COVID-19, Digital Transformation of Banks, and Operational Capabilities of Commercial Banks

The development of financial technology has promoted the innovation and digital transformation of commercial banks. Through digital transformation, commercial banks can improve bank efficiency and operational capabilities. Through empirical analysis, this study explored the relationship between digital bank transformation and commercial bank operating capabilities and how COVID-19, bank categories, and enterprise life cycles affect the relationship between digital bank transformation and commercial bank operating capabilities. This study selected data from China's commercial banks from 2011 to 2021 and used the regression method of fixed effects to conduct an empirical analysis. The research results show that the digital transformation of banks has improved the operational capabilities of commercial banks. Further analysis showed that the emergence of COVID-19 has negatively affected their relationship. At the same time, compared with rural commercial banks and commercial banks in the recession and phase-out periods, non-rural commercial banks and commercial banks in the growth and maturity stages play a more vital moderating role in the impact of the digital transformation of banks on the financial performance of commercial banks. The main research object of this study is Chinese commercial banks, and this study examines the results of banks' digital transformation and enriches the research on digital transformation. At the same time, this study is helpful to investors who like investment banks and has good practical significance.

EVALUATION OF RESPONSE TO ADJUVANTED RECOMBINANT ZOSTER VACCINATION IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS RECEIVING UPADACITINIB: RESULTS FROM A RANDOMIZED TRIAL SUB-STUDY

BackgroundUpadacitinib (UPA) is an oral JAK inhibitor (JAKi) approved for the treatment of RA. JAKi have been associated with an elevated risk of herpes zoster (HZ) in patients (pts) with RA. The adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV, Shingrix) was shown to be well-tolerated and effective in preventing HZ in adults aged ≥ 50 years.[1] The efficacy and safety of RZV have not been studied in pts with RA while on UPA in combination with MTX.ObjectivesTo assess the immunogenicity of RZV in pts with RA receiving UPA 15 mg once daily (QD) with background MTX.MethodsEligible adults aged ≥ 50 years with RA enrolled in the ongoing SELECT-COMPARE phase 3 trial (NCT02629159) received two RZV doses, administered at the baseline and week (wk) 12 visits. Pts should have been on stable doses of UPA 15 mg QD and background MTX for ≥ 8 wks before the first vaccination and ≥ 4 wks after the second vaccination. Antibody titers were collected pre-vaccination (baseline), 4 wks post-dose 1 vaccination (wk 4), and 4 wks post-dose 2 vaccination (wk 16). The primary endpoint was the proportion of pts with a humoral response to RZV defined as ≥ 4-fold increase in pre-vaccination concentration of anti-glycoprotein E [gE] titer levels at wk 16. Secondary endpoints included humoral response to RZV at wk 4 and the geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) in anti-gE antibody levels at wks 4 and 16. Cell-mediated immunogenicity to RZV was an exploratory endpoint evaluated by the frequencies of gE-specific CD4+ [2+] T cells (CD4+ T cells expressing ≥ 2 of 4 activation markers: IFN-γ, IL-2, TNF-α, and CD40 ligand) measured by flow cytometry at wks 4 and 16 in a sub-cohort of pts.ResultsOf the 95 pts who received ≥ 1 RZV dose, 93 (98%) received both RZV doses. Pts had a mean (standard deviation) age of 62.4 (7.5) years. The median (range) disease duration was 11.7 (4.9–41.6) years and duration of UPA exposure was 3.9 (2.9–5.8) years. At baseline, all but 2 pts were receiving concomitant MTX and half (50%) were taking an oral corticosteroid (CS) at a median daily dose of 5.0 mg. One pt discontinued UPA by wk 16. Blood samples were available from 90/93 pts. Satisfactory humoral responses to RZV occurred in 64% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 55–74) of pts at wk 4 and 88% (81–95) at wk 16 (Figure 1). Age (50–< 65 years: 85% [95% CI: 75–94];≥ 65 years: 94% [85–100]) and concomitant CS (yes: 87% [77–97];no: 89% [80–98]) use at baseline did not affect humoral responses at wk 16. GMFR in anti-gE antibody levels compared with baseline values were observed at wks 4 (10.2 [95% CI: 7.3–14.3]) and 16 (22.6 [15.9–32.2]). Among the sub-cohort of pts, nearly two-thirds achieved a cell-mediated immune response to RZV (wk 4: n = 21/34, 62% [95% CI: 45–78];wk 16: n = 25/38;66% [51–81]). Within 30 days post-vaccination of either RZV dose, no serious adverse events (AEs) (Table 1) or HZ were reported. AEs that were possibly related to RZV were reported in 17% of pts. One death occurred more than 30 days after wk 16 due to COVID-19 pneumonia.ConclusionMore than three-quarters (88%) of pts with RA receiving UPA 15 mg QD on background MTX achieved a satisfactory humoral response to RZV at wk 16. In a subgroup of pts, two-thirds (66%) achieved a cell-mediated immune response to RZV at wk 16. Age and concomitant CS use did not negatively affect RZV response.Reference[1]Syed YY. Drugs Aging. 2018;35:1031–40.Table 1. Safety Results Through 30-Days Post-RZV Vaccination in UPA-Treated PatientsEvent, n (%)UPA 15 mg QD (N = 95)Any AE38 (40%)AE with reasonable possibility of being related to UPAa13 (14%)AE with reasonable possibility of being related to RZVa16 (17%)Severe AEb1 (1%)Serious AE0AE leading to discontinuation of UPA0Death0AE, adverse event;QD, once daily;RZV, adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine;UPA, upadacitinib.aAs assessed by the investigator.bHypersensitivity.AcknowledgementsAbbVie funded this study and participated in the study design, research, 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 InterestsKevin Winthrop Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Justin Klaff Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Yanxi Liu Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, CONRADO GARCIA GARCIA: None declared, Eduardo Mysler Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Roche, and Sandoz, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Roche, and Sandoz, Alvin F. Wells Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi, Xianwei Bu Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Nasser Khan Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Michael Chen Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Heidi Camp Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Anthony Cunningham Consultant of: GSK, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and BioCSL/Sequirus.

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.

VACCINATIONS IN PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC INFLAMMATORY DISEASES, PATIENT KNOWLEDGE AND AWARENESS: RESULTS FROM A NORDIC SURVEY

BackgroundPatients with chronic inflammatory diseases (CID) have an increased risk for contracting infections. For patients with rheumatic diseases EULAR recommends protecting them from vaccine-preventable diseases.ObjectivesTo assess the knowledge and awareness of common vaccinations and extent of immunization among patients with CID in Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden (Nordics), and to identify gaps between the existing EULAR vaccination recommendations and current practice as experienced by patients.MethodsA structured anonymous online survey for patients with CID ((rheumatological disease (RD), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and dermatological diseases (DD)) was conducted in 2022.The survey was answered by 1748 respondents (1031 patients with RD, 543 with IBD and 563 with DD).ResultsAmong respondents, 89% were female and 58% had disease duration of above 10 years. In total, 56% were treated in specialised and 32% in primary care. Majority had ongoing systemic immunosuppressive treatment (IT) (65%). Majority of RD (59%) and IBD (66%) patients were treated in specialised care whereas minority of DD patients (38%) were treated in specialised care.Forty-nine percent (49%) responded that their healthcare professional (HCP) did not inform them about the increased risk of infection – however, 55% of the respondents believed they are somewhat or much more likely to suffer from infections than those without CID or treatment, 33% thought there is no difference and 13% did not know there is a difference.In total 68% of respondents considered it important to get vaccinated due to CID or IT. The number was particularly high in RD group (74%), although 63% stated they had not received any information regarding vaccinations at the start of their treatment.Commonly recommended vaccinations by the HCP were COVID 19 (66%), influenza (63%) and pneumococcal (45%) vaccination. When comparing respondents ≥65 and <65 years, there was a difference in how often the influenza (71% vs. 57%) and pneumococcal (57% vs. 38%), but not COVID 19 vaccination (68% vs. 65%), were recommended. In addition, 74% and 75% of respondents receiving IT were recommended influenza and COVID 19 vaccination, respectively.In total, 22% had their vaccination status checked before initiating treatment;the lowest percentage was in DD (16%) and the highest in RD (25%). However, 44% of respondents received influenza vaccination before initiation of treatment. Moreover, 62% and 74% of respondents received influenza and COVID 19 vaccination while on treatment, respectively.Eighty-six percent (86%) did not receive a vaccination plan in relation to their CID and treatment. Moreover, 64% of the respondents (RD 57%;DD 71% and IBD 66%) did not have vaccination status assessed on a regular basis. Forty-three percent (43%) were dissatisfied with the follow-up of vaccination status by their HCP. Respondents of age ≥65 years were more satisfied than the younger ones (34% vs. 25% very satisfied) and respondents with RD were more satisfied than those with IBD or DD (33% vs. 25% vs. 20%).Forty-four percent (44%) responded that the information on vaccinations related to their CID and treatment was difficult to find and 71% would like to receive more information.The respondents with RD had different level of awareness regarding EULAR vaccination recommendations. The degree of awareness among patients with RD treated with IT are presented in Figure 1.ConclusionThis Nordic survey provides insights on patients' information needs, information sources and own experiences related to recommendations on vaccinations in relation to their CID and IT. The results confirm a gap between patients' expectations and needs vs. the information they actually receive. Our findings demonstrate a need for increased awareness among patients, providers and HCP regarding EULAR vaccination recommendations in patients with RD.Reference[1]Furer V, et al. 2019 update of EULAR recommendations for vaccination in adult patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79: 9–52.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsMeliha C Kapetanovic Grant/research support from: Received independent research grants from Roche and Pfizer, Randeep Mandla Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: Current employee of Pfizer Norway, Maria Seddighzadeh Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: Current employee of Pfizer Sweden, Susanne Thiesen Gren Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: Current employee of Pfizer Denmark, Maaria Palmroth Consultant of: Employee of MedEngine Oy and contractor for Pfizer Oy, Employee of: Contractor for Pfizer Oy, Finland, Dan Henrohn Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: Current employee of Pfizer AB, Sweden, Anne Grete Frostrup Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: Current employee of Pfizer Denmark, Anna-Maria Hiltunen Consultant of: Pfizer. Employee of Nordic Healthcare Group, Jussi Ranta Consultant of: Pfizer. Employee of Nordic Healthcare Group, Anna-Kaisa Asikainen Consultant of: Pfizer. Employee of Nordic Healthcare Group, Veli-Jukka Anttila Speakers bureau: Lectures for Pfizer, MSD, Astellas, Roche, GSK, BMS, Biogen, Sandoz, Gilead, Unimedic Pharma, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Astra-Zeneca, Consultant of: Consultant for Pfizer and MSD.

Does the Shield Effect of CSR Work in Crises? Evidence in Korea

This paper investigates the impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on shareholders' wealth during market downturn, focusing on the market crash caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermaths. We evaluate the relationship between firms' CSR and stock returns using a sample of 803 firms listed on the Korean stock market. The results of our study reveal that firms' pre-crisis CSR activities do not protect shareholders' wealth during the crisis;in fact, they negatively affected stock returns during the COVID-19 crisis. This finding is consistent across several robustness tests and challenges the prevailing notion that CSR is solely a philanthropic endeavor. This study suggests that firms need to reconsider their CSR approach in order to better align it with shareholders' interest.

The Moderating Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility on Corporate Financial Performance: Evidence from OECD Countries

This study aims to investigate the nature and intensity of the changes in corporate financial performance due to the corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosures as a result of certain relationships between corporate governance and company performance in the non-financial sector. This study selected 625 non-financial companies across six organizations for economic cooperations (OECD) countries' stock markets for the period of 10 years (2012–2021). For this qualitative study, corporate governance, financial performance, and corporate social responsibility score data were collected from the DataStream, a reliable database for examining the research on OECD countries' listed companies. For the data analysis we applied various statistical tools such as regression analysis and moderation analysis. The findings of the study show that all attributes of the corporate governance mechanism, except for audit board attendance, have significant positive impacts on financial performance indicators for all the selected OECD economies except the country France. France's code of corporate governance has a significant negative impact on return on asset (ROA) and return on equity (ROE) due to differences in cultural and operational norms of the country. The audit board attendance has no significant impact on ROA. Moreover, all the attributes except board size (BSIZ) have significant positive impacts on the earnings per share (EPS) in Spain, The United Kingdom (UK) and Belgium. The values obtained from the moderation effect show that Corporate social responsibility is the key factor in motivating corporate governance practices which eventually improves corporate financial performance. However, this study advocated the implications, Investors and stakeholders should consider both corporate governance and CSR disclosures when making investment decisions. Companies that prioritize both governance and CSR tend to have better financial performance and are more likely to mitigate risks. Moreover, the policy makers can improve the code of corporate governance in order to attain sustainable development in the stock market.

SAFETY AND PHARMACOKINETICS OF IGPRO20 (SUBCUTANEOUS IMMUNOGLOBULIN) AND IGPRO10 (INTRAVENOUS IMMUNOGLOBULIN) IN ADULTS WITH SYSTEMIC SCLEROSIS (SSC) – RESULTS FROM A PHASE 2 TRIAL

BackgroundSystemic sclerosis (SSc) is a severe, progressive multisystem rheumatic disease with high mortality, but without approved disease-modifying treatment to stop or reverse course of disease. Intravenous immunoglobulin G (IgG) may have a positive impact on SSc based upon available literature reports. However, to date, there have been no clinical trials evaluating subcutaneous IgG (SCIG) in SSc. In particular, the impact of pathologically altered skin in SSc on local safety and pharmacokinetics (PK) of SCIG has not been explored yet.ObjectivesThe primary and secondary objectives of this trial (NCT04137224) included safety, including local infusion safety, and bioavailability of subcutaneous IgG (IgPro20) in adults with diffuse cutaneous SSc (dcSSc).MethodsThis was a randomized, open-label, crossover study. Adult subjects with dcSSc diagnosis within 5 years from first non-Raynaud's phenomenon and modified Rodnan Skin Score of 15-45 at screening were randomized 1:1 to sequence A (IgPro20, 20% normal human subcutaneous immunoglobulin followed by IgPro10, 10% normal human intravenous immunoglobulin) or sequence B (IgPro10 followed by IgPro20). Each subject was to complete two treatment periods (16 weeks each), with up to 40 weeks (including screening) study duration for an individual subject. Doses received were 0.5g/kg/week split over two sessions for IgPro20, and 2g/kg/4 weeks split over 2-5 days for IgPro10. The primary endpoint was safety of IgPro20, described as treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and changes in clinical observations.Results27 subjects were randomized, with 13 subjects to sequence A and 14 subjects to sequence B. In total, 25 subjects completed the study. Of 27 treated subjects, 107 TEAEs occurred in 22 subjects (81.5%) over the 36-week study period, the majority of which were mild or moderate. The most common TEAEs (>10% of subjects) by preferred term (PT) were headache (12 events occurring in 6 subjects [22.2%]), COVID-19 (3 events occurring in 3 subjects [11.1%]), diarrhoea (3 events occurring in 3 subjects [11.1%]), and vomiting (3 events occurring in 3 subjects [11.1%]).A total of 10 serious AEs (SAEs) were reported in 6 subjects (Viral infection, Chronic gastritis, Vomiting, Dehydration, Upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage, Chest pain, Myocardial infarction, Myocardial ischemia, Breast cancer, Interstitial lung disease). Among these, one subject experienced 2 SAEs (myocardial ischemia & myocardial infarction) and was discontinued from study treatment. None of the SAEs were considered related to study treatment by the investigator, and no deaths were reported.For IgPro20, 14 infusion site reactions (ISRs) occurred in 5 subjects (19.2%), all were mild or moderate in severity. The most common ISRs were infusion site pain and infusion site swelling (3 events in 2 subjects each, 7.7%). In total, 686 IgPro20 infusions were performed, resulting in an overall ISR rate per infusion of 0.02, ie 2 ISRs per 100 infusions. No ISRs were reported for IgPro10.No clinically relevant trends in vital signs, body weight, clinical laboratory tests, electrocardiograms, or pulmonary function tests were observed.PK profiles and bioavailability in dcSSc subjects were similar to those observed in other approved indications such as Primary Immunodeficiency. Population relative bioavailability of IgPro20, based on dose-normalized, baseline-corrected AUC0-tau was 0.761 (90% CI: 0.7033, 0.8232), ie 76.1% compared to IgPro10 (intravenous IgG).ConclusionThe overall safety profiles of IgPro20 and IgPro10 in subjects with dcSSc were consistent with that in approved indications such as CIDP, including a relatively low ISR rate for IgPro20. PK profiles and bioavailability were also similar to other indications. This study indicates that subcutaneous administration of IgPro20 has acceptable safety, bioavailability and PK profiles in patients with dcSSc. AcknowledgementsEditorial assistance was provided by Meridian HealthComms Ltd., funded by CSL Behring.Disclosure of InterestsChristopher P Denton Speakers bureau: Ja ssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Consultant of: GSK, CSL Behring, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Roche, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: GSK, CSL Behring, Inventiva, Horizon, Otylia Kowal-Bielecka Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Janssen-Cilag, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medac, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Consultant of: Boehringer Ingelheim and Novartis, Grant/research support from: Received congress support from Abbvie, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Medac, Susanna Proudman Speakers bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim, Grant/research support from: Janssen, Marzena Olesińska Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Margitta Worm Consultant of: Novartis Pharma GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, DBV Technologies S.A, Aimmune Therapeutics UK Limited, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Leo Pharma GmbH, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH &Co.KG, ALK-Abelló Arzneimittel GmbH, Kymab Limited, Amgen GmbH, Abbvie Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Pfizer Pharma GmbH, Mylan Germany GmbH (A Viatris Company), AstraZeneca GmbH, Lilly Deutschland GmbH and GlaxoSmithKline GmbH & Co. KG., Nicoletta Del Papa Speakers bureau: Janssen Cilag, Boehringer Ingelheim., Marco Matucci-Cerinic Speakers bureau: Biogen, Sandoz, Boehringer Ingelheim, Consultant of: CSL Behring, Boehringer Ingelheim, Grant/research support from: MSD, Chemomab, Jana Radewonuk Shareholder of: CSL Behring, Employee of: CSL Behring, Jeanine Jochems Shareholder of: CSL Behring, Employee of: CSL Behring, Amgad Shebl Shareholder of: CSL Behring, Employee of: CSL Behring, Anna Krupa Shareholder of: CSL Behring, Employee of: CSL Behring, Jutta Hofmann Shareholder of: CSL Behring, Employee of: CSL Behring, Maria Gasior Shareholder of: CSL Behring, Employee of: CSL Behring.

Women's Participation in Firms' Management and Their Impact on Financial Performance: Pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 Period Evidence

At a time when gender equality is a key priority of all international organizations, this paper can be considered a remarkable contribution to the role of women executives in firms' performance. More specifically, this study focuses on the effect of women holding positions of responsibility on firms' performance worldwide. For the purposes of our research, we applied cross-sectional and panel data analysis for all sectors at an international level from 2019, the year preceding the breakout of the pandemic crisis, to 2021, while the indicators used to measure the participation of women in executive positions are classified as ESG indices. The empirical analysis findings end up showing that the participation of women in executive positions positively affects firms' performance over time, while there is no material change observed before and during the COVID-19 pandemic period. More specifically, when the percent of women processing job positions of responsibility increases by 10%, then the index of profitability will increase from 1.4% to 1.8%, regardless of the measurement of female participation in executive positions used. The results of this study constitute a remarkable contribution to the promotion of the creative economy, the progress of societies, and sustainable development. The research's outcome can be primarily used by policymakers drawing up policies for achieving gender equality in the labor market and workplaces and by shareholders and firms' managers in order to trust females in executive positions in favor of their firms' financial performance. The current study is unique in that it focuses on the period before and during the COVID-19 period, as a period of high volatility in economic activity worldwide, while the sample includes firms from large and mid-cap companies belonging to developed and emerging markets. The above approach will contribute to providing more credible information related to the role of women executives in firms' performance.

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.

