Plain Language Summary of the PAISLEY study: deucravacitinib as a treatment for people with systemic lupus erythematosus.

What is this summary about?This plain language summary describes the results of the phase 2 study called PAISLEY which tested deucravacitinib, a new medicine under investigation before approval, in people living with lupus. In this trial, researchers wanted to find out if deucravacitinib would be safe and reduce the symptoms and disease activity in people living with lupus. PAISLEY looked at the type of lupus known as systemic lupus erythematosus, shortened to SLE.What happened in the study?The study included 363 people from 17 countries who had SLE and were between 18 and 75 years of age. The participants were divided into 4 groups at random. One group was given placebo (a fake or dummy pill that contains no medicine) and the other 3 groups took deucravacitinib, a pill taken by mouth. Each of the groups taking deucravacitinib took a different dose, either 3 milligrams (mg) twice daily, 6 mg twice daily, or 12 mg once daily. After 32 and 48 weeks, researchers measured the number of people in each group who had improvements in their SLE symptoms and disease activity, as measured by different tests. They also looked at any side effects people experienced, which may or may not have been caused by the medicine.What do the results mean?After 32 weeks of treatment, SLE symptoms and disease activity improved in more people in each of the deucravacitinib dose groups compared with the people taking placebo (the dummy pill). After 48 weeks of treatment, SLE symptoms and disease activity were still improved in more people taking deucravacitinib compared with people taking placebo, and this was measured in several different ways. The best results were seen in people taking deucravacitinib 3 mg twice daily. The number of serious side effects was similar for people taking deucravacitinib and those taking placebo. The most common side effects that were seen in people taking deucravacitinib were infections such as sore throat, cough, or bronchitis (upper respiratory tract), infltion in the nose (nasopharyngitis), headaches, and urinary tract infections. More people taking deucravacitinib than placebo had acne, rash, and cold sores (oral herpes). These were not serious and did not have any long-term effects on patient health or lead to patients stopping treatment.How to say (double click sound icon to play sound)… Systemic lupus erythematosus: SIS-teh-MIC LOO-puhs Eh-RE-the-ma-TOE-susDeucravacitinib: doo-KRAV-a-sih-ti-nibEnzyme: EN-zimeInterferon: in-tur-FER-onPlacebo: pluh-SEE-bohTyrosine kinase: TY-ruh-seen KY-naysTYK2: TIK-tu.

Deucravacitinib, a Tyrosine Kinase 2 Inhibitor, in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: A Phase II, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of deucravacitinib, an oral, selective, allosteric inhibitor of TYK2, in a phase II trial in adult patients with active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). METHODS: Adults with active SLE were enrolled from 162 sites in 17 countries. Patients (n = 363) were randomized 1:1:1:1 to receive deucravacitinib 3 mg twice daily, 6 mg twice daily, 12 mg once daily, or placebo. The primary end point was SLE Responder Index 4 (SRI-4) response at week 32. Secondary outcomes assessed at week 48 included SRI-4, British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) response, Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index 50 (CLASI-50), Lupus Low Disease Activity State (LLDAS), and improvements in active (swollen plus tender), swollen, and tender joint counts. RESULTS: At week 32, the percentage of patients achieving SRI-4 response was 34% with placebo compared to 58% with deucravacitinib 3 mg twice daily (odds ratio [OR] 2.8 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.5, 5.1]; P < 0.001 versus placebo), 50% with 6 mg twice daily (OR 1.9 [95% CI 1.0, 3.4]; P = 0.02 versus placebo), and 45% with 12 mg once daily (OR 1.6 [95% CI 0.8, 2.9]; nominal P = 0.08 versus placebo). Response rates were higher with deucravacitinib treatment for BICLA, CLASI-50, LLDAS, and joint counts compared to placebo. Rates of adverse events were similar across groups, except higher rates of infections and cutaneous events, including rash and acne, with deucravacitinib treatment. Rates of serious adverse events were comparable, with no deaths, opportunistic infections, tuberculosis infections, major adverse cardiovascular events, or thrombotic events reported. CONCLUSION: Deucravacitinib treatment elicited higher response rates for SRI-4 and other end points compared with placebo, with an acceptable safety profile, in adult patients with active SLE.

Injection-site burning and stinging in patients with rheumatoid arthritis using injectable biologics.

OBJECTIVE: Some patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who receive injectable biologics experience injection-site burning and stinging (ISBS); however, the prevalence of ISBS in the general RA population is unknown and may impact preference for an injectable biologic. This study assessed the prevalence of ISBS and associated comorbidities in patients with RA who receive injectable biologics. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The physician and patient survey consisted of a retrospective chart review and a prospective assessment. In the former, each participating US rheumatologist reviewed the medical records of five randomly selected RA patients receiving an injectable biologic. In the prospective assessment, each rheumatologist was asked to report data based on interviews with up to 50 RA patients currently treated with an injectable biologic, who were asked whether they had ISBS during or after their most recent injection. RESULTS: Data were analyzed for 504 patients in the retrospective chart review and 3326 patients in the prospective assessment; data were provided by 101 physicians. The overall prevalence of ISBS was 17% and 58% in the retrospective chart review and prospective analyses, respectively. Out of the 1939 prospectively assessed patients who experienced at least some ISBS, 429 (22%) rated the level of ISBS as moderate to severe (13% of total). Increased risk of ISBS was associated with female gender, fibromyalgia, depression, and more severe RA. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of ISBS is likely underestimated in many rheumatology practices. Specifically asking about it may identify patients who experience this side effect, provide a more accurate understanding of how significantly it affects them, and provide an opportunity for intervention in light of their preferences.