THU0201 LONG-TERM SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF UPADACITINIB OR ADALIMUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS: RESULTS AT 72 WEEKS FROM THE SELECT-COMPARE STUDY

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 323-323
Author(s):  
R. Fleischmann ◽  
I. H. Song ◽  
J. Enejosa ◽  
E. Mysler ◽  
L. Bessette ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Rheumatic Diseases ◽  
Activity Index ◽  
Janus Kinase ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Hepatic Disorder ◽  
Compare Study

Background:In the SELECT-COMPARE study in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX), upadacitinib (UPA), a Janus Kinase (JAK) 1-selective inhibitor, showed significant improvements in treatment of signs and symptoms when compared to placebo (PBO) and adalimumab (ADA) up to 48 weeks.1Objectives:To report safety and efficacy of UPA vs ADA up to 72 weeks in patients with RA from the ongoing long-term extension (LTE) of SELECT-COMPARE.Methods:Patients were randomized to once daily (QD) UPA 15 mg, PBO, or ADA 40 mg every other week, with all patients continuing background MTX. The study was double-blind for 48 weeks. Between Weeks 14-26, patients were rescued (from PBO to UPA, UPA to ADA, or ADA to UPA) if there was <20% improvement in tender/swollen joint count at Weeks 14/18/22 or if Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) was >10 at Week 26; all PBO patients who were not rescued were switched to UPA at Week 26. Patients continued UPA or ADA in a blinded manner until the last patient completed the Week 48 visit; patients received open-label treatment thereafter. Study visits occurred at Week 60, 72, and every 12 weeks thereafter. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) per 100 patient years (PY) were summarized up to December 26, 2018. Efficacy was analyzed by randomized group.Results:In total, 651, 651 and 327 patients were randomized at baseline to receive UPA, PBO, and ADA, respectively. Subsequently, 252 patients were switched from UPA to ADA, 159 were switched from ADA to UPA, and all PBO patients were switched to UPA. 1403 patients entered the LTE at Week 48 (UPA: 1091 [565 switched from PBO; 66 rescued from ADA; 460 on continued UPA]; ADA: 312 [110 rescued from UPA; 202 on continued ADA]). The cumulative exposures were 1396.7 and 515.1 PYs for UPA and ADA, respectively. UPA + MTX was generally well-tolerated as assessed by the frequency of AEs, including serious AEs, AEs leading to discontinuation of study drug, and AEs of special interest ([AESIs] including serious and opportunistic infections, malignancy, adjudicated major adverse cardiac events or venous thromboembolism; Figure 1). The event rates of AESIs were generally comparable between UPA + MTX and ADA + MTX, except for herpes zoster, lymphopenia, hepatic disorder, and CPK elevation, which were numerically higher with UPA + MTX. At both Weeks 60 and 72, significantly greater proportions of patient receiving UPA + MTX achieved ACR20/50/70 (P ≤.01/.001/.001), low disease activity (P ≤.001) and remission (P ≤.001) compared to those receiving ADA + MTX; Figure 2). Similarly, improvements in pain and function were significantly greater in the UPA vs ADA group through Week 72 (P ≤.01).Conclusion:The safety profile for UPA + MTX was consistent with that reported previously and with the integrated Phase 3 safety analysis.1,2UPA + MTX maintained significantly higher levels of clinical response, including remission compared to ADA + MTX through Week 72.References:[1]Fleischmann R, et al.Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.2019;78:744-745.[2]Cohen SB, et al. Thu0167.Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. 2019;78:357.Disclosure of Interests: :Roy Fleischmann Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Akros, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer, IngelhCentrexion, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roche, Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi Genzyme, Selecta, Taiho, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, ACEA, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Genzyme, UCB, In-Ho Song Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Jeffrey Enejosa Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Eduardo Mysler Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, Sanofi, and Pfizer., Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, Sanofi, and Pfizer, Louis Bessette Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Patrick Durez Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, Andrew Ostor Consultant of: MSD, Pfizer, Lilly, Abbvie, Novartis, Roche, Gilead and BMS, Speakers bureau: MSD, Pfizer, Lilly, Abbvie, Novartis, Roche, Gilead and BMS, Jerzy Swierkot Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, BMS, UCB, MSD, Accord, Janssen, Consultant of: AbbVie, Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, BMS, UCB, MSD, Accord, Janssen, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, BMS, UCB, MSD, Accord, Janssen, Yanna Song Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Mark C. Genovese Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Eli Lilly and Company, EMD Merck Serono, Galapagos, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Inc., GSK, Novartis, Pfizer Inc., RPharm, Sanofi Genzyme, Consultant of: Abbvie, Eli Lilly and Company, EMD Merck Serono, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Inc., GSK, Novartis, RPharm, Sanofi Genzyme

scholarly journals THU0207 SUSTAINABILITY OF RESPONSE TO UPADACITINIB AS MONOTHERAPY OR IN COMBINATION AMONG PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS AND PRIOR INADEQUATE RESPONSE TO CONVENTIONAL SYNTHETIC DMARDS

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 327.1-328
Author(s):  
A. Kavanaugh ◽  
M. H. Buch ◽  
B. Combe ◽  
L. Bessette ◽  
I. H. Song ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Two Phase ◽  
First Occurrence ◽  
Activity Measures ◽  
Disease Activity Measures

Background:The primary treatment goal for patients (pts) with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a state of sustained clinical remission (REM) or low disease activity (LDA).1,2Objectives:To assess the long-term sustainability of responses to upadacitinib (UPA), a JAK inhibitor, with or without background csDMARD(s) in pts with RA.Methods:Data are from two phase 3 randomized, controlled trials of UPA in RA pts with roughly similar baseline disease characteristics: SELECT-NEXT enrolled pts with an inadequate response (IR) to csDMARD(s) on background stable csDMARD(s) receiving UPA 15 mg or 30 mg once daily or placebo for 12 weeks (wks); SELECT-MONOTHERAPY enrolled methotrexate (MTX)-IR pts receiving UPA 15 mg or 30 mg monotherapy or blinded MTX for 14 wks. After 12/14 wks, pts could enter a blinded long-term extension and receive UPA 15 mg or 30 mg for up to 5 years. This post hoc analysis evaluated clinical REM (CDAI ≤2.8; SDAI ≤3.3), LDA (CDAI≤10; SDAI≤11), and DAS28(CRP) <2.6/≤3.2 at first occurrence before Wk 84; additionally, these measures were evaluated at 3, 6, and 12 months after the first occurrence for the total number of pts randomized to UPA 15 mg. Sustainability of response was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier only for those pts who achieved REM/LDA and was defined as time to the earliest date of losing response at two consecutive visits or discontinuation of study drug. The predictive ability of time to clinical REM/LDA was assessed using Harrell’s concordance (c)-index (for reference, an index ~ 0.5, indicates no ability to predict; an index of 1 or -1 would be a perfect prediction). The last follow up dates were 22 March, 2018 (SELECT-NEXT) and 25 May, 2019 (SELECT-MONOTHERAPY), when all pts had reached the Wk 84 visit.Results:Through Wk 84, the percent of treated pts achieving CDAI REM/LDA was 43%/79% for those receiving UPA 15 mg with background csDMARD(s) (SELECT-NEXT) and 37%/76% for those receiving UPA 15 mg without background csDMARD(s) (SELECT-MONOTHERAPY). 35%/25% of pts randomized to UPA 15 mg with background csDMARD(s) and 27%/23% of pts randomized to UPA 15 mg without background csDMARD(s) achieved sustained CDAI REM through 6/12 months after the first occurrence. 64%/56% of pts randomized to UPA 15 mg with background csDMARD(s) and 61%/56% of pts randomized to UPA 15 mg without background csDMARD(s) achieved sustained CDAI LDA through 6/12 months after the first occurrence (Figure 1). Time to initial clinical REM/LDA did not appear to be associated with sustained disease control. The c-indices (95%CI) for CDAI REM in the UPA 15 mg with background csDMARD(s) and UPA 15 mg without background csDMARD(s) groups were 0.541 (0.47, 0.62) and 0.568 (0.49, 0.65) and that of LDA were 0.521 (0.46, 0.58) and 0.498 (0.43, 0.56), respectively. Through last follow-up visit, 55% of pts receiving UPA 15 mg with background csDMARD(s) and 62% of pts receiving UPA 15 mg without background csDMARD(s) remained in CDAI REM while 72% and 70% of pts remained in CDAI LDA, respectively (Figure 2). Similar results were observed across other disease activity measures (SDAI REM/LDA and DAS28(CRP) <2.6/≤3.2).Conclusion:More than a quarter and more than a half of pts with RA and prior IR to csDMARD(s) receiving UPA with or without background csDMARD therapy achieved sustained clinical REM and LDA, respectively, across disease activity measures. Sustainability of responses appeared comparable among pts receiving UPA with or without background csDMARDs through up to 84 wks.References:[1]EULAR: Smolen JS, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2017;76:960–977.[2]ACR: Singh et al. Arthritis & Rheumatology Vol. 68, No. 1, January 2016, pp 1–26.Disclosure of Interests: :Arthur Kavanaugh Grant/research support from: Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Centocor-Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, UCB – grant/research support, Maya H Buch Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Consultant of: Pfizer; AbbVie; Eli Lilly; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Merck-Serono; Sandoz; and Sanofi, Bernard Combe Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, Consultant of: AbbVie; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Janssen; Eli Lilly and Company; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; Sanofi, Speakers bureau: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Eli Lilly and Company; Merck Sharp & Dohme; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; UCB, Louis Bessette Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, In-Ho Song Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Yanna Song Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Jessica Suboticki Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Peter Nash Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Sanofi, UCB

scholarly journals Filgotinib (GLPG0634/GS-6034), an oral selective JAK1 inhibitor, is effective as monotherapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: results from a randomised, dose-finding study (DARWIN 2)

2016 ◽  
Vol 76 (6) ◽  
pp. 1009-1019 ◽  
Author(s):  
A Kavanaugh ◽  
J Kremer ◽  
L Ponce ◽  
R Cseuz ◽  
O V Reshetko ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Active Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Activity Index ◽  
Disease Activity Index ◽  
Rapid Onset ◽  
Janus Kinase ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Onset Of Action ◽  
End Points

ObjectivesTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of different doses of filgotinib, an oral Janus kinase 1 inhibitor, as monotherapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and previous inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX).MethodsIn this 24-week phase IIb study, patients with moderately to severely active RA were randomised (1:1:1:1) to receive 50, 100 or 200 mg filgotinib once daily, or placebo, after a ≥4-week washout from MTX. The primary end point was the percentage of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology (ACR)20 response at week 12.ResultsOverall, 283 patients were randomised and treated. At week 12, significantly more patients receiving filgotinib at any dose achieved ACR20 responses versus placebo (≥65% vs 29%, p<0.001). For other key end points at week 12 (ACR50, ACR70, ACR-N, Disease Activity Score based on 28 joints and C reactive protein, Clinical Disease Activity Index, Simplified Disease Activity Index and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index) significant differences from baseline in favour of filgotinib 100 and 200 mg versus placebo were seen; responses were maintained or improved through week 24. Rapid onset of action was observed for most efficacy end points. Dose-dependent increases in haemoglobin were observed. The percentage of patients with treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) was similar in the placebo and filgotinib groups (∼40%). Eight patients on filgotinib and one on placebo had a serious TEAE, and four patients, all of whom received filgotinib, experienced a serious infection. No tuberculosis or opportunistic infections were reported.ConclusionsOver 24 weeks, filgotinib as monotherapy was efficacious in treating the signs and symptoms of active RA, with a rapid onset of action. Filgotinib was generally well tolerated.Trial registration numberNCT01894516.

scholarly journals SAT0152 EFFICACY OF BARICITINIB IN PATIENTS WITH MODERATE-TO-SEVERE RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS WITH 3 YEARS OF TREATMENT: RESULTS FROM A LONG-TERM STUDY

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1016.1-1016
Author(s):  
J. S. Smolen ◽  
L. Xie ◽  
B. Jia ◽  
P. C. Taylor ◽  
G. R. Burmester ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Physical Function ◽  
Janus Kinase ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Discontinuation Rate ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Long Term Treatment

Background:Baricitinib (Bari) is an oral, selective and reversible Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of adults with active RA. In addition to long-term safety which has been disclosed previously with data up to 7 years [1], an important clinical consideration is whether treatment efficacy can be maintained over the long term.Objectives:To evaluate the long-term efficacy of once-daily Bari 4 mg in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who were either naïve to or who had inadequate response (IR) to methotrexate (MTX)Methods:Post hoc analyses of data from two phase 3 studies, RA-BEGIN (MTX-naïve) and RA-BEAM (MTX-IR) for 52 weeks, and one long-term extension (LTE) study (RA-BEYOND) for an additional 96 weeks were conducted (148 weeks in total). At week 52, MTX-naïve patients initially treated with MTX monotherapy, Bari 4 mg monotherapy, or Bari 4 mg +MTX in RA-BEGIN were switched to open-label Bari 4 mg monotherapy for treatment in the LTE. Similarly, at week 52, MTX-IR patients initially treated with Bari 4 mg [+ background MTX noted as (+MTX) for RA-BEAM] or adalimumab (ADA) (+MTX) in RA-BEAM were switched to open-label Bari 4 mg (+MTX) for treatment in the LTE. Patients who received placebo (+MTX) were switched to open-label Bari 4 mg (+MTX) at week 24. The analyses of efficacy (SDAI) and physical function (HAQ-DI) were conducted on all patients who were randomized into the RA-BEGIN and RA-BEAM studies and had received ≥1 dose of study drug after randomization (mITT population). The proportion of patients who reached low disease activity (LDA), as measured by SDAI ≤11, was evaluated along with change from baseline in HAQ-DI. The non-responder imputation (NRI) method was used for the categorical analysis.Results:By week 24 in RA-BEGIN (N=584), 62% of patients treated with Bari 4 mg monotherapy or Bari 4 mg +MTX achieved SDAI LDA in comparison to 40% of pts in the MTX monotherapy group; response rates seen at week 24 in the Bari treatment groups were maintained through week 148 (Fig 1A). Similarly, by week 24 in RA-BEAM (N=1,305), 52% of patients treated with Bari 4 mg (+MTX) and 50% of patients treated with ADA (+MTX) achieved a SDAI LDA in comparison to 26% of patients from the PBO (+MTX) group. The response rate seen at week 24 with Bari 4 mg and ADA were maintained through week 148, even after patients switched from ADA to Bari 4 mg at week 52 (Fig 1B). Similar improvement and maintenance patterns in physical function measured by HAQ-DI were demonstrated. The overall discontinuation rate across treatment groups from RA-BEGIN (19.5%) and RA-BEAM (14.2%) have been published. In the LTE, the discontinuation rate from Bari treatment was 13.7% for patients originating from RA-BEGIN (1.1% due to lack of efficacy, 6.4% due to safety) and 12.6% for patients originating from RA-BEAM (1.8% due to lack of efficacy, 5.9% due to safety).Figure 1.Proportion of patients achieving SDAI ≤11 in the NRI analysis†In RA-BEGIN, rescue to Bari 4 mg + MTX was offered at week 24.‡In RA-BEAM, rescue to Bari 4 mg (+ MTX) was offered at week 16. At week 24, all PBO + MTX patients were switched to Bari 4 mg + MTX.§Upon entering RA-BEYOND at week 52, MTX and ADA patients were switched to Bari 4 mg.Conclusion:Long-term treatment with Bari 4 mg demonstrated the maintenance of clinically-relevant outcomes for up to 3 years. Low discontinuation rates during the LTE indicated that Bari 4 mg treatment was well-tolerated.References:[1]Genovese et al.Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. 2019;78:308-309.Disclosure of Interests: :Josef S. Smolen Grant/research support from: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer Inc, Samsung, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer Inc, Samsung, Sanofi, Li Xie Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Bochao Jia Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Peter C. Taylor Grant/research support from: Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, and Gilead, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly and Company, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer Roche, and UCB, Gerd Rüdiger Burmester Consultant of: AbbVie Inc, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Roche, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie Inc, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Roche, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Yoshiya Tanaka Grant/research support from: Asahi-kasei, Astellas, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Takeda, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers, UCB, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, and Ono, Consultant of: Abbvie, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Daiichi-Sankyo, Astellas, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AbbVie, YL Biologics, Bristol-Myers, Takeda, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Eisai, Janssen, Sanofi, UCB, and Teijin, Ayesha Elias Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Anabela Cardoso Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Robert Ortmann Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Chad Walls Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Maxime Dougados Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma

scholarly journals AB0330 HIGH REMISSION RATES IN RA – REAL LIFE DATA FROM BARITICINIB

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1463.2-1464
Author(s):  
S. Bayat ◽  
K. Tascilar ◽  
V. Kaufmann ◽  
A. Kleyer ◽  
D. Simon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Das 28 ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
One Year

Background:Recent developments of targeted treatments such as targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) increase the chances of a sustained low disease activity (LDA) or remission state for patients suffering rheumatoid arthritis (RA). tsDMARDs such as baricitinib, an oral inhibitor of the Janus Kinases (JAK1/JAK2) was recently approved for the treatment of RA with an inadequate response to conventional (cDMARD) and biological (bDMARD) therapy. (1, 2).Objectives:Aim of this study is to analyze the effect of baricitinb on disease activity (DAS28, LDA) in patients with RA in real life, to analyze drug persistance and associate these effects with various baseline characteristics.Methods:All RA patients were seen in our outpatient clinic. If a patient was switched to a baricitinib due to medical reasons, these patients were included in our prospective, observational study which started in April 2017. Clinical scores (SJC/TJC 76/78), composite scores (DAS28), PROs (HAQ-DI; RAID; FACIT), safety parameters (not reported in this abstract) as well as laboratory biomarkers were collected at each visit every three months. Linear mixed effects models for repeated measurements were used to analyze the time course of disease activity, patient reported outcomes and laboratory results. We estimated the probabilities of continued baricitinib treatment and the probabilities of LDA and remission by DAS-28 as well as Boolean remission up to one year using survival analysis and explored their association with disease characteristics using multivariable Cox regression. All patients gave informed consent. The study is approved by the local ethics.Results:95 patients were included and 85 analyzed with available follow-up data until November 2019. Demographics are shown in table 1. Mean follow-up duration after starting baricitinib was 49.3 (28.9) weeks. 51 patients (60%) were on monotherapy. Baricitinib survival (95%CI) was 82% (73% to 91%) at one year. Cumulative number (%probability, 95%CI) of patients that attained DAS-28 LDA at least once up to one year was 67 (92%, 80% to 97%) and the number of patients attaining DAS-28 and Boolean remission were 31 (50%, 34% to 61%) and 12(20%, 9% to 30%) respectively. Median time to DAS-28 LDA was 16 weeks (Figure 1). Cox regression analyses did not show any sufficiently precise association of remission or LDA with age, gender, seropositivity, disease duration, concomitant DMARD use and number of previous bDMARDs. Increasing number of previous bDMARDs was associated with poor baricitinib survival (HR=1.5, 95%CI 1.1 to 2.2) while this association was not robust to adjustment for baseline disease activity. Favorable changes were observed in tender and swollen joint counts, pain-VAS, patient and physician disease assessment scores, RAID, FACIT and the acute phase response.Conclusion:In this prospective observational study, we observed high rates of LDA and DAS-28 remission and significant improvements in disease activity and patient reported outcome measurements over time.References:[1]Keystone EC, Taylor PC, Drescher E, Schlichting DE, Beattie SD, Berclaz PY, et al. Safety and efficacy of baricitinib at 24 weeks in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response to methotrexate. Annals of the rheumatic diseases. 2015 Feb;74(2):333-40.[2]Genovese MC, Kremer J, Zamani O, Ludivico C, Krogulec M, Xie L, et al. Baricitinib in Patients with Refractory Rheumatoid Arthritis. The New England journal of medicine. 2016 Mar 31;374(13):1243-52.Figure 1.Cumulative probability of low disease activity or remission under treatment with baricitinib.Disclosure of Interests:Sara Bayat Speakers bureau: Novartis, Koray Tascilar: None declared, Veronica Kaufmann: None declared, Arnd Kleyer Consultant of: Lilly, Gilead, Novartis,Abbvie, Speakers bureau: Novartis, Lilly, David Simon Grant/research support from: Else Kröner-Memorial Scholarship, Novartis, Consultant of: Novartis, Lilly, Johannes Knitza Grant/research support from: Research Grant: Novartis, Fabian Hartmann: None declared, Susanne Adam: None declared, Axel Hueber Grant/research support from: Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, EIT Health, EU-IMI, DFG, Universität Erlangen (EFI), Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Speakers bureau: GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Georg Schett Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche and UCB

scholarly journals POS0407 PROTEOMICS ANALYSIS COMPARING THE MODE OF ACTION OF UPADACITINIB BETWEEN NON-BIOLOGIC-DMARD-IR AND BIOLOGIC-DMARD-IR PsA PATIENTS IDENTIFIES DISTINCT PATHOGENIC PATHWAYS IN THE SELECT-PsA 1 AND SELECT-PsA 2 PHASE 3 STUDIES

