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.

BIMEKIZUMAB MAINTAINED IMPROVEMENTS IN EFFICACY ENDPOINTS AND HAD A CONSISTENT SAFETY PROFILE THROUGH 52 WEEKS IN PATIENTS WITH NON-RADIOGRAPHIC AND RADIOGRAPHIC AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS: RESULTS FROM TWO PARALLEL PHASE 3 STUDIES

BackgroundBimekizumab (BKZ), a monoclonal IgG1 antibody that selectively inhibits interleukin (IL)-17F in addition to IL-17A, met all primary/secondary endpoints at Week (Wk) 16 in patients (pts) with active non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) and radiographic axSpA (r-axSpA;i.e., ankylosing spondylitis), in the parallel phase 3 BE MOBILE 1 and 2 studies, respectively.[1,2]ObjectivesTo assess efficacy and safety of BKZ in these pts up to Wk 52.MethodsBE MOBILE 1 (NCT03928704) and 2 (NCT03928743) both involved a 16-wk placebo (PBO)-controlled and 36-wk maintenance period.[1,2] Pts were randomised to subcutaneous BKZ 160 mg Q4W (BKZ) or to PBO then BKZ from Wk 16 (PBO/BKZ).Results220/254 (86.6%) randomised pts with nr-axSpA and 298/332 (89.8%) with r-axSpA completed Wk 52. Efficacy was sustained to Wk 52 in both studies (Table 1). ASAS40 responses in BKZ-randomised pts increased from Wk 16 (nr-axSpA: 47.7%;r-axSpA: 44.8%;non-responder imputation [NRI]) to Wk 52 (60.9%;58.4%;NRI) with high levels of efficacy across TNFi-naïve and TNFi-IR populations (Table 1). At Wk 52, ASDAS <2.1 was achieved by 61.6% and 57.1%, and ASDAS <1.3 by 25.2% and 23.4%, of BKZ-randomised pts with nr-axSpA and r-axSpA, respectively (Figure 1). Wk 16 reductions from baseline in objective signs of inflammation (MRI, hs-CRP), and improvements in function (BASFI) and ASQoL, were maintained through 52 wks. Efficacy at Wk 52 was similar in PBO/BKZ-treated and BKZ-randomised pts (Table 1).At Wk 52, 75.0% (183/244) of pts with nr-axSpA and 75.5% (249/330) of pts with r-axSpA had ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) on BKZ;the most frequent (% pts) TEAEs by preferred term (MedDRA v19.0) were nasopharyngitis (nr-axSpa: 12.3%;r-axSpA 9.1%) and upper respiratory tract infection (9.4%;6.4%);few COVID-19 infections were reported (7.0%;2.1%). Incidence (pts/100 pt years) of serious TEAEs were low (4.4;7.1);no major adverse cardiovascular events, active tuberculosis cases, serious COVID-19 infections, or deaths were reported. Most incidences of fungal infection (19.6;14.9;none serious or systemic) were Candida (12.8;8.3) and mild to moderate;two pts in both studies discontinued the study due to Candida infections. Incidence of IBD (1.0;1.0) and uveitis (1.5;2.4) were low.ConclusionAcross the axSpA spectrum, BKZ resulted in sustained efficacy to Wk 52. No new safety signals were observed, consistent with the Wk 24 safety profile.[1,2]References[1]Deodhar A. Ann Rheum Dis 2022;81:772–3;2.[2]van der Heijde D. Ann Rheum Dis 2022;81:12–3.Table 1.Efficacy at Wk 52Mean (SE), unless statedBE MOBILE 1BE MOBILE 2PBO→BKZ N=126BKZ N=128PBO→BKZ N=111BKZ N=221ASAS40 [NRI] n (%)64 (50.8)78 (60.9)76 (68.5)129 (58.4)ASAS40 in TNFi-naïve [NRI] n (%)58 (53.2)a73 (61.9)b67 (71.3)c108 (58.7)dASAS40 in TNFi-IRe [NRI] n (%)6 (35.3)f5 (50.0)g9 (52.9)f21 (56.8)hASAS20 [NRI] n (%)88 (69.8)94 (73.4)89 (80.2)158 (71.5)ASAS PR [NRI] n (%)38 (30.2)38 (29.7)41 (36.9)66 (29.9)ASAS 5/6 [NRI] n (%)65 (51.6)71 (55.5)74 (66.7)124 (56.1)BASDAI CfB [MI]–3.5 (0.2)–3.9 (0.2)–4.0 (0.2)–3.6 (0.1)BASFI CfB [MI]–2.6 (0.2)–3.0 (0.2)–2.8 (0.2)–2.8 (0.1)ASDAS-MI [NRI] n (%)37 (29.4)47 (36.7)49 (44.1)71 (32.1)Nocturnal spinal pain CfB [MI]–4.1 (0.2)–4.3 (0.3)–4.6 (0.3)–4.1 (0.2)ASQoL CfB [MI]–5.3 (0.4)–5.9 (0.4)–5.6 (0.4)–5.7 (0.3)SF-36 PCS CfB [MI]11.4 (0.9)12.2 (0.9)12.3 (0.9)12.0 (0.6)BASMI CfB [MI]–0.4 (0.1)–0.6 (0.1)–0.7 (0.1)–0.7 (0.1)Total resolution of enthesitisi [NRI] n (%)41 (44.6)j51 (54.3)c31 (46.3)k67 (50.8)lASDAS-CRP CfB [MI]–1.6 (0.1)–1.8 (0.1)–1.9 (0.1)–1.7 (0.1)SPARCC MRI SIJ score CfB [OC]mMean (SD)–6.4 (10.7)n–7.6 (10.5)o–2.8 (6.1)p–4.7 (8.2)qBerlin MRI spine score CfB [OC]mMean (SD)–0.4 (2.0)k–0.7 (2.5)r–2.1 (3.4)p–2.4 (3.9)shs-CRP, mg/L [MI] Median2.21.72.02.3RS. n: a109, b118, c94, d184;eMax 1 TNFi;n: f17, g10, h37;iMASES=0 in pts with MASES >0 at BL;n: j92, k67;l132;mMRI sub-study;n: n70, o82, p48, q90, r79, s89.AcknowledgementsThis study was funded by UCB Ph rma. Medical writing support was provided by Costello Medical, funded by UCB Pharma.Disclosure of InterestsXenofon Baraliakos Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Paid instructor for: AbbVie, BMS, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Atul Deodhar Speakers bureau: Janssen, Novartis and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Aurinia, BMS, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Bayer, BMS, Cyxone, Eisai, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Employee of: Director of Imaging Rheumatology BV, Marina Magrey Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie and UCB Pharma, Walter P Maksymowych Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie and Pfizer;educational grants from AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis and Pfizer, Employee of: Chief Medical Officer for CARE ARTHRITIS, Tetsuya Tomita Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Astellas, BMS, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Novartis and Pfizer, Huji Xu Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Beigene, BioMap, IASO, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Employee of: Clinical investigator for Peking-Tsinghua Center for Life Sciences, Marga Oortgiesen Shareholder of: UCB Pharma, Employee of: UCB Pharma, Ute Massow Employee of: UCB Pharma, Carmen Fleurinck Employee of: UCB Pharma, Alicia Ellis Employee of: UCB Pharma, Thomas Vaux Employee of: UCB Pharma, julie smith Employee of: UCB Pharma, Alexander Marten Employee of: UCB Pharma, Lianne S. Gensler Consultant of: AbbVie, Acelyrin, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: Novartis and UCB Pharma paid to institution.

EFFICACY and SAFETY of UPADACITINIB in PATIENTS with ACTIVE ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS REFRACTORY to BIOLOGIC THERAPY: A DOUBLEBLIND, RANDOMIZED, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED PHASE 3 TRIAL

Background: Upadacitinib (UPA) was shown to be safe and effective through 2 years in patients (pts) with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS) naïve to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in the pivotal phase 2/3 SELECT-AXIS 1 trial.1,2 Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of UPA in pts with active AS with an inadequate response (IR) to bDMARDs. Methods: SELECT-AXIS 2 (NCT04169373) was conducted under a master protocol and includes two separate studies (one for AS bDMARD-IR and one for non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis [nr-axSpA]). The AS bDMARD-IR study is a randomized, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled, phase 3 trial that enrolled adults ≥18 years with AS who met modifed New York criteria, had BAS-DAI and pt's assessment of total back pain scores ≥4 (numeric rating scale 0-10) at study entry, and had an IR to one or two bDMARDs (TNF inhibitor or IL-17 inhibitor). Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive oral UPA 15 mg once daily (QD) or PBO during the 14-week (wk) double-blind treatment period. The primary endpoint was ASAS40 response at wk 14. Multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints evaluated at wk 14 were improvements from baseline in disease activity (ASDAS [CRP], ASDAS ID [<1.3], ASDAS LDA [<2.1], BASDAI50, ASAS20, and ASAS PR), pain (total and nocturnal back pain), function (BASFI), objective measure of infammation (SPARCC MRI score of the spine), spinal mobility (BASMI), enthesitis (MASES), and quality of life (ASQoL and ASAS HI). Non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation (NRI-MI) was used to handle intercurrent events and missing data for binary endpoints. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test and mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) were used for analyzing binary and continuous endpoints, respectively. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) assessed through wk 14 are reported for pts who had ≥1 dose of study drug. Results: All 420 randomized pts with active AS received assigned treatment (UPA 15 mg, n=211;PBO, n=209);409 (97%) received study drug through wk 14. Baseline demographic and disease characteristics were generally similar between treatment groups and refective of an active AS bDMARD-IR population (74% male;mean age 42.4 years;mean disease duration 7. 7 years;83% HLA-B27 positive;mean BASDAI 6.8). Signifcantly more pts achieved the primary endpoint of ASAS40 response at wk 14 with UPA vs PBO (45% vs 18%;P<0.0001;Figure 1);UPA showed onset of effect in ASAS40 as early as wk 4 (nominal P≤0.05). All multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints met statistical signifcance for UPA vs PBO at wk 14 across multiple clinical domains of AS (P<0.0001;Figure 1). The rate of TEAEs was similar between treatment groups through wk 14 (UPA, 41%;PBO, 37%). TEAEs led to discontinuation in 3 (1.4%) pts treated with PBO and none with UPA. Serious infections occurred with UPA (2.4%) but not with PBO and included 4 events of COVID-19 and 1 event of uveitis. Additional events of uveitis were reported in 3 (1.4%) pts treated with PBO. Infammatory bowel disease (IBD) occurred in 1 (0.5%) pt on UPA and none on PBO. No malignancy, major adverse cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolic events, or death were reported with UPA;1 event of malignancy was observed with PBO. Conclusion: UPA 15 mg QD was signifcantly more effective than PBO over 14 wks of treatment in pts with active AS and IR to bDMARDs. No new safety risks were identifed with UPA compared with its known safety profile.3,4 These fndings are consistent with and complementary to those of SELECT-AXIS 1 (bDMARD-naïve AS population),1,2 and support the use of UPA in pts with active AS, including those who had a previous IR to bDMARD therapy.