Search

Objective: Preliminary evidence suggests that vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) may have some benefit in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA); however, prior studies have been small and/or uncontrolled; this study aimed to address that gap., Methods: This randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial enrolled patients aged 18 to 75 years with active RA who had failed conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and were naïve to biologic and/or targeted synthetic DMARDs. All patients received an auricular vagus nerve stimulator and were randomized 1:1 to active stimulation or sham. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at week 12. Secondary endpoints included mean changes in disease activity score of 28 joints with C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI)., Results: A total of 113 patients (mean age 54 years; 82% female) enrolled, and 101 patients (89.4%) completed week 12. ACR20 response at week 12 was 25.0% for active stimulation versus 26.9% for sham (difference vs. sham, -1.9; 95% CI, -18.8, 14.9, P = 0.823). The least square mean ± SE change in DAS28-CRP was -0.95 ± 0.16 for active stimulation and -0.66 ± 0.16 for sham (P = 0.201); in HAQ-DI it was -0.19 ± 0.06 for active stimulation and -0.02 ± 0.06 for sham (P = 0.044). Adverse events occurred in 17 patients (15%); all were mild or moderate., Conclusion: Auricular VNS did not meaningfully improve RA disease activity. If VNS with other modalities is pursued in the future for the treatment of RA, larger, controlled studies will be needed to understand its utility., (© 2023 American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: Characterize safety of the Janus kinase-1 preferential inhibitor filgotinib (FIL) in Japanese patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA)., Methods: Data from three Phase 3 trials (NCT02889796, NCT02873936, and NCT02886728) and a long-term extension (NCT03025308) through September 2019 were integrated; patients received ≥1 dose of FIL 200 (FIL200) or 100 mg (FIL100) daily, or placebo (PBO). We calculated exposure-adjusted incidence rates (EAIRs) per 100 patient-years FIL exposure (100PYE) for treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and adverse events of special interest., Results: Among 3691 total patients and 6080.7 PYE, 229 Japanese patients received FIL for 311.4 PYE (median 1.5, maximum 2.5 years). During the 12-week PBO-controlled period, serious TEAEs and TEAEs leading to study drug disruption were comparable between FIL and PBO. Serious infection rates were 1.9%, 0%, and 2% for FIL200, FIL100, and PBO during the PBO-controlled period; long-term FIL200 and FIL100 EAIRs were 3.8 and 2.1/100PYE. No herpes zoster (HZ) or major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) occurred during the PBO-controlled period; long-term FIL200 and FIL100 EAIRs were 3.0 and 2.1/100PYE (HZ) and 0.6 and 0/100PYE (MACE)., Conclusion: Long-term FIL treatment (median 1.5, maximum 2.5 years exposure) was well tolerated at 100- and 200-mg doses in Japanese patients with RA., (© Japan College of Rheumatology 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Objective: To characterise safety of the Janus kinase-1 preferential inhibitor filgotinib in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis., Methods: Data were integrated from seven trials (NCT01668641, NCT01894516, NCT02889796, NCT02873936, NCT02886728, NCT02065700, NCT03025308). Results are from placebo (PBO)-controlled (through week (W)12) and long-term, as-treated (all available data for patients receiving ≥1 dose filgotinib 200 (FIL200) or 100 mg (FIL100) daily) datasets. We calculated exposure-adjusted incidence rates (EAIRs)/100 patient-years filgotinib exposure (100PYE) for treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs)., Results: 3691 patients received filgotinib for 6080.7 PYE (median 1.6, maximum 5.6 years). During the PBO-controlled period, TEAEs, including those of grade ≥3, occurred at comparable rates with filgotinib or PBO; long-term EAIRs of TEAEs grade ≥3 were 6.4 and 7.6/100PYE for FIL200 and FIL100. EAIRs for deaths were 0.6/100PYE for FIL200, FIL100 and PBO; long-term EAIRs were 0.5 and 0.3/100PYE for FIL200 and FIL100. EAIRs for serious infection were 3.9, 3.3 and 2.4/100PYE for FIL200, FIL100 and PBO; long-term EAIRs were 1.6 and 3.1/100PYE for FIL200 and FIL100. EAIRs for herpes zoster were 0.6, 1.1, and 1.1/100PYE for FIL200, FIL100 and PBO; long-term EAIRs were 1.8 and 1.1/100PYE for FIL200 and FIL100. EAIRs for major adverse cardiovascular events were 0, 1.7 and 1.1/100PYE for FIL200, FIL100 and PBO; long-term EAIRs were 0.4 and 0.6/100PYE for FIL200 and FIL100. No venous thromboembolism occurred during the PBO-controlled period; long-term EAIRs were 0.2 and 0/100PYE for FIL200 and FIL100., Conclusions: Over a median of 1.6 and maximum of 5.6 years of exposure, safety/tolerability of FIL200 and FIL100 were similar, with a lower incidence of infections with FIL200 among the long-term, as-treated dataset., Competing Interests: Competing interests: KLW reports receiving grant/research support from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Pfizer and serving as a consultant for AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Co., Galapagos NV, Gilead Sciences, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Roche, Regeneron, Sanofi, and UCB. YT has received speaking fees and/or honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Novartis, YL Biologics, Bristol Myers, Eisai, Chugai, AbbVie, Astellas, Pfizer, Sanofi, Asahi-kasei, GSK, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Janssen; research grants from AbbVie, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Asahi Kasei, Eisai, Takeda, Daiichi Sankyo; and consultant fees from Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Taisho, Ayumi, Sanofi, GSK, and AbbVie. TT reports receiving grant/research support from AbbVie, Asahi Kasei, Astellas, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Shionogi, Takeda, and UCB Japan; serving as a consultant for Astellas, Chugai, and Eli Lilly Japan; and serving on a speaker’s bureau for AbbVie, AYUMI, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly Japan, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Pfizer Japan, Sanofi, and Dainippon Sumitomo. AK is a shareholder of Gilead Sciences, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; serving as a consultant or advisor for AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Flexion, Genzyme, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and SUN Pharma Advanced Research; serving as a paid instructor for Celgene, Genzyme, Horizon, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi; and serving on a speaker’s bureau for AbbVie, Celgene, Flexion, Genzyme, Horizon, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi. FM, DJ, KC, and BB are employees and shareholders of Gilead Sciences, Inc. AJ is an employee of Novartis, a former employee of Gilead Sciences, Inc., and a shareholder of Gilead Sciences, Inc., Novartis, and Roche. MCG is a shareholder and employee of Gilead Sciences, Inc. and has received honoraria or consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Beigene, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Lilly Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, RPharm, and SetPoint. RB is a shareholder and employee of Galapagos. GRB reports serving as a consultant and on a speaker’s bureau for AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Co., Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, Inc., and Pfizer. J-EG reports receiving grant/research support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Pfizer; serving as a consultant to AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Co., and Sanofi Genzyme; and serving on a speaker’s bureau for AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Co., Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and UCB., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To evaluate efficacy and safety of filgotinib in Japanese RA patients who have failed or were intolerant to one or more biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) from the global FINCH 2 study (NCT02873936)., Methods: This subgroup analysis was performed using the predefined statistical analyses. The FINCH 2 study is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase 3 study in adult RA patients with inadequate response to bDMARDs. The randomized patients were treated with once-daily filgotinib 200 mg, filgotinib 100 mg or placebo on a background of csDMARDs for 24 weeks., Results: Of 449 patients enrolled in the overall population, 40 patients were enrolled from Japan. In the Japanese population, the American College of Rheumatology 20% response rates at week 12 (primary endpoint) were 83.3% and 53.3% for filgotinib, 200 mg and 100 mg, respectively, vs 30.8% for placebo. Filgotinib was well tolerated, similar to the overall population., Conclusions: Both doses of once-daily filgotinib 200 mg and filgotinib 100 mg were effective, and generally well-tolerated in Japanese patients with active refractory RA., (© 2021 Japan College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: The long-term safety and efficacy of filgotinib (from phase II studies), with or without methotrexate (MTX), for the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis was assessed in DARWIN 3, a long-term, open-label extension study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02065700)., Methods: Eligible patients completing the 24-week DARWIN 1 (filgotinib + MTX) and DARWIN 2 (filgotinib monotherapy) studies entered DARWIN 3, where they received filgotinib 200 mg/day, except for 15 men who received filgotinib 100 mg/day. Safety analyses were performed using the safety analysis set and the exposure-adjusted incidence rate (EAIR) of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was calculated. Efficacy was assessed from baseline in the parent studies., Results: Of 790 patients completing the phase II parent studies, 739 enrolled in the study. Through April 2019, 59.5% of patients had received ≥ 4 years of the study drug. Mean (SD) exposure to filgotinib was 3.55 (1.57) years in the filgotinib + MTX group and 3.38 (1.59) years in the filgotinib monotherapy group. EAIR per 100 patient-years of exposure for TEAEs was 24.6 in the filgotinib + MTX group and 25.8 in the filgotinib monotherapy group, and for serious TEAEs, the EAIR was 3.1 and 4.3, respectively. American College of Rheumatology 20/50/70 responses among patients remaining in the study could be maintained through 4 years, with 89.3%/69.6%/49.1% of the filgotinib + MTX group and 91.8%/69.4%/44.4% of the monotherapy group maintaining ACR20/50/70 responses, respectively, based on observed data., Conclusion: Filgotinib was well tolerated with a 4-year safety profile comparable to that of the parent trials, both in patients receiving combination therapy with MTX or as monotherapy., (© 2021 The Journal of Rheumatology.)

