Impact of left heart disease risk factors on risk stratification and treatment response in pulmonary arterial hypertension

Background

Contemporary registries have documented a change in the epidemiology of PAH patients displaying increasing co-morbidities associated with left heart disease (LHD). These patients are often excluded from randomized clinical trials. It is unclear whether the presence of LHD comorbidities may adversely impact the accuracy of risk stratification and response to PAH therapy.

Method

Data was extracted from the Pulmonary Hypertension Society of Australia and New Zealand registry for incident patients with a diagnosis with idiopathic/heritable/toxin-induced (I/H/D)-PAH and connective tissue disease (CTD) associated PAH from 2011 - 2020. Patients without available medication and follow up data were excluded. We used the AMBITION trial exclusion criteria to define the subpopulation with LHD risk factors and haemodynamic phenotype (PAH-rLHD).

Results

489 patients (I/H/D-PAH=251, CTD-PAH=238) were included in our analysis, with 103 (21.0%) fulfilling the definition of PAH-rLHD (34 had ≥3 risk factors for left heart disease (rLHD-hypertension, diabetes, obesity or ischaemic heart disease) and 76 had borderline haemodynamics (mean capillary wedge pressure 13–15 with pulmonary vascular resistance <500 dynes sec/cm5) including 7 who met both criteria). Compared to classical PAH, patients with PAH-rLHD were older at diagnosis (66±13 vs 58±19, p<0.001), had lower pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR: 393±266 vs 708±391, p=0.031) but worse exercise capacity (6MWD: 286±130m vs 327±136m, p=0.005). PAH-rLHD were more likely to be started on initial monotherapy, compared with “classical” PAH (73% vs 56%, p=0.002). In the monotherapy groups, endothelin receptor antagonists (ERA) were used in 73% PAH-rLHD, compared with 66% in classical PAH group. Both groups exhibited similar response to both mono- and combination therapy with commensurate improvements in WHO functional class (mean change 0.3±0.6 vs 0.3±0.8, p=0.443) and 6-minute walk distance (mean change 44±82 vs 48±101, p=0.723). There was no difference in survival between classical PAH and PAH-rLHD (log rank, p=0.29). The REVEAL 2.0 risk score effectively discriminated risk in both populations at baseline and first follow up (classical PAH: baseline C statistic 0.750, follow up 0.774 and PAH-rLHD: baseline C statistic 0.756, follow up 0.791).

Conclusion

Despite lower PVR at diagnosis, PAH-rLHD patients and “classical” PAH demonstrate similar response to first-line therapy with similar long term survival. The REVEAL 2.0 risk score can be effectively applied to the subpopulation of PAH-rLHD in real life clinical practice.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: None.

OP0030 TREATMENT OF NON-BIOLOGIC-DMARD-IR PSA PATIENTS WITH UPADACITINIB OR ADALIMUMAB RESULTS IN THE MODULATION OF DISTINCT FUNCTIONAL PATHWAYS: PROTEOMICS ANALYSIS OF THE SELECT-PSA 1 PHASE 3 STUDY

Background:

Treatment of non-biologic-DMARD-IR (DMARD-IR) PsA patients with upadacitinib (UPA) at 15 mg QD, an oral JAK1 selective inhibitor, resulted in improvement in musculoskeletal symptoms, psoriasis, physical function, fatigue, quality of life, and inhibited radiographic progression; improvements were observed as early as Week 2 (ACR20 and ACR50). UPA 15 mg QD was non-inferior to adalimumab (ADA) 40 mg EOW for ACR201

Objectives:

To determine the relative biological pathway modulation of UPA compared with ADA in patients with PsA via the evaluation of a pre-defined set of plasma proteins associated with inflammation.

Methods:

Patients from the SELECT-PsA1 study (DMARD-IR PsA patients) were randomly selected (PBO, n=100; UPA 15 mg QD, n=100; ADA 40 mg EOW, n = 100). The levels of 92 inflammation related protein biomarkers (pBM) were analyzed using a multiplexed Proximity Extension Assay platform in plasma samples collected at baseline, week 2, and 12; change from baseline in protein levels were expressed as Log2 Fold Change; a Repeated Measure Mixed Linear Model identified proteins modulated by UPA and ADA compared to Baseline. Functional pathway prediction was performed in silico with a commercially distributed software where 52 significantly modulated pBM (mean |Log2 FC| ≥ 0.1 AND FDR ≤ 0.05) were selected; results were summarized based on 3 core biological groups: 1) adaptive immune system, 2) innate immune system, and 3) non-immune connective and vascular systems.

Results:

At the single pBM-level, at the week 2 and 12 time points, treatment with UPA 15 mg QD resulted in distinct down modulation of T cell-associated (CD5, CD8a, IL15Ra, SLAMF1, TRANCE) and myeloid cell-associated pBM (CSF-1, CCL7, CCL13) that was not observed in the ADA treated group. Reciprocally, treatment with ADA 40 mg EOW resulted in a specific down modulation of a subset of neutrophil associated pBM (CCL3, CCL4, and S100A12). Both treatments resulted in the down modulation of IFN-, IL6-, and TNF-related pBM (CXCL9, CXCL10, CXCL11, IL6, TNFRSF19, and TNSF14) suggesting a common node of activity related to these pivotal cytokine-signaling pathways.

