PLACEBO-CONTROLLED EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF UPADACITINIB THROUGH ONE YEAR IN PATIENTS WITH NON-RADIOGRAPHIC AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS

BackgroundUpadacitinib (UPA), a Janus kinase inhibitor, was effective and well tolerated in patients (pts) with non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) through 14 weeks (wks) of treatment.[1]ObjectivesThis analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of UPA vs placebo (PBO) through 1 year.MethodsThe SELECT-AXIS 2 nr-axSpA study included a 52-wk randomized, double-blind, PBO-controlled period. Enrolled adults had a clinical diagnosis of active nr-axSpA fulfilling the 2009 ASAS classification criteria, objective signs of inflammation based on MRI sacroiliitis and/or elevated C-reactive protein, and an inadequate response to NSAIDs. One-third of pts had an inadequate response to biologic DMARDs. Pts were randomized 1:1 to UPA 15 mg once daily or PBO. Concomitant medications, including NSAIDs, had to be kept stable through wk 52. The study protocol outlined that pts who did not achieve ASAS20 at any two consecutive study visits between wks 24 to 52 should receive rescue therapy with NSAIDs, corticosteroids, conventional synthetic/biologic DMARDs, or analgesics. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation (NRI-MI) was used to handle missing data and intercurrent events for binary efficacy endpoints. Mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) was used to assess continuous efficacy endpoints. NRI was used for binary endpoints after rescue and as observed analysis excluding data after rescue for continuous endpoints. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) are reported through wk 52.ResultsOf the 314 pts randomized, 259 (82%;UPA, n=130;PBO, n=129) completed wk 52 on study drug. More pts achieved an ASAS40 response with UPA vs PBO from wks 14 to 52 with a 20% treatment difference at wk 52 (63% vs 43%;nominal P <.001;Figure 1). The proportion of pts achieving ASDAS inactive disease with UPA remained higher than PBO at wk 52 (33% vs 11%;nominal P <.0001;Figure 1). Consistent improvements and maintenance of efficacy were also seen across other disease activity measures. Between wks 24 and 52, fewer pts on UPA (9%) than PBO (17%) received rescue therapy. A similar proportion of pts in each treatment group had a TEAE (Table 1). Infections were the most common TEAE;the rates of serious infections and herpes zoster were higher with UPA vs PBO, although no new serious infections were reported from wks 14 to 52. COVID-19 events were balanced between treatment groups. No opportunistic infections, malignancy excluding non-melanoma skin cancer, adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular events, inflammatory bowel disease, or deaths were reported. Two pts (1.3%) on PBO had adjudicated venous thromboembolic events.ConclusionUPA showed consistent improvement and maintenance of efficacy vs PBO through 1 year across multiple disease activity measures. No new safety risks were identified with longer-term UPA exposure. These results continue to support the benefit of UPA in pts with active nr-axSpA.Reference[1]Deodhar A, et al. Lancet. 2022;400(10349):369–379.Table 1.Safety through week 52Event, n (%)PBO (n = 157)UPA 15 mg QD (n = 156)Any AE103 (66%)107 (69%)Serious AE6 (3.8%)6 (3.8%)AE leading to D/C4 (2.5%)6 (3.8%)COVID-19-related AE22 (14%)24 (15%)Deaths00Infection60 (38%)68 (44%) Serious infection1 (0.6%)2 (1.3%) Herpes zoster1 (0.6%)5 (3.2%)Malignancy other than NMSC00NMSC1 (0.6%)0Hepatic disorder7 (4.5%)6 (3.8%)Neutropenia1 (0.6%)8 (5.1%)MACE (adjudicated)00VTE (adjudicated)2 (1.3%)a0Uveitisb3 (1.9%)2 (1.3%)Inflammatory bowel disease00aBoth patients had non-serious events of deep vein thrombosis in the lower limb with risk factors including obesity and prior deep vein thrombosis in one patient and concomitant COVID-19 infection in the other patient.bThree events of uveitis occurred in each treatment group (among n = 3 patients in the PBO group and n = 2 patients in the UPA group);two events in the PBO group and one in the UPA group occurred in patients with a history of uveitis.AcknowledgementsAbbVie funded this study and participated in the study design, res arch, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, review, and approval of the . 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 Julia Zolotarjova, MSc, MWC, of AbbVie.Disclosure of InterestsFilip van den Bosch Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB., Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB., Atul Deodhar Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Aurinia, BMS, Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Denis Poddubnyy Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Biocad, BMS, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Medscape, MoonLake, Novartis, Peervoice, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biocad, BMS, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Medscape, MoonLake, Novartis, Peervoice, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer., Walter P Maksymowych Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Employee of: Chief Medical Officer of CARE Arthritis Limited, Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Bayer, BMS, Cyxone, Eisai, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Employee of: Director of Imaging Rheumatology BV, Tae-Hwan Kim Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celltrion, Kirin, Lilly, and Novartis., Mitsumasa Kishimoto Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Asahi-Kasei Pharma, Astellas, Ayumi Pharma, BMS, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Ono Pharma, Pfizer, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, and UCB., Xenofon Baraliakos Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Chugai, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie and Novartis, Yuanyuan Duan Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Kristin D'Silva Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Peter Wung Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, In-Ho Song Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie.

COVID-19–RELATED ADVERSE EVENTS IN THE PHASE 3 POETYK TRIALS OF THE ALLOSTERIC TYROSINE KINASE 2 INHIBITOR, DEUCRAVACITINIB, IN PATIENTS WITH MODERATE TO SEVERE PLAQUE PSORIASIS

BackgroundDeucravacitinib is a first-in-class, oral, selective, allosteric tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor approved in multiple countries for the treatment of adults with plaque psoriasis. Deucravacitinib suppresses signaling of cytokines involved in the pathogenesis of immune-mediated diseases including psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and systemic lupus erythematosus. Deucravacitinib was efficacious compared with placebo in phase 2 trials in psoriatic arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus.[1,2] In two phase 3 trials in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis (POETYK PSO-1 [NCT03624127], PSO-2 [NCT03611751]), deucravacitinib showed superior efficacy versus placebo and apremilast.[3,4] Upon completion of either psoriasis trial, patients could enroll in the POETYK long-term extension (LTE) trial (NCT04036435).ObjectivesTo evaluate the incidence rate and severity of adverse events (AEs) due to COVID-19 with deucravacitinib treatment in the POETYK PSO-1 and POETYK PSO-2 trials and open-label POETYK LTE trial.MethodsIn PSO-1 (N=666) and PSO-2 (N=1020), adult patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis were randomized 2:1:1 to deucravacitinib 6 mg once daily, placebo, or apremilast 30 mg twice daily. At Week 16, placebo patients in both trials switched to deucravacitinib. Based on their Week 24 PASI response, apremilast patients continued with apremilast or switched to placebo or deucravacitinib. In PSO-1, patients randomized to deucravacitinib continued treatment for 52 weeks;in PSO-2, some patients randomized to deucravacitinib had a randomized treatment withdrawal period. At Week 52, patients could enroll in the open-label LTE and receive deucravacitinib. Incidence rates and severity of COVID-19–related AEs in the POETYK trials (n=1364;2076.7 person-years [PY] of follow-up) were compared with the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine trial placebo group (n=19,544;3096.1 PY of follow-up). This reference population was selected due to the study design and timing of the trial, which occurred when variants were in circulation.ResultsAs of October 1, 2021, 1519 patients received ≥1 dose of deucravacitinib over a 2-year follow-up period;1364 patients met criteria for this analysis, with deucravacitinib exposure since the pandemic onset (estimated to be January 1, 2020). In total, 153 deucravacitinib patients reported a COVID-19–related AE, for an overall exposure-adjusted incidence rate (EAIR) of 7.4/100 PY (95% CI, 6.2–8.6). Serious COVID-19–related AEs occurred in 43 patients (EAIR, 2.1/100 PY;95% CI, 1.5–2.8), including 30 with COVID-19 and 13 with COVID-19 pneumonia;this rate was within the margins of those for moderate to severe COVID-19 reported in the reference population (EAIR, 16.5/100 PY;95% CI, 15.0–17.9). Deaths due to COVID-19 occurred in 6 patients (EAIR, 0.3/100 PY;95% CI, 0.1–0.6), with the COVID-19–related mortality rate being consistent with the reference population (EAIR, 0.23/100 PY;95% CI, 0.1–0.5). Treatment was discontinued due to COVID-19 or COVID-19 pneumonia in 7 patients, including the 6 patients who died due to COVID-19.ConclusionCOVID-19 was among the most frequently reported AEs during the 2-year period of the pooled PSO-1, PSO-2, and LTE trials due to the temporal overlap of the pandemic with the trials. However, COVID-19 infection and death rates did not differ from the reference population;most infections were not serious and did not lead to treatment discontinuation. Based on this analysis, deucravacitinib did not appear to increase the risk of COVID-19 nor its progression to severe outcomes.References[1]Mease PJ, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022;81:815-822.[2]Morand E, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2022;Nov 11 (Epub ahead of print).[3]Armstrong A, et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;S0190-9622(22)02256-3.[4]Strober B, et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;S0190-9622(22)02643-3.AcknowledgementsThese clinical trials were sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb.Disclosure of InterestsDiamant Thaçi Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Biogen Idec, Boeh inger Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Galderma, Janssen-Cilag, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz-Hexal, Sanofi, Target Solution, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Biogen Idec, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Galderma, Janssen-Cilag, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz-Hexal, Sanofi, Target Solution, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Biogen Idec, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Galderma, Janssen-Cilag, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz-Hexal, Sanofi, Target Solution, and UCB, Kenneth B Gordon Consultant of: Amgen, Almirall, Dermira, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, and Sun Pharma, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Almirall, Dermira, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, and Sun Pharma, AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB, Melinda Gooderham Speakers bureau: Glenmark, Actelion, AbbVie, Galderma, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, and Regeneron, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, and Valeant, Consultant of: Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, and Valeant, Andrew Alexis Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme, Consultant of: AbbVie, Allergan, Almirall, Amgen, Arcutis, AstraZeneca, Bausch Health, Beiersdorf, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Galderma, Janssen, Leo Pharma, L'Oreal, Pfizer, Sanofi-Regeneron, Sol-Gel, UCB, Valeant, VisualDx, and Vyne, Grant/research support from: Almirall, Amgen, Arcutis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cara, Galderma, Leo Pharma, Menlo, Novartis, and Valeant (Bausch Health), Varsha Lalchandani Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Julie Scotto Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Lauren Hippeli Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Matthew J Colombo Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Subhashis Banerjee Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Tamara Lezhava Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Mark Lebwohl Consultant of: Aditum Bio, Almirall, AltruBio, AnaptysBio, Arcutis, Arena, Aristea, Arrive Technologies, Avotres, BiomX, Boehringer Ingelheim, Brickell Biotech, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cara, Castle Biosciences, CorEvitas' (Corrona) Psoriasis Registry, Dermavant, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Evelo Biosciences, Evommune, Forte Biosciences, Helsinn Therapeutics, Hexima, Leo Pharma, Meiji Seika Pharma, Mindera, Pfizer, Seanergy, and Verrica, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis, Avotres, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Janssen, Ortho Dermatologics, Regeneron, and UCB.

EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF DAZODALIBEP (VIB4920/HZN4920) IN SUBJECTS WITH SJÖGREN'S SYNDROME: A PHASE 2, RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE-BLIND, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED, PROOF OF CONCEPT STUDY

