LONG-TERM EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF UPADACITINIB IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: 3-YEAR RESULTS FROM THE PHASE 3 SELECT-PsA 1 STUDY

BackgroundUpadacitinib (UPA) improved symptoms in patients (pts) with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) with prior inadequate response or intolerance to ≥1 non-biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (nbDMARD-IR) through week (wk) 104 or 2 years of treatment in SELECT-PsA 1 [1].ObjectivesTo evaluate efficacy and safety of UPA vs adalimumab (ADA) through wk 152 or 3 years from the ongoing long-term open-label extension of SELECT-PsA 1.MethodsPts were randomized to receive UPA 15 mg (UPA15) or UPA 30 mg (UPA30) once daily, ADA 40 mg (ADA) every other wk, or placebo (PBO). At wk 24, PBO pts switched to UPA15 or UPA30. Following approval of UPA15, the protocol was amended so pts on UPA30 switched to UPA15 (earliest at wk 104). Efficacy was assessed through wk 152, and safety through June 13, 2022.ResultsOf 1704 pts randomized, 911 completed 152 wks of treatment. The proportions of pts achieving.≥20%/50%/70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20/50/70), minimal disease activity (MDA), and ≥75%/90%/100% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index at wk 152 were generally consistent with those at wk 1041. UPA had greater ACR20/50/70 and MDA responses vs ADA, and a greater mean change from baseline (BL) in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, pt's assessment of pain, and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index vs ADA. Change from BL in modified total Sharp/van der Heijde score were similar between UPA30 and ADA, and numerically higher with UPA15 (Table 1). The overall UPA safety profile remained unchanged (Figure 1) [1,2]. UPA had numerically higher rates of serious infection (SI), herpes zoster (HZ), anemia, lymphopenia, creatine phosphokinase (CPK) elevation, and non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) vs ADA. Increases for SI, HZ, anemia, and CPK elevation with UPA were dose dependent. Rates of major adverse cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism, and malignancy excluding NMSC were low and generally similar across groups. The most common cause of death was COVID-19.ConclusionEfficacy of UPA in nbDMARD-IR pts with PsA was maintained through 3 years of treatment. No new safety signals were identified.References[1]McInnes IB, et al. Rheumatol Ther 2022;1–18 [Epub ahead of print].[2]McInnes IB, et al. RMD Open 2021;7(3):e001838.Table 1.Efficacy endpoints at wk 152UPA15 (n=429)UPA30a (n=423)ADA (n=429)Proportion of pts (%)NRIAONRIAONRIAOACR20/50/7064.6/52.0/35.9*89.8/71.6/ 48.263.1/54.1*/ 35.787.9/74.4/ 47.861.1/46.6/ 28.786.2/65.2/ 39.8Minimal disease activity37.555.143.5*60.335.950.2PASI75/90/100b50.5/42.5/32.269.2/58.5/ 43.458.1/46.7/3 7.678.6/63.5/ 50.954.0/40.8/ 30.379.6/59.9/ 44.6Resolution of enthesitis by Leeds Enthesitis Indexc50.475.248.973.846.077.0Resolution of dactylitis by Leeds Dactylitis Indexd65.495.266.197.965.497.1Change from BLeMMRMAOMMRMAOMMRMAOHealth Assessment Questionnaire- Disability Index-0.51-0.55-0.53*-0.58-0.45-0.49Pt's assessment of pain (numeric rating scale)-3.3*-3.5-3.3*-3.6-2.8-3.0Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Indexf-3.09-3.27-3.16-3.54-2.81-2.71Modified total Sharp/van der Heijde score0.210.190.050.040.090.09aFollowing a protocol amendment, all pts on UPA30 switched to UPA15 (earliest switch at wk 104);data are presented by originally randomized group. bPts with psoriasis affecting ≥3% of body surface area at BL. cPts with LEI >0 at BL;resolution LEI=0. dPts with LDI >0 at BL;resolution LDI=0. eData shown as MMRM (least squares mean) and AO (mean). fPts with psoriatic spondylitis at BL. n value ranges: UPA15 (99–429), UPA30 (95–423), ADA (89–429). Nominal *p<0.05 UPA vs ADA.ACR20/50/70, ≥20%/50%/70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria;ADA, adalimumab;AO, as observed;BL, baseline;MMRM, mixed effect model repeated measurement;NRI, non-responder imputation;PASI75/90/100, ≥75%/90%/100% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index;pt, patient;UPA15/30, upadacitinib 15/30 mg once daily;wk, weekAcknowledgementsAbbVie funded this study and participated in the study design, research, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, and the review and approval of the publication. All authors had access to relevant data and participated in the drafting, review, and approval of this publication. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing support was provided by Carl Davies, MSc, of 2 the Nth (Cheshire, UK), and was funded by AbbVie.Disclosure of InterestsIain McInnes Grant/research support from: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Evelo, Causeway Therapeutics, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Regeneron, and UCB Pharma, Koji Kato Employee of: AbbVie and may hold stock or options, Marina Magrey Consultant of: BMS, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, and UCB Pharma, Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: AbbVie, Arena, Avotres, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, EMD Sorono, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and UCB Pharma, Mitsumasa Kishimoto Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Asahi-Kasei Pharma, Astellas, Ayumi Pharma, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Ono Pharma, Pfizer, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, and UCB Pharma, Derek Haaland Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Takeda, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Adiga Life Sciences, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Can-Fite Biopharma, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, UCB;and has received honoraria or other fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Takeda, and UCB Pharma, Yihan Li Employee of: AbbVie and may hold stock or options, Yanxi Liu Employee of: AbbVie and may hold stock or options, Jianzhong Liu Employee of: AbbVie and may hold stock or options, Ralph Lippe Employee of: AbbVie and may hold stock or options, Peter Wung Employee of: AbbVie and may hold stock or options.

Mise à jour des recommandations EULAR sur l’utilisation des thérapies immunomodulatrices dans la prise en charge de la Covid-19

Introduction Les formes sévères de COVID-19 comportent à une hyperinflammation systémique intense ;ce qui a justifié des essais thérapeutiques avec des immunomodulateurs régulièrement utilisés chez les patients atteints de maladies systémiques auto-immunes ou inflammatoires Depuis février 2021 où les premières recommandations EULAR sur l’utilisation de thérapeutiques immunomodulatrices dans le COVID-19 ont été publiées [1], de nouveaux essais thérapeutiques ont été réalisés ce qui rend nécessaire une mise à jour ces recommandations. Matériels et méthodes Selon les procédures standardisées de l’EULAR [2], les résultats d’une revue de la littérature systémique réalisée jusqu’au 15 décembre 2020 puis mise à jour jusqu’au 14 juillet 2021 incluant tous types d’études ont été présentés à un groupe de travail multidisciplinaire composé d’experts internationaux comprenant des rhumatologues, des immunologistes translationnels, des hématologues, des pédiatres, des patients et des professionnels de la santé. La mise à jour des recommandations a été discutée et votée par l’ensemble du panel d’experts sur la base des résultats présentés, principalement des essais randomisés contrôlés (ECT) sur différents traitements immunomodulateurs. Résultats La mise à jour comprend deux principes généraux et dix recommandations. Les recommandations concernent uniquement la prise en charge des patients présentant des formes de COVID-19 modérées à sévères ou critiques, faute de preuves suffisantes avec très peu d’ECT concernant les patients asymptomatiques et ceux avec des formes légères de la maladie. Les molécules suivantes ont montré une efficacité dans le traitement de formes modérées à sévères ou critiques du COVID-19. L’association de glucocorticoïdes et de tocilizumab est bénéfique dans les cas de COVID-19 nécessitant une oxygénothérapie et dans les cas critiques de COVID-19. L’utilisation d’inhibiteurs de Janus kinase (baricitinib et tofacitinib) et peut-être d’Ac anti-GM-CSF est prometteuse dans les mêmes populations. Les anticorps monoclonaux anti-SARS-CoV-2 et l’utilisation de plasma convalescent pourraient trouver une application dans les phases précoces de la maladie et dans certains sous-groupes de patients immunodéprimés. D’autres immunomodulateurs comme l’hydroxychloroquine, la colchicine ou l’anakinra n’ont pas démontré leur efficacité sur la mortalité et ou sur l’aggravation clinique (évolution vers une détresse respiratoire), quel que soit le stade de la maladie. Conclusion Un nombre grandissant d’ECT soutiennent l’efficacité de l’association de glucocorticoïdes et d’autres agents immunomodulateurs tels que le tocilizumab dans le traitement de formes modérée à sévère et critique du COVID-19. De plus, certaines études en cours pourraient confirmer l’efficacité potentielle d’autres approches thérapeutiques comme les inhibiteurs de JAK ou les Ac anti-GM-CSF. L’implication des rhumatologues, en tant qu’experts des maladies inflammatoires et auto-immunes systémiques et des traitements immunomodulateurs est nécessaire dans le design des nouveaux essais cliniques et dans l’élaboration de nouvelles recommandations pour la prise en charge du COVID-19.

Tolérance de la vaccination contre le SRAS-CoV-2 chez les patients atteints de maladies rhumatologiques inflammatoires/auto-immunes : résultats du registre EULAR-COVAX chez 5121 patients

Introduction Les patients atteints de maladies musculosquelettiques inflammatoires/auto-immunes (I-RMD) n’ont pas été inclus dans les études de tolérance des vaccins contre le SARS-CoV-2 et sont souvent inquiets quant à la tolérance de la vaccination. Notre objectif est d’étudier la tolérance des vaccins contre le SARS-CoV-2 chez les patients atteints de maladies musculosquelettiques inflammatoires/auto-immunes (I-RMD). Patients et méthodes Pour cela, nous avons créé avec l’EULAR un registre international de cas rapportés par les médecins rhumatologues et internistes de patients atteints d’I-RMD et de RMD non inflammatoire (NI-RMD) vaccinés contre le SARS-CoV-2. Du 5 février 2021 au 27 juillet 2021, nous avons recueilli des données sur la démographie, la vaccination, le diagnostic de RMD, l’activité de la maladie, les traitements immunomodulateurs/immunosuppresseurs, les poussées, les événements indésirables (EI) et les infections COVID-19 chez les patients vaccinés. Les données ont été analysées de manière descriptive. Résultats L’étude a inclus 5121 participants de 30 pays, la majorité de France (40 %), Italie (16 %) et Portugal (14 %), 90 % avec des I-RMD (n=4604, 68 % de femmes, âge moyen 60,5 ans) et 10 % avec des NI-RMD (n=517), 77 % de femmes, âge moyen 71,4 ans. La polyarthrite rhumatoïde (33 %), les connectivites (18 %), les spondyloarthrites (11 %), le rhumatisme psoriaqique (10 %) et les vascularites (12 %) étaient les diagnostics les plus fréquents ;54 % des patients ont reçu des traitements de fond synthétiques conventionnels (csDMARD), 42 % des DMARD biologiques ou ciblés et 35 % des immunosuppresseurs. La plupart des patients ont reçu le vaccin Pfizer/BioNTech (70 %), 17 % AstraZeneca/Oxford et 8 % Moderna. Une infection COVID post-vaccination a été signalée dans 0,7 à 1,1 % des cas, selon le statut vaccinal (entièrement/partiellement vacciné) et le groupe RMD. Des poussées d’I-RMD ont été signalées dans 4,4 % des cas (0,6 % de poussées sévères), dont 1,5 % ont entraîné des changements de médicaments. Des EI ont été signalés dans 37 % des cas (37 % I-RMD, 40 % NI-RMD), des EI sévères dans 0,4 % des cas, très divers et avec une fréquence comparable et même inférieure à celle observée chez les patients atteints de NI-RMD (1,1 %). Discussion La tolérance au vaccin n’était pas différente entre les groupes I-RMD et NI-RMD. Dans les essais cliniques de vaccins à ARN contre le SRAS-CoV-2 dans la population générale, les taux d’EI graves étaient très semblables à ceux de notre étude, allant de 0,4 % à 0,6 % dans le groupe vacciné et de 0,5 % à 0,6 % dans le groupe témoin, ce qui suggère que ces EI graves ne sont pas nécessairement liés au vaccin. Conclusion Il s’agit de la plus grande étude de la tolérance des vaccins anti-SRAS-CoV-2 chez près de 5000 patients atteints de maladies inflammatoires/auto-immunes rhumatologiques. Le profil de sécurité des vaccins contre le SRAS-CoV-2 chez les patients atteints d’I-RMD était rassurant, et comparable à celui des patients atteints de NI-RMD. La majorité des patients ont bien toléré leur vaccination, avec de rares poussée d’I-RMD et de très rares EI sévères probablement non liés à la vaccination. Ces résultats devraient rassurer les rhumatologues et les personnes vaccinées, et favoriser la confiance dans la sécurité du vaccin COVID-19 chez les patients atteints de I-RMD.

