A field programmable gate array based Langmuir probe system for measurement of plasma parameters at 500 kHz in a high-power impulse magnetron sputtering plasma

By utilizing Field Programmable Gate Arrays in a configuration similar to that of the Mirror Langmuir Probe, it is possible to bias a single probe at three precise voltages in sequence. These voltages can be dynamically adjusted in real-time based on the measured plasma electron temperature to ensure the transition region is always sampled. The first results have been obtained by employing this method and have generated real-time outputs of electron temperature, ion saturation current, and floating potential on a low temperature pulsed-DC magnetron at 500 kHz. These results are in good agreement with the analysis of a conventionally swept Langmuir probe. This probe is designed with the intention of being implemented on MAST-U to aid in the study of exhaust physics and enable further investigation into filamentary behavior.

Utility of long-read sequencing for All of Us

The All of Us (AoU) initiative aims to sequence the genomes of over one million Americans from diverse ethnic backgrounds to improve personalized medical care. In a recent technical pilot, we compare the performance of traditional short-read sequencing with long-read sequencing in a small cohort of samples from the HapMap project and two AoU control samples representing eight datasets. Our analysis reveals substantial differences in the ability of these technologies to accurately sequence complex medically relevant genes, particularly in terms of gene coverage and pathogenic variant identification. We also consider the advantages and challenges of using low coverage sequencing to increase sample numbers in large cohort analysis. Our results show that HiFi reads produce the most accurate results for both small and large variants. Further, we present a cloud-based pipeline to optimize SNV, indel and SV calling at scale for long-reads analysis. These results lead to widespread improvements across AoU.

Tobacco and marijuana use during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown among American Indians residing in California and Oklahoma

INTRODUCTION

American Indian (AI) people experience a disproportionate tobacco and marijuana burden which may have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Little is known about the tobacco and marijuana habits of American Indian individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of this study is to examine tobacco and marijuana use as well as change in use during the COVID-19 pandemic among the American Indian community.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study analyzes survey data from a convenience sample of American Indian individuals residing in California and Oklahoma and included adults with and without cancer that resided in both rural and urban areas (n=1068).

RESULTS

During October 2020 - January 2021, 36.0% of participants reported current use of tobacco products, 9.9% reported current use of marijuana products, and 23.7% reported increased use of tobacco and/or marijuana in the past 30 days, with no difference between those with cancer and those without cancer. Tobacco use was associated with marital status, age, employment status, COVID-19 exposure, COVID-19 beliefs, and alcohol consumption. Marijuana use was associated with COVID-19 beliefs, alcohol consumption, and income level. Increased tobacco and/or marijuana use was associated with baseline use of those products. Nearly a quarter of participants reported increased use of tobacco and/or marijuana products during the COVID-19 pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed high rates of tobacco use during the COVID-19 pandemic, consistent with other studies. Research is needed to examine whether tobacco and marijuana use will decrease to pre-pandemic levels post-pandemic or if these behaviors will persist post-pandemic. Given these findings, there is a pressing need to increase access to evidence-based tobacco and marijuana treatment services in the AI population post COVID-19 pandemic.

Avoidance of medical care among American Indians with a history of cancer during the coronavirus pandemic

Objectives

Assess the percentage of cancer-related appointment delays, cancelations, and the unavailability of medications experienced by American Indian participants during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

This cross-sectional survey study was completed between October 2020 and July 2021 by 360 individuals with cancer who lived in California and Oklahoma. Binary and multivariate logistic regression analysis was completed in SAS 9.4.

Results

During the initial Covid-19 pandemic, almost one-third (30%) of respondents delayed cancer-related appointments, 42% canceled cancer-related appointments, and one-quarter (24%) were unable to access prescription medications or over-the-counter medications (27%) due to COVID-19. People who underwent testing for COVID-19 were five times more likely to delay a medical appointment [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 5.3, 95% CI:2.4, 11.7] and people who followed three or more social distancing measures were more than six times more likely to cancel medical appointments (aOR:6.3, 95% CI:2.9, 13.9).

Conclusion

This study identifies delays, cancelations, and medication inaccessibility people identifying as American Indian faced during the coronavirus pandemic. Disparities in healthcare delivery could contribute to increased morbidity and mortality rates of cancer.

The International Consortium on Primary Graft Dysfunction: Redefining Clinical Risk Factors in the Contemporary Era of Heart Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality early after heart transplant (HT). The International Consortium on PGD is a multicenter collaboration dedicated to identifying the clinical risk factors for PGD in the contemporary era of HT. The objectives of the current report were to 1) assess the incidence of severe PGD in an international cohort, 2) evaluate the performance of the most validated PGD risk tool, the RADIAL score, in a contemporary cohort, and 3) redefine clinical risk factors for severe PGD in the current era of HT.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, observational study of consecutive adult HT recipients between 2010 and 2020 in 10 centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe. Patients with severe PGD were compared to those without severe PGD (comprising those with no, mild and moderate PGD). The RADIAL score was calculated for each transplant recipient. The discriminatory power of the RADIAL score was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and its calibration was assessed by plotting the percentage of PGD predicted versus observed. To identify clinical risk factors associated with severe PGD, we performed multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression modeling to account for among-center variability.

RESULTS

A total of 2,746 patients have been enrolled in the registry to date, including 2,015 (73.4%) from North America, and 731 (26.6%) from Europe. 215 participants (7.8%) met the criteria for severe PGD. There was an increase in the incidence of severe PGD over the study period (p-value for trend by difference sign test = 0.004). The Kaplan Meier estimate for 1-year survival was 75.7% [95%CI 69.4-80.9%] in patients with severe PGD as compared to 94.4% [95% CI 93.5-95.2%] in those without severe PGD (log-rank p-value <0.001). The RADIAL score performed poorly in our contemporary cohort and was not associated with severe PGD with an AUC of 0.53 (95%CI 0.48-0.58). In the multivariable regression model, acute preoperative dialysis (OR 2.41, 95% CI 1.31 - 4.43), durable LVAD support (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.13 - 2.77), and total ischemic time (OR 1.20 for each additional hour, 95% CI 1.02 - 1.41) were associated with an increased risk of severe PGD.

CONCLUSIONS

Our consortium has identified an increasing incidence of PGD in the modern transplant era. We identified contemporary risk factors for this early post-transplant complication, which confers a high mortality risk. These results may enable the identification of patients at high risk for developing severe PGD in order to inform peri-transplant donor and recipient management practices.

Impact of Race and Age and their Interaction on Survival Outcomes in Patients With Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma

BACKGROUND

Advances in treatment for patients with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) have led to improved patient outcomes but the magnitude of these disparities remains understudied with regards to improved survival outcomes. We sought to describe changes in DLBCL survival trends over time and explore potential differential survival patterns by patients' race/ethnicity and age.

METHODS

We utilized the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database to identify patients diagnosed with DLBCL from 1980 to 009 and determined 5-year survival outcomes for all patients, categorizing patients by year of diagnosis. We used descriptive statistics and logistic regression, adjusting for stage and year of diagnosis, to describe changes in 5-year survival rates over time by race/ethnicity and age.

RESULTS

We identified 43,564 patients with DLBCL eligible for this study. Median age was 67 years (ages: 18-64 = 44.2%, 65-79 = 37.1%, 80 + = 18.7%). Most patients were male (53.4%) and had advanced stage III/IV disease (40.0%). Most patients were White race (81.4%), followed by Asian/Pacific Islander (API) (6.3%), Black (6.3%), Hispanic (5.4%), and American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) (0.05%). Overall, the 5-year survival rate improved from 35.1% in 1980 to 52.4% in 2009 across all races and age groups (odds ratio [OR] for 5-year survival with increasing year of diagnosis = 1.05, P < .001). Patients in racial/ethnic minority groups (API: OR = 0.86, P < .0001; Black: OR = 0.57, P < .0001; AIAN: OR = 0.51, P = .008; Hispanic: 0.76, P = 0.291) and older adults (ages 65-79: OR = 0.43, P < .0001; ages 80+: OR = 0.13, P < .0001) had lower 5-year survival rates after adjusting for race, age, stage, and diagnosis year. We found consistent improvement in the odds of 5-year survival for year of diagnosis across all race and ethnicity groups (White: OR = 1.05, P < .001; API: OR = 1.04, P < .001; Black: OR = 1.06, p<.001; AIAN: OR = 1.05, P < .001; Hispanic: OR = 1.05, P < .005) and age groups (ages 18-64: OR = 1.06, P < .001; ages 65-79: OR = 1.04, P < .001; ages 80+: OR = 1.04, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Patients with DLBCL experienced improvements in 5-year survival rates from 1980 to 2009, despite persistently lower survival among patients in racial/ethnic minority groups and older adults.

Hesitant but vaccinated: assessing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among the recently vaccinated

We administered a survey during the fifteen-minute wait time after the COVID-19 vaccine was given (N = 1475) to examine attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccines among adults who were vaccinated in Arkansas between April 22nd and July 6th, 2021. We found 60% of those who had just been vaccinated reported some level of hesitancy, including 10% who reported being "very hesitant." Hesitancy was not evenly distributed across sociodemographic groups (age, sex, race/ethnicity, and education) and was associated with whether a non-English language is spoken in the home, health care coverage, and flu vaccination over the past five years in bivariate analysis. Generalized ordered logistic regression results reveal associations between the log-ordered odds of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and age, sex, race/ethnicity, health care coverage, health literacy, and flu vaccination over the past five years. Surprisingly, a prior COVID-19 diagnosis was not significantly associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. These results can inform health care and communication strategies. Further attention to "hesitant adopters" can provide insights into the process of overcoming vaccine hesitancy that are critical to vaccine uptake.

Validation of personal protective equipment ensembles, incorporating powered air-purifying respirators protected from contamination, for the care of patients with high-consequence infectious diseases

BACKGROUND

The UK High-Consequence Infectious Diseases (HCID) Network of high-level isolation units provides care for patients with contact- or airborne-transmissible highly infectious and highly dangerous diseases. In most HCID units, the healthcare workers (HCWs) wear personal protective equipment (PPE) ensembles incorporating a powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) for head and respiratory protection. Some PAPRs have components worn outside/over other PPE, necessitating decontamination of re-usable elements. Two alternative PAPRs, with all re-usable elements worn under PPE, were trialled in this study.

AIM

To undertake scenario-based testing of PAPRs and PPE to determine usability, comfort and ability to remove contaminated PPE without personal cross-contamination.

METHODS

Trained healthcare volunteers (N=20) wearing PAPR/PPE ensembles were sprayed with ultraviolet fluorescent markers. They undertook exercises to mimic patient care, and subsequently, after doffing the contaminated PPE following an established protocol, any personal cross-contamination was visualized under ultraviolet light. Participants also completed a questionnaire to gauge how comfortable they found the PPE.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The ensembles were tested under extreme 'worst case scenario' conditions, augmented by physical and manual dexterity tests. Participating volunteers considered the exercise to be beneficial in terms of training and PPE evaluation. Data obtained, including feedback from questionnaires and doffing buddy observations, supported evidence-based decisions on the PAPR/PPE ensemble to be adopted by the HCID Network. One cross-contamination event was recorded in the ensemble chosen; this could be attributed to doffing error, and could therefore be eliminated with further practice.

Is there an inter-manufacturer difference in generic clopidogrel response?

Background

Differences in platelet aggregation response to generic clopidogrel by manufacturer has not been investigated.

Purpose

Compare rates of clopidogrel response among patients receiving medication produced by two different manufacturers after acute coronary syndrome and/or percutaneous coronary intervention.

Methods

This quality improvement project included 515 adult patients receiving clopidogrel for acute coronary syndrome or ischemic heart disease and referred for coronary angiography/percutaneous coronary intervention at a large, public hospital. The project was divided into two phases: 1. retrospective collection of baseline data; 2. two 12-week, prospective phases in which all clopidogrel in the hospital was restricted to a single manufacturer at a time. The primary outcome was clopidogrel response measured by platelet function testing defined as ADP response &lt;40% on light transmission aggregometry between two manufacturer groups. Aspirin response defined as arachidonic acid response &lt;20% was also measured.

Results

Of 515 total patients included in both phases (mean [SD] age, 64.5 [11.4] years; 351 [68.2%] men; 450 [87.4%] ACS), 52% were found to be clopidogrel responders based on results of platelet function testing (Table 1 – select variables). Among 135 patients in the prospective phase, there was a significantly lower proportion of patients who were clopidogrel responders in the Manufacturer 1 group compared to the Manufacturer 2 group (34.8% vs. 55.1%, p=0.03) (Table 2 – select variables). After adjustment for age, sex, BMI, aspirin response, therapeutic hypothermia, LHC indication, clopidogrel loading dose, time between loading dose and lab measurement, and manufacturer, aspirin response (OR [95% CI]: 0.96 [0.95–0.97], p&lt;0.001) and manufacturer (OR [95% CI]: 2.45 [1.18–5.22], p=0.02) were associated with clopidogrel response.

Conclusions

In a large public hospital, we observed that pharmacodynamic response to clopidogrel varied by drug manufacturer. Further investigation and/or regulation is needed to minimize inter-manufacturer variability.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: None.

Predictors of early renal dysfunction after heart transplantation: a report from the International Consortium on Primary Graft Dysfunction

Background

Renal dysfunction is a common complication after heart transplantation (HT). Renal replacement therapy (RRT) after HT has been associated with increased risk of death. Long-term renal dysfunction is associated mainly to immunosuppressive therapy but is also strongly related to post-transplant renal failure. Predictors of early renal dysfunction after HT have not been clearly identified.

Purpose

We aimed to define predictors of early renal dysfunction after HT.

Methods

Our consortium includes 10 centers in the US, Canada and Europe. We collected data on all consecutive single-organ HT recipients from 2010 to 2020. The primary outcome was early renal dysfunction (ERD), defined as a composite of need for RRT or creatinine ≥2.5 mg/dL 24 hours after HT. We assessed the incidence of early renal dysfunction and performed univariate and multivariate analyses to identify the recipient and transplant characteristics associated with its development.

Results

We included 2,764 HT recipients: 282 (10.2%) presented early renal dysfunction and 2482 (89.8%) did not. Recipients who presented postoperative renal dysfunction were more frequently male, Caucasian, with previous sternotomy, higher baseline creatinine, longer ischemic time and worse donor LVEF. They were also more likely to be under RRT, intravenous inotropes or ECMO support and there was more incidence of severe primary graft dysfunction (PGD) (Table 1). Multi-variable logistic regression demonstrated that the strongest predictors for post-transplant renal dysfunction were development of severe PGD (OR 5.26, 2.88–9.62, p&lt;0,001) and RRT prior to HT (OR 5.80, 2.93–11.5, p&lt;0.001). Other predictors were male sex, previous sternotomy, long ischemic time and need for inotropes prior to HT.

Conclusions

Early renal dysfunction is a common complication after HT with an incidence around 10% in a large and contemporary cohort. The presence of PGD and need for RRT pre-transplant were the strongest predictors for its development. Interestingly, emergent transplantation or need for MCS were not independently associated with ERD. Further studies are needed to identify patients at high risk of early and late kidney dysfunction that may benefit from combined transplantation.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: None.

Comparing community-driven COVID-19 vaccine distribution methods: Faith-based organizations vs. outpatient clinics

Background

Minority and low socioeconomic communities may face practical barriers to vaccination, including decreased access to health care and less trust in healthcare organizations; however, few studies have focused on these barriers as the cause of differential vaccine uptake. We worked with community partners to implement and evaluate two community-driven approaches to COVID-19 vaccination distribution-through faith-based organizations (FBOs) and outpatient clinics-with a focus on understanding the differences between the populations who accessed each distribution method.

Methodology

Participants who came to the vaccination locations were approached and asked to complete a survey during their 15 min post-vaccination observation period. Differences between distribution locations were examined using Chi-square tests.

Results

The survey rendered 1,476 valid responses, with a total of 927 participants recruited at clinical locations and 519 at FBOs during vaccination events. There were significant differences by race/ethnicity, with distribution methods at FBOs reaching a higher proportion of Hispanic/Latino and Marshallese participants. The proportion of uninsured participants who had lower health literacy and had lower educational attainment was higher with the FBO distribution method. FBO participants were more likely to report "completely" trusting the COVID-19 vaccine. There was no significant difference between FBO and clinic participants with regard to the level of vaccine hesitancy. There were no statistically significant differences with regard to access.

Conclusion

A higher proportion of Hispanic/Latino and Marshallese participants utilized FBOs for vaccination, suggesting collaborations with FBOs can potentially increase vaccination uptake among minority communities and help mitigate vaccination disparities.

Trends in the improvement in survival among patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL)

147

Background: Advances in treatment for patients with DLBCL have led to improved patient outcomes, but whether disparities exist with regards to improved survival outcomes remains understudied. We sought to describe changes in DLBCL survival rates over time and explore potential differential survival patterns by patients’ race and age. Methods: We utilized the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database to identify patients diagnosed with DLBCL from 1980-2009 and determined 5-year survival rates for all patients, categorizing patients by year of diagnosis. We used descriptive statistics and logistic regression, adjusting for stage and year of diagnosis, to describe changes in 5-year survival rates over time by race/ethnicity and age. Results: We identified 43,564 patients with DLBCL eligible for this study (median age 67 years [ages: 18-64 = 44.2%, 65-79 = 37.1%, 80+ = 18.7%], 53% male, 40% stage III/IV). Most were White race (81.4%), followed by race/ethnic groups of Asian/Pacific Islander (API) (6.3%), Black (6.3%), Hispanic (5.4%), and American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) (0.05%). Overall, the 5-year survival rate improved from 35.1% in 1980 to 52.4% in 2009 across all patients (odds ratio (OR) for 5-year survival with increasing year of diagnosis = 1.05, p <.001). Patients in race/ethnic minority groups (API: OR = 0.86, p <.0001; Black: OR = 0.57, p <.0001; AIAN: OR = 0.51, p =.008) and older adults (ages 65-79: OR = 0.43, p <.0001; ages 80+: OR = 0.13, p <.0001) had worse 5-year survival rates adjusting for race, age, stage, and diagnosis year. We found consistent improvement in the odds of 5-year survival for year of diagnosis across all race and ethnicity groups (White: OR = 1.05, p <.001; API: OR = 1.04, p <.001; Black: OR = 1.06, p <.001; Hispanic: OR = 1.05, p <.005; AIAN: OR = 1.05, p <.001) and age groups (ages 18-64: OR = 1.06, p <.001; ages 65-79: OR = 1.04, p <.001; ages 80+: OR = 1.04, p <.001). Conclusions: In this analysis of SEER data, we found that patients with DLBCL experienced improvements in 5-year survival rates from 1980 to 2009, despite ongoing disparities demonstrating worse survival among patients in race/ethnic minority groups and older adults. Notably, we did not find differential improvement in the odds of 5-year survival within subgroups of race and age, underscoring the need for ongoing investigations to address disparities in cancer care delivery and outcomes.

"I am hesitant to visit the doctor unless absolutely necessary": A qualitative study of delayed care, avoidance of care, and telehealth experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the health care system, resulting in decreased health care utilization. During the pandemic, some patients chose to postpone clinic visits or avoid them altogether while health care providers concurrently scaled back their services. As a result, health care has shifted to a greater reliance on telehealth and virtual care. This study uses a qualitative descriptive design, focused on providing summaries of participant experiences of health care and telehealth utilization during the COVID-19 pandemic. Three primary themes emerged during analysis: delayed health care, avoidance of care, and experiences of telehealth. Sub-themes of delayed health care included care delays and scheduling difficulties. Participants reported avoidance of health care due to fear of COVID-19 infection, as well as general changes to care-seeking behaviors. Participants also reported positive experiences with telehealth, with some respondents noting limitations of telehealth systems, such as limitations on procedures and patient-centered monitoring of chronic illness. Our findings support studies that have found both health care delays and changes in health care utilization patterns during the pandemic. Most importantly, this study expands the literature concerning links between fear of COVID-19 and altered care-seeking behaviors, which is the first study to do so focusing on these concerns in the participants' own words. Finally, while telehealth is promising in preserving continuity of care during pandemics, long-term integration into the health care system is not without challenges, and this study provides insights into how patients experienced telehealth during COVID-19 in their own words. Data collection, survey design, and research priorities for this study were based on input from ongoing community partnerships.

The impact of BMI on the response to immunotherapy in lung cancer

e21003

Background: Over the past few years immunotherapy was incorporated in the first line treatment for advanced lung cancer. Obesity leads to a state of low grade chronic inflammation and plays a role in many pathophysiological processes including tumorigenesis. Recently evidence indicates that obesity and related inflammatory state may also impact the efficacy of immunotherapy. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study to look at the impact of body mass index (BMI) on the outcomes in patients with advanced lung cancer treated with immune check point inhibitors (ICI). According to their baseline BMI, patients were grouped into obese (BMI ≥ 30, n = 54) and non-obese (BMI < 30, n = 158). In another comparison using 25 as BMI cut off, patients were grouped into higher BMI (BMI ≥ 25, n = 105) and lower BMI (BMI < 25, n = 107). Results: From June 2012 to December 2020, 212 patients from our institute were included in this study. The median age was 64.5, average BMI was 26.4 kg/m2, and 52% male sex. Median follow-up time in this study was 21.7 months. Patients with higher BMI using 25 as cut off had longer progression free survival (PFS) (8.1 months vs 5.3 months, p = 0.0034). Overall survival (OS) was better in higher BMI group than lower BMI group (10.8 months vs 5.9 months, p = 0.0008). The differences of PFS and OS for obese and non-obese groups were not statistically different (11.1 months vs 5.9 months, p = 0.157 for PFS; 12.0 months vs 6.9 months, p = 0.1512 for OS.). Conclusions: Our results suggest that excess weight may be associated with favorable PFS and OS in advanced lung cancer patients treated with ICI. Future studies are needed to investigate the underlying mechanism of this association.

POS0683 EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF UPADACITINIB IN TNFi-IR PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS FROM THREE PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIALS

Background

For patients with RA who are refractory to biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs), such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis), optimal disease control is less likely to be achieved with subsequent therapy.1 In line with recommendations from EULAR and ACR, switching to a treatment with a different mechanism of action is appropriate for these patients.

Objectives

To describe the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib (UPA) 15 mg once daily in patients with RA and an inadequate response or intolerance to TNFis (TNFi-IR).

Methods

A post hoc subgroup analysis was conducted in TNFi-IR patients who were treated with UPA 15 mg once daily in three Phase 3 clinical trials: SELECT-BEYOND,2 -CHOICE,3 and -COMPARE.4 For COMPARE, only patients treated with adalimumab and switched to UPA as rescue therapy were included. ≥20/50/70% improvement in ACR criteria, DAS28(CRP), CDAI, and SDAI, as well as change from baseline in HAQ-DI and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were reported through 24 weeks. Non-responder imputation was used for all missing categorical outcomes; as observed (COMPARE) or multiple imputation (CHOICE, BEYOND) were used for missing continuous outcomes. Pooled safety results were presented as exposure-adjusted event rates (EAERs) with a cut-off of June 30, 2021.

Results

568 TNFi-IR patients were included: 146 from BEYOND, 263 from CHOICE, and 159 from COMPARE. Mean duration since RA diagnosis was longer for BEYOND and CHOICE versus COMPARE; cardiovascular (CV) risk factors were common among this refractory population (Table 1). ACR20/50/70 and disease activity outcomes observed in the TNFi-IR population were generally consistent with the overall BEYOND2 and CHOICE3 bDMARD-IR populations, and consistent across the three studies in the TNFi-IR subgroups (Figure 1). Improvements in PROs including HAQ-DI, fatigue, pain, and morning stiffness over 24 weeks were observed (data not shown). Pooled safety results reporting 1574.8 patient-years (PY) of exposure in the TNFi-IR subgroup showed similar results to the overall BEYOND2 and CHOICE3 bDMARD-IR study populations, with EAERs of 3.1 events/100 PY for herpes zoster and 0.8 events/100 PY for adjudicated major adverse CV events, adjudicated venous thromboembolism (VTE), and malignancy excluding non-melanoma skin cancer. The EAER of any AE leading to death was 1.4 events/100 PY.

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics of TNFi-IR patients treated with UPA 15 mg

n (%), unless specifiedSELECT-BEYOND (n=146)SELECT-CHOICE (n=263)SELECT-COMPARE (ADA → UPA) (n=159)Female122 (83.6)219 (83.3)133 (83.6)Mean (SD) age, years56.6 (11.0)55.5 (11.1)53.9 (10.6)Mean (SD) duration of RA diagnosis, years13.2 (9.5)12.5 (9.4)8.2 (8.5)Concomitant csDMARDs MTX alone100 (70.4)195 (74.1)159 (100.0) MTX and other csDMARDs20 (14.1)25 (9.5)0 csDMARDs other than MTX22 (15.5)38 (14.4)0Concomitant oral steroids73 (50.0)140 (53.2)98 (61.6)1 prior bDMARD68 (46.6)172 (65.4)142 (89.3)2 prior bDMARDs40 (27.4)62 (23.6)17 (10.7)a≥3 prior bDMARDs38 (26.0)29 (11.0)0Failed ≥1 prior TNFi due to lack of efficacyb131 (89.7)223 (84.8)159 (100.0)History of VTE / CV event3 (2.1) / 28 (19.2)6 (2.3) / 20 (7.6)4 (2.5) / 14 (8.8)CV risk factors Hypertension72 (49.3)109 (41.4)68 (42.8) Diabetes mellitus22 (15.1)34 (12.9)17 (10.7) Smoking (current former past)68 (46.6)109 (41.5)55 (34.6) Elevated LDL-C (≥3.36 mmol/L)38 (26.0)52 (20.0)48 (30.2) Low HDL-C (≤1.55 mmol/L)80 (54.8)171 (65.0)88 (55.3)

aThese patients received one bDMARD before entry into SELECT-COMPARE.

bRemaining patients were intolerant to ≥1 prior TNFi.

Conclusion

In this post hoc subgroup analysis, TNFi-IR patients treated with UPA 15 mg achieved clinically meaningful efficacy responses over 24 weeks, with safety consistent with the overall bDMARD-IR patient population in the Phase 3 program.

References

[1]Rendas-Baum R, et al. Arthritis Res Ther 2011;13:R25;

[2]Genovese C, et al. Lancet 2018;391:2513–24;

[3]Rubbert-Roth A, et al. NEJM 2020;383:1511–21;

[4]Fleischmann R, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2019;78:1454–62.

Acknowledgements

AbbVie funded this study; contributed to its design; participated in data collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and participated in the writing, review, and approval of the abstract. AbbVie and the authors thank all study investigators for their contributions and the patients who participated in this study. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing support was provided by Amy Wilson, MSc, of 2 the Nth (Cheshire, UK), and was funded by AbbVie.

Disclosure of Interests

Roy M. Fleischmann Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galvani, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Biosplice, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Flexion, Gilead, Horizon, Eli Lilly, Galvani, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Selecta, Teva, UCB, Viela, and Vorso, Louis Bessette Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva, and UCB, Jeffrey Sparks Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Optum, and Pfizer, Stephen Hall Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Meyers Sqibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Meyers Sqibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, and UCB, Manish Jain Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer, Adriana Kakehasi Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, and UCB, Yanna Song Shareholder of: AbbVie (may own stock or options), Employee of: AbbVie, Sebastian Meerwein Shareholder of: AbbVie (may own stock or options), Employee of: AbbVie, Ryan DeMasi Shareholder of: AbbVie (may own stock or options), Employee of: AbbVie, Jessica Suboticki Shareholder of: AbbVie (may own stock or options), Employee of: AbbVie, Andrea Rubbert-Roth Consultant of: AbbVie, AbbVie Deutschland, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffman-La Roche, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Global Services, Novartis, and Sanofi Pasteur

POS0677 CONSISTENCY IN TIME TO RESPONSE WITH UPADACITINIB AS MONOTHERAPY OR COMBINATION THERAPY AND ACROSS PATIENT POPULATIONS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

Background

Upadacitinib (UPA) has demonstrated efficacy in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) across various patient populations.1–4

Objectives

This post hoc analysis aimed to evaluate the consistency in time to achieving meaningful clinical response with UPA 15 mg + conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs in biologic (b) DMARD-inadequate responder (IR) versus csDMARD-IR patients with RA as well as with UPA 15 mg monotherapy versus UPA 15 mg + csDMARDs in csDMARD-IR patients.

Methods

Patients originally randomized to UPA 15 mg once daily from four Phase 3 trials were included in this analysis: SELECT-BEYOND1 and SELECT-CHOICE2 (UPA 15 mg + csDMARDs in bDMARD-IR patients), SELECT-NEXT3 (UPA 15 mg + csDMARDs in csDMARD-IR patients), and SELECT-MONOTHERAPY4 (UPA 15 mg monotherapy in methotrexate-IR patients). Time to response was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method for clinical outcomes over 24 weeks (26 weeks in SELECT-MONOTHERAPY). Clinical outcomes included achievement of 28-joint Disease Activity Score with C-reactive protein (DAS28[CRP]) ≤3.2; low disease activity (LDA) defined as Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) ≤10 and Simple Disease Activity Index (SDAI) ≤11; and 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology (ACR) core components and morning stiffness (MS) duration/severity. Data presented were as observed.

Results

Overall, 905 patients were included (SELECT-BEYOND: n=164; SELECT-CHOICE: n=303; SELECT-NEXT: n=221; SELECT-MONOTHERAPY: n=217). csDMARD-IR patients had a mean disease duration of 7.3 (SELECT-NEXT) or 7.5 years (SELECT-MONOTHERAPY); bDMARD-IR patients had a mean disease duration of 12.4 years, with a more refractory population (≥3 prior bDMARDs) in SELECT-BEYOND (23%) than SELECT-CHOICE (10%). In general, the median time to DAS28(CRP) ≤3.2, CDAI LDA, 50% improvement in ACR core components, and 50% improvement in MS duration/severity were consistent across the studies in bDMARD-IR and csDMARD-IR patients. For SELECT-BEYOND, SELECT-CHOICE, SELECT-NEXT, and SELECT-MONOTHERAPY, the median (95% CI) time to achieve DAS28(CRP) ≤3.2 was 12 (12, 16), 12 (8, 12), 12 (8, 12), and 14 (8, 14) weeks, respectively (Figure 1), and the median time to achieve CDAI LDA was 20 (12, 24), 16 (12, 16), 16 (12, 16), and 20 (14, 20) weeks, respectively (Figure 2). A longer median (95% CI) time to achieve SDAI LDA was observed with UPA monotherapy (20 [14, 20] weeks) versus UPA + csDMARDs (12 [12, 16] weeks) in csDMARD-IR patients. Among bDMARD-IR patients, the median (95% CI) time to 50% improvement in pain was longer in SELECT-BEYOND versus SELECT-CHOICE (16 [12, 20] versus 8 [8, 12] weeks).

Conclusion

In diverse patient populations with RA, patients treated with UPA 15 mg, as monotherapy or with csDMARDs, generally demonstrated consistent time to achieving DAS28(CRP) ≤3.2, CDAI LDA, and 50% improvement in clinical outcomes.

References

[1]Genovese MC, et al. Lancet 2018;391:2513–24.

[2]Rubbert-Roth A, et al. N Engl J Med 2020;383:1511–21.

[3]Burmester GR, et al. Lancet 2018;391:2503–12.

[4]Smolen JS, et al. Lancet 2019;393:2303–11.

Acknowledgements

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

Disclosure of Interests

Andrea Rubbert-Roth Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi, Bernard Combe Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Gilead/Galapagos, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Chugai, and Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Gilead/Galapagos, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Chugai, and Sanofi, Zoltán Szekanecz Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gedeon Richter, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gedeon Richter, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Stephen Hall Speakers bureau: Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB; and research grants from AbbVie, Janssen, Merck, and UCB, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB; and research grants from AbbVie, Janssen, Merck, and UCB, Boulos Haraoui Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Suzan Attar: None declared, Anna-Karin H Ekwall Consultant of: AbbVie and Pfizer, Yanna Song Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Tim Shaw Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Orsolya Nagy Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Ricardo Xavier Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB

AB0333 SUSTAINABILITY OF RESPONSE TO UPADACITINIB AMONG PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS REFRACTORY TO BIOLOGICAL DISEASE-MODIFYING ANTI-RHEUMATIC DRUGS

Background

Sustained clinical remission (REM) is the primary treatment goal for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with low disease activity (LDA) being an appropriate target for treatment-refractory patients.1,2

Objectives

To evaluate the sustainability of response to the JAK inhibitor, upadacitinib (UPA) 15 mg once daily (QD), among patients with prior inadequate response or intolerance to biologic DMARDs.

Methods

Data come from the 12-week, phase 3 randomized, placebo (PBO)-controlled SELECT-BEYOND trial of UPA 15 mg or 30 mg QD in patients with moderate to severe RA on stable background conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs. Initiation, change, or discontinuation of background RA medications, including ≤2 csDMARDs, was allowed starting at Week 24. Patients completing the 12-week trial were able to enter a long-term extension of up to 5 yrs with all PBO patients switching to UPA.3 This post hoc analysis evaluated REM (CDAI ≤2.8; SDAI ≤3.3), LDA (CDAI≤10; SDAI≤11), and DAS28(CRP) <2.6/≤3.2 at first occurrence of response before Week 60, as well as at 3, 6, and 12 months following initial response in patients randomized to UPA 15 mg. For those patients who achieved REM/LDA, Kaplan-Meier was used to define the time from when the response was first achieved to the earliest date at which the response was lost at two consecutive visits or discontinuation of study drug. The predictive ability of time to REM/LDA was evaluated using Harrell’s concordance (c)-index (range: 0 to 1, where 0.5 indicates a model that is no better at predicting an outcome than random chance). The date of the last follow up was 16 April 2018, when all patients had reached the Week 60 visit. Non-responder imputation was used for missing data. Only data from the approved 15 mg dosage are reported here.

