MDedge Rheumatology

It’s time to renew two of my three narcotic prescribing licenses. For the first time in my career, I’ve waffled on whether the financial outlay to the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is worth it. 

At $888 each, I’ve considered letting two licenses lapse because I only work part-time in Montana. But several friends advised me to keep a “spare” in case I transfer to a new location. 

I thought about just paying the fees until I could do a little more research, but there is no mechanism for a refund unless I die within the first year of the 3-year cycle, provide incorrect credit card digits, or accidentally duplicate payments.

The renewal fee is just part of the issue.
 

Mandatory 8-Hour Training

I also received an alert about the requirement for more “narcotics prescribing education” thanks to the Medication Access and Training Expansion Act (MATE). 

The requirement seems counterintuitive because opioid prescribing has decreased for the 10th consecutive year, according to the AMA Overdose Epidemic Report. The continuing rise in overdose deaths is largely due to illegitimate manufacturing of synthetic opioids. 

I’ve written zero outpatient narcotics prescriptions in the past 6 years, and I’ve written very few in my 33 years of practice. My use is limited to intravenous morphine for flash pulmonary edema or refractory angina, but unless you graduated from a training program within 5 years of the June 2023 mandate or are boarded in addiction medicine, there is no way to escape the 8-hour education requirement.

The problem is that these courses are never just 8 hours in duration. After signing up for one such CME course that cost $150, I was still dying of boredom and at risk for DVT 4 days later. That’s how long it took to sit through.

Instead of the 30 seconds it should have taken to review the simple instructions to deliver Narcan, there were scores of screens followed by juvenile quizlets and cartoons. All but about 2 hours out of the 4 days is now relegated to that category of “hours of my life that I can never get back.” Additionally, none of that mandatory “education” will change my prescribing habits one whit. 

And beware the penalty. 

Changes Needed

The only good thing that came of those 4 long days of opioid education was a motivation to drive change in our current licensing and educational experience. Why not use this opportunity to reform the DEA-physician/prescriber relationship? 

The educational requirements should be curtailed for those of us who do not provide outpatient narcotic prescriptions even if we use inpatient opioids. Meds with low abuse potential should be rescheduled to minimize who gets caught in the broad net of the education requirement. 

We should reduce overregulation of the legitimate prescribers by lowering, instead of increasing, licensing fees. We should change to a single license number that covers every state. In this digital age, there is no legitimate excuse to prevent this from happening. 

After all, the settlements from opioid manufacturers and distributors will in time total $50 billion. It seems that at least some of the responsibilities of the DEA could shift to states, cities, and towns. 

My friend Siamak Karimian, MD, who provides locum services in multiple states, pays for seven active DEA licenses every 3 years. He pointed out the hypocrisy in the current regulatory system: “It’s funny that you can have only one DEA or state license and work for the government in all other states or territories with no limits, including the VA, Indian healthcare systems, or prison systems.”

All other prescribers require a separate DEA number for every state. Ultimately, you’d think tracking prescriptions for a single DEA number should be far simpler than tracking someone with seven. 

Competent physicians not guilty of criminal overprescribing seem to be the last to be considered in nearly every healthcare endeavor these days. It would be refreshing if they would reduce our fees and prevent this waste of our time. 

And while we are at it, perhaps a more fitting punishment is due for Richard Sackler and all the Purdue Pharma–affiliated family members. The Sacklers will pay out $6 billion in exchange for immunity against civil litigation. That doesn’t seem like much when they are worth $11 billion. 

Perhaps they should be made to take an 8-hour course on opioid prescribing, annually and in perpetuity. Let’s see them complete a few quizlets and sit through screens of instruction on how to administer Naloxone. Of course, that would be a mild punishment for those who manufactured a drug that killed hundreds of thousands. But it would be a start. 
 

Dr. Walton-Shirley, a clinical cardiologist in Nashville, Tennessee, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s time to renew two of my three narcotic prescribing licenses. For the first time in my career, I’ve waffled on whether the financial outlay to the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is worth it. 

At $888 each, I’ve considered letting two licenses lapse because I only work part-time in Montana. But several friends advised me to keep a “spare” in case I transfer to a new location. 

I thought about just paying the fees until I could do a little more research, but there is no mechanism for a refund unless I die within the first year of the 3-year cycle, provide incorrect credit card digits, or accidentally duplicate payments.

The renewal fee is just part of the issue.
 

Mandatory 8-Hour Training

I also received an alert about the requirement for more “narcotics prescribing education” thanks to the Medication Access and Training Expansion Act (MATE). 

The requirement seems counterintuitive because opioid prescribing has decreased for the 10th consecutive year, according to the AMA Overdose Epidemic Report. The continuing rise in overdose deaths is largely due to illegitimate manufacturing of synthetic opioids. 

I’ve written zero outpatient narcotics prescriptions in the past 6 years, and I’ve written very few in my 33 years of practice. My use is limited to intravenous morphine for flash pulmonary edema or refractory angina, but unless you graduated from a training program within 5 years of the June 2023 mandate or are boarded in addiction medicine, there is no way to escape the 8-hour education requirement.

The problem is that these courses are never just 8 hours in duration. After signing up for one such CME course that cost $150, I was still dying of boredom and at risk for DVT 4 days later. That’s how long it took to sit through.

Instead of the 30 seconds it should have taken to review the simple instructions to deliver Narcan, there were scores of screens followed by juvenile quizlets and cartoons. All but about 2 hours out of the 4 days is now relegated to that category of “hours of my life that I can never get back.” Additionally, none of that mandatory “education” will change my prescribing habits one whit. 

And beware the penalty. 

Changes Needed

The only good thing that came of those 4 long days of opioid education was a motivation to drive change in our current licensing and educational experience. Why not use this opportunity to reform the DEA-physician/prescriber relationship? 

The educational requirements should be curtailed for those of us who do not provide outpatient narcotic prescriptions even if we use inpatient opioids. Meds with low abuse potential should be rescheduled to minimize who gets caught in the broad net of the education requirement. 

