AB0761 Are we treating-to-target in spondyloarthritis (SpA)? A cross sectional analysis from the Asia Pacific League of Associations for Rheumatology (APLAR) SpA Registry

Background

Data on the extent of treat-to-target (T2T) recommendations application in SpA patients across Asia Pacific region is lacking. APLAR SpA Registry aimed to assess the utility of T2T on long term clinical outcomes, and to improve disease management and inform health care policy.

Objectives

To provide a snapshot of the registry including demographics, disease activity and medication use.

Methods

Patients fulfill the CASPAR 2006 for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and 2009 ASAS criteria for axial spondylitis (AxSpA) were recruited. This cross sectional analysis included the first 188 patients recruited across 7 Asia Pacific regions (Hong Kong, Singapore, Korea, Thailand, India, Qatar & Pakistan).

Results

83 patients PsA and 115 AxSpA patients were included. They had moderate inflammation (DAPSA: 19.61±14.29, ASDAS: 2.32±1.07). Majority of PsA patients received conventional synthetic disease-modifying drug (csDMARDs, 81%) with relatively low prevalence of biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) (24%). Most AxSpA patients used NSAIDs (79%) while nearly half of them received bDMARDs (49%). Other details listed in Table 1. Prevalence of bDMARDs use in our registry was lower than that from the USA (Corrona PsA Registry, 59%), Turkey & Canada (PsArt-ID, 40%) and the Netherlands AxSpA registry (56%) (1-3). Regarding T2T, 28% and 44% of PsA patient achieved minimal disease activity (MDA) and Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis low disease activity (DAPSA LDA) respectively. The proportion of patients achieving target in other cohorts were 46% for MDA (PsArt-ID) and 46% for DAPSA LDA (Corrona) (1, 2). 37% and 47% of AxSpA patient achieved Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI)<4 and Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) LDA. Proportion of patients achieving ASDAS LDA were similar to the Netherlands registry for patients with ASDAS LDA or BASDAI<4 (Figure 1A)(3). Patient on bDMARD were more likely to achieve treatment target (Figure 1B). There were no significant difference between socio-economic status and disease features between bDMARD user and non-user.

Table 1.

Demographics, clinical features and disease activity of patients

PsA (n=83)AxSpA (n=115)Age50.012.836.512.4Male n, %4251%8583%Asian n, %83100%10196%Disease duration, years7.17.35.27.6Any sacroiliitis n, %10299%HLA B27, positive n, %9189%Duration of early morning stiffness, min30392529Tender joint count7901Swollen joint count3400No. of dactylitis digit1100PASI4.05.0SPRACC1201BASDAI2.82.0ESR, mm/h31262016CRP, mg/L10151127HAQ-DI0.610.610.390.51DAPSA19.6114.29ASDAS CRP2.321.07

Data given in mean SD unless stated

. No. of case from Hong Kong 40; Singapore 46; Korea 24; Thailand 20, India 15; Qatar 10; Pakistan 33; HLA - human leucucyte antigen; PASI - psoriasis area and severity index; SPRACC - Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada Enthesitis Index; BASDAI - Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index; ESR - erythrocyte sedimentation rate; CRP - C-reactive protein; HAQ-DI - Health assessment questionnaire disability index; DAPSA - Disease activity in Psoriatic Arthritis; ASDAS - Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score

Figure 1.

(A) Achievement of LDA in APLAR SpA registry and other registry and (B) use of bDMARDs among patients in APLAR SpA registry with or without achieving LDA

Conclusion

Patient using bDMARDs were more likely to achieve treatment target. We expect that when T2T is widely applied, better outcomes will be reported in future.

References

[1]Bakirci, S., et al. (2019). “What are the main barriers to achieve minimal disease activity in psoriatic arthritis in real life?” Clin Exp Rheumatol37(5): 808-812.

[2]Beckers, E., et al. (2021). “Treat-to-target in axial spondyloarthritis: an observational study in daily practice.” Rheumatology (Oxford).

[3]Ogdie, A., et al. (2021). “Effect of Multidomain Disease Presentations on Patients With Psoriatic Arthritis in the Corrona Psoriatic Arthritis/Spondyloarthritis Registry.” J Rheumatol48(5): 698-706.

Disclosure of Interests

Isaac T. Cheng: None declared, Ho SO: None declared, Ying Ying Leung Speakers bureau: received honorarium/ speaker fee from AbbVie, DKSH, Janssen, Novartis and Pfizer., Praveena Chiowchanwisawakit: None declared, Stanley Angkodjojo Speakers bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim Singapore in Nov 2021, Consultant of: Abbvie (Singapore), DKSH (Singapore) in 2021, Muhammad Ahmed Saeed: None declared, Kichul Shin: None declared, Mohit Goyal: None declared, Muhammad Haroon: None declared, Mohammed Hammoudeh Speakers bureau: Have you been paid as a speaker for (pharmaceutical) companies, Grant/research support from: participated in drug companies sponsored trials, Nallasivan Subramanian: None declared, Ho Yin Chung: None declared, James Cheng-Chung Wei: None declared, Mitsumasa Kishimoto Consultant of: MK received consulting fees and/or speaker fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Asahi-Kasei Pharma, Astellas, Ayumi Pharma, BMS, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Ono Pharma, Pfizer, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, and UCB Pharma., Lai-Shan Tam Consultant of: has acted as a consultant for Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Lilly, Grant/research support from: has received grant/research support from Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, GSK, Novartis, and Pfizer

POS1025 COMPARISON OF COMPOSITE INDICES FOR DISEASE ACTIVITY IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS TREATED WITH UPADACITINIB: A POST-HOC ANALYSIS FROM SELECT-PsA 1

Background

Achieving low disease activity (LDA) or remission is a main treatment target in PsA. Composite indices used to assess disease activity include Disease Activity index for PsA (DAPSA) and PsA Disease Activity Score (PASDAS), which both have cut points for the states of remission and LDA. In addition, LDA and remission can be assessed by the pure state instrument Minimal Disease Activity (MDA)/Very Low Disease Activity (VLDA).

Objectives

These analyses aim to identify overlap and differences between these composite indices in PsA patients treated with upadacitinib (UPA), a Janus kinase inhibitor, or adalimumab (ADA) in the phase 3 SELECT-PsA 1 trial.

Methods

In SELECT-PsA 1 (phase 3, randomized controlled trial, with long-term extension up to 5 years), patients with moderate to severely active PsA with prior inadequate response or intolerance to ≥1 non-biologic DMARD were randomized to oral UPA at doses of 15 mg or 30 mg (once daily), subcutaneous ADA 40 mg (every other week), or placebo.1 LDA was assessed using MDA (threshold: 5/7 criteria), DAPSA (≤14), PASDAS (≤3.2), and Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA; ≤3).2,3 These post-hoc descriptive analyses include 1-year (cut off: week 56) as observed data from UPA 15 mg and ADA.

Results

In total, 858 patients (UPA 15 mg: n=429; ADA: n=429) were included in these analyses. Patients receiving UPA and ADA were on average 52 years of age, 54% were female, with an average disease duration of approximately 6 years.1 With both UPA and ADA, there was a high degree of overlap in the proportion of patients achieving LDA thresholds in MDA, DAPSA, and PASDAS (Figure 1), with reported PtGA improvements showing a similar trend. Defining LDA according to MDA or respective cut points for DAPSA, PASDAS, or PtGA, the proportion of “non-responders” (ie, patients who did not reach such states) is shown in Figure 2. Of the individual components included in these indices, fewer patients reported low levels of SF-36 Physical Component Summary (SF36-PCS), Patient Assessment of Pain Numeric Rating Scale (Pain NRS), and Health Assessment Questionnaire - Disability Index (HAQ-DI) scores, as well as Tender Joint Count 68 (TJC68), with similar responses observed across all indices.

Conclusion

In this post-hoc analysis from the SELECT-PsA 1 trial, there was a high degree of overlap between patients in LDA across the composite indices, including MDA, DAPSA, and PASDAS, irrespective of treatment with UPA 15 mg or ADA and despite variability in inclusion of certain components in some indices but not others. Across all indices, fewer patients reported low levels of SF36-PCS, Pain NRS, and HAQ-DI scores, and TJC68. These data show that improvements in (subjective) “patient-driven” components were the most challenging to achieve. These data indicate a similar pattern of residual disease activity, or influence by residual damage or external factors, regardless of composite endpoint utilized.

References

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

[2]Kerschbaumer et al. Baillieres Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2018; 32:401-14

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

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

Josef S. Smolen Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi, and UCB, Ennio Lubrano Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Celgene, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer, Mitsumasa Kishimoto Speakers bureau: 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, and UCB, 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, and UCB, Andra Balanescu Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Angellini, Astra-Zeneca, Berlin-Chemie, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Teva, UCB, and Zentiva, Consultant of: AbbVie, Pfizer, and Ewopharma, Vibeke Strand Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ichnos, Inmedix, Janssen, Kiniksa, Merck, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi, Setpoint, and UCB, Tianming Gao Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Nancy Vranich Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Ralph Lippe Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., William Tillett Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc.

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

POS1031 EARLIER CLINICAL RESPONSE PREDICT LOW RATES OF RADIOGRAPHIC PROGRESSION IN BIO-NAIVE ACTIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS PATIENTS RECEIVING GUSELKUMAB TREATMENT

Background

Guselkumab (GUS), an IL-23p19-subunit inhibitor, demonstrated efficacy and a favorable safety profile in patients (pts) with psoriasis (PsO) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). In the Phase 3, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled DISCOVER-2 study, GUS 100 mg every 4 or 8 weeks (Q4W or Q8W) significantly improved joint and skin symptoms; GUS-treated pts had smaller mean changes in radiographic progression vs. PBO at W24.1 Low rates of radiographic progression were observed through 2 years among GUS-treated pts, regardless of dosing regimen.2,3

Objectives

Determine whether earlier clinical improvement predicts long-term radiographic progression through 2 years in DISCOVER-2.

Methods

DISCOVER-2 included biologic-naïve pts with active PsA (≥5 swollen and ≥5 tender joint counts [SJC/TJC]; CRP ≥0.6 mg/dL) randomized (1:1:1) to GUS 100 mg Q4W; GUS 100 mg at W0, W4, then Q8W; or PBO with crossover to GUS 100 mg Q4W (PBO→Q4W) at W24. For pts randomized to GUS Q4W or Q8W, predictive models (mixed linear) were developed post-hoc to assess the associations of earlier (at W16) improvement in disease activity (DAPSA remission, DAPSA Improvement, DAPSA Improvement more than the median of 20.7 [>20.7]) or skin improvement (PASI90, PASI≤1) with changes in total PsA modified van der Heijde-Sharp [vdH-S] score through W100, after adjusting for known baseline (BL) determinants of radiographic progression (vdH-S score, age, gender, and CRP).

Results

PsA duration, CRP, and SJC at BL weakly correlated with BL vdH-S score. No correlation was seen between BL PASI and BL vdH-S score (Table 1). Greater improvement in DAPSA score (β [95%CI]: -0.03 [-0.04, -0.01]) and improvement >20.7 in DAPSA from BL to W16 was associated with significantly less radiographic progression through W100 after adjusting for BL DAPSA score, vdH-S score, age, gender, and CRP level. Achievement of PASI90, PASI≤1, and DAPSA remission at W16 was associated with numerically less radiographic progression through W100 after adjusting for BL PASI, vdH-S score, age, gender, and CRP (Figure).

Table 1.

Correlation of Select BL Disease Characteristics with BL vdH-S Score Among GUS Randomized Pts

BL DeterminantsSpearman’s correlation coefficientp-valueAge0.27335<.0001CRP0.28181<.0001PASI Score0.030780.5153PsA Duration0.37070<.0001PsO Duration0.20509<.0001SJC (66)0.26321<.0001

Conclusion

In GUS-treated biologic-naïve pts with active PsA, following adjustment for known BL determinants of radiographic progression, earlier (W16) DAPSA improvement was a significant predictor of less radiographic progression through W100; DAPSA remission and skin improvement at W16 each showed a numerical trend toward less radiographic progression through W100.

References

[1]Mease PJ, et al. Lancet. 2020;395:1126–36.

[2]McInnes IB, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021;73:604-16.

[3]McInnes IB, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021 Nov 1. doi: 10.1002/art.42010. Online ahead of print.

Disclosure of Interests

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 Speakers bureau: 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, 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, Alexis Ogdie Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, CorEvitas, Gilead, Happify Health, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: University of Pennsylvania from Abbvie, Pfizer and Novartis and to Forward from Amgen, 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, Soumya D Chakravarty Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC and Drexel University College of Medicine, 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, May Shawi Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, Frederic Lavie Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Cilag Global Medial Affairs, Mitsumasa Kishimoto Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen-Astellas BioPharma, Asahi-Kasei Pharma, Astellas, Ayumi Pharma, BMS, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Pfizer, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, Teijin Pharma, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen-Astellas BioPharma, Asahi-Kasei Pharma, Astellas, Ayumi Pharma, BMS, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Pfizer, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, Teijin Pharma, and UCB, Proton Rahman Speakers bureau: Janssen, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Janssen and Novartis

POS0081 LONG-TERM EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF UPADACITINIB IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: 2-YEAR RESULTS FROM THE PHASE 3 SELECT-PsA 1 STUDY

Background

In SELECT-PsA 1, patients (pts) with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and an inadequate response or intolerance to ≥1 non-biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug showed improvement in the signs and symptoms of PsA with upadacitinib 15 mg (UPA15) or 30 mg (UPA30), an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, through week (wk) 56.1

Objectives

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of UPA and UPA vs adalimumab (ADA) at wk 104 from the ongoing long-term extension of SELECT-PsA 1.

Methods

Pts received UPA15, UPA30, ADA 40 mg, or placebo (PBO) for 24 wks, at which point, PBO pts switched to UPA15 or UPA30. Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using non-responder imputation (NRI) and as observed (AO) (binary endpoints) or mixed-effect model repeated measures and AO (continuous endpoints), with nominal P-values shown, for continuous UPA and ADA treatment groups. Treatment-emergent adverse events were summarized for pts who received ≥1 dose of study drug using a visit-based cut-off at wk 104.

Results

1704 pts received ≥1 dose of study drug. At wk 104, 25.4% of patients had discontinued study drug. The proportions of pts who achieved ACR20/50/70, MDA, PASI75/90/100, and resolution of enthesitis or dactylitis showed consistent responses, or further improvements, from wk 561 to wk 104 (Table 1). ACR20/50/70 and MDA responses, as well as mean change from baseline (BL) in HAQ-DI, patient’s assessment of pain, BASDAI, and ASDAS, were greater with UPA vs ADA. Mean change from BL in modified total Sharp/van der Heijde Score (mTSS) was generally similar across groups and comparable to wk 56.1 The safety profile of UPA was generally comparable to ADA (Figure 1) and consistent with wk 561 data. Rates of serious infection, herpes zoster, lymphopenia, and elevated CPK remained numerically higher with UPA30 vs UPA15; rates in both UPA groups were higher vs ADA. Rates of malignancies, MACE, or VTE were similar across groups, and consistent with wk 561 data. Two deaths were reported with UPA15, 1 with UPA30, and 1 with ADA.

Table 1.

Efficacy Endpoints at Week 104

EndpointUPA15(n=429)UPA30(n=423)ADA(n=429)Proportion of Pts (%)aNRIAONRIAONRIAOACR2069.087.969.587.963.485.1ACR5053.667.459.3*74.147.162.3ACR7038.0*47.443.5*54.429.439.1Minimal Disease Activity (MDA)42.054.845.9*56.837.850.3PASI75b57.973.462.478.658.876.5PASI90b46.759.053.366.548.863.3PASI100b34.143.442.451.434.144.0Resolution of enthesitis by LEIc53.375.552.272.049.173.9Resolution of dactylitis by LDId69.994.571.796.272.495.2Change from BLeMMRMAOMMRMAOMMRMAOHealth Assessment Questionnaire - Disability Index (HAQ-DI)-0.55*-0.57-0.55*-0.59-0.45-0.47Patient’s assessment of pain (numeric rating scale)-3.3-3.5-3.4*-3.6-3.0-3.2Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI)f-3.0-3.2-3.3-3.6-2.7-2.6Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS)f-1.6-1.8-1.9*-2.1-1.5-1.6Modified total Sharp/van der Heijde Score (mTSS)0.030.010.010.000.110.11

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

aData shown as NRI and AO for binary endpoints.

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

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

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

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

fFor pts with psoriatic spondylitis at BL.

Nominal *P<0.05, UPA15 or UPA30 vs ADA for NRI and MMRM; AO descriptive only.

Conclusion

In PsA pts, efficacy responses were similar or greater with UPA15 or UPA30 vs ADA at wk 104, and inhibition of radiographic progression was maintained. No new safety signals were identified with long-term exposure to UPA up to 2 years.

References

[1]McInnes I, et al. RMD Open, 2021; 7(3):e001838.

Acknowledgements

AbbVie and the authors thank the patients, study sites, and investigators who participated in this clinical trial (NCT03104400). AbbVie funded this study and participated in the study design, research, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, reviewing, and approval of the publication. All authors had access to relevant data and participated in the drafting, review, and approval of this publication. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing support was provided by Monica R.P. Elmore, PhD of AbbVie.