Results

In patients with active RA despite prior treatment with at least one bDMARD, 34% and 79% of those receiving UPA 15 mg + background csDMARD(s) achieved CDAI REM or LDA through Week 60, respectively. Sustained CDAI REM was attained by 30%, 26%, and 16% of patients randomized to UPA at 3, 6, and 12 months post initial response, while CDAI LDA was achieved by 68%, 61%, and 50% of patients during the same time points (Figure 1). Time to initial clinical response weakly predicted sustained REM but did not predict sustained LDA, with a c-index (95% CI) of 0.62 (0.49, 0.74) and 0.52 (0.44, 0.61), respectively. Through the last follow-up visit at Week 60, 39/61% of patients on UPA remained in CDAI REM/LDA (Figure 2). Of those who lost CDAI REM, 58% remained in CDAI LDA, and 22% recaptured REM by the cut-off date; 18% of patients who lost CDAI LDA recaptured response. Similar results were observed for REM and LDA based on SDAI and for DAS28(CRP) <2.6/≤3.2.

Conclusion

Among patients with inadequate response or intolerance to bDMARDs, over three-quarters on UPA 15 mg achieved CDAI LDA, a relevant therapeutic target for these treatment-refractory patients, and nearly two-thirds of those maintained this response through 60 weeks. Additionally, about one-third of UPA-treated patients attained CDAI REM and maintained that response over 60 weeks.

References

[1]Smolen et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79:685–99.

[2]Singh et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2016;68:1–26.

[3]Genovese, et al. Lancet 2018;391:2513–24.

Acknowledgements

AbbVie funded these studies and participated in the study design, research, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, reviewing, and approval of the publication. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing support was provided by Matthew Eckwahl, PhD, of AbbVie.

Disclosure of Interests

Ronald van Vollenhoven Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Biotest, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Medac, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Arthrogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GSK, Pfizer, and UCB, Stephen Hall Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB, and Novartis., Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB, and Novartis., Alvin F. Wells Consultant of: AbbVie, Sebastian Meerwein Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Yanna Song Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Jessica Suboticki Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Roy M. Fleischmann Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis and UCB

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

Background

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

Objectives

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

References

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

Disclosure of Interests

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

AB0759 Efficacy of secukinumab in patients with non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis: analysis by symptom duration and age

Background

Patients (pts) with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) often experience delayed diagnosis, which can lead to treatment delay1. However, earlier diagnosis and treatment of axSpA pts can lead to a greater clinical response2. Secukinumab (SEC) 150 mg has demonstrated sustained improvement in signs and symptoms over 2 years in non-radiographic (nr)-axSpA pts3.

Objectives

To assess the efficacy of SEC in pts with nr-axSpA [tumour necrosis factor (TNF) naïve] by subgroups of younger versus (vs) older pts and early vs late symptom duration of back pain.

Methods

PREVENT (NCT02696031) is a phase 3, randomised study in pts with nr-axSpA and detailed study design is reported previously4. In this post hoc analysis, efficacy outcomes including Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society 40 (ASAS40), ASAS partial remission (ASAS PR), Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score-C-reactive protein (ASDAS-CRP) inactive disease (ID) and low disease activity (LDA), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), and the proportion of pts meeting the minimal clinically important difference criteria for total back pain (improvement of ≥50%) were assessed in the TNF naïve population. Age categories included 4 approximately equally distributed age groups (18 to 33, 34 to 42, 43 to 51 and ≥52 years). The categories for time since onset of back pain as a surrogate of disease symptoms and sign, was based on patients’ distribution and the hypothesis that patients with shorter disease duration will present better results (≤2, >2 to 5, >5 to 10 and >10 years). Missing responses were imputed as non-response up to Week (Wk) 16 and reported as observed at Wks 52 and 104. Data is presented here for categories 18-33 vs ≥52 years and patients with symptom duration ≤2 vs >10 years.

Results

At Wk 104, greater improvements in ASAS40 scores were reported in younger (18-33 years) vs older age categories (>52 years) treated with SEC and also in patients with shorter disease duration (≤2 years) when compared to long term disease (Figure 1 and Table 1).

Table 1.

Efficacy responses with SEC up to Week 104 based on age and symptom duration

Age 18-33 yearsAge >52 years≤2 years of back pain>10 years of back painSEC 150 mg LD (N=61)SEC 150 mg NL (N=59)PBO (N=61)SEC 150 mg LD (N=25)SEC 150 mg NL (N=33)PBO (N=28)SEC 150mg LD (N=51)SEC 150 mg NL (N=33)PBO (N=47)SEC 150 mg LD (N=50)SEC 150 mg NL (N=46)PBO (N=49)ASDAS-CRP ID and LDA50.8*55.9*34.4*36.0*39.4*21.4*51.0*48.5*40.4*44.0*30.4*26.5*77.4#81.1#72.2#45.8#46.7#33.3#77.3#60.0#77.3#53.3#48.7#37.2#71.7†70.2†77.6†50.0†57.1†60.9†74.4†69.2†82.1†55.3†53.3†53.8†BASDAI 5045.9*47.5*27.9*28.0*36.4*17.9*45.1*51.5*29.8*34.0*23.9*20.4*77.8#71.7#72.2#37.5#53.3#37.0#75.6#60.0#75.0#46.7#46.2#43.2#73.5†72.3†77.6†47.6†60.9†52.2†78.0†65.4†76.9†53.8†53.1†51.3†ASAS PR29.5*32.2*8.2*12.0*12.1*7.1*27.5*24.2*8.5*18.0*10.9*12.2*41.5#50.9#38.9#12.5#20.0#22.2#45.5#40.0#38.6#22.2#23.1#20.5#46.9†44.7†59.2†23.8†31.8†21.7†56.1†34.6†46.2†25.6†25.8†23.1†Total back pain50.8*50.8*27.9*24.0*30.3*32.1*51.0*48.5*36.2*32.0*23.9*32.7*74.1#75.5#72.2#58.3#46.7#44.4#73.3#63.3#72.7#53.3#48.7#47.7#71.4†68.1†79.6†61.9†52.2†52.2†75.6†69.2†74.4†61.5†50.0†59.0†

Data is presented as % of responders. Symbols are used to denote the Weeks. *Week 16; #Week 52; †Week 104

. All patients received open-label SEC 150 mg treatment after Week 52 up to Week 104

. ASDAS-CRP ID and LDA (ASDAS-CRP <2.1); Total back pain improvement ≥50%

. LD, loading dose; NL, without loading; PBO, placebo

Conclusion

Efficacy responses were numerically higher with SEC in patients with nr-axSpA with shorter symptom duration and in younger age. These data suggest that earlier treatment improves patient outcomes in nr-axSpA.

References

[1]Lapane KL, et al. BMC Fam Pract. 2021;22(1):251

[2]Poddubnyy D, Sieper J. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2020;22(9):47

[3]Poddubnyy D, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021;80 (suppl1):707

[4]Deodhar A et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021;73(1):110-120

Disclosure of Interests

Atul Deodhar Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Glaxo Smith & Kline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Glaxo Smith & Kline, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Denis Poddubnyy Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Roche, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Roche, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Ricardo Blanco Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Pfizer, Roche, Bristol-Myers, Janssen, UCB pharma, MSD and Lilly, Consultant of: AbbVie, Pfizer, Roche, Bristol-Myers, Janssen, UCB pharma and MSD, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, and Roche, Stephen Hall Speakers bureau: Novartis, Merck, Janssen, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and UCB, Consultant of: Novartis, Merck, Janssen, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, UCB, Janssen, and Merck, Marina Magrey Consultant of: Eli Lily, Novartis, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, UCB and Amgen, Erhard Quebe-Fehling Shareholder of: Shareholder of Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Renato Calheiros Shareholder of: Shareholder of Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Patricia Pertel Shareholder of: Shareholder of Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Helena Marzo-Ortega Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Biogen, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Moonlake, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Grant/research support from: Janssen, Novartis and UCB

Adjunctive therapeutic strategies in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder resistant to serotonin reuptake inhibitors: a literature review

Introduction

Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) is a common mental disorder and a major cause of disability worldwide. Typically, it has a chronic course, marked by recurrent intrusive thoughts (obsessions) and repetitive behaviors (compulsions). Its pharmacological first line of treatment has been well established for several years now, with the Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SRIs). However, about half of the patients are resistant to this approach, representing a therapeutic challenge for clinicians. Evidence suggests that other medications can augment SRIs, enhancing its effects and achieving a bigger efficacy in these patients’ treatment. Also, there is an increasing interest in neurosurgical interventions in these patients.

Objectives

The main goal of this work was to assess the clinical efficacy of adjunctive therapeutic strategies in patients with OCD resistant to SRIs.

