Achievement of Target Gain Larger than Unity in an Inertial Fusion Experiment

On December 5, 2022, an indirect drive fusion implosion on the National Ignition Facility (NIF) achieved a target gain G_{target} of 1.5. This is the first laboratory demonstration of exceeding "scientific breakeven" (or G_{target}>1) where 2.05 MJ of 351 nm laser light produced 3.1 MJ of total fusion yield, a result which significantly exceeds the Lawson criterion for fusion ignition as reported in a previous NIF implosion [H. Abu-Shawareb et al. (Indirect Drive ICF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 075001 (2022)PRLTAO0031-900710.1103/PhysRevLett.129.075001]. This achievement is the culmination of more than five decades of research and gives proof that laboratory fusion, based on fundamental physics principles, is possible. This Letter reports on the target, laser, design, and experimental advancements that led to this result.

Risk Factors Associated with Development of Peritumoral Edema Following Stereotactic Radiosurgery and Radiotherapy for Intracranial Meningioma

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

Peritumoral edema (PTE) is a potential adverse effect following radiotherapy for intracranial meningioma. The purpose of this study is to identify which baseline factors may increase risk for PTE.

MATERIALS/METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted of 431 patients who underwent primary radiotherapy to 480 radiographically-defined intracranial meningiomas between January 2008 and December 2021 within an integrated health care system. Patients with prior surgical management were excluded. Patients were treated with frameless LINAC-based image-guided single fraction stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) (32.9%), 5 fraction SRS (FSRS) (30.8%), or fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT) (36.3%). Pre- and post-radiotherapy MRI studies were reviewed to evaluate for PTE following treatment. An event was defined as new or worsening PTE compared to pre-radiotherapy imaging or development of new symptoms post-radiotherapy. Univariate and stepwise logistics regression analyses were performed to compare the risk of PTE between groups.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 85.8 months (IQR: 49.4-125.4). Median patient age was 66 years (IQR: 56-73). Patients treated with SRS (median age: 61 years) were younger than those treated with FSRS/FSRT (median age: 68 years) (p<0.001). Lesions treated with SRS (median volume: 1.33cc) were smaller than those treated with FSRS/FSRT (median volume: 6.36cc) (p<0.001). For all-comers, 68 (14.2%) lesions developed any PTE, and 27 (5.6%) developed symptomatic PTE (SPTE). Of these, 4 patients developed symptoms post-treatment without radiographic evidence of new or worsening PTE. Incidence of PTE/SPTE by site was as follows: base of skull (BOS): 10.3%/6.1%, convexity: 22.7%/7.6%, falcine: 17.6%/4.1%, parasagittal: 27.8%/8.3%, posterior fossa/tentorium 7.0%/0.0%. Incidence of PTE/SPTE by technique was as follows: SRS: 6.3%/3.8%, FSRS: 20.9%/7.4%, FSRT: 15.5%/5.7%. On univariate analysis, age >65 (OR = 2.17 (95% CI: 1.26-3.77) p = 0.006), tumor volume (OR = 1.05 (1.02-1.08), p = 0.003), pre-treatment PTE (OR = 6.82 (95% CI: 3.59-12.94) p<0.001), and convexity/falcine/parasagittal (CFPS) location (OR = 2.52 (95% CI: 1.49-4.23) p<0.001) were associated with increased incidence of PTE. On multivariate analysis, age >65 (OR = 1.91 (95% CI: 1.05-3.45) p<0.03), tumor volume (OR = 1.04 (95% CI: 1.00-1.08) p = 0.03), pre-treatment PTE (OR = 4.64 (95% CI: 2.33-9.24) p<0.001), and CFPS location (OR = 2.53 (95% CI: 1.41-4.52) p = 0.002) were associated with increased incidence of PTE. Two patients with PTE underwent resection for local failure which revealed atypical meningioma.

CONCLUSION

Age >65, larger tumor volume, presence of pre-treatment PTE, and CFPS location were associated with increased incidence of PTE following radiotherapy. Patients with these risk factors should be counseled regarding post-treatment effects. Infrequently, PTE following treatment may be an indicator of higher-grade meningioma.

Impact of Concurrent Targeted Therapy and Immunotherapy on the Incidence of Radiation Necrosis Following Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Brain Metastases

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S)

The management of metastatic disease has evolved with the advent of immunotherapy (IT) and targeted therapies (TT). Yet, there is limited understanding of the toxicity associated with combining these agents with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). We retrospectively evaluated the impact of concurrent systemic therapy (ST) on the risk of radiation necrosis (RN) following LINAC-based SRS for brain metastases (BM).

MATERIALS/METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted within an integrated health care system from March 2017 to December 2021 of 313 patients who underwent SRS or fractionated SRS in 3 or 5 treatments to a total of 1,644 intact BM. Post-operative cavity SRS and re-irradiated lesions were excluded. RN was diagnosed using perfusion MRI, contrast clearance MRI, or serial standard MRI and graded using CTCAE (v.5). Concurrent ST was defined as administration within 1 month preceding or following SRS. Overall survival (OS) and risk of RN were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Logistics regression analyses were performed to compare risk of RN in patients who received concurrent systemic therapy to those who did not, adjusted for PTV volume and receipt of whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT).

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 12.2 months. Median age was 64 years (range: 24-92). Primary sites per patient included lung (48.9%), breast (18.2%), melanoma (11.5%), kidney (6.1%), and other (15.3%). Median total lesions treated was 3 (range: 1-44); 65.9% of patients underwent 1 course of SRS, 23.4% underwent 2 courses, 6.2% underwent 3 courses, 4.5% underwent >4 courses. Seventy-six (24.2%) patients received WBRT. Overall, 70.6% of lesions received concurrent ST including chemotherapy (CT) (32.5%), IT (26.8%), and TT (27.6%); 16.4% received a combination of ST. Median OS was 12.9 months (95% CI: 10.4-15.5). RN was observed in 50 (3.0%) lesions in 42 (13.4%) patients. The 1-year risk of RN was 4.0% per lesion and 15.4% per patient. Symptomatic RN (SRN) was observed in 31 (1.9%) lesions in 24 (7.7%) patients. The 1-year risk of SRN was 2.7% per lesion and 10.1% per patient. When compared to lesions treated without concurrent systemic therapy, there was no increased risk of RN observed in lesions treated with concurrent CT (adjusted OR = 0.86 (95% CI: 0.43-1.73) p = 0.68), concurrent IT (adjusted OR = 0.84 (95% CI: 0.41-1.71) p = 0.84), or concurrent TT (adjusted OR = 0.57 (95% CI: 0.25-1.30) p = 0.18). Treatments of SRN included dexamethasone (96.8%), bevacizumab (22.6%), and laser interstitial thermal therapy (6.5%).

CONCLUSION

Concurrent IT and TT appears well-tolerated in patients who undergo SRS for treatment of BM. No increased risk of RN was observed in lesions treated with concurrent IT or TT compared to lesions treated in the absence of concurrent ST. Further prospective and agent-specific evaluation is necessary to confirm these findings.

Childhood-Onset Lupus Nephritis in the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Registry: Short-Term Kidney Status and Variation in Care

OBJECTIVE

The goal was to characterize short-term kidney status and describe variation in early care utilization in a multicenter cohort of patients with childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus (cSLE) and nephritis.

METHODS

We analyzed previously collected prospective data from North American patients with cSLE with kidney biopsy-proven nephritis enrolled in the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) Registry from March 2017 through December 2019. We determined the proportion of patients with abnormal kidney status at the most recent registry visit and applied generalized linear mixed models to identify associated factors. We also calculated frequency of medication use, both during induction and ever recorded.

RESULTS

We identified 222 patients with kidney biopsy-proven nephritis, with 64% class III/IV nephritis on initial biopsy. At the most recent registry visit at median (interquartile range) of 17 (8-29) months from initial kidney biopsy, 58 of 106 patients (55%) with available data had abnormal kidney status. This finding was associated with male sex (odds ratio [OR] 3.88, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.21-12.46) and age at cSLE diagnosis (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01-1.49). Patients with class IV nephritis were more likely than class III to receive cyclophosphamide and rituximab during induction. There was substantial variation in mycophenolate, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab ever use patterns across rheumatology centers.

CONCLUSION

In this cohort with predominately class III/IV nephritis, male sex and older age at cSLE diagnosis were associated with abnormal short-term kidney status. We also observed substantial variation in contemporary medication use for pediatric lupus nephritis between pediatric rheumatology centers. Additional studies are needed to better understand the impact of this variation on long-term kidney outcomes.

Doom or Deliciousness: Challenges and Opportunities for Visualization in the Age of Generative Models

Generative text-to-image models (as exemplified by DALL-E, MidJourney, and Stable Diffusion) have recently made enormous technological leaps, demonstrating impressive results in many graphical domains-from logo design to digital painting to photographic composition. However, the quality of these results has led to existential crises in some fields of art, leading to questions about the role of human agency in the production of meaning in a graphical context. Such issues are central to visualization, and while these generative models have yet to be widely applied in visualization, it seems only a matter of time until their integration is manifest. Seeking to circumvent similar ponderous dilemmas, we attempt to understand the roles that generative models might play across visualization. We do so by constructing a framework that characterizes what these technologies offer at various stages of the visualization workflow, augmented and analyzed through semi-structured interviews with 21 experts from related domains. Through this work, we map the space of opportunities and risks that might arise in this intersection, identifying doomsday prophecies and delicious low-hanging fruits that are ripe for research.

The impact of thromboelastography on patients with penetrating abdominal trauma requiring intensive care

BACKGROUND

Trauma-induced coagulopathy (TIC) is a complex multifaceted process which contributes to higher mortality rates in severely injured trauma patients. Thromboelastography (TEG) is effective in detecting TIC which assists in instituting goal-directed therapy as part of damage control resuscitation.

METHODS

This retrospective study included all adult patients over a 36-month period with penetrating abdominal trauma who required a laparotomy, blood products and admission for critical care. Analysis included demographics, admission data, 24-hour interventions, TEG parameters and 30-day outcomes.

RESULTS

Eighty-four patients with a median age of 28 years were included. The majority (93%; 78/84) suffered from a gunshot injury, with 75% (63/84) receiving a damage control laparotomy. Forty-eight patients (57%) had a TEG. Injury severity score and total fluid and blood product administered in the first 24 hours were all significantly higher in patients who had a TEG (p < 0.05). TEG profiles were: 42% (20/48) normal, 42% (20/48) hypocoagulable, 12% (6/48) hypercoagulable and 4% (2/48) mixed parameters. Fibrinolysis profiles were: 48% (23/48) normal, 44% (21/48) fibrinolysis shutdown and 8% (4/48) hyperfibrinolysis. Mortality rate was 5% (4/84) at 24 hours and 26% (22/84) at 30 days, with no difference between the two groups. High-grade complication rates, days on a ventilator and intensive care unit length of stay were all significantly higher in patients who did not have a TEG.

CONCLUSION

TIC is common in severely injured penetrating trauma patients. The usage of a thromboelastogram did not impact on 24-hour or 30-day mortality but did result in a decreased intensive care stay and a decreased high-grade complication rate.

Intraarticular steroids as DMARD-sparing agents for juvenile idiopathic arthritis flares: Analysis of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Registry

BACKGROUND

Children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) who achieve a drug free remission often experience a flare of their disease requiring either intraarticular steroids (IAS) or systemic treatment with disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). IAS offer an opportunity to recapture disease control and avoid exposure to side effects from systemic immunosuppression. We examined a cohort of patients treated with IAS after drug free remission and report the probability of restarting systemic treatment within 12 months.

METHODS

We analyzed a cohort of patients from the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) Registry who received IAS for a flare after a period of drug free remission. Historical factors and clinical characteristics and of the patients including data obtained at the time of treatment were analyzed.

RESULTS

We identified 46 patients who met the inclusion criteria. Of those with follow up data available 49% had restarted systemic treatment 6 months after IAS injection and 70% had restarted systemic treatment at 12 months. The proportion of patients with prior use of a biologic DMARD was the only factor that differed between patients who restarted systemic treatment those who did not, both at 6 months (79% vs 35%, p < 0.01) and 12 months (81% vs 33%, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

While IAS are an option for all patients who flare after drug free remission, it may not prevent the need to restart systemic treatment. Prior use of a biologic DMARD may predict lack of success for IAS. Those who previously received methotrexate only, on the other hand, are excellent candidates for IAS.

Icosapent Ethyl diminishes CVD risk in smokers: REDUCE-IT smoking

Background/Introduction

Cigarette smoking is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) events with effective treatment currently limited to smoking cessation. REDUCE-IT, a multinational, double-blind trial, randomised 8179 statin-treated patients with controlled low density lipoprotein cholesterol, elevated triglycerides, and CV risk, to icosapent ethyl (IPE) 4 grams/day or placebo, with a median of 4.9 years of follow-up. IPE reduced the primary composite (CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI], nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularisation, or hospitalisation for unstable angina) and key secondary composite (CV death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke) endpoints 25% and 26%, respectively (each P&lt;0.0001), and individual components including stroke (28%), MI (31%), cardiac arrest (48%), and sudden cardiac death (31%) (all P≤0.01).

Purpose

To evaluate the effects of IPE on the risk of CV events and safety measures in patients by history of smoking.

Methods

The effect of IPE on first and total primary and key secondary endpoints was evaluated in the REDUCE-IT study using post hoc analyses based upon smoking history. Groups were classified as never smokers (n=3264), former smokers (n=3672), and current smokers (n=1241).

Results

Compared with placebo, IPE use in combined current and former smokers (n=4913) was associated with significant reductions in time to the primary composite endpoint (hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.68–0.87]; P&lt;0.0001) and in total events (rate ratio, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.61–0.82]; P&lt;0.0001) (Figure 1). These benefits remained significant when subdivided into current and former smokers and were associated with reductions in the key secondary composite endpoint (P=0.04, P=0.005), and the individual components of CV death or nonfatal MI (P=0.04, P=0.01) and fatal or nonfatal MI (P=0.009, P=0.01, respectively). Never smokers also had a significant benefit from IPE for both the primary and key secondary endpoints. Overall, there were similar estimated rates of first occurrences of CV death, MI, stroke, coronary revascularisation, or hospitalisation for unstable angina in current smokers (23.8%) and former smokers (23.0%) assigned to IPE compared with never smokers on placebo (25.7%) (Figure 2).

Conclusions

In the REDUCE-IT study, IPE treatment significantly reduced the risk of CV events in current and former smokers to levels observed in never smokers. While smoking cessation should always be recommended, these data raise the possibility that IPE treatment may markedly attenuate the CV hazards attributable to smoking.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: None.

Population genomic monitoring provides insight into conservation status but no correlation with demographic estimates of extinction risk in a threatened trout

The current extinction crisis requires effective assessment and monitoring tools. Genetic approaches are appealing given the relative ease of field sampling required to estimate genetic diversity characteristics assumed related to population size, evolutionary potential, and extinction risk, and to evaluate hybridization with non‐native species simultaneously. However, linkages between population genetic metrics of diversity from survey‐style field collections and demographic estimates of population size and extinction risk are still in need of empirical examples, especially for remotely distributed species of conservation concern where the approach might be most beneficial. We capitalized on an exceptional opportunity to evaluate congruence between genetic diversity metrics and demographic‐based estimates of abundance and extinction risk from a comprehensive Multiple Population Viability Analysis (MPVA) in a threatened fish, the Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT). We sequenced non‐native trout reference samples and recently collected and archived tissue samples of most remaining populations of LCT (N = 60) and estimated common genetic assessment metrics, predicting minimal hybridization with non‐native trout, low diversity, and declining diversity over time. We further hypothesized genetic metrics would correlate positively with MPVA‐estimated abundance and negatively with extinction probability. We uncovered several instances of hybridization that pointed to immediate management needs. After removing hybridized individuals, cautious interpretation of low effective population sizes (2–63) suggested reduced evolutionary potential for many LCT populations. Other genetic metrics did not decline over time nor correlate with MPVA‐based estimates of harmonic mean abundance or 30‐year extinction probability. Our results demonstrate benefits of genetic monitoring for efficiently detecting hybridization and, though genetic results were disconnected from demographic assessment of conservation status, they suggest reduced evolutionary potential and likely a higher conservation risk than currently recognized for this threatened fish. We emphasize that genetic information provides essential complementary insight, in addition to demographic information, for evaluating species status.

Lawson Criterion for Ignition Exceeded in an Inertial Fusion Experiment

For more than half a century, researchers around the world have been engaged in attempts to achieve fusion ignition as a proof of principle of various fusion concepts. Following the Lawson criterion, an ignited plasma is one where the fusion heating power is high enough to overcome all the physical processes that cool the fusion plasma, creating a positive thermodynamic feedback loop with rapidly increasing temperature. In inertially confined fusion, ignition is a state where the fusion plasma can begin "burn propagation" into surrounding cold fuel, enabling the possibility of high energy gain. While "scientific breakeven" (i.e., unity target gain) has not yet been achieved (here target gain is 0.72, 1.37 MJ of fusion for 1.92 MJ of laser energy), this Letter reports the first controlled fusion experiment, using laser indirect drive, on the National Ignition Facility to produce capsule gain (here 5.8) and reach ignition by nine different formulations of the Lawson criterion.

Super-Response to Guselkumab Treatment in Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis: Age, Body Weight, Baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, and Baseline Investigator's Global Assessment Scores Predict Complete Skin Clearance

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is a chronic immune-mediated inflammatory skin disease that often leads to a diminished quality of life. Goals of treating patients with psoriasis have shifted with more focus on achieving near or complete clearance of the skin. Guselkumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin-23, is effective in treating moderate-to-severe psoriasis.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the baseline characteristics of patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis achieving super-response (Psoriasis Area and Severity Index [PASI] 100 response at Weeks 20 and 28) after commencing guselkumab treatment.

METHODS

Pooled data from VOYAGE-1 and VOYAGE-2 studies identified super-response; baseline demographic, disease, and pharmacokinetic characteristics were compared with non-super-response. A stepwise logistic regression analysis identified which factors were potentially predictive of super-response status, with significance level of 0.1.

RESULTS

A subset of patients randomized to guselkumab comprised this post hoc analysis (n=664); 271 patients achieved super-response vs 393 with non-super-response. Patient age at study entry and baseline body weight (≤90 kg vs >90 kg), PASI, and Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) score were significant predictors of super-response status, with odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) of 0.98 (0.967-0.993; p=0.003), 1.42 (1.026-1.977; p=0.034), 0.97 (0.955-0.993; p=0.007), and 0.66 (0.433-0.997; p=0.048), respectively. More patients with super-response achieved an early response: Week 2 PASI 75 (5.5% vs 1.8%) and Week 8 PASI 100 (22.5% vs 3.3%) vs non-super-response. Median serum guselkumab concentrations through Week 28 were slightly greater in patients with super-response vs non-super-response.

CONCLUSION

Guselkumab was more likely to achieve early clinical responses (complete skin clearance) in younger patients, less obese patients, and patients with less severe psoriasis.

AB0892 Targeted Safety Analyses of Guselkumab: Long-Term Results from Randomized Clinical Trials in Patients with Active Psoriatic Arthritis and Moderate to Severe Psoriasis

Background

Guselkumab (GUS) demonstrated efficacy and a favorable safety profile in active PsA in the Phase (Ph) 21 and Ph3 DISCOVER-1&2 trials2,3 and in moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis (PsO) in the Ph3 VOYAGE-1&2 trials.4,5

Objectives

To assess long-term safety of GUS across PsA/PsO trials.

Methods

Using pooled safety data through 2 years (yrs) from PsA trials (N=1229; GUS 100 mg every 4/8 weeks [Q4W/Q8W])1-3 and through 5 yrs from PsO trials (N=1721; GUS 100 mg Q8W),4,5 incidences of serious adverse events (SAEs); gastrointestinal (GI)-related SAEs and other targeted AEs; including candidiasis, uveitis, and opportunistic infections (OIs) were evaluated. Incidence rates (IRs) were calculated as the number of events per 100 pt-yrs (PY) of follow-up with 95% CI. Patients (pts) with an IBD history were not excluded in PsA/PsO trials. Max exposure duration was W100 for PsA trials and W252 for PsO trials.

Results

The PsA and PsO populations had comparable mean age and BMI. IRs of SAEs and GI-related SAEs were generally similar between GUS- and PBO-treated pts during PBO-controlled periods, and between PsA pts receiving GUS Q4W/Q8W for up to 2 yrs and PsO pts receiving GUS Q8W for up to 5 yrs (Table 1). IRs of other targeted AEs of interest were low. OIs did not occur in PsO pts and were infrequent in PsA pts (Table 1). Candidal infections were infrequent and non-serious. Iridocyclitis was reported in 1 PBO- and 1 GUS Q8W-treated PsA pt. No exacerbations or new onset of IBD or active tuberculosis was reported in GUS-treated PsA/PsO pts.

Table 1.

Targeted AEs of Interest

Pooled PsA*Pooled PsOThrough 2 YrsThrough 5 YrsGUS 100 mg Q4W (N=373)GUS 100 mg Q8W (N=475)PBO→GUS 100 mg Q4W (N=352)aPBO→GUS 100 mg Q8W (N=29)aGUS Combined (N=1229)GUS 100 mg Q8W (N=1221)bADA→GUS 100 mg Q8W (N=500)cGUS Combined (N=1721)Total PY645748461171871525419127166Mean PY1.71.61.30.61.54.33.84.2Events/100 PY (95% CI)Overall SAEs4.65(3.14, 6.64)6.42(4.73, 8.51)5.86(3.86, 8.52)0.00(0.00, 17.24)5.61(4.59, 6.79)5.18(4.58, 5.83)4.55(3.64, 5.61)5.01(4.50, 5.56)GI-related SAEs0.46(0.10, 1.36)0.27(0.03, 0.97)0.00 (0.00, 0.65)0.00(0.00, 17.24)0.27(0.09, 0.62)0.44(0.28, 0.66)0.42(0.18, 0.82)0.43(0.29, 0.61)OIsd0.00(0.00, 0.46)0.27(0.03, 0.97)0.22(0.01, 1.21)0.00(0.00, 17.24)0.16(0.03, 0.47)0.00(0.00, 0.06)0.00(0.00, 0.16)0.00(0.00, 0.04)Candida infections0.31(0.04, 1.12)0.00(0.00, 0.40)0.00(0.00, 0.65)0.00(0.00, 17.24)0.11(0.01, 0.39)0.49(0.32, 0.73)0.52(0.25, 0.96)0.50(0.35, 0.70)Non-pathogen specific fungal infections, suspicious for candida0.00(0.00, 0.46)0.27(0.03, 0.97)0.00(0.00, 0.65)0.00(0.00, 17.24)0.11(0.01, 0.39)0.11(0.04, 0.25)0.16(0.03, 0.46)0.13(0.06, 0.24)Uveitis/ Iridocyclitis0.00(0.00, 0.46)0.13(0.00, 0.75)0.00(0.00, 0.65)0.00(0.00, 17.24)0.05(0.00, 0.30)0.00(0.00, 0.06)0.00(0.00, 0.16)0.00(0.00, 0.04)

*In PsA Ph2, data after early escape at W16 were excluded. AEs are coded using MedDRA Version 23.1

aFor PBO→GUS, data on/after 1st GUS administration were included

bPBO crossover pts were included in GUS column after crossover to GUS

cEvents prior to GUS (ADA events) were excluded. Only includes pts randomized to ADA at W0 and crossed over to GUS at/after W52 for VOYAGE-1 & W28 for VOYAGE-2

dHerpes zoster disseminated, fungal oesophagitis, and meningitis listeria (1 each)

ADA=Adalimumab

Conclusion

IRs of SAEs; GI-related SAEs; and AEs of interest including candidiasis, uveitis, and OIs were low, or no cases were reported. No new safety concerns were identified with GUS treatment through 2 yrs and 5 yrs of follow-up in the pooled PsA and PsO trials, respectively, supporting a durable and favorable GUS safety profile consistent between pts with active PsA and moderate-to-severe PsO.

References

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

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

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

[4]Blauvelt A, et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76:405-417.

[5]Reich K, et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76:418-431.

Disclosure of Interests

Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Aclaris, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Celgene, Crescendo Bioscience, Genentech, Inmagene, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN Pharma, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Aclaris, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Celgene, Crescendo Bioscience, Genentech, Inmagene, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN Pharma, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Aclaris, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Celgene, Crescendo Bioscience, Genentech, Inmagene, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN Pharma, and UCB, Peter Foley Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Valeant, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, Leo Pharma, and Roche, Paid instructor for: (Advisory boards) AbbVie, Amgen, Aslan, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, UCB Pharma, Valeant, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, Leo Pharma, and Sanofi, Consultant of: Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Galderma, Leo Pharma, and Roche; investigator for AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Arcutis, Aslan, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Hexima, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, UCB Pharma, Valeant, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celtaxsys, CSL, Cutanea, Dermira, Galderma, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Leo Pharma, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc, Reistone, Roche, and Sanofi, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Sun Pharma; travel grants from AbbVie, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Galderma, Leo Pharma, Roche, Sun Pharma, and Sanofi; served as speaker for or received honoraria from AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Valeant, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, Leo Pharma, and Roche, Kristian Reich Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Affibody, Amgen, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Centocor, Covagen, Eli Lilly, Forward Pharma, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, Leo, Medac, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novartis, Ocean Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB Pharma, and Xenoport, Paid instructor for: Abbvie, Affibody, Amgen, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Centocor, Covagen, Eli Lilly, Forward Pharma, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, Leo, Medac, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novartis, Ocean Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB Pharma, and Xenoport, Consultant of: Participated in clinical trials sponsored by Abbvie, Affibody, Amgen, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Centocor, Covagen, Eli Lilly, Forward Pharma, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, Leo, Medac, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novartis, Ocean Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB Pharma, and Xenoport, Soumya D Chakravarty Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC and may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, May Shawi Employee of: Janssen Global Services, LLC and may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Ya-Wen Yang Employee of: Janssen Global Services, LLC and may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Megan Miller Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC and may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Alexa Kollmeier Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC and may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Xie L Xu Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC and may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Jenny Yu Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC and may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Yanli Wang Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC and may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Shihong Sheng Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC and may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Yin You Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC and may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Iain McInnes Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis and UCB., Grant/research support from: Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, and UCB

AB0893 An Analysis of Fatigue in Patients With Psoriatic Disease Utilizing SF-36 Vitality Scores: Results Through Week 24 in Phase 3 Trials of Guselkumab in Patients With Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis

Background

Patients with chronic inflammatory diseases can experience significant fatigue, negatively impacting health-related quality-of-life.1,2

Objectives

This post-hoc analysis evaluated baseline fatigue severity among patients with psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and the effect of guselkumab treatment on patient-reported fatigue.

Methods

VOYAGE-2 evaluated guselkumab every 8 weeks (Q8W) versus placebo (W16→guselkumab) and adalimumab in treating moderate-to-severe psoriasis.3 DISCOVER-14 and DISCOVER-25 evaluated guselkumab Q4W and Q8W versus placebo in treating active PsA. Fatigue was assessed using 36-item Short Form (SF-36) vitality scale score (includes 4 questions on fatigue/energy level); the US population norm=50±10; 5-10-point decrements are typically observed in conditions known to cause fatigue2; scores ≤35 indicate clinically important fatigue1; increases ≥5 indicate clinically meaningful improvement.2

Results

Across randomized groups at baseline, mean SF-36 vitality scores were 47.7-48.5 in psoriasis and 42.2-44.0 in PsA patients; 11%-15% of psoriasis and 20%-28% of PsA patients had scores <35. In psoriasis patients, mean increases in SF-36 vitality score at W16 were: placebo, 1.1; adalimumab, 3.9 (p<0.001 versus placebo); guselkumab, 5.6 (p<0.001 versus placebo); at W24: placebo→guselkumab, 4.6; adalimumab, 3.9; guselkumab, 5.8 (p=0.0148 versus adalimumab). In PsA patients, mean increases at W24 were: placebo, 2.3-4.0; guselkumab, 5.5-7.5 (p≤0.001 versus placebo). Through the placebo-controlled periods, significantly greater proportions of guselkumab-treated patients achieved clinically meaningful improvement in fatigue versus placebo (W16 psoriasis: guselkumab, 48%; placebo, 32%; p<0.001; W24 PsA: guselkumab, 53%-55%; placebo, 34%-44%; p<0.05).

Conclusion

At baseline, patients with psoriatic disease experienced clinically important fatigue, more so with PsA (20%-28%) than psoriasis (11%-15%). In guselkumab-treated psoriasis and PsA patients, clinically meaningful improvements in fatigue were achieved at W16 and W24, respectively.

References

[1]Skoie IM et al. Br J Dermatol. 2017;177:505-12

[2]Bjorner JB et al. Curr Med Res Opin. 2007;23:731-9

[3]Reich K et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76:418-31

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

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

Disclosure of Interests

Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: AbbVie, Arena, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB Pharma, Yi-Hsuan Liu Employee of: Janssen Global Services, LLC and may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Ya-Wen Yang Employee of: Immunology Global Medical Affairs, Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, and may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Megan Miller Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC and may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, May Shawi Employee of: Immunology Global Medical Affairs, Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, and may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Daphne Chan Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC and may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Saakshi Khattri Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Eli Lilly, UCB, Janssen, Paid instructor for: Abbvie, Eli Lilly, UCB, Janssen, Consultant of: Abbvie, Eli Lilly, UCB, Janssen, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Abbvie, Leo, BMS, Eli Lilly, Laura Savage Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Celgene, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, LEO Pharma, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Celgene, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, LEO Pharma, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: Janssen and Pfizer, Wolf-Henning Boehncke Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, and UCB Pharma; and has received a research grant from Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, and UCB Pharma; and has received a research grant from Pfizer, Chenglong Han Employee of: Janssen Global Services, LLC and may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson

AB1473 EFFICACY RESPONSES ACROSS DISEASE SEVERITY AND TREATMENT HISTORY SUBGROUPS OF PATIENTS WITH MODERATE TO SEVERE PLAQUE PSORIASIS TREATED WITH GUSELKUMAB: POOLED RESULTS FROM VOYAGE-1 AND VOYAGE-2 THROUGH 5 YEARS

Background

The VOYAGE-1 and VOYAGE-2 phase 3 studies evaluated efficacy and safety of guselkumab (GUS) in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.

Objectives

To assess the five-year efficacy of GUS by baseline disease characteristics and treatment history.

Methods

This study evaluated 1829 patients randomized to GUS, placebo (PBO)→GUS, and adalimumab (ADA) →GUS from the VOYAGE-1 and VOYAGE-2 trials. All patients received open-label GUS 100 mg every 8 weeks (Q8W) during Week (W) 52 to W252 in VOYAGE-1 and during W76 to W252 in VOYAGE-2. The proportions of combined GUS patients (including PBO→GUS and ADA→GUS) achieving Investigator’s Global Assessment of cleared or minimal (IGA-0/1) and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 response were evaluated from W100 to W252 by baseline PASI (<20/≥20) and IGA (<4/=4) scores, body surface area (BSA; <20%/≥20%), and prior psoriasis treatments. Analysis was performed using observed data after applying treatment failure rules.

Results

At W252, proportions of combined GUS patients achieving IGA 0/1 or PASI 90, respectively, were comparable or numerically greater for patients with baseline PASI < 20 (85.4%; 81.1%) vs PASI ≥ 20 (81.4%; 83.8%); IGA < 4 (85.1%; 82.7%) vs IGA = 4 (78.9%; 81.1%); BSA < 20% (85.1%; 82.7%) vs BSA ≥ 20% (82.6%; 82.0%); no prior phototherapy (83.3%; 84.0%) vs prior phototherapy (83.8%; 81.1%); no prior non-biologic systemic therapy (84.5%; 83.0%) vs prior non-biologic systemic therapy (83.2%; 82.0%); and no prior biologics (85.3%; 83.8%) vs prior biologics (76.7%; 76.3%). This trend was consistent at each timepoint evaluated from W100 to W252.

Conclusion

This analysis demonstrated that the high degree of efficacy of GUS treatment is durable through 5 years among broad subpopulations of patients with varying disease severity characteristics and previous psoriasis treatments.

References

None

Disclosure of Interests

Kenneth Gordon Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Dermira, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB Pharma, Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: AbbVie, Arena, Avotres, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, EMD Sorono, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and UCB pharma, Peter Foley Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galderma, GSK, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Valeant, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis, Aslan, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Celtaxsys, CSL, Cutanea, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Genentech, GSK, Hexima, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc, Reistone, Roche, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, UCB Pharma, and Valeant, Grant/research support from: grant/research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Sun Pharma; and travel grants from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Sun Pharma, Olivia Choi Shareholder of: may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Daphne Chan Shareholder of: may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Megan Miller Shareholder of: may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Yin You Shareholder of: may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Yaung-Kaung Shen Shareholder of: may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Ya-Wen Yang Shareholder of: may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Immunology Global Medical Affairs, Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, Andrew Blauvelt Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Almirall, Arena, Athenex, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Evommune, Forte, Galderma, Incyte, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Rapt, Regeneron, Sandoz, Sanofi Genzyme, Sun Pharma, and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Almirall, Arena, Athenex, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Evommune, Forte, Galderma, Incyte, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Rapt, Regeneron, Sandoz, Sanofi Genzyme, Sun Pharma, and UCB Pharma

Social determinants of health influence disease activity and functional disability in Polyarticular Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis

BACKGROUND

Social determinants of health (SDH) greatly influence outcomes during the first year of treatment in rheumatoid arthritis, a disease similar to polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA). We investigated the correlation of community poverty level and other SDH with the persistence of moderate to severe disease activity and functional disability over the first year of treatment in pJIA patients enrolled in the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Registry.

METHODS

In this cohort study, unadjusted and adjusted generalized linear mixed effects models analyzed the effect of community poverty and other SDH on disease activity, using the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score-10, and disability, using the Child Health Assessment Questionnaire, measured at baseline, 6, and 12 months.

RESULTS

One thousand six hundred eighty-four patients were identified. High community poverty (≥20% living below the federal poverty level) was associated with increased odds of functional disability (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.28-2.60) but was not statistically significant after adjustment (aOR 1.23, 95% CI 0.81-1.86) and was not associated with increased disease activity. Non-white race/ethnicity was associated with higher disease activity (aOR 2.48, 95% CI: 1.41-4.36). Lower self-reported household income was associated with higher disease activity and persistent functional disability. Public insurance (aOR 1.56, 95% CI 1.06-2.29) and low family education (aOR 1.89, 95% CI 1.14-3.12) was associated with persistent functional disability.

CONCLUSION

High community poverty level was associated with persistent functional disability in unadjusted analysis but not with persistent moderate to high disease activity. Race/ethnicity and other SDH were associated with persistent disease activity and functional disability.

What can we Learn from Patients who Died from Covid-19 Following Escalation to a Respiratory High Dependency Unit for Trial of Non-Invasive Respiratory Support?

Background: Covid-19 infection is associated with significant risk of death, particularly in older, comorbid patients. Emerging evidence supports use of non-invasive respiratory support (CPAP and high-flow nasal oxygen [HFNO]) in this context, but little is known about its use in patients receiving end-of-life care. Methods: This was a retrospective study of 33 patients who died of Covid-19 on the Respiratory High Dependency Unit at the John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford between 28/03/20 and 20/05/20. Data was sourced via retrospective review of electronic patient records and drug charts. Results: Patients dying from Covid-19 on the Respiratory HDU were comorbid with median Charlson Comorbidity Index 5 (IQR 4-6); median age 78 (IQR 72-85). Respiratory support was trialled in all but one case with CPAP being the most common form of first line respiratory support (84.8%) however, was only tolerated in 44.8% of patients. Median time to death was 10.7 days from symptom onset (IQR 7.5-14.6) and 4.9 days from hospital admission (IQR 3.1-8.3). 48.5% of patients remained on respiratory support at the time of death. Conclusions: End-of-life care for patients with Covid-19 remains a challenge. Patients tend to be frail and comorbid with a rapid disease trajectory. Non-Invasive Respiratory Support may play a key role in symptom management in select patients, however, further work is needed in order to identify patients who will most benefit from Respiratory Support and those for whom withdrawal may prevent unnecessary distress at the end of life or potential prolongation of suffering.

'It's changed how we have these conversations': emergency department clinicians' experiences implementing firearms and other lethal suicide methods counseling for caregivers of adolescents

Counseling parents to reduce access to firearms and other potentially lethal suicide methods is commonly known as lethal means counseling (LMC). The current study explores the experiences that emergency department-based behavioural health clinicians described having as they provided lethal means counseling to parents of adolescents at risk for suicide. Clinicians were purposively sampled from four hospital networks in Colorado after their hospitals adopted LMC protocols as part of an intervention that also included online training in LMC and provision of free medication and firearm lockboxes. Twenty-three clinicians were interviewed using semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using a modified grounded theory-based approach. Clinicians felt more comfortable and effective in their abilities to provide LMC after the intervention. Clinicians also described how being able to offer free storage devices helped them engage in LMC. In advising parents to make guns and medications inaccessible to their at-risk child, most clinicians pointed to at least one of three research findings highlighted in the online training: (1) Suicide attempts with guns rarely afford second chances, (2) medication overdoses can kill, (3) suicidal behaviour is always unpredictable and often impulsive. All clinicians described a desire to continue LMC as currently protocolized at their hospital after the study ended.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) pathophysiology study (IDENTIFY-HF): rise in arterial stiffness associates with HFpEF with increase in comorbidities

Background

There has been a shift in paradigm proposing that comorbidities play a significant role towards the pathophysiology of the heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) syndrome. Further, HFpEF patients have abnormal macrovascular function, potentially contributing significantly in altered ventricular-vascular coupling in these patients. However, our full understanding of the role of comorbidities, arterial stiffness and it relationship with HFpEF remains incomplete.

Purpose

The IDENTIFY-HF study aims to shed light on the HFpEF pathophysiology and investigates whether gradually increase in arterial stiffness (in addition to ageing) due to increasing common comorbidities, such as hypertension and diabetes, is associated with HFpEF.

Methods

Arterial compliance was assessed in five groups (Groups A to E) matched for age, (≥70 years), sex and renal function: Group A; normal healthy volunteers without major comorbidities (control). Group B; patients with hypertension only. Group C; patients with hypertension and diabetes mellitus only. Group D; patients with HFpEF. Group E; patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF); the parallel group. Arterial compliance was assessed using pulse wave velocity (PWV), as the primary outcome measure and was compared between Group A to D. A separate comparison was made between Groups D and E. To avoid confounding factors, participants were asked to omit their morning blood pressure medication and abstain from caffeine for 12 hours prior to the study.

Results

From the 95 volunteers recruited, PWV was obtained in 94 subjects. The mean PWV in group A, B, C, D and E was 10.2-, 12.2-, 13.0-, 13.7- and 10.0 m/s respectively. After adjusting for covariance (age, sex, BMI and renal function), the mean difference between Group A (healthy volunteers) and D (HFpEF) was 2.14 m/s (p=0.023). Whilst the mean difference between the HFpEF and HFrEF group D and E respectively was 2.68 m/s (p=0.003).

Conclusion

Rise in comorbidities increases arterial stiffness, as measured by pulse wave velocity, which in turn significantly associates with HFpEF (p=0.023). It is therefore possible that the HFpEF syndrome may not be due to a primary cardiac pathology but rather an end-result of non-cardiac comorbidities affecting vascular resistance with perhaps some secondary cardiac involvement.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: Public Institution(s). Main funding source(s): 1)West Midlands Clinical Research Network, National Institute of Health Research, UK2)Research, Development & Innovation department of the University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust (RDI, UHCW), UK.

Cardiovascular benefits outweigh risks in patients with atrial fibrillation in REDUCE-IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl-Intervention Trial)

Background/Introduction

REDUCE-IT, a multinational, double-blind trial, randomized 8179 statin-treated patients with controlled low density lipoprotein cholesterol, elevated triglycerides, and cardiovascular (CV) risk, to icosapent ethyl (IPE) 4 grams/day or placebo. IPE reduced the primary (CV death, myocardial infarction [MI], stroke, coronary revascularization, hospitalization for unstable angina) and key secondary (CV death, MI, stroke) endpoints 25% and 26%, respectively (each p&lt;0.0001), and individual components including stroke (28%), MI (31%), cardiac arrest (48%), and sudden cardiac death (31%) (all p≤0.01). With IPE, bleeding was greater (11.8% vs 9.9%; p=0.006), serious bleeding trended higher (2.7% vs 2.1%; p=0.06), and atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF/F) hospitalization endpoints increased (3.1% vs 2.1%; p=0.004).

Purpose

To evaluate the effects of IPE on the risk of CV events and safety measures in patients by either history of AF/F or in-study occurrence of positively adjudicated AF/F hospitalization.