BackgroundSjögren's syndrome (SS) is a chronic, systemic autoimmune disease affecting exocrine glands, primarily the salivary and tear glands, with potentially severe manifestations in multiple organs. No approved disease-modifying therapies exist. Dazodalibep (DAZ) is a biologic antagonist of CD40L.ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DAZ therapy in adult SS subjects with moderate-to-high systemic disease activity (NCT04129164).MethodsWe conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study to evaluate DAZ therapy in adult SS subjects with moderate-to-high systemic disease activity, as defined by a EULAR Sjögren's Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI) score ≥ 5. Eligible subjects were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous DAZ 1500 mg or placebo (PBO) Q2W x 3 doses, then Q4W x 4 additional doses. Starting on Day 169, subjects initially randomized to DAZ received PBO Q4W x 5 doses and subjects randomized to PBO received DAZ Q4W x 5 doses and were then followed for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change from Baseline in ESSDAI at Day 169. Safety assessments included the incidence of adverse (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), and AEs of special interest (AESIs).ResultsThe 74 randomized subjects all received ≥1 dose of study medication (DAZ, N=36;PBO, N=38). The baseline demographics and disease characteristics were balanced between the two groups. The change from Baseline to Day 169 in ESSDAI score (LS mean ± SE), was -6.3 ± 0.6 in DAZ-treated subjects compared to -4.1 ± 0.6 in the PBO group, a difference of -2.2 (p = 0.0167). Compared to the PBO group, the DAZ group showed positive trends in the EULAR Sjögren's Syndrome Patient Reported Index score, and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue score at Day 169. A post-hoc responder analysis of subjects achieving high levels (5 and 6 points) of improvement on ESSDAI favored DAZ (61.1% and 60.0%) over PBO (35.1% and 34.3%).The reported AEs were generally mild through Day 169 and similar in frequency between treatment groups. The most frequently reported AEs occurring in ≥5% of DAZ-treated subjects and >PBO were COVID-19, diarrhea, dizziness, ligament sprain, upper respiratory tract infection, contusion, device allergy, fatigue, hypertension, and oropharyngeal pain. Two SAEs were reported in a single DAZ-treated subject: this subject was a 59-year-old female who experienced a grade 3 SAE of COVID-19 infection and later died of unknown cause 46 days after last administration of DAZ (12 days after COVID-19 diagnosis). There was a single AESI of herpes zoster in a DAZ-treated subject.ConclusionDAZ is a potential new therapy for the treatment of systemic disease activity in patients with SS. SS subjects with moderate-to-high systemic disease receiving DAZ experienced a statistically significant reduction in disease activity relative to PBO as measured by the improvement in ESSDAI score. Except for a case of severe COVID-19 infection, DAZ therapy in SS subjects appeared to be well tolerated. Larger controlled trials of DAZ therapy for SS are warranted to further explore its safety profile and confirm its clinical efficacy.Table 1.Efficacy and Safety DataPBO N=38DAZ 1500 mg N=36EfficacyΔESSDAI, LS mean (SE) †-4.1 (0.6)-6.3 (0.6)*ΔESSPRI, LS mean (SE) †-1.12 (0.29)-1.80 (0.31)ΔFACIT-Fatigue, LS mean (SE) †5.8 (1.6)8.1 (1.6)AE Summary, n (%)≥1 AE23 (60.5)28 (77.8)≥1 related AE8 (21)10 (27.8)≥1 SAE01 (2.8)≥1 related SAE00≥1 AE leading to discontinuation00≥1 AESI01 (2.8)≥1 Death01 (2.8)Efficacy endpoints as of Day 169;† Analyzed using MMRM;Comparisons vs PBO;*p<0.05;AE summaries based on AEs that occurred through Day 169;AE, adverse event;AESI, adverse event of special interest;ESSDAI, EULAR Sjögren's Syndrome Disease Activity Index;ESSPRI, EULAR Sjögren's Syndrome Patient Reported Index;FACIT-Fatigue, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue;PBO, placebo;SAE, serious adverse eventFigure 1.AcknowledgementsFunded by Horizon herapeutics. Medical writing support provided by B Lujan, PhD, an employee of Horizon Therapeutics.Disclosure of InterestsE. William St. Clair Consultant of: Horizon Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Resolve Therapeutics, Sonoma Biotherapeutics. Royalties: UpToDate, Liangwei Wang Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics, Ilias Alevizos Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics, William Rees Shareholder of: Horizon Therapeutics, Employee of: Horizon Therapeutics, Alan Baer Consultant of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Wan Fai Ng Consultant of: Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Abbvie, BMS, Sanofi, MedImmune, Janssen and UCB, Ghaith Noaiseh Consultant of: Novartis, Chiara Baldini Consultant of: GSK, and Sanofi.

EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF ABBV-599 HIGH DOSE (ELSUBRUTINIB 60 MG AND UPADACITINIB 30 MG) AND UPADACITINIB MONOTHERAPY FOR THE TREATMENT OF SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS: A PHASE 2, DOUBLE-BLIND, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED TRIAL

