Deucravacitinib, an oral, selective tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, in moderate to severe plaque psoriasis: 52-week efficacy by prior 
treatment in the phase 3 POETYK PSO-1 trial
Jerry Bagel,1 April W Armstrong,2 Richard B Warren,3 Kim A Papp,4 Diamant Thaçi,5 Alan Menter,6 Jennifer Cather,7 Matthias Augustin,8 Lauren Hippeli,9 Carolin Daamen,9 Christopher E M Griffiths3
1Psoriasis Treatment Center of New Jersey, East Windsor, NJ, USA; 2University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA; 3Dermatology Centre, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; 4K Papp Clinical Research and Probity Medical Research, Waterloo, ON, Canada; 5Institute and Comprehensive Center for Inflammation Medicine, University of 
Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany; 6Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA; 7Mindful Dermatology and Modern Research Associates, Dallas, TX, USA; 8Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; 9Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA

Presented at the 2022 Fall Clinical Dermatology Conference; October 20—23, 2022; Las Vegas, NV
This is an encore of the 2022 31st EADV Congress poster

This poster may not be reproduced without written permission from the authors.Email for Jerry Bagel, MD: dreamacres1@icloud.com

Scientific Content on Demand
To request a copy of this poster:

Scan QR code via a barcode  
reader application

QR codes are valid for 30 days after  
congress presentation date

Synopsis
• Deucravacitinib an oral, selective, allosteric tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor, 

is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of adults 
with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for systemic 
therapy or phototherapy1

 — Uniquely binds to the regulatory domain rather than to the catalytic domain 
where Janus kinase 1/2/3 inhibitors bind2,3 (Figure 1)

• In the global, 52-week, phase 3 POETYK PSO-1 trial (NCT03624127), 
deucravacitinib was significantly more effective than placebo or apremilast in 
the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis4

 — Clinical responses were maintained through 52 weeks5

• Response rates for the coprimary endpoints, ≥75% reduction from baseline in 
Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75) and static Physician’s Global Assessment 
score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) with a ≥2-point improvement from baseline 
(sPGA 0/1) at Week 16, were superior with deucravacitinib regardless of prior 
exposure to biologics, systemic nonbiologics, and/or phototherapy6

• The 2-year efficacy and safety of deucravacitinib in the POETYK long-term extension trial was consistent with Weeks 0–52 of the POETYK PSO-1 and PSO-2 trials7

Objective
• The aim of the current analysis was to evaluate the impact of prior treatment on PASI 75 and sPGA 0/1 responses through Week 52 in patients from POETYK PSO-1 

who were randomized to deucravacitinib and in those who crossed over from placebo to deucravacitinib at Week 16

Methods
• The study design for POETYK PSO-1 is illustrated in Figure 2
• Eligible patients were ≥18 years of age with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis (ie, PASI ≥12, sPGA ≥3, body surface area involvement ≥10% at baseline)
• Patients who previously received phototherapy, systemic treatment, and/or biologic treatment were required to complete washout periods ranging from 4 weeks to  

6 months before study entry, depending on the treatment

• The current analysis examined PASI 75 and sPGA 0/1 responses through 52 weeks in patients randomized to deucravacitinib and in those who crossed over from placebo 
to deucravacitinib at Week 16 (placebo crossovers), by prior treatment subgroups: 

 — Systemic treatment naive (ie, neither biologic nor nonbiologic systemic treatment)
 — Prior systemic treatment (biologic and/or nonbiologic)
 — Prior oral systemic treatment (nonbiologic only)
 — Biologic treatment naive
 — Biologic treatment experienced

• Nonresponder imputation was used for all reported endpoints

Figure 2. POETYK PSO-1 study design
POETYK PSO-1

(N = 666)

Deucravacitinib 6 mg QDPlacebo (n = 166)

Deucravacitinib 6 mg QD<PASI 50

Apremilast 30 mg BID

Titrate*

1
:2

:1
 R

an
d
o
m

iz
at

io
n

Weeks 16 24 520

Deucravacitinib 6 mg QD (n = 332)

Primary 
endpoint

Apremilast 30 mg BIDa (n = 168)

≥PASI 50

aApremilast was titrated from 10 mg QD to 30 mg BID over the first 5 days of dosing. 
BID, twice daily; PASI 50, ≥50% reduction from baseline in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index; QD, once daily.

