POS0609 STRESS-ASSOCIATED INCREASES IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS DISEASE ACTIVITY AND FLARES DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

Background

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has spurred global action. Beginning in March of 2020, the Southern California COVID-19 pandemic response to limit virus transmission was characterized by mandated lockdowns and quarantines, resulting in significant stressors for rheumatology patients and potentially threatening their disease.

Objectives

To examine factors associated with changes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity and flares in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

RA patients identified by ICD-9/10 codes and active email addresses within a University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Rheumatology database were sent surveys via email in July and November of 2020. The survey was UCLA Institutional Review Board approved and included electronic consent and questions related to: perceptions of disease activity/remission via Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3), flare frequency, RA flare questionnaire (RA-FQ), Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-4), and pandemic impact on stress (i.e. emotional state, apprehension, panic, helplessness, work, home, financial, and social distancing stress). Demographics were extracted from electronic medical records. Results were examined via descriptive analyses, Pearson correlations, and chi-square test for comparisons plus linear stepwise regressions where appropriate to evaluate the relationship between stress measures, RA disease activity, and flare frequency and severity.

Results

Among 5037 patients surveyed, 361 in July and 4676 in November,1128 (22.4%) responded. The study population demographics were: mean age of 57.5 ± 15.1 years, 79.4% female, racially diverse (69.6% Caucasian, 13.7 % LatinX, 9.5 % Asian, and 4.9% Black), and 62% seropositive (CCP and/or RF). Perceived disease activity and remission remained stable in most patients with 719 reporting no flares, and 409 in current flares at the time of the survey (Table 1). A minority reported perceived increases in disease activity which were associated with multiple aspects of perceived stress. At survey completion, 346 had not experienced flares, 290 had experienced one flare, and 492 had experienced multiple flares. Use of DMARDs was associated with lack of flare versus current flare (77.8% versus 71.6%, p = 0.02). The use of conventional synthetic, biologic, or targeted synthetic DMARDs were not associated with flare while current corticosteroid use was associated with flare (9.3% without flare and 20.8% with flare, p < 0.0001). Current flare was associated with increased PSS-4 scores (odds ratio (OR): 1.17 (95% confidence interval: 1.12 – 1.22, p < 0.0001). Figure 1 describes the odds ratio of experiencing aspects of stress with the presence of RA flare.

Table 1.

Current RA flare at time of survey completion

Current FlareCurrent Flare YesP-ValueNoN=409N=719RA duration (mean ± SD) years15.6 ± 12.314.9 ± 11.60.3133Patient Global (mean ± SD), range 0-103.5 ± 2.56.1 ± 2.2<0.0001RAPID3 (mean ± SD) range 0-306.1 ± 5.613.7 ± 5.7<0.0001Patient-Reported Remission, no. (%)404 (57.1%)49 (12.1%)<0.0001RA-FQ Score, (mean ± SD), range 0-5013.4 ± 11.429.7 ± 10.8<0.0001PSS-4, (mean ± SD)5.2 ± 3.16.9 ± 3.1<0.0001Overall stress level (%)0.0004 Increased62.3%72.9% Unchanged26.9%21.8% Decreased10.7%5.4%Current RA Therapy Any DMARD77.8%71.6%0.0218 csDMARD Only31.4%26.7%0.0911 bDMARD Only18.1%16.9%0.6082 tsDMARDs Only3.3%3.4%0.9394 bDMARD + csDMARD Only19.8%19.8%0.9823 tsDMARD + csDMARD Only4.6%4.9%0.8188Current Corticosteroid9.3%20.8%<0.0001

SD = standard deviation; No. = number; RA = rheumatoid arthritis; RAPID3 = routine assessment of patient index data 3; RA-FQ = rheumatoid arthritis flare questionnaire; PSS-4 = perceived stress scale; D/C = discontinued; DMARD = disease modifying antirheumatic drugs; csDMARD = conventional synthetic DMARD; bDMARD = biologic DMARD; tsDMARD = targeted synthetic DMARD

Conclusion

In a large survey population of RA patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, multiple aspects of stress were found to correlate with RA disease activity and flare.

Disclosure of Interests

Daniel Furst Consultant of: Corbus; Galapagos; Novartis; Amgen, Grant/research support from: Actelion; Galapagos; National Institutes of Health; GlaxoSmithKline; Sanofi; Corbus; Pfizer; Novartis; Amgen; Bristol Myers Squibb; Roche/Genentech, Nicolette T Morris: None declared, Angela Q Pham: None declared, Thasia Woodworth: None declared, David Elashoff: None declared, Jenny Brook: None declared, Veena Ranganath Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers Squibb; Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals

POS0868 THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LINEAR CRISS; A CLINICAL AND PATIENT MEANINGFUL ANCHOR TO THE ACR-CRISS IN SCLERODERMA

Background

The ACR Composite Response Index in Systemic Sclerosis (ACR-CRISS) is one of the first composite outcome measures in diffuse cutaneous Systemic sclerosis (dcSSc).1 It relies on validated clinical domains selected through a data-driven methodology; however, it only provides a probability of response and is unable to differentiate between patients who do not improve and who worsen respectively.

Objectives

To improve the clinical interpretation of the ACR-CRISS by creating a continuous ranked score of clinically and patient meaningful changes of its individual measures.

Methods

Following OmerACT guidelines for outcome measurement development, relevant stakeholders were identified from 5 continents, including 100 physicians with proven experience in managing patients with dcSSc and 100 patients with dcSSc who have participated in at least one clinical trial. An adaptive conjoint analysis survey based on the PAPRIKA method2 and implemented using 1000minds software was administered. Patients and doctors were asked to choose which of two hypothetical patients had a better or worse outcome according to Minimally Clinical Important Differences (MCID) in two domains at a time from FVC, HAQ-DI and mRSS and the presence of organ failure. These pairwise choices were analysed to rank and weight the MCIDs against each other. With patient and public involvement, utilising a ‘think aloud’ approach, a video tutorial was produced explaining the objectives and process of the adaptive survey to the participants.

Results

Eighty rheumatologists and 80 patients with dcSSc completed the survey, which ran from June 2020 to January 2021. From the survey, relative weights for the 4 domains, reflecting their relative importance with respect to improving and worsening outcomes, were determined. A continuous composite ranked score reflecting the relative weighting of the individual outcome measures (Ranked Composite Important Difference, RCID) was developed accordingly (Table 1). The score ranges from -1 (worst possible outcome) to 1 (best possible outcome), in patients who experience no organ failure and do not meet any MCID in any of the 3 domains scoring 0.

Table 1.

The relative median weights of each of the core set measures within the better and worse outcome models, expressed as a score from -1 to 1

Worsening weightsImprovement weightsDoctorsPatientsCombinedDoctorsPatientsCombinedOrgan failure-0.355-0.333-0.326N/AN/AN/AFVC-0.324-0.306-0.3160.4630.4520.451mRSS-0.205-0.229-0.2170.3200.3200.324HAQ-DI-0.114-0.115-0.1410.2000.2270.224

Conclusion

This collaborative process using a novel, robust methodology and involving both rheumatologists and patients has created a clinically and patient meaningful composite score that can be used as an anchor to the ACR-CRISS, or other clinical outcomes. Performance against the ACR-CRISS and revised CRISS in randomised controlled trials and in observational cohorts will determine the clinical value of the RCID.

References

[1]Khanna D, et al. A&R 2016;68:299–311

[2]Hansen P, Ombler F. Multi-Criteria Decis. Anal 2008;15:87–107

Acknowledgements

DK and FDG are recognised as joint senior authors. The authors acknowledge the doctors and patients involved in the Linear Criss working group: Giuseppina Abignano, Paolo Airò, Dina-Marie Aiuto, Yannick Allanore, Shervin Assassi, Jérôme Avouac, Gianluca Bagnato, Alexandra Balbir-Gurman, Silvia Bellando Randone,Lorenzo Beretta, Elana Bernstein, Silvia Laura Bosello, Yolanda Braun Moscovici, Katrina Brown, Maya Buch, Corrado Campochiaro, Patricia Carreira, Lorinda Chung, Julia Coakes, Mary Cox, Giovanna Cuomo, Maurizio Cutolo, Laszlo Czirjak, Lorenzo Dagna, Giacomo De Luca, Nicoletta Del Papa, Christopher Denton, Emma Derrett-Smith, Robyn Domsic, Raluca-Bianca Dumitru, Victoria Flower, Ivan Foeldvari, Armando Gabrielli, Yasir Ghaffar, Roberto Giacomelli, Dilia Giuggioli, Daisy Gonzalez, Jessica Gordon, Yvonne Gouldstone, Marie Hudson, Francesca Ingegnoli, Lorraine Jackson, Sergio Jimenez, Terrance Johnson, Bashar Kahaleh, Robin King, Otylia Kowal-Bielecka, Masataka Kuwana, Maria Lazzaroni, Alain Lescoat, Takashi Matsushita, Marco Matucci Cerinic, Maureen Mayes, Thomas Medsger, Francesca Menegazzi, Tünde Minier, Mandana Nikpour, Chris O’Hora, Emese Paári-Molnár, John Pauling, Jose Antonio Pereira da Silva, Mercè Piñero Vegas, Janet Pope, Susanna Proudman, Ismaila Rafiq, Valeria Riccieri, Tatiana Sofia Rodriguez-Reyna, Tânia Santiago, James Seibold, Richard Silver, Robert Spiera, Tracy Stafford, Virginia Steen, Yossra Atef Suliman. Madelon Vonk, Ian Wright.

Disclosure of Interests

Lesley-Anne Bissell Speakers bureau: UCB, Abbvie, Galapagos, Daniel Furst: None declared, Sindhu Johnson: None declared, Paul Hansen: None declared, Esmeralda Recalde: None declared, Dinesh Khanna: None declared, Francesco Del Galdo Speakers bureau: Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Capella Biosciences, Chemomab LTD, Janssen, Kymab LTD, Mitsubishi-Tanabe., Consultant of: Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Capella Biosciences, Chemomab LTD, Janssen, Kymab LTD, Mitsubishi-Tanabe., Grant/research support from: Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Capella Biosciences, Chemomab LTD, Janssen, Kymab LTD, Mitsubishi-Tanabe.

POS0888 NON-SURGICAL LOCAL TREATMENTS FOR DIGITAL ULCERS IN SYSTEMIC SCLEROSIS: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW

Background

Digital ulcers(DUs) in systemic sclerosis(SSc) represent a major clinical challenge. There are no recommendations for the local management of SSc-DUs. Systemic therapy is considered the standard of care. However, there is a strong rationale for local approaches to DU by avoiding side effects from systemic therapies. The World Scleroderma Foundation DU Working Group intends to develop evidence-based recommendations for DU management including local, non-surgical treatment(ln-sT).

Objectives

To summarise the literature on the safety and efficacy of ln-sT for SSc-DUs.

Methods

A systematic literature review(SLR) of papers describing the use of ln-sT for DU in SSc was performed up to May 2021 according to the PICO framework. References were independently screened by two reviewers who independently assessed the full text of eligible articles and extracted data.

Results

Among 790 retrieved references, 12 were included. Median(range) number of patients per study was 9(7–84), mean age ranging from 37 to 62.5 years. In 5(41%) studies a control group was included. Background systemic therapies are summarized in Table 1. The most studied treatment was botulin toxin A(BTA). It was used as hand injection in 3 studies (median dose ranging from 90 to 150 U) and as 50 U single finger injection in 1 study. Healing rate after a median time of 8-49 weeks ranged from 71% to 100%. In 2 studies a reduction in VAS pain was observed from 20% to 100%. Transient muscle weakness was the most common side effect in 10% of patients. Amniotic(Am) and hydrocolloid membranes(HyM) were used in 1 study each. They were associated with a good healing rate, statistically significant for the HyM. Tadalafil 2% cream was studied in 1 study and was associated with a reduction in the median DU number from 1.6 to 1 per patient after a median time of 4 weeks and a reduction by 1.4 point in the 10-mm VAS scale. Vitamin E gel was shown to be associated with a statistically significant reduction in the healing time compared to SoC alone in 1 RCT(13.2 ± 2.7 versus 20.9 ± 3.6 weeks, P=<0.001). Low-level light therapy, hydrodissection and corticosteroid injection and extracorporeal shock wave(ESW) were evaluated in 1 study each. They were all associated with positive outcomes which was statistically significant only for the ESW. The only negative trial examined dimethyl sulfoxide and was associated with local toxicity.

Table 1.

Characteristics of the studies.

TreatmentType of studyPatientsBaseline DUBackground therapy (%) ETA CCB APA PG ARB ACE-I PDE-5i ISFollow-up (weeks)Healing rate(%)*Pain Reduction (VAS/10)ComparatorHydrodissection and corticosteroid injectionP1202334.4Rheumatoid ArthritisTadalafil 2% Vitamin E gelRRCT15131.6(1)3.5±2.30462700130704 241(1)Reduced time to heal**1.4SoCAmHyMRP67310001002800002817033143810090**SoCBTAMedian 90 U per handHigh-concentration hand100 U non-dominant handSingle finger 50 URRPP772010314571140718558551008514201001414718 4981277717510020%100%Untreated CHLow-level light therapyP8102537025378100ESWP9493355661144441**1.31Dimethyl sulfoxideDBRCT84No change, skin toxicity with 70% formulation

*Unless otherwise stated. **Statistically significant. ARB= angiotensin receptor antagonist. ACEi= ACE inhibitors. APA= anti-platelet agents. CCB= calcium channel blockers. CH= contralateral hand. DBRCT= double blind randomized-controlled trial. ETA = endothelin antagonist. IS= immunosuppression. PG= prostaglandins. PDE-5i= Phosphodiesterase type-5 inhibitors. P = prospective. R = retrospective. SoC= standard of care (as per local protocol).

Conclusion

Our SLR supports interest to develop ln-sTs for SSc-DUs. The number of studies is limited and mainly case reports and small single studies are present. Treatments were well tolerated and there was evidence of efficacy for BTA, vitamin E, ESW and HyM in refractory DUs. The evidence is not robust and confounding factors (vasodilators background therapies) could impact on the findings. Future research is indicated to conduct larger, well-designed studies.

