OA27 Sustainability of response between upadacitinib and adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results through 3 years from the SELECT-COMPARE trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background/Aims A greater proportion of patients with RA and inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX) receiving upadacitinib (UPA), achieved REM/LDA compared with adalimumab (ADA), both with background MTX, through 26 weeks in the phase 3, SELECT-COMPARE trial. Here we assessed sustainability of response over 3 years. Methods SELECT-COMPARE included a 26-week, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled period, a 48-week, double-blind active comparator-controlled period, and an ongoing long-term extension for up to 10 years. Patients on background MTX received UPA 15 mg once daily, PBO, or ADA 40 mg every other week. Patients not achieving at least 20% improvements in tender/swollen joint counts (Weeks 14-22) or LDA (CDAI ≤10 at Week 26) were rescued from UPA to ADA or PBO/ADA to UPA. This post hoc analysis evaluated clinical REM (CDAI ≤2.8; SDAI ≤3.3), LDA (CDAI ≤10; SDAI ≤11), and DAS28(CRP) <2.6/≤3.2 at first occurrence (prior to treatment switch [rescue]), and over 3 years following initial response in patients randomized to UPA or ADA. For those patients who achieved REM/LDA, Kaplan-Meier was used to define time from when the response was first achieved to the earliest date at which the response was lost at two consecutive visits, discontinuation of study drug, or losing response at the time of rescue. Predictive ability of time to CDAI REM/LDA was assessed using Harrell’s concordance (c)-index (range: 0 [all predictions wrong] to 1.0 [perfect predictive ability]). Non-responder imputation was used for missing data. Results Through 3 years, a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving UPA + MTX vs ADA + MTX achieved CDAI REM (47% vs 35%, P = 0.001) as well as CDAI LDA (70% vs 60%, P = 0.001). At 30 months after first occurrence of response, CDAI REM/LDA was sustained in 19%/42% of patients randomized to UPA and 10%/30% of patients randomized to ADA. Time to initial clinical response did not appear to be predictive of sustained disease control. C-index for CDAI REM/LDA was 0.50/0.60 on UPA vs 0.49/0.56 on ADA. Through last follow-up visit, 37%/58% of patients receiving UPA and 27%/48% on ADA remained in CDAI REM/LDA, respectively. Of patients who lost CDAI REM, 68% on UPA and 55% on ADA remained in LDA. Roughly similar proportions on UPA and ADA recaptured CDAI REM/LDA (UPA, 40%/17%; ADA, 48%/19%). Similar results were observed for REM/LDA based on SDAI and for DAS28(CRP) <2.6/≤3.2. Conclusion Among patients with inadequate response to MTX, a higher proportion receiving UPA + MTX achieved remission or LDA across disease activity measures vs ADA + MTX. UPA-treated patients demonstrated a consistently higher sustained response rate over 3 years compared to those receiving ADA. Furthermore, significant proportions of patients who lost response on either UPA or ADA were able to recapture remission or LDA. Disclosure M.H. Buch: Consultancies; M.H.B. has received consulting fees/meeting support from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingleheim, Eli Lilly, Merck-Serono, and Sanofi. Grants/research support; M.H.B. has received research grants from Pfizer, Gilead, and UCB. P. Nash: Honoraria; P.N. has received honoraria for lectures and advice from AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Gilead/Galapagos, Sanofi, Celgene, Novartis, Lilly, Janssen, UCB, Samsung, MSD, Roche. Grants/research support; P.N. has received research funding for clinical trials. A. Kavanaugh: Consultancies; A.K. has provided expert advice to AbbVie Inc., Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, BMS, Celgene, Centocor-Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB. Grants/research support; A.K. has has received grants/research support. B. Combe: Consultancies; B.C. has received consulting fees from AbbVie, BMS, Celltrion, Gilead, Galapagos, Janssen, Eli Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche Chugai. L. Bessette: Consultancies; L.B. has received consulting fees from Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Roche, UCB, AbbVie, Pfizer, Merck, Celgene, Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Novartis. Sandoz, Gilead, Fresenius Kabi, and Teva. Member of speakers’ bureau; L.B. has served as a speaker for Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Roche, UCB, AbbVie, Pfizer, Merck, Celgene, Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Novartis. Sandoz, Gilead, Fresenius Kabi, and Teva. Grants/research support; L.B. has received grants/research support from Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Roche, UCB, AbbVie, Pfizer, Merck, Celgene, Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Novartis. Sandoz, Gilead, Fresenius Kabi, and Teva. I. Song: Shareholder/stock ownership; IH.S. is an employee of AbbVie and may hold stock or options. T. Shaw: Shareholder/stock ownership; T.S. is an employee of AbbVie and may hold stock or options. Y. Song: Shareholder/stock ownership; Y.S. is an employee of AbbVie and may hold stock or options. J.L. Suboticki: Shareholder/stock ownership; J.L.S is an employee of AbbVie and may hold stock or options. R. Fleischmann: Consultancies; R.F. is a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB. Grants/research support; R.F. has received grant/research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Regeneron, Roche,Sanofi-Aventis.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».