Upadacitinib improves patient-reported outcomes vs placebo or adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results from SELECT-COMPARE

Janus kinase inhibitors versus tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis: meta-analytical comparison of efficacy and safety

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic systemic autoimmune disorder characterized by persistent inflammation leading to progressively worse disability. Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors are pivotal in RA treatment, yet their comparative efficacy remains underexplored.

AIM

This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors and TNF inhibitors in treating RA using data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

A meta-analysis and outcomes analysis were based on results of the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and Patient Global Assessment Scale (PtGA) and other indices as incidences of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and malignancy.

RESULTS

The JAK inhibitors caused a statistically significant improvement in the HAQ-DI score [MD = 0.08, 95% CI (0.03, 0.12), p = 0.0008] compared with the TNF inhibitors. However, no significant difference was observed between the two drug classes in the CDAI score [MD = - 2.03, 95% CI (- 9.27, 5.22), p = 0.58]. JAK inhibitors were associated with an increase in the VAS score [MD = 3.62, 95% CI (0.86, 6.38), p = 0.01], but there was no significant difference in the PtGA score [MD = 1.91, 95% CI (- 3.25, 7.08), p = 0.47].

CONCLUSION

JAK inhibitors demonstrated superior efficacy in improving the functional status and reducing the disease activity in RA patients compared with TNF inhibitors. Both drug classes exhibited comparable safety profiles for VTE and malignancies, though JAK inhibitors had a higher risk for thromboembolism.

Assessing fatigue in women over 50 years with rheumatoid arthritis: a comprehensive case-control study using the FACIT-F scale

Introduction

Data on prevalence of fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients in the era of biological treatments remains scarce, with a lack of case-control studies. This study evaluates the prevalence of fatigue in Spanish women over 50 years with RA using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) scale, explores its association with RA-related variables, and seeks to identify the primary factors influencing fatigue. Ultimately, our objective is to underscore the clinical significance of fatigue as a comorbidity and to advocate for its systematic evaluation in routine clinical practice.

Methods

In a case-control study at a tertiary university hospital, 191 women over 50 years (mean age: 67.5 ± 8.8 years) meeting ACR 2010 criteria for RA and age-matched controls were assessed using the FACIT-F scale, SF-12 questionnaire, and RA-related clinical measures.

Results

Fatigue was significantly more prevalent in the RA group (61%) compared to controls (37%, p < 0.001), with RA patients showing lower mean FACIT-F scores (36.0 ± 10.6 vs. 40.0 ± 0.6, p < 0.001). Correlations were noted between FACIT-F scores and C-reactive protein, DAS28, RAPID3, HAQ, and SF-12 scores. A multivariate analysis was performed and four models generated. The final model, with an R2 of 0.817, indicates that fatigue is significantly influenced by disease activity (RAPID 3) and mental and physical health (SF12) and age, explaining 81.7% of the variance in fatigue.

Conclusion

Fatigue remains significantly prevalent and severe in women over 50 years with RA, strongly linked to disease activity, disability, and diminished quality of life. Systematic fatigue assessment and targeted strategies in clinical settings are essential to address this widespread issue. Future research should explore targeted interventions tailored to this demographic to enhance quality of care.

Concordance and agreement between different activity scores in polymyalgia rheumatica

OBJECTIVE

The C reactive protein polymyalgia rheumatica activity score (CRP-PMR-AS) is a composite index that includes CRP levels and was developed specifically for PMR. As treatments such as interleukin-6 antagonists can normalise CRP levels, the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) of PMR-AS, the clinical (clin)-PMR-AS and the imputed-CRP (imp-CRP)-PMR-AS have been developed to avoid such bias. Our primary objective was to measure the correlation of these activity scores. Our secondary objective was to evaluate the concordance between different cutoffs of the PMR-ASs.

METHOD

Data from the Safety and Efficacy of tocilizumab versus Placebo in Polymyalgia rHeumatica With glucocORticoid dEpendence (SEMAPHORE) trial, a superiority randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial, were subjected to post hoc analysis to compare the efficacy of tocilizumab versus placebo in patients with active PMR. The CRP-PMR-AS, ESR-PMR-AS, clin-PMR-AS and imp-CRP-PMR-AS were measured at every visit. The concordance and correlation between these scores were evaluated using kappa correlation coefficients, Bland-Altman correlations, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and scatter plots.

RESULTS

A total of 101 patients were included in the SEMAPHORE trial, and 100 were analysed in this study. The correlation between the PMR-ASs was excellent, as the ICC and kappa were >0.85 from week 4 until week 24 (CRP-PMR-AS ≤10 or >10). Bland-Altman plots revealed that the differences between the CRP-PMR-AS and the other threescores were low. The cut-off values for the clin-PMR-AS were similar to those for the CRP-PMR-AS 86% of the time.