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 433.1-433
Author(s):  
T. Sornasse ◽  
J. Anderson ◽  
K. Kato ◽  
A. Lertratanakul ◽  
I. McInnes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Disease Activity ◽  
Clinical Response ◽  
Rheumatic Diseases ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Protein Biomarkers ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Positive Correlation ◽  
Disease Biology ◽  
Biologic Dmard ◽  
Favorable Clinical Response

Background:Treatment of non-biologic-DMARD-IR1 (DMARD-IR) and biologic-DMARD-IR2 (bio-IR) PsA patients with upadacitinib (UPA) at 15 mg QD, an oral JAK1 selective inhibitor, resulted in significant improvement in signs and symptoms compared to placebo.Objectives:Using a pre-defined set of inflammation-related plasma protein biomarkers (pBM), to explore immunological pathway modulation by UPA 15 mg QD in PsA patients with active disease despite treatment with non-biologic or biologic DMARDs in the context of clinical response vs. non-response to treatment.Methods:Patients from the SELECT-PsA 1 (DMARD-IR) and the SELECT-PsA 2 (bio-IR) studies were randomly selected (PBO, n=100; UPA 15 mg QD, n=100 for each study). The levels of 92 inflammation related protein biomarkers (pBM) were analyzed using a multiplexed Proximity Extension Assay platform in plasma samples collected at baseline, week 2, and 12; change from baseline in protein levels was expressed as Log2 Fold Change; a Repeated Measure Mixed Linear Model was used to identify pBM modulated by UPA compared to Baseline, and those differentially modulated between responders (R) and non-responders (NR) according to ACR50, PASDAS Minimal Disease Activity, and PASI75 at week 12. Correlation of disease activity measures with relative levels of pBM were derived using Pearson’s correlation; PASI score was transformed as Log10 (x+1) prior to the analysis. Functional pathway prediction was performed in silico with a commercial distributed software.Results:At baseline, the relative levels of 37 pBM correlated with at least one baseline disease activity measure, with a marked positive correlation of IL6 with musculoskeletal end points (PASDAS and DAS28CRP), and a strong positive correlation of IL20, IL17A, IL17C, and TGFA with baseline PASI.At the single pBM-level, treatment with UPA 15 mg QD resulted in a down modulation of pBM associated with T cells, myeloid cells, and IFN-, IL6-, and TNF-related pathways in both DMARD-IR and bio-IR PsA patients. Overall effects of UPA on single pBMs were broadly similar between DMARD-IR and bio-IR patients. However, analysis of pBMs differentially modulated by UPA in R vs NR indicated that favorable clinical response (achievement of ACR50, PASDAS MDA, and PASI75) in DMARD-IR patients was associated with the down modulation of pBMs predicted to be linked to IFN, IL10, IL17, IL22, and IL27 pathways; while favorable clinical response in bio-IR patients was associated with the down modulation of multiple pBM predicted to be linked to the IL17, IL23, and IL1 pathways.Conclusion:UPA effects in both DMARD-IR and bio-IR PsA patients likely stem from the direct and indirect inhibition of multiple biological pathways belonging to the adaptive and innate immune systems. Responder/Non-Responder analysis suggests a possible shift from a TH1 biased biology in DMARD-IR PsA patients to a more TH17 biased biology in bio-IR PsA patients. This apparent change in the disease biology of PsA patients after inadequate response to prior therapy could be attributed to the actual alteration of the disease biology, treatment outcome-based patient selection, or both. Considering the clinical efficacy of UPA in both DMARD-IR and bio-IR PsA patients, this observation highlights the importance of targeting multiple pathways with drugs such as UPA for the treatment of a broad range of PsA patients.References:[1]McInnes, I. et al. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 79, 16-17 (2020).[2]Mease, P.J. et al.Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, annrheumdis-2020-218870 (2020).Acknowledgements:AbbVie funded this study and participated in the study design, research, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, reviewing, and approval of the publication. All authors had access to relevant data and participated in the drafting, review, and approval of this publication. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship.Disclosure of Interests:Thierry Sornasse Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Jaclyn Anderson Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Koji Kato Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Apinya Lertratanakul Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Iain McInnes Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Regeneron, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Regeneron, UCB Pharma, Christopher T. Ritchlin Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, UCB

scholarly journals AB0337 TOFACITINIB MONOTHERAPY OR COMBINED WITH METHOTREXATE IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS SHOW SIMILAR RETENTION OVER FOUR YEARS. REPORT FROM RHUMADATA ®

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1467.1-1467
Author(s):  
D. Choquette ◽  
L. Bessette ◽  
L. Choquette Sauvageau ◽  
I. Ferdinand ◽  
B. Haraoui ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Real World ◽  
Treatment Initiation ◽  
Retention Rate ◽  
Janus Kinase ◽  
P Value ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Medication Discontinuation ◽  
Kaplan Meier

