Peter T. Nash

Objective: This systematic literature review (SLR) on efficacy outcomes was performed to inform the 2024 update of the expert consensus statement on the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) with Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi). Methods: An update of the 2019 SLR was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. For efficacy, randomised, placebo (PLC)- or active-controlled trials on all JAKi investigated in IMIDs, as well as cohort and claims data for conditions where such studies were not available, were included. Results: In total, 10,556 records were screened, and 182 articles were included in the final analysis, investigating 21 JAKi in 51 IMIDs. Forty-three phase 2 and 59 phase 3 trials as well as 9 strategic trials and 72 pilot or cohort studies and case series were considered. JAKi demonstrated efficacy both in PLC-controlled trials as well as in head-to-head comparisons against active comparators, with 93 of 102 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) meeting their primary endpoints. Since 2019, 8 JAKi have received approval by the Federal Drug Agency and the European Medicine Agency for treatment of 11 IMIDs; of these, for 2, no approved disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy had previously been available. Conclusions: JAKi are effective for treating IMIDs, and various compounds have recently been approved. The impact of Janus kinase (JAK) selectivity for distinct JAK-STAT pathways needs further investigation, and few data are also available on sustained disease control upon tapering or withdrawal or on the optimal strategic placement of JAKi in international treatment algorithms.

Objective: This systematic literature review (SLR) on safety outcomes was performed to inform the 2024 update of the expert consensus statement on the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) with Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi). Methods: An update of the 2019 SLR was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. For safety, randomised, placebo-controlled or active-controlled trials on all JAKi investigated in IMIDs, long-term extension (LTE) studies, pooled trial data analyses, and cohort and claims studies were included. Results: We screened 13,905 records, of which 209 were finally included. Three safety trials and 13 post hoc analyses, 83 efficacy randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with adequate safety reporting, 56 integrated safety analyses and LTE of RCTs, 20 additional conference abstracts on RCT data, as well as 37 real-world cohort studies were presented to the task force. Safety profiles of JAKi were overall consistent across compounds and indications, but impacts of patient profiles, treatment dosing, and other cofactors like background medications on drug safety could be observed. Furthermore, differential effects of variously selective JAKi on distinct adverse events of special interest (AESI) and laboratory outcomes were discerned. Conclusions: A substantial amount of literature was published on JAKi safety since 2019. A comprehensive overview of these data supports the optimal use of JAKi in patients with IMIDs, by consideration and balance of their benefits as well as risks in every patient.

Background: We aim to assess the association of patient-reported pain and remission or low disease activity (LDA) at 3 months (M) in patients receiving baricitinib or other treatments in RA-BE-REAL. Methods: RA-BE-REAL reports on patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who were prescribed, for the first time, baricitinib (cohort A) or a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) (cohort B-TNFi) or any other mode of action (OMA) (cohort B-OMA). Pain was measured using the visual analogue scale (VAS) (0-100 mm) and clinically meaningful pain improvement thresholds of ≥ 30%, ≥ 50% and ≥ 70% from baseline to 3, 6, 12 and 24 M. Results: At 3 M, the mean change from baseline (CFB) pain VAS of patients in remission/LDA was - 32.6 mm (cohort A), - 27.3 mm (cohort B-TNFi) and - 28.0 mm (cohort B-OMA). Almost half the patients who were in remission/LDA receiving baricitinib achieved ≥ 70% pain relief. At 3 M, the proportion of patients in remission/LDA with pain VAS ≤ 20 mm was 62.1% (cohort A), 55.0% (cohort B-TNFi) and 55.6% (cohort B-OMA), while for those not in remission/LDA, it was 8.5% and 8.7% (cohort A and B-TNFi, respectively) and 5.3% (B-OMA). More patients on baricitinib achieved pain improvement in all analyzed thresholds than patients in cohort B-TNFi and B-OMA at 3 M. At 24 M, - 26.2 mm (cohort A), - 20.8 mm (cohort B-TNFi) and - 16.0 mm (cohort B-OMA) mean CFBs in pain measurement were observed. For baricitinib and the other treatments, residual pain decreased with achievement of remission/LDA and was sustained up to 24 M. Conclusions: Patients in remission/LDA receiving baricitinib are more likely to achieve pain control than patients receiving TNFi/OMA.

