Efficacy and Safety of Baricitinib in Patients with Severe Alopecia Areata over 52 Weeks of Continuous Therapy in Two Phase III Trials (BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2).

BACKGROUND: The oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor baricitinib has demonstrated efficacy for severe alopecia areata (AA) over 36 weeks. There are limited data on the longer-term treatment of AA. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of baricitinib for AA in adults with ≥50% scalp hair loss through 52 weeks of continuous therapy in two phase III trials (BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2). METHODS: Patients randomized to baricitinib at baseline in BRAVE-AA1 (N = 465) and BRAVE-AA2 (N = 390) retained their treatment allocation through Week 52. Efficacy outcomes included the proportion of patients achieving a Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score ≤ 20 (≤ 20% scalp hair loss). Data were censored after permanent treatment discontinuation or if collected remotely due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. RESULTS: Response rates for hair regrowth increased over the 52-week period. Of patients treated with baricitinib 4 mg and 2 mg, respectively, 40.9% and 21.2% in BRAVE-AA1 and 36.8% and 24.4% in BRAVE-AA2 achieved a SALT score ≤ 20 at Week 52. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events included upper respiratory tract infection, headache, nasopharyngitis, acne, urinary tract infection, creatine phosphokinase elevation, and COVID-19 infection. LIMITATION: There were no comparisons with placebo. CONCLUSION: Efficacy of baricitinib for adults with severe AA continuously improved over 52 weeks, indicating that long-term treatment may be necessary to observe maximum clinical benefit. There were no new safety signals. CLINICALTRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03570749 and NCT03899259. Efficacy and Safety of Baricitinib in Patients with Severe Alopecia Areata: Week-52 Results from BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2.

Alopecia areata (AA) is an autoimmune disease that causes patchy hair loss on the scalp, face, and body. Baricitinib is a Janus kinase inhibitor that is approved to treat AA in several countries, based on results from two studies, BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2. In these studies, adults with at least 50% scalp hair loss were treated with baricitinib for 36 weeks. Long-term therapy is important in AA, and hair regrowth can take longer in some patients with severe disease. Therefore, we assessed outcomes from a longer course of therapy. In this study, we report the results after 52 weeks of continuous treatment with baricitinib 4 mg or 2 mg in 465 patients in BRAVE-AA1 and 390 patients BRAVE-AA2. The goal was to reduce scalp hair loss to 20% or less by Week 52. In BRAVE-AA1, 40.9% of patients who took baricitinib 4 mg and 21.2% of patients who took baricitinib 2 mg had 20% or less missing scalp hair by Week 52. Similarly, in BRAVE-AA2, 36.8% of patients who took baricitinib 4 mg and 24.4% of patients who took baricitinib 2 mg had 20% or less missing scalp hair by Week 52. The most common adverse effects that were reported during the study period were upper respiratory tract infection, headache, nasopharyngitis, acne, urinary tract infection, creatine phosphokinase elevation, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. The results of longer-term treatment indicate that hair regrowth continues to improve without any new safety concerns for adults with severe AA taking baricitinib.

Integrated safety analysis of baricitinib in adults with severe alopecia areata from two randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Baricitinib, an oral, selective, reversible Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 inhibitor, is an approved treatment for adults with severe alopecia areata (AA) in the USA, European Union and Japan. OBJECTIVES: To report safety data for baricitinib in patients with severe AA from two clinical trials including long-term extension periods. METHODS: This analysis includes pooled patient-level safety data from two trials, an adaptive phase II/III trial (BRAVE-AA1) and a phase III trial (BRAVE-AA2) (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03570749 and NCT03899259). Data are reported in three datasets: (i) the placebo-controlled dataset (up to week 36): baricitinib 2 mg and 4 mg vs. placebo; (ii) the extended dataset (up to the data cutoff): patients remaining on continuous treatment with baricitinib 2 mg or 4 mg from baseline; and (iii) the all-baricitinib dataset (all-BARI, up to the data cutoff): all patients receiving any dose of baricitinib at any time during the trials. Safety outcomes include treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), adverse events of special interest and abnormal laboratory changes. Proportions of patients with events and incidence rates (IR) were calculated. RESULTS: Data were collected for 1303 patients who were given baricitinib, reflecting 1868 patient-years of exposure (median 532 days). The most frequently reported TEAEs during the placebo-controlled period (based on the baricitinib 4-mg group) were upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, headache, acne and elevated blood creatine phosphokinase (CPK). During the placebo-controlled period, the frequency of acne was higher with baricitinib than placebo, and elevated CPK was higher with baricitinib 4 mg than placebo and baricitinib 2 mg. In all-BARI, the IR of serious infections was low (n = 16, IR 0.8). There was one opportunistic infection (IR 0.1), and 34 cases of herpes zoster (IR 1.8). There was one positively adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular event (myocardial infarction) (IR 0.1), one pulmonary embolism (IR 0.1), three malignancies other than nonmelanoma skin cancer (IR 0.2) and one gastrointestinal perforation (IR 0.1). No deaths were reported. CONCLUSIONS: This integrated safety analysis in patients with severe AA is consistent with the overall safety profile of baricitinib. Some differences with atopic dermatitis were noted that may be attributable to the disease characteristics of AA.