Methods

Conduct post hoc efficacy and safety subgroup analyses of patients with or without either baseline history of AF/F or in-study adjudicated AF/F hospitalization, including hospitalization for ≥24 hours; AF/F not meeting endpoint criteria were reported as adverse events.

Results

Patients with (n=751; 9.2%) AF/F history at baseline (vs without; n=7428; 90.8%) (Figure 1), or those with (n=211; 2.6%) positively adjudicated in-study AF/F hospitalization endpoints (vs without; n=7968; 97.4%) (Figure 2), had higher event rates of primary, key secondary, and fatal or nonfatal stroke endpoints, but relative risk reductions with IPE were not significantly different (all interaction p-values [pint]=ns). Similar reductions were observed with IPE across the prespecified endpoint testing hierarchy in patients with or without AF/F history or in-study hospitalization endpoints. Patients with baseline AF/F history had similar relative risk for in-study occurrence of AF/F hospitalization with IPE versus placebo (pint=0.21) but had greater absolute risk (12.5% vs 6.3%, IPE vs placebo) vs patients without baseline AF/F history (2.2% vs 1.6%, IPE vs placebo); i.e., recurrent AF/F in those with a prior history of AF/F was more prevalent than de novo AF/F. Serious bleeding trended higher regardless of AF/F history or in-study AF/F hospitalization endpoints (all pint=ns); absolute risk of serious bleeding was greater in patients with AF/F history at baseline (7.3% vs 6.0%) vs those without a baseline history of AF/F (2.3% vs 1.7%), and serious bleeding also trended higher in patients with in-study AF/F hospitalization (8.7% vs 6.0%) vs without (2.5% vs 2.0%) [all IPE vs placebo].

Conclusion

REDUCE-IT patients with AF/F history or in-study AF/F hospitalization endpoints had greater CV risk, but similar relative risk reduction in primary, key secondary, and fatal or nonfatal stroke endpoints with IPE.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): Amarin Pharma, Inc.

A retrospective single-site data-linkage study comparing manual to electronic data abstraction for routine post-operative nausea and vomiting audit

BACKGROUND

Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common cause of patient dissatisfaction following anaesthesia. Audit of adherence to PONV prevention guidelines is resource intensive when performed by manual chart extraction. Electronic audit can require costly anaesthetic and medical records.

OBJECTIVE

In our single-site study we sought to compare manual and electronic PONV audits by utilizing existing non-anaesthetic electronic medical records to avoid expensive additional software.

METHODS

The audits were performed from 13 January 2020 to 1 February 2020 for surgical inpatients. Two PONV periods were captured-the post-anaesthetic recovery unit and on the ward (to 24 h). Electronic PONV was defined as the administration of an anti-emetic medication. A 6-month electronic PONV rate was also calculated.

RESULTS

Manual audit captured 142 patients and electronic audit captured 294 patients, over the same time period. The manual PONV rate was 10% (95% confidence interval (CI) 5-16%) in the post-anaesthetic recovery unit and 20% (95% CI 14-28%) the next day. The electronic rate was 5% (95% CI 3-8%) in the post-anaesthetic recovery unit and 15% (11-19%) in a 24-h period. The 6-month electronic audit found 3510 patients, with a post-anaesthetic recovery unit and 24-h PONV rates of 5% (4-6%) and 14% (13-16%), respectively. Electronic audit did not identify 5.8% of PONV patients in the manual audit.

CONCLUSION

Electronic audit enrolled more patients and identified a lower PONV rate than manual audit, likely from less enrolment bias. Electronic audit was easily repeated over a 6-month period. While electronic PONV audit is possible without additional software, an electronic anaesthetic chart would greatly improve audit quality.

Five-year maintenance of clinical response and health-related quality of life improvements in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis treated with guselkumab: results from VOYAGE 1 and VOYAGE 2

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is a chronic disease requiring long-term therapy.

OBJECTIVES

Physician- and patient-reported outcomes were evaluated through week 252 in VOYAGE 1 and VOYAGE 2.

METHODS

In total, 1829 patients were randomized at baseline to receive guselkumab 100 mg every 8 weeks, placebo or adalimumab. Patients receiving placebo crossed over to guselkumab at week 16. Patients receiving adalimumab crossed over to guselkumab at week 52 in VOYAGE 1, and randomized withdrawal and retreatment occurred at weeks 28-76 in VOYAGE 2; all patients then received open-label guselkumab through week 252. Efficacy and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) endpoints were analysed through week 252. Safety was monitored through week 264.

RESULTS

The proportions of patients in the guselkumab group who achieved clinical responses at week 252 in VOYAGE 1 and VOYAGE 2, respectively, were 84·1% and 82·0% [≥ 90% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI)]; 82·4% and 85·0% [Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) 0 or 1]; 52·7% and 53·0% (100% improvement in PASI) and 54·7% and 55·5% (IGA 0). HRQoL endpoints were achieved as follows: 72·7% and 71·1% of patients (Dermatology Life Quality Index 0 or 1: no effect on patient's life); 42·4% and 42·0% [Psoriasis Symptoms and Signs Diary (PSSD) symptom score = 0] and 33·0% and 31·0% (PSSD sign score = 0). As measured in VOYAGE 2 only, approximately 45% of patients achieved ≥ 5-point reduction in Short Form-36 physical and mental component scores, and 80% reported no anxiety or depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores < 8). Similar findings were reported for adalimumab crossovers. These effects were maintained from week 52 in VOYAGE 1 and week 100 in VOYAGE 2. No new safety signals were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Guselkumab maintains high levels of clinical response and improvement in patient-reported outcomes through 5 years in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis.

AB0528 COMPARABLE SAFETY PROFILE OF GUSELKUMAB IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS AND PSORIASIS: RESULTS FROM PHASE 3 TRIALS THROUGH 1 YEAR

Background:

DISCOVER 1&2 (PsA) and VOYAGE 1&2 (PsO) are Phase 3 trials of guselkumab (GUS).

Objectives:

Compare safety results through up to 1yr of GUS in PsA and PsO pts.

Methods:

In DISCOVER, 1120 pts with active PsA despite standard therapy were treated. Most pts were biologic-naïve; ~30% in DISCOVER 1 had previous exposure to 1-2 TNFi. Concomitant MTX (57%), oral corticosteroids (17%), and NSAIDs (64%) were permitted. Pts were randomized to SC GUS 100mg at W0, W4, then Q8W; GUS 100mg Q4W; or PBO. At W24, PBO patients were switched to GUS 100mg Q4W. In VOYAGE, in which concomitant MTX use was prohibited, 1245 pts with moderate to severe PsO were treated and randomized to SC GUS 100 mg at W0, W4, W12, then Q8W; or PBO at W0, W4, W12, with crossover to GUS at W16, W20, then Q8W. AEs and laboratory parameters, analyzed by National Cancer Institute-Common Terminology Criteria for AEs [NCI-CTCAE] toxicity grades, were summarized through the PBO-controlled periods and 1yr.

Results:

Safety profiles were generally consistent across the GUS PsO and PsA clinical programs (Table 1). Time-adjusted incidence rates for numbers of AEs, serious AEs, serious infections, malignancy, MACE and AEs leading to d/c were generally similar between PsO and PsA. No cases of anaphylaxis or opportunistic infections were reported. Proportions of pts with decreased neutrophil counts and elevations in hepatic transaminases were slightly higher in PsA vs PsO. These abnormalities were mostly of NCI-CTCAE Grade 1 or 2 (<LLN-1000/mm3 for neutrophils; <5.0 x ULN for AST/ ALT), generally transient, required no medical interventions, resolved spontaneously, and did not lead to interruption or d/c of treatment. Through 1yr, proportions of pts with ALT/AST elevations in PsA trials were slightly higher for GUS Q4W than Q8W and in pts with vs without baseline MTX use.

Conclusion:

The GUS safety profile was generally consistent in PsA and PsO GUS-treated pts through 1yr of the DISCOVER and VOYAGE trials.

Table 1.

Treatment-Emergent AEs During PBO-controlled Period and Through 1Yr: VOYAGE & DISCOVER Trials

Pooled VOYAGE 1&2Pooled DISCOVER 1&2Time PeriodW0-16Through 1YrW0-24bThrough 1Yr(N=)PBO(422)GUS Q8W(823)Combined GUSa(1221)PBOc(372)GUS Q8W(375)GUS Q4W (373)GUS Q8W(375)GUS Q4W (373)Combined GUS† (1100)Total pt-yrs of follow-up128255974173173172384385973Incidence/100 pt-yrs (95% CI)dAEs317 (287,349)330 (308,353)259 (249, 270)219 (198,243)256 (232,281)221 (200, 245)218 (203,233)177 (164,191)191 (182, 199)SAEs5 (2, 10)6 (4, 10)6 (5, 8)9 (5, 15)4 (2, 8)5 (2, 10)6 (4, 9)4 (2, 7)6 (4, 7)AEs leading to study agent d/c3 (0.9, 8)4 (2, 8)2 (2, 4)4 (2, 8)3 (1, 7)7 (4, 12)2 (1, 4)4 (2, 6)3 (2, 5)Infections86 (71, 104)98 (86, 111)98 (92, 104)58 (48, 71)58 (47, 71)63 (51, 76)58 (50, 66)53 (46, 61)55 (50, 60)Serious Infections0. 8 (0, 4)0.4 (0, 2)1 (0.5, 2)4 (2, 8)0.6 (0, 3)2 (0.4, 5)2 (0.6, 3)1 (0, 2)2 (0.9, 3)All Malignancy0 (0, 2)0.4 (0, 2)1 (0.4, 2)0.6 (0, 3)1 (0, 4)0 (0, 2)0.5 (0, 2)0 (0, 0. 8)0 (0, 1)MACE0 (0, 2)0.4 (0, 2)0.4 (0, 1)0.6 (0, 3)0 (0, 2)0.6 (0, 3)0 (0, 0.8)0.3 (0, 1.4)0.1 (0, 0.6)% pts with ≥1 injection site rxn3.14.55.00.31.31.11.62.41.7

aPlacebo crossover pts were included in the combined GUS column after crossover to GUS

bFor all pts who d/c study treatment early with the last dose of PBO/GUS prior to W24 and who did not receive any PBO/GUS at or after Wk24, all data including the final safety follow-up visit collected through 1yr were included

cFor pts in PBO group who switched to GUS due to cross-over or inadvertently, only data prior to first administration of GUS were included.

