Objectives:This double-blind trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of abatacept or infliximab vs placebo. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the mean change from baseline in Disease Activity Score (based on erythrocyte sedimentation rates; DAS28 (ESR)) for the abatacept vs placebo groups at day 197.Methods:Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX) were randomised 3:3:2 to abatacept (∼10 mg/kg every 4 weeks, n = 156), infliximab (3 mg/kg every 8 weeks, n = 165), or placebo (every 4 weeks, n = 110) and background MTX. Safety and efficacy were assessed throughout the study.Results:Similar patient demographics and clinical characteristics were present at baseline between groups, with mean scores of ∼1.7 for HAQ-DI and 6.8 for DAS28 (ESR). At 6 months, mean changes in DAS28 (ESR) were significantly greater for abatacept vs placebo (–2.53 vs –1.48, p<0.001) and infliximab vs placebo (–2.25 vs –1.48, p<0.001). For abatacept vs infliximab treatment at day 365, reductions in the DAS28 (ESR) were –2.88 vs –2.25. At day 365, the following response rates were observed for abatacept and infliximab, respectively: American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20, 72.4 and 55.8%; ACR 50, 45.5 and 36.4%; ACR 70, 26.3 and 20.6%; low disease activity score (LDAS), 35.3 and 22.4%; DAS28-defined remission, 18.7 and 12.2%; good European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) responses, 32.0 and 18.5%; and Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), 57.7 and 52.7%. Mean changes in physical component summary (PCS) were 9.5 and 7.6, and mental component summary (MCS) were 6.0 and 4.0, for abatacept and infliximab, respectively. Over 1 year, adverse events (AEs) (89.1 vs 93.3%), serious AEs (SAEs) (9.6 vs 18.2%), serious infections (1.9 vs 8.5%) and discontinuations due to AEs (3.2 vs 7.3%) and SAEs (2.6 vs 3.6%) were lower with abatacept than infliximab.Conclusions:In this study, abatacept and infliximab (3 mg/kg every 8 weeks) demonstrated similar efficacy. Overall, abatacept had a relatively more acceptable safety and tolerability profile, with fewer SAEs, serious infections, acute infusional events and discontinuations due to AEs than the infliximab group. Trial registration number:NCT00095147.

BackgroundUpadacitinib is a Janus kinase inhibitor under evaluation for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). We evaluated upadacitinib in patients with PsA and prior inadequate response or intolerance to at least one biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD).MethodsIn this 24-week randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial, 642 patients were randomised (2:2:1:1) to once per day upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg, placebo followed by upadacitinib 15 mg or placebo followed by upadacitinib 30 mg at week 24. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response at week 12. Achievement of minimal disease activity (MDA) was assessed at week 24. Treatment-emergent adverse events are reported for all patients who received at least one dose of trial drug.ResultsAt week 12, significantly more patients receiving upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg versus placebo achieved ACR20 (56.9% and 63.8% vs 24.1%; p<0.001 for both comparisons). At week 24, MDA was achieved by more upadacitinib 15 mg-treated (25.1%) and 30 mg-treated patients (28.9%) versus placebo (2.8%; p<0.001 for both comparisons). Generally, the rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were similar with placebo and upadacitinib 15 mg and higher with upadacitinib 30 mg at week 24. Rates of serious infections were 0.5%, 0.5% and 2.8% with placebo, upadacitinib 15 mg and upadacitinib 30 mg, respectively.ConclusionIn this trial of patients with active PsA who had inadequate response or intolerance to at least one biologic DMARD, upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg was more effective than placebo over 24 weeks in improving signs and symptoms of PsA.Clinical trial registration numberNCT03104374

ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) abatacept.MethodsIn this phase IIIb double-blind, double-dummy, 6-month study, patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inadequate responses to methotrexate were randomized to receive 125 mg SC abatacept on days 1 and 8 and weekly thereafter (plus an IV loading dose [∼10 mg/kg] on day 1) or IV abatacept (∼10 mg/kg) on days 1, 15, and 29 and every 4 weeks thereafter. The primary end point for determining the noninferiority of SC abatacept to IV abatacept was the proportion of patients in each group meeting the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieving an ACR20 response) at month 6. Other efficacy end points, immunogenicity, and safety were also assessed.ResultsOf 1,457 patients, 693 of 736 (94.2%) treated with SC abatacept and 676 of 721 (93.8%) treated with IV abatacept completed 6 months. At month 6, 76.0% (95% confidence interval 72.9, 79.2) of SC abatacept–treated patients versus 75.8% (95% confidence interval 72.6, 79.0) of IV abatacept–treated patients achieved an ACR20 response (estimated difference between groups 0.3% [95% confidence interval –4.2, 4.8]), confirming noninferiority of SC abatacept to IV abatacept. Onset and magnitude of ACR responses and disease activity and physical function improvements were comparable between the SC and IV abatacept–treated groups. The proportions of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs over 6 months were 67.0% and 4.2%, respectively, in the SC abatacept–treated group and 65.2% and 4.9%, respectively, in the IV abatacept–treated group, with comparable frequencies of serious infections, malignancies, and autoimmune events between groups. SC injection site reactions (mostly mild) occurred in 19 SC abatacept (IV placebo)–treated patients (2.6%) and 18 IV abatacept (SC placebo)–treated patients (2.5%). Abatacept-induced antibodies occurred in 1.1% of SC abatacept–treated patients and 2.3% of IV abatacept–treated patients.ConclusionSC abatacept provides efficacy and safety comparable with that of IV abatacept, with low immunogenicity and high retention rates, consistent with the established IV abatacept profile. Rates of injection site reactions were low. SC abatacept will provide additional treatment options, such as an alternative route of administration, for patients with RA.

ObjectiveEpratuzumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets CD22, modulates B cell signaling without substantial reductions in the number of B cells. The aim of this study was to report the results of 2 phase III multicenter randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trials, the EMBODY 1 and EMBODY 2 trials, assessing the efficacy and safety of epratuzumab in patients with moderately to severely active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).MethodsPatients met ≥4 of the American College of Rheumatology revised classification criteria for SLE, were positive for antinuclear antibodies and/or anti–double‐stranded DNA antibodies, had an SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI‐2K) score of ≥6 (increased disease activity), had British Isles Lupus Assessment Group 2004 index (BILAG‐2004) scores of grade A (severe disease activity) in ≥1 body system or grade B (moderate disease activity) in ≥2 body systems (in the mucocutaneous, musculoskeletal, or cardiorespiratory domains), and were receiving standard therapy, including mandatory treatment with corticosteroids (5–60 mg/day). BILAG‐2004 grade A scores in the renal and central nervous system domains were excluded. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive either placebo, epratuzumab 600 mg every week, or epratuzumab 1,200 mg every other week, with infusions delivered for the first 4 weeks of each 12‐week dosing cycle, for 4 cycles. Patients across all 3 treatment groups also continued with their standard therapy. The primary end point was the response rate at week 48 according to the BILAG‐based Combined Lupus Assessment (BICLA) definition, requiring improvement in the BILAG‐2004 score, no worsening in the BILAG‐2004 score, SLEDAI‐2K score, or physician's global assessment of disease activity, and no disallowed changes in concomitant medications. Patients who discontinued the study medication were classified as nonresponders.ResultsIn the EMBODY 1 and EMBODY 2 trials of epratuzumab, 793 patients and 791 patients, respectively, were randomized, 786 (99.1%) and 788 (99.6%), respectively, received study medication, and 528 (66.6%) and 533 (67.4%), respectively, completed the study. There was no statistically significant difference in the primary end point between the groups, with the week 48 BICLA response rates being similar between the epratuzumab groups and the placebo group (response rates ranging from 33.5% to 39.8%). No new safety signals were identified.ConclusionIn patients with moderate or severely active SLE, treatment with epratuzumab + standard therapy did not result in improvements in response rates over that observed in the placebo + standard therapy group.

ObjectiveTo evaluate risankizumab, a biological therapy that inhibits interleukin 23, in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who have responded inadequately or are intolerant to ≥1 conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD).MethodsIn the randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind KEEPsAKE 1 trial, 964 patients with active PsA were randomised (1:1) to receive risankizumab 150 mg or placebo at weeks 0, 4 and 16. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving ≥20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at week 24. Here, we report the results from the 24-week double-blind period; the open-label period with all patients receiving risankizumab is ongoing.ResultsAt week 24, a significantly greater proportion of patients receiving risankizumab achieved the primary endpoint of ACR20 (57.3% vs placebo, 33.5%; p<0.001). Significant differences were also observed for risankizumab versus placebo for the first eight ranked secondary endpoints, including skin and nail psoriasis endpoints, minimal disease activity and resolution of enthesitis and dactylitis (p<0.001). Adverse events and serious adverse events were reported at similar rates in the risankizumab and placebo groups. Serious infections were reported for 1.0% and 1.2% of patients receiving risankizumab and placebo, respectively. There was one death in the risankizumab group (urosepsis deemed unrelated to the study drug).ConclusionsRisankizumab treatment results in significantly greater improvement of signs and symptoms of PsA compared with placebo and is well tolerated in patients with active PsA who have responded inadequately or are intolerant to ≥1 csDMARD.Trial registration numberNCT03675308.