Baricitinib in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis and an Inadequate Response to Conventional Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs in United States and Rest of World: A Subset Analysis.
ABSTRACT: This article evaluates the efficacy and safety of baricitinib 4 mg versus placebo in United States including Puerto Rico (US) and rest of the world (ROW) subpopulations using data pooled from RA-BEAM and RA-BUILD, which enrolled patients with moderate-to-severe adult-onset rheumatoid arthritis (RA).In RA-BEAM, patients with an inadequate response (IR) to methotrexate, at least one X-ray erosion, and high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) ≥ 6 mg/L were randomized to placebo or orally administered baricitinib 4 mg daily or subcutaneously administered adalimumab 40 mg every other week. In RA-BUILD, patients with an IR to at least one conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) and with hsCRP ≥ 3.6 mg/L were randomized to placebo or baricitinib 2 or 4 mg daily. Patients in both trials were biologic naive. In this post hoc analysis, data from both studies were pooled (714 baricitinib 4 mg-treated, 716 placebo-treated patients).Overall, 188 US and 1242 ROW patients were included. Subgroups differed in baseline characteristics including race, weight, age, time since RA diagnosis, current corticosteroid use, and previous csDMARD use. At weeks 12 and 24, baricitinib-treated patients had larger responses compared to placebo-treated patients for multiple efficacy outcomes: American College of Rheumatology 20/50/70 response, low disease activity, remission, Disease Activity Score 28-C-reactive protein, and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index. Overall, similar efficacy was observed in US and ROW subgroups with no notable safety differences between subgroups at weeks 12 or 24.Baricitinib 4 mg was efficacious compared to placebo in US and ROW subpopulations. Safety was similar between subgroups.Eli Lilly & Company and Incyte Corporation.ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers, NCT01721057; NCT01710358.
Project description: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.
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are a class of targeted therapies for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with established clinical efficacy. However, little is known about their efficacy compared with each other. This network meta-analysis (NMA) estimated the comparative efficacy of JAK inhibitors currently approved for RA. METHODS:A targeted literature review was conducted for phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of three approved JAK inhibitors (tofacitinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib) as monotherapy or combination therapy among patients with moderate-to-severe RA who had inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD-IR). Using Bayesian NMA, American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 responses and clinical remission (defined as DAS28-CRP?<?2.6) were evaluated separately at 12 and 24 weeks. RESULTS:Eleven RCTs were identified and included in the NMA. All JAK inhibitors demonstrated significantly better efficacy than csDMARD. Among combination therapies, upadacitinib 15 mg had the highest 12-week ACR50 responses (median [95% credible interval]: 43.4% [33.4%, 54.5%]), followed by tofacitinib 5 mg (38.7% [28.6%, 49.8%]), baricitinib 2 mg (37.1% [25.0%, 50.6%]), and baricitinib 4 mg (36.7%, [27.2%, 47.0%]). Similar results were observed for ACR20/70 and at week 24. Upadacitinib 15 mg?+?csDMARD was also found to have the highest clinical remission rates at week 12 (29.8% [16.9%, 47.0%]), followed by tofacitinib 5 mg (24.3%, [12.7%, 40.2%]), baricitinib 4 mg (22.8%, [11.8%, 37.5%]), and baricitinib 2 mg (20.1%, [8.6%, 37.4%]). Similar results were seen at week 24. Among monotherapies, upadacitinib had a higher ACR50 response (38.5% [25.3%, 53.2%]) than tofacitinib (30.4% [18.3%, 45.5%]). The differences in efficacy measures were not statistically significant between the JAK inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS:The NMA found that upadacitinib 15 mg once daily had numerically higher efficacy in terms of ACR response and clinical remission among approved JAK combination therapies and monotherapies for csDMARD-IR patients with RA.
