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

scholarly journals SAT0411 EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF IXEKIZUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS AND INADEQUATE RESPONSE TO TNF INHIBITORS: THREE YEAR RESULTS FROM A PHASE 3 STUDY (SPIRIT-P2)

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1158.1-1158
Author(s):  
J. Gratacos-Masmitja ◽  
A. Turkiewicz ◽  
E. Dokoupilova ◽  
A. M. Gellett ◽  
A. T. Sprabery ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Severity Index ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Intent To Treat

Background:Ixekizumab (IXE) is a high affinity monoclonal antibody that selectively targets interleukin-17A. In the SPIRIT-P2 study, IXE every 4 (Q4W) or 2 (Q2W) weeks was superior to placebo (PBO) in improving the signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) at Week 24 in patients (pts) with prior inadequate response or intolerance to 1 or 2 tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi).Objectives:To determine efficacy and safety of IXE treatment up to 3 years in pts with PsA.Methods:In SPIRIT-P2 (NCT02349295), 310 pts entered the extension period where pts maintained their original ixekizumab dose, and placebo pts received IXEQ4W or IXEQ2W (1:1). Pts failing to demonstrate ≥20% improvement in both tender and swollen joint counts at Week 32, or any subsequent visit, were discontinued (mandatory discontinuation criteria). Efficacy outcomes were ACR20/50/70 response, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75/90/100 response, Leeds Enthesitis Index (LEI), Leeds Dactylitis Index-Basic (LDI-B), Minimal Disease Activity (MDA), and Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA). Ad-hoc efficacy data are presented for intent-to-treat (ITT) pts initially randomized to IXE at Week 0. Observed and modified non-responder imputation (mNRI; missing data treated as non-response for pts discontinued due to lack of efficacy or adverse events [AEs]) was applied to categorical measures. Observed and modified baseline observation carried forward (mBOCF) was applied to continuous efficacy measures. Safety was analysed in pts exposed to at least one dose of IXE.Results:Of the 245 pts initially randomized to IXE at Week 0 (ITT), 64 (26.1%) pts discontinued due to lack of efficacy and 22 (9.0%) pts due to mandatory discontinuation criteria. Efficacy results are summarized below (Figure 1). Pts in SPIRIT-P2 who received IXEQ4W and IXEQ2W for 156 weeks reported sustained improvement in ACR responses and manifestations of PsA, including enthesitis, dactylitis, and skin outcomes. Treat-to-target measures such as MDA and DAPSA (Low Disease Activity or Remission) were achieved by 30.8% and 47.7% of pts, respectively on IXEQ4W, and by 29.2% and 40.7% of pts, respectively on IXEQ2W. Incidence rates (IR) of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) are provided below (Figure 2). Most TEAEs were mild or moderate in severity, and 38 out of 337 (5.9%) pts (safety population) discontinued due to AEs. The most common TEAEs were infections (IR=33.1) and injection site reactions (IR=5.4). Three deaths were reported in the study.Figure 1.Efficacy Outcome Measures at Week 156 (Intent-to-treat Population).ACR=American College of Rheumatology; IXE=ixekizumab; LEI=Leeds Enthesitis Index; LDI-B=Leeds Dactylitis Index-Basic; mNRI=modified non-responder imputation; PASI=Psoriasis Area and Severity Index; Q2W=every two weeks; Q4W=every four weeks.Figure 2.Safety Outcome Measures (Weeks 0-156).Safety was analysed in patients exposed to at least one dose of ixekizumab. During the double-blind treatment period (Weeks 0-24), one patient reported serious adverse events of anal fistula and anal abscess, which were considered by the sponsor to be IBD; however, an independent adjudication committee of external experts reviewed the case and determined the events to be “Not IBD.”Conclusion:In pts treated with IXE who had prior inadequate response or intolerance to 1 or 2 TNFi, improvements in the signs and symptoms of PsA persisted up to 3 years. No unexpected safety signals were observed, and the safety profile was consistent with previous studies of IXE.Disclosure of Interests:Jordi Gratacos-Masmitja Grant/research support from: a grant from Pfizzer to study implementation of multidisciplinary units to manage PSA in SPAIN, Consultant of: Pfizzer, MSD, ABBVIE, Janssen, Amgen, BMS, Novartis, Lilly, Speakers bureau: Pfizzer, MSD, ABBVIE, Janssen, Amgen, BMS, Novartis, Lilly, Anthony Turkiewicz Grant/research support from: Received research grants from AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer, Consultant of: Received consulting fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer, Speakers bureau: On speaker bureau for Abbvie, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Eva Dokoupilova Grant/research support from: Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Novartis, Amanda M. Gellett 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, Vladimir J. Geneus Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Arnaud Constantin Grant/research support from: Study was sponsored by Sanofi Genzyme, Consultant of: Consulting fees from Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB

scholarly journals 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

2019 ◽  
Vol 79 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-131 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip J Mease ◽  
Josef S Smolen ◽  
Frank Behrens ◽  
Peter Nash ◽  
Soyi Liu Leage ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Treat To Target ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Disease Modifying ◽  
Blinded Assessor ◽  
Disease Modifying Antirheumatic Drug

ObjectivesTo compare efficacy and safety of ixekizumab (IXE) to adalimumab (ADA) in biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-naïve patients with both active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and skin disease and inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARDs).MethodsPatients with active PsA were randomised (1:1) to approved dosing of IXE or ADA in an open-label, head-to-head, blinded assessor clinical trial. The primary objective was to evaluate whether IXE was superior to ADA at week 24 for simultaneous achievement of a ≥50% improvement from baseline in the American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR50) and a 100% improvement from baseline in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI100). Major secondary objectives, also at week 24, were to evaluate whether IXE was: (1) non-inferior to ADA for achievement of ACR50 and (2) superior to ADA for PASI100 response. Additional PsA, skin, treat-to-target and quality-of-life outcome measures were assessed at week 24.ResultsThe primary efficacy endpoint was met (IXE: 36%, ADA: 28%; p=0.036). IXE was non-inferior for ACR50 response (IXE: 51%, ADA: 47%; treatment difference: 3.9%) and superior for PASI100 response (IXE: 60%, ADA: 47%; p=0.001). IXE had greater response versus ADA in additional PsA, skin, nail, treat-to-target and quality-of-life outcomes. Serious adverse events were reported in 8.5% (ADA) and 3.5% (IXE) of patients.ConclusionsIXE was superior to ADA in achievement of simultaneous improvement of joint and skin disease (ACR50 and PASI100) in patients with PsA and inadequate response to csDMARDs. Safety and tolerability for both biologicals were aligned with established safety profiles.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of risankizumab for active psoriatic arthritis: 24-week results from the randomised, double-blind, phase 3 KEEPsAKE 2 trial

2021 ◽  
pp. annrheumdis-2021-221048
Author(s):  
Andrew Östör ◽  
Filip Van den Bosch ◽  
Kim Papp ◽  
Cecilia Asnal ◽  
Ricardo Blanco ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
American College Of Rheumatology ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Secondary Endpoints

ObjectivesRisankizumab is an interleukin-23 inhibitor under study for the treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The phase 3 KEEPsAKE 2 trial investigated the efficacy and safety of risankizumab versus placebo in patients with active PsA who had previous inadequate response or intolerance to ≤2 biological therapies (Bio-IR) and/or ≥1 conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD-IR). Results through week 24 are reported here.MethodsAdults with PsA who were Bio-IR and/or csDMARD-IR were randomised to receive subcutaneously administered risankizumab 150 mg or placebo at weeks 0, 4 and 16 during a 24-week, double-blind treatment period. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved ≥20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology score (ACR20) at week 24. Secondary endpoints assessed key domains of PsA and patient-reported outcomes.ResultsA total of 444 patients (median age 53 years, range 23–84 years) were randomised to risankizumab (n=224) or placebo (n=220); 206 patients (46.5%) were Bio-IR. At week 24, a significantly greater proportion of patients receiving risankizumab achieved the primary endpoint of ACR20 (51.3% vs 26.5%, p<0.001) and all secondary endpoints (p<0.05) compared with placebo. Serious adverse events were reported for 4.0% and 5.5% of risankizumab-treated and placebo-treated patients, respectively; serious infections were reported for 0.9% and 2.3%, respectively.ConclusionTreatment with risankizumab resulted in significant improvements versus placebo in key disease outcomes and was well tolerated in patients with PsA who were Bio-IR and/or csDMARD-IR.Trial registration numberNCT03671148.

scholarly journals LB0001 EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF UPADACITINIB VERSUS PLACEBO AND ADALIMUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS AND INADEQUATE RESPONSE TO NON-BIOLOGIC DISEASE-MODIFYING ANTI-RHEUMATIC DRUGS (SELECT-PsA-1): A DOUBLE-BLIND, RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED PHASE 3 TRIAL

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 16.2-17
Author(s):  
I. Mcinnes ◽  
J. Anderson ◽  
M. Magrey ◽  
J. F. Merola ◽  
Y. Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Musculoskeletal Symptoms ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Self Assessment ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Biologic Dmard ◽  
Secondary Endpoints

Background:Upadacitinib (UPA) is an oral, reversible, JAK inhibitor approved for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and currently under evaluation for treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA).Objectives:To assess the efficacy and safety of UPA vs placebo (PBO) and adalimumab (ADA) in patients (pts) with PsA and prior IR or intolerance to ≥1 non-biologic DMARD (non-bDMARD).Methods:Pts with active PsA (≥3 swollen and ≥3 tender joints), active or historical psoriasis, and on ≤2 non-bDMARDs were randomized 1:1:1:1 to once daily UPA 15 mg (UPA15), UPA 30 mg (UPA30), ADA 40 mg every other week, or PBO. The primary endpoint was the proportion of pts achieving ACR20 for UPA vs PBO at Wk 12. Multiplicity controlled secondary endpoints for each dose of UPA vs PBO included change in HAQ-DI, FACIT-F, and SF-36 PCS (Wk 12); static Investigator Global Assessment of Psoriasis of 0 or 1, PASI75, and change in Self-Assessment of Psoriasis Symptoms (Wk 16); change in modified Sharp/van der Heijde Score (mTSS), proportion of pts achieving MDA, and resolution of enthesitis (LEI=0) and dactylitis (LDI=0) (Wk 24). For each dose of UPA, the multiplicity-controlled analysis also included non-inferiority and superiority vs ADA for ACR20 and superiority for HAQ-DI and pt’s assessment of pain NRS (Wk 12). ACR50/70 at Wk 12 and ACR20 at Wk 2 were additional secondary endpoints. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) through 24 wks are reported for pts who received ≥1 dose of study drug.Results:1705 pts were randomized; 1704 received study drug (53.2% female, mean age 50.8 yrs, mean duration of PsA diagnosis 6.1 yrs). 82% were on ≥1 concomitant non-bDMARD, of whom 84% received MTX +/- another non-bDMARD.At Wk 12, ACR20 rates were 70.6% with UPA15 and 78.5% with UPA30 vs 36.2% with PBO (p < .001 for UPA15/30 vs PBO) and 65.0% with ADA (non-inferiority, p < .001 for UPA15/30 vs ADA; superiority, p < .001 for UPA30 vs ADA). A greater proportion of pts achieved ACR50/70 with UPA15/30 vs PBO and UPA30 vs ADA. Improvements were observed with UPA15/30 vs PBO for all multiplicity controlled secondary endpoints and for UPA 15/30 vs ADA for HAQ-DI and UPA 30 vs ADA for improvement in pain (Figure 1A-1B). At Wk 24, change in mTSS was 0.25 for PBO, -0.04 for UPA15, 0.03 for UPA30, and 0.01 for ADA (p < 0.001 for UPA15/30 vs PBO). The rates of TEAEs and serious AEs, including serious infections, were similar in the PBO, UPA15, and ADA arms and higher with UPA30 (Figure 2). The rate of herpes zoster was similar for PBO and UPA15/30. No MACE was reported with UPA. One malignancy occurred in each of the PBO and UPA15 arms, and 3 malignancies were reported in each of the UPA30 and ADA arms. VTE were reported in 1 pt on PBO, 1 pt on UPA30, and 2 pts on ADA. One death occurred in the PBO arm.Conclusion:In this non-bDMARD-IR PsA population, treatment with UPA15/30 demonstrated improvement in musculoskeletal symptoms, psoriasis, physical function, pain, and fatigue and inhibited radiographic progression; improvements were observed by Wk 2. At Wk 12, UPA15/30 were non-inferior to ADA for ACR20, with superiority demonstrated for UPA30. Greater percentages of UPA vs PBO pts achieved stringent measures of disease control (MDA, ACR50/70, sIGA 0/1). No new safety signals were identified compared with the safety profile observed in RA.Disclosure of Interests:Iain McInnes: None declared, Jaclyn Anderson Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Marina Magrey Grant/research support from: Amgen, AbbVie, and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: Novartis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Janssen, Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: Merck, Abbvie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, UCB, Celgene, Sanofi, Regeneron, Arena, Sun Pharma, Biogen, Pfizer, EMD Sorono, Avotres and Leo Pharma, Yi Liu: None declared, Mitsumasa Kishimoto Consultant of: bbVie, Eli Lilly, Celgene, Pfizer, Gilead, Janssen, and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eisai, Celgene, Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, Ayumi, Janssen, Astellas, and UCB Pharma, Sławomir Jeka Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, MSD, Sandoz, Eli Lilly, Egis, UCB, Celgene, Cesar Francisco Pacheco Tena: None declared, xin wang Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Liang Chen Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Patrick Zueger Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Aileen Pangan Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Frank Behrens Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Janssen, Chugai, Celgene and Roche, Consultant of: Pfizer, AbbVie, Sanofi, Lilly, Novartis, UCB, Genzyme, Boehringer, Janssen, MSD, Celgene, Roche and Chugai