Two Phase 3 Trials of Baricitinib for Alopecia Areata.

BACKGROUND: Alopecia areata is an autoimmune condition characterized by rapid hair loss in the scalp, eyebrows, and eyelashes, for which treatments are limited. Baricitinib, an oral, selective, reversible inhibitor of Janus kinases 1 and 2, may interrupt cytokine signaling implicated in the pathogenesis of alopecia areata. METHODS: We conducted two randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials (BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2) involving adults with severe alopecia areata with a Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score of 50 or higher (range, 0 [no scalp hair loss] to 100 [complete scalp hair loss]). Patients were randomly assigned in a 3:2:2 ratio to receive once-daily baricitinib at a dose of 4 mg, baricitinib at a dose of 2 mg, or placebo. The primary outcome was a SALT score of 20 or less at week 36. RESULTS: We enrolled 654 patients in the BRAVE-AA1 trial and 546 in the BRAVE-AA2 trial. The estimated percentage of patients with a SALT score of 20 or less at week 36 was 38.8% with 4-mg baricitinib, 22.8% with 2-mg baricitinib, and 6.2% with placebo in BRAVE-AA1 and 35.9%, 19.4%, and 3.3%, respectively, in BRAVE-AA2. In BRAVE-AA1, the difference between 4-mg baricitinib and placebo was 32.6 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 25.6 to 39.5), and the difference between 2-mg baricitinib and placebo was 16.6 percentage points (95% CI, 9.5 to 23.8) (P<0.001 for each dose vs. placebo). In BRAVE-AA2, the corresponding values were 32.6 percentage points (95% CI, 25.6 to 39.6) and 16.1 percentage points (95% CI, 9.1 to 23.2) (P<0.001 for each dose vs. placebo). Secondary outcomes for baricitinib at a dose of 4 mg but not at a dose of 2 mg generally favored baricitinib over placebo. Acne, elevated levels of creatine kinase, and increased levels of low- and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol were more common with baricitinib than with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In two phase 3 trials involving patients with severe alopecia areata, oral baricitinib was superior to placebo with respect to hair regrowth at 36 weeks. Longer trials are required to assess the efficacy and safety of baricitinib for alopecia areata. (Funded by Eli Lilly under license from Incyte; BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT03570749 and NCT03899259.).

Efficacy and safety of the oral Janus kinase inhibitor baricitinib in the treatment of adults with alopecia areata: Phase 2 results from a randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: There are no treatments approved by the Food and Drug Administration for alopecia areata. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of baricitinib in patients with ≥50% scalp hair loss in a phase 2 study of adults with alopecia areata (BRAVE-AA1). METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1:1:1 to receive placebo or baricitinib 1 mg, 2 mg, or 4 mg once daily. Two consecutive interim analyses were performed after all patients completed weeks 12 and 36 or had discontinued treatment prior to these time points. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score ≤20 at week 36. Logistic regression was used with nonresponder imputation for missing data. RESULTS: A total of 110 patients were randomized (placebo, 28; baricitinib 1-mg, 28; 2-mg, 27; 4-mg, 27). The baricitinib 1-mg dose was dropped after the first interim analysis based on lower SALT30 response rate. At week 36, the proportion of patients achieving a SALT score of ≤20 was significantly greater in baricitinib 2-mg (33.3%, P = .016) and 4-mg (51.9%, P = .001) groups versus placebo (3.6%). Baricitinib was well tolerated with no new safety findings. LIMITATIONS: Small sample size limits generalizability of results. CONCLUSION: These results support the efficacy and safety of baricitinib in patients with ≥50% scalp hair loss.

Dermatologist and Patient Perceptions of Treatment Success in Alopecia Areata and Evaluation of Clinical Outcome Assessments in Japan.

INTRODUCTION: The content validity and treatment success thresholds of clinical outcome assessments (COAs) for alopecia areata (AA)-including the Alopecia Areata-Investigator Global Assessment™ (AA-IGA™), Scalp Hair Assessment Patient-Reported Outcome™ (PRO), and clinician-reported outcome (ClinRO) and PRO measures for eyebrows, eyelashes, eye irritation, and nails-were established in interviews with dermatologists and patients in North America. This study aimed to confirm the content validity and treatment success thresholds of these measures with clinicians and patients in Japan. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted in Japan with dermatologists with AA expertise and adults with AA who experienced ≥ 50% scalp hair loss. Interviews included concept elicitation and cognitive interview questions. Data were analyzed using thematic and framework techniques. RESULTS: Seven dermatologists and 15 patients participated. Scalp hair loss was the most important sign/symptom of AA and the greatest treatment priority. Dermatologists and patients understood the AA-IGA™, Scalp Hair Assessment PRO™, and other COAs, and found these measures to be appropriate, relevant, and clinically meaningful. Dermatologists and patients confirmed that achieving ≤ 20% scalp hair loss (AA-IGA™/Scalp Hair Assessment PRO™ categories 0 or 1) indicated treatment success for patients with ≥ 50% scalp hair loss. Categories 0 or 1 on the other COAs represented treatment success. CONCLUSION: This study confirmed the content validity and treatment success thresholds of the AA-IGA™, Scalp Hair Assessment PRO™, and other ClinRO and PRO measures for AA in Japan. These findings were aligned with interview results in North America and support the use of these measures in AA treatment studies.

About 2% of people in the world have alopecia areata, which causes them to lose hair on their scalp, face, and body. We interviewed 15 Japanese adults who had lost at least half of the hair on their scalp and seven dermatologists who treated alopecia areata. The dermatologists felt that scalp hair loss was more important to treat than eyebrow and eyelash hair loss. Patients were most bothered about losing their scalp hair and reported feeling anxious or worried about what other people might think about it. Patients and dermatologists were also shown several questionnaires and thought the questionnaires were appropriate to measure the most important symptoms of alopecia areata. Patients considered that a treatment worked well if it gave them at least 80% of their scalp hair; dermatologists also wanted the treatment to give patients at least 80% scalp hair. These interviews agree with what has previously been found in interviews with patients and dermatologists in North America.

Oritavancin population pharmacokinetics in healthy subjects and patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections or bacteremia.

Oritavancin is a novel glycopeptide antimicrobial agent with potent in vitro activity against a wide variety of gram-positive bacteria, including multidrug-resistant strains of staphylococci and enterococci. A population pharmacokinetic model was developed to describe the disposition of oritavancin with data from a pooled population of phase 1 healthy subjects and phase 2 and 3 patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections or Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. In addition, the potential influence of factors such as the subject's age, gender, and clinical laboratory measures on oritavancin disposition was evaluated. Oritavancin was administered as both single- and multiple-dose intravenous (i.v.) infusions in fixed doses ranging from 100 to 800 mg or weight-based doses ranging from 0.02 to 10 mg/kg of body weight, with infusion durations ranging from 0.13 to 6.5 h across all studies. The most robust fit to the data (n = 6,290 oritavancin plasma concentrations from 560 subjects) was obtained using a three-compartment model with zero-order i.v. infusion and first-order elimination. The model was parameterized using total clearance (CL), volume of central compartment (Vc), distributional clearances from the central to both the first and second peripheral compartments, and volumes of distribution for both the first and second peripheral compartments. Weight and study phase (phase 1 versus phase 2/3) were identified as significant predictors of the interindividual variability in CL, while body surface area and age were significant for Vc. These results suggest that dose modification may be warranted in patients weighing >110 kg. However, the mild nature of the observed relationships for Vc suggest that dosing adjustments are not necessary for elderly patients.

Recognizing and managing severe sepsis: a common and deadly threat.

Through a literature review, the epidemiology and pathophysiology, including alterations in inflammation, coagulation, and impaired fibrinolysis that occur in the course of severe sepsis, is presented. Treatment guidelines that are evidence-based and endorsed by 11 professional societies representing multispecialty groups are described. Severe sepsis is common; 750,000 cases are estimated to occur annually in the United States. The mortality rate for severe sepsis still ranges from 30 to 50%, and is as high as 80 to 90% for septic shock and multiple organ dysfunction. Severe sepsis exists along a continuum initiated by a localized infection that triggers a systemic response. A cascade of inflammation and activation of the coagulation system associated with impaired fibrinolysis leads to alterations in microvascular circulation associated with organ dysfunction, severe sepsis, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, and death. In an attempt to improve care and reduce mortality, the Surviving Sepsis Campaign and The Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) have created two sepsis treatment bundles.

Benefit/risk profile of drotrecogin alfa (activated) in surgical patients with severe sepsis.

BACKGROUND: The Protein C Worldwide Evaluation in Severe Sepsis (PROWESS) trial examined the safety and efficacy of drotrecogin alfa (activated) (Xigris) in adult patients with severe sepsis. A clinical evaluation committee examined clinical data for each patient enrolled in PROWESS. However, there were no surgeons on the committee, and thus questions remained regarding the safety and efficacy of drotrecogin alfa (activated) in surgical patients. METHODS: Masked to treatment, a Surgical Evaluation Committee adjudicated the presence and type of operation, timing of surgery, infection, and adequacy of source control of surgical patients included in PROWESS. RESULTS: Twenty-eight percent of PROWESS cases were confirmed as surgical. The absolute risk reduction for mortality in all surgical patients was 3.2% and 9.1% for patients undergoing intraabdominal procedures. Serious bleeding during the infusion and 28-day period was similar between surgical and nonsurgical patients. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with the overall PROWESS results, drotrecogin alfa (activated) has a favorable benefit/risk profile in surgical patients.

Safety of drotrecogin alfa (activated) in surgical patients with severe sepsis.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a retrospective evaluation of the overall safety of drotrecogin alfa (activated) in surgical patients with severe sepsis enrolled in PROWESS. METHODS: A blinded Surgical Evaluation Committee (SEC) verified surgical patients as having undergone a significant operative procedure within 30 days prior to enrollment. Serious and treatment-emergent bleeding events, both during the study drug infusion period (120 h) and the entire 28-day study period were analyzed by surgical status and by treatment assignment. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Serious bleeding rates during infusion in the surgical patients were 3.1% (7/228) and 0% (0/246) in the drotrecogin alfa (activated) and placebo groups, respectively (p = 0.006). Treatment-emergent bleeding rates during infusion in the surgical patients were 16.7% (38/228) and 7.7% (19/246) in the drotrecogin alfa (activated) and placebo groups, respectively (p = 0.003). None of the treatment-emergent bleeding events was fatal. Of seven drotrecogin alfa (activated) serious bleeding events, six were procedure-related. The serious bleeding rates within each treatment group were statistically indistinguishable between the medical and surgical patients. However, the medical patients had numerically higher treatment-emergent bleeding rates than the surgical patients within each treatment group. Despite this observation, overall surgical patients received more transfusions of red blood cells, of platelets, and of fresh frozen plasma than their medical counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Although treatment of surgical patients with drotrecogin alfa (activated) for severe sepsis is associated with a higher incidence of serious bleeding and subsequent treatment- emergent bleeding events, the magnitude of this increase is small and clinically acceptable.

Static and dynamic assessment of biomarkers in surgical patients with severe sepsis.

BACKGROUND: Severe sepsis, defined as a systemic inflammatory response to infection associated with acute organ dysfunction, is common among surgical patients and is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Severe sepsis has been associated with changes in inflammatory and hemostatic biomarkers. In patients undergoing surgical procedures there may be additional stimulation of cytokine release and activation of the coagulation system. The purpose of this study was to characterize the baseline differences in biomarkers between surgical and non-surgical patients. In addition, we assessed the dynamic changes in biomarkers and coagulation parameters in surgical patients with severe sepsis enrolled in PROWESS and treated with placebo or drotrecogin alfa (activated). METHODS: A blinded PROWESS surgical evaluation committee (SEC) verified patients as having undergone a relevant operative procedure within 30 days of enrollment for inclusion in the surgical cohort of PROWESS. At baseline and on study days 1-7, biomarkers and coagulation parameters available for analysis were D-dimer, interleukin-6 (IL-6), protein C activity, protein S activity, anti-thrombin III (ATIII), activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), and prothrombin time (PT). Platelet count was determined at baseline only. Baseline values were compared between SEC-defined surgical and all other non-surgical patients, and between pre- and post-operative surgical patients from the PROWESS trial. Changes from baseline were compared between drotrecogin alfa (activated)-treated and placebo-treated surgical patients. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA on the ranked values. RESULTS: The SEC verified 474 (28%) of the 1,690 PROWESS patients as surgical. Median D-dimer, IL-6, aPTT and PT values were significantly higher at baseline for surgical patients than non-surgical patients (p < 0.001). Surgical patients had significantly lower median protein C, protein S, and ATIII activity at baseline than non-surgical patients (p < 0.001). Surgical patients treated with drotrecogin alfa (activated) showed a significant decrease in D-dimer levels on study days 1-5 (p < 0.05), and a more rapid increase in Protein C levels on study days 1-4 (p < 0.05) compared to placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical patients with severe sepsis appear to have a higher severity of illness at baseline as demonstrated by derangements in biomarkers and coagulation markers compared to non-surgical patients. Surgical patients treated with drotrecogin alfa (activated)showed reduced D-dimer concentrations and a more rapid increase in protein C concentrations during the infusion period.