Disclosure of Interests

Iain McInnes Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Regeneron, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Regeneron, and UCB Pharma, Koji Kato Shareholder of: Employee of AbbVie and may hold stock or options, Employee of: Employee of AbbVie, Marina Magrey Consultant of: UCB, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Janssen, Grant/research support from: Amgen, AbbVie, and UCB Pharma, Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, UCB, Celgene, Sanofi, Regeneron, Arena, Sun Pharma, Biogen, Pfizer, EMD Sorono, Avotres, and Leo Pharma, 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, Derek Haaland Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Takeda, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli-Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Takeda, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Adiga Life-Sciences, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Can-Fite Biopharma, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, UCB, Liang Chen Shareholder of: Employee of AbbVie and may hold stock or options, Employee of: Employee of AbbVie, Yuanyuan Duan Shareholder of: Employee of AbbVie and may hold stock or options, Employee of: Employee of AbbVie, Jianzhong Liu Shareholder of: Employee of AbbVie and may hold stock or options, Employee of: Employee of AbbVie, Ralph Lippe Shareholder of: Employee of AbbVie and may hold stock or options, Employee of: Employee of AbbVie, Peter Wung Shareholder of: Employee of AbbVie and may hold stock or options, Employee of: Employee of AbbVie

POS0970 SAME OR DIFFERENT? ANALYSIS OF SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES OF CROHN’S DISEASE AND ULCERATIVE COLITIS IN SPONDYLOARTHRITIS: AN ANCILLARY ANALYSIS FROM THE WORLDWIDE ASAS-perSpA STUDY

Background

Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) are grouped as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and both are frequently found as extra-musculoskeletal manifestations in spondyloarthritis (SpA). Several studies have described the connection between SpA and IBD in both directions. Still until today, no studies have investigated possible differences in the musculoskeletal manifestations between the two main entities of inflammatory bowel disease: CD and UC.

Objectives

To evaluate the clinical characteristics associated with the presence of CD or UC in patients with spondyloarthritis from the international cross-sectional ASAS-perSpA study.

Methods

We analyzed 3152 patients from the ASAS per-SpA cohort who had a diagnosis of axial SpA or peripheral SpA according to the treating rheumatologist. Patients with IBD - confirmed by endoscopy - were identified and stratified by CD or UC. Patients in which their IBD disease was not specified, were excluded. Demographics, clinical characteristics, treatments and patient-reported outcomes were compared between both subgroups.

Results

Among the 146 patients diagnosed with IBD from the 3152 patients included in the analysis, 87 (59.6%) presented with CD (75 patients with axial SpA and 12 with peripheral SpA) and 39 (26.7%) with UC (34 patients with axial SpA and 5 with peripheral SpA) - Figure 1. A total of 20 (13.7%) patients with IBD were excluded, due to an inconclusive diagnosis of IBD. Patients with CD and UC had similar age (44.9 vs 44.0 years old) and sex distribution, although a slightly higher frequency of males was observed in CD than UC (63.2% vs 51.3%). The diagnostic delay for SpA was 7.0 years for CD and 8.1 years for UC. We did not find differences between both groups related to any musculoskeletal manifestations such as chronic back pain, uveitis, arthritis, enthesitis or dactylitis (Table 1). The only parameter showing a significant difference between CD and UC was the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) with a mean score of 3.3 vs 2.2 respectively (p=0.02) (Table 1). CD patients showed a higher tendency to be HLA-B27 positive (51.9% in CD vs. 39.4% in UC), but this did not reach statistical significance. No differences were observed regarding treatment patterns between both groups.

Table 1.

Demographics and clinical characteristics related to spondyloarthritis of patients with concomitant Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis (n=146).

Crohn’s Disease N=87Ulcerative Colitis N=39PAge, mean (SD)44.9 (13.5)44.0 (13.0)0.68Sex, n/N (%) male55/87 (63.2)20/39 (51.3)0.21Smoker ever, n/N (%)36/87 (41.4)19/39 (48.7)0.44Diagnostic delay of SpA (years), mean (SD)7.0 (6.9)8.8 (8.1)0.38Psoriasis ever, n/N (%)9/87 (10.3)6/39 (15.4)0.47Uveitis ever, n/N (%)17/87 (19.5)11/39 (28.2)0.28Synovitis ever, n/N (%)42/87 (48.3)18/39 (46.2)0.83Enthesitis ever, n/N (%)26/87 (29.9)14/39 (35.9)0.50Dactylitis ever, n/N (%)3/87 (3.4)1/39 (2.6)0.79Axial involvement ever (according to the rheumatologist), n/N (%)79/87 (90.8)37/39 (94.9)0.44Sacroiliitis on X-ray, n/N (%)64/87 (73.6)26/39 (66.7)0.19HLA-B27 positive, n/N (%)28/54 (51.9)13/33 (39.4)0.26CRP mg/L, mean (SD)11.1 (33.8)15.3 (30.1)0.13ASDAS-CRP, mean (SD)2.4 (1.0)2.4 (1.1)0.84BASFI, mean (SD) 0-103.3 (2.6)2.2 (2.1)0.02csDMARDs ever, n/N (%)71/87 (81.6)35/39 (89.7)0.25bDMARDs ever, n/N (%)72/87 (82.8)33/39 (84.6)0.80

ASDAS, Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score; BASFI, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index; bDMARD, biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs; CRP, c-reactive protein; csDMARD, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs; SD, standard deviation; SpA, spondyloarthritis.

Conclusion

In our ancillary analysis of the ASAS-perSpA study in patients with SpA and concomitant CD or UC, no differences in the clinical presentation or demographic characteristics between the two subgroups were observed, except for the BASFI.

Disclosure of Interests

None declared

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

Background

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

Objectives

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgements

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

Disclosure of Interests

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

P–019 Sperm parameter and ICSI / IVF outcomes after sperm selection using microfluidic sperm separator and density gradient centrifugation with swim-up in split semen sample

Study question

To analyze whether microfluidic sperm selection (MSS) by ZyMōt™ improves sperm DNA fragmentation rate and embryonic development compared to density gradient centrifugation with swim-up (DGCS).

Summary answer

MSS by ZyMōt™ selects sperm for clinical use with less DNA damage significantly compared to DGCS.

What is known already

Conventional sperm preparation methods, such as density gradient centrifugation and the swim-up method utilize centrifugation during processing, may damage the sperm. MSS may allow for improved selection of normal sperm compared with conventional sperm preparation as it yields sperm with a lower DNA fragmentation rate. However, there are few clinical studies by sibling oocytes study compared to DGCS.

Study design, size, duration

This prospective study was performed between March 2020 and May 2020 at a reproductive center. All patients involved gave written consent, and institutional review board approval was granted. A total of 575 metaphase II oocytes were collected from 49 cycles. Wife’s age was 34.7 ± 3.9 years old. Raw sperm concentration and motile sperm concentration was 63.1 ± 78.7M/mL, and 41.6 ± 67.7M/mL, respectively.

Participants/materials, setting, methods

Patients who performed ART for the first or second time were divided into two groups according to MSS and DGCS. Sperm DNA fragmentation rate (SDFR) and motile sperm concentration were compered between MSS and DGCS. SDFR was measured by sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA) using a flow cytometer. Sibling oocytes were randomized into MSS-IVF, DGCS-IVF, MSS-ICSI, and DGCS-ICSI. Rate of two pronuclear (2PN) oocytes, blastocysts development, and good-quality blastocysts were compared between each group.

Main results and the role of chance

SDFR was 13.5 ± 11.8% for raw semen. SDFR was significantly lower after MSS (3.6 ± 4.1%) than that for raw semen and after DGCS (17.4 ± 14.8%) (P &lt; 0.01). Motile sperm concentration after MSS (19.0 ± 28.3M/mL) was significantly higher after than after DGCS (15.4 ± 15.3M/mL) (P &lt; 0.01). The number of IVF performed was 145 for MSS and 132 for DGCS. IVF results (MSS vs DGCS) were 2PN rate (73.1% vs 72.0%), blastocysts development rate (65.3% vs 55.4%), and good quality blastocysts rate (43.2% vs 34.9%). The number of ICSI performed was 149 for MSS and 149 for DGCS. ICSI results (MSS vs DGCS) were 2PN rate (77.9% vs 79.2%), blastocysts development rate (68.8% vs 65.8%), and good quality blastocysts rate (35.8% vs 30.6%). No significant difference was observed between MSS and DGCS for each parameter both IVF and ICSI.

Limitations, reasons for caution

The participants were limited to those who collected semen of 2mL or more and motile sperm concentration of above 1M/mL, because semen sample needed to be divided to MSS and DGCS.

Wider implications of the findings: This is the first study to conducted in sibling oosytes study with MSS and DGCS, in both IVF and ICSI. MSS is effective in collecting sperm with less DNA damage compared to DGCS. Motile sperm concentration after using MSS is sufficient to perform IVF as well as DGCS.

