Post-Marketing Safety Surveillance of Tofacitinib over 9 Years in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis and Rheumatoid Arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: The safety of tofacitinib in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been demonstrated in clinical studies of ≤ 4 and 9.5 years, respectively. Post-marketing surveillance (PMS) data for tofacitinib from spontaneous and voluntary adverse event (AE) reports have been published for RA, but not PsA. To inform the real-world safety profile of tofacitinib in PsA, we evaluated AE reports submitted to the Pfizer safety database (including RA data for context). METHODS: Endpoints included AEs, serious AEs (SAEs), AEs of special interest (AESIs; serious infections, herpes zoster, cardiovascular events, malignancies, venous thromboembolism), and fatal cases. Exposure was estimated using IQVIA global commercial sales data. Number, frequency, and reporting rates (RRs; number of events/100 patient-years' [PY] exposure) were summarized by indication and formulation (immediate release [IR] 5 or 10 mg twice daily], modified release [MR] 11 mg once daily, or all tofacitinib). The data-collection period differed by indication (PsA: 14 December 2017 [US approval, IR/MR] to 6 November 2021; RA: 6 November 2012 [US approval, IR] to 6 November 2021; MR approval, 24 February 2016). RESULTS: A total of 73,525 case reports were reviewed (PsA = 5394/RA = 68,131), with 20,706/439,370 PY (PsA/RA) of exposure. More AEs were reported for IR versus MR (IR/MR: PsA = 8349/7602; RA = 137,476/82,153). RRs for AEs (IR/MR: PsA = 59.6/113.4; RA = 44.0/64.8) and SAEs (PsA = 8.1/13.6; RA = 8.0/9.5) were higher with MR versus IR. AE RRs (RA) in the first 4 years after IR approval were 95.9 (IR; 49,439 PY) and 147.0 (MR; 2000 PY). Frequency of SAEs, AESIs, and fatal cases was mostly similar across formulations and indications. The most frequently-reported AE Preferred Terms (PsA/RA) included drug ineffective (20.0%/17.8%), pain (9.7%/10.6%), condition aggravated (9.9%/10.5%), headache (8.8%/7.9%) and, for PsA, off-label use (10.5%/3.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Tofacitinib PMS safety data from submitted AE reports were consistent between PsA and RA, and aligned with its known safety profile. Exposure data (lower MR versus IR; estimation from commercial sales data), reporting bias, reporter identity, and regional differences in formulation use limit interpretation.

Safety profile of upadacitinib over 15 000 patient-years across rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis and atopic dermatitis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term safety profile for upadacitinib across rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and atopic dermatitis (AD). METHODS: Safety data from clinical trials of upadacitinib 15 mg and upadacitinib 30 mg (AD only) for treating RA, PsA, AS and AD as of 30 June 2021 were analysed; some RA and PsA studies included adalimumab and methotrexate as active comparators. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were presented by disease as exposure-adjusted event rates per 100 patient years (E/100 PY). RESULTS: The analysis included 6991 patients (RA, n=3209; PsA, n=907; AS, n=182; AD, n=2693) who received at least one dose of upadacitinib, representing 15 425 PY of exposure (maximum duration 2.75-5.45 years) across diseases. Rates (E/100 PY) of any TEAE (205.5-278.1) and TEAE leading to discontinuation (4.5-5.4) were similar across diseases; serious TEAEs were numerically higher in patients with RA and PsA. Rates of herpes zoster (1.6-3.6), non-melanoma skin cancer (0-0.8) and elevations in creatine phosphokinase levels (4.4-7.9) were higher with upadacitinib than with active comparators in the RA and PsA populations. Deaths (0-0.8), serious infections (0-3.9), major adverse cardiovascular events (0-0.4), venous thromboembolism (<0.1-0.4) and malignancies (0.3-1.4) were observed, with rates generally lowest in AS and AD. Increased rates of acne were observed in patients with AD only. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this analysis demonstrate that upadacitinib is generally well tolerated with observed differences in safety profiles likely reflective of varying patient characteristics across RA, PsA, AS and AD populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT02675426, NCT02706951, NCT02706847, NCT02629159, NCT02706873, NCT03086343, NCT03104374, NCT03104400, NCT03178487, NCT03569293, NCT03568318 and NCT03607422.

Influenza Adverse Events in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis, Ulcerative Colitis, or Psoriatic Arthritis in the Tofacitinib Clinical Development Programs.

