Anti-citrullinated protein antibody profiles predict changes in disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis initiating biologics.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether an expanded antigen-specific ACPA profile predicts changes in disease activity in patients with RA initiating biologics. METHODS: The study included participants from a prospective, non-randomized, observational RA cohort. For this sub-study, treatment groups of interest included biologic-naïve initiating anti-TNF, biologic-exposed initiating non-TNF, and biologic-naïve initiating abatacept. ACPAs to 25 citrullinated peptides were measured using banked enrolment serum. Principal component analysis (PCA) was performed and associations of resulting principal component (PC) scores (in quartiles) and anti-CCP3 antibody (≤15, 16-250 or >250 U/ml) with EULAR (good/moderate/none) treatment response at 6 months were examined using adjusted ordinal regression models. RESULTS: Participants (n = 1092) had a mean age of 57 (13) years and 79% were women. At 6 months, 68.5% achieved a moderate/good EULAR response. There were three PCs that cumulatively explained 70% of variation in ACPA values. In models including the three components and anti-CCP3 antibody category, only PC1 and PC2 were associated with treatment response. The highest quartile for PC1 (odds ratio [OR] 1.76; 95% CI: 1.22, 2.53) and for PC2 (OR 1.74; 95% CI: 1.23, 2.46) were associated with treatment response after multivariable adjustment. There was no evidence of interaction between PCs and treatment group in EULAR responses (P-value for interaction >0.1). CONCLUSION: An expanded ACPA profile appears to be more strongly associated with biologic treatment response in RA than commercially available anti-CCP3 antibody levels. However, further enhancements to PCA will be needed to effectively prioritize between different biologics available for the treatment of RA.

Consensus statement on blocking interleukin-6 receptor and interleukin-6 in inflammatory conditions: an update.

BACKGROUND: Targeting interleukin (IL)-6 has become a major therapeutic strategy in the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory disease. Interference with the IL-6 pathway can be directed at the specific receptor using anti-IL-6Rα antibodies or by directly inhibiting the IL-6 cytokine. This paper is an update of a previous consensus document, based on most recent evidence and expert opinion, that aims to inform on the medical use of interfering with the IL-6 pathway. METHODS: A systematic literature research was performed that focused on IL-6-pathway inhibitors in inflammatory diseases. Evidence was put in context by a large group of international experts and patients in a subsequent consensus process. All were involved in formulating the consensus statements, and in the preparation of this document. RESULTS: The consensus process covered relevant aspects of dosing and populations for different indications of IL-6 pathway inhibitors that are approved across the world, including rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular-course and systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis, giant cell arteritis, Takayasu arteritis, adult-onset Still's disease, Castleman's disease, chimeric antigen receptor-T-cell-induced cytokine release syndrome, neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder and severe COVID-19. Also addressed were other clinical aspects of the use of IL-6 pathway inhibitors, including pretreatment screening, safety, contraindications and monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: The document provides a comprehensive consensus on the use of IL-6 inhibition to treat inflammatory disorders to inform healthcare professionals (including researchers), patients, administrators and payers.

Does the Type of Failure and the Choice of the Second Biologic Influence Response and Persistence on Medication in Rheumatoid Arthritis?

BACKGROUND: The type of failure may predict response to a second biologic. We evaluated the response to a second tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) or non-TNFi in patients failing their initial TNFi, either primarily or secondarily. METHODS: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were biologic-naive and had a Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) >10, who started their first TNFi for ≥3 months and then switched to a second biologic, were included in the study. Secondary failure was defined as 2 consecutive low-CDAI visits and then switching to a second biologic while they had moderate/severe CDAI. Primary failure was defined if it did not meet the definition of secondary failure, or if they had at least 1 moderate/severe CDAI after 3 months on treatment. We used multivariable logistic regression comparing primary versus secondary failure for achievement of CDAI ≤10 (primary outcome) and minimal clinically important differences (secondary outcome) at 6 months after switch. RESULTS: Of the 462 patients included, 64.3% and 35.7% stopped the first TNFi because of a primary and secondary failure, respectively. Patients with primary failure had a more severe disease (CDAI mean, 26.39 vs. 21.61; p < 0.001). The likelihood of achieving CDAI ≤10 (odds ratio, 4.367; 95% confidence interval, 2.428-7.856) and minimal clinically important difference (odds ratio, 2.851; 95% confidence interval, 1.619-5.020) was significantly higher for secondary than primary failure regardless of choice of a second agent. CONCLUSION: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis with secondary failure to a first TNFi responded better to a second biologic agent, regardless of the choice of biologic.

