Definitions of Remission in Psoriasis: A Systematic Literature Review from the National Psoriasis Foundation

Psoriasis studies increasingly employ outcomes that indicate complete disease resolution, yet remission and cure are poorly defined for psoriasis. We conducted a systematic literature review to identify definitions of psoriasis remission and cure reported in the literature. Medline, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched on July 22, 2020 for full-text studies providing definitions for psoriasis remission/cure. Definitions were analyzed descriptively for endpoint, time-frame, on/off treatment, patient-reported outcomes, and disease domains. We identified 106 studies that provided 41 unique remission definitions. Most definitions included endpoints based on Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI), such as PASI75 (n=16 studies), PASI90 (n=10), PASI100 (n=10), and PASI of 0 (n=3), and descriptive endpoints related to 'skin clearance' (n=18). Few definitions specified time-frame, on/off treatment or other psoriasis-related disease domains. One small consensus-initiative defined drug-free remission for plaque psoriasis by BSA of 0 without any therapy for at least 12 months. While there is no cure for psoriasis, seven studies defined psoriasis cure using similar endpoints to those used to define remission. We identified a variety of definitions of psoriasis remission. These results will inform the development of consensus-based definitions for psoriasis remission to support efforts to improve research and clinical outcomes.

AB0887 Designing a Phase 3b, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Study to Investigate the Effect of Guselkumab Dosing Interval in Psoriatic Arthritis Patients with Inadequate Response to Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibition

Background

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) are frequently chosen as the first biologic therapy for patients (pts) with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), though a sizeable proportion of pts have an inadequate response (IR), and some may also have intolerance. Guselkumab (GUS), a human mAb that targets the IL-23 p19 subunit, provides an alternative mechanism of action to treat PsA. In the Phase 3 (Ph3) DISCOVER-1 study of GUS in active PsA, GUS every 4 weeks (Q4W) and Q8W clinical response rates were generally consistent between TNFi-naïve (263 pts) and TNFi-experienced (118 pts) cohorts. In the TNFi-experienced cohort and the limited number of DISCOVER-1 pts with IR to their prior TNFi (N=44), American College of Rheumatology 50% improvement (ACR50) and ACR70 response rates at W24 were numerically higher in GUS Q4W- than Q8W-treated pts.1

Objectives

To further investigate whether GUS Q4W could provide incremental benefit to some TNFi-IR PsA pts by analyzing the existing DISCOVER-1 dataset to facilitate the design of a new clinical trial.

Methods

Study feasibility assessments included comparison of key efficacy endpoints by treatment group at W24 among TNFi-experienced pts receiving GUS Q8W and Q4W in DISCOVER-1. Results from the DISCOVER-1 study also informed sample size power calculations for a primary endpoint of ACR20 response at W24 in a future study in a TNFi-IR PsA pt population.

Results

Comparison of several efficacy endpoints (ACR70 response, minimal disease activity, Investigator’s Global Assessment [IGA] of psoriasis 0/1 response) across treatment groups in the TNFi-experienced DISCOVER-1 cohort supports a potential dose response, with more frequent GUS administration eliciting numerically higher response rates (Table 1). A similar trend was observed for ACR20/50/70 responses in the smaller TNFi-IR population1, though these findings should be interpreted with caution due to limited sample size. ACR20 response rates at W24 of DISCOVER-1 were employed to estimate sample size requirements for a new study. Assuming comparable rates of GUS treatment effect seen in DISCOVER-1, a sample size of 150 randomized pts per group for PBO, GUS Q8W, and GUS Q4W would provide >90% power to detect a significant difference between each GUS group and PBO for ACR20 response at W24. Based on these findings, a new Ph3b, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, PBO-controlled study, SOLSTICE, was designed to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of GUS in approximately 450 pts with active PsA who had IR to one prior TNFi, and to investigate the effect of GUS dosing interval in this important cohort of pts with PsA (Figure 1).

Table 1.

Clinical efficacy at W24 among DISCOVER-1 TNFi-experienced pts

PlaceboGUS Q8WGUS Q4WACR2017.9% (7/39)56.1% (23/41)57.9% (22/38)ACR505.1% (2/39)26.8% (11/41)34.2% (13/38)ACR702.6% (1/39)2.4% (1/41)21.1% (8/38)MDA2.6% (1/39)17.1% (7/41)26.3% (10/38)IGA 0/1a7.7% (2/26)48.3% (14/29)67.9% (19/28)

aIGA score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) among pts with ≥3% body surface area of psoriatic involvement and an IGA score ≥2 (mild-to-severe psoriasis) at baseline.

ACR20/50/70, American College of Rheumatology 20%/50%/70% improvement; GUS, guselkumab; IGA, Investigator’s Global Assessment; MDA, minimal disease activity; Q4W, every 4 weeks; Q8W, every 8 weeks; TNFi, tumor necrosis factor inhibitor; W, week

Conclusion

PsA pts with TNFi-IR are typically difficult to treat. Overall data from the pivotal DISCOVER-1 study of GUS in pts with active PsA showed consistent clinical response between doses and between TNFi-naïve and TNFi-experienced pts. Analyses based on limited numbers of TNFi-experienced pts from DISCOVER-1 demonstrated potential incremental benefit for achievement of higher response criteria with more frequent dosing in some TNFi-IR pts. SOLSTICE, a Ph3b, randomized, placebo-controlled study, will test this hypothesis.

References

[1]Deodhar A, et al. Lancet. 2020;395:1115-1125.

Figure 1.

Disclosure of Interests

Alexis Ogdie Shareholder of: Her husband has received royalties from Novartis, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Corrona, Gilead, Global Health Living Foundation, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Pfizer and Novartis/Amgen to the University of Pennsylvania, Joseph F. Merola Paid instructor for: AbbVie, Arena, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Arena, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB Pharma, Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Aclaris, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Inmagene, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN Pharma, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Aclaris, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Inmagene, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN Pharma, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Aclaris, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Inmagene, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN Pharma, and UCB, Christopher T. Ritchlin Consultant of: UCB Pharma, Amgen, AbbVie, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Gilead, and Janssen, Grant/research support from: UCB Pharma, AbbVie, and Amgen, Jose U. Scher Consultant of: Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Abbvie, Sanofi, Kaleido and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer and Janssen (for investigator-initiated studies), Daphne Chan Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, and may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Soumya D Chakravarty Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, and may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Wayne Langholff Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, and may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Olivia Choi Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, and may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Yevgeniy Krol Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, and may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Katelyn Rowland Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, and may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Alice B Gottlieb Consultant of: AnaptsysBio, Avotres Therapeutics, Beiersdorf, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Incyte, GSK, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., UCB Pharma, Dermavant, and Xbiotech, Grant/research support from: Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, Janssen, Novartis, UCB Pharma, Xbiotech, and Sun Pharma

LB0001 BIMEKIZUMAB IN BDMARD-NAIVE PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: 24-WEEK EFFICACY & SAFETY FROM BE OPTIMAL, A PHASE 3, MULTICENTRE, RANDOMISED, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED, ACTIVE REFERENCE STUDY

Background

Bimekizumab (BKZ) is a monoclonal IgG1 antibody that selectively inhibits IL-17F in addition to IL-17A.

Objectives

Assess BKZ efficacy and safety vs PBO in bDMARD-naïve pts with active PsA to Wk 24 of BE OPTIMAL.

Methods

BE OPTIMAL (NCT03895203) comprises 16 wks double-blind PBO-controlled and 36 wks treatment-blind. Pts were ≥18 yrs, bDMARD-naïve, with adult-onset, active PsA, ≥3 tender and ≥3 swollen joints. Pts randomised 3:2:1, subcutaneous BKZ 160 mg Q4W:PBO:adalimumab (ADA; reference arm) 40 mg Q2W. From Wk 16, PBO pts received BKZ 160 mg Q4W. Primary endpoint: ACR50 at Wk 16.

Results

821/852 (96.4%) pts completed Wk 16 and 806 (94.6%) Wk 24. Mean age 48.7 yrs, BMI 29.2 kg/m2; since diagnosis: 5.9 yrs; 46.8% male. BL characteristics comparable across arms. Primary endpoint met (Wk 16 ACR50: 43.9% BKZ vs 10.0% PBO, p<0.001; ADA: 45.7%; Figure 1). All ranked secondary endpoints met at Wk 16 (Table 1). As early as Wk 2, ACR20 was higher in BKZ vs PBO (27.1% vs 7.8%, nominal p<0.001; ADA: 33.6%). Outcomes continued to improve at Wk 24 (Table 1). To Wk 16, pts with ≥1 TEAE, BKZ: 59.9%; PBO: 49.5%; ADA: 59.3%. SAE rate low (1.6%; 1.1%; 1.4%). Most frequent (≥5%) AEs for all arms: nasopharyngitis (9.3%; 4.6%; 5.0%), URTI (4.9%; 6.4%; 2.1%), increased ALT (0.7%; 0.7%; 5.0%). Candida infections: 2.6%, 0.7%, 0%; no systemic candidiasis. 2 malignancies (BKZ: basal cell carcinoma; PBO: breast cancer stage 1); no MACE, uveitis, IBD or deaths.

Table 1.

Wk 16 and 24 efficacy

BLWk 16Wk 24PBO N=281BKZ 160 mg Q4W N=431ADA 40 mg Q2W N=140†PBO N=281BKZ 160 mg Q4W N=431ADA 40 mg Q2W N=140†p value (BKZ vs PBO)PBO→ BKZ 160 mg Q4WaN=281BKZ 160 mg Q4W N=431ADA 40 mg Q2W N=140†Ranked endpointsbACR50 [NRI],–––28189 (43.9)64<0.00110119666n (%)-10-45.7(35.9)(45.5)-47.1HAQ-DI CfB [MI],0.890.820.86−0.09 (0.03)−0.26 (0.02)−0.33<0.001c−0.28−0.30−0.34mean (SE)-0.04-0.03-0.05(0.04)(0.03)(0.02)(0.05)PASI90d [NRI],–––4133 (61.3)f28<0.00186 (61.4)e158 (72.8)f32n (%)(2.9)e(41.2)g(47.1)gSF-36 PCS CfB [MI],36.938.137.62.36.36.8<0.001c6.27.37.3mean (SE)-0.6-0.5-0.7-0.5-0.4-0.8-0.5-0.4-0.8MDA [NRI],51413719463<0.00110620967n (%)-1.8-3.2-0.7-13.2(45.0)-45(37.7)(48.5)-47.9vdHmTSS CfB (subgroup)h [MI], mean (SE)15.67 (1.80)i15.56 (1.69)j17.39 (2.89)k0.36 (0.10)i−0.01 (0.04)j−0.06 (0.08)k<0.001c–––vdHmTSS CfB [MI],mean (SE)13.31 (1.56)l13.44 (1.47)m14.55 (2.44)n0.31 (0.09)l0(0.04)m−0.03 (0.07)n0.001c–––Other endpointsACR20 [NRI],–––6726896<0.001o17528299n (%)-23.8(62.2)-68.6(62.3)(65.4)-70.7ACR70 [NRI],–––1210539<0.001o5312642n (%)-4.3(24.4)-27.9-18.9(29.2)-30PASI100d [NRI],–––3103f14<0.001o6012226n (%)(2.1)e(47.5)(20.6)g(42.9)e (56.2)f(38.2)gTJC CfB [MI],17.116.817.5−3.2−10.0−10.9<0.001o−9.4−11.5−11.8mean (SE)-0.7-0.6-1.1(0.7) (0.5)-1(0.7)(0.5)-0.9SJC CfB [MI],9.599.6−3.0 (0.5)−6.6 (0.3)−7.5<0.001o−6.8 (0.4)−7.2 (0.3)−7.9mean (SE)-0.4-0.3-0.6-0.6-0.6

Randomised set. Interim results.

†Reference arm; study not powered for statistical comparisons of ADA to BKZ or PBO.

aPBO→BKZ pts received PBO to Wk 16, switched to BKZ 160 mg Q4W through Wk 24 (8 wks BKZ);

bResolution of enthesitis/dactylitis in pts with LEI>0/LDI>0 at BL pooled with BE COMPLETE (Wk 16 LEI=0 BKZ: 124/249 [49.8%], PBO: 37/106 [34.9%], p=0.008; LDI=0 BKZ: 68/90 [75.6%], PBO: 24/47 [51.1%], p=0.002);

cContinuous outcome p values calculated with RBMI data;

dPts with PSO and ≥3% BSA at BL;

en=140;

fn=217;

gn=68;

hPts with hs-CRP ≥6 mg/L and/or bone erosion at BL;

in=221;

jn=357;

kn=108;

ln=261;

mn=416;

nn=131;

oNominal, not powered for multiplicity.

Conclusion

Dual inhibition of IL-17A and IL-17F with BKZ in bDMARD-naïve pts with active PsA resulted in rapid, clinically relevant improvements in musculoskeletal and skin outcomes vs PBO. No new safety signals observed.1,2

References

[1]Ritchlin CT Lancet 2020;395(10222):427–40; 2. Coates LC Ann Rheum Dis 2021;80:779–80(POS1022).

Disclosure of Interests

Iain McInnes Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Janssen, UCB Pharma, Laura Coates Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Celgene, Domain, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Galapagos, Janssen, Moonlake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Robert B.M. Landewé Consultant of: Abbott, Ablynx, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Centocor, GSK, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, Schering-Plough, UCB Pharma, and Wyeth, Speakers bureau: Abbott, Amgen, BMS, Centocor, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, Schering-Plough, UCB Pharma, and Wyeth, Grant/research support from: Abbott, Amgen, Centocor, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Schering-Plough, UCB Pharma, and Wyeth, Philip J Mease Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma and UCB Pharma, Christopher T. Ritchlin Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen and UCB Pharma, Yoshiya Tanaka Consultant of: AbbVie, Ayumi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, GSK, Sanofi, and Taisho, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, and YL Biologics, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Asahi-Kasei, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai, Corrona, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Kowa, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, and Takeda, Akihiko Asahina Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Maruho, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, Taiho Pharma, Torii Pharmaceutical, and UCB Pharma, Laure Gossec Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer, Sandoz and UCB Pharma, Alice B Gottlieb Consultant of: Amgen, AnaptsysBio, Avotres Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, UCB Pharma, and XBiotech, Grant/research support from: Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Novartis, Sun Pharma, UCB Pharma, and XBiotech: all funds go to Mount Sinai Medical School, Richard B. Warren Consultant of: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Arena, Astellas, Avillion, Biogen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB Pharma, Paid instructor for: Astellas, DiCE, GSK, and Union, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Almirall, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, and UCB Pharma, Barbara Ink Shareholder of: GSK, UCB Pharma, Employee of: UCB Pharma, Deepak Assudani Shareholder of: UCB Pharma, Employee of: UCB Pharma, Jason Coarse Shareholder of: UCB Pharma, Employee of: UCB Pharma, Rajan Bajracharya Shareholder of: UCB Pharma, Employee of: UCB Pharma, Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and UCB Pharma, Paid instructor for: Amgen, Abbvie, Biogen, BMS, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and UCB Pharma

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

Background

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

Objectives

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

References

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

Acknowledgements

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

Disclosure of Interests

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

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

Background

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

Objectives

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Acknowledgements

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

Disclosure of Interests

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

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

Background

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

Objectives

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Figure 1.

Digit level association between nail assessment and DIP joint.

