FRI0332 EVALUATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS OF ACR50+PASI100 AND MDA AT WEEK 24 FROM THE SPIRIT-H2H TRIAL COMPARING THE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF IXE VERSUS ADA IN PATIENTS WITH PSA NAÏVE TO BDMARDS

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 758.1-758
Author(s):  
L. C. Coates ◽  
M. Nissen ◽  
C. El Baou ◽  
J. Zochling ◽  
A. Marchesoni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Rheumatic Diseases ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Systemic Disease ◽  
Tender Joint Count ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Tender Joint ◽  
The Individual

Background:Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic systemic disease with manifestations affecting musculoskeletal and extra-articular domains. Treatment and assessment of response are therefore major challenges in routine clinical practice. Minimal disease activity (MDA) is a multidimensional endpoint that can define a treatment target1. In SPIRIT-H2H2, a head-to-head clinical trial comparing the efficacy and safety of ixekizumab (IXE) versus) to adalimumab (ADA), the percentage of patients simultaneously achieving American College of Rheumatology 50 (ACR50) and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 100 (PASI100), was the primary endpoint in order to reflect improvement in two domains of PsA.Objectives:To evaluate how individual components of the simultaneous achievement of ACR50 and PASI100 compare with those of MDA at week 24.Methods:Patients with active PsA (defined as those with a tender joint count [TJC] ≥ 3/68, a swollen joint count [SJC] ≥ 3/66 and a body surface area [BSA] of active plaque psoriasis ≥ 3%) were randomised 1:1 to approved dosing (according to baseline psoriasis involvement) of IXE or ADA in SPIRIT-H2H, an open label, assessor-blinded study.The proportion of patients meeting each criterion of the composite endpoints was calculated for the intent-to-treat ([ITT], N=566) population and the population of MDA responders at Week 24 (N=235). Missing individual responses were imputed with non-responder status. Spidergrams were generated using SAS 9.4.Results:For both the overall ITT population and the MDA responders population, the use of PASI≤1 or BSA≤3% in the skin-related component of the MDA contributed to the higher response rate relative to the PASI100 response. Thus, the PASI100 response is a more stringent endpoint. Proportions of responders are similar across MDA and ACR50+PASI100 individual components for HAQ and SJC. The high baseline TJC levels (mean TJC: IXE=19.1, ADA=21.3) as opposed to lower levels observed for baseline SJC (mean SJC: IXE=10.1, ADA=10.7) made MDA-TJC criterion (≤1) more difficult to achieve than the equivalent criterion of the ACR50+PASI100 endpoint.Conclusion:Despite the differences in criteria definitions, there are consistent response patterns in the individual components of the simultaneous ACR50+PASI100 and MDA endpoints in particular for the peripheral arthritis domain.References:[1]Smolen, Josef S et al. “Treating axial spondyloarthritis and peripheral spondyloarthritis, especially psoriatic arthritis, to target: 2017 update of recommendations by an international task force.”Annals of the rheumatic diseasesvol. 77,1 (2018): 3-17.[2]Mease PJ The SPIRIT H2H study group, et al. “A head-to-head comparison of the efficacy and safety of ixekizumab and adalimumab in biological-naïve patients with active psoriatic arthritis: 24-week results of a randomised, open-label, blinded-assessor trial.”Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases2020;79:123-131.Disclosure of Interests:Laura C Coates: None declared, Michael Nissen Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Consultant of: Novartis, Lilly, Abbvie, Celgene and Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Novartis, Lilly, Abbvie, Celgene and Pfizer, Celine El Baou Consultant of: Eli Lilly and Company, Jane Zochling Employee of: Jannssen Cilag, Speakers bureau: Janssen Cilag, AbbVie, Novartis, UCB, BMS, Eli Lilly, Antonio Marchesoni Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Pfizer, UCB, Novartis, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Soyi Liu Leage Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Enrique Soriano Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Sandoz, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Sandoz, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amber, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Valderilio F Azevedo Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Lilly and Novartis, Consultant of: Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Amgen, Pfizer and Abbvie, Speakers bureau: Sandoz, Celltrion, Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Amgen, Pfizer and Abbvie, Klaus Machold Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, UCB, Consultant of: Arsanis, Astro, Baxter, BMS, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, Sandoz, Speakers bureau: MSD, Pfizer, BMS, Janssen-Cilag, Sandoz, Novartis, Eli-Lilly, Christophe Sapin Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company

scholarly journals O23 Ixekizumab (IXE) vs. adalimumab (ADA) for the treatment of PSA: 52-week efficacy and safety outcomes

Rheumatology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher J Edwards ◽  
Andrew J Bradley ◽  
Mani H Nassab ◽  
Burkhard Möller ◽  
Klaus P Machold ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Severe Psoriasis ◽  
Tender Joint Count ◽  
Stock Ownership ◽  
Physician Global Assessment ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Full Time ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Tender Joint ◽  
Full Time Employee