CONCLUSION

The correlation between all the PMR-ASs was excellent, reflecting the low weight of CRP. In clinical trials using drugs that have an impact on CRP, the derived activity scores can be used.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NTC02908217.

Normative Values for the Inner EAR Scale

OBJECTIVE

To determine normative values for the Inner Effectiveness of Auditory Rehabilitation (Inner EAR) scale, a validated instrument utilized to study the impact of hearing loss and potential treatments.

STUDY DESIGN

Observational outcomes study.

SETTING

Academic medical center and community care sites.

METHODS

We included patients who were at least 18 years of age and completed the Inner EAR scale, pure-tone audiometry, and word recognition score assessment. Based on audiometry results, patients were categorized as having: (1) normal bilateral hearing, (2) unilateral hearing loss, and (3) bilateral hearing loss. The distributions of Inner EAR scale scores were assessed within each category. Fisher's exact test was utilized to determine whether data-driven threshold values could discriminate among the 3 clinical groups.

RESULTS

Two hundred and twenty-two consecutive patients with hearing-related complaints met inclusion criteria. Mean Inner EAR scores for patients with bilateral hearing loss (29.2, interquartile range [IQR] 10-41.5), unilateral hearing loss (38.9, IQR 23-49), and normal hearing (46.6, IQR 31-62) were significantly different (analysis of variance F < 0.0001). An Inner EAR score threshold of 50 supported the ability to statistically significantly discriminate between bilateral hearing loss and normal hearing (p = .003), as well as between unilateral hearing loss and normal hearing (p = .015).

CONCLUSION

An Inner EAR score normative threshold value of 50 provides significant discriminatory ability between normal hearing and unilateral or bilateral hearing loss on audiometry. Normative values provide useful, frequently referenced data when assessing responses to treatment. Based on these data, this threshold may help distinguish patients with and without perceived functional impact from hearing loss.

Treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis initiating etanercept, adalimumab, or Janus kinase inhibitor as first-line therapy: results from the real-world CorEvitas RA Registry

BACKGROUND

Real-world studies assessing the comparative effectiveness of biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) as first-line targeted therapy are scarce. We analyzed the real-world persistence and effectiveness of etanercept (ETN), adalimumab (ADA), and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKis) as first-line therapy in b/tsDMARD-naïve patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Adults (≥ 18 years) enrolled in the CorEvitas RA Registry and initiating ETN, ADA, or a JAKi (alone or in combination with csDMARDs) between November 2012 and June 2021 were included if they had 6 and/or 12 months' follow-up. Treatment persistence and effectiveness outcomes including the change in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were evaluated at follow-up, adjusting for covariates using linear and logistic regression models. An exploratory analysis for patients on monotherapy was also conducted.

RESULTS

Of 1059 ETN, 1327 ADA, and 581 JAKi initiators; 803 ETN, 984 ADA, and 361 JAKi initiators had 6 months' follow-up. JAKi initiators were older and had a relatively longer disease duration than ETN or ADA initiators (mean age: 61.3 vs 54.5 and 55.5 years; mean duration of RA: 8.1 vs 5.7 and 5.6 years). Unadjusted mean improvements in CDAI and PROs were similar between the groups at 6 months, except the proportion achieving LDA, remission, and MCID in CDAI, which were numerically higher in the ETN and ADA groups vs JAKi group (LDA: 43.4% and 41.9% vs 32.5%; remission: 18.2% and 15.1% vs 11.5%; MCID: 46.5% and 47.8% vs 38.0%). Adjusted effectiveness results did not reveal statistically significant differences between treatment groups at 6 months, with an exception in MCID (odds ratio [95% CI] for JAKi vs ETN: 0.65 [0.43-0.98]). At 6 months, 68.2% of ETN, 68.5% of ADA, and 66.5% of JAKi initiators remained on therapy. The findings at 12 months' follow-up and sensitivity analysis among monotherapy initiators also showed no differences in effectiveness outcomes between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis of real-world data from the CorEvitas RA Registry did not show differences in clinical effectiveness and treatment persistence rates in b/tsDMARD-naïve patients initiating ETN, ADA, or JAKi as first-line targeted therapy either alone or in combination with csDMARDs.

