Search

Yoshiya Tanaka,1 Mark C Genovese,2,3 Hironori Matsushima4 1The First Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Occupational and Environmental Health Japan, Kitakyushu, Japan; 2Division of Immunology and Rheumatology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA; 3Gilead Sciences, Inc, Foster City, CA, USA; 4Gilead Sciences, Inc, Tokyo, JapanCorrespondence: Yoshiya Tanaka, The First Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Occupational and Environmental Health Japan, 1-1 Iseigaoka, Yahata-nishi, Kitakyushu, 807-8555, Japan, Tel +81-93-603-1611, Fax +81-93-691-7580, Email tanaka@med.uoeh-u.ac.jpAbstract: Filgotinib is an orally administered, preferential Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor indicated for the treatment of moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The short-term safety, efficacy, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with filgotinib from Phase 2b/3 clinical trials (DARWIN 1 and 2; FINCH 1, 2, and 3) are described in patients who inadequately responded to methotrexate (MTX) and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or who were naïve to MTX. This article reviews the safety and efficacy from the long-term extension (LTE) trials, DARWIN 3 (N=739) and FINCH 4 (N=2731), and PROs across the filgotinib development program in RA. Overall, in the DARWIN clinical trials (conducted from 2013– 2023), patients received their LTE treatment for ≤ 8 years, while in the FINCH trials (ongoing from 2016– 2025), patients received filgotinib treatment for ≤ 6 years in the LTE. The longer-term safety profile and consistent, sustained efficacy (American College of Rheumatology 20/50/70, Clinical Disease Activity Index, and Disease Activity Scale in 28 joints with C-reactive protein response rates) of filgotinib were largely similar to those observed in the shorter-term parent trials ≤ 52 weeks. PRO results from the parent trials showed improvements in patients’ quality of life with filgotinib treatment, which compared to or exceeded improvements seen with placebo and active comparators (adalimumab, MTX). Filgotinib has a higher specificity for JAK1 compared with other therapeutic treatments, leading to reduced inhibition of JAK2/3–dependent pathways, potentially providing a distinct safety profile. Filgotinib is approved in Europe and Japan for treatment of people with moderate-to-severe RA, though it has not been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, due to concerns around the benefit/risk profile of the filgotinib 200-mg dosage and the potential impact on semen parameters.Keywords: Janus kinase inhibitors, selectivity, JAKi, disease-modifying antirheumatic drug, DMARD, RA

Objective: To examine the efficacy and safety of the humanized anti-interleukin-6 receptor antibody tocilizumab combined with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Methods: A total of 1,220 patients were randomized (2:1 ratio) in the phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter TOWARD (Tocilizumab in Combination With Traditional DMARD Therapy) study. Patients remained on stable doses of DMARDs and received tocilizumab 8 mg/kg or placebo (control group) every 4 weeks for 24 weeks.Results: At week 24, the proportion of patients achieving a response according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria for 20% improvement (ACR20) was significantly greater in the tocilizumab plus DMARD group than in the control group (61% versus 25%; P < 0.0001). Secondary end points including 50% or 70% improvement (ACR50/70), the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28), DAS28 remission responses (DAS28 <2.6), European League Against Rheumatism responses, and systemic markers such as the C-reactive protein and hemoglobin levels showed superiority of tocilizumab plus DMARDs over DMARDs alone. Seventy-three percent of patients in the tocilizumab group had >/= 1 adverse event (AE), compared with 61% of patients in the control group. AEs leading to withdrawal from the study were infrequent (4% of patients in the tocilizumab group and 2% of those in the control group). Serious AEs occurred in 6.7% and 4.3% of patients in the tocilizumab and control groups, respectively, and serious infections occurred in 2.7% and 1.9%, respectively. Elevations in the alanine aminotransferase level, from normal at baseline to >3-fold the upper limit of normal, occurred in 4% of patients in the tocilizumab group and 1% of those in the control group, and elevated total cholesterol levels were observed in 23% and 6% of patients, respectively. Sixteen patients started lipid-lowering therapy during the study. Grade 3 neutropenia occurred in 3.7% of patients receiving tocilizumab and none of the patients in the control group, and no grade 4 neutropenia was reported.Conclusion: Tocilizumab combined with any of the DMARDs evaluated was safe and effective in reducing articular and systemic symptoms in patients with an inadequate response to these agents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of treatment with rituximab plus methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an inadequate response to anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapies and to explore the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of rituximab in this population. METHODS: We evaluated primary efficacy and safety at 24 weeks in patients enrolled in the Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Efficacy of Rituximab in RA (REFLEX) Trial, a 2-year, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study of rituximab therapy. Patients with active RA and an inadequate response to 1 or more anti-TNF agents were randomized to receive intravenous rituximab (1 course, consisting of 2 infusions of 1,000 mg each) or placebo, both with background MTX. The primary efficacy end point was a response on the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) at 24 weeks. Secondary end points were responses on the ACR50 and ACR70 improvement criteria, the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, and the European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria at 24 weeks. Additional end points included scores on the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) Disability Index (DI), and Short Form 36 (SF-36) instruments, as well as Genant-modified Sharp radiographic scores at 24 weeks. RESULTS: Patients assigned to placebo (n = 209) and rituximab (n = 311) had active, longstanding RA. At week 24, significantly more (P < 0.0001) rituximab-treated patients than placebo-treated patients demonstrated ACR20 (51% versus 18%), ACR50 (27% versus 5%), and ACR70 (12% versus 1%) responses and moderate-to-good EULAR responses (65% versus 22%). All ACR response parameters were significantly improved in rituximab-treated patients, who also had clinically meaningful improvements in fatigue, disability, and health-related quality of life (demonstrated by FACIT-F, HAQ DI, and SF-36 scores, respectively) and showed a trend toward less progression in radiographic end points. Rituximab depleted peripheral CD20+ B cells, but the mean immunoglobulin levels (IgG, IgM, and IgA) remained within normal ranges. Most adverse events occurred with the first rituximab infusion and were of mild-to-moderate severity. The rate of serious infections was 5.2 per 100 patient-years in the rituximab group and 3.7 per 100 patient-years in the placebo group. CONCLUSION: At 24 weeks, a single course of rituximab with concomitant MTX therapy provided significant and clinically meaningful improvements in disease activity in patients with active, longstanding RA who had an inadequate response to 1 or more anti-TNF therapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether prasterone administration results in improvement or stabilization of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) disease activity and its symptoms. METHODS: Women with active SLE were treated with prasterone 200 mg/day plus standard SLE treatments or with placebo plus standard SLE treatments for up to 12 months in this randomized, double-blind investigation conducted at 27 centers. Standard SLE treatments included prednisone (/=6 weeks prior to enrollment and remain unchanged during protocol treatment. Responders were patients who experienced no clinical deterioration and had improvement or stabilization over the duration of the study in 2 disease activity measures (the SLE Disease Activity Index [SLEDAI] and the Systemic Lupus Activity Measure) and 2 quality of life measures (patient's global assessment and the Krupp Fatigue Severity Scale). RESULTS: A total of 381 women with SLE were enrolled. Among patients with clinically active disease at baseline (SLEDAI score >2), 86 of 147 in the prasterone group (58.5%) demonstrated improvement or stabilization without clinical deterioration, as compared with 65 of 146 in the placebo group (44.5%) (P = 0.017). Acne and hirsutism were reported in 33% and 16%, respectively, of the prasterone group and in 14% and 2%, respectively, of the placebo group (P < 0.05 for both comparisons). However, most cases of acne and hirsutism were mild and did not require withdrawal from therapy. Myalgias and oral stomatitis were reported less frequently in the prasterone group (22% and 15%, respectively) than in the placebo group (36% and 23%, respectively) (P < 0.05 for both comparisons). Serum levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, and C3 complement significantly decreased, while levels of testosterone and, to a lesser extent, estradiol increased in the prasterone group. CONCLUSION: In adult women with active SLE, administration of prasterone at a dosage of 200 mg/day improved or stabilized signs and symptoms of disease and was generally well tolerated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: To determine the potential for additive or synergistic effects of combination therapy with the selective anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha agent etanercept and the anti-interleukin-1 agent anakinra. METHODS: Two hundred forty-four patients in whom rheumatoid arthritis (RA) was active despite methotrexate therapy were treated with subcutaneous etanercept only (25 mg twice weekly), full-dosage etanercept (25 mg twice weekly) plus anakinra (100 mg/day), or half-dosage etanercept (25 mg once weekly) plus anakinra (100 mg/day) for 6 months in a double-blind study at 41 centers in the US. Patients had never previously received anticytokine therapy. Patient response was measured with the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) core set criteria, a health-related quality-of-life questionnaire, and the Disease Activity Score. Safety was assessed by the number of adverse events and clinical laboratory values. Plasma concentrations of both agents and antibody formation against both agents were also assessed. RESULTS: Combination therapy with etanercept plus anakinra provided no treatment benefit over etanercept alone, regardless of the regimen, but was associated with an increased safety risk. Thirty-one percent of the patients treated with full-dosage etanercept plus anakinra achieved an ACR 50% response, compared with 41% of the patients treated with etanercept only. This result was not statistically significant (P = 0.914). The incidence of serious infections (0% for etanercept alone, 3.7-7.4% for combination therapy), injection-site reactions, and neutropenia was increased with combination therapy. Combination therapy had no effect on the pharmacokinetics or immunogenicity of either agent. CONCLUSION: Combination therapy with etanercept and anakinra provides no added benefit and an increased risk compared with etanercept alone and is not recommended for the treatment of patients with RA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What Is This Summary About?: This summary explains the findings from a recent investigation that combined the results of over 1000 people from three clinical studies to understand the safety of evobrutinib. Evobrutinib is an oral medication (taken by mouth), being researched as a potential treatment for multiple sclerosis (MS). This medication was also investigated in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Over 1000 people have taken evobrutinib as part of three separate phase 2 clinical studies. These studies looked at how much of the drug should be taken, how safe the drug is, and how well it might work for treating a certain medical condition., What Were the Results?: Evobrutinib was well-tolerated by participants in all three studies. The number of side effects reported by participants taking the medication was very similar to those reported by participants taking the placebo (a 'dummy' treatment without a real drug). The most common side effects in clinical studies were urinary tract infections, headache, swelling of the nose and throat, diarrhoea and blood markers of potential liver damage (these returned to normal once the treatment was stopped)., What Do the Results Mean?: The safety data from all three clinical studies are encouraging and can be used to inform further research into using evobrutinib in MS. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02975349 (multiple sclerosis), NCT03233230 (rheumatoid arthritis), NCT02975336 (systemic lupus erythematosus) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Objective: Comorbidities in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) can influence treatment selection, impact treatment persistency, and increase health care costs. This study assessed the magnitude of comorbidity burden via epidemiology (incidence and prevalence) and associated costs of select comorbidities in RA patients: anemia, malignancy, venous thromboembolism (VTE), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and infections, stratified by history of disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) exposure., Methods: From the IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus database, we selected adult patients with RA (2 or more RA diagnostic codes at least 30 days apart) at initiation of a new DMARD (DMARD-naïve), after the first conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) or after the first biologic DMARD (bDMARD). We assessed pre-index prevalence (percentage) and on-treatment incidence (per 100 patient-years [P100PY]) of the aforementioned comorbidities. For patients with versus without incident conditions, we compared total all-cause health care costs as unadjusted and adjusted for baseline characteristics and health care costs., Results: Prior to initiating a new treatment, among DMARD-naïve patients (N = 28,201), csDMARD switchers (N = 7,816), or bDMARD switchers (N = 4,656), the overall prevalence ranged from 14.1% to 16.2% (anemia), from 1.3% to 5.2% (malignancy, evaluated in csDMARD and bDMARD switchers), from 1.5% to 2.1% (VTE), from 1.8% to 2.9% (MACE), and from 66.6% to 76.1% (infections). Once on index treatment, overall incidence (P100PY) among the cohorts ranged from 6.9 to 8.9 (anemia), from 2.0 to 2.3 (malignancy), from 0.7 to 0.9 (VTE), from 1.6 to 2.0 (MACE), and from 77.4 to 87.7 (infections). The incident comorbidities (except herpes zoster) were associated with increased adjusted health care costs., Conclusion: Anemia, malignancy, VTE, MACE, and infections affect patients with RA at all stages of their treatment journey and are associated with increased health care costs., (© 2021 The Authors. ACR Open Rheumatology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of sarilumab over 5 years in patients with RA refractory to TNF inhibitors (TNFis)., Methods: Patients in the 24-week randomized controlled trial (RCT) TARGET (NCT01709578) who received double-blind placebo or sarilumab 150 or 200 mg every 2 weeks (q2w), plus conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs), were eligible to receive open-label sarilumab 200 mg q2w plus csDMARDs in the open-label extension (OLE), EXTEND (NCT01146652). OLE dose reduction to 150 mg q2w was permitted per investigators' judgement or protocol-mandated safety concerns. Safety and efficacy were assessed through treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs), laboratory abnormalities and clinical DASs. All statistics are descriptive., Results: Of 546 patients, 454 (83%) were treated with sarilumab in the OLE. The cumulative observation period was 1654.8 patient-years (PY; n = 521); 268 patients (51%) had ≥4 years' exposure. Incidence rates per 100 PY of AEs, and AEs leading to discontinuation, infection and serious infection were 160.4, 8.1, 57.8 and 3.9, respectively. Neutropenia was the most common AE (15.3 per 100 PY). An absolute neutrophil count of <1000 cells/mm3 (Grade 3/4 neutropenia) was observed in 74 patients (14.2%) and normalized on treatment in 48. Clinical efficacy was sustained through 5 years' follow-up. Efficacy was similar for patients with 1 and >1 TNFi failure, and similar for patients who either remained on 200 mg or reduced to 150 mg., Conclusion: In patients with RA refractory to TNFi, sarilumab's long-term term safety profile was consistent with previous clinical studies and post-marketing reports. Efficacy was sustained over 5 years., Trial Registration: TARGET, ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01709578, NCT01709578; EXTEND, ClinicalTrials.gov, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01146652, NCT01146652., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of olokizumab (OKZ), an anti-interleukin (IL)-6 monoclonal antibody, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors., Methods: Eligible patients completed study RA0056, which tested several doses of OKZ, placebo (PBO), and tocilizumab (TCZ) plus methotrexate (MTX) in Western countries, and RA0083 included several doses of OKZ and PBO plus MTX in Asian countries. Both studies were followed by open-label extension (OLE) studies with OKZ 120 mg every 2 weeks, RA0057 and RA0089, respectively. Safety assessments were reported up to 124 weeks in RA0057 and 92 weeks in RA0089. Efficacy assessments were reported up to week 60 in RA0057 and week 52 in RA0089. No formal statistical hypothesis testing was performed, and missing data were not imputed., Results: A total of 190 patients in RA0057 and 103 patients in RA0089 received OKZ with median treatment duration of 14.1 and 10.1 months, respectively. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported in 44 patients (23.2%, 32.7 events per 100 patient-years [PY]) in RA0057 and in 13 patients (12.6%, 23.6 events per 100 PY) in RA0089. Among treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), including SAEs, infections were the most common events. TEAEs leading to withdrawal were reported in 33 (17.4%) patients in RA0057 and in 7 (6.8%) patients in RA0089. Disease activity score 28-joint count on the basis of C-reactive protein level, clinical disease activity index, and simplified disease activity index, as well as the American College of Rheumatology 20%, 50%, and 70% response rates were maintained during the OLE studies, including in those who switched from PBO or TCZ. Improvements in patient-reported outcomes were maintained in OLEs as well., Conclusion: In the 2 long-term studies, OKZ treatment demonstrated a safety profile expected for IL-6 blocking agents without new safety signals and led to sustained improvements in RA symptoms, physical function, and quality of life.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic and incurable autoimmune disease characterized by chronic inflammation in synovial lining of joints. To identify the signaling pathways involved in RA, its disease activity, and treatment response, we adapted a systems immunology approach to simultaneously quantify 42 signaling nodes in 21 immune cell subsets (e.g., IFNα→p-STAT5 in B cells) in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) from 194 patients with longstanding RA (including 98 patients before and after treatment), and 41 healthy controls (HC). We found multiple differences between patients with RA compared to HC, predominantly in cytokine-induced Jak/STAT signaling in many immune cell subsets, suggesting pathways that may be associated with susceptibility to RA. We also found that high RA disease activity, compared to low disease activity, was associated with decreased (e.g., IFNα→p-STAT5, IL-10→p-STAT1) or increased (e.g., IL-6→STAT3) response to stimuli in multiple cell subsets. Finally, we compared signaling in patients with established, refractory RA before and six months after initiation of methotrexate (MTX) or TNF inhibitors (TNFi). We noted significant changes from pre-treatment to post-treatment in IFNα→p-STAT5 signaling and IL-10→p-STAT1 signaling in multiple cell subsets; these changes brought the aberrant RA signaling profiles toward those of HC. This large, comprehensive functional signaling pathway study provides novel insights into the pathogenesis of RA and shows the potential of quantification of cytokine-induced signaling as a biomarker of disease activity or treatment response., Competing Interests: The authors have read the journal’s policies and declare the following competing interest: Nodality, Inc., a now inactive company, provided in-kind support for this work and investigators at Nodality played important roles in the study design, hands-on analysis of samples, and preparation of the manuscript. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Objectives: The aim of this integrated analysis is to evaluate the long-term safety and tolerability of ixekizumab in adults with psoriasis, PsA and axial SpA., Methods: Integrated safety data from 21 clinical trials are presented by indication in patients who received at least one dose of ixekizumab. Adverse events (AEs) and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) adjusted incidence rates (IRs) per 100 patient-years (PY) up to 5 years' exposure are reported., Results: A total of 8228 patients with an ixekizumab exposure of 20 895.9 PY were included in this analysis. The most common TEAEs were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection and injection-site reactions. Across populations, IRs were low for AEs leading to discontinuation (IRs ≤5.1 per 100 PY), serious AEs (IRs ≤6.0 per 100 PY) and death (IRs ≤0.3 per 100 PY). The most reported TEAEs of special interest were infections (IRs ≤35.8 per 100 PY). Patients rarely reported malignancies (IR ≤0.8), IBD including ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease (IR ≤0.8) and major adverse cardiovascular events (IR ≤0.5). TEAEs were most commonly reported the first 2 years of exposure with ixekizumab and IR decreased over the years (infections, injection-site reactions and depression) or remained constant over the entire treatment period (serious infections, major adverse cardiovascular events, malignancies and IBD)., Conclusion: This long-term analysis on the safety of ixekizumab was consistent with previously published reports and did not show any new safety signals. The safety profile and tolerability reported in this integrated analysis remained consistent with the known safety profile for ixekizumab., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