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the Janus kinase-1-preferential inhibitor filgotinib versus placebo or tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitor therapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite ongoing treatment with methotrexate (MTX)., Methods: This 52-week, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled and active-controlled phase III trial evaluated once-daily oral filgotinib in patients with RA randomised 3:3:2:3 to filgotinib 200 mg (FIL200) or filgotinib 100 mg (FIL100), subcutaneous adalimumab 40 mg biweekly, or placebo (through week 24), all with stable weekly background MTX. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at week 12. Additional efficacy outcomes were assessed sequentially. Safety was assessed from adverse events and laboratory abnormalities., Results: The proportion of patients (n=1755 randomised and treated) achieving ACR20 at week 12 was significantly higher for FIL200 (76.6%) and FIL100 (69.8%) versus placebo (49.9%; treatment difference (95% CI), 26.7% (20.6% to 32.8%) and 19.9% (13.6% to 26.2%), respectively; both p<0.001). Filgotinib was superior to placebo in key secondary endpoints assessing RA signs and symptoms, physical function and structural damage. FIL200 was non-inferior to adalimumab in terms of Disease Activity Score in 28 joints with C reactive protein ≤3.2 at week 12 (p<0.001); FIL100 did not achieve non-inferiority. Adverse events and laboratory abnormalities were comparable among active treatment arms., Conclusions: Filgotinib improved RA signs and symptoms, improved physical function, inhibited radiographic progression and was well tolerated in patients with RA with inadequate response to MTX. FIL200 was non-inferior to adalimumab., Trial Registration Number: NCT02889796., Competing Interests: Competing interests: BC received honoraria from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, Sanofi and UCB; and research grants from Novartis, Pfizer and Roche. AK received honoraria or consulting fees from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Flexion, Genzyme, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi and Sun Pharma Advanced Research; was a paid instructor or speaker for AbbVie, Celgene, Flexion, Genzyme, Horizon, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron and Sanofi; and holds shares in Amgen, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer and Sanofi. YT has received speaking fees and/or honoraria from AbbVie, Asahi Kasei, Astellas, Bristol-Myers, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi and YL Biologics; and research grants from AbbVie, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Takeda and UCB. DvdH received consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cyxone, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda and UCB Pharma; and is the Director of Imaging Rheumatology BV. JAS, UK and S-CB report nothing to disclose. HSBB has received honoraria or consulting fees from AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, Horizon and Merck; and research grants or support from AbbVie, Sanofi, Regeneron, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Selecta Biosciences, Gilead Sciences, Horizon, Janssen and Pfizer. FM, BB, LY and YG are employees and shareholders of Gilead Sciences. MCG has received honoraria or consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BeiGene, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Lilly Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, RPharm and SetPoint. He is also an employee and shareholder of Gilead Sciences. CT is an employee and shareholder of Galapagos NV. JSS, AJ and NM are former employees of Gilead Sciences and may hold shares. RBML has received honoraria or consulting fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos NV, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. EK has received honoraria or consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Lilly Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Myriad Autoimmune, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi Genzyme and Samsung Bioepis; has received speaking fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi Genzyme and UCB; and has received research grants or support from AbbVie, Amgen, Gilead Sciences, Lilly Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Pfizer, PuraPharm and Sanofi. PN has received honoraria or consulting fees, grants or research support, or been a member of a speakers bureau for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and UCB., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of poseltinib (formerly LY3337641/HM71224), an irreversible covalent inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase in a 2-part, phase II trial (RAjuvenate; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02628028) in adults with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA)., Methods: In Part A, 36 patients with mildly active RA were randomized 1:1:1:1 to oral poseltinib 5, 10, or 30 mg or placebo once daily for 4 weeks to assess safety and tolerability. No safety signals precluded moving to Part B, where 250 patients with moderate-to-severe RA were randomized 1:1:1:1 to oral poseltinib 5 mg (n = 63), 10 mg (n = 62), or 30 mg (n = 63), or placebo (n = 62) once daily for 12 weeks. Parts A and B permitted stable doses of background disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. The primary endpoint in Part B was proportion of patients achieving 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at Week 12. Logistic regression compared each poseltinib dose to placebo for primary and secondary endpoints. Nonresponder imputation was used for missing data., Results: After interim analysis showed low likelihood of demonstrating significant efficacy, the sponsor discontinued Part B of the study. One hundred and eighty-nine (76%) patients completed 12 weeks in Part B; 61 discontinued study treatment (27 [44%] due to study termination by sponsor). There was no statistically significant difference in ACR20 response between any dose of poseltinib and placebo at Week 12 ( P > 0.05 for all comparisons). Five serious adverse events occurred (n = 2, placebo; n = 3, 30 mg); there was 1 death due to a fall., Conclusion: While no safety findings precluded continuation, the study was terminated after interim data demonstrated low likelihood of benefit in RA., (Copyright © 2021 by the Journal of Rheumatology.)

Aim: This study, FKB327-003, is a phase 3, open-label extension (OLE) study comparing the long-term immunogenicity of an adalimumab biosimilar, FKB327 (F), with the reference product (RP)., Methods: In the OLE, patients completing 24 weeks of an initial randomized, double-blind (DB) study (Period 1) with clinical response and no safety concerns were rerandomized to F or RP, so that two-thirds of patients remained on the same treatment and one-third switched to the alternate treatment for weeks 24 through 54 (OLE weeks 0-30; Period 2), then all received F through week 100 (OLE week 76; Period 3). Treatment sequences were F-F-F (no switch), RP-F-F and RP-RP-F (single switch), and F-RP-F (double switch). Patients who entered the OLE study were evaluated for immunogenicity across switching sequences., Results: The proportion of patients with positive antidrug antibody (ADA) status at the end of Period 1 was 61.7% and 60.0% for F and RP, respectively. The proportion of patients with positive ADA status did not increase throughout Period 1, and was similar for F and RP at all time points. At the end of Period 3, the proportion of patients with positive ADA status was lower in all treatment sequences, at 51.1%, 54.4%, 48.1%, and 42.5% for F-F-F, F-RP-F, RP-F-F, and RP-RP-F, respectively., Conclusion: The RP and F showed comparable immunogenicity characteristics after long-term administration. Development of ADAs with the RP and F was similar, and was not impacted by switching and double switching between F and RP treatment., (© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases published by Asia Pacific League of Associations for Rheumatology and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Objectives: To evaluate the incidence of infection in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with baricitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase (JAK)1 and JAK2 inhibitor., Methods: Infections are summarised from an integrated database (8 phase 3/2/1b clinical trials and 1 long-term extension (LTE)) with data to 1 April 2017. The 'all-bari-RA' analysis set included patients who received any baricitinib dose. Placebo comparison was based on six studies with 4 mg and placebo to week 24, including four trials with 2 mg (placebo-controlled set). Dose-response assessment was based on four studies with 2 mg and 4 mg, including LTE data (2-4 mg extended set)., Results: There were 3492 patients who received baricitinib for 7860 patient-years (PY) of exposure (median 2.6 years, maximum 6.1 years). Treatment-emergent infections were higher for baricitinib versus placebo (exposure-adjusted incidence rate (IR)/100 PY: placebo 75.9, 2 mg 84.0 (p not significant), 4 mg 88.4 (p≤0.001)). The IR of serious infection was similar for baricitinib versus placebo and stable over time (all-bari-RA IR 3.0/100 PY). There were 11 cases of tuberculosis (all-bari-RA IR 0.1/100 PY); all occurred with 4 mg in endemic regions. Herpes zoster (HZ) IR/100 PY was higher for baricitinib versus placebo (placebo 1.0, 2 mg 3.1 (p not significant), 4 mg 4.3 (p≤0.01)); rates remained elevated and stable over time (all-bari-RA 3.3). Opportunistic infections, including multidermatomal HZ, were infrequent in the baricitinib programme (all-bari-RA IR 0.5/100 PY)., Conclusions: Increased rates of treatment-emergent infections including HZ were observed in patients with RA treated with baricitinib, consistent with baricitinib's immunomodulatory mode of action., Competing Interests: Competing interests: KLW has received grants from BMS and Pfizer and consultancies from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, Gilead, Pfizer, and UCB. MH has received grants from BMS KK, Eisai, Ono, and Takeda and consultancies from Eli Lilly and Company. MCG has received grants and consultancies from AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, and Pfizer. SL has received speaking fees and/or honoraria from Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, and Pfizer. TT has received consultancies and speaking fees and/or honoraria from AbbVie GK, Asahi Kasei KK, Astellas, Astra-Zeneca KK, BMS KK, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen KK, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Nipponkayaku, Novartis, Pfizer Japan, Takeda, Taiho, Taisho Toyama, GSK, and UCB Japan. RF has received grants from AbbVie, Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, BMS, Celgene, Centrexion, Eli Lilly and Company, Genetech, GSK, Janssen, Merck, and Pfizer and consultancies from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Celltrion, Eli Lilly and Company, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung, Sanofi‐Aventis, and Taiho. JDB, NLB, DLH, MI, AN, TPR, SW and CD are employees and may be shareholders of Eli Lilly and Company. JSS has received grants from AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche and consultancies from AbbVie, Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, Astro, BMS, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Medimmune, MSD, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB. MD has received grants and consultancies from AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB., (© 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.)

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: 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.)

Background: In SELECT-COMPARE, a randomised double-blind study, upadacitinib 15 mg once daily was superior to placebo or adalimumab on background methotrexate (MTX) for treating rheumatoid arthritis signs and symptoms and inhibited radiographical progression versus placebo at 26 weeks. Here we report 48-week safety and efficacy in patients who continued their original medication or were rescued to the alternative medication for insufficient response., Methods: Patients on MTX received upadacitinib 15 mg, placebo or adalimumab for 48 weeks. Rescue without washout, from placebo or adalimumab to upadacitinib or upadacitinib to adalimumab occurred if patients had <20% improvement in tender joint count (TJC) or swollen joint count (SJC) (weeks 14/18/22) or Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) >10 (week 26); remaining placebo patients were switched to upadacitinib at week 26. Efficacy was analysed by randomised group (non-responder imputation), as well as separately for rescued patients (as observed). Treatment-emergent adverse events per 100 patient-years were summarised., Results: Consistent with responses through week 26, from weeks 26 to 48, responses by randomised group including low disease activity, clinical remission and improvements in pain and function remained superior for upadacitinib versus adalimumab; radiographical progression remained lower for upadacitinib versus placebo (linear extrapolation). Although both switch groups responded, a higher proportion of patients rescued to upadacitinib from adalimumab achieved CDAI ≤10 at 6 months postswitch versus patients rescued from upadacitinib to adalimumab. Safety at week 48 was comparable to week 26., Conclusion: Upadacitinib+MTX demonstrated superior clinical and functional responses versus adalimumab+MTX and maintained inhibition of structural damage versus placebo+MTX through week 48. Patients with an insufficient response to adalimumab or upadacitinib safely achieved clinically meaningful responses after switching to the alternative medication without washout., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RF has received research grants and consulting fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer. MG has served as a consultant for, and has received grants from, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Galapagos, and Gilead. EM has received research grants and consulting fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, BMS, and Sandoz. LB has served as a speaker on behalf of, and received consulting fees and research grants from, Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Roche, UCB, AbbVie, Pfizer, Merck, Celgene, Sanofi, Eli Lilly and Novartis. CP is an employee and shareholder of Spire Sciences, has served as a speaker on behalf of Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb and has served as a consultant for Centrexion, Crescendo Bioscience, Daiichi Sankyo, EMD Serono, Five Prime, Flexion Therapeutics, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Plexikkon, Regeneron, Roche and SetPoint. PD has received speaker fees from BMS, Sanofi, Eli Lilly, and Celltrion. AO has served as a speaker on behalf of, and has received consulting fees and/or research grants from BMS, Janssen, Roche, UCB, AbbVie, Pfizer, Merck, Celgene, Sanofi, Eli Lilly and Novartis. JVE, YL, and I-HS are employees of AbbVie and may own stock or stock options., (© 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.)

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.)

Objective: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was used in a phase IIb study of baricitinib in patients with RA to support dose selection for the phase III program., Methods: Three hundred one patients with active RA who were taking stable methotrexate were randomized 2:1:1:1:1 to placebo or once-daily baricitinib (1, 2, 4, or 8 mg) for up to 24 weeks. One hundred fifty-four patients with definitive radiographic erosion had MRI of the hand/wrist at baseline and at weeks 12 and 24. Two expert radiologists, blinded to treatment and visit order, scored images for synovitis, osteitis, bone erosion, and cartilage loss. Combined inflammation (osteitis + 3× synovitis score) and total joint damage (erosion + 2.5× cartilage loss score) scores were calculated. Treatment groups were compared using ANCOVA adjusting for baseline scores., Results: Mean changes from baseline to Week 12 for synovitis were -0.10, -1.50, and -1.60 for patients treated with placebo, baricitinib 4 mg, and baricitinib 8 mg, respectively (p = 0.003 vs placebo for baricitinib 4 and 8 mg). Mean changes for osteitis were 0.00, -3.20, and -2.10 (p = 0.001 vs placebo for baricitinib 4 mg and p = 0.037 for 8 mg), respectively. Mean changes for bone erosion were 0.90, 0.10, and 0.40 (p = 0.089 for 4 mg and p = 0.275 for 8 mg), respectively, in these treatment groups., Conclusion: MRI findings in this subgroup of patients suggest suppression of synovitis, osteitis, and combined inflammation by baricitinib 4 and 8 mg. This corroborates previously demonstrated clinical efficacy of baricitinib and increases confidence that baricitinib 4 mg could reduce the radiographic progression in phase III studies. [Clinical trial registration number (www.ClinicalTrials.gov): NCT01185353].

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.

Importance: Patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite treatment with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) therapy need treatment options., Objective: To evaluate the effects of filgotinib vs placebo on the signs and symptoms of RA in a treatment-refractory population., Design, Setting, and Participants: A 24-week, randomized, placebo-controlled, multinational phase 3 trial conducted from July 2016 to June 2018 at 114 sites internationally, randomizing 449 adult patients (and treating 448) with moderately to severely active RA and inadequate response/intolerance to 1 or more prior bDMARDs., Interventions: Filgotinib, 200 mg (n = 148); filgotinib, 100 mg (n = 153); or placebo (n = 148) once daily; patients continued concomitant stable conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the proportion of patients who achieved 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at week 12. Secondary outcomes included week 12 assessments of low disease activity (disease activity score in 28 joints-C-reactive protein [DAS28-CRP] ≤3.2) and change in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Physical Component, and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue scores, as well as week 24 assessment of remission (DAS28-CRP <2.6) and adverse events., Results: Among 448 patients who were treated (mean [SD] age, 56 [12] years; 360 women [80.4%]; mean [SD] DAS28-CRP score, 5.9 [0.96]; 105 [23.4%] with ≥3 prior bDMARDs), 381 (85%) completed the study. At week 12, more patients receiving filgotinib, 200 mg (66.0%) or 100 mg (57.5%), achieved ACR20 response (placebo, 31.1%; difference vs placebo: 34.9% [95% CI, 23.5%-46.3%] and 26.4% [95% CI, 15.0%-37.9%], respectively; both P < .001), including among patients with prior exposure to 3 or more bDMARDs (70.3%, 58.8%, and 17.6%, respectively; difference vs placebo: 52.6% [95% CI, 30.3%-75.0%] for filgotinib, 200 mg, and 41.2% [95% CI, 17.3%-65.0%] for filgotinib, 100 mg; both P < .001). The most common adverse events were nasopharyngitis (10.2%) for filgotinib, 200 mg; headache, nasopharyngitis, and upper respiratory infection (5.9% each) for filgotinib, 100 mg; and RA (6.1%) for placebo. Four uncomplicated herpes zoster cases and 1 retinal vein occlusion were reported with filgotinib; there were no opportunistic infections, active tuberculosis, malignancies, gastrointestinal perforations, or deaths., Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with active RA who had an inadequate response or intolerance to 1 or more bDMARDs, filgotinib, 100 mg daily or 200 mg daily, compared with placebo resulted in a significantly greater proportion achieving a clinical response at week 12. However, further research is needed to assess longer-term efficacy and safety., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02873936.

