Upadacitinib monotherapy improves patient-reported outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis: results from SELECT-EARLY and SELECT-MONOTHERAPY

Upadacitinib for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis: An Extensive Review

OBJECTIVES

To review the characteristics, efficacy, safety, pharmacoeconomics, and place in therapy of upadacitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

DATA SOURCES

PubMed (January 2003-May 2022) was searched using upadacitinib and ABT-494.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Human studies published in peer-reviewed publications in English were the primary sources for efficacy and safety data.

DATA SYNTHESIS

In randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical studies, upadacitinib demonstrated statistically significant improvement in RA symptoms as monotherapy and in combination with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) when compared with csDMARD monotherapy or to adalimumab or abatacept in combination with csDMARD therapy in patients with RA. American College of Rheumatology 20% response rates were 68% to 79% for upadacitinib monotherapy and 64% to 84% for upadacitinib plus csDMARD therapy, compared with 28% to 59% for csDMARD-only therapy and 63% to 74% for biologic DMARD (bDMARD) plus csDMARD therapy. Long-term extension studies demonstrated similar findings. Upadacitinib had similar rates of serious infections, herpes zoster, major cardiovascular events, and venous thromboembolic events as other JAK inhibitors. Upadacitinib was similar in cost to tofacitinib and twice as high as baricitinib based on current estimated costs to patients, but actual costs may vary.

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

Upadacitinib is an alternative therapy to other JAK inhibitors and bDMARDs in patients with moderate to severe RA who have had an inadequate response to a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor alone or in combination with a csDMARD.

CONCLUSIONS

Upadacitinib is an effective JAK inhibitor for use in RA.

Efficacy of synthetic and biological DMARDs: a systematic literature review informing the 2022 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To update the evidence on efficacy of DMARDs (disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs) and inform the taskforce of the 2022 update of the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) recommendations for management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

This systematic literature review (SLR) investigated the efficacy of conventional synthetic (cs), biological (b), biosimilar and targeted synthetic (ts)DMARDs in patients with RA. Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and Web of Science were used to identify all relevant articles published since the previous update in 2019 to 14 January 2022.

RESULTS

Of 8969 search results, 169 articles were selected for detailed review and 47 were finally included. Trials investigated the efficacy of csDMARDs, bDMARDs and tsDMARDs, DMARD switching, tapering and trials investigating different treatment strategies. The compounds investigated were csDMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine), bDMARDs (abatacept, adalimumab, certolizumab-pegol, denosumab, etanercept, infliximab, levilimab, olokizumab, opineracept, rituximab, sarilumab, tocilizumab) and tsDMARDs (baricitinib, filgotinib, tofacitinib, upadacitinib). The efficacy of csDMARDs+ short-term glucocorticoids in early RA was confirmed and similar to bDMARD+MTX combination therapy. Interleukin-6 pathway inhibition was effective in trials on olokizumab and levilimab. Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi) was efficacious in different patient populations. After insufficient response to JAKi, patients could respond to TNFi treatment. Tapering of DMARDs was feasible for a proportion of patients, who were able to taper therapy while remaining in low disease activity or remission.

CONCLUSION

The results of this SLR, together with one SLR on safety of DMARD and one on glucocorticoids, informed the taskforce of the 2022 update of the EULAR recommendations for pharmacological management of RA.

Work productivity and activity in patients with SAPHO syndrome: a cross-sectional observational study

BACKGROUND

Our understanding of work productivity impairment among patients with synovitis, acne, pustulosis, hyperostosis, and osteitis (SAPHO) syndrome is limited. The purpose of this study was to provide an overview of work productivity loss in SAPHO syndrome patients through the use of the work productivity and activity impairment (WPAI) questionnaire, as well as to investigate the relationship between the WPAI and other disease-related indicators.

METHODS

Patients for this cross-sectional study were recruited from Peking Union Medical College Hospital (Beijing, China). The questionnaires incorporating the WPAI were administered, along with the inclusion of demographic data, disease-specific measures, and general health variables. The construct validity of the WPAI was evaluated via the correlations between WPAI outcomes and other measures. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and nonparametric Kruskal‒Wallis tests were used for the comparison of the WPAI outcomes between known groups.

RESULTS

A total of 376 patients were included, and 201 patients (53.5%) were employed. The medians (interquartile range [IQR]) of absenteeism, presenteeism, work productivity loss, and activity impairment were 0% (0-13%), 20% (0-40%), 20% (0-52%), and 30% (0-50%), respectively. All of the WPAI outcomes showed moderate to strong correlations with other generic and disease-specific measures (|r| = 0.43-0.75), except for absenteeism. Increasing disease activity and worse health status were significantly associated with increased impairments of work productivity and activity.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the negative effects of SAPHO syndrome on the work productivity and activity of patients, thus indicating good construct validity and discriminative ability of the WPAI. To reduce the economic burden, it is important to improve the work productivity and daily activity of patients by ameliorating clinical care.

Effect of biological DMARDs and JAK inhibitors in pain of chronic inflammatory arthritis

INTRODUCTION

The advent of biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and, more recently, of Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) has had a major impact on the long-term outcomes of chronic inflammatory arthritis (IA). However, the persistence of pain, even in patients with a complete pharmacological control of peripheral inflammation, represents an important clinical challenge in the treatment of IA.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we provide an overview of possible mechanisms underlying pain in IA and its assessment, as well as the effects of bDMARDs and JAKi on pain management.

EXPERT OPINION

The overall data showed a good effect of bDMARDs and JAKi on pain, more pronounced for JAKi. However, it is challenging to distinguish the effect on the different types of pain (nociceptive, neuropathic, and nociplastic).

Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Treated with Long-Term Upadacitinib Therapy in Five Randomized Controlled Trials

Introduction

The Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) is a patient-reported outcome tool recommended for the assessment of disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in clinical practice. This analysis evaluated the long-term effect of upadacitinib vs. comparators on RAPID3 scores in patients with RA in the phase 3 SELECT clinical trial program.

Methods

This post hoc analysis included data from five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients receiving upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg once daily (QD) as monotherapy or in combination with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs). The proportions of patients reporting RAPID3 remission (scores ≤ 3) were assessed at week 60. Correlations between absolute scores for RAPID3 and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI), and 28-joint Disease Activity Score with C-reactive protein (DAS28[CRP]) at week 60 were assessed using Spearman correlation coefficients.

Results

A total of 3117 patients were included from the SELECT-NEXT, -BEYOND, -MONOTHERAPY, -COMPARE, and -EARLY trials. By week 60, 32–52% of methotrexate-naïve and csDMARD inadequate responder (IR) patients treated with either upadacitinib 15 mg QD or upadacitinib 30 mg QD reported RAPID3 scores consistent with remission. The proportions were slightly lower in the biologic DMARD-IR SELECT-BEYOND population (19–28%). RAPID3 scores highly correlated (Spearman correlation values ≥ 0.58) with CDAI, SDAI, and DAS28(CRP) scores through week 60 (all p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Upadacitinib, as monotherapy or in combination with csDMARDs, was associated with patient-reported remission assessed by RAPID3 over 60 weeks across the SELECT RCTs in patients with RA.