Methods

A literature review was conducted searching PubMed and ScienceDirect databases from the 1st of January 2000 to the 1st of September 2021 to identify clinical trials comparing an active drug/neurosurgical intervention with placebo as an adjunctive therapeutic strategy in SRI-resistant OCD.

Results

Sixteen studies were selected for data extraction, including a total of 585 patients. Risperidone, aripiprazole, N-acetylcysteine, lamotrigine, pindolol, riluzole, memantine and methylphenidate were efficacious for augmenting SRIs in OCD. Ablative surgery (ABL) and deep brain stimulation (DBS) were equal effective in the treatment of refractory OCD.

Conclusions

Several therapeutic options presented as potentially effective in OCD when it is resistant to SRIs, although this is still an area for further research.

Disclosure

No significant relationships.

POS0693 IMPACT OF UPADACITINIB VERSUS ABATACEPT ON INDIVIDUAL DISEASE OUTCOMES IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS AND INADEQUATE RESPONSES TO BIOLOGIC DMARDS

Background

The phase 3 SELECT-CHOICE trial of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and prior inadequate response to biologic DMARD(s) (bDMARD-IR) demonstrated superiority of the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib (UPA) vs abatacept (ABA) in the mean change from baseline (BL) in DAS28(CRP) and in the proportion achieving DAS28(CRP) <2.6 at week (wk) 12, with higher incidence of serious adverse events reported in the UPA treatment group.

Objectives

To evaluate the impact of UPA vs ABA on individual components of composite measures of disease activity in SELECT-CHOICE.

Methods

In SELECT-CHOICE, a double-blind phase 3 trial, bDMARD-IR patients were randomly assigned to UPA 15 mg once daily or ABA, each with background conventional synthetic DMARDs, for 24 wks. For this post hoc analysis, the proportions of patients achieving improvement from BL through wk 24 in ACR core variables (including SJC, TJC, Patient Global Assessment [PtGA], Physician Global Assessment [PhGA], pain, HAQ-DI, and hsCRP) and Boolean remission criteria were evaluated. Differences in the cumulative distributions of CDAI, DAS28(hsCRP), SDAI, and ACR-n (the lowest of percent change in TJC, percent change in SJC, or median of the other 5 ACR components) were determined using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and are reported as observed. For all other variables, non-responder imputation was applied for missing data. Nominal P values are provided throughout.

Results

A total of 616 bDMARD-IR patients with moderate to severe RA were randomized in SELECT-CHOICE (UPA 15 mg, n=303; ABA, n=309). BL demographic and disease characteristics were generally comparable between treatment groups, with a mean disease duration of approximately 12 years and mean CDAI of 39.6. At wk 12, more patients receiving UPA vs ABA achieved ≥50% improvements from BL in TJC68, PtGA, and hsCRP, with comparable proportions observed between UPA and ABA for the remaining ACR components (Figure 1). At wk 24, similar proportions of patients receiving UPA and ABA achieved ≥50% improvements in all but the hsCRP component. Overall, 15% and 26% of patients on UPA compared with 6% and 15% on ABA demonstrated ≥50% improvements across all ACR components at wks 12 and 24, respectively. At wks 12 and 24, Boolean remission was achieved by 6% and 14% of patients on UPA vs 2% and 10% of patients on ABA, respectively; the proportion of patients in both treatment groups achieving the individual Boolean components were also reported (Table 1). While comparable at BL, cumulative distributions of CDAI, SDAI, DAS28(hsCRP), and ACR-n were improved on UPA vs ABA at wk 12 (all nominal P <0.05); differences persisted for most measures at wk 24.

Table 1.

Proportions of Patients Achieving Boolean Remission and Its Components at Week 12 and 24 (NRI)

Week 12Week 24n (%)UPA 15 mgABAUPA 15 mgABA(N=303)(N=309)(N=303)(N=309)Boolean Remission19 (6)***5 (2)42 (14)*30 (10) PtGA ≤1054 (18)***29 (9)80 (26)*66 (21) TJC ≤189 (29)***64 (21)134 (44)*115 (37) SJC ≤1127 (42)**106 (34)169 (56)*152 (49) hsCRP ≤1 mg/dL257 (85)***209 (68)244 (81)***199 (64)

Nominal ***P <.001, **P <.01, *P <.05 for UPA vs ABA. ABA, abatacept; PtGA, Patient’s Global Assessment of disease severity; UPA, upadacitinib.

Conclusion

In this post hoc analysis of bDMARD-IR RA patients, improvements in components of disease measures were reported for both UPA and ABA through 24 weeks, with numeric differences noted for several components. Nominally higher attainment of Boolean remission and its components were observed for UPA over ABA.

References

[1]Rubbert-Roth A, et al. N Engl J Med 2020; 383:1511-21.

Acknowledgements

AbbVie and the authors thank the patients, study sites, and investigators who participated in these clinical trials. AbbVie funded these studies and participated in the study design, research, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, reviewing, and approval of the publication. All authors had access to relevant data and participated in the drafting, review, and approval of this publication. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing support was provided by Matthew Eckwahl, PhD, of AbbVie.

Disclosure of Interests

Ronald van Vollenhoven Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Galapagos, GSK, Janssen, Pfizer, R-Pharma, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Biogen, BMS, Galapagos, Janssen, Miltenyi, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: Research: BMS, GSK, UCB; Educational programs: MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Andrea Rubbert-Roth Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB, BMS, Lilly, Gilead, Roche, Consultant of: AbbVie, Gilead, Lilly, BMS, Sanofi, R-Pharm, Stephen Hall Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB, Novartis, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB, Novartis, Ricardo Xavier Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Anna Shmagel Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Yanna Song Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Samuel Anyanwu Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Vibeke Strand Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chemocentryx, BMS, Celltrion, Lilly, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ichnos, Inmedix, Janssen, Kiniksa, Lilly, Merck, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Rheos, R-Pharma, Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi, Scipher, Setpoint, Sorrento, Spherix, UCB

Evaluating the Response of Palbociclib on Progression Free Survival in Hormone Receptor Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

In patients with hormone receptor positive metastatic breast cancer, Palbociclib has been shown to improve overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) when combined with endocrine therapy. Dose modification of palbociclib is effective in the management of adverse events. Despite variable clinical response, no predictive biomarkers of efficacy to palbociclib have been identified in metastatic breast cancer. In our study, we aimed to assess the PFS of metastatic breast cancer patients who received dose-reduced palbociclib and compare the results in the non-dose reduced group. We also evaluated the clinical significance of progesterone receptor (PR) and Ki67 as predictive biomarkers of palbociclib.

METHODS

Seventy-six palbociclib-treated metastatic breast cancer patients were included in our study. PFS was compared between dose reduced and non-dose reduced groups. PR expression and Ki67 status were assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test were used to analyze PFS.

RESULTS

Of the 76 patients, 40 (52.6%) experienced dose reduction. Statistical analysis of the results revealed that there were no statistically significant differences observed between dose-reduced (16.5 months) vs non-dose reduced (17.7 months) patients in PFS (p=0.5493). For patients with Ki67 ≥ 14%, PFS was 15.2 months (95% CI: 10.2 to 22.2 months; p= 0.3024). In patients with PR ≥ 20%, median PFS was 25.0 months (lower 95% CI: 16.8 months; p=0.0069).

CONCLUSION

Our study indicated that dose reduction of palbociclib is frequently required but does not appear to affect PFS. PR expression was suggested to be a significant predictive factor for palbociclib responsiveness.

Therapeutic Intervention Using a Smad7-Based Tat Protein to Treat Radiation-Induced Oral Mucositis

PURPOSE

Recent studies reported therapeutic effects of Smad7 on oral mucositis in mice without compromising radiation therapy-induced cancer cell killing in neighboring oral cancer. This study aims to assess whether a Smad7-based biologic can treat oral mucositis in a clinically relevant setting by establishing an oral mucositis model in dogs and analyzing molecular targets.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We created a truncated human Smad7 protein fused with the cell-penetrating Tat tag (Tat-PYC-Smad7). We used intensity modulated radiation therapy to induce oral mucositis in dogs and applied Tat-PYC-Smad7 to the oral mucosa in dose-finding studies after intensity modulated radiation therapy. Clinical outcomes were evaluated. Molecular targets were analyzed in biopsies and serum samples.