Objectives: This study investigated the effects of dose step-down in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who achieved sustained disease control with baricitinib 4 mg once a day., Methods: Patients who completed a baricitinib phase 3 study could enter a long-term extension (LTE). In the LTE, patients who received baricitinib 4 mg for ≥15 months and maintained CDAI low disease activity (LDA) or remission (REM) were blindly randomised to continue 4 mg or taper to 2 mg. Patients could rescue (to 4 mg) if needed. Efficacy and safety were assessed through 48 weeks., Results: Patients in both groups maintained LDA (80% 4 mg; 67% 2 mg) or REM (40% 4 mg; 33% 2 mg) over 48 weeks. However, dose reduction resulted in small, statistically significant increases in disease activity at 12, 24 and 48 weeks. Dose reduction also produced earlier and more frequent relapse (loss of step-down criteria) over 48 weeks compared with 4 mg maintenance (23% 4 mg vs 37% 2 mg, p=0.001). Rescue rates were 10% for baricitinib 4 mg and 18% for baricitinib 2 mg. Dose reduction was associated with a numerically lower rate of non-serious infections (30.6 for baricitinib 4 mg vs 24.9 for 2 mg). Rates of serious adverse events and adverse events leading to discontinuation were similar across groups., Conclusions: In a large randomised, blinded phase 3 study, maintenance of RA control following induction of sustained LDA/REM with baricitinib 4 mg was greater with continued 4 mg than after taper to 2 mg. Nonetheless, most patients tapered to 2 mg could maintain LDA/REM or recapture with return to 4 mg if needed., Competing Interests: Competing interests: TT has received consulting support and/or speakers’ bureau fees from AbbVie GK, Asahi Kasei Medical KK, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca KK, Bristol-Myers KK, Celtrion, Chugai Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen Pharma KK, Merck Serono, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Nipponkayaku, Novartis Pharma KK, Pfizer Japan, Takeda Pharma and UCB Japan. MCG has received grant/research support and/or consulting support from AbbVie, Astellas, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, Gilead, Pfizer and Vertex. BH has received grant/research support, consulting fees and/or speakers’ bureau fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche and UCB. ZL has nothing to disclose. LX, APC, SO, PRL, IdlT, TPR, and WM are employees of Eli Lilly and Company and may own stock or stock options in Eli Lilly and Company. RK is an employee of IQVIA. JSS has received grant/research support, consulting fees and/or speakers’ bureau fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Astro, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celtrion, Chugai, Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead, Glaxo, ILTOO, Janssen, Medimmune, MSD, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi and UCB., (© 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.)

Objective: Baricitinib is an oral, once-daily selective Janus kinase (JAK1/JAK2) inhibitor for adults with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We evaluated baricitinib's safety profile through 288 weeks (up to September 1, 2016) with an integrated database [8 phase III/II/Ib trials, 1 longterm extension (LTE)]., Methods: The "all-bari-RA" group included patients who received any baricitinib dose. Placebo comparison was based on the 6 studies with 4 mg and placebo up to Week 24 ("placebo-4 mg" dataset). Dose response assessment was based on 4 studies with 2 mg and 4 mg including LTE data ("2 mg-4 mg-extended"). The uncommon events description used the non-controlled all-bari-RA., Results: There were 3492 patients who received baricitinib for 6637 total patient-years (PY) of exposure (median 2.1 yrs, maximum 5.5 yrs). No differences in rates of death, adverse events leading to drug discontinuation, malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), or serious infections were seen for 4 mg versus placebo or for 4 mg versus 2 mg. Infections including herpes zoster were significantly more frequent for 4 mg versus placebo. Deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism were reported with 4 mg but not placebo [all-bari-RA incidence rate (IR) 0.5/100 PY]; the IR did not differ between doses (0.5 vs 0.6/100 PY, 2 mg vs 4 mg, respectively) or compared to published RA rates. All-bari-RA had 6 cases of lymphoma (IR 0.09/100 PY), 3 gastrointestinal perforations (0.05/100 PY), 10 cases of tuberculosis (all in endemic areas; 0.15/100 PY), and 22 all-cause deaths (0.33/100 PY). IR for malignancies (0.8/100 PY) and MACE (0.5/100 PY) were low and did not increase with prolonged exposure., Conclusion: In this integrated analysis of patients with moderate to severe active RA with exposure up to 5.5 years, baricitinib has an acceptable safety profile in the context of demonstrated efficacy. Trial registration numbers: NCT01185353, NCT00902486, NCT01469013, NCT01710358, NCT01721044, NCT01721057, NCT01711359, and NCT01885078 at clinicaltrials.gov.

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 assess 5-year safety, tolerability, and efficacy of subcutaneous (SC) abatacept (ABA) in methotrexate (MTX)-refractory patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA)., Methods: The Abatacept Comparison of sub[QU]cutaneous versus intravenous in Inadequate Responders to methotrexatE (ACQUIRE) phase IIIb, randomized, double-dummy, multinational trial compared efficacy and safety of SC and intravenous (IV) ABA in patients with RA. In the initial 6-month double-blind (DB) period, patients received IV or SC ABA, plus MTX, and in the subsequent open-label longterm extension (LTE) period, all patients received SC ABA (125 mg/wk). The final 5-year safety, tolerability, and efficacy analyses are reported., Results: Of 1385 patients who completed the DB period, 1372 entered LTE and 945 (68.8%) completed ≥ 5 years of treatment. During LTE, 97 (7.1%) patients discontinued treatment because of an adverse event (AE). Incidence rate (IR; event/100 patient-yrs of exposure; based on LTE data, 95% CI) for AE of interest were the following: serious AE 7.73 (6.96-8.58), infection 38.60 (36.24-41.12), serious infection 1.68 (1.35-2.07), malignancies 1.09 (0.84-1.42), and autoimmune disorders 1.33 (1.05-1.69), and were stable over time. No association between immunogenicity and either worsening of ABA safety or loss of efficacy was noted. Efficacy in the LTE was consistent with the DB period and was maintained to the end of the study., Conclusion: These 5-year data establish that SC ABA (125 mg/wk) has a consistent safety profile and durable efficacy for longterm treatment of patients with RA who had an inadequate response to MTX.

Objective: To assess the safety and efficacy of baricitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) up to 128 weeks in a phase IIb study (NCT01185353)., Methods: After a 24-week blinded period, eligible patients entered an initial 52-week open-label extension (OLE); patients receiving 8 mg once daily (QD) continued with that dose and all others received 4 mg QD. Doses could be escalated to 8 mg QD at 28 or 32 weeks at investigator discretion when ≥ 6 tender and ≥ 6 swollen joints were present. Patients completing the first OLE were eligible to enter a second 52-week OLE and receive 4 mg QD regardless of previous dose., Results: In the 4-mg (n = 108) and 8-mg (n = 93) groups, treatment-emergent adverse events (AE) occurred in 63% and 67%, serious AE in 16% and 13%, infections in 35% and 40%, and serious infections in 5% and 3% of patients, respectively. Exposure-adjusted incidence rates for AE for all baricitinib groups in the second OLE were similar to or lower than rates observed in the first OLE. No opportunistic infections, tuberculosis cases, or lymphomas were observed through 128 weeks; 1 death occurred during the first OLE. Among all patients in both OLE, the proportions who achieved disease improvement at Week 24 were similar or increased at weeks 76 and 128., Conclusion: In a phase IIb study in RA, the safety and tolerability profile of baricitinib, up to 128 weeks, remained consistent with earlier observations, without unexpected late signals. Clinical improvements seen in the 24-week blinded period were maintained during the OLE.