dCI based on an exact method assuming observed number of events follows a Poisson distribution

Disclosure of Interests:

Alice B Gottlieb Consultant of: Anaptyps Bio, Avotres Therapeutics, Beiersdorf, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Sun Pharmaceuticals, UCB, and Xbiotech, Grant/research support from: Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Novartis, Sun Pharmaceuticals, UCB, and Xbiotech, Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: AbbVie, Arena, Biogen, BMS, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, UCB, April Armstrong Consultant of: AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, Leo, Novartis, UCB, Ortho Dermatologics, Dermira, KHK, Sanofi, Regeneron, Sun Pharma, BMS, Dermavant, and Modernizing Medicine, Richard Langley Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Pizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Pizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, and UCB Pharma, Mark Lebwohl Consultant of: Aditum Bio, Allergan, Almirall, Arcutis, Inc., Avotres Therapeutics, BirchBioMed Inc., BMD skincare, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cara Therapeutics, Castle Biosciences, Corrona, Dermavant Sciences, Evelo, Evommune, Facilitate International Dermatologic Education, Foundation for Research and Education in Dermatology, Inozyme Pharma, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Meiji Seika Pharma, Menlo, Mitsubishi, Neuroderm, Pfizer, Promius/Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Serono, Theravance, and Verrica., Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, Arcutis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Evommune, Incyte, Janssen, Leo Pharmaceutucals, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer, and UCB, Christopher E.M. Griffiths Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Almirall, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim Celgene, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, UCB Pharma., Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Almirall, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim Celgene, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, UCB Pharma., Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Almirall, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim Celgene, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, UCB Pharma., May Shawi Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Global Services, LLC, Ya-Wen Yang Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Global Services, LLC, Elizabeth C Hsia Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Alexa Kollmeier Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Xie L Xu Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Miwa Izutsu Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Paraneedharan Ramachandran Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Shihong Sheng Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Yin You Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Megan Miller Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Christopher T. Ritchlin Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, and UCB Pharma, Iain McInnes Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead, and Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, and UCB, Proton Rahman Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Janssen and Novartis.

POS1031 LOW INCIDENCE OF GASTROINTESTINAL-RELATED AND OVERALL SERIOUS ADVERSE EVENTS AMONG GUSELKUMAB-TREATED PATIENTS: POOLED ANALYSES OF VOYAGE 1 & 2 AND DISCOVER 1 & 2 THROUGH 1-YEAR

Background:

Guselkumab (GUS), a human monoclonal antibody that specifically binds to the p19-subunit of interleukin (IL)-23, demonstrated efficacy in the Phase 3 VOYAGE 1&2 trials of patients (pts) with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis (PsO)1,2 and in the DISCOVER 1&2 trials of pts with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA).3,4 IL-17 inhibitors used to treat PsO and PsA have been associated with exacerbation or new onset of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) (e.g., Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis).5

Objectives:

Evaluate the incidence of gastrointestinal (GI)-related and overall serious adverse events (SAEs) from pooled safety data through 1-year of GUS 100 mg treatment from the VOYAGE 1&2 and DISCOVER 1&2 trials.

Methods:

Using pooled safety data from the VOYAGE 1&2 PsO trials and DISCOVER 1&2 PsA trials, SAEs related to GI disorders were identified using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system-organ class “GI disorders”. Pts with a previous history of IBD were not excluded in these trials; medical history of IBD was collected at baseline in DISCOVER 1&2. Rates of overall SAEs and GI-related SAEs were calculated as the number of SAEs per 100 pt-years (PY) of follow-up (95% confidence intervals). Data are presented for the placebo (PBO)-controlled period (Weeks 0-16 for VOYAGE 1&2; Weeks 0-24 for DISCOVER 1&2) and through 1-year (defined as through Week 48 for VOYAGE 1&2; through Week 60 for DISCOVER 1, and through Week 52 for DISCOVER 2). Events of uveitis and opportunistic infections were also analyzed.

Results:

Through the PBO-controlled period, the overall rates of GI-related SAEs per 100 PY for pooled VOYAGE 1&2 were: PBO 0.78 (0.02, 4.34), GUS q8w 0; and for pooled DISCOVER 1&2: PBO 0.58 (0.01, 3.23), GUS q8w 0.58 (0.01, 3.21), GUS q4w 0. The GI-related SAEs included: gastrointestinal hemorrhage (PBO; n=1) for pooled VOYAGE 1&2; and inflammatory bowel disease (PBO; n=1) and mechanical ileus (GUS q8w; n=1) for pooled DISCOVER 1&2. Through 1-year, the overall rates of GI-related SAEs for pooled VOYAGE 1&2 were: Combined GUS group (GUS q8w and PBO→GUS groups) 0.51 (0.17, 1.20); and for pooled DISCOVER 1&2: GUS q8w 0.52 (0.06, 1.88), GUS q4w 0, Combined GUS group (GUS q8w, GUS q4w, and PBO→GUS groups) 0.21 (0.02, 0.74). The GI-related SAEs in the Combined GUS group for pooled VOYAGE 1&2 included: gastritis, hemorrhoids, inguinal hernia, pancreatitis, and umbilical hernia (0.10/100PY [0.00, 0.57]; n=1 for each); and in the Combined GUS group for pooled DISCOVER 1&2: mechanical ileus and pancreatitis chronic (0.10/100PY [0.00, 0.57]; n=1 for each). Overall, no cases of exacerbation or new onset of IBD were reported in GUS-treated pts, including 2 pts with a prior history of IBD in DISCOVER 1&2 (total PY of follow-up for the Combined GUS groups in VOYAGE and DISCOVER were 974 and 973, respectively). Through the PBO-controlled period, rates of overall SAEs for GUS-treated pts were comparable to PBO-pts and SAE rates remained low through 1-year of follow-up in the VOYAGE 1&2 and DISCOVER 1&2 trials. There were no reported cases of uveitis, opportunistic infections, or tuberculosis in GUS-treated pts through 1-year.

Conclusion:

Through 1-year of follow-up with GUS treatment in pooled VOYAGE 1&2 and DISCOVER 1&2, GI-related SAE rates were low. There were no reported cases of uveitis, opportunistic infections, or new onset/exacerbation of IBD in GUS-treated pts. No new safety concerns were identified through 1-year.

References:

[1]Blauvelt A., et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76:405-17.

[2]Reich K., et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76:418-31.

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

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

[5]Hohenberger M., et al. J Dermatolog Treat. 2018;29:13-8.

Disclosure of Interests:

Philip J Mease Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN, and UCB, Peter Foley Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Valeant, Galderma, GSK, Leo Pharma, and Roche, Consultant of: Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Galderma, AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Arcutis, Aslan, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Hexima, Merck, Sun Pharma, UCB Pharma, Valeant, BMS, Celtaxsys, CSL, Cutanea, Dermira, Genentech, GSK, Leo Pharma, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc, Reistone, Roche, and Sanofi, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Sun Pharma; travel grants from AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Galderma, Leo Pharma, Roche, Sun Pharma, and Sanofi

, Kristian Reich Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, and UCB Pharma, Jerry Bagel Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Janssen Biotech, and Novartis, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen Biotech, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, and Valeant Pharmaceuticals, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene Corporation, Corrona, LLC, Dermavant Sciences, LTD, Dermira/UCB, Eli Lilly and Company, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Janssen Biotech, Kadmon Corporation, Leo Pharma, Lycera Corp, Menlo Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sun Pharma, Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, and Valeant Pharmaceuticals, Mark Lebwohl Consultant of: Aditum Bio, Allergan, Almirall, Arcutis, Inc., Avotres Therapeutics, BirchBioMed Inc., BMD skincare, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cara Therapeutics, Castle Biosciences, Corrona, Dermavant Sciences, Evelo, Evommune, Facilitate International Dermatologic Education, Foundation for Research and Education in Dermatology, Inozyme Pharma, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Meiji Seika Pharma, Menlo, Mitsubishi, Neuroderm, Pfizer, Promius/Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Serono, Theravance, and Verrica, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, Arcutis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Evommune, Incyte, Janssen, Leo Pharmaceutucals, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer, and UCB, Ya-Wen Yang Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Global Services, LLC, May Shawi Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Global Services, LLC, Megan Miller Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Alexa Kollmeier Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Elizabeth C Hsia Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Xie L Xu Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Miwa Izutsu Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Paraneedharan Ramachandran Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Shihong Sheng Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Yin You Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Philip Helliwell Consultant of: Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Janssen, Pfizer, Wolf-Henning Boehncke Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Novartis, and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Novartis, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: Pfizer

AB0532 MAINTENANCE OF RESPONSE THROUGH 5 YEARS OF CONTINUOUS GUSELKUMAB TREATMENT: RESULTS FROM THE PHASE-3 VOYAGE 1 TRIAL

Background:

VOYAGE 1, a phase-3, double-blinded, placebo- and active comparator-controlled study evaluated the efficacy and safety of guselkumab (GUS; a fully human anti-interleukin-23 monoclonal antibody) in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.1,2,3

Objectives:

To assess the efficacy and safety through 5 years of continuous GUS treatment.

Methods:

In VOYAGE 1, patients were randomized to GUS 100 mg at Weeks 0, 4, 12, then every 8 weeks (q8w); placebo at Weeks 0, 4, 12 followed by GUS 100 mg at Weeks 16, 20 then q8w; or adalimumab 80 mg at Week 0, 40 mg at Week 1, then 40 mg every 2 weeks (q2w) through Week 47. At Week 52, all patients continued open-label GUS through Week 252. Efficacy assessments included proportions of patients achieving ≥90% or 100% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 90, PASI 100), and Investigator’s Global Assessment scores of cleared/minimal or cleared (IGA 0/1, IGA 0). Three statistical methods were used to analyze efficacy: prespecified Treatment Failure Rules (TFR), Nonresponder Imputation (NRI), and As Observed (OBS). For TFR analyses, patients who discontinued study agent due to lack of efficacy, worsening of psoriasis, or use of a protocol-prohibited psoriasis treatment were considered nonresponders. For NRI analyses, patients with missing efficacy data (regardless of the reason) after application of TFR were counted as nonresponders. For OBS analyses, missing data were not imputed. Safety was assessed through Week 264.

Results:

Among a total of 494 patients randomized to GUS at Week 0 (N=329) and placebo patients who crossed over to GUS at Week 16 (N=165), 76.9% (380/494) continued study agent through Week 252. PASI 90 responses were well-maintained with up to 5 years of continuous GUS use. At Week 52, PASI 90 response rates were 79.7%, 75.5%, and 80.6% based on TFR, NRI, and OBS analyses, respectively; corresponding rates at Week 252 were 84.1%, 66.6%, and 86.6%. Likewise, PASI 100, IGA 0/1, and IGA 0 responses were maintained from Week 52 through Week 252 (Table 1). Efficacy was also maintained through Week 252 in patients randomized to GUS at Week 0 (N=329). Through the end of the study for all patients (GUS group and adalimumab→GUS crossover group; N=774), the proportion of patients reporting at least one adverse event (AE), serious AE, or discontinuation due to AEs were 87.7%, 16.4%, and 6.1%, respectively. Rates of AEs of interest through Week 264 were as follows: serious infections (2.8%), malignancies (nonmelanoma skin cancer [1.7%]; cancer other than nonmelanoma skin cancer [2.3%]), major adverse cardiovascular events (1.0%), and suicidal ideation and behavior (0.6%).

Conclusion:

High efficacy response rates were maintained (regardless of the method used to analyze data) and no new safety concerns were identified through 5 years of continuous GUS treatment in VOYAGE 1.

References:

[1]Blauvelt A et al. J Am Acad Derm 2017;76:405-417

[2]Griffiths CEM et al. J Drugs Dermatol 2018;17:826-832

[3]Griffiths CEM et al. J Dermatol Treat 2020;13:1-9

Table 1.

Proportion of Patients in the GUS Groupa Achieving Clinical Responses by Analysis Type at Week 52 and Week 252

Week 52Week 252TFR (N=468)(%)NRI (N=494)(%)OBS (N=463)(%)TFR (N=391)(%)NRI (N=494)(%)OBS (N=380)(%) PASI 90 77.9 75.5 80.6 84.1 66.686.6 PASI 100 49.7 46.6 49.7 52.741.7 54.2 IGA 0 84.6 80.2 85.582.4 65.2 84.7IGA 0 53.3 50.854.254.743.356.3

GUS, guselkumab; IGA, Investigator’s Global Assessment; NRI, nonresponder imputation method; OBS, As Observed method; PASI, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index; TFR, treatment failure rules method

aIncludes patients randomized to GUS and placebo patients who crossed over to GUS at Week 16

Disclosure of Interests:

Christopher E.M. Griffiths Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, and Sun Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, and Sun Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, and Sun Pharma, Kim Papp Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, Baxalta, Baxter, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Centocor, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Forward Pharma, Galderma, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Kyowa-Hakko Kirin, Leo Pharma, MedImmune, Merck-Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Stiefel, Sun Pharma, Takeda, UCB, and Valeant, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, Baxalta, Baxter, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Centocor, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Forward Pharma, Galderma, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Kyowa-Hakko Kirin, Leo Pharma, MedImmune, Merck-Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Stiefel, Sun Pharma, Takeda, UCB, and Valeant, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, Baxalta, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Centocor, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Kyowa-Hakko Kirin, Leo Pharma, MedImmune, Merck-Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Stiefel, Takeda, UCB, and Valeant, Michael Song Shareholder of: Johnson and Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Megan Miller Shareholder of: Johnson and Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Yin You Shareholder of: Johnson and Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Yaung-Kaung Shen Shareholder of: Johnson and Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Andrew Blauvelt Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Consultant of: AbbVie, Aclaris, Almirall, Arena, Athenex, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Dermira, Eli Lilly, FLX Bio, Forte, Galderma, Janssen, Leo, Novartis, Ortho, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sandoz, Sanofi Genzyme, Sun Pharma, and UCB Pharma.

The Digestive Diverticula in the Carnivorous Nudibranch, Melibe leonina, Do Not Contain Photosynthetic Symbionts

A number of nudibranchs, including Melibe engeli and Melibe pilosa, harbor symbiotic photosynthetic zooxanthellae. Melibe leonina spends most of its adult life on seagrass or kelp, capturing planktonic organisms in the water column with a large, tentacle-lined oral hood that brings food to its mouth. M. leonina also has an extensive network of digestive diverticula, located just beneath its translucent integument, that are typically filled with pigmented material likely derived from ingested food. Therefore, the focus of this project was to test the hypothesis that M. leonina accumulates symbiotic photosynthetic dinoflagellates in these diverticula. First, we conducted experiments to determine if M. leonina exhibits a preference for light, which would allow chloroplasts that it might be harboring to carry out photosynthesis. We found that most M. leonina preferred shaded areas and spent less time in direct sunlight. Second, we examined the small green circular structures in cells lining the digestive diverticula. Like chlorophyll, they exhibited autofluorescence when illuminated at 480 nm, and they were also about the same size as chloroplasts and symbiotic zooxanthellae. However, subsequent electron microscopy found no evidence of chloroplasts in the digestive diverticula of M. leonina; the structures exhibiting autofluorescence at 480 nm were most likely heterolysosomes, consistent with normal molluscan digestion. Third, we did not find evidence of altered oxygen consumption or production in M. leonina housed in different light conditions, suggesting the lack of any significant photosynthetic activity in sunlight. Fourth, we examined the contents of the diverticula, using HPLC, thin layer chromatography, and spectroscopy. The results of these studies indicate that the diverticula did not contain any chlorophyll, but rather harbored other pigments, such as astaxanthin, which likely came from crustaceans in their diet. Together, all of these data suggest that M. leonina does sequester pigments from its diet, but not for the purpose of symbiosis with photosynthetic zooxanthellae. Considering the translucent skin of M. leonina, the pigmented diverticula may instead provide camouflage.

Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes in Patients with COVID-19 and Cancer: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Much of routine cancer care has been disrupted due to the perceived susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection in cancer patients. Here, we systematically review the current evidence base pertaining to the prevalence, presentation and outcome of COVID-19 in cancer patients, in order to inform policy and practice going forwards. A keyword-structured systematic search was conducted on Pubmed, Cochrane, Embase and MedRxiv databases for studies reporting primary data on COVID-19 in cancer patients. Studies were critically appraised using the NIH National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute's quality assessment tool set. The pooled prevalence of cancer as a co-morbidity in patients with COVID-19 and pooled in-hospital mortality risk of COVID-19 in cancer patients were derived by random-effects meta-analyses. In total, 110 studies from 10 countries were included. The pooled prevalence of cancer as a co-morbidity in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 was 2.6% (95% confidence interval 1.8%, 3.5%, I2: 92.0%). Specifically, 1.7% (95% confidence interval 1.3%, 2.3%, I2: 57.6.%) in China and 5.6% (95% confidence interval 4.5%, 6.7%, I2: 82.3%) in Western countries. Patients most commonly presented with non-specific symptoms of fever, dyspnoea and chest tightness in addition to decreased arterial oxygen saturation, ground glass opacities on computer tomography and non-specific changes in inflammatory markers. The pooled in-hospital mortality risk among patients with COVID-19 and cancer was 14.1% (95% confidence interval 9.1%, 19.8%, I2: 52.3%). We identified impeding questions that need to be answered to provide the foundation for an iterative review of the developing evidence base, and inform policy and practice going forwards. Analyses of the available data corroborate an unfavourable outcome of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 and cancer. Our findings encourage future studies to report detailed social, demographic and clinical characteristics of cancer patients, including performance status, primary cancer type and stage, as well as a history of anti-cancer therapeutic interventions.

The effect of the ghrelin-receptor agonist capromorelin on glucose metabolism in healthy cats

Somatostatin secretion from islet delta cells is important in maintaining low glycemic variability (GV) by providing negative feedback to beta cells and inhibiting insulin secretion. Capromorelin is a ghrelin-receptor agonist that activates the growth hormone secretagogue receptor on delta cells. We hypothesized that in cats, capromorelin administration will result in decreased GV at the expense of reduced insulin secretion and glucose tolerance. Seven healthy cats were treated with capromorelin from days 1-30. After the first day, fasting blood glucose increased (+13 ± 3 mg/dL, P < 0.0001), insulin decreased (+128 ± 122 ng/dL, P = 0.03), and glucagon was unchanged. Blood glucose was increased throughout an intravenous glucose tolerance test on day 1 with blunting of first-phase insulin response ([FPIR] 4,931 ± 2,597 ng/L/15 min) compared with day -3 (17,437 ± 8,302 ng/L/15 min, P = 0.004). On day 30, FPIR was still blunted (9,993 ± 4,285 ng/L/15 min, P = 0.045), but glucose tolerance returned to baseline. Mean interstitial glucose was increased (+19 ± 6 mg/dL, P = 0.03) on days 2-4 but returned to baseline by days 27-29 (P = 0.3). On days 2-4, GV was increased (SD = 9.7 ± 3.2) compared with baseline (SD = 5.0 ± 1.1, P = 0.02) and returned to baseline on days 27-29 (SD = 6.1 ± 1.1, P = 0.16). In summary, capromorelin caused a decline in insulin secretion and glycemic control and an increase in glucose variability early in the course of treatment, but these effects diminished toward the end of 30 d of treatment.

Use of the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment to Identify Pre-Frailty and Frailty in Hospitalized Older Adults

OBJECTIVES

The Scored Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) and Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS) are widely used in acute care settings to assess nutritional and frailty status, respectively. We aimed to determine whether the scored PG-SGA can identify pre-frailty and frailty status, to simultaneously evaluate malnutrition and frailty in clinical practice.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS

A convenience sample of 329 consecutive patients admitted to an acute medical unit in South Australia.

MEASUREMENTS

Nutritional and frailty status were ascertained with scored PG-SGA and EFS, respectively. Optimal cut-off scores to identify pre-frailty and frailty were determined by calculating the Scored PG-SGA's sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, Youden Index (YI), Liu index, Receiver Operator Curves (ROC) and Area Under Curve (AUC). Nutritional status and patient characteristics were analysed according to frailty categories.

RESULTS

The optimal cut-off PG-SGA score as determined by the highest YI, to identify both pre-frailty and frailty was >3, with a sensitivity of 0.711 and specificity of 0.746. The AUC was 0.782 (95% CI 0.731-0.833). In this cohort, 64% of the patients were well-nourished, 26% were moderately malnourished and 10% were severely malnourished. Forty-three percent, 24% and 33% of the patients were classified as robust, pre-frail and frail, respectively. Bivariate analysis showed that those robust were significantly younger than those who were pre-frail (-2.8, 95% CI -5.5 to -0.1, p=0.036) or frail (-3.4, 95% CI -5.9 to -1.0, p=0.002). Robust patients had significantly lower Scored PG-SGA than those who were pre-frail (-2.5, 95%CI -3.8 to -1.1, p<0.001) or frail (-4.9, 95% CI -6.1 to -3.7, p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

The Scored PG-SGA is moderately sensitive in identifying pre-frailty/frailty in older hospitalized adults and can be useful in identifying both conditions concurrently.

REDUCE-IT: outcomes by baseline statin type

Background

REDUCE-IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl-Intervention Trial) randomized 8,179 statin-treated patients with elevated triglycerides and increased cardiovascular (CV) risk to either icosapent ethyl (IPE), a pure, stable prescription form of eicosapentaenoic acid, 4g/day or placebo. IPE significantly reduced time to first occurrence of the primary composite endpoint of major adverse CV events (CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI], nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina) (HR 0.75, CI 0.68–0.83) and key secondary endpoint events (composite of CV death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke) (HR 0.74, CI 0.65–0.83) versus placebo (all p&lt;0.0001). A modest reduction in placebo-corrected LDL-C was observed (−6.6%; p&lt;0.0001). The mechanisms for the CV benefit of icosapent ethyl are not fully understood.

Purpose

Explore the impact of statin type and lipophilic/lipophobic category on outcomes, and on LDL-C, to further consider the possible relevance of LDL-C pathways to the observed CV benefit of icosapent ethyl.

Methods

Primary and key secondary endpoint analyses and LDL-C changes from baseline were explored by individual statin type (atorvastatin, simvastatin, rosuvastatin, or pravastatin) at baseline, and then by categorizing these statins into lipophilic (i.e., hydrophobic: atorvastatin, simvastatin) and lipophobic (i.e., hydrophilic: rosuvastatin, pravastatin) statin groups; 96.1% of patients fell within these individual statin groups.

Results

CV outcomes were similar across statin types (interaction p=0.61) and lipophilic/lipophobic categories (interaction p=0.51) (Figure). Statin type and category had a similar lack of meaningful impact on the modest placebo-corrected median LDL-C changes from baseline to one year, which ranged from −5.8 to −8.4% (all p≤0.0003).

Conclusion

No meaningful treatment differences in the primary or key secondary endpoints across statin type or lipophilic/lipophobic category were observed. A similar lack of treatment difference was observed in LDL-C changes from baseline to one year. Therefore, the LDL-C changes and CV risk reduction in REDUCE-IT appear independent of the type of concomitant statin therapy. These data provide clinicians with additional insight regarding concomitant statin therapy considerations when prescribing icosapent ethyl and suggest there are important mechanisms of action for the substantial CV risk reduction observed with icosapent ethyl that are distinct from the LDL receptor pathway.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding source: Other. Main funding source(s): The study was funded by Amarin Pharma, Inc.

Alpelisib plus fulvestrant for PIK3CA-mutated, hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative advanced breast cancer: final overall survival results from SOLAR-1

BACKGROUND

Activation of the phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K) pathway via PIK3CA mutations occurs in 28%-46% of hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancers (ABCs) and is associated with poor prognosis. The SOLAR-1 trial showed that the addition of alpelisib to fulvestrant treatment provided statistically significant and clinically meaningful progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in PIK3CA-mutated, HR+, HER2- ABC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Men and postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- ABC whose disease progressed on or after aromatase inhibitor (AI) were randomized 1 : 1 to receive alpelisib (300 mg/day) plus fulvestrant (500 mg every 28 days and once on day 15) or placebo plus fulvestrant. Overall survival (OS) in the PIK3CA-mutant cohort was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier methodology and a one-sided stratified log-rank test was carried out with an O'Brien-Fleming efficacy boundary of P ≤ 0.0161.

RESULTS

In the PIK3CA-mutated cohort (n = 341), median OS [95% confidence interval (CI)] was 39.3 months (34.1-44.9) for alpelisib-fulvestrant and 31.4 months (26.8-41.3) for placebo-fulvestrant [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.86 (95% CI, 0.64-1.15; P = 0.15)]. OS results did not cross the prespecified efficacy boundary. Median OS (95% CI) in patients with lung and/or liver metastases was 37.2 months (28.7-43.6) and 22.8 months (19.0-26.8) in the alpelisib-fulvestrant and placebo-fulvestrant arms, respectively [HR = 0.68 (0.46-1.00)]. Median times to chemotherapy (95% CI) for the alpelisib-fulvestrant and placebo-fulvestrant arms were 23.3 months (15.2-28.4) and 14.8 months (10.5-22.6), respectively [HR = 0.72 (0.54-0.95)]. No new safety signals were observed with longer follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the analysis did not cross the prespecified boundary for statistical significance, there was a 7.9-month numeric improvement in median OS when alpelisib was added to fulvestrant treatment of patients with PIK3CA-mutated, HR+, HER2- ABC. Overall, these results further support the statistically significant prolongation of PFS observed with alpelisib plus fulvestrant in this population, which has a poor prognosis due to a PIK3CA mutation. CLINICALTRIALS.

GOV ID

NCT02437318.

REDUCE-IT: accumulation of data across prespecified interim analyses to final results

Background

REDUCE-IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl-Intervention Trial), an event-driven trial, randomized 8,179 statin-treated patients with elevated triglycerides (TGs) and increased cardiovascular (CV) risk to icosapent ethyl (IPE); pure, stable prescription eicosapentaenoic acid, 4g/day or placebo. 1,612 primary endpoint events (CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI], nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina) projected 90% power to detect 15% relative risk reduction (5% 2-sided alpha). The key secondary composite endpoint was CV death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke. An independent data and safety monitoring committee (DMC) performed prespecified interim analyses (IAs) at ∼60% (IA1 31 May 2016 data cutoff; 2.9 y median primary endpoint follow-up) and ∼80% (IA2 01 May 2017; 3.7 y) of events; final analysis included 1,606 events (06 Sep 2018; 4.9 y median study follow-up).

Purpose

Explore REDUCE-IT efficacy and safety across prespecified IAs for insight into progression of robustness and consistency of conclusions.

Methods

The interim statistical analysis plan guided study continuation decisions by a prespecified decision-making process, including assessment of safety, treatment arm performance, primary composite endpoint formal analyses, and informal robustness analyses, with no futility or efficacy stopping requirements. Prior to DMC IA study continuation decisions, the need for a mature dataset to support the robustness of final efficacy and safety findings was discussed. Sponsor, Steering Committee, and Clinical Endpoint Committee were blinded throughout.

Results

Primary and key secondary endpoints achieved statistical significance at IA1 and IA2 that persisted at final analyses (p-value below final adjusted 2-sided alpha of 0.0437); hazard ratios also remained consistent and similar robustness was observed across individual endpoint components; clarity of findings across endpoints and subgroups improved with more events. Stopping for overwhelming efficacy was discussed at each IA; prior to IA study continuation recommendations, the DMC considered historical examples of failed CV outcome studies for TG-lowering and mixed omega-3 therapies, reflected on the potential for overestimating final demonstrated benefit using incomplete data, and weighed societal impacts of fuller datasets relative to patient therapy access.

Conclusions

Consistent, potent efficacy emerged early and persisted across the two prespecified interim and final analyses. The mature dataset demonstrated highly statistically significant reductions in the primary (25%; p=0.00000001) and key secondary (26%; p=0.0000006) endpoints and allowed robust analyses to support overall efficacy and safety conclusions. Allowing the REDUCE-IT dataset to fully mature provided clinicians with robust, consistent, and reliable data upon which to base clinical decisions for IPE in CV risk reduction.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding source: Other. Main funding source(s): The study was funded by Amarin Pharma, Inc.

REDUCE-IT: total ischemic events reduced across the full range of baseline LDL cholesterol and other key subgroups

Background

REDUCE-IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl-Intervention Trial), a study of 8,179 randomized statin-treated patients with elevated triglycerides (TG) and increased cardiovascular (CV) risk followed for a median of 4.9 years, demonstrated robust results. Icosapent ethyl (IPE), a pure and stable prescription form of eicosapentaenoic acid, 4g/day reduced both time-to-first and total primary endpoint ischemic events (CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI], nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina) by 25% (HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.68–0.83; p&lt;0.0001) and 30% (rate ratio 0.70; 95% CI 0.62–0.78; p&lt;0.0001), respectively. Similar substantial reductions in first and total key secondary endpoint ischemic events (composite of CV death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke) were also observed. Demographic and baseline disease characteristics were generally balanced across treatment groups. Time-to-first event analyses showed robust and generally consistent benefit across subgroups. Previous total event analyses by baseline TG demonstrated large, consistent, statistically significant reductions across tertiles, suggesting the CV benefit of IPE is tied primarily to non-TG factors.

Purpose

Further explore the extent to which IPE reduced total primary and key secondary events across prespecified baseline demographic, disease, treatment, and lipid/lipoprotein/inflammatory biomarker subgroups.

Methods

Total events across subgroups were assessed with the prespecified negative binomial regression method. Main outcomes were total (first and subsequent) primary and key secondary composite endpoint events.

Results

Median baseline LDL-C levels in ascending tertiles were 58, 76, and 96 mg/dL; there were large, significant relative reductions in total primary endpoint events with IPE across tertiles (35%, 28%, and 27%, respectively; interaction p=0.62), with parallel substantial absolute risk reductions. Similar, significant relative reductions of 33%, 28%, and 24% in total key secondary endpoint events were observed, along with substantial absolute risk reductions. Total events analyses of prespecified subgroups also demonstrated robust and generally consistent findings for the primary and key secondary composite endpoints.

Conclusion

REDUCE-IT demonstrated substantial reductions in first and total primary and key secondary endpoint ischemic events, with robust and generally consistent results across baseline TG and LDL-C levels, as well as other prespecified baseline biomarker, demographic, disease, and treatment subgroups. These analyses provide useful insights for clinicians considering the range of patients who may benefit from IPE therapy and suggest that mechanisms beyond the lipid/lipoprotein/inflammatory pathways tested, including mechanisms beyond the LDL receptor pathways, may contribute to the observed substantial reductions in total ischemic burden with IPE therapy.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding source: Other. Main funding source(s): The study was funded by Amarin Pharma, Inc.