SAFETY OUTCOMES IN PATIENTS (PTS) WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS (RA) TREATED WITH FILGOTINIB (FIL) IN FILOSOPHY: INTERIM RESULTS FROM A PROSPECTIVE OBSERVATIONAL STUDY

BackgroundConsideration is needed when using Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors to treat RA in pts aged ≥65 years or those with cardiovascular (CV) risk factors. The JAK1 preferential inhibitor FIL was generally well tolerated in clinical trials[1];safety has not been determined in a real-world setting.ObjectivesTo report baseline characteristics and up to 6-month safety data from the first 480 pts treated with FIL in the FILOSOPHY study (NCT04871919), and in two mutually exclusive subgroups based on age and CV risk.MethodsFILOSOPHY is an ongoing, phase 4, non-interventional, European study of pts with RA who have been prescribed FIL for the first time and in accordance with the product label in daily practice. Baseline characteristics and the incidence of select adverse events (AEs) are assessed in pts aged ≥65 years and/or with ≥1 CV risk factor (Table 1), and in those aged <65 years with no CV risk factors.ResultsAs of the end of June 2022, 480 pts had been treated: 441 received FIL 200 mg and 39 received FIL 100 mg. Of the 480 pts, 148 (30.8%) were aged ≥65 years;332 (69.2%) were aged <65 years. In total, 86 (17.9%) were former smokers, 81 (16.9%) were current smokers and 203 (42.3%) were non-smokers (data were missing for 110 pts [22.9%]). In addition to smoking, the most frequent CV risk factors included a history of hypertension (32.3%), a history of dyslipidemia (10.2%) and a family history of myocardial infarction (8.5%;Table 1).23 pts (4.8%) discontinued treatment due to AEs. Of the 354 pts aged ≥65 years or with ≥1 CV risk factor, infections affected 64 pts (18.1%), 34 (9.6%) had COVID-19, 2 (0.6%) had herpes zoster, and cardiac disorders (angina pectoris, atrial fibrillation, palpitations and tachycardia) affected 5 pts (1.4%);no cases of malignancies were observed. In the subgroup aged <65 years and with no CV risk factors (n=126), infections occurred in 18 pts (14.3%) (9 [7.1%] had COVID-19;3 [2.4%] had herpes zoster) and malignancies (myeloproliferative neoplasm) affected 1 pt (0.8%);no pts had cardiac disorders. There were no cases of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism in either subgroup.ConclusionIn this interim analysis of FILOSOPHY, no unexpected safety signals emerged at up to 6 months. Although infections and cardiac disorders affected a numerically greater proportion of pts aged ≥65 years or with ≥1 CV risk vs those aged <65 years with no CV risk, longer follow-up on a broader cohort is necessary to further characterize the safety of FIL in different groups of pts with RA.Reference[1]Winthrop K, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2022;81:184–92Table 1.Baseline characteristics and CV risk factorsBaseline demographics/CV risk factorsAll FIL-treated pts (N=480)≥65 years or with ≥1 CV risk factor (n=354)<65 years and no CV risk factor (n=126)*Female sex, n (%)351 (73.1)252 (71.2)99 (78.6)Age, years, mean (SD)57.6 (11.5)60.4 (10.8)49.6 (9.6)Rheumatoid factor positive, n (%)†228 (47.5)167 (47.2)61 (48.4)Anti-citrullinated protein antibody positive, n (%)‡243 (50.6)176 (49.7)67 (53. 2)Body mass index, kg/m2, mean (SD)27.6 (5.7) n=43728.0 (5.4) n=33126.3 (6.4) n=106RA disease duration, years, mean (SD)10.4 (9.4) n=47810.5 (9.5) n=35310.0 (8.8) n=125Tender joint count 28, mean (SD)8.6 (6.9) n=4578.7 (7.1) n=3408.3 (6.3) n=117Swollen joint count 28, mean (SD)5.6 (5.2) n=4525.7 (5.4) n=3365.4 (4.4) n=116Former smoker, n (%)§86 (17.9)86 (24.3)0Current smoker, n (%)§81 (16.9)81 (22.9)0Non-smoker, n (%)§203 (42.3)130 (36.7)73 (57.9)Family history of myocardial infarction, n (%)41 (8.5)41 (11.6)0Medical history of: n (%) CV disease33 (6.9)33 (9.3)0 Diabetes35 (7.3)35 (9.9)0 Dyslipidemia49 (10.2)49 (13.8)0 Hypertension155 (32.3)155 (43.8)0 Ischemic CNS  vascular disorders11 (2.3)11 (3.1)0 Peripheral vascular disease17 (3.5)17 (4.8)0*Includes 53 pts with missing smoking status data who were aged <65 years with no other CV risk factors.†Missing/unknown in 154 pts;‡Missing in 153 pts;§Smoking status data missing in 110 pts (22.9%).AcknowledgementsWe thank the physicia s and patients who participated in this study. The study was funded by Galapagos NV, Mechelen, Belgium. Publication coordination was provided by Fabien Debailleul, PhD, of Galapagos NV. Medical writing support was provided by Debbie Sherwood, BSc, CMPP (Aspire Scientific, Bollington, UK), and funded by Galapagos NV.Disclosure of InterestsPatrick Verschueren Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Roularta, Consultant of: Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Nordic Pharma, Sidekick Health, Grant/research support from: Galapagos, Pfizer, Jérôme Avouac Speakers bureau: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: BMS, Fresenius Kabi, Novartis, Pfizer, Karen Bevers Grant/research support from: Galapagos, Susana Romero-Yuste Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Biogen, BMS, Lilly, Pfizer, Consultant of: Sanofi, Lilly, Grant/research support from: Lilly, MSD, Roberto Caporali Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, UCB, Thomas Debray Consultant of: Biogen, Galapagos, Gilead, Francesco De Leonardis Employee of: Galapagos, James Galloway Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Medicago, Novavax, Pfizer, Monia Zignani Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Gerd Rüdiger Burmester Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Chugai, Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi.

PLACEBO-CONTROLLED EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF UPADACITINIB THROUGH ONE YEAR IN PATIENTS WITH NON-RADIOGRAPHIC AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS

BackgroundUpadacitinib (UPA), a Janus kinase inhibitor, was effective and well tolerated in patients (pts) with non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) through 14 weeks (wks) of treatment.[1]ObjectivesThis analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of UPA vs placebo (PBO) through 1 year.MethodsThe SELECT-AXIS 2 nr-axSpA study included a 52-wk randomized, double-blind, PBO-controlled period. Enrolled adults had a clinical diagnosis of active nr-axSpA fulfilling the 2009 ASAS classification criteria, objective signs of inflammation based on MRI sacroiliitis and/or elevated C-reactive protein, and an inadequate response to NSAIDs. One-third of pts had an inadequate response to biologic DMARDs. Pts were randomized 1:1 to UPA 15 mg once daily or PBO. Concomitant medications, including NSAIDs, had to be kept stable through wk 52. The study protocol outlined that pts who did not achieve ASAS20 at any two consecutive study visits between wks 24 to 52 should receive rescue therapy with NSAIDs, corticosteroids, conventional synthetic/biologic DMARDs, or analgesics. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation (NRI-MI) was used to handle missing data and intercurrent events for binary efficacy endpoints. Mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) was used to assess continuous efficacy endpoints. NRI was used for binary endpoints after rescue and as observed analysis excluding data after rescue for continuous endpoints. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) are reported through wk 52.ResultsOf the 314 pts randomized, 259 (82%;UPA, n=130;PBO, n=129) completed wk 52 on study drug. More pts achieved an ASAS40 response with UPA vs PBO from wks 14 to 52 with a 20% treatment difference at wk 52 (63% vs 43%;nominal P <.001;Figure 1). The proportion of pts achieving ASDAS inactive disease with UPA remained higher than PBO at wk 52 (33% vs 11%;nominal P <.0001;Figure 1). Consistent improvements and maintenance of efficacy were also seen across other disease activity measures. Between wks 24 and 52, fewer pts on UPA (9%) than PBO (17%) received rescue therapy. A similar proportion of pts in each treatment group had a TEAE (Table 1). Infections were the most common TEAE;the rates of serious infections and herpes zoster were higher with UPA vs PBO, although no new serious infections were reported from wks 14 to 52. COVID-19 events were balanced between treatment groups. No opportunistic infections, malignancy excluding non-melanoma skin cancer, adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular events, inflammatory bowel disease, or deaths were reported. Two pts (1.3%) on PBO had adjudicated venous thromboembolic events.ConclusionUPA showed consistent improvement and maintenance of efficacy vs PBO through 1 year across multiple disease activity measures. No new safety risks were identified with longer-term UPA exposure. These results continue to support the benefit of UPA in pts with active nr-axSpA.Reference[1]Deodhar A, et al. Lancet. 2022;400(10349):369–379.Table 1.Safety through week 52Event, n (%)PBO (n = 157)UPA 15 mg QD (n = 156)Any AE103 (66%)107 (69%)Serious AE6 (3.8%)6 (3.8%)AE leading to D/C4 (2.5%)6 (3.8%)COVID-19-related AE22 (14%)24 (15%)Deaths00Infection60 (38%)68 (44%) Serious infection1 (0.6%)2 (1.3%) Herpes zoster1 (0.6%)5 (3.2%)Malignancy other than NMSC00NMSC1 (0.6%)0Hepatic disorder7 (4.5%)6 (3.8%)Neutropenia1 (0.6%)8 (5.1%)MACE (adjudicated)00VTE (adjudicated)2 (1.3%)a0Uveitisb3 (1.9%)2 (1.3%)Inflammatory bowel disease00aBoth patients had non-serious events of deep vein thrombosis in the lower limb with risk factors including obesity and prior deep vein thrombosis in one patient and concomitant COVID-19 infection in the other patient.bThree events of uveitis occurred in each treatment group (among n = 3 patients in the PBO group and n = 2 patients in the UPA group);two events in the PBO group and one in the UPA group occurred in patients with a history of uveitis.AcknowledgementsAbbVie funded this study and participated in the study design, res arch, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, review, and approval of the . All authors had access to relevant data and participated in the drafting, review, and approval of this publication. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing support was provided by Julia Zolotarjova, MSc, MWC, of AbbVie.Disclosure of InterestsFilip van den Bosch Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB., Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB., Atul Deodhar Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Aurinia, BMS, Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Denis Poddubnyy Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Biocad, BMS, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Medscape, MoonLake, Novartis, Peervoice, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biocad, BMS, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Medscape, MoonLake, Novartis, Peervoice, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer., Walter P Maksymowych Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Employee of: Chief Medical Officer of CARE Arthritis Limited, Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Bayer, BMS, Cyxone, Eisai, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Employee of: Director of Imaging Rheumatology BV, Tae-Hwan Kim Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celltrion, Kirin, Lilly, and Novartis., Mitsumasa Kishimoto Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Asahi-Kasei Pharma, Astellas, Ayumi Pharma, BMS, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Ono Pharma, Pfizer, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, and UCB., Xenofon Baraliakos Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Chugai, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie and Novartis, Yuanyuan Duan Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Kristin D'Silva Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Peter Wung Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, In-Ho Song Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie.

A Case of a Relapsing Remitting Macrophage Activating Syndrome After Covid-19 Vaccine In a Teenager with UNC13D Heterozygous Variant of Uncertain Significance

Introduction: Macrophage activation syndrome (MAS) is a severe hyper inflammatory condition caused by the over-activation and proliferation of T cells, NK cells and macrophages. It is often associated with complications of rheumatic/immune diseases. We present a case of a 15-year-old female who experiences recurrent episodes of MAS without any known definitive underlying etiology. Case Presentation: A 15-year-old previously healthy female developed fatigue, fevers, myalgia, chest pain, splenomegaly and lymphadenopathy 10 days after receiving her first Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. Her symptoms recurred 10 days after receiving the second dose. Her myocarditis, MIS-C, and infectious work up was negative except for positive EBV IgG. Laboratory studies revealed anemia, hypertriglyceridemia, hypofibrinogenemia, and hyperferritinemia. She initially responded to decadron;however, her symptoms recurred with steroid taper. Bone marrow biopsy revealed hemophagocytosis. Whole exome sequencing (WES) revealed a heterozygous variant of uncertain significance in UNC13D c.962C>A (p.Thr321Asn). She had multiple re-admissions with significantly elevated inflammatory markers, including extremely high IL2-R, IL-18 and CXCL9. Each episode was complicated by an acute viral infection. She responds to high dose steroids, anti-IL-1, and JAK inhibitors. Nonetheless, it has been difficult to wean decadron without triggering a flare. She continues to require increasing doses of baricitinib. Discussion(s): MAS may be seen as a complication of rheumatic diseases, as well as inborn errors of immunity. However, none of these conditions have been diagnosed in this patient despite extensive testing, including WES. The degree of her immune dysregulation has been very severe making her disease process unpredictable and extremely difficult to control. She has frequent flares precipitated by viral infections or attempts at adjusting her immunomodulators. Weaning her medications has been challenging as she continues to require increasing doses of baricitinib and corticosteroids. The UNC13D gene is associated with autosomal recessive familial hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis type 3 (FHL3). Our patient is heterozygous for an UNC13D variant of uncertain significance. Additional genetic inquiries with whole genome sequencing to help elucidate the underlying etiology of her severe condition is being conducted. We hypothesize she developed MAS due to a combination of genetic predisposition, prior EBV infection, and immune stress associated with the COVID-19 vaccine. [Formula presented] [Formula presented] [Formula presented]Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc.

TYPE I INTERFERON SCORE IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SEVERITY AND POOR PROGNOSIS IN ANTI-MDA5 ANTIBODY-POSITIVE DERMATOMYOSITIS PATIENTS

BackgroundAnti-MDA5 antibody-positive dermatomyositis (anti-MDA5+DM) is a rare autoimmune disease associated with a high mortality rate due to rapid-progressive interstitial lung disease (RP-ILD), particularly in East Asia[1]. MDA5, acts as a cytoplasmic sensor of viral RNA, thus activating antiviral responses including the type I interferon (IFN) signaling pathway[2]. The involvement of type 1 IFN in the pathogenesis of MDA5+DM has been proposed based on the significantly elevated expression of its downstream stimulated genes(ISG) in muscle, skin, lung, and peripheral blood[3;4]. Janus kinase inhibitor, which targets the IFN pathway, combined with glucocorticoid could improve the survival of early-stage MDA5+DM-ILD patients[5]. In clinical practice, there is still an urgent demand for sensitive biomarkers to facilitate clinical risk assessment and precise treatment.ObjectivesThis study aimed to investigate the clinical significance of interferon score, especially IFN-I score, in patients with anti-MDA5+DM.MethodsDifferent subtypes of idiopathic inflammatory myopathy, including anti-MDA5+DM(n=61), anti-MDA5-DM(n=20), antisynthetase syndrome(ASS,n=22),polymyositis(PM,n=6) and immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy(IMNM,n=9), and 58 healthy controls were enrolled.. A multiplex quantitative real-time PCR(RT-qPCR) assay using four TaqMan probes was utilized to evaluate two type I ISGs (IFI44, MX1, which are used for IFN-I score), one type II ISG (IRF1), and one housekeeping gene (HRPT1). Clinical features and disease activity index were compared between high and low IFN-I score groups in 61 anti-MDA5+DM patients. The association between laboratory findings and the predictive value of baseline IFN-I score level for mortality was analyzed.ResultsThe IFN scores were significantly higher in patients with anti-MDA5+DM than in HC (Figure 1A). The IFN-I score correlated positively with serum IFN α(r = 0.335, P =0.008), ferritin (r = 0.302, P = 0.018), and Myositis Disease Activity Assessment Visual Analogue Scale (MYOACT) score(r=0.426, P=0.001). Compared with patients with low IFN-I scores, patients with high IFN-I scores showed increased MYOACT score, CRP, AST, ferritin, and the percentages of plasma cells (PC%) but decreased lymphocyte count, natural killer cell count, and monocyte count. The 3-month survival rate was significantly lower in patients with IFN-I score > 4.9 than in those with IFN-I score ≤ 4.9(72.9% vs. 100%, P=0.044)(Figure 1B).ConclusionIFN score, especially IFN-I score, detected by multiplex RT-qPCR, can be a valuable biomarker for monitoring disease activity and predicting mortality in anti-MDA5+DM patients.References[1]I.E. Lundberg, M. Fujimoto, J. Vencovsky, R. Aggarwal, M. Holmqvist, L. Christopher-Stine, A.L. Mammen, and F.W. Miller, Idiopathic inflammatory myopathies. Nat Rev Dis Primers 7 (2021) 86.[2]G. Liu, J.H. Lee, Z.M. Parker, D. Acharya, J.J. Chiang, M. van Gent, W. Riedl, M.E. Davis-Gardner, E. Wies, C. Chiang, and M.U. Gack, ISG15-dependent activation of the sensor MDA5 is antagonized by the SARS-CoV-2 papain-like protease to evade host innate immunity. Nat Microbiol 6 (2021) 467-478.[3]G.M. Moneta, D. Pires Marafon, E. Marasco, S. Rosina, M. Verardo, C. Fiorillo, C. Minetti, L. Bracci-Laudiero, A. Ravelli, F. De Benedetti, and R. Nicolai, Muscle Expression of Type I and Type II Interferons Is Increased in Juvenile Dermatomyositis and Related to Clinical and Histologic Features. Arthritis Rheumatol 71 (2019) 1011-1021.[4]Y. Ye, Z. Chen, S. Jiang, F. Jia, T. Li, X. Lu, J. Xue, X. Lian, J. Ma, P. Hao, L. Lu, S. Ye, N. Shen, C. Bao, Q. Fu, and X. Zhang, Single-cell profiling reveals distinct adaptive immune hallmarks in MDA5+ dermatomyositis with therapeutic implications. Nat Commun 13 (2022) 6458.[5]Z. Chen, X. Wang, and S. Ye, Tofacitinib in Amyopathic Dermatomyositis–Associated Interstitial Lung Disease. New England Journal of Medicine 381 (2019) 291-293.AcknowledgementsThis work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [81974251], and Shanghai Hospital Develop ent Center, Joint Research of New Advanced Technology Project [SHDC12018106]Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

IMPROVING PATIENT SAFETY THROUGH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PHARMACIST-LED BLOOD MONITORING CLINIC FOR JAK INHIBITORS IN RHEUMATOLOGY

BackgroundJanus kinase inhibitors drugs (JAKi) are novel small molecule medications known to cause abnormalities such as elevations in hepatic transaminases, decreases in neutrophil and lymphocyte counts and elevations in cholesterol and creatinine kinase. Blood monitoring is recommended and dose adjustments are advised if abnormalities arise. Recent warnings by the EMA and MHRA have highlighted the importance of monitoring these medications.Timely review and management of patients on JAKi drugs is difficult to maintain with increasing workload amongst the rheumatology team. A baseline audit (2020) demonstrated that hospital blood monitoring guidelines for JAKi drugs were not being followed. The rheumatology multidisciplinary team met and utilised Quality Improvement methodology including fish and driver diagrams to address this. This led to the creation of a pharmacist-led JAKi blood monitoring clinic.ObjectivesTo establish a pharmacist-led rheumatology blood monitoring clinic for the JAKi drug class in order to: increase patient safety with increased compliance to blood monitoring, save consultant/nurse time, improve communication with primary care on the frequency of blood testing required, increase patient understanding of the importance of blood monitoring with JAKi drugs, reinforce counselling advice such as risk of infections, shingles and thrombosis and promote medication adherence.MethodsThe clinic was established in March 2021. Patients commencing JAKi drugs are referred to the pharmacist-led clinic by the medical team. The pharmacist contacts the patient by phone following delivery of their medication. The patient is counselled on their new medication and dates for blood checks are agreed. A letter is sent to the patient and their GP providing this information. The patient is booked into virtual telephone appointments and bloods are monitored every month for the first 3 months and every 3 months thereafter. Any change or abnormality in blood results are flagged early in the patient's treatment and if necessary, discussed with the consultant. Adjustments are made to the patient's dose if appropriate.ResultsIn order to evaluate the benefit of the pharmacist clinic a re-audit of compliance with blood monitoring (March 2021- September 2022) was carried out alongside a patient satisfaction postal survey (August 2022).A total of 58 patients were sampled in the re-audit. The re-audit found an increase in compliance in blood monitoring since the introduction of the pharmacist clinic. 98% of patients had their full blood count performed at 3 months compared to 56% in audit 1 and 95% of patients had their lipid profile completed at 3 months compared to 15% in audit 1 (Table 1).A patient satisfaction survey (N=62, response rate 48%) found that 28 (93%) patients either agreed or strongly agreed that they were more aware of the importance of attending for regular blood monitoring when prescribed JAKi therapy as a result of the clinic.The pharmacy team made several significant interventions (self-graded Eadon grade 4 and 5). For example by improving medication adherence, detecting haematological abnormalities that required JAKi dose reduction, identifying patients suffering from infection requiring intervention including shingles and Covid-19.Table 1.Comparison of audit results pre (Audit 1) and post (Audit 2) clinic establishmentAudit 1 (N=48)Audit 2 (N=58)Number of patients with full blood count completed at weeks 4, 8 & 1227 (56%)57 (98%)Number of patients with lipid profile completed at week 127 (15%)55 (95%)Number of patients LFTs completed at weeks 4, 8 & 1226 (54%)54 (93%)ConclusionIntroduction of the pharmacist-led clinic has increased patient safety by ensuring compliance with blood monitoring as per hospital guidelines. The clinic has paved the way for improved communication with primary care teams and has provided patients with extra support during their first months on treatment with their JAKi. It has also expanded the role of the rheumatology pharmacy team and saved nursing and medical time.Acknowled ementsI wish to thank the SHSCT Rheumatology team for all their help, support and guidance with this project.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

SAFETY ANALYSIS OF JAKINIBS IN REAL CLINICAL PRACTICE IN A COHORT OF 116 PATIENTS

BackgroundJanus kinase inhibitors (JAKinibs) have demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and spondyloarthritis (SpA), although their safety profile continues to be analysed due to the possible increase in adverse events (AEs) in relation to anti-TNFs (mild and severe infections, haematological alterations, thromboembolism, increase in neoplasms).ObjectivesTo evaluate in real clinical practice the AEs of JAKinibs in a cohort of patients with RA and SpA. In addition, adherence and reasons for discontinuation (1st or 2nd failure, AE) are analysed.MethodsObservational study of 116 patients diagnosed with RA or SpA who received treatment with JAKinibis (tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib) after failure of treatment with different classical synthetic (FAMEsc) or biological (FAMEb) disease-modifying drugs. The following data were analysed: demographic characteristics of the patients, years of disease progression, 1st or 2nd failures and AE.ResultsMean age was 52 years, with Baricitinib being older (60 years -SD 13.6), higher prevalence of females in all groups, and a disease progression time of about 10 years. Mean number of FAMEsc was 1.6 and mean number of FAMEb was 2,3 to Tofacitinib(Tofa), 2,76 to Baricitinib(Bari) and 4,4 to Upadacitinib(Upa). 71 (63%) patients had active corticosteroid therapy. The median treatment time with Tofa was 8.8 months, Bari 9.5 and Upa 2.4 months.Most frequent AEs with Tofa were urinary tract infections(UTI) (11.9%, 7 cases) and headaches (8.47%, 5 cases). There were 3 cases of herpes zoster (5.1%), one of which was recurrent, and 2 cases respectively of tachycardia and gastrointestinal intolerance (3.4%). With Baricitnib, 2(5%) cases of UTI and 2(5%) of influenza A were reported. Most frequent AEs related to Upadacitinb are gastrointestinal intolerance, labialis and facial herpes, anterior uveitis and recurrent UTI, with 1 case for each adverse event. There were 4 success with Baricitinib treatment: 2 due to severe COVID, 1 influenza A and 1 due to stroke. 17 patients had 1st failure to Tofa(28.81%), 8 to Bari20.0%) and 3 to Upa(18.75%);7(11.86%) and 2(5%) patients had 2nd failure to Tofa and Bari respectively, no with Upa.Mean CRP to Tofa-SD 18.9-was 17.19, 20-SD 22.7- to Bari and 24.2-SD 27.40- to Upa. Mean ESR-SD 15.3- was 25.4, -SD 26.4 and 44.3 -SD 32-, respectively. At 6 months, 36(62%) were continuing on Tofa, 22(56%) on Bari and 4(27%) on Upa. At 12 months, 27(46.6%) were still on Tofa and 12 on Bari(30.8%) and no patients were on upa.Table 1.TofaBariUpaMean age496047Male19%18%20%Female81%82%80%Time course of disease(years)81111Permanence 6 months62%56%27%Permanence 12 months46,6%31%0%Patients with corticotherapy62%64%60%Previous biological drugs2,3 SD 22,8 SD 2,34,4 SD 2,9Patients who discontinued the drug62%59%33%Mean CRP at the end of treatment172024Mean end-of-treatment ESR252644Repeated AEsUTI(7) Headache(5) Shingles(3) Nephritic colic(2) Gastrointestinal intolerance(2) Tachycardia(2)UTI(4) Headache(2)Serious AEsShingles (3)Varicella encephalopathy(1) Stroke(1) Shingles (1)1st failure28,8%20%18,7%2nd failure11,9%5%0%SuccessSARS-Cov2(2) Influenza(1) Stroke(1)Figure 1. Months stay pharmacoConclusionMost frequent adverse events with JAKinibs are mild infections, except gastrointestinal complaints with upadacitinib. Serious adverse events, including 3 deaths from viral infections, were observed, mostly in patients over 65 years. Most frequent cause of discontinuation was treatment failure. We believe that further observational studies are needed to stratify and profile the risk of infection with JAKinibs.References[1]Atzeni F, Popa CD, et al. Safety of JAK inhibitors: focus on cardiovascular and thromboembolic events. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2022 Mar;18(3):233-244. Doi: 10.1080/1744666X.2022.2039630 Epub 2022 Feb 17.PMID: 35129033[2]Alves C, Penedones A,et al. The Risk of Infections Associated With JAK Inhibitors in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis. J Clin Rheumatol. 2022 Mar 1;28(2):e407-e414 PMID:33902098Ackn wledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

Safety of Pharmacotherapy in COVID-19 Patients: A Literature Review.

The safety of COVID-19 pharmacotherapy is a relevant issue, first of all, because of the current lack of experience with using particular medicinal products and with off-label prescribing. The aim of the study was to analyse information on potential adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and their predictors in etiology- and pathogenesis-oriented COVID-19 therapy. According to literature data, the main clinically significant risk factors for COVID-19 patients to develop an ADR are the duration of their hospital stay, combined use of antivirals, polypharmacy, and their history of drug allergies. The most common adverse reactions to antivirals, to virus-neutralising antibodies, and to human anti-COVID-19 immunoglobulin and convalescent plasma are, respectively, gastrointestinal and hepatobiliary disorders;gastrointestinal disorders, neurological disorders, and allergic reactions;and transfusion reactions (fever, chills, etc.). For pathogenesis-oriented therapy with systemic glucocorticosteroids, the most characteristic ADR is hyperglycaemia. Janus kinase inhibitors and interleukin inhibitors are most often associated with gastrointestinal disorders and hypertransaminasemia;neutropenia is also characteristic of a number of interleukin inhibitors. Haemostatic adverse reactions to anticoagulants depend on the patient's dosing regimen and condition. Drug-drug interactions are a common problem in COVID-19 treatment, with the combination of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir showing the largest number of significant interactions attributed to their pharmacokinetics. Currently, there is data on the role of pharmacogenetic biomarkers in the safety and clinical outcomes of COVID-19 therapy. Thus, to improve the safety of COVID-19 therapy, an integrated approach is needed that will take into account both the clinical, demographic, and pharmacogenetic predictors of ADRs and the risk of drug-drug interactions.Copyright © 2023 Safety and Risk of Pharmacotherapy. All rights reserved.

Updated results from MOMENTUM: Momelotinib vs. Danazol in JAK inhibitor-experienced, symptomatic, and anaemic myelofibrosis patients

The phase 3 MOMENTUM study (NCT04173494) of the ACVR1/JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor momelotinib (MMB) vs. danazol (DAN) in patients with myelofibrosis (MF) previously treated with a JAK inhibitor (JAKi) met the primary endpoint and all key secondary endpoints at week 24 (W24). We provide updated results from week 48 assessments. Eligible patients had primary or post-ET/ PV MF;DIPSS high, Int-2, or Int-1 risk;Total Symptom Score (TSS) >=10;haemoglobin (Hb) <10 g/dL;platelets >=25 x 109/L;prior JAKi for >=90 days (>=28 days if red blood cell [RBC] transfusions >=4 units in 8 weeks or grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia/anaemia/ hematoma);and palpable spleen >=5 cm. Randomisation was 2:1 to MMB 200 mg/day or DAN 600 mg/day for 24 weeks, followed by open-label (OL) MMB. Week 48 endpoints included durations of response (TSS, transfusion independence [TI], splenic) and overall and leukaemia-free survival (OS, LFS). As of 17 May 2022, 93/130 (72%) MMB -> MMB and 41/65 (63%) DAN -> MMB patients received OL MMB;mean MMB durations were 48 weeks and 24 weeks, respectively. Analyses for W24 responders showed the following: of TSS responders, 31/32 (97%) MMB -> MMB and 6/6 DAN -> MMB patients had TSS < baseline;of TI responders, 36/40 (90%) and 10/13 (77%) had no RBC transfusions or Hb <8 g/dL;and of spleen responders, all patients had splenic volume < baseline. In the OL phase, the most common grade >=3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were thrombocytopenia (MMB -> MMB, 9%;DAN -> MMB, 15%) and anaemia (MMB -> MMB, 9%;DAN -> MMB, 2%). Grade >=3 infections occurred in 19% of MMB -> MMB and 10% of DAN -> MMB patients, including grade >=3 (nonfatal) COVID-19. Peripheral neuropathy (PN) occurred in 2% of patients in each arm, and none discontinued MMB due to PN. TEAEs led to MMB discontinuation in 18% (MMB -> MMB) vs. 10% (DAN -> MMB). A trend towards improved OS up to W24 was previously observed with MMB vs. DAN (hazard ratio [HR], 0.506;p = 0.0719);after all patients crossed over to OL MMB, OS and LFS curves for both arms converged (HR, 0.945, 95% CI, 0.528-1.693;HR, 0.830, 95% CI, 0.473-1.4555). Sixty of 81 (74%) MMB -> MMB and 29 of 43 (67%) DAN -> MMB patients with baseline platelets <=150 x 109/L entered the OL phase. Efficacy and safety results in thrombocytopenic subgroups in the OL period were consistent with the intent-to- treat (ITT) population. OL MMB maintained symptom, TI, and spleen responses with continued good survival and safety in the ITT and low platelet populations. MMB may address an unmet need in anaemic patients with MF.

THE USE OF JANUS KINASE INHIBITORS ANTI-INTERLEUKIN THERAPY IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION WITH COVID-19: PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGICAL SRUDY

The objective of this study was to assess the volume of consumption of anti-interleukins and janus kinase inhibitors in the period 2018–2021, used as well as preventive pathogenetic therapy of COVID-19.Materials and methods. Based on actual sales data in the segments of public procurement (including regional and federal preferential drug provision) and retail sales segment in the period 2018–2021, obtained from the IQVIA database. All data was recalculated into the number of established daily doses (DDDs), with the calculation of pharmacoepidemiological indicators «Incidence of prescribing drugs», «Cumulative risk of prescribing drugs», as well as «Prescribing prevalence per year» for tocilizumab, olokizumab, levilimab, sarilumab, kanakinumab, anakinra, baricitinib, tofacitinib and upadacitinib. Results and discussion. The growth of total sales volumes was demonstrated in all market segments, but mostly in the segment of regional purchases, primarily related to the purchase of these groups of medicines for COVID-19 therapy in the period 2020–2021. It was demonstrated that the increase in the number of cases, accompanied by the expansion of prescribing preventive pathogenetic therapy, led to a twofold increase in the number of new cases of prescribing of janus kinase inhibitors and an increase in this indicator for anti-interleukins by 1.5 times, taking into account the estimated number of patients with moderate and severe COVID-19. The cumulative risk of prescribing these classes of drugs increased proportionally: for JAK inhibitors from 14 to 32%, and for anti-IL drugs from 38 to 69%. Calculations showed that the proportion of people over 18 years of age in the Russian Federation who received at least one dose of janus kinase inhibitors and anti-interleukins increased many times, in 1000 times and 500 times. Conclusions. Taking into account the expansion of the use of these groups of medicines, careful monitoring of information about their safety is required. © 2023, HIV Infection and Immunosuppressive Disorders.All Rights Reserved.

EFFECT OF UPADACITINIB ON REDUCING PAIN IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS AND INADEQUATE RESPONSE TO BIOLOGIC THERAPY