Disclosure of Interests

Corrado Campochiaro: None declared, Yossra A. Suliman: None declared, Michael Hughes Speakers bureau: Actelion pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer, outside of the submitted work., Jan Schoones: None declared, Dilia Giuggioli: None declared, Pia Moinzadeh Speakers bureau: speaking fees from Actelion pharmaceuticals and Boehringer Ingelheim, Nancy Maltez: None declared, Laura Ross: None declared, Murray Baron: None declared, Lorinda Chung: None declared, Yannick Allanore: None declared, Christopher P Denton: None declared, Oliver Distler Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, AstraZeneca, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, CSL Behring, Galapagos, Glenmark, Horizon, Inventiva, Kymera, Lupin, Medscape, Miltenyi Biotec, Mitsubishi Tanabe, MSD, Novartis, Prometheus, Roivant, Sanofi and Topadur, Tracy Frech: None declared, Daniel Furst: None declared, Dinesh Khanna Speakers bureau: Janssen and Eicos Sciences, Inc., Thomas Krieg: None declared, Masataka Kuwana Speakers bureau: Speakers fees from AbbVie, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Astellas, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Nippon Shinyaku, Ono Pharmaceuticals, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, and Consultant fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, Kissei, Mochida, outside of the submitted work., Marco Matucci-Cerinic: None declared, Janet Pope: None declared, Alessia Alunno: None declared

POS0898 SURGICAL MANAGEMENT OF DIGITAL ULCERS IN SYSTEMIC SCLEROSIS: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW

Background

Management of digital ulcers (DUs) in systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a major clinical challenge. To date, systemic therapy is generally considered as the ‘standard of care’ for significant SSc-DUs. However, there is a strong rationale to develop local approaches to DUs, to avoid side effects from systemic therapies. World Scleroderma Foundation DU Working Group intends to develop practical, evidence-based recommendations for DU management including local, Surgical Treatment (L-ST).

Objectives

To summarize the literature on the safety and efficacy of L-ST for SSc-DUs.

Methods

A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted up to May 2021. According to the PICO framework, eligibility criteria were defined and original research articles about surgical treatment of SSc DUs in adult patients were included. References were independently screened by 2 reviewers who assessed the full text of eligible articles and extracted data.

Results

Thirteen eligible articles out of 790 total publications were identified (Table 1). Due to the paucity of randomized controlled trials of surgical treatments for SSc-DU, we included retrospective studies and case series with at least 4 patients. Autologous fat (adipose tissue AT) grafting was the surgical modality mostly identified (7 studies of which 1 RCT and 6 prospective open label single arm). The healing rate (HR) with autologous fat grafting (4 studies) ranged from 66-100 %. In the RCT, two age and sex matched groups were included, adipose tissue (AT)group (n=25 pts) and sham procedure (SP) group (n=13), DU healing was reported in 23/25 in AT group versus 1/13 in the SP group in 8 wks, (p<0.0001), 12 pts in the SP group, received rescue AT injection, all of them healed after 8 wks. Three studies reported autologous adipose-derived stromal vascular fraction(SVF) grafting and the HR ranged from 32-60%, followed up to 12 months. Transient edema and paresthesia were reported in 2 studies, and amputation in 2 ulcers in 1 study, and no complications were reported in other studies. Surgical sympathectomy was reported in 3 studies, with a median healing rate of 81%. Bone marrow derived cell transplantation in a single study showed 87% healing rate over (4-24 wks). Two surgical studies (of direct microsurgical revascularization N=4, and microsurgical arteriolysis, N=6), showed 100% healing of ulcers, no complications reported.

Table 1.

Characteristics of the extracted studies.

StudydesignPatients (n)Baseline DU (n)Background therapy (%)Follow-upOutcomeHealed ulcers(%) Adipose tissue graftAutologous fat graftp9.15PG, CCB—100ETA 26PDE-5i 138-12 wks66Adipose tissue graftingRCT25 case13- Ctr25-case13- CtrPG- 100CCB 1008 wks92-case7-CtrAdipose tissue implantp1515no therapy7 wks100Adipose tissue graftp129PG,CCB-100ETA6 month88adipose derived SVFp1215PDE-5i, ccb, PG allowed22m6Adipose derived SVFp1215CCB 50ETA166 m63 Adipose derived SVFp1819CCB 50PG 27ETA 5IS 7124 wks32SympathectomySympathectomyR611CCB-10020 m81SympathectomyR1335PGCCBAPA35Sympathectomy, vascular bypass (+vein graftR1726Ccb 35APA 47PDE-i5 589 m100Bone marrow derived cells transplantation)p88PG-6236 m87Direct microsurgical revascularizationR44m100Limited microsurgical arteriolysisR61712 m100

SVF =stromal vascular fraction P = prospective. R = retrospective. RCT= double blind randomized-controlled trial. ETA = endothelin antagonist. CCB= calcium channel blockers. APA= anti-platelet agents. PG= prostaglandins. ARB= angiotensin receptor antagonist. ACEi= ACE inhibitors. PDE-5i= PDE-5 inhibitors. IS= immunosuppression. M=median. SoC= standard of care. HR= healing rate

Conclusion

Our SLR has identified several surgical modalities for SSc-DUs. L-STseemed generally effective and safe for DU healing, thus Significant methodological issues emerged including small numbers of pts, lack of comparator, failure to report confounders such as background therapies and variable follow up. Future research is warranted to rigorously investigate surgical interventions for Dus.

Disclosure of Interests

Yossra A. Suliman: None declared, Corrado Campochiaro: None declared, Michael Hughes Speakers bureau: speaking fees from Actelion pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer, outside of the submitted work, Jan Schoones: None declared, Dilia Giuggioli: None declared, Nancy Maltez: None declared, Pia Moinzadeh Speakers bureau:: speaking fees from Actelion pharmaceuticals and Boehringer Ingelheim, Laura Ross: None declared, Lorinda Chung: None declared, Yannick Allanore: None declared, Murray Baron: None declared, Christopher P Denton: None declared, Oliver Distler Shareholder of: Consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from and/or has served as a speaker for the following companies in the area of potential treatments for systemic sclerosis and its complications in the last three calendar years: Abbvie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, AstraZeneca, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, CSL Behring, Galapagos, Glenmark, Horizon, Inventiva, Kymera, Lupin, Medscape, Miltenyi Biotec, Mitsubishi Tanabe, MSD, Novartis, Prometheus, Roivant, Sanofi and Topadur. Patent issued “mir-29 for the treatment of systemic sclerosis” (US8247389, EP2331143)., Speakers bureau: Consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from and/or has served as a speaker for the following companies in the area of potential treatments for systemic sclerosis and its complications in the last three calendar years: Abbvie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, AstraZeneca, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, CSL Behring, Galapagos, Glenmark, Horizon, Inventiva, Kymera, Lupin, Medscape, Miltenyi Biotec, Mitsubishi Tanabe, MSD, Novartis, Prometheus, Roivant, Sanofi and Topadur. Patent issued “mir-29 for the treatment of systemic sclerosis” (US8247389, EP2331143)., Consultant of: Consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from and/or has served as a speaker for the following companies in the area of potential treatments for systemic sclerosis and its complications in the last three calendar years: Abbvie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, AstraZeneca, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, CSL Behring, Galapagos, Glenmark, Horizon, Inventiva, Kymera, Lupin, Medscape, Miltenyi Biotec, Mitsubishi Tanabe, MSD, Novartis, Prometheus, Roivant, Sanofi and Topadur. Patent issued “mir-29 for the treatment of systemic sclerosis” (US8247389, EP2331143)., Grant/research support from: Consultancy relationship with and/or has received research funding from and/or has served as a speaker for the following companies in the area of potential treatments for systemic sclerosis and its complications in the last three calendar years: Abbvie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, AstraZeneca, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, CSL Behring, Galapagos, Glenmark, Horizon, Inventiva, Kymera, Lupin, Medscape, Miltenyi Biotec, Mitsubishi Tanabe, MSD, Novartis, Prometheus, Roivant, Sanofi and Topadur. Patent issued “mir-29 for the treatment of systemic sclerosis” (US8247389, EP2331143)., Tracy Frech: None declared, Daniel Furst: None declared, Dinesh Khanna Speakers bureau: Janssen and Eicos Sciences, Inc., Paid instructor for: Janssen and Eicos Sciences, Inc., Consultant of: Janssen and Eicos Sciences, Inc., Thomas Krieg: None declared, Masataka KUWANA Speakers bureau: Speakers fees from AbbVie, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Astellas, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Nippon Shinyaku, Ono Pharmaceuticals, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, and Consultant fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, Kissei, Mochida, outside of the submitted work., Paid instructor for: Speakers fees from AbbVie, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Astellas, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Nippon Shinyaku, Ono Pharmaceuticals, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, and Consultant fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, Kissei, Mochida, outside of the submitted work., Consultant of: Speakers fees from AbbVie, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Astellas, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Nippon Shinyaku, Ono Pharmaceuticals, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, and Consultant fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, Kissei, Mochida, outside of the submitted work., Marco Matucci-Cerinic: None declared, Janet Pope: None declared, Alessia Alunno: None declared

POS1103 “WHAT MATTERS”: PATIENT AND CLINICIAN PERSPECTIVES IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS CARE

Background

Recent psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treatment recommendations (1) highlight the importance of shared decision making; this ideally requires the clinician understands “what matters” to each patient regarding their disease. Concurrently, patient research partners have been incorporated into projects for the OMERACT core domain set (2) and measures of physical function and (health related) quality of life (3). Currently, less is known about the similarities and differences between patient and clinician perspectives.

Objectives

To interrogate and deliniate commonalities and discrepancies in “what matters” to patients and to physicians in routine clinical care.

Methods

A comprehensive list of items describing the PsA patient experience was generated in medical anthropologist-designed (CH) peer-to-peer discussions in 4 patient focus groups across the United States (Seattle, Cleveland, Washington, DC). These items were combined with those from the GRAPPA-OMERACT PsA Outcomes patient-physician consensus project (2). A PsA physician and patient steering committee reviewed and revised the list with additional topics considered to be of importance. The final list of 51 items went through a 3 round Delphi process starting with 53 PsA patients and a 2 round Delphi with 13 PsA expert rheumatologists. In each round, participants rated each item for level of importance out of 100 total points.

Results

Top priority items for each group are depicted in Figure 1. Both patients and physicians rated ‘Arthritis -Joint pain and swelling’ in the top two. Five additional items were included for both groups but with different scores; all related to disease manifestations or physical consequences. Several items received disparate priority between groups. In this set, patients included two unique items: access to care and future health uncertainty. Other items affecting everyday function were noted. Physician priorities included specific disease manifestations and physical/functional outcomes, and the topic of “disease management goals”, focusing on patient-physician communication regarding a treatment plan.

Figure 1.

Top Patient and Physician Priorities

*Not in set of highest ranked items for that group

Conclusion

Patients and physicians were in consensus that arthritis disease activity, pain and fatigue are key features of the patient’s experience of PsA. Differences appeared in other domains; physicians ranked clinical domains such as enthesitis, dactylitis, and skin disease more highly, patients considered items such as access to care, future health uncertainty and sleep quality to be most important. This study highlights the need for physicians to ask and address “what matters” with patients and to educate patients about potential differences in physicians’ areas of concern to optimize shared decision making.

References

[1]Ogdie A, Coates LC, Gladman D. Treatment guidelines in psoriatic arthritis: Rheumatology 2020;59:i37-i46

[2]Orbai A-M, de Wit M, Mease P, et al. International patient and physician consensus on a psoriatic arthritis core outcome set for clinical trials Ann Rheum Dis 2017;76:673–680.

[3]Gossec L, de Wit M, Kiltz U, et al. A patient-derived and patient-reported outcome measure for assessing psoriatic arthritis: elaboration and preliminary validation of the Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease (PsAID) questionnaire, a 13-country EULAR initiative. Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73: 1012–9.

Disclosure of Interests

Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Pfizer, Novartis, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Celgene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genetech, Novartis, Janssen, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, UCB, GSK, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Genetech, Novartis, Janssen, Sun Pharma, Pfizer, Daniel Furst Speakers bureau: Corbus, GSK, Sanofi, Consultant of: Actelion, Amgen, BMS, Corbus, Galapagos, Sanofi, Novartis, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Actelion, Amgen, BMS, Galapagos, Sanofi, Roche/Genetech, Novartis, Pfizer, Evan Siegel Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, UCB, Novartis, Lilly, Consultant of: AbbVie, Janssen, UCB, Novartis, Lilly, BMS, Vibeke Strand Consultant of: Abbvie Amgen Corporation Arena

Aria

AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bioventus, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celltrion, Chemocentryx, Elsa, EMD Serono, Endo, Equilium, Flexion, Galapagos, Genentech / Roche, Gilead, GSK, Horizon, Ichnos, Inmedix, Janssen, Kiniksa, Kypha, Lilly, Merck, MiMedx, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Rheos, R-Pharma, Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi, Scipher, Servier, Setpoint, Sorrento, Spherix, Sun Pharma, Swing, UCB, Melissa Mcilraith Employee of: Past employee at Abbott and Celgene, M Elaine Husni Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Eli Lilly, UCB, Regeneron, M. Cameron Hay Grant/research support from: Novartis for this IIS

POS0867 COMORBIDITY AND COMPLICATIONS PRIOR TO SYSTEMIC SCLEROSIS DIAGNOSIS: A RETROSPECTIVE COHORT ANALYSIS

Background

Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a rare autoimmune disease characterized by progressive microvascular damage, collagen deposition and subsequent fibrosis of the skin and internal organs which contributes to substantial morbidity and premature death.1-2

Objectives

The objective was to evaluate the disease burden of SSc patients prior to their SSc diagnosis.

Methods

Patients with SSc were identified in a claims dataset (IBM MarketScan Commercial Database, 2015-2019) using ICD 10 diagnosis codes for SSc. Eligible subjects were required to have > 1 inpatient or >2 outpatient/office claims with a scleroderma diagnosis code on separate days and > 24 months of continuous health plan enrollment without a SSc diagnosis before the first SSc claim (‘index date’) and > 12 months of enrollment after the index date. Overall comorbid disease burden was assessed via the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) 13-24 and 12 months before and 12 months after index date. The prevalence of SSc-related complications for atherosclerosis, pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), pulmonary fibrosis (PF), Raynaud’s Phenomenon (RP), and gastrointestinal (GI) complications (e.g., GERD, dysphagia, etc.) were identified using ICD codes and reported as percentages for the aforementioned time intervals relative to patients’ index dates.

Results

902 eligible SSc patients were identified for analysis. The mean age at index SSc diagnosis was 54.3 years and 84.7% of patients were female. Mean CCI scores 13-24 months before, 12 months before, and 12 months after index SSc diagnosis were 0.84, 1.13 and 1.30, respectively. From the time points 13-24 months before, 12 months before, and 12 months after index SSc diagnosis, increasing rates were also observed of atherosclerosis, PAH, PF, RP, and GI complications (Table 1).

