained unfamiliar after the visit. Disparities in physician-patient perceptions were revealed, as all rheumatologists (16 of 16) believed IV therapy would be less convenient than SC therapy for patients, while 46% of patients (22 of 48) felt this way. In post-visit interviews, some patients seemed confused and overwhelmed, particularly when presented with many treatment choices in a visit. Some patients stated they would benefit from visual aids or summary sheets of key points. CONCLUSION: This study revealed significant educational opportunities to improve the biologic initiation conversation and indicated a disparity between patients' and rheumatologists' perception of IV therapy.

Biosimilars and the extrapolation of indications for inflammatory conditions.

Extrapolation is the approval of a biosimilar for use in an indication held by the originator biologic not directly studied in a comparative clinical trial with the biosimilar. Extrapolation is a scientific rationale that bridges all the data collected (ie, totality of the evidence) from one indication for the biosimilar product to all the indications originally approved for the originator. Regulatory approval and marketing authorization of biosimilars in inflammatory indications are made on a case-by-case and agency-by-agency basis after evaluating the totality of evidence from the entire development program. This totality of the evidence comprises extensive comparative analytical, functional, nonclinical, and clinical pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity studies used by regulators when evaluating whether a product can be considered a biosimilar. Extrapolation reduces or eliminates the need for duplicative clinical studies of the biosimilar but must be justified scientifically with appropriate data. Understanding the concept, application, and regulatory decisions based on the extrapolation of data is important since biosimilars have the potential to significantly impact patient care in inflammatory diseases.

The evolution of biomarkers in rheumatoid arthritis: from clinical research to clinical care.

BACKGROUND: Treatment efficacy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been measured by clinical response, gross radiological results and some biochemical markers. With the new biologic treatments, markers for disease development, progress, severity and therapy response have evolved. OBJECTIVES: This review focuses on a selection of current markers and the need for better markers for determining RA treatment susceptibility and success. METHODS: A review of the literature was conducted and expert opinions expressed. RESULTS/CONCLUSION: Current biomarkers mainly focus on disease activity and severity. Biomarkers for treatment response and susceptibility that help clinicians make initial treatment decisions are lacking or insufficient, yet required for optimal control of RA. A combination of biomarkers is necessary to classify a complex immune disease, such as RA.