Perspectives on applying immuno-autonomics to rheumatoid arthritis: results from an online rheumatologist survey.

The term "immuno-autonomics" has been coined to describe an emerging field evaluating the interaction between stress, autonomic nervous system (ANS), and inflammation. The field remains largely unknown among practicing rheumatologists. Our objective was to evaluate the perspectives of rheumatologists regarding the role of stress in the activity and management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). A 31-item survey was conducted with 231 rheumatologists. Rheumatologists were asked to assess the role of stress in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity and were provided with information regarding immuno-autonomics. They were asked to consider how immuno-autonomics resonated with their patient management needs. The majority of rheumatologists are eager to better understand non-response, believe that stress biology and ANS dysfunction interfere with disease activity, and embrace the theory that measurement of ANS via next-generation HRV may be able to evaluate autonomic dysfunction and the biology of stress. Rheumatologists are open to the idea that quantitative measurement of ANS function using next-generation HRV can be a helpful tool to RA practice. The majority agree that ANS state influences RA disease control and that quantitative measures of ANS state are helpful to RA practice. Rheumatologists also agree that patients with poor ANS function may be at risk for not responding adequately to conventional, biologic, or targeted synthetic DMARDs. Almost all would use an in-office test to quantitatively measure ANS using next-generation HRV. This study shows that rheumatologists are open to embracing evaluation of ANS function as a possible tool in the management and treatment of RA.

Short-term dose and duration-dependent glucocorticoid risk for cardiovascular events in glucocorticoid-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA), along with glucocorticoid use, is associated with cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular safety of glucocorticoids in RA is controversial and may be related to dose and duration of use. We determined if initiating glucocorticoids in steroid-naive RA patients would increase cardiovascular event (CVE) risk in a dose and duration-dependent manner over short-term intervals. METHODS: Patients enrolled in CorEvitas (formerly Corrona) RA registry. Cox proportional-hazards models estimated adjusted HRs (aHR) for incident CVE in patients who initiated glucocorticoid treatment, adjusting for RA duration, traditional cardiovascular risk factors and time-varying covariates: Clinical Disease activity Index, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs use and prednisone-equivalent use. Glucocorticoid use assessed current daily dose, cumulative dose and duration of use over rolling intervals of preceding 6 months and 1 year. RESULTS: 19 902 patients met criteria. 1106 CVE occurred (1.66/100 person-years). Increased aHR occurred at current doses of ≥5-9 mg 1.56 (1.18-2.06) and ≥10 mg 1.91 (1.31-2.79), without increased risk at 0-4 mg 1.04 (0.55-1.59). Cumulative dose over preceding 6 months showed increased aHR at 751-1100 mg 1.43 (1.04-1.98) and >1100 mg 2.05 (1.42-2.94), without increased risk at lower doses; duration of use over preceding 6 months exhibited increased aHR for >81 days of use 1.54 (1.08-2.32), without increased risk at shorter durations. One-year analyses were consistent. CONCLUSIONS: Over preceding 6-month and 1-year intervals, initiating glucocorticoids in steroid-naïve RA patients is associated with increased risk of CVE at daily doses ≥5 mg and increased cumulative dose and duration of use. No association with risk for CVE was found with daily prednisone of ≤4 mg or shorter cumulative doses and durations.

