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).

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.).

Incidence and risk factors for herpes zoster in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving upadacitinib: a pooled analysis of six phase III clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Upadacitinib (UPA) is an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). JAK inhibitors have been associated with an increased risk of herpes zoster (HZ) in patients with RA. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the incidence and risk factors for HZ in UPA-treated patients with RA from the UPA phase III clinical trial programme. METHODS: Exposure-adjusted incidence/event rates for HZ were determined in patients receiving UPA (monotherapy or combination therapy) in six randomised phase III trials (data cut-off on 30 June 2020). HZ incidence and event rates were also determined in patients receiving methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy or adalimumab (ADA) + MTX. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to identify HZ risk factors in UPA-treated patients. RESULTS: A total of 5306 patients were included in this analysis. The incidence rate of HZ/100 patient-years (95% CI) was 0.8 (0.3 to 1.9), 1.1 (0.5 to 1.9), 3.0 (2.6 to 3.5) and 5.3 (4.5 to 6.2), in the MTX monotherapy, ADA + MTX, UPA 15 mg and UPA 30 mg groups, respectively. The majority of HZ cases with UPA (71%) involved a single dermatome. Prior history of HZ and Asian region were HZ risk factors in UPA-treated patients. CONCLUSION: In the UPA phase III RA clinical programme, HZ incidence and event rates were higher with UPA versus ADA + MTX or MTX monotherapy, and higher with the 30 mg versus 15 mg dose. Patients from Asia and those with a history of HZ may be at increased risk of HZ while receiving UPA.

An international survey of the structure and process of care for traumatic spinal cord injury in acute and rehabilitation facilities: lessons learned from a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: To describe the key findings and lessons learned from an international pilot study that surveyed spinal cord injury programs in acute and rehabilitation facilities to understand the status of spinal cord injury care. METHODS: An online survey with two questionnaires, a 74-item for acute care and a 51-item for rehabilitation, was used. A subset of survey items relevant to the themes of specialized care, timeliness, patient-centeredness, and evidence-based care were operationalized as structure or process indicators. Percentages of facilities reporting the structure or process to be present, and percentages of indicators met by each facility were calculated and reported separately for facilities from high-income countries (HIC) and from low and middle-income countries (LMIC) to identify "hard to meet" indicators defined as those met by less than two-thirds of facilities and to describe performance level. RESULTS: A total of 26 acute and 26 rehabilitation facilities from 25 countries participated in the study. The comparison of the facilities based on the country income level revealed three general observations: 1) some indicators were met equally well by both HIC and LMIC, such as 24-hour access to CT scanners in acute care and out-patient services at rehabilitation facilities; 2) some indicators were hard to meet for LMIC but not for HIC, such as having a multidisciplinary team for both acute and rehabilitation settings; and 3) some indicators were hard to meet by both HIC and LMIC, including having peer counselling programs. Variability was also observed for the same indicator between acute and rehabilitation facilities, and a wide range in the total number of indicators met among HIC facilities (acute 59-100%; rehabilitation 36-100%) and among LMIC facilities (acute: 41-82%; rehabilitation: 36-93%) was reported. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this international pilot study found that the participating acute and rehabilitation facilities on average adhered to 74% of the selected indicators, suggesting that the structure and processes to provide ideal traumatic spinal cord injury care were broadly available. Recruiting a representative sample of SCI facilities and incorporating regional attributes in future surveys will be helpful to examine factors affecting adherence to indicators.

Safety profile of upadacitinib in rheumatoid arthritis: integrated analysis from the SELECT phase III clinical programme.