The impact of risk-taking and auditor characteristics on value creation in pre-Covid 19 and post-Covid 19 pandemic: MRN

PurposeThis study aims to investigate the impact of risk-taking and auditor characteristics on value creation in companies listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange. In addition, it investigates the moderator role of auditor characteristics in the impact of risk-taking on value creation, especially in pre-Covid 19 and post-Covid 19 pandemic.Design/methodology/approachThe information about 199 company in 2014–2021 was examined. In the present study, in accordance with the related theoretical literature and the importance of auditor specialization, auditor tenure and auditor reputation, these factors were considered as the auditor characteristics.FindingsThe present findings based on the generalized least squares (GLS) method showed that risk-taking positively affects the value creation. The auditor characteristics (auditor specialization, auditor tenure and auditor reputation) have a significant positive effect on the value creation. Furthermore, the auditor characteristics enhance the impact of risk-taking on value creation. The results of generalized method of moments method and robust regression analysis are consistent with the GLS results. To take into account the Covid-19 conditions, the data were divided into pre-Covid-19 and post-Covid-19 years. The results showed that auditor characteristics moderate the impact of risk-taking on value creation in pre-Covid 19 and post-Covid 19.Originality/valueThe study highlights the role of auditor characteristics in the value creation, especially in the emerging market. Given that Covid-19 has seriously damaged global economic well-being and has put companies at a double risk, the present findings can be useful for managers, investors and the international community, and help company managers make risk-taking policies and select auditors with appropriate characteristics.

The Moderating Role of Good Corporate Governance: The Influence of Capital Structure, Profitability, Dividend Payment and Inflation on The Value of Mining Companies in Indonesia: Acces la Success

The objectives of this research include: (1) examining and analyzing the effect of capital structure, profitability, dividend payments and inflation on the value of mining companies;(2) examining and analyzing the moderating role of Good Corporate Governance (GCG) on the effect of capital structure, profitability, dividend payment and inflation on the value of mining companies listed on the IDX. The population of this study is all mining sector companies listed on the IDX for the period 2014-2020. The purposive sampling method is used as the sampling technique. The total population is 49 companies and the number of samples that meet the criteria are 44 companies. The research period is 7 years, so the total number of observations is 308 data (pooled data). The Moderated Regression Analysis (MRA) is used as the analysis method. The result is as follow: (1) capital structure has a negative significant effect on firm value;(2) profitability has a positive significant effect on firm value;(3) dividend payment has no significant effect on firm value;(4) inflation has a negative significant effect on firm value;(5) GCG has a moderating effect on the influence of capital structure, profitability and inflation on firm value, with the type of Quasi Moderating, whereas on the influence of dividend payments on firm value, it was the type of Pure Moderating.

Board gender diversity, firm performance and corporate financial distress risk: international evidence from tourism industry

PurposeThis paper examines contextual factors that affect the association between board gender diversity and firm performance.Design/methodology/approachThe authors use a global sample of listed firms in the tourism industry in 30 countries from 2015 to 2020.FindingsFirst, firm performance is positively associated with the proportion of female directors on a board. Second, the positive association between firm performance and the proportion of female directors on the board is higher in (1) countries with stronger shareholder rights, (2) countries with stronger securities law regulation stipulating disclosure of board diversity, (3) countries with stronger economic empowerment of women, and (4) during the COVID-19 crisis. Third, corporate financial distress risk is lower in firms with higher proportion of female directors on the board. Fourth, the negative association between corporate financial distress risk and the proportion of female directors on the board is more pronounced in (1) countries with stronger securities law regulations stipulating disclosure of board gender diversity, (2) countries with stronger economic empowerment of women, and (3) during the COVID-19 crisis.Originality/valueThe results indicate that contextual factors (comprising country-level corporate governance structures, economic empowerment of women and economic crisis) can affect the association between board gender diversity and firm performance.

Do ESG Risk Scores Influence Financial Distress? Evidence from a Dynamic NDEA Approach

Financial distress is a research topic in finance that has attracted attention from academia following past financial crises. Although previous studies associate financial distress with several elements, the relationship between distress and ESG has not been broadly explored. This paper investigates these issues by elaborating a Dynamic Network DEA model to address the underlying connections between accounting and financial indicators. Thus, a model that includes profit and loss, balance sheet, and capital and operating expenditures indicators is demonstrated under the dynamic network structure to compute financial-distress efficiency scores. Then, the impact of carryovers is considered for the accurate calculation of efficiency scores for the three substructures. The influence of contextual variables, such as socioeconomic and macroeconomic variables, and whether the firm owns an ESG Risk Score or not, is assessed through a stochastic non-linear model that combines three distinct regression types: Simplex, Tobit, and Beta. The results indicate that firms that hold an ESG Risk Score are less prone to be in financial distress, and Governance Score is negatively associated with financial distress efficiency.

