scholarly journals POS1035 UPADACITINIB AS MONOTHERAPY AND IN COMBINATION WITH NON-BIOLOGIC DMARDs FOR THE TREATMENT OF PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: SUBGROUP ANALYSIS FROM TWO PHASE 3 TRIALS

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 790.1-790
Author(s):  
P. Nash ◽  
P. Richette ◽  
L. Gossec ◽  
A. Marchesoni ◽  
C. T. Ritchlin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Treatment Effect ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Hepatic Disorder ◽  
Point Estimates ◽  
Advanced Therapy

Background:Approximately 40% of PsA patients (pts) on advanced therapy are on monotherapy.1,2 Upadacitinib (UPA) showed efficacy and safety in pts with active PsA in the Phase 3 SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2 clinical trials.3,4Objectives:Assess efficacy and safety in subgroups of pts treated with UPA as monotherapy or in combination with non-biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (non-bDMARDs).Methods:The SELECT-PsA program enrolled pts with prior inadequate response (IR) or intolerance to ≥1 non-bDMARD (N=1705) and prior IR or intolerance to ≥1 bDMARD (N=642). Data from both trials was integrated for pts receiving placebo (PBO), UPA 15 mg once daily (QD) and UPA 30 mg QD. Stable background treatment of ≤2 non-bDMARDs was permitted, but not required. Analysis includes UPA monotherapy vs combination therapy for endpoints: ACR20/50/70 responses and change from baseline in pain and HAQ-DI (Wk 12); Static Investigator Global Assessment of Psoriasis of 0 or 1 and at least a 2-point improvement from baseline and PASI75/90/100 responses (Wk 16); proportion of pts achieving resolution of enthesitis, dactylitis, and minimal disease activity (Wk 24). Binary outcomes, using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel-method and continuous outcomes, using mixed-effects model, were analyzed for repeated measures in the subgroups of UPA monotherapy and combination therapy. Point estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of PBO subtracted treatment effect were calculated. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were analyzed.Results:Of 1916 pts, 574 (30%) received monotherapy and 1342 (70%) received combination therapy; 84% in combination therapy group received MTX +/- another non-bDMARD. Both UPA monotherapy and combination therapy led to improvements in efficacy vs PBO and across endpoints, for each dose, generally consistent point estimates of PBO subtracted treatment effect and associated overlapping CIs were observed (Figure 1). Generally, frequency of AEs and serious AEs, were comparable with UPA administered as monotherapy and combination therapy (Table 1). Frequency of AEs of serious infections and hepatic disorder were lower with monotherapy while frequency of AEs leading to discontinuation of study drug were lower with combination therapy. Most hepatic disorders were transient transaminase elevations.Conclusion:In the SELECT PsA trials, efficacy and safety of UPA was generally consistent when administered as monotherapy or when given in combination with non-bDMARDs. Results from this analysis support the use of UPA with or without concomitant non-bDMARDs.References:[1]Ianculescu I and Weisman MH, Clin Exp Rheumatol 2015; 33:S94–S97.[2]Mease PJ, et al. RMD Open 2015; 1:e0000181.[3]McInnes IB, et al. Ann Rheum Dis, 2020; 79:12.[4]Genovese MC, et al. Ann Rheum Dis, 2020; 79:139.Acknowledgements:AbbVie and the authors thank the patients, study sites, and investigators who participated in this clinical trial. AbbVie, Inc was the study sponsor, contributed to study design, data collection, analysis & interpretation, and to writing, reviewing, and approval of final version. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing support was provided by Ramona Vladea of AbbVie Inc.Disclosure of Interests:Peter Nash Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Roche, Pfizer, Janssen, Amgen, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Celgene, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Roche, Pfizer, Janssen, Amgen, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Celgene, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Roche, Pfizer, Janssen, Amgen, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Celgene, Pascal Richette Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Biogen, Janssen, BMS, Roche, Pfizer, Amgen, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Lilly, Novartis, and Celgene, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, Janssen, BMS, Roche, Pfizer, Amgen, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Lilly, Novartis, and Celgene, Laure Gossec Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Janssen, Sandoz, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Janssen, Sandoz, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Janssen, Sandoz, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Antonio Marchesoni Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Christopher T. Ritchlin Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Novartis, UCB, Grant/research support from: UCB, Koji Kato Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Erin McDearmon-Blondell Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Elizabeth Lesser Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Reva McCaskill Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Dai Feng Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Jaclyn Anderson Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Eric Ruderman Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer.

