Search

BI 695501 is an FDA-approved biosimilar to adalimumab reference product (RP). VOLTAIRE-X was a randomized clinical trial to assess outcomes with a biosimilar monoclonal antibody in line with the FDA requirements for designation as an 'interchangeable' biosimilar.The aim of this study was to assess whether multiple switches between adalimumab RP and BI 695501 lead to equivalent pharmacokinetics and a similar safety and immunogenicity profile compared with continuous adalimumab RP.We conducted a phase III, double-blind, randomized controlled trial between July 19, 2017, and April 16, 2019. There were 49 investigational sites across Europe and North America. Of 323 screened patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis, 259 were treated with adalimumab RP during the run-in period. Of these, 118 and 120 were randomized to the continuous or switching arms, respectively. Interventions consisted of a run-in period with adalimumab RP 80 mg subcutaneously (SC) on Day 1, then 40 mg SC every other week (EOW) Weeks 2-12. Patients were then randomized to receive adalimumab RP 40 mg EOW Weeks 14-48 (continuous arm) or BI 695501 40 mg Weeks 14 and 16, adalimumab RP 40 mg Weeks 18 and 20, and BI 695501 40 mg EOW Weeks 22 to 48 (switching arm); all interventions were given SC. Primary endpoints were pharmacokinetics parameters, area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC238 patients (mean [standard deviation] age 44.9 [13.8]; 66.0% male) were treated in the switching (n = 118) or continuous arms (n = 120). Adjusted mean CPharmacokinetic equivalence was demonstrated, with highly similar efficacy and immunogenicity, and comparable safety observed in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis who received either adalimumab RP continuously or who switched between adalimumab RP and BI 695501.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03210259 (registered July 2017); Eudract.ema.europa.eu: 2016-002254-20.

ABP 798 (RIABNI™) is a biosimilar to rituximab reference product (RP), a monoclonal antibody that targets CD20. Approval of ABP 798 was based on the totality of evidence generated using a stepwise approach which began by showing that it is structurally and functionally similar to rituximab RP. This analytical assessment was followed by a demonstration of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic similarity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Comparative clinical efficacy and safety of ABP 798 with rituximab RP was demonstrated as a final step in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and in those with rheumatoid arthritis. Overall, the totality of evidence supported the conclusion that ABP 798 is highly similar to rituximab RP and provided scientific justification for extrapolation to other approved indications of rituximab RP.

Aim: To evaluate the performance of the multiple imputation (MI) method for estimating clinical effectiveness in pediatric Crohn's disease in the ImproveCareNow registry; to address the analytical challenge of missing data. Materials & methods: Simulation studies were performed by creating missing datasets based on fully observed data from patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease treated with non-ustekinumab biologics. MI was used to impute sPCDAI remission statuses in each simulated dataset. Results: The true remission rate (75.1% [95% CI: 72.6%, 77.5%]) was underestimated without imputation (72.6% [71.8%, 73.3%]). With MI, the estimate was 74.8% (74.4%, 75.2%). Conclusion: MI reduced nonresponse bias and improved the validity, reliability, and efficiency of real-world registry data to estimate remission rate in pediatric patients with Crohn's disease.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune disease requiring long-term treatment. Upadacitinib (UPA), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, is a new treatment for RA. The benefit–risk profile of a medication is best understood by evaluating the number needed to treat (NNT) and the number needed to harm (NNH). This analysis evaluated the comparative risk–benefit of UPA versus adalimumab (ADA). Post-hoc analyses were performed using data from the SELECT-COMPARE trial of UPA versus placebo (PBO) and UPA versus ADA among patients with active RA who remained on stable methotrexate (MTX) treatment and had an inadequate response; patients who failed to achieve response were rescued by predefined criteria—PBO or ADA switch to UPA, and UPA switch to ADA (all patients on PBO were switched to UPA at week 26). This analysis assessed efficacy and adverse events of special interest (AESIs) at week 26, 48, and 156 (3 years). NNT and NNH (95% confidence intervals) values were calculated between UPA versus ADA for all time points, and between UPA versus PBO for week 26. NNT and NNH values were applied to a hypothetical cohort of 100 patients to estimate the comparative efficacy and safety profiles. UPA consistently showed greater efficacy than ADA, as evidenced by NNT values

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the most common cause of advanced liver disease in the USA. Liver biopsy, the gold standard diagnostic test for evaluating liver fibrosis, is associated with significant risk and expense. The accuracy of ultrasound elastography and Fibrosis-4 index (FIB-4) in the obese NAFLD population is unknown. We aimed to compare the accuracy of ultrasound elastography and FIB-4 to liver biopsy in ruling out cirrhosis in NAFLD patients at a tertiary, transplant referral center in the US.We retrospectively evaluated 93 patients with a mean age of 53 years (SD: 13 years) who underwent liver ultrasound elastography and liver biopsy, and additionally calculated their FIB-4 at the time of biopsy. We compared the liver stiffness measurement (LSM) obtained from ultrasound elastography and FIB-4 with the pathology results for ruling out cirrhosis.85% of the patients were white, 53% were female, average BMI was 34.7 (SD: 6.7), 52% had diabetes, and 53% had hypertension. For biopsy-proven cirrhosis (prevalence 15%), a cut-off value of 12.5 kilopascals (kPa) for F4 had a sensitivity of 92% and a specificity of 54%. Values below this threshold excluded cirrhosis with 98% certainty. Compared to FIB-4, ultrasound elastography showed higher accuracy in ruling out cirrhosis (92% vs. 80% sensitivity, 98% vs. 95% negative predictive value (NPV), respectively).To our knowledge, this is the first study in a tertiary transplant referral center in the USA to show that ultrasound elastography was superior to FIB-4 and can be used as a reliable screening test to rule out cirrhosis in obese NAFLD patients at a 12.5 kPa cut-off. Therefore, helping to avoid the risk and expense associated with liver biopsy.

ObjectivesThis integrated analysis presents the safety profile of upadacitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, at 15 mg and 30 mg once daily in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsTreatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and laboratory data from five randomised, placebo- or active-controlled phase III trials of upadacitinib for patients with RA were analysed and summarised. Exposure-adjusted event rates are shown for placebo (three trials; 12/14 weeks), methotrexate (two trials; mean exposure: 36 weeks), adalimumab (one trial; mean exposure: 42 weeks), upadacitinib 15 mg (five trials; mean exposure: 53 weeks) and upadacitinib 30 mg (four trials; mean exposure: 59 weeks).Results3834 patients received one or more doses of upadacitinib 15 mg (n=2630) or 30 mg (n=1204), for a total of 4020.1 patient-years of exposure. Upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis and urinary tract infection were the most commonly reported TEAEs with upadacitinib. Rates of serious infection were similar between upadacitinib 15 mg and adalimumab but higher compared with methotrexate. Rates of herpes zoster and creatine phosphokinase (CPK) elevations were higher in both upadacitinib groups versus methotrexate and adalimumab, and rates of gastrointestinal perforations were higher with upadacitinib 30 mg. Rates of deaths, malignancies, adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) were similar across treatment groups.ConclusionIn the phase III clinical programme for RA, patients receiving upadacitinib had an increased risk of herpes zoster and CPK elevation versus adalimumab. Rates of malignancies, MACEs and VTEs were similar among patients receiving upadacitinib, methotrexate or adalimumab.Trial registration numbersSELECT-EARLY:NCT02706873; SELECT-NEXT:NCT02675426; SELECT-COMPARE:NCT02629159; SELECT-MONOTHERAPY:NCT02706951; SELECT-BEYOND:NCT02706847.

Background ABBV-599 is a novel fixed-dose combination of the Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor elsubrutinib and the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib under investigation for the treatment of autoimmune diseases. We aimed to determine whether ABBV-599 could increase the treatment response for patients with active rheumatoid arthritis compared with inhibiting either pathway alone, while maintaining an acceptable safety profile. Methods We conducted a multicentre, double-blind, parallel-group, dose-exploratory, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial at 75 community sites in eight countries in Europe and North America. We enrolled patients who were 18 years or older with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response or intolerance to biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (3:2:2:2:2:1) via interactive response technology to receive daily, orally administered ABBV-599 (ie, upadacitinib 15 mg plus elsubrutinib 60 mg), elsubrutinib 60 mg, elsubrutinib 20 mg, elsubrutinib 5 mg, upadacitinib 15 mg, or placebo. Randomisation was stratified by the number of previous biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. The investigator, study site personnel, and patients were masked throughout the study. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in disease activity score of 28 joints with C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) at week 12 for all patients who received a study drug. Pharmacokinetics and safety were also assessed. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03682705. Findings Between Oct 8, 2018, and March 26, 2020, 242 patients were randomly assigned to receive ABBV-599 (n=62), elsubrutinib 60 mg (n=41), elsubrutinib 20 mg (n=39), elsubrutinib 5 mg (n=41), upadacitinib 15 mg (n=40), or placebo (n=19). Of the 242 patients, 204 (84%) were female, 38 (16%) were male, and 220 (91%) were White; the mean age at baseline was 58·0 years (SD 11·3). Compared with placebo, the least squares mean changes from baseline in DAS28-CRP were –1·44 (90% CI –2·03 to –0·85; p

We read with great interest the article by Tao et al., in which they have described molecular signature-based machine learning models that can be used to predict response in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) prior to treatment initiation with tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors (TNFi) (1). Specifically, researchers in this study performed transcriptional and/or DNA methylomic profiling on peripheral blood mononuclear cells and immune cells from 80 patients with RA before treatment initiation with TNFi agents to find the differential molecular signatures of responders and non-responders. Next, they used machine learning models based on these molecular signatures to predict response to two TNFi, adalimumab and etanercept, in nine patients.

Objectives Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of RA. We evaluated radiographic progression in tofacitinib-treated patients with RA for up to 3 years in two pooled long-term extension (LTE) studies (ORAL Sequel; A3921041) (primary analysis), and for up to 5 years using data integrated from one phase (P)2 (A3921068), two P3 (ORAL Start; ORAL Scan) and two LTE studies (exploratory analysis). Methods In LTE studies, patients received tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID) or 10 mg BID as monotherapy or with conventional synthetic (cs)DMARDs. Radiographic outcomes up to 3 years: least squares mean (LSM) change from baseline in van der Heijde modified Total Sharp Score (ΔmTSS), erosion score (ΔES) and joint space narrowing (ΔJSN) score; proportion of patients with no radiographic progression (ΔmTSS ≤0.5); proportion of patients with no new erosions (ΔES ≤0.5). ΔmTSS was evaluated for up to 5 years in an exploratory analysis. Results For all tofacitinib-treated patients with radiographic data available at LTE month 36 (n = 414), LSM ΔmTSS was 1.14, LSM ΔES was 0.66, LSM ΔJSN was 0.74, and 74.3% and 86.2% of patients showed no radiographic progression and no new erosions, respectively. Similar values were observed regardless of tofacitinib dose, or whether patients received tofacitinib as monotherapy or with csDMARDs. In an exploratory analysis of integrated P2/P3/LTE studies, LSM ΔmTSS was 3.34 at month 60 (n = 269). Conclusion Limited progression of structural damage was observed in tofacitinib-treated patients up to 5 years, with similar results for tofacitinib used as monotherapy or combination therapy up to 3 years. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov): NCT01164579; NCT01039688; NCT00847613; NCT00413699; NCT00661661.

Introduction Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). To provide additional clinical evidence in regulatory submissions for a modified-release (MR) once-daily (QD) tofacitinib formulation, we compared real-world adherence and effectiveness between patients initiating the MR QD formulation and patients initiating an immediate-release (IR) twice-daily (BID) formulation. Methods Two noninterventional cohort studies were conducted. First, adherence and two effectiveness proxies were compared between patients with RA who newly initiated tofacitinib MR 11 mg QD or IR 5 mg BID in the IBM® MarketScan® Commercial and Medicare Supplemental US insurance claims databases (March 2016–October 2018). Second, using data collected in the Corrona US RA Registry (February 2016–August 2019), two Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI)-based measures of effectiveness were compared between tofacitinib MR 11 mg QD and IR 5 mg BID, and against noninferiority criteria derived from placebo-controlled clinical trials of the tofacitinib IR formulation. Multiple sensitivity analyses of the registry data were conducted to reassure regulators of consistent results across different assumptions. Results In each study, approximately two-thirds of patients initiated the MR formulation. In the claims database study, improved adherence and at least comparable effectiveness were observed with tofacitinib MR vs IR over 12 months, particularly in patients without prior advanced therapy. In the registry study, the noninferiority of tofacitinib MR vs IR was demonstrated for both CDAI outcomes at ~6 months; this finding was robust across multiple sensitivity analyses. Conclusion These results demonstrate the value of real-world evidence from complementary data sources in understanding the impact of medication adherence with a QD formulation in clinical practice. These analyses were suitable for regulatory consideration as an important component of evidence for the comparability of tofacitinib MR 11 mg QD vs IR 5 mg BID in patients with RA. Trial Registration Claims database study: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04018001, retrospectively registered July 12, 2019. Corrona US RA Registry study: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04267380, retrospectively registered February 12, 2020. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-020-01501-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

