Sex-specific differences and how to handle them in early psoriatic arthritis

Objectives

The prevalence of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is the same in men and women; however, the latter experience a higher burden of disease and are affected more frequently by polyarthritis. Here, we performed an early PsA cohort analysis to assess sex-related differences in demographics, disease characteristics, and evolution over 1 year including applied treatment strategies.

Methods

Our study is embedded in the Dutch south-west Early Psoriatic Arthritis cohoRt. We described patient characteristics and treatment decisions. For the comparison across sexes and baseline and 1 year follow-up, appropriate tests depending on the distribution were used.

Results

Two hundred seventy-three men and 294 women with no significant differences in age and ethnicity were included. Women reported significantly longer duration of symptoms before diagnosis and significantly higher tender joint count, a higher disease activity, higher levels of pain, and lower functional capacity. Although minimal disease activity (MDA) rates increased over time for both sexes, MDA remained significantly more prevalent among men at 1 year (58.1% vs 35.7%, p < 0.00).

Initially, treatment strategies were similar in both sexes with methotrexate being the most frequently used drug during the first year. Women received methotrexate for a shorter period [196 (93–364) vs 306 (157–365), p < 0.00] and therefore received a lower cumulative dose compared to men. Retention time was shorter for all DMARDs, and women had a delayed start on b-DMARDs.

Conclusion

After 1 year of standard-of-care treatment, women did not surpass their baseline disadvantages. Despite the overall improvement, they still presented higher disease activity, higher levels of pain, and lower functional capacity score than men. The nature of these findings may advocate a need for sex specific adjustment of treatment strategies and evaluation in early PsA patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13075-021-02680-y.

OP0224 CONTINUOUS COMPOSITE MEASURES FOR ROUTINE CARE IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: THRESHOLDS OF MEANING AND CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE ESTIMATES FOR THE 3 AND 4 VAS SCALES FROM A UK MULTICENTRE STUDY

Background:

There is a recognised need for a continuous composite measure of disease activity for the assessment of Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) in routine clinical settings to allow objective assessment of response and implementation of treat to target.1 Longer multidimensional measures are considered less feasible in routine care and a number of shorter measures have been proposed including, the Disease Activity Score for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA), Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28), the 3 Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (comprising physician global VAS, patient global VAS and patient skin VAS) or 4 VAS (comprising physician global VAS, patient pain VAS, joint VAS and patient skin VAS). Testing of these measures in clinical trial datasets has been suggested but thresholds of meaning have not been established.2

Objectives:

To estimate clinically relevant thresholds of disease activity and improvement for composite measures for routine clinical practice in PsA.

Methods:

Clinical and patient reported outcome measures were assessed in patients fulfilling CASPAR criteria for PsA at three consecutive follow up visits in a UK multicentre observational study. Participants underwent clinical assessment and completed patient reported measures including health anchor questions. Estimates for Minimal Detectible Change (MDC) were derived using 1.96*2*Standard Error of the Mean (SEM). Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for improvement were derived using the health anchor method and two distribution methods (Table 1). Thresholds for low, moderate and high disease activity were triangulated from established cut-off values for the patient global VAS, PASDAS and DAPSA.

Table 1.

Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) and Minimal detectable change (MDC)

ANCHOR (MEDIAN)DISTRIBUTION#1DISTRIBUTION #2MDCCPDAI0.51.491.54.16GRACE0.260.60.772.18PASDAS1.220.640.761.58DAS280.20.850.621.463VAS1.131.160.913.124VAS1.110.960.942.45DAPSA7.259.0910.4035.63

Disease Activity Score for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA); Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS); Composite Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Index (CPDAI); Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28).

Distribution #1: Baseline standard deviation (sd) * √ 1 – Cronbach’s alpha

Distribution #2: 0.5 * baseline sd

Minimal detectable change (MDC): 1.96*2*SEM where SEM = baseline sd √1 - ICC

Results:

139 subjects were recruited (59 male, 80 female, mean (range) age (years) 52.7 (19 – 83), mean (range) duration of psoriasis (years) 21.9 (2 – 71), mean (range) duration of psoriatic arthritis (years) 6.1 (0 – 41). Cut-off values for low, moderate and high disease activity were 1.3, 2.4, and 4.8 for the 3 Vas and 1.6, 2.8 and 5.0 for the 4 VAS (Figure 1). Estimates for the MCID and MDC for the continuous composite measures and are reported in Table 1.

Conclusion:

We report estimates of clinically relevant improvements for continuous composite measures in PsA and estimates of low, moderate and high disease activity for the 3 and 4 VAS scales. The thresholds of meaning can now be tested in independent observational and clinical trial datasets.

References:

[1]Coates et al 2018 A&R Mar;70(3):345-355.

[2]Tillett W et al 2021 J Rheum In Press

Acknowledgements Funding:

This report is independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Programme Grants for Applied Research [Early detection to improve outcome in patients with undiagnosed PsA (‘PROMPT’), RP-PG-1212-20007]. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Disclosure of Interests:

William Tillett Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB., Julia Day: None declared, Neil McHugh: None declared, Oliver FitzGerald Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB., 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, Philip Helliwell: None declared

POS1034 RESPONSE TO SEQUENTIAL LINES OF BIOLOGICAL THERAPY IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: A SINGLE CENTRE COHORT STUDY

Background:

Biologic interventions using highly specific immuno-modulatory biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) represent a rapidly developing therapeutic approach to the treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA). However, despite high rates of response, adverse events, primary and secondary inefficacy are common, and multiple sequential lines of bDMARDs are often required. Data on drug persistence, as a surrogate for response, from national registries indicates switching has become accepted routine practice. One third of patients will fail or discontinue their first biologic with a significant proportion switching on to a 3rd biologic or higher.1-4 Due to a lack of evidence on the response to sequential therapies, individual patients may not have further lines routinely funded after three bDMARDs in the UK. While limiting lines of therapy remains a UK concern, many countries with rationed healthcare systems follow the UK model of drug usage.

Objectives:

To describe the response to sequential lines of bDMARD therapy prescribed in routine care in a UK single centre cohort.

Methods:

A retrospective sample of patients with PsA who fulfilled CASPAR criteria and had received at least one bDMARD were taken from the Bath longitudinal cohort for inclusion in the study. Clinical and laboratory variables that constitute physician and patient-reported outcome measures were collected at baseline and after a median (range) follow-up of 3 months (2-5) into their respective therapy line in accordance with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) rules. The mean change with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to report the difference between the baseline and follow-up measures. All patients provided consent to use their data collected during routine care, and ethical approval by the local committee was granted.

Results:

The patients mean age was 57.7 (SD 12.2) with a median (range) disease duration of 14.4 years (9.7 – 23.2). Data was available for 194 patients commencing 1st line bDMARD, 106 (2nd line), 93 (3rd line), 33 (4th line), 12 (5th line), and 9 (6th line and higher) from a total of 759 patients in the cohort. Mean tender and swollen joint count at baseline 1st bDMARD was 7 (SD 4.7) and 22 (SD 14.0), pain visual analogue scale 50 (SD 27.6) and PASI 1.3 (SD 2.2). Reasons for changing biological therapies include lack or loss of efficacy, intolerance, side effects, and comorbidities. Mean levels of joint disease at drug initiation did not diminish with subsequent lines of therapy. Clinical and patient reported outcomes by line of therapy are reported in Figure 1. Clinical responses were greatest to first line bDMARD, however clinically relevant DAPSA improvements were seen up to 5th line. Absolute levels of psoriasis in the cohort were low, however improvement in PASI was achieved across all lines of therapy. Patient and Physician Global Assessments (1-5 on Likert scale) and the Pain Visual analogue score (VAS on 1-10 Likert scale) showed a similar trend with greatest improvement to first line treatment across all lines of therapy.

Conclusion:

In this study we report the clinical response to sequential lines of bDMARD therapy for active PsA in routine clinical practice. Clinical response was greatest to the first line bDMARD but overall improvement in DAPSA, PASI or pain response did not appear to diminish up to 5th line. Further study in larger cohorts is required to confirm this finding and build on our understanding of clinical response to sequential lines of bDMARD therapy.

References:

[1]Hyrish et al 2006 Rheum 45, 1558-65

[2]Kawabe A. 2020 Arth Res Ther 22, 136

[3]Park DJ. 2017 Clin Rheum 36, 1013-22

[4]Karlsson. 2007 JA Rheum 47,507-13

Figure 1.

Clinical and patient reported outcomes by line of therapy

Disclosure of Interests:

Abuelmagd Abdalla: None declared, Adwaye Rambojun: None declared, 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, Eleanor Korendowych Consultant of: Abbvie, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly and Novartis., Neil McHugh: None declared, William Tillett Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc., and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer Inc., and UCB., Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc., and UCB.

POS1022 BIMEKIZUMAB SAFETY AND EFFICACY IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: 3-YEAR RESULTS FROM A PHASE 2b OPEN-LABEL EXTENSION STUDY

Background:

Bimekizumab (BKZ), a monoclonal antibody inhibitor of interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F, demonstrated clinical improvements in joint and skin outcomes up to 108 weeks (wks) in patients (pts) with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA).1,2

Objectives:

To report up to 3-year safety and efficacy of BKZ in pts with active PsA from a 48-week phase 2b dose-ranging study (BE ACTIVE; NCT02969525) and its open-label extension (OLE; NCT03347110).

Methods:

BE ACTIVE and OLE study design has been described previously.1 All OLE pts received BKZ 160 mg Q4W, irrespective of prior dosing regimen. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) are reported for the safety set (SS; pts who received ≥1 dose BKZ in the dose-ranging study). Data are presented from dose-ranging study baseline (BL) to Wk 152. Efficacy outcomes are reported for the full analysis set (FAS): ACR50, minimal or very low disease activity (MDA/VLDA), Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90/100, body surface area affected by psoriasis (BSA) 0% and dactylitis/enthesitis resolution.

Results:

Over 152 wks, the exposure-adjusted incidence rate (EAIR) per 100 patient-years (PY) was 126.4 for all TEAEs, 4.1 for serious TEAEs, 0.7 for serious infections and 4.6 for Candida infections (Table 1). One event was adjudicated by an independent committee as inflammatory bowel disease (microscopic colitis). All Candida infections were localised, mild/moderate, and resolved with appropriate anti-fungal therapy. Overall, the proportions of patients with ACR50 response were sustained through Wk 152 (52.9%, non-responder imputation [NRI]; Figure 1). Response rates were also sustained through Wk 152 for MDA (51.5%), VLDA (30.1%), PASI90 (64.2%), PASI100 (57.7%) and resolution of dactylitis (71.2%) and enthesitis (62.6%) (NRI; Table 1).

Table 1.

Safety and efficacy outcomes up to 3 years

Safety (SS)n (%) [EAIR/100 PY]BKZ160 mg [a](n=126)BKZ320 mg [b](n=78)Total(N=206)Any TEAE114 (90.5) [136.1]70 (89.7) [113.3]184 (89.3) [126.4]Serious TEAEs17 (13.5) [5.2]5 (6.4) [2.3]22 (10.7) [4.1]Key TEAEs of special monitoringSerious infections3 (2.4) [0.9]1 (1.3) [0.5]4 (1.9) [0.7]Candida infections15 (11.9) [4.7]9 (11.5) [4.4]24 (11.7) [4.6]Inflammatory bowel disease [c]1 (0.8) [0.3]01 (0.5) [0.2]Malignancies [d]1 (0.8) [0.3]01 (0.5) [0.2]Injection site reactions03 (3.8) [1.4]3 (1.5) [0.5]Suicidal ideation1 (0.8) [0.3]01 (0.5) [0.2]Liver function analyses13 (10.3) [4.1]11 (14.1) [5.3]24 (11.7) [4.6]Study discontinuation due to TEAEs12 (9.5) [3.5]4 (5.1) [1.8]16 (7.8) [2.8]Efficacy (FAS)n (%)BKZ160 mg [a](n=124)BKZ320 mg [b](n=82)Total(N=206)OCNRI, %OCNRI, %OCNRI, %MDA, Wk 15264/95 (67.4)51.642/62 (67.7)51.2106/157 (67.5)51.5VLDA, Wk 15241/95 (43.2)33.121/62 (33.9)25.662/157 (39.5)30.1PASI90 [e] Wk 15251/61 (83.6)64.637/46 (80.4)63.888/107 (82.2)64.2PASI100 [e] Wk 15247/61 (77.0)59.532/46 (69.6)55.279/107 (73.8)57.7BSA 0% [e] Wk 4848/72 (66.7)60.838/55 (69.1)65.586/127 (67.7)62.8Wk 15246/61 (75.4)58.231/45 (68.9)53.477/106 (72.6)56.2Dactylitis [f]/Enthesitis [g] resolution, Wk 48–70.6/56.9–84.0/57.1–76.3/57.0Wk 152–67.6/63.1–76.0/61.9–71.2/62.6

No anaphylactic reactions or major adverse cardiac events were reported. [a] Includes pts within the indicated analysis set originally assigned to all arms who were subsequently re-randomized to 160 mg, or [b] 320 mg, after double-blind period; [c] Microscopic colitis; [d] Malignant melanoma in situ; [e] Pts with BL BSA ≥3%, NRI: n=79, 58, 137 respectively; [f] Pts with BL LDI >0, NRI: n=34, 25, 59 respectively; [g] Pts with BL MASES >0, NRI: n=65, 42, 107 respectively. LDI: Leeds Dactylitis Index; MASES: Maastricht AS Enthesitis Score; OC: observed case.

Conclusion:

The safety profile of BKZ in pts with PsA reflects previous observations1,2 for up to 3 years. High threshold disease control was achieved by >50% of BKZ-treated pts up to 3 years, reflected in long-term improvements in joint and skin outcomes.

References:

[1]Ritchlin CT. Lancet 2020;395:427–40;

[2]McInnes I. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79:1153–4.

Acknowledgements:

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

Disclosure of Interests:

Laura C Coates Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Domain, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Richard B. Warren Consultant of: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Arena, Avillion, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, UCB Pharma, Christopher T. Ritchlin Consultant of: Amgen, AbbVie, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Gilead, Janssen, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, UCB Pharma, Laure Gossec Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung, Sanofi, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung, Sanofi, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sandoz, Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi-Regeneron, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi-Regeneron, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Principal investigator for Dermavant, LEO Pharma, UCB Pharma, Deepak Assudani Employee of: UCB Pharma, Jason Coarse Employee of: UCB Pharma, Jason Eells Shareholder of: UCB Pharma, Employee of: UCB Pharma, Barbara Ink Shareholder of: GSK, UCB Pharma, Employee of: UCB Pharma, Iain McInnes Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Janssen, UCB Pharma.

OP0074 A FRAMEWORK OF POTENTIAL INTERVENTIONS TO ACCELERATE GENDER-EQUITABLE CAREER ADVANCEMENT IN ACADEMIC RHEUMATOLOGY

Background:

A growing number of professional societies in clinical and medically related disciplines investigate evidence, make recommendations, and take action to advance gender equity. Evidence on women’s advancement and leadership in the context of the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, EULAR, is limited [1].

Objectives:

The objective of the EULAR Task Force on Gender Equity in Academic Rheumatology was to establish the extent of the unmet need for support of female rheumatologists, health professionals and non-clinical scientists in academic rheumatology and develop a framework to address this through EULAR and Emerging EULAR Network (EMEUNET).

Methods:

Potential interventions to accelerate gender-equitable career advancement in academic rheumatology were gathered from a narrative review of the relevant literature, expert opinion of a multi-disciplinary Task Force (comprised of 23 members from 11 countries), data from the surveys of EULAR scientific member society leaders, EULAR and EMEUNET members, and EULAR Executive Committee members. These interventions were rated by Task Force members, who ranked each according to perceived priority on a five-point numeric scale from 1 = very low to 5 = very high.

Results:

A framework of 29 potential interventions was formulated, which covers six thematic areas, namely, EULAR policies, advocacy and communication, EULAR Congress and associated symposia, training courses, mentoring/peer support, and EULAR funding (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

A framework of potential interventions with the levels of priority, mean and standard deviation (SD)

Conclusion:

The framework provides structured interventions for accelerating gender-equitable career advancement in academic rheumatology.

References:

[1]Andreoli L, Ovseiko PV, Hassan N, et al. Gender equity in clinical practice, research and training: Where do we stand in rheumatology? Joint Bone Spine 2019;86(6):669-72.

Acknowledgements:

The task force is grateful to EULAR for funding this activity under project number EPI 024.

Disclosure of Interests:

None declared

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.

POS1049 EFFECT OF FILGOTINIB ON PASDAS: DRIVERS OF LOW AND VERY LOW ACTIVITY UP TO WEEK 100

Background:

EQUATOR (NCT03101670) was a Phase 2, double-blind, randomised placebo (PBO)- controlled trial of the preferential Janus kinase 1 inhibitor filgotinib (FIL) for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA); EQUATOR2 (NCT03320876) is the open-label extension (OLE).

Objectives:

This post-hoc analysis assessed the effect of FIL on individual Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) components; and the association between PASDAS disease activity (DA) levels and DA levels achieved for each PASDAS component and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) up to OLE Week (Wk) 100.

Methods:

In EQUATOR, patients with active moderate-to-severe PsA were randomised 1:1 to oral FIL 200 mg or PBO once daily (QD) for 16 wks.1 At Wk 16, patients could continue into the 304-wk OLE, in which all patients received FIL 200 mg QD. The proportions of patients with PASDAS of very low DA (VLDA; ≤1.9), LDA (>1.9–<3.2), moderate DA (MoDA; ≥3.2–<5.4), and high DA (HDA; ≥5.4) at core Wk 16 and OLE Wk 52 and 100 were assessed. The proportion with improved PASDAS status vs baseline (BL) at OLE Wk 52 and 100 was calculated. Percent change from BL in PASDAS components and PROs were assessed at core Wk 16 and OLE Wk 52 and 100 by PASDAS status (VLDA, LDA, other). Multivariate logistic regression analyses performed cross-sectionally identified PASDAS components and PROs associated with not achieving VLDA or LDA at core Wk 16 and OLE Wk 52 and 100; all analyses were observed cases.

Results:

At OLE Wk 52, LDA and VLDA were achieved by 27.5% and 16.8% of randomised patients, respectively (44.3% combined). At OLE Wk 100, LDA and VLDA were achieved by 26.0% and 17.6% of patients (43.6% combined; Figure 1). Of patients with HDA at BL, 69% improved to MoDA/LDA/VLDA, <4% remained in HDA and 27% did not reach Wk 100; of those in MoDA at BL, 63% improved to VLDA/LDA, 11% remained stable, <4% worsened and 22% did not reach Wk 100. Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGDA), Short Form-36 physical component scale (SF-36 PCS), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy, and Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index were found to be important components/PRO measures in achieving VLDA vs LDA (Table 1). Logistic regression indicated that factors associated with not achieving LDA at Wk 52 were PtGDA (odds ratio [OR]: 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07–1.35), physician GDA (PhGDA; OR: 1.58, 95% CI: 1.18–2.12), and SF-36 PCS (OR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.67–0.95); PtGDA was associated with not achieving VLDA (OR: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.15–1.47).

Conclusion:

The proportion of patients achieving PASDAS VLDA or LDA increased over time and remained stable between OLE Wk 52 and 100. Important factors in determining whether VLDA/LDA was met were PtGDA, PhGDA, and SF-36 PCS, although the low patient numbers is a limitation.

References:

[1]Mease P, et al. Lancet. 2018;392:2367–77

Table 1.

Mean % change from baseline in PASDAS components and PROs (observed cases)

Core Wk 16 (FIL + PBO groups combined)n=122OLE Wk 52n=110OLE Wk 100n=97VLDAn=8(7%)LDAn=22(18%)Othersn=92(75%)VLDAn=22(20%)LDAn=36(33%)Othersn=52(47%)VLDA n=23(24%)LDAn=34(35%)Othersn=40(41%)PhGDA−93−75−44−94−82−56−96−84−54PtGDA−87−69−13−86−58−24−90−57−13Tender joint count 68−94−80−42−99−84−64−98−87−61Swollen joint count 66−99−80−64−99−96−78−99−94−80LEI−100−86−32−96−100−78−100−99−78Dactylitis−100−100−73−100−100−97−100−100−98C-reactive protein−66−2217138*−32−25−12−1324SF-36 PCS53261133239472316FACIT1195032975134994636HAQ-DI−84−68−18−85−51−18−88−45−19PASI−84−66−29−54−59−56−49−76−42

Components or PRO measures in bold are those for which numerical differences between VLDA and LDA are greatest across timepoints

*Due to outlier (3784)

FACIT, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy; HAQ-DI, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index; LEI, Leeds Enthesitis Index; PASI, Psoriasis Area Severity Index; PhGDA, Physician Global Assessment of Disease Activity; PtGDA, Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity; SF-36 PCS, Short Form-36 physical component summary; (V)LDA, (very) low disease activity

Acknowledgements:

EQUATOR and EQUATOR2 were sponsored by Galapagos NV Mechelen, Belgium) and co-funded by Galapagos NV and Gilead Sciences, Inc (Foster City, CA, USA). Benjamin Pett and his team, employees of Galapagos, provided assistance with statistical analyses. Medical writing/editorial support was provided by Debbie Sherwood, BSc, CMPP (Aspire Scientific, Bollington, UK), and was funded by Galapagos NV.

Disclosure of Interests:

Laura C Coates Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, 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, Novartis, and Pfizer, 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, Philip Helliwell Paid instructor for: Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Filip van den Bosch Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Merck, and UCB, Mona Trivedi Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences, Amgen, Employee of: Gilead Sciences, Muhsen Alani Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences, Employee of: Gilead Sciences, Franck Olivier Le Brun Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Robin Besuyen Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Lien Gheyle Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Emilia Gvozdenovic Employee of: Galapagos, Dafna D Gladman Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB., Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

POS1038 THE EFFECT OF FILGOTINIB ON ENTHESITIS: 100-WEEK DATA FROM AN OPEN-LABEL EXTENSION STUDY IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS

Background:

Filgotinib (FIL), a novel preferential Janus kinase 1 inhibitor, was assessed in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in the 16-week, Phase 2, EQUATOR trial (NCT03101670).1 EQUATOR2 (NCT03320876) is the open-label extension (OLE). As previously reported, an interim analysis of the OLE showed that the majority of patients had clinical resolution of enthesitis by Week 52.2

Objectives:

This post-hoc analysis evaluated the effect of FIL on clinical enthesitis after 100 weeks of treatment in the OLE, as assessed using the Leeds Enthesitis Index (LEI) and Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) index, and evaluated the discriminatory capacity of the two indices. In addition, we assessed which of the sites included in LEI and SPARCC were most frequently involved and whether treatment effect was consistent across sites.

Methods:

In EQUATOR, patients with active moderate-to-severe PsA (≥5 swollen joints and ≥5 tender joints, fulfilling Classification for PsA criteria) were randomised 1:1 to receive oral FIL 200 mg or placebo (PBO) once daily (QD) for 16 weeks. At Week 16, all patients could continue into the OLE, receiving FIL 200 mg QD for up to an additional 304 weeks. We compared changes from core baseline in LEI and SPARCC measures, the effect on enthesitis at sites included in LEI and SPARCC assessments and the discriminatory capacity of both enthesitis indices.

Results:

Of 131 patients randomised to EQUATOR, 122 entered the OLE. There was strong agreement between LEI and SPARCC at baseline. While most patients had enthesitis at baseline according to either index (76/131 [58.0%] by LEI; 85/131 [64.9%] by SPARCC), a minority had enthesitis at a large number of sites (6.9% with 5–6 LEI sites; 12.2% with ≥9 SPARCC sites). The sites most frequently involved at baseline were the lateral epicondyle humerus and Achilles tendon, sites common to both LEI and SPARCC. There was greater variability in the change from baseline to Week 16 in SPARCC compared with LEI (Table 1). LEI showed a greater discriminatory capacity than SPARCC when change from baseline was compared for FIL vs PBO at Week 16, as shown by higher absolute standardised mean difference: −0.70 (LEI) and −0.30 (SPARCC) (observed cases; Table 1). Subgroup analyses indicated that the treatment effect of FIL vs PBO at Week 16 for all sites was consistent with the overall treatment effect seen for LEI or SPARCC, and indicative of an improvement with FIL vs PBO for nearly all sites. The proportion of patients with enthesitis decreased from baseline up to OLE Week 100 (Figure 1). There were no major differences in long-term effect on enthesitis between sites.

Conclusion:

FIL improved enthesitis consistently across sites compared with PBO. Rapid improvement in enthesitis was seen up to Week 16 of the core study and improvements continued up to Week 52, after which responses were generally stable up to Week 100. LEI assesses fewer locations than SPARCC, but reassuringly captured the sites most commonly affected by enthesitis; LEI also had greater discriminatory capacity.

References:

[1]Mease P, et al. Lancet 2018;392:2367–77

[2]Mease P, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2020;72(suppl 10): abstract 0910

Figure 1.

Acknowledgements:

EQUATOR and EQUATOR2 were sponsored by Galapagos NV (Mechelen, Belgium) and co-funded by Galapagos NV and Gilead Sciences, Inc (Foster City, CA, USA). Eline Vetters, Leen Gilles, Benjamin Pett and his team, all employees of Galapagos, provided assistance with statistical analyses. Medical writing/editorial support was provided by Debbie Sherwood, BSc, CMPP (Aspire Scientific, Bollington, UK), and funded by Galapagos NV.

Disclosure of Interests:

Philip Helliwell Speakers bureau: Janssen, Novartis, Paid instructor for: Pfizer, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Laura C Coates Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, 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, Novartis, and Pfizer, Filip van den Bosch Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Merck and UCB, Dafna D Gladman Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Lien Gheyle Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Mona Trivedi Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences, Amgen, Employee of: Gilead Sciences, Muhsen Alani Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences, Employee of: Gilead Sciences, Franck Olivier Le Brun Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Robin Besuyen Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, 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.

POS1051 SECUKINUMAB IMPROVES PHYSICAL FUNCTION AND INHIBITS STRUCTURAL DAMAGE IN PsA PATIENTS WITH SUSTAINED REMISSION OR LOW DISEASE ACTIVITY: RESULTS FROM A PHASE 3 STUDY

Background:

Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) or the minimal disease activity (MDA) are considered for defining remission (REM) or low disease activity (LDA) in secukinumab (SEC) treated patients (pts) with PsA (Psoriatic Arthritis).1 Currently, limited SEC data are available on pts with PsA achieving sustained REM in clinical trials or real-world evidence, using these stringent criteria.

Objectives:

To report an exploratory analysis on achievement of sustained REM/LDA in pts with PsA treated with SEC and impact on structural outcomes, physical function and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in the FUTURE 5 study (NCT02404350).

Methods:

FUTURE 5 is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled 2-year phase 3 trial in pts with active PsA.2 Pts randomised to SEC 150 mg could be escalated to 300 mg from Week (Wk) 52 to 104, based on investigators’ judgement. The pts were categorised as either not achieving REM/LDA, achieving it once only or sustained REM/LDA, which was defined as pts who achieved REM/LDA between Wks 24-52 and maintained the same response at least 2 of the next 6 visits (visit every 8 Wks). Of pts who did not achieve REM/LDA, achieved REM/LDA (VLDA, DAPSA REM, MDA, DAPSA LDA+REM) between Wk 24 and 52, the relationship between absence of REM/LDA, REM/LDA, sustained REM/LDA, proportion of pts with non-radiographic progression (assessed using the van der Heijde [mTSS]), physical function (health assessment questionnaire disability index [HAQ-DI]), and short form-36 physical component score [SF-36 PCS])3 were assessed.

Results:

In total, 996 pts were randomised to one of 4 treatment groups: SEC 300 mg loading dose (LD; N=222), SEC 150 mg LD (N=220), SEC 150 mg no loading dose (NL; N=222), and placebo (N=332). The baseline clinical characteristics were comparable across treatment groups. Majority of pts could achieve either sustained MDA/sustained DAPSA LDA+REM (Figure 1). Pts achieving REM/LDA, whether at one visit or consistently, showed improved physical function and SF36-PCS at Wk 104.3A high proportion of pts did not show radiographic progression at Wk 104 irrespective of achievement of REM/LDA category (Table 1).

Conclusion:

The majority of patients treated with secukinumab were able to achieve sustained LDA. Sustained LDA/REM was associated with improved HRQoL, physical function and inhibition of structural damage progression.

References:

[1]Coates LC, et al. J Rheumatol. 2018;46(1):38–42.

[2]Van der Heijde D, et al. Rheumatology. 2020;59(6):1325–1334.

[3]Coates L, et al. [0353]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72 (suppl 10).

Figure 1.

Proportion of patients achieving VLDA/MDA/DAPSA REM/DAPSA REM+LDASus-tained REM/LDA was defined if the same response was achieved at least 2 out of the next 6 visits (every 8 weeks), respectively. DAPSA, Disease activity in Psoriatic Arthritis; LD, loading dose; LDA, Low Disease Activity; MDA, Minimal Disease Activity; N, number of randomised patients assessed at both Week 24 and 104; NL, without loading dose; REM, remission; SEC, secukinumab; VLDA, Very Low Disease Activity

Table 1.

Percentage of vdH-mTSS no progression at Week 104 (change from baseline ≤0.5) by REM/LDA and sustained REM/LDA status

REM and LDA composite indices, n (%)Treatment groupNo REM/LDAREM/LDA only onceSustained REM/LDAMDASEC 150 mg LD64 (75.3)16 (80.0)76 (86.4)SEC 150 mg NL56 (75.7)15 (78.9)69 (82.1)SEC 300 mg LD58 (79.5)19 (95.0)100 (94.3)VLDASEC 150 mg LD108 (78.8)15 (83.3)30 (88.2)SEC 150 mg NL95 (75.4)13 (81.3)32 (91.4)SEC 300 mg LD 115 (84.6)17 (94.4)45 (100.0)DAPSA REMSEC 150 mg LD77 (76.2)11 (78.6)46 (92.0)SEC 150 mg NL65 (71.4)10 (76.9)50 (87.7)SEC 300 mg LD82 (83.7)14 (93.3)63 (96.9)DAPSA LDA + REMSEC 150 mg LD29 (70.7)16 (84.2)80 (84.2)SEC 150 mg NL23 (71.9)15 (75.0)79 (79.0)SEC 300 mg LD39 (88.6)21 (84.0)97 (89.0)

Sustained REM/LDA was defined if the same response was achieved at least twice out of the next 6 visits (every 8 weeks), respectively. n, number of evaluable patients; vdH-mTSS, van der Heijde- modified total Sharp score

Disclosure of Interests:

Laura C Coates Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis and Pfizer, Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Galapagos, Celgene, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN Pharma, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN, and UCB, Dafna D Gladman Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Sandra Navarra Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Novartis, Astra-Zeneca, Janssen, Lilly, and Astellas, Consultant of: Pfizer, Novartis, Astra-Zeneca, Janssen, Lilly, and Astellas, Weibin Bao Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Corine Gaillez Shareholder of: Novartis and BMS, Employee of: Novartis.

POS0930 SECUKINUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS AND AXIAL MANIFESTATIONS: PREDICTORS OF RESPONSE FROM THE DOUBLE-BLIND, RANDOMISED, PHASE 3B MAXIMISE TRIAL

Background:

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a heterogeneous disease with variability of response to different therapeutic modalities.1 Identifying potential demographic and disease characteristics as predictors of treatment response may define personalised treatment optimisation strategies.2–3

Objectives:

This post-hoc exploratory analysis of the MAXIMISE trial4 investigated the differential treatment effect of demographics and baseline characteristics as predictive factors in biologic naïve patients with active PsA and symptoms of active spinal disease.

Methods:

The full analysis set (FAS) comprised of all patients from the randomised set assigned to study treatment, fulfilling the predefined clinical criteria for active axial disease and for whom Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) 20 data were available at Week 12. The research hypothesis was that the odds ratio associated with the effect of treatment on ASAS20 responder status at Week 12 would be different depending on 12 pre-specified predictor variables. A logistic regression model was initially fitted to the FAS that included 12 pre-specified covariates. A second logistic regression model was then fitted to the FAS that allowed for all 12 pre-specified variables to interact with treatment.5 The log-likelihood of the two fitted models were compared using a likelihood ratio test at a pre-specified significance level of 20% (i.e. P-value ≤0.20) to test whether any of the predefined variables interacted with treatment. If the above test was statistically significant at the 20% level of statistical significance the variables of the second model were formally examined to determine whether the overall effect of treatment is not applicable. Three forest plots were produced, one for each treatment group. Hypothesis tests were employed to determine the strength of evidence for each individual variable.

Results:

The likelihood ratio test provided evidence against the assumption that the overall effect of treatment is applicable to all patients (P-value = 0.08). Notably, the odds of being an ASAS20 responder if nail dystrophy is present at baseline were 3 times greater in the secukinumab 150 mg group and 5 times greater in the 300 mg group compared with placebo (interaction P-value = 0.029). Although males fare worse than females in the placebo group, in the secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg treatment groups the odds of being a responder were similar to females (interaction P-value = 0.039). Current smokers were less likely to be ASAS20 responders compared to never smokers regardless of treatment group (interaction P-value = 0.589) (Figure 1). Age, CRP level, Berlin MRI spine/SIJ score, time since first axial signs, number of swollen joints, new bone formation and BMI did not show a differential treatment effect on ASAS20 responses.

Conclusion:

Of the 12 baseline variables of a unique population of 473 PsA patients with active axial disease diagnosed by clinical criteria, our analyses showed evidence of a differential treatment effect most notably for nail dystrophy suggesting that the presence of nail dystrophy may predict a better response to secukinumab in PsA patients with axial manifestations.

References:

[1]Coates LC, Helliwell PS. Clin Med (Lond). 2017;17(1):65–70.

[2]Watson DS, et al. BMJ. 2019;364:l886.

[3]Hügle M, et al. Rheumatol Adv Pract. 2020;4(1):rkaa005.

[4]Baraliakos X, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Published Online First: 17 Dec 2020. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-218808.

[5]Peto R, et al. Br J Cancer. 1977;35(1):1–39.

Figure 1.

Forest plots of the adjusted odds ratio by treatment using interaction modelDisclosure of Interests:

Xenofon Baraliakos Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB., Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Galapagos, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB., Grant/research support from: AbbVie, and Novartis., Effie Pournara Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Laure Gossec Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Biogen, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB., Grant/research support from: Amgen, Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi, and Galapagos., Helena Marzo-Ortega Consultant of: Janssen, Novartis, AbbVie, Celgene, Lilly, Pfizer, Takeda and UCB., Grant/research support from: Janssen, Novartis, AbbVie, Celgene, Lilly, Pfizer, Takeda and UCB., Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Genentech, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB., Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Galapagos, Celgene, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN Pharma, and UCB., Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Galapagos, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN, and UCB., Roisin White Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Eamonn O’Brien Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Barbara Schulz Employee of: Novartis, 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.

POS1084 COMPARISON OF NUMERICAL RATING SCALE (NRS) AND VISUAL ANALOGUE SCALE (VAS) IN THE PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES OF 3VAS AND 4VAS IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS

Background:

There is a recognised need for a feasible continuous composite measure in routine clinical care for psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Two multidimensional composite Visual Analogue Scales (VAS) have been proposed; the 3 and 4VAS1, but there may be some advantages to using a numerical rating scale (NRS) over VAS in patient reported outcomes. VAS is a 100mm horizontal line, and the NRS a 21-point scale ranging from 0 to 10 in increments of 0.5. NRS are simple and faster to score, less susceptible to measurement error and may reduce the floor and ceiling effects, whereby patients avoid using the extremes of the scale. A previous study has demonstrated good agreement between VAS and NRS for the separate patient reported outcome measures in PsA, which correlate with disease severity and life impact.2

Objectives:

To test the performance of NRS, compared with VAS, in the composite 3 and 4VAS scores.

Methods:

Data were collected prospectively across three UK hospital trusts from 2018-2019, as part of a study assessing the use of NRS in patient reported outcome measures in PsA.2 Patients completed the VAS and NRS for pain, arthritis, skin psoriasis, and global disease activity. The 3 VAS comprises of a physician global VAS, patient global VAS and patient skin VAS and the 4 VAS comprises of the physician global VAS, patient pain VAS, joint VAS and skin VAS. NRS and VAS versions of the patient reported measures were tested. Physician global scores were not available from the study data, therefore only the patient reported components are included. Agreement between the scales was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), with a two-way mixed absolute agreement model, and Bland-Altman plots. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients were used to assess dependency between scale scores and clinical parameters including tender and swollen joint count, PsAID12 and HAQDI.

Results:

Data from 209 patients were analysed. 60.0% were male, with mean age of 51.7 years and median PsA duration of 7.0 years. Mean 3VAS score was 3.57 and the mean NRS-3VAS was 3.79, with ICC 0.98 (95% CI 0.96-0.98). Mean 4VAS was 3.71 and NRS-4VAS was 3.90 with ICC 0.98 (95% CI 0.97-0.98). Average NRS scores were slightly higher than VAS scores. The Bland-Altman plots comparing NRS and VAS for the patient-reported components of 3VAS and 4VAS are demonstrated in Figure 1. 64.1% patients reported a preference for NRS over VAS. Correlation of the 3/4VAS with PSAID, HAQ and joints counts are reported in Table 1. Visual representation of the NRS and VAS scales for 3VAS and 4VAS as histograms demonstrated that there is marginally less floor effect using NRS compared to VAS.

Conclusion:

There is good agreement between VAS and NRS for the patient-reported components of 3VAS and 4VAS, supporting that VAS scores are reproducible as NRS scores. Both NRS and VAS versions of the 3 and 4VAS scales correlate with disease activity and life impact.2 There may be advantages in testing the 3/4VAS as NRS moving forward.

References:

[1]Tillett W et al. J Rheumatol. 2021; in press

[2]Ye W et al. J Rheumatol. 2020 Dec 1:jrheum.200928.

Table 1.

Spearman’s correlations of the 3 and 4 VAS scores with TJC, SJC, PsAID and HAQ

Patient ReportedTJCSJCPsAIDHAQDI without aids3 VAS vas0.510.440.880.624 VAS vas0.540.470.890.653 VAS nrs0.490.430.890.634 VAS nrs0.530.460.920.67

Key: 3VAS; Patient global and skin VAS, 4 VAS: Patient pain, joint and skin VAS. 3 and 4 NRS; Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). TJC/ SJC: Tender/Swollen Joint count. PSAID: Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease. HAQDI: Stanford Heath Assessment Questionnaire.

Acknowledgements:

Dr Day and Dr Ye contributed equally to the development of this abstract.

Disclosure of Interests:

Julia Day: None declared, Weiyu Ye: None declared, William Tillett Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc., and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer Inc., and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen and UCB, 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.

POS1037 CORRELATION BETWEEN SKIN INVOLVEMENT, JOINT INVOLVEMENT AND ENTHESITIS IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: POST-HOC ANALYSIS OF EQUATOR/EQUATOR2

Background:

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a heterogeneous, inflammatory disease involving multiple clinical domains including arthritis/synovitis, enthesitis, dactylitis, spondylitis and psoriasis. Effects on each domain should be assessed to determine the overall quality of treatment. Filgotinib (FIL) is a novel preferential Janus kinase 1 inhibitor that is in development for inflammatory conditions including PsA. EQUATOR (NCT03101670) was a 16-week, Phase 2, double-blind, randomised, placebo (PBO)-controlled trial of FIL for patients with active PsA.1 EQUATOR2 (NCT03320876) is an open-label extension (OLE) of the study.

Objectives:

This post-hoc analysis of EQUATOR and EQUATOR2 assessed the patient-level correlation between changes over time in the three PsA clinical disease domains of skin, joint and enthesitis in patients treated with FIL.

Methods:

In EQUATOR, patients with active moderate-to-severe PsA (≥5 swollen joints and ≥5 tender joints, fulfilling Classification for PsA criteria) were randomised 1:1 to receive oral FIL 200 mg or PBO once daily (QD) for 16 weeks. At Week 16, patients could continue into the 304-week OLE, with all patients receiving FIL 200 mg QD regardless of previous treatment in EQUATOR. This post-hoc analysis was limited to patients with skin involvement (≥3% body surface area), joint involvement and enthesitis at baseline, with changes from baseline in the three domains assessed using the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI), swollen/tender joint count (S/TJC), and the Leeds Enthesitis Index (LEI) and Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) index, respectively. Analyses that used LEI as the enthesitis index to assess change from baseline included patients with LEI score ≥1 at baseline; those using SPARCC included patients with SPARCC score ≥1 at baseline.

Results:

The EQUATOR study enrolled 131 patients and 122 patients continued into the EQUATOR2 OLE. Of the 131 patients enrolled in EQUATOR, 49 and 56 patients had PsA involving all three domains at core study baseline when enthesitis was assessed using LEI and SPARCC index, respectively. Pooled data for all patients receiving FIL during the OLE indicate that improvements from baseline in the clinical domains continued with long-term treatment, with 22/42 (52%) and 23/38 (61%) patients having both SJC66 and LEI resolution at Weeks 52 and 100, respectively. For the 22 patients with both SJC and LEI resolution at Week 52, the mean percent change from baseline for PASI was –64%; for the 23 patients with both SJC and LEI resolution at Week 100, the mean percent change from baseline for PASI was –60%. The Figure 1 shows correlation between SJC, LEI and PASI at Week 100. A relationship between the three clinical domains was observed at the individual level; within a single patient, an improvement in one domain was generally followed by improvements in the other two domains. With regard to the sequence in which changes were observed, joints improved first, followed by improvements in the skin and enthesitis. There were no notable differences between changes in LEI and SPARCC enthesitis index in terms of their correlation with improvements in joint and skin involvement. Similarly, there were no notable differences in correlation between the three domains when joints were assessed using TJC rather than SJC.

Conclusion:

Patients with improvements in skin, joints or enthesitis following treatment with FIL generally also had improvements in the other clinical domains of PsA. The joints were found to be the first of the three domains to improve.

References:

[1]Mease P et al. Lancet 2018;392:2367–77

Acknowledgements:

EQUATOR and EQUATOR2 were sponsored by Galapagos NV (Mechelen, Belgium) and co-funded by Galapagos NV and Gilead Sciences, Inc (Foster City, CA, USA). Medical writing/editorial support was provided by Debbie Sherwood, BSc, CMPP (Aspire Scientific, Bollington, UK), funded by Galapagos NV.

Disclosure of Interests:

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, Laura C Coates Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, 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, Novartis, and Pfizer, Filip van den Bosch Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Merck and UCB, Dafna D Gladman Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Lien Gheyle Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Mona Trivedi Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences, Amgen, Employee of: Gilead Sciences, Muhsen Alani Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences, Employee of: Gilead Sciences, Eline Vetters Employee of: Galapagos, Franck Olivier Le Brun Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Robin Besuyen Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Philip Helliwell Speakers bureau: Janssen and Novartis, Paid instructor for: Pfizer, Consultant of: Eli Lilly.

AB0550 EFFICACY OF UPADACITINIB IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS AND A LOW OR HIGH SWOLLEN JOINT COUNT: A SUBGROUP ANALYSIS OF 2 PHASE 3 STUDIES (SELECT-PsA 1 AND SELECT-PsA 2)

Background:

Although most patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) enrolled in clinical trials have polyarticular arthritis, patients in clinical practice may present with oligoarthritis. Data on the efficacy of Janus kinase inhibitors in patients with PsA with low joint counts are limited.

Objectives:

To evaluate the efficacy of upadacitinib (UPA) in subgroups of patients with PsA with a low (baseline swollen joint count [SJC] <5) or high (SJC ≥5) SJC (LSJ or HSJ).

Methods:

Data were pooled across the SELECT-PsA 11 (non-biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug [non-bDMARD] inadequate response [IR] or intolerance) and SELECT-PsA 22 (bDMARD IR or intolerance) trials, which both enrolled patients with ≥3 involved joints (SJC ≥3 and tender joint count [TJC] ≥3). Subgroup analysis was performed for patients with LSJ or HSJ treated with UPA 15 mg once daily (QD) or placebo (PBO). Efficacy endpoints included minimal disease activity (MDA), very low disease activity (VLDA), Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) low disease activity (LDA; ≤3.2), PASDAS remission (≤1.9), and 20/50/70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria (ACR20/50/70), all at Week 24, and Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) 75 and static Investigator Global Assessment of Psoriasis (sIGA) 0/1 at Week 16.

Results:

At baseline, patients with HSJ (n=1060) had similar demographic characteristics but tended to have higher overall disease activity than patients with LSJ across multiple disease domains (n=215; Table 1). UPA efficacy appeared comparable in patients with LSJ and HSJ, with similar proportions of patients achieving composite (MDA, VLDA, PASDAS LDA, and PASDAS remission) measures at Week 24, and skin endpoints (PASI 75 and sIGA 0/1) at Week 16 (Figure 1). At Week 24, 60.0/36.8/22.1% of patients with LSJ receiving UPA 15 mg achieved ACR20/50/70 vs 40.0/17.5/5.8% in the PBO group; rates were 70.3/49.7/26.2% (UPA 15 mg) and 36.1/15.3/3.3% (PBO) in those with HSJ.

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics

PBOUPA 15 mg QDTotalLSJn=120HSJn=515LSJn=95HSJn=545LSJn=215HSJn=1060Female, n (%)65 (54.2)266 (51.7)49 (51.6)302 (55.4)114 (53.0)568 (53.6)Age (years), mean (SD)52.2 (12.7)51.5 (12.0)52.0 (10.6)52.0 (12.4)52.1 (11.8)51.8 (12.2)Duration since PsA symptoms (years), mean (SD)10.5 (9.2)11.1 (10.2)9.8 (8.2)10.3 (8.9)10.2 (8.7)10.7 (9.6)BMI, mean (SD)29.7 (6.3)31.1 (7.2)29.8 (6.2)30.7 (6.9)29.7 (6.2)30.9 (7.0)Prior failed bDMARDs, n (%)03 (2.5)15 (2.9)1 (1.1)15 (2.8)4 (1.9)30 (2.8)122 (18.3)113 (21.9)22 (23.2)104 (19.1)44 (20.5)217 (20.5)24 (3.3)31 (6.0)7 (7.4)28 (5.1)11 (5.1)59 (5.6)≥34 (3.3)20 (3.9)7 (7.4)27 (5.0)11 (5.1)47 (4.4)Use of ≥1 non-bDMARD atbaseline, n (%)87 (72.5)360 (69.9)63 (66.3)388 (71.2)150 (69.8)748 (70.6)Dactylitis (LDI >0), n (%)21 (17.5)169 (32.8)15 (15.8)176 (32.3)36 (16.7)345 (32.5)Enthesitis (LEI >0), n (%)60 (50.0)325 (63.1)60 (63.2)343 (62.9)120 (55.8)668 (63.0)TJC68, mean (SD)12.5 (11.3)23.9 (15.8)14.6 (13.5)23.1 (15.8)13.4 (12.3)23.5 (15.8)SJC66, mean (SD)3.5 (0.5)13.2 (8.3)3.6 (0.5)12.9 (9.0)3.6 (0.5)13.0 (8.7)HAQ-DI, mean (SD)1.0 (0.6)1.2 (0.7)0.9 (0.6)1.2 (0.6)0.9 (0.6)1.2 (0.7)hs-CRP > ULN (mg/L), n (%)82 (68.3)363 (70.5)62 (65.3)388 (71.2)144 (67.0)751 (70.8)BSA-Ps, median (range)3.0 (0.1–70.0)4.0 (0.1–95.0)2.0 (0.1–80.0)3.0 (0.1–97.0)3.0 (0.1–80.0)3.0 (0.1–97.0)BSA-Ps ≥ 3%, n (%)57 (47.5)285 (55.3)44 (46.3)300 (55.0)101 (47.0)585 (55.2)PASI (baseline BSA-Ps ≥ 3%), mean (SD)7.7 (7.5)12.1 (11.9)8.2 (7.0)10.2 (10.0)7.9 (7.2)11.1 (11.0)PASI (baseline BSA-Ps ≥ 3%), median (range)5.3 (0.1–39.4)7.9 (0.3–64.8)6.5 (0.2–35.4)6.8 (0.1–70.8)6.0 (0.1–39.4)7.3 (0.1–70.8)

Conclusion:

UPA efficacy was generally similar in patients with PsA with LSJ or HSJ, with both patient groups showing improvements in composite clinical endpoints and skin responses vs PBO.

References:

[1]McInnes I, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79(Suppl. 1):16–17;

[2]Mease PJ, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2020; Epub ahead of print.

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 Grant Kirkpatrick, MSc of 2 the Nth (Cheshire, UK), and was funded by AbbVie.

Disclosure of Interests:

Laure Gossec Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Dafna D Gladman Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Erin McDearmon-Blondell Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Philipp Sewerin Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Axiom Health, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Deutscher Psoriasis Bund, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Gilead, Hexal, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Medi-login, Mediri, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pfizer, Roche, Rheumazentrum Rhein-Ruhr, Sanofi, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bundesministerium fuer Bildung und Forschung, Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft, Deutscher Psoriasis Bund, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Gilead, Hexal, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Rheumazentrum Rhein-Ruhr, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Christopher T. Ritchlin Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, and UCB, Dai Feng Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Apinya Lertratanakul Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, R Ranza Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer, Lai-Shan Tam Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, and Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer, Antonio Marchesoni Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Laura C Coates: None declared., Peter Nash Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB.

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

Background:

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

Objectives:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Table 1.

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

References:

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

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

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

Disclosure of Interests:

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

POS1029 GUSELKUMAB-TREATED PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS ACHIEVED CLINICALLY MEANINGFUL IMPROVEMENTS IN GENERAL HEALTH OUTCOMES MEASURED WITH PROMIS-29 THROUGH 52 WEEKS: RESULTS FROM THE PHASE 3 DISCOVER-1 TRIAL

Background:

In the DISCOVER-1 study, the interleukin-23 p19 subunit inhibitor guselkumab (GUS) demonstrated robust efficacy across joint and skin clinical manifestations of psoriatic arthritis (PsA).1 Patients (pts) with PsA also experience a broad range of symptoms that negatively impact health-related quality of life (eg, pain, fatigue, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbance, poor physical function).2

Objectives:

Assess the treatment effect of GUS on general health outcomes in pts with PsA in the DISCOVER-1 trial through Week (W) 52 using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-29 (PROMIS-29) instrument.

Methods:

Pts with active PsA (≥3 swollen + ≥3 tender joints; C-reactive protein ≥0.3 mg/dL) and inadequate response to standard conventional therapies were randomized 1:1:1 to GUS 100 mg Q4W; GUS 100 mg at W0, W4, then Q8W; or placebo (PBO). PBO pts switched to GUS 100 mg Q4W at W24. PROMIS-29 contains 4 items for each of 7 domains (anxiety, depression, fatigue, pain interference, physical function, sleep disturbance, social participation) and 1 pain intensity item; 28 items are scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale, and pain intensity is rated from 0-10. The raw score of each domain is converted to a standardized T-score, with norms based on a general population mean score=50 and a standard deviation (SD)=10. Higher scores in anxiety, depression, fatigue, pain interference, and sleep disturbance indicate more severe symptoms; higher physical function and social participation scores indicate better health outcomes. Changes ≥5 points (1/2 SD of T-score) are considered clinically meaningful. Analyses were performed using both observed (mean scores/changes, effect sizes) and imputed (clinically meaningful response, whereby change from baseline was set to 0 at W24/52 for pts who had missing data or at W24 for pts who met treatment failure criteria prior to W24).

Results:

At baseline, mean PROMIS-29 T-scores for physical function, social participation, sleep disturbance, pain, and fatigue were worse in the 381 PsA pts enrolled in DISCOVER-1 than in the general US population. Across all 7 domains, observed mean PROMIS-29 T-scores showed improvements in GUS-treated pts from baseline to W24 and W52 (Figure 1). Observed mean changes from baseline to W24 and W52, with calculated effect size, are shown (Table 1). In all pts, including those with imputed data, significantly higher percentages of pts in both GUS treatment groups vs PBO had ≥5-point improvements in fatigue, pain interference, physical function, sleep disturbance, social participation, and pain intensity domains at W24 (all nominal p<0.05). Mean improvements in PROMIS-29 domains were maintained through W52.

Conclusion:

In pts with active PsA, PROMIS-29 results indicate that GUS treatment was associated with clinically meaningful reductions in fatigue and pain and improvement in physical function and social participation, which were maintained through 1 year.

References:

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

[2] Orbai A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76:673-80.

Table 1.

Mean Change and Effect Size of Change From Baseline in PROMIS-29 Domain Scores at W24 and W52 (Observed)

Mean Change From Baseline [Effect Size]GUS Q4WGUS Q8WPBOW0-24GUS Q4WW24-52W24W52W24W52W24W52Anxiety−3.1 [−0.3]−3.1 [−0.3]−3.7 [−0.4]−4.3 [−0.5]−1.5 [−0.2]−3.6 [−0.4]Depression−2.7 [−0.3]−3.0 [−0.4]−4.0 [−0.4]−4.0 [−0.4]−0.6 [−0.1]−2.5 [−0.3]Fatigue−4.8 [−0.5]−5.6 [−0.6]−4.8 [−0.5]−6.8 [−0.7]−2.1 [−0.2]−5.7 [−0.6]Pain interference−5.4 [−0.8]−6.2 [−1.0]−5.8 [−1.0]−7.0 [−1.1]−2.8 [−0.4]−6.3 [−1.0]Physical function5.0 [0.8]5.9 [0.9]4.1 [0.6]5.0 [0.7]1.7 [0.2]4.2 [0.6]Sleep disturbance−2.5 [−0.4]−3.9 [−0.6]−3.8 [−0.6]−4.4 [−0.6]−1.5 [−0.2]−3.3 [−0.5]Social participation4.2 [0.5]5.3 [0.7]5.3 [0.6]6.6 [0.8]1.7 [0.2]4.9 [0.6]Pain intensity*−2.3 [−1.2]−2.8 [−1.5]−2.1 [−1.1]−2.7 [−1.4]−0.7 [−0.4]−2.5 [−1.3]

*Raw score; all other domains reported as T-score.

Disclosure of Interests:

Ana-Maria Orbai Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Eli Lilly and Company, Celgene, Novartis, Janssen, Horizon, Laura C Coates Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelehim, Celgene, Domain, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer, 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, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Philip Helliwell Consultant of: Galapagos, Janssen, and Novartis, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Janssen, and Pfizer, Christopher T. Ritchlin Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, UCB Pharma, Alexa Kollmeier Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, of which Janssen Research & Development, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Elizabeth C Hsia Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, of which Janssen Research & Development, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Xie L Xu Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, of which Janssen Research & Development is a wholly owned subsidiary, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Shihong Sheng Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, of which Janssen Research & Development, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Yusang Jiang Employee of: Cytel, Inc., providing statistical support (funded by Janssen), Yan Liu Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, of which Janssen Research & Development, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Chenglong Han Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, of which Janssen Research & Development, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC.

POS0235 COMPARISON OF AXIAL AND PERIPHERAL MANIFESTATIONS IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS AND ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS IN UPADACITINIB CLINICAL TRIALS

Background:

Axial, peripheral, and other disease manifestations often overlap between psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Upadacitinib (UPA) is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor under evaluation for the treatment of PsA and AS.

Objectives:

To describe and compare baseline characteristics and UPA efficacy across 4 subgroups of patients (pts) from clinical trials: active PsA (with/without axial involvement) and active AS (with/without peripheral involvement).

Methods:

Baseline characteristics and efficacy of UPA in reducing axial and peripheral signs and symptoms were assessed via an integrated analysis across the 4 pt subgroups from the SELECT-PsA 1,1 SELECT-PsA 2,2 and SELECT-AXIS3 studies. Analyses of baseline characteristics included pts in the UPA 15 mg once daily (QD), UPA 30 mg QD, and placebo (PBO) groups; efficacy analyses included pts in the UPA 15 mg QD group only. Axial involvement in PsA (axial PsA) was determined by investigator assessment. Peripheral involvement in AS was defined based on presence of tender or swollen joints (TJC68 >0 or SJC66 >0), or presence of enthesitis at baseline (Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesitis Score >0).

Results:

2102 pts (UPA 15 mg; UPA 30 mg; PBO) were evaluated across the 4 subgroups (PsA [with/without axial involvement]: 626/1289; AS [with/without peripheral involvement]: 135/52). 33% of pts with PsA had axial PsA; 72% of pts with AS had peripheral symptoms. Pts with axial PsA had higher peripheral joint (TJC68 and SJC66) and skin (psoriasis) burden than pts with AS with peripheral involvement (p<0.0001). Pts with AS with peripheral involvement had significantly greater overall pain (pt’s assessment of pain; p=0.0002) and back pain (BASDAI Q2; p<0.0001) scores, and higher total BASDAI (p=0.0076) and ASDAS (p=0.0351) scores than pts with axial PsA; physician’s global assessment of disease activity, and peripheral pain and tenderness (BASDAI Q3 and Q4) were numerically similar for these 2 subgroups (Table 1). The efficacy of UPA 15 mg (measured using ASDAS and BASDAI) was generally consistent across the 4 pt subgroups regardless of peripheral or axial involvement (Figure 1).

Table 1.

Baseline demographics, medical history, and disease characteristics

Mean (SD), unless otherwise specifiedPsA with axial involvementn=626PsA without axial involvementn=1289AS with peripheral involvementn=135AS without peripheral involvementn=52p-value(PsA with axial involvement versus AS with peripheral involvement)Male, n (%)300 (47.9)583 (45.2)88 (65.2)44 (84.6)0.0003Age, years50.7 (12.6)52.0 (12.0)46.6 (12.7)42.2 (11.4)0.0008Body mass index, kg/m230.3 (7.1)30.7 (6.8)a26.7 (4.9)26.8 (5.2)*Duration of disease symptoms, years11.2 (9.3)b10.4 (9.5)a14.6 (10.9)14.0 (10.6)0.0009Duration of disease since diagnosis, years7.7 (8.0)7.3 (8.0)7.0 (9.2)6.8 (8.4)0.3738TJC6823.6 (16.4)20.6 (14.6)5.3 (8.2)0*SJC6611.9 (9.0)11.2 (8.2)1.5 (3.2)0*Psoriasis, n (%)616 (98.4)1269 (98.4)7 (5.2)0*Uveitis, n (%)1 (0.2)5 (0.4)3 (2.2)1 (1.9)0.0191Inflammatory bowel disease, n (%)10 (1.6)13 (1.0)2 (1.5)2 (3.8)1.0000PhGA6.7 (1.7)6.5 (1.7)6.7 (1.5)c6.9 (1.7)b0.6960Pain, VAS 0–106.3 (2.0)b6.1 (2.2)d6.9 (1.6)a6.8 (1.7)a0.0002ASDAS(CRP)3.4 (1.0)e3.1 (1.0)f3.5 (0.7)a3.7 (0.8)a0.0351BASDAI (Total score)6.0 (2.1)e5.5 (2.2)f6.4 (1.6)6.3 (1.8)a0.0076BASDAI Q2 (Back pain)6.1 (2.7)e4.8 (3.2)f7.2 (1.7)7.2 (1.6)a*BASDAI Q3 (Peripheral pain/ swelling)6.3 (2.4)e6.0 (2.6)f5.9 (2.4)5.5 (2.4)a0.0747BASDAI Q4 (Tenderness)5.8 (2.6)e5.6 (2.7)f6.1 (2.5)5.7 (2.4)a0.3196

*p<0.0001

Data missing for an=1, bn=3, cn=6, dn=11, en=4, fn=14

Conclusion:

Pts with PsA with axial involvement and pts with active AS showed some differences in baseline characteristics but similar improvements versus placebo with UPA 15 mg QD.

References:

[1]McInnes I, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79(Suppl 1):16–17; 2. Genovese MC, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79(Suppl 1):139; 3. van der Heijde D, et al. Lancet 2019;394:2108–17.

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 Grant Thomas Kirkpatrick, MSc, of 2 the Nth (Cheshire, UK), and was funded by AbbVie.

Disclosure of Interests:

Xenofon Baraliakos Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Atul Deodhar Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, R Ranza Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer, Simona Rednic: None declared, francesco ciccia Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, and Werfen, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Celgene, Chugai, Pfizer, and UCB, Fabiana Ganz Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Tianming Gao Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Apinya Lertratanakul Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, In-Ho Song Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Andrew Ostor Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche, Laura C Coates: None declared.

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.

OP0298 ARE PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS BEING TREATED OPTIMALLY ACROSS THE WORLD? DISPARITIES IN HEALTH CARE FOR PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS ACROSS COUNTRIES WITH DIFFERENT GDP’S, AN ANALYSIS OF 429 PATIENTS FROM 13 COUNTRIES

Background:

In psoriatic arthritis (PsA), EULAR recommendations are to aim for remission or low disease activity(1). Many treatments are now available, though some are costly and not widely available in all countries. Country of patient care, and in particular Gross Domestic Product (GDP) may be linked to PsA outcomes(2). Although patients with high disease activity are eligible for targeted therapies such as biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), they may not be able to get the benefits from these efficacious treatments in all countries equally.

Objectives:

The objective was to explore the rate of PsA patients with high to moderate disease activity, not receiving bDMARDs across countries, and to assess the consequences on functional incapacity.

Methods:

This was a cross-sectional analysis of an observational study (ReFlap, NCT03119805)(3), which included adult patients with PsA with ≥ 2 years disease duration from 14 countries. One country was excluded from this analysis since only 7 patients were included. We explored the rate of patients with significant disease activity (i.e based on DAPSA > 14) and no ongoing bDMARD prescription. Countries of inclusion were analysed separately, and classified into tertiles by GDP/capita (lowest tertile: Brazil, Turkey, Russia, Romania, Estonia; middle tertile: Spain, Italy, UK, France; highest tertile: Canada, Germany, USA and Singapore). The rate of no bDMARDs - DAPSA > 14 patients was analysed by country and compared between the 3 tertiles of GDP/capita by parametric tests. Functional capacity (HAQ) was compared between no bDMARDs - DAPSA > 14 patients and the other patients (pooling patients with moderate or high disease activity with bDMARD, low disease activity and remission with or without bDMARD). There was no imputation of missing data.

Results:

Of the 459 patients, 429 had complete data available and were analysed: mean age 52.3 (SD 12.6) years, mean disease duration 10.2 (SD 8.2) years, 215 (50.1%) males. The rate of no bDMARDs - DAPSA > 14 patients was 18.4% (76/414). The rate ranged from 7.4% (UK and Spain) to 40% (Russia): Figure 1. A link was seen with the country and the tertiles of countries according to GDP/capita, with higher rate of no bDMARDs - DAPSA > 14 patients in the lowest GDP/capita countries (28.8%, 15.3% and 14.3% in the 3 GDP/capita tertiles, respectively, p=0.005; Figure 1). Of note, 40/76 no bDMARDs - DAPSA > 14 patients received a treatment intensification during the visit. Among no bDMARDs - DAPSA > 14 patients, functional incapacity was higher than in the other patients, as expected (mean HAQ 0.96 (SD 0.64) vs 0.57 (SD 0.63), p<0.001).

Figure 1.

The size of the bubbles represent the number of patients per country (range, 13 to 89). The horizontal lines represent the mean proportion of patients with no bDMARDs – DAPSA > 14 for each tertiles of countries by GDP/capita.

Conclusion:

In this exploratory comparison of disease patterns and treatments choices in 13 countries, we observed that more PsA patients with high or moderate disease activity and living in low GDP/capita countries were less likely to be treated with bDMARDs. As a consequence, no bDMARDs – DAPSA > 14 patients had worse functional incapacity. Equitable access to bDMARDs should be aimed for all patients regardless of their country of origin.

References:

[1]Gossec L et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis with pharmacological therapies: 2019 update. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79(6):700-712.

[2]Gossec L et al. Are There Country Differences in Disease Activity and Life Impact of Psoriatic Arthritis? An Analysis of 436 Patients from 14 Countries [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019; 71 (suppl 10).

[3]Gorlier C et al. Comparing patient-perceived and physician-perceived remission and low disease activity in psoriatic arthritis: an analysis of 410 patients from 14 countries. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Feb;78(2):201-208.

Disclosure of Interests:

None declared.

AB0560 EFFECT OF DEUCRAVACITINIB ON THE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS IMPACT OF DISEASE (PsAID) QUESTIONNAIRES 12 AND 9: ANALYSIS OF A PHASE 2 STUDY OF ACTIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS

Background:

Tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) is an intracellular kinase that mediates IL-23, IL-12, and IFNα/β signaling. Deucravacitinib is a novel, oral selective inhibitor of TYK2 via the TYK2 regulatory domain. Phase 2 results showed deucravacitinib was efficacious and well tolerated versus placebo (PBO) in patients (pts) with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease (PsAID) questionnaire is a EULAR-developed, validated instrument designed to specifically assess the impact of PsA on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) from the pt’s perspective and is available as separate versions for clinical practice (PsAID-12) and clinical trials (PsAID-9).1

Objectives:

To compare the effect of deucravacitinib vs PBO on PsAID-12 and PsAID-9 responses and to assess relationships between PsAID scores and clinical and pt-reported outcome (PRO) measures.

Methods:

This is an ongoing, 1-year, double-blind, Phase 2 trial (NCT03881059). Pts with active PsA were randomized 1:1:1 to deucravacitinib 6 mg or 12 mg once daily, or PBO for 16 weeks (wk). PsAID-12 and PsAID-9, other PROs, and clinical response outcomes were assessed at baseline (BL) and Wk 16. Mean changes from BL in PsAID-12 and PsAID-9 total scores at Wk 16 were determined for each treatment group as well as by response outcomes (ie, achievement of response at Wk 16 for PROs and select clinical response outcomes; Table 1). Spearman correlations between PsAID-12 and PsAID-9 scores and clinical and PRO measures were also assessed.

Results:

203 pts were randomized and BL characteristics were similar across groups. Adjusted mean changes from BL in PsAID-12 and PsAID-9 scores at Wk 16 were significantly greater in the deucravacitinib groups vs PBO (Figure 1). Adjusted mean changes from BL in PsAID-12 and PsAID-9 scores at Wk 16 were significantly improved with deucravacitinib vs PBO in pts who achieved response for PROs, as well as PASDAS low disease activity and PASI 75 response (Table 1). Adjusted mean changes from BL were generally similar with deucravacitinib vs PBO in nonresponders. Spearman correlation analysis revealed significant correlations at BL and Wk 16 between PsAID-12 and PsAID-9 scores and clinical and PRO measures (P<0.0001).

Conclusion:

With deucravacitinib vs PBO, PsAID-12 and PsAID-9 scores were significantly improved vs BL at Wk 16. PsAID detected additional improvements among pts achieving response for multiple other PROs and select clinical outcome measures.

References:

[1]Gossec L et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73:1012-9.

Table 1.

Adjusted mean change from BL in PsAID-12 total scores at Wk 16 in patients who achieved PRO or clinical response

Mean change from BL in PsAID-12 total scoreResponse DefinitionPBOn=66Deucravacitinib6 mg QDn=70P valuevs PBODeucravacitinib12 mg QDn=67P valuevs PBOPROsPatient global VAS(≤ -10.0)-1.6 (n=40)-2.8 (n=54)0.0008-2.9 (n=48)0.0003Patient pain VAS(≤ -10.0)-2.3 (n=32)-3.4 (n=44)0.004-3.3 (n=45)0.004HAQ-DI(≤ -0.35)-2.8 (n=10)-3.8 (n=27)0.09-3.8 (n=27)0.11FACIT-Fatigue(≥ 4.0)-2.4 (n=27)-3.3 (n=36)0.02-3.6 (n=41)0.002SF-36 PCS(≥ 2.5)-1.7 (n=35)-2.7 (n=44)0.02-3.1 (n=43)0.001SF-36 MCS(≥ 2.5)-2.1 (n=21)-3.5 (n=33)0.005-3.8 (n=31)0.0009Clinician assessmentsPASDAS(≤ 3.2)-3.1 (n=6)-4.2 (n=14)0.004-4.5 (n=15)0.0006PASI 75(≥75% improvementfrom BL)-2.4 (n=11)-3.7 (n=25)0.05-3.9 (n=31)0.02

PsAID-9 results were generally consistent with PsAID-12 (data not shown).

Response definitions based on published literature.

Higher FACIT-Fatigue scores indicate less fatigue.

Higher SF-36 PCS and SF-36 MCS scores indicate less disability.

BL, baseline: FACIT, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy; HAQ-DI, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index; MCS, Mental Component Summary; NA, not applicable; PASDAS, Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score; PASI, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index; PCS, Physical Component Summary; PRO, patient-reported outcome; QD, once daily; SF-36, 36-item Short Form Health Survey; VAS, visual analog scale.

Acknowledgements:

This study was sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb. Professional medical writing assistance was provided by Peloton Advantage, LLC, an OPEN Health company, and funded by Bristol Myers Squibb.

Disclosure of Interests:

Laure Gossec Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi, 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, Alexis Ogdie Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Corrona, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB; Grants: Pfizer to Penn, Novartis to Penn, Amgen to Forward/NDB; Royalties: Novartis to husband, 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, Thomas Lehman Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Miroslawa Nowak Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Lan Wei Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, June Ye Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Jiyoon Choi Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Joe Zhuo Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Brandon Becker Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb.

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

Comparing the efficacy and tolerability of biologic therapies in psoriasis: an updated network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The rapid expansion of psoriasis biologics has led to an urgent need to understand their relative efficacy and tolerability to inform treatment decisions better and, specifically, to inform guideline development.

OBJECTIVES

To update a 2017 meta-analysis on the comparative efficacy and tolerability of biologic treatments for psoriasis.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), published up to 7 September 2018, of 11 licensed, NICE-approved biologics targeting tumour necrosis factor (adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, certolizumab pegol), interleukin (IL)-12/IL-23p40 (ustekinumab), IL-17A (secukinumab, ixekizumab), IL-17RA (brodalumab) and IL-23p19 (guselkumab, tildrakizumab, risankizumab). A frequentist network meta-analysis ascertained direct or indirect evidence comparing biologics with one another, methotrexate or placebo. This was combined with hierarchical cluster analyses to consider efficacy (≥ 90% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 90) or Physician's Global Assessment 0 or 1; PASI 75; Dermatology Life Quality Index improvement) and tolerability (drug withdrawal due to adverse events) outcomes at 10-16 weeks, followed by assessments of study quality, heterogeneity and inconsistency.

RESULTS

We identified 62 RCTs presenting data on direct comparisons (31 899 participants). All biologics were efficacious compared with placebo or methotrexate at 10-16 weeks. Hierarchical cluster analyses revealed that adalimumab, brodalumab, certolizumab pegol, guselkumab, risankizumab, secukinumab, tildrakizumab and ustekinumab were comparable with respect to high short-term efficacy and tolerability. Infliximab and ixekizumab clustered together, with high short-term efficacy but relatively lower tolerability than the other agents, although the number of drug withdrawal events across the network was low, so these findings should be treated with caution.

CONCLUSIONS

Using our methodology we found that most biologics cluster together with respect to short-term efficacy and tolerability, and we did not identify any single agent as 'best'. These data need to be interpreted in the context of longer-term efficacy, effectiveness data, safety, posology and drug acquisition costs when making treatment decisions.

Results of a global, patient-based survey assessing the impact of psoriatic arthritis discussed in the context of the Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease (PsAID) questionnaire

Background

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic immune-mediated inflammatory musculoskeletal disease, manifesting as peripheral arthritis, enthesitis, dactylitis, spondylitis, and skin and nail psoriasis. A core set of domains for measuring the impact of PsA has been developed, including pain, patient global assessment, physical function, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and fatigue. To understand the impact of PsA on health domains from a patient’s perspective, a global survey was developed and results reported in the context of the 12-item Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease (PsAID-12) questionnaire.

Methods

An online patient-based global survey was conducted by The Harris Poll in Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Spain, Taiwan, the UK, and the US between November 2, 2017 and March 12, 2018. Eligible patients were ≥ 18 years old with a diagnosis of PsA for > 1 year, had visited a rheumatologist/dermatologist in the past 12 months and reported using ≥ 1 synthetic/biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug for PsA. Patients reported on PsA severity and symptoms, and the impact of PsA on HRQoL. After survey completion, responses were aligned with PsAID health domains. Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests were conducted.

Results

This analysis included 1286 patients from eight countries. Most patients (97%) reported musculoskeletal symptoms relating to PsA in the past year. Common moderate/major impacts of PsA were on physical activity (78%), ability to perform certain activities (76%), work productivity (62%), and career path (57%). Skin/nail symptoms occurred in 80% of patients. Overall, 69% of patients reported that PsA had a moderate/major impact on emotional/mental wellbeing, 56% on romantic relationships/intimacy, and 44% on relationships with family and friends. Social impacts included emotional distress (58%), social shame or disapproval (32%), and ceased participation in social activities (45%). Over half of all patients experienced unusual fatigue over the past 12 months (52%). The health domains that patients reported as being impacted by PsA aligned with life impact domains of the patient-derived PsAID health domains.

Conclusion

These results highlight the impact of PsA on multiple health domains from a patient perspective that should be considered during shared decision-making processes between healthcare providers and patients.

OP0053 SECUKINUMAB IMPROVES CLINICAL AND IMAGING OUTCOMES IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS AND AXIAL MANIFESTATIONS WITH INADEQUATE RESPONSE TO NSAIDS: WEEK 52 RESULTS FROM THE MAXIMISE TRIAL

Background:

Although axial disease may affect up to 70% of patients (pts) with Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA), evidence on the efficacy of biologics in the treatment of axial manifestations in such pts is limited,1particularly as validated classification criteria for this subtype of PsA are not yet available. MAXIMISE (NCT02721966) is the first randomised controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of a biologic in the management of the axial manifestations of PsA and showed that secukinumab (SEC) 300 and 150 mg provided rapid and significant improvement in ASAS20 responses in these pts through week (Wk) 12.2

Objectives:

To present 52 wks efficacy results and imaging data from the MAXIMISE trial.

Methods:

This phase 3b, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled, multicentre 52-wk trial included 498 pts (aged ≥18 years) with a diagnosis of PsA and classified by CASPAR criteria, spinal pain VAS score ≥ 40/100 and BASDAI score ≥ 4 despite use of at least two NSAIDs. Pts were randomised to SEC 300 mg (N=167) or SEC 150 mg (N=165) or PBO (N=166) wkly for 4 wks and every 4 wks thereafter. At Wk 12, PBO pts were re-randomised to SEC 300/150 mg. The primary endpoint was ASAS20 response with SEC 300 mg at Wk 12. The key secondary endpoint was ASAS20 response with SEC 150 mg at Wk 12. Wk 52 data are presented as observed. Bone marrow oedema of the entire spine and sacroiliac joints were assessed centrally with Berlin MRI scores at Baseline, Wk 12 and Wk 52.

Results:

Primary and key secondary endpoints were met; ASAS20 responses were sustained and increased further through Wk 52. 75%/79.7% of the PBO pts re-randomised at Wk 12 to SEC 300/150 mg achieved ASAS20 response at Wk 52 (Figure 1). ASAS40 responses at Wk 52 were 69.1% [SEC 300 mg], 64.5% [SEC 150 mg], 62.5% [PBO-SEC 300 mg], and 54.1% [PBO-SEC 150 mg]. At baseline, 59.5% [SEC 300 mg], 53.5% [SEC 150 mg] and 64.2% [PBO] of the pts had positive MRIs for the sacroiliac joints and/or the spine with Berlin MRI score ≥1. The reductions of Berlin MRI score for entire spine and sacroiliac joints were statistically significant for pts treated with SEC 300/150 mg vs. placebo (Figure 2a and b). There were no new or unexpected safety findings.

Figure 1.

ASAS20 Response over 52 Wks*

Figure 2.

Total Berlin MRI score for the Entire Spine and Sacroiliac Joints at Wk 12

Conclusion:

Secukinumab improved all evaluated ASAS responses through Wk 52 in PsA pts with axial manifestations and inadequate responses to NSAIDs and led to significant reduction of inflammatory MRI lesions in the spine and the Sacroiliac Joints. The safety profile of secukinumab through Wk 52 was consistent with previous reports.3-4

References:

[1]McInnes IB, et al.Lancet.2015;386(9999):1137–46.

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

[3]Langley RG, et al.N Engl J Med.2014;371:326–38.

[4]Sieper J, et al.Ann Rheum Dis.2016;0:1–8.

Acknowledgments:

The study was sponsored by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.

Disclosure of Interests:

Xenofon Baraliakos Grant/research support from: Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Laure Gossec Grant/research support from: Lilly, Mylan, Pfizer, Sandoz, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Effie Pournara Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Sławomir Jeka Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, MSD, Sandoz, Eli Lilly, Egis, UCB, Celgene, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, MSD, Sandoz, Eli Lilly, Egis, UCB, Celgene, Ricardo Blanco Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, Roche, Consultant of: Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Bristol-Myers, Janssen, UCB Pharma and MSD, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Bristol-Myers, Janssen, UCB Pharma. MSD, Salvatore D’Angelo Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi, Georg Schett Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche and UCB, Barbara Schulz Employee of: Novartis, Michael Rissler Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Kriti Nagar Employee of: Novartis, Chiara Perella Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Laura C Coates: None declared

OP0050 ADALIMUMAB INTRODUCTION VERSUS METHOTREXATE DOSE ESCALATION IN PATIENTS WITH INADEQUATELY CONTROLLED PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: RESULTS FROM RANDOMIZED PHASE 4 CONTROL STUDY

Background:

Methotrexate (MTX) is often used as first-line therapy for patients (pts) with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) despite limited efficacy and data on appropriate dosage. Minimal Disease Activity (MDA) is suggested as an optimal treat-to-target outcome. Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) have demonstrated improved outcomes (including MDA rates) over MTX. However, more data are needed to define the optimal timing of bDMARD initiation and characterize efficacy of MTX dose escalation, to achieve optimal outcomes.

Objectives:

To compare achievement of MDA between adding adalimumab (ADA) vs escalating MTX dose in PsA pts with inadequate disease control after initial MTX therapy.

Methods:

The open-label, 2-part CONTROL study enrolled bDMARD-naive adult pts with active PsA (not in MDA at screening and ≥3 tender and ≥3 swollen joints) despite MTX 15 mg every wk (ew) for ≥4 wks. Pts were randomized to ADA 40 mg every other wk + MTX 15 mg (ADA+MTX) or escalated MTX to 20–25 mg ew or highest tolerable dose during 16-wk part 1 (Fig 1). The primary endpoint was achievement of MDA, defined as fulfilling ≥5 of the 7 criteria: tender joint count 68 (TJC68) ≤1, swollen joint count 66 (SJC66) ≤1, Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) ≤1 or body surface area (BSA) ≤3%, pt’s pain (visual analogue scale [VAS] 0–100) ≤15, Pt’s Global Assessment of disease activity (PtGA) VAS ≤20, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) ≤0.5 and tender entheseal points (0–8) ≤1. Key secondary efficacy endpoints were achievement of ACR20 and PASI75 and change from baseline in HAQ-DI and Leeds Enthesitis Index (LEI) at wk 16.

Results:

Overall, 246 pts were randomized; 245 received treatment (ADA+MTX, n=123; escalated MTX, n=122); 117 (95%) pts and 110 (90%) pts, respectively, completed part 1. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups (Table). During part 1, the average dose of MTX was 21.8 mg/wk (55% on oral MTX) in the escalated MTX group. Significantly higher proportion of pts in ADA+MTX (42%) vs escalated MTX (13%) group achieved MDA at wk 16 (non-responder imputation [NRI]; difference [95% CI] 28% [18%–39%];P<0.001;Fig 2). Observed case analysis confirmed the NRI analysis. Lower MDA rates at wk 16 were observed in the escalated MTX arm regardless of prior MTX duration (Fig 2). Significant improvements in key secondary endpoints were also observed with ADA+MTX vs escalated MTX (allP<0.05;Fig 2). In part 1, the proportion of patients with adverse events was similar between groups (ADA+MTX, 62% vs escalated MTX, 57%); no opportunistic infections, tuberculosis, malignancies, or deaths were reported during part 1.

Conclusion:

A significantly higher proportion of pts achieved MDA at wk 16 after introducing ADA compared with escalating MTX dose; higher rates were observed regardless of prior MTX duration. Significantly higher responses in musculoskeletal, skin, and quality of life measures were observed with ADA+MTX vs escalated MTX. No new safety signals with ADA were identified in this pt population.

Table 1.

Baseline Demographics

Characteristics, mean (SD)ADA+MTXn=123Escalated MTXn=122Female, n (%)64 (52.0)59 (48.4)Age, y51.4 (12.2)48.8 (12.7)BSA >3%, n (%)74 (60.2)78 (63.9)Pt pain63.7 (19.5)62.3 (20.9)PtGA65.0 (19.9)62.9 (20.9)HAQ-DI1.2 (0.6)1.2 (0.7)LEI + plantar count3.5 (2.1)3.5 (2.1)

Disclosure of Interests:

Laura C Coates: None declared, William Tillett Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Maria Antonietta D’Agostino Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Novartis, and Roche, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Novartis, and Roche, Proton Rahman Grant/research support from: Janssen and Novartis, Consultant of: Abbott, AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer., Speakers bureau: Abbott, AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, 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 G Conaghan Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Flexion Therapeutics, Galapagos, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Erin McDearmon-Blondell Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Xianwei Bu Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Liang Chen Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Mudra Kapoor Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, 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

AB0824 WHICH PARAMETERS ARE RELEVANT IN THE IDENTIFYING AXIAL INVOLVEMENT IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS? – RESULTS OF A SURVEY AMONG ASAS AND GRAPPA MEMBERS

Background:

Inflammatory involvement of the axial skeleton (sacroiliac joints and / or spine) is one of the relatively frequent musculoskeletal manifestations associated with psoriasis / psoriatic arthritis (PsA). There is an urgent need for an evidence-based definition for axial involvement in PsA that would identify a subgroup of patients within the heterogeneous PsA population to conduct observational, interventional and translational studies. ASAS and GRAPPA embarked on a collaborative initiative to develop a definition of axial involvement in PsA.

Objectives:

To perform a survey to identify variables relevant in the identification of the presence of axial involvement in PsA among members of ASAS and GRAPPA.

Methods:

The online survey utilized thePAPRIKAmethodology (PotentiallyAllPairwiseRanKings of all possibleAlternatives) that determines decision-makers’ part-worth utilities representing the relative importance of the attributes. Participants were exposed to number of clinical scenarios and were prompted to decide which of the scenarios is more compatible with axial involvement in PsA unless they are equal (Figure). The constant stem of each scenario was “a patient diagnosed with psoriatic arthritis fulfilling the CASPAR criteria”; the variable part included 13 common spondyloarthritis variables (Table). Variables were ranked according to their relative importance.

Results:

The survey was completed by 186 ASAS/GRAPPA members (63 ASAS only, 80 GRAPPA only, and 43 both societies). The ranking of the variables is presented inTable. The highest ranked parameters indicative of axial involvement in a patient with PsA were presence of typical radiographic or MRI changes in the sacroiliac joints and/or spine followed by the presence of chronic back pain and then inflammatory back pain. A separate analysis of ASAS and GRAPPA members provided the similar results concerning the relevance of the variables.

Conclusion:

Objective signs of inflammatory involvement of the axial skeleton are the most important indicators of axial disease in PsA in the opinion of the experts. A prospective cohort study is currently being planned to address the value of these and other variables in defining axial involvement in PsA.

Table.

Ranking of the parameters relevant to deciding on the presence of axial involvement in a PsA patient in the opinion of ASAS and GRAPPA members (n=186).

NParametersMedian rankMean rank1Presence of structural damage on an X-ray of SIJ22.82Presence of structural damage on an X-ray of spine3.54.13Presence of subchondral BME / osteitis on MRI of SIJ compatible with SpA44.54Presence of BME / osteitis on MRI of spine compatible with SpA455History or current presence of back pain5.55.86History of or current presence of inflammatory back pain5.567Good response of back pain to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs87.88HLA-B2788.19Family history for SpA9.5910Elevated C-reactive protein109.311Presence of peripheral arthritis and/or enthesitis and/or dactylitis109.412Presence of anterior uveitis109.513Presence of inflammatory bowel disease109.6

BME=bone marrow edema, MRI=magnetic resonance imaging, SIJ=sacroiliac joints, SpA=spondyloarthritis

Disclosure of Interests:

Denis Poddubnyy Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, 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, 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, Juergen Braun Grant/research support from: Abbvie (Abbott), Amgen, BMS, Boehringer, Celgene, Celltrion, Centocor, Chugai, Eli Lilly and Company, Medac, MSD (Schering Plough), Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer (Wyeth), Roche, Sanofi- Aventis, and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: Abbvie (Abbott), Amgen, BMS, Boehringer, Celgene, Celltrion, Centocor, Chugai, EBEWE Pharma, Eli Lilly and Company, Medac, MSD (Schering-Plough), Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer (Wyeth), Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: Abbvie (Abbott), Amgen, BMS, Boehringer, Celgene, Celltrion, Centocor, Chugai, EBEWE Pharma, Eli Lilly and Company, Medac, MSD (Schering-Plough), Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer (Wyeth), Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB Pharma, Alice Gottlieb Grant/research support from: Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, Janssen, Novartis, UCB, Xbiotech, Consultant of: AbbVie, Allergan, Avotres Therapeutics, Beiersdorf, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Celgene, Dermira, Incyte, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Reddy Labs, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, UCB, Valeant, Xbiotech, Laura C Coates: None declared, Vinod Chandran Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Celgene, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lily, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Employee of: Spouse employed by Eli Lily, Philip Helliwell: None declared, Deepak Jadon: None declared, Joachim Sieper Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB Pharma, 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, 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

AB1241 EVALUATION OF A PATIENT COMPLETED DISEASE FLARE QUESTIONNAIRE IN PSORIATIC DISEASE

Background:

Psoriatic Disease (PsD) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the skin, nails, joints, and entheses. A number of composite disease activity measures have been developed though there is yet consensus as to which to use in the clinic and in clinical trials. A patient completed disease flare questionnaire, covering multiple domains of disease impact, has been developed but has yet to be fully validated.

Objectives:

To validate the FLARE questionnaire in PsD.

Methods:

The 10 question FLARE instrument1was administered to 141 patients in an observational study of treatment change in PsD over 6 months follow up. Disease activity was measured by the PASDAS and the gold standard of flare was based on patient opinion. ROC curve was constructed to examine the optimum cut-off for disease flare. Agreement between the FLARE instrument and patient opinion was assessed by Cohen’s kappa. Test-retest was assessed in 28 patients with stable disease who underwent repeat assessment within 2 weeks and evaluated by intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC).

Results:

The FLARE questionnaire was administered at 367 patient encounters. ROC analysis indicated that the optimum cut-off for a flare of disease was 4 (sensitivity 82%, specificity 76%; area under curve 0.85: figure). Mean PASDAS scores were 2.7 and 6.3 for no-flare (4) and flare (≥4) respectively (p = < 0.0001). For those patients who were having a flare the frequency of response to each question is given in the table. Agreement between patient opinion and questionnaire was 0.57, and between patient opinion and physician (based on treatment escalation) 0.43. ICC for the questionnaire was 0.87 (95% CI 0.72 – 0.94).

Conclusion:

In PsD a flare represents escalation of symptoms and signs across multiple domains, as measured by the FLARE instrument; a score of 4 or more has external validity both in terms of composite disease activity and overall patient opinion of the state of their condition.

References:

[1]Moverley A, Waxman R, de Wit M, Parkinson A, Campbell W, Brooke M, et al J Rheum May 2016, 43 (5) 974-978

Table

FLARE item response for those in flare vs not in flare

ItemFLARE instrument score <4FLARE instrument score ≥4N (%)N (%)Worsening Itch35 (19)108 (58)Worsening skin area27 (15)91 (49)Increasing joint pain34 (19)161 (86)Increasing number of tender joints20 (11)142 (76)Decrease in ability to perform activities3 (2)81 (43)Worsening in ability to move easily8 (4)126 (67)Increase in frustration14 (8)142 (76)Worsening in depression8 (4)90 (48)Worsening in feeling of tiredness all the time37 (21)148 (79)Worsening in the number or combination of symptoms from your disease7 (4)134 (72)Figure.

ROC analysis of FLARE questionnaire

Acknowledgments:

This report is independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Programme Grants for Applied Research [Early detection to improve outcome in patients with undiagnosed PsA (‘PROMPT’), RP-PG-1212-20007]. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care

Disclosure of Interests:

Philip Helliwell: None declared, William Tillett Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Robin Waxman: None declared, Laura C Coates: None declared, Oliver FitzGerald: None declared, Jon Packham: None declared, Neil McHugh: None declared

AB0839 RELIABILITY OF COMPOSITE MEASURES FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS

Background:

Composite measures of disease activity have been developed for use in Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) to capture the wide spectrum of disease but there is a lack of consensus regarding which to adopt for routine practice. It is recognised that more data is required to understand the measurement properties of existing instruments and consider the impact of modifications that may improve face validity, responsiveness or feasibility. It is important to have an estimate of a measurement instrument’s reliability in the setting of stable disease in order to understand measurement error and responsiveness. To our knowledge no data exists on the stability of composite measures in PsA.

Objectives:

To measure test re-test reliability of composite measures of disease activity in PsA.

Methods:

Clinical and patient reported outcomes to enable the calculation of composite measures were administered to 141 patients with PsA at five time points in a UK multicentre observational study. All patients fulfilled the CASPAR criteria. Twenty-nine patients with clinically stable disease and receiving no treatment intervention underwent repeat assessment by the same examiner within 2 weeks. Patients in high and low disease were included. Reliability was evaluated by intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland Altman plots.

Results:

Of the 29 patients included 15 were male, the mean age was 52.4 years (SD 13.39), mean disease duration at T0was 9.2yrs (SD 8.11). The mean swollen joint count was 3.4 (SD 5.1), tender joint count 11.3 (SD 15.03) and PASI 1.0 (SD1.04). The ICC (95% CI) for tender and swollen joint counts were 0.94 (0.87-0.97) and 0.91 (0.80-0.96) respectively. The ICC for PASI was 0.95 (0.90-0.98). All composite measures demonstrated high levels of test-retest reliability with ICC >0.85, table. The most reliable measure was the PADAS ICC 0.98 (95% CI 0.954-0.991). The individual ICC for each composite measures are reported in the table and Bland Altman plots, figure.

Conclusion:

All composite measures show high levels of test-retest reliability in this cohort. The PASDAS was the most stable measure. Modifications to these instruments can now be tested and the impact compared to the original versions.

Table.

Funding:

This report is independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Programme Grants for Applied Research [Early detection to improve outcome in patients with undiagnosed PsA (‘PROMPT’), RP-PG-1212-20007]. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Disclosure of Interests:

William Tillett Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Philip Helliwell: None declared, Oliver FitzGerald: None declared, Robin Waxman: None declared, Anna Antony: None declared, Laura C Coates: None declared, Deepak Jadon: None declared, Paul Creamer: None declared, Suzanne Lane: None declared, Marco Massarotti: None declared, Charlotte Cavill: None declared, Mel Brooke: None declared, Jonathan Packham: None declared, Eleanor Korendowych: None declared, Anya Lissina: None declared, Neil McHugh: None declared

AB0813 GUSELKUMAB-TREATED PATIENTS ACHIEVED CLINICALLY MEANINGFUL IMPROVEMENT IN SYSTEMIC SYMPTOMS AS MEASURED WITH PROMIS INSTRUMENT: RESULTS FROM PHASE-3 PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS TRIAL DISCOVER 1

Background:

Patients (pts) with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) experience broad systemic symptoms including pain, fatigue, depression, sleep disturbance, poor physical function, and diminished social participation.

Objectives:

DISCOVER 1 is a Phase 3 trial (NCT03162796) evaluating the efficacy and safety of guselkumab (GUS), an anti-interleukin 23 inhibitor that binds to the p19-subunit of IL-23, in pts with active PsA. PROMIS-29 (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-29), a validated generic health instrument,1assessed the treatment effect of GUS on symptoms in pts with PsA.

Methods:

Pts with active PsA despite nonbiologic DMARDs were enrolled, and ~30% of pts could have previously received ≤2 TNFi. Pts were randomized (1:1:1) to subcutaneous GUS 100 mg at Week 0 (W0), W4 then q8W (n=127), GUS 100 mg q4W (n=128), or PBO (n=126). Concomitant stable use of select csDMARDs, oral steroids, and NSAIDs was allowed. PROMIS-29 consists of 7 domains (Depression, Anxiety, Physical Function, Pain Interference, Fatigue, Sleep Disturbance, and Social Participation) and a pain intensity 0-10 numeric rating scale (NRS). The raw score of each domain is converted into a standardized T-score with a mean of 50 (general population mean) and a standard deviation (SD) of 10. Higher PROMIS scores represent more of the concept being measured. A >= 5-point improvement (1/2 SD of T-score) is defined as clinically meaningful.1

Results:

At baseline, mean PROMIS-29 T-scores for physical function, social participation, sleep disturbance, pain, and fatigue were worse than the general US population. At W24, GUS q8W-treated pts achieved greater improvements from baseline in all PROMIS-29 domains vs PBO (p<0.05) (Table and Fig 1). Results were consistent in the GUS q4W group except for anxiety and sleep disturbance. More pts receiving GUS achieved clinically meaningful improvement vs PBO except for depression and anxiety in the GUS q4W group, which were numerically improved (Fig 2).

Conclusion:

Active PsA pts treated with GUS achieved clinically meaningful reduction in symptoms and improvement in physical function and social participation vs PBO at W24.

References:

[1]http://www.healthmeasures.net/score-and-interpret/interpret-scores/meaningful-change/165-meaningful-change

Table.

PROMIS-29 Domain T-Scores Least Square (LS) Mean Change from Baseline

LS Mean Change from BaselinePBOGUS q8WGUS q4WAnxiety-1.37-3.23*-2.92Depression-0.85-3.4**-2.67*Fatigue-1.86-4.79**-5.08**Pain interference-2.30-5.49**-5.69**Physical function1.343.89**5.05**Sleep disturbance-1.17-3.48**-2.46Social participation1.454.90**4.52**Pain intensity-0.56-1.98**-2.32**

Nominal p-values vs placebo: *<0.05, **<0.01

Acknowledgments:

None

Disclosure of Interests:

Ana-Maria Orbai Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Eli Lilly and Company, Celgene, Novartis, Janssen, Horizon, Consultant of: Eli Lilly; Janssen; Novartis; Pfizer; UCB. Ana-Maria Orbai was a private consultant or advisor for Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc, not in her capacity as a Johns Hopkins faculty member and was not compensated for this service., Laura C Coates: None declared, Atul Deodhar Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myer Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myer Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Philip Helliwell: None declared, Christopher T. Ritchlin Grant/research support from: UCB Pharma, AbbVie, Amgen, Consultant of: UCB Pharma, Amgen, AbbVie, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Gilead, Janssen, Alexa Kollmeier Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Elizabeth C Hsia Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Xie L Xu Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Shihong Sheng Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Bei Zhou Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Chenglong Han Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC

SAT0433 TRIAL SIMULATION TO INFORM ENROLLMENT CRITERIA AND OUTCOME MEASURES FOR PRAGMATIC TRIALS IN PsA

Background:

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have traditionally enrolled a homogenous subgroup of patients with more polyarticular disease, and the outcome measure used in PsA RCTs (ACR20) may not be ideal to measure differences between two active therapies nor capture change in patients with lower joint counts.

Objectives:

We conducted a simulation study to determine how changing the inclusion criteria and the primary outcome measure would impact the outcome of a future RCT.

Methods:

We used the Tight Control of PsA (TICOPA)1trial to inform simulation of two hypothetical head-to head trials comparing MTX to TNFi with 100 patients per arm. Within TICOPA, we identified MTX and TNFi new users; the visit at drug initiation became the hypothetical trial baseline visit, and the follow up visit was 12 weeks later. These data informed prediction models to simulate enrolled patients. We utilized propensity score-adjusted outcome models to account for potential confounding by indication. Trial 1, modeled after the SEAM-PsA trial,2used typical enrollment criteria (≥3 tender joint count (TJC) and ≥3 swollen joint count (SJC))2; Trial 2 required ≥1 TJC/SJC.1For each trial, five binary outcomes were simulated: ACR20, Disease Activity in PsA (DAPSA), clinical DAPSA (cDAPSA), Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data (RAPID3), and PsA Disease Activity Score (PASDAS), where low disease activity was the cutoff for continuous measures. Each hypothetical trial was simulated 1000 times, and the distribution of estimated effects was summarized using standard summary statistics and graphs.

Results:

Among 188 patients in TICOPA, 179 patients initiated MTX, and 43 patients initiated TNFi within the first 36 weeks. Among these, 107 MTX initiators and 15 TNFi initiators had ≥3 TJC and ≥3 SJC at drug initiation. Baseline characteristics of those in the “severe” (≥3 TJC and ≥3 SJC) and not severe (not meeting ≥3 TJC and ≥3 SJC) are shown in Table 1. Among “severe” patients, the mean probability of achieving ACR20 across simulations was approximately 0.27 in both arms and the observed relative risk (RR) TNFi vs MTX severe cohort across simulations was 1.0, IQR 0.84-1.17 (the RR in the SEAM trial at 24 wks was 1.20, 95%CI:1.05-1.35). In the “full cohort”, the median RR was 1.0, IQR 0.81-1.04. Trials using PASDAS, cDAPSA, and RAPID3 were more likely to differentiate between TNFi and MTX in the severe cohort (figure) but in the full cohort the results favored MTX.

Table 1.

Observed characteristics at drug initiation

Severe (n=148)Not Severe (n=75)MTX (n=127)TNFi (n=21)SMDMTX (n=52)TNFi (n=23)SMDTICOPA Arm (no. (%))Standard Care57 (45%)4 (19%)0.5828 (54%)3 (13%)0.96Intensive Management70 (55%)17 (81%)24 (46%)20 (87%)Female (no. (%))65 (51%)11 (52%)0.0222 (42%)12 (52%)0.20TJC (mean (SD))17.8 (15.3)19.1 (17.3)0.083.5 (4.6)16.4 (19.1)0.93SJC (mean (SD))9.2 (7.4)10.2 (12.1)0.102.4 (3.4)2.2 (2.4)0.05

Severe = ≥3 tender and ≥3 swollen joints

Not-severe = <3 tender or <3 swollen joints

*Pseudo-baseline characteristics were at the time of drug initiation. In cases where the patient started a TNFi between visits, these were the values at the previous visit.

Abbreviations: SMD = standardized mean difference, TJC=tender joint count, SJC=swollen joint count

Conclusion:

Including patients with lower joint counts in an RCT reduced the ability to detect change with therapy. Additionally, among the outcome measures used to detect a difference between two active therapies, PASDAS, cDAPSA, and RAPID3 outperformed ACR20.

References:

[1]Coates et al. Lancet 2015; 2. Mease et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2019

Figure 1.

Risk Ratios (TNFi vs MTX) by Outcome Across 1000 Simulations

Figure 2.

Risk Differences (TNFi – MTX) by Outcome Across 1000 Simulations

Disclosure of Interests:

Alexis Ogdie Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Novartis, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Corrona, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Sarah Weinstein: None declared, Laura C Coates: None declared, Philip Helliwell: None declared, Alisa Stephens-Shields: None declared

THU0373 SECUKINUMAB DOSE ESCALATION ON ACR RESPONSES IN ANTI-TUMOUR NECROSIS FACTOR NAÏVE PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: 2-YEAR DATA FROM THE PHASE 3 FUTURE 4 AND FUTURE 5 STUDIES

Background:

Secukinumab (SEC) 150 and 300 mg doses are approved for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). SEC 300 mg is the recommended dose for patients (pts) with concomitant moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis or who are anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inadequate responders. An increase from 150 mg to 300 mg has been reported to be beneficial in some patients with a suboptimal response to SEC 150 mg.1Here, we present a post hoc analysis in anti-TNF naïve pts who escalated from SEC 150 to 300 mg dose in two Phase 3 studies, FUTURE 4 (NCT02294227) and FUTURE 5 (NCT02404350).

Objectives:

To evaluate the clinical efficacy on joints following dose escalation from SEC 150 to 300 mg on ACR responses in anti-TNF naïve pts with PsA.

Methods:

Study design, patient inclusion and exclusion criteria of the FUTURE 4 and FUTURE 5 studies have been reported previously.1–3In FUTURE 4, 341 pts were randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio to SEC 150 mg with loading dose (LD), SEC 150 mg without LD, or placebo. In FUTURE 5, 996 pts were randomised in a 2:2:2:3 ratio to SEC 300 mg with LD, SEC 150 mg with LD, SEC 150 mg without LD or placebo. Following a protocol amendment, pts were allowed to escalate from 150 mg to the 300 mg dose, in the event of suboptimal response based on investigator’s judgment, starting at Week 36 in FUTURE 4 and at Week 52 in FUTURE 5. ACR responses in anti-TNF naïve pts were evaluated pre- and up to 32 and 40 weeks post-escalation, in FUTURE 4 and FUTURE 5, respectively: pts were grouped into four ranges based on their response: no (< 20); low (≥ 20 to < 50); moderate (≥ 50 to < 70); high (≥ 70) ACR responses. Data presented are as observed in the Sankey-style overlay plot.

Results:

Dose escalation from SEC 150 to 300 mg occurred in 136 pts in FUTURE 4 and in 236 pts in FUTURE 5. The proportion of ACR responders increased and the proportion of non-responders decreased in anti-TNF naïve pts who escalated from SEC 150 to 300 mg in the two studies. The proportion of anti-TNF naïve pts with a response ≥ACR50 increased from 20% to 41% in FUTURE 4 and 28% to 46% in FUTURE 5, post dose escalation. The ACR responses in anti-TNF naïve pts up to 40 weeks after escalation from SEC 150 to 300 mg are presented in the Sankey-style overlay (Figure).

Figure.

ACR Response bar chart with Sankey-style overlays up to 40 weeks, after dose escalation from SEC 150 mg to 300 mg, in anti-TNF naïve pts in FUTURE 4 and 5

Conclusion:

The proportion of ACR responders increased within 12-16 weeks and was sustained up to 40 weeks following dose escalation in anti-TNF naïve pts with PsA. These results suggest that dose escalation from SEC 150 to 300 mg may be beneficial in anti-TNF naïve pts with a suboptimal response on SEC 150 mg.

References:

[1]Kivitz AJ, et al. Rheumatol Ther. 2019;6(3):393–407;

[2]Mease PJ, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77:890–7;

[3]Mease, P.J., et al. ACR Open Rheumatology. 2019 [ePub ahead of print] doi:10.1002/acr2.11097.

Disclosure of Interests:

Paul Emery Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche (all paid to employer), Consultant of: AbbVie (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Bristol-Myers Squibb (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Lilly (clinical trials, advisor), Merck Sharp & Dohme (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Novartis (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Pfizer (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Roche (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Samsung (clinical trials, advisor), Sandoz (clinical trials, advisor), UCB (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Mikkel Ǿstergaard Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Merck, and Novartis, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB, Laura C Coates: None declared, Atul Deodhar Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myer Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myer Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Erhard Quebe-Fehling Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Pascale Pellet Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Luminita Pricop Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Corine Gaillez Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, 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

FRI0343 EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF FILGOTINIB, A SELECTIVE JANUS KINASE 1 INHIBITOR, IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: SUBGROUP ANALYSES FROM A RANDOMIZED, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED, PHASE 2 TRIAL (EQUATOR)

Background:

Treatment with the oral selective Janus kinase 1 inhibitor filgotinib was associated with rapid and significant improvements in multiple domains of active psoriatic arthritis versus placebo in the 16-week Phase 2, multicenter, double-blind, randomized EQUATOR trial (NCT03101670).1A significantly greater proportion of patients receiving filgotinib, versus placebo, achieved the primary endpoint of 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response at Week 16 (80% vs 33%, respectively).1

Objectives:

The aim of this predefined analysis was to evaluate the consistency of the response to filgotinib across predefined relevant subpopulations participating in the EQUATOR trial.

Methods:

In EQUATOR, patients with active psoriatic arthritis were treated with filgotinib 200 mg (n=65) or placebo (n=66) once daily for 16 weeks. Key clinical endpoints, including ACR20 and ACR50 (50% improvement) response rates, Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS), and Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) were evaluated according to the following baseline characteristics: sex, body mass index, disease duration, baseline disease severity, concurrent use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drug(s), and prior exposure to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor(s). For PASDAS and DAPSA scores, statistical analysis of changes from baseline was performed using analysis of covariance with factors for treatment, randomization stratification, subgroup, and an interaction between treatment and subgroup. Least-squares (LS) mean difference between treatment arms and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. For ACR20 and ACR50 response rates, statistical analysis used the point estimate and corresponding 95% CI, based on the Newcombe method.

Results:

Sixty patients (92%) in the filgotinib group and 64 (97%) in the placebo group completed the study. The total number of patients in each subpopulation ranged from 18 to 104 (Figure 1). Differences in the proportions of patients achieving ACR20 consistently favored filgotinib, compared with placebo, across all subgroups (Figure 1); all differences reached statistical significance. Similarly, differences in the proportions of ACR50 responders and LS mean treatment differences for PASDAS and DAPSA consistently favored filgotinib, reaching statistical significance in most subgroups. No clinically relevant differences in the effect of filgotinib were observed across subgroups. Filgotinib was generally well tolerated and no new safety signals were identified.

Conclusion:

In the 16-week EQUATOR trial, the effects of filgotinib on key efficacy endpoints were generally consistent across a range of subgroups based on patient, disease, and treatment characteristics.

References:

[1]Mease P, et al. Lancet 2018;392:2367–77.

Acknowledgments:

The EQUATOR trial was sponsored by Galapagos NV and co-funded by Galapagos NV and Gilead Sciences. Medical writing support was provided by Hannah Mace MPharmacol, CMPP (Aspire Scientific Ltd, Bollington, UK) and funded by Galapagos NV (Mechelen, Belgium).

Disclosure of Interests:

Philip Helliwell: None declared, 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, Laura C Coates: None declared, 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, Chantal Tasset Shareholder of: Galapagos (share/warrant holder), Employee of: Galapagos, Luc Meuleners Employee of: Galapagos, Leen Gilles Consultant of: Galapagos, Lien Gheyle Employee of: Galapagos, Mona Trivedi Shareholder of: Amgen and Gilead Sciences, Employee of: Gilead Sciences, Muhsen Alani Employee of: Gilead Sciences, Robin Besuyen Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, 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

OP0225 TOFACITINIB AS MONOTHERAPY FOLLOWING METHOTREXATE WITHDRAWAL IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS PREVIOUSLY TREATED WITH OPEN-LABEL TOFACITINIB + METHOTREXATE: A RANDOMISED, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED SUBSTUDY OF OPAL BALANCE

Background:

Tofacitinib is an oral JAK inhibitor for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Objectives:

To assess tofacitinib 5 mg BID as monotherapy after methotrexate (MTX) withdrawal vs with continued background MTX in patients (pts) with PsA.

Methods:

OPAL Balance (NCT01976364) was an open-label (OL) long-term extension (LTE) study of tofacitinib in pts with PsA who participated in Phase (P)3 studies (OPAL Broaden,NCT01877668; OPAL Beyond,NCT01882439). Pts who completed ≥24 months’ tofacitinib treatment in the LTE (stable 5 mg BID for ≥3 months) and were receiving oral MTX (7.5–20 mg/week; stable for ≥4 weeks) entered the multicentre, 12-month, double-blind, MTX withdrawal substudy. Pts remained on OL tofacitinib 5 mg BID and were randomised 1:1 to receive placebo (tofacitinib monotherapy, ie, blinded MTX withdrawal) or MTX (tofacitinib + MTX; same stable doses). Primary endpoints were changes from substudy baseline (Δ) in PASDAS and HAQ-DI at Month (M)6. Secondary efficacy endpoints were assessed at all time points. Safety was assessed throughout the substudy.

Results:

Of 180 pts randomised, 179 were treated (tofacitinib monotherapy n=90; tofacitinib + MTX n=89). Pt characteristics were similar between treatment arms. At M6, least squares mean (LSM) (standard error [SE]) ΔPASDAS was 0.229 (0.079) for tofacitinib monotherapy and 0.138 (0.081) for tofacitinib + MTX, and LSM (SE) ΔHAQ-DI was 0.043 (0.027) and 0.017 (0.028), respectively (Figure 1); no clinically meaningful differences were observed. Efficacy and pt-reported outcomes were generally similar between treatment arms at M6 and M12 (data not shown). Rates of pts achieving minimal disease activity, and maintaining an absence of enthesitis and dactylitis, were sustained to M12 in both treatment arms (Figure 2). Adverse event rates (Table) and laboratory parameters were comparable between treatment arms, but liver enzyme elevations were more common with tofacitinib + MTX.

Conclusion:

No clinically meaningful differences in efficacy and safety were observed in PsA pts who received OL tofacitinib 5 mg BID as monotherapy after MTX withdrawal vs with continued MTX. Safety was consistent with previous P3 studies. The substudy was an estimation study and not powered for hypothesis testing.

Table.

Safety outcomes to Month 12

Pts with events, n (%) AEs of special interestTofacitinib monotherapy N=90Tofacitinib + MTXN=89AE43 (47.8)41 (46.1)Serious AE4 (4.4)3 (3.4)Discontinuations due to AE3 (3.3)4 (4.5)Death00 Herpes zoster (serious/non-serious)1 (1.1)2 (2.2) Serious infection02 (2.2) Opportunistic infectiona01 (1.1) Malignancy (excl. NMSC)a1 (1.1)1 (1.1) NMSCa00 Major adverse cardiovascular eventa00 Venous thromboembolismc00 Arterial thromboembolismc1 (1.1)0 Gastrointestinal perforationa00 Interstitial lung diseaseb00Laboratory parametersdALT ≥3×ULN05 (5.6) ALT (IU/L), mean (SE)-2.7 (1.6)2.5 (1.3)AST ≥3×ULN03 (3.4) AST (IU/L), mean (SE)-1.5 (1.2)1.7 (0.8)

Reviewed by independentaexternal/binternal adjudication committee

cPer Standardised MedDRA Query terms

dWithout regard to baseline abnormality

ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; ULN, upper limit of normal

Acknowledgments:

Study sponsored by Pfizer Inc. Medical writing support was provided by Christina Viegelmann of CMC Connect and funded by Pfizer Inc.

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, Laura C Coates: None declared, 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, Alan Kivitz Shareholder of: AbbVie, Amgen, Gilead, GSK, Pfizer Inc, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim,,Flexion, Genzyme, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Regeneron, Sanofi, SUN Pharma Advanced Research, UCB, Paid instructor for: Celgene, Genzyme, Horizon, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Flexion, Genzyme, Horizon, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Regeneron, Sanofi, 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: Pfizer, Janssen, Chugai, Celgene, Lilly and Roche, Consultant of: Pfizer, AbbVie, Sanofi, Lilly, Novartis, Genzyme, Boehringer, Janssen, MSD, Celgene, Roche and Chugai, James Cheng-Chung Wei Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Eisai, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB Pharma, Dona Fleishaker Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Joseph Wu Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Cunshan Wang Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Ana Belen Romero Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Lara Fallon Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Ming-Ann Hsu Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Keith Kanik Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc

AB0774 TIME TO RESPONSE FOR CLINICAL AND PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS TREATED WITH TOFACITINIB, ADALIMUMAB OR PLACEBO

Background:

With multiple disease domains affected in PsA, clinical and patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are important to assess disease improvement following treatment. Rapid, meaningful improvements in disease activity are a priority for physicians and patients (pts). Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of PsA. Higher proportions of pts achieved responses in PROs and clinical measures when treated with tofacitinib for 3 months vs placebo (PBO).1-5Proportions of responders were also similar between tofacitinib and adalimumab (ADA) after 3, 6 and 12 months.2,3,5

Objectives:

To determine the time to initial response using responder definitions for selected PROs and clinical endpoints in pts with active PsA treated with tofacitinib, ADA or PBO switching to tofacitinib.

Methods:

In this post hoc analysis, data were collected from two Phase 3 studies (OPAL Broaden [12 months;NCT01877668]; OPAL Beyond [6 months;NCT01882439]).3,4Pts receiving tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID), subcutaneous ADA 40 mg once every two weeks (Q2W; OPAL Broaden only), or PBO switching to tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg BID at Month (M)3, were included. Responder definitions included: HAQ-DI ≥0.35-point improvement from baseline (BL), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) total score ≥4-point improvement from BL, minimal disease activity (MDA) yes/no composite response (meeting at least 5 of 7 criteria) and PsA Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) post-BL score of ≤3.2 and >1.6-point improvement from BL. First post-BL data were collected at Week 2 (eg for HAQ-DI) or M1. Time-to-event analyses were performed using the Kaplan-Meier (KM) method, with pts censored at the last observed visit. Log-rank tests compared time to initial response across treatment groups.

Results:

KM analyses show days to initial response (Figure 1, Figure 2). Time to initial HAQ-DI response was significantly different between treatment groups in OPAL Broaden (p<0.01): faster response in pts receiving tofacitinib 5 mg BID, tofacitinib 10 mg BID and ADA 40 mg Q2W vs pts who switched from PBO to tofacitinib at M3 (Figure 1a). A similar, but not significant (ns), trend was observed for HAQ-DI responses in OPAL Beyond (Figure 1b). Generally, initial FACIT-F responses were achieved faster (ns) in pts receiving tofacitinib 5 mg BID vs other treatment in both studies (Figure 1c, Figure 1d). Times to initial MDA and PASDAS responses were similar between tofacitinib and ADA treatment groups (Figure 2).

Conclusion:

Times to initial response in functional ability and disease activity were similar in pts treated with either tofacitinib or ADA. Time to initial response prior to first post-BL observation (Week 2 or M1) was not estimable in this analysis. These results may help physicians better understand the time frame for a meaningful response in pts receiving tofacitinib.

References:

[1]Strand et al. RMD Open 2019;5:e000808.

[2]Strand et al. RMD Open 2019;5:e000806.

[3]Mease et al. NEJM 2017;377:1537-50.

[4]Gladman et al. NEJM 2017;377:1525-36.

[5]Helliwell et al. Arthritis Res Ther 2018;20:242.

Acknowledgments:

Study sponsored by Pfizer Inc. Medical writing support was provided by Eric Comeau of CMC Connect and funded by Pfizer Inc.

Disclosure of Interests:

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, Laura C Coates: None declared, Joseph Wu Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Lara Fallon Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Ming-Ann Hsu Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Andrew G Bushmakin Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Elizabeth Bacci Employee of: Evidera, Joseph C Cappelleri Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Philip Helliwell: None declared

FRI0339 LONG-TERM EFFICACY OF THE ORAL SELECTIVE JANUS KINASE 1 INHIBITOR FILGOTINIB IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: WEEK 52 RESPONSE PATTERNS IN INDIVIDUAL PATIENTS FROM AN OPEN-LABEL EXTENSION (OLE) STUDY (EQUATOR2)

Background:

EQUATOR (NCT03101670) was a 16-week, Phase 2, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized controlled trial (RCT) of filgotinib in patients with active psoriatic arthritis.1Filgotinib demonstrated rapid efficacy compared with placebo across multiple domains, including the primary endpoint of Week 16 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response.1Patients completing the RCT could join an ongoing 148-week OLE (EQUATOR2;NCT03320876).

Objectives:

In this prespecified interim analysis at Week 52 of the OLE, individual patient responses with respect to disease activity were evaluated.

Methods:

Placebo-treated RCT patients switched to filgotinib (200 mg once daily) at Week 16 and entered the OLE; patients previously assigned to filgotinib continued. Individual response patterns at Week 52 of the OLE were evaluated for ACR20/50/70, Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) low disease activity (LDA), minimal disease activity (MDA), and MDA/very low disease activity (VLDA).

Results:

124 patients (95%) completed EQUATOR; 122 (93%) enrolled in the OLE. At Week 52, 11 patients (9%) had discontinued treatment in the OLE. Median (range) exposure to filgotinib was 66.0 (0.4–104.1) weeks. In patients originally assigned to filgotinib, sustained efficacy was seen through to OLE Week 52 for ACR20, 50, and 70; PASDAS LDA; MDA (Table;Figure 1a); and MDA/VLDA. In total, 77% and 93% of those achieving MDA and ACR50 response in the RCT period maintained this at Week 52 (Table). A substantial proportion of RCT non-responders also achieved a treatment response in the OLE, meeting MDA and ACR50 criteria (22% and 37%, respectively;Table). Response patterns in the OLE were similar regardless of prior RCT treatment. In total, at Week 52 of the OLE, 33.6% of patients achieved MDA response (Figure 1a); 55.0% achieved ACR50 response. Figure 1bshows individual patient response over time for MDA.

Conclusion:

Data from this 52-week OLE interim analysis suggest that further improvement in disease activity can be expected with filgotinib beyond 16 weeks in patients with active psoriatic arthritis. Sustained efficacy was demonstrated across several measures of disease activity, including MDA and ACR50.

References:

[1]Mease P, et al. Lancet 2018;392:2367–77.

Table.

Responders at Week 52 of the OLE, by treatment and previous RCT responder status (observed cases).

TreatmentFilgotinib (N=59) → Filgotinib (N=54)aPlacebo (N=63) → Filgotinib (N=57)an/N, %OLE responders/RCT respondersOLE responders/RCT non-respondersOLE responders/RCT respondersOLE responders/RCT non-respondersACR2040/47 (85.1)5/7 (71.4)17/18 (94.4)27/38 (71.1)ACR5025/27 (92.6)10/27 (37.0)5/8 (62.5)21/49 (42.9)ACR7010/13 (76.9)12/41 (29.3)3/4 (75.0)12/53 (22.6)PASDAS LDAb19/21 (90.5)12/32 (37.5)5/6 (83.3)21/48 (43.8)MDA10/13 (76.9)9/41 (22.0)4/5 (80.0)14/51 (27.5)

aIndicates number remaining at OLE Week 52 interim analysis, after dropouts

bPASDAS information was not available for one patient at Week 16 of the RCT

Acknowledgments:

EQUATOR and EQUATOR2 were sponsored by Galapagos NV and co-funded by Galapagos NV and Gilead Sciences. Medical writing support was provided by Hannah Mace MPharmacol, CMPP (Aspire Scientific Ltd, Bollington, UK) and funded by Galapagos NV.

Disclosure of Interests:

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, Laura C Coates: None declared, 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, Philip Helliwell: None declared, Chantal Tasset Shareholder of: Galapagos (share/warrant holder), Employee of: Galapagos, Luc Meuleners Employee of: Galapagos, Leen Gilles Consultant of: Galapagos, Lien Gheyle Employee of: Galapagos, Mona Trivedi Shareholder of: Amgen and Gilead Sciences, Employee of: Gilead Sciences, Muhsen Alani Employee of: Gilead Sciences, Robin Besuyen Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, 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

SAT0403 EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF 108 WEEKS’ BIMEKIZUMAB TREATMENT IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: INTERIM RESULTS FROM A PHASE 2 OPEN-LABEL EXTENSION STUDY

Background:

Bimekizumab (BKZ), a monoclonal antibody that selectively neutralises IL-17A and IL-17F, has shown clinical improvements in skin and joint outcomes over 48 weeks (wks) in patients (pts) with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA).1

Objectives:

To report 2-year interim results from a phase 2b dose-ranging study (BE ACTIVE;NCT02969525) and open-label extension (OLE;NCT03347110) of BKZ in pts with PsA.