Abstract Background With multiple biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) available, comparisons are important for treatment decisions. At week 24 of the SPIRIT H2H study in patients with active PSA, IXE showed superiority to ADA for the simultaneous achievement of ACR50 and PASI100. Here we report the 52-week efficacy outcomes including individual ACR components and in subgroups +/- concomitant methotrexate (MTX). Methods SPIRIT H2H (NCT03151551) was a 52-week, multicentre, open-label, blinded-assessor study of bDMARD naïve patients with active PSA (defined as swollen joint count ≥3/68, and tender joint count ≥3/66), with a body surface area (BSA) ≥3% and inadequate response to conventional synthetic (cs)-DMARDs. Patients were randomised 1:1 to IXE or ADA stratified by concomitant csDMARD use and the presence of moderate-to-severe psoriasis (defined as Psoriasis Area and Severity Index [PASI] ≥12 combined with a static Physician Global Assessment ≥3 and BSA ≥10%). Patients received approved label dosing of assigned treatment dependent on presence/absence of moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Primary outcome was achievement of simultaneous ACR50 + PASI100; secondary outcomes were achievement of PASI100, ACR20/50/70 and changes in individual ACR component scores. Data were analysed using logistic regression with non-responder imputation for missing data. Results Baseline characteristics were balanced across treatment groups. At week 52, a significantly larger percentage of IXE- vs. ADA-treated patients achieved simultaneous ACR50 + PASI100 and PASI100, consistent with 24-week results (table). IXE performed at least as well as ADA at week 52 for all other outcomes (table). With/without MTX, IXE efficacy was consistent at week 52 across ACR20/50/70 with a significantly greater achievement of simultaneous ACR50 + PASI100 and ACR70 (table). IXE- versus ADA-treatment resulted in comparable changes from baseline for each individual ACR component at week 52. Safety was consistent with previous reports. Conclusion In patients with PSA, treatment with IXE versus ADA resulted in a significantly greater achievement of simultaneous skin and joint improvement at week 52, consistent with week 24 results. At week 52 consistent efficacy was shown for IXE when used with/without MTX. Disclosures C.J. Edwards: Consultancies; Celltrion, Abbvie, Samsung. Honoraria; Abbvie, BMS, Biogen, Chugai, Fresenius, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, UCB. Member of speakers’ bureau; Abbvie, BMS, Biogen, Chugai, Fresenius, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, UCB. Grants/research support; Pfizer, Biogen, Abbvie. A.J. Bradley: Shareholder/stock ownership; Eli Lilly. Other; Full time employee of Eli Lilly. M.H. Nassab: Other; Full time employee of Eli Lilly. B. Möller: None. K.P. Machold: Honoraria; Arsanis, Astro, Baxter, BMS, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, Sandoz. Member of speakers’ bureau; MSD, Pfizer, BMS, Janssen-Cilag, Sandoz, Novartis, Eli-Lilly. Grants/research support; AbbVie, BMS, Eli-Lilly, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB. C. Sapin: Shareholder/stock ownership; Eli Lilly. Other; Full time employee of Eli Lilly. R. Ranza: Consultancies; Abbvie, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Janssen. Member of speakers’ bureau; Abbvie, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Janssen. Grants/research support; Abbvie, Novartis, Pfizer, Janssen. S.L. Leage: Other; Full time employee of Eli Lilly.

scholarly journals OP0228 EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF IXEKIZUMAB VERSUS ADALIMUMAB (SPIRIT-H2H) WITH AND WITHOUT CONCOMITANT CONVENTIONAL SYNTHETIC DISEASE-MODIFYING ANTIRHEUMATIC DRUGS (DMARD) IN BIOLOGIC DMARD-NAÏVE PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: 52-WEEK RESULTS

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 143-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. S. Smolen ◽  
A. Sebba ◽  
E. Ruderman ◽  
A. Gellett ◽  
C. Sapin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Severity Index ◽  
Current Treatment ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Biologic Dmards ◽  
Logistic Regression Models

