Pos0301 structural outcomes in the sacroiliac joint after ixekizumab treatment for 16 weeks in patients with active non‑radiographic axial spondyloarthritis stratified by gender, hla-b27, and baseline mri inflammation

W. P. Maksymowych,X. Baraliakos, R. G. Lambert, R. B. M. Landewé,D. Sandoval, H. Carlier, J. Lisse, X. LI, M. Hojnik, M. Østergaard

Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases(2022)

引用 0|浏览2
暂无评分
摘要
BackgroundIxekizumab (IXE) has demonstrated clinical efficacy in patients with active non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) together with significant repair of structural lesions in the sacroiliac joint (SIJ) on MRI. There is, however, a paucity of data as to which patients may be most responsive.ObjectivesWe aimed to evaluate whether patients’ gender, HLA-B27 status, and presence of MRI inflammation impacted the effect of treatment with IXE versus placebo (PBO) on MRI structural lesions in the SIJ in patients with nr-axSpA.MethodsPatients with active nr-axSpA, biologic-naïve (COAST-X, NCT02757352) were randomized 1:1:1 to ixekizumab 80 mg every 4 (Q4W) or 2 weeks (Q2W) or PBO. Structural lesions on SIJ MRI were assessed by the Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) MRI SIJ structural score (SSS). Treatment comparisons used analysis of covariance based on observed cases. SPARCC SSS subgroup analyses were performed according to baseline gender, HLA-B27 status, and SPARCC MRI SIJ bone marrow oedema (BME) <4 and ≥4 subgroups, which reflects a definite MRI for inflammation in the SIJ typical of axSpA.ResultsOf 303 randomized patients, 266 patients (Q4W: n=85, Q2W: n=91, PBO: n=90) had an MRI scan at baseline and week 16. At baseline, SPARCC scores were consistently higher in males, and mostly higher in HLA-B27 and BME≥4 positive subgroups. Significant differences between patients treated with IXE versus PBO were observed for male patients, HLA-B27 positives, and those with baseline SPARCC BME ≥4. Numerically similar changes were observed in female patients, patients with negative HLA-B27, and patients with SPARCC BME<4, though not statistically significant.ConclusionEffects of IXE on structural repair are most evident in males, HLA-B27 positives, and patients with definite MRI inflammation at baseline.Table 1.MRI SIJ Structural Lesion Outcomes.LesionAnalysisPBOIXE Q4WIXE Q2WMale (n=39)Female (n=51)Male (n=44)Female (n=41)Male (n=43)Female (n=48)ErosionBL mean5·1671·9803·5452·8173·5232·594LS mean CFB (SE)0·51 (0·20)-0·11 (0·17)-0·63 (0·18)-0·11 (0·19)-0·51 (0·18)-0·32 (0·17)P value vs PBONANAp<0·001p>0·99p<0·001p=0·37FatBL mean2·0510·9122·0911·2931·4650·677LS mean CFB (SE)-0·02 (0·09)-0·03 (0·08)0·29 (0·08)0·03 (0·08)0·21 (0·08)0·04 (0·08)P value vs PBONANAp=0·01p=0·65p=0·062p=0·51BackfillBL mean1·1540·1670·6630·4150·7910·323LS mean CFB (SE)-0·20 (0·13)0·01 (0·11)0·39 (0·12)0·01 (0·12)0·34 (0·12)0·14 (0·11)P value vs PBONANAp<0·001p>0·99p=0·002p=0·38LesionAnalysisHLA-B27+HLA-B27-HLA-B27+HLA-B27-HLA-B27+HLA-B27-(n=64)(n=25)(n=61)(n=23)(n=65)(n=26)ErosionBL mean3·8202·1003·4672·5433·5151·827LS mean CFB (SE)0·27 (0·15)-0·10 (0·24)-0·49 (0·15)-0·01 (0·25)-0·50 (0·15)-0·17 (0·24)P value vs PBONANAp<0·001p=0·79p<0·001p=0·84FatBL mean1·5781·0201·3282·7831·2850·462LS mean CFB (SE)-0·06 (0·06)-0·06 (0·10)0·22 (0·06)0·01 (0·10)0·13 (0·06)0·10 (0·10)P value vs PBONANAp=0·002p=0·65p=0·027p=0·25BackfillBL mean0·7420·2400·5420·5650·7620LS mean CFB (SE)-0·12 (0·10)0·01 (0·16)0·28 (0·10)0 (0·17)0·27 (0·10)0·16 (0·16)P value vs PBONANAp=0·005p=0·96p=0·005p=0·52LesionAnalysisBME ≥4BME <4BME ≥4BME <4BME ≥4BME <4(n=40)(n=50)(n=27)(n=58)(n=38)(n=53)ErosionBL mean4·8632·1605·3522·1905·2761·425LS mean CFB (SE)0·42 (0·19)-0·06 (0·17)-0·70 (0·23)-0·23 (0·16)-0·71 (0·20)-0·19 (0·17)P value vs PBONANAp<0·001p=0·47p<0·001p=0·57FatBL mean0·7751·9101·9261·6031·6710·604LS mean CFB (SE)-0·02 (0·08)-0·02 (0·07)0·54 (0·10)-0·01 (0·07)0·28 (0·08)0·01 (0·07)P value vs PBONANAp<0·001p=0·90p=0·013p=0·74BackfillBL mean0·7500·4701·0190·3280·7630·387LS mean CFB (SE)-0·21 (0·12)0·01 (0·11)0·41 (0·15)0·11 (0·10)0·49 (0·13)0·05 (0·11)P value vs PBONANAp=0·002p=0·52p<0·001p=0·80CFB=change from BL. BL=baseline, LS=least squares.AcknowledgementsStudy was sponsored by Eli Lilly and CompanyDisclosure of InterestsWalter P Maksymowych Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB and is Chief Medical Officer of CARE Arthritis Ltd, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Xenofon Baraliakos Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Chugai, Galapagos, Gilead, Eli Lilly and Company, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, and UCB, Robert G Lambert Consultant of: CARE Arthritis, Image Analysis Group, Parexel, and Pfizer, Robert B.M. Landewé Consultant of: AbbVie, Astra-Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Gilead, Galapagos, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB; and is director of Imaging Rheumatology BV, which is a registered company under Dutch Law, David Sandoval Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Hilde Carlier Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Jeffrey Lisse Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Xiaoqi Li Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Maja Hojnik Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Mikkel Østergaard Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Merck, Celgene, and Novartis
更多
查看译文
AI 理解论文
溯源树
样例
生成溯源树,研究论文发展脉络
Chat Paper
正在生成论文摘要