Safety profile of baricitinib in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: an integrated analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety of the oral Janus kinase inhibitor baricitinib in adult patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) receiving stable background therapy. Topics of special interest included infections and cardiovascular and thromboembolic events. METHODS: This analysis included integrated safety data from three randomised, placebo-controlled studies (one phase 2 and two phase 3) and one long-term extension study. Data are reported in three data sets: placebo-controlled, extended exposure and all-baricitinib. Outcomes include treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs), AEs of special interest and abnormal laboratory changes. Proportions of patients with events and incidence rates (IRs) were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 1655 patients received baricitinib for up to 3.5 years (median duration 473 days). With baricitinib 4 mg, baricitinib 2 mg and placebo, respectively, 50.8%, 50.7% and 49.0% of patients reported at least one infection and 4.4%, 3.4% and 1.9% of patients had a serious infection. The most common treatment-emergent infections included urinary tract infection, COVID-19, upper respiratory tract infection and nasopharyngitis. Herpes zoster was more common with baricitinib 4 mg (4.7%) vs baricitinib 2 mg (2.7%) and placebo (2.8%). Among baricitinib-4 mg, 2 mg and placebo-treated patients, respectively, 4 (IR=0.9), 1 (IR=0.2) and 0 experienced at least one positively adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular event, and 0, 3 (IR=0.6) and 2 (IR=0.4) reported at least one positively adjudicated venous thromboembolism. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this integrated safety analysis in patients with SLE are not substantially different to the established safety profile of baricitinib. No increased venous thromboembolism was found.

A JAK Inhibitor for Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis: The Baricitinib Experience.

Baricitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 inhibitor, is approved as monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate for treating adults with moderate-to-severe active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and provides improvements in clinical signs, symptoms and patient-reported outcomes. Currently, baricitinib is approved for treating RA in more than 75 countries. In several pivotal Phase II and III RA trials (RA-BALANCE, RA-BEGIN, RA-BEAM, RA-BUILD, RA-BEACON, RA-BEYOND), up to seven years of baricitinib treatment was well tolerated and provided rapid and sustained efficacy, which was confirmed in real-world settings. Safety signals for another JAK inhibitor, tofacitinib, have emerged, as observed in the post-marketing Phase IIIb/IV trial Oral Rheumatoid Arthritis Trial (ORAL) Surveillance; safety signals were subsequently highlighted in a retrospective study of baricitinib and consequently new recommendations and warnings and precautions for all JAK inhibitors have been issued. Ongoing studies to further characterise and clarify the benefit:risk of JAK inhibitors include registries and controlled trials. This capstone review summarises clinical and real-world data outlining the benefit:risk profile of baricitinib, confirming that the improved disease activity and physical function of patients with RA treated with this JAK inhibitor observed in clinical trials is translated into effectiveness in clinical practice, with a low rate of discontinuations.

Baricitinib Safety for Events of Special Interest in Populations at Risk: Analysis from Randomised Trial Data Across Rheumatologic and Dermatologic Indications.

