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.

TYK2: an emerging therapeutic target in rheumatic disease.

Tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) is a member of the JAK kinase family of intracellular signalling molecules. By participating in signalling pathways downstream of type I interferons, IL-12, IL-23 and IL-10, TYK2 elicits a distinct set of immune events to JAK1, JAK2 and JAK3. TYK2 polymorphisms have been associated with susceptibility to various rheumatic diseases including systemic lupus erythematosus and dermatomyositis. In vitro and animal studies substantiate these findings, highlighting a role for TYK2 in diseases currently managed by antagonists of cytokines that signal through TYK2. Various inhibitors of TYK2 have now been studied in human disease, and one of these inhibitors, deucravacitinib, has now been approved for the treatment of psoriasis. Phase II trials of deucravacitinib have also reported positive results in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus, with a preliminary safety profile that seems to differ from that of the JAK1, JAK2 and JAK3 inhibitors. Two other inhibitors of TYK2, brepocitinib and ropsacitinib, are also in earlier stages of clinical trials. Overall, TYK2 inhibitors hold promise for the treatment of a distinct spectrum of autoimmune diseases and could potentially have a safety profile that differs from other JAK inhibitors.

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

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

Anti-GM-CSF otilimab versus tofacitinib or placebo in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to conventional or biologic DMARDs: two phase 3 randomised trials (contRAst 1 and contRAst 2).

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy and safety of otilimab, an antigranulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor antibody, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Two phase 3, double-blind randomised controlled trials including patients with inadequate responses to methotrexate (contRAst 1) or conventional synthetic/biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cs/bDMARDs; contRAst 2). Patients received background csDMARDs. Through a testing hierarchy, subcutaneous otilimab (90/150 mg once weekly) was compared with placebo for week 12 endpoints (after which, patients receiving placebo switched to active interventions) or oral tofacitinib (5 mg two times per day) for week 24 endpoints. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: proportion of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology response ≥20% (ACR20) at week 12. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat populations comprised 1537 (contRAst 1) and 1625 (contRAst 2) patients. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: proportions of ACR20 responders were statistically significantly greater with otilimab 90 mg and 150 mg vs placebo in contRAst 1 (54.7% (p=0.0023) and 50.9% (p=0.0362) vs 41.7%) and contRAst 2 (54.9% (p<0.0001) and 54.5% (p<0.0001) vs 32.5%). Secondary endpoints: in both trials, compared with placebo, otilimab increased the proportion of Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) low disease activity (LDA) responders (not significant for otilimab 150 mg in contRAst 1), and reduced Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) scores. Benefits with tofacitinib were consistently greater than with otilimab across multiple endpoints. Safety outcomes were similar across treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although otilimab demonstrated superiority to placebo in ACR20, CDAI LDA and HAQ-DI, improved symptoms, and had an acceptable safety profile, it was inferior to tofacitinib. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT03980483, NCT03970837.

Anti-GM-CSF otilimab versus sarilumab or placebo in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to targeted therapies: a phase III randomised trial (contRAst 3).

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy and safety of otilimab, an anti-granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor antibody, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to conventional synthetic (cs) and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and/or Janus kinase inhibitors. METHODS: ContRAst 3 was a 24-week, phase III, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Patients received subcutaneous otilimab (90/150 mg once weekly), subcutaneous sarilumab (200 mg every 2 weeks) or placebo for 12 weeks, in addition to csDMARDs. Patients receiving placebo were switched to active interventions at week 12 and treatment continued to week 24. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology ≥20% response (ACR20) at week 12. RESULTS: Overall, 549 patients received treatment. At week 12, there was no significant difference in the proportion of ACR20 responders with otilimab 90 mg and 150 mg versus placebo (45% (p=0.2868) and 51% (p=0.0596) vs 38%, respectively). There were no significant differences in Clinical Disease Activity Index, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, pain Visual Analogue Scale or Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue scores with otilimab versus placebo at week 12. Sarilumab demonstrated superiority to otilimab in ACR20 response and secondary end points. The incidence of adverse or serious adverse events was similar across treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Otilimab demonstrated an acceptable safety profile but failed to achieve the primary end point of ACR20 and improve secondary end points versus placebo or demonstrate non-inferiority to sarilumab in this patient population. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04134728.

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.