BackgroundABBV-599 is a novel combination of elsubrutinib (ELS;a selective BTK inhibitor) and upadacitinib (UPA;a JAK inhibitor) that targets non-overlapping signaling pathways associated with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).ObjectivesTo report results from SLEek, a phase 2, randomized, placebo (PBO)-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study evaluating efficacy and safety of ABBV-599 and UPA monotherapy in adults with moderately to severely active SLE (NCT03978520).MethodsPatients (pts) were randomized 1:1:1:1:1 to once daily (QD) ABBV-599 high dose (HD;ELS 60 mg + UPA 30 mg), ABBV-599 low dose (LD;ELS 60 mg + UPA 15 mg), ELS 60 mg, UPA 30 mg, or PBO. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients at W24 achieving SLE Responder Index-4 (SRI-4) and steroid dose ≤ 10 mg QD;additional efficacy and safety endpoints through W48 are also reported. The pre-specified 2-sided alpha level was 0.1.Results341 patients were enrolled. After a planned interim analysis when 50% of pts reached W24, the ABBV-599LD and ELS 60 mg arms were discontinued for lack of efficacy (no safety concerns). Of 205 continuing pts (ABBV-599HD n = 68, UPA 30 mg n = 62, PBO n = 75), baseline characteristics were well balanced. The primary endpoint (proportion achieving SRI-4 and steroid dose ≤ 10 mg QD at W24 vs PBO) was met by ABBV-599HD and UPA 30 mg. Key secondary endpoints were also achieved at W48 in both groups (Table 1). Overall flares and time to first flare were substantially reduced in the ABBV-599HD and UPA 30 mg groups through W48 (Figure 1). Anti-double stranded DNA antibodies were significantly decreased with both treatments. TEAEs considered related to study drug were 42.6% ABBV-599HD, 32.3% UPA 30 mg, and 33.3% PBO. There were no malignancies or VTE. There were 3 non-fatal CV events (1 MI on PBO and 2 ruptured cerebral aneurysms [1 each on ABBV-599HD and UPA 30 mg]);all were assessed as unrelated to study drug by investigators. No new safety signals were observed beyond previously known data for UPA or ELS.ConclusionABBV-599HD (ELS 60 mg + UPA 30 mg) and UPA 30 mg demonstrated significant improvements in SLE disease activity and flares with acceptable safety through 48 weeks.Table 1.Key Endpoints at Week 48PBO (n = 75)ABBV-599HD (n = 68)UPA 30 mg (n = 62)SRI-4 and steroid dose ≤ 10 mg QD, n (%) [95% CI]a24 (32.0) [21.4, 42.6]33 (48.5) [36.7, 60.4]*27 (43.5) [31.2, 55.9]SRI-4, n (%) [95% CI]a24 (32.0) [21.4, 42.6]35 (51.5) [39.6, 63.3]*28 (45.2) [32.8, 57.5]+BICLA, n (%) [95% CI]a19 (25.3) [15.5, 35.2]33 (48.5) [36.7, 60.4]***33 (53.2) [40.8, 65.6]***LLDAS, n (%) [95% CI]a18 (24.0) [14.3, 33.7]27 (39.7) [28.1, 51.3]*31 (50.0) [37.6, 62.4]***Joint-Count 50 in patients with ≥ 6 affected joints at baseline, n/n (%) [95% CI]a26/59 (44.1) [31.4, 56.7]37/58 (63.8) [51.4, 76.2]*34/59 (57.6) [45.0, 70.2] +CLASI-50 in patients with baseline CLASI ≥ 10, n/n (%) [95% CI]a5/14 (35.7) [10.6, 60.8]6/12 (50.0) [21.7, 78.3]5/8 (62.5) [29.0, 96.0]*Change from baseline in steroid dose, mg, LS mean (SE)b−1.5 (0.5)−1.5 (0.5)−1.2 (0.5)SFI, events/patient-years (95% CI)c Overall flares2.8 (2.4, 3.3)1.5 (1.2, 1.9)***2.0 (1.6, 2.4)** Mild/moderate flares2.5 (2.1, 2.9)1.3 (1.0, 1.6)***1.9 (1.5, 2.3)* Severe flares0.3 (0.2, 0.5)0.2 (0.1, 0.3)0.2 (0.1, 0.3) +Time to first flare by SFI, days, median (Q1, Q3)c141 (57, NE)312 (114, NE)*311 (99, NE)**BILAG-based flare rate, estimated incidence ratec0.570.19*0.26Data are presented for the full analysis set.aMissing data imputed using NRI incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID 19.bMissing data imputed using MMRM.cObserved data w/o imputation.+P <.1;*P <.05;**P <.01, ***P <.001 vs PBO.ABBV-599HD, elsubrutinib 60 mg QD and UPA 30 mg QD;CLASI-50, ≥ 50% reduction in CLASI activity score;Joint-Count 50, ≥ 50% improvement in tender or swollen lupus joints;LLDAS, Lupus Low Disease Activity State;NE, not estimated;PBO, placebo;SFI, SELENA SLEDAI Flare Index;UPA, upadacitinib.AcknowledgementsAbbVie and the authors thank the patients who particip ted in the study and all study investigators for their contributions. Medical writing assistance, funded by AbbVie, was provided by Callie A S Corsa, PhD, of JB Ashtin.Disclosure of InterestsJoan T Merrill Consultant of: AbbVie, Alexion, Alumis, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Aurinia, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, Provention, Remegen, Sanofi, UCB, and Zenas, Grant/research support from: Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, and GlaxoSmithKline, Yoshiya Tanaka Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead, Lilly, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, and Pfizer, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Asahi-Kasei, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, and Takeda., David d'cruz Consultant of: GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, and UCB., Karina Vila Consultant of: AbbVie, Daniel Siri Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead, Hoffman Laroche, Jansen, Lilly, and Sanofi, Xiaofeng Zeng: None declared, Kristin D'Silva Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Ling Cheng Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Thierry Sornasse Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Thao Doan Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Denise Kruzikas Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Alan Friedman Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie.

IMPROVEMENTS IN PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES AMONG PATIENTS WITH RESOLUTION OF ENTHESITIS AND/OR DACTYLITIS: POST HOC ANALYSES FROM THE KEEPSAKE 1 AND 2 TRIALS OF RISANKIZUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS

BackgroundEnthesitis and dactylitis are associated with greater disease activity and reduced quality of life. Results from the phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled KEEPsAKE 1 and 2 studies (NCT03675308;NCT03671148) of risankizumab in active PsA showed greater resolution of enthesitis and dactylitis with risankizumab 150 mg vs placebo at week 24.ObjectivesThis post hoc analysis evaluated improvements in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) among patients who had enthesitis (n=444), dactylitis (n=188), or both (n=128) at baseline and achieved resolution of enthesitis, dactylitis, or both with blinded risankizumab at weeks 0, 4, 16, and open-label risankizumab every 12 weeks thereafter.MethodsAssessments included achievement of minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in pain (≥10-mm decrease on visual analog scale), Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI;≥0.35-unit decrease), and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT-Fatigue;≥4-point increase). Nonresponder imputation (with multiple imputation for COVID-19–related missing data at week 24) was used.ResultsMany patients who achieved resolution of enthesitis at week 24;week 52 also achieved MCID in pain (66.4%;71.4%), HAQ-DI (58.2%;63.4%), and FACIT-Fatigue (59.0%;72.1%). Many patients who achieved resolution of dactylitis at week 24;week 52 also achieved MCID in pain, (72.2%;81.7%), HAQ-DI (56.3%;66.2%), and FACIT-Fatigue (67.7%;69.9%). Many patients who achieved resolution of both enthesitis and dactylitis at week 24;week 52 also achieved MCID in pain (82.1%;86.4%) HAQ-DI (66.7%;69.2%), and FACIT-Fatigue (71.4%;74.6%). PRO results for patients for who did not achieve resolution of enthesitis and/or dactylitis will be presented.ConclusionMajority of patients who achieved resolution of enthesitis and/or dactylitis with risankizumab also reported improvements in pain, disability, and fatigue.AcknowledgementsAbbVie and the authors thank the patients who participated in the study and all study investigators for their contributions. Medical writing assistance, funded by AbbVie, was provided by Lisa M Pitchford, PhD, of JB Ashtin.Disclosure of InterestsShawn Kwatra Consultant of: AbbVie, Aslan Pharmaceuticals, Arcutis, Celldex, Galderma, Genzada Pharmaceuticals, Incyte, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi., Grant/research support from: Galderma, Incyte, Pfizer, and Sanofi., Saakshi Khattri Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers Squibb, LEO Pharma, Novartis, and Pfizer, Ahmad Amin Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Regeneron, Sanofi/Genzyme, Pfizer, and UCB, Ran Liu Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Byron Padilla Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Ahmed M. Soliman Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Blair Kaplan Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Dennis McGonagle Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer., Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer, UCB, BMS, Celgene.