INTRODUCTION: Baricitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) 1/2 inhibitor, is an approved treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), atopic dermatitis (AD), and alopecia areata (AA). Further characterisation of adverse events of special interest (AESI) for JAK inhibitors in at-risk populations will improve benefit-risk assessment for individual patients and diseases. METHODS: Data were pooled from clinical trials and long-term extensions in moderate-to-severe active RA, moderate-to-severe AD, and severe AA. Incidence rates (IR) per 100 patient-years of major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), malignancy, venous thromboembolism (VTE), serious infection, and mortality were calculated for patients with low risk (younger than 65 years with no specified risk factors), and patients at risk (≥ 1 of: aged 65 years or older, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, current smoking, HDL cholesterol < 40 mg/dL, BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2, poor mobility on EQ-5D, or history of malignancy). RESULTS: Datasets included baricitinib exposure up to 9.3 years with 14,744 person-years of exposure (PYE) (RA), 3.9 years with 4628 PYE (AD), and 3.1 years with 1868 PYE (AA). In patients with low risk (RA: 31%, AD: 48%, AA: 49%), IRs for MACE (0.05, 0.04, 0), malignancies (0.20, 0.13, 0), VTE (0.09, 0.04, 0), serious infection (1.73, 1.18, 0.6), and mortality (0.04, 0, 0) in the RA, AD, and AA datasets, respectively, were low. In patients at risk (RA: 69%, AD: 52%, AA: 51%), IRs were for MACE (0.70, 0.25, 0.10), malignancies (1.23, 0.45, 0.31), VTE (0.66, 0.12, 0.10), serious infection (2.95, 2.30, 1.05), and mortality (0.78, 0.16, 0) for RA, AD, and AA datasets, respectively. CONCLUSION: Populations with low risk have low incidence of the examined JAK inhibitor-related AESI. In the dermatologic indications, incidence is also low for patients at risk. Considering individual disease burden, risk factors, and response to treatment is relevant to make informed decisions for individual patients treated with baricitinib.

Baricitinib for systemic lupus erythematosus: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial (SLE-BRAVE-I).

BACKGROUND: Baricitinib is an oral selective inhibitor of Janus kinase 1 and 2 approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, atopic dermatitis, and alopecia areata. In a 24-week phase 2 study in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), baricitinib 4 mg significantly improved SLE disease activity compared with placebo. The objective of this trial was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of baricitinib in patients with active SLE in a 52-week phase 3 study. METHODS: In a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 study, SLE-BRAVE-I, patients (aged ≥18 years) with active SLE receiving stable background therapy were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to baricitinib 4 mg, 2 mg, or placebo once daily for 52 weeks with standard of care. Glucocorticoid tapering was encouraged but not required per protocol. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients reaching an SLE Responder Index (SRI)-4 response at week 52 in the baricitinib 4 mg treatment group compared with placebo. The primary endpoint was assessed by logistic regression analysis with baseline disease activity, baseline corticosteroid dose, region, and treatment group in the model. Efficacy analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat population, comprising all participants who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of investigational product. Safety analyses were done on all randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose of investigational product and who did not discontinue from the study for the reason of lost to follow-up at the first post-baseline visit. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03616912. FINDINGS: 760 participants were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of baricitinib 4 mg (n=252), baricitinib 2 mg (n=255), or placebo (n=253). A significantly greater proportion of participants who received baricitinib 4 mg (142 [57%]; odds ratio 1·57 [95% CI 1·09 to 2·27]; difference with placebo 10·8 [2·0 to 19·6]; p=0·016), but not baricitinib 2 mg (126 [50%]; 1·14 [0·79 to 1·65]; 3·9 [-4·9 to 12·6]; p=0·47), reached SRI-4 response compared with placebo (116 [46%]). There were no significant differences between the proportions of participants in either baricitinib group reaching any of the major secondary endpoints compared with placebo, including glucocorticoid tapering and time to first severe flare. 26 (10%) participants receiving baricitinib 4 mg had serious adverse events, 24 (9%) participants receiving baricitinib 2 mg, and 18 (7%) participants receiving placebo. The safety profile of baricitinib in participants with SLE was consistent with the known baricitinib safety profile. INTERPRETATION: The primary endpoint in this study was met for the 4 mg baricitinib group. However, key secondary endpoints were not. No new safety signals were observed. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

The RA-BE-REAL Multinational, Prospective, Observational Study in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Receiving Baricitinib, Targeted Synthetic, or Biologic Disease-Modifying Therapies: a 6-Month Interim Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: RA-BE-REAL has the overall aim of defining a profile of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) starting baricitinib or any other targeted synthetic (ts) or any biologic (b) disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) for the first time, and the primary objective of estimating time until discontinuation from any cause (excluding sustained response) of the initial treatment. METHODS: RA-BE-REAL is an ongoing, prospective, observational, 36-month study in patients with RA initiating treatment with baricitinib (cohort A) or any other tsDMARD or any bDMARD (cohort B) for the first time. The primary objective is to assess the time until treatment discontinuation from any cause (excluding sustained response) at 24 months, (i.e., the rate of discontinuation of initial baricitinib or ts/bDMARD). Patient profiles of each cohort are described and compared. Post-baseline data are descriptively analyzed. This manuscript presents baseline and interim (6-month) outcomes for European patients with RA participating in the global RA-BE-REAL study. RESULTS: Data from 1074 patients (cohort A: 509; cohort B: 565) were analyzed. For cohorts A and B, respectively, the 6-month cumulative incidence (95% confidence interval) of treatment discontinuation was 16.5 (12.9-21.1) and 23.3 (19.1-28.2), and the proportions of patients achieving remission were 25.6% and 18.5%. At baseline, mean patient age was 59.1 and 57.0 years (p = 0.010) and mean disease duration was 10.0 and 8.9 years (p = 0.047), respectively. The proportions of patients exposed to ts/bDMARDs at any time before study entry were 51.9% and 39.1%, and the proportions of patients initiated on monotherapy were 50.9% and 31.2%, respectively. CONCLUSION: In real-world settings, patients with RA initiating treatment with baricitinib were older and had longer disease duration than those initiating treatment with any other tsDMARD or any bDMARD. Initial descriptive data regarding treatment discontinuation (including reasons for discontinuation), effectiveness, and treatment patterns will be enriched as the study progresses.

Bamlanivimab and Etesevimab Improve Symptoms and Associated Outcomes in Ambulatory Patients at Increased Risk for Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019: Results From the Placebo-Controlled Double-Blind Phase 3 BLAZE-1 Trial.

Background: In the phase 2/3 BLAZE-1 trial, bamlanivimab and etesevimab together reduced coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related hospitalizations and any-cause mortality in ambulatory patients. Herein, we assess the impact of bamlanivimab and etesevimab treatment on the severity and length of symptoms and health outcomes among patients at increased risk for severe COVID-19. Methods: In the phase 3 portion of BLAZE-1 (NCT04427501), symptomatic patients with increased risk for severe COVID-19 were randomized (2:1) to a single infusion of 700 mg bamlanivimab and 1400 mg etesevimab or placebo. Hospitalization events, vital signs, and symptomatology were monitored throughout the trial. Results: Overall, 769 patients were randomized to bamlanivimab and etesevimab together (n = 511) or placebo (n = 258). The time to sustained symptom resolution was significantly shorter among patients who received bamlanivimab and etesevimab compared with placebo (8 vs 10 days; P < .01). The median time to first sustained symptom resolution of body aches and pain, chills, fatigue, feeling feverish, headache, and shortness of breath was significantly different in patients receiving bamlanivimab and etesevimab compared to placebo (P < .05). The proportion of patients who experienced COVID-19-related hospitalization by day 29 was significantly reduced among the bamlanivimab and etesevimab group compared with placebo (0.8% vs 5.4%; P < .01). The mean duration of hospital stay was numerically shorter among patients who received bamlanivimab and etesevimab (7.3 vs 13.5 days; P = .16), with fewer intensive care admissions. Conclusions: Patients receiving bamlanivimab and etesevimab together resolved their symptoms more rapidly than those receiving placebo. Bamlanivimab and etesevimab treatment was associated with reduced rates of hospitalizations and shorter hospital stays. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT04427501.

Mechanism of action of baricitinib and identification of biomarkers and key immune pathways in patients with active systemic lupus erythematosus.

OBJECTIVES: To elucidate the mechanism of action of baricitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) 1/2 inhibitor, and describe immunological pathways related to disease activity in adults with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) receiving standard background therapy in a phase II trial. METHODS: Patients with SLE were treated with baricitinib 2 mg or 4 mg in a phase II randomised, placebo-controlled study. Sera from 239 patients (baricitinib 2 mg: n=88; baricitinib 4 mg: n=82; placebo: n=69) and 49 healthy controls (HCs) were collected at baseline and week 12 and analysed using a proximity extension assay (Target 96 Inflammation Panel (Olink)). Interferon (IFN) scores were determined using an mRNA panel. Analytes were compared in patients with SLE versus HCs and in changes from baseline at week 12 between baricitinib 2 mg, 4 mg and placebo groups using a restricted maximum likelihood-based mixed models for repeated measures. Spearman correlations were computed for analytes and clinical measurements. RESULTS: At baseline, SLE sera had strong cytokine dysregulation relative to HC sera. C-C motif chemokine ligand (CCL) 19, C-X-C motif chemokine ligand (CXCL) 10, tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α), TNF receptor superfamily member (TNFRSF)9/CD137, PD-L1, IL-6 and IL-12ß were significantly reduced in patients treated with baricitinib 4 mg versus placebo at week 12. Inflammatory biomarkers indicated correlations/associations with type I IFN (CCL19, CXCL10, TNF-α and PD-L1), anti-double stranded DNA (dsDNA) (TNF-α, CXCL10) and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index-2000, tender and swollen joint count and worst joint pain (CCL19, IL-6 and TNFRSF9/CD137). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that baricitinib 4 mg downregulated key cytokines that are upregulated in patients with SLE and may play a role in a multitargeted mechanism beyond the IFN signature although clinical relevance remains to be further delineated. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02708095.

Baricitinib further enhances disease-modifying effects by uncoupling the link between disease activity and joint structural progression in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate if baricitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, further enhances disease-modifying effects by uncoupling the link between disease activity and structural damage progression in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using two phase III randomised, double-blinded trials. METHODS: In RA-BEAM, patients with established RA and inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX-IR) received placebo (PBO), baricitinib 4 mg or adalimumab 40 mg on background MTX. In RA-BEGIN, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD)-naïve patients received MTX, baricitinib 4 mg or baricitinib 4 mg plus MTX. Using linear regression analyses, joint damage progression (assessed by change from baseline in van der Heijde modification of the Total Sharp Score) was compared between treatment groups for patients achieving certain disease activity states by the Clinical Disease Activity Index. Time-averaged postbaseline responses were used to week 24 (RA-BEAM) and week 52 (RA-BEGIN). RESULTS: For MTX-IR patients, structural damage progression was reduced regardless of disease activity states in baricitinib-treated patients (p=0.6), whereas in PBO patients there was a clear dependence on disease activity states, being significantly lower in those who achieved remission/low disease activity (REM/LDA) compared with moderate/high disease activity (MDA/HDA) (p=0.02). Furthermore, the baricitinib MDA/HDA group had less damage progression than the PBO MDA/HDA group (p<0.001). For csDMARD-naïve patients, progression was lower in REM/LDA versus MDA/HDA within the MTX group (p<0.001). However, for baricitinib+MTX (p=0.5) or baricitinib monotherapy (p=0.07), progression was similar regardless of disease activity. In MDA/HDA groups, progression was lower with baricitinib+MTX (p<0.001) and numerically lower with baricitinib monotherapy (p=0.07) versus MTX. C reactive protein (≤5 mg/L and >5 mg/L) sensitivity analyses supported the primary findings. CONCLUSIONS: Baricitinib reduces structural damage progression versus PBO with background MTX and/or MTX, even in patients with MDA/HDA, showing a disease-modifying effect across all disease activity states.

Call for action: incorporating wellness practices into a holistic management plan for rheumatoid arthritis-going beyond treat to target.

This expert opinion article explores the strategy of adopting a holistic approach to the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) by incorporating the wellness practices of exercise, optimised sleep, optimised nutrition, mindfulness, social connectedness and positive emotions into the management plan. The aim is to attain optimal health for each patient beyond that achievable by limiting disease management to pharmacological treatment to attain the lowest achievable composite scores of disease activity, as recommended with the current treat-to-target approach, and addressing the recent recognition of pain control as a key patient-reported outcome. Incorporating wellness practices into a busy clinical setting requires creativity and customisation based on the individual practice setting and the individual needs of each patient. Such practices can help people living with RA to achieve optimum wellness through the introduction of measures-according to individual need-designed to improve the aspects of life most impacted for that person, thereby complementing treat-to-target and pain control strategies with pharmacological agents. Clinicians must consider wellness practices in addition to treat-to-target pharmacological agents for the holistic management of people with RA.

Measuring treatment effect on psoriatic arthritis-related domains: insights from the SPIRIT-H2H study at weeks 24 and 52.

INTRODUCTION: Improvements in both musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal manifestations are important treatment goals in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). OBJECTIVE: These post hoc analyses determined whether additional benefits related to various PsA domains are observed in patients simultaneously achieving 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR50) and 100% improvement in Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI100), the primary endpoint of the SPIRIT-H2H study. METHODS: Patients with active PsA and psoriasis in SPIRIT-H2H (N = 566) were categorised into two sets of four response groups irrespective of treatment allocation (approved dosages of ixekizumab or adalimumab): patients who simultaneously achieved ACR50 and PASI100 response, achieved ACR50 response only, achieved PASI100 response only, or did not achieve ACR50 or PASI100 response after 24 and 52 weeks of treatment. Patients achieving simultaneous ACR50 and PASI100 response were compared with the other patient response groups at the corresponding time point for efficacy and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes. RESULTS: Patients simultaneously achieving ACR50 and PASI100 responses at week 24 or 52 showed higher rates of ACR70 response, minimal disease activity, Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis ≤ 4, resolution of enthesitis and dactylitis, and HRQoL improvement at weeks 24 and 52, respectively, than the other corresponding response groups at both time points. CONCLUSION: High levels of disease control, such as those obtained with simultaneous achievement of ACR50 and PASI100 response, were linked to better outcomes across a wide range of endpoints that are important for patients with PsA. Patients meeting this combined endpoint showed more comprehensive and thus greater control of disease activity. Trial registration NCT03151551 Key Points • Treatment goals for patients with psoriatic arthritis emphasise the importance of improving both musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal manifestations of the disease. • A combined endpoint considering both these manifestations, achievement of at least 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria and 100% improvement in Psoriasis Area Severity Index, was linked with achievement of a number of other endpoints relevant to psoriatic arthritis, including health-related quality of life that are important to patients with psoriatic arthritis. • Patients meeting the combined endpoint were more likely to achieve a disease state of remission, which is the stated aim of treatment for psoriasis.

A Narrative Review of the Clinical Practicalities of Bamlanivimab and Etesevimab Antibody Therapies for SARS-CoV-2.

The severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) ranges from mild to death, with high morbidity and mortality rates reported amongst a vulnerable subset of patients termed high risk. While vaccines remain the primary option for COVID-19 prevention, neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), such as bamlanivimab and etesevimab, have been shown to benefit certain subpopulations after exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Unlike vaccine-derived immunity that develops over time, administration of neutralizing mAbs is an immediate and passive immunotherapy, with the potential to reduce disease progression, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and death. Bamlanivimab alone and together with etesevimab hold emergency use authorizations in several countries globally, with countries increasingly transitioning to the use of bamlanivimab and etesevimab together and other authorized mAbs on the basis of their evolving variant landscape, regulatory authorizations, and access to drugs. The current guidelines for the administration of bamlanivimab alone or together with etesevimab are informed by an iterative process of testing and development. Herein the rationale for these guidelines is provided by sharing the learnings that have been gathered throughout the development process of these mAbs. In addition, this review addresses the most common clinical questions received from health care professionals (HCPs) and patients regarding indicated population, dose, use with other medications and vaccines, duration of protection, and variants in clinical practice. As prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 variants can differ by country and state, prescribing HCPs should consider the prevalence of bamlanivimab and etesevimab resistant variants in their area, where data are available, regarding potential efficacy impact when considering treatment options.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04427501; NCT04411628; NCT04497987; NCT04634409.

