Characteristics of patients with difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis: a descriptive retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In 2021, an EULAR task force published a definition of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (D2T RA). Our current knowledge of D2T RA with the EULAR definition is based on European and Asian cohorts, and no North American cohort has yet to be published. The aim of this study was to compare D2T RA patients to non-D2T RA who are good responders to advanced therapy, and to describe their evolution in an university health center patient cohort. METHODS: This is a retrospective single centre study of the medical records of all adults with RA on at least one biologic or target synthetic DMARD (b/tsDMARD). D2T RA group was defined according to the EULAR definition of D2T RA. The non-D2T RA group was defined as a b/tsDMARD good responder who had low-disease activity or remission for at least one year on 1 or 2 b/tsDMARD mechanism of action. We compared the patients' comorbidities, and history of b/tsDMARD use. Descriptive statistics and proportions were calculated. Kaplan-Meier analysis with log-rank test was used to estimate and compare median survival. RESULTS: Among the 417 patients, 101 (24%) were D2T RA and 316 (76%) were non-D2T RA. D2T RA group was slightly younger (63 ± 9 years versus 65 ± 12 years, p = 0.045), more likely to have concomitant non-inflammatory pain (28% versus 8%, p < 0.0001) and to discontinue at least one b/tsDMARD due to intolerance (39% versus 10%, p < 0.0001). In the D2T RA group, JAK inhibitors were associated with longer drug continuation when used as the third b/tsDMARD. Fewer patients were using corticosteroid at their most recent follow-up in this Canadian cohort compared to others (16% versus from 29 to 74%). CONCLUSION: Concomitant non-inflammatory pain was more prevalent in D2T RA patients compared to b/tsDMARD good responder non-D2T RA patients. Steroid-sparing strategies is possible even in D2T RA patients. Future prospective research may compare JAK inhibitors with other mechanisms of action in D2T RA.

A Canadian Retrospective Chart Review Evaluating Concomitant Methotrexate De-escalation Patterns in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Treated with Biologic or Targeted Synthetic DMARDs.

INTRODUCTION: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) guidelines recommend methotrexate (MTX)-anchored therapy with biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs); however, tolerability issues often lead to non-adherence. Canadian data on MTX tapering and/or withdrawal following b/tsDMARD initiation are minimal. This chart review assessed frequency of MTX tapering or withdrawal following b/tsDMARD initiation and the impact on disease status in Canadian adults with RA. METHODS: Eligible patients had received MTX for ≥ 3 months before b/tsDMARD initiation. The b/tsDMARD was prescribed continuously for ≥ 18 months. Patients taking > 10 mg/day oral prednisone or equivalent were excluded. RESULTS: Eight hundred eighty-nine patients (mean baseline MTX dose 19.0 mg/week) prescribed b/tsDMARDs (tumor necrosis factor inhibitor 52.1%, Janus kinase inhibitor 18.3%, interleukin-6 inhibitor [IL-6i] 11.9%, other 17.7%) were evaluated at 22 Canadian centers. Within 2 years of b/tsDMARD initiation, MTX was tapered in 123 (13.8%) patients and discontinued in 147 (16.5%), most commonly due to planned tapering (36.6%) and patient decision (27.2%), respectively, and most commonly with IL-6i use (34.9%). The MTX dose was unchanged for 582 (65.5%) patients and increased for 37 (4.2%). Missing data limit interpretations of MTX dose effects on some secondary endpoints and challenge the assertion that a disease activity measure-based treat-to-target approach is routinely used in Canadian rheumatology practice. CONCLUSIONS: Methotrexate tapering or withdrawal occurred in 30.4% of Canadians with RA within 2 years following b/tsDMARD initiation. Baseline disease activity measures were missing from many medical records. However, for patients with baseline assessments, MTX tapering or discontinuation did not worsen disease activity.

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.

Impact of anti-rheumatic treatment on the individual components of the ACR composite score in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: real-world data.