Trial registration number

Not applicable

POS1030 EFFICACY OF UPADACITINIB IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS STRATIFIED BY BASELINE SKIN SEVERITY: A SUBGROUP ANALYSIS OF TWO PHASE III TRIALS

Background:

In the SELECT-PsA 1 and 2 clinical trials, upadacitinib (UPA) demonstrated efficacy and safety in patients (pts) with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA).1,2 PsA is associated with varying degrees of psoriatic symptoms; however, the impact of skin severity on treatment outcomes is not well understood.

Objectives:

This post-hoc analysis assessed the effects of baseline skin severity on UPA efficacy.

Methods:

SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2 enrolled pts with PsA and prior inadequate response (IR) or intolerance to ≥1 non-biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)1 or ≥1 biologic DMARD2, respectively. In both trials, pts received once daily UPA 15 mg or UPA 30 mg or placebo (switched at Wk 24 to either UPA 15 mg or 30 mg); SELECT-PsA 1 also included the active comparator adalimumab (ADA). Only continuous UPA 15 mg and ADA are presented here. In this analysis, pts were divided into subgroups based on the extent of psoriasis at baseline (body surface area [BSA] of ≥3%-<10% or BSA ≥10%); efficacy endpoints were analyzed at Wk 56. Results for binary endpoints are based on non-responder imputation; continuous endpoints are based on mixed model repeated measures analysis with as-observed data.

Results:

In the UPA 15 mg and ADA groups, respectively, 32% (138/429) and 31% (132/429) of pts had a BSA ≥3-<10% at baseline in SELECT-PsA 1; 18% (76/429) in each treatment group had a BSA ≥10%. In SELECT-PsA 2, 38% (80/211) had a BSA ≥3-<10% and 24% (50/211) had a BSA ≥10% at baseline in the UPA 15 mg group. Across pt populations (non-biologic DMARD-IR and biologic DMARD-IR), generally consistent results were observed between patients in both skin severity subgroups (Figure 1). In non-biologic DMARD-IR pts, a numerically greater proportion of UPA 15 mg pts with lower skin involvement compared with higher skin involvement achieved PASI100 and PASI≤1, two more stringent skin endpoints. The achievement of MDA was generally consistent across skin severity subgroups; when pts were required to achieve the skin component of MDA, results were numerically better in the ≥3-<10% skin severity group (Table 1). In non-biologic DMARD-IR pts, results were similar between UPA 15 mg and ADA.

Conclusion:

UPA is a viable treatment option for pts with active PsA regardless of the extent of psoriasis at baseline. Although these results are of interest and hypothesis-generating, they should be interpreted with caution due to low sample size.

References:

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

[2]Mease PJ et al. Ann Rheum Dis, 2020; doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-218870

Table 1.

Additional Efficacy Outcomes at Week 56 Stratified by Severity of Skin Involvement at Baseline

SELECT-PsA 1n/N (%) [95% CI]UPA 15 mgADAsIGA 0/1 w/at least 2 point improvement from BLa ≥3%-<10%71/128 (55.5) [46.9, 64.1]53/124 (42.7) [34.0, 51.4] ≥10%29/76 (38.2) [27.2, 49.1]33/77 (42.9) [31.8, 53.9]MDA + skinb ≥3%-<10%58/138 (42.0) [33.8, 50.3]56/132 (42.4) [34.0, 50.9] ≥10%19/76 (25.0) [15.3, 34.7]28/79 (35.4) [24.9, 46.0]SELECT-PsA 2n/N (%) [95% CI]UPA 15 mgsIGA 0/1 w/at least 2 point improvement from BLa ≥3%-<10%24/71 (33.8) [22.8, 44.8] ≥10%18/50 (36.0) [22.7, 49.3] MDA + skinb ≥3%-<10%22/80 (27.5) [17.7, 37.3] ≥10%9/50 (18.0) [7.4, 28.6]

a defined as achieving an sIGA score of 0 or 1 and at least a 2 point improvement from BL, evaluated in pts with BL sIGA ≥2.

b defined as achieving 5 of the 7 criteria, with PASI ≤1 or BSA-psoriasis ≤3 as a required component.

ADA, adalimumab; BL, baseline; CI, confidence interval; MDA, minimal disease activity; sIGA, Static Investigator Global Assessment of psoriasis; UPA, upadacitinib

Acknowledgements:

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

Disclosure of Interests:

Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, UCB, Celgene, Sanofi, Regeneron, Arena, Sun Pharma, Biogen, Pfizer, EMD Sorono, Avotres and Leo Pharma, Pascal Richette Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, Janssen, BMS, Roche, Pfizer, Amgen, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Lilly, Novartis, and Celgene, Ennio Lubrano Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer, Edit Drescher: None declared, Lilian Soto: None declared, Charles Lovan Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Koji Kato Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Ralph Lippe Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Michael Lane Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, 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.

POS0975 CLINICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF NONRADIOGRAPHIC AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS IN ASIAN COUNTRIES COMPARED TO OTHER REGIONS: RESULTS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CROSS-SECTIONAL ASAS-COMOSPA STUDY

Background:

Clinical characteristics of nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-ax-SpA) are highly variable across patients, and may potentially vary across patient populations, particularly due to differing distributions of human leukocyte antigens (HLA) and other genetic factors. The majority of nr-ax-SpA studies have been conducted in Europe, the United States, and small studies are reported from Asia [1].

Objectives:

To delineate clinical characteristics of patients with nr-ax-SpA in Asian countries in comparison to other areas of the world.

Methods:

Utilizing the ASAS-COMOSPA data, an international cross-sectional observational study of SpA patients, we analyzed information on demographics, disease characteristics, comorbidities, and risk factors. Patients were classified by region: Asia (China, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan), and non-Asian countries (Europe, Americas, and Africa); patient characteristics, including diagnosis and treatment, were compared.

Results:

Among 3984 SpA patients included in the study, 1094 were from centers in Asian countries, and 2890 from other regions. 112/780 (14.4%) of axial SpA patients in Asian countries were nr-ax-SpA, substantially less than in other countries (486/1997, 24.3%). Nr-ax-SpA patients in Asian countries compared to nr-ax-SpA in other countries were more likely male (75.9 vs 47.1%), have onset (22.8 vs 27.8 years) and diagnosis (27.2 vs 34.5 years) at younger age, and experience less diagnostic delay (1.88 vs 2.92 years) (Table 1). Nr-ax-SpA patients in Asian countries have higher prevalence of positive HLA-B27 (90.6% vs 61.9%) and fewer peripheral signs such as arthritis, enthesitis, or dactylitis (53.6% vs 66.3%) but have similar rate of extra-articular manifestations (psoriasis, IBD, or uveitis) and co-morbidities. Disease activity, functional impairment, and inflammation on MRI were less in nr-ax-SpA patients in Asian countries. NSAIDs response was higher and use of methotrexate and b-DMARDs were lower among nr-ax-SpA in Asian countries.

Conclusion:

Among axial SpA patients, substantially lower frequency of nr-ax-SpA was observed in Asian countries compared to other regions of the world. Nr-ax-SpA patients in Asian countries were predominantly male, and had younger disease onset with higher HLA-B27 positivity rate and less peripheral signs, and better response to NSAIDs. These results offer an opportunity to improve both early diagnosis and treatment of nr-ax-SpA patients in Asian countries.

Table 1.

Characteristics of nonradiographic axial SpA in Asia versus non-Asian regions

VariablesAsianon-Asian regionsp valueN112486Age at disease diagnosis, yrs27.2 [21.1, 39.6]34.5 [27.7, 41.7]<0.001Diagnostic delay, yrs1.88 [0.27, 5.56]2.92 [0.59, 9.58]0.011Male (%)85 (75.9)229 (47.1)<0.001Sacroiliitis on MRI among tested (%)49 (67.1)341 (82.2)0.005HLA B27 positivity among measured (%)96 (90.6)273 (61.9)<0.001Inflammatory Back Pain (%)107 (95.5)478 (98.4)0.076Arthritis, enthesitis, or dactylitis (%)60 (53.6)322 (66.3)0.016Psoriasis (%)12 (10.7)82 (16.9)0.142Uveitis (%)20 (17.9)81 (16.7)0.870Inflammatory bowel disease (%)5 (4.5)27 (5.6)0.817Elevated CRP (%)37 (33.0)213 (43.8)0.048Physician global assessment (0-10)2.0 [1.0, 5.0]2.0 [1.0, 4.0]0.741Patient global assessment (0-10)3.0 [1.0, 6.0]4.0 [2.0, 6.0]0.012ASDAS-CRP1.40 [0.95, 2.08]1.97 [1.21, 2.78]<0.001BASFI0.8 [0.05, 2.65]2.9 [0.8, 5.6]<0.001Good response to NSAIDs (%)80 (71.4)272 (56.0)0.004Methotrexate use (%)18 (16.1)134 (27.6)0.016Biological DMARDs use (%)27 (24.1)191 (39.3)0.004

References:

[1]López-Medina C, Ramiro S, van der Heijde D, et al. Characteristics and burden of disease in patients with radiographic and non-radiographic axial Spondyloarthritis: a comparison by systematic literature review and meta-analysis. RMD Open. 2019 Nov 21;5(2): e001108.

