POS0299 EFFECT OF SECUKINUMAB ON RADIOGRAPHIC PROGRESSION AND INFLAMMATION IN SACROILIAC JOINTS AND SPINE IN PATIENTS WITH NON-RADIOGRAPHIC AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS: 2-YEAR IMAGING OUTCOMES FROM A PHASE III RANDOMISED TRIAL

Background

Axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) is characterised by inflammation of the sacroiliac joints (SIJ) and the spine. Secukinumab (SEC) treatment was clinically efficacious and reduced SIJ bone marrow oedema as detected by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients (pts) with non-radiographic (nr)-axSpA through 52 weeks in the PREVENT (NCT02696031) study.1

Objectives

To report radiographic progression and the course of inflammation as assessed by X-ray and MRI of SIJ and spine over 2 years in the PREVENT study.

Methods

Study design and key endpoints have been reported earlier.1 In total, 555 pts were randomised (1:1:1) to receive SEC 150 mg, with (LD) or without loading (NL) doses, or placebo (PBO). Switch to open-label (OL) SEC or standard of care (SoC) was permitted after Week (Wk) 20. All pts (except those who switched to SoC) received OL SEC from Wk 52. Radiographs of the spine and SIJ were collected at baseline (BL) and Wk 104; MR images of the spine and SIJ were collected at BL, Wk 16, 52, and 104. Spinal radiographs were scored using the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Score (mSASSS) and SIJ radiographs according to modified New York criteria (mNYC). Pts whose screening SI joint radiographs fulfilled mNY criteria during the eligibility reading session were excluded from the study. Spinal MR images were assessed for signs of inflammation with the Berlin score. SIJ bone marrow oedema was assessed according to the Berlin Active Inflammatory Lesions Scoring. All images were evaluated in blinded fashion independently by 2 central readers. All data are reported from the Wk 104 reading session and are presented as observed.

Results

The vast majority (98%) of pts treated with SEC 150 mg (pooled LD and NL) showed no structural progression, defined as change in total mSASSS score ≤ smallest detectable change (SDC) of 0.76 (80% agreement level) over 2 years. At BL, 62 pts (43 in SEC, 19 in PBO) presented with ≥1 syndesmophyte (≥1 vertebral unit scored by ≥1 reader). Among these pts, 9 in SEC (20.9%) and 7 in PBO (36.8%) groups had developed ≥1 new syndesmophyte by Wk 104. Among 237 SEC and 117 PBO pts without syndesmophytes at BL, only 4 pts on SEC (1.7%) and 4 pts on PBO (3.4%) developed ≥1 new syndesmophyte by Wk 104. SIJ radiographs showed that 88% of pts on SEC and 86% on PBO had no progression in SIJ (defined as change ≤ SDC (0.46) in total mNYC score) by Wk 104. No patient had an increase in total mNYC score of 2 or more. When screening radiographs of eligible pts were scored alongside post-BL images in the final reading campaign, approximately 25% of pts (68/277 and 34/139 pts in the SEC and PBO groups, respectively) were evaluated as mNY-positive at screening (pts were considered mNY-positive if ≥1 reader evaluated them as mNY-positive). Of these, 11/68 pts in the SEC (16.2%) and 5/34 in the PBO (14.7%) groups were evaluated as mNY-negative at Wk 104. In the SEC and PBO groups, 202 (96.7%) and 102 (97.1%) pts who were mNY-negative at screening stayed negative through Wk 104, respectively. Only 7 pts in the SEC (3.3%) and 3 in the PBO (2.9%) groups who were mNY-negative at BL were scored as mNY-positive at Wk 104. In both groups, fewer pts progressed from mNY-negative to mNY-positive than had a change in the opposite direction (from positive to negative), resulting in an overall negative net progression. Spinal inflammation on MRI (Berlin score) was low at BL with a mean of 0.82 in SEC and 1.07 in PBO groups with no meaningful change up to Wk 104 (mean of 0.56, SEC). SEC reduced SIJ bone marrow oedema score versus PBO at Wk 16 and Wk 52 with sustained reduction through Wk 104 in the overall patient population, with greater reduction in pts with BL score >2 (Figure 1).

Conclusion

Most pts initially randomised to SEC or PBO showed no radiographic progression through 2 years. There was some discrepancy between SIJ eligibility and efficacy reads. SEC reduced SIJ inflammation (bone marrow oedema) on MRI in pts with active nr-axSpA.

References

[1]Deodhar A, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021;73:110–20.

Disclosure of Interests

Juergen Braun Speakers bureau: Abbvie (Abbott), Amgen, BMS, Boehringer, Celgene, Celltrion, Centocor, Chugai, Medac, MSD (Schering-Plough), Novartis, Pfizer (Wyeth), Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB pharma, Eli Lilly, Consultant of: Abbvie (Abbott), Amgen, BMS, Boehringer, Celgene, Celltrion, Centocor, Chugai, Medac, MSD (Schering-Plough), Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer (Wyeth), Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Eli Lilly, Grant/research support from: Abbvie (Abbott), Amgen, BMS, Boehringer, Celgene, Celltrion, Centocor, Chugai, Medac, MSD (Schering-Plough), Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer (Wyeth), Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Eli Lilly, Ricardo Blanco Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Pfizer, Roche, Bristol-Myers, Janssen, UCB pharma, MSD, Eli Lilly, Consultant of: AbbVie, Pfizer, Roche, Bristol-Myers, Janssen, UCB pharma, MSD, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, Roche, Helena Marzo-Ortega Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, UCB, Grant/research support from: Janssen, Novartis, UCB, Lianne S. Gensler Consultant of: Gilead, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: UCB, Pfizer, Filip van den Bosch Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Galapagos, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Galapagos, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Galapagos, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Stephen Hall Speakers bureau: Novartis, Merck, Janssen, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, UCB, Consultant of: Novartis, Merck, Janssen, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, UCB, Janssen, Merck, Hideto Kameda Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Asahi-Kasei, Astellas, BMS, Chugai, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Pfizer, Consultant of: Abbvie, Astellas, Boehringer, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi, UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Asahi-Kasei, Boehringer, Chugai, Eisai, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Denis Poddubnyy Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biocad, BMS, Eli Lilly, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Marleen G.H. van de Sande Speakers bureau: Novartis, MSD, Consultant of: Abbvie, Novartis, Eli Lily, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Eli Lilly, Janssen, UCB, Désirée van der Heijde Paid instructor for: Novartis, AbbVie, Bayer, BMS, Cyxone, Eisai, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, and Director of Imaging Rheumatology BV, Tingting Zhuang Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Anna Stefanska Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Aimee Readie Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Hanno Richards Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Atul Deodhar Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB

POS0982 ANTIBODIES TO TWO NOVEL PEPTIDES IN NEW ONSET AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS

Background

Diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) is challenging since clinical manifestations often overlap with other disorders and a specific laboratory test for diagnosis is lacking. Previously, we identified antibodies to 3 Hasselt University (UH)-axSpA peptides which could provide a novel tool for diagnosis of a subset of axSpA patients. Validation of antibody reactivity in plasma samples of early axSpA patients (disease duration < 5 years) from the UH and the Leuven Spondyloarthritis (Biologics) Cohort ((Bio)SPAR) cohorts revealed antibody reactivity against at least one of these 3 peptide targets in 14.2% of early axSpA patients (22/155)1.

Objectives

We aim to validate the diagnostic potential of the antibodies to these 3 peptides in a third independent cohort of new onset axSpA patients and controls.

Methods

Using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA), presence of antibodies to the 3 peptides was determined in 188 serum samples of the Belgian Inflammatory Arthritis and Spondylitis (Be-Giant) cohort, 74 controls with nonspecific chronic low back pain (CLBP) and 112 age and gender-matched healthy controls from the UH cohort. Patients were classified as having axSpA according to the ASAS classification criteria and had a mean age of 32.7 years. We further investigated whether clinical and disease characteristics were correlated with antibody reactivity.

Results

The presence of antibodies against 2 of the 3 UH-axSpA peptides was confirmed in the Be-Giant cohort. Antibody reactivity against 1 of the 2 UH-axSpA peptides was found in 11.2 % of newly diagnosed axSpA patients (21/188) compared to 3.6% (4/112, p=0.0290) in HC and 6.8% (5/74, p=0.3619) in CLBP. We did not detect a significant difference in age, sex, HLA–B27 status, enthesitis, symptom duration, treatment, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), BathAnkylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), or C-reactive protein (CRP) levels between axSpA patients with and those without antibody reactivity against these 2 UH-axSpA peptides.

Conclusion

The presence of antibodies to 2 UH-axSpA peptides was confirmed in an independent cohort of newly diagnosed axSpA patients and could be of added value for discriminating axSpA patients from HC in the Be-Giant cohort.

References

[1]Quaden D, Vandormael P, Ruytinx P, Geusens P, Corten K, Vanhoof J, et al. Antibodies against three novel peptides in early axial spondyloarthritis patients from two independent cohorts. Arthritis & rheumatology (Hoboken, NJ). 2020.

Disclosure of Interests

None declared

POS1451 DISCRIMINATORY CAPACITY OF THE ASAS HEALTH INDEX IN PATIENTS WITH AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS TREATED IN A TIGHT CONTROL SETTING VERSUS STANDARD OF CARE

Background

Improvement in functioning and health as assessed by the ASAS Health Index (HI) is an important outcome of interventions in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). ASAS HI thresholds for measuring improvement have been proposed but not yet tested in an independent intervention trial to study its discriminant capacity.

Objectives

To test the discriminant capacity of the ASAS HI using data from a randomized, active-controlled trial.

Methods

In this post-hoc analysis from the tight-controlled, treat-to-target (T2T) trial TICOSPA [1], data of active axSpA patients randomized to either the T2T arm (visits every 4 weeks, prespecified strategy of treatment intensification until achieving low disease activity) or standard of care (SOC; visits every 12 weeks, treatment at the rheumatologist’s discretion) were compared to test whether different thresholds for improvement or achieved state of ASAS HI could discriminate between treatment arms. Week 48 effect sizes (ES) of improvement from baseline were calculated for each treatment arm as Phi Coefficient (higher means better discrimination) and OR (95% CI).

Results

The table shows the ES between treatment arms for all tested improvements and health states achieved in ASAS HI. Overall, absolute improvement outcomes performed better than percentage changes outcome followed by status outcomes. The absolute improvement of ≥2.0, ≥2.5, and ≥3.0 performed best followed by the 20% improvement. As the ASAS HI ≥3.0 is the smallest detectable change for this outcome, this seem to be the most appropriate proposed outcome.

Table 1.

Thresholds by treatment groups.

Non-responder imputation at 48 weeksEffect size measuresTC/T2TUCPhi Coefficient*OR [95% CI]ASAS HI 20% improvement56.9%45.8%0.11 [0-1.0]0.64 [0.33-1.23]ASAS HI 25% improvement51.4%41.7%0.10 [0-1.0]0.68 [0.35-1.30]ASAS HI 30% improvement43.1%34.7%0.09 [0-1.0]0.70 [0.36-1.38]ASAS HI 35% improvement40.3%31.9%0.09 [0-1.0]0.70 [0.35-1.38]ASAS HI 40% improvement37.5%31.9%0.06 [0-1.0]0.78 [0.39-1.56]ASAS HI 50% improvement29.2%22.2%0.08 [0-1.0]0.69 [0.33-1.47]ASAS HI 60% improvement26.4%18.1%0.10 [0-1.0]0.61 [0.28-1.36]ASAS HI 70% improvement16.7%12.5%0.06 [0-1.0]0.71 [0.28-1.82]ASAS HI 80% improvement13.9%11.1%0.01 [0-1.0]0.78 [0.29-2.09]ASAS HI 90% improvement9.7%9.7%0.0[0-1.0]1.0 [0.33-3.01]ASAS HI improvement ≥1.066.7%61.1%0.06[0-1.0]0.79 [0.40-1.55]ASAS HI improvement ≥2.055.6%41.7%0.14 [0.0-1.0]0.57 [0.30-1.11]ASAS HI improvement of ≥2.544.4%31.9%0.13 [0-1.0]0.59 [0.30-1.16]ASAS HI improvement of ≥3.041.7%29.2%0.13 [0-1.0]0.58 [0.29-1.15]ASAS HI improvement of ≥ 3.529.2%22.2%0.08 [0-1.0]0.69 [0.33-1.47]ASAS HI improvement ≥4.029.2%22.2%0.08 [0-1.0]0.69 [0.33-1.47]ASAS HI improvement ≥5.016.7%12.5%0.06 [0-1.0]0.71 [0.28-1.82]ASASHI, end of study, ≤12.087.5%80.6%0.09 [0.0- 1.0]0.59 [0.24, 1.47]ASASHI, end of study, ≤5.037.5%33.3%0.04 [0.0, 1.0]0.83 [0.42, 1.65]

A value of PHI = 0.1 is considered to be a small effect, 0.3 a medium effect, and 0.5 a large effect.

Conclusion

In this active-controlled trial an absolute improvement in the ASAS HI discriminated best between treatment arms. A similar evaluation is needed in a placebo-controlled trial to be able to propose the best outcome for the ASAS HI in a trial.

References

[1]Molto A et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2021

Disclosure of Interests

Uta Kiltz Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Biocad, Biogen, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Hexal, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biocad, Amgen, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Hexal, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Fresenius, GSK, Hexal, Novartis, Pfizer., Anna Moltó: None declared, Clementina López-Medina: None declared, Maxime Dougados: None declared, Désirée van der Heijde Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bayer, BMS, Cyxone, Eisai, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bayer, BMS, Cyxone, Eisai, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bayer, BMS, Cyxone, Eisai, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Annelies Boonen Speakers bureau: Abbvie / Galapagos, Consultant of: Galapagos, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Filip van den Bosch Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB., Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB., Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB., Juergen Braun Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Boehringer, Celltrion, Chugai, Fresenius, Hexal, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer und UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Boehringer, Celltrion, Chugai, Fresenius, Hexal, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer und UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Boehringer, Celltrion, Chugai, Fresenius, Hexal, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer und UCB

POS1036 EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF RISANKIZUMAB (RZB) FOR ACTIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS (PsA): 52-WEEK RESULTS FROM KEEPsAKE 2

Background

RZB, a humanized immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody that specifically inhibits the p19 subunit of the human cytokine interleukin-23, is being investigated as a treatment for PsA.

Objectives

Evaluate longer-term safety and efficacy of RZB in patients with active PsA who experienced inadequate response or intolerance to 1 or 2 biologic therapies and/or to at least 1 csDMARD therapy.

Methods

KEEPsAKE 2 (NCT03671148) is an ongoing, phase 3, multicenter study that includes a screening period; a 24-week double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group period (period 1); and an open-label extension period (period 2). Eligible patients were ≥18 years of age with active PsA (symptom onset ≥6 months before screening, meeting Classification Criteria for PsA [CASPAR], and ≥5 tender and ≥5 swollen joints) and had inadequate response or intolerance to 1 or 2 biologic therapies (Bio-IR) and/or ≥1 conventional synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD-IR). Patients received RZB 150 mg or placebo (PBO) at weeks 0, 4, and 16 (1:1). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving ACR20 response at week 24. Period 2 started at week 24, and patients were switched to receive open-label RZB 150 mg every 12 weeks through week 208. Efficacy and safety were analyzed in patients who received ≥1 dose of study drug through week 52. Mixed-effect model with repeated measures and nonresponder imputation methods were used to assess continuous and binary variables, respectively. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were summarized using exposure-adjusted event rates (EAERs, events/100 patient-years [PY]).

Results

At week 24, 51,3% of RZB-treated (N=224) and 26.5% of PBO-treated (N=219) patients achieved ACR20. At week 52, 58.5% of patients who were randomized to RZB and 55.7% of patients who were randomized to PBO and then switched to RZB at week 24 achieved ACR20. In patients with ≥3% of body surface area affected at baseline, 55.0% of RZB-treated patients (N=123) and 10.2% of PBO-treated patients (N=119) achieved PASI 90 at week 24. At week 52, 64.2% of patients randomized to RZB and 59.7% of patients who were randomized to PBO and then switched to RZB at week 24 achieved PASI 90. For other efficacy measures, similar trends were observed. RZB was well tolerated through 52 weeks of treatment, and EAERs of adverse events were stable between weeks 24 and 52. At the week 52 data cutoff (19 April 2021), the total EAER of any TEAE in patients receiving RZB was 184.2/100 PY.

Conclusion

Continuous RZB treatment resulted in maintained efficacy responses with a consistent safety profile through 52 weeks of treatment in patients with active PsA who were Bio-IR and/or csDMARD-IR.

Acknowledgements

AbbVie, Inc. participated in the study design; study research; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data. AbbVie funded the research for this study and provided writing support for this abstract. Medical writing assistance, funded by AbbVie, was provided by Jay Parekh, PharmD, of JB Ashtin.

Disclosure of Interests

Andrew Ostor Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB., Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB., Filip van den Bosch Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB., Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB., Kim Papp Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, Bausch Health (Valeant), Baxalta, Baxter, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Coherus, Dermira, EMD Serono, Forward Pharma, Galderma, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Lilly, LEO Pharma, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Stiefel, Sun Pharma, Takeda, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, Bausch Health (Valeant), Baxalta, Baxter, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Coherus, Dermira, EMD Serono, Forward Pharma, Galderma, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Lilly, LEO Pharma, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Stiefel, Sun Pharma, Takeda, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, Bausch Health (Valeant), Baxalta, Baxter, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Coherus, Dermira, EMD Serono, Forward Pharma, Galderma, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Lilly, LEO Pharma, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Stiefel, Sun Pharma, Takeda, and UCB, CECILIA ASNAL Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Genentech, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, and R-Pharm., Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Genentech, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, and R-Pharm., Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Genentech, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, and R-Pharm., Ricardo Blanco Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, and Roche., Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, and Roche., Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Merck, and Roche, Jacob Aelion Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Galapagos/Gilead, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Mallinckrodt, Nektar Therapeutics, Nichi-Iko, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Selecta Biosciences, and UCB., Wenjing Lu Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Zailong Wang Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Ahmed M. Soliman Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Ann Eldred Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Byron Padilla Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Alan Kivitz Shareholder of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Flexion, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Sun Pharma, and UCB., Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Flexion, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Sun Pharma, and UCB., Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Flexion, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Sun Pharma, and UCB.

POS0173 DATA-DRIVEN MRI DEFINITIONS FOR ACTIVE AND STRUCTURAL SACROILIAC JOINT LESIONS IN JUVENILE SPONDYLOARTHRITIS TYPICAL OF AXIAL DISEASE

Background

For classification in juvenile spondyloarthritis (JSpA), it is important to develop cut-offs for active and structural lesions typical of axial disease on MRI that are readily and consistently interpreted. Since the maturing sacroiliac joint (SIJ) looks different from the adult SIJ, the criteria developed for positive MRI in adults may not be applicable in JSpA.

Objectives

As part of a study developing classification criteria for axial disease in JSpA, we aimed to determine quantitative SIJ imaging lesion cut-offs for inflammatory and structural lesions typical of axial JSpA using majority imaging expert decision as the reference criterion.

Methods

Subjects were a retrospective cohort of children with SpA who met the provisional Pediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organization criteria for enthesitis/spondylitis-related juvenile idiopathic arthritis or had a rheumatologist JSpA diagnosis. All subjects had symptom onset prior to age 18 years and underwent MRI as part of a diagnostic evaluation for axial disease. To enable SIJ quadrant-based scoring, all MRIs included semi-coronal slices through the cartilaginous part of the joint on fluid sensitive sequences and on T1-weighted sequences for the assessment of inflammation and structural lesions, respectively. MRIs were reviewed by 6 musculoskeletal imaging experts who were blinded to clinical details. MRI evaluation of the SIJ was based on standardized lesion definitions that were decided by consensus of the central imaging team and represented a mix of definitions from ASAS and the Juvenile Arthritis MRI Score Outcome Measures in Rheumatology working group. Using a web-based interface, raters globally assessed the presence or absence of lesions typical of axial SpA and performed SIJ quadrant or joint based scoring. Lesion scores were generated by averaging the scores of all raters. Sensitivity and specificity of lesion cut-offs were calculated using rater majority (≥4/6 raters) on a global assessment of the presence/absence of active or structural lesions typical of axial SpA with high confidence (confidence of ±3 or stronger on confidence scale from -5, “Definitely No”, to +5, “Definitely Yes”) as the reference standard.

Results

Imaging from 243 subjects, 61% male, median age 14.9 years, had sequences available for detailed MRI scoring. Active inflammatory lesion typical of axial disease in JSpA was defined as bone marrow edema (BME) in at least 3 SIJ quadrants (sensitivity 98.6%, specificity 96.5%). For structural lesion typical of axial JSpA, the optimal cut-off was erosion in at least 3 quadrants or at least one of the following lesions in at least 2 SIJ quadrants: sclerosis, fat lesion, backfill, ankylosis (sensitivity 98.6%, specificity 95.5%).

Conclusion

We propose data-driven cut-offs for active inflammatory and structural lesions on MRI typical of axial disease in JSpA that have high specificity and sensitivity using central imaging global assessment as the reference standard.

Table 1.

Performance of cut-offs for inflammatory and structural lesions of axial disease

Cut-offs for number of SIJ quadrants (any location)Sensitivity (95% CI)Specificity (95% CI)Definite active lesionBME score ≥2100 (95.0-100)93.5 (88.7-96.7)BME score ≥398.6 (92.5-100)96.5 (92.5-98.7)BME, same location on ≥3 consecutive slices88.6 (78.7-94.9)98.8 (95.8-99.9)Definite structural lesionErosion ≥295.7 (88-99.1)96.8 (92.7-99)Erosion, same location on ≥2 consecutive slices94.3 (86-98.4)98.1 (94.5-99.6)Erosion ≥391.4 (82.3-96.8)98.7 (95.4-99.8)Sclerosis ≥262.9 (50.5-74.1)98.1 (94.5-99.6)Fat lesion ≥222.9 (13.7-34.4%)98.7 (95.4-99.8%)Backfill ≥220 (11.4-31.3)100 (97.7-100)Ankylosis ≥21.3 (0.2-4.7)100 (94.9-100)ANY of the following in ≥2 SIJ quadrants: erosion, sclerosis, fat lesion, backfill, ankylosis98.6 (92.3-100)93.6 (88.5-96.9)Erosion ≥3 quadrants OR ≥2 quadrants of at least one of the following lesions: sclerosis, fat, backfill, ankylosis98.6 (92.3-100.0)95.5 (91.0-98.2)

Disclosure of Interests

Pamela F. Weiss Consultant of: Pfizer

Novartis

Biogen

Lilly

(All <$5K in the past fiscal year), Timothy G. Brandon: None declared, Amita Aggarwal: None declared, Ruben Burgos-Vargas Speakers bureau: Not in the last three years.

