Psoriatic arthritis: improvement in outcomes but persistent sex difference - 5-year follow-up study of a Norwegian outpatient clinic population

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore long-term changes in disease activity and remission rates, and potential sex-related differences in these outcomes, in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients treated in an outpatient clinic.

METHOD

This prospective longitudinal cohort study included 114 patients. The Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA), clinical DAPSA (cDAPSA), 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28), Simplified and Clinical Disease Activity Indices (SDAI, CDAI), Boolean remission for PsA, and minimal and very low disease activities (MDA, VLDA) were assessed. For group characteristics, parametric statistics and linear regression were used.

RESULTS

At 5 year follow-up, improvement was noted for multiple measures reflecting disease activity and patient-reported outcomes. Statistically significant increases in remission rates were observed using DAS28 (+21.2%), CDAI (+9.7%), and cDAPSA (+7.6%), but not SDAI, DAPSA, Boolean remission, MDA, or VLDA. During the study period, the proportion of patients treated with biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) increased from 37.7% to 48.3% (p = 0.007). At baseline, women reported higher pain and fatigue, and had higher tender joint counts, DAPSA, cDAPSA, SDAI, CDAI, and DAS28 than men. Despite higher mean baseline C-reactive protein, men more often achieved remission, regardless of the definition applied. A higher proportion of men than women was treated with bDMARDs (baseline: 46.6% vs 28.6%; follow-up: 58.6% vs 33.9%).

CONCLUSION

This study adds evidence supporting recent improvements in PsA outcomes. Women had higher disease activity and were less likely to achieve remission than men. Despite progress in achieving remission goals, there is still room for improvement in therapeutic approaches for PsA patients.

Monoclonal Antibody Disrupts Biofilm Structure and Restores Antibiotic Susceptibility in an Orthopedic Implant Infection Model

Bacterial biofilms on orthopedic implants are resistant to the host immune response and to traditional systemic antibiotics. Novel therapies are needed to improve patient outcomes. TRL1068 is a human monoclonal antibody (mAb) against a biofilm anchoring protein. For assessment of this agent in an orthopedic implant infection model, efficacy was measured by reduction in bacterial burden of Staphylococcus aureus, the most common pathogen for prosthetic joint infections (PJI). Systemic treatment with the biofilm disrupting mAb TRL1068 in conjunction with vancomycin eradicated S. aureus from steel pins implanted in the spine for 26 of 27 mice, significantly more than for vancomycin alone. The mechanism of action was elucidated by two microscopy studies. First, TRL1068 was localized to biofilm using a fluorescent antibody tag. Second, a qualitative effect on biofilm structure was observed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to examine steel pins that had been treated in vivo. SEM images of implants retrieved from control mice showed abundant three-dimensional biofilms, whereas those from mice treated with TRL1068 did not. Clinical Significance: TRL1068 binds at high affinity to S. aureus biofilms, thereby disrupting the three-dimensional structure and significantly reducing implant CFUs in a well-characterized orthopedic model for which prior tested agents have shown only partial efficacy. TRL1068 represents a promising systemic treatment for orthopedic implant infection.

POS1039 DEUCRAVACITINIB, AN ORAL, SELECTIVE TYROSINE KINASE 2 INHIBITOR, IN A PHASE 2 TRIAL IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: ACHIEVEMENT OF MINIMAL DISEASE ACTIVITY AND ITS COMPONENTS

Background

Tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) is an intracellular kinase in the Janus kinase (JAK) family that mediates the signalling of multiple cytokines, including those central to the immunopathogenesis of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), such as IL-23. Deucravacitinib (DEUC) is a novel, oral, selective, allosteric inhibitor of TYK2 that acts by binding to the unique regulatory domain on the enzyme. In a Phase 2 trial in patients with active PsA, DEUC was significantly more efficacious than placebo (PBO) after 16 weeks of treatment and was well tolerated.1

Objectives

This analysis further evaluated the effect of DEUC in this trial on achievement of individual components of minimal disease activity (MDA).

Methods

This double-blind, multicenter Phase 2 trial (NCT03881059) enrolled patients (n=203) with a PsA diagnosis ≥6 months who fulfilled Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis at screening and had active joint disease (≥3 tender and ≥3 swollen joints), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein ≥3 mg/L, and ≥1 plaque psoriasis lesion (≥2 cm). Eligible patients had failed or were intolerant to ≥1 nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory, conventional synthetic DMARD, and/or 1 tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (≤30%). Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive PBO, DEUC 6 mg once daily (QD), or 12 mg QD. The percentage of patients achieving MDA (5/7: tender joint count [TJC] ≤1, swollen joint count [SJC] ≤1, tender entheseal points [TEP] ≤1, Patient Global Assessment of disease activity [PtGA] ≤20, Patient Global Assessment of pain [Pain] ≤15, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index [HAQ-DI] ≤0.5, and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index [PASI] ≤1 or body surface area [BSA] ≤3%) as well as proportions of patients achieving each of the MDA components in all patients, MDA responders, and nonresponders were assessed through Week 16.

Results

Of 203 patients randomized, 180 (89%) completed 16 weeks of treatment (PBO, 58/66 [88%]; DEUC 6 mg QD, 63/70 [90%]; DEUC 12 mg QD, 59/67 [88%]). Demographic and baseline disease characteristics were generally similar across groups. Although no patient had met 5 of 7 criteria required for achieving MDA at baseline, several individual components of MDA were met at baseline, most frequently TEP ≤1 (PBO, 57.6%; DEUC 6 mg QD, 64.3%; DEUC 12 mg QD, 65.7%). After 16 weeks of treatment, 7.6%, 22.9%, and 23.9% of patients in the PBO, DEUC 6 mg QD, and DEUC 12 mg QD groups, respectively, achieved MDA response. Treatment with DEUC was associated with a numerically greater mean reduction from baseline in all MDA components versus PBO over 16 weeks of treatment in all patients. At Week 16, more patients receiving DEUC versus PBO achieved the threshold for each of the MDA components (Figure 1).

Conclusion

In this study, patients treated with DEUC achieved a higher rate of MDA response compared with patients treated with PBO after 16 weeks of treatment. More patients receiving DEUC treatment achieved each of the MDA components compared with patients receiving PBO.

References

[1]Mease PJ et al. Efficacy and Safety of Selective TYK2 Inhibitor, Deucravacitinib, in a Phase 2 Trial in Psoriatic Arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. (In Press).

Acknowledgements

This study was sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb. Professional medical writing assistance was provided by Julianne Hatfield, PhD at Peloton Advantage, LLC, an OPEN Health company, Parsippany, NJ, USA, and funded by Bristol Myers Squibb.

Disclosure of Interests

Arthur Kavanaugh Grant/research support from: Clinical research sponsored by Abbott, Amgen, Janssen, and UCB, Laura Coates Speakers bureau: Has been paid as a speaker for AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Gilead, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB., Consultant of: Worked as a paid consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB., Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Novartis, Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: Consultant and/or investigator: Amgen, AbbVie, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and UCB., Philip J Mease Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN Pharma, UCB., Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN Pharma, UCB, Miroslawa Nowak Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Subhashis Banerjee Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Lauren Hippeli Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Thomas Lehman Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb

POS1029 EFFECTS OF TREATMENT WITH RISANKIZUMAB ON MINIMAL DISEASE ACTIVITY (MDA) AND DISEASE ACTIVITY IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS (DAPSA): AN ANALYSIS OF THE KEEPsAKE-1 AND -2 TRIALS

Background

Risankizumab (RZB) is a monoclonal antibody that specifically inhibits interleukin 23.

Objectives

To evaluate the achievement of Minimal Disease Activity (MDA), its components, and achievement of Disease Activity in PsA Low Disease Activity and Remission (DAPSA LDA+REM, [DAPSA score ≤14]) in patients receiving RZB or placebo (PBO) in the KEEPsAKE 1 and 2 clinical trials.

Methods

KEEPsAKE-1 and -2, double-blind, phase 3 trials, evaluated the efficacy of RZB versus PBO for the treatment of adult patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive subcutaneous RZB 150 mg or PBO at weeks 0, 4, and 16. The open label extension began at Week 24 with all patients receiving RZB 150 mg every 12 weeks thereafter. Achievement of MDA, its components, and achievement of DAPSA LDA+REM are reported using non-responder imputation.

Results

MDA achievement at Week 52 in KEEPsAKE-1 was 37.9% for patients originally randomized to RZB and 27.4% for patients originally randomized to PBO. In KEEPsAKE-2, MDA achievement was 27.2% and 33.8% for patients originally randomized to RZB and PBO, respectively. Achievement of MDA and its components are presented in Figure 1. In KEEPsAKE-1, at Week 52 59.2% of patients originally randomized to RZB and 51.4% of patients originally randomized to PBO achieved DAPSA LDA+REM. At Week 52 in KEEPsAKE-2, DAPSA LDA+REM was achieved by 44.6% of patients originally randomized to RZB and 46.6% of patients originally randomized to PBO (Figure 1).

Conclusion

Patients treated with RZB demonstrate achievement of MDA, its components, and DAPSA LDA+REM at Weeks 24 and 52.

Acknowledgements

AbbVie Inc, participated in the study design; study research; collection, analysis and interpretation of data; and writing, reviewing, and approving of this abstract for submission. AbbVie funded the research for this study and provided writing support for this abstract. Medical writing assistance was provided by Trisha Rettig, Ph.D. of AbbVie

Disclosure of Interests

Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Abbvie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, UCB, Sanofi, Regeneron, Sun Pharma, Biogen, Pfizer and Leo Pharma, Iain McInnes Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Compugen, Cabaletta, Evelo, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Arthur Kavanaugh Consultant of: AbbVie Inc., Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, BMS, Celgene, Centocor-Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie Inc., Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, BMS, Celgene, Centocor-Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Peter Nash Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, BMS, Rocje, Sanofi, Gilead/Galapagos, MSD, Samsung, Celgene, Amgen, Boehringer, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, BMS, Rocje, Sanofi, Gilead/Galapagos, MSD, Samsung, Celgene, Amgen, Boehringer, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, BMS, Rocje, Sanofi, Gilead/Galapagos, MSD, Samsung, Celgene, Amgen, Boehringer, Zhenyi Xue Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Vassilis Stakias Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Ann Eldred Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Sandra Ciecinski Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Kevin Douglas Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Laura Coates Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis and Pfizer

AB0924 Individual Digit Level Nail Involvement and Joint Assessment in Patients with Nail Psoriasis

Background

The relationship between the evolution of nail disease and the articular features of Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) is poorly understood. There is a lack of data on the relationship between nail and joint disease, important clinical parameters of disease activity, specifically at the individual digit level.

Objectives

To evaluate the level of association, at digit level, between nail involvement and joint disease at baseline, with a special focus on distal interphalangeal joint (DIP) assessment.

Methods

SPIRIT-H2H (NCT03151551) was a 52 week, multicenter, randomised, open-label, parallel-group, assessor-blinded study evaluating the efficacy and safety of IXE vs ADA in PsA.1 Nail psoriasis was measured using Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI). Joint involvement was measured by tender/swollen joint count (TJC/SJC) scores. Here we examine both baseline tenderness and swollenness at the DIP joint, proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint and metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint level for each digit and evaluate the level of association between nail involvement (NAPSI>0 vs NAPSI=0) and joint assessment using Chi-square tests and/or Fisher’s exact test where relevant.

Results

Overall, 368 patients (IXE N=191, ADA N=177) out of 566 had a baseline NAPSI >0. The overall level of nail involvement ranged from 52.7% (n=194) (right 5th finger) to 67.9% (n=250) (right 1st finger). When considering a digit-wide assessment of joints (DIP, PIP, and MCP), in general, no clear association was found between NAPSI >0 and joint involvement. However, there was more frequent DIP joint involvement in patients with nail involvement compared to patients without nail involvement. When taking only the DIP joint into account, nail involvement was found to be statistically associated with tenderness and/or swelling at the DIP level (Figure 1), with differences between patients with nail involvement vs. without nail involvement ranging from 7.9% (p=0.023) (right 5th finger) to 19.4% (p<0.001) (left 3rd finger). These differences are mostly driven by tenderness rather than swelling, irrespective of digit. For tenderness, differences (with vs. without nail involvement) ranged from 7.0% (right 2nd finger) to 18.0% (left 3rd finger). Differences due to swelling ranged from 5.0% (left 1st finger) to 12.2% (left 3rd finger).

Figure 1.

Digit level association between nail assessment and DIP joint.

Significant difference between nail involvement and no nail involvement denotated by * (p≤0.05), ** (p≤0.01), *** (p≤0.001). Abbreviation: DIP= Distal interphalangeal joint.

Conclusion

In SPIRIT-H2H, tenderness and/or swelling at the DIP joint was significantly associated with nail involvement in individual digits.

References

[1]Mease et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79(1):123-31.

Disclosure of Interests

Christopher T. Ritchlin: None declared, Lars Erik Kristensen Speakers bureau: Pfizer, AbbVie, Amgen, UCB, Gilead, Biogen, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Eli Lilly and Company and Janssen., Consultant of: Pfizer, AbbVie, Amgen, UCB, Gilead, Biogen, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Eli Lilly and Company and Janssen., Grant/research support from: IIT research grants from Pfizer, AbbVie, UCB, Gilead, Biogen, Novartis, Eli Lilly and Company and Janssen., Bruce Strober Shareholder of: Connect Biopharma, Mindera Health., Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Incyte, Janssen, Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme., Consultant of: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Arcutis, Arena, Aristea, Asana, Boehringer Ingelheim, Immunic Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Connect Biopharma, Dermavant, EPI Health, Evelo Biosciences, Janssen, Leo, Eli Lilly, Maruho, Meiji Seika Pharma, Mindera Health, Novartis, Ono, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Sun Pharma, Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, Union Therapeutics, Ventyxbio, vTv Therapeutics, CorEvitas (formerly Corrona) Psoriasis Registry., Arthur Kavanaugh Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly and Comapny, Pfizer, Novartis, UCB, BMS, Rebecca Bolce 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, Jennifer Pustizzi Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Najwa Somani Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Christophe Sapin Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Bayer, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, UCB, Celgene, Sanofi-Regeneron, Biogen, Pfizer, and BMS.

POS1050 UPADACITINIB VERSUS ADALIMUMAB ON ROUTINE ASSESSMENT OF PATIENT INDEX DATA 3 (RAPID3) IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS

Background

RAPID3 (Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3) is a disease activity index that is calculated from 3 patient-reported measures: physical function, pain, and patient global assessment. A fast and convenient tool, RAPID3 can be easily used in clinical practice and is applicable to multiple rheumatic diseases, including psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and was shown to correlate with other clinical composite measures of disease activity1. Here, we assessed the long-term effect of upadacitinib (UPA), an oral JAK inhibitor, and adalimumab (ADA) on RAPID3 scores in patients with PsA via a post hoc analysis from the SELECT-PsA 1 phase 3 trial2,3.

Objectives

To evaluate the impact of treatment with UPA vs ADA on RAPID3 through 56 weeks in SELECT-PsA 1, as well as the association of RAPID3 with other disease measures used in PsA.

Methods

Data are from the double-blind SELECT-PsA 1 trial, in which patients with PsA and an inadequate response or intolerance to ≥1 non-biologic DMARD received UPA 15 mg or 30 mg once daily, ADA 40 mg every other week (wk), or placebo (PBO; switched at wk 24 to either UPA 15 mg or 30 mg). This analysis included data from the UPA 15 mg, ADA, and PBO treatment arms. RAPID3 endpoints were calculated using pain scores, patient’s global assessment of disease activity, and HAQ-DI (each rescaled to 0–10 in this analysis); summed together, RAPID3 scores range from 0 (no disease activity) to 30 (severe activity). Mean change from baseline (BL) in RAPID3 as well as the proportions of patients reporting minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in RAPID3 and RAPID3 remission (≤3), low (LDA, >3 to ≤6), moderate (MDA, >6 to ≤12), and high disease activity (HDA, >12) were assessed through wk 56. Associations between RAPID3 scores and disease activity in psoriatic arthritis (DAPSA) and Minimal Disease Activity (MDA)/Very Low Disease Activity (VLDA) were determined by Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test. All data are as observed.

Results

A total of 1,274 patients (PBO: n=421; UPA 15 mg: n=425; ADA: n=428) were included from SELECT-PsA 1. RAPID3 scores at BL were comparable across all treatment arms, and most patients were in HDA. Patients receiving UPA showed a greater improvement from BL in RAPID3 vs ADA at all visits from wk 16 to wk 56 as well as better responses compared with PBO at all assessments (Figure 1). Similarly, a higher proportion of patients treated with UPA achieved MCID in RAPID3 scores than those on ADA from wk 24 to wk 56. By wk 56, approximately half of patients on either therapy were in RAPID3 remission or LDA, with UPA showing a slight numerical improvement relative to ADA (30/21/31/18% of patients were in remission/LDA/MDA/HDA on UPA vs 28/17/30/25% on ADA). RAPID3 disease categories were strongly associated with DAPSA and MDA/VLDA status at wk 56 across all treatment arms pooled together (Table 1) and for the UPA 15 mg arm alone (nominal P <0.0001 for all associations).

Table 1.

Association of RAPID3 With DAPSA and MDA/VLDA Across All Treatment Arms at Week 56a

RAPID3n (%)Moderate-High [>6]Low [3 - ≤6]Remission [≤3]DAPSA (n=879) Moderate-High [>14]292 (33)33 (4)14 (2) Low [4 - ≤14]154 (18)122 (14)87 (10) Remission [≤4]6 (1)21 (2)150 (17)MDA/VLDA (n=907) Not in MDA410 (45)39 (4)5 (1) MDA but not VLDA63 (7)129 (14)80 (9) VLDA013 (1)168 (19)

aDAPSA vs RAPID3 and MDA/VLDA vs RAPID3 were nominally significant at P <0.0001. Data were pooled across UPA 15 mg, ADA, and PBO to UPA 15 mg groups.

Conclusion

UPA 15 mg treatment led to greater improvements over PBO in RAPID3 scores over 56 wks in patients with PsA, and greater improvements over ADA from wk 16 to 56. The majority of patients achieved MCID in RAPID3 after 12 wks of UPA or ADA, with higher proportions achieving MCID on UPA vs ADA by wk 24. RAPID3 was strongly associated with other joint-focused (DAPSA) or multiple manifestation (MDA/VLDA) composite measures, further supporting the utility of RAPID3 in assessing disease activity in PsA.

References

[1]Coates LC, et al. Arthritis Care Res 2018; 70:1198-1205.

[2]McInnes IB, et al. N Engl J Med 2021; 384:1227-39.

[3]McInnes IB, et al. RMD Open 2021; 7: e001838.

Acknowledgements

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

Disclosure of Interests

Laura Coates Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB., Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Galapagos, Janssen, Moonlake, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Arthur Kavanaugh Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, Centocor-Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB., Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, Centocor-Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB., Erin McDearmon-Blondell Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Arthur Mandelin Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Pfizer, BMS, and Horizon, Consultant of: Served on advisory board at CVS Caremark, Tianming Gao Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, William Tillett Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB

AB0894 Efficacy and Safety of Guselkumab in Biologic-Naïve Patients With Active Axial Psoriatic Arthritis: Study Design of a Phase 4, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Background

Established criteria for classifying axial psoriatic arthritis (PsA) are lacking, and assessments of disease activity often rely on measures developed for ankylosing spondylitis (AS). There is an unmet need to systematically identify and measure efficacy of treatments for axial PsA patients (pts). Guselkumab (GUS), a selective interleukin (IL)-23p19 inhibitor, was efficacious in improving signs and symptoms of active PsA in 2 phase 3, randomized, placebo (PBO)-controlled studies: DISCOVER-1 and DISCOVER-2. In a post-hoc pooled analysis of DISCOVER-1&2 pts with investigator-confirmed sacroiliitis, GUS-treated pts had greater improvements in axial symptoms compared with PBO.1 Imaging in DISCOVER-1&2 was restricted to the sacroiliac (SI) joints, occurring prior to/at screening as confirmed by the investigator, and locally read.

Objectives

To design a new, dedicated study to evaluate the effects of GUS on axial PsA prospectively.

Methods

Cumulative evidence from DISCOVER-1&2, including exposure–response relationship, covariate adjustment for modest baseline imbalances across treatment groups, subgroup analyses, and comparisons within and across these studies, was considered in designing a new trial. Data from the pivotal registrational studies suggest similar efficacy with GUS every-4-weeks (Q4W) and Q8W regimens in treating PsA signs and symptoms, including symptoms of axial involvement. Power calculations were based on mean changes in Bath AS Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) scores in DISCOVER-1&2.

Results

The phase 4, randomized, PBO-controlled STAR study is specifically designed to prospectively assess efficacy outcomes in PsA pts with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-confirmed axial inflammation. Based on observed mean (SD) changes from baseline in BASDAI score from DISCOVER-1&2 (Table 1), 405 pts, randomized (1:1:1) to GUS Q4W, GUS at W0, W4, then Q8W, or PBO →GUS Q8W at W24, are planned for enrollment (Figure 1). STAR eligibility criteria include PsA ≥6 months and active disease (≥3 swollen & ≥3 tender joints, C-reactive protein [CRP] ≥0.3 mg/dL) despite prior non-biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, apremilast, and/or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Pts will be naïve to biologics and Janus kinase inhibitors and have BASDAI ≥4, spinal pain score (visual analog scale [VAS]) ≥4, and screening MRI-confirmed axial disease (positive spine and/or SI joints defined as centrally read Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada [SPARCC] score ≥3). Follow-up MRIs of spine and SI joints will be obtained at W0, W24, and W52 and also centrally read, with readers blinded to treatment group and timepoint. Spinal/SI joint inflammation will be scored using the SPARCC method, with the former also assessed using the CAN-DEN method. The primary endpoint is mean change in BASDAI at W24; controlled (hierarchical) secondary endpoints, all at W24, include AS Disease Activity Score (ASDAS-CRP), Disease Activity Index for PsA (DAPSA), ≥40% improvement in Assessment in AS criteria (ASAS40), and mean changes in spine/SI joint SPARCC scores.

Table 1.

Power calculations for the primary endpoint in the Phase 4 STAR study.

Historical trial data*Observed mean (SD) change in BASDAI from W0-24Effect sizePower(N=135; α=0.05)**PBO-1.28 (2.24)GUS 100 mg Q4W-2.51 (2.00)1.23>99%GUS 100 mg Q8W-2.61 (2.47)1.33>99%

* From the pooled DISCOVER-1&2 trials

**Power calculations based on N=135 per study group (1:1:1 randomization) and 2-sided significance of 0.05 using a 2-sample T-test assuming equal variances

BASDAI, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index; GUS, guselkumab; PBO, placebo; Q4W, every 4 weeks; Q8W, every 8 weeks; SD, standard deviation; W, week

Conclusion

The phase 4 STAR study will allow for an in-depth, prospective evaluation of the effects of selectively inhibiting the IL-23p19 subunit with GUS in pts with MRI-confirmed axial PsA.

References

[1]Mease, et al. Lancet Rheum. 2021;3(10):e715-e723.

Disclosure of Interests

Dafna D Gladman Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Aclaris, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Inmagene, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN Pharma, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Aclaris, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Inmagene, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN Pharma, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Aclaris, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Inmagene, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN Pharma, and UCB, Paul Bird Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer, Enrique Soriano Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, and Roche, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Soumya D Chakravarty Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, May Shawi Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Global Services, LLC, Stephen Xu Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Sean Quinn Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Cinty Gong Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Evan Leibowitz Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Lai-Shan Tam Consultant of: Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Lilly, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, GSK, Novartis, and Pfizer, Philip Helliwell Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, and Novartis, Consultant of: Galapagos and Janssen, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Janssen, and Pfizer, Arthur Kavanaugh Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Atul Deodhar Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Glaxo Smith & Kline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Glaxo Smith & Kline, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Mikkel Østergaard Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, and Novartis, Xenofon Baraliakos Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Biocad, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biocad, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Biocad, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB

POS0643 SUSTAINABILITY OF RESPONSE BETWEEN UPADACITINIB AND ADALIMUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS: RESULTS THROUGH 3 YEARS FROM THE SELECT-COMPARE TRIAL

Background

The primary treatment target for patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is sustained clinical remission (REM) or low disease activity (LDA).1,2 A greater proportion of patients with RA and inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX) receiving the JAK inhibitor, upadacitinib (UPA), achieved REM/LDA compared with adalimumab (ADA), both with background MTX, through 26 weeks in the phase 3, SELECT-COMPARE trial.3

Objectives

We assessed sustainability of response over 3 years in UPA-treated patients with RA.

Methods

SELECT-COMPARE included a 26-week, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled period, a 48-week, double-blind active comparator-controlled period, and an ongoing long-term extension for up to 10 years. Patients on background MTX received UPA 15 mg once daily, PBO, or ADA 40 mg every other week. Patients who did not achieve at least 20% improvements in tender and swollen joint counts (Weeks 14-22) or LDA (CDAI ≤10 at Week 26) were rescued from UPA to ADA or PBO/ADA to UPA. This post hoc analysis evaluated clinical REM (CDAI ≤2.8; SDAI ≤3.3), LDA (CDAI ≤10; SDAI ≤11), and DAS28(CRP) <2.6/≤3.2 at first occurrence (prior to treatment switch [rescue]), as well as over 3 years following initial response in patients randomized to UPA or ADA. For those patients who achieved REM/LDA, Kaplan-Meier was used to define the time from when the response was first achieved to the earliest date at which the response was lost at two consecutive visits, discontinuation of study drug, or losing response at the time of rescue. The predictive ability of time to CDAI REM/LDA was assessed using Harrell’s concordance (c)-index (range: 0 [all predictions wrong] to 1.0 [perfect predictive ability]. Non-responder imputation was used for missing data.

Results

Through 3 years, a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving UPA + MTX vs ADA + MTX achieved CDAI REM (47% vs 35%, P = 0.001) as well as CDAI LDA (70% vs 60%, P = 0.001). At 30 months after first occurrence of response, CDAI REM/LDA was sustained in 19%/42% of patients randomized to UPA and 10%/30% of patients randomized to ADA (Figure 1). Time to initial clinical response did not appear to be predictive of sustained disease control. The c-index for CDAI REM/LDA was 0.50/0.60 on UPA vs 0.49/0.56 on ADA. Through the last follow-up visit, 37%/58% of patients receiving UPA and 27%/48% on ADA remained in CDAI REM/LDA, respectively (Figure 2). Of patients who lost CDAI REM, 68% on UPA and 55% on ADA remained in LDA. Additionally, roughly similar proportions on UPA and ADA recaptured CDAI REM/LDA (UPA, 40%/17%; ADA, 48%/19%). Similar results were observed for REM/LDA based on SDAI and for DAS28(CRP) <2.6/≤3.2.

Conclusion

Among patients with inadequate response to MTX, a higher proportion receiving UPA + MTX achieved remission or LDA across disease activity measures vs ADA + MTX. UPA-treated patients demonstrated a consistently higher sustained response rate over 3 years compared to those receiving ADA. Furthermore, significant proportions of patients who lost response on either UPA or ADA were able to recapture remission or LDA.

References

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

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

[3]Fleischmann et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2019;71:1788–1800.

Acknowledgements

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

Disclosure of Interests

Peter Nash Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Gilead/Galapagos, Sanofi, Celgene, Novartis, Lilly, Janssen, UCB, Samsung, MSD, Roche, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Gilead/Galapagos, Sanofi, Celgene, Novartis, Lilly, Janssen, UCB, Samsung, MSD, Roche, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Gilead/Galapagos, Sanofi, Celgene, Novartis, Lilly, Janssen, UCB, Samsung, MSD, Roche, Arthur Kavanaugh Consultant of: AbbVie Inc., Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, BMS, Celgene, Centocor-Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie Inc., Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, BMS, Celgene, Centocor-Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Maya H Buch Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingleheim, Eli Lilly, Merck-Serono, and Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingleheim, Eli Lilly, Merck-Serono, and Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Gilead, and UCB, Bernard Combe Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celltrion, Gilead, Galapagos, Janssen, Eli Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche Chugai, Louis Bessette Speakers bureau: Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Roche, UCB, AbbVie, Pfizer, Merck, Celgene, Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Sandoz, Gilead, Fresenius Kabi, and Teva, Consultant of: Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Roche, UCB, AbbVie, Pfizer, Merck, Celgene, Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Sandoz, Gilead, Fresenius Kabi, and Teva, Grant/research support from: Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Roche, UCB, AbbVie, Pfizer, Merck, Celgene, Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Sandoz, Gilead, Fresenius Kabi, and Teva, In-Ho Song Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Roche, UCB, AbbVie, Pfizer, Merck, Celgene, Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Sandoz, Gilead, Fresenius Kabi, and Teva, Tim Shaw Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Yanna Song Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Jessica Suboticki Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Roy M. Fleischmann Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis and UCB

POS0969 GENETIC AND MOLECULAR DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN AXIAL PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS AND ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS

Background

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and ankylosing spondylitis (AS) represent the prototypical spondyloarthritides. PsA patients may also suffer from axial disease (axPsA). Despite overlapping symptoms, axPsA and AS may be distinct disorders with differing clinical manifestations, genetic associations, and radiographic findings.1 These disorders also respond differently to immunomodulatory therapies such as anti-interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitors. While guselkumab, a human monoclonal antibody targeting the IL-23p19 subunit, improved symptoms of axPsA,2 risankizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting the IL-23p19 subunit, did not show improvement in the primary endpoint of proportion of AS patients achieving an Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society 40% (ASAS40) response at week (W) 12.3

Objectives

To understand molecular distinctions between axPsA and AS to differentiate these diseases and guide treatment choice.

Methods

Whole blood and serum samples were collected from consenting patients in the NCT03162796/NCT0315828 studies of guselkumab in PsA and the NCT02437162/NCT02438787 studies of ustekinumab in AS. axPsA patients were investigator-verified as having magnetic resonance imaging- or pelvic x-ray-confirmed sacroiliitis at screening (locally read). Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genotypes were determined by RNA sequencing, limited to Caucasian patients to reduce genetic variability,4 and select serum cytokine levels were analyzed alongside samples from healthy individuals. Differential prevalence of HLA alleles in axPsA versus AS was determined using a Fisher’s Exact test. Statistical significance of differential baseline serum cytokine expression among axPsA versus non-axPsA versus AS patients, and of guselkumab effect on serum cytokine reduction versus placebo among axPsA and non-axPsA patients, were determined with a generalized linear model performed on log2-transformed data. Biomarker data from guselkumab every-4-weeks and every-8-weeks treatment arms were pooled.

Results

Among the 186/234 Caucasian axPsA/AS patients with available data, 34%/15% were female, 70%/14% used methotrexate at baseline, mean serum C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were 2.8/2.4 mg/dL and mean Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) scores were 6.4/7.5, respectively. Aside from race, baseline demographics and disease characteristics were representative of the overall population. The prevalence of class I HLA allele -B27, -C01, and -C02 carriers was significantly lower in axPsA than AS patients (30.7% versus 92.3%, p<0.001; 5.9% versus 31.6%, p<0.001; and 28.0% versus 62.0%, p<0.001, respectively), while the prevalence of HLA-C06 was significantly higher in axPsA than AS populations (36.0% versus 8.6%, p<0.001). Baseline serum levels of IL-17A and IL-17F were significantly higher in axPsA (N=71) than in AS (N=58) patients (p<0.01 and p<0.001, respectively). Comparable IL-17A/F expression was seen for axPsA and non-axPsA (N=229) patients (both p=not significant). Significant and comparable reductions from baseline in serum IL-17A/F in axPsA and non-axPsA patients were seen with guselkumab treatment (axPsA N=41, non-axPsA N=160) versus placebo (axPsA N=30, non-axPsA N=69) at W4/24 (all p<0.05).

Conclusion

Adults with axPsA and AS exhibit different genetic risk factors and serum IL-17 levels, supporting the concept of distinct disorders. Guselkumab demonstrated significant pharmacodynamic effects in axPsA patients that aligned with such effects in non-axPsA patients, consistent with observed clinical improvement.2

References

[1]Feld et al. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2018;14(6):363-371.

[2]Mease et al. Lancet Rheumatol. 2021;3(10)E715-E723.

[3]Baeten et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(9):1295-1302.

[4]Buchkovich et al. Genome Med. 2017;9(86).

Disclosure of Interests

Arthur Kavanaugh Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Genentech, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Xenofon Baraliakos Consultant of: AbbVie, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, and Novartis, Sheng Gao Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, and may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Warner Chen Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, and may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Kristen Sweet Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, and may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Soumya D Chakravarty Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, and may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Qingxuan Song Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, and may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, May Shawi Employee of: Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, and may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Frank Behrens Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Genzyme, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Genzyme, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Celgene, Chugai, Janssen, Pfizer, and Roche, Proton Rahman Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Janssen, research grants from Janssen and Novartis

POS1026 PREDICTORS FOR ACHIEVEMENT OF LOW DISEASE ACTIVITY AT WEEK 56 IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS WHO RECEIVED UPADACITINIB 15 MG ONCE DAILY: POOLED ANALYSIS OF TWO PHASE 3 STUDIES

Background

Upadacitinib (UPA) 15 mg once daily (QD) has demonstrated efficacy and safety in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) for up to 56 weeks in the Phase 3 SELECT-PsA 1 and 2 trials.1,2

Objectives

This post hoc analysis of these studies explored the association of baseline characteristics and short-term responses with achievement of minimal disease activity (MDA) and Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) low disease activity (LDA).

Methods

Data were pooled from patients with prior inadequate response or intolerance to ≥1 non-biologic (b) DMARDs (SELECT-PsA 1) or ≥1 bDMARDs (SELECT-PsA 2) originally randomized to UPA 15 mg QD. Logistic regression models were used to assess the association between baseline characteristics and short-term (Week 12) responses with achieving MDA or DAPSA LDA at 56 weeks, sustained MDA (MDA at Weeks 36 and 56), or sustained DAPSA LDA (DAPSA LDA at Weeks 36, 44, and 56). Each predictor was evaluated separately in an initial model that included effects for study and concurrent non-bDMARD use. Odds ratios and concordance (c-)statistics were used to determine the predictive accuracy. Statistically significant predictors were then evaluated simultaneously using stepwise logistic regression with the Akaike Information Criterion for model-building.

Results

Of 640 patients included in the analysis, 40% and 47% achieved MDA and DAPSA LDA, respectively, at 56 weeks. Evaluated separately, younger age, sex (male), geographic region, lower weight, lower body mass index, the presence of dactylitis or enthesitis, and lower scores of Patient’s Assessment of Pain (Pt-Pain), Patient’s Global Assessment (PtGA), tender joint count in 68 joints, and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) were significant baseline predictors for achieving MDA and DAPSA LDA at Week 56. Lower Pt-Pain (Weeks 12–24) and PtGA (Weeks 16–24) scores were strongly predictive (c-statistics >0.8) of achieving MDA at Week 56, and both measures (from Week 8) were moderately predictive (c-statistics >0.7) of achieving DAPSA LDA. Evaluated simultaneously with several baseline characteristics, lower Pt-Pain and HAQ-DI scores at Week 12 were included in models strongly predictive of achieving MDA (c-statistic=0.850; Figure 1) and DAPSA LDA (c-statistic=0.840; Figure 2) at Week 56. For each 1-point increase in Pt-Pain or HAQ-DI scores at Week 12 (after adjusting for other effects in the model), patients were less likely to achieve MDA (by 32% or 56%, respectively) or DAPSA LDA (by 23% or 31%, respectively) at Week 56. Predictors for achieving sustained MDA and sustained DAPSA LDA were generally similar to those identified for achieving MDA and DAPSA LDA, respectively.

Conclusion

In patients with PsA receiving UPA 15 mg, baseline characteristics and early responses strongly predicted achievement of MDA or DAPSA LDA at Week 56. This may guide considerations of treatment targets in clinical trials and encourage physicians to further optimize treatment of their patients in clinical practice.

References

[1]McInnes IB, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79:16–7.

[2]Mease PJ, et al. Rheumatol Ther 2021 [Epub ahead of print].

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 Hilary Wong, PhD, of 2 the Nth (Cheshire, UK), which was funded by AbbVie.

Disclosure of Interests

Daniel Aletaha Consultant of: AbbVie, Grünenthal, Janssen, Medac, Merck, Mitsubishi/Tanabe, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Grünenthal, Janssen, Medac, Merck, Mitsubishi/Tanabe, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Genentech, Gilead, and Janssen, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Genentech, Gilead, and Janssen, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, and Janssen, Ralph Lippe Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Frank Behrens Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Chugai, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Pfizer, and Roche, Derek Haaland Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Adiga Life Sciences, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Can-Fite BioPharma, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and UCB, Penelope Palominos Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Apinya Lertratanakul Shareholder of: formerly of AbbVie, Employee of: former employee of AbbVie, Michael Lane Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Kevin Douglas Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Peter Nash Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Arthur Kavanaugh Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB

OP0025 FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH FATIGUE AND ITS IMPROVEMENT – A PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS OF PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS FROM GUSELKUMAB PHASE 3 TRIALS

Background

Fatigue, one of the top 3 patient (pt)-reported symptoms of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and a recent PsA outcome domain,1 causes impaired health-related quality-of-life, diminished productivity, and disability.1-3 Although the origins of fatigue are multifactorial, inflammation is hypothesized to play an important role.4 In pts with active PsA, treatment with guselkumab (GUS) led to clinically meaningful and sustained improvements in fatigue through 1 year in DISCOVER-1 (D1) and DISCOVER-2 (D2).5

Objectives

To identify 1) factors associated with fatigue and 2) factors associated with change in fatigue among pts with PsA treated with GUS.

Methods

In the Phase 3 D1 (N=381, biologic-naïve and tumor necrosis factor inhibitor-experienced) and D2 (N=739, biologic-naïve) studies, pts with active PsA despite standard therapies and/or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs were randomized 1:1:1 to GUS 100 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W); GUS 100 mg at W0, W4, then Q8W; or placebo (PBO) with crossover to GUS 100 mg Q4W at W24. The pt-reported Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue) scale measured fatigue (scored 0-52). In these post-hoc analyses of D1 and D2 pts, a principal component analysis (PCA) was performed using W0 data to identify the underlying baseline factors associated with fatigue. Additionally, linear regression analyses were performed to identify covariates associated with change in fatigue from W0 to W24.

Results

In 1120 pts (mean age 47 yrs, mean disease duration 5.9 yrs, 48% female), mean FACIT-Fatigue scores at baseline ranged from 29.1 to 31.4 (vs 43.6 for the general US population).5 PCA showed that 62% of the variability in fatigue could be explained by 3 components (Figure 1). The first component, explaining 34% of variability in fatigue, largely comprised systemic disease activity and function measures such as pain, pt global assessment of disease activity (PtGDA), physician’s global assessment of disease activity, and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI). The second component, explaining 16% of variability, comprised joint manifestations including swollen joint count (SJC) and tender joint count (TJC). Skin involvement as assessed by Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein [CRP]) could explain 12% of the variability in fatigue (Figure 1 and Table 1). In a multivariate linear regression analysis, after adjusting for effects from other variables, improvement in CRP, physical function (HAQ-DI), PtGDA, and PASI score were significantly associated with fatigue improvement in GUS-treated pts at W24 (all p<0.001).

Table 1.

PCA of Pts With Active PsA in D1+D2 (N=1120; Pooled W0 data): Factor Loading Estimates by Covariates

Component1 Systemic Disease Activity and FunctionComponent 2 Joint ManifestationsComponent 3 Skin Involvement and InflammationPsA disease duration, yr0.100.140.25PASI total score (0-72)0.220.230.74CRP, mg/dL0.36-0.130.55HAQ-DI score (0-3)0.73-0.09-0.19Pain (0-10 VAS)0.83-0.35-0.13PtGDA (0-10 VAS)0.82-0.36-0.16Physician global assessment of disease activity (0-10 VAS)0.65-0.180.23SJC (0-66)0.500.74-0.12TJC (0-68)0.540.70-0.18

VAS=Visual Analog Scale.

Conclusion

Among pts with PsA, measures of systemic disease activity and function, followed by joint manifestations, and skin involvement/inflammation accounted for 62% of the variability in fatigue. The large residual effect (38%) that was unexplained by the current model suggests the need for further research to identify additional factors (eg, distinct molecular pathways) contributing to the fatigue reported by PsA pts.

References

[1]Leung YY, et al. J Rheumatol (Suppl). 2020;96:46-9.

[2]Gudu T, et al. Joint Bone Spine. 2016;83:439-43.

[3]Husted JA, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68:1553-8.

[4]Krajewska-Włodarczyk M, et al. Reumatologia. 2017;55:125-30.

[5]Rahman P, et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2021;23:190.

Disclosure of Interests

Proton Rahman Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Janssen and Novartis, Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Aclaris, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Inmagene, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB, Atul Deodhar Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Aurinia, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Arthur Kavanaugh Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Soumya D Chakravarty Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Alexa Kollmeier Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Yan Liu Shareholder of: 3 Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, May Shawi Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, Chenglong Han Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC.

Psoriasis and metabolic syndrome: implications for the management and treatment of psoriasis

Psoriasis is a chronic systemic inflammatory disorder associated with several comorbidities in addition to the characteristic skin lesions. Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is the most frequent comorbidity in psoriasis and a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, a major cause of death among patients with psoriasis. Although the exact causal relationship between these two disorders is not fully established, the underlying pathophysiology linking psoriasis and MetS seems to involve overlapping genetic predispositions and inflammatory pathways. Dysregulation of the IL‐23/Th‐17 immune signalling pathway is central to both pathologies and may be key to promoting susceptibility to metabolic and cardiovascular diseases in individuals with and without psoriasis. Thus, biological treatments for psoriasis that interrupt these signals could both reduce the psoriatic inflammatory burden and also lessen the risk of developing atherosclerosis and cardiometabolic diseases. In support of this hypothesis, improvement of skin lesions was associated with improvement in vascular inflammation in recent imaging studies, demonstrating that the beneficial effect of biological agents goes beyond the skin and could help to prevent cardiovascular disease. This review will summarize current knowledge on underlying inflammatory mechanisms shared between psoriasis and MetS and discuss the most recent clinical evidence for the potential for psoriasis treatment to reduce cardiovascular risk.

AB0547 ASSOCIATION BETWEEN ACHIEVEMENT OF LOW DISEASE ACTIVITY OR REMISSION WITH IMPROVEMENT IN QUALITY OF LIFE IN UPADACITINIB-TREATED PATIENTS IN THE PHASE 3 SELECT-PsA 1 AND 2 STUDIES

Background:

The efficacy and safety of upadacitinib (UPA) in patients (pts) with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) was demonstrated in the phase 3 SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2 clinical trials.1,2

Objectives:

To explore the relationship between achievement of low disease activity (LDA) or remission (REM) and pt-reported outcomes (PROs) in SELECT-PsA 1 and 2.

Methods:

The SELECT-PsA program enrolled pts with prior inadequate response or intolerance to ≥1 non-biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD; SELECT-PsA 1) or ≥1 biologic DMARD (SELECT-PsA 2). Pts were randomized to 56 weeks (wks) of blinded treatment with UPA 15 or 30 mg once daily (QD), placebo switched to UPA 15 or 30 mg QD at Wk 24, or adalimumab (SELECT-PsA 1 only) 40 mg every other wk. LDA and REM were evaluated using the minimal disease activity (MDA; fulfillment of 5 out of 7) criteria and the Disease Activity index for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA; cutoff ≤4), respectively. PROs assessed included Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), 36-Item Short-Form Survey physical component summary (SF-36 PCS), 5-Level EuroQol 5-Dimension (EQ-5D-5L) Index, and EQ-5D-5L Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Integrated data through Wk 56 from SELECT-PsA 1 and 2 from the full analysis set with both continuous UPA 15 mg and 30 mg groups were analyzed by responder status at Wks 24 and 56. Changes from baseline (BL) in PROs were analyzed using mixed effects repeated measures models (fixed effects for study, current use of non-biologic DMARDs, treatment group, visit, responder status, and continuous BL PROs). As-observed data were used in the models.

Results:

A total of 1281 pts were included in the analysis (UPA 15 mg, n=640; UPA 30 mg, n=641). MDA was achieved by 33% (UPA 15 mg) and 40% (UPA 30 mg) of patients at

Wk 24, and 40% (UPA 15 mg) and 43% (UPA 30 mg) at Wk 56; and DAPSA-REM by 10% (UPA 15 mg) and 17% (UPA 30 mg) at Wk 24, and 16% (UPA 15 mg) and 18% (UPA 30 mg) at Wk 56. Pts who achieved MDA or DAPSA-REM (responders) at Wk 56 achieved larger reductions in HAQ-DI and larger increases in SF-36 PCS, EQ-5D-5L Index and EQ-5D-5L VAS compared with non-responders (Table 1) (all p<0.0001; statistical significance was exploratory in nature). MDA or DAPSA-REM response at Wk 24 was also associated with greater PRO improvements at Wk 56 (Figure 1). Consistent with the results presented for MDA and DAPSA-REM, patients who achieved Very Low Disease Activity or DAPSA-LDA also experienced greater improvements in PROs than those who did not.

Table 1.

Change from BL in PROs at Wk 56 by MDA and DAPSA-REM responder status at Wk 56

UPA 15 mg QD(n=640)UPA 30 mg QD(n=641)Least squares mean change from BL(95% CI), unless stated otherwiseNon-responderResponderNon-responderResponderMDA, na386254368273HAQ-DI−0.26 (−0.30, −0.22)−0.61* (−0.66, −0.56)−0.27 (−0.31, −0.23)−0.69* (−0.74, −0.64)SF-36 PCS5.25 (4.60, 5.90)12.63* (11.84, 13.41)5.09 (4.42, 5.75)13.84* (13.08,14.59)EQ-5D-5L Index0.11 (0.09, 0.12)0.25* (0.23, 0.26)0.10 (0.09, 0.12)0.27* (0.25, 0.28)EQ-5D-5L VAS9.3 (7.8, 10.9)23.3* (21.4, 25.1)9.0 (7.4, 10.5)26.1* (24.4, 27.9)DAPSA-REM, na539101526115HAQ-DI−0.36 (−0.39, −0.32)−0.63* (−0.71, −0.55)−0.39 (−0.43, −0.35)−0.71* (−0.78, −0.63)SF-36 PCS6.99 (6.39, 7.59)14.54* (13.22, 15.86)7.43 (6.82, 8.03)15.16* (13.91, 16.40)EQ-5D-5L Index0.14 (0.13, 0.15)0.27* (0.24, 0.30)0.15 (0.14, 0.16)0.29* (0.26, 0.31)EQ-5D-5L VAS12.7 (11.3, 14.0)26.7* (23.7, 29.8)13.3 (11.9, 14.7)30.0* (27.1, 32.8)

*p<0.0001 vs non-responder (statistical significance was exploratory in nature)

an may vary by PRO assessed

Conclusion:

Among UPA-treated pts with PsA, improvements in quality of life and physical function were greater in pts who achieved MDA or DAPSA-REM than in those who did not. Despite DAPSA-REM being a more stringent measure (achieved by a smaller proportion of patients), these improvements were similar between MDA and DAPSA-REM responders.

References:

[1]McInnes I, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79(Suppl 1):16–7; 2. Mease PJ, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2020

Figure 1.

Acknowledgements:

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

Disclosure of Interests:

Arthur Kavanaugh Grant/research support from: Research grants and/or personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer, Philip J Mease Grant/research support from: Research grants and personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, and Janssen; and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Galapagos, Genentech, and Gilead, Kevin Douglas Employee of: Employee of AbbVie and may own stock or options, Frank Behrens Grant/research support from: Research grants from Celgene, Chugai, Janssen, Pfizer, and Roche; personal fees from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Genzyme, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi; and investigator fees from Eli Lilly, Derek Haaland Speakers bureau: Advisory board/speaker bureau membership for AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda, Consultant of: Honoraria or other fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Research grants from AbbVie, Adiga Life Sciences, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Can-Fite Biopharma, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and UCB, Penelope Palominos Speakers bureau: Advisory board/speaker bureau membership for Janssen and Novartis, Consultant of: Personal fees from AbbVie, Grant/research support from: Research support from Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche, Apinya Lertratanakul Employee of: Employee of AbbVie and may own stock or options, Michael Lane Employee of: Employee of AbbVie and may own stock or options, Ralph Lippe Employee of: Employee of AbbVie and may own stock or options, Daniel Aletaha Consultant of: AbbVie, Grünenthal, Janssen, Medac, Mitsubishi Tanabe, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Grünenthal, Janssen, Medac, Mitsubishi Tanabe, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Peter Nash Grant/research support from: Received honoraria and research support from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead/Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi, and UCB.

AB0527 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN REDUCTIONS IN FATIGUE SEVERITY AND IMPROVEMENTS IN PHYSICAL FUNCTION AND CLINICAL RESPONSE IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: RESULTS FROM THE PHASE 3 DISCOVER PROGRAM

Background:

In patients (pts) with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), fatigue is a major driver of perceived impact of disease and has been identified as an important domain to be assessed in clinical trials.1,2 The association between fatigue and other PsA domains (eg, physical function) or clinical response is not well understood.

Objectives:

Fatigue was measured with the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)-Fatigue questionnaire in the pivotal DISCOVER-1 and DISCOVER-2 Phase 3 studies of guselkumab (GUS) vs placebo (PBO). This post hoc analysis explores the correlation between FACIT-Fatigue and physical function and clinical response in the DISCOVER program.

Methods:

This analysis used pooled data from pts (N=1120) treated with GUS or PBO. In DISCOVER-1 and DISCOVER-2, 381 pts with active PsA (swollen joint count [SJC] ≥3, tender joint count [TJC] ≥3, C-reactive protein [CRP] ≥0.3 mg/dL) and 739 pts with active PsA (SJC ≥5, TJC ≥5, CRP ≥0.6 mg/dL) and inadequate response to standard therapies, respectively, were randomized 1:1:1 to GUS 100 mg Q4W; GUS 100 mg at W0, W4, then Q8W; or PBO. PBO pts switched to GUS 100 mg Q4W at W24. The FACIT-Fatigue questionnaire has 13 items that assess self-reported fatigue/tiredness over the last 7 days. Items are scored from 0 (very much fatigued) to 4 (not at all fatigued). FACIT-Fatigue response was defined as an increase of ≥4 points from baseline. Physical function was evaluated with the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI). HAQ-DI response was defined as a decrease of ≥0.35 points from baseline. Clinical response was defined as achievement of ≥20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology (ACR 20) criteria. Relationships between FACIT-Fatigue and HAQ-DI at W8/16/24 were assessed by Pearson correlation coefficients. Mean changes in HAQ-DI scores at W8/16/24 were summarized in FACIT-Fatigue responders and nonresponders. A logistic regression model was applied to estimate odds ratios (ORs) for achievement of HAQ-DI and ACR 20 response by FACIT-Fatigue response status at each visit. A multiple linear regression model was used to evaluate the association between FACIT-Fatigue and HAQ-DI at W24 after adjusting for SJC, TJC, CRP, and pt assessment of pain.

Results:

FACIT-Fatigue and HAQ-DI scores and changes from baseline were negatively correlated at W8, W16, and W24 (Table 1). Mean changes in HAQ-DI were −0.31, −0.43, and −0.48 at W8, W16, and W24, respectively, in FACIT-Fatigue responders and −0.06, −0.07, and −0.09, respectively, in FACIT-Fatigue nonresponders. FACIT-Fatigue responders were significantly more likely than nonresponders to achieve HAQ-DI and ACR 20 response (OR [95% CI] at W8, 2.8 [2.2-3.7] and 2.4 [1.9-3.1]; at W16, 3.6 [2.8-4.7] and 2.9 [2.3-3.7]; and at W24, 4.4 [3.4-5.7] and 3.2 [2.5-4.2], respectively; Figure 1). Correlations between FACIT-Fatigue and HAQ-DI remained significant after adjusting for SJC, TJC, CRP, and pt assessment of pain.

Conclusion:

In pts with PsA, fatigue response is a clinically meaningful predictor of improvements in physical function and achievement of ACR 20 response, reinforcing the importance of assessing fatigue in PsA disease management.

References:

[1]Leung YY et al. J Rheumatol. 2020;96:46-9.

[2]Gudu T et al. Joint Bone Spine. 2016;83:439-43.

Table 1.

Correlation* of FACIT-Fatigue and HAQ-DI

VisitHAQ-DI and FACIT Fatigue ScoresChanges From Baseline in HAQ-DI and FACIT-Fatigue ScoresW8−0.61 (p<0.0001)−0.42 (p<0.0001)W16−0.60 (p<0.0001)−0.47 (p<0.0001)W24−0.62 (p<0.0001)−0.50 (p<0.0001)

*Determined by Pearson correlation coefficient; p-values derived from hypothesis tests of correlation ρ=0 (ie, no correlation).

Figure 1

Disclosure of Interests:

Arthur Kavanaugh Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Yan Liu Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Atul Deodhar Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Philip J Mease Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN, and UCB; and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and GlaxoSmithKline, Philip Helliwell Consultant of: Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Janssen, Pfizer, Laure Gossec Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Biogen, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Galapagos, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi, Alexa Kollmeier Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Elizabeth C Hsia Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, May Shawi Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Global Services, LLC, Chenglong Han Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Proton Rahman Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Janssen and Novartis.

AB0521 EARLY REAL-WORLD EXPERIENCE OF TOFACITINIB FOR PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: DATA FROM A UNITED STATES HEALTHCARE CLAIMS DATABASE

Background:

Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). It was approved in the United States (US) in December 2017 for use in combination with non-biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

Objectives:

This analysis of real-world data assessed demographic and baseline clinical characteristics, as well as treatment persistence/adherence, in patients (pts) with PsA who had newly initiated tofacitinib treatment.

Methods:

This retrospective cohort study included pts aged ≥18 years in the Truven MarketScan™ US Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Claims and Encounters database with ≥1 tofacitinib claim (first = index) between 14 December 2017–30 April 2019, and PsA diagnoses (≥1 inpatient or ≥2 outpatient [30–365 days apart]) on or within 12 months pre-index. Pts were continuously enrolled for 12 months pre-index and 6 months post-index, with no pre-index claims for tofacitinib. Pt demographic and clinical characteristics on the day of index, history of advanced therapy treatment (≥1 claim for biologic DMARDs or apremilast within 12 months pre-index) and tofacitinib treatment regimen (monotherapy or combination therapy [≥1 claim for conventional synthetic DMARDs or apremilast on or within 90 days post-index]) were recorded. Outcomes at 6 months post-index included tofacitinib persistence (<60-day gap without tofacitinib treatment) and adherence (proportion of days covered ≥80% and medication possession ratio [data not shown]). A sensitivity check was performed by analysing a sub-cohort that excluded pts with a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on or within 12 months pre-index and within 6 months post-index.

Results:

Of 17 321 pts receiving tofacitinib, 440 pts met the inclusion criteria for the overall cohort, with 315 pts included in the sub-cohort. In the overall cohort, pts were mostly female, with a mean age of 52.3 years and a mean PsA duration of 738 days (data not shown). Most pts were exposed to ≥1 advanced therapy within 12 months pre-index (mean = 1.1; range = 0–4); most commonly secukinumab (Table 1). Overall, 60.7% of pts received monotherapy and 39.3% of pts received tofacitinib combination therapy post-index; most commonly methotrexate (data not shown). At 6 months post-index, persistence was similar in pts receiving tofacitinib monotherapy vs combination therapy; adherence was slightly lower in pts receiving tofacitinib monotherapy vs combination therapy (Figure 1). Results were similar in the sub-cohort (Table 1, Figure 1).

Table 1.

History of advanced therapy on or within 12 months pre-index in pts with PsA

All pts(N=440)Pts with no RAa(N=315)Pts exposed to advanced therapy, n (%)b Any advanced therapyc336 (76.4)241 (76.5) Secukinumab113 (25.7)91 (28.9) Adalimumab93 (21.1)58 (18.4) Apremilast81 (18.4)59 (18.7) Etanercept70 (15.9)47 (14.9)Unique advanced therapy prescriptions Mean (SD)1.1 (0.8)1.1 (0.8) Median (IQR)1 (1–2)1 (1–2) Range0–40–4Number of unique advanced therapies, n (%) 0104 (23.6)74 (23.5) 1214 (48.6)153 (48.6) 2100 (22.7)73 (23.2) ≥322 (5.0)15 (4.8)

aExcludes pts with a diagnosis of RA on or within 12 months pre-index and within 6 months post-index; bPts with ≥1 claim for biologic DMARDs or apremilast within 12 months pre-index; cOther advanced therapies reported in <10% of all pts were abatacept, certolizumab, golimumab, infliximab, ixekizumab and ustekinumab

IQR, interquartile range; N, number of pts per cohort; n, number of pts per category; SD, standard deviation

Figure 1

Conclusion:

This analysis of US-based claims data indicated that pts newly initiated tofacitinib treatment an average of 2 years after PsA diagnosis, with the majority (>60%) of pts receiving tofacitinib as monotherapy. High levels of persistence and adherence to tofacitinib were observed 6 months after treatment initiation. Findings were similar when pts with PsA who also had a diagnosis of RA were excluded. Data were limited in that claims data cannot confirm that pts took the medication for which they filed a claim.

Acknowledgements:

Study sponsored by Pfizer Inc. Medical writing support was provided by Gemma Turner, CMC Connect, and funded by Pfizer Inc.

Disclosure of Interests:

Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Sun, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Sun, UCB, Pamela Young Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, David C Gruben Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Lara Fallon Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Rebecca Germino Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Arthur Kavanaugh Grant/research support from: Pfizer Inc.

AB0539 IXEKIZUMAB TREATMENT RESPONSE: CONSISTENCY OVER TIME AND AT EACH VISIT IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS

Background:

Ixekizumab (IXE), a high-affinity monoclonal antibody targeting IL-17A, has demonstrated superiority in achieving the combined endpoint of ACR50 and PASI100 at week (Wk) 24 compared to adalimumab (ADA) in the SPIRIT-H2H trial [1]. In this analysis, we looked at the efficacy responses at the individual patient (pt) level to assess consistency over time and at each visit.

Objectives:

To determine the American College of Rheumatology 50% (ACR50) response and Disease Activity in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) (DAPSA) response in pts treated with IXE and describe response consistency over time and at each visit from Wk 24 through Wk 52.

Methods:

This post-hoc analysis used data from SPIRIT-H2H (NCT03151551), a phase3b/4 randomised, open-label parallel-group study between IXE and ADA. Pts were randomised to receive either IXE 80 mg, every 4 Wks (IXE Q4W)) or ADA 40 mg, every 2 Wks (ADA Q2W)). The proportion (%) of pts in the intent-to-treat population who achieved each endpoint, either ACR50 or DAPSA≤14, at Wk 24 and at each post-baseline visit out to Wk 52 was assessed. Nine pts with active psoriasis and body surface area (BSA) ≥3% were assessed as PASI=0 at baseline, a medical inconsistency that was resolved using medical judgement. These pts were considered PASI100 responders if PASI=0 and BSA=0 at post baseline visits.

Results:

A total of 566 patients enrolled in the trial received either IXE (N=283) or ADA (N=283). Of the 143 pts treated with IXE who achieved ACR50 at Wk 24, 65% (N=93) maintained ACR50 at every visit. In total, 83% (N=118) of the ACR50 achievers at Wk 24 maintained ACR50 with some (18% (N=25)) fluctuations, between ACR50 and ACR20 (Figure 1). Of the 132 pts treated with ADA who achieved ACR50 at Wk 24, 55% (N=72) maintained ACR50 at every visit. In total, 80% (N=105) of ACR50 achievers maintained ACR50 with some (25% (N=33)) fluctuations between ACR50 and ACR20 (Table 1). Furthermore, of the174 pts treated with IXE who achieved low DA (DAPSA≤14) at Wk 24, 68% (N=119) maintained low DA at every visit. Of the low DA achievers at Wk 24, 82% (N=142) of pts maintained low DA with some (13% (N=23)) fluctuations between moderate and low DA (Figure 1B). Of the 171 pts treated with ADA who achieved low DA at Wk 24; 57% (N=97) maintained low DA at every visit. In total, 77% (N=131) of low DA achievers at Wk 24 maintained low DA with some (20% (N=34)) fluctuations between moderate and low DA (Table 1).

Conclusion:

This analysis demonstrates that a numerically higher proportion of pts treated with IXE versus ADA show consistency of response, as measured by ACR50 and DAPSA responses, over time and for each visit at the pt level.

References:

[1]Mease et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79(1):123-131

Table 1.

Consistency over time of the effect of ADA in pts with PsA.

IXE Q4W(N=283)ADA Q2W(N=283)ACR50Response,% (n)DAPSA≤14low DA,% (n)ACR50Response,% (n)DAPSA≤14low DA,% (n)Patients who achieved the response at Wk 2451% (143)61% (174)47% (132)60% (171)Achieved endpoint at Wk 24 and maintained out to Wk 52 with some fluctuations*83% (N=118)82% (N=142)80% (105)77% (131)Maintained endpoint at every visit65% (N=93)68% (N=119)55% (72)57% (97)Had some fluctuations*18% (N=25)13% (N=23)25% (33)20% (34)

* fluctuations between ACR50 and ACR20, or between low and moderate disease activity.

Figure 1.

Heatmap diagram describing consistency over time of the effect of IXE in pts with PsA who achieved DAPSA≤14 (low disease activity) at Wk 24.

Acknowledgements :

Edel Hughes, an employee of Eli Lilly and Company, provided editorial and writing support.

Disclosure of Interests:

Laura C Coates Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Gilead, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB., Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Novartis, David Sandoval Shareholder of: Eli Lilly & Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly & Company, Rebecca Bolce Shareholder of: Eli Lilly & Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly & Company, Chen-Yen Lin Shareholder of: Eli Lilly & Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly & Company, Keri Stenger Shareholder of: Eli Lilly & Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly & Company, Aubrey Trevelin Sprabery Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company; Johnson and Johnson, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Arthur Kavanaugh Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, BMS, Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen.

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

Background:

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

Objectives:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Table 1.

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

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

a Wk 26 for SELECT-COMPARE only

Conclusion:

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

References:

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

Acknowledgements:

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

Disclosure of Interests:

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

AB0529 CHARACTERIZATION OF REMISSION IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS TREATED WITH UPADACITINIB: POST-HOC ANALYSIS FROM TWO PHASE 3 TRIALS

Background:

For patients (pts) with PsA, several disease activity measures are available including very low/minimal disease activity (VLDA/MDA), cutoffs based on the Disease Activity in PsA (DAPSA) score, and on the Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) score.

Objectives:

To assess the rates of pts achieving these remission or low disease activity (LDA) criteria at Wk 24 using data from the SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2 phase 3 studies;1,2 Additionally, we assessed the distribution of individual MDA components among pts who did or did not achieve MDA criteria at Wk 24.

Methods:

In SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2, pts with PsA and prior inadequate response (IR) or intolerance to ≥1 non-biologic DMARD (N=1705) or ≥1 biologic DMARD (N=642), respectively, were randomized to once daily upadacitinib (UPA) 15mg, UPA 30mg, adalimumab (ADA) 40mg every other week (SELECT-PsA 1 only), or placebo (PBO). Remission and LDA were assessed using VLDA/MDA, DAPSA scores of ≤4/≤14, and PASDAS scores of ≤1.9/≤3.2, at Wk 24 (Table 1). Non-responder imputation (NRI) was used for handling missing data; pts rescued at Wk 16 were considered non-responders. Pairwise comparisons between UPA doses and PBO or ADA were conducted using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.

Results:

Overall, 2345 pts were analyzed; mean age 51 years, 53% female. In both studies, higher rates of remission and LDA were observed with both UPA doses vs PBO at Wk 24 (nominal P-values <0.05 for both time points; Table 1). Generally, higher rates of remission and LDA were also observed with UPA30 vs ADA in non-biologic DMARD-IR pts (nominal P-values <0.05). Greater rates of MDA/VLDA were observed at Wk 24 with UPA15 and UPA30 vs PBO in both studies and with UPA30 vs ADA in non-biologic DMARD-IR pts (nominal P-values <0.05 for all comparisons). The proportion of responder or non-responder pts receiving UPA15 or UPA30 was similar for each of the MDA components in both studies. At Wk 24, more responder and non-responder pts in both studies achieved Swollen Joint Count (SJC) 66 ≤1, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) ≤1 or Body Surface Area-Psoriasis (BSA-Ps) ≤3%, and Leeds Enthesitis Index (LEI) ≤1 (Figure 1). Conversely, the proportion of pts Achieving Tender Joint Count (TJC) 68 ≤1 and Pt’s Global Assessment of Pain ≤1.5 tended to be lower.

Conclusion:

Regardless of previous biologic DMARD failure, pts treated with UPA15 or UPA30 achieved a higher rate of remission or LDA measured by various disease activity measures vs PBO at Wk 24; higher rates of response were observed in most of the remission and LDA measures with UPA30 vs ADA in non-biologic DMARD-IR pts. Among pts who did or did not achieve MDA criteria at Wk 24, a greater proportion of UPA-treated pts achieved physician derived measures such as SJC ≤1, PASI ≤1 or BSA-Ps ≤3%, and LEI ≤1.

References:

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

[2]Genovese MC, et al. Ann Rheum Dis, 2020; 79:139.

Table 1.

Proportion of Patients Achieving Remission and LDA Measures at Week 24

Endpoint, n (%)SELECT-PsA 1SELECT-PsA 2PBON=423ADA 40mg EOWN=429UPA 15mg QDN=429UPA 30mg QDN=423PBON=212UPA 15mg QDN=211UPA 30mg QDN=218MDA52 (12.3)143 (33.3)157 (36.6) *, #192(45.4) *, †, #6 (2.8)53 (25.1) *, #63 (28.9) *, #≥6 VLDA components25 (5.9)90 (21.0)105 (24.5) *134 (31.7) *, †3 (1.4)26 (12.3) *44 (20.2) *VLDA11 (2.6)62 (14.5)55 (12.8) *72 (17.0) *3 (1.4)16 (7.6) *21(9.6) *DAPSA REM9 (2.1)43 (10.0)47 (11.0) *79 (18.7) *, †1 (0.5)15 (7.1) *28 (12.8) *DAPSA LDA70 (16.5)198 (46.2)204 (47.6) *235(55.6) *, †14 (6.6)73 (34.6) *91 (41.7) *PASDAS REM12 (2.8)51 (11.9)60 (14.0) *91 (21.5) *, †4 (1.9)20 (9.5) *31 (14.2) *PASDAS LDA63 (14.9)168 (39.2)195 (45.5) *211 (49.9) *, †9 (4.2)69 (32.7) *82 (37.6) *

*P ≤ 0.05 for UPA15 and UPA30 vs PBO; †P ≤ 0.05 for UPA30 vs ADA; #Statistically significant in the multiplicity-controlled analysis.

MDA (5/7) and VLDA (7/7): TJC ≤ 1; SJC ≤ 1; PASI ≤ 1 or BSA-Psoriasis ≤ 3%; Patient’s Assessment of Pain NRS ≤ 1.5; PtGA-Disease Activity NRS ≤ 2.0; HAQ-DI score ≤ 0.5; and tender entheseal points ≤ 1.

DAPSA REM ≤ 4; DAPSA LDA ≤ 14.

PASDAS REM ≤ 1.9; PASDAS LDA ≤ 3.2.

Figure 1

Acknowledgements:

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

Disclosure of Interests:

Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB., Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB., Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB., Arthur Kavanaugh Consultant of: AbbVie Inc., Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, BMS, Celgene, Centocor-Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie Inc., Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, BMS, Celgene, Centocor-Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Dafna D Gladman Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, and UCB, Oliver FitzGerald Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Enrique Soriano Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Peter Nash Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Roche, Pfizer, Janssen, Amgen, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Celgene, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Roche, Pfizer, Janssen, Amgen, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Celgene, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Roche, Pfizer, Janssen, Amgen, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Celgene, Dai Feng Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Apinya Lertratanakul Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Kevin Douglas Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Ralph Lippe Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Laure Gossec Consultant of: AbbVie,Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung, Sanofi, UCB, Grant/research support from: Lilly, Pfizer, and Sandoz.

POS1085 OSTEOPOROSIS IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: A 5 YEAR PROSPECTIVE STUDY OF AN OUTPATIENT CLINIC COHORT

Background:

Data addressing whether patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) are at increased risk of osteoporosis have been inconclusive (1). Most studies have reported cross sectional data, and there is a lack of longer-term studies. We have previously reported bone density data from an outpatient PsA clinic cohort (2). Herein, we present 5-year follow up data from that same cohort.

Objectives:

To explore longer-term change in bone mineral density (BMD) at femoral neck and spine (L1-4) in an outpatient PsA cohort.

Methods:

140 PsA patients were at baseline examined with dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) with measurements at femoral neck and spine (L1-4). Trained nurses performed the DXA scans. The DXA machines used at baseline (Lunar Prodigy) and at 5 year follow-up (Lunar iDXA) were stable over the measurement periods. Cross calibration using a spine phantom was performed between the two DXA machines (BMD of the old phantom in the new machine and the old phantom in the old machine, with 55 measurement over a time period of 2 weeks) had a difference of less than 1%. Demographic, disease measures and treatment data was collected at the same day or within 14 days to the date of DXA assessment. For group comparison, we used paired student t-test.

Results:

After 5 years, 114 PsA patients (50.4% women) were re-examined. Baseline mean (SD) was for age 51.4 (9.4) years, BMI 28.1 (3.4) kg/m2, disease duration 9.1 (6.7) years.

Disease characteristics at baseline and follow-up presented as mean (SD) were: DAS28 3.05 (1.1) and 2.4 (0.8); CRP 4.3 (6.7) and 5.1 (12.2) mg/dl, ESR 14.9 (11.1) and 10.9 (12.9) mm/hr; mHAQ 0.40 (0.35) and 0.38 (0.37).

The proportions of patients as baseline and follow up using conventional synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARD) were 61.4% vs. 46.5%; for biological DMARDs 37.7% vs. 48.2%; for prednisolone 5.3% vs. 10.5%, for targeted osteoporosis medication 0.9% vs. 3.5%; for calcium and vitamin-D 11.4% vs. 26.3%. As shown in the table, no significant change in femoral neck and spine BMD and T-scores was found for the 114 patients. However for Z-scores (age and weight adjusted T-score) a significant increase was found both at femoral neck and lumbar spine. When gender was examined separately no significant reduction in bone density was found in men whereas in women a significant reduction during follow up was only found for right femoral neck BMD.

Baseline5 yearsP valueBMD spine L1-41.22 (0.17)1.23 (0.17)0.13T-score spine L1-40.21 (1.42)0.32 (2.01)0.42Z-score spine L1-40.20 (1.32)0.78 (2.05)<0.001BMD Femoral neck L0.98 (0.14)0.97 (0.14)0.09T-score Femoral neck L-0.59 (1.15)-0.50 (1.02)0.14Z-score Femoral neck L-0.06 (1.02)0.37 (1.04)<0.001BMD Femoral neck R0.98 (0.14)0.98 (1.16)0.57T-score Femoral neck R-0.59 (1.10)-0.52 (0.94)0.22Z-score Femoral neck R-0.08 (1.02)0.35 (0.90)<0.001

Conclusion:

No reduction in BMD at femoral neck and spine was found in our PsA outpatient clinic cohort at baseline or over 5 years follow up. Rather, we found a statistically significant increase in age adjusted bone density (Z-score) both at femoral neck and spine over time. Our data thus adds evidence that PsA patients treated in ordinary clinical practice do not seem to be at an increased risk of developing osteoporosis.

References:

[1]Tai-li Chen, et al. Bone Mineral Density, Osteoporosis, and Fracture Risk in Adult Patients with Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis: A systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies, J Clin Med 2020;9:3712

[2]Agnete Malm Gulati, et al. Osteoporosis in psoriatic arthritis: a cross-sectional study of an outpatient clinic population. RMD Open 2018;4:1

Acknowledgements:

Research nurse Hanne Vestaby and osteoporosis nurses at -Division of Rheumatology, Kristiansand.

Disclosure of Interests:

Serina Brådland: None declared, Arthur Kavanaugh: None declared, Glenn Haugeberg Grant/research support from: Unrestricted Research Grant from Pfizer Norway.

POS0653 IMPACT OF UPADACITINIB OR ADALIMUMAB AS INITIAL THERAPY ON THE ACHIEVEMENT OF 48-WEEK TREATMENT GOALS IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS AND INADEQUATE RESPONSE TO METHOTREXATE: POST HOC ANALYSIS OF A PHASE 3 STUDY

Background:

In the randomized, double-blinded, Phase 3 SELECT-COMPARE study, upadacitinib (UPA) + MTX demonstrated greater clinical and functional responses vs adalimumab (ADA) + MTX in patients (pts) with RA and inadequate response to MTX.1,2 Pts with insufficient response to initial therapy were switched from UPA to ADA (and vice versa) according to treat-to-target (T2T) principles.

Objectives:

We analyzed 1-year treatment outcomes in SELECT-COMPARE according to initial randomization group, regardless of whether pts subsequently switched therapy.

Methods:

Pts initially randomized to UPA 15 mg once daily (QD) or ADA 40 mg every other week (EOW; both + MTX) for up to 48 weeks in SELECT-COMPARE were included in the analysis. As per the protocol-directed rescue strategy, pts experiencing <20% improvement in tender or swollen joint counts at Week 14, 18, or 22, or Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) >10 at Week 26, were switched from UPA to ADA or ADA to UPA in a blinded fashion. Efficacy outcomes included CDAI remission (≤2.8) and low disease activity (LDA; ≤10), DAS of 28 joints using CRP (DAS28[CRP]) <2.6 and ≤3.2, and a composite of “deep response” (CDAI remission, HAQ-Disability Index <0.5, and pain score <20). Data are presented and attributed to initial randomized group (UPA or ADA) regardless of any subsequent switch in therapy. Time-averaged response rates were calculated as area under the curve of response rate standardized by 48 weeks. The proportions of pts who maintained Week 26 responses through 6 months of follow-up are also reported.

Results:

This analysis included 651 pts initially randomized to UPA (of whom 245 switched to ADA) and 327 pts initially randomized to ADA (of whom 157 switched to UPA). Baseline characteristics including age, sex, and BMI were generally well balanced between randomized groups. At Week 48, similar proportions of pts initially randomized to UPA or ADA therapy achieved CDAI remission/LDA (27.6%/61.9% vs 24.8%/59.0%) and DAS28(CRP) <2.6/≤3.2 (45.0%/60.2% vs 43.7%/59.0%) (Figure 1). However, a small but significantly greater proportion of pts achieved a deep response with initial UPA vs initial ADA therapy (17.8% vs 12.8%; p<0.05). In addition, time-averaged response rates over 48 weeks were higher for initial UPA vs initial ADA therapy across efficacy outcomes. Similar trends were observed for other outcomes. Additionally, similar proportions of pts maintained Week 26 responses with initial UPA vs initial ADA therapy based on CDAI remission/LDA and DAS28(CRP) <2.6/≤3.2 during 6-month follow-up (Table 1).

Conclusion:

Using a stringent T2T approach to RA management, rates of LDA or remission at 1 year were similar, regardless of whether pts were initially randomized to UPA or ADA. However, initial UPA therapy led to more frequent deep responses and higher time-averaged response rates vs initial ADA therapy.

References:

[1]Fleischmann R, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2019;71:1788–800.

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

Table 1.

Proportion of patients maintaining Week 26 CDAI and DAS28(CRP) responses during 6-month follow-up by initial therapy with UPA or ADA in SELECT-COMPAREa-c

UPA 15 mg QDADA 40 mg EOWCDAI LDA (≤10)43.936.3CDAI Remission (≤2.8)35.022.7DAS28(CRP) ≤3.239.135.3DAS28(CRP) <2.630.530.1

aAs observed.

bBlinded rescue from UPA to ADA or ADA to UPA was permitted at Week 14, 18, and 22 for patients with <20% improvement in TJC or SJC and at Week 26 for patients with a CDAI <10. Data are presented and attributed to original randomized group (UPA or ADA) regardless of any subsequent switch in therapy.

cMaintaining response defined as never losing response at any visit during ~6 months (22–26 weeks) follow up after first achieving response before or at Week 26.

ADA, adalimumab; CDAI, Clinical Disease Activity Index; DAS28(CRP), DAS of 28 joints using CRP; EOW, every other week; QD, once daily; SJC, swollen joint count; TJC, tender joint count; UPA, upadacitinib.

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 assistance was provided by Frances Smith, PhD, of 2 the Nth, which was funded by AbbVie.

Disclosure of Interests:

Eduardo Mysler Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and Sandoz., Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and Sandoz., Yoshiya Tanaka Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Asahi Kasei, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and YL Biologics, Consultant of: AbbVie, Asahi Kasei, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and YL Biologics, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Takeda, and UCB., Arthur Kavanaugh Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB., Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB., Daniel Aletaha Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB., Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB., Peter C. Taylor Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Fresenius, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB., Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Fresenius, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB., Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Fresenius, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB., In-Ho Song Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Tim Shaw Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Yanna Song Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Ryan DeMasi Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Mira Ali Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Roy Fleischmann Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB., Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB.

POS1044 EFFECT OF SECUKINUMAB VERSUS ADALIMUMAB ON ACR CORE COMPONENTS AND HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: RESULTS FROM THE EXCEED STUDY

Background:

EXCEED (NCT02745080) was the first fully blinded head-to-head trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of secukinumab (SEC) versus (vs) adalimumab (ADA) monotherapy in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) with a primary endpoint of American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 at Week 52. Although SEC narrowly missed statistical significance for superiority vs ADA, numerically higher response for other musculoskeletal endpoints and composite indices were observed with SEC.1

Objectives:

To explore the effect of SEC and ADA on ACR core components, function and Health-related Quality of Life (HRQoL) outcomes.

Methods:

Patients were randomised 1:1 to receive SEC 300 mg (N=426) subcutaneous (s.c.) at baseline, Week 1-4, followed by every 4 weeks until Week 48 or ADA 40 mg (N=427) s.c. at baseline followed by same dosing every 2 weeks until Week 50. The primary, key secondary and some exploratory endpoints at Week 52 were previously reported.1 A supportive analysis for ACR50 response using logistic regression model and trimmed means model for Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) with gender and smoking status as factors was performed to adjust for imbalances in baseline characteristics. An exploratory analysis of ACR core components with SEC vs ADA at Week 52 was conducted using a mixed-effects repeated measures model that included tender and swollen joint counts, patient and physician global assessment, PsA pain (VAS) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate. HRQoL variables were also exploratory and assessed based on Short Form Health Survey Physical/Mental Component Summary (SF-36 PCS/MCS) scores and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI).

Results:

The demographic and baseline disease characteristics were comparable across treatment groups, except for an imbalance in sex (females: 51.2% vs 46.4%) and smoking status (yes: 21.8% vs 17.8%) in SEC and ADA group, respectively. At Week 52, ACR50 responses were 49.0% and 44.8% (P=0.0929) and HAQ-DI mean change from baseline were −0.69 and −0.58 (P=0.0314) in SEC and ADA treatment groups, respectively after adjusting for gender and smoking status. No major difference across ACR core components was observed in both treatment groups at Week 52 (Table 1). At Week 52, SEC presented similar improvement in SF-36 PCS/MCS score and numerically higher improvement in DLQI compared to ADA (Figure 1).

Conclusion:

Secukinumab provided similar improvements in ACR core components and SF-36 based quality of life at Week 52 with adalimumab. Greater improvement in HAQ-DI response and DLQI was demonstrated with secukinumab compared to adalimumab.

References:

[1]McInnes IB, et al. Lancet. 2020; 395:1496–505.

Table 1.

ACR Core Components at Week 52

VariablesSecukinumab 300 mg(N=426)Adalimumab 40 mg(N=427)P-valueBL, mean ± SELSM change from BL ± SEBL, mean ± SELSM change from BL ± SETender joint score(based on 78 joints)19.4 ± 13.86−14.27 ± 0.4420.6 ± 14.81−13.90 ± 0.450.5549Swollen joint score(based on 76 joints)9.7 ± 7.30−8.41 ± 0.1910.2 ± 7.86−8.06 ± 0.200.1962Patients global assessment64.0 ± 19.67−33.81 ± 1.1461.9 ± 20.75−31.61 ± 1.190.1825Physicians global assessment60.0 ± 17.12−46.24 ± 0.8061.4 ± 15.92−43.63 ± 0.840.0243Psoriatic arthritis pain (VAS)58.6 ± 23.49−30.21 ± 1.1857.9 ± 22.42−29.44 ± 1.230.6500Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (mm/h)23.8 ± 18.93−9.63 ± 0.6223.9 ± 17.99−9.28 ± 0.640.7029

LS mean and nominal P-values are from a mixed-effects repeated measures model with treatment group, analysis visit as factors, weight and BL score as covariates, and by treatment and BL score as interaction terms, unstructured covariance structure. ACR, American College of Rheumatology; BL, baseline; LSM, least squares mean; N, total number of randomised patients; SE, standard error; VAS, visual analogue scale

Figure 1.

HRQoL Analysis at Week 52

Disclosure of Interests:

Philippe Goupille Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Medac, MSD, Nordic Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Medac, MSD, Nordic Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Medac, MSD, Nordic Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi and UCB, Frank Behrens Paid instructor for: Eli Lilly, Consultant of: Pfizer, AbbVie, Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Genzyme, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, MSD, Celgene, Roche and Chugai, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Janssen, Chugai, Celgene and Roche, Laura C Coates Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Domain, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer, Serac and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Jordi Gratacos-Masmitja Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis and Pfizer, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis and Pfizer, Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Genentech, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Galapagos, Celgene, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN Pharma, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Galapagos, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN Pharma, and UCB, Dafna D Gladman Consultant of: Amgen, AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Grant/research support from: Amgen, AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Peter Nash Speakers bureau: Novartis, Abbvie, Roche, Pfizer, BMS, Janssen, Celgene, UCB, Eli Lilly, MSD, Sanofi, Gilead, Consultant of: Novartis, Abbvie, Roche, Pfizer, BMS, Janssen, Celgene, UCB, Eli Lilly, MSD, Sanofi, Gilead, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Abbvie, Roche, Pfizer, BMS, Janssen, Celgene, UCB, Eli Lilly, MSD, Sanofi, Gilead, Arthur Kavanaugh Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB, Ruvie Martin Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Weibin Bao Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Corine Gaillez Shareholder of: Novartis and BMS, Employee of: Novartis, Iain McInnes Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

OP0229 THE GROUP FOR RESEARCH AND ASSESSMENT OF PSORIASIS AND PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS (GRAPPA) TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 2021

Background:

Since the 2015 GRAPPA treatment recommendations were published, therapeutic options and management strategies for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have advanced considerably.

Objectives:

The goal of the GRAPPA recommendations update is to develop high quality, evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of PsA, including related conditions and comorbidities.

Methods:

GRAPPA rheumatologists, dermatologists and patient research partners (PRPs) updated overarching principles for the management of adults with PsA by consensus. Principles considering use of biosimilars and tapering/discontinuing of therapy were added to this update. Systematic literature searches based on data publicly available from three databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL) were conducted from the end of the previous recommendations’ searches through August 2020. Additional abstract searches were performed for conference presentations in 2017-2020. Searches covered PsA treatments (peripheral arthritis, axial arthritis, enthesitis, dactylitis, skin, and nail disease). Additional searches were performed for related conditions (uveitis and IBD) and comorbidities evaluating their impact on safety and treatment outcomes. Individual groups assessed the risk of bias and applied the GRADE system to generate strong or conditional recommendations for therapies within the domain groups and for the management of comorbidities and related conditions. These recommendations were then incorporated into an overall treatment schema.

Results:

Updated, evidence-based treatment recommendations are shown (Table 1). Since 2015, many new medications have been incorporated. Additional results for older medications, such as methotrexate, have been published across PsA domains. Based on the evidence, the treatment recommendations developed by individual groups were incorporated into the overall schema including principles for management of arthritis, spondylitis, enthesitis, dactylitis, skin, and nail disease in PsA, and associated conditions (Figure 1). Choice of therapy for an individual should ideally address all of the domains that impact on that patient, supporting shared decision making with the patient involved. Additional consideration in the recommendations was given to key associated conditions and comorbidities as these often impact on therapy choice.

Conclusion:

These GRAPPA treatment recommendations provide up to date, evidence-based guidance to providers who manage and treat adult patients with PsA. These recommendations are based on domain-based strategy for PsA and supplemented by overarching principles developed by consensus of GRAPPA members.

IndicationStrongForConditional ForConditionalAgainstStrongAgainstInsufficient evidencePeripheral Arthritis DMARD NaïvecsDMARDs, TNFi, PDE4i, IL-12/23i, IL-17i, IL-23i, JAKiNSAIDs, oral CS, IA CS,IL-6i,Peripheral Arthritis DMARD IRTNFi, IL-12/23i, IL-17i, IL-23i, JAKiPDE4i, other csDMARD, NSAIDs, oral CS, IA CS,IL-6i,Peripheral ArthritisbDMARD IRTNFi, IL-17i, IL-23i, JAKi,NSAIDs, oral CS, IA CS, IL-12/23i, PDE4i, CTLA-4-IgIL-6i,Axial arthritis, Biologic NaïveNSAIDs, Physiotherapy, simple analgesia, TNFi, IL-17i, JAKiCS SIJ injections, bisphosphonatescsDMARDs, IL-6i,IL-12/23i, IL-23iAxial PsA, Biologic IRNSAIDs, Physiotherapy, simple analgesia, TNFi, IL-17i, JAKi csDMARDs, IL-6i,IL-12/23i, IL-23iEnthesitisTNFi, IL-12/23i, IL-17i, PDE4i, IL-23i, JAKiNSAIDs, physiotherapy, CS injections, MTXIL-6i,Other csDMARDsDactylitisTNFi IL-12/23i, IL-17i, IL-23i, JAKi, PDE4iNSAIDs, CS injections, MTXOther csDMARDsPsoriasisTopicals, phototherapy, csDMARDs, TNFi, IL-12/23i, IL-17i, IL-23i, PDE4i, JAKi AcitretinNail psoriasisTNFi, IL12/23i, IL17i, IL23i, PDE4iTopical CS, tacrolimus and calcipotriol combination or individual therapies, Pulsed dye laser, csDMARDs, acitretin, JAKiTopical Cyclosporine / Tazarotene, Fumarate, Fumaric Acid Esters, UVA and UVB Phototherapy, AlitretinoinIBDTNFi (not ETN), IL-12/23i, JAKiIL-17iUveitisTNFi (not ETN)

Disclosure of Interests:

Laura C Coates Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Gilead, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Novartis, Enrique Soriano Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb,GSK, Genzyme, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb,GSK, Genzyme, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis Pharma, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Nadia Corp: None declared, Heidi Bertheussen Consultant of: Pfizer, Kristina Callis-Duffin Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sienna Biopharmaceuticals, Stiefel Laboratories, UCB, Ortho Dermatologics, Inc, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Anaptys Bio, Boehringer Ingelheim., Cristiano Barbosa Campanholo Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Jeffrey Chau: None declared, Lihi Eder Consultant of: Abbvie, UCB, Janssen, Eli Lily, Pfizer, Novartis, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, UCB, Janssen, Eli Lily, Pfizer, Novartis, Daniel Fernandez Consultant of: Abbvie, UCB, Roche, Janssen, Pfizer, Amgen and Brystol, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, UCB, Roche, Janssen, Pfizer, Amgen and Brystol, Oliver FitzGerald Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen and Pfizer Inc, Consultant of: BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen and Pfizer Inc, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Novartis and Pfizer Inc, Amit Garg Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Asana Biosciences, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, InflaRx, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB, Viela Biosciences, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Dafna D Gladman Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Jansen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Jansen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Niti Goel: None declared, Suzanne Grieb: None declared, Philip Helliwell Speakers bureau: Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, M Elaine Husni Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Lilly, UCB, Regeneron, and Pfizer, Deepak Jadon Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Healthcare Celltrion, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Healthcare Celltrion, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Healthcare Celltrion, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, UCB, Arnon Katz: None declared, Dhruvkumar Laheru: None declared, John Latella: None declared, Ying Ying Leung Speakers bureau: Novartis, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Consultant of: Pfizer and Boehringer Ingelheim, Grant/research support from: Pfizer and conference support from AbbVie, Christine Lindsay Shareholder of: Amgen, Employee of: Aurinia pharmaceuticals, Ennio Lubrano Speakers bureau: Alfa-Sigma, Abbvie, Galapagos, Janssen Cilag, Lilly., Consultant of: Alfa-Sigma, Abbvie, Galapagos, Janssen Cilag, Lilly., Luis Mazzuoccolo Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Novartis, Elli Lilly, Jansen, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Novartis, Elli Lilly, Jansen, Roland McDonald: None declared, Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN and UCB, Denis O’Sullivan: None declared, Alexis Ogdie Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Corrona, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Novartis and Pfizer and Amgen, Wendy Olsder: None declared, Lori Schick: None declared, Ingrid Steinkoenig: None declared, Maarten de Wit Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Danielle van der Windt: None declared, Arthur Kavanaugh Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Gilead Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Gilead Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB

AB0553 BASELINE DISEASE ACTIVITY AS A PREDICTOR FOR ACHIEVING cDAPSA TREATMENT TARGETS WITH APREMILAST IN DMARD-NAIVE PATIENTS WITH MANIFESTATIONS OF ACTIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS

Background:

In PALACE 4, DMARD-naive patients (pts) with moderately active (ModDA) psoriatic arthritis (PsA) at baseline (BL) were more likely to achieve Clinical Disease Activity Index for PsA (cDAPSA) treatment targets (cDAPSA remission [REM] or low disease activity [LDA]) at Week 52 with continued apremilast 30 mg BID (APR) treatment than pts with high disease activity (HDA) at BL. Pts who achieved cDAPSA treatment targets also had no or mild articular and extra-articular disease activity by Week 52. Whether specific PsA manifestations other than arthritis impact the achievement of cDAPSA treatment targets in this population is unknown.

Objectives:

To assess the predictive value of BL clinical disease status on achieving cDAPSA treatment targets in DMARD-naive pts in PALACE 4 with PsA in ModDA or HDA who exhibited manifestations of skin involvement, enthesitis, and/or dactylitis at BL.

Methods:

This post hoc analysis included APR-treated pts in ModDA or HDA with available cDAPSA data at BL and Week 52 who exhibited any of the PsA manifestations at BL, including skin-involved body surface area (BSA) ≥3%, Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Entheses Score (MASES) >0, or dactylitis count >0. Pts were divided into 4 subgroups based on number of manifestations: ≥1, only 1, any 2, or all 3. The proportions of pts who shifted across ModDA (>13 to ≤27) and HDA (>27) cDAPSA categories at BL to REM (≤4) and LDA (>4 to ≤13) treatment targets at Week 52 were calculated (data as observed).

Results:

In 176 PALACE 4 pts with PsA receiving APR, 165 had involvement in ≥1 PsA manifestation in addition to peripheral arthritis (ie, skin/enthesitis/dactylitis) at BL. This population had a mean age of 48.8 years, PsA duration of 3.6 years, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score of 6.6, MASES of 3.8, and dactylitis count of 3.5 (Table 1). Within this subgroup, 32.7% had only 1 of these non-arthritic PsA manifestations, 50.9% had any 2, and 16.4% had all 3. In pts with ≥1 manifestation, a greater proportion in ModDA achieved REM/LDA at Week 52 than those in HDA (66.7% vs 32.2%; risk difference: 0.34) (Figure 1). Similarly, greater rates of treatment target achievement were observed in subgroups of pts in ModDA vs HDA and only 1 (72.2% vs 39.1%; risk difference: 0.33), any 2 (57.1% vs 28.6%; risk difference: 0.29), or all 3 (75.0% vs 33.3%; risk difference: 0.42) PsA manifestations (Figure 1).

Conclusion:

In DMARD-naive pts exhibiting various non-arthritic manifestations of active PsA (ie, skin/enthesitis/dactylitis), those in ModDA at BL were more likely to achieve cDAPSA REM or LDA at Week 52 of APR treatment than pts in HDA. This observation was consistent whether pts had only 1 or multiple manifestations. These findings are consistent with the probability of achieving treatment targets demonstrated in the overall population in PALACE 4 (61.7% ModDA vs 28.2% HDA).

Table 1.

BL Demographics and Disease Characteristics in Pts With ≥1 Manifestations of PsA (Skin Involvement, Enthesitis, and/or Dactylitis) Treated With APR (N = 165)

Age*, years48.8 (12.5)Women, n (%)87 (52.7)BMI*, kg/m229.9 (6.5)Duration of PsA*, years3.6 (5.0)Duration of psoriasis*, years15.5 (13.3)cDAPSA (0-154)*39.4 (19.7)Swollen joint count (0-66)*10.3 (7.7)Tender joint count (0-68)*18.5 (12.9)Pt’s Assessment of Pain (VAS 0-100 mm)*52.8 (21.5)Pt’s Global Assessment (VAS 0-100 mm)*53.8 (20.1)Physician’s Global Assessment (VAS 0-100 mm)*52.2 (17.6)PASI score (0-72)*,†6.6 (5.1)MASES (0-13)*,‡3.8 (3.0)Dactylitis count (0-20)*,§3.5 (3.3)Corticosteroid use, n (%)13 (7.9)NSAID use, n (%)126 (76.4)

*Mean (SD).†In pts with BSA ≥3% at BL.‡In pts with enthesitis at BL.§In pts with dactylitis at BL.

Acknowledgements:

This study was funded by Celgene. Additional analyses were funded by Amgen Inc. Writing support was funded by Amgen Inc. and provided by Kristin Carlin, RPh, MBA, of Peloton Advantage, LLC, an OPEN Health company.

Figure 1.

Disclosure of Interests:

Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen Inc., Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun, and UCB, Arthur Kavanaugh Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen Inc., AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, Centocor-Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Alexis Ogdie Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen Inc., BMS, Celgene, Corrona, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Novartis and Pfizer, Alvin F. Wells Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Alexion, Amgen Inc., BMS, Celgene, Horizon, Lilly, Novartis, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Alexion, Amgen Inc., BMS, Celgene, Horizon, Lilly, Novartis, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Celgene, and Lilly, Martin Bergman Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen Inc., Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Genentech, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi, Dafna D Gladman Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Frank Behrens Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Biotest, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Genzyme, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Chugai, Janssen, Roche, and Pfizer, Yuri Klyachkin Employee of: Amgen Inc., Sven Richter Employee of: Amgen Inc., Lichen Teng Employee of: Amgen Inc., Josef S. Smolen Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen Inc., AstraZeneca, Astro, Celgene, Celtrion, Eli Lilly, Glaxo, ILTOO, Janssen, Medimmune, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen Inc., AstraZeneca, Astro, Celgene, Celtrion, Eli Lilly, Glaxo, ILTOO, Janssen, Medimmune, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Medimmune, Pfizer, and Roche.

Pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) transiently stimulates the rate of mineralization in a 3-dimensional ring culture model of osteogenesis

Pulsed Electromagnetic Field (PEMF) has shown efficacy in bone repair and yet the optimum characteristics of this modality and its molecular mechanism remain unclear. To determine the effects of timing of PEMF treatment, we present a novel three-dimensional culture model of osteogenesis that demonstrates strong de novo generation of collagen and mineral matrix and exhibits stimulation by PEMF in multiple stages over 62 days of culture. Mouse postnatal day 2 calvarial pre-osteoblasts were cast within and around Teflon rings by polymerization of fibrinogen and cultured suspended without contact with tissue culture plastic. Ring constructs were exposed to PEMF for 4h/day for the entire culture (Daily), or just during Day1-Day10, Day11-Day 27, or Day28-Day63 and cultured without PEMF for the preceding or remaining days, and compared to no-PEMF controls. PEMF was conducted as HF Physio, 40.85 kHz frequency with a 67 ms burst period and an amplitude of 1.19 mT. Osteogenesis was kinetically monitored by repeated fluorescence measurements of continuously present Alizarin Red S (ARS) and periodically confirmed by micro-CT. PEMF treatment induced early-onset and statistically significant transient stimulation (~4-fold) of the mineralization rate when PEMF was applied Daily, or during D1-D10 and D11-D27. Stimulation was apparent but not significant between D28-D63 by ARS but was significant at D63 by micro-CT. PEMF also shifted the micro-CT density profiles to higher densities in each PEMF treatment group. Ring culture generated tissue with a mineral:matrix ratio of 2.0 by thermogravimetric analysis (80% of the calvaria control), and the deposited crystal structure was 50% hydroxyapatite by X-ray diffraction (63% of the calvaria and femur controls), independent of PEMF. These results were consistent with backscatter, secondary electron, and elemental analysis by scanning electron microscopy. Thus, in a defined, strong osteogenic environment, PEMF applied at different times was capable of further stimulation of osteogenesis with the potential to enhance bone repair.

Perceived influence of health status on sexual activity in patients with psoriatic arthritis

Objective: To examine the prevalence of self-reported problems with sexual activity among psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients, and to explore potential associations of such problems with various demographic, musculoskeletal, and dermatological disease variables. Method: Consecutive PsA patients were recruited from an outpatient clinic. Data collected included demographics, measures of musculoskeletal and skin disease activity, and treatments. Perceived effect of health status on sexual activity was assessed using question number 15 from the health-related quality of life instrument 15D; this was explored in univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. Results: The study assessed 135 patients (mean age 52.1 years, disease duration 8.7 years, 51.1% male). Mean scores included Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesitis Score (MASES) 2.9, Disease Activity index for PSoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) 18.2, patient global assessment (PGA) 36.0 mm, pain 33.7 mm, fatigue 45.1 mm, modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ) 0.42, Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) 2.5, and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) 3.4. Twenty-four patients (17.8%) reported that their health status had a large negative effect and 111 (82.2%) that it had no or little effect on their sexual activity. In univariate analyses, a statistically significant association with impaired sexual activity was found for longer disease duration and higher MASES, DAPSA, PGA, fatigue, and mHAQ scores, but not for demographic variables or variables reflecting skin psoriasis involvement (PASI, DLQI). In adjusted analyses, only PsA disease duration remained independently associated with impaired sexual activity. Conclusion: One in five PsA patients perceived that their health status had a negative impact on sexual activity. Disease duration and measures reflecting musculoskeletal involvement, but not measures reflecting skin psoriasis involvement, appeared to be associated with impaired sexual activity.

OP0227 SECUKINUMAB VERSUS ADALIMUMAB HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON IN BIOLOGIC-NAÏVE PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS THROUGH 52-WEEKS (EXCEED): A RANDOMISED, DOUBLE-BLIND, PHASE-3B STUDY

Background:

Secukinumab (SEC), an interleukin-17A inhibitor, has demonstrated improvements on multiple domains of psoriatic arthritis (PsA).1Adalimumab (ADA), a TNF inhibitor, is widely used as a first–line biologic in PsA.

Objectives:

To report efficacy and safety outcomes from the head-to-head EXCEED trial (NCT02745080) that compares SECvs.ADA as first–line biologic monotherapy through 52-weeks (wks), with a musculoskeletal primary endpoint in pts with active PsA.

Methods:

Head-to-head, phase-3b, randomised, double-blind trial: biologic naïve active PsA pts were randomised to receive SEC 300mg subcutaneous at baseline, Wk1-4, and then every 4wks (q4w) until Wk48 or ADA 40mg subcutaneous at baseline and then q2w until Wk50. The primary endpoint was superiority of SECvs.ADA on ACR20 response at Wk52. Binary and continuous variables were analysed using logistic-regression model and MMRM, respectively. Safety analysis included patients who received ≥1 dose of study-drug.

Results:

853 pts were randomised to receive SEC (n=426) or ADA (n=427). Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were comparable between treatment-groups except higher proportion of female pts and pts without enthesitis in the SEC group. ACR20 response at Wk52 for SECvs.ADA were 67·4%vs.61·5%, respectively (p=0·0719) (Figure). Higher clinical responses were observed with SECvs.ADA for a range of musculoskeletal, skin, and higher-hurdle outcomes (Table). A higher retention rate was observed for SEC (85.7%)vs.ADA (76.3%). Safety profiles of SEC and ADA were consistent with previous reports.2,3

Conclusion:

Results suggest that SEC is at least as efficacious as ADA on musculoskeletal endpoints whilst providing higher responses on skin endpoints, and is associated with a higher retention rate. No new safety signals were reported.

References:

[1]van der Heijde, et al. Rheumatol. (Oxford).2019; DOI10.1093/rheumatology/kez420.

[2]Deodhar A, et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2019;21:111.

[3]Burmester GR, et al. Ann Rheum Dis.2013; 72:517-24.

Figure.

ACR20 Response through Wk 52

Table.

Efficacy Outcomes at Wk 52

Endpoints, % response unless specified otherwiseSEC 300 mg(N=426)ADA 40 mg(N=427)P-value (unadjusted)*ACR2067·461·50·0719aACR2066·959·50·0239Key SecondarybPASI 9065·443·2<0·0001ACR5049·044·80·2251HAQ-DI mean change from baseline ± SE-0·58 ± 0.03-0·56 ± 0.030·5465cResolution of enthesitis (based on LEI)60·554·20·1498ExploratoryMDA43·037·90·1498VLDA18·116·60·6107DAPSA LDA+Remission61·753·10·0178PASDAS LDA+Remission51·144·10·0557

*Unadjusted P-valuesvsADA

Binary variables were analysed using logistic regression. Pts who discontinued study treatment prematurely or took csDMARDs after week-36 were considered non-responders. Multiple imputation was used for all other missing data. HAQ-DI mean change from baseline was analysed using mixed-effect model repeated measures

aNon-responder imputation was used for pre-specified sensitivity analysis

bN=215 in SEC and N=202 in ADA in psoriasis subset

cN=234 in SEC and N=264 in ADA in enthesitis subset

Disclosure of Interests:

Iain McInnes Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Frank Behrens Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Janssen, Chugai, Celgene, Lilly and Roche, Consultant of: Pfizer, AbbVie, Sanofi, Lilly, Novartis, Genzyme, Boehringer, Janssen, MSD, Celgene, Roche and Chugai, 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, Arthur Kavanaugh Grant/research support from: Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Centocor-Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, UCB – grant/research support, Christopher T. Ritchlin Grant/research support from: UCB Pharma, AbbVie, Amgen, Consultant of: UCB Pharma, Amgen, AbbVie, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Gilead, Janssen, Peter Nash Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Jordi Gratacos-Masmitja Grant/research support from: a grant from Pfizzer to study implementation of multidisciplinary units to manage PSA in SPAIN, Consultant of: Pfizzer, MSD, ABBVIE, Janssen, Amgen, BMS, Novartis, Lilly, Speakers bureau: Pfizzer, MSD, ABBVIE, Janssen, Amgen, BMS, Novartis, Lilly, Philippe Goupille Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Lilly, Janssen, Medac, MSD France, Nordic Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Lilly, Janssen, Medac, MSD France, Nordic Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Lilly, Janssen, Medac, MSD France, Nordic Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi and UCB, Tatiana Korotaeva Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Consultant of: Abbvie, BIOCAD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BIOCAD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, UCB, Alice B Gottlieb Grant/research support from:: Research grants, consultation fees, or speaker honoraria for lectures from: Pfizer, AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Sandoz, Nordic, Celltrion and UCB., Consultant of:: Research grants, consultation fees, or speaker honoraria for lectures from: Pfizer, AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Sandoz, Nordic, Celltrion and UCB., Speakers bureau:: Research grants, consultation fees, or speaker honoraria for lectures from: Pfizer, AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Sandoz, Nordic, Celltrion and UCB., Ruvie Martin Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Kevin Ding Employee of: Novartis, Pascale Pellet Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Shephard Mpofu Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Luminita Pricop Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis

FRI0345 HEAD-TO-HEAD STUDY EVALUATING THE COMBINED ACR50/PASI100 TREATMENT RESPONSE OF IXEKIZUMAB VERSUS ADALIMUMAB: INDIVIDUAL PATIENT DATA FROM A RANDOMIZED, OPEN-LABEL STUDY IN BIOLOGIC-NAÏVE PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS THROUGH WEEK 52

Background:

Multiple biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) are available for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), but there are few direct comparisons of their efficacy and safety. In SPIRIT-H2H study, ixekizumab (IXE), a high-affinity monoclonal antibody selectively targeting IL-17A, was superior to adalimumab (ADA) at Week 24 for simultaneous achievement of ACR50 and 100% improvement from baseline in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 100) in patients (pts) with active PsA. Efficacy on other PsA domains was shown.1

Objectives:

To provide individual patient data demonstrating the simultaneous improvement in musculoskeletal and skin symptoms as assessed by American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) percent improvement, respectively.

Methods:

Pts with active PsA fulfilling Classification for Psoriatic Arthritis (CASPAR) criteria, ≥3/66 tender and ≥3/68 swollen joints, ≥3% psoriasis body surface area (BSA) involvement, no prior treatment with bDMARDs, and prior inadequate response to ≥1 conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD), were randomized 1:1 to open-label IXE or ADA (label dosing according to presence/absence of moderate-to-severe psoriasis [baseline BSA≥10%, PASI≥12, and static Physician’s Global Assessment≥3]) in Study I1F-MC-RHCF (NCT03151551). In this analysis, max ACRx was defined as the maximum ACRx response a patient can achieve where ACRx derivation follows the typical ACR response criteria: ≥x% improvement in both tender joint count (TJC) and swollen joint count (SJC) and ≥x% improvement in ≥3 of the 5 remaining components, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index total score (HAQ-DI), C-reactive protein (CRP), Patient Global Assessment (PatGA), Physician Global Assessment (PhyGA), and patient assessment of joint pain (patJP). Missing data were imputed using the last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.

Results:

At baseline, demographic and disease characteristics were similar across treatment groups. Mean baseline values for the ACR core data set were 20.2 (TJC), 10.4 (SJC), 63.8 (PatGA), 10.2 (CRP), 59.2 (PhyGA), 1.2 (HAQ-DI), and 61.0 (patJP). Mean PASI total score was 7.8. Figures 1 and 2 show the maximum ACR response by PASI percent improvement at Weeks 24 and 52, respectively. Independent of joint improvement, more ixekizumab-treated patients compared to adalimumab-treated patients achieved ≥PASI 90 (76.6% vs. 57.5% at week 24 and 83.0% vs. 59.6% at Week 52). Evaluation of patient-level data shows that while very few patients had joint improvement but little skin improvement (max ACRx≥50 and PASI<50; Figures 1 and 2) in both treatment arms (IXE: 1.8%; ADA: 1.4%), fewer patients treated with IXE had no to little improvement in both joint and skin symptoms (PASI<50 and max ACRx<50) than those treated with ADA at Week 24 (IXE: 3.6%; ADA: 13.3%). A similar pattern was observed at Week 52 (Figure 2).

Conclusion:

Ixekizumab treatment was superior to adalimumab when evaluating the combination of musculoskeletal and skin symptoms of PsA as measured by ACR response and PASI response.

References:

[1]Mease PJ, Smolen JS, Behrens F et al., Ann Rheum Dis 2019; 79(1):123-131.

Disclosure of Interests:

Arthur Kavanaugh Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, Pfizer, Gilead, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, Pfizer, Gilead, UCB, Ennio Lubrano: None declared, Talia Muram Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Chen-Yen Lin 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, Filip van den Bosch Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Lars Erik Kristensen Consultant of: UCB Pharma (Advisory Board), Sannofi (Advisory Board), Abbvie (Advisory Board), Biogen (Advisory Board), Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb,Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Forward Pharma, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma

AB0803 EFFICACY OF TILDRAKIZUMAB IN PsA: DAS28-CRP SCORES THROUGH WEEK 52

Background:

Tildrakizumab (TIL), an anti–interleukin (IL)-23p19 monoclonal antibody, is approved in the US, EU, and Australia for treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.1A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multiple-dose, phase 2b study (NCT02980692) evaluating efficacy and safety of TIL for treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) was recently completed.

Objectives:

To evaluate the effect of TIL in PsA, using the DAS28-CRP responses up to week (W)52.

Methods:

Patients (pts) ≥18 years old with PsA2and ≥3 tender and ≥3 swollen joints were randomised 1:1:1:1:1 to receive TIL (200 mg once every 4 weeks [Q4W], 200 mg every 12 weeks [Q12W], 100 mg Q12W, or 20 mg Q12W) or placebo (PBO Q4W) to W24. Thereafter, PBO Q4W and TIL 20 mg Q12W arms crossed over to TIL 200 mg Q12W to W52. DAS28-CRP was shown to be reliable in PsA studies,3and pts achieving scores <3.2 satisfied responder criteria. Adverse events (AEs), including treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) and serious AEs (SAEs), were monitored throughout the study.

Results:

Overall, 391/500 pts screened met the inclusion criteria; 55% were female with a mean age of 48.8 years. At baseline, disease characteristics were generally consistent across treatment arms (Table).

At W24, DAS28-CRP response rates increased across all TIL treatment arms relative to PBO (Figure). After W24, response rates continued to increase and were sustained through W52, including in pts who switched from PBO to TIL.

From W0–W24/W25–W52, 50.4%/39.9% and 2.3%/1.0% of pts experienced a TEAE and SAE, respectively. There were no reports of candidiasis, inflammatory bowel disease, major adverse cardiac events or elevated liver enzymes. From W0–W24, 1 pt (0.3%) had urinary tract infection (TIL 100 mg Q12W). From W25–W52, 1 pt (0.3%) had an intraductal proliferative breast lesion (TIL 20→200 mg Q12W). One pt (0.3%) discontinued before 24 weeks due to hypertension. No deaths were reported.

Table.

Baseline disease characteristics related to DAS28-CRP

TIL 200 mg Q4Wn = 78TIL 200 mg Q12Wn = 79TIL 100 mg Q12Wn = 77TIL 20→200 mg Q12Wn = 78PBO→TIL 200 mg Q12Wn = 79hsCRP, mg/L7.8 ± 18.610.5 ± 14.410.6 ± 20.010.7 ± 14.013.0 ± 20.8ESR, mm/h*22.8 ± 18.922.5 ± 19.824.7 ± 19.827.2 ± 20.726.9 ± 20.5Swollen joint count (66)10.4 ± 7.410.0 ± 8.011.0 ± 8.29.4 ± 6.411.8 ± 9.8Tender joint count (68)16.6 ± 11.919.5 ± 13.921.3 ± 14.819.0 ± 13.019.7 ± 14.7PtGA57.8 ± 18.361.1 ± 20.760.3 ± 20.261.9 ± 17.465.2 ± 18.1

Data are reported as mean ± standard deviation unless otherwise stated.

*Total pts analysed (n) = 71, 69, 70, 68, 62, respectively.

ESR, erythrocyte sedimentation rate; hsCRP, high-sensitivity C-Reactive Protein; PBO, placebo; PtGA, Patient Global Assessment; pts, patients; Q4W, every 4 weeks; Q12W, every 12 weeks; TIL tildrakizumab.

Conclusion:

Treatment with all doses of TIL increased the rate of DAS28-CRP responders in pts with active PsA and was well tolerated, suggesting a reduction in PsA-related disease activity for up to 52 weeks of treatment. Ongoing analyses will assess whether DAS28-CRP responses correlate with baseline clinical characteristics.

References:

[1]Reich K, et al.Lancet. 2017;390(10091):276−88.

[2]Taylor W, et al.Arthritis Rheum. 2006; 54(8):2665−73.

[3]Fransen J, et al.Ann Rheum Dis. 2004; 62:151.

Disclosure of Interests:

Saima Chohan Employee of: Partner/physician at Arizona Arthritis and Rheumatology Associates, Arthur Kavanaugh Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, Pfizer, Gilead, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, Pfizer, Gilead, UCB, 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, Richard C Chou Consultant of: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc, Alan M Mendelsohn Shareholder of: Johnson and Johnson, Employee of: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc, Stephen Rozzo Employee of: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc, 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

AB0783 THE IMPACT OF SKIN ITCHING ON HEALTH RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS OUTPATIENT CLINIC PATIENTS

Background:

In psoriatic arthritis (PsA) both skin and musculoskeletal involvement can contribute to reduce health related quality of life (HRQoL) (1). Although itch is considered an important symptom in psoriasis, less is known about its extent and potential impact on HRQoL in PsA.

Objectives:

The aim of the study was to assess the prevalence of itchy, sore, painful or stinging skin in PsA patients and also to explore the impact of these symptoms on overall HRQoL and skin related HRQoL.

Methods:

PsA patients were consecutively recruited from a rheumatology outpatient clinic. Data collection included variables listed in the table. Patients also answered the question: “Over the last week, how itchy, sore, painful or stinging has your skin been? With answer alternatives: Not at all (score 0), a little (score 1), a lot (score 2) and very much (score 3)”. For analysis the variable was dichotomized; ‘Not at all’ and ‘a little’ were scored as ‘not itching’, and ‘a lot’ and ‘very much’ were scored as ‘itching’. HRQoL was assessed using the 15D questionnaire and skin HRQoL using the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). Categorical variables are presented as numbers and (%) and continuous variables as mean with (SD). An association with 15D and DLQI was explored using univariate and multivariate linear regression analysis.

