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.

Risk of Venous Thromboembolism With Tofacitinib Versus Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in Cardiovascular Risk-Enriched Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients.

OBJECTIVE: The ORAL Surveillance trial found a dose-dependent increase in venous thromboembolism (VTE) and pulmonary embolism (PE) events with tofacitinib versus tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi). We aimed to assess VTE incidence over time and explore risk factors of VTE, including disease activity, in ORAL Surveillance. METHODS: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) aged 50 years or older with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID) or TNFi. Post hoc, cumulative probabilities and incidence rates (patients with first events/100 patient-years) by 6-month intervals were estimated for adjudicated VTE, deep vein thrombosis, and PE. Cox regression models identified risk factors. Clinical Disease Activity Index leading up to the event was explored in patients with VTE. RESULTS: Cumulative probabilities for VTE and PE were higher with tofacitinib 10 mg BID, but not 5 mg BID, versus TNFi. Incidence rates were consistent across 6-month intervals within treatments. Across treatments, risk factors for VTE included prior VTE, body mass index greater than or equal to 35 kg/m2, older age, and history of chronic lung disease. At the time of the event, most patients with VTE had active disease as defined by Clinical Disease Activity Index. CONCLUSION: Incidences of VTE and PE were higher with tofacitinib (10 > 5 mg BID) versus TNFi and were generally consistent over time. Across treatments, VTE risk factors were aligned with previous studies in the general RA population. These data highlight the importance of assessing VTE risk factors, including age, body mass index, and VTE history, when considering initiation of tofacitinib or TNFi in patients with active RA.

Efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis: update for the practising clinician.

Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, including tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib and filgotinib, are increasingly used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). There has been debate about their safety, particularly following the issuance of guidance by regulatory agencies advising caution in their use in certain patients. The registrational clinical trials and registry data of JAK inhibitors did not identify a difference in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), venous thromboembolism, malignancies or infections (other than herpes zoster) with a JAK inhibitor versus a biologic DMARD. In the ORAL Surveillance trial, which enrolled patients >50 years of age with ≥1 cardiovascular risk factor, tofacitinib was statistically inferior to TNF inhibitors for the occurrence of MACEs and malignancy. Further post hoc analysis of the data revealed that an age of ≥65 years, a high baseline cardiovascular risk, a history of smoking, sustained inflammation, disease activity and suboptimal treatment of cardiovascular comorbidities all increase the risk of these outcomes. The guidance issued by regulatory agencies should be carefully considered to ensure appropriate and safe treatment of patients with RA without undertreatment of patients who might benefit from JAK inhibitor, as well as biologic, treatment. As always, the risks associated with the use of these agents, treatment goals, costs and patient preferences should be discussed with the patient.

Safety profile of upadacitinib in patients at risk of cardiovascular disease: integrated post hoc analysis of the SELECT phase III rheumatoid arthritis clinical programme.

OBJECTIVE: Increased risk of serious adverse events (AEs) was reported for tofacitinib relative to tumour necrosis factor inhibitor therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) aged ≥50 years enriched for cardiovascular (CV) risk (ORAL Surveillance). We assessed post hoc the potential risk of upadacitinib in a similar RA population. METHODS: Pooled safety data from six phase III trials were evaluated post hoc for AEs in patients receiving upadacitinib 15 mg once a day (with or without conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs), adalimumab 40 mg every other week with concomitant methotrexate (MTX), or MTX monotherapy in the overall trial population and in a subset of patients with higher CV risk (aged ≥50 years, ≥1 CV risk factor). Higher-risk patients from a head-to-head study of upadacitinib 15 mg versus adalimumab (SELECT-COMPARE) were assessed in parallel. Exposure-adjusted incidence rates for treatment-emergent AEs were summarised based on exposure to upadacitinib or comparators. RESULTS: A total of 3209 patients received upadacitinib 15 mg, 579 received adalimumab and 314 received MTX monotherapy; ~54% of the patients were included in the overall and SELECT-COMPARE higher-risk populations. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), malignancy (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC)) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) were more frequent in the higher-risk cohorts versus the overall population but were generally similar across treatment groups. Rates of serious infections in higher-risk populations and herpes zoster (HZ) and NMSC in all populations were higher with upadacitinib 15 mg than comparators. CONCLUSIONS: An increased risk of MACE, malignancy (excluding NMSC) and VTE was observed in higher-risk populations with RA, yet risk was comparable between upadacitinib-treated and adalimumab-treated patients. Higher rates of NMSC and HZ were observed with upadacitinib versus comparators across all populations, and increased rates of serious infections were detected in upadacitinib-treated patients at higher CV risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT02706873, NCT02675426, NCT02629159, NCT02706951, NCT02706847 and NCT03086343.