Methods:

Design of the dose-ranging study is described elsewhere.1Pts who completed 48 wks’ BKZ treatment without meeting withdrawal criteria were eligible for OLE entry. All OLE pts received BKZ 160 mg Q4W, irrespective of prior dosing regimen.

Data are presented from dose-ranging study baseline (BL) to OLE Wk 60 (Wk 108 total). Efficacy outcomes are reported for the full analysis set (FAS): pts who received ≥1 dose BKZ (specifically those randomised to 160 mg, 160 mg with 320 mg loading dose [LD], or 320 mg at BL), with BL efficacy measurements to allow subsequent determination of ACR50. Outcomes include ACR20/50/70, body surface area (BSA) 0%, minimal disease activity (MDA), and enthesitis/dactylitis resolution. Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) are reported for the Safety Set (SS; pts who received ≥1 dose BKZ in the dose-ranging study).

Results:

BL mean (SD) tender/swollen joint counts were 21.7 (15.7) and 11.2 (8.4). 80 (65.0%) pts had BSA ≥3% and dactylitis/enthesitis were present in 41 (33.3%) and 68 (55.3%) pts. Over 108 wks’ BKZ treatment, improvements were observed in skin/joint outcomes: ACR50 (66.7%), BSA 0% (75.4%), MDA (65.6%), and resolution of dactylitis (65.9%) and enthesitis (77.9%) (Table). Serious TEAEs occurred in 9.3% pts (Table); no deaths or major adverse cardiac events were reported. Oral candidiasis occurred in 16 (7.8%) pts (no serious cases).

Conclusion:

BKZ leads to long-term efficacy for skin/joint manifestations of PsA, with >50% pts achieving high thresholds of disease control (ACR50, BSA 0%, MDA) after 108 wks’ treatment. The safety profile reflects previous observations.1

References:

[1]Ritchlin CT. Ann Rheum Dis 2019;78:127–8.

Table.

Outcomes at OLE Wk 60 (Wk 108 total)

BKZ 160 mg[a](N=82)BKZ 320 mg[a](N=41)BKZ total(N=123)OCNRIOCNRIOCNRIEfficacy (FAS)n (%)ACR2053/62 (85.5)53 (64.6)29/37 (78.4)29 (70.7)82/99 (82.8)82 (66.7)ACR5041/62 (66.1)41 (50.0)25/37 (67.6)25 (61.0)66/99 (66.7)66 (53.7)ACR7034/62 (54.8)34 (41.5)19/37 (51.4)19 (46.3)53/99 (53.5)53 (43.1)BSA 0% [b]35/42 (83.3)–14/23 (60.9)–49/65 (75.4)–MDA [c]43/61 (70.5)43 (52.4)20/35 (57.1)20 (48.8)63/96 (65.6)63 (51.2)Dactylitis resolution–16/27 (59.3)–11/14 (78.6)–27/41 (65.9)Enthesitis resolution [c]–34/45 (75.6)–19/23 (82.6)–53/68 (77.9)Safety (SS)n (%) [EAER]BKZ 160 mg[d](N=198)BKZ 320 mg[d](N=80)BKZ total[d, e](N=204)Any TEAE163 (82.3) [160.9]57 (71.3) [299.8]179 (87.7) [181.1]Study discontinuation due to TEAEs17 (8.6)1 (1.3)18 (8.8)Permanent withdrawal of study drug due to TEAEs16 (8.1)2 (2.5)18 (8.8)Drug-related TEAEs72 (36.4)29 (36.3)92 (45.1)Serious TEAEs19 (9.6) [4.8]019 (9.3) [4.1]

[a] BKZ 160 mg pts received this dose continuously to Wk 108 (includes those originally assigned to 160 mg with LD); BKZ 320 mg pts were dose-reduced to 160 mg at OLE entry; [b] Pts with BSA ≥3% at BL; [c] Data from OLE Wk 72 (Wk 120 total); [d] Dose received at TEAE onset (pts may be counted in multiple columns); [e] Includes pt time on BKZ 16 mg. EAER: exposure-adjusted event rate; NRI: non-responder imputation; OC: observed case.

Acknowledgments:

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

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, 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, 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, Laura C Coates: None declared, Paulatsya Joshi Employee of: UCB Pharma, Jason Coarse Employee of: UCB Pharma, Barbara Ink Shareholder of: GlaxoSmithKline and UCB Pharma, Employee of: UCB Pharma, Christopher T. Ritchlin Grant/research support from: UCB Pharma, AbbVie, Amgen, Consultant of: UCB Pharma, Amgen, AbbVie, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Gilead, Janssen

FRI0592 IMPACT OF INDIVIDUAL SYMPTOMS OF PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS ON PHYSICAL COMPONENT SCORE AND MENTAL COMPONENT SCORE OF SF-36 AS A MEASURE OF HEALTH RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE (QOL): AN OBSERVATIONAL COHORT STUDY

Background:

Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) experience diverse symptoms including skin and nail psoriasis, swollen and tender joints, enthesitis, and fatigue that have shown to impair health related quality of life (QoL). We hypothesized that different elements of disease influence SF-36 physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) component summary scores differently.

Objectives:

The objective of the study was to assess the interaction between change in disease activity (DAS28CRP), PsA symptoms (psoriasis [PsO], nail PsO, enthesitis, fatigue, pain, and physical function) with changes in PCS and MCS scores in a PsA patient cohort exploring effect of treatment on clinical manifestations and patient-reported outcome (PRO).

Methods:

Data were obtained from the PIPA cohort (1) at baseline and after 4 months of treatment. Patients’ characteristics were described as medians with interquartile ranges (IQRs) and numbers with percentages. Data were presented as changes between baseline and follow-up with delta (Δ) values on xyz-plots. Associations between PCS and MCS scores, DAS28CRP, and PsA symptoms were described with fitted linear regression plane models. PCS and MCS were derived from 8 domains of SF-36 and ranged from 0-100 with lower values reflecting more impaired QoL.

Results:

71 PsA patients were included in the study. 40 (56%) patients were female with a mean age of 50 (IQR 41-60) years and disease duration of 2.15 (IQR 0.2-9) years. Figure 1 shows associations between PsA symptoms, DAS28CRP, and PCS (green regression plane) and MCS (blue regression plane). For all PROs; pain, fatigue and physical function, improvements in both ΔPCS and Δ MCS scores were associated with improvements in either Δpain, ΔPsAID fatigue, and/or ΔHAQ, and to a larger extent than improvements in ΔDAS28CRP. Improvements in Δnail PsO (regression coefficient (RC): -0.22) and ΔPASI (RC: -0.31) positively impacts ΔMCS, without a clear association in PCS scores (RC: 0.13 and 0.38 for Δnail PsO and ΔPASI, respectively). Improvement in inflammatory features SPARCC enthesitis and DAS28CRP showed improvement in both ΔPCS and ΔMCS.

Figure 1.

Association between disease activity, individual symptoms and PCS/MCS PCS; physical component summary (green regression plane), MCS; mental component summary (blue regression plane). Arrows indicate the positive improvement vector. SF-36: short form-36, CI: Confidence Interval, DAS28CRP: disease activity score with 28 joints and c-reactive protein, PASI: Psoriasis Area Severity Index, SPARCC: Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada enthesitis index, VAS: visual analogue scale, PsAID: Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease, HAQ: Health Assessment Questionnaire

Conclusion:

Pain and fatigue are well-known factors to impair QoL in PsA patient. Here we show that diminishing these factors, pain and fatigue, improved both PCS and MCS scores more than changes in DAS28CRP. Improvements in skin and nail manifestations impacted MCS scores and are as important as changes in joint manifestations which affect PCS and MCS scores equally.

References:

[1] Hojgaard P et al. Pain mechanisms and ultrasonic inflammatory activity as prognostic factors in patients with psoriatic arthritis (…) BMJ Open. 20

Disclosure of Interests:

Marie Skougaard: None declared, Tanja Schjødt Jørgensen Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, UCB, Biogen, and Eli Lilly, Mia Joranger Jensen: None declared, Christine Ballegaard: None declared, Jørgen Guldberg-Møller Speakers bureau: Novartis, Ely Lilly, AbbVie, BK Ultrasound, Alexander Egeberg Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, AbbVie, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, the Danish National Psoriasis Foundation and the Kgl Hofbundtmager Aage Bang Foundation, Consultant of: UCB Pharma (Advisory Board), Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Almirall, Leo Pharma, Samsung Bioepis Co. Ltd., Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Galderma, Dermavant, UCB Pharma, Mylan, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Robin Christensen: 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, Laura C Coates: None declared, Vibeke Strand Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celltrion, Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America, Crescendo Bioscience, Eli Lilly, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi, UCB, 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, 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

SAT0410 EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF IXEKIZUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS BASED ON CONCOMITANT CONVENTIONAL DISEASE-MODIFYING ANTIRHEUMATIC DRUGS (CDMARD) USE: RESULTS FROM SPIRIT-P1 AND SPIRIT-P2

Background:

Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs such as ixekizumab (IXE), a high-affinity monoclonal antibody that selectively targets interleukin (IL)-17A, are commonly prescribed to patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in combination with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs). Previous studies have shown that, after 24 weeks of treatment, IXE is efficacious with or without concomitant cDMARD therapy in patients with active PsA.1,2However, there is limited evidence demonstrating efficacy and safety after 3 years of treatment.

Objectives:

To evaluate the long-term (3-year) efficacy and safety of IXE in patients with active PsA from SPIRIT-P1 (NCT01695239) and SPIRIT-P2 (NCT02349295) based on concomitant cDMARD use.

Methods:

Patients were subdivided into the following subgroups: 1) no cDMARD use for 3 years (ixekizumab monotherapy); 2) methotrexate (MTX) use without interruption (i.e., ≤14-day gap of not using MTX), but allowing a change of MTX dose; and 3) any cDMARD (MTX, sulfasalazine, leflunomide, ciclosporin, hydroxychloroquine) use during 3 years without interruption (i.e., ≤14-day gap of not using cDMARDs), but allowing a switch of cDMARD type and/or change of dose. The post-hoc integrated analysis assessed efficacy and safety up to 3 years by three subgroups. Efficacy outcomes included the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75/90/100, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) ≥0.35-point improvement. Missing data were imputed using modified non-responder imputation. The IXE 80 mg every 4 weeks (IXEQ4W) dose data are reported here.

Results:

Overall, IXE-treated patients showed improvement in all efficacy outcomes over 156 weeks, regardless of concomitant cDMARD use. ACR response rates by concomitant cDMARD use at 156 weeks are highlighted in Figure 1. Patients treated with IXEQ4W in the no cDMARD use, MTX, and any cDMARD use subgroups had similar ACR20 (59.1%, 67.0%, and 66.1%, respectively), ACR50 (46.2%, 47.4%, and 46.8%, respectively), and ACR70 (30.7%, 28.4%, and 28.1%, respectively) response rates at 156 weeks. Patients treated with IXEQ4W in the three subgroups also had similar PASI75 (65.5%, 60.8%, and 59.8%, respectively), PASI90 (53.6%, 49.7%, and 48.0%, respectively), and PASI100 (42.2%, 46.2%, and 42.4%, respectively) response rates at 156 weeks. The proportion of patients achieving HAQ-DI improvement ≥0.35 in the three subgroups (51.9%, 45.0%, and 47.5%, respectively) was comparable. The safety profile of IXEQ4W was consistent with that previously reported.1,2A similar proportion of IXEQ4W-treated patients in the three subgroups reported ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) regardless of the addition of MTX or other cDMARDs (91.0%, 84.1%, and 83.2%, respectively), and the majority of TEAEs were mild or moderate in all three subgroups.

Conclusion:

IXEQ4W provided sustained improvements in the signs and symptoms of active PsA. While there are some numerical differences in ACR20/50/70 as well as PASI75/90/100, the overall responses with or without the addition of MTX or other cDMARDs were similar. In this post-hoc analysis, it appears that, for sustained responses over time, IXEQ4W does not require the addition of MTX or other cDMARDs. Addition of MTX or other cDMARDs to IXEQ4W did not negatively impact its favorable long-term safety profile.

References:

[1]Coates LC, Kishimoto M, Gottlieb A, et al. RMD Open 2017.

[2]Nash P, Behrens F, Orbai A-M, et al. RMD Open 2018.

Disclosure of Interests:

Laura C Coates: None declared, Andris Kronbergs Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Aubrey Trevelin Sprabery Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, So Young Park Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, 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, 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

FRI0358 USAGE OF C-REACTIVE PROTEIN TESTING IN THE DIAGNOSIS AND MONITORING OF PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS (PSA): RESULTS FROM A REAL-WORLD SURVEY IN THE US AND EUROPE

Background:

C-reactive protein (CRP) is an important non-specific marker of both acute and chronic inflammation and can be elevated in patients with PsA. The role of CRP in the management of PsA is unclear.

Objectives:

To describe how CRP testing is implemented in real-world clinical practice for disease management of PsA.

Methods:

A cross-sectional study among patients with PsA recruited by rheumatologists and dermatologists was conducted in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK and US. Data were collected from Jun-Aug 2018 via physician-completed patient record forms. Use of CRP testing was obtained by asking the physician to state (yes/no) whether CRP was used to aid PsA diagnosis, confirm the patient’s PsA and to monitor the patient’s PsA. Where physicians stated use of CRP testing, they were then asked to provide the number of CRP tests conducted in the last 12 months.

Results:

Data were collected for 2270 patients with PsA (595 US, 1675 EU5). In EU5, 78.7% of patients had CRP conducted to aid diagnosis (vs 43.4% in US) and 72.0% had CRP conducted to monitor their condition (vs 34.6% in US). Patients seen by rheumatologists (vs dermatologists) were at least 50% more likely to have CRP used for monitoring purposes, this difference being most pronounced in the US. In EU5, CRP was conducted a mean [SD] of 2.7 [1.7] times in the last 12 months, versus 2.0 [1.4] in the US. Country level usage of CRP testing is shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Purpose and frequency of CRP testing

CRP conducted…EU5 (n=1675)France (n=277)Germany (n=360)Italy (n=360)Spain (n=369)UK(n=309)US(n=595)To aid diagnosis, n (%)1319 (78.7)233 (84.1)282 (78.3)283 (78.6)315 (85.4)206 (66.7)258 (43.4)To confirm PsA, n (%)692 (41.3)83 (30.0)156 (43.3)151 (41.9)179 (48.5)123 (39.8)110 (18.5)To monitor PsA, n (%) [n]1190 (72.0)[1652]209 (75.7) [276]261 (74.1) [352]256 (72.9) [351]283 (77.1) [367]181 (59.2) [306]203 (34.6) [586]Patients with ≥1 CRP in last 12 months, n (%)1355 (80.9)238 (85.9)291 (80.8)304 (84.4)319 (86.4)203 (65.7)255 (42.9)Number conducted in last 12months, mean [SD]2.7 [1.7]3.1 [2.5]2.4 [1.7]2.5 [1.3]2.6 [1.2]2.9 [2.0]2.0 [1.4]Table 1.

Patient demographic and clinical characteristics

Overall (n=2270)EU5(n=1675)US(n=595)Patient seen by rheumatologist, n (%)1130 (49.8)834 (49.8)296 (49.7)Age, mean [SD]46.6 [13.3]48.1 [13.1]50.0 [13.5]Female, n (%)1047 (46.1)774 (46.2)273 (45.9)BMI, mean [SD]26.8 [4.7]26.3 [4.3]28.1 [5.5]Caucasian, n (%)2051 (90.4)1551 (92.6)500 (84.0)Current smoker, n (%)403 (20.3)352 (24.3)51 (9.5)Employment, n (%)-Working full-time1271 (58.2)894 (55.6)377 (65.3)Current disease severity, n (%)-Mild1702 (75.0)1253 (74.8)449 (75.5)-Moderate/Severe568 (25.0)422 (25.2)146 (24.5)Current treatment, n (%)-Receiving bDMARD*1231 (54.2)910 (54.3)321 (53.9)-Receiving tsDMARD*251 (11.1)121 (7.2)130 (21.8)-Receiving csDMARD*835 (36.8)698 (41.7)137 (23.0)-Receiving opioid55 (2.4)29 (1.7)26 (4.4)Total number of HCP visits in last 12months, mean [SD]6.5 [5.8]7.0 [6.3]5.0 [3.6]

*bDMARD: biologic DMARD, tsDMARD: targeted synthetic DMARD, csDMARD: conventional synthetic DMARD

Conclusion:

The majority (80.9%) of patients with PsA in EU5 had at least one CRP test in the last 12 months, versus 42.9% in the US. CRP is more commonly used for diagnosis and monitoring of PsA in Europe compared to the US and is more commonly ordered by rheumatologists than dermatologists.

Disclosure of Interests:

Alexis Ogdie Grant/research support from: Pfizer to Penn, Novartis to Penn, Amgen to Forward/NDB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Corrona, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, William Tillett Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Lihi Eder Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Lily, Janssen, Amgen, Novartis, Consultant of: Janssen, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Lily, Janssen, Amgen, Novartis, Nicola Booth Consultant of: Janssen, Sara Bruce Wirta Employee of: Janssen-Cilag Sweden AB, Oliver Howell Employee of: Janssen, Agata Schubert Employee of: Janssen-Cilag, Steve Peterson Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Soumya D Chakravarty Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Laura C Coates: None declared

AB0778 ASSOCIATION BETWEEN PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES AND DISEASE ACTIVITY IN BIMEKIZUMAB-TREATED PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS

Background:

Bimekizumab (BKZ) is a humanised IgG1 monoclonal antibody, which selectively neutralises interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F. There is support for the BKZ mechanism of action as a novel therapeutic approach for psoriatic arthritis (PsA).1-3The phase 2b dose-ranging BE ACTIVE study assessed the efficacy and safety of BKZ in patients (pts) with PsA; data are reported elsewhere.4Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly recognised as important endpoints in clinical trials.5The Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease-9 (PsAID-9) questionnaire was specifically developed to assess health-related quality of life (QoL) in pts with PsA5and its validity in clinical practice has been demonstrated.5-6

Objectives:

To report the association between PsAID-9 score (a PRO) and disease activity response (very low disease activity [VLDA], minimal disease activity [MDA] or Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis [DAPSA] remission) during 48 weeks’ (wks’) BKZ treatment.

Methods:

Details of the study design (NCT02969525) are reported elsewhere.4Here, we report the proportion of pts who achieved a PsAID-9 score ≤3, and the association between PsAID-9 score at Wk 48 (range 0–10, where 10 corresponds to worst QoL) and VLDA/MDA (binary states of disease control) or DAPSA (range 0–>28 where 0–4 is remission, 5–14 is low, 15–28 is moderate, and >28 is high disease activity) at Wk 12.

Results:

Across 206 randomised pts at baseline, 66.5% had psoriasis body surface area (BSA) ≥3%, 18.9% had prior tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) exposure, and 63.6% received concomitant methotrexate. A substantial proportion of pts achieved MDA and/or DAPSA remission by Wk 12, which generally increased through to Wk 24 and 48 (Table 1). The 160 mg BKZ group saw the highest Wk 48 rates of MDA response (60.0%) and DAPSA remission (45.0%) (Table 1). The proportion of pts achieving a PsAID-9 score ≤3 was consistently high across all active treatment arms (Figure 1). PsAID-9 score was consistently lower (indicating better QoL) for pts with VLDA or MDA, and those in DAPSA remission (Figure 2), indicating that low disease activity was associated with improved PROs.

Conclusion:

In BKZ-treated pts, improvements in PsAID-9 were associated with achievement of VLDA/MDA response and DAPSA remission. These results suggest that pts achieving higher disease control have improved QoL.

