Safety Profile of Upadacitinib up to 5 Years in Psoriatic Arthritis, Ankylosing Spondylitis, and Non-radiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis: An Integrated Analysis of Clinical Trials.

INTRODUCTION: This integrated analysis of the phase 2/3 and phase 3 SELECT trials describes the safety profile of upadacitinib, an oral Janus kinase inhibitor, for up to 5 years of exposure across psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) (including pooled axial spondyloarthritis [axSpA]). METHODS: Safety data from five trials of upadacitinib in PsA (2 trials), AS (2 trials), and nr-axSpA (1 trial) were analyzed up to a data cut-off of August 15, 2022. One PsA study included adalimumab as an active comparator. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were summarized for PsA (pooled upadacitinib 15 mg once daily and adalimumab 40 mg biweekly), AS (pooled upadacitinib 15 mg), nr-axSpA (upadacitinib 15 mg), and pooled axSpA (pooled upadacitinib 15 mg from axSpA trials). TEAEs were reported as exposure-adjusted event rates per 100 patient-years (E/100 PY). RESULTS: A total of 1789 patients (PsA, n = 907; AS, n = 596; nr-axSpA, n = 286) received ≥ 1 dose of upadacitinib 15 mg for 3689 PY of exposure or adalimumab (n = 429) for 1147 PY of exposure. Overall TEAEs and serious TEAEs were highest in PsA and numerically higher with upadacitinib versus adalimumab; rates were similar between AS and nr-axSpA. In PsA, higher rates of serious infection, herpes zoster (HZ), lymphopenia, and nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) were observed with upadacitinib versus adalimumab. Rates of malignancy excluding NMSC, adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular events, and adjudicated venous thromboembolic events were comparable between upadacitinib and adalimumab in PsA and were similar across diseases. CONCLUSION: Higher rates of serious infection, HZ, lymphopenia, and NMSC were observed with upadacitinib versus adalimumab in PsA; slightly elevated rates for most of these TEAEs were seen with upadacitinib in PsA versus axSpA. Upadacitinib 15 mg demonstrated a generally consistent safety profile across disease states with no new safety signals identified. TRIAL REGISTRATION: SELECT-AXIS 1: NCT03178487; SELECT-AXIS 2: NCT04169373; SELECT-PsA 1: NCT03104400; SELECT-PsA 2: NCT03104374.

Psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis are a group of diseases that cause pain and inflammation of the joints and/or spine. Safety data were combined from five studies: two in psoriatic arthritis, two in ankylosing spondylitis, and one in non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis. Patients were treated with upadacitinib or adalimumab for up to 5 years. Adalimumab was only used for patients participating in one of the two psoriatic arthritis studies. Side effects from treatment were more common in patients with psoriatic arthritis than those with ankylosing spondylitis and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis; more patients with psoriatic arthritis had side effects with upadacitinib than adalimumab. A similar number of patients across treatment groups and diseases had side effects that made them stop treatment. The number of cancer cases (except cancer of the upper layer of the skin), cardiovascular issues, and blood clots were similar between the upadacitinib and adalimumab groups in psoriatic arthritis and across diseases. Serious infections, painful rashes that cause blisters (herpes zoster, also commonly referred to as shingles), low levels of white blood cells, and cancer of the upper layer of the skin were more common with upadacitinib than adalimumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis; overall, these events occurred more often with upadacitinib in patients with psoriatic arthritis than with ankylosing spondylitis and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis. Our results showed that the safety of upadacitinib was generally similar across diseases, and patients could tolerate it well for up to 5 years. No new safety risks were found with upadacitinib treatment.

Abatacept inhibits inflammation and onset of rheumatoid arthritis in individuals at high risk (ARIAA): a randomised, international, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs) and subclinical inflammatory changes in joints are at high risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis. Treatment strategies to intercept this pre-stage clinical disease remain to be developed. We aimed to assess whether 6-month treatment with abatacept improves inflammation in preclinical rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: The abatacept reversing subclinical inflammation as measured by MRI in ACPA positive arthralgia (ARIAA) study is a randomised, international, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial done in 14 hospitals and community centres across Europe (11 in Germany, two in Spain, and one in the Czech Republic). Adults (aged ≥18 years) with ACPA positivity, joint pain (but no swelling), and signs of osteitis, synovitis, or tenosynovitis in hand MRI were randomly assigned (1:1) to weekly subcutaneous abatacept 125 mg or placebo for 6 months followed by a double-blind, drug-free, observation phase for 12 months. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with any reduction in inflammatory MRI lesions at 6 months. The primary efficacy analysis was done in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included participants who were randomly assigned and received study medication. Safety analyses were conducted in participants who received the study medication and had at least one post-baseline observation. The study was registered with the EUDRA-CT (2014-000555-93). FINDINGS: Between Nov 6, 2014, and June 15, 2021, 139 participants were screened. Of 100 participants, 50 were randomly assigned to abatacept 125 mg and 50 to placebo. Two participants (one from each group) were excluded due to administration failure or refusing treatment; thus, 98 were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. 70 (71%) of 98 participants were female and 28 (29%) of 98 were male. At 6 months, 28 (57%) of 49 participants in the abatacept group and 15 (31%) of 49 participants in the placebo group showed improvement in MRI subclinical inflammation (absolute difference 26·5%, 95% CI 5·9-45·6; p=0·014). Four (8%) of 49 participants in the abatacept group and 17 (35%) of 49 participants in the placebo group developed rheumatoid arthritis (hazard ratio [HR] 0·14 [0·04-0·47]; p=0·0016). Improvement of MRI inflammation (25 [51%] of 49 participants in the abatacept group, 12 [24%] of 49 in the placebo group; p=0·012) and progression to rheumatoid arthritis (17 [35%] of 49, 28 [57%] of 49; HR 0·14 [0·04-0·47]; p=0·018) remained significantly different between the two groups after 18 months, 12 months after the end of the intervention. There were 12 serious adverse events in 11 participants (four [8%] of 48 in the abatacept group and 7 [14%] of 49 in the placebo group). No deaths occurred during the study. INTERPRETATION: 6-month treatment with abatacept decreases MRI inflammation, clinical symptoms, and risk of rheumatoid arthritis development in participants at high risk. The effects of the intervention persist through a 1-year drug-free observation phase. FUNDING: Innovative Medicine Initiative.

Malignancy in the Upadacitinib Clinical Trials for Rheumatoid Arthritis, Psoriatic Arthritis, Ankylosing Spondylitis, and Non-radiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis.

INTRODUCTION: This article aims to describe malignancies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), or non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) treated with upadacitinib (UPA) or active comparators. METHODS: This integrated safety analysis includes data from 11 phase 3 UPA trials across RA (6 trials), PsA (2 trials), AS (2 trials; one phase 2b/3), and nr-axSpA (1 trial). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were summarized for RA (pooled UPA 15 mg [UPA15], pooled UPA 30 mg [UPA30], adalimumab 40 mg [ADA], methotrexate monotherapy [MTX]), PsA (pooled UPA15, pooled UPA30, ADA), AS (pooled UPA15), and nr-axSpA (UPA15). TEAEs were reported as exposure-adjusted event rates (events/100 patient-years). RESULTS: Median treatment duration ranged from 1.0 to 4.0 years (with a maximum of 6.6 years in RA). Across treatments and indications, rates of malignancy excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) ranged from 0.2 to 1.1, while NMSC ranged from 0.0 to 1.4. In RA, rates of malignancy excluding NMSC were generally similar between UPA15, UPA30, ADA, and MTX (breast and lung cancer were the most common). In RA and PsA, Kaplan-Meier analyses revealed no differences in event onset of malignancy excluding NMSC with UPA15 versus UPA30 over time. In RA, NMSC rates were higher with UPA30 than UPA15; both UPA15 and UPA30 were higher than ADA and MTX. In PsA, rates of malignancy excluding NMSC and NMSC were generally similar between UPA15, UPA30, and ADA. In AS and nr-axSpA, malignancies were reported infrequently. Few events of lymphoma were reported across the clinical programs. CONCLUSION: Rates of malignancy excluding NMSC were generally similar between UPA15, UPA30, ADA, and MTX and were consistent across RA, PsA, AS, and nr-axSpA. A dose-dependent increased rate of NMSC was observed with UPA in RA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicaTrials.gov identifier: NCT02706873, NCT02675426, NCT02629159, NCT02706951, NCT02706847, NCT03086343, NCT03104400, NCT03104374, NCT03178487, and NCT04169373.

Early axial spondyloarthritis according to the ASAS consensus definition: characterisation of patients and effectiveness of a first TNF inhibitor in a large observational registry.

