P135 Efficacy and safety of upadacitinib in TNFi inadequate responders with rheumatoid arthritis from three Phase 3 clinical trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background/Aims For patients with RA who are refractory to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis), optimal disease control is less likely to be achieved with subsequent therapy. In line with recommendations from EULAR and ACR, switching to a treatment with a different mechanism of action is appropriate for these patients. Objectives To describe the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib (UPA) 15 mg once daily in patients with RA and an inadequate response or intolerance to TNFis (TNFi-IR). Methods A post hoc subgroup analysis was conducted in TNFi-IR patients who were treated with UPA 15 mg once daily in three Phase 3 clinical trials: SELECT-BEYOND, -CHOICE, and -COMPARE. For COMPARE, only patients treated with adalimumab and switched to UPA as rescue therapy were included. ≥20/50/70% improvement in ACR criteria, DAS28-CRP, Clinical Disease Activity Index, and Simple Disease Activity Index, as well as change from baseline in HAQ-DI and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were reported through 24 weeks. Non-responder imputation was used for all missing categorical outcomes; as observed (COMPARE) or multiple imputation (CHOICE, BEYOND) were used for missing continuous outcomes. Pooled safety results were presented as exposure-adjusted event rates (EAERs) with a cut-off of June 30, 2021. Results 568 TNFi-IR patients were included: 146 from BEYOND, 263 from CHOICE, and 159 from COMPARE. Mean duration since RA diagnosis was longer for BEYOND and CHOICE versus COMPARE; CV risk factors were common among this refractory population. ACR20/50/70 and disease activity outcomes observed in the TNFi-IR population were generally consistent with the overall BEYOND and CHOICE bDMARD-IR populations, and consistent across the three studies in the TNFi-IR subgroups. Improvements in PROs including HAQ-DI, fatigue, pain, and morning stiffness over 24 weeks were observed (data not shown). Pooled safety results reporting 1574.8 PY of exposure in the TNFi-IR subgroup showed similar results to the overall BEYOND and CHOICE bDMARD-IR study populations, with EAERs of 3.1 events/100 PY for herpes zoster and 0.8 events/100 PY for adjudicated major adverse CV events and venous thromboembolism, and malignancy excluding non-melanoma skin cancer. The EAER of any AE leading to death was 1.4 events/100 PY. Conclusion In this post hoc subgroup analysis, TNFi-IR patients treated with UPA 15 mg achieved clinically meaningful efficacy responses over 24 weeks, with safety consistent with the overall bDMARD-IR patient population in the Phase 3 program. Disclosure R. Fleischmann: Consultancies; Consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galvani, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, and UCB. Grants/research support; Grant/research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Biosplice, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Flexion, Gilead, Horizon, Eli Lilly, Galvani, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Sanofi-Aventis, Selecta, Teva, UCB, Viela, and. L. Bessette: Consultancies; AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva, and UCB. Member of speakers’ bureau; AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva, and UCB. Grants/research support; AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva, and UCB. S. Hall: Consultancies; AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Meyers Sqibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, and UCB. Grants/research support; AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Meyers Sqibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, and UCB. J. Sparks: Consultancies; Consulted for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Optum, and Pfizer. M. Jain: Consultancies; Amgen, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Novartis. Grants/research support; Amgen, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Novartis. A. Kakehasi: Consultancies; Amgen, Janssen, UCB, AbbVie, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Sandoz, Fresenius Kabi. Member of speakers’ bureau; Amgen, Janssen, UCB, AbbVie, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Sandoz, Fresenius Kabi. Grants/research support; Amgen, Janssen, UCB, AbbVie, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Sandoz, Fresenius Kabi. Y. Song: Shareholder/stock ownership; full-time employees of AbbVie and may own stock or options. S. Meerwein: Shareholder/stock ownership; full-time employees of AbbVie and may own stock or options. R. DeMasi: Shareholder/stock ownership; full-time employees of AbbVie and may own stock or options. J. Suboticki: Shareholder/stock ownership; full-time employees of AbbVie and may own stock or options. A. Rubbert-Roth: Consultancies; AbbVie, AbbVie Deutschland, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffman-La Roche, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Global Services, Novartis, and Sanofi Pasteur.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".