Advertisement

Drugs

, Volume 79, Issue 16, pp 1819–1828 | Cite as

Upadacitinib: First Approval

  • Sean DugganEmail author
  • Susan J. Keam
AdisInsight Report

Abstract

Upadacitinib (Rinvoq™), an orally-administered Janus kinase 1 (JAK-1) inhibitor, is being developed by AbbVie for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. In August 2019, based on positive results from multinational phase III trials conducted in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, upadacitinib received marketing approval in the USA for the treatment of moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response or intolerance to methotrexate. This article summarizes the milestones in the development of upadacitinib leading to this first approval for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

The preparation of this review was not supported by any external funding.

Conflict of interest

During the peer review process the manufacturer of the agent under review was offered an opportunity to comment on the article. Changes resulting from any comments received were made by the authors on the basis of scientific completeness and accuracy. Sean Duggan and Susan Keam are salaried employees of Adis International Ltd/Springer Nature, are responsible for the article content and declare no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Genovese MC, Fleischmann R, Combe B, et al. Safety and efficacy of upadacitinib in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis refractory to biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (SELECT-BEYOND): a double-blind, randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10139):2513–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    AbbVie. AbbVie receives FDA approval of RINVOQTM (upadacitinib), an oral JAK inhibitor for the treatment of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis [media release]. 16 Aug 2019. http://www.abbvie.com.
  3. 3.
    AbbVie. RINVOQ™ (upadacitinib) extended-release tablets, for oral use: US prescribing information. 2019. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/. Accessed 2019.
  4. 4.
    Parmentier JM, Voss J, Graff C, et al. In vitro and in vivo characterization of the JAK1 selectivity of upadacitinib (ABT-494). BMC Rheumatol. 2018;2:23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sornasse T, Sokolove J, McInnes I. Treatment with upadacitinib results in the normalization of key pathobiologic pathways in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Biomarker results from the phase 3 selectnext and select-beyond studies [abstract no. THU0181]. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019;78(Suppl. 2):365–6.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nurmohamed M, Zhang Y, Lin J, et al. Changes in C-reactive protein and lipid levels in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with ABT-494 a selective JAK-1 inhibitor [abstract no. THU0203]. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76(Suppl. 2):280.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Charles-Schoeman C, Sornasse T, Sokolove J. Treatment with upadacitinib is associated with improvements in reverse cholesterol transport in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: correlation with changes in inflammation and HDL levels [abstract no. THU0166]. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019;78(Suppl. 2):356–7.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Song T, Pavel AB, Peng X, et al. Upadacitinib treatment of atopic dermatitis patients leads to reductions in epidermal hyperplasia and cellular infiltrates [abstract no. 1024]. J Investig Dermatol. 2019;139(5 Suppl.):S177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Beck LA, Silverberg JI, Grebe K, et al. Eosinophil count and serum immunoglobulin E levels in atopic dermatitis: analysis of upadacitinib phase 2 study findings [abstract no. 376]. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2019;143(2 Suppl.):AB125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Aguilar D, Planell N, Panes J, et al. Upadacitinib-induced endoscopic improvement is associated with modulation of pathways involved in Crohn’s disease pathogenesis [abstract no. P843]. J Crohns Colitis. 2018;12(Suppl. 1):S542–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mohamed MF, Zeng J, Jiang P, et al. Use of early clinical trial data to support thorough QT study waiver for upadacitinib and utility of food effect to demonstrate ECG assay sensitivity. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2018;103(5):836–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Klunder B, Mohamed MF, Othman AA. Population pharmacokinetics of upadacitinib in healthy subjects and subjects with rheumatoid arthritis: analyses of phase I and II clinical trials. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2018;57(8):977–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Klunder B, Mittapalli RK, Mohamed MF, et al. Population pharmacokinetics of upadacitinib using the immediate-release and extended-release formulations in healthy subjects and subjects with rheumatoid arthritis: analyses of phase I-III clinical trials. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2019;58(8):1045–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mohamed MF, Camp HS, Jiang P, et al. Pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability of ABT-494, a novel selective JAK 1 inhibitor, in healthy volunteers and subjects with rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2016;55(12):1547–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mohamed MF, Zeng J, Marroum PJ, et al. Pharmacokinetics of upadacitinib with the clinical regimens of the extended-release formulation utilized in rheumatoid arthritis phase 3 trials. Clin Pharmacol Drug Dev. 2019;8(2):208–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mohamed MF, Jungerwirth S, Asatryan A, et al. Assessment of effect of CYP3A inhibition, CYP induction, OATP1B inhibition, and high-fat meal on pharmacokinetics of the JAK1 inhibitor upadacitinib. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2017;83(10):2242–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mohamed MF, Trueman S, Feng T, et al. Characterization of the effect of renal impairment on upadacitinib pharmacokinetics. J Clin Pharmacol. 2019;59(6):856–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Trueman S, Mohamed MF, Feng T, et al. Characterization of the effect of hepatic impairment on upadacitinib pharmacokinetics. J Clin Pharmacol. 2019;59(9):1188–94.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mohamed MF, Feng T, Enejosa JV, et al. Effects of upadacitinib coadministration on the pharmacokinetics of sensitive cytochrome P450 probe substrates: a study with the modified Cooperstown 5 + 1 cocktail. J Clin Pharmacol. 2019.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jcph.1496.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Burmester GR, Kremer JM, Van den Bosch F, et al. Safety and efficacy of upadacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (SELECT-NEXT): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10139):2503–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Burmester GR, Van Den Bosch F, Bessette L, et al. Long-term safety and efficacy of upadacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to CSDMARDS: results at 60 weeks from the select-next study [abstract no. FRI0132]. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019;78(Suppl. 2):735–6.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Genovese MC, Combe B, Hall S, et al. Upadacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response or intolerance to biological DMARDS: results at 60 weeks from the select-beyond study [abstract no. THU0172]. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019;78(Suppl. 2):360–1.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Smolen JS, Pangan AL, Emery P, et al. Upadacitinib as monotherapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to methotrexate (SELECT-MONOTHERAPY): a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 3 study. Lancet. 2019;393(10188):2303–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fleischmann R, Pangan AL, Song IH, et al. Upadacitinib versus placebo or adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate: results of a phase 3, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019.  https://doi.org/10.1002/art.41032.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fleischmann RM, Genovese MC, Enejosa JV, et al. Safety and effectiveness of upadacitinib or adalimumab plus methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis over 48 weeks with switch to alternate therapy in patients with insufficient response. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019.  https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-215764.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Van Vollenhoven R, Takeuchi T, Pangan AL, et al. A phase 3, randomized, controlled trial comparing upadacitinib monotherapy to MTX monotherapy in MTX-naive patients with active rheumatoid arthritis [abstract no. 891]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2018;70(Suppl 9):990–2.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Van Vollenhoven R, Takeuchi T, Pangan A, et al. Monotherapy with upadacitinib in MTX-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results at 48 weeks from the select-early study [abstract no. THU0197]. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019;78(Suppl. 2):376–7.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tanaka Y, Takeuchi T, Yamaoka K, et al. A phase 2b/3 randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind study of upadacitinib, a selective jak1 inhibitor, in Japanese patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to conventional synthetic DMARDs [abstract no. SAT0257]. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(Suppl 2):991–2.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kremer JM, Emery P, Camp HS, et al. A phase IIb study of ABT-494, a selective JAK-1 inhibitor, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016;68(12):2867–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Genovese MC, Smolen JS, Weinblatt ME, et al. Efficacy and safety of ABT-494, a selective JAK-1 inhibitor, in a phase IIb study in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016;68(12):2857–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Genovese MC, Kremer J, Zhong S, et al. Long-term safety and efficacy of upadacitinib (ABT-494), an oral JAK-1 inhibitor in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in an open label extension study [abstract no. SAT0236]. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(Suppl 2):979.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sandborn WJ, Feagan BG, Panes J, et al. Safety and efficacy of ABT-494 (upadacitinib), an oral JAK1 inhibitor, as induction therapy in patients with Crohn’s disease: results from Celest [abstract no. 874h]. Gastroenterology. 2017;152(5 Suppl 1):S1308–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Panes J, Sandborn WJ, Loftus EV, et al. Efficacy and safety of upadacitinib maintenance treatment for moderate to severe Crohn’s disease: results from the CELEST study [abstract no. 906]. Gastroenterology. 2018;154(6 Suppl 1):S-178–9.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    De Bruin-Weller MS, Guttman-Yassky E, Forman SB, et al. Effects of upadacitinib on atopic dermatitis signs, symptoms and patient-reported outcomes from a phase IIb randomized, placebo-controlled trial [abstract no. O19]. Br J Dermatol. 2018;179(1):e13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Reich K, Guttman-Yassky E, Beck LA, et al. Early response to upadacitinib in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: results from a phase 2B randomized, placebo-controlled trial [abstract no. 0135]. Allergy Eur J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2018;73(Suppl. 105):76.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sandborn WJ, Ghosh S, Panes J, et al. Efficacy and safety of upadacitinib as an induction therapy for patients with moderately-to-severely active ulcerative colitis: data from the phase 2b study U-ACHIEVE [abstract no. OP195]. United Eur Gastroenterol. 2018;6(8 Suppl):A74–5.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cohen SB, Van Vollenhoven R, Winthrop K, et al. Safety profile of upadacitinib in rheumatoid arthritis: integrated analysis from the SELECT phase 3 clinical program [abstract no. THU0167]. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019;78(Suppl 2):357.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Springer NatureAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations