fetching data ...

THU0497 (2020)
MAINTENANCE OF MINIMAL DISEASE ACTIVITY OR INACTIVE DISEASE STATUS AND PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES IN INDIVIDUAL PAEDIATRIC PATIENTS WITH JUVENILE IDIOPATHIC ARTHRITIS TREATED WITH SUBCUTANEOUS ABATACEPT
H. Brunner1, N. Tzaribachev2, I. Louw2, I. Calvo2, F. Zapata2, G. Horneff2, I. Foeldvari2, D. Kingsbury1, M. Gastanaga2, C. Wouters2, J. Breedt2, R. Wong3, M. Nys4, M. Askelson3, J. Zhuo3, A. Martini2, D. J. Lovell1, N. Ruperto2, on behalf of PRINTO and PRCSG
1PRCSG, CCHMC Cincinnati, Cincinnati, United States of America
2PRINTO, Istituto Gaslini, Genoa, Italy
3Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, United States of America
4Bristol-Myers Squibb, Braine-L’Alleud, Belgium

Background: Maintenance of clinical response over time has been shown in individual patients (pts) with polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA) treated with SC abatacept (ABA). 1 It is unknown whether each individual pt with sustained efficacy also consistently maintains the previously reported shorter-term benefits on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) 2,3 over time.


Objectives: Investigate whether combined efficacy and stringent, optimal PRO responses to ABA treatment are maintained by individual pts with pJIA over time.


Methods: In this analysis of the intent-to-treat population, pts in two age cohorts (2–5 and 6–17 yrs) who achieved clinical response to weekly SC ABA (10–<25 kg [50 mg], 25–<50 kg [87.5 mg], ≥50 kg [125 mg]) at Mo 4 (time point of primary pharmacokinetic endpoint 4 ) were followed for 2 yrs. Stringent efficacy outcomes (Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score 27 [JADAS27] minimal disease activity [MDA; ≤3.8] and inactive disease [ID; ≤1] status) were combined with optimal PRO endpoints (childhood [C]HAQ-DI=0, Parental Global Assessment [PaGA] ≤1 and Pain visual analogue scale [VAS] <35). Combined efficacy and PRO responses were analysed at Mos 4, 13 and 21.


Results: 219 pts entered the study (46 [21.0%] 2–5 yrs; 173 [79.0%] 6–17 yrs); a subgroup of these pts achieved a clinical response at Mo 4 ( Table 1 ). Many pts who achieved JADAS27 MDA or JADAS27 ID combined with optimal PROs at Mo 4 sustained their response at Mo 13, and at both Mo 13 and Mo 21 in the 2–5-yr and 6–17-yr cohorts ( Table 1 ). Across the cohorts, 33–88% of pts maintained a combined JADAS27 MDA with optimal PRO responses through Mo 21. Where estimable, median times to combined efficacy and specific optimal PRO responses were consistent across the cohorts ( Table 2 ; Figs 1 , 2).

Proportion of pts with combined efficacy and optimal PRO responses at Mos 4, 13 and 21

Endpoint Responders at Mo 4 Responders at Mos 4 and 13* Responders at Mos 4, 13 and 21*
2–5 yrs (n=46 ) 6–17 yrs (n=173 ) 2–5 yrs 6–17 yrs 2–5 yrs 6–17 yrs
JADAS27 MDA and CHAQ-DI=0 9 (20) 34 (20) 5/9 (56) 25/34 (74) 3/9 (33) 16/34 (47)
JADAS27 MDA and PaGA ≤1 8 (17) 14 (8) 8/8 (100) 7/14 (50) 7/8 (88) 5/14 (36)
JADAS27 MDA and Pain VAS <35 mm 28 (61) 70 (41) 25/28 (89) 58/70 (83) 21/28 (75) 43/70 (61)
JADAS27 ID and CHAQ-DI=0 7 (15) 20 (12) 2/7 (29) 13/20 (65) 1/7 (14) 9/20 (45)
JADAS27 ID and PaGA ≤1 6 (13) 10 (6) 4/6 (67) 4/10 (40) 4/6 (67) 4/10 (40)
JADAS27 ID and Pain VAS <35 mm 17 (37) 31 (18) 10/17 (59) 22/31 (71) 8/17 (47) 17/31 (55)