Project description:Background: Baricitinib is an oral janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and is approved in Europe for use in adults with moderately-to-severely active RA and an inadequate response or intolerance to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) therapy. To date, no economic evaluations have assessed the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib in the Spanish setting. Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib versus adalimumab for the treatment of moderately-to-severely active RA in the Spanish setting. Methods: A discrete event simulation model was developed in Microsoft Excel. Costs and outcomes were estimated over a lifetime horizon using the Spanish national payer perspective. The model compared baricitinib 4 mg once daily in combination with methotrexate with adalimumab 40 mg every other week in combination with methotrexate. Effectiveness and physical function were captured using the American College of Rheumatology criteria and the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, input values of which were derived from a phase 3, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled trial (RA-BEAM; funded by Eli Lilly and Incyte; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01710358). Costs are presented in Euros, 2018 values. Results: In the base case analysis, baricitinib was associated with a quality-adjusted life year gain of 0.09 years over a lifetime horizon, at an incremental cost of -€558 versus adalimumab. Results of various scenario analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analysis generally were consistent with the base case analysis. Conclusion: This analysis suggests that baricitinib is a cost-effective treatment option compared to adalimumab for Spanish patients with moderately-to-severely active RA and a previous inadequate response or intolerance to csDMARD therapy.
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess the frequency of cardiovascular and venous thromboembolic events in clinical studies of baricitinib, an oral, selective JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor approved in more than 50 countries for the treatment of moderately-to-severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS:Data were pooled from 9 RA studies. Placebo comparison up to 24 weeks included data from 6 studies. Randomized dose comparison between baricitinib doses of 2 mg and 4 mg used data from 4 studies and from the associated long-term extension study. The data analysis set designated "All-bari-RA" included all baricitinib exposures at any dose. RESULTS:Overall, 3,492 RA patients received baricitinib (7,860 patient-years of exposure). No imbalance compared to the placebo group was seen in the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (incidence rates [IRs] of 0.5 per 100 patient-years for placebo and 0.8 per 100 patient-years for 4 mg baricitinib), arterial thrombotic events (ATE) (IRs of 0.5 per 100 patient-years for placebo and 0.5 per 100 patient-years for 4 mg baricitinib), or congestive heart failure (CHF) broad term (IRs of 4.3 per 100 patient-years for placebo and 2.4 per 100 patient-years for 4 mg baricitinib). Deep vein thrombosis (DVT)/pulmonary embolism (PE) were reported in 0 of 1,070 patients treated with placebo and 6 of 997 patients treated with 4 mg baricitinib during the placebo-controlled period; these events were serious in 2 of 6 patients, while all 6 had risk factors and 1 patient developed DVT/PE after discontinuation of the study drug. In the 2 mg-4 mg-extended data analysis set, IRs of DVT/PE were comparable between the doses across event types (IRs of 0.5 per 100 patient-years in those receiving 2 mg baricitinib and 0.6 per 100 patient-years in those receiving 4 mg baricitinib). In the All-bari-RA data analysis set, the rates were stable over time, with an IR of DVT/PE of 0.5 per 100 patient-years. CONCLUSION:In RA clinical trials, no association was found between baricitinib treatment and the incidence of MACE, ATE, or CHF. With regard to incidence of DVT/PE, 6 events occurred in patients treated with 4 mg baricitinib, but no cases of DVT/PE were reported in the placebo group. During longer-term evaluation, the incidence of DVT/PE was similar between the baricitinib dose groups, with consistent IR values over time, and this was similar to the rates previously reported in patients with RA.
Project description:Objective:RA patients who have failed biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) represent an unmet medical need. We evaluated the effects of baseline characteristics, including prior bDMARD exposure, on baricitinib efficacy and safety. Methods:RA-BEACON patients (previously reported) had moderate to severe RA with insufficient response to one or more TNF inhibitor and were randomized 1:1:1 to once-daily placebo or 2 or 4 mg baricitinib. Prior bDMARD use was allowed. The primary endpoint was a 20% improvement in ACR criteria (ACR20) at week 12 for 4 mg vs placebo. An exploratory, primarily post hoc, subgroup analysis evaluated efficacy at weeks 12 and 24 by ACR20 and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) ?10. An interaction P-value ?0.10 was considered significant, with significance at both weeks 12 and 24 given more weight. Results:The odds ratios predominantly favored baricitinib over placebo and were generally similar to those in the overall study (3.4, 2.4 for ACR20 weeks 12 and 24, respectively). Significant quantitative interactions were observed for baricitinib 4 mg vs placebo at weeks 12 and 24: ACR20 by region (larger effect Europe) and CDAI ?10 by disease duration (larger effect ?10 years). No significant interactions were consistently observed for ACR20 by age; weight; disease duration; seropositivity; corticosteroid use; number of prior bDMARDs, TNF inhibitors or non-TNF inhibitors; or a specific prior TNF inhibitor. Treatment-emergent adverse event rates, including infections, appeared somewhat higher across groups with greater prior bDMARD use. Conclusion:Baricitinib demonstrated a consistent, beneficial treatment effect in bDMARD-refractory patients across subgroups based on baseline characteristics and prior bDMARD use. Trial registration:ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/), NCT01721044.