Baricitinib and the Risk of Incident Interstitial Lung Disease: A Descriptive Clinical Case Report from Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVES: Interstitial lung disease (ILD) occurs in up to 30% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), resulting in increased morbidity and death in the absence of proven therapies. The aim of this study is to estimate the number of incident ILD cases reported through development studies with baricitinib in patients with RA. METHODS: Estimates were based on 3770 patients with RA from eight randomized clinical trials (four phase 3, three phase 2, one phase 1b) and one long-term extension study on baricitinib for which ILD was not an exclusion criterion with 12,358 patient-years of exposure (PYE). RESULTS: Twenty-one non-infectious cases of ILD were reported with an exposure-adjusted incidence rate (EAIR) of 0.17 per 100 PYE. Of the 21 cases, six were reported as serious and 15 as non-serious resulting in an incidence rate of 0.05 per 100 PYE and 0.12 per 100 PYE, respectively. There were also 11 cases caused by an infectious agent: seven serious (IR: 0.06 per 100 PYE) and four non-serious cases (IR: 0.03 per 100 PYE). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this analysis in patients with RA treated with baricitinib are consistent with a low risk to develop non-infectious ILD during baricitinib treatment, similar to that observed with other Janus kinase inhibitors.

Neutralizing monoclonal antibodies for treatment of COVID-19.

Several neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been developed and are now under evaluation in clinical trials. With the US Food and Drug Administration recently granting emergency use authorizations for neutralizing mAbs in non-hospitalized patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, there is an urgent need to discuss the broader potential of these novel therapies and to develop strategies to deploy them effectively in clinical practice, given limited initial availability. Here, we review the precedent for passive immunization and lessons learned from using antibody therapies for viral infections such as respiratory syncytial virus, Ebola virus and SARS-CoV infections. We then focus on the deployment of convalescent plasma and neutralizing mAbs for treatment of SARS-CoV-2. We review specific clinical questions, including the rationale for stratification of patients, potential biomarkers, known risk factors and temporal considerations for optimal clinical use. To answer these questions, there is a need to understand factors such as the kinetics of viral load and its correlation with clinical outcomes, endogenous antibody responses, pharmacokinetic properties of neutralizing mAbs and the potential benefit of combining antibodies to defend against emerging viral variants.

Baricitinib inhibits structural joint damage progression in patients with rheumatoid arthritis-a comprehensive review.

Baricitinib is an oral selective inhibitor of Janus kinase (JAK)1 and JAK2 that has proved effective and well tolerated in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in an extensive programme of clinical studies of patients with moderate-to-severe disease. In a phase 2b dose-ranging study of baricitinib in combination with traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in RA patients, magnetic resonance imaging showed that baricitinib 2 mg or 4 mg once daily provided dose-dependent suppression of synovitis, osteitis, erosion and cartilage loss at weeks 12 and 24 versus placebo. These findings correlated with clinical outcomes and were confirmed in three phase 3 studies (RA-BEGIN, RA-BEAM and RA-BUILD) using X-rays to assess structural joint damage. In patients naïve to DMARDs (RA-BEGIN study), baricitinib 4 mg once daily as monotherapy or combined with methotrexate produced smaller mean changes in structural joint damage than methotrexate monotherapy at week 24. Differences versus methotrexate were statistically significant for combined therapy. In patients responding inadequately to methotrexate (RA-BEAM study), baricitinib 4 mg plus background methotrexate significantly inhibited structural joint damage at week 24 versus placebo, and the results were comparable to those observed with adalimumab plus background methotrexate. In patients responding inadequately to conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs; RA-BUILD study), baricitinib 4 mg again significantly inhibited radiographic progression compared with placebo at week 24. Benefits were also observed with baricitinib 2 mg once daily, but the effects of baricitinib 4 mg were more robust. The positive effects of baricitinib 4 mg on radiographic progression continued over 1 and 2 years in the long-term extension study RA-BEYOND, with similar effects to adalimumab and significantly greater effects than placebo. Findings from the phase 3 studies of patients with RA were supported by preclinical studies, which showed that baricitinib has an osteoprotective effect, increasing mineralisation in bone-forming cells. In conclusion, baricitinib 4 mg once daily inhibits radiographic joint damage progression in patients with moderate-to-severe RA who are naïve to DMARDs or respond inadequately to csDMARDs, including methotrexate, and the beneficial effects are similar to those observed with adalimumab.

