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.

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

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

Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Upadacitinib in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis Refractory to Biologic Therapies: 2-Year Results from the Phase 3 Select-Psa 2 Study

Background/Aims Upadacitinib (UPA), an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, demonstrated efficacy and safety in patients (pts) with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and prior inadequate response or intolerance to >=1 biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) at week (wk) 56 in the phase 3 SELECT-PsA 2 study. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of UPA at wk 104 from the ongoing long-term extension of SELECTPsA 2. Methods Pts were randomized to UPA 15mg (UPA15), UPA 30mg (UPA30), or placebo (PBO) for 24 wks;PBO pts were then switched to UPA15 or UPA30. For continuous UPA treatment groups, efficacy endpoints at wk 104 were analyzed using non-responder imputation (NRI) and as observed (AO) (binary endpoints) or mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) and AO (continuous endpoints). Treatmentemergent adverse events (TEAEs) were summarized for pts who received >=1 dose of study drug using visit-based cut-off at wk 104. Results A total of 641 pts received >=1 dose of study drug. At wk 104, 38.4% of all patients had discontinued study drug, with the highest discontinuation observed in patients randomized to PBO at baseline (all PBO: 46.7%). The most common reasons for discontinuation were lack of efficacy (UPA15: 12.3%, UPA30: 8.7%, all PBO: 21.7%) and adverse event (UPA15: 10.9%, UPA30: 13.3%, all PBO: 12.7%). The proportion of UPA pts that achieved ACR20/50/70, MDA, PASI75/90/100, and resolution of dactylitis and enthesitis were generally similar, or further improved, with 104 wks of treatment vs 56 wks. Similarly, mean change from baseline in HAQ-DI, patient's assessment of pain, BASDAI, and ASDAS was improved with UPA treatment. At 104 wks of therapy, clinical responses were largely similar with UPA15 and UPA30. Generally, safety data at wk 104 were consistent with that reported at wk 56. Rates of serious infection, herpes zoster, hepatic disorder, anemia, neutropenia, lymphopenia, and CPK elevation remained numerically higher with UPA30 vs UPA15, while rates of malignancies, MACE, and VTE were similar for both UPA groups. One death was reported with UPA15 (unexplained due to lack of information;however, the patient had recently been diagnosed with ovarian cancer) and two with UPA30 (pancytopenia and COVID-19 pneumonia). Conclusion In PsA pts with prior inadequate response or intolerance to>=1 bDMARD, clinical responses were maintained with UPA15 and UPA30 up to two years of treatment. No new safety signals were identified in this long-term extension.

Efficacité et tolérance à long terme de l'upadacitinib chez les patients présentant un rhumatisme psoriasique réfractaire aux traitements biologiques : résultats à 2 ans de l'étude de phase III SELECT-PsA 2

L'upadacitinib (UPA), un inhibiteur de Janus kinase (JAK) par voie orale, a démontré son efficacité et sa sécurité chez des patients atteints de rhumatisme psoriasique (RP) ayant une réponse insuffisante ou une intolérance à ≥ 1 traitement de fond biologique (bDMARD) à la S56 de l'étude de phase III SELECT-PsA 2. Évaluer l'efficacité et la tolérance de l'UPA à S104 de l'extension à long terme en cours de l'étude SELECT-PsA 2. Patients randomisés pour recevoir UPA 15 mg, UPA 30 mg ou placebo (PBO) pendant 24 semaines. Les patients sous PBO passaient ensuite à UPA15 ou UPA30. Évaluation d'efficacité à S104 des patients traités en continu par UPA en NRI (imputation en non-répondeurs) et données observées (critères binaires), ou en MMRM (modèle mixte pour mesures répétées) et données observées (critères continus). Au total, 641 patients ont reçu ≥ 1 dose d'UPA. À S104, 38,4 % de l'ensemble des patients avaient arrêté leur traitement par UPA et les taux d'arrêt les plus élevés ont été observés chez les patients randomisés dans le groupe PBO à l'inclusion (total PBO : 46,7 %). Les motifs les plus fréquents d'arrêt du traitement étaient un manque d'efficacité (UPA15 : 12,3 %, UPA30 : 8,7 %, total PBO : 21,7 %) et la survenue d'un EI (UPA15 : 10,9 %, UPA30 : 13,3 %, total PBO : 12,7 %). La proportion de patients sous UPA ayant obtenu une réponse ACR20/50/70, MDA, PASI75/90/100, et résolution des dactylites/enthésites était similaire voire améliorée à S104 de traitement versus S56 (Tableau 1). La variation moyenne par rapport à l'inclusion du HAQ-DI, de l'évaluation de la douleur par le patient et des scores BASDAI/ASDAS était plus importante avec UPA. À S104, les réponses cliniques étaient similaires sous UPA15 et UPA30. Les données de tolérance à S104 (Fig. 1) concordaient avec celles rapportées à S56. Les infections graves, zonas, affections hépatiques, anémies, neutropénies, lymphopénies et élévations des CPK restaient plus élevés sous UPA30 vs UPA15. Les taux de cancers, d'EICM et de TEV étaient similaires dans les 2 groupes UPA. 1 décès rapporté avec UPA15 (inexpliqué, manque d'informations ;la patiente ayant récemment reçu un diagnostic de cancer de l'ovaire) et 2 avec l'UPA30 (pancytopénie et pneumonie à COVID-19). Chez les patients atteints de RP ayant présenté une réponse insuffisante ou une intolérance à ≥ 1 bDMARD, les réponses cliniques se sont maintenues avec UPA15 et UPA30 jusqu'à 2 ans de traitement. Aucun nouveau signal de sécurité n'a été identifié durant cette période d'extension. (French) [ FROM AUTHOR]

Efficacité d'upadacitinib chez des patients atteints de spondyloarthrite axiale non radiographique en fonction des signes objectifs d'inflammation à l'inclusion

L'essai de phase 3 SELECT-AXIS 2 (NCT04169373) a évalué l'efficacité et la tolérance d'upadacitinib (UPA) chez des patients atteints de spondyloarthrite axiale non radiographique (nr-axSpA). Nous présentons ici une analyse en sous-groupes (ss-gpes) en fonction de la valeur de la hsCRP et de l'inflammation des sacro-iliaques (SI) à l'IRM à la sélection. Dans SELECT-AXIS 2 [1] , des patients de ≥ 18 ans ayant un diagnostic clinique de nr-axSpA remplissant les critères de classification de 2009 de l'ASAS, mais sans le critère radiologique des critères de New-York modifiés, et présentant des signes objectifs d'inflammation active à l'IRM selon la définition de l'ASAS (évaluation par 2 lecteurs et un arbitre) et/ou un taux de hsCRP supérieur à la limite supérieure de la normale (LSN, 2,87 mg/L) à la sélection, ont été randomisés selon un ratio 1/1 pour recevoir UPA 15 mg 1x/j ou un placebo (PBO). Le critère principal était la réponse ASAS40 à la semaine (S) 14. Les autres critères incluaient la faible activité de la maladie (LDA) selon l'ASDAS (≤ 2,1), la variation par rapport à l'inclusion du SPARCC-IRM articulations SI, du BASFI et de la douleur rachidienne évaluée par le patient, à S14. Les analyses en ss-gpes préspécifiées (ASAS40) et post-hoc (autres critères) ont été réalisées en fonction du statut inflammatoire à la sélection : taux de hsCRP (> LSN vs ≤ LSN) et inflammation des articulations SI à l'IRM (positive vs négative). L'imputation des non-répondeurs (NRI) avec imputation multiple (MI) pour prendre en compte des données manquantes liées au COVID-19, a été utilisée pour les variables binaires. Un modèle mixte pour mesures répétées sur les données observées (AO) a été utilisé pour les variables continues sauf pour le score SPARCC-IRM pour lequel une analyse de covariance sur les AO a été utilisée. Sur les 312 patients inclus dans l'analyse, 176 (56 %) avaient une hsCRP > LSN et une IRM négative (IRM−), 73 (23 %) une hsCRP > LSN et une IRM positive (IRM+) et 63 (20 %) une hsCRP ≤ LSN et une IRM+. Les caractéristiques démographiques et cliniques à l'inclusion étaient similaires dans les ss-gpes ;cependant, le ss-gpe hsCRP > LSN et IRM+ était plus fréquent chez les patients HLA-B27 positifs et avait un plus faible taux de traitement antérieur par DMARDs biologiques (Tableau 1). À S14, des taux plus élevés de réponse ASAS40 et ASDAS-LDA et une réduction plus importante par rapport à l'inclusion des scores SPARCC-IRM, BASFI et de douleur rachidienne ont été associés à UPA vs PBO pour tous les ss-gpes (Fig. 1). La différence UPA vs PBO était plus importante pour le groupe hsCRP > LSN et IRM+, pour tous les critères. Dans SELECT-AXIS 2, les résultats chez les patients atteints de nr-axSpA ont été améliorés pour UPA versus le PBO pour tous les sous-groupes d'inflammation à l'inclusion ;le bénéfice le plus important a été observé chez les patients ayant à la fois un taux élevé de CRP et des signes d'inflammation à l'IRM à la sélection. (French) [ FROM AUTHOR]