OBJECTIVE: To characterise the population fulfilling the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) consensus definition of early axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and to determine the effectiveness of a first tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) in early versus established axSpA in a large observational registry. METHODS: A total of 3064 patients with axSpA in the Swiss Clinical Quality Management registry with data on duration of axial symptoms were included (≤2 years=early axSpA, N=658; >2 years=established axSpA, N=2406). Drug retention was analysed in patients starting a first TNFi in early axSpA (N=250) versus established axSpA (N=874) with multiple-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models. Adjusted logistic regression analyses were used to determine the achievement of the ASAS criteria for 40% improvement (ASAS40) at 1 year. RESULTS: Sex distribution, disease activity, impairments of function and health-related quality of life were comparable between patients with early and established axSpA. Patients with established disease were older, had more prevalent axial radiographical damage and had a higher impairment of mobility. A comparable TNFi retention was found in early versus established disease after adjustment for age, sex, human leucocyte antigen-B27 status, education, body mass index, smoking, elevated C reactive protein and sacroiliac inflammation on MRI (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.42). The adjusted ASAS40 response was similar in the two groups (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.78). Results were confirmed in the population fulfilling the ASAS classification criteria. CONCLUSION: Considering the recent ASAS definition of early axSpA, TNFi effectiveness seems comparable in early versus established disease.

Sarilumab for Relapse of Polymyalgia Rheumatica during Glucocorticoid Taper.

BACKGROUND: More than half of patients with polymyalgia rheumatica have a relapse during tapering of glucocorticoid therapy. Previous studies have suggested that interleukin-6 blockade may be clinically useful in the treatment of polymyalgia rheumatica. Sarilumab, a human monoclonal antibody, binds interleukin-6 receptor α and efficiently blocks the interleukin-6 pathway. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive 52 weeks of a twice-monthly subcutaneous injection of either sarilumab (at a dose of 200 mg) plus a 14-week prednisone taper or placebo plus a 52-week prednisone taper. The primary outcome at 52 weeks was sustained remission, which was defined as the resolution of signs and symptoms of polymyalgia rheumatica by week 12 and sustained normalization of the C-reactive protein level, absence of disease flare, and adherence to the prednisone taper from weeks 12 through 52. RESULTS: A total of 118 patients underwent randomization (60 to receive sarilumab and 58 to receive placebo). At week 52, sustained remission occurred in 28% (17 of 60 patients) in the sarilumab group and in 10% (6 of 58 patients) in the placebo group (difference, 18 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 4 to 32; P = 0.02). The median cumulative glucocorticoid dose at 52 weeks was significantly lower in the sarilumab group than in the placebo group (777 mg vs. 2044 mg; P<0.001). The most common adverse events with sarilumab as compared with placebo were neutropenia (15% vs. 0%), arthralgia (15% vs. 5%), and diarrhea (12% vs. 2%). More treatment-related discontinuations were observed in the sarilumab group than in the placebo group (12% vs. 7%). CONCLUSIONS: Sarilumab showed significant efficacy in achieving sustained remission and reducing the cumulative glucocorticoid dose in patients with a relapse of polymyalgia rheumatica during glucocorticoid tapering. (Funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; SAPHYR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03600818.).

Susceptibility to COVID-19 and Immunologic Response to Vaccination in Patients With Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases.

Immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) are a highly heterogeneous group of diseases that share a common etiology of immune dysregulation, such as rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and psoriasis, among others. It is estimated that the prevalence of IMIDs ranges between 5% and 7% in developed countries. As current management of IMIDs includes the use of immunomodulatory medications, the resulting weakened immune response can increase the risk of infection, including with SARS-CoV-2 (the causative agent of COVID-19) and reduce response to vaccination, placing these individuals at continued risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19. In this article, we summarize the current literature related to COVID-19 outcomes and the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of COVID-19 mRNA vaccination among patients with rheumatologically dominated IMIDs, as well as the effect of immunomodulatory therapies on these outcomes. We conclude by providing current COVID-19 vaccination recommendations for individuals with IMID.

Anaemia is associated with higher disease activity in axial spondyloarthritis but is not an independent predictor of spinal radiographic progression: data from the Swiss Clinical Quality Management Registry.

OBJECTIVE: As anaemia represents a biomarker for increased radiographic damage in rheumatoid arthritis, we aimed to investigate whether it independently predicts spinal radiographic progression in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). METHODS: AxSpA patients with available haemoglobin levels from the prospective Swiss Clinical Quality Management Registry were included for comparison of patients with and without anaemia. Spinal radiographic progression was assessed according to the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score (mSASSS) in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) if ≥ 2 sets of spinal radiographs were available every 2 years. The relationship between anaemia and progression (defined as an increase ≥ 2 mSASSS units in 2 years) was analysed with generalized estimating equation models after adjustment for the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) and potential confounding, as well as after multiple imputations of missing values. RESULTS: A total of 212/2522 axSpA patients presented with anaemia (9%). Anaemic patients had higher clinical disease activity, higher acute phase reactants and more severe impairments in physical function, mobility and quality of life. In the subgroup of patients with AS (N = 433), a comparable mSASSS progression was found in anaemic and non-anaemic patients (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.96, p = 0.49). Age, male sex, baseline radiographic damage and ASDAS were associated with enhanced progression. The results were confirmed in complete case analyses and with progression defined as the formation of ≥ 1 syndesmophyte in 2 years. CONCLUSION: Although anaemia was associated with higher disease activity in axSpA, it did not additionally contribute to the prediction of spinal radiographic progression. Key Points • Anaemia is associated with higher disease activity and more severely impaired physical function, mobility and quality of life in axSpA. • Anaemia does not provide an additional value to ASDAS for prediction of spinal radiographic progression.

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.

Effectiveness of Different Rituximab Doses Combined with Leflunomide in the Treatment or Retreatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis: Part 2 of a Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Investigator-Initiated Clinical Trial (AMARA).

BACKGROUND: The optimal dose of rituximab in combination with leflunomide in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is not known. METHODS: In Part 1 (previously reported) of the investigator-initiated AMARA study (EudraCT 2009-015950-39; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01244958), improvements at week (W)24 were observed in patients randomized to rituximab + leflunomide compared with placebo + leflunomide. In the study reported here (Part 2), Part 1 responders received rituximab 500 or 1000 mg at W24/26 plus ongoing leflunomide. Patients were randomized at baseline to their eventual W24 treatment group. The Part 2 primary outcome was the mean Disease Activity Score-28 joints (DAS28) at W52, based on the last observation carried forward (LOCF) analyses and a two-sided analysis of variance. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and adverse events were evaluated. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients received rituximab at W24/26 (31 rituximab→rituximab 1000 mg; 29 rituximab→rituximab 500 mg; 10 placebo→rituximab 1000 mg; 13 placebo→rituximab 500 mg). At W52, there were no significant differences in DAS28 between rituximab doses in patients originally treated with rituximab or those originally treated with placebo. In the Part 1 placebo group, the higher rituximab dose was associated with greater improvements in ACR response rates and some PROs. Adverse events were similar regardless of rituximab dose. CONCLUSIONS: Retreatment with rituximab 500 mg and 1000 mg showed comparable efficacy, whereas an initial dose of rituximab 500 mg was associated with lower response rates versus 1000 mg. Reduced treatment response with the lower dose in patients initially treated with placebo may have been influenced by small numbers and baseline disease activity.

Postvaccination anti-S IgG levels predict anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralising activity over 24 weeks in patients with RA.

OBJECTIVES: To correlate immune responses following a two-dose regimen of mRNA anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to the development of a potent neutralising antiviral activity. METHODS: The RECOVER study was a prospective, monocentric study including patients with RA and healthy controls (HCs). Assessments were performed before, and 3, 6, 12 and 24 weeks, after the first vaccine dose, respectively, and included IgG, IgA and IgM responses (against receptor binding domain, S1, S2, N), IFN-γ ELISpots as well as neutralisation assays. RESULTS: In patients with RA, IgG responses developed slower with lower peak titres compared with HC. Potent neutralising activity assessed by a SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus neutralisation assay after 12 weeks was observed in all 21 HCs, and in 60.3% of 73 patients with RA. A significant correlation between peak anti-S IgG levels 2 weeks after the second vaccine dose and potent neutralising activity against SARS-CoV-2 was observed at weeks 12 and 24. The analysis of IgG, IgA and IgM isotype responses to different viral proteins demonstrated a delay in IgG but not in IgA and IgM responses. T cell responses were comparable in HC and patients with RA but declined earlier in patients with RA. CONCLUSION: In patients with RA, vaccine-induced IgG antibody levels were diminished, while IgA and IgM responses persisted, indicating a delayed isotype switch. Anti-S IgG levels 2 weeks after the second vaccine dose correlate with the development of a potent neutralising activity after 12 and 24 weeks and may allow to identify patients who might benefit from additional vaccine doses or prophylactic regimen.

Type of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and immunomodulatory treatment influence humoral immunogenicity in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases.

Patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD) are at increased risk for worse COVID-19 outcomes. Identifying whether mRNA vaccines differ in immunogenicity and examining the effects of immunomodulatory treatments may support COVID-19 vaccination strategies. We aimed to conduct a long-term, model-based comparison of the humoral immunogenicity following BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccination in a cohort of IRD patients. Patients from the Swiss IRD cohort (SCQM), who assented to mRNA COVID-19 vaccination were recruited between 3/2021-9/2021. Blood samples at baseline, 4, 12, and 24 weeks post second vaccine dose were tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG (anti-S1). We examined differences in antibody levels depending on the vaccine and treatment at baseline while adjusting for age, disease, and past SARS-CoV-2 infection. 565 IRD patients provided eligible samples. Among monotherapies, rituximab, abatacept, JAKi, and TNFi had the highest odds of reduced anti-S1 responses compared to no medication. Patients on specific combination therapies showed significantly lower antibody responses than those on monotherapy. Irrespective of the disease, treatment, and past SARS-CoV-2 infection, the odds of higher antibody levels at 4, 12, and 24 weeks post second vaccine dose were, respectively, 3.4, 3.8, and 3.8 times higher with mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 (p < 0.0001). With every year of age, the odds ratio of higher peak humoral immunogenicity following mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 increased by 5% (p < 0.001), indicating a particular benefit for elderly patients. Our results suggest that in IRD patients, two-dose vaccination with mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 results in higher anti-S1 levels, even more so in elderly patients.

Association between low hemoglobin, clinical measures, and patient-reported outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results from post hoc analyses of three phase III trials of sarilumab.

BACKGROUND: Anemia is common in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Higher hemoglobin (Hb) levels may be associated with better clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). To assess this hypothesis, we conducted two post hoc analyses in three sarilumab phase III studies: TARGET, MOBILITY, and MONARCH. METHODS: Pooled data from combination therapy from placebo-controlled MOBILITY (sarilumab + methotrexate) and TARGET (sarilumab + conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [csDMARDs]) and monotherapy data from active-controlled MONARCH (sarilumab vs. adalimumab) studies were included. Associations between Hb levels and clinical measures and PROs were assessed over 24 weeks. The mean changes from baseline in clinical outcomes and PROs (to week 24) and radiographic outcomes (to week 52) were evaluated between low and normal Hb levels (based on the World Health Organization [WHO] criteria). RESULTS: From TARGET, MOBILITY, and MONARCH, 546, 1197, and 369 patients, respectively, were stratified according to Hb levels (low vs. normal). Over 24 weeks, higher Hb levels were found to be consistently associated with better clinical outcomes and PROs in combination therapy and monotherapy groups and were more pronounced among the patients treated with sarilumab than those treated with placebo and adalimumab. The mean change from baseline to week 24 in clinical efficacy measures and PROs was similar in patients with low vs. normal Hb at baseline. Differences between sarilumab and/or adalimumab, for all outcomes, were larger for low Hb subgroups. In MOBILITY, by week 52, the inhibition of progression of structural damage (assessed via Modified Total Sharp Score [mTSS]) was 84% (sarilumab 200 mg) and 68% (sarilumab 150 mg) vs. placebo in patients with low Hb and 97% (sarilumab 200 mg) and 68% (sarilumab 150 mg) vs. placebo in patients with normal Hb. Similar results were observed for other radiographic outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In these post hoc analyses, a consistent relationship was observed between higher Hb levels and better clinical outcomes and PROs in patients with RA. Irrespective of the baseline Hb levels, sarilumab treatment was associated with improvements in clinical measures and PROs over 24 weeks (improvements were more pronounced than those with adalimumab treatment) and mitigation of joint damage progression over 52 weeks. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinTrials.gov NCT01061736, NCT01709578, and NCT02332590.

Comparison of drug retention of TNF inhibitors, other biologics and JAK inhibitors in RA patients who discontinued JAK inhibitor therapy.