Results:

Among 125 PsA patients (63 men and 63 women), means age was 52.2 years, BMI 28.3 kg/m2, disease duration 8.9 years; 15.2% were smokers. The number and percentage (%) of PsA patients reporting their skin to be itchy, sore, painful or stinging was as follows: Not at all 25 (20.0%), a little 71 (56.8%), a lot 23 (18.4%) and very much 6 patients (4.8%). The table shows data for all PsA patients and for patients defined to have no itching or having itching skin.

Total (n=125)No itching (n=96)Itching (n=29)PAge (SD), years52.2 (10.1)52.3 (10.1)51.6 (10.2)0.73Women, n (%)62 (49.6%)49 (51.0%)13 (44.8%)0.56BMI (SD), kg/m228.3 (4.3)28.0 (4.0)29.4 (4.9)0.12Smoking, n (%)19 (15.2%)14 (14.6%)5 (17.2%)0.73Dis.dur. (SD), years8.9 (6.7)9.1 (6.7)8.0 (6.9)0.42CRP (SD), mg /L4.8 (8.5)4.4 (8.5)6.1 (8.5)0.37TJC68 (SD)9.70 (11.07)9.21 (10.32)11.39 (13.41)0.36SJC66 (SD)0.57 (0.99)0.56 (1.00)0.61 (0.96)0.84MASES (SD)2.9 (3.1)2.5 (2.9)4.0 (3.7)0.02IGA (SD), (VAS 0-100)14.0 (11.7)12.9 (10.2)17.8 (15.4)0.12PGA (SD), (VAS 0-100)35.3 (24.2)30.5 (22.6)50.9 (22.8)<0.01Pain (SD), (VAS 0-100)33.4 (23.4)28.6 (21.3)49.1 (23.6)<0.01Fatigue (SD), (VAS 0-100)45.1 (32.0)40.3 (31.7)61.0 (28.1)<0.01MHAQ (SD), (0-3)0.40 (0.35)0.35 (0.32)0.58 (0.39)<0.01PASI (SD), (0-72)2.4 (3.5)1.9 (3.2)4.1 (4.1)0.01DLQI (SD), (0-30)3.5 (3.6)2.2 (2.3)7.9 (3.9)<0.0115D (SD), (0-1)0.84 (0.09)0.86 (0.09)0.80 (0.08)<0.01bDMARDs, n (%)43 (34.7%)33 (34.7%)10 (34.5%)0.98csDMARDs, n (%)73 (58.4%)61 (63.5%)12 (41.4)0.03

Dis.dur.: disease duration

In univariate analysis itching was found to be associated with impaired HRQoL assessed by 15D but not in adjusted analysis. In a regression model adjusting for age, gender, BMI and including variables with p<0.2 in univariate analysis (MASES enthesitis score, investigator [IGA] and patients global assessment [PGA], fatigue, pain, MHAQ, Psoriasis Area Severity Index [PASI] score and itching and treatment), only female gender, PASI score and itching were independently associated with reduced skin HRQoL.

Conclusion:

Skin itching was frequently reported in our PsA patients (20-25%) and was also found to be associated with impaired HRQoL, in particular for skin HRQoL (DLQI). The association was independent of the extent of skin involvement (PASI). More needs to be understood about subjective skin symptoms such as itch in order to improve HRQoL in PsA.

References:

[1]Kavanaugh A, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2019;9:1215-9

Disclosure of Interests:

Glenn Haugeberg: None declared, Arthur Kavanaugh Grant/research support from: Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Centocor-Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, UCB – grant/research support, Brigitte Michelsen Grant/research support from: Research support from Novartis, Consultant of: Consulting fees Novartis

AB0782 EXPLORING OCCURRENCE AND CORRELATES OF SLEEP DISTURBANCES AND FATIGUE IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS PATIENTS

Background:

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients have been reported to suffer from increased sleep disturbances (1) and fatigue (2). Sleep disturbances and fatigue in PsA may not only be influenced by skin and musculoskeletal manifestations, but also by psychosocial consequences of the disease and the patients’ mental status (3).

Objectives:

To explore the occurrence and correlates of sleep disturbances and fatigue in PsA clinic patients.

Methods:

A broad data collection was completed from 137 PsA patients including demographics, disease activity measures for both skin and musculoskeletal involvement and patient reported outcome measures. Pain was reported on a VAS scale 0-100 mm and sleep and fatigue on a numeric rating scale (NRS) 0-10. Depression was scored as: 1 not, 2 moderately and 3 extremely depressed. Sleep disturbances and fatigue were defined as present if the NRS score was ≥5. Descriptive statistics (mean (SD) for continuous variables and percentage for categorical variables) were applied. Associations were explored using univariate and adjusted linear regression analyses, with inclusion of variables in multivariate analysis that had a p value <0.2 in univariate analyses.

Results:

Demographic patient characteristics: mean age 52.3 (SD 10.3) years, BMI 28.4 (4.3) kg/m2, women 50.4%, current smoker 17.5%, living together 76.6%, working 54.8%. Musculoskeletal disease status: PsA disease duration mean 8.8 (SD 6.8) years, CRP 5.0 (8.3) mg/L, 68 tender joint count (68TJC) 10.1 (11.1), 66 swollen joint count 0.6 (1.0), MASES enthesitis score 3.0 (3.2). Psoriasis skin status: PASI 2.6 (3.7) and itching skin 23.1%. Patient reported outcome measures: pain 34.8 (23.3) mm, sleep disturbances 3.5 (2.9), fatigue 4.2 (2.6), MHAQ 0.44 (0.40) and depression 1.4 (0.4). Mean numbers of comorbidities was 0.72 (0.93) and 45.3% exercised ≥1 time per week and 32.4% currently used bDMARDs and 58.4% csDMARDs.

The prevalence of sleep disturbances was 38.0% and that of fatigue 44.5%.

Identified associations with impaired sleep disturbances in univariate analyses were female gender, higher BMI, smoking, not working, higher scores for 68TJC, MASES score, pain, fatigue, depression, lower MHAQ, not exercising and itching skin. For fatigue the identified associations were female gender, smoking, not working, higher scores for 68TJC, MASES score, pain, sleep disturbances, depression, lower MHAQ and itching skin.

In adjusted analysis only pain, fatigue and higher MHAQ were independently associated with sleep disturbances and pain, sleep disturbances and depression were independently associated with fatigue.

Conclusion:

The prevalence of sleep disturbances and fatigue was frequently reported in our PsA patients. No measures reflecting skin involvement or objective measures of inflammatory musculoskeletal involvement were independently associated with sleep disturbances and fatigue. Our data suggest that patient’s perceptions of musculoskeletal involvement (pain or MHAQ) play an important role causing sleep disturbances and fatigue in PsA patients. However, mental status also seems to play an important role in the perception of fatigue.

References:

[1]Duvetorp A, et al. Arch Dermatol Res 2019;311:351-60.

[2]Husted JA, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68:1553-8.

[3]Husni ME, et al. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2017;47:351-60

Disclosure of Interests:

Glenn Haugeberg: None declared, Mari Hoff: None declared, Brigitte Michelsen Grant/research support from: Research support from Novartis, Consultant of: Consulting fees Novartis, Arthur Kavanaugh Grant/research support from: Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Centocor-Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, UCB – grant/research support

AB0802 SAFETY PROFILES OF IXEKIZUMAB VERSUS ADALIMUMAB: 52-WEEK RESULTS FROM A HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS

Background:

Ixekizumab (IXE) was shown to be superior to adalimumab (ADA) in achievement of simultaneous improvement of joint and skin disease (ACR50 and PASI100) in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs).1

Objectives:

To compare the safety and tolerability profile of IXE vs ADA in patients with PsA up to 52 weeks of treatment.

Methods:

SPIRIT-H2H (NCT03151551) was an open-label, head-to-head, blinded assessor clinical trial which included patients with active PsA (≥3 tender joint count + ≥3 swollen joint count) and plaque psoriasis (BSA ≥3%) who were inadequate responders to csDMARD therapy but naïve to biologic DMARDs. Patients were randomized (1:1) to approved dosing of IXE or ADA. Safety events were assessed at each patient visit up to Week 52. Frequencies of adverse events (AEs) were based on the number of patients in the safety population (patients who received ≥1 dose of study drug). Cases of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and cerebro-cardiovascular events were adjudicated by external committees. Kaplan-Meier analysis of time to onset of serious adverse events (SAEs) was performed.

Results:

Of the 283 patients randomized to each treatment, 87% (246/283) of patients who received IXE and 84% (237/283) of patients who received ADA completed 52 weeks of treatment. The frequency of treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) was similar between the groups (74% IXE vs 69% ADA), however fewer severe TEAEs were reported in the IXE group (3.2% IXE vs 7.1% ADA) (Table). SAEs were significantly more frequent in the ADA group compared to the IXE group (12% vs 4.2%; p<0.001), and the time to develop a patient’s first SAE was significantly shorter for ADA versus IXE (p<0.001; Figure). Discontinuations due to AEs were numerically more frequent in the ADA group versus the IXE group (7.4% vs 4.2%; p=0.15). IXE-treated patients reported more injection-site reactions (ISR) than ADA-treated patients (11% vs. 3.5%; p=0.002). Study withdrawals due to ISR were comparable, and only one injection-site reaction was severe on ADA (Table). There were two IBD cases reported for IXE; one case was confirmed as IBD.

Conclusion:

Safety results were consistent with previous trials with IXE and ADA. Compared with IXE, patients with PsA treated with ADA had significantly more serious AEs.

References:

[1]Mease PJ, et al.Ann Rheum Dis.2020;79(1):123-31.

Table.

Safety results at 52 weeks

IXE N=283n (%)ADA N=283n (%)TEAEs209 (74)194 (69) Severea9 (3.2)20 (7.1) Related to study treatmentb98 (35)87 (31)Serious adverse events12 (4.2)35 (12)***Deaths00Discontinuation due to AE12 (4.2)21 (7.4)Serious infections3 (1.1)4 (1.4)Injection-site reactionsc30 (11)10 (3.5)** Severe01 (0.4) Resulted in discontinuation2 (0.7)3 (1.1)Anaphylaxis00Inflammatory bowel disease2 (0.7)0 Ulcerative colitis1 (0.4)d0 Crohn’s disease1 (0.4)0Cerebro-cardiovascular events5 (1.8)7 (2.5) MACE02 (0.7)Malignancies04 (1.4)Depression5 (1.8)9 (3.2)Interstitial lung disease01 (0.4)Cytopenias9 (3.2)12 (4.2)Hepatic events18 (6.4)20 (7.1)

aPatients with multiple occurrences of the same event are counted under the highest severity.bThe TEAE’s relationship to study treatment was judged by the investigator.cMedDRA high-level term.dThis event was adjudicated but it was not a confirmed IBD. ***p<0.001; **p<0.01 by Fisher’s exact test. ADA=adalimumab, AE=adverse event; IBD=inflammatory bowel disease; IXE=ixekizumab; MACE=major adverse cardiovascular event; TEAE=treatment-emergent adverse event.

Disclosure of Interests:

Philip J Mease Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Josef S. Smolen Grant/research support from: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer Inc, Samsung, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer Inc, Samsung, Sanofi, Arthur Kavanaugh Grant/research support from: Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Centocor-Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, UCB – grant/research support, Peter Nash Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Gaia Gallo 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, Christophe Sapin Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Mark C. Genovese Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Eli Lilly and Company, EMD Merck Serono, Galapagos, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Inc., GSK, Novartis, Pfizer Inc., RPharm, Sanofi Genzyme, Consultant of: Abbvie, Eli Lilly and Company, EMD Merck Serono, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Inc., GSK, Novartis, RPharm, Sanofi Genzyme

THU0482 PAIN CATASTROPHIZING AND DISEASE PERCEPTION DIFFERS BETWEEN NORWEGIAN AND FINNISH OUTPATIENT CLINIC PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS PATIENTS DESPITE COMPARABLE OUTCOMES ON OBJECTIVE MEASURES OF DISEASE

Background:

Pain catastrophizing (the tendency to describe a pain experience in more exaggerated terms than the average person, to ruminate on it more, or to feel more helpless about it), has been associated with reduced likelihood of achieving remission in rheumatoid arthritis patients (1). Cultural and societal differences between countries may have an impact on outcome such as patients’ perceptions of disease.

Objectives:

To compare patient pain catastrophizing, patient perception of disease, objective measures of disease and treatment in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients between a Norwegian and a Finnish outpatient clinic. Further, to explore for associations with pain catastrophizing.

Methods:

All PsA patients followed at the outpatient clinics are routinely monitored using a structured medical support system (GoTreatIT® Rheuma). Data collection, done in 2018-19 is listed in the table.

Patients reported their pain catastrophizing answering the two questions, “When I feel pain it is terrible and I feel it is never going to get any better. When I feel pain, I can’t stand it anymore.” Each question is scored 0-6 and mean value of both is calculated. Pain catastrophizing was defined if mean score ≥4.

Categorical variables were presented as numbers (%) and continuous variables as mean (SD) and associates explored using univariate and multivariate analysis.

Results:

A total of 302 Finnish and 363 Norwegian PsA patients were examined. Pain catastrophizing was reported significantly less commonly among the Finnish as compared to the Norwegian PsA clinic patients, both expressed as mean (SD) values (1.48 (1.42) vs 2.05 (1.42), p<0.001) and proportions of patients having a score ≥4 (7.6% (n=23) vs 12.5% (n=45), p=0.043, respectively). As shown in the table the Finnish patients had significantly more years of education, shorter disease duration and less pain and fatigue than the Norwegian patients. For the other features, no significant differences between the two cohorts were found.

Finland (n=302)Norway (n=363)PAge, years54.0 (13.3)54.7 (12.5)0.49Females153 (50.7%)181 (49.9%)0.84BMI. Kg/m228.8 (5.6)28.1(5.1)0.06Current smoking44 (14.6%)51 (14.1%)0.86Education, years13.6 (3.5)12.7 (3.8)0.001Disease duration, years4.7 (4.3)9.9 (8.9)<0.001CRP, mg/L4.3 (6.8)4.0 (8.8)0.69MDglobal assessment, VAS 0-100 mm6.84 (1.29)5.71 (8.50)0.1928 swollen joint count0.48 (1.35)0.31 (1.16)0.1428 tender joint count1.01 (2.83)1.37 (2.80)0.14DAPSA9.66 (8.95)11.33 (9.60)0.06Pain, VAS 0-100 mm30.73 (25.92)35.55 (25.76)0.023Fatigue, VAS 0-100 mm29.96 (29.24)42.56 (31.94)<0.001MHAQ, 0-30.39 (0.44)0.43 (0.41)0.24Body surface area for psoriasis2.45 (8.15)2.66 (6.15)0.17Current b-tsDMARDs121 (40.1%)139 (38.3%)0.64

In univariate analyses female gender, higher BMI, less years of education, Dr. global, tender joint count, DAPSA, pain, fatigue, MHAQ and psoriasis body surface area were found to be associated with more pain catastrophizing.

In multivariate analysis (mandatory adjusting for age, gender, BMI, years of education and disease duration) fewer years of education, higher scores for pain, fatigue and MHAQ and being patient at the Norwegian center were independently associated with more pain catastrophizing.

Conclusion:

Our data indicate that cultural differences across countries may have a significant impact on outcomes that reflecting patients’ perceptions of disease. This may have an implication when merging heterogeneous databases across countries.

References:

[1]Hammer HB et al. Arthritis Care Res 2018;70:703-12.

Disclosure of Interests: :

Glenn Haugeberg: None declared, Inger Johanne Widding Hansen: None declared, Hilde Berner Hammer: None declared, Arthur Kavanaugh Grant/research support from: Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Centocor-Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, UCB – grant/research support, Brigitte Michelsen: None declared, Kirsi Paalanen: None declared, Tuulikki Sokka-Isler: None declared

FRI0333 ACHIEVEMENT OF VERY LOW DISEASE ACTIVITY AND REMISSION TREATMENT TARGETS IS ASSOCIATED WITH REDUCED RADIOGRAPHIC PROGRESSION IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS TREATED WITH CERTOLIZUMAB PEGOL

Background:

Several disease activity measures and thresholds have been recommended as psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treatment targets, although consensus on the most appropriate assessment tool is lacking.1Reports suggest low disease activity (LDA) and remission may be associated with minimal structural progression in PsA.2

Objectives:

To report the relationship between PsA disease activity and structural progression over 216 weeks’ (wks) treatment with certolizumab pegol (CZP), an Fc-free, PEGylated, tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) that has shown long-term efficacy and safety in PsA.3

Methods:

Patients (pts) enrolled in RAPID-PsA (NCT01087788) with active PsA (≥3 tender joints; ≥3 swollen joints; ESR ≥28 mm/hour and/or CRP >upper limit of normal) who had failed treatment with ≥1 csDMARD were randomised 1:1:1 to CZP 200 mg every 2 wks (Q2W), CZP 400 mg every 4 wks (Q4W), or placebo (PBO). All CZP pts received CZP 400 mg at Wks 0/2/4. PBO pts were re-randomised to CZP 200 mg Q2W or 400 mg Q4W at Wk 16 or 24.3

Pts were heterogenous for structural damage and disease duration at baseline. Disease activity was assessed using minimal disease activity (MDA) criteria (MDA: 5–6/7 criteria; very LDA [VLDA]: 7/7 criteria), Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) (LDA: >1.9–≤3.2; remission: ≤1.9), or Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) (LDA: >4–≤14; remission: ≤4). Radiographs were read in four reading campaigns using the van der Heijde modified Total Sharp Score (mTSS) for PsA. A risk of structural progression (RSP) subgroup (baseline mTSS >median for all pts) was also assessed. Mean change from baseline (CFB) in mTSS and associations with disease activity states were estimated using a hierarchical linear mixed effects model (fixed effects: reading campaign/interactions of concurrent disease activity levels with time; random effects: pt/reading campaign nested within pt) which allowed mean mTSS trajectory, and impact of disease activity levels on this, to differ over time.

Results:

407/409 randomised pts were assessed for mTSS at least once. At Wk 0, mean (standard deviation) DAPSA=44.5 (22.7), PASDAS=6.0 (1.1). 3/409 (0.7%) pts reported MDA. The proportion of pts achieving remission/VLDA states increased to Wk 216, as did estimated mean mTSS. Estimated mean mTSS CFB remained low overall (0.46 at Wk 216; standard error 0.16;Figure). Across disease activity measures, remission/VLDA states were associated with mTSS estimated mean CFB ≤0 in both the overall group and RSP subgroup (Table).

Conclusion:

These data indicate that achievement of remission in PsA is important to prevent further structural damage, particularly in pts with pre-existing structural changes. This supports the rationale for strict disease activity targets.

References:

[1]Coates L. Arthritis Rheumatol 2018;70:345–55;2.Tucker LJ. Curr Rheumatol Rep 2018;20:71;3.van der Heijde D. RMD Open 2018;4:e000582.

Table.

