Baricitinib Treatment Research Articles

Clinical Benefits of Baricitinib Therapy According to Scalp Hair Regrowth in Patients with Severe Alopecia Areata.

The present analyses report integrated results from BRAVE-AA1 (NCT03570749) and BRAVE-AA2 (NCT03899259) on the clinical benefits of baricitinib treatment on the basis of the amount of scalp hair regrowth through 52weeks of treatment. This posthoc analysis was conducted with data from patients who were treated continuously for 52weeks with baricitinib 4mg or 2mg. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) and Clinician-Reported Outcome (ClinRO) for Eyebrow (EB) and Eyelash (EL) hair. Secondary measures included the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and Skindex-16 adapted for alopecia areata. At week52, patients were classified into three subgroups: SALT ≤ 20 response, intermediate response (achieved a 30% improvement from baseline (SALT30) without a SALT score ≤ 20), or nonresponse (never achieved SALT30). The criterion of SALT30 approximates a minimal clinical meaningful response to therapy. At week52, with baricitinib 4 mg treatment, the greatest (70%) improvement in EB and EL was observed in responders, but approximately 50% of patients with intermediate response and 20% of nonresponders experienced complete/nearly complete EB and EL regrowth. Improvement in emotional distress was directionally related to improvements in scalp hair regrowth, while impact on quality of life was proportionately greater for the responder subgroup. Clinically meaningful regrowth in eyebrow and eyelash hair can occur in the absence of complete scalp hair regrowth after treatment with baricitinib. Emotional distress and quality of life improvement is most associated with obtaining a clinical meaningful improvement in scalp hair. BRAVE-AA1, ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03570749, start date, 24September2018; BRAVE-AA2, ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03899259, start date, 8July2019.

Baricitinib Treatment Increases Eyebrow and Eyelash ​Regrowth Up to ​52 Weeks

Baricitinib Treatment Increases Eyebrow and Eyelash ​Regrowth Up to ​52 Weeks

Baricitinib improves bone properties and biomechanics in patients with rheumatoid arthritis - results of the prospective interventional BARE BONE trial.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is characterized by erosive joint damage, deterioration of bone mass and biomechanics. Preclinical evidence suggests a beneficial effect of Janus Kinase inhibition (JAKi) on bone properties, but clinical data are scarce to date. In this study we evaluated the effect of JAKi through baricitinib (BARI) on (i) volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD), bone microstructure, biomechanics, erosion repair and (ii) synovial inflammation in RA patients. Prospective, single-arm, interventional, open-label, single-center phase 4 study in RA patients with pathological bone status and clinical indication of JAKi (BARE BONE trial). Participants received BARI (4mg/day) over 52 weeks. To assess bone properties and synovial inflammation, high-resolution CT scans and Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were performed at baseline (BL), at week 24 and 52. Clinical response and safety was monitored. Thirty RA patients were included. BARI significantly improved disease activity (DAS28-ESR: 4.82±0.90 to 2.71±0.83) and synovial inflammation (RAMRIS synovitis score: 5.3 (4.2) to 2.7 (3.5)). We observed a significant improvement in trabecular vBMD with a mean change of 6.11 mgHA/mm3 (95%CI 0.01 to 12.26). Biomechanical properties also improved with mean change from baseline in estimated stiffness of 2.28 kN/mm (95% CI 0.30 to 4.25) and estimated failure load of 98.8 Newtons (95%CI 15.9 to 181.7). The number and size of erosions in the metacarpal joints remained stable. No new safety signals with baricitinib treatment were observed. Bone of RA patients improves with BARI therapy as shown by an increase in trabecular bone mass and an improvement of biomechanical properties.

