Publications

Hernández-Hernández et al. showed that in a real-world clinical settings, UPA persistence is lower among RA patients who have received prior IL-6i treatment; and that treatment strategies to avoid UPA in patients with cardiovascular risk (CVR) appear to be primarily driven by pivotal safety studies rather than regulatory guidance.

Baraliakos et al. compared real-world effectiveness of upadacitinib, TNF inhibitors, or IL-17 inhibitors following inadequate response to an initial TNF inhibitor in patients with axSpA. Upadacitinib was associated with greater reductions in pain and fewer affected joints compared with switching to a second TNF inhibitor or IL-17 inhibitor.

Wang et al. validated the effectiveness and safety of UPA in this real-world study of Chinese PsA patients. UPA demonstrated comparable effectiveness to secukinumab (SEC) in psoriatic lesion improvement while showing comparable joint symptom relief compared with adalimumab (ADA), coupled with a favourable safety profile.

Most patients vaccinated with RZV while using UPA 15mg QD and background MTX achieved satisfactory humoral and cell-mediated immune responses to recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) at Weeks 4, 16 and 60. Winthrop et al. evaluated the immunogenicity of RZV through Week 60 in patients with RA who were receiving UPA 15mg QD and background MTX.

Burmester et al. provide insights into the benefit–risk profiles of UPA and adalimumab in patients with varying cardiovascular (CV) risks, suggesting that UPA may offer efficacy advantages over adalimumab irrespective of baseline CV risk, with generally similar rates of AEs. To better understand the benefits and risks of RA treatments in patients with different background CV risk, Burmester et al. assessed the short-term and long-term benefit–risk profiles of UPA and adalimumab in patients enrolled in SELECT-COMPARE.

UPA has shown effectiveness in treating IMIDs like RA, axSpA, PsA, CD, and UC. Chai et al. evaluated evidence from a synthesis of RCTs and provided insights that may guide clinical decision-making and improve treatment outcomes for IMIDs. UPA effectively alleviated symptoms, reduced disease activity, and showed notable benefits in improving quality of life.

Schaefer et al. showed that treatment with JAKis (predominantly BARI and TOF) was associated with an increased HR of malignancies compared to treatment with bDMARDs in the overall study cohort, consistent with results from the ORAL surveillance trial. To better understand the complex role of JAKis in cancer development in RA patients, Schaefer et al. estimated the effects of JAKis compared to bDMARDs on the risk of malignancy (excluding NMSC) in patients with RA.

The SELECT-MONOTHERAPY study evaluated the safety and efficacy of UPA monotherapy through 260 weeks of treatment, in patients with RA who had prior inadequate response to MTX. No new safety signals were observed with long-term exposure to UPA, and results were consistent with prior findings and the established safety profile of UPA across indications. These data support the potential of UPA as a treatment option for patients with moderate to severe active RA who have responded inadequately to MTX.