ACR Meeting Abstracts

ACR Meeting Abstracts

  • Home
  • Meetings Archive
    • ACR Convergence 2020
    • 2020 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting
    • 2018 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting
    • 2017 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting
    • 2017 ACR/ARHP PRSYM
    • 2016-2009 Meetings
    • Download Abstracts
  • Keyword Index
  • Advanced Search
  • Your Favorites
    • Favorites
    • Login
    • Register
    • View and print all favorites
    • Clear all your favorites
  • Meeting Resource Center

Abstract Number: 0827

Comparative Clinical Efficacy of Sarilumab versus Upadacitinib over 12 Weeks: Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison Analysis

Thomas Huizinga1, Ernest Choy2, Amy Praestgaard3, Hubert van Hoogstraten4, Patrick R LaFontaine3, Patricia Guyot5, Daniel Aletaha6, Ulf Müller-Ladner7, Yoshiya Tanaka8, Jeffrey R Curtis9 and Roy Fleischmann10, 1Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands, 2CREATE Centre, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom, 3Sanofi, Cambridge, MA, 4Sanofi, Bridgewater, NJ, 5Sanofi, Chilly-Mazarin, France, 6Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna,, Vienna, Austria, 7Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Justus-Liebig University, Campus Kerckhoff, Bad Nauheim, Germany, 8The First Department of Internal Medicine, University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Kitakyushu, Japan, 9Division of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, 10Southwestern Medical Center, Metroplex Clinical Research Center, Dallas, TX

Meeting: ACR Convergence 2020

Keywords: Biologicals, C-reactive protein (CRP), Disease Activity, Interleukins, rheumatoid arthritis

  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print
Save to PDF
Session Information

Date: Saturday, November 7, 2020

Session Title: RA – Treatments Poster II: Comparative Effectiveness, Biosimilars, Adherence & the Real World

Session Type: Poster Session B

Session Time: 9:00AM-11:00AM

Background/Purpose: Sarilumab, an IL-6 receptor inhibitor, and upadacitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) 1 inhibitor, are both approved for the treatment of patients with moderately to severely active RA. In the absence of head-to-head trials, it has been suggested that treatments can be indirectly compared using the matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) method, in which patient-level data from one trial can be weighted for preselected patient characteristics to match against aggregated data from a comparator trial. Here, we report an MAIC comparison of sarilumab and upadacitinib outcomes using data from 2 phase 3 trials in patients with RA who were refractive to previous treatment with biologic DMARDs, including TNF inhibitors.

Methods: TARGET (NCT01709578) and SELECT-BEYOND (NCT02706847) were randomized, placebo-controlled trials, and included adults with active RA who had received synthetic DMARDs and had an inadequate response or intolerance to ≥1 biologic DMARD. Patient-level data of participants from TARGET treated with subcutaneous placebo or sarilumab (200 mg once every 2 weeks), and aggregated data of patients from SELECT-BEYOND treated with placebo or oral upadacitinib (15 mg/day) were analyzed. Baseline characteristics with notable differences between the 2 trials that were potential treatment effect modifiers were identified. They included age, tender joint count (TJC) of 68 counts, swollen joint count (SJC) of 68 counts, and CRP concentration. Individual patients from the TARGET trial were assigned weights such that weighted mean baseline characteristics of the treatment effect modifiers matched those from SELECT-BEYOND. Treatment effects for the adjusted TARGET population at Week 12 were compared with published aggregate data from SELECT-BEYOND. Endpoints evaluated included the proportions of patients achieving ACR20, ACR50, ACR70, DAS28-CRP < 3.2 (low disease activity), and DAS28-CRP < 2.6 (remission).

Results: The analysis included 365 patients from TARGET (sarilumab, n=184; placebo, n=181) and 333 patients from SELECT-BEYOND (upadacitinib, n=164; placebo, n=169). After weighting, the 2 trials were matched for the treatment effect modifiers, which resulted in the decline of the effective sample size of TARGET population to 185 (sarilumab, n=89; placebo, n=96) (Table). After MAIC, the odds of achieving various clinical outcomes versus placebo were similar for sarilumab and upadacitinib for all evaluated clinical outcomes (all nominal p >0.05; Figure). A nonadjusted analysis yielded similar results (data not shown).

Conclusion: In this MAIC analysis of patients from the TARGET and SELECT-BEYOND trials matched for several key baseline characteristics, efficacy of sarilumab was statistically similar to upadacitinib when comparing ACR20/50/70 and DAS28-CRP low disease activity/remission outcomes in patients with active RA who had an inadequate response to biologic DMARDs. Prospective head-to-head comparisons are needed to confirm these findings.