References:

[1]Glatt S. Ann Rheum Dis 2018;77:523–32;2.Glatt S. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2017;83:991–1001;3.Papp KA. J Am Acad Dermatol 2018;79:277–86;4.Ritchlin CT. Ann Rheum Dis 2019;78:127–8;5.Gossec L. Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73:1012–19;6.Johnson K. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2019;49:241–45.

Table 1.

MDA and DAPSA responder rates

Treatment armMDA (%) [a]DAPSA remission (%) [b]Wk 12Wk 24Wk 48Wk 12Wk 24Wk 48BKZ 160 mg (n=40)47.550.060.020.035.045.0BKZ 160 mg LD (n=37) [c]43.259.554.129.748.637.8BKZ 320 mg (n=41)29.336.646.312.219.534.1

[a] DBS, pts with missing data were counted as non-responders; [b] DBS, missing data are imputed using last observation carried forward; [c] 160 mg with 320 mg LD at baseline. BKZ: bimekizumab; DAPSA: Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis; DBS: dose-blind set; LD: loading dose; MDA: minimal disease activity.

Acknowledgments:

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

Disclosure of Interests:

Laure Gossec Grant/research support from: Lilly, Mylan, Pfizer, Sandoz, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, 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, 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., Alexis Ogdie Grant/research support from: Pfizer to Penn, Novartis to Penn, Amgen to Forward/NDB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Corrona, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Deepak Assudani Employee of: UCB Pharma, Jason Coarse Employee of: UCB Pharma, Barbara Ink Shareholder of: GlaxoSmithKline and UCB Pharma, Employee of: UCB Pharma, Laura C Coates: 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

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

Background:

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

Objectives:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusion:

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

References:

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

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

Figure 1.

Criteria for the RAWG Rating

Figure 2.

PRISMA Diagram

Table 1.

Summary of Measurement Properties

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

A = Amber, R = Red, G = Green

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

* RCT data available but no published effect sizes

# Feasibility data available

Disclosure of Interests:

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

THU0580 EULAR TASK FORCE ON GENDER EQUITY IN ACADEMIC RHEUMATOLOGY: PRELIMINARY SURVEY FINDINGS

Background:

Women represent an increasing proportion of the overall rheumatology workforce, but are underrepresented in academic rheumatology, especially in leadership roles [1].

Objectives:

The EULAR Task Force on Gender Equity in Academic Rheumatology has been convened to establish the extent of the unmet need for support of female rheumatologists, health professionals and non-clinical scientists in academic rheumatology and develop a framework to address this through EULAR and EMEUNET.

Methods:

To investigate gender equity in academic rheumatology, an anonymous web-based survey was targeted at the membership of EULAR and Emerging EULAR Network (EMEUNET) and their wider networks. The survey was developed based on a narrative literature review [1], best practice from The Association of Women in Rheumatology, a survey of task force members and face-to-face task force discussions. Personal experiences were explored and 24 potential interventions to aid career advancement were ranked. Statistics were descriptive with significance testing for male/female responses compared using chi-squared/t-tests. The level of significance was set at p<0.001.

Results:

A total of 301 respondents from 24 countries fully completed the survey. By profession, 290 (86.4%) were rheumatologists, 19 (6.3%) health professionals, and 22 (7.3%) non-clinical scientists. By gender, 217 (72.1%) were women, 83 (27.6%) men, and 1 (0.3%) third gender. By age, 203 (67.5%) were 40 or under. By ethnicity, 30 (10.0%) identified themselves as ethnic minority. A high proportion of respondents reported having experienced gender discrimination (47.2% total: 58.1% for women and 18.1% for men) and sexual harassment (26.2%: 31.8% and 10.8% respectively) (Figure 1). Chi-squared tests on the numbers on which these proportions were based showed statistically significant differences between women and men in having experienced gender discrimination (Χ2=36.959 (df=1), p <0.001) and sexual harassment (Χ2=12.633 (df=1), p <0.001). The highest-ranked interventions for career advancement regardless of respondents’ gender included: leadership skills training; speaking/presentation/communication skills training; information on training/career pathways; effective career planning training; support on grant writing applications; and high-impact scientific writing master-classes (Figure 2). Only 8 of 24 proposed interventions showed a significantly higher ranking (p<0.001) by female respondents and these typically related to promotion of female role models and gender-balance in committees, editorial boards and research funding (Figure 2).

Figure 1.

Perceived gender discrimination and sexual harassment, 301 responses

Figure 2.

Mean perceived utility of potential interventions for career advancement by gender and statistically significant gender differences (p<.001), 300 responses

Conclusion:

The results of the survey will inform the development of task force policy proposals for interventions to support career advancement among EULAR and EMEUNET members. The identified interventions have potential to support career advancement of all rheumatologists, health professionals and non-clinical scientists regardless of gender.

References:

[1]Andreoli L, Ovseiko PV, Hassan N, Kiltz U, van Mens L, Gossec L, et al. Gender equity in clinical practice, research and training: Where do we stand in rheumatology? Joint, Bone, Spine: Revue du Rhumatisme. 2019;86(6):669-672.

Acknowledgments:

We gratefully acknowledge the rheumatologists, health professionals and non-clinical scientists who responded to the survey.

Disclosure of Interests:

Pavel V Ovseiko: None declared, Laure Gossec Grant/research support from: Lilly, Mylan, Pfizer, Sandoz, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Laura Andreoli: None declared, Uta Kiltz Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Novartis, Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biocad, Eli Lilly and Company, Grünenthal, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Leonieke van Mens: None declared, Neelam Hassan: None declared, Marike van der Leeden: None declared, Heidi J Siddle: None declared, Alessia Alunno: None declared, 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, Nemanja Damjanov Grant/research support from: from AbbVie, Pfizer, and Roche, Consultant of: AbbVie, Gedeon Richter, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Gedeon Richter, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche, Florence Apparailly: None declared, Caroline Ospelt Consultant of: Consultancy fees from Gilead Sciences., Irene van der Horst-Bruinsma Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Elena Nikiphorou: None declared, Katie Druce Speakers bureau: Pfizer and Lilly, Zoltán Szekanecz Grant/research support from: Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: Sanofi, MSD, Abbvie, Pfizer, Roche, Novertis, Lilly, Gedeon Richter, Amgen, Alexandre Sepriano: None declared, Tadej Avcin: None declared, George Bertsias Grant/research support from: GSK, Consultant of: Novartis, Georg Schett Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche and UCB, Anne Maree Keenan: None declared, Laura C Coates: None declared

FRI0332 EVALUATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS OF ACR50+PASI100 AND MDA AT WEEK 24 FROM THE SPIRIT-H2H TRIAL COMPARING THE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF IXE VERSUS ADA IN PATIENTS WITH PSA NAÏVE TO BDMARDS

Background:

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic systemic disease with manifestations affecting musculoskeletal and extra-articular domains. Treatment and assessment of response are therefore major challenges in routine clinical practice. Minimal disease activity (MDA) is a multidimensional endpoint that can define a treatment target1. In SPIRIT-H2H2, a head-to-head clinical trial comparing the efficacy and safety of ixekizumab (IXE) versus) to adalimumab (ADA), the percentage of patients simultaneously achieving American College of Rheumatology 50 (ACR50) and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 100 (PASI100), was the primary endpoint in order to reflect improvement in two domains of PsA.

Objectives:

To evaluate how individual components of the simultaneous achievement of ACR50 and PASI100 compare with those of MDA at week 24.

Methods:

Patients with active PsA (defined as those with a tender joint count [TJC] ≥ 3/68, a swollen joint count [SJC] ≥ 3/66 and a body surface area [BSA] of active plaque psoriasis ≥ 3%) were randomised 1:1 to approved dosing (according to baseline psoriasis involvement) of IXE or ADA in SPIRIT-H2H, an open label, assessor-blinded study.

The proportion of patients meeting each criterion of the composite endpoints was calculated for the intent-to-treat ([ITT], N=566) population and the population of MDA responders at Week 24 (N=235). Missing individual responses were imputed with non-responder status. Spidergrams were generated using SAS 9.4.

Results:

For both the overall ITT population and the MDA responders population, the use of PASI≤1 or BSA≤3% in the skin-related component of the MDA contributed to the higher response rate relative to the PASI100 response. Thus, the PASI100 response is a more stringent endpoint. Proportions of responders are similar across MDA and ACR50+PASI100 individual components for HAQ and SJC. The high baseline TJC levels (mean TJC: IXE=19.1, ADA=21.3) as opposed to lower levels observed for baseline SJC (mean SJC: IXE=10.1, ADA=10.7) made MDA-TJC criterion (≤1) more difficult to achieve than the equivalent criterion of the ACR50+PASI100 endpoint.

Conclusion:

Despite the differences in criteria definitions, there are consistent response patterns in the individual components of the simultaneous ACR50+PASI100 and MDA endpoints in particular for the peripheral arthritis domain.

References:

[1]Smolen, Josef S et al. “Treating axial spondyloarthritis and peripheral spondyloarthritis, especially psoriatic arthritis, to target: 2017 update of recommendations by an international task force.”Annals of the rheumatic diseasesvol. 77,1 (2018): 3-17.

[2]Mease PJ The SPIRIT H2H study group, et al. “A head-to-head comparison of the efficacy and safety of ixekizumab and adalimumab in biological-naïve patients with active psoriatic arthritis: 24-week results of a randomised, open-label, blinded-assessor trial.”Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases2020;79:123-131.

Disclosure of Interests:

Laura C Coates: None declared, Michael Nissen Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Consultant of: Novartis, Lilly, Abbvie, Celgene and Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Novartis, Lilly, Abbvie, Celgene and Pfizer, Celine El Baou Consultant of: Eli Lilly and Company, Jane Zochling Employee of: Jannssen Cilag, Speakers bureau: Janssen Cilag, AbbVie, Novartis, UCB, BMS, Eli Lilly, Antonio Marchesoni Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Pfizer, UCB, Novartis, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Soyi Liu Leage Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Enrique Soriano Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Sandoz, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Sandoz, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amber, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Valderilio F Azevedo Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Lilly and Novartis, Consultant of: Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Amgen, Pfizer and Abbvie, Speakers bureau: Sandoz, Celltrion, Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Amgen, Pfizer and Abbvie, Klaus Machold Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, UCB, Consultant of: Arsanis, Astro, Baxter, BMS, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, Sandoz, Speakers bureau: MSD, Pfizer, BMS, Janssen-Cilag, Sandoz, Novartis, Eli-Lilly, Christophe Sapin Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company

AB0794 CLINICAL TRIAL DISCRIMINATION OF PHYSICAL FUNCTION INSTRUMENTS FOR PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Background:

Physical function is a core domain to be measured in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The discriminative performance of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for physical function (PF) in RCTs has not been evaluated systematically.

Objectives:

In this systematic review, the GRAPPA-OMERACT working group aimed to evaluate the clinical trial discrimination of PF-PROMs in PsA RCTs.

Methods:

We searched PubMed and Scopus databases in English to identify all original RCTs conducted in PsA. We limited the review to RCTs of biologic and targeted synthetic DMARDs. Groups of two researchers extracted data independently for PF-PROMs. We assessed quality in each article using the OMERACT good method checklist. Effect sizes (ES) for the PF-PROMs were calculated and appraised usinga priorihypotheses. Evidence supporting clinical trial discrimination for each PF-PROM was summarized to derive recommendations.

Results:

32 articles were included (Figure 1). Four PF-PROMs had data for evaluation: HAQ-Disability Index (DI), HAQ-Spondyloarthritis (S), Short Form 36-item Health Survey Physical Component Summary (SF-36 PCS), and the Physical Functioning domain (SF-36 PF) (Table 1). The ES for intervention versus (vs.) control arms for HAQ-DI ranged from -0.55 to -1.81 vs. 0.24 to -0.52; and for SF-36 PCS ranged from 0.30 to 1.86 vs. -0.02 to 0.63.

Table 1.

Summary of Measurement Properties Table for clinical trial discrimination

ArticlesHAQ-DIHAQ-SSF-36 PCSSF-36 PFAntoni 2005 (IMPACT); Gottlieb 2009 (UST)+Antoni 2005 (IMPACT2)++Kavanaugh 2006 (IMPACT2)+Mease 2005 (ADEPT); Genovese 2007 (ADA); Mease 2010 (ETN); Kavanaugh 2009 (GO-REVEAL); Kavanaugh 2017 (GO-VIBRANT); Gladman 2014 (RAPID-PsA); Mease 2015 (FUTURE1); McInnes 2015 (FUTURE2); Kavanaugh, 2016 (FUTURE2)-subgroup; Nash 2018 (FUTURE3); Mease 2017 (SPIRIT-P1); Nash 2017 (SPIRIT-P2); Deodhar 2018 (GUS); Mease 2016 (CLZ)++Mease 2000 (ETN); McInne, 2013 (PSUMMIT 1); Ritchlin 2014 (PSUMMIT 2); Araugo 2019 (ECLIPSA)++Gniadecki 2012 (PRESTA)+Mease 2019 (SEAM-PsA)+/-+McInnes 2014 (SEC)++Mease 2014 (BRO)++Mease 2011 (ABT)+/-+Mease 2017 (ASTRAEA)++Mease 2006 (ALC)+/-Mease 2017 (OPAL Broaden); Gladman 2017 (OPAL Beyond)++Mease 2018 (EQUATOR)++Mease 2018 (ABT-122)+Total available articles311244Total articles for evidence synthesis291232Overall rating+++

Color code in each box indicate study quality by OMERACT good methods. GREEN: “likely low risk of bias”; AMBER: “some cautions but can be used as evidence”; RED: “don’t use as evidence”. WHITE (empty boxes): absence of information from that study. (+): findings had adequate performance of the instrument; (+/-): equivocal performance; (-): poor performance (less than adequate).

Conclusion:

Clinical trial discrimination was supported for HAQ-DI and SF-36 PCS in PsA with low risk of bias; and for SF-36 PF with some caution. More studies are required for HAQ-S.

Disclosure of Interests:

Ying Ying Leung Speakers bureau: Novartis, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Richard Holland: None declared, Ashish Mathew: None declared, Christine Lindsay Employee of: Previously employed (worked) for pharmaceutical company., Niti Goel Shareholder of: UCB and Galapagos, Consultant of: VielaBio, Mallinckrodt, and IMMVention, Alexis Ogdie Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer – grant/research support, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda – consultant, Ana-Maria Orbai Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Eli Lilly and Company, Celgene, Novartis, Janssen, Horizon, Consultant of: Eli Lilly; Janssen; Novartis; Pfizer; UCB. Ana-Maria Orbai was a private consultant or advisor for Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc, not in her capacity as a Johns Hopkins faculty member and was not compensated for this service., Pil Hoejgaard: None declared, Jeffrey Chau: None declared, Laura C Coates: None declared, Vibeke Strand: None declared, Dafna D Gladman Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen Inc., BMS, Celgene Corporation, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB – grant/research support, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen Inc., BMS, Celgene Corporation, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB – consultant, Robin Christensen: None declared, William Tillett: None declared, 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

OP0057 SEX SPECIFIC DIFFERENCES IN EARLY PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS

Background:

Although the prevalence of Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) is the same in men and women, women experience a higher burden of disease (pain, disability, fatigue) (1).The persistent belief that women tend to over-report their symptoms compared to men may also contribute to under or delayed diagnosis in women. The clinical pattern of PsA also differs, with men presenting more commonly with peripheral and axial joint damage and women being affected more frequently by polyarthritis (2). Furthermore, most disease activity measures contain pain and quality of life measurement metrics that may perform differently by sex. As a result, this may affect the clinician’s perception of disease severity, influence management decisions and subsequently introduce sex bias in prescribing.

Objectives:

To assess sex-related differences in baseline demographics, disease characteristics and evolution over 1 year in patients with newly diagnosed PsA.

Methods:

Our study is embedded in the Dutch south-west Early Psoriatic Arthritis prospective cohort study. We described patient characteristics using simple descriptive analysis techniques. For the comparison across sexes and baseline and 1 year follow up, appropriate tests depending on the distribution were used.

Results:

273 men and 294 women with no significant differences in age and ethnicity were included. Women reported significantly longer duration of symptoms before diagnosis and significantly fewer of them were in paid employment at baseline. Oligoarthritis was the most common pattern of arthritis in both sexes. Polyarthritis and enthesitis were more prevalent in women who also presented at baseline a significantly higher tender joint count (Fig.1) than men but no difference in swollen joint count.

Figure 1.

Longitudinal evolution of TJC68, Pain, VAS global, BRAF for men and women in the first year of PsA.

All composite indices (CPDAI, DAPSA, GRACE, MDA, Psoriatic ArthritiS Disease Activity Score) showed significantly worse results in women at baseline. Women also suffered more frequently from comorbid medical conditions, fatigue and anxiety, and reported more severe limitations in function and worse quality of life.

At 12 months women, despite the improvement they made, reported significantly higher levels of pain compared to men. Although MDA rates increase over time for both sexes,(Fig.2), it remained significantly more prevalent among men (19.0% vs 11.1% at inclusion,p<0.05, and 58.1% vs 35.7%,p<0.00, at T12). DAPSA was significantly higher in women at both timepoints and a significantly higher percentage of men presented remission according to DAPSA score at 12 months.

Figure 2.

Longitudinal evolution of composite measures for men and women in the first year of PsA.

Conclusion:

After 1 year of follow-up women didn’t surpass their baseline disadvantages and despite the improvement, they still present higher disease activity, more pain and lower functional capacity than men. The nature of these findings may advocate a need for sex specific adjustment of treatment strategies and evaluation in psoriatic arthritis as sex-related difference in outcome persisted over time.

References:

[1]Eder L, Thavaneswaran A, Chandran V, Gladman DD. Gender difference in disease expression, radiographic damage and disability among patients with psoriatic arthritis. Annals of the rheumatic diseases. 2013;72(4):578-82.

[2]Orbai AM, Perin J, Gorlier C, Coates LC, Kiltz U, Leung YY, et al. Determinants of Patient-Reported Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease: An Analysis of the Association with Gender in 458 Patients from 14 Countries. Arthritis care & research. 2019.

Disclosure of Interests:

Evangelia Passia: None declared, Marijn Vis Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer – grant/research support, Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer – consultant, Laura C Coates: None declared, Anushka Soni Grant/research support from: Oxford-UCB prize fellowship, Speakers bureau: Janssen and Abbvie, Ilja Tchetverikov: None declared, Andreas Gerards: None declared, Lindy-Anne Korswagen: None declared, Marc R Kok Grant/research support from: BMS and Novartis, Consultant of: Novartis and Galapagos, Wiebo van der Graaff: None declared, Josien Veris-van Dieren: None declared, Natasja Denissen: None declared, F. Fodili: None declared, M. Starmans: None declared, Yvonne Goekoop-Ruiterman: None declared, M. van Oosterhout: None declared, Jolanda Luime: None declared

Assessment of two screening tools to identify psoriatic arthritis in patients with psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Many patients with psoriasis have undiagnosed psoriatic arthritis. Low specificity is found with many PsA screening tools. A new instrument, the CONTEST questionnaire, was developed utilizing the most discriminative items from existing instruments.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the CONTEST and PEST screening tools.

METHODS

People attending secondary care clinics with psoriasis, but not PsA, completed the questionnaires, were assessed for function and quality of life, and had a physical examination. Patients thought to have PsA were compared to those without. The performance of CONTEST and PEST was compared using area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), and sensitivity and specificity at the previously published cut-offs.

RESULTS

A total of 451 dermatology patients were approached, 35% were reviewed and 27 (17%, 95% CI 12.3-21.7) had unidentified psoriatic arthritis. The sensitivity and specificity (95% CI) of PEST were 0.60 (0.42-0.78)/0.76 (0.69-0.83) and for CONTEST 0.53 (0.34-0.72)/0.71 (0.63-0.79). The confidence limits for the AUC overlapped (AUC for PEST 0.72 (0.61-0.84), for CONTEST 0.66 (0.54-0.77).

CONCLUSIONS

PEST and CONTEST questionnaires performed equally well, with no superiority of the new CONTEST tool.