OBJECTIVES: This integrated analysis presents the safety profile of upadacitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, at 15 mg and 30 mg once daily in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and laboratory data from five randomised, placebo- or active-controlled phase III trials of upadacitinib for patients with RA were analysed and summarised. Exposure-adjusted event rates are shown for placebo (three trials; 12/14 weeks), methotrexate (two trials; mean exposure: 36 weeks), adalimumab (one trial; mean exposure: 42 weeks), upadacitinib 15 mg (five trials; mean exposure: 53 weeks) and upadacitinib 30 mg (four trials; mean exposure: 59 weeks). RESULTS: 3834 patients received one or more doses of upadacitinib 15 mg (n=2630) or 30 mg (n=1204), for a total of 4020.1 patient-years of exposure. Upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis and urinary tract infection were the most commonly reported TEAEs with upadacitinib. Rates of serious infection were similar between upadacitinib 15 mg and adalimumab but higher compared with methotrexate. Rates of herpes zoster and creatine phosphokinase (CPK) elevations were higher in both upadacitinib groups versus methotrexate and adalimumab, and rates of gastrointestinal perforations were higher with upadacitinib 30 mg. Rates of deaths, malignancies, adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) were similar across treatment groups. CONCLUSION: In the phase III clinical programme for RA, patients receiving upadacitinib had an increased risk of herpes zoster and CPK elevation versus adalimumab. Rates of malignancies, MACEs and VTEs were similar among patients receiving upadacitinib, methotrexate or adalimumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: SELECT-EARLY: NCT02706873; SELECT-NEXT: NCT02675426; SELECT-COMPARE: NCT02629159; SELECT-MONOTHERAPY: NCT02706951; SELECT-BEYOND: NCT02706847.

The outcomes of stand alone polyetheretherketone cages in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

The procedure of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion is considered as the treatment of choice in degenerative disc disease, which material provides the best clinical and radiological fusion and other outcomes remains heavily debated. Materials that augment the process of fusion consist of bone grafting, titanium, polyetheretherketone (PEEK), or carbon cages. The application of PEEK cages has been recommended as it is radiolucent, and it has a modulus of elasticity that is similar to cortical bone. PEEK cages can be either filled with various materials or unfilled cages. Filled PEEK cages can include bone autografts, bone allografts, demineralized bone matrix, and other materials that facilitate fusion. This narrative review highlights that standalone filled PEEK cages were likely to have better radiological outcomes and satisfactory clinical outcomes for myelopathy when compared with standalone unfilled PEEK cages.

Twelve tips on how to establish a new undergraduate firm on a critical care unit.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about undergraduate teaching in critical care unit (CrCU) and many undergraduate curricula lack placements in CrCU. AIMS: To describe how our CrCU succeeded in developing a novel placement for Year 3 undergraduate medical students. METHODS: Particular emphasis was placed on a robust timetable incorporating a variety of activities, a dedicated and thorough induction, and a mix of teaching methods such as formal and informal, consultant-led, and skills. Services allied to CrCU were also utilized. RESULTS: Our new firm has exceeded all expectations and, based on student feedback, received the "Firm of the Year" award for several years in succession. It now serves as a model of undergraduate teaching in our hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Educationalists and intensivists should work together to unlock the full potential of this rich learning environment. Professional societies in critical care medicine should take the opportunity to develop more interest in undergraduate medical education.

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

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

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

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

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

Long-term Efficacy and Safety Following Switch Between Upadacitinib and Adalimumab in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: 5-Year Data from SELECT-COMPARE.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to describe the long-term efficacy and safety of upadacitinib and adalimumab through 228 weeks following immediate switch to the alternate therapy with a different mechanism of action (MoA) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) not achieving treatment goals with their initial randomized therapy in the ongoing phase 3 SELECT-COMPARE study. METHODS: Patients with non-response or incomplete response to initially prescribed upadacitinib 15 mg once daily or adalimumab 40 mg every other week were switched to the alternate therapy by week 26. Efficacy was evaluated through 228 weeks post-switch using validated outcome measures, including Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) low disease activity (LDA; ≤ 10)/remission (≤ 2.8); 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on C-reactive protein ≤ 3.2/< 2.6; ≥ 20%/50%/70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria; and change from baseline in ACR core components. Data are reported as observed. Safety was assessed by treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) through week 264. RESULTS: Of patients initially randomized to upadacitinib and adalimumab, 38.7% and 48.6%, respectively, switched to the alternate therapy by week 26. Clinically relevant improvements in all efficacy measures were observed through 228 weeks post-switch and were generally similar between groups, with small numeric differences mostly in favor of switching to upadacitinib. CDAI remission was achieved by 32.7% and 28.6% of initial non-responders, and 27.5% and 27.3% of incomplete responders, while CDAI LDA was achieved by 76.9% and 72.9% of non-responders, and 72.5% and 72.7% of incomplete responders switching to upadacitinib and to adalimumab, respectively. TEAE rates were similar between groups, although herpes zoster infection, lymphopenia, and creatine phosphokinase elevation were more frequent when switching to upadacitinib. No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSION: Switching to a different MoA may provide long-term benefit to patients with RA not achieving treatment goals with their initial therapy, with acceptable safety profiles. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02629159.

