scholarly journals Ixekizumab is efficacious when used alone or when added to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs) in patients with active psoriatic arthritis and previous inadequate response or intolerance to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors

RMD Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. e000692 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Nash ◽  
Frank Behrens ◽  
Ana-Maria Orbai ◽  
Suchitrita S Rathmann ◽  
David H Adams ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Tumour Necrosis Factor ◽  
Tumour Necrosis ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Joint Disease ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Disease Modifying ◽  
Necrosis Factor

ObjectiveTo conduct subset analyses of SPIRIT-P2 (NCT02349295) to investigate the efficacy and safety of ixekizumab versus placebo in three subgroups of patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) according to the concomitant conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (cDMARD) received: any background cDMARDs (including methotrexate), background methotrexate only, or none.MethodsPatients were randomised to receive placebo, ixekizumab 80 mg every 4 weeks (IXEQ4W) or every 2 weeks (IXEQ2W). Efficacy and safety were assessed when patients were subdivided according to cDMARD use at baseline. Efficacy was evaluated versus placebo at week 24 by the American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20/50), achievement of minimal disease activity (MDA) state, Disease Activity Index for PsA (DAPSA), 28-joint Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP), Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index and the 36-item Short-Form health survey physical functioning domain.ResultsRegardless of background cDMARD status, ACR20, ACR50 and MDA response rates were significantly higher than placebo with IXEQ4W or IXEQ2W treatment. Similarly, significant improvements were observed relative to placebo for DAS28-CRP and DAPSA across subgroups. Physical function also significantly improved relative to placebo with IXEQ4W treatment regardless of background cDMARD status and with IXEQ2W alone. Percentages of reported treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (including serious infections) and discontinuations due to AEs in each subgroup were comparable to the overall SPIRIT-P2 population.ConclusionIxekizumab was efficacious in patients with active PsA and previous tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) inadequate response or TNFi intolerance treated with ixekizumab alone or when added to cDMARDs with subgroup safety profiles that were consistent with that observed in the overall SPIRIT-P2 population.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of guselkumab in patients with active psoriatic arthritis who are inadequate responders to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors: results through one year of a phase IIIb, randomised, controlled study (COSMOS)

2021 ◽  
pp. annrheumdis-2021-220991
Author(s):  
Laura C Coates ◽  
Laure Gossec ◽  
Elke Theander ◽  
Paul Bergmans ◽  
Marlies Neuhold ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Tumour Necrosis Factor ◽  
Tumour Necrosis ◽  
Opportunistic Infections ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Acr20 Response ◽  
Tumour Necrosis Factor Inhibitors ◽  
Necrosis Factor

ObjectiveTo evaluate efficacy and safety of guselkumab, an anti-interleukin-23p19-subunit antibody, in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) with prior inadequate response (IR) to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi).MethodsAdults with active PsA (≥3 swollen and ≥3 tender joints) who discontinued ≤2 TNFi due to IR (lack of efficacy or intolerance) were randomised (2:1) to subcutaneous guselkumab 100 mg or placebo at week 0, week 4, then every 8 weeks (Q8W) through week 44. Patients receiving placebo crossed over to guselkumab at week 24. The primary (ACR20) and key secondary (change in HAQ-DI, ACR50, change in SF-36 PCS and PASI100) endpoints, at week 24, underwent fixed-sequence testing (two-sided α=0.05). Adverse events (AEs) were assessed through week 56.ResultsAmong 285 participants (female (52%), one (88%) or two (12%) prior TNFi), 88% of 189 guselkumab and 86% of 96 placebo→guselkumab patients completed study agent through week 44. A statistically significantly higher proportion of patients receiving guselkumab (44.4%) than placebo (19.8%) achieved ACR20 (%difference (95% CI): 24.6 (14.1 to 35.2); multiplicity-adjusted p<0.001) at week 24. Guselkumab was superior to placebo for each key secondary endpoint (multiplicity-adjusted p<0.01). ACR20 response (non-responder imputation) in the guselkumab group was 58% at week 48; >80% of week 24 responders maintained response at week 48. Through week 24, serious AEs/serious infections occurred in 3.7%/0.5% of 189 guselkumab-randomised and 3.1%/0% of 96 placebo-randomised patients; the guselkumab safety profile was similar through week 56, with no deaths or opportunistic infections.ConclusionGuselkumab significantly improved joint and skin manifestations and physical function in patients with TNFi-IR PsA. A favourable benefit–risk profile was demonstrated through 1 year.Trial registration numberNCT03796858.

scholarly journals POS1021 THE PsABio STUDY IN ITALY: A REAL-WORLD COMPARISON OF THE PERSISTENCE, EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY OF USTEKINUMAB AND TUMOUR NECROSIS FACTOR INHIBITORS IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 778-779
Author(s):  
E. Gremese ◽  
F. Ciccia ◽  
C. Selmi ◽  
G. Cuomo ◽  
R. Foti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Event ◽  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Tumour Necrosis Factor ◽  
Tumour Necrosis ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Treatment Persistence ◽  
Low Disease Activity ◽  
Necrosis Factor

