POS0950 IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NUMBER OF EROSIONS AT BASELINE, PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS TREATED WITH IXEKIZUMAB SHOW IMPROVED CLINICAL OUTCOMES
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic and progressive disease characterized by high rates of early joint erosions, which have been associated with impaired quality of life and increased mortality rates. However, the relationship between the number of erosions at baseline (BL) and response to biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) therapy has not been thoroughly investigated. Objectives: In this post-hoc analysis, we assessed the efficacy of placebo (PBO), ixekizumab (IXE) or adalimumab (ADA) on patients (pts) with erosions visible on hand radiographs at BL. Methods: Biologic-naïve pts with PsA (SPIRIT-P1, NCT01695239) were randomly assigned to PBO, IXE 80-mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) or 4 weeks (Q4W) after a 160-mg starting dose, or ADA 40-mg Q2W. Pts were stratified into two groups based on the number of BL erosions (erosion component of the modified total sharp scores ≤4 and >4). At week 24, outcomes analyzed for different baseline erosion score (BES) groups included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20%, 50%, 70%, Disease Activity index for PSoriatic Arthritis-Low Disease Activity (DAPSA-LDA), Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) and Minimal Disease Activity-Psoriasis Area Severity Index (MDA-PASI). Missing data were imputed using non-responder imputation (NRI) for categorical, and modified baseline observation carried forward (mBOCF) for continuous outcome variables. Comparisons between PBO and treatment within each BES group used logistic models for categorical, and ANCOVA for continuous outcome variables, adjusting for BL values, disease duration, geographic region, and prior conventional DMARD (cDMARD) experience. Results: 183 pts with BES≤4 and 205 pts with BES>4 at BL were included. At week 24, pts with BES>4 on PBO had worse outcomes across all parameters compared to those with BES≤4. There was significant improvement in DAPSA-LDA response rates in pts treated with IXE regardless of BES, whereas significant response rates were seen in ADA treated pts with BES>4. MDA-PASI response rates were significant in patients treated with IXEQ2W and IXEQ4W who had BES≤4, whereas pts with BES>4 demonstrated a significant response rate with IXEQ2W and ADA. Change from baseline in HAQ-DI was significant for all pts treated with bDMARDS, regardless of BES. Similarly, regardless of BES, significant differences in ACR50 and ACR70 response rates versus PBO were seen for pts treated with bMDARDS. Conclusion: Pts with higher BES in the PBO group experienced worse outcomes. Higher response rates (e.g., ACR50/70) were also harder to achieve in pts with higher BES. Irrespective of BES, IXE treated pts showed greater improvement compared to PBO in the achievement of LDA and functional outcomes. REFERENCES: NIL. Acknowledgements: NIL. Disclosure of Interests: M Elaine Husni M. E. Husni is a consultant for: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB Pharma., Vinod Chandran V. Chandran is a consultant for: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB., V. Chandran has received grant/research support from: AbbVie., Jeffrey Lisse J. Lisse is an employee and shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company., Rebecca Bolce R. Bolce is an employee and shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company., Carlos Diaz C. Diaz is an employee and shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company., Baojin Zhu B. Zhu is an employee and shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company., Elaine Lui E. Lui is a consultant for: Eli Lilly and Company and Pfizer., Laura C. Coates L. C. Coates is a consultant for: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Prothena, Sun Pharma, and UCB Pharma., Eli Lilly and Company.
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 | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
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 ».