Improvements in Patient-Reported Outcomes After Treatment With Deucravacitinib in Patients With Psoriatic Arthritis: Results From a Randomized Phase 2 Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Deucravacitinib, a tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, was assessed in a phase 2 trial in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Here, we report effects of deucravacitinib from the patient perspective. METHODS: This phase 2, double-blind trial (NCT03881059) randomized patients with active PsA 1:1:1 to deucravacitinib 6 mg once daily (QD), 12 mg QD, or placebo, for 16 weeks. Key secondary end points were changes from baseline (CFBs) at week 16 in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) and 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) physical component summary (PCS) scores. Additional patient-reported outcomes (PROs) assessed disease impact, including fatigue, pain, and mental health. The mean CFBs in PROs and percentages of patients reporting improvements with minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) or scores of greater than normal values were also assessed. RESULTS: This study comprised 203 patients (51.2% female; mean ± SD age, 49.8 ± 13.5 years). At week 16, the adjusted mean difference (95% confidence interval) versus placebo in HAQ-DI and SF-36 PCS CFB was significant for each deucravacitinib group (HAQ-DI 6 mg, -0.26 [-0.42 to -0.10], P = 0.0020; HAQ-DI 12 mg, -0.28 [-0.45 to -0.12], P = 0.0008; SF-36 PCS 6 mg, 3.3 [0.9 to 5.7], P = 0.0062; SF-36 PCS 12 mg, 3.5 [1.1 to 5.9], P = 0.0042). MCID at week 16 were reported for all PROs with either dose of deucravacitinib. Improvements of MCID or to normative values were reported by more patients receiving deucravacitinib than placebo. CONCLUSION: Deucravacitinib groups demonstrate significant and clinically meaningful improvements in PROs versus placebo in patients with active PsA, which warrants further study.

P038 Ozanimod First-Dose Cardiac Effects in Patients with Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis and Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Ozanimod, an oral sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P) receptor modulator that selectively targets S1P1 and S1P5, is approved in the US for treating moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) and in multiple countries for treating relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS). In a Phase 1 study of ozanimod in healthy participants, first-dose cardiac effects were mitigated with gradual dose escalation. Based on these results, an initial 7-day ozanimod dose escalation regimen was implemented in all Phase 2 and 3 UC and MS trials. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the number of patients who were excluded from ozanimod treatment due to contraindications of pre-existing cardiac disorders and to evaluate the incidence of cardiac-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) following first-dose ozanimod administration in all patients and patients with a history of non-exclusionary cardiac disorders in the UC and MS clinical trials. METHODS: For UC, the analysis included pooled data from the Phase 2 Touchstone (NCT01647516) and Phase 3 True North (NCT02435992) trials. For MS, the analysis included pooled data from the Phase 3 Radiance (NCT02047734) and Sunbeam (NCT02294058) trials. Patients with clinically relevant cardiac conditions or clinically significant electrocardiogram (ECG) disorders were excluded from the trials. On Day 1, all patients received ozanimod 0.23 mg (equivalent to ozanimod HCl 0.25 mg). Day 1 cardiac monitoring included collection of vital signs (including heart rate) prior to dosing and hourly for at least 6 hours after dosing, and ECG prior to dosing and at Hour 6 after dosing. RESULTS: Among patients screened, 26/2178 (1.2%) in the UC studies and 47/3351 (1.4%) in the MS studies were excluded due to protocol-defined pre-existing cardiac disorders. Of 496 patients who received ozanimod in the UC studies, 1 (0.2%) experienced a cardiac-related TEAE on Day 1 (asymptomatic bradycardia). Of 1774 patients who received ozanimod in the MS studies, 11 (0.6%) experienced a cardiac-related TEAE on Day 1. In both the UC and MS studies, no cases of second- or third-degree AV block were observed. A decrease in mean heart rate from baseline (UC, 0.7 bpm; MS, 1.2 bpm) was observed at first-dose that reached a nadir at Hour 5 and returned to baseline by Hour 6. Among 496 patients with UC who received ozanimod, 34 (6.9%) had a known history of cardiac disorders, of whom 1 experienced a cardiac-related TEAE on Day 1 (asymptomatic bradycardia). Among the 1774 patients with MS who received ozanimod, 96 (5.4%) had a known history of cardiac disorders, of whom 2 experienced symptomatic bradycardia on Day 1. CONCLUSION: In clinical trials of ozanimod, the number of patients with UC or MS who failed screening because of exclusionary cardiac disorders was low. Most patients with a history of cardiac disorders who were enrolled in ozanimod clinical trials did not have Day 1 cardiac events, and the events that occurred were manageable.

Longterm Safety and Efficacy of Subcutaneous Abatacept in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: 5-year Results from a Phase IIIb Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess 5-year safety, tolerability, and efficacy of subcutaneous (SC) abatacept (ABA) in methotrexate (MTX)-refractory patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: The Abatacept Comparison of sub[QU]cutaneous versus intravenous in Inadequate Responders to methotrexatE (ACQUIRE) phase IIIb, randomized, double-dummy, multinational trial compared efficacy and safety of SC and intravenous (IV) ABA in patients with RA. In the initial 6-month double-blind (DB) period, patients received IV or SC ABA, plus MTX, and in the subsequent open-label longterm extension (LTE) period, all patients received SC ABA (125 mg/wk). The final 5-year safety, tolerability, and efficacy analyses are reported. RESULTS: Of 1385 patients who completed the DB period, 1372 entered LTE and 945 (68.8%) completed ≥ 5 years of treatment. During LTE, 97 (7.1%) patients discontinued treatment because of an adverse event (AE). Incidence rate (IR; event/100 patient-yrs of exposure; based on LTE data, 95% CI) for AE of interest were the following: serious AE 7.73 (6.96-8.58), infection 38.60 (36.24-41.12), serious infection 1.68 (1.35-2.07), malignancies 1.09 (0.84-1.42), and autoimmune disorders 1.33 (1.05-1.69), and were stable over time. No association between immunogenicity and either worsening of ABA safety or loss of efficacy was noted. Efficacy in the LTE was consistent with the DB period and was maintained to the end of the study. CONCLUSION: These 5-year data establish that SC ABA (125 mg/wk) has a consistent safety profile and durable efficacy for longterm treatment of patients with RA who had an inadequate response to MTX.

Randomized Clinical Trial Design to Assess Abatacept in Resistant Nephrotic Syndrome.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment-resistant nephrotic syndrome is a rare form of glomerular disease that occurs in children and adults. No Food and Drug Administration-approved treatments consistently achieve remission of proteinuria and preservation of kidney function. CD80 (B7-1) can be expressed on injured podocytes, and administration of abatacept (modified CTLA4-Ig based on a natural ligand to CD80) has been associated with sustained normalization of urinary protein excretion and maintenance of glomerular filtration rate in experimental and clinical settings. METHODS: In this report, we describe the rationale for and design of a randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial of abatacept in patients with treatment-resistant nephrotic syndrome caused by focal segmental glomerulosclerosis or minimal change disease. The design is a hybrid of a parallel-group and crossover design (switchover) with the primary objectives assessed in the first period of the study and the secondary objectives assessed using data from both periods. All participants will receive the active agent in 1 of the periods. The duration of treatment will be 4 months per period. RESULTS: The primary outcome will be improvement in nephrotic-range proteinuria to subnephrotic range, that is, reduction from baseline to 4 months in urine protein:creatinine ratio ≥ 50% and to a level < 3. The projected sample size is 90 patients, which has 80% power to detect a treatment difference of 28%. CONCLUSION: This study advances efforts to validate CD80 as a therapeutic target for treatment-resistant nephrotic syndrome, and implements a precision medicine-based approach to this serious kidney condition in which the selection of a therapeutic agent is guided by the underlying disease mechanism operating in individual patients.

Head-to-head comparison of subcutaneous abatacept versus adalimumab for rheumatoid arthritis: two-year efficacy and safety findings from AMPLE trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare over 2 years the safety, efficacy and radiographic outcomes of subcutaneous abatacept versus adalimumab, in combination with methotrexate (MTX), in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: AMPLE is a phase IIIb, 2-year, randomised, investigator-blinded study with a 1-year primary endpoint. Biologic-naive patients with active RA and an inadequate response to MTX were randomised to 125 mg abatacept weekly or 40 mg adalimumab bi-weekly, both with a stable dose of MTX. RESULTS: Of 646 patients randomised, 79.2% abatacept and 74.7% adalimumab patients completed year 2. At year 2, efficacy outcomes, including radiographic, remained comparable between groups and with year 1 results. The American College Rheumatology 20, 50 and 70 responses at year 2 were 59.7%, 44.7% and 31.1% for abatacept and 60.1%, 46.6% and 29.3% for adalimumab. There were similar rates of adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). More serious infections occurred with adalimumab (3.8% vs 5.8%) including two cases of tuberculosis with adalimumab. There were fewer discontinuations due to AEs (3.8% vs 9.5%), SAEs (1.6% vs 4.9%) and serious infections (0/12 vs 9/19 patients) in the abatacept group. Injection site reactions (ISRs) occurred less frequently with abatacept (4.1% vs 10.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Through 2 years of blinded treatment in this first head-to-head study between biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in RA patients with an inadequate response to MTX, subcutaneous abatacept and adalimumab were similarly efficacious based on clinical, functional and radiographic outcomes. Overall, AE frequency was similar in both groups but there were less discontinuations due to AEs, SAEs, serious infections and fewer local ISRs with abatacept.

Immunogenicity, safety, and efficacy of abatacept administered subcutaneously with or without background methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results from a phase III, international, multicenter, parallel-arm, open-label study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of concomitant methotrexate (MTX) on subcutaneous (SC) abatacept immunogenicity, and to assess safety and efficacy. METHODS: This phase III, open-label study had a 4-month short-term (ST) period and an ongoing long-term extension (LTE) period. Rheumatoid arthritis patients were stratified to receive SC abatacept (125 mg/week) with (combination) or without MTX (monotherapy), with no intravenous loading dose; patients receiving monotherapy could add MTX in the LTE period. Immunogenicity (percentage of anti-abatacept antibody-positive patients) was assessed. ST and LTE period data are reported, including efficacy through LTE month 14 and safety through LTE month 20. RESULTS: Ninety-six of 100 enrolled patients completed the ST period; 3.9% (combination) and 4.1% of patients (monotherapy) developed transient immunogenicity, and no patients were antibody positive at month 4. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported in 3.9% (combination) and 6.1% of patients (monotherapy); 5.9% (combination) and 8.2% of patients (monotherapy) experienced SC injection reactions, and all were mild in intensity. Mean 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) changes were -1.67 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] -2.06, -1.28; combination) and -1.94 (95% CI -2.46, -1.42; monotherapy) at month 4. Ninety patients entered and were treated in the LTE period; 83.3% (75 of 90) remained ongoing at month 24. One LTE-treated patient (1.1%) developed immunogenicity, 14.4% of patients experienced SAEs, and no SC injection reactions were reported. For patients entering the LTE period, mean DAS28 changes from baseline were -1.84 (95% CI -2.23, -1.34; combination) and -2.86 (95% CI -3.46, -2.27; monotherapy) at month 18. CONCLUSION: SC abatacept did not elicit immunogenicity associated with loss of safety or efficacy, either with or without MTX.

Longterm safety and efficacy of abatacept through 5 years of treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate abatacept safety and efficacy over 5 years in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had inadequate response to anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy in the ATTAIN trial. METHODS: Patients completing the 6-month, double-blind (DB) placebo-controlled period were eligible to enter the longterm extension (LTE), where all patients received abatacept every 4 weeks (∼10 mg/kg, according to weight range). Safety, efficacy, physical function, and health-related quality of life were monitored throughout. RESULTS: In total, 317 patients (218 DB abatacept, 99 DB placebo) entered the LTE; 150 (47.3%) completed it. Overall incidences of serious adverse events, infections, serious infections, malignant neoplasms, and autoimmune events did not increase during the LTE versus the DB period. American College of Rheumatology responses with abatacept at Month 6 were maintained over 5 years. At Year 5, among patients who received abatacept for 5 years and had available data, 38/103 (36.9%) achieved low disease activity as defined by the 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28)/C-reactive protein (CRP); 23/103 (22.3%) achieved DAS28/CRP-defined remission. Health Assessment Questionnaire response was achieved by 62.5% of patients remaining on treatment at Year 5; mean improvements from baseline in physical component summary and mental component summary scores were 7.34 and 6.42, respectively. High proportions of patients maintained efficacy and physical function benefits or improved their disease state at each timepoint throughout the LTE, if remaining on abatacept treatment. CONCLUSION: Safety remained consistent, and abatacept efficacy was maintained from 6 months to 5 years, demonstrating the benefits of switching to abatacept in this difficult-to-treat population of patients with RA previously failing anti-TNF therapy.