Systematic review of the patient burden of generalised myasthenia gravis in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa

BACKGROUND

Myasthenia gravis (MG) is a rare autoimmune disease characterised by muscle weakness, and progression from ocular (oMG) to generalised (gMG) symptoms results in a substantial negative impact on quality of life (QoL). This systematic review aimed to provide an overview of the patient burden experienced by people living with gMG.

METHODS

Electronic database searches (conducted March 2022), supplemented by interrogation of grey literature, were conducted to identify studies reporting patient burden outcomes in patients with gMG in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. Results were synthesised narratively due to the heterogeneity across trials.

RESULTS

In total, 39 patient burden publications (representing 38 unique studies) were identified as relevant for inclusion in the systematic review, consisting of 37 publications reporting formal patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and two publications describing alternative qualitative assessments of patient experience. The studies included a variety of measures including generic and disease-specific PROMs, as well as symptom-specific PROMs focusing on key comorbidities including depression, anxiety, fatigue and sleep disturbance. The findings showed some variation across studies and PROMs; however, in general there was evidence for worse QoL in patients with gMG than in healthy controls or in patients with oMG, and a trend for worsening QoL with increasing MG severity.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights the importance of considering patient QoL when developing and assessing treatment and management plans for patients with gMG. However, the heterogeneity identified across studies illustrates the need for further representative and well-powered studies in large cohorts administering consistent, validated questionnaires.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The protocol for this systematic review was registered in PROSPERO: CRD42022328444.

POS1055 IDENTIFICATION OF PsA PHENOTYPES WITH MACHINE LEARNING ANALYTICS USING DATA FROM A PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIAL PROGRAMME OF GUSELKUMAB IN A BIO-NAÏVE PATIENT POPULATION

Background

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is typically described by its individual domains or clinical components.1,2

Objectives

This post hoc analysis aimed to identify hypothesis-free phenotype clusters according to patients’ clinical features and baseline (BL) characteristics with data from the Phase 3 DISCOVER-1 and -2 guselkumab (GUS) clinical trials.

Methods

Data from bio-naïve patients with PsA treated with GUS 100 mg every 4 or 8 weeks in DISCOVER-1 and -2 were retrospectively analysed. Non-negative matrix factorisation was used as an unsupervised machine learning technique to identify clusters of PsA phenotypes, with BL characteristics and clinical observations as input features, according to which clusters were described.

Results

Data from 661 patients were pooled and 8 distinct clusters of PsA phenotypes identified (Table 1). Cluster 1 was characterised by lower limb involvement and the lowest rates of severe skin involvement (Figure 1); Cluster 2 by high skin involvement, the lowest proportion of women and highest proportion of overweight patients (body mass index [BMI] 25–<30, 70%); and Cluster 3 by high burden of disease in the hand/wrist. In Cluster 4 all patients had dactylitis and ≥3% body surface area (BSA) psoriasis involvement and the second highest proportion of men. Cluster 5 had the highest BL enthesitis rate; large joint involvement was also common. Cluster 6 had a high level of small joint involvement in the hands/feet, but low mean dactylitis score; nail involvement and BL enthesitis were also common. In Cluster 7, all patients had axial involvement at BL, 49.4% had dactylitis, 69.9% had enthesitis and most had BSA ≥3% (Figure 1). Cluster 8 had limited joint involvement, extensive skin involvement and the highest proportion of obese patients (BMI >30, 67%). Minimal disease activity (MDA) response rates at Week (W)24 and W52 were highest in Cluster 2 and lowest in Cluster 5. Clusters 3 and 4 had low MDA response rates at W24, increasing at W52.

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics of PsA phenotype clusters.

Cluster 1Cluster 2Cluster 3Cluster 4Cluster 5Cluster 6Cluster 7Cluster 8Feet dominantMale, overweight, psoriasis burdenHand dominantDactylitis dominantEnthesitis and large jointsEnthesitis and small jointsAxial dominantFemale, obese, large jointsRandomised and treated patients, n791259538576083124Age, years45.8 (10.4)45.8 (13.2)48.9 (11.8)44.8 (12.3)43.6 (13.3)45.8 (11.6)43.8 (10.4)47.5 (11.1)Female %54.420.060.026.364.941.736.161.3BMI, kg/m229.3 (5.4)27.4 (3.6)29.3 (6.1)26.9 (4.6)28.6 (7.5)29.0 (6.2)28.4 (6.9)32.1 (6.5)CRP, mg/dL1.7 (1.8)1.7 (2.0)1.4 (2.3)2.5 (2.8)1.7 (1.9)1.7 (1.8)2.2 (3.1)1.5 (1.8)Disease duration, years5.0 (5.3)5.1 (4.8)5.8 (6.5)6.1 (5.5)6.8 (7.6)6.1 (5.6)4.7 (4.6)5.2 (6.7)SJC, 0–6613.2 (7.1)8.2 (3.8)15.0 (8.0)18.0 (10.1)10.1 (5.1)17.5 (11.8)9.0 (4.2)8.8 (3.9)TJC, 0–6823.4 (10.1)12.8 (5.9)26.0 (12.0)30.6 (15.3)23.2 (12.6)37.5 (18.6)14.6 (6.5)12.7 (5.2)BSA, %12.6 (19.4)20.7 (19.8)14.8 (19.5)29.7 (26.4)14.6 (21.6)14.5 (18.4)15.2 (19.4)14.4 (15.7)Dactylitis %48.130.442.1100.036.853.349.431.5Dactylitis score3.0 (4.8)1.4 (3.2)2.7 (4.8)27.5 (12.3)2.3 (5.2)3.9 (6.8)2.2 (2.9)1.3 (2.5)Enthesitis %70.949.658.981.696.573.369.945.2LEI score2.0 (1.7)1.0 (1.3)1.7 (1.8)2.9 (1.9)4.2 (1.6)2.7 (2.3)1.3 (1.2)1.0 (1.3)

Data shown are mean (standard deviation) or %. Bold font indicates differentiating features of individual clusters. BMI, body mass index; BSA, body surface area; CRP, C-reactive protein; LEI, Leeds Enthesitis Index; PsA, psoriatic arthritis; SJC, swollen joint count; TJC, tender joint count.

Conclusion

Unsupervised machine learning identified 8 clusters of PsA phenotypes with significant differences in demographic and clinical features, including patterns of domain involvement and MDA responses. These clusters differ in their initial vs. later responses to GUS.

References

[1]Coates C et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2016; 68: 1060–1071.

[2]Gossec L et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2012; 71: 4–12.

Disclosure of Interests

Pascal Richette Speakers bureau:, Consultant of: Pascal Richette has received fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB., Marijn Vis Speakers bureau:, Consultant of:, Grant/research support from: Marijn Vis has received research grants, consulting or speaker fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and the Dutch Arthritis Foundation., Sarah Ohrndorf Speakers bureau: Sarah Ohrndorf has received speaker fees or travel expense reimbursements from AbbVie, BMS, Janssen, Novartis and Pfizer., William Tillett Speakers bureau:, Consultant of:, Grant/research support from: William Tillett has received research grants, consulting or speaker fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB., Marlies Neuhold Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen, Michel van Speybroeck Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen, Elke Theander Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen, Wim Noel Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen, May Shawi Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen, Alexa Kollmeier Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen, Alen Zabotti Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis and UCB, Grant/research support from: Novartis

AB0556 COMPARING EFFICACY OF GUSELKUMAB VERSUS USTEKINUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIASIS ARTHRITIS: AN ADJUSTED COMPARISON USING INDIVIDUAL PATIENT DATA FROM DISCOVER 1&2 AND PSUMMIT TRIALS

Background:

Guselkumab is an anti-interleukin (IL)-23 monoclonal antibody recently approved for a treatment of Psoriasis arthritis (PsA). In two large Phase III trials of patients with PsA (DISCOVER -1 & -2) guselkumab has shown to be superior versus placebo. In this indication no direct comparison is available between guselkumab and ustekinumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting IL-12 and IL-23. Indirect comparisons based on relative treatment effects versus a common comparator (placebo) only allow for analyses up to week 24 due to cross-over to active arms in available PsA trials.

Objectives:

To compare indirectly joint and skin efficacy of guselkumab versus ustekinumab up to week 52, using pooled patient-level trial data from DISCOVER 1&2 and PSUMMIT 1&2, adjusting for cross-trial population differences.

Methods:

Patient level data, including baseline characteristics and outcome data on American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response, Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) response from the guselkumab arms of DISCOVER -1 & -2 were pooled with the data from the ustekinumab trials PSUMMIT -1&-2. Analyses were performed for bio-naïve and bio-experienced populations separately. Differences in patient characteristics across trial populations were adjusted for using multivariate logistic regression, including: gender, age, body mass index, previous TNF use, disease duration, PASI level, number of swollen and tender joints. This method of indirect comparisons allows for analysis of comparative efficacy beyond controlled induction period and odds ratios’ resulting from this model were translated into predicted response rates for ustekinumab, assuming same patient population, as enrolled in the guselkumab trial arms.

