Search

Objective: Brepocitinib is a TYK2/JAK1 inhibitor in development for the treatment of several immunologic diseases. The efficacy and safety of oral brepocitinib were assessed in participants with moderately‐to‐severely active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) for up to 52 weeks. Methods: In this placebo‐controlled, dose‐ranging, phase IIb study, participants were randomized to receive 10 mg, 30 mg, or 60 mg of brepocitinib once daily or placebo, advancing to 30 mg or 60 mg of brepocitinib once daily at week 16. The primary endpoint was the response rate according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria for 20% improvement (ACR20) in disease activity at week 16. Secondary endpoints included response rates according to the ACR50/ACR70 response criteria, 75% and 90% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI75/PASI90) score, and minimal disease activity (MDA) at weeks 16 and 52. Adverse events were monitored throughout the study. Results: Overall, 218 participants were randomized and treated. At week 16, the brepocitinib 30 mg and 60 mg once daily groups had significantly greater ACR20 response rates (66.7% [P = 0.0197] and 74.6% [P = 0.0006], respectively), versus the placebo group (43.3%), and significantly higher ACR50/ACR70, PASI75/PASI90, and MDA response rates. Response rates were maintained or improved through week 52. Adverse events were mostly mild/moderate; serious adverse events (15) in 12 participants (5.5%) included infections in 6 participants (2.8%) in the brepocitinib 30 mg and 60 mg once daily groups. No major adverse cardiovascular events or deaths occurred. Conclusion: Treatment with brepocitinib at dosages of 30 mg and 60 mg once daily was superior to placebo at reducing signs and symptoms of PsA. Brepocitinib was generally well tolerated throughout the 52‐week study, with a safety profile consistent with those found in other brepocitinib clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To report the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib through 1 year in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Methods: In the SELECT‐AXIS 1 study, adults with active AS and an inadequate response to nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs were randomized to receive upadacitinib 15 mg once daily or placebo. At week 14, patients who had been randomized to receive placebo were switched to upadacitinib, and all patients continued in the open‐label extension and received upadacitinib up to week 104; interim data up to week 64 are reported herein. Results: Of 187 patients, 178 completed week 14 on study drug and entered the open‐label extension. Similar proportions of patients in either group (continuous upadacitinib or placebo‐to‐upadacitinib) achieved Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society 40% response (ASAS40) or Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) showing low disease activity at week 64: ≥70% of patients achieved these end points based on nonresponder imputation (NRI) and ≥81% based on as‐observed analyses. Furthermore, ≥34% (NRI) and ≥39% (as‐observed analysis) achieved ASDAS showing inactive disease or ASAS showing partial remission at week 64. Mean changes from baseline (week 0) to week 64 in pain, function, and inflammation showed consistent improvement or sustained maintenance through the study. Among 182 patients receiving upadacitinib (237.6 patient‐years), 618 adverse events (260.1 per 100 patient‐years) were reported. No serious infections, major adverse cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolic events, gastrointestinal perforation, or deaths were reported. Conclusion: Upadacitinib 15 mg once daily showed sustained and consistent efficacy over 1 year. Patients who switched from placebo to upadacitinib at week 14 showed similar efficacy versus those who received continuous upadacitinib. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To evaluate the impact of upadacitinib vs placebo and adalimumab treatment, on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in SELECT-COMPARE in an active RA population with inadequate responses to MTX (MTX-IR). Methods PROs in patients receiving upadacitinib (15 mg QD), placebo, or adalimumab (40 mg EOW) while on background MTX were evaluated over 48 weeks. PROs included Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA) and pain by visual analogue scale (VAS), the HAQ Disability Index (HAQ-DI), the 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36), morning (AM) stiffness duration and severity, the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Fatigue (FACIT-F), and work instability. Least squares mean (LSM) changes and proportions of patients reporting improvements ≥ minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) and scores ≥ normative values were evaluated. Results Upadacitinib and adalimumab resulted in greater LSM changes from baseline vs placebo across