A telehealth-delivered intervention to extend the veteran HIV treatment cascade for cardiovascular disease prevention: V-EXTRA-CVD study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Background: Veterans living with HIV have up to twice the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) compared to those without HIV.Objective: Our study seeks to test a non-physician led virtual self-management implementation strategy to reduce ASCVD risk among people living with HIV (PWH). We aim to conduct a randomized control trial among PWH (n = 300) with a diagnosis of hypertension (HTN) who are enrolled in Veterans Health Administration (VHA) clinics, on suppressive antiretroviral therapy (ART), randomized 1:1 to intervention vs. education control for a 12-month duration.Methods: Using human centered design approach, we have adapted a previous 5-component telehealth focused, non-physician led intervention to a Veteran population. The education control arm receives enhanced education in addition to usual care. The primary outcome is 6 mmHg reduction in systolic BP over 12-month in the intervention arm compared to the control arm. The secondary outcome is a 12-month difference in non-HDL cholesterol. While each component of our intervention has an evidence base, they have not been tested together in an HIV context.Conclusion: The proposed multicomponent intervention has the potential to improve cardiovascular outcomes in PWH using novel virtual care methods in a patient centered care approach.

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.

Treatment patterns in paediatric and adult patients with SLE: a retrospective claims database study in the USA.

OBJECTIVE: To assess real-world treatment regimens and patterns in childhood-onset SLE (cSLE) and adult-onset SLE (aSLE) cohorts, including similarities in treatments, duration of use and adherence. METHODS: This retrospective study utilised data from Merative L.P. MarketScan Research Databases (USA). Index date was the date of first SLE diagnosis (2010-2019). Patients aged <18 years (cSLE) and ≥18 years (aSLE) at index date with confirmed SLE diagnosis and ≥12 months continuous enrolment during pre-index and post-index periods were included. The cohorts were stratified based on the presence (existing) or absence (new) of pre-index SLE. Primary outcomes (post-index period) included treatment regimens (all patients), and adherence (proportion of days covered (PDC)) and discontinuation of therapies initiated within 90 days of diagnosis (new patients). Univariate comparisons between cSLE and aSLE cohorts were performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum and χ2 (or Fisher's exact) tests. RESULTS: cSLE cohort included 1275 patients (mean age=14.1 years) and aSLE cohort included 66 326 patients (mean age=49.7 years). Antimalarials and glucocorticoids were commonly used among new (cSLE=64.4%/62.0%; aSLE=51.8%/49.7%) and existing (cSLE=68.6%/58.9%; aSLE=63.8%/51.3%) patients in both cohorts. Median oral glucocorticoid dose (prednisone equivalent) was higher in cSLE vs aSLE (new=22.1 vs 14.0 mg/day; existing=14.4 vs 12.3 mg/day; p<0.05). Mycophenolate mofetil use was higher in patients with cSLE vs aSLE (new=26.2% vs 5.8%; existing=37.6% vs 11.0%; p<0.0001). Compared with aSLE, more patients used combination therapies in cSLE (p<0.0001). Median PDC was higher in cSLE vs aSLE for antimalarials (0.9 vs 0.8; p<0.0001) and oral glucocorticoids (0.6 vs 0.3; p<0.0001). Treatment discontinuation was lower in cSLE vs aSLE for antimalarials (25.0% vs 33.1%; p<0.0001) and oral glucocorticoids (56.6% vs 71.2%; p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Management of cSLE and aSLE includes the same medication classes; differences include more intensive use of therapy in cSLE, warranting the need for approved safe medications for cSLE.

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.

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

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. In this Article, we report the evaluation of efficacy and safety of baricitinib in patients with SLE in a 52-week phase 3 study. METHODS: In this phase 3 double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study, SLE-BRAVE-II, patients (aged ≥18 years) with active SLE receiving stable background therapy were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to baricitinib 4 mg, baricitinib 2 mg, or placebo once daily for 52 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with an SLE Responder Index (SRI)-4 response at week 52 in the baricitinib 4 mg treatment group compared with placebo. Glucocorticoid tapering was encouraged but not required per protocol. 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 an intention-to-treat population, comprising all participants who were randomly assigned and 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. Safety analyses were done on all randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose of investigational product and who did not discontinue. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03616964, and is complete. FINDINGS: A total of 775 patients were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of baricitinib 4 mg (n=258), baricitinib 2 mg (n=261), or placebo (n=256). There was no difference in the primary efficacy outcome of the proportion of SRI-4 responders at week 52 between participants who received baricitinib 4mg (121 [47%]; odds ratio 1·07 [95% CI 0·75 to 1·53]; difference with placebo 1·5 [95% CI -7·1 to 10·2]), 2 mg (120 [46%]; 1·05 [0·73 to 1·50]; 0·8 [-7·9 to 9·4]) and placebo (116 [46%]). None of the major secondary endpoints, including glucocorticoid tapering and time to first severe flare, were met. Serious adverse events were observed in 29 (11%) participants in the baricitinib 4 mg group, 35 (13%) in the baricitinib 2 mg group, and 22 (9%) in the placebo group. The safety profile of baricitinib in patients with SLE was consistent with the known baricitinib safety profile. INTERPRETATION: Although phase 2 data suggested baricitinib as a potential treatment for patients with SLE, which was supported in SLE-BRAVE-I, this result was not replicated in SLE-BRAVE-II. No new safety signals were observed. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Pain Reduction in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients Who Use Opioids: A Post Hoc Analysis of Phase 3 Trials of Baricitinib.

