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.
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:BACKGROUND:Methotrexate (MTX) remains the anchor drug in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment, but is poorly tolerated or contraindicated in some patients. There is a wealth of data supporting the use of abatacept in combination with MTX, but data on alternative conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) combinations with abatacept are scarce. METHODS:In this post-hoc exploratory analysis, efficacy and safety data were extracted from abatacept RA studies in which combination with csDMARDs other than MTX was permitted: three interventional trials (ATTAIN, ASSURE, and ARRIVE) and one real-world study (ACTION). Patients with moderate-to-severe RA received abatacept in combination with MTX, hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, azathioprine, or leflunomide for 6 months to 2 years according to the study design. Change from baseline in physical function (Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI); all studies) and 28-joint Disease Activity Score (C-reactive protein) (DAS28 (CRP); ATTAIN, ARRIVE, and ACTION), American College of Rheumatology response rates (ATTAIN), and safety were assessed for individual and pooled csDMARD combinations for each trial. A meta-analysis was also performed on pooled data for HAQ-DI and DAS28 (CRP) across interventional trials. RESULTS:Across all four studies, 731 patients received abatacept plus one non-MTX csDMARD (hydroxychloroquine n?=?152; sulfasalazine n?=?123; azathioprine n?=?59; and leflunomide n?=?397) and 2382 patients received abatacept plus MTX. Mean changes from baseline in HAQ-DI scores for abatacept plus MTX (all csDMARDs pooled) vs abatacept plus a non-MTX csDMARD were -0.54 vs -0.44 (ATTAIN), -0.43 vs -0.43 (ASSURE), and -0.39 vs -0.36 (ARRIVE). Mean changes from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) and ACR response rates were also similar with abatacept plus MTX or non-MTX csDMARDs. Data for individual non-MTX csDMARDs (pooled across studies) and real-world data were consistent with these findings. Rates of treatment-related adverse events and serious adverse events, respectively, for abatacept plus one non-MTX csDMARD vs abatacept plus MTX were 35.7% vs 41.7% and 2.4% vs 2.3% (ATTAIN), 58.0% vs 55.9% and 4.2% vs 1.7% (ASSURE), and 38.1% vs 44.3% and 0.6% vs 2.9% (ARRIVE). CONCLUSIONS:Abatacept in combination with non-MTX csDMARDs is clinically effective and well tolerated in patients with moderate-to-severe RA, providing similar benefits to those seen with abatacept plus MTX. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00048581 . Registered 2 November 2002. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00048932 . Registered 11 November 2002. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00124982 . Registered 30 June 2005. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02109666 . Registered 8 April 2014.
Project description:This study evaluates patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in a double-blind, phase III study of baricitinib as monotherapy or combined with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with no or minimal prior conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and naïve to biological DMARDs.Patients were randomized 4:3:4 to MTX administered once weekly (N?=?210), baricitinib monotherapy (4 mg once daily (QD), N?=?159), or combination of baricitinib (4 mg QD) and MTX (baricitinib?+?MTX, N?=?215). PROs included the Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), patient's assessment of pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), duration of morning joint stiffness (MJS), worst joint pain, worst tiredness, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-Rheumatoid Arthritis (WPAI-RA), Short Form 36 version 2, Acute (SF-36); and EuroQol 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D) Health State Profile. Comparisons were assessed with analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and logistic regression models.Compared to MTX, patients in both baricitinib groups reported greater improvement (p???0.01) in HAQ-DI, PtGA, pain, fatigue, worst join pain, SF-36 physical component score, and EQ-5D at weeks 24 and 52. For the SF-36 mental component score, patients in both baricitinib groups reported statistically significant improvements (p???0.01) at week 52 compared to MTX-treated patients. Statistically significant improvements (p???0.05) were observed with the WPAI-RA for the baricitinib groups vs. MTX at week 24 and for the WPAI-RA daily activity and work productivity measures for baricitinib?+?MTX at week 52.In this study, baricitinib alone or in combination with MTX, when used as initial therapy, resulted in significant improvement compared to MTX in the majority of the pre-specified PRO measures.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01711359 . Registered on 18 October 2012.
Project description: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:OBJECTIVES: To update a previous systematic review assessing the efficacy of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Two systematic reviews of the literature using PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane library were performed from 2009 until January 2013 to assess the efficacy of csDMARDs (as monotherapy or combination therapy) in adults with RA, and the efficacy of glucocorticoids in early RA. A third systematic review was performed until March 2013 to assess the efficacy of tofacitinib by meta-analysis. RESULTS: For glucocorticoids, of 222 hits, five publications relating to four new trials were analysed for efficacy, confirming that initial treatment of RA with low-dose prednisone plus methotrexate (MTX) results in better clinical and structural outcomes at 1 and 2 years than treatment with MTX alone. For csDMARDs, of 498 studies, only two new studies were randomised controlled trials comparing MTX monotherapy with MTX in combination with another csDMARD without differences in glucocorticoid usage. Using tight control principles, clinical outcomes were no better with immediate triple therapy than with 'step-up' therapy. For tofacitinib, the pooled analysis of 10 trials showed that tofacitinib was more efficacious on signs and symptoms, disability and appeared to be more efficacious on structural damage than control treatment with placebo (OR (95% CI)--American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response: 2.44 (1.97 to 3.02)) or treatment with MTX (ACR20 response: 2.38 (1.66 to 3.43)). CONCLUSIONS: Addition of low-dose glucocorticoids to csDMARD therapy produces benefits in early RA. Under tight control conditions, combination therapy with csDMARDs is no better than MTX monotherapy. Tofacitinib is a new DMARD with proven efficacy.
