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: 1494

Guselkumab Was More Effective Than Secukinumab in Patients with Plaque Psoriasis and the Subset of Patients with Self-Reported Psoriatic Arthritis in a Randomized, Double-blind, Head-to-head Comparison Study over 1 Year

Joseph Merola1, Shu Li 2, Ming-Chun Hsu 2, Chetan Karyekar 3, Susan Flavin 2, Bruce Randazzo 4 and Laura Coates 5, 1Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Med School, Boston, MA, 2Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Spring House, PA, 3Janssen Global Services, LLC, Horsham, PA, 4Janssen Research & Development, LLC/University of Pennsylvania, Spring House/Philadelphia, PA, 5University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

Meeting: 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting

Keywords: ECLIPSE, Guselkumab, Plaque Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis, secukinumab

  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print
Session Information

Date: Monday, November 11, 2019

Title: Spondyloarthritis Including Psoriatic Arthritis – Clinical Poster II: Treatment of Axial Spondyloarthritis & Psoriatic Arthritis

Session Type: Poster Session (Monday)

Session Time: 9:00AM-11:00AM

Background/Purpose: Guselkumab (GUS, an antibody against IL-23) and secukinumab (SEC, an antibody against IL-17A) are both approved for the treatment of psoriasis (PsO). Up to 30% of patients with PsO may have psoriatic arthritis (PsA).  

The ECLIPSE study compared efficacy and safety of GUS vs SEC in patients with plaque PsO. Post hoc analyses examined outcomes in the subgroup of patients with self-reported psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Methods: ECLIPSE was a randomized, double-blind trial of adults with moderate-to-severe plaque PsO who received GUS 100 mg at Weeks 0, 4, then every 8 weeks, or SEC 300 mg at Weeks 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4, then every 4 weeks (both being administered according to their labeling), both through Week 44. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving ≥90% improvement compared to baseline in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score at Week 48. Cochran-Mantel Haenszel chi-square testing stratified by investigator was used to compare treatment-group responses.

Results: Overall, treatment groups [GUS (n=534), SEC (n=514)] were comparable at baseline: weight 89kg, 24% body surface area PsO, and Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) moderate (76%) or severe (24%). These characteristics were similar to those of subgroups with self-reported PsA [GUS (n=97), SEC (n=79)]. In the overall population, the primary endpoint of PASI 90 response at Week 48 was achieved by 84.5% of GUS vs 70.0% of SEC patients (treatment difference 14.2 [95% CI=9.2%,19.2%], P< 0.001). Among patients with PsA, the primary endpoint of PASI 90 response at Week 48 was achieved by 82.5% of GUS vs 63.3% of SEC patients (treatment difference 19.2% [95% CI=5.0%, 33.4%]).  Beyond week 20, in both the overall study population and the PsA subpopulation, GUS-treated patients maintained the PASI 90 response while SEC-treated patients had a reduction in response through week 48 (Figure). In the overall population, results of the first major secondary endpoint (proportion of patients with a PASI 75 response at both Week 12 and 48) showed non-inferiority of GUS vs SEC (GUS-84.6% vs SEC-80.2% of patients, p< 0.001), but superiority was not demonstrated (p=0.062). Adverse events observed in the overall population and PsA subgroup were generally consistent with the established safety profiles for GUS and SEC.

Conclusion: In the subset of patients with self-reported PsA in the ECLIPSE study, GUS demonstrated better maintenance of response and higher efficacy at approximately one year compared with SEC in the treatment of moderate to severe plaque PsO. These findings were consistent with those for the overall study population of patients with plaque PsO. AEs observed were generally consistent with the established safety profiles for GUS and SEC.


Disclosure: J. Merola, Janssen Research & Development, LLC, 2; S. Li, Janssen Research & Development, LLC, 3; M. Hsu, Janssen Research & Development, LLC, 3; C. Karyekar, Abbott, 3, BMS, 3, Janssen, 1, 3, Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, 3, Novartis, 3; S. Flavin, Janssen Research & Development, LLC, 3; B. Randazzo, Janssen Research & Development, LLC, 3; L. Coates, Abbvie, 2, 5, 8, AbbVie, 2, 5, 8, AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Prothena, Sun Pharma, UCB, 5, Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, 5, Abbvie, Amgen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, 8, AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, UCB, 8, AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, 2, AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Novartis, Pfizer, 2, Abbvie, Celgene, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, 2, Amgen, 5, 8, Biogen, 8, Bristol-Myers Squibb, 5, Celgene, 2, 5, 8, Eli Lilly, 2, 5, 8, Galapagos, 5, Gilead, 5, Janssen, 2, 5, 8, Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Lilly, 2, 5, 8, MSD, 5, Novartis, 2, 5, 8, Pfizer, 2, 5, 8, Pfizer Inc, 2, 5, 8, Prothena, 5, Sun Pharma, 5, UCB, 5, 8, UCB Pharma, 5.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

Merola J, Li S, Hsu M, Karyekar C, Flavin S, Randazzo B, Coates L. Guselkumab Was More Effective Than Secukinumab in Patients with Plaque Psoriasis and the Subset of Patients with Self-Reported Psoriatic Arthritis in a Randomized, Double-blind, Head-to-head Comparison Study over 1 Year [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019; 71 (suppl 10). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/guselkumab-was-more-effective-than-secukinumab-in-patients-with-plaque-psoriasis-and-the-subset-of-patients-with-self-reported-psoriatic-arthritis-in-a-randomized-double-blind-head-to-head-compariso/. Accessed .
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print

« Back to 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/guselkumab-was-more-effective-than-secukinumab-in-patients-with-plaque-psoriasis-and-the-subset-of-patients-with-self-reported-psoriatic-arthritis-in-a-randomized-double-blind-head-to-head-compariso/

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