Dynamics the parameters of mineral metabolism in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, the impact of etiotropic and pathogenetic therapy

To study the dynamics of mineral metabolism parameters in patients with a confirmed COVID-19 at the time of hospitalization and after discharge, including the impact of etiotropic and pathogenetic therapy on them. A single-center study of 106 patients (aged ≥18 years) with clinically or laboratory confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 was carried out at the Endocrinology Research Centre, Moscow. Baseline biochemical parameters, including serum calcium, phosphorus, albumin, 25(OH)D, parathyroid hormone (PTH), inflammatory markers, and instrumental assessment of COVID-19 severity were performed before specific immunotherapy, as well as on 3rd and 7th days of hospitalization and before discharge. Statistical analysis was performed with Statistica 13 software (StatSoft, USA). On the first day, hypocalcemia (low albumin-adjusted calcium level) was detected in 40.6% of cases, the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency/insufficiency amounted to 95.3% of cases. At the same time, secondary hyperparathyroidism was identified only in 14.2% of patients. A comparative analysis of mineral metabolism during hospitalization (between 1, 3, 7 days of hospitalization and before discharge) during baricitinib treatment revealed a statistically significant increase in albumin-adjusted calcium by the end of hospitalization (p<0.001, Friedman criterion, Bonferroni correction p0=0.01). A pairwise comparison of subgroups, depending on the therapy, revealed a statistically significantly lower level of albumin-adjusted calcium on 3rd day among patients on baricitinib monotherapy or combined with tocilizumab compared with a subgroup of patients undergoing etiotropic treatment (2.16 [2.13; 2.18] mmol/l vs 2.23 [2.19; 2.28] mmol/l, p=0.002, U-test, Bonferroni correction p0=0.012). Patients with severe coronavirus infection are characterized by a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency and hypocalcemia. Associations between calcium and saturation as well as the severity of lung lesion characterizes hypocalcemia as an important predictor of severe course and poor outcome in COVID-19. Pathogenetic therapy with baricitinib, including in combination with tocilizumab, contributes to achieve normocalcemia, but further studies are required.

Comparison of Tocilizumab vs Baricitinib in Clinical Outcomes Among Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: Experience From a Public Hospital System in New York City.

Tocilizumab and baricitinib are immunomodulators that have been repurposed for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Whether one medication should be preferred over the other has not been established. This multicenter retrospective cohort study comprised hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who received either tocilizumab or baricitinib. The primary outcome was improvement in respiratory status (at least 1-point reduction on the respiratory ordinal scale) at day 7 and up to day 28. Secondary outcomes included mortality, disposition, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or positive blood culture. Outcomes were stratified by baseline respiratory status and variant-predominating periods. Results were reported for the overall and propensity-matched cohorts. A total of 921 patients received tocilizumab and 638 received baricitinib. The propensity-matched cohort included 597 patients in each group. At day 7 in the overall and propensity-matched cohorts, significantly more patients had improvement in respiratory status in the baricitinib group. These improvements were seen in patients requiring supplemental oxygen and noninvasive ventilation/high-flow oxygen but not in patients requiring mechanical ventilation. Favorable outcomes with baricitinib were observed during the Alpha and Omicron periods. By day 28, there were no differences in the changes of respiratory status for the treatment groups in either cohort. Also, no differences were seen in mortality, disposition, development of deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism, or bloodstream infections. Baricitinib treatment was associated with more favorable respiratory improvement at day 7 when compared with tocilizumab, but no differences were observed up to day 28.

Hyperactivation of the JAK2/STAT5 Signaling Pathway and Evaluation of Baricitinib Treatment Among Patients With Eosinophilic Cellulitis

The pathogenesis of eosinophilic cellulitis (EC) is poorly understood, limiting available treatment options. The current treatment paradigm focuses on delayed type 2 hypersensitivity reaction to various triggers. To gain further insight into the nature of EC inflammation and into the cellular signal transduction pathways that are activated in the context of EC. This case series was conducted in Lyon, France, from January 2018 to December 2021. Analysis of archival skin biopsy samples from patients with EC and from healthy control participants was performed using histology, Janus kinase (JAK)-signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) immunohistochemistry, and gene profiling. Data analysis was conducted between January 2020 and January 2022. Pruritus (visual analog score), percentage of body surface area with lesional skin, and RNA transcripts of inflammatory biomarkers from the skin (threshold cycle) were assessed in 1 index patient with refractory EC who received oral JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor baricitinib (4 mg/d). This study included samples from 14 patients with EC (7 men and 7 women) and 8 healthy control participants (4 men and 4 women). The mean (SD) age of patients was 52 (20) years. Marked type 2 inflammation (chemokines CCL17, CCL18, and CCL26 and interleukin 13) with preferential activation of the JAK1/JAK2-STAT5 pathways in EC lesions was observed. In the 1 index patient with refractory EC, complete clinical remission of skin lesions was observed after 1 month of treatment with baricitinib. These findings suggest that EC is a type 2 inflammatory disease with preferential activation of the JAK1/JAK2-STAT5 pathways. In addition, these results suggest the potential of treatment approaches targeting JAK1/JAK2 for patients with EC.