Trial registration

SELECT-BEYOND (NCT02706847); SELECT-NEXT (NCT02675426); SELECT-MONOTHERAPY (NCT02706951); SELECT-EARLY (NCT02706873); SELECT-COMPARE (NCT02629159).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40744-022-00483-4.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a disease that causes inflammation of the joints. Doctors have several ways of assessing how bad a patient’s disease is, and these often use a combination of signs and symptoms to develop a ‘score’. One method is called RAPID3, which is a score based on an overall assessment of the disease by the patient, the level of pain, and the amount of physical disability. An advantage of RAPID3 is that it is quick and easy to use, and since it uses only patient-reported symptoms, it can be measured easily via telemedicine, without the need for an in-person consultation. In this study, we decided to look into the effect of upadacitinib, a drug used for the treatment of RA, on RAPID3 score in patients with RA. We also investigated whether RAPID3 correlates with other ways of measuring RA severity, including scores that use physician-measured factors such as number of affected joints, as this can help show whether RAPID3 is a valid and useful tool. We found that upadacitinib led to long-term improvements in RAPID3 score, and that results were the same in different studies and patient groups, including patients who had not responded well to other treatments. We also found that RAPID3 correlated well with other measures, i.e., improvements in RAPID3 happened in parallel with improvements in other scores. Overall, these results suggest that RAPID3 can be a useful tool in patients with RA.

Patient-reported outcomes and realistic clinical endpoints for JAK inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION

Despite development of multiple classes of therapeutics, health related quality of life in RA remains low. Patients describe impacts of their disease in differing terms than health care providers. (HCPs), stressing importance of pain, fatigue, poor sleep and restrictions in work and social participation.

AREAS COVERED

Patient reported outcomes (PROs) assessed and analyzed across the phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in RA with the JAK inhibitors (JAKis) are summarized. Patient populations, whether conventional synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug incomplete responders (csDMARD-IR) or biologic DMARD incomplete responders (bDMARD-IR) or csDMARD-naive, report differing baseline scores and placebo responses, generally lower in more treatment experienced patients. Improvements with all the approved JAKis in RA occur rapidly and are often maximal by 12 - 14 weeks; continuing thereafter. The rapidity of benefit reported by patients and convenience of oral administration often lead to increased adherence.

EXPERT OPINION

A broad variety of PROs utilized in the RA RCTs with the JAKis confirm the clinical meaningfulness of their efficacy across treatment-experienced and naive populations. A majority of patients report statistically significant as well as clinically meaningful (≥ minimum clinically important differences, MCID) improvements, with numbers needed to treat (NNTs) ≤ 10 and scores ≥ normative values at endpoint, despite ≤ 12% reporting such scores at baseline.

Methotrexate in early rheumatoid arthritis: Is the anchor drug still holding?

Treat-to-target (T2T) is currently the most fashionable strategy for treatment-naïve, early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. A T2T approach can lead to a complete and drug-free disease remission, whereas failure to obtain remission leads to damage early in the disease course. Hence, one should try to achieve high remission rates as early as possible, implementing the best therapeutic strategies available. Methotrexate (MTX) combined with glucocorticoid bridging is the mainstay of T2T. However, MTX is often used suboptimally in RA patients for many reasons, including poor tolerability, low compliance, and safety issues. Recent evidence has suggested that novel targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) such as the Janus-kinase (JAK) inhibitors in combination with glucocorticoids yielded better outcomes in early RA than conventional treatment. Such an approach may have advantages in terms of patients' outcomes, though some concerns about serious adverse events need to be addressed.

The impact of filgotinib on patient-reported outcomes and health-related quality of life for patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: a post hoc analysis of Phase 3 studies

Background

The effects of filgotinib on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from 3 trials in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis were investigated.

Methods

Methotrexate (MTX)-naïve patients received filgotinib 200 or 100 mg plus MTX (FIL200+MTX, FIL100+MTX), filgotinib 200 mg monotherapy (FIL200), or MTX monotherapy through 52 weeks (NCT02886728). Patients with inadequate response (IR) to MTX (MTX-IR) received FIL200+MTX, FIL100+MTX, adalimumab 40 mg +MTX (ADA+MTX), or placebo (PBO)+MTX (rerandomized to FIL200+MTX or FIL100+MTX at week 24) through 52 weeks (NCT02889796). Patients with IR to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD-IR) received FIL200 or FIL100 or PBO with background stable conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs for up to 24 weeks (NCT02873936). PROs included Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) physical/mental component summary (PCS/MCS), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire-Rheumatoid Arthritis (WPAI-RA), and Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA). Data are reported as least-squares mean changes from baseline with standard error to the timepoint representing each study’s primary endpoint. All statistical comparisons are of filgotinib groups vs their respective control groups.