COVID-19 vaccine safety in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease

Background: The consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak are unprecedented and have been felt by everyone around the world, including people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). With the development of vaccines, the future is becoming brighter. Vaccines are a key pillar of public health and have been proven to prevent many serious diseases. However, vaccination also raises questions, especially for patients with inflammatory RMDs and/or treated with drugs that influence their immune system. Objectives: Our aim was to collect safety data among RMD patients receiving COVID-19 vaccines. Methods: The EULAR COVID-19 Vaccination (COVAX) Registry is an observational registry launched on 5 February 2021. Data are entered voluntarily by clinicians or associated healthcare staff;patients are eligible for inclusion if they have an RMD and have been vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. Descriptive statistics are presented. Results: As of 27 April 2021, 1519 patients were reported to the registry. The majority were female (68%) and above the age of 60 (57%). Mean age was 63 years (SD 16), ranging from 15 to 97 years. A total of 28 countries contributed to the registry, with France (60%) and Italy (13%) as the highest contributors. The majority (91%) had inflammatory RMDs. Inflammatory joint diseases accounted for 51% of cases, connective tissue diseases 19%, vasculitis 16%, other immune mediated inflammatory diseases 4%, and non-inflammatory/mechanical RMDs 9%. The most frequent individual diagnoses were rheumatoid arthritis (30%), axial spondyloarthritis (8%), psoriatic arthritis (8%), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE, 7%) and polymyalgia rheumatica (6%). At the time of vaccination, 45% were taking conventional synthetic DMARDs, 36% biological DMARDs, 31% systemic glucocorticoids, 6% other immunosuppressants (azathioprine;mycophenolate;cyclosporine;cyclophosphamide;tacrolimus), and 3% targeted synthetic DMARDs. The most frequent individual DMARDs were methotrexate (29%), TNF-inhibitors (18%), antimalarials (10%) and rituximab (6%). The vaccines administered were: 78% Pfizer, 16% AstraZeneca, 5% Moderna and 1% other/unknown;66% of cases received two doses and 34% one dose. Mean time from 1st and 2nd dose to case report was 41 days (SD 26) and 26 days (SD 23), respectively. COVID-19 diagnosis after vaccination was reported in 1% (18/1519) of cases. Mean time from first vaccination until COVID-19 diagnosis was 24 days (SD 17). Disease flares were reported by 5% (73/1375) of patients with inflammatory RMDs, with 1.2% (17/1375) classified as severe flares. Mean time from closest vaccination date to inflammatory RMD flare was 5 days (SD 5). The most common flare types were arthritis (35/1375=2.5%), arthralgia (29/1375=2.1%), cutaneous flare (11/1375=0.8%) and increase in fatigue (11/1375=0.8%). Potential vaccine side effects were reported by 31% of patients (467/1519). The majority were typical early adverse events within 7 days of vaccination, namely pain at the site of injection (281/1519=19%), fatigue (171/1519=11%) and headache (103/1519=7%). Organ/system adverse events were reported by 2% (33/1519) but only 0.1% (2/1519) reported severe adverse events, namely a case of hemiparesis in a patient with systemic sclerosis/ SLE overlap syndrome (ongoing at the time of reporting), and a case of giant cell arteritis in a patient with osteoarthritis (recovered/resolved without sequelae). Conclusion: The safety profiles for COVID-19 vaccines in RMD patients was reassuring. Most adverse events were the same as in the general population, they were non-serious and involved short term local and systemic symptoms. The overwhelming majority of patients tolerated their vaccination well with rare reports of inflammatory RMD flare (5%;1.2% severe) and very rare reports of severe adverse events (0.1%). These initial findings should provide reassurance to rheumatologists and vaccine recipients, and promote confidence in COVID-19 vaccine safety in RMD patients, namely those with inflammatory RMDs and/or taking treatments that influence their immune system.