INTRODUCTION: This post hoc analysis evaluated influenza adverse events (AEs) across rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ulcerative colitis (UC), and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) tofacitinib clinical programs. METHODS: Available data from phase 1, randomized phase 2/3/3b/4 clinical trials (completed by 2018), and long-term extension (LTE) studies (up to May 2019) in patients with RA, UC, and PsA were included [randomized or Overall (phase 1-3b/4 and LTE studies) tofacitinib cohorts]. Incidence rates (IRs; events per 100 patient-years) of combined influenza AEs (seasons 2004/2005 to 2018/2019) were analyzed, including by tofacitinib dose [5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID)] and age (< 65 versus ≥ 65 years). Logistic regression models evaluated risk factors for influenza AEs in the RA Overall tofacitinib cohort. RESULTS: In randomized cohorts, combined influenza AE IRs were generally similar across tofacitinib, adalimumab, methotrexate, and placebo groups, across indications. Among Overall tofacitinib cohorts, combined influenza AE IRs with tofacitinib 5/10 mg BID, respectively, were higher in the UC (3.66/5.09) versus RA (2.38/2.19) and PsA (1.74/1.29) cohorts. IRs were generally similar across tofacitinib dose and age groups. Most influenza AEs were nonserious and did not require changes to tofacitinib treatment. Significant risk factors for influenza AEs in patients with RA were geographic region, baseline oral corticosteroid and methotrexate use, and tofacitinib dose. CONCLUSIONS: In the RA, UC, and PsA clinical programs, combined influenza AE IRs were highest in UC, while in each indication they were generally similar across tofacitinib, placebo, and comparator groups. Influenza AEs were predominantly nonserious and not associated with changes to tofacitinib treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT01262118, NCT01484561, NCT00147498, NCT00413660, NCT00550446, NCT00603512, NCT00687193, NCT01164579, NCT00976599, NCT01059864, NCT01359150, NCT02147587, NCT00960440, NCT00847613, NCT00814307, NCT00856544, NCT00853385, NCT01039688, NCT02281552, NCT02187055, NCT02831855, NCT00413699, NCT00661661, NCT00787202, NCT01465763, NCT01458951, NCT01458574, NCT01470612, NCT01877668, NCT01882439, NCT01976364.

Oral surveillance and JAK inhibitor safety: the theory of relativity.

The published results of the post-marketing ORAL Surveillance study, which compared the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofacitinib with anti-TNF therapy in older patients with rheumatoid arthritis who have cardiovascular risk factors, have led to changes in the recommendations for the use of JAK inhibitors. Although new safety signals have emerged for tofacitinib, namely malignancy and cardiovascular disease, it should be noted that these signals are relative to those seen with TNF blockers. The new data further raise our intrigue that venous thromboembolism might be a true risk related to JAK inhibition. Reassuringly, the totality of the findings from this newly published study and the other data collected to date suggest that JAK inhibitors can be used safely at approved doses by many patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Clinical utility of therapy selection informed by predicted nonresponse to tumor necrosis factor-ɑ inhibitors: an analysis from the Study to Accelerate Information of Molecular Signatures (AIMS) in rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: The molecular signature response classifier (MSRC) is a blood-based precision medicine test that predicts nonresponders to tumor necrosis factor-ɑ inhibitors (TNFi) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) so that patients with a molecular signature of non-response to TNFi can be directed to a treatment with an alternative mechanism of action. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This study evaluated decision choice and treatment outcomes resulting from MSRC-informed treatment selection within a real-world cohort. RESULTS: Therapy selection by providers was informed by MSRC results for 73.5% (277/377) of patients. When MSRC results were not incorporated into decision-making, 62.0% (62/100) of providers reported deviating from test recommendations due to insurance-related restrictions. The 24-week ACR50 responses in patients prescribed a therapy in alignment with MSRC results were 39.6%. Patients with a molecular signature of non-response had significantly improved responses to non-TNFi therapies compared with TNFi therapies (ACR50 34.8% vs 10.3%, p-value = 0.05). This indicates that predicted non-responders to TNFi therapies are not nonresponders to other classes of RA targeted therapy. Significant changes were also observed for CDAI, ACR20, ACR70, and for responses at 12 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of the MSRC into patient care could fundamentally shift treatment paradigms in RA, resulting in substantial improvements in real-world treatment outcomes.