Results

At week 24, among MTX-naïve patients, change from baseline (standard deviation) in HAQ-DI was − 1.00 (0.03; P < 0.001) with FIL200+MTX, − 0.94 (0.04; P < 0.01) with FIL100+MTX, and − 0.91 (0.04; P < 0.05) with FIL200 alone compared with − 0.81 (0.03) with MTX alone. At week 12, among MTX-IR patients, change from baseline in HAQ-DI was − 0.69 (0.04; P < 0.001 vs PBO+MTX, P < 0.05 vs ADA) with FIL200+MTX, − 0.57 (0.04; P < 0.001 vs placebo) with FIL100+MTX, and − 0.60 (0.04) with ADA vs − 0.40 (0.04) with PBO+MTX. At week 12, among bDMARD-IR patients, change from baseline in HAQ-DI was − 0.50 (0.06; P < 0.001) with FIL200+csDMARD and − 0.46 (0.05; P < 0.001) with FIL100+csDMARD vs − 0.19 (0.06) with placebo+csDMARD. Changes in SF-36 PCS and MCS, FACIT-Fatigue, WPAI, and PtGA tended to favor filgotinib over PBO, MTX, and ADA. Greater proportions of patients experienced clinically meaningful differences with either dosage of FIL in combination with csDMARDs (including MTX) and with FIL200 monotherapy vs comparators.

Conclusions

Filgotinib provided improvements in PROs across patient populations. These findings suggest filgotinib can be an effective treatment option for patients with insufficient response to MTX or bDMARDs and patients who are MTX-naïve.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, FINCH 1, NCT02889796, first posted September 7, 2016; FINCH 2, NCT02873936, first posted August 22, 2016, retrospectively registered; FINCH 3, NCT02886728, first posted September 1, 2016, retrospectively registered.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13075-021-02677-7.

Economic Benefit from Improvements in Quality of Life with Upadacitinib: Comparisons with Tofacitinib and Methotrexate in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

Introduction

To compare the economic benefit of upadacitinib combination therapy versus tofacitinib combination therapy and upadacitinib monotherapy versus methotrexate monotherapy from improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

Data were analyzed from two trials of upadacitinib (SELECT-NEXT and SELECT-MONOTHERAPY) and one trial of tofacitinib (ORAL-Standard) that collected HRQOL measurements using the Short Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey in patients with RA. Direct medical costs per patient per month (PPPM) for patients receiving upadacitinib 15 mg once daily and methotrexate were derived from observed SF-36 Physical (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores in the SELECT trials using a regression algorithm. Direct medical costs PPPM for patients receiving tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily were obtained from a published analysis of SF-36 PCS and MCS scores observed in the ORAL-Standard trial. Short-term (12–14 weeks) and long-term (48 weeks) estimates of direct medical costs PPPM were compared between upadacitinib and tofacitinib and between upadacitinib and methotrexate.

Results

Over 12 weeks, direct medical costs PPPM were $252 lower (95% CI $72, $446) for upadacitinib-treated patients versus tofacitinib-treated patients. Medical costs PPPM at weeks 24 and 48 and cumulative costs over the entire 48-week period (difference $1759; 95% CI $1162, $2449) were significantly lower for upadacitinib than for tofacitinib. Over 14 weeks, direct medical costs PPPM were $399 lower (95% CI $158, $620) for patients treated with upadacitinib monotherapy compared with those treated with methotrexate alone. Direct medical costs at week 48 and cumulative costs over the entire 48-week period (difference $2044; 95% CI $1221, $2846) were significantly lower for upadacitinib monotherapy compared with methotrexate alone.

Conclusion

In the short and long term, upadacitinib combination therapy versus tofacitinib combination therapy and upadacitinib monotherapy versus methotrexate monotherapy were associated with significantly lower direct medical costs for patients with RA.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02675426, NCT02706951, and NCT00853385.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01930-4.

Extra-Articular Manifestations and Comorbidities in Psoriatic Disease: A Journey Into the Immunologic Crosstalk

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic inflammatory disease primarily affecting peripheral and axial joints, with the possible presence of extra-articular manifestations (EAMs), such as psoriasis, uveitis, and inflammatory bowel disease. Recently, the concept of psoriatic disease (PsD) has been proposed to define a systemic condition encompassing, in addition to joints and EAMs, some comorbidities (e.g., metabolic syndrome, type II diabetes, hypertension) that can affect the disease outcome and the achievement of remission. EAMs and comorbidities in PsA share common immunopathogenic pathways linked to the systemic inflammation of this disease; these involve a broad variety of immune cells and cytokines. Currently, various therapeutics are available targeting different cytokines and molecules implicated in the inflammatory response of this condition; however, despite an improvement in the management of PsA, comprehensive disease control is often not achievable. There is, therefore, a big gap to fill especially in terms of comorbidities and EAMs management. In this review, we summarize the clinical aspects of the main comorbidities and EAMs in PsA, and we focus on the immunopathologic features they share with the articular manifestations. Moreover, we discuss the effect of a diverse immunomodulation and the current unmet needs in PsD.

Patient- and physician-reported outcomes from two phase 3 randomized studies (RAJ3 and RAJ4) of peficitinib (ASP015K) in Asian patients with rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Peficitinib (ASP015K), a novel oral Janus kinase inhibitor, has demonstrated efficacy and safety in the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This study evaluated the effect of peficitinib on patient- and physician-reported outcomes in Asian patients with RA and an inadequate response to prior disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

METHODS

Patients from two randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trials (RAJ3 and RAJ4) received once-daily peficitinib 100 mg, peficitinib 150 mg, or placebo, alone or in combination with DMARDs (RAJ3), or in combination with methotrexate (RAJ4). Mean changes in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire domain scores from baseline, and percentages of patients achieving minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) for patient- and physician-reported outcomes (WPAI, Health Assessment Questionnaire - Disability Index [HAQ-DI], and Subject's Global Assessment of Pain [SGAP]), and Physician's Global Assessment of disease activity (PGA) were evaluated at weeks 4, 8, 12, and 12/early termination (ET).

RESULTS

Data from 1025 patients were analyzed. At week 12/ET in both studies, patients who received peficitinib 100 mg or 150 mg reported significantly improved WPAI domain scores from baseline (except for absenteeism in RAJ4) compared with placebo (both doses, p<0.05). A higher proportion of peficitinib- versus placebo-treated patients achieved MCID in WPAI, HAQ-DI, SGAP, and PGA in studies RAJ3 and RAJ4. Significant differences with peficitinib versus placebo were evident in both studies as early as week 4 in HAQ-DI (peficitinib 150 mg only), SGAP, and PGA, and week 8 in WPAI loss of work productivity and daily activity impairment. At week 12/ET, significantly higher proportions of patients receiving peficitinib versus placebo achieved MCID in HAQ-DI, SGAP, PGA, and WPAI domains of presenteeism (RAJ3 only), loss of work productivity (RAJ3 only), and daily activity impairment (p<0.05 for all comparisons).

CONCLUSIONS

Peficitinib 100 mg or 150 mg administered daily over 12 weeks resulted in clinically meaningful improvements in outcomes that are important to RA patients, including pain, physical function, and work productivity and activity. These observations were reinforced through similar improvements in physicians' rating of disease activity.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

RAJ3: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02308163 , registered 4 December 2014. RAJ4: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02305849 , registered 3 December 2014.