Opportunities and challenges of lupus care in Latin America, the Middle East, and Asia-Pacific: A call to action.

Lupus remains a disease with a low prioritisation in the national agendas of many countries in Latin America, the Middle East, and Asia-Pacific, where there is a dearth of rheumatologists and limited access to new or even standard lupus treatments. There is thus an important need for education, advocacy, and outreach to prioritise lupus in these regions to ensure that patients receive the care they need. This article reviews some of the specific challenges facing the care and management of people with lupus in these regions and suggests strategies for improving patient outcomes. Specifically, we review and discuss (with a focus on the aforementioned regions) the epidemiology of lupus; economic costs, disease burden, and effects on quality of life; barriers to care related to disease assessment; barriers to effective treatment, including limitations of standard treatments, high glucocorticoid use, inadequate access to new treatments, and low adherence to medications; and strategies to improve lupus management and patient outcomes. We hope that this represents a call to action to come together and act now for the lupus community, policymakers, health authorities, and healthcare professionals to improve lupus management and patient outcomes in Latin America, the Middle East, and Asia-Pacific.

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

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

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.

Safety of Upadacitinib in Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: Systematic Literature Review of Indirect and Direct Treatment Comparisons of Randomized Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Immune-mediated inflammatory diseases including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), non-radiographic axial spondylarthritis (nr-axSpA), atopic dermatitis (AD), ulcerative colitis (UC), and Crohn's disease (CD) pose a substantial burden on patients and their quality of life. Upadacitinib is an orally administered, selective, and reversible Janus kinase inhibitor indicated for seven conditions, but data on its safety versus other active treatments are limited. A systematic literature review of indirect and direct treatment comparisons of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to assess the safety profile of upadacitinib. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for indirect and direct treatment comparisons of RCTs that (1) included licensed upadacitinib dosages; (2) studied any of the seven conditions; (3) reported any adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), AEs leading to discontinuation, major adverse cardiovascular event, venous thromboembolism, malignancies, infections or serious infections, and death; and (4) were published between January 2018 and August 2022. RESULTS: A total of 25 studies were eligible for inclusion. SAEs, AEs leading to discontinuation, and any AEs were commonly studied. RA was the most studied condition, followed by AD and UC. Most studies (16/25, 64%) reported no statistically significant difference in the studied safety outcomes between upadacitinib and other active treatments (e.g., tumor necrosis factor blockers, interleukin receptor antagonists, integrin receptor antagonists, T cell co-stimulation modulator), or placebo (placebo ± methotrexate or topical corticosteroids). Other studies (9/25, 36%) reported mixed results of no statistically significant difference and either statistically higher (8/25, 32%) or lower rates (1/25, 4%) on upadacitinib. CONCLUSION: Most studies suggested that upadacitinib has no statistically significant difference in the studied safety outcomes compared to active treatments or placebo in patients with RA, PsA, AS, AD, UC, and CD. A few studies reported higher rates, but findings were inconsistent with limited interpretation.

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

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

Anifrolumab in lupus nephritis: results from second-year extension of a randomised phase II trial.

OBJECTIVE: To characterise the safety and efficacy of anifrolumab in active lupus nephritis (LN) through year 2 of the phase II randomised, double-blind Treatment of Uncontrolled Lupus via the Interferon Pathway (TULIP)-LN trial (NCT02547922) of 2 anifrolumab dosing regimens versus placebo. METHODS: Patients received intravenous anifrolumab 900 mg for the first 3 doses followed by 300 mg anifrolumab (intensified regimen (IR)), 300 mg anifrolumab (basic regimen (BR)) or placebo every 4 weeks throughout. To continue into Year 2, patients must have achieved at least partial renal response and a glucocorticoid tapering target. RESULTS: Of 147 randomised patients, 101 completed Year 1 study treatment; of these, 75 (74%) continued into Year 2 (anifrolumab IR: n=29, BR: n=23 and placebo: n=23). During Year 2, 72% of patients reported ≥1 adverse event (AE); serious AEs were reported in 6.9%, 8.7% and 8.7% of patients (anifrolumab IR, BR and placebo, respectively); 3 patients discontinued treatment due to an AE (anifrolumab IR: n=2 and placebo: n=1) and herpes zoster was reported in 2 patients (anifrolumab IR: n=1 and BR: n=1). The study was ongoing at the start of the pandemic, but no COVID-19 cases were reported. Of the 145 patients receiving treatment, more patients on the IR attained complete renal response at Week 104 compared with those on BR or placebo (27.3% vs 18.6% and 17.8%) and simultaneously achieved sustained glucocorticoid tapering (IR: 25.0%; BR: 18.6% and placebo: 17.8%). The improvements in estimated glomerular filtration rate were numerically larger in both anifrolumab groups versus placebo. CONCLUSIONS: The safety and tolerability profile through Year 2 of TULIP-LN was generally consistent with Year 1, with promising efficacy results for the anifrolumab IR regimen. Collectively, the results support further investigation of an anifrolumab intensified dosing regimen in larger populations of patients with active proliferative LN. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02547922.

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.

Clinical scenarios-based guide for tofacitinib in rheumatoid arthritis.

Tofacitinib was the first Janus kinase inhibitor to be approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and there is a large body of data to inform the efficacy and safety of this drug for patients at different places in their treatment journeys and with diverse demographics and characteristics. Here, we summarize tofacitinib clinical efficacy and safety data from some clinical trials, post hoc analyses, and real-world studies, which provide evidence of the efficacy of tofacitinib in treating patients with RA at various stages of their treatment journeys, and with differentiating baseline characteristics, such as age, gender, race, and body mass index. In addition, we review the safety data available from different patient subpopulations in the tofacitinib clinical development program, real-world data, and findings from the ORAL Surveillance post-marketing safety study that included patients aged ⩾50 years with pre-existing cardiovascular risk factors. The available efficacy and safety data in these subpopulations can enable better discussions between clinicians and patients to guide informed decision-making and individualized patient care.

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.

Patient Disease Trajectories in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients Treated with Baricitinib 4-mg in Four Phase 3 Clinical Studies.

INTRODUCTION: We sought to identify and compare treatment response groups based on individual patient responses (rather than group mean response) over time on the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), in patients treated with baricitinib 4-mg in 4 phase 3 studies. METHODS: Trajectory subgroups were identified within each study using growth mixture modeling. Following grouping, baseline characteristics and disease measures were summarized and compared. RESULTS: In each study, three response trajectories were identified. In the three studies of patients naïve to biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) patients had, on average, high disease activity, as measured by CDAI. In these studies, a group of rapid responders (65-71% of patients) had the lowest baseline CDAI scores and achieved mean CDAI ≤ 10 by week 16. Gradual responders (10-17%) had higher baseline CDAI, but generally achieved low disease activity (CDAI ≤ 10) by week 24. A group of partial responders (18-22%) had higher baseline CDAI and did not achieve mean CDAI ≤ 10. In bDMARD-experienced patients, the subgroups were rapid responders, who achieved mean CDAI ≤ 10 (42% of patients); partial responders, with mean CDAI decrease of ~ 15 points from baseline (42% of patients); and limited responders (15% of patients). Changes in modified total sharp score (mTSS; assessed only in biologic-naïve patients) were below the smallest detectable difference at 24/52 weeks for > 90% of patients in each group, excepting partial responders in RA-BEGIN (≥ 75% no detectable change). CONCLUSION: In patients receiving baricitinib 4-mg, lower baseline CDAI was generally associated with rapid response, while higher baseline CDAI scores were generally seen for patients who either reached treatment targets more gradually, or who had a partial or limited response. Maintenance of response was observed with continued baricitinib treatment in all response groups and generally included maintenance of mTSS.

Baricitinib is an oral agent widely approved for the treatment of moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis). Although baricitinib (and other agents) have demonstrated efficacy at the population level, treatment responses vary considerably between individual patients. This study assessed four baricitinib phase 3 clinical studies and categorized patient responses into response groups based on the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) using a growth mixture model. We then evaluated baseline characteristics and corresponding disease measures within the response groups. In patients with no prior treatment with biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), 65­71% of patients had rapid responses to treatment, while smaller groups had gradual (10­17%) or partial (18­22%) responses. In patients with prior bDMARD experience, rapid and partial responders each comprised 42% of patients while 15% had limited response. Gradual responders generally had higher baseline CDAI versus rapid responders, but achieved low disease activity (LDA) by 24, versus 12 weeks for rapid responders. Across response groups, patients who continued treatment generally maintained their response up to 52 weeks, and where joint erosion was assessed (in bDMARD-naïve patients), generally saw maintenance of joints during continued therapy. The identification of a gradual responder group, which demonstrated good response but required more time to achieve LDA, is relatively novel and should be considered when setting treatment expectations, particularly in patients with high baseline disease activity. In addition, in bDMARD-experienced patients, many patients did not achieve LDA but maintained a substantial partial response with continued therapy.

EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2022 update.

OBJECTIVES: To provide an update of the EULAR rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management recommendations addressing the most recent developments in the field. METHODS: An international task force was formed and solicited three systematic literature research activities on safety and efficacy of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and glucocorticoids (GCs). The new evidence was discussed in light of the last update from 2019. A predefined voting process was applied to each overarching principle and recommendation. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned to and participants finally voted on the level of agreement with each item. RESULTS: The task force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations concerning use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); GCs; biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab including biosimilars), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, sarilumab and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs, namely the Janus kinase inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib, filgotinib, upadacitinib. Guidance on monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and tapering in sustained clinical remission is provided. Safety aspects, including risk of major cardiovascular events (MACEs) and malignancies, costs and sequencing of b/tsDMARDs were all considered. Initially, MTX plus GCs is recommended and on insufficient response to this therapy within 3-6 months, treatment should be based on stratification according to risk factors; With poor prognostic factors (presence of autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions or failure of two csDMARDs), any bDMARD should be added to the csDMARD; after careful consideration of risks of MACEs, malignancies and/or thromboembolic events tsDMARDs may also be considered in this phase. If the first bDMARD (or tsDMARD) fails, any other bDMARD (from another or the same class) or tsDMARD (considering risks) is recommended. With sustained remission, DMARDs may be tapered but should not be stopped. Levels of evidence and levels of agreement were high for most recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: These updated EULAR recommendations provide consensus on RA management including safety, effectiveness and cost.

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.

Impact of initial therapy with upadacitinib or adalimumab on achievement of 48-week treatment goals in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: post hoc analysis of SELECT-COMPARE.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the importance of treatment sequencing in SELECT-COMPARE, assessing potential differences between starting upadacitinib or adalimumab therapy following inadequate MTX response. METHODS: Patients from SELECT-COMPARE were randomized to upadacitinib 15 mg once daily, placebo or adalimumab 40 mg. Per protocol, patients with <20% improvement in tender or swollen joint counts (weeks 14, 18, 22) or failure to achieve Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) low disease activity (LDA) at week 26 were blindly switched from upadacitinib to adalimumab or vice versa. Treatment outcomes, including clinical remission/LDA, physical function, pain and a novel combined endpoint for deep response, were evaluated through 48 weeks and corresponding time-averaged response rates determined. Data were analysed by initial randomized group regardless of any subsequent switch in therapy. RESULTS: This post hoc analysis included 651 patients initially randomized to upadacitinib (of whom 252 switched to adalimumab) and 327 patients initially randomized to adalimumab (of whom 159 switched to upadacitinib). At week 48, patients randomized to either therapy demonstrated similar achievement of most treatment endpoints. Greater improvements in the total time spent in a lower disease state were observed for initial upadacitinib vs initial adalimumab therapy across most clinical and patient-reported outcomes through 48 weeks, and the median time to DAS28(CRP) <2.6/≤3.2 occurred 6-8 weeks earlier among those randomized to upadacitinib. CONCLUSION: Following a modified treat-to-target strategy, rates of CDAI remission/LDA and DAS28(CRP) <2.6/≤3.2 at 48 weeks were similar, regardless of starting therapy. However, patients initially receiving upadacitinib reached treatment targets more quickly and spent more time in clinical targets over the initial 48 weeks of treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02629159.

Frecuencia de infección por SARS-CoV-2 en asistentes a un congreso médico en la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires. Datos del Congreso Argentino de Reumatología 2021 / Frequency of SARS-CoV-2 infection in attendees at a medical congress in the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires. Data from the Argentine Congress of Rheumatology 2021

Introducción: en el contexto de la pandemia por SARS-CoV-2, la Sociedad Argentina de Reumatología (SAR) organizó su congreso "híbrido" (presencial y virtual), en diciembre de 2021, en concordancia con la condición epidemiológica. El objetivo principal de este trabajo fue describir la frecuencia de nuevos casos de infección luego de asistir al Congreso y la opinión de los médicos sobre los aspectos de bioseguridad del evento, y como objetivo secundario, analizar las características de los asistentes durante la pandemia por SARS-CoV-2. Materiales y métodos: estudio transversal a través de una encuesta online, autoadministrada y anónima. Se encuestaron a los concurrentes (médicos y no médicos) al Congreso (presencial o virtual). La primera encuesta fue al momento de la inscripción y la segunda luego de 14 días de culminado, solo para los médicos. Se realizó un análisis descriptivo de los resultados. Resultados: 1.322 individuos se inscribieron al Congreso; 1.039 (98,9%) eran médicos. 1.051 (79,5%) completaron la primera encuesta y 501 (48,2%) contestaron la segunda. Mientras 428 (85,4%) asistieron presencialmente, la virtualidad la eligieron aquellos con más años de ejercicio (p=0,023), con comorbilidades (p=0,03) y quienes tuvieron una internación previa por SARS-CoV-2 (p=0,05). Del total, 1.028 (97,8%) estaban vacunados. El 84,6% tuvo una opinión favorable sobre la modalidad "híbrida". Cinco (1,2%) presentaron síntomas de infección por SARS-CoV-2 y tres (0,7%) tuvieron confirmación diagnóstica. Conclusiones: cinco personas registraron la infección sintomática después del evento. Las medidas de bioseguridad tomadas fueron las aconsejadas por el Ministerio de Salud de la Nación y la opinión de los médicos sobre las mismas fueron favorables.

Introduction: in the context of the pandemic due to SARS-CoV-2, the Argentine Society of Rhematology organized its "hybrid" congress (face-to-face and virtual), on December 2021, in accordance with the epidemiological condition. The main objective of this work was to describe the frequency of new cases of infection after attending the Congress and the opinion of doctors on the biosafety aspects of the event, and as a secondary objective, to analyze the characteristics of those attending the Congress during the pandemic. by SARS-CoV-2. Materials and methods: cross-sectional study, through an online, self-administered and anonymous survey. The attendees (physician and non- physician) to the congress (face-to-face or virtual) were surveyed. The first survey was at the time of registration and the second after 14 days of finish, only for physicians. A descriptive analysis of the results was performed. Results: 1,322 subjects registered for Congress; 1,039 (98.9%) were physicians. 1,051 (79.5%) completed the first survey and 501 (48.2%) answered the second. While 428 (85.4%) attended in person, virtuality was chosen by those with more years of practice (p=0.023), with comorbidities (p=0.03) and those who had a previous hospitalization for SARS-CoV-2 (p =0.05). Of the total, 1,028 (97.8%) were vaccinated. 84.6% had a favorable opinion about the "hybrid" modality. Five (1.2%) presented symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection and three (0.7%) had diagnostic confirmation. Conclusions: five subjects had symptoms and three confirmed infections. The biosafety measures taken were those recommended by the Ministry of Health and the opinion of the colleagues about them was favorable.

Impact of Tofacitinib on Components of the ACR Response Criteria: Post Hoc Analysis of Phase III and Phase IIIb/IV Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of tofacitinib (TOF) on American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria components in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: This post hoc analysis pooled data from RA phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing TOF 5 or 10 mg BID, adalimumab (ADA), or placebo, with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and a phase IIIb/IV RCT assessing TOF 5 mg BID monotherapy, TOF 5 mg BID with methotrexate (MTX), or ADA with MTX. Outcomes included proportions of patients achieving ACR20/50/70 responses and ≥ 20/50/70% improvement rates in ACR components at week 2 and months 1, 3, and 6; and mean percent improvement in ACR components and Clinical or Simplified Disease Activity Index (CDAI or SDAI) low disease activity or remission rates, at month 3, for ACR20/50/70 responders. RESULTS: Across treatment groups, ≥ 20/50/70% improvement rates were numerically higher for most physician- vs patient-reported measures. In phase III RCTs, at earlier timepoints, ≥ 50/70% improvements in patient global assessment of disease activity, pain, and physician global assessment were similar. Among ACR20 responders receiving TOF, mean percent improvements for tender and swollen joint counts were > 70% at month 3. CDAI/SDAI remission was achieved at month 3 by 27.8-45.0% of ACR70 responders receiving TOF. CONCLUSION: Among ACR20 responders treated with TOF, physician-reported components particularly exceeded 20% response improvement. At month 3, disease state generally did not corroborate ACR70 response criteria. Divergences between physician- and patient-reported measures highlight the importance of identifying appropriate patient-reported outcome targets to manage RA symptoms in clinical practice. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00847613/NCT00856544/NCT00853385/NCT02187055).