Background: Diabetes is common in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Interleukin (IL)-6 is implicated in both the pathogenesis of RA and in glucose homeostasis; this post hoc analysis investigated the effects of IL-6 receptor vs. tumour necrosis factor inhibition on glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in patients with RA with or without diabetes., Methods: Data were from two placebo-controlled phase III studies of subcutaneous sarilumab 150/200 mg q2w + methotrexate or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) and a phase III monotherapy study of sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs. adalimumab 40 mg q2w. Patients with diabetes were identified by medical history or use of antidiabetic medication (patients with HbA1c ≥ 9% were excluded from all three studies). HbA1c was measured at baseline and weeks 12/24. Safety and efficacy were assessed in RA patients with or without diabetes., Results: Patients with diabetes (n = 184) were older, weighed more and exhibited higher RA disease activity than patients without diabetes (n = 1928). Regardless of diabetes status, in patients on background csDMARDs, least squares (LS) mean difference (95% CI) in change from baseline in HbA1c for sarilumab 150 mg/200 mg vs. placebo at week 24 was - 0.28 (- 0.40, - 0.16; nominal p <  0.0001) and - 0.42 (- 0.54, - 0.31; nominal p <  0.0001), respectively. Without csDMARDs, LS mean difference for sarilumab 200 mg vs. adalimumab 40 mg at week 24 was - 0.13 (- 0.22, - 0.04; nominal p = 0.0043). Greater reduction in HbA1c than placebo or adalimumab was observed at week 24 with sarilumab in patients with diabetes and/or baseline HbA1c ≥ 7%. There was no correlation between baseline/change from baseline in HbA1c and baseline/change from baseline in C-reactive protein, 28-joint Disease Activity Score, or haemoglobin, nor between HbA1c change from baseline and baseline glucocorticoid use. Medical history of diabetes or use of diabetes treatments had limited impact on safety and efficacy of sarilumab and was consistent with overall phase III findings in patients with RA., Conclusions: In post hoc analyses, sarilumab was associated with a greater reduction in HbA1c than csDMARDs or adalimumab, independent of sarilumab anti-inflammatory effects. Prospective studies are required to further assess these preliminary findings., Trial Registration: ClinTrials.gov NCT01061736: date of registration February 03, 2010; ClinTrials.gov NCT01709578: date of registration October 18, 2012; ClinTrials.gov NCT02332590: date of registration January 07, 2015.

Objective: The development of biomarkers to guide treatment decisions is a major research focus in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Patients with RA have elevated interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels; however, the utility of IL-6 as a predictor of treatment response is unclear. This study was undertaken to investigate, by post hoc analysis, whether baseline IL-6 levels are predictive of sarilumab treatment responses in 2 phase III studies., Methods: Serum IL-6 concentrations were measured in patients with RA prior to receiving sarilumab 200 mg (n = 148) or adalimumab 40 mg (n = 152) every 2 weeks (in the MONARCH trial; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02332590) or sarilumab 150 mg, sarilumab 200 mg, or placebo every 2 weeks plus methotrexate (MTX) (n = 401, n = 396, and n = 397, respectively) (in the MOBILITY trial; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01061736). Efficacy and patient-reported outcomes were compared between and within groups according to IL-6 tertile using linear and logistic regression., Results: In MONARCH, patients with high baseline IL-6 levels (all ≥3 times the upper limit of normal; n = 100) had higher disease activity at baseline than those with low IL-6 levels (n = 100). The magnitude of clinical improvement over 24 weeks with sarilumab versus adalimumab was greater in patients with high compared to those with low baseline IL-6 levels. In MOBILITY, compared to patients with low IL-6 levels (n = 397), patients with high IL-6 levels (n = 398) had higher disease activity and joint damage at baseline, were more likely to have joint progression, and had less clinical improvement over 52 weeks' treatment with placebo plus MTX compared to sarilumab 150 mg or 200 mg plus MTX. Baseline IL-6 and C-reactive protein levels were both predictive of outcomes. Safety profiles were similar between defined IL-6 tertiles., Conclusion: IL-6 may be a prognostic marker of disease progression and severity, and patients with high IL-6 levels may be likely to benefit from sarilumab compared to adalimumab or MTX. Prospective validation is warranted to confirm the results of these post hoc analyses., (© 2020 Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. Arthritis & Rheumatology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: Phase III clinical trials of the tumour necrosis factor inhibitors SB4, SB2, and SB5 (biosimilars to etanercept, infliximab, and adalimumab, respectively) have demonstrated efficacy in moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Data from these trials were used to identify baseline characteristics associated with radiographic progression and to build a matrix risk model for its prediction., Methods: Patients with radiographic progression and baseline demographic and disease characteristic data were pooled across the 3 phase III studies of each biosimilar and its reference product. Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were evaluated for their relationship with radiographic progression (1-year mean change in mTSS > 0); 3 factors were selected based on strongest Pearson's correlation coefficient with the change in modified Total Sharp Score. Univariate logistic regression was performed to assess the association between each baseline factor and the rate of radiographic progression, with subsequent matrix model development performed using multivariate logistic regression., Results: A total of 1371 patients were included in the analysis, with a radiographic progression rate of 27.4%. The 3 baseline predictors of radiographic progression, based on Pearson's correlation coefficient, were 28 swollen joint count (SJC28), C-reactive protein (CRP), and physician global assessment (PhGA). A matrix model showed that the predicted risk of radiographic progression was higher with the increased level of SJC28, CRP, and PhGA (P < 0.001)., Conclusions: In this pooled analysis of phase III clinical trial data of biosimilars for RA, identifiable baseline factors (SJC28, CRP, and PhGA) associated with radiographic progression were similar to those described in prior studies. Even though radiographic progression was minimal, a small number of patients who have increased SJC28, CRP, and PhGA at baseline should be closely monitored and follow treat-to-target approach., Clinical Trial Registration Numbers: EudraCT 2012-005026-30. Registered 30 April 2013, https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2012-005026-30/results EudraCT 2012-005733-37. Registered 10 July 2013, https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2012-005733-37/results EudraCT 2013-005013-13. Registered 01 April 2014, https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2013-005013-13/results.