BackgroundPain is a debilitating symptom of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) that negatively affects patients' lives. Upadacitinib (UPA), a Janus kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of AS and other inflammatory diseases, showed significant efficacy vs placebo (PBO) in the phase 2/3 SELECT-AXIS 1 study in patients with AS who were biologic-naive and in the phase 3 SELECT-AXIS 2 study in patients with active AS who had an inadequate response (IR) to biological therapy [1,2]. Improvement in pain outcomes with UPA was also previously demonstrated in the SELECT-AXIS 1 study [3].ObjectivesThe objective of this post-hoc analysis of SELECT-AXIS 2 was to evaluate the efficacy of UPA vs PBO on multiple pain assessments through 14 weeks in patients with IR to a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD-IR).MethodsSELECT-AXIS 2 (NCT04169373) enrolled adults with active AS with IR to biological therapy, including patients who discontinued biologics due to lack of efficacy or intolerance [1]. Patients were randomized 1:1 to UPA 15 mg once daily (QD) or PBO for 14 weeks. Pain endpoints evaluated here included the proportion of patients achieving ≥30%, ≥50%, and ≥70% reduction from baseline, minimal clinically important difference (MCID, defined as ≥1 point reduction or ≥15% reduction from baseline), and much better improvement (MBI, defined as ≥2 point reduction and ≥33% reduction from baseline) in Patient's Global Assessment (PGA) of pain, total back pain, and nocturnal back pain on a 0–10 numeric rating scale [3,4]. Non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 was used.ResultsA total of 211 patients received UPA 15 mg QD and 209 patients received PBO. Higher proportions of patients receiving UPA vs PBO achieved ≥30% and ≥50% reductions in PGA of pain, total back pain, and nocturnal back pain as early as week 2 that were sustained at all time points through 14 weeks (nominal P<0.05;Figure 1a-c). Achievement of ≥70% reductions in PGA of pain and nocturnal back pain were higher at week 4 and sustained thereafter (Figures 1a and 1c), and achievement of ≥70% reduction in total back pain was higher at week 2 and week 8, but not week 4, and sustained thereafter (Figure 1b). Results were similar for the proportion of patients achieving MCID and MBI, with improvements in PGA of pain, total back pain, and nocturnal back pain for UPA vs PBO as early as week 1 (MCID) or week 2 (MBI) that were sustained through week 14 (all nominal P<0.001;Table 1).Table 1.Achievement of MCID and MBI in Pain Outcomes at Week 14 (NRI-MI)Responder Rate (95% CI), %Pain OutcomesUPA 15 mgPBONominal P ValuePGA of painMCID81.0 (75.8–86.3)62.7 (56.1–69.2)<0.0001MBI60.7 (54.1–67.3)24.9 (19.0–30.7)<0.0001Total back painMCID80.1 (74.7–85.5)65.1 (58.6–71.5)0.0005MBI58.3 (51.6–64.9)25.4 (19.5–31.3)<0.0001Nocturnal back painMCID82.9 (77.9–88.0)61.3 (54.7–67.9)<0.0001MBI61.6 (55.0–68.2)32.1 (25.7–38.4)<0.0001MBI, much better improvement;MCID, minimal clinically important difference;NRI-MI, non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19;PBO, placebo;PGA, Patient's Global Assessment;UPA, upadacitinib.ConclusionIn patients with active AS who were bDMARD-IR, greater proportions of patients treated with UPA achieved rapid and clinically meaningful reductions in pain vs PBO as early as week 2 that were sustained through 14 weeks across multiple pain assessments.References[1]van der Heijde D, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022;81(11):1515-1523.[2]van der Heijde D, et al. Lancet. 2019;394(10214):2108-2117.[3]McInnes IB, et al. RMD Open. 2022;8(1):doi:10.1136/rmdopen-2021-002049.[4]Salaffi F, et al. Eur J Pain. 2004;8(4):283-291.AcknowledgementsAbbVie funded this study and participated in the study design, research, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, reviewing, and approval of the publication. All authors had access to relevant data and participated in the drafting, review, and approval of this p blication. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing support was provided by M. Hovenden and J. Matsuura of ICON plc (Blue Bell, PA, USA) and was funded by AbbVie.Disclosure of InterestsXenofon Baraliakos Consultant of: Novartis, Pfizer, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, UCB Pharma, Galapagos, Janssen, Celgene, and Amgen, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, UCB Pharma, Galapagos, Janssen, Celgene, and Amgen, Marina Magrey Consultant of: UCB, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Janssen, Grant/research support from: Amgen, AbbVie, BMS, and UCB Pharma, Louis Bessette Speakers bureau: Amgen, BMS, Janssen, UCB, AbbVie, Pfizer, Merck, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis, Organon, and Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Amgen, BMS, Janssen, UCB, AbbVie, Pfizer, Merck, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, and Gilead, Kurt de Vlam Speakers bureau: Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Novartis, and UCB, Consultant of: Amgen, AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Novartis, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Amgen, UCB, and MSD, Tianming Gao Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Anna Shmagel Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Ralph Lippe Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Ana Biljan Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Victoria Jasion Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Peter C. Taylor Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Consultant of: Lilly, AbbVie, Pfizer, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Fresenius, Nordic Pharma, UCB, and Biogen, Grant/research support from: Galapagos.

Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Upadacitinib in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis Refractory to Biologic Therapies: 2-Year Results from the Phase 3 Select-Psa 2 Study

Background/Aims Upadacitinib (UPA), an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, demonstrated efficacy and safety in patients (pts) with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and prior inadequate response or intolerance to >=1 biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) at week (wk) 56 in the phase 3 SELECT-PsA 2 study. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of UPA at wk 104 from the ongoing long-term extension of SELECTPsA 2. Methods Pts were randomized to UPA 15mg (UPA15), UPA 30mg (UPA30), or placebo (PBO) for 24 wks;PBO pts were then switched to UPA15 or UPA30. For continuous UPA treatment groups, efficacy endpoints at wk 104 were analyzed using non-responder imputation (NRI) and as observed (AO) (binary endpoints) or mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) and AO (continuous endpoints). Treatmentemergent adverse events (TEAEs) were summarized for pts who received >=1 dose of study drug using visit-based cut-off at wk 104. Results A total of 641 pts received >=1 dose of study drug. At wk 104, 38.4% of all patients had discontinued study drug, with the highest discontinuation observed in patients randomized to PBO at baseline (all PBO: 46.7%). The most common reasons for discontinuation were lack of efficacy (UPA15: 12.3%, UPA30: 8.7%, all PBO: 21.7%) and adverse event (UPA15: 10.9%, UPA30: 13.3%, all PBO: 12.7%). The proportion of UPA pts that achieved ACR20/50/70, MDA, PASI75/90/100, and resolution of dactylitis and enthesitis were generally similar, or further improved, with 104 wks of treatment vs 56 wks. Similarly, mean change from baseline in HAQ-DI, patient's assessment of pain, BASDAI, and ASDAS was improved with UPA treatment. At 104 wks of therapy, clinical responses were largely similar with UPA15 and UPA30. Generally, safety data at wk 104 were consistent with that reported at wk 56. Rates of serious infection, herpes zoster, hepatic disorder, anemia, neutropenia, lymphopenia, and CPK elevation remained numerically higher with UPA30 vs UPA15, while rates of malignancies, MACE, and VTE were similar for both UPA groups. One death was reported with UPA15 (unexplained due to lack of information;however, the patient had recently been diagnosed with ovarian cancer) and two with UPA30 (pancytopenia and COVID-19 pneumonia). Conclusion In PsA pts with prior inadequate response or intolerance to>=1 bDMARD, clinical responses were maintained with UPA15 and UPA30 up to two years of treatment. No new safety signals were identified in this long-term extension.

Real-World Single-Centre Experience of Jak Inhibitor Use in Ra

Background/Aims The use of Janus Kinase Inhibitors (JAKi) has been gradually increasing overtime in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and other inflammatory arthritis and these appeal to patients. being oral agents. Nevertheless, rheumatologists have become cautious about their use since recent trials have shown safety concerns about VTEs, MACE and malignancies. Methods We decided to study use of JAKi at our centre in Princess of Wales Hospital Bridgend. The aim was to assess whether appropriate patients were selected (considering cautions about MACE, VTEs and malignancies). We also wanted to see whether all patients had required pretreatment safety testing and post-treatment monitoring performed. Results These were 70 patients;59 were females and 11 were males. All of them were diagnosed as RA. Average age was 61.1 years (20-85), average duration of disease 129.9 months (16-340) and average duration of treatment was 58.1 weeks. The most common JAKi being used was baricitinib (84%) followed by tofacitinib (12%) and upadacitinib (4%). 50% patient were on concomitant csDMARDs among whom two-thirds were on methotrexate. Looking at previous biologic use, 9 patients were biologic naive, 22 had one biologic, 15 had two biologics used in the past. All patients were appropriately selected (severe RA and no significant risk factors for MACE, VTEs and malignancies). All patients had pre-treatment Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, latent TB, FBC and LFTs checked. All patients had FBC and LFTs monitored post treatment. No patient developed VTE, MACE or cancer on treatment. 84.2% patients had lipids tested before starting JAKi. 22.8% patients had abnormal lipids before Rx initiation and 62.5% of these were on lipid lowering Rx. All patients had lipids tested post treatment, but the timing was quite variable and only 62.5% of patients had lipids tested on the recommended time. There were 2 deaths recorded in this cohort. One of those was an 80-year-old RA patient on baricitinib 2mg OD, who died due to chest infection on the background of ILD. He was not on steroids or csDMARDs. The second patient was 63 years' old (on baricitinib 4mg OD), and died due to respiratory sepsis, and was also on azathioprine. She had RA with advanced ILD. The reasons for discontinuing JAKi were inefficacy (46%), side effects (39%) and both inefficacy and side effects (15%). 41.4%of patient experienced side effects due to JAKi. These included infection 28%, deranged lipids 17%, cytopenia 14%, deranged LFTs 14%, GI side effects 10%, skin rash 7% and varicella zoster 3%. Conclusion There has been steady increase in the use of tsDMARDs for RA and other rheumatic conditions. Due to short half-life, these drugs became a popular choice during COVID-19 pandemic but on the other hand safety monitoring became extremely challenging during this time.