OBJECTIVE: Pain reduction with baricitinib was assessed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who either used opioids or did not use opioids during three randomized, double-blind phase 3 trials. METHODS: Analysis populations were as follows: i) baricitinib 4 mg once daily versus placebo groups integrated from RA-BEAM (NCT01710358) for patients with inadequate response (IR) to methotrexate, RA-BUILD (NCT01721057) with IR to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and RA-BEACON (NCT01721044) with IR to at least one tumor necrosis factor inhibitors; ii) baricitinib 2 mg versus placebo from RA-BUILD and RA-BEACON; and iii) adalimumab 40 mg every other week versus placebo from RA-BEAM. Pain was measured by the Patient Assessment of Pain Visual Analog Scale. Analysis of covariance modeling assessed differences in pain reduction between treatments at each time point through Week 24, with an interaction term to test heterogeneous treatment effects across opioid users and nonusers. RESULTS: Baricitinib 4 mg had greater pain reduction versus placebo in opioid users and nonusers (P < 0.05) at all time points starting from Week 1; the pain reduction was similar between opioid users and nonusers. Baricitinib 2 mg had greater pain reduction versus placebo in opioid users and nonusers starting at Week 4. A significant difference in pain reduction was not observed for adalimumab versus placebo in the opioid users but was observed in nonusers at all time points. CONCLUSION: Pain reduction was observed and was similar between opioid users and nonusers with baricitinib 2 mg and 4 mg but not adalimumab in this post hoc analysis.

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.

Infections in baricitinib clinical trials for patients with active rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the incidence of infection in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with baricitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase (JAK)1 and JAK2 inhibitor. METHODS: Infections are summarised from an integrated database (8 phase 3/2/1b clinical trials and 1 long-term extension (LTE)) with data to 1 April 2017. The 'all-bari-RA' analysis set included patients who received any baricitinib dose. Placebo comparison was based on six studies with 4 mg and placebo to week 24, including four trials with 2 mg (placebo-controlled set). Dose-response assessment was based on four studies with 2 mg and 4 mg, including LTE data (2-4 mg extended set). RESULTS: There were 3492 patients who received baricitinib for 7860 patient-years (PY) of exposure (median 2.6 years, maximum 6.1 years). Treatment-emergent infections were higher for baricitinib versus placebo (exposure-adjusted incidence rate (IR)/100 PY: placebo 75.9, 2 mg 84.0 (p not significant), 4 mg 88.4 (p≤0.001)). The IR of serious infection was similar for baricitinib versus placebo and stable over time (all-bari-RA IR 3.0/100 PY). There were 11 cases of tuberculosis (all-bari-RA IR 0.1/100 PY); all occurred with 4 mg in endemic regions. Herpes zoster (HZ) IR/100 PY was higher for baricitinib versus placebo (placebo 1.0, 2 mg 3.1 (p not significant), 4 mg 4.3 (p≤0.01)); rates remained elevated and stable over time (all-bari-RA 3.3). Opportunistic infections, including multidermatomal HZ, were infrequent in the baricitinib programme (all-bari-RA IR 0.5/100 PY). CONCLUSIONS: Increased rates of treatment-emergent infections including HZ were observed in patients with RA treated with baricitinib, consistent with baricitinib's immunomodulatory mode of action.