Acknowledgements:

This study was conducted under the umbrella of the International Society for Spondyloarthritis Assessment (ASAS) and COMOSPA study was supported by unrestricted grants from Pfizer, AbbVie and UCB.

Disclosure of Interests:

Keisuke Ono: None declared, Mitsumasa Kishimoto Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen-Astellas BioPharma, Asahi-Kasei Pharma, Astellas, Ayumi Pharma, BMS, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Ono Pharma, Pfizer, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, Teijin Pharma, and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen-Astellas BioPharma, Asahi-Kasei Pharma, Astellas, Ayumi Pharma, BMS, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Ono Pharma, Pfizer, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, Teijin Pharma, and UCB Pharma, Sho Fukui: None declared, Satoshi Kawaai: None declared, Gautam A. Deshpande: None declared, Kazuki Yoshida Consultant of: OM1, Inc., Grant/research support from: Corrona, LLC, Naomi Ichikawa: None declared, Yuko Kaneko Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Astellas, Ayumi, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Hisamitsu, Jansen, Kissei, Pfizer, Sanofi, Takeda, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, and UCB, Taku Kawasaki: None declared, Kazuo Matsui: None declared, Mitsuhiro Morita: None declared, Kurisu Tada: None declared, Naoho Takizawa: None declared, Naoto Tamura: None declared, Atsuo Taniguchi: None declared, Yoshinori Taniguchi: None declared, Shigeyoshi Tsuji: None declared, Shigeto Kobayashi: None declared, Masato Okada: None declared, Clementina López-Medina: None declared, Anna Moltó Consultant of: AbbVie, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Gilead, Lilly and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Gilead, Lilly and UCB, Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cyxone, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB Pharma, Employee of: Imaging Rheumatology bv. (Director), Maxime Dougados: None declared, Yoshinori Komagata: None declared, Tetsuya Tomita: None declared, Shinya Kaname: None declared.

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

Background:

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

Objectives:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Table 1.

TEAEs per 100 PYs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

References:

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

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

Acknowledgements:

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

Disclosure of Interests:

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

POS0969 UNVEILING AXIAL INVOLVEMENT IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: AN ANCILLARY ANALYSIS OF THE ASAS-perSpA STUDY

Background:

Heterogeneity in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a current matter of discussion, especially concerning axial involvement.

Objectives:

To determine the profile of axial PsA (axPsA) in a worldwide setting. Secondly, to identify predictive factors associated with the development of axial involvement in patients with PsA.

Methods:

Data from 3684 patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) or PsA from the ASAS-PerSpA study were analysed. The ASAS-PerSpA is an observational, cross-sectional study that recruited consecutive patients with SpA from 68 centers worldwide. For this analysis, 367 PsA patients ever presenting axial involvement according to their rheumatologist were defined as axPsA and compared with 2651 axSpA patients, using logistic regression to later identify predictive factors for rheumatologist diagnosis of axPsA. In addition, the axPsA patients were also compared with 666 PsA patients without axial involvement (pPsA) and the characteristics associated with axial manifestations were determined by logistic regression analysis.

Results:

Among all patients, 2651 were identified as axSpA and 1033 patients as PsA. Among those with axial involvement, 2651 were identified as axSpA (100% of axSpA) and 367 as axPsA (35.5 % of PsA). In comparison with axSpA, axPsA patients were less frequently males, older, less frequently HLA-B27 positive and had a higher body mass index (Table 1). Additionally, while patients with axPsA had more peripheral manifestations and psoriasis, concomitant IBD and uveitis were higher in axSpA. In the multivariable analysis, older age at diagnosis (OR= 1.04), peripheral arthritis (OR= 7.32) and dactylitis (OR= 2.82) were significantly associated with a diagnosis of axPsA. However, uveitis (OR= 0.22), IBD (OR= 0.12) or HLA*B27 carriership (OR= 0.26) were inversely associated with axPsA diagnosis as compared to axSpA. Furthermore, axial involvement in patients with PsA was significantly associated with male gender (OR= 1.68), elevated CRP (OR= 2.87), and the absence of psoriasis (OR= 0.33).

Conclusion:

In this worldwide setting, axPsA was defined by rheumatologists as a unique phenotype, with disease features lying between axSpA and pure pPsA. Male gender, elevated CRP and the absence of psoriasis were associated with axial involvement in patients with PsA.

Table 1.

Demographic and disease characteristics of patients with axial involvement included in the ASAS PerSpA study. Results shown as absolute numbers (percentages) or as the mean ± standard deviation

axSpAn= 2651axPsAn= 367p-valueSex (male)1816 (68.5) 196 (53.4)<0.001Age at study visit42.1(13.0)50.0 (12.7)<0.001Body Mass Index25.9 (5.1)27.4 (5.7)<0.001Family history of SpA944 (35.6)135 (36.8)0.684Past history or current symptoms of back pain2625 (99.0)358 (97.5)0.04Inflammatory back pain (ASAS definition), n/N(%)2500/2632 (94.9)317/362 (87.6)<0.001Sacroiliitis on imaging, n/N (%) by: xRay mNY criteria1997/2586 (77.2)185/298 (62.1)<0.001 MRI-SIJ, ASAS definition1449/1757 (82.4)141/225 (62.6)<0.001 mNY criteria or ASAS definition2446/2634 (92.9)243/339 (71.7)<0.001HLA B27 positive1674 /2126 (78.7)54/182 (29.6)<0.001Elevated CRP (>5 mg/dL)1863/2569 (72.5)274/356 (76.9)0.2Classification criteria ASAS criteria2339 (88.2)185 (50.4)<0.001 CASPAR criteria123 (4.6)274 (74.4)<0.001Peripheral Arthritis946 (35.7)318 (86.6)<0.001Enthesitis1086 (41.0)198 (54.0)<0.001Dactylitis155 (5.8)125 (34.1)<0.001Psoriasis185 (7.0)324 (88.3)<0.001IBD129 (4.9)3 (0.8)<0.001Uveitis576(21.7)13 (3.5)<0.001csDMARD (ever)1359 (51.3)339 (92.4)<0.001bDMARD (ever)1585 (59.8)263 (71.7)<0.001Specific drug for axial involvementNSAIDs2465 (98.6)317 (96.1)0.002csDMARD828 (33.1)187 (56.7)<0.001bDMARD1288 (51.5)180 (54.4)0.32

axSpA: axial spondyloarthritis; axPsA: axial psoriatic arthritis; IBD: Inflammatory Bowel Disease; CRP: C-Reactive Protein; mNY: modified New York; csDMARDs: conventional synthetic DMARDs; bDMARDs: biological DMARDs; NSAID: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

Disclosure of Interests:

Diego Benavent: None declared, Chamaida Plasencia: None declared, Denis Poddubnyy: None declared, Mitsumasa Kishimoto Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen-Astellas BioPharma, Asahi-Kasei Pharma, Astellas, Ayumi Pharma, BMS, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Ono Pharma, Pfizer, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, Teijin Pharma, and UCB Pharma., Fabian Proft Grant/research support from: AbbVie, AMGEN, BMS, Celgene, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Haruki Sawada: None declared, Clementina López-Medina: None declared, Maxime Dougados: None declared, Victoria Navarro-Compán: None declared.

AB0523 LONG-TERM SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF UPADACITINIB IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: RESULTS AT 56 WEEKS FROM THE SELECT-PsA 1 STUDY

Background:

In the SELECT-PsA 1 study, through 24 weeks (wks), once daily upadacitinib 15 mg (UPA15) and 30 mg (UPA30) showed improvements in musculoskeletal symptoms, psoriasis, physical function, pain, fatigue, and quality of life, as well as inhibition of radiographic progression in patients (pts) with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and inadequate response or intolerance to ≥1 non-biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD).1

Objectives:

To report the efficacy and safety of UPA vs adalimumab (ADA) up to 56 wks from the ongoing long-term extension of SELECT-PsA 1.

Methods:

Pts received UPA15 or UPA30, ADA 40mg every other wk for 56 wks, or PBO through wk 24 switched thereafter to either UPA15 or UPA30 until wk 56. Efficacy endpoints as listed and defined in the Table 1 were analyzed at wk 56. Results for binary endpoints are based on non-responder imputation analysis; treatments were compared using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Results for non-radiographic continuous endpoints are based on mixed model repeated measures model based on as observed data. Radiographic endpoints were analyzed based on linear extrapolation. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) per 100 pt years (PY) were summarized for pts who received ≥1 dose of study drug.

Table 1.