Objectives: ABP 501 is a Food and Drug Administration-approved biosimilar to adalimumab; structural, functional and pharmacokinetic evaluations have shown that the two are highly similar. We report results from a phase III study comparing efficacy, safety and immunogenicity between ABP 501 and adalimumab., Methods: In this randomised, double-blind, active comparator-controlled, 26-week equivalence study, patients with moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite methotrexate were randomised (1:1) to ABP 501 or adalimumab (40 mg) every 2 weeks. Primary endpoint was risk ratio (RR) of ACR20 between groups at week 24. Primary hypothesis that the treatments were equivalent would be confirmed if the 90% CI for RR of ACR20 at week 24 fell between 0.738 and 1.355, demonstrating that ABP 501 is similar to adalimumab. Secondary endpoints included Disease Activity Score 28-joint count-C reactive protein (DAS28-CRP). Safety was assessed via adverse events (AEs) and laboratory evaluations. Antidrug antibodies were assessed to determine immunogenicity., Results: A total of 526 patients were randomised (n=264, ABP 501; n=262 adalimumab) and 494 completed the study. ACR20 response at week 24 was 74.6% (ABP 501) and 72.4% (adalimumab). At week 24, the RR of ACR20 (90% CI) between groups was 1.039 (0.954, 1.133), confirming the primary hypothesis. Changes from baseline in DAS28-CRP, ACR50 and ACR70 were similar. There were no clinically meaningful differences in AEs and laboratory abnormalities. A total of 38.3% (ABP 501) and 38.2% (adalimumab) of patients tested positive for binding antidrug antibodies., Conclusions: Results from this study demonstrate that ABP 501 is similar to adalimumab in clinical efficacy, safety and immunogenicity in patients with moderate to severe RA., Trial Registration Number: NCT01970475; Results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SC reports grants and personal fees from Amgen, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from Abbvie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer and Sandoz, outside the submitted work. MCG reports grants and personal fees from Amgen, AbbVie and Pfizer, and personal fees from Sandoz, FKb, Samsung BioEpis, Merck, Celltrion and Boehringer, during the conduct of the study. EC reports grants and personal fees from Amgen, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Chelsea Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Hospita, ISIS, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, MedImmune, Merrimack Pharmaceutical, Merck, Napp, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi-Aventis, Schering Plough, Synovate and Tonix and grants and personal fees from Chugai Pharma, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Novimmune, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche and UCB, outside the submitted work. FP-R reports grants from Amgen, during the conduct of the study; and personal fees from Amgen, outside the submitted work. AM reports grants and personal fees from Amgen, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from AbbVie, Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb, grants from Takeda, Janssen, Gilead and UCB and personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. JLP reports lecturing and consultancy fees from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer and Lilly, outside the submitted work. NZ and PK are employees of Amgen Inc., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Objective: To investigate liver enzyme abnormalities and hepatic adverse events (AEs) during long-term tocilizumab treatment for rheumatoid arthritis in clinical trials., Methods: Data were pooled from patients who received intravenous tocilizumab (4, 8, or 10 mg/kg with or without disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [DMARDs]) in phase III or IV clinical trials, long-term extensions, and a pharmacology study. Alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) levels were measured routinely in these trials. AE rates were measured per 100 patient-years of tocilizumab exposure for this pooled analysis., Results: Overall, 16,204.8 patient-years of tocilizumab exposure (mean ± SD duration of exposure 3.9 ± 2.0 years) were evaluated for 4,171 patients. ALT and AST elevations greater than the upper limit of normal (ULN) occurred in 70.6% and 59.4% of patients, respectively. ALT/AST elevations were >1-3× ULN in 59%/55% of patients, >3-5× ULN in 8.9%/3.3% of patients, and >5× ULN in 2.9%/0.9% of patients. Most elevations occurred during the first year of treatment. Single ALT/AST elevations >3× ULN occurred in 7.7%/3.6% of patients, and ≥2 consecutive elevations >3× ULN occurred in 1.9%/0.4% of patients. Elevations >3× ULN returned to normal in 80% of patients (median of 5.6 weeks to normalization). A total of 2.5% of patients withdrew from tocilizumab treatment following ALT/AST elevations. A total of 7 hepatic serious AEs (SAEs) (0.04 per 100 patient-years [95% confidence interval 0.02-0.09]) occurred in the tocilizumab studies., Conclusion: Transaminase elevations with tocilizumab were frequent, but rates of hepatic SAEs were low in this clinical trial data set. Regular monitoring, with dose adjustment of tocilizumab/DMARDs for persistent elevations, is recommended., (© 2017, American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of orally administered once-daily peficitinib in combination with limited conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA)., Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, phase IIb trial, patients with RA (n = 289) were treated with peficitinib 25 mg, 50 mg, 100 mg, or 150 mg or matching placebo once daily for 12 weeks. The primary end point was the percentage of patients who met the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieved an ACR20 response) at week 12., Results: ACR20 response rates at week 12 were 22.0%, 36.8%, 48.3% (P < 0.05), 56.3% (P < 0.01), and 29.4% in the peficitinib 25 mg, 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo groups, respectively. Patients in the peficitinib 100 mg and 150 mg groups achieved a rapid and statistically significant ACR20 response compared with those in the placebo group (P < 0.05), reaching statistical significance by week 2. Overall, the incidence of adverse events (AEs) was similar between patients receiving peficitinib and those receiving placebo. The most common AEs were upper respiratory tract infection (5% [n = 15]), nausea (4% [n = 12]), and urinary tract infection (4% [n = 10]). There was 1 case of herpes zoster in the placebo group, and 1 serious infection (limb abscess) in the peficitinib 25 mg group. There were no incidences of grade 2 or higher neutropenia or lymphopenia., Conclusion: In patients with moderate-to-severe RA, orally administered once-daily peficitinib in combination with limited csDMARDs resulted in a dose-dependent ACR20 response rate over 12 weeks with satisfactory tolerability., (© 2017, American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: To assess the effects of baricitinib on lipid profiles in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis., Methods: Treatment with once-daily doses of baricitinib (1, 2, 4, or 8 mg) or placebo was studied in 301 randomized patients. Changes in lipid profile and lipoprotein particle size and particle number were assessed at weeks 12 and 24, and associations with clinical efficacy were evaluated. Apolipoproteins were assessed at weeks 4 and 12 in the placebo group and the 4-mg and 8-mg baricitinib groups., Results: Treatment with baricitinib resulted in dose-dependent increases in serum lipid levels from baseline to week 12 (low-density lipoprotein [LDL] cholesterol increases of 3.4 mg/dl and 11.8 mg/dl in the 1 mg and 8 mg treatment groups, respectively; high-density lipoprotein [HDL] cholesterol increases of 3.3 mg/dl and 8.1 mg/dl, respectively; triglycerides increases of 6.4 mg/dl and 15.4 mg/dl, respectively). Group-wise mean increases in LDL cholesterol were coincident with mean increases in large LDL particles and mean reductions in small dense LDL particles. Increases from baseline to week 12 in apolipoprotein A-I, apolipoprotein B, and apolipoprotein CIII were observed with 4-mg doses of baricitinib (9.5%, 6.8%, and 23.0%, respectively) and with 8-mg doses (12.2%, 7.1%, and 19.7%, respectively), with no increase in LDL-associated apolipoprotein CIII (-4.5% with 4-mg baricitinib; -9.0% with 8-mg baricitinib). Baricitinib reduced HDL-associated serum amyloid A when administered at 4 mg (-36.0%) and 8 mg (-32.0%); a significant reduction in lipoprotein (a) was observed only with 8-mg doses (-16.6%). Increased HDL cholesterol at week 12 correlated with improved Disease Activity Scores and Simplified Disease Activity Index; changes in total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and triglycerides did not reveal a similar relationship., Conclusion: Baricitinib-associated increases in serum lipid levels were observed in this study. Increases in levels of HDL cholesterol correlated with improved clinical outcomes., (© 2016, American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of orally administered once-daily peficitinib in combination with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an inadequate response to MTX., Methods: In this multinational, phase IIb, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial, patients with RA (n = 378) were treated with peficitinib 25 mg, 50 mg, 100 mg, or 150 mg plus MTX, or matching placebo plus MTX once daily for 12 weeks. The primary end point was the percentage of patients who met the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieved an ACR20 response) at week 12., Results: ACR20 response rates at week 12 were 43.9%, 61.5% (P < 0.05 versus placebo), 46.4%, 57.7%, and 44.4% in the peficitinib 25 mg, 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg, and placebo groups, respectively. Significant decreases from baseline in the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the C-reactive protein level were seen in the peficitinib 50 mg (P < 0.05) and 150 mg (P < 0.01) groups compared with placebo at week 12. Overall, the incidence of adverse events (AEs) was similar between peficitinib and placebo. The most common AEs were urinary tract infection (n = 22 [6%]), upper respiratory tract infection (n = 16 [4%]), and diarrhea (n = 16 [4%]). There were 3 cases of herpes zoster infection (2 in the peficitinib 100 mg group and 1 in the 150 mg group) and 2 cases of serious infection (viral infection in the peficitinib 100 mg group and erysipelas in the 150 mg group)., Conclusion: The ACR20 response rate in the group receiving peficitinib 50 mg plus MTX was significantly different compared with the rate in patients receiving placebo, but there were no apparent dose-dependent responses, and the placebo response rate was high. Peficitinib plus MTX in patients with moderate-to-severe RA was well tolerated, with limited safety signals emerging., (© 2016, American College of Rheumatology.)

Objectives: To investigate changes in neutrophil count and occurrences of infection in RA patients treated with the IL-6 receptor-α inhibitor tocilizumab (TCZ)., Methods: Data were pooled from patients who received i.v. TCZ (4 mg/kg + MTX, 8 mg/kg ± DMARDs, 10 mg/kg) or placebo + DMARDs in phase 3/4 clinical trials, long-term extensions or a pharmacology study. Neutrophil counts were measured routinely according to the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events grades; TCZ dosing was adjusted if necessary. Covariates associated with decreased neutrophil counts were assessed with multivariate regression analysis. Infection rates within 30 days of neutrophil count changes were calculated per 100 patient-years of TCZ exposure., Results: In placebo-controlled parts of trials, more TCZ-treated than placebo-treated patients had grade 1/2 or 3/4 neutrophil counts (TCZ: 28.2%/3.1%; placebo: 8.9%/0.2%). In placebo-controlled trials + long-term extensions, 4171 patients provided 16204.8 patient-years of TCZ exposure. Neutrophil counts decreased through week 6 from baseline [mean ( s . d .) change, -2.17 (2.16) × 10 9 /l) and remained stable thereafter. Rates (95% CI) of serious infections within 30 days of normal [4.66 (4.31, 5.03)], grade 1/2 [2.48 (1.79, 3.34)] and 3/4 [2.77 (0.34, 10.01)] neutrophil counts were similar. Baseline neutrophil count <2 × 10 9 /l and female gender were associated with grade 3/4 neutrophil counts [odds ratio (OR) (95% CI): 19.02 (6.76, 53.52), 2.55 (1.40, 4.66)]. Patients who stopped TCZ in response to decreased neutrophil count returned more quickly to normal levels than patients who reduced or continued their dose., Conclusion: Decreases in neutrophil counts in patients taking TCZ do not appear to be associated with serious infections and are normalized by current risk mitigation guidelines., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

Background: Adalimumab has been used in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for over 10 years and has a well-established safety profile across multiple indications., Objective: To update adverse events (AEs) of special interest from global adalimumab clinical trials in patients with RA., Methods: This analysis includes 15 132 patients exposed to adalimumab in global RA clinical trials. AEs of interest included overall infections, laboratory abnormalities and AEs associated with influenza vaccination. Pregnancy outcome data were collected from the Adalimumab Pregnancy Registry., Results: Serious infections and tuberculosis occurred at a rate of 4.7 and 0.3 events/100 patient-years, respectively. Two patients experienced hepatitis B reactivation. No significant laboratory abnormalities were reported with adalimumab-plus-methotrexate compared with placebo-plus-methotrexate. Influenza-related AEs occurred in 5% of vaccinated patients compared with 14% of patients not vaccinated during the study. Relative risk of major birth defects and spontaneous abortions in adalimumab-exposed women were similar between that of unexposed women with RA and healthy women., Conclusions: This analysis confirms and expands the known safety profile of adalimumab and reports no additional safety risk of laboratory abnormalities, hepatitis B reactivation and pregnancy outcomes, including spontaneous abortions and birth defects. The benefits of influenza vaccination are reinforced., Trial Registration Numbers: NCT00195663, NCT00195702, NCT00448383, NCT00049751, NCT00234845, NCT00650390, NCT00235859, NCT00647920, NCT00649545, NCT00647491, NCT00649922, NCT00538902, NCT00420927, NCT00870467, NCT00650156, NCT00647270, NCT01185288, NCT01185301., Competing Interests: GRB has received research grants, consulting fees and speaker's fees from AbbVie, BMS, Merck, Pfizer, Roche and UCB. RL has received consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Centocor, GSK, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Schering-Plough, UCB and Wyeth and is owner of Rheumatology Consultancy BV. MCG has received research grants and consulting fees from AbbVie. AWF, NDP and APL are employees of AbbVie and may hold stock and/or options. NV is a former employee of AbbVie and may hold stock and/or options., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ABT-494, a selective JAK-1 inhibitor, in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX)., Methods: Three hundred RA patients receiving stable doses of MTX were randomly assigned equally to receive immediate-release ABT-494 at 3, 6, 12, or 18 mg twice daily, 24 mg once daily, or placebo for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of patients meeting the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieving an ACR20 response) at week 12, as determined using the last observation carried forward method., Results: At week 12, the proportion of ACR20 responses was higher with ABT-494 (62%, 68%, 80%, 64%, and 76% for the 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 mg doses, respectively) than with placebo (46%) (using nonresponder imputation) (P < 0.05 for the 6, 12, and 24 mg doses). There was a significant dose-response relationship among all ABT-494 doses (P < 0.001). The proportions of patients achieving ACR50 and ACR70 responses were significantly higher for all ABT-494 doses (except the 12 mg dose for the ACR70 response) than for placebo, as were changes in the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the C-reactive protein level (DAS28-CRP). Rapid improvement was demonstrated by significant differences in ACR20 response rates and changes in the DAS28-CRP for all doses compared with placebo at week 2 (the first postbaseline visit). The incidence of adverse events was similar across groups; most were mild, and infections were the most frequent. One serious infection (community-acquired pneumonia) occurred with ABT-494 at 12 mg. There were dose-dependent increases in high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, but the LDL cholesterol:HDL cholesterol ratios were unchanged through week 12. Mean hemoglobin levels remained stable at lower doses, but decreases were observed at higher doses., Conclusion: This study evaluated a broad range of doses of ABT-494 in RA patients with an inadequate response to MTX. ABT-494 demonstrated efficacy, with a safety and tolerability profile similar to that of other JAK inhibitors., (© 2016 The Authors. Arthritis & Rheumatology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of the American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: To assess early effects on joint structures of VX-509 in combination with stable disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy using MRI in adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA)., Methods: This phase II, placebo-controlled, double-blind, dose-ranging study randomised patients with RA and inadequate DMARD response to VX-509 100 mg (n=11), 200 mg (n=10) or 300 mg (n=10) or placebo (n=12) once daily for 12 weeks. Outcome measures included American College of Rheumatology score (ACR20; improvement of ≥20%) and disease activity score (DAS28) using C reactive protein (CRP), and the RA MRI scoring (RAMRIS) system., Results: ACR20 response at week 12 was 63.6%, 60.0% and 60.0% in the VX-509 100-mg, 200-mg and 300-mg groups, respectively, compared with 25.0% in the placebo group. DAS28-CRP scores decreased in a dose-dependent manner with increasing VX-509 doses. Decreases in RAMRIS synovitis scores were significantly different from placebo for all VX-509 doses (p<0.01) and for RAMRIS osteitis scores (p<0.01) for VX-509 300 mg. Treatment was generally well tolerated., Conclusions: VX-509 plus a DMARD reduced the signs and symptoms of RA in patients with an inadequate response to a DMARD alone. MRI responses were detected at week 12. Treatment was generally well tolerated., Trial Registration Number: NCT01754935; results., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Background: Sarilumab is a human monoclonal antibody directed against the alpha subunit of the interleukin-6 receptor complex. In the MOBILITY phase III randomized controlled trial (RCT), sarilumab + methotrexate (MTX) treatment resulted in clinical improvements at 24 weeks that were maintained at 52 weeks in adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), who have inadequate response to MTX (MTX-IR). These analyses indicate the effects of sarilumab + MTX versus placebo on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in this RCT., Methods: Patients (n = 1197) were randomized to receive placebo, sarilumab 150 or 200 mg subcutaneously + MTX every 2 weeks for 52 weeks; after 16 weeks, patients without ≥20 % improvement from baseline in swollen or tender joint counts on two consecutive assessments were offered open-label treatment. PROs included patient global assessment of disease activity (PtGA), pain, health assessment questionnaire disability index (HAQ-DI), Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), and functional assessment of chronic illness therapy-fatigue (FACIT-F). Changes from baseline at weeks 24 and 52 were analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures. Post hoc analyses included percentages of patients reporting improvements equal to or greater than minimal clinically important differences (MCID) and normative values in the FACIT-F and SF-36. Pearson correlation between observed PRO scores and clinical measures of disease activity was tested at week 24., Results: Both doses of sarilumab + MTX vs placebo + MTX resulted in improvement from baseline by week 24 in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, SF-36 and FACIT-F scores (p < 0.0001) that was clinically meaningful, and persisted until week 52. In post hoc analyses, the percentages of patients with improvement equal to or greater than the MCID across all PROs were greater with sarilumab than placebo (p < 0.05), with differences ranging from 11.6 to 26.2 %, as were those reporting equal to or greater than normative scores., Conclusions: In this RCT in patients with MTX-IR RA, sarilumab + MTX resulted in sustained improvement in PROs that were clinically meaningful, greater than placebo + MTX, and complement the previously reported clinical efficacy and safety of sarilumab., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT01061736 . February 2, 2010.