OBJECTIVES: Standard criteria for measuring treatment efficacy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) include American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response rates, which require meeting a threshold of ≥20/50/70% improvement in several physician- and patient-reported measures. We aimed to evaluate the impact of csDMARDs, TNF inhibitors (TNFi), and tofacitinib (TOFA) on ACR components in real-life practice. METHODS: Clinical data of RA patients with a CDAI >10 at the time they started a treatment were pooled from two registries: Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative (OBRI) and RHUMADATA. Endpoints included proportions of patients achieving: ACR20/50/70 responses, ≥20/50/70% improvements and mean percentage improvement in individual ACR components at Month 6. We also adjusted for potential confounders to compare impact of these medications on outcomes of interest. RESULTS: A total of 669 patients were included (csDMARD, n=157, TNFi, n=252; TOFA, n=260). An overall higher proportion in all three-medication groups achieved ≥20/50/70% improvement in primary ACR components vs. secondary components. Among secondary components, ≥20/50/70% improvement rates were numerically highest for PhGA and lowest for HAQ-DI and pain. Among ACR20/50/70 responders for all medications, the mean percentage improvement was more than 80% for primary components, and ranged from 30% to 80% for secondary components. A significantly lower proportion of patients in TNFi group achieved to at least 50% improvement in pain compared to TOFA after adjusting. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world practice, physician-reported measures contribute slightly more to overall ACR20/50/70 responses. Pain was the most important factor in achieving an ACR50 TOFA users, possibly reflecting the different effects of JAKi on pain.

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.

Use of Apremilast to Achieve Psoriatic Arthritis Treatment Goals and Satisfaction at 1 Year in the Canadian Real-World APPRAISE Study.

INTRODUCTION: The APPRAISE study was conducted to better understand the 12-month effectiveness, tolerability, and patient satisfaction with apremilast treatment for patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in real-world settings. METHODS: APPRAISE (NCT03608657), a prospective, multicenter, observational study, enrolled adults with active PsA prescribed apremilast per routine care between July 2018 and March 2020. Patients were followed for 12 months with visits suggested every 4 months. The primary outcome measure was achievement of remission (REM) or low disease activity (LDA), defined as a Clinical Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (cDAPSA) score ≤ 13. RESULTS: Of the 102 patients who enrolled, 45 (44.1%) discontinued the study by 12 months. Most patients (75.5%) had moderate or high disease activity, and 24.5% were in REM/LDA at baseline based on cDAPSA score. Achievement of cDAPSA REM/LDA was 63.7%, 67.2%, and 53.8% at months 4, 8, and 12, respectively. In those continuing in the study, significant improvements were seen in swollen and tender joint counts, pain visual analog scale, psoriasis body surface area, and complete dactylitis resolution. Enthesitis reduction was also observed. Improvements in treatment satisfaction and patient-reported outcomes, including Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index and the 36-item Short Form physical and mental component scores, were observed over 12 months. The proportion of patients achieving a Patient-Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) increased significantly from baseline at months 4, 8, and 12 (P < 0.001). Apremilast was well tolerated; the most frequent adverse events (AEs) leading to discontinuation were diarrhea (9/102 [8.8%]), nausea (4/102 [3.9%]), and migraine (4/102 [3.9%]). CONCLUSION: In this real-world study conducted in Canadian rheumatology clinics, apremilast demonstrated clinical effectiveness in patients with active PsA, along with patient satisfaction with treatment. Safety findings were consistent with previously reported clinical data. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03608657.

Treatment with Upadacitinib in Active Psoriatic Arthritis: Efficacy and Safety Data of the First 192 Patients from the UPJOINT Study, a Multicentre, Observational Study in Clinical Practice.

INTRODUCTION: Our aim was to investigate the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib (UPA) in patients with either oligo- or polyarticular active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) using routine clinical practice data from an observational, prospective, multicentre study. METHODS: This interim analysis contains upadacitinib efficacy and safety data from the UPJOINT study, collected from baseline to the week 24 visit with a focus on composite measures, clinical assessments and patient-reported outcomes, amongst others, including minimal disease activity (MDA), very low disease activity (VLDA), Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA), Leeds Enthesitis Index (LEI), resolution of dactylitis and nail psoriasis and body surface area affected by skin psoriasis (BSA). RESULTS: A total of 296 patients with baseline data and 192 with completed week 24 visits were included in the analysis. The proportion of patients achieving MDA increased from 2.7% at baseline to 39.1% at week 24 (95% CI 32.1, 46.3). Similarly, the number of patients in DAPSA remission (DAPSA ≤ 4) increased from 0 at baseline to 32 (16.7%) by week 24. At that time, 59.4% of the patients were either in DAPSA remission or had low disease activity (DAPSA ≤ 14). During the 24 weeks time frame, the proportion of patients with BSA ≤ 3 increased from 80.7% to 91.1%. Furthermore, at weeks 12 and 24, 45.14% and 47.19% of affected patients showed a resolution of enthesitis. Active dactylitis and nail psoriasis at baseline were reported to affect 10.5% and 22.0%, decreasing to 2.6% and 5.7% at week 24, respectively. The safety findings are consistent with the known safety profile of upadacitinib in rheumatoid arthritis and PsA; no new safety risks were identified. CONCLUSION: The data from this study confirm the findings of previous randomized controlled trials suggesting UPA is an effective treatment for active PsA without any new safety signals in patients from daily clinical practice. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT04758117.

Upadacitinib is an antirheumatic medical therapy approved for treating psoriatic arthritis with insufficient response to previous conventional or biological therapies (DMARD-IR). Psoriatic arthritis is a chronic inflammatory disease affecting the joints, spine, tendons/entheses, skin, nails and other parts of the musculoskeletal system. Early diagnosis and treatment initiation are essential for patients with psoriatic arthritis given the potentially irreversible damage to joints, spine, and entheses and the considerable impact on quality of life. The results presented in this manuscript help clinicians evaluate whether the efficacy and the safety profile of upadacitinib found in previous clinical trials can be reproduced in patients seen in daily clinical practice. This analysis presents descriptive data on the real-world efficacy and safety of upadacitinib, measured by clinical and patient-reported outcomes assessed in four visits over 24 weeks. In summary, our findings confirm the results of previous clinical trials showing that upadacitinib effectively reduces symptom severity of PsA and substantially increases the proportion of patients achieving treatment goals relevant to clinical practice, such as remission or very low disease activity. In addition, safety data were consistent with previous studies of upadacitinib in rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis; no new risks to the patients' safety were identified.

Does the Type of Failure and the Choice of the Second Biologic Influence Response and Persistence on Medication in Rheumatoid Arthritis?

BACKGROUND: The type of failure may predict response to a second biologic. We evaluated the response to a second tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) or non-TNFi in patients failing their initial TNFi, either primarily or secondarily. METHODS: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were biologic-naive and had a Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) >10, who started their first TNFi for ≥3 months and then switched to a second biologic, were included in the study. Secondary failure was defined as 2 consecutive low-CDAI visits and then switching to a second biologic while they had moderate/severe CDAI. Primary failure was defined if it did not meet the definition of secondary failure, or if they had at least 1 moderate/severe CDAI after 3 months on treatment. We used multivariable logistic regression comparing primary versus secondary failure for achievement of CDAI ≤10 (primary outcome) and minimal clinically important differences (secondary outcome) at 6 months after switch. RESULTS: Of the 462 patients included, 64.3% and 35.7% stopped the first TNFi because of a primary and secondary failure, respectively. Patients with primary failure had a more severe disease (CDAI mean, 26.39 vs. 21.61; p < 0.001). The likelihood of achieving CDAI ≤10 (odds ratio, 4.367; 95% confidence interval, 2.428-7.856) and minimal clinically important difference (odds ratio, 2.851; 95% confidence interval, 1.619-5.020) was significantly higher for secondary than primary failure regardless of choice of a second agent. CONCLUSION: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis with secondary failure to a first TNFi responded better to a second biologic agent, regardless of the choice of biologic.

Effect of upadacitinib on reducing pain in patients with active psoriatic arthritis or ankylosing spondylitis: post hoc analysis of three randomised clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the effect of upadacitinib on pain outcomes in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) or ankylosing spondylitis (AS) across 3 randomised trials (SELECT-PsA 1 and 2 for PsA; SELECT-AXIS 1 for AS). METHODS: Patients were randomised to upadacitinib 15 mg once daily or placebo (all 3 studies), or adalimumab 40 mg every other week (SELECT-PsA 1 only). Pain outcomes included proportion of patients achieving ≥30%, ≥50% and ≥70% reduction from baseline in patient global assessment of pain and other end points. RESULTS: A higher proportion of patients receiving upadacitinib versus placebo achieved ≥30%, ≥50% and ≥70% reduction in pain end points as early as week 2; these improvements with upadacitinib were generally sustained or increased through year 1 (PsA 1/2 studies: 64%/48%, 58%/42% and 38%/22%, respectively; SELECT-AXIS 1 study: 76%, 72% and 54%). Results were similar with adalimumab in PsA 1 (59%, 49% and 32%). Patients who switched from placebo to upadacitinib 15 mg were able to reach a similar level of improvement as the continuous upadacitinib groups by year 1 (PsA 1/2 studies: 46%-60%, 35%-49% and 15%-34%; AS study: 83%, 72% and 46%). Results were similar with other pain end points. CONCLUSION: Rapid and sustained improvements in pain outcomes across several end points were consistently shown with upadacitinib over 1 year in patients with active PsA or AS who had either inadequate response to prior non-biologic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (PsA studies) or were biologic-naïve with inadequate response to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (AS study).

