THU0202 INTEGRATED SAFETY ANALYSIS OF FILGOTINIB TREATMENT FOR RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS FROM 7 CLINICAL TRIALS

Background:

Filgotinib (FIL), an oral, potent, selective JAK-1 inhibitor, provided statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) signs and symptoms, physical function, radiographic progression, and quality of life in a comprehensive clinical program of 4 phase 3 (FINCH 1–4;NCT02889796,NCT02873936,NCT02886728,NCT03025308) and 3 phase 2 (DARWIN 1–3;NCT01668641,NCT01894516,NCT02065700) trials in patients (pts) with early and biologic-refractory RA.1–3

Objectives:

To assess long-term safety of FIL.

Methods:

Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) from the FIL clinical program were integrated and presented for pts receiving FIL 200 mg or FIL 100 mg QD (including pts who transitioned to FIL from placebo [PBO], methotrexate [MTX], adalimumab [ADA], or another dose of FIL) as well as pts receiving PBO, MTX, and ADA across all 7 studies. Exposure-adjusted incidence rates (EAIRs) per 100 patient-years (PY) were calculated for adverse events (AEs) of interest per treatment. Incidence was total number of pts with events, and PY exposure was time between first and last doses. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) were centrally adjudicated by an independent committee.

Results:

Across the 7 trials, 4057 pts with RA (2227 pts FIL 200 mg; 1600 pts FIL 100 mg) received >1 dose of treatment for 5493 total PY of exposure (3079.2 PY FIL 200 mg; 1465.3 PY FIL 100 mg) (Table). EAIRs of serious AEs and TEAEs leading to death in pts receiving FIL were comparable to those for PBO, ADA, or MTX, with no dose-dependent effect (Figure 1). EAIR for herpes zoster (HZ), serious, and opportunistic infections are shown in Figure 2. EAIR for HZ were low overall, but numerically slightly higher for FIL relative to PBO, ADA, and similar to MTX. Serious infection EAIRs were comparable between pts receiving FIL 100 mg and ADA, and numerically slightly lower for FIL 200 mg and MTX. Rates of opportunistic infections (including active tuberculosis) were low overall; EAIR for FIL doses were comparable to placebo and numerically lower than ADA or MTX. Rates of MACE and VTE were numerically lower for FIL relative to PBO (Figure 1). Malignancies, including nonmelanoma skin cancer, were rare overall, and rates were low in pts receiving FIL (Figure 1).

Table.

Total exposure to study treatments pooled from 7 studies

Number of patientsPatient-years of exposureFIL 200 mg22273079.2FIL 100 mg16001465.3ADA325290.1MTX416356.2PBO781302.4

Patients could contribute to >1 treatment group.

ADA, adalimumab; FIL, filgotinib; MTX, methotrexate; PBO, placebo.

Conclusion:

In this integrated analysis, FIL was well-tolerated, and no new safety concerns were identified. No clinically meaningful dose-dependent safety effects were observed. MACE and VTE were uncommon. Serious infections rates were low; HZ reactivation was infrequent. Safety results were consistent with selective JAK-1 inhibition and highlight the favourable safety and tolerability of FIL in patients with RA.

References:

[1]Genovese, et al.JAMA2019;322(4):315–25.

[2]Westhovens, et al.Ann Rheum Dis2017;76:998–1008.

[3]Kavanaugh, et al.Ann Rheum Dis2017;76:1009–19.

Disclosure of Interests:

Mark C. Genovese Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Eli Lilly and Company, EMD Merck Serono, Galapagos, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Inc., GSK, Novartis, Pfizer Inc., RPharm, Sanofi Genzyme, Consultant of: Abbvie, Eli Lilly and Company, EMD Merck Serono, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Inc., GSK, Novartis, RPharm, Sanofi Genzyme, Kevin Winthrop Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Pfizer Inc, Roche, UCB, Yoshiya Tanaka Grant/research support from: Asahi-kasei, Astellas, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Takeda, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers, UCB, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, and Ono, Consultant of: Abbvie, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Daiichi-Sankyo, Astellas, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AbbVie, YL Biologics, Bristol-Myers, Takeda, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Eisai, Janssen, Sanofi, UCB, and Teijin, Tsutomu Takeuchi Grant/research support from: Eisai Co., Ltd, Astellas Pharma Inc., AbbVie GK, Asahi Kasei Pharma Corporation, Nippon Kayaku Co., Ltd, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd, UCB Pharma, Shionogi & Co., Ltd., Mitsubishi-Tanabe Pharma Corp., Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Consultant of: Chugai Pharmaceutical Co Ltd, Astellas Pharma Inc., Eli Lilly Japan KK, Speakers bureau: AbbVie GK, Eisai Co., Ltd, Mitsubishi-Tanabe Pharma Corporation, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co Ltd, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, AYUMI Pharmaceutical Corp., Eisai Co., Ltd, Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., Gilead Sciences, Inc., Novartis Pharma K.K., Pfizer Japan Inc., Sanofi K.K., Dainippon Sumitomo Co., Ltd., Alan Kivitz Shareholder of: AbbVie, Amgen, Gilead, GSK, Pfizer Inc, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim,,Flexion, Genzyme, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Regeneron, Sanofi, SUN Pharma Advanced Research, UCB, Paid instructor for: Celgene, Genzyme, Horizon, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Flexion, Genzyme, Horizon, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Regeneron, Sanofi, Franziska Matzkies Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences, Inc., Employee of: Gilead Sciences, Inc., Lei Ye Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences Inc., Employee of: Gilead Sciences Inc., Deyuan Jiang Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences, Inc., Employee of: Gilead Sciences, Inc., Ying Guo Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences, Inc., Employee of: Gilead Sciences, Inc., Beatrix Bartok Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences Inc., Employee of: Gilead Sciences Inc., Robin Besuyen Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Gerd Rüdiger Burmester Consultant of: AbbVie Inc, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Roche, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie Inc, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Roche, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Jacques-Eric Gottenberg Grant/research support from: BMS, Pfizer, Consultant of: BMS, Sanofi-Genzyme, UCB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Eli Lilly and Co., Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, UCB

THU0271 PERFORMANCE OF THE EULAR/ACR 2019 CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA FOR SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS IN EARLY DISEASE, ACROSS SEXES AND ETHNICITIES

Background:

EULAR/ACR 2019 SLE Classification Criteria were validated in an international cohort.

Objectives:

To evaluate performance characteristics of SLE classification systems in sex, race/ethnicity, and disease duration subsets.

Methods:

Sensitivity and specificity of the EULAR/ACR 2019, SLICC 2012 and ACR 1982/1997 criteria were evaluated in the validation cohort.

Results:

The cohort consisted of female (n=1098), male (n=172), Asian (n=118), Black (n=68), Hispanic (n=124) and White (n=941) patients; and patients with an SLE duration of 1-3 years (n=196), 3-5 years (n=157), and ≥5 years (n=879). Among patients with 1-3 years disease duration, the EULAR/ACR criteria had better sensitivity than the ACR criteria (97% (95%CI 92-99%) vs 81% (95%CI 72-88%). The new criteria performed well in men (sensitivity 93%, specificity 96%) and women (sensitivity 97%, specificity 94%). The new criteria had better sensitivity than the ACR criteria in White (95% vs 83%), Hispanic (100% vs 86%) and Asian patients (97% vs 77%).

Conclusion:

The EULAR/ACR 2019 criteria perform well in patients with early disease, and across sexes and ethnicities.

Disclosure of Interests:

Sindhu Johnson Grant/research support from: Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Merck, Bayer, Consultant of: Boehringer Ingelheim, Ikaria, Ralph Brinks: None declared, Karen Costenbader Grant/research support from: Merck, Consultant of: Astra-Zeneca, David Daikh: None declared, Marta Mosca: None declared, Rosalind Ramsey-Goldman: None declared, Josef S. Smolen Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche – grant/research support, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen Inc., AstraZeneca, Astro, Celgene Corporation, Celtrion, Eli Lilly, Glaxo, ILTOO, Janssen, Medimmune, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi, UCB – consultant, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen Inc., AstraZeneca, Astro, Celgene Corporation, Celtrion, Eli Lilly, Glaxo, ILTOO, Janssen, Medimmune, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi, UCB – speaker, David Wofsy: None declared, Dimitrios Boumpas Grant/research support from: Unrestricted grant support from various pharmaceutical companies, Diane L Kamen Consultant of: Consulted on SLE survey development for Lilly and consulted on SLE trial protocol development for EMD Serono in 2019, David Jayne Grant/research support from: ChemoCentryx, GSK, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi-Genzyme, Consultant of: Astra-Zeneca, ChemoCentryx, GSK, InflaRx, Takeda, Insmed, Chugai, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Ricard Cervera: None declared, Nathalie Costedoat-Chalumeau Grant/research support from: UCB to my institution, Betty Diamond: None declared, Dafna D Gladman Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen Inc., BMS, Celgene Corporation, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB – grant/research support, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen Inc., BMS, Celgene Corporation, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB – consultant, Bevra H. Hahn Grant/research support from: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Falk Hiepe: None declared, Soren Jacobsen: None declared, Dinesh Khanna Shareholder of: Eicos Sciences, Inc./Civi Biopharma, Inc., Grant/research support from: Dr Khanna was supported by NIH/NIAMS K24AR063120, Consultant of: Acceleron, Actelion, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corbus Pharmaceuticals, Horizon Therapeutic, Galapagos, Roche/Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Sanofi-Aventis/Genzyme, UCB, Kirsten Lerstrom: None declared, Elena Massarotti: None declared, William Joseph McCune: None declared, Guillermo Ruiz-Irastorza: None declared, Jorge Sanchez-Guerrero: None declared, Matthias Schneider: None declared, Murray B Urowitz: None declared, George Bertsias Grant/research support from: GSK, Consultant of: Novartis, Bimba F. Hoyer: None declared, Nicolai Leuchten: None declared, Chiara Tani: None declared, Sara Tedeschi: None declared, Zahi Touma: None declared, Gabriela Schmajuk Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Branimir Anic: None declared, Florence Assan: None declared, Tak Chan: None declared, Ann E Clarke: None declared, Mary K. Crow: None declared, László Czirják Consultant of: Actelion, BI, Roche-Genentech, Lilly, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer, Bayer AG, Andrea Doria Consultant of: GSK, Pfizer, Abbvie, Novartis, Ely Lilly, Speakers bureau: UCB pharma, GSK, Pfizer, Janssen, Abbvie, Novartis, Ely Lilly, BMS, Winfried Graninger: None declared, Bernadett Halda-Kiss: None declared, Sarfaraz Hasni: None declared, Peter Izmirly: None declared, Michelle Jung: None declared, Gabor Kumanovics Consultant of: Boehringer, Teva, Speakers bureau: Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Xavier Mariette: None declared, Ivan Padjen: None declared, Jose M Pego-Reigosa: None declared, Juanita Romero-Diaz Consultant of: Biogen, Iñigo Rua-Figueroa: None declared, Raphaèle Seror Consultant of: BMS, Medimmune, Novartis, Pfizer, GSK, Lilly, Georg Stummvoll: None declared, Yoshiya Tanaka Grant/research support from: Asahi-kasei, Astellas, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Takeda, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers, UCB, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, and Ono, Consultant of: Abbvie, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Daiichi-Sankyo, Astellas, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AbbVie, YL Biologics, Bristol-Myers, Takeda, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Eisai, Janssen, Sanofi, UCB, and Teijin, Maria Tektonidou Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, Novartis and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, MSD, Novartis and Pfizer, Carlos Vasconcelos: None declared, Edward Vital Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, and Sandoz, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, GSK, Roche/Genentech, and Sandoz, Speakers bureau: Becton Dickinson and GSK, Daniel J Wallace: None declared, Sule Yavuz: None declared, Pier Luigi Meroni: None declared, Marvin Fritzler: None declared, Raymond Naden: None declared, Thomas Dörner Grant/research support from: Janssen, Novartis, Roche, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Roche, Janssen, EMD, Speakers bureau: Eli Lilly, Roche, Samsung, Janssen, Martin Aringer Consultant of: Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Speakers bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche

THU0198 EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF FILGOTINIB FOR PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS WITH INADEQUATE RESPONSE TO METHOTREXATE: FINCH 1 52-WEEK RESULTS

Background:

Filgotinib (FIL) is an oral, potent, selective JAK1 inhibitor. FINCH 1 (NCT02889796) assessed FIL efficacy and safety in patients (pts) with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX-IR); primary outcome results at week (W)12 and W24 were previously reported.1

Objectives:

To present FINCH 1 W52 results.

Methods:

This global, phase 3, double-blind, active- and placebo (PBO)-controlled study randomised MTX-IR pts with active RA on a background of stable MTX 3:3:2:3 to oral FIL 200 mg or FIL 100 mg once daily, subcutaneous adalimumab (ADA) 40 mg every 2W, or PBO up to W52; pts receiving PBO at W24 were rerandomised to FIL 100 or 200 mg. Efficacy was assessed from clinical, radiographic, and pt-reported outcomes; W52 comparisons were not adjusted for multiplicity. Safety endpoints included adverse events (AEs) and laboratory abnormalities.

Results:

Of 1755 treated pts, 1417 received study drug through W52. The majority (81.8%) were female, mean (standard deviation [SD]) RA duration was 7.8 (7.6) years, and baseline mean (SD) DAS28(CRP) was 5.7 (0.9). FIL efficacy was sustained through W52; 54%, 43%, and 46% of pts receiving FIL 200 and 100 mg and ADA, respectively, had W52 DAS28(CRP) <2.6 (nominal p for FIL 200 vs ADA = 0.024) (Figures 1–2, Table 1). FIL safety profile through W52 was consistent with W24 data. AEs of interest were infrequent and balanced among treatments (Table 2); 82 pts (4.7%) discontinued treatment due to AEs.

Table 1.

Efficacy outcomes at week 52

FIL 200 mg(n = 475)FIL 100 mg(n = 480)ADA(n = 325)ACR20/50/70, %78/62/4476/59/3874/59/39DAS28(CRP) ≤3.2, %66+5959mTSSa0.18+++0.450.61HAQ-DIb−0.93+−0.85−0.85SF-36 PCSb12.011.512.4FACIT-Fb11.912.211.7

aLeast squares mean change from baseline.

bMean change from baseline.

+p <0.05,+++p <0.001 vs ADA; not adjusted for multiplicity.

ADA, adalimumab; FIL, filgotinib; mTSS, modified van der Heijde TSS.

Table 2.

Treatment-emergent AEs through week 52

Event, n (%)FIL 200(n = 475)FIL 100 mg(n = 480)ADA(n = 325)All AEs352 (74.1)350 (72.9)239 (73.5)Serious AEs35 (7.4)40 (8.3)22 (6.8)Infection206 (43.4)194 (40.4)129 (39.7)Serious infection13 (2.7)13 (2.7)10 (3.1)Herpes zoster6 (1.3)4 (0.8)2 (0.6)VTE1 (0.2)01 (0.3)MACE (adjudicated)02 (0.4)1 (0.3)Malignancy (excluding NMSC)2 (0.4)2 (0.4)2 (0.6)NMSC1 (0.2)1 (0.2)0Death3 (0.6)1 (0.2)1 (0.3)

Data omitted for patients rerandomised from placebo to FIL.

ADA, adalimumab; AE, adverse event; FIL, filgotinib; MACE, major adverse cardiovascular event; NMSC, nonmelanoma skin cancer; VTE, venous thromboembolism.

Conclusion:

Through W52, both FIL 200 and 100 mg showed sustained efficacy based on clinical and pt-reported outcomes and radiographic progression and were well tolerated in MTX-IR pts with RA, with faster onset and numerically greater efficacy for FIL 200 vs 100 mg.

References:

[1]Combe et al.,Ann Rheum Dis.2019; 78 (Suppl 2):77–8.

Disclosure of Interests:

Bernard Combe Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, Consultant of: AbbVie; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Janssen; Eli Lilly and Company; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; Sanofi, Speakers bureau: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Eli Lilly and Company; Merck Sharp & Dohme; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; UCB, Alan Kivitz Shareholder of: AbbVie, Amgen, Gilead, GSK, Pfizer Inc, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim,,Flexion, Genzyme, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Regeneron, Sanofi, SUN Pharma Advanced Research, UCB, Paid instructor for: Celgene, Genzyme, Horizon, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Flexion, Genzyme, Horizon, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Regeneron, Sanofi, Yoshiya Tanaka Grant/research support from: Asahi-kasei, Astellas, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Takeda, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers, UCB, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, and Ono, Consultant of: Abbvie, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Daiichi-Sankyo, Astellas, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AbbVie, YL Biologics, Bristol-Myers, Takeda, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Eisai, Janssen, Sanofi, UCB, and Teijin, Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cyxone, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB Pharma; Director of Imaging Rheumatology BV, J-Abraham Simon-Campos: None declared, Herbert S.B. Baraf Grant/research support from: Horizon; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Pfizer; Janssen; AbbVie, Consultant of: Horizon; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Merck; AbbVie, Speakers bureau: Horizon, Uma Kumar: None declared, Franziska Matzkies Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences, Inc., Employee of: Gilead Sciences, Inc., Beatrix Bartok Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences Inc., Employee of: Gilead Sciences Inc., Lei Ye Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences Inc., Employee of: Gilead Sciences Inc., Ying Guo Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences, Inc., Employee of: Gilead Sciences, Inc., Chantal Tasset Shareholder of: Galapagos (share/warrant holder), Employee of: Galapagos, John Sundy Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences, Inc., Employee of: Gilead Sciences, Inc., Angelika Jahreis Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences, Inc., Employee of: Gilead Sciences, Inc., Neelufar Mozaffarian Shareholder of: Gilead, Employee of: Gilead, Robert B.M. Landewé Consultant of: AbbVie; AstraZeneca; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Eli Lilly & Co.; Galapagos NV; Novartis; Pfizer; UCB Pharma, Sang-Cheol Bae: None declared, Edward Keystone Grant/research support from: AbbVie; Amgen; Gilead Sciences, Inc; Lilly Pharmaceuticals; Merck; Pfizer Pharmaceuticals; PuraPharm; Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie; Amgen; AstraZeneca Pharma; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Celltrion; F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd.; Genentech, Inc; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Janssen, Inc; Lilly Pharmaceuticals; Merck; Myriad Autoimmune; Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Sandoz, Sanofi-Genzyme, Samsung Bioepsis., Speakers bureau: AbbVie; Amgen; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Celltrion; F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd, Janssen, Inc; Merck; Pfizer Pharmaceuticals; Sanofi-Genzyme; UCB, Peter Nash Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Sanofi, UCB

THU0197 SAFETY PROFILE OF UPADACITINIB UP TO 3 YEARS OF EXPOSURE IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

Background:

The safety and efficacy of upadacitinib (UPA), an oral JAK inhibitor, was evaluated in the phase 3 SELECT clinical program, which included 5 randomized, double-blind, controlled trials across a spectrum of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients (pts)1-5.

Objectives:

To describe the long-term integrated safety profile of UPA relative to active comparators in pts with RA treated in the SELECT program up to a cut-off date of 30 June 2019.

Methods:

Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs: AE onset ≥first dose and ≤30 days after last dose) were summarized for the following: methotrexate (MTX, 1 trial, mean exposure 76 wks); adalimumab (ADA, 1 trial, mean exposure 69 wks); pooled UPA 15 mg (5 trials, mean exposure 90 wks); pooled UPA 30 mg (4 trials, mean exposure 100 wks). TEAEs are reported as exposure-adjusted event rates (EAERs; events/100 patient years [E/100PYs]).

Results:

3833 pts received ≥1 dose of UPA 15 mg [n=2629, 4565.8 PYs] or 30 mg [n=1204, 2309.7 PYs] QD, with no option to switch doses. More than half of pts received UPA for ≥96 wks (median: UPA 15, 101.9 wks; UPA 30: 111.7 wks). The EAERs of overall SAEs and AEs leading to discontinuation on UPA 15 mg were comparable to MTX and ADA; rates on UPA 30 mg were numerically higher than UPA 15 mg (Table). The most common AEs (≥5 E/100 PYs) reported with UPA 15 mg were upper respiratory tract infection (URTI), nasopharyngitis, urinary tract infection (UTI), bronchitis, increased CPK, and increased ALT. For UPA 30 mg, the most common AEs reported were URTI, UTI, increased CPK, nasopharyngitis, bacterial bronchitis, and herpes zoster (HZ). Overall rates of serious infections and opportunistic infections were comparable between UPA 15 mg, MTX, and ADA groups but were higher on UPA 30 mg (Figure). Rates of HZ were higher in both UPA groups (30 mg higher than 15 mg) vs MTX and ADA. The majority of HZ cases were non-serious (96%) and involved a single dermatome (74%). Rates of VTE were comparable across treatment groups (0.3-0.5/100 PYs), as were rates of adjudicated MACE and malignancies (excluding NMSC). Rates of NMSC in UPA 15 mg and ADA were similar, with numerically higher rates on UPA 30 mg. SMR analysis demonstrated that the number of deaths in pts with RA exposed to UPA was not higher than what would be expected for the general population.

Conclusion:

Through long-term follow-up, the integrated safety profile of UPA remained consistent with previous analyses, with no new signals identified.

References:

[1]Burmester,et al.Lancet2018;391:2503-12.

[2]Genovese,et al.Lancet2018;391:2513-24.