Comparative effectiveness of first-line tumour necrosis factor inhibitor versus non-tumour necrosis factor inhibitor biologics and targeted synthetic agents in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results from a large US registry study.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the comparative effectiveness of a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) versus a non-TNFi (biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs)) as the first-line treatment following conventional synthetic DMARDs, as well as potential modifiers of response, observed in US clinical practice. METHODS: Data were from a large US healthcare registry (Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America Rheumatoid Arthritis Registry). The analysis included patients (aged ≥18 years) with a documented diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), a valid baseline Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score of >2.8 and no prior bDMARD or tsDMARD use. Outcomes were captured at 1-year postinitiation of a TNFi (adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab pegol, golimumab or infliximab) or a non-TNFi (abatacept, tocilizumab, rituximab, anakinra or tofacitinib) and included CDAI, 28-Joint Modified Disease Activity Score, patient-reported outcomes (including the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index, EuroQol-5 Dimension score, sleep, anxiety, morning stiffness and fatigue) and rates of anaemia. Groups were propensity score-matched at baseline to account for potential confounding. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences observed between the TNFi and non-TNFi treatment groups for outcomes assessed, except the incidence rate ratio for anaemia, which slightly favoured the TNFi group (19.04 per 100 person-years) versus the non-TNFi group (24.01 per 100 person-years, p=0.03). No potential effect modifiers were found to be statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of no significant differences in outcomes between first-line TNF versus first-line non-TNF groups support RA guidelines, which recommend individualised care based on clinical judgement and consideration of patient preferences.

Points to consider for the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases with Janus kinase inhibitors: a consensus statement.

OBJECTIVES: Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) have been approved for use in various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. With five agents licensed, it was timely to summarise the current understanding of JAKi use based on a systematic literature review (SLR) on efficacy and safety. METHODS: Existing data were evaluated by a steering committee and subsequently reviewed by a 29 person expert committee leading to the formulation of a consensus statement that may assist the clinicians, patients and other stakeholders once the decision is made to commence a JAKi. The committee included patients, rheumatologists, a gastroenterologist, a haematologist, a dermatologist, an infectious disease specialist and a health professional. The SLR informed the Task Force on controlled and open clinical trials, registry data, phase 4 trials and meta-analyses. In addition, approval of new compounds by, and warnings from regulators that were issued after the end of the SLR search date were taken into consideration. RESULTS: The Task Force agreed on and developed four general principles and a total of 26 points for consideration which were grouped into six areas addressing indications, treatment dose and comedication, contraindications, pretreatment screening and risks, laboratory and clinical follow-up examinations, and adverse events. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendations were determined based on the SLR and levels of agreement were voted on for every point, reaching a range between 8.8 and 9.9 on a 10-point scale. CONCLUSION: The consensus provides an assessment of evidence for efficacy and safety of an important therapeutic class with guidance on issues of practical management.

Perceived clinical utility of a test for predicting inadequate response to TNF inhibitor therapies in rheumatoid arthritis: results from a decision impact study.

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) therapies are often the first biologic therapy used to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. However, a substantial fraction of patients do not respond adequately to TNFi therapies. A test with the ability to predict response would inform therapeutic decision-making and improve clinical and financial outcomes. A 32-question decision-impact survey was conducted with 248 rheumatologists to gauge the perceived clinical utility of a novel test that predicts inadequate response to TNFi therapies in RA patients. Participants were informed about the predictive characteristics of the test and asked to indicate prescribing decisions based on four result scenarios. Overall, rheumatologists had a favorable view of the test: 80.2% agreed that it would improve medical decision-making, 92.3% said it would increase their confidence when making prescribing decisions, and 81.5% said it would be useful when considering TNFi therapies. Rheumatologists would be more likely to prescribe a TNFi therapy when the test reported that no signal of non-response was detected (79.8%) and less likely to prescribe a TNFi therapy when a signal of non-response was detected (11.3%-25.4%). Rheumatologists (84.7%) agreed that payers should provide coverage for such a test. This study shows that rheumatologists support the clinical need for a test to predict inadequate response to TNFi therapies. Test results were perceived to lead to changes in prescribing behaviors as results instill confidence in the ordering rheumatologist.

