Filgotinib Research Articles

Therapeutic Maintenance of Janus Kinase Inhibitors in Real Life for Rheumatoid Arthritis: Retrospective Study.

Background/Objectives: Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKis) belong to a new class of targeted oral drugs that have been added to the therapeutic arsenal for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles of these four available molecules (tofacitinib, baricitinib, filgotinib, and upadacitinib) in real life. Methods: A retrospective, single-center observational study including all patients treated with JAKis for RA from 1 October 2017 to 1 December 2023. We assessed the maintenance rate at 24 months, which is an indirect reflection of the clinical and biological safety and efficacy profiles. Results: The 76 patients in our study were thus treated for the first time with anti-JAK, including 55 patients with baricitinib (BAR), 9 patients with tofacitinib (TOF), 4 patients with upadacitinib (UPA), and 8 patients with filgotinib (FIL). The majority of our patients had BAR introduced as the first intention. The therapeutic maintenance at 2 years for all our patients was 50%. The average maintenance duration was 8.6 months and was similar in all the groups. Of the 76 patients included in this study treated with Baricitinib (72.3%), 38 (50%) discontinued their treatment after two years of follow-up. Conclusions: Although this retrospective study is subject to various biases, it shows that the persistence rates of the four JAKi molecules in daily practice did not differ significantly, thus confirming the long-term efficacy of these drugs.

Influence of Safety Warnings on the Prescribing Attitude of JAK Inhibitors for Rheumatoid Arthritis in Italy.

Background/Objectives: The Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) tofacitinib (TOFA), baricitinib (BARI), upadacitinib (UPA), and filgotinib (FILGO) are effective drugs for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. However, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) raised concerns about the safety of TOFA after its approval. This prompted the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to issue two safety warnings for limiting TOFA use, then extended a third warning to all JAKi in patients at high risk of developing serious adverse effects (SAE). These include thrombosis, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and cancer. The purpose of this work was to analyze how the first two safety warnings from the EMA affected the prescribing of JAKi by rheumatologists in Italy. Methods: All patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had been prescribed JAKi for the first time in a 36-month period from 1 July 2019, to 30 June 2022 were considered. Data were obtained from the medical records of 29 Italian tertiary referral rheumatology centers. Patients were divided into three groups of 4 months each, depending on whether the JAKi prescription had occurred before the EMA's first safety alert (1 July-31 October 2019, Group 1), between the first and second alerts (1 November 2019-29 February 2020, Group 2), or between the second and third alerts (1 March 2021-30 June 2021, Group 3). The percentages and absolute changes in the patients prescribed the individual JAKi were analyzed. Differences among the three groups of patients regarding demographic and clinical characteristics were also assessed. Results: A total of 864 patients were prescribed a JAKi during the entire period considered. Of these, 343 were identified in Group 1, 233 in Group 2, and 288 in Group 3. An absolute reduction of 32% was observed in the number of patients prescribed a JAKi between Group 1 and Group 2 and 16% between Group 1 and Group 3. In contrast, there was a 19% increase in the prescription of a JAKi in patients between Group 2 and Group 3. In the first group, BARI was the most prescribed drug (227 prescriptions, 66.2% of the total), followed by TOFA (115, 33.5%) and UPA (1, 0.3%). In the second group, the most prescribed JAKi was BARI (147, 63.1%), followed by TOFA (65, 27.9%) and UPA (33, 11.5%). In the third group, BARI was still the most prescribed JAKi (104 prescriptions, 36.1%), followed by UPA (89, 30.9%), FILGO (89, 21.5%), and TOFA (33, 11.5%). The number of patients prescribed TOFA decreased significantly between Group 1 and Group 2 and between Group 2 and Group 3 (p ˂ 0.01). The number of patients who were prescribed BARI decreased significantly between Group 1 and Group 2 and between Group 2 and Group 3 (p ˂ 0.01). In contrast, the number of patients prescribed UPA increased between Group 2 and Group 3 (p ˂ 0.01). Conclusions: These data suggest that the warnings issued for TOFA were followed by a reduction in total JAKi prescriptions. However, the more selective JAKi (UPA and FILGO) were perceived by prescribers as favorable in terms of the risk/benefit ratio, and their use gradually increased at the expense of the other molecules.

P123 Safety and efficacy of filgotinib, an update from the DARWIN 3 phase 2 long-term extension with a maximum of 8.2 years of exposure

Abstract Background/Aims DARWIN 3 (NCT02065700) is a long-term extension (LTE) study assessing the safety and efficacy of filgotinib (FIL) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX). In the DARWIN 1 (NCT01888874) and DARWIN 2 (NCT01894516) parent studies, patients received FIL in combination with MTX or FIL monotherapy, respectively. To provide an update on the safety and efficacy of FIL 200 mg (FIL200) in patients with RA, with or without MTX, with a maximum of 8.2 years of exposure. Methods Patients completing the DARWIN 1 and DARWIN 2 phase 2 studies could enter DARWIN 3, receiving FIL200[PE1] +/-MTX. The proportion of patients experiencing treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported, comprising data from both the parent and LTE studies. Efficacy was assessed from LTE baseline using the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 criteria and DAS28-CRP, up to 264 weeks. Low disease activity and remission were defined as DAS28-CRP ≤3.2 and <2.6, respectively. Results In total, 739 patients were enrolled in DARWIN 3. In the FIL + MTX vs FIL monotherapy groups, TEAEs were reported for 90.9% and 92.1% of patients, respectively (Table). The most common TEAE was infection. In both treatment groups, eight patients had a TEAE leading to death (1.6% and 3.3%, respectively). Exposure-adjusted incidence rates, censored at time of first event for major adverse cardiovascular event, venous thromboembolism, herpes zoster, infections, serious infections, non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC), malignancies excluding NMSC, gastrointestinal perforations and TEAEs leading to death, will be reported. Through five years, ACR20/50/70 responses were maintained in 86.3%/66.7%/50.7% of the FIL + MTX group and 90.8%/74.8%/51.4% of the FIL monotherapy group, respectively (observed data). DAS28-CRP low disease activity and remission rates (non-responder imputation) at DARWIN 3 baseline were 46.1%/40.1% (FIL + MTX) and 29.6%/24.8% (FIL monotherapy). At Week 264, the proportion of patients achieving low disease activity and remission were 34.0%/34.3% (FIL + MTX) and 27.0%/24.8% (FIL monotherapy). Conclusion With a maximum of 8.2 years of exposure in patients with RA, the FIL safety profile is similar between the background MTX and monotherapy treatment arms. Both arms show sustained efficacy over time. Disclosure P. Emery: Consultancies; Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Galapagos, Gilead, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Samsung. Member of speakers’ bureau; y Speakers bureau: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Galapagos, Gilead, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Samsung. Grants/research support; Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Samsung. R. Westhovens: Consultancies; Celltrion, Galapagos, and Gilead,. Member of speakers’ bureau; Celltrion, Galapagos, and Gilead. R.H.E. Alten: Consultancies; AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celltrion, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, SanofiGenzyme, UCB, and VIATRIS. L. Dagna: Consultancies; AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, BMS, Celltrion, Eli Lilly & Company, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme,. Grants/research support; AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Kiniksa, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, and SOBI,. A. Kavanaugh: Consultancies; Amgen, AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, UCB, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer. K.L. Winthrop: Consultancies; AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly & Company, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB. Grants/research support; BMS and Pfizer. J. Barry: Corporate appointments; Galapagos. Shareholder/stock ownership; Galapagos. R. Besuyen: Corporate appointments; Galapagos. Shareholder/stock ownership; Galapagos. C. Corallo: Corporate appointments; Galapagos. Shareholder/stock ownership; Galapagos. C. Watson: Corporate appointments; Galapagos. Shareholder/stock ownership; Galapagos. N. Martin: Consultancies; Galapagos. M. Genovese: Corporate appointments; Gilead Sciences. Shareholder/stock ownership; Gilead Sciences. A.J. Spindler: None. M. Stanislavchuk: Grants/research support; Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Human Genome, Janssen, MSD, Nichi-Iko, Pfizer, and Roche. M. Greenwald: Grants/research support; AbbVie, Aclaris, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, and Nimbus.