EFFECT OF UPADACITINIB ON REDUCING PAIN IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS AND INADEQUATE RESPONSE TO BIOLOGIC THERAPY

BackgroundPain is a debilitating symptom of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) that negatively affects patients' lives. Upadacitinib (UPA), a Janus kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of AS and other inflammatory diseases, showed significant efficacy vs placebo (PBO) in the phase 2/3 SELECT-AXIS 1 study in patients with AS who were biologic-naive and in the phase 3 SELECT-AXIS 2 study in patients with active AS who had an inadequate response (IR) to biological therapy [1,2]. Improvement in pain outcomes with UPA was also previously demonstrated in the SELECT-AXIS 1 study [3].ObjectivesThe objective of this post-hoc analysis of SELECT-AXIS 2 was to evaluate the efficacy of UPA vs PBO on multiple pain assessments through 14 weeks in patients with IR to a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD-IR).MethodsSELECT-AXIS 2 (NCT04169373) enrolled adults with active AS with IR to biological therapy, including patients who discontinued biologics due to lack of efficacy or intolerance [1]. Patients were randomized 1:1 to UPA 15 mg once daily (QD) or PBO for 14 weeks. Pain endpoints evaluated here included the proportion of patients achieving ≥30%, ≥50%, and ≥70% reduction from baseline, minimal clinically important difference (MCID, defined as ≥1 point reduction or ≥15% reduction from baseline), and much better improvement (MBI, defined as ≥2 point reduction and ≥33% reduction from baseline) in Patient's Global Assessment (PGA) of pain, total back pain, and nocturnal back pain on a 0–10 numeric rating scale [3,4]. Non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19 was used.ResultsA total of 211 patients received UPA 15 mg QD and 209 patients received PBO. Higher proportions of patients receiving UPA vs PBO achieved ≥30% and ≥50% reductions in PGA of pain, total back pain, and nocturnal back pain as early as week 2 that were sustained at all time points through 14 weeks (nominal P<0.05;Figure 1a-c). Achievement of ≥70% reductions in PGA of pain and nocturnal back pain were higher at week 4 and sustained thereafter (Figures 1a and 1c), and achievement of ≥70% reduction in total back pain was higher at week 2 and week 8, but not week 4, and sustained thereafter (Figure 1b). Results were similar for the proportion of patients achieving MCID and MBI, with improvements in PGA of pain, total back pain, and nocturnal back pain for UPA vs PBO as early as week 1 (MCID) or week 2 (MBI) that were sustained through week 14 (all nominal P<0.001;Table 1).Table 1.Achievement of MCID and MBI in Pain Outcomes at Week 14 (NRI-MI)Responder Rate (95% CI), %Pain OutcomesUPA 15 mgPBONominal P ValuePGA of painMCID81.0 (75.8–86.3)62.7 (56.1–69.2)<0.0001MBI60.7 (54.1–67.3)24.9 (19.0–30.7)<0.0001Total back painMCID80.1 (74.7–85.5)65.1 (58.6–71.5)0.0005MBI58.3 (51.6–64.9)25.4 (19.5–31.3)<0.0001Nocturnal back painMCID82.9 (77.9–88.0)61.3 (54.7–67.9)<0.0001MBI61.6 (55.0–68.2)32.1 (25.7–38.4)<0.0001MBI, much better improvement;MCID, minimal clinically important difference;NRI-MI, non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID-19;PBO, placebo;PGA, Patient's Global Assessment;UPA, upadacitinib.ConclusionIn patients with active AS who were bDMARD-IR, greater proportions of patients treated with UPA achieved rapid and clinically meaningful reductions in pain vs PBO as early as week 2 that were sustained through 14 weeks across multiple pain assessments.References[1]van der Heijde D, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022;81(11):1515-1523.[2]van der Heijde D, et al. Lancet. 2019;394(10214):2108-2117.[3]McInnes IB, et al. RMD Open. 2022;8(1):doi:10.1136/rmdopen-2021-002049.[4]Salaffi F, et al. Eur J Pain. 2004;8(4):283-291.AcknowledgementsAbbVie funded this study and participated in the study design, research, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, reviewing, and approval of the publication. All authors had access to relevant data and participated in the drafting, review, and approval of this p blication. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing support was provided by M. Hovenden and J. Matsuura of ICON plc (Blue Bell, PA, USA) and was funded by AbbVie.Disclosure of InterestsXenofon Baraliakos Consultant of: Novartis, Pfizer, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, UCB Pharma, Galapagos, Janssen, Celgene, and Amgen, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, UCB Pharma, Galapagos, Janssen, Celgene, and Amgen, Marina Magrey Consultant of: UCB, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Janssen, Grant/research support from: Amgen, AbbVie, BMS, and UCB Pharma, Louis Bessette Speakers bureau: Amgen, BMS, Janssen, UCB, AbbVie, Pfizer, Merck, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis, Organon, and Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Amgen, BMS, Janssen, UCB, AbbVie, Pfizer, Merck, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, and Gilead, Kurt de Vlam Speakers bureau: Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Novartis, and UCB, Consultant of: Amgen, AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Novartis, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Amgen, UCB, and MSD, Tianming Gao Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Anna Shmagel Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Ralph Lippe Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Ana Biljan Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Victoria Jasion Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Peter C. Taylor Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Consultant of: Lilly, AbbVie, Pfizer, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Fresenius, Nordic Pharma, UCB, and Biogen, Grant/research support from: Galapagos.

Effect of synbiotics on inflammatory markers and white blood cell count in COVID-19 patients: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial

PurposeToday, coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) treatment is an evolving process, and synbiotic administration has been suggested as a new therapeutic strategy. This study aims to investigate the effect of synbiotic supplementation in COVID-19 patients.Design/methodology/approachIn this placebo-controlled trial, 80 patients were randomized to receive oral synbiotic capsule (containing fructooligosaccharide and seven bacterial strains;Lactobacillus (L) casei, L. rhamnosus, Streptococcus thermophilus, Bifidobacterium breve, L. acidophilus, Bifidobacterium longum, L. bulgaricus, each one 109 colony-forming units) or placebo for two months. Inflammatory markers (Interleukin-6 [IL-6], C-reactive protein [CRP], erythrocyte sedimentation rate [ESR]) and white blood cell (WBC) count were evaluated at two timepoints (baseline, two months later). The measured variables were adjusted for confounders and analyzed by SPSS v21.0.FindingsAll 80 enrolled patients completed the study. The study adherence was good (approximately 70%). The mean changes for IL-6 were not significant (Δ = −0.6 ± 10.4 pg/mL vs Δ = +11.2 ± 50.3 pg/mL, p > 0.05). There were no significant improvements for CRP, ESR and WBC.Originality/valueAdministration of synbiotics for two months did not improve inflammatory markers in COVID-19 patients.

Ethical considerations on placebo-controlled vaccine trials in pregnant women

Placebo use in clinical trials, whenever a proven effective treatment exists, is one of the most debated topics in contemporary research ethics. This article addresses the ethical framework for placebo use in clinical trials assessing vaccine efficacy in pregnant women. Vaccine trial participants are healthy at the outset and some must be infected during the study to demonstrate the product's efficacy, meaning that placebo-treated participants are under risk of serious and irreversible harm. If effective vaccines exist, such risk precludes placebo use. This interdiction should be extended to any clinical trial of vaccine efficacy in pregnant women, because a demonstration of clinical efficacy in nonpregnant individuals and comparable immunogenic responses in pregnant women are predictors of efficacy in pregnancy as well. Moreover, product effectiveness in real-world use scenarios can be ascertained by observational studies conducted after its inclusion in vaccination campaigns. © 2023, Conselho Federal de Medicina. All rights reserved.

Metformin prevents the diagnosis of Long Covid in phase 3 trial of early treatment

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Chronic or new symptoms after infection with severe-acute-respiratory-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been termed post-acute sequelae of Covid-19 (PASC) or Long Covid. Our objective is to present results from COVID-OUT, a phase 3 double-blind, randomized controlled trial of early outpatient treatment of Covid-19 with repurposed medications. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: COVID-OUT enrolled adults age 30 to 85 with overweight or obesity who had proof of SARS-CoV-2 infection and fewer than 7 days of symptoms. In this 2 by 3 factorial design trial of metformin, ivermectin, fluvoxamine, or exact-matching placebo of each medication, participants were randomized 1:1:1:1:1:1 to the 6 treatment allocations. This focuses on whether early treatment with metformin prevented Long Covid. Immediate release metformin was titrated to 1500mg daily over the first 6 days. We assessed the incidence of clinician-diagnosed Long Covid with follow up through 10 months after enrollment. We also assessed where participants were diagnosed with Long Covid, and where they received Long Covid treatment. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Of 1124 participants, 98 (8.7%) report having a healthcare provider make a diagnosis of long covid. By arm, 6.9% (39/564) of metformin participants report having a diagnosis for long covid as compared with 10.5% (59/560) of matched placebo controls. The absolute reduction attributable to metformin was 3.6% (95%CI, 0.3% to 7.0%;P=0.031) with a relative risk reduction of 34% (95%CI, 3% to 55%). The metformin cost per long covid case averted was $28 (95%CI, $15 to $306). 10-month follow-up data will be available at the time of presentation as well as an analysis of baseline factors associated with the development of Long-Covid, independent of treatment allocation in the trial. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Metformin reduced the incidence of clinician-diagnosed long covid by 34% in a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial, and previous research published in-vitro activity by metformin against SARS-CoV-2 and other RNA viruses. Further investigation of metformin as early treatment for SARS-CoV-2 is warranted.

Cod Liver Oil Does Not Reduce Risk for COVID-19 Infection

The article discusses research that found cod liver oil does not reduce the incidence of COVID-19 infection, serious COVID-19 cases or other acute respiratory infections.

Nocebo Responses in Relation to COVID-19 Vaccine Safety: An International Journal of Medical Toxicology and Drug Experience

Introduction: Nocebo effect is the negative counterpart of the placebo phenomenon.1 It refers to the adverse effects that occur in clinical or laboratory medical contexts, respectively, after administration of an inert treatment or as part of active treatments, due to mechanisms such as expectancies of the patient.2 The nocebo responses are extremely common in medical practice and multiple factors contribute to it including risk communication statergies.3 Objective: To summarize the existing literature on nocebo responses reported in relation to COVID-19 safety, factors which might contribute to the same and its implications. Methods: Concerns on the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines contributed by various sources including social and mass media, and other members in the public have contributed to the significant minority of people who were hesitant to receive the vaccine.3,4 Here lies the importance of appropriate modes and process of risk communication. Nocebo responses observed by COVID-19 vaccine recipients by virtue of expectations on the potential adverse effects might have had an impact of public's decision on receiving the vaccine. In a systematic review carried out by Amazio et al, rates of solicited adverse events in the active and placebo groups of SARSCoV-2 vaccines were compared. 5 It was reported that a substantial proportion of solicited AEs are not a result of the vaccine per se but are, in fact, nocebo effects. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the frequency and magnitude of nocebo responses in COVID-19 vaccine trials based on the data from four RCTs with a total of 119,110 participants. The frequency and magnitude of nocebo responses were 16.4% and 0.3%, respectively.6 Results: It is important to understand the factors which contribute to the nocebo responses noticed by the recipients of the COVID-19 vaccines. Methods to prevent or tackle these responses should be identified and discussed to reduce the vaccine hesitancy. For the present and future vaccination campaigns, there should be prevention strategies for nocebo effects to promote a possible greater adherence to the vaccination campaign. Raising awareness of nocebo effects by media and health care professionals and positive framing of the side effect information can help to reduce nocebo effects.5. Conclusion: The role and responsibilities of various stake holders including patients, patient organisations, health professionals, media, pharmaceutical companies and regulatory agencies in this regard should be identified and delineated. Risk communication strategies should be tailored to the need of the situation and focused on avoiding any negative impact.

Sotrovimab-Flashes of Safety in COVID-19 Patients: An International Journal of Medical Toxicology and Drug Experience

Introduction: Sotrovimab is a monoclonal therapy authorized for emergency use (EUA) on May 26, 2021, by the US (FDA) for treatment of mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in adults and children > 12 years old). The drug showed positive viral testing in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and, reduced risk for progressing to severe COVID-19, including hospitalization or death1. Objective: This paper reviewed published data on safety of Sotrovimab 500mg in COVID-19 patients. Methods: The study based on reviewing published literature. Pubmed and FDA web was searched for data on Safety of Sotrovimab use in COVID-19 patients (May2021-May2022). Results: Gupta A et al2 reported among (n = 291 Sotrovimab group, n = 292 placebo group) mild diarrhea occurred in 5 cases (1%) in Sotrovimab group, compared to 1 case of moderate diarrhea, while diarrhea occurred in 3 patients in placebo group. One patient who received Sotrovimab had moderate dyspnea, an infusion-related reaction that was related to Sotrovimab. Hospitalization adverse events occurred in 2% of Sotrovimab group and in 6% in placebo group. No death or serious adverse events e.g., hematological disorders or liver damage were related to Sotrovimab. Further study by Gupta A et al3 for Sotrovimab (n = 528) or placebo (n = 529) reported that adverse events were infrequent and are similar between two groups (22% for Sotrovimab vs 23% for placebo);the most common events were diarrhea with Sotrovimab (n = 8;2%) and COVID-19 pneumonia with placebo (n = 22;4%). Kreuzberger N et al4 reported treatment with Sotrovimab may reduce the number of participants with oxygen requirement weaned in 3 days and risk of all-cause hospitalization or death without exhibiting significant adverse reaction. Fernandes G et al5 observed that following administration of Sotrovimab to kidney transplant recipients infected with Omicron variant, two patients required hospitalization for oxygen therapy. None were admitted to the intensive care unit or died. Conclusion: This review found limited number of safety studies of Sotrovimab in COVID-19, which reflects low numbers of publications. This is probably because of the Emergency utilization of drug and limitation of use in many countries. Lately, FDA US announced Sotrovimab is no longer authorized to treat COVID-19 in US due to increases in the proportion of COVID-19 cases caused by the Omicron variants6. Further data is needed to evaluate Sotrovimab safety in COVID-19 patients and examine risk-benefit, adverse events, and risk correlation to disease severity in patients with various risk factors.

C-POST Protocol Update: A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind Study of Adjuvant Cemiplimab vs. Placebo Post Surgery and Radiation Therapy in Patients with High-Risk Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) is the second most common skin cancer with an incidence of 1 million cases per year in the US. While the surgical cure rate for CSCC is >95%, some patients have high risk of recurrence as assessed by immune status, primary disease stage, extent of nodal involvement, presence of extracapsular extension, and prior treatment. Postoperative radiation therapy (RT) is recommended for these patients, but relapse with locoregional recurrence or distant metastases may still occur. C-POST is evaluating the efficacy of cemiplimab as adjuvant therapy for patients with high-risk CSCC. Here, we provide a summary of the most recent study protocol amendment. C-POST is a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter Phase 3 study to evaluate cemiplimab as adjuvant treatment for patients with high-risk CSCC, based on surgical and clinicopathologic findings, who completed surgery and postoperative RT (minimum total dose 50 Gy, within 10 weeks before randomization) (NCT03969004). Patients with at least one of the following high-risk features are eligible: (1) nodal disease with (a) extracapsular extension and at least one node ≥20 mm or (b) at least three lymph nodes positive on surgical pathology report, regardless of extracapsular extension;(2) in-transit metastases;(3) T4 lesion;(4) perineural invasion;and (5) recurrent CSCC with at least one other risk factor. Patients with CSCC involvement in at least three lymph nodes (feature 1b) were added to the eligibility criteria, as this group was found to be at similar risk of CSCC recurrence as the initially planned study population. Protocol amendment now allows patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who are not on active treatment to be enrolled. The study has two parts. In Part 1 (blinded), patients are randomly assigned 1:1 to receive cemiplimab 350 mg or placebo intravenously every 3 weeks for 12 weeks, followed by cemiplimab 700 mg or placebo every 6 weeks for 36 weeks. In optional Part 2 (unblinded), patients in the placebo arm who experience disease recurrence and patients in the cemiplimab arm who experience disease recurrence ≥3 months after completion of 48-week treatment in Part 1 are eligible to receive open-label cemiplimab 350 mg Q3W for up to 96 weeks. The trial is expected to enroll 412 patients from about 100 sites in North and South America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific regions. Key primary objective is to compare disease-free survival;secondary objectives include evaluating overall survival, freedom from locoregional relapse, and distant relapse with adjuvant cemiplimab versus placebo in patients with high-risk CSCC. This study is once again open for enrolment following interruptions owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. Not applicable (trial in progress) Not applicable (trial in progress) [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics is the property of Pergamon Press - An Imprint of Elsevier Science and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

Interest Grows in Treatment of Mood Disorders by Classic Psychedelics

The article offers a perspective on the growing interest in the treatment of mood disorders with psychedelic drugs. It describes the mechanism of action of psychedelic drugs. An overview of the results of a randomized clinical trial on the efficacy of psilocybin compared with escitalopram for major depressive disorder is provided. It discusses ethical considerations for the psychedelic-assisted therapy and offers a look into the expansion of psychedelic research into other areas of psychiatry.

