Rheumatoid arthritis disease activity and adverse events in patients receiving tofacitinib or tumor necrosis factor inhibitors: a post hoc analysis of ORAL Surveillance.

Background: In patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), persistent inflammation and increasing disease activity are associated with increased risk of adverse events (AEs). Objectives: To assess relationships between RA disease activity and AEs of interest in patients treated with tofacitinib or tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi). Design: This was a post hoc analysis of a long-term, postauthorization safety endpoint trial of tofacitinib versus TNFi. Methods: In ORAL Surveillance, 4362 patients aged ⩾50 years with active RA despite methotrexate, and ⩾1 additional cardiovascular (CV) risk factor, were randomized 1:1:1 to tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily or TNFi for up to 72 months. Post hoc time-dependent multivariable Cox analysis evaluated the relationships between disease activity [Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI)], inflammation [C-reactive protein (CRP)], and AEs of interest. The AEs included major adverse CV events (MACE), malignancies excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC), venous thromboembolism (VTE), serious infections, herpes zoster (HZ), nonserious infections excluding HZ (NSI), and death. Results: Across treatments, risk for NSI was higher when patients had CDAI-defined active disease versus remission; MACE and VTE risks trended higher, but did not reach significance. Hazard ratios for MACE, malignancies excluding NMSC, VTE, infections, and death rose by 2-9% for each 5-mg/L increment in serum CRP. The interaction terms evaluating the impact of treatment assignment on the relationship between disease activity and AEs were all p > 0.05. Conclusion: In ORAL Surveillance, higher NSI risk was observed in the presence of active RA versus remission. The risk of MACE and VTE directionally increased in active disease versus remission, although statistical power was limited due to small event numbers in these categories. The relationship between active disease and AEs was not impacted by treatment with tofacitinib versus TNFi. Registration: NCT02092467.

The link between disease activity and adverse medical events in people with rheumatoid arthritis taking tofacitinib or tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. Why was the study done? • People with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have uncontrolled symptoms (high disease activity) have a higher chance of having adverse medical events (medical problems that occur during treatment with a medication) than people who have mild symptoms (low disease activity). • We looked at the link between levels of disease activity and the risk of having adverse medical events in people with RA who took tofacitinib or a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) medication. What did the researchers do? • We used the results of ORAL Surveillance, a long-term safety trial in people with RA. ○ In this study, people with RA were 50 years or older and at high risk of a major cardiovascular event such as heart attack or stroke. • For up to 6 years, people took tofacitinib 5 or 10mg tablets two times a day or TNFi injections. • We used statistical tests to examine the link between different levels of RA disease activity or inflammation and different adverse medical events, such as: ○ major cardiovascular events (such as heart attack, stroke, or death due to heart failure) ○ cancers ○ blood clots ○ infections ○ deaths. What did the researchers find? • In people who took tofacitinib or TNFi: ○ People with active disease (those with RA symptoms) had a higher risk of infections that did not lead to hospitalization (nonserious infections) than people in remission (those with very mild symptoms or no symptoms at all). ○ People with active disease also had a slightly higher risk of major cardiovascular events and blood clots than those in remission. ○ Higher levels of inflammation led to increased risk of major cardiovascular events, cancers, blood clots, infections, and deaths. What do the findings mean? • Active RA disease leads to higher risk of adverse medical events. • The medication used (tofacitinib or TNFi) did not affect the link between levels of RA disease activity and adverse medical events. • This study was limited by the low number of adverse medical events recorded.

Analysis of Disease Activity Metrics in a Methotrexate Withdrawal Study among Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Treated with Tofacitinib plus Methotrexate.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this analysis was to assess disease activity metrics using a variety of disease outcome measures following methotrexate (MTX) withdrawal in ORAL Shift, a phase 3b/4 study of tofacitinib with/without MTX, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) achieving Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI)-defined low disease activity (LDA). METHODS: Patients aged ≥ 18 years with active RA and an inadequate response to MTX received open-label tofacitinib modified-release 11 mg once daily plus MTX for 24 weeks. In the double-blind MTX withdrawal phase, those who had achieved CDAI LDA (≤ 10) at week 24 were randomised 1:1 to receive tofacitinib monotherapy or continued tofacitinib plus MTX. Efficacy analyses were performed in subgroups defined by whether remission and/or LDA had been achieved at week 24 with: Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, erythrocyte sedimentation rate [DAS28-4(ESR)], Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3), CDAI and Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI); or DAS28-4[C-reactive protein(CRP)] < 2.4/ < 2.6/ < 2.9/ ≤ 3.2. RESULTS: Five hundred and thirty patients received treatment in the double-blind MTX withdrawal phase. Proportions of patients achieving each disease activity criterion at week 24 varied by metric. Across disease activity metrics [excluding DAS28-4(ESR) remission], 58-89% of patients per group, and numerically more patients receiving tofacitinib plus MTX, achieved the same criterion at week 48 as at week 24. Differences between groups in least squares mean change from baseline (Δ) DAS28-4(ESR) from week 24-48 favoured tofacitinib plus MTX (nominal p values < 0.05). RAPID3 and DAS28-4(CRP) estimated a higher proportion of patients with acceptable disease state versus DAS28-4(ESR), CDAI remission and SDAI remission. CONCLUSION: Response rates at the beginning of the double-blind phase varied across metrics. A consistent trend towards higher response rates with tofacitinib plus MTX was observed across metrics after randomisation, with nominal differences in DAS28-4(ESR) responses. Compared with continued combination therapy, MTX withdrawal did not lead to a clinically meaningful reduction in the response to tofacitinib. DAS28-4(CRP) and RAPID3 were the least stringent metrics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02831855.

Assessment of Safety and Efficacy of Tofacitinib, Stratified by Age, in Patients from the Ulcerative Colitis Clinical Program.

BACKGROUND: In patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), risks of infection and malignancies increase with age. Tofacitinib is an oral, small molecule Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of UC. This analysis assessed age as a risk factor for adverse events of special interest (AESI) in the tofacitinib UC clinical program. METHODS: Data were from phase 2 and 3 induction studies, a phase 3 maintenance study, and an open-label, long-term extension study. Efficacy and/or safety outcomes were analyzed in the Induction, Maintenance, and Overall Cohorts (patients who received ≥ 1 dose of tofacitinib), stratified by age. The effects of baseline demographic and disease-related factors on AESI incidence were assessed by Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis. RESULTS: In the Overall Cohort (1157 patients with ≤ 6.8 years' tofacitinib treatment), age was a statistically significant predictor of herpes zoster (HZ), malignancies excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC), and NMSC. Other statistically significant predictors included prior tumor necrosis factor inhibitor failure for HZ, NMSC, and opportunistic infection events, and prior duration of UC for malignancies excluding NMSC. In the Induction and Maintenance Cohorts, a higher proportion of tofacitinib-treated than placebo-treated patients (numerical difference) achieved the efficacy endpoints (endoscopic improvement, clinical remission, clinical response) across all age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Older individuals receiving tofacitinib as induction and maintenance therapy to treat UC may have an increased risk of HZ, malignancies (excluding NMSC), and NMSC versus similarly treated younger patients, consistent with findings from the general population. Across all age groups, tofacitinib demonstrated greater efficacy than placebo as an induction and maintenance therapy. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT00787202; NCT01465763; NCT01458951; NCT01458574; NCT01470612.

Age was assessed as a risk factor for adverse events of special interest in the tofacitinib ulcerative colitis clinical program. Older individuals receiving tofacitinib may have an increased risk of herpes zoster, malignancies (excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer), and nonmelanoma skin cancer versus similarly treated younger patients.

Infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving tofacitinib versus tumour necrosis factor inhibitors: results from the open-label, randomised controlled ORAL Surveillance trial.

OBJECTIVES: To characterise infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in ORAL Surveillance. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised controlled trial, patients with RA aged≥50 years with ≥1 additional cardiovascular risk factor received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg two times per day or a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi). Incidence rates (IRs; patients with first events/100 patient-years) and hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated for infections, overall and by age (50-<65 years; ≥65 years). Probabilities of infections were obtained (Kaplan-Meier estimates). Cox modelling identified infection risk factors. RESULTS: IRs/HRs for all infections, serious infection events (SIEs) and non-serious infections (NSIs) were higher with tofacitinib (10>5 mg two times per day) versus TNFi. For SIEs, HR (95% CI) for tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg two times per day versus TNFi, respectively, were 1.17 (0.92 to 1.50) and 1.48 (1.17 to 1.87). Increased IRs/HRs for all infections and SIEs with tofacitinib 10 mg two times per day versus TNFi were more pronounced in patients aged≥65 vs 50-<65 years. SIE probability increased from month 18 and before month 6 with tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg two times per day versus TNFi, respectively. NSI probability increased before month 6 with both tofacitinib doses versus TNFi. Across treatments, the most predictive risk factors for SIEs were increasing age, baseline opioid use, history of chronic lung disease and time-dependent oral corticosteroid use, and, for NSIs, female sex, history of chronic lung disease/infections, past smoking and time-dependent Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, C-reactive protein. CONCLUSIONS: Infections were higher with tofacitinib versus TNFi. Findings may inform future treatment decisions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02092467.

Efficacy and safety of the seven-day buprenorphine transdermal system in opioid-naïve patients with moderate to severe chronic low back pain: an enriched, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

CONTEXT: This article presents the results of a pivotal Phase 3 study that assesses a new treatment for the management of chronic low back pain: a transdermal patch containing the opioid buprenorphine. In this randomized, placebo-controlled study with an enriched enrollment design, the buprenorphine transdermal system (BTDS) was found to be efficacious and generally well tolerated. OBJECTIVES: This enriched, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study evaluated the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of BTDS in opioid-naïve patients who had moderate to severe chronic low back pain. METHODS: Patients who tolerated and responded to BTDS (10 or 20 mcg/hour) during an open-label run-in period were randomized to continue BTDS 10 or 20 mcg/hour or receive matching placebo. The primary outcome was "average pain over the last 24 hours" at the end of the 12-week double-blind phase, collected on an 11-point scale (0=no pain, 10=pain as bad as you can imagine). Sleep disturbance (Medical Outcomes Study subscale) and total number of supplemental analgesic tablets used were secondary efficacy variables. RESULTS: Fifty-three percent of patients receiving open-label BTDS (541 of 1024) were randomized to receive BTDS (n=257) or placebo (n=284). Patients receiving BTDS reported statistically significantly lower pain scores at Week 12 compared with placebo (least square mean treatment difference: -0.58, P=0.010). Sensitivity analyses of the primary efficacy variable and results of the analysis of secondary efficacy variables supported the efficacy of BTDS relative to placebo. During the double-blind phase, the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was 55% for the BTDS treatment group and 52% for the placebo treatment group. Laboratory, vital sign, and electrocardiogram evaluations did not reveal unanticipated safety findings. CONCLUSION: BTDS was efficacious in the treatment of opioid-naïve patients with moderate to severe chronic low back pain. Most treatment-emergent adverse events observed were consistent with those associated with the use of opioid agonists and transdermal patches.