P112 The Impact of Filgotinib on Disease Activity Outcomes With Concomitant Pain Control in the Phase 3 FINCH Studies

Abstract Background/Aims Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) often experience substantial pain despite treatment, and consider pain control an important treatment outcome. This post-hoc analysis of the FINCH studies assessed specific effects of filgotinib (FIL) on pain and its relationship with efficacy in patients with RA. Methods FINCH 1-3 (NCT02889796, NCT02873936, NCT02886728) were Phase 3, randomized, double-blind trials of FIL 100 mg and 200 mg (FIL100/200). For each treatment group, patients reported pain on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS). VAS pain ≤20 mm indicated health status was not negatively affected by pain; ≤10 mm reflected limited to no pain. Time to first VAS pain ≤10 mm was assessed. The duration of the study period during which VAS pain was ≤20 mm or ≤ 10 mm and the proportion of patients who achieved remission at Week 24 was evaluated. Of patients who achieved DAS28-CRP or CDAI remission, the proportion who also reported VAS pain ≤20 mm or ≤ 10 mm was determined. Results In FINCH 1, there was a higher probability of achieving VAS pain ≤10 mm with FIL200, vs ADA + MTX or PBO + MTX; responses were better or comparable with FIL100 vs other treatments. Similar findings were seen in FINCH 2 and 3. In FINCH 1, the time during which VAS pain score was ≤20 mm or ≤ 10 mm was greatest in the FIL200 group (Table). The duration of time under each pain threshold was greater in each FIL group vs PBO in FINCH 2 (Table) and in each FIL group vs MTX in FINCH 3. The proportion of patients who achieved VAS pain ≤20 mm and ≤10 mm in addition to DAS28-CRP remission was 35.8% and 26.3%, respectively, in the FIL200 + MTX group, vs 24.6% and 17.2% in the ADA + MTX group. Findings were similar when CDAI remission was assessed for FINCH 1 and 2. Conclusion Across the studies, duration of threshold pain responses achieved over the observation periods was greater with FIL vs comparators. These findings suggest that JAK1 inhibition may offer potential added value with respect to patient-reported pain as well as treat-to-target goals. Disclosure P.C. Taylor: Consultancies; AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Fersenius Kabi, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Nordic Pharma, Sanofi, UCB. Grants/research support; P.T. has received funding for research from Galapagos. A. Kavanaugh: Consultancies; AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB. P. Nash: Honoraria; AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer. Grants/research support; AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer. J. Pope: Consultancies; AbbVie. G. Pongratz: Consultancies; AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Galapagos, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche. Honoraria; AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi. B. Fautrel: Consultancies; AbbVie, BMS, Chugai, Fersenius Kabi, Galapagos, Eli Lilly, Medac, Nordic Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sobi, UCB. Grants/research support; AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Pfizer. R. Alten: Consultancies; AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celltrion, Gilead, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Medac, MSD, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, UCB, Viatris. Honoraria; AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celltrion, Gilead, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Medac, MSD, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, UCB, Viatris. K. Hasegawa: Shareholder/stock ownership; Gilead. Other; Employee of Gilead. S. Rao: Other; Employee of Gilead. D. De Vries: Shareholder/stock ownership; Galapagos. Other; Employee of Galapagos. P. Stiers: Shareholder/stock ownership; Galapagos. Other; Employee of Galapagos. C. Watson: Shareholder/stock ownership; Galapagos. Other; Employee of Galapagos. R. Westhovens: Consultancies; Celltrion, Galapagos, Gilead. Honoraria; Celltrion, Galapagos, Gilead.

P636 Comparison of the real-world efficacy of filgotinib with tofacitinib in patients with refractory ulcerative colitis: A single-center retrospective study

Abstract Background Several Janus kinase inhibitors have recently been launched for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). However, there are few reports comparing the efficacy and safety of each drug in patients with refractory UC, especially with filgotinib (FIL), which was recently launched and can be concomitantly used with thiopurines. We herein aimed to compare the real-world efficacy and safety of tofacitinib (TOF) and FIL in induction therapy for patients with refractory UC. Methods Patients with refractory UC, who received either TOF 20mg/day or FIL 200mg/day from May 2018 to October 2023 in Hyogo Medical University Hospital were included in this study. Primary outcomes were clinical response rates at 2, 4, and 8 weeks after administration of TOF or FIL. Clinical response was defined as a decrease of partial Mayo Score (pMS) of ≥2 from baseline and rectal bleeding subscore is ≤1 or a decrease of ≥1 from baseline. Secondary outcomes were cumulative incidences of adverse events during the observation period. Results Of the 230 refractory patients with UC, 197 received TOF and 33 received FIL treatment. The median age was 37 [IQR 27–49] and 49 [33–54] years, and the median disease duration was 3 [1–10] and 5 [2–10] years, respectively. Median durations of observation were 118 [52–188] weeks in the TOF group and 41 [29–60] weeks in the FIL group, median baseline pMS were 6 [5–7] and 5 [5–6], and serum CRP levels were 3.8 [1.3–12.3] and 1.8 [0.3–3.3] mg/L, respectively. Thirty-eight (19.3%) patients in the TOF group and 3 (9.0%) patients in the FIL group received systemic steroids, and 8 (24.2%) in the FIL group received thiopurine at baseline. The clinical response rates at 2, 4 and 8 weeks were 58.4%, 59.4% and 62.9% in the TOF group, and 42.4%, 57.6% and 48.9% in the FIL group, respectively, and the rate tended to be higher in the TOF group than in the FIL group at 2 weeks (p = 0.092). Of the patients who did not respond at 4 weeks, the TOF group had a significantly higher clinical response rate (31.3%) than the FIL group (0%) at 8 weeks (p = 0.032). Among 124 patients with prior anti-TNF-α antibody failure, 59.6% (65/109) of patients in the TOF group and 46.7% (7/15) in the FIL group achieved comparable clinical responses at 8 weeks (p = 0.407). Fifteen of 197 (7.6%) patients in the TOF group and 2 of 33 (6.1%) in the FIL group did not continue treatment until 8 weeks due to adverse events, but there were no significant differences between the groups. Conclusion Even in patients without a response for up to 4 weeks, TOF treatment may provide a higher clinical response than FIL treatment at 8 weeks.