Results
• Baseline demographics and disease characteristics for patients randomized to deucravacitinib (n = 332) and to placebo (n = 166) are shown in Table 1

 — Prior use of systemic (biologic and nonbiologic), oral systemic, and biologic treatments was generally similar between the groups (Table 1)
• At Week 52, PASI 75 response rates were similar in patients randomized to deucravacitinib at baseline and in placebo crossovers (65.1% and 68.3%, respectively) (Table 2; 

Figure 3)
• These findings were consistent across all patient subgroups (Table 2), including:

 — Systemic treatment-naive patients and those with prior systemic or oral systemic treatment (Figure 4)
 — Patients with and without prior biologic treatment (Figure 5)

• At Week 52, sPGA 0/1 response rates were similar in patients randomized to deucravacitinib at baseline and in placebo crossovers (53.8% and 52.7%, respectively) 
(Figure 6)

• These findings were consistent across all patient subgroups (Table 2), including:
 — Systemic treatment-naive patients and those with prior systemic or oral systemic treatment (Figure 7)
 — Patients with and without prior biologic treatment (Figure 8)

Table 1. Baseline patient demographics and disease characteristics

Parameter

POETYK PSO-1
Placebo

(n = 166)
Deucravacitinib

(n = 332)
Age, mean (min, max), y 47.9 (19, 81)  45.9 (18, 80)
Weight, mean (min, max), kg 89.1 (46.3, 181.6)  87.9 (36.0, 173.0)
Female, n (%) 53 (31.9) 102 (30.7)
Race, n (%)

White 128 (77.1) 267 (80.4)
Asian 34 (20.5) 59 (17.8)
Other 4 (2.4) 6 (1.8)

Disease duration, mean (min, max), y 17.3 (0.9, 62.3) 17.1 (0.7, 57.8)
sPGA, n (%)

3 (moderate) 128 (77.1) 257 (77.4)
4 (severe) 37 (22.3) 75 (22.6)

PASI, mean (min, max) 20.7 (10.3, 47.7) 21.8 (12.0, 58.8)
PSSD symptom score, mean (min, max) 51.4 (0.3, 100.0) 51.7 (0.0, 100.0)
DLQI, mean (min, max) 11.4 (1.0, 30.0) 12.0 (0.0, 30.0)
Prior treatment use, n (%)

Systemic treatment naive 57 (34.3) 132 (39.8)
Prior systemic treatment 109 (65.7) 200 (60.2)
Prior oral systemic treatment 73 (44.0) 114 (34.3)
Biologic treatment naive 103 (62.0) 202 (60.8)
Prior biologic treatment 63 (38.0) 130 (39.2)

DLQI, Dermatology Life Quality Index; PASI, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index; PSSD, Psoriasis Symptoms and Signs Diary; sPGA, static Physician’s Global Assessment.

Table 2. Summary of Week 52 response rates (NRI)a

Patients

POETYK PSO-1
PASI 75

Week 52 response rate, n/N (%)
sPGA 0/1

Week 52 response rate, n/N (%)
Placebo –  

deucravacitinib Deucravacitinib
Placebo –   

deucravacitinib Deucravacitinib
Full analysis set 99/145 (68.3) 216/332 (65.1) 78/145 (53.8) 175/332 (52.7)
Systemic treatment naive 35/51 (68.6) 85/132 (64.4) 26/51 (51.0) 69/132 (52.3)
Prior systemic treatment 64/94 (68.1) 131/200 (65.5) 52/94 (55.3) 106/200 (53.0)
Prior oral systemic treatment 45/65 (69.2) 80/114 (70.2) 35/65 (53.8) 65/114 (57.0)
Biologic treatment naive 65/90 (72.2) 136/202 (67.3) 53/90 (58.9) 113/202 (55.9)
Prior biologic treatment 34/55 (61.8) 80/130 (61.5) 25/55 (45.5) 62/130 (47.7)