Background: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The aim of this study was to explore the safety and efficacy of open-label tofacitinib following blinded treatment with adalimumab or tofacitinib for moderate to severe RA., Methods: Analyses included patients treated with adalimumab 40 mg once every 2 weeks or tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily (BID) with background methotrexate (MTX) in a 12-month randomized study (NCT00853385), who subsequently received tofacitinib 10 mg BID (with/without background MTX) in an open-label extension (NCT00413699). Patients with treatment-related serious adverse events (AEs) and serious or recurrent infections in the index study were excluded from the extension study. Exposure-adjusted incidence rates of safety-related events were assessed in 3-month and 12-month periods in the year before and in the year after switching. Efficacy was assessed 3 months before, at the time of, and 3 months after switching., Results: There were 233 (107 adalimumab to tofacitinib 10 mg BID, 126 blinded to open-label tofacitinib 10 mg BID) patients included in these analyses. Patients in both treatment sequences had similar incidence rates (per 100 patient-years) of discontinuation due to AEs, serious AEs, and serious infections in the year before and in the year after switching. Incidence rates of AEs were increased in the first 3 months after switching compared with the last 3 months before switching in both treatment groups. Switching from either blinded adalimumab or tofacitinib to open-label tofacitinib resulted in numerically higher incidence of responders for signs and symptoms of disease and improved physical function., Conclusions: Treatment can be directly switched from adalimumab to tofacitinib. A similar safety and efficacy profile was seen when patients received open-label tofacitinib after receiving either blinded adalimumab or tofacitinib., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00853385 , registered 27 February 2009; NCT00413699 , registered 18 December 2006.

Background: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), including those treated with biologics, are at increased risk of some vaccine-preventable infections. We evaluated the antibody response to standard 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) and the 2011-2012 trivalent seasonal influenza vaccine in adults with RA receiving subcutaneous (SC) abatacept and background disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs)., Methods: Two multicenter, open-label sub-studies enrolled patients from the ACQUIRE (pneumococcal and influenza) and ATTUNE (pneumococcal) studies at any point during their SC abatacept treatment cycle following completion of ≥3 months' SC abatacept. All patients received fixed-dose abatacept 125 mg/week with background DMARDs. A pre-vaccination blood sample was taken, and after 28 ± 3 days a final post-vaccination sample was collected. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving an immunologic response to the vaccine at Day 28 among patients without a protective antibody level to the vaccine antigens at baseline (pneumococcal: defined as ≥2-fold increase in post-vaccination titers to ≥3 of 5 antigens and protective antibody level of ≥1.6 μg/mL to ≥3 of 5 antigens; influenza: defined as ≥4-fold increase in post-vaccination titers to ≥2 of 3 antigens and protective antibody level of ≥1:40 to ≥2 of 3 antigens). Safety and tolerability were evaluated throughout the sub-studies., Results: Pre- and post-vaccination titers were available for 113/125 and 186/191 enrolled patients receiving the PPSV23 and influenza vaccine, respectively. Among vaccinated patients, 47/113 pneumococcal and 121/186 influenza patients were without protective antibody levels at baseline. Among patients with available data, 73.9 % (34/46) and 61.3 % (73/119) met the primary endpoint and achieved an immunologic response to PPSV23 or influenza vaccine, respectively. In patients with pre- and post-vaccination data available, 83.9 % in the pneumococcal study demonstrated protective antibody levels with PPSV23 (titer ≥1.6 μg/mL to ≥3 of 5 antigens), and 81.2 % in the influenza study achieved protective antibody levels (titer ≥1:40 to ≥2 of 3 antigens) at Day 28 post-vaccination. Vaccines were well tolerated with SC abatacept with background DMARDs., Conclusions: In these sub-studies, patients with RA receiving SC abatacept and background DMARDs were able to mount an appropriate immune response to pneumococcal and influenza vaccines., Trial Registration: NCT00559585 (registered 15 November 2007) and NCT00663702 (registered 18 April 2008).

Background: In phase 2 studies, baricitinib, an oral Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor, reduced disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had not previously received treatment with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs)., Methods: In this phase 3 study involving 527 patients with an inadequate response to or unacceptable side effects associated with one or more tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, other biologic DMARDs, or both, we randomly assigned the patients in a 1:1:1 ratio to baricitinib at a dose of 2 or 4 mg daily or placebo for 24 weeks. End points, tested hierarchically at week 12 to control type 1 error, were the American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response (primary end point), the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score, the 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on C-reactive protein level (DAS28-CRP), and a Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) score of 3.3 or less (on a scale of 0.1 to 86.0, with a score of 3.3 or less indicating remission). Comparisons with placebo were made first with the 4-mg dose of baricitinib and then with the 2-mg dose., Results: Significantly more patients receiving baricitinib at the 4-mg dose than those receiving placebo had an ACR20 response at week 12 (55% vs. 27%, P<0.001). Differences between the higher-dose baricitinib group and the placebo group were also significant for the HAQ-DI score and the DAS28-CRP but not for an SDAI score of 3.3 or less. Adverse-event rates through 24 weeks were higher for patients receiving the 2-mg dose of baricitinib and those receiving the 4-mg dose than for patients receiving placebo (71% and 77%, respectively, vs. 64%), including infections (44% and 40%, vs. 31%). The rates of serious adverse events were 4%, 10%, and 7% in the three groups, respectively. Two nonmelanoma skin cancers and two major adverse cardiovascular events, including a fatal stroke, occurred in the higher-dose group. Baricitinib was associated with a small reduction in neutrophil levels and increases in serum creatinine and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels., Conclusions: In patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to biologic DMARDs, baricitinib at a daily dose of 4 mg was associated with clinical improvement at 12 weeks. (Funded by Eli Lilly and Incyte; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01721044.).

Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of golimumab (GOL), a human antitumor necrosis factor antibody, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite methotrexate (MTX) therapy through 5 years in the GO-FORWARD trial., Methods: Patients with active RA despite MTX therapy were randomly assigned to receive placebo + MTX (Group 1), GOL 100 mg + placebo (Group 2), GOL 50 mg + MTX (Group 3), or GOL 100 mg + MTX (Group 4). Patients in groups 1, 2, and 3 with inadequate response could enter early escape at Week 16 to GOL 50 mg + MTX or GOL 100 mg + MTX, and all remaining Group 1 patients crossed over to GOL 50 mg + MTX at Week 24. The blind was maintained through the 52-week database lock, after which treatment adjustments were permitted. Adverse events (AE) were monitored through Week 268. Efficacy was evaluated using the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 responses and a 28-joint Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP). Response rates at Week 256 were analyzed by an intent-to-treat analysis., Results: A total of 444 patients were randomized, and 313 received GOL through Week 252; 301 patients completed the safety followup through Week 268. Infections were the most common type of AE; 172 patients (39.6%) had ≥ 1 serious AE. No unexpected safety signals were observed. At Week 256, ACR20/50/70 responses were achieved by 63.1%, 40.8%, and 24.1%, respectively, of all randomized patients. About 78% of all patients achieved a good or moderate DAS28-CRP response., Conclusion: Improvements in the signs and symptoms of RA were maintained through 5 years. AE through 5 years were consistent with earlier reports of the GO-FORWARD trial; no apparent increased risk was observed over time.

Objective: To evaluate ixekizumab, an anti-interleukin 17A monoclonal antibody, for safety and effectiveness through 64 weeks in biologic-naive and tumor necrosis factor-inadequate responder (TNF-IR) patients with rheumatoid arthritis., Methods: Patients completing the 16-week double-blind period of a phase II study were eligible to enter the open-label extension (OLE) for an additional 48 weeks of ixekizumab treatment. After a treatment hiatus between weeks 10 to 16, 232 biologic-naive and 158 TNF-IR patients entered the OLE with all patients receiving 160 mg ixekizumab at weeks 16, 18, and 20, and then every 4 weeks through Week 64., Results: A total of 201 (87%) biologic-naive and 99 (62%) TNF-IR patients completed the OLE. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AE) occurred in 168 (72%) biologic-naive and 115 (73%) TNF-IR patients during the OLE. Most AE were mild to moderate in severity and did not lead to study discontinuation. Serious AE (SAE) occurred in 17 (7%) biologic-naive patients, including 5 (2%) serious infections and 2 (1%) deaths. SAE occurred in 18 (11%) TNF-IR patients, including 4 (3%) serious infections and 1 (1%) death. No mycobacterial or invasive fungal infections were reported. Clinical responses [American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20, ACR50, ACR70, and 28-joint Disease Activity Score with C-reactive protein] observed at Week 16 were maintained or improved through Week 64., Conclusion: Ixekizumab was well tolerated, and safety findings in the OLE were consistent overall with those in the double-blind period of this study. Clinical improvements observed with ixekizumab through Week 16 were maintained or improved in patients participating in the OLE through Week 64., Trial Registration Number: NCT00966875.

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of decernotinib (VX-509), an oral selective inhibitor of JAK-3, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in whom the response to methotrexate treatment was inadequate., Methods: In this 24-week, double-blind, randomized phase IIb study, 358 patients with active RA received either placebo (n = 71) or VX-509 at dosages of 100 mg/day (n = 71), 150 mg/day (n = 72), 200 mg/day (n = 72), or 100 mg twice daily (n = 72). Primary measures of efficacy at week 12 were the response rate according to the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) and change from baseline in the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the C-reactive protein level (DAS28-CRP)., Results: At week 12, the ACR20 response rates were 46.5%, 66.7%, 56.9%, and 68.1% in the groups receiving VX-509 at dosages of 100 mg/day, 150 mg/day, 200 mg/day, and 100 mg twice daily, respectively, and 18.3% in the placebo group (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). At week 12, the mean change from baseline in the DAS28-CRP was significantly greater in each VX-509 group compared with the placebo group (P < 0.001). Improvements were maintained at week 24, as shown by the ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 response rates and mean change from baseline in the DAS28-CRP. The most common adverse event in the VX-509 group was headache (8.7%), and elevated levels of transaminases, lipoproteins, and creatinine were observed., Conclusion: VX-509 significantly improved the signs and symptoms of RA at weeks 12 and 24 compared with the placebo group when it was administered in combination with methotrexate. Safety signals included infection and increases in liver transaminase and lipid levels., (© 2016, American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of JNJ-40346527, a selective inhibitor of colony-stimulating factor-1 (CSF-1) receptor kinase that acts to inhibit macrophage survival, proliferation, and differentiation in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy., Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group study, adults were randomized (2:1) to receive oral JNJ-40346527 100 mg or placebo twice daily through Week 12. Patients with RA had disease activity [≥ 6 swollen/≥ 6 tender joints, C-reactive protein (CRP) ≥ 0.8 mg/dl] despite DMARD therapy for ≥ 6 months. The primary endpoint was change from baseline at Week 12 in the 28-joint Disease Activity Score with CRP (DAS28-CRP). Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analyses were also performed, and safety was assessed through Week 16., Results: Ninety-five patients were treated (63 JNJ-40346527, 32 placebo); 8 patients discontinued treatment (6 JNJ-40346527, 2 placebo) through Week 12. Mean improvements in DAS28-CRP from baseline to Week 12 were 1.15 for the JNJ-40346527 group and 1.42 for the placebo group (p = 0.30); thus, a statistically significant difference was not observed for the primary endpoint. Pharmacokinetic exposure to JNJ-40346527 and its active metabolites was above the projected concentration needed for pharmacologic activity, and effective target engagement and proof of activity were demonstrated by increased levels of CSF-1 and decreased CD16+ monocytes in JNJ-40346527-treated, but not placebo-treated, patients. Thirty-seven (58.7%) JNJ-40346527-treated and 16 (50.0%) placebo-treated patients reported ≥ 1 adverse event (AE); 1 (1.6%) JNJ-40346527-treated and 3 (9.4%) placebo-treated patients reported ≥ 1 serious AE., Conclusion: Although adequate exposure and effective peripheral target engagement were evident, JNJ-40346527 efficacy was not observed in patients with DMARD-refractory active RA. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01597739. EudraCT Number: 2011-004529-28.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of sarilumab in combination with methotrexate (MTX) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA)., Methods: Adults with moderate-to-severe RA and an inadequate response to MTX were randomized (1:1:1) to receive sarilumab (doses of 150 mg or 200 mg) or placebo every 2 weeks in conjunction with weekly MTX for 52 weeks. Co-primary end points were the proportion of patients achieving American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) improvement responses at week 24, change from baseline in the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) disability index (DI) at week 16, and change from baseline in the modified Sharp/van der Heijde score (SHS) of radiographic damage at week 52., Results: Baseline characteristics were similar among the groups. For all 3 co-primary end points, the sarilumab 150 mg and 200 mg groups demonstrated statistically significant improvements as compared with the placebo group (ACR20 response rate at week 24, 58.0%, 66.4%, and 33.4%, respectively [P < 0.0001]; least squares mean change in HAQ DI at week 16, -0.53, -0.55, and -0.29, respectively [P < 0.0001]; and mean change in SHS at week 52, 0.90, 0.25, and 2.78, respectively [P < 0.0001]). The most common treatment-emergent adverse event was infection. In the sarilumab 150 mg, sarilumab 200 mg, and placebo groups, the incidence of serious infections was 2.6%, 4.0%, and 2.3%, respectively. Elevations in alanine aminotransferase levels >3-fold the upper limit of normal occurred in 9.5%, 8.0%, and 2.1% of patients, respectively; in 24 patients, this led to discontinuation of treatment. Elevated total cholesterol levels were observed in 36.8%, 43.0%, and 18.3% of patients, respectively. In patients receiving 150 mg and 200 mg sarilumab, neutrophil counts of 0.5 to <1.0 × 10(9) /liter were observed in 5.1% and 7.8% of patients, respectively, while neutrophil counts of <0.5 × 10(9) /liter were observed in 0.9% and 0.7% of patients, respectively; none of the patients receiving placebo experienced changes in neutrophil counts., Conclusion: In RA patients treated with sarilumab (150 mg or 200 mg every 2 weeks) in combination with MTX, both doses provided sustained clinical efficacy, as shown by significant improvements in symptomatic, functional, and radiographic outcomes. Sarilumab was generally well tolerated. The adverse events observed in this study were consistent with the effects of interleukin-6 signaling blockade., (© 2015 sanofi-aventis U.S. LLC. Arthritis & Rheumatology is published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of the American College of Rheumatology.)

Objectives: To investigate baricitinib (LY3009104, formerly INCB028050), a novel, oral inhibitor of JAK1/JAK2 in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite treatment with methotrexate., Methods: In this phase IIb study, 301 patients were randomised 2:1:1:1:1 to receive once daily doses of placebo or 1, 2, 4 or 8 mg baricitinib for 12 weeks. Patients assigned to 2, 4 and 8 mg baricitinib continued blinded treatment for an additional 12 weeks. Patients assigned to placebo or 1 mg baricitinib were reassigned to 2 mg twice daily or 4 mg once daily baricitinib between weeks 12-24. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients in the combined 4 and 8 mg groups achieving an American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response versus placebo at week 12., Results: Significantly more patients in the combined baricitinib 4 and 8 mg groups compared with placebo achieved an ACR20 response at week 12 (76% vs 41%, p<0.001). At week 12, significant differences versus placebo were also observed in patients achieving ACR50, ACR70 and remission as measured by Disease Activity Score for 28-joint counts, Clinical Disease Activity Index and Simplified Disease Activity Index. Patients receiving 2, 4, or 8 mg baricitinib maintained or improved in all measures through 24 weeks. Similar proportions of patients experienced at least one adverse event in the placebo and baricitinib groups. Serious infections developed in three patients receiving baricitinib. No cases of tuberculosis, herpes zoster, opportunistic infections or deaths were reported. Dose-dependent decreases in haemoglobin were observed with baricitinib., Conclusions: Baricitinib improved the signs and symptoms of RA in methotrexate inadequate responders with active disease. Baricitinib was well tolerated with no unexpected safety findings through week 24., Trial Registration Number: NCT01185353., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Objective: This phase III, 52-week study compared fostamatinib with placebo (for 24 weeks) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX) therapy., Methods: Patients taking MTX were randomized (1:1:1) to receive fostamatinib 100 mg twice daily for 52 weeks (group A), fostamatinib 100 mg twice daily for 4 weeks and then 150 mg once daily (group B), or placebo for 24 weeks and then fostamatinib 100 mg twice daily (group C). At week 24, the co-primary end points were change from baseline in the American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) improvement response rates and change in the modified total Sharp/van der Heijde score of radiographic damage (SHS)., Results: In this study, 918 patients were randomized and received ≥1 dose of study drug (fostamatinib or placebo); the demographic and baseline clinical characteristics were well balanced. Following treatment with both fostamatinib regimens, a statistically significant difference in the ACR20 improvement response was achieved at week 24 as compared with that in patients receiving placebo (49.0% [group A] and 44.4%, [group B] versus 34.2%; P < 0.001 and P = 0.006, respectively), but there was no statistically significant difference in the SHS between either fostamatinib group and placebo (P = 0.25 and P = 0.17, respectively). The most common adverse events in patients in groups A, B, and C were hypertension (15.8%, 15.1%, and 3.9%, respectively) and diarrhea (13.9%, 15.1%, and 3.9%, respectively). Elevated blood pressure (≥140/90 mm Hg) occurred at ≥1 visit in 44.2%, 41.6%, and 19.3% of patients in each respective group., Conclusion: With the use of either fostamatinib regimen in patients with RA, statistically significant, but not clinically significant, improvements in the ACR20 improvement response over placebo were achieved at 24 weeks, whereas a significant difference in the SHS was not seen. The overall level of response to treatment with fostamatinib was lower than had been observed in the phase II program, but similar adverse events were reported., (Copyright © 2014 by the American College of Rheumatology.)