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

Objective

To evaluate the impact of upadacitinib vs placebo and adalimumab treatment, on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in SELECT-COMPARE in an active RA population with inadequate responses to MTX (MTX-IR).

Methods

PROs in patients receiving upadacitinib (15 mg QD), placebo, or adalimumab (40 mg EOW) while on background MTX were evaluated over 48 weeks. PROs included Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA) and pain by visual analogue scale (VAS), the HAQ Disability Index (HAQ-DI), the 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36), morning (AM) stiffness duration and severity, the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Fatigue (FACIT-F), and work instability. Least squares mean (LSM) changes and proportions of patients reporting improvements ≥ minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) and scores ≥ normative values were evaluated.

Results

Upadacitinib and adalimumab resulted in greater LSM changes from baseline vs placebo across all PROs (P < 0.05) at week 12, and pain and AM stiffness severity (P < 0.05) at week 2. More upadacitinib- vs placebo-treated (P < 0.05) and similar percentages of upadacitinib- vs adalimumab-treated patients reported improvements ≥ MCID across all PROs at week 12. Upadacitinib vs adalimumab resulted in greater LSM changes from baseline in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, stiffness severity, FACIT-F, and the SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) (all P < 0.05) at week 12. More upadacitinib- vs adalimumab-treated patients reported scores ≥ normative values in HAQ-DI and SF-36 PCS (P < 0.05) at week 12. More upadacitinib- vs adalimumab-treated patients maintained clinically meaningful improvements in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, FACIT-F, and AM stiffness through 48 weeks.

Conclusion

In MTX-IR patients with RA, treatment with upadacitinib resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in PROs equivalent to or greater than with adalimumab.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02629159.

THU0197 SAFETY PROFILE OF UPADACITINIB UP TO 3 YEARS OF EXPOSURE IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

Background:

The safety and efficacy of upadacitinib (UPA), an oral JAK inhibitor, was evaluated in the phase 3 SELECT clinical program, which included 5 randomized, double-blind, controlled trials across a spectrum of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients (pts)1-5.

Objectives:

To describe the long-term integrated safety profile of UPA relative to active comparators in pts with RA treated in the SELECT program up to a cut-off date of 30 June 2019.

Methods:

Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs: AE onset ≥first dose and ≤30 days after last dose) were summarized for the following: methotrexate (MTX, 1 trial, mean exposure 76 wks); adalimumab (ADA, 1 trial, mean exposure 69 wks); pooled UPA 15 mg (5 trials, mean exposure 90 wks); pooled UPA 30 mg (4 trials, mean exposure 100 wks). TEAEs are reported as exposure-adjusted event rates (EAERs; events/100 patient years [E/100PYs]).

Results:

3833 pts received ≥1 dose of UPA 15 mg [n=2629, 4565.8 PYs] or 30 mg [n=1204, 2309.7 PYs] QD, with no option to switch doses. More than half of pts received UPA for ≥96 wks (median: UPA 15, 101.9 wks; UPA 30: 111.7 wks). The EAERs of overall SAEs and AEs leading to discontinuation on UPA 15 mg were comparable to MTX and ADA; rates on UPA 30 mg were numerically higher than UPA 15 mg (Table). The most common AEs (≥5 E/100 PYs) reported with UPA 15 mg were upper respiratory tract infection (URTI), nasopharyngitis, urinary tract infection (UTI), bronchitis, increased CPK, and increased ALT. For UPA 30 mg, the most common AEs reported were URTI, UTI, increased CPK, nasopharyngitis, bacterial bronchitis, and herpes zoster (HZ). Overall rates of serious infections and opportunistic infections were comparable between UPA 15 mg, MTX, and ADA groups but were higher on UPA 30 mg (Figure). Rates of HZ were higher in both UPA groups (30 mg higher than 15 mg) vs MTX and ADA. The majority of HZ cases were non-serious (96%) and involved a single dermatome (74%). Rates of VTE were comparable across treatment groups (0.3-0.5/100 PYs), as were rates of adjudicated MACE and malignancies (excluding NMSC). Rates of NMSC in UPA 15 mg and ADA were similar, with numerically higher rates on UPA 30 mg. SMR analysis demonstrated that the number of deaths in pts with RA exposed to UPA was not higher than what would be expected for the general population.

Conclusion:

Through long-term follow-up, the integrated safety profile of UPA remained consistent with previous analyses, with no new signals identified.

References:

[1]Burmester,et al.Lancet2018;391:2503-12.

[2]Genovese,et al.Lancet2018;391:2513-24.

[3]Smolen,et al.Lancet2019;393:2303-11.

[4]Fleischmann,et al.Arthritis Rheumatol2019;71:1788-1800.

[5]van Vollenhoven,et al.Arthritis Rheumatol2018;70(Suppl 10).

Table.

Overall TEAEs for UPA and Active Comparators (E/100 PYs [95% CI])

MTXn=314(456.0 PYs)ADA 40 mg eown=579(768.6 PYs)UPA 15 mg QDn=2629(4565.8 PYs)UPA 30 mg QDn=1204(2309.7 PYs)Any AE271.7 (256.8, 287.3)242.3 (231.4, 253.5)247.7 (243.2, 252.3)310.6 (303.5, 317.9)Any SAE12.7 (9.7, 16.4)14.6 (12.0, 17.5)12.9 (11.9, 14.0)19.8 (18.0, 21.7)Any AE leading to discontinuation7.7 (5.3, 10.7)8.2 (6.3, 10.5)6.3 (5.6, 7.1)10.0 (8.8, 11.4)Deathsa0.4 (0.1, 1.6)0.8 (0.3, 1.7)0.4 (0.2, 0.6)0.7 (0.4, 1.1)

aDeaths included non-treatment emergent deaths: ADA, 1; UPA 15 mg, 3; UPA 30 mg, 3.

Disclosure of Interests:

Stanley B. Cohen Grant/research support from: Amgen, Abbvie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer and Sandoz, Consultant of: Amgen, Abbvie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer and Sandoz, Ronald van Vollenhoven Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Arthrogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Biotest, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Jeffrey R. Curtis Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Corrona, Crescendo, Janssen, Pfizer, Regeneron/Sanofi, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Corrona, Crescendo, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi/Regeneron, and UCB, Leonard Calabrese Consultant of: AbbVie, GSK, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi, Horizon, Crescendo, and Gilead, Speakers bureau: Sanofi, Horizon, Crescendo, Novartis, Genentech, Janssen, and AbbVie, Cristiano Zerbini Grant/research support from: Amgen, GSK, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier and Roche, Consultant of: Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Yoshiya Tanaka Grant/research support from: Asahi-kasei, Astellas, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Takeda, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers, UCB, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, and Ono, Consultant of: Abbvie, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Daiichi-Sankyo, Astellas, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AbbVie, YL Biologics, Bristol-Myers, Takeda, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Eisai, Janssen, Sanofi, UCB, and Teijin, Louis Bessette Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Casey Schlacher Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Tim Shaw Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Jianzhong Liu Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Jose Jeffrey Enejosa Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Yanna Song Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Gerd Rüdiger Burmester Consultant of: AbbVie Inc, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Roche, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie Inc, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Roche, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma

Determination of the stiffness of the equine spine

REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY

Mechanical properties of the equine back are the bases for realistic modelling of the back, which is recognised as an important step towards improved understanding of the pathogenesis of equine back conditions.

HYPOTHESIS

The stiffness of the equine back depends on the direction of the applied force and on the position of the spine.

METHODS

Fourteen dissected spines were tested in a tensile testing machine. In 3 different positions, simulating dorsoventral, laterolateral and dorsoventral-30 degree rotated movement, force was applied on the dorsal spinous process of T12 to reach an excursion of 4 cm in each direction. The normal distribution of the stiffness coefficients was tested with a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and the stiffness coefficients were compared with paired t tests.

RESULTS

Mean +/- s.d. dorsoventral stiffness was 2093 +/- 611 N/m for the nonrotated spine and 2182 +/- 459 N/m for the 30 degree rotated spine. Mean laterolateral stiffness was significantly lower than dorsoventral stiffness at 1454 +/- 156 N/m.

CONCLUSIONS

The stiffness of the spine depends on the direction of loading.

POTENTIAL RELEVANCE

The stiffness of the spine under loading may be a relevant factor in the development of back disorders.