Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Upadacitinib in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis Refractory to Biologic Therapies: 2-Year Results from the Phase 3 Select-Psa 2 Study

Background/Aims Upadacitinib (UPA), an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, demonstrated efficacy and safety in patients (pts) with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and prior inadequate response or intolerance to >=1 biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) at week (wk) 56 in the phase 3 SELECT-PsA 2 study. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of UPA at wk 104 from the ongoing long-term extension of SELECTPsA 2. Methods Pts were randomized to UPA 15mg (UPA15), UPA 30mg (UPA30), or placebo (PBO) for 24 wks;PBO pts were then switched to UPA15 or UPA30. For continuous UPA treatment groups, efficacy endpoints at wk 104 were analyzed using non-responder imputation (NRI) and as observed (AO) (binary endpoints) or mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) and AO (continuous endpoints). Treatmentemergent adverse events (TEAEs) were summarized for pts who received >=1 dose of study drug using visit-based cut-off at wk 104. Results A total of 641 pts received >=1 dose of study drug. At wk 104, 38.4% of all patients had discontinued study drug, with the highest discontinuation observed in patients randomized to PBO at baseline (all PBO: 46.7%). The most common reasons for discontinuation were lack of efficacy (UPA15: 12.3%, UPA30: 8.7%, all PBO: 21.7%) and adverse event (UPA15: 10.9%, UPA30: 13.3%, all PBO: 12.7%). The proportion of UPA pts that achieved ACR20/50/70, MDA, PASI75/90/100, and resolution of dactylitis and enthesitis were generally similar, or further improved, with 104 wks of treatment vs 56 wks. Similarly, mean change from baseline in HAQ-DI, patient's assessment of pain, BASDAI, and ASDAS was improved with UPA treatment. At 104 wks of therapy, clinical responses were largely similar with UPA15 and UPA30. Generally, safety data at wk 104 were consistent with that reported at wk 56. Rates of serious infection, herpes zoster, hepatic disorder, anemia, neutropenia, lymphopenia, and CPK elevation remained numerically higher with UPA30 vs UPA15, while rates of malignancies, MACE, and VTE were similar for both UPA groups. One death was reported with UPA15 (unexplained due to lack of information;however, the patient had recently been diagnosed with ovarian cancer) and two with UPA30 (pancytopenia and COVID-19 pneumonia). Conclusion In PsA pts with prior inadequate response or intolerance to>=1 bDMARD, clinical responses were maintained with UPA15 and UPA30 up to two years of treatment. No new safety signals were identified in this long-term extension.

Efficacité et tolérance à long terme de l'upadacitinib chez les patients présentant un rhumatisme psoriasique réfractaire aux traitements biologiques : résultats à 2 ans de l'étude de phase III SELECT-PsA 2

L'upadacitinib (UPA), un inhibiteur de Janus kinase (JAK) par voie orale, a démontré son efficacité et sa sécurité chez des patients atteints de rhumatisme psoriasique (RP) ayant une réponse insuffisante ou une intolérance à ≥ 1 traitement de fond biologique (bDMARD) à la S56 de l'étude de phase III SELECT-PsA 2. Évaluer l'efficacité et la tolérance de l'UPA à S104 de l'extension à long terme en cours de l'étude SELECT-PsA 2. Patients randomisés pour recevoir UPA 15 mg, UPA 30 mg ou placebo (PBO) pendant 24 semaines. Les patients sous PBO passaient ensuite à UPA15 ou UPA30. Évaluation d'efficacité à S104 des patients traités en continu par UPA en NRI (imputation en non-répondeurs) et données observées (critères binaires), ou en MMRM (modèle mixte pour mesures répétées) et données observées (critères continus). Au total, 641 patients ont reçu ≥ 1 dose d'UPA. À S104, 38,4 % de l'ensemble des patients avaient arrêté leur traitement par UPA et les taux d'arrêt les plus élevés ont été observés chez les patients randomisés dans le groupe PBO à l'inclusion (total PBO : 46,7 %). Les motifs les plus fréquents d'arrêt du traitement étaient un manque d'efficacité (UPA15 : 12,3 %, UPA30 : 8,7 %, total PBO : 21,7 %) et la survenue d'un EI (UPA15 : 10,9 %, UPA30 : 13,3 %, total PBO : 12,7 %). La proportion de patients sous UPA ayant obtenu une réponse ACR20/50/70, MDA, PASI75/90/100, et résolution des dactylites/enthésites était similaire voire améliorée à S104 de traitement versus S56 (Tableau 1). La variation moyenne par rapport à l'inclusion du HAQ-DI, de l'évaluation de la douleur par le patient et des scores BASDAI/ASDAS était plus importante avec UPA. À S104, les réponses cliniques étaient similaires sous UPA15 et UPA30. Les données de tolérance à S104 (Fig. 1) concordaient avec celles rapportées à S56. Les infections graves, zonas, affections hépatiques, anémies, neutropénies, lymphopénies et élévations des CPK restaient plus élevés sous UPA30 vs UPA15. Les taux de cancers, d'EICM et de TEV étaient similaires dans les 2 groupes UPA. 1 décès rapporté avec UPA15 (inexpliqué, manque d'informations ;la patiente ayant récemment reçu un diagnostic de cancer de l'ovaire) et 2 avec l'UPA30 (pancytopénie et pneumonie à COVID-19). Chez les patients atteints de RP ayant présenté une réponse insuffisante ou une intolérance à ≥ 1 bDMARD, les réponses cliniques se sont maintenues avec UPA15 et UPA30 jusqu'à 2 ans de traitement. Aucun nouveau signal de sécurité n'a été identifié durant cette période d'extension. (French) [ FROM AUTHOR]