Data are n (%) or n/N (%). *% based on n of pts who achieved response at Mo 4 (denominator)

Kaplan–Meier estimates for median (95% CI) times (mos) to achieving combined efficacy and optimal PRO responses

Endpoint 2–5 yrs 6–17 yrs
JADAS27 MDA and CHAQ-DI=0 21.5 (6.8, NE) 21.5 (13.1, 24.4)
JADAS27 MDA and PaGA ≤1 NE (15.9, NE) 24.6 (24.3, NE)
JADAS27 MDA and Pain VAS <35 mm 2.8 (1.9, 2.9) 3.8 (3.7, 6.6)
JADAS27 ID and CHAQ-DI=0 NE (18.4, NE) 24.4 (18.7, NE)
JADAS27 ID and PaGA ≤1 NE (21.3, NE) 24.6 (24.3, NE)
JADAS27 ID and Pain VAS <35 mm 3.8 (3.8, 10.3) 13.2 (10.3, 15.9)

NE=not estimable


Conclusion: Many individuals with pJIA who achieved stringent efficacy and PRO measures with weekly SC abatacept by Mo 4 sustained them over 2 years. Time to achieve combined efficacy and Pain VAS <35 response was shorter than that for PaGA ≤1 and CHAQ-DI=0.


REFERENCES:

[1]Ruperto N, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2019;78:99–100 (abstr OP0056)

[2]Brunner H, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2019;71(suppl 10):abstr 2707

[3]Ruperto N, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2017;76:75 (abstr OP0058)

[4]Brunner HI, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2018;70:1144–54


Acknowledgments: Katerina Kumpan, PhD, Caudex; funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb


Disclosure of Interests : Hermine Brunner Consultant of: Hoffman-La Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Aventis, Merck Serono, AbbVie, Amgen, Alter, AstraZeneca, Baxalta Biosimilars, Biogen Idec, Boehringer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, EMD Serono, Janssen, MedImmune, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Biosciences, Speakers bureau: GSK, Roche, and Novartis, Nikolay Tzaribachev: None declared, Ingrid Louw Consultant of: Amgen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche (advisory boards), Inmaculada Calvo Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clementia, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffman-La Roche, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffman-La Roche, Novartis, Francisco Zapata: None declared, Gerd Horneff Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Chugai, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bayer, Chugai, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Ivan Foeldvari Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Daniel Kingsbury: None declared, Maria Gastanaga Grant/research support from: Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Roche, Carine Wouters Grant/research support from: GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Roche, Johannes Breedt: None declared, Robert Wong Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Marleen Nys Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Margarita Askelson Consultant of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Joe Zhuo Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Alberto Martini Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lily, EMD Serono, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Daniel J Lovell Consultant of: Abbott (consulting and PI), AbbVie (PI), Amgen (consultant and DSMC Chairperson), AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb (PI), Celgene, Forest Research (DSMB Chairman), GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffman-La Roche, Janssen (co-PI), Novartis (consultant and PI), Pfizer (consultant and PI), Roche (PI), Takeda, UBC (consultant and PI), Wyeth, Employee of: Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Speakers bureau: Wyeth, Nicolino Ruperto Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lily, F Hoffmann-La Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sobi (paid to institution), Consultant of: Ablynx, AbbVie, AstraZeneca-Medimmune, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lily, EMD Serono, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, R-Pharma, Sanofi, Servier, Sinergie, Sobi, Takeda, Speakers bureau: Ablynx, AbbVie, AstraZeneca-Medimmune, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lily, EMD Serono, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, R-Pharma, Sanofi, Servier, Sinergie, Sobi, Takeda


Citation: Ann Rheum Dis, volume 79, supplement 1, year 2020, page 481
Session: Paediatric rheumatology (Poster Presentations)