Efficacy Endpoints at Week 56

EndpointPBO → UPA15PBO → UPA30UPA15UPA30ADAACR20, %73.074.174.474.7#68.5ACR50, %54.560.459.7*60.5#51.3ACR70, %29.935.840.6*43.7#31.2Minimal Disease Activity, %29.435.844.847.3#39.6PASI75a, %58.360.265.463.361.1PASI90a, %41.753.749.149.546.9PASI100a, %22.338.934.639.531.3Resolution of enthesitis by Leeds Enthesitis Index b, %38.145.559.358.154.0Resolution of dactylitis by Leeds Dactylitis Index c, %47.759.075.074.874.0Δ from BL in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index d-3.1-3.1-3.3-3.2-2.8Δ from BL in modified total Sharp/van der Heijde Score (mTSS)0.44e-0.05†0.02‡-0.06

* and †, p≤0.05; for UPA15 vs ADA and PBO, respectively; # and ‡, p≤0.05; for UPA30 vs ADA and PBO, respectively.

a for pts with psoriasis affecting ≥3% of body surface area at BL. b for pts with LEI >0 at BL. c for pts with LDI >0 at BL. d for pts with psoriatic spondylitis at BL. epooled PBO.

ACR20/50/70, ≥20%/50%/70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria; ADA, adalimumab; BL, baseline; PASI75/90/100, ≥75%/90%/100% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index; PBO, placebo; pts, patients; UPA, upadacitinib.

Results:

Of 1704 pts who received ≥1 dose of study drug, 1419 (83.2%) completed 56 wks of treatment on study drug. Across all treatment groups, the proportions of pts who had achieved ACR20/50/70, MDA, PASI75/90/100, resolution of enthesitis, and resolution of dactylitis were maintained or further improved from wk 241 through wk 56; these proportions were generally greater for pts originally randomized to UPA vs ADA (Table 1). At wk 56, mean change from BL in mTSS was similar with UPA15, UPA30, and ADA. Improvements in pts who switched from PBO to UPA were generally similar to those originally randomized to UPA at wk 56. Through wk 56, the rates of TEAEs and serious AEs, including serious infections, were similar in the UPA15 and ADA arms and higher with UPA30 (Figure 1). The rate of herpes zoster was higher with UPA vs ADA in a dose-dependent manner. Malignancies were reported at similar rates among all treatment groups. Adjudicated venous thromboembolic events and major adverse cardiovascular events were reported in all groups with comparable rates. Two deaths were reported with UPA15, 2 with UPA30, and 1 with ADA; 1 death was reported with PBO during the 24-wk PBO-controlled period.

Conclusion:

Efficacy responses were maintained or further improved with UPA15 and UPA30 over 56 wks and were numerically higher vs ADA. The inhibition of radiographic progression was maintained at wk 56 and was similar with UPA and ADA. At wk 56, improvements in efficacy were observed in pts who switched from PBO to UPA. No new safety findings were observed with longer exposure to UPA.

References:

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

Figure 1

Acknowledgements:

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

Disclosure of Interests:

Iain McInnes Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Regeneron, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Regeneron, UCB Pharma, Koji Kato Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Marina Magrey Consultant of: UCB, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer and Janssen, Grant/research support from: Amgen, AbbVie, and UCB Pharma, Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, UCB, Celgene, Sanofi, Regeneron, Arena, Sun Pharma, Biogen, Pfizer, EMD Sorono, Avotres and Leo Pharma, 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, Cesar Francisco Pacheco Tena Consultant of: Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Roche, Pfizer, Janssen, Astra-Zeneca, UCB, Gilead, R-Pharm, Sanofi Regeneron, Grant/research support from: Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Roche, Pfizer, Janssen, Astra-Zeneca, UCB, Gilead, R-Pharm, Sanofi Regeneron, Derek Haaland Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Takeda, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Takeda, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Adiga Life-Sciences, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Can-Fite Biopharma, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, UCB, Liang Chen Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Yuanyuan Duan Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Patrick Zueger Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Jianzhong Liu Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Ralph Lippe Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Aileen Pangan Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Frank Behrens Consultant of: Pfizer, AbbVie, Sanofi, Lilly, Novartis, Genzyme, Boehringer, Janssen, MSD, Celgene, Roche, Chugai, BMS, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Janssen, Chugai, Celgene and Roche.

OP0047 IDENTIFICATION OF CLINICAL PHENOTYPES IN PATIENTS WITH AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS, PERIPHERAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS AND PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS ACCORDING TO PERIPHERAL MUSCULOSKELETAL MANIFESTATIONS: A CLUSTER ANALYSIS IN THE INTERNATIONAL ASAS-PERSPA STUDY

Background:

Patients with a diagnosis of Spondyloarthritis (SpA) and Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) may have predominant axial or peripheral symptoms, and the frequency and distribution of these symptoms may determine the clinical diagnosis by the rheumatologist (“clinical clusters”). Clustering analysis represents an unsupervised exploratory analysis which tries to identify homogeneous groups of cases (“statistical clusters”) without prior information about the membership for any of the cases.

Objectives:

To identify “statistical clusters” of peripheral involvement according to the specific location of these symptoms in the whole spectrum of SpA and PsA (without prior information about the diagnosis of the patients), and to evaluate whether these “statistical clusters” are in agreement with the “clinical clusters”.

Methods:

Cross-sectional and multicentre study with 24 participating countries. Consecutive patients considered by their treating rheumatologist as suffering from either PsA, axial SpA (axSpA) or peripheral SpA (pSpA) were enrolled. Four different cluster analyses were conducted: the first one using information about the specific location from all the peripheral musculoskeletal manifestations (i.e., peripheral arthritis, enthesitis and dactylitis), and thereafter a cluster analysis for each peripheral manifestation individually. Multiple correspondence analyses and k-means clustering methods were used. Distribution of peripheral manifestations and clinical characteristics were compared across the different clusters.

Results:

4465 patients were included in the analysis. Two clusters were found with regard to the location of all the peripheral manifestations (Fig. 1). Cluster 1 showed a low prevalence of peripheral manifestations in comparison with cluster 2; however, when peripheral involvement appeared in cluster 1, this was mostly represented by arthritis of hip, knee and ankle, as well as enthesitis of the heel. Patients from cluster 1 showed a higher prevalence of males (63% vs 44%), HLA-B27 positivity (69% vs 38%) and axial involvement (80% vs 52%), as well as more frequent diagnosis of axSpA (66% vs 21%) and more frequently fulfilling the ASAS axSpA criteria (69% vs. 41%). Patients from cluster 2 showed a higher prevalence of psoriasis (63% vs 25%), a more frequent diagnosis of PsA (61% vs 19%), and they fulfilled more frequently the peripheral ASAS (26% vs 11%) and the CASPAR criteria (57% vs 19%).

Figure 1.

Distribution of the peripheral involvement across clusters

Three clusters were found with regard to the location of the peripheral arthritis. Clusters 2 and 3 showed a high prevalence of peripheral joint disease, although this was located more predominantly in the lower limbs in cluster 2, and in the upper limbs in cluster 3. Cluster 1 showed a higher prevalence of males, HLA-B27 positivity, axial involvement, a lower presence of psoriasis, a more frequent diagnosis of axSpA and fulfilling the ASAS axSpA criteria in comparison with clusters 2 and 3, respectively. Clusters 2 and 3 showed a higher prevalence of enthesitis and dactylitis in comparison with cluster 1, a more frequent diagnosis of PsA and fulfillment of the CASPAR criteria.

Information about the location of enthesitis exhibited three groups: cluster 1 showed a very low prevalence of enthesitis, while cluster 2 and 3 showed a high prevalence of enthesitis, with a predominant involvement of axial enthesis in cluster 2 and peripheral enthesitis in cluster 3.

Finally, the analysis of dactylitis also exhibited three clusters that showed a very low prevalence of dactylitis, predominantly toes and predominantly fingers involvement, respectively.

Conclusion:

These results suggest the presence of heterogeneous patterns of peripheral involvement in SpA and PsA patients without clearly defined groups, confirming the clear overlap of these peripheral manifestations across the different underlying diagnoses.

Acknowledgements:

This study was conducted under the umbrella of ASAS with unrestricted grant of Abbvie, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, UCB, Janssen and Merck.

Disclosure of Interests:

None declared

Unveiling axial involvement in psoriatic arthritis: An ancillary analysis of the ASAS-perSpA study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the clinical profile of axial psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in a worldwide setting. Secondly, to identify factors associated with the development of axial involvement in patients with PsA.