[3]Smolen,et al.Lancet2019;393:2303-11.

[4]Fleischmann,et al.Arthritis Rheumatol2019;71:1788-1800.

[5]van Vollenhoven,et al.Arthritis Rheumatol2018;70(Suppl 10).

Table.

Overall TEAEs for UPA and Active Comparators (E/100 PYs [95% CI])

MTXn=314(456.0 PYs)ADA 40 mg eown=579(768.6 PYs)UPA 15 mg QDn=2629(4565.8 PYs)UPA 30 mg QDn=1204(2309.7 PYs)Any AE271.7 (256.8, 287.3)242.3 (231.4, 253.5)247.7 (243.2, 252.3)310.6 (303.5, 317.9)Any SAE12.7 (9.7, 16.4)14.6 (12.0, 17.5)12.9 (11.9, 14.0)19.8 (18.0, 21.7)Any AE leading to discontinuation7.7 (5.3, 10.7)8.2 (6.3, 10.5)6.3 (5.6, 7.1)10.0 (8.8, 11.4)Deathsa0.4 (0.1, 1.6)0.8 (0.3, 1.7)0.4 (0.2, 0.6)0.7 (0.4, 1.1)

aDeaths included non-treatment emergent deaths: ADA, 1; UPA 15 mg, 3; UPA 30 mg, 3.

Disclosure of Interests:

Stanley B. Cohen Grant/research support from: Amgen, Abbvie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer and Sandoz, Consultant of: Amgen, Abbvie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer and Sandoz, Ronald van Vollenhoven Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Arthrogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Biotest, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Jeffrey R. Curtis Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Corrona, Crescendo, Janssen, Pfizer, Regeneron/Sanofi, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Corrona, Crescendo, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi/Regeneron, and UCB, Leonard Calabrese Consultant of: AbbVie, GSK, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi, Horizon, Crescendo, and Gilead, Speakers bureau: Sanofi, Horizon, Crescendo, Novartis, Genentech, Janssen, and AbbVie, Cristiano Zerbini Grant/research support from: Amgen, GSK, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier and Roche, Consultant of: Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Yoshiya Tanaka Grant/research support from: Asahi-kasei, Astellas, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Takeda, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers, UCB, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, and Ono, Consultant of: Abbvie, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Daiichi-Sankyo, Astellas, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AbbVie, YL Biologics, Bristol-Myers, Takeda, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Eisai, Janssen, Sanofi, UCB, and Teijin, Louis Bessette Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Casey Schlacher Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Tim Shaw Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Jianzhong Liu Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Jose Jeffrey Enejosa Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Yanna Song Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Gerd Rüdiger Burmester Consultant of: AbbVie Inc, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Roche, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie Inc, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Roche, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma

OP0049 EFFICACY OF ANIFROLUMAB IN ACTIVE SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS: PATIENT SUBGROUP ANALYSIS OF BICLA RESPONSE IN 2 PHASE 3 TRIALS

Background:

Treatment of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) with the type I interferon (IFN) receptor inhibitor anifrolumab resulted in higher British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG)–based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) response rates vs placebo at Week 52 in the phase 3 randomized trials, TULIP-2 (primary endpoint; 16.3% difference)1and TULIP-1 (secondary endpoint; 16.4% difference).2BICLA is a validated composite global disease measure that registers both partial and complete improvement within organ systems.

Objectives:

TULIP-2 and TULIP-1 data were analyzed to evaluate BICLA responses to anifrolumab vs placebo at Week 52 in protocol-defined subgroups of patients with active SLE.

Methods:

TULIP-2 and TULIP-1 were randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that evaluated efficacy and safety of intravenous anifrolumab vs placebo administered every 4 weeks, with the primary endpoints assessed at Week 52, in patients with moderate to severe SLE despite standard-of-care treatment.1,2BICLA responses are defined by all of the following: reduction of baseline BILAG-2004 A and B domain scores to B/C/D and C/D, respectively, and no worsening in any organ system; no worsening of the SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) score; no worsening of ≥0.3 points in the Physician’s Global Assessment (range 0–3); no trial treatment discontinuation; and no use of medications restricted by the protocol.3BICLA responses were compared between anifrolumab 300 mg and placebo groups, and robustness of BICLA responses was assessed across protocol-defined subgroups. TULIP-1 data were analyzed incorporating the amended restricted medication rules, as described.2

Results:

In TULIP-2 and TULIP-1, 180 patients in each trial received anifrolumab 300 mg (182 and 184 patients received placebo, respectively). Baseline demographics, disease characteristics, and standard-of-care medications were balanced between anifrolumab and placebo groups within both TULIP trials. Patients in TULIP-2 and TULIP-1 had comparable BICLA responses (Figure). Across multiple subgroups, higher percentages of patients achieved BICLA responses at Week 52 in the anifrolumab vs placebo arms (Figure). There was concordance of BICLA responses favoring anifrolumab across the protocol-defined subgroups of baseline disease severity (SLEDAI-2K <10 points [difference 15.3%, TULIP-2; 16.9%, TULIP-1] vs ≥10 points [difference 16.7%, TULIP-2; 17.1%, TULIP-1]) and baseline oral corticosteroid use (prednisone or equivalent <10 mg/d [difference 20.1%, TULIP-2; 16.2%, TULIP-1] vs ≥10 mg/d [difference 12.0%, TULIP-2; 17.7%, TULIP-1]). Numerically different BICLA effect sizes between the anifrolumab vs placebo arms were observed in both studies in relation to baseline IFN gene signature status (high [difference 17.3%, TULIP-2; 19.1%, TULIP-1] vs low [difference 11.2%, TULIP-2; 7.5%, TULIP-1]). Other subgroups including age, sex, age at onset, race, and anti-drug antibody status showed similar uniformity of response.

Conclusion:

The uniformity of robust BICLA response rates across prespecified subgroups in both phase 3 trials shows consistent clinical benefit of anifrolumab irrespective of patient baseline characteristics. However, given the small patient numbers in some subgroups, these results should be interpreted with caution.

References:

[1]Morand EF, et al.N Engl J Med.2020;382:211–221.

[2]Furie RA, et al.Lancet Rheumatol. 2019;1:e208–e219.

[3]Wallace DJ, et al.Ann Rheum Dis.2014;73:183–190.

Disclosure of Interests:

Eric F. Morand Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Speakers bureau: AstraZeneca, Richard Furie Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Biogen, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Biogen, Yoshiya Tanaka Grant/research support from: Asahi-kasei, Astellas, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Takeda, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers, UCB, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, and Ono, Consultant of: Abbvie, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Daiichi-Sankyo, Astellas, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AbbVie, YL Biologics, Bristol-Myers, Takeda, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Eisai, Janssen, Sanofi, UCB, and Teijin, Rubana Kalyani Employee of: AstraZeneca, Gabriel Abreu Employee of: AstraZeneca, Lilia Pineda Employee of: AstraZeneca, Raj Tummala Employee of: AstraZeneca

SAT0104 MAINTENANCE OF SDAI REMISSION AND PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES (PROS) FOLLOWING DOSE DE-ESCALATION OF ABATACEPT IN MTX-NAÏVE, ANTI-CITRULLINATED PROTEIN ANTIBODY (ACPA)+ PATIENTS WITH EARLY RA: RESULTS FROM AVERT-2, A RANDOMISED PHASE IIIB STUDY

Background:

The Phase IIIbAssessingVeryEarlyRATreatment (AVERT)-2 trial (NCT02504268) evaluated SC abatacept (ABA) + MTX vs ABA placebo (PBO) + MTX in ACPA+ patients (pts) with early, active RA.1Results from the 56-wk induction period (IP) showed a significantly greater proportion of pts treated with ABA + MTX (vs MTX alone) reported clinically meaningful improvements in HAQ-DI, global disease activity and pain, which were sustained at 52 wks.2

Objectives:

To report maintenance of SDAI remission and PROs from the AVERT-2 de-escalation (D-E) period.

Methods:

Pts received blinded SC ABA (125 mg once wkly [QW]) + MTX or ABA PBO + MTX induction treatment for 56 wks. In this analysis, pts who completed induction with ABA + MTX and had sustained SDAI remission (≤3.3 at Wks 40 and 52) were re-randomised 1:1:1 to ABA QW + MTX, stepwise D-E (ABA every other wk + MTX for 24 wks then ABA PBO + MTX for 24 wks), or ABA QW + MTX PBO for 48 wks in the D-E period. PROs included physical function (HAQ-DI [0–3; decrease=improvement] and Short-Form 36 [SF-36] v2.0 Physical Functioning Scale [PFS]; 0–100; increase=improvement), and fatigue (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue [FACIT-F] score; 0–52; decrease=improvement). Endpoints included: proportion of pts in SDAI remission and pts with HAQ-DI response (decrease from IP Day [D]1 in HAQ-DI ≥0.30); adjusted mean change (adMC) from D-E D1 in HAQ-DI, SF-36 PFS or FACIT-F to D-E Wk 48. adMCs were estimated using a mixed effect model with repeated measures.

Results:

147 ABA + MTX-treated pts were re-randomised in the D-E period. Across re-randomised arms, the range of mean scores was 1.87–2.52 for SDAI and 0.18–0.30 for HAQ-DI at entry into D-E period (D-E D1). 74% of pts receiving ABA QW + MTX maintained SDAI remission at D-E Wk 48 (Fig 1); this proportion was higher than in the ABA withdrawal and ABA QW + MTX PBO arms. Pts continuing ABA QW + MTX maintained HAQ-DI response during D-E (Fig 1), but by D-E Wk 48 the proportion of pts with HAQ-DI response in the ABA withdrawal arm declined by 30%. At D-E Wk 48, a small numerical decrease (adMC –0.04) in HAQ-DI was observed in the ABA QW + MTX arm; increases were seen in the withdrawal (adMC 0.26) and ABA QW + MTX PBO arms (adMC 0.16). By D-E Wk 48, SF-36 PFS increased (adMC 1.68) in the ABA QW + MTX arm but decreased in the withdrawal (adMC –3.34) and ABA QW + MTX PBO (adMC –1.45) arms. FACIT-F score increased during D-E in all arms, but the increase at D-E Wk 48 was lower in the ABA QW + MTX arm (adMC 0.79) vs the withdrawal (adMC 4.12) and ABA QW + MTX PBO (adMC 2.41) arms. Similar trends were seen for other PROs including Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-RA; while activity impairment remained stable in the ABA QW + MTX arm, there was a trend for worsening in the withdrawal arm.

Conclusion:

In the AVERT-2 D-E period, continued combination therapy (abatacept + MTX) resulted in maintenance of benefits on PROs, particularly physical functioning, in seropositive pts with early RA. D-E of abatacept followed by complete withdrawal was associated with the greatest loss of remission as well as worsening of PROs. The PRO results corresponded well to the maintenance of clinical (SDAI) remission.

