P166 Effectiveness of b/tsDMARDs including ixekizumab per line of therapy and concomitant csDMARD in psoriatic arthritis: real-world data from a prospective observational study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background/Aims Treatment (tx) guidelines for PsA recommend biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) or targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs after inadequate response to conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs). In clinical studies, ixekizumab (IXE) has shown efficacy in patients (pts) with PsA who were bDMARD-naive, TNFi-experienced, and with and without concomitant csDMARDs. Data from real-world studies are limited. This interim analysis reports the effectiveness of IXE and other b/tsDMARDs in b/tsDMARD-naive (naive) and -experienced (exp) pts as well as in monotherapy (mono) and in combination (comb) with any csDMARD at 12 months (M) in a real-world setting. Methods In PRO-SPIRIT, pts with PsA who initiated or switched to new b/tsDMARDs were evaluated in five European countries and Canada. Pts were categorised by prior b/tsDMARD tx and concomitant csDMARD use at baseline (BL), respectively. Descriptive data for the analysis population at 12 M are presented. Mixed models for repeated measures (MMRM) were used to assess change from BL (CFB). Missing data were handled using multiple imputation. Results Of 1192 pts, TNF inhibitors (TNFis) (68.6%) and secukinumab (SEC) group (33.5%) had the highest proportion of naive pts, whereas TNFi (53.5%) and JAKi (46.8%) had the highest proportion of comb pts. At 12 M, similar mean CFB was observed in pts treated with IXE for clinical Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis (cDAPSA) in the naïve (-13.6), exp (-12.1), mono (-12.3), and comb (-12.4) subgroups (subsequently reported in that order, herein); as well as for body surface area (BSA) (-5.0), (-3.6) (-4.4) and (-3.9). Similar trends were observed in tender joint counts and swollen joint counts. However, mean CFB in cDAPSA was lower in exp versus (vs) naive pts treated with SEC ( -8.9 vs -12.8), IL-12/23i (-7.4 vs -16.2) and IL-23i (-10.1 vs -17.2) and lower in mono vs combo in TNFi (-12.5 vs -15.2) and IL-23i (-11.0 vs -12.6). Mean CFB in BSA was lower in exp vs naive pts treated with TNFi (-2.8 vs -5.4), and IL-23i (-2.0 vs -5.3). Conclusion In the real-world setting, IXE demonstrated similar effectiveness on joints and skin regardless of therapy line and concomitant csDMARDs, confirming findings from IXE clinical trials. Other treatments showed less consistent results either on exp pts (SEC, IL-12/23i, IL-23i) or in mono (TNFi, IL-23i). Disclosure P. Sewerin: Consultancies; AbbVie, Amgen, AXIOM Health, Celgene, Chugai, Deutscher Psoriasis-Bund, Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, Hexal Pharma, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Mediri GmbH, Novartis, Onkowissen GmbH, Pfizer, Pharma Marketing Ltd/Chugai Europe, Rheumazentrum Rhein-Ruhr, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Spirit Medical Communication, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum, and UCB Pharma. Honoraria; AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, Hexal Pharma, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pfizer, Rheumazentrum Rhein-Ruhr, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum, and UCB Pharma. N. Gullick: Consultancies; AbbVie, Alphasigma, Janssen, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, and UCB Pharma. Grants/research support; AbbVie, Astra Zeneca, Galapagos NV, Janssen, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, and UCB Pharma. H. Russ: Corporate appointments; Eli Lilly and Company. Shareholder/stock ownership; Eli Lilly and Company. K. Ng: Corporate appointments; Eli Lilly and Company. Shareholder/stock ownership; Eli Lilly and Company. M. O’Neill: Corporate appointments; Eli Lilly and Company. Shareholder/stock ownership; Eli Lilly and Company. S. Moyano: Corporate appointments; Eli Lilly and Company. Shareholder/stock ownership; Eli Lilly and Company. F. Giurdanella: Corporate appointments; Eli Lilly and Company. Shareholder/stock ownership; Eli Lilly and Company. A. Gallego-Flores: None. F. Ciccia: Consultancies; AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB Pharma. Honoraria; AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB Pharma.
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 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».