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: 1341

Improvement in Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis with Inadequate Response to Non-Biologic DMARDs Treated with Upadacitinib versus Placebo or Adalimumab: Results from a Phase 3 Study

Vibeke Strand1, Philip Mease2, Enrique Soriano3, Mitsumasa Kishimoto4, Carlo Salvarani5, Nemanja Damjanov6, Jaclyn K Anderson7, Erin Blondell7, Patrick Zueger7, Christopher Saffore7 and Dafna Gladman8, 1Division of Immunology/Rheumatology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, 2Seattle Rheumatology Associates, P.L.L.C., Seattle, WA, 3Department of Public Health, Instituto Universitario, Escuela de Medicina Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina; Rheumatology Unit, Internal Medicine Services, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Capital Federal, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 4Department of Nephrology and Rheumatology, Kyorin University School of Medicine, Yokohama, Japan, 5Rheumatology Units, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, and Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, REGGIO EMILIA, Italy, 6University of Belgrade Medical School, Belgrade, Serbia, 7AbbVie Inc., North Chicago, IL, 8Krembil Research Institute, Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada

Meeting: ACR Convergence 2020

Keywords: Patient reported outcomes, physical function, quality of life

  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print
Session Information

Date: Sunday, November 8, 2020

Title: Spondyloarthritis Including Psoriatic Arthritis – Treatment Poster III

Session Type: Poster Session C

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

Background/Purpose: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are important when evaluating treatment benefits in PsA. We present an analysis of PRO data from the SELECT-PsA 1 study.

Methods: SELECT-PsA 1 (NCT03104400) is a Phase 3, randomized, placebo- (PBO) and active-controlled trial in patients with active PsA and inadequate responses to ≥1 non-biologic DMARD. Eligible patients were randomized to receive upadacitinib (UPA) 15 mg once daily (QD), UPA 30 mg QD, adalimumab (ADA) 40 mg every other week, or PBO for 24 weeks, with the primary endpoint assessment at Week 12. PROs included: Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), Patient’s Assessment of Pain, HAQ-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue, 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), EuroQoL-5 Dimension, 5 level, Self-Assessment of Psoriasis Symptoms (SAPS), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), and morning stiffness (items 5 and 6 from the BASDAI). BASDAI was assessed in patients with presence of psoriatic spondylitis at baseline (BL). Least squares mean changes from BL to Week 12 (Week 16 for SAPS) were assessed. Percentages of patients reporting improvements ≥ minimal clinically important differences (MCID) from BL through Week 24 were compared between treatment groups. Number needed to treat (NNT) to achieve an additional MCID response was calculated at Weeks 12/24 for UPA vs PBO and ADA vs PBO.

Results: Data from 1704 patients (UPA 15 mg: 429; UPA 30 mg: 423; PBO: 423; ADA: 429) were analyzed. At Week 12, both doses of UPA resulted in significant improvements from BL vs PBO across all PROs (Table 1). At Week 12, UPA 15 mg and 30 mg resulted in significant improvements from BL vs ADA in HAQ-DI, SAPS, and SF-36 physical component summary and UPA 30 mg vs ADA in 4 SF-36 domains (Figure 1). Compared with PBO, significantly more patients treated with UPA 15 mg and 30 mg reported improvements ≥ MCID in PtGA, pain, and HAQ-DI as early as Week 2 (first post-BL visit) that were maintained through Week 24. At Week 12, the proportions of patients reporting improvements ≥ MCID were significantly greater with both doses of UPA vs PBO across all PROs except SF-36 mental component summary (UPA 30 mg) with NNTs ranging from 3.0–11.4 for all PROs (Figure 2). The proportions of UPA-treated (both doses) patients reporting improvements ≥ MCID at Week 12 were similar to ADA-treated patients across most PROs and significantly higher than ADA-treated patients in HAQ-DI; improvements were maintained through Week 24.

Conclusion: Treatment with UPA 15 mg or UPA 30 mg resulted in clinically meaningful improvements in PROs vs PBO at 12 weeks in biologic DMARD-naïve patients with active PsA, which were maintained or further improved at Week 24. Overall, improvements were similar between UPA 15 mg and UPA 30 mg and improvements with both doses of UPA were similar or greater than those reported with ADA.

Medical writing services provided by Brandy Menges of JK Associates, Inc. (a member of Fishawack Group of Companies; Conshohocken, PA) and funded by AbbVie.


Disclosure: V. Strand, AbbVie, 5, Amgen, 5, Celltrion, 5, Janssen, 5, Merck, 5, Novartis, 5, Regeneron, 5, Sanofi, 5, UCB, 5, Genentech/Roche, 5, GSK, 5, Pfizer, 5, Bayer, 5, Bristol-Myers Squibb, 5, Boehringer Ingelheim, 5, Galapagos, 5, Lilly, 5, Gilead, 5, Samsung, 5, Servier, 5, Setpoint, 5, Arena, 5, AstraZeneca, 5, Horizon, 5, Ichnos, 5, Inmedix, 5, Sandoz, 5; 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; E. Soriano, AbbVie Inc., 2, 5, 8, Amgen, 2, 5, 8, Bristol Myers, 2, 5, 8, Celgene, 2, 5, 8, Janssen, 2, 5, 8, Lilly, 2, 5, 8, Novartis, 2, 5, 8, Pfizer, 2, 5, 8, UCB, 2, 5, 8, Roche, 2, 5, 8, Sanofi, 2, 5, 8; M. Kishimoto, AbbVie, 5, 8, Amgen-Astellas Pharm, 5, 8, Asahi-Kasei Pharm, 5, 8, Ayumi Pharm, 5, 8, BMS, 5, 8, Chugai, 5, 8, Daiichi Sankyo, 5, 8, Eisai, 5, 8, Eli Lilly, 5, 8, Gilead, 5, 8, Janssen, 5, 8, Kyowa Kirin, 5, 8, Novartis, 5, 8, Pfizer, 5, 8, Tanabe Mitsubishi, 5, 8, Teijin, 5, 8, UCB, 5, 8; C. Salvarani, Roche, 2, 5, Sanofi-Genzyme, 2, 5, AbbVie, 2, 5, Pfizer, 2, 5, Lilly, 2, 5, Novartis, 2, 5, Amgen, 2, 5; N. Damjanov, AbbVie, 5, 8, Pfizer, 5, 8, Roche, 5, 8, Richter Gedeon, 5, 8, MSD, 5, 8, Novartis, 5, 8; J. Anderson, AbbVie Inc., 1, 3, 4; E. Blondell, AbbVie, 1, 3; P. Zueger, AbbVie Inc., 1, 3; C. Saffore, AbbVie, 1, 3; D. Gladman, AbbVie, 2, 5, Amgen, 2, 5, Janssen, 2, 5, Novartis, 2, 5, Pfizer, 2, 5, UCB, 2, 5, Bristol-Myers Squibb, 5, Gilead, 5, Galapagos, 5, Celgene, 2, 5, Eli Lilly, 2, 5.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

Strand V, Mease P, Soriano E, Kishimoto M, Salvarani C, Damjanov N, Anderson J, Blondell E, Zueger P, Saffore C, Gladman D. Improvement in Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis with Inadequate Response to Non-Biologic DMARDs Treated with Upadacitinib versus Placebo or Adalimumab: Results from a Phase 3 Study [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020; 72 (suppl 10). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/improvement-in-patient-reported-outcomes-in-patients-with-psoriatic-arthritis-with-inadequate-response-to-non-biologic-dmards-treated-with-upadacitinib-versus-placebo-or-adalimumab-results-from-a-pha/. Accessed .
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print

« Back to ACR Convergence 2020

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/improvement-in-patient-reported-outcomes-in-patients-with-psoriatic-arthritis-with-inadequate-response-to-non-biologic-dmards-treated-with-upadacitinib-versus-placebo-or-adalimumab-results-from-a-pha/

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