CaMK1D signalling in AgRP neurons promotes ghrelin-mediated food intake

Hypothalamic AgRP/NPY neurons are key players in the control of feeding behaviour. Ghrelin, a major orexigenic hormone, activates AgRP/NPY neurons to stimulate food intake and adiposity. However, cell-autonomous ghrelin-dependent signalling mechanisms in AgRP/NPY neurons remain poorly defined. Here we show that calcium/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase ID (CaMK1D), a genetic hot spot in type 2 diabetes, is activated upon ghrelin stimulation and acts in AgRP/NPY neurons to mediate ghrelin-dependent food intake. Global Camk1d-knockout male mice are resistant to ghrelin, gain less body weight and are protected against high-fat-diet-induced obesity. Deletion of Camk1d in AgRP/NPY, but not in POMC, neurons is sufficient to recapitulate above phenotypes. In response to ghrelin, lack of CaMK1D attenuates phosphorylation of CREB and CREB-dependent expression of the orexigenic neuropeptides AgRP/NPY in fibre projections to the paraventricular nucleus (PVN). Hence, CaMK1D links ghrelin action to transcriptional control of orexigenic neuropeptide availability in AgRP neurons.

LB0002 BARICITINIB IN JUVENILE IDIOPATHIC ARTHRITIS: A PHASE 3, DOUBLE-BLIND, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED, WITHDRAWAL, EFFICACY AND SAFETY STUDY

Background

Baricitinib is a JAK1/2 selective inhibitor approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is a group of diseases characterized by immune mediated chronic arthritis which often requires treatment with conventional synthetic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cs or b-DMARDs).

Objectives

To investigate baricitinib efficacy and safety in pediatric patients with JIA and an inadequate response to cs or b-DMARDs.

Methods

This Phase 3 multicenter, double-blind, withdrawal, efficacy, and safety study, enrolled patients (pts) age 2 to <18 years with extended oligo- or poly-articular JIA, ERA, or JPsA, per ILAR criteria, and an inadequate response to ≥1 cs and/or b-DMARDs (NCT03773978). There were 3 periods: a 2-week (wk) pharmacokinetic/safety assessment (PKS), a 12-wk open-label lead-in (OLLI), and an up-to 32-wk double-blind withdrawal (DBW). Dosage and safety were confirmed in the PKS and then pts, including those from the PKS, enrolled in the OLLI, receiving age-based, oral, once daily doses of baricitinib. Pts with a JIA-ACR30 response at wk12, end of OLLI, entered the DBW to be randomized 1:1 to continued baricitinib or newly started placebo (PBO) and remained until flare or up to wk32. Primary endpoint was time to flare during the DBW. Secondary endpoints included JIA-ACR30/50/70/90 response rates at wk12, and proportion of pts with a flare during the DBW. Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results

Of 220 pts enrolled, 29 participated in the PKS, 219 entered the OLLI, and 163 entered the DBW. The JIA-ACR30/50/70/90 response at wk12 was 76.3%/63.5%/46.1%/20.1%, respectively. During the DBW, time of flare was significantly shorter with PBO vs baricitinib (hazard ratio 0.24 [95% CI 0.13,0.45], p<0.001; Figure 1). The proportion of pts with a flare during the DBW was significantly lower for baricitinib vs PBO (14 (17.1%) vs. 41 (50.6%), p<0.001). In the PKS and OLLI periods, 126 (57.3%) pts reported ≥1 treatment emergent adverse event (TEAE), while 6 (2.7%) reported ≥1 serious adverse event (SAE); Table 1. In the DBW, 38 (46.9%) and 54 (65.9%) pts reported ≥1 TEAE for PBO and baricitinib, respectively, whereas those with ≥1 SAE were 3 (3.7%) and 4 (4.9%). The mean wks of exposure was higher in the baricitinib vs PBO group during DBW (26.34 vs 18.91) due to study design. There were no deaths, cardiovascular events or uveitis and 1 case of herpes zoster. Table 1.

Conclusion

Baricitinib significantly reduced time to and frequency of JIA flares in pts with JIA versus PBO, and improved JIA-ACR scores in the majority of pts within 12wks. Safety findings were consistent with the known safety profile in adult rheumatoid arthritis indications. These findings support baricitinib as a treatment for signs and symptoms of JIA with an inadequate response to cs or b-DMARDs.

References

[1]Giannini EH, et. al. Preliminary definition of improvement in juvenile arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1997; 40: 1202-1209.

[2]Brunner HI, et. al. Preliminary definition of disease flare in juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2002; 29(5):1058-64.

Disclosure of Interests

Athimalaipet Ramanan Consultant of: Eli Lilly and Company, Abbvie, Roche, UCB, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sobi, Grant/research support from: Eli Lilly and Company, Pierre Quartier Consultant of: Eli Lilly and Company, Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Novartis, Novimmune, Pfizer, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum, SANOFI, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Novartis, Pfizer, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum, Nami Okamoto Consultant of: Swedish Orphan Biovitrum, Eli Lilly and Company, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Sanofi, Asahi Kasei Medical, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer Japan, Ayumi Pharma, Eisai, Torii Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Kyorin Pharma, Novartis, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Teijin Pharma, Gabriella Meszaros Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Joana Araujo Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Zhongkai Wang Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Ran Liao Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Brenda Crowe Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Xin Zhang Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Rodney Decker Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Stuart Keller Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Hermine Brunner Consultant of: AbbVie, Astra Zeneca-Medimmune, Biogen, Boehringer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Idorsia, Cerocor, Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Merck, Novartis, R-Pharm, Sanofi, Speakers bureau: Novartis, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Nicolino Ruperto Consultant of: Eli Lilly and Company, Ablynx, Amgen, Astrazeneca-Medimmune, Aurinia, Bayer, Bristol Myers and Squibb, Cambridge Healthcare Research (CHR), Celgene, Domain therapeutic, Eli-Lilly, EMD Serono, Glaxo Smith and Kline, Idorsia, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sobi, UCB, Speakers bureau: Eli Lilly and Company, Glaxo Smith and Kline, Pfizer, Sobi, UCB

POS0714 POOLED SAFETY ANALYSIS OF BARICITINIB IN PATIENTS WITH SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS: RESULTS FROM THREE RANDOMISED, DOUBLE-BLIND, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED, CLINICAL TRIALS

Background

Baricitinib (BARI), an oral selective inhibitor of Janus kinase 1 and 2 approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and atopic dermatitis, has been evaluated in clinical studies in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Objectives

To assess the safety profile of BARI in patients with SLE.

Methods

Patients with SLE receiving stable background therapy were randomised 1:1:1 to BARI 2-mg, 4-mg, or placebo (PBO) once daily in one 24-week, phase 2 (NCT02708095) and two 52-week, phase 3, PBO controlled studies (NCT03616912 and NCT03616964).

Results

A total of 1,849 patients were included in this pooled analysis, representing 1,463.5 patient years of exposure (PYE). The incidence rates per 100 PYR at risk (IR/100 PYR) for serious adverse events (SAEs) were 9.5, 14.7, and 14.1 respectively for PBO, BARI 2-mg, and BARI 4-mg. There were no clinically meaningful differences between treatment groups for discontinuations due to AEs or death (Table 1).

Table 1.

Overview of safety measures of baricitinib in patients with SLE

Safety measurePBOBARI 2-mgBARI 4-mgPooled-BARIN=614N=621N=614N=1235PYE=488.1PYE=494.0PYE=481.4PYE=975.4n(%)n(%)n(%)n(%)PYRPYRPYRPYR[IR; 95%CI][IR; 95%CI][IR; 95%CI][IR; 95%CI]SAEs45 (7.3)70 (11.3)*65 (10.6)*135 (10.9)*473.2476.6461.9938.5[9.5; 6.9, 12.7][14.7; 11.5, 18.6][14.1; 10.9, 17.9][14.4; 12.1, 17.0]Discontinuation of study drug due to AE48 (7.8)58 (9.3)57 (9.3)115 (9.3)485.3492.3480.6973.0[9.9; 7.3, 13.1][11.8; 8.9, 15.2][11.9; 9.0, 15.4][11.8; 9.8, 14.2]Death4 (0.7)1 (0.2)4 (0.7)5 (0.4)488.2494.0481.5975.5[0.8; 0.2, 2.1][0.2; 0.0, 1.1][0.8; 0.2, 2.1][0.5; 0.2, 1.2]Serious infections12 (2.0)22 (3.5)28 (4.6)*50 (4.0)*484.3487.2472.5959.7[2.5; 1.3, 4.3][4.5; 2.8, 6.8][5.9; 3.9, 8.6][5.2; 3.9, 6.9]Herpes Zoster18 (2.9)17 (2.7)29 (4.7)46 (3.7)481.1486.5468.6955.1[3.7; 2.2, 5.9][3.5; 2.0, 5.6][6.2; 4.1, 8.9][4.8; 3.5, 6.4]VTEs#6 (1.2)3 (0.6)1 (0.2)4 (0.4)444.0450.2438.1888.3[1.4; 0.5, 2.9][0.7; 0.1, 1.9][0.2; 0.0, 1.3][0.5; 0.1, 1.2]MACE#01 (0.2)3 (0.6)4 (0.4)443.9450.1438.1888.3[0.0; NA, 0.8][0.2; 0.0, 1.2][0.7; 0.1, 2.0][0.5; 0.1, 1.2]Malignancy excluding NMSC2 (0.3)3 (0.5)2 (0.3)5 (0.4)488.0494.1481.4975.5[0.4; 0.0, 1.5][0.6; 0.1, 1.8][0.4; 0.1, 1.5][0.5; 0.2, 1.2]NMSC2 (0.3)000*486.7494.0481.4975.4[0.4; 0.0, 1.5][0.0; NA, 0.7][0.0; NA, 0.8][0.0; NA, 0.4]

Data are n (%) patients PYR [IR; 95% CI]. #Phase 2 study data not included. AE=adverse event; CI=confidence interval; MACE=major adverse cardiac event; NMSC=non-melanoma skin cancers; VTE=venous thrombotic event (includes deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism); IR=incidence rate (100 times the number of patients reporting an adverse event divided by the event-specific exposure to treatment); N=number of patients in the analysis population; n=number of patients in the specified category; PYE=patient-year of exposure; PYR=patient years at risk; SAE=serious adverse event. *p≤0.05 vs placebo.

The IR/100 PYR for serious infections were 2.5, 4.5, and 5.9 respectively for PBO, BARI 2-mg, and BARI 4-mg. The risk of Herpes Zoster was higher in BARI 4-mg (4.7%) vs PBO (2.9%) (Table 1).

The IR/100 PYR for positively adjudicated venous thrombotic events (VTEs) were 1.4, 0.7, and 0.2 respectively for PBO, BARI 2-mg, and BARI 4-mg. The IR/100 PYR for positively adjudicated major adverse cardiac event (MACE) was numerically higher in BARI 2-mg (0.2) and BARI 4-mg (0.7) vs PBO (0.0), however the pooled-BARI IR/PYR (0.5) was within the range of background disease (1). No increased risk for malignancies was observed.

Conclusion

The safety profile of BARI in SLE patients was consistent with the known BARI safety profile. There was no increased risk of VTE in BARI treatment groups.

References

[1]Barbhaiya M, Feldman CH, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2017;69(9):1823-31.