Long-term safety and efficacy of upadacitinib versus adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: 5-year data from the phase 3, randomised SELECT-COMPARE study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and efficacy of upadacitinib versus adalimumab from SELECT-COMPARE over 5 years. METHODS: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to methotrexate were randomised to receive upadacitinib 15 mg once daily, placebo or adalimumab 40 mg every other week, all with concomitant methotrexate. By week 26, patients with insufficient response to randomised treatment were rescued; patients remaining on placebo switched to upadacitinib. Patients completing the 48-week double-blind period could enter a long-term extension. Safety and efficacy were assessed through week 264, with radiographic progression analysed through week 192. Safety was assessed by treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Efficacy was analysed by randomised group (non-responder imputation (NRI)) or treatment sequence (as observed). RESULTS: Rates of TEAEs were generally similar with upadacitinib versus adalimumab, although numerically higher rates of herpes zoster, lymphopenia, creatine phosphokinase elevation, hepatic disorder and non-melanoma skin cancer were reported with upadacitinib. Numerically greater proportions of patients randomised to upadacitinib versus adalimumab achieved clinical responses (NRI); Clinical Disease Activity Index remission (≤2.8) and Disease Activity Score based on C reactive protein <2.6 were achieved by 24.6% vs 18.7% (nominal p=0.042) and 31.8% vs 23.2% (nominal p=0.006), respectively. Radiographic progression was numerically lower with continuous upadacitinib versus adalimumab at week 192. CONCLUSION: The safety profile of upadacitinib through 5 years was consistent with the known safety profile of upadacitinib, with no new safety risks. Clinical responses were numerically higher with upadacitinib versus adalimumab at 5 years. Upadacitinib demonstrates a favourable benefit-risk profile for long-term rheumatoid arthritis treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02629159.

Impact of Upadacitinib on Laboratory Parameters and Related Adverse Events in Patients with RA: Integrated Data Up to 6.5 Years.

INTRODUCTION: Upadacitinib (UPA) is a Janus kinase inhibitor that has demonstrated efficacy in moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an acceptable safety profile. We investigated laboratory parameter changes in UPA RA clinical trials. METHODS: Pooled data from six randomized trials in the SELECT phase 3 program were included. Key laboratory parameters and safety data were measured for UPA 15 and 30 mg once daily (QD), adalimumab (ADA) 40 mg every other week + methotrexate (MTX), and MTX monotherapy. Exposure-adjusted event rates (EAERs) of adverse events were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 3209 patients receiving UPA 15 mg QD (10 782.7 patient-years [PY]), 1204 patients receiving UPA 30 mg QD (3162.5 PY), 579 patients receiving ADA + MTX (1573.2 PY), and 314 patients receiving MTX monotherapy (865.1 PY) were included, representing up to 6.5 years of total exposure. Decreases in mean levels of hemoglobin, neutrophils, and lymphocytes, and increases in mean levels of liver enzymes and creatinine phosphokinase were observed with UPA, with grade 3 or 4 changes observed in some patients. Mean low- and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratios remained stable for patients receiving UPA 15 mg QD. EAERs of anemia and neutropenia occurred at generally consistent rates between UPA and active comparators (3.1-4.3 and 1.7-5.0 events [E]/100 PY across treatment groups, respectively). Rates of hepatic disorder were higher with MTX monotherapy, UPA 15 mg and UPA 30 mg (10.8, 9.7, and 11.0 E/100 PY, respectively) versus ADA + MTX (6.4 E/100 PY). Rates of lymphopenia were highest with MTX monotherapy (3.2 E/100 PY). Treatment discontinuations due to laboratory-related events were rare, occurring in 1.1% and 2.2% of patients treated with UPA 15 and 30 mg QD, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this integrated long-term analysis of laboratory parameters continue to support an acceptable safety profile of UPA 15 mg QD for moderate-to-severe RA.