Quality of life in patients with breakthrough cancer pain in radiation oncology departments in Spain: the CAVIDIOR study.

Aim: The CAVIDIOR study evaluated quality of life (QoL) in patients with breakthrough cancer pain receiving palliative radiation therapy in radiation oncology departments (RODs) in Spain. Patients & methods: Prospective observational study at 11 Spanish RODs (July 2016-November 2017). QoL was assessed using Short Form Health Survey 12. Secondary end points were sleep quality, caregiver burden and patient/perception of improvement. Results: QoL improved according to the Short Form Health Survey 12 mental component. Sleep quality and caregivers' burden improved significantly. Conclusion: Breakthrough cancer pain is highly prevalent and can be substantially reduced with appropriate diagnosis and management in RODs. Along with the QoL questionnaire, sleep quality and caregiver burden provide a more comprehensive assessment of overall health status in patients receiving radiation therapy in RODs. Clinical trial registration: NCT02836379 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Efficacy and Safety of Ixekizumab with or Without Methotrexate in Biologic-Naïve Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis: 52-Week Results from SPIRIT-H2H Study.

INTRODUCTION: In the SPIRIT-H2H (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03151551) trial in biologic-naïve patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ixekizumab (IXE) was superior to adalimumab (ADA) at week 24 in terms of achieving a combined endpoint of ≥ 50% improved response in the American College of Rheumatology scale score (ACR50) and 100% improvement in the Psoriasis Areas and Severity Index (PASI100), and was non-inferior in terms of achieving ACR50. IXE resulted in similar improvements of PsA manifestations irrespective of the use of concomitant conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), while ADA response was higher with concomitant csDMARD use. The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of treatment with IXE and ADA with or without methotrexate (MTX), the most commonly use csDMARD, through week 52 in patients with PsA. METHODS: In the open-label, rater-blinded, head-to-head SPIRIT-H2H trial, randomization of patients was stratified by concomitant use of csDMARD and moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis involvement. In the post-hoc subgroup analysis presented here, subgroups were defined as with/without concomitant MTX use at baseline. Treatment group effects within subgroups were tested using Fisher's exact test. Missing data were imputed using non-responder imputation. RESULTS: By week 52, IXE provided similar improvements in the combined ACR50 and PASI100 endpoint, ACR50, and other PsA-related domains regardless of whether IXE was used with or without MTX, while ADA efficacy appeared to be improved with concomitant MTX use. When used without concomitant MTX, IXE resulted in significantly higher response versus ADA in terms of the combined ACR50 and PASI100 (p = 0.002) endpoint, minimal disease activity (p = 0.016), and very low disease activity (p = 0.037). The safety of both agents was consistent with their known safety profiles regardless of concomitant MTX use. CONCLUSION: In PsA patients with inadequate control of the disease, IXE delivers consistent efficacy in several clinical domains of the disease regardless of concomitant MTX use. The efficacy of ADA is increased by the concomitant use of MTX. These findings can inform treatment decisions when considering the need for concomitant MTX use with IXE or ADA at initiation or for long-term maintenance.

