Duodenitis associated with ulcerative colitis and pouchitis after total colectomy successfully treated with upadacitinib: A case report.

A 27-year-old man had ulcerative colitis (UC) 1 year prior and underwent a colectomy and two-stage ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for medically refractory UC 6 months ago. He visited our department with epigastric pain and discomfort, increased stool frequency, and bloody diarrhea. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy revealed continuous diffuse friable mucosa, erosions, and edema in the duodenum, and pouchoscopy revealed multiple ulcers and purulent mucus adhesions. Based on endoscopic and pathological findings, the patient was diagnosed with duodenitis associated with UC and pouchitis, for which he received oral prednisolone (40 mg/day) and ciprofloxacin. The frequency of stools and occurrence of bloody diarrhea reduced, and epigastric pain and discomfort improved after 2 weeks. However, when prednisolone was discontinued, the symptoms worsened, albumin level decreased, and C-reactive protein level increased. Following this, we administered a 20 mg prednisolone sodium phosphate enema once daily, and the patient's symptoms improved. However, the symptoms relapsed when the enema was discontinued. Assuming that the patient had steroid-dependent duodenitis associated with UC and pouchitis, we initiated upadacitinib. His symptoms improved within a few days, and biomarkers returned to normal after 1 month. Nine months after initiating the upadacitinib treatment, endoscopic remission was achieved in the mucosa of the duodenum and pouch. The patient has been in clinical remission for 1 year without any adverse events.

Oral Janus Kinase Inhibitors in Pediatric Atopic Dermatitis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To analyze the efficacy and safety of Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) in the treatment of pediatric AD. RECENT FINDINGS: Adolescents with moderate and severe atopic dermatitis (AD) need systemic therapies, as stated several recent practice guidelines. (JAKi) have shown their efficacy in the treatment of adult AD, however, there is a lack of information concerning efficacy and safety of their use in pediatric AD. We found that the JAKi's abrocitinib (ABRO), baricitinib (BARI), and upadacitinib (UPA), are all an effective treatment option with a very fast onset of action for adolescents with moderate-to-severe AD. BARI was not effective in children between 2 and 10 years with moderate-to-severe AD. Fortunately, major safety issues with JAKi in adolescents with AD have not been documented in the trials, so far, contrasting with the reports in adults with AD, where these events have very rarely occurred. There are some reports of herpes zoster (HZ) infection in adolescents on JAKi, but it is not a major safety concern. Acne is a relatively common AE with UPA in adolescents; however, it is responsive to standard treatment. This review will help the clinician to choose among the JAKi according to the needs and clinical features of patients with moderate and severe AD. In the following years, with the advent of new biologicals and JAKi, these therapies will fall into place in each phase of the evolution of patients with AD.

Efficacy and Safety of Upadacitinib in Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis: A Meta-Analysis.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, relapsing inflammatory skin disorder. Topical corticosteroids are the cornerstone of therapy in mild AD, whereas the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib is approved in the United States, Europe, and other countries for treating moderate-severe AD in adults and children over 12 years old whose disease is not adequately controlled with other systemic drugs, including biologics. The objective of this meta-analysis was to assess the overall efficacy and safety of upadacitinib in moderate to severe AD. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib in moderate to severe AD were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled analysis revealed a significant proportion of patients achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index-75 (EASI 75) (R.R. = 3.86; 95% CI = 3.12 to 4.78, p < 0.00001), EASI 100 (R.R. = 13.09; 95% CI = 7.40 to 23.17, p < 0.00001), Worst Pruritus Numerical Rating Score (WP-NRS) response (R.R. = 4.44; 95% CI = 3.72 to 5.29, p< 0.00001), and validated Investigator's Global Assessment (v-IGA) (RR = 5.96; 95% CI = 4.79 to 7.41, p < 0. 00001) in the upadacitinib arm compared to the placebo arm. Moreover, the pooled analysis also suggested that treatment-emergent adverse events (TAEs) were relatively higher with upadacitinib than with placebo, but were mild and easily manageable (R.R. = 1.15; 95% CI = 1.09 to 1.23, p<0.00001). This meta-analysis showed that upadacitinib had a significant beneficial effect and tolerable adverse effect profile in patients with moderate and severe AD. Dose regimens of 15 mg and 30 mg seemed to have similar benefits. However, further trials are needed to assess long-term efficacy and safety profile.