METHODS

Data from 3684 patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) or PsA from the ASAS-perSpA study were analysed. The ASAS-perSpA is a cross-sectional study that recruited consecutive patients with SpA (as diagnosed by their rheumatologist) from 68 centers worldwide and collected patient and disease data. First, 2651 axSpA patients and 367 PsA patients with any history of axial involvement (axPsA) were compared using logistic regression to later identify predictive factors for rheumatologist diagnosis of axPsA. Secondly, 367 axPsA patients were compared with 666 PsA patients lacking axial involvement (peripheral PsA [pPsA]) and the characteristics associated with axial manifestations were explored by logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Patients with axPsA were older and less frequently males or HLA*B27 positive in comparison with axSpA patients. Additionally, while patients with axPsA had more peripheral manifestations and psoriasis, other extra-musculoskeletal manifestations (IBD and uveitis) were more frequent in those with axSpA. In the multivariable analysis, older age at diagnosis (OR = 1.04), peripheral arthritis (OR = 7.32) and dactylitis (OR = 2.82) were significantly associated with the diagnosis of axPsA. However, uveitis (OR = 0.22), IBD (OR = 0.12), HLA*B27 carriership (OR = 0.26) or sacroiliitis on imaging (OR = 0.5) were inversely associated with axPsA diagnosis as compared to axSpA. Axial involvement in patients with PsA was significantly associated with male gender (OR = 1.68), elevated CRP (OR = 2.87) and the absence of psoriasis (OR = 0.33).

CONCLUSION

In this worldwide setting axPsA was defined by rheumatologists as a unique phenotype, with disease features lying between axSpA and pure pPsA.

SAT0520 CONTROVERSY ON DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF ADULT PATIENTS WITH SAPHO SYNDROME: MULTI-DISCIPLINARY INTERNATIONAL SURVEY

Background:

Synovitis, acne, pustulosis, hyperostosis, osteitis (SAPHO) is a rare disease involving skin and skeleton, with a potentially complicated and severe course, optimal management of which seems to require a collaborative rheumatology and dermatology care. Diagnostic criteria for SAPHO remain preliminary and lack validation. There are no evidence-based treatment algorithms in SAPHO due to lack of clinical trials in this rare medical condition.

Objectives:

This study aimed to investigate the current practice in the diagnosis and treatment of SAPHO syndrome among the international rheumatology and dermatology communities.

Methods:

We conducted a survey among the members of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) combining international rheumatologists and dermatologists as well as members of the Japanese and Israeli Societies of Rheumatology.

Results:

A total of 78 physicians participated in the survey: rheumatologists (83%, n=65), dermatologists (11.5%, n=9), and orthopedics (3.8%, n=3). SAPHO was considered a subtype of spondylarthritis by 48.7% (n=38), a subtype of psoriatic arthritis by 19.2% (n=15), a separate entity by 25.6% (n=20), and a subtype of reactive arthritis by 6.4% (n=5). Palmoplantar pustulosis was the most prevalent cutaneous manifestation (n=44, 56.4%) and anterior chest pain - the most prevalent osteoarticular manifestation (n=66, 84.6%). The majority (84.6%, n=66) voted for the update of the present diagnostic criteria by Khan 1994. Magnetic resonance imaging was considered the preferred imaging modality for the diagnosis of SAPHO by 41% (n=32). Conduction of bone biopsy for diagnosis of non-infectious osteitis was supported only by 10.3% (n=8). Patient-reported outcomes were considered the most appropriate measure for the assessment of disease activity by 47.4% (n=37). The treatment approach was overall similar among the rheumatology and dermatology communities, including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, bisphosphonates, conventional disease-modifying anti-inflammatory drugs, and biologics (Table 1).

Table 1.

Preferences in the treatment choice of SAPHO

Treatment% of respondersNSAIDs76.6%Glucocorticoids32.5%Conventional DMARDs57.1%Bisphosphonates48.1%Anti-TNF biologic therapy75.3%Other biologic therapy20.8%Antibiotic14.3%Tonsillectomy5.1%Isotretinoin5.2%Topical therapy10.4%Intra-articular steroid injection7.8%

Legend: NSAIDs – non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; DMARDs – disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs

Conclusion:

Our study underlines the controversy on diagnosis and treatment of SAPHO syndrome among specialists in rheumatology and dermatology and emphasizes an unmet need for update and validation of diagnostic criteria and treatment approach.

Acknowledgments:

GRAPPA, Japanese Society of Rheumatology, Israeli Society of Rheumatology

Disclosure of Interests:

Victoria Furer: None declared, Mitsumasa Kishimoto: None declared, Shigeyoshi Tsuji Grant/research support from: Eli Lilly, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Asahi Kasei, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Eisai, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Celgene, and Novartis Pharma K.K., Yoshinori Taniguchi: None declared, Yoko Ishihara: None declared, Tetsuya Tomita Consultant of: Eli Lilly and Company, Ori Elkayam Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Novartis, Jansen

LB0001 EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF UPADACITINIB VERSUS PLACEBO AND ADALIMUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS AND INADEQUATE RESPONSE TO NON-BIOLOGIC DISEASE-MODIFYING ANTI-RHEUMATIC DRUGS (SELECT-PsA-1): A DOUBLE-BLIND, RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED PHASE 3 TRIAL

Background:

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

Objectives:

To assess the efficacy and safety of UPA vs placebo (PBO) and adalimumab (ADA) in patients (pts) with PsA and prior IR or intolerance to ≥1 non-biologic DMARD (non-bDMARD).

Methods:

Pts with active PsA (≥3 swollen and ≥3 tender joints), active or historical psoriasis, and on ≤2 non-bDMARDs were randomized 1:1:1:1 to once daily UPA 15 mg (UPA15), UPA 30 mg (UPA30), ADA 40 mg every other week, or PBO. The primary endpoint was the proportion of pts achieving ACR20 for UPA vs PBO at Wk 12. Multiplicity controlled secondary endpoints for each dose of UPA vs PBO included change in HAQ-DI, FACIT-F, and SF-36 PCS (Wk 12); static Investigator Global Assessment of Psoriasis of 0 or 1, PASI75, and change in Self-Assessment of Psoriasis Symptoms (Wk 16); change in modified Sharp/van der Heijde Score (mTSS), proportion of pts achieving MDA, and resolution of enthesitis (LEI=0) and dactylitis (LDI=0) (Wk 24). For each dose of UPA, the multiplicity-controlled analysis also included non-inferiority and superiority vs ADA for ACR20 and superiority for HAQ-DI and pt’s assessment of pain NRS (Wk 12). ACR50/70 at Wk 12 and ACR20 at Wk 2 were additional secondary endpoints. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) through 24 wks are reported for pts who received ≥1 dose of study drug.

Results:

1705 pts were randomized; 1704 received study drug (53.2% female, mean age 50.8 yrs, mean duration of PsA diagnosis 6.1 yrs). 82% were on ≥1 concomitant non-bDMARD, of whom 84% received MTX +/- another non-bDMARD.

At Wk 12, ACR20 rates were 70.6% with UPA15 and 78.5% with UPA30 vs 36.2% with PBO (p < .001 for UPA15/30 vs PBO) and 65.0% with ADA (non-inferiority, p < .001 for UPA15/30 vs ADA; superiority, p < .001 for UPA30 vs ADA). A greater proportion of pts achieved ACR50/70 with UPA15/30 vs PBO and UPA30 vs ADA. Improvements were observed with UPA15/30 vs PBO for all multiplicity controlled secondary endpoints and for UPA 15/30 vs ADA for HAQ-DI and UPA 30 vs ADA for improvement in pain (Figure 1A-1B). At Wk 24, change in mTSS was 0.25 for PBO, -0.04 for UPA15, 0.03 for UPA30, and 0.01 for ADA (p < 0.001 for UPA15/30 vs PBO). The rates of TEAEs and serious AEs, including serious infections, were similar in the PBO, UPA15, and ADA arms and higher with UPA30 (Figure 2). The rate of herpes zoster was similar for PBO and UPA15/30. No MACE was reported with UPA. One malignancy occurred in each of the PBO and UPA15 arms, and 3 malignancies were reported in each of the UPA30 and ADA arms. VTE were reported in 1 pt on PBO, 1 pt on UPA30, and 2 pts on ADA. One death occurred in the PBO arm.

Conclusion:

In this non-bDMARD-IR PsA population, treatment with UPA15/30 demonstrated improvement in musculoskeletal symptoms, psoriasis, physical function, pain, and fatigue and inhibited radiographic progression; improvements were observed by Wk 2. At Wk 12, UPA15/30 were non-inferior to ADA for ACR20, with superiority demonstrated for UPA30. Greater percentages of UPA vs PBO pts achieved stringent measures of disease control (MDA, ACR50/70, sIGA 0/1). No new safety signals were identified compared with the safety profile observed in RA.