Long-term safety and efficacy of sarilumab with or without background csDMARDs in rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of sarilumab with/without conventional synthetic (cs)DMARDs in RA. METHODS: The analyses evaluated two open-label extensions (OLEs): EXTEND and MONARCH OLE, which included patients from six randomized trials. Patients received sarilumab 200 mg once every 2 weeks (q2w) for at least 264 weeks up to 516 weeks (EXTEND: Sarilumab Monotherapy and Sarilumab + csDMARD groups) or for 276 weeks (MONARCH OLE: Continuation and Switch groups). Primary endpoints included safety, immunogenicity and changes in laboratory parameters. Secondary endpoints included clinical signs and symptoms along with health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) questionnaires. RESULTS: The Sarilumab Monotherapy (n = 111), Continuation (n = 165) and Switch (n = 155) groups received sarilumab monotherapy, while the Sarilumab + csDMARD group (n = 1910) received sarilumab in combination with csDMARDs. Incidence of one or more treatment-emergent adverse events was 126 (Sarilumab Monotherapy group), 169 (Sarilumab + csDMARD group), 159 (Continuation group) and 159 (Switch group) events/100 patient-years. Neutropenia was the most common adverse event. Neutropenia was not associated with an increased incidence of infections. Most neutropenia cases normalized on-treatment. Adverse events of special interests, such as malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism and gastrointestinal perforations, were rare. Immunogenicity was low and not associated with hypersensitivity reactions or discontinuations due to lack or loss of efficacy. Improvements in clinical signs and symptoms and HRQOL, observed during the initial blinded trials, were maintained throughout the OLE assessment period. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term sarilumab treatment with/without csDMARDs in patients with RA revealed no new safety findings. Efficacy and HRQOL were maintained or further increased over the open-label assessment period. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EXTEND, ClinicalTrials.gov, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01146652, NCT01146652; MONARCH OLE, ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02332590, NCT02332590.

Consensus statement on blocking interleukin-6 receptor and interleukin-6 in inflammatory conditions: an update.

BACKGROUND: Targeting interleukin (IL)-6 has become a major therapeutic strategy in the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory disease. Interference with the IL-6 pathway can be directed at the specific receptor using anti-IL-6Rα antibodies or by directly inhibiting the IL-6 cytokine. This paper is an update of a previous consensus document, based on most recent evidence and expert opinion, that aims to inform on the medical use of interfering with the IL-6 pathway. METHODS: A systematic literature research was performed that focused on IL-6-pathway inhibitors in inflammatory diseases. Evidence was put in context by a large group of international experts and patients in a subsequent consensus process. All were involved in formulating the consensus statements, and in the preparation of this document. RESULTS: The consensus process covered relevant aspects of dosing and populations for different indications of IL-6 pathway inhibitors that are approved across the world, including rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular-course and systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis, giant cell arteritis, Takayasu arteritis, adult-onset Still's disease, Castleman's disease, chimeric antigen receptor-T-cell-induced cytokine release syndrome, neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder and severe COVID-19. Also addressed were other clinical aspects of the use of IL-6 pathway inhibitors, including pretreatment screening, safety, contraindications and monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: The document provides a comprehensive consensus on the use of IL-6 inhibition to treat inflammatory disorders to inform healthcare professionals (including researchers), patients, administrators and payers.

Identifying and Quantifying the Role of Inflammation in Pain Reduction for Patients With Psoriatic Arthritis Treated With Tofacitinib: A Mediation Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Pain is a multidimensional factor and core domain of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). This analysis aimed to quantify the role of potential inflammation-associated outcomes on pain reduction in patients with PsA receiving tofacitinib, using mediation modeling. METHODS: Pooled data were from two phase 3 studies (OPAL Broaden and OPAL Beyond) of patients with active PsA treated with tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily or placebo. Mediation modeling was utilized to quantify the indirect effects (via Itch Severity Item [ISI], C-reactive protein [CRP] levels, swollen joint count [SJC], Psoriasis Area and Severity Index [PASI], and enthesitis [using Leeds Enthesitis Index]) and direct effects (representing all other factors) of tofacitinib treatment on pain improvement. RESULTS: The initial model showed that tofacitinib treatment affects pain, primarily indirectly, via ISI, CRP, SJC, PASI, and enthesitis (overall 84.0%; P = 0.0009), with 16.0% (P = 0.5274) attributable to the direct effect. The model was respecified to exclude SJC and PASI. Analysis of the final model revealed that 29.5% (P = 0.0579) of tofacitinib treatment effect on pain was attributable to the direct effect, and 70.5% (P < 0.0001) was attributable to the indirect effect. ISI, CRP, and enthesitis mediated 37.4% (P = 0.0002), 15.3% (P = 0.0107), and 17.8% (P = 0.0157) of the tofacitinib treatment effect on pain, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the effect of tofacitinib on pain was collectively mediated by itch, CRP, and enthesitis, with itch being the primary mediator of treatment effect. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01877668, NCT01882439. GRAPHICAL PLS.

Olokizumab, a monoclonal antibody against interleukin-6, in combination with methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis inadequately controlled by tumour necrosis factor inhibitor therapy: efficacy and safety results of a randomised controlled phase III study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of olokizumab (OKZ), a monoclonal antibody against the interleukin-6 (IL-6) cytokine, versus placebo (PBO) in patients with prior inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IRs). METHODS: In this 24-week multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind study, the patients were randomised in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive subcutaneously administered OKZ 64 mg once every 2 weeks (q2w), OKZ 64 mg once every 4 weeks (q4w) or PBO plus methotrexate. At week 16, the patients on PBO were randomised to receive either OKZ regime. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response at week 12. Disease Activity Score 28-joint count C-reactive protein (DAS28 (CRP))<3.2 at week 12 was the major secondary efficacy endpoint. Safety and immunogenicity were assessed. RESULTS: In 368 patients randomised, ACR20 response rates were 60.9% in OKZ q2w, 59.6% in OKZ q4w and 40.6% in PBO (p<0.01 for both comparisons). Achievement of DAS28 (CRP) <3.2 was significantly different, favouring the OKZ arms. Improvements in efficacy and patient-reported outcomes were maintained throughout 24 weeks and were noted after week 16 in patients who switched from PBO.Dose-related treatment-emergent serious adverse events were 7% in OKZ q2w, 3.2% in OKZ q4w and none in the PBO group. CONCLUSIONS: Direct inhibition of IL-6 with OKZ resulted in significant improvements in the signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis compared with PBO in TNF-IR patients with a similar safety profile as observed for monoclonal antibodies to the IL-6 receptor. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02760433.

Olokizumab versus Placebo or Adalimumab in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: The cytokine interleukin-6 is involved in the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis. Olokizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting the interleukin-6 cytokine directly, is being tested for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: In a 24-week, phase 3, multicenter, placebo- and active-controlled trial, we randomly assigned (in a 2:2:2:1 ratio) patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate to receive subcutaneous olokizumab at a dose of 64 mg every 2 or 4 weeks, adalimumab (40 mg every 2 weeks), or placebo; all patients continued methotrexate therapy. The primary end point was an American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) response (≥20% fewer tender and swollen joints and ≥20% improvement in three of five other domains) at week 12, with each olokizumab dose tested for superiority to placebo. We also tested the noninferiority of each olokizumab dose to adalimumab with respect to the percentage of patients with an ACR20 response (noninferiority margin, -12 percentage points in the lower boundary of the 97.5% confidence interval for the difference between groups). RESULTS: A total of 464 patients were assigned to receive olokizumab every 2 weeks, 479 to receive olokizumab every 4 weeks, 462 to receive adalimumab, and 243 to receive placebo. An ACR20 response at week 12 occurred in 44.4% of the patients receiving placebo, in 70.3% receiving olokizumab every 2 weeks (difference vs. placebo, 25.9 percentage points; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 17.1 to 34.1), in 71.4% receiving olokizumab every 4 weeks (difference vs. placebo, 27.0 percentage points; 97.5% CI, 18.3 to 35.2), and in 66.9% receiving adalimumab (difference vs. placebo, 22.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 14.8 to 29.8) (P<0.001 for the superiority of each olokizumab dose to placebo). Both olokizumab doses were noninferior to adalimumab with respect to the percentage of patients with an ACR20 response at week 12 (difference, 3.4 percentage points [97.5% CI, -3.5 to 10.2] with olokizumab every 2 weeks and 4.5 percentage points [97.5% CI, -2.2 to 11.2] with olokizumab every 4 weeks). Adverse events, most commonly infections, occurred in approximately 70% of the patients who received olokizumab. Antibodies against olokizumab were detected in 3.8% of the patients receiving the drug every 2 weeks and in 5.1% of those receiving it every 4 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were receiving maintenance methotrexate, olokizumab was superior to placebo and noninferior to adalimumab in producing an ACR20 response at 12 weeks. Larger and longer trials are required to determine the efficacy and safety of olokizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. (Supported by R-Pharm; CREDO2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02760407.).

Recent issues in JAK inhibitor safety: perspective for the clinician.

INTRODUCTION: Five jakinibs are approved for the treatment of rheumatic diseases. There has been a question of their relative safety to other medications since their approval. AREAS COVERED: A literature search was conducted in Pub Med for the integrated safety databases of these molecules in their clinical trial program, registries, and insurance claims data and in a prospective head-to-head study compared to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in a high-risk population for cardiovascular and malignancy events. There were no differences found in the safety databases, registries or insurance claims data indicating jakinibs are more likely to cause major adverse cardiac events, malignancy, venous thrombotic episodes, infections, and mortality compared to other medications. The head-to-head trial found that there were numerically more of these events with the jakinib compared to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. EXPERT OPINION: Cardiac events and malignancy occur more frequently in rheumatoid patients with active disease. Although the safety databases, claims data, and registries suggest that there is no difference in the risks with a jakinib versus biologics, the prospective safety study showed these events occur numerically higher in patients at the highest risk for these events. In this population, one should consider using a biologic before a jakinib.

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.

Cardiovascular and Cancer Risk with Tofacitinib in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Increases in lipid levels and cancers with tofacitinib prompted a trial of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and cancers in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving tofacitinib as compared with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, open-label, noninferiority, postauthorization, safety end-point trial involving patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate treatment who were 50 years of age or older and had at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive tofacitinib at a dose of 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily or a TNF inhibitor. The coprimary end points were adjudicated MACE and cancers, excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer. The noninferiority of tofacitinib would be shown if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio was less than 1.8 for the combined tofacitinib doses as compared with a TNF inhibitor. RESULTS: A total of 1455 patients received tofacitinib at a dose of 5 mg twice daily, 1456 received tofacitinib at a dose of 10 mg twice daily, and 1451 received a TNF inhibitor. During a median follow-up of 4.0 years, the incidences of MACE and cancer were higher with the combined tofacitinib doses (3.4% [98 patients] and 4.2% [122 patients], respectively) than with a TNF inhibitor (2.5% [37 patients] and 2.9% [42 patients]). The hazard ratios were 1.33 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.94) for MACE and 1.48 (95% CI, 1.04 to 2.09) for cancers; the noninferiority of tofacitinib was not shown. The incidences of adjudicated opportunistic infections (including herpes zoster and tuberculosis), all herpes zoster (nonserious and serious), and adjudicated nonmelanoma skin cancer were higher with tofacitinib than with a TNF inhibitor. Efficacy was similar in all three groups, with improvements from month 2 that were sustained through trial completion. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial comparing the combined tofacitinib doses with a TNF inhibitor in a cardiovascular risk-enriched population, risks of MACE and cancers were higher with tofacitinib and did not meet noninferiority criteria. Several adverse events were more common with tofacitinib. (Funded by Pfizer; ORAL Surveillance ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02092467.).

Median time to pain improvement and the impact of baseline pain severity on pain response in patients with psoriatic arthritis treated with tofacitinib.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a core domain of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). This post hoc analysis evaluated time to pain improvement and the impact of baseline pain severity on pain response in patients with PsA receiving tofacitinib. METHODS: Data from two trials (NCT01877668; NCT01882439) in patients receiving tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily, placebo switching to tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily at month 3 (placebo-to-tofacitinib) or adalimumab (NCT01877668 only) were included. Improvement in pain (≥30%/≥50% decrease from baseline in Visual Analogue Scale pain score) was assessed; median time to initial (first post-baseline visit)/continued (first two consecutive post-baseline visits) pain improvement was estimated (Kaplan-Meier) for all treatment arms. A parametric model was used to determine the relationship between baseline pain severity and time to pain response in patients receiving tofacitinib. RESULTS: At month 3, more patients experienced pain improvements with tofacitinib/adalimumab versus placebo. Median days (95% CI) to initial/continued pain improvements of ≥30% and ≥50%, respectively, were 55 (29-57)/60 (57-85) and 85 (57-92)/171 (90-not estimable (NE)) for tofacitinib, versus 106 (64-115)/126 (113-173) and 169 (120-189)/NE (247-NE) for placebo-to-tofacitinib. Pain improvements were also experienced more quickly for adalimumab versus placebo. Predicted time to ≥30%/≥50% pain improvement was shorter in patients with higher baseline pain versus lower baseline pain (tofacitinib arm only). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with PsA, pain improvements were experienced by more patients, and more rapidly, with tofacitinib and adalimumab versus placebo. In those receiving tofacitinib, higher baseline pain was associated with faster pain improvements.

Long-term safety and efficacy of olokizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy in phase II studies.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of olokizumab (OKZ), an anti-interleukin (IL)-6 monoclonal antibody, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors. METHODS: Eligible patients completed study RA0056, which tested several doses of OKZ, placebo (PBO), and tocilizumab (TCZ) plus methotrexate (MTX) in Western countries, and RA0083 included several doses of OKZ and PBO plus MTX in Asian countries. Both studies were followed by open-label extension (OLE) studies with OKZ 120 mg every 2 weeks, RA0057 and RA0089, respectively. Safety assessments were reported up to 124 weeks in RA0057 and 92 weeks in RA0089. Efficacy assessments were reported up to week 60 in RA0057 and week 52 in RA0089. No formal statistical hypothesis testing was performed, and missing data were not imputed. RESULTS: A total of 190 patients in RA0057 and 103 patients in RA0089 received OKZ with median treatment duration of 14.1 and 10.1 months, respectively. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported in 44 patients (23.2%, 32.7 events per 100 patient-years [PY]) in RA0057 and in 13 patients (12.6%, 23.6 events per 100 PY) in RA0089. Among treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), including SAEs, infections were the most common events. TEAEs leading to withdrawal were reported in 33 (17.4%) patients in RA0057 and in 7 (6.8%) patients in RA0089. Disease activity score 28-joint count on the basis of C-reactive protein level, clinical disease activity index, and simplified disease activity index, as well as the American College of Rheumatology 20%, 50%, and 70% response rates were maintained during the OLE studies, including in those who switched from PBO or TCZ. Improvements in patient-reported outcomes were maintained in OLEs as well. CONCLUSION: In the 2 long-term studies, OKZ treatment demonstrated a safety profile expected for IL-6 blocking agents without new safety signals and led to sustained improvements in RA symptoms, physical function, and quality of life.

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.

Points to consider for the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases with Janus kinase inhibitors: a systematic literature research.

