OP0063 OLOKIZUMAB IMPROVES PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOMES IN MODERATE TO SEVERELY ACTIVE RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS PATIENTS INADEQUATELY CONTROLLED BY METHOTREXATE (MTX-IR): RESULTS FROM THE PHASE 3 RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL, CREDO 2

Background

Olokizumab (OKZ) is an interleukin-6-inhibitor for treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA). In these analyses, we present patient reported outcomes (PROs) reported by MTX-IR patients with moderate to severely active RA treated with OKZ vs adalimumab (ADA) or placebo in a phase 3 randomized controlled trial (RCT) (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02760407).

Objectives

To assess the effect of OKZ treatment compared with placebo and ADA in patient global assessment of disease activity (PtGA), pain, physical function (HAQ-DI), fatigue (FACIT-F) and health related quality of life (SF-36 physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) component summary and domain scores) and work participation (WPS-RA) at week 12.

Methods

1648 patients receiving MTX were randomized to receive SQ injections: 1) OKZ 64 mg every 2 weeks (q2w, n=464), 2) OKZ 64 mg q4w (n=479), 3) ADA 40 mg q2w (n=462) and 4) placebo q2w (n=243). At week 14, non-responders: subjects without ≥ 20% improvements in both swollen and tender joint counts, added rescue medication (sulfasalazine and/or hydroxychloroquine) to study treatment. Between groups differences in least-squares mean (LSM) changes from baseline were analyzed.

Results

At week 12, treatment with both OKZ doses and ADA resulted in statistically greater LSM changes from baseline than placebo across all PROs, including 7 of 8 domains of SF-36 with exception of role emotional (Table 1 and Figure 1). Reported work and household work impairments, days productivities were reduced by half and missed household work days because of arthritis were all improved (p<0.01) with OKZ and ADA treatment. PROs further improved to week 24 in the active treatment arms. Post hoc analyses demonstrated that a higher proportion of patients receiving both doses of OKZ as well as ADA reported improvements ≥ minimum clinically important differences vs placebo (p<0.01) across all PROs, indicating clinically meaningful benefits on an individual patient basis. Estimates of numbers needed to treat indicated that between 5 and 10 patients would need to be treated to achieve these benefits. More patients in both OKZ groups reported scores ≥ normative values in PtGA, HAQ-DI and SF-36 PCS scores; with ADA in PtGA and HAQ-DI.

Table 1.

Mean baseline PROs and LSM changes to week 12

Baseline, mean (standard deviation)12 weeks LSM changes (standard error)OKZ q2w, N=464OKZ q4w, N=479ADA q2w, N=462Placebo, N=243OKZ q2w, N=464OKZ q4w, N=479ADA q2w, N=462Placebo, N=243PtGA-VAS67.5(20.2)66.8(20.9)66.7(21.0)67.4(20.0)-29.7(1.1)#-29.5(1.0)#-31.6(1.1)#-21.0(1.5)Pain-VAS68.4(20.6)67.1(21.0)66.8(21.5)66.5(20.7)-31.8(1.1)#-31.7(1.1)#-32.7(1.1)#-21.3(1.6)HAQ-DI*1.7(0.58)1.7(0.60)1.7(0.57)1.7(0.62)-0.6(0.03)#-0.6(0.03)#-0.6(0.03)#-0.4(0.04)Comparison vs. ADA LSM difference [97.5% CI]-0.03 [-0.12;0.05]0.00 [-0.08;0.08]SF-36 PCS31.8(7.0)31.6(7.2)31.4(7.4)31.9(7.5)8.1(0.4)#7.8(0.4)#8.1(0.4)#4.9(0.5)SF-36 MCS42.9(11.4)43.50(11.3)44.1(11.4)43.1(11.0)5.1(0.4)†4.9(0.4)†5.0(0.4)†3.1(0.6)FACIT-F26.7(10.7)27.3(10.4)27.4(11.3)27.3(10.2)8.4(0.4)#8.1(0.4 )ⱡ8.9(0.4)#5.2(0.6)

Footnotes: LSM difference (SE) 97.5% CI by ANCOVA. NRS imputation.

*, secondary endpoint; †p≤0.05, ⱡp<0.01, #p<0.001 vs placebo; VAS (mm).

Figure 1.

SF-36 domain changes from baseline to week 12. *p≤0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001 ADA vs placebo; *p≤0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001 OKZ q2w vs placebo; *p≤0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001 OKZ q4w vs placebo. AGNorms, age- and gender-matched; BL, baseline.

Conclusion

Treatment with both doses of OKZ resulted in similar, statistically significant improvements across PROs vs placebo in MTX-IR patients with moderate to severely active RA, comparable to ADA, that were clinically meaningful.

Acknowledgements

R-Pharm funded this study; contributed to its design; participated in data collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and in the writing, review, and approval of the abstract. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship.

Disclosure of Interests

Vibeke Strand Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer, Ingelheim, Chemocentryx, Celltrion, Galapagos, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, GSK, Horizon, Inmedix, Janssen, Kiniksa, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Rheos, R-Pharm, Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi, Scipher, Servier, Setpoint, Sorrento, Spherix, UCB, Ernest Choy Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol Myer Squibbs, Chugai Pharma, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, RPharm, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB., Grant/research support from: Bio-Cancer, Biogen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and UCB, Evgeny Nasonov Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Tatiana Lisitsyna: None declared, Alexander Lila Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Bayer, Biotechnos, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, RPharm, Roche, Sanofi, Stada, Viatris and UCB, Sofia Kuzkina Employee of: R-Pharm, Mikhail Samsonov Employee of: R-Pharm, Eugen Feist Consultant of: Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Medac, Novartis, Sanofi, Sobi, R-Pharm, Grant/research support from: Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer.

AB0886 The Impact of Deucravacitinib on Health-Related Quality of Life Measured by the Short Form Health Survey 36-Item Questionnaire: Analysis of a Phase 2 Trial in Patients With Active Psoriatic Arthritis

Background

Patients (pts) with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) experience pain, loss of physical function, joint damage, and significant impairments in social and emotional well-being. The Short Form Health Survey 36-item questionnaire (SF-36v2), a generic measure of pt-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL), includes 36 items and measures 8 domains—physical functioning (PF), role-physical (RP), bodily pain (BP), general health (GH), vitality (VT), social functioning (SF), role-emotional (RE), and mental health (MH)—that contribute to both physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) scores. Deucravacitinib (DEUC) is a novel, oral, selective, allosteric inhibitor of tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2), an intracellular kinase that mediates cytokine signalling pathways implicated in PsA pathogenesis. In a Phase 2 trial in pts with active PsA, DEUC was well tolerated and significantly more efficacious than placebo (PBO) after 16 weeks (wks) of treatment.1

Objectives

To further evaluate the effect of DEUC treatment on SF-36 scores.

Methods

This double-blind Phase 2 trial (NCT03881059) enrolled pts 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 CRP ≥3 mg/L, and ≥1 plaque psoriasis lesion (≥2 cm). Pts failed or were intolerant to ≥1 nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory, conventional synthetic DMARD, and/or 1 TNF inhibitor (≤30%). Pts were randomised 1:1:1 to DEUC 6 mg once daily (QD) or 12 mg QD, or PBO. Changes from baseline (BL) in SF-36 PCS and MCS scores at Wk 16 were prespecified key secondary and additional endpoints, respectively. The 8 SF-36 domain scores were evaluated at Wk 16. The proportions of pts reporting improvements ≥2.5 and ≥5 points (the minimum clinically important difference [MCID]) in SF-36 summary and domain scores, respectively, were evaluated.

Results

Of 203 pts randomised, 180 (89%) completed 16 wks of treatment (DEUC 6 mg QD, 63/70 [90%]; DEUC 12 mg QD, 59/67 [88%]; PBO, 58/66 [88%]). Demographic and BL disease characteristics were similar across groups. BL mean SF-36 PCS and MCS scores were similar among DEUC 6 mg QD, 12 mg QD, and PBO groups (PCS: 34.0, 34.5, and 33.4; MCS: 45.4, 46.9, and 47.5, respectively). At Wk 16, adjusted mean changes from BL in SF-36 PCS and MCS scores were significantly improved with DEUC 6 and 12 mg QD treatment vs PBO (PCS: 5.6, 5.8, and 2.3; MCS: 3.6, 3.5, and 0.7, respectively; P<0.05). Reported improvements in domain scores with both doses exceeded MCID and were significant in 5 of 8 domains with DEUC 6 mg QD (PF, RP, BP, VT, and SF) and 6 of 8 domains with DEUC 12 mg QD (RE in addition; Figure 1 and Table 1).

Table 1.

Improvements reported in SF-36 domains with deucravacitinib 6 mg QD and 12 mg QD vs placebo at Week 16

PFRPBPGHVTSFREMHDeucravacitinib 6 mg – BL41.942.932.539.639.057.069.558.4Deucravacitinib 12 mg – BL44.146.033.438.543.065.571.559.2Placebo – BL42.442.831.740.338.863.875.159.9Deucravacitinib 6 mg – LSM Wk 1614.612.315.99.511.713.26.98.1Deucravacitinib 12 mg – LSM Wk 1613.313.519.58.412.110.58.78.2Placebo – LSM Wk 163.35.37.06.24.2-0.21.63.6Protocol A/G norms81.181.972.570.259.185.188.076.2

Domain scores range from 0-100, with higher scores indicating better health status.

A/G, age/gender; BL, baseline; BP, bodily pain; GH, general health; LSM, least square mean change; MH, mental health; PF, physical functioning; QD, once daily; RE, role-emotional; RP-role-physical; SF, social functioning; SF-36, Short Form-36; VT, vitality; Wk, week.

Conclusion

Pts with PsA treated with DEUC reported clinically meaningful and significant improvements in HRQOL, including fatigue, social functioning and role emotional in addition to physical functioning, role physical and pain, at Wk 16.

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

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

Disclosure of Interests

Vibeke Strand Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celltrion, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Rheos, Samsung, Sandoz, Sun Pharma, 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, Atul Deodhar Consultant of: Consulting and/or advisory boards: AbbVie, Amgen, Aurinia, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, June Ye Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Miroslawa Nowak Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Jiyoon Choi Shareholder of: Employee of Bristol Myers Squibb at time of study conduct, Employee of: Employee of Bristol Myers Squibb at time of study conduct, Brandon Becker Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb

POS1025 COMPARISON OF COMPOSITE INDICES FOR DISEASE ACTIVITY IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS TREATED WITH UPADACITINIB: A POST-HOC ANALYSIS FROM SELECT-PsA 1

Background

Achieving low disease activity (LDA) or remission is a main treatment target in PsA. Composite indices used to assess disease activity include Disease Activity index for PsA (DAPSA) and PsA Disease Activity Score (PASDAS), which both have cut points for the states of remission and LDA. In addition, LDA and remission can be assessed by the pure state instrument Minimal Disease Activity (MDA)/Very Low Disease Activity (VLDA).

Objectives

These analyses aim to identify overlap and differences between these composite indices in PsA patients treated with upadacitinib (UPA), a Janus kinase inhibitor, or adalimumab (ADA) in the phase 3 SELECT-PsA 1 trial.

Methods

In SELECT-PsA 1 (phase 3, randomized controlled trial, with long-term extension up to 5 years), patients with moderate to severely active PsA with prior inadequate response or intolerance to ≥1 non-biologic DMARD were randomized to oral UPA at doses of 15 mg or 30 mg (once daily), subcutaneous ADA 40 mg (every other week), or placebo.1 LDA was assessed using MDA (threshold: 5/7 criteria), DAPSA (≤14), PASDAS (≤3.2), and Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA; ≤3).2,3 These post-hoc descriptive analyses include 1-year (cut off: week 56) as observed data from UPA 15 mg and ADA.

Results

In total, 858 patients (UPA 15 mg: n=429; ADA: n=429) were included in these analyses. Patients receiving UPA and ADA were on average 52 years of age, 54% were female, with an average disease duration of approximately 6 years.1 With both UPA and ADA, there was a high degree of overlap in the proportion of patients achieving LDA thresholds in MDA, DAPSA, and PASDAS (Figure 1), with reported PtGA improvements showing a similar trend. Defining LDA according to MDA or respective cut points for DAPSA, PASDAS, or PtGA, the proportion of “non-responders” (ie, patients who did not reach such states) is shown in Figure 2. Of the individual components included in these indices, fewer patients reported low levels of SF-36 Physical Component Summary (SF36-PCS), Patient Assessment of Pain Numeric Rating Scale (Pain NRS), and Health Assessment Questionnaire - Disability Index (HAQ-DI) scores, as well as Tender Joint Count 68 (TJC68), with similar responses observed across all indices.

Conclusion

In this post-hoc analysis from the SELECT-PsA 1 trial, there was a high degree of overlap between patients in LDA across the composite indices, including MDA, DAPSA, and PASDAS, irrespective of treatment with UPA 15 mg or ADA and despite variability in inclusion of certain components in some indices but not others. Across all indices, fewer patients reported low levels of SF36-PCS, Pain NRS, and HAQ-DI scores, and TJC68. These data show that improvements in (subjective) “patient-driven” components were the most challenging to achieve. These data indicate a similar pattern of residual disease activity, or influence by residual damage or external factors, regardless of composite endpoint utilized.

References

[1]McInnes IB et al. N Engl J Med. 2021; 384(13):1227-39

[2]Kerschbaumer et al. Baillieres Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2018; 32:401-14

[3]Gorlier et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019; 78:201-208

Acknowledgements

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

Disclosure of Interests

Josef S. Smolen Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi, and UCB, Ennio Lubrano Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Celgene, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer, Mitsumasa Kishimoto Speakers bureau: 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, and UCB, 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, and UCB, Andra Balanescu Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Angellini, Astra-Zeneca, Berlin-Chemie, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Teva, UCB, and Zentiva, Consultant of: AbbVie, Pfizer, and Ewopharma, Vibeke Strand Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ichnos, Inmedix, Janssen, Kiniksa, Merck, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi, Setpoint, and UCB, Tianming Gao Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Nancy Vranich Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Ralph Lippe Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., William Tillett Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc.

POS1103 “WHAT MATTERS”: PATIENT AND CLINICIAN PERSPECTIVES IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS CARE

Background

Recent psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treatment recommendations (1) highlight the importance of shared decision making; this ideally requires the clinician understands “what matters” to each patient regarding their disease. Concurrently, patient research partners have been incorporated into projects for the OMERACT core domain set (2) and measures of physical function and (health related) quality of life (3). Currently, less is known about the similarities and differences between patient and clinician perspectives.

Objectives

To interrogate and deliniate commonalities and discrepancies in “what matters” to patients and to physicians in routine clinical care.

Methods

A comprehensive list of items describing the PsA patient experience was generated in medical anthropologist-designed (CH) peer-to-peer discussions in 4 patient focus groups across the United States (Seattle, Cleveland, Washington, DC). These items were combined with those from the GRAPPA-OMERACT PsA Outcomes patient-physician consensus project (2). A PsA physician and patient steering committee reviewed and revised the list with additional topics considered to be of importance. The final list of 51 items went through a 3 round Delphi process starting with 53 PsA patients and a 2 round Delphi with 13 PsA expert rheumatologists. In each round, participants rated each item for level of importance out of 100 total points.

Results

Top priority items for each group are depicted in Figure 1. Both patients and physicians rated ‘Arthritis -Joint pain and swelling’ in the top two. Five additional items were included for both groups but with different scores; all related to disease manifestations or physical consequences. Several items received disparate priority between groups. In this set, patients included two unique items: access to care and future health uncertainty. Other items affecting everyday function were noted. Physician priorities included specific disease manifestations and physical/functional outcomes, and the topic of “disease management goals”, focusing on patient-physician communication regarding a treatment plan.

Figure 1.

Top Patient and Physician Priorities

*Not in set of highest ranked items for that group

Conclusion

Patients and physicians were in consensus that arthritis disease activity, pain and fatigue are key features of the patient’s experience of PsA. Differences appeared in other domains; physicians ranked clinical domains such as enthesitis, dactylitis, and skin disease more highly, patients considered items such as access to care, future health uncertainty and sleep quality to be most important. This study highlights the need for physicians to ask and address “what matters” with patients and to educate patients about potential differences in physicians’ areas of concern to optimize shared decision making.

References

[1]Ogdie A, Coates LC, Gladman D. Treatment guidelines in psoriatic arthritis: Rheumatology 2020;59:i37-i46

[2]Orbai A-M, de Wit M, Mease P, et al. International patient and physician consensus on a psoriatic arthritis core outcome set for clinical trials Ann Rheum Dis 2017;76:673–680.

[3]Gossec L, de Wit M, Kiltz U, et al. A patient-derived and patient-reported outcome measure for assessing psoriatic arthritis: elaboration and preliminary validation of the Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease (PsAID) questionnaire, a 13-country EULAR initiative. Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73: 1012–9.

Disclosure of Interests

Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Pfizer, Novartis, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Celgene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genetech, Novartis, Janssen, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, UCB, GSK, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Genetech, Novartis, Janssen, Sun Pharma, Pfizer, Daniel Furst Speakers bureau: Corbus, GSK, Sanofi, Consultant of: Actelion, Amgen, BMS, Corbus, Galapagos, Sanofi, Novartis, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Actelion, Amgen, BMS, Galapagos, Sanofi, Roche/Genetech, Novartis, Pfizer, Evan Siegel Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, UCB, Novartis, Lilly, Consultant of: AbbVie, Janssen, UCB, Novartis, Lilly, BMS, Vibeke Strand Consultant of: Abbvie Amgen Corporation Arena

Aria

AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bioventus, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celltrion, Chemocentryx, Elsa, EMD Serono, Endo, Equilium, Flexion, Galapagos, Genentech / Roche, Gilead, GSK, Horizon, Ichnos, Inmedix, Janssen, Kiniksa, Kypha, Lilly, Merck, MiMedx, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Rheos, R-Pharma, Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi, Scipher, Servier, Setpoint, Sorrento, Spherix, Sun Pharma, Swing, UCB, Melissa Mcilraith Employee of: Past employee at Abbott and Celgene, M Elaine Husni Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Eli Lilly, UCB, Regeneron, M. Cameron Hay Grant/research support from: Novartis for this IIS

AB0966 Are Current Patient Reported Outcomes Tools Optimized to Capture the Entire Patient Experience?

Background

Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) affects multiple attributes of patient health; to assess treatment effectiveness a compilation of Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO) have been utilized. While useful, most of these were originally created for other diseases and only later validated or adapted for use in PsA. More recent efforts have focused on development of PsA specific PRO tools, with inclusion of patient input and relevance for use in both clinical research and clinical care (1).

Objectives

To subject a broad set of currently used PROs to patient assessment, giving insight into usefulness in the clinic and informing efforts for optimization of PsA PROs.

Methods

Four focus groups were conducted across three regionally-diverse areas in the United States from March 2016 to October 2016. Patients represented a range of disease history, symptoms, and severity. After trained facilitators encouraged open conversation about PsA, including symptoms, challenges and feelings about disease and treatment, patients reviewed 13 currently utilized PROs and rated relevance of these instruments to reporting their disease experiences on a 3 point scale of Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, and Irrelevant. Verbal discussion followed on the merits and challenges of each rated PRO

Results

PRO instruments ranged from overall global assessments to disease specific assessments (Table 1). The PROs received a variety of ratings, with Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue (FACIT-F) and Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease (PsAID) judged as Very Relevant by the largest number of patients, followed by Health Assessment Questionnaire-Spondyloarthropathies (HAQ-S) and Pain VAS (Figure 1). Instruments receiving the most assessments of Not Really Relevant were Pt Global and PsA Quality of Life (PsAQOL). In the qualitative portion of the research, major patient critiques across PROs were the time frames listed on the questionnaires; some were too restrictive and disallowed reporting important recent disease activity. Preferences were for questions asked as ‘..since your last visit..’. Multiple participants also agreed that a visual tool allowing patients to circle specific joints to indicate pain would be useful.

Table 1.

Outcomes Instruments Assessed in the Study

ToolAbbreviationTime Period QueriedPatient GlobalPt GANone SpecifiedPain Visual Analog ScalePain VASIn the past weekHealth Assessment Questionnaire-SpondyloarthropathiesHAQ-SOver the past weekShort Form - 36SF-36Different periods queried for different questions: Compared to a year ago; None Specified; Over the past 4 weeksFunctional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - FatigueFACIT-FPast 7 DaysEQ-5D and EQ Visual Analog ScaleEQ-5D-5LTodayPsoriatic Arthritis Quality of LifePsAQOLNone specifiedPsoriatic Arthritis Impact of DiseasePsAIDDuring the last weekDermatology Life Quality IndexDLQIOver the last WeekPsoriasis Symptom InventoryPSILast 7 daysWork Productivity and Activity Impairment: General HealthWPAI:GHDuring the past 7 daysWork Productivity Survey - PsAWPS-PsALast monthBeck Depression InventoryBDI-IIDuring the past 2 weeks

Conclusion

Currently utilized PROs in PsA evaluating domains of fatigue, function, pain, and disease specific manifestations were all important regarding new therapeutic agents. However, some are more relevant than others to patients, most notably FACIT-F and PsAID, the latter being an important example of a patient-led and disease-specific development effort. Allowing reporting of items of concern without restrictive time periods is important to patients. These preferences and comments can be utilized to better understand the value of PROs in clinical settings to optimize patient-clinician communications.

References

[1]Gossec L, de Wit M, Kiltz U, et al. A patient-derived and patient-reported outcome measure for assessing psoriatic arthritis: elaboration and preliminary validation of the Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease (PsAID) questionnaire, a 13-country EULAR initiative. Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73: 1012–9.

Disclosure of Interests

Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Pfizer, Amgen, Novartis, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Amgen, GAlapagos, Genentech, Janssen, Sun Pharma, BMS, Celgene, Novartis, UCB, GSK, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Pfizer, Amgen, Galapagos, Novartis, Sun Pharma, BMS, Vibeke Strand Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen Corporation, Arena, Aria, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bioventus, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celltrion, Chemocentryx, Elsa, EMD Serono, Endo, Equilium, Flexion, Galapagos, Genentech / Roche, Gilead, GSK, Horizon, Ichnos, Inmedix, Janssen, Kiniksa, Kypha, Lilly, Merck, MiMedx, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Rheos, R-Pharma, Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi, Scipher, Servier, Setpoint, Sorrento, Spherix, Sun Pharma, Swing, UCB, Daniel Furst Speakers bureau: Corbus, GSK, Sanofi, Consultant of: Actelion, Amgen, BMS, Corbus, Galapagos, Sanofi, Novartis, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Actelion, Amgen, BMS, Galapagos, Sanofi, Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, Evan Siegel Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB, Consultant of: BMS, AbbVie, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB, Melissa Mcilraith Employee of: Past Employee of Abbott and Celgene, M Elaine Husni Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Novartis, Eli Lilly, UCB, Regeneron, M. Cameron Hay Grant/research support from: Novartis

POS0291 OLOKIZUMAB IMPROVED PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOMES IN TNF INCOMPLETE RESPONDER (TNF-IR) RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS PATIENTS: RESULTS FROM THE PHASE 3 RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL, CREDO 3

Background

Olokizumab (OKZ) is an interleukin-6-inhibitor for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In these analyses we present patient reported outcomes (PROs) reported by TNF-IR patients with moderate to severely active RA receiving OKZ or placebo in a phase 3 randomized controlled trial (RCT) (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02760433).

Objectives

To assess the effect of OKZ treatment compared with placebo in patient global assessment of disease activity (PtGA), pain, physical function (HAQ-DI), fatigue (FACIT-F) and health related quality of life (SF-36 physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) component summary and domain scores) at 12 weeks.

Methods

368 patients were randomized 2:2:1 to receive subcutaneously administered OKZ 64 mg once every 2 weeks (q2w), OKZ 64 mg q4w, or placebo, plus MTX. PROs were assessed at baseline, weeks 12 (primary endpoint) and 24. At week 16, all patients receiving placebo were switched to either OKZ dose. Between groups differences in least-squares mean (LSM) changes from baseline were analyzed, p < 0.05 considered significant; nominal p-values for PROs not in the hierarchy.

Results

Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were comparable between groups. At week 12, treatment with OKZ q2w compared with placebo resulted in significantly greater LSM changes from baseline in Pain, HAQ-DI, FACIT-F, SF-36 PCS, MCS and 4 domains; with OKZ q4w in PtGA, Pain, SF-36 MCS and 4 domains (Table 1, Figure 1). Improvements reported at week 12 in PROs continued or increased with both doses of OKZ until week 24. Post hoc analyses demonstrated that a higher proportion of patients receiving OKZ reported improvements ≥minimum clinically important differences vs placebo (p<0.05) in FACIT-F, SF-36 PCS and MCS scores, indicating that these changes translated into clinically meaningful benefits on an individual patient basis. Numbers needed to treat to gain these benefits in fatigue and physical function ranged from 9.2 - 15.4 with OKZ q2w vs 10.5 - 13.3 with OKZ q4w, respectively.

Table 1.

Mean baseline values and LSM changes from baseline to week 12 for PROs

Baseline, mean (standard deviation)12 weeks LSM changes (standard error)OKZ q2w, N=138OKZ q4w, N=161Placebo, N=69OKZ q2w, N=138OKZ q4w, N=161Placebo, N=69PtGA-VAS (mm)64.8 (20.5)68.1 (19.1)72.1 (18.5)-24.9 (2.1)-25.0(1.9)*-16.9 (2.9)Pain-VAS (mm)67.2 (19.5)69.3 (19. 1)69.6 (21.9)-28.2 (2.2)**-27.5(2.0)**-15.0 (3.0)HAQ-DI†1.79 (0.53)1.78 (0.56)1.78 (0.64)-0.49 (0.05)*-0.39(0.04)-0.32(0.07)SF-36 PCS score31.4 (6.8)30.6 (7.2)30.6 (5.9)6.9 (0.7)**5.7 (0.6)3.9 (0.9)SF-36 MCS score44.3 (12.6)44.5 (11.1)45.1 (10.2)4.1 (0.8)*3.4 (0.8)*0.5 (1.1)Physical functioning29.9 (7.9)29.8 (8.5)29.6 (8.4)6.1 (0.8)5.2 (0.7)3.7 (1.1)Role physical32.8 (6.9)33.1 (7.4)33.7 (6.8)6.0 (0.7)5.0 (0.7)*3.3 (1.0)Bodily pain34.5 (6.9)33.2 (6.0)33.0 (6.6)8.5 (0.7)***7.8 (0.7)***3.7 (1.0)General health38.3 (8.3)36.5 (8.6)36.9 (8.5)4.7 (0.7)*3.3 (0.6)2.1 (1.0)Vitality40.8 (10.1)40.7 (9.5)41.1 (8.1)5.7 (0.8)6.0 (0.7)*3.0 (1.1)Social functioning38.8 (9.9)38.7 (9.8)39.6 (9.3)6.7 (0.8)***3.6 (0.8)*0.2 (1.2)Role emotional39.1 (12.5)39.1 (11.2)38.9 (11.1)4.3 (0.9)*3.4 (0.8)1.0 (1.2)Mental health41.4 (11.6)41.4 (10.5)42.2 (10.3)4.4 (0.8)4.6 (0.8)1.9 (1.1)FACIT-Fatigue27.0 (10.2)26.6 (10.6)27.3 (9.9)7.8 (0.9)*6.8 (0.8)4.6 (1.2)

Footnotes: NRI for Missing data.

†, secondary endpoint; *p≤0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001 vs placebo;

Figure 1.

SF-36 domain changes from baseline to week 12. *p≤0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001 for OKZ q2w vs placebo; *p≤0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001 for OKZ q4w vs placebo; AGNorms, age- and gender-matched normative values; BL, baseline.

Conclusion

Treatment with OKZ over 12 weeks resulted in statistically significant improvements in PROs vs placebo reported by TNF-IR RA patients. Benefits were more frequently reported by patients receiving OKZ q2w than q4w in this phase 3 RCT of limited size in treatment experienced patients.

Acknowledgements

R-Pharm funded this study; contributed to its design; participated in data collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and in the writing, review, and approval of the abstract. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship.

Disclosure of Interests

Vibeke Strand Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer, Ingelheim, Chemocentryx, Celltrion, Galapagos, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, GSK, Horizon, Inmedix, Janssen, Kiniksa, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Rheos, R-Pharm, Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi, Scipher, Servier, Setpoint, Sorrento, Spherix, UCB, Ernest Choy Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol Myer Squibbs, Chugai Pharma, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, RPharm, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB., Grant/research support from: Bio-Cancer, Biogen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and UCB, Evgeny Nasonov Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Tatiana Lisitsyna: None declared, Alexander Lila Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Bayer, Biotechnos, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, RPharm, Roche, Sanofi, Stada, Viatris and UCB, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, Sofia Kuzkina Employee of: R-Pharm, Mikhail Samsonov Employee of: R-Pharm, Eugen Feist Consultant of: Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Medac, Novartis, Sanofi, Sobi, R-Pharm, Grant/research support from: Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer

POS0693 IMPACT OF UPADACITINIB VERSUS ABATACEPT ON INDIVIDUAL DISEASE OUTCOMES IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS AND INADEQUATE RESPONSES TO BIOLOGIC DMARDS

Background

The phase 3 SELECT-CHOICE trial of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and prior inadequate response to biologic DMARD(s) (bDMARD-IR) demonstrated superiority of the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib (UPA) vs abatacept (ABA) in the mean change from baseline (BL) in DAS28(CRP) and in the proportion achieving DAS28(CRP) <2.6 at week (wk) 12, with higher incidence of serious adverse events reported in the UPA treatment group.

Objectives

To evaluate the impact of UPA vs ABA on individual components of composite measures of disease activity in SELECT-CHOICE.

Methods

In SELECT-CHOICE, a double-blind phase 3 trial, bDMARD-IR patients were randomly assigned to UPA 15 mg once daily or ABA, each with background conventional synthetic DMARDs, for 24 wks. For this post hoc analysis, the proportions of patients achieving improvement from BL through wk 24 in ACR core variables (including SJC, TJC, Patient Global Assessment [PtGA], Physician Global Assessment [PhGA], pain, HAQ-DI, and hsCRP) and Boolean remission criteria were evaluated. Differences in the cumulative distributions of CDAI, DAS28(hsCRP), SDAI, and ACR-n (the lowest of percent change in TJC, percent change in SJC, or median of the other 5 ACR components) were determined using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and are reported as observed. For all other variables, non-responder imputation was applied for missing data. Nominal P values are provided throughout.

Results

A total of 616 bDMARD-IR patients with moderate to severe RA were randomized in SELECT-CHOICE (UPA 15 mg, n=303; ABA, n=309). BL demographic and disease characteristics were generally comparable between treatment groups, with a mean disease duration of approximately 12 years and mean CDAI of 39.6. At wk 12, more patients receiving UPA vs ABA achieved ≥50% improvements from BL in TJC68, PtGA, and hsCRP, with comparable proportions observed between UPA and ABA for the remaining ACR components (Figure 1). At wk 24, similar proportions of patients receiving UPA and ABA achieved ≥50% improvements in all but the hsCRP component. Overall, 15% and 26% of patients on UPA compared with 6% and 15% on ABA demonstrated ≥50% improvements across all ACR components at wks 12 and 24, respectively. At wks 12 and 24, Boolean remission was achieved by 6% and 14% of patients on UPA vs 2% and 10% of patients on ABA, respectively; the proportion of patients in both treatment groups achieving the individual Boolean components were also reported (Table 1). While comparable at BL, cumulative distributions of CDAI, SDAI, DAS28(hsCRP), and ACR-n were improved on UPA vs ABA at wk 12 (all nominal P <0.05); differences persisted for most measures at wk 24.

Table 1.

Proportions of Patients Achieving Boolean Remission and Its Components at Week 12 and 24 (NRI)

Week 12Week 24n (%)UPA 15 mgABAUPA 15 mgABA(N=303)(N=309)(N=303)(N=309)Boolean Remission19 (6)***5 (2)42 (14)*30 (10) PtGA ≤1054 (18)***29 (9)80 (26)*66 (21) TJC ≤189 (29)***64 (21)134 (44)*115 (37) SJC ≤1127 (42)**106 (34)169 (56)*152 (49) hsCRP ≤1 mg/dL257 (85)***209 (68)244 (81)***199 (64)

Nominal ***P <.001, **P <.01, *P <.05 for UPA vs ABA. ABA, abatacept; PtGA, Patient’s Global Assessment of disease severity; UPA, upadacitinib.

Conclusion

In this post hoc analysis of bDMARD-IR RA patients, improvements in components of disease measures were reported for both UPA and ABA through 24 weeks, with numeric differences noted for several components. Nominally higher attainment of Boolean remission and its components were observed for UPA over ABA.

References

[1]Rubbert-Roth A, et al. N Engl J Med 2020; 383:1511-21.

Acknowledgements

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

Disclosure of Interests

Ronald van Vollenhoven Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Galapagos, GSK, Janssen, Pfizer, R-Pharma, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Biogen, BMS, Galapagos, Janssen, Miltenyi, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: Research: BMS, GSK, UCB; Educational programs: MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Andrea Rubbert-Roth Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB, BMS, Lilly, Gilead, Roche, Consultant of: AbbVie, Gilead, Lilly, BMS, Sanofi, R-Pharm, Stephen Hall Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB, Novartis, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB, Novartis, Ricardo Xavier Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Anna Shmagel Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Yanna Song Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Samuel Anyanwu Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Vibeke Strand Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chemocentryx, BMS, Celltrion, Lilly, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ichnos, Inmedix, Janssen, Kiniksa, Lilly, Merck, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Rheos, R-Pharma, Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi, Scipher, Setpoint, Sorrento, Spherix, UCB

AB0138 A MOLECULAR SIGNATURE RESPONSE CLASSIFIER STRATIFIES SEROPOSITIVE RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS PATIENTS BASED ON THEIR LIKELIHOOD OF INADEQUATE RESPONSE TO TNF INHIBITOR THERAPIES

Background:

There is an urgent need for precision medicine in targeted therapy selection for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). TNF inhibitor (TNFi) therapies are the most prescribed targeted therapy for RA patients, yet the majority of patients fail to achieve a clinically meaningful response using this medication class. A blood-based molecular signature test evaluates RNA and clinical metrics to stratify RA patients based on their likelihood of having an inadequate response to TNFi therapies.1 Patients unlikely to respond to TNFi therapies can be directed to a different treatment option such as a JAK inhibitor, thus reducing the time needed to identify an effective therapy, improving confidence in and adherence to treatment, and increasing the patients’ chance of reaching treat-to-target goals.

Objectives:

High-titers of anti-cyclic citrillunated protein (anti-CCP) have been independently associated with reduced response to TNFi therapy;2 thus, we evaluated the ability of a blood-based molecular signature response classifier (MSRC) test to stratify RA patients by their likelihood of inadequate response to TNFi therapies – regardless of their positive or negative anti-CCP status.

Methods:

A subset of patients enrolled in the Network-04 prospective observational trial evaluating the ability of a molecular signature response classifier to stratify patients were subdivided into two groups based upon whether they were positive (N = 72) or negative (N = 74) for anti-CCP. The odds of inadequate response to TNFi therapies were calculated based on whether or not a patient had a molecular signature of non-response to TNFi therapy at baseline before the start of treatment. Odds ratios and confidence intervals were calculated3,4 to represent the strength of association between detecting the molecular signature of non-response and the patient’s failure to achieve ACR50 at 6 months.

Results:

The odds that a patient with a molecular signature of non-response failed to meet ACR50 criteria at 6 months was approximately three times greater than among those patients who lacked the signal (Table 1). No significant difference in odds ratios was observed between patients who were positive or negative for anti-CCP.

Table 1.

The odds of patients with a molecular signature of non-response failing to achieve an ACR50 response 6 months after TNF inhibitor therapy initiation

Odds ratio (95% confidence interval)Anti-CCP positive3.5 (1.3-9.7)Anti-CCP negative3.1 (1.2-8.3)

Conclusion:

The MSRC test evaluates RA disease biology and accurately stratifies patients based on their likelihood of having an inadequate response to TNFi therapies, regardless of being negative or positive for anti-CCP autoantibodies. Rheumatologists can use the results of the MSRC test to inform targeted therapy selection for RA patients, instead of their anti-CCP serostatus, eliminating the variability inherent to the anti-CCP measurement and its inability to consistently predict TNFi therapy incompatibility. With the MSRC test, providers can rely on a more predictable and accurate assessment of TNFi therapy success or failure when coordinating patient management.

References:

[1]Mellors, T. et al. Clinical Validation of a Blood-Based Predictive Test for Stratification of Response to Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Therapies in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients. Network and Systems Medicine3, 91-104, doi:10.1089/nsm.2020.0007 (2020).

[2]Braun-Moscovici, Y. et al. Anti-cyclic citrullinated protein antibodies as a predictor of response to anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol33, 497-500 (2006).

[3]Szumilas, M. Explaining odds ratios. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry19, 227-229 (2010).

[4]Sperandei, S. Understanding logistic regression analysis. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 24, 12-18, doi:10.11613/BM.2014.003 (2014).

Disclosure of Interests:

Stanley Cohen: None declared, Vibeke Strand Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Arena, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celltrion, Galapagos, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, GSK, Ichnos, Inmedix, Janssen,Kiniksa, Lilly,Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi, Setpoint, UCB, Erin Connolly-Strong Shareholder of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Employee of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Johanna Withers Shareholder of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Employee of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Lixia Zhang Shareholder of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Employee of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Ted Mellors Shareholder of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Employee of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Viatcheslav Akmaev Shareholder of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Employee of: Scipher Medicine Corporation

POS0670 ROUTINE ASSESSMENT OF PATIENT INDEX DATA 3 (RAPID3) IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS TREATED WITH LONG-TERM UPADACITINIB THERAPY

Background:

Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) is a pooled index of 3 patient-reported measures: patient global assessment, pain, and physical function. RAPID3 was shown to correlate with other composite measures of disease activity1 and is recommended by the American College of Rheumatology for use in clinical practice.2

Objectives:

To evaluate the impact of upadacitinib (UPA) versus comparators on RAPID3 over 60 weeks, as well as the correlation of RAPID3 scores with other disease measures in the UPA phase 3 SELECT clinical program.

Methods:

This post hoc analysis included placebo-controlled (SELECT-NEXT, -BEYOND, and -COMPARE) and active comparator-controlled (SELECT-EARLY, -MONOTHERAPY, and -COMPARE) trials. Patients received UPA as monotherapy or in combination with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs). Mean change from baseline in RAPID3 and the proportion of patients reporting RAPID3 remission (≤3), low (LDA, >3 to ≤6), moderate (MDA, >6 to ≤12), and high disease activity (HDA, >12) were assessed. Correlations between absolute scores for RAPID3 and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI), and 28-joint Disease Activity Score with C-reactive protein (DAS28[CRP]) were assessed using Spearman correlation coefficients. All data are as observed.

Results:

A total of 661, 498, 648, 1629, and 945 patients were included from SELECT-NEXT, -BEYOND, -MONOTHERAPY, -COMPARE, and -EARLY. At baseline, the majority of patients across all studies were in RAPID3 HDA (mean baseline RAPID3 [across all studies], 17.2–19.2) (Table 1 and Figure 1). Improvements from baseline in RAPID3 were observed with UPA 15 mg and 30 mg through Week 60, with numerically greater improvements observed with UPA compared with active comparators (Table 1). Across studies, mean improvements in RAPID3 exceeded the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) with UPA and adalimumab (ADA) treatment (MCID=3.83). By Week 60, approximately one-half of UPA-treated patients were in RAPID3 remission or LDA, with only 10–25% remaining in HDA, except for the more refractory population in SELECT-BEYOND, in which ~38% of patients remained in HDA (Figure 1). RAPID3 scores moderately to strongly correlated with CDAI (ρ=0.69–0.83), SDAI (ρ=0.69–0.82), and DAS28(CRP) (ρ=0.58–0.77), across all studies, at Week 60 (all p<0.001).

Conclusion:

UPA, as monotherapy or in combination with csDMARDs, was associated with improvements in patient-reported disease activity, pain, and physical function, as assessed by RAPID3 over 60 weeks in the phase 3 SELECT clinical program. RAPID3 continues to be an important tool in clinical practice to assess disease activity, as it was shown to correlate to other disease activity measures and allows for rapid scoring.

References:

[1]Pincus T, et al. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2010;62:181–9.

[2]England BR, et al. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2019;71:1540–55.

[3]Ward MM, et al. J Rheumatol 2019;46:27–30.

Table 1.

Change from BL in RAPID3 at Week 60 (as observed)

Phase 3 studyGroupnaMean (SD) BL scoreMean (SD) change from BLbSELECT-EARLYc(MTX-naïve)MTX23618.5 (5.6)−9.6 (7.5)UPA 15 mg QD26918.9 (5.6)−12.0 (7.6)UPA 30 mg QD25318.2 (5.6)−13.4 (7.2)SELECT-NEXT(csDMARD-IR)UPA 15 mg QD17217.7 (5.1)−11.1 (7.3)UPA 30 mg QD17217.6 (5.3)−10.4 (6.8)SELECT-MONOTHERAPY(MTX-IR)UPA 15 mg QD17217.4 (5.8)−9.6 (7.4)UPA 30 mg QD18017.2 (5.9)−10.6 (7.2)SELECT-COMPAREc(MTX-IR)UPA 15 mg QD55218.5 (5.5)−10.2 (7.1)ADA 40 mg EOW26418.7 (5.4)−8.8 (6.7)SELECT-BEYOND(bDMARD-IR)UPA 15 mg QD13319.2 (5.1)−8.6 (6.8)UPA 30 mg QD11818.5 (5.3)−9.3 (7.3)

b, biologic; BL, baseline; EOW, every other week; IR, inadequate response; MTX, methotrexate; QD, once daily; SD, standard deviation

aNumber of patients with RAPID3 values at both BL and Week 60. bNegative values indicate improvement from BL. cObserved data include patients rescued to UPA and/or ADA; treatment effect may include both the randomized and switch treatments in these patients

Acknowledgements:

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

Disclosure of Interests:

Martin Bergman Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi/Regeneron, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, Horizon, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi/Regeneron, and Scipher, Maya H Buch Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck-Serono, Pfizer, Sandoz, and Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Yoshiya Tanaka Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Asahi Kasei, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB, and YL Biologics, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Mitsubishi Tanabe, MSD, Ono, Taisho Toyama, and Takeda, Gustavo Citera Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Genzyme, Pfizer, and Roche, Sami Bahlas: None declared, Ernest Wong Consultant of: AbbVie, Chugai, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Chugai, Novartis, and UCB, Yanna Song Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Namita Tundia Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Jessica Suboticki Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Vibeke Strand Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Ichnos, Inmedix, Janssen, Kiniksa, MSD, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi, Scipher, Setpoint, and UCB.

POS0652 SEX DIFFERENCES IN THE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF TOFACITINIB IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS PATIENTS: A POST HOC ANALYSIS OF PHASE 3 AND LONG-TERM EXTENSION TRIALS

Background:

Differences in efficacy outcomes favouring males vs females with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been reported with conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and tumour necrosis factor inhibitors; results with Janus kinase inhibitors are less clear.

Objectives:

To assess the impact of sex on efficacy, safety and persistence in tofacitinib RA clinical trials.

Methods:

Efficacy and safety analyses included data pooled from Phase (P)3 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of patients (pts) with RA and an inadequate response (IR) to methotrexate (NCT00847613; NCT00853385) or ≥1 DMARD (NCT00856544) who received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID), adalimumab (ADA) 40 mg Q2W or placebo (PBO), with background csDMARDs. Persistence analyses of pts receiving tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg BID ± csDMARDs used data pooled from two long-term extension trials (NCT00661661; NCT00413699). Efficacy outcomes to Month (M)12 included: ACR20/50/70 responses, changes from baseline (Δ; BL) in DAS28-4(ESR), CDAI, HAQ-DI and FACIT-F, and DAS28-4(ESR) remission (<2.6). Safety was evaluated to M24 for tofacitinib and ADA. Kaplan-Meier persistence analysis estimated time to discontinuation.

Results:

2265 pts were included from P3 RCTs. Demographics and BL characteristics were comparable across sexes and treatments. Tofacitinib or ADA vs PBO generally led to significantly higher ACR20/50/70 responses in both sexes through M6. To M12, ACR20/50/70 responses were broadly comparable across active treatments and between sexes, with significant differences favouring males at some time points, including M3 (Figure 1). Statistically significant differences favouring males vs females were observed in DAS28-4(ESR) remission rates at most time points, including M3 (Figure 1); a similar trend was observed for ΔDAS28-4(ESR). ΔCDAI, ΔHAQ-DI and ΔFACIT-F significantly favoured males vs females receiving tofacitinib 5 mg BID at most time points, while ΔHAQ-DI and ΔFACIT-F tended to favour females receiving tofacitinib 10 mg BID. Rates of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), severe AEs and discontinuations due to AEs were slightly higher in females vs males with tofacitinib 5 mg BID; this was generally reversed with tofacitinib 10 mg BID and ADA (Table 1). AEs of special interest (AESI) were comparable between sexes with tofacitinib and ADA, although low event numbers limit interpretation (Table 1). Time to all-cause discontinuation and discontinuation due to AEs/lack of efficacy with tofacitinib 5 mg BID was similar between sexes. Numerical differences favouring females vs males were observed for time to all-cause discontinuation and discontinuation due to AEs with tofacitinib 10 mg BID.

Table 1.

Safety summary to M24 in pooled DMARD-IR P3 RCTs

Tofacitinib5 mg BIDTofacitinib10 mg BIDADAPts with events,n (%)Females(N=707)Males(N=133)Females(N=698)Males(N=137)Females(N=162)Males(N=42)AEs562 (79.5)85 (63.9)529 (75.8)107 (78.1)119 (73.5)30 (71.4)SAEs107 (15.1)17 (12.8)71 (10.2)24 (17.5)13 (8.0)6 (14.3)Severe AEs86 (12.2)12 (9.0)55 (7.9)22 (16.1)14 (8.6)5 (11.9)Discontinuations due to AEs87 (12.3)10 (7.5)88 (12.6)10 (7.3)17 (10.5)5 (11.9)Death6 (0.8)4 (3.0)03 (2.2)1 (0.6)2 (4.8)AESISerious infections28 (4.0)6 (4.5)27 (3.9)6 (4.4)2 (1.2)1 (2.4)All HZ (non-serious/serious)35 (5.0)7 (5.3)43 (6.2)5 (3.6)2 (1.2)3 (7.1)MACE5 (0.7)02 (0.3)3 (2.2)03 (7.1)Malignancies (excl. NMSC)7 (1.0)1 (0.8)9 (1.3)1 (0.7)01(2.4)NMSC2 (0.3)5 (3.8)4 (0.6)2 (1.5)1 (0.6)1 (2.4)Venous thromboembolism3 (0.4)03 (0.4)1 (0.7)00

HZ, herpes zoster; MACE, major adverse cardiovascular events; NMSC, non-melanoma skin cancer

Conclusion:

Efficacy outcomes with tofacitinib and ADA were generally higher in males and comparable in females vs previously reported mixed population response rates for advanced therapies. Safety findings did not reveal a consistent pattern between sexes. Tofacitinib persistence was similar between sexes.

Acknowledgements:

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

Disclosure of Interests:

H Niall Jones Consultant of: Pfizer Inc, Vibeke Strand Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Corrona, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ichnos, Inmedix, Janssen, Kiniksa, Merck, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Regeneron, Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi, Scipher, SetPoint Medical, UCB, Hendrik Schulze-Koops Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Hexal Sandoz, Hospira, Janssen-Cilag, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche, UCB, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Eduardo Mysler Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Eli Lilly, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Cassandra Kinch Shareholder of: Pfizer Canada ULC, Employee of: Pfizer Canada ULC, David C Gruben Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Rebecca Germino Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Carol A. Connell Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Lihi Eder Speakers bureau: AbbVie, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Pfizer Inc, UCB

AB0140 A HIGH-CONFIDENCE DEFINITION OF THERAPEUTIC RESPONSE IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS USING A MONTE CARLO SIMULATION APPROACH

Background:

Therapy choice and therapy change depend on the ability to accurately assess patients’ disease activity. The clinical assessments used to evaluate treatment response in rheumatoid arthritis have inherent variability, normally considered as measurement error, intra-observer variability or within subject variability. Each contribute to variability in deriving response status as defined by composite measures such as the ACR or EULAR criteria, particularly when a one-time observed measurement lies near the boundary defining response or non-response. To select an optimal therapeutic strategy in the burgeoning age of precision medicine in rheumatology, achieve the lowest disease activity and maximize long-term health outcomes for each patient, improved treatment response definitions are needed.

Objectives:

Develop a high-confidence definition of treatment response and non-response in rheumatoid arthritis that exceeds the expected variability of subcomponents in the composite response criteria.

Methods:

A Monte Carlo simulation approach was used to assess ACR50 and EULAR response outcomes in 100 rheumatoid arthritis patients who had been treated for 6 months with a TNF inhibitor therapy. Monte Carlo simulations were run with 2000 iterations implemented with measurement variability derived for each clinical assessment: tender joint count, swollen joint count, Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index (HAQ-DI), patient pain assessment, patient global assessment, physician global assessment, serum C-reactive protein level (CRP) and disease activity score 28-joint count with CRP.1-3 Each iteration of the Monte Carlo simulation generated one outcome with a value of 0 or 1 indicating non-responder or responder, respectively.

Results:

A fidelity score, calculated separately for ACR50 and EULAR response, was defined as an aggregated score from 2000 iterations reported as a fraction that ranges from 0 to 1. The fidelity score depicted a spectrum of response covering strong non-responders, inconclusive statuses and strong responders. A fidelity score around 0.5 typified a response status with extreme variability and inconclusive clinical response to treatment. High-fidelity scores were defined as >0.7 or <0.3 for responders and non-responders, respectively, meaning that the simulated clinical response status label among all simulations agreed at least 70% of the time. High-confidence true responders were considered as those patients with high-fidelity outcomes in both ACR50 and EULAR outcomes.

Conclusion:

A definition of response to treatment should exceed the expected variability of the clinical assessments used in the composite measure of therapeutic response. By defining high-confidence responders and non-responders, the true impact of therapeutic efficacy can be determined, thus forging a path to development of better treatment options and advanced precision medicine tools in rheumatoid arthritis.