The trajectory of clinical responses in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis who achieve sustained remission in response to abatacept: subanalysis of AVERT-2, a randomized phase IIIb study.

BACKGROUND: AVERT-2 (a phase IIIb, two-stage study) evaluated abatacept + methotrexate versus methotrexate alone, in methotrexate-naive, anti-citrullinated protein antibody-positive patients with early (≤ 6 months), active RA. This subanalysis investigated whether individual patients who achieved the week 24 Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) remission primary endpoint could sustain remission to 1 year and then maintain it following changes in therapy. METHODS: During the 56-week induction period (IP), patients were randomized to weekly subcutaneous abatacept 125 mg + methotrexate or abatacept placebo + methotrexate. Patients completing the IP who achieved SDAI remission (≤ 3.3) at weeks 40 and 52 entered a 48-week de-escalation (DE) period. Patients treated with abatacept + methotrexate were re-randomized to continue weekly abatacept + methotrexate, or de-escalate and then withdraw abatacept (after 24 weeks), or receive abatacept monotherapy. Proportions of patients achieving sustained SDAI and Boolean remission, and Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28 [CRP]) < 2.6, were assessed. For patients achieving early sustained SDAI remission at weeks 24/40/52, flow between disease activity categories and individual trajectories was evaluated; flow was also evaluated for later remitters (weeks 40/52 but not week 24). RESULTS: Among patients treated with abatacept + methotrexate (n/N = 451/752) at IP week 24, 22% achieved SDAI remission, 17% achieved Boolean remission, and 42% achieved DAS28 (CRP) < 2.6; of these, 56%, 58%, and 74%, respectively, sustained a response throughout IP weeks 40/52. Among patients with a sustained response at IP weeks 24/40/52, 82% (14/17) on weekly abatacept + methotrexate, 81% (13/16) on abatacept monotherapy, 63% (12/19) who de-escalated/withdrew abatacept, and 65% (11/17) on abatacept placebo + methotrexate were in SDAI remission at end of the DE period; rates were higher than for later remitters in all arms except abatacept placebo + methotrexate. CONCLUSIONS: A high proportion of individual patients achieving clinical endpoints at IP week 24 with abatacept + methotrexate sustained their responses through week 52. Of patients achieving early and sustained SDAI remission through 52 weeks, numerically more maintained remission during the DE period if weekly abatacept treatment continued. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02504268 (ClinicalTrials.gov), registered July 21, 2015.

Sustained Remission and Outcomes with Abatacept plus Methotrexate Following Stepwise Dose De-escalation in Patients with Early Rheumatoid Arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: One target of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment is to achieve early sustained remission; over the long term, patients in sustained remission have less structural joint damage and physical disability. We evaluated Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) remission with abatacept + methotrexate versus abatacept placebo + methotrexate and impact of de-escalation (DE) in anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)-positive patients with early RA. METHODS: The phase IIIb, randomized, AVERT-2 two-stage study (NCT02504268) evaluated weekly abatacept + methotrexate versus abatacept placebo + methotrexate. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: SDAI remission (≤ 3.3) at week 24. Pre-planned exploratory endpoint: maintenance of remission in patients with sustained remission (weeks 40 and 52) who, from week 56 for 48 weeks (DE period), (1) continued combination abatacept + methotrexate, (2) tapered abatacept to every other week (EOW) + methotrexate for 24 weeks with subsequent abatacept withdrawal (abatacept placebo + methotrexate), or (3) withdrew methotrexate (abatacept monotherapy). RESULTS: Primary study endpoint was not met: 21.3% (48/225) of patients in the combination and 16.0% (24/150) in the abatacept placebo + methotrexate arm achieved SDAI remission at week 24 (p = 0.2359). There were numerical differences favoring combination therapy in clinical assessments, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and week 52 radiographic non-progression. After week 56, 147 patients in sustained remission with abatacept + methotrexate were randomized (combination, n = 50; DE/withdrawal, n = 50; abatacept monotherapy, n = 47) and entered DE. At DE week 48, SDAI remission (74%) and PRO improvements were mostly maintained with continued combination therapy; lower remission rates were observed with abatacept placebo + methotrexate (48.0%) and with abatacept monotherapy (57.4%). Before withdrawal, de-escalating to abatacept EOW + methotrexate preserved remission. CONCLUSIONS: The stringent primary endpoint was not met. However, in patients achieving sustained SDAI remission, numerically more maintained remission with continued abatacept + methotrexate versus abatacept monotherapy or withdrawal. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02504268. Video abstract (MP4 62241 KB).

