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: 0896

Impact of Upadacitinib on Reducing Pain in Patients with Active Psoriatic Arthritis: Results from Two Phase 3 Trials in Patients with Inadequate Response to Non-biologic or Biologic DMARDs

Iain McInnes1, William Tillett2, Philip Mease3, Kurt de Vlam4, Louis Bessette5, Ralph Lippe6, Anna Maniccia7, Patrick Zueger7, Dai Feng7, Koji Kato8 and Andrew Östör9, 1Institute of Infection, Immunity, and Inflammation, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom, 2Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases, Bath, UK; Department of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University of Bath, Bath, UK, Bath, United Kingdom, 3Seattle Rheumatology Associates, P.L.L.C., Seattle, WA, 4Department of Rheumatology, University of Leuven, Belgium, Leuven, Belgium, 5Laval University, Quebec, Canada, 6AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden, Germany, 7AbbVie Inc., North Chicago, IL, 8AbbVie Inc, North Chicago, IL, 9Cabrini Medical Center, Monash University, Malvern, Victoria, Australia

Meeting: ACR Convergence 2020

Keywords: Outcome measures, Psoriatic arthritis, Randomized Trial

  • 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: Saturday, November 7, 2020

Title: Spondyloarthritis Including Psoriatic Arthritis – Treatment Poster II

Session Type: Poster Session B

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

Background/Purpose: Pain is a dominant symptom of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and pain reduction is a priority for patients (pts) that is often assessed in clinical trials. Upadacitinib (UPA), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor engineered for increased selectivity for JAK1 over JAK2, JAK3, and tyrosine kinase2, has demonstrated safety and efficacy in pts with active PsA in the SELECT-PsA 1 and 2 studies.1,2 The objective of this analysis was to compare the efficacy of UPA vs placebo (PBO) and adalimumab (ADA) on pain using different assessments through 24 weeks (wks).

Methods: The SELECT-PsA program enrolled adult pts with active PsA with prior inadequate response (IR) or intolerance to ≥1 non-biologic DMARD (SELECT-PsA 1; NCT03104400) or prior IR or intolerance to ≥1 biologic DMARD (SELECT-PsA 2; NCT03104374). Concomitant background therapy with ≤2 non-biologic DMARDs was allowed but not required. Pts were randomized to UPA 15 mg or UPA 30 mg once daily (QD) or PBO (both studies), or ADA 40 mg every other week (EOW; SELECT-PsA 1 only). Pain was assessed as proportion of pts achieving ≥30%, ≥50%, or ≥70% reduction from baseline (BL) in Pt’s global assessment (PGA) of pain numeric rating scale (NRS) score (0–10), proportion of pts achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in pain (defined as ≥1 point reduction or 15% reduction from BL on a 0–10 NRS)3,4 and change from baseline in pain NRS (0–10) at all time points. In addition, change from BL in BASDAI questions 2 (spinal pain) and 3 (joint pain/swelling) and 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) questions 7 (bodily pain) and 8 (pain interference) at weeks 12 and 24 were assessed. Non-responder imputation was used for binary endpoints and mixed-effects model for repeated measurements for continuous endpoints. The statistical significance defined as P< 0.05 was exploratory in nature.

Results: In both studies, a significantly higher proportion of pts receiving UPA 15 mg QD and UPA 30 mg QD vs PBO achieved improvements in most pain endpoints as early as wk 2, and improvements were generally either sustained or increased through wk 24 (nominal P<0.05; Figure 1 and 2). A significant improvement with UPA vs PBO was also observed for change from BL in PGA of pain NRS scores over time, as well as in BASDAI spinal pain and joint pain/swelling and SF-36 bodily pain and pain interference at weeks 12 and 24 (Figure 1 and 2). In SELECT-PsA 1 significantly higher proportions of pts receiving UPA 30 mg QD vs ADA 40 mg EOW achieved improvements in most pain assessments as early as wk 2 which were sustained through wk 24; improvements in several assessments were also significantly greater with UPA 15 mg QD vs ADA 40 mg EOW at wk 24 (nominal P < 0.05; Figure 1).

Conclusion: In pts with active PsA who had inadequate response to non-biologic or biologic DMARDs, a greater proportion of pts treated with UPA vs PBO achieved rapid, significant, and clinically meaningful reductions in pain across multiple pain assessments. The reductions in pain were sustained over 24 wks.

  1. McInnes I. et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79(Suppl 1):12-13.
  2. Genovese M.C. et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79(Suppl 1):139.
  3. Dworkin, R.H. et al. J Pain. 2008;9(2):105-121.
  4. Salaffi F. et al. Eur J Pain. 2004;8:283–291.

Figure 1

Figure 2


Disclosure: I. McInnes, Novartis, 9, AbbVie, 9, Celgene, 9, Janssen, 2, 9, UCB, 2, 9, Bristol Myers Squibb, 2, 9, AstraZeneca, 2, Boehringer Ingelheim, 2, Lilly, 9, LEO, 9; W. Tillett, AbbVie, 5, 8, Amgen, 5, 8, Eli Lilly, 5, 8, Janssen, 5, 8, Novartis, 5, 8, Pfizer, 5, 8, UCB Pharma, 5, 8; P. Mease, Amgen, 2, 5, 8, Bristol-Myers Squibb, 2, 5, Novartis, 2, 5, 8, Pfizer Inc, 2, 5, 8, Sun, 2, 5, UCB, 2, 5, 8, AbbVie, 2, 5, 8, Gilead, 2, 5, Janssen, 2, 5, 8, Eli Lilly, 2, 5, 8, Galapagos, 5, GlaxoSmithKline, 5; K. de Vlam, Eli Lilly and Company, 2, 5, 8, Novartis, 2, 5, 8, UCB, 2, 5, 8, Celgene, 2, 5, 8, Pfizer, 2, 5, 8; L. Bessette, Amgen, 1, 2, 3, BMS, 1, 2, 3, Janssen, 1, 2, 3, UCB, 1, 2, 3, AbbVie, 1, 2, 3, Pfizer, 1, 2, 3, Merck, 1, 2, 3, Celgene, 1, 2, 3, Sanofi, 1, 2, 3, Lilly, 1, 2, 3, Novartis, 1, 2, 3, Gilead, 2, 6, 8; R. Lippe, AbbVie Inc., 1, 3; A. Maniccia, AbbVie Inc., 1, 3, 4; P. Zueger, AbbVie Inc., 1, 3; D. Feng, AbbVie Inc., 1, 2; K. Kato, AbbVie Inc., 1, 3, 4; A. Östör, AbbVie, 5, Roche, 5, Janssen, 5, Eli Lilly, 5, Novartis, 5, Pfizer, 5, Gilead, 5, Paradigm, 5, UCB Pharma, 5, Bristol-Myers Squibb, 5.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

McInnes I, Tillett W, Mease P, de Vlam K, Bessette L, Lippe R, Maniccia A, Zueger P, Feng D, Kato K, Östör A. Impact of Upadacitinib on Reducing Pain in Patients with Active Psoriatic Arthritis: Results from Two Phase 3 Trials in Patients with Inadequate Response to Non-biologic or Biologic DMARDs [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020; 72 (suppl 10). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/impact-of-upadacitinib-on-reducing-pain-in-patients-with-active-psoriatic-arthritis-results-from-two-phase-3-trials-in-patients-with-inadequate-response-to-non-biologic-or-biologic-dmards/. 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 2020

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/impact-of-upadacitinib-on-reducing-pain-in-patients-with-active-psoriatic-arthritis-results-from-two-phase-3-trials-in-patients-with-inadequate-response-to-non-biologic-or-biologic-dmards/

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