19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Dose reduction of baricitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis achieving sustained disease control: results of a prospective study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          This study investigated the effects of dose step-down in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who achieved sustained disease control with baricitinib 4 mg once a day.

          Methods

          Patients who completed a baricitinib phase 3 study could enter a long-term extension (LTE). In the LTE, patients who received baricitinib 4 mg for ≥15 months and maintained CDAI low disease activity (LDA) or remission (REM) were blindly randomised to continue 4 mg or taper to 2 mg. Patients could rescue (to 4 mg) if needed. Efficacy and safety were assessed through 48 weeks.

          Results

          Patients in both groups maintained LDA (80% 4 mg; 67% 2 mg) or REM (40% 4 mg; 33% 2 mg) over 48 weeks. However, dose reduction resulted in small, statistically significant increases in disease activity at 12, 24 and 48 weeks. Dose reduction also produced earlier and more frequent relapse (loss of step-down criteria) over 48 weeks compared with 4 mg maintenance (23% 4 mg vs 37% 2 mg, p=0.001). Rescue rates were 10% for baricitinib 4 mg and 18% for baricitinib 2 mg. Dose reduction was associated with a numerically lower rate of non-serious infections (30.6 for baricitinib 4 mg vs 24.9 for 2 mg). Rates of serious adverse events and adverse events leading to discontinuation were similar across groups.

          Conclusions

          In a large randomised, blinded phase 3 study, maintenance of RA control following induction of sustained LDA/REM with baricitinib 4 mg was greater with continued 4 mg than after taper to 2 mg. Nonetheless, most patients tapered to 2 mg could maintain LDA/REM or recapture with return to 4 mg if needed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2016 update.

          Recent insights in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) necessitated updating the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) RA management recommendations. A large international Task Force based decisions on evidence from 3 systematic literature reviews, developing 4 overarching principles and 12 recommendations (vs 3 and 14, respectively, in 2013). The recommendations address conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); glucocorticoids (GC); biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, clazakizumab, sarilumab and sirukumab and biosimilar (bs) DMARDs) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs (Janus kinase (Jak) inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib). Monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and the targets of sustained clinical remission (as defined by the American College of Rheumatology-(ACR)-EULAR Boolean or index criteria) or low disease activity are discussed. Cost aspects were taken into consideration. As first strategy, the Task Force recommends MTX (rapid escalation to 25 mg/week) plus short-term GC, aiming at >50% improvement within 3 and target attainment within 6 months. If this fails stratification is recommended. Without unfavourable prognostic markers, switching to-or adding-another csDMARDs (plus short-term GC) is suggested. In the presence of unfavourable prognostic markers (autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions, failure of 2 csDMARDs), any bDMARD (current practice) or Jak-inhibitor should be added to the csDMARD. If this fails, any other bDMARD or tsDMARD is recommended. If a patient is in sustained remission, bDMARDs can be tapered. For each recommendation, levels of evidence and Task Force agreement are provided, both mostly very high. These recommendations intend informing rheumatologists, patients, national rheumatology societies, hospital officials, social security agencies and regulators about EULAR's most recent consensus on the management of RA, aimed at attaining best outcomes with current therapies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The JAK-STAT pathway: impact on human disease and therapeutic intervention.

            The Janus kinase (JAK)-signal transducer of activators of transcription (STAT) pathway is now recognized as an evolutionarily conserved signaling pathway employed by diverse cytokines, interferons, growth factors, and related molecules. This pathway provides an elegant and remarkably straightforward mechanism whereby extracellular factors control gene expression. It thus serves as a fundamental paradigm for how cells sense environmental cues and interpret these signals to regulate cell growth and differentiation. Genetic mutations and polymorphisms are functionally relevant to a variety of human diseases, especially cancer and immune-related conditions. The clinical relevance of the pathway has been confirmed by the emergence of a new class of therapeutics that targets JAKs.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: 2014 update of the recommendations of an international task force

              Background Reaching the therapeutic target of remission or low-disease activity has improved outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) significantly. The treat-to-target recommendations, formulated in 2010, have provided a basis for implementation of a strategic approach towards this therapeutic goal in routine clinical practice, but these recommendations need to be re-evaluated for appropriateness and practicability in the light of new insights. Objective To update the 2010 treat-to-target recommendations based on systematic literature reviews (SLR) and expert opinion. Methods A task force of rheumatologists, patients and a nurse specialist assessed the SLR results and evaluated the individual items of the 2010 recommendations accordingly, reformulating many of the items. These were subsequently discussed, amended and voted upon by >40 experts, including 5 patients, from various regions of the world. Levels of evidence, strengths of recommendations and levels of agreement were derived. Results The update resulted in 4 overarching principles and 10 recommendations. The previous recommendations were partly adapted and their order changed as deemed appropriate in terms of importance in the view of the experts. The SLR had now provided also data for the effectiveness of targeting low-disease activity or remission in established rather than only early disease. The role of comorbidities, including their potential to preclude treatment intensification, was highlighted more strongly than before. The treatment aim was again defined as remission with low-disease activity being an alternative goal especially in patients with long-standing disease. Regular follow-up (every 1–3 months during active disease) with according therapeutic adaptations to reach the desired state was recommended. Follow-up examinations ought to employ composite measures of disease activity that include joint counts. Additional items provide further details for particular aspects of the disease, especially comorbidity and shared decision-making with the patient. Levels of evidence had increased for many items compared with the 2010 recommendations, and levels of agreement were very high for most of the individual recommendations (≥9/10). Conclusions The 4 overarching principles and 10 recommendations are based on stronger evidence than before and are supposed to inform patients, rheumatologists and other stakeholders about strategies to reach optimal outcomes of RA.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Ann Rheum Dis
                Ann. Rheum. Dis
                annrheumdis
                ard
                Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                0003-4967
                1468-2060
                February 2019
                7 September 2018
                : 78
                : 2
                : 171-178
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentDivision of Rheumatology , Keio University School of Medicine , Tokyo, Japan
                [2 ] departmentRheumatology , Stanford University Medical Center , Palo Alto, California, USA
                [3 ] departmentDepartment of Medicine , Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal , Montréal, Quebec, Canada
                [4 ] Peking University People’s Hospital , Beijing, China
                [5 ] Eli Lilly & Company , Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
                [6 ] IQVIA , Durham, North Carolina, USA [6 ]
                [7 ] departmentDivision of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine 3 , Medical University of Vienna , Vienna, Austria
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Professor Tsutomu Takeuchi, Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo 160-8582, Japan; tsutake@ 123456z5.keio.jp
                Article
                annrheumdis-2018-213271
                10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-213271
                6352419
                30194275
                737d7c22-8786-48f3-99cd-d3286884d66a
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History
                : 19 February 2018
                : 25 July 2018
                : 10 August 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100004312, Eli Lilly and Company;
                Categories
                Rheumatoid Arthritis
                1506
                2311
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Immunology
                rheumatoid arthritis,dmards (synthetic),disease activity,dmards (biologic)
                Immunology
                rheumatoid arthritis, dmards (synthetic), disease activity, dmards (biologic)

                Comments

                Comment on this article