all PROs (P  < 0.05) at week 12, and pain and AM stiffness severity (P  < 0.05) at week 2. More upadacitinib- vs placebo-treated (P  < 0.05) and similar percentages of upadacitinib- vs adalimumab-treated patients reported improvements ≥ MCID across all PROs at week 12. Upadacitinib vs adalimumab resulted in greater LSM changes from baseline in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, stiffness severity, FACIT-F, and the SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) (all P  < 0.05) at week 12. More upadacitinib- vs adalimumab-treated patients reported scores ≥ normative values in HAQ-DI and SF-36 PCS (P  < 0.05) at week 12. More upadacitinib- vs adalimumab-treated patients maintained clinically meaningful improvements in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, FACIT-F, and AM stiffness through 48 weeks. Conclusion In MTX-IR patients with RA, treatment with upadacitinib resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in PROs equivalent to or greater than with adalimumab. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov , NCT02629159. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a disease characterised by inflammation of synovial joints and poses a substantial healthcare burden on both the individual and society. One of the most significant shifts in the RA therapeutic landscape has occurred with the introduction of biological disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). There are five classes of bDMARDs currently available, each with a different molecular target and subtle differences in their efficacy and safety profile. This review also describes the "real-world" use of bDMARDs and how they fit into the overall RA treatment guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In SELECT-COMPARE, a randomised double-blind study, upadacitinib 15 mg once daily was superior to placebo or adalimumab on background methotrexate (MTX) for treating rheumatoid arthritis signs and symptoms and inhibited radiographical progression versus placebo at 26 weeks. Here we report 48-week safety and efficacy in patients who continued their original medication or were rescued to the alternative medication for insufficient response.Methods: Patients on MTX received upadacitinib 15 mg, placebo or adalimumab for 48 weeks. Rescue without washout, from placebo or adalimumab to upadacitinib or upadacitinib to adalimumab occurred if patients had <20% improvement in tender joint count (TJC) or swollen joint count (SJC) (weeks 14/18/22) or Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) >10 (week 26); remaining placebo patients were switched to upadacitinib at week 26. Efficacy was analysed by randomised group (non-responder imputation), as well as separately for rescued patients (as observed). Treatment-emergent adverse events per 100 patient-years were summarised.Results: Consistent with responses through week 26, from weeks 26 to 48, responses by randomised group including low disease activity, clinical remission and improvements in pain and function remained superior for upadacitinib versus adalimumab; radiographical progression remained lower for upadacitinib versus placebo (linear extrapolation). Although both switch groups responded, a higher proportion of patients rescued to upadacitinib from adalimumab achieved CDAI ≤10 at 6 months postswitch versus patients rescued from upadacitinib to adalimumab. Safety at week 48 was comparable to week 26.Conclusion: Upadacitinib+MTX demonstrated superior clinical and functional responses versus adalimumab+MTX and maintained inhibition of structural damage versus placebo+MTX through week 48. Patients with an insufficient response to adalimumab or upadacitinib safely achieved clinically meaningful responses after switching to the alternative medication without washout. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy, including capacity for inhibition of radiographic progression, and safety of upadacitinib, a JAK1‐selective inhibitor, as compared to placebo or adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have experienced an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX). Methods: In total, 1,629 RA patients with an inadequate response to MTX were randomized (2:2:1) to receive upadacitinib (15 mg once daily), placebo, or adalimumab (40 mg every other week) while continuing to take a stable background dose of MTX. The primary end points were achievement of an American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) improvement response and a Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C‐reactive protein level (DAS28‐CRP) of <2.6 in the upadacitinib group compared to the placebo group at week 12; inhibition of radiographic progression was evaluated at week 26. The study was also designed and powered to test for the noninferiority and superiority of upadacitinib compared to adalimumab, as measured both clinically and functionally. Results: At week 12, both