scholarly journals LB5. PROVENT: Phase 3 Study of Efficacy and Safety of AZD7442 (Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab) for Pre-exposure Prophylaxis of COVID-19 in Adults

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S810-S810
Author(s):  
Myron J Levin ◽  
Andrew Ustianowski ◽  
Stéphane De Wit ◽  
Odile Launay ◽  
Miles Avila ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Safety Analysis ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Primary Study ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Exposure Prophylaxis

Abstract Background Vaccines effectively prevent COVID-19, but some individuals have medical comorbidities or receive therapies that impair their immune response to vaccination, or are ineligible for vaccination. For such individuals who remain at risk of COVID-19, monoclonal antibodies may provide additional rapid protection. AZD7442 comprises 2 fully human extended half-life SARS-CoV-2–neutralizing antibodies that bind distinct epitopes of the viral spike protein receptor binding domain. AZD7442 is in development for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. Here, we report primary Phase 3 study results of AZD7442 for pre-exposure prophylaxis of symptomatic COVID-19. Methods PROVENT (NCT04625725) is a Phase 3, 2:1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of a single 300-mg AZD7442 dose (2 intramuscular injections; 150 mg each of tixagevimab and cilgavimab) for symptomatic COVID-19 prevention. Participants were unvaccinated adults (≥ 18 years old) without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, who may benefit from immunoprophylaxis with antibodies due to an increased risk of either inadequate response to vaccination or SARS-CoV-2 exposure. The primary study endpoints were first case of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive symptomatic illness post dose and prior to Day 183 (efficacy), and safety of AZD7442. Results In total, 5197 participants (mean age 53.5 years, 46% female) were randomized and dosed (safety analysis set): AZD7442 n=3460; placebo n=1737. In the primary efficacy analysis (full pre-exposure analysis set, n=5172), AZD7442 reduced the risk of developing symptomatic COVID-19 by 77% (95% confidence interval 46.0, 90.0) vs placebo (P< 0.001) (Table). Adverse events occurred in 35% and 34% of participants administered AZD7442 and placebo, respectively, and injection site reactions occurred in 2.4% and 2.1% of participants, respectively (safety analysis set). There was 1 case of severe/critical COVID-19 and 2 COVID-19–related deaths in the placebo arm. Conclusion The primary study endpoints were met: a one-time dose of AZD7442 demonstrated statistically significant protection against symptomatic COVID-19 and was well tolerated. AZD7442 is the first long-acting monoclonal antibody combination that represents a potential new option to augment COVID-19 prevention. PROVENT funding statement image Disclosures Myron J. Levin, MD, GSK group of companies (Employee, Research Grant or Support) Andrew Ustianowski, MBBS, Vir/GlaxoSmithKline (Advisor or Review Panel member) Stéphane De Wit, MD, Gilead (Grant/Research Support)Janssen (Grant/Research Support)Merck Sharpe & Dohme (Grant/Research Support)ViiV Healthcare (Grant/Research Support) Odile Launay, MD, PhD, AstraZeneca (Grant/Research Support)GlaxoSmithKline (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Other Financial or Material Support, Data safety monitoring board)Johnson & Johnson (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Moderna (Consultant)Pfizer (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Sanofi Pasteur (Consultant, Grant/Research Support) Miles Avila, MPH, GStat, AstraZeneca (Employee, Shareholder) Seth Seegobin, PhD, AstraZeneca (Employee, Shareholder) Alison Templeton, PhD, AstraZeneca (Employee, Shareholder) Yuan Yuan, PhD, AstraZeneca (Employee, Shareholder) Philip Ambery, FRCP, AstraZeneca (Employee, Shareholder) Rosalinda H. Arends, PhD, AstraZeneca (Employee, Shareholder) Rohini Beavon, PhD, AstraZeneca (Employee, Shareholder) Karen A. Near, MD, AstraZeneca (Employee, Shareholder) Kelly W. Padilla, PharmD, AstraZeneca (Employee, Shareholder) Konstantina Psachoulia, PhD, AstraZeneca (Employee, Shareholder) Audrey Sharbaugh, PhD, AstraZeneca (Employee, Shareholder) Katie Streicher, PhD, AstraZeneca (Employee, Shareholder) Menelas N. Pangalos, PhD, AstraZeneca (Employee, Shareholder) Mark T. Esser, PhD, AstraZeneca (Employee, Shareholder) Robert A. Gasser, Jr., MD, AstraZeneca (Employee, Shareholder)

scholarly journals AB0827 IMPACT OF BASELINE BODY MASS INDEX ON THE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF TOFACITINIB IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1717.2-1718
Author(s):  
C. T. Ritchlin ◽  
A. Ogdie ◽  
J. T. Giles ◽  
J. J. Gomez-Reino ◽  
P. Helliwell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Body Mass Index ◽  
Body Mass ◽  
Janus Kinase ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Tnf Inhibitor ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Lipid Levels ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Advanced Therapies

Background:Obesity is highly prevalent in PsA (~45%)1and is associated with a reduced response to TNF inhibitors.2Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of PsA.Objectives:This post hoc analysis assessed tofacitinib efficacy and safety in patients (pts) with PsA by baseline (BL) body mass index (BMI) category.Methods:Data were pooled from two placebo (PBO)-controlled, double-blind, Phase 3 studies in pts with active PsA and an inadequate response to ≥1 conventional synthetic DMARD (OPAL Broaden [12 months;NCT01877668]) or to ≥1 TNF inhibitor (OPAL Beyond [6 months;NCT01882439]).3,4This analysis included pts randomised to tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID), tofacitinib 10 mg BID or PBO, stratified by BL BMI: <25 kg/m2, ≥25–<30 kg/m2, ≥30–<35 kg/m2, or ≥35 kg/m2. Efficacy and safety were reported to Month (M)3. M3 efficacy outcomes included ACR20/50/70 and HAQ-DI responses, dactylitis and enthesitis resolution rates and changes from BL in HAQ-DI, Short Form-36 Version 2 (SF-36v2) Physical (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores, and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) scores. Safety outcomes included adverse events (AEs), such as cardiovascular (CV) events and changes in lipid levels and liver function tests (LFTs).Results:This analysis included 710 pts; 43.8% were obese (BMI ≥30). At BL, 161 (22.7%) pts had a BMI <25, 238 (33.5%) had a BMI ≥25–<30, 186 (26.2%) had a BMI ≥30–<35 and 125 (17.6%) had a BMI ≥35. Most pts were white (92.5–96.8%), middle-aged (mean: 44.5–51.2 yrs) and female (49.5–65.6%). Greater proportions of obese pts were from Russia/Eastern Europe (35.0%) and USA/Canada (31.8%), vs the rest of world. At BL, higher BMI correlated with an increased prevalence of metabolic syndrome (4.3% in BMI <25 to 76.0% in BMI ≥35) and CRP levels >2.87 mg/L (49.1% in BMI <25 to 84.0% in BMI ≥35). Higher proportions of pts (42.5–47.9%) in BL BMI categories <35 reported no prior biologic DMARD use, vs pts with a BL BMI ≥35 (33.6%). At M3, efficacy improvements were greater in tofacitinib-treated pts vs PBO-treated pts (Figure 1). In pts with a BL BMI ≥35, a trend towards fewer pts responding was observed (Figure 1) and mean changes from baseline in SF-36v2 PCS and MCS and FACIT-F generally appeared lower (Figure 2) vs pts in lower BL BMI categories. Up to M3, the proportions of pts with AEs, and percentage change from BL in lipid levels and LFTs, were generally similar across all BL BMI categories. Three CV events were reported: non-fatal cerebrovascular accident, transient ischemic attack (both tofacitinib 5 mg BID, BMI ≥30–<35) and coronary artery revascularisation (PBO; BMI ≥35). Limitations include the 3-month observation time, particularly for safety findings, thus longer observation times are warranted.Conclusion:Regardless of BL BMI, tofacitinib demonstrated greater efficacy than PBO at M3 in pts with PsA. Similar to other advanced therapies,2reduced efficacy was generally observed in tofacitinib and PBO pts with a BL BMI ≥35. Tofacitinib safety appeared consistent across all BL BMI categories.References:[1]Labitigan et al. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2014;66:600-07.[2]Singh et al. PLoS One 2018;13:e0195123.[3]Mease et al. NEJM 2017;377:1537-50.[4]Gladman et al. NEJM 2017;377:1525-36.Acknowledgments:Medical writing support was provided by Mark Bennett of CMC Connect, McCann Health Medical Communications, and funded by Pfizer Inc.Disclosure of Interests:Christopher T. Ritchlin Grant/research support from: UCB Pharma, AbbVie, Amgen, Consultant of: UCB Pharma, Amgen, AbbVie, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Gilead, Janssen, Alexis Ogdie Shareholder of: Amgen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Corrona, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Jon T Giles Grant/research support from: Pfizer Inc, Juan Jesus Gomez-Reino Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Roche, UCB, Consultant of: Pfizer Inc, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer Inc, Roche, UCB, Philip Helliwell: None declared, Lori Stockert Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Pamela Young Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Wael Joseph Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Rajiv Mundayat Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Daniela Graham Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, John Woolcott Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc, Ana Belen Romero Shareholder of: Pfizer Inc, Employee of: Pfizer Inc

