Are the goals of therapy achievable in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving upadacitinib in real clinical practice?

The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of UPA in RA patients in real clinical practice after 3 and 6 months of therapy.

Material and methods. The study included 63 RA patients with high activity of the disease. Activity was assessed according to the DAS28 (ESR), DAS28 (CR P), SDAI, CDAI; functional ability to HAQ; quality of life to the EQ-5D; disease activity according to the patient’s RAPID-3 index; the level of depression and anxiety to the HADS scale. The effectiveness of therapy was evaluated after 3 (n=45) and 6 (n=31) months of UPA therapy.

Results. Remission or low activity of the disease by 3 months of therapy was achieved by most patients: remission of 69.8% of patients, low activity of the disease – 16.3% of patients. Moderate or high activity persisted in 13.9% of patients. By the 6th month of UPA therapy, the number of remissions reached 90% , low activity – 3.3%, moderate activity persisted in 6.7% of patients, high activity of the disease was not in any patient. 20% improvement in function was achieved in 71.8% of patients by the 3rd month of therapy and in 77.8% – by the 6th month of treatment; the difference in average HAQ values by the 3rd month of therapy was 0.38 points, by the 6th month – 0.58 points. After 3 months of follow-up, 31.1% of patients continued taking GC, by 6 months – 24.2%. The dose of GC was reduced from an average of 7.23 mg/d to 5.6 mg/d. The percentage of patients requiring NSAIDs decreased from 95.2% to 35.6% and 33.3%, respectively. DMARDs continued to be received by 75.6% of patients by 3 months and 69.7% by 6 months of follow-up.

Conclusion. Achieving remission or low activity of the disease in patients with RA receiving UPA in real clinical practice is possible in most patients. A rapid decrease in inflammatory activity is accompanied by a significant improvement in the functional state and quality of life of patients. UPA therapy reduces the need for the use of NSAIDs and reduces the dose of GC in a third of patients. 

1. Smolen JS, Landewé R, Bijlsma J, Burmester G, Chatzidionysiou K, Dougados M, et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2016 update. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76(6):960-977. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-210715

2. Taylor PC, Moore A, Vasilescu R, Alvir J, Tarallo M. A structured literature review of the burden of illness and unmet needs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A current perspective. Rheumatol Int. 2016;36(5):685-695. doi: 10.1007/s00296-015-3415-x

3. Baker KF, Isaacs JD. Novel therapies for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: What can we learn from their use in rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, psoriasis, Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis? Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(2): 175-187. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-211555

4. Nasonov EL, Aleksandrova EN, Novikov AA. Autoimmune rheumatic diseases: Results and prospects for researches. Nauchno-Prakticheskaya Revmatologia = Rheumatology Science and Practice. 2015;53(3):230-237 (In Russ.). doi: 10.14412/1995-4484-2015-230-237

5. Nasonov EL. Pharmacotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis: New strategy, new targets. Nauchno-Prakticheskaya Revmatologia = Rheumatology Science and Practice. 2017;55(4):409- 419 (In Russ.). doi: 10.14412/1995-4484-2017-409-419

6. Schwartz DM, Kanno Y, Villarino A, Ward M, Gadina M, O’Shea JJ. JAK inhibition as a therapeutic strategy for immune and inflammatory diseases. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2017;16(12):843- 862. doi: 10.1038/nrd.2017.201

7. Nasonov EL, Lila AM. Janus kinase inhibitors in immuno-inflammatory rheumatic diseases: New opportunities and prospects. Nauchno-Prakticheskaya Revmatologia = Rheumatology Science and Practice. 2019;57(1):8-16 (In Russ.). doi: 10.14412/1995-4484-2019-8-16

8. Nasonov EL, Lila AM. The progress of rheumatology in the 21st century potential uses of upadacitinib in rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Nauchno-Prakticheskaya Revmatologia = Rheumatology Science and Practice. 2020;58(5):532-543 (In Russ.). doi: 10.47360/1995-4484-2020-532-543

9. Nasonov EL, Avdeeva AS, Lila AM. Efficacy and safety of tofacitinib for immune-mediated inflammatory rheumatic diseases (Part I). Nauchno-Prakticheskaya Revmatologia = Rheumatology Science and Practice. 2020;58(1): 62-79 (In Russ.). doi: 10.14412/1995-4484-2020-62-79

10. Genovese MC, Fleischmann R, Combe B, Hall S, RubbertRoth A, Zhang Y, et al. Safety and efficacy of upadacitinib in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis refractory to biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (SELECT-BEYOND): A double-blind, randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10139):2513-2524. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31116-4

11. Mysler E, Lizarraga A. Phase III trials of JAK1 selective inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021;60(Suppl 2): ii17-ii23. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keaa823

12. Fleischmann R, Pangan AL, Song IH, Mysler E, Bessette L, Peterfy C, et al. Upadacitinib versus placebo or adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate: Results of a phase III, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(11):1788-1800. doi: 10.1002/art.41032

13. Smolen JS, Pangan AL, Emery P, Rigby W, Tanaka Y, Vargas JI, et al. Upadacitinib as monotherapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to methotrexate (SELECT-MONOTHERAPY): A randomised, placebocontrolled, double-blind phase 3 study. Lancet. 2019;393(10188):2303-2311. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30419-2

14. Strand V, Pope J, Tundia N, Friedman A, Camp HS, Pangan A, et al. Upadacitinib improves patient-reported outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: Results from SELECT-NEXT. Arthritis Res Ther. 2019;21(1):272. doi: 10.1186/s13075-019-2037-1

15. Strand V, Schiff M, Tundia N, Friedman A, Meerwein S, Pangan A, et al. Effects of upadacitinib on patient-reported outcomes: Results from SELECT-BEYOND, a phase 3 randomized trial in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate responses to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Arthritis Res Ther. 2019;21(1):263. doi: 10.1186/s13075-019-2059-8

16. Kapetanovic MC, Andersson M, Friedman A, Shaw T, Song Y, Aletaha D, et al. SAT0145 Efficacy and safety of upadacitinib monotherapy in mtx-naïve patients with early active RA receiving treatment within 3 months of diagnosis: A post-hoc analysis of the SELECT-EARLY. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79:1011. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-eular.1431

17. Amirjanova VN, Karateev AE, Pogozheva EY, Baranov AA, Mazurov VI, Samigullina RR, et al. The first experience of using upadacitinib in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in real clinical practice (results of the multicenter project “RACURS”). Nauchno-Prakticheskaya Revmatologia = Rheumatology Science and Practice. 2021;59(5):571-577 (In Russ.). doi: 10.47360/1995-4484-2021-571-577

18. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;67(6):361-370. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x

19. Bjelland I, Dahl AA, Haug TT, Neckelmann D. The validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. An updated literature review. J Psychosom Res. 2002;52(2):69-77. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3999(01)00296-3

20. Ochi S, Sonomoto K, Nakayamada S, Tanaka Y. Preferable outcome of Janus kinase inhibitors for a group of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis patients: From the FIRST Registry. Arthritis Res Ther. 2022;24(1):61. doi: 10.1186/s13075-022-02744-7