References:

[1]Cheung, P. P., Gossec, L., Mak, A. & March, L. Reliability of joint count assessment in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic literature review. Semin Arthritis Rheum43, 721-729, doi:10.1016/j.semarthrit.2013.11.003 (2014).

[2]Uhlig, T., Kvien, T. K. & Pincus, T. Test-retest reliability of disease activity core set measures and indices in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis68, 972-975, doi:10.1136/ard.2008.097345 (2009).

[3]Maska, L., Anderson, J. & Michaud, K. Measures of functional status and quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis: Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ), Modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (MHAQ), Multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire (MDHAQ), Health Assessment Questionnaire II (HAQ-II), Improved Health Assessment Questionnaire (Improved HAQ), and Rheumatoid Arthritis Quality of Life (RAQoL). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 63 Suppl 11, S4-13, doi:10.1002/acr.20620 (2011).

Disclosure of Interests:

Vibeke Strand Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Arena, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celltrion, Galapagos, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, GSK, Ichnos, Inmedix, Janssen, Kiniksa, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi, Setpoint, UCB, Stanley Cohen: None declared, Lixia Zhang Shareholder of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Employee of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Ted Mellors Shareholder of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Employee of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Alex Jones Shareholder of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Employee of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Johanna Withers Shareholder of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Employee of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Viatcheslav Akmaev Shareholder of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Employee of: Scipher Medicine Corporation

POS0646 RAPID AND CONCURRENT IMPROVEMENTS IN PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES OF RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS WITH BARICITINIB IN RA-BEAM

Background:

The efficacy and safety of baricitinib (BARI), an oral selective Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 inhibitor, were evaluated in the randomized, controlled trial, RA-BEAM (NCT01710358), in patients (pts) with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inadequate responses (IR) to methotrexate (MTX).1,2,3

Objectives:

To compare the time to onset and magnitude of improvement across different patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of BARI, adalimumab (ADA) and placebo (PBO) during the first 12 weeks of treatment in RA-BEAM.

Methods:

1,305 patients on stable background MTX were randomized 3:3:2 to PBO, BARI 4 mg, or ADA 40 mg. In this intent-to-treat analysis, least-squares mean changes and percentage changes from baseline were assessed up to Week 12 for pain (0-100 mm visual analog scale [VAS]), SF-36 physical component summary (PCS, 0-100), morning joint stiffness (MJS) severity (0-10), Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI, 0-3), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F, 0-52), and Patient Global Assessment of disease activity (PtGA, 0-100 mm VAS) scores. PROs were compared between treatments with ANCOVA; the model included change from baseline as the response variable, baseline of interest, regional baseline, joint erosion status, and treatment as explanatory variables. Last-observation-carried-forward was applied to impute missing data. Speed of onset and magnitude of PRO improvement are presented in spydergrams.

Results:

Statistically significant improvements (P<0.05) with BARI and ADA vs. PBO were reported as early as Week 1 for pain, MJS severity, HAQ-DI, and PtGA and at Week 4 for FACIT-F and SF-36 PCS scores. Statistically significantly larger improvements (P<0.05) with BARI vs. ADA were observed as early as Week 2 for pain, PtGA, Week 3 for MJS severity, and Week 4 for HAQ-DI and SF-36 PCS scores. These improvements were maintained to Week 12.

Conclusion:

Among MTX-IR pts, BARI and ADA treatment resulted in improvements across all PROs by Week 4, and as early as Week 1, for all but FACIT-F and SF-36 PCS scores. Statistically significant larger improvements for BARI compared with ADA were reported for all PROs, except FACIT-F, by Week 12.

References:

[1]Taylor et al. NEJM, 2017;376: 652-62

[2]Keystone et al. Ann Rheum Dis, 2017;76:1853-61

[3]Strand et al. Ann Rheum Dis, 2020; 79: 599-600

Table 1.

Change from baseline in patient-reported outcomes at Weeks 4 and 12

Week 4Week 12LSM Change from BaselinePBOADABARIPBOADABARIPain VAS-12.6-22.3***-27.1***††-17.1-26.4***-31.5***††SF-36 PCS3.05.7***6.9***††4.27.2***8.7***††MJS severity-0.9-1.5***-1.9***††-1.4-2.0***-2.5***†††HAQ-DI-0.26-0.47***-0.54***†-0.34-0.56***-0.66***††FACIT-F5.26.9**7.8***6.78.7***9.1***PtGA-14.2-23.7***-26.8***†-16.7-26.6***-31.2***††

*p≤0.05, **p≤0.01, ***p≤0.001 vs PBO; †p≤0.05, ††p≤0.01, †††p≤0.001 vs. ADA

ADA: adalimumab; BARI: baricitinib; FACIT-F: Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue; HAQ-DI: Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index; MJS: morning joint stiffness; PBO: placebo; PCS: physical component scale; PtGA: Patient Global Assessment; VAS: visual analog scale

Figure 1.

Percentage improvement from baseline to Week 12 in PROs of patients with RA in RA-BEAM

Acknowledgements:

The authors would like to acknowledge Molly Tomlin, with Eli Lilly and Company, for medical writing and project management support

Disclosure of Interests:

Vibeke Strand Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos NV, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ichnos, Inmedix, Janssen, Kiniksa, Merck, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi, Scipher, Setpoint, Sun Pharma, and UCB Pharma, Anthony Sebba Speakers bureau: Eli Lilly and Company, Genentech, Sanofi, Regeneron, Consultant of: Amgen, Eli Lilly and Company, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Novartis, Sanofi, Regeneron, Bochao Jia Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Julie Birt Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Amanda Quebe Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Hong Zhang Consultant of: Eli Lilly and Company, Peter C. Taylor Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, BMS, Pfizer, Roche, Celltrion, Sanofi, Nordic Pharma, Fresenius and UCB, Grant/research support from: Celgene, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly

POS0655 LONG-TERM SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF UPADACITINIB IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS: 3-YEAR RESULTS FROM THE SELECT-EARLY STUDY

Background:

Upadacitinib (UPA), an oral Janus kinase inhibitor, demonstrated significant improvements in signs, symptoms, and structural inhibition as monotherapy (mono) vs methotrexate (MTX) in MTX-naïve patients (pts) with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) through 48 weeks (wks).1

Objectives:

To report the efficacy and safety of UPA vs MTX mono up to 156 wks in pts with RA from the ongoing long-term extension (LTE) of the SELECT-EARLY trial.

Methods:

During the 48-wk double-blind study period, pts were randomized to UPA 15 or 30 mg once daily (QD) or MTX (titrated to 20 mg/wk by Wk 8). At Wk 26, pts who did not achieve Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) remission (≤2.8) and had <20% improvement from baseline in tender or swollen joint count received blinded rescue therapy (addition of MTX for UPA groups and UPA 15 or 30 mg for MTX group). In the LTE, pts received open-label treatment once the last pt reached Wk 48. Efficacy assessments up to Wk 156 were summarized by randomized group and included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses, remission and low disease activity (LDA) measures, and change in modified Total Sharp Score (mTSS; up to 96 wks). Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) per 100 pt-years (PY) for pts on continuous mono were summarized through 156 wks. Non-responder imputation was used for binary endpoints for missing data and when pts received rescue therapy or prematurely discontinued the study drug.

Results:

Of 945 pts randomized and treated, 775 entered the LTE on study drug (including 57 rescued pts; MTX, 33; UPA 15 mg, 17; UPA 30 mg, 7). Overall, 161 (21%) pts discontinued during the LTE. At Wk 156, higher proportions of pts randomized to UPA achieved a 20/50/70% improvement in ACR response (ACR20/50/70), LDA, and remission vs MTX (Figure 1). Change from baseline in mTSS at Wk 96 favored UPA vs MTX (data not shown). Most AEs were numerically more frequent with UPA 30 mg. The overall rate of serious infection was numerically higher with UPA vs MTX (Table 1). Herpes zoster (HZ), neutropenia, non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC), and creatine phosphokinase (CPK) elevation were more frequent with UPA vs MTX. Two active tuberculosis (TB) events were reported in each UPA arm; 3 adjudicated gastrointestinal (GI) perforation events were observed in the UPA 30 mg arm. Adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) or venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) were comparable across treatment arms.

Conclusion:

UPA monotherapy showed sustained clinically meaningful responses including remission vs MTX through Wk 156 but higher rates of several AEs, including HZ, neutropenia, and CPK elevations; no new safety risks were observed compared with previous results.1,2

References:

[1]van Vollenhoven R, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2019;78:376–7; 2. Cohen SB, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;annrheumdis-2020-218510.

Table 1.

Safety overview

E/100 PY (95% CI)MTX mono(n=314; PY=601.9)UPA 15 mg QD mono(n=317; PY=703.4)UPA 30 mg QD mono(n=314; PY=687.6)Any AE240.2(228.0, 252.9)268.0(256.0, 280.4)292.5(279.8, 305.5)Any serious AE10.8 (8.3, 13.8)12.2 (9.8, 15.1)16.3 (13.4, 19.6)Any AE leading to discontinuation of study drug6.5 (4.6, 8.9)7.3 (5.4, 9.5)7.7 (5.8, 10.1)Any deatha0.7 (0.2, 1.7)0.9 (0.3, 1.9)1.0 (0.4, 2.1)Serious infection2.5 (1.4, 4.1)3.3 (2.1, 4.9)4.4 (2.9, 6.2)Opportunistic infection excluding TB and HZ0.2 (0.0, 0.9)0.1 (0.0, 0.8)0.3 (0.0, 1.1)HZ0.8 (0.3, 1.9)4.5 (3.1, 6.4)4.7 (3.2, 6.6)Active TB00.3 (0.0, 1.0)0.3 (0.0, 1.1)NMSC00.4 (0.1, 1.2)1.0 (0.4, 2.1)Malignancy other than NMSC1.0 (0.4, 2.2)0.6 (0.2, 1.5)1.2 (0.5, 2.3)Hepatic disorder14.1 (11.3, 17.5)12.5 (10.0, 15.4)15.0 (12.2, 18.2)GI perforationb000.4 (0.1, 1.3)Neutropenia2.2 (1.2, 3.7)4.5 (3.1, 6.4)5.7 (4.0, 7.8)CPK elevation1.8 (0.9, 3.3)7.7 (5.8, 10.0)15.4 (12.6, 18.6)MACEb0.3 (0.0, 1.2)0.4 (0.1, 1.2)0.6 (0.2, 1.5)VTEb0.3 (0.0, 1.2)0.4 (0.1, 1.2)0.6 (0.2, 1.5)

Data were censored at the time of MTX or UPA addition for rescued pts

aIncludes treatment-emergent (≤30 days after the last dose of study drug) and non-treatment-emergent deaths. bAdjudicated

Acknowledgements:

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

Disclosure of Interests:

Ronald van Vollenhoven Speakers bureau: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Biotest, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, UCB, and Viela Bio, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Biotest, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, UCB, and Viela Bio, Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, GSK, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Tsutomu Takeuchi Speakers bureau: AbbVie, AYUMI, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Dainippon Sumitomo, Eisai, Gilead, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi, Consultant of: Astellas, Chugai, and Eli Lilly, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Asahi Kasei, Astellas, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Nippon Kayaku, Shionogi, Takeda, and UCB, Jacob Aelion Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos/Gilead, Genentech, GSK, Horizon, Janssen, Mallinckrodt, Nektar, Nichi-Iko, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Selecta, and UCB, Nilmo Chávez Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Janssen, and Pfizer, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Galapagos, Gilead, Pfizer, and Sanofi, Pablo Mannucci Walter Consultant of: AbbVie, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Janssen, and UCB, Atul Singhal Consultant of: AbbVie, Aclaris, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Idorsia, Novartis, Oscotec, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Selecta, Takeda, UCB, and Viela Bio, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Aclaris, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Idorsia, Novartis, Oscotec, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Selecta, Takeda, UCB, and Viela Bio, Jerzy Swierkot Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Accord, BMS, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Accord, BMS, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Accord, BMS, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, and UCB, Alan Friedman Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Nasser Khan Shareholder of: May own stocks or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Yihan Li Shareholder of: May own stocks or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Xianwei Bu Shareholder of: May own stocks or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Justin Klaff Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Vibeke Strand Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, GSK, Ichnos, Inmedix, Janssen, Kiniksa, MSD, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sandoz, Sanofi, Setpoint, and UCB

POS0895 EFFECT OF TOFACITINIB ON PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS: RESULTS FROM A PHASE 3 TRIAL

Background:

Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) can significantly impact quality of life. Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor under investigation for the treatment of adult patients (pts) with AS. The safety/efficacy (including pt-reported outcomes [PROs]) of tofacitinib in pts with AS was assessed in a Phase 3 trial (NCT03502616).1

Objectives:

To evaluate the effect of tofacitinib on pt-reported pain, fatigue, overall health and work productivity in pts with active AS enrolled in the Phase 3 trial.

Methods:

Pts with an inadequate clinical response or intolerance to ≥2 oral NSAIDs were randomised in a double-blind fashion to tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID) or placebo (PBO) for 16 weeks. At Week (W)16, all pts received open-label tofacitinib 5 mg BID up to W48. Least squares (LS) mean changes from baseline (Δ) up to W48 are reported for the following outcomes: pt assessment of nocturnal spinal pain, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Short Form-36 Health Survey version 2 (SF-36v2; W16 and W48 only), and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI; W16 and W48 only).

Results:

At W16, there were greater improvements from baseline in pain (total back pain [previously published1] and nocturnal spinal pain) and fatigue (FACIT-F total score; experience and impact domain scores) with tofacitinib vs PBO (p≤0.05; Table 1); improvements were observed as early as W2. Also, improvements in SF-36v2 physical component summary (PCS) (Table 1), and physical functioning, role-physical, bodily pain, general health and social functioning domains (Figure 1) were greater with tofacitinib vs PBO at W16 (p≤0.05). Similarly, improvements in WPAI scores at W16 were greater with tofacitinib vs PBO (p≤0.05), except for % work time missed (Table 1). Improvements with tofacitinib continued up to W48 (Table 1/Figure 1). Generally, pts receiving PBO who advanced to tofacitinib at W16 reported similar improvements after switching to tofacitinib (Table 1/Figure 1).

Table 1.

PROs at baseline and Δ at W16 and W48

Baseline,mean (SD) [N1]Δ, W16,LS mean (SE)Δ, W48,LS mean (SE)Tofacitinib5 mg BID (N=133)PBO(N=136)Tofacitinib5 mg BIDPBOp valueTofacitinib5 mg BIDPBO→tofacitinib5 mg BIDNocturnalspinal paina6.8 (1.9)6.8 (1.9)-2.67 (0.20)-0.84 (0.20)<0.0001-3.52 (0.23)-3.01 (0.23)FACIT-Ftotal scorea,b27.2 (10.7)27.4 (9.3)6.54 (0.80)3.12 (0.79)0.00089.54 (0.90)7.35 (0.89)FACIT-F experience domaina8.9 (4.3)8.7 (4.0)2.85 (0.36)1.29 (0.36)0.00074.22 (0.40)3.40 (0.40)FACIT-Fimpactdomaina18.3 (6.9)18.8 (5.9)3.68 (0.49)1.81 (0.49)0.00285.32 (0.54)3.95 (0.54)SF-36v2 PCSb,c33.5 (7.3)33.1 (7.0) [135]6.69 (0.59)3.14 (0.59)<0.00018.81 (0.720)7.39 (0.71)SF-36v2 MCSc39.4 (11.1)39.8 (12.7) [135]3.45 (0.91)2.13 (0.92)0.25297.07 (0.93)6.35 (0.92)WPAIc% activity impairment56.5 (23.4)56.0 (21.4)-19.03 (1.97)-5.63 (1.97)<0.0001-27.37 (2.34)-19.77 (2.31)% work time missed9.9 (22.4) [81]11.5 (24.6) [88]-3.65 (2.66)0.88 (2.62)0.1784-8.10 (2.14)-5.79 (2.05)% impairment while working48.4 (26.3) [79]49.6 (22.2) [85]-19.83 (2.27)-6.94 (2.30)<0.0001-25.35 (2.77)-23.00 (2.66)% overall work impairment50.8 (27.4) [79]53.5 (23.1) [85]-21.49 (2.51)-7.64 (2.56)<0.0001-27.63 (3.01)-23.22 (2.90)

aMMRM

bGlobal type I error-controlled endpoint

cAnalysis of covariance model for W16 and MMRM for W48

MCS, mental component summary; MMRM, Mixed Model for Repeated Measures; N, number of pts in full analysis set; N1, number of pts included in the analysis (if different from N); SD, standard deviation; SE, standard error

Conclusion:

In pts with active AS, improvements in spinal pain, fatigue, overall health and work productivity were greater with tofacitinib vs PBO at W16; improvements continued up to W48. These PRO findings support the primary efficacy results of this Phase 3 trial,1 and add to the overall understanding of the benefit/risk profile of tofacitinib in patients with AS.

References:

[1]Deodhar et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2020; 72 (S10): Abs L11.

Acknowledgements:

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

Disclosure of Interests:

Victoria Navarro-Compán Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis, James Cheng-Chung Wei Speakers bureau: Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Filip van den Bosch Shareholder of: AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Marina Magrey: None declared, Lisy Wang Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Dona Fleishaker Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Joseph C Cappelleri Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Cunshan Wang Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Joseph Wu Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Oluwaseyi Dina Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Lara Fallon Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Vibeke Strand Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Corrona, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, GSK, Ichnos, Inmedix, Janssen, Kiniksa, Merck, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Regeneron, Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi, Scipher, SetPoint Medical, UCB

FRI0271 IMPACT OF HLA-B27 STATUS ON CLINICAL OUTCOMES AMONG PATIENTS WITH ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS TREATED WITH SECUKINUMAB

Background:

Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is strongly associated with the genetic marker HLA-B27. Approximately 80%-90% of white patients with AS express HLA-B27 compared with < 8% of the general population. In patients with AS, negative HLA-B27 status is a predictor of worse response to TNFis.1The impact of HLA-B27 status on clinical efficacy of secukinumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively inhibits IL-17A, has not been studied.

Objectives:

To analyze the impact of HLA-B27 status on clinical outcomes at Week 16 in patients with AS treated with secukinumab vs placebo.

Methods:

Patients with AS were pooled from the MEASURE 1-4 studies (NCT01358175,NCT01649375,NCT02008916, andNCT02159053) and stratified by HLA-B27 status. All trials included patients who received secukinumab 150 mg every 4 weeks with or without an initial loading dose (10 mg/kg IV at Weeks 0, 2, 4 or 150 mg SC at Weeks 0, 1, 2, and 3) or placebo control. MEASURE 3 included patients receiving secukinumab 300 mg every 4 weeks following the initial IV loading dose. Efficacy at Week 16 was determined by the proportion of patients achieving ASAS20/40, ASAS5/6, ASAS partial remission, BASDAI50, ASDAS-CRP < 2.1, ASDAS-CRP < 1.3, and improvement in Patient Global Assessment (VAS) and total spinal/back pain (VAS) scores. In MEASURE 1, 2, and 4, quality of life (QOL) was assessed at Week 16 by the SF-36 PCS, SF-36 MCS, and ASQOL. ASAS, BASDAI, and ASDAS-CRP responses were analyzed by nonresponder imputation, and all other outcomes by mixed models for repeated measures. For hypothesis generation, outcomes at Week 16 with secukinumab vs placebo within HLA-B27 strata were compared by logistic regression analysis without adjustment for multiple comparisons.

Results:

Baseline characteristics were balanced across treatment groups, although more HLA-B27+ patients than HLA-B27− patients were male (71%-73% vs 43%-50%). HLA-B27+ patients receiving any dose of secukinumab were significantly more likely to achieve ASAS, BASDAI50, and ASDAS-CRP responses vs those receiving placebo (P< .05; Figure 1). HLA-B27− patients receiving secukinumab 300 mg were significantly more likely to achieve ASAS40, ASAS partial remission (Figure 1A), and BASDAI50 (Figure 1B) responses than those receiving placebo (P< .05). Patients receiving any dose of secukinumab were more likely to achieve ASAS5/6 and ASDAS-CRP < 2.1 than those receiving placebo, regardless of HLA-B27 status (P< .05; Figure 1B). All secukinumab-treated patients experienced significant improvement in Patient Global Assessment at Week 16 vs placebo, regardless of HLA-B27 status, while only HLA-B27+ patients experienced significant reduction in total spinal/back pain vs placebo (P< .05; Figure 2A). Numerical improvements in QOL were observed in all patients receiving secukinumab 150 mg vs placebo; these reached significance for HLA-B27+ patients (Figure 2B).

Conclusion:

Secukinumab is effective in patients with AS regardless of HLA-B27 status; HLA-B27+ patients may derive increased therapeutic benefit compared with HLA-B27− patients.

Reference:

[1]Alazmi M, et al.Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2018;70:1393-9.

Acknowledgments:

This study was funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. The authors thank Rich Karpowicz, PhD, of Health Interactions, Inc, for providing medical writing support/editorial support, which was funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, in accordance with Good Publication Practice (GPP3) guidelines (http://www.ismpp.org/gpp3).

Disclosure of Interests:

Atul Deodhar Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myer Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myer Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Philip 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, Denis Poddubnyy Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Renato Calheiros Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Xiangyi Meng Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, 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, Marina Magrey Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, and UCB, Consultant of: Eli Lilly and Novartis

THU0396 IMPACT OF IXEKIZUMAB ON WORK PRODUCTIVITY IN PATIENTS WITH ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS: RESULTS FROM THE COAST-V AND COAST-W TRIALS AT 52 WEEKS

Background:

Patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) are burdened with decreased work productivity.1Ixekizumab (IXE), a high-affinity monoclonal antibody selectively targeting interleukin-17A, has been shown to improve disease signs and symptoms in 2 phase 3 trials assessing patients with active AS.2, 3

Objectives:

This study investigated the effect of IXE treatment for 52 weeks on work productivity and activity impairment as measured by absenteeism, presenteeism, overall work impairment, and activity impairment in patients with active AS.

Methods:

COAST-V (NCT02696785) and COAST-W (NCT02696798) were phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled (COAST-V active-controlled with adalimumab) trials investigating the efficacy of IXE every 4 weeks (Q4W) and every 2 weeks (Q2W) in 341 patients with active AS naïve to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs; COAST-V) and in 316 patients who were inadequate responders or intolerant to 1 or 2 tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi; COAST-W). Patients receiving PBO were switched to IXE Q4W or Q2W at Week 16; patients receiving adalimumab (ADA) were switched to IXE Q4W or Q2W at Week 20. Data for IXE Q4W and Q2W were combined for PBO/IXE and ADA/IXE groups. Changes from baseline in work productivity were measured for those reporting full- or part-time work at Weeks 16 and 52 with the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) Questionnaire for Spondyloarthritis.

Results:

Compared to bDMARD-naïve patients (COAST-V), TNFi-experienced patients (COAST-W) were slightly older, had longer disease duration, reported less paid employment, and had greater scores for impaired work productivity, signifying more severe baseline disease. At Week 16, bDMARD-naïve patients treated with IXE Q4W or Q2W had significant improvements in activity impairment compared to placebo (p<0.01); TNFi-experienced patients treated with IXE Q4W or Q2W had significant improvements in presenteeism (p<0.05) and overall work impairment (p<0.05; Figure). TNFi-experienced patients treated with IXE Q2W also had significant improvement in activity impairment at Week 16 (p<0.05; Figure). Improvements were sustained through Week 52 (Figure).

Conclusion:

Both bDMARD-naïve and TNFi-experienced patients with AS receiving IXE had greater improvements in aspects of work productivity compared to placebo. Improvements were sustained through Week 52.

References:

[1]Boonen, van der Linden. (2006).J Rheumatol Suppl.78:4-11.

[2]Van der Heijde, et al. (2018)Lancet. 392(10163):2441-51.

[3]Deodhar, et al. (2019)Arthritis Rheumatol.71(4):599-611.

Disclosure of Interests:

Helena Marzo-Ortega Grant/research support from: Janssen, Novartis, Consultant of: Abbvie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, UCB, 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, Proton Rahman Grant/research support from: Janssen and Novartis, Consultant of: Abbott, AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer., Speakers bureau: Abbott, AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Victoria Navarro-Compán Consultant of: Abbvie, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, MSD, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Vibeke Strand Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celltrion, Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America, Crescendo Bioscience, Eli Lilly, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi, UCB, Maxime Dougados Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Bernard Combe Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, Consultant of: AbbVie; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Janssen; Eli Lilly and Company; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; Sanofi, Speakers bureau: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Eli Lilly and Company; Merck Sharp & Dohme; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; UCB, James Cheng-Chung Wei Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Eisai, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB Pharma, Xenofon Baraliakos Grant/research support from: Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Theresa Hunter Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, David Sandoval Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Xiaoqi Li Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Baojin Zhu Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Louis Bessette Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, 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

Figure.

Changes from baseline in Overall Work Impairment in A) bDMARD-naïve (COAST-V) and B) TNFi-experienced (COAST-W) patients and Activity Impairment in C) bDMARD-naïve and D) TNFi-experienced patients.

FRI0048 NUMBER NEEDED TO TREAT TO ACHIEVE MINIMUM CLINICALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES IN PATIENTS TREATED WITH BARICITINIB

Background:

Baricitinib (BARI) provided rapid and sustained improvements in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) in patients (pts) with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inadequate responses (IR) to methotrexate (MTX) (RA-BEAM;NCT01710358)1,2and biologic DMARDs (bDMARD-IR; RA-BEACON;NCT01721044)3,4.

Objectives:

To determine the number needed to treat (NNT) to report improvements ≥minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) in multiple PROs at Week (Wk) 12 after treatment with BARI 4-mg in RA-BEAM and BARI 2-mg or BARI 4-mg in RA-BEACON. NNTs ≤10 vs placebo (PBO) are considered clinically meaningful.

Methods:

Evaluated PROs with respective MCID definitions included Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA, 0-100 mm visual analog scale [VAS], MCID ≥10 mm), pain (0-100 mm VAS, MCID ≥10 mm), physical function (Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, MCID ≥0.22 points), fatigue (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue [FACIT-F], MCID≥4.0), and health-related quality of life (SF-36 physical component summary [PCS: MCID ≥2.5] and domain scores: physical function [PF], role physical [RP], bodily pain [BP], general health [GH], vitality [VT], social functioning [SF], role emotional [RE], mental health [MH], MCID ≥5.0).5The percentages of pts reporting improvements ≥MCID were determined at Wk 12. NNTs were calculated as 1/difference in response rates between BARI 2-mg or 4-mg and PBO.

Results:

At Wk 12, percentages of pts reporting clinically meaningful improvements were greater and statistically different from PBO (p<0.01) with BARI 2-mg and 4-mg across most PROs in both RCTs. Most NNTs were ≤10. (Figure)

Conclusion:

Across different populations, MTX-IR and bDMARD-IR pts with active RA reported clinically meaningful improvements in PROs after BARI treatment. The NNTs in these analyses indicate that <10 pts need to be treated with BARI 2- or 4-mg to report a clinically meaningful benefit.

References:

[1]Taylor et al. NEJM, 2017;376: 652-62

[2]Keystone et al. Ann Rheum Dis, 2017;76:1853-61

[3]Genovese et al. NEJM, 2016; 374: 1243-52

[4]Smolen et al. Ann Rheum Dis, 2017; 76: 694-700

[5]Strand et al. J Rheumatol, 2011; 38: 1720-27

Figure.

Percentages of patients reporting improvements ≥MCID with baricitinib vs placebo and associated NNTs for baricitinib in RA-BEAM and RA-BEACON. *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001. Abbreviations: BP, bodily pain; FACIT-F, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue; GH, general health; HAQ-DI, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index; MCID, minimum clinically important difference; MH, mental health; NA, not applicable (ie, difference between treatment and placebo is not statistically significant, confidence interval of NNT is not calculated); NNT, numbers needed to treat; Pain, Patient’s assessment of pain; PCS, physical component score; PF, physical function; PtGA, Patient’s Global Assessment of Disease Activity; RE, role emotional; RP, role physical; SF-36, Short Form-36; SF, social functioning; VT, vitality

Disclosure of Interests:

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, Luna Sun 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, Carol L. Kannowski Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company

AB0835 THE IMPACT OF ADALIMUMAB VS PLACEBO ON PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES AND UTILITY MEASURES AMONG PATIENTS WITH MODERATELY TO SEVERELY ACTIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS

Background:

Physical function and health-related quality of life(HRQoL) are negatively impacted in patients(pts) with PsA. Treatment with conventional and biological (b) DMARDs improved patient-reported outcomes(PROs).

Objectives:

To assess impact of adalimumab(ADA) vs placebo(PBO) on PROs following 12-week (wk) treatment.

Methods:

Pts(n=315) with moderately to severely active PsA and bDMARD naive were randomized to ADA 40mg or PBO every other wk. We assessed PROs at baseline(BL) and wk 12 using the 36-item Short-Form(SF-36) Health Survey physical(PCS) and mental component summary(MCS) scores, 8 domain scores ranging from 0(worst) to 100(best), and SF-6D utility measure derived from all 8 SF-36 domains with scores ranging from 0.296(worst) to 1.00(full health) and minimally important difference(MID) of 0.041. Patient Global Assessment of disease activity(PtGA) and pain(both utilizing 100 mm visual analog scale[VAS]) and HAQ disability index(DI) were assessed. Mean changes from BL, percentages of pts with improvements ≥minimum clinically important differences(MCID), and scores ≥US age-and gender-matched normative values(A/G norms) were analyzed, based on as observed data.Pvalues were assessed by analysis of variance model for continuous variables andCochran–Mantel–Haenszeltest for binary outcomes, adjusting by baseline MTX use and extent of psoriasis. Numbers needed to treat(NNTs) are reported using proportions of pts reporting improvements ≥MCID in SF-36, PtGA, pain, and HAQ-DI.

Results:

BL PRO scores were similar between ADA(n=151) and PBO(n=162;Table 1). Improvements from BL at wk 12 with ADA vs PBO were significant in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, and SF-36 PCS(change: 9.3 vs 1.4;P<0.001) but not in SF-36 MCS(1.6 vs 1.2;Table 1). Six of 8 SF-36 domains significantly improved from BL to wk 12 with ADA vs PBO(allP≤0.05;Table 1andFigure 1). SF-6D improvements exceeded MID with ADA(change: 0.071) vs PBO(0.018). Proportions of pts reporting improvements ≥MCID at wk 12 were significantly greater with ADA vs PBO in all PROs, except SF-36 role emotional and mental health domains, with corresponding NNTs ≤6.4(Figure 2). Proportions of pts who reported scores ≥A/G norms in HAQ-DI, SF-36 PCS, and 6 of 8 SF-36 domains were significantly greater with ADA vs PBO(Figure 2).

Table 1.

Mean Disease Characteristics and SF-36 Domain Scores by Treatment Group at Baseline and Wk 12 Compared With Age-and Gender-Matched Normative Values

ADA 40 mg eowPBOA/G normsBaselineWeek 12[change from baseline to week 12]BaselineWeek 12[change from baseline to week 12]SF-36 PCS33.242.5[9.3**]33.334.7[1.4]≥50SF-36 MCS48.149.8[1.6]46.648.4[1.2]≥50SF-6D0.6530.724[0.071]0.6410.659[0.018]—PtGA47.125.9[–21.7**]48.147.5[0.2]—Pt pain51.126.8[–24.1**]48.849.1[1.3]—HAQ-DI1.00.6[–0.4**]1.00.9[–0.1]≤0.25Baseline(vs A/G norms)Week 12(vs A/G norms)Baseline(vs A/G norms)Week 12(vs A/G norms)Physical Functioning50.8(−31.5)65.9***(−16.4)48.2(−34.1)52.0(−30.3)82.3Role Physical37.1(−45.9)65.9***(−17.1)32.6(−50.4)40.6(−42.4)83.0Bodily Pain41.3(−31.6)61.0***(−11.9)40.2(−32.7)43.7(−29.2)72.9General Health49.5(−20.8)62.1***(−8.2)52.1(−18.2)53.0(−17.3)70.3Vitality41.4(−17.8)55.1***(−4.1)41.6(−17.6)45.0(−14.2)59.2Social Functioning66.3(−19.0)77.8†(−7.5)61.7(−23.6)66.7(−18.6)85.3Role Emotional65.1(−23.4)70.4(−18.1)59.1(−29.4)66.0(−22.5)88.5Mental Health67.6(−8.5)72.9(−3.2)64.9(−11.2)67.3(−8.8)76.1

ADA, adalimumab; A/G norm, age-and gender-matched normative value; eow, every other week; DI, disability index; MCS, mental component summary; MID, minimally important difference; PBO, placebo; PCS, physical component summary; PtGA, Patient Global Assessment of disease activity; SF-36, 36-item Short-Form Health Survey; SF-6D, Short-Form 6D.

SF-6D MID=0.041.

Statistical analysis ADA vs PBO:†P<0.05; *P<0.01; **P<0.001; ***P<0.0001.

Conclusion:

Statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements and scores ≥A/G norms(higher definition of response) at week 12 were reported with ADA vs PBO in pts with moderately to severely active PsA.

Disclosure of Interests:

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, Pankaj Patel Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Naijun Chen Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc, Employee of: AbbVie Inc, Elizabeth Lesser Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc, Employee of: AbbVie Inc

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

Background:

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

Objectives:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

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

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

Table.

Baseline disease characteristics related to DAS28-CRP

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

References:

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

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

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

Disclosure of Interests:

Saima Chohan Employee of: Partner/physician at Arizona Arthritis and Rheumatology Associates, Arthur Kavanaugh Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, Pfizer, Gilead, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, Pfizer, Gilead, UCB, Vibeke Strand Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celltrion, Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America, Crescendo Bioscience, Eli Lilly, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi, UCB, Richard C Chou Consultant of: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc, Alan M Mendelsohn Shareholder of: Johnson and Johnson, Employee of: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc, Stephen Rozzo Employee of: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc, Philip J Mease Grant/research support from: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB – grant/research support, Consultant of: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB – consultant, Speakers bureau: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB – speakers bureau

FRI0108 ASSOCIATION BETWEEN CHANGES IN C-REACTIVE PROTEIN AT WEEK 12 AND PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES AT WEEK 24 WITH SARILUMAB THERAPY ACROSS THREE PIVOTAL PHASE 3 STUDIES

Background:

Evaluation of early response to rheumatoid arthritis (RA) therapy at 12 weeks after initiation is recommended in treatment guidelines. C-reactive protein (CRP) response at 12 weeks on therapy may indicate favorable longer-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

Objectives:

To describe the association between CRP response at Week 12 and PROs at Week 24 with sarilumab therapy across three pivotal studies.

Methods:

The analysis included patients with RA who took part in MOBILITY (NCT01061736), TARGET (NCT01709578), or MONARCH (NCT02332590) and were treated with sarilumab 200 mg every 2 weeks (q2w) or adalimumab 40 mg q2w (MONARCH only). Patients who achieved a CRP response at Week 12 (defined as serum CRP ≤3 mg/L) were evaluated for PROs at Week 24. Response for PROs was defined as change from baseline visual analog scale score ≥10 for pain, sleep, and morning stiffness and an increase of ≥4 for FACIT-Fatigue score. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were generated for the likelihood of achieving PRO responses at Week 24.

Results:

The proportions of patients achieving a CRP response at Week 12 were 78% (MOBILITY), 74% (TARGET), 80% (MONARCH, sarilumab), and 36% (MONARCH, adalimumab). Of these, 71.4% (MOBILITY; OR 3.78, 95% CI 2.31–6.18), 71.5% (TARGET; OR 2.86, 95% CI 1.44–5.65), 79.7% (MONARCH, sarilumab; OR 4.40, 95% CI 2.04–9.47), and 79.7% (MONARCH, adalimumab; OR 2.76, 95% CI 1.36–5.61) reported pain score responses at Week 24. Fatigue responses at Week 24 among Week 12 CRP responders were 66.6% (MOBILITY; OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.69–4.45), 59.9% (TARGET; OR 3.18, 95% CI 1.58–6.42), 73.0% (MONARCH, sarilumab; OR 4.78, 95% CI 2.21–10.33), and 64.1% (MONARCH, adalimumab; OR 1.64, 95% CI 0.88–3.06). Sleep was evaluated in MOBILITY only, and 58.2% of those achieving Week 12 CRP responses reported sleep score responses at Week 24 (OR 3.51, 95% CI 2.10–5.87). Morning stiffness responses (evaluated in TARGET and MONARCH only) at Week 24 among patients with Week 12 CRP responses were 71.5% (TARGET; OR 3.70, 95% CI 1.86–7.39), 81.1% (MONARCH, sarilumab; OR 5.36, 95% CI 2.47–11.63), and 75.0% (MONARCH, adalimumab; OR 2.42, 95% CI 1.24–4.72).

Conclusion:

Achievement of a CRP response at Week 12 in patients with RA treated with sarilumab 200 mg q2w or adalimumab 40 mg q2w was associated with improvements at Week 24 in PROs for pain, fatigue, sleep, and morning stiffness. Among patients with RA, CRP responses at 12 weeks on treatment predict favorable longer-term PRO improvements.

Acknowledgments:

Study funding was provided by Sanofi Genzyme (Cambridge, USA) and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Tarrytown, USA). Medical writing support (Tracey Lonergan, Adelphi Communications Ltd, Macclesfield, UK) was provided by Sanofi Genzyme and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in accordance with Good Publication Practice (GPP3) guidelines.

Disclosure of Interests:

John Tesser Consultant of: Sanofi/Regeneron, Speakers bureau: Sanofi/Regeneron, Grace C. Wright Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exagen, Eli Lilly, Myriad Autoimmune, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi Genzyme, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exagen, Eli Lilly, Myriad Autoimmune, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi Genzyme, UCB, Vibeke Strand Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celltrion, Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America, Crescendo Bioscience, Eli Lilly, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi, UCB, Jeff Kaine Speakers bureau: Eli Lilly, Merck, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi, Karina Maslova Shareholder of: Sanofi Genzyme, Employee of: Sanofi Genzyme, Gregory St John Shareholder of: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Employee of: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Kerri Ford Shareholder of: Sanofi Genzyme, Employee of: Sanofi Genzyme, Amy Praestgaard Employee of: Sanofi Genzyme, Ernest Choy Grant/research support from: Amgen, Bio-Cancer, Chugai Pharma, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Novimmune, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chelsea Therapeutics, Chugai Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, Hospita, Ionis, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, MedImmune, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merrimack Pharmaceutical, Napp, Novartis, Novimmune, ObsEva, Pfizer, R-Pharm, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roche, SynAct Pharma, Sanofi Genzyme, Tonix, UCB, Speakers bureau: Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharma, Eli Lilly, Hospira, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB

THU0217 UPADACITINIB MONOTHERAPY IN METHOTREXATE-NAÏVE PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS: RESULTS AT 72 WEEKS FROM SELECT-EARLY

Background:

Upadacitinib (UPA), an oral JAK inhibitor, demonstrated significant improvements in signs, symptoms, and structural inhibition as monotherapy vs methotrexate (MTX) in a randomized, controlled trial (RCT) of MTX-naive RA patients (pts) through 48 weeks (wks).1

Objectives:

To present the safety and effectiveness of UPA through 72 wks in an ongoing long-term extension (LTE) of the SELECT-EARLY RCT.

Methods:

SELECT-EARLY included 2 study periods: (1) a 48-wk double-blind, active comparator-controlled, with pts randomized to UPA monotherapy 15 or 30 mg once daily or MTX (titrated to 20 mg/wk by Wk8); (2) an LTE, up to 4 years. Pts received open-label treatment once the last pt reached Wk48. Rescue therapy was added (MTX, for UPA groups; UPA, for MTX group) to pts not achieving CDAI remission (≤2.8) at Wk26. Non-responder imputation (NRI) was used for missing data as well as for pts receiving rescue therapy. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) are summarized per 100 pt yrs (PY) through the cut-off date of 21 Feb 2019, when all pts had reached Wk72. Data are censored at the time of MTX or UPA addition among rescued patients.

Results:

Of 945 pts randomized and treated, 781 (83%) completed Period 1. Of these, 775 entered the LTE, including 57 rescued pts (MTX, 33; UPA 15 mg, 17; UPA 30 mg, 7). A total of 52 (7%) pts discontinued during the LTE through the cut-off date (primary reasons: AEs [n=16, 2.1%]; consent withdrawal [n=12, 1.5%]; lost to follow-up [n=10, 1.3%]). Cumulative exposures to monotherapy with MTX, UPA 15 mg, and UPA 30 mg were 350.6, 389.5, and 383.9 PYs, respectively. Both UPA 15 mg and 30 mg as monotherapy was associated with continued statistically significant improvements in disease activity measures vs MTX monotherapy through 72 wks (Table). The safety profiles of the UPA 15 and 30 mg groups were comparable for total TEAEs and numerically higher than MTX. Serious TEAEs and TEAEs leading to discontinuation of study drug were comparable across all groups (Figure). Most AEs of special interest were comparable across MTX and UPA groups, with the exception of higher rates of herpes zoster, opportunistic infections, and elevated creatine phosphokinase among the UPA groups. Two pts receiving MTX monotherapy experienced a venous thromboembolic event, with one event reported on UPA 30 mg and none on UPA 15 mg. There were 12 deaths (including 3 non-treatment-emergent) due to varied causes.

Table.

Proportion of Patients at Week 72 (NRI)

Parameter (%)MTXMonotherapyUPA 15 mg QDMonotherapyUPA 30 mg QDMonotherapyACR20/50/7050/39/2671***/62***/47***72***/67***/54***DAS28(CRP) ≤3.2/<2.638/2863***/52***69***/61***CDAI ≤10/≤2.842/1960***/35***69***/44***Boolean Remission1329***33***

***,P<0.001 for differences between MTX and UPA 15 and UPA 30 mg groups.

MTX, methotrexate; UPA, upadacitinib; QD, once daily; ACR, American College of Rheumatology; DAS28(CRP), 28-joint disease activity index based on C-reactive protein; CDAI, clinical disease activity index.

Figure.

Treatment-emergent Adverse Events Through ≥72 Weeks (E/100 PYs, 95% CI).

Conclusion:

Long-term UPA monotherapy was associated with continued improvements in RA signs and symptoms vs MTX monotherapy through 72 wks, and only a small proportion of pts required MTX addition at Wk26. Through 72 wks of treatment, the safety profile of UPA monotherapy remained consistent with data reported through 48 wks.1

References:

[1]van Vollenhoven R,et al.Ann Rheum Dis2019;78(S):376.

Disclosure of Interests: :

Ronald van Vollenhoven Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Arthrogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Biotest, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Tsutomu Takeuchi Grant/research support from: Eisai Co., Ltd, Astellas Pharma Inc., AbbVie GK, Asahi Kasei Pharma Corporation, Nippon Kayaku Co., Ltd, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd, UCB Pharma, Shionogi & Co., Ltd., Mitsubishi-Tanabe Pharma Corp., Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Consultant of: Chugai Pharmaceutical Co Ltd, Astellas Pharma Inc., Eli Lilly Japan KK, Speakers bureau: AbbVie GK, Eisai Co., Ltd, Mitsubishi-Tanabe Pharma Corporation, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co Ltd, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, AYUMI Pharmaceutical Corp., Eisai Co., Ltd, Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., Gilead Sciences, Inc., Novartis Pharma K.K., Pfizer Japan Inc., Sanofi K.K., Dainippon Sumitomo Co., Ltd., Maureen Rischmueller Consultant of: Abbvie, Bristol-Meyer-Squibb, Celgene, Glaxo Smith Kline, Hospira, Janssen Cilag, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Ricardo Blanco Grant/research support from: Abbvie, MSD and Roche, Consultant of: Abbvie, Pfizer, Roche, Bristol-Myers, Janssen and MSD, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Pfizer, Roche, Bristol-Myers, Janssen, Lilly and MSD, Ricardo Xavier Consultant of: AbbVie, Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Roche, Mark Howard Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Alan Friedman Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc, Employee of: AbbVie Inc, Yanna Song Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., 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

THU0211 RADIOGRAPHIC OUTCOMES IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS RECEIVING UPADACITINIB AS MONOTHERAPY OR IN COMBINATION WITH METHOTREXATE: RESULTS AT 2 YEARS FROM THE SELECT-COMPARE AND SELECT-EARLY STUDIES

Background:

For patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), long-term prevention of structural joint damage is a key treatment goal.1In the SELECT-EARLY and SELECT-COMPARE trials, upadacitinib (UPA), an oral JAK inhibitor, inhibited the progression of structural joint damage at 6 months and 1 year when used either as monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate (MTX) in patients (pts) with active RA.2

Objectives:

To describe the radiographic progression up to 2 years (96 wks) among pts with RA receiving UPA either as monotherapy or in combination with MTX.

Methods:

Both the SELECT-EARLY and SELECT-COMPARE phase 3, randomized controlled trials enrolled pts at high risk for progressive structural damage with baseline (BL) erosive joint damage and/or seropositivity.3,4In SELECT-EARLY, MTX-naïve pts (N=945) were randomized to UPA 15 mg or 30 mg once daily (QD) or MTX monotherapy. In SELECT-COMPARE, pts with an inadequate response to MTX (N=1629) were randomized to UPA 15 mg, placebo (PBO), or adalimumab (ADA) 40 mg every other wk, with all pts continuing background MTX; at wk 26, all pts receiving PBO were switched to UPA 15 mg, regardless of response. In both trials, mean changes from BL in modified Total Sharp Score (mTSS), joint space narrowing, and joint erosion as well as the proportion of pts with no radiographic progression (change in mTSS ≤0) were evaluated based on X-rays taken at wks 24/26, 48, and 96 for those patients in whom wk 96 X-rays were available. Data are reported as observed (AO).

Results:

BL demographics have been reported previously.3,4In the SELECT-EARLY study, at wk 96 UPA monotherapy (15 mg and 30 mg doses) significantly inhibited radiographic progression compared with MTX as measured by mean change in mTSS and by the proportion of patients with no radiographic progression (Figures 1 and 2). When patients who were rescued (MTX added to UPA or UPA added to MTX) were removed from the analysis, changes in mTSS from baseline remained similar. By the same measures, in SELECT-COMPARE, the degree of inhibition of structural progression observed was comparable between UPA and ADA. Following the switch of all PBO patients to UPA, the rate of progression slowed and was comparable to that observed in pts receiving UPA from BL. Among pts from both studies that had no radiographic progression at wk 24/26, >90% remained without radiographic progression at wk 48 and 96.

Conclusion:

UPA was effective in inhibiting the progression of structural joint damage through 2 years both in MTX-naïve patients receiving UPA monotherapy and MTX-inadequate responder patients receiving UPA in combination with MTX.

References:

[1]Smolen, et al.Ann Rheum Dis2017;76(6):960-77.

[2]Peterfy, et al.Ann Rheum Dis2019;78(suppl 2):369-370.

[3]Fleischmann, et al.Arthritis Rheumatol2019;71(11):1788-1800.

[4]Van Vollenhoven, et al.Arthritis Rheumatol2018;70(suppl 10).

Disclosure of Interests: :

Charles Peterfy Consultant of: AbbVie, Acerta, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Centrexion, Daiichi Sankyo, Five Prime Therapeutics, Genentech, Gilead, Hoffman-La Roche, Janssen, Lilly USA, MedImmune, Merck, Myriad, Novartis, Plexxikon, Pfizer, Sanofi, Salix Santarus, Samsung, Samumed, Setpoint, Sorrento, UCB, Vorso, Employee of: founder and CEO of Spire Sciences, which provides imaging services to multiple pharmaceutical companies, Speakers bureau: Amgen, 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, Mark C. Genovese Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Eli Lilly and Company, EMD Merck Serono, Galapagos, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Inc., GSK, Novartis, Pfizer Inc., RPharm, Sanofi Genzyme, Consultant of: Abbvie, Eli Lilly and Company, EMD Merck Serono, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Inc., GSK, Novartis, RPharm, Sanofi Genzyme, Alan Friedman Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc, Employee of: AbbVie Inc, Jose Jeffrey Enejosa Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Stephen Hall Grant/research support from: Abbvie, UCB, Janssen, Merck, Eduardo Mysler Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, Sanofi, and Pfizer., Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, Sanofi, and Pfizer, Patrick Durez Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, Xenofon Baraliakos Grant/research support from: Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Tim Shaw Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Yanna Song Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Yihan Li Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, In-Ho Song Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc.

THU0384 IMPACT OF IXEKIZUMAB ON WORK PRODUCTIVITY IN NON-RADIOGRAPHIC AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS PATIENTS: RESULTS FROM THE COAST-X TRIAL AT 52 WEEKS

Background:

Patients with non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) experience impairments in health-related quality of life comparable to those seen in ankylosing spondylitis, including impacts on work productivity. Ixekizumab (IXE) is a high-affinity monoclonal antibody that selectively targets interleukin-17A and effectively treats axial spondyloarthritis.1,2,3

Objectives:

This analysis evaluated the effect of IXE treatment for 52 weeks on work productivity and activity impairment as measured by absenteeism, presenteeism, overall work impairment, and activity impairment in patients with active nr-axSpA.

Methods:

COAST-X (NCT02757352) was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group outpatient study investigating the efficacy and safety of 80 mg IXE every 2 weeks (Q2W) and every 4 weeks (Q4W) compared to placebo (PBO) in 303 patients naïve to biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs with active nr-axSpA during a 52-week treatment period. From Weeks 16 through 44, if patients’ disease activity required escalation of treatment at investigator discretion, patients were switched to open-label IXE Q2W or subsequent tumor necrosis factor inhibitor treatment. Analysis was performed for the intent-to-treat population, which included data up to the time of biologic switching. Patients who switched to open-label IXE were considered non-responders. Changes from baseline in work productivity were measured for patients reporting full- or part-time work at Weeks 16 and 52 with the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) Questionnaire for Spondyloarthritis and analyzed with an analysis of covariance model including treatment, geographic region, screening magnetic resonance imaging and C-reactive protein level status, and baseline value as factors. Missing data was imputed using the modified baseline observation carried forward.

Results:

A majority of patients (63.5–65.7%) reported part-time or full-time paid work at baseline, with baseline scores for presenteeism and overall work activity slightly higher for patients in the PBO arm (p<0.05). Patients treated with IXE Q4W had significantly greater improvement than PBO in activity impairment at Weeks 16 (p=0.003) and 52 (p=0.004), presenteeism at Weeks 16 (p=0.007) and 52 (p=0.003), and overall work impairment at Weeks 16 (p=0.014) and 52 (p=0.005; Figure). Patients treated with IXE Q2W had significantly greater improvement than PBO in activity impairment at Weeks 16 (p=0.007) and 52 (p=0.006; Figure). Patients treated with either IXE regimen had numeric improvements in all WPAI measures compared to those receiving PBO at Weeks 16 and 52 (Figure).

Conclusion:

Patients with nr-axSpA treated with either IXE regimen had significant improvements in activity impairment compared to PBO. Patients receiving IXE Q4W also had significant improvements in presenteeism and overall work impairment.

References:

[1]Sieper, et al. (2016)Clin Exp Rheumatol.34(6):975-83.

[2]Van der Heijde, et al. (2018)Lancet. 392(10163):2441-51.

[3]Deodhar, et al. (2019)Arthritis Rheumatol.71(4):599-611.

Figure.

Changes from baseline in A) Absenteeism, B) Presenteeism, C) Overall Work Impairment, and D) Activity Impairment.

Disclosure of Interests:

Atul Deodhar Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myer Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myer Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Philip 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, Lianne S. Gensler Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Novartis, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, UCB, Proton Rahman Grant/research support from: Janssen and Novartis, Consultant of: Abbott, AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer., Speakers bureau: Abbott, AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Victoria Navarro-Compán Consultant of: Abbvie, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, MSD, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Helena Marzo-Ortega Grant/research support from: Janssen, Novartis, Consultant of: Abbvie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, UCB, Theresa Hunter Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, David Sandoval Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Andris Kronbergs Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Baojin Zhu Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Ann Leung: 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

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

THU0614-HPR ASSESSING THE EFFECT OF INTERVENTIONS FOR AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS ACCORDING TO THE ENDORSED ASAS/OMERACT CORE OUTCOME SET: A META-RESEARCH STUDY OF TRIALS INCLUDED IN COCHRANE REVIEWS

Background:

The Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) has defined separate core sets for: i) symptom-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (SM-ARD), ii) clinical record keeping, and iii) disease-controlling anti-rheumatic therapy (DC-ART). These all include the following domains: ‘physical function’, ‘pain’, ‘spinal mobility’, ‘spinal stiffness’ and ‘patient global assessment’ (PGA). The core set for clinical record keeping further includes the domains ‘peripheral joints’ and ‘acute phase reactants’, and the core set for DC-ART further includes the domains ‘fatigue’, ‘spine/hip radiographs’.

Objectives:

To assess the effect of interventions for each of the 9 axSpA core domains.

Methods:

We investigated the efficacy across all interventions included in Cochrane reviews according to the core outcome set for axSpA, as reported in these eligible axSpA trials. We combined data using the standardized mean difference (SMD) to meta-analyze outcomes involving similar constructs. By meta-regression analysis, we examined the effect for each of the nine separate SMD measures on the primary endpoint across all trials.

Results:

Among 85 articles screened, we included 43 trials with 63 randomized comparisons. Mean (SD) number of core outcomes domains measured for SM-ARD trials was 4.2 (1.7). 6 trials assessed all 5 proposed domains. Mean (SD) for number of core outcome domains for DC-ART trials was 5.8 (1.7). Unfortunately, no trials assessed all 9 domains. 8 trials were judged to have high risk of selective outcome reporting. The most responsible core domains for achieving success in meeting the primary objective per trial were pain; OR (95% CI) 5.19 (2.28, 11.77) and PGA; OR (95% CI) 1.87 (1.14, 3.07).

Conclusion:

Overall outcome reporting was good for SM-ARD trials, and poor for DC-ART trials. None of the DC-ART trials assessed all 9 domains. Outcome-reporting bias and ‘missing data’ should be reduced by implementing the endorsed ASAS/OMERACT outcome domains in all clinical trials. Our findings suggest that PGA and pain likely provide a holistic assessment of disease beyond “objective measures” of spinal inflammation.

Disclosure of Interests:

Rikke Asmussen Andreasen: None declared, 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, Xenofon Baraliakos Grant/research support from: Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, 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, Maarten de Wit Grant/research support from: Dr. de Wit reports personal fees from Ely Lilly, 2019, personal fees from Celgene, 2019, personal fees from Pfizer, 2019, personal fees from Janssen-Cilag, 2017, outside the submitted work., Consultant of: Dr. de Wit reports personal fees from Ely Lilly, 2019, personal fees from Celgene, 2019, personal fees from Pfizer, 2019, personal fees from Janssen-Cilag, 2017, outside the submitted work., Speakers bureau: Dr. de Wit reports personal fees from Ely Lilly, 2019, personal fees from Celgene, 2019, personal fees from Pfizer, 2019, personal fees from Janssen-Cilag, 2017, outside the submitted work., Torkell Ellingsen: None declared, Inger Marie Jensen Hansen: None declared, Jamie Kirkham: None declared, George Wells: None declared, Peter Tugwell: None declared, Lara Maxwell: None declared, Maarten Boers: None declared, Kenneth Egstrup: None declared, Robin Christensen Grant/research support from: Dr. Christensen reports non-financial support from Board membership, grants from Consultancy (AbbVie, Amgen, Axellus A/S, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cambridge Weight Plan, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hospira, MSD, Norpharma, Novartis, Orkla Health, Pfizer, Roche, Sobi, Takeda), personal fees from Employment (Research Unit for Musculoskeletal Function and Physiotherapy, Institute of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark), non-financial support from Expert testimony, grants from Grants/grants pending (Axellus A/S, AbbVie, Cambridge Weight Plan, Janssen, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, and Roche), grants from Payment for lectures including service on speakers bureaus (Abbott, Amgen, Axellus, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Biogen Idec, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cambridge Weight Plan, Ipsen, Janssen, Laboratoires Expanscience, MSD, Mundipharma, Norpharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Rottapharm-Madaus, Sobi, and Wyeth), grants from Payment for manuscript preparation (Axellus, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Cambridge Weight Plan, Aleris-Hamlet (via Norpharma)), non-financial support from Patents (planned, pending or issued), non-financial support from Royalties, grants from Payment for development of educational presentations (Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Pfizer), non-financial support from Stock/stock options, grants from Travel/accommodations/meeting expenses unrelated to activities listed (Abbott, AbbVie, Axellus, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cambridge Weight Plan, Celgene, Laboratoires Expanscience, Norpharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Rottapharm-Madaus, and Wyeth), non-financial support from Other (err on the side of full disclosure), outside the submitted work; and I am involved in many health-care initiatives and research that could benefit from wide uptake of this publication (including Cochrane, OMERACT, IDEOM, RADS, and the GRADE Working Group).

Musculoskeletal Statistics Unit, The Parker Institute is grateful for the financial support received from public and private foundations, companies and private individuals over the years. The Parker Institute is supported by a core grant from the Oak Foundation; The Oak Foundation is a group of philanthropic organizations that, since its establishment in 1983, has given grants to not-for-profit organizations around the world.., Consultant of: Dr. Christensen reports non-financial support from Board membership, grants from Consultancy (AbbVie, Amgen, Axellus A/S, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cambridge Weight Plan, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hospira, MSD, Norpharma, Novartis, Orkla Health, Pfizer, Roche, Sobi, Takeda), personal fees from Employment (Research Unit for Musculoskeletal Function and Physiotherapy, Institute of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark), non-financial support from Expert testimony, grants from Grants/grants pending (Axellus A/S, AbbVie, Cambridge Weight Plan, Janssen, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, and Roche), grants from Payment for lectures including service on speakers bureaus (Abbott, Amgen, Axellus, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Biogen Idec, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cambridge Weight Plan, Ipsen, Janssen, Laboratoires Expanscience, MSD, Mundipharma, Norpharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Rottapharm-Madaus, Sobi, and Wyeth), grants from Payment for manuscript preparation (Axellus, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Cambridge Weight Plan, Aleris-Hamlet (via Norpharma)), non-financial support from Patents (planned, pending or issued), non-financial support from Royalties, grants from Payment for development of educational presentations (Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Pfizer), non-financial support from Stock/stock options, grants from Travel/accommodations/meeting expenses unrelated to activities listed (Abbott, AbbVie, Axellus, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cambridge Weight Plan, Celgene, Laboratoires Expanscience, Norpharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Rottapharm-Madaus, and Wyeth), non-financial support from Other (err on the side of full disclosure), outside the submitted work; and I am involved in many health-care initiatives and research that could benefit from wide uptake of this publication (including Cochrane, OMERACT, IDEOM, RADS, and the GRADE Working Group).

Musculoskeletal Statistics Unit, The Parker Institute is grateful for the financial support received from public and private foundations, companies and private individuals over the years. The Parker Institute is supported by a core grant from the Oak Foundation; The Oak Foundation is a group of philanthropic organizations that, since its establishment in 1983, has given grants to not-for-profit organizations around the world.., Speakers bureau: Dr. Christensen reports non-financial support from Board membership, grants from Consultancy (AbbVie, Amgen, Axellus A/S, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cambridge Weight Plan, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hospira, MSD, Norpharma, Novartis, Orkla Health, Pfizer, Roche, Sobi, Takeda), personal fees from Employment (Research Unit for Musculoskeletal Function and Physiotherapy, Institute of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark), non-financial support from Expert testimony, grants from Grants/grants pending (Axellus A/S, AbbVie, Cambridge Weight Plan, Janssen, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, and Roche), grants from Payment for lectures including service on speakers bureaus (Abbott, Amgen, Axellus, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Biogen Idec, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cambridge Weight Plan, Ipsen, Janssen, Laboratoires Expanscience, MSD, Mundipharma, Norpharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Rottapharm-Madaus, Sobi, and Wyeth), grants from Payment for manuscript preparation (Axellus, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Cambridge Weight Plan, Aleris-Hamlet (via Norpharma)), non-financial support from Patents (planned, pending or issued), non-financial support from Royalties, grants from Payment for development of educational presentations (Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Pfizer), non-financial support from Stock/stock options, grants from Travel/accommodations/meeting expenses unrelated to activities listed (Abbott, AbbVie, Axellus, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cambridge Weight Plan, Celgene, Laboratoires Expanscience, Norpharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Rottapharm-Madaus, and Wyeth), non-financial support from Other (err on the side of full disclosure), outside the submitted work; and I am involved in many health-care initiatives and research that could benefit from wide uptake of this publication (including Cochrane, OMERACT, IDEOM, RADS, and the GRADE Working Group).

Musculoskeletal Statistics Unit, The Parker Institute is grateful for the financial support received from public and private foundations, companies and private individuals over the years. The Parker Institute is supported by a core grant from the Oak Foundation; The Oak Foundation is a group of philanthropic organizations that, since its establishment in 1983, has given grants to not-for-profit organizations around the world.

AB1249 ASSESSMENT OF FATIGUE IN ADULTS WITH MODERATE-TO-SEVERE SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS (SLE): A QUALITATIVE STUDY TO EXPLORE WHAT PATIENTS FEEL SHOULD BE MEASURED IN CLINICAL TRIALS

Background:

Fatigue is one of the most common symptoms reported by patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE)—it is responsible for considerable loss of work time and greatly impaired quality of life. The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) has been used to assess fatigue in SLE clinical trials1; however, assessment of the content validity of the FACIT-F in adults with SLE suggested that closer evaluation may be warranted.2

Objectives:

This qualitative study aimed to understand SLE patients’ experience of fatigue and assess the content validity of the FACIT-F.

Methods:

The evaluation was informed by literature and guided by a project steering committee (PSC; patient advocate, clinical expert, outcomes measure expert). The institutional review board-approved study involved focus groups (Round 1) and cognitive interviews (Round 2) with adults with moderate-to-severely active SLE. All participants provided written informed consent. Round 1 included three focus groups to understand the disease and fatigue-related concepts that were most important to patients; participants also provided high-level feedback on the FACIT-F. Round 2 included 13 one-on-one cognitive interviews on the relevance of content, clarity, and comprehensiveness of the FACIT-F. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed and a content analysis was completed. The PSC reviewed results and contributed to decision-making. Specific focus was on determining patient understanding of the FACIT-F, comprehensiveness, and any gaps in concept coverage to evaluate fatigue in the context of a clinical trial.

Results:

Twenty-eight patients with moderate-to-severely active SLE participated; they were mostly female (n=27), had a mean age of 45.5 ± 12.1 years (range: 18–75), and 23 (82%) had moderate and five (18%) severely active SLE. All participants were receiving SLE treatment, and most (n=23, 82%) reported fatigue among their top three most important SLE-related symptoms. Fatigue was described as having a profound impact on daily life, including ability to perform chores and work-related activities, maintain personal hygiene, exercise, and participate in hobbies. Study participants reported the FACIT-F covered concepts most relevant to their fatigue experience. Participants were able to understand the FACIT-F instructions, items, and response options and felt the recall period of seven days was appropriate.

Conclusion:

Fatigue was one of the most important symptoms, having a significant impact on adults with moderate-to-severely active SLE, limiting their ability to perform necessary or desired activities. The FACIT-F was found to be an appropriate measure for the assessment of fatigue in this sample.3Evidence of the content validity of the FACIT-F in adults with SLE was confirmed for use to support endpoints in the Cenerimod Assessing S1P1Receptor Modulation in SLE (CARE) clinical trial.

References:

[1]Izadi Z, Gandrup J, Katz PP, Yazdany J. Patient-reported outcome measures for use in clinical trials of SLE: a review. Lupus Sci Med. 2018;5(1):e000279.

[2]Kosinski M, Gajria K, Fernandes A, Cella D. Qualitative validation of the FACIT-Fatigue scale in systemic lupus erythematosus. Lupus. 2013;22(5):422-430.

[3]Mannix S, Beyer A, Strand V, Hanrahan L, Abel C, Flamion B, Hareendran A. Assessment of Fatigue in Adults with Moderate to Severe Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE): A Qualitative Study to Explore What Patients Feel Should Be Measured in Clinical Trials [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019; 71 (suppl 10).

Acknowledgments:

We thank Dr. David Cella, developer of the FACIT-F, for his time discussing the measure, interim findings, and PSC feedback; the site staff for patient recruitment; Andrea Schulz and Rodolfo Matos, who conducted interviews.

Disclosure of Interests:

Sally Mannix Employee of: Evidera, Andrea Beyer Employee of: Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, 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, Leslie Hanrahan: None declared, Cristina Abél Employee of: Evidera, Bruno Flamion Shareholder of: Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, Employee of: Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, Asha Hareendran Employee of: Evidera

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

Background:

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

Objectives:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusion:

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

References:

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

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

Figure 1.

Criteria for the RAWG Rating

Figure 2.

PRISMA Diagram

Table 1.

Summary of Measurement Properties

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

A = Amber, R = Red, G = Green

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

* RCT data available but no published effect sizes

# Feasibility data available

Disclosure of Interests:

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

FRI0286 IXEKIZUMAB TREATMENT IMPROVES FATIGUE, SPINAL PAIN, STIFFNESS, AND SLEEP IN PATIENTS WITH NON-RADIOGRAPHIC AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS

Background:

Common symptoms of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) include fatigue, spinal pain, stiffness, and sleep problems, which can impair health-related quality of life. Ixekizumab (IXE) treatment shows efficacy in active non-radiographic axSpA (nr-axSpA).1

Objectives:

To assess fatigue, spinal pain, stiffness, and sleep with IXE treatment versus (vs) placebo (PBO) in patients (pts) with active nr-axSpA up to 16 and 52 weeks (wks).

Methods:

In COAST-X, pts with active nr-axSpA were randomized to 52 wks of double-blind IXE 80 mg once every 4 wks (Q4W) or 2 wks (Q2W), or PBO. Data were collected from baseline to Wk 52.

Results:

At Wk 16, IXE Q4W significantly improved fatigue, spinal pain, and stiffness, and IXE Q2W improved spinal pain, spinal pain at night, and stiffness vs PBO (Table). At Wk 52, IXE Q4W significantly improved stiffness, and IXE Q2W improved spinal pain, spinal pain at night, and stiffness vs PBO. Numeric improvements in sleep were not significant vs PBO. Wk 1, and up to Wk 16, IXE Q4W and Q2W significantly reduced spinal pain and stiffness vs PBO; stiffness was significantly reduced vs PBO up to Wk 52 (Figure).

Least squares mean (standard error) change from BL-ITT population (mixed-effect model of repeated measures)

MeasureTimepointPBO N=105IXE Q4W N=96IXE Q2W N=102Spinal painaWk 16-1.45 (0.244)-2.35 (0.248)*-2.59 (0.244)†Wk 52-2.29 (0.350)-2.92 (0.305)-3.32 (0.304)*Spinal pain at nightaWk 16-1.71 (0.262)-2.43 (0.267)-2.79 (0.263)*Wk 52-2.25 (0.358)-3.04 (0.312)-3.58 (0.311)*BASDAI-stiffnessb,cWk 16-1.44 (0.242)-2.44 (0.246)*-2.89 (0.242)†Wk 52-1.94 (0.332)-3.15 (0.290)*-3.48 (0.289)†Fatigue severity NRSdWk 16-1.4 (0.24)-2.1 (0.24)*-1.9 (0.24)Wk 52-2.1 (0.38)-2.6 (0.32)-2.7 (0.32)Sleep disturbanceeWk 16-2.3 (0.45)-2.0 (0.45)-2.5 (0.45)Wk 52-2.9 (0.63)-3.6 (0.52)-3.6 (0.53)Pt Global Assessment of Disease ActivityfWk 16-1.30 (0.246)-2.32 (0.251)*-2.64 (0.247)†Wk 52-1.81 (0.378)-2.77 (0.320)-3.30 (0.321)*

*P<.05 vs PBO;†P≤.001 vs PBO. ITT population: all randomized pts. Pts needing rescue treatment after Wk 16 per investigator could switch to open-label IXE Q2W; observations at visits thereafter not included in analyses. BL values similar across treatments. Numerical improvements in BASDAI-fatigue not significant vs PBO.

aScored 0 (no pain) to 10 (most severe pain) on NRS

bMean score BASDAI questions 5 (intensity) and 6 (duration)

cScored 1–10 on NRS

dScored 0 (no fatigue) to 10 (as bad as you can imagine)

eJenkins Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire scored 0 to 20: each of 4 items scored 0 (0 days) to 5 (22–30 days)

fScored 0 (not active) to 10 (very active) on NRS

BASDAI=Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity IndexBL=baselineITT=intent-to-treatIXE=ixekizumabN=number of pts in ITT populationNRS= numeric rating scalePBO=placebopt=patientQ2W=every 2 wksQ4W=every 4 wksvs=versuswk=week

Conclusion:

IXE Q4W and/or Q2W significantly improved spinal pain, spinal pain at night, and stiffness vs PBO at 16 and 52 wks in pts with nr-axSpA. IXE Q4W also improved fatigue at 16 wks in these pts. Numerical improvements in sleep were not significant vs PBO.

References:

[1]Deodhar A, et al. Lancet. 2019

Disclosure of Interests:

Philip J Mease Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, 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, Proton Rahman Grant/research support from: Janssen and Novartis, Consultant of: Abbott, AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer., Speakers bureau: Abbott, AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Helena Marzo-Ortega Grant/research support from: Janssen, Novartis, Consultant of: Abbvie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, UCB, Vibeke Strand Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celltrion, Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America, Crescendo Bioscience, Eli Lilly, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi, UCB, Theresa Hunter Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, David Adams Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, David Sandoval Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Andris Kronbergs Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Baojin Zhu Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Ann Leung: None declared, Soyi Liu Leage Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Victoria Navarro-Compán Consultant of: Abbvie, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, MSD, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB

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

Background:

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

Objectives:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Table 1.

Summary of Measurement Properties Table for clinical trial discrimination

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

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

Conclusion:

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

Disclosure of Interests:

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

FRI0138 THE IMPACT OF UPADACITINIB VERSUS METHOTREXATE OR ADALIMUMAB ON INDIVIDUAL AND COMPOSITE DISEASE MEASURES IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

Background:

In Phase 3 trials, upadacitinib (UPA), an oral JAK1-selective inhibitor, has been assessed as monotherapy vs MTX (SELECT-EARLY1) and in combination with MTX vs adalimumab + MTX (ADA; SELECT-COMPARE2) in RA pts who were MTX naïve or with inadequate responses to MTX (MTX-IR), respectively.

Objectives:

In this analysis we assessed individual and composite measures of disease activity in SELECT-EARLY and SELECT-COMPARE.

Methods:

In SELECT-EARLY, MTX-naïve pts received UPA 15 mg or 30 mg monotherapy once daily (QD), or MTX monotherapy, for 12 wks. In SELECT-COMPARE, MTX-IR pts on stable background MTX received UPA 15 mg QD, PBO, or ADA 40 mg every 2 wks for 12 wks. For this analysis, responses at Wk 12 were defined as ≥50% improvement in the 7 components of the ACR response criteria. Among ACR50 responders, the proportions of pts with ≥50% improvement in all 7 components of the ACR criteria was assessed. The proportion of pts achieving TJC68=0 and SJC66=0 was also determined. All analyses were based on observed data without imputation.

Results:

947 pts were randomized in SELECT-EARLY, and 1629 pts in SELECT-COMPARE. Mean time since RA diagnosis was 2.7 years in SELECT-EARLY (median 6 months) and 8.2 years in SELECT-COMPARE; mean DAS28(CRP) was 5.9 and 5.8, respectively. In SELECT-EARLY, significantly more MTX-naïve pts receiving UPA 15 mg or 30 mg monotherapy achieved ≥50% improvements in all ACR components at Wk 12 compared with MTX (Figure 1a,Figure 1b). In SELECT-COMPARE, significantly more MTX-IR pts on UPA 15 mg + MTX achieved ≥50% improvement in the ACR components vs PBO (all components) and ADA + MTX (all components except SJC and PhGA). Among pts with ACR50 responses at Wk 12, approximately half of the MTX-naïve pts on UPA 15 mg and 30 mg in SELECT-EARLY had ≥50% improvements in all 5 remaining ACR components (pain, PtGA, PhGA, HAQ-DI, hsCRP) compared with 28% with MTX. Corresponding proportions in MTX-IR pts in SELECT-COMPARE were 34% for UPA 15 mg + MTX, 28% for ADA + MTX, and 17% for PBO. UPA treatment also significantly increased the proportions of pts achieving both TJC68=0 and SJC66=0 vs PBO or MTX, and SJC66=0 vs ADA + MTX (Figure 1a,Figure 1b).

Conclusion:

In MTX-naïve and MTX-IR pts, treatment responses at 12 wks occurred in significantly higher proportions of pts receiving UPA monotherapy vs MTX and UPA + MTX vs PBO for all 7 components of the ACR response criteria, and for 5 of 7 ACR components for UPA + MTX vs ADA + MTX. Favorable outcomes with UPA treatment were evident both in composite and individual parameters.

References:

[1]van Vollenhoven R, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2018;70(Suppl. 10): Abstract 891

[2]Fleischmann R, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2018;70(Suppl. 10): Abstract 890

Disclosure of Interests:

Ronald van Vollenhoven Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Arthrogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Biotest, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Andrew Ostor Consultant of: MSD, Pfizer, Lilly, Abbvie, Novartis, Roche, Gilead and BMS, Speakers bureau: MSD, Pfizer, Lilly, Abbvie, Novartis, Roche, Gilead and BMS, Eduardo Mysler Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, Sanofi, and Pfizer., Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, Sanofi, and Pfizer, Nemanja Damjanov Grant/research support from: from AbbVie, Pfizer, and Roche, Consultant of: AbbVie, Gedeon Richter, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Gedeon Richter, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche, In-Ho Song Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Yanna Song Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Jessica Suboticki Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., 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

Unmet needs in ankylosing spondylitis patients receiving tumour necrosis factor inhibitor therapy; results from a large multinational real-world study

Background

Symptoms and comorbidities of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) considerably reduce health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and ability to work. This real-world study assessed rates of tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) use and switching, treatment failure, and associations between failing TNFi and HRQoL, work productivity and activity impairment (WPAI).

Methods

AS patients and their treating physicians completed questionnaires capturing patient demographics, clinical status, TNFi treatment history, reasons for switching TNFi, HRQoL and WPAI. Current TNFi was determined as “failing” if, after ≥3 months, physician-rated disease severity had worsened, remained severe, was “unstable/deteriorating”, physicians were dissatisfied with disease control and/or did not consider treatment a “success”.

Results

The analysis included 2866 AS patients from 18 countries. Of 2795 patients with complete treatment data, 916 (32.8%) patients had never received TNFi therapy, 1623 (58.1%) patients were receiving their 1st TNFi and 200 (7.2%) patients had ever received ≥2 TNFi (treatment switch). Primary or secondary lack of efficacy were the commonest reasons for switching, and the mean delay in switching after primary lack of efficacy was 11.1 months. 232 (15.4%) patients on TNFi were currently “failing” who, compared to those with treatment success, reported poorer HRQoL: 5-dimension EuroQoL (EQ-5D-3 L): 0.63 vs. 0.78; Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form Health Survey version 2 (SF-36v2) mental component summary (MCS): 41.8 vs. 46.3; physical component summary (PCS): 40.2 vs. 45.1; impaired work productivity: 46.4% vs. 25.0%; and activity: 44.5% vs. 29.6%; all P < 0.001.

Conclusions

Among AS patients, switching TNFi is uncommon and delayed by nearly 1 year despite primary lack of efficacy. Patients currently failing TNFi experience worse physical function, HRQoL and work productivity.

Control of allergic rhinitis with MP-AzeFlu: a noninterventional study of a Swedish cohort

BACKGROUND

The European Union has prioritised allergic rhinitis (AR) control. A visual analogue scale (VAS) has been endorsed as the AR control language and embedded into the most recent MACVIA-ARIA guideline. This study assessed the effectiveness and safety of MP-AzeFlu using a VAS in a real-life study in Sweden.

METHODS

431 patients aged 12 years or over with ARIA-defined moderate to severe AR were included in this multicentre, prospective, non-interventional study and prescribed MP-AzeFlu. Patients assessed symptom severity using a VAS from 0 (not at all bothersome) to 100 mm (very bothersome) on Days 0, 1, 3 and 7, and after approximately 14 days in the morning before using MP-AzeFlu. Patients' perceived level of disease control was assessed on Day 3. The proportion of patients who achieved a defined VAS score cutoff for well- and partly controlled AR was also calculated.

RESULTS

MP-AzeFlu reduced mean (SD) VAS score from 67.9 (16.1) mm at baseline to 32.1 (22.8) mm on the last day. Results were consistent irrespective of severity, phenotype, patient age class or previous treatment. By Day 3, 84.0% of patients reported well- or partly controlled symptoms. Overall, 17.7%, 32.2%, 53.8% and 64.2% of patients achieved a 38 mm or greater "well-controlled" VAS score cutoff on Day 1, 3 and 7 and last day, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

MP-AzeFlu provided rapid, effective and sustained symptom control in patients with AR from Sweden in a realworld setting, aligning with EU and MACVIA-ARIA initiatives and supporting the effectiveness of MP-AzeFlu for AR treatment in real life.

Concomitant Renal and Hepatic Failure Treated by Polyacrylonitrile Membrane Hemodialysis

A patient with fulminant hepatic encephalopathy and acute renal failure progressively deteriorated following daily hemodialysis with a hollow fiber artificial kidney improved dramatically after an initial dialysis with a polyacrylonitrile membrane system. Following repetitive dialysis with this system the patient continued to improve and is well many months following discharge. His course during hemodialysis with membrane systems having different clearances for substances of various molecular weights suggests the hypothesis that a substance(s) with a molecular weight between 1,500 and 15,000 daltons is involved in the pathogenesis of hepatic encephalopathy and offers and additional therapeutic modality for his devastating disease.

A critical review of clinical trials in systemic lupus erythematosus

One challenge in caring for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a paucity of approved therapeutics for treatment of the diverse disease manifestations. In the last 60 years, only one drug, belimumab, has been approved for SLE treatment. Critical evaluation of investigator initiated and pharma-sponsored randomized controlled trials (RCTs) highlights barriers to successful drug development in SLE, including disease heterogeneity, inadequate trial size or duration, insufficient dose finding before initiation of large trials, handling of background medications, and choice of primary endpoint. Herein we examine lessons learned from landmark SLE RCTs and subsequent advances in trial design, as well as discuss efforts to address limitations in current SLE outcome measures that will improve detection of true therapeutic responses in future RCTs.

Impact of intensive treatment and remission on health-related quality of life in early and established rheumatoid arthritis

Objectives

To establish if using intensive treatment to reduce synovitis and attain remission in active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) improves all aspects of health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

Methods

A secondary analysis of two randomised clinical trials (CARDERA and TACIT) was undertaken. CARDERA randomised 467 patients with early active RA to different disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) regimens, including high-dose tapering corticosteroids. TACIT randomised 205 established patients with active RA to combination DMARDs (cDMARDs) or tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors (TNFis). Short-Form 36 (SF-36) measured HRQoL across eight domains, generating physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) component summary scores. Linear regression evaluated 6-month intensive treatment impacts. Mean SF-36 scores, stratified by end point disease activity category, were compared with age/gender-matched population scores.

Results

In CARDERA, intensive corticosteroid treatment gave significantly greater improvements in PCS but not MCS scores relative to placebo. In TACIT, all eight SF-36 domains had improvements from baseline exceeding minimal clinically important differences with cDMARDs and TNFis. Significantly greater improvements with TNFi relative to cDMARDs were reported in PCS only (p=0.034), after adjusting for covariates. Remission provided the best SF-36 profiles, but scores in physical functioning, role physical and general health in both trials remained below normative values. Patient global assessment of disease activity had a greater association with HRQoL than other disease activity score (DAS28) components.

Conclusions

Intensive corticosteroid treatment in early RA improves physical but not mental health, relative to placebo. In established RA, cDMARDs and TNFi provide similar improvements in HRQoL. As remission optimises but fails to normalise HRQoL, a focus on treatment strategies targeting HRQoL is required.

Trial registration numbers

CARDERA was registered as ISRCTN 32484878. TACIT was registered as ISRCTN 37438295; pre-results.

Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Epratuzumab in the Treatment of Moderate-to- Severe Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Results From an Open-Label Extension Study

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective was to assess the long-term safety of repeated courses of epratuzumab therapy in patients with moderate-to-severe systemic lupus erythematosus. Secondary objectives were to assess long-term efficacy and health-related quality of life (HRQOL).

METHODS

Eligible patients from the 12-week, phase IIb, randomized, placebo-controlled EMBLEM study enrolled into the open-label extension (OLE) study, SL0008. In the SL0008 study, patients received 1,200 mg epratuzumab infusions at weeks 0 and 2 of repeating 12-week cycles, plus standard of care. Safety measures included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and serious TEAEs. Efficacy measures included combined treatment response, the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group score, the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index score, and the physician's and patient's global assessment of disease activity. Total daily corticosteroid dose and HRQOL (by the Short Form 36 health survey) were also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 113 of the 203 patients (55.7%) who entered the SL0008 study continued epratuzumab therapy until study closure (total cumulative exposure: 381.3 patient-years, median exposure: 845 days, and maximum exposure: 1,185 days/approximately 3.2 years). TEAEs were reported in 192 patients (94.6%); most common were infections and infestations (68.0%, 138 patients). Serious TEAEs were reported in 51 patients (25.1%), and 14 patients (6.9%) had serious infections. In patients treated for 108 weeks (n = 116), the median corticosteroid dose was reduced from 10.0 mg/day at OLE screening to 5.0 mg/day at week 108. Improvements in efficacy and HRQOL measures in EMBLEM were maintained in the OLE, while placebo patients exhibited similar improvements in disease activity upon a switch to epratuzumab.

CONCLUSION

Open-label epratuzumab treatment was well tolerated for up to 3.2 years, and associated with sustained improvements in disease activity and HRQOL, while steroids were reduced.

Clinical trial design in systemic lupus erythematosus: lessons learned and future directions

Designing successful randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) poses many challenges. It remains difficult to correlate alterations in biologic markers with clinical outcome, especially when signs and symptoms are intermittent and broadly variable between patients. Disease activity indices were not designed specifically as outcome measures in RCTs, as they were developed in the context of longitudinal observational studies. Although all disease activity indices have been validatedagainsteach other and demonstratedto show change, organ system manifestations are variably weighted; fatigue and autoantibodytiters are scored in some and not in others. Due to the variability of the underlying disease course an assessment of disease activity may most accurately be portrayed as change over time, such as an area under the curve analysis. Another lesson learned is that ’responder indices’ proposed in the absence of prospective validation in RCTs do not function well. The argument can always be made that any response criteria will work if the treatment is effective;but without the precedent of a product specifically approved for use in SLE, this is hard to prove. The ACR/Systemic Lupus International Cooperating Clinics (SLICC) damage index was designed to score irreversible manifestations of disease or consequences of its treatment, provided they had been present for at least six months. The damage index may best be utilized to stratify patients or balance randomization at baseline. It may also be incorporated into an endpoint analysis, to ensure that treatment or disease associated deterioration in organ system function (that may be overlooked in scoring disease activity alone) has not occurred. Patient cohort data have demonstrated that the medical outcomes survey short form-36 (SF-36) reflected the effects of SLE better than other patient reported measures. Worsening SF-36 domain scores best correlate with higher disease activity, increased glucocorticoid doses and use of cytotoxic agents. It has been shown sensitive to change in RCTs and observationalcohorts, and reflects the impact of treatment with high dose glucocorticoids and immunosuppressiveagents, as well as end stage renal disease. There is now a body of data derived from RCTs in SLE. Albeit limited, yet to result in an approved therapy, evidence is accumulating that indicate ’early markers’ of response can be defined which may correlate with longer term clinical outcomes. This should inform us in our ongoing efforts to clinically test a broad variety of promising interventions.