Adverse events of special interest in clinical trials of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis and psoriasis with 37 066 patient-years of tofacitinib exposure.

OBJECTIVES: To analyse adverse events (AEs) of special interest across tofacitinib clinical programmes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ulcerative colitis (UC) and psoriasis (PsO), and to determine whether the incidence rates (IRs; unique patients with events per 100 patient-years) of these events are consistent across diseases. METHODS: The analysis included data from patients exposed to ≥1 dose of tofacitinib in phase 1, 2, 3 or 3b/4 clinical trials and long-term extension (LTE) studies (38 trials) in RA (23 trials), PsA (3 trials), UC (5 trials) and PsO (7 trials). All studies were completed by or before July 2019, except for one ongoing UC LTE study (data cut-off May 2019). IRs were obtained for AEs of special interest. RESULTS: 13 567 patients were included in the analysis (RA: n=7964; PsA: n=783; UC: n=1157; PsO: n=3663), representing 37 066 patient-years of exposure. Maximum duration of exposure was 10.5 years (RA). AEs within the 'infections and infestations' System Organ Class were the most common in all diseases. Among AEs of special interest, IRs were highest for herpes zoster (non-serious and serious; 3.6, 1.8, 3.5 and 2.4 for RA, PsA, UC and PsO, respectively) and serious infections (2.5, 1.2, 1.7 and 1.3 for RA, PsA, UC and PsO, respectively). Age-adjusted and sex-adjusted mortality ratios (weighted for country) were ≤0.2 across cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The tofacitinib safety profile in this analysis was generally consistent across diseases and with longer term follow-up compared with previous analyses.

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.

Long-term safety of tofacitinib up to 9.5 years: a comprehensive integrated analysis of the rheumatoid arthritis clinical development programme.

OBJECTIVE: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We report the largest integrated safety analysis of tofacitinib, as of March 2017, using data from phase I, II, III, IIIb/IV and long-term extension studies in adult patients with RA. METHODS: Data were pooled for patients with RA who received ≥1 tofacitinib dose. Incidence rates (IRs; patients with events/100 patient-years [PY]; 95% CIs) of first-time occurrences were obtained for adverse events (AEs) of interest. RESULTS: 7061 patients received tofacitinib (total exposure: 22 875 PY; median [range] exposure: 3.1 [0 to 9.6] years). IRs (95% CI) for serious AEs, serious infections, herpes zoster (all), opportunistic infections (excluding tuberculosis [TB]) and TB were 9.0 (8.6 to 9.4), 2.5 (2.3 to 2.7), 3.6 (3.4 to 3.9), 0.4 (0.3 to 0.5) and 0.2 (0.1 to 0.2), respectively. IRs (95% CI) for malignancies (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer [NMSC]), NMSC and lymphomas were 0.8 (0.7 to 0.9), 0.6 (0.5 to 0.7) and 0.1 (0.0 to 0.1), respectively. IRs (95% CI) for gastrointestinal perforations, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, venous thromboembolism, arterial thromboembolism and major adverse cardiovascular events were 0.1 (0.1 to 0.2), 0.2 (0.1 to 0.2), 0.1 (0.1 to 0.2), 0.3 (0.2 to 0.3), 0.4 (0.3 to 0.5) and 0.4 (0.3 to 0.5), respectively. IR (95% CI) for mortality was 0.3 (0.2 to 0.3). IRs generally remained consistent across 6-month intervals to >78 months. CONCLUSION: This represents the largest clinical dataset for a JAK inhibitor in RA to date. IRs remained consistent with previous reports from the tofacitinib RA clinical development programme, and stable over time. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT01262118; NCT01484561; NCT00147498; NCT00413660; NCT00550446; NCT00603512; NCT00687193; NCT01164579; NCT00976599; NCT01059864; NCT01359150; NCT02147587; NCT00960440; NCT00847613; NCT00814307; NCT00856544; NCT00853385; NCT01039688; NCT02187055; NCT00413699; NCT00661661.For summary of phase I, phase II, phase III, phase IIIb/IV and LTE studies included in the integrated safety analysis, see online supplemental table 1.

Long-term safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity of adalimumab biosimilar BI 695501 and adalimumab reference product in patients with moderately-to-severely active rheumatoid arthritis: results from a phase 3b extension study (VOLTAIRE-RAext).