OBJECTIVES: Review of efficacy and safety of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibition in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). METHODS: A systematic literature research (SLR) of all publications on JAK inhibitors (JAKi) treatment published until March 2019 using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. Efficacy and safety were assessed in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), integrating long-term extension periods additionally for safety evaluation. RESULTS: 3454 abstracts were screened with 85 included in the final analysis (efficacy and RCT safety: n=72; safety only: n=13). Efficacy of RCTs investigating tofacitinib (TOFA, n=27), baricitinib (BARI, n=9), upadacitinib (UPA, n=14), filgotinib (FILGO, n=7), decernotinib (DEC, n=3) and peficitinib (PEF, n=7) was evaluated. Six head-to-head trials comparing JAKi with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) were included. Efficacy of JAKi was shown in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for all agents, psoriatic arthritis (TOFA, FILGO), ankylosing spondylitis (TOFA, FILGO), systemic lupus erythematosus (BARI), chronic plaque psoriasis (TOFA, BARI, PEF), ulcerative colitis (TOFA, UPA), Crohn's disease (UPA, FILGO) and atopic dermatitis (TOFA, BARI, UPA). Safety analysis of 72 RCTs, one cohort study and 12 articles on long-term extension studies showed increased risks for infections, especially herpes zoster, serious infections and numerically higher rates of venous thromboembolic events. No increased malignancy rates or major adverse cardiac events were observed. CONCLUSION: JAKi provide good efficacy compared to placebo (and to TNFi in RA and Pso) across various IMIDs with an acceptable safety profile. This SLR informed the task force on points to consider for the treatment of IMIDs with JAKi with the available evidence.

Interleukin-6 receptor blockade or TNFα inhibition for reducing glycaemia in patients with RA and diabetes: post hoc analyses of three randomised, controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is common in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Interleukin (IL)-6 is implicated in both the pathogenesis of RA and in glucose homeostasis; this post hoc analysis investigated the effects of IL-6 receptor vs. tumour necrosis factor inhibition on glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in patients with RA with or without diabetes. METHODS: Data were from two placebo-controlled phase III studies of subcutaneous sarilumab 150/200 mg q2w + methotrexate or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) and a phase III monotherapy study of sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs. adalimumab 40 mg q2w. Patients with diabetes were identified by medical history or use of antidiabetic medication (patients with HbA1c ≥ 9% were excluded from all three studies). HbA1c was measured at baseline and weeks 12/24. Safety and efficacy were assessed in RA patients with or without diabetes. RESULTS: Patients with diabetes (n = 184) were older, weighed more and exhibited higher RA disease activity than patients without diabetes (n = 1928). Regardless of diabetes status, in patients on background csDMARDs, least squares (LS) mean difference (95% CI) in change from baseline in HbA1c for sarilumab 150 mg/200 mg vs. placebo at week 24 was - 0.28 (- 0.40, - 0.16; nominal p <  0.0001) and - 0.42 (- 0.54, - 0.31; nominal p <  0.0001), respectively. Without csDMARDs, LS mean difference for sarilumab 200 mg vs. adalimumab 40 mg at week 24 was - 0.13 (- 0.22, - 0.04; nominal p = 0.0043). Greater reduction in HbA1c than placebo or adalimumab was observed at week 24 with sarilumab in patients with diabetes and/or baseline HbA1c ≥ 7%. There was no correlation between baseline/change from baseline in HbA1c and baseline/change from baseline in C-reactive protein, 28-joint Disease Activity Score, or haemoglobin, nor between HbA1c change from baseline and baseline glucocorticoid use. Medical history of diabetes or use of diabetes treatments had limited impact on safety and efficacy of sarilumab and was consistent with overall phase III findings in patients with RA. CONCLUSIONS: In post hoc analyses, sarilumab was associated with a greater reduction in HbA1c than csDMARDs or adalimumab, independent of sarilumab anti-inflammatory effects. Prospective studies are required to further assess these preliminary findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinTrials.gov NCT01061736: date of registration February 03, 2010; ClinTrials.gov NCT01709578: date of registration October 18, 2012; ClinTrials.gov NCT02332590: date of registration January 07, 2015.