A Retrospective Case Control Study to Assess the Effectiveness of Baricitinib among Moderate to Severe Covid-19 Cases, Experience from a South Indian Tertiary Care Centre

Intro: Dysregulated inflammation plays a key role in the development of severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. One of the key cellular signaling pathway involved in the inflammatory response is JAK/STAT signaling. Among the hospitalized Covid patients with hypoxia to reduce the progression to ARDS, immunomodulators have a definite role. Baricitinib is an oral selective Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor with anti-inflammatory properties. This study evaluates the efficacy and all-cause mortality among moderate to severe Covid patients who received Baricitinib. Method(s): A retrospective case-control study was carried out among moderate to severe Covid patients who had received Baricitinib. COVID severity matched group from the same time period was selected as the control. We evaluated the efficacy (based on WHO-ordinal scale) and difference in all-cause mortality among case and control groups. Baseline characteristics and outcome variables were retrospectively captured from the hospital health information system. Finding(s): During our study period, 2547 active Covid patients have admitted, out of which 105 patients received Baricitinib. Based on the retrospective analysis 75 patients were selected as the case group and 75 covidpositive patients of similar age and sex were identified by a simple random selection technique to serve as a control group. The age group of the baricitinib group 60.82 (+/- 13) and the Control group 62.34 (+/-13). Among the participants, 62.66% were severe (58% Baricitinib group & 66% control), 36% were with moderate severity (40% Baricitinib group & 33.33% control). The all-cause mortality of cohort was 43% (n=64), 36% (n=27) of cases as compared to 49.3% (n=37) of control group, (P Value= 0.06). Improvement in WOS score by at least 1-point cases 47% and 37.3 % in controls, (P Value= 0.09). Conclusion(s): Baricitinib when combined with standard of care, among hospitalized patients with moderate to severe Covid infection, showed a trend towards clinical improvement and decreased all-cause mortality.Copyright © 2023

Long-Term Outcomes of Treatment With and De-Escalation From a Combination of Vedolizumab and Another Biologic or Tofacitinib for Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Introduction: There are scant data on long-term outcomes of treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with a combination of advanced therapies, including after de-escalation. Method(s): We identified patients with IBD at a tertiary center who began therapy with vedolizumab (VDZ) in combination with another advanced therapy (biologic or JAK inhibitor) between 2016 and 2020 and examined their outcomes through 6/1/22. We defined biochemical remission as CRP, 5 mg/L and calprotectin < 150 mcg/g, and endoscopic remission as Mayo endoscopic subscore 0 or simple endoscopic score for Crohn's disease (CD) 0. Short-term outcomes of this cohort were previously reported. Result(s): Fourteen patients with a median of 322 (IQR 251-322) weeks of follow up were identified. 10 had ulcerative colitis, 3 CD, and 1 indeterminate colitis. VDZ was combined with tofacitinib in 9 patients, ustekinumab in 3 and adalimumab in 2. Median time on combination therapy was 94 weeks (IQR 17-133). Eight patients achieved objective remission (3 biochemical, 5 endoscopic), 1 changed combination with subsequent endoscopic remission, 2 had primary non-response, 1 had secondary non-response, 1 stopped within 1 month due to reported adverse effect (paresthesia), and 1 lacked follow-up data. Eight patients de-escalated to a single agent, 4 at physician direction and 4 due to insurance denial. Before de-escalation, 6 had objective remission (2 biochemical, 4 endoscopic). After de-escalation, 3 patients maintained objective remission (2 biochemical, 1 endoscopic), 3 had disease flare, of which 1 required colectomy, and 2 lacked data. All 3 patients with disease flare had de-escalated following an insurance denial. Two patients remained on combination therapy through follow up: 1 has endoscopic remission after changing one drug of their combination and 1 has ongoing moderate endoscopic disease despite combination therapy. There were 2 infections requiring hospitalization (rotavirus, C. difficile), and 8 non-serious infections (5 mild SARS-COV-2, 1 peristomal cellulitis, 1 pneumonia, 1 sinus) while on combination therapy. Conclusion(s): In long-term follow up of this small cohort, there were no new signals on effectiveness or safety of combining advanced agents. De-escalation to a single agent was tolerated in half of patients with follow-up data;all patients who flared following de-escalation had adjusted therapy due to insurance denial. More data is needed to inform de-escalation decisions.

Experience of Baricitinib in a Real-World Population with Efficacy and Side Effects: A South London Regional Analysis

Background/Aims Baricitinib is the most common Janus Kinase inhibitor (JAKi) used in the treatment of rheumatological conditions. Whilst randomised controlled trials have demonstrated the efficacy and safety profile of baricitinib, real-world data on the experience of JAKi use in clinical practice is lacking. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate baricitinib use in a real-world patient population in South London. Methods We looked at two rheumatology departments in South London (St George's Hospital;a tertiary teaching centre and Kingston Hospital;a district general hospital). All patients prescribed baricitinib between January 2017 to June 2022 were included. A retrospective assessment of electronic patient notes was performed to evaluate disease activity (determined by DAS-28 scores at baseline, 3-6 months and presently);adverse effects including side effects, rates of and reasons for discontinuation;and prescribing practice, including previous use of other biological disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). Baseline data including age, gender, co-morbidities and rheumatological diagnoses were also included. Results 233 patients were included in this evaluation, with seropositive rheumatoid arthritis being the most common diagnosis (58%) and with a significant female population (87%). Baricitinib improved average DAS-28 scores from 5.75 (range 3.57-8.3) at baseline to 3.23 (range 0.28-7.49) at 3-6 months post-baricitinib, with the most recent DAS-28 score of 2.90 (range 0.56-6.77). Rates of adverse effects were low as shown in Table 1. Baricitinib was discontinued in 60/233 patients, with average duration to discontinuation of 9.5 months. The most common reasons for discontinuation were: ineffective disease control (28/60), recurrent bacterial infection (5/60), deranged liver function (3/60) and venous thromboembolism (2/60). Eight patients died whilst taking baricitinib. Where documented, the causes of death were Covid-19 (4/8) and malignancy (1/8). 110 out of 233 patients had received other bDMARDs before starting baricitinib. Documented reasons for baricitinib choice over tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) included: previous lack of response to TNFi (89/233), contra-indication to TNFi (11/233) and preference of oral route (10/ 233). Conclusion Our real-world study of JAKi use shows that baricitinib is efficacious in the treatment of rheumatological conditions. Moreover, baricitinib is well tolerated, with low rates of adverse effects and subsequent discontinuation. (Table Presented).

Janus Kinase Inhibitors in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients: Real-World Experience from a Regional Centre in Uk

Background/Aims Tofacitinib and baricitinib were the first orally available, targeted synthetic Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in the UK. Evidence suggests that JAK inhibitors are as efficacious as biological DMARDs in the treatment of RA. Their safety profile has been demonstrated in long term extension studies and RCTs. However, real-world, long-term data remains as important in bridging the gap between controlled studies and routine practice. We report our initial real-world experience of a cohort of RA patients commenced on JAKi before the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic within a regional centre in the UK. Methods All patients commenced on JAKi for the treatment of RA between February 2018 and March 2020 were identified from our in-house database. Data was retrospectively collected from clinical notes and electronic health records from February 2018 up until April 2022. This included patient demographics, disease duration, serological status, concurrent csDMARD usage, history of bDMARD exposure, duration of use and reason for discontinuation of the drug if appropriate. DAS- 28 scores were recorded at baseline and quarterly. SPSS (version 22.0) was used for data analysis. Results One hundred thirty patients were treated with JAK inhibitors (Tofacitinib 22%, Baricitinib 78%);80% female, mean (S.D.) age 61.5 (12.3) years. 92 (70.8%) patients were seropositive. 70 (53.8%) patients were on concurrent csDMARDs and 23 (17.7%) on concurrent steroids. The mean number of previous bDMARDs was 1.8 +/- 1.7;41 (31.5%) were bDMARD naive. The mean baseline DAS-28 ESR (S.D.) score was 5.96 (0.96). There were significant differences in mean DAS- 28 ESR scores (compared with baseline) of 1.54, 1.96, 2.41, 2.33 and 1.80 at 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months respectively (p<0.0001). Mean DAS-28 ESR scores were not statistically significant between bDMARD naive patients and those that had previously received bDMARDs. Overall JAKi retention rate was 66.9% with a mean follow up duration of 27.4+/-13.1 months. Persistence was 88.5%, 76.9%, 73.2% and 68.5% at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, respectively. Of the 38 patients who stopped JAK inhibitors, 11 stopped due to inefficacy (6, primary inefficacy). 3 patients were lost to follow-up and 6 deceased. Cause of death was sepsis (2), venous thromboembolism (1) and unknown (3). 18 patients stopped because of adverse events (AEs). The most common AEs were recurrent infections (11), gastrointestinal side effects (9), lymphopenia (7), thromboembolic events (6) and herpes zoster (5). In total 6 (4.1%) patients had thromboembolic events which included pulmonary embolism (4) and deep vein thrombosis (1) and central retinal artery thrombosis (1). Conclusion JAK inhibitors in this real-world population of RA patients were effective in reducing disease activity and patients had high persistence rates. Recurrent infections, herpes zoster and thrombo-embolism remain adverse events of concern.

Management of patients with liver derangement during the COVID-19 pandemic

COVID-19 pandemic has been affecting the whole world for more than 3 years since late 2019. It is often to encounter COVID-19 patients with abnormal liver function, either in the form of hepatitis, cholestasis or both. The clinical implication of such liver derangement may be variable in different clinical scenarios. With the growing evidence of the clinical significance of such liver derangement, it would be clinically helpful to provide practice recommendations to various common clinical scenarios of liver derangement during COVID-19 pandemic. The Asia-Pacific Working Group for Liver Derangement during the COVID-19 Pandemic was formed to systematically review the literature on specified domains of interest, with special focus on clinical management of patients who have been or are at risk of developing liver derangement during COVID-19 pandemic. This Asia-Pacific position statement reports an in-depth review and a position statement on liver derangement during COVID- 19 pandemic. Ten clinical scenarios covering the use of pharmacological treatment for COVID-19 in case of liver derangement, assessment and management of patients with chronic hepatitis B or C, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), liver cirrhosis, liver transplantation are discussed. Specifically, some treatments target the patient's dysregulated inflammatory response during COVID-19 infection and may cause hepatitis B reactivation (HBVr) in patients with current or past hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. Current evidence suggests that current or past HBV infection is not associated with an increased risk of liver injury and severe disease in COVID-19 patients. Among patients who received high-dose corticosteroids, various immunosuppressive monoclonal antibodies and inhibitors of Janus kinase, the risk of HBVr exists, especially among those without antiviral prophylaxis.

42nd Scientific Meeting of the German Society for Magnesium Research

The proceedings contain 23 papers. The topics discussed include: Mg and skeletal system: a link to osteoporosis and osteoarthritis;a putative impact of IL-6 on the expression of magnesiotropic genes through the activation of the JAK/STAT3 pathway;magnesium in pain therapy - historical notes and current aspects;Alzheimer's-associated variant rs708727 might be connected to dementia in Parkinson's disease;effect of magnesium citrate supplementation on the brain tissue of patients with Miyoshi dysferlinopathy measured by 31P magnetic resonance spectroscopy;clinical status of magnesium implants;Ionized magnesium: update 2022;magnesium in the treatment of selected types of muscular dystrophy;magnesium speciation analysis in blood serum;epigenetically-induced modulation of the HPA axis might improve resilience to chronic stress;magnesium status in patients with fibromyalgia syndrome;and post-covid-syndrome and transient microvascular pathology in pulse-wave-analysis - association with Mg/Ca ratio and magnesium therapy-options.

Effectiveness and Safety of Tofacitinib in the Management of Ulcerative Colitis: A Brazilian Observational Multicentric Study.

Background: Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease which affects the colorectal mucosa with a relapsing-remitting pattern. The therapeutic options currently available for the medical management of UC include many options. Tofacitinib is an oral small molecule, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, more selective for JAK1 and JAK3, which reduces the inflammatory process involved in the pathogenesis of UC. Methods: Retrospective observational multicentric study of patients with UC who used tofacitinib in any phase of their treatment. Clinical remission and response (according to Mayo score), mucosal healing, primary and secondary loss of response, discontinuation of the drug with possible causes, and the need for dose optimization or switching to biologicals, need for surgery and adverse events were evaluated. Results: From a total of 56 included patients, clinical remission was observed in 43.6% at week 12, 54.5% at week 26, 57.9% at week 52, and 40% at the last follow-up visit. Clinical response was observed in 71.4%, 81.8%, 89.5%, and 61.8% at the same time periods, respectively. Mucosal healing rates were 50% and 17.8% needed colectomy. Conclusions: Tofacitinib was effective in induction and maintenance of clinical response and remission rates, compatible to other international real-word studies and meta-analyses.