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: 1945

Efficacy of Upadacitinib on Psoriatic Arthritis with Axial Involvement Defined by Investigator Assessment and PRO-Based Criteria: Results from Two Phase 3 Studies

Xenofon Baraliakos1, Roberto Ranza2, Andrew Ostor3, Francesco Ciccia4, Laura Coates5, Simona Rednic6, Jessica Walsh7, Tianming Gao8, Apinya Lertratanakul8, In-Ho Song8, Fabiana Ganz8, Kevin Douglas8 and Atul Deodhar9, 1Rheumazentrum Ruhrgebiet Herne, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Herne, Germany, 2Hospital de Clinicas, Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, Uberlandia, MG, Brazil, 3Monash University, Cabrini Hospital, and Emertius Research, Malvern, Australia, 4University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Napoli, Italy, 5Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, 6Emergency Clinical County Hospital, Rheumatology and Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj Napoca, Romania, 7Salt Lake City Veteran Affairs Medical Center (VAMC)/University of Utah Hospital, Salt Lake City, UT, 8AbbVie Inc., North Chicago, IL, 9Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR

Meeting: ACR Convergence 2021

Keywords: Back pain, classification criteria, Psoriatic arthritis, Spondyloarthropathies

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
Session Information

Date: Tuesday, November 9, 2021

Title: Abstracts: Spondyloarthritis Including PsA – Treatment II: Biologic Therapies (1943–1946)

Session Type: Abstract Session

Session Time: 4:30PM-4:45PM

Background/Purpose: Patients with PsA and axial involvement have higher disease activity and greater reductions in quality of life;1 however, there are no accepted criteria for identifying axial involvement in PsA. The objective of this post-hoc analysis is to assess the efficacy of upadacitinib (UPA), a Janus kinase inhibitor, on axial symptoms in patients with active PsA and axial involvement defined by investigator assessment and PRO-based criteria from two phase 3 SELECT trials.2,3

Methods: Patients with active PsA (≥3 swollen joints and ≥3 tender joints) and prior inadequate response or intolerance to ≥1 non-biologic (SELECT-PsA 1) or ≥1 biologic (SELECT-PsA 2) DMARD were randomly assigned to once daily oral UPA 15 mg or 30 mg, placebo (PBO), or every other week subcutaneous adalimumab (ADA) 40 mg (SELECT-PsA 1 only).2,3 At baseline, axial involvement in PsA was determined by investigator assessment based on the totality of clinical information, such as duration and character of back pain, age of onset, and previous imaging. In addition to investigator assessment, PRO-based criteria for axial involvement (BASDAI ≥4 and BASDAI Question 2 ≥4 at baseline) were applied for this analysis to identify patients with active disease. Efficacy in the sub-group of patients defined using both investigator assessment and PRO-based criteria was evaluated at week 24 for UPA 15 mg vs PBO and ADA (SELECT-PsA 1 only). Data were analyzed using mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) or non-responder imputation (NRI), with nominal P-values shown.

Results: Based on investigator assessment alone, 31.3% (n=534/1704) of patients in SELECT-PsA 1 and 34.2% (n=219/641) in SELECT-PsA 2 were defined as having axial involvement. When both investigator assessment and PRO-based criteria were applied, 23.1% (n=393/1704) of patients in SELECT-PsA 1, or 73.6% (n=393/534) of those defined using investigator assessment alone, and 27.5% (n=176/641) in SELECT-PsA 2, or 80.4% (n=176/219) using investigator assessment alone, met the combined criteria for axial involvement. In both studies, UPA 15 mg showed significantly greater clinical responses vs PBO at week 24 across all endpoints assessed (Figure). In SELECT-PsA 1, UPA showed numerically greater responses than ADA at week 24 across all BASDAI and Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) endpoints. The proportion of patients achieving ASDAS clinically important improvement (CII) at week 24 was significantly greater with UPA vs ADA based on nominal P-value.

Conclusion: Patients with active PsA and axial involvement defined by both investigator assessment and PRO-based criteria demonstrated statistically greater clinical responses related to their axial involvement with UPA 15 mg compared to PBO, and consistently numerically higher responses compared to ADA, at week 24 in the SELECT-PsA trials. Findings from this post-hoc analysis are consistent with previous data based on investigator assessment alone.4

References:
1. Mease PJ et al. J Rheumatol. 2018; 45(10):1389-96
2. McInnes IB et al. N Engl J Med. 2021; 384(13):1227-39
3. Mease PJ et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020; 80(3):312-20
4. Deodhar A et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020; 72(Suppl 10)


Disclosures: X. Baraliakos, AbbVie, 2, 5, 6, Chugai, 2, 5, 6, Novartis, 2, 5, 6, Pfizer, 2, 5, 6, UCB, 2, 5, 6, Bristol-Myers Squibb, 2, 5, 6, Celegene, 2, 5, 6, Merck, 2, 6, Werfen, 2; R. Ranza, AbbVie, 2, 6, Janssen, 2, 6, Novartis, 2, 6, Pfizer, 2, 6; A. Ostor, AbbVie, 2, 6, Bristol-Myers Squibb, 2, 6, Eli Lilly, 2, 6, Gilead, 2, 6, MSD, 2, 6, Novartis, 2, 6, Pfizer, 2, 6, Roche, 2, 6, Janssen, 1, 2, UCB, 1, 2, Paradigm, 1, 2; F. Ciccia, AbbVie, 2, 5, 6, Celgene, 2, 5, 6, Pfizer, 2, 5, 6, UCB, 2, 5, 6, Roche, 5, Bristol-Myers Squibb, 2, 6, MSD, 2, Novartis, 2, 6, Janssen, 2, Sanofi, 2, Sandoz, 2, Galapagos, 2, Sobi, 2; L. Coates, Abbvie, 5, 6, Amgen, 5, 6, Biogen, 6, Celgene, 5, 6, Gilead, 6, Janssen, 6, Eli Lilly, 5, 6, Medac, 6, Novartis, 5, 6, Pfizer, 5, 6, UCB Pharma, 6, Galapagos, 6, GSK, 6, Boehringer Ingelheim, 6, Domain, 2; S. Rednic, AbbVie, 2, 5, Boehringer Ingelheim, 2, 5, Eli Lilly, 2, 5, MSD, 2, 5, Novartis, 2, 5, Pfizer, 2, 5, UCB, 5; J. Walsh, AbbVie, 2, 5, Merck, 2, 5, Pfizer, 2, 5, UCB, 2, 5, Eli Lilly, 1, 2, Novartis, 2, 5, Amgen, 2, 5; T. Gao, AbbVie, 3, 11; A. Lertratanakul, AbbVie, 3, 11; I. Song, AbbVie, 3, 11; F. Ganz, AbbVie, 3, 11; K. Douglas, AbbVie, 3, 11; A. Deodhar, Amgen, 2, Celgene, 2, Boehringer Ingelheim, 2, 12, Paid Instructor, AbbVie, 2, 5, Eli Lilly, 2, 5, Glaxo Smith & Kline, 2, 5, Novartis, 2, 5, Pfizer, 2, 5, 6, 12, Paid Instructor, UCB, 2, 5, Janssen, 2, 6, Bristol-Myers Squibb, 2.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

Baraliakos X, Ranza R, Ostor A, Ciccia F, Coates L, Rednic S, Walsh J, Gao T, Lertratanakul A, Song I, Ganz F, Douglas K, Deodhar A. Efficacy of Upadacitinib on Psoriatic Arthritis with Axial Involvement Defined by Investigator Assessment and PRO-Based Criteria: Results from Two Phase 3 Studies [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021; 73 (suppl 9). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/efficacy-of-upadacitinib-on-psoriatic-arthritis-with-axial-involvement-defined-by-investigator-assessment-and-pro-based-criteria-results-from-two-phase-3-studies/. Accessed .
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print

« Back to ACR Convergence 2021

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/efficacy-of-upadacitinib-on-psoriatic-arthritis-with-axial-involvement-defined-by-investigator-assessment-and-pro-based-criteria-results-from-two-phase-3-studies/

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