Table 1.

Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and systemic sclerosis-related complications by time-interval

Clinical characteristic13-24 months before Index12 months before Index12 months after IndexMean CCI (std dev)0.84 (1.58)1.13 (1.71)1.30 (1.75)Systemic sclerosis-related complicationsAtherosclerosis7%9%14%Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH)1%4%12%Pulmonary fibrosis (PF)5%8%16%Raynaud’s Phenomenon (RP)13%29%43%GI complications23%32%46%

Conclusion

Results from this analysis suggests that SSc-related sequalae are present at least two years prior to SSc diagnosis and rates of these complications increased markedly over time. Patients’ overall comorbid disease burden also worsened substantially over this period, likely because of these complications. The internal organ involvement is likely under reported due to requirements to link each diagnosis with an ICD-10 code. These data indicate the significant burden of SSc, prior to and after diagnosis, highlighting the need for awareness, prompt diagnosis, and effective therapies for SSc and its related complications.

References

[1]Cutolo M, et al. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2019;15(7):753-764.

[2]Steen VD, Medsger TA. Ann Rheum Dis. 2007;66(7):940-944.

Disclosure of Interests

Dinesh Khanna Consultant of: Horizon Therapeutics, Daniel Furst Consultant of: Horizon Therapeutics, Justin W. Li Grant/research support from: Horizon Therapeutics, Saloni Shah Grant/research support from: Horizon Therapeutics, Tamara Lesperance Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics, Farah Ali Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics, Brian LaMoreaux Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics, Stephanie Taylor Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics

AB0966 Are Current Patient Reported Outcomes Tools Optimized to Capture the Entire Patient Experience?

Background

Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) affects multiple attributes of patient health; to assess treatment effectiveness a compilation of Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO) have been utilized. While useful, most of these were originally created for other diseases and only later validated or adapted for use in PsA. More recent efforts have focused on development of PsA specific PRO tools, with inclusion of patient input and relevance for use in both clinical research and clinical care (1).

Objectives

To subject a broad set of currently used PROs to patient assessment, giving insight into usefulness in the clinic and informing efforts for optimization of PsA PROs.

Methods

Four focus groups were conducted across three regionally-diverse areas in the United States from March 2016 to October 2016. Patients represented a range of disease history, symptoms, and severity. After trained facilitators encouraged open conversation about PsA, including symptoms, challenges and feelings about disease and treatment, patients reviewed 13 currently utilized PROs and rated relevance of these instruments to reporting their disease experiences on a 3 point scale of Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, and Irrelevant. Verbal discussion followed on the merits and challenges of each rated PRO

Results

PRO instruments ranged from overall global assessments to disease specific assessments (Table 1). The PROs received a variety of ratings, with Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue (FACIT-F) and Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease (PsAID) judged as Very Relevant by the largest number of patients, followed by Health Assessment Questionnaire-Spondyloarthropathies (HAQ-S) and Pain VAS (Figure 1). Instruments receiving the most assessments of Not Really Relevant were Pt Global and PsA Quality of Life (PsAQOL). In the qualitative portion of the research, major patient critiques across PROs were the time frames listed on the questionnaires; some were too restrictive and disallowed reporting important recent disease activity. Preferences were for questions asked as ‘..since your last visit..’. Multiple participants also agreed that a visual tool allowing patients to circle specific joints to indicate pain would be useful.

Table 1.

Outcomes Instruments Assessed in the Study

ToolAbbreviationTime Period QueriedPatient GlobalPt GANone SpecifiedPain Visual Analog ScalePain VASIn the past weekHealth Assessment Questionnaire-SpondyloarthropathiesHAQ-SOver the past weekShort Form - 36SF-36Different periods queried for different questions: Compared to a year ago; None Specified; Over the past 4 weeksFunctional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - FatigueFACIT-FPast 7 DaysEQ-5D and EQ Visual Analog ScaleEQ-5D-5LTodayPsoriatic Arthritis Quality of LifePsAQOLNone specifiedPsoriatic Arthritis Impact of DiseasePsAIDDuring the last weekDermatology Life Quality IndexDLQIOver the last WeekPsoriasis Symptom InventoryPSILast 7 daysWork Productivity and Activity Impairment: General HealthWPAI:GHDuring the past 7 daysWork Productivity Survey - PsAWPS-PsALast monthBeck Depression InventoryBDI-IIDuring the past 2 weeks

Conclusion

Currently utilized PROs in PsA evaluating domains of fatigue, function, pain, and disease specific manifestations were all important regarding new therapeutic agents. However, some are more relevant than others to patients, most notably FACIT-F and PsAID, the latter being an important example of a patient-led and disease-specific development effort. Allowing reporting of items of concern without restrictive time periods is important to patients. These preferences and comments can be utilized to better understand the value of PROs in clinical settings to optimize patient-clinician communications.

References

[1]Gossec L, de Wit M, Kiltz U, et al. A patient-derived and patient-reported outcome measure for assessing psoriatic arthritis: elaboration and preliminary validation of the Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease (PsAID) questionnaire, a 13-country EULAR initiative. Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73: 1012–9.

Disclosure of Interests

Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Pfizer, Amgen, Novartis, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Amgen, GAlapagos, Genentech, Janssen, Sun Pharma, BMS, Celgene, Novartis, UCB, GSK, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Pfizer, Amgen, Galapagos, Novartis, Sun Pharma, BMS, Vibeke Strand Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen Corporation, Arena, Aria, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bioventus, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celltrion, Chemocentryx, Elsa, EMD Serono, Endo, Equilium, Flexion, Galapagos, Genentech / Roche, Gilead, GSK, Horizon, Ichnos, Inmedix, Janssen, Kiniksa, Kypha, Lilly, Merck, MiMedx, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Rheos, R-Pharma, Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi, Scipher, Servier, Setpoint, Sorrento, Spherix, Sun Pharma, Swing, UCB, Daniel Furst Speakers bureau: Corbus, GSK, Sanofi, Consultant of: Actelion, Amgen, BMS, Corbus, Galapagos, Sanofi, Novartis, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Actelion, Amgen, BMS, Galapagos, Sanofi, Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, Evan Siegel Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB, Consultant of: BMS, AbbVie, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB, Melissa Mcilraith Employee of: Past Employee of Abbott and Celgene, M Elaine Husni Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Eli Lilly, UCB, Regeneron, M. Cameron Hay Grant/research support from: Novartis

POS0140 PREDICTING OUTCOMES IN SYSTEMIC SCLEROSIS: STRATIFICATION BY AUTO-ANTIBODIES OUTPERFORMS CUTANEOUS SUBSETTING IN THE EUSTAR COHORT

Background

Risk-stratification is key in a heterogeneous disease like systemic sclerosis (SSc). Until now, SSc patients are stratified according to the extent of skin involvement into limited cutaneous, diffuse cutaneous and sine scleroderma subtypes. However, this classification remains inaccurate to capture disease heterogeneity. Autoantibodies are found in more than 90% of the patients and can be detected before onset of the disease. Among them, three predominant and specific antibodies are used: anti-centromere, anti-Scl70 and RNA polymerase III antibodies.

Objectives

To compare the performances of stratification into LeRoy’s cutaneous subtypes versus autoantibody status in SSc versus combination of cutaneous subtypes and autoantibodies status.

Methods

Patients from the EUSTAR database were classified either as (i) limited cutaneous, diffuse cutaneous or sine scleroderma (based on the recording made by the treating physician) or (ii) according to autoantibodies with the following subclassifications: (1) no specific autoantibodies, (2) isolated ANA, (3) anti-centromere antibodies, (4) anti-Scl70 antibodies and (5) anti-RNA polymerase III antibodies or (iii) according to combination of cutaneous subset and auto-antibodies. The respective performance of each model to predict overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), disease progression and different organ involvements was assessed and the three models were compared by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC 95%CI) and the net reclassification improvement (NRI). Missing data were imputed through multiple imputation using chain equations.

Results

In all, 10’711 patients were included: 84.6% females, mean age: 54.4±13.8 years, mean disease duration: 7.9±8.2 years. In the prospective analysis (n= 6’467 to 7’829 according to the outcome), after a mean follow-up of 56 months and a mean of three visits per patient, we did not identify any difference in AUC between the cutaneous-based model and the antibody-based model for prediction of OS and disease progression. However, the NRI showed a significant improvement in prediction of OS (0.57 [0.46-0.71] vs. 0.29 [0.19-0.39]) and disease progression (0.36 [0.29-0.46] vs. 0.21 [0.14-0.28]) at 4 years using the antibody-based model. Regarding prediction of each organ involvement in longitudinal analyses, the antibody-based model showed better performance than the cutaneous-one for renal crisis (AUC: 0.719 [0.696-0.742] vs. 0.664 [0.643-0.685]), with the highest association observed with anti-RNA polymerase III (OR: 7.47 [1.63-34.24], p= 0.010). Similarly, the antibody-based model was better than the cutaneous model in predicting lung fibrosis (AUC 0.719 [0.715-724] vs. 0.653 [0.647-0.659]) and restrictive lung fibrosis (AUC 0.759 [0.749-0.766] vs. 0.711 [0.701-0.721]) which were both associated with anti-Scl70 antibodies (OR: 9.29 [8.17-10.55] and 7.92 [5.37-11.69], respectively, p<0.0001 for both). Although there was no difference in the AUC to predict digital ulcers, NRI showed an improvement using the antibody-based model (0.31 [0.29-0.33] vs. 0.24 [0.22-0.26]) with the highest association with anti-Scl70 antibodies (OR: 3.57 [2.68-4.75], p<0.0001). The two models had similar performances in assessing occurrence of intestinal involvement, heart dysfunction or elevated sPAP. Combining both antibody status and cutaneous subtype did not improve the performance of our models. In the exploratory analysis, there was no change using modified Rodnan skin score to define cutaneous form.

Conclusion

Auto-antibody status outperforms the common cutaneous subsetting to risk-stratify SSc patients in the EUSTAR cohort. This easily performed subclassification using autoantibodies specific status can be used by the clinicians to risk-stratify their patients and to adapt disease monitoring in routine practice.

Disclosure of Interests

Muriel Elhai Speakers bureau: BMS outside of the submitted work, Marouane Boubaya: None declared, Nanthara Sritharan: None declared, Alexandra Balbir-Gurman: None declared, Elise Siegert: None declared, Eric Hachulla: None declared, Jeska de Vries-Bouwstra: None declared, Gabriela Riemekasten: None declared, Jörg H.W. Distler: None declared, Douglas Veale: None declared, Edoardo Rosato: None declared, Francesco Del Galdo: None declared, Fabian A Mendoza: None declared, Daniel Furst Consultant of: Abbvie, Novartis, Pfizer, R-Pharm, Grant/research support from: Emerald, Kadmon, PICORI, Pfizer,Prometheus, Talaris, Mitsubishi, Carlos De la Puente Bujidos: None declared, Anna-Maria Hoffmann-Vold Speakers bureau: Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Jansen, Lilly, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Consultant of: Actelion, ARXX, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Jansen, Lilly, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Grant/research support from: Boehringer Ingelheim, Armando Gabrielli: None declared, Oliver Distler Speakers bureau: Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Medscape, Consultant of: Abbvie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, AstraZeneca, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, CSL Behring, 4P Science, Galapagos, Glenmark, Horizon, Inventiva, Kymera, Lupin, Miltenyi Biotec, Mitsubishi Tanabe, MSD, Novartis, Prometheus, Roivant, Sanofi and Topadur, Grant/research support from: Kymera, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Boehringer Ingelheim, Coralie Bloch-Queyrat: None declared, Yannick Allanore Consultant of: Actelion, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Inventiva, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Grant/research support from: Actelion, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Inventiva, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis

POS0900 SYSTEMIC PHARMACOLOGICAL TREATMENT OF DIGITAL ULCERS IN SYSTEMIC SCLEROSIS: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW

Background

Digital ulcers (DU) are common in systemic sclerosis (SSc) and associated with reduced survival, high morbidity and poor quality of life. Recommendations have previously been proposed for DU management yet there remains significant unmet patient need. Therefore the World Scleroderma Foundation DU Working Group intends to develop practical evidence based recommendations for DU management.

Objectives

To summarise data on efficacy and safety of systemic treatments for SSc DU.

Methods

A systematic literature review to May 2021 was performed. PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Emcare (OVID) and Academic Search Premier databases were searched for original studies on adult patients with SSc DU treated with systemic pharmacological treatment. Based on the PICO framework, eligibility criteria were defined and references were independently screened by two reviewers. Reviewers independently assessed the full text of eligible articles. Owing to interstudy heterogeneity narrative summaries were used to present data.

Results

The search strategy identified 1271 references of which 45 eligible articles were included. Seventeen studies were randomised placebo controlled trials (RCT) pertaining to PDE5 antagonists (PDE5i) (n=3), endothelin receptor antagonists (ERA) (n=3), prostanoids (n=7), antiplatelet agents (n=1) and other (n=3) (Table 1). No head to head RCT was retrieved. All other studies were observational studies (OBS). Studies were highly heterogeneous with application of differing definition of DU, variable study eligibility criteria, clinical endpoints and follow up periods. This limited the calculation of effect size and comparison across studies.

Table 1.

Characteristics of placebo controlled randomised controlled trials

Author YearInterventionnFollow upOutcomeFavours interventionHachulla 2016Sildenafil8312 weeksTime to DU healing-Andrigueti 2017Sildenafil4112 weeksDU healing+Shenoy 2010Tadalafil246 weeksNew DU+Khanna 2016Macitentan55416 weeksNew DU-Matucci-Cerinic 2011Bosentan18832 weeksNew DU Time to healing of DU+-Korn 2004Bosentan12212 weeksNew DU+Kawald 2008IV iloprost5012 monthsDU healing-Wigley 1992IV iloprost3510 weeksDU healing+Wigley 1994IV iloprost739 weeks50% reduction in DU score-Seibold 2017Treprostinil14820 weeksNet DU burden-Vayssairat 1999Beraprost10725 weeks% patients with new DU-Denton 2017Selexipag7412 weeksNumber of new DU DU healing-Lau 1993Cicaprost334 weeksNumber of DU-Abou-Raya 2008Atorvastatin844 monthsNumber of DU+Au 2010Cyclophosphamide15812 monthsNumber of patients with DU-Beckett 1984Dipyridamole / aspirin412 yearsChange in general SSc-Nagaraja 2019Riociguat1732 weeksNet DU burden-

+ significantly superior to comparator

- non significantly different from comparator

DU: digital ulcers IV: intravenous SSc: systemic sclerosis

Several RCT found improved DU healing with treatment: two with PDE5i, one with iloprost and one showed improved DU healing and prevention with atorvastatin. Two RCT demonstrated effective prevention of new DU with bosentan. OBS studies with a total of 621 patients showed variable improvements in the healing of DU with CCB, PDE5i, ERA, statins, N-acetylcysteine, prostanoids and ketanserin and prevention of new DU with ERA.