Impact of Combined Baricitinib and FTI Treatment on Adipogenesis in Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome and Other Lipodystrophic Laminopathies.

Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome (HGPS) is a rare genetic disease that causes premature aging symptoms, such as vascular diseases, lipodystrophy, loss of bone mineral density, and alopecia. HGPS is mostly linked to a heterozygous and de novo mutation in the LMNA gene (c.1824 C > T; p.G608G), resulting in the production of a truncated prelamin A protein called "progerin". Progerin accumulation causes nuclear dysfunction, premature senescence, and apoptosis. Here, we examined the effects of baricitinib (Bar), an FDA-approved JAK/STAT inhibitor, and a combination of Bar and lonafarnib (FTI) treatment on adipogenesis using skin-derived precursors (SKPs). We analyzed the effect of these treatments on the differentiation potential of SKPs isolated from pre-established human primary fibroblast cultures. Compared to mock-treated HGPS SKPs, Bar and Bar + FTI treatments improved the differentiation of HGPS SKPs into adipocytes and lipid droplet formation. Similarly, Bar and Bar + FTI treatments improved the differentiation of SKPs derived from patients with two other lipodystrophic diseases: familial partial lipodystrophy type 2 (FPLD2) and mandibuloacral dysplasia type B (MADB). Overall, the results show that Bar treatment improves adipogenesis and lipid droplet formation in HGPS, FPLD2, and MADB, indicating that Bar + FTI treatment might further ameliorate HGPS pathologies compared to lonafarnib treatment alone.

P127 Baricitinib Efficacy in Moderate Rheumatoid Arthritis - A Post-hoc Analysis from two Phase III Trials