N07 JAKne: JAK inhibitor associated acne, a real-life single-center experience

Abstract Background Three Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, tofacitinib (TFC), filgotinib (FIL) and upadacitinib (UPA), have been approved for treatment of Crohn’s disease (CD) and/or ulcerative colitis (UC). During the IBD registrational trials, acne was reported as adverse event (AE) in 5-7% of UPA treated patients, but not in the FIL and TFC programs. Hence, we assessed the prevalence of JAK inhibitor associated acne in a real-life cohort. Methods All patients initiating JAK inhibitors for active moderate-to-severe CD or UC at our center were included. Patients were prospectively monitored at prespecified timepoints, and specifically assessed for AEs including acne. Affected patients completed a visual analogue scale (VAS) to assess the impact of acne on their quality of life. All pictures of skin lesions were assessed by a dermatologist specialized in inflammatory skin diseases. Results In total, 46 patients initiated TFC, 40 FIL and 79 UPA. None of the TFC or FIL treated patients reported new onset of acne. Instead, 17 (21.5%) patients (9 CD, 8 UC; median [IQR] age 28.2 [25.2-45.0]; 47.1% female) spontaneously reported acne during UPA therapy. Most (89.5%) reported new onset of acne, while 2 (10.5%) mentioned a deterioration of existing acne during UPA induction. Previous acne during adolescence was reported by 46.2%. Lesions were present in the face (82.3%), back (23.5%), chest (23.5%) and scalp (11.8%). The acne phenotype included inflammatory papules in all patients, but also pustules (66.7%), nodules (33.3%), cysts (11.1%) and comedones (11.1%) were observed. A median VAS score of 5.5 [5.0-7.0] highlighted the impact on the patient’s quality of life, though no patient interrupted UPA due to acne. Six (35.2%) patients were referred to a dermatologist for acne. Most patients (82.4%) received topical skin therapy during UPA induction based on a standard operation procedure approved by the dermatologist and communicated via the IBD nurses. Three patients (17.6%) received antibiotics during UPA induction because of acne. During UPA maintenance, 5 patients (29.4%) reported resolution of skin problems with only 1 requiring continued skin therapy. Ten patients (58.7%) continued topical skin therapy during maintenance, with 4 of them requiring continued antibiotic treatment for at least 3 months. A single patient was deescalated from UPA 30mg to 15mg QD because of severe acne, with little improvement. Conclusion In this real-world experience, JAK inhibitor associated acne was uniquely linked to UPA, occurring in one fifth of patients. This is more prevalent than observed in the registrational trials. Awareness and patient education are therefore important, as well as early referral to the dermatologist for appropriate treatment.

Pharmacodynamic effects of filgotinib treatment driving clinical improvement in patients with active psoriatic arthritis enrolled in the EQUATOR trial

ObjectivesThe goal of this study was to identify protein and transcriptional biomarkers and pathways associated with baseline disease state, the effect of filgotinib (FIL) treatment on these biomarkers, and to...

ReLiFiRa (Real Life Filgotinib in Rheumatoid Arthritis): Retrospective Study of Efficacy and Safety in Common Clinical Practice.

Filgotinib (FIL) is a selective JAK1 inhibitor with an affinity 30-fold higher than JAK2, approved to treat moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis (RA), in adults with inadequate response or intolerance to one or more disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). We conducted a retrospective, multicentric study in order to evaluate efficacy and safety of FIL 200 mg daily therapy, after 3 and 6 months, in 120 patients affected by RA, managed in Tuscany and Umbria rheumatological centers. The following clinical records were analyzed: demographical data, smoking status, previous presence of comorbidities (Herpes zoster -HZ- infection, venous thromboembolism -VTE-, major adverse cardiovascular events -MACE-, cancer, diabetes, and hypertension), disease duration, presence of anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA), rheumatoid factor (RF), number of biological failures, and prior csDMARDs utilized. At baseline, and after 3 (T3) and 6 (T6) months of FIL therapy, we evaluated mean steroid dosage, csDMARDs intake, clinimetric indexes (DAS28, CDAI, HAQ, patient and doctor PGA, VAS), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), and body mass index (BMI). At baseline, the mean disease duration was 9.4 ± 7.5 years; the prevalence of previous HZ infection, VTE, MACE, and cancer was respectively 4.12%, 0%, 7.21%, and 0.83%, respectively. In total, 76.3% of patients failed one or more biologics (one biological failure, 20.6%; two biological failures, 27.8%; three biological failures, 16.5%; four biological failures, 10.3%; five biological failures, 1.1%). After 3 months of FIL therapy, all clinimetric index results significantly improved from baseline, as well as after 6 months. Also, ESR and CRP significatively decreased at T3 and T6. Two cases of HZ were recorded, while no new MACE, VTE, or cancer were recorded during the observation time. Despite the limitations of the retrospective study and of the observational period of only 6 months, real-life data on the treatment of RA patients with FIL demonstrate that this Jak inhibitor therapy is safe in terms of CV, VTE events, and occurrence of cancer, and is also effective in a population identified as "difficult to treat" due to failure of previous b-DMARD therapy.

Different Biomarkers of Response to Treatment with Selective Jak-1 Inhibitors in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic autoimmune disease that causes progressive joint damage. The Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors (JAK-I) represent a new therapeutic option for RA patients, blocking the intracellular JAK-STAT pathway. Today, no studies have been conducted to determine whether new biomarkers could better reflect disease activity in patients treated with JAK-I than traditional disease activity indicators. Thus, the aim of our study was to determine additional disease activity biomarkers in RA patients receiving selective JAK-1 inhibitors. we enrolled 57 patients with RA: 34 patients were treated with Upadacitinib (UPA) and 23 patients with Filgotinib (FIL). All patients were evaluated for clinimetry with DAS28 and Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI), number of tender and swollen joints, Visual Analogic Scale (VAS), Physician Global Assessment (PhGA), and Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), at baseline and at the 12th week of treatment. Lymphocyte subpopulations, complete blood count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-Reactive Protein (CRP), anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies (APCA), rheumatoid factor (RF) IgM, interleukin 6 (IL-6), circulating calprotectin (cCLP), tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα), soluble urokinase Plasminogen Activator Receptor (suPAR), complement functional activity were measured at baseline and after the 12th week of treatment. in both groups of patients, we documented a significant reduction in the clinimetric parameters DAS28, CDAI, number of tender joints, number of swollen joints, VAS, PhGA, and HAQ. Moreover, significant differences were reported for laboratory parameters of ESR, CRP, IL-6, suPAR, cCLP, and PLT/L ratio in both groups. However, no difference was demonstrated between the two groups for changes in renal, hepatic, and lipid parameters. the suPAR and cCLP levels may lead towards a different therapeutic choice between UPA and FIL, with the expression of two different RA pathophenotypes directing FIL towards a lymphocyte-poor form and UPA towards a myeloid form of RA.

P119 The Use of Exposure-Adjusted Event Rates versus Exposure-Adjusted Incidence Rates in Adverse Event Reporting: Insights from Filgotinib Integrated Safety Data in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Abstract Background/Aims Reporting of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) clinical trials can be summarized as exposure-adjusted incidence rates (EAIRs) or exposure-adjusted event rates (EAERs). Censored EAIR (EAIR), weighing exposure up to a patient’s first event, is commonly reported; uncensored EAIR (EAIRu), using total exposure time for all patients, can also be used. For EAIR, exposure time can vary by event. In contrast to EAIR(u), the total number of events are used to calculate EAER. The three methods account for different exposures and/or multiple events, which can impact the outcome evaluation. Studies of filgotinib (FIL) in RA report safety data as EAIR/100 patient-years of exposure (PYE) for TEAEs, which is uncensored. Objective: To describe the outcome of long-term FIL integrated safety data in RA by applying different statistical methodologies: EAER, EAIRu and EAIR. Methods Integrated FIL safety data from seven clinical trials were assessed. Predefined adverse events of special interest (AESI) included serious infections (any), herpes zoster (HZ), major adverse cardiac events (MACE), malignancies (excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer [NMSC]), NMSC and venous thromboembolism (VTE). The number of patients with an event, number of events, EAER, EAIRu and EAIR were summarized. The data extraction date was January 2021 for the DARWIN 3 (NCT02065700) long-term extension (LTE) and November 2020 for the FINCH 4 (NCT03025308) LTE. Results In total, 3691 patients received ≥1 FIL dose for 8085 PYE. In this population, 176 serious infections were reported in 137 patients, 125 HZ events were reported in 112 patients, 39 MACE were reported in 33 patients, 20 cases of VTE were reported in 15 patients, 60 malignancies excluding NMSC were reported in 49 patients and 21 cases of NMSC were reported in 20 patients. Within each treatment arm (FIL 200 mg [FIL200], FIL 100 mg [FIL100] or combined FIL), rates for most AESI were similar when reported as EAER, EAIRu or EAIR. For serious infections, EAER was higher than EAIRu or EAIR. The total exposure time to first event (censored PYE) was high and comparable to total exposure (PYE) (>2700 years and >5100 years for the total populations in the FIL100 and FIL200 groups, respectively). Conclusion These data confirm that using different methods to analyze FIL safety data (EAER, EAIRu, EAIR) does not result in different safety outcomes, reinforcing the previously reported FIL safety profile in patients with RA. As the AESI reported in the long-term safety database with FIL are rare, patients commonly have long exposure times before experiencing an event, which are often associated with end of treatment. As such, EAIRu, EAIR and EAER are similar. Disclosure P. Durez: Member of speakers’ bureau; AbbVie, Galapagos, Lilly. E. Feist: Consultancies; AbbVie, Galapagos, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sobi. Member of speakers’ bureau; AbbVie, Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis and Sobi. Grants/research support; Lilly, Pfizer and Roche. R. Blanco: Consultancies; AstraZeneca, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis and Pfizer. Member of speakers’ bureau; AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi. Grants/research support; AbbVie, Roche. V. Rajendran: Other; Galapagos. N. Verbruggen: Other; Galapagos. K. Van Beneden: Shareholder/stock ownership; Galapagos. Other; Galapagos. J. Galloway: Consultancies; AbbVie, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis and Pfizer. Member of speakers’ bureau; AbbVie, Biogen, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB. Grants/research support; AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Medicago, Novavax and Pfizer.

P111 Exploratory Analysis of Filgotinib Safety Data in Patients With Moderately to Severely Active Rheumatoid arthritis and an Increased Risk of Cardiovascular Events: Data From Phase 2 and 3 Clinical Trials

Abstract Background/Aims The safety profile of filgotinib (FIL), a second-generation oral Janus kinase (JAK) 1 preferential inhibitor approved in Europe, Japan, and the UK for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been reported. In patients (pts) with active RA aged ≥50y with ≥1 cardiovascular (CV) risk factor, treated with the pan-JAK inhibitor tofacitinib, data from an interventional post-marketing study (NCT02092467) suggested a higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and malignancies compared with TNF inhibitors. No data are available from a similar prospective study with FIL. This post hoc exploratory analysis aimed to describe the incidence of MACE and malignancies in a subgroup of pts with RA from the FINCH and DARWIN clinical trials, receiving FIL 200 mg (FIL200) and FIL 100 mg (FIL100). Methods Exploratory analysis of adverse events of special interest are reported using integrated FIL RA data from phase 2 (NCT01668641, NCT01894516), phase 3 (NCT02889796, NCT02873936, NCT02886728), and the long-term extension (LTE) studies DARWIN 3 (NCT02065700) and FINCH 4 (NCT03025308), in a pt population at higher risk of CV events similar to ORAL-SURVEILLANCE,1 namely, aged ≥50y with ≥1 CV risk factor (history of dyslipidemia, diabetes or CV disease; hypertension, ischemic vascular conditions, peripheral vascular disease, extra-articular manifestations of RA; or current smokers). All pts met ACR criteria for functional class I-III. Censored exposure-adjusted incidence rates (EAIRs)/100 pt-years of exposure for MACE, venous thromboembolism (VTE), malignancies excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC), NMSC, (serious) infections, and deaths were determined. Data were as of Jan 11, 2022 (DARWIN 3) and Jan 31, 2022 (FINCH 4). Analyses were performed on an ad hoc interim analysis data set without additional cleaning. Results The higher-risk population included 1484 pts: mean age 62.1y (536 [36.1%] aged ≥65y), 291 (22.5%) current smokers, and 904 (60.9%) received background MTX; baseline (BL) MTX use was higher in the FIL100 vs FIL200 group (66.6% vs 54.6%); other BL demographics were balanced. Numerically higher EAIRs for malignancies (excluding NMSC), NMSC, serious infections, and deaths were observed for pts receiving FIL200 vs FIL100; 95% confidence intervals overlapped. For MACE and VTE, incidence is considered similar for both doses. The risk of experiencing MACE, malignancies excluding NMSC, and NMSC over time with FIL100 or FIL200 will be described. Conclusion In this RA population at higher risk of CV events, the incidence of MACE and VTE was similar for both doses. A numerically higher incidence of malignancies (excluding NMSC), NMSC, serious infections, and deaths was observed in the high- vs low-dose group. Limitations included population selection bias, low event numbers, and the post hoc nature of the analysis. The ongoing LTE and real-world studies in RA will continue to investigate the safety of FIL in these populations. Disclosure M.H. Buch: Honoraria; MHB has recieved funding (Paid to her host institution) fromAbbVie, Galapagos, Gilead, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Merck-Serono, Roche, UCB. G.R. Burmester: Honoraria; AbbVie, Galapagos, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Janssen, Gilead Sciences, Inc. X. Mariette: Honoraria; AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Galapagos, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer. C. Charles-Schoeman: Honoraria; AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Pfizer, Regeneron-Sanofi, Gilead. V. Rajendran: Other; Employee of Galapagos NV. P. Stiers: Other; Employee of Galapagos NV. A. Cerani: Other; Employee of Galapagos NV. P. Van Hoek: Other; Employee of Galapagos NV. K. Van Beneden: Other; Employee of Galapagos NV. Y. Tanaka: Honoraria; Lilly, AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, Mitsubishi Tanabe, GlaxoSmithKline, Asahi Kasei, Takeda, Astellas, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi, UCB, YL Biologics, MSD, Ono, T. H. Schulze-Koops: Honoraria; AbbVie, Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer. R. Westhovens: Honoraria; Celltrion, Galapagos, Gilead. E. Favalli: Honoraria; AbbVie, BMS, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB.

Assessment of In Silico and In Vitro Selpercatinib Metabolic Stability in Human Liver Microsomes Using a Validated LC-MS/MS Method.

Selpercatinib (SLP; brand name Retevmo®) is a selective and potent RE arranged during transfection (RET) inhibitor. On 21 September 2022, the FDA granted regular approval to SLP (Retevmo, Eli Lilly, and Company). It is considered the only and first RET inhibitor for adults with metastatic or locally advanced solid tumors with RET gene fusion. In the current experiment, a highly specific, sensitive, and fast liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method for quantifying SLP in human liver microsomes (HLMs) was developed and applied to the metabolic stability evaluation of SLP. The LC-MS/MS method was validated following the bioanalytical methodology validation guidelines outlined by the FDA (linearity, selectivity, matrix effect, accuracy, precision, carryover, and extraction recovery). SLP was detected by a triple quadrupole detector (TQD) using a positive ESI source and multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) mode for mass spectrometric analysis and estimation of analytes ions. The IS-normalized matrix effect and extraction recovery were acceptable according to the FDA guidelines for the bioanalysis of SLP. The SLP calibration standards were linear from 1 to 3000 ng/mL HLMs matrix, with a regression equation (y = 1.7298x + 3.62941) and coefficient of variation (r2 = 0.9949). The intra-batch and inter-batch precision and accuracy of the developed LC-MS/MS method were -6.56-5.22% and 5.08-3.15%, respectively. SLP and filgotinib (FLG) (internal standard; IS) were chromatographically separated using a Luna 3 µm PFP (2) stationary phase (150 × 4.6 mm) with an isocratic mobile phase at 23 ± 1 °C. The limit of quantification (LOQ) was 0.78 ng/mL, revealing the LC-MS/MS method sensitivity. The intrinsic clearance and in vitro t1/2 (metabolic stability) of SLP in the HLMs matrix were 34 mL/min/kg and 23.82 min, respectively, which proposed an intermediate metabolic clearance rate of SLP, confirming the great value of this type of kinetic experiment for more accurate metabolic stability predictions. The literature review approved that the established LC-MS/MS method is the first developed and reported method for quantifying SLP metabolic stability.

Development of an LC-MS/MS Method for Quantification of Sapitinib in Human Liver Microsomes: In Silico and In Vitro Metabolic Stability Evaluation.

Sapitinib (AZD8931, SPT) is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) family (pan-erbB). In multiple tumor cell lines, STP has been shown to be a much more potent inhibitor of EGF-driven cellular proliferation than gefitinib. In the current study, a highly sensitive, rapid, and specific LC-MS/MS analytical method for the estimation of SPT in human liver microsomes (HLMs) was established with application to metabolic stability assessment. The LC-MS/MS analytical method was validated in terms of linearity, selectivity, precision, accuracy, matrix effect, extraction recovery, carryover, and stability following the FDA guidelines for bioanalytical method validation. SPT was detected using electrospray ionization (ESI) as an ionization source under multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) in the positive ion mode. The IS-normalized matrix factor and extraction recovery were acceptable for the bioanalysis of SPT. The SPT calibration curve was linear, from 1 ng/mL to 3000 ng/mL HLM matrix samples, with a linear regression equation of y = 1.7298x + 3.62941 (r2 = 0.9949). The intraday and interday accuracy and precision values of the LC-MS/MS method were -1.45-7.25% and 0.29-6.31%, respectively. SPT and filgotinib (FGT) (internal standard; IS) were separated through the use of an isocratic mobile phase system with a Luna 3 µm PFP(2) column (150 × 4.6 mm) stationary phase column. The limit of quantification (LOQ) was 0.88 ng/mL, confirming the LC-MS/MS method sensitivity. The intrinsic clearance and in vitro half-life of STP were 38.48 mL/min/kg and 21.07 min, respectively. STP exhibited a moderate extraction ratio that revealed good bioavailability. The literature review demonstrated that the current analytical method is the first developed LC-MS/MS method for the quantification of SPT in an HLM matrix with application to SPT metabolic stability evaluation.

P393 Effect of filgotinib on anaemia in patients with Ulcerative Colitis in SELECTION

Abstract Background Patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) often have anaemia owing to inflammation and/or blood loss.1 Filgotinib (FIL) is a once-daily, oral, Janus kinase (JAK) 1 preferential inhibitor approved for the treatment of UC, which may be associated with fewer haematological events than pan-JAK inhibitors. In the phase 2b/3 SELECTION trial (NCT02914522),2 FIL 200 mg (FIL200) was well tolerated and effective vs placebo (PBO) in patients with UC. This post hoc analysis of SELECTION data compared haematological events across the FIL and PBO treatment arms. Methods In SELECTION, adults with moderately to severely active UC were randomized 2:2:1 to receive FIL200, or FIL 100 mg, or PBO once daily for 11 weeks during induction. FIL responders (clinical remission or a Mayo Clinic Score response at week 10 [W10]) were rerandomized to continue their induction FIL dose or PBO in the 47-week Maintenance (MNT) Study. PBO responders continued PBO during MNT. This analysis evaluated the proportions of patients with haematological events (anaemia, leukopenia, lymphopenia, neutropenia and thrombocytopenia) at baseline (BL), W10 and W58. Haematological events were defined based on the relevant laboratory parameters being below the lower limit of normal. For anaemia at W10 and W58, patients were further stratified by rectal bleeding (RB) status (no: RB subscore=0; yes: RB subscore ≥1) at W10 and W58, respectively. Results At BL, ~50% of patients had anaemia in all treatment arms. Among these patients, the proportion without anaemia at W10 was similar across the FIL and PBO arms (25.0–30.7%; Table 1). Among patients without BL anaemia, the proportion with anaemia at W10 was also similar across all arms (12.1–17.3%). Among patients without RB at W10, the proportion of patients with a change in anaemia status from BL to W10 was also similar across arms. At W58, the proportion of patients with anaemia was similar across all arms, although ~40% of patients overall had missing data (Table 2). At BL, <5% of patients had leukopenia across all treatment arms (Tables 3 and 4). Lymphopenia, neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were also uncommon at BL (<10%, <4%, and <1% of patients, respectively). Among patients without these four haematological events at BL, <5%, <6%, 4% and ~1%, respectively, had them at W10. Conclusion Treatment with JAK1-preferential FIL up to W58, was not associated with anaemia, thought to occur via JAK2 inhibition, in patients overall and in those without RB at W10, compared with PBO. The small numbers of patients with haematological events excluding anaemia at BL limit rigorous inter-arm comparison. 1. Malesza IJ et al. Nutrients 2022;14:3478. 2. Feagan BG et al. Lancet 2021;397:2372–84.

P520 Thromboembolic and major adverse cardiovascular events among patients in the filgotinib clinical trial programme

Abstract Background The once-daily, oral, Janus kinase 1 preferential inhibitor filgotinib (FIL) is approved for the treatment of moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and ulcerative colitis (UC) in the UK, the EU and Japan.1 To further understand the safety profile of FIL across indications, we evaluated the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) in patients treated with FIL 200 mg (FIL200) or FIL 100 mg (FIL100). Methods An integrated analysis was conducted with RA data from five phase 2/3 trials and two long-term extension (LTE) trials of FIL, and UC data from two phase 2/3 trials and one LTE trial of FIL (herein termed ‘overall’ data). Subgroup analyses by age and cardiovascular (CV) risk factors (excluding age) were conducted. Real-world data were extracted from a systematic literature review. Exposure-adjusted incidence rates (EAIRs) or incidence rates per 100 patient-years of exposure and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated for MACEs and VTEs. For clinical trial data, MACEs and VTEs included positively adjudicated events only. Results In pooled data, baseline characteristics were generally similar across treatment arms for RA and UC (Tables 1 and 2). In the RA data, MACE EAIRs were 0.29 and 0.41 for the overall FIL200 and FIL100 arms, respectively (Figure 1). MACE IRs were 0.45–0.77 for the general RA population. Higher MACE EAIRs were reported in the subgroup of patients with RA aged ≥65 years vs <65 years. In the RA subgroup with CV risk, MACE EAIRs were 0.53 for FIL200 and 0.64 for FIL100. VTE rates were 0.19 for both FIL200 and FIL100 overall in patients with RA, and 0.32–0.44 for the general RA population. Numerically higher VTE EAIRs with overlapping CIs were seen in patients with RA aged ≥65 years vs <65 years, and in those with vs without CV risk. In the UC data, MACE rates were 0.29, 0.35 and 0.87 in the overall FIL200 and FIL100 arms and in the general UC population, respectively (Figure 2). VTE rates were 0.08, 0.18 and 0.39 in the overall FIL200 and FIL100 arms and in the general UC population, respectively. For both MACE and VTE EAIRs, wide CIs were reported in patients with UC aged ≥65 years and in those with CV risk, owing to low numbers of events and/or patients in these subgroups. Conclusion No association was identified between FIL200 treatment and an increased risk of MACEs or VTEs compared with the general RA or UC population. Patients aged ≥65 years or with CV risk had slightly higher rates of MACEs and VTEs than those in other subgroups; however, overlapping CIs suggested no real difference. Further work should examine real-world data from FIL-treated patients and longer follow-up. 1. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/jyseleca

P736 Factors associated with partial Mayo Clinic Score over time in patients with Ulcerative Colitis treated with filgotinib in the phase 2b/3 SELECTION trial

Abstract Background Responses to ulcerative colitis (UC) treatments vary considerably between individuals, and factors associated with a stable response are not well defined. Filgotinib (FIL) is an oral, Janus kinase 1 preferential inhibitor approved in the EU and the UK as a UC therapy. We aimed to identify factors associated with partial Mayo Clinic Score (pMCS) over time in FIL-treated patients with UC in the phase 2b/3 SELECTION trial (NCT02914522). Methods In SELECTION, adults with moderately to severely active UC received FIL 200 mg (FIL200), FIL 100 mg (FIL100) or placebo once daily for 11 weeks in Induction (IND) Study A (biologic-naive) or B (biologic-experienced).1 Patients in clinical remission or with a Mayo Clinic Score (MCS) response at week 10 could enter the 47-week Maintenance (MNT) Study. To evaluate factors associated with pMCS during MNT this post hoc analysis used a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM), which included fixed effects of time, IND dose (FIL200 or FIL100), the factor of interest and pMCS at IND baseline, and correlated patient residual errors. For categorical factors, the least-squares mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) and the overall type III p value were calculated. For continuous factors, the difference in pMCS for a one-unit change in the factor of interest was estimated with 95% CI. Multiplicity adjustment of p values was not performed. Results Data from 371 patients treated with FIL200 (n=199) or FIL100 (n=172) were included. Previous use of at least one biologic therapy or a tumour necrosis factor antagonist/vedolizumab, and week 10 MCS subscores of ≤1 were associated with higher pMCS over time than their respective reference categories (p<0.0001; Table 1). Over time, pMCS was 0.45 units higher in patients assigned to IND Study A versus IND Study B (p=0.0002). Week 10 endoscopic score ≤1, Geboes histologic remission and Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire total score >170 were associated with lower pMCS over time than their respective reference categories (p≤0.0001). Change from baseline in pMCS at week 10 and faecal calprotectin levels at week 10 were positively associated with pMCS over time (p<0.0001; Table 2). Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures at week 10 were negatively associated with pMCS over time (p≤0.0001). Conclusion History of previous biologic therapy, and week 10 assessments (endoscopic, clinical, biomarker and PRO) were among the factors influencing pMCS over the course of 1 year of FIL treatment, consistent with previous findings from trajectory modeling.2 Further MMRM analyses may help to identify patients who benefit most from FIL treatment. 1. Feagan BG et al. Lancet 2021;397:2372–84. 2. Schreiber S et al. MP443 [abstract]. UEGJ 2022;10:459.