scholarly journals POS0928 NETAKIMAB EFFICACY IN ANTI-TNF-NAIVE AND ANTI-TNF-EXPERIENCED PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS: RESULTS OF SUBANALYSIS OF PHASE 3 ASTERA TRIAL

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 726.2-727
Author(s):  
S. Erdes ◽  
V. Mazurov ◽  
T. Dubinina ◽  
I. Gaydukova ◽  
A. Kundzer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ankylosing Spondylitis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
P Value ◽  
Interleukin 17 ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Two Phase ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Asas Criteria

Background:According to previous studies, the effectiveness of interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitors was higher in anti-TNF-naïve patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) [1,2]. Netakimab (NTK) is a humanized anti-IL-17A antibody approved for the treatment of AS, psoriatic arthritis, moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in Russia and Belarus.Objectives:To compare the efficacy of NTK in anti-TNF-naïve patients with anti-TNF-experienced patients with active AS at week 16 of therapy.Methods:ASTERA (NCT03447704) is an ongoing phase 3 placebo (PBO)-controlled clinical study, aimed at evaluating NTK efficacy in AS [3]. 228 adult patients with active AS (BASDAI ≥ 4) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 120 mg NTK or PBO subcutaneously at week 0,1,2 and then q2w. This analysis includes 112 patients in NTK group. Efficacy endpoints included ASAS20/40, ASAS5/6 and ASAS partial remission (PR) at week 16 of therapy.Results:28 (25.0%) of 112 patients in NTK group had previous inadequate response/intolerance to anti-TNF (anti-TNF-IR): 24 (21.4%) – one anti-TNF, and 4 (3.6%) – two anti-TNF. 84 (75.0%) patients were TNF-naive. Achievement of ASAS criteria response at week 16 was similar in both groups (Table 1).Table 1.Efficacy of NTK at week 16ParameterTNF-naïve (n = 84)anti-TNF-IR (n = 28)p-value*ASAS20, n (%)52 (61.9%)17 (60.7%)0.91ASAS40, n (%)35 (41.7%)11 (39.3%)0.82ASAS5/6, n (%)39 (46.4%)11 (39.3%)0.51ASAS(PR), n (%)15 (17.9%) 4 (14.3%)0.78*- Fisher’s exact testConclusion:NTK 120 mg provided sustained improvements in signs and symptoms of AS in anti-TNF-naive and anti-TNF-IR patients at 16 weeks of therapy.References:[1]Blair HA, Dhillon S. Secukinumab: A Review in Ankylosing Spondylitis. Drugs. 2016;76(10):1023-30.[2]Dougados M, et al. Efficacy and safety of ixekizumab through 52 weeks in two phase 3, randomised, controlled clinical trials in patients with active radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (COAST-V and COAST-W). Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79(2):176-185.[3]Mazurov VI, et al. Efficacy and safety of Netakimab, anti-IL-17A monoclonal antibody, in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Results of phase III international, multicenter, randomized double-blind clinical trial BCD-085-5/ASTERA. Nauchno-Practicheskaya Revmatologia=Rheumatology Science and Practice. 2020;58 (4):376–386 (In Russ).Acknowledgements:This study was sponsored by JSC BIOCAD.Disclosure of Interests:Shandor Erdes: None declared, V Mazurov: None declared, Tatiana Dubinina: None declared, Inna Gaydukova Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Biocad, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Alena Kundzer: None declared, Nikolaj Soroka: None declared, Anna Eremeeva Employee of: Biocad

scholarly journals P210 Efficacy and safety of filgotinib for patients with RA with inadequate response to methotrexate: FINCH1 primary outcome results

Rheumatology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
David Walker ◽  
Bernard G Combe ◽  
Alan J Kivitiz ◽  
Yoshiya Tanaka ◽  
Désirée van der Heijde ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Janus Kinase ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Stock Ownership ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Mixed Effect ◽  
Patient Reported