Disclosure of Interests

Thomas Dörner Speakers bureau: Eli Lilly and Company and Roche, Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Novartis, Roche, Samsung and UCB, Grant/research support from: Chugai, Janssen, Novartis and Sanofi, Yoshiya Tanaka Speakers bureau: Gilead, Abbvie, Behringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Amgen, YL Biologics, Eisai, Astellas, Bristol-Myers, Astra-Zeneca, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Daiichi-Sankyo, Taisho, Ayumi, Sanofi, GSK, Abbvie, Grant/research support from: Asahi-Kasei, Abbvie, Chugai, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Eisai, Takeda, Corrona, Daiichi-Sankyo, Kowa, Behringer-Ingelheim, Marta Mosca Speakers bureau: Eli Lilly, GSK, Astra Zeneca, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, GSK, Astra Zeneca, Ian N. Bruce Speakers bureau: GSK, Astra Zeneca, UCB, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, GSK, UCB, BMS, Merck Serono, Astra Zeneca, IL-TOO, Aurinia, Grant/research support from: GSK, Janssen, Mario Cardiel Speakers bureau: Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Abbvie, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Gilead, Roche, Janssen, Eric F. Morand Speakers bureau: AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Consultant of: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Asahi Kasei, Biogen, BristolMyersSquibb, Capella, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Neovacs, Sanofi, Servier, UCB, Wolf, Grant/research support from: Janssen, AstraZeneca, BristolMyersSquibb, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, GlaxoSmithKline, Michelle A Petri Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Grant/research support from: Eli Lilly, Maria Silk Shareholder of: Eli Lilly, Employee of: Eli Lilly, christina dickson Shareholder of: Eli Lilly, Employee of: Eli Lilly, Gabriella Meszaros Shareholder of: Eli Lilly, Employee of: Eli Lilly, Maher Issa Shareholder of: Eli Lilly, Employee of: Eli Lilly, Lu Zhang Shareholder of: Eli Lilly, Employee of: Eli Lilly, Daniel J. Wallace Consultant of: Amgen, Eli Lilly and Company, EMD Merck Serono and Pfizer

POS0190 EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF BARICITINIB IN PATIENTS WITH SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS: RESULTS FROM TWO RANDOMISED, DOUBLE-BLIND, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED, PARALLEL-GROUP, PHASE 3 STUDIES

Background

In a 24-week, phase 2 clinical study (NCT02708095) in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), baricitinib (BARI), an oral selective inhibitor of Janus kinase 1 and 2 approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and atopic dermatitis, inhibited the type l interferon gene signature, multiple other cytokine pathways, and improved disease activity (1) (2).

Objectives

To further evaluate the efficacy and safety of BARI in patients with SLE.

Methods

Patients with active SLE receiving stable background therapy were randomised 1:1:1 to BARI 2-mg, 4-mg, or placebo (PBO) once daily in two identically designed, 52-week, phase 3 randomised, PBO-controlled studies. In SLE-BRAVE-I (NCT03616912) and -II (NCT03616964), 760 and 775 patients, respectively were enrolled in a balanced manner across regions, although different countries per region participated in each study. The primary endpoint for both studies was the proportion of patients achieving an SLE Responder Index-4 (SRI-4) response at week 52. Glucocorticoid tapering was encouraged but not required per protocol.

Results

The mean Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) at baseline was 10.1 for both SLE-BRAVE-I and -II participants; musculoskeletal and mucocutaneous domains were the most common domains involved at baseline. In SLE-BRAVE-I, the proportion of SRI-4 responders at week 52 among patients treated with BARI 4-mg (56.7%), but not BARI 2-mg (49.8%), was significantly greater than in patients treated with PBO (45.9%, p = 0.016) (Table 1). No difference was seen in SLE-BRAVE-II (47.1%, 46.3%, and 45.6%, BARI 4-mg, 2-mg, and PBO, respectively). None of the key secondary endpoints, including glucocorticoid tapering or time to first severe flare (SFI), were met in either study. The proportions of patients with serious adverse events (SAEs) were 7.1% and 8.6% for PBO, 9.4% and 13.4% for BARI 2-mg and 10.3% and 11.2% for BARI 4-mg in SLE-BRAVE-I and II, respectively.

Table 1.

Efficacy and safety of baricitinib in patients with SLE-BRAVE-I and -II

SLE-BRAVE-ISLE-BRAVE-IIEfficacy measurePBO (N=253)BARI 2-mg (N=255)BARI 4-mg (N=252)PBO (N=256)BARI 2-mg (N=261)BARI 4-mg (N=258)SRI-4 (W52)116 (45.9)126 (49.8)142 (56.7)*116 (45.6)120 (46.3)121 (47.1)SRI-4 (W24)99 (39.1)114 (44.8)117 (46.5)98 (38.6)104 (40.0)108 (42.1)Severe Flares (n, events)38 (15.0)34 (13.3)26 (10.3)26 (10.2)29 (11.1)29 (11.2)HR for time to first severe flare (SFI) HR [CI]NA0.8 [0.52, 1.32]0.65 [0.40, 1.08]NA1.1 [0.65, 1.89]1.1 [0.67, 1.94]Glucocorticoid sparing36 (30.8)31 (29.2)36 (34.0)33 (31.7)34 (29.8)36 (34.3)LLDAS (W52)66 (26.2)65 (25.7)74 (29.7)59 (23.2)62 (24.0)65 (25.4)Safety measureTEAE210 (83.0)210 (82.4)208 (82.5)198 (77.3)199 (76.2)200 (77.5)SAE18 (7.1)24 (9.4)26 (10.3)22 (8.6)35 (13.4)29 (11.2)

Data are n (%) patients, unless otherwise indicated. BARI=baricitinib; CI=confidence interval; HR=hazard ratio compared with PBO; LLDAS=lupus low disease activity state; N=number of patients in the analysis population; n=number of patients in the specified category; PBO=placebo; TEAE=treatment-emergent adverse event; SAE=serious adverse event; W=week. *p≤0.05 vs PBO.

Conclusion

Although phase 2 data suggested BARI as a potential treatment for patients with SLE (2), the SLE-BRAVE-I and -II phase 3 study results were discordant for the primary outcome measure, with only SLE-BRAVE-I positive, making it difficult to elucidate benefit. Additional analyses are being performed to understand this discordance. No new safety signals were observed.

References

[1]Dörner T, Tanaka Y, et al. Lupus Sci Med. 2020;7(1).

[2]Wallace DJ, Furie RA, et al. Lancet. 2018;392(10143):222-31.

Disclosure of Interests

Eric F. Morand Speakers bureau: Astra Zeneca, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, Consultant of: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Asahi Kasei, Biogen, BristolMyersSquibb, Capella, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, Glaxosmithkline, Janssen, Neovacs, Sanofi, Servier, UCB, Wolf, Grant/research support from: Janssen, AstraZeneca, BristolMyersSquibb, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, GlaxoSmithKline, Yoshiya Tanaka Speakers bureau: Gilead, Abbvie, Behringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Amgen, YL Biologics, Eisai, Astellas, Bristol-Myers, Astra-Zeneca, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Daiichi-Sankyo, Taisho, Ayumi, Sanofi, GSK, Abbvie, Grant/research support from: Asahi-Kasei, Abbvie, Chugai, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Eisai, Takeda, Corrona, Daiichi-Sankyo, Kowa, Behringer-Ingelheim, Richard Furie Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Edward Vital Consultant of: Eli Lilly (consultant and honoraria), Ronald van Vollenhoven Consultant of: Abbvie, Biotest, BMS, Celgene, Crescendo, Eli Lilly and Company, GSK, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Vertex, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, GSK, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Kenneth Kalunian Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Marta Mosca Consultant of: Eli Lilly, GSK, Astra Zeneca, Thomas Dörner Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, BMS, Novartis, BMS/Celgene, Janssen, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, BMS, Novartis, BMS/Celgene, Janssen, Daniel J. Wallace Consultant of: Amgen, Eli Lilly and Company, EMD Merck Serono, and Pfizer, Maria Silk Shareholder of: Eli Lilly, Employee of: Eli Lilly, christina dickson Shareholder of: Eli Lilly, Employee of: Eli Lilly, Inmaculada De La Torre Shareholder of: Eli Lilly, Employee of: Eli Lilly, Gabriella Meszaros Shareholder of: Eli Lilly, Employee of: Eli Lilly, Bochao Jia Shareholder of: Eli Lilly, Employee of: Eli Lilly, Brenda Crowe Shareholder of: Eli Lilly, Employee of: Eli Lilly, Michelle A Petri Consultant of: Eli Lilly