Results:

Majority of baseline characteristics for patients on guselkumab (100mg q8w; 100mg q4w) were comparable to patients on ustekinumab 45/90mg, in both in bio-naïve and bio-experienced group of patients. The probability of reaching a ACR 20 in both the bio-naïve & bio-experienced population was significantly higher for guselkumab vs ustekinumab at weeks 52 for both dosing regimens of guselkumab (bio-naïve ACR 20: q8w OR= 1.88 [1.28;2.76]), q4w (OR= 1.92 [1.29;2.86]; bio experienced ACR20 q8w OR= 2.72[1.17;6.31], q4w OR=4.77 [1.95;11.63]). Similarly guselkumab was superior over ustekinumab on PASI 90 outcome at week 52 in both bio-naïve & bio-experienced patients with BSA ≥3 % at baseline (bio-naïve: q8w OR= 2.59 [1.68;3.99]), q4w OR= 3.19 [2.03;5.00], and bio-experienced q8w OR= 3.96[1.39,11.27], q4w OR=13.10[4.18,41.04]). Figure 1 represents unadjusted pooled DISCOVER 1&2 trial results and estimated proportions of ustekinumab treated patient group achieving ACR 20 in bio-naïve patient group up to week 52 using the method described above.

Conclusion:

An adjusted comparison using patient level data from pivotal Phase III studies demonstrates both dosages of guselkumab to be significantly more effective versus ustekinumab in both skin and joint outcomes in both bio-naïve & bio experienced patients up to week 52.

Disclosure of Interests:

Joris Diels Shareholder of: Janssen, Employee of: Janssen, Pushpike Thilakarathne Employee of: Janssen, Agata Schubert Shareholder of: Janssen, Employee of: Janssen, Fareen Hassan Shareholder of: Janssen, Employee of: Janssen, Steve Peterson Shareholder of: Janssen, Employee of: Janssen, Wim Noel Shareholder of: Janssen, Employee of: Janssen.

POS1021 THE PsABio STUDY IN ITALY: A REAL-WORLD COMPARISON OF THE PERSISTENCE, EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY OF USTEKINUMAB AND TUMOUR NECROSIS FACTOR INHIBITORS IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS

Background:

There are still unmet needs in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), including in terms of treatment persistence, which is a function of effectiveness, safety and patient satisfaction. Ustekinumab (UST) was the first new biologic drug to be developed for the treatment of PsA after tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi).

Objectives:

To compare treatment persistence, effectiveness and safety of UST and TNFi in Italian patients within the PsABio cohort.

Methods:

PsABio (NCT02627768) is an observational study of 1st/2nd/3rd-line UST or TNFi treatment in PsA in 8 European countries. The current analysis set includes 222 eligible patients treated in 15 Italian centres, followed to Month 12 (±3 months). Treatment persistence/risk of stopping was analysed using Kaplan−Meier (KM) and Cox regression analysis. Proportions of patients reaching minimal disease activity (MDA)/very low disease activity (VLDA) and clinical Disease Activity Index for PsA (cDAPSA) low disease activity (LDA)/remission were analysed using logistic regression, including propensity score (PS) adjustment for imbalanced baseline covariates, and non-response imputation of effectiveness endpoints if treatment was stopped/switched before 1 year. Last observation carried forward data are reported.

Results:

Of patients starting UST and TNFi, 75/101 (74.3%) and 77/121 (63.6%), respectively, persisted with treatment at 1 year. The observed mean persistence was 410 days for UST and 363 days for TNFi. KM curves and PS-adjusted hazard ratios confirmed significantly higher persistence (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)]) for UST versus TNFi overall (0.46 [0.26; 0.82]; Figure 1). Persistence was also higher for UST than TNFi in patients receiving monotherapy without methotrexate (0.31 [0.15; 0.63]), in females (0.41 [0.20; 0.83]), and in patients with body mass index (BMI) <25 kg/m2 (0.34 [0.14; 0.87]) or >30 kg/m2 (0.19 [0.06; 0.54]). There was no significant difference in persistence between treatments in patients with BMI 25−30 kg/m2. While patients receiving 1st- and 3rd-line UST or TNFi showed similar risk of discontinuation (0.60 [0.27; 1.29] and 0.36 [0.10; 1.25], respectively), patients receiving 2nd-line UST showed better persistence than those receiving 2nd-line TNFi (0.33 [0.13; 0.87]). Other factors added to the PS-adjusted Cox model did not show significant effects. In patients with available follow-up data, the mean (standard deviation) baseline cDAPSA was 26.3 (15.4) for UST and 23.5 (12.3) for TNFi; at 1-year follow-up, 43.5% of UST- and 43.6% of TNFi-treated patients reached cDAPSA LDA/remission. MDA was reached in 24.2% of UST- and 28.0% of TNFi-treated patients, and VLDA in 12.5% of UST- and 10.2% of TNFi-treated patients. After PS adjustment (stoppers/switchers as non-responders), odds ratios (95% CI) at 1 year did not differ significantly between UST and TNFi groups for reaching cDAPSA LDA/remission (1.08 [0.54; 2.15]), MDA (0.96 [0.45; 2.05]) or VLDA (0.98 [0.35; 2.76]). In total, 23 (20.4%) patients reported ≥1 treatment emergent adverse event with UST and 30 (22.2%) with TNFi; 6 (5.3%) and 10 (7.4%) patients, respectively, discontinued treatment because of an adverse event.

Conclusion:

In the Italian PsABio cohort, UST had better overall persistence compared with TNFi, as well as in specific subgroups: females, patients on monotherapy without methotrexate, with BMI <25 or >30 kg/m2, and patients receiving UST as 2nd-line treatment. At 1 year, both treatments showed similar effectiveness, as measured by cDAPSA responses and MDA/VLDA achievement.

Acknowledgements:

This study was funded by Janssen. Contributing author: Prof. Piercarlo Sarzi-Puttini, ASST Fatebenefratelli-Sacco, University of Milan, Italy

Disclosure of Interests:

Elisa Gremese: None declared, Francesco Ciccia Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Abiogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Consultant of: Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Grant/research support from: Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Carlo Selmi Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Alfa-Wassermann, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Genzyme, Consultant of: AbbVie, Alfa-Wassermann, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Genzyme, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Pfizer, Giovanna CUOMO: None declared, Rosario Foti Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Janssen, Roche, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Janssen, Roche, Sanofi, Marco Matucci Cerinic Speakers bureau: Actelion, Biogen, Janssen, Lilly, Consultant of: Chemomab, Grant/research support from: MSD, Fabrizio Conti Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer, Enrico Fusaro Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Lilly, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Pfizer, Giuliana Guggino Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Grant/research support from: Celgene, Pfizer, Florenzo Iannone Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB, Andrea Delle Sedie: None declared, Roberto Perricone: None declared, Luca Idolazzi Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Sandoz, Paolo Moscato: None declared, Elke Theander Employee of: Janssen, Wim Noel Employee of: Janssen, Paul Bergmans Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen, Silvia Marelli Employee of: Janssen, Laure Gossec Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Biogen, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi, Josef S. Smolen Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Astro, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis- Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novartis, Roche.

POS1046 IMPROVEMENTS IN PATIENT-REPORTED IMPACT OF PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS WITH IL-12/23 (USTEKINUMAB) OR TUMOUR NECROSIS FACTOR INHIBITORS: 1-YEAR DATA FROM THE LARGE, REAL-WORLD PsABIO STUDY

Background:

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) negatively impacts patients’ (pts) quality of life (QoL), with a high burden of pain, fatigue and psychological distress. The 12-item Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease questionnaire (PsAID-12) is a validated measure of pt-reported disease impact.

Objectives:

To analyse PsAID-12 score changes in the overall population and specific subgroups of interest, and assess correlation of these changes using Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI).

Methods:

PsABio (NCT02627768) is a multinational, prospective, observational study in pts with PsA receiving ustekinumab (UST) or a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) as a 1st/2nd/3rd-line biologic. Descriptive statistics, including 95% CI, are presented at baseline (BL) and 1 year. Linear regression, including propensity score (PS) adjustment for BL covariates, was used to compare change in PsAID-12 total from BL to 1 year between treatments. The relationship between changes in PsAID-12 and HAQ-DI was investigated using Spearman’s correlation.

Results:

Data were available for 438 UST and 455 TNFi pts. From BL to 1 year, significant improvements were seen in total PsAID-12 scores and in all domains with both treatments (Figure 1). PS-adjusted treatment comparison showed no difference in total PsAID-12 improvement (regression coefficient [95% CI]: 0.14 [-0.22; 0.51], p=0.4433), or in any domain, except skin problems, which improved significantly more with UST than TNFi (-0.55 [-1.04, -0.06], p=0.0277). Improvements in PsAID-12 and HAQ-DI showed strong positive correlation with both treatments (UST: r=0.63, p<0.0001; TNFi: r=0.70, p<0.0001). Effectiveness was demonstrated with UST and TNFi in subgroups of interest, including biologic treatment line, sex and psoriasis extent (Table 1. next page).

Conclusion:

Treatment with IL-12/23 (UST) or TNF inhibitors significantly improved pt-reported disease impact at 1 year. PS-adjusted PsAID-12 improvements did not differ significantly between treatments, except skin problems (better with UST). Improvements in disease impact and physical functioning (HAQ-DI) were strongly correlated, emphasising the effect of these biologics on QoL in PsA pts.

Figure 1.Table 1.

PsAID-12 scores by BL characteristic subgroup

Mean (95% CI)USTTNFiBLUnadjusted change from BL at 1 year (LOCF)BLUnadjusted change from BL at 1 year (LOCF)Biologic line1st5.51(5.19; 5.82)-2.14(-2.49; -1.79)5.44(5.15; 5.72)-2.41(-2.72; -2.09)2nd6.05(5.69; 6.41)-2.14(-2.55; -1.72)5.57(5.19; 5.95)-2.37(-2.79; -1.94)3rd5.84(5.33; 6.35)-1.81(-2.45; -1.17)5.34(4.52; 6.15)-1.89(-2.62; -1.16)Sex*Male5.27(4.95; 5.59)-2.35(-2.70; -1.99)4.89(4.56; 5.23)-2.49(-2.83; -2.15)Female6.14(5.86; 6.43)-1.86(-2.20; -1.52)5.95(5.67; 6.23)-2.20(-2.53; -1.87)EnthesitisYes5.95(5.66; 6.24)-2.19(-2.51; -1.86)5.89(5.61; 6.17)-2.65(-2.98; -2.31)No5.51(5.19; 5.83)-1.98(-2.36; -1.59)4.99(4.65; 5.32)-2.02(-2.35; -1.68)Psoriasis BSA, %<35.66(5.32; 6.00)-1.60(-2.03; -1.18)4.97(4.63; 5.31)-1.89(-2.25; -1.52)3–105.44(5.05; 5.83)-2.16(-2.59; -1.74)5.78(5.43; 6.14)-2.99(-3.38; -2.59)>106.15(5.70; 6.60)-2.93(-3.43; -2.43)6.13(5.55; 6.71)-2.86(-3.49; -2.23)Joint involvement†Mono/oligoarticular5.07(4.56; 5.58)-1.96(-2.47; -1.45)4.82(4.38; 5.25)-2.18(-2.66; -1.70)Polyarticular5.98(5.75; 6.22)-2.21(-2.51; -1.92)5.78(5.52; 6.04)-2.47(-2.75; -2.18)FiRST score*<55.15(4.87; 5.44)-2.18(-2.50; -1.87)5.10(4.83; 5.36)-2.44(-2.71; -2.16)≥56.72(6.43; 7.00)-1.95(-2.38; -1.53)6.49(6.15; 6.83)-2.09(-2.57; -1.61)

*At BL, female pts and pts with FiRST score ≥5 (chronic widespread pain) were significantly more impacted than male pts and pts with FiRST score <5, and remained significantly more impacted at 1 year. †Polyarticular pts were significantly more impacted at BL, but not 1 year.

BSA, body surface area; CI, confidence interval; FiRST, Fibromyalgia Rapid Screening Tool; LOCF, last observation carried forward

Acknowledgements:

This study was funded by Janssen.

Disclosure of Interests:

Laure Gossec Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bioepis, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi, Stefan Siebert Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen (previously Celgene), Biogen, Janssen, Novartis, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Janssen, UCB, Grant/research support from: Amgen (previously Celgene), Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Paul Bergmans Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen, Kurt de Vlam Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB, Paid instructor for: Amgen, Galapagos, UCB, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, UCB, Grant/research support from: Celgene, Elisa Gremese: None declared, Beatriz Joven-Ibáñez Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Tatiana Korotaeva Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biocad, Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Novartis-Pfizer, Sandoz, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biocad, Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Wim Noel Employee of: Janssen, Michael Nurmohamed Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Menarini, MSD, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Menarini, MSD, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Menarini, MSD, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Petros Sfikakis Consultant of: AbbVie, Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Enorasis, Farmaserv-Lilly, Genesis, Gilead, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Faran, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Elke Theander Employee of: Janssen, Josef S. Smolen Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Astro, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis- Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novartis, Roche.

OP0230 EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF GUSELKUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS WHO DEMONSTRATED INADEQUATE RESPONSE TO TUMOR NECROSIS FACTOR INHIBITION: WEEK 24 RESULTS OF A PHASE 3B, RANDOMIZED, CONTROLLED STUDY

Background:

Guselkumab (GUS), a selective monoclonal antibody targeting the interleukin-23p19 subunit, has demonstrated efficacy in 2 pivotal Ph3 psoriatic arthritis (PsA) studies (DISCOVER-1,1 DISCOVER-22).

Objectives:

Evaluate GUS efficacy and safety in PsA patients (pts) with inadequate response (IR) to tumor-necrosis-factor inhibition (TNFi) through Week24 (W24) of the Ph3b COSMOS study.

Methods:

In this randomized, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled trial, 285 pts with active PsA (≥3 swollen & ≥3 tender joints) who demonstrated lack of benefit or intolerance to 1-2 TNFi were randomized 2:1 to subcutaneous GUS 100mg (n=189) or PBO (n=96) at W0, W4, then every 8 weeks (Q8W) through W44 (with PBO crossover to GUS at W24). At W16, pts who met early escape (EE) criteria (<5% improvement in both tender & swollen joint counts) also could switch from PBO to GUS. The primary efficacy endpoint was ACR20 response at W24 among randomized, treated pts. Pts missing ACR20 data at W24 or who met treatment failure criteria (including meeting EE criteria at W16) were considered nonresponders (NRs). Subgroup analyses were performed to assess consistency of primary treatment effect based on demographics, disease characteristics, and medication use at baseline. Prespecified sensitivity analyses included ‘Per-Protocol’ (PP) (excluded pts with major protocol deviations) and ‘EE-Correction’ (included pts incorrectly routed to EE) analyses. Adverse events (AEs) were summarized by treatment received.

Results:

Baseline characteristics were similar across GUS and PBO pts, though a higher proportion of females and more severe joint symptoms were seen in the GUS group. At W24, 44.4% of GUS vs 19.8% of PBO pts achieved ACR20 (p<0.001) (Figure). GUS was superior to PBO for all major secondary endpoints. Efficacy was consistent across subgroups defined by baseline characteristics, including in pts who discontinued prior TNFi use due to inadequate efficacy (84% GUS vs 81% PBO) and safety (16% GUS vs 19% PBO) (Table). 20 pts (12 GUS, 8 PBO) were incorrectly routed to EE. Results of PP (48.8% vs 23.8%) and EE-correction (48.1% vs 19.8%) sensitivity analyses were consistent with the primary analysis (Figure). AEs were similar between GUS- and PBO-treated pts (Table).

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics of, and adverse events reported by, randomized and treated COSMOS pts

GUS 100 mg Q8W (N=189)PBO (N=96) Age, y4949 Sex, Female54%46% Duration of PsA, y8.38.7 Body mass index, kg/m22931a Swollen (0-66) / tender (0-68) joint count10 / 219 / 18 Pt pain / Pt global arthritis / Physician global disease, 0-10 cm VAS6.5 / 6.5 / 6.96.0 / 6.2 / 6.4 Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, 0-31.3b1.2 C-reactive protein, mg/dL1.2b1.2 Methotrexate use at baseline56%53% Psoriatic body surface area, %17.913.4 Number of prior TNFi: 1 / 288% / 12%89% / 11% Reason for prior TNFi discontinuation: Efficacy / Safety84% / 16%* 81% / 19%*Pts with ≥1 AE / SAE37% / 3%48% / 3%Pts with ≥1 infection / serious infection18% / 0%20% / 0%Pts with ≥1 AE leading to study agent discontinuation2%2%Pts with ≥1 malignancy0.4%0Pts with ≥1 injection-site reaction2%1%

Data shown are mean or %. aN=95; bN=188. *Missing for 1 pt. SAE – serious adverse events; VAS – visual analog scale

Conclusion:

In this Ph3b, placebo-controlled study of PsA pts with IR to 1-2 TNFi, GUS 100 mg Q8W elicited a significantly higher ACR20 response rate vs. PBO at W24; results of prespecified sensitivity and subgroup analyses were consistent. GUS safety in TNF-IR PsA pts through W24 is consistent with the favorable GUS safety profile in psoriasis and biologic-naïve PsA pts.3

References:

[1]Deodhar A. Lancet 2018;391: 2213–24.

[2]Mease PJ. Lancet 2020;395: 1126–36.

[3]Guselkumab Prescribing Information. Janssen Biotech, Inc.

Disclosure of Interests:

Laura C Coates Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelehim, Celgene, Domain, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer, Laure Gossec Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi, Elke Theander Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Paul Bergmans Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen, Marlies Neuhold Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Chetan Karyekar Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Global Services, LLC, May Shawi Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Global Services, LLC, Wim Noel Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Georg Schett: None declared, Iain McInnes Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB

OP0232 FEMALE VERSUS MALE BURDEN OF PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS IS HIGHER AND TREATMENT PERSISTENCE SHORTER AFTER USTEKINUMAB OR TUMOUR NECROSIS FACTOR INHIBITOR TREATMENT: 1-YEAR DATA FROM THE PSABIO STUDY

Background:

Sex-related differences in biologic treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have been insufficiently studied in a real-world setting.

Objectives:

To evaluate impact of sex on PsA, treatment effectiveness and persistence after 1 year of biologic treatment.

Methods:

PsABio (NCT02627768) is a multinational, prospective real-world study in PsA with ustekinumab (UST) or TNF inhibitor (TNFi) as 1st/2nd/3rd-line biologic. Males and females were compared for disease activity and patient-reported outcomes. Descriptive statistics including 95% CI at baseline (BL) and 12 (±3) months (LOCF) follow-up are presented. Intra-sex comparisons between UST and TNFi cohorts were done by logistic regression analysis, with propensity score adjustment for imbalanced BL covariates and non-response imputation for stopping/switching biologic drugs.

Results:

Among 494 females and 399 males, age and disease duration were similar. However, differences in disease characteristics at BL were considerable: females had worse scores than males for cDAPSA, HAQ-DI, EQ5D VAS, PsAID-12, pain and comorbidities. At 1 year, similar improvements from BL were observed between sexes, but females remained in a worse health state than males (Table). Achievement of composite endpoints MDA (including VLDA) and cDAPSA LDA (including remission) was high overall (38.6% and 61.5%, respectively), but reached by >2-fold and 3-fold more males than females, respectively. HAQ-DI scores remained worse for females at 1 year (0.95) than for males at BL (0.93). Enthesitis resolution was achieved in 46% of females and 75% of males. No significant differences in effectiveness of UST vs TNFi were detected between sexes (Figure). Kaplan–Meier estimated drug persistence was significantly better in males than females (log-rank p=0.0007). There was no intra-sex difference between UST or TNFi in risk of stopping/switching in males or females.

Table 1.

Patient and disease characteristics at BL and 1-year by sex

BL femaleBL male1-year LOCF female1-year LOCF maleBiologic line, %1st4655N/AN/A2nd34333rd2013Co-treatment, %MTX37.434.3N/AN/ACorticosteroids34.632.1NSAIDs59.964.4Antidepressant7.92.5Comorbidities, %N/AN/ACardiovascular69.059.4metabolic syndrome40.131.7Obesity35.223.7Anxiety/depression12.67.5Smoking status, %N/AN/ANever54.941.9Past16.826.6Current22.724.3Unknown5.77.3Joint counts, nSwollen 666.1 (5.4; 6.9)5.6 (4.7; 6.4)2.2 (1.7; 2.6)1.3 (1.0; 1.6)Tender 6813.2 (12.0; 14.4)10.0 (8.9; 11.1)6.0 (5.2; 6.7)3.6 (2.9; 4.3)cDAPSA score, mean (95% CI)cDAPSA, %32.5 (30.5; 34.4)26.9 (24.9; 29.0)15.9 (14.5; 17.2)10.3 (9.0; 11.6)Remission1.0 (0.3; 2.6)4.0 (2.1; 6.7)17.8 (14.1; 22.0)37.7 (32.4; 43.2)Low6.7 (4.4; 9.7)15.0 (11.3; 19.4)33.0 (28.3; 37.9)36.5 (31.3; 42.0)Moderate38.9 (34.0; 44.0)42.6 (37.2; 48.2)34.3 (29.6; 39.2)16.9 (13.0; 21.4)High53.4 (48.2; 58.4)38.3 (33.0; 43.9)14.9 (11.6; 18.9)8.9 (6.0; 12.5)MDA2.3 (1.0; 4.3)7.7 (5.1; 11.2)27.5 (23.1; 32.1)52.2 (46.6; 57.7)VLDA0.00.9 (0.2; 2.6)6.2 (4.1; 9.0)19.7 (15.6; 24.3)HAQ-DI score1.31 (1.25; 1.37)0.93 (0.86; 1.00)0.95 (0.89; 1.02)0.53 (0.47; 0.59)PsAID-12 score6.1 (5.9; 6.3)5.1 (4.9; 5.3)4.0 (3.8; 4.3)2.7 (2.4; 2.9)EQ5D VAS score48.6 (46.6; 50.5)53.8 (51.6; 55.9)59.2 (56.9; 61.4)68.0 (65.5; 70.4)Enthesitis50.7 (45.9; 55.5)48.1 (42.8; 53.3)32.6 (28.3; 37.3)18.0 (14.1; 22.3)Dactylitis15.6 (12.4; 19.3)24.7 (20.4; 29.3)5.7 (3.8; 8.3)4.8 (2.9; 7.4)

Data are % (95% CI) unless indicated otherwise. Bold data are significantly different (non-overlapping 95% CI).

Conclusion:

These real-world data from PsABio on sex differences with biologic treatment suggest that females generally start biologics in a worse PsA state than males. Although treatment improvements were similar between sexes, females remained in worse health at 1 year, and stopped/switched biologic earlier. More comprehensive treatment before severe disease manifestations evolve may improve management in females.

Acknowledgements:

This study was funded by Janssen

Disclosure of Interests:

Irene van der Horst-Bruinsma Consultant of: AbbVie, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, Pfizer, UCB, Michael Nurmohamed Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Menarini, MSD, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Menarini, MSD, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Menarini, MSD, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Arno Van Kuijk Consultant of: AbbVie, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Grant/research support from: Janssen, Stefan Siebert Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen (previously Celgene), Biogen, Janssen, Novartis, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Janssen, UCB, Grant/research support from: Amgen (previously Celgene), Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Paul Bergmans Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen, Kurt de Vlam Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB, Paid instructor for: Amgen, Galapagos, UCB, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Johnson &Johnson, Novartis Galapagos, UCB, Grant/research support from: Celgene, Elisa Gremese: None declared, Beatriz Joven-Ibáñez Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Tatiana Korotaeva Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biocad, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biocad, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Wim Noel Employee of: Janssen, Petros Sfikakis Consultant of: AbbVie, Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Enorasis, Farmaserv-Lilly, Genesis, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Faran, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Elke Theander Employee of: Janssen, Josef S. Smolen Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Astro, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Laure Gossec Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Biogen, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi

AB0530 EFFECT OF SKIN SYMPTOMS ON DISEASE IMPACT IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS RECEIVING THE IL-12/23 INHIBITOR USTEKINUMAB OR TNF INHIBITORS IN THE REAL-WORLD PSABIO STUDY

Background:

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is characterised by musculoskeletal symptoms, and patients (pts) with PsA usually experience psoriasis concurrently. Real-world data reflecting impact of skin symptoms on PsA disease burden are limited.

Objectives:

Analyse effectiveness of ustekinumab (UST) and tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) therapy on extent of skin involvement, and the impact this has on PsA disease burden and drug persistence.

Methods:

PsABio (NCT02627768) is a prospective, observational study of 1st/2nd/3rd-line UST or TNFi treatment in PsA in 8 European countries. Extent of skin involvement was categorised as body surface area (BSA): clear/almost clear; <3% but not clear/almost clear; 3–10%; or >10%. Pt-reported disease impact was evaluated by PsAID-12, including assessment of two skin-related domains (D): D3 (skin problems, including itching) and D10 (embarrassment and/or shame because of appearance). Estimated persistence at 1 year was assessed across baseline (BL) BSA categories.

Results:

At BL, significantly more pts receiving UST than TNFi had BSA >10% (Figure 1). BL disease impact (PsAID-12) was worse in pts with BSA >10% than <3% in D3, D10 and total (non-overlapping 95% CIs suggest significance) (Table 1). BSA improved from BL to 1 year with both treatments. At 1 year, 64% of pts in both groups had clear/almost clear skin and only 3% had BSA >10% (Figure 1). At 1 year, both treatments significantly reduced disease impact (PsAID-12 total), and D3 and D10 scores, irrespective of BL BSA category, but most markedly in pts with higher BL BSA (Table 1). Worse BL psoriasis was generally associated with longer persistence for both treatments; however, at 1 year, pts with BSA >10% had significantly shorter persistence with TNFi (mean [95% CI]: 361 [336; 387] days) than with UST (410 [394; 426] days).

Conclusion:

In PsA, interleukin-12/23 inhibition (UST) and TNFi therapy in routine care rapidly and substantially reduced extent of skin involvement and related disease impact. Pts with highest BL skin involvement had significantly longer drug persistence with UST than with TNFi. Together, PsABio data suggest that successful treatment of skin involvement in PsA with biologics reduces disease burden and may improve persistence, especially in pts with worse BL psoriasis.

Figure 1Table 1.

PsAID-12 scores at BL and change from BL scores at 6 months and 1 year, by BL BSA category

Mean (95% CI)Domain 3(skin problems, including itching)Domain 10(embarrassment and/orshame because of appearance)Total PsAID-12USTTNFiUSTTNFiUSTTNFiPsAID-12 score at BL by BL BSA <3%4.2 (3.7; 4.8)3.1 (2.7; 3.6)3.9 (3.3; 4.4)3.1(2.6; 3.6)5.7(5.3; 6.0)5.0 (4.6; 5.3) 3–10%6.4 (5.9; 6.8)5.8 (5.3; 6.3)4.1 (3.5; 4.7)4.5 (3.9; 5.1)5.4 (5.1; 5.8)5.8 (5.4; 6.1) >10%7.9 (7.5; 8.3)6.7 (6.0; 7.5)6.1 (5.4; 6.8)5.8 (4.8; 6.8)6.2 (5.7; 6.6)6.1 (5.6; 6.7)Change from BL in PsAID-12 score at 6 months by BL BSA <3%-1.5 (-2.1; -0.9)-0.8 (-1.3; -0.3)-1.5 (-2.0; -0.9)-1.2 (-1.6; -0.7)-1.6 (-2.0; -1.2)-1.9 (-2.2; -1.5) 3–10%-3.2 (-3.8; -2.7)-2.4 (-3.0; -1.9)-1.9 (-2.5; -1.3)-2.0 (-2.5; -1.5)-2.0 (-2.4; -1.6)-2.4 (-2.8; -2.0) >10%-4.2 (-4.9; -3.6)-2.5 (-3.2; -1.9)-2.9 (-3.5; -2.2)-1.6 (-2.4; -0.8)-2.4 (-2.8; -2.0)-2.2 (-2.7; -1.7)Change from BL in PsAID-12 score at 1 year (LOCF) by BL BSA <3%-1.5 (-2.1; -0.9)-0.8 (-1.3; -0.3)-1.6 (-2.2; -1.1)-1.2 (-1.7; -0.7)-1.6 (-2.0; -1.2)-1.9 (-2.3; -1.5) 3–10%-3.5 (-4.0; -2.9)-3.2(-3.7; -2.7)-2.0 (-2.6; -1.4)-2.5 (-3.0; -2.0)-2.2 (-2.6; -1.7)-3.0 (-3.4; -2.6) >10%-4.9 (-5.5; -4.3)-3.1 (-4.0; -2.3)-3.5 (-4.2; -2.8)-2.7 (-3.7; -1.8)-2.9 (-3.4; -2.4)-2.9 (-3.5; -2.2)

PsAID-12 total score ≤4 is considered a patient-acceptable symptom state.

BL, baseline; BSA, body surface area; CI, confidence interval; LOCF, last observation carried forward; PsAID-12, 12-item Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease questionnaire; TNFi, tumour necrosis factor inhibitor; UST, ustekinumab

Acknowledgements:

This study was funded by Janssen.

Disclosure of Interests:

Josef S. Smolen Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Astro, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis- Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Tatiana Korotaeva Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biocad, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biocad, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Michael Nurmohamed Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Menarini, MSD, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Menarini, MSD, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Menarini, MSD, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Stefan Siebert Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen (previously Celgene), Biogen, Janssen, Novartis, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Janssen, UCB, Grant/research support from: Amgen (previously Celgene), Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Paul Bergmans Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen, Kurt de Vlam Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB, Paid instructor for: Amgen, Galapagos, UCB, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, UCB, Grant/research support from: Celgene, Elisa Gremese: None declared., Beatriz Joven-Ibáñez Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer, Wim Noel Employee of: Janssen, Petros Sfikakis Consultant of: AbbVie, Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Enorasis, Farmaserv-Lilly, Genesis, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Faran, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Elke Theander Employee of: Janssen, Laure Gossec Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bioepis, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi.

AB0524 EFFICACY OF GUSELKUMAB ACROSS BASDAI COMPONENTS IN TREATING AXIAL-RELATED SYMPTOMS OF PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: RESULTS FROM TWO PHASE 3, RANDOMIZED, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED STUDIES

Background:

The monoclonal antibody guselkumab (GUS; anti- IL-23p19-subunit) is approved to treat psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Post hoc analyses of DISCOVER-1&2 suggested that GUS may be effective in improving symptoms of axial manifestation of PsA.

Objectives:

Evaluate the efficacy of GUS across components of the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) in improving symptoms of axial manifestations of active PsA patients (pts) using data from Phase 3, randomized, placebo (PBO)-controlled studies.

Methods:

DISCOVER-1&2 enrolled pts with active PsA; pts were randomized to subcutaneous injections of guselkumab 100 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) or at Wk0, 4, and Q8W, or PBO. These post hoc analyses included pts who were identified by the investigator as having axial symptoms and sacroiliitis (prior X-ray or MRI or screening X-ray). BASDAI scores were assessed at Wks 0, 8, 16, 24, and 52. Mean BASDAI component scores through Wk52 are reported by treatment group. Pooled data from the two studies are reported. Mean BASDAI component scores are reported using observed data; total BASDAI scores with missing components were set to missing. The proportion of pts achieving ≥50% improvement in BASDAI (BASDAI 50) was also determined; pts with missing data or who met the treatment failure criteria (discontinued study agent or used prohibited medications) were considered nonresponders at all subsequent timepoints.

Results:

These analyses included 312 pts from DISCOVER-1&2 (103 GUS Q4W, 91 GUS Q8W, 118 PBO); mean total BASDAI scores at Wk0 were 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6, respectively. Demographics and mean baseline BASDAI component scores (ie, fatigue, spinal pain, joint pain, enthesitis, qualitative morning stiffness, and quantitative morning stiffness) were similar across treatment groups (Table 1). In comparison with the total study population, this subgroup of pts had a higher mean C-reactive protein level at baseline and a higher proportion of pts with enthesitis and included a slightly higher proportion of males. Mean scores for all six BASDAI components, including spinal pain, decreased through Wk24 in GUS-treated pts, with separation from PBO observed as early as Wk8; improvements were maintained at Wk52. At Wk24, BASDAI 50 response rates were higher in the Q4W and Q8W groups vs PBO (38% and 40% vs 19%).1 At WK52, mean BASDAI component scores for PBO pts who crossed over to GUS Q4W at Wk24 were similar to those for pts who were randomized to GUS.2 A similar trend was observed for BASDAI50 response.

Conclusion:

Among PsA pts with axial symptoms and sacroiliitis (via investigator-confirmed imaging) in the DISCOVER-1&2 trials, GUS treatment resulted in lower mean scores for all six BASDAI components compared with PBO as early as Wk 8 and through Wk24, with mean scores maintained at Wk52.

References:

[1]Helliwell P, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020; 79; Suppl 1.

[2]Mease PJ, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020; 72 (suppl 10).

Table 1.

Baseline demographic and disease characteristics for patients who were identified by physicians as having symptoms consistent with spondylitis and had sacroiliitis confirmed via prior radiograph/MRI or screening radiograph

GUS Q4WGUS Q8WPlaceboPatients, n10391118Male, n (%)68 (66)54 (59)69 (59)Age, years44.9 ± 11.845.0 ± 10.745.3 ± 11.0BASDAIPatients, n9584110Score6.4 ± 1.76.5 ± 1.86.6 ± 1.5BASDAI ComponentsFatigue6.4 ± 2.06.7 ± 1.96.5 ± 1.9Spinal pain6.6 ± 2.16.5 ± 2.36.7 ± 2.0Joint pain6.3 ± 1.96.5 ± 2.26.8 ± 1.7Enthesitis6.3 ± 2.16.4 ± 2.26.3 ± 2.2Qualitative morning stiffness6.8 ± 2.16.7 ± 2.57.0 ± 2.0Quantitative morning stiffness6.2 ± 2.95.7 ± 2.96.1 ± 2.8

Data are mean ± standard deviation unless otherwise noted.

BASDAI, Bath ankylosing spondylitis disease activity index

Disclosure of Interests:

Frank Behrens Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Genzyme, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Genzyme, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Celgene, Chugai, Janssen, Pfizer, and Roche, 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, Philip Helliwell Consultant of: Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Janssen, Pfizer, May Shawi Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Global Services, Wim Noel Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, Soumya D Chakravarty Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, Alexa Kollmeier Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, Xie L Xu Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, Stephen Xu Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, Yanli Wang Employee of: IQVIA providing statistical support (funded by Janssen), Xenofon Baraliakos Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

FRI0362 COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF USTEKINUMAB (UST) AND TNF INHIBITORS (TNFI) IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS (PSA) IN THE REAL-WORLD, MULTINATIONAL PSABIO STUDY: 12-MONTH FOLLOW-UP

Background:

Among treatment options for PsA, IL-12/23 inhibition with UST was the first new biologic mode of action after TNFi. Few real-world data comparing UST with TNFi are available.

Objectives:

Comparison of UST and TNFi treatment effectiveness within the prospectively followed PsABio cohort at 12-month (mo) follow-up.

Methods:

The PsABio study (NCT02627768) evaluates effectiveness, tolerability and persistence of 1st, 2nd or 3rd-line UST or TNFi in PsA. Proportions of patients (pts) reaching MDA/very low disease activity (VLDA) and clinical Disease Activity index for PSoriatic Arthritis (cDAPSA) LDA/remission are described. Comparison across UST and TNFi cohorts was done on last observation carried forward up to 12 (±3) mo, with non-response imputation for pts who had stopped/switched initial treatment. Logistic regression analysis was used, including propensity score (PS) analysis to adjust for imbalanced prognostic baseline (BL) covariates: country, age, sex, BMI, smoking (yes/no), comorbidities (cardiovascular/metabolic syndrome), PsA type (axial, polyarticular, oligoarticular), psoriasis body surface area (BSA), disease duration, cDAPSA, 12-item PsA Impact of Disease (PsAID-12), dactylitis, enthesitis, Fibromyalgia Rapid Screening Tool (FiRST) score, line of biologic (b)DMARD, synthetic DMARD use, and steroid or NSAID use.

Results:

Of 929 eligible pts, 893 had evaluable data at BL and at follow-up; 438 (95.6%) were treated with UST and 455 (96.6%) with TNFi (including stoppers/switchers). UST and TNFi groups had BL differences in mean age (51.0 vs 48.5 years, respectively), concurrent comorbidities (68.7% vs 60.9%), time since diagnosis (7.5 vs 6.2 years), line of treatment (1st-line 45.0% vs 55.2%; 3rd-line 20.5% vs 12.1%), NSAID use (54.8% vs 68.8%), concomitant MTX use (29.9% vs 42.0%) and psoriasis skin involvement (BSA >10% in 26.6% vs 14.8%).

In 714 pts with available data, mean (standard deviation) BL cDAPSA was 30.6 (20.2; n=358) for UST and 29.3 (18.6; n=356) for TNFi. Observed data showed differences in proportion of pts achieving MDA/VLDA and cDAPSA LDA/remission in favour of TNFi, but after PS adjustment for BL differences (such as line of therapy, skin psoriasis, concomitant conventional DMARD, etc.), odds ratios for reaching targets at 12 mo did not significantly differ between UST and TNFi groups (Fig. 1).

Comparison of 6- and 12-mo unadjusted data showed sustained MDA/VLDA responses with both UST (21.8%) and TNFi (29.5%), with comparable proportions of additional pts achieving these targets between 6 and 12 mo (17.0% and 20.3%, respectively). Sustained efficacy became lower with successive lines of treatment (data not shown).

Conclusion:

Various factors, including patient characteristics such as comorbidities, influence the physician’s selection of treatment modality for patients needing a bDMARD. Our real-world results demonstrate differences in observed clinical effectiveness between UST and TNFi. However, after PS adjustment for a number of BL differences, clinical results at 12 mo were comparable between UST and TNFi groups. Data at 12 mo also show sustained response with both UST and TNFi treatment, as well as a similar rate of pts achieving targets after 6 to 12 mo of treatment.

Acknowledgments:

This study was funded by Janssen.

Disclosure of Interests:

Josef S. Smolen Grant/research support from: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer Inc, Samsung, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer Inc, Samsung, Sanofi, Stefan Siebert Grant/research support from: BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, Tatiana Korotaeva Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Consultant of: Abbvie, BIOCAD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BIOCAD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, UCB, Paul Bergmans Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen, Kurt de Vlam Consultant of: Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB – consultant, Speakers bureau: Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB – speakers bureau and honoraria, Elisa Gremese Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Sanofi, UCB, Roche, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Sanofi, UCB, Roche, Pfizer, Beatriz Joven-Ibáñez Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Celgene, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Wim Noel Employee of: Janssen Pharmaceuticals NV, Michael T Nurmohamed Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, GlaxoSmithKline, Jansen, Eli Lilly, Menarini, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, USB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, GlaxoSmithKline, Jansen, Eli Lilly, Menarini, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, USB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, GlaxoSmithKline, Jansen, Eli Lilly, Menarini, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, USB, Petros Sfikakis Grant/research support from: Grant/research support from Abvie, Novartis, MSD, Actelion, Amgen, Pfizer, Janssen Pharmaceutical, UCB, Elke Theander Employee of: Janssen-Cilag Sweden AB, Laure Gossec Grant/research support from: Lilly, Mylan, Pfizer, Sandoz, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB

SAT0432 EFFECT OF SEX ON DISEASE CHARACTERISTICS AND DISEASE IMPACT IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS (PsA): INSIGHTS FROM THE REAL-WORLD, OBSERVATIONAL MULTINATIONAL PsABio COHORT

Background:

Female sex has been associated with more severe disease and poorer treatment outcomes in PsA. These observations are often based on small populations or national cohorts/registries.

Objectives:

To investigate the effects of sex on disease characteristics and disease impact in PsA, using data of 929 consecutive patients (pts) from PsABio.

Methods:

PsABio is a real-world, non-interventional European study in PsA pts treated with UST or TNFi based on their rheumatologist’s choice. Observed male and female baseline (BL) data were described and compared using 95% CI.

Results:

Women in PsABio (n=512 [55%]) were numerically older than men (mean [SD]: 50.5 [12.7] / 48.7 [12.3] years, respectively). Women were more obese (BMI >30), % (95% CI): F: 35 (30, 39), M: 24 (20, 29), men more overweight (BMI >25–30): F: 31 (27, 36), M:51 (46, 57). Age at diagnosis, delay from first symptom to diagnosis, and disease duration were similar for both sexes.

Women entered PsABio more often on 3rd line treatment, whereas men started on 1st-line biologic treatment more often (F/M 1st line 47%/55%; 2nd line 34%/33%; 3rd line 20%/12%). Numerically, concomitant MTX was given more often to women vs men (32% vs 27%). At BL, 60% of women and 64% of men were on NSAIDs; 7.9% and 2.5% on antidepressant drugs. Women had significantly more comorbidities, with numerically more cardiovascular disease and anxiety/depression, and 3 times more IBD.

Women had significantly higher 68 tender joint counts (TJC): 13.0 vs 10.4, while 66 swollen joint counts were not significantly different: 5.8 vs 5.5. Axial or combined axial-peripheral disease was similarly frequent, in 29% of women and 26% of men (Figs. 1, 2).

Clinical Disease Activity index for PSoriatic Arthritis (cDAPSA) was higher in women (31.8 vs 27.3); pt-reported levels of pain, global disease activity (VAS scales) and higher TJC contributed to this. While enthesitis prevalence (based on Leeds Enthesitis Index) was comparable, men had significantly more frequent dactylitis, nail disease and worse skin psoriasis. At BL, 3.4% of women vs 7.1% of men, were in MDA.

Regarding physical functioning (HAQ-DI), impact of disease (PSAID-12) and quality of life (EQ5D-3L health state), women with PsA starting a biologic (b)DMARD, expressed significantly greater negative impact and more limitations due to their disease (Fig. 2).

Conclusion:

In routine care, women with PsA starting a bDMARD presented with worse outcomes over a range of assessments compared with men (higher pt-reported pain and disease activity, TJC, and worse physical functioning and QoL), while men had worse dactylitis and psoriasis. Follow-up analysis will report whether the effects of biologic therapy are different in both sexes. The increased prevalence of associated features related to pain and impact on functioning and QoL may indicate the need for a more comprehensive treatment approach for women to avoid unnecessary and premature bDMARD stop or switch.

Acknowledgments:

This study was funded by Janssen.

Disclosure of Interests:

Michael T Nurmohamed Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, GlaxoSmithKline, Jansen, Eli Lilly, Menarini, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, USB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, GlaxoSmithKline, Jansen, Eli Lilly, Menarini, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, USB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, GlaxoSmithKline, Jansen, Eli Lilly, Menarini, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, USB, Irene van der Horst-Bruinsma Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Arno WR van Kuijk Grant/research support from: Janssen, Stefan Siebert Grant/research support from: BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, Paul Bergmans Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen, Kurt de Vlam Consultant of: Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB – consultant, Speakers bureau: Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB – speakers bureau and honoraria, Elisa Gremese Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Sanofi, UCB, Roche, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Sanofi, UCB, Roche, Pfizer, Beatriz Joven-Ibáñez Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Celgene, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Tatiana Korotaeva Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Consultant of: Abbvie, BIOCAD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BIOCAD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, UCB, Wim Noel Employee of: Janssen Pharmaceuticals NV, Petros Sfikakis Grant/research support from: Grant/research support from Abvie, Novartis, MSD, Actelion, Amgen, Pfizer, Janssen Pharmaceutical, UCB, Elke Theander Employee of: Janssen-Cilag Sweden AB, Josef S. Smolen Grant/research support from: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer Inc, Samsung, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer Inc, Samsung, Sanofi, Laure Gossec Grant/research support from: Lilly, Mylan, Pfizer, Sandoz, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB

AB0820 COMPARATIVE EFFICACY OF GUSELKUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: RESULTS FROM SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW AND NETWORK META-ANALYSIS

Background:

The efficacy of the interleukin (IL)-23 subunit p19 inhibitor guselkumab (GUS) for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) has recently been demonstrated in two Phase 3 trials (DISCOVER-1 & -2) but has not been evaluated versus existing targeted therapies for PsA.

Objectives:

To compare GUS to targeted therapies for PsA through network meta-analysis (NMA).

Methods:

A systematic literature review was performed to identify PsA randomized controlled trials from 2000 to 2018. Bayesian NMAs were performed to compare treatments on American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response, Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) 75/90/100 response, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score, resolution of enthesitis (RoE), resolution of dactylitis (RoD), adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). Analyses used random effects models that adjusted for placebo response via meta-regression on baseline risk when feasible. Results are summarized by ranking treatments according to median absolute probabilities of response derived from NMAs.

Results:

Twenty-six Phase 3 studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. Studies were placebo-controlled up to 24 weeks and evaluated 13 targeted therapies for PsA. Absolute probabilities are reported for PASI 90 & ACR 20 responses according toFigure 1,and a forest plot of relative risks versus placebo for AEs is reported according toFigure 2. For ACR 20 response, GUS 100 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) and every 8 weeks (Q8W) ranked 5th and 8th out of 20 interventions and were comparable to IL-17A inhibitor (IL-17Ai) and most tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) agents. Similar findings were observed for ACR 50 and 70 responses. For PASI 90 response, GUS Q4W and Q8W ranked 1st and 2nd out of 15 interventions and were highly likely to provide a greater benefit than most other agents. Similar findings were observed for PASI 75 and 100 responses. For HAQ-DI score, GUS Q4W and Q8W ranked 6th and 10th out of 20 interventions and were comparable to IL-17Ai and most TNFi agents. For RoE, GUS Q4W and Q8W ranked 8th and 6th out of 13 interventions and were comparable to IL-17Ai and TNFi agents. For RoD, GUS Q4W and Q8W ranked 8th and 9th out of 13 interventions and were comparable to most IL-17Ai and TNFi agents. For AEs, GUS Q4W and Q8W ranked 3rd and 2nd out of 19 interventions and were comparable to IL-17Ai and TNFi agents. Likewise, for SAEs, GUS Q4W and Q8W ranked 4th and 5th out of 20 interventions and were comparable to IL-17Ai and TNFi agents. Analyses that controlled for previous exposure to biologics or assessed outcomes at alternative timepoints were broadly consistent with primary analysis results.

Conclusion:

NMA results indicate that GUS is comparable to most targeted PsA treatments for improvement in arthritis, soft tissue damage, physical function, and safety outcomes. For PASI outcomes, GUS is highly likely to provide a greater benefit than other targeted PsA treatments.

Disclosure of Interests:

Iain McInnes Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Philip J Mease Grant/research support from: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB – grant/research support, Consultant of: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB – consultant, Speakers bureau: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB – speakers bureau, Kiefer Eaton Shareholder of: Test Pharma, Consultant of: Janssen, Agata Schubert Employee of: Janssen-Cilag, Steve Peterson Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Tim Disher Consultant of: Janssen, Wim Noel Employee of: Janssen Pharmaceuticals NV, Hassan Fareen Employee of: Janssen, Chetan Karyekar Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Consultant of: Janssen, Employee of: Janssen Global Services, LLC. Previously, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Abbott Labs., Suzy Van Sanden Employee of: Janssen, Christopher T. Ritchlin Grant/research support from: UCB Pharma, AbbVie, Amgen, Consultant of: UCB Pharma, Amgen, AbbVie, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Gilead, Janssen, Wolf-Henning Boehncke Grant/research support from: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Consultant of: Janssen

OP0056 PERSISTENCE OF BIOLOGIC TREATMENT IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: A POPULATION-BASED STUDY IN SWEDEN

Background:

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic, heterogeneous, immune-mediated seronegative arthritis characterized by joint inflammation in people with skin psoriasis (PsO). In recent years several effective biologic treatments such as tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), interleukin (IL) 12 and 23 inhibitors (IL-12/23i), and IL 17 inhibitors (IL-17i) have been introduced for PsA. Discontinuation (non-persistence) of therapy is usually a consequence of lack of effect and intolerability.

Objectives:

Compare time to discontinuation of TNFi (adalimumab, ADA), IL-17i (secukinumab, SEC), and IL-12/23i (ustekinumab, UST) treatment exposures and the association with previous biologic treatment experience.

Methods:

Population-based national health data from the Swedish Patient Registry, Prescribed Drug Registry and Cause of Death Registry were linked at the patient level and used to identify treatment exposures in PsA patients initiating ADA, SEC, or UST between January 2008 and September 2018. Discontinuation was defined as a treatment switch to any other PsA-indicated biologic, or failure to re-dispense treatment within a grace period following end of drug supplied. The grace period, defined as the number of days between end of drug supply and re-dispensation during which a patient is considered to be on active treatment, was set dynamically to the number of days of drug supplied in the primary analysis. As a sensitivity analysis, a fixed 90-day grace period was used. Supply was calculated as total milligrams dispensed divided by maintenance dose posology, where the following assumptions were made due to the limitations of the administrative data used: UST patients’ weight corresponded to the amount of drug dispensed (both 45mg and 90mg dispensations last 84 days), SEC patients with prior TNFi experience consumed 300mg/28 days and all others consumed 150mg/28 days, and ADA patients consumed 40mg/14 days. Adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for time to discontinuation were calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model. Covariates for age, marital status, and previous biologic treatment experience were assessed at the initiation of treatment exposure, while comorbidity including skin PsO was assessed during the two years prior. Exposures without discontinuation events were censored at death or end of follow-up. The study was approved by the Stockholm Regional Ethical Review Board.

Results:

3,620 discontinuation events were observed in the main analysis across 4,649 treatment exposures (ADA: 3,255; SEC: 887; UST: 507) (Figure 1, unadjusted). 3,162 events were observed in the sensitivity analysis. Average age at treatment initiation was 50, 54% were female, 47% were biologic treatment naïve, and 39% had skin PsO. In the multivariate main analysis, UST exhibited lower discontinuation rates vs ADA (HR=0.56, 95% CI: 0.49-0.64) while there was no significant difference between SEC and ADA (HR=1.01, 95% CI: 0.88-1.15). In the multivariate sensitivity analysis, both UST (HR=0.81, 95% CI: 0.70-0.94) and SEC (HR=0.82, 95% CI: 0.70-0.95) were associated with significantly lower discontinuation rates ratio relative to ADA. Overall, patients with more biologic treatment experience were statistically significantly (p<0.05) associated with higher risk of treatment discontinuation.

Figure 1.

Unadjusted Kaplan-Meier curves of time to treatment discontinuation (main analysis, dynamic grace period)

Conclusion:

UST exhibits a favourable treatment persistency profile relative to ADA, regardless of the grace period definition. The relative risk of discontinuing SEC vs ADA is sensitive to the grace period. Treatment discontinuation was higher in treatment exposures with more biologic experience.

Disclosure of Interests:

Kirk Geale Consultant of: Quantify Research, Speakers bureau: Indirectly as a consultant, Ingrid Lindberg Consultant of: Quantify Research, Emma Paulsson Consultant of: Quantify Research, Christina Wennerström Employee of: Janssen-Cilag Sweden AB, Anna Tjärnlund Employee of: Janssen-Cilag Sweden AB, Virginia Taliadouros Shareholder of: JnJ, Employee of: Janssen Pharmaceuticals NV, Wim Noel Employee of: Janssen Pharmaceuticals NV, Dana Enkusson Employee of: Janssen-Cilag AB, Elke Theander Employee of: Janssen-Cilag Sweden AB, Sara Bruce Wirta Employee of: Janssen-Cilag Sweden AB

SAT0398 PERSISTENCE OF USTEKINUMAB (UST) OR TNF INHIBITOR (TNFI) TREATMENT IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS (PsA): INSIGHTS FROM THE LARGE, PROSPECTIVE, MULTINATIONAL, REAL-WORLD PsABio COHORT

Background:

Several biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) exist for PsA, TNFi and UST being the earliest on European markets. When bDMARDs are insufficiently effective, later-line bDMARDs typically have shorter persistence. Treatment persistence reflects a mix of effectiveness and adverse events (AEs), and persistence data are limited in PsA.

Objectives:

Comparative analysis of 1-year persistence of UST and TNFi within the prospective PsABio cohort.

Methods:

PsABio is an observational, multinational study of PsA patients (pts) treated with 1st to 3rd line UST or TNFi at their rheumatologist’s discretion.1Treatment persistence (up to 15 months of follow-up) was defined as time between start of first bDMARD treatment in PsABio, and either stop or switch to another bDMARD, or withdrawal.

Persistence of UST and TNFi is shown by Kaplan-Meier curves and compared using Cox regression analysis, with propensity score (PS) to adjust for baseline imbalanced demographic and disease-related covariates (age, sex, bDMARD line, BMI, Clinical Disease Activity index for PSoriatic Arthritis [cDAPSA], 12-item PsA Impact of Disease [PsAID-12], Fibromyalgia Rapid Screening Tool [FiRST] score, co-treatments with MTX, NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, cardiovascular/metabolic comorbidities, dactylitis, enthesitis and body surface area [BSA]). Factors including concomitant MTX use and skin involvement: <3%, 3–10% and >10%, were added to the Cox model to investigate their impact on the PS-adjusted treatment effect.

Results:

Of 438 and 455 pts who started UST and TNF, respectively, 121 (28%) and 134 (29%) stopped or switched treatment before Month 15, with differences (as expected) according to treatment line (Fig. 1a, b). Reasons for stop/switch were related to safety/AEs in 12% (UST) and 28% (TNFi), and effectiveness (joints, nails or skin) in 77% (UST) and 69% (TNFi) of pts.

The observed mean time on drug was 397 days for UST and 385 days for TNFi pts (1st line 410/397 days, 2nd 390/382 days, 3rd 381/338 days). Fig. 1b shows similar persistence for all drugs and treatment lines, except for lower persistence in TNFi 3rd line vs 1st/2nd. In PS-adjusted Cox analysis, no statistically significant difference between UST and TNFi persistence was seen; hazard ratio (HR; 95% CI) for stop/switch bDMARD (UST vs TNFi) was 0.82 (0.60, 1.13). In the model, bDMARD monotherapy (without MTX) and extensive skin involvement (BSA >10%), showed significantly better persistence for UST (HR 0.61 [0.42, 0.90] and 0.41 [0.19, 0.89] respectively; unadjusted Kaplan-Meier graphs shown in Fig. 1c, d). MTX co-therapy and low BSA did not affect the PS-adjusted treatment effect. Other factors added to the PS-adjusted Cox model did not show significant effects.

Conclusion:

In this real-world PsA cohort undergoing bDMARD treatment, persistence was generally comparable for UST and TNFi, but some clinical situations led to better drug persistence with UST compared to TNFi – particularly monotherapy, more extensive skin involvement, and in 3rd-line treatment. Our data emphasise the importance of skin involvement for pts with PsA.

References:

[1]Gossec L, et al.Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(suppl 2):Abstract AB0928

Acknowledgments:

This study was funded by Janssen.

Disclosure of Interests:

Laure Gossec Grant/research support from: Lilly, Mylan, Pfizer, Sandoz, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Stefan Siebert Grant/research support from: BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, Paul Bergmans Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen, Kurt de Vlam Consultant of: Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB – consultant, Speakers bureau: Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB – speakers bureau and honoraria, Elisa Gremese Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Sanofi, UCB, Roche, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Sanofi, UCB, Roche, Pfizer, Beatriz Joven-Ibáñez Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Celgene, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Tatiana Korotaeva Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Consultant of: Abbvie, BIOCAD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BIOCAD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, UCB, Wim Noel Employee of: Janssen Pharmaceuticals NV, Michael T Nurmohamed Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, GlaxoSmithKline, Jansen, Eli Lilly, Menarini, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, USB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, GlaxoSmithKline, Jansen, Eli Lilly, Menarini, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, USB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, GlaxoSmithKline, Jansen, Eli Lilly, Menarini, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, USB, Petros Sfikakis Grant/research support from: Grant/research support from Abvie, Novartis, MSD, Actelion, Amgen, Pfizer, Janssen Pharmaceutical, UCB, Elke Theander Employee of: Janssen-Cilag Sweden AB, Josef S. Smolen Grant/research support from: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer Inc, Samsung, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer Inc, Samsung, Sanofi

Skin-reducing oncoplasty: A new concept and classification in breast cancer surgery

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Breast-conserving surgery and skin-sparing mastectomy are nowadays widely accepted as the standard of care in selected patients with early breast cancer. After an accurate review of the literature, it appeared that no ordered list of the numerous techniques described for conservative breast surgery has been established so far. The aim of this study was to develop a simple classification of the different skin incision patterns that may be used in breast surgery.

METHODS

A systematic review of the English literature was conducted using the PubMed database to identify all the articles reporting breast-conserving surgery and skin-sparring mastectomy techniques up to the 31st of December 2016.

RESULTS

Among the 1426 titles identified, 230 were selected for review. Based on the reviewed papers, the skin-reducing oncoplasty incision pattern (SROIP) classification was elaborated.

CONCLUSIONS

Breast cancer surgery should nowadays optimise aesthetic outcomes by improving the final breast shape, volume and scar location. This may be achieved using different procedures that we grouped together under the term skin-reducing oncoplasty (SRO). Depending on the breast cancer location, the SROIP classification helps in the choice of the best technique to be used.

[Customized external nasal splint after rhinoplasty, introduction to the "tissu-modelage"]

The authors report their experience of 2 years (43 patients) using a customized splint consists of thermoplastic which is molded on the new nose after rhinoplasty, according to a process comparable to that used by dentists to make the gutters. This splint will be applied several weeks to guide healing in a desired direction. The molding of the nose can be re-sculpted to guide the scarring to a better result. Lightweight, washable, discreet, our splint works to the advantage to be worn without discomfort for several weeks in order to improve the efficiency of contention.

Comparison of aesthetic facial criteria between Caucasian and East Asian female populations: An esthetic surgeon's perspective

Objective aesthetic criteria are important for patient evaluation and analysis during aesthetic surgeries, while successful aesthetic surgeries must take into account the underlying ethnic differences. The aim of this study is to help surgeons and scientists better plan facial aesthetic surgeries and understand the aesthetic needs according to different patients by reviewing and comparing the current aesthetic principles and preferences in Caucasian and East Asian populations. PubMed and The Cochrane Library were searched using keywords regarding anthropometric measurements. Only original clinical studies and reviews written in English and Chinese and those that focused on the objective assessment of facial aesthetics in Caucasian and East Asian female populations were retained for review. Reference lists of the selected articles were also reviewed for eligible studies. Sixty-five articles that described objective aesthetic criteria in Caucasian and East Asian female populations were found through PubMed, among which 47 included Caucasian populations and 18 included East Asian populations. Compared with White women, East Asian women prefer a small, delicate, and less robust face, lower position of double eyelid, more obtuse nasofrontal angle, rounder nose tip, smaller tip projection, and slightly more retruded mandibular profile. Various differences exist between objective facial aesthetic criteria in Caucasian and East Asian populations. Further studies that focus on the objective aesthetic criteria of facial attractiveness in different ethnicities need to be conducted, especially in Asian countries. Level V: Opinions of respected authorities, based on clinical experience, descriptive studies, or reports of expert committees.

[Use of hyaluronidase to correct hyaluronic acid injections in aesthetic medicine]

Hyaluronic acid (HA) is the most commonly used filler in aesthetic medicine. However, overcorrections are frequent even with experienced practitioner. Hyaluronidase is an enzyme that hydrolyzes HA. Hyaluronidase has been recently proposed to correct unsatisfactory results of HA injections in aesthetic medicine (overcorrection, asymmetry, Tyndall effect) and to treat immediate complications such as arterial or venous thrombosis. The objective of this technical note was to summarize the literature data regarding the efficacy, safety and technique of use of hyaluronidase. Hyaluronidase may be responsible for allergies. The practitioner should take this risk and the possible drug interactions into account before using this antidote in order to weigh up the risk/benefit ratio.

[One-staged surgical technique for scrotal calcinosis]

INTRODUCTION

Idiopathic calcinosis cutis is a rare condition involving the development of scrotal nodules in the skin and subcutaneous tissue. Although it is a benign disease, patient's quality of life can be importantly impaired.

OBJECTIVE

We report herein our experience and surgical management of diffuse scrotal calcinosis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From 2012 and 2015, 7 patients who suffered of diffuse scrotal calcinosis cutis were included in this study. We performed a one-staged resection of the lesions by an elliptic resection centered on the scrotal median raphe as a scrotal lift shape. Outcomes including sexual quality of life and patient's satisfaction were assessed with a questionnaire.

RESULTS

No postoperative complication occurred. Aesthetic result was high and sexual quality of life was importantly improved. No recurrence was observed in a 2-year follow-up.

DISCUSSION

This disease is a pathological condition of unknown origin and hence is idiopathic. Multi-staged resection of the nodules are often performed despite being a time-consuming and expensive approach. Our one-staged treatment increased the patient's quality of life and self-esteem.

CONCLUSION

We present a one-staged treatment of scrotal calcinosis cutis that is simple and effective. Aesthetic and functional results were achieved.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

5.

[Tip sutures]

Suture techniques are widely used and can be very useful and efficient to support the nasal tip and correct its deformities. Nevertheless, they are so powerful that they have to be performed very precisely if the surgeon does not want to create cosmetics as well as functional problems. The authors describe the main tip sutures and their effects, expected or not.

[Evaluation of a short incision double eyelidplasty for Asian patients]

BACKGROUND

Creation of a double upper eyelid is a popular procedure in Asian countries. Many incisional and non-incisional approaches have been described to create a new suprapalpebral fold.

OBJECTIVE

The authors recommended a short incision technique to create a double eyelid and evaluated the results.

METHODS

The location of the partial incision was determined pre-operatively with the patient. A one-centimeter partial incision was made on the middle one-third of the upper eyelid, and the orbicularis oculi muscle was dissected. Three anchoring stitches were placed for the creation of the permanent suprapalpebral fold. Those stitches were inverted single knots which linked the tarsal plate to the lower margin's dermis or dermomuscular junction of the incised skin. Intra-operative adjustment of position and curvature of the new fold was done by the active opening of the upper eyelid. Global results, symmetry and design were evaluated by the patient and one independent surgeon.

RESULTS

Between January 2012 and January 2013, a total of 10patients were operated using this technique. All patients were satisfied, with 8results graded excellent and 2results graded good. The average operation time was 20minutes. There were no serious complications, the only unfavorable outcome was one persistent bruise. The follow-up period was one year. Recovery time varied from 2weeks to a month. No correction procedure was needed.

CONCLUSIONS

The short central incisional technique for creation of a double eyelid described here provides excellent permanent and natural results, with no visible scar nor serious complications.

Development and implementation of a quality assurance program for mammography

As a pilot study for a national campaign to promote the use of screening mammography, the Virginia Division of the American Cancer Society conducted a breast cancer awareness project with mammography screening. An important part of the program was the development of a quality assurance program for mammography. Guidelines were established for equipment, image recorders, processing, dose, and patient positioning. A survey of information about the mammographic equipment was conducted, and the mammograms from each facility were reviewed. A total of 63 mammographic units in 56 facilities statewide were included in the month-long program during which approximately 9,000 women were screened.