Table 1

Figure 1


Disclosure: T. Huizinga, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, 2, 8, Pfizer, 2, 8, Eli Lilly, 2, 8, LUMC, 9; E. Choy, Abbvie, 2, 8, Amgen, 2, 8, AstraZeneca, 2, 8, Biogen, 2, 8, Bio-Cancer, 2, 8, Boehringer Ingelheim, 2, 8, Bristol-Myers Squibb, 2, 8, Celgene, 2, 8, Chugai Pharma, 2, 8, Eli Lilly, 2, 8, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, 2, 8, GlaxoSmithKline, 2, 8, Janssen, 2, 8, Novartis, 2, 8, Novimmune, 2, 8, ObsEva, 2, 8, Pfizer, 2, 8, R-Pharm, 2, 8, Roche, 2, 8, SynAct Pharma, 2, 8, Tonix, 2, 8, UCB, 2, 8, Synovate, 2, 8, Sanofi, 2, 8, Regeneron, 2, 8, Napp, 2, 8, Hospira, 2, 8, Merck Sharp & Dohme, 2, 8; A. Praestgaard, Sanofi, 3; H. van Hoogstraten, Sanofi, 1, 3, 4; P. LaFontaine, Sanofi, 3; P. Guyot, Sanofi, 3, 4; D. Aletaha, UCB, 5, 8, Eli Lilly, 5, 8, Gilead Sciences, Inc., 2, 5, Janssen, 5, Sanofi/Genzyme, 5, 8, AbbVie, 2, 5, 8, Amgen, 5, 8, Novartis, 2, 5, 8, Pfizer, 5, 8, Roche, 2, 5, 8, Merck Sharp & Dohme, 2, 5, 8, Bristol-Myers Squibb, 8, Celgene, 5, 8, Medac, 5, 8, Sandoz, 5, 8; U. Müller-Ladner, Sanofi, 5, 8, Abbvie, 5, 8; Y. Tanaka, AbbVie, 2, 5, 8, UCB, 2, 5, 8, Sanofi, 2, 5, 8, Asahi-kasei, 2, 5, 8, Novartis, 2, 5, 8, GlaxoSmithKline, 2, 5, 8, Astellas, 2, 5, 8, Chugai, 2, 5, 8, Daiichi-Sankyo, 2, 5, 8, Eisai, 2, 5, 8, Eli Lilly, 2, 5, 8, Gilead Sciences, Inc., 2, 5, 8, Janssen, 2, 5, 8, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, 2, 5, 8, Pfizer, 2, 5, 8, Takeda, 2, 5, 8, YL Biologics, 2, 5, 8, Bristol-Myers Squibb, 2, 5, 8; J. Curtis, AbbVie, 2, 5, Amgen, 2, 5, Bristol-Myers Squibb, 2, 5, Corrona, 2, 5, Janssen, 2, 5, Lilly, 2, 5, Myriad, 2, 5, Pfizer, 2, 5, Regeneron, 2, 5, Roche, 2, 5, UCB, 2, 5, Gilead Sciences, Inc., 5, Sanofi, 5; R. Fleischmann, Pfizer, 2, 5.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

Huizinga T, Choy E, Praestgaard A, van Hoogstraten H, LaFontaine P, Guyot P, Aletaha D, Müller-Ladner U, Tanaka Y, Curtis J, Fleischmann R. Comparative Clinical Efficacy of Sarilumab versus Upadacitinib over 12 Weeks: Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison Analysis [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020; 72 (suppl 10). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/comparative-clinical-efficacy-of-sarilumab-versus-upadacitinib-over-12-weeks-matching-adjusted-indirect-comparison-analysis/. Accessed April 14, 2021.
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print
Save to PDF

« Back to ACR Convergence 2020

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/comparative-clinical-efficacy-of-sarilumab-versus-upadacitinib-over-12-weeks-matching-adjusted-indirect-comparison-analysis/

Advanced Search

Your Favorites

You can save and print a list of your favorite abstracts by clicking the “Favorite” button at the bottom of any abstract. View your favorites »

ACR Convergence: Where Rheumatology Meets. All Virtual. November 5-9.

ACR Pediatric Rheumatology Symposium 2020

© COPYRIGHT 2021 AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RHEUMATOLOGY

Wiley

  • Home
  • Meetings Archive
  • Advanced Search
  • Meeting Resource Center
  • Online Journal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Permissions Policies
loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
This site uses cookies: Find out more.