Incidence of venous and arterial thromboembolic events reported in the tofacitinib rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis development programmes and from real-world data.

OBJECTIVES: Tofacitinib is a Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and ulcerative colitis, and has been investigated in psoriasis (PsO). Routine pharmacovigilance of an ongoing, open-label, blinded-endpoint, tofacitinib RA trial (Study A3921133; NCT02092467) in patients aged ≥50 years and with ≥1 cardiovascular risk factor identified a higher frequency of pulmonary embolism (PE) and all-cause mortality for patients receiving tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily versus those receiving tumour necrosis factor inhibitors and resulted in identification of a safety signal for tofacitinib. Here, we report the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), PE, venous thromboembolism (VTE; DVT or PE) and arterial thromboembolism (ATE) from the tofacitinib RA (excluding Study A3921133), PsA and PsO development programmes and observational studies. Data from an ad hoc safety analysis of Study A3921133 are reported separately within. METHODS: This post-hoc analysis used data from separate tofacitinib RA, PsO and PsA programmes. Incidence rates (IRs; patients with events per 100 patient-years' exposure) were calculated for DVT, PE, VTE and ATE, including for populations stratified by defined baseline cardiovascular or VTE risk factors. Observational data from the US Corrona registries (including cardiovascular risk factor stratification), IBM MarketScan research database and the US FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database were analysed. RESULTS: 12 410 tofacitinib-treated patients from the development programmes (RA: n=7964; PsO: n=3663; PsA: n=783) were included. IRs (95% CI) of thromboembolic events among the all tofacitinib cohorts' average tofacitinib 5 mg and 10 mg twice daily treated patients for RA, respectively, were: DVT (0.17 (0.09-0.27) and 0.15 (0.09-0.22)); PE (0.12 (0.06-0.22) and 0.13 (0.08-0.21)); ATE (0.32 (0.22-0.46) and 0.38 (0.28-0.49)). Among PsO patients, IRs were: DVT (0.06 (0.00-0.36) and 0.06 (0.02-0.15)); PE (0.13 (0.02-0.47) and 0.09 (0.04-0.19)); ATE (0.52 (0.22-1.02) and 0.22 (0.13-0.35)). Among PsA patients, IRs were: DVT (0.00 (0.00-0.28) and 0.13 (0.00-0.70)); PE (0.08 (0.00-0.43) and 0.00 (0.00-0.46)); ATE (0.31 (0.08-0.79) and 0.38 (0.08-1.11)). IRs were similar between tofacitinib doses and generally higher in patients with baseline cardiovascular or VTE risk factors. IRs from the overall Corrona populations and in Corrona RA patients (including tofacitinib-naïve/biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-treated and tofacitinib-treated) with baseline cardiovascular risk factors were similar to IRs observed among the corresponding patients in the tofacitinib development programme. No signals of disproportionate reporting of DVT, PE or ATE with tofacitinib were identified in the FAERS database. CONCLUSIONS: DVT, PE and ATE IRs in the tofacitinib RA, PsO and PsA programmes were similar across tofacitinib doses, and generally consistent with observational data and published IRs of other treatments. As expected, IRs of thromboembolic events were elevated in patients with versus without baseline cardiovascular or VTE risk factors, and were broadly consistent with those observed in the Study A3921133 ad hoc safety analysis data, although the IR (95% CI) for PE was greater in patients treated with tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily in Study A3921133 (0.54 (0.32-0.87)), versus patients with baseline cardiovascular risk factors treated with tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily in the RA programme (0.24 (0.13-0.41)).

Tofacitinib in combination with methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: patient-reported outcomes from the 24-month Phase 3 ORAL Scan study.