Objective: To evaluate long-term safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity of BI 695501 in patients with moderately-to-severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have completed VOLTAIRE-RA. Methods: Eligible patients for this phase 3b open-label extension study (VOLTAIRE-RAext), who had completed 48 weeks' treatment with BI 695501 (Group A), 24 weeks each of adalimumab RP then BI 695501 (Group B), or 48 weeks of adalimumab RP (Group C) in VOLTAIRE-RA, were enrolled. Results: Altogether, 430 patients received BI 695501 fortnightly for 48 weeks: Group A, n = 225; Group B, n = 103; Group C, n = 102. The proportion of patients with drug-related adverse events (AEs; overall 20.2%) was similar across Groups A, B, and C: 21.3%, 20.4%, and 17.6%, respectively. The majority of treatment-emergent AEs were non-serious and of mild/moderate intensity. Consistent with adalimumab RP's safety profile, most drug-related AEs were in the system organ class infections and infestations. BI 695501 and adalimumab RP responses at the end of VOLTAIRE-RA were sustained during VOLTAIRE-RAext and all efficacy and immunogenicity endpoints were similar across groups. Conclusion: Over 2 years, BI 695501 showed similar safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity to adalimumab RP, independent of initial treatment in VOLTAIRE-RA. No previously unknown adalimumab side effects were identified. Clinical trial registration: NCT02640612.

Outcomes of infliximab dose escalation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: Dose escalation of infliximab in both primary and secondary nonresponders is widely reported; however, the usefulness of dose escalation has been disputed. The objective of this analysis is to evaluate trends in clinical efficacy following multiple infliximab dose escalations in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Patients enrolled in a US RA registry were included if they initiated infliximab at 3 mg/kg every 8 weeks, received ≥ 1 infliximab dose escalation within 12 months of initiation, and had ≥ 1 visit following dose escalation. Trends in mean Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) scores from visits following dose escalations were evaluated. RESULTS: In patients who received 2 or 3 dose escalations, the initial (1 or 2) dose escalations resulted in reduced mean CDAI scores, but subsequent escalations did not further reduce disease activity. In patients who received ≥ 4 dose escalations, mean CDAI scores did not further reduce disease activity over time. Mean HAQ scores were stable over time in patients who received 2 or 3 dose escalations. In patients who received ≥ 4 dose escalations, mean HAQ scores decreased following 1 dose escalation but progressively increased following subsequent dose escalations. CONCLUSION: Initial dose escalations (from 3 mg/kg to the equivalent of approximately 5 to 7 mg/kg) may be useful in controlling disease activity; however, there may be diminishing clinical benefit of further escalations, which can also increase the potential risk for infection and increase incremental drug costs. KEY POINTS: • Initial infliximab dose escalations (1 to 2) may be useful in lowering disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. • There does not appear to be a clinical benefit in infliximab dose escalations above the equivalent of 5 to 7 mg/kg.

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in the USA: premature use of tumor necrosis factor inhibition and underutilization of concomitant methotrexate.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to assess the treatment for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in the USA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study entailed analysis of claims data for patients with RA who initiated treatment with oral methotrexate (MTX) or a biologic in 2009 (n=48,910) or 2012 (n=107,636) and had follow-up for 4 years (2009 cohort) or 2 years (2012 cohort). RESULTS: A biologic was initiated before MTX for 27% of the 2009 cohort and 36% of the 2012 cohort. Concomitant use of MTX and a biologic declined from 74.1% (2009 cohort) to 45.4% (2012 cohort). CONCLUSION: MTX is underused in the treatment of RA in the USA.

Effects of a Single Intra-Articular Injection of a Microsphere Formulation of Triamcinolone Acetonide on Knee Osteoarthritis Pain: A Double-Blinded, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Multinational Study.

