Upadacitinib for the treatment of active non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SELECT-AXIS 2): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Upadacitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, has been shown to be effective in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib in non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis. METHODS: The SELECT-AXIS 2 non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis study was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial at 113 sites across 23 countries (Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Japan, Mexico, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, Turkey, Ukraine, and the USA). Eligible adults had active non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis, with objective signs of inflammation based on MRI or elevated C-reactive protein and an inadequate response to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral upadacitinib 15 mg once daily or placebo using interactive response technology. Random treatment assignment was stratified by MRI inflammation in the sacroiliac joints and screening high-sensitivity C-reactive protein status (MRI-positive and C-reactive protein-positive, MRI-positive and C-reactive protein-negative, and MRI-negative and C-reactive protein-positive) and previous exposure to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (yes vs no). Treatment assignment was masked from patients, investigators, study site personnel, and the study sponsor. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with an Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society 40 (ASAS40) response at week 14. Analyses were performed on the full analysis set of patients, who underwent random allocation and received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04169373. FINDINGS: Between Nov 26, 2019, and May 20, 2021, 314 patients with active non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis were enrolled into the study, and 313 received study drug (156 in the upadacitinib group and 157 in the placebo group); 295 (94%) patients (145 in the upadacitinib group and 150 in the placebo group) received treatment for the full 14 weeks. A significantly higher ASAS40 response rate was achieved with upadacitinib compared with placebo at week 14 (70 [45%] of 156 patients vs 35 [23%] of 157 patients; p<0·0001; treatment difference 22%, 95% CI 12-32). The rate of adverse events up to week 14 was similar in the upadacitinib group (75 [48%] of 156 patients) and placebo group (72 [46%] of 157 patients). Serious adverse events and adverse events leading to discontinuation of study drug occurred in four (3%) of 156 patients in the upadacitinib group and two (1%) of 157 patients in the placebo group. Few patients had serious infections or herpes zoster in either treatment group (each event occurred in two [1%] of 156 patients in the upadacitinib group and one [1%] of 157 patients in the placebo group). Five (3%) of 156 patients in the upadacitinib group had neutropenia; no events of neutropenia occurred in the placebo group. No opportunistic infections, malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolic events, or deaths were reported with upadacitinib treatment. INTERPRETATION: Upadacitinib significantly improved the signs and symptoms of non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis compared with placebo at week 14. These findings support the potential of upadacitinib as a new therapeutic option in patients with active non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis. FUNDING: AbbVie.

Potential urinary biomarkers in young adults with short-term exposure to particulate matter and bioaerosols identified using an unbiased metabolomic approach.

Numerous epidemiological studies have shown a close relationship between outdoor air pollution and increased risks for cancer, infection, and cardiopulmonary diseases. However, very few studies have investigated the potential health effects of coexposure to airborne particulate matter (PM) and bioaerosols through the transmission of infectious agents, particularly under the current circumstances of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. In this study, we aimed to identify urinary metabolite biomarkers that might serve as clinically predictive or diagnostic standards for relevant diseases in a real-time manner. We performed an unbiased gas/liquid chromatography-mass spectroscopy (GC/LC-MS) approach to detect urinary metabolites in 92 samples from young healthy individuals collected at three different time points after exposure to clean air, polluted ambient, or purified air, as well as two additional time points after air repollution or repurification. Subsequently, we compared the metabolomic profiles between the two time points using an integrated analysis, along with Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes-enriched pathway and time-series analysis. We identified 33 and 155 differential metabolites (DMs) associated with PM and bioaerosol exposure using GC/LC-MS and follow-up analyses, respectively. Our findings suggest that 16-dehydroprogesterone and 4-hydroxyphenylethanol in urine samples may serve as potential biomarkers to predict or diagnose PM- or bioaerosol-related diseases, respectively. The results indicated apparent differences between PM- and bioaerosol-associated DMs at five different time points and revealed dynamic alterations in the urinary metabolic profiles of young healthy humans with cyclic exposure to clean and polluted air environments. Our findings will help in investigating the detrimental health effects of short-term coexposure to airborne PM and bioaerosols in a real-time manner and improve clinically predictive or diagnostic strategies for preventing air pollution-related diseases.