Phase II randomised trial of type I interferon inhibitor anifrolumab in patients with active lupus nephritis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of the type I interferon receptor antibody, anifrolumab, in patients with active, biopsy-proven, Class III/IV lupus nephritis. METHODS: This phase II double-blinded study randomised 147 patients (1:1:1) to receive monthly intravenous anifrolumab basic regimen (BR, 300 mg), intensified regimen (IR, 900 mg ×3, 300 mg thereafter) or placebo, alongside standard therapy (oral glucocorticoids, mycophenolate mofetil). The primary endpoint was change in baseline 24-hour urine protein-creatinine ratio (UPCR) at week (W) 52 for combined anifrolumab versus placebo groups. The secondary endpoint was complete renal response (CRR) at W52. Exploratory endpoints included more stringent CRR definitions and sustained glucocorticoid reductions (≤7.5 mg/day, W24-52). Safety was analysed descriptively. RESULTS: Patients received anifrolumab BR (n=45), IR (n=51), or placebo (n=49). At W52, 24-hour UPCR improved by 69% and 70% for combined anifrolumab and placebo groups, respectively (geometric mean ratio=1.03; 95% CI 0.62 to 1.71; p=0.905). Serum concentrations were higher with anifrolumab IR versus anifrolumab BR, which provided suboptimal exposure. Numerically more patients treated with anifrolumab IR vs placebo attained CRR (45.5% vs 31.1%), CRR with UPCR ≤0.5 mg/mg (40.9% vs 26.7%), CRR with inactive urinary sediment (40.9% vs 13.3%) and sustained glucocorticoid reductions (55.6% vs 33.3%). Incidence of herpes zoster was higher with combined anifrolumab vs placebo (16.7% vs 8.2%). Incidence of serious adverse events was similar across groups. CONCLUSION: Although the primary endpoint was not met, anifrolumab IR was associated with numerical improvements over placebo across endpoints, including CRR, in patients with active lupus nephritis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02547922.

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.

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

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

Benefit-Risk Analysis of Upadacitinib Compared with Adalimumab in the Treatment of Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune disease requiring long-term treatment. Upadacitinib (UPA), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, is a new treatment for RA. The benefit-risk profile of a medication is best understood by evaluating the number needed to treat (NNT) and the number needed to harm (NNH). This analysis evaluated the comparative risk-benefit of UPA versus adalimumab (ADA). METHODS: Post-hoc analyses were performed using data from the SELECT-COMPARE trial of UPA versus placebo (PBO) and UPA versus ADA among patients with active RA who remained on stable methotrexate (MTX) treatment and had an inadequate response; patients who failed to achieve response were rescued by predefined criteria-PBO or ADA switch to UPA, and UPA switch to ADA (all patients on PBO were switched to UPA at week 26). This analysis assessed efficacy and adverse events of special interest (AESIs) at week 26, 48, and 156 (3 years). NNT and NNH (95% confidence intervals) values were calculated between UPA versus ADA for all time points, and between UPA versus PBO for week 26. NNT and NNH values were applied to a hypothetical cohort of 100 patients to estimate the comparative efficacy and safety profiles. RESULTS: UPA consistently showed greater efficacy than ADA, as evidenced by NNT values < 10 for achievement of Disease Activity Score in 28 joints based on C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) of < 2.6 and ≤ 3.2, respectively, and functional improvement. Based on indices for disease assessment other than the DAS28-CRP, remission outcomes were higher with UPA versus ADA over 26 weeks (NNTs: 7-12), 48 weeks (NNTs: 9-16), and 156 weeks (NNTs: 9-15). With the exception of herpes zoster, other AESIs demonstrated a similar risk with UPA versus ADA. CONCLUSION: In patients with active RA despite MTX use, UPA demonstrated an incremental achievement of clinical outcomes compared to ADA together with a similar profile of AESIs with ADA (with the exception of herpes zoster).