Abstract Background/Aims Baricitinib, an oral selective JAK 1/2 inhibitor, is approved for treating adults with moderate-to-severe active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This analysis aims to report the efficacy of baricitinib in patients with moderate RA at weeks (W)12 and 24 from two phase III studies, RA-BEAM (NCT01710358) and RA-BUILD (NCT01721057). Methods This post-hoc analysis included patients from RA-BEAM (inadequate responders to methotrexate) and RA-BUILD (inadequate responders to conventional synthetic DMARDs) with moderate RA at baseline (defined as Disease Activity Score (DAS)-28 with C-reactive protein (CRP) of > 3.2 and ≤5.1). This analysis reports treatment response as low disease activity (LDA) defined by DAS28-CRP ≤3.2 and >2.6 or remission defined by < 2.6 and presents descriptive data at W12 and W24, including pain (visual analogue scale [VAS]), fatigue (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue [FACIT-F]), physical functioning (Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index [HAQ-DI]), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI), duration and severity of morning stiffness, joint pain, and fatigue using daily diaries. Continuous variables are presented as median with interquartile range and categorical variables as frequencies and percentages. Results At baseline, moderate RA was observed in 117 patients on baricitinib 4-mg, 80 on adalimumab, and 133 on placebo in RA-BEAM; and 80 on baricitinib 2-mg, 63 on baricitinib 4-mg, and 73 on placebo in RA-BUILD. In RA-BEAM at W12, 46.2%, 37.5%, and 9.0% of patients on baricitinib 4-mg, adalimumab, and placebo, respectively, achieved remission. In RA-BUILD at W12, 38.8%, 44.4%, and 13.7% of patients on baricitinib 2-mg, baricitinib 4-mg, and placebo, respectively, achieved remission. At W24, a further increase in the percentage of patients achieving remission was reported in both trials (Table). Improvement in pain (VAS), FACIT-F, and HAQ-DI was similar across RA-BEAM and RA-BUILD with baricitinib treatment (Table). In both trials, patients reported improvement in duration and severity of morning stiffness, worst tiredness, and worst joint pain with baricitinib treatment (Table). Additionally, baricitinib treatment yielded numerical improvement in impairment of daily activity and work productivity in RA-BEAM (Table). Conclusion In patients with moderate RA, baricitinib markedly improved signs and symptoms of RA and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at W12 and W24. Disclosure B.W. Kirkham: Member of speakers’ bureau; B.K. has received speaker’s payments from AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Grants/research support; B. K. has received research support from Eli Lilly and Company and Novartis. Other; B. K. has been an adviser for AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. B. W. has received meeting support payments from Eli Lilly and Company. E. Nikiphorou: Honoraria; E.N. received speaker honoraria from Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, and Fresenius. Grants/research support; E.N. holds grants from Pfizer and Eli Lilly and Company. Other; E.N. participated in advisory boards for Celltrion, Pfizer, Sanofi, Gilead, Galapagos, AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, and Fresenius. E. N. received travel payments from Eli Lilly and Company. C.J. Edwards: Honoraria; C.E received honoraria from Eli Lilly and Company. Grants/research support; C.E. received grant payments from Abbvie, Pfizer, Roche, Biogen, and Eli Lilly and Company. Other; C.E. received personal fees from Abbvie, Astra-Zeneca, BMS, Celltrion, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Roche, Pfizer, and Sanofi and travel and meeting payments from Eli Lilly and Company. M. Sheesh: Corporate appointments; M. S. is a full-time employee at Eli Lilly and Company. Shareholder/stock ownership; M. S. is a minor shareholder at Eli Lilly and Company. E. Haladyj: Corporate appointments; E. H. is a full-time employee at Eli Lilly and Company. Shareholder/stock ownership; E. H. is a minor shareholder at Eli Lilly and Company. J. Gerwien: Corporate appointments; J. G. is a full-time employee at Eli Lilly and Company. Shareholder/stock ownership; J. G. is a minor shareholder at Eli Lilly and Company. L. Zaremba-Pechmann: Corporate appointments; L. Z-P is a contractor at HaaPACS gmbH. P.C. Taylor: Consultancies; P. T. has been a consultant for AbbVie, Biogen, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Eli Lilly and Company, BMS, Pfizer, Roche, Celltrion, Sanofi, Nordic Pharma, Fresenius, and UCB. Grants/research support; P. T. received grant/research support from Galapagos. Other; P. T. has received meeting support payments from Eli Lilly and Company.

Baricitinib Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Is Associated With a Reduction in Secondary Infections.

We performed a secondary analysis of the National Institutes of Health-sponsored Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT-2) randomized controlled trial and found that baricitinib was associated with a 50% reduction in secondary infections after controlling for baseline and postrandomization patient characteristics. This finding provides a novel mechanism of benefit for baricitinib and supports the safety profile of this immunomodulator for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019.

Efficacy and safety of different JAK inhibitors in the treatment of alopecia areata: a network meta-analysis.

Alopecia areata (AA) is an immune disease characterized by non-scarring hair loss. With the widespread application of JAK inhibitors in immune-related diseases, attention is being given to their role in the treatment of AA. However, it is unclear which JAK inhibitors have a satisfactory or positive effect on AA. This network meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of different JAK inhibitors in the treatment of AA. The network meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. We included randomized controlled trials as well as a small number of cohort studies. The differences in efficacy and safety between the treatment and control groups were compared. Five randomized controlled trials, two retrospective studies, and two prospective studies involving 1689 patients were included in this network meta-analysis. In terms of efficacy, oral baricitinib and ruxolitinib significantly improved the response rate of patients compared to placebo [MD = 8.44, 95% CI (3.63, 19.63)] and [MD = 6.94, 95% CI, (1.72, 28.05)],respectively. Oral baricitinib treatment significantly improved the response rate compared to non-oral JAK inhibitor treatment [MD=7.56, 95% CI (1.32,43.36)]. Oral baricitinib, tofacitinib, and ruxolitinib treatments significantly improved the complete response rate compared to placebo [MD = 12.21, 95% CI (3.41, 43.79)], [MD = 10.16, 95% CI (1.02, 101.54)], and [MD = 9.79, 95% CI, (1.29, 74.27)], respectively. In terms of safety, oral baricitinib, tofacitinib, and ruxolitinib treatments significantly reduced treatment-emergent adverse event rates compared with conventional steroid treatment [MD = 0.08, 95% CI (0.02, 0.42)], [MD = 0.14, 95% CI (0.04, 0.55)], and [MD = 0.35, 95% CI, (0.14, 0.88)], respectively. Oral baricitinib and ruxolitinib are excellent options for the treatment of AA owing to their good efficacy and safety profiles. In contrast, non-oral JAK inhibitors do not appear to have satisfactory efficacy in treating AA. However, further studies are required to verify the optimal dose of JAK inhibitors for AA therapy.