Background: The interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor sarilumab demonstrated efficacy in combination with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) or as monotherapy in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an inadequate response (IR) or intolerant (INT) to methotrexate (MTX) or tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitors. This analysis investigated the efficacy and safety of sarilumab in patient subgroups., Methods: Data were included from phase III studies: two placebo-controlled studies of subcutaneous sarilumab 150/200 mg every 2 weeks (q2w) either + MTX in MTX-IR patients (52 weeks) or + csDMARDs in TNF-IR/INT patients (24 weeks), and a monotherapy study of sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs. adalimumab 40 mg q2w in MTX-IR/INT patients (24 weeks). Prespecified and post hoc subgroups included patient demographics, disease characteristics, and prior treatments. Prespecified and post hoc endpoints included clinical, radiographic, and physical function measures, and p values are considered nominal. Safety was assessed during double-blind treatment., Results: The superiority of sarilumab (either as monotherapy vs. adalimumab or in combination with csDMARDs vs. placebo + csDMARDs) across clinical endpoints was generally consistent across subgroups defined by patient demographics, disease characteristics, and prior treatments, demonstrating the benefit of sarilumab treatment for a wide range of patient types. Interaction p values of < 0.05 were consistently observed across studies only for baseline anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody (ACPA) status for American College of Rheumatology 20% response, but not American College of Rheumatology 50% or 70% response. Adverse events and worsening laboratory parameters occurred more frequently in sarilumab-treated vs. placebo-treated patients and were more frequent in the small number of patients ≥ 65 years (n = 289) vs. patients < 65 years (n = 1819). Serious infections occurred in six patients aged ≥ 65 years receiving sarilumab, although the incidence of serious infections was generally higher in patients aged ≥ 65 years regardless of treatment., Conclusions: Apart from ACPA status, there were no consistent signals indicating differential effects of sarilumab in any of the subpopulations assessed. Sarilumab demonstrated consistent efficacy and safety across a wide range of patients with RA., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01061736, registered on February 03, 2010; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01709578, registered on October 18, 2012; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02332590, registered on January 07, 2015.

Objective: To evaluate fenebrutinib, an oral and highly selective non-covalent inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK), in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA)., Methods: Patients with RA and inadequate response to methotrexate (cohort 1, n=480) were randomized to fenebrutinib (50 mg once daily, 150 mg once daily, 200 mg twice daily), 40 mg adalimumab every other week, or placebo. Patients with RA and inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (cohort 2, n=98) received fenebrutinib (200 mg twice daily) or placebo. Both cohorts continued methotrexate therapy., Results: In cohort 1, American College of Rheumatology scores (ACR50) at week 12 were similar for fenebrutinib 50 mg once daily and placebo, and higher for fenebrutinib 150 mg once daily (28%) and 200 mg twice daily (35%) than placebo (15%) (p=0.017; p=0.0003). Fenebrutinib 200 mg twice daily and adalimumab (36%) were comparable (p=0.81). In cohort 2, more patients achieved ACR50 with fenebrutinib 200 mg twice daily (25%) than placebo (12%) (p=0.072). The most common adverse events for fenebrutinib included nausea, headache, anemia, and upper respiratory tract infections. Fenebrutinib had significant effects on myeloid and B cell biomarkers (CCL4 and rheumatoid factor). Fenebrutinib and adalimumab caused overlapping as well as distinct changes in B cell and myeloid biomarkers., Conclusion: Fenebrutinib demonstrated efficacy comparable to adalimumab in patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate, and safety consistent with existing immunomodulatory therapies for RA. These data support targeting both B and myeloid cells via this novel mechanism for potential efficacy in the treatment of RA., (This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.)

Background/objective: FKB327 is a biosimilar of the antitumour necrosis factor adalimumab reference product (RP). A randomised, double-blind (DB) phase 3 study compared the efficacy of FKB327 with the RP in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) inadequately controlled with methotrexate (MTX). A subsequent randomised open-label extension (OLE) study with treatment switching assessed long-term safety, efficacy, pharmacokinetics and immunogenicity of FKB327 compared with the RP., Methods: Patients with moderate-to-severe, active RA on a stable dose of MTX were randomised 1:1 to receive FKB327 or the RP (40 mg subcutaneously every other week) for 24 weeks. Patients who completed the DB study were enrolled in the OLE and rerandomised 2:1 to receive FKB327 or the RP; two-thirds continued on the same treatment and one-third switched for 30 weeks. All patients received FKB327 through Week 76. Long-term efficacy, safety and immunogenicity were assessed., Results: Of 728 patients in the DB study, 645 were enrolled in the FKB327-OLE study. The American College of Rheumatology (ACR)20 response rates for all treatment groups at Week 30 in the OLE ranged from 83.2% to 85.9%. ACR20 response rates remained stable for all patients regardless of single- or double-switching treatment and were similar for all treatment sequences through Week 76. The safety profile and incidence of antidrug antibodies were comparable across sequences., Conclusion: Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity were similar among patients with RA treated with FKB327 or the RP for up to 2 years, and were not affected by single- or double-switching treatment., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MG has received consultant fees from Fujifilm Kyowa Kirin Biologics Co., including for the design of this trial. HK has no conflicts of interest to report. YA is an employee of Fujifilm Kyowa Kirin Biologics Co. and has received personal fees from the company, both during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work. RM is an employee and shareholder of Mylan Inc. RA has received consultant fees from Mylan Inc and has been a paid speaker for Mylan Inc., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To address heterogeneity complicating primary SS (pSS) clinical trials, research and care by characterizing and clustering patients by their molecular phenotypes., Methods: pSS patients met American-European Consensus Group classification criteria and had at least one systemic manifestation and stimulated salivary flow of ⩾0.1 ml/min. Correlated transcriptional modules were derived from gene expression microarray data from blood (n = 47 with appropriate samples). Patients were clustered based on this molecular information using an unbiased random forest modelling approach. In addition, multiplex, bead-based assays and ELISAs were used to assess 30 serum cytokines, chemokines and soluble receptors. Eleven autoantibodies, including anti-Ro/SSA and anti-La/SSB, were measured by Bio-Rad Bioplex 2200., Results: Transcriptional modules distinguished three clusters of pSS patients. Cluster 1 showed no significant elevation of IFN or inflammation modules. Cluster 2 showed strong IFN and inflammation modular network signatures, as well as high plasma protein levels of IP-10/CXCL10, MIG/CXCL9, BLyS (BAFF) and LIGHT. Cluster 3 samples exhibited moderately elevated IFN modules, but with suppressed inflammatory modules, increased IP-10/CXCL10 and B cell-attracting chemokine 1/CXCL13 and trends toward increased MIG/CXCL9, IL-1α, and IL-21. Anti-Ro/SSA and anti-La/SSB were present in all three clusters., Conclusion: Molecular profiles encompassing IFN, inflammation and other signatures can be used to separate patients with pSS into distinct clusters. In the future, such profiles may inform patient selection for clinical trials and guide treatment decisions., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: ABP 710 is being developed as a biosimilar to infliximab reference product (RP). Analytical similarity and pharmacokinetic equivalence between the two have been previously demonstrated. Here we report results from a comparative clinical study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of ABP 710 relative to the RP in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA)., Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 50-week equivalence study, patients with moderate to severe active RA despite methotrexate received 3-mg/kg infusions of ABP 710 or RP at predetermined intervals based on initial randomization and then with re-randomization at week 22. The primary endpoint was response difference (RD) of ACR20 at week 22, with clinical equivalence evaluated based on 90% CI of - 15%, 15%. Secondary endpoints included Disease Activity Score 28-joint count C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP), ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 across time, as well as safety and immunogenicity assessments., Results: A total of 558 patients were randomized for the initial treatment (ABP 710 n = 279; RP n = 279). The estimated RD of ACR20 at week 22 was 9.37% with 90% CI (2.67%, 15.96%). The lower bound was within the pre-specified criteria, thus confirming non-inferiority; the upper bound exceeded the pre-specified criteria by 0.96% such that superiority could not be ruled out statistically. In a post hoc analysis with adjustment for random imbalance in baseline factors, the CI of RD was narrowed (0.75%, 13.62%). Changes from baseline in DAS28-CRP as well as ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 response rates across time and hybrid ACR evaluations were similar for the initial and initial/re-randomized treatment groups. Adverse events and incidence of anti-drug antibodies were similar between treatment groups., Conclusions: These efficacy and safety results support similarity with no clinically meaningful differences between ABP 710 and infliximab RP. Although we were unable to statistically confirm non-superiority, post hoc analysis was supportive of non-superiority. DAS28-CRP, ACR20, ACR50, ACR70, and hybrid ACR evaluations over the entire study were consistently comparable as were safety and immunogenicity., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov. Identifier: NCT02937701. Registered August 30, 2016.

