Patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis treated with tofacitinib were more likely to have clinical response and remission than those receiving placebo. (Funded by Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00787202.).

No abstract

Downregulated Skin Biomarkers Upregulated Crisaborole Vehicle Crisaborole Day 15 Day 8 Day 1 Day 15 Day 8 Day 1 Vehicle Day 1 NL CRISABOROLE AND ATOPIC DERMATITIS SKIN BIOMARKERS: AN INTRAPATIENT RANDOMIZED TRIAL 2 AD lesions of identical severity were randomized intrapatient to crisaborole or vehicle and biopsied at days 1, 8, and 15 (including Th2 and Th17/Th22 axes) and improved barrier function NL skin biopsied at day 1 AD, atopic dermatitis; NL, nonlesional; Th, helper T cellBackground: Crisaborole ointment 2% is a nonsteroidal phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor for the treatment of mild-tomoderate atopic dermatitis (AD). The mechanism of action of crisaborole and its effects on lesional measures of disease severity are not yet well defined. Objective: This phase 2a, single-center, vehicle-controlled, intrapatient study was designed to further characterize the mechanism of action of crisaborole through evaluation of clinical efficacy and changes in skin biomarkers in adults (n 5 40) with mild-to-moderate AD. Methods: Two target lesions were randomized in an intrapatient (1:1) manner to double-blind crisaborole/vehicle applied twice daily for 14 days. Patients then applied crisaborole (open-label) to all affected areas for 28 days. Punch biopsy specimens were collected for biomarker analysis at baseline, day 8 (optional), and day 15.

ObjectivesEvaluate risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) with tofacitinib versus tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with or without a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in ORAL Surveillance.MethodsPatients with RA aged ≥50 years with ≥1 additional CV risk factor received tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg two times per day or TNFi. Hazard rations (HRs) were evaluated for the overall population and by history of ASCVD (exploratory analysis).ResultsRisk of MACE, myocardial infarction and sudden cardiac death were increased with tofacitinib versus TNFi in ORAL Surveillance. In patients with history of ASCVD (14.7%; 640/4362), MACE incidence was higher with tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day (8.3%; 17/204) and 10 mg two times per day (7.7%; 17/222) versus TNFi (4.2%; 9/214). HR (combined tofacitinib doses vs TNFi) was 1.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 4.14; interaction p values: 0.196 (for HR)/0.059 (for incidence rate difference)). In patients without history of ASCVD, MACE HRs for tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day (2.4%; 30/1251) and 10 mg two times per day (2.8%; 34/1234) versus TNFi (2.3%; 28/1237) were, respectively, 1.03 (0.62 to 1.73) and 1.25 (0.76 to 2.07).ConclusionsThis post hoc analysis observed higher MACE risk with tofacitinib versus TNFi in patients with RA and history of ASCVD. Among patients without history of ASCVD, all with prevalent CV risk factors, MACE risk did not appear different with tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day versus TNFi. Due to the exploratory nature of this analysis and low statistical power, we cannot exclude differential MACE risk for tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day versus TNFi among patients without history of ASCVD, but any absolute risk excess is likely low.Trial registration numberNCT02092467.

ObjectiveTo investigate the efficacy, safety, immunogenicity and pharmacokinetics of biosimilar adalimumab (ADL) PF-06410293 (ADL-PF; adalimumab-afzb) versus EU-sourced reference ADL (ADL-EU) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on longer-term treatment and after being switched from ADL-EU to ADL-PF.MethodsIn this multinational, double-blind study, patients with active RA were initially randomised to ADL-PF or ADL-EU for 26 weeks (treatment period (TP) 1). At the start of TP2 (weeks 26–52), patients in the ADL-EU arm were blindly re-randomised 1:1 to remain on ADL-EU (ADL-EU/ADL-EU; n=135) or switched to ADL-PF (ADL-EU/ADL-PF; n=134); patients receiving ADL-PF continued blinded treatment (ADL-PF/ADL-PF; n=283).ResultsThe American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement (ACR20) response rates were comparable between treatment groups at all visits during TP2. At week 52, ACR20 response rates were 82.7% (ADL-PF/ADL-PF), 79.3% (ADL-EU/ADL-EU) and 84.3% (ADL-EU/ADL-PF). Other measures of deep response (ACR50/70, ACR/EULAR-defined remission, EULAR good response, and Disease Activity Score in 28 Joints Based on High-Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein <2.6) and Health Assessment Questionnaire−Disability Index were maintained over TP2 and comparable between groups. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 43.5% (ADL-PF/ADL-PF), 44.4% (ADL-EU/ADL-EU) and 38.3% (ADL-EU/ADL-PF) of patients; there were no clinically meaningful differences in the safety profiles between groups. The percentage of patients who were antidrug antibody positive was comparable overall among ADL-PF/ADL-PF (47.3%), ADL-EU/ADL-EU (54.1%) and ADL-EU/ADL-PF (45.9%).ConclusionsThe similar efficacy, safety, immunogenicity and pharmacokinetics of ADL-PF and ADL-EU, maintained up to week 52, were unaffected by blinded treatment switch from ADL-EU to ADL-PF at week 26.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02480153; EudraCT number: 2014-000352-29.