Pharmacokinetics, Safety, Tolerability, and Exploratory Efficacy of Upadacitinib in Children with Severe Atopic Dermatitis.

PURPOSE: This study aims to characterize the pharmacokinetics, safety, tolerability, and exploratory efficacy of upadacitinib, an oral Janus kinase inhibitor approved for treating moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults and adolescents, in children with severe AD. METHODS: In an open-label, multiple-dose, Phase 1 study, pediatric patients with severe AD from two age groups (2 to <6 years and 6 to <12 years) received bodyweight-based dosing regimens of upadacitinib using either twice-daily immediate-release (IR) oral solution or once-daily extended-release (ER) tablets. A pharmacokinetic assessment was conducted on Day 7 of the study, which was followed by a long-term safety and exploratory efficacy evaluation for up to 108 weeks. The results reported here are based on an interim analysis when the study had completed enrollment and pharmacokinetic assessment. FINDINGS: A total of 35 patients were enrolled and received upadacitinib. The maximum upadacitinib plasma concentration was attained within a median time of 0.5 to 2 hours and 2 to 2.5 hours for the IR oral solution and ER tablet formulations, respectively. Upadacitinib functional half-life was generally shorter with IR oral solution relative to ER tablets. Upadacitinib apparent oral clearance decreased with decreasing body weight in the pediatric patients enrolled in this study. Upadacitinib was generally safe and well tolerated. The most common (≥3 patients) adverse events were upper respiratory tract infection, COVID-19 infection, headache, abdominal discomfort, vomiting, asthma, and cough. No new safety risks were identified compared to the known safety profile for upadacitinib in adults and adolescents. In the 30 patients with available exploratory efficacy data at Week 12, 36.7% achieved validated Investigator's Global Assessment scale for AD score of 0 or 1 (Validated Investigator Global Assessment for AD 0/1), and 70.0% had Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) improvement of at least 75% (EASI 75). IMPLICATIONS: The characterized pharmacokinetic profiles in this study, together with the observed safety and exploratory efficacy results, support further investigation of the current upadacitinib dosing regimen in future confirmatory Phase 3 clinical trials in children with AD. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT03646604, registered 2018-08-23.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Upadacitinib vs. Vedolizumab, Ustekinumab, and Tofacitinib After Induction and Maintenance for Ulcerative Colitis: Three Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence on the comparative efficacy and safety of approved therapies for ulcerative colitis (UC) during induction and maintenance, including upadacitinib (UPA), vedolizumab (VEDO), ustekinumab (UST), and tofacitinib (TOFA), is limited. METHODS: Using data from phase 3 trials, three placebo (PBO)-anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparisons of the efficacy and safety of UPA versus VEDO, UST, and TOFA (U-ACHIEVE and U-ACCOMPLISH, GEMINI-1, UNIFI, and OCTAVE induction and maintenance trials) have been conducted. Baseline characteristics from UPA trials were weighted separately to match each comparator trial. Induction responders were re-randomized to oral UPA 15 or 30 mg, VEDO 300 mg intravenously every 8 weeks (Q8W), UST 90 mg SC Q8W, or oral TOFA 5 mg, or PBO in maintenance. Treat-through efficacy outcomes at weeks 44(UST)/46(VEDO)/52(UPA/TOFA) were adjusted by the likelihood of induction response and included clinical response, clinical remission, and endoscopic improvement. Safety outcomes included adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), and AEs leading to discontinuation (except UPA vs. VEDO). Benefit-risk was assessed by numbers needed to treat (NNT)/harm, calculated as the inverse of the difference in proportions of patients achieving each efficacy/safety outcome for UPA versus comparator. RESULTS: The proportions of patients who demonstrated clinical response or endoscopic improvement was greater with UPA 15 mg versus VEDO and TOFA (p < 0.05). The proportions of patients demonstrating all treat-through efficacy outcomes were significantly greater with UPA 30 mg versus VEDO, UST, or TOFA with NNTs 3.2-8.7. No significant differences in proportions of AEs, SAEs, and AEs leading to discontinuation were observed between the two doses of UPA and comparators. CONCLUSION: In patients with active UC, greater clinical efficacy, and similar safety after 1 year of maintenance were observed with UPA versus VEDO, UST, and TOFA, suggesting a favorable benefit-risk profile for UPA. Despite matched baseline characteristics, differences in trial design and endpoints may persist.

Current evidence for janus kinase inhibitors in adult and juvenile dermatomyositis and key comparisons.

INTRODUCTION: Adult dermatomyositis (DM) and juvenile dermatomyositis (JDM) are rare autoimmune diseases with characteristic skin rashes, weakness, and other systemic features. Upregulated interferon signaling has been consistently described in both adult and juvenile DM which makes janus kinase inhibitors (jakinibs) an attractive therapeutic agent that has a targeted mechanism of action. AREAS COVERED: Herein is a review of the growing literature of jakinib use in adult and juvenile DM, including reports on specific disease features and safety of jakinibs in this population and a comparison between adult and juvenile DM. We performed a literature review using PubMed including all English-language publications before 1 February 2024 and abstracts from key recent rheumatology conferences. EXPERT OPINION: Jakinibs are an exciting and promising treatment in both adult and juvenile DM. Current Phase 2 and 3 randomized placebo-controlled trials of jakinibs in both adult and JDM will provide significant insights into the efficacy of this class of medication as a potentially more mechanistically targeted treatment of both skin and muscle disease. In fact, these results will likely inform the treatment paradigm of dermatomyositis in that it may even be considered as first or second line. The next five years in the therapeutic landscape of both juvenile and adult DM is an exciting time for both patients and medical providers.

Analysis of the shorter drug survival times for Janus kinase inhibitors and interleukin-17 inhibitors compared with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in a real-world cohort of axial spondyloarthritis patients - a retrospective analysis from the RHADAR network.

In recent years Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) have joined tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) and interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitors (IL-17i) as approved disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARD) for moderate to severe forms of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). Drug survival in axSpA patients has not been well studied in a real-world outpatient scenario since the approval of JAKi. We aimed to analyze the three drug classes based on modes of actions (MoA) for their persistence rates among German axSpA outpatients. A retrospective analysis of the RHADAR database for axSpA patients with a new initiation of TNFi, IL-17i, or JAKi treatment between January 2015 and October 2023 was conducted. Analyses included Kaplan-Meier curves and adjusted Cox regressions for drug discontinuation. 1222 new biological DMARD (TNFi [n = 954], IL-17i [n = 190]) or JAKi (n = 78) treatments were reported. The median drug survival was 31 months for TNFi, 25 for IL-17i, and 18 for JAKi. The corresponding 2-year drug survival rate was 79.6%, 72.6%, and 62.8% for TNFi, IL-17i, and JAKi, respectively. The probability for discontinuation for JAKi was significantly higher compared with TNFi (HR 1.91 [95% CI 1.22-2.99]) as well as for IL-17i compared with TNFi (HR 1.43 [95% CI 1.02-2.01]), possibly related to more frequent use of TNFis as first-line therapy. IL-17i and JAKi discontinuation probabilities were similar. Primary non-response was the reason for drug discontinuation in most cases across all MoA. TNFi treatment might persist longer than JAKi and IL-17i in German axSpA outpatients, possibly related to more severe or refractory disease in patients with JAKi-treated or IL-17i-treated axSpA.

More Time Spent with Clear Skin and No Itch with Upadacitinib versus Dupilumab for Atopic Dermatitis.