Upadacitinib monotherapy versus methotrexate monotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: efficacy and safety through 5 years in the SELECT-EARLY randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib monotherapy versus methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy over 5 years among MTX-naïve patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in the long-term extension (LTE) of the phase 3 SELECT-EARLY trial. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg or MTX. Patients who did not achieve CDAI remission and had < 20% improvement in tender and swollen joint counts at week 26 received rescue therapy (addition of MTX in the upadacitinib group and addition of upadacitinib in the MTX group). Efficacy assessments were evaluated over 5 years and are reported as observed (AO) for patients who received continuous monotherapy with upadacitinib 15/30 mg or MTX and by randomized group applying non-responder imputation (NRI). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) per 100 patient-years were summarized over 5 years. RESULTS: Of 945 patients randomized and treated, 775 (82%) completed week 48 and entered the LTE on study drug. Higher proportions of patients consistently achieved disease activity targets over 5 years with upadacitinib than MTX. In AO analyses, 53%/59% of patients attained CDAI remission with upadacitinib 15/30 mg versus 43% with MTX at week 260. NRI analyses showed better CDAI, DAS28(CRP), and ACR responses with upadacitinib relative to MTX at week 260 (all comparisons, nominal P < .001). Upadacitinib treatment also resulted in numerically greater inhibition of structural joint progression through week 260 compared to MTX. Most TEAEs, serious AEs, and AEs leading to discontinuation were numerically higher in patients receiving upadacitinib 30 mg. Rates of serious infections, herpes zoster, creatine phosphokinase elevation, nonmelanoma skin cancer, and neutropenia were numerically higher with upadacitinib than MTX. The observed safety profile of upadacitinib over 5 years was consistent with earlier trial results and integrated phase 3 safety analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Upadacitinib showed better clinical responses versus MTX in patients with RA throughout the 5-year trial. Higher rates of several AEs were observed with upadacitinib, especially in the 30 mg group, compared to MTX. When used as monotherapy in MTX-naïve patients, the approved upadacitinib 15 mg dose showed better long-term efficacy versus MTX and an overall favorable benefit-risk profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02706873.

MACE and VTE across upadacitinib clinical trial programmes in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis.

OBJECTIVES: To provide an integrated analysis of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and events of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and associated risk factors across rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and ankylosing spondylitis (AS) phase 2b/3 upadacitinib clinical programmes. METHODS: Data were analysed and summarised from clinical trials of RA, PsA and AS treated with upadacitinib 15 mg once daily (QD) and 30 mg QD (as of 30 June 2021). Data from adalimumab (RA and PsA) and methotrexate (RA) arms were included as comparators. Adjudicated MACEs and VTE events were presented as exposure-adjusted rates per 100 patient-years (E/100 PY). Univariable Cox proportional hazard regression analyses assessed potential associations of risk factors for MACE and VTE. RESULTS: In total, 4298 patients received upadacitinib 15 mg (RA n=3209, PsA n=907 and AS n=182) and 2125 patients received upadacitinib 30 mg (RA n=1204 and PsA n=921). In patients with RA and PsA, rates of MACE (0.3-0.6 E/100 PY) and VTE (0.2-0.4 E/100 PY) were similar across upadacitinib doses; in patients with AS, no MACEs and one VTE event occurred. Most patients experiencing MACEs or VTE events had two or more baseline cardiovascular risk factors. Across RA and PsA groups, rates of MACEs and VTE events were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of MACEs and VTE events with upadacitinib were consistent with previously reported data for patients receiving conventional synthetic and biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs and comparable with active comparators adalimumab and methotrexate. Associated patient characteristics are known risk factors for MACEs and VTE events. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: RA (SELECT-NEXT: NCT02675426; SELECT-MONOTHERAPY: NCT02706951; SELECT-BEYOND: NCT02706847; SELECT-COMPARE: NCT02629159; SELECT-EARLY: NCT02706873, SELECT-CHOICE: NCT03086343), PsA (SELECT-PsA 2: NCT03104374; SELECT-PsA 1: NCT03104400), and AS (SELECT-AXIS 1: NCT03178487).

Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Upadacitinib in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: Final Results from the BALANCE-EXTEND Open-Label Extension Study.

INTRODUCTION: Upadacitinib (UPA) is an oral, selective Janus kinase inhibitor that has demonstrated favorable efficacy with an acceptable safety profile across a global, phase 3 program in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This phase 2 open-label extension investigated the efficacy and safety of UPA through 6 years of treatment. METHODS: Patients from two phase 2b trials (BALANCE-1 and -2) enrolled in BALANCE-EXTEND (NCT02049138) and received open-label UPA 6 mg twice daily (BID). Dose increases to 12 mg BID were required for patients with < 20% improvement in swollen or tender joint counts at weeks 6 or 12 and permitted for those not achieving Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) low disease activity (LDA; CDAI 2.8 to ≤ 10). Dose reduction to UPA 6 mg BID was permitted only for safety or tolerability reasons. After January 2017, the 6/12 mg BID doses were replaced by 15/30 mg once-daily extended-release equivalents. Efficacy and safety were monitored up to 6 years of UPA treatment; outcomes included rates of achievement of LDA or remission. Data were analyzed for patients who received the lower UPA dose throughout; titrated up to the higher UPA dose from weeks 6 or 12; or titrated to the higher UPA dose and back down. RESULTS: Overall, 493 patients entered BALANCE-EXTEND ('Never titrated', n = 306; 'Titrated up', n = 149; 'Titrated up and down', n = 38), and 223 patients (45%) completed the 6-year study. Total cumulative exposure was 1863 patient-years. Rates of LDA and remission were maintained through 6 years. Overall, 87%/70%/73% of patients in the 'Never titrated'/'Titrated up'/'Titrated up and down' groups achieved CDAI LDA at week 312, while the respective rates of Disease Activity Score 28 with C-reactive protein meeting LDA and remission criteria were 85%/69%/70% and 72%/46%/63%. Improvements in patient-reported outcomes were similar among the three groups. No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: In this open-label extension of two phase 2 studies, UPA demonstrated sustained efficacy and an acceptable safety profile through 6 years of treatment in patients who completed the study. These data support a favorable long-term benefit-risk profile of UPA in patients with RA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration number: NCT02049138.

Long-term safety and efficacy of upadacitinib or adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results through 3 years from the SELECT-COMPARE study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the long-term safety and efficacy of the Janus kinase inhibitor upadacitinib versus adalimumab over 3 years in the ongoing long-term extension (LTE) of SELECT-COMPARE, a randomised controlled phase 3 trial of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX). METHODS: Patients on stable background MTX were randomised 2:2:1 to upadacitinib 15 mg, placebo or adalimumab 40 mg. Patients with an insufficient response were switched by week 26 from placebo to upadacitinib, upadacitinib to adalimumab or adalimumab to upadacitinib. Patients who completed the 48-week double-blind period could enter an LTE for up to 10 years. Safety and efficacy results were analysed here through 3 years. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were summarised based on exposure to upadacitinib and adalimumab. Efficacy was analysed by original randomised groups (non-responder imputation), as well as separately by treatment sequence (as observed). RESULTS: Rates of several AEs were generally comparable between upadacitinib and adalimumab, including AEs leading to discontinuation, serious infections and serious AEs, malignancies, major adverse cardiac events, venous thromboembolism and deaths. Consistent with earlier results, herpes zoster, lymphopaenia, hepatic disorder and CPK elevation were reported at higher rates with upadacitinib versus adalimumab. In terms of efficacy, upadacitinib continued to show numerically better clinical responses than adalimumab over 3 years across all endpoints, including low disease activity and remission. CONCLUSION: The safety profile of UPA 15 mg was consistent with previous study-specific and integrated safety reports. Higher levels of clinical response continued to be observed with upadacitinib versus adalimumab through 3 years of treatment.