primary end points were met in patients receiving upadacitinib compared to those receiving placebo (P ≤ 0.001). An ACR20 improvement response was achieved by 71% of patients in the upadacitinib group compared to 36% in the placebo group, and a DAS28‐CRP score of <2.6 was observed in 29% of patients receiving upadacitinib compared to 6% of patients receiving placebo. Upadacitinib was superior to adalimumab based on the ACR50 response rate, achievement of a DAS28‐CRP score of ≤3.2, change in pain severity score, and change in the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index. At week 26, more patients receiving upadacitinib than those receiving placebo or adalimumab achieved low disease activity or remission (P ≤ 0.001). Radiographic progression was significantly inhibited in patients receiving upadacitinib and was observed in fewer upadacitinib‐treated patients than placebo‐treated patients (P ≤ 0.001). Up to week 26, adverse events (AEs), including serious infections, were comparable between the upadacitinib and adalimumab groups. The proportions of patients with serious AEs and AEs leading to discontinuation were highest in the adalimumab group; the proportions of patients with herpes zoster and those with creatine phosphokinase (CPK) elevations were highest in the upadacitinib group. Three malignancies, 5 major adverse cardiovascular events, and 4 deaths were reported among the groups, but none occurred in patients receiving upadacitinib. Six venous thromboembolic events were reported (1 in the placebo group, 2 in the upadacitinib group, and 3 in the adalimumab group). Conclusion: Upadacitinib was superior to placebo and adalimumab for improving signs, symptoms, and physical function in RA patients who were receiving background MTX. In addition, radiographic progression was significantly inhibited by upadacitinib as compared to placebo. The overall safety profile of upadacitinib was generally similar to that of adalimumab, except for higher rates of herpes zoster and CPK elevations in patients receiving upadacitinib. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who are treated with adalimumab (ADA) are offered a proprietary patient support program (PSP, AbbVie Care). The main objective of this study was to examine the effectiveness of ADA on RA treatment course over time in the context of PSP utilization. Methods: PASSION was a 78-week post-marketing observational study of RA patients with an insufficient response to ≥1 DMARD newly initiating ADA in routine clinical care that was conducted in Europe, Israel, Mexico, Puerto Rico, and Australia. One prior biologic DMARD was allowed. The primary endpoint was percentage of patients achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID; improvement of ≥0.22 compared to baseline) in Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) Disability Index (HAQ-DI) at week 78. Additionally, multiple clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were evaluated over time. Patients were categorized based on their participation in the PSP: ever (PSP users) vs. never (PSP non-users). Safety events were monitored throughout the study. Results: Overall, 42.8% of PSP users achieved the MCID in HAQ-DI at week 78 (improvement of at least 0.22 compared to baseline). From 1025 enrolled, 48.7% of patients were PSP users while treated with ADA. The percentage of patients achieving MCID in the HAQ-DI was higher in PSP users vs. PSP non-users (48.1 vs. 37.8%) at week 78 ( p < 0.001, NRI). Most of the studied clinical outcomes and PROs showed significant improvements ( p < 0.05) from baseline to week 78 favoring PSP users over PSP non-users. Conclusions: In patients with moderate-to-severe RA who initiated ADA, improvements in clinical, functional, and PROs were achieved in real-world settings with significantly greater improvements among PSP users in comparison with PSP non-users. Funding: AbbVie. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01383421. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. To investigate changes in neutrophil count and occurrences of infection in RA patients treated with the IL-6 receptor-a inhibitor tocilizumab (TCZ). Methods. Data were pooled from patients who received i.v. TCZ (4mg/kg + MTX, 8 mg/kg ± DMARDs, 10 mg/kg) or placebo + DMARDs in phase 3/4 clinical trials, long-term extensions or a pharmacology study. Neutrophil counts were measured routinely according to the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events grades; TCZ dosing was adjusted if necessary. Covariates associated with decreased neutrophil counts were assessed with multivariate regression analysis. Infection rates within 30 days of neutrophil count changes were calculated per 100 patient-years of TCZ exposure. Results. In placebo-controlled parts of trials, more TCZ-treated than placebo-treated patients had grade 1/2 or 3/4 neutrophil counts (TCZ: 28.2%/3.1%; placebo: 8.9%/0.2%). In placebo-controlled trials + longterm extensions, 4171 patients provided 16204.8 patient-years of TCZ exposure. Neutrophil counts decreased through week 6 from baseline [mean (S.D.) change, -2.17 (2.16) X 109/l) and remained stable thereafter. Rates (95% CI) of serious infections within 30 days of normal [4.66 (4.31, 5.03)], grade 1/2 [2.48 (1.79, 3.34)] and 3/4 [2.77 (0.34, 10.01)] neutrophil counts were similar. Baseline neutrophil count <2 X 109/l and female gender were associated with grade 3/4 neutrophil counts [odds ratio (OR) (95% CI): 19.02 (6.76, 53.52), 2.55 (1.40, 4.66)]. Patients who stopped TCZ in response to decreased neutrophil count returned more quickly to normal levels than patients who reduced or continued their dose. Conclusion. Decreases in neutrophil counts in patients taking TCZ do not appear to be associated with serious infections and are normalized by current risk mitigation guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on ankylosing spondylitis which may cause significant morbidity and affect both the individual and society. It stresses the importance of early diagnosis to manage the condition and in some cases, induce remission. It discusses how diagnosis must be confirmed and evidence-based treatment options which include biologic therapy and physiotherapy. It suggests that general practitioners refer suspected cases to a rheumatology service.

Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of etoricoxib, a cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 selective inhibitor, versus non-selective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (nsNSAIDs) in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Methods: The cost-effectiveness of etoricoxib versus nsNSAIDs was evaluated from the UK National Health Service (NHS) and society perspective with a decision-analytic model. Patients stayed on initial therapy throughout 52 weeks unless they experienced an adverse event (AE) or lacked efficacy, in which case they switched to another nsNSAID or a tumor necrosis factor alpha antagonist. Efficacy data were obtained from a 1-year etoricoxib clinical trial in AS. Bath AS Functional Index (BASFI) data were translated into Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) weights using a published data on the relation between BASFI and Short-form (SF) 36 Quality of life scores, as well as the relation between SF-36 and utility. Safety data were based on meta-analyses of etoricoxib trials. Information on treatment pathways, resource consumption, and absenteeism from work was obtained from literature and experts. Model outcomes included QALYs, perforations, ulcers, or bleeds, cardiovascular events, and costs. Results: Etoricoxib was cost-effective compared to nsNSAIDs in terms of cost per QALY saved ( pound5611). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis found a 77% probability of the incremental cost per QALY saved being within a threshold for cost-effectiveness of pound20 000. The expected direct costs over the 52-week period were pound1.23 (95% uncertainty distribution pound1.10; pound1.39) and pound1.13 per day ( pound0.78; pound1.55) for patients starting with etoricoxib and nsNSAIDs, respectively. When costs related to absenteeism were taken into account, the cost per QALY saved was pound281. Conclusions: Given the underlying assumptions and data used, this economic evaluation demonstrated that, compared to nsNSAIDs, etoricoxib is a cost-effective therapy for AS patients in the UK. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: (1) To describe a case of necrotizing group A streptococcal periorbital infection in a patient receiving treatment with adalimumab (Humira, Abbott)-- a fully humanized monoclonal anti-TNF-αα agent. (2) To identify bacterial species responsible for infection with different forms of biological therapy. Design: Single interventional case report and literature review. Case: A 57-year-old woman developed severe right-sided necrotizing periorbital infection whilst receiving treatment with adalimumab for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Cultures grew Lancefield Group A Streptococcus pyogenes. An extensive literature search for reports of ocular infections associated with biological therapy was conducted. Results: Adalimumab therapy was discontinued and the patient was admitted to an intensive care unit. The patient made a complete recovery after receiving appropriate antibiotic therapy. Overall Gram-positive cocci are the most common infection associated with use of biological therapy. Conclusions: Anti-TNF-αα agents are powerful immune-modulating drugs with potentially serious side effects. This case is the first to link adalimumab to necrotizing periorbital infection. Resolved infection does not preclude reintroduction of anti-TNF therapy however, careful assessment of the risks versus benefits of therapy is required at the individual patient level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]