OBJECTIVES: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Here we present data from the completed Phase 3 randomised controlled trial (RCT) ORAL Scan (NCT00847613), which evaluated the impact of tofacitinib on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) through 24 months in patients with active RA and inadequate responses to methotrexate (MTX-IR). METHODS: Patients were randomised 4:4:1:1 to receive tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID), or placebo advanced to tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg, plus background MTX. Patients receiving placebo advanced to tofacitinib at month 3 (non-responders) or month 6 (remaining patients). Mean changes from baseline in PROs, assessed at months 1-24, included Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, Patient Global Assessment of disease activity (visual analogue scale [VAS]), Patient Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS), health-related quality of life (Short Form-36 version 2), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue and Medical Outcomes Study-Sleep. RESULTS: Overall, 539/797 (67.6%) patients completed 24 months' treatment. At month 3, tofacitinib-treated patients reported signi cant (p<0.05) mean changes from baseline versus placebo across all PROs, and significantly more patients reported improvements ≥ minimum clinically important differences versus placebo. Improvements in PROs with tofacitinib were sustained to month 24. Following advancement to tofacitinib, placebo-treated patients generally reported changes of similar magnitude to tofacitinib-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with RA and MTX-IR receiving tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg BID plus MTX reported significant and clinically meaningful improvements in PROs versus placebo at month 3, which were sustained through 24 months.

Genetics of rheumatoid arthritis contributes to biology and drug discovery.

A major challenge in human genetics is to devise a systematic strategy to integrate disease-associated variants with diverse genomic and biological data sets to provide insight into disease pathogenesis and guide drug discovery for complex traits such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Here we performed a genome-wide association study meta-analysis in a total of >100,000 subjects of European and Asian ancestries (29,880 RA cases and 73,758 controls), by evaluating ∼10 million single-nucleotide polymorphisms. We discovered 42 novel RA risk loci at a genome-wide level of significance, bringing the total to 101 (refs 2 - 4). We devised an in silico pipeline using established bioinformatics methods based on functional annotation, cis-acting expression quantitative trait loci and pathway analyses--as well as novel methods based on genetic overlap with human primary immunodeficiency, haematological cancer somatic mutations and knockout mouse phenotypes--to identify 98 biological candidate genes at these 101 risk loci. We demonstrate that these genes are the targets of approved therapies for RA, and further suggest that drugs approved for other indications may be repurposed for the treatment of RA. Together, this comprehensive genetic study sheds light on fundamental genes, pathways and cell types that contribute to RA pathogenesis, and provides empirical evidence that the genetics of RA can provide important information for drug discovery.

Disease activity and patient-reported outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and Sjögren's syndrome enrolled in a large observational US registry.

The objective of this study was to compare rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in a national sample of patients with RA with/without Sjögren's syndrome (SS). Adults with RA from a large observational US registry (Corrona RA) with known SS status between 22 April 2010 and 31 July 2018 and a visit 12 (± 3) months after index date were identified (n = 36,256/52,757). SS status: determined from a yes/no variable reported at enrolment into the Corrona RA registry and follow-up visits. Index date: date that SS status was recorded (yes/no). Patients received biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs as part of standard care. Patients with RA only were followed for ≥ 12 months to confirm the absence of SS. Patients were frequency- and propensity-score matched (PSM) 1:1 and stratified by disease duration and treatment response-associated variables, respectively. Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and PROs 12 months after index visit were compared in patients with and without SS. Baseline characteristics in 283 pairs of PSM patients were balanced. Mean change in CDAI score was numerically lower in patients with RA and SS than patients with RA only (8.8 vs 9.3). Reductions in PROs of pain, fatigue and stiffness were two- to threefold lower for patients with RA and SS versus RA only. Reductions in RA disease activity and RA-related PROs were lower in patients with RA and SS versus those with RA only. Our data indicate that SS adds to treatment challenges; physicians may wish to consider SS status when managing patients with RA.

Safety and efficacy of upadacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (SELECT-NEXT): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Upadacitinib is a selective inhibitor of Janus kinase 1 and was efficacious in phase 2 studies in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis. We aimed to assess the efficacy of upadacitinib in patients with inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs). METHODS: This study is a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at 150 sites in 35 countries. We enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with active rheumatoid arthritis for 3 months or longer, who had received csDMARDs for at least 3 months with a stable dose for at least 4 weeks before study entry, and had an inadequate response to at least one of the following csDMARDs: methotrexate, sulfasalazine, or leflunomide. Using interactive response technology, we randomly assigned patients receiving stable background csDMARDs (2:2:1:1) to receive a once-daily extended-release formulation of upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg, or placebo, for 12 weeks. Patients, investigators, and the funder were masked to allocation. After 12 weeks, patients taking placebo received 15 mg or 30 mg of upadacitinib once daily, according to the prespecified randomisation assignment. The primary endpoints were the proportion of patients at week 12 who achieved 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20), and a 28-joint disease activity score using C-reactive protein (DAS28[CRP]) of 3·2 or less. We did efficacy analyses in the full analysis set of all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug, and used non-responder imputation for assessment of the primary outcomes. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02675426. FINDINGS: Between Dec 17, 2015, and Dec 22, 2016, 1083 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 661 were recruited and randomly assigned to receive upadacitinib 15 mg (n=221), upadacitinib 30 mg (n=219), or placebo (n=221). All patients received at least one dose of study drug, and 618 (93%) completed 12 weeks of treatment. At week 12, ACR20 was achieved by 141 (64%; 95% CI 58-70) of 221 patients receiving upadacitinib 15 mg and 145 (66%; 60-73) of 219 patients receiving upadacitinib 30 mg, compared with 79 (36%; 29-42) of 221 patients receiving placebo (p<0·0001 for each dose vs placebo). DAS28(CRP) of 3·2 or less was met by 107 (48%; 95% CI 42-55) patients receiving upadacitinib 15 mg and 105 (48%; 41-55) patients receiving upadacitinib 30 mg, compared with 38 (17%; 12-22) patients receiving placebo (p<0·0001 for each dose vs placebo). Adverse events were reported in 125 (57%) of 221 patients receiving upadacitinib 15 mg, 118 (54%) of 219 patients receiving upadacitinib 30 mg, and 108 (49%) of 221 patients receiving placebo. The most frequently reported adverse events (≥5% of patients in any group) were nausea (16 [7%] of 221 in the upadacitinib 15 mg group; three [1%] of 219 in the upadacitinib 30 mg group; and seven [3%] of 221 in the placebo group), nasopharyngitis (12 [5%]; 13 [6%]; and nine [4%]), upper respiratory tract infection (12 [5%]; 12 [5%]; and nine [4%]), and headache (nine [4%]; seven [3%]; and 12 [5%]). More infections were reported for upadacitinib (64 [29%] of 221 patients receiving 15 mg and 69 [32%] of 219 patients receiving 30 mg) versus placebo (47 [21%] of 221 patients). There were three herpes zoster infections (one [<1%] in the placebo group, one [<1%] in the upadacitinib 15 mg group, and one [<1%] in the upadacitinib 30 mg group) and one primary varicella zoster virus infection (one [<1%] in the upadacitinib 30 mg group), two malignancies (both in the upadacitinib 30 mg group), one adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular event (in the upadacitinib 30 mg group), and five serious infections (one [<1%] in the placebo group, one [<1%] in the upadacitinib 15 mg group, three [1%] in the upadacitinib 30 mg group). No deaths were reported during the trial. INTERPRETATION: Patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis who received upadacitinib (15 mg or 30 mg) in combination with csDMARDs showed significant improvements in clinical signs and symptoms. FUNDING: AbbVie Inc.

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.).

Lipid profile and effect of statin treatment in pooled phase II and phase III baricitinib studies.

OBJECTIVES: Lipid profiles are altered by active disease in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and may be further modified by treatment with Janus kinase inhibitors and other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. METHODS: Lipid data were analysed from phase II and III studies of 4 mg (n=997) and 2 mg (n=479) oral baricitinib administered once daily in patients with moderate-to-severe active RA. Lipoprotein particle size and number and GlycA were evaluated with nuclear magnetic resonance in one phase III study. The effect of statin therapy on lipid levels was evaluated in patients on statins at baseline and in patients who initiated statins during the study. RESULTS: Treatment with baricitinib was associated with increased levels of total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and triglycerides, but no significant change in LDL-C:HDL-C ratio. Lipid levels plateaued after 12 weeks of treatment. Baricitinib treatment increased large LDL and decreased small, dense LDL particle numbers and GlycA. Lipid changes from baseline were not significantly different between baseline statin users and non-users. In patients who initiated statin therapy during the study, LDL-C, triglycerides (baricitinib 4 mg only) and apolipoprotein B decreased to pre-baricitinib levels; HDL-C and apolipoprotein A-I levels remained elevated. CONCLUSIONS: Baricitinib was associated with increased LDL-C, HDL-C and triglyceride levels, but did not alter the LDL-C:HDL-C ratio. Evaluation of cardiovascular event rates during long-term treatment is warranted to further characterise these findings and their possible clinical implications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00902486, NCT01469013, NCT01185353, NCT01721044, NCT01721057, NCT01711359, NCT01710358, NCT01885078.

Safety and efficacy of ixekizumab in patients with PsA and previous inadequate response to TNF inhibitors: week 52 results from SPIRIT-P2.

Objectives: To assess the long-term safety and efficacy of ixekizumab, an IL-17A antagonist, in patients with active PsA. Methods: In SPIRIT-P2 (NCT02349295), patients (n = 363) with previous inadequate response to TNF inhibitors entered the double-blind period (weeks 0-24) and received placebo or ixekizumab 80 mg every 4 weeks (IXEQ4W) or every 2 weeks (IXEQ2W) following a 160-mg starting dose at week 0. During the extension period (weeks 24-156), patients maintained their original ixekizumab dose, and placebo patients received IXEQ4W or IXEQ2W (1:1). We present the accumulated safety findings (week 24 up to 156) at the time of this analysis for patients who entered the extension period (n = 310). Exposure-adjusted incidence rates (IRs) per 100 patient years are presented. ACR responses are presented on an intent-to-treat basis using non-responder imputation up to week 52. Results: From week 24 up to 156 (with 228 patient years of ixekizumab exposure), 140 [61.3 IR] and 15 (6.6 IR) patients reported infections and serious adverse events, respectively. Serious adverse events included one death and four serious infections. In all patients initially treated with IXEQ4W and IXEQ2W at week 0 (non-responder imputation), ACR20 (61 and 51%), ACR50 (42 and 33%) and ACR70 (26 and 18%) responses persisted out to week 52. Placebo patients re-randomized to ixekizumab demonstrated efficacy as measured by ACR responses at week 52. Conclusion: During the extension period, the overall safety profile of ixekizumab remained consistent with that observed with the double-blind period, and clinical improvements persisted up to 1 year.

Response to baricitinib based on prior biologic use in patients with refractory rheumatoid arthritis.

Objective: RA patients who have failed biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) represent an unmet medical need. We evaluated the effects of baseline characteristics, including prior bDMARD exposure, on baricitinib efficacy and safety. Methods: RA-BEACON patients (previously reported) had moderate to severe RA with insufficient response to one or more TNF inhibitor and were randomized 1:1:1 to once-daily placebo or 2 or 4 mg baricitinib. Prior bDMARD use was allowed. The primary endpoint was a 20% improvement in ACR criteria (ACR20) at week 12 for 4 mg vs placebo. An exploratory, primarily post hoc, subgroup analysis evaluated efficacy at weeks 12 and 24 by ACR20 and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) ⩽10. An interaction P-value ⩽0.10 was considered significant, with significance at both weeks 12 and 24 given more weight. Results: The odds ratios predominantly favored baricitinib over placebo and were generally similar to those in the overall study (3.4, 2.4 for ACR20 weeks 12 and 24, respectively). Significant quantitative interactions were observed for baricitinib 4 mg vs placebo at weeks 12 and 24: ACR20 by region (larger effect Europe) and CDAI ⩽10 by disease duration (larger effect ⩾10 years). No significant interactions were consistently observed for ACR20 by age; weight; disease duration; seropositivity; corticosteroid use; number of prior bDMARDs, TNF inhibitors or non-TNF inhibitors; or a specific prior TNF inhibitor. Treatment-emergent adverse event rates, including infections, appeared somewhat higher across groups with greater prior bDMARD use. Conclusion: Baricitinib demonstrated a consistent, beneficial treatment effect in bDMARD-refractory patients across subgroups based on baseline characteristics and prior bDMARD use. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/), NCT01721044.

Design characteristics of the Corrona Japan rheumatoid arthritis registry.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective is to prospectively study the comparative safety and effectiveness of older and newer classes of nonbiologic DMARDs (Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs), biologic DMARDs and targeted synthetic therapies approved for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in a real-world patient population in Japan. METHODS: Prospective, multicenter, noninterventional, observational study across geographic distribution of both private and public institutions for patients with RA who are newly prescribed one of the following medications: (1) methotrexate; (2) anti-TNF biologic DMARDs; (3) non-TNF biologic DMARDs; and (4) approved JAK inhibitors at the time of enrollment into the registry. Target enrollment is currently 2000 subjects. Baseline and follow-up data on patient demographics, medical history, disease activity, laboratory results, comorbidities, hospitalizations, and targeted safety events are obtained via Physician and Patient Questionnaires. RESULTS: Fifty sites are anticipated to participate with 40 sites ethics committee (EC) approved at the time of submission consisting of 23% clinics, 21% private academic hospitals, 29% private mid-sized to large hospitals, 15% national academic hospitals, and 12% national hospitals. CONCLUSION: The Corrona Japan RA Registry will provide real-world evidence from both private and public institutions on the comparative effectiveness and safety of recently approved RA therapies in Japan.

A randomised phase IIb study of mavrilimumab, a novel GM-CSF receptor alpha monoclonal antibody, in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: Despite the therapeutic value of current rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatments, agents with alternative modes of action are required. Mavrilimumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody targeting the granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor receptor-α, was evaluated in patients with moderate-to-severe RA. METHODS: In a phase IIb study (NCT01706926), patients with inadequate response to ≥1 synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug(s), Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28)-C reactive protein (CRP)/erythrocyte sedimentation rate ≥3.2, ≥4 swollen joints despite methotrexate (MTX) were randomised 1:1:1:1 to subcutaneous mavrilimumab (150, 100, 30 mg), or placebo every other week (eow), plus MTX for 24 weeks. Coprimary outcomes were DAS28-CRP change from baseline to week 12 and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response rate (week 24). RESULTS: 326 patients were randomised (150 mg, n=79; 100 mg, n=85; 30 mg, n=81; placebo, n=81); 305 completed the study (September 2012-June 2013). Mavrilimumab treatment significantly reduced DAS28-CRP scores from baseline compared with placebo (change from baseline (SE); 150 mg: -1.90 (0.14), 100 mg: -1.64 (0.13), 30 mg: -1.37 (0.14), placebo: -0.68 (0.14); p<0.001; all dosages compared with placebo).Significantly more mavrilimumab-treated patients achieved ACR20 compared with placebo (week 24: 73.4%, 61.2%, 50.6% vs 24.7%, respectively (p<0.001)). Adverse events were reported in 43 (54.4%), 36 (42.4%), 41 (50.6%) and 38 (46.9%) patients in the mavrilimumab 150, 100, 30 mg eow and placebo groups, respectively. No treatment-related safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Mavrilimumab significantly decreased RA disease activity, with clinically meaningful responses observed 1 week after treatment initiation, representing a novel mechanism of action with persuasive therapeutic potential. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01706926; results.