scholarly journals Multicentre, randomised, open-label, parallel-group study evaluating the efficacy and safety of ixekizumab versus adalimumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis naïve to biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug: final results by week 52

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (10) ◽  
pp. 1310-1319 ◽  
Author(s):  
Josef S Smolen ◽  
Philip Mease ◽  
Hasan Tahir ◽  
Hendrik Schulze-Koops ◽  
Inmaculada de la Torre ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Severity Index ◽  
Treat To Target ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Life Outcomes ◽  
Open Label ◽  
American College Of Rheumatology ◽  
Parallel Group ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Disease Modifying

ObjectivesSPIRIT head-to-head (H2H) is a 52-week (Wk) trial comparing ixekizumab (IXE) with adalimumab (ADA) for simultaneous American College of Rheumatology (ACR)50 and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI)100 responses in 566 patients (distributed evenly across both groups) with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). IXE was superior to ADA for this primary end point at Wk24. We aimed to determine the final efficacy and safety results through Wk52 including a prespecified subgroup analysis of concomitant conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARD) use.MethodsSPIRIT-H2H is a Wk52 multicentre, open-label, blinded-assessor study comparing IXE and ADA in bionaïve patients with PsA. Patients were randomised 1:1 to IXE or ADA with stratification by concomitant csDMARD use and presence of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Prespecified end points at Wk24 and Wk52 included musculoskeletal, psoriasis, quality-of life outcomes, subgroup analyses and safety.ResultsA significantly higher proportion of patients treated with IXE versus ADA simultaneously achieved ACR50 and PASI100 (39% vs 26%, p<0.001), PASI100 (64% vs 41%, p<0.001) at Wk52. Efficacy of IXE and ADA was similar at Wk52 for ACR50 (49.8% vs 49.8%, p=0.924), treat-to-target outcomes, enthesitis and dactylitis resolution. Responses to IXE were consistent irrespective of concomitant csDMARD use. Significantly more patients on IXE monotherapy versus ADA monotherapy had simultaneous ACR50 and PASI100 (38% vs 19%, p=0.007), and PASI100 responses (66% vs 35%, p<0.001) at Wk52. There were no new safety findings for IXE or ADA.ConclusionsIXE provided significantly greater simultaneous joint and skin improvement than ADA through Wk52 in bionaïve patients with PsA. IXE showed better efficacy on psoriasis and performed at least as well as ADA on musculoskeletal manifestations. IXE efficacy was consistent irrespective of concomitant csDMARD use.Trial registration numberNCT03151551.

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 FRI0095 SARILUMAB IMPROVED PATIENT-PERCEIVED IMPACT OF RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS WHATEVER THE BASELINE DISEASE ACTIVITY: FIRST RESULTS FROM AN INTERVENTIONAL NON CONTROLLED STUDY: SARIPRO, IN MODERATE AND SEVERE RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS PATIENTS

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 626.2-626
Author(s):  
L. Gossec ◽  
R. M. Flipo ◽  
T. Schaeverbeke ◽  
C. Albert ◽  
A. Baillet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Daily Practice ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Interventional Study ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Biologic Dmards ◽  
Patient Reported

Background:Sarilumab, an anti-IL-6R antibody, is approved for the treatment of moderate to severe RA and shown efficacy on disease activity and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Detailed analyses of drug efficacy from the patient point of view is important. SariPRO is a pragmatic interventional study close to the daily practice.Objectives:To assess the effectiveness of sarilumab on several PROs using the RAID (Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease) score.Methods:The SariPRO study (NCT 03449758) was a French multicenter interventional study assessing the effects of sarilumab 200 mg on PROs in patients with moderately to severely active RA with an inadequate response or intolerance to conventional synthetic or biologic DMARDs. The primary endpoint was change in total RAID score from baseline to week 24 (RAID ranges 0-10 where 10 is maximal impact). Changes from baseline for RAID, DAS28-ESR and CDAI according to baseline disease activity were analyzed as secondary outcomes. Safety was assessed by monitoring adverse events (AE). All statistical analyses were descriptive, 95% CI was given when appropriate.Results:84 patients were included in 31 centers and 62 were evaluable and analyzed for effectiveness. They had similar characteristics to the 84 patients at baseline and were as expected for an RA population initiating a biologic: mean (SD) age: 59.9 (12.4) years, 71.0% female, disease duration 9.7 (10.3) years, rheumatoid factor positivity 82.5%, ACPA positivity 86.4%, and DAS28=4.9 (11). Total RAID score decreased significantly from 5.7 (2.0) at baseline to 3.3 (2.5) at W24; mean change was -2.4 [95% CI: -3.0; -1.8]. Furthermore, this improvement was noted both for highly and less active patients at baseline: for patients with DAS28-ESR < 5.1 (n=31), mean change was -1.56 [-2.28; -0.83] and for patients with DAS28-ESR≥5.1 (n=27), mean change was -1.98 [-2.91; -1.05]. Changes in DAS28-ESR and CDAI were significant (-2.8 [-3.2; -2.4] and -15.2 [-18.5; -11.8], respectively). AEs were consistent with the safety profile of anti-IL-6R antibodies and with results from RCTs (data not shown).Conclusion:In this real world study, treatment with sarilumab during 24 weeks in RA patients led to an improvement in the total RAID score irrespective of baseline levels of disease activity. This is the first time RAID score is used as the primary endpoint in a study.References:[1]Study was sponsored by Sanofi GenzymeDisclosure of Interests:Laure Gossec Grant/research support from: Lilly, Mylan, Pfizer, Sandoz, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, René-Marc Flipo Consultant of: Johnson and Johnson, MSD France, Novartis, Sanofi, Speakers bureau: Johnson and Johnson, MSD France, Novartis, Sanofi, Thierry Schaeverbeke: None declared, Christine Albert: None declared, Athan Baillet Consultant of: Athan BAILLET has received honorarium fees from Abbvie for his participation as the coordinator of the systematic literature review, marie-Christophe Boissier: None declared, Cyrille Confavreux: None declared, Gregoire CORMIER: None declared, Emmanuelle Dernis Speakers bureau: Lilly, Novartis, Elisabeth Gervais Solau: None declared, Sophie Godot: None declared, Jacques-Eric Gottenberg Grant/research support from: BMS, Pfizer, Consultant of: BMS, Sanofi-Genzyme, UCB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Eli Lilly and Co., Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, UCB, Philippe Goupille Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Lilly, Janssen, Medac, MSD France, Nordic Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Lilly, Janssen, Medac, MSD France, Nordic Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Lilly, Janssen, Medac, MSD France, Nordic Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi and UCB, Slim Lassoued: None declared, Thierry Lequerre: None declared, Frederic Lioté Consultant of: CME: Nordic Pharma, Christian Marcelli: None declared, Yves Maugars: None declared, Minh Nguyen: None declared, Aleth Perdriger: None declared, Yves-Marie Pers: None declared, Edouard Pertuiset: None declared, Lucile Poiroux: None declared, Carole Rosenberg: None declared, Christian Roux: None declared, Adeline Ruyssen-Witrand Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Pfizer, Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi-Genzyme, Martin SOUBRIER: None declared, Pascale Vergne-Salle: None declared, Charles Zarnitsky: None declared, Eric Fakra Consultant of: Janssen, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Sanofi, Hubert MAROTTE Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers Sqibb, Lilly France, MSD, Novartis, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, SanofiAventis, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Sqibb, Lilly France, MSD, Novartis, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, SanofiAventis, Paid instructor for: Sanofi-Aventis, Speakers bureau: Sanofi-Aventis, Florence E Lévy-Weil Employee of: Sanofi Genzyme employee

