[Implementation, of multidisciplinary consultations for patients with inflammatory arthritis and treated with subcutaneous biologic DMARDs: Assessment at one year and outlook]

INTRODUCTION

Biologics (bDMARDs) have revolutionized the prognosis of patients with inflammatory arthritis, but are not without serious side effects. The patient must be able to identify them, acquire self-care abilities or skills and adhere to their treatment. Multidisciplinary consultations, including a pharmaceutical consultation could improve the care of these patients. The pharmaceutical presence make it easier to switch to a biosimilar with etended patient support thanks to the community-hospital network. The return on investment is possible thanks to the more frequent use of biosimilars and the pricing of this type of consultation by the "Forfait de Prestation Intermédiaire".

METHODOLOGY

Eligible patients are patients with rheumatoid arthritis or spondyloarthritis, treated with subcutaneous bDMARDs. The criteria assessed were patient's knowledge of their biotherapy using the Biosecure score, their medication adherence using the CQR-5, the total of switch to biosimilars perform and the financial statement of the consultations. An assessment of the actions deployed for the community-hospital network.

RESULTS

Two hundred and ninety-five patients (47.4%) benefited multidisciplinary consultation. The mean score of the Biosecure score was 69.6/100 (moderate knowledge) and 261 patients (88.5%) were highly adherent. 57 patients (73%) accepted the switch to biosimilar. 197 pharmacy were contacted, all of witch for patients who receive the switch. Overall patient's satisfaction was 26.9/28.

CONCLUSION

Multidisciplinary consultations with involvement of the pharmacist should optimized patient care and the management of outpatients treated with bDMARDs. Patients have already expressed their satisfaction with this course of care and the return on investment is positive.

POS0967 THE IMPACT OF PSORIASIS ON THE CLINICAL CHARACTERISTICS, DISEASE BURDEN AND TREATMENT PATTERNS OF PERIPHERAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS: AN ANCILLARY ANALYSIS OF THE ASAS-perSpA STUDY

Background

Psoriasis (PsO) is one of the common extramusculoskeletal manifestations of spondyloarthritis (SpA). There is a natural overlap between peripheral SpA (pSpA) and psoriatic arthritis. However, there are several unmet needs in patients with pSpA who cannot be classified otherwise (i.e., patients without PsO and without axial involvement) due to a lack of formally approved treatment options and lack of evidence of efficacy of different drug classes in this specific population.

Objectives

To evaluate the clinical characteristics, disease burden, and treatment patterns of pSpA patients with and without PsO using data from the cross-sectional ASAS-perSpA study.

Methods

We analysed 433 patients who had a diagnosis of pSpA according to the rheumatologist’s diagnosis from the ASAS-perSpA cohort. A personal history of PsO was defined as the presence of signs of PsO on physical examination, psoriatic nail dystrophy, including onycholysis, pitting, and hyperkeratosis, or a personal history of PsO diagnosed by a dermatologist. Clinical characteristics, patient-reported outcomes and treatment patterns were compared between subgroups with and without PsO.

Results

A total of 83 patients (19.2%) had a personal history of PsO. Patients with PsO were older (48.4 vs. 43.2 years), had a longer diagnostic delay (7.4 vs. 3.5 years), a higher frequency of dactylitis (36.1 vs. 20.0%), and enthesitis (65.1 vs. 55.4%) than patients without PsO (Table 1). A longer diagnostic delay (odds ratio – OR=1.06 [95% CI 1.01-1.11]), lower HLA-B27 positivity (OR=0.31 [95% CI 0.15-0.65]), and higher frequency of enthesitis (OR=2.39 [95% CI 1.16-4.93]) were associated with the presence of PsO in the multivariable logistic regression analysis (Figure 1). Higher patient global assessment scores and lower use of bDMARD treatments were observed in patients without PsO as compared to patients with PsO.

Table 1.

Demographics and clinical characteristics of patients with pSpA according to the presence or absence of personal history of PsO

Total N=433Patients without personal history of PsO N=350Patients with personal history of PsO N=83p-valueAge, mean (SD)44.2 (14.4)43.2 (14.2)48.4 (14.5)0.005Sex (male)203/433 (46.9)167/350 (47.7)36/83 (43.4)0.541Symptom duration of SpA (years), mean (SD)10.1 (9.5)9.0 (8.8)14.4 (10.8)<0.001Diagnostic delay of SpA (years), mean (SD)4.3 (6.6)3.5 (5.9)7.4 (8.4)<0.001First- or second-degree relatives with SpA (except psoriasis)74/433 (17.1)61/350 (17.4)13/83 (15.7)0.871First- or second-degree relatives with psoriasis63/391 (16.1)29/308 (9.4)34/83 (41.0)<0.001Patients who fulfilled peripheral ASAS critieria95/433 (21.9)74/350 (21.1)21/83 (25.3)0.461Patients who fulfilled CASPAR critieria81/433 (18.7)12/350 (3.4)69/83 (83.1)<0.001Peripheral articular disease ever410/433 (94.7)335/350 (95.7)75/83 (90.4)0.059Any enthesitis in the past confirmed by specific investigations112/433 (25.9)81/350 (23.1)31/83 (37.3)0.045Current SPARCC Enthesitis Index score, mean (SD)0.4 (1.1)0.3 (0.9)0.6 (1.6)0.013Dactylitis ever100/433 (23.1)70/350 (20.0)30/83 (36.1)0.003HLA-B27 positive197/316 (62.3)179/269 (66.5)18/47 (38.3)<0.001CRP mg/L, mean (SD)13.9 (25.4)15.2 (26.9)8.5 (16.5)0.019PGA, mean (SD)4.5 (2.7)4.7 (2.7)3.9 (2.5)0.018Local injection of glucocorticoids for peripheral musculoskeletal involvement ever183/193 (94.8)156/159 (98.1)27/34 (79.4)<0.001csDMARDs ever384/433 (88.7)310/350 (88.6)74/83 (89.2)>0.999bDMARDs ever223/433 (51.5)164/350 (46.9)59/83 (71.1)<0.001bDMARDs current160/433 (37.0)119/350 (34.0)41/83 (49.4)0.011

Categorical variables were given as n/N (%)

Figure 1.

Association of demographic and clinical characteristics of pSpA with the presence of a personal history of PsO

Conclusion

The presence of skin PsO has an impact on clinical characteristics of pSpA. pSpA patients without PsO were less frequently treated with bDMARDs despite an comparable or even higher burden of the disease.

Acknowledgements

No disclosure

Disclosure of Interests

None declared

POS0976 IMPACT OF PATIENT AND DISEASE CHARACTERISTICS ON GLOBAL FUNCTIONING AND HEALTH IN PATIENTS WITH AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS: A BAYESIAN NETWORK ANALYSIS OF DATA FROM AN EARLY axSpA COHORT

Background

Current knowledge on the health status of patients (pts.) with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) mainly focusses on physical function and disease activity. Using a generic measure for physical- or mental health (SF36), a hierarchical relationship between disease activity, spinal damage, spinal mobility, physical function and overall health has been demonstrated in pts. with radiographic axSpA (r-axSpA) 1. Disease-specific global functioning and health can be assessed in pts. with axSpA using the ASAS Health Index (ASAS HI), which encompasses physical function, as well as aspects of emotional and social functioning and aspects of activity and participation.

Objectives

To build a structural model that visualizes interrelationships of different patient- and disease characteristics with global functioning and health in pts. with early axSpA.

Methods

Data of pts. with axSpA from the DESIR cohort was analyzed, which included information on socio-demographics (age, BMI), disease activity (ASDAS), physical function (BASFI), spinal mobility (BASMI), structural damage (mSASSS), disease-specific global functioning (ASAS HI), and comorbidity count. Information on patient- and disease characteristics was retrieved from the visit performed 72 months after inclusion, which was the first time point of ASAS HI collection. A Bayesian network (BN) was used to obtain insight of the underlying structural model. BNs are probabilistic graphical models consisting of “nodes” (representing specific variables) joined by “edges” (lines representing directions of effects). They are capable of capturing complex relationships between variables and allow the incorporation of existing (prior) knowledge from previous studies.

Results

The DESIR cohort contained data from 582 pts. at month 72, of whom 398 had data for ASAS HI. Descriptive information of these pts. is shown in Table 1. The mean ASAS HI was 5.7 (range: 0 - 16). Applying existing cut-offs for ASAS HI, 51% had ‘good’ global functioning (ASAS HI ≥5), 40% had ‘moderate’ global functioning (5< ASAS HI <12) and 9% had ‘bad’ global functioning (ASAS HI ≥12). The structural model that was constructed from combining data and prior expert knowledge is visualized in Figure 1. It suggests that ASDAS and BASFI have a direct impact on ASAS HI and that ASDAS has an indirect impact via BASFI. The model also suggests that ASDAS has an impact on the number of co-morbidities via BMI and that BASFI determines BASMI, which is in turn also influenced by age and mSASSS. In addition, it suggests a direct effect of age, BMI and ASAS HI on the comorbidity count. The model denies a relationship between BASMI or mSASSS and ASAS HI.

Table 1.

Patient and disease characteristics at month 72

N = 398Gender (male), N (%)181 (45%)Age (years)40.7 (8.7)Symptom duration (years)7.5 (0.9)BMI (kg/m2)25.0 (4.6)ASDAS2.0 (1.0)BASFI (0–10)2.3 (2.1)BASMI (0–10)2.5 (1.0)mSASSS (0-72)1.0 (3.6)ASAS HI (0-17)5.7 (3.9)good global functioning: ASAS HI ≤5, N (%)201 (51%)moderate global functioning: 5< ASAS HI <12, N (%)160 (40%)bad global functioning: ASAS HI ≥12, N (%)37 (9%)Comorbidity count1.4 (0.7)Figure 1.

Structural model on interrelationships of different patient- and disease characteristics with global functioning and health (ASAS HI) in patients with early axSpA

Conclusion

The BN-analysis approach, that combines prior knowledge and measured data, serves to better understand the construct of global functioning and health in pts. with early axSpA. Our model shows that global functioning (ASAS-HI) is determined both by patient-reported physical function (BASFI) and by disease activity (ASDAS), which confirms the hierarchical model once proposed by Machado et al. The observed directional relationship between ASAS HI and comorbidity count is counterintuitive and requires further investigation.

References

[1]Machado P, ARD 2011.

Disclosure of Interests

Imke Redeker: None declared, Robert B.M. Landewé Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, GSK Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, GSK Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Désirée van der Heijde Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bayer, BMS, Cyxone, Eisai, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bayer, BMS, Cyxone, Eisai, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bayer, BMS, Cyxone, Eisai, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Sofia Ramiro Speakers bureau: Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, UCB, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Galapagos, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Annelies Boonen Speakers bureau: Abbvie / Galapagos, Consultant of: Galapagos, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Maxime Dougados: None declared, Juergen Braun Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Boehringer, Celltrion, Chugai, Fresenius, Hexal, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer und UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Boehringer, Celltrion, Chugai, Fresenius, Hexal, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer und UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Boehringer, Celltrion, Chugai, Fresenius, Hexal, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer und UCB, Uta Kiltz Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Biocad, Biogen, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Hexal, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biocad, Biogen, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Hexal, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Biogen, Fresenius, Amgen, Hexal, Novartis, Pfizer

POS0300 FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH SECUKINUMAB (SEC) RETENTION IN AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS (axSpA): RESULTS OF THE FRENCH RETROSPECTIVE STUDY FORSYA

Background

While data on real-life SEC retention rate in patients (pts) with axSpA is accumulating, there are no data on predictive factors for this retention. Presence of objective sign of inflammation (OSI) are known to be predictive of efficacy of anti-TNFs and their retention in axSpA.

Objectives

To assess whether OSI were predictive of SEC retention at 1 year in axSpA.

Methods

French retrospective study collecting between October 2019 and September 2020 data from axSpA pts a) having initiated and received at least one dose of SEC between August 11th 2016 and August 31st 2018, b)with at least a one year follow-up period. Retention of SEC at 1 year was estimated by the Kaplan Meier (KM) method. OSI were defined by at least one of the following: CRP> N, MRI-inflammation at the sacroiliac or spine level. Preselected factors of SEC retention at 1 year (≥1 OSI, age, sex, BMI, smoking, HLA B27, non-radiographic vs radiographic axSpA, past or present uveitis / Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) / psoriasis / arthritis or synovitis, diagnostic delay, disease duration, SEC line of biologic therapy, SEC maintenance dose, concomitant csDMARD / oral corticosteroids / proton pomp inhibitor, history of depression / fibromyalgia) were analyzed by multivariate cox model regression. Only variables with <20% missing data were included in the model after imputation and stepwise selection (significance level for entering variables = 20%; for removing variables = 10%). OSI was forced into the model whatever its significance level or rate of missing data.

Results

In total, 906 pts from 47 centers (male: 42.2%, mean age: 46.2 ± 11.7 years, mean disease duration: 9,3 ± 9.1 years), were included in the analysis. At initiation of SEC, 86.3% of pts had ≥ 1 OSI and respectively 8.0%, 14.9% and 77.1% were in 1st, 2nd and ≥ 3rd line (L) of biologic/targeted synthetic DMARD. The 1 year KM survival rate for SEC was 59% [95%CI:55%-62%] overall, 58% [54%-62%] and 63% [53%-73%] for pts with or without OSI, and was numerically greater in 1st L vs 2nd and ≥3rd L (70% [59%-81%], 62% [54%-70%], 57% [53%-61%] respectively). In multivariate analysis absence of OSI, lack of prior exposure to anti-TNF inhibitors, absence of IBD, and absence of history of depression were associated with a better SEC retention at 1 year (Table 1).

Table 1.

Predictive factors of SEC 1 year retention identified by multivariate cox regression analysis (multiple imputation + stepwise selection)

Predictive factors (* reference)Still on SEC at 1 Year (%)#HR [95% CI]p vs refp type III≥ 1 objective sign of inflammationNo (N=165)*65.3%yes (N=711)58.8%1.44 [1.08; 1.93]0.014SEC treatment line1st L (N=68)*72.2%0.0842nd L (N=132)62.7%1.53 [0.91; 2.57]0.107≥ 3rd L (N=676)57.6%1.67 [1.06; 2.62]0.028Past or present history of IBDNo (N=854)*59.8%Yes (N=22)40.9%1.76 [1.01; 3.07]0.047History of depression or anti-depressive concomitant treatmentNo (N=716)*60.8%Yes (N=160)54.5%1.25 [0.97; 1.60]0.090

# without imputation for missing data

Interpretation HR > 1: the hazard of discontinuation at 1 year is X times higher vs reference

Conclusion

The overall retention of SEC at 1 year in daily practice at the time of its launch in France was 59% for axSpA patients and OSI, prior exposure to TNF inhibitors, IBD and history of depression were identified as predictive factors of SEC retention.

Acknowledgements

Authors thank the participating investigators, centers and patients. NOVARTIS Pharma France financially supported this study.

Disclosure of Interests

Maxime Dougados Consultant of: Honorarium from Novartis Pharma France, Julien Lucas: None declared, Emilie Desfleurs Employee of: Novartis employee, Pascal Claudepierre Consultant of: Honorarium from Novartis Pharma France, Philippe Goupille Consultant of: Honorarium from Novartis Pharma France, Adeline Ruyssen-Witrand Consultant of: Honorarium from Novartis Pharma France, Alain Saraux Consultant of: Honorarium from Novartis Pharma France, Anne Tournadre Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Fresenius-Kabi, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Fresenius-Kabi, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Fresenius-Kabi, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, Sanofi, Daniel Wendling Consultant of: Honorarium from Novartis Pharma France, Cédric Lukas Consultant of: Honorarium from Novartis Pharma France

POS0972 MOST DISEASE OUTCOME MEASURES BUT NOT ASDAS ARE INFLUENCED BY GENDER IN PATIENTS WITH AXIAL SpA: RESULTS FROM ASAS-PerSpA

Background

There is growing evidence revealing that females report worse patient-reported outcomes compared to males in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). However, in which precise outcomes there is a meaningful difference across gender and whether this also occurs in patients with peripheral spondyloarthritis (pSpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is not fully understood.

Objectives

To investigate the influence of gender on disease outcomes in patients with SpA, including axSpA, pSpA and PsA, in a worldwide setting.

Methods

Data from 4185 patients with axSpA, pSpA or PsA from the ASAS-PerSpA study were analysed. The ASAS-PerSpA is a cross-sectional study that recruited consecutive patients with SpA (according to their rheumatologist) from 24 countries. Associations between gender and disease activity [Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (BASDAI), C-reactive protein (CRP)], function [Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI)], and overall health [ASAS-Health Index (ASAS HI), European Quality of Life Five Dimension (EQ-5D)] were investigated. Multilevel (country) univariable and multivariable linear mixed models were used. Interactions between gender and disease phenotype (SpA, pSpA and PsA) were analysed, and if relevant, models were stratified by disease subtype. Models were adjusted for relevant confounders (Table 1).

Table 1.

Multivariable multilevel model by disease phenotype

OutcomeDeterminant of interestDisease phenotypeAxSpApSpAPsAASDAS +Gender (female vs male)0.02 (-0.07, 0.11)0.36 (0.15, 0.58)0.25 (0.12, 0.38)BASDAI *0.39 (0.20, 0.58)1.22 (0.77, 1.69)0.88 (0.59, 1.16)BASFI -0.01 (-0.14, 0.17)0.30 (-0.12, 0.71)0.46 (0.20, 0.72)CRP^-1.36 (-3.17, 0.44)ASAS-HI#0.90 (0.70, 1.10)EQ-5D°-0.02(-0.03, -0.01)

All models are adjusted by age, gender and education.

+Also adjusted for marital status, BMI, smoking, axial involvement, peripheral arthritis, enthesitis, fibromyalgia, NSAIDs, steroids, csDMARDs, bDMARDs

* Also adjusted for marital status, BMI, smoking, axial involvement, peripheral arthritis, enthesitis, psoriasis, fibromyalgia, NSAIDs, bDMARDs

- Also adjusted for marital status, BMI, ASDAS, radiographic damage, fibromyalgia, NSAIDs, bDMARDs

^ Also adjusted for marital status, BMI, radiographic damage, concomitant NSAIDs, steroids, csDMARDs

# Also adjusted for smoking, ASDAS, BASFI, peripheral arthritis, enthesitis, fibromyalgia

° Also adjusted for BMI, smoking, ASDAS, BASFI, radiographic damage, HLA-B27, enthesitis, fibromyalgia

Results are expressed in β (95% CI). Estimates with p<0.05 are highlighted in bold

Results

In total, 4185 patients were included, of which 2719, 1033 and 433 had a diagnosis of axSpA (mean age 42 years, 32% female), PsA (mean age 52 years, 52% female) and pSpA (mean age 44 years, 53% female), respectively. A significant interaction between gender and disease phenotype was found for ASDAS, BASDAI and BASFI. Multivariable models for each outcome are shown in Table 1 (stratified by disease phenotype). While being female independently contributed to higher BASDAI across the three disease phenotypes (though with varying magnitude), female gender was only associated with higher ASDAS in pSpA [β (95% CI): 0.36 (0.15, 0.58)] and PsA [0.25 (0.12, 0.38)] but not in axSpA [0.016 (-0.07, 0.11)]. Female gender was associated with higher BASFI in PsA [0.46 (0.20, 0.72)]. No associations were observed between gender and CRP levels. Female gender was associated with higher ASAS-HI [0.90 (0.70, 1.10)] and EQ5D [-0.02 (-0.03, -0.01)], without significant differences across disease phenotype.

Conclusion

Female gender was associated with less favorable outcomes across the SpA spectrum, except for CRP in which there were no differences between gender. While female gender influenced BASDAI across disease phenotypes, ASDAS was not associated with gender in axSpA. These results suggests that ASDAS should be the preferred instrument in clinical practice both for females and males with axSpA.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all ASAS-perSpA investigators and members of the scientific committee.

Disclosure of Interests

Diego Benavent Speakers bureau: Janssen, Roche, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Dafne Capelusnik Speakers bureau: Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Sofia Ramiro Speakers bureau: Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Galapagos, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Anna Moltó Consultant of: Abbvie, UCB, Novartis, Gilead, Pfizer, Lilly y Janssen, Grant/research support from: UCB, Clementina López-Medina Speakers bureau: Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, UCB and Abbvie, Maxime Dougados: None declared, Victoria Navarro-Compán Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie and Novartis

OP0052 THE EFFECT OF TOFACITINIB ON RESIDUAL PAIN IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS AND PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS WITH COMPLETE CONTROL OF INFLAMMATION

Background

Residual pain often remains in patients (pts) with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who achieve low disease activity or remission.1,2 Tofacitinib is an oral JAK inhibitor for the treatment of RA and PsA. A descriptive analysis showed that tofacitinib may have a beneficial effect on residual pain in pts with PsA with abrogated inflammation.3

Objectives

To assess efficacy of tofacitinib, adalimumab (ADA) and placebo (PBO) on residual pain in pts with RA and PsA with abrogated inflammation, using a network meta-analysis (NMA).

Methods

Data were pooled from 9 randomised clinical trials of pts with RA (NCT00960440/NCT00847613/NCT00814307/NCT00856544/NCT00853385/NCT01039688/NCT02187055) or PsA (NCT01877668/NCT01882439). This analysis included pts who received ≥1 dose of tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID), ADA 40 mg once every 2 weeks or PBO with background therapy, and had abrogated inflammation (swollen joint count [SJC] = 0 and C-reactive protein [CRP] <6 mg/L) at Month (M)3. ADA was included in NCT00853385/NCT02187055/NCT01877668; NCT02187055 performed tofacitinib/ADA non-inferiority/superiority comparisons. Primary outcome was pt assessment of Pain (visual analogue scale [VAS] 0 [no pain] – 100 mm [most severe pain]) at M3; scores were summarised descriptively; treatment comparisons were assessed by Bayesian NMA on individual pt-level data, accounting for within-trial imbalances and treatment effect modifiers.

Results

Abrogated inflammation at M3 was achieved in 14.1% (328/2330), 14.9% (87/585) and 3.0% (20/673) of RA and 22.7% (54/238), 29.2% (31/106) and 12.7% (30/236) of PsA pts receiving tofacitinib, ADA and PBO, respectively. RA and PsA pts receiving tofacitinib/ADA had higher CRP vs pts receiving PBO. RA pts receiving tofacitinib/ADA had lower SJC and longer disease duration vs pts receiving PBO. PsA pts receiving tofacitinib had a longer disease duration and higher Pain VAS vs pts receiving ADA/PBO. In both groups, a lower % of female pts received tofacitinib/ADA vs PBO (Table 1). Observed median (Q1; Q3) values for Pain VAS at M3 were 17.0 (6.0; 31.0), 19.0 (7.0; 31.0) and 33.5 (7.0; 48.0) in RA and 24.0 (8.0; 44.0), 21.0 (9.0; 49.0) and 27.0 (8.0; 52.0) in PsA pts treated with tofacitinib, ADA or PBO, respectively. Differences between active treatments and PBO were less prominent in PsA vs RA pts, per posterior probability values (Fig).

Table 1.

Demographics and baseline characteristics of pts with abrogated inflammation at M3

RAPSATofacitinib 5 mg BID (N=328)ADAa 40 mg Q2W (N=87)PBO(N=20)Tofacitinib 5 mg BID (N=54)ADAa 40 mg Q2W (N=31)PBO(N=30)Age, yrs, mean (SD)50.7(12.8)49.2(13.9)44.6(9.9)51.1(11.7)47.4(11.6)49.7(11.6)Female, %79.077.090.044.435.570.0Weight, kg, mean (SD)68.9(16.9)72.5(21.8)71.4(25.0)89.1(22.7)83.2(19.0)76.7(15.7)Disease duration, yrs, median (Q1; Q3)4.8(1.4; 9.5)5.8(2.4; 11.1)2.6(1.7; 8.5)7.8(4.0; 14.3)2.7(1.0; 6.0)4.3(2.7; 10.0)SJC, median(Q1; Q3)9.0(7.0; 14.0)8.0(6.0; 12.0)10.5(9.0; 19.5)6.0(4.0; 10.0)5.0(4.0; 8.0)5.0(4.0; 7.0)CRP, mg/L, median (Q1; Q3)8.0(3.6; 20.0)8.6(3.6; 15.7)3.9(1.4; 6.4)3.7(1.1; 9.2)3.6(1.2; 12.5)2.2(1.2; 4.5)Pain VAS, median (Q1; Q3)57.0(39.0; 72.7)52.5(35.0; 69.0)62.0(38.5; 67.0)58.0(51.0; 75.0)48.0(36.0; 65.0)48.5(21.0; 61.0)

aADA was included in NCT00853385/NCT02187055/NCT01877668; NCT02187055 performed tofacitinib/ADA non-inferiority/superiority comparisons.

N, number of pts; Q1, 1st quartile (25th percentile); Q2W, once every 2 weeks; Q3, 3rd quartile (75th percentile); SD, standard deviation.

Conclusion

In this NMA, pts with RA and PsA achieving abrogated inflammation with tofacitinib or ADA at M3 had greater residual pain reduction vs those receiving PBO. This may imply that tofacitinib/ADA have analgesic benefits beyond those related to inflammation reduction.

References

[1]Michaud et al. Arthritis Care Res 2021; 73: 1606-1616.

[2]Kilic et al. Rheumatol Int 2019; 39: 73-81.

[3]Dougados et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2019; 71 (S10): Abs 1502.

Acknowledgements

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

Disclosure of Interests

Maxime Dougados Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer Inc and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer Inc and UCB, Peter C. Taylor Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Sanofi and UCB, Grant/research support from: Celgene and Galapagos, Clifton Bingham Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer Inc and Sanofi/Genzyme, Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lara Fallon Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Yves Brault Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Satrajit Roychoudhury Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Lisy Wang Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Meriem Kessouri Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc.

POS0148 SPARCC, MASES, LEI AND MEI INDEXES CAPTURE DIFFERENT PATIENTS WITH ENTHESITIS IN AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS, PERIPHERAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS AND PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS

Background

Spondyloarthritis, (axial (axSpA), peripheral (pSpA)) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA)) share enthesitis as a hallmark clinical feature. Reliable clinical instruments have been developed to assess enthesitis: Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada Enthesitis (SPARCC), Leeds Enthesitis Index (LEI), Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesitis Score (MASES) and MEI (Mander Enthesitis Index). Since these four indexes include different enthesis locations, they may capture a different number of patients with enthesitis in the different SpA entities.

Objectives

a) To describe the individual locations of enthesitis in axSpA, pSpA and PsA; b) to evaluate whether the prevalence of patients with at least one enthesitis across the three groups differs depending on the use of SPARCC, LEI, MASES and MEI indexes; c) to evaluate the level of agreement between these indexes for detecting patients with at least one enthesitis in axSpA, pSpA and PsA populations.

Methods

PerSpA was a multinational observational, cross-sectional study with 24 participating countries worldwide. A total of 4185 patients with a diagnosis of axSpA (2719), pSpA (433) and PsA (1033) according to the Rheumatologist’s opinion were included in this analysis. Information on the location of enthesitis collected during the study visit was used according to the SPARCC, LEI, MASES and MEI indexes.

The prevalence of patients with at least one enthesitis according to the different indexes were compared across the diseases (axSpA, PsA and pSpA), and pair-wise agreement between indexes were evaluated using the Cohen’s kappa in the global population and in the three groups.

Results

Out of 36 locations, the most prevalent enthesitis in the overall population were the lumbar spinous processes (6.5%), the thoracic spinous processes (4.9%) and the insertion of the Achilles tendon right (4.8%) and left (3.9%). A total of 10.7%, 8.3%, 13.5% and 17.2% of patients in the overall population showed at least one enthesitis according to the SPARCC, LEI, MASES and MEI indexes, respectively. Figure 1 shows that, among patients with axSpA, MEI and MASES indexes capture the majority of patients with at least one enthesitis (98.7% and 82.4%, respectively), while in pSpA and PsA, MEI and SPARCC are the indexes which capture the majority of patients with enthesitis (100% and 84.6% for MEI and SPARCC in pSpA, and 97.3% and 77% for MEI and SPARCC in PsA, respectively). In PsA, the LEI only captured 57.2% of the patients with at least one enthesitis. In the total population, MASES and MEI showed the strongest agreement for patients with at least one enthesitis (absolute agreement 96.3%; Cohen’s kappa: 0.86). Similarly, among axSpA patients, MASES and MEI showed an almost perfect agreement (97.3%; 0.90), while LEI and MEI showed a moderate agreement (90.4%; 0.54). In pSpA patients, SPARCC and MEI showed the strongest agreement (97.2%; 0.90), as well as among PsA patients (95.4%; 0.82). However, MASES and SPARCC showed a less agreement in PsA patients (94.2%; 0.67).

Figure 1.

Prevalence of enthesitis captured by different indexes.

Conclusion

The most prevalent locations of enthesitis on the global SpA population are the lumbar spinous processes, the thoracic spinous processes and Achilles tendon. MEI and MASES are the two index that capture more patients with enthesitis in axSpA, while MEI and SPARCC are the two index that capture more patients in pSpA and PsA. The LEI index may underestimate the prevalence of enthesitis in these patients. MASES and MEI showed the largest level of agreement in the overall population and in axSpA, while MEI and SPARCC showed the largest level of agreement in pSpA and PsA. These results suggest that the prevalence of enthesitis across entities differs depending on the disease and on the use of the different index.

References

[1]Heuft-Dorenbosch L, et al. Assessment of enthesitis in ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 2003;62:127-132

Disclosure of Interests

None declared

POS0147 DETERMINANTS OF GENERAL HEALTH AND HEALTH RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE IN AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS, PERIPHERAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS AND PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: RESULTS FROM THE ASAS-PerSpA STUDY

Background

Axial Spondyloarthritis (axSpA), peripheral Spondyloarhritis (pSpA) and Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) are different types of SpA, with large heterogeneity in clinical manifestations. It is crucial to understand which are the determinants of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and general health (GH, global functioning and health) in axSpA, pSpA and PsA, which can lead to differential approaches and interventions, to attain better outcomes.

Objectives

This study aims to identify and compare determinants of HRQoL and GH in axSpA, pSpA and PsA, using data from the PerSpA study.

Methods

Data from the ASAS-PerSpA study, a cross-sectional and multicenter study with 24 participating countries, was used. Patients with either axSpA, pSpA or PsA were enrolled. Sociodemographic, lifestyle, anthropometric, and clinical characteristics were collected. Univariable and multivariable regression models for the three groups were performed separately, to explore factors associated with HRQoL, assessed by EuroQoL-5 Dimensions 3 level (EQ-5D), and similar analysis was performed for GH, assessed by the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society Health Index (ASAS-HI).

Results

4185 patients were included in the analyses. For the final models, only patients with complete data were included (results summarized in Table 1). Regarding HRQoL, worse HRQoL in axSpA was associated with female gender, fibromyalgia (FM), peripheral disease (PD), worse function and higher disease activity (DA) and patient’s global assessment (PGA), in pSpA with worse function, higher DA and higher non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs intake score (NSAIDs-IS), and in PsA with female gender, axial involvement, worse function, higher DA and glucocorticoid therapy. On the contrary, better HRQoL was associated in axSpA with a history of uveitis, in pSpA with older age (with a trend in axSpA and PsA, but not statistically significant) and in PsA with biologic therapy. Regarding GH, in axSpA, worse GH was associated with female gender, FM, PD, worse function and higher DA and PGA, in pSpA, with female gender, inflammatory bowel disease, worse function, treatment with conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug and higher NSAIDs-IS, in PsA with female gender, alcohol intake, FM, axial involvement, worse function and higher DA. On the contrary, better GH was associated in axSpA with university education (UE), higher BMI and higher NSAIDs-IS, in pSpA with UE, and in PsA with older age and UE.

Table 1.

Factors associated with HRQoL and GH stratified by diagnostic category (summarized)

EQ-5DASAS-HIaxSpAn= 2698 R2=0.548pSpAn= 418R2=0.520PsAn= 1017R2=0.551axSpAn= 2700R2=0.539pSpAn= 418R2=0.545PsAn= 1016R2=0.560p-valuep-valuep-valuep-valuep-valuep-valueFemale gender0.1460.017<0.0010.001<0.001Age0.0540.0480.0760.0560.4960.003University education0.060NS0.8750.0390.044<0.001BMI0.4280.1160.2070.0040.6460.309Ever alcohol intake0.072NS0.7960.5310.5390.035Fibromyalgia<0.0010.4730.052<0.0010.692<0.001Uveitis0.028NS0.832NSNS0.225IBDNSNS0.341NS0.0250.657Axial diseaseNS0.8670.003NSNS0.006Peripheral disease0.039NSNS<0.001NSNSPGA<0.001**<0.001**BASFI<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001ASDAS-CRP<0.001NANA<0.001NANADAS44-CRPNS<0.001<0.001NA0.349<0.001csDMARD0.1560.796NS0.2330.002NSbDMARD0.4910.8960.0210.901NSNSGlucocorticoids0.2950.9880.0350.6920.8030.814NSAID intake score0.998<0.0010.6590.0110.0280.685

NS – not significant in univariable model; NA – not applicable; * - colinear with DAS44-

Conclusion

In all types of SpA, DA and function are major determinants of HRQoL, passible of tight monitoring and therapeutic intervention. In GH, besides DA and function, socio-demographic factors, like gender and education, also play an important role, in all forms of SpA, highlighting the importance of a holistic approach of the individual patient in order to achieve better outcomes.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all ASAS-PerSpA investigators and members of the scientific committee.

Disclosure of Interests

None declared

POS0674 RISK FACTORS FOR MAJOR ADVERSE CARDIOVASCULAR EVENTS IN PATIENTS AGED ≥50 YEARS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS AND ≥1 ADDITIONAL CARDIOVASCULAR RISK FACTOR: A POST HOC ANALYSIS OF ORAL SURVEILLANCE

Background

ORAL Surveillance (NCT02092467) was a post-approval safety study of tofacitinib vs TNF inhibitors (TNFi) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients (pts) aged ≥50 yrs with ≥1 additional cardiovascular (CV) risk factor and an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX).

Objectives

To identify independent risk factors for major adverse CV events (MACE) in ORAL Surveillance.

Methods

Pts on stable MTX were randomised 1:1:1 to receive tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID) or a TNFi (adalimumab 40 mg every 2 weeks or etanercept 50 mg once weekly). Incidence rates (IRs; pts with first events/100 pt-yrs) and hazard ratios (HRs; tofacitinib vs TNFi) were assessed for adjudicated MACE (total/fatal/non-fatal), sudden cardiac death, and total/fatal/non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke. Post hoc univariate Cox model analyses identified potentially independent baseline (BL) risk factors for MACE across treatments; those with p<0.10 were entered into a multivariate Cox model using backward selection (p<0.10 stay criteria). MACE HRs were produced for subgroups for BL risk factors with p<0.05 in the final multivariate Cox model.

Results

4362 pts were included (tofacitinib 5 mg BID, n=1455; tofacitinib 10 mg BID, n=1456; TNFi, n=1451). IRs for total/fatal/non-fatal MACE, sudden cardiac death, and total/non-fatal MI were higher with tofacitinib vs TNFi (Table 1). Fatal MI and stroke (including fatal/non-fatal events) IRs were similar across treatments (Table 1). Total MACE and MI IRs and risk were higher with tofacitinib vs TNFi (HRs >1) and higher for non-fatal MI for tofacitinib 5 mg BID (Table 1). Current smoking, aspirin use, history of chronic lung disease, history of diabetes, male sex and older age were BL risk factors for MACE. While MACE risk was generally higher with tofacitinib vs TNFi across all BL risk factors, increased risk was clearest in current/past smokers (vs never smoked) and aspirin users (vs non-users) (Figure 1). When age and smoking status were considered in combination, pts aged ≥65 yrs or who had ever smoked had a particularly elevated MACE risk vs never smokers aged ≥50–<65 yrs (Figure 1).

Table 1.

MACE, MI and stroke IRs (pts with first events/100 pt-yrs; 95% CI) and HRs (tofacitinib vs TNFi; 95% CI)

Tofacitinib 5 mg BID(N=1455)Tofacitinib 10 mg BID(N=1456)TNFi(N=1451)nIRHRnIRHRnIR(95% CI)(95% CI)(95% CI)(95% CI)(95% CI)MACE470.911.24511.051.43370.73(0.67, 1.21)(0.81, 1.91)(0.78, 1.38)(0.94, 2.18)(0.52, 1.01)Fatal MACE140.271.14190.391.63120.24(0.15, 0.45)(0.53, 2.47)(0.23, 0.60)(0.79, 3.36)(0.12, 0.41)Non-fatal MACE330.641.29320.661.33250.50(0.44, 0.90)(0.77, 2.17)(0.45, 0.93)(0.79, 2.24)(0.32, 0.73)Sudden cardiac death100.191.22130.261.6780.16(0.09, 0.35)(0.48, 3.10)(0.14, 0.45)(0.69, 4.04)(0.07, 0.31)MI190.371.69190.391.80110.22(0.22, 0.57)(0.80, 3.55)(0.23, 0.61)(0.85, 3.77)(0.11, 0.39)Fatal MI00NI30.061.0330.06(0.00, 0.07)(0.01, 0.18)(0.21, 5.11)(0.01, 0.17)Non-fatal MI190.372.32160.332.0880.16(0.22, 0.57)(1.02, 5.30)a(0.19, 0.53)(0.89, 4.86)(0.07, 0.31)Stroke180.351.03180.371.10170.34(0.21, 0.55)(0.53, 2.00)(0.22, 0.58)(0.57, 2.13)(0.20, 0.54)Fatal stroke40.08NI20.04NI00.00(0.02, 0.20)(0.00, 0.15)(0.00, 0.07)Non-fatal stroke140.270.80160.330.97170.34(0.15, 0.45)(0.40, 1.63)(0.19, 0.53)(0.49, 1.93)(0.20, 0.54)

aHR 95% CI excludes 1.

Data collected after pts who were randomised to tofacitinib 10 mg BID had their dose reduced to 5 mg. BID were included in the tofacitinib 10 mg BID group

. HRs (95% CI) were not informative when one of the treatments in the comparison had 0 events.

Risk period was defined as time from first dose to last dose +60 days or to the last contact date, whichever was earlier.

CI, confidence interval; NI, non-informative

Conclusion

MACE IRs and risk were higher with tofacitinib vs TNFi in ORAL Surveillance. BL risk factor findings could aid identification of RA pts with potentially highest risk for MACE, with a view to informing treatment decisions.

Acknowledgements

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

Disclosure of Interests

Christina Charles-Schoeman Consultant of: AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer Inc and Sanofi-Regeneron, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer Inc, Maya H Buch Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, MSD, Pfizer Inc and Roche, Grant/research support from: Pfizer Inc, Roche and UCB, Maxime Dougados Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche and UCB, Deepak L Bhatt Grant/research support from: Abbott, Afimmune, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardax, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Eli Lilly, Eisai, Ethicon, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Forest Laboratories, Fractyl, HLS Therapeutics, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Janssen, Lexicon, Medtronic, MyoKardia, Novo Nordisk, Owkin, Pfizer Inc, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Synaptic and The Medicines Company, Jon T Giles Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Gilead Sciences and UCB, Grant/research support from: Pfizer Inc, Steven R. Ytterberg Consultant of: Corbus Pharmaceuticals, Kezar Life Sciences and Pfizer Inc, Gary G Koch Shareholder of: IQVIA, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Acceleron, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Cytokinetics, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Huya Bioscience International, Johnson & Johnson, Landos Biopharma, Merck, Momentum, Novartis, Otsuka, Pfizer Inc, Sanofi and vTv Therapeutics, Employee of: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Ivana Vranic Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Ltd, Joseph Wu Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Cunshan Wang Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Sujatha Menon Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Jose L. Rivas Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer SLU, Arne Yndestad Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Carol A. Connell Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Zoltán Szekanecz Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche and Sanofi, Paid instructor for: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gedeon Richter, Novartis, Pfizer Inc and Roche, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche and Sanofi

AB0760 Factors associated with the retention of secukinumab (SEC) in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in real world practice: Results from the retrospective FORSYA study

Background

While data on real-life retention of SEC in patients (pts) with PsA is accumulating, there are no data on predictive factors for this retention.

Objectives

The primary objective of FORSYA study was to assess whether objective signs of inflammation (OSI) were predictive of SEC retention at 1 year.

Methods

French retrospective study collecting between October 2019 and September 2020 data from axSpA pts a) having initiated and received at least one dose of SEC between August 11th 2016 and August 31st 2018, b)with at least a one year follow-up period. Retention of SEC at 1 year was estimated by the Kaplan Meier (KM) method. OSI were defined by at least one of the following within the 3 months before initiation of SEC: CRP> N, confirmed clinical dactylitis, confirmed clinical synovitis or ultrasonography power-Doppler positive synovitis except on MTP of first toe. Preselected factors at initiation of SEC retention at 1 year (≥1 OSI, age, sex, BMI, smoking status, axial feature, past or present psoriasis / uveitis / Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) / active arthritis or synovitis, diagnostic delay, disease duration, SEC line of biologic therapy, SEC maintenance dose, concomitant csDMARD, concomitant oral corticosteroids, ≥1 comorbidity) were analyzed by multivariate cox model regression. Only variables with <20% missing data were included in the model after imputation and stepwise selection (significance level for entering variables = 20%; for removing variables = 10%). OSI was forced into the model whatever its significance level or rate of missing data.

Results

In total, 475 pts (male: 40.2%, mean age: 51.9 ± 12.2 years, mean disease duration: 9.3 ± 8.6 years) from 48 centers were included in the analysis. At initiation of SEC, 62.2% of pts had ≥ 1 OSI and respectively 11.0%, 19.5% and 69.6% were in 1st, 2nd and ≥ 3rd line (L) of biologic/targeted synthetic DMARD. The overall 1 year KM survival rate for SEC was 63% [95%CI: 59%-68%] and was numerically greater in 1st L vs 2nd and ≥3rd L (82% [72%-93%], 62% [52-72%], 61% [56%-66%] respectively). The overall survival rates for PsA pts with or without OSI were 62% [56%-68%] and 71% [62%-80%]. In multivariate analysis, absence of OSI, longer disease duration and lack of prior exposure to anti-TNF inhibitors were associated with a better SEC retention at 1 year (Table 1).

Table 1.

Predictive factors of SEC 1 year retention of SEC identified by multivariate cox regression analysis (multiple imputation + Stepwise selection)

Predictive factors (* reference)HR [95% CI]p vs refp type IIIAt least one objective sign of inflammationNo (N=175)*Yes (N=295)1.46 [1.05; 2.02]0.023Disease duration (years)≤ 7.2 years (N=241)*> 7.2 years (N=229)0.69 [0.51; 0.94]0.017Secukinumab treatment line1st L (N=50)*0.0152nd L (N=92)2.43 [1.17; 5.05]0.018≥ 3rd L (N=328)2.72 [1.38; 5.36]0.004

Interpretation for predictor: HR> 1: the hazard of discontinuation at 1 year is X times higher in category vs reference.

Conclusion

The overall retention of SEC at 1 year in daily practice at the time of its launch in France was 63% for PsA patients and OSI, disease duration and prior exposure to TNF inhibitors were identified as predictive factors of SEC retention.

Acknowledgements

Authors thank all participating investigators, centers and patients. This study was financially supported by NOVARTIS Pharma France.

Disclosure of Interests

Adeline Ruyssen-Witrand Consultant of: honorarium fees from Novartis France, Julien Lucas: None declared, Emilie Desfleurs Employee of: Novartis, Pascal Claudepierre Consultant of: Honorarium fees from Novartis France, Maxime Dougados Consultant of: honorarium fees from Novartis France, Philippe Goupille Consultant of: honorarium fees from Novartis France, Cédric Lukas Consultant of: honorarium fees from Novartis France, Alain Saraux Consultant of: honorarium fees from Novartis France, Anne Tournadre Consultant of: honorarium fees from Novartis France, Daniel Wendling Consultant of: honorarium fees from Novartis France

OP0264 IMPACT OF BASELINE CARDIOVASCULAR RISK ON THE INCIDENCE OF MAJOR ADVERSE CARDIOVASCULAR EVENTS IN THE TOFACITINIB RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS CLINICAL PROGRAMME

Background

Results from ORAL Surveillance, a post-authorisation safety study, indicated that patients (pts) with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) aged ≥50 yrs with ≥1 additional cardiovascular (CV) risk factor have an increased risk of major adverse CV events (MACE) with tofacitinib vs tumour necrosis factor inhibitors.1

Objectives

To evaluate the impact of baseline (BL) CV risk on MACE in the wider tofacitinib RA clinical programme.

Methods

Data for pts who received ≥1 tofacitinib dose in 21 Phase 1–3b/4 (excluding ORAL Surveillance) and 2 long-term extension tofacitinib RA studies were pooled and analysed post hoc as two cohorts: (1) overall cohort and (2) CV risk-enriched cohort (pts aged ≥50 yrs with ≥1 additional CV risk factor [current smoker, hypertension, HDL-cholesterol <40 mg/dL, diabetes mellitus, history of myocardial infarction (MI) or coronary heart disease (CHD)]). Data were summarised by average tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID; average total daily dose of <15 or ≥15 mg, respectively). Incidence rates (IRs; pts with first events/100 pt-yrs) for adjudicated MACE were calculated. MACE IRs were stratified by pts’ BL CV risk profile: pts were first categorised by history of coronary artery disease (HxCAD), then pts without a HxCAD were categorised by 10-yr risk of MACE, per the ASCVD-PCE risk calculator2 with a 1.5 multiplier applied.3

Results

The overall cohort included 7964 pts (average tofacitinib 5 mg BID, n=3969; average tofacitinib 10 mg BID, n=3995); of these, 3125 (39.2%) pts were included in the CV risk-enriched cohort (average tofacitinib 5 mg BID, n=1614; average tofacitinib 10 mg BID, n=1511). In both treatment arms, as expected, higher proportions of pts in the CV risk-enriched cohort had a HxCAD or a high or intermediate 10-yr predicted risk of MACE at BL vs the overall cohort (Table 1). MACE IRs (95% CIs) were lower in the overall cohort (0.38 [0.26, 0.54] and 0.37 [0.27, 0.48] for average tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID, respectively) vs the CV risk-enriched cohort (0.72 [0.46, 1.09] and 0.67 [0.46, 0.93], respectively), and were similar between treatment arms. MACE IRs were lower than reported in ORAL Surveillance.1 In the overall cohort, adjudicated MACE most commonly occurred in pts with a HxCAD (IR [95% CI] 0.98 [0.02, 5.47] and 1.05 [0.13, 3.78] for average tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID, respectively), or in pts with a high 10-yr risk of MACE at BL (Figure 1). A lower predicted 10-yr MACE risk was associated with lower MACE IRs (Figure 1); trends were similar for the CV risk-enriched cohort (data not shown).

Table 1.

Proportions of pts with a HxCAD and pts without a HxCAD categorised by 10-yr risk of MACE, per ASCVD-PCE risk calculator2 with a 1.5 multiplier applied3

Average tofacitinib 5 mg BIDAverage tofacitinib 10 mg BIDOverall cohort(N=3969)CV risk-enriched cohort(N=1614)Overall cohort(N=3995)CV risk-enriched cohort(N=1511)HxCAD, n (%)61 (1.5)61 (3.8)65 (1.6)60 (4.0)No HxCAD: 10-yr risk of MACE, n (%)High (≥20%)440 (11.1)365 (22.6)337 (8.4)276 (18.3)Intermediate (≥7.5–<20%)853 (21.5)593 (36.7)788 (19.7)530 (35.1)Borderline (≥5–<7.5%)435 (11.0)234 (14.5)404 (10.1)195 (12.9)Low (<5%)2133 (53.7)342 (21.2)2058 (51.5)307 (20.3)Missing data47 (1.2)19 (1.2)343 (8.6)143 (9.5)

CAD is defined as any of MI or CHD.

n, number of pts with specified characteristic; N, number of evaluable pts

Conclusion

In the tofacitinib RA clinical programme, MACE were largely associated with BL CV risk in the overall cohort, consistent with results of ORAL Surveillance, although results should be interpreted with caution due to low pt-yrs of exposure in some pt groups. Noting this limitation, these findings emphasise the importance of assessing and addressing BL CV risk when treating pts with RA.

References

[1]Ytterberg et al. New Engl J Med 2022; 386: 316-326.

[2]American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association. ASCVD risk estimator. https://tools.acc.org/ldl/ascvd_risk_estimator/index.html#!/calulate/estimator/.

[3]Agca et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2017; 76: 17-28.

Acknowledgements

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

Disclosure of Interests

Maxime Dougados Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche and UCB, Christina Charles-Schoeman Consultant of: AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer Inc and Sanofi-Regeneron, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer Inc, Zoltán Szekanecz Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche and Sanofi, Paid instructor for: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gedeon Richter, Novartis, Pfizer Inc and Roche, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche and Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Pfizer Inc, Jon T Giles Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Gilead Sciences and UCB, Grant/research support from: Pfizer Inc, Steven R. Ytterberg Consultant of: Corbus Pharmaceuticals, Kezar Life Sciences and Pfizer Inc, Deepak L Bhatt Grant/research support from: Abbott, Afimmune, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardax, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Ethicon, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Forest Laboratories, Fractyl, HLS Therapeutics, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Janssen, Lexicon, Medtronic, MyoKardia, Novo Nordisk, Owkin, Pfizer Inc, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Synaptic and The Medicines Company, Gary G Koch Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Acceleron, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Cytokinetics, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, GSK, Huya Bioscience International, Johnson & Johnson, Landos Biopharma, Merck, Momentum, Novartis, Otsuka, Pfizer Inc, Sanofi and vTv Therapeutics, Employee of: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Ivana Vranic Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Ltd, Joseph Wu Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Cunshan Wang Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Kenneth Kwok Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Sujatha Menon Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Carol A. Connell Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Arne Yndestad Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Jose L. Rivas Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer SLU, Maya H Buch Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, MSD, Pfizer Inc and Roche, Grant/research support from: Pfizer Inc, Roche and UCB

POS0520 ASSOCIATION BETWEEN BASELINE STATIN TREATMENT AND MAJOR ADVERSE CARDIOVASCULAR EVENTS IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS: A POST HOC ANALYSIS OF ORAL SURVEILLANCE

Background

ORAL Surveillance (NCT02092467) was a post-authorisation safety study of tofacitinib vs tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients (pts) with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) aged ≥50 years (yrs) with ≥1 additional cardiovascular (CV) risk factor and an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX). Statins are used to treat coronary artery disease (CAD) and are recommended by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) for the management of pts at risk of atherosclerotic CV disease (ASCVD),1 such as those with ≥7.5% 10-yr risk of major adverse CV events (MACE) or diabetes mellitus.

Objectives

To examine the association between baseline (BL) statin use and MACE in ORAL Surveillance.

Methods

Pts with RA on stable MTX were randomised 1:1:1 to receive tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID) or TNFi (adalimumab 40 mg every 2 weeks or etanercept 50 mg once weekly). Pts were stratified post hoc by BL statin use (yes/no). Pts were further categorised by history of CAD (HxCAD), BL CV risk score per ACC/AHA guidelines1 (for pts without HxCAD; 10-yr risk of MACE per the ASCVD-pooled cohort equations risk calculator2 with a 1.5 multiplier applied3), and separately by BL diabetes status. CV risk score/BL diabetes status categories were: high (≥20%)/HxCAD (yes), intermediate (≥7.5–<20%) or low-borderline (<7.5%), and diabetes status (yes). For the overall population and each treatment group, risk of MACE was compared between BL statin use (yes vs no) via Cox analyses for each CV risk category and diabetes status (yes). Incidence rates (IRs; pts with first events/100 pt-yrs) and hazard ratios (HRs; BL statin use: yes vs no) were evaluated for adjudicated MACE.

Results

Of 4362 pts (tofacitinib 5 mg BID, n=1455; tofacitinib 10 mg BID, n=1456; TNFi, n=1451), 497 had a HxCAD, and 3813 without a HxCAD had CV risk scores determined; 789 had BL diabetes. Overall, 1020 (23.4%) pts reported BL statin use. Across CV risk score categories for all treatment groups, <50% of pts received statins at BL, with statin use highest in the high/HxCAD category pts (35.7–40.6%) and pts with diabetes (35.7–44.2%) (Table 1). Across categories, no interpretable associations between BL statin use and MACE were found. However, in the overall population, MACE IRs were lower in pts with vs without BL statin use in the high/HxCAD category, and in pts with diabetes (Figure 1). In pts receiving tofacitinib 5 mg BID and TNFi, MACE IRs were lower in pts with vs without BL statin use across all categories (Figure 1).

Table 1.