Evaluation of hepatitis B virus in clinical trials of baricitinib in rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV) replication is a well-recognised complication in patients receiving disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Limited data exist on HBV reactivation among patients with RA treated with janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. The objective of the current study was to assess HBV reactivation in clinical trials of baricitinib, an oral selective JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor in RA. METHODS: Data were integrated from four completed Phase 3 trials and one ongoing long-term extension (data up to 1 April 2017) in patients naïve to DMARDs or who had inadequate response (IR) to DMARDs including methotrexate (MTX)-IR and/or other conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD)-IR, or tumour necrosis factor inhibitors-IR. Within the clinical programme, baricitinib-treated patients may have received concomitant csDMARDs including MTX, or previous treatment with active comparators including MTX or adalimumab + MTX. At screening, all patients were tested for HBV surface antigen (HBsAg), core antibody (HBcAb) and surface antibody (HBsAb). Patients were excluded if they had (1) HBsAg+, (2) HBcAb+/HBsAb- (in Japan, could enrol if HBV DNA-) or (3) HBsAb+ and HBV DNA+. HBV DNA monitoring, following randomisation in the originating Phase 3 studies, was performed in Japan for patients with HBcAb+ and/or HBsAb+ at screening, and was later instituted globally for HBcAb+ patients in accordance with evolving guidance for HBV monitoring and management with immunomodulatory therapy. RESULTS: In total, 2890 patients received at least one dose of baricitinib in Phase 3 (6993 patient-years exposure). Of 215 patients with baseline serology suggestive of prior HBV infection (HbcAb+) who received a post-baseline DNA test, 32 (14.9%) were HBV DNA+ at some point following treatment initiation; 8 of 215 patients (3.7%) had a single quantifiable result (≥29 IU/mL). Of these eight patients, four met the definition of reactivation of HBV (HBV DNA level ≥100 IU/mL); baricitinib was permanently discontinued in four patients, and temporarily interrupted in two patients. No patient developed clinical evidence of hepatitis and in five of eight patients, antiviral therapy was not used. CONCLUSION: HBV reactivation can occur among RA patients treated with DMARDs, including baricitinib, with prior HBV exposure. Our data suggest that such patients should be monitored for HBV DNA during treatment and might be treated safely with the use of antiviral therapy as needed. The risk of HBV reactivation in patients with HBsAg treated with baricitinib is unknown.

Achieving Pain Control in Rheumatoid Arthritis with Baricitinib or Adalimumab Plus Methotrexate: Results from the RA-BEAM Trial.

The purpose of the study was to assess the proportion of patients who achieve pain relief thresholds, the time needed to reach the thresholds, and the relationship between pain and inflammation among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to methotrexate in RA-BEAM (NCT0170358). A randomized, double-blind trial was conducted, comparing baricitinib (N = 487), adalimumab (N = 330), and placebo (N = 488) plus methotrexate. Pain was evaluated by patient's assessment on a 0-100 mm visual analog scale (VAS). The following were assessed through a 24-week placebo-controlled period: the proportion of patients who achieved ≥30%, ≥50%, and ≥70% pain relief, the time to achieve these pain relief thresholds, remaining pain (VAS ≤ 10 mm, ≤20 mm, or ≤40 mm), and the relationship between inflammation markers and pain relief. Baricitinib-treated patients were more likely (p < 0.05) to achieve ≥30%, ≥50%, and ≥70% pain relief than placebo- and adalimumab-treated patients, as early as Week 1 vs. placebo and at Week 4 vs. adalimumab. A greater proportion of baricitinib-treated patients achieved ≤20 mm or ≤40 mm remaining pain vs. placebo- and adalimumab-treated patients. Baricitinib-treated patients tended to demonstrate consistent pain relief independent of levels of inflammation control. In RA patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate, baricitinib provided greater and more rapid pain relief than adalimumab and placebo. Analyses suggest the relationship between inflammation and pain may be different for baricitinib and adalimumab treatments.

Relative Impact of Pain and Fatigue on Work Productivity in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis from the RA-BEAM Baricitinib Trial.

INTRODUCTION: To explore the relationship of pain and fatigue with daily activity and work productivity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients from the baricitinib clinical trial, RA-BEAM. METHODS: In RA-BEAM, a double-blind phase 3 study, patients were randomized 3:3:2 to placebo (n = 488), baricitinib 4 mg once daily (n = 487), or adalimumab 40 mg biweekly (n = 330) with background methotrexate. The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) measured fatigue and the pain visual analog scale (0-100 mm) assessed pain. Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire-RA measured daily activity and work productivity. At weeks 12 and 24, pain was assessed using pain reduction (< 30%, 30% to < 50%, ≥ 50%) and overall pain score; clinically relevant FACIT-F changes were assessed by values < 3.56 and ≥ 3.56 and the FACIT-F normative value score (< 40.1, ≥ 40.1). Pairwise comparisons between pain/fatigue reduction groups were assessed using ANCOVA with pooled data on daily activity and work productivity. A mediator analysis with pain, fatigue, and disease activity measured their contribution to daily activity and work productivity. Data were pooled from all patients for most analyses, and baricitinib-treated patients were assessed as a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Reductions in pain (≥ 50%) and fatigue (≥ 3.56) had significant (p ≤ 0.001) effects on daily activity and work productivity improvement at weeks 12 and 24. Reductions in pain, fatigue, and disease activity accounted for most of the improvements in daily activity and work productivity. At the lowest levels of remaining pain (≤ 10 mm) at weeks 12 and 24, however, fatigue did not appear to impact work productivity. Similar trends were observed with baricitinib-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Reductions in pain and fatigue were associated with improved daily activity and work productivity for all RA patients and for baricitinib-treated patients in RA-BEAM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01710358. FUNDING: Incyte Corporation and Eli Lilly and Company.

Safety Profile of Baricitinib in Patients with Active Rheumatoid Arthritis with over 2 Years Median Time in Treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Baricitinib is an oral, once-daily selective Janus kinase (JAK1/JAK2) inhibitor for adults with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We evaluated baricitinib's safety profile through 288 weeks (up to September 1, 2016) with an integrated database [8 phase III/II/Ib trials, 1 longterm extension (LTE)]. METHODS: The "all-bari-RA" group included patients who received any baricitinib dose. Placebo comparison was based on the 6 studies with 4 mg and placebo up to Week 24 ("placebo-4 mg" dataset). Dose response assessment was based on 4 studies with 2 mg and 4 mg including LTE data ("2 mg-4 mg-extended"). The uncommon events description used the non-controlled all-bari-RA. RESULTS: There were 3492 patients who received baricitinib for 6637 total patient-years (PY) of exposure (median 2.1 yrs, maximum 5.5 yrs). No differences in rates of death, adverse events leading to drug discontinuation, malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), or serious infections were seen for 4 mg versus placebo or for 4 mg versus 2 mg. Infections including herpes zoster were significantly more frequent for 4 mg versus placebo. Deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism were reported with 4 mg but not placebo [all-bari-RA incidence rate (IR) 0.5/100 PY]; the IR did not differ between doses (0.5 vs 0.6/100 PY, 2 mg vs 4 mg, respectively) or compared to published RA rates. All-bari-RA had 6 cases of lymphoma (IR 0.09/100 PY), 3 gastrointestinal perforations (0.05/100 PY), 10 cases of tuberculosis (all in endemic areas; 0.15/100 PY), and 22 all-cause deaths (0.33/100 PY). IR for malignancies (0.8/100 PY) and MACE (0.5/100 PY) were low and did not increase with prolonged exposure. CONCLUSION: In this integrated analysis of patients with moderate to severe active RA with exposure up to 5.5 years, baricitinib has an acceptable safety profile in the context of demonstrated efficacy. Trial registration numbers: NCT01185353, NCT00902486, NCT01469013, NCT01710358, NCT01721044, NCT01721057, NCT01711359, and NCT01885078 at clinicaltrials.gov.

Baricitinib, Methotrexate, or Combination in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis and No or Limited Prior Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug Treatment.

OBJECTIVE: We undertook this phase III study to evaluate baricitinib, an orally administered JAK-1/JAK-2 inhibitor, as monotherapy or combined with methotrexate (MTX) compared to MTX monotherapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had received no or minimal conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and who were naive to biologic DMARDs. METHODS: A total of 588 patients were randomized 4:3:4 to receive MTX monotherapy (once weekly), baricitinib monotherapy (4 mg once daily), or the combination of baricitinib and MTX for 52 weeks. The primary end point assessment was a noninferiority comparison of baricitinib monotherapy to MTX monotherapy based on the proportion of patients meeting the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieving an ACR20 response) at week 24. RESULTS: The study met its primary objective. Moreover, baricitinib monotherapy was found to be superior to MTX monotherapy at week 24, with a higher ACR20 response rate (77% versus 62%; P ≤ 0.01). Similar results were observed for combination therapy. Compared to MTX monotherapy, significant improvements in disease activity and physical function were observed for both baricitinib groups as early as week 1. Radiographic progression was reduced in both baricitinib groups compared to MTX monotherapy; the difference was statistically significant for baricitinib plus MTX. The rates of serious adverse events (AEs) were similar across treatment groups, while rates of some treatment-emergent AEs, including infections, were increased with baricitinib plus MTX. Three deaths were reported, all occurring in the MTX monotherapy group. Malignancies, including nonmelanoma skin cancer, were reported in 1 patient receiving MTX monotherapy, 1 receiving baricitinib monotherapy, and 4 receiving baricitinib plus MTX. CONCLUSION: Baricitinib alone or in combination with MTX demonstrated superior efficacy with acceptable safety compared to MTX monotherapy as initial therapy for patients with active RA.