Functional pathway prediction based on the pBM data revealed that treatment with UPA is preferentially associated with the inhibition of T cells, but also NK cells and lymphocytes, compared to the predicted effects of treatment with ADA. Treatment with UPA also preferentially inhibited pathways related to bone damage and angiogenesis, as compared to the predicted effect of treatment with ADA. Finally, both treatments were predicted to inhibit multiple pathways associated with the activity of myeloid cells and phagocytes.

Conclusion:

Consistent with previous observations in RA2, UPA is predicted to inhibit multiple functional pathways associated the pathobiology of PsA belonging to the general categories of adaptive and innate immunity but also non-immune vascular and connective tissue biology. In contrast, treatment with ADA appears to affect more specifically functional pathways associated with the innate immune system.

References:

[1]McInnes, I. et al. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 79, 16-17 (2020).

[2]Sornasse, T., Song, I.H., Radstake, T. & McInnes, I. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 79, 581-582 (2020).

Acknowledgements:

AbbVie funded this study and participated in the study design, research, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, reviewing, and approval of the publication. All authors had access to relevant data and participated in the drafting, review, and approval of this publication. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship.

Disclosure of Interests:

Thierry Sornasse Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Jaclyn Anderson Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Koji Kato Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Apinya Lertratanakul Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Christopher T. Ritchlin Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, UCB, Iain McInnes Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Regeneron, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Regeneron, UCB Pharma

POS1054 UPADACITINIB PHARMACOKINETICS AND EXPOSURE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIPS FOR EFFICACY AND SAFETY IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS – ANALYSES OF THE PHASE 3 SELECT-PsA STUDIES

Background:

Upadacitinib (UPA) is an oral, reversible, JAK inhibitor approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The efficacy and safety profile of UPA in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) has been established in the SELECT-PsA program which includes two global Phase 3 studies.

Objectives:

These analyses characterize UPA pharmacokinetics and exposure-response relationships for efficacy and safety endpoints using data from the SELECT-PsA studies.

Methods:

The SELECT-PsA program enrolled patients with prior inadequate response (IR) or intolerance to ≥1 non-bDMARD1 (N=1705) and prior IR or intolerance to ≥1 bDMARD2 (N=642). Data from both trials was integrated for patients receiving placebo (PBO), UPA 15mg once daily (QD) and UPA 30mg QD; adalimumab data was excluded from this analysis. UPA pharmacokinetics were characterized in PsA patients using Bayesian population pharmacokinetics analyses and utilizing prior information from analyses in healthy subjects and RA patients. Exposure-response analyses were conducted using logistic regression to characterize the relationships between upadacitinib average plasma concentration during a dosing interval (Cavg) and the percentage of patients achieving ACR20/50/70 at Weeks 12 and 24, static Investigator Global Assessment of psoriasis (sIGA) of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) and at least a 2-point improvement from baseline, and PASI75 at Weeks 16 and 24 or experiencing selected clinically relevant safety events through week 24.

Results:

Analyses were conducted using data from 1694 subjects (for pharmacokinetics) and 1916 subjects (for exposure-response analyses). UPA model-estimated plasma exposures in subjects with PsA who received 15mg and 30mg QD doses were comparable to previously estimated exposures in subjects with RA. Body weight and methotrexate use had no clinically relevant effects on UPA exposures. There was a statistically significant relationship between UPA Cavg and the percentage of subjects who achieved Week 12 ACR50/70, Week 16 sIGA 0/1, and Week 24 sIGA 0/1 (Figure 1). No statistically significant exposure-response relationship was observed for Week 12 ACR20, Week 16 PASI75, or Week 24 ACR20/50/70 or PASI75, indicating that the 15mg QD exposures are approximately at the plateau of response for these endpoints. No statistically significant relationships were observed between upadacitinib Cavg and the percentage of subjects experiencing pneumonia, herpes zoster, hemoglobin < 8 g/dL, Grade ≥3 lymphopenia, Grade ≥3 neutropenia. There was a shallow but statistically significant exposure-response relationships with the occurrence of serious infections and decrease in hemoglobin from baseline (>2 g/dL and >2 g/dL in combination with hemoglobin < lower limit for normal).

Figure 1.

Observed and Model Predicted Efficacy Responses at Week 12 (for ACR50/70) or at Weeks 16 and Week 24 (for sIGA 0/1) Versus Upadacitinib Plasma Exposures

Conclusion:

Exposure-response analyses demonstrated that plasma exposures associated with UPA 15 mg QD achieves robust efficacy in subjects with PsA with limited effects on the evaluated safety endpoints. UPA plasma exposures associated with UPA 15 and 30mg QD are predicted to provide similar ACR responses by week 24 while a small additional efficacy benefit with UPA 30mg is predicted for the achievement sIGA 0/1.

References:

[1]van Vollenhoven R, et al. Monotherapy with Upadacitinib in MTX-naïve Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results at 48 Weeks from the SELECT-EARLY Study. 2019 EULAR; THU0197

[2]Fleischmann R, et al. Safety and Effectiveness of Upadacitinib or Adalimumab in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results at 48 weeks from the SELECT-COMPARE Study. 2019 EULAR; FRI0147

Disclosure of Interests:

Elena Muensterman Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Benjamin Engelhardt Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Sathej Gopalakrishnan Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Jaclyn Anderson Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Mohamed-Eslam Mohamed Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie.

POS0407 PROTEOMICS ANALYSIS COMPARING THE MODE OF ACTION OF UPADACITINIB BETWEEN NON-BIOLOGIC-DMARD-IR AND BIOLOGIC-DMARD-IR PsA PATIENTS IDENTIFIES DISTINCT PATHOGENIC PATHWAYS IN THE SELECT-PsA 1 AND SELECT-PsA 2 PHASE 3 STUDIES

Background:

Treatment of non-biologic-DMARD-IR1 (DMARD-IR) and biologic-DMARD-IR2 (bio-IR) PsA patients with upadacitinib (UPA) at 15 mg QD, an oral JAK1 selective inhibitor, resulted in significant improvement in signs and symptoms compared to placebo.

Objectives:

Using a pre-defined set of inflammation-related plasma protein biomarkers (pBM), to explore immunological pathway modulation by UPA 15 mg QD in PsA patients with active disease despite treatment with non-biologic or biologic DMARDs in the context of clinical response vs. non-response to treatment.

Methods:

Patients from the SELECT-PsA 1 (DMARD-IR) and the SELECT-PsA 2 (bio-IR) studies were randomly selected (PBO, n=100; UPA 15 mg QD, n=100 for each study). The levels of 92 inflammation related protein biomarkers (pBM) were analyzed using a multiplexed Proximity Extension Assay platform in plasma samples collected at baseline, week 2, and 12; change from baseline in protein levels was expressed as Log2 Fold Change; a Repeated Measure Mixed Linear Model was used to identify pBM modulated by UPA compared to Baseline, and those differentially modulated between responders (R) and non-responders (NR) according to ACR50, PASDAS Minimal Disease Activity, and PASI75 at week 12. Correlation of disease activity measures with relative levels of pBM were derived using Pearson’s correlation; PASI score was transformed as Log10 (x+1) prior to the analysis. Functional pathway prediction was performed in silico with a commercial distributed software.

Results:

At baseline, the relative levels of 37 pBM correlated with at least one baseline disease activity measure, with a marked positive correlation of IL6 with musculoskeletal end points (PASDAS and DAS28CRP), and a strong positive correlation of IL20, IL17A, IL17C, and TGFA with baseline PASI.

At the single pBM-level, treatment with UPA 15 mg QD resulted in a down modulation of pBM associated with T cells, myeloid cells, and IFN-, IL6-, and TNF-related pathways in both DMARD-IR and bio-IR PsA patients. Overall effects of UPA on single pBMs were broadly similar between DMARD-IR and bio-IR patients. However, analysis of pBMs differentially modulated by UPA in R vs NR indicated that favorable clinical response (achievement of ACR50, PASDAS MDA, and PASI75) in DMARD-IR patients was associated with the down modulation of pBMs predicted to be linked to IFN, IL10, IL17, IL22, and IL27 pathways; while favorable clinical response in bio-IR patients was associated with the down modulation of multiple pBM predicted to be linked to the IL17, IL23, and IL1 pathways.

Conclusion:

UPA effects in both DMARD-IR and bio-IR PsA patients likely stem from the direct and indirect inhibition of multiple biological pathways belonging to the adaptive and innate immune systems. Responder/Non-Responder analysis suggests a possible shift from a TH1 biased biology in DMARD-IR PsA patients to a more TH17 biased biology in bio-IR PsA patients. This apparent change in the disease biology of PsA patients after inadequate response to prior therapy could be attributed to the actual alteration of the disease biology, treatment outcome-based patient selection, or both. Considering the clinical efficacy of UPA in both DMARD-IR and bio-IR PsA patients, this observation highlights the importance of targeting multiple pathways with drugs such as UPA for the treatment of a broad range of PsA patients.

References:

[1]McInnes, I. et al. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 79, 16-17 (2020).

[2]Mease, P.J. et al.Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, annrheumdis-2020-218870 (2020).

Acknowledgements:

AbbVie funded this study and participated in the study design, research, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, reviewing, and approval of the publication. All authors had access to relevant data and participated in the drafting, review, and approval of this publication. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship.

Disclosure of Interests:

Thierry Sornasse Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Jaclyn Anderson Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Koji Kato Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Apinya Lertratanakul Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Iain McInnes Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Regeneron, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Regeneron, UCB Pharma, Christopher T. Ritchlin Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, UCB

POS1032 EFFICACY OF UPADACITINIB IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS STRATIFIED BY NUMBER OF PRIOR BIOLOGIC DISEASE-MODIFYING ANTI-RHEUMATIC DRUGS

Background:

Upadacitinib (UPA) has shown efficacy and safety in patients (pts) with active PsA in the Phase 3 SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2 clinical trials.1,2 Historically efficacy has been lower with second- and third-line therapy compared with first-line anti-TNF therapy in PsA;3,4 however, clinical trial data that describe efficacy in pts who have had an inadequate response (IR) to multiple biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) are limited.

Objectives:

This analysis assessed the effects of prior bDMARD failure on UPA efficacy in the SELECT-PsA 2 trial.

Methods:

The SELECT-PsA 2 study enrolled pts with prior IR or intolerance to ≥1 bDMARD (N=642). Pts were randomized to placebo (PBO), UPA 15 mg once daily (QD, UPA15), or UPA 30 mg QD (UPA30). Stable background treatment of ≤2 non-bDMARDs was permitted; background therapy was not required. Only the pts who had IR to ≥1 bDMARD were included in this analysis; pts were subgrouped based on the number of bDMARDs failed prior to enrollment (1, 2, or ≥3). This analysis includes assessment of proportion of pts achieving ACR20/50/70, and change in HAQ-DI, FACIT-Fatigue, and SF-36 Physical Component Summary at Wk 12; static Investigator Global Assessment of Psoriasis of 0 or 1 and at least a 2-point improvement from baseline, PASI75, and change in Self-Assessment of Psoriasis Symptoms at Wk 16; and proportion of pts achieving minimal disease activity (MDA) at Wk 24. Non-responder imputation was used for binary endpoints. Mixed-effects model for repeated measures was used for continuous endpoints. Point estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the PBO subtracted treatment effect were calculated.

Results:

641 pts were randomized and received study drug; 92% were bDMARD-IR: 391 (61%) of pts failed 1 bDMARD, 116 (18%) failed 2 bDMARDs, and 83 (13%) failed ≥3 bDMARDs. In the overall study population, UPA15 and UPA30 demonstrated superiority vs placebo for all endpoints evaluated. In this post hoc analysis, the PBO subtracted treatment effect demonstrates generally consistent efficacy as compared to the overall study population for UPA15 and UPA30 across efficacy endpoints in the subgroups of pts with IR to 1, 2, or ≥3 prior bDMARDs (Figure 1). Due to limited sample sizes for pts with IR to >1 bDMARD and the pt subsets analyzed for psoriasis-related endpoints, results should be interpreted with caution.

Conclusion:

Upadacitinib demonstrated consistent efficacy in treating clinical manifestations of PsA including musculoskeletal symptoms, psoriasis, physical function, fatigue, and quality of life in pts with IR to 1 or multiple prior bDMARDs. In addition, comprehensive disease control as measured by MDA, was generally consistently achieved with upadacitinib regardless of number of prior bDMARDs tried.

References:

[1]McInnes IB, et al. Ann Rheum Dis, 2020; 79:12.

[2]Genovese MC, et al. Ann Rheum Dis, 2020; 79:139.

[3]Costa L, et al. Drugs R D. 2017;17:509-522.

[4]Reddy SM, et al. 2016;35:2955-2966.

Acknowledgements:

AbbVie and the authors thank the patients, study sites, and investigators who participated in this clinical trial. AbbVie, Inc was the study sponsor, contributed to study design, data collection, analysis & interpretation, and to writing, reviewing, and approval of final version. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing support was provided by Ramona Vladea, PhD of AbbVie Inc.

Disclosure of Interests:

Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers, Celgene, Galapagos, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxosmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB., Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers, Celgene, Galapagos, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxosmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB., Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers, Celgene, Galapagos, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxosmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB., Apinya Lertratanakul Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Bruce Strober Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Ortho Dermatologics, Consultant of: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Arcutis, Arena, Aristea, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Cara, Celgene, Dermavant, Dermira, Janssen, Leo, Eli Lilly, Meiji Seika Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, UCB Pharma, Sun Pharma, Ortho Dermatologics, Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, Shigeyoshi Tsuji Speakers bureau: AbbVie Inc., Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie Inc., Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Pascal Richette Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Biogen, Janssen, BMS, Roche, Pfizer, Amgen, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Lilly, Novartis, and Celgene, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, Janssen, BMS, Roche, Pfizer, Amgen, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Lilly, Novartis, and Celgene, Charles Lovan Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Dai Feng Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Jaclyn Anderson Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Filip van den Bosch Speakers bureau: AbbVie Inc., Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie Inc., Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB.

OP0233 EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF UPADACITINIB IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS AND AXIAL INVOLVEMENT

Background:

Patients (pts) with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial involvment exhibit greater disease activity and quality of life impairments compared with those without axial involvment.

Objectives:

To characterize PsA pts with and without axial involvement and compare efficacy of UPA vs placebo (PBO) in PsA pts with axial involvement.

Methods:

In SELECT-PsA 1 (NCT03104400; N=1705, non-biologic DMARD IR) and SELECT-PsA 2 (NCT03104374; N=642, biologic DMARD IR), pts with active PsA (≥3 swollen and ≥3 tender joints), active or historical psoriasis, and on ≤2 non-biologic DMARDs were randomized to once daily UPA 15 mg, UPA 30 mg, adalimumab 40 mg every other week (SELECT-PsA 1 only), or PBO. Efficacy was assessed in pts with axial involvement (diagnosed by investigators based on totality of information) pooled from the 2 studies. Assessments included change from BL in BASDAI, BASDAI Q2 (neck/back/hip pain) and Q3 (joint swelling/pain), and the AS Disease Activity Score (ASDAS-CRP), and percentage with BASDAI 50 response, ASDAS inactive disease (ID), ASDAS low disease activity (LDA), ASDAS major improvement (MI), and ASDAS clinically important improvement (CII). Uveitis and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) adverse events were reviewed. Data on 24-week PBO-controlled period are presented.

Results:

Prevalence of axial involvment was 31.3% in SELECT-PsA 1 and 34.2% in SELECT-PsA 2 (Table). Treatment with UPA 15 mg and 30 mg resulted in significantly greater improvements from BL in the BASDAI, BASDAI Q2 (neck/back/hip pain) and Q3 (joint swelling/pain) and ASDAS-CRP at weeks 12 and 24 vs PBO (Figure). Similarly, significantly higher percentages of pts on UPA 15 mg and 30 mg achieved BASDAI 50, ASDAS ID, LDA, MI, and CII at weeks 12 and 24 vs PBO (Figure). One pt on UPA 30 mg had incident uveitis, and no IBD was reported on UPA.

Table 1.

Demographics and Baseline Characteristics

SELECT-PsA 1SELECT-PsA 2Parameter, mean (SD)With Psoriatic Spondylitis(n=534)Without Psoriatic Spondylitis(n=1170)Pvalue*With Psoriatic Spondylitis(n=219)Without Psoriatic Spondylitis(n=421)Pvalue*BMI (kg/m2)29.9 (6.5)30.5 (6.9).081031.6 (8.0)31.3 (6.9).6226TJC6821.6 (15.1)19.2 (13.5).002227.5 (18.0)23.3 (16.2).0027SJC6611.7 (9.4)11.0 (7.9).118412.9 (9.2)11.7 (8.7).0804Physician’s Global Assessment (NRS 0–10)6.7 (1.6)6.5 (1.7).04376.6 (1.8)6.5 (1.7).1897HAQ-DI1.2 (0.6)1.1 (0.6).01701.2 (0.6)1.2 (0.7).2049n=531n=1164n=218n=416Presence of dactylitis, n (%)†188 (35.2)328 (28.0).002869 (31.5)100 (23.8).0348Presence of enthesitis, n(%)‡432 (80.9)884 (75.6).0147189 (86.3)337 (80.0).0125ASDAS–CRP3.4 (0.9)3.1 (1.0)<.00013.3 (1.0)3.2 (1.1).1032n=530n=1161n=217n=416BASDAI5.8 (2.0)5.3 (2.2)<.00016.2 (2.2)5.8 (2.2).0673n=530n=1161n=217n=416Morning Stiffness Duration (NRS 0–10; BASDAI Q6)5.0 (3.0)4.7 (3.0).03685.6 (3.2)5.1 (3.0).0454n=530n=1161n=217n=416Patient’s Assessment of Inflammatory Neck, Back, or Hip Pain (NRS 0–10; BASDAI Q2)5.8 (2.7)4.6 (3.2)<.00016.4 (2.8)5.4 (3.1).0001n=530n=1161n=217n=416

*Calculated by t-test for continuous variables and chi-square test for categorical values. Bolded if <0.05.

Defined as †LDI>0 and ‡total enthesitis count >0

Conclusion:

PsA pts with axial involvement had higher BL disease burden compared with those without axial involvement. UPA was efficacious in treating axial symptoms in pts with psoriatic spondylits.

References:

[1]van der Heijde D, et al. Lancet. 2019;394(10214):2108-2117.

Acknowledgements:

Abbvie funded the study. AbbVie participated in study design, research, analysis, data collection, interpretation of the data, reviewing, and approval. All authors had access to the relevant data and participated in the drafting, review, and approval of the abstract. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing support was provided by M Mehta, and J Matsuura of ICON plc (North Wales, PA) and was funded by AbbVie.

Disclosure of Interests:

Atul Deodhar Speakers bureau: Novartis and Pfizer, Consultant of: Novartis, Pfizer, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, UCB Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Galapagos, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim and Celgene, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, UCB Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, R Ranza Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Janssen, Fabiana Ganz Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Tianming Gao Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Jaclyn Anderson Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Andrew Ostor Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Roche, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Gilead, and Paradigm

POS1035 UPADACITINIB AS MONOTHERAPY AND IN COMBINATION WITH NON-BIOLOGIC DMARDs FOR THE TREATMENT OF PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: SUBGROUP ANALYSIS FROM TWO PHASE 3 TRIALS

Background:

Approximately 40% of PsA patients (pts) on advanced therapy are on monotherapy.1,2 Upadacitinib (UPA) showed efficacy and safety in pts with active PsA in the Phase 3 SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2 clinical trials.3,4

Objectives:

Assess efficacy and safety in subgroups of pts treated with UPA as monotherapy or in combination with non-biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (non-bDMARDs).

Methods:

The SELECT-PsA program enrolled pts with prior inadequate response (IR) or intolerance to ≥1 non-bDMARD (N=1705) and prior IR or intolerance to ≥1 bDMARD (N=642). Data from both trials was integrated for pts receiving placebo (PBO), UPA 15 mg once daily (QD) and UPA 30 mg QD. Stable background treatment of ≤2 non-bDMARDs was permitted, but not required. Analysis includes UPA monotherapy vs combination therapy for endpoints: ACR20/50/70 responses and change from baseline in pain and HAQ-DI (Wk 12); Static Investigator Global Assessment of Psoriasis of 0 or 1 and at least a 2-point improvement from baseline and PASI75/90/100 responses (Wk 16); proportion of pts achieving resolution of enthesitis, dactylitis, and minimal disease activity (Wk 24). Binary outcomes, using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel-method and continuous outcomes, using mixed-effects model, were analyzed for repeated measures in the subgroups of UPA monotherapy and combination therapy. Point estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of PBO subtracted treatment effect were calculated. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were analyzed.

Results:

Of 1916 pts, 574 (30%) received monotherapy and 1342 (70%) received combination therapy; 84% in combination therapy group received MTX +/- another non-bDMARD. Both UPA monotherapy and combination therapy led to improvements in efficacy vs PBO and across endpoints, for each dose, generally consistent point estimates of PBO subtracted treatment effect and associated overlapping CIs were observed (Figure 1). Generally, frequency of AEs and serious AEs, were comparable with UPA administered as monotherapy and combination therapy (Table 1). Frequency of AEs of serious infections and hepatic disorder were lower with monotherapy while frequency of AEs leading to discontinuation of study drug were lower with combination therapy. Most hepatic disorders were transient transaminase elevations.

Conclusion:

In the SELECT PsA trials, efficacy and safety of UPA was generally consistent when administered as monotherapy or when given in combination with non-bDMARDs. Results from this analysis support the use of UPA with or without concomitant non-bDMARDs.

References:

[1]Ianculescu I and Weisman MH, Clin Exp Rheumatol 2015; 33:S94–S97.

[2]Mease PJ, et al. RMD Open 2015; 1:e0000181.

[3]McInnes IB, et al. Ann Rheum Dis, 2020; 79:12.

[4]Genovese MC, et al. Ann Rheum Dis, 2020; 79:139.

Acknowledgements:

AbbVie and the authors thank the patients, study sites, and investigators who participated in this clinical trial. AbbVie, Inc was the study sponsor, contributed to study design, data collection, analysis & interpretation, and to writing, reviewing, and approval of final version. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing support was provided by Ramona Vladea of AbbVie Inc.

Disclosure of Interests:

Peter Nash Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Roche, Pfizer, Janssen, Amgen, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Celgene, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Roche, Pfizer, Janssen, Amgen, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Celgene, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Roche, Pfizer, Janssen, Amgen, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Celgene, Pascal Richette Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Biogen, Janssen, BMS, Roche, Pfizer, Amgen, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Lilly, Novartis, and Celgene, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, Janssen, BMS, Roche, Pfizer, Amgen, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Lilly, Novartis, and Celgene, Laure Gossec Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Janssen, Sandoz, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Janssen, Sandoz, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Janssen, Sandoz, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Antonio Marchesoni Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Christopher T. Ritchlin Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Novartis, UCB, Grant/research support from: UCB, Koji Kato Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Erin McDearmon-Blondell Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Elizabeth Lesser Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Reva McCaskill Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Dai Feng Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Jaclyn Anderson Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Eric Ruderman Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer.

536 Use of A Cost-Efficient Colonoscopy Simulation Model to Improve Endoscopy Skills During the COVID Pandemic

Introduction

The use of endoscopic simulators as a learning aid in surgical training has been well established. This has been emphasised during the challenging times of COVID-19. However, their utility for training is countered by the high cost of the equipment, with the most basic simulators costing upwards of £50,000.

Method

A simple polypectomy simulator model was created using a drain-pipe and surgical gloves. n = 9 junior doctors were timed in their ability to remove the 3 polyps from the simulator. The exercise was repeated over 6 sessions over the course of 3 weeks. Means were compared using ANOVA.

Results

There was a mean relative reduction of 75% in overall time taken to complete the task(p < 0.0001). This improvement was seen for both surgical trainees(p = 0.005) and FY1 novices(p < 0.0001) and junior doctors reported feeling more confident with basic Colonoscopic skills.

Conclusions

We have demonstrated an improvement in performance times across both surgical trainees and novices. In today’s era of COVID-19, when direct training opportunities may become more scarce, simple alternatives may become vital in ensuring progression of basic surgical skills such as endoscopy. This cheap polypectomy simulator can be easily re-created across surgical units and can be used as an adjunct to traditional endoscopic training

Prospects for beyond the Standard Model physics searches at the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment: DUNE Collaboration

The Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE) will be a powerful tool for a variety of physics topics. The high-intensity proton beams provide a large neutrino flux, sampled by a near detector system consisting of a combination of capable precision detectors, and by the massive far detector system located deep underground. This configuration sets up DUNE as a machine for discovery, as it enables opportunities not only to perform precision neutrino measurements that may uncover deviations from the present three-flavor mixing paradigm, but also to discover new particles and unveil new interactions and symmetries beyond those predicted in the Standard Model (SM). Of the many potential beyond the Standard Model (BSM) topics DUNE will probe, this paper presents a selection of studies quantifying DUNE's sensitivities to sterile neutrino mixing, heavy neutral leptons, non-standard interactions, CPT symmetry violation, Lorentz invariance violation, neutrino trident production, dark matter from both beam induced and cosmogenic sources, baryon number violation, and other new physics topics that complement those at high-energy colliders and significantly extend the present reach.

Trends in diabetic retinopathy screening attendance and associations with vision impairment attributable to diabetes in a large nationwide cohort

AIMS

To investigate diabetic retinopathy screening attendance and trends in certified vision impairment caused by diabetic eye disease.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of attendance in three urban UK diabetic eye screening programmes in England. A survival analysis was performed to investigate time from diagnosis to first screen by age and sex. Logistic regression analysis of factors influencing screening attendance during a 15-month reporting period was conducted, as well as analysis of new vision impairment certifications (Certificate of Vision Impairment) in England and Wales from 2009 to 2019.

RESULTS

Of those newly registered in the Routine Digital Screening pathway (n = 97 048), 80% attended screening within the first 12 months and 88% by 36 months. Time from registration to first eye screening was longer for people aged 18-34 years, and 20% were unscreened after 3 years. Delay in first screen was associated with increased risk of referable retinopathy. Although 95% of participants (n = 291 296) attended during the 15-month reporting period, uptake varied considerably. Younger age, social deprivation, ethnicity and duration of diabetes were independent predictors of non-attendance and referable retinopathy. Although the last 10 years has seen an overall reduction in vision impairment certification attributable to diabetic eye disease, the incidence of vision impairment in those aged <35 years was unchanged.

CONCLUSIONS

Whilst the majority of participants are screened in a timely manner, there is considerable variation in uptake. Young adults, have sub-optimal attendance, and levels of vision impairment in this population have not changed over the last 10 years. There is an urgent need to explore barriers to/enablers of attendance in this group to inform policy initiatives and tailored interventions to address this issue.

Impact of lanadelumab on health-related quality of life in patients with hereditary angioedema in the HELP study

Background

An objective of the phase 3 HELP Study was to investigate the effect of lanadelumab on health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with hereditary angioedema (HAE).

Methods

Patients with HAE‐1/2 received either lanadelumab 150 mg every 4 weeks (q4wks; n = 28), 300 mg q4wks (n = 29), 300 mg every 2 weeks (q2wks; n = 27), or placebo (n = 41) for 26 weeks (days 0–182). The Angioedema Quality of Life Questionnaire (AE‐QoL) was administered monthly, consisting of four domain (functioning, fatigue/mood, fears/shame, nutrition) and total scores. The generic EQ‐5D‐5L questionnaire was administered on days 0, 98, and 182. Comparisons were made between placebo and (a) all lanadelumab‐treated patients and (b) individual lanadelumab groups for changes in scores (day 0–182) and proportions achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID, −6) in AE‐QoL total score.

Results

Compared with the placebo group, the lanadelumab total group demonstrated significantly greater improvements in AE‐QoL total and domain scores (mean change, −13.0 to −29.3; p < 0.05 for all); the largest improvement was in functioning. A significantly greater proportion of the lanadelumab total group achieved the MCID (70% vs 37%; p = 0.001). The lanadelumab 300 mg q2wks group had the highest proportion (81%; p = 0.001) and was 7.2 times more likely to achieve the MCID than the placebo group. Mean EQ‐5D‐5L scores at day 0 were high in all groups, indicating low impairment, with no significant changes at day 182.

Conclusion

Patients with HAE‐1/2 experienced significant and clinically meaningful improvements in HRQoL measured by AE‐QoL following lanadelumab treatment in the HELP Study.

A97 TOOLS FOR DIRECT OBSERVATION AND ASSESSMENT OF COLONOSCOPY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF VALIDITY EVIDENCE

Background

An increasing focus on quality and safety in colonoscopy has led to broader implementation of competency-based educational systems that enable documentation of trainees’ achievement of the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed for independent practice. The meaningful assessment of competence in colonoscopy is critical to this process. While there are many published tools that assess competence in performing colonoscopy, there is a wide range of underlying validity evidence. Tools with strong evidence of validity are required to support feedback provision, optimize learner capabilities, and document competence.

Aims

We aimed to evaluate the strength of validity evidence that supports available colonoscopy direct observation assessment tools using the unified framework of validity.

Methods

We systematically searched five databases for studies investigating colonoscopy direct observation assessment tools from inception until April 8, 2020. We extracted data outlining validity evidence from the five sources (content, response process, internal structure, relations to other variables, and consequences) and graded the degree of evidence, with a maximum score of 15. We assessed educational utility using an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education framework and methodological quality using the Medical Education Research Quality Instrument (MERSQI).

Results

From 10,841 records, we identified 27 studies representing 13 assessment tools (10 adult, 2 pediatric, 1 both). All tools assessed technical skills, while 10 assessed cognitive and integrative skills. Validity evidence scores ranged from 1–15. The Assessment of Competency in Endoscopy (ACE) tool, the Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (DOPS) tool, and the Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Competency Assessment Tool (GiECAT) had the strongest validity evidence, with scores of 13, 15, and 14, respectively. Most tools were easy to use and interpret and required minimal resources. MERSQI scores ranged from 9.5–11.5 (maximum score 14.5).

Conclusions

The ACE, DOPS, and GiECAT have strong validity evidence compared to other assessments. Future studies should identify barriers to widespread implementation and report on use of these tools in credentialing purposes.

Funding Agencies

None

Intraoperative finding of immobile leaflet(s) following freshly implanted bioprosthetic valves: clinical characteristics and impact on outcomes

Funding Acknowledgements

Type of funding sources: None.

BACKGROUND

Detection of immobile leaflets immediately following bioprosthetic valve implantation is a rare but important intraoperative finding. Restriction of leaflet movement can occur in the closed or open position, leading to abnormal prosthesis function. We sought to determine the clinical implications of immobile leaflets seen on intraoperative echocardiography.

METHODS

Patients with immobile leaflets identified on intra-operative/procedure echocardiography immediately post implantation between 2009-2020 were identified from an institutional database. All echocardiograms were reviewed de-novo to confirm immobile leaflets in the immediate post-implantation period. Identified cases were matched 1:2 to controls for age; sex; prosthesis position, model and size; and implantation approach (surgical vs. transcatheter).  Nominal logistic regression and proportional hazards were used to analyze outcomes.

RESULTS

Thirty patients with immobile leaflets immediately post-bioprosthesis implantation were included. Clinical characteristics are summarized in the Table. Immobile leaflets were documented in procedural reports in only 18 (60%) patients. Moderate stenosis was present intraoperatively in 1 patient, none demonstrated ≥moderate regurgitation, and none resulted in immediate corrective action. In 3 (10%), valve re-intervention was required within 30 days due to symptomatic prosthesis dysfunction. Presence of restricted leaflet motion was associated with higher need for post-operative extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use (odds-ratio 7.3, p = 0.02) and composite end-point of death, valve re-replacement, prosthesis thrombosis, or cardiac hospitalizations (risk ratio 2.1, p = 0.03, Figure).