AB0841 TARGET OUTCOMES IN PsA: SIMULTANEOUS ACHIEVEMENT of ACR50-PASI100 AND BEYOND: INSIGHTS FROM SPIRIT-H2H AT WEEK 24

Background:

Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) treatment should aim to achieve robust improvement of arthritis as well as control of extra-articular manifestations like the skin. SPIRIT-H2H evaluated the efficacy of ixekizumab (IXE) and adalimumab (ADA) in patients with active PsA and psoriasis, and naïve to biologic Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs (bDMARDs). At week 24 (W24), IXE showed superiority to ADA in simultaneous achievement of ACR50 and PASI100 as well as significant improvement of treat-to-target and other extra-articular outcomes.

Objectives:

To examine and to compare PsA efficacy outcomes in patients beyond achievement of the primary endpoint of the SPIRIT-H2H trial at W24, irrespective of treatment allocation.

Methods:

All patients recruited had active PsA (defined as tender joint count ≥3/68, swollen joint count ≥3/66 and body surface area [BSA] ≥3%), and inadequate response to conventional synthetic (cs)-DMARDs. Patients were randomised 1:1 to open-label, assessor-blinded IXE or ADA. We conducted post-hoc analysis of SPIRIT-H2H (NCT03151551), categorizing patients into four independent groups based on the achievement of the primary outcome (ACR50 & PASI100), ACR50 only, PASI100 only or none of them after 24 weeks of treatment. Statistical analyses consisted of mixed model for repeated measurement and logistic regression models using non-response imputation.

Results:

At week 24, patients reaching simultaneously ACR50 and PASI100 had a statistically significant higher response in most treat-to-target endpoints than those meeting ACR50 only (p<0.05). In this latter group, a high response rate was observed in ACR70, MDA, DAPSA remission and PASI90 response (48.9%, 60.6%, 35.1%, 36.2%, respectively). In patients that did not achieve either ACR50 or PASI100, up to 1/3 of the patients did achieve ACR20, DAPSA score ≤14, or no physical impairment.

Table.

Efficacy Endpoints at W24

ACR50 & PASI100ACR50 onlyPASI100 onlyNeither ACR50 nor PASI100n=181n=94n=121n=170ACR20100.0b,c100.053.734.7ACR7064.6a,b,c48.90.00.0MDA75.7a,b,c60.623.112.4VLDA32.6a,b,c13.83.31.8DAPSA LDA or Remission (≤14)92.3a,b,c81.943.028.8DAPSA Remission (≤4)44.8b,c35.16.62.4HAQ-DI score ≤0.575.7b,c64.930.627.4PASI75100.0a,c60.6100.037.1PASI90100.0a,c36.2100.014.7SF-36 PCS change from baseline§12.3±0.53b,c12.3±0.745.4±0.664.0±0.55

Data are presented as %;§mean±standard error.

ap<0.05 vs. ACR50 only;bp<0.05 vs. PASI100only;cp<0.05 vs. Neither ACR50 nor PASI100.

ACR, American College of Rheumatology; DAPSA, Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis; HAQ-DI, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index; LDA, Low Disease Activity; MDA, Minimal Disease Activity; PASI, Psoriasis Area Severity Index; VLDA, Very Low Disease Activity.

Nine patients with active PsO and BSA≥3% were assessed as PASI=0 at baseline, a medical inconsistency that was resolved using medical judgement. These patients were considered PASI100 responders if PASI=0 and BSA=0 at post baseline visits.

Conclusion:

Reflecting the complexity of PsA, different degrees of improvement were observed across all treat-to-target outcomes with greater improvements in patients that met ACR50 response regardless of skin resolution. These findings at week 24 need to be confirmed with a longer duration of treatment.

Disclosure of Interests:

Josef S. Smolen Grant/research support from: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer Inc, Samsung, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer Inc, Samsung, Sanofi, 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, Soyi Liu Leage Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Christophe Sapin Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Inmaculada De La Torre Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Gabriella Meszaros Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Georg Schett Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche and UCB, Laure Gossec Grant/research support from: Lilly, Mylan, Pfizer, Sandoz, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Andrew Ostor Consultant of: MSD, Pfizer, Lilly, Abbvie, Novartis, Roche, Gilead and BMS, Speakers bureau: MSD, Pfizer, Lilly, Abbvie, Novartis, Roche, Gilead and BMS, 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, 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

Combined Analysis of Metabolomes, Proteomes, and Transcriptomes of Hepatitis C Virus-Infected Cells and Liver to Identify Pathways Associated With Disease Development

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The mechanisms of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, liver disease progression, and hepatocarcinogenesis are only partially understood. We performed genomic, proteomic, and metabolomic analyses of HCV-infected cells and chimeric mice to learn more about these processes.

METHODS

Huh7.5.1dif (hepatocyte-like cells) were infected with culture-derived HCV and used in RNA sequencing, proteomic, metabolomic, and integrative genomic analyses. uPA/SCID (urokinase-type plasminogen activator/severe combined immunodeficiency) mice were injected with serum from HCV-infected patients; 8 weeks later, liver tissues were collected and analyzed by RNA sequencing and proteomics. Using differential expression, gene set enrichment analyses, and protein interaction mapping, we identified pathways that changed in response to HCV infection. We validated our findings in studies of liver tissues from 216 patients with HCV infection and early-stage cirrhosis and paired biopsy specimens from 99 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, including 17 patients with histologic features of steatohepatitis. Cirrhotic liver tissues from patients with HCV infection were classified into 2 groups based on relative peroxisome function; outcomes assessed included Child-Pugh class, development of hepatocellular carcinoma, survival, and steatohepatitis. Hepatocellular carcinomas were classified according to steatohepatitis; the outcome was relative peroxisomal function.

RESULTS

We quantified 21,950 messenger RNAs (mRNAs) and 8297 proteins in HCV-infected cells. Upon HCV infection of hepatocyte-like cells and chimeric mice, we observed significant changes in levels of mRNAs and proteins involved in metabolism and hepatocarcinogenesis. HCV infection of hepatocyte-like cells significantly increased levels of the mRNAs, but not proteins, that regulate the innate immune response; we believe this was due to the inhibition of translation in these cells. HCV infection of hepatocyte-like cells increased glucose consumption and metabolism and the STAT3 signaling pathway and reduced peroxisome function. Peroxisomes mediate β-oxidation of very long-chain fatty acids; we found intracellular accumulation of very long-chain fatty acids in HCV-infected cells, which is also observed in patients with fatty liver disease. Cells in livers from HCV-infected mice had significant reductions in levels of the mRNAs and proteins associated with peroxisome function, indicating perturbation of peroxisomes. We found that defects in peroxisome function were associated with outcomes and features of HCV-associated cirrhosis, fatty liver disease, and hepatocellular carcinoma in patients.

CONCLUSIONS

We performed combined transcriptome, proteome, and metabolome analyses of liver tissues from HCV-infected hepatocyte-like cells and HCV-infected mice. We found that HCV infection increases glucose metabolism and the STAT3 signaling pathway and thereby reduces peroxisome function; alterations in the expression levels of peroxisome genes were associated with outcomes of patients with liver diseases. These findings provide insights into liver disease pathogenesis and might be used to identify new therapeutic targets.

Protein kinase D at the Golgi controls NLRP3 inflammasome activation

Zhang et al. show that Golgi-mediated protein kinase D (PKD) signaling is required and sufficient for NLRP3 inflammasome activation. PKD at the Golgi phosphorylates NLRP3 to release it from mitochondria-associated endoplasmic reticulum membranes, allowing for assembly of the mature inflammasome in the cytosol.

The inflammasomes are multiprotein complexes sensing tissue damage and infectious agents to initiate innate immune responses. Different inflammasomes containing distinct sensor molecules exist. The NLRP3 inflammasome is unique as it detects a variety of danger signals. It has been reported that NLRP3 is recruited to mitochondria-associated endoplasmic reticulum membranes (MAMs) and is activated by MAM-derived effectors. Here, we show that in response to inflammasome activators, MAMs localize adjacent to Golgi membranes. Diacylglycerol (DAG) at the Golgi rapidly increases, recruiting protein kinase D (PKD), a key effector of DAG. Upon PKD inactivation, self-oligomerized NLRP3 is retained at MAMs adjacent to Golgi, blocking assembly of the active inflammasome. Importantly, phosphorylation of NLRP3 by PKD at the Golgi is sufficient to release NLRP3 from MAMs, resulting in assembly of the active inflammasome. Moreover, PKD inhibition prevents inflammasome autoactivation in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from patients carrying NLRP3 mutations. Hence, Golgi-mediated PKD signaling is required and sufficient for NLRP3 inflammasome activation.

Two-dimensional assembly and local redox-activity of molecular hybrid structures in an electrochemical environment

The self-assembly and redox-properties of two viologen derivatives, N-hexyl-N'-(6-thiohexyl)-4,4'-bipyridinium bromide (HS-6V6-H) and N,N'-bis(6-thiohexyl)-4,4'-bipyridinium bromide (HS-6V6-SH), immobilized on Au(lll)-(1 x 1) macro-electrodes were investigated by cyclic voltammetry, surface enhanced infrared spectroscopy (SEIRAS) and in situ scanning tunneling microscopy (STM). Depending on the assembly conditions one could distinguish three different types of adlayers for both viologens: a low coverage disordered and an ordered "striped" phase of flat oriented molecules as well as a high coverage monolayer composed of tilted viologen moieties. Both molecules, HS-6V6-H and HS-6V6-SH, were successfully immobilized on Au(poly) nano-electrodes, which gave a well-defined redox-response in the lower pA-current range. An in situ STM configuration was employed to explore electron transport properties of single molecule junctions Au(T)/HS-6V6-SH(HS-6V6-H)/Au(S). The observed sigmoidal potential dependence, measured at variable substrate potential E(S) and at constant bias voltage (E(T) - E(S)), was attributed to electronic structure changes of the viologen moiety during the one-electron reduction/re-oxidation process V2+ < -- > V+*. Tunneling experiments in asymmetric, STM-based junctions Au(T)-S-6V6-H/Au(S) revealed current (i(T))-voltage (E(T)) curves with a maximum located at the equilibrium potential of the redox-process V2+ < -- > V+*. The experimental i(T)--E(T) characteristics of the HS-6V6-H-modified tunneling junction were tentatively attributed to a sequential two-step electron transfer mechanism.

Inhibition of DNA binding by the phosphorylation of poly ADP-ribose polymerase protein catalysed by protein kinase C

Purified type II (beta) and type III (alpha) protein kinase C phosphorylates highly purified polyADP-ribose polymerase in vitro whereby 2 mols of phosphate are transferred from ATP to serine and threonine residues present in the 36 and 56 kDa polypeptide domains of the polymerase protein. Calf thymus DNA was a non-competitive inhibitor of the protein kinase C catalyzed phosphorylation of polyADP-ribose polymerase. Coincidental with the phosphorylation of the protein the polymerase activity and DNA binding capacity of polyADP-ribose polymerase were inhibited. These in vitro findings may have possible cell biological significance in cellular signal transduction.