Efficacy of Baricitinib in Patients with Refractory Adult-Onset Still's Disease.

Adult-onset Still's disease (AOSD) is an idiopathic systemic inflammatory disease of unknown aetiology. Some patients exhibit resistance to conventional treatment during long-term therapy. Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKinibs) may contribute to the improvement in AOSD symptoms via the JAK-signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) pathway. We aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of baricitinib in patients with refractory AOSD. Patients were enrolled if they fulfilled the Yamaguchi AOSD classification criteria in China between 2020 and 2022. All patients were recognized as having refractory AOSD and were treated with oral baricitinib at a dosage of 4mg once daily. A systemic score and prednisone dosage were used to evaluate the efficacy of baricitinib at months 1, 3, and 6 and at the last follow-up visit. The safety profiles were recorded and analysed at every assessment. Seven female patients with refractory AOSD received baricitinib. The median age was 31 (IQR 10) years. Treatment was terminated in one patient due to progressive macrophage activation syndrome (MAS). Others continued baricitinib treatment until the last assessment. The systemic score decreased significantly at 3 months (p=0.0216), 6 months (p=0.0007), and the last follow-up visit (p=0.0007) compared with baseline. One month after the initiation of baricitinib, the rates of improvement in fever, rash, sore throat, and myalgia symptoms were 71.4% (5/7), 40% (2/5), 80% (4/5), and 66.7% (2/3), respectively. Five patients remained symptom-free at the last follow-up visit. In most patients, their laboratory values had returned to normal by the last follow-up visit. A significant reduction in the levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) (p=0.0165) and ferritin (p=0.0047) was observed at the last visit compared with baseline. The daily prednisolone dosage significantly decreased from 35.7± 15.1mg/day at baseline to 8.8± 4.4mg/day by month 6 (p=0.0256), and it was 5.8± 4.7mg/day at the last assessment (p=0.0030). Leukopenia due to MAS was noted in one patient. Except for mild abnormalities in lipid parameters, no other severe adverse events occurred during follow-up. Our findings suggest that baricitinib therapy could provide rapid and durable clinical and laboratory improvement in patients with refractory AOSD. Treatment seemed to be well tolerated by these patients. The long-term efficacy and safety of baricitinib therapy for AOSD should be assessed further in prospective controlled clinical trials in the future. Trial registration number (TRN): ChiCTR2200061599. Date of registration: 29 June 2022 (retrospectively registered).

Efficacy and safety of baricitinib treatment for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis in real-world practice in Japan.

The authors evaluated the efficacy and safety of baricitinib, a Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor, for atopic dermatitis (AD) in real-world practice. From August 2021 to September 2022, 36 patients aged ≥15 years with moderate to severe AD were treated with oral baricitinib 4mg/day plus topical corticosteroids. Baricitinib improved clinical indexes; the percent reduction at weeks 4 and 12 was a median of 69.19% and 69.98% for the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), 84.52% and 76.33% for the Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool, and 76.39% and 64.58% for Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Score, respectively. The achievement rate of EASI 75 was 38.89% and 33.33% at weeks 4 and 12, respectively. The percent reduction of EASI in the head and neck, upper limbs, lower limbs, and trunk was 56.9%, 68.3%, 80.7%, and 62.5% at week 12, respectively, with a significant difference between the head and neck versus the lower limbs. Baricitinib decreased thymus and activation-regulated chemokine, lactate dehydrogenase, and total eosinophil count at week 4. Baseline EASI of the head and neck negatively correlated with percent reduction of EASI at week 4, while baseline EASI of the lower limbs positively correlated with percent reduction of EASI at week 12. Treatment-emergent adverse events included elevation of creatine phosphokinase (11.1%), herpes labialis (5.6%), furuncle (8.3%), and exacerbation of AD (1%), without serious treatment-emergent adverse events. In this real-world study, baricitinib was well tolerated for patients with AD and achieved therapeutic effects comparable to those in clinical trials. High baseline EASI of the lower limbs might predict good treatment response at week 12, while high baseline EASI of the head and neck might predict poor treatment response at week 4 in baricitinib treatment for AD.

Characteristics of patients initiating treatment with baricitinib and outcomes at follow-up: analysis of BSRBR-RA Registry data.

To describe selected baseline characteristics, continuation with baricitinib and disease activity over time in patients initiating treatment with baricitinib in a UK real-world rheumatology setting. Baseline and follow-up data were analysed from baricitinib-treated patients newly recruited to the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Registry-RA (BSRBR-RA) baricitinib cohort between 1 January 2018 and 31 March 2020. The primary objective was to evaluate continuation of baricitinib treatment in patients with at least one follow-up. Analyses were performed using the full baricitinib cohort, overall and by patient subgroup: biologic DMARD (bDMARD)/targeted synthetic (ts)DMARD-naive vs -experienced, baricitinib 4 vs 2 mg, age ≥65 vs <65 years, monotherapy vs combination therapy and male vs female. At baseline, the study cohort (n = 561) was 76.5% female, mean age 60.0 years, had longstanding (mean 13.1 years) and severe RA, and 54.0% had previously received a bDMARD/tsDMARD. Of 265 and 110 patients completing the 6- and 12-month follow-ups with available data, 77.7 and 69.1% remained on baricitinib at each time, respectively. In all Kaplan-Meier analyses, >60% of patients remained on baricitinib at 540 days. Continuation of baricitinib therapy differed between some subgroup pairs (bDMARD/tsDMARD naive/experienced, baricitinib 2 mg/4 mg). Disease activity was lower at both follow-ups than at baseline, overall and in all subgroups. In the early years of real-world baricitinib use in the UK, a high proportion of patients continued with treatment at both 6 and 12 months, at which times disease activity was lower than at baseline.

Effectiveness of Upadacitinib in Patients with Atopic Dermatitis including those with Inadequate Response to Dupilumab and/or Baricitinib: Results from the BioDay Registry

Clinical trials showed that upadacitinib, a selective Janus kinase-1 inhibitor, is effective for treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. However, daily practice studies are limited. This multicentre prospective study evaluated the effectiveness of 16 weeks of upadacitinib treatment for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis in adult patients, including those with previous inadequate response to dupilumab and/or baricitinib, in daily practice. A total of 47 patients from the Dutch BioDay registry treated with upadacitinib were included. Patients were evaluated at baseline, and after 4, 8 and 16 weeks of treatment. Effectiveness was assessed by clinician- and patient-reported outcome measurements. Safety was assessed by adverse events and laboratory assessments. Overall, the probabilities (95% confidence intervals) of achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index ≤ 7 and Numerical Rating Scale - pruritus ≤ 4 were 73.0% (53.7-86.3) and 69.4% (48.7-84.4), respectively. The effectiveness of upadacitinib was comparable in patients with inadequate response to dupilumab and/or baricitinib and in patients who were naïve for these treatments or who had stopped such treatments due to adverse events. Fourteen (29.8%) patients discontinued upadacitinib due to ineffectiveness, adverse events or both (8.5%, 14.9% and 6.4%, respectively). Most frequently reported adverse events were acneiform eruptions (n = 10, 21.3%), herpes simplex (n = 6, 12.8%), nausea and airway infections (both n = 4, 8.5%). In conclusion, upadacitinib is an effective treatment for patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, including those with previous inadequate response to dupilumab and/or baricitinib treatment.