Background:Since the introduction of biologic agents around the turn of the century, the scientific evidence shows that the majority of agents, independent of the therapeutic target, have a better outcome when used in combination with methotrexate (MTX). In 2014, tofacitinib (TOFA), an agent targeting Janus kinase 1 and 3, has reached the Canadian market with data showing that the combination with MTX may not be necessary [1,2].Objectives:To evaluate the efficacy and retention rate of TOFA in real-world patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Methods:Two cohorts of patients prescribed TOFA was created. The first cohort was formed of patients who were receiving MTX concomitantly with TOFA (COMBO) and the other of patients using TOFA in monotherapy (MONO). MONO patients either never use MTX or were prescribed MTX post-TOFA initiation for at most 20% of the time they were on TOFA. COMBO patients received MTX at the time of TOFA initiation or were prescribed MTX post-TOFA initiation for at least 80% of the time. For all those patients, baseline demographic data definitions. Disease activity score and HAQ-DI were compared from the initiation of TOFA to the last visit. Time to medication discontinuation was extracted, and survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier calculation for MONO and COMBO cohorts.Results:Overall, 194 patients were selected. Most were women (83%) on average younger than the men (men: 62.6 ± 11.0 years vs. women: 56.9 ± 12.1 years, p-value=0.0130). The patient’s assessments of global disease activity, pain and fatigue were respectively 5.0 ± 2.7, 5.2 ± 2.9, 5.1 ± 3.1 in the COMBO group and 6.2 ± 2.5, 6.5 ± 2.6, 6.3 ± 2.8 in the MONO group all differences being significant across groups. HAQ-DI at treatment initiation was 1.3 ± 0.7 and 1.5 ± 0.7 in the COMBO and MONO groups, respectively, p-value=0.0858. Similarly, the SDAI score at treatment initiation was 23.9 ± 9.4 and 25.2 ± 11.5, p-value=0.5546. Average changes in SDAI were -13.4 ± 15.5 (COMBO) and -8.9 ± 13.5 (MONO), p-value=0.1515, and changes in HAQ -0.21 ± 0.63 and -0.26 ± 0.74, p-value 0.6112. At treatment initiation, DAS28(4)ESR were 4.4 ± 1.4 (COMBO) and 4.6 ± 1.3 (MONO), p-value 0.5815, with respective average changes of -1.06 ± 2.07 and -0.70 ± 1.96, p-value=0.2852. The Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated that the COMBO and MONO retention curves were not statistically different (log-rank p-value=0.9318).Conclusion:Sustainability of TOFA in MONO or COMBO are not statistically different as are the changes in DAS28(4)ESR and SDAI. Despite this result, some patients may still benefit from combination with MTX.References:[1]Product Monograph - XELJANZ ® (tofacitinib) tablets for oral administration Initial U.S. Approval: 2012.[2] Reed GW, Gerber RA, Shan Y, et al. Real-World Comparative Effectiveness of Tofacitinib and Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors as Monotherapy and Combination Therapy for Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis [published online ahead of print, 2019 Nov 9].Rheumatol Ther. 2019;6(4):573–586. doi:10.1007/s40744-019-00177-4.Disclosure of Interests:Denis Choquette Grant/research support from: Rhumadata is supported by grants from Pfizer, Amgen, Abbvie, Gylead, BMS, Novartis, Sandoz, eli Lilly,, Consultant of: Pfizer, Amgen, Abbvie, Gylead, BMS, Novartis, Sandoz, eli Lilly,, Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Amgen, Abbvie, Gylead, BMS, Novartis, Sandoz, eli Lilly,, Louis Bessette Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Loïc Choquette Sauvageau: None declared, Isabelle Ferdinand Consultant of: Pfizer, Abbvie, Amgen, Novartis, Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Amgen, Boulos Haraoui Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Lilly, Pfizer, Sandoz, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Pfizer, and UCB, Frédéric Massicotte Consultant of: Abbvie, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Janssen, Jean-Pierre Pelletier Shareholder of: ArthroLab Inc., Grant/research support from: TRB Chemedica, Speakers bureau: TRB Chemedica and Mylan, Jean-Pierre Raynauld Consultant of: ArthroLab Inc., Marie-Anaïs Rémillard Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Paid instructor for: Abbvie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Diane Sauvageau: None declared, Édith Villeneuve Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme,UCB, Paid instructor for: Abbvie, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Roche, Louis Coupal: None declared

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of sarilumab monotherapy versus adalimumab monotherapy for the treatment of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (MONARCH): a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group phase III trial

2016 ◽  
Vol 76 (5) ◽  
pp. 840-847 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerd R Burmester ◽  
Yong Lin ◽  
Rahul Patel ◽  
Janet van Adelsberg ◽  
Erin K Mangan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Active Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Activity Index ◽  
Joint Disease ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
End Point

ObjectivesTo compare efficacy and safety of sarilumab monotherapy with adalimumab monotherapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who should not continue treatment with methotrexate (MTX) due to intolerance or inadequate response.MethodsMONARCH was a randomised, active-controlled, double-blind, double-dummy, phase III superiority trial. Patients received sarilumab (200 mg every 2 weeks (q2w)) or adalimumab (40 mg q2w) monotherapy for 24 weeks. The primary end point was change from baseline in 28-joint disease activity score using erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) at week 24.ResultsSarilumab was superior to adalimumab in the primary end point of change from baseline in DAS28-ESR (−3.28 vs −2.20; p<0.0001). Sarilumab-treated patients achieved significantly higher American College of Rheumatology 20/50/70 response rates (sarilumab: 71.7%/45.7%/23.4%; adalimumab: 58.4%/29.7%/11.9%; all p≤0.0074) and had significantly greater improvement in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (p=0.0037). Importantly, at week 24, more patients receiving sarilumab compared with adalimumab achieved Clinical Disease Activity Index remission (7.1% vs 2.7%; nominal p=0.0468) and low disease activity (41.8% vs 24.9%; nominal p=0.0005, supplemental analysis). Adverse events occurred in 63.6% (adalimumab) and 64.1% (sarilumab) of patients, the most common being neutropenia and injection site reactions (sarilumab) and headache and worsening RA (adalimumab). Incidences of infections (sarilumab: 28.8%; adalimumab: 27.7%) and serious infections (1.1%, both groups) were similar, despite neutropenia differences.ConclusionsSarilumab monotherapy demonstrated superiority to adalimumab monotherapy by improving the signs and symptoms and physical functions in patients with RA who were unable to continue MTX treatment. The safety profiles of both therapies were consistent with anticipated class effects.Trial registration numberNCT02332590.

scholarly journals Switching between Janus kinase inhibitor upadacitinib and adalimumab following insufficient response: efficacy and safety in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

2020 ◽  
pp. annrheumdis-2020-218412
Author(s):  
Roy M Fleischmann ◽  
Ricardo Blanco ◽  
Stephen Hall ◽  
Glen T D Thomson ◽  
Filip E Van den Bosch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Activity Index ◽  
Disease Activity Index ◽  
Initial Therapy ◽  
Janus Kinase ◽  
Treat To Target ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Insufficient Response

ObjectivesTo evaluate efficacy and safety of immediate switch from upadacitinib to adalimumab, or vice versa, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with non-response or incomplete-response to the initial therapy.MethodsSELECT-COMPARE randomised patients to upadacitinib 15 mg once daily (n=651), placebo (n=651) or adalimumab 40 mg every other week (n=327). A treat-to-target study design was implemented, with blinded rescue occurring prior to week 26 for patients who did not achieve at least 20% improvement in both tender and swollen joint counts (‘non-responders’) and at week 26 based on Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) >10 (‘incomplete-responders’) without washout.ResultsA total of 39% (252/651) and 49% (159/327) of patients originally randomised to upadacitinib and adalimumab were rescued to the alternate therapy. In both switch groups (adalimumab to upadacitinib and vice versa) and in non-responders and incomplete-responders, improvements in disease activity were observed at 3 and 6 months following rescue. CDAI low disease activity was achieved by 36% and 47% of non-responders and 45% and 58% of incomplete-responders switched to adalimumab and upadacitinib, respectively, 6 months following switch. Overall, approximately 5% of rescued patients experienced worsening in disease activity at 6 months postswitch. The frequency of adverse events was similar between switch groups.ConclusionsThese observations support a treat-to-target strategy, in which patients who fail to respond initially (or do not achieve sufficient response) are switched to a therapy with an alternate mechanism of action and experience improved outcomes. No new safety findings were observed despite immediate switch without washout.

scholarly journals Effect of Glucocorticoids on the Clinical and Radiographic Efficacy of Tofacitinib in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Posthoc Analysis of Data from 6 Phase III Studies

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 177-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Charles-Schoeman ◽  
Désirée van der Heijde ◽  
Gerd R. Burmester ◽  
Peter Nash ◽  
Cristiano A.F. Zerbini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Radiographic Progression ◽  
Activity Index ◽  
Disease Activity Index ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Phase Iii Studies

Objective.Tofacitinib has been investigated for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in phase III studies in which concomitant glucocorticoids (GC) were allowed. We analyzed the effect of GC use on efficacy outcomes in patients with RA receiving tofacitinib and/or methotrexate (MTX) or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) in these studies.Methods.Our posthoc analysis included data from 6 phase III studies (NCT01039688; NCT00814307; NCT00847613; NCT00853385; NCT00856544; NCT00960440). MTX-naive patients or patients with inadequate response to csDMARD or biological DMARD received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily alone or with csDMARD, with or without concomitant GC. Patients receiving GC (≤ 10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent) before enrollment maintained a stable dose throughout. Endpoints included the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response rates, rates of Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI)-defined low disease activity (LDA; CDAI ≤ 10) and remission (CDAI ≤ 2.8), and changes from baseline in CDAI, 28-joint count Disease Activity Score (DAS28-4)–erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index (HAQ-DI), pain visual analog scale (VAS), and modified total Sharp score.Results.Of 3200 tofacitinib-treated patients, 1258 (39.3%) received tofacitinib monotherapy and 1942 (60.7%) received tofacitinib plus csDMARD; 1767 (55.2%) received concomitant GC. ACR20/50/70 response rates, rates of CDAI LDA and remission, and improvements in CDAI, DAS28-4-ESR, HAQ-DI, and pain VAS with tofacitinib were generally similar with or without GC in monotherapy and combination therapy studies. GC use did not appear to affect radiographic progression in tofacitinib-treated MTX-naive patients. MTX plus GC appeared to inhibit radiographic progression to a numerically greater degree than MTX alone.Conclusion.Concomitant use of GC with tofacitinib did not appear to affect clinical or radiographic efficacy. MTX plus GC showed a trend to inhibit radiographic progression to a greater degree than MTX alone.

