AbbVie’s Rinvoq receives European approval to treat active psoriatic arthritis

Note* - All images used are for editorial and illustrative purposes only and may not originate from the original news provider or associated company.

Related stories

Managing Quality and Regulatory Risks in Pharmaceutical Technology Transfer

Technology transfer moves more than manufacturing instructions. It moves process knowledge, supplier dependencies, labeling requirements, packaging specifications, and the evidence needed to demonstrate control. For medical device manufacturers, including those supporting drug-device combination products, these interfaces can become recurring sources of compliance gaps during site transitions, acquisitions, and remediation. The central problem is often not a missing procedure. It is a quality system that allows connected activities to change independently. A label revision may be approved while packaging artwork, supplier instructions, or production-system data still reflect an obsolete version. Staying inspection-ready requires manufacturers to manage these dependencies as one controlled system. Why Compliance Gaps Keep Recurring Findings are treated as documentation defects Revising a procedure can resolve an immediate discrepancy without changing the behavior that caused it. If unclear decision rights, weak escalation, or ineffective training remain, the same failure may surface elsewhere. Corrective and preventive action should distinguish the observed finding from its underlying cause and establish how effectiveness will be demonstrated. Ownership is divided across connected functions Quality, Regulatory Affairs, labeling, packaging engineering, operations, suppliers, and digital-system owners often maintain separate workflows. Each team may complete its assigned task while an interface remains uncontrolled. For example, changing an instruction for use can affect packaging configuration, translations, technical documentation, inventory disposition, and release controls. Transitions expose unresolved weaknesses Acquisitions and site transfers can introduce conflicting procedures, incomplete knowledge transfer, or different assumptions about validated processes. Regulatory changes add further demands. When these events coincide with CAPA or change-control backlogs, teams may prioritize administrative closure over risk reduction. Without a coordinated impact assessment, local fixes can create new gaps downstream. Establish the Regulatory Baseline Inspection readiness starts with knowing which requirements apply to the product, activity, and market. Pharmaceutical, device, and combination-product obligations are not interchangeable; transfer planning should identify the applicable requirements rather than assume one quality framework covers every operation. According to FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation overview and FAQs, the QMSR became effective on February 2, 2026, incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference, and introduced the updated device inspection process under Compliance Program 7382.850. ISO 13485 certification does not exempt a manufacturer from FDA inspection or guarantee compliance with FDA requirements. For devices marketed in the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Annex I, Section 23, provides the primary requirements for information supplied with devices, including labels and instructions for use. Teams should assess the applicable provisions alongside relevant language, product-specific, and market requirements. A labeling review should therefore evaluate required content and consistency with the device’s intended purpose and supporting documentation—not merely artwork accuracy. How to Identify the Real Gaps Begin with a cross-functional assessment that follows actual product and information flows. Select representative transfers, label changes, supplier changes, and CAPAs, then trace each from initiation through implementation and effectiveness review. Map dependencies: Identify affected specifications, suppliers, packaging components, systems, validation activities, and training. Compare records with practice: Check whether approved procedures match what operators and reviewers actually do. Test traceability: Follow a requirement through technical documentation, labeling, production instructions, and release evidence. Examine recurrence: Look for repeated deviations, reopened actions, overdue changes, and findings shared across sites. Assess capacity: Determine whether qualified owners have enough time and authority to complete corrective work. Prioritize gaps by potential patient or user harm, regulatory impact, likelihood of recurrence, and detectability. Document the rationale; an old overdue item is not automatically more important than a newly identified high-risk weakness. Align Quality, Labeling, Packaging, and Change Control Create a coordinated remediation plan with one accountable owner for each action, named contributors, acceptance criteria, and required evidence. Separate immediate containment from systemic correction. Containment might prevent obsolete labels from being issued; correction might redesign approval and implementation controls so obsolete versions cannot return. Use change control as the integration point. Before approval, evaluate effects on regulatory submissions or notifications, technical documentation, supplier controls, packaging performance, validation, electronic master data, inventory, and training. Record both identified impacts and justified decisions that particular activities are unaffected. During technology transfer, define readiness gates before production or release responsibilities move. These should address the transfer of process knowledge, acceptance criteria, receiving-site capability, required qualification or validation, approved documents, and personnel competence. The appropriate evidence depends on the product and process; a generic checklist cannot replace a documented assessment. Finally, verify implementation where the work happens. Confirm that current instructions are available, suppliers received approved requirements, systems contain correct versions, and affected personnel can perform their tasks. A signed approval is not evidence that every downstream change took effect. Mistakes That Undermine Inspection Readiness Closing CAPAs on task completion alone: Effectiveness checks should test whether the underlying failure has been controlled. Updating labels in isolation: Assess packaging, supplier, system, documentation, and inventory consequences. Counting closures instead of evidence: Dashboards need defensible records behind their status indicators. ...

State of API & Peptide CDMO Capacity

Pharmaceutical companies planning peptide or complex small-molecule launches are...

What Goes Into Synthetic Urine? The Chemistry Behind Replicating a Biological Fluid

Synthetic urine sounds simple until you look closely at...
- Advertisement -

AbbVie announced that the EC has approved Rinvoq (upadacitinib, 15 mg), an oral, once daily selective and reversible JAK inhibitor for the treatment of active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in adult patients who have responded inadequately to, or who are intolerant to one or more DMARDs. Rinvoq may be used as monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate. Rinvoq is also indicated for the treatment of active ankylosing spondylitis (AS) in adult patients who have responded inadequately to conventional therapy. The EC approval is supported by data from the three pivotal clinical trials SELECT-PsA 1, SELECT-PsA 2 and SELECT-AXIS 1, demonstrating Rinvoq’s efficacy across multiple measures of disease activity.

“Psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis have a significant impact on many aspects of life for those living with these conditions,” said Tom Hudson, MD, senior vice president, R&D, chief scientific officer, AbbVie. “We are proud to provide Rinvoq as a new treatment option to patients with PsA and a first-in-class treatment option to those living with AS. These approvals are important milestones in our commitment to develop a portfolio of solutions that advance standards of care for people living with rheumatic diseases.”

“Psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis are multi-faceted diseases that can cause severe pain, restricted mobility, and lasting structural damage,” said Iain McInnes, Professor of Medicine and Versus Arthritis Professor of Rheumatology at University of Glasgow, UK. “In clinical trials, Rinvoq demonstrated improvements across multiple manifestations of these diseases. The approvals of Rinvoq for the treatment of PsA and AS offer physicians in the European Union an important new therapeutic option and for their patients a new opportunity to find meaningful relief from their debilitating symptoms.”

In both phase 3 clinical trials, SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2, Rinvoq met the primary endpoint of ACR20 response at week 12 versus placebo in adults with active PsA who had an inadequate response to non-biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) or biologic DMARDs, respectively. Rinvoq also achieved non-inferiority to adalimumab (40mg, every other week) for ACR 20 at week 12. Patients receiving Rinvoq experienced greater improvements in physical function (as measured by HAQ-DI at week 12) and skin symptoms (as measured by PASI-75 at week 16), and a greater proportion achieved minimal disease activity (MDA) compared to those receiving placebo at week 24.

Rinvoq also met the primary endpoint of Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) 40 response at week 14 versus placebo in SELECT-AXIS 1, a phase 2/3 study in adult patients with AS who were naïve to biologic DMARDs and had an inadequate response or intolerance to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Additionally, Rinvoq achieved statistical significance across several multiplicity adjusted key secondary endpoints versus placebo, including ASAS partial remission (PR) at week 14 and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) 50 at week 14.

Safety results from SELECT-PsA 1, SELECT-PsA 2 and SELECT-AXIS 1 have been previously reported and were consistent with those observed in rheumatoid arthritis, with no new significant safety risks identified. Integrated safety data for SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2 through week 24 show that Serious Adverse Events occurred in 4.1% of the patients in the Rinvoq 15 mg group compared to 3.7% in the adalimumab group and 2.7% in the placebo group. The most common adverse events reported with Rinvoq 15 mg were upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, increased blood CPK, ALT increase and AST increase. In SELECT-AXIS 1, Serious Adverse Events were reported in 1% of the patients in both the Rinvoq 15 mg and placebo group. The most common adverse events reported with Rinvoq 15 mg included blood CPK increase, diarrhea, nasopharyngitis, headache and nausea.

The Marketing Authorization means that Rinvoq is approved in all member states of the European Union, as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. Rinvoq is already approved for the treatment of adults with moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis.

SELECT-PsA 1 is a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, active and placebo-controlled study designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Rinvoq compared to placebo and adalimumab in adult patients with active psoriatic arthritis who have a history of inadequate response to at least one non-biologic DMARD. Patients were randomized to Rinvoq 15 mg, Rinvoq 30 mg, adalimumab 40 mg EOW or placebo at baseline. At week 24, placebo patients were switched to either Rinvoq 15 mg or Rinvoq 30 mg.

The primary endpoint was the percentage of subjects receiving Rinvoq 15 mg or Rinvoq 30 mg who achieved an ACR20 response at 12 weeks of treatment versus placebo. Key secondary endpoints included change from baseline in HAQ-DI, proportion of patients achieving ACR50 and ACR70 at week 12, proportion of patients achieving PASI 75 at week 16 and proportion of patients achieving minimal disease activity (MDA) at week 24. These are not all of the secondary endpoints. The trial is ongoing and the long-term extension will provide data on the long-term safety, tolerability and efficacy of Rinvoq in patients who have completed the placebo-controlled period.

SELECT-PsA 2 is a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Rinvoq in adult patients with active psoriatic arthritis who have a history of inadequate response to at least one biologic (bDMARD). Patients were randomized to Rinvoq 15 mg, Rinvoq 30 mg or placebo followed by either RINVOQ 15 mg or Rinvoq 30 mg at week 24.

The primary endpoint was the percentage of subjects achieving an ACR20 response after 12 weeks of treatment. Key secondary endpoints included change from baseline in HAQ-DI, proportion of patients achieving ACR50 and ACR70 at week 12, proportion of patients achieving PASI 75 at week 16, as well as proportion of patients achieving MDA at week 24. These are not all of the secondary endpoints. The trial is ongoing and the long-term extension will provide data on the long-term safety, tolerability and efficacy of Rinvoq in patients who have completed the placebo-controlled period.

SELECT-AXIS 1 is a phase 2/3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Rinvoq in adult patients with active ankylosing spondylitis who are bDMARD-naïve and had inadequate response to at least two NSAIDs or intolerance to/contraindication for NSAIDs.

Key ranked secondary endpoints included proportion of subjects achieving Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) 50 and ASAS partial remission (PR) at week 14, as well as change from baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Scores (ASDAS), MRI Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) score (spine) and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) at week 14. Period 2 is an open-label extension period to evaluate the long-term safety, tolerability and efficacy of Rinvoq in subjects who completed Period 1.

Discovered and developed by AbbVie scientists, Rinvoq is a JAK inhibitor that is being studied in several immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.3,17-27 In August 2019, Rinvoq received US FDA approval for adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response or intolerance to methotrexate. In December 2019, Rinvoq was approved by the European Commission for the treatment of adult patients with moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis who have responded inadequately to, or who are intolerant to one or more disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. The approved dose for Rinvoq in rheumatoid arthritis is 15 mg. Phase 3 trials of Rinvoq in rheumatoid arthritis, atopic dermatitis, psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, giant cell arteritis and Takayasu arteritis are ongoing.

Never miss a pharmaceutical headline

The pharmaceutical industry moves fast – stay on top of it with our must - read briefings.

  • The top pharma and life sciences stories, straight to your inbox
  • The biggest news, features, interviews, and analysis
  • Dedicated coverage of the key developments driving the global pharmaceutical sector

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access the Media Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

– Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Latest stories

Related stories

Managing Quality and Regulatory Risks in Pharmaceutical Technology Transfer

Technology transfer moves more than manufacturing instructions. It moves process knowledge, supplier dependencies, labeling requirements, packaging specifications, and the evidence needed to demonstrate control. For medical device manufacturers, including those supporting drug-device combination products, these interfaces can become recurring sources of compliance gaps during site transitions, acquisitions, and remediation. The central problem is often not a missing procedure. It is a quality system that allows connected activities to change independently. A label revision may be approved while packaging artwork, supplier instructions, or production-system data still reflect an obsolete version. Staying inspection-ready requires manufacturers to manage these dependencies as one controlled system. Why Compliance Gaps Keep Recurring Findings are treated as documentation defects Revising a procedure can resolve an immediate discrepancy without changing the behavior that caused it. If unclear decision rights, weak escalation, or ineffective training remain, the same failure may surface elsewhere. Corrective and preventive action should distinguish the observed finding from its underlying cause and establish how effectiveness will be demonstrated. Ownership is divided across connected functions Quality, Regulatory Affairs, labeling, packaging engineering, operations, suppliers, and digital-system owners often maintain separate workflows. Each team may complete its assigned task while an interface remains uncontrolled. For example, changing an instruction for use can affect packaging configuration, translations, technical documentation, inventory disposition, and release controls. Transitions expose unresolved weaknesses Acquisitions and site transfers can introduce conflicting procedures, incomplete knowledge transfer, or different assumptions about validated processes. Regulatory changes add further demands. When these events coincide with CAPA or change-control backlogs, teams may prioritize administrative closure over risk reduction. Without a coordinated impact assessment, local fixes can create new gaps downstream. Establish the Regulatory Baseline Inspection readiness starts with knowing which requirements apply to the product, activity, and market. Pharmaceutical, device, and combination-product obligations are not interchangeable; transfer planning should identify the applicable requirements rather than assume one quality framework covers every operation. According to FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation overview and FAQs, the QMSR became effective on February 2, 2026, incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference, and introduced the updated device inspection process under Compliance Program 7382.850. ISO 13485 certification does not exempt a manufacturer from FDA inspection or guarantee compliance with FDA requirements. For devices marketed in the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Annex I, Section 23, provides the primary requirements for information supplied with devices, including labels and instructions for use. Teams should assess the applicable provisions alongside relevant language, product-specific, and market requirements. A labeling review should therefore evaluate required content and consistency with the device’s intended purpose and supporting documentation—not merely artwork accuracy. How to Identify the Real Gaps Begin with a cross-functional assessment that follows actual product and information flows. Select representative transfers, label changes, supplier changes, and CAPAs, then trace each from initiation through implementation and effectiveness review. Map dependencies: Identify affected specifications, suppliers, packaging components, systems, validation activities, and training. Compare records with practice: Check whether approved procedures match what operators and reviewers actually do. Test traceability: Follow a requirement through technical documentation, labeling, production instructions, and release evidence. Examine recurrence: Look for repeated deviations, reopened actions, overdue changes, and findings shared across sites. Assess capacity: Determine whether qualified owners have enough time and authority to complete corrective work. Prioritize gaps by potential patient or user harm, regulatory impact, likelihood of recurrence, and detectability. Document the rationale; an old overdue item is not automatically more important than a newly identified high-risk weakness. Align Quality, Labeling, Packaging, and Change Control Create a coordinated remediation plan with one accountable owner for each action, named contributors, acceptance criteria, and required evidence. Separate immediate containment from systemic correction. Containment might prevent obsolete labels from being issued; correction might redesign approval and implementation controls so obsolete versions cannot return. Use change control as the integration point. Before approval, evaluate effects on regulatory submissions or notifications, technical documentation, supplier controls, packaging performance, validation, electronic master data, inventory, and training. Record both identified impacts and justified decisions that particular activities are unaffected. During technology transfer, define readiness gates before production or release responsibilities move. These should address the transfer of process knowledge, acceptance criteria, receiving-site capability, required qualification or validation, approved documents, and personnel competence. The appropriate evidence depends on the product and process; a generic checklist cannot replace a documented assessment. Finally, verify implementation where the work happens. Confirm that current instructions are available, suppliers received approved requirements, systems contain correct versions, and affected personnel can perform their tasks. A signed approval is not evidence that every downstream change took effect. Mistakes That Undermine Inspection Readiness Closing CAPAs on task completion alone: Effectiveness checks should test whether the underlying failure has been controlled. Updating labels in isolation: Assess packaging, supplier, system, documentation, and inventory consequences. Counting closures instead of evidence: Dashboards need defensible records behind their status indicators. ...

State of API & Peptide CDMO Capacity

Pharmaceutical companies planning peptide or complex small-molecule launches are...

What Goes Into Synthetic Urine? The Chemistry Behind Replicating a Biological Fluid

Synthetic urine sounds simple until you look closely at...

Danaher Prepares to Introduce Advanced AI-Powered Laboratory

In a significant step for pharmaceutical research, Danaher has...

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access theMedia Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

– Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Translate »