Background:There are still unmet needs in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), including in terms of treatment persistence, which is a function of effectiveness, safety and patient satisfaction. Ustekinumab (UST) was the first new biologic drug to be developed for the treatment of PsA after tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi).Objectives:To compare treatment persistence, effectiveness and safety of UST and TNFi in Italian patients within the PsABio cohort.Methods:PsABio (NCT02627768) is an observational study of 1st/2nd/3rd-line UST or TNFi treatment in PsA in 8 European countries. The current analysis set includes 222 eligible patients treated in 15 Italian centres, followed to Month 12 (±3 months). Treatment persistence/risk of stopping was analysed using Kaplan−Meier (KM) and Cox regression analysis. Proportions of patients reaching minimal disease activity (MDA)/very low disease activity (VLDA) and clinical Disease Activity Index for PsA (cDAPSA) low disease activity (LDA)/remission were analysed using logistic regression, including propensity score (PS) adjustment for imbalanced baseline covariates, and non-response imputation of effectiveness endpoints if treatment was stopped/switched before 1 year. Last observation carried forward data are reported.Results:Of patients starting UST and TNFi, 75/101 (74.3%) and 77/121 (63.6%), respectively, persisted with treatment at 1 year. The observed mean persistence was 410 days for UST and 363 days for TNFi. KM curves and PS-adjusted hazard ratios confirmed significantly higher persistence (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)]) for UST versus TNFi overall (0.46 [0.26; 0.82]; Figure 1). Persistence was also higher for UST than TNFi in patients receiving monotherapy without methotrexate (0.31 [0.15; 0.63]), in females (0.41 [0.20; 0.83]), and in patients with body mass index (BMI) <25 kg/m2 (0.34 [0.14; 0.87]) or >30 kg/m2 (0.19 [0.06; 0.54]). There was no significant difference in persistence between treatments in patients with BMI 25−30 kg/m2. While patients receiving 1st- and 3rd-line UST or TNFi showed similar risk of discontinuation (0.60 [0.27; 1.29] and 0.36 [0.10; 1.25], respectively), patients receiving 2nd-line UST showed better persistence than those receiving 2nd-line TNFi (0.33 [0.13; 0.87]). Other factors added to the PS-adjusted Cox model did not show significant effects. In patients with available follow-up data, the mean (standard deviation) baseline cDAPSA was 26.3 (15.4) for UST and 23.5 (12.3) for TNFi; at 1-year follow-up, 43.5% of UST- and 43.6% of TNFi-treated patients reached cDAPSA LDA/remission. MDA was reached in 24.2% of UST- and 28.0% of TNFi-treated patients, and VLDA in 12.5% of UST- and 10.2% of TNFi-treated patients. After PS adjustment (stoppers/switchers as non-responders), odds ratios (95% CI) at 1 year did not differ significantly between UST and TNFi groups for reaching cDAPSA LDA/remission (1.08 [0.54; 2.15]), MDA (0.96 [0.45; 2.05]) or VLDA (0.98 [0.35; 2.76]). In total, 23 (20.4%) patients reported ≥1 treatment emergent adverse event with UST and 30 (22.2%) with TNFi; 6 (5.3%) and 10 (7.4%) patients, respectively, discontinued treatment because of an adverse event.Conclusion:In the Italian PsABio cohort, UST had better overall persistence compared with TNFi, as well as in specific subgroups: females, patients on monotherapy without methotrexate, with BMI <25 or >30 kg/m2, and patients receiving UST as 2nd-line treatment. At 1 year, both treatments showed similar effectiveness, as measured by cDAPSA responses and MDA/VLDA achievement.Acknowledgements:This study was funded by Janssen. Contributing author: Prof. Piercarlo Sarzi-Puttini, ASST Fatebenefratelli-Sacco, University of Milan, ItalyDisclosure of Interests:Elisa Gremese: None declared, Francesco Ciccia Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Abiogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Consultant of: Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Grant/research support from: Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Carlo Selmi Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Alfa-Wassermann, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Genzyme, Consultant of: AbbVie, Alfa-Wassermann, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Genzyme, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Pfizer, Giovanna CUOMO: None declared, Rosario Foti Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Janssen, Roche, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Janssen, Roche, Sanofi, Marco Matucci Cerinic Speakers bureau: Actelion, Biogen, Janssen, Lilly, Consultant of: Chemomab, Grant/research support from: MSD, Fabrizio Conti Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer, Enrico Fusaro Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Lilly, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Pfizer, Giuliana Guggino Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Grant/research support from: Celgene, Pfizer, Florenzo Iannone Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB, Andrea Delle Sedie: None declared, Roberto Perricone: None declared, Luca Idolazzi Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Sandoz, Paolo Moscato: None declared, Elke Theander Employee of: Janssen, Wim Noel Employee of: Janssen, Paul Bergmans Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen, Silvia Marelli Employee of: Janssen, Laure Gossec Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Biogen, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi, Josef S. Smolen Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Astro, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis- Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novartis, Roche.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document