Novartis, Consultant of: Not in the last four years.

BMS, Lilly, Novartis, Robert A. Colbert: None declared, Gerd Horneff Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, Chugai, Abbvie, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Novartis, MSD, Chugai, Roche, Abbvie, Rik Joos Speakers bureau: Galapagos, Pfizer, AbbVie, Novartis, Amgen, BMS, Lilly, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, Ronald Laxer Consultant of: Abbvie, Novartis, Sobi, Sanofi, Eli Lilly Canada, Eli Lilly, Kirsten Minden Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Novartis, Consultant of: Pfizer, Novartis, Angelo Ravelli Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Novartis, SOBI, Angelini, Reckitt-Benkiser, Roche, Pfizer, Alexion, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, Nicolino Ruperto Speakers bureau: NR has received honoraria for consultancies or speaker bureaus from the following pharmaceutical companies in the past 3 years: 2 Bridge, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurinia, Bayer, Brystol Myers and Squibb, Celgene, inMed, Cambridge Healthcare Research, Domain Therapeutic, EMD Serono, Glaxo Smith Kline, Idorsia, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sobi, UCB., Consultant of: NR has received honoraria for consultancies or speaker bureaus from the following pharmaceutical companies in the past 3 years: 2 Bridge, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurinia, Bayer, Brystol Myers and Squibb, Celgene, inMed, Cambridge Healthcare Research, Domain Therapeutic, EMD Serono, Glaxo Smith Kline, Idorsia, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sobi, UCB., Grant/research support from: The IRCCS Istituto Giannina Gaslini (IGG), where NR works as full-time public employee has received contributions from the following industries in the last 3 years: Bristol Myers and Squibb, Eli-Lilly, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Sobi. This funding has been reinvested for the research activities of the hospital in a fully independent manner, without any commitment with third parties., Judith Smith Consultant of: Consulting panel of pediatric rheumatologists identifying issues in juvenile spondyloarthritis for Novartis. Paid < $5000, Matthew L. Stoll Consultant of: Currently consulting for Novartis, Shirley ML Tse: None declared, Filip van den Bosch Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Paid instructor for: Amgen, Eli Lilly, Consultant of: Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Robert G Lambert Paid instructor for: Novartis, Consultant of: CARE Arthritis, Calyx, Image Analysis Group, Novartis, David M. Biko Employee of: Merck (1998-2000), Nancy A. Chauvin Employee of: Forest Pharmaceuticals - Research scientist (1996) and Novartis - Pharmaceutical sales representative (1997), Michael L. Francavilla: None declared, Jacob L Jaremko: None declared, Nele Herregods: None declared, Ozgur Kasapcopur Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Abbvie, Novartis and Roche, Mehmet YILDIZ: None declared, Alison M. Hendry: None declared, Walter P Maksymowych Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Eli-Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Novartis, Pfizer

POS1091 LESS RADIOGRAPHIC SPINAL DAMAGE IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS PATIENTS COMPARED TO SpA PATIENTS

Background

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is an inflammatory joint disease that is traditionally included in the Spondyloarthritis (SpA) spectrum. Prevalence and impact of axial involvement in PsA remain understudied but increasingly affect treatment decisions.

Objectives

A step towards fathoming this issue is to report on baseline radiographic spinal damage in PsA and SpA patients (pts) from 2 prospective multicentre cohort studies in private and academic rheumatology practices.

Methods

Data on PsA pts were from the Belgian Epidemiological Psoriatic Arthritis Study (BEPAS); prospective multicentre cohort in 17 Belgian rheumatology practices. Recruitment was Dec2012-Jul2014. Pts were included when fulfilling the Classification criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis (CASPAR). SpA pts were from a Belgian observational cohort (Be-Giant) of SpA pts fulfilling the ASAS SpA classification criteria. Radiographs of the spine were obtained at baseline and after 2 years. Two calibrated readers evaluated radiographic damage by assessing modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score (mSASSS). Readers were blinded for time sequence, clinical data and information from other obtained images (radiographs of hands, feet, sacroiliac joints). Consensus scores are described.

Results

In total 461 pts were included in BEPAS. Mean age was 52.79±12.29 years and 43.0% (n=198) were female; average disease duration was 8.5 ± 9.3 years and approximately 34% of the pts reported inflammatory axial pain. From 312 pts spinal radiographs were obtained. At baseline, the vast majority of PsA pts had an mSASSS of 0 (n=273, 87.5%), according to both readers. In 33 PsA pts (10.6%) mSASSS was 2 or more. For the SpA pts percentages were lower but the trend was similar (see Figure 1). Though lesser pts showed abnormalities, the SpA pts with spinal damage show a higher mSASSS, therefore indicating more spinal damage then the PsA pts (p<0.05). Both patient groups show some outliers with high mSASSS, increasing the average mSASSS especially in the SpA cohort (mean mSASSS = 9.1±14.11) compared to the median of 3 (IQR 2-6) in both cohorts

Syndesmophytes are seen in 10.6% and 6.2% of the PsA and SpA pts, respectively. Similar to the mSASSS, SpA pts had more syndesmophytes (mean: 4.4±5.50) compared to PsA pts (mean 2.0±1.45); p<0.05. PsA pts had more often syndesmophytes located in the cervical spine (24/35, 68.6%) compared to the SpA patient group (9/21, 42.9%); p<0.05.

Erosions and especially sclerosis and squaring are uncommon in both patient groups.

Conclusion

Spinal damage is seen in approximately 10% or less of both PsA and SpA pts in these cohorts. SpA pts show higher mSASSS values and more syndesmophytes as compared to the PsA pts. Syndesmophytes in PsA pts are more often located in the cervical spine while the location is more equally distributed in SpA pts.

Table 1.

Spinal damage at baseline of patients from the BEPAS (PsA patients) and Be-Giant (SpA patients) cohorts

PsA patients (n=312)SpA patients (n=260)PsA patients (n=312)SpA patients (n=260)mSASSS ≥2, no of patients33 (10.6%)19 (7.3%)Syndesmophytes (total spine)33 (10.6%)16 (6.2%)mSASSS ≥1, no of patients39 (12.5%)22 (8.5%)mean, (SD)2.0 (1.45)4.4 (5.50)mean, (SD)4.5 (4.24)9.1 (14.11)min, 0.25, median, 0.75, max1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 8.01.0 1.0 2.5 5.0 22.0min, 0.25, median, 0.75, max1.0 2.0 3.0 6.0 21.01.0 2.0 3.0 10.0 64.0Syndesmophytes (cervical spine)24 (7.7%)9 (3.5%)Erosions ≥1, no of patients13 (4.2%)5 (1.9%)mean, (SD)1.8 (1.32)2.9 (2.89)mean, (SD)1.5 (1.39)1 (0.0)min, 0.25, median, 0.75, max1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 7.01.0 1.0 2. 0 3.0 10.0min, 0.25, median, 0.75, max1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 6.01.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0Syndesmophytes (lumbar spine)11 (3.5%)12 (4.6%)Squaring ≥1, no of patientsNo obs.4 (1.5%)mean, (SD)1.9 (0.70)3.7 (4.21)mean, (SD)No obs1.8 (0.96)min, 0.25, median, 0.75, max1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.01.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 12.0min, 0.25, median, 0.75, maxNo obs1.0 1.0 1.5 2.5 3.0Sclerosis ≥1, no of patients2 (0.6%)6 (2.3%)mean, (SD)1.5 (0.71)1.8 (1.33)min, 0.25, median, 0.75, max1.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.01.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 4.0

Acknowledgements

The BEPAS study has been supported by MSD Belgium, with noteworthy mentioning of Hermine Leroi.

Disclosure of Interests

None declared

POS1041 LONG-TERM EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF UPADACITINIB IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS REFRACTORY TO BIOLOGIC THERAPIES: 2-YEAR RESULTS FROM THE PHASE 3 SELECT-PsA 2 STUDY

Background

Upadacitinib (UPA), an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, demonstrated efficacy and safety in patients (pts) with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and prior inadequate response or intolerance to ≥1 biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) at week (wk) 56 in the phase 3 SELECT-PsA 2 study.1

Objectives

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of UPA at wk 104 from the ongoing long-term extension of SELECT-PsA 2.

Methods

Pts were randomized to UPA 15 mg (UPA15), UPA 30 mg (UPA30), or placebo (PBO) for 24 wks; PBO pts were then switched to UPA15 or UPA30. For continuous UPA treatment groups, efficacy endpoints at wk 104 were analyzed using non-responder imputation (NRI) and as observed (AO) (binary endpoints) or mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) and AO (continuous endpoints). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were summarized for pts who received ≥1 dose of study drug using visit-based cut-off at wk 104.

Results

A total of 641 pts received ≥1 dose of study drug. At wk 104, 38.4% of all patients had discontinued study drug, with the highest discontinuation observed in patients randomized to PBO at baseline (all PBO: 46.7%). The most common reasons for discontinuation were lack of efficacy (UPA15: 12.3%, UPA30: 8.7%, all PBO: 21.7%) and adverse event (UPA15: 10.9%, UPA30: 13.3%, all PBO: 12.7%). The proportion of UPA pts that achieved ACR20/50/70, MDA, PASI75/90/100, and resolution of dactylitis and enthesitis were generally similar, or further improved, with 104 wks of treatment vs 56 wks1 (Table 1). Similarly, mean change from baseline in HAQ-DI, patient’s assessment of pain, BASDAI, and ASDAS was improved with UPA treatment. At 104 wks of therapy, clinical responses were largely similar with UPA15 and UPA30. Generally, safety data at wk 104 (Figure 1) were consistent with that reported at wk 56.1 Rates of serious infection, herpes zoster, hepatic disorder, anemia, neutropenia, lymphopenia, and CPK elevation remained numerically higher with UPA30 vs UPA15, while rates of malignancies, MACE, and VTE were similar for both UPA groups. One death was reported with UPA15 (unexplained due to lack of information; however, the patient had recently been diagnosed with ovarian cancer) and 2 with UPA30 (pancytopenia and COVID-19 pneumonia).

Table 1.

Efficacy Endpoints at Week 104

EndpointUPA15 (n=211)UPA30 (n=218)Proportion of Pts (%)aNRIAONRIAOACR2055.580.354.681.8ACR5044.562.939.959.4ACR7023.232.221.631.5Minimal Disease Activity (MDA)29.441.333.949.3PASI75b47.769.852.781.1PASI90b37.755.244.367.8PASI100b23.135.435.955.6Resolution of enthesitis by LEIc39.867.837.568.4Resolution of dactylitis by LDId54.597.452.096.9Change from BLeMMRMAOMMRMAOHealth Assessment Questionnaire - Disability Index (HAQ-DI)-0.36-0.39-0.50-0.53Patient’s assessment of pain (numeric rating scale)-2.7-3.0-2.9-3.1Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI)f-2.6-3.0-2.6-2.9Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS)f-1.4-1.7-1.3-1.5

ACR20/50/70, ≥20%/50%/70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria; AO, as observed; BL, baseline; LDI, Leeds Dactylitis Index; LEI, Leeds Enthesitis Index; MMRM, mixed effect model repeated measurement; NRI, non-responder imputation; PASI75/90/100, ≥75%/90%/100% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index; pts, patients; UPA, upadacitinib.

aData shown as NRI and AO for binary endpoints.

bFor pts with psoriasis affecting ≥3% of body surface area at BL.

cFor pts with LEI >0 at BL; resolution LEI=0.

dFor pts with LDI >0 at BL; resolution LDI=0.

eData shown as MMRM (LS mean) and AO (mean) for continuous endpoints.

fFor pts with psoriatic spondylitis at BL.

Conclusion

In PsA pts with prior inadequate response or intolerance to ≥1 bDMARD, clinical responses were maintained with UPA15 and UPA30 up to 2 years of treatment. No new safety signals were identified in this long-term extension.

References

[1]Mease PJ, et al. Rheumatol Ther. 2021;8:903-19.

Acknowledgements

AbbVie and the authors thank the patients, study sites, and investigators who participated in this clinical trial (NCT03104374). AbbVie funded this study and participated in the study design, research, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, reviewing, and approval of the publication. All authors had access to relevant data and participated in the drafting, review, and approval of this publication. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing support was provided by Monica R.P. Elmore, PhD of AbbVie.

Disclosure of Interests

Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squib, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Genentech, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squib, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Genentech, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squib, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Genentech, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB, Arathi Setty Shareholder of: Employee of AbbVie and may hold stock options, Employee of: Employee of AbbVie, Kim Papp Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Akros, Allergan, Almirall, Amgen, Bausch Health, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Dermavant, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LEO, Meiji, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Sienna Pharmaceuticals, Sun Pharma, Takeda, UCB, and Valeant, Consultant of: AbbVie, Akros, Allergan, Almirall, Amgen, Arcutis, Avillion, Bausch Health, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Dermavant, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LEO, Meiji, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Sienna Pharmaceuticals, Sun Pharma, Takeda, UCB, and Valeant, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Akros, Allergan, Almirall, Amgen, Arcutis, Avillion, Bausch Health, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Dermavant, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LEO, Meiji, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Sienna Pharmaceuticals, Sun Pharma, Takeda, UCB, and Valeant, Filip van den Bosch Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Shigeyoshi Tsuji Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB, MAURO KEISERMAN Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Xianwei Bu Shareholder of: Employee of AbbVie and may hold stock options, Employee of: Employee of AbbVie, Liang Chen Shareholder of: Employee of AbbVie and may hold stock options, Employee of: Employee of AbbVie, Reva McCaskill Shareholder of: Employee of AbbVie and may hold stock options, Employee of: Employee of AbbVie, Erin McDearmon-Blondell Shareholder of: Employee of AbbVie and may hold stock options, Employee of: Employee of AbbVie, Peter Wung Shareholder of: Employee of AbbVie and may hold stock options, Employee of: Employee of AbbVie, William Tillett Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, and Janssen

OP0019 BIMEKIZUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS: 24-WEEK EFFICACY & SAFETY FROM BE MOBILE 2, A PHASE 3, MULTICENTRE, RANDOMISED, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED STUDY

Background

Bimekizumab (BKZ) is a monoclonal IgG1 antibody that selectively inhibits IL-17F in addition to IL-17A. In a phase 2b study, BKZ showed rapid and sustained efficacy and was well tolerated up to 156 weeks (wks) in patients (pts) with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS).1,2

Objectives

To assess efficacy and safety of BKZ vs placebo (PBO) in pts with active AS up to Wk 24 in the ongoing pivotal phase 3 study, BE MOBILE 2.

Methods

BE MOBILE 2 (NCT03928743) comprises a 16-wk double-blind, PBO-controlled period and 36-wk maintenance period. Pts were aged ≥18 yrs, met modified New York criteria and had active AS (BASDAI ≥4, spinal pain ≥4) at BL. Pts were randomised 2:1, BKZ 160 mg Q4W:PBO. From Wk 16, all pts received BKZ 160 mg Q4W. Primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were assessed at Wk 16.

Results

Of 332 randomised pts (BKZ: 221; PBO: 111), 322 (97.0%) completed Wk 16 and 313 (94.3%) Wk 24. BL characteristics were comparable between groups: mean age 40.4 yrs, symptom duration 13.5 yrs; 72.3% pts male, 85.5% HLA-B27+, 16.3% TNFi-experienced. At Wk 16, the primary (ASAS40: 44.8% BKZ vs 22.5% PBO; p<0.001) and all ranked secondary endpoints were met (Table 1). Responses with BKZ were rapid, including in PBO pts who switched to BKZ at Wk 16, and increased to Wk 24 (Figure 1; Table 1). Substantial reductions of hs-CRP by Wk 2 and MRI SIJ and spine inflammation by Wk 16 were achieved with BKZ vs PBO (Table 1). At Wk 24, ≥50% pts had achieved ASDAS <2.1 (Figure 1).

Table 1.

Efficacy at Wks 16 and 24

BLWk 16Wk 24PBO N=111BKZ 160 mg Q4W N=221PBO N=111BKZ 160 mg Q4W N=221p valuePBO→BKZ 160 mg Q4W N=111BKZ 160 mg Q4W N=221Ranked endpoints in hierarchical orderASAS40* [NRI] n (%)--25 (22.5)99 (44.8)<0.00163 (56.8)119 (53.8)ASAS40 in TNFi-naïve† [NRI] n (%)--22 (23.4)a84 (45.7)b<0.00156 (59.6)a100 (54.3)bASAS20† [NRI]n (%)--48 (43.2)146 (66.1)<0.00185 (76.6)159 (71.9)BASDAI CfB† [MI] mean (SE)6.5 (0.1)6.5 (0.1)–1.9 (0.2)–2.9 (0.1)<0.001–3.3 (0.2)–3.3 (0.1)ASAS PR† [NRI]n (%)--8 (7.2)53 (24.0)<0.00128 (25.2)56 (25.3)ASDAS-MI† [NRI] n (%)--6 (5.4)57 (25.8)<0.00143 (38.7)67 (30.3)ASAS 5/6† [NRI]n (%)--16 (14.4)94 (42.5)<0.00157 (51.4)107 (48.4)BASFI CfB† [MI] mean (SE)5.2 (0.2)5.3 (0.2)–1.1 (0.2)–2.2 (0.1)<0.001–2.2 (0.2)–2.4 (0.2)Nocturnal spinal pain CfB† [MI]mean (SE)6.8 (0.2)6.6 (0.1)–1.9 (0.2)–3.3 (0.2)<0.001–3.7 (0.3)–3.8 (0.2)ASQoL CfB† [MI] mean (SE)8.5 (0.4)9.0 (0.3)–3.2 (0.3)–4.9 (0.3)<0.001–4.9 (0.4)–5.4 (0.3)SF-36 PCS CfB† [MI] mean (SE)34.6 (0.8)34.4 (0.6)5.9 (0.8)9.3 (0.6)<0.00110.6 (0.8)10.8 (0.6)BASMI CfB† [MI] mean (SE)3.8 (0.2)3.9 (0.1)–0.2 (0.1)–0.5 (0.1)0.005–0.5 (0.1)–0.6 (0.1)Other endpointsnEnthesitis-free state†c [NRI]n (%)--22 (32.8)d68 (51.5)e-33 (49.3)d70 (53.0)eASAS40 in TNFi-experienced [NRI]n (%)--3 (17.6)f15 (40.5)g---ASDAS-CRP CfB [MI]mean (SE)3.7 (0.1)3.7 (0.1)–0.7 (0.1)–1.4 (0.1)-–1.7 (0.1)–1.6 (0.1)hs-CRP (mg/L) [MI] geometric mean (median)6.7 (6.3)6.5 (8.2)6.0 (6.3)2.4 (2.4)-1.9 (2.2)2.1 (2.3)MRI spine Berlin CfBh [OC] mean (SD)3.3 (4.9)i3.8 (5.3)j0.0 (1.4)k–2.3 (3.9)l---SPARCC MRI SIJ score CfBh [OC] mean (SD)5.8 (7.7)i7.4 (10.7)m1.1 (6.9)k–5.6 (9.9)l---

Randomised set. *Primary endpoint; †Secondary endpoint; an=94; bn=184; cMASES=0 in pts with BL MASES >0; dn=67; en=132; fn=17; gn=37; hIn pts in MRI sub-study; in=45; jn=82; kn=43; ln=79; mn=83; nNominal p values not shown.

Over 16 wks, 120/221 (54.3%) BKZ pts had ≥1 TEAE vs 48/111 (43.2%) PBO; three most frequent on BKZ were nasopharyngitis (BKZ: 7.7%; PBO: 3.6%), headache (4.1%; 4.5%) and oral candidiasis (4.1%; 0%). No systemic candidiasis was observed. Up to 16 wks, incidence of SAEs was low (1.8%; 0.9%); no MACE or deaths were reported; 2 (0.9%) IBD cases occurred in pts on BKZ.

Conclusion

Dual inhibition of IL-17A and IL-17F with BKZ in pts with active AS resulted in rapid, clinically relevant improvements in efficacy outcomes vs PBO. No new safety signals were observed.1,2

References

[1]van der Heijde D. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79:595–604; 2. Gensler L. Arthritis Rheumatol 2021;73(suppl 10):0491.

Acknowledgements

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

Disclosure of Interests

Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Bayer, BMS, Cyxone, Eisai, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Employee of: Imaging Rheumatology BV (Director), Xenofon Baraliakos Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Paid instructor for: AbbVie, BMS, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Maxime Dougados Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Matt Brown Speakers bureau: Novartis, Consultant of: Pfizer, Clementia, Ipsen, Regeneron, Grey Wolf Therapeutics, Grant/research support from: UCB Pharma, Denis Poddubnyy Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biocad, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer, Filip van den Bosch Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers-Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Nigil Haroon Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Merck, Novartis and UCB Pharma, Huji Xu: None declared, Tetsuya Tomita Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Novartis, and Pfizer, Lianne S. Gensler Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma; paid to institution, Marga Oortgiesen Employee of: UCB Pharma, Carmen Fleurinck Employee of: UCB Pharma, Thomas Vaux Employee of: UCB Pharma, Alexander Marten Employee of: UCB Pharma, Atul Deodhar Speakers bureau: Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer; consultant of AbbVie, Amgen, Aurinia, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma.

OP0016 EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF UPADACITINIB IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE NON-RADIOGRAPHIC AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS: A DOUBLE-BLIND, RANDOMIZED, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED PHASE 3 TRIAL

Background

Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors have been recognized as a potential therapeutic option in ankylosing spondylitis (AS), also known as radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA).1 Upadacitinib (UPA), a JAK inhibitor, has demonstrated efficacy and safety in the treatment of AS2; however, no JAK inhibitor studies have been conducted in non-radiographic axSpA (nr-axSpA) to date.

Objectives

To assess the efficacy and safety of UPA in patients (pts) with active nr-axSpA.

Methods

SELECT-AXIS 2 (NCT04169373) was conducted under a master protocol comprising two independent studies, one in an AS population with an inadequate response to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and one in an nr-axSpA population. The nr-axSpA study is a randomized, double-blind, placebo(PBO)-controlled, phase 3 trial that enrolled adults ≥18 years with a clinical diagnosis of nr-axSpA (who also fulfilled 2009 ASAS classification criteria for axSpA but did not meet the radiologic criterion of modified New York criteria), who had objective signs of active inflammation consistent with axSpA on MRI of the sacroiliac (SI) joints and/or high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) >upper limit of normal (2.87 mg/L) at screening, and who had BASDAI and pt’s assessment of total back pain scores ≥4 based on a 0 to 10 numeric rating scale at study entry. Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive oral UPA 15 mg once daily (QD) or PBO during a 52-week (wk) double-blind treatment period. The primary endpoint was ASAS40 response at wk 14. Multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints assessed at wk 14 included BASDAI50, ASDAS ID (<1.3), ASDAS LDA (<2.1), ASDAS PR, and ASAS20, and the change from baseline (Δ) in ASDAS (CRP), SPARCC MRI SI joint inflammation score, total and nocturnal back pain, BASFI, ASQoL, ASAS HI, BASMI, and MASES. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) are reported through wk 14 for pts who received ≥1 dose of study drug.

Results

Of 314 pts randomized at baseline, 313 received study drug (UPA 15 mg, n=156; PBO, n=157) and 295 (94%) received study drug through wk 14. Baseline demographic and disease characteristics were balanced across treatment groups and consistent with an active nr-axSpA population (58% female; mean age 42.1 years; mean BASDAI 6.9; mean hs-CRP 12.1 mg/L). A significantly higher ASAS40 response rate at wk 14 was achieved with UPA vs PBO (45% vs 23%; P<0.0001; Figure 1). Statistical significance was also achieved in the first 12 of the 14 multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints (ie, all endpoints except BASMI and MASES) at wk 14 for UPA compared with PBO (P<0.01; Figure 1). The proportion of pts who experienced a TEAE was similar between treatment groups (UPA, 48%; PBO, 46%). Serious TEAEs and TEAEs leading to discontinuation were reported in 4 (2.6%) pts treated with UPA and 2 (1.3%) pts treated with PBO, respectively. Few pts had serious infection or herpes zoster (each 2 [1.3%] pts on UPA; each 1 [0.6%] pt on PBO, respectively). Uveitis was reported in 1 (0.6%) pt on UPA who had a history of uveitis and none on PBO. No malignancy other than non-melanoma skin cancer, major adverse cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolic events, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), or death were reported in the study; 1 event of basal cell carcinoma occurred with PBO.

Conclusion

UPA 15 mg QD demonstrated significantly greater improvements in disease activity, pain, function, quality of life, and MRI-detected SI joint inflammation than PBO after 14 wks of treatment in pts with active nr-axSpA. The safety profile of UPA was consistent with what has been observed with other inflammatory musculoskeletal diseases,3–5 and no new risks were identified. These results support the potential use of UPA in pts with active nr-axSpA.

References

[1]Ward MM, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(10):1599–63.

[2]van der Heijde D, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021;73(suppl 10).

[3]Cohen SB, et al. ARD. 2021;80:304–311.

[4]Burmester G, et al. Rheumatol Ther. 2021;1–19.

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

Acknowledgements

AbbVie funded this study and participated in the study design, research, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, review, and approval of the abstract. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing support was provided by Julia Zolotarjova, MSc, MWC, of AbbVie.

Disclosure of Interests

Atul Deodhar Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Aurinia, BMS, Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Filip van den Bosch Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Denis Poddubnyy Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer, Walter P Maksymowych Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis, and Pfizer, Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Bayer, BMS, Cyxone, Eisai, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Employee of: Director of Imaging Rheumatology BV, Tae-Hwan Kim Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celltrion, Kirin, Lilly, and Novartis, Mitsumasa Kishimoto Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen Astellas BioPharma, Asahi-Kasei Pharma, Astellas, Ayumid Pharma, BMS, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Lilly, Novartis, Ono Pharma, Pfizer, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, Teijin Pharma, and UCB, Yuanyuan Duan Shareholder of: May own AbbVie stock or options, Employee of: AbbVie, Yihan Li Shareholder of: May own AbbVie stock or options, Employee of: AbbVie, Aileen Pangan Shareholder of: May own AbbVie stock or options, Employee of: AbbVie, Peter Wung Shareholder of: May own AbbVie stock or options, Employee of: AbbVie, In-Ho Song Shareholder of: May own AbbVie stock or options, Employee of: AbbVie.

POS0196 UPADACITINIB IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS REFRACTORY TO BIOLOGIC DISEASE-MODIFYING ANTIRHEUMATIC DRUGS: 56-WEEK DATA FROM THE PHASE 3 SELECT-PSA 2 STUDY

Background:

Upadacitinib (UPA) is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor currently under evaluation for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Previous 24-week results from the SELECT-PsA 2 study in patients with PsA and prior inadequate response to ≥1 biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) demonstrated UPA efficacy with a safety profile consistent with that observed in rheumatoid arthritis.1

Objectives:

To evaluate the 56-week efficacy and safety of UPA in the SELECT-PsA 2 study.

Methods:

Patients were randomized to 56 weeks of blinded treatment with UPA 15 or 30 mg once daily (QD), or placebo (PBO) switched to UPA 15 or 30 mg QD at Week 24. Efficacy endpoints included proportions of patients achieving 20/50/70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria (ACR20/50/70), 75/90/100% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI75/90/100), resolution of dactylitis and enthesitis, and minimal disease activity (MDA). Non-responder imputation was used for missing data. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were summarized for events occurring while on UPA and ≤30 days after last dose (for those who discontinued).

Results:

Of 641 patients who received ≥1 dose of study drug, 74.7% completed 56 weeks of treatment. Clinical improvements based on the proportion of patients achieving ACR20/50/70 and MDA (Figure 1), PASI75/90/100, and resolution of dactylitis and enthesitis were generally maintained through 56 weeks of UPA treatment. Week 56 results for patients who switched from PBO to UPA at Week 24 had a similar trajectory to those for patients originally randomized to UPA. Overall, improvements observed with UPA 15 mg were similar to or approached those with UPA 30 mg over 56 weeks. Dose-dependent increases were observed for exposure-adjusted event rates (EAERs) of serious infections, herpes zoster (HZ), hepatic disorders, hematologic lab-related adverse events, and creatine phosphokinase (CPK) elevations, but not for exposure-adjusted incidence rates (EAIRs) of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), venous thromboembolic events (VTEs), or malignancies (Table 1). Generally, rates of TEAEs were lower with UPA 15 mg versus 30 mg.

Conclusion:

In patients with PsA and prior inadequate response to ≥1 bDMARD, UPA efficacy was maintained over 56 weeks with no new safety signals.

References:

[1]Mease PJ, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2020. Epub ahead of print.

Table 1.

Safety through Week 56

EventUPA 15 mg QD(n=290; PY=419.4)UPA 30 mg QD(n=308; PY=423.5)EAER, events/100 PY (95% CI)Infection89.7 (81.0–99.2)113.6 (103.9–124.2) Serious infection2.6 (1.5–4.7)6.1 (4.2–9.0) Opportunistic infectiona0.7 (0.2–2.2)0.9 (0.4–2.5) HZ3.8 (2.3–6.2)8.5 (6.1–11.8) Active TB00Gastrointestinal perforation (adjudicated)00Hepatic disorder4.8 (3.1–7.4)17.7 (14.1–22.2)Anemia2.1 (1.1–4.1)5.4 (3.6–8.2)Neutropenia1.0 (0.4–2.5)3.1 (1.8–5.3)Lymphopenia0.7 (0.2–2.2)2.4 (1.3–4.4)CPK elevation5.2 (3.5–8.0)8.7 (6.3–12.1)Renal dysfunction0.5 (0.1–1.9)0.2 (0.0–1.7)EAIR, n/100 PY (95% CI)NMSCb1.2 (0.5–2.9)1.0 (0.4–2.5)Malignancy other than NMSCc1.2 (0.5–2.9)1.2 (0.5–2.9)Lymphomad0.5 (0.1–1.9)0MACE (adjudicated)0.2 (0–1.7)0.2 (0–1.7)VTE (adjudicated)0.2 (0–1.7)0.2 (0–1.7)

aExcludes TB and HZ. bUPA 15 mg: 4 cases of BCC and 1 case of SCC of the skin; UPA 30 mg: 3 cases of BCC and 3 cases of SCC of the skin. cUPA 15 mg: 2 cases of prostate cancer, and single cases of malignant melanoma, ovarian cancer, and rectal cancer; UPA 30 mg: single cases of basosquamous carcinoma (considered NMSC after medical review), malignant melanoma, oropharyngeal SCC, and rectal adenocarcinoma, as well as endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer (in the same patient). dUPA 15 mg: 2 events of treatment-emergent abnormal lymphocyte morphology; abnormal lymphocytes were not reported in subsequent laboratory testing

BCC, basal cell carcinoma; CI, confidence interval; NMSC, non-melanoma skin cancer; PY, patient-years; SCC, squamous cell carcinoma; TB, tuberculosis

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:

Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squib, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Genentech, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squib, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Genentech, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squib, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Genentech, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB, Apinya Lertratanakul Shareholder of: May own stock/shares in AbbVie, Employee of: Currently employed by AbbVie, Kim Papp Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Akros, Allergan, Almirall, Amgen, Bausch Health, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Dermavant, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LEO, Meiji, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Sienna Pharmaceuticals, Sun Pharma, Takeda, UCB, and Valeant, Consultant of: AbbVie, Akros, Allergan, Almirall, Amgen, Arcutis, Avillion, Bausch Health, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Dermavant, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LEO, Meiji, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Sienna Pharmaceuticals, Sun Pharma, Takeda, UCB, and Valeant, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Akros, Allergan, Almirall, Amgen, Arcutis, Avillion, Bausch Health, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Dermavant, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LEO, Meiji, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Sienna Pharmaceuticals, Sun Pharma, Takeda, UCB, and Valeant, Filip van den Bosch Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Shigeyoshi Tsuji Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB., Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB., Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB., Eva Dokoupilova Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Affibody AB, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Hexal AG, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, R-Pharm, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB, MAURO KEISERMAN Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Xianwei Bu Shareholder of: May own stock/shares in AbbVie, Employee of: Currently employed by AbbVie, Liang Chen Shareholder of: May own stock/shares in AbbVie, Employee of: Currently employed by AbbVie, Reva McCaskill Shareholder of: May own stock/shares in AbbVie, Employee of: Currently employed by AbbVie, Patrick Zueger Shareholder of: May own stock/shares in AbbVie, Employee of: Currently employed by AbbVie, Erin McDearmon-Blondell Shareholder of: May own stock/shares in AbbVie, Employee of: Currently employed by AbbVie, Aileen Pangan Shareholder of: May own stock/shares in AbbVie, Employee of: Currently employed by AbbVie, William Tillett Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, and Janssen

POS1049 EFFECT OF FILGOTINIB ON PASDAS: DRIVERS OF LOW AND VERY LOW ACTIVITY UP TO WEEK 100

Background:

EQUATOR (NCT03101670) was a Phase 2, double-blind, randomised placebo (PBO)- controlled trial of the preferential Janus kinase 1 inhibitor filgotinib (FIL) for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA); EQUATOR2 (NCT03320876) is the open-label extension (OLE).

Objectives:

This post-hoc analysis assessed the effect of FIL on individual Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) components; and the association between PASDAS disease activity (DA) levels and DA levels achieved for each PASDAS component and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) up to OLE Week (Wk) 100.

Methods:

In EQUATOR, patients with active moderate-to-severe PsA were randomised 1:1 to oral FIL 200 mg or PBO once daily (QD) for 16 wks.1 At Wk 16, patients could continue into the 304-wk OLE, in which all patients received FIL 200 mg QD. The proportions of patients with PASDAS of very low DA (VLDA; ≤1.9), LDA (>1.9–<3.2), moderate DA (MoDA; ≥3.2–<5.4), and high DA (HDA; ≥5.4) at core Wk 16 and OLE Wk 52 and 100 were assessed. The proportion with improved PASDAS status vs baseline (BL) at OLE Wk 52 and 100 was calculated. Percent change from BL in PASDAS components and PROs were assessed at core Wk 16 and OLE Wk 52 and 100 by PASDAS status (VLDA, LDA, other). Multivariate logistic regression analyses performed cross-sectionally identified PASDAS components and PROs associated with not achieving VLDA or LDA at core Wk 16 and OLE Wk 52 and 100; all analyses were observed cases.

Results:

At OLE Wk 52, LDA and VLDA were achieved by 27.5% and 16.8% of randomised patients, respectively (44.3% combined). At OLE Wk 100, LDA and VLDA were achieved by 26.0% and 17.6% of patients (43.6% combined; Figure 1). Of patients with HDA at BL, 69% improved to MoDA/LDA/VLDA, <4% remained in HDA and 27% did not reach Wk 100; of those in MoDA at BL, 63% improved to VLDA/LDA, 11% remained stable, <4% worsened and 22% did not reach Wk 100. Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGDA), Short Form-36 physical component scale (SF-36 PCS), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy, and Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index were found to be important components/PRO measures in achieving VLDA vs LDA (Table 1). Logistic regression indicated that factors associated with not achieving LDA at Wk 52 were PtGDA (odds ratio [OR]: 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07–1.35), physician GDA (PhGDA; OR: 1.58, 95% CI: 1.18–2.12), and SF-36 PCS (OR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.67–0.95); PtGDA was associated with not achieving VLDA (OR: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.15–1.47).

Conclusion:

The proportion of patients achieving PASDAS VLDA or LDA increased over time and remained stable between OLE Wk 52 and 100. Important factors in determining whether VLDA/LDA was met were PtGDA, PhGDA, and SF-36 PCS, although the low patient numbers is a limitation.

References:

[1]Mease P, et al. Lancet. 2018;392:2367–77

Table 1.

Mean % change from baseline in PASDAS components and PROs (observed cases)

Core Wk 16 (FIL + PBO groups combined)n=122OLE Wk 52n=110OLE Wk 100n=97VLDAn=8(7%)LDAn=22(18%)Othersn=92(75%)VLDAn=22(20%)LDAn=36(33%)Othersn=52(47%)VLDA n=23(24%)LDAn=34(35%)Othersn=40(41%)PhGDA−93−75−44−94−82−56−96−84−54PtGDA−87−69−13−86−58−24−90−57−13Tender joint count 68−94−80−42−99−84−64−98−87−61Swollen joint count 66−99−80−64−99−96−78−99−94−80LEI−100−86−32−96−100−78−100−99−78Dactylitis−100−100−73−100−100−97−100−100−98C-reactive protein−66−2217138*−32−25−12−1324SF-36 PCS53261133239472316FACIT1195032975134994636HAQ-DI−84−68−18−85−51−18−88−45−19PASI−84−66−29−54−59−56−49−76−42

Components or PRO measures in bold are those for which numerical differences between VLDA and LDA are greatest across timepoints

*Due to outlier (3784)

FACIT, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy; HAQ-DI, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index; LEI, Leeds Enthesitis Index; PASI, Psoriasis Area Severity Index; PhGDA, Physician Global Assessment of Disease Activity; PtGDA, Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity; SF-36 PCS, Short Form-36 physical component summary; (V)LDA, (very) low disease activity

Acknowledgements:

EQUATOR and EQUATOR2 were sponsored by Galapagos NV Mechelen, Belgium) and co-funded by Galapagos NV and Gilead Sciences, Inc (Foster City, CA, USA). Benjamin Pett and his team, employees of Galapagos, provided assistance with statistical analyses. Medical writing/editorial support was provided by Debbie Sherwood, BSc, CMPP (Aspire Scientific, Bollington, UK), and was funded by Galapagos NV.

Disclosure of Interests:

Laura C Coates Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer, Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN, and UCB, Philip Helliwell Paid instructor for: Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Filip van den Bosch Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Merck, and UCB, Mona Trivedi Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences, Amgen, Employee of: Gilead Sciences, Muhsen Alani Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences, Employee of: Gilead Sciences, Franck Olivier Le Brun Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Robin Besuyen Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Lien Gheyle Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Emilia Gvozdenovic Employee of: Galapagos, Dafna D Gladman Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB., Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

POS1038 THE EFFECT OF FILGOTINIB ON ENTHESITIS: 100-WEEK DATA FROM AN OPEN-LABEL EXTENSION STUDY IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS

Background:

Filgotinib (FIL), a novel preferential Janus kinase 1 inhibitor, was assessed in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in the 16-week, Phase 2, EQUATOR trial (NCT03101670).1 EQUATOR2 (NCT03320876) is the open-label extension (OLE). As previously reported, an interim analysis of the OLE showed that the majority of patients had clinical resolution of enthesitis by Week 52.2

Objectives:

This post-hoc analysis evaluated the effect of FIL on clinical enthesitis after 100 weeks of treatment in the OLE, as assessed using the Leeds Enthesitis Index (LEI) and Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) index, and evaluated the discriminatory capacity of the two indices. In addition, we assessed which of the sites included in LEI and SPARCC were most frequently involved and whether treatment effect was consistent across sites.

Methods:

In EQUATOR, patients with active moderate-to-severe PsA (≥5 swollen joints and ≥5 tender joints, fulfilling Classification for PsA criteria) were randomised 1:1 to receive oral FIL 200 mg or placebo (PBO) once daily (QD) for 16 weeks. At Week 16, all patients could continue into the OLE, receiving FIL 200 mg QD for up to an additional 304 weeks. We compared changes from core baseline in LEI and SPARCC measures, the effect on enthesitis at sites included in LEI and SPARCC assessments and the discriminatory capacity of both enthesitis indices.

Results:

Of 131 patients randomised to EQUATOR, 122 entered the OLE. There was strong agreement between LEI and SPARCC at baseline. While most patients had enthesitis at baseline according to either index (76/131 [58.0%] by LEI; 85/131 [64.9%] by SPARCC), a minority had enthesitis at a large number of sites (6.9% with 5–6 LEI sites; 12.2% with ≥9 SPARCC sites). The sites most frequently involved at baseline were the lateral epicondyle humerus and Achilles tendon, sites common to both LEI and SPARCC. There was greater variability in the change from baseline to Week 16 in SPARCC compared with LEI (Table 1). LEI showed a greater discriminatory capacity than SPARCC when change from baseline was compared for FIL vs PBO at Week 16, as shown by higher absolute standardised mean difference: −0.70 (LEI) and −0.30 (SPARCC) (observed cases; Table 1). Subgroup analyses indicated that the treatment effect of FIL vs PBO at Week 16 for all sites was consistent with the overall treatment effect seen for LEI or SPARCC, and indicative of an improvement with FIL vs PBO for nearly all sites. The proportion of patients with enthesitis decreased from baseline up to OLE Week 100 (Figure 1). There were no major differences in long-term effect on enthesitis between sites.

Conclusion:

FIL improved enthesitis consistently across sites compared with PBO. Rapid improvement in enthesitis was seen up to Week 16 of the core study and improvements continued up to Week 52, after which responses were generally stable up to Week 100. LEI assesses fewer locations than SPARCC, but reassuringly captured the sites most commonly affected by enthesitis; LEI also had greater discriminatory capacity.

References:

[1]Mease P, et al. Lancet 2018;392:2367–77

[2]Mease P, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2020;72(suppl 10): abstract 0910

Figure 1.

Acknowledgements:

EQUATOR and EQUATOR2 were sponsored by Galapagos NV (Mechelen, Belgium) and co-funded by Galapagos NV and Gilead Sciences, Inc (Foster City, CA, USA). Eline Vetters, Leen Gilles, Benjamin Pett and his team, all employees of Galapagos, provided assistance with statistical analyses. Medical writing/editorial support was provided by Debbie Sherwood, BSc, CMPP (Aspire Scientific, Bollington, UK), and funded by Galapagos NV.

Disclosure of Interests:

Philip Helliwell Speakers bureau: Janssen, Novartis, Paid instructor for: Pfizer, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Laura C Coates Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer, Filip van den Bosch Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Merck and UCB, Dafna D Gladman Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Lien Gheyle Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Mona Trivedi Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences, Amgen, Employee of: Gilead Sciences, Muhsen Alani Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences, Employee of: Gilead Sciences, Franck Olivier Le Brun Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Robin Besuyen Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN and UCB.

POS0923 INFLUENCE OF BASELINE DEMOGRAPHICS ON IMPROVEMENTS IN DISEASE ACTIVITY MEASURES IN PATIENTS WITH ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS RECEIVING UPADACITINIB: A POST HOC SUBGROUP ANALYSIS OF SELECT-AXIS 1

Background:

Upadacitinib (UPA), an oral Janus kinase inhibitor, has demonstrated efficacy and safety through 14 weeks in the SELECT-AXIS 1 study in biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-naïve patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS).1

Objectives:

To evaluate the efficacy of UPA 15 mg once daily (QD) in selected subgroups of patients with AS based on different baseline characteristics.

Methods:

In SELECT-AXIS 1, patients were randomized to 14 weeks of blinded treatment with UPA 15 mg QD or placebo (PBO). This post hoc analysis evaluated the proportions of patients achieving ≥40% improvement in Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society criteria (ASAS40), ≥50% improvement in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI50), and change from baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score with C-reactive protein (ASDAS[CRP]) at Week 14 across subgroups based on the following baseline patient characteristics: gender, age, body mass index, AS symptom duration, C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada Magnetic Resonance Imaging index, and human leukocyte antigen B27 status. For missing data, non-responder imputation analysis was used for ASAS40 and BASDAI50, and mixed model repeated measures analysis was used for ASDAS(CRP).

Results:

Baseline disease characteristics were balanced between the treatment groups at randomization, as previously reported.1 ASAS40 and BASDAI50 response rates at Week 14 were numerically higher with UPA 15 mg versus PBO across the demographic and disease characteristic subgroups evaluated (Figure 1), including some subgroups with small sample sizes, such as patients with disease duration <5 years and female patients. Improvements from baseline in ASDAS(CRP) were also consistently greater with UPA 15 mg versus PBO across the subgroups evaluated (Table 1).

Conclusion:

Within subgroups evaluated, most patients with active AS receiving UPA 15 mg demonstrated greater improvements versus PBO in disease activity measures assessed by ASAS40, BASDAI50, and change from baseline in ASDAS(CRP). There was some evidence that gender, AS symptom duration, and baseline CRP levels seemed to influence outcomes, though results should be interpreted with caution due to small sample sizes for some subgroups.

References:

[1]van der Heijde D, et al. Lancet 2019;394:2108–17.

Table 1.

PBO-corrected mean change from baseline (95% CI) in ASDAS(CRP) at Week 14 in patients receiving UPA 15 mg by baseline subgroups (MMRM)

nASDAS(CRP)SubgroupUPA15 mgPBOPBO-corrected mean change from baseline (95% CI)GenderMale5862–1.11 (–1.37, –0.84)Female2622–0.44 (–0.92, 0.03)Age<40 years2436–1.00 (–1.42, –0.58)40–<65 years5146–0.88 (–1.17, –0.59)Body mass index<25 kg/m23237–0.92 (–1.30, –0.55)≥25 kg/m25247–0.89 (–1.20, –0.59)AS symptom duration<5 years1617–0.90 (–1.46, –0.34)≥5 years6867–0.92 (–1.18, –0.66)Baseline hsCRP≤2.8 mg/L2319–0.59 (–1.02, –0.15)>2.8–<10 mg/L3934–0.59 (–0.95, –0.23)≥10 mg/L2231–1.64 (–2.01, –1.27)Inflammation based on SPARCC MRI scoresPositivea5657–0.98 (–1.27, –0.69)Negativeb2116–0.60 (–1.08, –0.12)HLA-B27 statusPositive6266–0.97 (–1.24, –0.71)Negative2017–0.73 (–1.28, –0.17)

aSpine SPARCC score ≥2 or sacroiliac joint SPARCC score ≥2. bSpine SPARCC score <2 and sacroiliac joint SPARCC score <2

ASDAS(CRP), Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score with C-reactive protein; CI, confidence interval; HLA-B27, human leukocyte antigen B27; hsCRP, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein; MMRM, mixed model repeated measures; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; PBO, placebo; SPARCC, Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada; UPA, upadacitinib

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 Laura Chalmers, PhD, of 2 the Nth (Cheshire, UK), and was funded by AbbVie.

Disclosure of Interests:

Filip van den Bosch Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Janssen, and UCB, Denis Poddubnyy Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Jayne Stigler Employee of: AbbVie employee and may own stock or options, Andrew Ostor Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Salvatore D’Angelo Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Victoria Navarro-Compán Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, In-Ho Song Employee of: AbbVie employee and may own stock or options, Tianming Gao Employee of: AbbVie employee and may own stock or options, Fabiana Ganz Employee of: AbbVie employee and may own stock or options, Lianne S. Gensler Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Pfizer and UCB

POS1037 CORRELATION BETWEEN SKIN INVOLVEMENT, JOINT INVOLVEMENT AND ENTHESITIS IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: POST-HOC ANALYSIS OF EQUATOR/EQUATOR2

Background:

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a heterogeneous, inflammatory disease involving multiple clinical domains including arthritis/synovitis, enthesitis, dactylitis, spondylitis and psoriasis. Effects on each domain should be assessed to determine the overall quality of treatment. Filgotinib (FIL) is a novel preferential Janus kinase 1 inhibitor that is in development for inflammatory conditions including PsA. EQUATOR (NCT03101670) was a 16-week, Phase 2, double-blind, randomised, placebo (PBO)-controlled trial of FIL for patients with active PsA.1 EQUATOR2 (NCT03320876) is an open-label extension (OLE) of the study.

Objectives:

This post-hoc analysis of EQUATOR and EQUATOR2 assessed the patient-level correlation between changes over time in the three PsA clinical disease domains of skin, joint and enthesitis in patients treated with FIL.

Methods:

In EQUATOR, patients with active moderate-to-severe PsA (≥5 swollen joints and ≥5 tender joints, fulfilling Classification for PsA criteria) were randomised 1:1 to receive oral FIL 200 mg or PBO once daily (QD) for 16 weeks. At Week 16, patients could continue into the 304-week OLE, with all patients receiving FIL 200 mg QD regardless of previous treatment in EQUATOR. This post-hoc analysis was limited to patients with skin involvement (≥3% body surface area), joint involvement and enthesitis at baseline, with changes from baseline in the three domains assessed using the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI), swollen/tender joint count (S/TJC), and the Leeds Enthesitis Index (LEI) and Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) index, respectively. Analyses that used LEI as the enthesitis index to assess change from baseline included patients with LEI score ≥1 at baseline; those using SPARCC included patients with SPARCC score ≥1 at baseline.

Results:

The EQUATOR study enrolled 131 patients and 122 patients continued into the EQUATOR2 OLE. Of the 131 patients enrolled in EQUATOR, 49 and 56 patients had PsA involving all three domains at core study baseline when enthesitis was assessed using LEI and SPARCC index, respectively. Pooled data for all patients receiving FIL during the OLE indicate that improvements from baseline in the clinical domains continued with long-term treatment, with 22/42 (52%) and 23/38 (61%) patients having both SJC66 and LEI resolution at Weeks 52 and 100, respectively. For the 22 patients with both SJC and LEI resolution at Week 52, the mean percent change from baseline for PASI was –64%; for the 23 patients with both SJC and LEI resolution at Week 100, the mean percent change from baseline for PASI was –60%. The Figure 1 shows correlation between SJC, LEI and PASI at Week 100. A relationship between the three clinical domains was observed at the individual level; within a single patient, an improvement in one domain was generally followed by improvements in the other two domains. With regard to the sequence in which changes were observed, joints improved first, followed by improvements in the skin and enthesitis. There were no notable differences between changes in LEI and SPARCC enthesitis index in terms of their correlation with improvements in joint and skin involvement. Similarly, there were no notable differences in correlation between the three domains when joints were assessed using TJC rather than SJC.

Conclusion:

Patients with improvements in skin, joints or enthesitis following treatment with FIL generally also had improvements in the other clinical domains of PsA. The joints were found to be the first of the three domains to improve.

References:

[1]Mease P et al. Lancet 2018;392:2367–77

Acknowledgements:

EQUATOR and EQUATOR2 were sponsored by Galapagos NV (Mechelen, Belgium) and co-funded by Galapagos NV and Gilead Sciences, Inc (Foster City, CA, USA). Medical writing/editorial support was provided by Debbie Sherwood, BSc, CMPP (Aspire Scientific, Bollington, UK), funded by Galapagos NV.

Disclosure of Interests:

Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN and UCB, Laura C Coates Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer, Filip van den Bosch Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Merck and UCB, Dafna D Gladman Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Lien Gheyle Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Mona Trivedi Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences, Amgen, Employee of: Gilead Sciences, Muhsen Alani Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences, Employee of: Gilead Sciences, Eline Vetters Employee of: Galapagos, Franck Olivier Le Brun Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Robin Besuyen Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Philip Helliwell Speakers bureau: Janssen and Novartis, Paid instructor for: Pfizer, Consultant of: Eli Lilly.

POS0895 EFFECT OF TOFACITINIB ON PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS: RESULTS FROM A PHASE 3 TRIAL

Background:

Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) can significantly impact quality of life. Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor under investigation for the treatment of adult patients (pts) with AS. The safety/efficacy (including pt-reported outcomes [PROs]) of tofacitinib in pts with AS was assessed in a Phase 3 trial (NCT03502616).1

Objectives:

To evaluate the effect of tofacitinib on pt-reported pain, fatigue, overall health and work productivity in pts with active AS enrolled in the Phase 3 trial.

Methods:

Pts with an inadequate clinical response or intolerance to ≥2 oral NSAIDs were randomised in a double-blind fashion to tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID) or placebo (PBO) for 16 weeks. At Week (W)16, all pts received open-label tofacitinib 5 mg BID up to W48. Least squares (LS) mean changes from baseline (Δ) up to W48 are reported for the following outcomes: pt assessment of nocturnal spinal pain, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Short Form-36 Health Survey version 2 (SF-36v2; W16 and W48 only), and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI; W16 and W48 only).

Results:

At W16, there were greater improvements from baseline in pain (total back pain [previously published1] and nocturnal spinal pain) and fatigue (FACIT-F total score; experience and impact domain scores) with tofacitinib vs PBO (p≤0.05; Table 1); improvements were observed as early as W2. Also, improvements in SF-36v2 physical component summary (PCS) (Table 1), and physical functioning, role-physical, bodily pain, general health and social functioning domains (Figure 1) were greater with tofacitinib vs PBO at W16 (p≤0.05). Similarly, improvements in WPAI scores at W16 were greater with tofacitinib vs PBO (p≤0.05), except for % work time missed (Table 1). Improvements with tofacitinib continued up to W48 (Table 1/Figure 1). Generally, pts receiving PBO who advanced to tofacitinib at W16 reported similar improvements after switching to tofacitinib (Table 1/Figure 1).

Table 1.

PROs at baseline and Δ at W16 and W48

Baseline,mean (SD) [N1]Δ, W16,LS mean (SE)Δ, W48,LS mean (SE)Tofacitinib5 mg BID (N=133)PBO(N=136)Tofacitinib5 mg BIDPBOp valueTofacitinib5 mg BIDPBO→tofacitinib5 mg BIDNocturnalspinal paina6.8 (1.9)6.8 (1.9)-2.67 (0.20)-0.84 (0.20)<0.0001-3.52 (0.23)-3.01 (0.23)FACIT-Ftotal scorea,b27.2 (10.7)27.4 (9.3)6.54 (0.80)3.12 (0.79)0.00089.54 (0.90)7.35 (0.89)FACIT-F experience domaina8.9 (4.3)8.7 (4.0)2.85 (0.36)1.29 (0.36)0.00074.22 (0.40)3.40 (0.40)FACIT-Fimpactdomaina18.3 (6.9)18.8 (5.9)3.68 (0.49)1.81 (0.49)0.00285.32 (0.54)3.95 (0.54)SF-36v2 PCSb,c33.5 (7.3)33.1 (7.0) [135]6.69 (0.59)3.14 (0.59)<0.00018.81 (0.720)7.39 (0.71)SF-36v2 MCSc39.4 (11.1)39.8 (12.7) [135]3.45 (0.91)2.13 (0.92)0.25297.07 (0.93)6.35 (0.92)WPAIc% activity impairment56.5 (23.4)56.0 (21.4)-19.03 (1.97)-5.63 (1.97)<0.0001-27.37 (2.34)-19.77 (2.31)% work time missed9.9 (22.4) [81]11.5 (24.6) [88]-3.65 (2.66)0.88 (2.62)0.1784-8.10 (2.14)-5.79 (2.05)% impairment while working48.4 (26.3) [79]49.6 (22.2) [85]-19.83 (2.27)-6.94 (2.30)<0.0001-25.35 (2.77)-23.00 (2.66)% overall work impairment50.8 (27.4) [79]53.5 (23.1) [85]-21.49 (2.51)-7.64 (2.56)<0.0001-27.63 (3.01)-23.22 (2.90)

aMMRM

bGlobal type I error-controlled endpoint

cAnalysis of covariance model for W16 and MMRM for W48

MCS, mental component summary; MMRM, Mixed Model for Repeated Measures; N, number of pts in full analysis set; N1, number of pts included in the analysis (if different from N); SD, standard deviation; SE, standard error

Conclusion:

In pts with active AS, improvements in spinal pain, fatigue, overall health and work productivity were greater with tofacitinib vs PBO at W16; improvements continued up to W48. These PRO findings support the primary efficacy results of this Phase 3 trial,1 and add to the overall understanding of the benefit/risk profile of tofacitinib in patients with AS.

References:

[1]Deodhar et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2020; 72 (S10): Abs L11.

Acknowledgements:

Study sponsored by Pfizer Inc. Medical writing support was provided by Emma Mitchell, CMC Connect, and funded by Pfizer Inc.

Disclosure of Interests:

Victoria Navarro-Compán Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis, James Cheng-Chung Wei Speakers bureau: Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Filip van den Bosch Shareholder of: AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Marina Magrey: None declared, Lisy Wang Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Dona Fleishaker Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Joseph C Cappelleri Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Cunshan Wang Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Joseph Wu Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Oluwaseyi Dina Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Lara Fallon Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Vibeke Strand Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Corrona, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, GSK, Ichnos, Inmedix, Janssen, Kiniksa, Merck, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Regeneron, Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi, Scipher, SetPoint Medical, UCB

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

Background:

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

Objectives:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusion:

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

References:

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgements:

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

Disclosure of Interests:

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

POS0197 RESPONSIVENESS OF ULTRASOUND SYNOVITIS AND CLINICAL OUTCOMES IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS TREATED WITH SECUKINUMAB: DATA FROM THE ULTIMATE TRIAL

Background:

Power Doppler ultrasonography is a sensitive imaging tool to assess synovitis in psoriatic arthritis (PsA).1,2 ULTIMATE (NCT02662985) is the first large, randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled phase IIIb study in PsA, using ultrasound to evaluate early response to secukinumab on synovitis. The use of the standardised and reliable global EULAR-OMERACT composite ultrasound synovitis score at patient level (GLOESS) as the primary endpoint showed the early and significant benefit of secukinumab vs. placebo on synovitis at week 12.3

Objectives:

To investigate the responsiveness and discriminative validity of GLOESS compared to clinical outcomes on joints at week 12 and report ultrasound and clinical efficacy data up to week 24.

Methods:

This is a 52-week study with a 12-week double-blind, placebo-controlled period followed by 12-week open-label (OL) and 6-month OL extension. All placebo patients were switched to secukinumab (300 or 150 mg) at week 12.3 Discriminative validity of GLOESS was analysed post-hoc: within-group responsiveness was assessed by comparing its standardised response mean (SRM) to that of core set of ACR response in the initial secukinumab group over 12 and 24 weeks. Mean change from baseline up to week 12 of GLOESS was determined with mixed-effect model repeated measures analysis (MMRM) and from week 12-24 as observed. 24 week efficacy outcomes included ACR responses, HAQ-DI, PASI response and resolution of dactylitis. These outcomes were exploratory and reported either according to non-responder imputation (ACR response), or as observed (HAQ-DI, PASI response and resolution of dactylitis).

Results:

Of 166 patients enrolled, a total of 155 patients (93%) completed 24 weeks of treatment (secukinumab, 79 patients 95%; placebo, 76 patients 92%). Mean change from baseline to week 24 in GLOESS was similar in the initial secukinumab and placebo-secukinumab groups. A continued improvement in GLOESS was observed in the secukinumab group, with catch-up improvement in the placebo group after switch to active therapy (Figure 1). Both SRM of GLOESS and ACR core components over 12 and 24 weeks were high (Table 1). Similar clinical response rates were reported for clinical joint count, skin, dactylitis and function at week 24 in secukinumab and placebo switchers groups (Table 1).

Conclusion:

These analyses highlight the responsiveness and high discriminative validity of GLOESS in PsA, resembling that of key clinical PsA manifestations and physical function.

References:

[1]D’Agostino MA and Coates LC. J Rheumatol. 2019;46:337–9.

[2]Uson J, et al. Rheumatol Clin. 2018;14:27–35.

[3]D’Agostino MA, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72 (suppl 10).

Figure 1.

Mean change from baseline in GLOESS by treatment through Week 24

Table 1.

Responsiveness of GLOESS - analysed by standardised response mean and efficacy outcomes at week 24

Standardised response mean(Initial secukinumab)Efficacy of secukinumabWeek0–12(N = 83)Week0–24(N = 83)Responders(%)Secukinumabweek 0–24(N = 83)Placebo switchersweek 12–24(N = 83)GLOESS1.051.06ACR208774Tender joint count1.031.35ACR506449Swollen joint count0.911.18ACR703423Patient global assessment of disease activity1.371.55HAQ-DI*8063Physician global assessment of disease activity1.592.39PASI 75†7259Pain1.321.53PASI 90†6245HAQ-DI score1.321.32Resolutionof dactylitis (LDI=0)6759

*HAQ-DI response is defined as an improvement of at least 0.35 score points compared to baseline (change ≤ −0.35)

†N value for PASI response in secukinumab and placebo groups are 36 and 33; respectively. PASI response was calculated for patients with BSA ≥ 3 %.

BSA, Body Surface Area; LDI, Leeds Dactylitis Index

Disclosure of Interests:

Maarten Boers Consultant of: BMS, Novartis, Pfizer, GSK, Philip G Conaghan Speakers bureau: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Novartis and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Novartis and Pfizer, Georg Schett Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche and UCB, Peter Mandl Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Roche and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Roche and UCB, Esperanza Naredo Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Roche, BMS, Pfizer, UCB, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, and Celgene, Consultant of: AbbVie, Novartis and BMS, Grant/research support from: Eli Lilly, Filip van den Bosch Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Ruben Burgos-Vargas: None declared, Anne-Marie Duggan Employee of: Novartis, Punit Goyanka Employee of: Novartis, Corine Gaillez Shareholder of: Novartis and BMS, Employee of: Novartis, Maria-Antonietta D’Agostino Speakers bureau: Sanofi, Novartis, BMS, Janssen, Celgene, Roche, AbbVie, UCB, and Eli Lilly, Consultant of: Sanofi, Novartis, BMS, Janssen, Celgene, Roche, AbbVie, UCB, and Eli Lilly

OP0144 EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF UPADACITINIB IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS: 1-YEAR RESULTS FROM A RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE-BLIND, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED STUDY WITH OPEN-LABEL EXTENSION

Background:

Upadacitinib (UPA) was efficacious and well tolerated vs placebo (PBO) during the first 14 weeks (wks) of the phase 2/3 SELECT-AXIS 1 study in patients (pts) with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS) who had an inadequate response to NSAIDs.1

Objectives:

To report efficacy and safety of UPA through 1 year in the SELECT-AXIS 1 study.

Methods:

In SELECT-AXIS 1 (NCT03178487) pts were randomized 1:1 to UPA 15 mg once daily (QD) or PBO; at wk 14, pts continued in the 90-wk open-label extension and received UPA 15 mg QD; reported here are data up to wk 64. The study enrolled pts (≥18 y) with active AS (defined as BASDAI ≥4 and pt assessment of back pain ≥4 [numeric rating scale, 0–10] at screening and baseline [BL]) who had inadequate response to ≥2 NSAIDs or intolerance to or contraindication for NSAIDs and were biologic DMARD naive. Efficacy assessments included percentage of pts with Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) 20/40 response, ASAS partial remission, BASDAI50, AS Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) and change from BL in ASDAS and BASFI. Data are reported as observed and by using non-responder imputation (NRI). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported as events per 100 patient-years (PY) up to January 31, 2020.

Results:

Of 187 pts, 178 pts (each n=89 for UPA and PBO arms) completed wk 14 on study drug and entered the open-label extension; 160 pts completed wk 64. Efficacy was maintained or continued to improve throughout the study in the continuous UPA group: 85% (95% CI, 77%–93%) of pts achieved ASAS40 at wk 64 in the as-observed analysis and 72% (63%–81%) in the NRI analysis (Figure). Pts who switched from PBO to UPA at wk 14 showed similar speed of onset and magnitude of response vs pts initially randomized to UPA: 81% (95% CI, 72%–89%) in the as-observed analysis and 70% (61%–80%) in the NRI analysis achieved ASAS40 at wk 64 (Figure). Similar results were observed for other efficacy endpoints (Figure). Among all 182 pts receiving UPA, 618 AEs were reported. AEs leading to discontinuation and serious AEs were low (Table). No serious infections, active tuberculosis, venous thromboembolic events, gastrointestinal perforation, major adverse cardiovascular events, renal dysfunction, or deaths were reported.

Table 1.

TEAEs per 100 PYs

Events/(E/100 PY)UPA 15 mg QDN=182 (237.6 PY)Any AE618 (260.1)Serious AE14 (5.9)AE leading to discontinuation15 (6.3)Infections205 (86.3) Opportunistic infection*2 (0.8) Herpes zoster†5 (2.1)Creatine phosphokinase elevation‡28 (11.8)Hepatic disorder§24 (10.1)Neutropenia||7 (2.9)Anemia||3 (1.3)Lymphopenia||2 (0.8)Malignancy¶1 (0.4)Death0

AE, adverse event; PY, patient-year; QD, once daily; TEAE, treatment-emergent AE; UPA, upadacitinib.

*Two non-serious events of esophageal candidiasis in the same patient.

†Five events in 4 patients; all non-serious and limited to 1 dermatome.

‡All events were non-serious and none led to study drug discontinuation; majority were asymptomatic.

§Majority based on asymptomatic alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase elevations; all were non-serious and none led to study drug discontinuation.

||All events were non-serious and none led to study drug discontinuation.

¶Squamous cell carcinoma of tongue in 61-year-old male former smoker; no reasonable possibility to be study drug related per investigator.

Conclusion:

UPA 15 mg QD showed sustained and consistent efficacy over 1 year. Pts who switched from placebo to UPA at wk 14 showed a similar efficacy response compared with pts who received continuous UPA. No new safety findings were observed compared with safety data from the UPA clinical development program in other indications.2

References:

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

[2]Cohen, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10).

Acknowledgements:

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

Disclosure of Interests:

Atul Deodhar Speakers bureau: Novartis, Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Cyxone, Eisai, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Joachim Sieper Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, and Novartis, Consultant of: AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, and Novartis, Filip van den Bosch Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Walter P Maksymowych Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis and Pfizer, Tae-Hwan Kim Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celltrion, Kirin, Lilly, and Novartis, Mitsumasa Kishimoto Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen-Astellas BioPharma, Asahi-Kasei Pharma, Astellas, Ayumi Pharma, BMS, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Pfizer, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, Teijin Pharma, and UCB Pharma, Andrew Ostor Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Roche, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Gilead, and Paradigm, Bernard Combe Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Lilly, Merck, Consultant of: AbbVie, Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Roche-Chugai, and Sanofi, Grant/research support from: AbbVie and Lilly, Yunxia Sui Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, xin wang Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Alvina Chu Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, In-Ho Song Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie

OP0228 EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF RISANKIZUMAB FOR ACTIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS, INCLUDING PATIENTS WITH INADEQUATE RESPONSE OR INTOLERANCE TO BIOLOGIC THERAPIES: 24-WEEK RESULTS FROM THE PHASE 3, RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE-BLIND, KEEPSAKE 2 TRIAL

Background:

Risankizumab (RZB) is a humanized immunoglobin G1 monoclonal antibody that specifically inhibits interleukin 23 by binding its p19 subunit. RZB is being investigated as a treatment for adults with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Objectives:

To compare the efficacy and safety of RZB vs placebo (PBO) for the treatment of active PsA in patients who have had inadequate response or intolerance to 1 or 2 biologic therapies (Bio-IR) or to ≥ 1 conventional synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD-IR).

Methods:

KEEPsAKE 2 (NCT03671148) enrolled adults with active PsA (≥ 5 swollen joints [SJC] and ≥ 5 tender joints [TJC]) who were Bio-IR or csDMARD-IR. Patients were randomized to receive blinded subcutaneous RZB 150 mg or PBO at weeks 0, 4, and 16. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving ≥ 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology score (ACR20) at week 24. Ranked secondary endpoints and other secondary endpoints are shown in the Table. Safety was assessed throughout the study. Results reported here are from the 24-week double-blind period; the open-label period with all patients receiving RZB is ongoing.

Results:

A total of 443 patients (RZB, N = 224; PBO, N = 219) were included in the analysis. Demographics and baseline disease characteristics were similar across treatment arms (mean SJC: 13.3; mean TJC: 22.6; mean duration of PsA: 8.2 years; mean body surface area involved with psoriasis [BSA] in patients with BSA ≥ 3%: 12.1%); 206 patients (46.5%) were Bio-IR. Significantly greater proportions of RZB-treated patients vs PBO-treated patients achieved the primary endpoint (51.3% vs 26.5%, respectively; P < .001) and all ranked secondary endpoints (P < .001 for all except for Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue [FACIT-Fatigue; P < .009]; Table). Other secondary outcomes also showed improvement for RZB- vs PBO-treated patients (Table). Serious adverse events were reported for 4.0% and 5.5% of RZB- and PBO-treated patients, respectively; serious infections were reported for 0.9% and 2.3%.

Conclusion:

RZB resulted in significantly greater improvements in signs and symptoms of PsA compared with PBO and was well tolerated in patients who were Bio-IR or csDMARD-IR.

Disclosure of Interests:

Andrew Ostor Speakers bureau: AÖ has received speaker or consulting fees and/or research grants from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB., Consultant of: AÖ has received speaker or consulting fees and/or research grants from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB., Grant/research support from: AÖ has received speaker or consulting fees and/or research grants from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB., Filip van den Bosch Speakers bureau: FVdB has received speaker and/or consulting fees from Abbvie, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB., Consultant of: FVdB has received speaker and/or consulting fees from Abbvie, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB., Kim Papp Speakers bureau: KP has received honoraria or fees for serving on advisory boards, as a speaker, and as a consultant, as well as grants as principal investigator from AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, Bausch Health (Valeant), Baxalta, Baxter, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Coherus, Dermira, EMD Serono, Forward Pharma, Galderma, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Lilly, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Stiefel, Sun Pharma, Takeda, and UCB., Consultant of: KP has received honoraria or fees for serving on advisory boards, as a speaker, and as a consultant, as well as grants as principal investigator from AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, Bausch Health (Valeant), Baxalta, Baxter, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Coherus, Dermira, EMD Serono, Forward Pharma, Galderma, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Lilly, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Stiefel, Sun Pharma, Takeda, and UCB., Grant/research support from: KP has received honoraria or fees for serving on advisory boards, as a speaker, and as a consultant, as well as grants as principal investigator from AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, Bausch Health (Valeant), Baxalta, Baxter, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Coherus, Dermira, EMD Serono, Forward Pharma, Galderma, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Lilly, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Stiefel, Sun Pharma, Takeda, and UCB., CECILIA ASNAL Speakers bureau: CA has received honoraria or fees for serving on advisory boards or as a speaker, as well as research support from AbbVie, Genentech, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, and Roche., Grant/research support from: CA has received honoraria or fees for serving on advisory boards or as a speaker, as well as research support from AbbVie, Genentech, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, and Roche., Ricardo Blanco Speakers bureau: RB has received grants or research support from AbbVie, Merck, and Roche; and has received consultation fees or honoraria for serving as a speaker for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, and Roche., Consultant of: RB has received grants or research support from AbbVie, Merck, and Roche; and has received consultation fees or honoraria for serving as a speaker for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, and Roche., Grant/research support from: RB has received grants or research support from AbbVie, Merck, and Roche; and has received consultation fees or honoraria for serving as a speaker for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, and Roche., Jacob Aelion Grant/research support from: JA has received grants or research support from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Galapagos/Gilead, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Mallinckrodt, Nektar Therapeutics, Nichi-Iko, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Selecta Biosciences, and UCB., Gabriela Alperovich Shareholder of: GA is a full-time employee of AbbVie, and may hold AbbVie stock or stock options., Employee of: GA is a full-time employee of AbbVie, and may hold AbbVie stock or stock options., Ying Zhang Shareholder of: YZ is a former AbbVie employee, and may hold AbbVie stock or stock options., Employee of: YZ is a former AbbVie employee, and may hold AbbVie stock or stock options., Zailong Wang Shareholder of: ZW is a full-time employee of AbbVie, and may hold AbbVie stock or stock options., Employee of: ZW is a full-time employee of AbbVie, and may hold AbbVie stock or stock options., Ahmed M. Soliman Shareholder of: AS is a full-time employee of AbbVie, and may hold AbbVie stock or stock options., Employee of: AS is a full-time employee of AbbVie, and may hold AbbVie stock or stock options., Ann Eldred Shareholder of: AE is a full-time employee of AbbVie, and may hold AbbVie stock or stock options., Employee of: AE is a full-time employee of AbbVie, and may hold AbbVie stock or stock options., Alan Kivitz Shareholder of: AK is a shareholder of or has received honoraria or fees as a consultant, speaker, or expert witness for AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Flexion, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Sun Pharma, and UCB., Speakers bureau: AK is a shareholder of or has received honoraria or fees as a consultant, speaker, or expert witness for AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Flexion, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Sun Pharma, and UCB., Consultant of: AK is a shareholder of or has received honoraria or fees as a consultant, speaker, or expert witness for AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Flexion, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Sun Pharma, and UCB.

THU0370 CLUSTER-RANDOMIZED PRAGMATIC CLINICAL TRIAL EVALUATING THE POTENTIAL BENEFIT OF A TIGHT-CONTROL AND TREAT-TO-TARGET STRATEGY IN AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS: THE RESULTS OF THE TICOSPA TRIAL

Background:

Current recommendations for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) management include tight control and treat-to-target (TC) strategies, but no study has evaluated its potential benefit

Objectives:

To evaluate the benefit of TC strategies in comparison to usual care (UC) in patients with axSpA.

Methods:

Study design:Pragmatic, prospective, cluster-randomized controlled (2 arms), one-year trial (NCT03043846).Centers: 18 axSpA expert centers randomly allocated (1:1) to the treatment arm: TC vs. UC.Patients: axSpA diagnosis and ASAS criteria, non-optimally treated with NSAIDs, bDMARD-naïve, and ASDAS > 2.1 at inclusion.Study treatment:a) TC arm: the strategy was pre-specified by the scientific committee based on current axSpA recommendations and aiming at a target (ASDAS <2.1); visits every 4w;b) UC arm:treatment decisions were at the rheumatologist’s discretion with visits every 12w.Outcomes:the % of patients with a significant (>30%) improvement in the ASAS-HI score over one-year follow-up was the main outcome. Other outcomes (disease activity, quality of life, treatment, …) over follow-up were evaluated (Table 1). The number/type of adverse events were collected.Statistical analysis: this was an intention-to-treat analysis. To take into account the cluster-randomization design, for all outcomes, two models were performed: first a two-level mixed model with 2 random effects was used to estimate the % of responders/the change of the outcome over follow-up (i.e. mod1); in a second step, the imbalanced variables observed at baseline were included in the model (i.e.mod2). Cost-effectiveness was assessed by estimating the (baseline- and cluster-adjusted) incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for TC vs. UC.

Estimated outcomes at week 48Cluster-adjusted (mod1)Cluster and imbalance-adjusted (mod2)TCUCASDAS LDA*76.5%59.5%<0.010.03ASDAS ID25.9%18.7%--ASDAS CII61.2%46.0%<0.010.02ASDAS MI16.5%14.9%--ASAS4052.3%34.7%<0.010.01ASAS2094.9%85.9%<0.010.03BASDAI 5079.0%43.8%0.010.03Physician Global (0-10)2.0 (0.2)1.8 (0.2)--CRP (mg/L)3.9(1.4)3.5 (1.5)--BASG (0-10)2.6 (0.5)3.4 (0.5)0.09-BASFI (0-10)1.7(0.5)2.4 (0.5)--ASAS HI SMD47.3%36.1%--EQ5D0.7(0.1)0.8(0.1)0.02-ASAS-NSAID score1.5(2.2)- 4.9 (2.9)--

Results:

160 patients were included (80 in TC and 80 in UC). Mean age was 37.9(11.0) years with a disease duration of 3.7(6.2) years, 51.2% were males. A radiographic damage of the SI-joints, a (ever) positive MRI sacroiliitis and HLA-B27+ were seen in 46.9%, 81.9% and 75.0% patients respectively. Mean ASDAS at inclusion was 3.0 (0.7) and mean ASASHI was 8.6 (3.7). 72 patients per group attended the one-year visit. Although 47.3% vs. 36.1% patients in the TC and UC arms achieved a significant improvement in ASASHI at the one-year visit, the difference was not statistically significant, with either model. Across all other outcomes a trend was observed in favor of the TC arm (Table 1). The number of bDMARDs was significantly higher in TC arm (56.2% vs. 27.2%). The number of infections was comparable in both groups (15 vs. 16 in the TC and UC, respectively), with only 2 severe infections occurring in the UC arm. From a societal perspective, TC resulted in an additional 0.04 QALY and saved €265 when compared to UC and a 67% probability of being cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of €20,000 per QALY.

Conclusion:

In this setting of SpA expert centers, UC resulted in a good outcome in a substantial number of patients but the TC was not superior for the primary outcome despite a greater number of bDMARDs prescription. Nevertheless, a general trend in favor of the tight control was observed, with a comparable safety profile and was found to be favorable from a societal health economic perspective.

Acknowledgments:

this trial has been conducted thanks to an unrestricted grant from UCB

Disclosure of Interests:

Anna Moltó Grant/research support from: Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Clementina López-Medina: None declared, Filip van den Bosch Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Annelies Boonen Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Consultant of: Galapagos, Lilly (all paid to the department), Casper Webers: None declared, Emmanuelle Dernis Speakers bureau: Lilly, Novartis, Floris A. van Gaalen: None declared, Martin SOUBRIER: None declared, Pascal Claudepierre Speakers bureau: Janssen, Novartis, Lilly, Athan Baillet Consultant of: Athan BAILLET has received honorarium fees from Abbvie for his participation as the coordinator of the systematic literature review, Mirian Starmans-Kool: None declared, Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cyxone, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB Pharma; Director of Imaging Rheumatology BV, Maxime Dougados Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma

OP0223 EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF UPADACITINIB IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS AND INADEQUATE RESPONSE TO BIOLOGIC DISEASE-MODIFYING ANTI-RHEUMATIC DRUGS (SELECT-PSA-2): A DOUBLE-BLIND, RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED PHASE 3 TRIAL

Background:

Upadacitinib (UPA) is an oral, reversible, JAK inhibitor approved for treatment of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and currently under evaluation for treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Objectives:

To assess the efficacy and safety of UPA versus placebo (PBO) in patients (pts) with PsA and prior inadequate response or intolerance to ≥1 biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (bDMARD).

Methods:

In SELECT-PsA-2, pts were randomized 1:1:1 to once daily UPA 15 mg (UPA15), UPA 30 mg (UPA30), or PBO. Pts were stratified by baseline DMARD use, number of prior failed bDMARDs, and extent of psoriasis. The primary endpoint was the proportion of pts achieving ACR20 response at Wk 12. Multiplicity controlled secondary endpoints included change in HAQ-DI, FACIT-Fatigue (FACIT-F), and SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) at Wk 12; static Investigator Global Assessment (sIGA) of Psoriasis of 0 or 1 and at least a 2-point improvement from baseline, PASI75, and change in Self-Assessment of Psoriasis Symptoms (SAPS) at Wk 16; and proportion of pts achieving MDA at Wk 24. Additional key secondary endpoints were ACR50 and ACR70 at Wk 12, and ACR20 at Wk 2. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) are reported for pts who received ≥1 dose of study drug.

Results:

641 pts were randomized and received study drug; 54.3% were female with mean age of 53.4 years, and mean duration since PsA diagnosis of 10.1 years. 61% of pts failed 1 bDMARD, 18% failed 2 bDMARDs, and 13% failed ≥3 bDMARDs. 543 (84.6%) pts completed Wk 24 study drug.

At Wk 12, a significantly greater proportion of pts receiving UPA15 and UPA30 vs PBO achieved ACR20 (56.9% and 63.8% vs 24.1%; p < .0001 for both comparisons). Statistically significant improvements were observed in the UPA15 and UPA30 arms vs PBO in all multiplicity controlled secondary endpoints, including ΔHAQ-DI (PBO, -0.10; UPA15, -0.30; UPA30, -0.41), ΔSF-36 PCS (PBO, 1.6; UPA15, 5.2; UPA30, 7.1), ΔFACIT-F (PBO, 1.3; UPA15, 5.0; UPA30, 6.1), and ΔSAPS (PBO, -1.5; UPA15, -24.4; UPA30, -29.7; p < .0001 for all endpoints;Figure 1). In addition, a greater proportion of pts achieved ACR50 and ACR70 at Wk 12 with UPA vs PBO. Generally, TEAEs were reported at similar frequencies in the PBO and UPA15 arms and at a higher frequency in the UPA30 arm (Figure 2). Numerically higher rates of serious AEs were reported in the UPA arms. Herpes zoster was more frequent with UPA30. Three malignancies occurred in each of the UPA arms. One adjudicated non-fatal myocardial infarction and one adjudicated pulmonary embolism were reported with UPA15.

Conclusion:

In this bDMARD-IR PsA population, UPA15 and UPA30 demonstrated significant improvements across PsA domains including improvements in joint and skin signs and symptoms vs PBO through Wk 24 with improvement observed by Wk 2. A greater percentage of pts treated with UPA achieved MDA and ACR50/70, stringent composite measures of disease control. No new safety signals were identified compared to what has been observed with UPA in RA.

Disclosure of Interests:

Mark C. Genovese Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Eli Lilly and Company, EMD Merck Serono, Galapagos, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Inc., GSK, Novartis, Pfizer Inc., RPharm, Sanofi Genzyme, Consultant of: Abbvie, Eli Lilly and Company, EMD Merck Serono, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Inc., GSK, Novartis, RPharm, Sanofi Genzyme, Apinya Lertratanakul Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Jaclyn Anderson Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Kim Papp Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, Baxalta, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Centocor, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Kyowa-Hakko Kirin, Leo Pharma, MedImmune, Merck-Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Stiefel, Takeda, UCB, and Valeant., Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, Baxalta, Baxter, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Centocor, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Forward Pharma, Galderma, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Kyowa-Hakko Kirin, Leo Pharma, MedImmune, Merck-Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Stiefel, Sun Pharma, Takeda, UCB, and Valeant, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, Baxalta, Baxter, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Centocor, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Forward Pharma, Galderma, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Kyowa-Hakko Kirin, Leo Pharma, MedImmune, Merck-Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Stiefel, Sun Pharma, Takeda, UCB, and Valeant, William Tillett Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Filip van den Bosch Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Shigeyoshi Tsuji Grant/research support from: Eli Lilly, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Asahi Kasei, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Eisai, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Celgene, and Novartis Pharma K.K., Eva Dokoupilova Grant/research support from: Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Novartis, MAURO KEISERMAN Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Abbott, Actelion, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Janssen and has received clinical trial honoraria from Pfizer, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Anthera Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Biogen Idec Inc, Celltrion Inc., Eli Lilly, Human Genome Sciences, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, UCB Inc., xin wang Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Sheng Zhong Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Patrick Zueger Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Aileen Pangan Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Philip J Mease Grant/research support from: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB – grant/research support, Consultant of: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB – consultant, Speakers bureau: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB – speakers bureau

FRI0345 HEAD-TO-HEAD STUDY EVALUATING THE COMBINED ACR50/PASI100 TREATMENT RESPONSE OF IXEKIZUMAB VERSUS ADALIMUMAB: INDIVIDUAL PATIENT DATA FROM A RANDOMIZED, OPEN-LABEL STUDY IN BIOLOGIC-NAÏVE PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS THROUGH WEEK 52

Background:

Multiple biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) are available for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), but there are few direct comparisons of their efficacy and safety. In SPIRIT-H2H study, ixekizumab (IXE), a high-affinity monoclonal antibody selectively targeting IL-17A, was superior to adalimumab (ADA) at Week 24 for simultaneous achievement of ACR50 and 100% improvement from baseline in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 100) in patients (pts) with active PsA. Efficacy on other PsA domains was shown.1

Objectives:

To provide individual patient data demonstrating the simultaneous improvement in musculoskeletal and skin symptoms as assessed by American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) percent improvement, respectively.

Methods:

Pts with active PsA fulfilling Classification for Psoriatic Arthritis (CASPAR) criteria, ≥3/66 tender and ≥3/68 swollen joints, ≥3% psoriasis body surface area (BSA) involvement, no prior treatment with bDMARDs, and prior inadequate response to ≥1 conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD), were randomized 1:1 to open-label IXE or ADA (label dosing according to presence/absence of moderate-to-severe psoriasis [baseline BSA≥10%, PASI≥12, and static Physician’s Global Assessment≥3]) in Study I1F-MC-RHCF (NCT03151551). In this analysis, max ACRx was defined as the maximum ACRx response a patient can achieve where ACRx derivation follows the typical ACR response criteria: ≥x% improvement in both tender joint count (TJC) and swollen joint count (SJC) and ≥x% improvement in ≥3 of the 5 remaining components, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index total score (HAQ-DI), C-reactive protein (CRP), Patient Global Assessment (PatGA), Physician Global Assessment (PhyGA), and patient assessment of joint pain (patJP). Missing data were imputed using the last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.

Results:

At baseline, demographic and disease characteristics were similar across treatment groups. Mean baseline values for the ACR core data set were 20.2 (TJC), 10.4 (SJC), 63.8 (PatGA), 10.2 (CRP), 59.2 (PhyGA), 1.2 (HAQ-DI), and 61.0 (patJP). Mean PASI total score was 7.8. Figures 1 and 2 show the maximum ACR response by PASI percent improvement at Weeks 24 and 52, respectively. Independent of joint improvement, more ixekizumab-treated patients compared to adalimumab-treated patients achieved ≥PASI 90 (76.6% vs. 57.5% at week 24 and 83.0% vs. 59.6% at Week 52). Evaluation of patient-level data shows that while very few patients had joint improvement but little skin improvement (max ACRx≥50 and PASI<50; Figures 1 and 2) in both treatment arms (IXE: 1.8%; ADA: 1.4%), fewer patients treated with IXE had no to little improvement in both joint and skin symptoms (PASI<50 and max ACRx<50) than those treated with ADA at Week 24 (IXE: 3.6%; ADA: 13.3%). A similar pattern was observed at Week 52 (Figure 2).

Conclusion:

Ixekizumab treatment was superior to adalimumab when evaluating the combination of musculoskeletal and skin symptoms of PsA as measured by ACR response and PASI response.

References:

[1]Mease PJ, Smolen JS, Behrens F et al., Ann Rheum Dis 2019; 79(1):123-131.

Disclosure of Interests:

Arthur Kavanaugh Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, Pfizer, Gilead, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, Pfizer, Gilead, UCB, Ennio Lubrano: None declared, Talia Muram Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Chen-Yen Lin Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Soyi Liu Leage Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Filip van den Bosch Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Lars Erik Kristensen Consultant of: UCB Pharma (Advisory Board), Sannofi (Advisory Board), Abbvie (Advisory Board), Biogen (Advisory Board), Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb,Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Forward Pharma, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma

AB0824 WHICH PARAMETERS ARE RELEVANT IN THE IDENTIFYING AXIAL INVOLVEMENT IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS? – RESULTS OF A SURVEY AMONG ASAS AND GRAPPA MEMBERS

Background:

Inflammatory involvement of the axial skeleton (sacroiliac joints and / or spine) is one of the relatively frequent musculoskeletal manifestations associated with psoriasis / psoriatic arthritis (PsA). There is an urgent need for an evidence-based definition for axial involvement in PsA that would identify a subgroup of patients within the heterogeneous PsA population to conduct observational, interventional and translational studies. ASAS and GRAPPA embarked on a collaborative initiative to develop a definition of axial involvement in PsA.

Objectives:

To perform a survey to identify variables relevant in the identification of the presence of axial involvement in PsA among members of ASAS and GRAPPA.

Methods:

The online survey utilized thePAPRIKAmethodology (PotentiallyAllPairwiseRanKings of all possibleAlternatives) that determines decision-makers’ part-worth utilities representing the relative importance of the attributes. Participants were exposed to number of clinical scenarios and were prompted to decide which of the scenarios is more compatible with axial involvement in PsA unless they are equal (Figure). The constant stem of each scenario was “a patient diagnosed with psoriatic arthritis fulfilling the CASPAR criteria”; the variable part included 13 common spondyloarthritis variables (Table). Variables were ranked according to their relative importance.

Results:

The survey was completed by 186 ASAS/GRAPPA members (63 ASAS only, 80 GRAPPA only, and 43 both societies). The ranking of the variables is presented inTable. The highest ranked parameters indicative of axial involvement in a patient with PsA were presence of typical radiographic or MRI changes in the sacroiliac joints and/or spine followed by the presence of chronic back pain and then inflammatory back pain. A separate analysis of ASAS and GRAPPA members provided the similar results concerning the relevance of the variables.

Conclusion:

Objective signs of inflammatory involvement of the axial skeleton are the most important indicators of axial disease in PsA in the opinion of the experts. A prospective cohort study is currently being planned to address the value of these and other variables in defining axial involvement in PsA.

Table.

Ranking of the parameters relevant to deciding on the presence of axial involvement in a PsA patient in the opinion of ASAS and GRAPPA members (n=186).

NParametersMedian rankMean rank1Presence of structural damage on an X-ray of SIJ22.82Presence of structural damage on an X-ray of spine3.54.13Presence of subchondral BME / osteitis on MRI of SIJ compatible with SpA44.54Presence of BME / osteitis on MRI of spine compatible with SpA455History or current presence of back pain5.55.86History of or current presence of inflammatory back pain5.567Good response of back pain to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs87.88HLA-B2788.19Family history for SpA9.5910Elevated C-reactive protein109.311Presence of peripheral arthritis and/or enthesitis and/or dactylitis109.412Presence of anterior uveitis109.513Presence of inflammatory bowel disease109.6

BME=bone marrow edema, MRI=magnetic resonance imaging, SIJ=sacroiliac joints, SpA=spondyloarthritis

Disclosure of Interests:

Denis Poddubnyy Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Philip J Mease Grant/research support from: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB – grant/research support, Consultant of: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB – consultant, Speakers bureau: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB – speakers bureau, Filip van den Bosch Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Juergen Braun Grant/research support from: Abbvie (Abbott), Amgen, BMS, Boehringer, Celgene, Celltrion, Centocor, Chugai, Eli Lilly and Company, Medac, MSD (Schering Plough), Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer (Wyeth), Roche, Sanofi- Aventis, and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: Abbvie (Abbott), Amgen, BMS, Boehringer, Celgene, Celltrion, Centocor, Chugai, EBEWE Pharma, Eli Lilly and Company, Medac, MSD (Schering-Plough), Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer (Wyeth), Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: Abbvie (Abbott), Amgen, BMS, Boehringer, Celgene, Celltrion, Centocor, Chugai, EBEWE Pharma, Eli Lilly and Company, Medac, MSD (Schering-Plough), Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer (Wyeth), Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB Pharma, Alice Gottlieb Grant/research support from: Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, Janssen, Novartis, UCB, Xbiotech, Consultant of: AbbVie, Allergan, Avotres Therapeutics, Beiersdorf, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Celgene, Dermira, Incyte, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Reddy Labs, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, UCB, Valeant, Xbiotech, Laura C Coates: None declared, Vinod Chandran Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Celgene, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lily, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Employee of: Spouse employed by Eli Lily, Philip Helliwell: None declared, Deepak Jadon: None declared, Joachim Sieper Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB Pharma, Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cyxone, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB Pharma; Director of Imaging Rheumatology BV, Dafna D Gladman Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen Inc., BMS, Celgene Corporation, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB – grant/research support, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen Inc., BMS, Celgene Corporation, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB – consultant

SAT0549 A SEMI-QUANTITATIVE MRI SCORING SYSTEM FOR INFLAMMATION IN JOINTS AND ENTHESES IN THE LOWER EXTREMITIES DEMONSTRATES GOOD RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY: POST-HOC ANALYSIS OF DATA FROM THE CRESPA TRIAL

Background:

MRI allows an objective assessment of signs of inflammation in peripheral joints and entheses and is therefore of potential interest as outcome measure in trials. No knowledge exists on the reliability and validity of semi-quantitative MRI scores in the setting of peripheral spondyloarthritis (pSpA).

Objectives:

To describe the reliability of a semi-quantitative lower-extremity MRI scoring system, to investigate correlation with known measures of disease activity and ability to capture patients with improvement during treatment.

Methods:

In a post-hoc analysis, scores from 3 readers (LJ, MØ, SK) who independently assessed MRI images of pelvis (except sacroiliac joints), knees and ankles in the CRESPA trial blinded to chronology and all clinical data, were further analyzed. Entheses were scored 0-3 (none/mild/moderate/severe) for soft tissue inflammation (19 sites) and 0-3 for bone marrow edema (24 sites), joints were scored 0-3 for effusion/synovitis (10 sites) and 0-3 for bone marrow edema (22 sites). MRI score was defined as the sum of scores from all joints and entheses (i.e. all 75 sites). The CRESPA trial (NCT01426815) included 60 patients with early pSpA, defined as a symptom duration of <12 weeks. All patients fulfilled the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society criteria for pSpA; data from 56 patients with available MRI images at baseline were included in this analysis, 46 had available MRI images at follow-up. Follow-up MRI was only performed if sustained clinical remission was reached. Reliability was assessed using two-way intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) models by absolute agreement, single-measure (relevant when using scores from 1 reader) and average-measure (relevant when using averaged scores from 3 readers).

Results:

MRI scores at baseline were mean 7.2 (median 5, inter-quartile range 3 to 9, range 0 to 32). MRI change scores were mean −3.1 and (median −1, IQR −4 to 0, range −18 to 2). MRI status scores at baseline (n=56) had single measure ICC 0.78 (95% CI: 0.66-0.87) and average measure ICC 0.92 (0.85-0.95). MRI change scores (n=46) had single measure ICC 0.73 (0.57-0.84) average measure ICC 0.89 (0.80-0.94).

MRI status scores correlated significantly with CRP, ESR, swollen joint count and pain score.

Patients with PSpARC40 response (n=34) (≥40% improvement in disease activity according to the Peripheral SpA Response Criteria) had larger decreases in MRI scores compared to patients without PSpARC40 response (n=11), mean −3.4 vs. −1.0, p=0.03.

When using all MRI data from pelvis, knees and ankles combined, more patients could be identified to have improvement, as compared to only taking one of three parts into account.

MRI scores of pelvis, knees and feet combinedMRI scores of pelvis onlyMRI scores of knees onlyMRI scores of ankles onlyNumber of patients with improvement in MRI score > SDC15 (33%)9 (20%)12 (26%)14 (30%)Number of patients with improvement in MRI score ≥ 50%21 (46%)10 (22%)20 (43%)17 (37%)Net number of patients with improvement in MRI score*24 (52%)6 (13%)21 (46%)15 (33%)Number of patients with improvement in MRI score as assessed by 3 readers17 (37%)3 (7%)11 (24%)13 (28%)

*Patients with improvement minus patients with worsening.

Conclusion:

The semi-quantitative lower-extremity MRI score showed acceptable reliability and validity. The ability to capture response was best when combining information from all available areas that were imaged, i.e. both pelvis, knees and ankles.

*First authorship is shared between SK and TR.

Disclosure of Interests:

Simon Krabbe Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, Novartis, Thomas Renson: None declared, Lennart Jans: None declared, Dirk Elewaut: None declared, Filip van den Bosch Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Philippe Carron: None declared, Mikkel Ǿstergaard Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Merck, and Novartis, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB

FRI0141 CHARACTERIZATION OF SERIOUS INFECTIONS WITH UPADACITINIB IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

Background:

Upadacitinib (UPA) is a selective and reversible Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor with an approved dose of 15 mg once daily (QD) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Patients (pts) receiving JAK inhibitors have been reported to be at increased risk of developing serious infection events (SIE) and opportunistic infections (OI).

Objectives:

To evaluate the incidence of SIEs and OIs in pts with RA receiving UPA and active comparators in the Phase 3 SELECT clinical trial program.

Methods:

The exposure-adjusted event rate (EAER) per 100 patient-years (E/100 PY) of SIEs and OIs was determined in pts receiving UPA in five randomized Phase 3 trials (SELECT-EARLY, SELECT-MONOTHERAPY, SELECT-NEXT, SELECT-COMPARE, and SELECT-BEYOND), of which four evaluated both UPA 15 mg and 30 mg QD doses and one (SELECT-COMPARE) evaluated only UPA 15 mg QD. Incidences of SIEs and OIs were also determined in pts receiving adalimumab (ADA) + methotrexate (MTX) in SELECT-COMPARE and MTX monotherapy in SELECT-EARLY. Data were analyzed descriptively, with no statistical comparisons between groups or doses. Risk factors for SIEs were determined using a univariate Cox regression model. The data cut-off was June 30, 2019.

Results:

Overall, 2629 pts who received UPA 15 mg, 1204 pts who received UPA 30 mg, 579 pts who received ADA + MTX, and 314 pts who received MTX monotherapy were included in this analysis. The EAERs (E/100 PYs [95% CI]) of SIEs were 3.2 (2.7–3.7) in the UPA 15 mg group, 5.7 (4.8–6.8) in the UPA 30 mg group, 3.9 (2.6–5.6) in pts receiving ADA + MTX, and 3.1 (1.7–5.2) in pts receiving MTX monotherapy. Pneumonia was the most common SIE, with EAERs (E/100 PYs [95% CI]) of 0.7 (0.5–1.0), 1.3 (0.9–1.9), 0.7 (0.2–1.5), and 0.7 (0.1–1.9) in the UPA 15 mg, UPA 30 mg, ADA + MTX, and MTX monotherapy groups, respectively. Rates of OIs (including oral candidiasis and disseminated herpes zoster [HZ]) (E/100 PYs [95% CI]) were 0.7 (0.5–1.0), 1.3 (0.9–1.9), 0.4 (0.1–1.1), and 0 (0–0) in the UPA 15 mg, UPA 30 mg, ADA + MTX, and MTX monotherapy groups, respectively. Oral candidiasis was the most frequent OI with EAERs (E/100 PYs [95% CI]) of 0.4 (0.2–0.6) in the UPA 15 mg group, 0.6 (0.3–1.0) in the UPA 30 mg group, 0.4 (0.1–1.1) in the ADA + MTX group, and 0 (0–0) in the MTX monotherapy group. Serious adverse events of HZ were only reported in the UPA groups (0.2 E/100 PYs [95% CI: 0.1–0.3] and 0.6 E/100 PYs [95% CI: 0.4–1.1] in the UPA 15 mg and 30 mg groups, respectively). Overall, there were 3 (4 coded events), 3, 1, and 0 pts who had active tuberculosis events in the UPA 15 mg, UPA 30 mg, ADA + MTX, and MTX monotherapy groups, respectively. Risk factors for SIEs are shown in the Figure. For both UPA doses, age ≥75 years and smoking were noted to have hazard ratios >1.

Conclusion:

The incidence rate of SIEs and OIs was higher in the UPA 30 mg group than the UPA 15 mg group. SIEs observed with UPA 15 mg were similar to that seen with ADA although the rates of HZ were higher on UPA. Pts with RA who are ≥75 years old and/or smokers may be at higher risk than other pts with RA for SIEs while receiving UPA.

Figure.

Univariate analysis of SIE risk factors

Disclosure of Interests:

Kevin Winthrop Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Pfizer Inc, Roche, UCB, Leonard Calabrese Consultant of: AbbVie, GSK, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi, Horizon, Crescendo, and Gilead, Speakers bureau: Sanofi, Horizon, Crescendo, Novartis, Genentech, Janssen, and AbbVie, Filip van den Bosch Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Kunihiro Yamaoka Speakers bureau: AbbVie GK, Astellas Pharma Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, Mitsubishi-Tanabe Pharma Corporation, Pfizer Japan Inc., and Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd, Carlo Selmi Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Celgene, and Leo Pharma, Consultant of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi-Regeneron, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Aesku, Alfa-Wassermann, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Biogen, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Grifols, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, UCB Pharma, Yanna Song Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Barbara Hendrickson Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Ivan Lagunes-Galindo Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Iain McInnes Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB

FRI0312 ANTI-CD74 IGA ANTIBODIES ARE MOST SENSITIVE AND SPECIFIC TO IDENTIFY YOUNG MALE AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS PATIENTS

Background:

CD74 is involved in the assembly of and the prevention of premature peptide-binding to major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class II. IgG autoantibodies directed against CD74 have been shown to be highly prevalent in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS). In contrast, conflicting results have been reported on the sensitivity and specificity of anti-CD74 IgA both in patients with non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) as well as AS.

Objectives:

To assess the performance of anti-CD74 IgA for identification of patients classified as nr-axSpA or AS compared to non-SpA controls.

Methods:

Serum samples of patients who were classified as having axial SpA according to the ASAS classification criteria, were collected at inclusion in the Be-Giant (a Belgian observational cohort enrolling patients in 7 peripheral and an academic hospital). Patients with chronic back pain of non-inflammatory origin and rheumatoid arthritis patients without back pain served as a control group. Serum aliquots were stored immediately after sampling at -80°C until further analysis. Anti-CD74 IgA antibodies were measured using the AESKULISA SpA Detect Kit (AESKU Diagnostics, Wendelsheim, Germany) as described in (1); values are expressed in U/mL. Analyses were restricted to patients ≤ 45 years of age who were anti-TNF naïve prior to inclusion.

Results:

Table 1 shows the patients’ demographic and clinical characteristics. Mean±SD anti-CD74 IgA concentration was significantly higher in AS (18.3±11.20) and nr-axSpA (19.3±12.6) compared to controls (9.8±6.35) (Figure 1). However, anti-CD74 IgA levels were higher in males than in females (p = 0.01) and in old (≥32 y/o) vs. younger patients (p = 0.13). Anti-CD74 IgA yielded an adjusted OR (95% CI) of 1.10 (1.03 – 1.19) for discrimination of nr-axSpA from controls. Table 2, which shows the performance of anti-CD74 IgA in 4 subgroups of patients divided by age and sex, shows that the highest AUC was seen in young male nr-axSpA patients. Similar results were found on the discrimination between AS patients and controls (AUC 0.827 in young males).

Table 1.

Demographic and clinical characteristics

nr-axSpAAScontroln = 150n = 58n = 14Age, y (mean, SD)31 (6.9)32 (7.4)30 (7.0)Male, n (%)68 (45.3)26 (44.8)4 (28.5)Symptom duration, m (median, IQR)35 (13 - 98)111 (27 - 176)-HLA B27 positive, n (%)103 (68.7)48 (82.8)-Peripheral manifestations, n (%)41 (27.3)18 (31.0)-Extra-articular manifestations, n (%)32 (21.3)19 (32.8)-BASDAI (mean, SD)4.4 (1.97)4.1 (2.03)-CRP > ULN, n (%)45 (30.0)33 (56.9)-Table 2.

Performance of anti-CD74 IgA in discriminating nr-axSpA from controls, according to sex and age (young: <32 y/o). AUC= area under the curve, PPV/NPV = positive/negative predictive value, LR+ = positive likelihood ratio.

Cut-off (U/mL)AUCSensitivity (%)Specificity (%)PPV (%)NPV (%)LR+Male & young16.90.80665.892.396.248.08.6Male & old17.40.79555.692.393.850.07.2Female & young16.70.64750.092.394.441.46.5Female & old16.90.74146.892.395.742.26.0Figure 1.

Univariate comparison of anti-CD74 IgA concentrations between nr-axSpA, AS and control patients (<45 y/o).

Conclusion:

In this study, mean anti-CD74 IgA concentrations were higher in axial SpA patients compared to non-SpA controls. Application of this biomarker in young (<32 y/o) male nr-axSpA or AS patients yielded the highest sensitivity and specificity.

References:

[1]Riechers E, Baerlecken N, Baraliakos X, et al. Sensitivity and Specificity of Autoantibodies Against CD74 in Nonradiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(5):729-35.

Acknowledgments:

Aesku.Diagnostics (Wendelsheim, Germany) provided the ELISA kits.

Disclosure of Interests:

Ann-Sophie De Craemer: None declared, Torsten Witte: None declared, Liselotte Deroo: None declared, Thomas Renson: None declared, Philippe Carron: None declared, Filip van den Bosch Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Xenofon Baraliakos Grant/research support from: Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Dirk Elewaut: None declared

OP0055 MINIMAL RADIOGRAPHIC DAMAGE OF SACROILIAC JOINTS DETECTED IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS PATIENTS

Background:

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is an inflammatory joint disease that is traditionally included in the Spondyloarthritis (SpA) spectrum. Prevalence and impact of axial involvement in PsA remains understudied but increasingly affects treatment decisions.

Objectives:

The first step, in this multi-purpose radiographic study, is to report on baseline radiographic damage of the sacroiliac joints (SIJ) in PsA patients from a prospective multicentre cohort study in private and academic rheumatology practices.

Methods:

Data from the Belgian Epidemiological Psoriatic Arthritis Study (BEPAS), a prospective multicentre cohort involving 17 Belgian rheumatology practices. Recruitment was from December 2012 until July 2014. Patients were included in the study when the local rheumatologist could diagnose an existing or new PsA and when patients fulfilled the Classification criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis (CASPAR). Radiographs of the SIJ were obtained at baseline and after 2 years. Two calibrated readers assessed radiographic damage by grading the SIJ according to the modified New York (mNY) criteria. When assessing the images, readers were blinded for clinical data and information from other obtained images (radiographs of the hands, feet and spine). Individual scores as well as consensus scores are described.

Results:

In total 461 patients where included in BEPAS. Mean age was 52.79±12.29 years and 43.0% (n=198) were female; average disease duration was 8.5 ± 9.3 yrs and approximately 34% of the patients report inflammatory axial pain. From 338 patients SIJ radiographs were obtained. At baseline, the vast majority of patients did not fulfil the mNY criteria (n=325, 96.2%), according to both readers. In 8 cases (2.4%) there was concordance on fulfilment of the mNY criteria. Discordant cases (n=5, 1.4%) were equally distributed. Agreement between the 2 readers was good with 98.5% overall agreement and kappa=0.75. Therefore, with a more sensitive approach (any of the 2 readers scores mNY positive) we see slight differences; 13 patients (3.8%) fulfil the mNY criteria. Table 1 shows radiographic damage by individual readers

Table.

Baseline data on radiographic damage of the sacroiliac joints in Belgian patients with newly diagnosed or existing PsA included in the BEPAS.

N=338Right sacroiliac jointLeft sacroiliac jointGradesType of lesionReader 1Reader 2Reader 1Reader 20No abnormalities298 (88.2%)301 (89.1%)298 (88.2%)296 (87.6%)1Indefinite abnormalities32 (9.5%)23 (6.8%)27 (8.0%)23 (6.8%)2-3Abnormalities5 (1.5%)12 (3.6%)9 (2.7%)19 (5.6%)Erosion3 (0.9%)11 (3.3%)4 (1.2%)18 (5.3%)Sclerosis4 (1.2%)12 (3.6%)5 (1.5%)13 (3.9%)Joint space alteration (narrowing or widening)1 (0.3%)1 (0.3%)4 (1.2%)2 (0.6%)Partial ankylosis2 (0.6%)3 (0.9%)5 (1.5%)8 (2.4%)4Total ankylosis3 (0.9%)2 (0.6%)4 (1.2%)-

In 128 patients (37.9%) a follow-up x-ray after 2 years was available. In 124 patients (96.9%) there was reader agreement on mNY negative status. There was disagreement between readers on a positive mNY in 2 patients (equally distributed) and agreement on 2 patients (1.6%). There were no patients with consensus between readers on the change in mNY over 2 years, but 1 reader reported 1 patient becoming mNY positive after 2 years.

Conclusion:

Despite the patient self-identified presence of axial disease in up to 34% in this cohort of PsA patients, there was minimal radiographic damage on SIJ, suggesting that SIJ disease is not a major manifestation of PsA.

Disclosure of Interests:

Manouk de Hooge: None declared, Alla Ishchenko: None declared, Serge Steinfeld: None declared, Adrien Nzeusseu Toukap Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB – grant/research support, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, UCB – consultant, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, UCB – advisory board member, Dirk Elewaut: None declared, Hermine Leroi Employee of: MSD Belgium, Rik Lories Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Samumed and UCB – grant/research support (on behalf of Leuven Research and Development), Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Samumed and UCB – consultant (on behalf of Leuven Research and Development), Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Samumed and UCB – speaker (on behalf of Leuven Research and Development), Kurt de Vlam Grant/research support from: Celgene, Eli Lilly, Pfizer Inc, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Filip van den Bosch Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB

OP0107 ETANERCEPT WITHDRAWAL AND RE-TREATMENT IN PATIENTS WITH INACTIVE NON-RADIOGRAPHIC AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS AT 24 WEEKS: RESULTS OF RE-EMBARK, AN OPEN-LABEL, PHASE IV TRIAL

Background:

In the RE-EMBARK trial (NCT02509026), etanercept (ETN)-treated patients with non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) who achieved inactive disease (defined as Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score with C-reactive protein [ASDAS CRP] <1.3) in Period 1 (P1)1discontinued ETN for ≤40 weeks.

Objectives:

To assess the proportion of patients with inactive disease after P1 who experienced disease flare (ASDAS with erythrocyte sedimentation rate [ASDAS ESR] ≥2.1) within 40 weeks of ETN withdrawal and to estimate time to flare following ETN withdrawal.

Methods:

RE-EMBARK was a multicenter, open-label, Phase IV trial of ETN in patients with active nr-axSpA (meeting Assessment in SpondyloArthritis international Society criteria and with ASDAS CRP ≥2.1) and an inadequate response to ≥2 nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) while taking a stable dose of 1 NSAID for ≥2 weeks before the first ETN dose. All patients received ETN (50 mg/week) plus NSAID for the first 24 weeks (P1). At week 24, patients with inactive disease discontinued ETN for ≤40 weeks (Period 2 [P2]). Those who experienced flare during P2 were re-treated with ETN for 12 weeks in Period 3 (P3). Kaplan-Meier (KM) analysis and Cox proportional hazard models were used to 1) estimate the probability of experiencing flare within a given time period, and 2) compare data between RE-EMBARK and the EMBARK trial (NCT01258738) of patients with nr-axSpA who met RE-EMBARK P2 entry criteria (achieved inactive disease after 24 weeks of ETN treatment) and continued treatment for a further ≤40 weeks.

Results:

Of the 209 patients in P1 (mean age, 33 years; women, 46%; white, 89%), 119 (57%) entered P2. The proportion of patients experiencing ≥1 flare increased from 22% (25/112) at P2 week 4 to 67% (77/115) at P2 week 40. Overall, 75% (86/115) of patients in P2 experienced flare and 50% experienced flare within 16 weeks (95% CI: 13-24 weeks, KM analysis). Conversely, data from the comparator EMBARK trial suggested that <25% of patients receiving continuous ETN treatment over 40 weeks experienced flare. Cox proportional hazard model analysis showed an 85% relative risk reduction of experiencing flare during P2 in patients with inactive disease who continued ETN treatment vs those who discontinued. By P3 end 62% (54/87) of patients re-treated with ETN re-achieved inactive disease; 50% of patients who re-achieved inactive disease in P3 did so within 5 weeks (95% CI: 4-8 weeks, KM analysis). The observed trend of clinical improvement (P1), worsening (P2), and improvement (P3) was reflected in other clinical measures (Figure) plus measures of joint damage (Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada Sacroiliac Joint magnetic resonance imaging score) and quality of life (EQ-5D visual analog scale score); mean (standard deviation) score changes from each study period baseline–end were –6.1 (11.7) [P1], +1.5 (4.4) [P2], –2.0 (8.8) [P3] and +27.7 (26.7) [P1], –26.4 (30.5) [P2], +32.1 (26.3) [P3], respectively. There were no unexpected safety signals.

Conclusion:

For patients with nr-axSpA who achieved inactive disease with ETN and then discontinued treatment, a quarter maintained treatment-free inactive disease for 40 weeks and 50% maintained an ASDAS ESR score of <2.1 for ≥16 weeks. Re-starting ETN allowed 62% of patients who flared to re-achieve inactive disease within 12 weeks.

References:

[1]Van den Bosch F, et al.Ann Rheum Dis2019;78:896-7

Acknowledgments:

Medical writing support was provided by Lorna Forse, PhD, of Engage Scientific Solutions and was funded by Pfizer.

Disclosure of Interests:

Filip van den Bosch Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, James Cheng-Chung Wei Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Eisai, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB Pharma, Peter Nash Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Francisco J. Blanco Grant/research support from: Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly, Bristol MS, Amgen, Pfizer, Abbvie, TRB Chemedica International, Glaxo SmithKline, Archigen Biotech Limited, Novartis, Nichi-iko pharmaceutical Co, Genentech, Jannsen Research & Development, UCB Biopharma, Centrexion Theurapeutics, Celgene, Roche, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc, Biohope, Corbus Pharmaceutical, Tedec Meiji Pharma, Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Ltd, Gilead Sciences Inc, Consultant of: Lilly, Bristol MS, Pfizer, Daniela Graham Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Chuanbo Zang Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: Pfizer, Edmund Arthur Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: Pfizer, Cecilia Borlenghi Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: Pfizer, Bonnie Vlahos Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: Pfizer, Atul Deodhar Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myer Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myer Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB

THU0373 SECUKINUMAB DOSE ESCALATION ON ACR RESPONSES IN ANTI-TUMOUR NECROSIS FACTOR NAÏVE PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: 2-YEAR DATA FROM THE PHASE 3 FUTURE 4 AND FUTURE 5 STUDIES

Background:

Secukinumab (SEC) 150 and 300 mg doses are approved for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). SEC 300 mg is the recommended dose for patients (pts) with concomitant moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis or who are anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inadequate responders. An increase from 150 mg to 300 mg has been reported to be beneficial in some patients with a suboptimal response to SEC 150 mg.1Here, we present a post hoc analysis in anti-TNF naïve pts who escalated from SEC 150 to 300 mg dose in two Phase 3 studies, FUTURE 4 (NCT02294227) and FUTURE 5 (NCT02404350).

Objectives:

To evaluate the clinical efficacy on joints following dose escalation from SEC 150 to 300 mg on ACR responses in anti-TNF naïve pts with PsA.

Methods:

Study design, patient inclusion and exclusion criteria of the FUTURE 4 and FUTURE 5 studies have been reported previously.1–3In FUTURE 4, 341 pts were randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio to SEC 150 mg with loading dose (LD), SEC 150 mg without LD, or placebo. In FUTURE 5, 996 pts were randomised in a 2:2:2:3 ratio to SEC 300 mg with LD, SEC 150 mg with LD, SEC 150 mg without LD or placebo. Following a protocol amendment, pts were allowed to escalate from 150 mg to the 300 mg dose, in the event of suboptimal response based on investigator’s judgment, starting at Week 36 in FUTURE 4 and at Week 52 in FUTURE 5. ACR responses in anti-TNF naïve pts were evaluated pre- and up to 32 and 40 weeks post-escalation, in FUTURE 4 and FUTURE 5, respectively: pts were grouped into four ranges based on their response: no (< 20); low (≥ 20 to < 50); moderate (≥ 50 to < 70); high (≥ 70) ACR responses. Data presented are as observed in the Sankey-style overlay plot.

Results:

Dose escalation from SEC 150 to 300 mg occurred in 136 pts in FUTURE 4 and in 236 pts in FUTURE 5. The proportion of ACR responders increased and the proportion of non-responders decreased in anti-TNF naïve pts who escalated from SEC 150 to 300 mg in the two studies. The proportion of anti-TNF naïve pts with a response ≥ACR50 increased from 20% to 41% in FUTURE 4 and 28% to 46% in FUTURE 5, post dose escalation. The ACR responses in anti-TNF naïve pts up to 40 weeks after escalation from SEC 150 to 300 mg are presented in the Sankey-style overlay (Figure).

Figure.

ACR Response bar chart with Sankey-style overlays up to 40 weeks, after dose escalation from SEC 150 mg to 300 mg, in anti-TNF naïve pts in FUTURE 4 and 5

Conclusion:

The proportion of ACR responders increased within 12-16 weeks and was sustained up to 40 weeks following dose escalation in anti-TNF naïve pts with PsA. These results suggest that dose escalation from SEC 150 to 300 mg may be beneficial in anti-TNF naïve pts with a suboptimal response on SEC 150 mg.

References:

[1]Kivitz AJ, et al. Rheumatol Ther. 2019;6(3):393–407;

[2]Mease PJ, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77:890–7;

[3]Mease, P.J., et al. ACR Open Rheumatology. 2019 [ePub ahead of print] doi:10.1002/acr2.11097.

Disclosure of Interests:

Paul Emery Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche (all paid to employer), Consultant of: AbbVie (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Bristol-Myers Squibb (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Lilly (clinical trials, advisor), Merck Sharp & Dohme (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Novartis (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Pfizer (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Roche (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Samsung (clinical trials, advisor), Sandoz (clinical trials, advisor), UCB (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Mikkel Ǿstergaard Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Merck, and Novartis, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB, Laura C Coates: None declared, Atul Deodhar Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myer Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myer Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Erhard Quebe-Fehling Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Pascale Pellet Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Luminita Pricop Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Corine Gaillez Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Filip van den Bosch Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB

FRI0343 EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF FILGOTINIB, A SELECTIVE JANUS KINASE 1 INHIBITOR, IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: SUBGROUP ANALYSES FROM A RANDOMIZED, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED, PHASE 2 TRIAL (EQUATOR)

Background:

Treatment with the oral selective Janus kinase 1 inhibitor filgotinib was associated with rapid and significant improvements in multiple domains of active psoriatic arthritis versus placebo in the 16-week Phase 2, multicenter, double-blind, randomized EQUATOR trial (NCT03101670).1A significantly greater proportion of patients receiving filgotinib, versus placebo, achieved the primary endpoint of 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response at Week 16 (80% vs 33%, respectively).1

Objectives:

The aim of this predefined analysis was to evaluate the consistency of the response to filgotinib across predefined relevant subpopulations participating in the EQUATOR trial.

Methods:

In EQUATOR, patients with active psoriatic arthritis were treated with filgotinib 200 mg (n=65) or placebo (n=66) once daily for 16 weeks. Key clinical endpoints, including ACR20 and ACR50 (50% improvement) response rates, Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS), and Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) were evaluated according to the following baseline characteristics: sex, body mass index, disease duration, baseline disease severity, concurrent use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drug(s), and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor(s). For PASDAS and DAPSA scores, statistical analysis of changes from baseline was performed using analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, randomization stratification, subgroup, and an interaction between treatment and subgroup. Least-squares (LS) mean difference between treatment arms and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. For ACR20 and ACR50 response rates, statistical analysis used the point estimate and corresponding 95% CI, based on the Newcombe method.

Results:

Sixty patients (92%) in the filgotinib group and 64 (97%) in the placebo group completed the study. The total number of patients in each subpopulation ranged from 18 to 104 (Figure 1). Differences in the proportions of patients achieving ACR20 consistently favored filgotinib, compared with placebo, across all subgroups (Figure 1); all differences reached statistical significance. Similarly, differences in the proportions of ACR50 responders and LS mean treatment differences for PASDAS and DAPSA consistently favored filgotinib, reaching statistical significance in most subgroups. No clinically relevant differences in the effect of filgotinib were observed across subgroups. Filgotinib was generally well tolerated and no new safety signals were identified.

Conclusion:

In the 16-week EQUATOR trial, the effects of filgotinib on key efficacy endpoints were generally consistent across a range of subgroups based on patient, disease, and treatment characteristics.

References:

[1]Mease P, et al. Lancet 2018;392:2367–77.

Acknowledgments:

The EQUATOR trial was sponsored by Galapagos NV and co-funded by Galapagos NV and Gilead Sciences. Medical writing support was provided by Hannah Mace MPharmacol, CMPP (Aspire Scientific Ltd, Bollington, UK) and funded by Galapagos NV (Mechelen, Belgium).

Disclosure of Interests:

Philip Helliwell: None declared, Filip van den Bosch Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Laura C Coates: None declared, Dafna D Gladman Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen Inc., BMS, Celgene Corporation, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB – grant/research support, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen Inc., BMS, Celgene Corporation, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB – consultant, Chantal Tasset Shareholder of: Galapagos (share/warrant holder), Employee of: Galapagos, Luc Meuleners Employee of: Galapagos, Leen Gilles Consultant of: Galapagos, Lien Gheyle Employee of: Galapagos, Mona Trivedi Shareholder of: Amgen and Gilead Sciences, Employee of: Gilead Sciences, Muhsen Alani Employee of: Gilead Sciences, Robin Besuyen Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Philip J Mease Grant/research support from: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB – grant/research support, Consultant of: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB – consultant, Speakers bureau: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB – speakers bureau

FRI0339 LONG-TERM EFFICACY OF THE ORAL SELECTIVE JANUS KINASE 1 INHIBITOR FILGOTINIB IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: WEEK 52 RESPONSE PATTERNS IN INDIVIDUAL PATIENTS FROM AN OPEN-LABEL EXTENSION (OLE) STUDY (EQUATOR2)

Background:

EQUATOR (NCT03101670) was a 16-week, Phase 2, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized controlled trial (RCT) of filgotinib in patients with active psoriatic arthritis.1Filgotinib demonstrated rapid efficacy compared with placebo across multiple domains, including the primary endpoint of Week 16 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response.1Patients completing the RCT could join an ongoing 148-week OLE (EQUATOR2;NCT03320876).

Objectives:

In this prespecified interim analysis at Week 52 of the OLE, individual patient responses with respect to disease activity were evaluated.

Methods:

Placebo-treated RCT patients switched to filgotinib (200 mg once daily) at Week 16 and entered the OLE; patients previously assigned to filgotinib continued. Individual response patterns at Week 52 of the OLE were evaluated for ACR20/50/70, Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) low disease activity (LDA), minimal disease activity (MDA), and MDA/very low disease activity (VLDA).

Results:

124 patients (95%) completed EQUATOR; 122 (93%) enrolled in the OLE. At Week 52, 11 patients (9%) had discontinued treatment in the OLE. Median (range) exposure to filgotinib was 66.0 (0.4–104.1) weeks. In patients originally assigned to filgotinib, sustained efficacy was seen through to OLE Week 52 for ACR20, 50, and 70; PASDAS LDA; MDA (Table;Figure 1a); and MDA/VLDA. In total, 77% and 93% of those achieving MDA and ACR50 response in the RCT period maintained this at Week 52 (Table). A substantial proportion of RCT non-responders also achieved a treatment response in the OLE, meeting MDA and ACR50 criteria (22% and 37%, respectively;Table). Response patterns in the OLE were similar regardless of prior RCT treatment. In total, at Week 52 of the OLE, 33.6% of patients achieved MDA response (Figure 1a); 55.0% achieved ACR50 response. Figure 1bshows individual patient response over time for MDA.

Conclusion:

Data from this 52-week OLE interim analysis suggest that further improvement in disease activity can be expected with filgotinib beyond 16 weeks in patients with active psoriatic arthritis. Sustained efficacy was demonstrated across several measures of disease activity, including MDA and ACR50.

References:

[1]Mease P, et al. Lancet 2018;392:2367–77.

Table.

Responders at Week 52 of the OLE, by treatment and previous RCT responder status (observed cases).

TreatmentFilgotinib (N=59) → Filgotinib (N=54)aPlacebo (N=63) → Filgotinib (N=57)an/N, %OLE responders/RCT respondersOLE responders/RCT non-respondersOLE responders/RCT respondersOLE responders/RCT non-respondersACR2040/47 (85.1)5/7 (71.4)17/18 (94.4)27/38 (71.1)ACR5025/27 (92.6)10/27 (37.0)5/8 (62.5)21/49 (42.9)ACR7010/13 (76.9)12/41 (29.3)3/4 (75.0)12/53 (22.6)PASDAS LDAb19/21 (90.5)12/32 (37.5)5/6 (83.3)21/48 (43.8)MDA10/13 (76.9)9/41 (22.0)4/5 (80.0)14/51 (27.5)

aIndicates number remaining at OLE Week 52 interim analysis, after dropouts

bPASDAS information was not available for one patient at Week 16 of the RCT

Acknowledgments:

EQUATOR and EQUATOR2 were sponsored by Galapagos NV and co-funded by Galapagos NV and Gilead Sciences. Medical writing support was provided by Hannah Mace MPharmacol, CMPP (Aspire Scientific Ltd, Bollington, UK) and funded by Galapagos NV.

Disclosure of Interests:

Dafna D Gladman Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen Inc., BMS, Celgene Corporation, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB – grant/research support, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen Inc., BMS, Celgene Corporation, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB – consultant, Laura C Coates: None declared, Filip van den Bosch Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Philip Helliwell: None declared, Chantal Tasset Shareholder of: Galapagos (share/warrant holder), Employee of: Galapagos, Luc Meuleners Employee of: Galapagos, Leen Gilles Consultant of: Galapagos, Lien Gheyle Employee of: Galapagos, Mona Trivedi Shareholder of: Amgen and Gilead Sciences, Employee of: Gilead Sciences, Muhsen Alani Employee of: Gilead Sciences, Robin Besuyen Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Philip J Mease Grant/research support from: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB – grant/research support, Consultant of: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB – consultant, Speakers bureau: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB – speakers bureau

AB0841 TARGET OUTCOMES IN PsA: SIMULTANEOUS ACHIEVEMENT of ACR50-PASI100 AND BEYOND: INSIGHTS FROM SPIRIT-H2H AT WEEK 24

Background:

Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) treatment should aim to achieve robust improvement of arthritis as well as control of extra-articular manifestations like the skin. SPIRIT-H2H evaluated the efficacy of ixekizumab (IXE) and adalimumab (ADA) in patients with active PsA and psoriasis, and naïve to biologic Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs (bDMARDs). At week 24 (W24), IXE showed superiority to ADA in simultaneous achievement of ACR50 and PASI100 as well as significant improvement of treat-to-target and other extra-articular outcomes.

Objectives:

To examine and to compare PsA efficacy outcomes in patients beyond achievement of the primary endpoint of the SPIRIT-H2H trial at W24, irrespective of treatment allocation.

Methods:

All patients recruited had active PsA (defined as tender joint count ≥3/68, swollen joint count ≥3/66 and body surface area [BSA] ≥3%), and inadequate response to conventional synthetic (cs)-DMARDs. Patients were randomised 1:1 to open-label, assessor-blinded IXE or ADA. We conducted post-hoc analysis of SPIRIT-H2H (NCT03151551), categorizing patients into four independent groups based on the achievement of the primary outcome (ACR50 & PASI100), ACR50 only, PASI100 only or none of them after 24 weeks of treatment. Statistical analyses consisted of mixed model for repeated measurement and logistic regression models using non-response imputation.

Results:

At week 24, patients reaching simultaneously ACR50 and PASI100 had a statistically significant higher response in most treat-to-target endpoints than those meeting ACR50 only (p<0.05). In this latter group, a high response rate was observed in ACR70, MDA, DAPSA remission and PASI90 response (48.9%, 60.6%, 35.1%, 36.2%, respectively). In patients that did not achieve either ACR50 or PASI100, up to 1/3 of the patients did achieve ACR20, DAPSA score ≤14, or no physical impairment.

Table.

Efficacy Endpoints at W24

ACR50 & PASI100ACR50 onlyPASI100 onlyNeither ACR50 nor PASI100n=181n=94n=121n=170ACR20100.0b,c100.053.734.7ACR7064.6a,b,c48.90.00.0MDA75.7a,b,c60.623.112.4VLDA32.6a,b,c13.83.31.8DAPSA LDA or Remission (≤14)92.3a,b,c81.943.028.8DAPSA Remission (≤4)44.8b,c35.16.62.4HAQ-DI score ≤0.575.7b,c64.930.627.4PASI75100.0a,c60.6100.037.1PASI90100.0a,c36.2100.014.7SF-36 PCS change from baseline§12.3±0.53b,c12.3±0.745.4±0.664.0±0.55

Data are presented as %;§mean±standard error.

ap<0.05 vs. ACR50 only;bp<0.05 vs. PASI100only;cp<0.05 vs. Neither ACR50 nor PASI100.

ACR, American College of Rheumatology; DAPSA, Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis; HAQ-DI, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index; LDA, Low Disease Activity; MDA, Minimal Disease Activity; PASI, Psoriasis Area Severity Index; VLDA, Very Low Disease Activity.

Nine patients with active PsO and BSA≥3% were assessed as PASI=0 at baseline, a medical inconsistency that was resolved using medical judgement. These patients were considered PASI100 responders if PASI=0 and BSA=0 at post baseline visits.

Conclusion:

Reflecting the complexity of PsA, different degrees of improvement were observed across all treat-to-target outcomes with greater improvements in patients that met ACR50 response regardless of skin resolution. These findings at week 24 need to be confirmed with a longer duration of treatment.

Disclosure of Interests:

Josef S. Smolen Grant/research support from: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer Inc, Samsung, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer Inc, Samsung, Sanofi, Frank Behrens Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Janssen, Chugai, Celgene, Lilly and Roche, Consultant of: Pfizer, AbbVie, Sanofi, Lilly, Novartis, Genzyme, Boehringer, Janssen, MSD, Celgene, Roche and Chugai, Soyi Liu Leage Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Christophe Sapin Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Inmaculada De La Torre Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Gabriella Meszaros Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Georg Schett Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche and UCB, Laure Gossec Grant/research support from: Lilly, Mylan, Pfizer, Sandoz, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Andrew Ostor Consultant of: MSD, Pfizer, Lilly, Abbvie, Novartis, Roche, Gilead and BMS, Speakers bureau: MSD, Pfizer, Lilly, Abbvie, Novartis, Roche, Gilead and BMS, Bernard Combe Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, Consultant of: AbbVie; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Janssen; Eli Lilly and Company; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; Sanofi, Speakers bureau: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Eli Lilly and Company; Merck Sharp & Dohme; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; UCB, Filip van den Bosch Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB

OP0103 DOES GENDER, AGE OR SUBPOPULATION INFLUENCE THE MAINTENANCE OF CLINICAL REMISSION IN AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS FOLLOWING CERTOLIZUMAB PEGOL DOSE REDUCTION?

Background:

Previous studies have shown that withdrawing tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients (pts) with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) who have achieved sustained remission often leads to relapse.1However, none have formally tested TNFi dose reduction strategies in a broad axSpA population or evaluated whether relapse following TNFi dose reduction and withdrawal is associated with a specific demographic subgroup.

Objectives:

C-OPTIMISE evaluated the percentage of pts without flare after TNFi dose continuation, reduction or withdrawal in adults with early axSpA treated with the Fc-free, PEGylated TNFi certolizumab pegol (CZP). Here, we analyse whether responses to reduced maintenance dose were comparable in pts stratified by axSpA subpopulation, gender and age.

Methods:

C-OPTIMISE (NCT02505542) was a multicentre, two-part phase 3b study in adults with early (<5 years’ symptom duration) active axSpA (stratified for radiographic [r]- and non-radiographic [nr]- axSpA). Pts received CZP 200 mg every 2 weeks (wks) (Q2W; 400 mg loading dose at Wks 0, 2 and 4) during the open-label induction period. At Wk 48, pts in sustained remission (Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score [ASDAS] <1.3 at Wk 32 or 36 [if ASDAS <1.3 at Wk 32, it must be <2.1 at Wk 36, or vice versa] and at Wk 48) were randomised to double-blind full maintenance dose (CZP 200 mg Q2W); reduced maintenance dose (CZP 200 mg every 4 wks [Q4W]) or placebo (PBO) for a further 48 wks (maintenance period). The primary endpoint was the percentage of pts not experiencing a flare (ASDAS ≥2.1 at two consecutive visits or ASDAS >3.5 at any timepoint) during Wks 48–96. Analyses were conducted on subgroups according to axSpA subpopulation, gender and age ≤/> the median age of the randomised set (32 years).

Results:

During the 48-wk induction period, 43.9% of patients (323/736) achieved sustained remission and 313 pts entered the 48-wk maintenance period (r/nr-axSpA: 168/145 pts; males/females: 247/66 pts; age ≤32/>32: 165/148 pts). During the maintenance period, responses in r- and nr-axSpA pts were comparable across all three randomised arms. 83.9% r-axSpA and 83.3% nr-axSpA pts receiving the full CZP maintenance dose did not experience a flare, and in the reduced maintenance dose arm 82.1% r-axSpA and 75.5% nr-axSpA pts did not experience a flare. In the PBO group this was reduced to 17.9% and 22.9%, respectively. Similar responses were seen in pts stratified by gender or age, with substantially higher percentages of pts randomised to CZP full or reduced maintenance dose remaining free of flares compared to PBO in all subgroups (Figure).

Conclusion:

The results of C-OPTIMISE indicate that a reduced maintenance dose is suitable for pts with axSpA who achieve sustained remission following 1 year of CZP treatment, regardless of axSpA subpopulation, gender or age. Complete treatment withdrawal is not recommended due to the high risk of flare.

References:

[1]Landewe R. Lancet 2018;392:134–44.

Acknowledgments:

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

Disclosure of Interests:

Robert B.M. Landewé Consultant of: AbbVie; AstraZeneca; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Eli Lilly & Co.; Galapagos NV; Novartis; Pfizer; UCB Pharma, Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cyxone, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB Pharma; Director of Imaging Rheumatology BV, Maxime Dougados Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Xenofon Baraliakos Grant/research support from: Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Filip van den Bosch Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Karl Gaffney Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Celgene, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Lars Bauer Employee of: UCB Pharma, Bengt Hoepken Employee of: UCB Pharma, Natasha de Peyrecave Employee of: UCB Pharma, Karen Thomas Employee of: UCB Pharma, Lianne S. Gensler Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Novartis, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, UCB

AB0758 REAL-WORLD EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF APREMILAST IN BELGIAN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: FINAL ANALYSIS OF THE MULTICENTRE, PROSPECTIVE APOLO STUDY

Background:

Real-world evidence on the efficacy and safety for patients (pts) with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treated with apremilast (APR) is lacking but required to understand the uptake and potential of the drug.

Objectives:

To assess the efficacy and safety of APR in pts with active PsA from routine clinical practice in Belgium.

Methods:

In this multicentre, prospective study, the primary endpoint was the PsA Response Criteria (PsARC) response 6 months after APR initiation, defined as improvement in ≥2 (at least 1 must be joint swelling or tenderness) and no worsening in any of 4 criteria: swollen joint count (SJC [0-66]), tender joint count (TJC [0-68]), Physician’s Global Assessment of Disease Activity and Pt’s Global Assessment of Disease Activity. Other endpoints included the 12-item PsA Impact of the Disease (PsAID12) questionnaire, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Physician’s and Pt’s Numerical Rating Scale assessing disease activity for the most affected joint, psoriasis-involved body surface area, enthesitis, dactylitis and pain.

Results:

In total, 107 pts were enrolled and included in the baseline (BL) demographics/disease characteristics and safety analyses. The efficacy population comprised 69 pts (pts who started APR ≤30 days before inclusion in the study and completed ≥150 days of treatment). Mean age was 53 years, mean body mass index was 29 kg/m2and 56% were female. Mean duration of PsA was ≈8 years (87.1 months). One-third of pts presented with short disease duration (time since diagnosis of PsA: ≤2 years); 84% were biologic naive. The most frequently reported comorbidities were cardiovascular disease (30%) and hypercholesterolemia (24%). At BL, mean (SD) SJC was 8.0 (6.5); mean (SD) TJC was 14.2 (12.5). Pts from the efficacy population were representative of the overall population. Fifty-four pts (60%) continued APR treatment for 6 months; 38 (36%) had discontinued APR (insufficient efficacy: n=15; adverse events [AEs]: n=16; intolerance: n=6; other reason: n=1). AEs were mostly mild or moderate in nature and consistent with APR’s known safety and tolerability profile.1At Month 6, data were available for 49 pts, 65% of whom were PsARC responders. Mean change from BL in SJC was −5.23, with improvements (defined as ≥30% decrease per PsARC) observed in 80% of pts; 42% had no swollen joints at 6 months. Comparable results were seen for TJC, with mean changes from BL of −5.34 and improvements observed in 71% of pts; 27% had no tender joints at 6 months. Among pts with enthesitis at BL (n=21), 43% achieved a score of 0 by Month 6. Among pts with dactylitis at BL (n=18), 83% achieved a count of 0 by Month 6. Impact of PsA on quality of life (QoL) from the pt’s perspective was assessed using the PsAID12 questionnaire and characterized by physical and psychological domains. After 3 and 6 months of treatment, 33% and 50% of pts with PsAID >4 at BL (n=60) achieved PsAID12 ≤4, respectively (cutoff value for Pt Acceptable Symptom State2). Improvements were observed in all 12 domains at Months 3 and 6 compared with BL (Figure). In all, 66% of pts showed a decrease ≥0.35 in HAQ-DI; the proportion of pts reaching a global HAQ-DI <0.5 increased over time (14% at 3 months; 20% at 6 months).

Conclusion:

Results from APOLO, a study assessing the impact of APR in routine settings, indicated that APR is associated with rapid and sustained improvements in PsA signs and symptoms and QoL in an important proportion of pts. Safety and tolerability were consistent with the known profile of APR.

References:

[1]Kavanaugh A, et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2019;21:118. 2. Gossec L, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73:1012-1019.

Disclosure of Interests:

Kurt de Vlam Consultant of: Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB – consultant, Speakers bureau: Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB – speakers bureau and honoraria, Adrien Nzeusseu Toukap Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB – grant/research support, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, UCB – consultant, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, UCB – advisory board member, Marie-Joëlle Kaiser Consultant of: Celgene Corporation – consultant, Johan Vanhoof: None declared, Philip Remans: None declared, Silvana Di Romana: None declared, Filip van den Bosch Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Virginie Vanhoof Employee of: Amgen Inc. – employment; Celgene BeLux – employment at the time of study conduct, Rik Lories Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Samumed and UCB – grant/research support (on behalf of Leuven Research and Development), Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Samumed and UCB – consultant (on behalf of Leuven Research and Development), Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Samumed and UCB – speaker (on behalf of Leuven Research and Development)

FRI0304 SERUM IGG-UNDERGALACTOSYLATION PROFILES REFLECT CUMULATIVE EXPOSURE TO SYSTEMIC INFLAMMATION IN SPONDYLOARTHRITIS PATIENTS

Background:

Inflammation in spondyloarthritis (SpA) is often not reflected by elevated acute phase reactants such as C-reactive protein (CRP) or erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). It has been shown that IgG glycosylation patterns are subject to specific alterations (i.e. undergalactosylation) in chronic inflammatory diseases. Since these changes only occur in persistent inflammatory processes, lasting at least one to two t1/2of IgG (24 days), it was hypothesized that IgG-glycan profiles could serve as a surrogate marker for chronic inflammation in SpA patients.

Objectives:

To assess the value of serum IgG-undergalactosylation in SpA patients in relation to outcome measures for disease activity, determined by patient reported outcomes, serum inflammatory markers and imaging outcomes.

Methods:

Serum samples were obtained from SpA patients at the baseline visit of Be-Giant: a Belgian observational cohort including SpA patients who fulfill the ASAS classification criteria for axial or peripheral SpA. IgG Fc N-glycans were released directly in whole serum by endo-β-N-acetyl-glucosaminidase fromStreptococcus pyogenes(EndoS), fluorescently labeled with ATPS and analyzed by capillary electrophoresis, rendering glycan profiles with six peaks (Figure 1). Relative peak heights were combined in the undergalactosylation score (UGS), capturing the relative upregulation of non-galactosylated glycans normalized to the total peak height (1). Baseline radiographs (X-SIJ) and magnetic resonance images (MRI) of the sacroiliac joints (SIJ) were assessed by three calibrated readers for sacroiliitis (fulfillment of the modified New York criteria; grading 0 to 4 per SIJ) and for inflammatory lesions according to the Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) method (score from 0 – 72) respectively. Grades and inflammatory lesions that were seen by at least 2 readers were used for further analysis.

Figure 1.

Example of a serum IgG-specific glycan profile. Adapted from (1), with permission.

Results:

Glycan profiles were obtained from 376 SpA patients; UGS was scaled (mean = 0, SD = 1) for further analysis. UGS was independently associated with ASDAS-CRP (β1= 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 – 0.26, p = 0.006) and BASFI (β1= 0.44, 95% CI 0.16 – 0.72, p = 0.002) but not with BASDAI (β1= 0.12, 95% CI -0.13 – 0.38, p = 0.34). UGS showed a weak to moderate correlation with CRP (Rs= 0.30, p < 0.001) and ESR (Rs= 0.27, p <0.001). In axial SpA, UGS was significantly higher in patients with ankylosing spondylitis compared to non-radiographic axial SpA (OR = 2.41, 95% CI 1.60 – 3.73, p < 0.001) and showed an independent association with the total grading of the SIJ (β1= 0.44, 95% CI 0.09 – 0.80, p = 0.01, Figure 2) and SPARCC score (β1= 2.64, 95% CI 0.98 – 4.31, p = 0.002). All models were adjusted for age, gender, BMI, CRP, anti-TNF treatment and symptom duration.

Conclusion:

This study shows and independent association of serum IgG undergalactosylation with disease activity and functional impairment in SpA patients. Moreover, UGS was significantly higher in advanced compared to early-stage axial disease and therefore may reflect the cumulative exposure to systemic inflammation.

References:

[1]Vanderschaeghe D, Meuris L, Raes T, et al. Endoglycosidase S Enables a Highly Simplified Clinical Chemistry Procedure for Direct Assessment of Serum IgG Undergalactosylation in Chronic Inflammatory Disease. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2018;17(12):2508-17.

Figure 2.

Correlation between UGS and X-SIJ total grading of sacroiliitis. R = Spearman’s correlation coefficient.

Disclosure of Interests:

Ann-Sophie De Craemer: None declared, Zuzanna Lukasik: None declared, Leander Meuris: None declared, Liselotte Deroo: None declared, Thomas Renson: None declared, Manouk de Hooge: None declared, Philippe Carron: None declared, Annelies Van Hecke: None declared, Nico Callewaert: None declared, Filip van den Bosch Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Dirk Elewaut: None declared

FRI0344 THE LONG-TERM EFFECT OF TREATING PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS WITH THE JANUS KINASE 1-SELECTIVE INHIBITOR FILGOTINIB ON LIPID PROFILES: AN ANALYSIS OF THE EQUATOR AND EQUATOR2 TRIALS

Background:

Cardiovascular (CV) comorbidities are common in psoriatic arthritis (PsA); patients are at high risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).1In the Phase 2, double-blind, randomized EQUATOR trial, significant improvements across multiple PsA domains were observed with the oral selective Janus kinase (JAK) 1 inhibitor filgotinib compared with placebo.2Inhibition of JAK signal transducer and activator of transcription signaling is associated with raised serum lipids.3

Objectives:

To evaluate the effects of filgotinib on the lipid profile of PsA patients and determine if those with higher MACE risk show similar changes in lipid profile compared with the overall population.

Methods:

In EQUATOR, 131 patients with active PsA received filgotinib 200 mg (n=65) or placebo (n=66) once daily for 16 weeks. Patients completing EQUATOR could enter the ongoing EQUATOR2 open-label extension (OLE;NCT03320876), in which patients receive filgotinib 200 mg for up to 148 weeks. Effects of filgotinib on total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and TC/HDL-C ratio at OLE Week 52 (68 weeks after EQUATOR initiation) were analyzed. In a post hoc analysis, patients were classified into subgroups according to presence/absence of obesity (baseline body mass index [BMI]; ≥30 vs <30 kg/m2, respectively), diabetes mellitus, arterial hypertension (≥130/80 mmHg), hyperlipidemia, and metabolic syndrome. Changes in lipid levels were explored graphically.

Results:

124 patients (95%) completed EQUATOR; 122 (93%) enrolled in the OLE. Of these, 11 patients (9%) discontinued treatment by OLE Week 52. Median (range) exposure to filgotinib was 66.0 (0.4–104.1) weeks. In the OLE, TC, LDL-C, and HDL-C levels increased versus baseline with filgotinib, resulting in a decreased TC/HDL-C ratio. Changes in lipid levels were consistent irrespective of presence of obesity (n=56;Fig), diabetes (n=53), arterial hypertension (n=80), hyperlipidemia (n=108), or metabolic syndrome (n=36); baseline lipid values were greater in the higher risk groups. In patients who were assigned placebo in the randomized controlled trial (RCT), HDL-C increased on switching to filgotinib in the OLE (in a manner similar to that seen in filgotinib-treated patients during the RCT), and remained elevated compared with baseline (Fig). Triglyceride levels remained stable throughout, across all subgroups. Seventeen patients (13%) were taking lipid-lowering drugs (LLDs) prior to the start of the trial (and continued to do so); the effect of filgotinib on the lipid profile in these patients was similar to that in the overall population. During the RCT phase, another six patients in the filgotinib group and one in the placebo group began taking LLDs.

Conclusion:

In patients exposed to filgotinib for ≥52 weeks, the effects on lipid profile were consistent regardless of baseline CV risk. Lipid changes included an elevation in TC and HDL-C, with a decrease in TC/HDL-C ratio.

References:

[1]Haddad A & Zisman D. Rambam Maimonides Med J 2017;8:e0004

[2]Mease P, et al. Lancet 2018;392:2367–77

[3]Sands B, et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020;18:123–32

Acknowledgments:

Studies were sponsored by Galapagos NV; co-funded by Galapagos NV and Gilead Sciences. Writing support from Hannah Mace MPharmacol, CMPP (Aspire Scientific Ltd, Bollington, UK) was funded by Galapagos NV (Mechelen, Belgium).

Disclosure of Interests:

M Elaine Husni Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Regeneron, and UCB, Dafna D Gladman Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen Inc., BMS, Celgene Corporation, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB – grant/research support, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen Inc., BMS, Celgene Corporation, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB – consultant, Philip Helliwell: None declared, Filip van den Bosch Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Chantal Tasset Shareholder of: Galapagos (share/warrant holder), Employee of: Galapagos, Luc Meuleners Employee of: Galapagos, Leen Gilles Consultant of: Galapagos, Lien Gheyle Employee of: Galapagos, Mona Trivedi Shareholder of: Amgen and Gilead Sciences, Employee of: Gilead Sciences, Muhsen Alani Employee of: Gilead Sciences, Robin Besuyen Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Philip J Mease Grant/research support from: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB – grant/research support, Consultant of: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB – consultant, Speakers bureau: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB – speakers bureau

An induction or flare of arthritis and/or sacroiliitis by vedolizumab in inflammatory bowel disease: a case series

BACKGROUND

In inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), a new biological therapy has recently been approved. Vedolizumab is a humanised IgG1 monoclonal antibody to α4β7 integrin that modulates gut lymphocyte trafficking. Although an exclusively local effect of vedolizumab could be expected based on the restricted presence of the α4β7-mucosal vascular addressin cell adhesion molecule 1 complex in the gut, past combined success with anti-tumour necrosis factor, and previous demonstration of α4β7 integrin in the joint, led to the expectation of a therapeutic efficacy in spondyloarthritis. Nonetheless, the effect of vedolizumab on extraintestinal manifestations-and especially the joint-has not been reported so far.

CASE REPORT

A series of five patients with IBD who were treated with vedolizumab and promptly developed new onset or exacerbation of sacroiliitis or arthritis are reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Vedolizumab therapy does not seem to show any efficacy in and might even induce arthritis and/or sacroiliitis. However, larger cohort studies are needed to provide information on the prevalence, the evolution and underlying mechanism.

Brief Report: Six-Week Treatment of Axial Spondyloarthritis Patients With an Optimal Dose of Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs: Early Response to Treatment in Signal Intensity on Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Sacroiliac Joints

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the early effect of full-dose nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on the extent and intensity of bone marrow edema of the sacroiliac (SI) joints on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in axial spondyloarthritis (SpA).

METHODS

A single-center, 6-week study of a cohort of consecutive patients with clinically suspected axial SpA was conducted. A total of 117 patients were screened. Forty patients who were diagnosed as having axial SpA and had presented with a positive MRI of the SI joints as defined by the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) criteria were considered for a followup MRI after 6 weeks of an optimal dose of NSAIDs. Twenty patients completed the study. Disease activity was monitored by determining the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score every 2 weeks and the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index score at baseline and week 6. NSAID intake was assessed by the ASAS NSAID index. Primary end points were improvement in bone marrow edema of the SI joints on MRI and BASDAI response at week 6.

RESULTS

Approximately one-third of eligible patients newly diagnosed as having axial SpA were unable to continue the full-dose NSAID schedule. The median NSAID index was 97% in patients who completed the study. There was a reduction of 1.1 units (10.5%) in mean Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) scores at week 6 in comparison to baseline (P = 0.032). Overall, only 30% of the patients (6 of 20) had a minimal clinically important difference of ≥2.5 in SPARCC score. However, 80% of the patients displayed high-intensity lesions on STIR images at baseline, which decreased significantly at week 6 (P = 0.011). There was a significant decrease in the relative intensity of the region of interest (P = 0.007) and a mean decrease of 0.6 in the BASDAI score per 2 weeks of therapy (P = 0.001). Only 29.4% of the patients met the BASDAI criteria for 50% improvement (BASDAI50) at week 6.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate a high level of dropout among patients receiving full-dose NSAID therapy in daily practice. In those who tolerated NSAID therapy, there was no clinically relevant decrease in SPARCC scores and low BASDAI50 response. However, we found a decrease in signal intensity of bone marrow edema of the SI joints as an early response to 6 weeks of optimal NSAID therapy in patients newly presenting with axial SpA.

Elevated calprotectin levels reveal bowel inflammation in spondyloarthritis

INTRODUCTION

Microscopic bowel inflammation is present in up to 50% of patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA) and is associated with more severe disease. Currently no reliable biomarkers exist to identify patients at risk. Calprotectin is a sensitive marker of neutrophilic inflammation, measurable in serum and stool.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether serum and faecal calprotectin in addition to C-reactive protein (CRP) can be used to identify patients with SpA at risk of microscopic bowel inflammation.

METHODS

Serum calprotectin and CRP were measured in 125 patients with SpA. In 44 of these patients, faecal samples were available for calprotectin measurement. All 125 patients underwent an ileocolonoscopy to assess the presence of microscopic bowel inflammation.

RESULTS

Microscopic bowel inflammation was present in 53 (42.4%) patients with SpA. Elevated serum calprotectin and CRP were independently associated with microscopic bowel inflammation. Faecal calprotectin was also significantly higher in patients with microscopic bowel inflammation. Patients with CRP and serum calprotectin elevated had a frequency of bowel inflammation of 64% vs 25% in patients with low levels of both. When either CRP or serum calprotectin was elevated, the risk was intermediate (40%) and measuring faecal calprotectin provided further differentiation. Hence we suggest a screening approach where initially serum calprotectin and CRP are assessed and, if necessary, faecal calprotectin. The model using this scenario provided an area under the ROC curve of 74.4% for detection of bowel inflammation.

CONCLUSIONS

Calprotectin measurements in stool and serum, in addition to CRP, may provide a promising strategy to identify patients with SpA at risk of bowel inflammation and could play a role in overall patient stratification.

Diagnositic value of pelvic enthesitis on MRI of the sacroiliac joints in enthesitis related arthritis

BACKGROUND

To determine the prevalence and diagnostic value of pelvic enthesitis on MRI of the sacroiliac (SI) joints in enthesitis related arthritis (ERA).

METHODS

We retrospectively studied 143 patients aged 6-18 years old who underwent MRI of the SI joints for clinically suspected sacroiliitis between 2006-2014. Patients were diagnosed with ERA according to the International League of Associations for Rheumatology (ILAR) criteria. All MRI studies were reassessed for the presence of pelvic enthesitis, which was correlated to the presence of sacroiliitis on MRI and to the final clinical diagnosis. The added value for detection of pelvic enthesitis and fulfilment of criteria for the diagnosis of ERA was studied.

RESULTS

Pelvic enthesitis was seen in 23 of 143 (16 %) patients. The most commonly affected sites were the entheses around the hip (35 % of affected entheses) and the retroarticular interosseous ligaments (32 % of affected entheses). MRI showed pelvic enthesitis in 21 % of patients with ERA and in 13 % of patients without ERA. Pelvic enthesitis was seen on MRI in 7/51 (14 %) patients with clinically evident enthesitis, and 16/92 (17 %) patients without clinically evident enthesitis. In 7 of 11 ERA-negative patients without clinical enthesitis but with pelvic enthesitis on MRI, the ILAR criteria could have been fulfilled, if pelvic enthesitis on MRI was included in the criteria. There is a high correlation between pelvic enthesitis and sacroiliitis, with sacroiliitis present in 17/23 (74 %) patients with pelvic enthesitis.

CONCLUSIONS

Pelvic enthesitis may be present in children with or without clinically evident peripheral enthesitis. There is a high correlation between pelvic enthesitis and sacroiliitis on MRI of the sacroiliac joints in children. As pelvic enthesitis indicates active inflammation, it may play a role in assessment of the inflammatory status. Therefore, it should be carefully sought and noted by radiologists examining MRI of the sacroiliac joints in children.