Search

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.)

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

Background: Vagus nerve stimulation delivered with an implanted device has been shown to improve rheumatoid arthritis severity. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of non-invasive stimulation of the auricular branch of the vagus nerve for the treatment of patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis., Methods: This prospective, multicentre, open-label, single-arm proof-of-concept study enrolled patients aged 18-80 years with active rheumatoid arthritis who had an inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and up to one biological DMARD. Biological DMARDs were stopped at least 4 weeks before enrolment and concomitant use was not allowed during the study. All eligible participants were assigned to use a non-invasive, wearable vagus nerve stimulation device for up to 30 min per day, which delivered pulses of 20 kHz. Follow-up visits occurred at week 1, week 2, week 4, week 8, and week 12 after the baseline visit. The primary endpoint was the mean change in Disease Activity Score of 28 joints with C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) at week 12 compared with baseline. Secondary endpoints included the mean change in the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), the proportion of patients with a minimal clinically important difference of 0·22 on HAQ-DI, the proportion achieving American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20, ACR50, and ACR70 response, and safety analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04116866)., Findings: Of 35 patients screened for eligibility, 30 (86%) were enrolled at six centres in Spain between Dec 27, 2018, and Oct 24, 2019, of whom 27 (90%) completed the week 12 visit. The mean change in DAS28-CRP at 12 weeks was -1·4 (95%CI -1·9 to -0·9; p<0·0001) from a mean baseline of 5·3 (SD 1·0). 11 (37%) of 30 patients reached DAS28-CRP of 3·2 or less, and seven (23%) patients reached DAS28-CRP of less than 2·6 at week 12. The mean HAQ-DI change was -0·5 (95%CI -0·7 to -0·2; p<0·0001) from a mean baseline of 1·6 (SD 0·7), and 17 (57%) patients reached a minimal clinically important difference of 0·22 or more. ACR20 responses were reached by 16 (53%) patients, ACR50 responses by 10 (33%) patients, and ACR70 by five (17%) patients. Four adverse events were reported, none of which were serious and all of which resolved without intervention., Interpretation: Use of the device was well tolerated, and patients had clinically meaningful reductions in DAS28-CRP. This was an uncontrolled, open-label study, and the results must be interpreted in this context. Further evaluation in larger, controlled studies is needed to confirm whether this non-invasive approach might offer an alternative treatment for rheumatoid arthritis., Funding: Nēsos., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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

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

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.)

Background: Otilimab is a human monoclonal antibody that inhibits granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), a driver in many immune-mediated inflammatory conditions. We evaluated the effect of otilimab on the GM-CSF-chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 17 (CCL17) axis and synovitis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis., Methods: This phase 2a, randomised, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was done at nine sites across the USA, Poland, and Germany. Patients aged 18 years or older with rheumatoid arthritis per American College of Rheumatology-European League Against Rheumatism 2010 criteria and receiving stable methotrexate were randomly assigned (3:1) by an interactive response technology system to either subcutaneous otilimab 180 mg or placebo once weekly for 5 weeks, then every other week until week 10 (within a 12-week treatment period), followed by a 10-week safety follow-up. Randomisation was stratified by early rheumatoid arthritis (≤2 years since diagnosis) and established rheumatoid arthritis (>2 years since diagnosis). Patients and study personnel (except for an unblinded coordinator or nurse who prepared and administered the study drug) were blinded to treatment assignment; the syringe was shielded during administration. Patients were enrolled by study investigators and allocated to a treatment by central randomisation on the basis of a schedule generated by the sponsor. The primary endpoint was change over time (assessed at baseline and weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 22 of follow-up) in 112 biomarkers, including target engagement biomarkers and those that may be indicative of rheumatoid arthritis disease activity and response to otilimab. Secondary endpoints were change from baseline in synovitis, osteitis and erosion assessed by rheumatoid arthritis MRI scoring system (RAMRIS) and rheumatoid arthritis MRI quantitative score (RAMRIQ), and safety evaluation. The primary, secondary, and safety endpoints were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Biomarker and MRI endpoints were analysed for differences between treatment groups using a repeated measures model. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02799472., Findings: Between Aug 9, 2016, and Oct 30, 2017, 39 patients were randomly assigned and included in the analysis (otilimab n=28; placebo n=11). In the otilimab group, mean serum concentrations of GM-CSF-otilimab complex peaked at week 4 (138·4 ng/L, 95% CI 90·0-212·9) but decreased from week 6-12. CCL17 concentrations decreased from baseline to week 1, remained stable to week 8, and returned to baseline at week 12; least-squares mean ratio to baseline was 0·65 (95% CI 0·49-0·86; coefficient of variation 13·60) at week 2, 0·68 (0·53-0·88; 12·51) at week 4, 0·78 (0·60-1·00; 12·48) at week 6, and 0·68 (0·54-0·85; 11·21) at week 8. No meaningful change in CCL17 concentrations was observed with placebo. In the otilimab group, the least-squares mean ratio to baseline in MMP-degraded type I collagen was 0·86-0·91 over weeks 1-8, returning to baseline at week 12; concentrations remained above baseline at all timepoints in the placebo group. There were no observable differences between otilimab and placebo for all other biomarkers. At week 12, least-squares mean change in RAMRIS synovitis score from baseline was -1·3 (standard error [SE] 0·6) in the otilimab group and 0·8 (1·2) with placebo; RAMRIQ synovitis score showed a least-squares mean change from baseline of -1417·0 μl (671·5) in the otilimab group and -912·3 μl (1405·8) with placebo. Compared with placebo, otilimab did not show significant reductions from baseline to week 12 in RAMRIS synovitis, osteitis and bone erosion, or in RAMRIQ synovitis and erosion damage. Adverse events were reported in 11 (39%) of 28 otilimab-treated and four (36%) of 11 placebo-treated patients, most commonly cough in the otilimab group (2 [7%] of 28; not reported in placebo group), and pain in extremity (four [36%] of 11) and rheumatoid arthritis (two [18%] of 11) in the placebo group (not reported in otilimab group). There were no serious adverse events or deaths., Interpretation: Serum concentrations of GM-CSF-otilimab complex indicated that target engagement was achieved with initial weekly dosing, but not sustained with every other week dosing. CCL17 might be a pharmacodynamic biomarker for otilimab activity in future studies. Otilimab was well tolerated and, despite suboptimal exposure, showed some evidence for improved synovitis over 12 weeks in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis., Funding: GlaxoSmithKline., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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.)

Background The inflammatory reflex plays a role in regulating innate and adaptive immunity by modulating cellular and molecular inflammatory pathways. The vagus nerve is a major constituent of the inflammatory reflex and studies have shown that the reflex can be activated by electrical stimulation of the vagus nerve. In this first in-human pilot study, we assessed the safety and efficacy of a novel miniaturised vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) device for the treatment of multidrug-refractory rheumatoid arthritis., Methods: Participants with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis and prior insufficient response to two or more biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs or Janus kinase inhibitors with at least two different modes of action were enrolled in a two-stage study done at five clinical research sites in the USA. Stage 1 was open label; participants were implanted with a miniaturised VNS device, which was activated for 1 min once a day. In stage 2, participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive active stimulation (1 min once a day or 1 min four times a day) or sham stimulation (device implanted but not activated), with the sites and participants masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events. Clinical efficacy was assessed as a key secondary outcome. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03437473., Findings: 14 patients were enrolled between March 13 and Aug 8, 2018. Three patients received stimulation in stage 1 and, following safety review board approval, the remaining 11 patients were implanted during stage 2 and randomly assigned to receive 1 min of stimulation once daily (n=3), 1 min of stimulation four times daily (n=4), or no stimulation (n=4) for 12 weeks. There were no device-related or treatment-related serious adverse events. Surgery-related adverse events were Horner's syndrome and vocal cord paralysis (in one patient each), which resolved without clinically significant sequelae. No deaths were recorded., Interpretation: VNS with a miniaturised neurostimulator was safe and well tolerated and reduced signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis in patients with multidrug-refractory disease. These results support further evaluation in a larger randomised sham-controlled study., Funding: SetPoint Medical., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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: Baricitinib is an oral selective inhibitor of Janus kinase (JAK) 1 and JAK2, approved for the treatment of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. Because baricitinib, like other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, is used chronically, continuous assessment of its long-term safety profile is important. Here we provide updated data supporting the existing safety profile of baricitinib in this patient population., Methods: In this safety analysis, integrated data were included from nine phase 3, phase 2, and phase 1b clinical trials, and one long-term extension study with data up to 360 weeks, ending Feb 13, 2018. We analysed three integrated datasets, the largest of which was the all-bari-RA dataset, which includes patients who received any dose of baricitinib. We compared the safety of baricitinib with placebo on the basis of data from seven studies with baricitinib 4 mg and placebo and four studies with baricitinib 2 mg, including placebo to week 24 (placebo-controlled dataset). We did a dose-response assessment based on four studies with baricitinib 2 mg and 4 mg, including long-term extension data (2-4 mg extended dataset). We did an exploratory analysis of deaths and venous thromboembolic events in a subset of data from the all-bari-RA dataset that included patients who had ever taken baricitinib 2-mg or baricitinib 4-mg. We did an analysis for malignancies (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer) in the as-randomised population (patients not censored at rescue or dose change)., Findings: We collected data for 3770 patients who were given baricitinib for 10 127 patient-years of exposure in the all-bari-RA dataset (median 1115 days [IQR 426-1441], maximum 2520 days). The placebo-controlled dataset comprised 2836 patients, with 1215 in the placebo group, with 451 patient-years of exposure data; 479 in the baricitinib 2 mg group, with 186 patient-years of exposure data; and 1142 in the baricitinib 4 mg group, with 472 patient-years of exposure data. The 2-4 mg extended dataset comprised 958 patients, with 479 in both the 2 mg and 4 mg groups. No significant differences were seen for baricitinib 4 mg or 2 mg versus placebo, or for 4 mg versus 2 mg in the incidence of death, malignancy, serious infection, or major adverse cardiovascular events. Incidence of herpes zoster per 100 patient-years was higher for baricitinib (4 mg: 4·4 [95% CI 2·7-6·7]; 2 mg: 3·1 [1·1-6·8]) versus total placebo group (1·1 [0·4-2·5]), as were treatment-emergent infections (4 mg: 89·7 [81·3-98·6]; 2 mg: 84·0 [71·3-98·2] vs placebo 75·4 [67·6-83·9]). Consistent with previous reports, incidences in the all-bari-RA dataset for venous thromboembolic events was 0·5 (95% CI 0·4-0·6) per 100 patient-years, deep-vein thrombosis was 0·3 (0·2-0·5) per 100 patient-years, and pulmonary embolism was 0·2 (0·2-0·4) per 100 patient-years. Incidences of malignancy (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer) in the 2-4 mg extended dataset were 0·8 (0·4-1·5) per 100 patient-years for baricitinib 2 mg and 1·0 (0·5-1·7) per 100 patient-years for baricitinib 4 mg, without censoring patients who had dose changes or received rescue treatment. We found no indication of higher incidence of venous thromboembolic events in the baricitinib 4 mg group compared with the 2 mg group in the 2-4 mg extended dataset., Interpretation: In this updated integrated analysis of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis exposed to baricitinib for a maximum of almost 7 years, baricitinib 2 mg and 4 mg maintained a similar safety profile to earlier analyses. No new safety signals were identified. Patients in the long-term extension study continue to be followed up to date., Funding: Eli Lilly and Company, under license from Incyte Corporation., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Idiopathic granulomatous mastitis (IGM) is a disfiguring inflammatory breast disease without effective treatment. We report the largest IGM cohort treated with methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy., Methods: Chart review was performed on patients evaluated by the Stanford Immunology and Rheumatology Clinic, with histopathologically established IGM treated with MTX, and at least 1 followup appointment., Results: Nineteen female patients with a mean age of 33.5 years were identified. Most failed treatment with antibiotics, prednisone, and surgical intervention. By 15 months of treatment with MTX, 94% had disease improvement and 75% achieved disease remission., Conclusion: MTX monotherapy is an effective treatment for IGM.

Background: Tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) inhibitors are increasingly being used for treating refractory cardiac sarcoidosis. There is a theoretical risk, however, that these therapies can worsen heart failure, and reports on efficacy and safety are lacking., Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of all cardiac sarcoidosis patients seen at Stanford University from 2009 to 2018. Data were collected on patient demographics, diagnostic testing, and treatment outcomes., Results: We identified 77 cardiac sarcoidosis patients, of which 20 (26%) received TNF-α inhibitor treatment. The majority were treated for progressive heart failure or tachyarrhythmia, along with worsening imaging findings. All TNF-α inhibitor treated patients demonstrated meaningful benefit, as assessed by changes in advanced imaging, echocardiographic measures of cardiac function, and prednisone use., Conclusions: A large cohort (n = 77) of cardiac sarcoidosis patients has been treated at Stanford University. Roughly one-fourth of these patients (n = 20) received TNF-α inhibitors. Of these patients, none had worsening heart failure and all saw clinical benefit. These results help support the use of TNF-α inhibitors for the treatment of cardiac sarcoidosis based on real-world evidence and highlight the need for future prospective studies., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None, (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.)

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

Objective: 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.)

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

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

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

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

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

Objectives: To assess the long-term safety and efficacy of ixekizumab, an IL-17A antagonist, in patients with active PsA., Methods: In SPIRIT-P2 (NCT02349295), patients (n = 363) with previous inadequate response to TNF inhibitors entered the double-blind period (weeks 0-24) and received placebo or ixekizumab 80 mg every 4 weeks (IXEQ4W) or every 2 weeks (IXEQ2W) following a 160-mg starting dose at week 0. During the extension period (weeks 24-156), patients maintained their original ixekizumab dose, and placebo patients received IXEQ4W or IXEQ2W (1:1). We present the accumulated safety findings (week 24 up to 156) at the time of this analysis for patients who entered the extension period (n = 310). Exposure-adjusted incidence rates (IRs) per 100 patient years are presented. ACR responses are presented on an intent-to-treat basis using non-responder imputation up to week 52., Results: From week 24 up to 156 (with 228 patient years of ixekizumab exposure), 140 [61.3 IR] and 15 (6.6 IR) patients reported infections and serious adverse events, respectively. Serious adverse events included one death and four serious infections. In all patients initially treated with IXEQ4W and IXEQ2W at week 0 (non-responder imputation), ACR20 (61 and 51%), ACR50 (42 and 33%) and ACR70 (26 and 18%) responses persisted out to week 52. Placebo patients re-randomized to ixekizumab demonstrated efficacy as measured by ACR responses at week 52., Conclusion: During the extension period, the overall safety profile of ixekizumab remained consistent with that observed with the double-blind period, and clinical improvements persisted up to 1 year.

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

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.)