Search

Objective: Spinal radiographic progression is an important outcome in radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SpA). The objective of the phase IIIb SURPASS study was to compare spinal radiographic progression in patients with radiographic axial SpA treated with secukinumab (interleukin‐17A inhibitor) versus adalimumab biosimilar (Sandoz adalimumab [SDZ‐ADL]; tumor necrosis factor inhibitor). Methods: Biologic‐naive patients with active radiographic axial SpA, at high risk of radiographic progression (high‐sensitivity C‐reactive protein [hsCRP] ≥5 mg/L and/or ≥1 syndesmophyte[s] on spinal radiographs), were randomized (1:1:1) to secukinumab (150/300 mg) or SDZ‐ADL (40 mg). The proportion of patients with no radiographic progression (change from baseline [CFB] in modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score [mSASSS] ≤0.5) on secukinumab versus SDZ‐ADL at week 104 (primary endpoint), mean CFB‐mSASSS, proportion of patients with ≥1 syndesmophyte(s) at baseline with no new syndesmophyte(s), and safety were evaluated. Results: Overall, 859 patients (78.5% male, mSASSS 16.6, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index 7.1, hsCRP 20.4 mg/L, and 73.0% with ≥1 syndesmophyte[s]) received secukinumab 150 mg (n = 287), secukinumab 300 mg (n = 286), or SDZ‐ADL (n = 286). At week 104, the proportion of patients with no radiographic progression was 66.1%, 66.9%, and 65.6% (P = not significant, both secukinumab doses) and mean CFB‐mSASSS was 0.54, 0.55, and 0.72 in secukinumab 150 mg, secukinumab 300 mg, and SDZ‐ADL arms, respectively. Overall, 56.9%, 53.8%, and 53.3% of patients on secukinumab 150 mg, secukinumab 300 mg, and SDZ‐ADL, respectively, with ≥1 syndesmophyte(s) at baseline did not develop new syndesmophyte(s) by week 104. There were no unexpected safety findings. Conclusion: Spinal radiographic progression over two years was low with no significant difference between secukinumab and SDZ‐ADL arms. The safety of both treatments was consistent with previous reports. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To compare the efficacy and safety of bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks, a selective inhibitor of IL-17F and IL-17A, with those of biologic/targeted synthetic DMARDs (b/tsDMARDs) in non-radiographic axial SpA (nr-axSpA) and AS. Methods A systematic literature review identified randomized controlled trials until January 2023 for inclusion in Bayesian network meta-analyses (NMAs), including three b/tsDMARDs exposure networks: predominantly-naïve, naïve, and experienced. Outcomes were Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS)20, ASAS40 and ASAS partial remission (PR) response rates at 12–16 weeks. A safety NMA investigated discontinuations due to any reason and serious adverse events at 12–16 weeks. Results The NMA included 36 trials. The predominantly-naïve network provided the most comprehensive results. In the predominantly-naïve nr-axSpA analysis, bimekizumab had significantly higher ASAS20 response rates vs secukinumab 150 mg [with loading dose (LD)/without LD], and comparable response rates vs other active comparators. In the predominantly-naïve AS analysis, bimekizumab had significantly higher ASAS40 response rates vs secukinumab 150 mg (without LD), significantly higher ASAS-PR response rates vs secukinumab 150 mg (with LD) and comparable response rates vs other active comparators. Bimekizumab demonstrated similar safety to that of other b/tsDMARDs. Conclusion Across ASAS outcomes, bimekizumab was comparable with most b/tsDMARDs, including ixekizumab, TNF inhibitors and upadacitinib, and achieved higher response rates vs secukinumab for some ASAS outcomes in predominantly b/tsDMARD-naïve nr-axSpA and AS patients at 12–16 weeks. In a pooled axSpA network, bimekizumab demonstrated comparable safety vs other b/tsDMARDs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To investigate the clinical response at week 52 in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) who received secukinumab 300 vs 150 mg after inadequate response to 150 mg at week 16., Methods: ASLeap (NCT03350815) was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre, phase 4 trial. After 16 weeks of open-label secukinumab 150 mg (Treatment Period 1), patients who did not achieve inactive disease (Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score [ASDAS] <1.3) at both Weeks 12 and 16 were considered to have an inadequate response and were randomized 1:1 to receive secukinumab 300 or 150 mg every 4 weeks until week 52 (Treatment Period 2). The primary efficacy variable was achievement of ASDAS <1.3 at week 52 using week 16 as baseline. Safety was evaluated by the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events through week 52., Results: Of 322 patients treated with secukinumab in Treatment Period 1, 207 (64.3%) had inadequate response. Similar proportions of patients with inadequate response randomized to secukinumab 300 mg (n = 101) and 150 mg (n = 105) in Treatment Period 2 completed the study (83.8% and 84.3%, respectively). At week 52, 8.8% and 6.7% of patients receiving secukinumab 300 and 150 mg, respectively, achieved ASDAS <1.3. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar in both groups through week 52. No new safety signals were observed., Conclusion: Patients with AS who did not achieve ASDAS <1.3 after receiving secukinumab 150 mg for 16 weeks experienced similar clinical response and safety through week 52 regardless of dose escalation., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03350815., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

