POS0220 INTEGRATED SAFETY PROFILE OF UPADACITINIB WITH UP TO 4.5 YEARS OF EXPOSURE IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

Optimal Use of Jak Inhibitors and Biologics for Atopic Dermatitis on the Basis of the Current Evidence

Recently, Jak inhibitors such as baricitinib, upadacitinib, and abrocitinib were approved for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) in addition to biologics, including dupilumab, tralokinumab, and nemolizumab. The increase in treatment options can be a benefit to patients with AD. Meanwhile, it could make it difficult for physicians to choose the best treatment among those treatment options. Biologics and Jak inhibitors differ in efficacy, safety, route of administration, and whether or not there is a concern about immunogenicity in addition to the evidence on comorbidities. Among the three Jak inhibitors, the degree of inhibition of signal transducer and activator of transcription differs in each Jak inhibitor. Therefore, the efficacy and safety profiles of the three Jak inhibitors are different. Physicians who treat patients with AD with Jak inhibitors and biologics need to understand the current evidence and choose the best treatment for individual patients. In this review, we discuss how integrating knowledge of the mechanisms of action of Jak inhibitors and biologics, the potential significant adverse events of these drugs, and the age and comorbidities of the patient can help achieve optimal clinical benefit for patients with moderate-to-severe AD refractory to topical agents.

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.

Upadacitinib as induction and maintenance therapy for moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis: results from three phase 3, multicentre, double-blind, randomised trials

BACKGROUND

There is a great unmet need for advanced therapies that provide rapid, robust, and sustained disease control for patients with ulcerative colitis. We assessed the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase 1 inhibitor, as induction and maintenance therapy in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis.

METHODS

This phase 3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical programme consisted of two replicate induction studies (U-ACHIEVE induction [UC1] and U-ACCOMPLISH [UC2]) and a single maintenance study (U-ACHIEVE maintenance [UC3]). The studies were conducted across Europe, North and South America, Australasia, Africa, and the Asia-Pacific region at 199 clinical centres in 39 countries (UC1), 204 clinical centres in 40 countries (UC2), and 195 clinical centres in 35 countries (UC3). Patients aged 16-75 years with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (Adapted Mayo score 5-9; endoscopic subscore 2 or 3) for at least 90 days were randomly assigned (2:1) to oral upadacitinib 45 mg once daily or placebo for 8 weeks (induction studies). Patients who achieved clinical response following 8-week upadacitinib induction were re-randomly assigned (1:1:1) to upadacitinib 15 mg, upadacitinib 30 mg, or placebo for 52 weeks (maintenance study). All patients were randomly assigned using web-based interactive response technology. The primary endpoints were clinical remission per Adapted Mayo score at week 8 (induction) and week 52 (maintenance). The efficacy analyses in the two induction studies were based on the intent-to-treat population, which included all randomised patients who received at least one dose of treatment. In the maintenance study, the primary efficacy analyses reported in this manuscript were based on the first 450 (planned) clinical responders to 8-week induction therapy with upadacitinib 45 mg once daily. The safety analysis population in the induction studies consisted of all randomised patients who received at least one dose of treatment; in the maintenance study, this population included all patients who received at least one dose of treatment as part of the primary analysis population. These studies are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02819635 (U-ACHIEVE) and NCT03653026 (U-ACCOMPLISH).

FINDINGS

Between Oct 23, 2018, and Sept 7, 2020, 474 patients were randomly assigned to upadacitinib 45 mg once daily (n=319) or placebo (n=155) in UC1. Between Dec 6, 2018, and Jan 14, 2021, 522 patients were randomly assigned to upadacitinib 45 mg once daily (n=345) or placebo (n=177) in UC2. In UC3, a total of 451 patients (21 from the phase 2b study, 278 from UC1, and 152 from UC2) who achieved a clinical response after 8 weeks of upadacitinib induction treatment were randomly assigned again to upadacitinib 15 mg (n=148), upadacitinib 30 mg (n=154), and placebo (n=149) in the primary analysis population. Statistically significantly more patients achieved clinical remission with upadacitinib 45 mg (83 [26%] of 319 patients in UC1 and 114 [34%] of 341 patients in UC2) than in the placebo group (seven [5%] of 154 patients in UC1 and seven [4%] of 174 patients; p<0·0001; adjusted treatment difference 21·6% [95% CI 15·8-27·4] for UC1 and 29·0% [23·2-34·7] for UC2). In the maintenance study, clinical remission was achieved by statistically significantly more patients receiving upadacitinib (15 mg 63 [42%] of 148; 30 mg 80 [52%] of 154) than those receiving placebo (18 [12%] of 149; p<0·0001; adjusted treatment difference 30·7% [21·7-39·8] for upadacitinib 15 mg vs placebo and 39·0% [29·7-48·2] for upadacitinib 30 mg vs placebo). The most commonly reported adverse events in UC1 were nasopharyngitis (15 [5%] of 319 in the upadacitinib 45 mg group vs six [4%] of 155 in the placebo group), creatine phosphokinase elevation (15 [4%] vs three [2%]), and acne (15 [5%] vs one [1%]). In UC2, the most frequently reported adverse event was acne (24 [7%] of 344 in the upadacitinib 45 mg group vs three [2%] of 177 in the placebo group). In both induction studies, serious adverse events and adverse events leading to discontinuation of treatment were less frequent in the upadacitinib 45 mg group than in the placebo group (serious adverse events eight [3%] vs nine (6%) in UC1 and 11 [3%] vs eight [5%] in UC2; adverse events leading to discontinuation six [2%] vs 14 [9%] in UC1 and six [2%] vs nine [5%] in UC2). In UC3, the most frequently reported adverse events (≥5%) were worsening of ulcerative colitis (19 [13%] of 148 in the upadacitinib 15 mg group vs 11 [7%] of 154 in the upadacitinib 30 mg group vs 45 [30%] of 149 in the placebo group), nasopharyngitis (18 [12%] vs 22 [14%] vs 15 [10%]), creatine phosphokinase elevation (nine [6%] vs 13 [8%] vs three [2%]), arthralgia (nine [6%] vs five [3%] vs 15 [10%]), and upper respiratory tract infection (seven [5%] vs nine [6%] vs six [4%]). The proportion of serious adverse events (ten [7%] vs nine [6%] vs 19 [13%]) and adverse events leading to discontinuation (six [4%] vs ten [6%] vs 17 [11%]) was lower in both upadacitinib groups than in the placebo group. Events of cancer, adjudicated major adverse cardiac events, or venous thromboembolism were reported infrequently. There were no treatment-related deaths.

INTERPRETATION

Upadacitinib demonstrated a positive efficacy and safety profile and could be an effective treatment option for patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis.

FUNDING

AbbVie.

Use of upadacitinib in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis

Upadacitinib, a selective JAK1 inhibitor, has been evaluated for efficacy and safety in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Relevant literature using the terms 'upadacitinib' and 'PsA' were identified via PubMed and Google Scholar. Efficacy of upadacitinib in the treatment of PsA versus placebo was demonstrated in the SELECT-PsA I and II trials. SELECT-PsA1 also showed upadacitinib was noninferior to adalimumab in the treatment of PsA. The most common adverse events in patients treated with upadacitinib were infections, malignancies and thromboembolic events. Upadacitinib is an effective medication that can be used in the treatment of active PsA. Despite its proven efficacy and safety, upadacitinib does not yet have long-term safety data.