Robust analyses for radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis.

Demonstrating inhibition of the structural damage to joints as a statistically significant difference in radiographic progression as measured by the van der Heijde modified Total Sharp Score (mTSS) is a common objective in trials for rheumatoid arthritis treatments. The frequently used analysis of the covariance model with missing data imputed using linear extrapolation (analyses of covariance, ANCOVA+LE) may not be ideal for long-term extension studies or for paediatric studies. The random coefficient (RC) model may represent a better alternative.A two-arm (active treatment and placebo) setting with a week 44 study period was considered. RC model, ANCOVA+LE and ANCOVA with last observation carried forward imputation were compared under different scenarios in bias, root mean square error (RMSE), power and type I error rate.The RC model outperformed ANCOVA+LE in metrics measuring bias, RMSE, power and type I error rate under the evaluated scenarios. ANCOVA and RC provide similar performance when there are no missing data. With missing data, RC+observed (OBS) provides similar or better results than ANCOVA+LE in power and bias.Our simulations support that RC is both a more sensitive and a more precise alternative to the commonly used ANCOVA+LE as a primary method for analysing mTSS in long-term extension and paediatric studies with a higher likelihood of missing data. The RC model can provide a reference at time points with missing data by estimating a slope; mTSS change by one unit change in time. ANCOVA+LE is recommended as a sensitivity analysis.

Safety profile of baricitinib for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis over a median of 3 years of treatment: an updated integrated safety analysis.

BACKGROUND: Baricitinib is an oral selective inhibitor of Janus kinase (JAK) 1 and JAK2, approved for the treatment of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. Because baricitinib, like other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, is used chronically, continuous assessment of its long-term safety profile is important. Here we provide updated data supporting the existing safety profile of baricitinib in this patient population. METHODS: In this safety analysis, integrated data were included from nine phase 3, phase 2, and phase 1b clinical trials, and one long-term extension study with data up to 360 weeks, ending Feb 13, 2018. We analysed three integrated datasets, the largest of which was the all-bari-RA dataset, which includes patients who received any dose of baricitinib. We compared the safety of baricitinib with placebo on the basis of data from seven studies with baricitinib 4 mg and placebo and four studies with baricitinib 2 mg, including placebo to week 24 (placebo-controlled dataset). We did a dose-response assessment based on four studies with baricitinib 2 mg and 4 mg, including long-term extension data (2-4 mg extended dataset). We did an exploratory analysis of deaths and venous thromboembolic events in a subset of data from the all-bari-RA dataset that included patients who had ever taken baricitinib 2-mg or baricitinib 4-mg. We did an analysis for malignancies (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer) in the as-randomised population (patients not censored at rescue or dose change). FINDINGS: We collected data for 3770 patients who were given baricitinib for 10 127 patient-years of exposure in the all-bari-RA dataset (median 1115 days [IQR 426-1441], maximum 2520 days). The placebo-controlled dataset comprised 2836 patients, with 1215 in the placebo group, with 451 patient-years of exposure data; 479 in the baricitinib 2 mg group, with 186 patient-years of exposure data; and 1142 in the baricitinib 4 mg group, with 472 patient-years of exposure data. The 2-4 mg extended dataset comprised 958 patients, with 479 in both the 2 mg and 4 mg groups. No significant differences were seen for baricitinib 4 mg or 2 mg versus placebo, or for 4 mg versus 2 mg in the incidence of death, malignancy, serious infection, or major adverse cardiovascular events. Incidence of herpes zoster per 100 patient-years was higher for baricitinib (4 mg: 4·4 [95% CI 2·7-6·7]; 2 mg: 3·1 [1·1-6·8]) versus total placebo group (1·1 [0·4-2·5]), as were treatment-emergent infections (4 mg: 89·7 [81·3-98·6]; 2 mg: 84·0 [71·3-98·2] vs placebo 75·4 [67·6-83·9]). Consistent with previous reports, incidences in the all-bari-RA dataset for venous thromboembolic events was 0·5 (95% CI 0·4-0·6) per 100 patient-years, deep-vein thrombosis was 0·3 (0·2-0·5) per 100 patient-years, and pulmonary embolism was 0·2 (0·2-0·4) per 100 patient-years. Incidences of malignancy (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer) in the 2-4 mg extended dataset were 0·8 (0·4-1·5) per 100 patient-years for baricitinib 2 mg and 1·0 (0·5-1·7) per 100 patient-years for baricitinib 4 mg, without censoring patients who had dose changes or received rescue treatment. We found no indication of higher incidence of venous thromboembolic events in the baricitinib 4 mg group compared with the 2 mg group in the 2-4 mg extended dataset. INTERPRETATION: In this updated integrated analysis of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis exposed to baricitinib for a maximum of almost 7 years, baricitinib 2 mg and 4 mg maintained a similar safety profile to earlier analyses. No new safety signals were identified. Patients in the long-term extension study continue to be followed up to date. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company, under license from Incyte Corporation.