ObjectivesTofacitinib is a Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and ulcerative colitis, and has been investigated in psoriasis (PsO). Routine pharmacovigilance of an ongoing, open-label, blinded-endpoint, tofacitinib RA trial (Study A3921133; NCT02092467) in patients aged ≥50 years and with ≥1 cardiovascular risk factor identified a higher frequency of pulmonary embolism (PE) and all-cause mortality for patients receiving tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily versus those receiving tumour necrosis factor inhibitors and resulted in identification of a safety signal for tofacitinib. Here, we report the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), PE, venous thromboembolism (VTE; DVT or PE) and arterial thromboembolism (ATE) from the tofacitinib RA (excluding Study A3921133), PsA and PsO development programmes and observational studies. Data from an ad hoc safety analysis of Study A3921133 are reported separately within.MethodsThis post-hoc analysis used data from separate tofacitinib RA, PsO and PsA programmes. Incidence rates (IRs; patients with events per 100 patient-years’ exposure) were calculated for DVT, PE, VTE and ATE, including for populations stratified by defined baseline cardiovascular or VTE risk factors. Observational data from the US Corrona registries (including cardiovascular risk factor stratification), IBM MarketScan research database and the US FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database were analysed.Results12 410 tofacitinib-treated patients from the development programmes (RA: n=7964; PsO: n=3663; PsA: n=783) were included. IRs (95% CI) of thromboembolic events among the all tofacitinib cohorts’ average tofacitinib 5 mg and 10 mg twice daily treated patients for RA, respectively, were: DVT (0.17 (0.09–0.27) and 0.15 (0.09–0.22)); PE (0.12 (0.06–0.22) and 0.13 (0.08–0.21)); ATE (0.32 (0.22–0.46) and 0.38 (0.28–0.49)). Among PsO patients, IRs were: DVT (0.06 (0.00–0.36) and 0.06 (0.02–0.15)); PE (0.13 (0.02–0.47) and 0.09 (0.04–0.19)); ATE (0.52 (0.22–1.02) and 0.22 (0.13–0.35)). Among PsA patients, IRs were: DVT (0.00 (0.00–0.28) and 0.13 (0.00–0.70)); PE (0.08 (0.00–0.43) and 0.00 (0.00–0.46)); ATE (0.31 (0.08–0.79) and 0.38 (0.08–1.11)). IRs were similar between tofacitinib doses and generally higher in patients with baseline cardiovascular or VTE risk factors. IRs from the overall Corrona populations and in Corrona RA patients (including tofacitinib-naïve/biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-treated and tofacitinib-treated) with baseline cardiovascular risk factors were similar to IRs observed among the corresponding patients in the tofacitinib development programme. No signals of disproportionate reporting of DVT, PE or ATE with tofacitinib were identified in the FAERS database.ConclusionsDVT, PE and ATE IRs in the tofacitinib RA, PsO and PsA programmes were similar across tofacitinib doses, and generally consistent with observational data and published IRs of other treatments. As expected, IRs of thromboembolic events were elevated in patients with versus without baseline cardiovascular or VTE risk factors, and were broadly consistent with those observed in the Study A3921133 ad hoc safety analysis data, although the IR (95% CI) for PE was greater in patients treated with tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily in Study A3921133 (0.54 (0.32–0.87)), versus patients with baseline cardiovascular risk factors treated with tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily in the RA programme (0.24 (0.13–0.41)).