OBJECTIVES: JAK Inhibitors (JAKi) are recommended DMARDs for patients with moderate-to-severe RA who failed first-line therapy with methotrexate. There is a lack of data allowing an evidence-based choice of subsequent DMARD therapy for patients who had discontinued JAKi treatment. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of TNF inhibitor (TNFi) therapy vs JAKi vs other mode of action (OMA) biologic DMARD (bDMARD) in RA patients who were previously treated with a JAKi. METHODS: RA patients who discontinued JAKi treatment within the Swiss RA registry SCQM were included for this observational prospective cohort study. The primary outcome was drug retention for either TNFi, OMA bDMARD or JAKi. The hazard ratio for treatment discontinuation was calculated adjusting for potential confounders. A descriptive analysis of the reasons for discontinuation was performed. RESULTS: Four hundred treatment courses of JAKi were included, with a subsequent switch to either JAKi, TNFi or OMA bDMARD. The crude overall drug retention was higher in patients switching to another JAKi as compared with TNFi and comparable to OMA. A significant difference of JAKi vs TNFi persisted after adjusting for potential confounders. CONCLUSION: In a real-world population of RA patients who discontinued treatment with a JAKi, switching to another JAKi resulted in a higher drug retention than switching to a TNFi. A switch to a second JAKi seems an effective therapeutic option.

Safety Profile of Upadacitinib up to 3 Years in Psoriatic Arthritis: An Integrated Analysis of Two Pivotal Phase 3 Trials.

INTRODUCTION: This integrated analysis describes the safety profile of upadacitinib, an oral Janus kinase inhibitor, at 15 and 30 mg once daily for up to 3 years of exposure in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who had a prior inadequate response or intolerance to ≥ 1 non-biologic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. METHODS: Safety data were pooled and analyzed from two randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials. Both trials evaluated upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg once daily, and one trial also evaluated adalimumab 40 mg every other week. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and laboratory data were summarized for four groups: pooled placebo, pooled upadacitinib 15 mg, pooled upadacitinib 30 mg, and adalimumab. TEAEs were reported as exposure-adjusted event rates (events per 100 patient-years [E/100 PY]) up to a data cut-off of June 29, 2020. RESULTS: A total of 2257 patients received ≥ 1 dose of upadacitinib 15 mg (N = 907) or 30 mg (N = 921) for 2504.6 PY of exposure or adalimumab (N = 429) for 549.7 PY of exposure. Upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, and increased creatine phosphokinase (CPK) were the most common TEAEs with upadacitinib. Rates of malignancies, adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and venous thromboembolic events (VTEs), and deaths were similar across treatment groups. Rates of herpes zoster (HZ) and opportunistic infections (OI; excluding tuberculosis, HZ, and oral candidiasis) were higher with upadacitinib versus adalimumab. Serious infection, anemia, and CPK elevations were most frequent with upadacitinib 30 mg. Potentially clinically significant laboratory abnormalities were uncommon. CONCLUSIONS: Upadacitinib 15 mg and adalimumab had similar safety profiles with the exception of HZ and OIs, consistent with what was observed in rheumatoid arthritis. Rates of malignancies, MACEs, VTEs, and deaths were comparable among patients receiving upadacitinib and adalimumab. No new safety risks emerged with longer-term exposure to upadacitinib. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: SELECT-PsA 1: NCT03104400; SELECT-PsA 2: NCT03104374.

Psoriatic arthritis is a disease that causes inflammation of the skin and joints. Upadacitinib and adalimumab are medicines that can be used to treat this condition. This analysis combined safety data from two studies of adults with psoriatic arthritis who took upadacitinib, adalimumab, or placebo (no medicine) for up to 3 years. The most common side effects of treatment with upadacitinib were infection and inflammation of the nose and throat and higher amounts of a protein in the blood called creatinine phosphokinase. The total number of cancer cases, heart (cardiovascular) problems, blood clots (embolisms), and deaths were similar across treatment groups, including the placebo (no medicine) group. However, more patients who took upadacitinib than adalimumab or placebo (no medicine) had a painful rash that causes blisters known as herpes zoster (shingles) and infections usually seen in people with a weakened immune system. Most patients had normal blood test results and continued their treatment. Overall, upadacitinib was well tolerated for up to 3 years in patients with psoriatic arthritis. These results agree with what has been found in studies of upadacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Safety data of upadacitinib use over a longer time will be reported later.