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) experience inflamed and damaged joints. RA is an autoimmune disease in which proteins called autoantibodies, particularly anti-citrullinated protein autoantibodies, target the patient's own joint tissue and organs by mistake, leading to symptomatic inflammation. Successful treatment can decrease the disease's activity to a state known as remission. Patients in remission may experience little or no symptoms and it may be possible for some to then be able to decrease their treatment. Here, we report the results of a large, international study that looked at two treatments, abatacept and methotrexate, in patients with RA and anti-citrullinated protein autoantibodies. The study had two parts. Firstly, to see how many patients had success (remission) with weekly abatacept and/or methotrexate treatment, and secondly, to see if remission was maintained when treatment was either continued or decreased and stopped. The study showed that the number of patients in remission 6 months after treatment started was not greatly different between patients treated with both abatacept and methotrexate and those treated with just methotrexate. Those taking abatacept and methotrexate together had better remission rates 1 year later. More patients also stayed in remission when they continued to receive both abatacept and methotrexate compared with those who were just treated with abatacept or when their abatacept treatment was decreased and stopped. More patients stayed in remission when abatacept was decreased than when it was stopped. The results from this study may help determine possible future treatment reduction and/or withdrawal plans for some patients with RA.

Clinical Efficacy of Sarilumab Versus Upadacitinib Over 12 weeks: An Indirect Treatment Comparison.

INTRODUCTION: The efficacy of sarilumab and upadacitinib, in combination with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), was demonstrated in phase 3 clinical trials of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) refractive to previous biologic DMARDs. In the absence of head-to-head clinical trials, the matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) and simulated treatment comparison (STC) estimate the relative efficacy of sarilumab and upadacitinib in patients with RA who had an inadequate response to previous biologic DMARDs. METHODS: Patient-level data for sarilumab were obtained from the TARGET trial (NCT01709578) and published aggregate data for upadacitinib were obtained from the SELECT-BEYOND trial (NCT02706847). For the MAIC, individual patient data from the TARGET trial were assigned weights such that weighted mean baseline characteristics of the treatment effect modifiers matched those from SELECT-BEYOND. For the STC, the TARGET patient-level data and mean baseline values from SELECT-BEYOND were used to simulate sarilumab treatment effects for a SELECT-BEYOND population. Endpoints evaluated included the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria ACR20/50/70, Disease Activity Score-28 for Rheumatoid Arthritis with C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) < 3.2, DAS28-CRP < 2.6, Simple Disease Activity Index (SDAI) < 3.3, and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) < 2.8 at 12 weeks. RESULTS: The analysis included 365 patients from TARGET and aggregated data of 333 patients from SELECT-BEYOND. Matching for potential treatment effect baseline modifiers (i.e., age, oral glucocorticoid use, tender joint count of 68 counts, swollen joint count of 66 counts, serum CRP level, and patient global assessment of disease activity) resulted in a reduction of the effective sample size of TARGET population to 166. Following MAIC and STC analysis, the odds of achieving all aforementioned clinical outcomes versus placebo at week 12 were similar for sarilumab and upadacitinib. CONCLUSION: In the MAIC and STC analyses from TARGET and SELECT-BEYOND trials, the efficacy of sarilumab and upadacitinib were comparable.

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

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

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.

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.

Multiple switching between the biosimilar adalimumab PF-06410293 and reference adalimumab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: a phase 3, open-label, randomised, parallel-group study.