Background: Reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV) replication is a well-recognised complication in patients receiving disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Limited data exist on HBV reactivation among patients with RA treated with janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. The objective of the current study was to assess HBV reactivation in clinical trials of baricitinib, an oral selective JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor in RA., Methods: Data were integrated from four completed Phase 3 trials and one ongoing long-term extension (data up to 1 April 2017) in patients naïve to DMARDs or who had inadequate response (IR) to DMARDs including methotrexate (MTX)-IR and/or other conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD)-IR, or tumour necrosis factor inhibitors-IR. Within the clinical programme, baricitinib-treated patients may have received concomitant csDMARDs including MTX, or previous treatment with active comparators including MTX or adalimumab + MTX. At screening, all patients were tested for HBV surface antigen (HBsAg), core antibody (HBcAb) and surface antibody (HBsAb). Patients were excluded if they had (1) HBsAg+, (2) HBcAb+/HBsAb- (in Japan, could enrol if HBV DNA-) or (3) HBsAb+ and HBV DNA+. HBV DNA monitoring, following randomisation in the originating Phase 3 studies, was performed in Japan for patients with HBcAb+ and/or HBsAb+ at screening, and was later instituted globally for HBcAb+ patients in accordance with evolving guidance for HBV monitoring and management with immunomodulatory therapy., Results: In total, 2890 patients received at least one dose of baricitinib in Phase 3 (6993 patient-years exposure). Of 215 patients with baseline serology suggestive of prior HBV infection (HbcAb+) who received a post-baseline DNA test, 32 (14.9%) were HBV DNA+ at some point following treatment initiation; 8 of 215 patients (3.7%) had a single quantifiable result (≥29 IU/mL). Of these eight patients, four met the definition of reactivation of HBV (HBV DNA level ≥100 IU/mL); baricitinib was permanently discontinued in four patients, and temporarily interrupted in two patients. No patient developed clinical evidence of hepatitis and in five of eight patients, antiviral therapy was not used., Conclusion: HBV reactivation can occur among RA patients treated with DMARDs, including baricitinib, with prior HBV exposure. Our data suggest that such patients should be monitored for HBV DNA during treatment and might be treated safely with the use of antiviral therapy as needed. The risk of HBV reactivation in patients with HBsAg treated with baricitinib is unknown., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MH has received grants/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb K.K, Eisai, Ono Pharmaceuticals and Takeda Pharmaceutical; and consultant fees for Eli Lilly and Company. KW has received grants/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer; and consultant fees for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, Pfizer and UCB. TT has received consultant and/or speaker fees from: AbbVie GK, Asahi Kasei Medical K.K, Astellas Pharma Inc, Astra Zeneca K.K, Bristol-Myers Squibb K.K., Celltrion, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K., Merck Serono, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma. TYH has nothing to disclose. YMC received research support from: Janssen and Pfizer, speaker fees from: AbbVie, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Chugai, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB. JS has received grant/research support from AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer and Roche; and consultant fees from: AbbVie, Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, Astro, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, ILTOO, Janssen, Medimmune, MSD, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi-Aventis and UCB. GB has received research support from: Eli Lilly and Company; and consultant and/or speaker fees from: Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Novartis and Pfizer. MG has received grant/research support and/or consultant fees from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos and Pfizer. CW, WSW, CD, and RL are current employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly and Company., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: Sarilumab is a human monoclonal antibody that blocks IL-6 from binding to membrane-bound and soluble IL-6 receptor-α. We assessed the long-term safety of sarilumab in patients from eight clinical trials and their open-label extensions., Methods: Data were pooled from patients with rheumatoid arthritis who received at least one dose of sarilumab in combination with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs; combination group) or as monotherapy (monotherapy group). Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) and AEs and laboratory values of special interest were assessed., Results: 2887 patients received sarilumab in combination with csDMARDs and 471 patients received sarilumab monotherapy, with mean exposure of 2.8 years and 1.7 years, maximum exposure 7.3 and 3.5 years, and cumulative AE observation period of 8188 and 812 patient-years, respectively. Incidence rates per 100 patient-years in the combination and monotherapy groups, respectively, were 9.4 and 6.7 for serious AEs, 3.7 and 1.0 for serious infections, 0.6 and 0.5 for herpes zoster (no cases were disseminated), 0.1 and 0 for gastrointestinal perforations, 0.5 and 0.2 for major adverse cardiovascular events, and 0.7 and 0.6 for malignancy. Absolute neutrophil counts <1000 cells/mm3 were recorded in 13% and 15% of patients, respectively. Neutropenia was not associated with increased risk of infection or serious infection. Analysis by 6-month interval showed no signal for increased rate of any AE over time., Conclusion: The long-term safety profile of sarilumab, either in combination with csDMARDs or as monotherapy, remained stable and consistent with the anticipated profile of a molecule that inhibits IL6 signalling., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

Background: The long-term safety was assessed in patients with psoriatic arthritis who were treated with ixekizumab in three clinical trials (SPIRIT-P1/-P2/-P3)., Methods: Integrated safety data from three trials (controlled and uncontrolled), including two pivotal phase 3, randomized, double-blind clinical trials: SPIRIT-P1 and SPIRIT-P2, were assessed. Safety data were integrated from the all ixekizumab exposure safety population (defined as all patients receiving ≥ 1 dose of ixekizumab). We report exposure-adjusted incidence rates (IRs) per 100 patient-years (PY) at 1-year intervals up to 3 years for adverse events., Results: Total exposure to IXE reached 1822.2 PY (1118 patients). The IRs/100 PY for the following treatment discontinuations were as follows: adverse events (5.3); serious infections (1.3); injection-site reactions (12.7); infections (34.2); and deaths (0.3). The IRs for treatment-emergent adverse events decreased or remained stable over time, the most common being upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, and injection-site reactions. The IRs for serious adverse events and serious infections remained stable over time, whereas for injection-site reactions and general infections, IRs decreased with longer ixekizumab exposure. Opportunistic infections were limited to oral and esophageal candida and localized herpes zoster. No suicide or self-injury-related behaviors were reported. The IRs/100 PY for safety topics of special interest included inflammatory bowel disease (adjudicated; 0.1), depression (1.6), malignancies (0.7), and major adverse cardiovascular events (0.6)., Conclusions: The findings of this integrated safety analysis in patients with psoriatic arthritis are consistent with the known safety profile of ixekizumab. No unexpected safety signals were observed with ixekizumab treatment in patients with psoriatic arthritis., Trial Registration: SPIRIT-P1 (NCT01695239; Registered August 08, 2012), SPIRIT-P2 (NCT02349295; September 23, 2014), and SPIRIT-P3 (NCT02584855; August 04, 2015).

