ACR Meeting Abstracts

ACR Meeting Abstracts

  • Meetings
    • ACR Convergence 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • 2023 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • ACR Convergence 2021
    • ACR Convergence 2020
    • 2020 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting
    • 2018-2009 Meetings
    • Download Abstracts
  • Keyword Index
  • Advanced Search
  • Your Favorites
    • Favorites
    • Login
    • View and print all favorites
    • Clear all your favorites
  • ACR Meetings

Abstract Number: 0414

Efficacy and Safety of Upadacitinib in Patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis with Intolerance to And/or Lack of Efficacy of Prior Biologic Therapy: A Subgroup Analysis

Xenofon Baraliakos1, Fabiana Ganz2, Hideto Kameda3, Jessica Walsh4, Manish Jain5, Kristin D’Silva6, Peter Wung6, Xianwei Bu6, Jayne Stigler6 and Désirée van der Heijde7, 1Rheumazentrum Ruhrgebiet Herne, Herne, Germany, 2AbbVie, Inc., Luzern, Switzerland, 3Toho University, Tokyo, Japan, 4University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 5Great Lakes Clinical Trials, Chicago, IL, 6AbbVie, Inc., North Chicago, IL, 7Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands, Leiden, Netherlands

Meeting: ACR Convergence 2022

Keywords: Ankylosing spondylitis (AS), Anti-TNF Drugs, Biologicals, C-reactive protein (CRP), Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs (Dmards)

  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print
Session Information

Date: Saturday, November 12, 2022

Title: Spondyloarthritis Including PsA – Treatment Poster I: AxSpA

Session Type: Poster Session A

Session Time: 1:00PM-3:00PM

Background/Purpose: Upadacitinib (UPA), an oral Janus kinase inhibitor, has been evaluated in the treatment of AS both in patients (pts) naïve to biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs)1 and in those with an inadequate response (IR; defined as intolerance to and/or lack of efficacy [LoE] of) to bDMARDs (bDMARD-IR).2 This post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of UPA in selected subgroups of pts with bDMARD-IR AS based on experience with prior therapy.

Methods: In the ongoing Phase 3 SELECT-AXIS 2 trial (NCT04169373), pts with bDMARD-IR AS who met the modified New York criteria for AS (N=420) were randomized 1:1 to receive UPA 15 mg once daily (n=211) or placebo (PBO; n=209) for 14 weeks (wks). Eligibility criteria included LoE after ≥12 wks of treatment with 1 prior bDMARD (TNF or IL-17 inhibitor [TNFi or IL-17i]) and/or intolerance to 1 or 2 prior bDMARD(s) regardless of treatment duration. LoE of 2 bDMARDs was not permitted. The primary study endpoint was Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society score (ASAS)40 response at Wk 14. This post hoc analysis evaluated ASAS40 and the following secondary endpoints, all at Wk 14, in subgroups determined by prior therapy: low disease activity (defined as ASDAS using CRP [ASDAS-CRP LDA] < 2.1), and improvement from baseline (BL) in pts’ assessment of total back pain, BASFI, and Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) MRI spine inflammation score. Subgroup analyses were performed by number (1 or 2), mode of action (TNFi or IL-17i), and LoE (TNFi or IL-17i) of, and intolerance to (yes or no), prior bDMARDs.

Results: BL characteristics were similar in the UPA and PBO groups.2 The majority of pts had prior exposure to 1 TNFi (UPA: 73%, PBO: 76%); 4% and 5% of pts receiving UPA and PBO, respectively, had prior exposure to both 1 TNFi and 1 IL-17i. ASAS40 response rates were increased with UPA vs PBO (difference range: 22–33%) at Wk 14 across all subgroups examined (Figure 1). ASDAS-CRP LDA response and improvement from BL in BASFI, pts’ assessment of total back pain, and SPARCC MRI spine inflammation score were also increased with UPA vs PBO in all subgroups (difference range: 28–37%,1.0–1.6, 1.3–2.3, and 0.8–4.8, respectively) (Figure 2). Adverse event (AE) rates were higher with UPA vs PBO regardless of tolerance to prior bDMARDs; however, AEs leading to the withdrawal of study treatment were similar in pts with vs without intolerance to prior bDMARDs (0% vs 1.5% and 0% vs 1.4%, respectively, with UPA vs PBO) (Table 1). AEs, serious AEs (SAEs), infection, and serious infection rates were higher in UPA recipients with vs without intolerance to prior bDMARDs (52% vs 36%, 5% vs 2%, 20% vs 13%, and 5% vs 1%, respectively). No deaths occurred.