ASTERIX: Adaptive stratification of COVID19 to facilitate endotype-directed intervention studies

Introduction and Objectives: Severe coronavirus 19 disease (COVID 19) has rapidly emerged as a global health threat and, despite considerable advances, outcomes remain poor in many patients. Published data infers considerable heterogeneity, with 80% suffering minimal symptoms but a minority developing life-threatening disease. COVID 19 trials to-date have been necessarily broad but the emergence of established therapies (e.g. Dexamethasone) and distinct phenotypes (e.g. immune activated, prothrombotic) suggests that early stratification to licensed or trial agents might result in improved outcomes. The ASTERIX study aims to define disease endotypes, based on baseline biological signatures associated with COVID-19 pneumonia, development of respiratory failure and death, which could be targeted in future trials. Methods: >6,000 samples of blood, urine and respiratory secretions were collected and banked during the first wave of the COVID 19 pandemic in Glasgow. The cohort is organised into Tiers 0, 1 & 2 with each tier having an increasing number of samples available for downstream translational research. All tiers have the same associated comprehensive clinical data including comorbidity, ethnicity, blood results, imaging, prescription data and outcomes, including critical care support and survival. Results: Tier 0 contains 1,512 cases, Tier 1 (defined by having at least one surplus sample banked for downstream assays) contains ~1000 cases. Tier 2 (defined as having matched samples of serum, plasma and a buffy coat) contains 421 cases. Sample collation and data analysis is ongoing but preliminary review indicates a mortality rate of 29%, which is consistent with that reported in UK-wide COVID 19 series. The project team have made extensive links with collaborators and a scientific review board has been convened. The following projects are at various stages of approval and delivery: (1) Host Epigenomics (2) Host Proteomics (3) Host Metabolomics (4) miRNA Outcome Signatures (5) Host Respiratory Microbiome (6) COVID 19 Coagulopathy. Conclusions: Data and banked samples will be used to develop endotypes (biological signatures derived from statistical models) associated with progression to key clinical outcomes. This information will be used to identify high-risk cohorts that could be targeted in future studies testing suitable interventions, as directed by the content of each signature.

Risk-mitigating behaviours in people with inflammatory skin and joint disease during the COVID-19 pandemic differ by treatment type: a cross-sectional patient survey.

BACKGROUND: Registry data suggest that people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) receiving targeted systemic therapies have fewer adverse coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes compared with patients receiving no systemic treatments. OBJECTIVES: We used international patient survey data to explore the hypothesis that greater risk-mitigating behaviour in those receiving targeted therapies may account, at least in part, for this observation. METHODS: Online surveys were completed by individuals with psoriasis (globally) or rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) (UK only) between 4 May and 7 September 2020. We used multiple logistic regression to assess the association between treatment type and risk-mitigating behaviour, adjusting for clinical and demographic characteristics. We characterized international variation in a mixed-effects model. RESULTS: Of 3720 participants (2869 psoriasis, 851 RMDs) from 74 countries, 2262 (60·8%) reported the most stringent risk-mitigating behaviour (classified here under the umbrella term 'shielding'). A greater proportion of those receiving targeted therapies (biologics and Janus Kinase inhibitors) reported shielding compared with those receiving no systemic therapy [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1·63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1·35-1·97]. The association between targeted therapy and shielding was preserved when standard systemic therapy was used as the reference group (OR 1·39, 95% CI 1·23-1·56). Shielding was associated with established risk factors for severe COVID-19 [male sex (OR 1·14, 95% CI 1·05-1·24), obesity (OR 1·37, 95% CI 1·23-1·54), comorbidity burden (OR 1·43, 95% CI 1·15-1·78)], a primary indication of RMDs (OR 1·37, 95% CI 1·27-1·48) and a positive anxiety or depression screen (OR 1·57, 95% CI 1·36-1·80). Modest differences in the proportion shielding were observed across nations. CONCLUSIONS: Greater risk-mitigating behaviour among people with IMIDs receiving targeted therapies may contribute to the reported lower risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes. The behaviour variation across treatment groups, IMIDs and nations reinforces the need for clear evidence-based patient communication on risk-mitigation strategies and may help inform updated public health guidelines as the pandemic continues.