RESULTS

Tat-PYC-Smad7 treatment significantly shortened the duration of grade 3 oral mucositis based on double-blinded Veterinary Radiation Therapy Oncology Group scores and histopathology evaluations. Topically applied Tat-PYC-Smad7 primarily penetrated epithelial cells and was undetectable in serum. NanoString nCounter Canine IO Panel identified that, compared to the vehicle samples, top molecular changes in Tat-PYC-Smad7 treated samples include reductions in inflammation and cell death and increases in cell growth and DNA repair. Consistently, immunostaining shows that Tat-PYC-Smad7 reduced DNA damage and neutrophil infiltration with attenuated TGF-β and NFκB signaling. Furthermore, IL-1β and TNF-α were lower in Tat-PYC-Smad7 treated mucosa and serum samples compared to those in vehicle controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Topical Tat-PYC-Smad7 application demonstrated therapeutic effects on oral mucositis induced by intensity modulated radiation therapy in dogs. The local effects of Tat-PYC-Smad7 targeted molecules involved in oral mucositis pathogenesis as well as reduced systemic inflammatory cytokines.

An atrioventricular septal defect with an Ebsteinoid right atrioventricular valve

Funding Acknowledgements

Type of funding sources: None.

The combination of an atrioventricular septal defect (AVSD) with an Ebsteinoid atrioventricular valve is incredibly rare with only a handful of cases being described in the literature (1, 2). In this poster we describe the diagnosis of this anatomy in a neonate born at our centre.

The baby was antenatally diagnosed with a chromosome 8p23.1 microdeletion which is associated with congenital heart disease and developmental delay (3). Although fetal echo had revealed a high suspicion of congenital heart disease, maternal BMI had prevented a precise diagnosis. The baby was born in good condition at thirty-nine weeks gestation weighing 2.4kg. She had been admitted to the neonatal unit where she was self-ventilating in room air with saturations above 90%. The echocardiogram was performed at one hour of age.

The initial echo revealed a normal atrial arrangement with the heart in the left chest and the apex pointing to the left. There was normal pulmonary and systemic venous drainage. There was a complete AVSD with sizeable atrial and ventricular components. The left atrioventricular valve was dysplastic with at least moderate regurgitation. The right atrioventricular valve was displaced caudally and rotated into the right ventricular outflow tract. The right atrioventricular valve was also regurgitant. The right ventricle above the displaced atrioventricular valve was atrialized with the true right ventricle limited to the outlet portion. The great arteries were normally related. The ventricular component of the AVSD opened into the sub-pulmonary area along with two smaller muscular ventricular septal defects.

These findings raised many clinical concerns including the insufficiency of the right ventricle to support a biventricular repair. Similarly, the severe left atrioventricular valve regurgitation precluded single ventricle palliative surgical techniques. After discussion between the multidisciplinary team and a second opinion sought from another centre, the family was counselled that this was a complex and life limiting form of congenital heart disease. Although surgical options were discussed with the family, the family opted for comfort care and the baby passed away at three weeks of age.

Image 1: A complete AVSD with an Ebsteinoid right atrioventricular valve displaced caudally (a) resulting in an atrialized right ventricle (b). In addition, the left atrioventricular valve which straddles the ventricular septum is severely dysplastic (c) and regurgitant (d). Abstract Figure. Image 1: An Ebsteinoid AVSD

Facilitators to vaccination among hesitant adopters

To end the COVID-19 pandemic, it is essential to increase vaccine coverage in the United States (U.S.). In this study, we examine the facilitators that helped hesitant adopters - those who are both vaccinated and report some degree of hesitancy - overcome barriers to vaccination. Drawing on a sample of 867 hesitant adopters in Arkansas, we find social networks, individual actions, health care organizations and professionals, employers, religious communities and leaders, and the media all play a role in helping the vaccine hesitant overcome barriers to vaccination. Our findings demonstrate vaccine hesitancy and uptake occur simultaneously, and overcoming hesitancy in the U.S. population requires multifaceted strategies from multiple entities. We provide recommendations for overcoming barriers, including hesitancy, based on our findings.

Trusted Sources of COVID-19 Vaccine Information among Hesitant Adopters in the United States

The World Health Organization has identified vaccine hesitancy as a top health concern. Emerging research shows that those who are hesitant may still get vaccinated; however, little is known about those who say they are hesitant but still get vaccinated. Most people have high trust in several sources of COVID-19 information, and trust in certain information sources such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and health care providers was associated with being vaccinated. This study explored trusted information sources among hesitant adopters in the United States with a survey respondents completed while waiting after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine dose. The study included (n = 867) respondents. The majority of respondents were female (60.21%); were between the ages of 18 and 44 years old (71.97%); and were diverse, with most identifying as White (44.54%) or Hispanic/Latinx (32.55%). Hesitant adopters reported multiple trusted sources of COVID-19 vaccine information, which can be grouped into four emergent subthemes: (1) Health care/Medical science, (2) Personal relationships, (3) News and social media, and (4) Individual/Myself. Some respondents expressed a distrust of all sources of COVID-19 vaccine information, despite receiving the vaccine, describing a lack of trust in traditional sources of information such as the mainstream media or government. This study contributes to the literature by documenting trusted sources of COVID-19 vaccine information among hesitant adopters in the United States. Findings provide important insights about respondents' trusted sources of COVID-19 vaccine information that can inform future public health messaging campaigns intended to increase vaccine uptake among hesitant adopters.

Early medical abortion by telemedicine in the United Kingdom: a costing analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the potential cost savings resulting from the introduction of routine early medical abortion (EMA) at home by telemedicine in the UK.

DESIGN

A costing study.

SETTING

The UK.

POPULATION

Women in 2020 undergoing EMA provided by three independent abortion providers and two National Health Service (NHS) abortion clinics.

METHODS

Computation of the costs of each abortion procedure and of managing failed or incomplete abortion and haemorrhage requiring blood transfusion.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Cost savings.

RESULTS

Overall estimated cost savings are £15.80 per abortion undertaken by independent abortion providers, representing a saving to the NHS of over £3 million per year. Limited data from NHS services resulted in an estimated average saving of £188.84 per abortion.

CONCLUSIONS

Were telemedicine EMA to become routine, an increase in the number of women eligible for medical rather than surgical abortion, and a reduction in adverse events resulting from earlier abortion, could result in significant cost savings.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Early medical abortion at home using telemedicine could save the NHS £3 million per year.

POS0222 PREDICTORS OF RESPONSE: BASELINE CHARACTERISTICS AND EARLY TREATMENT RESPONSES ASSOCIATED WITH ACHIEVEMENT OF REMISSION AND LOW DISEASE ACTIVITY AMONG UPADACITINIB-TREATED PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

Background:

Upadacitinib (UPA) 15 mg once daily (QD) has demonstrated efficacy in phase 3 studies of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).1–4 Early prediction of response to treatment with UPA could help to optimize therapy.

Objectives:

To identify baseline (BL) characteristics or Week (Wk) 12 disease activity measures that may predict the achievement of remission (REM) or low disease activity (LDA) at 6 months in patients with RA receiving UPA 15 mg.

Methods:

This ad hoc analysis included patients who were randomized to UPA 15 mg QD, as monotherapy in methotrexate (MTX)-naïve patients (SELECT-EARLY) or in combination with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), in patients with an inadequate response (IR) to MTX (SELECT-COMPARE) or ≥1 tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) (SELECT-BEYOND and SELECT-CHOICE). The association of BL characteristics (including age, disease duration, prior/concomitant treatments, C-reactive protein [CRP], seropositivity, and disease activity) and Wk 12 disease activity parameters with the achievement of Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) REM (≤2.8) or LDA (≤10) at Wk 24 (or Wk 26 in SELECT-COMPARE) was assessed by concordance statistics (C-statistics), or area under the receiver operator characteristic curve. C-index values and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by fitting a univariate logistic regression model for: demographic and BL characteristics, Wk 12 disease activity measures, and change from BL at Wk 12 in disease activity measures. A multivariate logistic regression with stepwise model selection was also performed. The proportion of patients achieving Wk 24/26 CDAI REM/LDA was stratified by ≥50% improvement from BL in swollen and/or tender joint count in 66/68 joints (SJC66/TJC68).

Results:

A total of 1377 patients were included in the analysis. Across the 4 studies, CDAI REM and LDA were achieved in 11.0–28.4% and 50.0–58.6% of patients, respectively (Table 1). BL demographics and disease characteristics were weakly predictive (C-index <0.70) of Wk 24/26 CDAI REM (C-index 0.49–0.69) or LDA (C-index 0.47–0.65), with the exception of BL Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index in SELECT-BEYOND, which was moderately predictive of CDAI REM (C-index 0.73). Changes from BL in disease activity measures at Wk 12 were weakly or moderately predictive of Wk 24/26 CDAI REM (Figure 1) or LDA. CDAI value at Wk 12 was strongly predictive (C-index >0.80) of Wk 24/26 CDAI REM or LDA. Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using CRP and pain at Wk 12 were strongly predictive of Wk 24/26 CDAI REM (except in SELECT-CHOICE). Physician’s global assessment at Wk 12 was the only common predictor in the multivariate regression models for CDAI REM/LDA at Wk 24/26 across the 4 studies. A greater proportion of patients achieving ≥50% improvement in SJC66 and TJC68 at Wk 12 achieved CDAI REM (16.5–37.8% vs 0–9.4%) or LDA (66.0–72.8% vs 20.9–35.7%) at Wk 24/26 than those who did not.

Table 1.

Achievement of CDAI LDA and REM at Wk 24/26a

SELECT-EARLYSELECT-COMPARESELECT-BEYONDSELECT-CHOICEPatient populationMTX-naïveMTX-IRTNFi-IRTNFi-IRTreatmentUPA 15 mg monotherapy (n=317)UPA 15 mg + MTX(n=651)UPA 15 mg + csDMARD(n=146)UPA 15 mg + csDMARD(n=263)Efficacy at Wk 24/26a, n (%)CDAI REM (≤2.8)90 (28.4)150 (23.0)16 (11.0)60 (22.8)CDAI LDA (≤10)178 (56.2)343 (52.7)73 (50.0)154 (58.6)

a Wk 26 for SELECT-COMPARE only

Conclusion:

BL characteristics did not strongly predict response to UPA, but composite disease activity scores at Wk 12 predicted Wk 24/26 REM/LDA with UPA 15 mg QD across MTX-naïve, MTX-IR, and TNFi-IR patients. ≥50% improvement in SJC/TJC at Wk 12 was also associated with Wk 24/26 REM/LDA.

References:

[1]van Vollenhoven R, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2020;72:1607–20; 2. Genovese MC, et al. Lancet 2018;391:2513–24; 3. Fleischmann R, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2019;71:1788–800; 4. Rubbert-Roth A, et al. N Engl J Med 2020;383:1511–21.

Acknowledgements:

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

Disclosure of Interests:

Arthur Kavanaugh Consultant of: Janssen, Grant/research support from: Janssen, Zoltán Szekanecz: None declared, Edward C. Keystone Speakers bureau: Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biotest, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Consultant of: Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biotest, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biotest, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Andrea Rubbert-Roth Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi, Stephen Hall Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Ricardo Xavier: None declared, Joaquim Polido-Pereira: None declared, In-Ho Song Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Naomi Martin Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Yanna Song Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Samuel Anyanwu Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Peter Nash Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB.

POS0900 SECUKINUMAB 150 MG PROVIDES SUSTAINED IMPROVEMENT IN SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS OF NON-RADIOGRAPHIC AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS: 2-YEAR RESULTS FROM THE PREVENT STUDY

Background:

Axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) is an inflammatory disease characterised by chronic back pain, and it comprises radiographic axSpA and non-radiographic axSpA (nr-axSpA).1 Secukinumab (SEC) 150 mg, with (LD) or without loading (NL), dose significantly improved the signs and symptoms of patients with nr-axSpA in the PREVENT (NCT02696031) study through Week 52.2

Objectives:

To report the long-term clinical efficacy and safety of secukinumab from the PREVENT study through 2 years.

Methods:

A detailed study design, key primary and secondary endpoints have been reported previously.2 In total, 555 patients fulfilling ASAS criteria for axSpA plus abnormal C-reactive protein (CRP) and/or MRI, without evidence of radiographic changes in sacroiliac (SI) joints according to modified New York Criteria for AS were randomised (1:1:1) to receive SEC 150 mg with LD, NL, or placebo (PBO) at baseline. LD patients received SEC 150 mg at Weeks 1, 2, 3, and 4, and then every 4 weeks (q4wk) starting at Week 4. NL patients received SEC 150 mg at baseline and PBO at weeks 1, 2, and 3, and then 150 mg q4wk. 90% patients were anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) naïve, 57% had elevated CRP and 73% had evidence of SI joint inflammation on MRI. All images were assessed centrally before inclusion. All patients continued to receive open-label SEC 150 mg treatment after Week 52. Efficacy assessments through Week 104 included ASAS40 in anti-TNF-naïve patients, ASAS40, BASDAI change from baseline, BASDAI50, ASAS partial remission, and ASDAS-CRP inactive disease in the overall population. The safety analyses included all patients who received ≥1 dose of study treatment for the entire treatment period up to Week 104. Data are presented as observed.

Results:

Overall, 438 patients completed 104 weeks of study: 78.9% (146/185; LD), 77.7% (143/184; NL) and 80.1% (149/186; PBO). Efficacy results at Week 52 were sustained through Week 104 and are reported in the Table 1. The safety profile was consistent with the previous reports with no deaths reported during the entire treatment period up to Week 104.2

Conclusion:

Secukinumab 150 mg demonstrated sustained improvement in the signs and symptoms of patients with nr-axSpA through 2 years. Secukinumab was well tolerated with no new or unexpected safety signals.

References:

[1]Strand V, et al. J Clin Rheumatol. 2017; 23(7):383–91.

[2]Deodhar A, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020. Online ahead of print.

Figure 1.

ASAS40 response was maintained through Week 104 in the overall population

Table 1.

Summary of clinical efficacy (Observed data)

EndpointsWeekSEC 150 mg LD(N=185)SEC 150 mg NL(N=184)PBO-SEC 150 mg(N=186)*ASAS40 in anti-TNF-naïve patients, n/M (%)52a90/137 (65.7)95/145 (65.5)85/151 (56.3)10478/123 (63.4)83/123 (67.5)83/134 (61.9)BASDAI change from baseline, mean±SD52a−3.7±2.8−3.7±2.6−3.3±2.4104−4.1±2.6−3.9±2.6−3.7±2.5BASDAI50, n/M (%)52a90/153 (58.8)92/163 (56.4)90/161 (55.9)10488/137 (64.2)84/136 (61.8)87/142 (61.3)ASAS partial remission,n/M (%)52a46/152 (30.3)56/163 (34.4)46/161 (28.6)10451/137 (37.2)50/135 (37.0)50/142 (35.2)ASDAS CRP inactive disease, n/M (%)52a49/152 (32.2)58/163 (35.6)48/160 (30.0)10450/132 (37.9)53/133 (39.8)53/142 (37.3)

*For anti-TNF-naïve patients, N=164, LD; 166, NL; 171, PBO-SEC.

a total number of evaluable patients including open-label SEC and standard of care (SOC; 2 patients in LD, 1 patient in NL continued on SOC). After Week 52, only patients who continued to receive open-label SEC are presented.

ASAS, Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society; ASDAS, Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score; BASDAI, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index; M, number of patients with evaluation; N, total randomised patients; n, number of patients who are responders; SD, standard deviation

Disclosure of Interests:

Denis Poddubnyy Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biocad, BMS, Eli Lilly, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Atul Deodhar Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myer Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Xenofon Baraliakos Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Galapagos, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie and Novartis, Ricardo Blanco Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Pfizer, Roche, Bristol-Myers, Janssen, UCB pharma and MSD and Eli Lilly, Consultant of: AbbVie, Pfizer, Roche, Bristol-Myers, Janssen, UCB pharma and MSD, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, and Roche, Eva Dokoupilova Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Affibody AB, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Hexal AG, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, R-Pharm, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB, Stephen Hall Speakers bureau: Novartis, Merck, Janssen, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and UCB, Consultant of: Novartis, Merck, Janssen, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, UCB, Janssen, and Merck, Alan Kivitz Shareholder of: Pfizer, Sanofi, Novartis, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Speakers bureau: Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Genzyme, Flexion, AbbVie, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Flexion, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, Regeneron, SUN Pharma Advanced Research, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Marleen G.H. van de Sande Speakers bureau: Novartis, MSD, Consultant of: Abbvie, Novartis, Eli Lily, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Eli Lilly, Janssen, UCB, Anna Stefanska Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Patricia Pertel Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Hanno Richards Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Juergen Braun Speakers bureau: Abbvie (Abbott), Amgen, BMS, Boehringer, Celgene, Celltrion, Centocor, Chugai, EBEWE Pharma, Medac, MSD (Schering-Plough), Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer (Wyeth), Roche, Sanofi-Aventis and UCB pharma, Eli Lilly, Consultant of: Abbvie (Abbott), Amgen, BMS, Boehringer, Celgene, Celltrion, Centocor, Chugai, EBEWE Pharma, Medac, MSD (Schering-Plough), Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer (Wyeth), Roche, Sanofi-Aventis and UCB, Eli Lilly, Grant/research support from: Abbvie (Abbott), Amgen, BMS, Boehringer, Celgene, Celltrion, Centocor, Chugai, Medac, MSD (Schering-Plough), Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer (Wyeth), Roche, Sanofi-Aventis and UCB, Eli Lilly