EFFICACY and SAFETY of UPADACITINIB in PATIENTS with ACTIVE ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS REFRACTORY to BIOLOGIC THERAPY: A DOUBLEBLIND, RANDOMIZED, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED PHASE 3 TRIAL

Background: Upadacitinib (UPA) was shown to be safe and effective through 2 years in patients (pts) with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS) naïve to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in the pivotal phase 2/3 SELECT-AXIS 1 trial.1,2 Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of UPA in pts with active AS with an inadequate response (IR) to bDMARDs. Methods: SELECT-AXIS 2 (NCT04169373) was conducted under a master protocol and includes two separate studies (one for AS bDMARD-IR and one for non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis [nr-axSpA]). The AS bDMARD-IR study is a randomized, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled, phase 3 trial that enrolled adults ≥18 years with AS who met modifed New York criteria, had BAS-DAI and pt's assessment of total back pain scores ≥4 (numeric rating scale 0-10) at study entry, and had an IR to one or two bDMARDs (TNF inhibitor or IL-17 inhibitor). Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive oral UPA 15 mg once daily (QD) or PBO during the 14-week (wk) double-blind treatment period. The primary endpoint was ASAS40 response at wk 14. Multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints evaluated at wk 14 were improvements from baseline in disease activity (ASDAS [CRP], ASDAS ID [<1.3], ASDAS LDA [<2.1], BASDAI50, ASAS20, and ASAS PR), pain (total and nocturnal back pain), function (BASFI), objective measure of infammation (SPARCC MRI score of the spine), spinal mobility (BASMI), enthesitis (MASES), and quality of life (ASQoL and ASAS HI). Non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation (NRI-MI) was used to handle intercurrent events and missing data for binary endpoints. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test and mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) were used for analyzing binary and continuous endpoints, respectively. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) assessed through wk 14 are reported for pts who had ≥1 dose of study drug. Results: All 420 randomized pts with active AS received assigned treatment (UPA 15 mg, n=211;PBO, n=209);409 (97%) received study drug through wk 14. Baseline demographic and disease characteristics were generally similar between treatment groups and refective of an active AS bDMARD-IR population (74% male;mean age 42.4 years;mean disease duration 7. 7 years;83% HLA-B27 positive;mean BASDAI 6.8). Signifcantly more pts achieved the primary endpoint of ASAS40 response at wk 14 with UPA vs PBO (45% vs 18%;P<0.0001;Figure 1);UPA showed onset of effect in ASAS40 as early as wk 4 (nominal P≤0.05). All multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints met statistical signifcance for UPA vs PBO at wk 14 across multiple clinical domains of AS (P<0.0001;Figure 1). The rate of TEAEs was similar between treatment groups through wk 14 (UPA, 41%;PBO, 37%). TEAEs led to discontinuation in 3 (1.4%) pts treated with PBO and none with UPA. Serious infections occurred with UPA (2.4%) but not with PBO and included 4 events of COVID-19 and 1 event of uveitis. Additional events of uveitis were reported in 3 (1.4%) pts treated with PBO. Infammatory bowel disease (IBD) occurred in 1 (0.5%) pt on UPA and none on PBO. No malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolic events, or death were reported with UPA;1 event of malignancy was observed with PBO. Conclusion: UPA 15 mg QD was signifcantly more effective than PBO over 14 wks of treatment in pts with active AS and IR to bDMARDs. No new safety risks were identifed with UPA compared with its known safety profile.3,4 These fndings are consistent with and complementary to those of SELECT-AXIS 1 (bDMARD-naïve AS population),1,2 and support the use of UPA in pts with active AS, including those who had a previous IR to bDMARD therapy.

