Baricitinib in Patients with Refractory Rheumatoid Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: In phase 2 studies, baricitinib, an oral Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor, reduced disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had not previously received treatment with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). METHODS: In this phase 3 study involving 527 patients with an inadequate response to or unacceptable side effects associated with one or more tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, other biologic DMARDs, or both, we randomly assigned the patients in a 1:1:1 ratio to baricitinib at a dose of 2 or 4 mg daily or placebo for 24 weeks. End points, tested hierarchically at week 12 to control type 1 error, were the American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response (primary end point), the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score, the 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on C-reactive protein level (DAS28-CRP), and a Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) score of 3.3 or less (on a scale of 0.1 to 86.0, with a score of 3.3 or less indicating remission). Comparisons with placebo were made first with the 4-mg dose of baricitinib and then with the 2-mg dose. RESULTS: Significantly more patients receiving baricitinib at the 4-mg dose than those receiving placebo had an ACR20 response at week 12 (55% vs. 27%, P<0.001). Differences between the higher-dose baricitinib group and the placebo group were also significant for the HAQ-DI score and the DAS28-CRP but not for an SDAI score of 3.3 or less. Adverse-event rates through 24 weeks were higher for patients receiving the 2-mg dose of baricitinib and those receiving the 4-mg dose than for patients receiving placebo (71% and 77%, respectively, vs. 64%), including infections (44% and 40%, vs. 31%). The rates of serious adverse events were 4%, 10%, and 7% in the three groups, respectively. Two nonmelanoma skin cancers and two major adverse cardiovascular events, including a fatal stroke, occurred in the higher-dose group. Baricitinib was associated with a small reduction in neutrophil levels and increases in serum creatinine and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to biologic DMARDs, baricitinib at a daily dose of 4 mg was associated with clinical improvement at 12 weeks. (Funded by Eli Lilly and Incyte; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01721044.).

Efficacy and safety of subcutaneous tocilizumab versus intravenous tocilizumab in combination with traditional DMARDs in patients with RA at week 97 (SUMMACTA).

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of subcutaneous (SC) tocilizumab (TCZ) versus intravenous (IV) TCZ, including switching formulations, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). METHODS: Patients (n=1262) were randomised 1:1 to receive TCZ-SC 162 mg weekly (qw)+placebo-IV every four weeks (q4w) or TCZ-IV 8 mg/kg q4w+placebo-SC qw in combination with DMARD(s). After a 24-week double-blind period, patients receiving TCZ-SC were re-randomised 11:1 to TCZ-SC (n=521) or TCZ-IV (TCZ-SC-IV, n=48), and patients receiving TCZ-IV were re-randomised 2:1 to TCZ-IV (n=372) or TCZ-SC (TCZ-IV-SC; n=186). Maintenance of clinical responses and safety through week 97 were assessed. RESULTS: The proportions of patients who achieved American College of Rheumatology (ACR)20/50/70 responses, Disease Activity Score in 28 joints remission and improvement from baseline in Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index ≥0.3 were sustained through week 97 and comparable across arms. TCZ-SC had a comparable safety profile to TCZ-IV through week 97, except that injection site reactions (ISRs) were more common with TCZ-SC. Safety profiles in patients who switched were similar to those in patients who received continuous TCZ-SC or TCZ-IV treatment. The proportion of patients who developed anti-TCZ antibodies remained low across treatment arms. No association between anti-TCZ antibody development and clinical response or adverse events was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The long-term efficacy and safety of TCZ-SC was maintained and comparable to that of TCZ-IV, except for ISRs. Profiles in patients who switched formulations were comparable to those in patients who received TCZ-IV or TCZ-SC. TCZ-SC provides additional treatment options for patients with RA. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01194414.

A randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study of the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous tocilizumab versus intravenous tocilizumab in combination with traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (SUMMACTA study).

OBJECTIVES: This study compared the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous (SC) versus intravenous (IV) formulations of tocilizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with an inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD). METHODS: Patients (n=1262) were randomly assigned to receive tocilizumab-SC 162 mg weekly+placebo-IV every 4 weeks or tocilizumab-IV 8 mg/kg every 4 weeks+placebo-SC weekly in combination with traditional DMARD. The primary outcome was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of tocilizumab-SC to tocilizumab-IV with regard to the proportion of patients in each group achieving an American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response at week 24 using a 12% non-inferiority margin (NIM). Secondary outcomes were disease activity score using 28 joints (DAS28), ACR responses, health assessment questionnaire scores and safety assessments. RESULTS: At week 24, 69.4% (95% CI 65.5 to 73.2) of tocilizumab-SC-treated patients versus 73.4% (95% CI 69.6 to 77.1) of tocilizumab-IV-treated patients achieved an ACR20 response (weighted difference between groups -4.0%, 95% CI -9.2 to 1.2); the 12% NIM was met. ACR50/70 responses, DAS28 and physical function improvements were comparable between the tocilizumab-SC and tocilizumab-IV groups. The safety profiles of tocilizumab-SC and tocilizumab-IV were similar, and the most common adverse event was infection. Injection-site reactions (ISR) occurred more frequently in the tocilizumab-SC group than in the tocilizumab-IV (placebo-SC) group. No anaphylaxis was reported over the 24 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Tocilizumab-SC 162 mg weekly demonstrated comparable efficacy to tocilizumab-IV 8 mg/kg. The safety profile of tocilizumab-SC is consistent with the known and well-established safety profile of tocilizumab-IV, with the exception of a higher incidence of ISR, which were more common with tocilizumab-SC administration.

Evaluation of abatacept administered subcutaneously in adults with active rheumatoid arthritis: impact of withdrawal and reintroduction on immunogenicity, efficacy and safety (phase Iiib ALLOW study).

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of a temporary interruption in subcutaneous (SC) abatacept on immunogenicity, safety and efficacy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate in a phase III trial. METHODS: Following a 12-week open-label introduction (period I; intravenous abatacept loading dose and weekly fixed-dose SC abatacept 125 mg), patients were randomised 2:1 to double-blind SC placebo or SC abatacept for 12 weeks (period II). At the end of period II, patients receiving SC abatacept continued treatment and patients on placebo were reintroduced to SC abatacept (12-week open-label period III). The co-primary end points were ELISA-detected immunogenicity rate and safety at the end of period II. Efficacy was also monitored. RESULTS: Of 167 patients entering period I, 72% qualified for period II; during periods II and III, three patients discontinued treatment. Mean (SD) disease duration was 6.6 (6.5) years and Disease Activity Score 28 was 4.8 (0.8). The primary end point was met, with a non-significant increase in immunogenicity upon withdrawal (7/73 placebo vs 0/38 abatacept in period II; p=0.119) which was reversed upon reintroduction of SC abatacept (2/73 vs 1/38, end period III). Safety was comparable regardless of withdrawal, with no unexpected events upon reintroduction. Two patients experienced reactions at the SC injection site. On withdrawal, patients experienced slight worsening in efficacy which improved following reintroduction. CONCLUSIONS: Overall immunogenicity to SC abatacept is low, consistent with intravenous abatacept, and is not significantly affected by a 3-month interruption and reintroduction. This stop-start schedule was well tolerated, with little impact on safety and efficacy. These are important considerations for the clinical use of SC abatacept. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier NCT00533897.

Immunogenicity, safety, and efficacy of abatacept administered subcutaneously with or without background methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results from a phase III, international, multicenter, parallel-arm, open-label study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of concomitant methotrexate (MTX) on subcutaneous (SC) abatacept immunogenicity, and to assess safety and efficacy. METHODS: This phase III, open-label study had a 4-month short-term (ST) period and an ongoing long-term extension (LTE) period. Rheumatoid arthritis patients were stratified to receive SC abatacept (125 mg/week) with (combination) or without MTX (monotherapy), with no intravenous loading dose; patients receiving monotherapy could add MTX in the LTE period. Immunogenicity (percentage of anti-abatacept antibody-positive patients) was assessed. ST and LTE period data are reported, including efficacy through LTE month 14 and safety through LTE month 20. RESULTS: Ninety-six of 100 enrolled patients completed the ST period; 3.9% (combination) and 4.1% of patients (monotherapy) developed transient immunogenicity, and no patients were antibody positive at month 4. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported in 3.9% (combination) and 6.1% of patients (monotherapy); 5.9% (combination) and 8.2% of patients (monotherapy) experienced SC injection reactions, and all were mild in intensity. Mean 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) changes were -1.67 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] -2.06, -1.28; combination) and -1.94 (95% CI -2.46, -1.42; monotherapy) at month 4. Ninety patients entered and were treated in the LTE period; 83.3% (75 of 90) remained ongoing at month 24. One LTE-treated patient (1.1%) developed immunogenicity, 14.4% of patients experienced SAEs, and no SC injection reactions were reported. For patients entering the LTE period, mean DAS28 changes from baseline were -1.84 (95% CI -2.23, -1.34; combination) and -2.86 (95% CI -3.46, -2.27; monotherapy) at month 18. CONCLUSION: SC abatacept did not elicit immunogenicity associated with loss of safety or efficacy, either with or without MTX.

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of adjuvant methotrexate treatment for giant cell arteritis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate treatment with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with newly diagnosed giant cell arteritis (GCA) to determine if MTX reduces GCA relapses and cumulative corticosteroid (CS) requirements and diminishes disease- and treatment-related morbidity. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind study. Over 4 years, 16 centers from the International Network for the Study of Systemic Vasculitides enrolled patients with unequivocal GCA. The initial treatment was 1 mg/kg/day (