Abstract Background Filgotinib (FIL) is an oral, potent, selective Janus kinase 1 inhibitor that has shown good efficacy and was well tolerated for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The objective of this study was to evaluate efficacy and safety of FIL treatment in patients with RA who have had an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX). Methods This Phase 3, double-blind, active- and placebo (PBO)-controlled study randomised patients with active RA (3:3:2:3) to FIL 200mg, FIL 100mg, adalimumab [ADA] 40mg every 2 weeks, or PBO daily for up to 52 weeks; results through week 24 are presented. Patients also received background MTX. Primary efficacy endpoint was proportion of patients achieving ACR20 at week 12; additional clinical assessments included ACR50 and ACR70 and DAS28-CRP score ≤3.2 and &lt;2.6, and patient-reported outcomes including HAQ-DI. Safety endpoints included adverse event types and rates. Logistic regression was used for superiority test of FIL vs PBO for ACR response and other binary endpoints, while mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) were used for continuous endpoints. Non-inferiority test of FIL to ADA (preserving &gt;50% of ADA response) was performed for DAS28-CRP ≤3.2 and &lt;2.6. Results Of 1,759 patients randomised, 1,755 received study drug: 475 FIL 200mg; 480 FIL 100mg; 325 ADA; and 475 PBO, of which 89.5%, 90.4%, 88.9%, and 81.3%, respectively, completed 24 weeks of study drug. 81.8% were female, mean (standard deviation [SD]) duration of RA was 7.8 (7.6) years, and mean (SD) DAS28-CRP was 5.7 (0.9). At week 12, significantly more patients in the FIL 200mg and 100mg arms achieved an ACR20 improvement vs PBO (Table 1). More patients receiving FIL achieved ACR50 and ACR70 improvements, DAS28-CRP scores ≤3.2 and &lt;2.6 and reported improvements in HAQ-DI scores versus PBO (Table 1). Non-inferiority of FIL 200mg to ADA was met based on DAS28-CRP ≤3.2. The FIL safety profile was consistent with prior studies through Week 24. Conclusion FIL 200mg and 100mg led to significant improvement in signs and symptoms of RA, prevented radiographic progression, improved physical function compared to PBO, and was well-tolerated. Efficacy of FIL 200mg was non-inferior to ADA based on DAS28-CRP ≤3.2. Disclosures D. Walker: Other; Received support from Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis and Roche. B.G. Combe: Honoraria; Received honoraria from AbbVie, BMS, Gilead, Janssen, Eli Lilly and Co., MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, Sanofi and UCB. A.J. Kivitiz: Consultancies; Consultant to AbbVie, Celgene, Horizon, Jansses, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Genzyme, Sanofi, Regeneron, SUN Pharma Advanced Research, Boehringer Ingelheim, Flexion and Novartis. Shareholder/stock ownership; Shareholder of Novartis. Y. Tanaka: Honoraria; Honoraria from Daiichi-Sankyo, Astellas, Chugai, Eli Lilly ans Co., Pfizer, AbbVie, YL Biologics, BMS, Takeda, Misubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Eisai, Janssen, Teijin. Grants/research support; Grant support from Asahi-Kasei, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Takeda, Sanofi, BMS, UCB, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Ono, Astellas, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Abbvi and YL. D. van der Heijde: Corporate appointments; Director of Imaging Rheumatology bv. Consultancies; Consultant for consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Daiichi, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, and UCB. F. Matzkies: Corporate appointments; Employee of Gilead Sciences, Inc. Shareholder/stock ownership; Shareholder of Gilead Sciences, Inc. B. Bartok: Corporate appointments; Employee of Gilead Sciences, Inc. Shareholder/stock ownership; Shareholder of Gilead Sciences, Inc. L. Ye: Corporate appointments; Employee of Gilead Sciences, Inc.. Shareholder/stock ownership; Shareholder of Gilead Sciences, Inc. Y. Guo: Corporate appointments; Employee of Gilead Sciences, Inc. Shareholder/stock ownership; Shareholder of Gilead Sciences, Inc. C. Tasset: Corporate appointments; Employee of Galapagos NV. J.S. Sundy: Corporate appointments; Employee of Gilead Sciences, Inc. Shareholder/stock ownership; Shareholder of Gilead Sciences, Inc. N. Mozaffarian: Corporate appointments; Employee of Gilead Sciences, Inc. Shareholder/stock ownership; Shareholder of Gilead Sciences, Inc. R.B.M. Landewé: Consultancies; Consultant for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Galapagos, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and UCB.. S. Bae: None. E.C. Keystone: Consultancies; Consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca Pharma, Biotest, BMS Canada, Celltrion, Crescendo, Bioscience, F.Hoffman-La Roche Inc., Genentech, Janssen, Eli Lilly and Co., Merck, Pfizer,, PuraPharm, Sandoz, Sanofi-Aventis, Sanofi-Genzyme, Samsumg Bioepsis, and UCB. P. Nash: Consultancies; Consultant for AbbVie, BMS, Jansses, Pfizer, Roche, Lilly, Sanofi, MSD, Novartis, Celgene and Gilead.

scholarly journals Secukinumab provides sustained low rates of radiographic progression in psoriatic arthritis: 52-week results from a phase 3 study, FUTURE 5