Objective: To describe safety and efficacy of filgotinib 200 or 100 mg (FIL200/FIL100) in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis in a long-term extension (LTE; NCT03025308). Methods: Patients who completed any of three parent studies (NCT02889796: inadequate response [IR] to methotrexate [MTX]; NCT02873936: IR to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs; NCT02886728: MTX-naïve) without rescue therapy could enter the LTE; patients taking FIL continued their dosage, and those who received comparators were rerandomised to FIL200 or FIL100. This analysis includes week 156 interim results. Results: Among Japanese patients, 110 received FIL200, and 97 received FIL100. Mean (SD) FIL200 and FIL100 exposure was 157.0 (51.49) and 156.0 (52.45) weeks. The exposure-adjusted incidence rates (95% CI) for FIL200/FIL100 were 2.7 (1.4, 5.2)/2.4 (1.2, 5.1) for herpes zoster, 0.9 (0.3, 2.8)/1.0 (0.3, 3.2) for malignancy (excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer), and 0.6 (0.2, 2.4)/0.3 (0.0, 2.4) for major adverse cardiovascular events. More patients receiving FIL200 with prior FIL200 exposure achieved clinical remission vs other groups (including Clinical Disease Activity Index remission in 40% vs 27% or less at week 156). Conclusions: FIL200 and FIL100 were generally well tolerated by Japanese patients, without new, unexpected adverse events.

Background: The relative efficacy of bimekizumab and risankizumab in patients with PsA who were biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug naïve (bDMARD naïve) or with previous inadequate response or intolerance to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR) was assessed at 52 weeks (Wk52) using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC). Methods: Relevant trials were systematically identified. For patients who were bDMARD naïve, individual patient data (IPD) from BE OPTIMAL (NCT03895203; N = 431) were matched with summary data from KEEPsAKE-1 (NCT03675308; N = 483). For patients who were TNFi-IR, IPD from BE COMPLETE (NCT03896581; N = 267) were matched with summary data from the TNFi-IR patient subgroup in KEEPsAKE-2 (NCT03671148; N = 106). To adjust for cross-trial differences, patients from the bimekizumab trials were re-weighted to match the baseline characteristics of patients in the risankizumab trials. Adjustment variables were selected based on expert consensus (n = 5) and adherence to established MAIC guidelines. Recalculated bimekizumab Wk52 outcomes for American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response criteria and minimal disease activity (MDA) index (non-responder imputation) were compared with risankizumab outcomes via non-placebo-adjusted comparisons. Results: In patients who were bDMARD naïve, bimekizumab had a significantly greater likelihood of response than risankizumab at Wk52 for ACR50 (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.52 [1.11, 2.09]) and ACR70 (1.80 [1.29, 2.51]). In patients who were TNFi-IR, bimekizumab had a significantly greater likelihood of response than risankizumab at Wk52 for ACR20 (1.78 [1.08, 2.96]), ACR50 (3.05 [1.74, 5.32]), ACR70 (3.69 [1.82, 7.46]), and MDA (2.43 [1.37, 4.32]). Conclusions: Using MAIC, bimekizumab demonstrated a greater likelihood of efficacy in most ACR and MDA outcomes than risankizumab in patients with PsA who were bDMARD naïve and TNFi-IR at Wk52. Background: NCT03895203, NCT03896581, NCT03675308, NCT03671148.

A Randomized, Active-Controlled, Parallel-Group, Phase 3b/4 Study of Baricitinib in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase 2 Study of LY3471851 (NKTR-358) in Adults With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

A Phase 3, Double-Blind, Multicenter Study to Evaluate the Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Baricitinib in Patients With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE)

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel-Group, Phase 3 Study of Baricitinib in Patients With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus