The spectral underpinnings of pathogen spread on animal networks

Predicting what factors promote or protect populations from infectious disease is a fundamental epidemiological challenge. Social networks, where nodes represent hosts and edges represent direct or indirect contacts between them, are important in quantifying these aspects of infectious disease dynamics. However, how network structure and epidemic parameters interact in empirical networks to promote or protect animal populations from infectious disease remains a challenge. Here we draw on advances in spectral graph theory and machine learning to build predictive models of pathogen spread on a large collection of empirical networks from across the animal kingdom. We show that the spectral features of an animal network are powerful predictors of pathogen spread for a variety of hosts and pathogens and can be a valuable proxy for the vulnerability of animal networks to pathogen spread. We validate our findings using interpretable machine learning techniques and provide a flexible web application for animal health practitioners to assess the vulnerability of a particular network to pathogen spread.

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

Background

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

Objectives

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Table 1.

Overview of safety measures of baricitinib in patients with SLE

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

References

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

Disclosure of Interests

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

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

Background

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

Objectives

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Table 1.

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

References

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

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

Disclosure of Interests

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

POS0686 BARICITINIB DECREASES ANTI-DSDNA AND IGG ANTIBODIES IN ADULTS WITH SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS FROM A PHASE 2 DOUBLE-BLIND, RANDOMIZED, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED TRIAL

Background:

Baricitinib (BARI), an oral, selective Janus kinase (JAK)1 and JAK2 inhibitor, improved disease severity in adults with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) receiving standard background therapy in a phase 2 trial1. There were no meaningful reductions in least squares mean change from baseline (BL) in levels of serologic biomarkers for SLE with BARI treatment, including anti-double-stranded deoxyribonucleic acid (anti-dsDNA) antibodies and complement component (C)3 and C41.

Objectives:

Evaluate the median change from BL in serologic biomarkers in subgroups and the overall population of BARI-treated SLE patients, in addition to the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Responder Index-4 (SRI-4) response by normalization of anti-dsDNA.

Methods:

Data were assessed from the phase 2 trial JAHH (NCT02708095). The median change from BL in anti-dsDNA, IgG, C3, and C4 was evaluated over time among the following populations at BL: anti-dsDNA positive (≥30 IU/mL), low C3 (<90 mg/dL), low C4 (<10 mg/dL), and all patients for IgG. Statistical tests were conducted for BARI 2-mg and 4-mg compared with placebo (PBO). Among patients who were anti-dsDNA positive at BL, SRI-4 responder rate was compared for those who stayed positive or achieved normal levels by Week (Wk) 24.

Results:

Among patients who were anti-dsDNA positive at BL, significant decreases of anti-dsDNA antibodies were observed for BARI 2-mg and 4-mg compared to PBO beginning at Wks 2 and 4, respectively, and continuing through Wk 24 (Figure 1 and Table 1). Moreover, reductions of IgG levels were found for BARI-treated patients including significant decreases for BARI 4-mg compared to PBO at Wks 12 and 24 (Table 1). Among patients who had low levels of C3 and C4 at BL, no significant differences in median change from BL were observed over time with BARI compared to PBO. For patients who were anti-dsDNA positive at BL, no relationship in SRI-4 responder rate was observed for those who stayed positive or achieved normal levels by Wk 24, possibly due to the limited sample size.

Conclusion:

BARI treatment resulted in a rapid and sustained significant decrease in anti-dsDNA antibodies compared to PBO among anti-dsDNA positive SLE patients at BL, as well as a significant decrease in IgG levels in the 4-mg group at Wks 12 and 24. These data suggest that BARI may have an effect on B cell activity in SLE.

References:

[1]Wallace D et al. Lancet. 2018;392:222-231.

Table 1.PBOBARI 2-mgBARI 4-mgWeek412244122441224Anti-dsDNA (IU/mL)a0.2 (-17.2, 17.3)2.6 (-14.8, 18.4)3.0 (-14.9, 28.3)-15.4** (-31.4, 1.9)-18.1* (-42.0, 4.1)-29.6** (-55.1, 10.3)-17.9** (-42.7, 1.8)-23.3*** (-50.9, -5.9)-15.1** (-71.9, -4.6)IgG (g/L)b-0.31 (-1.1, 0.4)0.09 (-1.1, 0.7)-0.04 (-0.9, 0.9)-0.60 (-1.3, 0.6)-0.30 (-1.3, 0.4)-0.51 (-1.7, 0.6)-0.56 (-1.2, 0.2)-0.65** (-1.3, 0.2)-0.60** (-1.7, 0.2)

Data are median change from baseline (25th, 75th percentiles). aData were assessed for patients that were anti-dsDNA positive (≥30 IU/mL) at baseline (PBO N=51, BARI 2-mg N=56, BARI 4-mg N=53). bData were assessed for all patients (PBO N=105, BARI 2-mg N=105, BARI 4-mg N=104). *p≤0.05, **p≤0.01, ***p≤0.001 for BARI vs. PBO.

Acknowledgements:

The authors would like to acknowledge Nicole L. Byers, of Eli Lilly and Company, for medical writing and process support.

Disclosure of Interests:

Thomas Dörner Speakers bureau: Eli Lilly and Company, Roche, and Samsung, Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Novartis, Roche, Samsung, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Janssen, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Ronald van Vollenhoven Consultant of: Abbvie, Biotest, BMS, Celgene, Crescendo, Eli Lilly and Company, GSK, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, and Vertex, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, GSK, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Andrea Doria Speakers bureau: GSK, Janssen, Pfizer, and Roche, Consultant of: Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, and GSK, Bochao Jia Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Damiano Fantini Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Jorge Ross Terres Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Maria Silk Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Stephanie de Bono Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Peter Fischer Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Daniel J. Wallace Consultant of: Amgen, Aurunia, Eli Lilly and Company, EMD Merck Serono, GSK, and Pfizer

THU0253 FATIGUE AND PAIN REMAIN PROMINENT AND IMPACTFUL IN PATIENTS WITH SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS (SLE): A CROSS-SECTIONAL SURVEY OF SLE PATIENTS IN THE UNITED STATES

Background:

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a chronic autoimmune inflammatory condition impacting multiple organ systems.1,2SLE affects approximately 1.5 million Americans, disproportionately females of reproductive age, and is more prevalent in non-Caucasian populations.3Fatigue and pain are some of the most prominent symptoms of SLE, contributing to the heavy disease burden and disruption to daily life.4This study aimed to further understand the burden of SLE. Lilly worked with the Lupus Foundation of America (LFA) and Evidera to develop the SLE-UPDATE (Understanding Preferences, Disease Activity and Treatment Expectations) survey.

Objectives:

To understand the patient-perceived symptom burden of SLE, in particular pain and fatigue, within the current landscape of therapeutic options. This study also focused on current treatment patterns in SLE patients.

Methods:

This was a cross-sectional, non-interventional, online survey study conducted in partnership with the LFA. English-speaking United States patients aged ≥18 years with a self-reported diagnosis of SLE completed the survey following online screening and informed consent. Descriptive data are presented by means (standard deviation [SD]) for continuous measures, and frequency (n, %) for dichotomous measures. Demographic, clinical, and patient-reported outcomes were collected including the FACIT-Fatigue (range 0-52, higher scores indicate less fatigue), Pain Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) (0 [none] to 10 [worst imaginable]), Worst Joint Pain NRS (0 [none] to 10 [worst imaginable]), and the LupusPRO, a validated, lupus-specific quality of life (QoL) instrument (range 0-100, higher scores indicate better QoL).

Results:

A total of 500 patients with SLE completed the survey. Patients were predominantly female (75%), white/Caucasian (76%), with a mean age of 42.6 years and mean disease duration of 11.1 years.

Most patients with SLE rated their overall condition as either good (38%) or fair (31%), with 8% rating poor and 7% excellent. Current non-biologic prescription medication use included: antimalarials 42%, corticosteroids 33%, immunosuppressants 33%, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) 32%, other analgesics 15% and 10% were using tofacitinib. Biologic therapies were being used by only 19%, including intravenous (IV) Benlysta (37%),subcutaneous(SC) Benlysta (25%), rituximab (17%), and 22% were using other biologics. Fatigue was the most commonly reported symptom (69%), with 40% of patients ranking fatigue as their most bothersome SLE symptom. Forty eight percent of patients with current fatigue rated the severity as moderate and 33% as severe. The mean (SD) FACIT-Fatigue score was 22.9 (12.0). The next most commonly reported symptoms were joint stiffness (57%), sleep problems (55%), joint pain/swelling (53%), and muscle pain (52%). Sixty percent of patients reported experiencing pain all or most of the time over the past seven days. A total of 30% of patients with current joint pain/swelling rated it as severe, and 24% of patients with current joint stiffness rated it as severe. The mean scores for Worst pain NRS and Worst Joint Pain NRS were both 5.8 out of 10.

The LupusPRO domains indicated by respondents as the most impacted by SLE were Emotional Health, Pain/Vitality, and Lupus Medications.

Conclusion:

Fatigue, followed by pain and joint stiffness, were the most common patient-reported symptoms contributing to the overall SLE disease burden. Further research could highlight the efforts required to address the inadequacies in treatment and management of pain and fatigue in this patient population.

Disclosure of Interests:

Julie Birt Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Monica Hadi: None declared, Nashmel Sargalo: None declared, Ella Brookes: None declared, Paul Swinburn: None declared, Leslie Hanrahan: None declared, Karin Tse: None declared, Natalia Bello Vega Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Kirstin Griffing Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Maria Silk Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Laure Delbecque Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Diane L Kamen Consultant of: Consulted on SLE survey development for Lilly and consulted on SLE trial protocol development for EMD Serono in 2019

OP0045 DELINEATION OF A PROINFLAMMATORY CYTOKINE PROFILE TARGETED BY JAK1/2 INHIBITION USING BARICITINIB IN A PHASE 2 SLE TRIAL

Background:

Given the unmet clinical needs in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), including poor disease control and drug toxicities, new therapies are needed. In a phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study (JAHH), once-daily baricitinib (bari) resulted in significant clinical improvement in patients (pts) with active SLE versus PBO. Bari inhibits JAK1 and JAK2 signalling, and in turn may affect STAT1, STAT2, STAT4 pathways. Therefore, bari has the potential to simultaneously impact several pro-inflammatory immune cytokines implicated in the pathogenesis of SLE, including IFN-α, IFN-γ, IL-6, IL-12, and IL-23.

Objectives:

The objectives of the current study were: 1) to examine baseline serum cytokines in the JAHH phase 2 clinical trial for correlations with clinical or immunologic assessments; 2) to determine if changes in serum cytokine levels were associated with bari treatment.

Methods:

Pts enrolled in the JAHH phase 2 trial received daily treatment with PBO, bari 2 mg, or bari 4 mg through week 24. Serum samples were collected at baseline (week [wk] 0), wk 12, and wk 24) from SLE pts (n=270) and 50 sex- and age-matched controls. Samples were analyzed for: IL-2, IL-3, IL-5, IL-6, IL-10, IL-17A, IL-21, IL-12/23p40, IL-12p70, GM-CSF, IFN-α and IFN-γ using ultrasensitive quantitative assays. IFN gene signature, autoantibodies, C3 and C4 were measured as previously described [1].

Results:

At wk 0, serum IL-17A, IL-12/23p40, IL-6, IFN-γ and IFN-α were readily detectable. IL-12/23p40 was detectable in 100% of pts vs. 100% of controls, IFN-γ in 89% of pts vs. 66% of controls, IL-6 in 53% of pts vs. 12% of controls and in IFN-α 41% of pts vs. 2% of controls; detection of serum IL-2, GM-CSF, IL-5, IL-10 and IL-17A was variable (Fig 1). At baseline (wk 0), IL-12/23p40 was positively correlated with SLEDAI and IFN gene signature and negatively correlated with serum C4. IL-6 was positively correlated with joint swelling, joint tenderness, IFN-γ and C3. Serum IFN-α was positively correlated with serum IFN-γ, anti-Sm and anti-RNP, and the IFN gene signature (Fig 2). Treatment with bari 4 mg (Fig 1B) significantly decreased serum IL12/23p40 and IL-6 cytokine levels at wk 12 (p<0.05) but not serum IFN-α or IFN-γ levels (Fig 1B).

Figure 1.

* p = 0.015; ** p = 0.001; Abbreviations: LLOQ, Lower limit of quantification.

Figure 2.

Abbreviations: Anti-dsDNA, Anti-double stranded DNA; Anti-RNP, Anti-ribonucleoprotein; CLASI, Cutaneous lupus erythematosus disease area and severity index; SLEDAI, SLE disease activity index.

Conclusion:

Bari 4 mg treatment was associated with statistically significant decreases of serum IL-12/23p40 and IL-6 at week 12 which continued through week 24. Serum IFN-α or IFN-γ were not reduced with bari treatment. Thus, bari 4 mg simultaneously impacted multiple pro-inflammatory cytokines implicated in the pathogenesis of SLE.

References:

[1]Hoffman RW, et al.Arthritis Rheumatol.2017;69(3):643-654.

Disclosure of Interests:

Thomas Dörner Grant/research support from: Janssen, Novartis, Roche, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Roche, Janssen, EMD, Speakers bureau: Eli Lilly, Roche, Samsung, Janssen, Yoshiya Tanaka Grant/research support from: Asahi-kasei, Astellas, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Takeda, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers, UCB, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, and Ono, Consultant of: Abbvie, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Daiichi-Sankyo, Astellas, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AbbVie, YL Biologics, Bristol-Myers, Takeda, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Eisai, Janssen, Sanofi, UCB, and Teijin, Michelle A Petri Grant/research support from: GSK, Eli Lilly and Company, Consultant of: Eli Lilly and Company, Josef S. Smolen Grant/research support from: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer Inc, Samsung, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer Inc, Samsung, Sanofi, Daniel Wallace Consultant of: Amgen, Eli Lilly and Company, EMD Merck Serono, and Pfizer, Brenda Crowe Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Ernst Dow Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Richard E Higgs Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Guilherme Rocha Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Robert Benschop Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Maria Silk Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Stephanie de Bono Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Robert Hoffman Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Damiano Fantini Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company

Silastic sheeting in retroperitoneal fibrosis

The successful use of Silastic sheeting for the prevention of recurrent ureteral fibrosis following ureteral lysis in 3 patients with retroperitoneal fibrosis is reported.