Dataset Information

Upadacitinib in patients from China, Brazil, and South Korea with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to conventional therapy.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

This study assessed the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib (UPA), in combination with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), in Chinese, Brazilian, and South Korean patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response (IR) to csDMARDs.

Methods

Patients on stable csDMARDs were randomized (1:1) to once-daily UPA 15 mg or matching placebo (PBO) for a 12-week, double-blind period. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving ≥20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at week 12.

Results

In total, 338 patients were randomized and treated, of whom 310 (91.7%) completed the double-blind phase. The study met the primary endpoint of ACR20 at week 12 for UPA 15 mg vs PBO (71.6% vs 31.4%, P < .001), with a treatment difference observed as early as week 1. All ranked and other key secondary endpoints, including more stringent responses such as ACR50, ACR70 (≥50%/70% improvement in ACR criteria), and Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein <2.6, were met for UPA 15 mg vs PBO. The incidence of serious infections (2.4% vs 0.6%) and herpes zoster (HZ: 1.8% vs 0.6%) was higher with UPA 15 mg vs PBO. There was one case of venous thromboembolism reported in the UPA group.

Conclusion

UPA 15 mg in combination with csDMARDs demonstrated clinical and functional improvement and an acceptable safety profile over 12 weeks among patients from China, Brazil, and South Korea who had moderately to severely active RA and an IR to csDMARDs.

SUBMITTER: Zeng X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9299142 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo evaluate the effect of upadacitinib on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with RA who had an inadequate response to csDMARDs.MethodsPatients in SELECT-NEXT, a randomised controlled trial, were on a background of csDMARDs and received upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg or placebo daily for 12 weeks. PROs included Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), duration and severity of morning (AM) joint stiffness, Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36), and Work Instability Scale for RA (RA-WIS). Least squares mean (LSM) changes were based on mixed-effect repeated measure models. Percentages of patients reporting improvements ≥ minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) and scores ≥ normative values and number needed to treat (NNT) were determined; group comparisons used chi-square tests.ResultsData from 661 patients were analysed. Compared with placebo, patients receiving upadacitinib reported statistically significant improvements (both doses, P < 0.05) in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, FACIT-F, duration and severity of AM stiffness, SF-36 (PCS and 6/8 domains), and RA-WIS at week 12. Significantly, more upadacitinib-treated patients (both doses, P < 0.05) reported improvements ≥ MCID in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, FACIT-F, AM stiffness, SF-36 (PCS and 4 or 7/8 domains), and RA-WIS and scores ≥ normative values in HAQ-DI, FACIT-F, and SF-36 (PCS and 4 or 5/8 domains). For most PROs, the incremental NNT with upadacitinib to report clinically meaningful improvement from baseline ranged from 4 to 8 patients.ConclusionsUpadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg daily for 12 weeks resulted in significant and clinically meaningful improvements in global disease activity, pain, physical function, fatigue, duration and severity of AM stiffness, HRQOL, and work instability among csDMARD-IR patients with RA.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov, NCT02675426. Retrospectively registered 5 February 2016.