Proportion of pts receiving statins at BL, by CV risk category and presence of diabetes

n/N (%)OverallTofacitinibTofacitinibTNFi5 mg BID10 mg BIDHigh (≥20%)/HxCAD525/1370 (38.3)168/435 (38.6)193/475 (40.6)164/460 (35.7)Intermediate (≥7.5–<20%)302/1511 (20.0)110/490 (22.4)94/516 (18.2)98/505 (19.4)Low-borderline (<7.5%)178/1429 (12.5)66/513 (12.9)57/446 (12.8)55/470 (11.7)Diabetes (yes)320/789 (40.6)111/251 (44.2)114/272 (41.9)95/266 (35.7)

N, number of pts in each category; n, number of pts receiving BL statins

Conclusion

In this post hoc analysis of data from ORAL Surveillance, most pts did not receive BL statin treatment. This suggests suboptimal CV risk management, particularly in pts at high risk of CV events. There was no interpretable association between BL statin use and MACE. However, pts in the higher risk categories, particularly those receiving tofacitinib 5 mg BID, had lower MACE IRs with vs without BL statin use. This analysis did not take into account initiation or dose adjustment of statin treatment during the study, and had low yrs of exposure in some categories.

References

[1]Arnett et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2019; 74: e177-232.

[2]American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association. ASCVD risk estimator. https://tools.acc.org/ldl/ascvd_risk_estimator/index.html#!/calulate/estimator/.

[3]Agca et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2017; 76: 17-28.

Acknowledgements

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

Disclosure of Interests

Jon T Giles Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Gilead Sciences and UCB, Grant/research support from: Pfizer Inc, Christina Charles-Schoeman Consultant of: AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer Inc and Sanofi-Regeneron, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer Inc, Maya H Buch Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, MSD, Pfizer Inc and Roche, Grant/research support from: Pfizer Inc, Roche and UCB, Maxime Dougados Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche and UCB, Zoltán Szekanecz Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche and Sanofi, Paid instructor for: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gedeon Richter, Novartis, Pfizer Inc and Roche, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lily, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche and Sanofi, Steven R. Ytterberg Consultant of: Corbus Pharmaceuticals, Kezar Life Sciences and Pfizer Inc, Gary G Koch Shareholder of: IQVIA, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Acceleron, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Cytokinetics, Eli Lilly, Gilead Scienes, GlaxoSmithKline, Huya Bioscience International, Johnson & Johnson, Landos Biopharma, Merck, Momentum, Novartis, Otsuka, Pfizer Inc, Sanofi and vTv Therapeutics, Employee of: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Joseph Wu Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Cunshan Wang Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Kenneth Kwok Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Sujatha Menon Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Yan Chen Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Teoman Yusuf Cesur Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Jose L. Rivas Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer SLU, Arne Yndestad Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Annette Diehl Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Deepak L Bhatt Grant/research support from: Abbott, Afimmune, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardax, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Forest Laboratories, Fractyl, HLS Therapeutics, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Janssen, Lexicon, Lilly, Medtronic, MyoKardia, Novo Nordisk, Owkin, Pfizer Inc, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Synaptic and The Medicines Company.

POS1451 DISCRIMINATORY CAPACITY OF THE ASAS HEALTH INDEX IN PATIENTS WITH AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS TREATED IN A TIGHT CONTROL SETTING VERSUS STANDARD OF CARE

Background

Improvement in functioning and health as assessed by the ASAS Health Index (HI) is an important outcome of interventions in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). ASAS HI thresholds for measuring improvement have been proposed but not yet tested in an independent intervention trial to study its discriminant capacity.

Objectives

To test the discriminant capacity of the ASAS HI using data from a randomized, active-controlled trial.

Methods

In this post-hoc analysis from the tight-controlled, treat-to-target (T2T) trial TICOSPA [1], data of active axSpA patients randomized to either the T2T arm (visits every 4 weeks, prespecified strategy of treatment intensification until achieving low disease activity) or standard of care (SOC; visits every 12 weeks, treatment at the rheumatologist’s discretion) were compared to test whether different thresholds for improvement or achieved state of ASAS HI could discriminate between treatment arms. Week 48 effect sizes (ES) of improvement from baseline were calculated for each treatment arm as Phi Coefficient (higher means better discrimination) and OR (95% CI).

Results

The table shows the ES between treatment arms for all tested improvements and health states achieved in ASAS HI. Overall, absolute improvement outcomes performed better than percentage changes outcome followed by status outcomes. The absolute improvement of ≥2.0, ≥2.5, and ≥3.0 performed best followed by the 20% improvement. As the ASAS HI ≥3.0 is the smallest detectable change for this outcome, this seem to be the most appropriate proposed outcome.

Table 1.

Thresholds by treatment groups.

Non-responder imputation at 48 weeksEffect size measuresTC/T2TUCPhi Coefficient*OR [95% CI]ASAS HI 20% improvement56.9%45.8%0.11 [0-1.0]0.64 [0.33-1.23]ASAS HI 25% improvement51.4%41.7%0.10 [0-1.0]0.68 [0.35-1.30]ASAS HI 30% improvement43.1%34.7%0.09 [0-1.0]0.70 [0.36-1.38]ASAS HI 35% improvement40.3%31.9%0.09 [0-1.0]0.70 [0.35-1.38]ASAS HI 40% improvement37.5%31.9%0.06 [0-1.0]0.78 [0.39-1.56]ASAS HI 50% improvement29.2%22.2%0.08 [0-1.0]0.69 [0.33-1.47]ASAS HI 60% improvement26.4%18.1%0.10 [0-1.0]0.61 [0.28-1.36]ASAS HI 70% improvement16.7%12.5%0.06 [0-1.0]0.71 [0.28-1.82]ASAS HI 80% improvement13.9%11.1%0.01 [0-1.0]0.78 [0.29-2.09]ASAS HI 90% improvement9.7%9.7%0.0[0-1.0]1.0 [0.33-3.01]ASAS HI improvement ≥1.066.7%61.1%0.06[0-1.0]0.79 [0.40-1.55]ASAS HI improvement ≥2.055.6%41.7%0.14 [0.0-1.0]0.57 [0.30-1.11]ASAS HI improvement of ≥2.544.4%31.9%0.13 [0-1.0]0.59 [0.30-1.16]ASAS HI improvement of ≥3.041.7%29.2%0.13 [0-1.0]0.58 [0.29-1.15]ASAS HI improvement of ≥ 3.529.2%22.2%0.08 [0-1.0]0.69 [0.33-1.47]ASAS HI improvement ≥4.029.2%22.2%0.08 [0-1.0]0.69 [0.33-1.47]ASAS HI improvement ≥5.016.7%12.5%0.06 [0-1.0]0.71 [0.28-1.82]ASASHI, end of study, ≤12.087.5%80.6%0.09 [0.0- 1.0]0.59 [0.24, 1.47]ASASHI, end of study, ≤5.037.5%33.3%0.04 [0.0, 1.0]0.83 [0.42, 1.65]

A value of PHI = 0.1 is considered to be a small effect, 0.3 a medium effect, and 0.5 a large effect.

Conclusion

In this active-controlled trial an absolute improvement in the ASAS HI discriminated best between treatment arms. A similar evaluation is needed in a placebo-controlled trial to be able to propose the best outcome for the ASAS HI in a trial.

References

[1]Molto A et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2021

Disclosure of Interests

Uta Kiltz Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Biocad, Biogen, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Hexal, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biocad, Amgen, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Hexal, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Fresenius, GSK, Hexal, Novartis, Pfizer., Anna Moltó: None declared, Clementina López-Medina: None declared, Maxime Dougados: None declared, Désirée van der Heijde Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bayer, BMS, Cyxone, Eisai, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bayer, BMS, Cyxone, Eisai, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bayer, BMS, Cyxone, Eisai, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Annelies Boonen Speakers bureau: Abbvie / Galapagos, Consultant of: Galapagos, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Filip van den Bosch Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB., Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB., Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB., Juergen Braun Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Boehringer, Celltrion, Chugai, Fresenius, Hexal, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer und UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Boehringer, Celltrion, Chugai, Fresenius, Hexal, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer und UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Boehringer, Celltrion, Chugai, Fresenius, Hexal, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer und UCB

POS0970 SAME OR DIFFERENT? ANALYSIS OF SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES OF CROHN’S DISEASE AND ULCERATIVE COLITIS IN SPONDYLOARTHRITIS: AN ANCILLARY ANALYSIS FROM THE WORLDWIDE ASAS-perSpA STUDY

Background

Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) are grouped as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and both are frequently found as extra-musculoskeletal manifestations in spondyloarthritis (SpA). Several studies have described the connection between SpA and IBD in both directions. Still until today, no studies have investigated possible differences in the musculoskeletal manifestations between the two main entities of inflammatory bowel disease: CD and UC.

Objectives

To evaluate the clinical characteristics associated with the presence of CD or UC in patients with spondyloarthritis from the international cross-sectional ASAS-perSpA study.

Methods

We analyzed 3152 patients from the ASAS per-SpA cohort who had a diagnosis of axial SpA or peripheral SpA according to the treating rheumatologist. Patients with IBD - confirmed by endoscopy - were identified and stratified by CD or UC. Patients in which their IBD disease was not specified, were excluded. Demographics, clinical characteristics, treatments and patient-reported outcomes were compared between both subgroups.

Results

Among the 146 patients diagnosed with IBD from the 3152 patients included in the analysis, 87 (59.6%) presented with CD (75 patients with axial SpA and 12 with peripheral SpA) and 39 (26.7%) with UC (34 patients with axial SpA and 5 with peripheral SpA) - Figure 1. A total of 20 (13.7%) patients with IBD were excluded, due to an inconclusive diagnosis of IBD. Patients with CD and UC had similar age (44.9 vs 44.0 years old) and sex distribution, although a slightly higher frequency of males was observed in CD than UC (63.2% vs 51.3%). The diagnostic delay for SpA was 7.0 years for CD and 8.1 years for UC. We did not find differences between both groups related to any musculoskeletal manifestations such as chronic back pain, uveitis, arthritis, enthesitis or dactylitis (Table 1). The only parameter showing a significant difference between CD and UC was the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) with a mean score of 3.3 vs 2.2 respectively (p=0.02) (Table 1). CD patients showed a higher tendency to be HLA-B27 positive (51.9% in CD vs. 39.4% in UC), but this did not reach statistical significance. No differences were observed regarding treatment patterns between both groups.

Table 1.

Demographics and clinical characteristics related to spondyloarthritis of patients with concomitant Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis (n=146).

Crohn’s Disease N=87Ulcerative Colitis N=39PAge, mean (SD)44.9 (13.5)44.0 (13.0)0.68Sex, n/N (%) male55/87 (63.2)20/39 (51.3)0.21Smoker ever, n/N (%)36/87 (41.4)19/39 (48.7)0.44Diagnostic delay of SpA (years), mean (SD)7.0 (6.9)8.8 (8.1)0.38Psoriasis ever, n/N (%)9/87 (10.3)6/39 (15.4)0.47Uveitis ever, n/N (%)17/87 (19.5)11/39 (28.2)0.28Synovitis ever, n/N (%)42/87 (48.3)18/39 (46.2)0.83Enthesitis ever, n/N (%)26/87 (29.9)14/39 (35.9)0.50Dactylitis ever, n/N (%)3/87 (3.4)1/39 (2.6)0.79Axial involvement ever (according to the rheumatologist), n/N (%)79/87 (90.8)37/39 (94.9)0.44Sacroiliitis on X-ray, n/N (%)64/87 (73.6)26/39 (66.7)0.19HLA-B27 positive, n/N (%)28/54 (51.9)13/33 (39.4)0.26CRP mg/L, mean (SD)11.1 (33.8)15.3 (30.1)0.13ASDAS-CRP, mean (SD)2.4 (1.0)2.4 (1.1)0.84BASFI, mean (SD) 0-103.3 (2.6)2.2 (2.1)0.02csDMARDs ever, n/N (%)71/87 (81.6)35/39 (89.7)0.25bDMARDs ever, n/N (%)72/87 (82.8)33/39 (84.6)0.80

ASDAS, Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score; BASFI, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index; bDMARD, biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs; CRP, c-reactive protein; csDMARD, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs; SD, standard deviation; SpA, spondyloarthritis.

Conclusion

In our ancillary analysis of the ASAS-perSpA study in patients with SpA and concomitant CD or UC, no differences in the clinical presentation or demographic characteristics between the two subgroups were observed, except for the BASFI.

Disclosure of Interests

None declared

OP0148 THE ASAS CORE MEASUREMENT SET FOR AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS

Background

Recently, the core domains of the 20-years old core outcome set for ankylosing spondylitis were updated.1 The next step is to define the measurement core set, which includes at least one instrument for each domain.

Objectives

To define the instruments for the ASAS-OMERACT core outcome set for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).

Methods

The scientific committee invited an international working group representing all key stakeholders (patients, rheumatologists, health professionals and pharmaceutical industry). The instrument selection process is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Development process to determine the core measurement set

Results

The updated core measurement set for axSpA is shown in Table 1. This includes seven instruments for six domains that are mandatory for all trials: ASDAS and NRS patient global assessment for disease activity, NRS total back pain for pain, composite index for morning stiffness, NRS fatigue for fatigue, BASFI for physical function, and ASAS Health Index for overall functioning and health. There are 9 additional instruments for disease modifying drugs (DMARDs): two MRI activity scores (SPARCC SIJ and SPARCC spine) for disease activity, the three extra-musculoskeletal manifestations uveitis, IBD and psoriasis assessed as recommended by ASAS2, the three peripheral manifestations (44 swollen joint count, MASES and Dactylitis count2) and mSASSS for structural damage. The imaging outcomes are mandatory to be included at least in one trial for a drug that is considered to be a DMARD. The other instruments specific for DMARDs should be included in every trial. This core set is applicable to patients with radiographic and non-radiographic axSpA. Furthermore, 11 other instruments were also endorsed by ASAS and can additionally be used in axSpA trials: BASDAI, CRP, Berlin MRI-SIJ and MRI-spine activity scores for disease activity, NRS back pain at night for pain, severity (BASDAI Q5) and duration (BASDAI Q6) for morning stiffness, SF-36 for overall functioning and health, 66 swollen joint count and SPARCC enthesitis for peripheral manifestations and MRI-SIJ erosions scores (SPARCC SSS) for structural damage.

Table 1.

Updated core measurement set for axial spondyloarthritis.

Instruments mandatory for all trialsDomainInstrument Disease activityASDASPatient global assessment of disease activity (NRS) PainNRS total back pain (BASDAI Q2) Morning stiffnessSeverity and duration (BASDAI (Q5+Q6)/2)) FatigueNRS fatigue (BASDAI Q1) Physical functionBASFI Overall functioning & healthASAS Health IndexAdditional instruments mandatory for disease modifying drugs trials Disease activitySPARCC MRI-SIJ*SPARCC MRI-spine* Extra-musculoskeletal manifestationsuveitis (ASAS CRF)2psoriasis (ASAS CRF)2inflammatory bowel disease (ASAS CRF)2 Peripheral manifestations44 Swollen joint countMASESDactylitis count (ASAS CRF)2 Structural damagemSASSS*

*Needs to be assessed at least once in a disease modifying drug programme; 2Dougados M, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2012;71(6):1103-04. ASDAS: Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score; NRS: Numerical Rate Scale; BASDAI: Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index; Q: question; BASFI: Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index; SPARCC: SpondyloArthritis Research Consortium of Canada Scoring System; MRI: Magnetic Resonance Imaging; SIJ: Sacroiliac Joint; CRF: Case Report Form; MASES: Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesitis Score; mSASSS: modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score.

Conclusion

The previous core measurement set has been updated and endorsed by ASAS for the use in all axSpA trials.

References

[1]Navarro-Compán V, et al. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2021;51(6):1342-49.

[2]Dougados M, et al. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 2012;71(6):1103-04.

Acknowledgements

The ASAS axSpA core measurement set working group:

Désirée van der Heijde

Victoria Navarro Compán

Annelies Boonen

Philip Mease

Anne Boel

Uta Kiltz

Robert Landewé

Maxime Dougados

Xenofon Baraliakos

Wilson Bautista

Pravina Chiowchanwisawakit

Yu Heng Kwan

Lianne Gensler

Bassel El-Zorkany

Karl Gaffney

Nigel Haroon

Pedro Machado

Walter Maksymowych

Anna Molto

Denis Poddubnyy

Mikhail Protopopov

Sofia Ramiro

Salima van Weely

Marco Garrido Cumbrera

Natasha de Peyrecave

Lara Fallon

In-Ho Song

Hanne Dagfinrud

The Assessment of Spondyloarthritis international Society (ASAS) supported Anne Boel and Victoria Navarro-Compán financially to update the core outcome set.

Disclosure of Interests

Victoria Navarro-Compán Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma; Research grants from AbbVie and Novartis, Grant/research support from: AbbVie and Novartis, Anne Boel: None declared, Annelies Boonen Speakers bureau: Abbvie / Galapagos, Consultant of: Galapagos, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Aclaris, Amgen, Bristol Myers, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Inmagene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN Pharma, UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Bristol Myers, Gilead, Inmagene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Maxime Dougados: None declared, Uta Kiltz Consultant of: AbbVie, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Fresenius, Hexal, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, onkowissen.de, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, Hexal, Novartis und Pfizer, Robert B.M. Landewé Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Bayer, BMS, Cyxone, Eisai, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Employee of: Director of Imaging Rheumatology bv.

POS0111 MORE METICULOUSLY FOLLOWING TREAT-TO-TARGET IN RA DOES NOT LEAD TO LESS RADIOGRAPHIC PROGRESSION: A LONGITUDINAL ANALYSIS IN BIODAM

Background

A Treat-to-Target approach (T2T) is broadly considered to lead to better clinical outcomes and recommended in patients with RA. However, very few studies have analyzed the effect of T2T on radiographic progression, and any such studies have provided inconsistent results.

Objectives

To investigate whether meticulously following a treat-to-target (T2T)-strategy in daily clinical practice leads to lower radiographic progression in RA.

Methods

Patients from the multicenter RA-BIODAM cohort with ≥2 consecutive visits with radiographs available were included. In RA-BIODAM patients were enrolled as they were initiating a new csDMARD/bDMARD treatment were followed-up with the intention to benchmark and intensify treatment. The primary outcome of this analysis was the change in Sharp-van der Heijde score (SvdH, 0-448), assessed every 6 months, using average scores from 2 readers (scores with known chronological order). Following a DAS44-T2T remission strategy, which was defined at each 3-month visit, was the main variable of interest. Patients were categorized based on the proportion of visits in which T2T was followed according to our definition: very low (≤40% of the visits, low (>40%, <62.5%), high (≥62.5%, ≤75%) and very high (>75%). Radiographic progression at 2 years was visualized across groups by cumulative probability plots. Per 3-month interval T2T could be followed zero, one or two times (in a total of 2 visits). Associations between the number of visits with T2T in an interval and radiographic progression, both in the same and in the subsequent 6-month interval, were analysed by generalised estimating equations, adjusted for age, gender, disease duration and country.

Results

In total, 511 patients were included (mean (SD) age: 56 (13) years; 76% female). After 2 years, patients showed on average 2.2 (4.1) units progression (median:1 unit). Mean (SD) 2-year progression was not significantly different across categories of T2T: very low: 2.1 (2.7)-units; low: 2.8 (6.0); high: 2.4 (4.5), very high: 1.6 (2.2) (Figure 1). Meticulously following-up T2T in a 3-month interval neither reduced progression in the same 6-month interval (parameter estimates (for yes vs no): +0.15 units (95%CI: -0.04 to 0.33) for 2 vs 0 visits; and +0.08 units (-0.06;0.22) for 1 vs 0 visits) nor did it reduce progression in the subsequent 6-month interval (Table 1).

Table 1.

Effect of following DAS44-remission-T2T strategy on 6-month radiographic progression over 2 years

Change in radiographic damage(regression coefficient (95% CI))N=506T2T during 3 months on radiographic progression in the same 6-month period 2 visits vs 0 followed0.15 (-0.04; 0.33) 1 visit vs 0 followed0.08 (-0.06; 0.22)T2T during 3 months on radiographic progression in the subsequent 6-month period 2 visits vs 0 followed-0.09 (-0.28; 0.10) 1 visit vs 0 followed-0.10 (-0.24; 0.05)Figure 1.

Cumulative probability plot with 2-year radiographic progression according to the proportion of 3-monthly visits with T2T followed

Conclusion

In this daily practice cohort, more meticulously following T2T principles did not result in more reduction of radiographic progression than a somewhat more liberal attitude toward T2T. One possible interpretation of these results is that the intention to apply T2T already suffices and that a more stringent approach does not further improve outcome.

Acknowledgements

BIODAM was financially supported by an unrestricted grant from AbbVie

Disclosure of Interests

Sofia Ramiro Speakers bureau: Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Galapagos, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Robert B.M. Landewé Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Gilead, Galapagos, GSK,Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Gilead, Galapagos, GSK,Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB

Dr Landewé owns Rheumatology Consultancy BV, Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Bayer, BMS, Cyxone, Eisai, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma. Director of Imaging Rheumatology bv., Alexandre Sepriano Speakers bureau: Novartis, Consultant of: UCB, Oliver FitzGerald Speakers bureau: Biogen, Novartis, AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: BMS, Novartis, UCB, Pfizer, Lilly, Janssen, Mikkel Østergaard Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Orion, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi and UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Merck, Celgene and Novartis, Joanne Homik: None declared, Ori Elkayam Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Abbvie, BI, Janssen, Consultant of: Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Abbvie, BI, Janssen, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Abbvie, Janssen, Carter Thorne Consultant of: Abbvie, Organon, Pfizer, Sandoz, Maggie Larché Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Actelion, Amgen, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Fresenius-Kabi, Gilead, Janssen, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Sobi, UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, BMS, Gianfranco Ferraccioli Speakers bureau: SOBI, Consultant of: Abbivie, Marina Backhaus: None declared, Gilles Boire Speakers bureau: Abbvie Canada, BMS Canada, Lilly Canada, Janssen Canada, Merck Canada, Pfizer Canada, Viatris, Consultant of: Abbvie Canada, Amgen Canada, BMS Canada, Celgene, GileadSciences, Janssen Canada, Lilly Canada, Merck Canada, Mylan Canada, Novartis Canada, Pfizer Canada, Roche Canada, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi Canada, Teva, Grant/research support from: Lilly Canada, BMS Canada, Pfizer, Sandoz Canada, UCB Canada, Merck Canada, Novartis Canada, Roche Canada, Bernard Combe Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BMS,Celltrion,Galapgos-Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, MERCK, Pfizer,Roche-Chugai, Consultant of: Abbvie, Celltrion,Galapgos-Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, MERCK, Roche-Chugai, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Roche-chugai, Thierry Schaeverbeke: None declared, Alain Saraux Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Lilly, Nordic, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Lilly, Nordic, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, UCB, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Fresenius, Lilly, Maxime Dougados Consultant of: Pfizer, AbbVie, UCB, Merck, Lilly, Novartis, BMS, Galapagos, Biogen, Roche, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, AbbVie, UCB, Merck, Lilly, Novartis, BMS, Galapagos, Biogen, Roche, Maurizio Rossini Speakers bureau: Amgen, Abbvie, BMS, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos,MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Theramex, UCB, Marcello Govoni Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Pfizer, Galapagos, BMS, Eli-Lilly, Paid instructor for: Pfizer, Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Novartis, Astrazeneca, Pfizer, Luigi Sinigaglia: None declared, Alain Cantagrel Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Janssen, Lilly France, Médac, MSD France, Nordic-Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Aventis, UCB, Consultant of: BMS, Janssen, Lilly France, MSD France, Sandoz, Grant/research support from: MSD France, Novartis, Pfizer, Cornelia Allaart: None declared, Cheryl Barnabe Speakers bureau: Sanofi Genzyme, Pfizer, Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, Consultant of: Gilead, Celltrion Healthcare, Clifton Bingham Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Moderna, Pfizer, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: BMS, Dirkjan van Schaardenburg: None declared, Hilde Berner Hammer Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Novartis, Lilly, Rana Dadashova: None declared, Edna Hutchings: None declared, Joel Paschke: None declared, Walter P Maksymowych Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Novartis, Pfizer

OP0019 BIMEKIZUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS: 24-WEEK EFFICACY & SAFETY FROM BE MOBILE 2, A PHASE 3, MULTICENTRE, RANDOMISED, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED STUDY

Background

Bimekizumab (BKZ) is a monoclonal IgG1 antibody that selectively inhibits IL-17F in addition to IL-17A. In a phase 2b study, BKZ showed rapid and sustained efficacy and was well tolerated up to 156 weeks (wks) in patients (pts) with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS).1,2

Objectives

To assess efficacy and safety of BKZ vs placebo (PBO) in pts with active AS up to Wk 24 in the ongoing pivotal phase 3 study, BE MOBILE 2.

Methods

BE MOBILE 2 (NCT03928743) comprises a 16-wk double-blind, PBO-controlled period and 36-wk maintenance period. Pts were aged ≥18 yrs, met modified New York criteria and had active AS (BASDAI ≥4, spinal pain ≥4) at BL. Pts were randomised 2:1, BKZ 160 mg Q4W:PBO. From Wk 16, all pts received BKZ 160 mg Q4W. Primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were assessed at Wk 16.

Results

Of 332 randomised pts (BKZ: 221; PBO: 111), 322 (97.0%) completed Wk 16 and 313 (94.3%) Wk 24. BL characteristics were comparable between groups: mean age 40.4 yrs, symptom duration 13.5 yrs; 72.3% pts male, 85.5% HLA-B27+, 16.3% TNFi-experienced. At Wk 16, the primary (ASAS40: 44.8% BKZ vs 22.5% PBO; p<0.001) and all ranked secondary endpoints were met (Table 1). Responses with BKZ were rapid, including in PBO pts who switched to BKZ at Wk 16, and increased to Wk 24 (Figure 1; Table 1). Substantial reductions of hs-CRP by Wk 2 and MRI SIJ and spine inflammation by Wk 16 were achieved with BKZ vs PBO (Table 1). At Wk 24, ≥50% pts had achieved ASDAS <2.1 (Figure 1).

Table 1.

Efficacy at Wks 16 and 24

BLWk 16Wk 24PBO N=111BKZ 160 mg Q4W N=221PBO N=111BKZ 160 mg Q4W N=221p valuePBO→BKZ 160 mg Q4W N=111BKZ 160 mg Q4W N=221Ranked endpoints in hierarchical orderASAS40* [NRI] n (%)--25 (22.5)99 (44.8)<0.00163 (56.8)119 (53.8)ASAS40 in TNFi-naïve† [NRI] n (%)--22 (23.4)a84 (45.7)b<0.00156 (59.6)a100 (54.3)bASAS20† [NRI]n (%)--48 (43.2)146 (66.1)<0.00185 (76.6)159 (71.9)BASDAI CfB† [MI] mean (SE)6.5 (0.1)6.5 (0.1)–1.9 (0.2)–2.9 (0.1)<0.001–3.3 (0.2)–3.3 (0.1)ASAS PR† [NRI]n (%)--8 (7.2)53 (24.0)<0.00128 (25.2)56 (25.3)ASDAS-MI† [NRI] n (%)--6 (5.4)57 (25.8)<0.00143 (38.7)67 (30.3)ASAS 5/6† [NRI]n (%)--16 (14.4)94 (42.5)<0.00157 (51.4)107 (48.4)BASFI CfB† [MI] mean (SE)5.2 (0.2)5.3 (0.2)–1.1 (0.2)–2.2 (0.1)<0.001–2.2 (0.2)–2.4 (0.2)Nocturnal spinal pain CfB† [MI]mean (SE)6.8 (0.2)6.6 (0.1)–1.9 (0.2)–3.3 (0.2)<0.001–3.7 (0.3)–3.8 (0.2)ASQoL CfB† [MI] mean (SE)8.5 (0.4)9.0 (0.3)–3.2 (0.3)–4.9 (0.3)<0.001–4.9 (0.4)–5.4 (0.3)SF-36 PCS CfB† [MI] mean (SE)34.6 (0.8)34.4 (0.6)5.9 (0.8)9.3 (0.6)<0.00110.6 (0.8)10.8 (0.6)BASMI CfB† [MI] mean (SE)3.8 (0.2)3.9 (0.1)–0.2 (0.1)–0.5 (0.1)0.005–0.5 (0.1)–0.6 (0.1)Other endpointsnEnthesitis-free state†c [NRI]n (%)--22 (32.8)d68 (51.5)e-33 (49.3)d70 (53.0)eASAS40 in TNFi-experienced [NRI]n (%)--3 (17.6)f15 (40.5)g---ASDAS-CRP CfB [MI]mean (SE)3.7 (0.1)3.7 (0.1)–0.7 (0.1)–1.4 (0.1)-–1.7 (0.1)–1.6 (0.1)hs-CRP (mg/L) [MI] geometric mean (median)6.7 (6.3)6.5 (8.2)6.0 (6.3)2.4 (2.4)-1.9 (2.2)2.1 (2.3)MRI spine Berlin CfBh [OC] mean (SD)3.3 (4.9)i3.8 (5.3)j0.0 (1.4)k–2.3 (3.9)l---SPARCC MRI SIJ score CfBh [OC] mean (SD)5.8 (7.7)i7.4 (10.7)m1.1 (6.9)k–5.6 (9.9)l---

Randomised set. *Primary endpoint; †Secondary endpoint; an=94; bn=184; cMASES=0 in pts with BL MASES >0; dn=67; en=132; fn=17; gn=37; hIn pts in MRI sub-study; in=45; jn=82; kn=43; ln=79; mn=83; nNominal p values not shown.

Over 16 wks, 120/221 (54.3%) BKZ pts had ≥1 TEAE vs 48/111 (43.2%) PBO; three most frequent on BKZ were nasopharyngitis (BKZ: 7.7%; PBO: 3.6%), headache (4.1%; 4.5%) and oral candidiasis (4.1%; 0%). No systemic candidiasis was observed. Up to 16 wks, incidence of SAEs was low (1.8%; 0.9%); no MACE or deaths were reported; 2 (0.9%) IBD cases occurred in pts on BKZ.

Conclusion

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

References

[1]van der Heijde D. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79:595–604; 2. Gensler L. Arthritis Rheumatol 2021;73(suppl 10):0491.

Acknowledgements

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

Disclosure of Interests

Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Bayer, BMS, Cyxone, Eisai, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Employee of: Imaging Rheumatology BV (Director), Xenofon Baraliakos Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Paid instructor for: AbbVie, BMS, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Maxime Dougados Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Matt Brown Speakers bureau: Novartis, Consultant of: Pfizer, Clementia, Ipsen, Regeneron, Grey Wolf Therapeutics, Grant/research support from: UCB Pharma, Denis Poddubnyy Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biocad, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer, Filip van den Bosch Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers-Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Nigil Haroon Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Merck, Novartis and UCB Pharma, Huji Xu: None declared, Tetsuya Tomita Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Novartis, and Pfizer, Lianne S. Gensler Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma; paid to institution, Marga Oortgiesen Employee of: UCB Pharma, Carmen Fleurinck Employee of: UCB Pharma, Thomas Vaux Employee of: UCB Pharma, Alexander Marten Employee of: UCB Pharma, Atul Deodhar Speakers bureau: Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer; consultant of AbbVie, Amgen, Aurinia, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma.

The ASAS-OMERACT core domain set for axial spondyloarthritis

BACKGROUND

The current core outcome set for ankylosing spondylitis (AS) has had only minor adaptations since its development 20 years ago. Considering the significant advances in this field during the preceding decades, an update of this core set is necessary.

OBJECTIVE

To update the ASAS-OMERACT core outcome set for AS into the ASAS-OMERACT core outcome set for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).

METHODS

Following OMERACT and COMET guidelines, an international working group representing key stakeholders (patients, rheumatologists, health professionals, pharmaceutical industry and drug regulatory agency representatives) defined the core domain set for axSpA. The development process consisted of: i) Identifying candidate domains using a systematic literature review and qualitative studies; ii) Selection of the most relevant domains for different stakeholders through a 3-round Delphi survey involving axSpA patients and axSpA experts; iii) Consensus and voting by ASAS; iv) Endorsement by OMERACT. Two scenarios are considered based on the type of therapy investigated in the trial: symptom modifying therapies and disease modifying therapies.

RESULTS

The updated core outcome set for axSpA includes 7 mandatory domains for all trials (disease activity, pain, morning stiffness, fatigue, physical function, overall functioning and health, and adverse events including death). There are 3 additional domains (extra-musculoskeletal manifestations, peripheral manifestations and structural damage) that are mandatory for disease modifying therapies and important but optional for symptom modifying therapies. Finally, 3 other domains (spinal mobility, sleep, and work and employment) are defined as important but optional domains for all trials.

CONCLUSION

The ASAS-OMERACT core domain set for AS has been updated into the ASAS-OMERACT core domain set for axSpA. The next step is the selection of instruments for each domain.

POS0912 LONG-TERM TREATMENT WITH IXEKIZUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS: TWO-YEAR RESULTS FROM COAST-Y

Background:

The efficacy and safety of the interleukin-17 inhibitor ixekizumab (IXE) for the treatment of radiographic (r-) and non-radiographic (nr-) axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) has been shown for up to 52 weeks.1-2

Objectives:

To study the efficacy and safety of ixekizumab in the treatment of patients with r- and nr-axSpA for up to 116 weeks.

Methods:

COAST-Y (NCT03129100) is the 2-year extension of the COAST-V, -W, and -X trials. Patients continued with the dose received at the end of the originating trial at Week 52, either with 80 mg IXE every 4 weeks (Q4W) or every 2 weeks (Q2W). Patients who had been assigned to adalimumab or placebo were re-randomized to IXE Q4W or Q2W at Week 16 in COAST-V and -W. Patients who had received placebo for 52 weeks in COAST-X were switched to IXE Q4W in COAST-Y. Patients who switched from placebo or adalimumab treatment to IXE (COAST-V, -W, or -X) or from IXE Q4W to open-label IXE Q2W (COAST-X) during the originating studies were analyzed separately from patients continuously treated with IXE. Standardized efficacy measures were used (Table 1). Missing data were handled by non-responder imputation for categorical data and modified baseline observation carried forward for continuous data. Safety data were analyzed for all patients who received ≥1 dose of IXE.

Table 1.

Demographic and efficacy results for patients continuously treated with IXE for 116 weeks

IXE Q4W N=157IXE Q2W N=195Demographics Age42.7 (13.0)41.8 (11.2) Male (n, [%])124 (79.0)132 (67.7) Baseline ASDAS3.92 (0.80)3.95 (0.76) Baseline BASDAI7.07 (1.26)7.18 (1.35) Baseline BASFI6.57 (1.76)6.74 (1.86) Baseline BASMI4.08 (1.46)3.97 (1.52) Baseline SF-36 PCS33.90 (7.27)33.26 (6.88)Outcome measureResponse (n, [%])Week 52Week 116Week 52Week 116 ASDAS <2.175 (47.8)69 (43.9)88 (45.1)96 (49.2) ASAS partial remission34 (21.7)31 (19.7)35 (17.9)39 (20.0) ASAS4082 (52.2)89 (56.7)99 (50.8)108 (55.4) BASDAI5078 (49.7)75 (47.8)83 (42.6)99 (50.8)Change from baseline ASDAS-1.64 (1.05)-1.60 (1.15)-1.63 (1.03)-1.78 (1.04) BASFI-2.88 (2.31)-2.76 (2.39)-2.83 (2.38)-3.15 (2.34) BASMI-0.57 (0.95)-0.57 (0.93)-0.53 (0.92)-0.60 (1.00) SF-36 PCS9.03 (8.62)8.43 (8.70)8.87 (7.57)9.86 (8.45)

Data are mean (SD) unless otherwise noted. Non-responder imputation was used for categorical variables, and modified baseline observation carried forward for continuous variables.

Results:

Of the 773 patients enrolled in COAST-Y, 86.0% completed Week 116 of treatment (52 weeks of one of the originating trials and 64 weeks of COAST-Y). Among the patients continuously treated with IXE for 116 weeks (IXE Q4W: N=157; IXE Q2W: N=195), 46.9% achieved low disease activity (ASDAS <2.1), and 19.9% achieved ASAS partial remission at 116 weeks (Table 1; Figure 1). In comparison to baseline, 56.0% achieved ASAS40 (Table 1). The mean change from baseline at Week 116 was –1.70 for ASDAS, –2.98 for BASFI, and 9.22 for SF-36 Physical Component Summary (Table 1). Similar observed responses were achieved between the patients continuously treated with IXE and patients initially treated with placebo or adalimumab. For the 932 patients in the safety population, no new safety signals were identified.

Conclusion:

Ixekizumab treatment led to consistent and sustained long-term improvements in disease activity and quality of life in patients with r- and nr-axSpA, with no new safety signals after up to 2 years of treatment.

References:

[1]Dougados, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79:176-185.

[2]Deodhar, et al. Lancet 2020; 395:53-64.

Disclosure of Interests:

Juergen Braun Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Boehringer, Celgene, Celltrion, Centocor, Chugai, Eli Lilly and Company, Medac, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Boehringer, Celgene, Celltrion, Centocor, Chugai, Eli Lilly and Company, Medac, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Boehringer, Celgene, Celltrion, Centocor, Chugai, Eli Lilly and Company, Medac, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB, Uta Kiltz Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Hexal, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biocad, Eli Lilly and Company, Grünenthal, Hexal, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Hexal, Novartis, and Pfizer, Atul Deodhar Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Giliad, GlaxoSmith & Kline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, GlaxoSmith & Kline, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Tetsuya Tomita Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Takeda, Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Takeda, Pfizer, Maxime Dougados Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Rebecca Bolce 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, David Adams Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Chen-Yen Lin Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Jessica A. Walsh Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Merck, and Pfizer

OP0181 CURRENT FAVOURABLE 10-YEAR OUTCOME OF PATIENTS WITH EARLY RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS: DATA FROM THE ESPOIR COHORT

Background:

ESPOIR is a longitudinal prospective cohort of adults with possible early RA (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03666091). Patients were referred by rheumatologists and general practitioners to one of the 14 regional centers in France. The objective and design of the cohort are described elsewhere (1). Patients received standard of care by their rheumatologists and were followed without predefined therapeutic strategies

Objectives:

To report the current 10-year outcome of patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in the ESPOIR cohort, and predictors of outcome.

Methods:

From 2003 to 2005, 813 patients were included if they had early arthritis (< 6 months) with a high probability of RA developing and had never been prescribed disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate predictors of outcome.

Results:

In total, 521 (64.1%) RA patients were followed up for 10 years and 35 (4.3%) died, which appears similar to the French general population. Overall, 480 (92.1%) patients received a DMARD; 174/521 (33.4%) received at least one biologic DMARD, 13.6 and 23.4% within 2 and 5 years. At year 10 (Table), mean DAS28 ESR was 2.5 ± 1.3; 273 (52.4%) patients were in DAS28 remission, 39.7% in CDAI remission, 40.1% in DAS28 sustained remission, and 14.1% in drug-free remission. Disability was well controlled overtime (Figure) and half of the patients achieved a HAQ Disability Index < 0.5; the SF-36 physical component and pain were well controlled. Structural progression was weak, with a mean change from baseline in modified Sharp score of 11.0 ± 17.9. A total of 82 (16.5%) patients required joint surgery including arthroplasty or arthrodesis in only 6.5% of the cases. A substantial number of patients showed new comorbidities, mainly cardiovascular or metabolic diseases over 10 years. Finally, positivity for anti-citrullinated protein antibodies was confirmed as a robust predictor of long-term outcome in patients with early RA.

Table 1.

Outcome in ESPOIR cohort and 1993 cohort at 10 years

ESPOIR cohort n=5211993 cohort n=112DAS28 ESR2.5 ± 1.3DAS44-2.2 ± 0.9SDAI7.5 ± 8.7CDAI6.8 ±8.3DAS28 ESR remission (n (%)273 (52.4)CDAI remission207 (39.7)DAS28 sustained remission, n (%)209 (40.1)DAS28 drug-free remission, n (%)75 (14.1)DAS28 ESR LDA336 (64.5)Rheumatoid nodules39 (7.5)Sicca syndrome314 (60.3)Patient global assessment24.0 ± 24.0HAQ DI score0.5 ± 0.60.75 ± 0.71HAQ DI < 0.5, n (%)280 (54.5)SF36 MCS46.7 ± 10.5SF36 PCS44.6 ± 9.2Pain (mm, VAS)16.6 ± 20.6Fatigue (mm, VAS)31.4 ± 27.023.2 ± 23.0ESR (mm/hr)14.4 ± 13.818.4 ± 16.5CRP level (mg/l)6.4 ± 16.59.3 ± 11.7Normal CRP (< 5 mg/l), n (%)336 (67.6)Total mSharp score*13.8 ± 19.635.4 ± 46.1Erosion score4.9 ± 9.418.4 ± 26.5)Joint narrowing score8.9 ± 12.132.1 ±23.2Joint surgery82 (16.5)26 (23.2)Joint arthroplasty/arthrodesis34 (6.5)20 (17.9)

Data are mean (SD)

DAS28, disease activity in 28 joints; HAQ DI, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index; SF36 MCS, Medial Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form mental component summary; SF36 PCS, Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form physical component summary; ESR, erythrocyte sedimentation rate; CRP, C-reactive protein; VAS, visual analog scale; CDAI, Clinical Disease Activity Index; SDAI, Simple Disease Activity Index; *van der Heijde-modified Total Sharp score

Figure 1.

Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) over 10 years Data are mean (SD).

Conclusion:

We report a very mild 10-year outcome of a large inception cohort of patients with early RA diagnosed in the early 2000s, which was much better than results for a previous cohort of early RA patients who were recruited in 1993. This current favourable outcome may be related to more intensive care for real-life patients than previously.

References:

[1]Combe B et al. Jt Bone Spine Rev Rhum. 2007;74:440–5

Acknowledgements:

We thank MC Boissier, G Falgaronne and F. Lioté for help in patient recruitment. An unrestricted grant from Merck Sharp and Dohme (MSD) was allocated for the first 5 years of the cohort study. Two additional grants from INSERM supported part of the biological database. The French Society of Rheumatology, Abbvie, Pfizer, Lilly and more recently Fresenius and Biogen supported the ESPOIR cohort.

Disclosure of Interests:

Bernard Combe Speakers bureau: AbbVie; BMS; Gilead; Lilly; Merck; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai;, Consultant of: AbbVie; BMS; Gilead; Janssen; Lilly; Merck; Novartis; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; and Sanofi;, Grant/research support from: Fresenius, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche-Chugai., Nathalie Rincheval: None declared, Francis Berenbaum Speakers bureau: Boehringer, Bone Therapeutics, Expanscience, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Merck Sereno, MSD, Nordic, Novartis, Regulaxis, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Servier, UCB, Peptinov, TRB Chemedica, 4Moving Biotech, 4P Pharma, Consultant of: Boehringer, Bone Therapeutics, Expanscience, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Merck Sereno, MSD, Nordic, Novartis, Regulaxis, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Servier, UCB, Peptinov, TRB Chemedica, 4Moving Biotech, 4P Pharma, Patrick BOUMIER: None declared, Alain Cantagrel Speakers bureau: AbbVie; Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb; Grunenthal; Lilly; Medac; MSD France; Novartis; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; Sanofi;, Consultant of: AbbVie; Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb; Grunenthal; Lilly; Medac; MSD France; Novartis; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; Sanofi;, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Fresenius, MSD France, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Philippe Dieudé Speakers bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Lilly, Medac, Novartis Roche-Genentech, Sanofi, Consultant of: Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Lilly, Medac, Novartis Roche-Genentech, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer., Maxime Dougados Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Abbvie, Lilly, UCB, Merck, BMS, Roche, Biogen, Sanofi, Novartis, and Sandoz, Consultant of: Pfizer, Abbvie, Lilly, UCB, Merck, BMS, Roche, Biogen, Sanofi, Novartis, and Sandoz, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Abbvie, Lilly, UCB, Merck, BMS, Roche, Biogen, Sanofi, Novartis, and Sandoz, Bruno Fautrel Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Mylan, NORDIC Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi-Genzyme, SOBI, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Mylan, NORDIC Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi-Genzyme, SOBI, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Lilly, MSD and Pfizer, René-Marc Flipo Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Biogen, BMS, Janssen, MSD, Nordic, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai and Sanofi-Genzyme, Consultant of: Abbvie, Biogen, BMS, Janssen, MSD, Nordic, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai and Sanofi-Genzyme, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche-Chugai, Philippe Goupille Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Nordic Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi and UCB., Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Nordic Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi and UCB., Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Biogen, MSD, Pfizer, Xavier Mariette Speakers bureau: BMS, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Servier, and UCB., Consultant of: BMS, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Servier, and UCB., Grant/research support from: Servier, Alain Saraux Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Nordic, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, Sanofi and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Nordic, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, Sanofi and UCB, Grant/research support from: Roche-Chugai, Thierry Schaeverbeke Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, Novartis, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, Novartis, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, AbbVie, BMS, Roche, UCB, Astra, MSD, Rigel, AB-sciences, Jean Sibilia Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Lilly, MSD, Amgen, Pfizer, BMS, Janssen, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi-Genzyme, SOBI, UCB, Novartis., Consultant of: AbbVie, Lilly, MSD, Amgen, Pfizer, BMS, Janssen, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi-Genzyme, SOBI, UCB, Novartis., Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Olivier VITTECOQ Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer; Roche-Chugai, Mylan and Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer; Roche-Chugai, Mylan and Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, Jean-Pierre Daures: None declared

POS0226 BIMEKIZUMAB LONG-TERM SAFETY AND EFFICACY IN PATIENTS WITH ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS: 3-YEAR RESULTS FROM A PHASE 2B STUDY

Background:

Bimekizumab (BKZ), a monoclonal antibody that selectively inhibits interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F, has demonstrated clinical efficacy and safety in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) treated over a period up to 96 weeks.1,2

Objectives:

To report 3-year interim safety and efficacy of BKZ in patients with active AS from a phase 2b dose-ranging study (BE AGILE; NCT02963506) and its ongoing open-label extension (OLE; NCT03355573).

Methods:

BE AGILE study design has been described previously.1 Patients treated with BKZ 160 mg or 320 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) at Week 48 in BE AGILE were eligible for OLE entry. All OLE patients received BKZ 160 mg Q4W. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) are reported for the BE AGILE safety set (patients who received ≥1 dose of BKZ on study entry) for total exposure to BKZ across BE AGILE and the OLE. Efficacy outcomes are reported for the OLE full analysis set (patients who entered the OLE and had ≥1 dose of BKZ and ≥1 valid efficacy variable measurement in the OLE), and include: ASAS40, ASAS20, ASAS PR, ASDAS, ASDAS-CII, ASDAS-MI, ASDAS-ID (<1.3) and ASDAS <2.1. Data are reported as imputed (multiple imputation [MI] based on the missing at random assumption, or non-responder imputation [NRI]) and as observed case (OC).

Results:

262/303 (86%) patients randomised at BE AGILE study baseline completed Week 48 on BKZ 160 mg or 320 mg. At Week 48, 255/262 (97%) patients entered the OLE (full analysis set: 254); 219 patients had an efficacy assessment at Week 156. Over the 156 weeks, the exposure-adjusted incidence rate (EAIR) per 100 patient-years (PY) of TEAEs was 143.5, with an EAIR of 5.8 for serious TEAEs, 1.3 for serious infections, and 3.8 for Candida infections (Table 1). All Candida infections were mild or moderate; none were systemic or led to study discontinuation. Over 156 weeks, the EAIR of inflammatory bowel disease (1.2), anterior uveitis (0.8), and injection site reactions (0.5) remained low. Efficacy demonstrated at Week 48 in BE AGILE was maintained or improved up to Week 156 (Figure 1). Mean ASDAS improved from 3.9 at BE AGILE baseline to 2.0 and 1.8 at Weeks 48 and 156 respectively (by MI). At Week 156 in the NRI analyses, ASAS40 and ASAS PR were achieved by 62.6% (OC: 72.6%) and 32.7% (OC: 37.9%) patients respectively. ASDAS-ID and ASDAS <2.1 responder rates (NRI) were maintained or continued to increase from Week 48, and by Week 156, responses were achieved by 28.0% (OC: 33.0%) and 57.1% (OC: 67.4%) patients respectively. ASDAS-MI responder rates (NRI) continued to increase from 44.9% at Week 48 to 46.5% at Week 156 (OC: 52.9%).

Table 1.

Safety for total exposure to BKZ across BE AGILE and the OLE

BE AGILEWeeks 0–48BE AGILE + OLEWeeks 0–156n (%) [EAIR/100 PY]BKZ 160 mg(n=149;114.2 PY)BKZ 320 mg(n=150;119.6 PY)All BKZ(N=303;261.3 PY)All BKZ(N=303;781.0 PY)Any TEAE103 (69.1) [168.7]122 (81.3) [221.1]235 (77.6) [186.2]280 (92.4) [143.5]Serious TEAEs5 (3.4) [4.4]6 (4.0) [5.1]13 (4.3) [5.1]43 (14.2) [5.8]Key TEAEs of special monitoringSerious infections3 (2.0) [2.7]1 (0.7) [0.8]4 (1.3) [1.5]10 (3.3) [1.3]Candida infections10 (6.7) [9.1]9 (6.0) [7.9]19 (6.3) [7.5]28 (9.2) [3.8]Inflammatory bowel disease1 (0.7) [0.9]2 (1.3) [1.7]4 (1.3) [1.5]9 (3.0) [1.2]Anterior uveitis1 (0.7) [0.9]1 (0.7) [0.8]2 (0.7) [0.8]6 (2.0) [0.8]Study discontinuations due to TEAEs7 (4.7)10 (6.7)20 (6.6)38 (12.5)Drug-related TEAEs48 (32.2)54 (36.0)110 (36.3)149 (49.2)Deaths1 (0.7)01 (0.3)2 (0.7)

TEAEs are reported for the BE AGILE safety set for total exposure to BKZ across BE AGILE and the OLE. There was one death in BE AGILE (cardiac arrest) and one in the OLE (road traffic accident); neither was considered treatment-related.

Conclusion:

The safety profile of BKZ in patients with AS was in line with previous observations.1.2 Patients treated with BKZ demonstrated sustained and consistent efficacy over 156 weeks.

References:

[1]van der Heijde D. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79:595–604; 2. Baraliakos X. Arthritis Rheumatol 2020;72 (suppl 10).

Acknowledgements:

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

Disclosure of Interests:

Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cyxone, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB Pharma, Employee of: Director of Imaging Rheumatology, Atul Deodhar Speakers bureau: Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Lianne S. Gensler Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Denis Poddubnyy Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biocad, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Alan Kivitz Shareholder of: Pfizer, Novartis, Speakers bureau: Amgen, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Consultant of: Novartis, UCB Pharma, Maxime Dougados Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Natasha de Peyrecave Employee of: UCB Pharma, Marga Oortgiesen Employee of: UCB Pharma, Thomas Vaux Employee of: UCB Pharma, Carmen Fleurinck Employee of: UCB Pharma, Xenofon Baraliakos Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Paid instructor for: AbbVie, BMS, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma

POS0965 ARE SMOKING AND ALCOHOL ASSOCIATED WITH PERIPHERAL MUSCULOSKELETAL INVOLVEMENT IN PATIENTS WITH SPONDYLOARTHRITIS? RESULTS FROM THE ASAS-PERSPA STUDY

Background:

The harmful effect of smoking on axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) in relation to radiographic progression is well known, but there are controversies around the role of cigarettes in other manifestations of SpA, such as peripheral involvement. Besides, it has been observed an inverse association between alcohol consumption and disease activity and functional impairment1, although it is still unclear its association with peripheral manifestations of SpA.

Objectives:

To evaluate the association between smoking/alcohol intake and the prevalence of peripheral articular manifestations (arthritis, enthesitis or dactylitis).

To assess the association between smoking/alcohol intake and the location of such manifestations.

Methods:

Patients from the cross-sectional ASAS-PerSpA study with available data for both the smoking status and alcohol intake were included. Mixed logistic regressions using the peripheral manifestation (or location) as dependent variable, the smoking status or alcohol intake as fixed effect and the country as random effect were used. The interaction between smoking and alcohol was tested.

Results:

A total of 4451 patients with either axSpA, peripheral SpA or Psoriatic Arthritis were included. 59.5% had smoked at any moment and 42.7% had been alcohol drinkers. Patients who had ever suffered arthritis showed lower frequency of smoking habit (OR 0.72, 95%CI 0.63-0.82) and lower alcohol intake (OR 0.82, 95%CI 0.71-0.94) (Table 1). Among patients with arthritis, smoking was associated with predominantly upper limbs vs. lower limbs involvement (OR 0.78, 95%CI 0.65-0.94), while alcohol was associated with predominant mono/oligoarticular vs. polyarticular involvement (OR 1.13, 95%CI 0.94-1.36).

Patients who had ever suffered enthesitis also showed lower frequency of smoking habit and alcohol intake (OR 0.75, 95%CI 0.63-0.89 and OR 0.69, 95%CI 0.57-0.83, respectively). No association was found with regard to the prevalence of dactylitis.

At the moment of the study visit, 20.4% patients were current smokers and 32.2% consumed alcohol. Current alcohol intake was associated with lower prevalence of current arthritis (26.9% vs. 33.6% (OR 0.76, 95%CI 0.64-0.91) and current enthesitis (21.1% vs. 34.6% (OR 0.78, 95%CI 0.62-0.96), while current smoking did not show significant differences.

No interaction was found in the association between alcohol and tobacco with regard to the prevalence of peripheral symptoms in the past. However, when assessing current arthritis, current smoking and no drinking was associated with arthritis in the lower limbs.

Conclusion:

These results suggest that, taking into account the country, smoking and alcohol are associated with lower prevalence of peripheral manifestations (arthritis and enthesitis), with no interaction effect between both habits. Smoking seems to be associated with predominantly upper limbs arthritis while alcohol intake seems to be associated with a predominantly oligo/mono articular involvement. Future studies are required including the influence of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis in the relationship between alcohol and smoking and its association with peripheral manifestations.

References:

[1]Zhao S, Thong D, Duffield SJ, et al. Alcohol and disease activity in axial spondyloarthritis: a cross-sectional study. Rheumatol Int 2018. 38(3):375-381.

Table 1.

Association between peripheral musculoskeletal manifestations and smoking and alcohol.

Peripheral joint disease with objective signs in the pastPeripheral enthesitis with objective signs in the pastDactylitis in the pastYes 2292No 2169OR (95%CI)*Yes 765No 3696OR (95%CI)*Yes 685No 3776OR (95%CI)*Smoker ever887 (38.7%)1013 (46.7%)OR 0.72312 (40.8%)1588 (43.0%)OR 0.75277 (40.4%)1623 (43.0%)OR 0.89(0.63-0.82)(0.63-0.89)(0.75-1.06)Alcohol ever929 (40.4%)882 (40.7%)OR 0.82276 (36.1%)1535 (41.5%)OR 0.69299 (43.6%)1512 (40.0%)OR 1.01(0.71-0.94)(0.57-0.83)(0.84–1.22)

*Mixed logistic regression using the country as a random effect.

Disclosure of Interests:

None declared.

POS0995 EFFECT OF SEX IN CO-EXISTENT FIBROMYALGIA AND ENTHESITIS IN SPONDYLOARTHRITIS: ANCILLARY ANALYSIS OF THE ASAS-PerSpA STUDY

Background:

Enthesitis is a common feature of axial spondyloarthropathy (axSpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Up to 25% of individuals with axSpA and PsA have a co-existing diagnosis of fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS). The anatomic overlap between tender points in FMS and sites of entheses is a challenge when differentiating between active SpA and FMS. Literature investigating the co-existence of enthesitis and FMS in individuals with SpA is sparse, in particular the effect of sex. The ASAS Peripheral involvement in Spondyloarthritis (PerSpA) study aims to characterize peripheral musculoskeletal in individuals with SpA across the world.

Objectives:

(1)To characterise the co-existence of enthesitis and FMS in individuals with SpA.

(2)To explore the effect of sex on the presence of FMS and enthesitis.

Methods:

All individuals from the cross-sectional multinational ASAS-PerSpA study with a diagnosis of axSpA, peripheral SpA (pSpA) or PsA according to their rheumatologist were included. The Fibromyalgia Rapid Screening Tool (FiRST) was used to make the diagnosis of FMS. The baseline descriptive and clinical differences between sexes were performed using T-tests and crosstabs. Sex-stratified comparisons within the following categories were conducted using chi-square analysis and ANOVA as appropriate: (1) enthesitis & fibromyalgia; (2) enthesitis only; (3) fibromyalgia only; (4) neither.

Results:

Baseline characteristics of the 4465 included patients are outlined in Table 1, stratified by sex. Enthesitis occurred in 44% (n=1984) of the population and was more common in females than males (48% vs 42%, p<0.01). The majority affected had intermittent episodes of enthesitis (55%, n=1088), with the Achilles tendon and plantar fascia the two most common sites in both sexes. Enthesitis was more often confirmed on imaging in females than males (44% v 35%, p<0.01). The most common treatment for enthesitis was non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (97%, n=1318), with no difference when stratified by sex. FMS occurred in 19% (n=775) of patients and was more common in females than males (28% vs 13%, p<0.01).

Table 1.

Participant characteristics, stratified by sex. Values are mean (SD), median (25th, 75th) or n (%). P-values are independent T-tests or Mann-Whitney as appropriate.

VariableTotalMaleFemaleP valueN446527241741Age, years45 (14)43 (14)46 (13)<0.01Disease duration, years11 (6, 20)12 (6, 21)11 (5, 19)0.01Delay to diagnosis, years3 (1, 9)3 (1, 9)3 (1, 10)0.11HLA-B27 positive2066 (66)1457 (73)609 (54)<0.01Radiographic sacroiliitis2517 (61)1788 (70)729 (46)<0.01Sacroiliitis on MRI1817 (65)1128 (68)689 (60)<0.01axSpA ASAS criteria2910 (65)1953 (72)957 (55)<0.01pSpA ASAS criteria555 (12)250 (9)305 (18)<0.01CASPAR criteria1043 (23)508 (19)535 (31)<0.01BMI, kg/m226 (23, 29)26 (23, 29)26 (23, 30)0.24Axial involvement3428 (76.8)2243 (82.3)1185 (68.1)<0.01Peripheral involvement2541 (56.9)1404 (51.5)1137 (65.3)<0.01Enthesitis1984 (44.4)1149 (42.2)835 (48.0)<0.01Uveitis738 (17)482 (18)256 (15)0.01Psoriasis1212 (27)615 (23)597 (34)<0.01Inflammatory bowel disease275 (6)150 (6)125 (7)0.02

Enthesitis and FMS occurred together in 10% of the cohort, was more common in women than men (see Figure 1) and was associated with a significantly (p<0.01) longer delay to diagnosis of 1.8 years and a higher BMI of 2.1 kg/m2 than people with enthesitis only. Objective confirmation of enthesitis was similar in those with and without FMS (38% vs 38%, p=0.92).

The presence of FMS added to the burden of disease in those with enthesitis as assessed by BASDAI (6.4 vs 3.6, p<0.01) and ASDAS-CRP (3.5 vs 2.5, p<0.01), with no difference between sexes (p>0.05).

Conclusion:

In this large cross-sectional multinational analysis, FMS affected 19% of individuals with SpA. The co-existence of enthesitis and FMS occurred in 16% of females compared to 6% of males. The presence of FMS increased the burden of disease in those with enthesitis, as assessed by BASDAI and ASDAS-CRP, with no difference between men and women.

Disclosure of Interests:

Gillian Fitzgerald: None declared, Sinead Maguire Grant/research support from: Recipient of Gilead Inflammation Fellowship, Finbar Barry O’Shea: None declared, Clementina López-Medina: None declared, Maxime Dougados: None declared, Nigil Haroon Speakers bureau: Received honorarium from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Jannsen, Novartis, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Jannsen, Novartis, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Jannsen, Novartis, UCB.

POS0239 ROOT JOINT INVOLVEMENT IN SPONDYLOARTHRITIS: A POST-HOC ANALYSIS FROM THE INTERNATIONAL ASAS-PERSPA STUDY

Background:

In patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA), root joint diseases (RJD), i.e. hip or shoulder involvement, may be associated with a distinct disease phenotype compared to those with other affected joints. The ASAS-PerSpA study (PERipheral involvement in SPondyloArthritis) [1], offers a unique opportunity to study the phenotypes of patients with RJD in a global cohort.

Objectives:

Primary objective was to compare the clinical characteristics of SpA patients with and without RJD. Secondary objectives were to compare the prevalence of RJD across the different SpA subtypes and the different regions of the world, compare the severity of axial disease as well as the disease burden in SpA patients with and without RJD.

Methods:

This is a post-hoc analysis of the ASAS-PerSpA study, which included 4,465 patients with any subtype of SpA (axial SpA (axSpA), peripheral SpA (pSpA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), inflammatory bowel disease associated SpA (IBD-SpA), reactive arthritis (ReA) and Juvenile SpA (Juv-SpA)) according to the rheumatologist’s diagnosis. RJD was defined as a positive answer by the investigator to the following question: “Do you consider that the patient has ever suffered from RJD (e.g. hip, shoulder) related to SpA?” In case of a positive answer, a potential specific treatment (e.g. Total Articular Replacement) was investigated. The patient’s characteristics were compared between those with and without RJD involvement, using Chi-2 or Fisher exact test for the categorical variables and t-test for the continuous variables. Two separate multivariable stepwise binary logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with the dependent variables “hip involvement” and “shoulder involvement”.

Results:

RJD occurred in 1,503 patients (33.7%), with more prevalent hip (24.2%) than shoulder (13.2%) involvement. The prevalence of RJD as a group was the highest in Juv-SpA (52.7%), followed by pSpA (44.3%) and axSpA (33.9%). The highest prevalence of RJD was found in Asia and the lowest in Europe and North America. Among patients with hip involvement, 6.0% had a history of hip replacement (highest in the Middle East and North Africa and Latin America); among patients with shoulder involvement, 0.8% had a history of shoulder replacement. Hip had a distinct pattern of associations compared to shoulder involvement (Figure 1). Hip involvement was significantly associated with the SpA main diagnosis (highest in pSpA, lowest in PsA), younger age at first SpA symptom, lower prevalence of family history of psoriasis, positive HLA-B27, occiput-to-wall distance>0, and treatment with cs-DMARDs and b-DMARDs. Shoulder involvement was associated with the SpA main diagnosis (highest in Juv-SpA and pSpA, lowest in axSpA), older age at first SpA symptom, higher prevalence of enthesitis, dactylitis, tender joints count, IBD, occiput-to-wall distance>0, EQ5D score and treatment with cs-DMARDs.

Conclusion:

Hip involvement was more prevalent than shoulder involvement in patients with SpA, and had a distinct phenotype resembling axial disease whereas shoulder involvement was mostly associated with features of peripheral disease. Hip and shoulder involvement should be analyzed separately in future studies rather than under the RJD entity.

References:

[1]Lopez-medina, C. et al. Prevalence and Distribution of Peripheral Musculoskeletal Manifestations in Axial Spondyloarthritis, Peripheral Spondyloarthritis and Psoriatic Arthritis: Results of the International, Cross-sectional ASAS-PerSpA Study. RMD Open; 2021;7:e001450.

Disclosure of Interests:

None declared

POS0951 ASSOCIATION BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL AND COUNTRY-LEVEL SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS AND HEALTH OUTCOMES IN AXIAL AND PERIPHERAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS: ANALYSIS OF THE ASAS PERSPA STUDY

Background:

Health outcomes in spondyloarthritis (SpA) are largely determined by socioeconomic (SE) factors, leading to the great inequity observed between countries across the world. However, the impact of these SE factors on health outcomes across the different SpA phenotypes (axSpA, pSpA and PsA), is less well known.

Objectives:

To investigate (1) the association between individual and country-level SE factors and health outcomes in different SpA phenotypes, and (2) to explore whether any effect of these SE factors is mediated by the use of b/tsDMARD therapy.

Methods:

Patients with axSpA, pSpA or PsA from the multinational cohort ASAS-perSpA were included in the analysis. The effect of individual (age, gender, education and marital status) and country-level SE factors (Gross Domestic Product [GDP], Healthcare Expenditure [HCE], Human Development Index [HDI], Gini Index) over health outcomes (ASDAS≥2.1, continuous ASDAS, BASFI, fatigue and ASAS-HI) were assessed in multivariable mixed-effects logistic and linear regression models (as appropriate), adjusting for confounders. Interactions between each individual and country-level SE factors and disease phenotype and between both levels of SE factors, were tested. Finally, a mediation analysis was conducted to explore whether the impact of country-level SE factors on ASDAS is mediated through b/tsDMARD uptake.

Results:

A total of 4185 patients from 23 countries were included: 61% males, mean age 45 (SD 14), 65% axSpA, 10% pSpA and 25% PsA. Female gender, lower educational level and marital status (single vs married) were associated with higher ASDAS, without significant differences across disease phenotype. Living in lower-(vs higher) GDP countries was also associated with higher ASDAS (β=0.39 [95%CI 0.16; 0.63], with similar results for other economic indicators (Figure 1). 7% of the association between GDP and ASDAS was mediated by b/tsDMARD uptake. The above-mentioned individual and country-level SE factors remained significant to discriminate active disease (ASDAS≥2.1), with greater impact of gender (OR=1.32 [1.13; 1.54]), educational level (primary vs university OR=1.76 [1.40;2.20]) and lower GDP (OR= 1.74 [1.22;2.46]). Higher BASFI was also associated with gender (female vs male: β=0.12 [0.01; 0.24]), lower education (primary vs university: β=0.29 [0.11; 0.46], and marital status (single vs married: β=0.23 [0.09; 0.38]), without effect of country-level SE factors, and no differences across SpA phenotype. Gender and lower educational level were similarly associated with worse ASAS-HI scores (female vs male β=0.88 [0.68;1.09], and primary vs university β=0.61 [0.31;0.91]), while more fatigue was only associated with female gender and, in an opposite direction, with higher country-level SE factors (Figure 1). No interactions were found between individual and country-level SE factors for any of the outcomes.

Conclusion:

Individual (female gender and lower education) and country-level SE factors are independently associated with higher disease activity in SpA. Uptake of b/tsDMARD had a small mediating effect on the association between GDP and ASDAS. Lower education and female gender are also associated with worse outcomes of functional disability, global functioning and fatigue. Country-level SE factors are not associated with functional disability or global functioning; in contrast, there is a paradoxical effect with fatigue: living in a country with a higher SE status is independently associated with higher levels of fatigue. Management of disease outcome in SpA requires also awareness of the role of individual and country level SE-factors.

Figure 1.

Effect of individual and country-level socioeconomic factors on ASDAS and fatigue, derived from multivariable mixed-effects models adjusted by clinical confounders.

Disclosure of Interests:

Dafne Capelusnik Speakers bureau: BMS, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Sizheng Steven Zhao: None declared, Annelies Boonen: None declared, Nelly Ziade Speakers bureau: Roche, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Janssen, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Apotex, Pharmaline, Paid instructor for: Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Sanofi-Aventis, Pfizer, Janssen, Consultant of: Roche, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Janssen, Novartis, Gilead, NewBridge, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, NewBridge, Algorithm/Celgene, Clementina López-Medina: None declared, Maxime Dougados: None declared, Elena Nikiphorou Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Lilly, AbbVie, Sofia Ramiro Speakers bureau: Lilly, MSD, Novartis, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, UCB, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: MSD

POS0614 PERFUSE: A FRENCH PROSPECTIVE/RETROSPECTIVE NONINTERVENTIONAL COHORT STUDY OF INFLIXIMAB-NAÏVE AND TRANSITIONED PATIENTS RECEIVING INFLIXIMAB BIOSIMILAR SB2; 12-MONTH ANALYSIS

Background:

SB2 is approved in the EU as an infliximab (IFX) biosimilar, having demonstrated bioequivalence and similar efficacy, safety and immunogenicity as the reference. PERFUSE is an ongoing non-interventional study of 1233 patients (496 with rheumatology diagnoses, 737 with gastroenterology diagnoses) receiving SB2 as routine therapy.

Objectives:

The aim of the study is to provide data on long-term outcomes in patients initiating SB2 in the real-world setting.

Methods:

Adult patients eligible for inclusion in the rheumatology study cohorts have a diagnosis of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) or Axial Spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and had initiated SB2 in routine clinical practice after September 2017, either as their first IFX or transitioning from treatment with IFX reference or another IFX biosimilar. Outcome measures include SB2 dose, disease activity scores and persistence on SB2, over time and up to 24 months after initiation. This interim analysis is the first complete analysis of 12 month data on all rheumatology patients enrolled into the study at 9 specialist sites and followed up to the data extract date of 29th October 2020. The analysis provides an overview of baseline characteristics, disease scores, SB2 dose and persistence at 12 months post-initiation of SB2.

Results:

Table 1.

Mean Disease Activity Score-28 erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) over the course of ICHIBAN. BL, baseline; SD, standard deviation.

axSpA cohort(N=336;IFX naïve 81, IFX-prior 255)RA cohort(N=98;IFX naïve 22, IFX-prior 76)PsA cohort(N=62;IFX naïve 14, IFX-prior 48)Baseline characteristicsAge in years, mean (SD):IFX-naïve43.1 (11.1)53.1 (15.9)48.5 (12.2)Transitioned from IFX48.9 (12.4)57.3 (13.1)53.1 (13.0)Disease duration in years, mean (SD):IFX-naïve7.2 (9.3)11.3 (9.8)4.2 (3.9)Transitioned from IFX16.6 (11.6)17.3 (8.8)12.9 (11.3)Women, n (%):IFX-naïve26 (32.1)16 (72.7)6 (42.9)Transitioned from IFX79 (31.0)60 (78.9)15 (31.3)SB2 Dose: n, mean mg/kg (SD)IFX-naïve:Baseline81383.8 (85.5)22266.2 (145.9)14395.4 (108.9)Month 1247436.8 (153.3)13285.5 (90.7)6508.0 (147.6)Transitioned from IFX:Baseline255396.7 (109.6)76291.8 (103.4)48408.5 (91.3)Month 12195392.1 (105.5)60287.8 (106.6)41421.4 (101.6)Disease score, mean (SD)IFX-naïve:nBASDAInDAS28nDAS28Baseline545.8 (2.1)144.3 (1.6)-*-*Month 12303.5 (2.7)93.2 (1.2)Transitioned from IFX:Baseline2063.0 (2.0)622.6 (1.2)202.2 (1.2)Month 121513.0 (2.1)472.7 (1.2)192.1 (0.9)KM estimate of persistence on SB2 by Month 12; proportion, (95% CI)IFX-naïve56.26 (44.43; 66.51)59.09 (36.10; 76.21)64.29 (34.33; 83.31)Transitioned from IFX79.86 (74.37; 84.30)80.26 (69.42; 87.60)85.04 (71.11; 92.58)

*Blank as disease score data for both baseline and Month 12 were provided by a single patient who was IFX-naïve and had PsA; IFX = infliximab; axSpA = Axial Spondyloarthritis; RA = Rheumatoid Arthritis; PsA = Psoriatic Arthritis; BASDAI = Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index; DAS28 = Disease Activity Score 28; CI = confidence interval; SD = standard deviation; KM = Kaplan Meier.

Conclusion:

This 12-month analysis indicates that patients with axSpA or RA can be successfully initiated on SB2 as the first infliximab therapy, and patients with axSpA, RA or PsA can be transitioned from originator or biosimilar IFX to SB2 without loss of disease control and with no dose penalty over 12 months post-transition. Over 56% of IFX- naïve patients and over 79% of patients transitioned from prior IFX remained on SB2 at 12 months post-initiation. With follow-up of patients ongoing to 24 months post-initiation of SB2, the study will continue to provide pertinent information about clinical outcomes of initiation on SB2 as first IFX or after transition from reference or IFX biosimilar to SB2.

Acknowledgements:

Data management for the study was provided by Sanoïa E-health services, Digital CRO, Gémenos, France; funding was provided by Biogen International GmbH.

Disclosure of Interests:

Bruno Fautrel Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Biogen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, NORDIC Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, SOBI, UCB., Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, NORDIC Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, SOBI, UCB., Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, Pfizer., Yoram Bouhnik Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Biogaran, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, CTMA, Ferring, Gilead, Hospira, ICON, Inception IBD, Janssen, Lilly, Mayoly Spindler, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Norgine, Pfizer, Robarts Clinical Trials, Roche, Sanofi, Shire, Takeda, UCB, Vifor Pharma., Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogaran, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, CTMA, Ferring, Gilead, Hospira, ICON, Inception IBD, Janssen, Lilly, Mayoly Spindler, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Norgine, Pfizer, Robarts Clinical Trials, Roche, Sanofi, Shire, Takeda, UCB, Vifor Pharma., Maxime Dougados Grant/research support from: Biogen, Ulrich Freudensprung Shareholder of: Biogen, Employee of: Biogen, Janet Addison Shareholder of: Biogen, Employee of: Biogen

POS0975 CLINICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF NONRADIOGRAPHIC AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS IN ASIAN COUNTRIES COMPARED TO OTHER REGIONS: RESULTS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CROSS-SECTIONAL ASAS-COMOSPA STUDY

Background:

Clinical characteristics of nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-ax-SpA) are highly variable across patients, and may potentially vary across patient populations, particularly due to differing distributions of human leukocyte antigens (HLA) and other genetic factors. The majority of nr-ax-SpA studies have been conducted in Europe, the United States, and small studies are reported from Asia [1].

Objectives:

To delineate clinical characteristics of patients with nr-ax-SpA in Asian countries in comparison to other areas of the world.

Methods:

Utilizing the ASAS-COMOSPA data, an international cross-sectional observational study of SpA patients, we analyzed information on demographics, disease characteristics, comorbidities, and risk factors. Patients were classified by region: Asia (China, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan), and non-Asian countries (Europe, Americas, and Africa); patient characteristics, including diagnosis and treatment, were compared.

Results:

Among 3984 SpA patients included in the study, 1094 were from centers in Asian countries, and 2890 from other regions. 112/780 (14.4%) of axial SpA patients in Asian countries were nr-ax-SpA, substantially less than in other countries (486/1997, 24.3%). Nr-ax-SpA patients in Asian countries compared to nr-ax-SpA in other countries were more likely male (75.9 vs 47.1%), have onset (22.8 vs 27.8 years) and diagnosis (27.2 vs 34.5 years) at younger age, and experience less diagnostic delay (1.88 vs 2.92 years) (Table 1). Nr-ax-SpA patients in Asian countries have higher prevalence of positive HLA-B27 (90.6% vs 61.9%) and fewer peripheral signs such as arthritis, enthesitis, or dactylitis (53.6% vs 66.3%) but have similar rate of extra-articular manifestations (psoriasis, IBD, or uveitis) and co-morbidities. Disease activity, functional impairment, and inflammation on MRI were less in nr-ax-SpA patients in Asian countries. NSAIDs response was higher and use of methotrexate and b-DMARDs were lower among nr-ax-SpA in Asian countries.

Conclusion:

Among axial SpA patients, substantially lower frequency of nr-ax-SpA was observed in Asian countries compared to other regions of the world. Nr-ax-SpA patients in Asian countries were predominantly male, and had younger disease onset with higher HLA-B27 positivity rate and less peripheral signs, and better response to NSAIDs. These results offer an opportunity to improve both early diagnosis and treatment of nr-ax-SpA patients in Asian countries.

Table 1.

Characteristics of nonradiographic axial SpA in Asia versus non-Asian regions

VariablesAsianon-Asian regionsp valueN112486Age at disease diagnosis, yrs27.2 [21.1, 39.6]34.5 [27.7, 41.7]<0.001Diagnostic delay, yrs1.88 [0.27, 5.56]2.92 [0.59, 9.58]0.011Male (%)85 (75.9)229 (47.1)<0.001Sacroiliitis on MRI among tested (%)49 (67.1)341 (82.2)0.005HLA B27 positivity among measured (%)96 (90.6)273 (61.9)<0.001Inflammatory Back Pain (%)107 (95.5)478 (98.4)0.076Arthritis, enthesitis, or dactylitis (%)60 (53.6)322 (66.3)0.016Psoriasis (%)12 (10.7)82 (16.9)0.142Uveitis (%)20 (17.9)81 (16.7)0.870Inflammatory bowel disease (%)5 (4.5)27 (5.6)0.817Elevated CRP (%)37 (33.0)213 (43.8)0.048Physician global assessment (0-10)2.0 [1.0, 5.0]2.0 [1.0, 4.0]0.741Patient global assessment (0-10)3.0 [1.0, 6.0]4.0 [2.0, 6.0]0.012ASDAS-CRP1.40 [0.95, 2.08]1.97 [1.21, 2.78]<0.001BASFI0.8 [0.05, 2.65]2.9 [0.8, 5.6]<0.001Good response to NSAIDs (%)80 (71.4)272 (56.0)0.004Methotrexate use (%)18 (16.1)134 (27.6)0.016Biological DMARDs use (%)27 (24.1)191 (39.3)0.004

References:

[1]López-Medina C, Ramiro S, van der Heijde D, et al. Characteristics and burden of disease in patients with radiographic and non-radiographic axial Spondyloarthritis: a comparison by systematic literature review and meta-analysis. RMD Open. 2019 Nov 21;5(2): e001108.

Acknowledgements:

This study was conducted under the umbrella of the International Society for Spondyloarthritis Assessment (ASAS) and COMOSPA study was supported by unrestricted grants from Pfizer, AbbVie and UCB.

Disclosure of Interests:

Keisuke Ono: None declared, Mitsumasa Kishimoto Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen-Astellas BioPharma, Asahi-Kasei Pharma, Astellas, Ayumi Pharma, BMS, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Ono Pharma, Pfizer, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, Teijin Pharma, and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen-Astellas BioPharma, Asahi-Kasei Pharma, Astellas, Ayumi Pharma, BMS, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Ono Pharma, Pfizer, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, Teijin Pharma, and UCB Pharma, Sho Fukui: None declared, Satoshi Kawaai: None declared, Gautam A. Deshpande: None declared, Kazuki Yoshida Consultant of: OM1, Inc., Grant/research support from: Corrona, LLC, Naomi Ichikawa: None declared, Yuko Kaneko Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Astellas, Ayumi, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Hisamitsu, Jansen, Kissei, Pfizer, Sanofi, Takeda, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, and UCB, Taku Kawasaki: None declared, Kazuo Matsui: None declared, Mitsuhiro Morita: None declared, Kurisu Tada: None declared, Naoho Takizawa: None declared, Naoto Tamura: None declared, Atsuo Taniguchi: None declared, Yoshinori Taniguchi: None declared, Shigeyoshi Tsuji: None declared, Shigeto Kobayashi: None declared, Masato Okada: None declared, Clementina López-Medina: None declared, Anna Moltó Consultant of: AbbVie, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Gilead, Lilly and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Gilead, Lilly and UCB, Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cyxone, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB Pharma, Employee of: Imaging Rheumatology bv. (Director), Maxime Dougados: None declared, Yoshinori Komagata: None declared, Tetsuya Tomita: None declared, Shinya Kaname: None declared.

POS0919 BIMEKIZUMAB SHOWS SUSTAINED LONG-TERM IMPROVEMENTS IN PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS: 3-YEAR RESULTS FROM A PHASE 2B STUDY

Background:

Bimekizumab (BKZ), a monoclonal antibody that selectively inhibits interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F, has demonstrated clinical efficacy and safety in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) treated over a period up to 96 weeks.1,2

Objectives:

To report 3-year interim patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with active AS treated with BKZ in a phase 2b dose-ranging study (BE AGILE; NCT02963506) and its open-label extension (OLE; NCT03355573).

Methods:

BE AGILE study design has been described previously.1 Patients treated with BKZ 160 mg or 320 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) at Week 48 in BE AGILE were eligible for OLE entry. All OLE patients received BKZ 160 mg Q4W. Outcome measures are reported for the OLE full analysis set (patients who entered the OLE and had ≥1 dose of BKZ and ≥1 valid efficacy variable measurement in the OLE), and include: BASDAI, BASDAI50 responder rate, BASFI, fatigue (BASDAI Q1), morning stiffness (mean of BASDAI Q5 + 6), total spinal pain (numeric rating scale [NRS]), SF-36 PCS and MCS, and ASQoL. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation (MI; based on the missing at random assumption) for continuous variables and non-responder imputation (NRI) for dichotomous variables.

Results:

262/303 (86%) patients randomised at BE AGILE study baseline (BL) completed Week 48 on BKZ 160 mg or 320 mg, of whom 255/262 (97%) entered the OLE (full analysis set: 254). From baseline to Week 48 in BE AGILE, BKZ-treated patients showed clinically relevant improvements in disease activity (BASDAI, BASDAI50), physical function (BASFI), fatigue, morning stiffness, spinal pain, and quality of life (SF-36 PCS and MCS, ASQoL) (Figure 1). Group-level improvements in all reported continuous efficacy measures exceeded published minimally important difference (MID), minimum clinically important improvement (MCII), and/or minimum clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds (Figure 1).3,4 Efficacy in all reported outcome measures was maintained or continued to improve from Week 48 to Week 144 or 156 (Figure 1).

Conclusion:

BKZ treatment was associated with sustained and consistent efficacy in patients with active AS over 3 years, including patient-reported disease activity, physical function, fatigue, morning stiffness, spinal pain, and quality of life.

References:

[1]van der Heijde D. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79:595–604.

[2]Baraliakos X. Arthritis Rheumatol 2020;72 (suppl 10).

[3]Ogdie A. Arthritis Care Res 2020;72 (S10):47–71.

[4]Maruish ME. User’s manual for the SF-36v2 Health Survey (3rd ed). 2011; Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric Incorporated.

Acknowledgements:

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

Disclosure of Interests:

Xenofon Baraliakos Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Paid instructor for: AbbVie, BMS, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Maxime Dougados Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Karl Gaffney Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Gilead, Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB Pharma, Raj Sengupta Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Biogen, Celgene, MSD, Novartis, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Celgene, UCB Pharma, Marina Magrey Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, UCB Pharma, Natasha de Peyrecave Employee of: UCB Pharma, Marga Oortgiesen Employee of: UCB Pharma, Thomas Vaux Employee of: UCB Pharma, Carmen Fleurinck Employee of: UCB Pharma, Valerie Ciaravino Employee of: UCB Pharma, Atul Deodhar Speakers bureau: Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma

POS0242 ROLE OF HLA-B27 CARRIERSHIP IN PERIPHERAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS: DATA FROM ASAS PERSPA STUDY

Background:

HLA-B27 is well known for its role in conferring susceptibility to spondyloarthritis (SpA), and several studies evaluating its association to axial SpA phenotype have been published. However, there is few evidence about its influence in patients affected with peripheral SpA (pSpA). In this sense we find ASAS perSpA registry suitable for this purpose.

Objectives:

To identify phenotypical differences in pSpA patients regarding HLA-B27 status.

Methods:

Data from all patients fulfilling ASAS pSpA criteria with HLA-B27-testing result available included in the ASAS perSpA study were used for this analysis. Socio-demographic and disease characteristics were collected. A descriptive and comparative analysis was performed between HLA-B27 positive and negative patients, using a simple logistic regression for all variables to assess their association to HLA-B27 positivity. Results were considered significant when p <0.05. A multivariate model was also performed including significant (p<0.1) and the most relevant clinical variables in agreement of medical criteria.

Results:

Among the 4465 patients included in the registry, 555 fulfilled ASAS pSpA criteria and of them 286 had the HLA-B27 typing available. HLA-B27 was positive in 118 (41.3%) and negative in 168 (58.7%). Results are listed in Table 1. No differences were observed for gender distribution (males 55.1% in HLA-B27 positive vs 49.4% in HLA-B27 negatives). HLA-B27 positive patients were significantly younger, presented a younger disease onset, had significantly higher prior axial involvement, radiographic sacroiliitis and higher root joint involvement. On the other hand, HLA-B27 negative patients showed longer disease duration with a higher diagnosis delay. Around half of the patients in both groups showed a mono or oligoarticular pattern without differences regarding HLA-B27 status, however, psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and peripheral joint damage was significantly higher in HLA-B27 negative patients. Also psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) were more frequent in HLA-B27 negative patients compared to positive ones, and acute anterior uveitis (AAU) was significantly more frequent in HLA-B27 positive patients without differences in number of AAU episodes lifelong. Finally, obesity and concomitant fibromyalgia were both more common in HLA-B27 negatives. No significant differences were found for the rest of variables evaluated.

Table 1.HLA-B27+ (N = 118)HLA-B27- (N = 168)N/mean%/SDN/mean%/SDpObesity (BMI >30)1411,9%4426,3%0,003Men6555,1%8349,4%0,344Family history4437,3%5231,0%0,265Axial involvement6252,5%4225,0%<0.001Radiographic sacroilitis3028,3%2516,8%0,029Psoriathic arthritis2319,5%11272,6%<0.001Reactive arthritis54,2%31,8%0,229IBD arthritis10,9%84,8%0,098Mono/oligoarticular pattern5954,6%7651,0%0,566Root joint involvement5244,1%5432,1%0,04Tarsitis2218,6%169,5%0,028Enthesitis6252,5%6941,1%0,056Dactylitis3126,3%5130,4%0,452Peripheral structural damage97,6%4124,4%<0.001Psoriasis2117,8%12574,4%<0.001AAU2117,8%74,2%<0.001IBD21,7%137,7%0,039Fibromyalgia1513,2%4326,7%0,008Age (y)42,714,852,213,4<0.001Age onset (y)33,913,738,314,50,013Dx delay (m)4,78,27,79,80,009Disease duration (y)9,0610,214,211,6<0.001BASDAI3,92,24,42,40,06CRP16,925,11227,30,148ASDAS-CRP2,71,22,71,10,876AAU number of episodes6,88,42,11,70,265

In the multivariate analysis, age at disease onset (OR 0.96, CI95% 0.94-0.98), disease duration (OR 0.96, CI95% 0.92-0.99), PsA (OR 0.28, CI95% 0.09-0.85), presence of psoriasis (OR 0.22, CI95% 0.07-0.64), IBD related arthritis (OR 0.03, CI95% 0.01-0.19), AAU (OR 3.63, CI95% 1.22-11.9) and tarsitis (OR 2.61, CI95% 1.01-6.98) were the most important variables independently associated to HLA-B27 status.

Conclusion:

Presence of HLA-B27 in pSpA patients was associated to a higher axial and root joint involvement, an earlier disease onset and presence of AAU, but not to PsA, psoriasis and IBD that were higher in HLA-B27 negative patients.

Disclosure of Interests:

Marta Arévalo Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Nordic Pharma, Clementina López-Medina: None declared, Victoria Navarro-Compán: None declared, Mireia Moreno Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Novartis, UCB, Bristol and AMGEN, María LLop Vilaltella Speakers bureau: Novartis, Joan Calvet: None declared, Jordi Gratacos-Masmitja Speakers bureau: During the course of the year, I have received funding for courses and conferences or as an advisor and speaker from MSD, Pfizer, AbbVie, Janssen Cilag, Novartis, Celgene, and Lilly., Maxime Dougados: None declared

POS0273-HPR PHARMACIST’S IMPACT ON SELF-MANAGEMENT FOR PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC INFLAMMATORY ARTHRITIS TREATED WITH BIOLOGICAL DMARDS

Background:

Knowledge about chronic inflammatory rheumatisc diseases and skills to administer and manage subcutaneous (subcut) biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) are key aspects to optimize patient’s self-management. Intervention of several successive health professionals (e.g comprehensive multidisciplinary team) has proven to be an effective method to improve patient’s self-management of their disease and treatment.

Objectives:

To assess the pharmacist’s impact on patient’s knowledge and skills during a multidisciplinary annual review. The secondary objectives were to assess this impact on therapeutic adherence and patient’s satisfaction as well as to determine the factors associated with the level of knowledge at baseline.

Methods:

Study type: prospective, monocentric, 6 months-follow-up, non-controlled study approved by Local Ethical Committee. Inclusion criteria: patient with either rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or spondyloarthritis (SpA), and treated with subcut bDMARDs. Intervention: The visit with a pharmacist evaluating and discussing patient’s knowledge and treatment adherence. At baseline (M0): date of the visit and, 3 (M3) and 6 months (M6) later, knowledge and adherence were assessed using self-administered questionnaires: Biosecure and CQR-5 respectively. A questionnaire was sent at M3 in order to evaluate the patient satisfaction. Endpoints: Primary: Changes in Biosecure score Secondary: Percentage of patients with high level of knowledge (score > 84) and percentage of patients with high adherence at M3 and M6; patient’s satisfaction; identification of patient’s factors (socio-demographics, rheumatisc disease treatments) associated with different levels of knowledge at baseline.

Statistical analysis: repeated measures ANOVA, Bonferroni and Generalized Estimating Equation, univariate and multivariate linear regression.

Results:

The study was conducted from October 2019 to July 2020; 79 patients were included (age (years) = 50±15; sex ratio = 1.1; RA=25, SpA=54). The Biosecure scores changed from 71±18 to 82±15 (M3) and to 84±14 (M6) (p<0.001). At M0, M3 and M6, the rate of patients with a high level of knowledge was 24.1%, 59.5% and 63.3% respectively (p<0.001). No difference was observed for the change in the 92% of patients considered as high adherent (92% versus 95% at M0 and M6 respectively; p=0.077). Patient’s satisfaction regarding the pharmaceutical intervention was 25±3 (max = 28).

Factors associated with a better Biosecure score in the multivariate analysis were the following, lifestyle as a couple (p<0.001), information given by a nurse (p=0.033), information searched for on patient associations (p=0.013) and a low Charlson score (p=0.001)

Conclusion:

Pharmacist’s intervention in the comprehensive multidisciplinary annual review resulted in a beneficial impact on patients’ knowledge and skills to manage their bDMARDs with a high level of satisfaction from a patient perspective.

Disclosure of Interests:

None declared

POS0306 IMPACT OF MULTIMORBIDITY ON DISEASE MODIFYING ANTI-RHEUMATIC DRUG THERAPY IN EARLY RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS: DATA FROM THE ESPOIR COHORT

Background:

Multimorbidity is frequent in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and could interfere with the therapeutic response.

Objectives:

The aim of this study was to evaluate multimorbidity in the French cohort of early arthritis (ESPOIR cohort) and its possible impact on the therapeutic response.

Methods:

We included patients fulfilling 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria for RA. An adapted MultiMorbidity Index (aMMI) was developed [1]. Each patient was assigned scores of binary aMMI (0= no comorbidity, 1= at least 1 comorbidity) and counted and weighted aMMI. The primary endpoint was achievement of Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) low disease activity after initiation of a first disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) according to the aMMI. Secondary endpoints were other disease activity scores and response criteria. We collected data from the visit preceding the first DMARD initiation (baseline visit) and the visit after at least 3 months of treatment (follow-up visit). The impact of aMMI on therapeutic maintenance at 1, 3, 5 and 10 years was evaluated.

Results:

Analyses involved 472 patients: 302 (64%) had at least 1 comorbidity. Overall, 45.3% and 44.7% with binary aMMI= 0 or 1, respectively (p= 0.9), achieved CDAI low disease activity (Table 1). Similar results were found with counted and weighted aMMI. Use of other disease activity scores or response criteria did not show a significant impact of multimorbidity on the therapeutic response. Therapeutic maintenance was significantly better with binary aMMI = 1 than binary aMMI = 0. Increased counted aMMI was associated with increased probability of still being on the first initiated DMARD at each time point (Table 2).

Table 1.

Impact of aMMIs on CDAI, DAS28 and SDAI low disease activity (LDA) achievement at follow-up visit (univariate analyses)

LDA achievementCDAIpDAS28pSDAIpYesNoYesNoYesNoBinary aMMI, n (%)077 (45.3)93 (54.7)0.9*85 (50.0)85 (50.0)0.2*80 (47.1)90 (52.9)0.9*1135 (44.7)167 (55.3)131 (43.4)171 (56.6)141 (46.7)161 (53.3)Counted aMMI, mean (SD)1.0 (1.1)1.1 (1.1)0.71.0 (1.1)1.1 (1.1)0.21.1 (1.1)1.1 (1.1)1.0Weighted aMMI, mean (SD)4.1 (5.2)4.0 (4.7)0.94.0 (5.2)4.1 (4.7)0.34.0 (5.0)4.0 (4.9)1.0

aMMI= adapted MultiMorbidity Index; CDAI= Clinical Disease Activity Index; SDAI= Simplified Disease Activity Index

* Proportion of patients achieving LDA between patients with binary aMMI= 0 and binary aMMI= 1. Because of no statistically significant results, no multivariate analysis was performed.

Table 2.

Probability of first DMARD maintenance at 1, 3, 5 and 10 years (multivariate analysis)

Time pointFirst DMARD maintained or stoppedBinary aMMI#Counted aMMI§011 year(n= 530)Maintenance (n= 300)22981.71 (0.93)OR [95% CI]*> 999 [286.2->999]221.3 [84.0-583.0]Withdrawal (n= 230)205250.12 (0.37)3 years(n= 493)Maintenance (n= 285)102751.66 (0.94)OR [95% CI]*153.9 [73.0-324.5]26.1 [15.1-45.3]Withdrawal (n= 208)175330.22 (0.64)5 years(n= 459)Maintenance (n= 116)91071.72 (1.05)OR [95% CI]*10.9 [5.1-23.3]2.2 [1.8-2.7]Withdrawal (n= 343)1631800.82 (1.0)10 years(n= 415)Maintenance (n= 40)2381.58 (0.84)OR [95% CI]*14.0 [3.3-59.1]1.6 [1.2-2.0]Withdrawal (n= 375)1582170.99 (1.12)

#data are number of patients

§ data are mean (standard error)

* data are odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) of still being on the first initiated DMARD at 1, 3, 5 and 10 years between patients with binary aMMI = 1 and binary aMMI = 0 and according to counted aMMI, per additional point.

Conclusion:

In the ESPOIR cohort, therapeutic response to a first DMARD was not affected by multimorbidity but therapeutic maintenance was better in multimorbid patients.

References:

[1]Radner H, Yoshida K, Mjaavatten MD, et al. Development of a multimorbidity index: Impact on quality of life using a rheumatoid arthritis cohort. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2015;45:167–73.

The variables included in multivariate analyses were sex, rheumatoid factor and/or anti-citrunillated peptide antibody positivity, age, CDAI at baseline visit, number of treatments at baseline visit.

Acknowledgements:

We are grateful to Nathalie Rincheval (Montpellier) for expert monitoring and data management and all the investigators who recruited and followed the patients (F. Berenbaum, Paris-Saint Antoine; MC. Boissier, Paris-Bobigny; A. Cantagrel, Toulouse; B. Combe, Montpellier; M. Dougados, Paris-Cochin; P. Fardellone and P. Boumier, Amiens; B. Fautrel, Paris-La Pitié; RM. Flipo, Lille; Ph. Goupille, Tours; F. Liote, Paris- Lariboisière; O. Vittecoq, Rouen; X. Mariette, Paris-Bicêtre; P. Dieude, Paris Bichat; A. Saraux, Brest; T. Schaeverbeke, Bordeaux; and J. Sibilia, Strasbourg).

Disclosure of Interests:

Aurélie BELTAI: None declared, Bernard Combe Speakers bureau: AbbVie; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Gilead; Janssen; Lilly; Merck; Novartis; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; and Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Gilead; Janssen; Lilly; Merck; Novartis; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; and Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche, Amandine Coffy: None declared, Cécile Gaujoux-Viala: None declared, Cédric Lukas Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai and UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai and UCB, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Novartis and Roche-Chugai, Alain Saraux Speakers bureau: AbbVie; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Lilly; Nordic; Novartis; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; Sanofi and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Lilly; Nordic; Novartis; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; Sanofi and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Lilly; Nordic; Novartis; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; Sanofi and UCB, Maxime Dougados Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Abbvie, Lilly, UCB, Merck, BMS, Roche, Biogen, Sanofi, Novartis, Sandoz, Consultant of: Pfizer, Abbvie, Lilly, UCB, Merck, BMS, Roche, Biogen, Sanofi, Novartis, Sandoz, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Abbvie, Lilly, UCB, Merck, BMS, Roche, Biogen, Sanofi, Novartis, Sandoz, Jean-Pierre DAURES: None declared, Charlotte Hua: None declared

POS0969 UNVEILING AXIAL INVOLVEMENT IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: AN ANCILLARY ANALYSIS OF THE ASAS-perSpA STUDY

Background:

Heterogeneity in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a current matter of discussion, especially concerning axial involvement.

Objectives:

To determine the profile of axial PsA (axPsA) in a worldwide setting. Secondly, to identify predictive factors associated with the development of axial involvement in patients with PsA.

Methods:

Data from 3684 patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) or PsA from the ASAS-PerSpA study were analysed. The ASAS-PerSpA is an observational, cross-sectional study that recruited consecutive patients with SpA from 68 centers worldwide. For this analysis, 367 PsA patients ever presenting axial involvement according to their rheumatologist were defined as axPsA and compared with 2651 axSpA patients, using logistic regression to later identify predictive factors for rheumatologist diagnosis of axPsA. In addition, the axPsA patients were also compared with 666 PsA patients without axial involvement (pPsA) and the characteristics associated with axial manifestations were determined by logistic regression analysis.

Results:

Among all patients, 2651 were identified as axSpA and 1033 patients as PsA. Among those with axial involvement, 2651 were identified as axSpA (100% of axSpA) and 367 as axPsA (35.5 % of PsA). In comparison with axSpA, axPsA patients were less frequently males, older, less frequently HLA-B27 positive and had a higher body mass index (Table 1). Additionally, while patients with axPsA had more peripheral manifestations and psoriasis, concomitant IBD and uveitis were higher in axSpA. In the multivariable analysis, older age at diagnosis (OR= 1.04), peripheral arthritis (OR= 7.32) and dactylitis (OR= 2.82) were significantly associated with a diagnosis of axPsA. However, uveitis (OR= 0.22), IBD (OR= 0.12) or HLA*B27 carriership (OR= 0.26) were inversely associated with axPsA diagnosis as compared to axSpA. Furthermore, axial involvement in patients with PsA was significantly associated with male gender (OR= 1.68), elevated CRP (OR= 2.87), and the absence of psoriasis (OR= 0.33).

Conclusion:

In this worldwide setting, axPsA was defined by rheumatologists as a unique phenotype, with disease features lying between axSpA and pure pPsA. Male gender, elevated CRP and the absence of psoriasis were associated with axial involvement in patients with PsA.

Table 1.

Demographic and disease characteristics of patients with axial involvement included in the ASAS PerSpA study. Results shown as absolute numbers (percentages) or as the mean ± standard deviation

axSpAn= 2651axPsAn= 367p-valueSex (male)1816 (68.5) 196 (53.4)<0.001Age at study visit42.1(13.0)50.0 (12.7)<0.001Body Mass Index25.9 (5.1)27.4 (5.7)<0.001Family history of SpA944 (35.6)135 (36.8)0.684Past history or current symptoms of back pain2625 (99.0)358 (97.5)0.04Inflammatory back pain (ASAS definition), n/N(%)2500/2632 (94.9)317/362 (87.6)<0.001Sacroiliitis on imaging, n/N (%) by: xRay mNY criteria1997/2586 (77.2)185/298 (62.1)<0.001 MRI-SIJ, ASAS definition1449/1757 (82.4)141/225 (62.6)<0.001 mNY criteria or ASAS definition2446/2634 (92.9)243/339 (71.7)<0.001HLA B27 positive1674 /2126 (78.7)54/182 (29.6)<0.001Elevated CRP (>5 mg/dL)1863/2569 (72.5)274/356 (76.9)0.2Classification criteria ASAS criteria2339 (88.2)185 (50.4)<0.001 CASPAR criteria123 (4.6)274 (74.4)<0.001Peripheral Arthritis946 (35.7)318 (86.6)<0.001Enthesitis1086 (41.0)198 (54.0)<0.001Dactylitis155 (5.8)125 (34.1)<0.001Psoriasis185 (7.0)324 (88.3)<0.001IBD129 (4.9)3 (0.8)<0.001Uveitis576(21.7)13 (3.5)<0.001csDMARD (ever)1359 (51.3)339 (92.4)<0.001bDMARD (ever)1585 (59.8)263 (71.7)<0.001Specific drug for axial involvementNSAIDs2465 (98.6)317 (96.1)0.002csDMARD828 (33.1)187 (56.7)<0.001bDMARD1288 (51.5)180 (54.4)0.32

axSpA: axial spondyloarthritis; axPsA: axial psoriatic arthritis; IBD: Inflammatory Bowel Disease; CRP: C-Reactive Protein; mNY: modified New York; csDMARDs: conventional synthetic DMARDs; bDMARDs: biological DMARDs; NSAID: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

Disclosure of Interests:

Diego Benavent: None declared, Chamaida Plasencia: None declared, Denis Poddubnyy: None declared, Mitsumasa Kishimoto Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen-Astellas BioPharma, Asahi-Kasei Pharma, Astellas, Ayumi Pharma, BMS, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Ono Pharma, Pfizer, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, Teijin Pharma, and UCB Pharma., Fabian Proft Grant/research support from: AbbVie, AMGEN, BMS, Celgene, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Haruki Sawada: None declared, Clementina López-Medina: None declared, Maxime Dougados: None declared, Victoria Navarro-Compán: None declared.

OP0316 ASSOCIATION BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL AND COUNTRY-LEVEL SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS AND WORK PARTICIPATION IN PERIPHERAL AND AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS: ANALYSIS OF THE ASAS perSpA Study

Background:

Work outcomes in spondyloarthritis (SpA) have mostly been studied in axSpA, less in peripheral SpA (pSpA) or PsA. The ASAS-COMOSPA study showed that lower education, female gender and lower healthcare expenditures (HCE) are associated with lower odds of employment in SpA. However, it is unknown whether country-level factors or SpA phenotype (axSpA/pSpA/PsA) modify the effect of individual-level socioeconomic factors.

Objectives:

To examine whether associations between socioeconomic factors and work outcomes differ across SpA phenotype and whether associations for individual-level socioeconomic factors are modified by country-level factors.

Methods:

Working age patients (18-65 years) from the ASAS-perSpA (peripheral involvement in SpA) study were included. Associations between individual- (age, gender, education, marital status) and country-level socioeconomic factors (Human Development Index (HDI), HCE) with work outcomes (employment status (binary), absenteeism, presenteeism (tertiles)) were assessed using mixed-effects logistic and ordinal logistic models. Models were adjusted for confounders. Separate models for ASDAS, BASFI and BASDAI were created in turn due to collinearity. Effect modification by SpA phenotype and country-level factors was tested using interaction terms.

Results:

A total of 3835 patients (mean age 42 years, 61% males) from 23 countries worldwide were included (66% axSpA, 10% pSpA, 23% PsA). Being employed was associated with gender (male vs female OR 2.5; 95%CI 1.9-3.2), education (university vs primary OR 3.7; 2.9-4.7) and being married (vs single OR 1.3; 1.04-1.6) (Table 1). University (vs primary) education was associated with lower odds of absenteeism (OR 0.7; 0.5-0.7) and presenteeism (OR 0.5; 0.3-0.7). Associations were not statistically different across SpA phenotypes. HCE was significantly associated with all work outcomes: employment (OR 2.5; 1.5-4.1), absenteeism (OR 0.6; 0.4-0.9) and presenteeism (OR 0.6; 0.3-0.9). HDI results were similar. Gender discrepancy in odds of employment was greater in countries with lower socioeconomic development; eg, males had 3.5 higher odds of employment than females in countries with low HCE, whereas the difference was 1.8 fold in high HCE countries.

Table 1.

Effect of individual socio-economic factors on work outcomes.

Employment statusOR (95% CI)AbsenteeismOR (95% CI)PresenteeismOR (95% CI)N378022182127Age1.43 (1.36,1.51)1.00 (0.99,1.01)1.00 (0.99,1.01)Age20.996 (0.995, 0.996)NS - uniNS - uniMale (vs female)2.48 (1.92,3.21)1.22 (0.96,1.56)0.97 (0.78,1.20)EducationPrimaryrefrefrefSecondary1.86 (1.48,2.35)0.69 (0.49,0.99)0.69 (0.49,0.99)University3.68 (2.87,4.72)0.67 (0.47,0.96)0.49 (0.34,0.69)Marital statusSinglerefrefrefMarried1.27 (1.04,1.56)0.95 (0.73,1.22)0.98 (0.78,1.22)Divorced or Widowed1.39 (0.98,1.97)1.39 (0.88,2.18)1.16 (0.74,1.82)ASDAS0.78 (0.72,0.84)1.51 (1.33,1.72)2.31 (2.04,2.61)FatigueNS - multi1.14 (1.09,1.21)1.30 (1.24,1.36)Depression0.70 (0.59,0.82)1.45 (1.15,1.82)1.95 (1.59,2.39)FibromyalgiaNS - multi1.62 (1.11,2.35)1.58 (1.03,2.41)BMINS - multi0.99 (0.97,1.02)NS - multiDactylitis1.41 (1.12,1.76)NS - uniNS - uniUveitisNS - multi0.62 (0.46,0.84)NS - uniNSAIDsNS - multi1.53 (1.18,1.99)1.32 (1.07,1.64)bDMARDsNS - multiNS - uni1.23 (1.01,1.51)

Models used ASDAS rather than BASDAI/BASFI, which are collinear. NS, not significant in the univariable or multivariable model.

Conclusion:

Individual- (lower education) and country-level socioeconomic factors (lower healthcare expenditure) were both associated with (lower) work participation, independently of SpA phenotype. The disadvantageous effect of female gender on employment is particularly strong in countries with lower socioeconomic development. This highlights the need for wider societal interventions, such as improving education and healthcare investment, to improve work outcomes.

Disclosure of Interests:

Sizheng Steven Zhao: None declared, Elena Nikiphorou Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Lilly, AbbVie, Annelies Boonen Consultant of: Yes, Grant/research support from: Yes, Clementina López-Medina: None declared, Maxime Dougados: None declared, Sofia Ramiro Speakers bureau: Lilly, MSD, Novartis, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, UCB, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: MSD.

POS0188 DISEASE ACTIVITY OUTCOME MEASURES ARE ONLY AVAILABLE IN HALF OF THE ELECTRONIC MEDICAL FILES OF PATIENTS WITH AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS FOLLOWED IN AN OUTPATIENT CLINIC: THE RESULTS OF AN AUDIT OF A TERTIARY-CARE RHEUMATOLOGY DEPARTMENT

Background:

Current recommendations for management of patients with axial Spondylarthritis (axSpA) include regular collection of validated disease activity outcomes.

Objectives:

This study aimed at evaluating the proportion of patients for whom the elements allowing the calculation of the validated outcome measures were available on the visits reported on the electronic medical records (EMR) and the factors associated with the presence of such information on the EMR.

Methods:

This was a cross-sectional and monocentric observational study conducted in a tertiary-care rheumatology department, EULAR center of excellence and ASAS center. We performed a systematic electronic search among all patients with a SpA diagnosis code who attended an outpatient visit between February 1st, 2018 and February 28th, 2019. Thereafter, a manual search was performed in order to check whether disease activity outcome measures (or the elements allowing its calculation): BASDAI individual questions, Disease activity Global, CRP, BASDAI and ASDAS) were reported on EMR. Patient’s and physician’s demographics disease characteristics (including treatment) and whether the patient had participated in a systematic review were also collected. A descriptive analysis of the percentage of EMR with available outcomes was performed, and the characteristics of patients in whom these measures were available/were not available evaluated by univariable and multivariable analysis (including only variables with p < 0,10 on the univariate)

Results:

320 EMR of axSpA patients seen in the outpatient clinic were screened and selected. Among them, 178 (55.6%) had at least one disease activity outcome measure reported, while 144(45%) and 123 (38.4%) had a BASDAI and an ASDAS reported, respectively. The most frequently reported disease activity items were duration of morning stiffness (n=230, 72%) and CRP (n=224, 70%).

Only previous participation on an educational program for self-assessment was found to be independently associated with a reported disease activity outcome: among the patients participating in such program, 93.1% (n=27/29) had a disease activity measure available, compared to 51.9% (n=151/291) in those who did not participate in such program (p<0.001) (Table 1)

Conclusion:

Implementation of recommendations with regard to regularly collecting disease activity outcome measures is not optimal. The participation in educational programs including self-assessment educational programs might be one of the keys to improve such implementation.

References:

[1]Smolen JS, Braun J, Dougados M, Emery P, Fitzgerald O, Helliwell P, et al. Treating spondyloarthritis, including ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis, to target: recommendations of an international task force. Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73:6–16. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-203419.

[2]van der Heijde D, Ramiro S, Landewé R, Baraliakos X, Van den Bosch F, Sepriano A, et al. 2016 update of the ASAS-EULAR management recommendations for axial spondyloarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2017;76:978–91. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-210770.

Figure 1.

Frequency of disease activity measures reporting in the Electronic Medical Record of patients with axial Spondyloarthritis, followed in a tertiary care rheumatology department outpatient clinic

Table 1.

Factors associated with the presence of a reported disease activity measures on the electronic medical file of patients with axial SpA

Disclosure of Interests:

Elodie Portier: None declared, Maxime Dougados: None declared, Christian Roux: None declared, Anna Moltó Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Lilly, UCB Novartis, Grant/research support from: Pfizer

OP0047 IDENTIFICATION OF CLINICAL PHENOTYPES IN PATIENTS WITH AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS, PERIPHERAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS AND PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS ACCORDING TO PERIPHERAL MUSCULOSKELETAL MANIFESTATIONS: A CLUSTER ANALYSIS IN THE INTERNATIONAL ASAS-PERSPA STUDY

Background:

Patients with a diagnosis of Spondyloarthritis (SpA) and Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) may have predominant axial or peripheral symptoms, and the frequency and distribution of these symptoms may determine the clinical diagnosis by the rheumatologist (“clinical clusters”). Clustering analysis represents an unsupervised exploratory analysis which tries to identify homogeneous groups of cases (“statistical clusters”) without prior information about the membership for any of the cases.

Objectives:

To identify “statistical clusters” of peripheral involvement according to the specific location of these symptoms in the whole spectrum of SpA and PsA (without prior information about the diagnosis of the patients), and to evaluate whether these “statistical clusters” are in agreement with the “clinical clusters”.

Methods:

Cross-sectional and multicentre study with 24 participating countries. Consecutive patients considered by their treating rheumatologist as suffering from either PsA, axial SpA (axSpA) or peripheral SpA (pSpA) were enrolled. Four different cluster analyses were conducted: the first one using information about the specific location from all the peripheral musculoskeletal manifestations (i.e., peripheral arthritis, enthesitis and dactylitis), and thereafter a cluster analysis for each peripheral manifestation individually. Multiple correspondence analyses and k-means clustering methods were used. Distribution of peripheral manifestations and clinical characteristics were compared across the different clusters.

Results:

4465 patients were included in the analysis. Two clusters were found with regard to the location of all the peripheral manifestations (Fig. 1). Cluster 1 showed a low prevalence of peripheral manifestations in comparison with cluster 2; however, when peripheral involvement appeared in cluster 1, this was mostly represented by arthritis of hip, knee and ankle, as well as enthesitis of the heel. Patients from cluster 1 showed a higher prevalence of males (63% vs 44%), HLA-B27 positivity (69% vs 38%) and axial involvement (80% vs 52%), as well as more frequent diagnosis of axSpA (66% vs 21%) and more frequently fulfilling the ASAS axSpA criteria (69% vs. 41%). Patients from cluster 2 showed a higher prevalence of psoriasis (63% vs 25%), a more frequent diagnosis of PsA (61% vs 19%), and they fulfilled more frequently the peripheral ASAS (26% vs 11%) and the CASPAR criteria (57% vs 19%).

Figure 1.

Distribution of the peripheral involvement across clusters

Three clusters were found with regard to the location of the peripheral arthritis. Clusters 2 and 3 showed a high prevalence of peripheral joint disease, although this was located more predominantly in the lower limbs in cluster 2, and in the upper limbs in cluster 3. Cluster 1 showed a higher prevalence of males, HLA-B27 positivity, axial involvement, a lower presence of psoriasis, a more frequent diagnosis of axSpA and fulfilling the ASAS axSpA criteria in comparison with clusters 2 and 3, respectively. Clusters 2 and 3 showed a higher prevalence of enthesitis and dactylitis in comparison with cluster 1, a more frequent diagnosis of PsA and fulfillment of the CASPAR criteria.

Information about the location of enthesitis exhibited three groups: cluster 1 showed a very low prevalence of enthesitis, while cluster 2 and 3 showed a high prevalence of enthesitis, with a predominant involvement of axial enthesis in cluster 2 and peripheral enthesitis in cluster 3.

Finally, the analysis of dactylitis also exhibited three clusters that showed a very low prevalence of dactylitis, predominantly toes and predominantly fingers involvement, respectively.

Conclusion:

These results suggest the presence of heterogeneous patterns of peripheral involvement in SpA and PsA patients without clearly defined groups, confirming the clear overlap of these peripheral manifestations across the different underlying diagnoses.

Acknowledgements:

This study was conducted under the umbrella of ASAS with unrestricted grant of Abbvie, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, UCB, Janssen and Merck.

Disclosure of Interests:

None declared

Unveiling axial involvement in psoriatic arthritis: An ancillary analysis of the ASAS-perSpA study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the clinical profile of axial psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in a worldwide setting. Secondly, to identify factors associated with the development of axial involvement in patients with PsA.

METHODS

Data from 3684 patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) or PsA from the ASAS-perSpA study were analysed. The ASAS-perSpA is a cross-sectional study that recruited consecutive patients with SpA (as diagnosed by their rheumatologist) from 68 centers worldwide and collected patient and disease data. First, 2651 axSpA patients and 367 PsA patients with any history of axial involvement (axPsA) were compared using logistic regression to later identify predictive factors for rheumatologist diagnosis of axPsA. Secondly, 367 axPsA patients were compared with 666 PsA patients lacking axial involvement (peripheral PsA [pPsA]) and the characteristics associated with axial manifestations were explored by logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Patients with axPsA were older and less frequently males or HLA*B27 positive in comparison with axSpA patients. Additionally, while patients with axPsA had more peripheral manifestations and psoriasis, other extra-musculoskeletal manifestations (IBD and uveitis) were more frequent in those with axSpA. In the multivariable analysis, older age at diagnosis (OR = 1.04), peripheral arthritis (OR = 7.32) and dactylitis (OR = 2.82) were significantly associated with the diagnosis of axPsA. However, uveitis (OR = 0.22), IBD (OR = 0.12), HLA*B27 carriership (OR = 0.26) or sacroiliitis on imaging (OR = 0.5) were inversely associated with axPsA diagnosis as compared to axSpA. Axial involvement in patients with PsA was significantly associated with male gender (OR = 1.68), elevated CRP (OR = 2.87) and the absence of psoriasis (OR = 0.33).

CONCLUSION

In this worldwide setting axPsA was defined by rheumatologists as a unique phenotype, with disease features lying between axSpA and pure pPsA.

SAT0364 DATA TO BE COLLECTED FOR AN OPTIMAL MANAGEMENT OF AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS IN DAILY PRACTICE: PROPOSAL FROM AN EVIDENCE BASED AND CONSENSUAL APPROACHES

Background:

Standardization of clinical practice has been proven to be effective in management of chronic diseases. This is particularly true at the time where the concept of treat to target is becoming more and more important in the field of axial spondyloarthritis (ax-SpA).

Objectives:

To propose a list of variables to be collected at the time of the diagnosis and over the follow-up of patients with axial spondyloarthritis (ax-SpA) for an optimal management in daily practice.

Methods:

The process comprised (1) the evaluation of the interest of 51 variables proposed for the assessment of axSpA via a systematic literature research, (2) a consensus process involving 78 hospital-based or office-based rheumatologists, considering the collection of the variable in a 4 grade scale from ”potentially useful” to “mandatory”, (3) a consensus on optimal timeline for periodic assessment of the selected variables on a 5 grade scale from “at each visit” to “never to be re-collected”.

Results:

The systematic literature research retrieved a total of 14,133 abstracts, of which 213 were included in the final qualitative synthesis. Concerning the data to be collected at the time of the diagnosis and during follow-up, we proposed to differentiate the results based on a) the way of collection of the variables (e.g. questionnaires by the patient, interview by the physician, physical examination, investigations) b) the usefulness these variables in daily practice based on the opinion of the rheumatologists ” c) the optimal timeline between 2 evaluations of the variable based on the opinion of the rheumatologists. In the initial systematic review, symptoms of heart failure history of inflammatory bowel disease, psoriasis or uveitis, patient global visual analogic scale, spine radiographs, modified Schöber test, coxo-femoral rotations, swollen joint count, urine strip test, BASDAI and ASDAS global scores were considered very useful and nocturnal back pain/morning stiffness, sacro-iliac joints radiographs and CRP were considered mandatory (Figure 1). Timeline between 2 evaluations of variables to collect in the periodic review are summarized inFigure 2.

Figure 1.

Core sets of items to collect and report in the systematic review in axial spondyloarthritis management in daily practice ASDAS=Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score, BASDAI=Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index, BASFI=Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functionnal Index, BASMI=Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index, CRP=C Reactive Protein, CT=computerized tomography, FIRST=Fibromyalgia Rapid Screening Tool, HLA=Human Leukocyte Antigen, MRI=Magnetic resonance imaging, PET=positron emission tomography.

Figure 2.

Periodic review timeline of variables to collectASDAS=Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score, BASDAI=Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index, Spondylitis Metrology Index, CRP=C Reactive Protein, IBD = inflammatory bowel diseases, PRO = Patient Reported Outcomes

Conclusion:

Using an evidence-based and an expert consensus approaches, this initiative defined a core set of variables to be collected and reported at the time of the diagnosis and during follow-up of patients with ax-SpA in daily practice.

Acknowledgments:

this study has been conducted in two parts: the first one (evidence-based) was conducted thanks to a support from Abbvie France. AbbVie did not review the content or have influence on this manuscript. The second part of this initiative (consensus) has been conducted thanks to a support from the scientific non-profit organization: Association de Recherche Clinique en Rhumatologie

Disclosure of Interests:

Athan Baillet Consultant of: Athan BAILLET has received honorarium fees from Abbvie for his participation as the coordinator of the systematic literature review, Xavier Romand Consultant of: Xavier ROMAND has received honorarium fees from Abbvie, Arnaud Pfimlin Consultant of: Arnaud PFIMLIN has received honorarium fees from Abbvie, Mickael Dalecky Consultant of: Mickael DALECKY has received honorarium fees from Abbvie, 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

THU0370 CLUSTER-RANDOMIZED PRAGMATIC CLINICAL TRIAL EVALUATING THE POTENTIAL BENEFIT OF A TIGHT-CONTROL AND TREAT-TO-TARGET STRATEGY IN AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS: THE RESULTS OF THE TICOSPA TRIAL

Background:

Current recommendations for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) management include tight control and treat-to-target (TC) strategies, but no study has evaluated its potential benefit

Objectives:

To evaluate the benefit of TC strategies in comparison to usual care (UC) in patients with axSpA.

Methods:

Study design:Pragmatic, prospective, cluster-randomized controlled (2 arms), one-year trial (NCT03043846).Centers: 18 axSpA expert centers randomly allocated (1:1) to the treatment arm: TC vs. UC.Patients: axSpA diagnosis and ASAS criteria, non-optimally treated with NSAIDs, bDMARD-naïve, and ASDAS > 2.1 at inclusion.Study treatment:a) TC arm: the strategy was pre-specified by the scientific committee based on current axSpA recommendations and aiming at a target (ASDAS <2.1); visits every 4w;b) UC arm:treatment decisions were at the rheumatologist’s discretion with visits every 12w.Outcomes:the % of patients with a significant (>30%) improvement in the ASAS-HI score over one-year follow-up was the main outcome. Other outcomes (disease activity, quality of life, treatment, …) over follow-up were evaluated (Table 1). The number/type of adverse events were collected.Statistical analysis: this was an intention-to-treat analysis. To take into account the cluster-randomization design, for all outcomes, two models were performed: first a two-level mixed model with 2 random effects was used to estimate the % of responders/the change of the outcome over follow-up (i.e. mod1); in a second step, the imbalanced variables observed at baseline were included in the model (i.e.mod2). Cost-effectiveness was assessed by estimating the (baseline- and cluster-adjusted) incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for TC vs. UC.

Estimated outcomes at week 48Cluster-adjusted (mod1)Cluster and imbalance-adjusted (mod2)TCUCASDAS LDA*76.5%59.5%<0.010.03ASDAS ID25.9%18.7%--ASDAS CII61.2%46.0%<0.010.02ASDAS MI16.5%14.9%--ASAS4052.3%34.7%<0.010.01ASAS2094.9%85.9%<0.010.03BASDAI 5079.0%43.8%0.010.03Physician Global (0-10)2.0 (0.2)1.8 (0.2)--CRP (mg/L)3.9(1.4)3.5 (1.5)--BASG (0-10)2.6 (0.5)3.4 (0.5)0.09-BASFI (0-10)1.7(0.5)2.4 (0.5)--ASAS HI SMD47.3%36.1%--EQ5D0.7(0.1)0.8(0.1)0.02-ASAS-NSAID score1.5(2.2)- 4.9 (2.9)--

Results:

160 patients were included (80 in TC and 80 in UC). Mean age was 37.9(11.0) years with a disease duration of 3.7(6.2) years, 51.2% were males. A radiographic damage of the SI-joints, a (ever) positive MRI sacroiliitis and HLA-B27+ were seen in 46.9%, 81.9% and 75.0% patients respectively. Mean ASDAS at inclusion was 3.0 (0.7) and mean ASASHI was 8.6 (3.7). 72 patients per group attended the one-year visit. Although 47.3% vs. 36.1% patients in the TC and UC arms achieved a significant improvement in ASASHI at the one-year visit, the difference was not statistically significant, with either model. Across all other outcomes a trend was observed in favor of the TC arm (Table 1). The number of bDMARDs was significantly higher in TC arm (56.2% vs. 27.2%). The number of infections was comparable in both groups (15 vs. 16 in the TC and UC, respectively), with only 2 severe infections occurring in the UC arm. From a societal perspective, TC resulted in an additional 0.04 QALY and saved €265 when compared to UC and a 67% probability of being cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of €20,000 per QALY.

Conclusion:

In this setting of SpA expert centers, UC resulted in a good outcome in a substantial number of patients but the TC was not superior for the primary outcome despite a greater number of bDMARDs prescription. Nevertheless, a general trend in favor of the tight control was observed, with a comparable safety profile and was found to be favorable from a societal health economic perspective.

Acknowledgments:

this trial has been conducted thanks to an unrestricted grant from UCB

Disclosure of Interests:

Anna Moltó Grant/research support from: Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Clementina López-Medina: None declared, Filip van den Bosch Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Annelies Boonen Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Consultant of: Galapagos, Lilly (all paid to the department), Casper Webers: None declared, Emmanuelle Dernis Speakers bureau: Lilly, Novartis, Floris A. van Gaalen: None declared, Martin SOUBRIER: None declared, Pascal Claudepierre Speakers bureau: Janssen, Novartis, Lilly, Athan Baillet Consultant of: Athan BAILLET has received honorarium fees from Abbvie for his participation as the coordinator of the systematic literature review, Mirian Starmans-Kool: None declared, Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cyxone, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB Pharma; Director of Imaging Rheumatology BV, 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

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.

OP0116 TEN-YEAR ANALYSIS OF VERY LOW-DOSE GLUCOCORTICOIDS IN EARLY RA (ESPOIR COHORT) SUPPORTS A TIME-DEPENDENT RISK OF SEVERE OUTCOMES

Background:

We previously failed to find any significant difference with regard to severe outcomes (death, severe infections, fractures, cardiovascular diseases [CVD]) between recent-onset RA patients taking or not low-dose GC treatment in a 7-year analysis of the ESPOIR cohort (1).

Objectives:

To explore the 10-year tolerability profile of GC use in patients with early RA.

Methods:

We analysed data from the early arthritis (less than 6 months disease duration) ESPOIR cohort. Patients were stratified in two groups, with or without GC treatment at least once during their follow-up (median 10 years IQR [9-10]). The primary outcome was a composite of death, CVD (including myocardial ischemia, cerebrovascular accident and heart failure), severe infection and fracture. In order to reduce the impact of treatment selection bias and potential confounding factors, the weighted Cox time-dependent analysis model was used with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) propensity score method.

Results:

Among the 608 RA patients (480 women, mean age of 47.5 ± 12.1 years), 397 patients (65%) received low-dose prednisone (median 1.9 mg/day [IQR 0.6-4.2], mainly during the first 6 months (70%). The mean duration of GC treatment was 44.6 months ± 40.1. Overall, 95 events were identified during follow-up: 10 deaths, 18 CVD, 32 fractures and 35 severe infections. Based on univariate analysis at 10 years, patients taking GC experienced significantly more events (n=71) than those without GC (n=24) (p=0.035), especially severe infections (n=30 with GC versus 5 without GC, p=0.009) (table 1), with a cumulative dose effect (p=0.007).On weighted Cox time-dependent analysis, using the IPTW propensity score method, the risk of events over time was significantly associated with GC treatment (p <0.001), age, history of hypertension and erythrocyte sedimentation rate. The risk associated with GC treatment, estimated by the hazard ratio (HR), increased between the first follow-up visit (HR at 6 months = 0.39, 95% CI 0.19-0.82) and 10 years (HR=6.83, 95% CI 2.29-20.35) (figure 1 and table 2).

Table 1.

Primary outcome and events at 10 years: univariate analysis

Total study population (n=608)Without GCWith CGP ValuePrimary outcome95 (15.6%)24 (11.4%)71 (17.9%)0.035Death10 (1.6%)1 (0.5%)9 (2.3%)0.103Cardiovascular diseases18 (3%)3 (1.4%)15 (3.8%)0.177Severe infections35 (5.8%)5 (2.4%)30 (7.6%)0.009Fractures32 (5.3%)15 (7.1%)17 (4.3%)0.137Table 2.

Time-dependent relationship between glucocorticoids treatment and risk of eventsestimated by hazard ratio

Time (Months)Hazard Ratio (95% CI)120.46 (0.23 - 0.90)240.62 (0.36 - 1.08)360.83 (0.52 - 1.33)481.12 (0.73 - 1.72)601.52 (0.96 - 2.40)722.05 (1.19 - 3.52)842.77 (1.44 - 5.34)963.74 (1.69 - 8.26)1085.05 (1.98 - 12.91)1206.83 (2.29 - 20.35)Figure 1.

Time-dependent relationship between glucocorticoids treatment and risk of eventsestimated by hazard ratio (HR)

Conclusion:

This 10-year analysis of the ESPOIR cohort supports a dose and time-dependent impact of very low-dose GC treatment in early RA, with a long-term high risk of severe outcomes.

Disclosure of Interests:

Camille Roubille Consultant of: Servier, Pfizer, Novartis, Amandine Coffy: None declared, Nathalie Rincheval: None declared, 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, Rene-Marc Flipo Speakers bureau: Novartis, Janssen, Lilly, Jean-Pierre Daures: None declared, 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

FRI0622-HPR IMPACT OF A PHARMACIST’S INTERVENTION ON THE KNOWLEDGE OF BIOLOGICS AND ADHERENCE IN PATIENTS WITH SPONDYLOARTHRITIS: A RANDOMIZED, OPEN-LABEL, CONTROLLED TRIAL

Background:

In chronic rheumatic diseases, non-adherence to treatment is associated with a progression of disease and an increased morbidity (1). In spondyloarthritis (SpA), improving patients’ knowledge on their subcutaneous biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) is a key factor to enhance medication adherence (2). The patient information has to ensure the acquisition of safety skills regarding their treatment management.

Objectives:

To evaluate the impact of a pharmacist’s educational interview on knowledge and therapeutic adherence of subcutaneous bDMARDs in patients with SpA.

Methods:

Population and study design:consecutive adult patients with well-controlled axial SpA, stable on subcutaneous bDMARDs were enrolled in a randomized, controlled, single-center, open-label, 6-months trial.Intervention:A pharmacist’s educational interview provided information on bDMARDs management at baseline in the intervention group (IG) and at month 6 (M6) in the control group (CG). A booklet containing essential information was given to the patient.Intervention allocation:After written consent, the study treatment was randomly allocated via a computer program by simple randomization, with an allocation ratio of 1:1.Outcome measures:The change of a weighted knowledge score (0 – 100) concerning the bDMARDs management and the change in the Medication Possession Ratio (MPR) at M6 were primary outcomes. The changes in disease activity (BASDAI) and patients’ satisfaction regarding the pharmacists’ interview were secondary outcomes.Statistics:Changes in knowledge score, MPR and BASDAI were compared between the two groups using the T-Student test. Statistical analysis was performed in intention-to-treat. Missing data was handled with multiple imputations.

Results:

Patients’ characteristics at baseline were comparable among the 89 included patients (46 in IG, 43 in CG). The means ± SD of the knowledge score were 75.3 ±14.2 versus 73.0 ±13.2 and 86.3 ±12.6 versus 76.0 ±14.1 in the IG versus CG at baseline and at M6, respectively. The patient’s knowledge score improved at a greater magnitude in the IG (+11.0 ±11.5 versus +3.0 ±10.6 in the IG versus the CG respectively, p<0.0001). The MPR at baseline were very high in both groups (92.9 ±14.6% versus 96.6 ± 15.6% in the IG versus the CG, respectively). There was a trend in a better adherence (+2.2 ±13.9 versus -0.6 ±18.9 in the IG versus the CG in the MPR score respectively, p = 0,691). The disease activity (changes in BASDAI) remained stable during the study in both groups. All the patients were mostly or totally satisfied by the pharmacists’ interview.

Conclusion:

Pharmacists’ educational interview on subcutaneous bDMARDs is effective in improving the knowledge of patients with SpA on their treatment. Regarding therapeutic adherence, a trend in favor of an improvement was observed in the intervention group but did not reach the statistically significance. Nevertheless, the results observed in this study are an argument to propose to include the pharmacists in the multidisciplinary team in charge of the management of patients with SpA.

References:

[1] Bluett J, Morgan C, Thurston L et al. Impact of inadequate adherence on response to subcutaneously administered anti-tumour necrosis factor drugs: results from the biologics in rheumatoid. Rheumatology. 2015;54(3):494-9.

[2] Gossec L, Molto A, Romand X et al. Recommendations for the assessment and optimization of adherence to disease-modifying drugs in chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases: A process based on literature reviews and expert consensus. Joint Bone Spine. 2019;86(1):13-9.

Disclosure of Interests:

Loriane Gutermann: None declared, Sophie Dumas: None declared, Clementina López-Medina: None declared, Léa Boissinot: None declared, Camille Cotteret: None declared, Valérie Perut: None declared, Anna Moltó Grant/research support from: Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Ornella Conort: None declared, 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

OP0222 IS REFERRING EARLY ARTHRITIS PATIENTS WITHIN 6 WEEKS ASSOCIATED WITH BETTER LONG-TERM OUTCOMES THAN REFERRING WITHIN 12 WEEKS AFTER SYMPTOM ONSET? – INVESTIGATING THE EVIDENCE FOR THE FIRST EULAR RECOMMENDATION FOR EARLY ARTHRITIS IN TWO OBSERVATIONAL COHORTS

Background:

EULAR- recommendations for management of early arthritis formulated that patients should be referred to, and seen by a rheumatologist, within 6-weeks after symptom onset. The mentioned period of ≤6-weeks after symptom onset is shorter than ≤12-weeks, the period that is generally considered as the ‘window-of-opportunity’. Because implementation provides challenges, and evidence supporting that referral ≤6-weeks is better than e.g. <12-weeks is missing, we investigated if ≤6-weeks relates to improved long-term outcomes.

Objectives:

We used an observational study design to investigate in two cohorts if time-to-encounter (TtE) a rheumatologist ≤6-weeks, compared to 7-12-weeks, results in better disease long-term outcomes, measured with sustained DMARD-free remission (SDFR) and radiographic progression.

Methods:

Consecutive 1987-RA patients of the Leiden EAC (n=1025) and ESPOIR (n=514) were studied during median 7 and 10 years follow-up. Patients were categorized on duration between symptom onset and first encounter with a rheumatologist; ≤6-, 7-12-, and >12-weeks. Multivariable Cox regression (SDFR), linear mixed models (radiographic progression), and meta-analyses were used.

Results:

Leiden RA-patients encountered the rheumatologist within 6-weeks obtained SDFR more often than patients seen within 7-12-weeks (HR 1·59, 95%CI:1·02-2·49), and >12-weeks (HR 1·54, 95%CI:1·04-2·29). In ESPOIR, similar but non-significant effects were observed; meta-analysis showed that within 6-weeks was better than 7-12-weeks (HR 1·69, 95%CI:1·10-2·57, Figure 1-A) and >12-weeks (HR 1·67, 95%CI:1·08-2·58). Patients encountered the rheumatologist within 6-weeks had similar radiographic progression than those seen 7-12-weeks, in any cohort, or meta-analysis (Figure 1-B).

Figure 1

Meta-analyses of time-to-encounter the rheumatologist and the chance of achieving sustained DMARD-free remission (A) and radiographic progression (B)

Conclusion:

Scientific evidence underlying the first EULAR recommendation depends on the outcome of interest; visiting a rheumatologist within 6-weeks of symptom-onset had clear benefits for achieving SDFR, but not for radiographic progression.

References:

None.

Disclosure of Interests:

Ellis Niemantsverdriet: None declared, 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, Annette van der Helm - van Mil: None declared

SAT0587 MACHINE-LEARNING DERIVED ALGORITHMS FOR OUTCOMES PREDICTION IN RHEUMATIC DISEASES: APPLICATION TO RADIOGRAPHIC PROGRESSION IN EARLY AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS

Background:

Axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) is a chronic rheumatic disease that encompasses various clinical presentations: inflammatory chronic back pain, peripheral manifestations and extra-articular manifestations. The current nomenclature divides axSpA in radiographic (in the presence of radiographic sacroiliitis) and non-radiographic (in the absence of radiographic sacroiliitis, with or without MRI sacroiliitis. Given that the functional burden of the disease appears to be greater in patients with radiographic forms, it seems crucial to be able to predict which patients will be more likely to develop structural damage over time. Predictive factors for radiographic progression in axSpA have been identified through use of traditional statistical models like logistic regression. However, these models present some limitations. In order to overcome these limitations and to improve the predictive performance, machine learning (ML) methods have been developed.

Objectives:

To compare ML models to traditional models to predict radiographic progression in patients with early axSpA.

Methods:

Study design: prospective French multicentric cohort study (DESIR cohort) with 5years of follow-up. Patients: all patients included in the cohort, i.e. 708 patients with inflammatory back pain for >3 months but <3 years, highly suggestive of axSpA. Data on the first 5 years of follow-up was used. Statistical analyses: radiographic progression was defined as progression either at the spine (increase of at least 1 point per 2 years of mSASSS scores) or at the sacroiliac joint (worsening of at least one grade of the mNY score between 2 visits). Traditional modelling: we first performed a bivariate analysis between our outcome (radiographic progression) and explanatory variables at baseline to select the variables to be included in our models and then built a logistic regression model (M1). Variable selection for traditional models was performed with 2 different methods: stepwise selection based on Akaike Information Criterion (stepAIC) method (M2), and the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) method (M3). We also performed sensitivity analysis on all patients with manual backward method (M4) after multiple imputation of missing data. Machine learning modelling: using the “SuperLearner” package on R, we modelled radiographic progression with stepAIC, LASSO, random forest, Discrete Bayesian Additive Regression Trees Samplers (DBARTS), Generalized Additive Models (GAM), multivariate adaptive polynomial spline regression (polymars), Recursive Partitioning And Regression Trees (RPART) and Super Learner. Finally, the accuracy of traditional and ML models was compared based on their 10-foldcross-validated AUC (cv-AUC).

Results:

10-fold cv-AUC for traditional models were 0.79 and 0.78 for M2 and M3, respectively. The 3 best models in the ML algorithm were the GAM, the DBARTS and the Super Learner models, with 10-fold cv-AUC of: 0.77, 0.76 and 0.74, respectively (Table 1).

Table 1.

Comparison of 10-fold cross-validated AUC between best traditional and machine learning models.

Best modelsCross-validated AUCTraditional models M2 (step AIC method)0.79 M3 (LASSO method)0.78Machine learning approach SL Discrete Bayesian Additive Regression Trees Samplers (DBARTS)0.76 SL Generalized Additive Models (GAM)0.77 Super Learner0.74

AUC: Area Under the Curve; AIC: Akaike Information Criterion; LASSO: Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator; SL: SuperLearner. N = 295.

Conclusion:

Traditional models predicted better radiographic progression than ML models in this early axSpA population. Further ML algorithms image-based or with other artificial intelligence methods (e.g. deep learning) might perform better than traditional models in this setting.

Acknowledgments:

Thanks to the French National Society of Rheumatology and the DESIR cohort.

Disclosure of Interests:

Romain Garofoli: None declared, Matthieu resche-rigon: None declared, 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, Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cyxone, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB Pharma; Director of Imaging Rheumatology BV, Christian Roux: None declared, Anna Moltó Grant/research support from: Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB

AB0665 VALVULOPATHY, SYSTOLIC AND DIASTOLIC DYSFUNCTION IN AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

Background:

Axial Spondyloarthritis (ax-SpA) displays an increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk compared with the general population. Although ischemic cardiac manifestations are well known, prevalence of non-ischemic manifestations such as myocardial dysfunction and valvulopathy is less clear.

Objectives:

To compare prevalence of myocardial dysfunction and valvulopathy by ultrasound in ax-SpA patients and versus healthy controls.

Methods:

Two investigators independently searched for studies indexed in PUBMED, Cochrane Library and EMBASE databases and published before January 17th 2020. The search was focused on ultrasound evaluation of myocardial function and valvulopathy, with two-dimensional, Doppler, tissue Doppler, and speckle tracking echocardiography. We included for meta-analysis all controlled studies including ax-SpA without previous cardiovascular disease. Data were pooled using appropriate random or fixed effects model.

Results:

Literature search retrieved of 186 abstracts. A total of 31 papers were included in the systematic review and 27 papers were analyzed in the meta-analysis (1,494 ax-SpA patients and 1,091 healthy controls). Studies displayed cross-sectional design and included ax-SpA without prevalent cardiovascular disease.

Ax-SpA was defined according to the modified New York criteria (24 studies) followed or the ASAS criteria (2 studies). HLA B27+ positivity ranged from 51 to 100%, mean age ranged from 26.7 to 55.7 years, disease duration ranged from 3.2 to 23.3 years and mean BASDAI ranged from 1.24 to 5.6.

Patients with ax-SpA displayed a lower diastolic function with a lower E/A ratio, a higher deceleration time, a higher isovolumetric relaxation time and a lower systolic function with a lower ejection fraction (figure 1). Left-ventricular end diastolic and systolic diameters were higher in ax-SpA patients with respectively mean difference 0.55 mm [CI95%; 0.19, 0.91] and 0.79 mm [CI95%; 0.40, 1.17]. We did not find any difference for left and posterior ventricular thickness, left atrial dimension, and left ventricular mass index.

Figure 1.

Systolic and diastolic dysfunction is slightly altered in ax-SpA patients compared to healthy individuals Diastolic dysfunction was assessed by (A) E/A ratio (m/s), (B) deceleration time (ms), (C) Isovolumetric relaxation time (ms) and (D) systolic function was assessed by ejection fraction (%).

A total of 15 articles reported prevalence of valvulopathy in ax-SpA. Prevalence of mitral regurgitation and aortic regurgitation were similar in ax-SpA patients and healthy individuals: OR=1.13 [CI95% 0.76, 1.68] and OR=1.18 [CI95% 0.68, 2.04].

Conclusion:

Prevalence of valvulopathy was similar in ax-SpA and healthy individuals. Diastolic and systolic function seems to be slightly altered in ax-SpA compared to healthy controls. However, this difference is unlikely clinically relevant. Usefulness of systematic echography remains to be determined in future longitudinal studies.

Disclosure of Interests:

Fanny Adeline: None declared, Xavier Romand Consultant of: Xavier ROMAND has received honorarium fees from Abbvie, Mickael Dalecky Consultant of: Mickael DALECKY has received honorarium fees from Abbvie, Arnaud Pfimlin Consultant of: Arnaud PFIMLIN has received honorarium fees from Abbvie, Daniel Wendling: None declared, Philippe Gaudin Speakers bureau: Lilly, Pascal Claudepierre Speakers bureau: Janssen, Novartis, Lilly, 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, Athan Baillet Consultant of: Athan BAILLET has received honorarium fees from Abbvie for his participation as the coordinator of the systematic literature review

THU0374 NONSTEROIDAL ANTI-INFLAMMATORY DRUG-SPARING EFFECT OF SECUKINUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS: 4-YEAR RESULTS FROM THE MEASURE 2, 3 AND 4 PHASE 3 TRIALS

Background:

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are effective in reducing pain and stiffness in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) patients (pts).1However, continuous use of NSAIDs may lead to gastrointestinal, cardiovascular and renal toxicity.2Therefore, reduction in NSAID intake is desirable in AS pts.

Objectives:

To evaluate the long-term effect of secukinumab (SEC) on NSAID intake in AS pts pooled from the 3 SEC trials (MEASURE [M] 2-4).

Methods:

NSAID intake was evaluated prospectively using the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS)-NSAID score.3The score was determined by type of NSAID, daily dose, and weights from frequency of intake, as well as % of time use in period. An ASAS-NSAID score of ‘0’ indicates no NSAID intake. Pts with ASAS-NSAID score >0 at baseline (BL) were analysed. SEC dose groups were defined as Any 150 or 300 mg, as defined for pooled safety analyses for SEC. Pts with initial placebo treatment (up to 24 weeks) were included in their respective post-Week 24 SEC dose groups to analyse ASAS-NSAID score at Year (Y) 2 (M2-4), Y3 (M2-3) and Y4 (M2) from BL. From the ASAS-NSAID score at BL, the mean change in ASAS-NSAID score, proportion of pts achieving 50% reduction, and the proportion of pts with score <10 were evaluated for each dose at Y2, 3 and 4. Based on the distribution of ASAS-NSAID scores at BL, 2 subgroups were evaluated: (i) <75 (low user); (ii) ≥75 (high user).

Results:

Overall, 562 pts (SEC: 150 mg, N=467; 300 mg, N=95) were analysed. The mean ASAS-NSAID score decreased with time in both dose groups. Greater improvements were observed in high NSAID users and with longer treatment exposure (Figure). Proportion of pts who achieved 50% reduction in ASAS-NSAID score increased with time in both SEC 150 and 300 mg groups. Proportion of pts with clinically meaningful reduction of ASAS-NSAID score <10 increased with time in both dose groups and in both low and high NSAID users (Table).

TableTime (years)NSAID intakeLow (<0 ASAS-NSAID <75)High (ASAS-NSAID ≥75)OverallSEC 150 mg(N=167)SEC 300 mg#(N=37)SEC 150 mg(N=300)SEC 300 mg#(N=58)SEC 150 mg(N=467)SEC 300 mg#(N=95)Proportion of pts who achieved 50% reduction from BL in ASAS-NSAID score, % (n/m)*225 (38/154)18 (6/33)19 (50/267)14 (7/49)21 (88/421)16 (13/82)323 (13/56)21 (7/33)26 (26/100)17 (8/46)25 (39/156)19 (15/79)429 (7/24)-26 (14/54)-27 (21/78)-Proportion of pts with ASAS-NSAID score <10,% (n/m)*239 (60/154)33 (11/33)12 (33/267)12 (6/49)22 (93/421)21 (17/82)334 (19/56)33 (11/33)17 (17/100)13 (6/46)23 (36/156)22 (17/79)438 (9/24)-20 (11/54)-26 (20/78)-

*Observed data.#MEASURE 3 that evaluated 300 mg was only a 3 year study. N, total number of pts in the group; n, number of pts with response; m, number of evaluable pts

Conclusion:

SEC provided sustained improvement in ASAS-NSAID score in AS pts and was associated with clinically relevant NSAID-sparing effect in AS pts, when used to measure NSAID intake up to 4 years of treatment. Overall, SEC provided long-term NSAID-sparing effects in both high and low NSAID users.

References:

[1]Molto A, et al.Joint Bone Spine. 2017;84:79–82.

[2]Dougados M, et al.Arthritis Res & Ther. 2014;16:481.

[3]Dougados M, et al.Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70:249–51.

Disclosure of Interests:

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, Uta Kiltz Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Novartis, Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biocad, Eli Lilly and Company, Grünenthal, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Alan Kivitz Shareholder of: AbbVie, Amgen, Gilead, GSK, Pfizer Inc, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim,,Flexion, Genzyme, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Regeneron, Sanofi, SUN Pharma Advanced Research, UCB, Paid instructor for: Celgene, Genzyme, Horizon, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Flexion, Genzyme, Horizon, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Regeneron, Sanofi, Karel Pavelka Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, MSD, UCB, Medac, Egis, Pfizer, Roche, Biogen, Novartis, Susanne Rohrer Employee of: Novartis, Suzanne McCreddin Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Erhard Quebe-Fehling Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Brian Porter Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Zsolts Talloczy Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis

OP0103 DOES GENDER, AGE OR SUBPOPULATION INFLUENCE THE MAINTENANCE OF CLINICAL REMISSION IN AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS FOLLOWING CERTOLIZUMAB PEGOL DOSE REDUCTION?

Background:

Previous studies have shown that withdrawing tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients (pts) with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) who have achieved sustained remission often leads to relapse.1However, none have formally tested TNFi dose reduction strategies in a broad axSpA population or evaluated whether relapse following TNFi dose reduction and withdrawal is associated with a specific demographic subgroup.

Objectives:

C-OPTIMISE evaluated the percentage of pts without flare after TNFi dose continuation, reduction or withdrawal in adults with early axSpA treated with the Fc-free, PEGylated TNFi certolizumab pegol (CZP). Here, we analyse whether responses to reduced maintenance dose were comparable in pts stratified by axSpA subpopulation, gender and age.

Methods:

C-OPTIMISE (NCT02505542) was a multicentre, two-part phase 3b study in adults with early (<5 years’ symptom duration) active axSpA (stratified for radiographic [r]- and non-radiographic [nr]- axSpA). Pts received CZP 200 mg every 2 weeks (wks) (Q2W; 400 mg loading dose at Wks 0, 2 and 4) during the open-label induction period. At Wk 48, pts in sustained remission (Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score [ASDAS] <1.3 at Wk 32 or 36 [if ASDAS <1.3 at Wk 32, it must be <2.1 at Wk 36, or vice versa] and at Wk 48) were randomised to double-blind full maintenance dose (CZP 200 mg Q2W); reduced maintenance dose (CZP 200 mg every 4 wks [Q4W]) or placebo (PBO) for a further 48 wks (maintenance period). The primary endpoint was the percentage of pts not experiencing a flare (ASDAS ≥2.1 at two consecutive visits or ASDAS >3.5 at any timepoint) during Wks 48–96. Analyses were conducted on subgroups according to axSpA subpopulation, gender and age ≤/> the median age of the randomised set (32 years).

Results:

During the 48-wk induction period, 43.9% of patients (323/736) achieved sustained remission and 313 pts entered the 48-wk maintenance period (r/nr-axSpA: 168/145 pts; males/females: 247/66 pts; age ≤32/>32: 165/148 pts). During the maintenance period, responses in r- and nr-axSpA pts were comparable across all three randomised arms. 83.9% r-axSpA and 83.3% nr-axSpA pts receiving the full CZP maintenance dose did not experience a flare, and in the reduced maintenance dose arm 82.1% r-axSpA and 75.5% nr-axSpA pts did not experience a flare. In the PBO group this was reduced to 17.9% and 22.9%, respectively. Similar responses were seen in pts stratified by gender or age, with substantially higher percentages of pts randomised to CZP full or reduced maintenance dose remaining free of flares compared to PBO in all subgroups (Figure).

Conclusion:

The results of C-OPTIMISE indicate that a reduced maintenance dose is suitable for pts with axSpA who achieve sustained remission following 1 year of CZP treatment, regardless of axSpA subpopulation, gender or age. Complete treatment withdrawal is not recommended due to the high risk of flare.

References:

[1]Landewe R. Lancet 2018;392:134–44.

Acknowledgments:

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

Disclosure of Interests:

Robert B.M. Landewé Consultant of: AbbVie; AstraZeneca; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Eli Lilly & Co.; Galapagos NV; Novartis; Pfizer; UCB Pharma, Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cyxone, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB Pharma; Director of Imaging Rheumatology BV, 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, 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, Filip van den Bosch Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Karl Gaffney Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Celgene, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Lars Bauer Employee of: UCB Pharma, Bengt Hoepken Employee of: UCB Pharma, Natasha de Peyrecave Employee of: UCB Pharma, Karen Thomas Employee of: UCB Pharma, Lianne S. Gensler Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Novartis, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, UCB

FRI0335 THE EFFECT OF TOFACITINIB ON RESIDUAL PAIN IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS

Background:

Current treatments for PsA have proven effective in reducing patient (pt)-reported pain;1,2however, residual pain often remains. Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of PsA.

Objectives:

This descriptive analysis evaluated the effect of tofacitinib, adalimumab and placebo on residual pain in pts with PsA whose inflammation was attenuated after 3 months of therapy.

Methods:

Data were included from OPAL Broaden (NCT01877668), a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 trial of 12 months’ duration in pts with PsA.3Pts were randomised to receive tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID), tofacitinib 10 mg BID, adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneous injection once every 2 weeks or placebo. This analysis assessed pts with ‘residual pain’ at Month (M)3. Residual pain was considered as pain in pts with complete attenuation of inflammation at M3, defined by a swollen joint count (SJC) of 0 and CRP levels <6 mg/L. Pain was measured by a visual analogue scale (VAS; 0 [“no pain”] – 100 mm [“most severe pain”]). Changes in pain from baseline to M3 and residual pain (VAS pain reported at M3) were assessed.

Results:

Demographics and baseline disease characteristics have previously been reported in the primary study, and were generally similar between treatment groups.3At M3, 100/422 (23.7%) pts with PsA had achieved SJC of 0 and CRP <6 mg/L. At M3, more tofacitinib-treated (tofacitinib 5 mg BID, n=23/107 [21.5%]; tofacitinib 10 mg BID, n=33/104 [31.7%]) and adalimumab-treated pts (n=31/106 [29.2%]) achieved SJC of 0 and CRP <6 mg/L vs placebo (PsA: n=13/105 [12.4%]). Baseline pain appeared numerically higher in tofacitinib-treated pts (tofacitinib 5 mg BID, 54.7 mm; tofacitinib 10 mg BID, 58.4 mm) vs adalimumab-treated pts (47.7 mm) and placebo (50.4 mm). In pts who achieved SJC of 0 and CRP <6 mg/L at M3, improvements in pain from baseline to M3 appeared numerically greater in pts receiving tofacitinib vs those receiving placebo (Figure 1a). When considering absolute (residual) pain at M3, mean residual pain was similar across treatment groups (ranging from 22.7–29.2 mm; Figure 1b), despite a higher baseline pain in tofacitinib treatment groups.

Conclusion:

Changes from baseline in pain and absolute pain at M3 suggest that in pts with PsA whose inflammation has been completely attenuated, tofacitinib might have an effect on residual pain not obviously attributable to inflammation. However, the sample population was small, and there were large standard deviations. To confirm these results and to understand the mechanisms by which tofacitinib may improve residual pain, a meta-analysis will be performed using individual participant data from pts with rheumatic disease who have participated in tofacitinib randomised controlled trials.

References:

[1]Gladman et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2007;66:163-68.

[2]Gladman et al. Arthritis Care Res 2014;66:1085-92.

[3]Mease et al. NEJM 2017;377:1537-50.

Acknowledgments:

Study sponsored by Pfizer Inc. Medical writing support was provided by Mark Bennett of CMC Connect and funded by Pfizer Inc.

Disclosure of Interests:

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, Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cyxone, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB Pharma; Director of Imaging Rheumatology BV, Clifton Bingham Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Consultant of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Peter C. Taylor Grant/research support from: Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, and Gilead, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly and Company, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer Roche, and UCB, Lara Fallon Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, John Woolcott Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Yves Brault Shareholder of: Pfizer France, Employee of: Pfizer France, Lisy Wang Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Meriem Kessouri Shareholder of: Pfizer France, Employee of: Pfizer France

FRI0325 UVEITIS OCCURRENCE IN EARLY INFLAMMATORY BACK PAIN. FIVE YEARS DATA FROM A PROSPECTIVE FRENCH NATIONWIDE COHORT

Background:

Uveitis is the most frequent extra rheumatological manifestation in axial Spondyloarthritis (SpA). DESIR is a prospective multicenter cohort of patients with early inflammatory back pain suggestive of SpA. We reported previously a 8.5% baseline prevalence of uveitis for the patients included in the cohort; this history of uveitis at the first visit of the cohort was associated with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and preceding infection (1).

Objectives:

The aim of the study was to evaluate the prevalence and incidence of uveitis over the first five years of prospective follow-up of the cohort, and to evaluate its associated factors.

Methods:

DESIR is a prospective observational cohort of patients with recent onset inflammatory back pain (more than 3 months, less than 3 years), suggestive of axial SpA, All available factors in the database were compared between patients with and without uveitis at 5 years, by uni and then multivariate analysis. Baseline factors associated with new cases of uveitis occurrence over the 5 years were also analyzed. Significance: p less than 0.05.

Results:

After 5 years, 91 patients (out of 480 with complete follow-up) had at least one uveitis episode, giving an estimated prevalence of 18.9% [95%CI: 15.4-22.4]. In multivariate analysis, uveitis was associated with dactylitis (OR 2.92 [2.06 – 4.14]; p=0.002**), ESR > 7mm (median value) (OR 2.19 [1.57 – 3.06]; p=0.018*).

New incident uveitis occurred in 31 cases over 5 years, giving an estimated incidence rate of 1.29 [0.84 – 1.74] / 100 patient-years. New incidence of uveitis was associated in multivariate analysis with the following baseline factors: diagnosis of SpA (OR 9.65 [3.21 – 28.96]; p=0.039*), total sacro iliac MRI inflammatory SPARCC score (central reading) over median (OR 3.98 [2.26 – 7]; p=0.015*), dactylitis (OR 4.7 [2.65 – 8.36]; p=0.007**), syndesmophyte score over median (central reading) (OR 0.22 [0.1 – 0.45]; p=0.039*).

No significant association was found with HLA-B27, cs or b DMARDs, BASDAI, ASDAS, BASFI.

Conclusion:

Five-years data of the DESIR cohort allowed an estimation of incidence rate of uveitis of 1.3/100p-y; over five years, uveitis was associated with dactylitis, biologic and sacro iliac MRI inflammation.

References:

[1]Wendling D, et al.Arthritis Care Res(Hoboken). 2012 Jul;64(7):1089-93.

Disclosure of Interests:

Daniel Wendling: None declared, Clément Prati: None declared, Thierry Lequerre: None declared, Corinne Miceli Richard: None declared, 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, Anna Moltó Grant/research support from: Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, xavier guillot: None declared

SAT0152 EFFICACY OF BARICITINIB IN PATIENTS WITH MODERATE-TO-SEVERE RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS WITH 3 YEARS OF TREATMENT: RESULTS FROM A LONG-TERM STUDY

Background:

Baricitinib (Bari) is an oral, selective and reversible Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of adults with active RA. In addition to long-term safety which has been disclosed previously with data up to 7 years [1], an important clinical consideration is whether treatment efficacy can be maintained over the long term.

Objectives:

To evaluate the long-term efficacy of once-daily Bari 4 mg in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who were either naïve to or who had inadequate response (IR) to methotrexate (MTX)

Methods:

Post hoc analyses of data from two phase 3 studies, RA-BEGIN (MTX-naïve) and RA-BEAM (MTX-IR) for 52 weeks, and one long-term extension (LTE) study (RA-BEYOND) for an additional 96 weeks were conducted (148 weeks in total). At week 52, MTX-naïve patients initially treated with MTX monotherapy, Bari 4 mg monotherapy, or Bari 4 mg +MTX in RA-BEGIN were switched to open-label Bari 4 mg monotherapy for treatment in the LTE. Similarly, at week 52, MTX-IR patients initially treated with Bari 4 mg [+ background MTX noted as (+MTX) for RA-BEAM] or adalimumab (ADA) (+MTX) in RA-BEAM were switched to open-label Bari 4 mg (+MTX) for treatment in the LTE. Patients who received placebo (+MTX) were switched to open-label Bari 4 mg (+MTX) at week 24. The analyses of efficacy (SDAI) and physical function (HAQ-DI) were conducted on all patients who were randomized into the RA-BEGIN and RA-BEAM studies and had received ≥1 dose of study drug after randomization (mITT population). The proportion of patients who reached low disease activity (LDA), as measured by SDAI ≤11, was evaluated along with change from baseline in HAQ-DI. The non-responder imputation (NRI) method was used for the categorical analysis.

Results:

By week 24 in RA-BEGIN (N=584), 62% of patients treated with Bari 4 mg monotherapy or Bari 4 mg +MTX achieved SDAI LDA in comparison to 40% of pts in the MTX monotherapy group; response rates seen at week 24 in the Bari treatment groups were maintained through week 148 (Fig 1A). Similarly, by week 24 in RA-BEAM (N=1,305), 52% of patients treated with Bari 4 mg (+MTX) and 50% of patients treated with ADA (+MTX) achieved a SDAI LDA in comparison to 26% of patients from the PBO (+MTX) group. The response rate seen at week 24 with Bari 4 mg and ADA were maintained through week 148, even after patients switched from ADA to Bari 4 mg at week 52 (Fig 1B). Similar improvement and maintenance patterns in physical function measured by HAQ-DI were demonstrated. The overall discontinuation rate across treatment groups from RA-BEGIN (19.5%) and RA-BEAM (14.2%) have been published. In the LTE, the discontinuation rate from Bari treatment was 13.7% for patients originating from RA-BEGIN (1.1% due to lack of efficacy, 6.4% due to safety) and 12.6% for patients originating from RA-BEAM (1.8% due to lack of efficacy, 5.9% due to safety).

Figure 1.

Proportion of patients achieving SDAI ≤11 in the NRI analysis†In RA-BEGIN, rescue to Bari 4 mg + MTX was offered at week 24.‡In RA-BEAM, rescue to Bari 4 mg (+ MTX) was offered at week 16. At week 24, all PBO + MTX patients were switched to Bari 4 mg + MTX.§Upon entering RA-BEYOND at week 52, MTX and ADA patients were switched to Bari 4 mg.

Conclusion:

Long-term treatment with Bari 4 mg demonstrated the maintenance of clinically-relevant outcomes for up to 3 years. Low discontinuation rates during the LTE indicated that Bari 4 mg treatment was well-tolerated.

References:

[1]Genovese et al.Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. 2019;78:308-309.

Disclosure of Interests: :

Josef S. Smolen Grant/research support from: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer Inc, Samsung, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer Inc, Samsung, Sanofi, Li Xie Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Bochao Jia Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Peter C. Taylor Grant/research support from: Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, and Gilead, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly and Company, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer Roche, and UCB, Gerd Rüdiger Burmester Consultant of: AbbVie Inc, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Roche, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie Inc, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Roche, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Yoshiya Tanaka Grant/research support from: Asahi-kasei, Astellas, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Takeda, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers, UCB, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, and Ono, Consultant of: Abbvie, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Daiichi-Sankyo, Astellas, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AbbVie, YL Biologics, Bristol-Myers, Takeda, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Eisai, Janssen, Sanofi, UCB, and Teijin, Ayesha Elias Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Anabela Cardoso Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Robert Ortmann Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Chad Walls Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, 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