INTRODUCTION: Atopic dermatitis (AD), with its hallmark symptoms of pruritus and skin lesions, often impairs patients' quality of life. We assessed time spent with clear/almost clear skin and no/minimal itch during upadacitinib treatment versus placebo or dupilumab among patients with moderate-to-severe AD. METHODS: This analysis consisted of a post hoc analysis of Measure Up 1 (NCT03569293), Measure Up 2 (NCT03607422), and Heads Up (NCT03738397). Measure Up 1 and 2 were replicate, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 studies with patients randomized (1:1:1) to once-daily oral upadacitinib 15 mg, upadacitinib 30 mg, or placebo for 16 weeks. Heads Up was a head-to-head, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, phase 3b study with patients randomized (1:1) to upadacitinib 30 mg or subcutaneous dupilumab 300 mg for 24 weeks. Skin clearance was assessed with the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) at baseline, weeks 1, 2, and 4, and every 4 weeks thereafter. Itch was assessed using the Worst Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (WP-NRS) daily over 16 weeks and every 2 weeks thereafter to week 24 in Heads Up. RESULTS: This analysis included 1683 patients in Measure Up 1 and 2 and 673 patients in Heads Up. Through 16 weeks in Measure Up 1 and 2, patients receiving upadacitinib spent 9.8-13.4 times as many days with an EASI 90 response and 7.0-10.3 times as many days with a WP-NRS 0/1 response versus placebo. In Heads Up, patients receiving upadacitinib spent 2.0 and 1.7 times as many days through 16 and 24 weeks, respectively, with an EASI 90 response versus dupilumab. Through 16 and 24 weeks, patients receiving upadacitinib spent 3.0 and 2.6 times as many days, respectively, with a WP-NRS 0/1 response versus dupilumab. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with moderate-to-severe AD spent more time with clear/almost clear skin and no/minimal itch with upadacitinib versus placebo or dupilumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, Measure Up 1 (NCT03569293), Measure Up 2 (NCT03607422), Heads Up (NCT03738397).

A Real-World Comparison of Clinical Effectiveness in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Treated with Upadacitinib, Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors, and Other Advanced Therapies After Switching from an Initial Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor.

INTRODUCTION: This study compared the clinical effectiveness of switching from tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) to upadacitinib (TNFi-UPA), another TNFi (TNFi-TNFi), or an advanced therapy with another mechanism of action (TNFi-other MOA) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Data were drawn from the Adelphi RA Disease Specific Programme™, a cross-sectional survey administered to rheumatologists and their consulting patients in Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the UK, Japan, Canada, and the USA from May 2021 to January 2022. Patients who switched treatment from an initial TNFi were stratified by subsequent therapy of interest: TNFi-UPA, TNFi-TNFi, or TNFi-other MOA. Physician-reported clinical outcomes including disease activity (with formal DAS28 scoring available for 29% of patients) categorized as remission, low/moderate/high disease activity, as well as pain were recorded at initiation of current treatment and ≥ 6 months from treatment switch. Fatigue and treatment adherence were measured ≥ 6 months from treatment switch. Inverse-probability-weighted regression adjustment compared outcomes by subsequent class of therapy: TNFi-UPA versus TNFi-TNFi, or TNFi-UPA versus TNFi-other MOA. RESULTS: Of 503 patients who switched from their first TNFi, 261 were in TNFi-UPA, 128 in TNFi-TNFi, and 114 in TNFi-other MOA groups. At the time of switch, most patients had moderate/high disease activity (TNFi-UPA: 73%; TNFi-TNFi: 52%; TNFi-other MOA: 60%). After adjustment for differences in characteristics at point of switch, patients in TNFi-UPA group (n = 261) were significantly more likely to achieve physician-reported remission (67.7% vs. 40.3%; p = 0.0015), no pain (55.7% vs. 25.4%; p = 0.0007), and complete adherence (60.0% vs. 34.2%; p = 0.0049) compared with patients in TNFi-TNFi group (n = 121). Similar findings were observed for TNFi-UPA versus TNFi-other MOA groups (n = 111). CONCLUSION: Patients who switched from TNFi to UPA had significantly better clinical outcomes of remission, no pain, and complete adherence than those who cycled TNFi or switched to another MOA.

How comparative studies can inform treatment decisions for Crohn's disease.

INTRODUCTION: As new therapies for the treatment of Crohn's disease (CD) are approved, there is an increasing need for evidence that clarifies their positioning and sequencing. AREAS COVERED: Comparative effectiveness research (CER) aims to inform physicians' decisions when they choose which intervention (drug or treatment strategy) to administer to their patients. Pragmatic head-to-head trials represent the best tools for CER, but only a few have been published in the IBD field. Network meta-analyses can point toward the superiority of one drug over another, but they do not reflect everyday clinical practice. Finally, real-world evidence complements that coming from head-to-head trials and network meta-analyses, assessing the real-life effectiveness of therapeutic interventions. EXPERT OPINION: There is insufficient evidence to create a definitive therapeutic algorithm for CD, but some general considerations can be made. Anti-TNF-α agents seemingly represent the most 'sustainable' first-line choice, considering benefit-harm ratio and costs; vedolizumab, ustekinumab, and risankizumab may be considered as first-line choice when safety issues become prominent. In the event of pharmacodynamic failure, out-of-class swap is to be preferred - possibly with anti-IL23p19 as the best option, with unclear data regarding upadacitinib positioning; a second anti-TNF-α could be considered, as a second choice, after pharmacokinetic failure.

Adverse reactions to Janus kinase inhibitors: Study of their incidence and predictive factors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. / Reacciones adversas a inhibidores de quinasa Janus: estudio de su incidencia y de factores predictivos en los pacientes con artritis reumatoide.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The safety profile of Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitors has acquired attention due to post-marketing observed adverse drug reactions. The study focuses on the analysis of adverse reactions related to tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, and filgotinib in rheumatoid arthritis patients, including identifying predictive factors linked to their occurrence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Observational retrospective study. Adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis from a university hospital receiving JAK inhibitor treatment between September 2017 and January 2024 were included. The cumulative incidence of each adverse reaction was calculated using the Naranjo scale. Risk factors for developing adverse reactions were identified through logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-three patients were included, with 28.7% presenting adverse reaction related to JAK inhibitor treatment. The adverse drug reactions with the highest cumulative incidence were infections and gastrointestinal disorders. Infections included: upper respiratory tract (4.5%), cellulitis (3.1%), urinary tract (2.7%), herpes zoster (1.8%). Gastrointestinal disorders comprised: abdominal pain (4.0%), diarrhea (3.6%), nausea and vomiting (3.6%), gastrointestinal perforation (1.3%), diverticulitis (0.9%). Classified at 0.5% were: headache, paresthesias, skin rash, severe neutropenia, insomnia, dyspnea, hypertensive crisis. As risk factors, were identified: the treatment with a non-selective JAK inhibitor (OR adjusted: 4.03; 95% CI: 1.15-14.10; P=.029) and older age (OR adjusted: 1.03; 95% CI: 1.00-1.05; P=.036). CONCLUSIONS: Infections and gastrointestinal disorders represented the adverse reactions related to JAK inhibitor treatment with the highest cumulative incidence, with risk factors for their occurrence being non-selective JAK inhibitor treatment and older age of the patient.

Impact of Upadacitinib on Atopic Keratoconjunctivitis Exacerbated by Dupilumab Treatment in Atopic Dermatitis Patients: A Prospective Dermatological and Ophthalmological Clinical Evaluation in Common Clinical Practice.

Introduction: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a prevalent chronic inflammatory skin condition with a substantial impact on patients, particularly due to ocular involvement known as atopic keratoconjunctivitis (AKC). Current therapeutic approaches, such as dupilumab, often lead to conjunctivitis, prompting exploration of alternative treatments like upadacitinib. Methods: We collected dermatological and ophthalmological prospective clinical evaluations of six adults with moderate-to-severe AD, undergoing treatment with upadacitinib after discontinuation of dupilumab due to the onset of AKC during therapy and the worsening of dermatitis in particular in the head and neck region. Clinical evaluations, including EASI scores, itch and sleep NRS, DLQI, and ocular parameters, were performed at baseline (during screening assessment before switching to upadacitinib) and then at week 12 and week 24. Clinical evaluation of AKC was performed by a team of ophthalmologists. Results: Upadacitinib not only improved atopic dermatitis in terms of EASI, itching, and sleep NRS, but also demonstrated a notable reduction in ocular signs and symptoms, as indicated by the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), the Efron scale, and the Ocular Surface Disease Index Symptom Severity (OSDISS) scores. Discussion: Our observation of common clinical practice underscores the substantial impact of biological and small-molecule therapies on AD, emphasizing the limitation posed by dupilumab-associated conjunctivitis. Switching to upadacitinib significantly improved both clinical and functional ocular outcomes, suggesting its potential as an alternative therapeutic option for AD patients with ocular involvement. Conclusion: The presented data provides insights into the complex interplay between systemic therapies and ocular manifestations in AD. Upadacitinib emerges as a promising option to address dupilumab-associated conjunctivitis, offering improved quality of life for patients.

Use of Upadacitinib as Salvage Therapy for Ulcerative Colitis in Pregnancy: A Case Report.

Upadacitinib, a selective JAK-1 inhibitor, was used as rescue therapy for ulcerative colitis in the setting of pregnancy following use of mesalamine, vedolizumab, infliximab, and corticosteroids. This resulted in an uncomplicated live full birth without need for surgical intervention.

Upadacitinib monotherapy versus methotrexate monotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: efficacy and safety through 5 years in the SELECT-EARLY randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib monotherapy versus methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy over 5 years among MTX-naïve patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in the long-term extension (LTE) of the phase 3 SELECT-EARLY trial. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg or MTX. Patients who did not achieve CDAI remission and had < 20% improvement in tender and swollen joint counts at week 26 received rescue therapy (addition of MTX in the upadacitinib group and addition of upadacitinib in the MTX group). Efficacy assessments were evaluated over 5 years and are reported as observed (AO) for patients who received continuous monotherapy with upadacitinib 15/30 mg or MTX and by randomized group applying non-responder imputation (NRI). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) per 100 patient-years were summarized over 5 years. RESULTS: Of 945 patients randomized and treated, 775 (82%) completed week 48 and entered the LTE on study drug. Higher proportions of patients consistently achieved disease activity targets over 5 years with upadacitinib than MTX. In AO analyses, 53%/59% of patients attained CDAI remission with upadacitinib 15/30 mg versus 43% with MTX at week 260. NRI analyses showed better CDAI, DAS28(CRP), and ACR responses with upadacitinib relative to MTX at week 260 (all comparisons, nominal P < .001). Upadacitinib treatment also resulted in numerically greater inhibition of structural joint progression through week 260 compared to MTX. Most TEAEs, serious AEs, and AEs leading to discontinuation were numerically higher in patients receiving upadacitinib 30 mg. Rates of serious infections, herpes zoster, creatine phosphokinase elevation, nonmelanoma skin cancer, and neutropenia were numerically higher with upadacitinib than MTX. The observed safety profile of upadacitinib over 5 years was consistent with earlier trial results and integrated phase 3 safety analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Upadacitinib showed better clinical responses versus MTX in patients with RA throughout the 5-year trial. Higher rates of several AEs were observed with upadacitinib, especially in the 30 mg group, compared to MTX. When used as monotherapy in MTX-naïve patients, the approved upadacitinib 15 mg dose showed better long-term efficacy versus MTX and an overall favorable benefit-risk profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02706873.

Treatment of rosacea with upadacitinib and abrocitinib: case report and review of evidence for Janus kinase inhibition in rosacea.

Introduction: Conventional rosacea treatments are not uniformly pervasive, and the adverse reactions can potentially constrain their utility. The clinical use of JAK1 inhibitors upadacitinib and abrocitinib in the treatment of refractory rosacea has rarely been explored. Case report: We presented two cases of patients who received the JAK1 inhibitor upadacitinib and four cases of patients who received the JAK1 inhibitor abrocitinib for the treatment of refractory rosacea. Discussion: The JAK1 inhibitors upadacitinib and abrocitinib may be promising medical options for patients with refractory rosacea. However, the long-term safety and efficacy of upadacitinib and abrocitinib require prospective controlled studies to assess them more comprehensively.

Safety and Efficacy of Upadacitinib in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Refractory to Biologic DMARDs: Results Through Week 216 from the SELECT-CHOICE Study.

INTRODUCTION: The safety and efficacy of upadacitinib 15 mg (UPA15) through week 216 was evaluated in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from the long-term extension (LTE) of the phase 3 SELECT-CHOICE study. METHODS: Patients with RA refractory to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) were randomized to UPA15 or abatacept (ABA) for 24 weeks. During the open-label LTE, patients on ABA switched to UPA15 at week 24, and those on UPA15 continued treatment. The safety and efficacy of continuous UPA15, and ABA to UPA15, are summarized through week 216. RESULTS: The LTE was comprised of 91.4% (n = 277/303) of patients that initially received UPA15, and 89.6% (n = 277/309) that initially received ABA. Of patients on UPA15 in the LTE (n = 547), 28.3% (n = 155/547) discontinued the study drug by week 216. Relative to other adverse events of special interest, and largely consistent with previous findings at week 24, higher rates of serious infection, COVID-19, herpes zoster, and elevated creatine phosphokinase were reported, while rates of malignancy excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC), NMSC, major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), and venous thromboembolism (VTE) were low. Long-term safety data with UPA through week 216 aligned with previous observations and no new safety risks were identified, including in patients who switched from ABA to UPA15. Proportions of patients achieving 28-joint disease activity score based on C-reactive protein (DAS28[CRP]) < 2.6/ ≤ 3.2, clinical disease activity index (CDAI) and simple disease activity index (SDAI) low disease activity/remission, ≥ 20%/50%/70% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology (ACR20/50/70) response criteria, and Boolean remission were maintained or improved with UPA15 through week 216. Improvements in the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), patient's assessment of pain, and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) were also maintained or improved with UPA15 through week 216. Across all efficacy endpoints, similar results were observed in patients who switched from ABA to UPA15 versus continuous UPA15. Patients with an inadequate response to ≥ 1 prior tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor (UPA15: n = 263/303, 86.8%; ABA to UPA15: n = 273/309, 88.3%) showed similar responses to the total population. CONCLUSIONS: The long-term safety profile of UPA was consistent with previous findings and the broader RA clinical program. Compared to the primary analyses at week 24, efficacy responses were maintained or further improved with UPA15 through week 216 in patients with RA. Trial registration, ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03086343.

A long-term study looked at a drug named upadacitinib to treat people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), a disease that causes joint pain and damage. The study included patients whose RA was not improved by other injectable medicines. The study compared upadacitinib with another drug called abatacept. After 24 weeks, patients who were taking abatacept switched to upadacitinib, and patients taking upadacitinib continued on upadacitinib treatment for over 4 years. The researchers looked at how well the treatments worked over the long-term and if there were any side effects. The side effects with upadacitinib treatment in this long-term study were similar to side effects reported in previous studies with upadacitinib. The researchers also found that upadacitinib helped to lessen the symptoms of RA over time and helped patients complete their daily activities and reduced their pain and tiredness. This was true for patients who switched from abatacept to upadacitinib after 24 weeks and for patients who took upadacitinib from the start of the study. Patients who had not responded to other medicines also had similar improvements with upadacitinib. In conclusion, upadacitinib can help people with RA over the long term and no new safety risks were found.