References:

[1]Emery P, et al. ACR 2018; San Diego, USA: Poster 563.

[2]Emery P, et al. ACR 2019; Atlanta, USA: Poster 1423.

Acknowledgments:

Joanna Wright (medical writing, Caudex; funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb)

Disclosure of Interests:

Paul Emery Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche (all paid to employer), Consultant of: AbbVie (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Bristol-Myers Squibb (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Lilly (clinical trials, advisor), Merck Sharp & Dohme (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Novartis (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Pfizer (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Roche (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Samsung (clinical trials, advisor), Sandoz (clinical trials, advisor), UCB (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Yoshiya Tanaka Grant/research support from: Asahi-kasei, Astellas, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Takeda, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers, UCB, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, and Ono, Consultant of: Abbvie, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Daiichi-Sankyo, Astellas, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AbbVie, YL Biologics, Bristol-Myers, Takeda, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Eisai, Janssen, Sanofi, UCB, and Teijin, Vivian Bykerk: None declared, Thomas Huizinga Grant/research support from: Ablynx, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Sanofi, Consultant of: Ablynx, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Sanofi, Gustavo Citera Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Gema, Genzyme, Novartis and Pfizer Inc, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Gema, Genzyme, Novartis and Pfizer Inc, Clifton Bingham Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Consultant of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Subhashis Banerjee Shareholder of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lily, Pfizer, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb (current); AbbVie, Lily, Pfizer (past), Sean Connolly Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Joe Zhuo Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Robert Wong Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Kuan-Hsiang Gary Huang Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Karissa Lozenski Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Yedid Elbez Consultant of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roy Fleischmann Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Akros, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer, IngelhCentrexion, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roche, Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi Genzyme, Selecta, Taiho, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, ACEA, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Genzyme, UCB

AB0213 THE USE OF MUSCULOSKELETAL ULTRASOUND AND PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOMES TO IDENTIFY THE FACTOR TO GIVE RESIDUAL SYMPTOMS AMONG PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS IN SDAI-REMISSION OR LOW DISEASE ACTIVITY

Background:

The goal of treatment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is to achieve remission. There is the patient with residual symptoms in the Japanese RA patient who achieved clinical remission. There are not many studies to examine the relation between everyday life, social activity and evaluation of disease activities using musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSKUS).

Objectives:

To identify the factor to give residual symptoms of RA patients in SDAI-remission (REM) or low disease activity (LDA), using MSKUS.

Methods:

300 patients were enrolled. The synovitis evaluated gray scale (GS) and power doppler (PD) with 22 both hands joints by MSKUS. We evaluated age, sex, the number of tender joint (TJ) and swelling joint (SJ), the serologic characteristics (CRP, ESR, CCP, RF, MMP-3), Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) (morning stiffness (MS), pain-VAS, fatigue-VAS), HAQ and EQ5D-5L.

Results:

(1). Stratified analysis was performed between HAD/MDA group (N=106) and LDA/REM group (N=194). As a result of single variable analysis, many factors were extracted with significant difference. As a result of the multivariate analysis, MTX dose, number of TJ and SJ, MS, fatigue-VAS, HAQ, EQ5D-5L, and GS≧2 were extracted with a dominant difference. (2). For the stratified analysis in GS≧2, the ratio was low, and the disease duration was short significantly in the LDA/REM group. (3). Next, stratified analysis was performed between Low group (N=95) and REM group (N=99). As a result of single variable analysis, number of TJ and SJ, MTX dose, HAQ, EQ5D-5L, MS, pain-VAS, fatigue-VAS, EGA, GS≧1, GS≧2, GS total score, PD≧1 and PD total score were extracted with significant difference. As a result of the multivariate analysis, number of TJ and fatigue-VAS were extracted with a dominant difference.

Conclusion:

(1). It became clear that the factor which participated in the achievement with SDAI-remission or low disease activity was enough quantity of MTX dose, use of b/t DMARD, US-GS level, residual symptoms (lassitude · pain joint) to be caused by RA. Particularly, the ratio of GS≧2 was low, and the disease was short. (2). In the LDA patients (who do not achieve clinical remission), they had residual symptoms (fatigue and TJ). (3). In the REM patients, remaining inflammation was not seen in MSKUS. The conclusion is that the induction of remission is important from the viewpoint of not only the prevention of joint destruction but also improvement and maintenance of long-term QoL.

Disclosure of Interests:

MASAO NAWATA Grant/research support from: Eli Lilly Japan K.K., Masashi funada: None declared, YUYA FUJITA: None declared, Atsushi Nagayasu: None declared, Kazuki Someya: None declared, SAITO KAZUYOSHI: None declared, Yoshiya Tanaka Grant/research support from: Asahi-kasei, Astellas, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Takeda, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers, UCB, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, and Ono, Consultant of: Abbvie, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Daiichi-Sankyo, Astellas, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AbbVie, YL Biologics, Bristol-Myers, Takeda, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Eisai, Janssen, Sanofi, UCB, and Teijin

THU0231 IL-2 DRIVES THE CONVERSION OF T FOLLICULAR HELPER TO T FOLLICULAR REGULATORY CELLS THROUGH EPIGENETIC MODIFICATION IN SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS

Background:

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a complex polygenic autoimmune disease characterized by immune-system aberrations. Among several types of immune cells, T follicular helper (Tfh) cells promote autoantibody production, whereas T follicular regulatory (Tfr) cells suppress Tfh-mediated antibody responses.(1)

Objectives:

To identify the characteristics of Tfr cells and to elucidate the mechanisms of conversion of Tfh cells to Tfr cells, we probed the phenotype of T helper cells in patients with SLE and underlying epigenetic modifications by cytokine-induced signal transducer and activators of transcription (STAT) family factors.

Methods:

Peripheral blood mononuclear cells from SLE patients (n=44) and healthy donors (HD; n=26) were analyzed by flow cytometry. Memory Tfh cells were sorted and cultured under stimulation with T cell receptor and various cytokines. Expression of characteristic markers and phosphorylation of STATs (p-STATs) were analyzed by flow cytometry and quantitation PCR. Histone modifications were evaluated by chromatin immunoprecipitation.

Results:

The proportion of CXCR5+FoxP3+Tfr cells in CD4+T cells tended to increase (2.1% vs 1.7%, p=0.17); however, that of CD4+CD45RA-FoxP3hiactivated Tfr cells in Tfr cells was decreased (4.8% vs 7.1%, p<0.05), while CD4+CD45RA-FoxP3lownon-suppressive Tfr cells was increased (50.1% vs 38.2%, p<0.01) in SLE compared to HD. The percentage of PD-1hiactivated Tfh cells was significantly higher in SLE compared to HD (15.7% vs 5.9%, p<0.01). Furthermore, active patients had a higher ratio of activated Tfh/Tfr cells compared to inactive patients. In vitro study showed that IL-2, but not other cytokines such as TGF-β1, IL-12, IL-27, and IL-35, induced the conversion of memory Tfh cells to functional Tfr cells characterized by CXCR5+Bcl6+Foxp3hipSTAT3+pSTAT5+cells. The loci ofFOXP3at STAT binding sites were marked by bivalent histone modifications. After IL-2 stimulation, STAT5 directly bound on FOXP3 gene loci accompanied by suppressing H3K27me3. Finally, we found that serum level of IL-2 was decreased in SLE and that stimulation with IL-2 suppressed the generation of CD38+CD27+B cells by ex vivo coculture assay using Tfh cells and B cells isolated from human blood.

Conclusion:

Our findings indicated that the regulatory function of Tfr cells is impaired due to the low ability of IL-2 production and that IL-2 restores the function of Tfr cells through conversion of Tfh cells to Tfr cells in SLE. Thus, the reinstatement of the balance between Tfh and Tfr cells will provide important therapeutic approaches for SLE.

References:

[1]Deng J, Wei Y, Fonseca VR, et al. T follicular helper cells and T follicular regulatory cells in rheumatic diseases. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2019; 15 (8): 475-90.

Disclosure of Interests: :

He Hao: None declared, Shingo Nakayamada Grant/research support from: Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Takeda, Novartis and MSD, Speakers bureau: Bristol-Myers, Sanofi, Abbvie, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Chugai, Asahi-kasei and Pfizer, Yamagata Kaoru: None declared, Naoaki Ohkubo: None declared, Shigeru Iwata: None declared, Yoshiya Tanaka Grant/research support from: Asahi-kasei, Astellas, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Takeda, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers, UCB, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, and Ono, Consultant of: Abbvie, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Daiichi-Sankyo, Astellas, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AbbVie, YL Biologics, Bristol-Myers, Takeda, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Eisai, Janssen, Sanofi, UCB, and Teijin

THU0213 UPADACITINIB AS MONOTHERAPY IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS AND PRIOR INADEQUATE RESPONSE TO METHOTREXATE: RESULTS AT 84 WEEKS FROM THE SELECT-MONOTHERAPY STUDY

Background:

In the SELECT-MONOTHERAPY trial, upadacitinib (UPA), an oral JAK inhibitor, demonstrated significantly greater efficacy compared to continuing methotrexate (MTX) when used as monotherapy over 14 weeks (wks) in patients (pts) with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and prior inadequate response to MTX.1

Objectives:

To describe the long-term safety and efficacy of UPA monotherapy in an ongoing long-term extension (LTE) of the SELECT-MONOTHERAPY trial.

Methods:

Pts on stable MTX were randomized to either continue MTX (cMTX, given as blinded study drug) or switch to once-daily (QD) UPA 15 (UPA15) or 30 (UPA30) mg monotherapy for 14 wks. From Wk14, pts could enter a blinded LTE and continue to receive UPA15 or UPA30; pts randomized to cMTX were switched to UPA15 or UPA30 per pre-specified assignment at baseline. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) per 100 pt yrs (PYs) of exposure are summarized up to a cut-off data of 5 February 2019, when all pts had reached Wk84. Efficacy outcomes through Wk84 are reported as observed and using non-responder imputation.

Results:

Of 648 pts randomized, 598 (92%) completed 14 wks and entered the LTE on blinded UPA. By the cut-off date, 20% in total had discontinued due to the following: AE (6%), consent withdrawal (4%), lost to follow-up (2%), lack of efficacy (1%), or other reasons (7%). Cumulative exposures were 421.5 and 425.9 PYs for UPA15 and UPA30, respectively. The most frequently reported TEAEs were urinary tract infection, creatine phosphokinase (CPK) increase, upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, worsening of RA, bronchitis, herpes zoster (HZ), and alanine aminotransferase increase; the most common serious AE was pneumonia. Events of HZ, hepatic disorder, and CPK elevations were higher among pts receiving UPA30, while rates of serious infection and malignancy appeared comparable between doses (Figure). Most HZ events involved 1-2 dermatomes, with a single disseminated cutaneous event (UPA30) and none with CNS involvement. Five patients experienced MACE, and there were 5 VTE events (UPA15: 4; UPA30: 1). All MACE and VTE events occurred in pts with underlying risk factors. Pts continuing to receive UPA15 and UPA30 achieved stringent endpoints at Week 84 (Table). Pts who switched from cMTX to UPA15 or UPA30 demonstrated comparable efficacy responses to those initially randomized to UPA.