Potential Mechanism of Fatigue Induction and Its Management by JAK Inhibitors in Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases

It is well known that fatigue is a highly disabling symptom commonly observed in inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRDs). Fatigue is strongly associated with a poor quality of life and seems to be an independent predictor of job loss and disability in patients with different rheumatic diseases. Although the pathogenesis of fatigue remains unclear, indirect data suggest the cooperation of the immune system, the central and autonomic nervous system, and the neuroendocrine system in the induction and sustainment of fatigue in chronic diseases. Fatigue does not correspond with disease activity and its mechanism in IRDs. It is suggested that it may change over time and vary between individuals. Abnormal production of pro-inflammatory cytokines such as interleukin-6 (IL-6), interferons (IFNs), granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), TNF, IL-15, IL-17 play a role in both IRDs and subsequent fatigue development. Some of these cytokines such as IL-6, IFNs, GM-CSF, and common gamma-chain cytokines (IL-15, IL-2, and IL-7) activate the Janus Kinases (JAKs) family of intracellular tyrosine kinases. Therapy blocking JAKs (JAK inhibitors - JAKi) has been recently proven to be an effective approach for IRDs treatment, more efficient in pain reduction than anti-TNF. Therefore, the administration of JAKi to IRDs patients experiencing fatigue may find rational implications as a therapeutic modulator not only of disease inflammatory symptoms but also fatigue with its components like pain and neuropsychiatric features as well. In this review, we demonstrate the latest information on the mechanisms of fatigue in rheumatic diseases and the potential effect of JAKi on fatigue reduction.

Janus kinase inhibitors effectively improve pain across different disease activity states in rheumatoid arthritis

Pain remains one of the most difficult-to-treat domains in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In clinical trials, the Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKis) have demonstrated good efficacy in pain relief. Aim of our study was to evaluate the real-life effectiveness of JAKis in improving pain in patients with RA in different states of baseline disease activity. A monocentric prospective cohort of 181 RA patients starting treatment with JAKis was studied. Pain was evaluated on a 0-100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS). Clinically meaningful improvements over 24 weeks were defined as follows: proportion of patients achieving ≥ 30%, ≥ 50%, and ≥ 70% pain relief, and remaining pain ≤ 20 or ≤ 10 mm. Results were analysed after stratification for baseline inflammatory activity; patients with swollen joints and C-reactive protein ≤ 1 at treatment start were considered pauci-inflammatory. Proportion of patients who achieved ≥ 30%, ≥ 50% and ≥ 70% pain improvement at 24 weeks was 61.4%, 49.3% and 32.9%. Furthermore, 40.6% and 28.5% of the patients achieved thresholds of remaining pain equivalent to mild pain or no/limited pain. Pain improvements were more evident in patients naive to previous biologics, although nearly 30% of multiple failures achieved VAS ≤ 20 mm. No significant differences were observed in relation to monotherapy. Pauci-inflammatory patients at treatment start achieved good outcomes, with 40.4% experiencing ≥ 70% pain improvement, and 35.7% VAS ≤ 10 mm. JAKis show efficacy in pain relief in real life. The improvement of painful symptoms also in those patients with limited objective inflammation may open new perspectives on the management of difficult-to-treat RA.

Clinical scenarios-based guide for tofacitinib in rheumatoid arthritis

Tofacitinib was the first Janus kinase inhibitor to be approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and there is a large body of data to inform the efficacy and safety of this drug for patients at different places in their treatment journeys and with diverse demographics and characteristics. Here, we summarize tofacitinib clinical efficacy and safety data from some clinical trials, post hoc analyses, and real-world studies, which provide evidence of the efficacy of tofacitinib in treating patients with RA at various stages of their treatment journeys, and with differentiating baseline characteristics, such as age, gender, race, and body mass index. In addition, we review the safety data available from different patient subpopulations in the tofacitinib clinical development program, real-world data, and findings from the ORAL Surveillance post-marketing safety study that included patients aged ⩾50 years with pre-existing cardiovascular risk factors. The available efficacy and safety data in these subpopulations can enable better discussions between clinicians and patients to guide informed decision-making and individualized patient care.

Pain in the joints and beyond; the challenge of rheumatoid arthritis

Pain is a common and often debilitating symptom for people living with rheumatoid arthritis. Although pain is a generic feature of inflammation and often improves with successful treatment that targets inflammatory pathways, pain experience can persist. Emerging data suggest that the magnitude of pain relief might vary according to the therapeutic target of pharmacological intervention within the inflammatory cascade. Both inflammatory and non-inflammatory causes contribute to the pain experience, which depends on tissue origin, peripheral sensory mechanisms and their transmission, integration, and interpretation within the nervous system. Contemporary neuroimaging is transforming our understanding of these mechanisms and the role of sensory, emotional, and cognitive contributions to the experience of pain. This understanding paves the way for therapeutic approaches that recognise the existence of multiple, cognitively driven, supraspinal mechanisms for pain modulation and could complement pharmacological inflammation suppression. Such approaches include neuropsychological interventions that have the potential to modify human brain cortical structure and reduce suffering that is often associated with pain experience.

The Biology of Pain: Through the Rheumatology Lens

Chronic pain is a major socioeconomic burden globally. The most frequent origin of chronic pain is musculoskeletal. In inflammatory musculoskeletal diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA), chronic pain is a primary determinant of deleterious quality of life. The pivotal role of peripheral inflammation in the initiation and perpetuation of nociceptive pain is well-established among patients with musculoskeletal diseases. However, the persistence of pain, even after the apparent resolution of peripheral inflammation, alludes to the coexistence of different pain states. Recent advances in neurobiology have highlighted the importance of nociplastic pain mechanisms. In this review we aimed to explore the biology of pain with a particular focus on nociplastic pain in RA.

Upadacitinib for Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Comprehensive Review

Upadacitinib is a selective and reversible Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor recently approved by the European Medicine Agency and the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) at a dose of 15 mg/day. We present the chemical structure and mechanism of action of upadacitinib together with a comprehensive review of the efficacy of this drug in RA based on the SELECT clinical trial program and its safety profile. Its role in the management and therapeutic strategy of RA is also discussed. Upadacitinib in the different clinical trials has shown similar rates of clinical response, including the remission rates, regardless of the population analyzed (methotrexate-naïve, methotrexate-failure or biologic failure). In a head-to-head randomized clinical trial, upadacitinib plus methotrexate was superior to adalimumab when given on background methotrexate (MTX) in patients who have experienced an inadequate response to MTX. Upadacitinib also demonstrated superiority over abatacept in patients with RA after failure to previous biologic drugs. The safety profile of upadacitinib is generally consistent with those observed with biological or other JAK inhibitors.

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 of upadacitinib versus abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 12- and 24-week results of a phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

In previous clinical trials, patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with upadacitinib (UPA) have improved patient-reported outcomes (PROs). This post hoc analysis of SELECT-CHOICE, a phase 3 clinical trial, evaluated the impact of UPA vs abatacept (ABA) with background conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) on PROs in patients with RA with inadequate response or intolerance to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD-IR).

METHODS

Patients in SELECT-CHOICE received UPA (oral 15 mg/day) or ABA (intravenous). PROs evaluated included Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA) by visual analog scale (VAS), patient's assessment of pain by VAS, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), morning stiffness duration and severity, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI), and EQ-5D 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) index score. Least squares mean (LSM) changes from baseline to weeks 12 and 24 were based on an analysis of covariance model. Proportions of patients reporting improvements ≥ minimal clinically important differences (MCID) were compared using chi-square tests.

RESULTS

Data from 612 patients were analyzed (UPA, n=303; ABA, n=309). Mean age was 56 years and mean disease duration was 12 years. One-third received ≥2 prior bDMARDs and 72% received concomitant methotrexate at baseline. At week 12, UPA- vs ABA-treated patients had significantly greater improvements in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, morning stiffness severity, EQ-5D-5L, 2/4 WPAI domains, and 3/8 SF-36 domains and Physical Component Summary (PCS) scores (P<0.05); significant differences persisted at week 24 for HAQ-DI, morning stiffness severity, SF-36 PCS and bodily pain domain, and WPAI activity impairment domain. At week 12, significantly more UPA- vs ABA-treated patients reported improvements ≥MCID in HAQ-DI (74% vs 64%) and SF-36 PCS (79% vs 66%) and 4/8 domain scores (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

At week 12, UPA vs ABA treatment elicited greater improvements in key domains of physical functioning, pain, and general health and earlier improvements in HAQ-DI. Overall, more UPA- vs ABA-treated patients achieved ≥MCID in most PROs at all timepoints; however, not all differences were statistically significant. These data, however, highlight the faster response to UPA treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03086343 , March 22, 2017.

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.

Janus Kinase Inhibitors Improve Disease Activity and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 24,135 Patients

Pain, fatigue, and physical activity are major determinants of life quality in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors have emerged as effective medications in RA and have been reported to exert direct analgesic effect in addition to reducing joint inflammation. This analysis aims to give an extensive summary of JAK inhibitors especially focusing on pain and patient reported outcomes (PRO). MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched on the 26 October 2020, and 50 randomized controlled trials including 24,135 adult patients with active RA met the inclusion criteria. JAK inhibitors yielded significantly better results in all 36 outcomes compared to placebo. JAK monotherapy proved to be more effective than methotrexate in 9 out of 11 efficacy outcomes. In comparison to biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, JAK inhibitors show statistical superiority in 13 of the 19 efficacy outcomes. Analgesic effect determined using the visual analogue scale and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response rates was significantly greater in the JAK group in all comparisons, and no significant difference regarding safety could be explored. This meta-analysis gives a comprehensive overview of JAK inhibitors and provides evidence for their superiority in improving PROs and disease activity indices in RA.

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.