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

Conclusion

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

References

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

Disclosure of Interests

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

AB0893 An Analysis of Fatigue in Patients With Psoriatic Disease Utilizing SF-36 Vitality Scores: Results Through Week 24 in Phase 3 Trials of Guselkumab in Patients With Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis

Background

Patients with chronic inflammatory diseases can experience significant fatigue, negatively impacting health-related quality-of-life.1,2

Objectives

This post-hoc analysis evaluated baseline fatigue severity among patients with psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and the effect of guselkumab treatment on patient-reported fatigue.

Methods

VOYAGE-2 evaluated guselkumab every 8 weeks (Q8W) versus placebo (W16→guselkumab) and adalimumab in treating moderate-to-severe psoriasis.3 DISCOVER-14 and DISCOVER-25 evaluated guselkumab Q4W and Q8W versus placebo in treating active PsA. Fatigue was assessed using 36-item Short Form (SF-36) vitality scale score (includes 4 questions on fatigue/energy level); the US population norm=50±10; 5-10-point decrements are typically observed in conditions known to cause fatigue2; scores ≤35 indicate clinically important fatigue1; increases ≥5 indicate clinically meaningful improvement.2

Results

Across randomized groups at baseline, mean SF-36 vitality scores were 47.7-48.5 in psoriasis and 42.2-44.0 in PsA patients; 11%-15% of psoriasis and 20%-28% of PsA patients had scores <35. In psoriasis patients, mean increases in SF-36 vitality score at W16 were: placebo, 1.1; adalimumab, 3.9 (p<0.001 versus placebo); guselkumab, 5.6 (p<0.001 versus placebo); at W24: placebo→guselkumab, 4.6; adalimumab, 3.9; guselkumab, 5.8 (p=0.0148 versus adalimumab). In PsA patients, mean increases at W24 were: placebo, 2.3-4.0; guselkumab, 5.5-7.5 (p≤0.001 versus placebo). Through the placebo-controlled periods, significantly greater proportions of guselkumab-treated patients achieved clinically meaningful improvement in fatigue versus placebo (W16 psoriasis: guselkumab, 48%; placebo, 32%; p<0.001; W24 PsA: guselkumab, 53%-55%; placebo, 34%-44%; p<0.05).

Conclusion

At baseline, patients with psoriatic disease experienced clinically important fatigue, more so with PsA (20%-28%) than psoriasis (11%-15%). In guselkumab-treated psoriasis and PsA patients, clinically meaningful improvements in fatigue were achieved at W16 and W24, respectively.

References

[1]Skoie IM et al. Br J Dermatol. 2017;177:505-12

[2]Bjorner JB et al. Curr Med Res Opin. 2007;23:731-9

[3]Reich K et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76:418-31

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

[5]Mease PJ et al. Lancet. 2020;395:1126-36

Disclosure of Interests

Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: AbbVie, Arena, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB Pharma, Yi-Hsuan Liu Employee of: Janssen Global Services, LLC and may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Ya-Wen Yang Employee of: Immunology Global Medical Affairs, Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, and may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Megan Miller Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC and may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, May Shawi Employee of: Immunology Global Medical Affairs, Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, and may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Daphne Chan Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC and may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Saakshi Khattri Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Eli Lilly, UCB, Janssen, Paid instructor for: Abbvie, Eli Lilly, UCB, Janssen, Consultant of: Abbvie, Eli Lilly, UCB, Janssen, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Abbvie, Leo, BMS, Eli Lilly, Laura Savage Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Celgene, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, LEO Pharma, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Celgene, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, LEO Pharma, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: Janssen and Pfizer, Wolf-Henning Boehncke Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, and UCB Pharma; and has received a research grant from Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, and UCB Pharma; and has received a research grant from Pfizer, Chenglong Han Employee of: Janssen Global Services, LLC and may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson

POS0081 LONG-TERM EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF UPADACITINIB IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: 2-YEAR RESULTS FROM THE PHASE 3 SELECT-PsA 1 STUDY

Background

In SELECT-PsA 1, patients (pts) with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and an inadequate response or intolerance to ≥1 non-biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug showed improvement in the signs and symptoms of PsA with upadacitinib 15 mg (UPA15) or 30 mg (UPA30), an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, through week (wk) 56.1

Objectives

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of UPA and UPA vs adalimumab (ADA) at wk 104 from the ongoing long-term extension of SELECT-PsA 1.

Methods

Pts received UPA15, UPA30, ADA 40 mg, or placebo (PBO) for 24 wks, at which point, PBO pts switched to UPA15 or UPA30. Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using non-responder imputation (NRI) and as observed (AO) (binary endpoints) or mixed-effect model repeated measures and AO (continuous endpoints), with nominal P-values shown, for continuous UPA and ADA treatment groups. Treatment-emergent adverse events were summarized for pts who received ≥1 dose of study drug using a visit-based cut-off at wk 104.

Results

1704 pts received ≥1 dose of study drug. At wk 104, 25.4% of patients had discontinued study drug. The proportions of pts who achieved ACR20/50/70, MDA, PASI75/90/100, and resolution of enthesitis or dactylitis showed consistent responses, or further improvements, from wk 561 to wk 104 (Table 1). ACR20/50/70 and MDA responses, as well as mean change from baseline (BL) in HAQ-DI, patient’s assessment of pain, BASDAI, and ASDAS, were greater with UPA vs ADA. Mean change from BL in modified total Sharp/van der Heijde Score (mTSS) was generally similar across groups and comparable to wk 56.1 The safety profile of UPA was generally comparable to ADA (Figure 1) and consistent with wk 561 data. Rates of serious infection, herpes zoster, lymphopenia, and elevated CPK remained numerically higher with UPA30 vs UPA15; rates in both UPA groups were higher vs ADA. Rates of malignancies, MACE, or VTE were similar across groups, and consistent with wk 561 data. Two deaths were reported with UPA15, 1 with UPA30, and 1 with ADA.

Table 1.

Efficacy Endpoints at Week 104

EndpointUPA15(n=429)UPA30(n=423)ADA(n=429)Proportion of Pts (%)aNRIAONRIAONRIAOACR2069.087.969.587.963.485.1ACR5053.667.459.3*74.147.162.3ACR7038.0*47.443.5*54.429.439.1Minimal Disease Activity (MDA)42.054.845.9*56.837.850.3PASI75b57.973.462.478.658.876.5PASI90b46.759.053.366.548.863.3PASI100b34.143.442.451.434.144.0Resolution of enthesitis by LEIc53.375.552.272.049.173.9Resolution of dactylitis by LDId69.994.571.796.272.495.2Change from BLeMMRMAOMMRMAOMMRMAOHealth Assessment Questionnaire - Disability Index (HAQ-DI)-0.55*-0.57-0.55*-0.59-0.45-0.47Patient’s assessment of pain (numeric rating scale)-3.3-3.5-3.4*-3.6-3.0-3.2Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI)f-3.0-3.2-3.3-3.6-2.7-2.6Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS)f-1.6-1.8-1.9*-2.1-1.5-1.6Modified total Sharp/van der Heijde Score (mTSS)0.030.010.010.000.110.11

ACR20/50/70, ≥20%/50%/70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria; ADA, adalimumab; AO, as observed; BL, baseline; LDI, Leeds Dactylitis Index; LEI, Leeds Enthesitis Index; MMRM, mixed effect model repeated measurement; NRI, non-responder imputation; PASI75/90/100, ≥75%/90%/100% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index; pts, patients; UPA, upadacitinib.

aData shown as NRI and AO for binary endpoints.

bFor pts with psoriasis affecting ≥3% of body surface area at BL.

cFor pts with LEI >0 at BL; resolution LEI=0.

dFor pts with LDI >0 at BL; resolution LDI=0.

eData shown as MMRM (LS mean) and AO (mean) for continuous endpoints.

fFor pts with psoriatic spondylitis at BL.

Nominal *P<0.05, UPA15 or UPA30 vs ADA for NRI and MMRM; AO descriptive only.

Conclusion

In PsA pts, efficacy responses were similar or greater with UPA15 or UPA30 vs ADA at wk 104, and inhibition of radiographic progression was maintained. No new safety signals were identified with long-term exposure to UPA up to 2 years.

References

[1]McInnes I, et al. RMD Open, 2021; 7(3):e001838.

Acknowledgements

AbbVie and the authors thank the patients, study sites, and investigators who participated in this clinical trial (NCT03104400). AbbVie funded this study and participated in the study design, research, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, reviewing, and approval of the publication. All authors had access to relevant data and participated in the drafting, review, and approval of this publication. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing support was provided by Monica R.P. Elmore, PhD of AbbVie.

Disclosure of Interests

Iain McInnes Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Regeneron, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Regeneron, and UCB Pharma, Koji Kato Shareholder of: Employee of AbbVie and may hold stock or options, Employee of: Employee of AbbVie, Marina Magrey Consultant of: UCB, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Janssen, Grant/research support from: Amgen, AbbVie, and UCB Pharma, Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, UCB, Celgene, Sanofi, Regeneron, Arena, Sun Pharma, Biogen, Pfizer, EMD Sorono, Avotres, and Leo Pharma, Mitsumasa Kishimoto Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen-Astellas BioPharma, Asahi-Kasei Pharma, Astellas, Ayumi Pharma, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Ono Pharma, Pfizer, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, Teijin Pharma, and UCB Pharma, Derek Haaland Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Takeda, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli-Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Takeda, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Adiga Life-Sciences, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Can-Fite Biopharma, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, UCB, Liang Chen Shareholder of: Employee of AbbVie and may hold stock or options, Employee of: Employee of AbbVie, Yuanyuan Duan Shareholder of: Employee of AbbVie and may hold stock or options, Employee of: Employee of AbbVie, Jianzhong Liu Shareholder of: Employee of AbbVie and may hold stock or options, Employee of: Employee of AbbVie, Ralph Lippe Shareholder of: Employee of AbbVie and may hold stock or options, Employee of: Employee of AbbVie, Peter Wung Shareholder of: Employee of AbbVie and may hold stock or options, Employee of: Employee of AbbVie

POS0072 CONSISTENT LONG-TERM GUSELKUMAB EFFICACY ACROSS PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS DOMAINS IRRESPECTIVE OF BASELINE PATIENT CHARACTERISTICS

Background

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients (pts) with differing baseline (BL) characteristics may vary in their response to treatment. In the phase 3 DISCOVER-1 and DISCOVER-2 studies, guselkumab (GUS) significantly improved joint symptoms, skin disease, enthesitis, dactylitis, physical function, and quality of life at Week (W) 24 in pts with PsA.1,2 Clinical responses across these disease domains were maintained or increased with GUS at W52,3.4 regardless of BL pt demographics, disease characteristics, or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) use.5 Durable efficacy with GUS through W100 across multiple disease domains was observed.6

Objectives

Assess both BL predictors of, and by BL pt subgroups, GUS efficacy across PsA disease domains through W100 of DISCOVER-2.

Methods

Biologic-naïve adults with active PsA despite standard therapies were enrolled in DISCOVER-2 (swollen joint count [SJC] ≥5 & tender joint count [TJC] ≥5, C-reactive protein [CRP] ≥0.6 mg/dL). Pts were randomized 1:1:1 to GUS 100 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W); GUS 100 mg at W0, W4, then Q8W; or placebo (PBO).2 GUS effects on joint, skin, enthesitis, dactylitis, spinal pain, and disease severity endpoints (change in Disease Activity in PsA [DAPSA], SJC, and TJC scores; Psoriasis [PsO] Area Severity Index [PASI] score [among pts with BL IGA ≥2 and body surface area [BSA] with PsO ≥3%]; Leeds enthesitis index [LEI] score [among pts with enthesitis at BL]; dactylitis score [among pts with dactylitis at BL]; spinal pain score; and PsA Disease Activity Score [PASDAS], respectively) at W100 were evaluated for GUS-randomized pts, both by treatment group and by pooling pts across Q4W and Q8W treatment arms. A multivariate linear model adjusting for BL pt characteristics assessed associations between BL predictors of interest and changes in DAPSA, PASI, and LEI scores from BL to W100, and to assess least squares mean (LSM) changes and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in all continuous endpoints from BL to W100 within subgroups of pts defined by BL sex, body mass index (BMI), PsA duration, SJC, TJC, CRP level, %BSA, PASI score, and csDMARD use.

Results

442 (90%) GUS-randomized pts completed study treatment through W100.6 Among the BL predictors of long-term GUS efficacy assessed (see above), only PsA duration (p=0.032), SJC (p<0.001), and TJC (p<0.001) were significant predictors of long-term (BL to W100) DAPSA score change; %BSA (p=0.002), PASI score (<0.001), SJC (p=0.008), and csDMARD use (p=0.014) were significant predictors of long-term PASI score change; and none significantly predicted long-term LEI score change among pooled GUS pts (Figure 1). However, statistically significant improvements from BL to W100 in DAPSA, PASI, and LEI scores were observed across all BL strata, including those indicating more extensive or severe disease, in pooled GUS Q4W+Q8W pts (Figure 1, all p<0.001) and within each dosing group. Similar improvements were observed for other continuous endpoints assessed (change in Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score [PASDAS], SJC, TJC, spinal pain, and dactylitis score).

Conclusion

GUS significantly improved PsA signs and symptoms through W100 across all BL pt subgroups evaluated, including pts with highly active disease, and regardless of dosing regimen.

References

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

[2]Mease PJ et al. Lancet 2020;395;1126-36.

[3]Ritchlin CT et al. RMD Open 2021;7(1):e001457.

[4]McInnes IB et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2021;73:604-16.

[5]Ritchlin CT et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2021;80:1291-2.

[6]McInnes IB et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2021;doi: 10.1002/art.42010.

Disclosure of Interests

Iain McInnes Shareholder of: Causeway Therapeutics, and Evelo Compugen, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Cabaletta, Compugen, GSK, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Roche, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Roche, and UCB, John Tesser Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Janssen and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, CoreVitas, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, and Sun Pharma, Elena Schiopu Consultant of: Janssen, Grant/research support from: Janssen, Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: AbbVie, Arena, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Arena, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB, Soumya D Chakravarty Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC (a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson), Emmanouil Rampakakis Consultant of: Janssen, Employee of: JSS Medical Research, Natalie Shiff Shareholder of: AbbVie, Gilead, Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC (a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson), Alexa Kollmeier Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC (a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson), Xie L Xu Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC (a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson), May Shawi Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, Frederic Lavie Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, Paul Bird Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer, Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Aclaris, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Inmagene, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB

POS1032 RISANKIZUMAB FOR ACTIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: INTEGRATED SUBGROUP ANALYSIS FROM 2 DOUBLE-BLIND, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED, PHASE 3 STUDIES (KEEPsAKE 1 AND KEEPsAKE 2)

Background

Risankizumab (RZB), a monoclonal antibody that specifically inhibits interleukin 23, is being investigated as a treatment for adults with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Objectives

We report the proportion of patients with active PsA treated with RZB vs placebo who achieved ≥20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) by baseline demographics and by concomitant or prior medication use subgroups.

Methods

KEEPsAKE 1 (NCT03675308) and KEEPsAKE 2 (NCT03671148) are ongoing, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 studies. Patients with active PsA with an inadequate response or intolerance to conventional synthetic disease-modifying, anti-rheumatic drug (csDMARD; KEEPsAKE 1 and 2) and/or biologic therapy (KEEPsAKE 2) received RZB 150 mg or placebo (1:1). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving ≥20% improvement in ACR criteria (ACR20) at week 24.