Regarding safety, all treatments were generally tolerated with few serious adverse events. Treatment was ceased in 6.25-17.5% of patients in RCT due to treatment related side effects.

Conclusion

Despite several studies assessing the efficacy and safety of systemic pharmacological treatment of SSc DU, it is not possible to draw solid conclusions due to study heterogeneity. Small RCT have shown treatment benefit with PDE5i, iloprost and atorvastatin. Large studies demonstrated effective prevention of new DU with bosentan. Our results highlight the urgent need for improved clinical trial design to generate more robust evidence and novel therapies to guide the management SSc DU.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the World Scleroderma Foundation.

Disclosure of Interests

Nancy Maltez: None declared, Laura Ross: None declared, Michael Hughes Speakers bureau: Actelion Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly and Pfizer outside of the submitted work., Jan Schoones: None declared, Murray Baron: None declared, Lorinda Chung Consultant of: Eicos, Corrado Campochiaro: None declared, Yossra A. Suliman: None declared, Dilia Giuggioli: None declared, Pia Moinzadeh Speakers bureau: Actelion Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Yannick Allanore: None declared, Christopher P Denton: None declared, Oliver Distler Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, AstraZeneca, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, CSL Behring, Galapagos, Glenmark, Horizon, Inventiva, Kymera, Lupin, Medscape, Miltenyi Biotec, Mitsubishi Tanabe, MSD, Novartis, Prometheus, Roivant, Sanofi and Topadur., Consultant of: Abbvie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, AstraZeneca, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, CSL Behring, Galapagos, Glenmark, Horizon, Inventiva, Kymera, Lupin, Medscape, Miltenyi Biotec, Mitsubishi Tanabe, MSD, Novartis, Prometheus, Roivant, Sanofi and Topadur., Grant/research support from: Patent issued “mir-29 for the treatment of systemic sclerosis” (US8247389, EP2331143), Abbvie, Acceleron, Alcimed, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx, AstraZeneca, Baecon, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, CSL Behring, Galapagos, Glenmark, Horizon, Inventiva, Kymera, Lupin, Medscape, Miltenyi Biotec, Mitsubishi Tanabe, MSD, Novartis, Prometheus, Roivant, Sanofi and Topadur., Tracy Frech: None declared, Daniel Furst: None declared, Dinesh Khanna Consultant of: Eicos Sciences Inc, Janssen, Thomas Krieg: None declared, Masataka Kuwana Speakers bureau: Speaker fees from AbbVie, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Astellas, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Nippon Shinyaku, Ono Pharmaceuticals, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, Kissei, Mochida outside of the submitted work., Marco Matucci-Cerinic: None declared, Janet Pope: None declared, Alessia Alunno: None declared

OP0128 INTEGRATED LABORATORY ABNORMALITY PROFILES OF UPADACITINIB WITH UP TO 4.5 YEARS OF EXPOSURE IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS TREATED IN THE SELECT PHASE 3 PROGRAM

Background:

Upadacitinib (UPA) is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor approved for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The safety and efficacy of UPA has been evaluated across a spectrum of patients (pts) with RA in the phase 3 SELECT clinical program.1,2

Objectives:

To describe long-term laboratory profiles (cutoff date: June 30, 2020) associated with exposure to UPA, adalimumab (ADA), and methotrexate (MTX) in pts with RA treated in the SELECT trials.

Methods:

Data were analyzed from 6 randomized controlled UPA RA trials.1,2 The proportions of pts experiencing potentially clinically significant laboratory changes at a single time point were summarized for the following groups: pooled UPA 15 mg once daily (QD; UPA15; 6 trials), pooled UPA 30 mg QD (UPA30; 4 trials), ADA 40 mg every other week (EOW; 1 trial), and MTX monotherapy (1 trial). Pts received UPA with/without background conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Treatment-emergent adverse events are reported as exposure-adjusted event rates (events/100 pt-years [E/100 PY]). Toxicity was graded per OMERACT criteria, or NCI CTCAE for creatine phosphokinase (CPK) and creatinine.

Results:

4413 pts received ≥1 dose of UPA (UPA15, n=3209; UPA30, n=1204). Exposures were comparable between treatment groups (Table). Proportions of pts with Grade (Gr) 3 and 4 decreases in hemoglobin were highest with UPA30 and MTX (Table). Rates of anemia, as reported by the investigator, were comparable between UPA15, ADA, and MTX groups (Figure); the frequency of UPA-treated pts who discontinued due to anemia was low in all arms. Gr 3 and 4 decreases in neutrophils and lymphocytes with UPA were dose-dependent and higher vs ADA or MTX. Discontinuations due to neutropenia and lymphopenia were rare (<0.1%). Transaminase elevations were more frequent with UPA and MTX vs ADA; however, the proportion of pts who discontinued due to increases in alanine (ALT) or aspartate aminotransferase (AST) were comparable between UPA15 and ADA, and numerically higher with UPA30 and MTX. CPK elevations were more frequent with UPA (Figure). Most events were asymptomatic, and the 1 case of rhabdomyolysis in the UPA30 group was unrelated to study drug (attributed to influenza).

Table 1.

Pts with potentially clinically significant laboratory changes

Variable, n (%)MTX monotherapy (n=314; 637.4 PY)ADA 40 mg EOW (n=579; 1051.8 PY)UPA 15 mg QD (n=3209; 7023.8 PY)UPA 30 mg QD (n=1204; 3091.6 PY)Mean (SD) exposure, weeks106 (67)95 (70)114 (64)134 (66)Median (range) exposure, weeks144 (1, 221)118 (2, 231)136 (0, 232)160 (0, 231)Hemoglobin, g/LGr 3 (70–<80 or decreased 21–<30)28a (9.0)24b (4.2)254d (7.9)169f (14.2)Gr 4 (<70 or decreased ≥30)16a (5.1)16b (2.8)101d (3.2)78f (6.5)Neutrophils, 109/LGr 3 (0.5–<1.0)3a (1.0)3b (0.5)40d (1.2)37g (3.1)Gr 4 (<0.5)1a (0.3)1b (0.2)10d (0.3)5g (0.4)Lymphocytes, 109/LGr 3 (0.5–<1.0)74a (23.7)53b (9.2)802d (25.1)423g (35.5)Gr 4 (<0.5)5a (1.6)3b (0.5)75d (2.3)47g (3.9)ALT, U/LGr 3 (3.0–8.0 × ULN)26a (8.3)13c (2.3)152e (4.8)71h (5.9)Gr 4 (>8.0 × ULN)5a (1.6)4c (0.7)26e (0.8)10h (0.8)AST, U/LGr 3 (3.0–8.0 × ULN)15a (4.8)9c (1.6)101e (3.2)36h (3.0)Gr 4 (>8.0 × ULN)1a (0.3)5c (0.9)18e (0.6)8h (0.7)CPK, U/LGr 3 (>5.0–10.0 × ULN)2a (0.6)3c (0.5)65e (2.0)36i (3.0)Gr 4 (>10.0 × ULN)0a (0)3c (0.5)27e (0.8)15i (1.3)Creatinine, μmol/LGr 3 (>3.0–6.0 × ULN)0a (0)1c (0.2)3e (<0.1)2j (0.2)Gr 4 (>6.0 × ULN)0a (0)4c (0.7)8e (0.3)1j (<0.1)

an=312. bn=576. cn=577. dn=3201. en=3199. fn=1193. gn=1192. hn=1195. in=1196. jn=1197

ULN, upper limit of normal

Conclusion:

This long-term analysis of UPA-treated pts with RA showed dose-dependent relationships for several laboratory abnormalities. Incidences of these with UPA15 were typically higher than with ADA but similar to MTX, except for increased CPK elevations. Treatment discontinuations due to laboratory abnormalities were infrequent and similar across all treatment groups.

References:

[1]Tanaka Y. Mod Rheumatol 2020;30:779–87; 2. Rubbert-Roth A, et al. N Engl J Med 2020;383:1511–21.

Acknowledgements:

AbbVie funded this study; contributed to its design; participated in data collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and participated in the writing, review, and approval of the abstract. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing support was provided by Russell Craddock, PhD, of 2 the Nth (Cheshire, UK), and was funded by AbbVie.

Disclosure of Interests:

Christina Charles-Schoeman Consultant of: AbbVie, Gilead, Pfizer, and Sanofi/Regeneron, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Pfizer, Jon T Giles Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Nancy Lane Consultant of: Amgen, Mallinckrodt, Pfizer, and Roche, Ernest Choy Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biocon, Biogen, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, R-Pharm, and Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Bio-Cancer, Biogen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Daniel Furst Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Continuing Medical Education, and Novartis, Consultant of: Actelion, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corbus, Galapagos, Novartis, and Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Actelion, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corbus, Galapagos, GSK, NIH, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi, Jiří Vencovský Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Biogen, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, and Octapharma, Anthony G Wilson: None declared, Gerd Rüdiger Burmester Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Tim Shaw Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Yanna Song Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Heidi Camp Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Nasser Khan Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Jillian Yee Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Samuel Anyanwu Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Iain McInnes Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB

POS0317 THE PERFORMANCE OF DIFFUSING CAPACITY FOR MONOXIDE CARBON (DLCO) AND FORCED VITAL CAPACITY (FVC) IN PREDICTING THE ONSET OF SYSTEMIC SCLEROSIS (SSc)-INTERSTITIAL LUNG DISEASE (ILD) IN THE EUROPEAN SCLERODERMA TRIALS AND RESEARCH (EUSTAR) DATABASE

Background:

In SSc, ILD is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. High resolution computed tomography (HRCT) is the gold standard for the diagnosis. Predictors of ILD onset are eagerly awaited to improve SSc-ILD management. Pulmonary function test (PFTs) are routinely performed to measure lung function changes.

Objectives:

Our aim was to investigate the performance of DLCO (diffusing capacity of lung carbon monoxide) and FVC (forced vital capacity) in predicting the development of SSc-ILD.

Methods:

The longitudinal data of DLCO, FVC and ILD on HRCT of SSc patients from the EUSTAR database were evaluated at baseline (t0), after 12 (±4) (t1) and 24 (±4) (t2) months. Patients with negative HRCT for any sign of ILD both at t0 and t1 were included. Patients who presented or developed pulmonary hypertension during the study period were excluded. At baseline, demographic data, disease duration from Raynaud’s onset, disease subsets, autoantibodies and other laboratory and instrumental data were recorded.

Results:

474/17805 patients were eligible for the study (403 females, 71 males): 26.0% dcSSc, 58.3% lcSSc, 220 (48.0%) patients with positive anticentromere antibodies (ACA) and 117 (25.4%) with positive antitopoisomerase I antibodies (Topo-I abs). Among all enrolled patients, 46 (9.7%) developed HRCT signs of ILD at t2. Patients with Topo-I abs showed an association with ILD development at t2 (16.7% vs 7.8%, p=0.0031), contrarily ACA positive patients were negatively associated with ILD appearance after 2 years of follow-up (4.4% vs 14.4%, p=0.0001). Positive t2 HRCT patients had a significant lower value of DLCO and FVC at all three assessments when compared to patients with a negative HRCT at t2 (Table 1) and both t0 DLCO and FVC values negatively correlated with ILD development (Table 1). The mean t0 to t1 change (Δ) of DLCO in patients with negative t2 HRTC and positive t2 HRCT were -0.5 (±12.6) and -1.0 (±15.1), respectively. The mean t0 to t1 ΔFVC in patients with negative t2 HRTC and positive t2 HRCT were -0.2 (±10.6) and 0.1 (±11.5), respectively. None of them predicted the appearance of ILD at t2 (ΔDLCO: OR (IC) 0.997 (0.97-1.02), p=0.8024; ΔFVC OR (IC) 1.002 (0.97-1.03), p=0.8664). The data showed an association between t0 DLCO value<80% and ILD appearance after 2 years of follow-up [OR(IC): 3.09(1.49-6.40), p=0.0023]. Such association was not observed for t0 FVC value<80% [OR(IC): 1.95(0.81-4.68), p=0.1329]. The predictive capability of t0 DLCO<80% was moderate but stronger than FVC<80% [AU ROC: 0.62 (0.56-0.69), 0.53 (0.48-0.59) respectively, p=0.0205].

Conclusion:

Our data suggest that an impaired baseline DLCO (<80%) may have a predictive value for the development of ILD on HRCT after 2 years of follow-up. Further rigorous prospective studies are warranted to understand the role of DLCO evaluation in the course of SSc.

Table 1.

DLCO and FVC values at t0, t1 and t2 values in patients with positive or negative HRCT for ILD at t2 and their statistical differences.

Patients without ILD at t2 (mean±SD)Patients with ILD at t2 (mean±SD)OR (95%CL)p-valueDLCO at t079.0 ± 16.669.9 ± 17.40.97 (0.95 - 0.99)0.0006DLCO at t178.4 ± 16.868.9 ± 18.60.97 (0.95 - 0.98)0.0005DLCO at t278.0 ± 17.065.1 ± 19.10.95 (0.93 - 0.97)<0.0001FVC at t0102.2 ± 17.394.6 ± 16.20.97 (0.96 - 0.99)0.0052FVC at t1101.9 ± 17.994.7 ± 16.50.98 (0.96 - 0.99)0.0092FVC at t2101.6 ± 17.694.5 ± 20.00.98 (0.96 - 1)0.0126

Disclosure of Interests:

Gemma Lepri: None declared, Cosimo Bruni Speakers bureau: CB reports personal fees from Actelion, personal fees from Eli Lilly, Grant/research support from: CB reports personal fees from Actelion, personal fees from Eli Lilly, grants from European Scleroderma Trial and Research (EUSTAR) group, grants from New Horizon Fellowship, grants from Foundation for Research in Rheumatology (FOREUM), grants from Fondazione Italiana per la Ricerca sull’Artrite (FIRA), outside the submitted work, Lorenzo Tofani: None declared, Alberto Moggi Pignone: None declared, Martina Orlandi: None declared, Tomasetti Sara Speakers bureau: Speaker’s fees for Roche and Boehringer Ingelheim, Mike Hughes: None declared, Francesco Del Galdo: None declared, Rosaria Irace: None declared, Oliver Distler Grant/research support from: OD (last three years) has/had consultancy relationship and/or has received research funding in the area of potential treatments for systemic sclerosis and its complications from (last three years): Abbvie, Acceleron Pharma, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx Therapeutics, Baecon Discovery, Blade Therapeutics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, ChemomAb, Corbus Pharmaceuticals, CSL Behring, Galapagos NV, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, GSK, Horizon (Curzion) Pharmaceuticals, Inventiva, iQvia, Italfarmaco, iQone, Kymera Therapeutics, Lilly, Medac, Medscape, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Serodapharm, Topadur, Target Bioscience and UCB. Patent issued “mir-29 for the treatment of systemic sclerosis” (US8247389, EP2331143)., Valeria Riccieri: None declared, Yannick Allanore Speakers bureau: YA received personal fees from Boehringer, Sanofi, Menarini and Medsenic and grants from Alpine with regards to the management of systemic sclerosis, Grant/research support from: YA received personal fees from Boehringer, Sanofi, Menarini and Medsenic and grants from Alpine with regards to the management of systemic sclerosis, Ana Maria Gheorghiu: None declared, Elise Siegert: None declared, Jeska de Vries-Bouwstra: None declared, Eric Hachulla: None declared, Mohammed Tikly: None declared, Nemanja Damjanov: None declared, Francois Spertini: None declared, Luc Mouthon: None declared, Anna-Maria Hoffmann-Vold Speakers bureau: AMHV: received consulting fees from Actelion, ARXX, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Roche; and grants from Boehringer Ingelheim., Consultant of: AMHV: received consulting fees from Actelion, ARXX, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Roche; and grants from Boehringer Ingelheim., Grant/research support from: AMHV: received consulting fees from Actelion, ARXX, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Roche; and grants from Boehringer Ingelheim., Armando Gabrielli: None declared, Serena Guiducci: None declared, Marco Matucci-Cerinic Speakers bureau: has received consulting fees or honorarium from Actelion, Janssen, Inventiva, Bayer, Biogen, Boehringer, CSL Behring, Corbus, Galapagos, Mitsubishi, Samsung, Regeneron, Acceleron, MSD, Chemomab, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Grant/research support from: has received consulting fees or honorarium from Actelion, Janssen, Inventiva, Bayer, Biogen, Boehringer, CSL Behring, Corbus, Galapagos, Mitsubishi, Samsung, Regeneron, Acceleron, MSD, Chemomab, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Daniel Furst: None declared, Silvia Bellando Randone: None declared

POS0054 THE IMPACT AND OUTCOME OF COVID-19 ON SYSTEMIC SCLEROSIS PATIENTS FROM THE EUROPEAN SCLERODERMA TRIAL AND RESEARCH GROUP (EUSTAR)

Background:

Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) has been a major clinical challenge worldwide. Sex, age and comorbidities have been associated with worse outcome in the general population. Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a severe, autoimmune disease with frequent multi-organ involvement.

Objectives:

To assess the impact of COVID-19 and to determine factors associated with worse outcome in SSc patients from the European Scleroderma Trial and Research (EUSTAR) database.

Methods:

SSc patients from the EUSTAR database with COVID-19 were prospectively collected between 15.03.-31.12.2020. Two outcomes were chosen: (1) hospitalization; and (2) severe outcome defined as either non-invasive ventilation, mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) or death. General risk factors assessed were sex, age and number of comorbidities. SSc related risk factors were SSc subtype, autoantibodies, disease duration, SSc associated organ manifestations including interstitial lung disease (ILD), pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), cardiac, gastrointestinal (GI), and musculoskeletal involvement; digital ulcers (DU), CRP at last visit, renal disease (scleroderma renal crisis and SSc associated renal insufficiency), modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS) and immunosuppressive treatment. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression models were applied.

Results:

In total, 178 European SSc patients with COVID-19 were registered with a median observation time of 5.5 weeks (Table 1). 95 patients (53%) could recall SAR-Cov-2 contact, while 47 (26%) had no contact. 156 (88%) were symptomatic at COVID-19 onset with fever, cough, malaise and dyspnea being most prevalent. Over the disease course, 63 (36%) developed pneumonia. In total, 67/176 (38%) were hospitalized which were in 84% due to COVID-19. 41/170 (24%) had a severe outcome including 21 (12%) deaths. 128 (72%) recovered completely, while 14 (8%) complained of sequela, with 7 (50%) stating respiratory complications. Age, non-SSc comorbidities, presence of ILD, PAH and SSc associated renal or cardiac disease were numerically associated with hospitalization and severe outcome (Table 1). Univariable logistic analyses for hospitalization and severe outcome are shown in Figure 1. In multivariable logistic regression, age (OR 1.03, 95%CI 1.01-1.07, p=0.019), presence of non-SSc comorbidities (OR 2.52, 95%CI 1.16-5.47, p=0.019) and SSc-related renal disease (predicting success perfectly) were associated with hospitalization and for severe outcome age (OR 1.05, 95%CI 1.01-1.08).

Conclusion:

SSc patients at older age, with non-SSc comorbidities, SSc related renal disease or ILD are at risk of a more severe outcome and should follow precautions to avoid COVID-19 infections and need careful monitoring in case of COVID-19.

Table 1.

SSc disease characteristics of COVID-19 patients

All(n=172)Hospitalized(n=67)Severe outcome(n=41)Age at COVID-19, yrs (SD)57 (14.0)63 (13.8)65 (12.2)Male sex, n (%)38 (21)18 (27)12 (29)≥1 comorbidity, n (%)63/176 (36)37 (55)30 (58)SSc disease duration at COVID, yrs (SD)11.5 (8.8)13.3 (9.7)12.7 (10.2)Diffuse cutaneous SSc, n (%)74 (42)29 (43)19 (46)mRSS, median (IQR)5 (8)5 (9)5 (7)ILD, n (%)90/175 (51)36/65 (55)26/40 (65)PAH, n (%)21/175 (12)11/65 (17)8/40 (20)GI disease, n (%)112/176 (64)45 (67)30 (73)Cardiac disease, n (%)37/166 (22)19/59 (32)16/36 (44)Musculoskeletal disease, n (%)40/175 (23)15/65 (23)6/40 (15)Renal disease, n (%)8/175 (5)7/65 (11)5/40 (13)Ever DU, n (%)69/175 (39)27/65 (42)14/40 (35)CRP, ng/ml (SD)35/177 (20)14 (21)9 (22)Immunosuppressive treatment, n (%)104/177 (59)41/66 (62)26 (63)Figure 1.

Univariable logistic analyses for hospitalization and severe outcome

Disclosure of Interests:

Anna-Maria Hoffmann-Vold Speakers bureau: Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, ARXX, Lilly and Medscape, Consultant of: Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, ARXX, and Medscape

, Grant/research support from: Boehringer Ingelheim, Cathrine Brunborg: None declared, Francesca Tirelli: None declared, Patricia Carreira: None declared, Nicoletta Del Papa: None declared, Arsene Mekinian: None declared, Madelon Vonk: None declared, Alessandro Giollo: None declared, Giacomo De Luca: None declared, Maria De Santis: None declared, Corrado Campochiaro: None declared, Carina Mihai: None declared, Paolo Airò Speakers bureau: Bristol Myers Squibb, Bohringer Ingelheim, Consultant of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Bohringer Ingelheim, non-financial support from CSL Behring, SOBI, Janssen, Roche, Sanofi, Pfizer, Maria Grazia Lazzaroni: None declared, Elisabetta Zanatta: None declared, Rosario Foti: None declared, Yannick Allanore: None declared, Daniel Furst: None declared, Marco Matucci-Cerinic: None declared, Armando Gabrielli: None declared, Oliver Distler Speakers bureau: Actelion, Kymera Therapeutics, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Abbvie, Acceleron, Alexion, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx Therapeutics, Baecon, Discovery, Blade Therapeutics, Corbus Pharmaceuticals, Drug Development International, Ltd, CSL Behring, Galapagos NV, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, GSK, Horizon (Curzion) Pharmaceuticals, Inventiva, iQvia, Kymera Therapeutics, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Topadur and UCB, Consultant of: Actelion, Kymera Therapeutics, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Abbvie, Acceleron, Alexion, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx Therapeutics, Baecon, Discovery, Blade Therapeutics, Corbus Pharmaceuticals, Drug Development International, Ltd, CSL Behring, Galapagos NV, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, GSK, Horizon (Curzion) Pharmaceuticals, Inventiva, iQvia, Kymera Therapeutics, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Topadur and UCB, Grant/research support from: Boehringer Ingelheim.

POS0321 USE OF HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE AND SYSTEMIC SCLEROSIS: RESULTS FROM A PROSPECTIVE OBSERVATIONAL STUDY ON THE EUSTAR COHORT

Background:

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is a well-tolerated drug that contributes to downregulating the immune response against autoantigens and it has been used in several autoimmune diseases. In systemic sclerosis (SSc) it is used to treat inflammatory arthritis without proof of efficacy.

Objectives:

Our aim was to evaluate the use of HCQ and its impact on Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index (HAQ-DI) and the Cochin Hand Function Status (CHFS). in a large SSc cohort compared to a propensity matched group of SSc patients not using HCQ.

Methods:

SSc patients from the European Scleroderma Trials and Research (EUSTAR) data base treated with HCQ for at least 6 months were evaluated. Demographic and clinical data, concomitant drugs, duration of HCQ treatment and reasons for its discontinuation, HAQ-DI and CHFS (at least 2 evaluation) were recorded and were the outcome variables of interest. Statistical analysis was performed using propensity score matching for age, gender, disease duration, corticosteroids, immunosuppressives, vasoactive drugs, DMARDs in a 3:1 control:HCQ ratio. Standard descriptive statistics and Student’s t-test and Chi-square test were used to assess the propensity-matched groups.

Results:

1,636 of 17,805 SSc patients (9.2%) were treated with HCQ for at least 6 months; out of these 3% (50/1636). had at least a baseline and follow-up HAQ-DI evaluation, (and 44/1636 (2.7%) had at least a baseline and follow-up CHFS evaluation. Propensity matching assured that pts were matched for demographic variables such as gender (mean on HCQ vs no HCQ:femals:92.0 vs 85.3), age(49.8 vs 49.97yrs) disease duration(8.3 vs 9.1 yrs), limited disease(55.3 vs 62.6%) as well as background medications (P>0.1-0.9). We did not find any significant changes in HAQ or CHFS (difference in slope) over 365 days of treatment, comparing the HCQ-treated group to the non-HCQ treated patients (p=0.240 for both (Figure 1).

Conclusion:

Results from the EUSTAR registry showed that HCQ was used by 9.2% of SSc patients. HCQ use did not improve the HAQ or CHFS, comparing HCQ users to non-HCQ users.

Disclosure of Interests:

Silvia Bellando Randone: None declared, Holly Wilhalme: None declared, Cosimo Bruni: None declared, Elise Siegert: None declared, Paolo Airò: None declared, Rosaria Irace: None declared, Oliver Distler: None declared, Andrea Doria: None declared, Lidia P. Ananieva: None declared, László Czirják: None declared, Christopher Denton: None declared, Yannick Allanore: None declared, Valeria Riccieri: None declared, ALESSANDRA VACCA: None declared, Ivan Foeldvari Consultant of: Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer, Hexal, BMS, Sanofi, MEDAC, Anna-Maria Hoffmann-Vold Speakers bureau: Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Lilly and Medscape, Consultant of: Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Bayer, ARXX, and Medscape, Grant/research support from: Boehringer Ingelheim, Armando Gabrielli: None declared, Marco Matucci-Cerinic: None declared, Daniel Furst: None declared

AB0198 EFFICACY AND SAFETY AFTER TRANSITION FROM REFERENCE ADALIMUMAB TO CT-P17 (ADALIMUMAB BIOSIMILAR: 100 MG/ML) IN COMPARISON WITH THE MAINTAINED TREATMENT (CT-P17 OR REFERENCE ADALIMUMAB) IN PATIENTS WITH MODERATE-TO-SEVERE ACTIVE RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS: 1-YEAR RESULT

Background:

Therapeutic equivalence of CT-P17 to reference adalimumab (ref-adalimumab) has been shown in patients with moderate-to-severe active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) through primary 24-week results [1]. Here, efficacy, pharmacokinetics (PK), safety and immunogenicity results up to 52-week, including transition data from ref-adalimumab to CT-P17 are presented.

Objectives:

To evaluate efficacy, PK, safety and immunogenicity when switched from ref-adalimumab to CT-P17 compared to maintaining CT-P17 or ref-adalimumab.

Methods:

In this study, 648 moderate-to-severe active RA patients despite methotrexate treatment were randomized (1:1) to either CT-P17 or ref-adalimumab and treated with doses of 40 mg every 2 weeks up to Week 24. Prior to dosing at Week 26, 608 patients were randomized again to either maintaining their treatments or being switched from ref-adalimumab to CT-P17. Efficacy, PK, safety, and immunogenicity were assessed up to Week 52.

Results:

After the second randomization, 303 patients continued with CT-P17, 153 patients continued with ref-adalimumab and 151 patients switched from ref-adalimumab to CT-P17 treatments, up to Week 48. Demographics and baseline characteristics were similar among the 3 groups. Sustained and comparable efficacy in terms of ACR20/50/70 response rates was achieved not only in the maintenance groups (CT-P17 or ref-adalimumab) but also in the switched from ref-adalimumab to CT-P17 group up to Week 52 (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

ACR 20/50/70 Response Rates up to 1 YearAbbreviation: ref-adalimumab, reference adalimumab.Note. There were patients who could not visit the study site due to COVID-19 pandemic and were counted as nonresponder for ACR response at Week 52.

In terms of PK, mean trough serum concentration (Ctrough) were maintained after Week 24 in all 3 groups. The observed mean Ctrough were within the reported therapeutic ranges of ref-adalimumab trough levels in RA patients (5-8 μg/mL).

The safety profile after transition was comparable among the 3 groups (Table 1). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was neutropenia. Similar proportions of patients in all 3 groups experienced at least 1 TEAE: injection site reactions, hypersensitivity/allergic reactions and infections. One malignancy (basal cell carcinoma; unrelated) was reported in the ref-adalimumab maintenance group. Safety data accumulated over 1 year also showed comparable results among the 3 groups. Anti-drug antibody (ADA) and neutralizing antibody (NAb) results were similar among the 3 groups. At Week 52, the proportions of patients who had ADA/NAbs were 28.4%/24.8% patients in CT-P17 maintenance, 27.0%/24.3% patients in ref-adalimumab maintenance and 28.3%/26.3% patients in switched to CT-P17 groups.

Conclusion:

Single transition from ref-adalimumab to CT-P17 was efficacious and safe without increase in immunogenicity. Also, efficacy, PK, safety and immunogenicity profiles were comparable between CT-P17 and ref-adalimumab up to Week 52.

References:

[1]J Kay et al, 2020. Poster Presented at ACR Convergence 2020.

Table 1.

Overview of TEAEs from Weeks 26 to 52 (Safety Population – second random subset)

Patients, n (%)Second RandomizationCT-P17 Maintenance(N=303)Ref-ada Maintenance(N=152)Switched to CT-P17 (N=152)≥1 TEAE121 (39.9)69 (45.4)73 (48.0)≥1 TESAE6 (2.0)3 (2.0)5 (3.3)≥1 TEAE leading to study drug discontinuation3 (1.0)2 (1.3)5 (3.3)≥1 TEAE classified as hypersensitivity/allergic reactions2 (0.7)1 (0.7)0 (0)≥1 TEAE classified as injection site reactions1 (0.3)4 (2.6)1 (0.7)≥1 TEAE classified as infection54 (17.8)41 (27.0)28 (18.4)≥1 TEAE classified as malignancy0 (0)1 (0.7)0 (0)

Abbreviations: Ref-ada, reference adalimumab; TEAE, treatment-emergent adverse event; TESAE, treatment-emergent serious adverse event.

Disclosure of Interests:

Daniel Furst Speakers bureau: CME, Consultant of: Amgen, Corbus, Galapagos, Horizon, Kadmon, Pfizer, Talaris, Grant/research support from: Corbus, CSL Behring, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Horizon, Kadmon, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genetech, Talaris, Edward Keystone Speakers bureau: Amgen, AbbVie, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., Janssen Inc., Merck, Novartis, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Celltrion Inc., Myriad Autoimmune, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc, Gilead, Janssen Inc., Lilly Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Sandoz, Sanofi-Genzyme, Samsung Bioepis, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Merck, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, PuraPharm, Jonathan Kay Consultant of: AbbVie, Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, Celltrion Healthcare Co. Ltd., Jubilant Radiopharma, Merck & Co., Inc., Pfizer Inc., Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz Inc., Scipher Medicine, UCB, Inc., Grant/research support from: Paid to the University of Massachusetts Medical School: Gilead Sciences Inc., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., Pfizer Inc., Janusz Jaworski: None declared, Rafal Wojciechowski: None declared, Piotr Wiland Speakers bureau: Eli Lilly, Sanofi Aventis, Novartis, Sandoz, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Novartis, Sandoz, Anna Dudek: None declared, Marek Krogulec: None declared, Sławomir Jeka Speakers bureau: Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Lilly, Teva, MSD, Abbvie, Sandoz, Egis, Medac, Consultant of: Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Lilly, Teva, MSD, Abbvie, Sandoz, Egis, Medac, Agnieszka Zielinska: None declared, Jakub Trefler: None declared, Katarzyna Bartnicka-Masłowska: None declared, Magdalena Krajewska-Wlodarczyk Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Piotr Klimiuk: None declared, Sang Joon Lee Employee of: Celltrion, Inc., Sung Hyun Kim Employee of: Celltrion, Inc., YunJu Bae Employee of: Celltrion, Inc., GoEun Yang Employee of: Celltrion, Inc., JaeKyoung Yoo Employee of: Celltrion, Inc., TaeKyung Kim Employee of: Celltrion, Inc.

OP0171 PHASE 3 TRIAL OF LENABASUM, A CB2 AGONIST, FOR THE TREATMENT OF DIFFUSE CUTANEOUS SYSTEMIC SCLEROSIS (DCSSC)

Background:

Lenabasum is an oral CB2 agonist that attenuates inflammation and fibrosis in SSc animal models and showed clinical benefit with acceptable safety in a Phase 2 trial in dcSSc.

Objectives:

Test efficacy and safety of lenabasum in a Phase 3 trial in dcSSc.

Methods:

Subjects ≥18 years old with disease duration ≤ 6 years were randomized 1:1:1 to lenabasum 5 mg, 20 mg, or placebo (PBO), all BID, with stable background immunosuppressant therapy (IST) allowed. The primary efficacy endpoint was ACR CRISS score, and secondary endpoints were ΔmRSS, ΔHAQ-DI, and ΔFVC, all at Week 52 for lenabasum 20 mg vs PBO.

Results:

363 adults were dosed; 37 (10%) stopped study drug early, with only 1 subject (PBO cohort) stopping due to adverse event (AE). Baseline demographics were similar among groups. Disease duration was ≤ 3 years in 60% and 66%, mean mRSS score was 22.0 and 23.3, and background IST was used by 89% and 84% of lenabasum 20 mg and PBO groups, respectively.

Safety results showed serious AEs and severe AEs occurred in 9.2% and 5.8% vs 14.6% and 13.0%, respectively, of lenabasum 20 mg and PBO groups.

Efficacy results (Table) demonstrated:

Table 1.

Primary and secondary efficacy endpoints and post-hoc analyses, Week 52

Group, by IST treatmentCohortNΔmRSS, mean (SD)ΔFVC% mean (SD)ΔFVC, mL mean (SD)ΔHAQ-DI mean (SD)ACR CRISS medianmITT population, MMRM primary analysis methodAllPlacebo123-8.1 (7.72)-1.0 (8.68)-51 (317)-0.13 (0.468)0.887Lenabasum 20 mg120-6.7 (6.59)-1.6 (6.91)-78 (265)-0.13 (0.436)0.888Placebo subjects, per protocol completers, LOCFNo ISTPlacebo16-2.3 (9.4)-2.8 (7.4)-97 (244)0.12 (0.34)0.417All ISTPlacebo97-8.9 (7.07)-1.0 (9.2)-43 (330)-0.17 (0.474)0.936MMF, no other ISTPlacebo29-10.7 (8.1)-0.58 (7.1)-37 (235)-0.12 (0.456)0.935MMF ≤ 2 years, no other ISTPlacebo23-11.7 (8.1)-0.3 (6.0)-41 (197)-0.13 (0.495)0.935Non-MMF ≤ 2 yearsPlacebo24-6.7 (6.2)-1.4 (7.87)-52 (281)-0.15 (0.357)0.931Post-hoc comparisons, per protocol completers, LOCFNo ISTPlacebo16-2.3 (9.4)-2.8 (7.4)-97 (244)0.12 (0.34)0.417Lenabasum 20 mg10-6.3 (6.02)-2.3 (5.58)-99 (209)-0.06 (0.498)0.811Established IST1Placebo26-6.1 (5.35)-4.6 (10.11)-170 (350)-0.17 (0.445)0.619Lenabasum 20 mg38-7.4 (5.08)-0.4 (5.70)2-21 (233)3-0.07 (0.357)0.941Established IST, subjects with ILDPlacebo22-5.9 (5.28)-3.7 (5.43)-133 (206)-0.10 (0.372)0.553Lenabasum 20 mg33-7.2 (5.70)-1.0 (10.5)-47 (365)-0.06 (0.391)0.819

2 P = 0.0386 two-sample t-test; 3 P = 0.0481 two-sample t-test; other comparisons were not significant

• No significant differences were seen in primary and secondary efficacy endpoints. Primary MMRM analyses with treatment-by-time-by-subgroup interactions showed that background mycophenolate (MMF) significantly influenced the outcome

•oSubjects on no IST with disease duration ≤3 years were only 7% of PBO subjects and showed little improvement on PBO, in line with other dcSSc trials in which IST was restricted. Post-hoc subgroup analyses of these subjects on no IST suggested improvement in ΔmRSS and ΔHAQ-DI, for lenabasum 20 mg vs PBO

•uUnexpectedly high improvement occurred in PBO subjects receiving IST, notably those on MMF started within 2 years of baseline

•nPost-hoc analyses of subjects on established IST (MMF or, if no MMF, ≥ 1 non-MMF IST started > 2 years before baseline) suggested improvement in ΔFVC% (nominal P = 0.0386) and ΔFVC mL (nominal P = 0.0481) for lenabasum 20 mg vs PBO. Improvement in FVC was also seen in subjects on established IST who had ILD at baseline, lenabasum 20 mg vs PBO

•mACR CRISS score demonstrated a ceiling effect and correlated most highly with ΔmRSS (r = -0.739) and moderately with MDGA (-0.432), HAQ-DI (-0.362), FVC% (0.366), and PtGA (-0.288)

Conclusion:

Lenabasum was safely used in this study. Unexpectedly high improvement on background IST, especially MMF, has not been previously reported at this level. The primary endpoint was not met. Post-hoc analyses showed greater improvement in lenabasum- vs PBO-treated subjects who were not on background IST and those on established IST, including subjects with ILD.

Disclosure of Interests:

Robert Spiera Consultant of: Abbvie, Roche-Genetech, GSK, CSL Behring, Sanofi, Janssen, Chemocentryx, Formation Biologics, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Grant/research support from: Roche-Genetech, GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chemocentryx, Corbus, Formation Biologics, Sanofi, Inflarx, Astra Zeneca, Kadmon, Masataka Kuwana Speakers bureau: Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai, Janssen, Consultant of: Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai, Corbus, Grant/research support from: Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai, MBL, Ono Pharmaceuticals, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, Dinesh Khanna Shareholder of: Eicos Sciences, Inc (less than 5%). Leadership/Equity position – Chief Medical Officer, CiviBioPharma/Eicos Sciences, Inc, Consultant of: Acceleron, Actelion, Abbvie, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, CSL Behring, Corbus, Gilead, Galapagos, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Horizon, Merck, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Sanofi-Aventis, and United Therapeutics, Grant/research support from: NIH, Immune Tolerance Network, Bayer, BMS, Horizon, Pfizer, Laura Hummers Consultant of: CSL Behring, Boehringer Ingelheim, Grant/research support from: Investigator for study sponsored by Corbus Pharmaceuticals. Corbus, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medpace, Kadmon, Cumberland, CSL Behring, Tracy Frech Grant/research support from: Investigator for study sponsored by Corbus Pharmaceuticals, Wendy Stevens Grant/research support from: Investigator for study sponsored by Corbus Pharmaceuticals, Jessica Gordon Grant/research support from: Investigator for study sponsored by Corbus Pharmaceuticals. Research funding for EICOS Pharmaceuticals and Cumberland Pharmaceuticals., Suzanne Kafaja Grant/research support from: Investigator for study sponsored by Corbus Pharmaceuticals, Marco Matucci-Cerinic Consultant of: Actelion, Janssen, Inventiva, Bayer, Biogen, Boehringer, CSL Behring, Corbus, Galapagos, Mitsubishi, Samsung, Regeneron, Acceleron, MSD, Chemomab, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Grant/research support from: Investigator for study sponsored by Corbus Pharmaceuticals, Oliver Distler Consultant of: Consultancy relationship and/or has received research funding in the area of potential treatments for systemic sclerosis and its complications from (last three years): Abbvie, Acceleron Pharma, Amgen, AnaMar, Arxx Therapeutics, Baecon Discovery, Blade Therapeutics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, ChemomAb, Corbus Pharmaceuticals, CSL Behring, Galapagos NV, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, GSK, Horizon (Curzion) Pharmaceuticals, Inventiva, iQvia, Italfarmaco, iQone, Kymera Therapeutics, Lilly, Medac, Medscape, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Serodapharm, Topadur, Target Bioscience and UCB., Eun Bong Lee Grant/research support from: Investigator for study sponsored by Corbus Pharmaceuticals, Yair Levy Grant/research support from: Investigator for study sponsored by Corbus Pharmaceuticals, Jae-Bum Jun Consultant of: Consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim Korea, Jeil Pharma, Dae Woong Pharma, Kwangdong Pharma, and Sama Pharma., Grant/research support from: Investigator for study sponsored by Corbus Pharmaceuticals, Scott Constantine Employee of: Employee of Corbus Pharmaceuticals, Nancy Dgetluck Employee of: Employee of Corbus Pharmaceuticals, Barbara White Employee of: Employee and stockholder of Corbus Pharmaceuticals, Daniel Furst Consultant of: Corbus, Galapagos, Pfizer, CSL Behring, Mitsubishi Tanabi, Actelion, Amgen, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, Gilead, Talaris, and Boehringer Ingelheim., Grant/research support from: grants from Corbus, Galapagos, GSK, Pfizer, Talaris, CSL Behring, Mitsubishi Tanabi, Christopher Denton Consultant of: Consultancy fees and/or honoraria from Corbus, Actelion, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, Sanofi, Galapagos, Inventiva, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, CSL Behring, Acceleron, Horizon, Arxx Therapeutics

THU0328 SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF SUBCUTANEOUS TOCILIZUMAB IN SYSTEMIC SCLEROSIS: RESULTS FROM THE OPEN-LABEL PERIOD OF THE PHASE 3 FOCUSSCED TRIAL

Background:

The anti–interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor-α antibody tocilizumab (TCZ) demonstrated skin score improvement and forced vital capacity (FVC) preservation in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) in a phase 2 randomized controlled trial.1,2Data from the 48-week, double-blind (DB), placebo (PBO)-controlled period of the focuSSced phase 3 trial were previously presented,3and open-label (OL) data up to week 96 are presented herein.

Objectives:

To assess the long-term safety and efficacy of TCZ in SSc patients.

Methods:

Adult patients with active SSc (≤60-month duration, modified Rodnan skin score [mRSS] 10-35, and elevated acute-phase reactants) treated with PBO or TCZ in the DB period received OL TCZ 162 mg SC weekly from weeks 48 to 96 in the OL period (PBO→OL TCZ and TCZ→OL TCZ, respectively). Exploratory analysis of data up to week 96 included no formal statistical analyses. Changes in mRSS and percent predicted FVC (ppFVC) were assessed.

Results:

Overall, 92/105 TCZ (88%) and 89/107 PBO (83%) patients entered the OL TCZ treatment period at week 48, and 85/105 TCZ→OL TCZ (81%) and 82/107 PBO→OL TCZ (77%) patients completed treatment up to week 96. Continued decline in mRSS was observed in the OL period for PBO→OL TCZ and TCZ→OL TCZ patients (Table). Change in ppFVC for patients who switched from PBO to TCZ (PBO→OL TCZ) was comparable between weeks 48 and 96 (OL period) to the change in patients who received TCZ from BL to week 48 in the DB period (Table). Rates (95% CI) of serious adverse events from weeks 48 to 96 were 15.8 (8.6, 26.5) per 100 PY for TCZ→OL TCZ patients, 14.8 (7.9, 25.3) per 100 PY for PBO→OL TCZ patients, and 15.4 (11.0, 20.9) for all TCZ exposure over 96 weeks (n = 193). Rates (95% CI) of serious infections were 2.3 (0.3, 8.1) per 100 PY for TCZ→OL TCZ patients, 3.4 (0.7, 10.0) per 100 PY for PBO→OL TCZ patients, and 3.0 (1.3, 5.9) for all TCZ exposure over 96 weeks. One death occurred during the OL period in each arm.

Conclusion:

Although OL data have to be interpreted with caution, results from OL TCZ treatment show numeric improvements in mRSS and FVC preservation similar to those of the DB period, with a beneficial effect on trajectory of FVC decline in patients who switched from PBO to TCZ. Long-term safety results were consistent with the known safety profile of TCZ, and no new or unexpected events were observed.

References:

[1]Khanna D et al.Lancet2016;387:2630-40.

[2]Khanna D et al.Ann Rheum Dis.2018;77:212-20.

[3]Khanna D et al.Arthritis Rheumatol2018;70(suppl 10):abst 898.

Table.

Change in Efficacy From Baseline

Baseline to Week 48Baseline to Week 96Week 48 to Week 96PBOTCZPBO→OL TCZTCZ→OL TCZPBO→OL TCZTCZ→OL TCZmRSS, mean (95% CI)a–5.3 (–6.9, –3.7)n = 92–6.7 (–8.0, –5.4)n = 97–8.4 (–10.0, –6.8)n = 83–9.6 (–10.9, –8.4)n = 85–2.5(–3.3, –1.6)n = 82–2.3(–3.2, –1.5)n = 85ppFVC, mean (95% CI) [median]–4.1 (–5.8, –2.4) [–3.9]n = 92–0.2 (–1.6, 1.2) [–0.7]n = 94–3.3 (–5.1, –1.5) [–3.1]n = 79–0.5 (–2.4, 1.3) [–1.4]n = 840.6 (–0.7, 1.9) [0.3]n = 78–0.3 (–1.7, 1.1) [0.0]n = 82Decline in ppFVC ≥10%, n/N (%)a15/91(16.5)5/93(5.4)14/79 (17.7)11/84 (13.1)NANAImprovement in ppFVC, n/N (%)a26/91(28.6)43/93(46.2)22/79(27.8)35/84(41.7)NANA

aObserved data. NA, not assessed.

Disclosure of Interests:

Dinesh Khanna Shareholder of: Eicos, Grant/research support from: NIH NIAID, NIH NIAMS, Consultant of: Acceleron, Actelion, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Corbus, Galapagos, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Mitsubishi Tanabi, Sanofi-Aventis/Genzyme, UCB Pharma, Celia J. F. Lin Employee of: Genentech, Helen Spotswood Shareholder of: Roche Products Ltd, Employee of: Roche Products Ltd, Jeff Siegel Employee of: Genentech, Daniel Furst Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Actelion, Amgen, BMS, Corbus Pharmaceuticals, the National Institutes of Health, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche/Genentech, Consultant of: AbbVie, Actelion, Amgen, BMS, Cytori Therapeutics, Corbus Pharmaceuticals, the National Institutes of Health, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche/Genentech, Speakers bureau: CMC Connect (McCann Health Company), Christopher Denton Grant/research support from: GlaxoSmithKline, CSL Behring, and Inventiva, Consultant of: Medscape, Roche-Genentech, Actelion, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Aventis, Inventiva, CSL Behring, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus Pharmaceuticals, Acceleron, Curzion and Bayer

FRI0122 EFFICACY AND PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES FROM A TWO-PART MULTICENTER, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED, RANDOMIZED WITHDRAWAL TRIAL OF REPOSITORY CORTICOTROPIN INJECTION FOR PERSISTENTLY ACTIVE RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

Background:

Repository corticotropin injection (RCI) is a naturally sourced complex mixture of adrenocorticotropic hormone analogs and other pituitary peptides approved for short-term adjunctive treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Objectives:

This two-part, international, multicenter, placebo (PBO)-controlled study assessed the efficacy of RCI in persistently active RA patients (pts) using clinical and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) (ClinicalTrials.govNCT02919761).

Methods:

Adults ≥18 years with persistently active RA (DAS28-ESR >3.2) despite disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug and glucocorticoid use received open-label RCI (80 U) subcutaneously 2x/week (BIW) for 12 weeks (Part 1). Pts with DAS28-ESR <3.2 at Week (W) 12 entered the double-blind maintenance phase (Part 2) and were randomized to 80 U RCI or PBO BIW through W24. Efficacy endpoints included the proportion of pts who achieved DAS28-ESR <3.2 at W12 (primary) and maintained it through W24 (secondary). Mean changes from baseline (BL) were assessed for select PROMs (exploratory): Patient Global Assessment of Pain (PGAP); Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PGADA); Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI); Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy – Fatigue (FACIT-F) scale; and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire. Analyses used the modified intent-to-treat population (mITT-P; pts who received ≥1 dose of study drug and contributed any efficacy data).

Results:

In the mITT-P (N=259), 62.9% (p<0.0001) achieved DAS28-ESR <3.2 at W12 (mean BL DAS28-ESR=6.3). In Part 2 (RCI, n=77; PBO, n=76), more RCI-treated pts maintained DAS28-ESR <3.2 at W24 (62.3%,p=0.035) vs. PBO (43.4%). Clinically significant improvements in PROMs from BL were observed through W12 and sustained to W24 (Table 1), with mean changes exceeding the reported minimal clinically important difference thresholds (MCIDs) for each.

Conclusion:

RCI for persistently active RA resulted in clinically significant improvements in efficacy endpoints and PROMs for up to 6 months in pts who continued and discontinued RCI after 3 months of initial therapy.

References:

Acknowledgments:

Editorial support was provided by MedLogix Communications, LLC, Itasca, Illinois, under the direction of authors and funded by Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals.

Disclosure of Interests:

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, Daniel Furst Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Actelion, Amgen, BMS, Corbus Pharmaceuticals, the National Institutes of Health, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche/Genentech, Consultant of: AbbVie, Actelion, Amgen, BMS, Cytori Therapeutics, Corbus Pharmaceuticals, the National Institutes of Health, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche/Genentech, Speakers bureau: CMC Connect (McCann Health Company), George Wan Employee of: Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, Mary Panaccio Employee of: Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, Jingyu Liu Employee of: Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, Julie Zhu Employee of: Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, Richard Brasington Speakers bureau: Amgen, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, and Pfizer

AB0550 DIFFUSING CAPACITY OF THE LUNG FOR CARBON MONOXIDE (DLCO) VS FORCED VITAL CAPACITY (FVC): SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS TO EXAMINE THEIR ABILITY TO MEASURE CHANGE IN CLINICAL TRIALS IN SYSTEMIC SCLEROSIS (SSC)

Background:

Lung involvement remains the main cause of morbidity and mortality in SSc. In 1 year clinical trials to assess lung involvement, FVC is usually evaluated and changes while the DLCO usually remains unchanged. In longer term observational studies, the DLCO often changes more than the FVC.

Objectives:

To examine, through a systematic literature review(SLR) and meta-analysis, whether DLCO%pred or FVC%pred (both to be designated solely as DLCO and FVC henceforth), responds more in assessing SSC interstitial lung disease in first year and longer term follow-up(FU).

Methods:

PubMed, EMBASE and COCHRANE databases were searched for english language articles on SSc published between 1960 and 31st October 2018. Any study that made reference to FVC and DLCO evaluation in SSc and reported their changes over the years was included. Reviewers double extracted articles to obtain agreement on>95% of pre-defined critical outcomes:DLCO and FVC at baseline,1 yr of FU and at the last assessment interstitial lung disease by HRCT of the lungs study design, duration of FU. Other variables included demographics. In all cases I^2 test for heterogeneity was used and a result from 75 to 100% was considered as high heterogeneity.A random effects meta-analysis was used. Differences in the degree of change in FVC and DLCO were tested with t-test without compensation for repeated analysis.

Results:

1870 articles were screened for eligibility and 21 were selected for the SLR and meta-analysis The analysis used 21 studies to evaluate changes of FVC and DCLO at 1 yr of FU. Only 5 studies were eligible to evaluate changes during longer FU (24.7 months(SD=20.4)). Heterogeneity was high at baseline and FU, (at 1 yr and >1 yr),both for the 21 studies at 1 yr (FVC:I^2 99.74%, 99.78%; DLCO: I^2=99.91%99.92%) and the 5 studies at > 1 year (FVC:I^2 92.86%;DLCO:I^2=99.54%), diminishing the confidence in the results. Table 1 gives the results of the random effects meta-analysis both for 21 and for the 5 studies evaluated. Regarding changes over 1 yr in the 21 studies, change of mean FVC was 2.7 (78.8vs81.5) while change in mean DLCO was 3.07(SE 8.20) (59.7vs 63.4). Considering the 5 studies during long term follow up, change in mean FVC was 2.0(7.36)(81.1vs83.1), and change in mean DLCO was -0.96 (16.95)(55.6vs54.7). Comparing the 1 yr changes in the 21 studies, change in mean FVC was 2.7(5.2)and change in mean DLCO was 3.07(8.2); difference in changes was not statistically significant (p=0.5791). During long term FU (24.7 months), change in mean FVC was 2.0(7.36)and change in mean DLCO was -0.96 (16.95); difference in changes was not statistically different (p=0.4698).

Table 1.

Results from Random Effect Meta-Analysis

21 studies5 studiesFVC % predmean valueSEDLCO % pred mean valueSEFVC % predmean valueSEDLCO % pred mean valueSEBASELINE78.83.4359.75.5281.15.6855.611.591 YEAR FOLLOW UP81.53.8563.46.07---->1 YEAR FOLLOW UP----83.44.6854.712.37

Conclusion:

Our data are limited by great heterogeneity. Given this limitation, this SLR and meta-analysis indicates that there is no difference in the changes comparing FVC to DLCO at either 1 yr or during longer term follow-up. Corroboration of these results in prospective studies and in registries to make clear, comparable comparisons will be needed.

Disclosure of Interests:

Silvia Bellando Randone: None declared, Eleonora Cappellini: None declared, Letizia Nidiaci: None declared, Gemma Lepri: None declared, Maria Grazia Lazzaroni: None declared, Corrado Campochiaro Speakers bureau: Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, GSK, SOBI, Gianluca Bagnato: None declared, Domenico Sambataro: None declared, Gianluca Sambataro: None declared, Marco Matucci-Cerinic Grant/research support from: Actelion, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Speakers bureau: Acetelion, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daniel Furst Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Actelion, Amgen, BMS, Corbus Pharmaceuticals, the National Institutes of Health, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche/Genentech, Consultant of: AbbVie, Actelion, Amgen, BMS, Cytori Therapeutics, Corbus Pharmaceuticals, the National Institutes of Health, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche/Genentech, Speakers bureau: CMC Connect (McCann Health Company)

AB1239 THE EFFECT OF INFLUENZA VACCINATION ON THE MULTI-BIOMARKER DISEASE ACTIVITY SCORE AND ITS COMPONENT BIOMARKERS IN HEALTHY SUBJECTS

Background:

The multi-biomarker disease activity (MBDA) blood test measures 12 protein biomarkers (IL-6, CRP, SAA, EGF, VEGF, VCAM, MMP-1, MMP-3, leptin, resistin, TNF-RI and YKL40). It uses a validated algorithm to provide a score on a scale of 1-100 for assessing disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The MBDA score reflects several molecular aspects of inflammation, including cytokines, acute phase reactants, growth factors, molecular adhesion, metalloproteinases and hormones. Insights gained by understanding how vaccination affects these biomarkers in healthy subjects - in whom the level of inflammation prior to vaccination should be low and stable - may aid the understanding of how vaccination affects patients with RA.

Objectives:

The goal of this study was to understand how immunization of healthy subjects with the influenza vaccine affects the assessment of inflammation with the MBDA score and its 12 biomarkers.

Methods:

A 4-strain influenza virus vaccine (Fluarix Quadrivalent, GlaxoSmithKline) was administered intramuscularly to 22 healthy volunteer subjects on October 24, 2018. Serum samples were obtained immediately prior to vaccination (baseline) and 1, 2 and 3 weeks after vaccination. No restrictions were placed on subject activity. Samples were stored at -80oC until measurement of the 12 MBDA biomarkers for determination of the adjusted MBDA score, hereafter called the MBDA score. (Adjustment accounts for the effects of age, sex and adiposity1). MBDA scores (natural scale) and biomarker concentrations (log scale) were modeled using generalized estimating equations (GEE) that account for correlations between measurements from the same subject at multiple timepoints. Significance of MBDA score change or biomarker concentration change over time was determined by a likelihood ratio test of timepoints.

Results:

Of the 22 healthy subjects receiving the influenza virus vaccine, 14 (63.6%) were female, with mean (SD) age of 40.0 years (8.9). MBDA scores were low (<30), moderate (30-44) or high (>44) for 15 (68%), 6 (27%) and 1 (5%) subjects at baseline, and this distribution was stable over time (Figure 1). Overall, MBDA scores did not change significantly over time (p=0.48, Figure 2). Mean changes in MBDA score (95% CI) from baseline to weeks 1, 2 and 3 were 0.32 (-3.07, 3.71), 0.82 (-3.03, 4.67) and 2.86 (-1.10, 6.82), respectively (Figure 2); the week 3 value becomes 0.95 (-1.78, 3.68) if the week 3 outlier is removed. Among the 66 post-baseline measurements of change in MBDA score (Figure 2), 3 (5%) exceeded the 95% CI for change in MBDA score in this study (i.e., 14). When assessing the entire cohort across all timepoints, EGF was the only biomarker that demonstrated statistically significant change over time (p=5.6 x 10-7). At weeks 1, 2 and 3, the mean relative concentrations of EGF, compared with baseline, were 0.62 (0.52, 0.74), 0.86 (0.70, 1.06) and 0.62 (0.50, 0.76), respectively.

Figure 1Figure 2

Conclusion:

Immunization of 22 healthy subjects with a quadrivalent influenza vaccine did not have a statistically significant effect on MBDA scores during a 3-week observation, and it had minimal effect on the component biomarkers.

References:

[1]Curtis et al.Rheumatology [Oxford]2018;58:874

Disclosure of Interests:

Daniel Furst Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Actelion, Amgen, BMS, Corbus Pharmaceuticals, the National Institutes of Health, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche/Genentech, Consultant of: AbbVie, Actelion, Amgen, BMS, Cytori Therapeutics, Corbus Pharmaceuticals, the National Institutes of Health, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche/Genentech, Speakers bureau: CMC Connect (McCann Health Company), Lauren Lenz Shareholder of: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Employee of: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Megan Horton Shareholder of: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Employee of: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Darl Flake Shareholder of: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Employee of: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Eric Sasso Shareholder of: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Employee of: Myriad Genetics, Inc., Michael E. Weinblatt Grant/research support from: BMS, Amgen, Lilly, Crescendo and Sonofi-Regeneron, Consultant of: Horizon Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Abbvie, Crescendo, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Gilead

AB1283-HPR GASTROINTESTINAL INVOLVEMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN A COHORT OF SYSTEMIC SCLEROSIS (SSC) PATIENTS

Background:

SSc is an autoimmune disease characterized by fibrosis of the skin and several internal organs involvement. The gastro intestinal tract is often affected causing a wide symptomatology that can involve the oesophagus, stomach and/or intestine.

Objectives:

To assess the gastro-intestinal tract with the UCLA SCTC GIT 2.0 questionnaire and the adherence to the Mediterranean diet with the Mediterranean Diet Score in a cohort of SSc patients.

Methods:

18 SSc patients classified with ACR/EULAR criteria (limited and diffuse subsets) were enrolled from January to April 2019, from the outpatient clinic of the University of Florence, Division of Rheumatology, Careggi Hospital. UCLA SCTC GIT 2.0 questionnaire for gastro-intestinal involvement (range 0-3), Mediterranean Diet Score (MDS range 0-14) for adherence to the Mediterranean diet, Health Assessment Questioning (range 0-3) for disability and SF-36 (range 0-100) for the quality of life were administered to patients. Data on weight and height were collected for the calculation of the Body Mass Index (BMI).

Results:

the18 SSc patients included had an average BMI of 23.9 ± 4.7 (M ± SD): only one patient was underweight (BMI=16.6) and 4 patients were overweight (BMI> 25).Our results show good adherence to the Mediterranean diet with a score of 9.78 ± 2.24 (M±SD) to the MDS. The quality of life assessed by SF-36 show scores were below the cut-off (<50), showing an impaired quality of general life (mental summary index = 36.32 ± 11.35 and physical summary index = 39.53 ± 8.61). Patients disability, assessed by HAQ, reports some difficulty in carrying out daily life activities due to the disease (0.52 ± 0.53- M ± SD).

Gastro-intestinal involvement, measured with the UCLA GIT 2.0 questionnaire, shows moderate symptoms (0.50-1.00) in most items (reflux, abdominal distension, social function and emotional well-being), while a lower score (0.00-0.49) it was found in other items (diarrhea, constipation and faecal incontinence). Therefore, the total score of gastrointestinal involvement is moderate (0.42 ± 0.38 M ± SD).

Conclusion:

In SSc,Gastrointestinal involvement has a significant impact on quality of life, influencing the eating habits and sometimes leading to nutritional deficiencies. Further studies to analyse the eating habits of SSc patients are needed.

References:

[1]Wojteczek A, Dardzińska JA, Małgorzewicz S, Gruszecka A, Zdrojewski Z. Prevalence of malnutrition in systemic sclerosis patients assessed by different diagnostic tools.Clin Rheumatol. 2020 Jan;39(1):227-232. doi: 10.1007/s10067-019-04810-z. Epub 2019 Nov 16.

[2]McMahan ZH Gastrointestinal involvement in systemic sclerosis: an update. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2019 Nov;31(6):561-568. doi: 10.1097/BOR.0000000000000645.

[3]Smith E, Pauling JD The efficacy of dietary intervention on gastrointestinal involvement in systemic sclerosis: A systematic literature review.Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2019 Aug;49(1):112-118. doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2018.12.001. Epub 2018 Dec 6.

Disclosure of Interests:

Khadija El Aoufy: None declared, Irene Antola: None declared, Costanza Sciortino: None declared, Silvia Bellando Randone: None declared, Serena Guiducci: None declared, Daniel Furst Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Actelion, Amgen, BMS, Corbus Pharmaceuticals, the National Institutes of Health, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche/Genentech, Consultant of: AbbVie, Actelion, Amgen, BMS, Cytori Therapeutics, Corbus Pharmaceuticals, the National Institutes of Health, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche/Genentech, Speakers bureau: CMC Connect (McCann Health Company), Marco Matucci-Cerinic Grant/research support from: Actelion, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Speakers bureau: Acetelion, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim

A hybrid, low-cost tissue-like epidural needle insertion simulator

Epidural and spinal anesthesia are mostly performed "blind" without any medical imaging. Currently, training of these procedures is performed on human specimens, virtual reality systems, manikins and mostly in clinical practice supervised by a professional. In this study a novel hybrid, low-cost patient simulator for the training of needle insertion into the epidural space was designed. The patient phantom provides a realistic force feedback comparable with biological tissue and enables sensing of the needle tip position during insertion. A display delivers the trainee a real-time feedback of the needle tip position.

Cardiac arrhythmia and late-onset muscle weakness caused by a myofibrillar myopathy with unusual histopathological features due to a novel missense mutation in FLNC

Myofibrillar myopathies (MFM) are mostly adult-onset diseases characterized by progressive morphological alterations of the muscle fibers beginning in the Z-disk and the presence of protein aggregates in the sarcoplasm. They are mostly caused by mutations in different genes that encode Z-disk proteins, including DES, CRYAB, LDB3, MYOT, FLNC and BAG3. A large family of French origin, presenting an autosomal dominant pattern, characterized by cardiac arrhythmia associated to late-onset muscle weakness, was evaluated to clarify clinical, morphological and genetic diagnosis. Muscle weakness began during adult life (over 30 years of age), and had a proximal distribution. Histology showed clear signs of a myofibrillar myopathy, but with unusual, large inclusions. Subsequently, genetic testing was performed in MFM genes available for screening at the time of clinical/histological diagnosis, and desmin (DES), αB-crystallin (CRYAB), myotilin (MYOT) and ZASP (LDB3), were excluded. LMNA gene screening found the p.R296C variant which did not co-segregate with the disease. Genome wide scan revealed linkage to 7q.32, containing the FLNC gene. FLNC direct sequencing revealed a heterozygous c.3646T>A p.Tyr1216Asn change, co-segregating with the disease, in a highly conserved amino acid of the protein. Normal filamin C levels were detected by Western-blot analysis in patient muscle biopsies and expression of the mutant protein in NIH3T3 showed filamin C aggregates. This is an original FLNC mutation in a MFM family with an atypical clinical and histopathological presentation, given the presence of significantly focal lesions and prominent sarcoplasmic masses in muscle biopsies and the constant heart involvement preceding significantly the onset of the myopathy. Though a rare etiology, FLNC gene should not be excluded in early-onset arrhythmia, even in the absence of myopathy, which occurs later in the disease course.

Consensus statement concerning cardiotoxicity occurring during haematopoietic stem cell transplantation in the treatment of autoimmune diseases, with special reference to systemic sclerosis and multiple sclerosis

Autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation is now a feasible and effective treatment for selected patients with severe autoimmune diseases. Worldwide, over 650 patients have been transplanted in the context of phase I and II clinical trials. The results are encouraging enough to begin randomised phase III trials. However, as predicted, significant transplant-related morbidity and mortality have been observed. This is primarily due to complications related to either the stage of the disease at transplant or due to infections. The number of deaths related to cardiac toxicity is low. However, caution is required when cyclophosphamide or anthracyclines such as mitoxantrone are used in patients with a possible underlying heart damage, for example, systemic sclerosis patients. In November 2002, a meeting was held in Florence, bringing together a number of experts in various fields, including rheumatology, cardiology, neurology, pharmacology and transplantation medicine. The object of the meeting was to analyse existing data, both published or available, in the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation autoimmune disease database, and to propose a safe approach to such patients. A full cardiological assessment before and during the transplant emerged as the major recommendation.

Pharmacogenetic and metabolite measurements are associated with clinical status in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with methotrexate: results of a multicentred cross sectional observational study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the contribution of red blood cell (RBC) methotrexate polyglutamates (MTX PGs), RBC folate polyglutamates (folate PGs), and a pharmacogenetic index to the clinical status of patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with MTX.

METHODS

226 adult patients treated with weekly MTX for more than 3 months were enrolled at three sites in a multicentred cross sectional observational study. Clinical status was assessed by the number of joint counts, physician's global assessment of disease activity, and a modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ). RBC MTX PG and folate PG metabolite levels were measured by high performance liquid chromatography fluorometry and radioassay, respectively. A composite pharmacogenetic index comprising low penetrance genetic polymorphisms in reduced folate carrier (RFC-1 G80A), AICAR transformylase (ATIC C347G), and thymidylate synthase (TSER*2/*3) was calculated. Statistical analyses were by multivariate linear regression with clinical measures as dependent variables and metabolite levels and the pharmacogenetic index as independent variables after adjustment for other covariates.

RESULTS

Multivariate analysis showed that lower RBC MTX PG levels (median 40 nmol/l) and a lower pharmacogenetic index (median 2) were associated with a higher number of joint counts, higher disease activity, and higher mHAQ (p<0.09). Multivariate analysis also established that higher RBC folate PG levels (median 1062 nmol/l) were associated with a higher number of tender and swollen joints after adjustment for RBC MTX PG levels and the pharmacogenetic index (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Pharmacogenetic and metabolite measurements may be useful in optimising MTX treatment. Prospective studies are warranted to investigate the predictive value of these markers for MTX efficacy.

The effect of ventral nerve cord severance and male castration on female mating behavior, clutch size, and maternal care in the ring-legged earwig

Mating is critical for the expression of oviposition and maternal care in the earwig, Euborellia annulipes; additionally, mating diminishes receptivity to additional mating and promotes a decline in juvenile hormone synthesis at the end of the gonadotrophic cycle (in contrast to most insect species wherein mating stimulates juvenile hormone production). We report here that severance of the ventral nerve cord of virgin females similarly promoted egg deposition and maternal care of eggs, diminished mating receptivity, and elicited a timely decline in juvenile hormone biosynthesis. Mating of intact females to adult males that were castrated as larvae did not abolish oviposition; however, clutch size was reduced, and no eggs developed. Such castrated males had smaller seminal vesicles than did intact males, presumably attributable to lack of sperm in castrated males. In contrast, mating of intact females to males castrated on day 1 of adult life did not reduce clutch size compared with those of sham-operated animals and did not abolish fertilization; in fact, these castrated males produced viable offspring after six matings. These results are consistent with the notion that ventral nerve cord severance mimicked mating in intact animals. Following mating, the ventral nerve cord likely is a conduit to release the brain from inhibiting oviposition and maternal care. The presence of sperm in the spermatheca is not necessary for release of this inhibition but may modulate clutch size.

Digital ulcers in systemic sclerosis: Prevention by treatment with bosentan, an oral endothelin receptor antagonist

OBJECTIVE

Recurrent digital ulcers are a manifestation of vascular disease in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc; scleroderma) and lead to pain, impaired function, and tissue loss. We investigated whether treatment with the endothelin receptor antagonist, bosentan, decreased the development of new digital ulcers in patients with SSc.

METHODS

This was a randomized, prospective, placebo-controlled, double-blind study of 122 patients at 17 centers in Europe and North America, evaluating the effect of treatment on prevention of digital ulcers. The primary outcome variable was the number of new digital ulcers developing during the 16-week study period. Secondary assessments included healing of existing digital ulcers and evaluation of hand function using the Scleroderma Health Assessment Questionnaire.

RESULTS

Patients receiving bosentan had a 48% reduction in the mean number of new ulcers during the treatment period (1.4 versus 2.7 new ulcers; P = 0.0083). Patients who had digital ulcers at the time of entry in the study were at higher risk for the development of new ulcers; in this subgroup the mean number of new ulcers was reduced from 3.6 to 1.8 (P = 0.0075). In patients receiving bosentan, a statistically significant improvement in hand function was observed. There was no difference between treatment groups in the healing of existing ulcers. Serum transaminase levels were elevated to >3-fold the upper limit of normal in bosentan-treated patients; this elevation is comparable with that observed in previous studies of this agent. Other side effects were similar in the 2 treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Endothelins may play an important role in the pathogenesis of vascular disease in patients with SSc. Treatment with the endothelin receptor antagonist bosentan may be effective in preventing new digital ulcers and improving hand function in patients with SSc.

Sustained improvement over two years in physical function, structural damage, and signs and symptoms among patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with infliximab and methotrexate

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of repeated administration of infliximab plus methotrexate (MTX) over a 2-year period in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who previously experienced an incomplete response to MTX.

METHODS

Four hundred twenty-eight patients were randomly assigned to receive MTX plus placebo or infliximab at a dose of 3 or 10 mg/kg plus MTX for 54 weeks, with an additional year of followup. The protocol was later amended to allow for continued treatment during the second year. Of 259 patients who entered the second year of treatment, 216 continued to receive infliximab plus MTX for 102 weeks. Ninety-four of these 259 patients experienced a gap in therapy of >8 weeks before continuing therapy. Infusions were administered at weeks 0, 2, and 6, followed by treatment every 4 weeks or every 8 weeks (alternating with placebo infusions in the interim 4-week visits) at a dose of 3 or 10 mg/kg for a total of 102 weeks (including the gap in therapy). For safety and efficacy assessments, data on the patients who were randomized to receive treatment, irrespective of whether treatment was administered for 102 weeks, were evaluated using all actual observations available. The efficacy measures included the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) (physical function), Short Form 36 health survey (SF-36) (health-related quality of life), total radiographic scores (structural damage), and the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) (signs and symptoms).

RESULTS

The infliximab plus MTX regimens resulted in significantly greater improvement in HAQ scores (P < or = 0.006) and SF-36 physical component summary scores (P < or = 0.011) compared with the MTX-only group. There also was stability in the SF-36 mental component summary score among patients who received the infliximab plus MTX regimens. Median changes from baseline to week 102 in the total radiographic score were 4.25 for patients who received the MTX-only regimen and 0.50 for patients who received the infliximab plus MTX regimen. The proportion of patients achieving an ACR20 response at week 102 varied from 40% to 48% for the infliximab plus MTX groups compared with 16% for the MTX-only group.

CONCLUSION

Throughout 102 weeks of therapy, infliximab plus MTX provided significant, clinically relevant improvement in physical function and quality of life, accompanied by inhibition of progressive joint damage and sustained improvement in the signs and symptoms of RA among patients who previously had an incomplete response to MTX alone.