Publications

More RA patients on upadacitinib versus adalimumab achieved clinical remission, LDA, and DAS28 (CRP) <2.6. Radiographic progression was less with continuous upadacitinib versus continuous adalimumab. Upadacitinib showed similar safety to adalimumab, with higher incidences of HZ, lymphopenia, CPK elevation, hepatic disorder and nonmelanoma skin cancer.

Goldman, et al. conducted a pharmacovigilance study to evaluate the cardiovascular safety of JAK inhibitors in RA patients. The study demonstrated an increase in the reporting of VTE, stroke, and ischemic heart disease in patients treated with JAK inhibitor compared to bDMARDs, especially within the first year of treatment. This suggests a class effect of JAK inhibitors on cardiovascular risk, emphasising the need for ongoing surveillance and proactive cardiovascular risk management.

The 1-year results of the SELECT-AXIS 2 study showed significant improvements in ASAS40 achievement in patients with nr-axSpA that were treated with upadacitinib 15mg QD versus placebo. Improvements in ASDAS endpoints, back pain, BASFI, and hsCRP from baseline were also observed.

The 5-year benefit-risk profile for upadacitinib in RA remains favourable, with clinical outcomes improved or maintained through Week 260. No new safety findings were identified during the LTE. Results remained consistent with earlier analyses of SELECT-NEXT.

Fleischmann, et al. found that patients who switched from adalimumab to upadacitinib and vice versa following lack of improvement showed improvements in disease activity measures and functional outcomes through 228 weeks.

Charles-Schoeman, et al. carried out a descriptive integrated analysis on patients with RA that were treated in the SELECT programme, with up to 6.5 years of exposure. They concluded that upadacitinib 15 mg QD had an acceptable safety profile, but long-term upadacitinib treatment was associated with dose-dependent laboratory abnormalities.

The observed benefit:risk ratio strongly favours JAKi use in the majority of patients, and HCPs should consider and adhere to guidance on high-risk patients where applicable. Szekanecz et al summarised the safety and efficacy of approved JAKis tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, and filgotinib to aid in clinical decision making.

This multicentre, retrospective study by Hayashi, et al. found no significant differences in efficacy and safety between tofacitinib, baricitinib, peficitinib and upadacitinib in patients with RA. Predictive factors for resistance to LDA achievement included baseline CRP and CDAI for tofacitinib and baseline glucocorticoid dose, baseline CDAI and number of previous b/tsDMARDs for baricitinib.

Rates of MACE and VTE events in patients with RA or PsA treated are consistent across 15 mg and 30 mg doses of upadacitinib, and comparable with active comparators adalimumab and MTX. Several risk factors were also identified for MACE and VTE events in patients with RA.

Rates of malignancy were similar between upadacitinib, adalimumab, and MTX. They were also consistent across RA, PsA, AS and nr-axSpA. A dose-dependent increased rate of NMSC was observed with upadacitinib in RA. For RA and PsA, being older (≥65 years) and male was associated with
an increased risk of malignancy excluding NMSC.