Background:Ixekizumab (IXE), a high-affinity monoclonal antibody selectively targeting IL-17A, was superior to adalimumab (ADA) at Week (Wk) 24 for simultaneous achievement of ACR50 and 100% improvement from baseline in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 100) (primary endpoint) in patients (pts) with active PsA from SPIRIT-H2H1. SPIRIT-H2H had two major secondary endpoints and achieved both: noninferiority of IXE to ADA for ACR50 at Wk 24, and superiority of IXE to ADA for PASI 100 at Wk 24.Objectives:To determine how concomitant conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) use affects safety and efficacy of IXE and ADA in prespecified subgroups defined by biologic monotherapy, concomitant MTX use, and concomitant csDMARD use through Wk 52 in SPIRIT-H2H.Methods:SPIRIT-H2H (NCT03151551) was a 52-week, multicentre, randomised, open-label, assessor-blinded, parallel-group study evaluating the efficacy and safety of IXE versus ADA in adults with PsA and naïve to biologic DMARDs. Patients were required to have active PsA fulfilling Classification for Psoriatic Arthritis (CASPAR) criteria and ≥3/68 tender and ≥3/66 swollen joints, ≥3% plaque psoriasis BSA involvement, no prior treatment with bDMARDs, and with prior inadequate response to ≥1 csDMARD (but not necessarily current treatment with csDMARDs). Randomization (1:1) was stratified by concomitant use of csDMARD and the presence/absence of moderate to severe PsO (baseline: BSA≥10% + PASI≥12, + static Physician’s Global Assessment≥3). Patients (N=566) received IXE/ADA through 52 wks according to the labelled dose dependent on presence/absence of moderate-to-severe PsO. In this prespecified subgroup analysis by presence or absence of csDMARDs, efficacy outcomes through wk 52 were compared between IXE and ADA using logistic regression models and Fisher’s exact tests. Missing data were imputed using non-responder imputation.Results:At baseline, 167 of 283 IXE-treated patients and 169 of 283 ADA-treated patients had concomitant MTX use. Of these, 9.0% (15/167) and 7.1% (12/169) treated with IXE and ADA, respectively, were taking an additional csDMARD (sulfasalazine, cyclosporine, or leflunomide). A significantly greater proportion of patients on IXE versus ADA achieved the primary endpoint or PASI 100 when used as monotherapy or in combination with csDMARD (Figure 1A and 1C). At Wk 52, the proportion of patients achieving ACR50 was not statistically different between IXE and ADA, regardless of monotherapy or concomitant csDMARD use (Figure 1B). A significantly higher proportion of patients achieved MDA on IXE compared to ADA in the monotherapy subgroup (49% vs 33%), while the response rates were similar in both combination subgroups (Figure 1D). These data support consistent ACR50, PASI 100, and MDA response for IXE across all three subgroups. Frequencies of adverse events were similar across the three subgroups for IXE and ADA (Figure 2).Conclusion:As with prior studies,2,3consistent efficacy across multiple PsA disease-specific endpoints was observed with IXE in SPIRIT-H2H, regardless of whether IXE was taken as monotherapy or in combination with MTX or another csDMARD. No unexpected safety signals were found for either agent.References:[1]Mease et al, Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79:123-31.[2]Coates et al, RMD Open 2017;3:e000567.[3]Nash et al, RMD Open 2018;4:e000692.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, Anthony Sebba Consultant of: Genentech, Gilead, Lilly, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sanofi, Speakers bureau: Lilly, Roche, Sanofi, Eric Ruderman Consultant of: Pfizer, Amanda Gellett Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Christophe Sapin Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Aubrey Trevelin Sprabery Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Soyi Liu Leage Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Sreekumar Pillai Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Paulo Reis Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Peter Nash Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche, Sanofi, UCB

AB0758 REAL-WORLD EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF APREMILAST IN BELGIAN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: FINAL ANALYSIS OF THE MULTICENTRE, PROSPECTIVE APOLO STUDY

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1676-1676
Author(s):  
K. De Vlam ◽  
A. Nzeusseu Toukap ◽  
M. J. Kaiser ◽  
J. Vanhoof ◽  
P. Remans ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Research And Development ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Real World ◽  
Global Assessment ◽  
Tender Joint Count ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Efficacy Population ◽  
Assessment Of Disease Activity

Background:Real-world evidence on the efficacy and safety for patients (pts) with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treated with apremilast (APR) is lacking but required to understand the uptake and potential of the drug.Objectives:To assess the efficacy and safety of APR in pts with active PsA from routine clinical practice in Belgium.Methods:In this multicentre, prospective study, the primary endpoint was the PsA Response Criteria (PsARC) response 6 months after APR initiation, defined as improvement in ≥2 (at least 1 must be joint swelling or tenderness) and no worsening in any of 4 criteria: swollen joint count (SJC [0-66]), tender joint count (TJC [0-68]), Physician’s Global Assessment of Disease Activity and Pt’s Global Assessment of Disease Activity. Other endpoints included the 12-item PsA Impact of the Disease (PsAID12) questionnaire, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Physician’s and Pt’s Numerical Rating Scale assessing disease activity for the most affected joint, psoriasis-involved body surface area, enthesitis, dactylitis and pain.Results:In total, 107 pts were enrolled and included in the baseline (BL) demographics/disease characteristics and safety analyses. The efficacy population comprised 69 pts (pts who started APR ≤30 days before inclusion in the study and completed ≥150 days of treatment). Mean age was 53 years, mean body mass index was 29 kg/m2and 56% were female. Mean duration of PsA was ≈8 years (87.1 months). One-third of pts presented with short disease duration (time since diagnosis of PsA: ≤2 years); 84% were biologic naive. The most frequently reported comorbidities were cardiovascular disease (30%) and hypercholesterolemia (24%). At BL, mean (SD) SJC was 8.0 (6.5); mean (SD) TJC was 14.2 (12.5). Pts from the efficacy population were representative of the overall population. Fifty-four pts (60%) continued APR treatment for 6 months; 38 (36%) had discontinued APR (insufficient efficacy: n=15; adverse events [AEs]: n=16; intolerance: n=6; other reason: n=1). AEs were mostly mild or moderate in nature and consistent with APR’s known safety and tolerability profile.1At Month 6, data were available for 49 pts, 65% of whom were PsARC responders. Mean change from BL in SJC was −5.23, with improvements (defined as ≥30% decrease per PsARC) observed in 80% of pts; 42% had no swollen joints at 6 months. Comparable results were seen for TJC, with mean changes from BL of −5.34 and improvements observed in 71% of pts; 27% had no tender joints at 6 months. Among pts with enthesitis at BL (n=21), 43% achieved a score of 0 by Month 6. Among pts with dactylitis at BL (n=18), 83% achieved a count of 0 by Month 6. Impact of PsA on quality of life (QoL) from the pt’s perspective was assessed using the PsAID12 questionnaire and characterized by physical and psychological domains. After 3 and 6 months of treatment, 33% and 50% of pts with PsAID >4 at BL (n=60) achieved PsAID12 ≤4, respectively (cutoff value for Pt Acceptable Symptom State2). Improvements were observed in all 12 domains at Months 3 and 6 compared with BL (Figure). In all, 66% of pts showed a decrease ≥0.35 in HAQ-DI; the proportion of pts reaching a global HAQ-DI <0.5 increased over time (14% at 3 months; 20% at 6 months).Conclusion:Results from APOLO, a study assessing the impact of APR in routine settings, indicated that APR is associated with rapid and sustained improvements in PsA signs and symptoms and QoL in an important proportion of pts. Safety and tolerability were consistent with the known profile of APR.References:[1]Kavanaugh A, et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2019;21:118. 2. Gossec L, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73:1012-1019.Disclosure of Interests:Kurt de Vlam Consultant of: Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB – consultant, Speakers bureau: Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB – speakers bureau and honoraria, Adrien Nzeusseu Toukap Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB – grant/research support, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, UCB – consultant, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, UCB – advisory board member, Marie-Joëlle Kaiser Consultant of: Celgene Corporation – consultant, Johan Vanhoof: None declared, Philip Remans: None declared, Silvana Di Romana: 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, Virginie Vanhoof Employee of: Amgen Inc. – employment; Celgene BeLux – employment at the time of study conduct, Rik Lories Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Samumed and UCB – grant/research support (on behalf of Leuven Research and Development), Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Samumed and UCB – consultant (on behalf of Leuven Research and Development), Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Samumed and UCB – speaker (on behalf of Leuven Research and Development)

scholarly journals The efficacy and safety of apremilast in patients with psoriatic arthritis concurrent with comorbidity in clinical practice

2019 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 299-306
Author(s):  
E. Yu. Loginova ◽  
Yu. L. Korsakova ◽  
A. D. Koltakova ◽  
E. E. Gubar ◽  
P. L. Karpova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Skin Lesions ◽  
Tender Joint Count ◽  
Psoriatic Skin ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Tender Joint ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Conventional Dmards ◽  
Low Activity

Objective: to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of the targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) apremilast (AP; Otesla®) in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) at 14 and 26 weeks after starting the treatment and to identify the place of AP in the combination therapy of patients with PsA, by taking into consideration a comorbidity.Subjects and methods. Examinations were made in 20 patients (11 women and 9 men) with active PsA who had comorbidity, lack of efficiency of or intolerance to previous therapy with synthetic DMARDs or biologic agents, and contraindications to its use. The median baseline Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) score was 35.6 [24.8; 55.6]; those of DAS and DAS28 were 3.8 [3.2; 5.0] and 4.4 [4.0; 5.2], respectively. AP (Otesla®) was administered in tablets with a starting dose of 10 mg/day with a daily dose escalation of 10 mg to the therapeutic dose of 60 mg/day for 26 weeks. At baseline, 14 and 26 weeks, the disease activity and efficiency of AP were evaluated using DAPSA, DAS, and DAS28, as well as minimal disease activity (MDA) criteria (tender joint count ≤1; swollen joint count ≤1; PASI ≤1 or BSA ≤3%; a patient’s assessment of pain ≤15 mm; patient’s global assessment ≤ 20 mm; Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) ≤ 0.5; enthesitis ≤1). The investigators estimated the number of patients who had achieved remission (DAPSA≤4; DAS<1.6; DAS28<2.6), low activity (5≤DAPSA≤14; 1.6≤DAS<2.4; 2.6≤DAS28<3.2) or MDA (5 of the 7 criteria) during AP therapy at 26-week follow-up. The safety of therapy was evaluated, by analyzing the adverse events (AE): the frequency, severity, and time of their occurrence were studied.Results and discussion. At 26 weeks after AP therapy initiation, there was a significant decrease of all PsA activity scores as compared to the baseline ones to the following median values: DAPSA 25.9 [11.3; 35.2]; DAS 3.3 [1.8; 3.9], and DAS28 3.4 [2.3; 4.8]. The median BASDAI and ASDAS scores also significantly declined from 5.1 [2.5; 7.3] and 3.35 [2.3; 4.2] to 3.45 [2.15; 6.15] and 2.7 [1.8; 3.35], respectively. The median area of psoriatic skin lesions (body surface area (BSA)) significantly reduced from 2 [0.35; 6] to 1 [0.2; 2]. At 26 weeks after starting AP therapy, the low activity/remission according to DAPSA, DAS, and DAS28 was achieved by 20/10%, 20/15%, and 10/35% of patients, respectively. Three (15%) patients achieved MDA. Fifteen (75%) of the 20 patients completed an AP therapy course. In the period of 14 to 26 weeks, four patients dropped out of the study due to ineffective therapy and one because of a severe AE (pneumonia at 14 weeks of treatment); at 26 weeks, another patient was withdrawn due to lack of effect. At 14 weeks, ten patients had a moderate AE that did not required treatment discontinuation. The most common AE were diarrhea in 5 (25%) patients, headache in 4 (20%), nausea in 3 (15%), and insomnia in 3 (15%).Conclusion. AP is a safe and effective drug for the treatment of PsA patients with moderate and high inflammatory activity and various comorbidities that do not allow the use of conventional DMARDs.

scholarly journals POS1038 THE EFFECT OF FILGOTINIB ON ENTHESITIS: 100-WEEK DATA FROM AN OPEN-LABEL EXTENSION STUDY IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 792.2-793
Author(s):  
P. Helliwell ◽  
L. C. Coates ◽  
F. Van den Bosch ◽  
D. D. Gladman ◽  
L. Gheyle ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Treatment Effect ◽  
Janus Kinase ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Rapid Improvement ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Lateral Epicondyle ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Open Label Extension ◽  
Discriminatory Capacity

Background:Filgotinib (FIL), a novel preferential Janus kinase 1 inhibitor, was assessed in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in the 16-week, Phase 2, EQUATOR trial (NCT03101670).1 EQUATOR2 (NCT03320876) is the open-label extension (OLE). As previously reported, an interim analysis of the OLE showed that the majority of patients had clinical resolution of enthesitis by Week 52.2Objectives:This post-hoc analysis evaluated the effect of FIL on clinical enthesitis after 100 weeks of treatment in the OLE, as assessed using the Leeds Enthesitis Index (LEI) and Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) index, and evaluated the discriminatory capacity of the two indices. In addition, we assessed which of the sites included in LEI and SPARCC were most frequently involved and whether treatment effect was consistent across sites.Methods:In EQUATOR, patients with active moderate-to-severe PsA (≥5 swollen joints and ≥5 tender joints, fulfilling Classification for PsA criteria) were randomised 1:1 to receive oral FIL 200 mg or placebo (PBO) once daily (QD) for 16 weeks. At Week 16, all patients could continue into the OLE, receiving FIL 200 mg QD for up to an additional 304 weeks. We compared changes from core baseline in LEI and SPARCC measures, the effect on enthesitis at sites included in LEI and SPARCC assessments and the discriminatory capacity of both enthesitis indices.Results:Of 131 patients randomised to EQUATOR, 122 entered the OLE. There was strong agreement between LEI and SPARCC at baseline. While most patients had enthesitis at baseline according to either index (76/131 [58.0%] by LEI; 85/131 [64.9%] by SPARCC), a minority had enthesitis at a large number of sites (6.9% with 5–6 LEI sites; 12.2% with ≥9 SPARCC sites). The sites most frequently involved at baseline were the lateral epicondyle humerus and Achilles tendon, sites common to both LEI and SPARCC. There was greater variability in the change from baseline to Week 16 in SPARCC compared with LEI (Table 1). LEI showed a greater discriminatory capacity than SPARCC when change from baseline was compared for FIL vs PBO at Week 16, as shown by higher absolute standardised mean difference: −0.70 (LEI) and −0.30 (SPARCC) (observed cases; Table 1). Subgroup analyses indicated that the treatment effect of FIL vs PBO at Week 16 for all sites was consistent with the overall treatment effect seen for LEI or SPARCC, and indicative of an improvement with FIL vs PBO for nearly all sites. The proportion of patients with enthesitis decreased from baseline up to OLE Week 100 (Figure 1). There were no major differences in long-term effect on enthesitis between sites.Conclusion:FIL improved enthesitis consistently across sites compared with PBO. Rapid improvement in enthesitis was seen up to Week 16 of the core study and improvements continued up to Week 52, after which responses were generally stable up to Week 100. LEI assesses fewer locations than SPARCC, but reassuringly captured the sites most commonly affected by enthesitis; LEI also had greater discriminatory capacity.References:[1]Mease P, et al. Lancet 2018;392:2367–77[2]Mease P, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2020;72(suppl 10): abstract 0910Figure 1.Acknowledgements:EQUATOR and EQUATOR2 were sponsored by Galapagos NV (Mechelen, Belgium) and co-funded by Galapagos NV and Gilead Sciences, Inc (Foster City, CA, USA). Eline Vetters, Leen Gilles, Benjamin Pett and his team, all employees of Galapagos, provided assistance with statistical analyses. Medical writing/editorial support was provided by Debbie Sherwood, BSc, CMPP (Aspire Scientific, Bollington, UK), and funded by Galapagos NV.Disclosure of Interests:Philip Helliwell Speakers bureau: Janssen, Novartis, Paid instructor for: Pfizer, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Laura C Coates Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer, Filip van den Bosch Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Merck and UCB, Dafna D Gladman Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Lien Gheyle Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Mona Trivedi Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences, Amgen, Employee of: Gilead Sciences, Muhsen Alani Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences, Employee of: Gilead Sciences, Franck Olivier Le Brun Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Robin Besuyen Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN and UCB.

scholarly journals POS0198 EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF DEUCRAVACITINIB, AN ORAL, SELECTIVE TYROSINE KINASE 2 INHIBITOR, IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: RESULTS FROM A PHASE 2, RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE-BLIND, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED TRIAL

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 314.2-315
Author(s):  
P. J. Mease ◽  
A. Deodhar ◽  
D. Van der Heijde ◽  
F. Behrens ◽  
A. Kivitz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Tyrosine Kinase ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Double Blind Placebo ◽  
Phase 2 Trial ◽  
Tyrosine Kinase 2 ◽  
Sf 36

Background:Tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) is an intracellular kinase that mediates signaling by key cytokines involved in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and plaque psoriasis (PsO) pathogenesis. Deucravacitinib is a novel oral agent that selectively inhibits TYK2 via an allosteric mechanism by binding to the nonconserved regulatory domain of the kinase. A previous Phase 2 trial in PsO had demonstrated that deucravacitinib was efficacious and well tolerated, with no laboratory abnormalities observed.Objectives:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of deucravacitinib in active PsA.Methods:This is an ongoing, 1-year, randomized, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled (initial 16 weeks), multiregional, Phase 2 trial (NCT03881059). Eligible patients had a PsA diagnosis for ≥6 months, met CASPAR criteria, and had active disease with ≥3 tender and ≥3 swollen joints, C-reactive protein ≥3 mg/L (ULN, 5 mg/L), and ≥1 psoriatic lesion (≥2 cm). Patients had failed or were intolerant to ≥1 nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, corticosteroid, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD), and/or 1 TNF inhibitor (TNFi; ≤30%). Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to deucravacitinib 6 mg once daily (QD) or 12 mg QD, or PBO. The primary endpoint was achievement of ACR 20 response at Week 16. Additional endpoints included the proportion of patients achieving ACR 50/70 response, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) response (≥0.35 improvement from baseline), enthesitis resolution (Leeds Index score of 0), minimal disease activity, change from baseline in SF-36 physical component score (SF-36 PCS) and mental component score (SF-36 MCS), Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 response, adverse events (AEs), and laboratory parameters.Results:Of 203 patients randomized, 180 (89%) completed 16 weeks of treatment (deucravacitinib 6 mg QD, 63/70 [90%]; deucravacitinib 12 mg QD, 59/67 [88%]; PBO, 58/66 [88%]). Demographic and baseline disease characteristics were similar across groups. Mean age was 49.8 years, 51% of patients were female, median PsA duration was 4.5 years, 66% of patients used csDMARDs at baseline and throughout the study, and 15% had used a TNFi. This study met its primary endpoint, with deucravacitinib 6 mg and 12 mg QD demonstrating significantly higher ACR 20 responses versus PBO at Week 16 (Figure 1). Additional endpoints were also met with deucravacitinib versus PBO (Figure 1). Adjusted mean changes from baseline in SF-36 PCS and SF-36 MCS at Week 16, respectively, were significantly higher in the deucravacitinib 6 mg QD group (5.6 vs 2.3, P=0.0062; 3.6 vs 0.7, P=0.0211) and 12 mg QD group (5.8 vs 2.3, P=0.0042; 3.5 vs 0.7, P=0.0263) compared with PBO. PASI 75 responses were also significantly higher in the deucravacitinib groups (P≤0.0136 vs PBO). The most common AEs in the deucravacitinib 6 mg/12 mg/PBO groups, respectively, during the 16-week treatment period were nasopharyngitis (5.7%/17.9%/7.6%), sinusitis (0%/7.5%/0%), headache (7.1%/1.5%/4.5%), and rash (4.3%/6.0%/0%). No serious AEs, herpes zoster infections, opportunistic infections, or thrombotic events were reported in deucravacitinib-treated patients during this period. Additionally, no significant changes from baseline in hematologic parameters (lymphocytes, neutrophils, platelets, and hemoglobin) or serum lipids were observed with deucravacitinib treatment.Conclusion:Deucravacitinib was efficacious versus PBO over 16 weeks in patients with active PsA. Treatment was generally well tolerated and the safety and laboratory parameter profile of deucravacitinib was consistent with that observed in an earlier Phase 2 PsO trial.Acknowledgements:This study was sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb. Professional medical writing assistance was provided by Peloton Advantage, LLC, an OPEN Health company, and funded by Bristol Myers Squibb.Disclosure of Interests:Philip J Mease Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN Pharma, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN Pharma, UCB, Atul Deodhar Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Glaxo Smith & Kline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Glaxo Smith & Kline, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cyxone, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB Pharma, Frank Behrens Consultant of: Pfizer, AbbVie, Sanofi, Lilly, Novartis, Genzyme, Boehringer, Janssen, MSD, Celgene, Roche, Chugai, Bristol Myers Squibb, UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Janssen, Chugai, Celgene, Roche, Alan Kivitz Shareholder of: Pfizer, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Novartis, Paid Consultant: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Flexion, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, Regeneron, SUN Pharma Advanced Research, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Speakers bureau: Celgene, Merck, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Genzyme, Flexion, AbbVie, Jonghyeon Kim Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Shalabh Singhal Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Miroslawa Nowak Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Subhashis Banerjee Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb

scholarly journals Rheumatoid arthritis activity scores in patients with and without fibromyalgia syndrome

2021 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 246-252
Author(s):  
Yunus Durmaz ◽  
Ilker Ilhanli
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Fibromyalgia Syndrome ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Systemic Disease ◽  
Response To Treatment ◽  
Unknown Etiology ◽  
Tender Joint Count ◽  
Tender Joint ◽  
Cross Sectional

