fetching data ...

SAT0387 (2019)
CONSISTENT EFFICACY IN PATIENT SUBGROUPS ACROSS BASELINE DEMOGRAPHICS AND DISEASE CHARACTERISTICS: RESULTS FROM A PHASE 2 STUDY OF GUSELKUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS
Iain McInnes1, Philip Helliwell2, Alice B. Gottlieb3, Wolf-Henning Boehncke4, Xie L. Xu5, Stephen Xu5, Yuhua Wang5, Elizabeth C. Hsia5,6, Atul Deodhar7
1University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
2Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
3Icahn School of Medicine at Mt Sinai, New York, United States of America
4Division of Dermatology and Venereology, Geneva Univ Hospitals and Department of Pathology and Immunology, Univ of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
5Janssen Research and Development, LLC, Spring House, United States of America
6Univ of Pennsylvania, Phila, United States of America
7Oregon Health and Science U, Portland, United States of America

Background: Guselkumab (GUS) is a monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin-23 that has demonstrated efficacy in a phase 2 trial of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). 1


Objectives: Here subgroup analyses were conducted to evaluate the consistency of efficacy on the primary endpoint, ACR20 response.


Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase-2 trial, pts with active PsA (≥3 tender, ≥3 swollen joints, C-reactive protein ≥3 mg/L, ≥3% body surface area [BSA] of plaque psoriasis) despite current or previous treatment with standard-of-care therapies were randomized 2:1 to subcutaneous GUS 100 mg (n=100) or placebo (PBO, n=49) at Wk0, Wk4, and every 8 wks (q8w) through Wk44. At Wk16, pts with <5% improvement in both swollen and tender joints could escape early to open-label ustekinumab. Pts continuing PBO crossed-over to receive GUS 100mg at Wk 24, 28 then q8w through Wk44. The primary analysis was performed in a modified Intent-to-Treat (mITT) population which include all randomized subjects who received at least 1 administration of study agent based on their assigned treatment regardless actual treatment received. Pts who met treatment failure criteria, escaped early, or had missing data at Wk24 were considered non-responders for ACR20 at Wk24. Pre-planned subgroup analyses by demographic and disease characteristics at baseline and PsA medication use were performed, using the same data handling rules as in the primary analysis.


Results: At Wk24, 58/100 (58·0%) of pts in the GUS vs 9/49 (18.4%) in the PBO group achieved an ACR20 response (p<0·001). Efficacy was consistently observed in subgroups defined by demographics (gender, age, weight, region), disease characteristics at baseline (disease duration, PsA subtypes, tender/swollen joint counts, HAQ-DI, CRP, presence of dactylitis or enthesitis, PASI, and BSA) or PsA medication use (prior use of DMARDs or anti-TNFs, concomitant use of MTX, oral corticosteroids, or NSAIDs) (Table). The treatment effect was statistically significant in the majority of subgroups with the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the difference between GUS and PBO exceeding 0 in favor of GUS. There are a few exceptions where small sample sizes of the subgroups limited the interpretation. All enrolled subjects were white; therefore, the effect of guselkumab in other racial groups could not be assessed. Among GUS-treated pts, pts with enthesitis, dactylitis, PASI ≥12, BSA >10%, tender joint count ≤10 or swollen joint count ≤10 appeared to have numerically higher ACR20 response rate than those corresponding subgroups defined otherwise, although the sample size is small and the data should be interpreted with caution.


Conclusion: In this phase 2 trial of patients with PsA, GUS demonstrated efficacy consistently across subgroups of pts according to baseline demographics, disease characteristics, and PsA-medication use. The relationship between baseline characteristics and clinical outcome will be further explored in phase 3 studies with a larger PsA population.


REFERENCE:

[1] Deodhar A, et al. Lancet 2018;391: 2213–24.


Disclosure of Interests: Iain McInnes Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Celgene, Compugen, Novartis, Roche, UCB Pharma, Consultant for: AbbVie, Celgene, Galvani, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Philip Helliwell Grant/research support from: Paid to charity: from AbbVie, Janssen and Novartis, Consultant for: Paid to charity: from AbbVie, Amgen, Pfizer, and UCB and Celgene. Paid to self: from Celgene and Galapagos, Alice B Gottlieb Grant/research support from: PI: Incyte Corporation, Janssen-Ortho Inc., Lilly ICOS LLC, Novartis, UCB, XBiotech, Consultant for: AbbVie, Dermira, Incyte Corporation, Lilly ICOS LLC, Novartis, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Avotres (unpaid), XBiotech (unpaid), Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen Biotech; advisory board: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech, Janssen-Ortho Inc., LEO Pharma, Novartis, UCB, Wolf-Henning Boehncke Consultant for: Pfizer Inc, Speakers bureau: Pfizer Inc, Xie L Xu Employee of: Employee of Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Stephen Xu Employee of: Employee of Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Yuhua Wang Employee of: Employee of Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Elizabeth C Hsia Employee of: Employee of Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Atul Deodhar Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant for: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB

DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.1995


Citation: Ann Rheum Dis, volume 78, supplement 2, year 2019, page A1277
Session: Psoriatic arthritis (Scientific Abstracts)