Predictors of Influenza Vaccination in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis 2017-2021: Results From the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: Adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at a higher risk for infections, including influenza and related complications. We identified influenza vaccination coverage in adults newly diagnosed with RA and examined sociodemographic RA characteristics and attitudes associated with vaccination. METHODS: We used data from patients enrolled in the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort between September 2017 and February 2021. At enrollment, participants reported their vaccination status in the previous year and completed the Beliefs About Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ). Clinical data were obtained from medical records. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of vaccination in the year after RA diagnosis. RESULTS: The baseline analytic sample of 431 patients were mostly White (80%) women (67%) with a mean age of 56 (SD 14) years. Prediagnosis, influenza vaccine coverage was 38%, increasing to 46% post diagnosis in the longitudinal sample (n = 229). Participants with previous influenza vaccination (odds ratio [OR] 15.33; 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.37-36.90), on biologics or JAKs (OR 5.42; 95% CI 1.72-17.03), and with a higher change in BMQ Necessity-Concerns Differential scores (OR 1.08; 95% CI 1.02-1.15) had greater odds, whereas women (OR 0.32; 95% CI 0.14-0.71), participants with a non-White racial background (OR 0.13; 95% CI 0.04-0.51), and participants currently smoking (OR 0.09; 95% CI 0.02-0.37) had lower odds of influenza vaccine coverage. CONCLUSION: Influenza vaccination coverage in patients with early RA remains below national targets in adults living with a chronic condition. Discussing vaccine history and medication attitudes at initial clinic visits with new patients with RA may enhance vaccine acceptance and uptake.

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.

Canadian Adalimumab Postmarketing Observational Epidemiological Study Assessing Effectiveness in Psoriatic Arthritis (COMPLETE-PsA): 12-month Results of Comparative Effectiveness of Adalimumab and nbDMARDs.

OBJECTIVE: COMPLETE-PsA was an observational study of biologic-naïve Canadian adults with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treated with adalimumab (ADA) or a nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (nbDMARD) regimen, after inadequate response/intolerance to a current nbDMARD treatment regimen. The aim of this analysis was to assess the 12-month effectiveness of ADA vs nbDMARDs. METHODS: Patients enrolled between March 2012 and November 2017 were included. The following clinical variables and patient-reported outcomes were collected/calculated per routine care: Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis in 28 joints (DAPSA28), Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein, physician global assessment (PGA), patient global assessment (PtGA), pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), 12-item Short Form Health Survey, enthesitis, dactylitis, body surface area (BSA), and time to achieving American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50, ACR70, and modified minimal disease activity (mMDA). RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy-seven ADA-treated and 148 nbDMARD-treated patients were included. At baseline, ADA-treated patients were less likely to be employed, had longer morning stiffness, higher DAPSA28, DAS28, PGA, PtGA, pain, and HAQ-DI, and lower prevalence of dactylitis (all P < 0.05). ADA-treated patients showed lower baseline-adjusted DAPSA28 (16.5 vs 26.6), DAS28 (2.8 vs 3.9), PGA (25.3 vs 37.1), and ESR (10.4 vs 15.0 mm/h) after 3 months compared to nbDMARD-treated patients, with observed improvements maintained to month 12. Time to achievement of ACR50, ACR70, and mMDA was significantly shorter (P < 0.001) among ADA-treated patients, with the likelihood of having dactylitis (odds ratio [OR] 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.6) and BSA< 3% (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.5-5.0) significantly lower and higher, respectively. Switching to another biologic was less likely in ADA-treated vs nbDMARD-treated patients (hazard ratio 0.3, 95% CI 0.2-0.5). CONCLUSION: In a real-world Canadian population of patients with PsA, ADA was more effective than nbDMARDs at reducing disease activity and the severity of skin involvement, and demonstrated higher retention. [ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01559038].

Frequency and Duration of Early Non-serious Adverse Events in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Psoriatic Arthritis Treated with Tofacitinib.