Efficacy and Safety of Traditional Chinese Medicine in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Introduction: Until now, there is no clinically approved specific medicine to treat COVID-19. Prior systematic reviews (SRs) have shown that traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) reduces the number of patients with severe disease and time to fever clearance, promotes clinical effectiveness, and improves chest images and the negativity rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acid test. Few SRs arrived at a definitive conclusion, and more randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were published. We conducted this study to summarize the latest evidence of TCM in COVID-19. Methods: Eight online databases were searched from December 2019 to July 2020, updated to March 2021. Only RCTs evaluating the clinical efficacy and safety of TCM in the treatment of COVID-19 were included. Primary outcomes were clinical cure and the negativity of the SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test. Secondary outcomes included clinical deterioration, ARDS, mechanical ventilation, death, time to fever clearance, duration of hospitalization, and chest imaging improvement. Safety outcomes included adverse events and serious adverse events during treatment. Two reviewers selected the included articles, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data independently and in duplicate. Results: A total of 25 RCTs involving 2222 participants were selected in the systematic review, and seven RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed that TCM plus routine treatment was significantly better than routine treatment alone in clinical cure (risk ratio [RR] = 1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.04, 1.38], P = 0.01) and chest image improvement (RR = 1.22, 95% CI [1.07, 1.39], P = 0.01) and could reduce clinical deterioration (RR = 0.39, 95% CI [0.18, 0.86], P = 0.02), ARDS (RR = 0.28, 95% CI [0.11, 0.69], P = 0.01), mechanical ventilation (RR = 0.30, 95% CI [0.12, 0.77], P = 0.01), or death rate (RR = 0.28, 95% CI [0.09, 0.84], P = 0.02). No significant difference between TCM and routine treatment in the negativity of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test (RR = 1.08, 95% CI [0.94, 1.23], P = 0.29) was observed. Finally, there was no overall significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the two groups. The summary of evidence showed moderate confidence of a benefit of 11.8% in clinical cure and 14.0% in chest image improvement and a reduction of 5.9% in clinical deterioration, 25.4% in ARDS, 18.3% in mechanical ventilation, and 4.5% in death with TCM plus routine treatment compared to routine treatment alone in patients with COVID-19. A low confidence of a benefit of 5.4% in the negativity of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test was also observed. Conclusions: Synethized evidence of 21 outcomes in 8 RCTs showed moderate certainty that TCM treatment plus routine treatment may promote a clinical cure and chest image improvement compared to routine treatment alone while reducing clinical deterioration, development of ARDS, use of mechanical ventilation, and death in patients with COVID-19. TCM treatment plus routine treatment may not promote the negativity of the SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test compared to routine treatment alone. TCM treatment was found to be safe for patients with COVID-19.

Traditional Chinese exercise for COVID-19: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A new type of coronavirus (COVID-19), is spreading all over the world. Under the background of the comprehensive medical treatment and strict prevention and control in China, the number of discharged patients increased substantially. By the end of July, more than 80,000 patients had been cured and discharged from hospital in China. In order to effectively promote the full recovery of the patient's physical and mental functions and quality of life, gradually shift the emphasis of clinical work to convalescence therapy is very important, thus Chinese experts draw up Expert Consensus on Rehabilitation of Chinese Medicine for COVID-19. This systematic review and meta-analysis will assess studies of the effects of traditional Chinese exercise (TCE) for COVID-19 patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search 6 English and 4 Chinese databases by 01, December 2020. After a series of screening, Randomized Clinic Trials (RCTs) will be included related to TCE for COVID-19. Two assessors will use the Cochrane bias risk assessment tool to assess the RCTs. Finally, the evidence grade of the results will be evaluated. RESULTS: This study will provide a reliable evidence for the selection of TCE therapies for COVID-19. CONCLUSION: The results of this study will provide references for the selection of TCE treatment for COVID-19, and provide decision making references for clinical research. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020179095.