Objectives This report provides data for the extent of B cell depletion and recovery, efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of Sandoz rituximab (SDZ-RTX; GP2013; Rixathon®) compared with reference rituximab (Ref-RTX) up to week 52 of the ASSIST-RA study. Methods Patients were randomized to SDZ-RTX or Ref-RTX in combination with methotrexate according to the RTX label. The primary endpoint was analysed at week 24. Responders (28-joint DAS [DAS28] decrease from baseline >1.2) at week 24 with residual disease activity (DAS28 ≥2.6) were eligible for a second treatment course between week 24 and 52. Endpoints after week 24 included change from baseline in peripheral B cells, DAS28, ACR 20% response rate (ACR20), Clinical and Simplified Disease Activity Indexes (CDAI, SDAI) and HAQ disability index (HAQ-DI). Safety and immunogenicity were assessed by the incidence of adverse events and antidrug antibodies. Results Primary and secondary endpoints up to week 24 were met. Overall, 260/312 randomized patients completed treatment up to week 52. SDZ-RTX resulted in B cell concentrations over time similar to Ref-RTX. The efficacy of SDZ-RTX was similar to Ref-RTX up to week 52, as measured by DAS28, ACR20/50/70, CDAI, SDAI and HAQ-DI. Safety of SDZ-RTX was similar to Ref-RTX regarding frequency, type and severity of adverse events, which were consistent with the known Ref-RTX safety profile. The incidence of antidrug antibodies was low and transient similarly across treatment groups. Conclusion SDZ-RTX demonstrated similar B cell concentrations over time, efficacy, safety and immunogenicity to Ref-RTX over 52 weeks of the ASSIST-RA study.

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.

Objective Our objective was to evaluate the long-term efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the infliximab biosimilar, PF-06438179/GP1111 (PF-SZ-IFX), in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who continued biosimilar treatment throughout 78 weeks or who switched from reference infliximab (Remicade®) sourced from the EU (IFX-EU) at week 30 or week 54 in the REFLECTIONS B537-02 study. Methods In this phase III, double-blind, active-controlled study, patients with moderate-to-severe active RA were initially randomized to PF-SZ-IFX or IFX-EU, each with methotrexate (treatment period [TP] 1; N = 650). At week 30, patients receiving PF-SZ-IFX continued PF-SZ-IFX; patients receiving IFX-EU were re-randomized to continue IFX-EU or switch to PF-SZ-IFX (TP2; n = 566). From weeks 54 to 78, all patients received open-label treatment with PF-SZ-IFX (TP3; n = 505). Efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity data were analyzed during TP3. Results Efficacy was sustained and comparable across groups at week 78, with American College of Rheumatology criteria for ≥ 20% clinical improvement response rates of 75.9% (biosimilar group), 77.8% (week 30 switch group), and 68.3% (week 54 switch group). The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was 28.9%, 29.4%, and 30.2%, respectively. The proportion of patients who were antidrug antibody (ADA) positive and neutralizing antibody positive (as a percentage of ADA-positive patients) was stable and comparable between groups. Conclusions Results to week 78 continue to support the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of PF-SZ-IFX in patients with moderate-to-severe active RA. There were no clinically meaningful differences between groups, independent of a single treatment transition from IFX-EU to PF-SZ-IFX at week 30 or week 54. Trial Registration Number NCT02222493. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s40259-019-00403-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Summary Background Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor used for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. We assessed the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib after methotrexate withdrawal in patients who achieved low disease activity (LDA) with tofacitinib in combination with methotrexate. Methods ORAL Shift was a phase 3b/4 non-inferiority trial in patients aged at least 18 years with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate done in 109 centres across 16 countries. After 24 weeks of open-label tofacitinib modified-release 11 mg once daily plus methotrexate, patients who achieved LDA (clinical disease activity index [CDAI] ≤10) were randomly assigned 1:1 via an automated web-based response system to receive tofacitinib plus placebo (tofacitinib monotherapy; ie, masked methotrexate withdrawal) or continue tofacitinib plus methotrexate for 24 weeks in a double-blind manner. The primary endpoint was the least squares mean change from week 24 to week 48 in disease activity score in 28 joints with four variables, including erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-4[ESR]). The primary analysis was done in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment in both phases, and safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment since enrolment. Non-inferiority of tofacitinib monotherapy versus tofacitinib plus methotrexate was declared if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the difference in change in DAS28-4(ESR) between treatment groups was less than 0·6. Safety was assessed in both phases. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02831855 , and is complete. Findings Between Sept 1, 2016, and Nov 1, 2017, 694 patients were enrolled in the open-label phase and 623 received study treatment for 24 weeks. 533 achieved CDAI-defined LDA and were randomly assigned into the double-blind phase (267 in the tofacitinib monotherapy group and 266 in the tofacitinib plus methotrexate group). Three participants in the monotherapy group did not start treatment so were not included in the primary analysis. Non-inferiority was demonstrated (difference 0·30 [95% CI 0·12–0·48]). 107 (41%) of 264 patients in the tofacitinib monotherapy group and 109 (41%) of 266 in the tofacitinib plus methotrexate group had adverse events; five patients from each group discontinued because of adverse events; two patients died in the tofacitinib plus methotrexate group. No new safety findings were reported up to 48 weeks. Interpretation Patients with rheumatoid arthritis who achieve LDA with a combination of tofacitinib plus methotrexate may consider withdrawing methotrexate without significant worsening of disease activity or unexpected safety issues. Funding Pfizer.

Dose escalation of infliximab in both primary and secondary nonresponders is widely reported; however, the usefulness of dose escalation has been disputed. The objective of this analysis is to evaluate trends in clinical efficacy following multiple infliximab dose escalations in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Patients enrolled in a US RA registry were included if they initiated infliximab at 3 mg/kg every 8 weeks, received ≥ 1 infliximab dose escalation within 12 months of initiation, and had ≥ 1 visit following dose escalation. Trends in mean Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) scores from visits following dose escalations were evaluated. In patients who received 2 or 3 dose escalations, the initial (1 or 2) dose escalations resulted in reduced mean CDAI scores, but subsequent escalations did not further reduce disease activity. In patients who received ≥ 4 dose escalations, mean CDAI scores did not further reduce disease activity over time. Mean HAQ scores were stable over time in patients who received 2 or 3 dose escalations. In patients who received ≥ 4 dose escalations, mean HAQ scores decreased following 1 dose escalation but progressively increased following subsequent dose escalations. Initial dose escalations (from 3 mg/kg to the equivalent of approximately 5 to 7 mg/kg) may be useful in controlling disease activity; however, there may be diminishing clinical benefit of further escalations, which can also increase the potential risk for infection and increase incremental drug costs. • Initial infliximab dose escalations (1 to 2) may be useful in lowering disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. • There does not appear to be a clinical benefit in infliximab dose escalations above the equivalent of 5 to 7 mg/kg.