Changes in selected haematological parameters associated with JAK1/JAK2 inhibition observed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with baricitinib.

OBJECTIVE: To characterise changes in selected haematological parameters following once-daily oral baricitinib dosing. METHODS: Data were pooled from eight randomised clinical trials (four phase 3, three phase 2, one phase 1b) and one long-term extension. Changes in haematological parameters were evaluated up to 128 weeks (N=2387); overall safety of baricitinib was assessed up to 6 years (N=3492). RESULTS: Mean absolute neutrophil counts decreased (-1.36×109/L) within 1 month, followed by stabilisation within the normal reference range through week 128. The incidence of serious infections was not elevated in patients with neutropenia during the 24-week placebo-controlled period. Mean lymphocyte counts increased (+0.30×109/L) within 1 month, then decreased to baseline (weeks 12-24). Mean platelet counts increased at week 2 (+51×109/L), then decreased towards baseline. Overall, mean haemoglobin concentrations decreased (-0.12 mmol/L), then returned to baseline; however, reduced baseline haemoglobin concentrations observed in the highest baseline high-sensitivity C reactive protein quartile increased over time. Permanent drug discontinuation occurred due to laboratory abnormalities related to neutrophil count in 8 (0.2%), lymphocyte counts in 6 (0.2%), platelet counts in 8 (0.2%), and haemoglobin levels in 16 (0.5%) of all baricitinib-treated patients (N=3492 with 7993 total person-years of exposure). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate decreases in neutrophils were seen during baricitinib treatment; however, serious infection was uncommon in patients with neutropenia. Transient increases were observed in lymphocytes and platelets, which returned to baseline over time. Changes in haemoglobin concentration were generally small. Haematological abnormalities seldom led to drug discontinuation.

Assessment of the association of baseline anti-CarbV and anti-MCV antibodies with response to treatment and radiographic progression in an RA population treated with either methotrexate or baricitinib: post-hoc analyses from RA-BEGIN.

BACKGROUND: The development of autoantibodies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has potential as a marker of treatment response. This analysis assessed the association of an autoantibody response to carbamylated vimentin (anti-CarbV) and to vimentin modified by citrullination (anti-MCV) with response to treatment and structural damage progression in the phase III study RA-BEGIN. METHODS: Data from patients in the modified intent-to-treat population of RA-BEGIN were included for analysis; these patients received methotrexate (MTX), baricitinib 4 mg once daily, or baricitinib plus MTX during the 52-week study period. Endpoints analyzed were clinical response to treatment, assessed using change from baseline (CFB) in Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) and Disease Activity Score for 28-joint count with serum high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (DAS28-hsCRP), and structural damage progression, assessed using CFB greater than the smallest detectable change in the van der Heijde-modified Total Sharp Score. The anti-CarbV and anti-MCV isotypes assessed were immunoglobulin (Ig) A, IgG, and IgM. Multivariable mixed-effect models for repeated measures (MMRMs) were used for the longitudinal analysis of treatment response, and multivariable logistic regression models were used for the analysis of structural damage progression at week 52. RESULTS: Analysis of the association between autoantibodies and treatment response showed that high titers of anti-CarbV (IgA and IgG) were associated with a greater clinical response as measured by SDAI and DAS28-hsCRP. Anti-CarbV IgA and IgG, but not IgM, demonstrated an association after adjustment for other factors included in the MMRMs. High titers of anti-CarbV IgM were associated with a poor response to MTX monotherapy, whereas a nonsignificant trend toward a better response to baricitinib and baricitinib plus MTX was observed. There was no association between anti-MCV antibodies and treatment response. High titers of anti-CarbV IgA were associated with a greater probability of radiographic progression, but no association between anti-MCV antibodies and radiographic progression was observed. CONCLUSIONS: High titers of anti-CarbV IgA and IgG isotypes, but not anti-MCV isotypes, may be useful prognostic biomarkers for identifying the likelihood of the response to treatment and structural damage progression in patients with RA.