The Safety Profile of Upadacitinib in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis in Japan.

INTRODUCTION: Upadacitinib is a Janus kinase inhibitor with demonstrated efficacy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the long-term safety of upadacitinib in patients with active RA from Japan compared with global clinical trial populations. METHODS: Pooled data in patients enrolled from Japan (the 'Japanese population'; SELECT-SUNRISE, SELECT-EARLY, and SELECT-MONOTHERAPY) were compared with that from global (Japan and ex-Japan) upadacitinib clinical trial populations and summarized descriptively. RESULTS: The Japanese population (mean age 57.0 years; mean RA duration 6.1 years) received upadacitinib 7.5 mg (n = 121), 15 mg (n = 126), and 30 mg (n = 124) once daily, while the global population (mean age 54.8 years; mean RA duration 9.1 years) received upadacitinib 6 mg twice daily/15 mg once daily (n = 2883) and 12 mg twice daily/30 mg once daily (n = 1375). Most patients were female (79.3%). The exposure-adjusted incidence rates (EAIRs) of serious adverse events in the Japanese population were 11.5, 12.2, and 21.2 per 100 patient-years (PY) with upadacitinib 7.5, 15, and 30 mg, respectively. Herpes zoster rates were higher in the Japanese population (7.8, 12.4, and 16.7 per 100 PY with 7.5, 15, and 30 mg, respectively) versus global populations (3.7 and 7.0 per 100 PY with 15 and 30 mg, respectively). Prior herpes zoster was a significant risk factor for herpes zoster. CONCLUSIONS: The safety profile of upadacitinib was generally similar between Japanese and global RA populations, except for higher EAIRs for serious adverse events and infections, including herpes zoster, in the Japanese population. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: SELECT-EARLY: NCT02706873; SELECT-NEXT: NCT02675426; SELECT-COMPARE: NCT02629159; SELECT-MONOTHERAPY: NCT02706951; SELECT-BEYOND: NCT02706847; SELECT-SUNRISE: NCT02720523; BALANCE I: NCT01960855; BALANCE II: NCT02066389.

ABT-122, a Bispecific Dual Variable Domain Immunoglobulin Targeting Tumor Necrosis Factor and Interleukin-17A, in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis With an Inadequate Response to Methotrexate: A Randomized, Double-Blind Study.

OBJECTIVE: Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) and interleukin-17A (IL-17A) may independently contribute to the pathophysiology of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This study sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ABT-122, a novel dual variable domain immunoglobulin targeting human TNF and IL-17A, in patients with RA who have experienced an inadequate response to methotrexate. METHODS: Patients with active RA who were receiving treatment with methotrexate and had no prior exposure to biologic agents (n = 222) were enrolled in a 12-week phase II randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group study. Patients were randomized to receive either ABT-122 at dosages of 60 mg every other week, 120 mg every other week, or 120 mg every week or adalimumab at 40 mg every other week, administered subcutaneously. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of patients achieving a ≥20% improvement response based on the American College of Rheumatology criteria for 20% improvement (ACR20) at week 12. RESULTS: Treatment-emergent adverse events were similar across all treatment groups, with no serious infections or systemic hypersensitivity reactions reported with ABT-122. ACR20 response rates at week 12 were 62%, 75%, and 80% with ABT-122 60 mg every other week, 120 mg every other week, and 120 mg every week, respectively, compared with an ACR20 response rate of 68% with 40 mg adalimumab every other week. The corresponding response rates for ACR50 and ACR70 improvement in the ABT-122 dose groups and adalimumab group were 35%, 46%, 47%, and 48%, respectively, and 22%, 18%, 36%, and 21%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Over the 12-week study period, dual inhibition of TNF and IL-17A with ABT-122 produced a safety profile consistent with that of adalimumb used for inhibition of TNF alone. The efficacy of ABT-122 over 12 weeks at dosages of 120 mg every other week or 120 mg every week was not meaningfully differentiated from that of adalimumab at a dosage of 40 mg every other week in patients with RA receiving concomitant methotrexate.