Patient Disease Trajectories in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients Treated with Baricitinib 4-mg in FourPhase 3 Clinical Studies.

We sought to identify and compare treatment response groups based on individual patient responses (rather than group mean response) over time on the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), in patients treated with baricitinib 4-mg in 4phase 3studies. Trajectory subgroups were identified within each study using growth mixture modeling. Following grouping, baseline characteristics and disease measures were summarized and compared. In each study, three response trajectories were identified. In the three studies of patients naïve to biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) patients had, on average, high disease activity, as measured by CDAI. In these studies, a group of rapid responders (65-71% of patients) had the lowest baseline CDAI scores and achieved mean CDAI ≤ 10 by week 16. Gradual responders (10-17%) had higher baseline CDAI, but generally achieved low disease activity (CDAI ≤ 10) by week 24. A group of partial responders (18-22%) had higher baseline CDAI and did not achieve mean CDAI ≤ 10. In bDMARD-experienced patients, the subgroups were rapid responders, who achieved mean CDAI ≤ 10 (42% of patients); partial responders, with mean CDAI decrease of ~ 15 points from baseline (42% of patients); and limited responders (15% of patients). Changes in modified total sharp score (mTSS; assessed only in biologic-naïve patients) were below the smallest detectable difference at 24/52weeks for > 90% of patients in each group, excepting partial responders in RA-BEGIN (≥ 75% no detectable change). In patients receiving baricitinib 4-mg, lower baseline CDAI was generally associated with rapid response, while higher baseline CDAI scores were generally seen for patients who either reached treatment targets more gradually, or who had a partial or limited response. Maintenance of response was observed with continued baricitinib treatment in all response groups and generally included maintenance of mTSS.

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Status at the Time of Hospital Admission and the Prognosis of Patients with COVID-19: A Prospective Observational Study.

The association between COVID-19 severity and antibody response has not been clearly determined. We aimed to assess the effects of antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 S protein at the time of hospital admission on in-hospital and longitudinal survival. Methods: A prospective observational study in naive hospitalised COVID-19 patients. The presence of anti-S SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG was evaluated using a lateral flow assay at the time of admission. The patients were followed up for 8-30 months to assess survival. We recruited 554 patients (330 men and 224 women). Overall, 63.0% of the patients had positive IgG or IgM anti-S SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at the time of hospital admission. In the univariate analysis, the patients with negative anti-S SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG antibodies were referred to the hospital sooner, had lower CRP and D-dimer concentrations, and were hospitalised longer. They were also more likely to be admitted to an intensive care unit and more often received baricitinib treatment. During their hospital stay, 8.5% of the antibody-positive and 22.3% of the antibody-negative patients died (p = 0.0001). The median duration of the follow-up was 21 months. During the follow-up after hospital discharge, 3.6% of antibody-positive and 9.1% of antibody-negative patients died (p = 0.027). In the multivariate analysis, the negative anti-S SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were associated with a higher risk of in-hospital death (OR 3.800; 95% CI 1.844-7.829; p = 0.0001) and with a higher risk of death during follow-up (OR 2.863; 95% CI 1.110-7.386; p = 0.030). These associations were independent of age, the time from symptom onset to hospital admission, CRP, D-Dimer, the number of comorbidities, disease severity at the time of hospital admission, and baricitinib therapy. Our study concludes that negative anti-S SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG at the time of admission are associated with higher in-hospital mortality and cause a higher risk of all-cause death during follow-up after discharge.