Conclusion: In SELECT-AXIS 2, UPA demonstrated improved efficacy vs PBO at Wk 14 across all evaluated subgroups of pts with bDMARD-IR AS. The safety profile of UPA was consistent with the overall study findings, regardless of tolerance to prior bDMARDs. While the ability to draw conclusions is limited by the small size of some subgroups, UPA demonstrated a generally favorable benefit–risk profile in pts with AS refractory to prior advanced therapies.

References 1. van der Heijde D, et al. Lancet 2019;394:2108–17; 2. van der Heijde D, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2022;81(Suppl 1):402–3

Supporting image 1

Figure 1

Supporting image 2

Figure 2

Supporting image 3

Table 1


Disclosures: X. Baraliakos, AbbVie, Lilly, Galapagos, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi; F. Ganz, AbbVie; H. Kameda, AbbVie, Asahi-Kasei, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Eisai, Astellas, Gilead, Taisho; J. Walsh, AbbVie, Amgen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Celgene, Janssen, Merck; M. Jain, AbbVie, Amgen, Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen; K. D’Silva, AbbVie; P. Wung, AbbVie; X. Bu, AbbVie; J. Stigler, AbbVie; D. van der Heijde, AbbVie, Bayer, BMS, Cyxone, Eisai, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Imaging Rheumatology bv, Lilly.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

Baraliakos X, Ganz F, Kameda H, Walsh J, Jain M, D’Silva K, Wung P, Bu X, Stigler J, van der Heijde D. Efficacy and Safety of Upadacitinib in Patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis with Intolerance to And/or Lack of Efficacy of Prior Biologic Therapy: A Subgroup Analysis [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2022; 74 (suppl 9). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/efficacy-and-safety-of-upadacitinib-in-patients-with-ankylosing-spondylitis-with-intolerance-to-and-or-lack-of-efficacy-of-prior-biologic-therapy-a-subgroup-analysis/. Accessed .
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print

« Back to ACR Convergence 2022

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/efficacy-and-safety-of-upadacitinib-in-patients-with-ankylosing-spondylitis-with-intolerance-to-and-or-lack-of-efficacy-of-prior-biologic-therapy-a-subgroup-analysis/

Advanced Search

Your Favorites

You can save and print a list of your favorite abstracts during your browser session by clicking the “Favorite” button at the bottom of any abstract. View your favorites »

All abstracts accepted to ACR Convergence are under media embargo once the ACR has notified presenters of their abstract’s acceptance. They may be presented at other meetings or published as manuscripts after this time but should not be discussed in non-scholarly venues or outlets. The following embargo policies are strictly enforced by the ACR.

Accepted abstracts are made available to the public online in advance of the meeting and are published in a special online supplement of our scientific journal, Arthritis & Rheumatology. Information contained in those abstracts may not be released until the abstracts appear online. In an exception to the media embargo, academic institutions, private organizations, and companies with products whose value may be influenced by information contained in an abstract may issue a press release to coincide with the availability of an ACR abstract on the ACR website. However, the ACR continues to require that information that goes beyond that contained in the abstract (e.g., discussion of the abstract done as part of editorial news coverage) is under media embargo until 10:00 AM ET on November 14, 2024. Journalists with access to embargoed information cannot release articles or editorial news coverage before this time. Editorial news coverage is considered original articles/videos developed by employed journalists to report facts, commentary, and subject matter expert quotes in a narrative form using a variety of sources (e.g., research, announcements, press releases, events, etc.).

Violation of this policy may result in the abstract being withdrawn from the meeting and other measures deemed appropriate. Authors are responsible for notifying colleagues, institutions, communications firms, and all other stakeholders related to the development or promotion of the abstract about this policy. If you have questions about the ACR abstract embargo policy, please contact ACR abstracts staff at [email protected].

Wiley

  • Online Journal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Permissions Policies
  • Cookie Preferences

© Copyright 2025 American College of Rheumatology