Rheumatology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 59 (6) ◽  
pp. 1325-1334 ◽  
Author(s):  
Désirée van der Heijde ◽  
Philip J Mease ◽  
Robert B M Landewé ◽  
Proton Rahman ◽  
Hasan Tahir ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Radiographic Progression ◽  
Mixed Effects ◽  
Mixed Effects Models ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Linear Mixed Effects Model ◽  
Linear Mixed Effects ◽  
Random Slope ◽  
Modified Total Sharp Score

Abstract Objective To evaluate the effect of secukinumab on radiographic progression through 52 weeks in patients with PsA from the FUTURE 5 study. Methods Patients with active PsA, stratified by prior anti-TNF use (naïve or inadequate response), were randomized to s.c. secukinumab 300 mg load (300 mg), 150 mg load (150 mg), 150 mg no load regimens or placebo at baseline, at weeks 1, 2 and 3 and every 4 weeks starting at week 4. Radiographic progression was assessed by change in van der Heijde-modified total Sharp score (vdH-mTSS; mean of two readers). Statistical analysis used a linear mixed-effects model (random slope) at weeks 24 and 52, and observed data at week 52. Assessments at week 52 included additional efficacy endpoints (non-responders imputation and mixed-effects models for repeated measures) and safety. Results The majority (86.6%) of patients completed 52 weeks of treatment. The proportion of patients with no radiographic progression (change from baseline in vdH-mTSS ⩽0.5) was 91.8, 85.2 and 87.2% in 300, 150 and 150 mg no load groups, respectively, at week 52. The change in vdH-mTSS from baseline to week 52 using random slope [mean change (s.e.)] was –0.18 (0.17), 0.11 (0.18) and –0.20 (0.18) in 300, 150 and 150 mg no load groups, respectively; the corresponding observed data [mean change (s.d.)] was –0.09 (1.02), 0.13 (1.39) and 0.21 (1.15). Clinical efficacy endpoints were sustained, and no new or unexpected safety signals were reported through 52 weeks. Conclusion Secukinumab 300 and 150 mg with or without s.c. loading regimen provided sustained low rates of radiographic progression through 52 weeks of treatment. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02404350.

scholarly journals P173 Efficacy and safety of upadacitinib versus placebo and adalimumab in patients with active PsA and inadequate response to non-biologic DMARDs (SELECT-PSA-1): a double-blind, randomised controlled phase III trial

Rheumatology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Iain McInnes ◽  
Jaclyn Anderson ◽  
Marina Magrey ◽  
Joseph F Merola ◽  
Yi Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Study Drug ◽  
Control Measures ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Musculoskeletal Symptoms ◽  
Stock Ownership ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Secondary Endpoints