Estimated mTSS (mixed effects model)

mTSS estimated mean CFB (standard error)All patients(N=407)RSP(n=202)PASDASRemission-0.20 (0.25)-0.55 (0.49)LDA0.01 (0.23)-0.07 (0.47)>LDA1.31 (0.22)2.54 (0.43)DAPSARemission-0.34 (0.23)-0.67 (0.46)LDA0.40 (0.22)0.81 (0.44)>LDA1.37 (0.24)2.46 (0.48)MDAVLDA-0.40 (0.28)-0.84 (0.55)MDA0.39 (0.24)0.55 (0.48)>MDA0.89 (0.20)1.73 (0.39)

mTSS estimated mean CFB: ≤0; ≤0.5; >0.5. Data to Wk 216 pooled for all pts randomised.

Acknowledgments:

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

Disclosure of Interests:

Laura C Coates: None declared, Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: Merck, AbbVie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, UCB Pharma, Celgene, Sanofi, Regeneron, Arena, Sun Pharma, Biogen, Pfizer, EMD Sorono, Avotres and LEO Pharma, Arthur Kavanaugh Grant/research support from: Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Centocor-Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, UCB – grant/research support, 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, Owen Davies Employee of: UCB Pharma, Oscar Irvin-Sellers Employee of: UCB Pharma, Tommi Nurminen Employee of: 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

FRI0351 DOES SEX OR BODY MASS INDEX IMPACT RESPONSE TO THERAPY IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS?: RESULTS FROM A PHASE 3, DOUBLE-BLIND, RANDOMIZED TRIAL EXAMINING METHOTREXATE AND ETANERCEPT AS MONOTHERAPY OR IN COMBINATION FOR TREATING PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS

Background:

In psoriatic arthritis (PsA), contextual factors such as sex and body mass index (BMI) may affect response to therapy.

Objectives:

To examine if sex and BMI influenced 24-week (wk) outcomes in a 48-wk PsA trial of methotrexate (MTX) and etanercept (ETN) as monotherapy (mono) or combined.1

Methods:

MTX- and biologic-naïve adult patients with active PsA were randomized to weekly: MTX 20mg (n=284), ETN 50mg (n=284), or MTX 20mg+ETN 50mg (n=283). Wk-24 outcomes included ACR 20, MDA, VLDA, PASDAS, DAPSA, LDI, SPARCC, BSA, sPGA, and mNAPSI. Descriptive statistics examined outcomes in each treatment arm by sex (male vs female) or BMI (≤30kg/m2vs >30kg/m2). Modeling analyses also examined sex or BMI effect on outcomes when comparing MTX mono to the ETN-containing arms (analyses were adjusted for any prior use of a nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug; the model for the influence of sex also adjusted for baseline BMI status). Nominal P-values are provided.

Results:

Baseline disease activity was slightly higher in women, especially with MTX+ETN. Descriptive statistics showed men and women had similar results at wk 24 in the MTX mono and ETN mono arms; with MTX+ETN, men had better outcomes for ACR20, MDA, VLDA, and PASDAS. In treatment-interaction analyses, men had more favorable responses at wk 24 with MTX+ETN vs MTX mono for PASDAS, MDA, and LDI (Table).

Baseline disease activity was similar in both BMI categories. Descriptive statistics in each treatment arm showed no consistent differences in results at wk 24 between BMI categories. In treatment-interaction analyses, BMI ≤30kg/m2had a more favorable response at wk 24 with MTX+ETN vs MTX mono for sPGA (Table).

Conclusion:

Results suggest contextual factors may affect response to therapy in PsA. The treatment-interaction analyses suggest disparate responses to MTX+ETN by sex; BMI only affected skin response.

References:

[1]Mease et al.Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71:1112-24

Disclosure of Interests:

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, 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, Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: Merck, AbbVie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, UCB Pharma, Celgene, Sanofi, Regeneron, Arena, Sun Pharma, Biogen, Pfizer, EMD Sorono, Avotres and LEO Pharma, 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, Alexis Ogdie Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer – grant/research support, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda – consultant, David Collier Shareholder of: Amgen Inc., Employee of: Amgen Inc., Elaine Karis Shareholder of: Amgen Inc., Employee of: Amgen Inc., Lyrica Liu Shareholder of: Amgen Inc., Employee of: Amgen Inc., Arthur Kavanaugh Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, Pfizer, Gilead, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, Pfizer, Gilead, UCB

FRI0131 SUSTAINABILITY OF RESPONSE BETWEEN UPADACITINIB AND ADALIMUMAB AMONG PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS AND PRIOR INADEQUATE RESPONSE TO METHOTREXATE

Background:

The primary treatment goal for patients (pts) with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a state of sustained clinical remission (REM) or low disease activity (LDA).1,2

Objectives:

To assess the long-term sustainability of response to upadacitinib (UPA), a JAK inhibitor, and adalimumab (ADA), both with background methotrexate (MTX), among pts with RA and prior inadequate response to MTX.

Methods:

In the phase 3, randomized, placebo (PBO) and active-controlled SELECT-COMPARE trial, pts on stable background MTX received UPA 15 mg once daily, PBO, or ADA 40 mg every other week. Pts not achieving 20% improvements in tender/swollen joint counts (Weeks 14-22) or LDA (CDAI ≤10 at Week 26) were rescued from UPA to ADA or PBO/ADA to UPA; all non-rescued PBO pts were switched to UPA at Week 26. This post hoc analysis evaluated clinical REM (CDAI ≤2.8; SDAI ≤3.3), LDA (CDAI≤10; SDAI≤11), and DAS28(CRP) <2.6/≤3.2 at first occurrence before Week 72 or prior to treatment switch; additionally, these measures were evaluated at 3, 6, and 12 months after the first occurrence for the total number of pts randomized to UPA (n=651) or ADA (n=327). Sustainability of response was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier only for those pts who achieved REM/LDA and was defined as time to the earliest date of losing response at two consecutive visits, discontinuation of study drug, or losing response at the time of rescue. The predictive ability of time to clinical REM/LDA was assessed using Harrell’s concordance (c)-index (for reference, an index ~ 0.5, indicates no ability to predict; an index of 1 or -1 would be a perfect prediction). The date of the last follow up was 6 July, 2018, when all pts had reached the Week 72 visit.

Results:

Through Week 72, a significantly higher proportion of pts receiving UPA + MTX vs ADA + MTX achieved CDAI REM (41% vs 31%, p=.0035) as well as CDAI LDA (70% vs 59%, p=.0007). 26%/22% of pts randomized to UPA + MTX and 16%/14% of pts randomized to ADA + MTX achieved sustained CDAI REM at 6/12 months after the first occurrence. Additionally, 49%/46% of pts randomized to UPA + MTX and 36%/34% of pts randomized to ADA + MTX achieved sustained CDAI LDA at 6/12 months after the first occurrence (Figure 1). Time to initial clinical REM/LDA did not appear to be associated with sustained disease control. The c-indices (95% CI) for CDAI REM in the UPA +MTX and ADA + MTX groups were 0.528 (0.48, 0.58) and 0.510 (0.43, 0.59) and that of LDA were 0.601 (0.56, 0.64) and 0.555 (0.50, 0.61), respectively. Through last follow-up visit, 51% of UPA + MTX pts and 45% of ADA + MTX pts remained in CDAI REM while 65% of UPA + MTX pts and 58% of ADA + MTX pts remained in CDAI LDA, respectively (Figure 2). Similar results were observed across other disease activity measures (SDAI REM/LDA and DAS28(CRP) <2.6/≤3.2).

Conclusion:

A significantly greater proportion of pts with RA and prior inadequate response to MTX receiving UPA + MTX vs ADA + MTX achieved clinical REM or LDA across disease activity measures. REM and LDA were sustained through Week 72 in both treatment arms, with numerically higher proportions retaining response among UPA-treated pts.

References:

[1]EULAR: Smolen JS, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2017;76:960–977.

[2]ACR: Singh et al. Arthritis & Rheumatology Vol. 68, No. 1, January 2016, pp 1–26.

Disclosure of Interests:

Peter Nash Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Arthur Kavanaugh Grant/research support from: Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Centocor-Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, UCB – grant/research support, Maya H Buch Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Consultant of: Pfizer; AbbVie; Eli Lilly; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Merck-Serono; Sandoz; and Sanofi, Bernard Combe Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, Consultant of: AbbVie; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Janssen; Eli Lilly and Company; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; Sanofi, Speakers bureau: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Eli Lilly and Company; Merck Sharp & Dohme; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; UCB, Louis Bessette Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, In-Ho Song Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Yanna Song Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Jessica Suboticki Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Roy Fleischmann Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Akros, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer, IngelhCentrexion, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roche, Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi Genzyme, Selecta, Taiho, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, ACEA, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Genzyme, UCB

FRI0352 PROBABILITY OF ACHIEVING LOW DISEASE ACTIVITY OR REMISSION WITH APREMILAST TREATMENT AMONG DMARD-NAIVE SUBJECTS WITH ACTIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS

Background:

Apremilast (APR) is associated with comparable ACR response rates in DMARD-naive vs DMARD-experienced patients (pts) with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).1,2A question that remains is if DMARD-naive pts treated with APR have greater chances of achieving treatment targets than DMARD-experienced pts. cDAPSA is a commonly used treatment target.

Objectives:

To assess the predictive value of baseline (BL) clinical disease status on achieving long-term cDAPSA treatment targets at Wk 52 among DMARD-naive subjects in PALACE 4; to compare these findings vs those recently reported from the PALACE 1-3 studies in subjects with prior exposure to DMARDs; and to provide further evidence that at a group level, achievement of cDAPSA disease targets with APR is associated with no or mild articular and extra-articular disease activity by Wk 52.

Methods:

This post hoc analysis included subjects assigned to APR 30 mg twice daily at BL who had available cDAPSA data at BL. We calculated the probabilities of shifting across different cDAPSA categories (remission [REM]: ≤4; low disease activity [LDA]: >4 to ≤13; moderate disease activity [Mod]: >13 to ≤27; high disease activity [HDA]: >273) from BL to Wk 52. Mean values of articular and non-articular variables (e.g., PASI, SJC/TJC, MASES, dactylitis) from BL to Wk 52 were assessed by cDAPSA category achieved at Wk 52 to determine the association between achievement of targets and control of articular and non-articular manifestations. Results from the current analyses were compared with the previously reported results from PALACE 1-3.

Results:

A total of 175 subjects receiving APR were included; at BL, 66.3% were in HDA, 31.4% in Mod, and 2.3% were in LDA. Overall, subjects who achieved treatment targets (LDA or REM) by Wk 52 had lower levels of disease activity at BL, as shown by a lower number of swollen and tender joints and lower presence of enthesitis and dactylitis. Higher prevalence of psoriasis-involved body surface area ≥3% at BL was observed. Subjects in Mod at BL were estimated to be more than twice as likely to achieve REM or LDA at Wk 52 vs subjects in HDA at BL; for subjects in LDA at BL, the estimated probability of achieving cDAPSA treatment targets was 100% (Figure). PALACE 4 subjects with LDA and Mod at BL exhibited higher estimated probabilities of achieving treatment targets (100.0% and 61.7%, respectively) than those observed in the DMARD-experienced population of PALACE 1-3 (71.1% and 46.9%). Subjects in PALACE 4 who achieved REM or LDA by Wk 52 showed no or mild articular and extra-articular disease activity by Wk 52, similar to what was observed in the PALACE 1-3 population.4

Conclusion:

DMARD-naive subjects in PALACE 4 who had LDA or Mod at BL had the highest likelihood of achieving treatment targets (cDAPSA REM or LDA) by Wk 52 with continued APR treatment. Results from the current probability analyses revealed higher probability rates than those observed in the DMARD-experienced PALACE 1-3 population; control of articular and extra-articular manifestations was observed in the DMARD-naive and DMARD-experienced populations.

References:

[1]Wells AF, et al. Rheumatology. 2018;57:1253-63. 2. Kavanaugh A, et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2019;21:118. 3. Machado PM. Ann Rheum Dis. 2016;75:787-90. 4. Mease PJ, et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Jan 7.

Disclosure of Interests:

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, Arthur Kavanaugh Grant/research support from: Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Centocor-Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, UCB – grant/research support, Alexis Ogdie Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer – grant/research support, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda – consultant, Alvin F. Wells Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Lilly – grant/research support, Consultant of: AbbVie, Alexion, Amgen, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Horizon, Lilly, Novartis, UCB – consultant, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Alexion, Amgen, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Horizon, Lilly, Novartis, UCB – speakers bureau, Martin Bergman Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson – stockholder, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Genentech, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi – consultant, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi – speakers bureau, 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, Frank Behrens Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Chugai, Janssen, Roche, Pfizer – grant/research support, Consultant of: AbbVie Biotest, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene Corporation, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Genzyme, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB – consultant, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Biotest, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Genzyme, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, UCB - speaker, Sven Richter Employee of: Amgen Inc. – employment; Celgene Corporation – employment at the time of study conduct, Michele Brunori Employee of: Amgen Inc. – employment; Celgene Corporation – employment at the time of study conduct, Lichen Teng Employee of: Amgen Inc. – employment; Celgene Corporation – employment at the time of study conduct, Benoit Guerette Employee of: Amgen Inc. – employment; Celgene Corporation – employment at the time of study conduct, Josef S. Smolen Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche – grant/research support, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen Inc., AstraZeneca, Astro, Celgene Corporation, Celtrion, Eli Lilly, Glaxo, ILTOO, Janssen, Medimmune, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi, UCB – consultant, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen Inc., AstraZeneca, Astro, Celgene Corporation, Celtrion, Eli Lilly, Glaxo, ILTOO, Janssen, Medimmune, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi, UCB – speaker

Techniques for improving the initial strength of the tibial tray-cement interface bond

Aims

Loosening of the tibial component after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a common indication for revision. Increasing the strength of the initial tibial implant/cement interface is desirable. There is little information about the surgical techniques that lead to the highest strength. We investigated the effects of eight variables on the strength of the initial tibial baseplate/cement interface.

Materials and Methods

A total of 48 tibial trays were cemented into acrylic holders using cement from two manufacturers, at three different times (early, normal, and late) using two techniques: cementing the tibial plateau or the plateau and the keel; and involving two conditions of contamination with marrow fat (at the metal/cement and cement/cement interfaces). Push-out tests were performed with load continuously recorded.

Results

Compared with normal conditions, early cementing increased the mean strength of the interface when using the two cements, Simplex and Palacos, by 48% and 72%, respectively. Late cementing reduced the strength by 47% and 73%, respectively. Cementing the keel increased the mean strength by 153% and 147%, respectively, for the two cements. Contamination of the metal/cement interface with fat reduced the mean strength by 99% and 94% for the two cements but adding cement to the underside of the tibial tray prior to insertion resulted in the mean strength being lowered by only 65% and 43%, respectively.

Conclusion

In order to maximize the strength of the tibial tray/cement interface, cement should be applied to the component soon after mixing, contamination of the interface should be avoided, and the keel and the plateau should be cemented.

Osteoblasts MC3T3-E1 Response in 2D and 3D Cell Cultures Models to High Carbon Content CoCr Alloy Particles. Effect of Metallic Particles on Vimentin Expression

The study of the biocompability of the metallic materials is a priority treating to avoid the osteolysis and aseptic loosening of prosthesis. Wear debris is considered one of the main factors responsible for aseptic loosening of orthopedic endoprostheses. We examined the response of mouse osteoblasts MC3T3-E1 to high carbon cobalt-chrome (HCCoCr) particles obtained a) from wear-corrosion assays on a pin-on-disk tribometer using as pair an alumina ball and a disc of a HCCoCr alloy, and b) HCCoCr bulk particles obtained by nitrogen gas atomization from an alloy used in clinic for prostheses application. Mitochondrial activity and lactate dehydrogenase activity assayed in 2D and 3D osteoblasts cell culture models were used to evaluate the cellular response to size, shape, and chemical composition of the metallic particles. 2D cell model was used to study the direct interaction of cells with particles and 3D cell cultures was used to more closely mimic in vivo conditions. The results showed that vimentin was overexpressed in the 2D osteoblasts cultures in presence of metal particles. This might be related to the appearance of pseudotumor in the peri-prosthetic vicinity described in some implanted patients.

Persistence of low disease activity after tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) discontinuation in patients with psoriatic arthritis

Objective

To determine the duration of clinical benefit among patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) discontinuing tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) therapy while in low disease activity (LDA), and to identify patient characteristics associated with prolonged clinical benefit.

Methods

We performed an observational cohort study assessing patients with PsA from the Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America (CORRONA) registry who had discontinued TNFi after achieving LDA, defined as clinical disease activity index (CDAI) score ≤10 and physician's global assessment (PGA) of skin psoriasis ≤20/100. Kaplan–Meier method was used to estimate the duration of clinical benefit.

Results

Of the 5945 patients with PsA in CORRONA, 302 patients had discontinued TNFi (n=325) while in LDA and had follow-up data available. At time of discontinuation, mean PsA duration was 9.8 years, mean CDAI was 3.9, and mean duration of TNFi use was 1.5 years; 52.6% of patients had discontinued their first TNFi. Median time to loss of benefit was 29.2 months. 179 (55.1%) patients had persistent benefit at their previous clinic visit. An increased risk of losing clinical benefit was seen among patients with higher disease activity at discontinuation (CDAI≥3.2 vs <3.2; HR 1.43 (p=0.32)) and among smokers (HR 1.78 (p=0.027)).

Conclusions

Patients with PsA who achieve LDA may maintain clinical benefit after discontinuation of TNFi therapy.

Filgotinib (GLPG0634/GS-6034), an oral selective JAK1 inhibitor, is effective as monotherapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: results from a randomised, dose-finding study (DARWIN 2)

Objectives

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of different doses of filgotinib, an oral Janus kinase 1 inhibitor, as monotherapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and previous inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX).

Methods

In this 24-week phase IIb study, patients with moderately to severely active RA were randomised (1:1:1:1) to receive 50, 100 or 200 mg filgotinib once daily, or placebo, after a ≥4-week washout from MTX. The primary end point was the percentage of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology (ACR)20 response at week 12.

Results

Overall, 283 patients were randomised and treated. At week 12, significantly more patients receiving filgotinib at any dose achieved ACR20 responses versus placebo (≥65% vs 29%, p<0.001). For other key end points at week 12 (ACR50, ACR70, ACR-N, Disease Activity Score based on 28 joints and C reactive protein, Clinical Disease Activity Index, Simplified Disease Activity Index and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index) significant differences from baseline in favour of filgotinib 100 and 200 mg versus placebo were seen; responses were maintained or improved through week 24. Rapid onset of action was observed for most efficacy end points. Dose-dependent increases in haemoglobin were observed. The percentage of patients with treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) was similar in the placebo and filgotinib groups (∼40%). Eight patients on filgotinib and one on placebo had a serious TEAE, and four patients, all of whom received filgotinib, experienced a serious infection. No tuberculosis or opportunistic infections were reported.

Conclusions

Over 24 weeks, filgotinib as monotherapy was efficacious in treating the signs and symptoms of active RA, with a rapid onset of action. Filgotinib was generally well tolerated.

Trial registration number

NCT01894516.