Efficacy and safety of sarilumab in combination with csDMARDs or as monotherapy in subpopulations of patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis in three phase III randomized, controlled studies.

BACKGROUND: The interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor sarilumab demonstrated efficacy in combination with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) or as monotherapy in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an inadequate response (IR) or intolerant (INT) to methotrexate (MTX) or tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitors. This analysis investigated the efficacy and safety of sarilumab in patient subgroups. METHODS: Data were included from phase III studies: two placebo-controlled studies of subcutaneous sarilumab 150/200 mg every 2 weeks (q2w) either + MTX in MTX-IR patients (52 weeks) or + csDMARDs in TNF-IR/INT patients (24 weeks), and a monotherapy study of sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs. adalimumab 40 mg q2w in MTX-IR/INT patients (24 weeks). Prespecified and post hoc subgroups included patient demographics, disease characteristics, and prior treatments. Prespecified and post hoc endpoints included clinical, radiographic, and physical function measures, and p values are considered nominal. Safety was assessed during double-blind treatment. RESULTS: The superiority of sarilumab (either as monotherapy vs. adalimumab or in combination with csDMARDs vs. placebo + csDMARDs) across clinical endpoints was generally consistent across subgroups defined by patient demographics, disease characteristics, and prior treatments, demonstrating the benefit of sarilumab treatment for a wide range of patient types. Interaction p values of < 0.05 were consistently observed across studies only for baseline anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody (ACPA) status for American College of Rheumatology 20% response, but not American College of Rheumatology 50% or 70% response. Adverse events and worsening laboratory parameters occurred more frequently in sarilumab-treated vs. placebo-treated patients and were more frequent in the small number of patients ≥ 65 years (n = 289) vs. patients < 65 years (n = 1819). Serious infections occurred in six patients aged ≥ 65 years receiving sarilumab, although the incidence of serious infections was generally higher in patients aged ≥ 65 years regardless of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Apart from ACPA status, there were no consistent signals indicating differential effects of sarilumab in any of the subpopulations assessed. Sarilumab demonstrated consistent efficacy and safety across a wide range of patients with RA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01061736, registered on February 03, 2010; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01709578, registered on October 18, 2012; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02332590, registered on January 07, 2015.

Ixekizumab treatment of biologic-naïve patients with active psoriatic arthritis: 3-year results from a phase III clinical trial (SPIRIT-P1).

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to assess the safety and efficacy of up to 156 weeks of ixekizumab (an IL-17A antagonist) treatment in PsA patients. METHODS: In a phase III study, patients naïve to biologic treatment were randomized to placebo, adalimumab 40 mg every 2 weeks (ADA; active reference) or ixekizumab 80 mg every 2 weeks (IXEQ2W) or every 4 weeks (IXEQ4W) after an initial dose of 160 mg. At week 24 (week 16 for inadequate responders), ADA (after 8-week washout) and placebo patients were re-randomized to IXEQ2W or IXEQ4W. Outcomes were evaluated using a modified non-responder imputation [linear extrapolation for radiographic progression (modified total Sharp score = 0)] during extended treatment until week 156. RESULTS: Of 417 patients, 381 entered the extension, and 243 of 381 (63.8%) completed the 156-week study. Incidence rates of treatment-emergent and serious adverse events, respectively, were 38.0 and 5.2 with IXEQ2W (n = 189) and 38.1 and 8.0 with IXEQ4W (n = 197). One death occurred (IXEQ4W). With IXEQ2W and IXEQ4W, respectively, the response rates persisted to week 156 as measured by the ACR response ≥20% (62.5 and 69.8%), ≥50% (56.1 and 51.8%) and ≥70% (43.8 and 33.4%), psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) 75 (69.1 and 63.5%), PASI 90 (64.5 and 51.2%) and PASI 100 (60.5 and 43.6%). Inhibition of radiographic progression also persisted to week 156 in 61% of IXEQ2W and 71% of IXEQ4W patients. CONCLUSION: In this 156-week study of ixekizumab, the safety profile remained consistent with previous reports, and improvements in signs and symptoms of PsA were observed, including persistent low rates of radiographic progression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01695239, EudraCT 2011-002326-49.