Conclusion:

The adverse event profile associated with long-term exposure to UPA15 or 30 as monotherapy was consistent with an integrated analysis of UPA safety across the entire phase 3 program, with no new safety signals identified. Further, UPA15 or 30 monotherapy resulted in continued and sustained improvements in RA signs and symptoms through 84 wks.

References:

[1]Smolen, et al.Lancet2019;393(10188):2303-11.

Table.

Proportion of Patients at Week 84

Parameter (%)cMTX→UPA 15 mgn=108cMTX→UPA 30 mgn=108UPA 15 mgn=217UPA 30 mgn=215AONRIAONRIAONRIAONRIACR20/50/7086/71/4967/56/3990/68/5066/51/3888/71/5465/53/4196/78/6674/62/52DAS28(CRP) ≤3.2/<2.680/5664/4479/6362/4976/6057/4685/7767/61CDAI ≤10/≤2.878/3862/3085/2965/2274/3455/2585/4967/39Boolean Remission2722231826204133

AO, as observed; NRI, non-responder imputation.

Disclosure of Interests: :

Josef S. Smolen Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche – grant/research support, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen Inc., AstraZeneca, Astro, Celgene Corporation, Celtrion, Eli Lilly, Glaxo, ILTOO, Janssen, Medimmune, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi, UCB – consultant, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen Inc., AstraZeneca, Astro, Celgene Corporation, Celtrion, Eli Lilly, Glaxo, ILTOO, Janssen, Medimmune, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi, UCB – speaker, Paul Emery Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche (all paid to employer), Consultant of: AbbVie (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Bristol-Myers Squibb (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Lilly (clinical trials, advisor), Merck Sharp & Dohme (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Novartis (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Pfizer (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Roche (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Samsung (clinical trials, advisor), Sandoz (clinical trials, advisor), UCB (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), William Rigby Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Pfizer, Yoshiya Tanaka Grant/research support from: Asahi-kasei, Astellas, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Takeda, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers, UCB, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, and Ono, Consultant of: Abbvie, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Daiichi-Sankyo, Astellas, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AbbVie, YL Biologics, Bristol-Myers, Takeda, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Eisai, Janssen, Sanofi, UCB, and Teijin, Juan Ignacio Vargas Consultant of: AbbVie, Nemanja Damjanov Grant/research support from: from AbbVie, Pfizer, and Roche, Consultant of: AbbVie, Gedeon Richter, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Gedeon Richter, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche, Manish Jain Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis, Celgene, Medac, and Takeda, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Novartis, Celgene, Medac, and Takeda, Yanna Song Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Nasser Khan Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Jose Jeffrey Enejosa Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Stanley B. Cohen Grant/research support from: Amgen, Abbvie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer and Sandoz, Consultant of: Amgen, Abbvie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer and Sandoz

FRI0090 MAINTENANCE OF CLINICAL RESPONSE WITH ABATACEPT IN COMBINATION WITH MTX IN INDIVIDUAL PATIENTS WITH EARLY RA WHO ARE MTX-NAÏVE AND ANTI-CITRULLINATED PROTEIN ANTIBODY (ACPA)+: RESULTS FROM THE INDUCTION PERIOD OF AVERT-2, A RANDOMISED PHASE IIIB STUDY

Background:

In the 56-wk induction period (IP) of the Phase IIIbAssessingVeryEarlyRATreatment (AVERT)-2 trial (NCT02504268), more patients (pts) achieved SDAI remission (≤3.3) with abatacept (ABA) + MTX vs ABA placebo (PBO) + MTX at IP Wk 52.1It is unknown whether each individual pt within a treatment (Tx) group achieves and sustains the same efficacy endpoints at all time points during the IP.

Objectives:

To investigate whether ABA effectiveness is sustained by individual pts who achieved SDAI remission (≤3.3), SDAI low disease activity (LDA; >3.3–11), DAS28 (CRP) <2.6, ACR50/70 response or Boolean remission at IP Wk 24 (AVERT-2 primary endpoint) and both Wks 40 and 52 (Wks 40/52).

Methods:

Pts were randomised 3:2 to blinded SC ABA (125 mg/wk) + MTX or ABA PBO + MTX induction Tx for 56 wks. Key inclusion criteria: age ≥18 yrs; RA diagnosis (ACR/EULAR 2010 criteria); RA duration ≤6 mos; SDAI >11; ACPA+; CRP >3 mg/L or ESR ≥28 mm/h; TJC ≥3 and SJC ≥3; DMARD naïve. Response rates were investigated by Tx arm in the cohort 1 analysis population (all randomised pts treated in the IP [intent-to-treat analysis]).

Results:

Of randomised cohort 1, 752 pts were treated during the IP: 451 with ABA + MTX and 301 with ABA PBO + MTX. Baseline characteristics were similar across Tx arms.1Stringent SDAI remission endpoint at IP Wk 24 was achieved by 22% of ABA + MTX-treated pts; of these, 56% sustained SDAI remission at IP Wks 40/52 (Table). A similar proportion of ABA + MTX-treated pts achieved (17%) and sustained (58%) Boolean remission at IP Wks 24 and 40/52. At IP Wk 24, 42% of ABA + MTX-treated pts achieved DAS28 (CRP) <2.6 and 74% sustained DAS28 (CRP) <2.6 to IP Wks 40/52; a high proportion of patients sustained ACR50/70 responses at IP Wks 40/52 (83% and 79%, respectively). A lower proportion of pts sustained SDAI LDA to IP Wks 40/52 vs other endpoints (Table). Most efficacy endpoints were achieved by fewer pts who received ABA PBO + MTX than ABA + MTX (Table); among responders in this Tx group, fewer sustained remission at Wks 40/52, which correlates with a higher proportion of pts sustaining SDAI LDA at Wks 40/52 with ABA PBO + MTX than ABA + MTX.

Conclusion:

The majority of individual pts with RA who achieved clinically stringent endpoints such as SDAI remission, DAS28 (CRP) <2.6 or Boolean remission, as well as clinically meaningful endpoints such as ACR50/70 at IP Wk 24 with weekly SC abatacept, sustained their responses to Wks 40/52. The high proportion of patients achieving early stringent remission and response to SC abatacept by individual pts may be indicative of sustained efficacy over time.

References:

[1]Emery P, et al. ACR 2018; San Diego, USA: Poster 563.

Table .

Proportion of Pts With Response at IP Wk 24 Who Also Achieved Remission at Wks 40/52

EndpointResponders at IP Wk 24, n (%)Responders at IP Wk 24 and Wks 40/52, n/N (%)ABA + MTX(n=451)ABA PBO + MTX(n=301)ABA + MTX*ABA PBO + MTX*SDAI remission (≤3.3)100 (22)40 (13)56/100 (56)17/40 (43)SDAI low disease activity (>3.3–11)167 (37)82 (27)46/167 (28)32/82 (39)DAS28 (CRP) <2.6188 (42)78 (26)139/188 (74)43/78 (55)ACR50 response†260 (58)125 (42)215/260 (83)92/125 (74)ACR70 response†156 (35)66 (22)123/156 (79)42/66 (64)Boolean remission76 (17)29 (10)44/76 (58)8/29 (28)

*% based on number of pts within each Tx group who achieved response at IP Wk 24 (denominator);†Response at IP Wks 24 and 52

Acknowledgments:

Lola Parfitt (medical writing, Caudex; funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb)

Disclosure of Interests:

Paul Emery Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche (all paid to employer), Consultant of: AbbVie (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Bristol-Myers Squibb (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Lilly (clinical trials, advisor), Merck Sharp & Dohme (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Novartis (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Pfizer (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Roche (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Samsung (clinical trials, advisor), Sandoz (clinical trials, advisor), UCB (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Yoshiya Tanaka Grant/research support from: Asahi-kasei, Astellas, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Takeda, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers, UCB, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, and Ono, Consultant of: Abbvie, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Daiichi-Sankyo, Astellas, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AbbVie, YL Biologics, Bristol-Myers, Takeda, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Eisai, Janssen, Sanofi, UCB, and Teijin, Vivian Bykerk: None declared, Clifton Bingham Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Consultant of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Thomas Huizinga Grant/research support from: Ablynx, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Sanofi, Consultant of: Ablynx, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Sanofi, Gustavo Citera Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Gema, Genzyme, Novartis and Pfizer Inc, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Gema, Genzyme, Novartis and Pfizer Inc, Kuan-Hsiang Gary Huang Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sean Connolly Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Yedid Elbez Consultant of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Robert Wong Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Karissa Lozenski Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roy Fleischmann Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Akros, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer, IngelhCentrexion, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roche, Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi Genzyme, Selecta, Taiho, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, ACEA, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Genzyme, UCB

FRI0087 DURABILITY OF CERTOLIZUMAB PEGOL IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS OR PSORIASIS OVER THREE YEARS: AN ANALYSIS OF POOLED CLINICAL TRIAL DATA

Background:

Durability over time varies according to the safety, tolerability and efficacy of a drug.1However, durability may vary between patient (pt) subgroups,1,2and physicians should consider pt characteristics when making treatment decisions. Certolizumab pegol (CZP) is an anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agent approved for the treatment of chronic inflammatory diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and plaque psoriasis (PSO).3However, little is known about the impact of pt baseline characteristics on long-term CZP durability.

Objectives:

To investigate the durability of CZP and reasons for discontinuation over 3 years (yrs) in subgroups of pts with RA or PSO using pooled clinical trial data.

Methods:

27 RA and 3 PSO clinical trials were pooled for indication-specific analyses. Kaplan-Meier curves were calculated to estimate CZP durability for pt subgroups by age, gender, disease duration, prior anti-TNF use and geographic region. Reasons for CZP discontinuation were investigated.

Results:

6927 RA and 1112 PSO pts were included; mean ages were 53.0 yrs (standard deviation [SD]: 12.2 yrs) and 45.4 (13.0) yrs, respectively. 79.3% RA pts were female (of all patients, 19.4% were women of childbearing age [18–<45 yrs; WoCBA]) compared with 33.5% (15.2% WoCBA) in PSO. Mean disease durations were 6.4 (6.9) yrs for RA and 18.4 (12.3) yrs for PSO. 18.5% RA and 13.3% PSO pts had prior anti-TNF use. Maximum CZP exposure was ~8 yrs for RA and ~3 yrs for PSO. At 1 yr, 63.4% of RA pts remained on CZP vs 80.3% PSO pts, decreasing to 49.2% RA pts and 70.1% PSO pts at 3 yrs (Table 1). Reasons for discontinuation, at any time during the trials, included lack of efficacy (RA 13.5%; PSO 1.8%), adverse events (RA 11.9%; PSO 8.1%), consent withdrawn (RA 6.7%; PSO 6.7%), lost to follow-up (RA 1.8%; PSO 4.3%), protocol violation (RA 1.7%; PSO 0.3%) and other (RA 9.2%; PSO 8.7%). In RA pts, CZP durability was lower in the elderly and in pts with disease duration <1 yr. In PSO, durability was lower in pts with disease duration <1 yr or prior anti-TNF use. Durability was lower in WoCBA pts than male pts aged 18–<45 yrs for both indications. CZP durability was lower in Western Europe and North America compared to other regions.

Table 1.

CZP durability at 3 years,[a] by patient subgroup

% patientsRAPSOAll49.270.1Age, yrs 18–<4552.166.3 45–<6549.468.3 ≥6543.369.4Gender Female49.364.1 Male48.269.2 WoCBA51.162.0 Male aged 18–<45 yrs56.568.3Prior anti-TNF use Yes49.360.1 No49.668.5Disease duration, yrs <143.239.6 1–<552.663.6 5–<1051.464.4 ≥1048.769.7Region Asia-Pacific58.5 Central Europe61.578.8 Eastern Europe54.2 Latin America57.1 N America36.653.9 W Europe33.867.7 Rest of the world66.3

[a] For PSO, the 3 year analysis was calculated with Week 144 data. CZP: certolizumab pegol; N: North; PSO: psoriasis; RA: rheumatoid arthritis; TNF: tumour necrosis factor; W: Western; yrs: years.

Conclusion:

Overall, CZP durability was similar to that reported for other anti-TNFs with some differences between indication and subgroups.1Factors influencing durability included age, disease duration and geographic region. Gender differences were observed in the 18–45 yrs age group, however, both male and female CZP durability was higher than in older RA pts.

References:

[1]Neovius M. Ann Rheum Dis 2015;74:354–60;2.Lie E. Ann Rheum Dis 2015;74:970–8;3.EMA. CIMZIA SmPC 2019. Available at:https://www.ema.europa.eu[Last accessed 09/01/20].

Acknowledgments:

This study was funded by UCB Pharma. Editorial services were provided by Costello Medical.

Disclosure of Interests:

Vivian Bykerk: None declared, Alice B Gottlieb Grant/research support from:: Research grants, consultation fees, or speaker honoraria for lectures from: Pfizer, AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Sandoz, Nordic, Celltrion and UCB., Consultant of:: Research grants, consultation fees, or speaker honoraria for lectures from: Pfizer, AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Sandoz, Nordic, Celltrion and UCB., Speakers bureau:: Research grants, consultation fees, or speaker honoraria for lectures from: Pfizer, AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Sandoz, Nordic, Celltrion and UCB., Kristian Reich Grant/research support from: Affibody; Almirall; Amgen; Biogen; Boehringer Ingelheim; Celgene; Centocor; Covagen; Eli Lilly; Forward Pharma; Fresenius Medical Care; GlaxoSmithKline; Janssen; Kyowa Kirin; LEO Pharma; Medac; Merck; Novartis; Miltenyi Biotec; Ocean Pharma; Pfizer; Regeneron; Samsung Bioepis; Sanofi Genzyme; Takeda; UCB; Valeant and Xenoport., Consultant of: Affibody; Almirall; Amgen; Biogen; Boehringer Ingelheim; Celgene; Centocor; Covagen; Eli Lilly; Forward Pharma; Fresenius Medical Care; GlaxoSmithKline; Janssen; Kyowa Kirin; LEO Pharma; Medac; Merck; Novartis; Miltenyi Biotec; Ocean Pharma; Pfizer; Regeneron; Samsung Bioepis; Sanofi Genzyme; Takeda; UCB; Valeant and Xenoport., Speakers bureau: Affibody; Almirall; Amgen; Biogen; Boehringer Ingelheim; Celgene; Centocor; Covagen; Eli Lilly; Forward Pharma; Fresenius Medical Care; GlaxoSmithKline; Janssen; Kyowa Kirin; LEO Pharma; Medac; Merck; Novartis; Miltenyi Biotec; Ocean Pharma; Pfizer; Regeneron; Samsung Bioepis; Sanofi Genzyme; Takeda; UCB; Valeant and Xenoport., Yoshiya Tanaka Grant/research support from: Asahi-kasei, Astellas, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Takeda, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers, UCB, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, and Ono, Consultant of: Abbvie, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Daiichi-Sankyo, Astellas, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AbbVie, YL Biologics, Bristol-Myers, Takeda, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Eisai, Janssen, Sanofi, UCB, and Teijin, Kevin Winthrop Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Pfizer Inc, Roche, UCB, Christina Popova Employee of: UCB Pharma, Nicola Tilt Employee of: UCB Pharma, Andrew Blauvelt Consultant of: AbbVie, Aclaris, Almirall, Arena, Athenex, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Dermira, Eli Lilly, FLX Bio, Forte, Galderma, Janssen, Leo, Novartis, Ortho, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sandoz, Sanofi Genzyme, Sun Pharma, and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie

OP0045 DELINEATION OF A PROINFLAMMATORY CYTOKINE PROFILE TARGETED BY JAK1/2 INHIBITION USING BARICITINIB IN A PHASE 2 SLE TRIAL

Background:

Given the unmet clinical needs in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), including poor disease control and drug toxicities, new therapies are needed. In a phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study (JAHH), once-daily baricitinib (bari) resulted in significant clinical improvement in patients (pts) with active SLE versus PBO. Bari inhibits JAK1 and JAK2 signalling, and in turn may affect STAT1, STAT2, STAT4 pathways. Therefore, bari has the potential to simultaneously impact several pro-inflammatory immune cytokines implicated in the pathogenesis of SLE, including IFN-α, IFN-γ, IL-6, IL-12, and IL-23.

Objectives:

The objectives of the current study were: 1) to examine baseline serum cytokines in the JAHH phase 2 clinical trial for correlations with clinical or immunologic assessments; 2) to determine if changes in serum cytokine levels were associated with bari treatment.

Methods:

Pts enrolled in the JAHH phase 2 trial received daily treatment with PBO, bari 2 mg, or bari 4 mg through week 24. Serum samples were collected at baseline (week [wk] 0), wk 12, and wk 24) from SLE pts (n=270) and 50 sex- and age-matched controls. Samples were analyzed for: IL-2, IL-3, IL-5, IL-6, IL-10, IL-17A, IL-21, IL-12/23p40, IL-12p70, GM-CSF, IFN-α and IFN-γ using ultrasensitive quantitative assays. IFN gene signature, autoantibodies, C3 and C4 were measured as previously described [1].

Results:

At wk 0, serum IL-17A, IL-12/23p40, IL-6, IFN-γ and IFN-α were readily detectable. IL-12/23p40 was detectable in 100% of pts vs. 100% of controls, IFN-γ in 89% of pts vs. 66% of controls, IL-6 in 53% of pts vs. 12% of controls and in IFN-α 41% of pts vs. 2% of controls; detection of serum IL-2, GM-CSF, IL-5, IL-10 and IL-17A was variable (Fig 1). At baseline (wk 0), IL-12/23p40 was positively correlated with SLEDAI and IFN gene signature and negatively correlated with serum C4. IL-6 was positively correlated with joint swelling, joint tenderness, IFN-γ and C3. Serum IFN-α was positively correlated with serum IFN-γ, anti-Sm and anti-RNP, and the IFN gene signature (Fig 2). Treatment with bari 4 mg (Fig 1B) significantly decreased serum IL12/23p40 and IL-6 cytokine levels at wk 12 (p<0.05) but not serum IFN-α or IFN-γ levels (Fig 1B).

Figure 1.

* p = 0.015; ** p = 0.001; Abbreviations: LLOQ, Lower limit of quantification.

Figure 2.

Abbreviations: Anti-dsDNA, Anti-double stranded DNA; Anti-RNP, Anti-ribonucleoprotein; CLASI, Cutaneous lupus erythematosus disease area and severity index; SLEDAI, SLE disease activity index.

Conclusion:

Bari 4 mg treatment was associated with statistically significant decreases of serum IL-12/23p40 and IL-6 at week 12 which continued through week 24. Serum IFN-α or IFN-γ were not reduced with bari treatment. Thus, bari 4 mg simultaneously impacted multiple pro-inflammatory cytokines implicated in the pathogenesis of SLE.

References:

[1]Hoffman RW, et al.Arthritis Rheumatol.2017;69(3):643-654.

Disclosure of Interests:

Thomas Dörner Grant/research support from: Janssen, Novartis, Roche, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Roche, Janssen, EMD, Speakers bureau: Eli Lilly, Roche, Samsung, Janssen, Yoshiya Tanaka Grant/research support from: Asahi-kasei, Astellas, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Takeda, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers, UCB, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, and Ono, Consultant of: Abbvie, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Daiichi-Sankyo, Astellas, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AbbVie, YL Biologics, Bristol-Myers, Takeda, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Eisai, Janssen, Sanofi, UCB, and Teijin, Michelle A Petri Grant/research support from: GSK, Eli Lilly and Company, Consultant of: Eli Lilly and Company, Josef S. Smolen Grant/research support from: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer Inc, Samsung, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer Inc, Samsung, Sanofi, Daniel Wallace Consultant of: Amgen, Eli Lilly and Company, EMD Merck Serono, and Pfizer, Brenda Crowe Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Ernst Dow Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Richard E Higgs Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Guilherme Rocha Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Robert Benschop Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Maria Silk Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Stephanie de Bono Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Robert Hoffman Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Damiano Fantini Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company

FRI0128 FILGOTINIB PROVIDED RAPID AND SUSTAINED IMPROVEMENTS IN FUNCTIONAL STATUS, PAIN, HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE, AND FATIGUE IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS AND INADEQUATE RESPONSE TO METHOTREXATE: RESULTS FROM THE FINCH 1 STUDY

Background:

In the FINCH 1 study, filgotinib (FIL)—an oral, potent, selective Janus kinase 1 inhibitor—in combination with methotrexate (MTX) provided significant improvements in the signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients (pts) with inadequate response to MTX.1While EULAR guidelines recommend a treat-to-target approach focusing on reducing inflammation to prevent joint damage, physical disability, and mortality, pts consider control of pain and fatigue, along with maintenance of physical function and health-related quality of life (HRQoL), to be important aspects for their care.2,3

Objectives:

To evaluate the rate and magnitude of change in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from FINCH 1.

Methods:

In the FINCH 1 study (NCT02889796), pts with active RA received oral FIL 200 mg + MTX, FIL 100 mg + MTX, PBO + MTX, or subcutaneous adalimumab (ADA) 40 mg + MTX for up to 52 weeks (W); pts receiving PBO at W24 were rerandomised 1:1 to FIL 100 or 200 mg. PROs included the HAQ-DI and VAS pain scale, SF-36, and FACIT-Fatigue questionnaire. The change from baseline (CFB) at each time point was assessed up to W52 for each treatment group. The mixed-effects model for repeated measures was used to compare each FIL group with PBO for the CFB at each time point through W24. The logistic regression model was used to compare each FIL group with PBO for the proportion of pts achieving the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) of ≥0.22 reduction in CFB in HAQ-DI at each time point through W24.

Results:

Of 1755 pts randomised and treated (475 FIL 200 mg + MTX; 480 FIL 100 mg + MTX; 325 ADA + MTX; and 475 PBO + MTX), 1417 (80.7%) received study drug through W52. As early as W2 through W24, pts receiving either dose of FIL experienced nominally significantly greater (p <0.001) CFB in HAQ-DI and VAS pain scale than those receiving PBO; CFB improvements were maintained through W52 (Fig 1A, B). At W2, compared with PBO (40.2%), a nominally significantly greater proportion of pts achieved the HAQ-DI MCID in both the FIL 200 (52.5%; p <0.001) and 100 mg (46.7%; p = 0.043) groups. This benefit vs PBO was maintained up to W24 and the proportion of pts who achieved a HAQ-DI reduction of ≥0.22 remained ≥75.8% in the FIL 200 mg group and ≥71.5% in the FIL 100 mg group from W12 through W52. FIL provided nominally significantly greater improvement in HRQoL vs PBO at W4 and W12 for both the CFB of the SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) (p <0.001) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) (p ≤0.006); nominal significance was also seen at W24 for CFB of SF-36 PCS (Fig 2A, B). By W4, pts receiving either dose of FIL reported a nominally significantly greater mean CFB in FACIT-Fatigue scores vs PBO (p <0.001); significance was maintained through W24 and improvement in reported fatigue continued through W52 in the FIL groups (Fig 2C). In general, CFB for HAQ-DI, VAS pain scale, and FACIT-Fatigue observed for the FIL groups was higher or comparable to ADA at various time points (Fig 1, 2).

Conclusion:

Both doses of FIL provided rapid and sustained improvements in functional status, pain, HRQoL, and fatigue compared with PBO for pts with RA and inadequate response to MTX throughout the 52-week period.

References:

[1]Combe BG, et al.Ann Rheum Dis.2019;78 (Suppl 2):A77.

[2]Fautrel B, et al.Rheumatol Int.2018;38:935–47.

[3]Smolen JS, et al.Ann Rheum Dis.2017;76:960–77.

Disclosure of Interests:

Alan Kivitz Shareholder of: AbbVie, Amgen, Gilead, GSK, Pfizer Inc, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim,,Flexion, Genzyme, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Regeneron, Sanofi, SUN Pharma Advanced Research, UCB, Paid instructor for: Celgene, Genzyme, Horizon, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Flexion, Genzyme, Horizon, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Regeneron, Sanofi, Yoshiya Tanaka Grant/research support from: Asahi-kasei, Astellas, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Takeda, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers, UCB, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, and Ono, Consultant of: Abbvie, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Daiichi-Sankyo, Astellas, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AbbVie, YL Biologics, Bristol-Myers, Takeda, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Eisai, Janssen, Sanofi, UCB, and Teijin, Susan Lee Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences Inc., Employee of: Gilead Sciences Inc., Lei Ye Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences Inc., Employee of: Gilead Sciences Inc., Hao Hu Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences Inc., Employee of: Gilead Sciences Inc., Robin Besuyen Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Bernard Combe Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, Consultant of: AbbVie; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Janssen; Eli Lilly and Company; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; Sanofi, Speakers bureau: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Eli Lilly and Company; Merck Sharp & Dohme; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; UCB

SAT0152 EFFICACY OF BARICITINIB IN PATIENTS WITH MODERATE-TO-SEVERE RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS WITH 3 YEARS OF TREATMENT: RESULTS FROM A LONG-TERM STUDY

Background:

Baricitinib (Bari) is an oral, selective and reversible Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of adults with active RA. In addition to long-term safety which has been disclosed previously with data up to 7 years [1], an important clinical consideration is whether treatment efficacy can be maintained over the long term.

Objectives:

To evaluate the long-term efficacy of once-daily Bari 4 mg in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who were either naïve to or who had inadequate response (IR) to methotrexate (MTX)

Methods:

Post hoc analyses of data from two phase 3 studies, RA-BEGIN (MTX-naïve) and RA-BEAM (MTX-IR) for 52 weeks, and one long-term extension (LTE) study (RA-BEYOND) for an additional 96 weeks were conducted (148 weeks in total). At week 52, MTX-naïve patients initially treated with MTX monotherapy, Bari 4 mg monotherapy, or Bari 4 mg +MTX in RA-BEGIN were switched to open-label Bari 4 mg monotherapy for treatment in the LTE. Similarly, at week 52, MTX-IR patients initially treated with Bari 4 mg [+ background MTX noted as (+MTX) for RA-BEAM] or adalimumab (ADA) (+MTX) in RA-BEAM were switched to open-label Bari 4 mg (+MTX) for treatment in the LTE. Patients who received placebo (+MTX) were switched to open-label Bari 4 mg (+MTX) at week 24. The analyses of efficacy (SDAI) and physical function (HAQ-DI) were conducted on all patients who were randomized into the RA-BEGIN and RA-BEAM studies and had received ≥1 dose of study drug after randomization (mITT population). The proportion of patients who reached low disease activity (LDA), as measured by SDAI ≤11, was evaluated along with change from baseline in HAQ-DI. The non-responder imputation (NRI) method was used for the categorical analysis.

Results:

By week 24 in RA-BEGIN (N=584), 62% of patients treated with Bari 4 mg monotherapy or Bari 4 mg +MTX achieved SDAI LDA in comparison to 40% of pts in the MTX monotherapy group; response rates seen at week 24 in the Bari treatment groups were maintained through week 148 (Fig 1A). Similarly, by week 24 in RA-BEAM (N=1,305), 52% of patients treated with Bari 4 mg (+MTX) and 50% of patients treated with ADA (+MTX) achieved a SDAI LDA in comparison to 26% of patients from the PBO (+MTX) group. The response rate seen at week 24 with Bari 4 mg and ADA were maintained through week 148, even after patients switched from ADA to Bari 4 mg at week 52 (Fig 1B). Similar improvement and maintenance patterns in physical function measured by HAQ-DI were demonstrated. The overall discontinuation rate across treatment groups from RA-BEGIN (19.5%) and RA-BEAM (14.2%) have been published. In the LTE, the discontinuation rate from Bari treatment was 13.7% for patients originating from RA-BEGIN (1.1% due to lack of efficacy, 6.4% due to safety) and 12.6% for patients originating from RA-BEAM (1.8% due to lack of efficacy, 5.9% due to safety).

Figure 1.

Proportion of patients achieving SDAI ≤11 in the NRI analysis†In RA-BEGIN, rescue to Bari 4 mg + MTX was offered at week 24.‡In RA-BEAM, rescue to Bari 4 mg (+ MTX) was offered at week 16. At week 24, all PBO + MTX patients were switched to Bari 4 mg + MTX.§Upon entering RA-BEYOND at week 52, MTX and ADA patients were switched to Bari 4 mg.

Conclusion:

Long-term treatment with Bari 4 mg demonstrated the maintenance of clinically-relevant outcomes for up to 3 years. Low discontinuation rates during the LTE indicated that Bari 4 mg treatment was well-tolerated.

References:

[1]Genovese et al.Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. 2019;78:308-309.

Disclosure of Interests: :

Josef S. Smolen Grant/research support from: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer Inc, Samsung, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer Inc, Samsung, Sanofi, Li Xie Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Bochao Jia Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Peter C. Taylor Grant/research support from: Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, and Gilead, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly and Company, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer Roche, and UCB, Gerd Rüdiger Burmester Consultant of: AbbVie Inc, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Roche, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie Inc, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Roche, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Yoshiya Tanaka Grant/research support from: Asahi-kasei, Astellas, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Takeda, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers, UCB, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, and Ono, Consultant of: Abbvie, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Daiichi-Sankyo, Astellas, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AbbVie, YL Biologics, Bristol-Myers, Takeda, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Eisai, Janssen, Sanofi, UCB, and Teijin, Ayesha Elias Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Anabela Cardoso Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Robert Ortmann Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Chad Walls Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Maxime Dougados Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma

SAT0193 A PHASE 3, OPEN-LABEL, CONTINUATION STUDY EVALUATING LONG-TERM SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF BELIMUMAB IN PATIENTS FROM JAPAN AND KOREA WITH SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS, FOR UP TO 7 YEARS

Background:

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is an autoimmune disorder more prevalent in the Asian population vs Caucasians. Belimumab (BEL), a monoclonal antibody targeting B-lymphocyte stimulator, is approved in patients (pts) ≥5 years with active, autoantibody-positive SLE.

Objectives:

Evaluate long-term safety and efficacy of intravenous (IV) BEL + standard SLE therapy (SST) in pts with SLE in Japan/Korea.

Methods:

In this Phase 3, multicentre, open-label (OL) study (BEL114333;NCT01597622), eligible (≥18 years of age) completers of the double-blind phase of GSK study BEL113750 in Japan and South Korea or the subcutaneous OL phase of GSK Study BEL112341 in Japan, received monthly BEL 10 mg/kg IV plus SST. Primary endpoints: safety assessments. Key secondary endpoints: SRI4 response rate at each scheduled visit (observed data), defined as a ≥4-point reduction from baseline in SELENA-SLEDAI score, no worsening in PGA (<0.3-point increase from baseline) and no new BILAG 1A/2B organ domain scores; time to first severe SFI flare over time. Endpoints were analysed relative to first BEL dose (parent or current study). No follow-up data were collected after study withdrawal.

Results:

Overall, 142 pts were enrolled (Japan n=72; Korea n=70), 104 (73.2%) completed the study, 1 (0.7%) died and 37 (26.1%) withdrew.

Overall, 139 (97.9%) pts had ≥1 adverse event (AE) (Table). Most frequent AEs included: nasopharyngitis (60.6%); headache (28.2%); cough, herpes zoster and viral upper respiratory tract infection (18.3% each). Serious AEs (SAEs) occurred in 48 (33.8%) pts. Most common SAEs were infections and infestations, reported in 24 (16.9%) pts (Table). During this study, the annual incidence of AEs, including SAEs and AESI, remained stable or declined, with no trends of clinical concerns regarding the incidence of Grade 3 or 4 values for laboratory parameters. There was 1 transient positive immunogenicity result of no clinical concern.