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.

LONG-TERM EFFICACY and SAFETY of UPADACITINIB in PATIENTS with PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS REFRACTORY to BIOLOGIC THERAPIES: 2-YEAR RESULTS from the PHASE 3 SELECT-PSA 2 STUDY

Background: Upadacitinib (UPA), an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, demonstrated efficacy and safety in patients (pts) with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and prior inadequate response or intolerance to ≥1 biologic disease-modifying antirheu-matic drug (bDMARD) at week (wk) 56 in the phase 3 SELECT-PsA 2 study.1 Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of UPA at wk 104 from the ongoing long-term extension of SELECT-PsA 2. Methods: Pts were randomized to UPA 15 mg (UPA15), UPA 30 mg (UPA30), or placebo (PBO) for 24 wks;PBO pts were then switched to UPA15 or UPA30. For continuous UPA treatment groups, efficacy endpoints at wk 104 were analyzed using non-responder imputation (NRI) and as observed (AO) (binary endpoints) or mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) and AO (continuous endpoints). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were summarized for pts who received ≥1 dose of study drug using visit-based cut-off at wk 104. Results: A total of 641 pts received ≥1 dose of study drug. At wk 104, 38.4% of all patients had discontinued study drug, with the highest discontinuation observed in patients randomized to PBO at baseline (all PBO: 46.7%). The most common reasons for discontinuation were lack of efficacy (UPA15: 12.3%, UPA30: 8.7%, all PBO: 21.7%) and adverse event (UPA15: 10.9%, UPA30: 13.3%, all PBO: 12.7%). The proportion of UPA pts that achieved ACR20/50/70, MDA, PASI75/90/100, and resolution of dactylitis and enthesitis were generally similar, or further improved, with 104 wks of treatment vs 56 wks1 (Table 1). Similarly, mean change from baseline in HAQ-DI, patient's assessment of pain, BASDAI, and ASDAS was improved with UPA treatment. At 104 wks of therapy, clinical responses were largely similar with UPA15 and UPA30. Generally, safety data at wk 104 (Figure 1) were consistent with that reported at wk 56.1 Rates of serious infection, herpes zoster, hepatic disorder, anemia, neutropenia, lymphopenia, and CPK elevation remained numerically higher with UPA30 vs UPA15, while rates of malignancies, MACE, and VTE were similar for both UPA groups. One death was reported with UPA15 (unexplained due to lack of information;however, the patient had recently been diagnosed with ovarian cancer) and 2 with UPA30 (pancytopenia and COVID-19 pneumonia). Conclusion: In PsA pts with prior inadequate response or intolerance to ≥1 bDMARD, clinical responses were maintained with UPA15 and UPA30 up to 2 years of treatment. No new safety signals were identifed in this long-term extension.