Abstract Background/Aims  Upadacitinib (UPA) is a JAK inhibitor under evaluation for PsA treatment. We aimed to assess efficacy and safety of UPA vs placebo (PBO) and adalimumab (ADA) in patients with prior inadequate response (IR) or intolerance to ≥ 1 non-biologic DMARD. This research was previously presented at EULAR; published in Annals of Rheumatic Diseases. Methods  Patients with active PsA (≥3 swollen, ≥3 tender joints), active/historical psoriasis, ≤2 non-bDMARDs were randomized 1:1:1:1 to once-daily UPA 15mg (UPA15), UPA 30mg (UPA30), ADA 40mg every other week, or PBO. Primary endpoint: proportion of patients achieving ACR20 for UPA vs PBO at Wk12. Secondary endpoints: change in HAQ-DI, FACIT-F, SF-36-PCS (Wk12), sIGA of Psoriasis 0/1, PASI75, change in Self-Assessment of Psoriasis Symptoms (Wk16), change in modified Sharp/van der Heijde Score (mTSS), proportion patients achieving MDA, resolution of enthesitis (LEI=0) and dactylitis (LDI=0) (Wk24), non-inferiority and superiority vs ADA for ACR20, superiority for HAQ-DI, patient assessment of pain NRS (Wk12). Additional secondary endpoints: ACR50/70 at Wk12 and ACR20 at Wk2. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) through Wk24 reported for patients receiving ≥1 dose of study drug. Results  1,705 patients were randomised; 1,704 received study drug (mean age 50.8 yrs, mean duration of PsA diagnosis 6.1 yrs). 82% on ≥ 1 concomitant non-bDMARD. At Wk12, ACR20 rates were 70.6% with UPA15 and 78.5% with UPA30 vs 36.2% with PBO (p &lt; 0.001 for UPA15/30 vs PBO) and 65.0% with ADA (non-inferiority, p &lt; 0.001 for UPA15/30 vs ADA; superiority, p &lt; 0.001 for UPA30 vs ADA). More patients achieved ACR50/70 with UPA15/30 vs PBO and UPA30 vs ADA. Improvements were observed with UPA15/30 vs PBO for all secondary endpoints and for UPA 15/30 vs ADA for HAQ-DI and UPA30 vs ADA for improvement in pain. At Wk24, change in mTSS was 0.25 for PBO, -0.04 for UPA15, 0.03 for UPA30, and 0.01 for ADA (p &lt; 0.001 for UPA15/30 vs PBO). Rates of TEAEs and serious AEs, including serious infections, were similar in PBO, UPA15, and ADA arms and higher with UPA30. Herpes zoster rates were similar for PBO and UPA15/30. No MACE was reported with UPA. One malignancy occurred in both the PBO and UPA15 arms; 3 malignancies were reported in both UPA30 and ADA arms. VTE were reported in 1 PBO patient, 1 UPA30 patient and 2 ADA