Janus kinase inhibitors alter NK cell phenotypes and inhibit their antitumour capacity.

Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) are efficacious in RA but concerns regarding the risk of cancer associated with their exposure have recently emerged. Given the role of NK cells in antitumour response, we investigated the impact of JAKi [tofacitinib (TOFA), baricitinib (BARI), upadacitinib (UPA) and filgotinib (FIL)] on NK cells. We first performed an ex vivo phenotype of NK cells in RA patients treated with TOFA, BARI or MTX. We next phenotyped sorted NK cells from healthy donors cultured with four JAKi or dimethyl sulphoxide (DMSO) at three concentrations, including the licensed dose (therapeutic concentration). Third, we assessed NK cell function using anti-NKp30 cross-linking and co-cultures with two different tumour cell lines: A549 and SU-DHL-4. Twenty-eight RA patients were included. Patients treated with TOFA had reduced expression of CD69 on NK cells compared with MTX (P < 0.05). We confirmed in vitro the negative impact of JAKi on NK cell maturation (CD57), activation (CD69) and activating receptor (NKp30), these latter two being specifically altered with TOFA and UPA. When NK cells were stimulated by NKp30, we observed reduced CD107a (P < 0.01) and IFN-γ/TNF expression (P < 0.05) with TOFA. Lastly, NK cells exposed to TOFA showed reduced CD107a (P < 0.05) and altered cytotoxicity (P < 0.05) when co-cultured with the two cell lines. JAKi have a phenotypic and functional impact on NK cell activation and impair their antitumour activity, with a variable impact depending on the JAKi. It remains an open question whether this mechanism can explain the increased tumour risk observed with TOFA.

Efficacy and Safety of Filgotinib in Patients with High Risk of Poor Prognosis Who Showed Inadequate Response to MTX: A Post Hoc Analysis of the FINCH 1 Study.

This exploratory analysis of FINCH 1 (NCT02889796) examined filgotinib (FIL) efficacy and safety in a subgroup of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX; MTX-IR) who had four poor prognostic factors (PPFs). Patients with MTX-IR received placebo up to week (W)24 or FIL200mg, FIL100mg, or adalimumab up to W52; all received MTX. Efficacy and safety data were stratified by four PPFs versus fewer than four PPFs: seropositivity, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP) ≥ 6mg/L, Disease Activity Score in 28 joints with CRP > 5.1, and erosions on X-rays. At baseline, 687/1755 patients had four PPFs. At W12, whether with four PPFs or fewer than four PPFs, response rates on all American College of Rheumatology (ACR) measures were significantly greater with FIL200 and FIL100 versus placebo. At W52, FIL200 ACR20/50/70 response rates remained at least numerically higher versus adalimumab in both subgroups. At W52, FIL200 reduced modified total Sharp score (mTSS) change versus adalimumab in patients with four or fewer than four PPFs. In high-risk (four PPFs) patients with MTX-IR RA, FIL200 and FIL100 showed similar reductions in disease activity versus placebo at W12 as in patients with fewer than four PPFs. mTSS in patients receiving FIL200 changed little from W24 to W52, while that in patients receiving FIL100 progressed comparably to patients who received adalimumab. Tolerability was comparable across treatment arms and subgroups.

P199 Clinical outcomes up to week 48 of ongoing filgotinib rheumatoid arthritis long-term extension trial of biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs inadequate responders initially on filgotinib or placebo in a Phase 3 trial

Abstract Background/Aims The preferential Janus kinase-1 inhibitor filgotinib (FIL) is approved to treat RA in Europe. We assessed FIL efficacy/safety in patients (pts) with inadequate response (IR) to biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) in a long-term extension trial (LTE; NCT03025308) enrolled from a Phase 3 parent study (PS; NCT02873936). Methods bDMARD-IR pts received FIL 200mg (FIL200), 100mg (FIL100), or placebo (PBO) and stable conventional synthetic (cs)DMARDs up to 24 weeks (W). At W14 of the PS, pts with IR to FIL or PBO (&amp;lt;20% improvement in swollen and tender joint counts) switched to standard of care (SOC). Pts completing PS on FIL, PBO, or SOC could enter LTE. PS FIL pts were maintained, blinded, on their FIL dose; PS PBO and SOC pts were rerandomized, blinded, to FIL200 or FIL100. We report efficacy up to LTE W48 for ACR20/50/70 improvement, DAS28[CRP] ≤3.2 and &amp;lt;2.6, and CDAI ≤10 and ≤2.8. Exposure-adjusted incidence rates (EAIR)/100 pt-years of exposure of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and AEs of special interest (AESIs) are summarized up to data cutoff of June 1, 2020. Results The PS included 147, 153, and 148 pts on FIL200, FIL100, and PBO. Of the FIL200 pts who entered LTE, 80/121 continued study drug at June 1, 2020, as did 76/110 FIL100 pts. Pts still on LTE FIL from PBO were 35/47 FIL200 and 32/46 FIL100 pts; from SOC: 13/23 FIL200 and 13/22 FIL100 pts. LTE baseline (BL) characteristics were similar in FIL200 and FIL100 pts (mean RA duration: 13.2 and 12.8 years, DAS28[CRP]: 3.5 and 3.7). During LTE, PS FIL ACR20/50/70 response rates decreased modestly by W48. Among PS PBO pts, response rates were lower at LTE BL but reached similar levels as PS FIL pts by W48; rates increased up to W48 in SOC/FIL pts (either dose) but not to levels of other groups. Percentages of pts attaining DAS28(CRP) ≤3.2, DAS28(CRP) &amp;lt;2.6, CDAI ≤10, and CDAI ≤2.8 were maintained up to W48 for FIL/FIL pts, while PBO/FIL and SOC/FIL pts showed similar patterns as for ACR responses. TEAE, serious AE, and serious infection EAIRs were higher in SOC/FIL pts vs FIL/FIL or PBO/FIL pts but samples were small, and confidence intervals overlapped. Five pts died: FIL200/FIL200, n = 3; PBO/FIL200, n = 1; FIL100/FIL100, n = 1. There were no opportunistic infections. EAIRs of MACE were low DVT/PE occurred in two FIL200/FIL200, one FIL100/FIL100, and one SOC/FIL200 pts. Conclusion Efficacy was mostly maintained in PS FIL pts up to W48. Response among PS PBO and SOC pts increased from BL to W48, but response in PS SOC pts continued to be lower than in other groups; these pts may represent a refractory population. FIL safety was largely consistent between PS and LTE. Disclosure M. Buch: Honoraria; reports research support, consulting, speaker or personal fees from AbbVie; Eli Lilly and Co.; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Merck-Serono; Pfizer; Roche; Sanofi; and UCB. Grants/research support; received funding (paid to her host institution) for research from Gilead Gilead Sciences, Inc. T. Takeuchi: Consultancies; serving as a consultant for Astellas, Chugai, and Eli Lilly Japan. Member of speakers’ bureau; Speaker’s bureau AbbVie, AYUMI, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly Japan, Gilead Sciences, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Pfizer Japan, Sanofi, and Dainippon Sumitomo. Grants/research support; reports receiving grant/research support from AbbVie, Asahi Kasei, Astellas, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Shionogi, Takeda, and UCB Japan. V. Rajendran: Shareholder/stock ownership; employee of and shareholder in Galapagos NV. J. Gottenberg: Consultancies; serving as a consultant for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi Genzyme, and UCB. Member of speakers’ bureau; serving on a speaker’s bureau for Gilead Sciences, Inc., Galapagos, AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Co., Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and UCB. Grants/research support; reports receiving grant/research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. A. Pechonkina: Other; employee of Gilead Sciences, Inc. and may own stock in Gilead Sciences, Inc. Y. Tan: Other; employee of Gilead Sciences, Inc. and may own stock in Gilead Sciences, Inc. Q. Gong: Other; employee of Gilead Sciences, Inc. and may own stock in Gilead Sciences, Inc. K. Van Beneden: Other; employee of and shareholder in Galapagos NV. R. Caporali: Honoraria; reports receiving speaker’s fees and consultation grants from AbbVie, BMS, Celltrion, Fresenius-Kabi, Gilead-Galapagos, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung-Bioepis, Sanofi and UCB.