Results

In KEEPsAKE 1 (RZB, n=483; placebo, n=481) and KEEPsAKE 2 (RZB, n=224; placebo, n=219), baseline demographics and characteristics were generally balanced between treatment groups. In this integrated analysis, a greater proportion of patients receiving RZB vs placebo achieved ACR20 at week 24, regardless of age (<65 years, ≥65 years, ≥65 to <75 years, ≥75 years), sex, body mass index (<25 kg/m2, ≥25 to <30 kg/m2, ≥30 kg/m2), race (White, non-White), PsA duration (≤5 years, >5 to ≤10 years, >10 years), baseline hs-CRP (<3 mg/L, ≥3 mg/L), concomitant csDMARD at baseline (any csDMARD, any methotrexate, none), or prior biologics use (yes, no). The proportion of RZB-treated patients who achieved ACR20 was generally similar across most assessed demographic or prior treatment subgroups. No new safety concerns were observed with RZB.

Conclusion

RZB demonstrates efficacy vs placebo for active PsA as shown by greater proportions of patients achieving ACR20 at week 24, regardless of baseline demographics, concomitant csDMARD use at baseline, or prior biologic use.

Acknowledgements

AbbVie Inc. participated in the study design; study research; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; funded the research for this study. Medical writing assistance, funded by AbbVie, was provided by Alicia Salinero, PhD, of JB Ashtin.

Disclosure of Interests

Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, UCB, Sanofi, Regeneron, Sun Pharma, Biogen, Pfizer and Leo Pharma, Kristina Callis-Duffin Consultant of: Amgen/Celgene, AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CorEvitas, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Amgen/Celgene, AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, CorEvitas, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Byron Padilla Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Zhenyi Xue Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Huzefa Photowala Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Blair Kaplan Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Iain McInnes Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers, Celgene, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers, Celgene, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB

POS1099 QUALITY OF LIFE, WORK IMPAIRMENT, AND DAILY ACTIVITY IMPAIRMENT OF PATIENTS WITH PSORIASIS VERSUS PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: A REAL-WORLD SURVEY IN US AND EUROPE

Background

Psoriasis (PsO) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and are chronic immune-mediated diseases characterised by joint inflammation and skin lesions which negatively impact patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Several previous comparative studies have focused on PsA patients with or without skin involvement. Better understanding of the impact of both PsO and PsA on HRQoL and work / activity impairment will improve understanding of the incremental burden of PsA compared to PsO, and may lead to more personalised treatment options.

Objectives

To compare HRQoL, work impairment, and daily activity impairment of patients with a PsO diagnosis (dx) only, PsO dx with musculoskeletal (MSK) symptoms (sx), PsA dx with active skin sx, and PsA dx without active skin sx.

Methods

Data were drawn from the Adelphi PsO & PsA Disease Specific Programmes™ (DSP), real-world point-in-time surveys of rheumatologists, dermatologists and their consulting patients in the United States and Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Spain and UK); conducted in 2018/19. Patients were grouped according to their symptoms and confirmed diagnoses, comprising four groups:

1. Patients with PsO dx only,

2. Patients with PsO dx and with MSK sx,

3. Patients with PsA dx and with active skin sx,

4. Patients with PsA dx with no active skin sx,

Multivariate linear regression analyses with marginal mean predictions examined differences in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between the four groups. Measures included HRQoL (EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level [EQ-5D Utility] and EuroQoL Visual Analogue Scale [EQ-VAS]), work impairment, and daily activity impairment (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire [WPAI]). Analyses controlled for demographics (age, sex, BMI), comorbidities present in >10% of patients and current treatment class (biologics, csDMARDs, steroids & other).

Results

4491 patients were included: Group 1 (n=1833), Group 2 (n=91), Group 3 (n=2451), and Group 4 (n=116). 54% of patients were male, 89% of patients were white, with a mean age of 46.6 years. Demographics were consistent across all patient groups.

The model-predicted EQ-5D-Utility was lower in Groups 2, 3 and 4, compared with Group 1 (p=0.003, p<0.001 and p=0.004 respectively). Similarly, predicted EQ-VAS was lower in Group 3 compared with Group 1 (p=0.006), Table 1.

Table 1.

Predictions of PROMs for PsO-PsA patient groups

PRO toolGroup [n]*Predicted PRO valuePopulation norm (MCID)Regression model p-value (vs. reference group)EQ-5D Utility score (n=1839)1 (ref) [743]0.9220.88 (0.07)2 [32]0.8160.0033 [1023]0.810<0.0014 [41]0.8500.004EQ-VAS (n=1882)1 (ref) [763]78.7878.2 (n/a)2 [36]70.560.0573 [1040]73.890.0064 [43]75.230.248WPAI % overall work impairment (n=1015)1 (ref) [422]15.36n/a (15.0)2 [14]17.860.5603 [558]22.16<0.0014 [21]26.090.014WPAI % work time missed (n=1028)1 (ref) [424]0.91n/a (n/a)2 [14]3.570.4863 [569]4.460.0024 [21]10.430.003WPAI % impairment while working (n=1153)1 (ref) [486]14.90n/a (20.0)2 [18]13.890.8463 [626]19.63<0.0014 [23]17.390.435WPAI % activity impairment (n=1818)1 (ref) [732]18.02n/a (20.0)2 [32]26.250.1223 [1012]26.14<0.0014 [42]25.240.044

*n values provided for reference, but margins are predictions as a result of the model and not for the specific number of patients in each subgroup.

(1) patients with PsO dx only

(2) Patients with PsO dx and MSK sx

(3) Patients with PsA dx and with active skin sx

(4) Patients with PsA dx with no active skin sx

Overall work impairment increased in Groups 3 and 4, compared with Group 1 (p<0.001 and p=0.014 respectively). Furthermore, Groups 3 and 4 missed more work compared with Group 1 (p=0.002 and p=0.003 respectively). Group 3 patients exhibited an increase in presenteeism and activity impairment compared with Group 1 (p<0.001), Table 1.

Conclusion

Patients experiencing PsA dx or MSK sx experienced an additional disease burden compared to patients with PsO sx alone, as measured by worse HRQoL and work impairment.

Disclosure of Interests

Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: Merck Research Laboratories, Abbvie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Janssen, UCB, Samumed, Celgene, Sanofi Regeneron, GSK, Almirall, Sun Pharma, Biogen, Pfizer, Incyte, Aclaris, and Leo Pharma, Lars Erik Kristensen Speakers bureau: Pfizer, AbbVie, Amgen, UCB, Gilead, Biogen, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Eli Lilly, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Consultant of: Pfizer, AbbVie, Amgen, UCB, Gilead, Biogen, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Eli Lilly, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Grant/research support from: Novo, UCB, Eli Lilly; Novartis and Abbvie, Feifei Yang Employee of: Employee of Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Steve Peterson Employee of: Employee of Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Rachel Teneralli Employee of: Employee of Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Nicola Massey Employee of: Adelphi Real World, Soumya D. Chakravarty Employee of: Employee of Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Megan Hughes Employee of: Adelphi Real World, May Shawi Employee of: Employee of Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Sarah Weatherby Employee of: Adelphi Real World, Christine Contre Employee of: Employee of Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Iris Lin Employee of: Employee of Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Fareen Hassan Employee of: Employee of Janssen Pharmaceuticals, M Elaine Husni Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, UCB, Pfizer, Regeneron, and BMS

AB1473 EFFICACY RESPONSES ACROSS DISEASE SEVERITY AND TREATMENT HISTORY SUBGROUPS OF PATIENTS WITH MODERATE TO SEVERE PLAQUE PSORIASIS TREATED WITH GUSELKUMAB: POOLED RESULTS FROM VOYAGE-1 AND VOYAGE-2 THROUGH 5 YEARS

Background

The VOYAGE-1 and VOYAGE-2 phase 3 studies evaluated efficacy and safety of guselkumab (GUS) in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.

Objectives

To assess the five-year efficacy of GUS by baseline disease characteristics and treatment history.

Methods

This study evaluated 1829 patients randomized to GUS, placebo (PBO)→GUS, and adalimumab (ADA) →GUS from the VOYAGE-1 and VOYAGE-2 trials. All patients received open-label GUS 100 mg every 8 weeks (Q8W) during Week (W) 52 to W252 in VOYAGE-1 and during W76 to W252 in VOYAGE-2. The proportions of combined GUS patients (including PBO→GUS and ADA→GUS) achieving Investigator’s Global Assessment of cleared or minimal (IGA-0/1) and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 response were evaluated from W100 to W252 by baseline PASI (<20/≥20) and IGA (<4/=4) scores, body surface area (BSA; <20%/≥20%), and prior psoriasis treatments. Analysis was performed using observed data after applying treatment failure rules.

Results

At W252, proportions of combined GUS patients achieving IGA 0/1 or PASI 90, respectively, were comparable or numerically greater for patients with baseline PASI < 20 (85.4%; 81.1%) vs PASI ≥ 20 (81.4%; 83.8%); IGA < 4 (85.1%; 82.7%) vs IGA = 4 (78.9%; 81.1%); BSA < 20% (85.1%; 82.7%) vs BSA ≥ 20% (82.6%; 82.0%); no prior phototherapy (83.3%; 84.0%) vs prior phototherapy (83.8%; 81.1%); no prior non-biologic systemic therapy (84.5%; 83.0%) vs prior non-biologic systemic therapy (83.2%; 82.0%); and no prior biologics (85.3%; 83.8%) vs prior biologics (76.7%; 76.3%). This trend was consistent at each timepoint evaluated from W100 to W252.

Conclusion

This analysis demonstrated that the high degree of efficacy of GUS treatment is durable through 5 years among broad subpopulations of patients with varying disease severity characteristics and previous psoriasis treatments.

References

None

Disclosure of Interests

Kenneth Gordon Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Dermira, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB Pharma, Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: AbbVie, Arena, Avotres, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, EMD Sorono, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and UCB pharma, Peter Foley Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galderma, GSK, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Valeant, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis, Aslan, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Celtaxsys, CSL, Cutanea, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Genentech, GSK, Hexima, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc, Reistone, Roche, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, UCB Pharma, and Valeant, Grant/research support from: grant/research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Sun Pharma; and travel grants from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Sun Pharma, Olivia Choi Shareholder of: may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Daphne Chan Shareholder of: may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Megan Miller Shareholder of: may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Yin You Shareholder of: may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Yaung-Kaung Shen Shareholder of: may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Ya-Wen Yang Shareholder of: may own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Immunology Global Medical Affairs, Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, Andrew Blauvelt Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Almirall, Arena, Athenex, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Evommune, Forte, Galderma, Incyte, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Rapt, Regeneron, Sandoz, Sanofi Genzyme, Sun Pharma, and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Almirall, Arena, Athenex, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Evommune, Forte, Galderma, Incyte, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Rapt, Regeneron, Sandoz, Sanofi Genzyme, Sun Pharma, and UCB Pharma

OP0255 BIMEKIZUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS AND AN INADEQUATE RESPONSE TO TUMOUR NECROSIS FACTOR INHIBITORS: 16-WEEK EFFICACY & SAFETY FROM BE COMPLETE, A PHASE 3, MULTICENTRE, RANDOMISED PLACEBO-CONTROLLED STUDY

Background

Bimekizumab (BKZ) is a monoclonal IgG1 antibody that selectively inhibits IL-17F in addition to IL-17A. BKZ has shown sustained efficacy and tolerability up to 152 wks in a phase 2b study in patients (pts) with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA).1,2

Objectives

To assess efficacy and safety of BKZ vs placebo (PBO) in pts with active PsA and prior inadequate tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) response in the 16-wk pivotal phase 3 study, BE COMPLETE.

Methods

BE COMPLETE (NCT03896581) comprises a 16-wk double-blind, PBO-controlled period. Pts were aged ≥18 yrs, had a diagnosis of adult-onset, active PsA with ≥3 tender joints and ≥3 swollen joints, and inadequate response or intolerance to treatment with 1 or 2 TNFi. Pts were randomised 2:1 to BKZ 160 mg Q4W or PBO. From Wk 16, pts were eligible to enter an open-label extension, receiving BKZ 160 mg Q4W. The primary endpoint was a ≥50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR50) at Wk 16. Primary and ranked secondary efficacy endpoints were assessed at Wk 16.

Results

Of 400 randomised pts (BKZ: 267; PBO: 133), 388 (97.0%) completed Wk 16 (BKZ: 263 [98.5%]; PBO: 125 [94.0%]). Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups: mean age 50.5 yrs, weight 86.0 kg, BMI 29.8 kg/m2, time since diagnosis 9.5 yrs; 47.5% pts were male.

At Wk 16, the primary endpoint (ACR50: 43.4% BKZ vs 6.8% PBO; p<0.001; Figure 1) and all ranked secondary endpoints (HAQ-DI CfB, PASI90, SF-36 PCS CfB and MDA response) were met (all p<0.001; Table 1). The ACR50 response was rapid with separation from PBO observed from Wk 4 (nominal p<0.001). Additional outcomes, including ACR20/70, TJC and SJC CfB, and PASI75/100, demonstrated numerical improvement with BKZ compared to PBO at Wk 16 (all nominal p<0.001; Table 1).

Table 1.

Disease characteristics at baseline and efficacy at Wk 16

PBO N=133BKZ 160 mg Q4W N=267p valueBaseline characteristicsTJCmean (SD)19.3 (14.2)18.4 (13.5)-SJCmean (SD)10.3 (8.2)9.7 (7.5)-PtGA-PsAmean (SD)63.0 (22.0)60.5 (22.5)-PtAAPmean (SD)61.7 (24.6)58.3 (24.2)-Psoriasis BSAn (%)<3%45 (33.8)91 (34.1)-≥3 to ≤10%63 (47.4)109 (40.8)->10%25 (18.8)67 (25.1)-PASIamean (SD)8.5 (6.6)b10.1 (9.1)c-Prior TNFin (%)Inadequate response to 1 TNFi103 (77.4)204 (76.4)-Inadequate response to 2 TNFi15 (11.3)29 (10.9)-Intolerance to TNFi15 (11.3)34 (12.7)-Current cDMARDsn (%)63 (47.4)139 (52.1)-Ranked endpoints in hierarchical orderACR50* [NRI] n (%)9 (6.8)116 (43.4)<0.001HAQ-DI CfB† [RBMI] mean (SE)–0.1 (0.0)–0.4 (0.0)<0.001PASI90†a [NRI]n (%)6 (6.8)b121 (68.8)c<0.001SF-36 PCS CfB† [RBMI]mean (SE)1.4 (0.7)7.3 (0.5)<0.001MDA Response† [NRI]n (%)8 (6.0)118 (44.2)<0.001Other endpointsACR20† [NRI]n (%)21 (15.8)179 (67.0)<0.001‡ACR70† [NRI] n (%)1 (0.8)71 (26.6)<0.001‡TJC CfB [MI] mean (SE)–2.4 (0.9)–10.9 (0.8)<0.001‡SJC CfB [MI] mean (SE)–2.0 (0.5)–7.0 (0.4)<0.001‡PASI75a [NRI]n (%)9 (10.2)b145 (82.4)c<0.001‡PASI100a [NRI]n (%)4 (4.5)b103 (58.5)c<0.001‡

Randomised set (N=400). *Primary endpoint; †Secondary endpoint; ‡Nominal p value. aIn patients with ≥3% BSA with PSO at BL; bn=88; cn=176.