patients. One death occurred in the PBO arm. Conclusion  In this non-bDMARD-IR PsA population UPA15/30 demonstrated improvement in musculoskeletal symptoms, psoriasis, physical function, pain, fatigue and inhibited radiographic progression; improvements observed by Wk2. At Wk12, UPA15/30 were non-inferior to ADA for ACR20, with superiority demonstrated for UPA30. Greater percentages of UPA vs PBO patients achieved stringent disease control measures (MDA, ACR50/70, sIGA 0/1). No new safety signals were identified compared to the safety profile observed in RA. Disclosure  I. McInnes: Other; I.McI has received research grants and honoraria from Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Novartis Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB. J. Anderson: Shareholder/stock ownership; J.A. may be a stock/ shareholder of AbbVie Inc. M. Magrey: Consultancies; M.M. has received consulting fees from Novartis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Janssen. Grants/research support; M.M. has received grants/ research support from Amgen, AbbVie, and UCB Pharma. J.F. Merola: Consultancies; J.F.M. is a consultant for Merck, Abbvie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, UCB, Celgene, Sanofi, Regeneron, Arena, Sun Pharma, Biogen, Pfizer, EMD Sorono, Avotres and Leo Pharma. Y. Liu: None. M. Kishimoto: Consultancies; M.K. has received consulting fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Celgene, Pfizer, Gilead, Janssen, and UCB Pharma. Honoraria; M.K. has received honoraria/ speakers fees from AbbVie, Eisai, Celgene, Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, Ayumi, Janssen, Astellas, and UCB Pharma. S. Jeka: None. C. Pacheco-Tena: None. X. Wang: Shareholder/stock ownership; X.W. may be a shareholder of AbbVie Inc. L. Chen: Shareholder/stock ownership; L.C. may be a stock/shareholder of AbbVie Inc. P. Zueger: Shareholder/stock ownership; P.Z. may be a stock/shareholder of AbbVie Inc. A. Pangan: Shareholder/stock ownership; A.P. may be a stock/shareholder of AbbVie Inc. F. Behrens: Honoraria; F.B. has received honoraria and speakers fees from Pfizer, AbbVie, Sanofi, Lilly, Novartis, UCB, Genzyme, Boehringer, Janssen, MSD, Celgene, Roche and Chugai. Grants/research support; F.B. has received grants/ research support from Pfizer, Janssen, Chugai, Celgene and Roche.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document