Project description:IntroductionThis article aims to describe malignancies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), or non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) treated with upadacitinib (UPA) or active comparators.MethodsThis integrated safety analysis includes data from 11 phase 3 UPA trials across RA (6 trials), PsA (2 trials), AS (2 trials; one phase 2b/3), and nr-axSpA (1 trial). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were summarized for RA (pooled UPA 15 mg [UPA15], pooled UPA 30 mg [UPA30], adalimumab 40 mg [ADA], methotrexate monotherapy [MTX]), PsA (pooled UPA15, pooled UPA30, ADA), AS (pooled UPA15), and nr-axSpA (UPA15). TEAEs were reported as exposure-adjusted event rates (events/100 patient-years).ResultsMedian treatment duration ranged from 1.0 to 4.0 years (with a maximum of 6.6 years in RA). Across treatments and indications, rates of malignancy excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) ranged from 0.2 to 1.1, while NMSC ranged from 0.0 to 1.4. In RA, rates of malignancy excluding NMSC were generally similar between UPA15, UPA30, ADA, and MTX (breast and lung cancer were the most common). In RA and PsA, Kaplan-Meier analyses revealed no differences in event onset of malignancy excluding NMSC with UPA15 versus UPA30 over time. In RA, NMSC rates were higher with UPA30 than UPA15; both UPA15 and UPA30 were higher than ADA and MTX. In PsA, rates of malignancy excluding NMSC and NMSC were generally similar between UPA15, UPA30, and ADA. In AS and nr-axSpA, malignancies were reported infrequently. Few events of lymphoma were reported across the clinical programs.ConclusionRates of malignancy excluding NMSC were generally similar between UPA15, UPA30, ADA, and MTX and were consistent across RA, PsA, AS, and nr-axSpA. A dose-dependent increased rate of NMSC was observed with UPA in RA.Trial registrationClinicaTrials.gov identifier: NCT02706873, NCT02675426, NCT02629159, NCT02706951, NCT02706847, NCT03086343, NCT03104400, NCT03104374, NCT03178487, and NCT04169373.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are important when evaluating treatment benefits in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We compared upadacitinib, an oral, selective JAK-1 inhibitor, with placebo to assess clinically meaningful improvements in PROs in patients with RA who have had inadequate responses to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD-IR). METHODS:PRO responses between upadacitinib 15?mg or 30?mg and placebo were evaluated at week 12 from the SELECT-BEYOND trial. Improvement was determined by measuring Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), duration and severity of morning (AM) stiffness, and Insomnia Severity Index (ISI). Least squares mean changes and percentage of patients reporting improvements ? minimum clinically important differences (MCID) and scores greater than or equal to normative values were determined. The number needed to treat (NNT) to achieve clinically meaningful improvements was calculated. RESULTS:In 498 patients, both upadacitinib doses resulted in statistically significant changes from baseline versus placebo in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS), 7 of 8 SF-36 domains (15?mg), 6 of 8 SF-36 domains (30?mg), and AM stiffness duration and severity. Compared with placebo, more upadacitinib-treated patients reported improvements ? MCID in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, SF-36 PCS, 7 of 8 SF-36 domains (15?mg), 5 of 8 SF-36 domains (30?mg), AM stiffness duration and severity, and ISI (30?mg) and scores ? normative values in HAQ-DI and SF-36 domains. Across most PROs, NNTs to achieve MCID with upadacitinib ranged from 4 to 7 patients. CONCLUSIONS:In bDMARD-IR RA patients, upadacitinib (15?mg or 30?mg) improved multiple aspects of quality of life, and more patients reached clinically meaningful improvements approaching normative values compared with placebo. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02706847), registered 6 March 2016.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of upadacitinib (UPA) monotherapy vs MTX on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with RA who were MTX-naïve or who had an inadequate response to MTX (MTX-IR).MethodsPROs from the SELECT-EARLY and SELECT-MONOTHERAPY randomized controlled trials were evaluated at Weeks 2 and 12/14. Patients were ≥18 years of age with RA symptoms for ≥6 weeks (SELECT-EARLY, MTX-naïve) or diagnosed RA for ≥3 months (SELECT-MONOTHERAPY, MTX-IR) and received UPA monotherapy (15 or 30 mg) or MTX. PROs included Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), pain visual analogue scale, HAQ Disability Index (HAQ-DI), morning stiffness duration/severity, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)-Fatigue (SELECT-EARLY), health-related quality of life (HRQOL) by the 36-iem Short Form Health Survey and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI; SELECT-EARLY). Least square mean (LSM) changes and proportions of patients reporting improvements greater than or equal to the minimum clinically important differences and normative values were determined.ResultsIn 945 MTX-naïve and 648 MTX-IR patients, UPA monotherapy (15 mg, 30 mg) vs MTX resulted in greater reported LSM changes from baseline at Weeks 12/14 in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, morning stiffness duration/severity, FACIT-F (SELECT-EARLY), HRQOL and WPAI (SELECT-EARLY). These changes were statistically significant with both doses of UPA vs MTX at Weeks 12/14 in both RCTs. Improvements were reported as early as week 2. Compared with MTX, more UPA-treated MTX-naïve and MTX-IR patients reported improvements greater than or equal to the minimum clinically important differences and scores greater than or equal to normative values.ConclusionAmong MTX-naïve and MTX-IR patients with active RA, UPA monotherapy at 15 or 30 mg for 12/14 weeks resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in pain, physical function, morning stiffness, HRQOL and WPAI compared with MTX alone.Clinical trial registration numberSELECT-EARLY (NCT02706873) and SELECT-MONOTHERAPY (NCT02706951) are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov.