POS0941 LONG-TERM CLINICAL OUTCOMES OF CERTOLIZUMAB PEGOL TREATMENT IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE NON‑RADIOGRAPHIC AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS STRATIFIED BY BASELINE MRI AND C-REACTIVE PROTEIN STATUS

Background

Certolizumab pegol (CZP) has demonstrated clinical efficacy in patients with active non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) and objective signs of inflammation during the 52-week (wk) placebo (PBO)-controlled period and 104 wk open-label (OL) safety follow-up extension (SFE) of the C-axSpAnd study.1 There is, however, a paucity of data on the long-term efficacy of biologics in nr-axSpA according to patients’ baseline MRI and C-reactive protein (CRP) status.

Objectives

This post hoc analysis from C-axSpAnd aimed to evaluate whether patients’ baseline MRI and CRP status impacted long-term (3-year) clinical responses to CZP.

Methods

C-axSpAnd (NCT02552212) was a 3-year, phase 3, multicentre study. Adults (N=317) with nr-axSpA fulfilling the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) classification criteria and objective signs of inflammation (CRP ≥ upper limit of normal (10 mg/L) [CRP+] and/or evidence of sacroiliitis on MRI [MRI+])2 were randomised 1:1 to PBO or CZP (400 mg at Wks 0, 2 and 4, then 200 mg every 2 wks [Q2W]) for 52 wks.3 Those enrolled into the SFE received OL CZP (200 mg Q2W) for an additional 104 wks.

Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) alongside the percentage of patients achieving ASDAS major improvement (ASDAS-MI, C-axSpAnd primary outcome) and ASAS 40% response (ASAS40) at Wks 52 and 156 were assessed according to prespecified subgroups based on MRI/CRP status (MRI+/CRP+, MRI−/CRP+, MRI+/CRP−). All data are reported as observed case.

Results

243/317 (76.7%) patients entered the SFE, 120 from the group initially randomised to CZP (36 MRI+/CRP+, 32 MRI−/CRP+ and 52 MRI+/CRP−) and 123 from the initial PBO group (30 MRI+/CRP+, 34 MRI−/CRP+ and 59 MRI+/CRP−; 75/123 had switched to OL treatment in the 52 wk double-blind phase). 206/243 completed the SFE; 102/120 (85.0%) from the group initially randomised to CZP, 104/123 (84.6%) from the initial PBO group.

Among CZP-randomised patients, mean ASDAS was similar between timepoints (MRI+/CRP+: 1.6 at Wk 52 vs 1.6 at Wk 156; MRI−/CRP+: 2.1 vs 2.2; MRI+/CRP−: 1.7 vs 1.6), the percentage achieving ASDAS-MI was lower at Wk 156 compared to Wk 52 across all subgroups (Figure 1 A). Patients initially randomised to PBO showed improvements in mean ASDAS over time (MRI+/CRP+: 2.1 Wk 52 vs 1.8 Wk 156; MRI−/CRP+: 2.2 vs 1.9; MRI+/CRP−: 2.0 vs 1.7) and a sustained proportion of patients achieved ASDAS-MI.

Similar results were shown for BASDAI, with mean scores for CZP-randomised patients sustained from Wk 52 to Wk 156 across all subgroups (Figure 1 B). Mean BASDAI decreased (indicative of clinical improvements) from Wk 52 to Wk 156 in patients initially randomised to PBO, at which point the values aligned with those reported for the CZP-randomised group.

In CZP-randomised patients, ASAS40 responses were sustained at Wk 156 compared to Wk 52. An increased percentage of patients achieved ASAS40 in all MRI/CRP subgroups initially randomised to PBO at Wk 156 compared to Wk 52 (Figure 1 C).

Conclusion

In this analysis of patients with nr-axSpA and objective signs of inflammation, long-term clinical outcomes achieved after 1 year were generally sustained at 3 years across MRI+/CRP+, MRI−/CRP+ and MRI+/CRP− subgroups; ASDAS-MI was numerically highest in the MRI+/CRP+ subgroup.

References

[1]van der Heijde D. Arthritis Rheumatol 2021;73 (suppl 10);

[2]Lambert RG. Ann Rheum Dis 2016;75(11):1958–63;

[3]Deodhar A. Arthritis Rheumatol 2019;71(7):1101–11.

Acknowledgements

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

Disclosure of Interests

Philip Robinson Consultant of: Personal fees from AbbVie, Atom Biosciences, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: Grant funding from Janssen, Novartis and UCB Pharma; meeting attendance support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, Pfizer and Roche, Walter P Maksymowych Consultant of: Honoraria/consulting fees from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: Research grants from AbbVie and Pfizer; educational grants from AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis and Pfizer; Chief Medical Officer for CARE Arthritis Limited., Lianne S. Gensler Speakers bureau: Speaker for AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: Consulting fees from AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis and UCB Pharma, Martin Rudwaleit Speakers bureau: Speaker for AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: Consulting fees from AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis and UCB Pharma, Bengt Hoepken Shareholder of: Stockholder of UCB Pharma, Employee of: Employee of UCB Pharma, Lars Bauer Shareholder of: Stockholder of UCB Pharma, Employee of: Employee of UCB Pharma, Thomas Kumke Shareholder of: Stockholder of UCB Pharma, Employee of: Employee of UCB Pharma, Mindy Kim Shareholder of: Stockholder of UCB Pharma, Employee of: Employee of UCB Pharma, Atul Deodhar Speakers bureau: Speaker for Janssen, Novartis and Pfizer, Consultant of: Consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Aurinia, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: Research grants from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma

POS0301 STRUCTURAL OUTCOMES IN THE SACROILIAC JOINT AFTER IXEKIZUMAB TREATMENT FOR 16 WEEKS IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE NON‑RADIOGRAPHIC AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS STRATIFIED BY GENDER, HLA-B27, AND BASELINE MRI INFLAMMATION

Background

Ixekizumab (IXE) has demonstrated clinical efficacy in patients with active non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) together with significant repair of structural lesions in the sacroiliac joint (SIJ) on MRI. There is, however, a paucity of data as to which patients may be most responsive.

Objectives

We aimed to evaluate whether patients’ gender, HLA-B27 status, and presence of MRI inflammation impacted the effect of treatment with IXE versus placebo (PBO) on MRI structural lesions in the SIJ in patients with nr-axSpA.

Methods

Patients with active nr-axSpA, biologic-naïve (COAST-X, NCT02757352) were randomized 1:1:1 to ixekizumab 80 mg every 4 (Q4W) or 2 weeks (Q2W) or PBO. Structural lesions on SIJ MRI were assessed by the Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) MRI SIJ structural score (SSS). Treatment comparisons used analysis of covariance based on observed cases. SPARCC SSS subgroup analyses were performed according to baseline gender, HLA-B27 status, and SPARCC MRI SIJ bone marrow oedema (BME) <4 and ≥4 subgroups, which reflects a definite MRI for inflammation in the SIJ typical of axSpA.

Results

Of 303 randomized patients, 266 patients (Q4W: n=85, Q2W: n=91, PBO: n=90) had an MRI scan at baseline and week 16. At baseline, SPARCC scores were consistently higher in males, and mostly higher in HLA-B27 and BME≥4 positive subgroups. Significant differences between patients treated with IXE versus PBO were observed for male patients, HLA-B27 positives, and those with baseline SPARCC BME ≥4. Numerically similar changes were observed in female patients, patients with negative HLA-B27, and patients with SPARCC BME<4, though not statistically significant.

Conclusion

Effects of IXE on structural repair are most evident in males, HLA-B27 positives, and patients with definite MRI inflammation at baseline.

Table 1.

MRI SIJ Structural Lesion Outcomes.

LesionAnalysisPBOIXE Q4WIXE Q2WMale (n=39)Female (n=51)Male (n=44)Female (n=41)Male (n=43)Female (n=48)ErosionBL mean5·1671·9803·5452·8173·5232·594LS mean CFB (SE)0·51 (0·20)-0·11 (0·17)-0·63 (0·18)-0·11 (0·19)-0·51 (0·18)-0·32 (0·17)P value vs PBONANAp<0·001p>0·99p<0·001p=0·37FatBL mean2·0510·9122·0911·2931·4650·677LS mean CFB (SE)-0·02 (0·09)-0·03 (0·08)0·29 (0·08)0·03 (0·08)0·21 (0·08)0·04 (0·08)P value vs PBONANAp=0·01p=0·65p=0·062p=0·51BackfillBL mean1·1540·1670·6630·4150·7910·323LS mean CFB (SE)-0·20 (0·13)0·01 (0·11)0·39 (0·12)0·01 (0·12)0·34 (0·12)0·14 (0·11)P value vs PBONANAp<0·001p>0·99p=0·002p=0·38LesionAnalysisHLA-B27+HLA-B27-HLA-B27+HLA-B27-HLA-B27+HLA-B27-(n=64)(n=25)(n=61)(n=23)(n=65)(n=26)ErosionBL mean3·8202·1003·4672·5433·5151·827LS mean CFB (SE)0·27 (0·15)-0·10 (0·24)-0·49 (0·15)-0·01 (0·25)-0·50 (0·15)-0·17 (0·24)P value vs PBONANAp<0·001p=0·79p<0·001p=0·84FatBL mean1·5781·0201·3282·7831·2850·462LS mean CFB (SE)-0·06 (0·06)-0·06 (0·10)0·22 (0·06)0·01 (0·10)0·13 (0·06)0·10 (0·10)P value vs PBONANAp=0·002p=0·65p=0·027p=0·25BackfillBL mean0·7420·2400·5420·5650·7620LS mean CFB (SE)-0·12 (0·10)0·01 (0·16)0·28 (0·10)0 (0·17)0·27 (0·10)0·16 (0·16)P value vs PBONANAp=0·005p=0·96p=0·005p=0·52LesionAnalysisBME ≥4BME <4BME ≥4BME <4BME ≥4BME <4(n=40)(n=50)(n=27)(n=58)(n=38)(n=53)ErosionBL mean4·8632·1605·3522·1905·2761·425LS mean CFB (SE)0·42 (0·19)-0·06 (0·17)-0·70 (0·23)-0·23 (0·16)-0·71 (0·20)-0·19 (0·17)P value vs PBONANAp<0·001p=0·47p<0·001p=0·57FatBL mean0·7751·9101·9261·6031·6710·604LS mean CFB (SE)-0·02 (0·08)-0·02 (0·07)0·54 (0·10)-0·01 (0·07)0·28 (0·08)0·01 (0·07)P value vs PBONANAp<0·001p=0·90p=0·013p=0·74BackfillBL mean0·7500·4701·0190·3280·7630·387LS mean CFB (SE)-0·21 (0·12)0·01 (0·11)0·41 (0·15)0·11 (0·10)0·49 (0·13)0·05 (0·11)P value vs PBONANAp=0·002p=0·52p<0·001p=0·80

CFB=change from BL. BL=baseline, LS=least squares.

Acknowledgements

Study was sponsored by Eli Lilly and Company

Disclosure of Interests

Walter P Maksymowych Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB and is Chief Medical Officer of CARE Arthritis Ltd, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Xenofon Baraliakos Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Chugai, Galapagos, Gilead, Eli Lilly and Company, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, and UCB, Robert G Lambert Consultant of: CARE Arthritis, Image Analysis Group, Parexel, and Pfizer, Robert B.M. Landewé Consultant of: AbbVie, Astra-Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Gilead, Galapagos, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB; and is director of Imaging Rheumatology BV, which is a registered company under Dutch Law, David Sandoval Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Hilde Carlier Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Jeffrey Lisse Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Xiaoqi Li Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Maja Hojnik Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Mikkel Østergaard Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Merck, Celgene, and Novartis

POS0341 CONSENSUS-DRIVEN DEFINITION FOR UNEQUIVOCAL SACROILIITIS ON RADIOGRAPHS IN JUVENILE SPONDYLOARTHRITIS

Background

Radiographs are not a sensitive or reliable imaging tool for detection of early sacroiliitis in juvenile spondyloarthritis (JSpA). However, radiographs are still commonly performed in some areas due to difficulty in accessing MRI. As such, radiographs were included in the imaging data considered for an axial disease classification criteria development study, but only when there was no suitable MRI available.

Objectives

We aimed to define criteria for unequivocal evidence of sacroiliitis on pelvic radiography in skeletally immature children and adolescents for use in classification criteria.

Methods

Subjects were a cohort of JSpA patients with suspected axial disease. All subjects had symptom onset prior to age 18 years and underwent MRI as part of a diagnostic evaluation for axial disease; a subset of subjects also had a dedicated pelvic radiograph. Using a web-based interface, 6 musculoskeletal imaging experts, blinded to clinical details, reviewed the radiographs and graded them according to the modified New York (mNY) criteria. A two-way random effects intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess agreement. Next, the central imaging team underwent an iterative consensus process to define unequivocal evidence of sacroiliitis on pelvic radiography in skeletally immature children. Radiographs with at least two raters assigning a non-zero mNY grade were re-reviewed for the presence/absence of “unequivocal evidence of sacroiliitis” according to the consensus definition. Agreement was assessed with Fleiss’s kappa statistic with agreement interpreted as poor ≤0.40, fair 0.41-0.59, good 0.60-0.74, and ≥0.75 excellent. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) were calculated to assess performance of the novel definition using structural lesion typical of juvenile axial disease on MRI as the reference standard (erosion in ≥3 sacroiliac joint (SIJ) quadrants or at least one of the following lesions in ≥2 SIJ quadrants: sclerosis, fat lesion, backfill, ankylosis).

Results

Radiographs from 120 subjects, 61% male, median age 14.7 years (range 6.7-20.1 years), had an AP dedicated pelvic radiograph available for scoring. The ICC for mNY grade amongst 6 central raters was fair for joints with at least one rater reporting a non-zero grade (0.45, 95% CI: 0.34-0.57). After multiple iterations and discussion, the consensus definition of unequivocal sacroiliitis by radiograph in skeletally immature children and adolescents was deemed “Unequivocal lesion (erosion, sclerosis, or ankylosis [partial or complete]) that must include at least one iliac bone. When sclerosis is present in isolation, if measurable, should extend ≥5mm from the joint surface. The decision may be influenced by the presence of other lesions, which in themselves do not suffice to meet the criterion.” Sixteen radiographs were assessed using the consensus definition. 8 (50%) were rated as unequivocal sacroiliitis and Fleiss’ kappa statistic was good at 0.61 (95% CI: 0.41-0.80). Across raters, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of the consensus definition on radiograph using structural lesions typical of sacroiliitis on MRI as the reference standard were 80% (95%CI: 44.4-97.5), 100% (95% CI: 54.1-100), 100% (63.1-100) and 75% (95% CI:34.9-96.8), respectively.

Conclusion

We propose a consensus-derived definition of unequivocal sacroiliitis by radiography in skeletally immature children and adolescents with good expert rater agreement. Additionally, the consensus-definition had moderate to high sensitivity and PPV and high specificity and NPV with typical structural lesions on MRI as the reference standard. This definition has applicability to JSpA axial disease classification criteria when MRI is unavailable.

Figure 1.

Examples of radiographs with unequivocal evidence of sacroiliitis in skeletally immature children as indicated by definite erosions of both iliac bones (A and B) and definite iliac sclerosis (A).

Disclosure of Interests

Pamela F. Weiss Consultant of: Pfizer

Novartis

Biogen

Lilly

(All < $5K in the past fiscal year), Timothy G. Brandon: None declared, Robert G Lambert Paid instructor for: Novartis, Consultant of: CARE Arthritis, Calyx, Image Analysis Group, Novartis, David M. Biko Employee of: Merck (1998 to 2000), Nancy A. Chauvin Employee of: Forest Pharmaceuticals - Research scientist (1996) and Novartis - Pharmaceutical sales representative (1997), Michael L. Francavilla: None declared, Nele Herregods: None declared, Alison M. Hendry: None declared, Walter P Maksymowych Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Eli-Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Novartis, Pfizer

POS0989 DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS ON A STANDARDIZED IMAGE ACQUISITION PROTOCOL FOR DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION OF THE SACROILIAC JOINTS BY MRI – AN ASAS-SPARTAN COLLABORATION

Background

In 2009, ASAS published a ‘Definition of active sacroiliitis on MRI for classification of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA)’. This definition relied on two MRI sequences to make this determination – semicoronal T1 and STIR. Since then, this approach has frequently been used for diagnosis, even though that was never the intent of the definition. In 2015, the European Society of Skeletal Radiology (ESSR) published its recommendations for an SIJ MRI image acquisition protocol (IAP) for diagnostic purposes that required 4 MRI sequences but there is still no IAP that has been widely accepted as a minimum standard worldwide. In 2020, an informal survey of 24 academic sites (12 Europe, 12 North America) confirmed that 24/24 sites performed a minimum of 3 MRI sequences for diagnosis (19 performed 4-8 sequences) because the 2-sequence protocol was considered inadequate.

Objectives

To develop the minimum requirements for a standardized IAP for MRI of the sacroiliac joints for diagnostic ascertainment of sacroiliitis.

Methods

All radiologist members of the ASAS and SPARTAN Classification in axSpA (CLASSIC) project, along with one European and one North American rheumatologist with extensive MRI experience in SpA clinical practice and research, were invited to participate in a consensus exercise. A draft IAP was circulated to all participants along with background information and justification for the draft proposal. Feedback on all issues was received by email, tabulated and recirculated. Participants were broadly in favour of the proposal and two months later a teleconference meeting took place and remaining points of contention were resolved. Examples of the proposed IAP performed on new, 10 and 22 years’ old MRI scanners were made available for review in DICOM format. Next the revised draft of the IAP was presented at the ASAS annual meeting to the entire membership on 14 January 2022, and voted on.

Results

A 4-sequence IAP, 3-semicoronal and 1-semiaxial, is recommended for diagnostic ascertainment of sacroiliitis and its differential diagnoses (Table 1). It must meet the following requirements: Semicoronal sequences should be parallel to the dorsal cortex of the S2 vertebral body, and include: 1) a sequence sensitive for the detection of active inflammation being T2-weighted with suppression of fat signal; 2) a sequence sensitive for the detection of structural damage in bone and bone marrow with T1-weighting; 3) a sequence that is designed to optimally depict the bone-cartilage interface of the articular surface and be sensitive for detection of bone erosion; plus 4) a semiaxial sequence sensitive for inflammation detection. The IAP was approved at the ASAS annual meeting by a vote of the entire membership with 91% in favour.

Table 1.

A standardized SIJ MRI Acquisition Protocol for diagnostic ascertainment of sacroiliitis

OrientationSequenceTarget Lesion(s)Semicoronal Parallel to the dorsal cortex of the S2 vertebral bodyT1-weighted Spin EchoStructural: Fat lesions, erosion, sclerosis, backfill, ankylosis.T2-weighted with suppressed fat signal (STIR, T2FS or equivalent)Inflammatory: Bone marrow edema (BME)T1-weighted with suppressed fat signal (2D or 3D T1FS)Structural: Erosion of the articular surfaceSemiaxial Perpendicular to semicoronalT2-weighted with suppressed fat signal (STIR, T2FS or equivalent)Inflammatory: Bone marrow edema (BME)

Conclusion

A standardized IAP for MRI of the sacroiliac joints for diagnostic ascertainment of sacroiliitis is recommended and should be comprised of a minimum of 4 sequences, in 2-planes, that will optimally visualize inflammation, structural damage, and the bone-cartilage interface.

Disclosure of Interests

Robert Lambert Paid instructor for: Novartis, Consultant of: Calyx, CARE Arthritis, Image Analysis Group, Xenofon Baraliakos Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Pfizer, MSD, UCB, Novartis, Lilly, Galapagos, Hexal, Paid instructor for: Abbvie, Pfizer, MSD, UCB, Novartis, Lilly, Galapagos, Hexal, Consultant of: Abbvie, Pfizer, MSD, UCB, Novartis, Lilly, Galapagos, Hexal, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, MSD, Novartis, Lilly, Stephanie Bernard Consultant of: Elsevier Amirsys, John Carrino Consultant of: Pfizer, Regeneron, Globus, Carestream, Image Analysis Group, Image Biopsy Lab, Torsten Diekhoff Speakers bureau: Novartis, MSD, Canon MS, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Iris Eshed: None declared, Kay-Geert Hermann Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis. Co-founder: BerlinFlame GmbH, Nele Herregods: None declared, Jacob L Jaremko: None declared, Lennart Jans: None declared, Anne Grethe Jurik: None declared, John O’Neill: None declared, Monique Reijnierse: None declared, Michael Tuite Consultant of: GE HealthCare, Walter P Maksymowych Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB

POS0939 BIMEKIZUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE NON-RADIOGRAPHIC AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS: 24-WEEK EFFICACY & SAFETY FROM BE MOBILE 1, A PHASE 3, MULTICENTRE, RANDOMISED, PLACEBO‑CONTROLLED STUDY

Background

Bimekizumab (BKZ) is a monoclonal IgG1 antibody that selectively inhibits IL-17F in addition to IL-17A. BKZ has shown rapid and sustained efficacy and was well tolerated up to 156 weeks (wks) in a phase 2b study in patients (pts) with active ankylosing spondylitis.1,2

Objectives

To assess efficacy and safety of BKZ vs placebo (PBO) in pts with active non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) up to Wk 24 in the ongoing pivotal phase 3 study, BE MOBILE 1.

Methods

BE MOBILE 1 (NCT03928704) comprises a 16-wk double-blind, PBO-controlled period and 36-wk maintenance period. Pts were aged ≥18 yrs, had BASDAI ≥4 and spinal pain ≥4 at BL, and sacroiliitis on MRI and/or elevated CRP at screening. Pts were randomised 1:1, BKZ 160 mg Q4W:PBO. From Wk 16, all pts received BKZ 160 mg Q4W. Primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were assessed at Wk 16.

Results

Of 254 randomised pts (BKZ: 128; PBO: 126), 244 (96.1%) completed Wk 16, 240 (94.5%) Wk 24. BL characteristics were comparable between groups: mean age 39.4 yrs, symptom duration 9.0 yrs; 54.3% pts male, 77.6% HLA-B27+, 10.6% TNFi-experienced. At Wk 16, the primary (ASAS40: 47.7% BKZ vs 21.4% PBO; p<0.001) and all ranked secondary endpoints were met (Table 1). Responses were rapid with BKZ, including in PBO pts who switched to BKZ at Wk 16, and increased to Wk 24 (Figure 1; Table 1). Substantial reductions of hs-CRP by Wk 2 and MRI SIJ inflammation by Wk 16 were achieved with BKZ vs PBO (Table 1). At Wk 24, >50% of pts initially randomised to BKZ had achieved ASDAS <2.1 (Figure 1).

Table 1.

Efficacy at Wks 16 and 24

BLWk 16Wk 24PBO N=126BKZ 160 mg Q4W N=128PBO N=126BKZ 160 mg Q4W N=128p valuePBO→BKZ 160 mg Q4W N=126BKZ 160 mg Q4W N=128Ranked endpoints in hierarchical orderASAS40* [NRI] n (%)--27 (21.4)61 (47.7)<0.00159 (46.8)67 (52.3)BASDAI CfB† [MI] mean (SE)6.7 (0.1)6.9 (0.1)–1.5 (0.2)–3.1 (0.2)<0.001–3.2 (0.2)–3.4 (0.2)ASAS20† [NRI] n (%)--48 (38.1)88 (68.8)<0.00187 (69.0)96 (75.0)ASAS PR† [NRI] n (%)--9 (7.1)33 (25.8)<0.00135 (27.8)37 (28.9)ASDAS-MI† [NRI] n (%)--9 (7.1)35 (27.3)<0.00137 (29.4)41 (32.0)ASAS 5/6† [NRI] n (%)--21 (16.7)49 (38.3)<0.00151 (40.5)57 (44.5)BASFI CfB† [MI] mean (SE)5.3 (0.2)5.5 (0.2)–1.0 (0.2)–2.5 (0.2)<0.001–2.3 (0.2)–2.8 (0.2)Nocturnal spinal pain CfB† [MI] mean (SE)6.7 (0.2)6.9 (0.2)–1.7 (0.2)–3.6 (0.3)<0.001–3.5 (0.2)–4.0 (0.3)ASQoL CfB† [MI] mean (SE)9.4 (0.4)9.5 (0.4)–2.5 (0.4)–5.2 (0.4)<0.001–4.8 (0.4)–5.7 (0.4)SF-36 PCS CfB† [MI] mean (SE)33.6 (0.8)33.3 (0.7)5.5 (0.7)9.5 (0.7)<0.00110.1 (0.8)10.6 (0.8)Other endpointsdEnthesitis-free state†a [NRI] n (%)--22 (23.9)b48 (51.1)c-40 (43.5)b45 (47.9)cASAS40 in TNFi-experienced [NRI] n (%)--2 (11.8)e6 (60.0)f---ASDAS-CRP CfB [MI] mean (SE)3.7 (0.1)3.8 (0.1)–0.6 (0.1)–1.5 (0.1)-–1.5 (0.1)–1.6 (0.1)hs-CRP, mg/L [MI] geometric mean (median)5.0 (6.5)4.6 (6.1)3.8 (4.1)2.0 (1.8)-2.3 (2.6)1.9 (1.8)MRI spine Berlin CfBg [OC] mean (SD)1.9 (3.2)h1.6 (2.9)i–0.1 (1.7)j–0.7 (2.2)k---SPARCC MRI SIJ score CfBg [OC] mean (SD)10.5 (13.8)l8.5 (10.3)m–1.5 (9.2)n–6.3 (10.0)o---

Randomised set. *Primary endpoint; †Secondary endpoint; aMASES=0 in pts with BL MASES >0; bn=92; cn=94; dNominal p values not shown; en=17; fn=10; gIn pts in MRI sub-study; hn=65; in=75; jn=58; kn=73; ln=68; mn=79; nn=60; on=77.

Over 16 wks, 80/128 (62.5%) pts had ≥1 TEAE on BKZ vs 71/126 (56.3%) on PBO; most frequent were nasopharyngitis (BKZ: 9.4%; PBO: 4.8%), upper respiratory tract infection (BKZ: 7.0%; PBO: 7.1%) and oral candidiasis (BKZ: 3.1%; PBO: 0%). No systemic candidiasis was observed. Up to 16 wks, incidence of SAEs was low (BKZ: 0.0%; PBO: 0.8%); no MACE or deaths were reported; 0 IBD cases occurred in pts on BKZ vs 1 (0.8%) in a pt on PBO.

Conclusion

Dual inhibition of IL-17A and IL-17F with BKZ in pts with active nr-axSpA resulted in rapid, clinically relevant improvements in efficacy outcomes vs PBO. No new safety signals were observed.1,2

References

[1]van der Heijde D. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79:595–604;

[2]Gensler L. Arthritis Rheumatol 2021;73(suppl 10):0491.

Acknowledgements

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

Disclosure of Interests

Atul Deodhar Speakers bureau: Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Aurinia, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Bayer, BMS, Cyxone, Eisai, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Employee of: Imaging Rheumatology BV (Director), Lianne S. Gensler Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Huji Xu: None declared, Karl Gaffney Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Gilead, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and UCB Pharma, Hiroaki Dobashi Speakers bureau: BMS, Chugai, Eli Lilly, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Walter P Maksymowych Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis and Pfizer, Employee of: Chief Medical Officer for CARE Arthritis, Martin Rudwaleit Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Paid instructor for: Janssen, Novartis, and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Novartis, and UCB Pharma, Marina Magrey Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie and UCB Pharma, Dirk Elewaut Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Novartis and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Novartis and UCB Pharma, Marga Oortgiesen Employee of: Employee of UCB Pharma, Carmen Fleurinck Employee of: Employee of UCB Pharma, Alicia Ellis Employee of: Employee of UCB Pharma, Thomas Vaux Employee of: Employee of UCB Pharma, julie smith Employee of: Employee of UCB Pharma, Xenofon Baraliakos Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Paid instructor for: AbbVie, BMS, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma

POS1259 AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS, AGE AND MALE GENDER IMPACT COVID VACCINATION AEs MORE THAN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

Background

Rheumatologists recommend vaccination in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) patients, but there are few studies on the occurrence of adverse events (AEs), particularly worsening disease related activity and unrelated immune reactions in these groups.

Objectives

To evaluate the uptake of COVID vaccination in RA and axSpA patients, compare the frequency of AEs, and identify risk factors associated with vaccine AEs in two prospective cohorts comprised of these patients.

Methods

The IMPACT study is a monthly survey of two prospective cohorts of established RA and axSpA patients in northern Alberta, Canada from November 2020-2021 who answered at least one or more Redcap surveys through de-identified email link surveying demographics, disease characteristics, COVID symptoms, treatment of RA and axSpA, health care utilization, vaccination status, vaccine AEs and use of cannabis. Univariate analyses evaluated independent variables associated with the dependent variables of (1) any AE, (2) any severe AE, (3) any arthritis flare, and (4) any severe arthritis flare, followed by multivariate analyses of these four dependant variables using all clinically relevant variables from the univariate analysis.

Results

773/2167 patients (RA 574, axSpA 197) responded to at least one survey. 32/663 (5%) were single vaccinated, 631 (95%) double vaccinated and 230 (54%) triple vaccinated with 80% receiving Pfizer, 24% Moderna, 28% AstraZeneca and 30% “other”. 456 (69%) reported at least one AE (Figure 1) with 21 (3%) patients seeing a physician for their AE. Increased age was associated with all AEs. RA patients had lower reported AEs versus axSpA patients for all AE definitions except for severe arthritis flares. Generally, males reported worse AEs (Table 1). “Any arthritis flare” was lower in patients reporting cannabis use.

Table 1.

Summary of Multivariate Level Mixed-Effect Logistic Regression Models Evaluating the IMPACT of RA and axSpA Disease Characteristics on Vaccine AEs

VariableAny Adverse EventOR (95 % CI) p valueSevere Adverse Event* OR 95 % CI) p valueAny Arthritis Flare or Joint Ache Adverse Event OR (95 % CI) p valueAny Severe Arthritis Flare or Joint Ache* OR (95 % CI) p valueGenderMale1.47 (0.89 – 2.43)p=0.132.10 (1.30-3.41)p=0.0032.05 (1.20 – 3.50) p=0.013.97 (1.84 – 8.57)p=0.0004FemaleAge1.06 (1.04 – 1.08)p<0.011.05 (1.03 – 1.06)p<0.011.03 (1.01 – 1.04)p=0.0031.03 (1.01 – 1.06)p=0.004Rheumatic Disease TypeRA0.42 (0.23 – 0.76)p=0.050.55 (0.31 – 0.98)p=0.040.52 (0.28 – 0.98)p=0.040.78 (0.34 – 1.78)p=0.55axSpASteroidsYes0.85 (0.40 – 1.83) P=0.680.66 (0.32 – 1.35) p=0.250.84 (0.36 – 1.95) p=0.690.38 (0.15 – 0.97)p=0.04NoNSAIDSYes1.11 (0.81 – 1.52) p=0.511.03 (0.75 – 1.41)p=0.861.05 (0.74 – 1.48)p=0.801.17 (0.73 – 1.89)p=0.52NoCurrent Disease Activity0.95 (0.88 – 1.03) p=0.230.90 (0.83 – 0.97)p=0.190.92 (0.85 – 1.00)p=0.060.82 (0.74 – 0.92)p=0.001HAQ1.08 (0.73 – 1.61) p=0.700.77 (0.52 – 1.14)p=0.010.74 (0.48 – 1.13)p=0.170.65 (0.38 – 1.11)p=0.12Nicotine productsYes1.33 (0.75 – 2.37) p=0.341.42 (0.80 – 2.52)p=0.241.15 (0.60 – 2.01)p=0.760.97 (0.43 – 2.17)p=0.94NoCannabis productsYes0.78 (0.49 – 1.25) p=0.300.87 (0.55 – 1.38)p=0.550.51 (0.31 – 0.83)p=0.070.66 (0.35 – 1.26)p=0.21NoDMARDsYes1.98 (1.28 – 3.06)p=0.0021.52 (1.01 – 2.28)p=0.051.43 (0.91 – 2.23) p=0.121.86 (1.03 – 3.36)p=0.04NoBiologic DMARDYes0.72 (0.42 – 1.25) p=0.240.79 (0.45 – 1.41) p=0.431.20 (0.66 – 2.18 p=0.541.39 (0.63 – 3.08)p=0.42No

*Severe = Any of the following: ranked moderate to severe and/or lasting more than 7 days and/or saw physician

Conclusion

RA and axSpA patients showed high uptake of COVID vaccination with largely minor AEs. Older age and male gender were associated with more general and arthritis specific AEs. The association of any AE and/or arthritis-specific AEs in SpA versus RA patients is a novel finding which may correlate with the male predominance of SpA. The association of cannabis with fewer arthritis AEs may reflect the nociceptive properties of cannabis.

Acknowledgements

Epidemiology Coordinating and Research (EPICORE) Centre provided support for the REDCAP survey and biostatistical analyses.

Disclosure of Interests

Stephanie Keeling Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Abbvie, GSK, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, GSK, UCB, AstraZeneca, Sandoz, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Sandoz, Merck, UCB, Bo Pan: None declared, Edna Hutchings Shareholder of: BMS, Stephanie Wichuk: None declared, Mohammed Osman Speakers bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Grant/research support from: Boehringer Ingelheim and CSL-Behring, Ameeta Singh: None declared, Ashlesha Sonpar Speakers bureau: Novartis, Ilan Swartz: None declared, Walter P Maksymowych Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celegene, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB

POS0153 MRI SPINAL LESIONS IN PATIENTS WITHOUT MRI OR RADIOGRAPHIC LESIONS IN THE SACROILIAC JOINTS TYPICAL OF AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS

Background

There are limited data as to the frequency of spinal lesions on MRI in patients without MRI or radiographic features typical of sacroiliac joint (SIJ) disease and to what degree spine MRI might enhance diagnostic evaluation.

Objectives

To assess the frequency of MRI lesions of the spine in the ASAS-Classification Cohort according to the presence of MRI SIJ lesions typical of axSpA and/or radiographic sacroiliitis (mNY+).

Methods

MRI spine lesions were recorded by 9 central readers in an eCRF that captures global assessment of the spine (“Is the MRI consistent with axSpA: yes/no”) (yes=MRIglobal spine+) and detailed anatomical-based scoring of each discovertebral unit plus lateral and posterior structures. Independently, readers globally assessed SIJ scans for active and/or structural lesions typical of axSpA. We compared the frequency of MRIglobal spine+ and frequencies of different types of spinal lesions according to the presence/absence of axSpA on global evaluation of SIJ scans by ≥5 of 9 readers (MRIglobal SIJ+) and mNY+ sacroiliitis using Fisher’s exact test. Analysis was also stratified by rheumatologist diagnosis.

Results

Among 51 cases with SIJ as well as spine MRI scans and radiographs of the SIJ,19 (37.3%) had MRIglobal SIJ+, and 12 (23.5%) and 7 (13.7%) had MRIglobal spine+ by ≥2 and ≥5 reader agreement, respectively. MRIglobal spine+ occurred significantly more frequently in the presence of mNY+ sacroiliitis and MRIglobal SIJ+ but was also recorded in 4 of 32(12.5%) (≥2 readers) and 1 of 32(3.4%) (≥5 readers) cases that were MRIglobal SIJ- and x-ray negative, all 4 cases being diagnosed with axSpA. Moreover, vertebral corner BME lesions, but not spinal structural lesions, were significantly more frequent in MRIglobal SIJ- cases that had been clinically diagnosed as axSpA versus non-axSpA (Table 1).

Table 1.

Frequency of Spinal MRI lesions According to SIJ Imaging Positive for AxSpA

MRI Spinal Lesions, N (%)MRIglobalSIJ+ (n=19)MRIglobalSIJ- (n=32)P valueMRIglobal SIJ+ and/or mNY+ (n=22)MRIglobal SIJ- and mNY- (n=29)P valueMRIglobal SIJ- and SpA Diagnosis+(n=17)MRIglobal SIJ- and SpA Diagnosis- (n=15)P valueMRIglobal consistent with axSpA (≥2/9 readers agree)8 (42.1%)4 (12.5%)0.048(36.4%)4(13.8%)0.104 (23.5%)0 (0%)0.10MRIglobal consistent with axSpA (≥5/9 readers agree)6 (31.6%)1 (3.1%)0.016 (27.3%)1 (3.4%)0.031 (5.9%)0 (0%)1.0VC BME ≥19 (47.4%)15 (46.9%)46.9% RT 62.5% CT 29.4% GT1.010(45.5%)14(48.3%)1.011 (64.7%)4 (26.7%)0.04VC BME ≥26 (31.6%)10 (31.3%)31.2% RT 55.6% CT 19.6% GT1.06(27.3%)10(34.5%)0.769 (52.9%)1 (6.7%)0.007VC BME ≥36 (31.6%)7 (21.9%)21.9% RT 53.8% CT 13.7% GT0.526(27.3%)7(24.1%)1.07 (41.2%)0 (0%)0.008VC BME ≥45 (26.3%)5 (15.6%)0.475(22.7%)5(17.2%)0.735 (29.4%)0 (0%)0.046Vertebral Endplate BME ≥12 (10.5%)3 (9.4%)1.02(9.1%)3(10.3%)1.02 (11.8%)1 (6.7%)1.0Lateral vertebral BME3 (15.8%)3 (9.4%)0.663(13.6%)3(10.3%)1.03 (17.6%)0 (0%)0.23Facet BME ≥14 (21.1%)1 (3.1%)3.1% RT 20.0% CT 2.0% GT0.064(18.2%)1(3.4%)0.151 (5.9%)0 (0%)1.0Posterior BME ≥15 (26.3%)2 (6.3%)0.095(22.7%)2(6.9%)0.221 (5.9%)1 (6.7%)1.0VC Fat ≥18 (42.1%)42.1% RT 44.4% CT 15.7% GT10 (31.3%)31.2% RT 55.6% CT 19.6% GT0.558(36.4%)10(34.5%)1.05 (29.4%)5 (33.3%)1.0VC Fat ≥27 (36.8%)5 (15.6%)0.107(31.8%)5(17.2%)0.323 (17.6%)2 (13.3%)1.0VC Fat ≥36 (31.6%)31.6% RT 66.7% CT 11.8% GT3 (9.4%)0.066(27.3%)3(10.3%)0.151 (5.9%)2 (13.3%)0.59VC Fat ≥46 (31.6%)1 (3.1%)0.016(27.3%)1(3.4%)0.030 (0%)1 (6.7%)0.47Lateral Fat ≥16 (31.6%)2 (6.3%)0.046(27.3%)2(6.9%)0.060 (0%)2 (13.3%)0.21Erosion ≥13 (15.8%)2 (6.3%)0.353(13.6%)2(6.9%)0.641 (5.9%)1 (6.7%)1.0Bone Spur ≥14 (21.1%)5 (15.6%)0.714(18.2%)5(17.2%)1.04 (23.5%)1 (6.7%)0.34Ankylosis ≥12 (10.5%)0 (0%)0.132(9.1%)0(0%)0.180 (0%)0 (0%)-

Conclusion

Spinal lesions on MRI indicative of axSpA per majority read occurred in about 3% of patients without positive imaging in the SIJ. Frequency of spinal BME lesions was higher in cases with negative SIJ imaging but clinically diagnosed with axSpA.

Disclosure of Interests

None declared

POS1258 LESS THAN EXPECTED IMPACT OF RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS AND AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS DISEASE ON COVID SEVERITY

Background

Throughout the pandemic, there has been ongoing concern that people with autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) will have more severe COVID-19 disease due to immune dysfunction associated with autoimmune diseases and their treatment.

Objectives

We aimed to compare the severity of COVID-19 in patients with RA versus axSpA and characterize the predictors of COVID-19 severity during the pre-Omicron pandemic phases.

Methods

The IMPACT (IMPact of inflammatory Arthritis on COVID Outcomes STudy) study is a monthly survey of two established northern Alberta, Canada prospective cohorts of RA and axSpA patients from November 2020-2021 who answered Redcap surveys through de-identified email link surveying patient demographics, disease characteristics, COVID-19 symptoms, treatment of RA and axSpA, health care utilization, vaccination status and vaccine adverse events. Descriptive and univariate analyses (dependent variable = severe COVID-19) were performed followed by multivariate analyses of all significant and clinically relevant independent variables from the univariate analysis. Infection severity was defined as any patient with COVID-19 symptoms who visited a doctor, ER or required hospital admission.

Results

773 of 2167 (36%) patients (RA n=574, axSpA n=197) registered in both cohorts answered at least one baseline survey, 28 (4%) reporting positive COVID-19 tests (24 positive once). Of 442 reporting COVID-19 symptoms during the survey, 11 (3%) were admitted for a mean of 4 days, 2 requiring ICU or blood clot treatment and 1 requiring advanced therapy. 116 (26%) visited a physician for Covid symptoms. Univariate analysis showed that the use of steroids, NSAIDs and increased disease activity were associated with having less severe infection but these associations were not significant in the multivariate analysis (Table 1). There were no significant impacts of RA vs axSpA, age, gender, treatment, disease activity, or smoking.

Table 1.

Multivariate Level Mixed-Effect Logistic Regression Model: IMPACT of RA and axSpA Disease Characteristics on COVID Infection Severity Defined as Patients with COVID Symptoms Requiring Visit to Doctor, Emergency Room and/or Hospital Admission.

VariableCoefficient (S.E)Odds Ratio (95 % Confidence Interval)P-valueGenderMale0.17 (0.34)1.18 (0.61 – 2.31)0.6193FemaleReferenceAge-0.01 (0.01)0.99 (0.97 – 1.01)0.2543Rheumatic Disease TypeRA0.18 (0.40)1.20 (0.58 – 2.48)0.6213SpAReferenceSteroidsYes-0.40 (0.56)0.67 (0.23 – 2.01)0.4757NoReferenceNSAIDSYes-0.20 (0.26)0.82 (0.49 – 1.37)0.4508NoReferenceCurrent Disease Activity-0.04 (0.06)0.96 (0.85 – 1.09)0.5275HAQ-0.03 (0.29)0.97 (0.55 – 1.70)0.9041Nicotine productsYes-0.67 (0.37)0.51 (0.25 – 1.06)0.0714NoReferenceCannabis productsYes-0.45 (0.31)0.64 (0.35 – 1.18)0.1510NoReferenceDMARDsYes0.26 (0.30)1.30 (0.72 – 2.35)0.3860NoReferenceBiologic DMARDYes-0.46 (0.43)0.63 (0.27 – 1.46)0.2813NoReference

Conclusion

Possible disease related risk factors for increased COVID-19 severity in RA and axSpA patients preceding the onset of the Omicron variant including use of steroids or DMARDs were not associated with severe infection. These findings are consistent with other international studies whereby other non-rheumatic disease comorbidities played a greater role in infection severity.

Acknowledgements

Epidemiology Coordinating and Research (EPICORE) Centre provided support for the REDCAP survey and biostatistical anayses.

Disclosure of Interests

Stephanie Keeling Speakers bureau: Abbvie, GSK, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, GSK, Pfizer, Sandoz, UCB, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Novartis, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, UCB, Sandoz, Pfizer, Merck, Bo Pan: None declared, Edna Hutchings Shareholder of: BMS, Stephanie Wichuk: None declared, Mohammed Osman Speakers bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Grant/research support from: Yes, Boehringer Ingelheim and CSL-Behring, Ameeta Singh: None declared, Ashlesha Sonpar Speakers bureau: Novartis, Ilan Swartz: None declared, Walter P Maksymowych Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB

, Consultant of: Abbvie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celegene, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB

POS0173 DATA-DRIVEN MRI DEFINITIONS FOR ACTIVE AND STRUCTURAL SACROILIAC JOINT LESIONS IN JUVENILE SPONDYLOARTHRITIS TYPICAL OF AXIAL DISEASE

Background

For classification in juvenile spondyloarthritis (JSpA), it is important to develop cut-offs for active and structural lesions typical of axial disease on MRI that are readily and consistently interpreted. Since the maturing sacroiliac joint (SIJ) looks different from the adult SIJ, the criteria developed for positive MRI in adults may not be applicable in JSpA.

Objectives

As part of a study developing classification criteria for axial disease in JSpA, we aimed to determine quantitative SIJ imaging lesion cut-offs for inflammatory and structural lesions typical of axial JSpA using majority imaging expert decision as the reference criterion.

Methods

Subjects were a retrospective cohort of children with SpA who met the provisional Pediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organization criteria for enthesitis/spondylitis-related juvenile idiopathic arthritis or had a rheumatologist JSpA diagnosis. All subjects had symptom onset prior to age 18 years and underwent MRI as part of a diagnostic evaluation for axial disease. To enable SIJ quadrant-based scoring, all MRIs included semi-coronal slices through the cartilaginous part of the joint on fluid sensitive sequences and on T1-weighted sequences for the assessment of inflammation and structural lesions, respectively. MRIs were reviewed by 6 musculoskeletal imaging experts who were blinded to clinical details. MRI evaluation of the SIJ was based on standardized lesion definitions that were decided by consensus of the central imaging team and represented a mix of definitions from ASAS and the Juvenile Arthritis MRI Score Outcome Measures in Rheumatology working group. Using a web-based interface, raters globally assessed the presence or absence of lesions typical of axial SpA and performed SIJ quadrant or joint based scoring. Lesion scores were generated by averaging the scores of all raters. Sensitivity and specificity of lesion cut-offs were calculated using rater majority (≥4/6 raters) on a global assessment of the presence/absence of active or structural lesions typical of axial SpA with high confidence (confidence of ±3 or stronger on confidence scale from -5, “Definitely No”, to +5, “Definitely Yes”) as the reference standard.

Results

Imaging from 243 subjects, 61% male, median age 14.9 years, had sequences available for detailed MRI scoring. Active inflammatory lesion typical of axial disease in JSpA was defined as bone marrow edema (BME) in at least 3 SIJ quadrants (sensitivity 98.6%, specificity 96.5%). For structural lesion typical of axial JSpA, the optimal cut-off was erosion in at least 3 quadrants or at least one of the following lesions in at least 2 SIJ quadrants: sclerosis, fat lesion, backfill, ankylosis (sensitivity 98.6%, specificity 95.5%).

Conclusion

We propose data-driven cut-offs for active inflammatory and structural lesions on MRI typical of axial disease in JSpA that have high specificity and sensitivity using central imaging global assessment as the reference standard.

Table 1.

Performance of cut-offs for inflammatory and structural lesions of axial disease

Cut-offs for number of SIJ quadrants (any location)Sensitivity (95% CI)Specificity (95% CI)Definite active lesionBME score ≥2100 (95.0-100)93.5 (88.7-96.7)BME score ≥398.6 (92.5-100)96.5 (92.5-98.7)BME, same location on ≥3 consecutive slices88.6 (78.7-94.9)98.8 (95.8-99.9)Definite structural lesionErosion ≥295.7 (88-99.1)96.8 (92.7-99)Erosion, same location on ≥2 consecutive slices94.3 (86-98.4)98.1 (94.5-99.6)Erosion ≥391.4 (82.3-96.8)98.7 (95.4-99.8)Sclerosis ≥262.9 (50.5-74.1)98.1 (94.5-99.6)Fat lesion ≥222.9 (13.7-34.4%)98.7 (95.4-99.8%)Backfill ≥220 (11.4-31.3)100 (97.7-100)Ankylosis ≥21.3 (0.2-4.7)100 (94.9-100)ANY of the following in ≥2 SIJ quadrants: erosion, sclerosis, fat lesion, backfill, ankylosis98.6 (92.3-100)93.6 (88.5-96.9)Erosion ≥3 quadrants OR ≥2 quadrants of at least one of the following lesions: sclerosis, fat, backfill, ankylosis98.6 (92.3-100.0)95.5 (91.0-98.2)

Disclosure of Interests

Pamela F. Weiss Consultant of: Pfizer

Novartis

Biogen

Lilly

(All <$5K in the past fiscal year), Timothy G. Brandon: None declared, Amita Aggarwal: None declared, Ruben Burgos-Vargas Speakers bureau: Not in the last three years.

Novartis, Consultant of: Not in the last four years.

BMS, Lilly, Novartis, Robert A. Colbert: None declared, Gerd Horneff Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, Chugai, Abbvie, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Novartis, MSD, Chugai, Roche, Abbvie, Rik Joos Speakers bureau: Galapagos, Pfizer, AbbVie, Novartis, Amgen, BMS, Lilly, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, Ronald Laxer Consultant of: Abbvie, Novartis, Sobi, Sanofi, Eli Lilly Canada, Eli Lilly, Kirsten Minden Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Novartis, Consultant of: Pfizer, Novartis, Angelo Ravelli Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Novartis, SOBI, Angelini, Reckitt-Benkiser, Roche, Pfizer, Alexion, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, Nicolino Ruperto Speakers bureau: NR has received honoraria for consultancies or speaker bureaus from the following pharmaceutical companies in the past 3 years: 2 Bridge, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurinia, Bayer, Brystol Myers and Squibb, Celgene, inMed, Cambridge Healthcare Research, Domain Therapeutic, EMD Serono, Glaxo Smith Kline, Idorsia, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sobi, UCB., Consultant of: NR has received honoraria for consultancies or speaker bureaus from the following pharmaceutical companies in the past 3 years: 2 Bridge, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurinia, Bayer, Brystol Myers and Squibb, Celgene, inMed, Cambridge Healthcare Research, Domain Therapeutic, EMD Serono, Glaxo Smith Kline, Idorsia, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sobi, UCB., Grant/research support from: The IRCCS Istituto Giannina Gaslini (IGG), where NR works as full-time public employee has received contributions from the following industries in the last 3 years: Bristol Myers and Squibb, Eli-Lilly, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Sobi. This funding has been reinvested for the research activities of the hospital in a fully independent manner, without any commitment with third parties., Judith Smith Consultant of: Consulting panel of pediatric rheumatologists identifying issues in juvenile spondyloarthritis for Novartis. Paid < $5000, Matthew L. Stoll Consultant of: Currently consulting for Novartis, Shirley ML Tse: None declared, Filip van den Bosch Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Paid instructor for: Amgen, Eli Lilly, Consultant of: Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Robert G Lambert Paid instructor for: Novartis, Consultant of: CARE Arthritis, Calyx, Image Analysis Group, Novartis, David M. Biko Employee of: Merck (1998-2000), Nancy A. Chauvin Employee of: Forest Pharmaceuticals - Research scientist (1996) and Novartis - Pharmaceutical sales representative (1997), Michael L. Francavilla: None declared, Jacob L Jaremko: None declared, Nele Herregods: None declared, Ozgur Kasapcopur Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Abbvie, Novartis and Roche, Mehmet YILDIZ: None declared, Alison M. Hendry: None declared, Walter P Maksymowych Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Eli-Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Novartis, Pfizer

POS0995 VALIDATION OF THE SPARCC MRI-RETIC E-TOOL FOR INCREASING SCORING PROFICIENCY OF MRI LESIONS IN AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS

Background

The web-based Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) real-time iterative calibration (RETIC) modules for scoring MRI lesions in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) have been created by SPARCC developers to enable remote training of readers to appropriately use the SPARCC MRI inflammation and structural damage instruments and to attain adequate scoring proficiency.

Objectives

We aimed to test the performance of these modules in enhancing scoring proficiency in comparison to SPARCC developers.

Methods

The SPARCCRETIC SIJ inflammation and structural damage modules are each comprised of 50 DICOM axSpA cases with baseline and follow up scans and an online scoring interface based on SIJ quadrants. Continuous visual real-time feedback regarding concordance/discordance of scoring per SIJ quadrant with expert readers is provided by a color-coding scheme. Reliability is assessed in real-time by intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), ICC data being provided every 10 cases, which are scored until proficiency targets for ICC are attained. In the present exercise, participants (n=15) from the EuroSpA Imaging project were randomized, stratified by reader expertise in scoring with SPARCC, to one of two reader training strategies (groups A and B) that each comprised 3 stages (25 patients per stage, 2 timepoints, blinded to chronology; independent assessment of Inflammatory and structural lesions): Group A. 1. Review of original SPARCC manuscript describing scoring method. 2. Review of PowerPoint summary of SPARCC method plus completion of SPARCCRETIC module. 3. Re-review of PowerPoint summary. Group B. Same 3-step strategy as A except SPARCCRETIC module completed at stage 3. The reliability of scoring was compared to an expert radiologist (SPARCC developer).

Results

Very good scoring proficiency for status and change scores was evident for SPARCC BME even by non-experienced readers with similar levels of reliability irrespective of prior expertise. The beneficial impact of the SPARCCRETIC module on scoring proficiency was most consistently evident for the scoring of structural lesions and for Strategy B, where the impact was evident for all structural lesions, level of reader expertise, and status as well as change scores (Table 1). Scoring proficiency improved the most for the least experienced readers (Figure 1).

Table 1.

Inter-rater reliability (Status/Change ICC) compared to radiologist SPARCC developer

MRI LesionReader expertiseStrategy AStrategy BStage 1 cases (n=25)Stage 2 cases (n=25)Stage 3 cases (n=25)Stage 1 cases (n=25)Stage 2 cases (n=25)Stage 3 cases (n=25)BMENone (n=4)0.91 / 0.940.83/0.820.77/0.780.82/0.880.65/0.820.88/0.90Intermediate (n=6)0.88/0.880.90/0.900.85/0.900.93/0.940.78/0.800.83/0.80Experienced (n=5)0.92/0.940.90/0.880.92/0.930.83/0.880.84/0.900.89/0.89ANKYLOSISNone (n=4)0.86/0.660.83/0.280.86/0.780.66/0.410.69/0.340.88/0.80Intermediate (n=6)0.89/0.570.83/0.370.92/0.810.82/0.680.74/0.470.93/0.84Experienced (n=5)0.96/0.760.93/0.640.94/0.860.97/0.240.83/0.410.91/0.79BACKFILLNone (n=4)-0.08/-0.050.38/0.220.59/0.380.64/0.130.05/-0.090.47/0.27Intermediate (n=6)0.41/0.130.44/0.420.69/0.390.50/0.220.30/0.300.70/0.42Experienced (n=5)0.82/0.380.55/0.400.91/0.640.65/0.240.21/0.260.71/0.30EROSIONNone (n=4)0.13/-0.080.67/0.420.51/0.330.34/0.330.23/0.080.38/0.37Intermediate (n=6)0.42/0.180.56/0.120.51/0.440.33/0.270.45/0.180.53/0.39Experienced (n=5)0.61/0.330.64/0.340.64/0.420.51/0.270.58/0.110.62/0.31FAT METAPLASIANone (n=4)0.62/0.540.30/0.170.57/0.290.43/0.530.38/0.070.83/0.63Intermediate (n=6)0.49/0.380.59/0.300.79/0.510.57/0.780.50/0.420.81/0.47Experienced (n=5)0.75/0.620.81/0.340.91/0.700.84/0.900.56/0.130.78/0.37

Conclusion

Attaining scoring proficiency for MRI structural lesions in axSpA is difficult but can be consistently improved by using the SPARCCRETIC module, even for experienced readers.

Figure 1.

Disclosure of Interests

Walter P Maksymowych Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Anna Enevold Fløistrup Hadsbjerg Grant/research support from: Novartis, Mikkel Østergaard Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, Gilead, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Merck, Celgene, Novartis, Raphael Micheroli: None declared, Susanne Juhl Pedersen Grant/research support from: Novartis, Adrian Ciurea: None declared, Nora Vladimirova Grant/research support from: Novartis, Michael J Nissen Speakers bureau: Eli-Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Consultant of: Abbvie, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Kristyna Bubova: None declared, Stephanie Wichuk: None declared, Manouk de Hooge: None declared, Ashish Jacob Mathew Grant/research support from: Novartis, Karlo Pintaric: None declared, Monika Gregová: None declared, Ziga Snoj: None declared, Marie Wetterslev: None declared, Karel Gorican: None declared, Joel Paschke: None declared, Iris Eshed: None declared, Robert G Lambert Paid instructor for: Novartis

OP0150 ASAS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REQUESTING AND REPORTING IMAGING EXAMINATIONS IN PATIENTS WITH SUSPECTED AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS

Background

Clinicians face uncertainties in their daily practice when requesting imaging examinations for patients with suspected axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) or when producing an imaging report because the requirements and desired information of radiologists and rheumatologists / orthopedics alike are sometimes not completely known or understood.

Objectives

This project aimed to develop practical consensus recommendations for the standardized communication around imaging of sacroiliac joints and spine for diagnostic purposes in patients with suspected axSpA or their management in clinical practice.

Methods

An international task force was established combining radiologists (n=7) and rheumatologists (n=13) from the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS), two members of Young ASAS and a patient representative. The task force defined the project’s aims and developed a project statement. Then, considering published literature and the work of other groups, two survey rounds were designed, and all ASAS members invited to respond: first, to identify items for further consideration, second, to consider the detail of information to be communicated. Finally, ASAS members discussed the recommendations proposed by the task force during the ASAS annual workshop in January 2022 and voted regarding endorsement of the recommendations.

Results

The final set of recommendations is presented in Figure 1. Six recommendations deal with imaging requests in patients with axSpA. The first three recommendations entail clinical features, patients’ symptoms and risk factors. Recommendation 4 concerns previous imaging and reports and recommendation 5 refers to contraindications to imaging or contrast media. Recommendation 6 is about the suspected diagnosis and possible clinical differential diagnoses and the reason for the examination. Eleven additional recommendations refer to the radiology report. The first point addresses clinical information included in the report. Recommendations 2 to 4 advise on information about the technical conduct of the exam, the use of contrast media and image quality. Imaging findings that should be mentioned in the report if present are listed in recommendations 5 to 7. Finally, recommendations 8 to 11 combine advice for the conclusion, and for suggesting additional imaging or referral to a rheumatology expert if a different physician requested the imaging. The recommendations were endorsed by ASAS with approval from 73% of voting members (43 agreed, 10 rejected, 6 abstained).

Figure 1.

ASAS recommendations for requesting and reporting imaging in patients with suspected axial Spondyloarthritis.

Conclusion

These ASAS recommendations provide guidance for requesting and reporting imaging examinations in the context of axSpA and for standardizing and enhancing communication between rheumatologists and radiologists to improve diagnosis and patient care.

Disclosure of Interests

Torsten Diekhoff Paid instructor for: Novarits, Eli Lilly, MSD, Canon MS, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Iris Eshed: None declared, Chiara Giraudo: None declared, Kay-Geert Hermann: None declared, Manouk de Hooge: None declared, Lennart Jans: None declared, Anne Grethe Jurik: None declared, Robert G Lambert: None declared, Pedro M Machado: None declared, Walter P Maksymowych: None declared, Michael Mallinson: None declared, Helena Marzo-Ortega: None declared, Victoria Navarro-Compán: None declared, Susanne Juhl Pedersen: None declared, Mikkel Østergaard: None declared, Monique Reijnierse: None declared, Martin Rudwaleit: None declared, Fernando Sommerfleck: None declared, Ulrich Weber: None declared, Xenofon Baraliakos: None declared, Denis Poddubnyy: None declared

POS0111 MORE METICULOUSLY FOLLOWING TREAT-TO-TARGET IN RA DOES NOT LEAD TO LESS RADIOGRAPHIC PROGRESSION: A LONGITUDINAL ANALYSIS IN BIODAM

Background

A Treat-to-Target approach (T2T) is broadly considered to lead to better clinical outcomes and recommended in patients with RA. However, very few studies have analyzed the effect of T2T on radiographic progression, and any such studies have provided inconsistent results.

Objectives

To investigate whether meticulously following a treat-to-target (T2T)-strategy in daily clinical practice leads to lower radiographic progression in RA.

Methods

Patients from the multicenter RA-BIODAM cohort with ≥2 consecutive visits with radiographs available were included. In RA-BIODAM patients were enrolled as they were initiating a new csDMARD/bDMARD treatment were followed-up with the intention to benchmark and intensify treatment. The primary outcome of this analysis was the change in Sharp-van der Heijde score (SvdH, 0-448), assessed every 6 months, using average scores from 2 readers (scores with known chronological order). Following a DAS44-T2T remission strategy, which was defined at each 3-month visit, was the main variable of interest. Patients were categorized based on the proportion of visits in which T2T was followed according to our definition: very low (≤40% of the visits, low (>40%, <62.5%), high (≥62.5%, ≤75%) and very high (>75%). Radiographic progression at 2 years was visualized across groups by cumulative probability plots. Per 3-month interval T2T could be followed zero, one or two times (in a total of 2 visits). Associations between the number of visits with T2T in an interval and radiographic progression, both in the same and in the subsequent 6-month interval, were analysed by generalised estimating equations, adjusted for age, gender, disease duration and country.

Results

In total, 511 patients were included (mean (SD) age: 56 (13) years; 76% female). After 2 years, patients showed on average 2.2 (4.1) units progression (median:1 unit). Mean (SD) 2-year progression was not significantly different across categories of T2T: very low: 2.1 (2.7)-units; low: 2.8 (6.0); high: 2.4 (4.5), very high: 1.6 (2.2) (Figure 1). Meticulously following-up T2T in a 3-month interval neither reduced progression in the same 6-month interval (parameter estimates (for yes vs no): +0.15 units (95%CI: -0.04 to 0.33) for 2 vs 0 visits; and +0.08 units (-0.06;0.22) for 1 vs 0 visits) nor did it reduce progression in the subsequent 6-month interval (Table 1).

Table 1.

Effect of following DAS44-remission-T2T strategy on 6-month radiographic progression over 2 years

Change in radiographic damage(regression coefficient (95% CI))N=506T2T during 3 months on radiographic progression in the same 6-month period 2 visits vs 0 followed0.15 (-0.04; 0.33) 1 visit vs 0 followed0.08 (-0.06; 0.22)T2T during 3 months on radiographic progression in the subsequent 6-month period 2 visits vs 0 followed-0.09 (-0.28; 0.10) 1 visit vs 0 followed-0.10 (-0.24; 0.05)Figure 1.

Cumulative probability plot with 2-year radiographic progression according to the proportion of 3-monthly visits with T2T followed

Conclusion

In this daily practice cohort, more meticulously following T2T principles did not result in more reduction of radiographic progression than a somewhat more liberal attitude toward T2T. One possible interpretation of these results is that the intention to apply T2T already suffices and that a more stringent approach does not further improve outcome.

Acknowledgements

BIODAM was financially supported by an unrestricted grant from AbbVie

Disclosure of Interests

Sofia Ramiro Speakers bureau: Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Galapagos, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Robert B.M. Landewé Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Gilead, Galapagos, GSK,Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Gilead, Galapagos, GSK,Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB

Dr Landewé owns Rheumatology Consultancy BV, Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Bayer, BMS, Cyxone, Eisai, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma. Director of Imaging Rheumatology bv., Alexandre Sepriano Speakers bureau: Novartis, Consultant of: UCB, Oliver FitzGerald Speakers bureau: Biogen, Novartis, AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: BMS, Novartis, UCB, Pfizer, Lilly, Janssen, Mikkel Østergaard Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Orion, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi and UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Merck, Celgene and Novartis, Joanne Homik: None declared, Ori Elkayam Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Abbvie, BI, Janssen, Consultant of: Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Abbvie, BI, Janssen, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Abbvie, Janssen, Carter Thorne Consultant of: Abbvie, Organon, Pfizer, Sandoz, Maggie Larché Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Actelion, Amgen, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Fresenius-Kabi, Gilead, Janssen, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Sobi, UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, BMS, Gianfranco Ferraccioli Speakers bureau: SOBI, Consultant of: Abbivie, Marina Backhaus: None declared, Gilles Boire Speakers bureau: Abbvie Canada, BMS Canada, Lilly Canada, Janssen Canada, Merck Canada, Pfizer Canada, Viatris, Consultant of: Abbvie Canada, Amgen Canada, BMS Canada, Celgene, GileadSciences, Janssen Canada, Lilly Canada, Merck Canada, Mylan Canada, Novartis Canada, Pfizer Canada, Roche Canada, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi Canada, Teva, Grant/research support from: Lilly Canada, BMS Canada, Pfizer, Sandoz Canada, UCB Canada, Merck Canada, Novartis Canada, Roche Canada, Bernard Combe Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BMS,Celltrion,Galapgos-Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, MERCK, Pfizer,Roche-Chugai, Consultant of: Abbvie, Celltrion,Galapgos-Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, MERCK, Roche-Chugai, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Roche-chugai, Thierry Schaeverbeke: None declared, Alain Saraux Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Lilly, Nordic, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Lilly, Nordic, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, UCB, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Fresenius, Lilly, Maxime Dougados Consultant of: Pfizer, AbbVie, UCB, Merck, Lilly, Novartis, BMS, Galapagos, Biogen, Roche, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, AbbVie, UCB, Merck, Lilly, Novartis, BMS, Galapagos, Biogen, Roche, Maurizio Rossini Speakers bureau: Amgen, Abbvie, BMS, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos,MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Theramex, UCB, Marcello Govoni Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Pfizer, Galapagos, BMS, Eli-Lilly, Paid instructor for: Pfizer, Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Novartis, Astrazeneca, Pfizer, Luigi Sinigaglia: None declared, Alain Cantagrel Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Janssen, Lilly France, Médac, MSD France, Nordic-Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Aventis, UCB, Consultant of: BMS, Janssen, Lilly France, MSD France, Sandoz, Grant/research support from: MSD France, Novartis, Pfizer, Cornelia Allaart: None declared, Cheryl Barnabe Speakers bureau: Sanofi Genzyme, Pfizer, Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, Consultant of: Gilead, Celltrion Healthcare, Clifton Bingham Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Moderna, Pfizer, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: BMS, Dirkjan van Schaardenburg: None declared, Hilde Berner Hammer Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Novartis, Lilly, Rana Dadashova: None declared, Edna Hutchings: None declared, Joel Paschke: None declared, Walter P Maksymowych Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Novartis, Pfizer

OP0152 A DEEP LEARNING FRAMEWORK FOR MRI DETECTION OF ACTIVE INFLAMMATORY AND STRUCTURAL CHANGES IN THE SACROILIAC JOINT CONSISTENT WITH AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS: AN INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIVE STUDY

Background

Magnetic resonance tomography (MRI) plays a key role in the early diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). However, the detection of changes indicative of axSpA requires specific expertise, which poses a challenge to non-specialized centers. Deep learning (an advanced machine learning method) based on training an artificial neural network may facilitate and support diagnostics in clinical practice.

Objectives

To create a reliable deep learning tool for the detection of active inflammatory and structural changes indicative of axSpA on MRI of sacroiliac joints.

Methods

In this study, MRIs of sacroiliac joints from 477 patients from four cohorts (GESPIC-AS, GESPIC-Crohn, GESPIC-Uveitis and OptiRef comprising 266 patients with and 211 without axSpA) were used to develop a deep learning framework (randomly divided into training, n=404, and validation, n=73, datasets). MRIs from the ASAS cohort (n=116) were used for independent testing (test dataset). Each examination in the training/validation dataset was evaluated for the presence of active inflammatory and structural changes indicative of SpA by six experienced, trained and calibrated readers and by seven expert readers in the test dataset. The presence of the changes was defined as the majority vote amongst readers. Discordant cases in the training/validation dataset underwent consensus reading. In addition, the test dataset was evaluated by three radiologists not specifically trained in SpA. Diagnostic performance was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity and specificity.

Results

The prevalence of positive imaging findings for active inflammatory/structural changes indicative of axSpA was 41%/51% in the training/validation dataset and 22%/22% in the test dataset. The model for the detection of active inflammatory changes showed an AUC of 0.91 (0.83 – 0.97) – Figure 1 – and an accuracy of 84% on the validation dataset; the corresponding sensitivity and specificity were 96% and 76%, respectively. Despite a substantially lower prevalence of active inflammatory changes in the test dataset, the model showed good generalization with an AUC of 0.91 (0.84−0.97) and an accuracy of 75%; the sensitivity and specificity were 88% and 71%, respectively. The model demonstrated a similar performance on the validation and test datasets for the detection of active inflammatory changes fulfilling the ASAS definition. The model for the detection of structural changes indicative of axSpA showed good performance on the validation dataset with an AUC of 0.90 (0.82-0.96) for the detection of structural changes and an overall accuracy of 85%. The associated sensitivity and specificity were 95% and 75%, respectively. The model showed reasonable generalization to new data with an AUC of 0.89 (0.81−0.96) and an accuracy of 79%; the sensitivity and specificity were 85% and 78%, respectively. Overall, the model performed close to the individual human experts - Figure 1.

Conclusion

The developed framework allowed the detection of active inflammatory and structural changes indicative of axSpA on MRI. This approach may be used as an assistant tool in the diagnostic workflow.

Acknowledgements

GESPIC-AS has been financially supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung - BMBF). GESPIC-Crohn has been supported by the Clinical Research Unit grant from the Berlin Institute of Health (BIH). GESPIC-Uveitis has been supported by a research grant from AbbVie. OptiRef has been supported by a research grant from Novartis. The Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) has supported the project with a research grant and provided access to the MRI images of the ASAS calssifiaction cohort.

We want to thank colleagues who performed annotation of the images from the ASAS classification cohort: Pedro Machado, Mikkel Ostergaard, Suzanne Juhl Pedersen, Ulrich Weber. Further, we thank Torsten Karge for the development of the MRI reading interface for GESPIC and OptiRef images, Joel Paschke for development of the scoring interface for ASAS images.

LCA is grateful for her participation in the BIH Charité–Junior Clinician and Clinician Scientist Program and KKB is grateful for his participation in the BIH Charité Digital Clinician Scientist Program all funded by the Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin and the Berlin Institute of Health. JR is grateful for her participation in the BIH Charité–Junior Clinician and Clinician Scientist Program.

Disclosure of Interests

None declared

OP0229 OSTEOARTHRITIS OF THE KNEE, INFLAMMATION, AND THE EFFECT OF ADALIMUMAB (OKINADA): A RANDOMIZED PLACEBO-CONTROLLED TRIAL

Background

Cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor (TNFα) have been shown to elicit inflammatory and catabolic events in the joints of patients with osteoarthritis. Recent RCTs demonstrated that TNFα inhibition has no effect on pain and MRI-detected synovitis or bone marrow lesions in patients with erosive hand OA1-3. However, the progression of bone erosions was reduced in a subgroup of patients with more clinically swollen distal interphalangeal joints in one RCT1. Consequently, it remains possible that TNFα inhibition may have beneficial effects in specific subgroups of patients with a high inflammatory component.

Objectives

We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a TNFα inhibitor, adalimumab (ADA), in a proof-of-concept study in patients with inflammatory OA of the knee.

Methods

OKINADA was a 52-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study done at 11 sites in Canada (NCT02471118). Eligible participants were adults (aged ≥18 years) with a diagnosis of OA of the index knee and classified according to American College of Rheumatology criteria, including radiological evidence of OA (Kellgren-Lawrence grades 2 or 3) with clinical signs of knee effusion. Subjects had persistent knee pain of ≥ one month duration with a pain score of ≥ 4 (0-10 NRS) in the index knee at screening and baseline despite conventional treatment with maximum tolerated acetaminophen and/or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive subcutaneous 40 mg ADA every 2 weeks or placebo (PBO). Primary endpoint was the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology and Osteoarthritis Research Society International set of responder criteria (OMERACT-OARSI) at week 16 defined as: (1) improvement in pain or function ≥50% and an absolute change ≥20 mm; or (2) improvement of ≥20% with an absolute change ≥10 mm in at least two of the following three categories: pain, function, and patient’s global assessment. Secondary endpoints included: the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) for the domains of pain, activities of daily living (ADL), OA symptoms, sport and recreation function (SRF), and knee-related quality of life (QoL), patient’s global assessment of disease status (PGAD), investigator global assessment of disease status (IGAD), and expanded Target Joint Assessment (TJA) score.

Results

A total of 59 patients were randomized (29 to PBO, 30 to ADA). The primary endpoint was not met: OMERACT-OARSI combined (ADA: 9 [30.0%] vs PBO: 7 [24.1%], p=0.62). For KOOS pain, ≥20% improvement was noted in 11 (36.7%) ADA vs 7 (24.1%) PBO patients (p=0.30), and ≥50% improvement in 5 (16.7%) ADA vs 6 (20.7%) PBO patients (p=0.69). There were no significant treatment-group differences in baseline to 16-week change in continuous secondary endpoints (ADA vs PBO: KOOS ADL 6.5 vs 8.4 (p=0.71), KOOS QoL 10.1 vs 7.4 (p=0.66), KOOS symptoms 7.8 vs 11.5 (p=0.42), KOOS SRF 5.8 vs 7.7 (p=0.76), PGAD -1.0 vs 0.1 (p=0.10), IGAD -1.5 vs -2.1 (p=0.30), TJA -2.4 vs -2.2 (p=0.87) or in lab markers (ESR, CRP). There were 11 withdrawals (4 ADA, 7 PBO) of which 2 were for adverse events (1 ADA, 1 PBO) and 2 for increasing knee pain (1 ADA, 1 PBO). No new safety signals were identified and there were no serious adverse events.

Conclusion

Although the treatment was safe, short-term treatment with anti-TNFα therapy does not appear to provide clinically meaningful improvements in OA symptoms in patients with established radiographic knee OA. Analyses of structural endpoints will be reported when results are available.

References

[1]Verbruggen G, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2012; 71: 891-8.

[2]Chevalier X, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2015; 74: 1697-705.

[3]Aitken D, et al. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2018; 26: 880-7.

Acknowledgements

Abbvie supported this investigator-initiated study

Disclosure of Interests

Walter P Maksymowych Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Louis Bessette Speakers bureau: Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Roche, UCB, Abbvie, Pfizer, Merck, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, TEVA, Fresenius Kabi, Sandoz, Consultant of: Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Roche, UCB, Abbvie, Pfizer, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, Gilead, TEVA, Fresenius Kabi, Sandoz, Grant/research support from: Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Roche, UCB, Abbvie, Pfizer, Merck, Celgene, Sanofi, Lilly, Novartis, Gilead, Robert G Lambert Paid instructor for: Novartis, Amanda Carapellucci: None declared, C. Thomas Appleton Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Fresenius Kabi, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Organon, Pfizer, Hoffman LaRoche, Sandoz, Sanofi-Genzyme, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Fresenius Kabi, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Organon, Pfizer, Hoffman LaRoche, Sandoz, Sanofi-Genzyme, UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Fresenius Kabi, Novartis, Pfizer

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

Background

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

Objectives

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgements

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

Disclosure of Interests

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

The ASAS-OMERACT core domain set for axial spondyloarthritis

BACKGROUND

The current core outcome set for ankylosing spondylitis (AS) has had only minor adaptations since its development 20 years ago. Considering the significant advances in this field during the preceding decades, an update of this core set is necessary.

OBJECTIVE

To update the ASAS-OMERACT core outcome set for AS into the ASAS-OMERACT core outcome set for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).

METHODS

Following OMERACT and COMET guidelines, an international working group representing key stakeholders (patients, rheumatologists, health professionals, pharmaceutical industry and drug regulatory agency representatives) defined the core domain set for axSpA. The development process consisted of: i) Identifying candidate domains using a systematic literature review and qualitative studies; ii) Selection of the most relevant domains for different stakeholders through a 3-round Delphi survey involving axSpA patients and axSpA experts; iii) Consensus and voting by ASAS; iv) Endorsement by OMERACT. Two scenarios are considered based on the type of therapy investigated in the trial: symptom modifying therapies and disease modifying therapies.

RESULTS

The updated core outcome set for axSpA includes 7 mandatory domains for all trials (disease activity, pain, morning stiffness, fatigue, physical function, overall functioning and health, and adverse events including death). There are 3 additional domains (extra-musculoskeletal manifestations, peripheral manifestations and structural damage) that are mandatory for disease modifying therapies and important but optional for symptom modifying therapies. Finally, 3 other domains (spinal mobility, sleep, and work and employment) are defined as important but optional domains for all trials.

CONCLUSION

The ASAS-OMERACT core domain set for AS has been updated into the ASAS-OMERACT core domain set for axSpA. The next step is the selection of instruments for each domain.

Atlas of MRI findings of sacroiliitis in pediatric sacroiliac joints to accompany the updated preliminary OMERACT pediatric JAMRIS (Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis MRI Score) scoring system: Part I: Active lesions

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an increasingly important tool for identifying involvement of the sacroiliac joints (SIJ) in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). The key feature for diagnosing active sacroiliitis is bone marrow edema (BME), but other features of active arthritis such as joint space inflammation, inflammation in an erosion cavity, capsulitis and enthesitis can be seen as well. Structural changes may also be seen. Systematic MRI assessment of inflammation and structural damage may aid in monitoring the disease course, choice of therapeutics and evaluating treatment response. In this pictorial essay, we illustrate normal MRI findings and growth-related changes of the SIJ in the pediatric population, as well as the different MRI features of SIJ inflammation. This atlas demonstrates fundamental MRI disease features of active inflammation in a format that can serve as a reference for assessing SIJ arthritis according to the updated preliminary JAMRIS (Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis MRI Score) scoring system proposed by the MRI in JIA working group of Outcome Measures in Rheumatology and Clinical Trials (OMERACT). The atlas is intended to be read in conjunction with its companion Part 2, Structural Lesions.

POS1101 THE OMERACT KNEE INFLAMMATION MRI SCORING SYSTEM: VALIDATION OF QUANTITATIVE METHODOLOGIES AND TRI-COMPARTMENTAL OVERLAYS BY COMPARISON WITH THE MRI OSTEOARTHRITIS KNEE SCORE

Background:

Randomized controlled trials have targeted reducing the size of BML and degree of synovitis for the treatment of OA. We have developed the OMERACT Knee Inflammation MRI Scoring System (KIMRISS) and have recently refined it to maximize reliability and sensitivity to change. Innovations include electronic overlays for assessment of BML in 500 subregions, a web-based interface with direct online scoring, and real-time iterative calibration (RETIC) prior to reading exercises. Synovitis-effusion (S-E) is also scored on all consecutive sagittal slices on a web-based interface.

Objectives:

We aimed to test the feasibility, reliability, and responsiveness of KIMRISS versus an established method, MOAKS, in two multi-reader exercises.

Methods:

KIMRISS incorporates web-based graphic overlays for each of femur, tibia, and patella (range 0-500). S-E is recorded as the largest diameter perpendicular to the longest axis of this feature (range 0-100). All scores are pro-rated for a standardized number of MRI slices. In a pre-reading exercise for KIMRISS, readers scored sufficient cases in RETIC to attain scoring proficiency, pre-specified as an ICC of ≥0.80 and ≥0.70 for status and change scores of BML and S-E compared to developer reads. A new web-based scoring platform with overlays designating different subregions for scoring BML was developed for MOAKS. We compared reliability for status and change scores of BML and S-E in 2 international multi-reader exercises of baseline and one-year MRI scans from the Osteoarthritis Initiative: A. 4 expert readers and an OMERACT fellow scored 38 cases selected for MOAKS BML score ≥1. B. 7 expert readers and an OMERACT fellow scored 60 cases selected for MOAKS BML ≥3 and Kellgren-Lawrence (K-L) grade <3. Reliability was assessed by intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and Smallest Detectable Change (SDC), responsiveness by the standardized response mean (SRM), and feasibility using the System Usability Scale (SUS scoring range 0-100).

Results:

For exercises A/B, subjects were 55.3%/ 26.7% male, mean(±SD) age 61.7(±9.1)/61.9(8.8) years, and radiographic K-L grade ≤2 in 39.4%/100%. Change was small in both exercises (<5% of scoring range for KIMRISS and MOAKS BML and S-E) with comparable responsiveness (Table 1). Despite this, ICC for change was consistently good to very good for both BML and S-E and consistently better for KIMRISS (Table 1). Mean SUS scores were 88.2 for KIMRISS and 54.3 for MOAKS.

Table 1.

KIMRISS and MOAKS scores in Two International Multi-reader Exercises

MethodMRI featureScores mean (SD)SDC(% of max)P valueSRMBaselineOne-year Follow upChangeEXERCISE AMOAKSBML3.6 (2.9)3.4 (2.3)-0.2 (1.9)1.0 (2.2%)0.72-0.11Synovitis-effusion1.3 (0.8)1.5 (0.8)0.2 (0.4)0.4 (13.3%)0.0170.5KIMRISSBML15.7 (13.3)21.2 (22.5)5.5 (15.3)5.6 (1.1%)0.0220.36Synovitis-effusion21.8 (12.0)24.3 (11.9)2.5 (7.4)2.8 (2.8%)0.0430.34EXERCISE BMOAKSBML4.2 (2.6)3.7 (2.4)-0.5 (2.1)1.1 (2.4%)0.083-0.24Synovitis-effusion1.2 (0.7)1.3 (0.8)0.0 (0.5)0.4 (13.3%)0.590.0KIMRISSBML18.0 (17.5)15.9 (14.3)-2.1 (12.3)5.9 (1.2%)0.19-0.17Synovitis-effusion21.8 (9.3)22.9 (10.8)1.1 (7.1)2.2 (2.2%)0.250.15Intra-class Correlation Coefficients (95%CI)MethodMRI featureExercise AExercise BKIMRISS statusKIMRISS changeBML0.86 (0.78-0.92)0.88 (0.81-0.93)0.80 (0.70-0.87)0.72 (0.64-0.80)MOAKS statusMOAKS changeBML0.71 (0.46-0.85)0.76 (0.64-0.85)0.67 (0.56-0.77)0.69 (0.60-0.78)KIMRISS statusKIMRISS changeSynovitis-effusion0.88 (0.81-0.93)0.87 (0.79-0.92)0.75 (0.52-0.86)0.87 (0.82-0.91)MOAKS statusMOAKS changeSynovitis-effusion0.66 (0.4-0.79)0.52 (0.36-0.67)0.65 (0.52-0.75)0.48 (0.37-0.60)

Conclusion:

The KIMRISS method for scoring BML and Synovitis-Effusion scores highly for feasibility and demonstrates consistently high reliability when compared to MOAKS. Further validation for responsiveness is necessary in cases with greater change in MRI features than in the OAI dataset.

Disclosure of Interests:

None declared.

POS0032 SCORING MRI STRUCTURAL LESIONS IN SACROILIAC JOINTS OF PATIENTS WITH AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS: HOW MANY SLICES ARE OPTIMAL?

Background:

There is no international consensus on the optimal number of slices for evaluation of MRI structural lesions in the SIJ. An “all slice” method evaluates lesions from the most anterior slice, defined as the first slice with vertical height of ≥1cm of the SIJ joint cavity, up to the most posterior slice, defined as the most posterior slice where ≥1cm vertical height of the cartilaginous portion is still visible. The SPARCC method scores the transitional slice between cartilaginous and ligamentous compartments as the first slice and then an additional 4 slices anterior to the transitional slice.

Objectives:

We aimed to investigate inter-reader reliability, the extent of detection of lesions, and frequency of cases with a positive MRI for structural lesions when using an “all slice” approach versus the SPARCC scoring of 5 central slices.

Methods:

MRI T1W images with DICOM series were available from 148 cases who had MRI performed in the ASAS-Classification Cohort. Seven central readers recorded MRI lesions in an eCRF that recorded global assessments of presence/absence of changes suggestive of axSpA and structural lesions typical of axSpA. Structural lesions per the ASAS definitions were also recorded in consecutive semicoronal slices using the “all slice” approach, but also recording the transitional slice, according to their presence/absence in SIJ quadrants (erosion, fat lesion, sclerosis) or halves (backfill, ankylosis). Structural lesion frequencies were assessed descriptively according to majority agreement (≥4/7) of central readers and also any 2 central readers. Reliability for detection of MRI lesions was compared between central and local readers using the ICC.

Results:

The mean (SD) (range) number of anterior and posterior slices peripheral to the 5 central slices was 1.0 (1.0) (0-4) and 2.2 (1.8) (0-6) per case, respectively. There were 2 cases (1.4%) where ≥2 readers scored structural lesions in peripheral slices but not in the 5 central slices. The mean percentage of the total structural lesion score that was captured by the 5 central slices was >75% for all types of lesions except ankylosis (59%) (Table 1). Inter-reader reliability was greater for all lesions when assessing the 5 central slices and especially for erosion and backfill (Table 1).

Conclusion:

The major component of structural lesion data is captured by assessment of 5 slices, which includes the transitional slice and the subsequent 4 anterior slices. Moreover, reliability for detection of structural lesions is substantially worse in peripheral slices.

MRI Lesion“All slice”Central 5 slicesPeripheral slicesP value central vs peripheral slicesP value“all slice” vs central slicesMean (SD) Lesion Score Per CaseErosion2.4 (4.5) (0-22.9)1.8(3.4) (0-17.1)0.6 (1.4) (0-10.1)<0.001< 0.001Fat lesion2.5 (5.9) (0-34.0)1.8 (4.5) (0-25.1)0.7 (1.8) (0-9.9)< 0.001<0.001Sclerosis2.0 (4.9) (0-39.0)1.5 (3.6) (0-26.1)0.5 (1.5) (0-12.9)< 0.001<0.001Backfill0.5 (1.5) (0-12)0.4 (1.2) (0.0-9.3)0.1 (0.4) (0-2.7)< 0.0010.84Ankylosis0.5 (3.4) (0-30.7)0.3 (2.3) (0-20.0)0.2 (1.2) (0-11.3)0.100.18Mean (SD) (Range) % of Total Lesion Score in Central vs Peripheral slicesErosion100%76.4% (28.9%) (0-100%)23.6% (28.9%) (0-100%)<0.001NAFat lesion100%75.4% (26.5%) (0-100%)24.6% (26.5%) (0-100%)<0.001NASclerosis100%79.5% (22.9%) (0-100%)20.5% (22.9%) (0-100%)<0.001NABackfill100%86.0% (20.2%) (0-100%)14.0% (20.2%)(0-100%)<0.001NAAnkylosis100%59.0% (36.4%) (0-100%)41.0% (36.4%) (0-100%)0.56NAICC of 7 readers (Mean (SD) (Range))MRI lesionAll slicesCentral 5 slicesPeripheral slicesErosion0.54 (0.15) (0.28-0.84)0.58 (0.13) (0.34-0.85)0.40 (0.17) (0.10-0.66)Fat lesion0.61 (0.18) (0.30-0.89)0.63 (0.16) (0.35-0.88)0.52 (0.20) (0.19-0.82)Sclerosis0.73 (0.18) (0.36-0.94)0.73 (0.16) (0.36-0.91)0.67 (0.19) (0.27-0.94)Backfill0.37 (0.21) (0.10-0.85)0.39 (0.19) (0.14-0.83)0.18 (0.23) (0.0-0.80)Ankylosis0.97 (0.02) (0.91-0.99)0.99 (0.01) (0.97-1.0)0.85 (0.10) (0.62-0.98)

Disclosure of Interests:

None declared.

OP0141 EFFECTS OF FILGOTINIB ON SPINAL LESIONS IN ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS: MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING DATA FROM THE TORTUGA TRIAL

Background:

The oral Janus kinase 1 preferential inhibitor filgotinib (FIL) significantly improved Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) inflammation scores (bone marrow oedema) in the spine and sacroiliac joints vs placebo (PBO) in the Phase 2 TORTUGA trial (NCT03117270) in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS).1

Objectives:

This post-hoc analysis evaluated the effects of FIL on Canada-Denmark (CANDEN) MRI measures of spinal inflammation and structural lesions in patients from the TORTUGA trial.

Methods:

TORTUGA was a PBO-controlled, multicentre, double-blind, randomised trial. Patients with active AS (as per modified New York classification criteria, with sacroiliitis confirmed by central reading) were treated with FIL 200 mg (n=58) or PBO (n=58) once daily for 12 weeks. MRI of the total spine was conducted at baseline and at treatment end. Scans were re-evaluated post-hoc by 2 independent experts (blinded to time point and assigned treatment) using the CANDEN method;2 inter-reader discrepancies were resolved by an independent adjudicator. Observed changes from baseline were evaluated using analysis of covariance, with factors for treatment, baseline value, and randomisation stratification by prior tumour necrosis factor inhibitor use. Least-squares (LS) mean changes from baseline and between-group differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated; P values are nominal.

Results:

MRI scans from 88 patients (47 FIL, 41 PBO) with an evaluable scan at baseline and Week 12 (or early termination) were re-evaluated. Baseline characteristics were generally similar between patients with/without an MRI scan. Of those with MRI scans, mean total spine inflammation score (which ranges from 0–614) was higher, and mean ankylosis score (which ranges from 0–460) was lower, in the FIL vs PBO group at baseline. Total spine inflammation scores decreased from baseline with FIL but not with PBO (Figure and Table; P=0.0003 for between-group difference). Cumulative probability plots favoured FIL over PBO for change from baseline in subregion inflammation scores, including posterolateral elements (i.e. sum of lesions in ribs, transverse processes, spinous processes, soft tissue inflammation, and postero-lateral vertebral body), facet joint, and vertebral body. Total spine fat lesion scores numerically increased from baseline in the FIL but not PBO group (P=0.0878 for between-group difference; Table). There were no significant differences between groups for changes in erosion (P=0.1956) or ankylosis (P=0.3888) scores (Table).

Table 1.

Change from baseline at Week 12 in CANDEN total spine inflammation, total spine fat, total spine bone erosion, and ankylosis scores

Treatment groupnSample mean (SE)LS mean (SE)95% CI of treatment meanLS mean of group difference (SE)95% CI of group differenceBetween-group P valueTotal spine inflammation scoreFilgotinib47–4.98 (0.96)–4.40 (1.13)–6.65, –2.15–4.49 (1.21)–6.85, –2.120.0003Placebo410.29 (0.78)0.09 (1.13)–2.17, 2.34Total spine fat scoreFilgotinib471.01 (0.62)1.09 (0.66)–0.22, 2.401.18 (0.69)–0.18, 2.550.0878Placebo41–0.25 (0.19)–0.09 (0.66)–1.40, 1.21Total spine bone erosion scoreFilgotinib470.01 (0.02)0.07 (0.03)0.00, 0.140.05 (0.04)–0.02, 0.120.1956Placebo41–0.02 (0.03)0.02 (0.03)–0.04, 0.09Total ankylosis scoreFilgotinib470.30 (0.29)0.23 (0.31)–0.40, 0.850.28 (0.34)–0.37, 0.940.3888Placebo41–0.01 (0.08)–0.06 (0.31)–0.68, 0.56

SE, standard error

Conclusion:

This is the first PBO-controlled trial to demonstrate a decrease in inflammatory activity with FIL, not only in the spinal vertebrae but also in the postero-lateral elements of the spine and facet joints. As expected in a 12-week study period, no changes in erosion or ankylosis were seen, while fat lesions showed a tendency to increase with FIL. Larger trials are needed to confirm these results.

References:

[1]van der Heijde D, et al. Lancet 2018;392:2378–87.

[2]Krabbe S, et al. RMD Open 2019;5:e001057.

Acknowledgements:

The TORTUGA trial was sponsored by Galapagos NV (Mechelen, Belgium) and co-funded by Galapagos NV and Gilead Sciences, Inc. (Foster City, CA, USA). Medical writing support was provided by Debbie Sherwood BSc, CMPP (Aspire Scientific Ltd, Bollington, UK), and funded by Galapagos NV.

Disclosure of Interests:

Xenofon Baraliakos Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Hexal, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Celgene, Novartis and UCB, Mikkel Østergaard Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Orion, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Merck and Novartis, Robert B.M. Landewé Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen (formerly Centocor), Merck, Pfizer, Roche, Schering and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Ablynx, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche, Schering, TiGenix and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen (formerly Centocor), Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Schering and UCB, Employee of: Director of Rheumatology Consultancy BV, William Barchuk Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences, Inc., Employee of: Currently employee of Gilead Sciences, Inc.; and former employee of AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Johnson & Johnson, Ke Liu Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences, Inc., Employee of: Gilead Sciences, Inc., Chantal Tasset Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Leen Gilles Employee of: Galapagos, Thijs Hendrikx Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Robin Besuyen Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Walter P Maksymowych Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Employee of: Chief Medical Officer of CARE Arthritis Limited

OP0149 RELIABILITY AND RESPONSIVENESS OF TWO OMERACT WHOLE-BODY MRI SCORES OF ENTHESEAL AND JOINT INFLAMMATION IN THE KNEE REGION IN SPONDYLOARTHRITIS

Background:

Inflammation in peripheral joints and entheses is common in spondyloarthritis (SpA). Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) allows assessment of the overall inflammatory status of arthritis patients including joints and entheses. The OMERACT MRI Whole-body scoring system for Inflammation in Peripheral joints and Entheses (MRI-WIPE) [1] has been developed and validated for the entire body assessment, including the knee, but not separately validated for the knee joint region. Detailed MRI scoring systems exist for heels, hands and feet, but although knee arthritis is a key cause of functional impairment, no detailed scoring system has been validated for inflammatory arthritides. The Knee Inflammation MRI Scoring System (KIMRISS) [2] was developed and validated in osteoarthritis and demonstrated good reliability.

Objectives:

To perform region-based development of whole-body MRI through validation of two knee region scoring systems in SpA.

Methods:

Assessment of inflammation was performed in the knee region on sagittal WB-MRIs using 2 scoring systems, MRI-WIPE and KIMRISS (Figure 1), in 4 iterative multi-reader exercises. In the final exercise, images (psoriatic arthritis, axial and peripheral SpA) were obtained before and after TNF-inhibitor.

Results:

In the final exercise (exercise 4), reliability was mostly good for experienced readers with the overall highest interreader agreement in the previous exercise (exercise 3). Median pairwise single measure intraclass correlation coefficients for osteitis and synovitis/effusion for status/change were 0.71/0.48 (WIPE osteitis), 0.48/0.77 (WIPE synovitis/effusion), 0.59/0.91 (KIMRISS osteitis) and 0.92/0.97 (KIMRISS synovitis/effusion) (Table 1). Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed significant change in synovitis/effusion for both methods and they correlated significantly regarding status in osteitis (0.92, p<0.001) and synovitis/effusion (0.89, p=0.001) and change in synovitis/effusion (0.89, p<0.001). Standardized response mean was 0.74 (WIPE synovitis/effusion) and 0.78 (KIMRISS synovitis/effusion).

Table 1.

MRI-WIPE knee and KIMRISS interreader reliability for OMERACT exercises 3 and 4

MRI-WIPE KneeKIMRISSOsteitisSynovitis/effusionOsteitisSynovitis/effusionVariablesNo. patientsType of scoreMean scoreICCMean scoreICCMean scoreICCMean scoreICCExercise 39 readers11Status3.6 (0-16)0.57 (-0.06-0.98)1.8 (0-4)0.47 (0.05-0.85)32.3 (1-224)0.87 (0.66-0.99)29.9 (11-60)0.34 (-0.62-0.87)11Change1.1 (-2-6)0.53 (0.03-0.90)0 (-2-1)0.32 (-0.13-0.76)27.7 (-9-131)0.58 (-0.30-0.96)-1.6 (-33-11)0.48 (-0.32-0.95)Exercise 33 readers11Status3.1 (0-16)0.83 (0.71-0.97)2.5 (0-5)0.59 (0.51-0.71)34.4 (0-233)0.89 (0.83-0.99)36.5 (16-78)0.59 (0.08-0.86)11Change0.9 (-3-6)0.72 (0.57-0.83)0 (-2-1)0.63 (0.49-0.76)19.3 (-23-86)0.46 (0.18-0.83)-1.8 (-45-17)0.89 (0.82-0.95)Exercise 49 readers10Change-0.25 (-4-5)0.38 (-0.35-0.94)-1.0 (-3-1)0.30 (-0.43-0.89)-0.45 (-37-65)0.26 (-0.86-0.97)-14.7 (-48-0.20)0.48 (-0.39-0.99)20Status2.9 (0-7)0.50 (-0.01-0.84)2.1 (0-4)0.44 (-0.21-0.79)15.2 (0-66)0.35 (-0.04-0.89)55.6 (1-122)0.54 (0.01-0.96)Exercise 43 readers10Change0.2 (-2-6)0.48 (0.16-0.66)-1.4 (-5-0)0.77 (0.70-0.82)5.8 (-27-111)0.92 (0.90-0.94)-20.7 (-65-28)0.97 (0.96-0.98)20Status2.3 (0-6)0.71 (0.60-0.80)2.7 (0-5)0.48 (0.42-0.57)11.4 (0-36)0.59 (0.39-0.71)69.4 (1-153)0.91 (0.87-0.93)

Sum scores are mean (range) of the patients scores. ICC values are mean (range). ICC is 2-way mixed model, single measure, by absolute agreement.

Conclusion:

MRI-WIPE and KIMRISS may both be useful as part of modular whole-body evaluation in clinical studies.

References:

[1]Krabbe S et al. J Rheum. 2019;46(9):1215-21

[2]Jaremko JL et al. RMD Open. 2017;3(1):e000355

Acknowledgements:

We thank CARE Aarthritis Limited (carearthritis.com) for help with setting up the web-based scoring interface, the scoring exercises, and the web-based meetings. We thank all who participated in the SIG (Special Interest Group) virtual OMERACT meeting 29 October 2020. HMO, GDM and PGC are supported in part by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Leeds Biomedical Research Centre, United Kingdom. The views expressed in this study are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.

Disclosure of Interests:

Marie Wetterslev: None declared, Walter P Maksymowych Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Robert G Lambert Consultant of: Parexel and Pfizer, Iris Eshed: None declared, Susanne Juhl Pedersen Speakers bureau: MSD, Pfizer, AbbVie, Novartis and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie and Novartis, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, and Novartis, Maria Stoenoiu: None declared, Simon Krabbe: None declared, Paul Bird Speakers bureau: Janssen, Abbvie, UCB, Celgene, BMS, Novartis, Pfizer, Gilead, Eli-Lilly, Consultant of: Janssen, Abbvie, UCB, Celgene, BMS, Novartis, Pfizer, Gilead, Eli-Lilly, Violaine Foltz: None declared, Ashish Jacob Mathew: None declared, Frederique Gandjbakhch: None declared, Joel Paschke: None declared, Philippe Carron Speakers bureau: Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, BMS, AbbVie, UCB, Eli Lilly, Gilead and Celgene, Consultant of: Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, BMS, AbbVie, UCB, Eli Lilly, Gilead and Celgene, Grant/research support from: UCB, MSD and Pfizer, Gabriele De Marco: None declared, Helena Marzo-Ortega Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda and UCB, Grant/research support from: Janssen and Novartis, Anna Enevold Fløistrup Poulsen: None declared, Jacob L Jaremko: None declared, Philip G Conaghan Speakers bureau: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Flexion Therapeutics, Galapagos, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer and Stryker, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Flexion Therapeutics, Galapagos, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer and Stryker, Mikkel Østergaard Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi and UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi and UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi and UCB

POS1323 SACROILIAC JOINT MRI ABNORMALITIES IN JUVENILE SPONDYLOARTHRITIS: AN UPDATE OF DEFINITIONS AND SCORING OF THE OMERACT JUVENILE IDIOPATHIC ARTHRITIS MRI SCORE

Background:

Preliminary definitions for SIJ lesions in the OMERACT Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging score has been reported1. Investigators identified the need to revise the JAMRIS-SIJ item definitions.

Objectives:

To update the JAMRIS-SIJ definitions and scoring method.

Methods:

The OMERACT JAMRI working group was convened to discuss the performance of the score in a reliability exercise using 30 patients. Twenty investigators (12 radiologists, 8 rheumatologists) decided which definitions and scoring methods to be revised, retained or added.

Results:

The revised JAMRI-SIJ is in the Table 1.

Table 1.

Revised OMERACT JAMRIS-SIJ.

ComponentDefinitionSegmentation/sliceScore range/sliceBone Marrow Edema (BME)An ill-defined area of high bone marrow signal intensity within the subchondral bone in the ilium or sacrum on fluid sensitive images4 quadrants/SIJ0-8BME IntensityPresence of hyperintensity of the marrow on fluid sensitive images using the signal of the presacral veins or cerebrospinal fluid as reference1 score/SIJ0-2BME DepthContinuing increased signal on fluid sensitive images of depth ≥ 5mm/ ≥ 1cm from the articular surface using the signal of the presacral veins or cerebrospinal fluid as reference1 score/SIJ0-2OsteitisAn ill-defined area of high bone marrow signal intensity within the subchondral bone in the ilium or sacrum on contrast enhanced T1 weighted sequences4 quadrants/SIJ0-8CapsulitisIncreased signal on fluid sensitive or contrast enhanced T1 weighted sequences involving the superior portion of the SIJ capsulesuperior halves/SIJ0-2Joint space fluidHigh signal intensity equivalent to the CSF on fluid sensitive sequences within the joint space of the cartilaginous portion of the SIJhalves/SIJ0-4Joint space enhancementIncreased signal intensity on contrast enhanced T1 weighted sequences within the joint space of the cartilaginous portion of the SIJhalves/SIJ0-4Inflammation in erosion cavityIncreased signal intensity on fluid sensitive or contrast enhanced T1 weighted sequences in an erosion cavity of the cartilaginous portion of the SIJhalves/SIJ0-4EnthesitisIncreased signal intensity in bone marrow and/or adjacent soft tissue on fluid sensitive or contrast enhanced T1 weighted sequences at sites where ligaments and tendons attach to a bone excluding retroarticular enthesitisScore per case0-1Damage DomainSclerosisA substantially wider than normal area of very low bone marrow signal intensity within the subchondral bone in the ilium or sacrum on a non-fat suppressed sequence, preferably a non-fat suppressed T1 weighted sequence. This feature must also be present on all other sequences, as available4 quadrants/SIJ0-8ErosionA focal loss of the low signal of cortical bone at the osteochondral interface and adjacent marrow matrix on T1 weighted images4 quadrants/SIJ0-8Fat metaplasia lesionHomogeneous increased signal intensity within the subchondral bone marrow on T1weighted images4 quadrants/SIJ0-8BackfillA high signal on non-contrast enhanced T1 weighted sequences in a typical location for an erosion, with signal intensity greater than normal bone marrow, clearly demarcated from adjacent bone marrow by an irregular band of low signal reflecting sclerosis at the border of the original erosionhalves/SIJ0-4AnkylosisPresence of signal equivalent to regional bone marrow continuously bridging a portion of the joint space between the iliac and sacral boneshalves/SIJ0-4

Statement of overarching consideration for all definitions: “[…] in comparison to physiological changes normally seen on MRI examinations of age- and sex-matched children, and visible in 2 planes wherever available.”

Conclusion:

Revised JAMRIS-SIJ has been developed. Validation steps are underway.

References:

[1]Otobo TM, et al. Preliminary Definitions for Sacroiliac Joint Pathologies in the OMERACT Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score (OMERACT JAMRIS-SIJ). The Journal of rheumatology. 2019;46(9):1192-7.

Acknowledgements:

The authors acknowledge The Hospital for SickKids Research Trainee Competition (RESTRACOMP) and Queen Elizabeth II/Edward Dunlop Foundation Scholarship In Science and Technology (QEII-GSST) at the University of Toronto for funding provided to Dr. Tarimobo M. Otobo. The authors also acknowledge Prof. Dr. Desiree van der Heijde for providing expert commentary.

Disclosure of Interests:

None declared

OP0252 ARTHRITIS AND ENTHESITIS IN THE HIP AND PELVIS REGION IN SPONDYLOARTHRITIS – VALIDATION OF TWO WHOLE-BODY MRI METHODS

Background:

Whole-body MRI (WB-MRI) allows assessment of the overall inflammation in arthritis patients, including joint and entheses. To enhance the use of WB-MRI in clinical trials, the OMERACT MRI in Arthritis Working Group developed the OMERACT MRI Whole-body score for Inflammation in Peripheral joints and Entheses in inflammatory arthritis (MRI-WIPE) [1]. This has been validated for the entire body, including the hip/pelvis region, but not for each individual region. More detailed scoring systems exist for heels, hands and feet but although hip arthritis is a key cause of functional impairment in spondyloarthritis (SpA), no detailed scoring system has been published for use in SpA. The Hip Inflammation Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scoring System (HIMRISS) was developed and validated in osteoarthritis showing good reliability.

Objectives:

To validate reliability, correlation and responsiveness of two WB-MRI scores for the hip/pelvis region in SpA.

Methods:

Inflammation in the hip/pelvis region was assessed on coronal WB-MRIs in 4 iterative multi-reader exercises using MRI-WIPE for the hip/pelvis region and HIMRISS (Figure 1). In final exercises, images (axial/peripheral SpA and psoriatic arthritis) were obtained before and after TNF-inhibitor.

Results:

In final exercises reliability was mostly good for the best calibrated readers. Median single-measure intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.58-0.65 (WIPE osteitis), 0.10-0.88 (HIMRISS osteitis), 0.38-0.72/0.52-0.60 (WIPE synovitis/effusion) and 0.68-0.89/0.78-0.85 (HIMRISS synovitis/effusion) (Table 1). The methods correlated significantly for status in osteitis (0.72, p=0.019) and for synovitis/effusion status (0.83, p=0.003) and change (0.73, p=0.017) (Table 1). In exercise 4 Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed significant change in osteitis between timepoints using WIPE hip/pelvis and SRM was large (1.23), while lower for WIPE synovitis/effusion and HIMRISS.

Table 1.

MRI-WIPE hip/pelvis and HIMRISS interreader reliability for OMERACT exercises 3-4

MRI-WIPE hip/pelvisHIMRISSOsteitisSynovitis/effusionOsteitisSynovitis/effusionVariablesNo. patients(cases)Type of scoreMeanscoreICCMeanscoreICCMeanscoreICCMeanscoreICCExercise 39 readers11Status2.3 (0-10)0.69 (0.23-0.93)1.4 (0-4)0.58 (-0.06-0.96)8.2 (1-60)0.84 (0.56-0.99)12.8 (3-25)0.52 (0.00-.91)11Change-0.2 (-1-1)NA-0.2 (-3-1)0.50 (0.10-0.87)-0.35 (-3-1)NA-1.8 (-17-10)0.50 (-0.05-0.89)Exercise 33 readers11Status1.8 (0-10)0.63 (0.46-0.93)1.7 (0-5)0.60 (0.34-0.80)6.6 (0-65)0.88 (0.77-0.94)12.8 (2-28)0.89 (0.87-0.91)11Change-0.12 (-1-1)NA-0.12 (-3-2)0.60 (0.48-0.83)-0.7 (-7-0)NA-1.6 (-21-8)0.78 (0.70-0.87)Exercise 49 readers10 (1-10)Status1.2 (0-4)0.21 (-0.39-0.91)1.1 (0-2)0.19 (-0.31-0.69)1.8 (0-6)0.07 (-0.17-0.83)16.4 (9-23)0.31 (0.00-0.89)10 (11-20)Status1.6 (0-6)0.51 (-0.08-0.99)1 (0-3)0.40 (-0.17-0.88)3.5 (1-8)0,08 (-0.21-0.95)11.2 (5-24)0.49 (0.00-0.94)10 11-20)Change-0.4 (-2-0)NA-0.39 (-2-0)0.22 (-0.68-0.83)-2.2 (-7-2)NA-5.2 (-18-0)0.57 (0.02-0.92)20 (1-20)Status1.4 (0-6)0.41 (-0.35-0.92)1.0 (0-3)0.27 (-0.07-0.75)2.7 (0-9)0.09 (-0.17-0.85)13.8 (5-25)0.45 (0.01-0.90)Exercise 43 readers10 (1-10)Status0.8 (0-4)0.29 (0.01-0.78)1.3 (0-2)-0.02 (-0.29-0.12)0.4 (0-2)-0.04 (-0.04-0.04)15.8 (5-26)0.73 (0.59-0.89)10 (11-20)Status1.8 (0-9)0.65 (0.52-0.76)1.2 (0-4)0.72 (0.62-0.81)1.7 (0-5)0.06 (-0.17-0.35)9.2 (2-26)0.68 (0.53-0.88)10 (11-20)Change-0.6 (-2-0)NA-0.5 (-3-1)0.52 (0.49-0.55)-0.2 (-2-1)NA-2.8 (-19-6)0.85 (0.82-0.88)20 (1-20)Status1.3 (0-9)0.58 (0.43-0.69)1.2 (0-4)0.38 (0.31-0.44)1.0 (0-5)0.10 (-0.09-0.33)12.5 (2-26)0.73 (0.69-0.77)

Sum scores and ICCs are mean (range). ICC is 2-way mixed, single measure, by absolute agreement.

Conclusion:

MRI-WIPE and HIMRISS may be useful tools in modular WB-MRI evaluation of hip/pelvis inflammation in clinical trials in SpA.

References:

[1]Krabbe S et al. J Rheum. 2019;46(9):1215-21

[2]Jaremko JL et al. J Rheum. 2019;46(9)1239-42

Acknowledgements:

We thank CARE Arthritis Limited (carearthritis.com) for help with setting up the web-based scoring interface, scoring exercises, and the web-based meetings. We acknowledge the contribution of SIG (Special Interest Group) participants at the virtual OMERACT meeting October 29, 2020. HMO, GDM and PGC are supported in part by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Leeds Biomedical Research Centre, United Kingdom. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.

Disclosure of Interests:

Marie Wetterslev: None declared, Robert G Lambert Consultant of: Parexel and Pfizer, Walter P Maksymowych Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Iris Eshed: None declared, Susanne Juhl Pedersen Speakers bureau: MSD, Pfizer, AbbVie, Novartis and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie and Novartis, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, and Novartis, Paul Bird Speakers bureau: Janssen, Abbvie, UCB, Celgene, BMS, Novartis, Pfizer, Gilead, Eli-Lilly, Consultant of: Janssen, Abbvie, UCB, Celgene, BMS, Novartis, Pfizer, Gilead, Eli-Lilly, Maria Stoenoiu: None declared, Simon Krabbe: None declared, Ashish Jacob Mathew: None declared, Violaine Foltz: None declared, Frederique Gandjbakhch: None declared, Joel Paschke: None declared, Gabriele De Marco: None declared, Helena Marzo-Ortega Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda and UCB, Grant/research support from: Janssen and Novartis, Philippe Carron Speakers bureau: Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, BMS, AbbVie, UCB, Eli Lilly, Gilead and Celgene, Consultant of: Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, BMS, AbbVie, UCB, Eli Lilly, Gilead and Celgene, Grant/research support from: UCB, MSD and Pfizer, Anna Enevold Fløistrup Poulsen: None declared, Jacob L Jaremko: None declared, Philip G Conaghan Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Flexion Therapeutics, Galapagos, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Stryker, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Flexion Therapeutics, Galapagos, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Stryker, Mikkel Østergaard Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi and UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi and UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi and UCB

POS0896 PREDICTORS OF RESPONSE IN PATIENTS WITH NON-RADIOGRAPHIC AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS RECEIVING CERTOLIZUMAB PEGOL IN THE C-AXSPAND STUDY

Background:

Identification of predictive clinical factors of long-term treatment response in non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) may contribute to improved management of patients with this chronic disease. Certolizumab pegol (CZP) is currently the only FDA-approved tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) for treatment of nr-axSpA.1

Objectives:

To identify whether any demographic or baseline characteristics of nr-axSpA patients from the C-axSpAnd study2 are predictive of achieving a clinical response after 1 year of CZP treatment.

Methods:

C-axSpAnd (NCT02552212) was a phase 3, interventional multicentre study including a 52-week double-blind, placebo-controlled period. Full study design is reported elsewhere.2 Multivariate stepwise logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of response for the primary efficacy variable (Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score – major improvement [ASDAS-MI] at Week 52) and the main secondary efficacy variable (Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society 40% [ASAS40] at Week 52) in patients randomised to CZP 200 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W). Predictive factors used in the model included demographic and baseline characteristics, and clinical outcomes at Week 12. A p value ≤0.05 was required for forward selection into the model and p=0.1 for backward elimination from the model. Non-responder imputation was used to account for missing data or values collected after switching to open-label treatment. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to account for patients who had changes in their non-biologic background medication during the 52-week placebo-controlled period.

Results:

A total of 159/317 patients were randomised to CZP 200 mg Q2W and 158/317 to placebo. Predictive factors identified for Week 52 ASDAS-MI in the CZP-treated patients included being positive for both presence of sacroiliitis on MRI (MRI+) and human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-B27 (HLA-B27+), having a higher Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) at baseline, and having a larger Week 12 improvement in ASDAS (Figure 1A). For ASAS40 response, MRI+/HLA-B27+ was also identified as a predictor of Week 52 response, along with a lower baseline Bath AS Metrology Index (BASMI) and larger Week 12 improvements in Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGADA) and AS Quality of Life (ASQoL; Figure 1B). Sensitivity analysis identified the same predictors for ASDAS-MI and ASAS40, with the exception of change from baseline in PtGADA as a predictor of ASAS40. Sensitivity analysis also identified achievement of Week 12 ASAS40 as a predictor of Week 52 ASAS40. In placebo-treated patients, no meaningful predictors of response at Week 52 were identified.

Conclusion:

Presence of sacroiliitis on MRI and HLA-B27 positivity were identified as consistent predictors of Week 52 response (ASDAS-MI and ASAS40) in nr-axSpA patients treated with CZP. To our knowledge, this is the first report from an interventional 52-week placebo-controlled study in nr-axSpA to identify objective clinical features, particularly the presence of sacroiliac joint inflammation, as being predictive of response.

References:

[1]Ashrafi M. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2020;32:321–9.

[2]Deodhar A. Arthritis Rheumatol 2019;71:1101–11.

Acknowledgements:

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

Disclosure of Interests:

Walter P Maksymowych Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Boehringer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, Thomas Kumke Shareholder of: UCB Pharma, Employee of: UCB Pharma, Simone Auteri Shareholder of: UCB Pharma, Employee of: UCB Pharma, Bengt Hoepken Shareholder of: UCB Pharma, Employee of: UCB Pharma, Lars Bauer Shareholder of: UCB Pharma, Employee of: UCB Pharma, Martin Rudwaleit Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, UCB Pharma

OP0251 DATA-DRIVEN DEFINITIONS BASED ON INFLAMMATORY LESIONS FOR A POSITIVE MRI OF THE SPINE CONSISTENT WITH AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS

Background:

The ASAS definition of a positive MRI for inflammation in the spine (ASAS-MRIspine+) is intended for classification of patients as having axSpA but is often misused for diagnostic purposes. This is problematic because bone marrow edema (BME) in the spine may occur in 20-40% of those with mechanical back disorders. The ASAS MRI group has generated updated consensus lesion definitions which have been validated on MRI spine images from the ASAS Classification Cohort.

Objectives:

We aimed to identify quantitative cut-offs based on numbers of vertebral corners that define ASAS-MRIspine+, there being two gold standards: A. majority central reader decision as to the presence of spine MRI findings consistent with axSpA B. rheumatologist expert opinion diagnosis of axSpA.

Methods:

Eight ASAS-MRI readers recorded MRI lesions in the spine according to recently updated ASAS definitions from 62 cases in an eCRF that comprises global assessment (MRI consistent with axSpA? (yes/no)), and detailed scoring of lesions for all sites in the spine. We calculated sensitivity and specificity for numbers of vertebral corners with BME where a majority of readers (≥5/8) agreed as to the presence of MRI findings consistent with axSpA. We selected cut-offs with ≥95% specificity. These cut-offs were analyzed for their predictive utility for rheumatologist diagnosis of axSpA by calculating positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) and selecting cut-offs with PPV ≥95%. Both criteria were considered requirements for designation of MRI cut-offs defining ASAS-MRIspine+.

Results:

MRI findings consistent with axSpA were observed by majority read in 8 (20%) of 40 cases diagnosed with axSpA, and 0 (0%) of 19 cases without axSpA. Cut-offs achieving specificity of ≥95% for MRI findings consistent with axSpA were 4 vertebral corners (sensitivity 75%) for all cases, 3 vertebral corners (sensitivity 37.5%) for cases with ≥1 additional location with inflammation, 1 vertebral corner (sensitivity 62.5%) in cases with ≥2 vertebral corner fat lesions (Table 1). All of the above cut-offs also had very high PPV (≥95%) for diagnosis of axSpA in cases diagnosed by the rheumatologist (Table 2).

Table 1.

Majority readers agree MRI findings consistent with axSpA are present is the gold-standard external reference

MRI cut-offsSensitivity (95%CI)Specificity (95%CI)BME in ≥2 vertebral corners87.5 (47.3 - 99.7)87.0 (75.1 - 94.6)BME in ≥ 3 vertebral corners87.5 (47.3 - 99.7)94.4 (84.6 - 98.8)BME in ≥4 vertebral corners75.0 (34.9 - 96.8)98.2 (90.1 - 100.0)Cases with ≥1 additional non-corner site inflammatory lesionBME in ≥2 vertebral corners37.5 (8.5 - 75.5)94.4 (84.6 - 98.8)BME in ≥3 vertebral corners37.5 (8.5 - 75.5)98.2 (90.1-100.0)Cases with ≥2 vertebral corner fat lesionsBME in ≥1 vertebral corner62.5 (24.5 - 91.5)100.0 (93.4-100.0)BME in ≥2 vertebral corners62.5 (24.5 - 91.5)100.0 (93.4-100.0)Table 2.

Predictive values of cut-offs for number of vertebral corners with BME according to the diagnostic ascertainment of the rheumatologist

MRI cut-offsSensitivity (95%CI)Specificity (95%CI)PPVNPVMRI findings consistent with axSpA ≥any 2 readers52.5 (36.1 - 68.5)94.7 (74.0 - 99.9)95.5 (75.3 - 99.3)48.6 (40.2 - 57.2)MRI findings consistent with axSpA ≥majority read20.0 (9.1 - 35.6)100.0 (82.4 - 100.0)100.037.3 (33.7 - 40.9)BME in ≥ 4 vertebral corners17.5 (7.3 - 32.8100.0 (82.4 - 100.0)100.036.5 (33.3 - 39.9)Cases with ≥1 additional inflammatory lesionBME in ≥ 3 vertebral corners10.00 (2.8 - 23.7)100.00 (82.4 - 100.0)100.034.5 (32.2 - 36.9)Cases with ≥2 vertebral corner fat lesionsBME in ≥1 vertebral corner12.50 (4.2 - 26.8)100.00 (82.4 - 100.0)100.035.2 (32.6 - 37.9)

Conclusion:

A cut-off of BME in ≥4 vertebral corners, or ≥3 corners in the setting of additional inflammatory lesions at other locations or corner fat, are primary candidates for defining ASAS-MRIspine+. These cut-offs apply to typical patients referred to a rheumatologist with a high index of suspicion of axSpA and may not be appropriate in other populations.

Disclosure of Interests:

None declared

POS0918 EVALUATION OF SPINAL RADIOGRAPHIC PROGRESSION IN PATIENTS WITH RADIOGRAPHIC AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS RECEIVING IXEKIZUMAB THERAPY OVER 2 YEARS

Background:

It is important to understand the potential effect long-term therapy with biologics can have on structural changes in the spine among patients with active radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA, ankylosing spondylitis).

Objectives:

We examined radiographic progression in the spine among patients with active r-axSpA treated with ixekizumab, an IL-17A antagonist, for 2 years, and potential predictors of spinal radiographic progression.

Methods:

Patients with active r-axSpA, biologic-naive (COAST-V, NCT02696785) or with prior experience with a maximum of 2 TNF inhibitors (COAST-W, NCT02696798), received 80 mg ixekizumab every 2 or 4 weeks for 2 years (108 weeks, of which 56 weeks were the COAST-Y extension study, NCT03129100). Mean change from baseline of modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score (mSASSS) (average score from 2 selected readers, blinded for time order) for patients treated with ixekizumab for 2 years with data at both baseline and year 2 is presented (N=230; 54% of total randomized patients). Non-progression is presented for all patients and subgroups based on TNFi-experience. Predictors were identified in multivariate logistic regression models with stepwise selection criteria of p-value <0.1. All data are observed.

Results:

At baseline, patients (N=230) were predominately male (82%) with an average age of 43 years, mean symptom duration of 16 years, 52% were TNFi-experienced, mean (SD) ASDAS score was 4.0 (0.7), most were HLA-B27 positive (87%) and 40% had syndesmophytes (identified by both selected readers at the same location). Baseline mSASSS (SD) was 11.0 (16.3) and change from baseline at year 2 of treatment was 0.3 (1.8) (Table 1). The proportion of non-progressors (mSASSS change from baseline <2) over 2 years was 89.6% (total IXE [all patients]), 90.9% (biologic-naive) and 88.3% (TNFi-experienced), and, if defined as mSASSS change from baseline ≤0, 75.7% (total IXE [all patients]), 78.2% (biologic-naive) and 73.3% (TNFi-experienced) (Table 1). Predictors of structural progression at year 2 (mSASSS change >0) were age, baseline syndesmophytes, HLA-B27 status and gender (Table 1). Week 52 inflammation in MRI SPARCC spine was also identified as a predictor for structural progression at year 2 in a separate model for patients from COAST-V where MRI measures were available at baseline and Week 52 (N=109).

Conclusion:

The majority of patients treated with ixekizumab for 2 years did not show radiographic progression, and the overall mean progression was low. Similar levels of non-progression were observed in biologic-naive patients and patients previously exposed to TNFis. Predictors were generally consistent with previous studies.

Table 1.

Spinal radiographic changes for patients with active r-axSpA treated with ixekizumab for 2 years

Change in mSASSS at year 2All patientsaN=230Biologic-naiveN=110TNFi-experiencedN=120 Baseline mSASSS, mean (SD)11.0 (16.3)10.1 (15.5)11.7 (17.0) Change at year 2, mean (SD)0.3 (1.8)0.3 (2.0)0.4 (1.6) Change in total mSASSS <2, n (%)206 (89.6)100 (90.9)106 (88.3) Change in total mSASSS ≤0, n (%)174 (75.7)86 (78.2)88 (73.3)Multivariable logistic regression modelPrediction for change in total mSASSS >0, OR (95% CI), p-valueAll patientsa,bN=228 Age (≥40 years vs. <40 years)2.97 (1.41, 6.28)p=0.004c Baseline syndesmophytesb (yes vs. no)2.31 (1.18, 4.54)p=0.015c Baseline HLA-B27 (positive vs. negative)3.78 (1.04, 13.75)p=0.044c Gender (male vs. female)3.16 (1.01, 9.86)p=0.047c Baseline ASDAS state (>3.5 vs. [2.1, 3.5])2.26 (0.96, 5.34)p=0.063

aCombined ixekizumab group of Q2W and Q4W patients with baseline and year-2 mSASSS data

bIdentified by both selected readers at the same location (2 patients were not evaluable by both readers)

cp<0.05

Abbreviations: ASDAS=Assessment of Disease Activity, CI=confidence interval, IXE=ixekizumab, mSASSS=modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score, OR=odds ratio, Q2W=every 2 weeks, Q4W=every 4 weeks, SD=standard deviation, TNFi=tumor necrosis factor inhibitor

Disclosure of Interests:

Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cyxone, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB Pharma, Employee of: Director of Imaging Rheumatology bv., Mikkel Østergaard Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Celgene, Sanofi, Regeneron, Novartis, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Merck, UCB, Celgene, Novartis, John D Reveille Paid instructor for: UCB, Eli Lilly and Company, Consultant of: UCB, Eli Lilly and Company, Pfizer, Novartis, Grant/research support from: Janssen, Eli Lilly and Company, Xenofon Baraliakos Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer, Galapagos, Gilead, UCB, Paid instructor for: Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer, Galapagos, Gilead, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer, Galapagos, Gilead, UCB, Andris Kronbergs Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, David Sandoval Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Xiaoqi Li Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Hilde Carlier Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, David Adams Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Walter P Maksymowych Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Boehringer, BMS, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Novartis, Pfizer

POS0037 DOES IMAGING OF THE SACROILIAC JOINT DIFFER IN PATIENTS PRESENTING WITH UNDIAGNOSED BACK PAIN AND PSORIASIS, ACUTE ANTERIOR UVEITIS, AND COLITIS: AN INCEPTION COHORT STUDY

Background:

Axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) presents diagnostic challenges incurring a delay of up to a decade and relies considerably on radiographic and MRI evidence of sacroiliitis which has led to the development of classification criteria which also rely on imaging. However, it has been suggested that such criteria may not be appropriate for axSpA patients presenting with other forms of SpA, especially psoriatic, because imaging features may vary in frequency and/or may be atypical. This hypothesis has never been tested in a prospective inception cohort of patients presenting with undiagnosed back pain.

Objectives:

We aimed to compare the spectrum of radiographic and MRI abnormalities in the sacroiliac joint (SIJ) of an inception cohort of patients presenting with undiagnosed back pain and psoriasis, iritis, and colitis.

Methods:

We used data from the prospective multicenter Screening for Axial Spondyloarthritis in Psoriasis, Iritis, and Colitis (SASPIC) Study, which is aimed at early detection of axial SpA in patients referred by the respective specialist after first presenting with these disorders. Consecutive patients ≤45 years of age with ≥3 months undiagnosed back pain with any one of psoriasis, AAU, or colitis undergo routine clinical evaluation by a rheumatologist for axial SpA followed by imaging. In SASPIC I, MRI evaluation of the SIJ was ordered per rheumatologist decision. In SASPIC II, MRI evaluation was ordered for all patients. Radiographs and MRI scans were assessed by two central readers and comparisons of the three groups were based on concordant assessments of imaging features. Evaluation of MRI scans included both global assessment for presence/absence of axSpA with confidence scale (-10 to +10), active and structural lesions typical of axSpA per recent ASAS definitions, and granular assessment of individual lesions according to SIJ quadrants and halves in consecutive semicoronal slices through the SIJ. Groups were compared by ANOVA and the chi-square test.

Results:

A total of 240 patients were recruited, 143 from SASPIC I and 97 from SASPIC II, 101 (42.1%) being diagnosed with axSpA (65.3% male, mean age 34.4 years, mean symptom duration 8.7 years, B27 positive 55.4%). Mean age of colitis (N=101), psoriasis (N=61), iritis (N=78) patients were 33.4, 36.6, 34.3 years, respectively, mean symptom duration was 6.8, 7.2, 9.4 years, respectively, and % males were 45.5%, 52.5%, 51.3%, respectively. There were no significant group differences for unilateral versus bilateral radiographic sacroiliitis and no significant differences in the frequencies, type, or distribution of MRI lesions (Table 1).

Conclusion:

Data from the SASPIC prospective inception cohort does not support the view that imaging of the SIJ differs in psoriatic axSpA, which appears similar to axSpA associated with iritis or colitis. These data support the umbrella concept of axSpA.

Imaging FeatureColitis (n=30)Psoriasis (n=19)Iritis (n=52)P valueUnilateral sacroiliitis (grade ≥2), N(%)1 (3.3%)0 (0%)2 (3.8%)0.69mNY criteria +, N(%)5 (16.7%)6 (31.2%)15 (28.8%)0.39Grade of sacroiliitis, mean(SD)1.8 (2.2)2.1 (2.7)2.2 (2.4)0.76MRI indicative of axSpA, N(%)15 (50.0%)11 (57.9%)32 (61.5%)0.60MRI indicative of axSpA (confidence ≥5/10), N(%)14 (46.7%)10 (52.6%)30 (57.7%)0.63MRI active lesion typical of axSpA, N(%)6 (20.0%)6 (31.6%)18 (34.6%)0.37MRI structural lesion typical of axSpA, N(%)11 (36.7%)7 (36.8%)18 (34.6%)0.98MRI with unilateral lesion (any)2 (6.7%)3 (15.8%)11 (21.2%)0.22MRI with unilateral lesion (BME)1 (3.3%)2 (10.5%)5 (9.6%)0.54MRI with unilateral lesion (Erosion)0 (0%)0 (0%)3 (5.8%)0.23MRI with unilateral lesion (Sclerosis)1 (3.3%)1 (5.3%)3 (5.8%)0.89MRI with unilateral lesion (Fat)0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)NAMRI with iliac lesion17 (56.7%)12 (63.2%)32 (61.5%)0.88MRI with sacral lesion12 (40.0%)11 (57.9%)31 (59.6%)0.21

Disclosure of Interests:

Walter P Maksymowych Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Boehringer, Galapagos, Gilead, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Novartis, Pfizer, Ulrich Weber: None declared, Jon Chan: None declared, Raj Carmona: None declared, James Yeung: None declared, Sibel Aydin: None declared, Jodie Reis: None declared, Liam Martin: None declared, Ariel Masetto: None declared, Olga Ziouzina: None declared, Dianne Mosher: None declared, Stephanie Keeling: None declared, Sherry Rohekar: None declared, Rana Dadashova: None declared, Joel Paschke: None declared, Amanda Carapellucci: None declared, Robert G Lambert: None declared.

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

Background:

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

Objectives:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Table 1.

TEAEs per 100 PYs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

References:

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

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

Acknowledgements:

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

Disclosure of Interests:

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

AB0594 IMPROVING OSTEOARTHRITIS CARE BY AUTOMATIC MEASUREMENT OF HIP EFFUSION USING AI

Background:

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the commonest disease affecting hip joints and has high prevalence across various age groups [1,2]. Effusion is a hallmark of OA and could represent a potential target for therapy [3–5]. Positive correlations of effusion to clinical outcomes are not well established, partly due to variability in manual assessment. Voxel-based volume quantification could reduce this variability [6].

Objectives:

We examine the inter-observer agreement of manual assessment of voxel-based effusion volume from coronal STIR MRI sequences at two time points and examine the feasibility of using Artificial Intelligence (AI) for standalone volume assessment.

Methods:

Our algorithm is based on Mask R-CNN [7] and was trained on labeled effusion regions in MRI slices from 68 patients with hip osteoarthritis. For validation, 2 human readers measured effusion from MRI STIR sequences of 25 patients at baseline and at 8 weeks follow-up. AI was used to measure effusion volume as an independent reader. Agreement between human readers and AI was assessed using absolute difference in volume (DV), Coefficients of Variation (CoV) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

Results:

Effusion regions detected by AI closely correlated with manual segmentation (Figure 1) for all samples. Differences in volumes measured by each pair of readers are summarized in Table 1. Agreement was excellent between human readers (ICC=0.99) and for each reader vs AI (ICC = 0.85-0.87).

Figure 1.

Mask overlays of regions of joint fluid detected by human readers (green, column 2) and AI (red, column 3) from 3 different patients. Raw MRI images are shown in column 1.

Table 1.

Comparison of volumes measured in cubic millimeters and agreement between each pair of readers (with AI as the 3rd reader)

Volumes measured by readersAgreement between reader pairsReaderOverall VolumeMean ± Standard DeviationReader PairDifference in VolumeMean ± Standard DeviationCoVICCReader 16943 ± 5845Reader 1-21127 ± 9000.210.99 [0.98, 1.0]Reader 27638 ± 5619Reader 1-AI3311 ±16430.350.87 [0.7, 0.94]AI11014 ± 4454Reader 2-AI4151 ± 49860.270.85 [0.66,0.94]

Conclusion:

Initial results of automatic effusion measurement using AI show high agreement with human experts. This has potential to reduce variability and save expert time in OA MRI assessment, and to lead to improved OA care.

References:

[1]Sharif B, Garner R, Hennessy D, Sanmartin C, Flanagan WM, Marshall DA. Productivity costs of work loss associated with osteoarthritis in Canada from 2010 to 2031. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2017 Feb;25(2):249–58.

[2]Sharif B, Kopec J, Bansback N, Rahman MM, Flanagan WM, Wong H, et al. Projecting the direct cost burden of osteoarthritis in Canada using a microsimulation model. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2015 Oct;23(10):1654–63.

[3]Loeuille D, Chary-Valckenaere I, Champigneulle J, Rat A-C, Toussaint F, Pinzano-Watrin A, et al. Macroscopic and microscopic features of synovial membrane inflammation in the osteoarthritic knee: correlating magnetic resonance imaging findings with disease severity. Arthritis Rheum. 2005 Nov;52(11):3492–501.

[4]Fernandez-Madrid F, Karvonen RL, Teitge RA, Miller PR, An T, Negendank WG. Synovial thickening detected by MR imaging in osteoarthritis of the knee confirmed by biopsy as synovitis. Magn Reson Imaging. 1995;13(2):177–83.

[5]Atukorala I, Kwoh CK, Guermazi A, Roemer FW, Boudreau RM, Hannon MJ, et al. Synovitis in knee osteoarthritis: a precursor of disease? Ann Rheum Dis. 2016 Feb;75(2):390–5.

[6]Quinn-Laurin V, Thejeel B, Chauvin NA, Brandon TG, Weiss PF, Jaremko JL. Normal hip joint fluid volumes in healthy children of different ages, based on MRI volumetric quantitative measurement. Pediatr Radiol. 2020 Oct;50(11):1587–93.

[7]He K, Gkioxari G, Dollár P, Girshick R. Mask r-cnn. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision. openaccess.thecvf.com; 2017. p. 2961–9.

Acknowledgements:

Jacob Jaremko is supported by the AHS Chair in Diagnostic Imaging at the University of Alberta. Medical Imaging Consultants (MIC) funds musculoskeletal radiology fellowships for Vanessa Quinn-Laurin at the University of Alberta, and provides Jacob Jaremko and Robert Lambert with protected academic time. Banafshe Felfeliyan is supported by an Alberta Innovates Graduate Student Scholarship for Data-Enabled Innovation.

Disclosure of Interests:

None declared.

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

Background:

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

Objectives:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Figure 1.

Distribution of the peripheral involvement across clusters

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

Acknowledgements:

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

Disclosure of Interests:

None declared

THU0377 IMPACT OF FILGOTINIB ON STRUCTURAL LESIONS IN THE SACROILIAC JOINTS AT 12 WEEKS IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS: MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING DATA FROM THE DOUBLE-BLIND, RANDOMIZED TORTUGA TRIAL

Background:

Filgotinib, an oral selective Janus kinase (JAK) 1 inhibitor, reduced disease activity and improved symptoms and inflammation of the sacroiliac joint (SIJ) and spine in patients with active axial ankylosing spondylitis (AxSpA) in the Phase 2 TORTUGA trial (NCT03117270).1The effects of JAK inhibitors on structural lesions in active AxSpA are unknown and optimal methods for image analysis of structural disease progression are not established.

Objectives:

The aim of this post hoc analysis was to evaluate the effects of filgotinib on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measures of structural changes in the SIJ in patients from the TORTUGA trial, as assessed by Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) SIJ Structural Scores (SSS).

Methods:

TORTUGA was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial of 116 patients with active AxSpA treated with filgotinib 200 mg (n=58) or placebo (n=58) once daily for 12 weeks. MRI was conducted at baseline and Week 12 (or early discontinuation visit). MRIs were re-evaluated post hoc by two independent experts (blinded to time point and assigned treatment) to determine SPARCC SSS; inter-reader discrepancies were resolved by an independent adjudicator. Observed changes from baseline were evaluated using analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, baseline value, and randomization stratification. Least-squares mean changes from baseline and between-group differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated.

Results:

MRI scans from 87 patients with an evaluable MRI at baseline and Week 12 (or early termination visit) were re-evaluated (48 filgotinib, 39 placebo). Erosion scores decreased in the filgotinib group and increased in the placebo group (p=0.02 for between-group difference; Table 1; Figure 1a). Backfill scores increased in the filgotinib group but not in the placebo group (p=0.005; Table 1; Figure 1b). There was no statistically significant between-group difference in SSS total ankylosis (p=0.46) or fat lesion (p=0.17) changes from baseline (Table 1).

Table 1.

Summary of Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada Sacroiliac Joint Structural Scores.

ScoreMean (SD) BL scoreLSM change from BL (95% CI) at Week 12LSM group difference at Week 12 (95% CI)Erosion FIL 200 mg3.38 (5.34)–0.46 (–1.31, 0.40)–1.01 (–1.87, –0.16) PBO2.62 (3.76)0.56 (–0.31, 1.42)[p=0.02]Backfill FIL 200 mg1.02 (1.99)0.76 (0.07, 1.45)1.02 (0.32, 1.72) PBO1.35 (2.59)–0.26 (–0.97, 0.45)[p=0.005]Fat metaplasia FIL 200 mg4.19 (6.06)0.37 (–0.23, 0.97)0.43 (–0.18, 1.03) PBO4.35 (5.44)–0.06 (–0.67, 0.56)[p=0.17]Ankylosis FIL 200 mg9.58 (8.15)0.14 (–0.02, 0.30)0.06 (–0.10, 0.22) PBO9.83 (8.45)0.08 (–0.08, 0.25)[p=0.46]

BL, baseline; CI, confidence interval; FIL, filgotinib; LSM, least-squares mean; PBO, placebo; SD, standard deviation

Conclusion:

In addition to previously reported decreases in SPARCC inflammation, filgotinib was associated with significant reduction in SIJ erosion scores and increase in backfill scores at Week 12 of the TORTUGA trial, versus placebo. Long-term effects are to be determined.

References:

[1]van der Heijde D, et al. Lancet 2018;392:2378–87.

Acknowledgments:

We thank Robert Lambert for his review of the MRI scans in the role of adjudicator. The TORTUGA trial was sponsored by Galapagos NV and co-funded by Galapagos NV and Gilead Sciences. Medical writing support was provided by Hannah Mace MPharmacol, CMPP (Aspire Scientific Ltd, Bollington, UK) and funded by Galapagos NV (Mechelen, Belgium).

Disclosure of Interests:

Walter P. Maksymowych Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Employee of: Chief Medical Officer of CARE Arthritis Limited, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Mikkel Ǿstergaard Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Merck, and Novartis, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB, Robert B.M. Landewé Consultant of: AbbVie; AstraZeneca; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Eli Lilly & Co.; Galapagos NV; Novartis; Pfizer; UCB Pharma, William Barchuk Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences Inc and Eli Lilly, Employee of: Current employee of Gilead Sciences Inc and a former employee of AbbVie, Eli Lilly, and Johnson & Johnson, Ke Liu Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences Inc (stockholder), Employee of: Gilead Sciences Inc, Chantal Tasset Shareholder of: Galapagos (share/warrant holder), Employee of: Galapagos, Leen Gilles Consultant of: Galapagos, Thijs Hendrikx Shareholder of: Galapagos (share/warrant holder), Employee of: Galapagos, Robin Besuyen Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Xenofon Baraliakos Grant/research support from: Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen

SAT0378 THE RELATIVE DIAGNOSTIC UTILITY OF INFLAMMATORY BACK PAIN CRITERIA IN AN INCEPTION COHORT OF PATIENTS WITH PSORIASIS, IRITIS, AND COLITIS PRESENTING WITH UNDIAGNOSED BACK PAIN

Background:

Clinicians rely on the elicitation of features of inflammatory back pain (IBP) for diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) but the utility of IBP criteria in patients presenting with extra-articular features of axSpA remains unclear. Assessment of utility should include not only rheumatologist diagnosis as benchmark but imaging to address the circularity between elicitation of IBP and clinical diagnosis.

Objectives:

To assess the diagnostic utility of all criteria for IBP in patients with psoriasis, iritis, or colitis and undiagnosed back pain using the rheumatologist diagnosis and imaging as benchmarks.

Methods:

Consecutive patients (n=246) with undiagnosed back pain ≤45 years of age, ≥3 months, with any one of psoriasis (n=46), acute anterior uveitis (AAU)(n=73), or colitis (n=127) had diagnostic evaluation by a rheumatologist. Majority central reader assessment of MRI indicative of axSpA and diagnosis by the rheumatologist were external standards for testing the utility of these IBP criteria: ASAS, Berlin, Calin, rheumatologist global for IBP >5 (0-10 scale).

Results:

AxSpA was diagnosed in 44.4%, 61.6%, and 41.8% of patients with psoriasis, iritis, and IBD, respectively. Diagnostic utility for all IBP criteria was comparably poor (Table 1). MRI was indicative of axSpA in 21.2%, 43.5%, and 19.7% of patients with psoriasis, iritis, and IBD. The utility of the IBP criteria was even worse using MRI as the external reference (Table 2), especially in patients with psoriasis. Only 14% of psoriasis patients with a positive MRI reported “improvement with exercise but not rest” as compared to 70% and 62% of patients with iritis and IBD, respectively.

Table 1.

Rheumatologist diagnosis as external reference.

SensitivitySpecificityLR+LR-PsoriasisASAS IBP65.00%52.00%1.350.67Berlin IBP80.00%36.00%1.250.56Calin IBP80.00%28.00%1.110.71All 3 criteria sets60.00%56.00%1.360.71IBP global >585.00%36.00%1.330.42AAUASAS IBP84.44%42.86%1.480.36Berlin IBP80.00%57.14%1.870.35Calin IBP93.33%17.86%1.140.37All 3 criteria sets77.78%60.71%1.980.37IBP global >586.67%57.14%2.020.23IBDASAS IBP78.43%45.07%1.430.48Berlin IBP82.35%52.11%1.720.34Calin IBP84.31%19.72%1.050.80All 3 criteria sets70.59%57.75%1.670.51IBP global >580.39%66.20%2.380.30Table 2.

Central assessment that MRI is indicative of axSpA as external reference.

SensitivitySpecificityLR+LR-PsoriasisASAS IBP28.57%38.46%0.461.86Berlin IBP42.86%15.38%0.513.71Calin IBP71.43%23.08%0.931.24All 3 criteria sets14.29%42.31%0.252.03IBP global >585.71%23.08%1.110.62AAUASAS IBP75.00%26.92%1.030.93Berlin IBP70.00%38.46%1.140.78Calin IBP90.00%15.38%1.060.65All 3 criteria sets65.00%38.46%1.060.91IBP global >575.00%38.46%1.220.65IBDASAS IBP92.31%37.74%1.480.20Berlin IBP76.92%39.62%1.270.58Calin IBP92.31%16.98%1.110.45All 3 criteria sets76.92%45.28%1.410.51IBP global >592.31%47.17%1.750.16

Conclusion:

All IBP criteria have poor diagnostic utility for diagnosis of axSpA, especially in patients with psoriasis. This reinforces the desirability of less subjective assessment tools, especially imaging.

Disclosure of Interests:

Georg Kröber: None declared, Ulrich Weber: None declared, Raj Carmona: None declared, James Yeung: None declared, Jon Chan: None declared, Sibel Aydin: None declared, Liam Martin: None declared, Ariel Masetto: None declared, Stephanie Keeling: None declared, Olga Ziouzina: None declared, Sherry Rohekar: None declared, Rana Dadashova: None declared, Joel Paschke: None declared, Amanda Carapellucci: None declared, Robert G Lambert: None declared, Walter P. Maksymowych Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Employee of: Chief Medical Officer of CARE Arthritis Limited, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB

FRI0285 FILGOTINIB TREATMENT RESULTS IN REDUCTION OF BIOMARKERS ASSOCIATED WITH DISEASE IN PATIENTS WITH ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS

Background:

Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is a chronic, immune-mediated disease characterized by inflammation of the sacroiliac joints and spine, and a young age of onset of 20–40 years. In the recent TORTUGA study, filgotinib (FIL), an oral, selective Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor, significantly reduced AS disease activity compared with placebo (PBO).1Selective JAK1 inhibition by FIL has the potential to simultaneously block multiple inflammatory pathways, thus we analyzed biomarker concentrations in serum samples from TORTUGA.

Objectives:

To evaluate the impact of selective JAK1 inhibition with FIL on circulating disease associated biomarkers in adult patients with active AS enrolled in the TORTUGA study.

Methods:

TORTUGA (Clinicaltrials.gov identifierNCT03117270) was a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study. Patients were randomized 1:1 to FIL 200 mg (n=58) or PBO (n=58) once-daily. Serum samples (FIL n=56, PBO n=53) were collected at baseline (BL) and weeks 1, 4 and 12, and analyzed using the Meso Scale Discovery immunoassay platform (Meso Scale Diagnostics, Rockville, MD, USA) to evaluate 135 biomarkers. Biomarker concentration changes from BL were analyzed on paired patient data and reported for weeks 1, 4 and 12, and clustering analysis was performed. Correlation between the 135 biomarkers and selected clinical scores at BL was assessed by Spearman rank correlation analysis.

Results:

FIL treatment produced significant reductions in serum concentrations of multiple biomarkers associated with AS disease activity. Five clusters of biomarker response were identified based on the kinetics and magnitude of percent changes from BL. These clusters also represented discrete biological functions: cluster 1 (rapid, strong >50% decrease in all three time points) included systemic inflammation biomarkers eg, CRP, SAA; cluster 2 (>20% decrease in at least one time point) included immune cell biomarkers eg, MIP3B, IL12p40; cluster 3 (<20% decrease in all three time points) included cellular adhesion biomarkers eg, ICAM-1, VCAM-1; cluster 4 (delayed decrease) included matrix remodelling biomarkers eg, MMP1, TIMP1; and cluster 5 included biomarkers that exhibited a gradual increase in serum concentration with FIL treatment.

Spearman rank correlation analyses showed that at BL, the systemic inflammation biomarkers CRP and SAA, as well as a number of biomarkers including ICAM-1 and MMP3, were positively correlated with BL AS disease activity score (ASDAS); conversely, only a few biomarkers showed a negative correlation with BL ASDAS, the cytokine receptor FLT3 and the chemotactic cytokine fractalkine (FRACTAL).

Conclusion:

In patients with active AS, FIL treatment significantly decreased levels of circulating biomarkers associated with active AS disease, including proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines, cell adhesion molecules, and markers of matrix remodelling. Clustering analysis revealed early and late biomarker changes associated with disease. These data are consistent with reduced AS disease activity in TORTUGA and suggest that FIL treatment leads to a rapid and sustained reduction of inflammation in AS.

References:

[1]van der Heijde Det al. Lancet2018;392:2378–87

Acknowledgments:

This study was funded by Gilead Sciences, Inc. Editorial support was provided by Fishawack Communications Inc and funded by Gilead Sciences, Inc.

Disclosure of Interests:

Walter P. Maksymowych Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Employee of: Chief Medical Officer of CARE Arthritis Limited, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Yuan Tian Employee of: Gilead Sciences Inc., Oh Kyu Yoon Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences Inc., Employee of: Gilead Sciences Inc., William Barchuk Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences Inc and Eli Lilly, Employee of: Current employee of Gilead Sciences Inc and a former employee of AbbVie, Eli Lilly, and Johnson & Johnson, René Galien Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Robin Besuyen Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Yihua Liu Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences Inc., Employee of: Gilead Sciences Inc., Amer M. Mirza Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences Inc., Employee of: Gilead Sciences Inc., Vlad Malkov Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences Inc., Employee of: Gilead Sciences Inc., Angie Hertz Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences Inc, Employee of: Gilead Sciences Inc

SAT0383 ENHANCED PERFORMANCE OF THE ASAS CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA BY DELETION OF NON-DISCRIMINATORY CLINICAL ITEMS: DATA FROM THE SCREENING IN AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS IN PSORIASIS, IRITIS, AND COLITIS COHORT

Background:

The ASAS classification criteria for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) have overall sensitivity/specificity of 82.9%/84.4% but component imaging and clinical arms differ in performance (66.2%/97.3% and 56.6%/83.3%, respectively)1.

Objectives:

We aimed to demonstrate that a data-driven elimination of SpA clinical features that were non-discriminatory in comparisons of patients diagnosed with and without axSpA in a prospective cohort of patients with undiagnosed back pain could enhance the performance of the criteria.

Methods:

We used data from the prospective multicenter Screening for Axial Spondyloarthritis in Psoriasis, Iritis, and Colitis (SASPIC) Study. Consecutive patients ≤45 years of age with ≥3 months undiagnosed back pain with any one of psoriasis, AAU, or colitis undergo routine diagnostic evaluation by a rheumatologist for axial SpA, including imaging assessed by central readers. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to determine which clinical SpA features were/were not discriminatory for the final diagnosis of axSpA. We then compared the sensitivity and specificity of the ASAS criteria with and without these features.

Results:

A total of 246 patients were recruited, 47.6% being diagnosed with axSpA (61.5% male, age 33.7 years, symptom duration 7.6 years, B27 positive 52.1%). The following clinical SpA features were non-discriminatory between axSpA/not axSpA: NSAID response, family history of SpA, heel enthesitis, peripheral arthritis, dactylitis. Specificity of the clinical arm and the overall criteria increased from 82.2% to 86.8% without impacting sensitivity. This effect was particularly noteworthy in patients with lower degree of symptomatology (back pain severity <5/10, specificity increases from 76.7% to 90.7%), short symptom duration (<5 years, specificity increases from 78% to 84.7%), and in females (specificity increases from 80.6% to 86.1%).

Conclusion:

In a prospective cohort with a high pre-test probability of axSpA certain clinical SpA features were not helpful in discriminating a diagnosis of SpA from not-SpA. Deletion of these features from the list of SpA features used in the ASAS classification criteria enhanced the performance of the criteria, especially in female patients and those with early disease.

References:

[1]Rudwaleit et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68: 777-83

Patient CategoryNumberASAS criteriaImaging armClinical armSenSpecSenSpecSensSpecAll patients2466582.236.897.750.482.2High confidence in diagnosis19073.884.547.598.256.384.5Patients with back pain ≥5/1016563.384.934.298.851.984.9Patients with back pain <58168.476.742.195.347.476.7Patients with symptom duration ≥5 years10371.285.735.697.156.285.7Patients with symptom duration <5 years14354.57838.698.340.978Males12968.184.247.298.248.684.2Females1176080.62097.253.380.6After deletion of ‘NSAID response’, ‘Family Hx SpA’, ‘heel enthesitis’, ‘peripheral arthritis’, ‘dactylitis’ SpA featuresAll patients2466586.836.897.750.486.8High confidence in diagnosis19073.887.347.598.256.387.3Patients with back pain ≥5/1016563.384.934.298.851.984.9Patients with back pain <58168.490.742.195.347.490.7Patients with symptom duration ≥5 years10371.288.635.697.156.288.6Patients with symptom duration <5 years14354.584.738.698.340.984.7Males12968.187.747.298.248.687.7Females1176086.12097.253.386.1

Disclosure of Interests:

Walter P. Maksymowych Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Employee of: Chief Medical Officer of CARE Arthritis Limited, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Raj Carmona: None declared, Jon Chan: None declared, James Yeung: None declared, Sibel Aydin: None declared, Liam Martin: None declared, Ariel Masetto: None declared, Olga Ziouzina: None declared, Stephanie Keeling: None declared, Sherry Rohekar: None declared, Rana Dadashova: None declared, Joel Paschke: None declared, Amanda Carapellucci: None declared, Robert G Lambert: None declared

FRI0298 ASAS MODIFICATION OF THE BERLIN ALGORITHM AND THE DUET ALGORITHM FOR DIAGNOSING AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS: RESULTS FROM THE SCREENING IN AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS FOR PSORIASIS, IRITIS, AND COLITIS COHORT

Background:

Patients presenting with back pain and psoriasis, iritis, or colitis, represent a high-risk population for the presence of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). The Dublin Evaluation Tool (DUET)1, the Berlin algorithm2, and the ASAS modification of this algorithm3are recommended referral strategies aimed at early diagnosis of axSpA. DUET was developed for patients presenting with AAU. Validation of these algorithms in inception cohorts is limited.

Objectives:

1. To assess the performance of referral algorithms for diagnosis of axSpA when tested against the final local rheumatologist diagnosis in an inception cohort of patients presenting with undiagnosed back pain and extra-articular manifestations. 2. To determine whether different criteria for inflammatory back pain (IBP) impact the performance of the algorithms.

Methods:

The multicenter Screening for Axial Spondyloarthritis in Psoriasis, Iritis, and Colitis (SASPIC) Study at 11 sites is aimed at early detection of axial SpA in patients presenting with undiagnosed back pain to the rheumatologist. Consecutive patients ≤45 years of age with ≥3 months undiagnosed back pain with any one of psoriasis, acute anterior uveitis (AAU), or colitis diagnosed by the relevant specialist undergo routine clinical evaluation by a rheumatologist for axial SpA. The rheumatologist determines the presence or absence of axial SpA at 3 consecutive stages: 1. After the clinical evaluation; 2. After the results of labs (B27, CRP) and radiography; 3. After the results of MRI evaluation. Final diagnosis by the rheumatologist was used as external standard to test the performance of the algorithms. We tested the following criteria for IBP in the algorithm: ASAS, Berlin, rheumatologist global for likelihood of IBP >5 (0-10 scale), and DUET algorithm in AAU patients.

Results:

A total of 246 patients were recruited, 73 presented with iritis, 46 with psoriasis, and 127 with colitis, 47.6% were diagnosed with axSpA. The diagnosis of axSpA was established in 45.7%, 61.6%, and 40.2% of patients with psoriasis, AAU, and IBD, respectively. The performance of the ASAS-modification of the Berlin algorithm was superior to the original algorithm as reported previously3, primarily for enhanced sensitivity, and this was observed irrespective of the criteria used to define IBP (Table 1). Conversely, the performance of the Duet algorithm in the subset of patients with AAU was substantially worse than previously reported1.

Conclusion:

The ASAS modification of the Berlin algorithm is the preferred referral strategy for patients presenting with undiagnosed back pain to the rheumatologist.

References:

[1]Haroon M, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2015; 74: 1990-5

[2]Poddubnyy D, et al. J Rheumatol 2011; 38: 2452–60

[3]Van den Berg R, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2013;72:1646–53

AlgorithmSensitivity (%)Specificity (%)Correct diagnosis (%)False negative (%)False positive (%)Original Berlin(ASAS criteria for IBP)65.376.671.116.712.2Original Berlin(Berlin criteria for IBP)64.476.670.717.112.2Original Berlin(IBP global >5)67.878.173.215.411.4ASAS Modification of Berlin algorithm (ASAS criteria for IBP)73.775.874.812.612.6ASAS Modification of Berlin algorithm (Berlin criteria for IBP)73.775.074.412.613.0ASAS Modification of Berlin algorithm(IBP global >5)76.377.376.811.411.8DUET84.450.071.29.619.2

Disclosure of Interests:

Ulrich Weber: None declared, Georg Kröber: None declared, Raj Carmona: None declared, James Yeung: None declared, Jon Chan: None declared, Sibel Aydin: None declared, Liam Martin: None declared, Ariel Masetto: None declared, Stephanie Keeling: None declared, Olga Ziouzina: None declared, Sherry Rohekar: None declared, Rana Dadashova: None declared, Amanda Carapellucci: None declared, Joel Paschke: None declared, Robert G Lambert: None declared, Walter P. Maksymowych Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Employee of: Chief Medical Officer of CARE Arthritis Limited, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB

THU0179 PERSISTENCE IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS PATIENTS ON BIOSIMILAR AND BIO-ORIGINATOR ETANERCEPT: A POOLED ANALYSIS OF PAN-CANADIAN COHORTS

Background:

Biosimilar etanercept (ETA-B) was recently introduced in Canada but real-world data descriptions of drug persistence (and comparisons with the originator product, ETA-O) are still scarce.

Objectives:

To describe and compare persistence of ETA-B and ETA-O in RA.

Methods:

We used data from four ongoing, prospective cohorts in Canada: the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort (CATCH), the Rheumatoid Arthritis Pharmacovigilance Program and Outcomes Research in Therapeutics (RAPPORT), the Early Undifferentiated Polyarthritis (EUPA) cohort, and the RHUMADATA® registry. We studied biologic-naïve and biologic-experienced RA adults initiating ETA-B or ETA-O between Jan. 2015 and Oct. 2019. Switchers from ETA-O to ETA-B (or vice-versa) were included. We assessed persistence of therapy in the first 12 or 24 months, measured as time from therapy initiation (time zero) to discontinuation. Individuals switching between products could contribute further person-time to the new exposure category. Multivariable Cox regression models were performed with each cohort dataset separately, following a common protocol. Model variables included age, sex, comorbidity, past biologic use, and disease duration. After testing for between-study heterogeneity (Higgin’s I2), cohort-estimated hazard ratios (HR) were pooled using random effects meta-analysis.

Results:

We identified 262 episodes of etanercept use (118 ETA-B and 144 ETA-O) from 250 RA patients. Sex, age, and other baseline characteristics across the four cohorts are shown in Table 1. Across cohorts, there was considerable variation in RA duration at the time of initiating ETA-B or ETA-O. In the pooled analysis, the HR for discontinuation at 24 months comparing ETA-B to ETA-O was 0.51 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.26-0.98). The pooled analysis for therapy discontinuation at 12 months adjusted HR in this analysis was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.42-1.60).

Table 1.

Characteristics of studied patients according to their treatment episodes, biosimilar etanercept (ETA-B) or bio-originator etanercept (ETA-O).

CharacteristicEUPARAPPORTRHUMADATACATCHETA-BETA-OETA-BETA-OETA-BETA-OETA-BETA-ON=19N=27N=32N=30N=39N=52N=28N=35Female sex, (%)12 (63)18 (67)20 (63)22 (73)28 (72)38 (73)20 (71)27 (77)Mean age in years1, SD59 (13)59 (16)51 (15)54 (15)59 (15)54 (15)55 (12)51 (13)Current smoker, (%)3 (17)5 (21)9 (32)5 (19)8 (21)9 (17)5 (18)8 (23)Cardiovascular disease, (%)0 (0)0 (0)1 (3.1)1 (3.3)8 (21)2 (4)NANADiabetes, (%)0 (0)0 (0)4 (13)1 (3)2 (5)3 (6)NANAHypertension, (%)NANA5 (16)4 (13)14 (36)22 (42)NANARA duration in years1, SD2 (3)7 (13)8 (6)12 (15)12 (12)9 (9)4 (4)3 (3)DAS-2812 (NA)4 (2.8)6 (1)6 (1)4 (2)4 (1)4.0 (2)4 (2)SDAI113 (14)44 (5)NANA21 (15)23 (8)23 (14)25 (16)Past oral steroids, N(%)Past biologic, N(%)15 (79)17 (63)6 (19)4 (13)29 (74)31 (60)9 (32)13 (37)Past non-biologic DMARD,8 (42)6 (22)2 (6)0 (0)21 (54)20 (38)19 (68)21 (60)N(%)19 (100)27 (100)30 (94)26 (87)39 (100)52(100)25 (89)33 (94)

1At time zero or at the closest date before time zero. SD=standard deviation

Conclusion:

Despite wide confidence intervals, the 24-month data suggested potential better persistence with ETA-B versus ETA-O, with a similar trend at 12 months. Some of the observed associations may be related to residual confounding (e.g. disease activity, time-dependent effects of concomitant medications) and/or survivorship bias (in patients transitioning from ETA-O to ETA-B).

Disclosure of Interests:

Cristiano S Moura: None declared, Denis Choquette Grant/research support from: Rhumadata is supported by grants from Pfizer, Amgen, Abbvie, Gylead, BMS, Novartis, Sandoz, eli Lilly,, Consultant of: Pfizer, Amgen, Abbvie, Gylead, BMS, Novartis, Sandoz, eli Lilly,, Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Amgen, Abbvie, Gylead, BMS, Novartis, Sandoz, eli Lilly,, Louis Coupal: None declared, Orit Schieir: None declared, Marie-France Valois: None declared, Vivian Bykerk: None declared, Gilles Boire Grant/research support from: Merck Canada (Registry of biologices, Improvement of comorbidity surveillance)

Amgen Canada (CATCH, clinical nurse)

Abbvie (CATCH, clinical nurse)

Pfizer (CATCH, Registry of biologics, Clinical nurse)

Hoffman-LaRoche (CATCH)

UCB Canada (CATCH, Clinical nurse)

BMS (CATCH, Clinical nurse, Observational Study Protocol IM101664. SEROPOSITIVITY IN A LARGE CANADIAN OBSERVATIONAL COHORT)

Janssen (CATCH)

Celgene (Clinical nurse)

Eli Lilly (Registry of biologics, Clinical nurse), Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Merck, BMS, Pfizer, Walter P Maksymowych Grant/research support from: Received research and/or educational grants from Abbvie, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: WPM is Chief Medical Officer of CARE Arthritis Limited, has received consultant/participated in advisory boards for Abbvie, Boehringer, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: Received speaker fees from Abbvie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB., Sasha Bernatsky: None declared

FRI0302 WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF DISCREPANCY BETWEEN CENTRAL AND LOCAL READERS IN EVALUATION OF MRI SCANS ON THE CLASSIFICATION OF AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS? DATA FROM THE ASAS CLASSIFICATION COHORT STUDY

Background:

Active MRI lesions typical of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) were reported in 61.6% and 2.2% of axSpA and not-axSpA patients, respectively, from the ASAS classification cohort (ASAS-CC)1. Discrepancy between local and central reader evaluation of MRI scans could result in differences in numbers of patients fulfilling the imaging arm of the ASAS classification criteria. But final classification may not be impacted if discrepant patients still fulfill the clinical arm.

Objectives:

We aimed to assess the impact of reader discrepancy in detection of active MRI lesions on the number of patients classified as having axSpA in patients recruited to the ASAS-CC.

Methods:

MRI images of the sacroiliac joints (SIJs) were available from 252 cases in the ASAS-CC, and these also had clinical and radiographic data. Seven central readers from the ASAS-MRI group recorded MRI lesions in an eCRF that included active lesions typical of axSpA in the SIJ (MRI-active) that was worded exactly the same as in the original ASAS-CC eCRF permitting comparisons between central and local site readers. Active lesions were deemed to be present according to majority agreement (≥4/7) of central readers and also any 2 central readers. We calculated the number of patients that were classified differently after central evaluation for overall fulfilment of the ASAS criteria and for the imaging arm.

Results:

Discordance between central and local readers for detection of MRI-active was recorded in 45(17.8%) and 47(18.2%) of cases according to 2-reader and majority (≥4/7) central reader data, respectively (kappa (95%CI) of 0.64 (0.54-0.73) and 0.62 (0.53-0.72). With central reading as external standard the false-positive rate for active lesions was 26.9%% and 32.2% (‘local overcall’) for 2-reader and majority reader data, respectively. There were 159(63.1%) patients who fulfilled the ASAS axSpA criteria based on local-reading, and 148(58.7%) and 143(56.7%) patients based on 2-reader and majority central-reading, respectively (Table). When fulfillment of the imaging arm was the primary consideration (irrespective of the clinical arm), 126 (50%) patients fulfilled the criteria based on local-reading, and 111 (44%) and 102 (40.5%) patients based on 2-reader and majority central-reading, respectively.

Conclusion:

Despite substantial overcall for positive MRI SIJ inflammation by local readers, the number of patients classified as having axSpA did not change substantially. This is due to the alternate mechanism for classification through the clinical arm.

References:

[1]Rudwaleit et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68: 777-83

Impact of Central Vs. Local Reader SIJ MRI Inflammation Assessment on SpA Classification in cases with all clinical, radiographic, and central and local MRI inflammation data available (n=252)MRI assessment usedSpA Classification = Yes N(%)SpA Classification = No N(%)Imaging Arm SpA Classification = Yes N(%)Imaging Arm SpA Classification = No N(%)Local Reader MRI positive159 (63.1%)93 (36.9%)126 (50%)126 (50%)>2 Central Reader MRI positive148 (58.7%)104 (41.3%)111 (44.0%)141 (56.0%)Majority Central Reader (≥4/7) MRI positive143 (56.7%)109 (43.2%)102 (40.5%)150 (59.5%)

Disclosure of Interests:

Walter P. Maksymowych Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Employee of: Chief Medical Officer of CARE Arthritis Limited, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Susanne Juhl Pedersen Grant/research support from: Novartis, Ulrich Weber: None declared, Pedro M Machado Consultant of: PMM: Abbvie, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, Speakers bureau: PMM: Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, Xenofon Baraliakos Grant/research support from: Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Joachim Sieper Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB Pharma, Stephanie Wichuk: None declared, Denis Poddubnyy Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Martin Rudwaleit Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB Pharma, Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cyxone, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB Pharma; Director of Imaging Rheumatology BV, Robert B.M. Landewé Consultant of: AbbVie; AstraZeneca; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Eli Lilly & Co.; Galapagos NV; Novartis; Pfizer; UCB Pharma, Joel Paschke: None declared, Mikkel Ǿstergaard Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Merck, and Novartis, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB, Robert G Lambert: None declared

OP0079 PRELIMINARY DEFINITION OF A POSITIVE MRI FOR STRUCTURAL LESIONS IN THE SACROILIAC JOINTS IN AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS

Background:

There is lack of international consensus as to what defines a structural lesion on MRI of the sacroiliac joints (SIJ) typical of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). The ASAS MRI group has generated updated consensus lesion definitions that describe each of the MRI lesions in the SIJ1. These definitions have been evaluated by 7 readers from the ASAS-MRI group on MRI images from the ASAS Classification Cohort.

Objectives:

We aimed to identify quantitative cut-offs based on numbers of slices and SIJ quadrants that define a positive MRI for structural lesions typical of axSpA, the gold standard being majority central reader decision as to the presence of a structural lesion typical of axSpA with high confidence.

Methods:

MRI structural lesions meeting ASAS definitions were recorded in an eCRF that comprises global assessment (structural lesion typical of axSpA present/absent and degree of confidence (-4 (absent) to +4 (present)), and detailed scoring of lesions per SIJ quadrant. Detailed scoring was based only on assessment of DICOM images (n =148). We calculated sensitivity and specificity for numbers of SIJ quadrants and consecutive slices with erosion, sclerosis, and fat lesions where a majority of readers (≥4/7) agreed as to the presence of a structural lesion typical of axSpA with high confidence (≥ +3). We tested candidate lesion definitions for predictive diagnostic utility in cases assessed after 4.4 years of follow up by the local rheumatologist.

Results:

Structural lesions typical of axSpA were observed by majority read in 33 (32.4%) of 102 cases diagnosed with axSpA, and 3 (6.8%) of 44 cases without axSpA and 29 cases were assigned a high degree of confidence (≥ +3) by a majority of readers. Cut-offs achieving specificity of 95% were erosion in ≥2 consecutive slices (sensitivity 83%), erosion ≥3 SIJ quadrants (sensitivity 90%), and fat lesion (≥1cm horizontal depth) in ≥1 SIJ quadrant (sensitivity 59%) (Table). These had very high positive predictive values (>95%) for diagnosis of axSpA in cases diagnosed by the rheumatologist after 4.4 years follow up.

Conclusion:

ASAS-defined erosion in ≥2 consecutive slices or in ≥3 SIJ quadrants and ASAS-defined fat lesion with depth >1cm in ≥1 SIJ quadrant are high priority candidates for defining an MRI structural lesion typical of axSpA. This will require similar assessment in additional axSpA cohorts.

References:

[1]Maksymowych et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2019; 78:1550-8.

Table 1.

Majority readers agree structural lesion indicative of axSpA is present with confidence ≥3/4 is the gold-standard external reference

SensitivitySpecificityErosion Score ≥1 SIJ qdr93.1 (77.2-99.2)80.6 (72.4-87.3)Erosion Score ≥2 SIJ qdr93.1 (77.2-99.2)90.8 (84.1-95.3)Erosion Score ≥3 SIJ qdr89.7 (72.6-97.8)95.8 (90.5-98.6)Erosion in 2 consecutive slices82.8 (64.2-94.2)95.0 (89.3-98.1)Fat lesion ≥1 SIJ qdr82.8 (64.2-94.2)81.5 (73.4-88.0)Fat lesion ≥2 SIJ qdr69.0 (49.2-84.7)86.6 (79.1-92.1)Fat lesion ≥3 SIJ qdr62.1 (42.3-79.3)91.6 (85.1-95.9)Fat lesion in 2 consecutive slices55.2 (35.7-73.6)93.3 (87.2-97.1)Fat lesion (>1cm depth) ≥158.6 (38.9-76.5)95.0 (89.3-98.1)Fat lesion (>1cm depth) ≥255.2 (35.7-73.6)95.8 (90.5-98.6)Fat lesion (>1cm depth) ≥351.7 (32.5-70.6)97.5 (92.8-99.5)Fat lesion (>1cm depth) in 2 consecutive slices48.3 (29.4-67.5)97.5 (92.8-99.5)

Table. SIJ qdr: sacroiliac joint quadrant

Disclosure of Interests:

Walter P. Maksymowych Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Employee of: Chief Medical Officer of CARE Arthritis Limited, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Xenofon Baraliakos: None declared, Ulrich Weber: None declared, Pedro M Machado Consultant of: PMM: Abbvie, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, Speakers bureau: PMM: Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, Susanne Juhl Pedersen Grant/research support from: Novartis, Joachim Sieper Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB Pharma, Stephanie Wichuk: None declared, Denis Poddubnyy Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Martin Rudwaleit Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB Pharma, Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cyxone, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB Pharma; Director of Imaging Rheumatology BV, Robert B.M. Landewé Consultant of: AbbVie; AstraZeneca; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Eli Lilly & Co.; Galapagos NV; Novartis; Pfizer; UCB Pharma, Joel Paschke: None declared, Robert G Lambert: None declared, Mikkel Ǿstergaard Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Merck, and Novartis, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB

SAT0384 REPLACEMENT OF RADIOGRAPHIC SACROILITIS BY MRI STRUCTURAL LESIONS: WHAT IS THE IMPACT ON CLASSIFICATION OF AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS IN THE ASAS CLASSIFICATION COHORT?

Background:

Classification of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) is based on either an imaging or clinical arm. Radiographic or MRI evidence of sacroiliitis can be applied for the imaging arm. However, it is well-established that reliability and sensitivity of radiographic sacroiliitis is inadequate.

Objectives:

To assess the impact of replacing radiographic sacroiliitis with MRI structural lesions (MRI-S) typical of axSpA on the number of patients classified as having axSpA in patients with undiagnosed back pain recruited to the ASAS Classification Cohort (ASAS-CC).

Methods:

MRI images of the sacroiliac joint (SIJ) were available from 217 cases in the ASAS-CC, which also had clinical, laboratory, and radiographic data. Seven central readers from the ASAS-MRI group recorded MRI lesions in an eCRF that included active (MRI-A) and structural (MRI-S) lesions typical of axSpA. MRI-A was deemed to be present according to majority agreement (≥4/7) of central readers. MRI-S was deemed to be present according to the majority (majority reader MRI-S) and also according to at least 2 central readers (≥2-reader MRI-S). We calculated the number of patients that were classified differently after replacement of radiographs by MRI-S for overall fulfillment of the ASAS criteria and for the imaging arm.

Results:

In total, 119 (54.8%) cases fulfilled the axSpA criteria based on local reading of radiographic sacroiliitis and central reading of active inflammation on MRI. This changed to 125 (57.6%) and 118 (54.4%) of cases after replacement of radiographic sacroiliitis by ≥2-reader and majority reader MRI-S, respectively (Table). A total of 13 (6.0%) and 7 (3.2%) cases who were classified as not having axSpA were re-classified as having axSpA after replacing radiographic sacroiliitis with ≥2-reader and majority reader MRI-S, respectively. Conversely, 7 (3.2%) and 8 (3.7%) cases were re-classified as not having axSpA after substitution by ≥2-reader and majority reader MRI-S, respectively. When fulfillment of the imaging arm was the primary consideration (irrespective of the clinical arm), the number of patients reclassified from not axSpA to axSpA was 25 (11.5%) by ≥2-reader and 13 (6.0%) by majority reader MRI-S, while 8 (3.7%) and 11 (5.1%) were reclassified from axSpA to not axSpA.

Conclusion:

The number of patients classified as having axSpA does not change substantially when MRI-S replaces radiographic sacroiliitis. However, it remains possible that MRI structural lesions can influence the final diagnosis, the gold standard for assessment of the performance of the ASAS criteria.

Impact of Replacement of Radiographic Sacroilitis by MRI Structural Lesions on SpA Classification in cases with all clinical, radiographic, and central and local MRI inflammation data available (n=217)

MRI assessment usedSpA Classification=Yes N(%)SpA Classification=No N(%)Imaging Arm SpA Classification=Yes N(%)Imaging Arm SpA Classification=No N(%)Radiographic Sacroiliitis + Majority Central Reader MRI Inflammation Positive119 (54.8%)97 (44.7%)83(38.2%)134 (61.8%)Replace Radiographic Sacroiliitis with ≥2 Central Reader MRI Structural Positive125 (57.6%)92 (42.4%)100 (46.1%)117 (53.9%)Replace Radiographic Sacroiliitis with Majority Central Reader MRI Structural Positive118 (54.4%)99 (45.6%)85 (39.2%)132 (60.8%)

Disclosure of Interests:

Walter P. Maksymowych Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Employee of: Chief Medical Officer of CARE Arthritis Limited, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Pedro M Machado Consultant of: PMM: Abbvie, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, Speakers bureau: PMM: Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, Robert G Lambert: None declared, Xenofon Baraliakos Grant/research support from: Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Mikkel Ǿstergaard Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Merck, and Novartis, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB, Joachim Sieper Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB Pharma, Stephanie Wichuk: None declared, Denis Poddubnyy Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Martin Rudwaleit Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB Pharma, Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cyxone, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB Pharma; Director of Imaging Rheumatology BV, Robert B.M. Landewé Consultant of: AbbVie; AstraZeneca; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Eli Lilly & Co.; Galapagos NV; Novartis; Pfizer; UCB Pharma, Joel Paschke: None declared, Susanne Juhl Pedersen Grant/research support from: Novartis, Ulrich Weber: None declared

AB1358-HPR DIAGNOSIS OF AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS: A PRIMARY UNMET EDUCATIONAL NEED FOR RHEUMATOLOGISTS

Background:

Diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) is challenging because of absent physical findings in early disease and the limited diagnostic performance of laboratory markers. Considerable reliance is placed on imaging of the sacroiliac joints (SIJ) but specialty training is primarily focused on interpretation of plain radiographic abnormalities.

Objectives:

We aimed to identify what might be the primary unmet educational needs of rheumatologists completing fellowship training by using clinical and imaging data from an inception cohort of patients presenting with undiagnosed back pain. We hypothesized that concordance would increase after imaging is reviewed after the clinical data.

Methods:

The diagnosis of axSpA was compared between local rheumatologists, axSpA experts and pF using clinical and imaging data from the multicenter Screening for Axial Spondyloarthritis in Psoriasis, Iritis, and Colitis (SASPIC) Study. In this inception cohort, patients ≤45 years of age with ≥3 months back pain undergo diagnostic evaluation by a local SASPIC rheumatologist, including imaging of the SIJ, who then records a global evaluation of presence/absence of axial SpA. This is done at 3 consecutive stages: 1.After the clinical evaluation. 2.After the results of labs (HLA B27, CRP) and radiography. 3.After review of the local MRI. In this exercise, 20 cases were selected from the SASPIC cohort and the rheumatologist global evaluations were removed from the eCRFs. Four experts in axSpA reviewed the clinical and imaging data in each eCRF and provided their global evaluations for stages 1, 2, and 3 of these 20 cases. Subsequently, 4 pF rheumatologists conducted the same exercise blinded to the assessments of the local rheumatologist and experts in axSpA. Concordance (% agreement) between the assessors was analyzed.

Results:

Diagnosis of axSpA by the local SASPIC rheumatologist was made in 90%, 65%, and 75% of cases after stages 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Majority diagnosis of axSpA by experts was made in 84.2% (16/19), 57.9% (11/19), and 63.2% (12/19), after stages 1,2, and 3, respectively. Majority diagnosis of axSpA by pF rheumatologists was made in 94.4% (17/18), 100% (16/16), and 93.8% (15/16). Concordance among experts and between experts and local SASPIC rheumatologists increased after review of imaging data. For pf-rheumatologists concordance with experts increased after review of imaging for 2 assessors and decreased for the other 2 assessors. For the latter, the primary reason for decrease in concordance with experts was false positive diagnosis of axSpA in 35% and 30% of the cases after review of the imaging.

Conclusion:

A structured case-based and sequential evaluation of clinical and imaging data suggests a gap in the training of recently graduated rheumatologists, with over-interpretation of imaging leading to false positive diagnosis of axSpA.

AssessorsMean % Concordance (range) for diagnosis of axSpAStage 1Stage 2Stage 3Experts in axSpA64.2 (45-80)75.8 (65-85)84.2 (70-95)Local rheumatologist vs Experts in axSpA73.8 (70-80)83.8 (80-85)83.8 (80-90)pF rheumatologist 1 vs Experts consensus78.994.494.7pF rheumatologist 2 vs Experts consensus89.561.168.4pF rheumatologist 3 vs Experts consensus63.272.284.2pF rheumatologist 4 vs Experts consensus89.566.768.4

Disclosure of Interests:

Walter P. Maksymowych Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Employee of: Chief Medical Officer of CARE Arthritis Limited, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Liron Caplan: None declared, Atul Deodhar Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myer Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myer Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Soha Dolatabadi: None declared, Mark Hwang: None declared, Adam Carlson: None declared, Kelly Steed: None declared, Amanda Carapellucci: None declared, Joel Paschke: None declared, Lianne S. Gensler Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Novartis, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, UCB

THU0105 ISOTOPE-LABELING-LC-MS-BASED METABOLIC PROFILING OF MULTIPLE SERUM SAMPLE SETS FOR THE DISCOVERY OF HIGH-CONFIDENCE RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS BIOMARKERS

Background:

Early diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is hampered by suboptimal accuracy of currently available serological biomarkers. Metabolomics may reveal promising biomarker candidates associated with the biomolecular processes of RA. In this work, we applied a high-performance chemical isotope labeling (CIL) LC-MS technique for in-depth profiling of the amine/phenol-submetabolome in serum samples. To avoid false positives and obtain high-confidence biomarker candidates, we analyzed three independent sets of serum samples collected from RA patients and healthy controls to examine the common effects.

Objectives:

We aimed to identify a metabolite signature with consistently high accuracy for RA.

Methods:

Serum samples were taken from 3 RA cohorts, which comprised 50, 49, and 131 RA patients, respectively. Within each cohort, there were sex/age-matched healthy controls: 50 in Cohort 1, 50 in Cohort 2, and 100 in Cohort 3. Among these 446 subjects, 75% were females and the average age was 52.5 years. Amine/phenol-containing metabolites were labeled by12C-dansyl chloride to improve the LC-MS detection. For each cohort, a pooled sample was prepared and labeled by13C-dansyl group to serve as the reference sample for relative quantification. Then the individual samples and the pooled sample were mixed 1:1. Finally, an LC-QTOF-MS platform analyzed the mixtures and output the intensity ratios of12C/13C peak pairs.

Results:

1,149 amine/phenol-containing metabolites were commonly detected across the three sample sets. Among them, 134 were positively identified by our dansyl-labeling standard library, and 141 were matched to predicted retention times and mass values of dansyl-labeled human metabolites. Visualized by the partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA), the overall amine/phenol-submetabolome demonstrated clear and consistent differences between healthy controls and the RA groups, with cross-validation Q2 = 0.765, 0.745, 0.793, respectively. The selection of significant metabolites was conducted according to the fold change and false-discovery-rate-adjusted Welch’s t-test. Cohort 1 demonstrated 85 metabolites having higher concentrations in the RA samples than the controls, and 89 metabolites with lowered concentrations. The numbers of increased/decreased metabolites in Cohort 2 and 3 were 87/26 and 90/53, respectively. Importantly, there were 59 significantly discriminatory metabolites commonly found in the three data sets (49 increased and 9 decreased). We picked the top three with the highest univariate classification performance to form a biomarker panel. We implemented the linear support vector machine (SVM) to build the classifier and the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to measure the performance. The area-under-the-curve (AUC) values (95% confidence interval) were 1.000 (1.000-1.000), 0.992 (0.967-1.000) and 0.902 (0.858-0.945) for the three cohorts, respectively. The results revealed the importance of examining multiple sample sets and even in the worst case (Cohort 3), our biomarker candidates could differentiate RA at 82.5% sensitivity and 82.5% specificity. Particularly, in Cohort 3, there were 30 RA patients negative for anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide and rheumatoid factor, and our metabolite panel demonstrated consistently high performance for differentiating these specific subjects from healthy controls.

