Scholarlink

Introduction <p>This study aimed to evaluate the influence of background conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) use on efficacy and safety of deucravacitinib, a first-in-class, oral, selective, allosteric tyrosine kinase&#xa0;2 (TYK2) inhibitor, in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).</p> Methods <p>This phase&#xa0;2, double-blind trial randomized 203 patients with active PsA 1:1:1 to oral placebo, deucravacitinib 6&#xa0;mg, or deucravacitinib 12&#xa0;mg once daily for 16&#xa0;weeks. Patients had failed or were intolerant to ≥ 1 non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), glucocorticoid, csDMARD and/or one tumour necrosis factor inhibitor. Patients were not stratified by csDMARD use and were allowed one background csDMARD if used for ≥ 3&#xa0;months with stable dose for &gt; 28&#xa0;days prior to day&#xa0;1; patients could not initiate new csDMARD treatment. This post hoc analysis evaluated the influence of background csDMARD use on efficacy outcomes, which included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 responses and ACR scoring components; Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores; Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Scores (PASDAS); and on safety measures.</p> Results <p>Baseline clinical characteristics and disease activity were generally similar among subgroups regardless of csDMARD use. At baseline, 65.0% of patients were taking background csDMARDs and among these 84.1% were taking methotrexate; percentages of methotrexate use were similar across groups. Similar ACR&#xa0;20 response rates at week&#xa0;16 were observed with deucravacitinib treatment in patients with vs without baseline csDMARD use compared with placebo (deucravacitinib 6&#xa0;mg: 57.8% vs 44.0%; deucravacitinib 12&#xa0;mg: 62.8% vs 62.5%; and placebo: 31.8% vs 31.8%, respectively). Similar responses with deucravacitinib compared with placebo, regardless of background csDMARD use, were observed in individual ACR components, PASI score, and PASDAS. The safety profile of deucravacitinib treatment was similar in patients with and without csDMARD use.</p> Conclusion <p>Background csDMARD use did not affect the efficacy or safety of deucravacitinib in this phase&#xa0;2 PsA study.</p> <p>Graphical Abstract available for this article.</p> Trial Registration <p>ClinicalTrials.gov (<a href="https://clinicaltrials.gov">https://clinicaltrials.gov</a>): NCT03881059.</p> Graphical Abstract <p></p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Efficacy and Safety of Deucravacitinib, a Selective, Allosteric TYK2 Inhibitor, by Baseline DMARD Use in a Phase 2 Psoriatic Arthritis Study: A Post Hoc Analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年7月5日

查看全文
  • Atul Deodhar,
  • Miroslawa Nowak,
  • June Y. Ye,
  • Tom Lehman,
  • Subhashis Banerjee,
  • Philip J. Mease

摘要

Introduction

This study aimed to evaluate the influence of background conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) use on efficacy and safety of deucravacitinib, a first-in-class, oral, selective, allosteric tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor, in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Methods

This phase 2, double-blind trial randomized 203 patients with active PsA 1:1:1 to oral placebo, deucravacitinib 6 mg, or deucravacitinib 12 mg once daily for 16 weeks. Patients had failed or were intolerant to ≥ 1 non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), glucocorticoid, csDMARD and/or one tumour necrosis factor inhibitor. Patients were not stratified by csDMARD use and were allowed one background csDMARD if used for ≥ 3 months with stable dose for > 28 days prior to day 1; patients could not initiate new csDMARD treatment. This post hoc analysis evaluated the influence of background csDMARD use on efficacy outcomes, which included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 responses and ACR scoring components; Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores; Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Scores (PASDAS); and on safety measures.

Results

Baseline clinical characteristics and disease activity were generally similar among subgroups regardless of csDMARD use. At baseline, 65.0% of patients were taking background csDMARDs and among these 84.1% were taking methotrexate; percentages of methotrexate use were similar across groups. Similar ACR 20 response rates at week 16 were observed with deucravacitinib treatment in patients with vs without baseline csDMARD use compared with placebo (deucravacitinib 6 mg: 57.8% vs 44.0%; deucravacitinib 12 mg: 62.8% vs 62.5%; and placebo: 31.8% vs 31.8%, respectively). Similar responses with deucravacitinib compared with placebo, regardless of background csDMARD use, were observed in individual ACR components, PASI score, and PASDAS. The safety profile of deucravacitinib treatment was similar in patients with and without csDMARD use.

Conclusion

Background csDMARD use did not affect the efficacy or safety of deucravacitinib in this phase 2 PsA study.

Graphical Abstract available for this article.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov): NCT03881059.

Graphical Abstract