MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

P171 Efficacy and safety of upadacitinib in patients with active PsA and inadequate response to biologic DMARDs (SELECT-PsA-2): a double-blind, randomised controlled Phase III trial

2021· article· en· W3157445152 on OpenAlexaff
Mark C. Genovese, Apinya Lertratanakul, J. Anderson, Kim Papp, William Tillett, Filip Van den Bosch, Shigeyoshi Tsuji, Eva Dokoupilová, Mauro Waldemar Keiserman, Xin Wang, Sheng Zhong, Patrick Zueger, Aileen L. Pangan, Philip J. Mease

Bibliographic record

VenueLara D. Veeken · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicPsoriasis: Treatment and Pathogenesis
Canadian institutionsProbity Medical Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsoriasisInternal medicineRheumatoid arthritisClinical endpointPsoriatic arthritisAdverse effectCertolizumab pegolPlaceboPsoriasis Area and Severity IndexRandomized controlled trialTolerabilityPhysical therapyAdalimumabImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background/Aims Upadacitinib (UPA) is a selective JAK inhibitor licensed for moderate-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA), under evaluation for treating psoriatic arthritis (PsA). We aim to assess the efficacy and safety of UPA versus placebo (PBO) in PsA patients with prior inadequate response or intolerance to ≥ 1 biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (bDMARD). This research was previously presented at EULAR; published in Annals of Rheumatic Diseases. Methods In SELECT-PsA-2, patients were randomised 1:1:1 to once-daily UPA 15mg (UPA15), UPA 30mg (UPA30), or PBO. Patients were stratified by baseline DMARD use, number of prior failed bDMARDs, and extent of psoriasis. Primary endpoint: the proportion of patients achieving ACR20 response at Wk12. Multiplicity controlled secondary endpoints: change in HAQ-DI, FACIT-Fatigue (FACIT-F), SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) at Wk12, static Investigator Global Assessment (sIGA) of Psoriasis of 0/1 and at least a 2-point improvement from baseline, PASI75, change in Self-Assessment of Psoriasis Symptoms (SAPS) at Wk16 and proportion of patients achieving MDA at Wk24. Additional secondary endpoints: ACR50 and ACR70 at Wk12, ACR20 at Wk2. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) reported for patients receiving ≥1 dose of study drug. Results 641 patients were randomized and received study drug; 54.3% were female with mean age of 53.4 years and mean duration since PsA diagnosis of 10.1 years, 61%,18%, 13% of patients failed 1, 2, ≥3 bDMARD respectively. 543 (84.6%) patients completed Wk24 study drug. At Wk12, a significantly greater proportion of patients receiving UPA15 and UPA30 vs PBO achieved ACR20 (56.9% and 63.8% vs 24.1%; p < 0.0001 for both comparisons). Statistically significant improvements were observed in UPA15 and UPA30 arms vs PBO in all multiplicity controlled secondary endpoints, including ΔHAQ-DI (PBO, -0.10; UPA15, -0.30; UPA30, -0.41), ΔSF-36 PCS (PBO, 1.6; UPA15, 5.2; UPA30, 7.1), ΔFACIT-F (PBO, 1.3; UPA15, 5.0; UPA30, 6.1), and ΔSAPS (PBO, -1.5; UPA15, -24.4; UPA30, -29.7; p < .0001 for all endpoints). In addition, a greater proportion of patients achieved ACR50 and ACR70 at Wk12 with UPA vs PBO. Generally, TEAEs were reported at similar frequencies in the PBO and UPA15 arms and at a higher frequency in the UPA30 arm. Numerically higher rates of serious AEs were reported in the UPA arms. Herpes zoster was more frequent with UPA30. Three malignancies occurred in each UPA arm. One adjudicated non-fatal myocardial infarction and one adjudicated pulmonary embolism were reported with UPA15. Conclusion In this bDMARD-IR PsA population, UPA15 and UPA30 demonstrated significant improvements across PsA domains including improvements in joint and skin signs and symptoms vs PBO through Wk24, with improvement observed by Wk2. A greater percentage of patients treated with UPA achieved MDA and ACR50/70, stringent composite measures of disease control. No new safety signals were identified compared to those with UPA in RA. Disclosure M.C. Genovese: Consultancies; M.G. is a consultant for AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, EMD Merck Serono, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Inc., GSK, Novartis, RPharm, Sanofi Genzyme. Grants/research support; M.G. has received grants/research support from AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, EMD Merck Serono, Galapagos, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Inc., GSK, Novartis, Pfizer Inc., RPharm, Sanofi Genzyme. A. Lertratanakul: Shareholder/stock ownership; A.L. is a stock/shareholder of AbbVie Inc. J. Anderson: Shareholder/stock ownership; J.A. may be a stock/ shareholder of AbbVie Inc. K. Papp: Consultancies; K.P. is a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, Baxalta, Baxter, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Centocor, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Forward Pharma, Galderma, *. Member of speakers’ bureau; K.P. is a member of the speakers bureau for AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, Baxalta, Baxter, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Centocor, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Forward Pharma, Galderma *. Grants/research support; K.P. has received grants/research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, Baxalta, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Centocor, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Galderma *. Other; * & Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline,Janssen, Kyowa-Hakko Kirin, Leo Pharma, MedImmune, Merck-Serono,Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Stiefel, Takeda, UCB and Valeant. W. Tillett: Consultancies; W.T. is a consultant of AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer Inc. & UCB. Member of speakers’ bureau; W.T. is a member of the speakers bureau for AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc. & UCB. Grants/research support; W.T. has received grants/research support from AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, UCB. F. van den Bosch: Consultancies; F.vdB. is a consultant of AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Member of speakers’ bureau; F.vdB. is a member of the speakers bureau for AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. S. Tsuji: Member of speakers’ bureau; S.T. is a member of the speakers bureau for AbbVie, Asahi Kasei, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Eisai, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Celgene, and Novartis Pharma K.K. Grants/research support; S.T. has received grants/research support from Eli Lilly. E. Dokoupilova: Grants/research support; E.D. has received grants/research support from Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Novartis, MAURO KEISERMAN. M. Keiserman: Honoraria; M.K. has received honoraria from Pfizer, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Anthera Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Biogen Idec Inc, Celltrion Inc., Eli Lilly, Human Genome Sciences, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi,. Member of speakers’ bureau; M.K. is a member of the speakers bureau for Pfizer, Abbott, Actelion, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Janssen. X. Wang: Shareholder/stock ownership; X.W. may be a shareholder of AbbVie Inc. S. Zhong: Shareholder/stock ownership; S.Z. may be a stock/ shareholder of AbbVie Inc. P. Zueger: Shareholder/stock ownership; P.Z. may be a stock/shareholder of AbbVie Inc. A. Pangan: Shareholder/stock ownership; A.P. may be a stock/shareholder of AbbVie Inc. P. Mease: Consultancies; P.M. is a consultant of Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB. Member of speakers’ bureau; P.M. is a member of the speakers bureau for Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB. Grants/research support; P.M. has received grants/research support from Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLara D. VeekenSame topicPsoriasis: Treatment and PathogenesisFrench-language works237,207