OA29 Clinical outcomes up to week 48 of filgotinib treatment in an ongoing long-term extension trial of RA patients with inadequate response to methotrexate initially treated with filgotinib or adalimumab during the Phase 3 Parent Trial

Abstract Background/Aims The preferential Janus kinase (JAK)-1 inhibitor filgotinib (FIL) is approved for treatment of moderately to severely active RA in Europe and Japan. We assessed efficacy and safety of FIL in patients (pts) with inadequate response to MTX (MTX-IR) who completed a Phase 3 trial (NCT02889796) and went on to enroll in a long-term extension (LTE; NCT03025308). Methods Pts who completed the parent study (PS) on study drug were eligible to enter the LTE. LTE data cutoff was June 1, 2020, and safety data are reported to that date, with median exposure 2.2 years. Efficacy data to W48 are reported for 4 treatment groups (all with background MTX): pts who received FIL 200mg (FIL200) or FIL 100mg (FIL100) in the PS and continued their dose in LTE (FIL200/FIL200, FIL100/FIL100) and ADA pts who were re-randomized, double blind, to FIL200 or FIL100 for LTE (ADA/FIL200, ADA/FIL100). ACR20/50/70 response rates, DAS28[CRP] ≤3.2 and &amp;lt;2.6, and CDAI ≤10 and ≤2.8 are reported. Exposure-adjusted incidence rates (EAIR)/100 pt-years of exposure of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and AEs of special interest (AESIs) are summarized. Results As of June 1, 2020, 522/571 (91%) FIL200/FIL200, 502/570 (88%) FIL100/FIL100, 118/128 (92%) ADA/FIL200, and 115/130 (89%) ADA/FIL100 pts were still on study drug. LTE baseline (BL) disease characteristics were similar between groups: mean duration of RA was approximately 8.7 years; DAS28(CRP) was 2.55 and mean MTX dosage was 15.0 mg/week. Proportions of pts achieving ACR20/50/70, DAS28(CRP) ≤3.2, &amp;lt;2.6, and CDAI ≤10, ≤2.8 were maintained in all 4 LTE groups through W48. Numerically greater proportions of pts met response criteria at W48 in the FIL200 groups vs FIL100, regardless of PS treatment. TEAEs, serious AEs, and AEs Grade ≥3 were largely comparable between groups and lowest in ADA/FIL100 pts. There were 3 deaths in each PS FIL group and 2 in each PS ADA group; EAIRs for deaths were lower for FIL/FIL groups compared with ADA/FIL groups. Opportunistic infections occurred only in FIL/FIL pts (2 in each group). Nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC; n = 5) occurred only in FIL/FIL groups, and malignancies excluding NMSC occurred in all groups except ADA/FIL100. Conclusion During the LTE through W48, response rates were maintained for FIL/FIL and ADA/FIL pts. Though there were differences between LTE groups, safety was largely comparable and consistent with that observed in the PS and in previously reported results of safety data from 7 trials: rates of AESIs were low, and all confidence intervals were overlapping. Limitation: the LTE was not formally randomized for comparison between FIL/FIL and ADA/FIL treatment groups, the groups were of unequal size, and the switch from ADA to FIL for LTE was by design, rather than based on disease activity. Disclosure B. Combe: Consultancies; AbbVie; Eli Lilly &amp; Co.; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Janssen; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; and Sanofi. Member of speakers’ bureau; for BMS; Eli Lilly &amp; Co.; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; MSD; Pfizer; Roche- Chugai; and UCB. Grants/research support; Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche-Chugai. Y. Tanaka: Consultancies; Eli Lilly, Daiichi- Sankyo, Taisho, Ayumi, Sanofi, GSK, Abbvie. Member of speakers’ bureau; Daiichi- Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Novartis, YL Biologics, Bristol-Myers, Eisai, Chugai, Abbvie, Astellas, Pfizer, Sanofi, Asahi-kasei, GSK, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Gilead, Janssen. Grants/research support; Abbvie, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Asahi-Kasei, Eisai, Takeda, Daiichi-Sankyo. P. Emery: Consultancies; AbbVie, BMS, Celltrion, Gilead, Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Samsung, and Sandoz. Grants/research support; AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, and Samsung. A. Pechonkina: Shareholder/stock ownership; employee and shareholder in Gilead Sciences, Inc. A. Kuo: Shareholder/stock ownership; employee and shareholder in Gilead Sciences, Inc. Q. Gong: Shareholder/stock ownership; employee and shareholder in Gilead Sciences, Inc. K. Van Beneden: Shareholder/stock ownership; employee of and shareholder in Galapagos, NV. V. Rajendran: Shareholder/stock ownership; employee of and shareholder in Galapagos, NV. H. Schulze-Koops: Consultancies; from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Gilead, Janssen, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp &amp; Dohme, Novartis- Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi. Grants/research support; AbbVie and Novartis.