CONCLUSION

Immobile leaflet(s) immediately post-bioprosthetic valve implantation is an uncommon, under-reported, and under-treated phenomenon. Even in the absence of significant prosthetic valve dysfunction, it can be associated with worse post-operative course as well as worse outcomes.

Baseline characteristics Age 76 (67-84) Sex, male 10 (33%) Surgical approach 25 (83%) Aortic 5 (17%) Mitral 12 (40%) Tricuspid 12 (40%) Pulmonary 1 (3%) Re-intervention within 10 days 3 (10%) Numbers are presented as median (interquartile range) or number (percentage). Abstract Figure. Clinical outcome of stuck leaflets

HIV DNA reservoir and elevated PD-1 expression of CD4 T-cell subsets particularly persist in the terminal ileum of HIV-positive patients despite cART

OBJECTIVES

Despite its importance as an HIV anatomic sanctuary, little is known about the characteristics of the HIV reservoir in the terminal ileum (TI). In blood, the immune checkpoint inhibitor programmed-death-1 (PD-1) has been linked to the HIV reservoir and T-cell immune dysfunction. We thus evaluated PD-1 expression and cell-associated HIV DNA in memory CD4 T-cell subsets from TI, peripheral blood (PB) and rectum (RE) of untreated and treated HIV-positive patients to identify associations between PD-1 and HIV reservoir in other sites.

METHODS

Using mononuclear cells from PB, TI and RE of untreated HIV-positive (N = 6), treated (n = 18) HIV-positive and uninfected individuals (n = 16), we identified and sorted distinct memory CD4 T-cell subsets by flow cytometry, quantified their cell-associated HIV DNA using quantitative PCR and assessed PD-1 expression levels using geometric mean fluorescence intensity. Combined HIV-1 RNA in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry was performed on ileal biopsy sections.

RESULTS

Combined antiretroviral therapy (cART)-treated patients with undetectable HIV RNA and significantly lower levels of HIV DNA in PB showed particularly high PD-1 expression in PB and TI, and high HIV DNA levels in TI, irrespective of clinical characteristics. By contrast, in treatment-naïve patients HIV DNA levels in memory CD4 T-cell subsets were high in PB and TI.

CONCLUSION

Elevated PD-1 expression on memory CD4 T-cells in PB and TI despite treatment points to continuous immune dysfunction and underlines the importance of evaluating immunotherapy in reversing HIV latency and T-cell reconstitution. As HIV DNA particularly persists in TI despite cART, investigating samples from TI is crucial in understanding HIV immunopathogenesis.

Environmental Distractions during Unsupervised Remote Digital Cognitive Assessment

The current demand for cognitive assessment cannot be met with traditional in-person methods, warranting the need for remote unsupervised options. However, lack of visibility into testing conditions and effort levels limit the utility of existing remote options. This retrospective study analyzed the frequency of and factors associated with environmental distractions during a brief digital assessment taken at home by 1,442 adults aged 23–84. Automated scoring algorithms flagged low data capture. Frequency of environmental distractions were manually counted on a per-frame and per-trial basis. A total of 7.4% of test administrations included distractions. Distractions were more frequent in men (41:350) than women (65:1,092) and the average age of distracted participants (51.7) was lower than undistracted participants (57.8). These results underscore the challenges associated with unsupervised cognitive assessment. Data collection methods that enable review of testing conditions are needed to confirm quality, usability, and actionability.

Identification of tissue-dependent proteins in knee OA synovial fluid

OBJECTIVE

For many proteins from osteoarthritic synovial fluid, their intra-articular tissue of origin remains unknown. In this study we performed comparative proteomics to identify osteoarthritis-specific and joint tissue-dependent secreted proteins that may serve as candidates for osteoarthritis biomarker development on a tissue-specific basis.

DESIGN

Protein secretomes of cartilage, synovium, Hoffa's fat pad and meniscus from knee osteoarthritis patients were determined using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry, followed by label-free quantification. Validation of tissue-dependent protein species was conducted by ELISA on independent samples. Differential proteomes of osteoarthritic and non-osteoarthritic knee synovial fluids were obtained via similar proteomics approach, followed by ELISA validation.

RESULTS

Proteomics revealed 64 proteins highly secreted from cartilage, 94 from synovium, 37 from Hoffa's fat pad and 21 from meniscus. Proteomic analyses of osteoarthritic vs non-osteoarthritic knee synovial fluid revealed 70 proteins with a relatively higher abundance and 264 proteins with a relatively lower abundance in osteoarthritic synovial fluid. Of the 70 higher abundance proteins, 23 were amongst the most highly expressed in the secretomes of a specific intra-articular tissue measured. Tissue-dependent release was validated for SLPI, C8, CLU, FN1, RARRES2, MATN3, MMP3 and TNC. Abundance in synovial fluid of tissue-dependent proteins was validated for IGF2, AHSG, FN1, CFB, KNG and C8.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified proteins with a tissue-dependent release from intra-articular human knee OA tissues. A number of these proteins also had an osteoarthritis-specific abundance in knee synovial fluid. These proteins may serve as novel candidates for osteoarthritis biomarker development on a tissue-specific basis.