Project description:BACKGROUND:In clinical practice, temporary interruption of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) therapy is common for various reasons including side effects, non-compliance, or necessity for surgery. To characterize temporary interruptions of baricitinib and placebo-matched tablets in phase 3 studies of patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and describe their impact on efficacy and safety. METHODS:During 4 baricitinib phase 3 studies, investigators documented timing, reason, and duration of investigator-initiated temporary interruptions of study drug. In 2 studies, patients recorded RA symptoms in daily diaries for 12?weeks. Post hoc analyses investigated changes in symptom scores during interruptions and resumption of treatment. Interruptions were evaluated for reoccurrence of adverse events or laboratory abnormalities after retreatment. RESULTS:Across the placebo-controlled studies, interruptions occurred in larger proportions of baricitinib- (2 mg, 18%; 4 mg, 18%) vs placebo-treated (9%) patients in only one study (bDMARD-inadequate responder patients, RA-BEACON). In the active comparator-controlled studies, the lowest rates of interruption were in the baricitinib monotherapy arm (9%) of RA-BEGIN (vs methotrexate monotherapy or combination therapy), and proportions were similar for baricitinib (10%) and adalimumab (9%) in RA-BEAM. Adverse events were the most common reason for interruption, but their reoccurrence after drug restart was infrequent. Most interruptions lasted ??2?weeks. Daily diaries indicated modest symptom increases during interruption with return to pre-interruption levels or better after resumption. Interruptions had no impact on long-term efficacy outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:Consistent with its pharmacologic properties, brief interruptions of baricitinib during phase 3 studies were associated with minor increases in RA symptoms that resolved following retreatment. This analysis provides useful information for clinicians, as temporary interruption of antirheumatic therapy is common in the care of patients with RA. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT01710358, NCT01711359, NCT01721057, NCT01721044.
Project description:Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may experience residual pain and functional impairment despite good control of disease activity. This study compared improvements in pain and physical function in patients with well-controlled RA after 24 weeks' treatment with baricitinib, adalimumab or placebo in the 52-week RA-BEAM phase III study. Adults with active RA and inadequate response to methotrexate received baricitinib 4 mg once daily, adalimumab 40 mg every two weeks or placebo, with background methotrexate. Patients (N = 1010) were categorised as in remission, in remission or low disease activity, or not in remission or low disease activity at week 24. For patients in remission or low disease activity (n = 310), improvements in mean pain and physical function scores at week 24 were significantly greater with baricitinib than placebo (p < 0.001 and p < 0.01, respectively) and adalimumab (p < 0.05 for both). For both outcomes, differences between adalimumab and placebo were not significant. The proportions of patients in remission or low disease activity with minimal or no pain and with normalised physical function were numerically greater with baricitinib than placebo. Baricitinib 4 mg once daily provided enhanced improvement in pain and physical function in patients with well-controlled RA, suggesting it may produce effects beyond immunomodulation.
Project description:INTRODUCTION:The objective of this study was to evaluate treatment patterns in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with a focus on the utilization of baricitinib, an oral highly selective Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor, in an Italian real-world setting. METHODS:This observational retrospective analysis was based on data collected in selected Italian administrative databases. Patients aged ??18 years with a diagnosis of RA defined by hospitalization discharge diagnosis (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 714.0) or by disease exemption code 006 for RA in 2018 were included. The index date (ID) was defined as the date of first prescription for a drug indicated for RA during the inclusion period. Patients without a prescription for biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) before the ID were considered to be b/tsDMARD naïve. A further analysis was performed on patients only receiving baricitinib. RESULTS:A total of 41,290 RA patients were enrolled, of whom 55.6% were not treated with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) or b/tsDMARDs, 39.4% were receiving therapy with csDMARDs, and 5.0% were using b/tsDMARDs. In the latter group, 2.7% (n?=?56) were receiving therapy with baricitinib. In 2018, 13.2% of csDMARD-treated patients switched to b/tsDMARDs, of whom 4.3% (n?=?93) of these switched to baricitinib. In total, 149 patients (mean age?± standard deviation 57.6?±?12.1; 12.8% male) had a baricitinib prescription, of whom 51% were b/tsDMARD naïve. At baseline, 61.7% of baricitinib users were receiving combination therapy with csDMARDs plus corticosteroids, 26.2% were receiving combination therapy with corticosteroids, and 8.1% were receiving combination therapy with csDMARDs; 4% were receiving baricitinib monotherapy. During follow-up, the proportion of patients receiving baricitinib monotherapy increased to 38.9%, while 26.9, 18.8, and 15.4% of baricitinib users received combination therapy with corticosteroids, csDMARDs plus corticosteroids, and csDMARDs, respectively. CONCLUSION:This study provides a current view of the treatment patterns in Italian patients with RA in a real-world setting of daily clinical practice, with a focus on baricitinib utilization.
Project description:To investigate baricitinib (LY3009104, formerly INCB028050), a novel, oral inhibitor of JAK1/JAK2 in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite treatment with methotrexate.In this phase IIb study, 301 patients were randomised 2:1:1:1:1 to receive once daily doses of placebo or 1, 2, 4 or 8?mg baricitinib for 12?weeks. Patients assigned to 2, 4 and 8 mg baricitinib continued blinded treatment for an additional 12?weeks. Patients assigned to placebo or 1 mg baricitinib were reassigned to 2 mg twice daily or 4 mg once daily baricitinib between weeks 12-24. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients in the combined 4 and 8 mg groups achieving an American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response versus placebo at week 12.Significantly more patients in the combined baricitinib 4 and 8 mg groups compared with placebo achieved an ACR20 response at week 12 (76% vs 41%, p<0.001). At week 12, significant differences versus placebo were also observed in patients achieving ACR50, ACR70 and remission as measured by Disease Activity Score for 28-joint counts, Clinical Disease Activity Index and Simplified Disease Activity Index. Patients receiving 2, 4, or 8?mg baricitinib maintained or improved in all measures through 24?weeks. Similar proportions of patients experienced at least one adverse event in the placebo and baricitinib groups. Serious infections developed in three patients receiving baricitinib. No cases of tuberculosis, herpes zoster, opportunistic infections or deaths were reported. Dose-dependent decreases in haemoglobin were observed with baricitinib.Baricitinib improved the signs and symptoms of RA in methotrexate inadequate responders with active disease. Baricitinib was well tolerated with no unexpected safety findings through week 24.NCT01185353.
Project description:The purpose of the study was to assess the proportion of patients who achieve pain relief thresholds, the time needed to reach the thresholds, and the relationship between pain and inflammation among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to methotrexate in RA-BEAM (NCT0170358). A randomized, double-blind trial was conducted, comparing baricitinib (N = 487), adalimumab (N = 330), and placebo (N = 488) plus methotrexate. Pain was evaluated by patient's assessment on a 0-100 mm visual analog scale (VAS). The following were assessed through a 24-week placebo-controlled period: the proportion of patients who achieved ?30%, ?50%, and ?70% pain relief, the time to achieve these pain relief thresholds, remaining pain (VAS ? 10 mm, ?20 mm, or ?40 mm), and the relationship between inflammation markers and pain relief. Baricitinib-treated patients were more likely (p < 0.05) to achieve ?30%, ?50%, and ?70% pain relief than placebo- and adalimumab-treated patients, as early as Week 1 vs. placebo and at Week 4 vs. adalimumab. A greater proportion of baricitinib-treated patients achieved ?20 mm or ?40 mm remaining pain vs. placebo- and adalimumab-treated patients. Baricitinib-treated patients tended to demonstrate consistent pain relief independent of levels of inflammation control. In RA patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate, baricitinib provided greater and more rapid pain relief than adalimumab and placebo. Analyses suggest the relationship between inflammation and pain may be different for baricitinib and adalimumab treatments.