Background Final data are presented for the ORAL Sequel long-term extension (LTE) study evaluating the safety and efficacy of tofacitinib 5 mg and 10 mg twice daily (BID) for up to 9.5 years in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods Eligible patients had previously completed a phase 1, 2, or 3 qualifying index study of tofacitinib and received open-label tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg BID. Stable background therapy, including csDMARDs, was continued; adjustments to tofacitinib or background therapy were permitted at investigators’ discretion. Assignment to dose groups (5 mg or 10 mg BID) was based on patients’ average total daily dose. The primary objective was to determine the long-term safety and tolerability of tofacitinib 5 mg and 10 mg BID; the key secondary objective was to evaluate the long-term persistence of efficacy. Results Between February 5, 2007, and November 30, 2016, 4481 patients were enrolled. Total tofacitinib exposure was 16,291 patient-years. Safety data are reported up to month 114 for all tofacitinib; efficacy data are reported up to month 96 for tofacitinib 5 mg BID and month 72 for 10 mg BID (with low patient numbers limiting interpretation beyond these time points). Overall, 52% of patients discontinued (24% due to adverse events [AEs] and 4% due to insufficient clinical response); the safety profile remained consistent with that observed in prior phase 1, 2, 3, or LTE studies. The incidence rate (IR; number of patients with events per 100 patient-years) for AEs leading to discontinuation was 6.8. For all-cause AEs of special interest, IRs were 3.4 for herpes zoster, 2.4 for serious infections, 0.8 for malignancies excluding non-melanoma skin cancer, 0.4 for major adverse cardiovascular events, and 0.3 for all-cause mortality. Clinically meaningful improvements in the signs and symptoms of RA and physical functioning, which were observed in the index studies, were maintained. Conclusions Tofacitinib 5 mg and 10 mg BID demonstrated a consistent safety profile (as monotherapy or combination therapy) and sustained efficacy in this open-label LTE study of patients with RA. Safety data are reported up to 9.5 years, and efficacy data up to 8 years, based on adequate patient numbers to support conclusions. Trial registration NCT00413699, funded by Pfizer Inc (date of trial registration: December 20, 2006) Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13075-019-1866-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction Etanercept, a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor, is used to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and is administered via subcutaneous injection. Injection site pain (ISP) associated with subcutaneous administration may affect compliance or hinder initiation of prescribed medications. To improve the patient experience, a new phosphate-free formulation of etanercept was evaluated for reduced ISP associated with administration. Methods This phase 3b, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, cross-over study compared the prior formulation of etanercept to a phosphate-free formulation. Etanercept-naïve adults with RA or PsA indicated for treatment with etanercept were eligible. Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive both etanercept formulations (50 mg) in one of two crossover sequences: prior formulation followed by phosphate-free formulation (sequence AB) or phosphate-free formulation followed by prior formulation (sequence BA) at visits 1 week apart. Patients self-reported ISP using a fit-for-purpose 100-mm visual analog scale within 30 s after injection. Safety outcomes included incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events. Mixed-effects analysis of variance model was used to assess ISP, with treatment, study period, sequence, and disease indication as fixed-effect covariates and patient-within-sequence as random effect. Results A total of 111 patients enrolled (56 sequence AB; 55 sequence BA). Mean ISP score for prior formulation was 23.1 mm and for phosphate-free formulation was 19.1 mm (mean difference − 4 mm; 95% confidence interval: − 8.0, 0.0; P = 0.048). Patients with the highest ISP scores from the prior formulation (by quartile cut points) had the largest reduction in pain with phosphate-free formulation. Injection site reactions were few in number and similar between formulations; no new safety signals were observed. Conclusions The new phosphate-free formulation of etanercept had statistically significantly lower mean pain scores than the prior formulation, with largest pain reductions observed among patients who reported highest pain with the prior formulation. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02986139. Funding Amgen Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA USA.

Objective Comparable clinical efficacy of the rituximab (RTX) biosimilar GP2013 and reference RTX has been established in blinded randomized trials. However, when switching from a reference biologic to a biosimilar, potential safety implications are often an important consideration. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of switching from reference RTX to RTX biosimilar GP2013 compared with treatment continuation with reference RTX in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods In this multinational, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group safety study, 107 patients with RA who had previously received treatment (of any duration) with reference RTX as part of routine practice and who required continuation of treatment were randomized to receive either GP2013 or to continue treatment with reference RTX. All patients received a stable dosage of methotrexate and folic acid during the study. Study assessments included the incidence of hypersensitivity, infusion-related and anaphylactic reactions, immunogenicity (antidrug antibodies), and general safety. Results Regardless of whether patients switched to GP2013 or continued treatment with reference RTX, the incidences of hypersensitivity (9.4% and 11.1%, respectively) and infusion-related reactions (11.3% and 18.5%, respectively) were similarly low. Only 1 patient (in the reference RTX group) developed antidrug antibodies to RTX after starting study treatment. No neutralizing antidrug antibodies were observed. Antidrug antibodies were not associated with adverse events (AEs). No clinically meaningful differences in the rate of AEs were observed between treatment groups. Conclusion No safety risks were detected when patients switched from reference RTX to GP2013. The safety profiles of patients in both treatment groups were similar, although the study was not powered for statistical testing of equivalence in safety.

Objective This post-hoc, pooled analysis of Phase 3 studies of tofacitinib examined the safety of tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg twice daily (BID) when used as monotherapy versus combination therapy with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods Pooled data from six double-blind, randomized controlled Phase 3 studies of tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID in patients with RA were analyzed for safety and stratified by administration as monotherapy (ORAL Solo: NCT00814307 and ORAL Start: NCT01039688) or in combination with csDMARDs (ORAL Sync: NCT00856544, ORAL Standard: NCT00853385, ORAL Scan: NCT00847613, and ORAL Step: NCT00960440), and by glucocorticoid use at baseline. Safety assessments included incidence rates (IRs) for serious adverse events (SAEs), discontinuations due to AEs, serious infection events, and herpes zoster (HZ), and were evaluated throughout the duration of the Phase 3 studies. Results In total, 3881 patients were included in the safety analysis (monotherapy studies: n = 1380; combination therapy studies: n = 2501). IRs for selected AEs of interest were generally numerically lower in patients who received tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID as monotherapy than as combination therapy (SAEs: IR [range] 6.21–6.72 versus IR 10.17–13.46; discontinuations due to AEs: IR 5.53–6.18 versus IR 10.80–11.01; serious infections: IR 1.57–1.66 versus IR 3.39–3.56; HZ: IR 1.95–2.93 versus IR 4.37–4.99, respectively), irrespective of tofacitinib dose or glucocorticoid use. There were too few patients and events within the placebo group to fully evaluate effect between combination therapy and monotherapy. Conclusions Safety profiles were generally similar between patients receiving monotherapy and combination therapy; however, selected safety events of interest, including HZ and serious infections, showed lower IRs with non-overlapping 95% confidence intervals for tofacitinib all monotherapy versus combination therapy. Tofacitinib monotherapy may, therefore, have fewer safety events compared with combination therapy, and have a favorable risk-benefit profile in patients with active RA who are intolerant to csDMARDs.

To review recently published articles on use of Janus Kinase inhibitors (Jaki) in the clinic for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Several Jaki have been approved for RA patients failing csDMARDS. Over the last 2 years, EULAR and ACR have published updated recommendations for the pharmacologic management of RA providing guidance on the utilization of Jaki after csDMARD failure. Clinical trials have been published addressing the efficacy of Jaki monotherapy as patients often choose monotherapy because of a desire to avoid multiple therapies and aggravating adverse events with csDMARDs. Previous clinical trials have compared the efficacy and safety of Jaki to adalimumab, and a trial comparing abatacept to upadacitinib has recently been published. An increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) has been suggested with Jaki and additional information has recently become available with conflicting results.Jaki are now standard therapy for RA patients failing csDMARDs and are being utilized frequently as an alternative to biologics in patients without risk factors for VTE. Jaki monotherapy has been demonstrated to be effective, although combination therapy has been demonstrated to be superior in clinical and radiographic outcomes. Preliminary data suggests that cycling through Jaki in patients with incomplete response to initial Jaki treatment may be an appropriate strategy.

Machine learning refers to a class of computer algorithms that learn from examples rather than being explicitly programmed to perform a task. It learns to formulate a general rule from a set of concrete examples. Thus, like human learning, the computer becomes capable of improving its performance from acquired knowledge. The difference is that, at the current state of our knowledge, the computer needs many more learning examples than people do. Machine learning is the basis of artificial intelligence. It can be subdivided into shallow and deep learning, depending upon the structure and complexity of the algorithm. Several examples are given, both because of their own importance and because they help to introduce some of the concepts and principals involved in deep learning. It is important to recognize that both forms of machine learning are in common use, as there are situations in which one or the other is optimal for a given task. For deep learning, additional concepts such as multilayer connectivity, backpropagation, and convolution are described in detail, as these are the factors that must be taken into account when deploying these models.

Over and above the characterization of an image in terms of classification labels, artificial intelligence can detect specific features within that image that contribute to an understanding of its clinical behavior. The analysis of an image can be more robust and provide more information than that which can be obtained by unaided morphological interpretation by the human eye. However, the capability is hampered by the huge annotated datasets that are required for supervised deep learning training as currently implemented. The kinds of unsupervised experiential training that occurs in humans are not currently helpful. However, there are a variety of weakly supervised strategies that allow for substantial reduction in the amount of specific annotation necessary for training. In any training regimen, care must be taken to preserve and detect information about the relationships among patterns in the data. New approaches toward this goal will also be discussed.