Objective: To evaluate the relationship between disease activity and radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis, three phase III studies of SB4, SB2 and SB5 (biosimilars of etanercept, infliximab and adalimumab) were pooled to assess radiographic progression by disease activity status., Methods: Patients from each study with radiographic data were pooled and grouped based on disease activity state (remission, low disease activity (LDA), moderate disease activity (MDA) and high disease activity (HDA)), determined by disease activity score based on 28-joint count (DAS28) per erythrocyte sedimentation rate, Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) at different time points. Mean change in modified Total Sharp Score (mTSS) and the proportion of radiographic non-progressors of higher disease activity groups (LDA, MDA and HDA) in reference to remission were summarised descriptively, with comparison of ORs using logistic models., Results: 1265 patients were included. In all treatments combined, the 1 year mean change in mTSS was 0.03, 0.4, 0.3 and 1.3 and proportion of radiographic non-progressors was 79.8%, 78.1%, 74.1% and 58.4% in the week 24/30 DAS28-determined remission, LDA, MDA and HDA groups, respectively. ORs (95% CIs) of the proportion of non-progressors were lowest in the HDA group in reference to remission (0.35 (0.23 to 0.54)), followed by MDA (0.72 (0.50 to 1.05)) and LDA (0.90 (0.55 to 1.48)) groups. Similar trends were observed when disease activity was assessed using SDAI or CDAI., Conclusion: A pooled analysis of radiographic assessment data from three biosimilar studies showed that radiographic progression is small overall but increases with worse disease activity., Trial Registration Numbers: NCT01895309, NCT01936181 and NCT02167139., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JSS has received personal remuneration from AbbVie, Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, Astro, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celltrion, ILTOO, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis-Sandoz, Novo-Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi and UCB and research funding from AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer and Roche. MEW has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Crescendo Bioscience and Sanofi/Regeneron; has served as a consultant and/or advisory board member for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Crescendo Bioscience, Corrona, GSK, Gilead, Lilly, Lycera, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis and Set Point; and has financial interests/stock ownership in Lycera, Canfite, Scipher and Vorso. PE has been a clinical trials investigator and advisor to Pfizer, MSD, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, UCB, Roche, Novartis, Samsung, Sandoz and Lilly and has received consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie, Gilead, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche and UCB; his employer has received research grants from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, MSD and Roche. EK has received research funding from AbbVie, Amgen, Lilly, Gilead, Pfizer, PuraPharm, Sanofi and Merck; has served as a consultant and/or advisory board member for AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Crescendo Bioscience, Roche, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi and Samsung Bioepis; and has received speaker honoraria for Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi and UCB. MCG has received research funding from AbbVie; has received consulting fees from Samsung Bioepis, Merck, Abbvie, Amgen and FKB. GM, EH, IB and JG are employees of Samsung Bioepis., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To compare the efficacy, serum drug concentrations, immunogenicity, and safety of FKB327 with the adalimumab reference product (RP) in combination with methotrexate in patients with moderate-to-severe, active rheumatoid arthritis (RA)., Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 in a double-blind study (NCT02260791), received 40 mg of FKB327 or RP by subcutaneous injection every other week for 24 weeks (Period I), then re-randomized 2:1, remaining on the same study drug or switching to the other up to week 54 in an open-label extension (Period II, NCT02405780). Efficacy was evaluated using American College of Rheumatology (ACR20) response rate difference at week 24 with equivalence margins of ± 13% and - 12% to + 15% using 95% and 90% confidence intervals (CIs), respectively. Efficacy, serum drug concentrations, immunogenicity, and safety were compared at week 54., Results: A total of 730 patients were randomized in Period I (n = 367 FKB327, n = 363 RP), and 645 transitioned to Period II (n = 216 FKB327-FKB327, n = 108 FKB327-RP, n = 108 RP-FKB327, n = 213 RP-RP). At week 24, ACR20 response rates were 74.1% with FKB327 versus 75.7% with RP. 95% and 90% CI of the response rate difference were - 7.9 to 4.7% and - 7.3 to 3.6%, respectively, meeting predefined equivalence margins. The ACR20 response rate remained over 70% of patients to week 54 with all treatment sequences. In Period I, mean trough serum drug concentrations were slightly higher for patients receiving FKB327 than those receiving RP. Mean concentrations were stable over time and reflected steady state in Period II. The proportions of patients with samples positive for neutralizing antidrug antibodies (ADAs) were comparable (57.7% with FKB327 vs. 55.5% with RP) at week 24, and no consistent difference in ADA were seen between continuous and switched treatments in Period II. Efficacy was slightly reduced in the small proportion of patients with high ADA titers in all treatment groups. No clinically significant differences were observed in the incidence of commonly reported treatment-emergent adverse events between the treatments across Periods I and II., Conclusion: FKB327 was equivalent to RP in clinical efficacy and demonstrated comparable safety and immunogenicity in patients with moderate-to-severe RA. No effect of switching between FKB327 and RP was observed., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02260791, Registered 29 July 2014. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02405780, Registered 17 July 2015.

Introduction: Peficitinib is a novel orally bioavailable, once-daily Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor approved in Japan for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This 2-year extension study of two global phase IIb trials investigated the long-term safety and effectiveness of peficitinib., Methods: All eligible patients with moderate-to-severe RA including patients in the placebo group who participated in one of two global phase IIb trials ('with methotrexate' or 'without methotrexate') were included in this 2-year open-label extension study and were converted to peficitinib 100 mg once daily. The primary objective was to evaluate an additional 2 years of safety by assessing treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) and clinical laboratory evaluations for 105 weeks. Evaluation of an additional 2 years of effectiveness using American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 responses was the exploratory objective., Results: Overall, 611 patients were enrolled in the extension study: 319 (52.2%) patients completed the study and 292 (48%) discontinued treatment, including for withdrawal of patient consent (n = 96), failure to achieve low disease activity (n = 62), and AE not including death (n = 41). AEs were reported in 463 (76%) patients. The most common AEs (per 100 patient-years) were upper respiratory tract infections (9.9) and urinary tract infections (7.2). Serious AEs were reported in 80 (13%) patients, with incidences per 100 patient-years of serious infections 2.7, herpes zoster 1.5 (including one herpes zoster ophthalmic), and malignancies 0.6 (most frequently basal cell carcinoma). At week 105, 269 (44%) patients demonstrated an ACR20 response relative to their respective phase IIb trial baselines., Conclusion: Among 319 patients who completed this 2-year extension of two global phase IIb studies, peficitinib 100 mg once daily demonstrated a stable safety profile and sustained effectiveness in patients with moderate-to-severe RA., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01711814. Registered 19 October 2012., Funding: Astellas Pharma Global Development, Inc.

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., (© 2019, American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: Evaluate open-label sarilumab monotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis switching from adalimumab monotherapy in MONARCH (NCT02332590); assess long-term safety and efficacy in patients continuing sarilumab during open-label extension (OLE)., Methods: During the 48-week OLE, patients received sarilumab 200 mg subcutaneously once every 2 weeks. Safety (March 2017 cut-off) and efficacy, including patient-reported outcomes, were evaluated., Results: In the double-blind phase, patients receiving sarilumab or adalimumab monotherapy showed meaningful improvements in disease activity; sarilumab was superior to adalimumab for improving signs, symptoms and physical function. Overall, 320/369 patients completing the 24-week double-blind phase entered OLE (155 switched from adalimumab; 165 continued sarilumab). Sarilumab safety profile was consistent with previous reports. Treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between groups; no unexpected safety signals emerged in the first 10 weeks postswitch. Among switch patients, improvement in disease activity was evident at OLE week 12: 47.1%/34.8% had changes ≥1.2 in Disease Activity Score (28 joints) (DAS28)-erythrocyte sedimentation rate/DAS28-C-reactive protein. In switch patients achieving low disease activity (LDA: Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) ≤10; Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) ≤11) by OLE week 24, 70.7%/69.5% sustained CDAI/SDAI LDA at both OLE weeks 36 and 48. Proportions of switch patients achieving CDAI ≤2.8 and SDAI ≤3.3 by OLE week 24 increased through OLE week 48. Improvements postswitch approached continuation-group values, including scores ≥normative values., Conclusions: During this OLE, there were no unexpected safety issues in patients switching from adalimumab to sarilumab monotherapy, and disease activity improved in many patients. Patients continuing sarilumab reported safety consistent with prolonged use and had sustained benefit., Competing Interests: Competing interests: GRB has received research grants or consulting fees or participated in speakers’ bureaus from/for AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and UCB. VS has received consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, CORRONA, Crescendo, Eli Lilly, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sandoz, Sanofi and UCB. AR-R has attended speakers’ bureaus for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Hexal/Novartis, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi and has provided consultancy for Chugai, Eli Lilly, Roche and Sanofi. HA has received grant/research support from AbbVie, Janssen and Pfizer, has attended speakers’ bureaus for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer and Sanofi and has provided consultancy for Merck Sharp & Dohme and Pfizer. TR has nothing to declare. AG-C has received research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Galapagos-Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB and YL Biologics and consulting/speakers’ fees or other remuneration from AbbVie, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gebro, Hospira, Janssen, Menarini, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Rubio, Sandoz, Sanofi and UCB. CP-R was formerly an employee of Sanofi, and may hold stock and/or stock options in the company. LG is an employee of Sanofi Genzyme, and may hold stock and/or stock options in the company. KT is a former employee of Sanofi Genzyme, may hold stock and/or stock options in the company, and is currently employed by EMD Serono. GSJ and SB are employees of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and may hold stock and/or stock options in the company. MCG has received research grants and/or consulting fees from GlaxoSmithKline, R-Pharm, Roche, and Sanofi., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Many rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients do not achieve their treatment goals and experience symptoms that affect psychosocial outcomes and daily activities. This study aimed to identify and quantify the unmet needs perceived by US patients with RA currently taking a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)., Methods: A cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted with RA patients recruited through CreakyJoints, an online patient support community, and ArthritisPower ® , an online patient research registry, from December 2017 to January 2018. Participant patients were aged ≥ 21 years, failed ≥ 1 DMARDs, and were receiving their current DMARD(s) for ≥ 6 months; they answered 50 questions about treatment history, RA symptoms, and flares and completed the Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID) questionnaire and the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM). Treatment satisfaction was defined by a TSQM global satisfaction score ≥ 80., Results: Of 415 patients screened, 258 (62%) were eligible and completed the survey; 87% were women, and 87% white, with mean (SD) age of 54.5 (11.4) years. A total of 232 patients (90%) had current or past biologic DMARD (bDMARD) use, with 67% currently on a bDMARD, 65% on ≥ 1 conventional synthetic DMARD, and 40% on methotrexate. Forty-three percent of patients reported daily/almost daily use of prescription pain medications, and 44% reported a current flare. Mean (SD) TSQM scores were 59 [20] for effectiveness, 59 [26] for side effects, 72 [18] for convenience, and 65 [21] for global satisfaction. The mean (SD) RAID overall score was 5.1 (2.0) on a 0-10 scale. Only 26% (67 patients) were satisfied with their RA treatment. Patients not satisfied with treatment reported higher RAID scores overall and by domain, and approximately half reported a current flare., Conclusions: Results from this real-world survey suggest that three-fourths of RA patients are not satisfied with treatments, which include bDMARDs. Patients continued to experience bothersome symptoms that impacted their daily activities and life. There remains a need for improved disease management among currently treated RA patients., Funding: Eli Lilly and Company (Indianapolis, IN, USA).

Objective: In MOBILITY (NCT01061736), sarilumab significantly reduced disease activity, improved physical function and inhibited radiographic progression at week 52 versus placebo in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to methotrexate. We report 5-year safety, efficacy and radiographic outcomes of sarilumab from NCT01061736 and the open-label extension (EXTEND; NCT01146652), in which patients received sarilumab 200 mg every 2 weeks (q2w) + methotrexate., Methods: Patients (n=1197) with moderately to severely active RA were initially randomised to placebo, sarilumab 150 mg or sarilumab 200 mg subcutaneously q2w plus weekly methotrexate for 52 weeks. Completers were eligible to enrol in the open-label extension and receive sarilumab 200 mg q2w + methotrexate., Results: Overall, 901 patients entered the open-label extension. The safety profile remained stable over 5-year follow-up and consistent with interleukin-6 receptor blockade. Absolute neutrophil count <1000 cells/mm 3 was observed but not associated with increased infection rate. Initial treatment with sarilumab 200 mg + methotrexate was associated with reduced radiographic progression over 5 years versus sarilumab 150 mg + methotrexate or placebo + methotrexate (mean±SE change from baseline in van der Heijde-modified Total Sharp Score: 1.46±0.27, 2.35±0.28 and 3.68±0.27, respectively (p<0.001 for each sarilumab dose versus placebo)). Clinical efficacy was sustained through 5 years according to Disease Activity Score (28-joint count) using C reactive protein, Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index. The number of patients achieving CDAI ≤2.8 at 5 years was similar among initial randomisation groups (placebo, 76/398 (19%); sarilumab 150 mg, 68/400 (17%); sarilumab 200 mg, 84/399 (21%))., Conclusion: Clinical efficacy, including inhibition of radiographic progression, reduction in disease activity and improvement in physical function, was sustained with sarilumab + methotrexate over 5 years. Safety appeared stable over the 5-year period., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MCG has received research grants or consulting fees from R-Pharm, Roche/Genentech and Sanofi Genzyme. DvdH has received consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Daiichi, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda and UCB. YL, SW and HvH are employees of Sanofi Genzyme and may hold stock and/or stock options in the company. GSJ is an employee of Regeneron and may hold stock and/or stock options in the company. JJG-R has received research support and/or consulting fees from Biogen, Gilead, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer and Roche. AK has received consulting fees and/or participated in speakers’ bureaus for AbbVie, Pfizer, Genentech, UCB, Sanofi/Regeneron, Celgene, Horizon and Merck. JAM-C has received consulting fees and/or participated in speakers’ bureaus for Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Sanofi Aventis, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Schering-Plough, Abbott, UCB, Eli Lilly and Gilead. MS has received consulting fees from R-Pharm. GRB has received research support and/or consulting fees from AbbVie, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and UCB. BS has nothing to disclose.

Background: Biomarkers of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity typically measure inflammation or autoimmunity (e.g. CRP, RF). C1M and C3M, metabolites of type I and III collagen, are markers reflecting tissue metabolism. These markers have been documented to provide additional prognostic and predictive value compared to commonly used biomarkers. We investigated the relationship of high serum levels of C1M or C3M to radiographic progression, and benchmarked them to CRP and RF., Methods: Placebo treated patients of the OSK1, 2 and 3 studies (Phase III clinical trials testing efficacy of fostamatinib) with baseline serum biomarkers C1M, C3M, CRP and RF were included (n BL  = 474). Van der Heijde mTSS was calculated at baseline and 24-week (n 24  = 261). Progression was defined as moderate or rapid by ΔmTSS ≥0.5 or ≥ 5 units/year. Patients were divided into subgroups; low (L), high (H) or very high (V) C1M, C3M and CRP, or RF negative, positive and high positive. Difference in clinical parameters were analyzed by Mann-Whitney or χ 2 tests, and modelling for prediction of progression by logistic regression including covariates (age, gender, BMI, and clinical assessment scores)., Results: Levels of C1M, C3M, CRP and RF were significantly ( p  < 0.05) associated with measures of disease activity and mTSS at baseline. For prognostic measures, there were 2.5 and 4-fold as many rapid progressors in the C1M H and CRP H (p < 0.05), and in the C1M V and CRP V groups ( p  < 0.001) compared C1M L and CRP L , respectively. C1M and CRP performed similarly in the predictive analysis, where high levels predicted moderate and rapid progression with odds ratio of 2.1 to 3.8 and 3.7 to 13.1 after adjustment for covariates. C3M and RF did not provide prognostic value alone., Discussion: Serum C1M and CRP showed prognostic value and may be tools for enrichment of clinical trials with structural progressor. The two markers reflect two different aspect of disease pathogenesis (tissue turnover vs. inflammation), thus may provide individual and supplementary information., Competing Interests: The clinical trial included in this post hoc biomarker analysis was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki [16, 17]. The studies were approved by the relevant institutional ethical committees or review bodies at Stanford University Panel on Human subjects in Medical research or Brigham and Women’s hospital and were conducted in accordance with good clinical practice and the Astra Zeneca Policy on Bioethics.All authors approved the manuscript. No personal or patient specific data were available for the researcher of current work, neither are any person sensitive data reported in the manuscript.ACBJ, MAK, IB and KM are full time employees and shareholders in Nordic Bioscience, a privately-owned biotech company focused on the development of biomarkers for inflammatory diseases. AP and MAJ are full time employees and shareholders of Astra Zeneca. MEW and MCG have nothing to declare for the context of current manuscript.Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Objective: Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) and interleukin-17A (IL-17A) may independently contribute to the pathophysiology of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This study sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ABT-122, a novel dual variable domain immunoglobulin targeting human TNF and IL-17A, in patients with RA who have experienced an inadequate response to methotrexate., Methods: Patients with active RA who were receiving treatment with methotrexate and had no prior exposure to biologic agents (n = 222) were enrolled in a 12-week phase II randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group study. Patients were randomized to receive either ABT-122 at dosages of 60 mg every other week, 120 mg every other week, or 120 mg every week or adalimumab at 40 mg every other week, administered subcutaneously. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of patients achieving a ≥20% improvement response based on the American College of Rheumatology criteria for 20% improvement (ACR20) at week 12., Results: Treatment-emergent adverse events were similar across all treatment groups, with no serious infections or systemic hypersensitivity reactions reported with ABT-122. ACR20 response rates at week 12 were 62%, 75%, and 80% with ABT-122 60 mg every other week, 120 mg every other week, and 120 mg every week, respectively, compared with an ACR20 response rate of 68% with 40 mg adalimumab every other week. The corresponding response rates for ACR50 and ACR70 improvement in the ABT-122 dose groups and adalimumab group were 35%, 46%, 47%, and 48%, respectively, and 22%, 18%, 36%, and 21%, respectively., Conclusion: Over the 12-week study period, dual inhibition of TNF and IL-17A with ABT-122 produced a safety profile consistent with that of adalimumb used for inhibition of TNF alone. The efficacy of ABT-122 over 12 weeks at dosages of 120 mg every other week or 120 mg every week was not meaningfully differentiated from that of adalimumab at a dosage of 40 mg every other week in patients with RA receiving concomitant methotrexate., (© 2018, American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: To investigate the safety and efficacy of ABT-122, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF)- and interleukin-17A (IL-17A)-targeted dual variable domain immunoglobulin, in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who have experienced an inadequate response to methotrexate., Methods: Patients (n = 240) were randomized to receive ABT-122 (120 or 240 mg every week), adalimumab (40 mg every other week), or placebo in a 12-week double-blind, parallel-group study. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of patients achieving ≥20% improvement in disease activity according to the American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20) at week 12. Secondary and exploratory 12-week end points included 50% improvement (ACR50) and 70% improvement (ACR70) response rates, and proportion of patients meeting the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) response criteria for ≥75% (PASI75) and ≥90% (PASI90) improvement in skin scores among those with ≥3% of their body surface area affected by psoriasis., Results: In both ABT-122 dose groups, ACR20 response rates at week 12 (64.8-75.3%) were superior to that in patients receiving placebo (25.0%) (P < 0.001) but similar to that in patients receiving adalimumab (68.1%). ACR50 and ACR70 response rates were also superior in both ABT-122 dose groups (36.6-53.4% and 22.5-31.5%, respectively) compared to the placebo group (12.5% and 4.2%, respectively) (P < 0.05). Among eligible patients in the placebo, adalimumab, ABT-122 120 mg every week, and ABT-122 240 mg every week treatment groups, PASI75 responses were achieved in 27.3%, 57.6%, 74.4%, and 77.6% of patients, respectively, whereas PASI90 responses were achieved in 18.2%, 45.5%, 48.8%, and 46.9% of patients, respectively. Frequencies of treatment-emergent adverse events, including infections, were similar across all treatment groups, causing no discontinuations. No serious infections or systemic hypersensitivity reactions were reported with ABT-122., Conclusion: Dual neutralization of TNF and IL-17A with ABT-122 had efficacy and safety that was similar to, and not broadly differentiated from, that of adalimumab over a 12-week treatment course in patients with PsA., (© 2018 AbbVie Inc. Arthritis & Rheumatology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American College of Rheumatology.)

Objectives: To evaluate the safety and maintenance of efficacy with ABT-122, a bi-specific monoclonal antibody targeting TNF and IL-17A, in patients with RA or PsA in open-label, 24-week extensions [open-label extensions (OLEs)] of 12-week, randomized, double-blind studies., Methods: All patients received ABT-122 (RA, 120 mg; PsA, 240 mg) subcutaneously every other week on background MTX. Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs) and laboratory parameters. Efficacy was evaluated with ACR responses, 28-joint DAS using high-sensitivity CRP [DAS28 (hsCRP)], and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PsA study)., Results: The RA OLE study enrolled 158 patients; the PsA OLE study enrolled 168 patients. In the RA OLE study, the incidence of treatment emergent AEs (TEAEs; 41%) appeared similar to the double-blind study (36-43%). In the PsA OLE study, 57% of patients reported ⩾1 TEAE (double-blind study, 42-53%). Most TEAEs were mild or moderate in severity. There were no neutrophil abnormalities greater than grade 2. Grade 3 and/or 4 laboratory abnormalities were reported for lymphocytes, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, bilirubin and haemoglobin; the number of these severe laboratory values was low (0.6-3.0%), except grade 3 lymphocyte count decreased (11.5%) in the RA study. In both OLE studies, efficacy assessed by ACR responses and other disease activity scores was maintained over the 24 weeks., Conclusion: ABT-122 demonstrated acceptable tolerability and maintenance of efficacy for up to 36 weeks in patients with RA or PsA receiving background MTX., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02433340 and NCT02429895.

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.

Objective: To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of baminercept, a lymphotoxin β receptor IgG fusion protein (LTβR-Ig), for the treatment of primary Sjögren's syndrome (SS), and to explore the possible mechanisms of action of this treatment., Methods: In this multicenter trial, 52 patients with primary SS were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive subcutaneous injections of 100 mg of baminercept every week for 24 weeks or matching placebo. The primary end point was the change between screening and week 24 in the stimulated whole salivary flow (SWSF) rate. Secondary end points included the European League Against Rheumatism Sjögren's Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI), as well as measurements of select chemokines and cytokines and enumeration of peripheral blood B and T cell subsets., Results: The change from baseline to week 24 in the SWSF rate was not significantly different between the baminercept and placebo treatment groups (baseline-adjusted mean change -0.01 versus 0.07 ml/minute; P = 0.332). The change in the ESSDAI during treatment was also not significantly different between the treatment groups (baseline-adjusted mean change -1.23 versus -0.15; P = 0.104). Although the incidence of adverse events was similar between the treatment groups, baminercept therapy was associated with a higher incidence of liver toxicity, including 2 serious adverse events. Baminercept also produced a significant decrease in plasma levels of CXCL13 and significant changes in the number of circulating B and T cells, consistent with its known inhibitory effects on LTβR signaling., Conclusion: In this trial, treatment with baminercept failed to significantly improve glandular and extraglandular disease in patients with primary SS, despite evidence from mechanistic studies showing that it blocks LTβR signaling., (© 2018, American College of Rheumatology.)