BACKGROUND: An adalimumab biosimilar with an interchangeability designation could increase access to effective treatment for more patients. We aimed to assess the interchangeability of adalimumab biosimilar PF-06410293 (adalimumab-afzb) and reference adalimumab using a multi-switch study design. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised, parallel-group study at 61 community (n=29), hospital (n=12), and academic (n=20) sites in ten countries (Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, Serbia, South Africa, Ukraine, and USA). Eligible patients were aged 18-70 years and met the 2010 American College of Rheumatology-European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis for at least 4 months with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis, based on their physician's evaluation. Eligible patients had been receiving methotrexate for at least 12 weeks and been on a stable dose for at least 4 weeks before the first dose of study medication. All patients received subcutaneous reference adalimumab (40 mg/0·4 mL [100 mg/mL] every 2 weeks) for 10 weeks before randomisation. At week 10, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either three switches between subcutaneous reference adalimumab (40 mg/0·4 mL [100 mg/mL] every 2 weeks) and adalimumab-afzb (40 mg/0·8 mL [50 mg/mL] every 2 weeks; switching group), or continuous dosing with subcutanous reference adalimumab (40 mg/0·4 mL [100 mg/mL] every 2 weeks; non-switching group) with stratification by bodyweight groups. Patients, investigators, and site personnel were not masked to treatment allocation. Primary endpoints were maximum observed serum concentration (Cmax) and area under plasma concentration-time curve (AUCτ) during weeks 30-32 in the pharmacokinetic population. Interchangeability was based on geometric mean ratios and corresponding 90% CIs within prespecified equivalence margins of 80-125% for both primary endpoints. Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of adalimumab-afzb or reference adalimumab. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04230213. FINDINGS: Of the 569 patients assessed for eligibility between Jan 13, 2020, and June 22, 2021, 445 were enrolled, and 427 completed the first 10 weeks and were randomly assigned (213 to the switching group and 214 to the non-switching group). Participants had a median age of 56 years (IQR 46-63), 354 (83%) of 427 patients were women and 73 (17%) were men, and 422 (99%) were White. In the pharmacokinetic population (n=380), no clinically meaningful differences were observed in mean steady-state pharmacokinetic parameters between the switching and non-switching groups (geometric mean AUC 2237 µg × h/mL in the switching group and 2125 µg × h/mL in the non-switching group; Cmax 8·21 µg/mL in the switching group and 8·00 µg/mL in the non-switching group). Geometric mean ratios and 90% CIs for AUCτ (105·31, 89·16-124·39) and Cmax (102·56, 89·78-117·17) were within prespecified equivalence margins. No meaningful differences were observed in the proportion of patients who had serious adverse events (three [1%] of 213 patients in the switching group vs eight [4%] of 214 patients in the non-switching group), grade 3 or higher adverse events of special interest, discontinuations due to adverse events (eight [4%] vs nine [4%]), or immunogenic reactions in antidrug antibody-positive patients. No deaths were reported during the study. INTERPRETATION: The risk of multiple switches between reference adalimumab and adalimumab-afzb with respect to diminished efficacy (using pharmacokinetics as a surrogate) or safety is not greater than the risk of using reference adalimumab alone. FUNDING: Pfizer. VIDEO ABSTRACT.

Baseline serum levels of cross-linked carboxy-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen predict abatacept treatment response in methotrexate-naive, anticitrullinated protein antibody-positive patients with early rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate correlations between biomarkers of bone remodelling and extracellular matrix turnover with baseline disease activity and treatment response in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Assessing Very Early Rheumatoid arthritis Treatment-2 (AVERT-2; NCT02504268) included disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-naive, anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)-positive patients randomised to weekly subcutaneous abatacept+methotrexate (MTX) or abatacept placebo+MTX for 56 weeks. This post hoc exploratory subanalysis assessed the association between baseline disease activity and eight biomarkers (Spearman's correlation coefficient), and whether baseline biomarkers (continuous or categorical variables) could predict treatment response at weeks 24 and 52 (logistic regression). RESULTS: Patient characteristics were similar between overall (n=752) and biomarker subgroup (n=535) populations and across treatments. At baseline, neoepitopes of matrix metalloproteinase-mediated degradation products of types III and IV collagen and of C reactive protein (CRP) showed the greatest correlations with disease activity; cross-linked carboxy-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX-I) showed weak correlation. Only CTX-I predicted treatment response; baseline CTX-I levels were significantly associated with achieving Simplified Disease Activity Index remission and Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28 (CRP)) <2.6 (weeks 24 and 52), and American College of Rheumatology 70 response (week 52), in patients treated with abatacept+MTX but not abatacept placebo+MTX. CTX-I predicted significant differential response between arms for DAS28 (CRP) <2.6 (week 24). Treatment differences were greater for abatacept+MTX in patients with medium/high versus low baseline CTX-I. CONCLUSION: In MTX-naive, ACPA-positive patients with early RA, baseline CTX-I predicted treatment response to abatacept+MTX but not abatacept placebo+MTX.

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

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