INTRODUCTION: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). This post hoc analysis assessed frequency or duration of early select non-serious adverse events (AEs; excluding infections), and their impact on treatment discontinuation, in patients with RA or PsA treated with tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily, or placebo. METHODS: Data were pooled from five phase 3 and one phase 3b/4 studies in patients with moderate-to-severe RA, and two phase 3 studies in patients with active PsA. Select all-causality, non-serious AEs, reported to month 3 (placebo-controlled period), were headache, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and gastric discomfort (including dyspepsia, gastritis, epigastric discomfort, and abdominal discomfort or pain); incidence rates (unique patients with events per 100 patient-years of follow-up), duration of, and discontinuations due to these non-serious AEs were reported. RESULTS: We analyzed 3871 and 710 patients with RA and PsA, respectively. Incidence of non-serious AEs to month 3 was generally similar with tofacitinib and placebo. The most frequent non-serious AEs were headache and diarrhea with tofacitinib, and dyspepsia, nausea, and headache with placebo. Most events were mild or moderate in severity, lasting ≤ 4 weeks. Permanent discontinuations due to non-serious AEs were not observed in patients with PsA, and were < 1.0% in patients with RA across treatment groups. The most frequent cause of temporary discontinuation across all groups was gastric discomfort (0.3-0.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Non-serious AE incidence was generally similar in patients with RA or PsA receiving tofacitinib or placebo. Most events were mild or moderate and generally resolved within 4 weeks. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT00960440; NCT00847613; NCT00814307; NCT00856544; NCT00853385; NCT01877668; NCT01882439; NCT02187055.

Tofacitinib is a medicine that can be taken by patients to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Serious side effects that might occur in patients taking tofacitinib are more frequently discussed than the mild, non-serious side effects that patients might consider to be more of a 'nuisance', which often occur shortly (< 3 months) after starting treatment. Here we looked at patients with RA or PsA who were taking tofacitinib or placebo (no medicine) during clinical trials, to find out how often they had certain non-serious side effects, how long they lasted, and whether they caused the patients to stop taking their medication. A similar number of patients with RA or PsA taking tofacitinib or placebo had non-serious side effects. The most common non-serious side effects in patients taking tofacitinib were a headache and diarrhea. The most common non-serious side effects in patients taking placebo (no medicine) were indigestion, a feeling of sickness, and/or headache. Most non-serious side effects were mild or moderate and stopped within about 4 weeks. Fewer than one in every 100 patients with RA, and no patients with PsA, stopped taking their medication because of non-serious side effects. Most patients who stopped taking their medication did so due to a feeling of gastrointestinal (stomach) discomfort.

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.

Switching between Janus kinase inhibitor upadacitinib and adalimumab following insufficient response: efficacy and safety in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate efficacy and safety of immediate switch from upadacitinib to adalimumab, or vice versa, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with non-response or incomplete-response to the initial therapy. METHODS: SELECT-COMPARE randomised patients to upadacitinib 15 mg once daily (n=651), placebo (n=651) or adalimumab 40 mg every other week (n=327). A treat-to-target study design was implemented, with blinded rescue occurring prior to week 26 for patients who did not achieve at least 20% improvement in both tender and swollen joint counts ('non-responders') and at week 26 based on Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) >10 ('incomplete-responders') without washout. RESULTS: A total of 39% (252/651) and 49% (159/327) of patients originally randomised to upadacitinib and adalimumab were rescued to the alternate therapy. In both switch groups (adalimumab to upadacitinib and vice versa) and in non-responders and incomplete-responders, improvements in disease activity were observed at 3 and 6 months following rescue. CDAI low disease activity was achieved by 36% and 47% of non-responders and 45% and 58% of incomplete-responders switched to adalimumab and upadacitinib, respectively, 6 months following switch. Overall, approximately 5% of rescued patients experienced worsening in disease activity at 6 months postswitch. The frequency of adverse events was similar between switch groups. CONCLUSIONS: These observations support a treat-to-target strategy, in which patients who fail to respond initially (or do not achieve sufficient response) are switched to a therapy with an alternate mechanism of action and experience improved outcomes. No new safety findings were observed despite immediate switch without washout.