Table.

The proportion of SRI4 responders was 47.8% at Year 1 (Week 24) and tended to increase numerically up to 84.6% at Year 7 (Week 48). The proportion of pts with a ≥4-point decrease from baseline in SELENA-SLEDAI score numerically increased from 51.5% at Year 1 (Week 24) to 84.6% at Year 7 (Week 48). Proportion of pts with no PGA worsening was 91.3-100% and the proportion with no new BILAG 1A/2B organ domain scores was 93.3-100% up to Year 7 (Week 48). A total of 21 (14.8%) pts had 24 severe SFI flares.

Conclusion:

BEL was well tolerated as add-on therapy to SST for ≤7 years in pts with SLE from Japan/Korea. Safety results were consistent with the known BEL safety profile.

Study funding: GSK.

Disclosure of Interests:

Yoshiya Tanaka Grant/research support from: Received research grants from Asahi-Kasei, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Takeda, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers, UCB, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Ono, Speakers bureau: Received speaking fees and/or honoraria from Daiichi-Sankyo, Astellas, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AbbVie, YL Biologics, Bristol-Myers, Takeda, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Eisai, Janssen, Teijin, Sang-Cheol Bae: None declared, Damon Bass Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK, Myron Chu Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK, Paula Curtis Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK, Kathleen DeRose Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK, Beulah Ji Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK, Regina Kurrasch Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK, Jenny Lowe Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK, Paige Meizlik Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK, David Roth Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK

FRI0102 SERUM TNFΑ LEVELS AT 24 HOURS AFTER FIRST ADMINISTRATION OF CERTOLIZUMAB PEGOL PREDICT EFFECTIVENESS AT WEEK 12 IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS FROM TSUBAME STUDY (UMIN ID:0002381)

Background:

To increase the remission rate of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), it is necessary to determine the efficacy of the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor as early as possible. Moreover, the response to certolizumab pegol (CZP) at 12 weeks has been reported to predict its long-term efficacy.

Objectives:

As part of a prospective single-center observational study (TSUBAME study), we prospectively enrolled patients to be treated with CZP in our institution to evaluate its effectiveness and safety starting at 24 hours after the first dose in clinical settings, while recording blood CZP concentrations and biomarkers over time to examine their correlation with clinical effects.

Methods:

One hundred patients with RA and inadequate response to MTX who received CZP were enrolled in the TSUBAME study. The changes in serum TNFα, IL-6, and CZP levels at 24 hours after first administration of CZP were measured, and the correlation between serum biomarkers and clinical response was determined.

Results:

At 24 hours after CZP initiation, significant improvement was observed in the disease activity (baseline and 24 h: 5.4 ± 1.3, 5.0 ± 1.3, respectively, p < 0.01), which was maintained until week 12. (baseline and 12 w: 5.4 ± 1.3, 3.3 ± 1.4, respectively, p < 0.01). Serum TNFα and IL-6 levels significantly decreased at 24 hours after first administration of CZP compared to baseline. No correlation was found between TNFα and IL-6 levels at baseline and the clinical response. According to univariate analysis, low serum TNFα and IL-6 levels and high CZP levels at 24 hours were associated with DAS28 (ESR) remission at 12 weeks. According to multivariate analysis, low serum TNFα levels at 24 hours were significantly associated with DAS28 (ESR) remission at 12 weeks (OR 0.05, 95%CI 0.01, 0.75, p = 0.03). Based on these findings, an ROC curve was created using remission according to the DAS28 (ESR) at week 12 as a dependent variable and TNFα concentration at 24 hours as an independent variable, resulting in a cut-off value of 0.76 pg/ml. From this result, the TNFα concentration at 24 hours was divided into 2 groups according to this cut-off, and the rates of remission according to the DAS28 (ESR) at week 12 were compared. In the group with TNFα concentration at 24 hours below the cut-off value, the rate of remission according to the DAS28 (ESR) at week 12 was significantly higher than in the group with TNFα concentration at 24 hours above the cut-off value (below the cut-off: above the cut-off = 56.3%: 21.6%, p < 0.001). Between the group that achieved remission according to the DAS28(ESR) and the group that did not achieve remission at week 12, there was almost no difference in the distribution of TNFα concentrations at baseline; however, the distribution of TNFα concentrations at 24 hours was lower in the group that achieved remission.

Conclusion:

CZP was effective where serum TNFα was strongly neutralized within 24 hours. These results suggest that low serum TNFα levels at 24 hours after first administration of CZP may predict the effectiveness of CZP. To increase the remission rate in RA, it is necessary to determine the effectiveness of the molecular targeted drugs used at an early point, in addition to how rapid the onset of action is. CZP is extremely fast-acting, and its effectiveness can be predicted as early as 24 hours after the first dose, suggesting that it may be possible to determine the effectiveness early.

Acknowledgments:

The authors thank Ms. M. Hirahara for providing excellent technical assistance.

Disclosure of Interests:

Yusuke Miyazaki Grant/research support from: Astellas Pharma Inc and UCB S.A., Kazuhisa Nakano: None declared, Shingo Nakayamada Grant/research support from: Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Takeda, Novartis and MSD, Speakers bureau: Bristol-Myers, Sanofi, Abbvie, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Chugai, Asahi-kasei and Pfizer, Satoshi Kubo: None declared, Shigeru Iwata: None declared, Kentaro Hanami: None declared, Shunsuke Fukuyo: None declared, Ippei Miyagawa: None declared, Ayako Yamaguchi: None declared, Akio Kawabe: None declared, SAITO KAZUYOSHI: None declared, Yoshiya Tanaka Grant/research support from: Asahi-kasei, Astellas, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Takeda, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers, UCB, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, and Ono, Consultant of: Abbvie, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Daiichi-Sankyo, Astellas, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AbbVie, YL Biologics, Bristol-Myers, Takeda, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Eisai, Janssen, Sanofi, UCB, and Teijin

Swelling of Doubly Magic ^{48}Ca Core in Ca Isotopes beyond N=28

Interaction cross sections for ^{42-51}Ca on a carbon target at 280  MeV/nucleon have been measured for the first time. The neutron number dependence of derived root-mean-square matter radii shows a significant increase beyond the neutron magic number N=28. Furthermore, this enhancement of matter radii is much larger than that of the previously measured charge radii, indicating a novel growth in neutron skin thickness. A simple examination based on the Fermi-type distribution, and mean field calculations point out that this anomalous enhancement of the nuclear size beyond N=28 results from an enlargement of the core by a sudden increase in the surface diffuseness of the neutron density distribution, which implies the swelling of the bare ^{48}Ca core in Ca isotopes beyond N=28.

Transfer of epinastine to infants through human breast milk

The purpose of this study was to develop an analytical method for analyzing epinastine in breast milk and maternal plasma samples to determine the safety of epinastine in breastfed infants. Six nursing mothers took epinastine hydrochloride (20 mg) once a day for 7 days, while a nursing mother took it for 30 days. Breast milk and blood samples were collected 2, 4, and 10 h after administration from the volunteers. A liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry system was used to analyze samples pretreated by liquid-liquid extractions. The concentration of epinastine in human milk was 10.3-33.5 ng/mL after 2 h, 9.1-63.8 ng/mL after 4 h, and 8.3-28.9 ng/mL after 10 h. The increase achieved 4 h after administration indicates that epinastine was transferred into human breast milk. However, the milk-to-plasma ratio had a wide range (0.82-3.39), while the relative infant dose at 4 h was 0.36-2.49%, which is lower than the safety level of transferability (10%). Moreover, the plasma levels of epinastine in two infants were slightly below the quantification limit. Overall, our results suggested that epinastine can safely be used by nursing mothers without affecting their infants.

The influence of viscosity-enhancing agents on oral absorption of drugs

The objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of viscosity-enhancing agents on oral absorption of metoprolol (MPL) and bisoprolol (BPL). Although the viscosity values were similar for MPL and BPL in hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC, 1.2 % (w/w)) and polyvinyl alcohol (PVA, 8.8 % (w/w)) solutions, the order of diffusion rate constants of the drugs in media were phosphate buffer solution (reference) > HPMC solution > PVA solution. In in vivo rat intestinal absorption experiments showed that the C_max and AUC values of the drugs were lowest when they were administered into the rat jejunum in a PVA solution. In vitro binding studies showed that this may have been due to adsorption of the drugs to PVA molecules, resulting in decreased free fractions of the drugs. Our results indicated that intestinal absorption of the drugs in PVA solution was influenced both by decreased diffusion of the drugs and by interaction with PVA. Since various viscosity-enhancing agents are widely used as pharmaceutical and food additives, these findings may be of significance for understanding therapeutic efficacy and safety of oral drug products.

Bayesian Estimation of CBF Measured by DSC-MRI in Patients with Moyamoya Disease: Comparison with 15O-Gas PET and Singular Value Decomposition

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

CBF analysis of DSC perfusion using the singular value decomposition algorithm is not accurate in patients with Moyamoya disease. This study compared the Bayesian estimation of CBF against the criterion standard PET and singular value decomposition methods in patients with Moyamoya disease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Nineteen patients with Moyamoya disease (10 women; 22-52 years of age) were evaluated with both DSC and ¹⁵O-gas PET within 60 days. DSC-CBF maps were created using Bayesian analysis and 3 singular value decomposition analyses (standard singular value decomposition, a block-circulant deconvolution method with a fixed noise cutoff, and a block-circulant deconvolution method that adopts an occillating noise cutoff for each voxel according to the strength of noise). Qualitative and quantitative analyses of the Bayesian-CBF and singular value decomposition-CBF methods were performed against ¹⁵O-gas PET and compared with each other.

RESULTS

In qualitative assessments of DSC-CBF maps, Bayesian-CBF maps showed better visualization of decreased CBF on PET (sensitivity = 62.5%, specificity = 100%, positive predictive value = 100%, negative predictive value = 78.6%) than a block-circulant deconvolution method with a fixed noise cutoff and a block-circulant deconvolution method that adopts an oscillating noise cutoff for each voxel according to the strength of noise (P < .03 for all except for specificity). Quantitative analysis of CBF showed that the correlation between Bayesian-CBF and PET-CBF values (ρ = 0.46, P < .001) was similar among the 3 singular value decomposition methods, and Bayesian analysis overestimated true CBF (mean difference, 47.28 mL/min/100 g). However, the correlation between CBF values normalized to the cerebellum was better in Bayesian analysis (ρ = 0.56, P < .001) than in the 3 singular value decomposition methods (P < .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with previously reported singular value decomposition algorithms, Bayesian analysis of DSC perfusion enabled better qualitative and quantitative assessments of CBF in patients with Moyamoya disease.