Over 16 wks, 107/267 (40.1%) pts on BKZ had ≥1 TEAE vs 44/132 (33.3%) pts on PBO; the three most frequent TEAEs on BKZ were nasopharyngitis (BKZ: 3.7%; PBO: 0.8%), oral candidiasis (BKZ: 2.6%; PBO: 0%) and upper respiratory tract infection (BKZ: 2.2%; PBO: 1.5%). Incidence of SAEs was low (BKZ: 1.9%; PBO: 0%); none led to discontinuation. 2 pts on BKZ discontinued due to a TEAE (BKZ: 0.7%; PBO: 0%). No systemic candidiasis, cases of IBD, MACE, uveitis, VTE or deaths were reported.

Conclusion

Dual inhibition of IL-17A and IL-17F with BKZ in pts with active PsA and prior inadequate TNFi response resulted in rapid, clinically relevant and statistically significant improvements in efficacy outcomes vs PBO. No new safety signals were observed.1,2

References

[1]Ritchlin C.T. Lancet 2020;395(10222):427–40; 2. Coates L.C. Ann Rheum Dis 2021;80:779–80(POS1022).

Acknowledgements

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

Disclosure of Interests

Joseph F. Merola Paid instructor for: Amgen, Abbvie, Biogen, BMS, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: Amgen, Abbvie, Biogen, BMS, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma and UCB Pharma, Iain McInnes Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Janssen, UCB Pharma, Christopher T. Ritchlin Consultant of: Amgen, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen and UCB Pharma, Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma and UCB Pharma, Robert B.M. Landewé Speakers bureau: Abbott, Amgen, BMS, Centocor, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, Schering-Plough, UCB Pharma, and Wyeth, Consultant of: Abbott, Ablynx, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Centocor, GSK, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, Schering-Plough, UCB Pharma, and Wyeth, Grant/research support from: Abbott, Amgen, Centocor, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Schering-Plough, UCB Pharma, and Wyeth, Akihiko Asahina Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Maruho, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, Taiho Pharma, Torii Pharmaceutical, and UCB Pharma, Yoshiya Tanaka Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, and YL Biologics, Consultant of: AbbVie, Ayumi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, GSK, Sanofi, and Taisho, Grant/research support from: Asahi-Kasei, AbbVie, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai, Corrona, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Kowa, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, and Takeda, Richard B. Warren Paid instructor for: Astellas, DiCE, GSK, and Union, Consultant of: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Arena, Astellas, Avillion, Biogen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Almirall, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, and UCB Pharma, Laure Gossec Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer, and Sandoz, Dafna D Gladman Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Frank Behrens Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Genzyme, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi, Barbara Ink Shareholder of: GSK, UCB Pharma, Employee of: UCB Pharma, Deepak Assudani Shareholder of: UCB Pharma, Employee of: UCB Pharma, Rajan Bajracharya Shareholder of: UCB Pharma, Employee of: UCB Pharma, Jason Coarse Shareholder of: UCB Pharma, Employee of: UCB Pharma, Laura Coates Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Galapagos, Janssen, Moonlake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma

Increased prevalence of sleep disturbance in psoriatic arthritis is associated with inflammatory and non-inflammatory measures

OBJECTIVES

To examine the prevalence of sleep disturbances, quantified by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), psoriasis (PsO) and healthy controls (HCs), explore associations between PSQI and clinical and patient-reported outcomes, and evaluate the effect of treatment on PSQI.

METHOD

Patients were included from the Parker Institute's PsA patient cohort to evaluate the prevalence of sleep disturbances. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to explore associations between sleep disturbance and outcome measures. Treatment effect in PsA patients was assessed with a mixed-effect model for repeated measures.

RESULTS

In total, 109 PsA patients, 20 PsO patients, and 20 HCs were included. Sleep disturbances were reported by 66.1% of PsA patients, 45.0% of PsO patients, and 15.0% of HCs. Univariate regression analyses revealed statistically significant associations (p < 0.001) between PSQI and Disease Activity Score (DAS28CRP), tender points, visual analogue scale (VAS) patient global and pain, Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease fatigue, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), and painDETECT score. Multivariate regression analysis demonstrated VAS patient global, VAS pain, and tender points as being independently associated with PSQI. The mixed-effect model revealed no effect of treatment.

CONCLUSION

More PsA patients than PsO patients and HCs reported sleep disturbances. Sleep disturbances were associated with inflammatory and non-inflammatory measures possibly explaining the limited effect of treatment. This demonstrates the need for interdisciplinary approaches to improve the management of sleep disturbance in PsA.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02572700).

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

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

Decreased quality of life in people with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis versus people with psoriasis alone: data from a national US survey

Psoriatic disease (PsD) is a chronic immune-meditated inflammatory condition affecting 8.3 million persons in the U.S. and 125 million globally.(1) Individuals with PsD experience high rates of co-morbidities, and an estimated 30-40% develop psoriatic arthritis (PsA).(2) Studies performed in clinical settings or with small sample sizes suggest that people with PsA experience decreased quality of life (QoL) and impaired physical function compared to people with psoriasis alone.

POS1030 EFFICACY OF UPADACITINIB IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS STRATIFIED BY BASELINE SKIN SEVERITY: A SUBGROUP ANALYSIS OF TWO PHASE III TRIALS

Background:

In the SELECT-PsA 1 and 2 clinical trials, upadacitinib (UPA) demonstrated efficacy and safety in patients (pts) with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA).1,2 PsA is associated with varying degrees of psoriatic symptoms; however, the impact of skin severity on treatment outcomes is not well understood.

Objectives:

This post-hoc analysis assessed the effects of baseline skin severity on UPA efficacy.

Methods:

SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2 enrolled pts with PsA and prior inadequate response (IR) or intolerance to ≥1 non-biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)1 or ≥1 biologic DMARD2, respectively. In both trials, pts received once daily UPA 15 mg or UPA 30 mg or placebo (switched at Wk 24 to either UPA 15 mg or 30 mg); SELECT-PsA 1 also included the active comparator adalimumab (ADA). Only continuous UPA 15 mg and ADA are presented here. In this analysis, pts were divided into subgroups based on the extent of psoriasis at baseline (body surface area [BSA] of ≥3%-<10% or BSA ≥10%); efficacy endpoints were analyzed at Wk 56. Results for binary endpoints are based on non-responder imputation; continuous endpoints are based on mixed model repeated measures analysis with as-observed data.

Results:

In the UPA 15 mg and ADA groups, respectively, 32% (138/429) and 31% (132/429) of pts had a BSA ≥3-<10% at baseline in SELECT-PsA 1; 18% (76/429) in each treatment group had a BSA ≥10%. In SELECT-PsA 2, 38% (80/211) had a BSA ≥3-<10% and 24% (50/211) had a BSA ≥10% at baseline in the UPA 15 mg group. Across pt populations (non-biologic DMARD-IR and biologic DMARD-IR), generally consistent results were observed between patients in both skin severity subgroups (Figure 1). In non-biologic DMARD-IR pts, a numerically greater proportion of UPA 15 mg pts with lower skin involvement compared with higher skin involvement achieved PASI100 and PASI≤1, two more stringent skin endpoints. The achievement of MDA was generally consistent across skin severity subgroups; when pts were required to achieve the skin component of MDA, results were numerically better in the ≥3-<10% skin severity group (Table 1). In non-biologic DMARD-IR pts, results were similar between UPA 15 mg and ADA.

Conclusion:

UPA is a viable treatment option for pts with active PsA regardless of the extent of psoriasis at baseline. Although these results are of interest and hypothesis-generating, they should be interpreted with caution due to low sample size.

References:

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

[2]Mease PJ et al. Ann Rheum Dis, 2020; doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-218870

Table 1.

Additional Efficacy Outcomes at Week 56 Stratified by Severity of Skin Involvement at Baseline

SELECT-PsA 1n/N (%) [95% CI]UPA 15 mgADAsIGA 0/1 w/at least 2 point improvement from BLa ≥3%-<10%71/128 (55.5) [46.9, 64.1]53/124 (42.7) [34.0, 51.4] ≥10%29/76 (38.2) [27.2, 49.1]33/77 (42.9) [31.8, 53.9]MDA + skinb ≥3%-<10%58/138 (42.0) [33.8, 50.3]56/132 (42.4) [34.0, 50.9] ≥10%19/76 (25.0) [15.3, 34.7]28/79 (35.4) [24.9, 46.0]SELECT-PsA 2n/N (%) [95% CI]UPA 15 mgsIGA 0/1 w/at least 2 point improvement from BLa ≥3%-<10%24/71 (33.8) [22.8, 44.8] ≥10%18/50 (36.0) [22.7, 49.3] MDA + skinb ≥3%-<10%22/80 (27.5) [17.7, 37.3] ≥10%9/50 (18.0) [7.4, 28.6]

a defined as achieving an sIGA score of 0 or 1 and at least a 2 point improvement from BL, evaluated in pts with BL sIGA ≥2.

b defined as achieving 5 of the 7 criteria, with PASI ≤1 or BSA-psoriasis ≤3 as a required component.

ADA, adalimumab; BL, baseline; CI, confidence interval; MDA, minimal disease activity; sIGA, Static Investigator Global Assessment of psoriasis; UPA, upadacitinib

Acknowledgements:

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

Disclosure of Interests:

Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, UCB, Celgene, Sanofi, Regeneron, Arena, Sun Pharma, Biogen, Pfizer, EMD Sorono, Avotres and Leo Pharma, Pascal Richette Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, Janssen, BMS, Roche, Pfizer, Amgen, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Lilly, Novartis, and Celgene, Ennio Lubrano Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer, Edit Drescher: None declared, Lilian Soto: None declared, Charles Lovan Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Koji Kato Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Ralph Lippe Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Michael Lane Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Mitsumasa Kishimoto Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen-Astellas BioPharma, Asahi-Kasei Pharma, Astellas, Ayumi Pharma, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Ono Pharma, Pfizer, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, Teijin Pharma, and UCB Pharma.

AB0528 COMPARABLE SAFETY PROFILE OF GUSELKUMAB IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS AND PSORIASIS: RESULTS FROM PHASE 3 TRIALS THROUGH 1 YEAR

Background:

DISCOVER 1&2 (PsA) and VOYAGE 1&2 (PsO) are Phase 3 trials of guselkumab (GUS).

Objectives:

Compare safety results through up to 1yr of GUS in PsA and PsO pts.

Methods:

In DISCOVER, 1120 pts with active PsA despite standard therapy were treated. Most pts were biologic-naïve; ~30% in DISCOVER 1 had previous exposure to 1-2 TNFi. Concomitant MTX (57%), oral corticosteroids (17%), and NSAIDs (64%) were permitted. Pts were randomized to SC GUS 100mg at W0, W4, then Q8W; GUS 100mg Q4W; or PBO. At W24, PBO patients were switched to GUS 100mg Q4W. In VOYAGE, in which concomitant MTX use was prohibited, 1245 pts with moderate to severe PsO were treated and randomized to SC GUS 100 mg at W0, W4, W12, then Q8W; or PBO at W0, W4, W12, with crossover to GUS at W16, W20, then Q8W. AEs and laboratory parameters, analyzed by National Cancer Institute-Common Terminology Criteria for AEs [NCI-CTCAE] toxicity grades, were summarized through the PBO-controlled periods and 1yr.

Results:

Safety profiles were generally consistent across the GUS PsO and PsA clinical programs (Table 1). Time-adjusted incidence rates for numbers of AEs, serious AEs, serious infections, malignancy, MACE and AEs leading to d/c were generally similar between PsO and PsA. No cases of anaphylaxis or opportunistic infections were reported. Proportions of pts with decreased neutrophil counts and elevations in hepatic transaminases were slightly higher in PsA vs PsO. These abnormalities were mostly of NCI-CTCAE Grade 1 or 2 (<LLN-1000/mm3 for neutrophils; <5.0 x ULN for AST/ ALT), generally transient, required no medical interventions, resolved spontaneously, and did not lead to interruption or d/c of treatment. Through 1yr, proportions of pts with ALT/AST elevations in PsA trials were slightly higher for GUS Q4W than Q8W and in pts with vs without baseline MTX use.

Conclusion:

The GUS safety profile was generally consistent in PsA and PsO GUS-treated pts through 1yr of the DISCOVER and VOYAGE trials.

Table 1.

Treatment-Emergent AEs During PBO-controlled Period and Through 1Yr: VOYAGE & DISCOVER Trials

Pooled VOYAGE 1&2Pooled DISCOVER 1&2Time PeriodW0-16Through 1YrW0-24bThrough 1Yr(N=)PBO(422)GUS Q8W(823)Combined GUSa(1221)PBOc(372)GUS Q8W(375)GUS Q4W (373)GUS Q8W(375)GUS Q4W (373)Combined GUS† (1100)Total pt-yrs of follow-up128255974173173172384385973Incidence/100 pt-yrs (95% CI)dAEs317 (287,349)330 (308,353)259 (249, 270)219 (198,243)256 (232,281)221 (200, 245)218 (203,233)177 (164,191)191 (182, 199)SAEs5 (2, 10)6 (4, 10)6 (5, 8)9 (5, 15)4 (2, 8)5 (2, 10)6 (4, 9)4 (2, 7)6 (4, 7)AEs leading to study agent d/c3 (0.9, 8)4 (2, 8)2 (2, 4)4 (2, 8)3 (1, 7)7 (4, 12)2 (1, 4)4 (2, 6)3 (2, 5)Infections86 (71, 104)98 (86, 111)98 (92, 104)58 (48, 71)58 (47, 71)63 (51, 76)58 (50, 66)53 (46, 61)55 (50, 60)Serious Infections0. 8 (0, 4)0.4 (0, 2)1 (0.5, 2)4 (2, 8)0.6 (0, 3)2 (0.4, 5)2 (0.6, 3)1 (0, 2)2 (0.9, 3)All Malignancy0 (0, 2)0.4 (0, 2)1 (0.4, 2)0.6 (0, 3)1 (0, 4)0 (0, 2)0.5 (0, 2)0 (0, 0. 8)0 (0, 1)MACE0 (0, 2)0.4 (0, 2)0.4 (0, 1)0.6 (0, 3)0 (0, 2)0.6 (0, 3)0 (0, 0.8)0.3 (0, 1.4)0.1 (0, 0.6)% pts with ≥1 injection site rxn3.14.55.00.31.31.11.62.41.7

aPlacebo crossover pts were included in the combined GUS column after crossover to GUS

bFor all pts who d/c study treatment early with the last dose of PBO/GUS prior to W24 and who did not receive any PBO/GUS at or after Wk24, all data including the final safety follow-up visit collected through 1yr were included

cFor pts in PBO group who switched to GUS due to cross-over or inadvertently, only data prior to first administration of GUS were included.

dCI based on an exact method assuming observed number of events follows a Poisson distribution

Disclosure of Interests:

Alice B Gottlieb Consultant of: Anaptyps Bio, Avotres Therapeutics, Beiersdorf, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Sun Pharmaceuticals, UCB, and Xbiotech, Grant/research support from: Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Novartis, Sun Pharmaceuticals, UCB, and Xbiotech, Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: AbbVie, Arena, Biogen, BMS, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, UCB, April Armstrong Consultant of: AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, Leo, Novartis, UCB, Ortho Dermatologics, Dermira, KHK, Sanofi, Regeneron, Sun Pharma, BMS, Dermavant, and Modernizing Medicine, Richard Langley Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Pizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Pizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, and UCB Pharma, Mark Lebwohl Consultant of: Aditum Bio, Allergan, Almirall, Arcutis, Inc., Avotres Therapeutics, BirchBioMed Inc., BMD skincare, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cara Therapeutics, Castle Biosciences, Corrona, Dermavant Sciences, Evelo, Evommune, Facilitate International Dermatologic Education, Foundation for Research and Education in Dermatology, Inozyme Pharma, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Meiji Seika Pharma, Menlo, Mitsubishi, Neuroderm, Pfizer, Promius/Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Serono, Theravance, and Verrica., Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, Arcutis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Evommune, Incyte, Janssen, Leo Pharmaceutucals, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer, and UCB, Christopher E.M. Griffiths Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Almirall, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim Celgene, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, UCB Pharma., Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Almirall, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim Celgene, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, UCB Pharma., Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Almirall, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim Celgene, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, UCB Pharma., May Shawi Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Global Services, LLC, Ya-Wen Yang Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Global Services, LLC, Elizabeth C Hsia Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Alexa Kollmeier Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Xie L Xu Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Miwa Izutsu Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Paraneedharan Ramachandran Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Shihong Sheng Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Yin You Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Megan Miller Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Christopher T. Ritchlin Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, and UCB Pharma, Iain McInnes Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead, and Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, and UCB, Proton Rahman Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Janssen and Novartis.

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.

AB0526 SUSTAINED GUSELKUMAB RESPONSE IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS REGARDLESS OF BASELINE DEMOGRAPHIC AND DISEASE CHARACTERISTICS: POOLED RESULTS THROUGH WEEK 52 OF TWO PHASE 3, RANDOMIZED, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED STUDIES

Background:

In the Phase 3 DISCOVER-11 & DISCOVER-22 trials, guselkumab (GUS), a human monoclonal antibody targeting the IL-23p19-subunit, was effective in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) across joint & skin endpoints. At Week 24 (W24), GUS benefit was consistent regardless of baseline (BL) demographic & disease characteristics.3

Objectives:

We assessed whether GUS efficacy was sustained through W52 in pooled DISCOVER-1 & -2 patients (pts) across select BL subgroups.

Methods:

Adults with active PsA despite standard therapies were enrolled in DISCOVER-1 (swollen [SJC] ≥3 & tender joint count [TJC] ≥3, C-reactive protein [CRP] ≥0.3 mg/dL) & DISCOVER-2 (SJC ≥5 & TJC ≥5, CRP ≥0.6 mg/dL). 31% of DISCOVER-1 pts had received 1-2 prior tumor necrosis factor inhibitors; DISCOVER-2 pts were biologic naïve. Pts were randomized 1:1:1 to GUS 100 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W); GUS 100 mg at W0, W4, then Q8W; or placebo (PBO). Pts randomized to PBO received GUS 100 mg Q4W starting at W24 & were excluded from these analyses assessing maintenance of effect from W24 to W52. GUS effects on joint (American College of Rheumatology [ACR]20/50/70) & skin (Investigator’s Global Assessment [IGA=0/1 + ≥2-grade reduction from W0] in pts with ≥3% body surface area [BSA] with psoriasis & IGA ≥2 at W0) endpoints were evaluated by pt BL SJC, TJC, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) use, body mass index (BMI), PsA duration, & % BSA with psoriasis. Missing data were imputed as nonresponse through W52.

Results:

BL pt characteristics in DISCOVER-1 (N=381) & DISCOVER-2 (N=739) were well balanced across randomized groups.1,2 Among 1120 pooled pts, mean SJC was 11, mean TJC was 21, & 68% used csDMARDs (primarily methotrexate [MTX]). At W24, 62% (232/373) & 60% (225/375), respectively, of GUS Q4W- & Q8W-treated pts achieved ACR20 vs 29% (109/372) of PBO, with GUS effect consistently observed across pt BL subgroups (Figure 1). ACR20 response rates were sustained or increased at W52 in the GUS Q4W (72%) & Q8W (70%) groups & across SJC (61-79%), TJC (68-76%), & csDMARD use (68-80%) subgroups (Table 1) & pt subgroups defined by BL BMI, PsA duration, & % BSA with psoriasis (data not shown). ACR50 & 70 response patterns were similar to ACR20 (Table 1). In pts with ≥3% BSA psoriasis & IGA ≥2 at BL, 71% (193/273) & 66% (171/258) of GUS Q4W- & Q8W-treated pts, respectively, vs 18% (47/261) of PBO, achieved IGA 0/1 at W24, with GUS effect consistently observed across pt BL subgroups (Figure 1). IGA 0/1 response rates were also sustained or increased at W52 in the GUS Q4W (80%) & Q8W (71%) groups & across % BSA with psoriasis (67-87%) & csDMARD use (68-87%) subgroups (Table 1) & pt subgroups defined by BL BMI and PsA duration (data not shown).

Conclusion:

Treatment with GUS 100 mg Q4W & Q8W resulted in sustained improvement in signs & symptoms of active PsA through W52 regardless of pt BL characteristics.

References:

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

[2]Mease P, et al. Lancet 2020;395:1126-36;

[3]Deodhar A, et al. American College of Rheumatology 2020; Poster P0908.

Figure 1

Figure 1Table 1.

ACR & IGA Responses at Weeks 24 & 52 & by Select BL Characteristics

Guselkumab Q4WGuselkumab Q8WN=373N=375Week 24Week 52Week 24Week 52ACR20, %62726070 SJC (<10/10-15/>15)68/59/5379/61/6757/66/6068/68/76 TJC (<10/10-15/>15)74/67/5673/76/6962/60/6075/68/68 csDMARD use (none/any/MTX)66/60/6380/68/6862/59/5773/68/68ACR50, %34493145 SJC (<10/10-15/>15)41/32/2058/39/3834/28/2646/40/49 TJC (<10/10-15/>15)51/41/2458/53/4340/33/2652/46/43 csDMARD use (none/any/MTX)36/33/3553/46/4836/29/2751/42/40ACR70, %16271627 SJC (<10/10-15/>15)22/10/732/20/2418/10/1930/23/26 TJC (<10/10-15/>15)29/19/934/32/2227/15/1435/28/24 csDMARD use (none/any/MTX)21/13/1430/26/2721/14/1434/24/23N=273N=258IGA 0/1, %71806671 BSA % with psoriasis(≥3-<10/≥10-<20/≥20)61/71/8076/87/7962/64/7267/72/74 csDMARD use (none/any/MTX)84/64/6787/77/7872/63/6477/68/68

Disclosure of Interests:

Christopher T. Ritchlin Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Gilead, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, and UCB Pharma, Philip J Mease Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN, and UCB Pharma, Wolf-Henning Boehncke Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Janssen, Leo, Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Janssen, Leo, Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, John Tesser Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Crescendo Biosciences/Myriad, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Janssen, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Horizon, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck KG, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sun Pharma, Setpoint, and UCB Pharma, Elena Schiopu Consultant of: Janssen, Grant/research support from: Janssen, Soumya D Chakravarty Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, of which Janssen Research & Development is a wholly owned subsidiary, Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Alexa Kollmeier Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, of which Janssen Research & Development is a wholly owned subsidiary, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Elizabeth C Hsia Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, of which Janssen Research & Development 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, May Shawi Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, of which Janssen Research & Development is a wholly owned subsidiary, Employee of: Janssen Global Services, LLC, Yusang Jiang Employee of: Cytel, Inc., providing statistical support (funded by Janssen), Shihong Sheng Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, of which Janssen Research & Development is a wholly owned subsidiary, Employee of: Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: AbbVie, Arena, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB Pharma, Iain McInnes Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and UCB Pharma, Atul Deodhar Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma.

AB0523 LONG-TERM SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF UPADACITINIB IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: RESULTS AT 56 WEEKS FROM THE SELECT-PsA 1 STUDY

Background:

In the SELECT-PsA 1 study, through 24 weeks (wks), once daily upadacitinib 15 mg (UPA15) and 30 mg (UPA30) showed improvements in musculoskeletal symptoms, psoriasis, physical function, pain, fatigue, and quality of life, as well as inhibition of radiographic progression in patients (pts) with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and inadequate response or intolerance to ≥1 non-biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD).1

Objectives:

To report the efficacy and safety of UPA vs adalimumab (ADA) up to 56 wks from the ongoing long-term extension of SELECT-PsA 1.

Methods:

Pts received UPA15 or UPA30, ADA 40mg every other wk for 56 wks, or PBO through wk 24 switched thereafter to either UPA15 or UPA30 until wk 56. Efficacy endpoints as listed and defined in the Table 1 were analyzed at wk 56. Results for binary endpoints are based on non-responder imputation analysis; treatments were compared using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Results for non-radiographic continuous endpoints are based on mixed model repeated measures model based on as observed data. Radiographic endpoints were analyzed based on linear extrapolation. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) per 100 pt years (PY) were summarized for pts who received ≥1 dose of study drug.

Table 1.

Efficacy Endpoints at Week 56

EndpointPBO → UPA15PBO → UPA30UPA15UPA30ADAACR20, %73.074.174.474.7#68.5ACR50, %54.560.459.7*60.5#51.3ACR70, %29.935.840.6*43.7#31.2Minimal Disease Activity, %29.435.844.847.3#39.6PASI75a, %58.360.265.463.361.1PASI90a, %41.753.749.149.546.9PASI100a, %22.338.934.639.531.3Resolution of enthesitis by Leeds Enthesitis Index b, %38.145.559.358.154.0Resolution of dactylitis by Leeds Dactylitis Index c, %47.759.075.074.874.0Δ from BL in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index d-3.1-3.1-3.3-3.2-2.8Δ from BL in modified total Sharp/van der Heijde Score (mTSS)0.44e-0.05†0.02‡-0.06

* and †, p≤0.05; for UPA15 vs ADA and PBO, respectively; # and ‡, p≤0.05; for UPA30 vs ADA and PBO, respectively.

a for pts with psoriasis affecting ≥3% of body surface area at BL. b for pts with LEI >0 at BL. c for pts with LDI >0 at BL. d for pts with psoriatic spondylitis at BL. epooled PBO.

ACR20/50/70, ≥20%/50%/70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria; ADA, adalimumab; BL, baseline; PASI75/90/100, ≥75%/90%/100% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index; PBO, placebo; pts, patients; UPA, upadacitinib.

Results:

Of 1704 pts who received ≥1 dose of study drug, 1419 (83.2%) completed 56 wks of treatment on study drug. Across all treatment groups, the proportions of pts who had achieved ACR20/50/70, MDA, PASI75/90/100, resolution of enthesitis, and resolution of dactylitis were maintained or further improved from wk 241 through wk 56; these proportions were generally greater for pts originally randomized to UPA vs ADA (Table 1). At wk 56, mean change from BL in mTSS was similar with UPA15, UPA30, and ADA. Improvements in pts who switched from PBO to UPA were generally similar to those originally randomized to UPA at wk 56. Through wk 56, the rates of TEAEs and serious AEs, including serious infections, were similar in the UPA15 and ADA arms and higher with UPA30 (Figure 1). The rate of herpes zoster was higher with UPA vs ADA in a dose-dependent manner. Malignancies were reported at similar rates among all treatment groups. Adjudicated venous thromboembolic events and major adverse cardiovascular events were reported in all groups with comparable rates. Two deaths were reported with UPA15, 2 with UPA30, and 1 with ADA; 1 death was reported with PBO during the 24-wk PBO-controlled period.

Conclusion:

Efficacy responses were maintained or further improved with UPA15 and UPA30 over 56 wks and were numerically higher vs ADA. The inhibition of radiographic progression was maintained at wk 56 and was similar with UPA and ADA. At wk 56, improvements in efficacy were observed in pts who switched from PBO to UPA. No new safety findings were observed with longer exposure to UPA.

References:

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

Figure 1

Acknowledgements:

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

Disclosure of Interests:

Iain McInnes Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Regeneron, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Regeneron, UCB Pharma, Koji Kato Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Marina Magrey Consultant of: UCB, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer and Janssen, Grant/research support from: Amgen, AbbVie, and UCB Pharma, Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, UCB, Celgene, Sanofi, Regeneron, Arena, Sun Pharma, Biogen, Pfizer, EMD Sorono, Avotres and Leo Pharma, Mitsumasa Kishimoto Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen-Astellas BioPharma, Asahi-Kasei Pharma, Astellas, Ayumi Pharma, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Ono Pharma, Pfizer, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, Teijin Pharma, and UCB Pharma, Cesar Francisco Pacheco Tena Consultant of: Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Roche, Pfizer, Janssen, Astra-Zeneca, UCB, Gilead, R-Pharm, Sanofi Regeneron, Grant/research support from: Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Roche, Pfizer, Janssen, Astra-Zeneca, UCB, Gilead, R-Pharm, Sanofi Regeneron, Derek Haaland Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Takeda, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Takeda, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Adiga Life-Sciences, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Can-Fite Biopharma, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, UCB, Liang Chen Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Yuanyuan Duan Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Patrick Zueger Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Jianzhong Liu Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Ralph Lippe Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Aileen Pangan Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Frank Behrens Consultant of: Pfizer, AbbVie, Sanofi, Lilly, Novartis, Genzyme, Boehringer, Janssen, MSD, Celgene, Roche, Chugai, BMS, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Janssen, Chugai, Celgene and Roche.

AB0554 SLEEP QUALITY IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS

Background:

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic immune-mediated inflammatory disease. It has a heterogeneous clinical presentation with main features being joint swelling and pain, skin and nail psoriasis, enthesitis, and dactylitis. Self-reported outcomes such as quality of sleep and fatigue are often neglected topics although having great impact on patients’ everyday lives.

Objectives:

The primary objective was to analyze the prevalence of PsA patients suffering from poor quality of sleep, defined by Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) score ≥ 5, and to study the association between being a good or poor sleeper and clinical- and patient-reported outcomes.

Secondary, the effects on outcomes after initiation of treatment.

Methods:

Patient characteristics, disease activity and self-reported outcomes were obtained from the PIPA cohort. To evaluate the primary objective, a cross-sectional analysis was conducted including PSQI score at baseline and corresponding data. Patients were divided into two groups, defined as good or poor sleepers (Table 1).

Data from initiation of treatment (baseline) and 4 months follow-up were included when assessing the effect of treatment. Transition of good and poor sleepers from baseline to 4 months follow-up was depicted by a chi-squared test.

A crosstab analysis was performed with baseline PSQI and whether they had widespread pain to investigate a possible link, additionally a Mann-Whitney U test.

Results:

From January 2018-November 2020 a total of 109 patients were included. The prevalence of PsA patients suffering from poor quality of sleep at baseline were 66.1% whereas the remaining 33.9% were deemed good sleepers.

There was no statistically significant difference in patient demographics when comparing good and poor sleepers at baseline. There was a statistically significant difference in patient-reported outcomes such as Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain, VAS global, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score and Disease Activity Score (DAS28-CRP), with poor sleepers scoring higher.

57 patients had complete data at 4 months follow-up. At baseline 71.9% of them were classified as poor sleepers (Figure 1). A chi-squared test presented the transition at 4 months follow-up. 47.4% of the patients were now classified as poor sleepers.

While 27 poor sleepers became good sleepers, 13 good sleepers became poor sleepers, with data being statistically significant (p 0.001).

The crosstab analysis exposed 75 patients without widespread pain (mean 7.13±3.79) and 31 patients with widespread pain (mean 9.52±4.93).

Baseline PSQI and whether the patients had widespread pain was statistically significant (p 0.018).

Conclusion:

Overall, PsA patients with poor quality of sleep have higher levels in terms of self-reported pain and disease activity.

The amount of good sleepers after 4 months increased, but there was a negative transition of patients going from good to poor sleepers. This could indicate that more factors are important for quality of sleep, e.g. sociopsychological aspects like anxiety, depression, ability to work.

Table 1.

Patient characteristics

Totaln = 109Good sleepersPSQI ≤ 5n = 37Poor sleepersPSQI > 5n = 72nnpFemale, n (%)65 (59.4%)19 (51.4%)3746 (63.9%)720.206Age, yrs53.9 (45.4-62.25)60.4 (45.5-65.2)3751.5 (44.7-59.95)720.144Disease duration, yrs3.86 (1.0-11.0)4.5 (1.04-11.06)342.91 (1.0-10.75)680.352csDMARD, n (%)71 (65.1%)26 (70.2%)3745 (62.5%)720.420bDMARD, n (%)70 (64.2%)24 (64.8%)3746 (63.9%)720.920Patient pain assessment0-100 mm VAS50.0 (21.0-74.5)27.0 (9.0-60.5)3763.5 (32.25-78.0)72<0.001Patient global assessment0-100 mm VAS61.0 (27.5-78.5)35.0 (17.5-59.0)3769.5 (50.0-85.75)72<0.001PsAID fatigue6.0 (3.0-8.0)4.0 (2.5-7.0)376.5 (4.0-8.0)720.488HAQ score, 0-30.75 (0.38-1.25)0.38 (0.25-0.81)370.88 (0.63-1.38)72<0.001PASI1.7 (0.0-9.75)2.0 (0.0-7.3)351.2 (0.0-11.5)650.940DAS28-CRP3.77 (3.02-4.58)3.44 (2.65-3.94)374.07 (3.28-4.93)720.001

Disclosure of Interests:

Peter Benzin: None declared., Zara Rebecca Stisen: None declared., Marie Skougaard: None declared., Tanja Schjødt Jørgensen Speakers bureau: Received consulting fees and/or speaking fees from AbbVie, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, UCB, Biogen and Eli Lilly, Consultant of: Received consulting fees and/or speaking fees from AbbVie, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, UCB, Biogen and Eli Lilly, Rebekka L. Hansen: None declared., Lourdes M. Perez-Chada: None declared., Mette Mogensen: None declared., Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: Consultant and/or investigator for Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, UCB, Sanofi, Regeneron, Arena, Sun Pharma, Biogen, Pfizer, EMD Sorono, Avotres and Leo Pharma., Lars Erik Kristensen Speakers bureau: Received fees for speaking and consultancy from Pfizer, AbbVie, Amgen, UCB, Gilead, Biogen, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Eli Lilly, and Janssen pharmaceuticals., Consultant of: Received fees for speaking and consultancy from Pfizer, AbbVie, Amgen, UCB, Gilead, Biogen, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Eli Lilly, and Janssen pharmaceuticals.

Efficacy of secukinumab and adalimumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis and concomitant moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: results from EXCEED, a randomized, double-blind head-to-head monotherapy study

Background

Secukinumab [an interleukin (IL)‐17A inhibitor] has demonstrated significantly higher efficacy vs. etanercept (a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor) and ustekinumab (an IL‐12/23 inhibitor) in patients with moderate‐to‐severe plaque psoriasis.

Objectives

To report 52‐week results from a prespecified analysis of patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) having concomitant moderate‐to‐severe plaque psoriasis from the head‐to‐head EXCEED monotherapy study comparing secukinumab with adalimumab.

Methods

Patients were randomized to receive secukinumab 300 mg via subcutaneous injection at baseline, week 1–4, and then every 4 weeks until week 48 or adalimumab 40 mg via subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks from baseline until week 50. Assessments in patients with concomitant moderate‐to‐severe psoriasis, defined as having affected body surface area > 10% or Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) ≥ 10 at baseline, included musculoskeletal, skin and quality‐of‐life outcomes. Missing data were handled using multiple imputation.

Results

Of the 853 patients [secukinumab (N = 426), adalimumab (N = 427)], 211 (24·7%) had concomitant moderate‐to‐severe psoriasis [secukinumab (N = 110, 25·8%), adalimumab (N = 101, 23·7%)]. Up to week 50, 5·5% of patients discontinued secukinumab vs.17·8% in the adalimumab group. The proportion of patients who achieved American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response was 76·4% with secukinumab vs. 68·3% with adalimumab (P = 0·175), PASI 100 response was 39·1% vs. 23·8% (P = 0·013), and simultaneous improvement in ACR 50 and PASI 100 response at week 52 was 28·2% vs. 17·7%, respectively (P = 0·06). Secukinumab demonstrated consistently higher responses vs. adalimumab across skin endpoints.

Conclusions

This prespecified analysis in PsA patients with concomitant moderate‐to‐severe plaque psoriasis in the EXCEED study provides further evidence that IL‐17 inhibitors offer a comprehensive biological treatment to manage the concomitant features of psoriasis and PsA.

What is already known about this topic?

Secukinumab, an interleukin‐17A inhibitor, has previously been reported to have significantly higher efficacy in head‐to‐head trials vs. etanercept and ustekinumab in patients with moderate‐to‐severe plaque psoriasis.

What does this study add?

The results of the study provide valuable head‐to‐head data on the efficacy of two biologics with different mechanisms of action (secukinumab and adalimumab) as first‐line biological monotherapy for patients with psoriatic arthritis and concomitant moderate‐to‐severe plaque psoriasis.

The findings of this study can further help physicians to make informed and evidence‐based decisions for the treatment of patients with active psoriatic arthritis who have concomitant moderate‐to‐severe plaque psoriasis.

Linked Comment: E. Sbidian and L. Pina‐Vegas. Br J Dermatol 2021; 185:1085.

Efficacy and Safety of Bimekizumab in Patients with Moderate to Severe Plaque Psoriasis: Results from BE VIVID, a 52-Week Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Ustekinumab- and Placebo-Controlled Study

Abstract not available.

Tofacitinib in psoriatic arthritis patients: skin signs and symptoms and health-related quality of life from two randomized phase 3 studies

Background

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic, systemic immune‐mediated inflammatory musculoskeletal disease. The onset of dermatologic symptoms often precedes rheumatic manifestations. Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of PsA that has been shown to improve dermatologic symptoms in patients with PsA.

Objectives

To investigate the efficacy of tofacitinib in improving dermatologic endpoints in adult patients with active PsA.

Methods

This analysis included data from two placebo‐controlled, double‐blind, phase 3 studies in patients with active PsA and an inadequate response (IR) to ≥1 conventional synthetic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) who were tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)‐naïve (OPAL Broaden; NCT01877668) or an IR to ≥1 TNFi (OPAL Beyond; NCT01882439). Patients had active plaque psoriasis at screening and received a stable dose of one csDMARD during the study. Patients were randomized to tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID), 10 mg BID, adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneous injection once every 2 weeks (OPAL Broaden only) or placebo (to Month 3). Dermatologic endpoints: Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) total score; PASI90 overall; PASI75 and PASI90 by baseline PASI severity; Physician’s Global Assessment of Psoriasis; Nail Psoriasis Severity Index; Dermatology Life Quality Index total and sub‐dimension scores; Itch Severity Item; and Patient’s Global Joint and Skin Assessment‐Visual Analog Scale‐Psoriasis question.

Results

In patients with active PsA, including those stratified by mild or moderate/severe dermatologic symptoms, greater improvements from baseline and percentage of responders were observed in tofacitinib‐treated patients vs. placebo for the majority of analyzed dermatologic endpoints at Months 1 and 3, and improvements were maintained to Month 12 in OPAL Broaden and Month 6 in OPAL Beyond. Similar effects were observed in adalimumab‐treated patients vs. placebo in OPAL Broaden across dermatologic endpoints.

Conclusions

Tofacitinib provides a treatment option for patients with active PsA, including the burdensome dermatologic symptoms of PsA.

Risk of connective tissue disease, morphoea and systemic vasculitis in patients with hidradenitis suppurativa

BACKGROUND

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) has been associated with auto-inflammatory conditions, yet the risk of developing connective tissue disease (CTD), morphoea and systemic vasculitis has not been well-characterized.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to evaluate the risk of developing CTD, morphoea and systemic vasculitis in patients with HS.

METHODS

Using claims data, we identified patients with HS and used 2 : 1 risk-set sampling to identify patients without HS. Patients with existing CTD were excluded. Patient follow-up lasted until first occurrence of the following events: the occurrence of outcome (i.e. systemic lupus erythematosus, morphoea, systemic sclerosis, Sjogren's Syndrome and systemic vasculitis), death, disenrolment or end of data stream. Hazard ratios (HR) of developing CTD, morphoea and systemic vasculitis were computed after 1 : 1 propensity score (PS) matching.

RESULTS

After 2 : 1 risk-set sampling, we identified 78 122 HS patients and 156 247 non-HS comparators. The mean follow-up was 540 days. After PS matching, HS patients had an increased risk of systemic lupus erythematosus HR = 1.63 (1.31-2.03) and morphoea HR = 2.02 (1.32-3.11), compared to non-HS patients. We did not observe an increased risk for systemic sclerosis HR = 0.90 (0.59-1.44), Sjogren's Syndrome HR = 0.91 (0.73-1.14) or systemic vasculitis HR = 0.87 (0.64-1.20).

CONCLUSION

In this population-based study, we observed an increased risk of developing systemic lupus erythematous and morphoea subsequent to a first-recorded diagnosis of hidradenitis suppurativa.

FRI0355 IMPACT OF BIOLOGIC THERAPY ON THE INCIDENCE OF PSA AMONG PATIENTS WITH PSORIASIS

Background:

One of the strongest known risk factors for the development of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is psoriasis. A key question is whether treatment of psoriasis may prevent or delay onset of PsA.

Objectives:

To compare the incidence of PsA among patients with psoriasis treated with a biologic compared to those treated with a non-biologic therapy for psoriasis

Methods:

We performed a retrospective cohort study in the Optum de-identified Electronic Health Record dataset between 2006-2017. Patients with two or more ICD codes for psoriasis between the ages of 16 and 90, who were initiating an oral medication, a biologic therapy, or phototherapy (defined as no preceding codes for the therapy in the prior 12 months) were identified. Covariates at baseline were determined in the 12 months prior to therapy initiation. The outcome of interest was PsA as defined by one ICD code. The incidence of PsA was described overall and within each therapy group. We analyzed the data in two ways: a) a multivariable Cox model using a time varying exposure (once the patient was exposed to a biologic, they were considered always exposed) derived from automated stepwise regression and b) propensity score matching (greedy matching, caliper 0.1) between biologic-exposed patients and oral/phototherapy exposed patients.

Results:

Among 215,386 patients with psoriasis without PsA at baseline, 9,848 were excluded for prior biologic exposure, and among the remaining, 60,258 initiated phototherapy, oral or biologic therapy during follow up. Among 22,461 new biologic initiations, 29,121 oral therapy and 8,676 phototherapy initiations, the mean age was lower in the biologics group compared to the non-biologic groups (46.9 vs 50.8), with a similar proportion of females and Caucasians. Observational time was also similar. A total of 1,643, 1,813, and 122 new PsA cases occurred over 60,739, 85,670, and 28,528 person/years (PY) of follow up, respectively (incidence 27.1, 21.2 and 4.2 per 1,000 person years respectively). Using a traditional multivariable adjustment approach with time varying exposure, the age and sex adjusted and fully adjusted HR (95% CI) for biologic users were 1.01 (0.99-1.04) and 0.93 (0.91-0.95), respectively. However, after propensity score matching, the HR (95% CI) was 1.64 (1.51-1.77). Survival curves cross, however, at approximately 8 years (Figure 1) and most of the new diagnoses of PsA occurred shortly after therapy initiation (Figure 2).

Conclusion:

Confounding by indication or protopathic bias may explain the observed association of biologic therapy with the development of PsA among patients with psoriasis. Some patients may be receiving therapy because they have both psoriasis and early symptoms of PsA or their PsA diagnosis is not recorded appropriately. Given the directional discrepancy in the results between traditional modeling and propensity score analysis, further work is needed to understand the nature of this relationship.

Figure

Figure 3.

Directed Acyclic Graphdescribing potential confounders in relationship between therapy prescription and diagnosis of PsA

Disclosure of Interests:

Alexis Ogdie Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Novartis, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Corrona, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Thorvardur Love: None declared, Junko Takeshita: None declared, Joel Gelfand Grant/research support from: grants (to the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania) from Abbvie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Novartis Corp, Celgene, Ortho Dermatologics, and Pfizer Inc., Consultant of: BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen Biologics, Novartis Corp, UCB (DSMB), Neuroderm (DSMB), Dr. Reddy’s Labs, Pfizer Inc., and Sun Pharma, Paid instructor for: received payment for continuing medical education work related to psoriasis that was supported indirectly by Lilly, Ortho Dermatologics and Novartis., Jose Scher Consultant of: Novartis, Janssen, UCB, Sanofi., Hyon Choi Grant/research support from: Ironwood, Horizon, Consultant of: Takeda, Selecta, Horizon, Kowa, Vaxart, Ironwood, Robert Fitzsimmons: None declared, Christopher T. Ritchlin Grant/research support from: UCB Pharma, AbbVie, Amgen, Consultant of: UCB Pharma, Amgen, AbbVie, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Gilead, Janssen, 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

LB0001 EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF UPADACITINIB VERSUS PLACEBO AND ADALIMUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS AND INADEQUATE RESPONSE TO NON-BIOLOGIC DISEASE-MODIFYING ANTI-RHEUMATIC DRUGS (SELECT-PsA-1): A DOUBLE-BLIND, RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED PHASE 3 TRIAL

Background:

Upadacitinib (UPA) is an oral, reversible, JAK inhibitor approved for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and currently under evaluation for treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Objectives:

To assess the efficacy and safety of UPA vs placebo (PBO) and adalimumab (ADA) in patients (pts) with PsA and prior IR or intolerance to ≥1 non-biologic DMARD (non-bDMARD).

Methods:

Pts with active PsA (≥3 swollen and ≥3 tender joints), active or historical psoriasis, and on ≤2 non-bDMARDs were randomized 1:1:1:1 to once daily UPA 15 mg (UPA15), UPA 30 mg (UPA30), ADA 40 mg every other week, or PBO. The primary endpoint was the proportion of pts achieving ACR20 for UPA vs PBO at Wk 12. Multiplicity controlled secondary endpoints for each dose of UPA vs PBO included change in HAQ-DI, FACIT-F, and SF-36 PCS (Wk 12); static Investigator Global Assessment of Psoriasis of 0 or 1, PASI75, and change in Self-Assessment of Psoriasis Symptoms (Wk 16); change in modified Sharp/van der Heijde Score (mTSS), proportion of pts achieving MDA, and resolution of enthesitis (LEI=0) and dactylitis (LDI=0) (Wk 24). For each dose of UPA, the multiplicity-controlled analysis also included non-inferiority and superiority vs ADA for ACR20 and superiority for HAQ-DI and pt’s assessment of pain NRS (Wk 12). ACR50/70 at Wk 12 and ACR20 at Wk 2 were additional secondary endpoints. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) through 24 wks are reported for pts who received ≥1 dose of study drug.

Results:

1705 pts were randomized; 1704 received study drug (53.2% female, mean age 50.8 yrs, mean duration of PsA diagnosis 6.1 yrs). 82% were on ≥1 concomitant non-bDMARD, of whom 84% received MTX +/- another non-bDMARD.

At Wk 12, ACR20 rates were 70.6% with UPA15 and 78.5% with UPA30 vs 36.2% with PBO (p < .001 for UPA15/30 vs PBO) and 65.0% with ADA (non-inferiority, p < .001 for UPA15/30 vs ADA; superiority, p < .001 for UPA30 vs ADA). A greater proportion of pts achieved ACR50/70 with UPA15/30 vs PBO and UPA30 vs ADA. Improvements were observed with UPA15/30 vs PBO for all multiplicity controlled secondary endpoints and for UPA 15/30 vs ADA for HAQ-DI and UPA 30 vs ADA for improvement in pain (Figure 1A-1B). At Wk 24, change in mTSS was 0.25 for PBO, -0.04 for UPA15, 0.03 for UPA30, and 0.01 for ADA (p < 0.001 for UPA15/30 vs PBO). The rates of TEAEs and serious AEs, including serious infections, were similar in the PBO, UPA15, and ADA arms and higher with UPA30 (Figure 2). The rate of herpes zoster was similar for PBO and UPA15/30. No MACE was reported with UPA. One malignancy occurred in each of the PBO and UPA15 arms, and 3 malignancies were reported in each of the UPA30 and ADA arms. VTE were reported in 1 pt on PBO, 1 pt on UPA30, and 2 pts on ADA. One death occurred in the PBO arm.

Conclusion:

In this non-bDMARD-IR PsA population, treatment with UPA15/30 demonstrated improvement in musculoskeletal symptoms, psoriasis, physical function, pain, and fatigue and inhibited radiographic progression; improvements were observed by Wk 2. At Wk 12, UPA15/30 were non-inferior to ADA for ACR20, with superiority demonstrated for UPA30. Greater percentages of UPA vs PBO pts achieved stringent measures of disease control (MDA, ACR50/70, sIGA 0/1). No new safety signals were identified compared with the safety profile observed in RA.

Disclosure of Interests:

Iain McInnes: None declared, Jaclyn Anderson Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Marina Magrey Grant/research support from: Amgen, AbbVie, and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: Novartis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Janssen, Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: Merck, Abbvie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, UCB, Celgene, Sanofi, Regeneron, Arena, Sun Pharma, Biogen, Pfizer, EMD Sorono, Avotres and Leo Pharma, Yi Liu: None declared, Mitsumasa Kishimoto Consultant of: bbVie, Eli Lilly, Celgene, Pfizer, Gilead, Janssen, and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eisai, Celgene, Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, Ayumi, Janssen, Astellas, and UCB Pharma, Sławomir Jeka Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, MSD, Sandoz, Eli Lilly, Egis, UCB, Celgene, Cesar Francisco Pacheco Tena: None declared, xin wang Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Liang Chen Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Patrick Zueger Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Aileen Pangan Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Frank Behrens Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Janssen, Chugai, Celgene and Roche, Consultant of: Pfizer, AbbVie, Sanofi, Lilly, Novartis, UCB, Genzyme, Boehringer, Janssen, MSD, Celgene, Roche and Chugai

AB0789 PERSISTENCE IN USE OF BIOLOGIC DISEASE MODIFYING ANTIRHEUMATIC DRUGS TREATMENT IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS

Background:

Treatment for patients with moderate to severe psoriatic arthritis (PsA) relied on TNF inhibitors (TNFi) for many years. Recent approvals of newer biologics include interleukin (IL) -12 inhibitor ustekinumab and IL-17A inhibitors ixekizumab and secukinumab. Limited up-to-date evidence exists for the comparison of utilization patterns between TNFi and IL inhibitors.

Objectives:

To compare the persistence on treatment with biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic diseases (DMARDs) in PsA patients who initiated TNFi versus IL inhibitors.

Methods:

We conducted a cohort study using a US commercial insurance database (IBM MarketScan: 2014-2017). We identified patients with PsA by using a validated claims-based algorithm (positive predictive value of 82.4%) which required two PsA diagnosis codes and a prescription dispensing for TNFi (etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab, golimumab) or IL inhibitor (secukinumab, ustekinumab, or ixekizumab). The index date was the 1stdrug dispensing date after the 2ndPsA diagnosis. We excluded patients with biologic DMARD use at any time prior to the index date. Patients were ≥18 years old on the index date and continuously enrolled in the plan for ≥365 days prior and after the index date. Our study outcome was the change in the initial biologic regimen during the year after the index date. Patients were considered as ‘persistent users’ if they were still on the index regimen, or ‘switchers’ if they were on a different biologic at the 365thdate of follow-up. We applied 30 days of gap between dispensing after accounting for the days of supply of each dispensing. For sensitivity analysis, we allowed any gap and determined persistent use at 365thdate less strictly.

Results:

We identified a total of 3,180 TNFi initiators and 214 IL inhibitor initiators (Table). Mean age was 52.9 (±11.6) years for TNFi initiators and 50.4 (±11.7) years for IL inhibitor initiators. Using the 30-day gap, there were 37.1% persistent TNFi users and 24.8% persistent IL inhibitor users after 1 year form the index date. 11.1% of TNFi initiators switched to a different TNFi while 4.7% switched to an IL inhibitor. Among IL inhibitor initiators, 6.1% switched to a TNFi and 5.6% to another IL inhibitors. However, in the sensitivity analysis where we allowed a longer interval between the fills/ injections, there were 53.0% persistent TNFi users and 53.7% persistent IL inhibitor users. In other words, IL inhibitor patients had a longer interval between the doses than the recommended treatment intervals on the label.

Conclusion:

In PsA patients, TNFi initiators were more adherent to the initial regimen than IL inhibitor initiators during 1-year follow-up period. However, the sensitivity analysis indicates that some patients may resume their initial treatment beyond the indicated refill intervals. Further investigations are needed to clarify whether this is due to a better treatment effectiveness or adverse effects associated with IL inhibitors.

Table.

Selected baseline characteristics of initiators TNFi versus IL inhibitors in PsA patients

TNFiIL inhibitorN3,180214Age (years), mean (SD)52.9 (11.6)50.4 (11.7)Female, %57.055.6Combined comorbidity score, mean (SD)0.9 (1.8)0.3 (1.2)Hypertension, %41.048.1Diabetes, %16.424.8Psoriasis, %63.272.9Non-biologic DMARDs, %66.560.8Oral steroids, %49.441.1NSAID, %55.443.0Emergency room visit, %21.220.6Hospitalization8.211.2No. of visits to dermatologist, mean (SD)2.6 (8.2)1.3 (4.7)

Acknowledgments:

This study was supported by an investigator-initiated research grant from Pfizer. The sponsor was given the opportunity to make non-binding comments on a draft of the abstract, but the authors retained the right of publication and to determine the final wording.

Disclosure of Interests:

Yinzhu Jin: None declared, Sarah Chen Employee of: After finishing the work for this abstract, she has moved to work for Gilead., Hemin Lee: None declared, Joan Landon: 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, Seoyoung Kim Grant/research support from: Seoyoung C Kim has received research grants from AbbVie, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer.

FRI0340 COMPARISON OF SECUKINUMAB VERSUS ADALIMUMAB EFFICACY ON SKIN OUTCOMES IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: 52-WEEK RESULTS FROM THE EXCEED STUDY

Background:

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a heterogeneous disease comprising musculoskeletal and dermatological manifestations, especially plaque psoriasis.1Secukinumab (SEC), an IL-17A inhibitor, provided significantly greater PASI 75/100 responses in a head-to-head trialversus (vs.) etanercept, a TNF inhibitor, in patients (pts) with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.2The objective of the EXCEED study (NCT02745080) was to investigate whether SEC is superior to adalimumab (ADA), a TNF inhibitor, as monotherapy in biologic-naive active PsA pts with active plaque psoriasis (defined as having at least one psoriatic plaque of ≥2 cm diameter or nail changes consistent with psoriasis or documented history of plaque psoriasis).

Objectives:

To report the pre-specified skin outcomes from the EXCEED study in the subset of pts with at least 3% body surface area (BSA) affected with psoriasis at baseline.

Methods:

Head-to-head, phase-3b, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, multicentre, parallel-group trial: pts were randomised to receive SEC 300 mg subcutaneous at baseline, Week 1-4, followed by dosing every 4 weeks (q4w) until Week 48 or ADA 40 mg subcutaneous at baseline followed by same dosing q2w until Week 50. The primary endpoint was superiority of SECvs.ADA on ACR20 response at Week 52. Pre-specified outcomes included the proportion of pts achieving a combined ACR50 and PASI 100 response, PASI 100 response, and absolute PASI score ≤3. Missing data was handled using multiple imputation.

Results:

853 pts were randomised to receive SEC (n=426) or ADA (n=427). At baseline, there were 215 and 202 pts having at least 3% BSA affected with psoriasis in the SEC and ADA groups, respectively. A higher proportion of patients achieved simultaneous improvement in ACR50 and PASI 100 response with SECvs.ADA (30·7%vs.19·2%; P=0·0087 [Figure]). Higher efficacy was demonstrated for SECvs.ADA for PASI 100 responses and for the proportion of pts achieving absolute PASI score ≤3 (Table).

Conclusion:

In this pre-specified analysis, SEC provided higher responses compared to ADA in achievement of simultaneous improvement of joint and skin disease (combined ACR50 and PASI 100 response) and in skin specific endpoints (PASI 100 and PASI score ≤3) at Week 52.

References:

[1]Coates LC and Helliwell PS.Clinical Med.2017;17:65–70.

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

Figure.

Combined ACR50 and PASI 100 Response through Week 52

Table.

Skin Specific Outcomes at Week 52

Endpoints, data is presented as % responseSEC 300 mg(N = 215)ADA 40 mg(N = 202)P-value (unadjusted)PASI 10046·029·70·0007Absolute PASI score ≤379·265·00·0015

P value vs. adalimumab; Unadjusted P values are presented

N, number of patients in psoriasis subset

Multiple imputation was used for handling missing data

ADA, adalimumab; BSA, body surface area; PASI, psoriasis area severity index; SEC, secukinumab

Acknowledgments:

Suchita Dubey (Novartis) provided medical writing support.

Disclosure of Interests:

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., 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, 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, 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, Kevin Ding Employee of: Novartis, Pascale Pellet Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Luminita Pricop Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, 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

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

AB0838 IDENTIFYING MEDIATORS OF PAIN REDUCTION IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS TREATED WITH TOFACITINIB: ROLE OF INFLAMMATION ASSOCIATED WITH PERIPHERAL ARTHRITIS, ENTHESITIS AND SKIN DISEASE

Background:

Treatment effect on pain is a priority for patients (pts) with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and physicians. As pain is multidimensional, there is growing interest to understand the mechanisms of pain relief during treatment. Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of PsA. Previous analyses showed that the effect of tofacitinib on pain in pts with PsA was partially mediated through improvement of inflammation as assessed by C-reactive protein (CRP) and Swollen Joint Count (SJC). Additional potential inflammation-associated mediators that might contribute to tofacitinib’s effect on pain include enthesitis and skin disease.

Objectives:

To describe the interrelationship between pain, tofacitinib treatment and potential inflammatory-associated outcomes, using mediation modelling.

Methods:

Data from two Phase 3 studies (OPAL Broaden [NCT01877668]; OPAL Beyond [NCT01882439]) of pts with active PsA treated with tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID) or placebo were used; pts were tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-naïve or had previous inadequate response to ≥1 TNFi. All pts were treated continuously with a single conventional synthetic DMARD. Analyses were completed using pooled and individual study data at Months 1 and 3 (using mean scores across visits). Mediation modelling seeks to explain mechanisms underlying observed relationships between independent and dependent variables via other variables (mediators). This initial model included: treatment as the independent (explanatory) binary variable (tofacitinib 5 mg BID vs placebo); pain, measured by Patient’s Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS, 0–100 mm), as the dependent (outcome) variable; mediators were: pt-reported Itch Severity Index (ISI); CRP; SJC; Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI); and enthesitis, measured by Leeds Enthesitis Index (LEI) or Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada Enthesitis Index (SPARCC). The final model was revised based on results of the initial model.

Results:

The initial model (N=329; pooled data) showed that tofacitinib treatment affects pain mainly indirectly via ISI, CRP, SJC, PASI and enthesitis (LEI), with 16.0% (p=0.53) attributable to the direct effect. The indirect effect via SJC (<1%) was not significant (p=0.99); the indirect effect via PASI was contradictory (-14.4%, p=0.10). The final model (Figure 1) excluded SJC and PASI. Analysis of the final model (N=468; pooled data) revealed that 29.5% (p=0.0579) of tofacitinib treatment effect on pain was attributable to the direct effect, and 70.5% (p<0.0001) was attributable to the indirect effect. ISI, LEI and CRP mediated 37.4% (p=0.0002), 17.8% (p=0.0157) and 15.3% (p=0.0107) of the tofacitinib treatment effect on pain, respectively. Results for individual studies were consistent with pooled data, as were those when enthesitis was represented by SPARCC in the model.

Conclusion:

The majority of tofacitinib treatment effect on pain in pts with PsA is collectively mediated by itch, enthesitis and CRP, with itch being the main mediator of treatment effect (~37%), using mediation modelling analyses.

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:

Peter C. Taylor Grant/research support from: Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, and Gilead, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly and Company, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer Roche, and UCB, Kurt de Vlam Grant/research support from: Celgene, Eli Lilly, Pfizer Inc, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Andrew G Bushmakin Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Lara Fallon Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, 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, Joseph C Cappelleri Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Ming-Ann Hsu Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Philip J Mease Grant/research support from: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB – grant/research support, Consultant of: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB – consultant, Speakers bureau: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB – speakers bureau

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

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

Background:

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

Objectives:

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

Methods:

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

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

Results:

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

Conclusion:

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

References:

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

Table.

Estimated mTSS (mixed effects model)

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

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

Acknowledgments:

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

Disclosure of Interests:

Laura C Coates: None declared, Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: Merck, AbbVie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, UCB Pharma, Celgene, Sanofi, Regeneron, Arena, Sun Pharma, Biogen, Pfizer, EMD Sorono, Avotres and LEO Pharma, Arthur Kavanaugh Grant/research support from: Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Centocor-Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, UCB – grant/research support, Philip J Mease Grant/research support from: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB – grant/research support, Consultant of: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB – consultant, Speakers bureau: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB – speakers bureau, Owen Davies Employee of: UCB Pharma, Oscar Irvin-Sellers Employee of: UCB Pharma, Tommi Nurminen Employee of: UCB Pharma, Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cyxone, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB Pharma; Director of Imaging Rheumatology BV

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

Background:

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

Objectives:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

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

Conclusion:

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

References:

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

Disclosure of Interests:

Philip J Mease Grant/research support from: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB – grant/research support, Consultant of: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB – consultant, Speakers bureau: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB – speakers bureau, Dafna D Gladman Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen Inc., BMS, Celgene Corporation, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB – grant/research support, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen Inc., BMS, Celgene Corporation, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB – consultant, Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: Merck, AbbVie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, UCB Pharma, Celgene, Sanofi, Regeneron, Arena, Sun Pharma, Biogen, Pfizer, EMD Sorono, Avotres and LEO Pharma, Atul Deodhar Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myer Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myer Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Alexis Ogdie Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer – grant/research support, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda – consultant, David Collier Shareholder of: Amgen Inc., Employee of: Amgen Inc., Elaine Karis Shareholder of: Amgen Inc., Employee of: Amgen Inc., Lyrica Liu Shareholder of: Amgen Inc., Employee of: Amgen Inc., Arthur Kavanaugh Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, Pfizer, Gilead, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, Pfizer, Gilead, UCB

AB0837 ITCH AS THE MAJOR MEDIATOR OF THE EFFECT OF TOFACITINIB ON HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE IN PsA: A MEDIATION ANALYSIS

Background:

PsA is a chronic, systemic inflammatory disease with signs and symptoms across multiple domains, including cutaneous manifestations, which can impact health-related quality of life (HQoL). Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of PsA. In two Phase 3 randomised studies, patients (pts) with active PsA treated with tofacitinib experienced greater improvements in various dermatologic endpoints, compared with placebo. As pruritus is a bothersome symptom of skin disease in pts with PsA, we sought to determine how tofacitinib affects HQoL via clinical improvements in skin symptoms including itch.