Impact of Ixekizumab on Work Productivity in Patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis: Results from the COAST-V and COAST-W Trials at 52 Weeks.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) are burdened with symptoms impacting work productivity measured by presenteeism, absenteeism, overall work impairment, and activity impairment. Ixekizumab, a high-affinity monoclonal antibody selectively targeting interleukin-17A, has been demonstrated to improve disease signs and symptoms in two phase 3 trials of AS. This study investigated for 52 weeks the effect of ixekizumab treatment on work productivity in patients with active AS. METHODS: COAST-V (NCT02696785) and COAST-W (NCT02696798) were phase 3, multicenter, randomized, controlled trials investigating the efficacy of ixekizumab 80 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) and every 2 weeks (Q2W) in patients with AS naïve to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs; COAST-V) or who were inadequate responders or intolerant to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi; COAST-W). Work productivity was measured with the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire for Spondyloarthritis at weeks 16 and 52. Absenteeism, presenteeism, and overall work impairment were assessed for patients reporting paid work. Activity impairment was assessed regardless of work status. RESULTS: At baseline, 66.2% (434/656) of patients reported paid work. At week 16, bDMARD-naïve patients treated with both ixekizumab dose regimens and TNFi-experienced patients treated with ixekizumab Q2W reported significant improvements in activity impairment (p < 0.01 and p < 0.05, respectively). TNFi-experienced patients treated with ixekizumab showed significant improvements versus placebo in presenteeism and overall work impairment (p < 0.05); bDMARD-naïve patients had numeric improvements. After week 16, patients initially on placebo switched to ixekizumab and patients already treated with ixekizumab continued treatment. Improvements in work productivity and daily activity were sustained through week 52 for both bDMARD-experienced and -naïve patients. CONCLUSION: Both bDMARD-naïve and TNFi-experienced patients with AS had greater improvements in work productivity and activity impairment when receiving ixekizumab compared to placebo at week 16. Improvements in work productivity and activity impairment achieved at week 16 were sustained through week 52 with ixekizumab treatment.

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.

Ixekizumab for patients with non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (COAST-X): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Ixekizumab, a high-affinity interleukin-17A (IL-17A) monoclonal antibody, has previously shown efficacy in radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (also known as ankylosing spondylitis). We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ixekizumab, an IL-17 inhibitor, in non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis. Here, we report the primary results of COAST-X. METHODS: COAST-X was a 52-week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study done at 107 sites in 15 countries in Europe, Asia, North America, and South America. Eligible participants were adults (aged ≥18 years) with active axial spondyloarthritis without definite radiographic sacroiliitis (non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis), objective signs of inflammation (via MRI or C-reactive protein), and an inadequate response or intolerance to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive subcutaneous 80 mg ixekizumab every 4 weeks (Q4W) or every 2 weeks (Q2W), or placebo. Changing background medications or switching to open-label ixekizumab Q2W, or both, was allowed after week 16 at investigator discretion. Primary endpoints were Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society-40 (ASAS40) response (defined as an improvement of 40% or more and an absolute improvement from baseline of 2 units or more [range 0-10] in at least three of the four domains [patient global, spinal pain, function, and inflammation] without any worsening in the remaining one domain) at weeks 16 and 52. Patients who switched to open-label ixekizumab were imputed as non-responders in logistic regression analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02757352. FINDINGS: Between Aug 2, 2016, and Jan 29, 2018, 303 patients were enrolled (105 to placebo, 96 to ixekizumab Q4W, and 102 to ixekizumab Q2W). Both primary endpoints were met: ASAS40 at week 16 (ixekizumab Q4W: 34 [35%] of 96, p=0·0094 vs placebo; ixekizumab Q2W: 41 [40%] of 102, p=0·0016; placebo: 20 [19%] of 105) and ASAS40 at week 52 (ixekizumab Q4W: 29 [30%] of 96, p=0·0045; ixekizumab Q2W: 32 [31%] of 102, p=0·0037; placebo: 14 [13%] of 105). 60 (57%) of 104 patients in the placebo group, 63 (66%) of 96 in the ixekizumab Q4W group, and 79 (77%) of 102 in the ixekizumab Q2W group had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events in the ixekizumab groups were nasopharyngitis and injection site reaction. Of the treatment-emergent adverse events of special interest, there was one case of serious infection in the ixekizumab Q4W group. The frequency of serious adverse events was low (four [1%] of 302) and similar across the three groups. There were no malignancies or deaths. No new safety signals were identified. INTERPRETATION: Ixekizumab was superior to placebo for improving signs and symptoms in patients with non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis at weeks 16 and 52. Reports of adverse events were similar to those of previous ixekizumab studies. Ixekizumab offers a potential therapeutic option for patients with non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis who had an inadequate response or were intolerant to NSAID therapy. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

A quarter of patients time their early rheumatoid arthritis onset differently than physicians.