MODELLING PROFITABILITY FOR STOCKS ON ZAGREB STOCK EXCHANGE

In a market economy, one of main goals for every company is to maximize the wealth of the shareholders, which is a result of maximizing the market value of the company. There are various profitability measures for company, butfrom ownership perspective most used measure of profitability is Return on equity (ROE) ratio. This ratio relates to the earnings left over for equity investors after debt service costs for company has been deducted from total capital invested in the asset. Numerous studies have been conducted with numerous factors examined to determine factors that have impact on business performance. In this paper, the authors intention was to explore studies so far done on profitability of companies and to find an area that hadn't been yet examined, and to give substantiation ofprofitability determinants grounded on dynamic panel data. For this purpose, this paper explored variables that have impact on profitability of companies whose shares were most traded on Zagreb stock exchange (one of criteria for share to be included in market index). Variables included in research are: Net Financial Debt (NFD)/ EBITDA ratio, yearly revenue percent change, Enterprise Value (EV)/ EBITDA ratio, dividend yield, operating margin ratio, debt to equity ratio and current liquidity ratio. Analysis was done on data of companies included in the official stock index of the Zagreb stock exchange, Crobex from 2010 to 2019 (before Covid-19 pandemic). The data was taken from the Thomson Reuters database where all data for selected companies necessary for this paper were collected.

Implementation of Digitization for Anti-crisis Management of Business Entities

Digitalization in the crisis has contributed to increasing the level of resilience of business entities to economic downturns and bankruptcy risks. The article aims to empirically study the use of digital tools and crisis management methods in business entities. The research methodology is based on a case study of companies in various sectors of the economy on the integration of technological solutions during the pandemic in 2020. Statistical analysis was used to study the state of information technology financing during the crisis. Results. During the pandemic, since the beginning of 2020, the global level of funding for information technology (IT) by companies of different sizes has been growing. Depending on the size of the business entity, investments in technological solutions and equipment differ in volume: small firms invest more in hardware projects, and large firms - in commercial services. The critical digital tools for crisis management in companies are Big Data / Analytics (64%), Cloud Technology (50%), and Artificial Intelligence / Machine Learning (44%). Analysis of the volume of different segments of the Enterprise application software market in 2020 shows companies' use of different types of enterprise software for different purposes and management functions. The analysis of companies' cases in using digital technologies during the crisis shows a high return on digitalization in a short time (0.34 years). Business entities are focused on integrating technologies to solve problems related to improving relations with suppliers, and customers, optimizing business processes, personnel management, and increasing operational efficiency. Integration of digital tools into various subsystems of company management (suppliers, customers, staff, shareholders) provides instant qualitative and quantitative effects.

Corporate Governance Research in Asian Countries: A Bibliometric and Content Analysis (2001–2021)

Corporate failure suggests that weak corporate governance leads to frail institutions and exposes them to severe crises. Asian countries have faced financial crises in three different periods, most recently due to the COVID-19 pandemic. A crisis will trigger structural changes in corporate governance to enable firms to either respond to, or prevent, the reoccurrence of potentially similar events. The characteristic of corporate governance practice in Asian countries are also unique due to some institutional and informal factors. These will alter direction and future trend of research in corporate governance in Asian region. The objective of this study is to utilize a bibliometric analysis which focuses on research trends and themes, and citations (with additional inclusive visualization) and perform in-depth content analysis to trace the evolution and identify knowledge of corporate governance in Asian countries from 2001 to 2021. Following bibliometric analysis, a sample of 656 articles on corporate governance in Asian countries has been extracted and analyzed from the Scopus database. The results indicate that there is a growing of interest in corporate governance in Asian countries from 2001 to 2021. Eight major themes have been recognized: corporate governance, corporate social responsibility and financial performance, corporate strategy and performance, agency theory, corporate sustainability, audit and agency problems, firm size, and business ethics. Major findings, shortcomings, and directions for future research are also discussed in this study. In general, most cited articles related to corporate governance theme explain the importance of corporate governance in companies with the focus on preventing financial fraud, impact on earnings management, and cost of equity capital in the market and reporting methods.