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

Background

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

Objectives

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

Disclosure of Interests

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

Feed-derived iodine overrides environmental contribution to cow milk

Diets worldwide are deficient in iodine, leading to a range of undesirable health effects at the population level. Dairy products are a primary source of iodine in diets for those populations in which iodized salt is not systematically used or available. However, the flows of iodine through dairy agroecosystems are not well understood. The aim of this research was to investigate iodine flows though the dairy agroecosystem, including the influence of atmospheric depositional inputs, environmental variables, season, husbandry, and diet. Three farm-based sampling campaigns were carried out in this investigation, with milk, soil, silage, grass, and feed iodine determined by inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy, and nonparametric statistical analysis tests were conducted on data sets obtained. Natural iodine inputs into the environment are dominated by atmospheric deposition, which mainly from sea spray, and thus the location of farms relative to the coast and prevailing wind direction. Herbage and silage produced from grass-based systems strongly correlated with soil iodine, yet there was a strong disconnect between soil, forage, and feed and the milk that results. This was due to the levels of iodine in supplemental feeds being approximately 10-fold higher than those in forage-derived feeds. The practice of feed supplementation, accentuated by summer housing of cows, led to elevated milk iodine.

Comparison of screening questionnaires to identify psoriatic arthritis in a primary-care population: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Many questionnaires are available for assessment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), but there is little evidence comparing them.

OBJECTIVES

To test the proposed CONTEST questionnaire, which was developed to identify patients with psoriasis who have undiagnosed PsA, and compare it with the validated Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool (PEST) questionnaire in a primary-care setting.

METHODS

A random sample of adult patients with psoriasis and no diagnosis of arthritis was identified from five general practice surgeries in Yorkshire, U.K. Consenting patients completed both questionnaires and were assessed by a dermatologist and rheumatologist. Diagnosis of PsA was made by the assessing rheumatologist. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve analysis examined the sensitivity and specificity of potential cut points.

RESULTS

In total 932 packs were sent to recruit 191 (20·5%) participants. Of these, 169 (88·5%) were confirmed to have current or previous psoriasis. Using physician diagnosis 17 (10·1%) were found to have previously undiagnosed PsA, while 90 (53·3%) had another musculoskeletal complaint and 62 (36·7%) had no musculoskeletal problems. Using ROC curve analysis, all of the questionnaires showed a significant ability to identify PsA. The area under the curve (AUC) for the CONTEST questionnaires was slightly higher than that of PEST (0·69 and 0·70 vs. 0·65), but there was no significant difference identified. Examining the sensitivities and specificities for the different cut points suggested that a PEST score ≥ 2 would perform better in this dataset, and the optimal scores for CONTEST and CONTEST plus joint manikin were 3 and 4, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy of the questionnaires to identify PsA appeared similar, with a slightly higher AUC for the CONTEST questionnaires. The optimal cut points in this study appeared lower than in previous studies.

Surgical ward rounds: a missed opportunity for multidisciplinary working?

While guidelines have been established for doctors’ and nurses’ ward rounds, there is no protocol in place for surgeons.

Lithium in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (LiCALS): a phase 3 multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Background

Lithium has neuroprotective effects in cell and animal models of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and a small pilot study in patients with ALS showed a significant effect of lithium on survival. We aimed to assess whether lithium improves survival in patients with ALS.

Methods

The lithium carbonate in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (LiCALS) trial is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of oral lithium taken daily for 18 months in patients with ALS. Patients aged at least 18 years who had ALS according to the revised El Escorial criteria, had disease duration between 6 and 36 months, and were taking riluzole were recruited from ten centres in the UK. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either lithium or matched placebo tablets. Randomisation was via an online system done at the level of the individual by block randomisation with randomly varying block sizes, stratified by study centre and site of disease onset (limb or bulbar). All patients and assessing study personnel were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was the rate of survival at 18 months and was analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with Eudract, number 2008-006891-31.

Findings

Between May 26, 2009, and Nov 10, 2011, 243 patients were screened, 214 of whom were randomly assigned to receive lithium (107 patients) or placebo (107 patients). Two patients discontinued treatment and one died before the target therapeutic lithium concentration could be achieved. 63 (59%) of 107 patients in the placebo group and 54 (50%) of 107 patients in the lithium group were alive at 18 months. The survival functions did not differ significantly between groups (Mantel-Cox log-rank χ² on 1 df=1·64; p=0·20). After adjusting for study centre and site of onset using logistic regression, the relative odds of survival at 18 months (lithium vs placebo) was 0·71 (95% CI 0·40–1·24). 56 patients in the placebo group and 61 in the lithium group had at least one serious adverse event.

Interpretation

We found no evidence of benefit of lithium on survival in patients with ALS, but nor were there safety concerns, which had been identified in previous studies with less conventional designs. This finding emphasises the importance of pursuing adequately powered trials with clear endpoints when testing new treatments.

Funding

The Motor Neurone Disease Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.