aPatients who missed efficacy assessments due to COVID-19 were excluded from efficacy analyses at those time points. 
NRI, nonresponder imputation; PASI 75, ≥75% reduction from baseline in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index; sPGA 0/1, static Physician’s Global Assessment score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) with a ≥2-point improvement from baseline. 

Figure 3. PASI 75 response rates through Week 52, full analysis set (NRI)a

58.4%

65.1%

12.7%

68.3%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

P
A

SI
 7

5 
re

sp
on

se
 r

at
e,

%
 o

f 
pa

ti
en

ts

70

80

90

100

0 1 2 4 8 12 16

Primary endpoint

20
Weeks

24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52

332 332 332 332 332 332 332 332 332 332 330 326 320 324 325 332

166

Deucravacitinib
Patients, n

Placebo –
deucravacitinib

166 166 166 166 166 166 145 145 144 144 145 142 144 145 145

Deucravacitinib Placebo → deucravacitinib

aPatients who missed efficacy assessments due to COVID-19 were excluded from efficacy analyses at those time points. 
NRI, nonresponder imputation, PASI 75, ≥75% reduction from baseline in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index. 

Figure 4. PASI 75 response rates through Week 52 in systemic treatment-naive, prior systemic treatment, and prior oral systemic treatment patients (NRI)a 

Deucravacitinib Placebo → deucravacitinib

Patients, n

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

P
A

SI
 7

5 
re

sp
on

se
 r

at
e,

%
 o

f 
pa

ti
en

ts

70

80

90

100

0 1 2 4 8 12 16

Primary endpoint

20

Weeks

Systemic treatment naive

24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52

132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 127 122 127 129 132

57

Deucravacitinib

Placebo –
deucravacitinib

57 57 57 57 57 57 51 51 51 51 51 50 51 51 51

56.8%

64.4%

21.1%

68.6%

Patients, n

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

P
A

SI
 7

5 
re

sp
on

se
 r

at
e,

%
 o

f 
pa

ti
en

ts

70

80

90

100

0 1 2 4 8 12 16

Primary endpoint

20

Weeks

Prior systemic treatment

24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52

200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 198 199 198 197 196 200

109

Deucravacitinib

Placebo –
deucravacitinib

109 109 109 109 109 109 94 94 93 93 94 92 93 94 94

59.5%

65.5%

8.3%

68.1%

Patients, n

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

P
A

SI
 7

5 
re

sp
on

se
 r

at
e,

%
 o

f 
pa

ti
en

ts

70

80

90

100

0 1 2 4 8 12 16

Primary endpoint

20

Weeks

Prior oral systemic treatment

24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52

114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 113 113 113 112 111 114

73

Deucravacitinib

Placebo –
deucravacitinib

73 73 73 73 73 73 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65

58.8%

70.2%

9.6%

69.2%

aPatients who missed efficacy assessments due to COVID-19 were excluded from efficacy analyses at those time points. 
NRI, nonresponder imputation; PASI 75, ≥75% reduction from baseline in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index. 

Figure 5. PASI 75 response rates through Week 52 in biologic treatment-naive and prior biologic treatment patients (NRI)a

Deucravacitinib Placebo → deucravacitinib

Patients, n

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

P
A

SI
 7

5 
re

sp
on

se
 r

at
e,

%
 o

f 
pa

ti
en

ts

70

80

90

100

0 1 2 4 8 12 16

Primary endpoint

20
Weeks

Biologic treatment naive

24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52

202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 197 192 195 196 202

103

Deucravacitinib

Placebo –
deucravacitinib

103 103 103 103 103 103 90 90 90 90 90 89 90 90 90

Patients, n

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

P
A

SI
 7

5 
re

sp
on

se
 r

at
e,

%
 o

f 
pa

ti
en

ts

70

80

90

100

0 1 2 4 8 12 16

Primary endpoint

20
Weeks

Prior biologic treatment

24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52

130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 128 129 128 129 129 130

63

Deucravacitinib

Placebo –
deucravacitinib

63 63 63 63 63 63 55 55 54 54 55 53 54 55 55

59.9%
67.3%

15.5%

72.2%

56.2%

61.5%

7.9%

61.8%

aPatients who missed efficacy assessments due to COVID-19 were excluded from efficacy analyses at those time points. 
NRI, nonresponder imputation; PASI 75, ≥75% reduction from baseline in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index. 

Figure 6. sPGA 0/1 response rates through Week 52, full analysis set (NRI)a

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

sP
G

A
 0

/1
 r

es
po

n
se

 r
at

e,
%

 o
f 

pa
ti

en
ts

70

80

90

100

0 1 2 4 8 12 16

Primary endpoint

20
Weeks

24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52

332 332 332 332 332 332 332 332 332 332 330 326 320 324 325 332

166

Deucravacitinib
Patients, n

Placebo –
deucravacitinib

166 166 166 166 166 166 145 145 144 144 145 142 144 145 145

Deucravacitinib Placebo → deucravacitinib

53.6%

52.7%

7.2%

53.8%

aPatients who missed efficacy assessments due to COVID-19 were excluded from efficacy analyses at those time points. 
NRI, nonresponder imputation; sPGA 0/1, static Physician’s Global Assessment score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) with a ≥2-point improvement from baseline. 

Figure 7. sPGA 0/1 response rates through Week 52 in systemic treatment-naive, prior systemic treatment, and prior oral systemic treatment patients (NRI)a

Deucravacitinib Placebo → deucravacitinib

Patients, n

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

sP
G

A
 0

/1
 r

es
po

n
se

 r
at

e,
%

 o
f 

pa
ti

en
ts

70

80

90

100

0 1 2 4 8 12 16

Primary endpoint

20
Weeks

Systemic treatment naive

24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52

132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 127 122 127 129 132

57

Deucravacitinib

Placebo –
deucravacitinib

57 57 57 57 57 57 51 51 51 51 51 50 51 51 51

Patients, n

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

sP
G

A
 0

/1
 r

es
po

n
se

 r
at

e,
%

 o
f 

pa
ti

en
ts

70

80

90

100

0 1 2 4 8 12 16

Primary endpoint

20
Weeks

Prior systemic treatment

24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52

200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 198 199 198 197 196 200

109

Deucravacitinib

Placebo –
deucravacitinib

109 109 109 109 109 109 94 94 93 93 94 92 93 94 94

Patients, n

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

sP
G

A
 0

/1
 r

es
po

n
se

 r
at

e,
%

 o
f 

pa
ti

en
ts

70

80

90

100

0 1 2 4 8 12 16

Primary endpoint

20
Weeks

Prior oral systemic treatment

24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52

114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 113 113 113 112 111 114

73

Deucravacitinib

Placebo –
deucravacitinib

73 73 73 73 73 73 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65

53.0% 52.3%

5.3%

51.0%

54.0%

53.0%

8.3%

55.3%

50.9%

57.0%

9.6%

53.8%

aPatients who missed efficacy assessments due to COVID-19 were excluded from efficacy analyses at those time points. 
NRI, nonresponder imputation; sPGA 0/1, static Physician’s Global Assessment score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) with a ≥2-point improvement from baseline. 

Figure 8. sPGA 0/1 response rates through Week 52 in biologic treatment-naive and prior biologic treatment patients (NRI)a

50.0%

45.5%

6.3%

47.7%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

sP
G

A
 0

/1
 r

es
po

n
se

 r
at

e,
%

 o
f 

pa
ti

en
ts

70

80

90

100

0 1 2 4 8 12 16

Primary endpoint

20
Weeks

24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52

130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 128 129 128 129 129 130

63Placebo –
deucravacitinib

63 63 63 63 63 63 55 55 54 54 55 53 54 55 55

Deucravacitinib Placebo → deucravacitinib

55.9%

55.9%

58.9%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

sP
G

A
 0

/1
 r

es
po

n
se

 r
at

e,
%

 o
f 

pa
ti

en
ts

70

80

90

100

0 1 2 4 8 12 16

Primary endpoint

20
Weeks

Biologic treatment naive

Prior biologic treatment

24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52

202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202 197 192 195 196 202

103Placebo –
deucravacitinib

103 103 103 103 103 103 90 90 90 90 90 89 90 90 90

Patients, n
Deucravacitinib

Patients, n
Deucravacitinib

7.8%

aPatients who missed efficacy assessments due to COVID-19 were excluded from efficacy analyses at those time points. 
NRI, nonresponder imputation; sPGA 0/1, static Physician’s Global Assessment score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) with a ≥2-point improvement from baseline. 

Figure 1. Mechanism of action of deucravacitinib

TYK2

Deucravacitinib
(allosteric inhibitor)

Unique 
regulatory

domain

Catalytic domain
(highly conserved
across JAK family)

ATP-binding
active site 

(other kinase inhibitors)

•  ≥100-fold greater selectivity for TYK2 vs JAK 1/3
•  ≥2000-fold greater selectivity for TYK2 vs JAK 2

Selectivity in cells2,3:

ATP, adenosine 5′-triphosphate; JAK, Janus kinase; TYK2, tyrosine kinase 2. 

Disclosures
• JB: Research funds payable to the Psoriasis Treatment Center of New Jersey: AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, CorEvitas' (Corrona) Psoriasis Registry, Dermavant, Dermira/UCB, Eli Lilly, Glenmark, Janssen Biotech, Kadmon, Leo Pharma, Lycera, Menlo Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sun Pharma, Taro, and Valeant; Consultant: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen 

Biotech, Novartis, Sun Pharma, and Valeant; Speaker: AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen Biotech, and Novartis

• AWA: Grants and personal fees: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, and Novartis; Personal fees: Boehringer Ingelheim/Parexel, Celgene, Dermavant, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Menlo Therapeutics, Merck, Modernizing Medicine, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Science 37, Sun Pharma, and Valeant; Grants: Dermira, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, and UCB, outside the submitted work

• RBW: Research grants: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB; Consulting fees: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, DiCE, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB, and UNION

• KAP: Consultant: AbbVie, Acelyrin, Akros, Amgen, Aralez Pharmaceuticals, Arcutis, Avillion, Bausch Health/Valeant, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Can-Fite Biopharma, Celgene, Celltrion, Coherus, Dermavant, Dermira, Dice Therapeutics, Dow Pharma, Eli Lilly, Evelo, Forbion, Galderma, Incyte, Janssen, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Leo Pharma, Meiji Seika Pharma, Merck (MSD), Mitsubishi Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, 
Regeneron, Reistone, Roche, Sanofi Aventis/Genzyme, Sandoz, Sun Pharma, Takeda, UCB, vTv Therapeutics, and Xencor; Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bausch Health/Valeant, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Incyte, Janssen, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Leo, Merck (MSD), Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi Aventis/Genzyme; Clinical research grants: AbbVie, Akros, Amgen, Anacor, Arcutis, Avillion, Bausch Health/Valeant, Boehringer 
Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Can-Fite Biopharma, Celgene, Coherus, Dermavant, Dermira, Dice Therapeutics, Dow Pharma, Eli Lilly, Evelo, Galderma, Gilead, GSK, Incyte, Janssen, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Leo Pharma, Merck (MSD), Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi Aventis/Genzyme, Sun Pharma, Takeda, and UCB; Honoraria: AbbVie, Acelyrin, Akros, Amgen, Aralez Pharmaceuticals, Bausch Health/Valeant, 
Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Celltrion, Coherus, Dermavant, Dice Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Forbion, Galderma, Janssen, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Leo Pharma, Meiji Seika Pharma, Merck (MSD), Mitsubishi Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Reistone, Sanofi Aventis/Genzyme, Sandoz, Sun Pharma, Takeda, UCB, vTv Therapeutics, and Xencor; Scientific officer: Akros, Anacor, Arcutis, Dice Therapeutics, and Kyowa Hakko Kirin; Steering 
committees: AbbVie, Amgen, Bausch Health/Valeant, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Merck (MSD), Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Reistone, and Sanofi Aventis/Genzyme; Advisory boards: AbbVie, Amgen, Bausch Health/Valeant, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Dice Therapeutics, Dow Pharma, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen, Merck (MSD), Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, 
Sanofi Aventis/Genzyme, Sun Pharma, and UCB

• DT: Grant/research support, consultant, scientific advisory board, and speakers bureau: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Biogen Idec, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Galderma, Janssen-Cilag, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz-Hexal, Sanofi, Target-Solution, and UCB

• AM: Advisory boards: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen Biotech, and Leo Pharma; Consulting fees: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen Biotech, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Sun Pharma, and UCB; Honoraria: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen Biotech, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Sun Pharma, and UCB; Investigator: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen Biotech, Leo Pharma, 
Merck, Novartis, Sun Pharma, and UCB; Research grants: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Janssen Biotech, Leo Pharma, Merck, and Sun Pharma; Speaker: AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen Biotech, Leo Pharma, Sun Pharma, and UCB 

• JC: Clinical trials: Eli Lilly, Sun Pharma, ChemoCentryx, Janssen, UCB, Amgen, AbbVie, Galderma, Bristol Myers Squibb; Consulting fees: Amgen, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Sanofi Genzyme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant. Speakers Bureau: Amgen, AbbVie, and Eli Lilly

• MA: Advisory boards: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen Biotech, and Leo Pharma; Consulting fees: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen Biotech, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Sun Pharma, and UCB; Honoraria: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen Biotech, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Sun Pharma, and UCB; Investigator: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen Biotech, Leo Pharma, 
Merck, Novartis, Sun Pharma, and UCB; Research grants: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Janssen Biotech, Leo Pharma, Merck, and Sun Pharma; Speaker: AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen Biotech, Leo Pharma, Sun Pharma, and UCB

• LH and CD: Employees and shareholders: Bristol Myers Squibb

• CEMG: Honoraria and/or research grants from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, AnaptysBio, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Sanofi, and UCB

Conclusions
• Deucravacitinib-treated patients from the POETYK PSO-1 trial maintained response rates for PASI 75 and sPGA 0/1 through Week 52, regardless of prior treatment exposure to biologic, 

systemic nonbiologic, and/or oral systemic agents

• Patients who switched from placebo to deucravacitinib at Week 16 also showed robust responses at Week 52 on both endpoints and across subgroups

• These analyses support the efficacy of deucravacitinib in moderate to severe psoriasis regardless of prior treatment history

References
1. SOTYKTU™ (deucravacitinib) [package insert]. Princeton, NJ: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; September 2022. 2. Burke JR, et al. Sci Transl Med. 2019;11:eaaw1736. 3. Wrobleski ST, et al. J Med Chem. 2019;62:8973-8995. 4. Armstrong AW, et al. J Am 
Acad Dermatol. 2022;S0190-9622(22)02256-3. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2022.07.002. Online ahead of print. 5. Warren RB, et al. Presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 30th Congress, September 29–October 2, 2021. Late 
breaker. 6. Warren RB, et al. Presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 30th Congress, September 29–October 2, 2021. 7. Warren RB, et al. Presented at the EADV Spring Symposium; May 12–14, 2022.

Acknowledgments
• This study was sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb
• Writing and editorial assistance was provided by Liz Rockstein, PhD, of Peloton Advantage, LLC, an OPEN Health company, Parsippany, NJ, USA, funded by Bristol Myers Squibb