Seven days in medicine: 27 July to 2 August 2022

Both studies, published as preprints, ruled out the likelihood of recent or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection as a direct cause for the acute hepatitis.1 (Full story doi:10.1136/bmj.o1876) Vitamin D Supplements “don’t reduce fractures in healthy elderly” Vitamin D supplementation did not result in a significantly lower risk of fractures than placebo in generally healthy middle aged and older adults who were not recruited on the basis of vitamin D deficiency, low bone mass, or osteoporosis, in a study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.1 The 25 871 participants were followed for five years, and the researchers found no difference in the number of fractures in people taking vitamin D and those taking placebo. [...]of ambulance workers see deaths linked to delays A third of ambulance workers have been involved in cases where a patient’s death was linked to delays in receiving treatment, a poll by the GMB union found. Eye care guidance NICE rapid recommendation on eye condition treatment In final draft guidance the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommended brolucizumab (also known as Beovu and manufactured by Novartis) as an option for treating visual impairment due to diabetic macular oedema in adults, the main cause in the UK of sight loss in people with diabetes.

Antioxidants to prevent respiratory decline in people with Duchenne muscular dystrophy and progressive respiratory decline

Background: Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is an X-linked recessive disorder characterised by progressive muscle weakness beginning in early childhood. Respiratory failure and weak cough develop in all patients as a consequence of muscle weakness leading to a risk of atelectasis, pneumonia, or the need for ventilatory support. There is no curative treatment for DMD. Corticosteroids are the only pharmacological intervention proven to delay the onset and progression of muscle weakness and thus respiratory decline in DMD. Antioxidant treatment has been proposed to try to reduce muscle weakness in general, and respiratory decline in particular. Objectives: To assess the effects of antioxidant agents on preventing respiratory decline in people with Duchenne muscular dystrophy during the respiratory decline phase of the condition. Search methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers to 23 March 2021, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. We included male patients with a diagnosis of DMD who had respiratory decline evidenced by a forced vital capacity (FVC%) less than 80% but greater than 30% of predicted values, receiving any antioxidant agent compared with other therapies for the management of DMD or placebo. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors screened studies for eligibility, assessed risk of bias of studies, and extracted data. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. The primary outcomes were FVC and hospitalisation due to respiratory infections. Secondary outcomes were quality of life, adverse events, change in muscle function, forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1), and peak expiratory flow (PEF). Main results: We included one study with 66 participants who were not co-treated with corticosteroids, which was the only study to contribute data to our main analysis. We also included a study that enrolled 255 participants treated with corticosteroids, which was only available as a press release without numerical results. The studies were parallel-group RCTs that assessed the effect of idebenone on respiratory function compared to placebo. The trial that contributed numerical data included patients with a mean (standard deviation) age of 14.3 (2.7) years at the time of inclusion, with a documented diagnosis of DMD or severe dystrophinopathy with clinical features consistent with typical DMD. The overall risk of bias across most outcomes was similar and judged as 'low'. Idebenone may result in a slightly less of a decline in FVC from baseline to one year compared to placebo (mean difference (MD) 3.28%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.41 to 6.97;64 participants;low-certainty evidence), and probably has little or no effect on change in quality of life (MD -3.80, 95% CI -10.09 to 2.49;63 participants;moderate-certainty evidence) (Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL), range 0 to 100, 0 = worst, 100 = best quality of life). As a related but secondary outcome, idebenone may result in less of a decline from baseline in FEV1 (MD 8.28%, 95% CI 0.89 to 15.67;53 participants) and PEF (MD 6.27%, 95% CI 0.61 to 11.93;1 trial, 64 participants) compared to placebo. Idebenone was associated with fewer serious adverse events (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.04;66 participants;low-certainty evidence) and little to no difference in non-serious adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.13;66 participants;low-certainty evidence) compared to placebo. Idebenone may result in little to no difference in change in arm muscle function (MD -2.45 N, 95% CI -8.60 to 3.70 for elbow flexors and MD -1.06 N, 95% CI -6.77 to 4.65 for elbow extensors;both 52 participants) compared to placebo. We found no studies evaluating the outcome hospitalisation due to respiratory infection. The second trial, involving 255 participants

Feasibility of Implementing Community Engaged Recruitment Approaches into a Multisite Trial with an Accelerated Timeline

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The objective of this project was to recruit racially and ethnically diverse participants with an accelerated timeline into a COVID-19 vaccine trial. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Recruitment of diverse populations was a priority. Culturally appropriate strategies were implemented to increase enrollment of African Americans and Hispanics from the DC Metropolitan area. These strategies included the use of the Community Advisory Board for consultation, faith-based community events, town halls, radio advertisements which targeted the African American community, and the NIAID COVID-19 registry. Meaningful patient engagement by the study recruiter/coordinator throughout the study was key to recruitment and retention of participants (i.e. listening attentively, sharing personal experiences with vaccination, providing participants with enough information to make an informed decision). Education on the importance of research and vaccines was a component throughout the process. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The Howard University site screened 188 participants. Of those, 150 were recruited into the vaccine trial from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds (30% AA, 21% Hispanic, 5% Asian, 1% mixed race), a total of 57% over seven weeks. Of the 150 participants 64% were male and 36% females. The study involved a 2:1 randomization with vaccine vs. placebo. All of the 150participants received the first and second COVID-19 vaccine/placebo doses administered 21 days apart. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Culturally-relevant recruitment strategies allowed for meaningful community and patient interactions and were important determinants for effectively recruiting a racially and ethnically diverse group of participants within a short amount of time. Strategies employed could be applied effectively in other trials.

Highlights from the literature

The authors highlight that this study provides the first direct evidence of the prevention of cervical cancer using a bivalent HPV vaccine. In a was a two-part clinical trial which is an open-label, dose-finding study using 50 L3 larvae suspended in water and a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, challenge study, in which participants were randomly assigned 2:1 to the vaccine group or placebo group. Significant changes in eosinophil count, IgG response and cytokine and peripheral blood mononuclear cells were noted and significantly fewer larvae per g of faeces were recovered in the vaccine group than in the placebo group after challenge (median larvae per g 0·8 [IQR 0.00 to 3.91] vs 10·2 [5·1 to 18·1];p=0.014).