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess the cost-effectiveness of tofacitinib-containing treatment sequences versus sequences containing only standard biological therapies in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after the failure of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD-IR population) and in patients previously treated with methotrexate (MTX) who show an inadequate response to second-line therapy with any tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi-IR population). METHODS:A patient-level microsimulation model estimated, from the perspective of the Spanish Public NHS, lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) for treatment sequences starting with tofacitinib (5 mg twice daily) followed by biological therapies versus sequences of biological treatments only. Concomitant treatment with MTX was considered. Model's parameters comprised demographic and clinical inputs (initial Health Assessment Questionnaire [HAQ] score and clinical response to short- and long-term treatment). Efficacy was measured by means of HAQ score changes using mixed treatment comparisons and data from long-term extension (LTE) trials. Serious adverse events (SAEs) data were derived from the literature. Total cost estimation (€, 2018) included drug acquisition, parenteral administration, disease progression and SAE management. RESULTS:In the csDMARD-IR population, sequences starting with tofacitinib proved dominant options (more QALYs and lower costs) versus the corresponding sequences without tofacitinib. In the TNFi-IR population, first-line treatment with tofacitinib+MTX followed by scAbatacept+MTX?rituximab+MTX?certolizumab+MTX proved dominant versus scTocilizumab+MTX?scAbatacept+MTX?rituximab+MTX?certolizumab+MTX; and tofacitinib+MTX?scTocilizumab+MTX?scAbatacept+MTX?rituximab+MTX versus scTocilizumab+MTX?scAbatacept+MTX?rituximab+MTX?certolizumab+MTX was less effective but remained a cost-saving option. CONCLUSIONS:Inclusion of tofacitinib seems a dominant strategy in moderate-to-severe RA patients after csDMARDs failure. Tofacitinib, as initial third-line therapy, proved a cost-saving strategy (€-?337,489/QALY foregone) in moderate-to-severe TNFi-IR RA patients. Key points • Therapeutical approach in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) consisted in sequences of several therapies during patient lifetime. • Treatment sequences initiating with tofacitinib followed by biological drugs provided higher health effects in csDMARDs-IR population, compared with sequences containing only biological drugs. • In both csDMARD-IR and TNFi-IR RA populations, initiating treatment with tofacitinib was associated to lower treatment costs for the Spanish National Health System.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV) replication is a well-recognised complication in patients receiving disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Limited data exist on HBV reactivation among patients with RA treated with janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. The objective of the current study was to assess HBV reactivation in clinical trials of baricitinib, an oral selective JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor in RA. METHODS:Data were integrated from four completed Phase 3 trials and one ongoing long-term extension (data up to 1 April 2017) in patients naïve to DMARDs or who had inadequate response (IR) to DMARDs including methotrexate (MTX)-IR and/or other conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD)-IR, or tumour necrosis factor inhibitors-IR. Within the clinical programme, baricitinib-treated patients may have received concomitant csDMARDs including MTX, or previous treatment with active comparators including MTX or adalimumab + MTX. At screening, all patients were tested for HBV surface antigen (HBsAg), core antibody (HBcAb) and surface antibody (HBsAb). Patients were excluded if they had (1) HBsAg+, (2) HBcAb+/HBsAb- (in Japan, could enrol if HBV DNA-) or (3) HBsAb+ and?HBV DNA+. HBV DNA monitoring, following randomisation in the originating Phase 3 studies, was performed in Japan for patients with HBcAb+ and/or HBsAb+ at screening, and was later instituted globally for HBcAb+ patients in accordance with evolving guidance for HBV monitoring and management with immunomodulatory therapy. RESULTS:In total, 2890 patients received at least one dose of baricitinib in Phase 3 (6993 patient-years exposure). Of 215 patients with baseline serology suggestive of prior HBV infection (HbcAb+) who received a post-baseline DNA test, 32 (14.9%) were HBV DNA+ at?some point following treatment initiation; 8 of 215 patients (3.7%) had a single quantifiable result (?29?IU/mL). Of these eight patients, four met the definition of reactivation of HBV (HBV DNA level ?100?IU/mL); baricitinib was permanently discontinued in four patients, and temporarily interrupted in two patients. No patient developed clinical evidence of hepatitis and in five of eight patients, antiviral therapy was not used. CONCLUSION:HBV reactivation can occur among RA patients treated with DMARDs, including baricitinib, with prior HBV exposure. Our data suggest that such patients should be monitored for HBV DNA during treatment and might be treated safely with the use of antiviral therapy as needed. The risk of HBV reactivation in patients with HBsAg treated with baricitinib is unknown.
Project description:To evaluate the effect of baricitinib on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response or intolerance to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.In this phase III study, patients were randomised 1:1:1 to placebo (N=228), baricitinib 2 mg once daily (QD, N=229) or baricitinib 4 mg QD (N=227). PROs included the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), patient's assessment of pain, measures from patient electronic daily diaries (duration and severity of morning joint stiffness (MJS), Worst Tiredness, Worst Joint Pain), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), SF-36, EuroQol 5-D index scores and visual analogue scales (VAS) and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire-RA. The primary time point for the study was week 12. Treatment comparisons were assessed with logistic regression for categorical measures and analysis of covariance for continuous variables.Statistically significant improvements were observed for both baricitinib groups versus placebo in HAQ-DI, PtGA, pain, daily diary measures, EuroQoL index scores and SF-36 physical component score at week 12 and for those measures when assessed at week 24. Baricitinib 2 mg and baricitinib 4 mg were statistically significantly improved versus placebo for the EuroQoL VAS and FACIT-F, respectively, at week 24.Baricitinib 2 or 4 mg provided significant improvement versus placebo in PROs across different domains of RA, including physical function, MJS, fatigue, pain and quality of life.NCT01721057; Results.
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.