Conclusion:

Metabolites showing significant and consistent changes associated with RA have been identified with high discriminative power.

Disclosure of Interests:

Wei Han: None declared, Xiaohang Wang: None declared, Liang Li: None declared, Stephanie Wichuk: None declared, Edna Hutchings: None declared, Rana Dadashova: None declared, Joel Paschke: None declared, Walter P Maksymowych Grant/research support from: Received research and/or educational grants from Abbvie, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: WPM is Chief Medical Officer of CARE Arthritis Limited, has received consultant/participated in advisory boards for Abbvie, Boehringer, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: Received speaker fees from Abbvie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB.

OP0065 INTER-RATER RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF MEDIAL AND LATERAL FEMORAL BONE MARROW LESIONS IN PATIENTS WITH OSTEOARTHRITIS UNDERGOING TIBIAL OSTEOTOMY USING THE KNEE INFLAMMATION MRI SCORING SYSTEM (KIMRISS)

Background:

The Knee Inflammation MRI Scoring System (KIMRISS) is a semi-quantitative grading tool (range 0-500) used to measure features of inflammation in knee osteoarthritis (OA), including compartment-specific BML scores.

Objectives:

To investigate; 1) Inter-rater reliability of KIMRISS BML change scores including expert readers and a trainee reader, 2) Validity of KIMRISS BML scores by comparing medial and lateral femoral compartments in surgical and contralateral limbs before and 1 year after medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy (HTO).

Methods:

We included 27 patients with varus alignment and medial compartment knee OA [preoperative Kellgren-Lawrence grades ≤3, age = 53.1 ± 5.9, 22 males (81%), body mass index = 29.9 ± 4.3] undergoing unilateral HTO. Sagittal 2D turbo spin-echo sequences were acquired at 3-Tesla in both knees pre and 1-year post HTO after surgical removal of hardware. Femoral BML scores in the medial and lateral compartments were assessed on images blinded to limb and time by masking surgical evidence. Three reviewers independently graded the same 108 images (27 patients, 2 limbs, 2 time points). We evaluated reliability pre-to-post HTO BML change scores in the medial and lateral femur by calculating intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots with 80% Limits of Agreement (LoA) for each rater pair.

Results:

Means and standard deviations are shown in Figure 1. Cumulative percent distribution plots of changes after surgery show both increases and decreases in the medial and lateral femur (Figure 2). When combining all raters, the ICC (95% confidence interval (CI)) for the change in BML score for the surgical knee was 0.81(0.64, 0.91) in the medial femur and 0.73 (0.49, 0.87) in the lateral femur. 80% LOA for change in BML score in the surgical knee was -3.56 to 5.44. ICCs and LoAs for rater pairs are in Table 1. The surgical limb medial femur BML score was significantly greater than all other scores pre and post HTO (Figure 1). There were no significant changes after HTO. The mean change (95% CI) in medial femur BML score of the surgical knee was 1.08 (-1.21, 3.38). Using the mean scores of all raters, we compared BML scores in surgical and contralateral limbs before and after HTO using a 2-way repeated measures (limb by time) ANOVA, seperately for the medial and lateral compartments.

Table.

Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (95% Confidence Intervals) and 80% Limits of Agreement for change in BMLs scores in the surgical knee.

a)Medial compartment12310.63 (0.34, 0.81)230.69 (0.43, 0.85)0.42 (0.06, 0.69)b)Lateral compartment123120.67 (0.41, 0.83)30.79 (0.60, 0.90)0.47 (0.11, 0.72)c)Medial compartment12313-6.09, 8.614-8.10, 9.65-6.03, 7.58d)Lateral compartment12312-3.49, 5.413-4.73, 6.99-3.43, 4.95

ICCs in the medial (a) and lateral (b) compartments, and 80% LoA in the medial (c) and lateral (d) compartments. Rater 1 = trainee reader, raters 2-3 = expert readers (one MSK radiologist and one rheumatologist).

Fig 1.

Means and standard deviations for KIMRISS femoral BML scores in the medial and lateral compartment for the surgical and contralateral knee.

Fig 2.

Probability plots for the 12-month change after surgery in femoral BML score in the medial (a) and lateral (b) compartments of the surgical knee. Change scores from each of the three raters is shown, as well as the average of all four raters.

Conclusion:

The KIMRISS can reliably detect differences between femoral BML scores in symptomatic and contralateral limbs, supporting the inter-rater reliability, feasibility and validity of compartment-specific BML scores.

Disclosure of Interests:

Jenna Schulz: None declared, Trevor Birmingham: None declared, Walter P Maksymowych Grant/research support from: Received research and/or educational grants from Abbvie, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: WPM is Chief Medical Officer of CARE Arthritis Limited, has received consultant/participated in advisory boards for Abbvie, Boehringer, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: Received speaker fees from Abbvie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB., Robert G Lambert: None declared, Stephany Pritchett: None declared, Frank Beier: None declared, J. Robert Giffin: None declared, Thomas Appleton Grant/research support from: AbbVie and Pfizer

FRI0317 CONSENSUS DEFINITIONS FOR MRI LESIONS IN THE SPINE OF PATIENTS WITH AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS: FIRST ANALYSIS FROM THE ASSESSMENTS IN SPONDYLOARTHRITIS INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY CLASSIFICATION COHORT

Background:

A recent consensus from the ASAS MRI group has culminated in updated spine lesion definitions for axial spondyloarthritis (ASAS_MRI_defn)1. There has been no central reader evaluation of MRI scans from the ASAS Classification Cohort (ASAS-CC)2to determine the spectrum of MRI lesions in the spine in this cohort.

Objectives:

To determine the spectrum of active and structural lesions on MRI images of the spine from the ASAS-CC according to the consensus ASAS_MRI_defnupdate.

Methods:

ASAS_MRI_defnwere recorded by 9 central readers in an eCRF for global assessment and detailed scoring of each discovertebral unit and postero-lateral structures. Vertebral corner bone marrow edema (VCBME) and corner fat (VCFAT) lesions were recorded if present on 2 slices; facet joint, lateral, and posterior inflammatory lesions were recorded if present on a single slice. Vertebral corner erosion, bone spurs, and ankylosis were each scored on a single slice. Comparison of active and structural lesion frequencies by local rheumatologist diagnosis of axSpA was assessed descriptively according to ≥2 and majority reader (≥5/9) concordant data.

Results:

MRI scans of the spine were available from 69 cases with axSpA diagnosed in 44/64 (68.8%). VCBME was most frequent with ≥1 lesion in 32(46.4%) and 19 (27.5%) by ≥2 and ≥5/9 readers, respectively. VCFAT was the most frequent structural lesion with ≥1 lesion in 24 (34.8%) and 14 (20.3%) by ≥2 and ≥5/9 readers, respectively. There were significantly more VCBME lesions in axSpA patients than non-axSpA (mean(SD):1.8(2.7) vs 0.3 (0.5)) (p<0.001) while differences in VCFAT were not significant (Table). The presence of ≥2 VCBME had 90-95% specificity for axSpA. Significantly more VCBME and VCFAT were observed in the setting of radiographic sacroiliitis (modified New York criteria (mNY)).

Conclusion:

Spine lesions on MRI are relatively frequent in patients with undiagnosed back pain presenting to the rheumatologist. The presence of ≥2 VCBME, but not VCFAT, may have some diagnostic utility.

References:

[1]Maksymowych WP, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 70 (suppl 10): 654, 2018

[2]Rudwaleit et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68: 777-83

Vertebral Corner MRI lesionsmajority of readers (>=5)≥2 readersaxSpA=Yes (n=44)axSpA=No (n=20)p-valueaxSpA=Yes (n=44)axSpA=No (n=20)p-valueCorner Fat ≥112 (27.3%)2 (10%)0.1917 (38.6%)7 (35%)0.78Corner Fat ≥210 (22.7%)2 (10%)0.3113 (29.5%)4 (20%)0.64Corner Fat ≥38 (18.2%)1 (5%)0.2510 (22.7%)3 (15%)0.74Corner Fat ≥47 (15.9%)1 (5%)0.429 (20.5%)2 (10%)0.48Corner BME ≥117 (38.6%)1 (5%)0.00625 (54.5%)6 (30%)0.047Corner BME ≥215 (34.1%)1 (5%)0.01319 (43.2%)2 (10%)0.009Corner BME ≥311 (25%)0 (0%)0.01316 (36.4%)1 (5%)0.008Corner BME ≥48 (18.2%)0 (0%)0.09412 (27.3%)1 (5%)0.048mNY=Yes (n=10)mNY=No (n=49)p-valuemNY=Yes (n=10)mNY=No (n=49)p-valueCorner Fat ≥15 (50%)9 (18.4%)0.0475 (50%)17 (34.7%)0.48Corner Fat ≥25 (50%)7 (14.3%)0.0225 (50%)11 (22.4%)0.12Corner Fat ≥34 (40%)5 (10.2%)0.0364 (40%)9 (18.4%)0.20Corner Fat ≥44 (40%)4 (8.2%)0.0224 (40%)7 (14.3%)0.079Corner BME ≥15 (50%)11 (22.4%)0.1167 (70%)22 (44.9%)0.18Corner BME ≥25 (50%)9 (18.4%)0.0475 (50%)14 (28.6%)0.27Corner BME ≥35 (50%)6 (12.2%)0.0145 (50%)11 (22.4%)0.12Corner BME ≥45 (50%)3 (6.1%)0.0025 (50%)7 (14.3%)0.022

Disclosure of Interests:

Walter P. Maksymowych Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Employee of: Chief Medical Officer of CARE Arthritis Limited, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Iris Eshed: None declared, Pedro M Machado Consultant of: PMM: Abbvie, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, Speakers bureau: PMM: Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, Susanne Juhl Pedersen Grant/research support from: Novartis, Ulrich Weber: None declared, Manouk de Hooge: None declared, Joachim Sieper Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB Pharma, Stephanie Wichuk: None declared, Denis Poddubnyy Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Martin Rudwaleit Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB Pharma, Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cyxone, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB Pharma; Director of Imaging Rheumatology BV, Robert B.M. Landewé Consultant of: AbbVie; AstraZeneca; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Eli Lilly & Co.; Galapagos NV; Novartis; Pfizer; UCB Pharma, Robert G Lambert: None declared, Mikkel Ǿstergaard Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Merck, and Novartis, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB, Xenofon Baraliakos Grant/research support from: Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen

AB0737 MEASUREMENT PROPERTIES OF RADIOGRAPHIC OUTCOME MEASURES IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW FROM THE GRAPPA-OMERACT INITIATIVE

Background:

Structural damage was identified as an important outcome domain in the Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) Core Domain Set and should be assessed at least once in the development of a new therapeutic.

Objectives:

To conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) to identify studies addressing the measurement properties (MPs) for ROIs and appraise the evidence through the OMERACT Filter 2.1 Framework Instrument Selection Algorithm (OFISA). [1]

Methods:

An SLR was conducted in EMBASE and MEDLINE to identify full-text English studies developing or assessing MPs of ROIs in PsA. Determination of eligibility, data extraction and methodology asssessment were performed by 2 reviewers. MPs were rated according to the ‘Provisional Standards’ and assigned a Red/Amber/White/Green (RAWG) rating (Figure 1). [1, 2]

Results:

3621 references were screened, 531 full-text articles reviewed, and 12 were included (Figure 2). Nine instruments assessing peripheral radiographs and six assessing axial radiographs were identified (Table 1). Three of the nine peripheral radiographic instruments had adequate evidence for reliability and some evidence for construct validity: the modified Steinbrocker, Ratingen, and modified Sharp van der Heijde scores. There was scant evidence for reliability, construct validity and responsiveness for the axial ROIs, compounded by the lack of a standardized definition of axial PsA.

Conclusion:

This SLR summarizes the MPs of ROIs and identifies relevant knowledge gaps that need to be addressed prior to endorsement of an instrument for the PsA Core Domain Set.

References:

[1]Richards P and De Wit M, editors. The OMERACT Handbook (March 2019)

[2]Mokkink LB and D’Agostino MA. Protocol for performing a systematic review on imaging techniques (unpublished)

Figure 1.

Criteria for the RAWG Rating

Figure 2.

PRISMA Diagram

Table 1.

Summary of Measurement Properties

ROIDomain MatchFeasibilityConstruct ValidityDiscriminationReliabilityResponsivenessInter-raterIntra-raterMeasurement ErrorLongitudinal Construct ValidityClinical Trial DiscriminationThresholds of MeaningOriginal Steinbrocker ScoreA[1]A[1]R[1]Modified Steinbrocker Score#G[2]G[2]A[1]A[2]Modified Larsen ScoreA[1]A[1]A[1]*Ratingen Score#A[1]G[3]G[3]A[3]A[1]mTSS-AA[1]A[1]A[1]mTSS-B#A[1]A[1]A[1]A[1]*mSvdHs#A[2]G[2]G[2]A[1]A[1]*ReXPsAR[0]SPARS#A[1]A[1]A[1]Axial PsA Definition 1MSASSS#A[2]R[0]BASRI - Total#A[2]R[0]PASRI#A[2]R[0]Axial PsA Definition 2MSASSS#A[1]R[1]A[1]A[1]BASRI - Spine#R[1]A[1]A[1]PASRI#A[1]A[1]A[1]Modified NYC#R[1]A[1]RASSS#R[1]A[1]A[1]

A = Amber, R = Red, G = Green

[Total available studies for synthesis following excluding studies with poor methodology]

* RCT data available but no published effect sizes

# Feasibility data available

Disclosure of Interests:

Anna Antony: None declared, Richard Holland: None declared, Wieneke Mokkink: None declared, Maria-Antonietta d’Agostino: None declared, Walter P Maksymowych Grant/research support from: Received research and/or educational grants from Abbvie, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: WPM is Chief Medical Officer of CARE Arthritis Limited, has received consultant/participated in advisory boards for Abbvie, Boehringer, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: Received speaker fees from Abbvie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB., Heidi Bertheussen: None declared, Lori Schick: None declared, Niti Goel Shareholder of: UCB and Galapagos, Consultant of: VielaBio, Mallinckrodt, and IMMVention, Alexis Ogdie Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Novartis, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Corrona, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Ana-Maria Orbai Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Eli Lilly and Company, Celgene, Novartis, Janssen, Horizon, Consultant of: Eli Lilly; Janssen; Novartis; Pfizer; UCB. Ana-Maria Orbai was a private consultant or advisor for Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc, not in her capacity as a Johns Hopkins faculty member and was not compensated for this service., Pil Hoejgaard: None declared, Laura C Coates: None declared, Vibeke Strand Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celltrion, Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America, Crescendo Bioscience, Eli Lilly, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi, UCB, Dafna D Gladman Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen Inc., BMS, Celgene Corporation, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB – grant/research support, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen Inc., BMS, Celgene Corporation, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB – consultant, Robin Christensen: None declared, Ying Ying Leung Speakers bureau: Novartis, Janssen, Eli Lilly, 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, William Tillett Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, UCB

THU0395 EFFICACY OF IXEKIZUMAB ON DISEASE ACTIVITY AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE NON-RADIOGRAPHIC AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS AND OBJECTIVE SIGNS OF INFLAMMATION, STRATIFIED BY BASELINE CRP/SACROILIAC JOINT MRI STATUS

Background:

Ixekizumab (IXE), a high-affinity anti-interleukin-17A monoclonal antibody, is effective in patients (pts) with active non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA), who had elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) and/or active sacroiliitis on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).1

Objectives:

To determine if disease activity and patient-reported outcomes at Week 16 were similar between groups after stratifying pts by CRP/sacroiliac joint (SIJ) MRI status at baseline.

Methods:

COAST-X (NCT02757352) included pts with active nr-axSpA and objective signs of inflammation, i.e. presence of sacroiliitis on MRI (Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society [ASAS]/ Outcome Measures in Rheumatology criteria) or elevation of serum CRP (>5.0 mg/L). Pts were randomized 1:1:1 to receive subcutaneous 80 mg IXE every 4 weeks (Q4W) or Q2W, or placebo (PBO). Depending on the baseline values of CRP and MRI SIJ (Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada [SPARCC] score), pts in the intent-to-treat population (N=239) were divided into 3 subgroups (CRP >5 and MRI ≥2; CRP ≤5 and MRI ≥2; CRP >5 and MRI <2). Logistic regression analysis with treatment, subgroup, and treatment-by-subgroup interaction was used to detect treatment group differences in ASAS40, Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) <2.1 (low disease activity), and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index 50 (BASDAI50) responses at Week 16. Analysis of covariance model with baseline value, treatment, subgroup, and treatment-by-subgroup interaction was used to detect the treatment group difference in change from baseline in Short Form-36 physical component score (SF-36 PCS).

Results:

The proportion of pts achieving ASAS40 (primary endpoint), ASDAS <2.1, and BASDAI50 (secondary endpoints) was higher in IXE treatment groups compared to PBO at Week 16 (Figure 1). The response rates in IXE-treated subjects were higher in all subgroups (CRP >5 and MRI ≥2; CRP ≤5 and MRI ≥2; CRP >5 and MRI <2) without consistent differences in efficacy between the subgroups. Similarly, pts in the IXE groups showed improvement in SF-36 PCS scores (secondary endpoint) versus pts on PBO at Week 16 (Figure 2).

Conclusion:

Pts with active nr-axSpA and objective signs of inflammation at baseline who were treated with IXE showed an overall improvement in the signs and symptoms of the disease. The efficacy was not different between pts with both elevated CRP and active sacroiliitis on MRI and pts with either elevated CRP or active sacroiliitis on MRI.

References:

[1]Deodhar A, et al.Lancet.2020.

Disclosure of Interests:

Walter P Maksymowych Grant/research support from: Received research and/or educational grants from Abbvie, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: WPM is Chief Medical Officer of CARE Arthritis Limited, has received consultant/participated in advisory boards for Abbvie, Boehringer, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: Received speaker fees from Abbvie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB., Helena Marzo-Ortega Grant/research support from: Janssen, Novartis, Consultant of: Abbvie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, UCB, Mikkel Ǿstergaard Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Merck, and Novartis, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB, Lianne S. Gensler Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Novartis, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, UCB, Joerg Ermann Grant/research support from: Boehringer-Ingelheim, Pfizer, Consultant of: Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis,

Pfizer, Takeda, UCB, Atul Deodhar Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myer Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myer Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Denis Poddubnyy Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, David Sandoval Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Rebecca Bolce Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Andris Kronbergs Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Soyi Liu Leage Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Gabriel Doridot Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Vladimir Geneus Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Ann Leung: None declared, David Adams Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Martin Rudwaleit Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB Pharma

Peripartum issues in the inflammatory arthritis patient: A survey of the RAPPORT registry

Childbearing women with rheumatoid (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have significant peripartum issues. A retrospective anonymous RedCAP survey of peripartum period in females with RA/PsA in the RAPPORT registry was performed. Completed analyses included descriptive statistics, Chi-square and Fisher’s exact test. 162 patients (133 RA/29 PsA) completed the survey (103 women having 234 pregnancies), 164 pregnancies occurring before and 70 pregnancies occurring after diagnosis. Pregnancy outcomes from 103 patients included: 96% live births, 1.9% stillbirths, 23% miscarriages, and 15% therapeutic abortions. A third of patients had fewer children than desired due to disease activity, medications and other reasons. For 63 pregnancies after diagnosis: (1) 49% of pregnancies received pre-conception counseling; (2) 65% described good disease control during pregnancy but 74% flared in the first 3 months postpartum; (3) 79% of pregnancies discontinued IA medications; (4) 35% of pregnancies occurred on biologic therapy at or prior to conception. Gestational age at time of delivery was 37–40 weeks in 58% (33/57) post-arthritis vs 66% (83/126) pre-arthritis pregnancies. No statistically significant differences occurred between pregnancies before or after RA/PsA diagnosis for: pregnancy planning, fertility treatment, pregnancy and labour/delivery complications, birth defect frequency or neonatal complications. Neonatal ICU admissions were significantly lower in pre- compared to post-arthritis pregnancies (3.2% vs 14.5%). No pregnancy complications were noted in 24/54 pregnancies on medications compared to 6/9 pregnancies not on medications. The impact of RA/PsA before, during and after pregnancy varied considerably in this cohort emphasizing the importance of informed-decision making at all stages.

Fat metaplasia on MRI of the sacroiliac joints increases the propensity for disease progression in the spine of patients with spondyloarthritis

Objective

We tested the hypothesis that fat metaplasia on MRI of the sacroiliac joints (SIJ) increases the propensity for new bone formation in the spine of patients with spondyloarthritis.

Methods

We assessed baseline T1-weighted and short τ inversion recovery SIJ MRIs from patients in the Follow Up Research Cohort in Ankylosing Spondylitis (FORCAST). Radiographic progression was assessed using the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Score (mSASSS). Structural and inflammatory lesions were scored using the Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) SIJ structural and SPARCC SIJ inflammation scores, respectively. Radiographic progression was compared in cases with and without definite MRI lesions (score ≥2 or <2) and the extent of MRI lesions at baseline was compared in patients with and without radiographic progression. The predictive capacity of MRI SIJ lesions for radiographic progression in the spine was assessed in univariate and multivariate regression analyses.

Results

The extent of MRI structural lesions in the SIJ at baseline was significantly greater in those patients who had spinal radiographic progression on follow-up (p=0.003, 0.02, 0.003 for fat metaplasia, backfill and ankylosis, respectively). Also, radiographic progression was significantly greater in cases with definite baseline SIJ ankylosis (p=0.008). In multivariate regression that included all types of MRI lesions and was adjusted for age, sex, symptom duration, duration of follow-up, CRP, baseline mSASSS and treatment, the extent of SIJ fat metaplasia and ankylosis at baseline were independently associated with radiographic progression.

Conclusions

SIJ ankylosis and fat metaplasia but not inflammatory lesions increase the propensity for radiographic progression in the spine.

Measuring impairments of functioning and health in patients with axial spondyloarthritis by using the ASAS Health Index and the Environmental Item Set: translation and cross-cultural adaptation into 15 languages

Introduction

The Assessments of SpondyloArthritis international society Health Index (ASAS HI) measures functioning and health in patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA) across 17 aspects of health and 9 environmental factors (EF). The objective was to translate and adapt the original English version of the ASAS HI, including the EF Item Set, cross-culturally into 15 languages.

Methods

Translation and cross-cultural adaptation has been carried out following the forward–backward procedure. In the cognitive debriefing, 10 patients/country across a broad spectrum of sociodemographic background, were included.

Results

The ASAS HI and the EF Item Set were translated into Arabic, Chinese, Croatian, Dutch, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Korean, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Thai and Turkish. Some difficulties were experienced with translation of the contextual factors indicating that these concepts may be more culturally-dependent. A total of 215 patients with axial SpA across 23 countries (62.3% men, mean (SD) age 42.4 (13.9) years) participated in the field test. Cognitive debriefing showed that items of the ASAS HI and EF Item Set are clear, relevant and comprehensive. All versions were accepted with minor modifications with respect to item wording and response option. The wording of three items had to be adapted to improve clarity. As a result of cognitive debriefing, a new response option ‘not applicable’ was added to two items of the ASAS HI to improve appropriateness.

Discussion

This study showed that the items of the ASAS HI including the EFs were readily adaptable throughout all countries, indicating that the concepts covered were comprehensive, clear and meaningful in different cultures.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, sixteen-week study of subcutaneous golimumab in patients with active nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis

OBJECTIVE

Axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) is a chronic inflammatory disease characterized by back pain and stiffness. The objective of this study was to determine whether golimumab is superior to placebo in patients with nonradiographic axial SpA.

METHODS

This phase III, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was performed to evaluate subcutaneous golimumab (50 mg) versus placebo in patients ages ≥18 years to ≤45 years who had active nonradiographic axial SpA according to the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) criteria for ≤5 years since diagnosis, high disease activity, and an inadequate response to or intolerance of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive golimumab or placebo subcutaneously every 4 weeks. The primary end point was 20% improvement according to the ASAS criteria (ASAS20) at week 16. Key secondary end points were an ASAS40 response, ASAS partial remission, 50% improvement in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), and change in the Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) index for sacroiliac (SI) joint inflammation (SPARCC score).

RESULTS

Of the 198 patients randomized, 197 were treated (97 received golimumab, and 100 received placebo). The mean age of the patients was 31 years, and 57.1% were male. At baseline, the mean ± SD BASDAI was 6.5 ± 1.5, the mean ± SD ASDAS was 3.5 ± 0.9, and the mean ± SD SPARCC score was 11.3 ± 14.0. The primary end point, an ASAS20 response, was achieved by significantly more patients in the golimumab group compared with the placebo group (71.1% versus 40.0%; P < 0.0001). An ASAS40 response was also achieved by significantly more patients in the golimumab group compared with the placebo group (56.7% versus 23.0%; P < 0.0001). The incidence of adverse events did not differ meaningfully between groups.

CONCLUSION

Patients with active nonradiographic axial SpA treated with golimumab had significantly greater improvement in symptoms compared with patients treated with placebo. Golimumab was well tolerated and had a favorable risk/benefit profile.