Safety Profile of Upadacitinib up to 3 Years in Psoriatic Arthritis: An Integrated Analysis of Two Pivotal Phase 3 Trials.

INTRODUCTION: This integrated analysis describes the safety profile of upadacitinib, an oral Janus kinase inhibitor, at 15 and 30 mg once daily for up to 3 years of exposure in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who had a prior inadequate response or intolerance to ≥ 1 non-biologic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. METHODS: Safety data were pooled and analyzed from two randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials. Both trials evaluated upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg once daily, and one trial also evaluated adalimumab 40 mg every other week. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and laboratory data were summarized for four groups: pooled placebo, pooled upadacitinib 15 mg, pooled upadacitinib 30 mg, and adalimumab. TEAEs were reported as exposure-adjusted event rates (events per 100 patient-years [E/100 PY]) up to a data cut-off of June 29, 2020. RESULTS: A total of 2257 patients received ≥ 1 dose of upadacitinib 15 mg (N = 907) or 30 mg (N = 921) for 2504.6 PY of exposure or adalimumab (N = 429) for 549.7 PY of exposure. Upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, and increased creatine phosphokinase (CPK) were the most common TEAEs with upadacitinib. Rates of malignancies, adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and venous thromboembolic events (VTEs), and deaths were similar across treatment groups. Rates of herpes zoster (HZ) and opportunistic infections (OI; excluding tuberculosis, HZ, and oral candidiasis) were higher with upadacitinib versus adalimumab. Serious infection, anemia, and CPK elevations were most frequent with upadacitinib 30 mg. Potentially clinically significant laboratory abnormalities were uncommon. CONCLUSIONS: Upadacitinib 15 mg and adalimumab had similar safety profiles with the exception of HZ and OIs, consistent with what was observed in rheumatoid arthritis. Rates of malignancies, MACEs, VTEs, and deaths were comparable among patients receiving upadacitinib and adalimumab. No new safety risks emerged with longer-term exposure to upadacitinib. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: SELECT-PsA 1: NCT03104400; SELECT-PsA 2: NCT03104374.

Psoriatic arthritis is a disease that causes inflammation of the skin and joints. Upadacitinib and adalimumab are medicines that can be used to treat this condition. This analysis combined safety data from two studies of adults with psoriatic arthritis who took upadacitinib, adalimumab, or placebo (no medicine) for up to 3 years. The most common side effects of treatment with upadacitinib were infection and inflammation of the nose and throat and higher amounts of a protein in the blood called creatinine phosphokinase. The total number of cancer cases, heart (cardiovascular) problems, blood clots (embolisms), and deaths were similar across treatment groups, including the placebo (no medicine) group. However, more patients who took upadacitinib than adalimumab or placebo (no medicine) had a painful rash that causes blisters known as herpes zoster (shingles) and infections usually seen in people with a weakened immune system. Most patients had normal blood test results and continued their treatment. Overall, upadacitinib was well tolerated for up to 3 years in patients with psoriatic arthritis. These results agree with what has been found in studies of upadacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Safety data of upadacitinib use over a longer time will be reported later.

Early safety indicators of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in 5000 patients.

BACKGROUNDConvalescent plasma is the only antibody-based therapy currently available for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). It has robust historical precedence and sound biological plausibility. Although promising, convalescent plasma has not yet been shown to be safe as a treatment for COVID-19.METHODSThus, we analyzed key safety metrics after transfusion of ABO-compatible human COVID-19 convalescent plasma in 5000 hospitalized adults with severe or life-threatening COVID-19, with 66% in the intensive care unit, as part of the US FDA expanded access program for COVID-19 convalescent plasma.RESULTSThe incidence of all serious adverse events (SAEs), including mortality rate (0.3%), in the first 4 hours after transfusion was <1%. Of the 36 reported SAEs, there were 25 reported incidences of related SAEs, including mortality (n = 4), transfusion-associated circulatory overload (n = 7), transfusion-related acute lung injury (n = 11), and severe allergic transfusion reactions (n = 3). However, only 2 of 36 SAEs were judged as definitely related to the convalescent plasma transfusion by the treating physician. The 7-day mortality rate was 14.9%.CONCLUSIONGiven the deadly nature of COVID-19 and the large population of critically ill patients included in these analyses, the mortality rate does not appear excessive. These early indicators suggest that transfusion of convalescent plasma is safe in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov NCT04338360.FUNDINGMayo Clinic, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (75A50120C00096), National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (UL1TR002377), National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (5R35HL139854 and R01 HL059842), National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (5T32DK07352), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (PDF-532926-2019), National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (R21 AI145356, R21 AI152318, and AI152078), Schwab Charitable Fund, United Health Group, National Basketball Association, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, and Octapharma USA Inc.

Mortality in individuals treated with COVID-19 convalescent plasma varies with the geographic provenance of donors.

Successful therapeutics and vaccines for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have harnessed the immune response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Evidence that SARS-CoV-2 exists as locally evolving variants suggests that immunological differences may impact the effectiveness of antibody-based treatments such as convalescent plasma and vaccines. Considering that near-sourced convalescent plasma likely reflects the antigenic composition of local viral strains, we hypothesize that convalescent plasma has a higher efficacy, as defined by death within 30 days of transfusion, when the convalescent plasma donor and treated patient were in close geographic proximity. Results of a series of modeling techniques applied to approximately 28,000 patients from the Expanded Access to Convalescent Plasma program (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT04338360) support this hypothesis. This work has implications for the interpretation of clinical studies, the ability to develop effective COVID-19 treatments, and, potentially, for the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines as additional locally-evolving variants continue to emerge.

Convalescent Plasma Antibody Levels and the Risk of Death from Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) under the presumption that such plasma contains potentially therapeutic antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that can be passively transferred to the plasma recipient. Whether convalescent plasma with high antibody levels rather than low antibody levels is associated with a lower risk of death is unknown. METHODS: In a retrospective study based on a U.S. national registry, we determined the anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody levels in convalescent plasma used to treat hospitalized adults with Covid-19. The primary outcome was death within 30 days after plasma transfusion. Patients who were enrolled through July 4, 2020, and for whom data on anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels in plasma transfusions and on 30-day mortality were available were included in the analysis. RESULTS: Of the 3082 patients included in this analysis, death within 30 days after plasma transfusion occurred in 115 of 515 patients (22.3%) in the high-titer group, 549 of 2006 patients (27.4%) in the medium-titer group, and 166 of 561 patients (29.6%) in the low-titer group. The association of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels with the risk of death from Covid-19 was moderated by mechanical ventilation status. A lower risk of death within 30 days in the high-titer group than in the low-titer group was observed among patients who had not received mechanical ventilation before transfusion (relative risk, 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48 to 0.91), and no effect on the risk of death was observed among patients who had received mechanical ventilation (relative risk, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with Covid-19 who were not receiving mechanical ventilation, transfusion of plasma with higher anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody levels was associated with a lower risk of death than transfusion of plasma with lower antibody levels. (Funded by the Department of Health and Human Services and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04338360.).

Safety Update: COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma in 20,000 Hospitalized Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update on key safety metrics after transfusion of convalescent plasma in hospitalized coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) patients, having previously demonstrated safety in 5000 hospitalized patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From April 3 to June 2, 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration Expanded Access Program for COVID-19 convalescent plasma transfused a convenience sample of 20,000 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 convalescent plasma. RESULTS: The incidence of all serious adverse events was low; these included transfusion reactions (n=78; <1%), thromboembolic or thrombotic events (n=113; <1%), and cardiac events (n=677, ~3%). Notably, the vast majority of the thromboembolic or thrombotic events (n=75) and cardiac events (n=597) were judged to be unrelated to the plasma transfusion per se. The 7-day mortality rate was 13.0% (12.5%, 13.4%), and was higher among more critically ill patients relative to less ill counterparts, including patients admitted to the intensive care unit versus those not admitted (15.6 vs 9.3%), mechanically ventilated versus not ventilated (18.3% vs 9.9%), and with septic shock or multiple organ dysfunction/failure versus those without dysfunction/failure (21.7% vs 11.5%). CONCLUSION: These updated data provide robust evidence that transfusion of convalescent plasma is safe in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and support the notion that earlier administration of plasma within the clinical course of COVID-19 is more likely to reduce mortality.