Safety, Tolerability, and Pharmacodynamics of ABT-122, a Tumor Necrosis Factor- and Interleukin-17-Targeted Dual Variable Domain Immunoglobulin, in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) and interleukin-17 (IL-17) independently contribute to the pathophysiology of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). ABT-122 is a novel dual variable domain immunoglobulin that selectively and simultaneously targets human TNF and IL-17A. The aim of treatment with ABT-122 is to evoke a greater clinical response than that achieved by targeting either cytokine alone. This study was undertaken to present the pooled safety, tolerability, and exploratory pharmacodynamics of ABT-122 based on 2 phase I, placebo-controlled, multiple ascending-dose studies in patients with primarily inactive RA. METHODS: Patients (n = 44) receiving stable dosages of methotrexate (2.5-25 mg/week) were randomized to receive subcutaneous placebo, ABT-122 1 mg/kg every other week (4 doses), or ABT-122 0.5, 1.5, or 3 mg/kg weekly (8 doses) and were evaluated through 45 days after the last dose (day 92). Serum samples for the assessment of inflammation markers and chemokines were collected at baseline and on postdose days 3, 5, 8, 15, 29, 57, 64, 78, and 92. RESULTS: No clinically significant findings regarding the safety of ABT-122 were observed. The rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were similar in patients receiving ABT-122 and those receiving placebo. Only 1 serious AE (and no systemic hypersensitivity reactions or dose-limiting toxicities) was observed in patients treated with ABT-122. The incidence of infections was similar between patients treated with ABT-122 and those receiving placebo, with no serious infection reported. The levels of CXCL9, CXCL10, CCL23, and soluble E-selectin were significantly decreased following ABT-122 treatment relative to placebo treatment. Although patients had essentially inactive RA, exploratory clinical parameters suggested potential antiinflammatory effects following treatment with ABT-122. CONCLUSION: The results of these phase I studies suggest that dual neutralization of TNF and IL-17 with ABT-122 has characteristics acceptable for further exploration of therapeutic potential in TNF- and IL-17A-driven immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

A Phase IIb Study of ABT-494, a Selective JAK-1 Inhibitor, in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis and an Inadequate Response to Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of ABT-494, a novel selective JAK-1 inhibitor, with placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response or intolerance to at least 1 anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agent. METHODS: In this 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study, 276 RA patients receiving a stable dose of methotrexate (MTX) who had previously received treatment with at least 1 anti-TNF agent were randomized equally to receive immediate-release ABT-494 at 3, 6, 12, or 18 mg twice daily or matching placebo twice daily. The primary end point was the proportion of patients meeting the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieving an ACR20 response) at week 12. RESULTS: At week 12, significantly more patients receiving ABT-494 (53-71%) than those receiving placebo (34%) achieved an ACR20 response (by nonresponder imputation analysis) (P < 0.05), with a dose-response relationship among all ABT-494 doses (P < 0.001). ACR50 and ACR70 response rates were significantly higher in those receiving ABT-494 (36-42% and 22-26%, respectively) than in those receiving placebo (16% and 4%, respectively). Changes from baseline in the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the C-reactive protein level (DAS28-CRP) were significantly greater for all doses of ABT-494 than for placebo (P ≤ 0.01). Onset of action of ABT-494 was rapid, with significant differences from placebo at week 2 both in ACR20 response rate (for 12 and 18 mg) and in change in the DAS28-CRP (P < 0.001 for 6-18 mg). The most frequent adverse events (AEs) were headache, nausea, upper respiratory tract infection, and urinary tract infection. Infection rates were higher at higher doses of ABT-494, but no infections were serious. No deaths were reported among those receiving ABT-494. CONCLUSION: In patients with an inadequate response or intolerance to anti-TNF agents, ABT-494 added to MTX showed rapid, dose-dependent improvements in RA signs and symptoms, with safety and tolerability similar to those of other drugs of this class. No new AEs were identified.