LONG-TERM EFFICACY and SAFETY of UPADACITINIB in PATIENTS with PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS REFRACTORY to BIOLOGIC THERAPIES: 2-YEAR RESULTS from the PHASE 3 SELECT-PSA 2 STUDY

Background: Upadacitinib (UPA), an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, demonstrated efficacy and safety in patients (pts) with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and prior inadequate response or intolerance to ≥1 biologic disease-modifying antirheu-matic drug (bDMARD) at week (wk) 56 in the phase 3 SELECT-PsA 2 study.1 Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of UPA at wk 104 from the ongoing long-term extension of SELECT-PsA 2. Methods: Pts were randomized to UPA 15 mg (UPA15), UPA 30 mg (UPA30), or placebo (PBO) for 24 wks;PBO pts were then switched to UPA15 or UPA30. For continuous UPA treatment groups, efficacy endpoints at wk 104 were analyzed using non-responder imputation (NRI) and as observed (AO) (binary endpoints) or mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) and AO (continuous endpoints). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were summarized for pts who received ≥1 dose of study drug using visit-based cut-off at wk 104. Results: A total of 641 pts received ≥1 dose of study drug. At wk 104, 38.4% of all patients had discontinued study drug, with the highest discontinuation observed in patients randomized to PBO at baseline (all PBO: 46.7%). The most common reasons for discontinuation were lack of efficacy (UPA15: 12.3%, UPA30: 8.7%, all PBO: 21.7%) and adverse event (UPA15: 10.9%, UPA30: 13.3%, all PBO: 12.7%). The proportion of UPA pts that achieved ACR20/50/70, MDA, PASI75/90/100, and resolution of dactylitis and enthesitis were generally similar, or further improved, with 104 wks of treatment vs 56 wks1 (Table 1). Similarly, mean change from baseline in HAQ-DI, patient's assessment of pain, BASDAI, and ASDAS was improved with UPA treatment. At 104 wks of therapy, clinical responses were largely similar with UPA15 and UPA30. Generally, safety data at wk 104 (Figure 1) were consistent with that reported at wk 56.1 Rates of serious infection, herpes zoster, hepatic disorder, anemia, neutropenia, lymphopenia, and CPK elevation remained numerically higher with UPA30 vs UPA15, while rates of malignancies, MACE, and VTE were similar for both UPA groups. One death was reported with UPA15 (unexplained due to lack of information;however, the patient had recently been diagnosed with ovarian cancer) and 2 with UPA30 (pancytopenia and COVID-19 pneumonia). Conclusion: In PsA pts with prior inadequate response or intolerance to ≥1 bDMARD, clinical responses were maintained with UPA15 and UPA30 up to 2 years of treatment. No new safety signals were identifed in this long-term extension.

Forecast of the Development of COVID-19 Based on the Small-World Network

This world has faced a severe challenge since the breakout of the novel Coronavirus-2019 (COVID-19) has started for more than one year. With the mutation of the virus, the measures of epidemic prevention are keeping upgrading. Various vaccines have been created and brought into operation. To accurately describe and predict the spread of COVID-19, we improve the traditional Susceptible-Exposed-Infected-Removed-Dead model(SEIRD), forecast the development of COVID-19 based on small-world network. A small-world network is a type of mathematical graph in which most nodes are not neighbors of one another, but the neighbors of any given node are likely to be neighbors of each other, and most nodes can be reached from every other node by a small number of hops or steps. We introduce new parameters, Vaccination(V) and Quarantine(Q), into this model. Based on this, through regressing and analyzing the epidemic in the UK, we get the simulation that fits well with the observed data in other countries. © 2021 ACM.