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 OP0053 SECUKINUMAB IMPROVES CLINICAL AND IMAGING OUTCOMES IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS AND AXIAL MANIFESTATIONS WITH INADEQUATE RESPONSE TO NSAIDS: WEEK 52 RESULTS FROM THE MAXIMISE TRIAL

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 35-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
X. Baraliakos ◽  
L. Gossec ◽  
E. Pournara ◽  
S. Jeka ◽  
R. Blanco ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Spinal Pain ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Imaging Data ◽  
Sacroiliac Joints ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Mri Score

Background:Although axial disease may affect up to 70% of patients (pts) with Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA), evidence on the efficacy of biologics in the treatment of axial manifestations in such pts is limited,1particularly as validated classification criteria for this subtype of PsA are not yet available. MAXIMISE (NCT02721966) is the first randomised controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of a biologic in the management of the axial manifestations of PsA and showed that secukinumab (SEC) 300 and 150 mg provided rapid and significant improvement in ASAS20 responses in these pts through week (Wk) 12.2Objectives:To present 52 wks efficacy results and imaging data from the MAXIMISE trial.Methods:This phase 3b, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled, multicentre 52-wk trial included 498 pts (aged ≥18 years) with a diagnosis of PsA and classified by CASPAR criteria, spinal pain VAS score ≥ 40/100 and BASDAI score ≥ 4 despite use of at least two NSAIDs. Pts were randomised to SEC 300 mg (N=167) or SEC 150 mg (N=165) or PBO (N=166) wkly for 4 wks and every 4 wks thereafter. At Wk 12, PBO pts were re-randomised to SEC 300/150 mg. The primary endpoint was ASAS20 response with SEC 300 mg at Wk 12. The key secondary endpoint was ASAS20 response with SEC 150 mg at Wk 12. Wk 52 data are presented as observed. Bone marrow oedema of the entire spine and sacroiliac joints were assessed centrally with Berlin MRI scores at Baseline, Wk 12 and Wk 52.Results:Primary and key secondary endpoints were met; ASAS20 responses were sustained and increased further through Wk 52. 75%/79.7% of the PBO pts re-randomised at Wk 12 to SEC 300/150 mg achieved ASAS20 response at Wk 52 (Figure 1). ASAS40 responses at Wk 52 were 69.1% [SEC 300 mg], 64.5% [SEC 150 mg], 62.5% [PBO-SEC 300 mg], and 54.1% [PBO-SEC 150 mg]. At baseline, 59.5% [SEC 300 mg], 53.5% [SEC 150 mg] and 64.2% [PBO] of the pts had positive MRIs for the sacroiliac joints and/or the spine with Berlin MRI score ≥1. The reductions of Berlin MRI score for entire spine and sacroiliac joints were statistically significant for pts treated with SEC 300/150 mg vs. placebo (Figure 2a and b). There were no new or unexpected safety findings.Figure 1.ASAS20 Response over 52 Wks*Figure 2.Total Berlin MRI score for the Entire Spine and Sacroiliac Joints at Wk 12Conclusion:Secukinumab improved all evaluated ASAS responses through Wk 52 in PsA pts with axial manifestations and inadequate responses to NSAIDs and led to significant reduction of inflammatory MRI lesions in the spine and the Sacroiliac Joints. The safety profile of secukinumab through Wk 52 was consistent with previous reports.3-4References:[1]McInnes IB, et al.Lancet.2015;386(9999):1137–46.[2]Baraliakos X, et al.Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71 (suppl 10).[3]Langley RG, et al.N Engl J Med.2014;371:326–38.[4]Sieper J, et al.Ann Rheum Dis.2016;0:1–8.Acknowledgments:The study was sponsored by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.Disclosure of Interests: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, Laure Gossec Grant/research support from: Lilly, Mylan, Pfizer, Sandoz, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Effie Pournara Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Sławomir Jeka Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, MSD, Sandoz, Eli Lilly, Egis, UCB, Celgene, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, MSD, Sandoz, Eli Lilly, Egis, UCB, Celgene, Ricardo Blanco Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, Roche, Consultant of: Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Bristol-Myers, Janssen, UCB Pharma and MSD, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Bristol-Myers, Janssen, UCB Pharma. MSD, Salvatore D’Angelo Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi, Georg Schett Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche and UCB, Barbara Schulz Employee of: Novartis, Michael Rissler Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Kriti Nagar Employee of: Novartis, Chiara Perella Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Laura C Coates: None declared

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document