Disclosure of Interests:

Iain McInnes: None declared, Jaclyn Anderson Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Marina Magrey Grant/research support from: Amgen, AbbVie, and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: Novartis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Janssen, Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: Merck, Abbvie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, UCB, Celgene, Sanofi, Regeneron, Arena, Sun Pharma, Biogen, Pfizer, EMD Sorono, Avotres and Leo Pharma, Yi Liu: None declared, Mitsumasa Kishimoto Consultant of: bbVie, Eli Lilly, Celgene, Pfizer, Gilead, Janssen, and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eisai, Celgene, Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, Ayumi, Janssen, Astellas, and UCB Pharma, Sławomir Jeka Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, MSD, Sandoz, Eli Lilly, Egis, UCB, Celgene, Cesar Francisco Pacheco Tena: None declared, xin wang Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Liang Chen Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Patrick Zueger Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Aileen Pangan Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Frank Behrens Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Janssen, Chugai, Celgene and Roche, Consultant of: Pfizer, AbbVie, Sanofi, Lilly, Novartis, UCB, Genzyme, Boehringer, Janssen, MSD, Celgene, Roche and Chugai

A case of feline gastrointestinal eosinophilic sclerosing fibroplasia limited to the mesentery

An entire, female, mixed‐breed cat of unknown age was presented with a 6‐week history of lethargy, anorexia and vomiting. There was an increase in the number of white blood cells in the blood, including neutrophils and eosinophils; moderate anaemia; ascites; and possible mesenteric peritonitis. Exploratory laparotomy revealed firm, multifocal small nodules in the mesentery. As the nodules were surgically unresectable, they were biopsied. Histologically, the nodules were composed of thin trabeculae of dense collagen fibres mixed with plump fibroblasts and numerous eosinophils, consistent with feline gastrointestinal eosinophilic sclerosing fibroplasia. Bacteria were not detected on histological examination of the nodules and cytology of the ascites. Remission of disease occurred following treatment with prednisolone and ciclosporin A for 22 days and antibiotics for 40 days. After remission, ciclosporin A was administered for 236 days and then discontinued. Eosinophilia also resolved after treatment with ciclosporin A. The cat is still alive and in good condition on day 689. This report describes what may be an atypical case of feline gastrointestinal eosinophilic sclerosing fibroplasia, lacking involvement of the gastrointestinal tract, and was apparently cured by treatment that involved ciclosporin A.

A Raman spectroscopic study of the carbon deposition mechanism on Ni/CGO electrodes during CO/CO2 electrolysis

In situ and ex situ Raman analyses of porous Ni/CGO electrodes reveal differences in the amount, location and type of carbon formed during CO/CO2 electrolysis. The results demonstrate the limitations of optical in situ techniques applied to Solid Oxide Cells (SOCs) operated in electrolysis conditions. Increased carbon deposition close to the electrode-electrolyte interface is likely to be the result of high charge-transfer current in that area. The positive effect of a CGO interlayer on reducing carbon formation on the fuel electrode is demonstrated.

Phosphorylation of Smad2/3 at the specific linker threonine residue indicates slow-cycling esophageal stem-like cells before re-entry to the cell cycle

The stem cell compartment in the esophageal epithelium is possibly located in the basal layer. We have identified significant expression of Smad2/3, phosphorylated at specific linker threonine residues (pSmad2/3L-Thr), in the epithelial cells of murine stomach and intestine, and have suggested that these cells are epithelial stem cells. In this study, we explore whether pSmad2/3L-Thr could serve as a biomarker for esophageal stem cells. We examined esophageal tissues from normal C57BL/6 mice and those with esophagitis. Double immunofluorescent staining of pSmad2/3L-Thr with Ki67, CDK4, p63, or CK14 was performed. After immunofluorescent staining, we stained the same sections with hematoxylin-eosin and observed these cells under a light microscope. We used the 5-bromo-2-deoxyuridine (BrdU) labeling assay to examine label retention of pSmad2/3L-Thr immunostaining-positive cells. We collected specimens 5, 10, 15 and 20 days after repeated BrdU administrations and observed double immunofluorescent staining of pSmad2/3L-Thr with BrdU. In the esophagus, pSmad2/3L-Thr immunostaining-positive cells were detected in the basal layer. These cells were detected between Ki67 immunostaining-positive cells, but they were not co-localized with Ki67. pSmad2/3L-Thr immunostaining-positive cells showed co-localization with CDK4, p63, and CK14. Under a light microscope, pSmad2/3L-Thr immunostaining-positive cells indicated undifferentiated morphological features. Until 20 days follow-up period, pSmad2/3L-Thr immunostaining-positive cells were co-localized with BrdU. pSmad2/3L-Thr immunostaining-positive cells significantly increased in the regeneration phase of esophagitis mucosae, as compared with control mice (esophagitis vs.

CONTROL

6.889 ± 0.676/cm vs. 4.293 ± 0.659/cm; P < 0.001). We have identified significant expression of pSmad2/3L-Thr in the specific epithelial cells of murine esophagi. We suggest that these cells are slow-cycling epithelial stem-like cells before re-entry to the cell cycle.

Abstract P6-07-39: Prognostic Value of Body Mass Index in Japanese Breast Cancer Patients: A Collaborative Study by the Kobe Breast Cancer Oncology Group and Hokkaido Cancer Center

Background: Many recent clinical trials conducted in Western populations suggest that obesity is a prognostic factor after primary treatment in postmenopausal breast cancer patients. However, the incidence of obesity differs substantially between Asian and Western breast cancer patients. Moreover, few studies have reported the relationship between body mass index (BMI) and postsurgical prognosis in Asian breast cancer patients. A previous retrospective analysis of Japanese populations revealed that obesity might be a prognostic risk factor in Japanese breast cancer patients.

Methods: We retrospectively analyzed BMI and clinical outcomes after primary treatment in Japanese breast cancer patients of Hanshin and Hokkaido areas. We reviewed the clinical data (height, weight, BMI, estrogen receptor [ER] status, progesterone receptor status [PgR], human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 [HER2] status, and outcome) of 1,222 primary breast cancer patients with clinical stage I-III disease who were operated on between Jan 2004 and Dec 2005 at Kobe Breast Cancer Oncology Group (KBCOG) and Hokkaido Cancer Center (median follow-up period, 74 months). The patients were categorized into 4 groups: underweight (BMI, &lt;18.5 kg/m2), normal (18.5–24.9 kg/m2), overweight (25–29.9 kg/m2), and obesity (&gt;30.0 kg/m2). Patient characteristics, excluding age and menopausal status, were well-balanced across groups. The correlations of BMI with disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using the Cox hazards model.

Results: The normal, underweight, overweight, and obesity groups contained 832 (68.1%), 92 (7.5%), 253 (20.7%), and 45 (3.7%) patients, respectively. Breast cancer recurred in 184 patients (15.0%); 75 patients died due to breast cancer recurrence, 29 died of other diseases, and 6 died of unknown causes. The univariate hazard ratio (HR) values for disease-free survival and overall survival in the overweight group were significantly lower than those in the normal group. However, there were no statistical significant differences among four groups by the multivariate analysis. We added subgroup analysis with classifications by ER and PgR status to speculate the cause for these unexpected results. Although there were no statistically significant differences, HRs for DFS and OS in the obesity group were higher than those in the normal group among ER− and/or PgR-positive patients. However, HRs for DFS and OS tended to be higher in the underweight groups and lower in the overweight groups in ER− and PgR-negative populations.

Conclusions: The incidence of obesity in the Japanese population is much lower than that in the Western population. Although results of this study were slightly different from recent findings, obesity might be a risk factor for DFS and OS in ER-positive Japanese breast cancer patients, similar to that in Western countries. In underweight patients, ER− and PgR-negative status might indicate poor prognosis. However, this study was a retrospective analysis of a limited, heterogeneous patient group. A large-scale cohort study in the Japanese population is, therefore, recommended.

Citation Information: Cancer Res 2012;72(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-07-39.

Efficacy and safety of multitarget therapy with mizoribine and tacrolimus for systemic lupus erythematosus with or without active nephritis

The prognosis of lupus nephritis (LN) has improved since the introduction of immunosuppressant therapies, but the safety and effectiveness of treatments can also be improved. We retrospectively assessed the treatment courses of 12 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus who were treated with glucocorticoid, mizoribine (MZR) and tacrolimus. This regimen was used as initial therapy for active LN in six patients (mean glucocorticoid dose, 66.6 mg); four of these six patients also received pulse methylprednisolone therapy. The starting doses of MZR and tacrolimus were 150 and 3 mg, respectively, and they were titrated as required. Five of six patients achieved complete remission and one achieved partial remission at 6 months. Five patients who completed 12-month analysis achieved complete remission. Another six patients were given the combination regimen for treating minor flares or for steroid sparing. The mean prednisolone doses were reduced from 11.0 mg at baseline to 6.6 mg at 12 months. Six patients experienced minor adverse events, including three minor infections. One patient stopped tacrolimus because of suspected toxicity. All 12 patients were successfully treated, and none experienced severe adverse events. Multitarget therapy combining glucocorticoid, MZR and tacrolimus may have the potential to become a treatment option which is effective and safe.