Assessment of Patient-Physician Interactions in Psoriatic Arthritis: National Results of the ASSIST Study

INTRODUCTION

An overarching principle for the management of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a shared decision-making process between physicians and patients. The aim of this study is to assess the patient-physician relationship in a group of patients with PsA, by using the Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions (PEPPI) and CollaboRATE instruments.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional multicenter study where consecutive patients with PsA were enrolled. For each patient, the main demographic, comorbid conditions, and clinical data were collected, including the assessment of disease activity, function, quality of life, and impact of disease. PEPPI and CollaboRATE questionnaires were used, respectively, to evaluate the patient's perception of the patient-physician relationship and the shared decision-making process.

RESULTS

A total of 81 patients with PsA were enrolled at four centers in Italy. Overall, our patients showed a high level of confidence in obtaining needed health care, with relatively high median (IQR) values of PEPPI (20; 16-23), and a good shared decision-making process, with high median (IQR) values of CollaboRATE questionnaire (7; 6-9). PEPPI and CollaboRATE scores showed a statistically significant inverse correlation with different clinical variables such as disease duration, Leeds Enthesitis Index, PsA impact of Disease, Health Assessment Questionnaire, pain, patient's global assessment of disease activity and clinical disease activity for PsA. The presence of comorbidities did not appear to be associated with lower values of PEPPI and CollaboRATE.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, few patients with PsA were at risk of suboptimal communication with their physician. This phenomenon appeared to be primarily related to higher disease activity and burden.

Coalition for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE)-a protocol for a global cross-sectional survey of health and gender equity in rheumatology

Objectives

The primary aim of the CHANGE survey is to determine the current state of gender equity within rheumatology, and secondarily, to review the physician perspective on bullying, harassment and equipoise of opportunities within rheumatology.

Methods

The CHANGE e-survey is a cross-sectional self-reported questionnaire adapted from EULAR's gender equity in academic rheumatology task force. The survey was launched in January 2023; it is available in six languages and distributed widely via rheumatology organizations and social media. Eligible participants include rheumatologist physicians and rheumatology health-care professionals. Survey responses will undergo descriptive analysis and inter-group comparison aiming to explore gender-based discrimination using logistic regression, with subgroup analyses for country/continent variations.

Conclusion

This e-survey represents a comprehensive global initiative led by an international consortium, aimed at exploring and investigating the gender-related disparities and obstacles encountered by rheumatologists and rheumatology health-care professionals across diverse communities and health-care environments. By pursuing this initiative, we aim to take the broader rheumatology community a step closer to understanding the underlying origins of inequities and their determinants. Such insights are pivotal in identifying viable interventions and strategies to foster gender equity within the field. Ultimately, our collective objective is to ensure equitable access to opportunities for every individual, irrespective of gender, thereby promoting inclusivity and fairness across the entire spectrum of professional practice and career development.

Application of clinical and molecular profiling data to improve patient outcomes in psoriatic arthritis

Achieving a good outcome for a person with Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) is made difficult by late diagnosis, heterogenous clinical disease expression and in many cases, failure to adequately suppress inflammatory disease features. Single-centre studies have certainly contributed to our understanding of disease pathogenesis, but to adequately address the major areas of unmet need, multi-partner, collaborative research programmes are now required. HIPPOCRATES is a 5-year, Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) programme which includes 17 European academic centres experienced in PsA research, 5 pharmaceutical industry partners, 3 small-/medium-sized industry partners and 2 patient-representative organizations. In this review, the ambitious programme of work to be undertaken by HIPPOCRATES is outlined and common approaches and challenges are identified. It is expected that, when completed, the results will ultimately allow for changes in the approaches to diagnosing, managing and treating PsA allowing for better short-term and long-term outcomes.

Challenges in the Management of Psoriatic Arthritis in Latin America: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

In 2020, the International League of Associations for Rheumatology published recommendations for managing psoriatic arthritis (PsA), aiming to adapt the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations to low-income countries. At that time, the paucity of clinical studies examining the management of patients with PsA in Latin America was remarked on by the international working group. Therefore, the primary objective of this systematic literature review was to investigate the main challenges in managing PsA in Latin America as described in recent publications.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of trials reporting at least one challenge/difficulty in the management of PsA in Latin America was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. References published in the PubMed, EMBASE, and LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature) databases between 1980 and February 2023 were included. The selection of references was conducted independently by 2 researchers in the Rayyan Qatar Computing Research Institute program. Two other reviewers independently extracted data. All challenges were noted and categorized into domains. Data analysis was descriptive.

FINDINGS

The search strategy yielded 2085 references, with 21 studies included in the final analysis. Most studies were conducted in Brazil (66.6%; n = 14) and were observational studies (100%; N = 21). Difficulties faced by PsA patients and physicians included the high incidence of opportunistic infections (described in 42.8% of the publications; n = 9), followed by nonadherence to therapy, discordance between patients and physicians regarding remission rates, low drug persistence, limited access to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, issues related to the storage of biologic drugs, elevated cost of biologic drugs, limited access to medical care, diagnostic delay, and the individual- and country-level impact of socioeconomic factors on work- and health-related outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS

Challenges in the management of PsA in Latin America extend beyond the care of opportunistic infections, encompassing several other socioeconomic factors. More research is needed to better understand the peculiarities of treating PsA in Latin America to improve patient care. PROSPERO identifier: CRD42021228297.

Women in rheumatology: major contributions and key discoveries of the twentieth century

In the twentieth century, rheumatology saw an exponential growth. Discoveries in the pathophysiology of rheumatic diseases, progress in research methodology and novel treatments cardinally changed the natural course of rheumatic diseases and revolutionized patient management. Although underrepresented in this field, women have made considerable input in advancing our specialty towards the new era. In this article we acknowledge key scientific discoveries and major contributions made by 18 brilliant women scientists that shaped the field of rheumatology in the twentieth century. We hope that the achievements of these remarkable women will inspire young rheumatologists and researchers.

P20 Treatment resistant psoriatic arthritis: a case report

Introduction/Background

Although the era of targeted drugs has transformed the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), treatment resistant PsA still occurs. We present a rare case of a patient (renamed Ms Smith) with severe treatment resistant PsA.

Ms Smith, a previously healthy 25-year-old, was diagnosed with arthritis in July 2018. She presented at that time with severe monoarthritis of right ankle starting in September 2017. It was initially thought to be possible sarcoma, but biopsy confirmed inflammation. She had no psoriasis and was HLA-B27 positive. She was diagnosed seronegative peripheral spondyloarthritis (psoriatic type).

Description/Method

She was treated with sulfasalazine and methotrexate in September 2018 but had side effects and no response. Her arthritis spread to multiple joints (tender joint count (TJC) 8, swollen joint count (SJC) 5, patient/physician global 4) and treatment was escalated to adalimumab biosimilar, but with minimal improvement (6 TJC, 5 SJC, patient/physican global 4). Despite additional prednisolone and subcutaneous methotrexate, she did not make a significant response.

Given her poor response, she was switched to secukinumab in March 2019 along with short course prednisolone. At 12 weeks she had partial response from physician assessment, but she did not feel much better. To maximise response, she was also given leflunomide but experienced side effects and no benefit. She also developed bloody diarrhoea, raising concern about inflammatory bowel disease (a recognised complication of IL-17), but investigations were negative. Given the side-effects and non-response, secukinumab and leflunomide were stopped after 6 months.

In January 2020, she presented with TJC 24, SJC 6 and patient/physician global of 5. She was switched to tofacitinib and restarted on leflunomide with subcutaneous methotrexate. Again, she stopped leflunomide but continued tofacitinib plus methotrexate until August 2020. At that time, she had presented with left hip pain; MRI confirmed sacroiliitis and left hip synovitis. She also had multiple swollen joints. Given worsening disease and spinal involvement, she was switched to etanercept as fourth biologic but did not respond to this either.

Discussion/Results

She saw a second rheumatologist who agreed with diagnosis/treatments. Bloods tests, illustrated in Table 1, showed increase in her CRP. X-rays reviewed by radiology specialist interestingly showed significant erosive disease as well as unexpectedly some subluxation that appeared more like RA than PsA. Following an IFR, she was started on tocilizumab (subcutaneously initially and then one intravenously) but developed a non-allergic reaction to it (so only given half the infusion) and unusually her CRP increased to 325.

A PET-CT scan showed FDG avid nodes in the axillae, abdominal retroperitoneum, pelvis, and inguinal regions. A lymph node biopsy found IgG4 cells and reactive changes to a tattoo. Discussion in regional IgG4 meeting felt IgG4 disease was unlikely. Echocardiogram and blood cultures were negative.

She was recently started on rituximab, alongside methotrexate. If no response to this - what next? Cyclophosphamide? She has recently been diagnosed with Human Papillomavirus and had Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia 1 on colposcopy.

Key learning points/Conclusion

Ms Smith has one of the most resistant forms of arthritis that did not respond to any treatment to date.

POS0074 IMMUNOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PsA PATIENTS WHO ARE TUMOR NECROSIS FACTOR INHIBITOR-NAIVE AND WHO HAVE INADEQUATE RESPONSE TO TUMOR NECROSIS FACTOR INHIBITORS

Background

A better understanding of the immunological differences between psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients (pts) who are tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-naïve & who have inadequate response to TNFi (TNFi-IR) may guide treatment choices. In DISCOVER-1, benefit of the IL-23p19 subunit inhibitor guselkumab (GUS) every-four-weeks (Q4W) & Q8W vs placebo (PBO) in improving PsA signs & symptoms was seen in adults with active PsA.1 The Ph3b COSMOS study of GUS Q8W vs PBO in TNFi-IR PsA pts corroborated these findings.2

Objectives

Assess baseline (BL) molecular differences between TNFi-naïve & -IR PsA pts & investigate GUS pharmacodynamic (PD) effect on cytokine expression over time in these cohorts.

Methods

Serum samples collected from consenting biomarker substudy pts in DISCOVER-11 (TNFi-naïve [n=101] & -IR [n=17]), DISCOVER-23 (TNFi-naïve [n=150]), & COSMOS2 (TNFi-IR [n=76]) were analyzed for selected serum cytokine levels. TNFi-IR pts in this post-hoc analysis had active PsA & discontinued 1-2 TNFi due to inadequate efficacy; these pts required a TNFi-specific washout period prior to starting GUS. PD effect of GUS Q8W on cytokine levels was assessed. Differential BL cytokine expression, associations between BL cytokine levels & clinical response (Psoriasis [PsO] Area & Severity Index 75% improvement from BL [PASI75] & American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement [ACR20]), & GUS effect on cytokine levels were analyzed with a General linear model & Spearman linear regression.

Results

BL pt demographics, disease characteristics, & conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) use were comparable between TNFi-naïve (DISCOVER-1 & -2, N=251) & -IR (DISCOVER-1 & COSMOS, N=93) pts, with differences in mean PASI score (8.9 v 12.5), swollen joint count (SJC) (11.7 v 10.3), PsA duration (5.8 v 9.8 yrs), & PsO duration (16.7 v 20.4 yrs; Table 1). BL serum IL-22 & TNFα levels for pooled treatment groups were higher in TNFi-IR than -naïve pts (p<0.05). At W24, GUS reduced IL-22, IL-17A/F, IL-6, C-reactive protein (CRP), & serum amyloid A protein to similar levels in both cohorts (p<0.05; Figure 1). W24 PASI75 responders had higher BL IL-17F levels with GUS in both cohorts (p<0.05) & higher IL-22 levels in TNFi-IR pts only (p<0.05). A trend of upregulated BL IL-22 expression in W24 ACR20 responders was seen for TNFi-IR pts with GUS (p=0.07).

Table 1.

BL demographics, disease characteristics, & drug use in TNFi-naïve & -IR cohorts with available cytokine data in DISCOVER-1&2 & COSMOS.*

TNFi-naïve (N=251)TNFi-IR (N=93)Age [yrs]47.2 (11.3)48.5 (11.1)Female, n (%)132 (52.6)46 (49.5)Body mass index [kg/m2]29.6 (6.1)30.3 (6.4)Median (range) CRP [mg/dL]0.9 (0.0-12.9)1.0 (0.0-13.2)Log2 IL-22 / TNFα [pg/mL]2.0 (1.4) / 1.1 (0.6)2.5 (1.5) / 1.9 (1.2)Log2 IL-17A / F [pg/mL]-0.4 (1.5) / 1.7 (1.5)-0.1 (1.7) / 2.0 (1.6)SJC [0-66]11.7 (7.1)10.3 (8.3)TJC [0-68]20.3 (13.1)20.6 (14.2)PsA duration [yrs]5.8 (5.9)9.8 (8.2)PsO duration [yrs]16.7 (12.8)20.4 (12.0)PsO Body surface area (%)14.8 (18.6)19.1 (21.3)Investigator’s Global Assessment score [0-4]2.3 (0.9)2.3 (1.0)PASI score [0-72]8.9 (10.6)12.5 (12.0)Enthesitis [Y], n (%)160 (63.7)58 (62.4)csDMARD use [Y], n (%)164 (65.3)62 (66.7)Corticosteroid use (Y), n (%)45 (17.9)19 (20.4)Methotrexate use [Y], n (%)136 (54.2)54 (58.1)

Data are mean (SD) unless otherwise noted. *Pts with serum CRP level ≥0.3 mg/dL, SJC ≥3, & TJC ≥3 (to mimic D1 inclusion criteria1). TJC= tender joint count

Conclusion

Elevated BL IL-22 expression & association between BL IL-22 levels & W24 PASI75 response, & a W24 trend for an association between upregulated BL IL-22 & ACR20 response, in TNFi-IR pts seen in this exploratory analysis may suggest increased involvement of the IL-23 pathway in TNFi-IR pts. GUS showed comparable & significant PD effects for TNFi-naïve & -IR pts, consistent with observed clinical responses.

References

[1]Deodhar A, et al. Lancet. 2020;395:1115-25.

[2]Coates LC, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021;80:140-1.

[3]Mease P, et al. Lancet. 2020;395:1126-36.

Disclosure of Interests

Stefan Siebert Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Biogen, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB, Laura Coates Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Georg Schett Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB, Siba P Raychaudhuri Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN Pharma, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN Pharma, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN Pharma, and UCB, Warner Chen Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC (a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson), Sheng Gao Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC (a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson), Soumya D Chakravarty Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC (a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson), May Shawi Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, Frederic Lavie Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, Elke Theander Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC (a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson), Marlies Neuhold Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC (a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson), Alexa Kollmeier Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC (a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson), Xie L Xu Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC (a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson), Proton Rahman Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Janssen and Novartis, Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Aclaris, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Inmagene, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB, Atul Deodhar Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Aurinia, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB

LB0001 BIMEKIZUMAB IN BDMARD-NAIVE PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: 24-WEEK EFFICACY & SAFETY FROM BE OPTIMAL, A PHASE 3, MULTICENTRE, RANDOMISED, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED, ACTIVE REFERENCE STUDY

Background

Bimekizumab (BKZ) is a monoclonal IgG1 antibody that selectively inhibits IL-17F in addition to IL-17A.

Objectives

Assess BKZ efficacy and safety vs PBO in bDMARD-naïve pts with active PsA to Wk 24 of BE OPTIMAL.

Methods

BE OPTIMAL (NCT03895203) comprises 16 wks double-blind PBO-controlled and 36 wks treatment-blind. Pts were ≥18 yrs, bDMARD-naïve, with adult-onset, active PsA, ≥3 tender and ≥3 swollen joints. Pts randomised 3:2:1, subcutaneous BKZ 160 mg Q4W:PBO:adalimumab (ADA; reference arm) 40 mg Q2W. From Wk 16, PBO pts received BKZ 160 mg Q4W. Primary endpoint: ACR50 at Wk 16.

Results

821/852 (96.4%) pts completed Wk 16 and 806 (94.6%) Wk 24. Mean age 48.7 yrs, BMI 29.2 kg/m2; since diagnosis: 5.9 yrs; 46.8% male. BL characteristics comparable across arms. Primary endpoint met (Wk 16 ACR50: 43.9% BKZ vs 10.0% PBO, p<0.001; ADA: 45.7%; Figure 1). All ranked secondary endpoints met at Wk 16 (Table 1). As early as Wk 2, ACR20 was higher in BKZ vs PBO (27.1% vs 7.8%, nominal p<0.001; ADA: 33.6%). Outcomes continued to improve at Wk 24 (Table 1). To Wk 16, pts with ≥1 TEAE, BKZ: 59.9%; PBO: 49.5%; ADA: 59.3%. SAE rate low (1.6%; 1.1%; 1.4%). Most frequent (≥5%) AEs for all arms: nasopharyngitis (9.3%; 4.6%; 5.0%), URTI (4.9%; 6.4%; 2.1%), increased ALT (0.7%; 0.7%; 5.0%). Candida infections: 2.6%, 0.7%, 0%; no systemic candidiasis. 2 malignancies (BKZ: basal cell carcinoma; PBO: breast cancer stage 1); no MACE, uveitis, IBD or deaths.

Table 1.

Wk 16 and 24 efficacy

BLWk 16Wk 24PBO N=281BKZ 160 mg Q4W N=431ADA 40 mg Q2W N=140†PBO N=281BKZ 160 mg Q4W N=431ADA 40 mg Q2W N=140†p value (BKZ vs PBO)PBO→ BKZ 160 mg Q4WaN=281BKZ 160 mg Q4W N=431ADA 40 mg Q2W N=140†Ranked endpointsbACR50 [NRI],–––28189 (43.9)64<0.00110119666n (%)-10-45.7(35.9)(45.5)-47.1HAQ-DI CfB [MI],0.890.820.86−0.09 (0.03)−0.26 (0.02)−0.33<0.001c−0.28−0.30−0.34mean (SE)-0.04-0.03-0.05(0.04)(0.03)(0.02)(0.05)PASI90d [NRI],–––4133 (61.3)f28<0.00186 (61.4)e158 (72.8)f32n (%)(2.9)e(41.2)g(47.1)gSF-36 PCS CfB [MI],36.938.137.62.36.36.8<0.001c6.27.37.3mean (SE)-0.6-0.5-0.7-0.5-0.4-0.8-0.5-0.4-0.8MDA [NRI],51413719463<0.00110620967n (%)-1.8-3.2-0.7-13.2(45.0)-45(37.7)(48.5)-47.9vdHmTSS CfB (subgroup)h [MI], mean (SE)15.67 (1.80)i15.56 (1.69)j17.39 (2.89)k0.36 (0.10)i−0.01 (0.04)j−0.06 (0.08)k<0.001c–––vdHmTSS CfB [MI],mean (SE)13.31 (1.56)l13.44 (1.47)m14.55 (2.44)n0.31 (0.09)l0(0.04)m−0.03 (0.07)n0.001c–––Other endpointsACR20 [NRI],–––6726896<0.001o17528299n (%)-23.8(62.2)-68.6(62.3)(65.4)-70.7ACR70 [NRI],–––1210539<0.001o5312642n (%)-4.3(24.4)-27.9-18.9(29.2)-30PASI100d [NRI],–––3103f14<0.001o6012226n (%)(2.1)e(47.5)(20.6)g(42.9)e (56.2)f(38.2)gTJC CfB [MI],17.116.817.5−3.2−10.0−10.9<0.001o−9.4−11.5−11.8mean (SE)-0.7-0.6-1.1(0.7) (0.5)-1(0.7)(0.5)-0.9SJC CfB [MI],9.599.6−3.0 (0.5)−6.6 (0.3)−7.5<0.001o−6.8 (0.4)−7.2 (0.3)−7.9mean (SE)-0.4-0.3-0.6-0.6-0.6

Randomised set. Interim results.

†Reference arm; study not powered for statistical comparisons of ADA to BKZ or PBO.

aPBO→BKZ pts received PBO to Wk 16, switched to BKZ 160 mg Q4W through Wk 24 (8 wks BKZ);

bResolution of enthesitis/dactylitis in pts with LEI>0/LDI>0 at BL pooled with BE COMPLETE (Wk 16 LEI=0 BKZ: 124/249 [49.8%], PBO: 37/106 [34.9%], p=0.008; LDI=0 BKZ: 68/90 [75.6%], PBO: 24/47 [51.1%], p=0.002);

cContinuous outcome p values calculated with RBMI data;

dPts with PSO and ≥3% BSA at BL;

en=140;

fn=217;

gn=68;

hPts with hs-CRP ≥6 mg/L and/or bone erosion at BL;

in=221;

jn=357;

kn=108;

ln=261;

mn=416;

nn=131;

oNominal, not powered for multiplicity.

Conclusion

Dual inhibition of IL-17A and IL-17F with BKZ in bDMARD-naïve pts with active PsA resulted in rapid, clinically relevant improvements in musculoskeletal and skin outcomes vs PBO. No new safety signals observed.1,2

References

[1]Ritchlin CT Lancet 2020;395(10222):427–40; 2. Coates LC Ann Rheum Dis 2021;80:779–80(POS1022).

Disclosure of Interests

Iain McInnes Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Janssen, UCB Pharma, Laura Coates Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Celgene, Domain, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Galapagos, Janssen, Moonlake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Robert B.M. Landewé Consultant of: Abbott, Ablynx, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Centocor, GSK, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, Schering-Plough, UCB Pharma, and Wyeth, Speakers bureau: Abbott, Amgen, BMS, Centocor, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, Schering-Plough, UCB Pharma, and Wyeth, Grant/research support from: Abbott, Amgen, Centocor, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Schering-Plough, UCB Pharma, and Wyeth, Philip J Mease Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma and UCB Pharma, Christopher T. Ritchlin Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen and UCB Pharma, Yoshiya Tanaka Consultant of: AbbVie, Ayumi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, GSK, Sanofi, and Taisho, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, and YL Biologics, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Asahi-Kasei, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai, Corrona, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Kowa, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, and Takeda, Akihiko Asahina Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Maruho, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, Taiho Pharma, Torii Pharmaceutical, and UCB Pharma, Laure Gossec Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer, Sandoz and UCB Pharma, Alice B Gottlieb Consultant of: Amgen, AnaptsysBio, Avotres Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, UCB Pharma, and XBiotech, Grant/research support from: Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Novartis, Sun Pharma, UCB Pharma, and XBiotech: all funds go to Mount Sinai Medical School, Richard B. Warren Consultant of: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Arena, Astellas, Avillion, Biogen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB Pharma, Paid instructor for: Astellas, DiCE, GSK, and Union, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Almirall, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, and UCB Pharma, Barbara Ink Shareholder of: GSK, UCB Pharma, Employee of: UCB Pharma, Deepak Assudani Shareholder of: UCB Pharma, Employee of: UCB Pharma, Jason Coarse Shareholder of: UCB Pharma, Employee of: UCB Pharma, Rajan Bajracharya Shareholder of: UCB Pharma, Employee of: UCB Pharma, Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and UCB Pharma, Paid instructor for: Amgen, Abbvie, Biogen, BMS, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and UCB Pharma

POS1039 DEUCRAVACITINIB, AN ORAL, SELECTIVE TYROSINE KINASE 2 INHIBITOR, IN A PHASE 2 TRIAL IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: ACHIEVEMENT OF MINIMAL DISEASE ACTIVITY AND ITS COMPONENTS

Background

Tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) is an intracellular kinase in the Janus kinase (JAK) family that mediates the signalling of multiple cytokines, including those central to the immunopathogenesis of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), such as IL-23. Deucravacitinib (DEUC) is a novel, oral, selective, allosteric inhibitor of TYK2 that acts by binding to the unique regulatory domain on the enzyme. In a Phase 2 trial in patients with active PsA, DEUC was significantly more efficacious than placebo (PBO) after 16 weeks of treatment and was well tolerated.1

Objectives

This analysis further evaluated the effect of DEUC in this trial on achievement of individual components of minimal disease activity (MDA).

Methods

This double-blind, multicenter Phase 2 trial (NCT03881059) enrolled patients (n=203) with a PsA diagnosis ≥6 months who fulfilled Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis at screening and had active joint disease (≥3 tender and ≥3 swollen joints), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein ≥3 mg/L, and ≥1 plaque psoriasis lesion (≥2 cm). Eligible patients had failed or were intolerant to ≥1 nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory, conventional synthetic DMARD, and/or 1 tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (≤30%). Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive PBO, DEUC 6 mg once daily (QD), or 12 mg QD. The percentage of patients achieving MDA (5/7: tender joint count [TJC] ≤1, swollen joint count [SJC] ≤1, tender entheseal points [TEP] ≤1, Patient Global Assessment of disease activity [PtGA] ≤20, Patient Global Assessment of pain [Pain] ≤15, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index [HAQ-DI] ≤0.5, and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index [PASI] ≤1 or body surface area [BSA] ≤3%) as well as proportions of patients achieving each of the MDA components in all patients, MDA responders, and nonresponders were assessed through Week 16.

Results

Of 203 patients randomized, 180 (89%) completed 16 weeks of treatment (PBO, 58/66 [88%]; DEUC 6 mg QD, 63/70 [90%]; DEUC 12 mg QD, 59/67 [88%]). Demographic and baseline disease characteristics were generally similar across groups. Although no patient had met 5 of 7 criteria required for achieving MDA at baseline, several individual components of MDA were met at baseline, most frequently TEP ≤1 (PBO, 57.6%; DEUC 6 mg QD, 64.3%; DEUC 12 mg QD, 65.7%). After 16 weeks of treatment, 7.6%, 22.9%, and 23.9% of patients in the PBO, DEUC 6 mg QD, and DEUC 12 mg QD groups, respectively, achieved MDA response. Treatment with DEUC was associated with a numerically greater mean reduction from baseline in all MDA components versus PBO over 16 weeks of treatment in all patients. At Week 16, more patients receiving DEUC versus PBO achieved the threshold for each of the MDA components (Figure 1).

Conclusion

In this study, patients treated with DEUC achieved a higher rate of MDA response compared with patients treated with PBO after 16 weeks of treatment. More patients receiving DEUC treatment achieved each of the MDA components compared with patients receiving PBO.

References

[1]Mease PJ et al. Efficacy and Safety of Selective TYK2 Inhibitor, Deucravacitinib, in a Phase 2 Trial in Psoriatic Arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. (In Press).

Acknowledgements

This study was sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb. Professional medical writing assistance was provided by Julianne Hatfield, PhD at Peloton Advantage, LLC, an OPEN Health company, Parsippany, NJ, USA, and funded by Bristol Myers Squibb.

Disclosure of Interests

Arthur Kavanaugh Grant/research support from: Clinical research sponsored by Abbott, Amgen, Janssen, and UCB, Laura Coates Speakers bureau: Has been paid as a speaker for AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Gilead, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB., Consultant of: Worked as a paid consultant for 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, Pfizer, and Novartis, Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: Consultant and/or investigator: Amgen, AbbVie, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and UCB., Philip J Mease Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN Pharma, UCB., Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN Pharma, UCB, Miroslawa Nowak Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Subhashis Banerjee Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Lauren Hippeli Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Thomas Lehman Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb

POS1029 EFFECTS OF TREATMENT WITH RISANKIZUMAB ON MINIMAL DISEASE ACTIVITY (MDA) AND DISEASE ACTIVITY IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS (DAPSA): AN ANALYSIS OF THE KEEPsAKE-1 AND -2 TRIALS

Background

Risankizumab (RZB) is a monoclonal antibody that specifically inhibits interleukin 23.

Objectives

To evaluate the achievement of Minimal Disease Activity (MDA), its components, and achievement of Disease Activity in PsA Low Disease Activity and Remission (DAPSA LDA+REM, [DAPSA score ≤14]) in patients receiving RZB or placebo (PBO) in the KEEPsAKE 1 and 2 clinical trials.

Methods

KEEPsAKE-1 and -2, double-blind, phase 3 trials, evaluated the efficacy of RZB versus PBO for the treatment of adult patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive subcutaneous RZB 150 mg or PBO at weeks 0, 4, and 16. The open label extension began at Week 24 with all patients receiving RZB 150 mg every 12 weeks thereafter. Achievement of MDA, its components, and achievement of DAPSA LDA+REM are reported using non-responder imputation.

Results

MDA achievement at Week 52 in KEEPsAKE-1 was 37.9% for patients originally randomized to RZB and 27.4% for patients originally randomized to PBO. In KEEPsAKE-2, MDA achievement was 27.2% and 33.8% for patients originally randomized to RZB and PBO, respectively. Achievement of MDA and its components are presented in Figure 1. In KEEPsAKE-1, at Week 52 59.2% of patients originally randomized to RZB and 51.4% of patients originally randomized to PBO achieved DAPSA LDA+REM. At Week 52 in KEEPsAKE-2, DAPSA LDA+REM was achieved by 44.6% of patients originally randomized to RZB and 46.6% of patients originally randomized to PBO (Figure 1).

Conclusion

Patients treated with RZB demonstrate achievement of MDA, its components, and DAPSA LDA+REM at Weeks 24 and 52.

Acknowledgements

AbbVie Inc, participated in the study design; study research; collection, analysis and interpretation of data; and writing, reviewing, and approving of this abstract for submission. AbbVie funded the research for this study and provided writing support for this abstract. Medical writing assistance was provided by Trisha Rettig, Ph.D. of AbbVie

Disclosure of Interests

Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Abbvie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, UCB, Sanofi, Regeneron, Sun Pharma, Biogen, Pfizer and Leo Pharma, Iain McInnes Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Compugen, Cabaletta, Evelo, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Arthur Kavanaugh Consultant of: AbbVie Inc., Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, BMS, Celgene, Centocor-Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie Inc., Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, BMS, Celgene, Centocor-Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Peter Nash Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, BMS, Rocje, Sanofi, Gilead/Galapagos, MSD, Samsung, Celgene, Amgen, Boehringer, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, BMS, Rocje, Sanofi, Gilead/Galapagos, MSD, Samsung, Celgene, Amgen, Boehringer, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, BMS, Rocje, Sanofi, Gilead/Galapagos, MSD, Samsung, Celgene, Amgen, Boehringer, Zhenyi Xue Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Vassilis Stakias Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Ann Eldred Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Sandra Ciecinski Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Kevin Douglas Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Laura Coates Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis and Pfizer

POS1050 UPADACITINIB VERSUS ADALIMUMAB ON ROUTINE ASSESSMENT OF PATIENT INDEX DATA 3 (RAPID3) IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS

Background

RAPID3 (Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3) is a disease activity index that is calculated from 3 patient-reported measures: physical function, pain, and patient global assessment. A fast and convenient tool, RAPID3 can be easily used in clinical practice and is applicable to multiple rheumatic diseases, including psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and was shown to correlate with other clinical composite measures of disease activity1. Here, we assessed the long-term effect of upadacitinib (UPA), an oral JAK inhibitor, and adalimumab (ADA) on RAPID3 scores in patients with PsA via a post hoc analysis from the SELECT-PsA 1 phase 3 trial2,3.

Objectives

To evaluate the impact of treatment with UPA vs ADA on RAPID3 through 56 weeks in SELECT-PsA 1, as well as the association of RAPID3 with other disease measures used in PsA.

Methods

Data are from the double-blind SELECT-PsA 1 trial, in which patients with PsA and an inadequate response or intolerance to ≥1 non-biologic DMARD received UPA 15 mg or 30 mg once daily, ADA 40 mg every other week (wk), or placebo (PBO; switched at wk 24 to either UPA 15 mg or 30 mg). This analysis included data from the UPA 15 mg, ADA, and PBO treatment arms. RAPID3 endpoints were calculated using pain scores, patient’s global assessment of disease activity, and HAQ-DI (each rescaled to 0–10 in this analysis); summed together, RAPID3 scores range from 0 (no disease activity) to 30 (severe activity). Mean change from baseline (BL) in RAPID3 as well as the proportions of patients reporting minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in RAPID3 and RAPID3 remission (≤3), low (LDA, >3 to ≤6), moderate (MDA, >6 to ≤12), and high disease activity (HDA, >12) were assessed through wk 56. Associations between RAPID3 scores and disease activity in psoriatic arthritis (DAPSA) and Minimal Disease Activity (MDA)/Very Low Disease Activity (VLDA) were determined by Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test. All data are as observed.

Results

A total of 1,274 patients (PBO: n=421; UPA 15 mg: n=425; ADA: n=428) were included from SELECT-PsA 1. RAPID3 scores at BL were comparable across all treatment arms, and most patients were in HDA. Patients receiving UPA showed a greater improvement from BL in RAPID3 vs ADA at all visits from wk 16 to wk 56 as well as better responses compared with PBO at all assessments (Figure 1). Similarly, a higher proportion of patients treated with UPA achieved MCID in RAPID3 scores than those on ADA from wk 24 to wk 56. By wk 56, approximately half of patients on either therapy were in RAPID3 remission or LDA, with UPA showing a slight numerical improvement relative to ADA (30/21/31/18% of patients were in remission/LDA/MDA/HDA on UPA vs 28/17/30/25% on ADA). RAPID3 disease categories were strongly associated with DAPSA and MDA/VLDA status at wk 56 across all treatment arms pooled together (Table 1) and for the UPA 15 mg arm alone (nominal P <0.0001 for all associations).

Table 1.

Association of RAPID3 With DAPSA and MDA/VLDA Across All Treatment Arms at Week 56a

RAPID3n (%)Moderate-High [>6]Low [3 - ≤6]Remission [≤3]DAPSA (n=879) Moderate-High [>14]292 (33)33 (4)14 (2) Low [4 - ≤14]154 (18)122 (14)87 (10) Remission [≤4]6 (1)21 (2)150 (17)MDA/VLDA (n=907) Not in MDA410 (45)39 (4)5 (1) MDA but not VLDA63 (7)129 (14)80 (9) VLDA013 (1)168 (19)

aDAPSA vs RAPID3 and MDA/VLDA vs RAPID3 were nominally significant at P <0.0001. Data were pooled across UPA 15 mg, ADA, and PBO to UPA 15 mg groups.

Conclusion

UPA 15 mg treatment led to greater improvements over PBO in RAPID3 scores over 56 wks in patients with PsA, and greater improvements over ADA from wk 16 to 56. The majority of patients achieved MCID in RAPID3 after 12 wks of UPA or ADA, with higher proportions achieving MCID on UPA vs ADA by wk 24. RAPID3 was strongly associated with other joint-focused (DAPSA) or multiple manifestation (MDA/VLDA) composite measures, further supporting the utility of RAPID3 in assessing disease activity in PsA.

References

[1]Coates LC, et al. Arthritis Care Res 2018; 70:1198-1205.

[2]McInnes IB, et al. N Engl J Med 2021; 384:1227-39.

[3]McInnes IB, et al. RMD Open 2021; 7: e001838.

Acknowledgements

AbbVie and the authors thank the patients, study sites, and investigators who participated in these clinical trials. AbbVie funded these studies 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 Matthew Eckwahl, PhD, of AbbVie.

Disclosure of Interests

Laura Coates Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB., Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Galapagos, Janssen, Moonlake, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Arthur Kavanaugh Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, Centocor-Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB., Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, Centocor-Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB., Erin McDearmon-Blondell Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Arthur Mandelin Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Pfizer, BMS, and Horizon, Consultant of: Served on advisory board at CVS Caremark, Tianming Gao Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, William Tillett Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB

POS1076 OBESITY IS ASSOCIATED WITH LESS LIKELIHOOD OF REMISSION/ LOW DISEASE IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS, A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY OF 414 PATIENTS

Background

Obesity is a risk factor for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and is associated with higher disease activity [1].

Objectives

We aimed to evaluate whether obese patients with PsA were less likely to achieve remission/low disease in a real-life multi-centre cohort.

Methods

We used data from the ReFlap study (NCT03119805)[2], which recruited consecutive adult patient with definite PsA for more than 2 years of disease duration from 14 countries. We collected demographic characteristics, self-reported weight and height, clinical data and patient reported outcomes. Remission/low disease was defined as Disease Activity in PSoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) ≤ 4, or Minimal disease activity (MDA). Obesity was defined as body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30kg/m2. We compared patient characteristics, disease activity parameters and impact scores between patients with obesity versus non-obese. A multivariable regression model was performed for demographic variables associated with reaching each definition of remission/low disease, adjusted on age, sex, level of education, disease duration, current use of conventional (c-) and biological (b-) disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

Results

Among 414 patients (49.3% women, mean disease duration 11.0 ±8.2 years), 119 (28.7%) had BMI ≥ 30kg/m2 (obese). Obese patients were more likely to be female, had higher swollen joint and enthesitis counts, higher self-reported pain, poorer physical function, more fatigue and poorer mental health (Table 1). Obese patients were half as likely to achieve MDA or DAPSA remission in multivariable analysis with odd ratios of 0.6 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.3, 0.8, p=0.049) and 0.4 (95% CI: 0.2, 0.8, p=0.012), respectively for obese compared to non-obese patients (Figure 1).

Table 1.

Patient characteristics and remission achievement between obese and non-obese patients with psoriatic arthritis

Non-obese (n=295)BMI ≥30 (n=119)pFemale, %44.361.50.002Number of comorbidities1.61 (0.93)2.83 (2.01)<0.001Tender joints, 0-683.56 (7.81)5.75 (10.0)0.018Swollen joints, 0-662.19 (7.29)1.46 (2.39)0.285Leeds enthesitis index, 0-60.48 (1.23)0.86 (1.70)0.012PGA disease activity, 0-103.90 (2.73)4.76 (2.67)0.004DAPSA14.9 (15.5)18.3 (16.1)0.045HAQ-DI, 0-30.56 (0.65)0.89 (0.70)<0.001PsAID-12, 0-103.11 (2.36)3.96 (2.50)0.001pain, 0-103.80 (2.81)4.54 (2.83)0.017fatigue, 0-103.93 (3.01)4.68 (3.17)0.025work or leisure activities, 0-103.39 (3.01)4.75 (3.11)<0.001functional capacity, 0-103.36 (2.97)4.40 (3.16)0.002depression, 0-101.88 (2.70)2.75 (3.26)0.006

Mean (SD) shown unless specified otherwise. HAQ-DI: Health Assessment Questionnaire – Disability Index; PsA: psoriatic arthritis; PGA: patient global assessment of disease activity; DAPSA: Disease Activity in PSoriatic Arthritis; PsAID: Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease.

Conclusion

In this real-life data from 14 countries, obesity was frequent and PsA patients with BMI ≥ 30kg/m2 were more likely to be female, and had higher subjectively reported disease activity and illness impact compared to those with lower BMI. Obese patients had a two-fold lower likelihood of achieving remission/low disease defined by both MDA and DAPSA compared to non-obese patients. PsA patients with comorbid obesity may have different disease profiles from non-obese patients, and require specific management.

References

[1]Eder, L., et al., Obesity is associated with a lower probability of achieving sustained minimal disease activity state among patients with psoriatic arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis, 2015. 74(5): p. 813-7.

[2]Gorlier, C., et al., Comparing patient-perceived and physician-perceived remission and low disease activity in psoriatic arthritis: an analysis of 410 patients from 14 countries. Ann Rheum Dis, 2019. 78(2): p. 201-208.

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by Pfizer.

Disclosure of Interests

None declared

POS1043 STRONG CORRELATION BETWEEN SHORT- VS LONG-FORM COMPOSITE MEASURES OF PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS DISEASE ACTIVITY IN A TNFi-IR POPULATION TREATED WITH GUSELKUMAB: DATA FROM THE PHASE 3b COSMOS TRIAL

Background

Accurate assessment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) disease activity in clinical practice requires a feasible, continuous, multidimensional composite instrument to assess key domains of this heterogeneous disease. While currently available composite tools used in PsA, including the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Composite Exercise (GRACE) and the PsA Disease Activity Score (PASDAS), are useful in clinical trials, their complexity and time required to complete limit their use in clinical practice.1 Abbreviated instruments, known as 3 visual analogue scale (VAS) and 4VAS, have demonstrated good performance in an observational study, but further testing was recommended.2

Objectives

Explore the correlation between 3VAS or 4VAS and GRACE, PASDAS and measures of quality of life using data from COSMOS.

Methods

The Phase 3b COSMOS study assessed guselkumab (GUS) 100mg Q8W versus placebo (PBO) in tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) inadequate response (IR, inadequate efficacy or intolerance) pts with active PsA.3 Pts who received PBO crossed over to GUS at either Week (W) 16 (early escape [EE], n=45/96) or W24 (planned, n=51/96). Each domain of the 3VAS (physician global, pt global, pt skin) and 4VAS (physician global, pt pain, pt joint, pt skin) was evaluated using a 0–10 VAS (higher score=more active disease), and calculated mean scores were plotted over time in a

pt-continuer population (those with W0 and W48 data). Pearson correlation assessed relationships between observed values over time for 3VAS/4VAS versus GRACE, PASDAS, the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), and the 36-item Short Form Health Survey Physical Component Summary (SF-36 PCS) score.

Results

Data from 285 pts were examined (GUS, n=189; PBO, n=96). Substantial improvements (>45%) were seen in GRACE, PASDAS, 3VAS and 4VAS scores through W48 in GUS-treated pts (Table 1), with separation from PBO as early as W8 (Figure 1). Strong correlations between 3VAS/4VAS and GRACE (r=0.83–0.92)/PASDAS (r=0.72–0.85) were observed in GUS-randomized pts at each visit (Table 1). 3VAS/4VAS showed moderate correlation with HAQ-DI (r=0.45–0.63) and SF-36 PCS (r=–0.40 to

Table 1.

Observed composite index scores and Pearson correlation coefficients by visit

Mean (SD)Correlation of 3VAS withCorrelation of 4VAS withVisitGRACEPASDAS3VAS4VASGRACEPASDASGRACEPASDASGUSBLN6.0 (1.1) 1886.4 (1.0) 1876.6 (1.5) 1886.6 (1.5) 1880.850.720.830.72W8N–5.2 (1.3) 1874.5 (1.8) 1884.7 (1.8) 188–0.80–0.81W16 N4.0 (1.7) 1854.7 (1.6) 1844.1 (2.0) 1854.2 (2.1) 1850.910.850.920.85W24 N3.7 (1.6) 1834.3 (1.5) 1823.7 (1.9) 1833.9 (2.0)1830.880.840.890.84W48 N2.8 (1.7) 1653.5 (1.5) 1612.7 (1.9) 1682.8 (2.0) 1680.900.830.900.83PBO→GUS (at W16 [n=45] or W24 [n=51)BL N5.7 (1.0) 966.2 (0.9) 966.1 (1.5) 966.1 (1.5) 960.810.630.830.66W8 N–5.5 (1.3) 935.3 (1.9) 945.3 (1.9) 94–0.78–0.80W16 N5.1 (1.6) 935.5 (1.5) 935.3 (2.1) 945.4 (2.1) 940.910.870.920.88W24 N4.4 (1.4) 934.8 (1.3) 924.4 (1.9) 934.5 (1.9) 930.910.820.900.81W48 N2.9 (1.6) 843.6 (1.4) 842.8 (2.0) 853.0 (2.1) 850.910.860.920.85

BL, baseline; SD, standard deviation

–0.65). Consistent results were observed in PBO→GUS pts.

Figure 1.

Conclusion

In these TNFi-IR pts, GUS treatment led to substantial improvements in PsA disease activity through 1 year using several composite indices. All indices, including the 3VAS/4VAS, allowed early discrimination between the GUS and PBO cohorts. The strong correlation between 3VAS/4VAS and GRACE/PASDAS in this pt population is promising and highlights that abbreviated composite indices can provide an accurate assessment of disease activity that may, because of better feasibility, lead to a wider use of such instruments and thus improve pt care. As a next step, thresholds for disease states should be further evaluated.

References

[1]Tillett W et al. J Rheumatol Suppl 2020;96:11–8

[2]Tillett W et al. J Rheumatol Suppl 2021;97:45–9

[3]Coates LC et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2021 (epub)

Disclosure of Interests

William Tillett Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB, Laura Coates Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Galapagos, Janssen, Moonlake, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Marlies Neuhold Shareholder of: Own Johnson & Johnson stock and/or stock options, Employee of: Employed by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC (a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson), Elke Theander Employee of: Employed by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC (a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson), Paul Bergmans Shareholder of: Own Johnson & Johnson stock and/or stock options, Employee of: Employed by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC (a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson), May Shawi Shareholder of: Own stock in Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Employed by Immunology Global Medical Affairs, Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, Michelle Perate Shareholder of: Own stock in Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Employed by Immunology Global Medical Affairs, Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, Christine CONTRE Shareholder of: Own Johnson & Johnson stock and/or stock options, Employee of: Employed by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC (a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson), Philip Helliwell Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Novartis, Janssen, Consultant of: Eli Lilly

POS1017 GUSELKUMAB PROVIDES CONTINUED IMPROVEMENT IN KEY DOMAINS OF PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS THROUGH 2 YEARS

Background

Recent guidelines from the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) recommend that psoriatic arthritis (PsA) therapy achieve lowest possible disease activity across 6 key domains and related conditions. 1 In the DISCOVER-1&2 trials, guselkumab (GUS) significantly improved signs and symptoms of PsA at Week (W) 24.

Objectives

Evaluate GUS efficacy through W100 of DISCOVER-2 by GRAPPA-recommended PsA domains (peripheral arthritis, skin, dactylitis, enthesitis, axial disease [nails not evaluated]) and related conditions of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and uveitis.

Methods

Enrolled adults had active PsA, were naïve to biologics/JAK inhibitors, and had ≥5 swollen and ≥5 tender joints and CRP ≥0.6 mg/dL. Randomized (1:1:1) patients (pts) received GUS 100 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W); GUS 100 mg at W0, W4, then every 8 weeks (Q8W); or placebo (PBO) with crossover to GUS 100 mg Q4W at W24. Outcomes selected aligned with GRAPPA-recommended domains/conditions: overall disease activity (Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score [PASDAS], Minimal Disease Activity [MDA]), peripheral arthritis (changes in Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis [DAPSA] and clinical DAPSA [cDAPSA]), skin (Psoriasis Area and Severity Index [PASI], Investigator’s Global Assessment of psoriasis [IGA]), dactylitis (Dactylitis Severity Score [DSS]), enthesitis (Leeds Enthesitis Index [LEI]), axial disease (spinal pain) and IBD/uveitis (adverse events [AEs]). Among 493 GUS-randomized pts, change from baseline (BL) through W100 in continuous outcomes were analyzed by Repeated Measures Generalized Linear Mixed Effects Models adjusting for respective BL score and GUS regimen. Achievement of therapeutic endpoints was summarized by descriptive statistics using nonresponder imputation (NRI) for missing categorical data.

Results

~90% of GUS-randomized pts completed treatment at W100. For continuous outcomes, improvements over time in key PsA domains extended through W100 of GUS (Figure 1). Therapeutic endpoint response rates also increased incrementally through W100 (Table 1). Mean improvements and response rates were consistent across key domains with no significant difference between GUS regimens. For related conditions, 1 GUS pt had IBD and 4 had uveitis at BL and none had AE of exacerbation through W100. No pt developed IBD through W100 (vs 1 PBO pt through W24); 1 GUS pt had AE of iridocyclitis through W100 (vs 1 PBO pt through W24).

Table 1.

Number (%) of GUS-randomized Pts (N=493) Achieving Therapeutic Endpoints Over Time (NRI)*

WeekQ4WQ8W81624521008162452100MDA*8 (3)33 (14)47 (19)83 (34)93 (38)9 (4)42 (17)63 (25)77 (31)100 (40)DAPSA43 (18)61 (25)88 (36)125 (51)151 (62)43 (17)79 (32)97 (39)130 (52)147 (59) ≤14’; ≤45 (2)12 (5)21 (9)39 (16)52 (21)3 (1)15 (6)23 (9)46 (19)60 (24)cDAPSA41 (17)58 (24)89 (36)125 (51)150 (61)44 (18)75 (30)95 (38)131 (53)147 (60) ≤13* ≤35 (2)13 (5)29 (12)44 (18)59 (24)4 (2)19 (8)25 (10)53 (21)65 (26)PASDAS ≤3.225 (10)44 (18)58 (24)105 (43)126 (51)28 (11)56 (23)76 (31)106 (43)122 (49) ≤1.94 (2)11 (4)22 (9)36 (15)51 (21)2 (1)16 (6)23 (9)52 (21)58 (23)Skin PASI75†-137 (74)146 (79)160 (87)152 (83)-129 (73)139 (79)151 (86)144 (82) PASI90†-100 (54)114 (62)142 (77)136 (74)-97 (55)121 (69)131 (74)123 (70) PASI100†-62 (34)83 (45)106 (58)109 (59)-48 (27)80 (46)93 (53)94 (53) IGA 0/1 Response‡-122 (66)127 (69)147 (80)140 (76)-110 (62)124 (70)131 (74)126 (72)Enthesitis resolution§45 (27)66 (40)71 (43)93 (56)102 (61)50 (32)75 (48)87 (55)97 (62)110 (70)Dactylitis resolution§39 (32)64 (53)80 (66)90 (74)87 (72)34 (31)51 (46)66 (60)86 (77)92 (83)

*Repeated Measures Generalized Linear Mixed Effects Models; excludes pts who achieved endpoint at BL.

†Pts with BL IGA≥2 and BSA≥3%.

‡IGA skin response = score of 0 or 1 and ≥2 grade improvement from BL.

§Among pts with domain at BL.

Conclusion

In DISCOVER-2 bio-naïve PsA pts, both GUS regimens provided continued improvements in key GRAPPA-recommended domains of PsA through up to 2 years of treatment.

References

[1]Coates et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2021;80(suppl 1):139

Disclosure of Interests

Laura Coates Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Laure Gossec Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Pfizer, and Sandoz, Christine CONTRE Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Cilag, May Shawi Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, Emmanouil Rampakakis Consultant of: Janssen, Employee of: JSS Medical Research, Natalie Shiff Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Alexa Kollmeier Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Xie L Xu Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Peter Nash Grant/research support from: Janssen, Abbvie, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Gilead, Roche, Sandoz, Celgene, Sun, Boehringer, and Bristol Myers Squibb, Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Aclaris, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Inmagene, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB, Philip Helliwell Paid instructor for: Abbvie, Amgen, Novartis, Janssen, Consultant of: Eli Lilly

AB0904 Evaluating Numeric Rating Scale Versions of the 3 and 4 Visual Analog Scale (3/4-VAS) Composite Measures in Patients with Active Psoriatic Arthritis from the SELECT-PsA Program

Background

The multifaceted nature of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) can make it challenging to evaluate treatment targets and disease activity. Moreover, most existing assessment tools are time-consuming and not always feasible in routine clinical care, indicating a need for new disease measures that are easy to perform and calculate. Composite measures using 3-visual analog scale (VAS; physician’s global assessment, patient’s global assessment, and skin) or 4-VAS (physician’s global assessment, joints, skin, and pain) have been proposed as simpler alternatives.1 Given potential advantages of numeric rating scales (NRS) over VAS, we here adapted 3/4-VAS for use with NRS components and tested its validity via post hoc analysis of the upadacitinib (UPA) SELECT-PsA program.

Objectives

Evaluate the ability of 3/4-NRS scores to assess treatment response in SELECT-PsA 1 and 2, as well as the correlation of 3/4-NRS with other common disease activity measures.

Methods

Data are from the SELECT-PsA 1 and 2 phase 3 trials in patients with prior inadequate response or intolerance to ≥1 non-biologic DMARD or ≥1 biologic DMARD, respectively. In both trials, patients received once daily UPA 15 mg, UPA 30 mg, or placebo (PBO); SELECT-PsA 1 also included the active comparator adalimumab (ADA) 40 mg every other week (wk). 3-NRS scores were determined using the mean of SAPS questions 1–10, physician’s global assessment of disease activity, and patient’s global assessment of disease activity; 4-NRS scores were determined using the mean of SAPS questions 1–10, physician’s global assessment of disease activity, patient’s assessment of pain, and BASDAI question 3 related to joint pain and swelling. The 3/4-NRS scale ranges from 0 (no disease activity) to 10 (severe activity). 3/4-NRS and cDAPSA (DAPSA without the CRP component) were assessed at all available visits through wk 56. Correlations between 3/4-NRS with PsA disease activity score (PASDAS), routine assessment of patient index data 3 (RAPID3), DAPSA, cDAPSA, and other disease activity measures were determined by nonparametric Spearman rank correlation coefficient for UPA 15 mg patients from both trials and ADA for SELECT-PsA 1. All data are shown as observed; nominal p-values are provided throughout.

Results

A total of 1281 and 423 patients were included from SELECT-PsA 1 and 2, respectively. For both cDAPSA and 3/4-NRS scores, patients receiving UPA 15 mg showed clear numerical improvements compared with PBO at wk 24 in both trials (Table 1). 3/4-NRS scores were highly correlated with RAPID3 and PASDAS measures (r >0.6, P <0.0001) for UPA 15 mg patients at baseline (Figure 1). Moderate correlations were observed between 3/4-NRS and DAPSA/cDAPSA (r = ~0.4, P <0.0001), as well as physical function (HAQ-DI) and quality of life measures (SF-36). Nominally significant but weaker correlations were detected for joints, skin, and other disease activity assessments. Similar overall results were observed for patients receiving ADA.

Table 1.

3/4-NRS and cDAPSA Disease Activity Scores at Week 24 and 56 (As Observed)

SELECT-PsA 1Wk 24Wk 56Mean score [n]PBOUPA 15 mgADAUPA 15 mgADA3-NRS3.7 [370]2.2 [398]2.4 [398]1.8 [372]2.0 [359]4-NRS3.8 [367]2.3 [392]2.6 [395]1.9 [367]2.2 [357]cDAPSA24.0 [372]14.9 [399]16.6 [400]10.2 [372]11.3 [358]SELECT-PsA 2Wk 24Wk 56Mean score [n]PBOUPA 15 mgUPA 15 mg3-NRS4.7 [172]2.9 [190]2.4 [164]4-NRS4.9 [170]3.1 [188]2.7 [162]cDAPSA37.1 [172]21.6 [190]15.3 [166]

3/4-NRS ranges from 0–10; cDAPSA ranges from 0–154. Lower scores indicate decreased disease activity.

Conclusion

3/4-NRS was able to successfully discriminate between PBO and therapeutic groups in SELECT-PsA 1 and 2. 3/4-NRS scores correlated well with other clinical and patient reported outcome measures, including those focused on joints (DAPSA) or multiple manifestations (PASDAS), supporting 3/4-NRS as a viable and easy to use tool in daily clinical practice.

References

[1]Tillett W, et al. J Rheumatol 2021; 201675.

Acknowledgements

AbbVie and the authors thank the patients, study sites, and investigators who participated in these clinical trials. AbbVie funded these studies 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 Matthew Eckwahl, PhD, of AbbVie.

Disclosure of Interests

William Tillett Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB., Laura Coates Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer, Serac, and UCB., Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer, Serac, and UCB., Mitsumasa Kishimoto Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen-Astellas BioPharma, Asahi-Kasei Pharma, Astellas, Ayumi Pharma, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Ono Pharma, Pfizer, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, Teijin Pharma, and UCB Pharma., Arathi Setty Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Tianming Gao Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Ralph Lippe Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Philip Helliwell Paid instructor for: Educational services: Abbvie, Amgen, Novartis, Janssen, Consultant of: Eli Lilly

POS1066 DEVELOPMENT OF PHYSICAL AND MENTAL COMPONENT SUMMARY SCORES FROM PROMIS-29 INSTRUMENT IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS

Background

Patients (pts) with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) experience pain, fatigue, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbance, and impaired physical function that can negatively affect health-related quality of life (HRQoL).1 As the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-29 (PROMIS-29) Profile is a generic instrument assessing 7 health outcome domains, composite scores to summarize these domains into generalized concepts of mental and physical health using physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) scores2,3 will be useful to evaluate overall HRQoL in pts with PsA.

Objectives

Calculate and validate PCS and MCS scores, using PROMIS-29 data from the DISCOVER-1 Phase 3 study, and compare the scores for guselkumab (GUS) vs placebo (PBO).

Methods

The DISCOVER-1 study evaluated 381 pts with active PsA (≥3 swollen & ≥3 tender joints; C-reactive protein ≥0.3 mg/dL; 31% with prior tumor necrosis factor inhibitor exposure) and inadequate response to standard therapies.4 The PROMIS-29 Profile contains 4 items for each of 7 domains (physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, social participation, pain interference; 28 items scored on 5-point Likert scale) and 1 pain intensity item (0-10 visual analog scale). Using standardized scoring coefficients,3 PROMIS-29 PCS/MCS at baseline and Week 24 were calculated based on the 7 domains and pain intensity item. The validity of scores was assessed by Spearman correlation between PROMIS-29 PCS/MCS and 36-item Short-Form (SF-36) PCS/MCS, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) scores. To evaluate the ability of derived PROMIS-29 PCS/MCS scores to distinguish between treatments, responder analyses (employing an improvement of ≥1/2 standard deviation [SD] of baseline scores) by treatment group (GUS 100 mg Q4W, GUS 100 mg Q8W, PBO) were conducted and compared with SF-36 PCS/MCS scores.

Results

As construct validity analysis, PROMIS-29 PCS/MCS strongly/very strongly correlated with SF-36 PCS/MCS scores at baseline and Week 24 (coefficients 0.66-0.86; Table 1). PROMIS-29 and SF-36 PCS scores showed strong/very strong correlations with HAQ-DI scores, a key component of physical health (coefficients 0.66-0.83), while PROMIS-29 MCS and SF-36 MCS scores showed strong/very strong correlations with FACIT-F scores, a key component of mental health (coefficients 0.63-0.91). The proportions of pts achieving improved PROMIS-29 PCS/MCS scores (≥1/2 SD at baseline) were similar to a comparable degree of improvement in SF-36 PCS/MCS scores (≥1/2 SD at baseline). For both PROMIS-29 PCS/MCS and SF-36 PCS/MCS scores, significantly higher proportions of GUS Q4W/Q8W- vs PBO-treated pts achieved these response thresholds (all p<0.05; Figure 1) with the deltas between both GUS groups vs PBO for PROMIS-29 PCS/MCS responses numerically greater than for SF-36 PCS/MCS responses.

Table 1.

Mean (SD) PCS and MCS Scores: Construct Validity

Instruments Assessing Physical Aspects of HRQoLInstruments Assessing Mental Aspects of HRQoLSF-36 PCSPROMIS-29 PCSSF-36 MCSPROMIS-29 MCSBaseline, N381381381381Mean (SD)34.6 (8.2)39.4 (7.2)47.4 (10.2)45.3 (7.7)Median34.438.247.845.1Spearman’s correlationPROMIS-29 vs SF-360.760.66Week 24, N380381380381Mean (SD)39.6 (9.3)43.3 (8.3)50.3 (9.7)49.3 (8.5)Median39.342.252.350.0Spearman’s correlationPROMIS-29 vs SF-360.860.71

Conclusion

PROMIS-29 PCS/MCS scores calculated in DISCOVER-1 showed evidence of validity as summary scores with the ability to efficiently evaluate pt-reported HRQoL outcome in PsA. PROMIS-29 PCS/MCS scores, similar to the commonly employed and validated SF-36 PCS/MCS scores, may reliably be used to assess physical and mental health in pts with PsA.

References

[1]Orbai A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76:673-80.

[2]Orbai A et al. Poster presented at ACR October, 2021.

[3]Hays RD, et al. Qual Life Res. 2018;27:1885–91.

[4]Deodhar A et al. Lancet. 2020; 395: 1115–25.

Disclosure of Interests

Laura Coates Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Ana-Maria Orbai Consultant of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly and Company, Celgene, Novartis, Janssen, and Horizon, Atul Deodhar Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Aurinia, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Alexa Kollmeier Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, May Shawi Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, Yi-Hsuan Liu Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Yan Liu Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Chenglong Han Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC

POS1054 PAIN AND DEPRESSION ARE ASSOCIATED WITH NON-RESPONSE TO METHOTREXATE IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS

Background

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a heterogeneous, immune-mediated inflammatory arthritis. Methotrexate (MTX) is the first-line treatment in PsA patients, despite diverse clinical phenotypes and highly varied responses(1). As yet, it is not possible to predict MTX treatment response. The identification of demographic, clinical and psychosocial factors associated with MTX non-response, would facilitate a paradigm shift from a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to a more personalized medicine strategy, based on individual patient characteristics.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to identify demographic, clinical and psychosocial factors associated with MTX non-response 3 months after MTX initiation in adult patients with PsA.

Methods

Newly diagnosed, adult PsA patients were recruited to the DEPAR (Dutch southwest Early Psoriatic Arthritis cohort) study. MTX non-response was defined as patients achieving <5/7 point of the Minimal Disease Activity (MDA) criteria after 3 months of MTX therapy. A logistic regression analysis was performed to identify demographic, clinical and psychosocial factors associated with MTX non-response. Demographic characteristics included age, sex, alcohol use, smoking (pack years) and body mass index (BMI). Clinical characteristics included duration of PsA symptoms, swollen and tender joint counts (66/68), Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores, presence of dactylitis and enthesitis scores (Leeds Enthesitis Index/Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis. [LEI_MASES]). Psychosocial variables included both subscales of the Hospital and Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS).

Results

Complete data of the variables of interest were available for 174/332 (52%) patients starting MTX monotherapy within the first year of diagnosis. Mean (SD) age was 53 (14) years and 88 patients (51%) were male. A total of 39 patients (22%) achieved MDA after 3 months of MTX therapy. Correlations between the variables and regression statistics are shown in Table 1. A significant correlation was seen between MTX non-response and enthesitis (OR 0.66, CI 0.47-0.94) and depression (OR 0.41, CI 0.25-0.66). Furthermore, the interaction of BMI with tender joint count (OR 0.95, CI 0.91-1.00) was found to be significantly correlated, whereas the independent variables were not.

Table 1.

Final model of the logistic regression analysis of methotrexate non-response 3 months after methotrexate initiation.

Independent variablesOdds Ratio95% CIDemographic variables BMI1.260.61-2.60 BMI31.001.00-1.00Clinical characteristics Tender joint count (68)3.160.94-10.57 Enthesitis (LEI/MASES)0.660.47-0.94 Psoriasis (PASI)1.110.99-1.25 BMI*Tender joint count (68)0.950.91-1.00Patient reported outcomes Depression (HADS)†0.410.25-0.66

Footnotes

Significant values in bold face

† Root transformed

Conclusion

Our results indicate that enthesitis, depression and the combination of a higher BMI with a tender joint count are all associated with MTX non-response 3 months after MTX initiation. Pain may be the common denominator preventing patients from achieving MDA.

References

[1]Gossec L, Baraliakos X, Kerschbaumer A, de Wit M, McInnes I, Dougados M, et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis with pharmacological therapies: 2019 update. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79(6):700-12.

[2]den Braanker H, Wervers K, Mus AMC, Bangoer PS, Davelaar N, Luime J, et al. Achieving sustained minimal disease activity with methotrexate in early interleukin 23-driven early psoriatic arthritis. RMD Open. 2020;6(2).

Disclosure of Interests

None declared

POS1038 GUSELKUMAB EFFICACY IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS ASSESSED BY MULTI-DOMAIN COMPOSITE INDICES: DATA FROM THE PHASE 3B COSMOS TRIAL IN A TNFi-IR POPULATION

Background

The Phase 3b COSMOS study (NCT03796858) demonstrated the efficacy and safety of guselkumab (GUS), an IL-23 p19 subunit inhibitor, in patients (pts) with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who had inadequate response (IR; insufficient efficacy or intolerance) to 1–2 tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi).1

Objectives

Assess the efficacy of GUS 100 mg Q8W in TNFi-IR pts through 1 year by using and comparing

6 multi-domain composite indices validated in PsA.

Methods

In total, 285 pts (189 GUS, 96 placebo [PBO]) were enrolled in COSMOS; mean age was 49 years and mean disease duration was 8.4 years.1 Pts who received PBO crossed over to GUS at either Week (W) 16 (early escape, n=45/96) or W24 (planned, n=51/96). PsA Disease Activity Score (PASDAS), GRAppa Composite scorE (GRACE), Disease Activity Index for PsA (DAPSA), modified Composite Psoriatic Disease Activity Index (mCPDAI, excludes BASDAI), PsA Response Criteria (PsARC), and Minimal Disease Activity (MDA) were analysed (thresholds as published2,3). As-observed data are presented at baseline (BL), W24 and W48, without imputation of missing data.

Results

Overall, 167/189 (88%) GUS and 83/96 (86%) PBO→GUS pts completed the study through W44. Pts had active disease, with similar BL mean values for PASDAS, GRACE, DAPSA and mCPDAI between GUS and PBO groups (Table 1). Across these indices, GUS pts demonstrated robust improvements (45–62%) in mean scores from BL to W48 (Table 1). PBO pts who crossed over to GUS at W16 or W24 also showed rapid improvement in their index scores, with mean values and % improvement at W48 consistent with those observed in pts randomized to GUS at BL (Table 1).

Table 1.

As observed mean values (± standard deviation) for composite indices

PASDASGRACEDAPSAmCPDAIGUS Q8WPBO→ GUSGUS Q8WPBO→GUSGUS Q8WPBO→GUSGUS Q8WPBO→GUSBLN6.4±1.01876.2±0.9966.0±1.11885.6±1.09645.5 ±19.9 18940.6 ±15.8967.3±2.21877.1±2.2 96W24N4.3±1.51824.8±1.3923.7±1.61834.3 ±1.49323.7 ±17.9 18326.9 ±17.5934.6±2.31825.3 ±2.0 92W48N3.5±1.51613.6±1.4842.8±1.71652.9±1.68417.5 ±16.7 16116.3 ±11.9843.7±2.41653.8±1.984% improvement from BL at W4845.341.953.348.261.559.949.346.5

Among the 4 indices with defined disease states/therapeutic thresholds for low disease activity (LDA) (Figure 1), those focusing on joints (PsARC [4 components] and DAPSA [5 components]) resulted in the highest response rates (range, 50–80%); LDA according to GRACE (8 items, including skin) and PASDAS (8 items, focus on musculoskeletal with no skin assessment) was attained less frequently (range, 38–44%). Using the PsARC, 50% of GUS pts responded as early as W8. Response rates among GUS-treated pts generally did not plateau by W48 (Figure 1). At W48, 33% and 30% of GUS and PBO→GUS pts, respectively, achieved a status of MDA.

Figure 1.

Conclusion

GUS provided robust and substantial benefits to pts with active TNFi-IR PsA across multiple domains. Importantly, rates of achieving low levels of disease activity continued to increase through the duration of the study without an observable plateau at W48. Thresholds for DAPSA and PsARC response were easier to achieve than comprehensive indices with more domains that are required to improve simultaneously (eg GRACE, PASDAS, MDA). GUS performed well regardless of the focus of the composite indices (joints, skin, enthesitis, dactylitis, or patient-reported outcomes). Together, these findings support the role of GUS as an effective treatment option for the diverse domains of PsA.

References

[1]Coates LC et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2021. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-220991

[2]Helliwell PS et al. Arthritis Care Res 2020;72:1579–88

[3]Clunie G et al. Rheumatol Adv Pract 2018;2(2): doi: 10.1093/rap/rky042

Disclosure of Interests

Laure Gossec Consultant of: Consulting fees: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Grant/research support from: Research grants: Amgen, Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer, Sandoz, Elke Theander Employee of: Employed by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC (a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson), Marlies Neuhold Shareholder of: Own Johnson & Johnson stock and/or stock options, Employee of: Employed by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC (a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson), Paul Bergmans Shareholder of: Own Johnson & Johnson stock and/or stock options, Employee of: Employed by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC (a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson), May Shawi Shareholder of: Own stock in Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Employed by Immunology Global Medical Affairs, Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, Michelle Perate Shareholder of: Own stock in Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Employed by Immunology Global Medical Affairs, Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, Christine CONTRE Shareholder of: Own Johnson & Johnson stock and/or stock options, Employee of: Employed by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC (a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson), Laura Coates Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Galapagos, Janssen, Moonlake, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB

POS1080 CHARACTERIZATION OF JOINT DISTRIBUTION AND DISEASE BURDEN IN PATIENTS WITH EARLY OLIGOARTICULAR PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: RESULTS FROM THE ONGOING FOREMOST STUDY

Background

Oligoarticular psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is commonly reported in early disease. Although fewer joints are involved, there may be significant impact on patients’ (pts) quality of life. The ongoing FOREMOST study (NCT03747939) is investigating the efficacy of apremilast vs placebo for treatment of early oligoarticular PsA (>1 but ≤4 tender and swollen joints involved).

Objectives

To characterize disease burden in pts with early oligoarticular PsA and disease phenotype including location and size of involved joints and presence of certain baseline clinical PsA manifestations in FOREMOST pts.

Methods

Baseline swollen and tender joint distribution was analyzed. Baseline disease burden was assessed in the overall group and a subgroup with small joint involvement only (for context) using clinical disease activity measures, pt-reported outcomes, and additional PsA manifestations.

Results

At data cut-off for analysis, 220 pts of 285 planned were enrolled. In the overall group, disease duration was <1 year and joint distribution for swollen or tender joints involved predominantly small joints, with ~48% of joint involvement observed in finger proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joints and <2% in temporomandibular and clavicular joints across swollen or tender joints (Figure 1). Mean Physician’s and Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PhGA and PtGA, respectively) scores were 43.9 and 51.3; mean pt pain assessment score was 50.7. Mean Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) functional assessment score was 1.0; 25.5% of pts had HAQ-DI ≤0.5. Pts reported an average PsA Impact of Disease (PsAID-12) domain score of 4.7. Additional manifestations of PsA at baseline included dactylitis (14.5%), enthesitis (32.7%), nail involvement (67.3%), and skin disease (47.7% with body surface area [BSA] ≥3%). Within the overall group, 59% had >1 joint size involved (small [metacarpophalangeal, metatarsophalangeal, distal interphalangeal, PIP, hand carpometacarpal and mid-tarsal]; intermediate [wrist, elbow, ankle, temporomandibular, acromioclavicular, sternoclavicular]; large [shoulder, hip, knee]). Of those with only 1 joint size involved (41% of pts), the majority had small joint involvement predominantly in PIPs (n=84 for small joints; n=1 for intermediate joints; n=5 for large joints). The overall pattern of clinical and disease presentation indicated elevated burden for pts with early oligoarticular PsA, including those pts with only small joints involved (Table 1).

Table 1.CharacteristicsOverall Population (PBO + APR), N=220Small Joints Only (PBO + APR), N=84Age, mean, y49.651.3Men, n (%)98 (44.5)40 (47.6)Europe/Russia, n (%)47 (21.4)/66 (30.0)22 (26.2)/11 (13.1)Canada/United States, n (%)8 (3.6)/99 (45.0)1 (1.2)/50 (59.5)Body mass index, mean, kg/m230.429.3Duration of disease, mean, y0.690.71Previous cDMARD use, n (%)143 (65.0)48 (57.0)Tender joint count (0–68), mean3.23.1Swollen joint count (0–66), mean2.62.8PhGA (VAS 0–100)a, mean43.939.0PtGA (VAS 0–100)a, mean51.345.6Patient’s Assessment of Pain (VAS 0–100)a, mean50.746.3Dactylitis present, n (%)32 (14.5)14 (16.7)Enthesitis present, n (%)72 (32.7)21 (25.0)BSA ≥3%, n (%)105 (47.7)34 (40.5)Nail involvement present, n (%)148 (67.3)53 (63.1)HAQ-DI (0–3)a, mean1.020.84HAQ-DI ≤0.5, n (%)56 (25.5)31 (36.9)PsAID-12 (0–10)a, mean4.733.98

cDMARD, conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs; VAS, visual analog scale.

aHigher scores indicate greater burden/worse status. Early oligoarticular = ≤2 years in the initial protocol; ≤5 years in the current protocol for inclusion.

Figure 1.

FOREMOST population: baseline demographics and disease burden in the overall population and pts with involvement in small joints only

Conclusion

In FOREMOST, despite few joints involved, pts with early oligoarticular PsA experienced high disease burden and impaired quality of life. Small joint involvement, although less commonly expected in oligoarticular PsA, was the most frequently observed pattern.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the patients, their families, and all investigators involved in this study. This study was funded by Amgen Inc. Writing support was funded by Amgen Inc. and provided by Kristin Carlin, BSPharm, MBA, of Peloton Advantage, LLC, an OPEN Health company, and Cathryn M. Carter, MS, employee of and stockholder in Amgen Inc.

Disclosure of Interests

Dafna D Gladman Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB – grant/research support or consulting fees, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB – grant/research support or consulting fees, Laura Coates Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Medac, Moonlake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB –grant/research support, consulting fees, and/or speaker/honoraria, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Medac, Moonlake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB –grant/research support, consulting fees, and/or speaker/honoraria, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Medac, Moonlake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB –grant/research support, consulting fees, and/or speaker/honoraria, Laure Gossec Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene Corporation, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer, and Sandoz, Jacob Aelion Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Regeneron – speakers bureau. AbbVie, Ardea Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Centocor, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Human Genome Sciences, Janssen, Merck, Mesoblast, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda, UCB, and Vertex, Jitendra Vasandani: None declared, Sue Cheng Shareholder of: Stock ownership in Amgen Inc., Employee of: Employment by Amgen Inc., Lihua Tang Shareholder of: Stock ownership in Amgen Inc., Employee of: Employment by Amgen Inc., Shauna Jardon Shareholder of: Stock ownership in Amgen Inc., Employee of: Employment by Amgen Inc., Sven Richter Shareholder of: Stock ownership in Amgen at time of study, Employee of: Employment by Amgen at time of study., Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun, and UCB – grant/research support and consultant; Boehringer Ingelheim and GlaxoSmithKline – consultant, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun, and UCB

POS0934 EFFICACY OF UPADACITINIB ON PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS WITH AXIAL INVOLVEMENT DEFINED BY INVESTIGATOR ASSESSMENT AND PRO-BASED CRITERIA: RESULTS FROM TWO PHASE 3 STUDIES

Background

Patients with PsA and axial involvement have higher disease activity and greater reductions in quality of life;1 however, there are no accepted criteria for identifying axial involvement in PsA.

Objectives

The objective of this post-hoc analysis is to assess the efficacy of upadacitinib (UPA), a Janus kinase inhibitor, on axial symptoms in patients with active PsA and axial involvement defined by investigator assessment and PRO-based criteria from two phase 3 SELECT trials.2,3

Methods

Patients with active PsA (≥3 swollen joints and ≥3 tender joints) and prior inadequate response or intolerance to ≥1 non-biologic (SELECT-PsA 1) or ≥1 biologic (SELECT-PsA 2) DMARD were randomly assigned to once daily oral UPA 15 mg or 30 mg, placebo (PBO), or every other week subcutaneous adalimumab (ADA) 40 mg (SELECT-PsA 1 only).2,3 At baseline, axial involvement in PsA was determined by investigator assessment based on the totality of clinical information, such as duration and character of back pain, age of onset, and previous imaging. In addition to investigator assessment, PRO-based criteria for axial involvement (BASDAI ≥4 and BASDAI Question 2 ≥4 at baseline) were applied for this analysis to identify patients with active disease. Efficacy in the sub-group of patients defined using both investigator assessment and PRO-based criteria was evaluated at week 24 for UPA 15 mg vs PBO and ADA (SELECT-PsA 1 only). Data were analyzed using mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) or non-responder imputation (NRI), with nominal P-values shown.

Results

Based on investigator assessment alone, 31.3% (n=534/1704) of patients in SELECT-PsA 1 and 34.2% (n=219/641) in SELECT-PsA 2 were defined as having axial involvement. When both investigator assessment and PRO-based criteria were applied, 23.1% (n=393/1704) of patients in SELECT-PsA 1, or 73.6% (n=393/534) of those defined using investigator assessment alone, and 27.5% (n=176/641) in SELECT-PsA 2, or 80.4% (n=176/219) using investigator assessment alone, met the combined criteria for axial involvement. In both studies, UPA 15 mg showed significantly greater clinical responses vs PBO at week 24 across all endpoints assessed (Figure 1). In SELECT-PsA 1, UPA showed numerically greater responses than ADA at week 24 across all BASDAI and Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) endpoints. The proportion of patients achieving ASDAS clinically important improvement (CII) at week 24 was significantly greater with UPA vs ADA based on nominal P-value.

Conclusion

Patients with active PsA and axial involvement defined by both investigator assessment and PRO-based criteria demonstrated statistically greater clinical responses related to their axial involvement with UPA 15 mg compared to PBO, and consistently numerically higher responses compared to ADA, at week 24 in the SELECT-PsA trials. Findings from this post-hoc analysis are consistent with previous data based on investigator assessment alone.4

References

[1]Mease PJ et al. J Rheumatol. 2018; 45(10):1389-96

[2]McInnes IB et al. N Engl J Med. 2021; 384(13):1227-39

[3]Mease PJ et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020; 80(3):312-20

[4]Deodhar A et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020; 72(Suppl 10)

Acknowledgements

AbbVie funded these studies and participated in the study design, research, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, reviewing, and approval of the 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

Xenofon Baraliakos Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, R Ranza Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer, Andrew Ostor Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche, francesco ciccia Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Janssen, Sanofi, Sandoz, Galapagos, Sobi, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Celgene, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Laura Coates Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Janssen, Sanofi, Sandoz, Galapagos, Sobi, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Celgene, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Simona Rednic Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Jessica A. Walsh Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Tianming Gao Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Apinya Lertratanakul Shareholder of: Formerly of AbbVie, Employee of: Former employee of AbbVie, In-Ho Song Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Fabiana Ganz Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Kevin Douglas Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Atul Deodhar Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Aurinia, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB

AB0905 Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) in Patients With Active Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) After Inadequate Response or Intolerance to DMARDs: Pooled Results From the Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind KEEPsAKE 1 and 2 Trials

Background

PsA is a chronic, systemic inflammatory disease with diverse clinical manifestations that can impact a patients’ quality of life. Risankizumab (RZB), a humanized immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody that specifically inhibits interleukin 23 by binding to its p19 subunit, is approved for the treatment of active PsA in adults. In the phase 3 KEEPsAKE 1 and 2 studies, RZB treatment resulted in significantly greater improvements in signs and symptoms of active PsA compared with placebo (PBO).1,2 RAPID3 is frequently used in clinical practice to evaluate PsA disease activity and consists of 3 key patient-reported measures (physical function, pain, and patient’s global assessment of disease activity [PtGA]).3

Objectives

To evaluate short- (24 week) and long-term (52 week) improvements in RAPID3 scores and achievement of RAPID3 minimal clinically important difference (MCID) across the RZB KEEPsAKE 1 and 2 clinical program.

Methods

In KEEPsAKE 1 (NCT03675308) and KEEPsAKE 2 (NCT03671148), patients with active PsA who experienced inadequate response or intolerance to ≥ 1 csDMARD (KEEPsAKE 1) and/or ≤ 2 biological therapies (KEEPsAKE 2) were randomized to PBO or RZB 150 mg from baseline to week (W) 24; from W28–W52, all patients received open-label RZB 150 mg. At W16, nonresponders could add or modify rescue therapy. This post hoc analysis assessed the mean change from baseline to W24 and W52 in RAPID3 scores and the proportion of patients who achieved a RAPID3 MCID (defined as a decrease of ≥3.8 points4). Modified RAPID3 scores (range: 0–30) were calculated using pain scores, PtGA, and HAQ-DI, each rescaled to 0–10 and summed together.3

Results

A total of 961 and 443 patients were included from KEEPsAKE 1 and 2, respectively. At baseline, mean RAPID3 scores were 15.3 in both treatment arms of KEEPsAKE 1 (PBO n = 479, RZB n = 482) and 15.1 (PBO n = 219) and 14.8 (RZB n = 224) in KEEPsAKE 2. From W4 to W24, RAPID3 scores were significantly reduced with RZB treatment compared with PBO in both KEEPsAKE 1 (mean change from baseline at W24 of −5.3 vs −2.4, respectively, P <.001) and KEEPsAKE 2 (−3.8 vs −1.6, P <.001; Figure 1 A, B), and a significantly greater proportion of patients achieved MCID at W24 with RZB than with PBO in KEEPsAKE 1 (57.0% vs 36.4%, P <.001) and KEEPsAKE 2 (48.8% vs 32.8%, P <.001; Table 1). At W52 among patients who received RZB from W0–W52, mean change from baseline was −7.0 (KEEPsAKE 1) and −5.2 (KEEPsAKE 2; Figure 1 C, D), and MCID was achieved by 67.5% (KEEPsAKE 1) and 56.5% (KEEPsAKE 2) of patients. Patients who switched from PBO to RZB at W24 experienced similar and substantial improvements in RAPID3 scores by W52.

Table 1.

Proportion of Patients Achieving a Minimal Clinically Important Difference From Baseline in RAPID3 (AO).

Patients, % (n/N) [95% CI]KEEPsAKE 1KEEPsAKE 2PBORZB 150 mgPBORZB 150 mgW2436.4 (166/456) [32.0, 40.8]57.0 (262/460) [52.4, 61.5]***32.8 (64/195) [26.2, 39.4]48.8 (104/213) [42.1, 55.5]***PBO to RZB 150 mgaRZB 150 mgPBO to RZB 150 mgaRZB 150 mgW5259.8 (260/435) [55.2, 64.4]67.5 (297/440) [63.1, 71.9]57.4 (105/183) [50.2, 64.5]56.5 (109/193) [49.5, 63.5]

aPatients randomized to PBO at W0 switched to open-label RZB 150 mg at W24.

***, P < .001 vs PBO.

AO, as observed; PBO, placebo; RAPID3, Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3; RZB, risankizumab; W, week.

Figure 1.

Mean Change From Baseline in RAPID3 Scores During KEEPsAKE 1 and 2.

**, P < .01; ***, P < .001 vs PBO.

AO, as observed; LS, least squares; MMRM, mixed-effect model repeated measurement; PBO, placebo; RAPID3, Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3; RZB, risankizumab.

Conclusion

RZB 150 mg was associated with improvement in RAPID3 total scores over 24–52 weeks of treatment in patients with active PsA in KEEPsAKE 1 and 2.

References

[1]Kristensen LE, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022;81:225–231.

[2]Östör A, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021;annrheumdis-2021-221048.

[3]Coates LC, et al. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2018;70:1198–1205.

[4]Ward MM, et al. J Rheumatol. 2019;46:27–30.

Acknowledgements

AbbVie Inc. participated in the study design; study research; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; and writing, reviewing, and approving of this abstract for submission. All authors had access to the data; participated in the development, review, and approval of and in the decision to submit this abstract to EULAR 2022 for consideration as a poster or oral presentation. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. AbbVie and the authors thank all study investigators for their contributions and the patients who participated in this study. AbbVie funded the research for this study and provided writing support for this abstract.

Medical writing assistance, funded by AbbVie, was provided by Callie A. S. Corsa, PhD, of JB Ashtin.

Disclosure of Interests

Alexis Ogdie Consultant of: AO has received consulting fees and/or honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, CorEvitas, Gilead, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AO has received grants from AbbVie, Novartis, and Pfizer to the trustees of University of Pennsylvania, and from Amgen to Forward., Laura Coates Speakers bureau: LCC has been paid as a speaker for AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB., Consultant of: LCC has worked as a paid consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Galapagos, Janssen, Moonlake, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Grant/research support from: LCC has received grants/research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, RICARDO ACAYABA DE TOLEDO Speakers bureau: RAT has received honoraria as a speaker/consultant for Abbvie, Celltrion, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: RAT has received honoraria as a speaker/consultant for Abbvie, Celltrion, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: RAT has received grants as an investigator from Abbvie, GSK, Novartis, and Pfizer., Ana Biljan Shareholder of: AB may hold AbbVie stock or stock options., Employee of: AB is a full-time employee of AbbVie., Heather Jones Shareholder of: HJ may hold AbbVie stock or stock options., Employee of: HJ is a full-time employee of AbbVie., Kristin Tacelosky Shareholder of: KT may hold AbbVie stock or stock options., Employee of: KT is a full-time employee of AbbVie., Cuiyong Yue Shareholder of: CY may hold AbbVie stock or stock options., Employee of: CY is a full-time employee of AbbVie., Byron Padilla Shareholder of: BP may hold AbbVie stock or stock options., Employee of: BP is a full-time employee of AbbVie., Martin Bergman Shareholder of: MB is a stock holder of Johnson & Johnson and Merck., Speakers bureau: MB has received honoraria as a speaker/consultant for Abbvie, Amgen, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Scipher, Consultant of: MB has received honoraria as a speaker/consultant for Abbvie, Amgen, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Scipher

POS1015 SAFETY OF GUSELKUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS WHO ARE BIO-NAÏVE OR TNFi-EXPERIENCED: POOLED RESULTS FROM 4 RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIALS THROUGH 2 YEARS

Background

Guselkumab (GUS), a selective IL-23p19 subunit inhibitor, demonstrated efficacy and a favorable safety profile in active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in the Phase (Ph)21, Ph3 (DISCOVER [D]-1&2)2,3, and Ph3b COSMOS4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Objectives

Assess GUS safety through 2 years (Y) in biologic (bio)-naïve and tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-experienced (exp) active PsA patients (pts) pooled across 4 RCTs (Week [W] 56: Ph2 and COSMOS; W60: D1; W112: D2).

Methods

Eligible pts in COSMOS had inadequate response to 1 or 2 prior TNFi; 9% of Ph2 pts and 30% of D1 pts had 1 or 2 prior TNFi; D2 pts were bio-naïve. Incidence rates of adverse events (AEs) are summarized among all treated pts for the placebo (PBO)-controlled (W0-24) and active treatment periods through 2Y (max duration of exposure 100 W) according to actual treatment received, calculated as the number of events per 100 pt-Y of follow-up (PY), along with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Gastrointestinal (GI)-related serious AEs (SAEs) were identified using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system-organ class; major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; predefined as MI, Stroke, or CV death) and opportunistic infections (OIs) were identified through medical review.

Results

Across the 4 RCTs, 1508 pts with active PsA received GUS 100 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) or Q8W and were followed for a median of 1.2 Y, representing 2125 PY. In the overall population (N=1554), which includes PBO-treated pts that discontinued study agent prior to W24, 1138 pts were bio-naïve and 416 pts were TNFi-exp. Among all treated pts, the overall GUS safety profile was generally consistent with that of PBO through W24; rates remained low through 2Y of GUS (Table 1). The GUS safety profile was similar to that observed with PBO within the bio-naïve and TNFi-exp cohorts through W24. Incidence rates of AEs were generally consistent between cohorts in GUS-treated pts; whereas, TNFi-exp PBO-treated pts had more SAEs, study agent d/c due to AEs, and serious infections than bio-naïve PBO pts (Figure).

Table 1.

Overall Treatment-emergent AEs

PBO-controlled (W0-24)aThrough up to 2YPBOb(N=517)GUS Q8W (N=664)GUS Q4W (N=373)Combined GUS (N=1037)GUS Q8W (N=664)GUS Q4W (N=373)Combined GUSc(N=1508)Total (median) PY230 (0.5)305 (0.5)172 (0.5)478 (0.5)941 (1.1)645 (2.1)2125 (1.2)Events/100 PY (95% CI)AEs223 (204, 243)233 (216, 250)223 (201, 246)229 (216, 243)164 (156, 172)139 (130, 148)146 (141, 151)SAEs8.7 (5.3, 13)4.9 (2.8, 8.1)5.2 (2.4, 9.9)5.0 (3.2, 7.5)6.4 (4.9, 8.2)4.7 (3.1, 6.6)5.7 (4.7, 6.8)AEs leading to study agent d/c4.4 (2.1, 8.0)3.6 (1.8, 6.5)7.0 (3.6, 12.2)4.8 (3.1, 7.2)2.6 (1.6, 3.8)2.9 (1.8, 4.6)2.7 (2.1, 3.5)Infections59 (50, 70)56 (48, 65)57 (47, 70)57 (50, 64)43 (38, 47)37 (33, 42)39 (36, 42)Serious Infections2.2 (0.71, 5.1)0.33 (0.01, 1.8)1.7 (0.36, 5.1)0.84 (0.23, 2.1)1.7 (0.97, 2.8)0.77 (0.25, 1.8)1.5 (1.0, 2.1)Malignancy0.44 (0.01, 2.4)0.98 (0.20, 2.9)0.00 (0.00, 1.7)0.63 (0.13, 1.8)0.42 (0.12, 1.1)0.00 (0.00, 0.46)0.28 (0.10, 0.61)MACE0.44 (0.01, 2.4)0.33 (0.01, 1.8)0.58 (0.01, 3.2)0.42 (0.05, 1.5)0.21 (0.03, 0.77)0.46 (0.10, 1.4)0.24 (0.08, 0.55)GI-related SAEs1.3 (0.27, 3.8)0.33 (0.01, 1.8)0.00 (0.00, 1.7)0.21 (0.01, 1.2)0.32 (0.07, 0.93)0.46 (0.10, 1.4)0.28 (0.10, 0.61)OIs0.00 (0.00, 1.3)0.00 (0.00, 0.98)0.00 (0.00, 1.7)0.00 (0.00, 0.63)0.21 (0.03, 0.77)0.00 (0.00, 0.46)0.14 (0.03, 0.41)

MedDRA Version 23.1.

a Includes safety follow-up data through 2Y for pts who d/c study agent prior to W24 and did not receive any study agent at or after W24.

b Includes data prior to GUS in PBO pts who switched from PBO to GUS.

c Includes PBO to GUS cross-over at W24.

Conclusion

The favorable GUS safety profile demonstrated through W24 persisted through 2Y across bio-naïve and TNFi-exp pts.

References

[1]Deodhar A, et al. Lancet. 2018;391:2213-2224.

[2]Deodhar A, et al. Lancet. 2020;395:1115-1125.

[3]Mease PJ, et al. Lancet. 2020;395:1126-1136.

[4]Coates LC, et al. ARD. 2021;80:140-141. OP0230.

Disclosure of Interests

Proton Rahman Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Janssen and Novartis, Wolf-Henning Boehncke Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Almirall, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Novartis, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Almirall, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Novartis, and UCB, Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Aclaris, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Inmagene, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB, Alice B Gottlieb Consultant of: AnaptsysBio, Avotres Therapeutics, Beiersdorf, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, GSK, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., UCB, and Dermavant, Grant/research support from: Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, Janssen, Novartis, UCB, Xbiotech, and Sun Pharma, Iain McInnes Shareholder of: Causeway Therapeutics and Evelo Compugen, Consultant of: Astra Zeneca, AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Cabaletta, Compugen, GSK, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Roche, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Roche, and UCB, Marlies Neuhold Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, May Shawi Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, Yanli Wang Consultant of: Janssen, Employee of: IQVIA, Shihong Sheng Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Paul Bergmans Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Biostatistics, Alexa Kollmeier Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Elke Theander Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Jenny Yu Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Evan Leibowitz Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Marilise Marrache Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Medical Affairs, Janssen Inc., Laura Coates Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB

POS1052 DEVELOPING EVIDENCE-BASED PATIENT FOCUSED LEARNING MATERIALS TO SUPPORT HEALTH BEHAVIOUR CHANGE FOR PEOPLE LIVING WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS

Background

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a complex condition that requires high levels of self-management from those living with the condition. It is associated with many comorbidities, including depression, metabolic syndrome, and increased cardiovascular disease risk and can adversely affect quality of life. There is growing evidence that people living with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) are more likely to be overweight, consume alcohol above recommended levels, smoke, be affected by poor sleep, fatigue, anxiety, and take insufficient exercise for healthy living. These modifiable health behaviours further increase the already known risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. These issues are not systematically addressed in routine clinical care due to low confidence in effective delivery and time constraints.

Objectives

To co-develop evidence-based patient-focused learning materials to support healthy lifestyle changes for people living with PsA.

Methods

The development of the materials was overseen by a steering group of people living with PsA, psychologists, rheumatologists, and researchers. The COM-B model was used in the development of the materials, and they are designed around motivational interviewing principles. Firstly, a systematic literature review was performed to establish the evidence for the current burden and potential interventions aimed at these issues in PsA. These included diet, weight, alcohol, smoking, exercise, anxiety, depression, and stress. An initial focus group of people living with PsA was used to identify priority behaviours and ideas for content.

The steering group developed draft materials, and we partnered with a design agency to create engaging materials. They developed a website and downloadable postcards. A second focus made up of people living with PsA was held for people to give their views on the draft content for the materials and initial design ideas. A third focus group was held with people living with PsA and a fourth with clinicians to refine the design materials and ensure they were accessible, interesting, and helpful to initiate and maintain change. A final evaluation survey was performed to review the draft website before launching the final materials. The Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) approved the final materials.

Results

Following the steering and focus groups’ input, 15 candidate topics were prioritised (Table 1). A website and downloadable postcards summarising each of the topics were developed by the design team and refined following feedback from the patient focus groups. An example of the postcard for ‘keeping active’ can be found in Figure 1. The resources are free to use and can be accessed at https://www.informatree.org.

Table 1.Topics1Pain2Fatigue3Healthcare appointments4Tobacco5Different treatments6Alcohol7Work8Social support9Food and weight10Sleep11Keeping active12Mood13Intimacy14Travel15Using treatmentsFigure 1.

During the development of the website and downloadable postcards, particular attention was paid to making the material as accessible and as friendly as possible for patients.

Conclusion

This project created patient-focused information to support behaviour change in clinical practice. It addresses common concerns of people living with PsA about how they may optimise their health by providing practical and brief interventions to challenge and support them to make personal changes. Future research is needed to test the impact of the resource.

Acknowledgements

This research project was funded by a Medical Education Grant from Pfizer. SK was funded by Cancer Research UK (grant C49297/A27294).

Disclosure of Interests

Louise Hailey: None declared, Christine Bundy Consultant of: Over the last 3 years, I have received funds for consultancy from the following pharmaceutical companies: Abbvie, Almirall, Amgen (was Celgene), Beiersdorf, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB., Grant/research support from: Over the last 3 years, I have received funds for research and honoraria from the following pharmaceutical companies: Abbvie, Almirall, Amgen (was Celgene), Beiersdorf, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB., Laura Howells: None declared, Shona Kirtley: None declared, Sam Martin: None declared, Denis O’Sullivan: None declared, Ingrid Steinkoenig: None declared, Melissa Stepney: None declared, Laura Coates Speakers bureau: LCC has been paid as a speaker for AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB.

, Consultant of: LCC has worked as a paid consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Galapagos, Janssen, Moonlake, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB., Grant/research support from: LCC has received grants/research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB.

POS1088 CHALLENGES IN THE MANAGEMENT OF PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS IN LATIN AMERICA: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Background

In 2020, the International League of Associations for Rheumatology (ILAR) recommendations for management of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) were published. This aimed to adapt GRAPPA and EULAR recommendations to resource-poor settings. At that time, the paucity or absence of clinical studies endorsing the management of PsA patients in Latin America was remarked on by the international working group. Despite several challenges faced by patients and physicians in resource-poor countries, the literature on this theme is scarce.

Objectives

To recognize the main challenges on the management of PsA in Latin America described in recent publications.

Methods

A systematic literature review of clinical trials reporting at least one challenge/difficulty on the management of PsA in Latin America was conducted following PRISMA statements. References published in English, Spanish, French and Portuguese language and published in PubMed, Embase, and LILACS between 1980 and 2020 were included. The selection of references was conducted independently by two researchers in Rayyan QCRI program. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers. The Cochrane tool was used to assess the quality of studies. All challenges were noted and categorized into domains. Data analysis was descriptive.

Results

The search strategy resulted in 1505 references. Sixteen studies (15,145 PsA patients) were included in the final analysis: most were performed in Brazil (81.2%, N=13), recruited patients on biological therapy (75.0%, N=12) and were observational studies (87.5%, N=14). Difficulties faced by PsA patients and physicians in Latin America were the high incidence of opportunistic infections (described in 43.7% of publications, N=7), non-adherence to therapy (18.7%, N=3), discordance between patients and physicians regarding remission rates (18.7%, N=3), limited access to DMARDs (12.5%, N=2), issues related to the storage of biological drugs (12.5%, N=2), high impact of PsA on work and productivity (12.5%, N=2), elevated cost of biological drugs (12.5%, N=2), low drug persistence (6.2%, N=1), limited access to medical care (6.2%, N=1) and diagnostic delay (6.2%, N=1).

Conclusion

The challenges in the management of PsA in Latin America go beyond the care of opportunistic infections: special attention should be paid to logistical questions (e.g., correct medication storage, access to drugs and medical care) and educational problems (e.g., importance of adherence, patients understanding of disease and therapy)

References

[1]Elmamoun M, Eraso M, Anderson M, Maharaj A, Coates L, Chandran V; ILAR-PsA recommendations group, Abogamal A, Adebajo AO, Ajibade A, Ayanlowo O, Azevedo V, Bautista-Molano W, Carneiro S, Goldenstein-Schainberg C, Hernandez-Velasco F, Ima-Edomwonyi U, Lima A, Medina-Rosas J, Mody GM, Narang T, Ortega-Loayza AG, Ranza R, Sharma A, Toloza S, Vega-Espinoza L, Vega-Hinojosa O. International league of associations for rheumatology recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis in resource-poor settings. Clin Rheumatol. 2020 Jun;39(6):1839-1850. doi: 10.1007/s10067-020-04934-7. Epub 2020 Jan 16. PMID: 31950441; PMCID: PMC7237392.

Disclosure of Interests

None declared

POS0004 WHAT DOES WORSENING IN DAPSA DISEASE ACTIVITY CATEGORIES MEAN FOR PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS? AN ANALYSIS OF 222 PATIENTS

Background

In psoriatic arthritis (PsA), disease activity states have been defined using the DAPSA (Disease Activity index for Psoriatic Arthritis) score (1). The disease activity states have been validated using structural progression as the gold standard (2). However, the worsening in DAPSA states has not been compared to the patient’s perspective.

Objectives

To assess the association between a worsening in disease activity (i.e., change in DAPSA disease activity category) versus the patient’s judgement of disease worsening.

Methods

ReFlap (NCT03119805) was a longitudinal study in 14 countries of consecutive adult patients with definite PsA and more than 2 years of disease duration. Patients were seen twice in the context of usual care, around 4 months apart (3). Worsening in disease activity between the 2 visits was defined as a transition to a more active disease category, based on the DAPSA categories [(remission, low disease activity (LDA), moderate disease activity (MDA) and high disease activity (HDA)] (1).This change was compared to (a) patient perceived-flares collected according to a patient-reported question: “At this time, are you having a flare of your psoriatic arthritis, if this means the symptoms are worse than usual?”; and (b) a worsening according to the MCID (Minimal Clinical Important Difference) question. The agreement between the definitions of worsening were calculated by frequency, Cohen’s kappa and prevalence adjusted bias adjusted kappa (PABAK). There was no imputation of missing data.

Results

Overall, 222 patients were analyzed: 127 (58.8%) were male, aged 53.5±12.3 years and with 10.8±8.3 years of disease duration. Disease activity was moderate: 35.9% had no current psoriasis skin lesions, mean tender joint count (TJC, 0-68) was 3.0±7.5, mean swollen joint count (SJC, 0-66) was 1.6±6.6, and mean DAPSA was 11.5±14.0.

At 4.5±2.2 months follow-up, the proportion of DAPSA worsening was 40.1% [95% confidence interval, 33.9-46.7] (n=89). Most of the changes corresponded to patients going from remission to LDA (N=24, 27.0% of worsened patients) or from LDA to MDA (N=24, 27.0%).

Patient-reported flares were reported in 27.0% [21.6-33.2] (n=60), and MCID worsening was reported in 14.0% [33.9-46.5] (n=31).

Figure 1 shows the distribution of patients with worsening in DAPSA category, versus patient-defined worsening. Of the 89 patients who worsened according to DAPSA categories, 41 (46.1%) had self-perceived flares and 20 (22.5%) had worsening according to MCID. Among patients who worsened in DAPSA category, the mean change in DAPSA was higher in patients with self-perceived flares (increase of 22.2±15.0) than in patients without self-perceived flares (increase of 14.3±12.3). Of 133 patients with no worsening according to DAPSA, 114 (85.7%) had no self-perceived flares and 122 (91.7%) had no MCID worsening. The kappa [95% confidence interval] (PABAK) coefficients between DAPSA and either patient flare or MCID worsening were 0.34 [0.21-0.46] (0.40) and 0.16 [0.05-0.27] (0.28), respectively.

Figure 1.

Venn diagram for disease worsening between 2 visits

Conclusion

After 4 months of follow-up, 40.1% patients with long-standing PsA had a change in DAPSA category corresponding to more active disease. Most of these changes reflected transitions from remission to LDA, or from LDA to MDA. Among patients changing DAPSA category, only 46.1% reported themselves in flare at the second visit and only 22.5% reported themselves as worsened by MCID, leading to only fair (for flares) to low (for MCID worsening) agreement between the assessments of worsening. It is important to assess both disease activity, and the patient’s perspective of flare.

References

[1]Schoels M, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2016;75(5):811-8.

[2]Aletaha D, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76(2):418-421.

[3]Gorlier C, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2019;78:201-208.

Disclosure of Interests

None declared

POS1067 DOMAINS CONTRIBUTING TO MINIMAL DISEASE ACTIVITY ACHIEVEMENT IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS RECEIVING GUSELKUMAB

Background

Despite effective treatments, a minority of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients (pts) realize sustained minimal disease activity (MDA).1 Pt-driven domains of MDA are less frequently achieved, potentially arising from comorbid conditions.1

Objectives

Identify domains contributing to and factors influencing MDA achievement in the 2-year Phase 3 DISCOVER-2 trial.

Methods

Randomized and treated adults (N=739) had active PsA, were biologic/JAK inhibitor-naive, and had swollen and tender joint counts (SJC/TJC) each ≥5 and C-reactive protein ≥0.6 mg/dL. Pts with medical history of fibromyalgia (FM) were not excluded. Pts were randomized 1:1:1 to GUS 100 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W); GUS 100 mg at W0, W4, then every 8 weeks (Q8W); or placebo (PBO); PBO pts crossed over to GUS 100 mg Q4W at W24. MDA requires fulfillment of ≥5/7 criteria: TJC ≤1, SJC ≤1, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score ≤1, Pt Pain score ≤15, Pt global disease activity (PtGA) score ≤20, Health Assessment Questionnaire – Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score ≤0.5, and ≤1 tender entheses. A longitudinal trajectory of achieving each MDA criterion through W100 was derived (nonresponder imputation [NRI]). Time to achieve was estimated via Kaplan-Meier survival curve for scores deriving from native scales and those normalized to a 0-66 scale (corresponding to SJC). Multivariate regression models for time to achievement (cox proportional hazard) and achievement (logistic regression) of MDA at W100 identified predictors of response.

Results

Among 492 GUS pts, continuous improvement across all MDA domains was shown through proportions of pts achieving criteria at W24 & W100 (NRI): SJC (45% & 65%), TJC (16% & 34%), PASI (71% & 72%), Pt Pain (23% & 37%), PtGA (29% & 45%), HAQ-DI (34% & 44%), entheseal points (75% & 80%). Times to achieve minimal SJC, PASI, and enthesitis with GUS were significantly faster than for PtGA, Pt Pain, TJC, and HAQ-DI for native-scale scores; when normalized, PtGA, Pt Pain, and HAQ-DI were achieved less often (Figure 1). Higher baseline (BL) Pt Pain score and lower BL Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)-Fatigue score (worse fatigue) were significant predictors of longer time; lower BMI was associated with shorter time to achieve Pt Pain ≤15. Results for achieving Pt Pain ≤15 at W100 were similar. Worse baseline fatigue and PtGA were significant predictors of longer time to PtGA ≤20; worse fatigue also predicted non-achievement of PtGA ≤20 at W100. For time to achieve HAQ-DI ≤0.5, significant BL negative predictors were higher age and BL HAQ-DI score, which were also significant predictors of HAQ-DI ≤0.5 non-achievement at W100. Although seen in only a small number of pts, a significant impact of FM history and suicidal ideation/behavior on Pt Pain ≤15 and HAQ-DI ≤0.5, respectively, was observed (Table 1).

Table 1.

Predictors of Time to Achievement and Achievement of Recalcitrant MDA Domains at Week 100 in GUS-randomized Pts (N=492)

Time to achievementIndependent BL VariablesPt Pain ≤15PtGA ≤20HAQ-DI ≤0.5HR (95% CI)HR (95% CI)HR (95% CI)Age-0.98 (0.97-0.99)†HAQ-DI-0.26 (0.19-0.36)‡PtGA VAS-0.99 (0.98-1.00)*-Pain VAS0.99 (0.98-1.00)†-FACIT-Fatigue§1.02 (1.00-1.03)*1.02 (1.01-1.04)‡-BMI0.98 (0.96-1.00)*FM (N=8)0.70 (0.55-0.90)†--Achievement at W100OR (95% CL)∥OR (95% CL)∥OR (95% CL)∥Age--0.98 (0.96: 1.00)*HAQ-DI--0.13 (0.08: 0.20)‡Pain VAS0.98 (0.97: 1.00)†--FACIT-Fatigue§1.02 (1.00: 1.05)*1.05 (1.03: 1.07)‡-BMI0.97 (0.94: 1.00)*--Suicidal Ideation/Behaviour (N=9)--0.16 (0.03: 0.86)*FM (N=8)0.59 (0.40: 0.86)†--

HR Hazard Ratio CI Confidence Interval OR Odds Ratio CL Confidence Limits

*p <0.05; †p <0.01; ‡p ≤0.0001

§Higher score indicates less fatigue

∥Wald CL

Conclusion

GUS provided continuous improvement in each MDA domain through W100. BL domain score, as well as age, fatigue, and BMI, were significant determinants of MDA achievement in recalcitrant pt-driven domains (Pt Pain, PtGA, HAQ-DI). The impact of FM and mental health status merits further evaluation.

References

[1]Rahman et al. BMJ Open 2017;7(8): e016619

Disclosure of Interests

Laura Coates Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Proton Rahman Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Janssen and Novartis, Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Aclaris, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Inmagene, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB, May Shawi Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, Emmanouil Rampakakis Consultant of: Janssen, Employee of: JSS Medical Research, Alexa Kollmeier Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Xie L Xu Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC,, Soumya D Chakravarty Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Iain McInnes Shareholder of: Causeway Therapeutics, and Evelo Compugen, Consultant of: Astra Zeneca, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Eli Lilly and Company, Cabaletta, Compugen, GSK, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Roche, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Eli Lilly and Company, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Roche, and UCB, Lai-Shan Tam Consultant of: Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Lilly, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, GSK, Novartis and Pfizer

POS0308 EFFECT OF GUSELKUMAB ON SERUM BIOMARKERS IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS PATIENTS WITH INADEQUATE RESPONSE OR INTOLERANCE TO TUMOR NECROSIS FACTOR INHIBITORS: RESULTS FROM THE COSMOS STUDY

Background

Guselkumab (GUS), a selective IL-23 inhibitor, is efficacious in treating bio-naïve and TNFi-experienced active PsA patients (pts).1.2 In the COSMOS study of active PsA pts with lack of efficacy/intolerance, i.e., inadequate response (IR), to 1-2 TNFi, GUS demonstrated significantly greater response rates and mean improvements in PsA signs and symptoms vs. placebo (PBO) at Week (W) 24.3

Objectives

Evaluate baseline (BL) serum levels of pro-inflammatory biomarkers (CRP, serum amyloid A [SAA], TNFα, IFNɣ, IL-6, IL-10, IL-17F, IL-17A, IL-22) and their relationship to BL disease activity, GUS treatment (tx), and clinical response in COSMOS TNFi-IR pts.

Methods

TNFi-IR pts ≥18 yrs with active PsA (≥3 swollen & ≥3 tender joint counts [SJC/TJC]) were randomized 2:1 to GUS 100 mg every 8 W (Q8W) through W44 or PBO with early escape (W16) or crossover (W24) to GUS Q8W. Samples for serum biomarker analyses, collected at W0, 4, 16, 24, and 48 from consenting pts, were compared with healthy controls (HC; independent of COSMOS). Associations between early biomarker changes and BL disease activity, GUS tx, and clinical response at W24 were assessed.

Results

Among 285 COSMOS pts, 50/95 PBO and 100/190 GUS pts had available biomarker data. BL characteristics of the biomarker cohort were similar to the overall COSMOS population and well balanced across tx arms. At BL, levels of TNFα, IFNɣ, IL-6, IL-10, IL-17A, IL-17F, and IL-22 were significantly upregulated in TNFi-IR pts vs. HC (Table 1). IL-6, CRP, and SAA levels were associated with BL joint disease severity per Disease Activity Score (DAS) 28-CRP (but not with SJC [0-66]/TJC [0-68]). IL-17A and IL-17F levels were associated with BL PASI score. Through W24, significant decreases from BL in levels of CRP, SAA, IL-6, IL-17A, IL-17F, and IL-22 were seen in GUS-, but not PBO-tx pts. Reductions in IL-17A, IL-17F and IL-22 with GUS were significant by W4, decreased further by W16, and were sustained through W24 and W48. In GUS-tx pts, serum levels of IL-17F (from W16) and IL-22 (from W4) were not significantly different vs. HC. At W48, reductions in these same markers were seen in PBO-tx pts who crossed over to GUS at W16/24 (Figure 1; IL-17A, IL-17F, & IL-22 data shown). In these TNFi-IR pts, GUS-tx pts achieving ACR20 at W24 exhibited higher IL-22 and IFNɣ levels at BL than nonresponders (NR). All other biomarkers evaluated were not significantly associated with ACR20 response to GUS. In the subset of pts with IGA of psoriasis assessed, BL IL-6 and SAA levels were upregulated in W24 IGA 0/1 responders (R) vs. NR in the GUS arm. ACR20 and IGA 0/1 R at W24 exhibited an early greater reduction in IL-6 expression (at W4) than did respective NR in the GUS arm. No BL biomarkers were associated with ACR50 or PASI75 responses to GUS at W24.

Table 1.

Select Serum Biomarkers at BL in TNFi-IR pts vs. HC▫

Biomarker, pg/mLHC N=24TNFi-IR N=150Fold differencep-valueCRP22.1 (1.5)22.8 (2.2)1.60.2895SAA21.7 (1.2)22.8 (2.4)2.10.0794IL-60.07 (1.1)0.98 (1.7)1.90.0314*IL-10-2.3 (1.1)-1.7 (1.0)1.50.0272*IL-17A-2.1 (1.3)-0.3 (1.5)3.3<0.0001*IL-17F0.05 (1.1)1.3 (1.5)2.40.0007*IL-221.9 (1.1)3.1 (1.3)2.40.0002*TNFα0.5 (0.75)1.4 (1.1)1.80.0002*IFNɣ2.4 (0.84)2.9 (1.3)1.50.0259*

Data are mean (SD); *p<0.05 and |fold difference| >1.4; ▫adjusted for confounding factors age & sex.

Conclusion

GUS-tx TNFi-IR pts showed response-specific associations with BL biomarkers (IL-22, IFNɣ, IL-6, and SAA). GUS resulted in decreased levels of elevated CRP, SAA, IL-6, IL-17A, IL-17F, and IL-22, while no significant change was observed with PBO tx. Reductions in these biomarkers were evident as early as W4 and approximated levels seen in HC from W16 onward (W4 for IL-22), suggesting apparent normalization of effector cytokines associated with the IL-23/Th17 axis following GUS tx.

References

[1]Deodhar A et al. Lancet 2020;395:1115-25.

[2]Mease PJ et al. Lancet 2020;395:1126-36.

[3]Coates LC et al. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-220991.

Disclosure of Interests

Georg Schett Speakers bureau: Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis and UCB, Warner Chen Shareholder of: Janssen, Employee of: Janssen, Sheng Gao Shareholder of: Janssen, Employee of: Janssen, Soumya D Chakravarty Shareholder of: Janssen, Employee of: Janssen, May Shawi Shareholder of: Janssen, Employee of: Janssen, Frederic Lavie Shareholder of: Janssen, Employee of: Janssen, Elke Theander Shareholder of: Janssen, Employee of: Janssen, Marlies Neuhold Shareholder of: Janssen, Employee of: Janssen, Laura Coates Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Stefan Siebert Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Biogen, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, UCB

OP0255 BIMEKIZUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS AND AN INADEQUATE RESPONSE TO TUMOUR NECROSIS FACTOR INHIBITORS: 16-WEEK EFFICACY & SAFETY FROM BE COMPLETE, 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. BKZ has shown sustained efficacy and tolerability up to 152 wks in a phase 2b study in patients (pts) with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA).1,2

Objectives

To assess efficacy and safety of BKZ vs placebo (PBO) in pts with active PsA and prior inadequate tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) response in the 16-wk pivotal phase 3 study, BE COMPLETE.

Methods

BE COMPLETE (NCT03896581) comprises a 16-wk double-blind, PBO-controlled period. Pts were aged ≥18 yrs, had a diagnosis of adult-onset, active PsA with ≥3 tender joints and ≥3 swollen joints, and inadequate response or intolerance to treatment with 1 or 2 TNFi. Pts were randomised 2:1 to BKZ 160 mg Q4W or PBO. From Wk 16, pts were eligible to enter an open-label extension, receiving BKZ 160 mg Q4W. The primary endpoint was a ≥50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR50) at Wk 16. Primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were assessed at Wk 16.

Results

Of 400 randomised pts (BKZ: 267; PBO: 133), 388 (97.0%) completed Wk 16 (BKZ: 263 [98.5%]; PBO: 125 [94.0%]). Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups: mean age 50.5 yrs, weight 86.0 kg, BMI 29.8 kg/m2, time since diagnosis 9.5 yrs; 47.5% pts were male.

At Wk 16, the primary endpoint (ACR50: 43.4% BKZ vs 6.8% PBO; p<0.001; Figure 1) and all ranked secondary endpoints (HAQ-DI CfB, PASI90, SF-36 PCS CfB and MDA response) were met (all p<0.001; Table 1). The ACR50 response was rapid with separation from PBO observed from Wk 4 (nominal p<0.001). Additional outcomes, including ACR20/70, TJC and SJC CfB, and PASI75/100, demonstrated numerical improvement with BKZ compared to PBO at Wk 16 (all nominal p<0.001; Table 1).

Table 1.

Disease characteristics at baseline and efficacy at Wk 16

PBO N=133BKZ 160 mg Q4W N=267p valueBaseline characteristicsTJCmean (SD)19.3 (14.2)18.4 (13.5)-SJCmean (SD)10.3 (8.2)9.7 (7.5)-PtGA-PsAmean (SD)63.0 (22.0)60.5 (22.5)-PtAAPmean (SD)61.7 (24.6)58.3 (24.2)-Psoriasis BSAn (%)<3%45 (33.8)91 (34.1)-≥3 to ≤10%63 (47.4)109 (40.8)->10%25 (18.8)67 (25.1)-PASIamean (SD)8.5 (6.6)b10.1 (9.1)c-Prior TNFin (%)Inadequate response to 1 TNFi103 (77.4)204 (76.4)-Inadequate response to 2 TNFi15 (11.3)29 (10.9)-Intolerance to TNFi15 (11.3)34 (12.7)-Current cDMARDsn (%)63 (47.4)139 (52.1)-Ranked endpoints in hierarchical orderACR50* [NRI] n (%)9 (6.8)116 (43.4)<0.001HAQ-DI CfB† [RBMI] mean (SE)–0.1 (0.0)–0.4 (0.0)<0.001PASI90†a [NRI]n (%)6 (6.8)b121 (68.8)c<0.001SF-36 PCS CfB† [RBMI]mean (SE)1.4 (0.7)7.3 (0.5)<0.001MDA Response† [NRI]n (%)8 (6.0)118 (44.2)<0.001Other endpointsACR20† [NRI]n (%)21 (15.8)179 (67.0)<0.001‡ACR70† [NRI] n (%)1 (0.8)71 (26.6)<0.001‡TJC CfB [MI] mean (SE)–2.4 (0.9)–10.9 (0.8)<0.001‡SJC CfB [MI] mean (SE)–2.0 (0.5)–7.0 (0.4)<0.001‡PASI75a [NRI]n (%)9 (10.2)b145 (82.4)c<0.001‡PASI100a [NRI]n (%)4 (4.5)b103 (58.5)c<0.001‡

Randomised set (N=400). *Primary endpoint; †Secondary endpoint; ‡Nominal p value. aIn patients with ≥3% BSA with PSO at BL; bn=88; cn=176.

Over 16 wks, 107/267 (40.1%) pts on BKZ had ≥1 TEAE vs 44/132 (33.3%) pts on PBO; the three most frequent TEAEs on BKZ were nasopharyngitis (BKZ: 3.7%; PBO: 0.8%), oral candidiasis (BKZ: 2.6%; PBO: 0%) and upper respiratory tract infection (BKZ: 2.2%; PBO: 1.5%). Incidence of SAEs was low (BKZ: 1.9%; PBO: 0%); none led to discontinuation. 2 pts on BKZ discontinued due to a TEAE (BKZ: 0.7%; PBO: 0%). No systemic candidiasis, cases of IBD, MACE, uveitis, VTE or deaths were reported.

Conclusion

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

References

[1]Ritchlin C.T. Lancet 2020;395(10222):427–40; 2. Coates L.C. Ann Rheum Dis 2021;80:779–80(POS1022).

Acknowledgements

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

Disclosure of Interests

Joseph F. Merola Paid instructor for: Amgen, Abbvie, Biogen, BMS, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: Amgen, Abbvie, Biogen, BMS, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma and UCB Pharma, Iain McInnes Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Janssen, UCB Pharma, Christopher T. Ritchlin Consultant of: Amgen, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen and UCB Pharma, Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma and UCB Pharma, Robert B.M. Landewé Speakers bureau: Abbott, Amgen, BMS, Centocor, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, Schering-Plough, UCB Pharma, and Wyeth, Consultant of: Abbott, Ablynx, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Centocor, GSK, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, Schering-Plough, UCB Pharma, and Wyeth, Grant/research support from: Abbott, Amgen, Centocor, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Schering-Plough, UCB Pharma, and Wyeth, Akihiko Asahina Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Maruho, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, Taiho Pharma, Torii Pharmaceutical, and UCB Pharma, Yoshiya Tanaka Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, and YL Biologics, Consultant of: AbbVie, Ayumi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, GSK, Sanofi, and Taisho, Grant/research support from: Asahi-Kasei, AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai, Corrona, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Kowa, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, and Takeda, Richard B. Warren Paid instructor for: Astellas, DiCE, GSK, and Union, Consultant of: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Arena, Astellas, Avillion, Biogen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Almirall, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, and UCB Pharma, Laure Gossec Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer, and Sandoz, Dafna D Gladman Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Frank Behrens Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Genzyme, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi, Barbara Ink Shareholder of: GSK, UCB Pharma, Employee of: UCB Pharma, Deepak Assudani Shareholder of: UCB Pharma, Employee of: UCB Pharma, Rajan Bajracharya Shareholder of: UCB Pharma, Employee of: UCB Pharma, Jason Coarse Shareholder of: UCB Pharma, Employee of: UCB Pharma, Laura Coates Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Galapagos, Janssen, Moonlake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma

Effects of temporarily suspending low-dose methotrexate treatment for 2 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 vaccine booster on vaccine response in immunosuppressed adults with inflammatory conditions: protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial and nested mechanistic substudy (Vaccine Response On/Off Methotrexate (VROOM) study)

INTRODUCTION

It is unknown if a temporary break in long-term immune-suppressive treatment after vaccination against COVID-19 improves vaccine response. The objective of this study was to evaluate if a 2-week interruption in low-dose weekly methotrexate treatment after SARS-CoV-2 vaccine boosters enhances the immune response compared with continuing treatment in adults with autoimmune inflammatory conditions.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

An open-label, pragmatic, prospective, parallel group, randomised controlled superiority trial with internal feasibility assessment and nested mechanistic substudy will be conducted in rheumatology and dermatology clinics in approximately 25 UK hospitals. The sample size is 560, randomised 1:1 to intervention and usual care arms. The main outcome measure is anti-spike receptor-binding domain (RBD) antibody level, collected at prebooster (baseline), 4 weeks (primary outcome) and 12 weeks (secondary outcome) post booster vaccination. Other secondary outcome measures are patient global assessments of disease activity, disease flares and their treatment, EuroQol 5- dimention 5-level (EQ-5D-5L), self-reported adherence with advice to interrupt or continue methotrexate, neutralising antibody titre against SARS-CoV-2 (mechanistic substudy) and oral methotrexate biochemical adherence (mechanistic substudy). Analysis of B-cell memory and T-cell responses at baseline and weeks 4 and 12 will be investigated subject to obtaining additional funding. The principal analysis will be performed on the groups as randomised (ie, intention to treat). The difference between the study arms in anti-spike RBD antibody level will be estimated using mixed effects model, allowing for repeated measures clustered within participants. The models will be adjusted for randomisation factors and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection status.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by the Leeds West Research Ethics Committee and Health Research Authority (REC reference: 21/HRA/3483, IRAS 303827). Participants will be required to give written informed consent before taking part in the trial. Dissemination will be via peer review publications, newsletters and conferences. Results will be communicated to policymakers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN11442263.

P257 Are there regional variations in access to biological disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis in England?

Background/Aims

There are regional variations in access to biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) for patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the UK, with relative under-treatment according to established best practice. Similar concerns exist for access to biologic therapies for patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). In this study we set out to understand regional variations in access to bDMARDS for the treatment of PsA in England.

Methods

Formularies are mandated to be published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). ValueBase, a personalised business intelligence company specialising in healthcare, tracks every change for every drug on every published formulary every day with data from January 2017 in 184 formularies. The Availability Index (AI) is used to standardise individual formulary listing differences. It is scored from 0-100 and calculated by dividing the ‘base score’ for prescribing initiators by the ‘prescribing position’. The ‘base score’ values included 0 (not recommended), 5 (unlisted/under review), 30 (restricted availability), 45 (specialist/hospital only), 65 (initiated by specialist, continued in primary care) and 100 (all prescribers). We would expect the optimal score to be &gt; 45 as these are specialist medications. The ‘prescribing position’ included where the drug is ranked on the formulary (e.g., first line).

Results

For anti-TNFa, the mean AI was 45 ([standard deviation] SD 16, minimum 0, maximum 100). For the IL-17 inhibitors, the mean AI was 48 (SD 17, the minimum 0, maximum 100). For the IL-23 inhibitors, the mean AI was 48 (SD 18, minimum 30, maximum 100). For the JAK inhibitors, the mean AI was 24 (SD 22, minimum 0, maximum AI 50). For the other monoclonal antibodies, the mean AI was 45 (SD 14, minimum 0, maximum 100). The rate of formulary adoption for new drugs approved since 2016 varied considerably (Table 1).

Conclusion

There are regional variations in access to bDMARDs for treatment of PsA in England. Such differences have also been demonstrated in other countries (e.g., Sweden) and call for further improvement towards delivering equitable PsA care, both nationally and internationally.

Disclosure

A. Vivekanantham: None. L. Coates: None. W. Tillett: Consultancies; WRT has received research funding, consulting, or speaker fees from Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB.

OA33 The top 10 research priorities in psoriatic arthritis: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership

Background/Aims

This process aimed to identify and prioritise the top 10 research questions or evidence uncertainties for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in adults. The British Psoriatic Arthritis Consortium (BritPACT) formed a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) comprising people with PsA, carers and healthcare professionals, in association with the James Lind Alliance (JLA) to identify the key questions and priorities.

Methods

The JLA methodology involved a three-stage process: 1. A steering group composed of stakeholders conducted an initial online survey of people with PsA, families, carers and healthcare professionals to identify PsA questions. Participants were asked, “What do you think are the most important unanswered questions in psoriatic arthritis research?”. Duplicate questions and those which were out of scope were removed. Questions were checked against existing evidence to establish “true uncertainties”, which were then grouped as “indicative questions” reflecting the overarching themes of the original submissions (diagnosis, effects of disease and treatment, flares, psychological, financial and social factors, gender-associated issues, Covid-19 and treatment) to facilitate prioritisation in stage two. 2. In a second online survey, people with PsA, carers and healthcare professionals ranked the “true uncertainties” by importance. 3. During the final workshop, including people with PsA and clinicians, participants worked together to rank the questions to generate a top 10 list of research priorities.

Results

The initial survey recruited 317 respondents, submitting a total of 988 questions. The individual submissions generated 46 indicative questions. 69% of the respondents were people with PsA, and 15% were friends, relatives, or carers of someone affected by PsA. In the second survey, 422 respondents, of whom 82% were people with PsA, their carers, relatives or friends, prioritised these uncertainties; 18 of these questions were shortlisted and taken forward to the final online workshop. In the last stage, people with PsA, carers, and healthcare professionals met and reached a consensus on the final top 10 research priorities (Table 1).

Conclusion

The top 10 priorities identified will guide PsA research, ensuring that PsA researchers and those who fund research know the most urgent needs of people living with PsA, their families and carers, and those treating people with PsA.

Disclosure

L. Hailey: None. S. Kinsella: None. C. Bundy: None. H. Burstow: None. D. Chandler: None. R. Cowper: None. P. Helliwell: None. L. Joannes: None. A. Kelly: None. B. Kennedy: None. H. McAteer: None. S. Mukherjee: None. J. Packham: None. E. Wise: None. H. Young: None. L. Coates: None.

O13 Which composite measure best reflects disease activity and predicts treatment change in psoriatic arthritis?

Background/Aims 

Multiple composite measures of disease activity are available and used in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) research; however, poor agreement remains amongst clinicians on the optimal measure of disease activity. Research to date has focused on polyarticular PsA, despite oligoarticular disease accounting for around half of cases in clinical practice. We aim to compare the ability of Composite Psoriatic Disease Activity Index (CPDAI), Psoriatic ArthritiS Disease Activity Score (PASDAS), Disease Activity score for PSoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA), GRAppa Composite scorE (GRACE) and Disease Activity Score 28 CRP (DAS28-CRP) to assess disease activity and predict treatment change, amongst usual care patients with oligoarticular and polyarticular psoriatic disease.

Methods 

The Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Composite Exercise (GRACE) dataset was utilised. Oligoarthritis was defined as &lt; 5 active joints. Reference measures were clinician and patient opinions on disease control and whether treatment was escalated. Patients with baseline data for all composite measures were included. The ability of each composite measure to predict treatment change and capture disease activity was compared using the Mann-Whitney U test.

Results 

Data were available for 271 patients (152 oligoarthritis, 119 polyarthritis). The mean age, duration of PsA and psoriasis were similar for both groups. A higher proportion of oligoarticular patients were male. Patients with polyarticular disease had higher disease activity in skin, enthesitis and dactylitis.

Using both patient and physician definitions of disease control, all composite measures were able to differentiate between patients with active and quiescent disease, regardless of disease subtype (p &lt; 0.05). PASDAS demonstrated the largest differentiation in score. Differences between active and inactive disease scores were more pronounced in oligoarticular disease. PASDAS demonstrated the greatest ability to predict treatment change in both oligoarticular and polyarticular disease. Interestingly, DAPSA could not predict treatment change in polyarticular patients, p = 0.074 (Table 1).

Conclusion 

This is the first study to compare composite measures, in oligoarticular and polyarticular PsA in a multinational cohort. All composite measures of disease activity were able to differentiate between active and inactive disease in both subtypes. PASDAS demonstrated the largest discrimination in both polyarticular and oligoarticular disease, suggesting greatest clinical and research utility.

Disclosure 

L. Tucker: None. P. Helliwell: None. L. Coates: None.

Supercomputer-Based Ensemble Docking Drug Discovery Pipeline with Application to Covid-19

We present a supercomputer-driven pipeline for in silico drug discovery using enhanced sampling molecular dynamics (MD) and ensemble docking. Ensemble docking makes use of MD results by docking compound databases into representative protein binding-site conformations, thus taking into account the dynamic properties of the binding sites. We also describe preliminary results obtained for 24 systems involving eight proteins of the proteome of SARS-CoV-2. The MD involves temperature replica exchange enhanced sampling, making use of massively parallel supercomputing to quickly sample the configurational space of protein drug targets. Using the Summit supercomputer at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, more than 1 ms of enhanced sampling MD can be generated per day. We have ensemble docked repurposing databases to 10 configurations of each of the 24 SARS-CoV-2 systems using AutoDock Vina. Comparison to experiment demonstrates remarkably high hit rates for the top scoring tranches of compounds identified by our ensemble approach. We also demonstrate that, using Autodock-GPU on Summit, it is possible to perform exhaustive docking of one billion compounds in under 24 h. Finally, we discuss preliminary results and planned improvements to the pipeline, including the use of quantum mechanical (QM), machine learning, and artificial intelligence (AI) methods to cluster MD trajectories and rescore docking poses.

Supercomputer-Based Ensemble Docking Drug Discovery Pipeline with Application to Covid-19

We present a supercomputer-driven pipeline for in-silico drug discovery using enhanced sampling molecular dynamics (MD) and ensemble docking. We also describe preliminary results obtained for 23 systems involving eight protein targets of the proteome of SARS CoV-2. THe MD performed is temperature replica-exchange enhanced sampling, making use of the massively parallel supercomputing on the SUMMIT supercomputer at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, with which more than 1ms of enhanced sampling MD can be generated per day. We have ensemble docked repurposing databases to ten configurations of each of the 23 SARS CoV-2 systems using AutoDock Vina. We also demonstrate that using Autodock-GPU on SUMMIT, it is possible to perform exhaustive docking of one billion compounds in under 24 hours. Finally, we discuss preliminary results and planned improvements to the pipeline, including the use of quantum mechanical (QM), machine learning, and AI methods to cluster MD trajectories and rescore docking poses.

P219 Long-term safety of filgotinib in patients with PsA: week 52 safety data from a Phase 2 open-label extension study

Background

Filgotinib (FIL) is an orally administered, selective janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor in development for psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Efficacy and safety of FIL in patients with active PsA were evaluated in a 16-week phase 2 study (EQUATOR, NCT03101670). After 16 weeks, patients could roll-over to an Open Label Extension (OLE) Study (EQUATOR2, NCT03320876) for the purpose of evaluating long-term safety and efficacy. The aim of this analysis was to assess safety and efficacy through 52 weeks of exposure to filgotinib.

Methods

Patients who completed the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study were eligible for participation in the OLE, during which all patients received once daily (qd) open-label FIL 200mg. In this interim analysis of OLE, for the safety analysis, all data were included from the screening in the core study up to the data cut of 18 April 2019 in the OLE. For the efficacy analysis, all data until OLE Week 52 visit for each patient were included (observed case analysis).

Results

Of the 131 patients randomised and dosed in EQUATOR, 124 (95%) completed the study and 122 (93%) enrolled in EQUATOR2; 50% were female and mean age was 50. At this interim analysis, 106/122 (87%) remained in the OLE (premature discontinuations during OLE due to: 4 for safety, 11 withdrew consent, and 1 for other reasons). Cumulative patient years of exposure (PYE) on FIL were 160, median time on FIL was 66 weeks. Key safety data are summarised in Table 1. Key ≥Grade 2 treatment-emergent laboratory abnormalities seen with FIL arm (N = 128) compared with PBO (N = 66) were lymphocyte decrease 11.1% vs 4.5%, neutrophil decrease 5.5% vs 0%, ALT increase 1.6% vs 1.5% and creatinine increase 0.8% vs 0%, respectively. At week 52, 34% of the patients fulfilled criteria for minimal disease activity and 81%, 55%, and 33% of patients, respectively, achieved ACR20/50/70 responses.

Conclusion

FIL 200mg qd was generally well tolerated and the safety profile in PsA was comparable to that observed in the FIL rheumatoid arthritis studies. The data from this interim analysis suggest that further improvement of the patient condition can be expected beyond 16 weeks of treatment.

Disclosures

L. Coates: Other; Received support from Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Prothena, Sun pharma, and UCB. P. Mease: Other; Received support from Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Galapagos, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN, and UCB. D. Gladman: Other; Received support from Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, BMS, and Galapagos. F. Van den Bosch: Other; Received support from Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. A. Rychlewska-Hanczewska: Other; Received support from Galapagos and Gilead Sciences. C. Tasset: Corporate appointments; Employee of Galapagos NV. L. Meuleners: Corporate appointments; Employee of Galapagos NV. M. Trivedi: Corporate appointments; Employee of Gilead Sciences, Inc. Shareholder/stock ownership; Shareholder of Gilead Sciences, Inc. Y. Guo: Corporate appointments; Employee of Gilead Sciences, Inc... Shareholder/stock ownership; Shareholder of Gilead Sciences, Inc. R. Besuyen: Other; Employee of Galapagos NV. P. Helliwell: Other; Received support from Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

International league of associations for rheumatology recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis in resource-poor settings

Background

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a challenging heterogeneous disease. The European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and PsA (GRAPPA) last published their respective recommendations for the management of PsA in 2015. However, these guidelines are primarily based on studies conducted in resource replete countries and may not be applicable in countries in the Americas (except Canada and USA) and Africa. We sought to adapt the existing recommendations for these regions under the auspices of the International League of Associations for Rheumatology (ILAR).

Process

The ADAPTE Collaboration (2009) process for guideline adaptation was followed to adapt the EULAR and GRAPPA PsA treatment recommendations for the Americas and Africa. The process was conducted in three recommended phases: set-up phase; adaptation phase (defining health questions, assessing source recommendations, drafting report), and finalization phase (external review, aftercare planning, and final production).

Result

ILAR recommendations have been derived principally by adapting the GRAPPA recommendations, additionally, EULAR recommendations where appropriate and supplemented by expert opinion and literature from these regions. A paucity of data relevant to resource-poor settings was found in PsA management literature.

Conclusion

The ILAR Treatment Recommendations for PsA intends to serve as reference for the management of PsA in the Americas and Africa. This paper illustrates the experience of an international working group in adapting existing recommendations to a resource-poor setting. It highlights the need to conduct research on the management of PsA in these regions as data are currently lacking.

Key Points • The paper presents adapted recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis in resource-poor settings. • The ADAPTE process was used to adapt existing GRAPPA and EULAR recommendations by collaboration with practicing clinicians from the Americas and Africa. • The evidence from resource-poor settings to answer clinically relevant questions was scant or non-existent; hence, a research agenda is proposed.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s10067-020-04934-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A suite-level review of the neutron single-crystal diffraction instruments at Oak Ridge National Laboratory

The nascent suite of single-crystal neutron diffractometers at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory has no equal at any other neutron scattering facility worldwide and offers the potential to re-assert single-crystal diffraction using neutrons as a significant tool to study nuclear and magnetic structures of small unit cell crystals, nuclear structures of macromolecules, and diffuse scattering. Signature applications and features of single-crystal neutron diffraction are high resolution nuclear structure analysis, magnetic structure and spin density determinations, contrast variation (particularly D₂O/H₂O) for nuclear structural studies, lack of radiation damage when using crystals of biological molecules such as proteins, and the fidelity to measure nuclear and magnetic diffuse scattering with elastic discrimination.

A Type 1 Diabetes Genetic Risk Score Predicts Progression of Islet Autoimmunity and Development of Type 1 Diabetes in Individuals at Risk

OBJECTIVE

We tested the ability of a type 1 diabetes (T1D) genetic risk score (GRS) to predict progression of islet autoimmunity and T1D in at-risk individuals.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We studied the 1,244 TrialNet Pathway to Prevention study participants (T1D patients' relatives without diabetes and with one or more positive autoantibodies) who were genotyped with Illumina ImmunoChip (median [range] age at initial autoantibody determination 11.1 years [1.2-51.8], 48% male, 80.5% non-Hispanic white, median follow-up 5.4 years). Of 291 participants with a single positive autoantibody at screening, 157 converted to multiple autoantibody positivity and 55 developed diabetes. Of 953 participants with multiple positive autoantibodies at screening, 419 developed diabetes. We calculated the T1D GRS from 30 T1D-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms. We used multivariable Cox regression models, time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curves, and area under the curve (AUC) measures to evaluate prognostic utility of T1D GRS, age, sex, Diabetes Prevention Trial-Type 1 (DPT-1) Risk Score, positive autoantibody number or type, HLA DR3/DR4-DQ8 status, and race/ethnicity. We used recursive partitioning analyses to identify cut points in continuous variables.

RESULTS

Higher T1D GRS significantly increased the rate of progression to T1D adjusting for DPT-1 Risk Score, age, number of positive autoantibodies, sex, and ethnicity (hazard ratio [HR] 1.29 for a 0.05 increase, 95% CI 1.06-1.6; P = 0.011). Progression to T1D was best predicted by a combined model with GRS, number of positive autoantibodies, DPT-1 Risk Score, and age (7-year time-integrated AUC = 0.79, 5-year AUC = 0.73). Higher GRS was significantly associated with increased progression rate from single to multiple positive autoantibodies after adjusting for age, autoantibody type, ethnicity, and sex (HR 2.27 for GRS >0.295, 95% CI 1.47-3.51; P = 0.0002).

CONCLUSIONS

The T1D GRS independently predicts progression to T1D and improves prediction along T1D stages in autoantibody-positive relatives.

Clinical management of psoriatic arthritis

Psoriatic arthritis, or the broader term psoriatic disease, refers to an inflammatory disorder that affects multiple organs, including the skin and joints, and that also has related extra-articular manifestations and can have comorbidities. Patients with psoriatic disease have a substantial clinical burden. Early identification leading to timely diagnosis and treatment is crucial to prevent long-term structural damage and disability and the associated socioeconomic consequences. The increase in therapeutic options, such as disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, both biological and targeted synthetic, has revolutionised the treatment of skin and joint disease, and has prompted clinicians to use the full clinical picture of an individual patient to make rational treatment decisions. Current research is also focused on treatment strategies, including treat to target, early remission-induction, and tapering.

The Changing Face of Clinical Trials in Psoriatic Arthritis

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

We will address current treatment and unmet needs in psoriatic arthritis (PsA), examine existing randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and consider options for new trial designs and challenges in their implementation.

RECENT FINDINGS

While therapeutic options for PsA have rapidly increased, there continues to be a need for clinical trials to test new therapies and establish optimal treatment strategies in order to improve the care for patients with PsA. In addition, more data is needed on how to select the best therapy for a given patient in clinical practice. Consideration of alternative outcome measures is also needed. Despite the rapid expansion in the number of therapy options available, there is still much to be learned about how to treat the individual patient with PsA.