BACKGROUND: Intra-articular corticosteroids relieve osteoarthritis pain, but rapid systemic absorption limits efficacy. FX006, a novel, microsphere-based, extended-release triamcinolone acetonide (TA) formulation, prolongs TA joint residence and reduces systemic exposure compared with standard TA crystalline suspension (TAcs). We assessed symptomatic benefits and safety of FX006 compared with saline-solution placebo and TAcs. METHODS: In this Phase-3, multicenter, double-blinded, 24-week study, adults ≥40 years of age with knee osteoarthritis (Kellgren-Lawrence grade 2 or 3) and average-daily-pain (ADP)-intensity scores of ≥5 and ≤9 (0 to 10 numeric rating scale) were centrally randomized (1:1:1) to a single intra-articular injection of FX006 (32 mg), saline-solution placebo, or TAcs (40 mg). The primary end point was change from baseline to week 12 in weekly mean ADP-intensity scores for FX006 compared with saline-solution placebo. Secondary end points were area-under-effect (AUE) curves of the change in weekly mean ADP-intensity scores from baseline to week 12 for FX006 compared with saline-solution placebo, AUE curves of the change in weekly mean ADP-intensity scores from baseline to week 12 for FX006 compared with TAcs, change in weekly mean ADP-intensity scores from baseline to week 12 for FX006 compared with TAcs, and AUE curves of the change in weekly mean ADP-intensity scores from baseline to week 24 for FX006 compared with saline-solution placebo. Exploratory end points included week-12 changes in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Quality of Life (KOOS-QOL) subscale scores for FX006 compared with saline-solution placebo and TAcs. Adverse events were elicited at each inpatient visit. RESULTS: The primary end point was met. Among 484 treated patients (n = 161 for FX006, n = 162 for saline-solution placebo, and n = 161 for TAcs), FX006 provided significant week-12 improvement in ADP intensity compared with that observed for saline-solution placebo (least-squares mean change from baseline: -3.12 versus -2.14; p < 0.0001) indicating ∼50% improvement. FX006 afforded improvements over saline-solution placebo for all secondary and exploratory end points (p < 0.05). Improvements in osteoarthritis pain were not significant for FX006 compared with TAcs using the ADP-based secondary measures. Exploratory analyses of WOMAC-A, B, and C and KOOS-QOL subscales favored FX006 (p ≤ 0.05). Adverse events were generally mild, occurring at similar frequencies across treatments. CONCLUSIONS: FX006 provided significant, clinically meaningful pain reduction compared with saline-solution placebo at week 12 (primary end point). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

A randomised, double-blind trial to demonstrate bioequivalence of GP2013 and reference rituximab combined with methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this report is to demonstrate pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) equivalence as well as similar efficacy, safety and immunogenicity between GP2013, a biosimilar rituximab, and innovator rituximab (RTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with inadequate response or intolerance to tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) treatment. METHODS: In this multinational, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study, 312 patients with active disease despite prior TNFi therapy were randomised to receive GP2013 or either the EU (RTX-EU) or the US (RTX-US) reference product, along with methotrexate (MTX) and folic acid. The primary endpoint was the area under the serum concentration-time curve from study drug infusion to infinity (AUC0-inf). Additional PK and PD parameters, along with efficacy, immunogenicity and safety outcomes were also assessed up to week 24. RESULTS: The 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio of the AUCs were within the bioequivalence limits of 80% to 125% for all three comparisons; GP2013 versus RTX-EU: 1.106 (90% CI 1.010 to 1.210); GP2013 versus RTX-US: 1.012 (90% CI 0.925 to 1.108); and RTX-EU versus RTX-US: 1.093 (90% CI 0.989 to 1.208). Three-way PD equivalence of B cell depletion was also demonstrated. Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity profiles were similar between GP2013 and RTX. CONCLUSIONS: Three-way PK/PD equivalence of GP2013, RTX-EU and RTX-US was demonstrated. Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity profiles were similar between GP2013 and RTX. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01274182; Results.

Long-term safety of tofacitinib for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis up to 8.5†years: integrated analysis of data from the global clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We report an integrated safety summary of tofacitinib from two phase I, nine phase II, six phase III and two long-term extension studies in adult patients with active RA. METHODS: Data were pooled for all tofacitinib-treated patients (data cut-off: 31 March 2015). Incidence rates (IRs; patients with event/100 patient-years) and 95% CIs are reported for adverse events (AEs) of interest. RESULTS: 6194 patients received tofacitinib for a total 19 406 patient-years' exposure; median exposure was 3.4 patient-years. IR (95% CI) for serious AEs was 9.4 (9.0 to 9.9); IR for serious infections was 2.7 (2.5 to 3.0). IR for (all) herpes zoster was 3.9 (3.6 to 4.2); IR for disseminated or multidermatomal herpes zoster was 0.3 (0.2 to 0.4). IR for opportunistic infections (excluding tuberculosis) was 0.3 (0.2 to 0.4) and was 0.2 (0.1 to 0.3) for tuberculosis. IR for malignancies (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC)) was 0.9 (0.8 to 1.0); NMSC IR was 0.6 (0.5 to 0.7). IR for gastrointestinal perforations was 0.1 (0.1 to 0.2). Analysis of IR for serious infections, herpes zoster and malignancies by 6-month intervals did not reveal any notable increase in IR with longer-duration tofacitinib exposure. CONCLUSION: This analysis of tofacitinib exposure up to 8.5 years allowed estimation of safety events with improved precision versus previous tofacitinib reports. AEs were generally stable over time; no new safety signals were observed compared with previous tofacitinib reports. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT01262118, NCT01484561, NCT00147498, NCT00413660, NCT00550446, NCT00603512, NCT00687193, NCT01164579, NCT00976599, NCT01059864, NCT01359150, NCT00960440, NCT00847613, NCT00814307, NCT00856544, NCT00853385, NCT01039688, NCT00413699, NCT00661661; Results.

Malignancy and Janus Kinase Inhibition.

The use of biologics such as anti-tumor necrosis factor and oral Janus kinase inhibitors have revolutionized the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The risk of malignancies such as lymphomas, lung cancer, and nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSCs) is greater in patients with RA compared with the general population. The incidence of all malignancy (excluding NMSC) was similar in tofacitinib users compared with the general population. The rates of overall and site-specific malignancies in patients with RA treated with tofacitinib are similar to what is expected in the RA population and not different from disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and biologics.

Effect of baseline rheumatoid factor and anticitrullinated peptide antibody serotype on rituximab clinical response: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Studies examining the relationship between serological status (rheumatoid factor and/or anticitrullinated antibody) and rituximab treatment outcome in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been hampered by limited numbers of seronegative patients. OBJECTIVE: To carry out a meta-analysis of trials from the rituximab RA clinical programme to investigate this relationship further. METHODS: This was a meta-analysis of four placebo-controlled, phase II or III clinical trials. The efficacy end point in all analyses was change from baseline in Disease Activity Score in 28 joints-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) at 24 weeks. Assay of serotype and missing data imputation methods were consistent across all studies. RESULTS: The population analysed comprised 2177 patients (rituximab, n=1416; placebo, n=761). Demographics and baseline disease characteristics were well balanced. When a fixed-effects meta-analysis approach was used, the overall-effect model indicated evidence of additional treatment benefit with rituximab in seropositive patients: reduction in DAS28-ESR at week 24 was on average 0.35 units (95% CI 0.12 to 0.84; n=1394) greater than in seronegative patients; this effect was not seen in placebo patients. Heterogeneity indices indicated significant uncertainty in the overall-effect model (Q=8.8, I=0.77; p=0.03 (χ(2) test)). Baseline Health Assessment Questionnaire score, pain visual analogue scale, swollen joint counts of 28 joints and race were significant contributors to this heterogeneity, with additional analysis indicating that these effects may predominate in early RA (methotrexate-naïve) populations. A dominant effect was seen in patients for whom one or more tumour necrosis factor inhibitors had failed. CONCLUSION: Although the difference was modest, the overall-effect model indicates that seropositive patients respond better to rituximab than seronegative patients.

Multiple courses of rituximab produce sustained clinical and radiographic efficacy and safety in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to 1 or more tumor necrosis factor inhibitors: 5-year data from the REFLEX study.

OBJECTIVE: This 5-year observational posthoc analysis of the REFLEX study and its open-label extension assessed clinical efficacy, radiographic response, and safety of rituximab (RTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors. METHODS: Patients in REFLEX were originally randomized to placebo (PBO) + methotrexate (MTX; PBO-randomized) or RTX + MTX (RTX-randomized). PBO-randomized patients were rescued with RTX as appropriate. Patients responding to initial RTX treatment could receive further RTX courses. For clinical efficacy and safety analyses, PBO-randomized patients were re-baselined prior to first RTX treatment and the data were pooled with RTX-randomized patient data. Efficacy outcomes 24 weeks after each course were calculated relative to first RTX pretreatment baseline. Radiographic outcomes were assessed relative to randomization baseline for both PBO-randomized and RTX-randomized groups. RESULTS: A total of 480 patients received ≥ 1 RTX course. At 24 weeks, American College of Rheumatology 20/50/70 responses were 62.0%, 30.8%, and 13.0%, respectively at course 1 (n = 400) and 70.3%, 41.8%, and 22.0% at course 5 (n = 91). European League Against Rheumatism good/moderate responses were 77.2% and 84.4% at courses 1 (n = 390) and 5 (n = 90). Rates of adverse events (AE), serious AE, and infections generally remained stable. Rate of progressive joint damage (PJD; change in mean Total Sharp Score) decreased over time in both PBO-randomized (n = 79) and RTX-randomized (n = 105) groups. Mean change from baseline in PJD over 5 years was greater in PBO-randomized versus RTX-randomized patients (5.51 vs 3.21). CONCLUSION: RTX re-treatment over 5 years is associated with maintained or improved efficacy, continued inhibition of PJD, and a safety profile consistent with that previously reported. A delay in initiating RTX treatment may result in increased PJD.

A 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group study of the efficacy of oral SCIO-469, a p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase inhibitor, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of oral SCIO-469, a p38 MAPK inhibitor that blocks tumor necrosis factor-α, interleukin-1ß, and cyclooxygenase-2 synthesis in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive SCIO-469 at either 30 or 60 mg three times daily in an immediate-release (IR) formulation or at 100 mg once daily in an extended-release (ER) formulation, or placebo for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was American College of Rheumatology (ACR)20 response at Week 12. Safety was monitored through Week 26. RESULTS: Overall, 302 patients were randomized: 76 to placebo, 75 to 30 mg IR, 73 to 60 mg IR, and 78 to 100 mg ER. There were no significant differences in ACR20 responses at Week 12 between SCIO-469 and placebo. Declines in C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate during early treatment did not persist to Week 12 and were not a consequence of decreased SCIO-469 plasma levels. The 60 mg IR regimen showed a dose-limiting toxicity manifested by elevations in alanine aminotransferase. Adverse events were common in all groups (79.7% and 86.7% through 13 and 26 weeks, respectively). Twenty-one patients reported 28 serious adverse events (SAE). SAE were more common with IR SCIO-469 than with placebo (7% vs 4%) but were not reported with ER SCIO-469. CONCLUSION: In all regimens tested, SCIO-469 showed no greater efficacy compared to placebo in patients with RA. The transient effect of SCIO-469 on acute-phase reactants suggests a complex role of p38 MAPK in inflammation.

Targeting the B cell in rheumatoid arthritis.

There has been renewed interest in the B cell as a target for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) over the past decade. Efficacy with rituximab has been demonstrated in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) resulting in regulatory approval for patients failing tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors. Although the actual mechanism of action has not been clearly delineated, several molecules are under development to modify B cell number/function in hope of superior efficacy/safety or ease of administration. The safety of rituximab over the intermediate time point has been comparable to that seen with other biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). The recent report of cases of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy in three patients receiving rituximab for RA is a concern and, for now, limits rituximab to salvage therapy for the treatment-resistant patient. How this impacts on other B-cell inhibitors under development is not yet clear. Development of biomarkers that will assist our therapeutic decisions to enhance the benefit/risk ratio for our patients are needed as we move forward with further selective targeted therapies.

Continued inhibition of structural damage over 2 years in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with rituximab in combination with methotrexate.

BACKGROUND: Rituximab inhibited structural damage at 1 year in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had had a previous inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors. OBJECTIVE: To assess structural damage progression through 2 years. METHODS: Intention-to-treat patients with one post-baseline radiograph (rituximab n=281; placebo n=187) received background methotrexate (MTX) and were randomised to rituximab (2 x 1000 mg infusions, 2 weeks apart) or placebo; patients were eligible for rituximab re-treatment every 6 months. By week 104, 82% of the placebo population had received > or = 1 dose of rituximab. Radiographic end points included the change in total Sharp score (TSS), erosion and joint space narrowing scores at week 104. RESULTS: At week 104, significantly lower changes in TSS (1.14 vs 2.81; p<0.0001), erosion score (0.72 vs 1.80; p<0.0001) and joint space narrowing scores (0.42 vs 1.00; p<0.0009) were observed with rituximab plus MTX vs placebo plus MTX. Within the rituximab group, 87% who had no progression of joint damage at 1 year remained non-progressive at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Rituximab plus MTX demonstrated significant and sustained effects on joint damage progression in patients with RA and a previously inadequate response to TNF inhibitors.