BACKGROUND: Fibromyalgia syndrome (FM) is a systemic disease of unknown etiology, which can cause widespread musculoskeletal pain. In patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), FM can cause an additional symptom burden, which can affect some variables on the RA disease activity score 28 (DAS28), a tool that evaluates 28 joints in RA patients. OBJECTIVE: Compare the results of four different versions of the DAS28 and the parameters used to determine disease activity scores in RA patients with and without FM, and determine whether there are treatment differences between RA patients with and without FM. DESIGN: Retrospective, cross-sectional. SETTING: Tertiary hospital. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified patients diagnosed with RA between 1 September 2016 and 1 February 2020 and identified patients with and without FM. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Differences between variables in the DAS28 calculations (tender joint count [TJC], patient global assessment [PGA], and others), between patients with and without FM, and differences between patients with and without FM who were using or not using biological agents. SAMPLE SIZE: 381, including 322 females (84.5%). RESULTS: The frequency of FM in RA patients was 25.7% (89 females, 24.6%). In RA patients with FM, the TJC and PGA median values were significantly higher than in patients without FM ( P <.05). The use of corticosteroids and biological therapy in patients with FM was more frequent than in patients without FM ( P <.05). Compared to patients without FM, patients with FM switched treatment more often because of non-response to treatment ( P =.01) Median values of the DAS28 scores (calculated by four different versions of the instrument) in RA patients with FM were higher than in patients without FM ( P <.05). CONCLUSION: The presence of FM in RA patients may affect the subjective variables in different versions of DAS28 scores, causing the disease activity to score higher on the instrument, erroneously indicating worse disease than is actually present. LIMITATIONS: A single center, retrospective study. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None.

FRI0277 EFFECTIVENESS OF BDMARDS IN AS AND NR-AXSPA PATIENT POPULATIONS: EXPERIENCE FROM THE CORRONA REGISTRY

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 725.1-726
Author(s):  
T. Hunter ◽  
T. Blachley ◽  
W. Malatestinic ◽  
L. Harrold ◽  
B. Dube ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Disease Activity ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Tender Joint Count ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Tender Joint ◽  
Clinical Registry ◽  
Modest Improvement ◽  
Asas Criteria ◽  
Patient Reported

Background:Axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) consists of ankylosing spondylitis (AS), also referred to as radiographic axSpA (r-axSpA) and non-radiographic axSpA (nr-axSpA). AxSpA can lead to reduced mobility, pain, fatigue, and impact quality of life. While bDMARDs are available for treatment, the literature lacks studies exploring their real-world effectiveness in clinical registry patients with axSpA.Table 1.Demographic characteristics and clinical response rates of AxSpA patientsTable 2.TNFi drug survival rate results of early and late disease courseObjectives:To describe patient characteristics of bDMARD initiators among the AS and nr-axSpA populations and the effectiveness of bDMARDs at the 6-month (± 3) post-initiation follow-up (FU) visit in the Corrona PsA/SpA Registry.Methods:This study included patients aged ≥ 18 years with AS per modified NY criteria and nr-axSpA per ASAS criteria enrolled between 3/2013 and 9/2019. Concurrently diagnosed patients with PsA were excluded. Baseline characteristics, such as demographic, clinical, disease activity, treatment, and patient-reported outcomes (PRO), were collected for those initiating a bDMARD at enrollment or during FU; response rates and mean change in disease activity and PRO between initiation and 6-month FU were calculated.Results:The AS (n=179) and nr-axSpA (n=32) bDMARD initiators groups were similar at initiation for mean age (AS: 49.1 yrs, nr-axSpA: 48.9 yrs), ASDAS scores (AS: 2.9, nr-axSpA: 2.8) and patient global assessment (AS: 59.6, nr-axSpA: 60.0). The two groups were different for time from disease duration (AS 8.5 yrs, nr-axSpA, 6.6 yrs), current NSAID use (AS: 64.2%, nr-axSpA: 46.9%) and naivete to cDMARDS (AS: 70.4%, nr-axSpA: 40.6%), TNFs (AS: 47.5%, nr-axSpA: 21.9%), non-TNFs (AS: 96.1%, nr-axSpA: 93.8%) and bDMARDs (AS: 46.9%, nr-axSpA: 21.9%). Patients were similarly impacted by their condition for BASDAI (AS: 5.0, nr-axSpA, 5.6), pain (AS: 55.8, nr-axSpA, 60.8) and fatigue (AS: 51.6, nr-axSpA, 59.9), but there was an imbalance in tender joint count (AS: 2.6, nr-axSpA, 13.4).At 6-month FU, both populations experienced minimal or no change in ASDAS scores (AS: -0.3, nr-axSpA: 0.0) remaining in a high state of disease activity (ASDAS, ≥2.2). A small percent of both groups achieved ASAS20 (AS: 20.1%; nr-axSpA: 21.9%) and ASAS40 (AS: 14 %, nr-axSpA: 15.6%). Further, bDMARD initiators had minimal decreases in BASDAI (AS: -0.6, nr-axSpA: -0.8), pain (AS: -8.5, nr-axSpA: -12.2), and fatigue (AS: -5.0, nr-axSpA: -7.9) scores.Conclusion:AS and nr-axSpA bDMARD initiators had a modest improvement in outcomes at six months. Twenty percent or fewer patients achieved ASAS20 or ASAS40, with many having residual impairment based on ASDAS, BASDAI, pain, and fatigue outcomes at six months. While patients are initiating biologic agents, room for improvement exists as many are not achieving optimal treatment response of inactive (ASDAS, <1.3) or low disease activity (ASDAS, <2.1).Disclosure of Interests:Theresa Hunter Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Taylor Blachley Employee of: Corrona, LLC, William Malatestinic Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Leslie Harrold Shareholder of: Corrona, LLC – shareholder, Grant/research support from: Pfizer – grant/research support, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Roche – consultant, Employee of: Corrona, LLC – employment, Blessing Dube Employee of: Corrona, LLC, Meghan Glynn Shareholder of: Corrona, LLC – shareholder, Grant/research support from: Pfizer – grant/research support, Employee of: Corrona, LLC – employment, Jeffrey Lisse Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Rebecca Bolce Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Philip J Mease Grant/research support from: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB – grant/research support, Consultant of: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB – consultant, Speakers bureau: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB – speakers bureau

A Phase III, Randomized, Controlled Trial of Apremilast in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis: Results of the PALACE 2 Trial

2016 ◽  
Vol 43 (9) ◽  
pp. 1724-1734 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maurizio Cutolo ◽  
Gary E. Myerson ◽  
Roy M. Fleischmann ◽  
Frédéric Lioté ◽  
Federico Díaz-González ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Physical Function ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Adenosine Monophosphate ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Tender Joint Count ◽  
Upper Respiratory Tract ◽  
Tender Joint ◽  
Link Type

Objective.Apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, downregulates intracellular inflammatory mediator synthesis by elevating cyclic adenosine monophosphate levels. The PALACE 2 trial evaluated apremilast efficacy and safety in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) despite prior conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and/or biologic therapy.Methods.Eligible patients were randomized (1:1:1) to placebo, apremilast 20 mg BID, or apremilast 30 mg BID. At Week 16, patients with swollen and tender joint count improvement < 20% entered early escape, with placebo patients rerandomized (1:1) to apremilast 20 mg BID or 30 mg BID while apremilast patients continued on their initial apremilast dose. At Week 24, patients remaining on placebo were rerandomized to apremilast 20 mg BID or 30 mg BID. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving > 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20) at Week 16.Results.In the intent-to-treat population (N = 484), ACR20 at Week 16 was achieved by more patients receiving apremilast 20 mg BID [37.4% (p = 0.0002)] and 30 mg BID [32.1% (p = 0.0060)] versus placebo (18.9%). Clinically meaningful improvements in signs and symptoms of PsA, physical function, and psoriasis were observed with apremilast through Week 52. The most common adverse events were diarrhea, nausea, headache, and upper respiratory tract infection. Diarrhea and nausea generally occurred early and usually resolved spontaneously with continued treatment. Laboratory abnormalities were infrequent and transient.Conclusion.Apremilast demonstrated clinical improvements in PsA for up to 52 weeks, including signs and symptoms, physical function, and psoriasis. No new safety signals were observed. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01212757.

scholarly journals P231 B-cell depletion therapy with rituximab in RA: UCLH/UCL 20 years of experience

Rheumatology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Caitlin M Norris-Grey ◽  
Samantha Moore ◽  
Geraldine Cambridge ◽  
Venkat Reedy ◽  
Maria Leandro
Keyword(s):  
B Cell ◽  
Service Evaluation ◽  
Cell Depletion ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Tender Joint Count ◽  
B Cell Depletion ◽  
Concomitant Therapy ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Tender Joint

Abstract Background B-cell depletion therapy based on rituximab in patients with seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) was pioneered at UCLH/UCL in 1998. The positive results of the initial open-label UCLH/UCL trials led to the Phase IIa proof of concept trial confirming efficacy and safety for rituximab in the treatment of patients with RA. A Phase III trial followed and licensing in 2006. We report a service evaluation of the UCLH/UCL cohort of RA patients treated with rituximab over the last 20 years. Methods A retrospective review of electronic records from all patients with RA treated with rituximab followed up in a dedicated clinic at UCLH/UCL (1998-2019) were included. Data on gender, age at first treatment, previous DMARDs, concomitant therapy at the time of the first rituximab cycle, total number of rituximab cycles and length of follow-up while on rituximab were collected. For patients currently on rituximab, further information was collected at last follow-up, including concomitant therapy, swollen and tender joint count, global VAS, CRP and ESR. DAS28ESR was calculated. Results 296 patients had received rituximab therapy since November 1998, with 105 remaining on rituximab at final data collection (14/10/2019). Median follow-up was 77.5 months. Clinical data is shown in Table 1. Information for previous DMARDs was only available for 196 patients in the whole cohort, and for 70 patients currently on rituximab. The most common concomitant DMARD at first cycle was methotrexate with a similar percentage receiving methotrexate at last follow-up. The median number of previous DMARDs were 4 and 3 respectively. Within both cohorts approximately 31% of patients received rituximab as their first biologic. Conclusion This retrospective service evaluation of 296 patients with RA who had undergone rituximab therapy since 1998 showed that more than one third remained on rituximab at last follow-up. Of these, 70.2% of patients were in clinical remission or with low disease activity. Most patients (94%) remaining on rituximab were receiving only 1 or no concomitant therapies. Multiple cycles of treatment with rituximab have thus proved to be an effective therapeutic strategy for patients with RA resulting in long-term and highly favourable control of their disease. Disclosures C.M. Norris-Grey None. S. Moore None. G. Cambridge None. V. Reedy None. M. Leandro Consultancies; Genentech: consultancy fees for attending meeting on obinutuzumab trial in lupus nephritis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document