Baricitinib vs tocilizumab treatment for hospitalized adult patients with severe COVID-19 and associated cytokine storm: a prospective, investigational, real-world study

ObjectivesOur aim was to compare outcomes of hospitalized adults with severe COVID-19 and cytokine storm treated with tocilizumab or baricitinib. MethodsA prospective, investigational, real-world study was performed from April 2020 to April 2021 at our center. COVID-19 severity was classified by World Health Organization criteria, and cytokine storm was documented along predefined criteria. Eligible patients were enrolled at diagnosis if they fulfilled a priori inclusion criteria and received standard-of-care plus tocilizumab or baricitinib for >48 hours. Patients were followed per protocol for 28 days post-diagnosis. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were invasive mechanical ventilation and major infectious complications. ResultsOf 463 patients, 102/463 (22.1%) received tocilizumab, and 361/463 (77.9%) baricitinib. Baseline characteristics were balanced. At 28 days, there was no difference in all-cause mortality (22/102, 21.6% vs 64/361, 17.7%; P-value = 0.38). Requirement for invasive mechanical ventilation was more frequent after tocilizumab (52/102, 50.9% vs 96/361, 26.6%; P <0.01), rate of major infectious complications was similar (32/102, 31.4% vs 96/361, 26.6%; P-value = 0.34). In logistic regression, the immunomodulatory drug was not retained as a predictor of all-cause mortality. Kaplan–Meier analysis revealed statistically similar survival distributions. ConclusionAll-cause mortality was similar between adults treated with baricitinib or tocilizumab for severe COVID-19 with cytokine storm.

Baricitinib is potentially effective in the treatment of refractory livedoid vasculopathy.

Livedoid vasculopathy is a rare, chronic, and recurrent disease with limited effective treatments. Its etiopathogenesis remains incompletely understood. Baricitinib, a selective Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor, has been used to treat rheumatoid arthritis and could reduce the disease severity in patients with livedoid vasculopathy. We retrospectively observed eight patients who received 2 mg/day of baricitinib for the treatment of refractory livedoid vasculopathy. We evaluated their clinical scores before and after treatment to determine its effectiveness and safety. Improvement in livedoid vasculopathy was observed with significant regression in the clinical scores after baricitinib treatment. The mean clinical scores were 7.0 ± 1.6 and 1.4 ± 1.2 before and after baricitinib treatment, respectively (P <0.01). Furthermore, six out of the eight patients achieved a clinical score of 0 or 2 after treatment. These scores indicated remission. Clinical findings, including erythema, ulceration, and pain, improved in all the patients. The remission times ranged from 3 to 13 weeks, with a mean remission time of 7.75 ± 3.45 weeks. There were no reports of adverse events in any patient. Our study showed that baricitinib treatment was safe and could significantly relieve the signs and symptoms of livedoid vasculopathy. However, randomized controlled studies should be conducted to confirm these results.

Phenotypic spectrum in recessive STING-associated vasculopathy with onset in infancy: Four novel cases and analysis of previously reported cases.

Gain-of-function variants in the stimulator of interferon response cGAMP interactor 1 (STING1) gene cause STING-Associated Vasculopathy with onset in Infancy (SAVI). Previously, only heterozygous and mostly de novo STING1 variants have been reported to cause SAVI. Interestingly, one variant that only leads to SAVI when homozygous, namely c.841C>T p.(Arg281Trp), has recently been described. However, there are no entries in public databases regarding an autosomal recessive pattern of inheritance. Here, we report four additional unrelated SAVI patients carrying c.841C>T in homozygous state. All patients had interstitial lung disease and displayed typical interferon activation patterns. Only one child displayed cutaneous vasculitis, while three other patients presented with a relatively mild SAVI phenotype. Steroid and baricitinib treatment had a mitigating effect on the disease phenotype in two cases, but failed to halt disease progression. Heterozygous c.841C>T carriers in our analysis were healthy and showed normal interferon activation. Literature review identified eight additional cases with autosomal recessive SAVI caused by c.841C>T homozygosity. In summary, we present four novel and eight historic cases of autosomal recessive SAVI. We provide comprehensive clinical data and show treatment regimens and clinical responses. To date, SAVI has been listed as an exclusively autosomal dominant inherited trait in relevant databases. With this report, we aim to raise awareness for autosomal recessive inheritance in this rare, severe disease which may aid in early diagnosis and development of optimized treatment strategies.

DISSEMINATED HERPES ZOSTER VIRUS INFECTION FOLLOWING BARICITINIB IN COVID-19

DISSEMINATED HERPES ZOSTER VIRUS INFECTION FOLLOWING BARICITINIB IN COVID-19