Objectives:

To determine the relationships between tofacitinib treatment, dermatologic symptoms and pt-reported HQoL related to skin disease in PsA.

Methods:

Analyses used data (mean scores from Months 1 and 3) from two Phase 3 studies (OPAL Broaden [NCT01877668]; OPAL Beyond [NCT01882439]) of pts with active PsA treated with tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily or placebo; pts were tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-naïve or had previous inadequate response (IR) to ≥1 TNFi. All pts were treated continuously with a single conventional synthetic DMARD. Mediation modelling, a statistical method used to assess mechanisms underlying observed relationships between different variables via other explanatory variables (mediators), was applied. The mediation model included: treatment, as the independent (explanatory) binary variable (tofacitinib 5 mg BID vs placebo); HQoL, measured by Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), as the dependent (outcome) variable; and two mediators, pt-reported Itch Severity Index (ISI) and Physician’s Global Assessment of Psoriasis (PGA-PsO) (a latent variable represented by erythema, induration and scaling). The initial model designated the treatment effect on DLQI mediated via ISI and PGA-PsO as an indirect effect, and treatment effects not attributable to ISI or PGA-PsO as a direct effect (Figure 1).

Results:

Data were collected from 468 pts, pooled from both studies. In the initial model (pooled data), the effect of tofacitinib treatment on DLQI was largely mediated by itch (measured by ISI) and PGA-PsO (indirect effect) (p<0.0001); the effect of treatment attributable to factors other than ISI and PGA-PsO (direct effect) was not statistically significant (p=0.66). Results were consistent for pooled and individual study data. Because the direct effect was small and not statistically significant, the model was re-specified to exclude the direct effect of tofacitinib treatment on DLQI. In the revised model (pooled data), 17.7% of the indirect effect was attributable to PGA-PsO (p=0.0006) and 82.3% was attributable to itch (assessed by ISI) (p<0.0001) (Figure 2). Analyses of individual studies using the revised model gave results generally consistent with pooled data.

Conclusion:

Dermatology-focused mediation modelling showed that a majority of the effect (~80%) of tofacitinib treatment on DLQI is mediated by improvements in itch, with ~20% mediated via improvements in PGA-PsO.

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:

Peter C. Taylor Grant/research support from: Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, and Gilead, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly and Company, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer Roche, and UCB, Andrew G Bushmakin Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Joseph C Cappelleri Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Pamela Young Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Rebecca Germino Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, 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, Gil Yosipovitch Grant/research support from: Galderma, Kiniksa, Leo, Menlo, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Regeneron, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Galderma, Kiniksa, Leo, Menlo Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Sanofi Regeneron, Trevi, Sienna

Ixekizumab improves secondary lesional signs, pain and sexual health in patients with moderate-to-severe genital psoriasis

Background

Epithelial surface disruption in genital psoriatic lesions may manifest as erosions, fissures and/or ulcers, causing pain and significantly impacting a patient's sexual health.

Objective

To evaluate the impact of erosions, fissures and/or ulcers in genital psoriatic lesions on pain and sexual activity in patients with moderate‐to‐severe genital psoriasis (GenPs) and treatment responses to ixekizumab vs. placebo until Week 12.

Methods

This post hoc subgroup analysis of patients presenting with and without erosions, fissures and/or ulcers in genital lesions from a phase IIIb multicentre, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study (IXORA‐Q; NCT02718898) in 149 adults with moderate‐to‐severe GenPs treated with subcutaneous ixekizumab (80 mg every 2 weeks; n = 75) or placebo (n = 74) evaluated outcomes for clinician‐rated GenPs severity (static Physician's Global Assessment of Genitalia; sPGA‐G) and patient‐reported genital pain and itch (Genital Psoriasis Symptoms Scale; GPSS) and sexual health (Genital Psoriasis Sexual Frequency Questionnaire; GenPs‐SFQ).

Results

At baseline, 38% (n = 57) of patients presented with genital erosions, fissures and/or ulcers independent of overall body surface area involvement (<10% or ≥10%). These signs were associated with higher scores for disease severity (sPGA‐G) and pain (GPSS) but not sexual health (GenPs‐SFQ). Complete resolution of these signs was observed in 62% of ixekizumab‐treated patients (25% for placebo) at Week 1 and 83% (21% for placebo) at Week 12. Patients treated with ixekizumab reported significant improvements in pain, itch, disease severity and sexual health over 12 weeks compared to placebo and irrespective of the presence/absence of genital erosions, fissures and/or ulcers at baseline.

Conclusion

Ixekizumab led to rapid and sustained resolution of erosions, fissures and/or ulcers and significant improvements in GenPs severity, genital pain and sexual health. Ixekizumab may help to improve the well‐being of patients with GenPs.

Developing classification criteria for skin-predominant dermatomyositis: the Delphi process

BACKGROUND

The European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology classification criteria for inflammatory myopathies are able to classify patients with skin-predominant dermatomyositis (DM). However, approximately 25% of patients with skin-predominant DM do not meet two of the three hallmark skin signs and fail to meet the criteria.

OBJECTIVES

To develop a set of skin-focused classification criteria that will distinguish cutaneous DM from mimickers and allow a more inclusive definition of skin-predominant disease.

METHODS

An extensive literature review was done to generate items for the Delphi process. Items were grouped into categories of distribution, morphology, symptoms, antibodies, histology and contextual factors. Using REDCap™, participants rated these items in terms of appropriateness and distinguishing ability from mimickers. The relevance score ranged from 1 to 100, and the median score determined a rank-ordered list. A prespecified median score cut-off was decided by the steering committee and the participants. There was a pre-Delphi and two rounds of actual Delphi.

RESULTS

There were 50 participating dermatologists and rheumatologists from North America, South America, Europe and Asia. After a cut-off score of 70 during the first round, 37 of the initial 54 items were retained and carried over to the next round. The cut-off was raised to 80 during round two and a list of 25 items was generated.

CONCLUSIONS

This project is a key step in the development of prospectively validated classification criteria that will create a more inclusive population of patients with DM for clinical research. What's already known about this topic? Proper classification of patients with skin-predominant dermatomyositis (DM) is indispensable in the appropriate conduct of clinical/translational research in the field. The only validated European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology criteria for idiopathic inflammatory myopathies are able to classify skin-predominant DM. However, a quarter of amyopathic patients still fail the criteria and does not meet the disease classification. What does this study add? A list of 25 potential criteria divided into categories of distribution, morphology, symptomatology, pathology and contextual factors has been generated after several rounds of consensus exercise among experts in the field of DM. This Delphi project is a prerequisite to the development of a validated classification criteria set for skin-predominant DM.

Time to progression from discoid lupus erythematosus to systemic lupus erythematosus: a retrospective cohort study

Determining the risk of progression to systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) among patients diagnosed with discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE), and the time frame of this risk, are important clinical questions. Past reports have demonstrated a wide time frame of progression from DLE to SLE, with mean time to progression of approximately 8 years. Using data obtained from an academic lupus centre, we identified 32 patients who progressed from DLE to SLE. In our cohort, we found that the median time to progression from DLE to SLE was 453 days, much sooner than previously reported. We believe this information can help inform clinicians on monitoring visit intervals and how best to counsel patients on SLE progression.

A core domain set for hidradenitis suppurativa trial outcomes: an international Delphi process

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus on core outcome domains for hidradenitis suppurativa (HS). Heterogeneous outcome measure instruments in clinical trials likely leads to outcome-reporting bias and limits the ability to synthesize evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To achieve global multistakeholder consensus on a core outcome set (COS) of domains regarding what to measure in clinical trials for HS.

METHODS

Six stakeholder groups participated in a Delphi process that included five anonymous e-Delphi rounds and four face-to-face consensus meetings to reach consensus on the final COS. The aim was for a 1 : 1 ratio of patients to healthcare professionals (HCPs).

RESULTS

A total of 41 patients and 52 HCPs from 19 countries in four continents participated in the consensus process, which yielded a final COS that included five domains: pain, physical signs, HS-specific quality of life, global assessment and progression of course. A sixth domain, symptoms, was highly supported by patients and not by HCPs but is recommended for the core domain set.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine adoption of the COS in future HS trials should ensure that core outcomes of importance to both patients and HCPs are collected.

Lack of response to intravenous sodium thiosulfate in three cases of extensive connective tissue disease-associated calcinosis cutis

Dystrophic calcinosis cutis is a debilitating condition of calcium salt deposition in the skin often occurring in association with connective tissue disease (CTD). Available treatments for calcinosis cutis are unsatisfactory, but given the recent use of topical and intralesional sodium thiosulfate (STS) to treat calcifying disorders, we sought to describe the use of intravenous (IV) STS for CTD-associated dystrophic calcinosis cutis. We report three patients with long-standing and extensive CTD-associated calcinosis cutis treated with IV STS after having failed multiple prior therapies. All three patients experienced fatigue and nausea with STS infusions, and none of the patients had notable clinical or symptomatic improvement of calcinosis. It remains to be seen whether the administration of IV STS earlier in the onset of calcinosis might be of benefit given that these patients all had long-standing and refractory CTD-associated calcinosis. Given the small number of patients in this series, further investigation into the use of IV STS in calcinosis cutis is warranted.

Towards global consensus on core outcomes for hidradenitis suppurativa research: an update from the HISTORIC consensus meetings I and II

BACKGROUND

A core outcomes set (COS) is an agreed minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials for a specific condition. Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) has no agreed-upon COS. A central aspect in the COS development process is to identify a set of candidate outcome domains from a long list of items. Our long list had been developed from patient interviews, a systematic review of the literature and a healthcare professional survey, and initial votes had been cast in two e-Delphi surveys. In this manuscript, we describe two in-person consensus meetings of Delphi participants designed to ensure an inclusive approach to generation of domains from related items.

OBJECTIVES

To consider which items from a long list of candidate items to exclude and which to cluster into outcome domains.

METHODS

The study used an international and multistakeholder approach, involving patients, dermatologists, surgeons, the pharmaceutical industry and medical regulators. The study format was a combination of formal presentations, small group work based on nominal group theory and a subsequent online confirmation survey.

RESULTS

Forty-one individuals from 13 countries and four continents participated. Nine items were excluded and there was consensus to propose seven domains: disease course, physical signs, HS-specific quality of life, satisfaction, symptoms, pain and global assessments.

CONCLUSIONS

The HISTORIC consensus meetings I and II will be followed by further e-Delphi rounds to finalize the core domain set, building on the work of the in-person consensus meetings.

Efficacy of ixekizumab compared to etanercept and placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis and non-pustular palmoplantar involvement: results from three phase 3 trials (UNCOVER-1, UNCOVER-2 and UNCOVER-3)

BACKGROUND

Palmoplantar psoriasis has significant physical and emotional impact on patients and can be difficult to treat.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of ixekizumab in the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis and moderate-to-severe non-pustular palmoplantar involvement.

METHODS

In three phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, patients with moderate-to-severe non-pustular plaque psoriasis [UNCOVER-1 (N = 1296), UNCOVER-2 (N = 1224), UNCOVER-3 (N = 1346)] were randomized to subcutaneous 80 mg ixekizumab every 2 or 4 weeks (Q2W, Q4W), after a 160-mg starting dose, or placebo through week 12. Additional UNCOVER-2 and UNCOVER-3 cohorts were randomized to 50 mg etanercept biweekly. Patients entering the open-label long-term extension (UNCOVER-3) received ixekizumab Q4W weeks 12-60. Moderate-to-severe palmoplantar involvement was defined as Palmoplantar Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PPASI) ≥8.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight percent of UNCOVER-1, UNCOVER-2 and UNCOVER-3 patients had baseline palmoplantar involvement (PPASI ≥0, n = 1092) and 9.1% (n = 350) had moderate-to-severe involvement, with mean baseline PPASI ~20, PASI ~24, and most (>60%) had static Physician's Global Assessment ≥4. Higher percentages of patients treated with ixekizumab vs. placebo or etanercept achieved PPASI 50 (approximately 80% vs. 32.9%, 67.8%; ixekizumab, placebo, etanercept, respectively) and PPASI 75 (approximately 70% vs. 18.8%, 44.1%; ixekizumab, placebo, etanercept, respectively) at week 12 (all P < 0.05). PPASI 100 was achieved by higher percentages of ixekizumab-treated patients vs. placebo (approximately 50% vs. 8.2%, P < 0.001) and ixekizumab Q2W-treated patients vs. etanercept (51.8% vs. 32.2%, P < 0.05). Outcomes were maintained or improved in patients continuing on ixekizumab Q4W through week 60. Differences between ixekizumab and placebo or etanercept were statistically significant as early as week 1.

CONCLUSION

In a subpopulation analysis of patients from phase 3 trials with moderate-to-severe non-pustular palmoplantar involvement and moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, ixekizumab treatment resulted in greater and more rapid improvements than placebo and etanercept at week 12; improvements were sustained with continued treatment.

Prevalence of psoriasis phenotypes among men and women in the USA

BACKGROUND

We present the largest set of US prevalence data for psoriasis to date, obtained from three prospective cohort studies describing validated clinical phenotypes of psoriasis, including novel data about the prevalence of inverse (intertriginous) psoriasis in these groups. Nonplaque psoriasis phenotypes have been largely unmeasured in observational and interventional studies, and this has led to an under-recognition of this aspect of psoriatic disease.

AIM

To describe the prevalence of nonplaque psoriasis phenotypes in a large prospective cohort.

METHODS

We included 3179 women and 646 men in the analysis. Participants in the Nurses Health Study (NHS) and Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS) with physician-diagnosed psoriasis completed a validated, self-administered questionnaire to assess plaque and nonplaque subsets of psoriasis.

RESULTS

Psoriasis phenotypes were as follows: plaque 55%, scalp 52%, palmar-plantar 14%, nail 23% and inverse 21% in the NHS (n = 1604); plaque 60%, scalp 56%, palmar-plantar 16%, nail 27% and inverse 24% in the second NHS study (NHS II) (n = 1575); and plaque 55%, scalp 45%, palmar-plantar 12%, nail 27% and inverse 30% in the HPFS (n = 646). Scalp, nail, palmar-plantar and inverse disease represent highly prevalent phenotypes of psoriasis in the USA.

CONCLUSION

Scalp, nail, palmar-plantar and inverse disease represent highly prevalent phenotypes of psoriasis.