Objectives: Acute anterior uveitis ('uveitis') is a common axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) extramusculoskeletal manifestation. Interleukin (IL)-17 is implicated in its pathogenesis, however, there is conflicting evidence for IL-17A inhibition in uveitis management. We report pooled analyses of uveitis incidence in patients receiving bimekizumab (BKZ), a monoclonal IgG1 antibody that selectively inhibits IL-17F in addition to IL-17A, from phase 2b/3 trials., Methods: Data were pooled for patients receiving BKZ 160 mg or placebo in the double-blind treatment period of the phase 3 BE MOBILE 1 (NCT03928704; non-radiographic axSpA) and BE MOBILE 2 (NCT03928743; radiographic axSpA) trials. Data were separately pooled for patients treated with at least one BKZ dose in the BE MOBILE trials and their ongoing open-label extension (OLE; NCT04436640), and the phase 2b BE AGILE trial (NCT02963506; radiographic axSpA) and its ongoing OLE (NCT03355573). Uveitis rates and exposure-adjusted incidence rates (EAIR)/100 patient-years (PYs) are reported., Results: In the BE MOBILE 1 and 2 double-blind treatment period, 0.6% (2/349) of patients receiving BKZ experienced uveitis vs 4.6% (11/237) receiving placebo (nominal p=0.001; EAIR (95% CI): 1.8/100 PYs (0.2 to 6.7) vs 15.4/100 PYs (95% CI 7.7 to 27.5)). In patients with history of uveitis, EAIR was lower in patients receiving BKZ (6.2/100 PYs (95% CI 0.2 to 34.8); 1.9%) vs placebo (70.4/100 PYs (95% CI 32.2 to 133.7); 20.0%; nominal p=0.004). In the phase 2b/3 pool (N=848; BKZ exposure: 2034.4 PYs), EAIR remained low (1.2/100 PYs (95% CI 0.8 to 1.8))., Conclusions: Bimekizumab, a dual-IL-17A/F inhibitor, may confer protective effects for uveitis in patients with axSpA., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MAB: Grant/research support from UCB Pharma; consultant for Clementia, Grey Wolf Therapeutics, Incyte, Ipsen, Pfizer, Regeneron and Xinthera; speaker for Novartis and Pfizer; payment for expert testimony from Ipsen; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Incyte, Ipsen and Regeneron. MR: Speakers bureau from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma; consultant of AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis and UCB Pharma. FAvG: Grants from Jacobus Stichting, Novartis, Stichting ASAS, Stichting Vrienden van Sole Mio and UCB Pharma; consultant for AbbVie, ASAS, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma. NH: Consultant for AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis and UCB Pharma. LSG: Consultant for Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma; grant/research support from Novartis and UCB Pharma paid to institution; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Acelyrin; member of the Spondylitis Association of America Medical Scientific Advisory Board and ASAS Executive Committee. CF, KW: Employee and shareholder of UCB Pharma. AM, UM, TV, NdP: Employees of UCB Pharma. AD: Speaker for Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma; consultant for BMS, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma; grant/research support from BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Eli Lilly; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for BMS, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma; member of the steering committee of GRAPPA. IvdH-B: Consultant for AbbVie, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis and UCB Pharma; unrestricted grants received for investigator-initiated studies from AbbVie, MSD, Pfizer and UCB Pharma; fees received for Lectures from AbbVie, BMS, MSD and Pfizer., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ on behalf of EULAR.)

Background: Whether tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) use is cardioprotective among individuals with radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA), who have heightened cardiovascular (CV) risk, is unclear. We tested the association of TNFi use with incident CV outcomes in r-axSpA., Methods: We identified a r-axSpA cohort within a Veterans Affairs database between 2002 and 2019 using novel phenotyping methods and secondarily using ICD codes. TNFi use was assessed as a time-varying exposure using pharmacy dispense records. The primary outcome was incident CV disease identified using ICD codes for coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction or stroke. We fit Cox models with inverse probability weights to estimate the risk of each outcome with TNFi use versus non-use. Analyses were performed in the overall cohort, and separately in two periods (2002-2010, 2011-2019) to account for secular trends., Results: Using phenotyping we identified 26,928 individuals with an r-axSpA diagnosis (mean age 63.4 years, 94 % male); at baseline 3633 were TNFi users and 23,295 were non-users. During follow-up of a mean 3.3 ± 4.2 years, 674 (18.6 %) TNFi users had incident CVD versus 11,838 (50.8 %) non-users. In adjusted analyses, TNFi use versus non-use was associated with lower risk of incident CVD (HR 0.34, 95 % CI 0.29-0.40) in the cohort overall, and in the two time periods separately., Conclusion: In this r-axSpA cohort identified using phenotyping methods, TNFi use versus non-use had a lower risk of incident CVD. These findings provide reassurance regarding the CV safety of TNFi agents for r-axSpA treatment. Replication of these results in other cohorts is needed., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Jean Liew received grant/research support from Pfizer (over $10,000) for this work. All other authors have nothing to disclose. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States government., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)