SAT0151 EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF UPADACITINIB VERSUS ABATACEPT IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS AND PRIOR INADEQUATE RESPONSE OR INTOLERANCE TO BIOLOGIC DISEASE-MODIFYING ANTI-RHEUMATIC DRUGS (SELECT-CHOICE): A DOUBLE-BLIND, RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED PHASE 3 TRIAL

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1015-1016
Author(s):  
A. Rubbert-Roth ◽  
J. Enejosa ◽  
A. Pangan ◽  
R. Xavier ◽  
B. Haraoui ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Drug Discontinuation ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Biologic Dmards

Background:Upadacitinib (UPA) is an oral, reversible, selective JAK 1 inhibitor approved for the treatment of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The efficacy/safety of UPA has been demonstrated in phase 3 studies, including superiority to adalimumab in patients (pts) with prior inadequate response (IR) to methotrexate.1-4Objectives:To assess the efficacy/safety of UPA vs abatacept (ABA) in pts with prior IR or intolerance to biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs).Methods:Pts were randomized to once daily UPA 15 mg or intravenous ABA (at Day 1, Weeks [Wks] 2, 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 [< 60 kg: 500 mg; 60-100 kg: 750 mg; >100 kg: 1,000 mg]), with all pts continuing background stable csDMARDs. The study was double-blind for 24 wks. Starting at Wk 12, pts who did not achieve ≥20% improvement from baseline (BL) in both tender and swollen joint counts at two consecutive visits, had background medication(s) adjusted or initiated. The primary endpoint was change from BL in DAS28(CRP) at Wk 12 (non-inferiority). The non-inferiority of UPA vs ABA was tested using the 95% CI of treatment difference against a non-inferiority margin of 0.6. The two key secondary endpoints at Wk 12 were change from BL in DAS28(CRP) and the proportion of pts achieving clinical remission (CR) based on DAS28(CRP), defined as DAS28(CRP) <2.6. Both endpoints were to demonstrate the superiority of UPA vs. ABA. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) are reported up to Wk 24 for all pts who received at least one dose of study drug.Results:Of 612 pts treated; 67% of pts had received 1 prior bDMARD, 22% received 2 prior bDMARDs, and 10% received ≥ 3 prior bDMARDs. 549 (90%) completed 24 wks of treatment. Common reasons for study drug discontinuation were AEs (UPA, 3.6%; ABA, 2.6%) and withdrawal of consent (UPA, 1.7%; ABA, 2.6%).Non-inferiority and superiority were met for UPA vs ABA at Wk 12 for change from BL in DAS28(CRP) (-2.52 vs -2.00; -0.52 [-0.69, -0.35]; p <0.001 for UPA vs ABA). UPA also demonstrated superiority to ABA in achieving DAS28(CRP) <2.6 (30.0% vs 13.3%; p <0.001 for UPA vs ABA; Figure 1). Improvements in disease activity and remission rates were maintained through Wk 24. The proportions of pts achieving low disease activity (defined as DAS28(CRP) ≤3.2), ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 responses were greater with UPA compared with ABA at Wk 12 (nominal p <0.05). More stringent outcome measures – CR, ACR50, and ACR70 responses - remained higher with UPA than ABA through Wk 24 (nominal p <0.05). Incidence of serious TEAEs, AEs leading to discontinuation, hepatic disorders, and CPK elevations were numerically higher with UPA versus ABA (Figure 2). Eight cases of herpes zoster were reported (4 in each treatment arm). No malignancies were reported. One case of adjudicated MACE, two adjudicated cases of VTE (1 pt with DVT and 1 pt with PE; both pts had at least one risk factor for VTE), and one treatment-emergent death were reported with UPA.Conclusion:In RA pts with a prior IR or intolerance to bDMARDs, UPA demonstrated superior improvement in signs and symptoms vs ABA based on change in DAS28(CRP) and in achieving CR at Wk 12. The safety profile of UPA was consistent with the phase 3 RA studies with no new risks identified.References:[1]Burmester GR, et al. Lancet. 2018;391(10139):2503-12[2]Fleischmann R, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(11):1788-800[3]Genovese MC, et al. Lancet. 2018;391(10139):2513-24[4]Smolen JS, et al. Lancet. 2019;393(10188):2303-11Disclosure of Interests:Andrea Rubbert-Roth Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Chugai, Pfizer, Roche, Janssen, Lilly, Sanofi, Amgen, Novartis, Jeffrey Enejosa Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Aileen Pangan Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Ricardo Xavier Consultant of: AbbVie, Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Roche, Boulos Haraoui Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Lilly, Pfizer, Sandoz, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Pfizer, and UCB, Maureen Rischmueller Consultant of: Abbvie, Bristol-Meyer-Squibb, Celgene, Glaxo Smith Kline, Hospira, Janssen Cilag, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Nasser Khan Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Ying Zhang Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Naomi Martin Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Mark C. Genovese Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Eli Lilly and Company, EMD Merck Serono, Galapagos, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Inc., GSK, Novartis, Pfizer Inc., RPharm, Sanofi Genzyme, Consultant of: Abbvie, Eli Lilly and Company, EMD Merck Serono, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Inc., GSK, Novartis, RPharm, Sanofi Genzyme

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document