Dataset Information

Safety and Efficacy of Baricitinib in Patients Receiving Conventional Synthetic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs or Corticosteroids.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

This study assessed if concomitant use of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) or corticosteroids altered the response or safety outcomes to baricitinib in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients.

Methods

Patients with ≥ 6 swollen/tender joints and no prior biologic DMARD were eligible for study inclusion. In RA-BUILD, csDMARD-inadequate responder (IR) patients were randomized to placebo or baricitinib (2 or 4 mg) once daily (QD). In RA-BEAM, methotrexate (MTX)-IR patients were randomized to placebo QD, baricitinib 4-mg QD, or adalimumab 40-mg biweekly. Patients continued background csDMARD (including MTX) therapy. This post hoc analysis of placebo and baricitinib 4-mg patients assessed the number and type of concomitant csDMARDS and concurrent corticosteroid use.

Results

From 716 placebo patients, 71, 21, and 6% were taking MTX alone, MTX + ≥ 1 csDMARD, and non-MTX csDMARDs, respectively; from 714 baricitinib patients, the rates were 74, 18, and 6%; 56% of placebo and 55% of baricitinib patients used corticosteroids at baseline (mean dose, 6.0 mg/day for both groups); patients continued use throughout the studies. The odds ratios for achieving American College of Rheumatology response at the 20% improvement level (ACR20) and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) ≤ 10 at week 12 favored baricitinib for most subgroups; no significant interactions were observed. Rates of adverse events were similar regardless of csDMARD group or corticosteroid use. There were numerically more serious adverse events in placebo patients taking corticosteroids (4.2 vs. 1.6%) and a higher rate of discontinuations in baricitinib patients taking corticosteroids (4.1 vs. 1.2%).

Conclusions

Baricitinib was efficacious regardless of concomitant use of csDMARDs or corticosteroids; the incidence of adverse events was similar across all groups of patients.

Funding

Eli Lilly and Company and Incyte Corporation.

SUBMITTER: van Vollenhoven R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6251844 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesBiological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) have shown diminished clinical response following an inadequate response (IR) to ≥1 previous bDMARD. Here, tofacitinib was compared with placebo in patients with an IR to conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs; bDMARD-naive) and in patients with an IR to bDMARDs (bDMARD-IR).MethodsData were taken from phase II and phase III studies of tofacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Patients received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily, or placebo, as monotherapy or with background methotrexate or other csDMARDs. Efficacy endpoints and incidence rates of adverse events (AEs) of special interest were assessed.Results2812 bDMARD-naive and 705 bDMARD-IR patients were analysed. Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were generally similar between treatment groups within subpopulations. Across subpopulations, improvements in efficacy parameters at month 3 were generally significantly greater for both tofacitinib doses versus placebo. Clinical response was numerically greater with bDMARD-naive versus bDMARD-IR patients (overlapping 95% CIs). Rates of safety events of special interest were generally similar between tofacitinib doses and subpopulations; however, patients receiving glucocorticoids had more serious AEs, discontinuations due to AEs, serious infection events and herpes zoster. Numerically greater clinical responses and incidence rates of AEs of special interest were generally reported for tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily versus tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (overlapping 95% CIs).ConclusionsTofacitinib demonstrated efficacy in both bDMARD-naive and bDMARD-IR patients with RA. Clinical response to tofacitinib was generally numerically greater in bDMARD-naive than bDMARD-IR patients. The safety profile appeared similar between subpopulations.Trial registration numbers(NCT00413660, NCT00550446, NCT00603512, NCT00687193, NCT00960440, NCT00847613, NCT00814307, NCT00856544, NCT00853385).

Project description:BackgroundTo assess the risks of malignancies, infections and autoimmune diseases in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with abatacept compared with other biologic (b) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) or conventional synthetic (cs)DMARDs, in a US-wide observational RA cohort METHODS: Data were reviewed from patients (≥ 18 years) with RA who were registered with FORWARD, the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases, and who initiated abatacept, other bDMARDs or csDMARDs between 2005 and 2015. Patients who switched treatment during the study could be allocated to more than one group. The incidence rates (IRs) by treatment were calculated for malignancies, hospitalized infections and autoimmune diseases identified by six monthly questionnaires and medical records. The hazard ratios (HRs) (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) for all outcomes with abatacept compared with other bDMARDs or csDMARDs were determined using marginal structural models adjusted for clinical confounders.ResultsIn the study sample, 1496 initiated abatacept, 3490 initiated another bDMARD and 1520 initiated a csDMARD. The risk of malignancies with abatacept was not statistically significant versus other bDMARDs (HR [95% CI)] 1.89 [0.93, 3.84]) or versus csDMARDs (HR [95% CI] 0.93 [0.20, 4.27]). Patients receiving abatacept versus other bDMARDs were at a lower risk of hospitalized infections (HR [95% CI] 0.37 [0.18, 0.75]); the risk versus csDMARDs was lower with wide CIs (HR [95% CI] 0.31 [0.09, 1.05]). The relative risks for psoriasis were similar between treatment groups (HR [95% CI] 1.46 [0.76, 2.81] and HR [95% CI] 2.05 [0.59, 7.16] for abatacept versus other bDMARDs and versus csDMARDS, respectively). The IR (95% CI) of severe infusion/injection reactions was lower with abatacept compared with other bDMARDs (1.57 [1.11, 2.17] vs 2.31 [1.87, 2.82] per 100 patient-years, respectively).ConclusionsIn this analysis, abatacept was well tolerated and did not result in an overall increased risk of malignancies, infections or autoimmune diseases compared with other bDMARDs or csDMARDs.

Project description:Introduction/objectivesTo evaluate the three-year efficacy and safety of ixekizumab with and without concomitant conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) use in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA).MethodPatients with PsA who were biologic-naïve (SPIRIT-P1, NCT01695239) or had prior inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (SPIRIT-P2, NCT02349295) were randomized to receive 80-mg ixekizumab every four weeks after receiving 160-mg ixekizumab at baseline. Efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity were evaluated in this post-hoc analysis in three subgroups: (1) ixekizumab monotherapy, (2) ixekizumab and methotrexate (MTX), (3) ixekizumab and any csDMARD (including MTX). Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation for continuous variables and modified non-responder imputation for categorical variables.ResultsEfficacy was similar across the three subgroups with 59.1%, 67.0%, and 66.1% of ixekizumab-treated patients achieving 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology scale score at week 156. Radiographic progression of structural joint damage (SPIRIT-P1 only) was similarly inhibited across the three subgroups with several outliers. No new safety signals were reported, and 91.0%, 84.1%, and 83.2% in the three subgroups reported ≥ 1 treatment-emergent adverse event. At week 156, 15.9%, 13.1%, and 11.0% in the three subgroups had antidrug antibodies; most had low titer status.ConclusionsIxekizumab showed sustained efficacy in treating patients with PsA for up to three years in monotherapy or in combination with MTX or any csDMARD. The three subgroups had similar safety and immunogenicity profiles, which supports that the use of concomitant MTX or csDMARDs does not seem to impact the benefit/risk profile of ixekizumab. Key Points • Ixekizumab treatment led to improved clinical responses over time when used as monotherapy or in combination with concomitant MTX or any concomitant csDMARD (including MTX) in patients with active PsA. • Ixekizumab monotherapy has similar radiographic efficacy as ixekizumab with MTX or ixekizumab with other csDMARDs (including MTX); similar inhibition of radiographic progression was observed between the subgroups of patients receiving ixekizumab monotherapy or ixekizumab with MTX or other csDMARDs. • The long-term safety profile of ixekizumab used as monotherapy or in combination with MTX or any other csDMARDs is consistent with what has been previously reported. The addition of MTX or any csDMARD to ixekizumab treatment did not negatively impact the favorable long-term safety profile of ixekizumab.