Search

Introduction: The safety of tofacitinib in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been demonstrated in clinical studies of ≤ 4 and 9.5 years, respectively. Post-marketing surveillance (PMS) data for tofacitinib from spontaneous and voluntary adverse event (AE) reports have been published for RA, but not PsA. To inform the real-world safety profile of tofacitinib in PsA, we evaluated AE reports submitted to the Pfizer safety database (including RA data for context). Methods: Endpoints included AEs, serious AEs (SAEs), AEs of special interest (AESIs; serious infections, herpes zoster, cardiovascular events, malignancies, venous thromboembolism), and fatal cases. Exposure was estimated using IQVIA global commercial sales data. Number, frequency, and reporting rates (RRs; number of events/100 patient-years' [PY] exposure) were summarized by indication and formulation (immediate release [IR] 5 or 10 mg twice daily], modified release [MR] 11 mg once daily, or all tofacitinib). The data-collection period differed by indication (PsA: 14 December 2017 [US approval, IR/MR] to 6 November 2021; RA: 6 November 2012 [US approval, IR] to 6 November 2021; MR approval, 24 February 2016). Results: A total of 73,525 case reports were reviewed (PsA = 5394/RA = 68,131), with 20,706/439,370 PY (PsA/RA) of exposure. More AEs were reported for IR versus MR (IR/MR: PsA = 8349/7602; RA = 137,476/82,153). RRs for AEs (IR/MR: PsA = 59.6/113.4; RA = 44.0/64.8) and SAEs (PsA = 8.1/13.6; RA = 8.0/9.5) were higher with MR versus IR. AE RRs (RA) in the first 4 years after IR approval were 95.9 (IR; 49,439 PY) and 147.0 (MR; 2000 PY). Frequency of SAEs, AESIs, and fatal cases was mostly similar across formulations and indications. The most frequently-reported AE Preferred Terms (PsA/RA) included drug ineffective (20.0%/17.8%), pain (9.7%/10.6%), condition aggravated (9.9%/10.5%), headache (8.8%/7.9%) and, for PsA, off-label use (10.5%/3.4%). Conclusions: Tofacitinib PMS safety data from submitted AE reports were consistent between PsA and RA, and aligned with its known safety profile. Exposure data (lower MR versus IR; estimation from commercial sales data), reporting bias, reporter identity, and regional differences in formulation use limit interpretation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This post hoc analysis evaluated influenza adverse events (AEs) across rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ulcerative colitis (UC), and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) tofacitinib clinical programs. Methods: Available data from phase 1, randomized phase 2/3/3b/4 clinical trials (completed by 2018), and long-term extension (LTE) studies (up to May 2019) in patients with RA, UC, and PsA were included [randomized or Overall (phase 1–3b/4 and LTE studies) tofacitinib cohorts]. Incidence rates (IRs; events per 100 patient-years) of combined influenza AEs (seasons 2004/2005 to 2018/2019) were analyzed, including by tofacitinib dose [5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID)] and age (< 65 versus ≥ 65 years). Logistic regression models evaluated risk factors for influenza AEs in the RA Overall tofacitinib cohort. Results: In randomized cohorts, combined influenza AE IRs were generally similar across tofacitinib, adalimumab, methotrexate, and placebo groups, across indications. Among Overall tofacitinib cohorts, combined influenza AE IRs with tofacitinib 5/10 mg BID, respectively, were higher in the UC (3.66/5.09) versus RA (2.38/2.19) and PsA (1.74/1.29) cohorts. IRs were generally similar across tofacitinib dose and age groups. Most influenza AEs were nonserious and did not require changes to tofacitinib treatment. Significant risk factors for influenza AEs in patients with RA were geographic region, baseline oral corticosteroid and methotrexate use, and tofacitinib dose. Conclusions: In the RA, UC, and PsA clinical programs, combined influenza AE IRs were highest in UC, while in each indication they were generally similar across tofacitinib, placebo, and comparator groups. Influenza AEs were predominantly nonserious and not associated with changes to tofacitinib treatment. Trial Registration Numbers: NCT01262118, NCT01484561, NCT00147498, NCT00413660, NCT00550446, NCT00603512, NCT00687193, NCT01164579, NCT00976599, NCT01059864, NCT01359150, NCT02147587, NCT00960440, NCT00847613, NCT00814307, NCT00856544, NCT00853385, NCT01039688, NCT02281552, NCT02187055, NCT02831855, NCT00413699, NCT00661661, NCT00787202, NCT01465763, NCT01458951, NCT01458574, NCT01470612, NCT01877668, NCT01882439, NCT01976364. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune disease requiring long-term treatment. Upadacitinib (UPA), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, is a new treatment for RA. The benefit–risk profile of a medication is best understood by evaluating the number needed to treat (NNT) and the number needed to harm (NNH). This analysis evaluated the comparative risk–benefit of UPA versus adalimumab (ADA). Methods: Post-hoc analyses were performed using data from the SELECT-COMPARE trial of UPA versus placebo (PBO) and UPA versus ADA among patients with active RA who remained on stable methotrexate (MTX) treatment and had an inadequate response; patients who failed to achieve response were rescued by predefined criteria—PBO or ADA switch to UPA, and UPA switch to ADA (all patients on PBO were switched to UPA at week 26). This analysis assessed efficacy and adverse events of special interest (AESIs) at week 26, 48, and 156 (3 years). NNT and NNH (95% confidence intervals) values were calculated between UPA versus ADA for all time points, and between UPA versus PBO for week 26. NNT and NNH values were applied to a hypothetical cohort of 100 patients to estimate the comparative efficacy and safety profiles. Results: UPA consistently showed greater efficacy than ADA, as evidenced by NNT values < 10 for achievement of Disease Activity Score in 28 joints based on C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) of < 2.6 and ≤ 3.2, respectively, and functional improvement. Based on indices for disease assessment other than the DAS28-CRP, remission outcomes were higher with UPA versus ADA over 26 weeks (NNTs: 7–12), 48 weeks (NNTs: 9–16), and 156 weeks (NNTs: 9–15). With the exception of herpes zoster, other AESIs demonstrated a similar risk with UPA versus ADA. Conclusion: In patients with active RA despite MTX use, UPA demonstrated an incremental achievement of clinical outcomes compared to ADA together with a similar profile of AESIs with ADA (with the exception of herpes zoster). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/objectives: ABP 798 is a proposed biosimilar to the originator biologic rituximab, an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody. This comparative clinical study evaluated the pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, and efficacy of ABP 798 versus rituximab reference product (RP) in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods: Adults with moderate-to-severe RA with an inadequate response or intolerance to other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs including 1 or more tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapies (n = 311) received ABP 798, US-sourced rituximab RP (rituximab US), or EU-sourced rituximab RP (rituximab EU) (1000 mg, 2 weeks apart). At week 24, ABP 798- or rituximab EU-treated subjects received a second dose of the same treatment, while rituximab US-treated subjects transitioned to receive ABP 798. The key efficacy endpoint was DAS28-CRP change from baseline at week 24. Other efficacy endpoints included DAS28-CRP at other time points; ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 criteria; and hybrid ACR. The rituximab RP groups were pooled for all efficacy endpoints since PK equivalence had been established between rituximab US and rituximab EU. Results: Clinical equivalence between ABP 798 and rituximab RP was established as the 90% confidence interval for DAS28-CRP change from baseline at week 24 fell within the prespecified equivalence margin (− 0.6, 0.6). Safety and immunogenicity profiles of ABP 798 were comparable across treatment groups and not affected by single transition from RP to ABP 798. Conclusions: Clinical equivalence in terms of efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity was established between ABP 798 and rituximab RP in this comparative clinical trial in patients with moderate-to-severe RA. Key Points • ABP 798 provided similar efficacy as rituximab reference product (RP) in patients with moderate-severe rheumatoid arthritis. • The safety and immunogenicity profiles for ABP 798 were similar to those for the rituximab RP. • The single transition from rituximab RP to ABP 798 did not show differences in efficacy, safety, or immunogenicity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]