Objective: Early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment requires timely recognition. This large, multicentre study compared patient-reported vs physician-reported onset of early RA. Methods: Patients from the Canadian Early ArThritis CoHort with early/suspected RA (persistent synovitis <1 year) completed questionnaires asking about the date of symptom onset; and rheumatologists date of onset for persistent synovitis. Groups with similar reported timing (patient and physician) versus differing timing of 30 days or more were compared. Results: In 2683 patients, the median patient symptom duration (IQR) was 178 days (163) and physician-reported duration was 166 (138). 1940 (72%) patients had similar patient-reported and physician-reported onset (<30 days), whereas 497 (18%) reported onset 30 or more days preceding physicians, and 246 (9%) 30 or more days after physicians. Patients reporting onset preceding physicians had lower baseline Disease Activity Score based on 28 joint count, swollen joint counts and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (p<0.05). Patients reporting onset after physicians were more likely to be rheumatoid factor positive (p<0.001) and had higher anticitrullinated protein antibody titres (p<0.009). Regression showed low income, smoking, fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis and baseline non-methotrexate non-biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug use were predictors for longer patient-reported symptoms. At 12 months, patients reporting longer symptom duration than physicians had lower rates of Simplified Disease Activity Index remission and higher physician global assessments. Conclusion: Over one-fourth of patients reported differences of >1 month in symptom onset from their rheumatologist. Patients with longer symptom durations had less improvement at 1 year, which may be reflective of comorbid musculoskeletal conditions.

Upadacitinib Versus Placebo or Adalimumab in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis and an Inadequate Response to Methotrexate: Results of a Phase III, Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy, including capacity for inhibition of radiographic progression, and safety of upadacitinib, a JAK1-selective inhibitor, as compared to placebo or adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have experienced an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX). METHODS: In total, 1,629 RA patients with an inadequate response to MTX were randomized (2:2:1) to receive upadacitinib (15 mg once daily), placebo, or adalimumab (40 mg every other week) while continuing to take a stable background dose of MTX. The primary end points were achievement of an American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) improvement response and a Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein level (DAS28-CRP) of <2.6 in the upadacitinib group compared to the placebo group at week 12; inhibition of radiographic progression was evaluated at week 26. The study was also designed and powered to test for the noninferiority and superiority of upadacitinib compared to adalimumab, as measured both clinically and functionally. RESULTS: At week 12, both primary end points were met in patients receiving upadacitinib compared to those receiving placebo (P ≤ 0.001). An ACR20 improvement response was achieved by 71% of patients in the upadacitinib group compared to 36% in the placebo group, and a DAS28-CRP score of <2.6 was observed in 29% of patients receiving upadacitinib compared to 6% of patients receiving placebo. Upadacitinib was superior to adalimumab based on the ACR50 response rate, achievement of a DAS28-CRP score of ≤3.2, change in pain severity score, and change in the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index. At week 26, more patients receiving upadacitinib than those receiving placebo or adalimumab achieved low disease activity or remission (P ≤ 0.001). Radiographic progression was significantly inhibited in patients receiving upadacitinib and was observed in fewer upadacitinib-treated patients than placebo-treated patients (P ≤ 0.001). Up to week 26, adverse events (AEs), including serious infections, were comparable between the upadacitinib and adalimumab groups. The proportions of patients with serious AEs and AEs leading to discontinuation were highest in the adalimumab group; the proportions of patients with herpes zoster and those with creatine phosphokinase (CPK) elevations were highest in the upadacitinib group. Three malignancies, 5 major adverse cardiovascular events, and 4 deaths were reported among the groups, but none occurred in patients receiving upadacitinib. Six venous thromboembolic events were reported (1 in the placebo group, 2 in the upadacitinib group, and 3 in the adalimumab group). CONCLUSION: Upadacitinib was superior to placebo and adalimumab for improving signs, symptoms, and physical function in RA patients who were receiving background MTX. In addition, radiographic progression was significantly inhibited by upadacitinib as compared to placebo. The overall safety profile of upadacitinib was generally similar to that of adalimumab, except for higher rates of herpes zoster and CPK elevations in patients receiving upadacitinib.