Long-term safety and efficacy of upadacitinib versus adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: 5-year data from the phase 3, randomised SELECT-COMPARE study.
Roy Fleischmann, Jerzy Swierkot, Sara K Penn, Patrick Durez, Louis Bessette, Xianwei Bu, Nasser Khan, Yihan Li, Charles G Peterfy, Yoshiya Tanaka, Eduardo Mysler
{"title":"Long-term safety and efficacy of upadacitinib versus adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: 5-year data from the phase 3, randomised SELECT-COMPARE study.","authors":"Roy Fleischmann, Jerzy Swierkot, Sara K Penn, Patrick Durez, Louis Bessette, Xianwei Bu, Nasser Khan, Yihan Li, Charles G Peterfy, Yoshiya Tanaka, Eduardo Mysler","doi":"10.1136/rmdopen-2023-004007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the safety and efficacy of upadacitinib versus adalimumab from SELECT-COMPARE over 5 years.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to methotrexate were randomised to receive upadacitinib 15 mg once daily, placebo or adalimumab 40 mg every other week, all with concomitant methotrexate. By week 26, patients with insufficient response to randomised treatment were rescued; patients remaining on placebo switched to upadacitinib. Patients completing the 48-week double-blind period could enter a long-term extension. Safety and efficacy were assessed through week 264, with radiographic progression analysed through week 192. Safety was assessed by treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Efficacy was analysed by randomised group (non-responder imputation (NRI)) or treatment sequence (as observed).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Rates of TEAEs were generally similar with upadacitinib versus adalimumab, although numerically higher rates of herpes zoster, lymphopenia, creatine phosphokinase elevation, hepatic disorder and non-melanoma skin cancer were reported with upadacitinib. Numerically greater proportions of patients randomised to upadacitinib versus adalimumab achieved clinical responses (NRI); Clinical Disease Activity Index remission (≤2.8) and Disease Activity Score based on C reactive protein <2.6 were achieved by 24.6% vs 18.7% (nominal p=0.042) and 31.8% vs 23.2% (nominal p=0.006), respectively. Radiographic progression was numerically lower with continuous upadacitinib versus adalimumab at week 192.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The safety profile of upadacitinib through 5 years was consistent with the known safety profile of upadacitinib, with no new safety risks. Clinical responses were numerically higher with upadacitinib versus adalimumab at 5 years. Upadacitinib demonstrates a favourable benefit-risk profile for long-term rheumatoid arthritis treatment.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>NCT02629159.</p>","PeriodicalId":21396,"journal":{"name":"RMD Open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11138271/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"RMD Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2023-004007","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: To assess the safety and efficacy of upadacitinib versus adalimumab from SELECT-COMPARE over 5 years.
Methods: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to methotrexate were randomised to receive upadacitinib 15 mg once daily, placebo or adalimumab 40 mg every other week, all with concomitant methotrexate. By week 26, patients with insufficient response to randomised treatment were rescued; patients remaining on placebo switched to upadacitinib. Patients completing the 48-week double-blind period could enter a long-term extension. Safety and efficacy were assessed through week 264, with radiographic progression analysed through week 192. Safety was assessed by treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Efficacy was analysed by randomised group (non-responder imputation (NRI)) or treatment sequence (as observed).
Results: Rates of TEAEs were generally similar with upadacitinib versus adalimumab, although numerically higher rates of herpes zoster, lymphopenia, creatine phosphokinase elevation, hepatic disorder and non-melanoma skin cancer were reported with upadacitinib. Numerically greater proportions of patients randomised to upadacitinib versus adalimumab achieved clinical responses (NRI); Clinical Disease Activity Index remission (≤2.8) and Disease Activity Score based on C reactive protein <2.6 were achieved by 24.6% vs 18.7% (nominal p=0.042) and 31.8% vs 23.2% (nominal p=0.006), respectively. Radiographic progression was numerically lower with continuous upadacitinib versus adalimumab at week 192.
Conclusion: The safety profile of upadacitinib through 5 years was consistent with the known safety profile of upadacitinib, with no new safety risks. Clinical responses were numerically higher with upadacitinib versus adalimumab at 5 years. Upadacitinib demonstrates a favourable benefit-risk profile for long-term rheumatoid arthritis treatment.
期刊介绍：
RMD Open publishes high quality peer-reviewed original research covering the full spectrum of musculoskeletal disorders, rheumatism and connective tissue diseases, including osteoporosis, spine and rehabilitation. Clinical and epidemiological research, basic and translational medicine, interesting clinical cases, and smaller studies that add to the literature are all considered.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
