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.)

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

Objective: 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: Analyse the integrated safety profile of evobrutinib, a Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi), using pooled data from multiple sclerosis (MS), rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) trials., Methods: Phase II, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial data were analysed (N=1083; MS: n=213, 48 weeks (W); RA: n=390, 12W; SLE: n=480, 52W). The analysis included all patients who received ≥1 dose of evobrutinib (25 mg or 75 mg once daily, or 50 mg or 75 mgtwice daily) or placebo. Descriptive statistics and exposure-adjusted incidence rates (EAIR) were used to report treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs)., Results: Data from 1083 patients were pooled: evobrutinib, n=861; placebo, n=271 (sum >1083 due to MS trial design: n=49 received both placebo (W0-24) and evobrutinib 25 mg (W25-48)); median follow-up time (pt-years): evobrutinib, 0.501; placebo, 0.463. Across indications, the proportion of patients with TEAEs and the EAIR were similar for evobrutinib and placebo (66.2% (247.6 events/100 pt-years) vs 62.4% (261.4 events/100 pt-years)). By indication, the EAIR (events/100 pt-years) of TEAEs for evobrutinib versus placebo were: MS: 119.7 vs 148.3; RA: 331.8 vs 306.8; SLE: 343.0 vs 302.1. Two fatal events occurred (in SLE). The serious infections EAIR was 2.7 and 2.1 events/100 pt-years for evobrutinib and placebo. For previously reported BTKi-class effects, the EAIR of transient elevated alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase TEAEs (events/100 pt-years) with evobrutinib versus placebo was 4.8 vs 2.8/3.5 vs 0.7, respectively. IgG levels were similar in evobrutinib/placebo-treated patients., Conclusions: This is the first BTKi-integrated safety analysis that includes patients with MS. Overall, evobrutinib treatment (all doses) was generally well tolerated across indications., Trial Registration Numbers: NCT02975349, NCT03233230, NCT02975336., Competing Interests: Competing interests: XM has received speaking honoraria and/or travel expenses for participation in scientific meetings, and/or has been a steering committee member of clinical trials and/or participated in advisory boards of clinical trials in the past years with Actelion, Alexion, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, EMD Serono Research & Development Institute, Inc., Billerica, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Excemed, Genzyme, Hoffmann-La Roche, Immunic, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Medday, Merck Healthcare KGaA, MSIF, Mylan, Nervgen, NMSS, Novartis, Sandoz, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceutical and TG Therapeutics. DW has received consultant fees from Amgen, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono Research & Development Institute, Inc., Billerica, MA, USA (an affiliate of Merck KGaA), Merck, Celgene and Janssen. MCG has received personal compensation from AbbVie, Astellas, EMD Serono Research & Development Institute, Inc., Billerica, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Galapagos, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, Incyte, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi and Vertex. DT is an employee of Ares Trading SA, Eysins, Switzerland, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, and received stock or an ownership interest from Novartis. DP-R was an employee of EMD Serono Research & Development Institute, Inc., Billerica, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck KGaA at the time of the study, and is currently an employee of and has received stock from Pfizer. CLB and HG are employees of Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. AHK is an employee of and received stock or an ownership interest from EMD Serono Research & Development Institute, Inc., Billerica, MA, USA, an affiliate of Merck KGaA., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

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

Objective: 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.)

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.)

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.

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.

Objectives: To examine 2-year safety, efficacy and radiographic outcomes of sarilumab in adults with RA and inadequate response to MTX (MTX-IR)., Methods: In the randomized, placebo-controlled MOBILITY trial, MTX-IR patients received subcutaneous sarilumab (150 or 200 mg) or placebo every 2 weeks (q2w) plus MTX for up to 1 year. Upon study completion, patients could enrol in the open-label, long-term extension study (EXTEND, NCT011046652), in which all patients received sarilumab 200 mg q2w plus MTX. Dose reduction to 150 mg q2w was allowed for abnormal laboratory findings and per investigator's discretion., Results: Of 1197 patients participating in MOBILITY, 901 entered EXTEND. Over the 2-year period, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and serious AEs occurred at rates of 279.6 events per 100 patient-years and 16.6 events per 100 patient-years, respectively. The most common TEAEs were neutropenia, injection site erythema, increased alanine aminotransferase and upper respiratory tract infections. After 1 year in the open-label, long-term extension, disease activity reached similar levels regardless of initial treatment. Modified total Sharp scores at year 1 were maintained through year 2. Best radiographic outcomes were observed in patients initially randomized to sarilumab 200 mg q2w. After dose reduction, 89.4% of patients continued the study through 2 years., Conclusion: Sarilumab safety through year 2 was consistent with IL-6 receptor blockade. Clinical response was similar irrespective of initial treatment, and radiographic progression stabilized. Patients initiated on sarilumab 200 mg q2w had the best radiographic outcomes. Dose reduction allowed most patients to continue with the study.

Background: Phase 2 studies with upadacitinib, a selective Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor, have shown safety and efficacy in the treatment of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. We did this study to further assess the safety and efficacy of upadacitinib in patients with an inadequate response to biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs)., Methods: We did this double-blind, randomised controlled phase 3 trial at 153 sites in 26 countries. Patients were aged 18 years or older, had active rheumatoid arthritis and previous inadequate response or intolerance to bDMARDs, and were receiving concomitant background conventional synthetic DMARDS (csDMARDs). We randomly assigned patients (2:2:1:1) by interactive response technology to receive once-daily oral extended-release upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg or placebo for 12 weeks, followed by upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg from week 12 onwards. The two separate primary endpoints were the proportions of patients achieving a 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at week 12 and the proportion of patients achieving a 28-joint disease activity score using C-reactive protein (DAS28[CRP]) of 3·2 or less at week 12. Efficacy and safety analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat population of all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. Data are presented up to week 24 of this ongoing study. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02706847)., Findings: Between March 15, 2016, and Jan 10, 2017, 499 patients were randomly assigned (n=165 upadacitinib 15 mg; n=165 upadacitinib 30 mg; n=85 placebo then upadacitinib 15 mg; and n=84 placebo then upadacitinib 30 mg) and one patient was withdrawn from the 15 mg upadacitinib group before the start of study treatment. Mean disease duration was 13·2 years (SD 9·5); 235 (47%) of 498 patients had received one previous bDMARD, 137 (28%) had received two, and 125 (25%) had received at least three; 451 (91%) patients completed treatment up to week 12 and 419 (84%) patients completed treatment up to week 24. At week 12, ACR20 was achieved by 106 (65%; 95% CI 57-72) of 164 patients receiving upadacitinib 15 mg and 93 (56%; 49-64) of 165 patients receiving upadacitinib 30 mg compared with 48 (28%; 22-35) of 169 patients receiving placebo (p<0·0001 for each dose vs placebo). DAS28(CRP) of 3·2 or less was achieved by 71 (43%; 95% CI 36-51) of 164 patients receiving upadacitinib 15 mg and 70 (42%; 35-50) of 165 patients receiving upadacitinib 30 mg versus 24 (14%; 9-20) of 169 patients receiving placebo (p<0·0001 for each dose vs placebo). Up to week 12, overall numbers of patients with adverse events were similar for the placebo group (95 [56%] of 169) and the upadacitinib 15 mg group (91 [55%] of 164), but higher in the upadacitinib 30 mg group (111 [67%] of 165). At week 12, the most common adverse events occurring in at least 5% of patients in any treatment group were upper respiratory tract infection (13 [8%] of 169 in the placebo group; 13 [8%] of 164 in the upadacitinib 15 mg group; ten [6%] of 165 in the upadacitinib 30 mg group), nasopharyngitis (11 [7%]; seven [4%]; nine [5%]), urinary tract infection (ten [6%]; 15 [9%]; nine [5%]), and worsening of rheumatoid arthritis (ten [6%]; four [2%]; six [4%]). The number of patients with serious adverse events was higher in the upadacitinib 30 mg group (12 [7%]) than in the upadacitinib 15 mg group (eight [5%]); no serious adverse events were reported in patients receiving placebo. More patients in the upadacitinib 30 mg group had serious infections, herpes zoster, and adverse events leading to discontinuation than in the upadacitinib 15 mg and placebo groups. During the placebo-controlled phase of the study, one case of pulmonary embolism, three malignancies, one major adverse cardiovascular event, and one death were reported in patients receiving upadacitinib; none were reported in patients receiving placebo., Interpretation: Both doses of upadacitinib led to rapid and significant improvements compared with placebo over 12 weeks in patients with refractory rheumatoid arthritis., Funding: AbbVie Inc., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: RA patients who have failed biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) represent an unmet medical need. We evaluated the effects of baseline characteristics, including prior bDMARD exposure, on baricitinib efficacy and safety., Methods: RA-BEACON patients (previously reported) had moderate to severe RA with insufficient response to one or more TNF inhibitor and were randomized 1:1:1 to once-daily placebo or 2 or 4 mg baricitinib. Prior bDMARD use was allowed. The primary endpoint was a 20% improvement in ACR criteria (ACR20) at week 12 for 4 mg vs placebo. An exploratory, primarily post hoc, subgroup analysis evaluated efficacy at weeks 12 and 24 by ACR20 and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) ⩽10. An interaction P-value ⩽0.10 was considered significant, with significance at both weeks 12 and 24 given more weight., Results: The odds ratios predominantly favored baricitinib over placebo and were generally similar to those in the overall study (3.4, 2.4 for ACR20 weeks 12 and 24, respectively). Significant quantitative interactions were observed for baricitinib 4 mg vs placebo at weeks 12 and 24: ACR20 by region (larger effect Europe) and CDAI ⩽10 by disease duration (larger effect ⩾10 years). No significant interactions were consistently observed for ACR20 by age; weight; disease duration; seropositivity; corticosteroid use; number of prior bDMARDs, TNF inhibitors or non-TNF inhibitors; or a specific prior TNF inhibitor. Treatment-emergent adverse event rates, including infections, appeared somewhat higher across groups with greater prior bDMARD use., Conclusion: Baricitinib demonstrated a consistent, beneficial treatment effect in bDMARD-refractory patients across subgroups based on baseline characteristics and prior bDMARD use., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/), NCT01721044.

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: Subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous formulations of tocilizumab (TCZ) are available for the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), based on the efficacy and safety observed in clinical trials. Anti-TCZ antibody development and its impact on safety and efficacy were evaluated in adult patients with RA treated with intravenous TCZ (TCZ-IV) or TCZ-SC as monotherapy or in combination with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs)., Methods: Data from 5 TCZ-SC and 8 TCZ-IV phase III clinical trials and 1 TCZ-IV clinical pharmacology safety study (>50 000 samples) were pooled to assess the immunogenicity profile of TCZ-SC and TCZ-IV (8974 total patients). The analysis included antidrug antibody (ADA) measurement following TCZ-SC or TCZ-IV treatment as monotherapy or in combination with csDMARDs, after dosing interruptions or in TCZ-washout samples, and the correlation of ADAs with clinical response, adverse events or pharmacokinetics (PK)., Results: The proportion of patients who developed ADAs following TCZ-SC or TCZ-IV treatment was 1.5% and 1.2%, respectively. ADA development was also comparable between patients who received TCZ monotherapy and those who received concomitant csDMARDs (0.7-2.0%). ADA development did not correlate with PK or safety events, including anaphylaxis, hypersensitivity or injection-site reactions, and no patients who developed ADAs had loss of efficacy., Conclusions: The immunogenicity risk of TCZ-SC and TCZ-IV treatment was low, either as monotherapy or in combination with csDMARDs. Anti-TCZ antibodies developed among the small proportion of patients had no evident impact on PK, efficacy or safety., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MB, WR, TW, JP and MM are employed by Genentech, Inc. SL, AP-S, HB, KS and NLM are employed by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. AN is employed by Chugai Pharmaceutical. GRB has received grants and honoraria for consulting and lectures from Roche. EC has received research grant, speaker and consultancy fees from Roche and Chugai Pharmaceutical. AK has received research grants and consulted for Genentech, Inc. AO has received consulting fees, speaking fees and/or honoraria from Chugai Pharmaceutical. MCG has received grants and consulting fees and/or honoraria from Roche., (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 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 assess baricitinib on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis, who had insufficient response or intolerance to ≥1 tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) or other biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs)., Methods: In this double-blind phase III study, patients were randomised to once-daily placebo or baricitinib 2 or 4 mg for 24 weeks. PROs included the Short Form-36, EuroQol 5-D, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), patient's assessment of pain, duration of morning joint stiffness (MJS) and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire-Rheumatoid Arthritis. Treatment comparisons were performed with logistic regression for categorical measures or analysis of covariance for continuous variables., Results: 527 patients were randomised (placebo, 176; baricitinib 2 mg, 174; baricitinib 4 mg, 177). Both baricitinib-treated groups showed statistically significant improvements versus placebo in most PROs. Improvements were generally more rapid and of greater magnitude for patients receiving baricitinib 4 mg than 2 mg and were maintained to week 24. At week 24, more baricitinib-treated patients versus placebo-treated patients reported normal physical functioning (HAQ-DI <0.5; p≤0.001), reductions in fatigue (FACIT-F ≥3.56; p≤0.05), improvements in PtGA (p≤0.001) and pain (p≤0.001) and reductions in duration of MJS (p<0.01)., Conclusions: Baricitinib improved most PROs through 24 weeks compared with placebo in this study of treatment-refractory patients with previously inadequate responses to bDMARDs, including at least one TNFi. PRO results aligned with clinical efficacy data for baricitinib., Trial Registration Number: NCT01721044; 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/.)

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/.)