We should reduce overregulation of the legitimate prescribers by lowering, instead of increasing, licensing fees. We should change to a single license number that covers every state. In this digital age, there is no legitimate excuse to prevent this from happening. 

After all, the settlements from opioid manufacturers and distributors will in time total $50 billion. It seems that at least some of the responsibilities of the DEA could shift to states, cities, and towns. 

My friend Siamak Karimian, MD, who provides locum services in multiple states, pays for seven active DEA licenses every 3 years. He pointed out the hypocrisy in the current regulatory system: “It’s funny that you can have only one DEA or state license and work for the government in all other states or territories with no limits, including the VA, Indian healthcare systems, or prison systems.”

All other prescribers require a separate DEA number for every state. Ultimately, you’d think tracking prescriptions for a single DEA number should be far simpler than tracking someone with seven. 

Competent physicians not guilty of criminal overprescribing seem to be the last to be considered in nearly every healthcare endeavor these days. It would be refreshing if they would reduce our fees and prevent this waste of our time. 

And while we are at it, perhaps a more fitting punishment is due for Richard Sackler and all the Purdue Pharma–affiliated family members. The Sacklers will pay out $6 billion in exchange for immunity against civil litigation. That doesn’t seem like much when they are worth $11 billion. 

Perhaps they should be made to take an 8-hour course on opioid prescribing, annually and in perpetuity. Let’s see them complete a few quizlets and sit through screens of instruction on how to administer Naloxone. Of course, that would be a mild punishment for those who manufactured a drug that killed hundreds of thousands. But it would be a start. 
 

Dr. Walton-Shirley, a clinical cardiologist in Nashville, Tennessee, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s time to renew two of my three narcotic prescribing licenses. For the first time in my career, I’ve waffled on whether the financial outlay to the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is worth it. 

At $888 each, I’ve considered letting two licenses lapse because I only work part-time in Montana. But several friends advised me to keep a “spare” in case I transfer to a new location. 

I thought about just paying the fees until I could do a little more research, but there is no mechanism for a refund unless I die within the first year of the 3-year cycle, provide incorrect credit card digits, or accidentally duplicate payments.

The renewal fee is just part of the issue.
 

Mandatory 8-Hour Training

I also received an alert about the requirement for more “narcotics prescribing education” thanks to the Medication Access and Training Expansion Act (MATE). 

The requirement seems counterintuitive because opioid prescribing has decreased for the 10th consecutive year, according to the AMA Overdose Epidemic Report. The continuing rise in overdose deaths is largely due to illegitimate manufacturing of synthetic opioids. 

I’ve written zero outpatient narcotics prescriptions in the past 6 years, and I’ve written very few in my 33 years of practice. My use is limited to intravenous morphine for flash pulmonary edema or refractory angina, but unless you graduated from a training program within 5 years of the June 2023 mandate or are boarded in addiction medicine, there is no way to escape the 8-hour education requirement.

The problem is that these courses are never just 8 hours in duration. After signing up for one such CME course that cost $150, I was still dying of boredom and at risk for DVT 4 days later. That’s how long it took to sit through.

Instead of the 30 seconds it should have taken to review the simple instructions to deliver Narcan, there were scores of screens followed by juvenile quizlets and cartoons. All but about 2 hours out of the 4 days is now relegated to that category of “hours of my life that I can never get back.” Additionally, none of that mandatory “education” will change my prescribing habits one whit. 

And beware the penalty. 

Changes Needed

The only good thing that came of those 4 long days of opioid education was a motivation to drive change in our current licensing and educational experience. Why not use this opportunity to reform the DEA-physician/prescriber relationship? 

The educational requirements should be curtailed for those of us who do not provide outpatient narcotic prescriptions even if we use inpatient opioids. Meds with low abuse potential should be rescheduled to minimize who gets caught in the broad net of the education requirement. 

We should reduce overregulation of the legitimate prescribers by lowering, instead of increasing, licensing fees. We should change to a single license number that covers every state. In this digital age, there is no legitimate excuse to prevent this from happening. 

After all, the settlements from opioid manufacturers and distributors will in time total $50 billion. It seems that at least some of the responsibilities of the DEA could shift to states, cities, and towns. 

My friend Siamak Karimian, MD, who provides locum services in multiple states, pays for seven active DEA licenses every 3 years. He pointed out the hypocrisy in the current regulatory system: “It’s funny that you can have only one DEA or state license and work for the government in all other states or territories with no limits, including the VA, Indian healthcare systems, or prison systems.”

All other prescribers require a separate DEA number for every state. Ultimately, you’d think tracking prescriptions for a single DEA number should be far simpler than tracking someone with seven. 

Competent physicians not guilty of criminal overprescribing seem to be the last to be considered in nearly every healthcare endeavor these days. It would be refreshing if they would reduce our fees and prevent this waste of our time. 

And while we are at it, perhaps a more fitting punishment is due for Richard Sackler and all the Purdue Pharma–affiliated family members. The Sacklers will pay out $6 billion in exchange for immunity against civil litigation. That doesn’t seem like much when they are worth $11 billion. 

Perhaps they should be made to take an 8-hour course on opioid prescribing, annually and in perpetuity. Let’s see them complete a few quizlets and sit through screens of instruction on how to administer Naloxone. Of course, that would be a mild punishment for those who manufactured a drug that killed hundreds of thousands. But it would be a start. 
 

Dr. Walton-Shirley, a clinical cardiologist in Nashville, Tennessee, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite an expanding arsenal of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), many patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) still struggle to reach remission even after trying multiple advanced treatments.

Now, international groups of experts are working to better define these “difficult-to-treat” patients to both inform care and improve selection of participants for future clinical trials.

“The idea is rather simple, and the need is relatively ubiquitous,” Denis Poddubnyy, MD, of the Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin and the German Rheumatism Research Center Berlin, both in Berlin, Germany, said in an interview. He is the co-primary investigator for the ongoing Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) project to develop a consensus definition of difficult-to-treat axSpA.

According to ASAS, only 40%-50% of patients with axSpA achieve a 40% improvement in ASAS response criteria (ASAS40), and few (10%-20%) achieve remission in the first 4-6 months of treatment.

Multiple Reasons for Nonresponse

“While the term difficult-to-treat can refer to refractory disease, that is not the only reason why a patient might not be responding to medication. In fact, it’s likely that truly biologically refractory disease makes up only a fraction of cases that respond inadequately to treatment,” said Shikha Singla, MD, who directs the psoriatic arthritis program at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. She is also involved with the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) initiative to define Difficult-to-Treat and Complex-to-Manage PsA.

Medical College of Wisconsin

“Apart from the persistent articular and periarticular inflammation, there could be multiple noninflammatory factors that may be contributing to this treatment-resistant disease, including comorbid conditions such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, fibromyalgia, and even social factors such as limited access to medications,” she told this news organization. “Given these complexities, it is a matter of supreme importance to recognize and carefully delineate the elements that contribute to treatment refractory disease: Is it truly the inflammation, or are there noninflammatory components that are causing the treatment failure, or a combination of the two?”

Other contributing factors could be depression, hypersensitization, and comorbidities that prevent certain treatment approaches, added Fabian Proft, MD, also of Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin. Dr. Proft discussed these difficult-to-treat definition efforts at the recent Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN) annual meeting held in Cleveland. Patients also might not be taking their medication regularly and may be seeking alternative medicine approaches, he said.

Dr. Proft

The Definitions

Terminology for these two groups can vary by professional society. The European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) published a definition for “difficult-to-treat” rheumatoid arthritis (RA) that includes cases with “both inflammatory activity and/or noninflammatory complaints.”

The definition includes three criteria:

1) Treatment according to EULAR recommendation and failure of at least two biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) or targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) (with different mechanisms of action) after failing conventional synthetic DMARD therapy (unless contraindicated)

2) Signs suggestive of active/progressive disease, including at least one of the following:

• Moderate disease activity (according to validated composite measures including joint counts)
• Signs (including acute phase reactants and imaging) and/or symptoms suggestive of active disease, whether joint-related or other
• Inability to taper glucocorticoid treatment
• Rapid radiographic progression (with or without signs of active disease)
• RA symptoms that are causing a reduction in quality of life

3) Symptom/sign management perceived as problematic by the rheumatologist or the patient

All three criteria must be met.

Both GRAPPA and ASAS plan to use the term “difficult-to-treat” or “treatment refractory” to describe true biologically refractory inflammatory disease and are categorizing the larger, heterogeneous group of nonresponders as “difficult-to-manage” (ASAS) or “complex-to-manage” (GRAPPA).

According to Dr. Poddubnyy, the agreed ASAS definition of difficult-to-manage has several similarities with EULAR’s RA definition, including three pillars:

• Treatment according to existing recommendations and failure of at least two different bDMARDs or tsDMARDs with different mechanisms
• Having signs and symptoms of disease (measured by high disease activity by certain disease activity indexes, persistently elevated C-reactive protein, inflammation on MRI, or rapid radiographic spinal progression)
• Symptoms/signs of disease that are considered problematic by the provider or patient

The definition was approved in January, and the manuscript is in the works, Dr. Poddubnyy said.

The GRAPPA project on PsA is still in its early stages, which so far has included a comprehensive literature review as well as a survey of GRAPPA members across 47 countries. The group is generally in agreement that two separate definitions for nonresponse to treatment are necessary, and that the “difficult-to-treat” definition — which identifies true refractory disease — should include objective signs of inflammation, Dr. Singla said.
 

Looking Forward

The next step of the ASAS project is to “define the pathway” from difficult-to-manage axSpA to treatment refractory disease, Dr. Poddubnyy said.

“What should be ruled out in order to exclude so-called noninflammatory causes of pain?” he continued. “It will require some Delphi exercises and [a] consensus approach.”

Proft anticipates that this treatment refractory definition in both axSpA and PsA will be most useful in research, rather than clinical practice.

“It is really important to have unified definition criteria to shape as homogeneous a cohort as possible,” he said, for future clinical trials in this population.

On the other hand, the complex/difficult-to-manage definition may be more useful for clinical practice, Dr. Proft thought.

“If you see a patient not responding to treatment, the easiest thing you can do would be to change treatment,” like swapping one biologic for another, Dr. Poddubnyy added, “but this would not be the right approach in every patient.” One goal of these initiatives is to give guidance on “what things should be looked after or excluded before you conclude this is biological [nonresponse],” he said.

Dr. Singla consults for AbbVie, Janssen, and UCB and received research funding from Eli Lilly. Dr. Poddubnyy disclosed serving as a speaker, consultant, and/or research grant recipient for multiple companies including AbbVie, Lilly, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and UCB. Dr. Proft reported receiving research grants, consultant fees, or support for attending meetings and/or travel from Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Medscape Medical News, Galapagos, and Hexal. Dr. Proft also participants on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite an expanding arsenal of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), many patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) still struggle to reach remission even after trying multiple advanced treatments.

Now, international groups of experts are working to better define these “difficult-to-treat” patients to both inform care and improve selection of participants for future clinical trials.

“The idea is rather simple, and the need is relatively ubiquitous,” Denis Poddubnyy, MD, of the Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin and the German Rheumatism Research Center Berlin, both in Berlin, Germany, said in an interview. He is the co-primary investigator for the ongoing Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) project to develop a consensus definition of difficult-to-treat axSpA.

According to ASAS, only 40%-50% of patients with axSpA achieve a 40% improvement in ASAS response criteria (ASAS40), and few (10%-20%) achieve remission in the first 4-6 months of treatment.

Multiple Reasons for Nonresponse

“While the term difficult-to-treat can refer to refractory disease, that is not the only reason why a patient might not be responding to medication. In fact, it’s likely that truly biologically refractory disease makes up only a fraction of cases that respond inadequately to treatment,” said Shikha Singla, MD, who directs the psoriatic arthritis program at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. She is also involved with the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) initiative to define Difficult-to-Treat and Complex-to-Manage PsA.

Medical College of Wisconsin

“Apart from the persistent articular and periarticular inflammation, there could be multiple noninflammatory factors that may be contributing to this treatment-resistant disease, including comorbid conditions such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, fibromyalgia, and even social factors such as limited access to medications,” she told this news organization. “Given these complexities, it is a matter of supreme importance to recognize and carefully delineate the elements that contribute to treatment refractory disease: Is it truly the inflammation, or are there noninflammatory components that are causing the treatment failure, or a combination of the two?”

Other contributing factors could be depression, hypersensitization, and comorbidities that prevent certain treatment approaches, added Fabian Proft, MD, also of Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin. Dr. Proft discussed these difficult-to-treat definition efforts at the recent Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN) annual meeting held in Cleveland. Patients also might not be taking their medication regularly and may be seeking alternative medicine approaches, he said.

Dr. Proft

The Definitions

Terminology for these two groups can vary by professional society. The European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) published a definition for “difficult-to-treat” rheumatoid arthritis (RA) that includes cases with “both inflammatory activity and/or noninflammatory complaints.”

The definition includes three criteria:

1) Treatment according to EULAR recommendation and failure of at least two biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) or targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) (with different mechanisms of action) after failing conventional synthetic DMARD therapy (unless contraindicated)

2) Signs suggestive of active/progressive disease, including at least one of the following:

• Moderate disease activity (according to validated composite measures including joint counts)
• Signs (including acute phase reactants and imaging) and/or symptoms suggestive of active disease, whether joint-related or other
• Inability to taper glucocorticoid treatment
• Rapid radiographic progression (with or without signs of active disease)
• RA symptoms that are causing a reduction in quality of life

3) Symptom/sign management perceived as problematic by the rheumatologist or the patient

All three criteria must be met.

Both GRAPPA and ASAS plan to use the term “difficult-to-treat” or “treatment refractory” to describe true biologically refractory inflammatory disease and are categorizing the larger, heterogeneous group of nonresponders as “difficult-to-manage” (ASAS) or “complex-to-manage” (GRAPPA).

According to Dr. Poddubnyy, the agreed ASAS definition of difficult-to-manage has several similarities with EULAR’s RA definition, including three pillars:

• Treatment according to existing recommendations and failure of at least two different bDMARDs or tsDMARDs with different mechanisms
• Having signs and symptoms of disease (measured by high disease activity by certain disease activity indexes, persistently elevated C-reactive protein, inflammation on MRI, or rapid radiographic spinal progression)
• Symptoms/signs of disease that are considered problematic by the provider or patient

The definition was approved in January, and the manuscript is in the works, Dr. Poddubnyy said.

The GRAPPA project on PsA is still in its early stages, which so far has included a comprehensive literature review as well as a survey of GRAPPA members across 47 countries. The group is generally in agreement that two separate definitions for nonresponse to treatment are necessary, and that the “difficult-to-treat” definition — which identifies true refractory disease — should include objective signs of inflammation, Dr. Singla said.
 

Looking Forward

The next step of the ASAS project is to “define the pathway” from difficult-to-manage axSpA to treatment refractory disease, Dr. Poddubnyy said.

“What should be ruled out in order to exclude so-called noninflammatory causes of pain?” he continued. “It will require some Delphi exercises and [a] consensus approach.”

Proft anticipates that this treatment refractory definition in both axSpA and PsA will be most useful in research, rather than clinical practice.

“It is really important to have unified definition criteria to shape as homogeneous a cohort as possible,” he said, for future clinical trials in this population.

On the other hand, the complex/difficult-to-manage definition may be more useful for clinical practice, Dr. Proft thought.

“If you see a patient not responding to treatment, the easiest thing you can do would be to change treatment,” like swapping one biologic for another, Dr. Poddubnyy added, “but this would not be the right approach in every patient.” One goal of these initiatives is to give guidance on “what things should be looked after or excluded before you conclude this is biological [nonresponse],” he said.

Dr. Singla consults for AbbVie, Janssen, and UCB and received research funding from Eli Lilly. Dr. Poddubnyy disclosed serving as a speaker, consultant, and/or research grant recipient for multiple companies including AbbVie, Lilly, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and UCB. Dr. Proft reported receiving research grants, consultant fees, or support for attending meetings and/or travel from Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Medscape Medical News, Galapagos, and Hexal. Dr. Proft also participants on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite an expanding arsenal of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), many patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) still struggle to reach remission even after trying multiple advanced treatments.

Now, international groups of experts are working to better define these “difficult-to-treat” patients to both inform care and improve selection of participants for future clinical trials.

“The idea is rather simple, and the need is relatively ubiquitous,” Denis Poddubnyy, MD, of the Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin and the German Rheumatism Research Center Berlin, both in Berlin, Germany, said in an interview. He is the co-primary investigator for the ongoing Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) project to develop a consensus definition of difficult-to-treat axSpA.

According to ASAS, only 40%-50% of patients with axSpA achieve a 40% improvement in ASAS response criteria (ASAS40), and few (10%-20%) achieve remission in the first 4-6 months of treatment.

Multiple Reasons for Nonresponse

“While the term difficult-to-treat can refer to refractory disease, that is not the only reason why a patient might not be responding to medication. In fact, it’s likely that truly biologically refractory disease makes up only a fraction of cases that respond inadequately to treatment,” said Shikha Singla, MD, who directs the psoriatic arthritis program at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. She is also involved with the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) initiative to define Difficult-to-Treat and Complex-to-Manage PsA.

Medical College of Wisconsin

“Apart from the persistent articular and periarticular inflammation, there could be multiple noninflammatory factors that may be contributing to this treatment-resistant disease, including comorbid conditions such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, fibromyalgia, and even social factors such as limited access to medications,” she told this news organization. “Given these complexities, it is a matter of supreme importance to recognize and carefully delineate the elements that contribute to treatment refractory disease: Is it truly the inflammation, or are there noninflammatory components that are causing the treatment failure, or a combination of the two?”

Other contributing factors could be depression, hypersensitization, and comorbidities that prevent certain treatment approaches, added Fabian Proft, MD, also of Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin. Dr. Proft discussed these difficult-to-treat definition efforts at the recent Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN) annual meeting held in Cleveland. Patients also might not be taking their medication regularly and may be seeking alternative medicine approaches, he said.

Dr. Proft

The Definitions

Terminology for these two groups can vary by professional society. The European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) published a definition for “difficult-to-treat” rheumatoid arthritis (RA) that includes cases with “both inflammatory activity and/or noninflammatory complaints.”

The definition includes three criteria:

1) Treatment according to EULAR recommendation and failure of at least two biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) or targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) (with different mechanisms of action) after failing conventional synthetic DMARD therapy (unless contraindicated)

2) Signs suggestive of active/progressive disease, including at least one of the following:

• Moderate disease activity (according to validated composite measures including joint counts)
• Signs (including acute phase reactants and imaging) and/or symptoms suggestive of active disease, whether joint-related or other
• Inability to taper glucocorticoid treatment
• Rapid radiographic progression (with or without signs of active disease)
• RA symptoms that are causing a reduction in quality of life

3) Symptom/sign management perceived as problematic by the rheumatologist or the patient

All three criteria must be met.

Both GRAPPA and ASAS plan to use the term “difficult-to-treat” or “treatment refractory” to describe true biologically refractory inflammatory disease and are categorizing the larger, heterogeneous group of nonresponders as “difficult-to-manage” (ASAS) or “complex-to-manage” (GRAPPA).

According to Dr. Poddubnyy, the agreed ASAS definition of difficult-to-manage has several similarities with EULAR’s RA definition, including three pillars:

• Treatment according to existing recommendations and failure of at least two different bDMARDs or tsDMARDs with different mechanisms
• Having signs and symptoms of disease (measured by high disease activity by certain disease activity indexes, persistently elevated C-reactive protein, inflammation on MRI, or rapid radiographic spinal progression)
• Symptoms/signs of disease that are considered problematic by the provider or patient

The definition was approved in January, and the manuscript is in the works, Dr. Poddubnyy said.

The GRAPPA project on PsA is still in its early stages, which so far has included a comprehensive literature review as well as a survey of GRAPPA members across 47 countries. The group is generally in agreement that two separate definitions for nonresponse to treatment are necessary, and that the “difficult-to-treat” definition — which identifies true refractory disease — should include objective signs of inflammation, Dr. Singla said.
 

Looking Forward

The next step of the ASAS project is to “define the pathway” from difficult-to-manage axSpA to treatment refractory disease, Dr. Poddubnyy said.

“What should be ruled out in order to exclude so-called noninflammatory causes of pain?” he continued. “It will require some Delphi exercises and [a] consensus approach.”

Proft anticipates that this treatment refractory definition in both axSpA and PsA will be most useful in research, rather than clinical practice.

“It is really important to have unified definition criteria to shape as homogeneous a cohort as possible,” he said, for future clinical trials in this population.

On the other hand, the complex/difficult-to-manage definition may be more useful for clinical practice, Dr. Proft thought.

“If you see a patient not responding to treatment, the easiest thing you can do would be to change treatment,” like swapping one biologic for another, Dr. Poddubnyy added, “but this would not be the right approach in every patient.” One goal of these initiatives is to give guidance on “what things should be looked after or excluded before you conclude this is biological [nonresponse],” he said.

Dr. Singla consults for AbbVie, Janssen, and UCB and received research funding from Eli Lilly. Dr. Poddubnyy disclosed serving as a speaker, consultant, and/or research grant recipient for multiple companies including AbbVie, Lilly, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and UCB. Dr. Proft reported receiving research grants, consultant fees, or support for attending meetings and/or travel from Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Medscape Medical News, Galapagos, and Hexal. Dr. Proft also participants on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Anti-Ro/SSA antibodies may help predict which patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) are at a greater risk for interstitial lung disease (ILD) and may serve as a biomarker to guide screening, according to an analysis of data from a large European cohort.

The researchers were led by Blaž Burja, MD, PhD, a physician-scientist at the Center of Experimental Rheumatology, University Hospital Zürich, Switzerland, who reported that anti-Ro/SSA antibodies are a risk factor for ILD, with an odds ratio of 1.24, in patients with SSc.

At the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, he presented the findings of the study that aimed to find out if SSc-nonspecific antibodies might help better risk-stratify patients with SSc, focusing on lung involvement. “Among them, anti-Ro/SSA antibodies have been shown to be associated with interstitial lung disease in different connective tissue diseases,” Dr. Burja pointed out.

“A total of 15% of all patients in the SSc cohort presented with anti-Ro/SSA antibodies, and this subgroup presented with distinct clinical features: Importantly, higher prevalence of ILD and lower DLCO% [diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide] in patients with established ILD,” reported Dr. Burja. “However, these anti-Ro/SSA antibodies do not predict ILD progression, death, or overall disease progression.”

Based on the findings, Dr. Burja suggested that these antibodies be incorporated into routine clinical practice to identify patients with SSc who have a high risk for ILD. He noted that “this has specific importance in clinical settings without availability of high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT), where anti-Ro/SSA antibodies could represent an additional biomarker to guide the screening process, in particular, in patients without SSc-specific antibodies.”

Caroline Ospelt, MD, PhD, co-moderator of the session and scientific program chair of EULAR 2024, told this news organization that the study was unique in its approach to studying ILD risk by “looking outside the box, so not just at specific antibodies but whether cross-disease antibodies may have value in stratifying patients and help predict risk of lung involvement and possibly monitor these patients.”

Dr. Ospelt, professor of experimental rheumatology at University Hospital Zürich, who was not involved in the study, noted: “It might also be the case that we could adapt this concept and use these antibodies in other rheumatic diseases, too, not just systemic sclerosis, to predict lung involvement.”
 

Risk-Stratifying With SSc-Nonspecific Antibodies

Dr. Burja explained that despite better stratification of patients with SSc with SSc-specific antibodies, “in clinical practice, we see large heterogeneity, and individual prognosis with regards to outcomes is still unpredictable, so we wanted to know whether by using nonspecific autoantibodies we might be better able to risk-stratify these patients.”

A study population of 4421 with at least one follow-up visit, including 3060 patients with available follow-up serologic data, was drawn from the European Scleroderma Trials and Research group database (n = 22,482). Of these 3060 patients, 461 were positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 2599 were negative. The researchers analyzed the relationships between baseline characteristics and the development or progression of ILD over 2.7 years of follow-up. Incident, de novo ILD was defined based on its presence on HRCT, and progression was defined by whether the percentage of predicted forced vital capacity (FVC%) dropped ≥ 10%, FVC% dropped 5%-9% in association with a DLCO% drop ≥ 15%, or FVC% dropped > 5%. Deaths from all causes and prognostic factors for the progression of lung fibrosis during follow-up were recorded.
 

High Prevalence of ILD With Anti-Ro/SSA Antibodies in SSc

At baseline, patients with anti-Ro/SSA antibodies were aged 55-56 years, 84%-87% were women, and muscular involvement was present in 18% of patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 12.5% of those who were negative (P < .001). According to HRCT, ILD was present in 56.2% of patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and in 47.8% of those who were negative (P = .001). FVC% was 92.5% in patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 95.7% in those who were negative (P = .002). DLCO% was 66.9% in patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 71% in those who were negative (P < .001).

“A total of 15% of all SSc patients presented as positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies, and these patients all presented with higher prevalence of SSA-nonspecific antibodies, too: Of note, those with anti-La/SSB and anti-U1/RNP and rheumatoid factor,” Dr. Burja reported.

In patients with anti-U1/RNP autoantibodies, 1% were positive and 4% were negative for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies; in those with anti-La/SSB autoantibodies, 17% were positive and 1% were negative for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies; and in those with rheumatoid factor, 28% were positive and 14% were negative for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies.

Dr. Burja pointed out that the average disease duration in the study cohort at baseline was 7 years, “and at this timepoint, we expect to see some common disease manifestations. Specifically, higher muscular involvement and higher ILD based on HRCT.

“We decided to focus on patients with established ILD at baseline,” said Dr. Burja. “Anti-Ro/SSA-positive patients with established ILD at baseline presented with lower DLCO values at 59% in patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 61% for those who were negative.”

After conducting a multivariable analysis of 14,066 healthcare visits and adjusting for known risk factors for ILD, the researchers concluded that anti-Ro/SSA antibodies are an independent risk factor for ILD, with an odds ratio of 1.24 (95% CI, 1.07-1.44; P = .006). They also determined that anti-Ro/SSA antibodies are a risk factor for lower DLCO values in patients with ILD, with a regression coefficient of −1.93.

The researchers then explored the progression of ILD and overall disease progression and survival during the follow-up period in a longitudinal analysis. “However, anti-Ro/SSA antibodies were not found to predict the progression of ILD,” reported Dr. Burja, adding that this was true regardless of the definition of ILD progression used. “Nor did anti-Ro/SSA antibodies do not predict survival or overall disease progression.”

Dr. Burja pointed out the limitations in his study, including the lack of standardized criteria for all centers to assess anti-Ro/SSA positivity; there was a lack of discrimination between anti-Ro52 and anti-Ro60 subtypes, and there were no standardized applicable criteria to study lung progression in SSc.

Dr. Burja and Dr. Ospelt had no relevant financial disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Anti-Ro/SSA antibodies may help predict which patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) are at a greater risk for interstitial lung disease (ILD) and may serve as a biomarker to guide screening, according to an analysis of data from a large European cohort.

The researchers were led by Blaž Burja, MD, PhD, a physician-scientist at the Center of Experimental Rheumatology, University Hospital Zürich, Switzerland, who reported that anti-Ro/SSA antibodies are a risk factor for ILD, with an odds ratio of 1.24, in patients with SSc.

At the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, he presented the findings of the study that aimed to find out if SSc-nonspecific antibodies might help better risk-stratify patients with SSc, focusing on lung involvement. “Among them, anti-Ro/SSA antibodies have been shown to be associated with interstitial lung disease in different connective tissue diseases,” Dr. Burja pointed out.

“A total of 15% of all patients in the SSc cohort presented with anti-Ro/SSA antibodies, and this subgroup presented with distinct clinical features: Importantly, higher prevalence of ILD and lower DLCO% [diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide] in patients with established ILD,” reported Dr. Burja. “However, these anti-Ro/SSA antibodies do not predict ILD progression, death, or overall disease progression.”

Based on the findings, Dr. Burja suggested that these antibodies be incorporated into routine clinical practice to identify patients with SSc who have a high risk for ILD. He noted that “this has specific importance in clinical settings without availability of high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT), where anti-Ro/SSA antibodies could represent an additional biomarker to guide the screening process, in particular, in patients without SSc-specific antibodies.”

Caroline Ospelt, MD, PhD, co-moderator of the session and scientific program chair of EULAR 2024, told this news organization that the study was unique in its approach to studying ILD risk by “looking outside the box, so not just at specific antibodies but whether cross-disease antibodies may have value in stratifying patients and help predict risk of lung involvement and possibly monitor these patients.”

Dr. Ospelt, professor of experimental rheumatology at University Hospital Zürich, who was not involved in the study, noted: “It might also be the case that we could adapt this concept and use these antibodies in other rheumatic diseases, too, not just systemic sclerosis, to predict lung involvement.”
 

Risk-Stratifying With SSc-Nonspecific Antibodies

Dr. Burja explained that despite better stratification of patients with SSc with SSc-specific antibodies, “in clinical practice, we see large heterogeneity, and individual prognosis with regards to outcomes is still unpredictable, so we wanted to know whether by using nonspecific autoantibodies we might be better able to risk-stratify these patients.”

A study population of 4421 with at least one follow-up visit, including 3060 patients with available follow-up serologic data, was drawn from the European Scleroderma Trials and Research group database (n = 22,482). Of these 3060 patients, 461 were positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 2599 were negative. The researchers analyzed the relationships between baseline characteristics and the development or progression of ILD over 2.7 years of follow-up. Incident, de novo ILD was defined based on its presence on HRCT, and progression was defined by whether the percentage of predicted forced vital capacity (FVC%) dropped ≥ 10%, FVC% dropped 5%-9% in association with a DLCO% drop ≥ 15%, or FVC% dropped > 5%. Deaths from all causes and prognostic factors for the progression of lung fibrosis during follow-up were recorded.
 

High Prevalence of ILD With Anti-Ro/SSA Antibodies in SSc

At baseline, patients with anti-Ro/SSA antibodies were aged 55-56 years, 84%-87% were women, and muscular involvement was present in 18% of patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 12.5% of those who were negative (P < .001). According to HRCT, ILD was present in 56.2% of patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and in 47.8% of those who were negative (P = .001). FVC% was 92.5% in patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 95.7% in those who were negative (P = .002). DLCO% was 66.9% in patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 71% in those who were negative (P < .001).

“A total of 15% of all SSc patients presented as positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies, and these patients all presented with higher prevalence of SSA-nonspecific antibodies, too: Of note, those with anti-La/SSB and anti-U1/RNP and rheumatoid factor,” Dr. Burja reported.

In patients with anti-U1/RNP autoantibodies, 1% were positive and 4% were negative for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies; in those with anti-La/SSB autoantibodies, 17% were positive and 1% were negative for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies; and in those with rheumatoid factor, 28% were positive and 14% were negative for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies.

Dr. Burja pointed out that the average disease duration in the study cohort at baseline was 7 years, “and at this timepoint, we expect to see some common disease manifestations. Specifically, higher muscular involvement and higher ILD based on HRCT.

“We decided to focus on patients with established ILD at baseline,” said Dr. Burja. “Anti-Ro/SSA-positive patients with established ILD at baseline presented with lower DLCO values at 59% in patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 61% for those who were negative.”

After conducting a multivariable analysis of 14,066 healthcare visits and adjusting for known risk factors for ILD, the researchers concluded that anti-Ro/SSA antibodies are an independent risk factor for ILD, with an odds ratio of 1.24 (95% CI, 1.07-1.44; P = .006). They also determined that anti-Ro/SSA antibodies are a risk factor for lower DLCO values in patients with ILD, with a regression coefficient of −1.93.

The researchers then explored the progression of ILD and overall disease progression and survival during the follow-up period in a longitudinal analysis. “However, anti-Ro/SSA antibodies were not found to predict the progression of ILD,” reported Dr. Burja, adding that this was true regardless of the definition of ILD progression used. “Nor did anti-Ro/SSA antibodies do not predict survival or overall disease progression.”

Dr. Burja pointed out the limitations in his study, including the lack of standardized criteria for all centers to assess anti-Ro/SSA positivity; there was a lack of discrimination between anti-Ro52 and anti-Ro60 subtypes, and there were no standardized applicable criteria to study lung progression in SSc.

Dr. Burja and Dr. Ospelt had no relevant financial disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Anti-Ro/SSA antibodies may help predict which patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) are at a greater risk for interstitial lung disease (ILD) and may serve as a biomarker to guide screening, according to an analysis of data from a large European cohort.

The researchers were led by Blaž Burja, MD, PhD, a physician-scientist at the Center of Experimental Rheumatology, University Hospital Zürich, Switzerland, who reported that anti-Ro/SSA antibodies are a risk factor for ILD, with an odds ratio of 1.24, in patients with SSc.

At the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, he presented the findings of the study that aimed to find out if SSc-nonspecific antibodies might help better risk-stratify patients with SSc, focusing on lung involvement. “Among them, anti-Ro/SSA antibodies have been shown to be associated with interstitial lung disease in different connective tissue diseases,” Dr. Burja pointed out.

“A total of 15% of all patients in the SSc cohort presented with anti-Ro/SSA antibodies, and this subgroup presented with distinct clinical features: Importantly, higher prevalence of ILD and lower DLCO% [diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide] in patients with established ILD,” reported Dr. Burja. “However, these anti-Ro/SSA antibodies do not predict ILD progression, death, or overall disease progression.”

Based on the findings, Dr. Burja suggested that these antibodies be incorporated into routine clinical practice to identify patients with SSc who have a high risk for ILD. He noted that “this has specific importance in clinical settings without availability of high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT), where anti-Ro/SSA antibodies could represent an additional biomarker to guide the screening process, in particular, in patients without SSc-specific antibodies.”

Caroline Ospelt, MD, PhD, co-moderator of the session and scientific program chair of EULAR 2024, told this news organization that the study was unique in its approach to studying ILD risk by “looking outside the box, so not just at specific antibodies but whether cross-disease antibodies may have value in stratifying patients and help predict risk of lung involvement and possibly monitor these patients.”

Dr. Ospelt, professor of experimental rheumatology at University Hospital Zürich, who was not involved in the study, noted: “It might also be the case that we could adapt this concept and use these antibodies in other rheumatic diseases, too, not just systemic sclerosis, to predict lung involvement.”
 

Risk-Stratifying With SSc-Nonspecific Antibodies

Dr. Burja explained that despite better stratification of patients with SSc with SSc-specific antibodies, “in clinical practice, we see large heterogeneity, and individual prognosis with regards to outcomes is still unpredictable, so we wanted to know whether by using nonspecific autoantibodies we might be better able to risk-stratify these patients.”

A study population of 4421 with at least one follow-up visit, including 3060 patients with available follow-up serologic data, was drawn from the European Scleroderma Trials and Research group database (n = 22,482). Of these 3060 patients, 461 were positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 2599 were negative. The researchers analyzed the relationships between baseline characteristics and the development or progression of ILD over 2.7 years of follow-up. Incident, de novo ILD was defined based on its presence on HRCT, and progression was defined by whether the percentage of predicted forced vital capacity (FVC%) dropped ≥ 10%, FVC% dropped 5%-9% in association with a DLCO% drop ≥ 15%, or FVC% dropped > 5%. Deaths from all causes and prognostic factors for the progression of lung fibrosis during follow-up were recorded.
 

High Prevalence of ILD With Anti-Ro/SSA Antibodies in SSc

At baseline, patients with anti-Ro/SSA antibodies were aged 55-56 years, 84%-87% were women, and muscular involvement was present in 18% of patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 12.5% of those who were negative (P < .001). According to HRCT, ILD was present in 56.2% of patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and in 47.8% of those who were negative (P = .001). FVC% was 92.5% in patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 95.7% in those who were negative (P = .002). DLCO% was 66.9% in patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 71% in those who were negative (P < .001).

“A total of 15% of all SSc patients presented as positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies, and these patients all presented with higher prevalence of SSA-nonspecific antibodies, too: Of note, those with anti-La/SSB and anti-U1/RNP and rheumatoid factor,” Dr. Burja reported.

In patients with anti-U1/RNP autoantibodies, 1% were positive and 4% were negative for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies; in those with anti-La/SSB autoantibodies, 17% were positive and 1% were negative for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies; and in those with rheumatoid factor, 28% were positive and 14% were negative for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies.

Dr. Burja pointed out that the average disease duration in the study cohort at baseline was 7 years, “and at this timepoint, we expect to see some common disease manifestations. Specifically, higher muscular involvement and higher ILD based on HRCT.

“We decided to focus on patients with established ILD at baseline,” said Dr. Burja. “Anti-Ro/SSA-positive patients with established ILD at baseline presented with lower DLCO values at 59% in patients positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibodies and 61% for those who were negative.”

After conducting a multivariable analysis of 14,066 healthcare visits and adjusting for known risk factors for ILD, the researchers concluded that anti-Ro/SSA antibodies are an independent risk factor for ILD, with an odds ratio of 1.24 (95% CI, 1.07-1.44; P = .006). They also determined that anti-Ro/SSA antibodies are a risk factor for lower DLCO values in patients with ILD, with a regression coefficient of −1.93.

The researchers then explored the progression of ILD and overall disease progression and survival during the follow-up period in a longitudinal analysis. “However, anti-Ro/SSA antibodies were not found to predict the progression of ILD,” reported Dr. Burja, adding that this was true regardless of the definition of ILD progression used. “Nor did anti-Ro/SSA antibodies do not predict survival or overall disease progression.”

Dr. Burja pointed out the limitations in his study, including the lack of standardized criteria for all centers to assess anti-Ro/SSA positivity; there was a lack of discrimination between anti-Ro52 and anti-Ro60 subtypes, and there were no standardized applicable criteria to study lung progression in SSc.

Dr. Burja and Dr. Ospelt had no relevant financial disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — In patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) are associated with a substantially greater risk for herpes zoster, but the risk for other types of infections is about the same and often numerically lower relative to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), according to new data from the JAK-pot study.

“In the real world, we found no significantly greater risk of serious or nonserious infections, with the exception of herpes zoster,” said Romain Aymon, a statistician in the Department of Rheumatology at the University Hospital of Geneva, Switzerland.

Ted Bosworth/Medscape Medical News

This finding is the latest analysis generated by JAK-pot, a collaboration of 20 national registries to answer real-world questions about the efficacy and safety of JAKi in rheumatic diseases. These data have already been used to address such issues as relative rates of discontinuation for JAKi vs bDMARDs and to compare outcomes of RA patients who are switched to a bDMARD vs those who are cycled to another JAKi.

The main conclusion — that JAKi, relative to bDMARDs for RA, is associated with an increased risk for herpes zoster but not other types of infections — is not a surprise, according to Floris A. van Gaalen, MD, PhD, a clinician and researcher in the Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University in the Netherlands.

“There are a number of risks with JAK inhibitors that have generated concern, but I think most clinicians are aware that they should be warning patients about herpes zoster,” said Dr. van Gaalen, who was not involved in the study. He believes the risk is sufficient to warrant a discussion with patients about taking the herpes zoster vaccine prior to treatment.

Relative Risk for Infection on JAKi Is Unclear

Although the greater risk for herpes zoster with JAKi vs bDMARDs is well established, the relative risk for other types of infections has been unclear, according to Mr. Aymon. One reason is that some, but not all, of the initial pivotal trials and safety studies associated JAKi with an increased risk for opportunistic infections, Mr. Aymon said.

The JAK-pot data, presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, provide real-world data that shed light on this controversy, Mr. Aymon said.

Of the 20 national registries now providing data to JAK-pot, only 14 were included in this analysis. The study required data on infection rates from the time that JAKi became commercially available, which narrowed the data pool.

For this analysis, JAKi, which included tofacitinib (Xeljanz), baricitinib (Olumiant), upadacitinib (Rinvoq), and filgotinib (Jyseleca), were compared separately and together with two groups of bDMARDs. One consisted of the tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, or golimumab. The other was composed of bDMARDs with other modes of action (OMA). This group included abatacept, rituximab, sarilumab, and tocilizumab.
 

More Than 50,000 Exposures Included in Analysis

From the pooled registry, data were gathered from 13,374 courses of JAKi, 25,049 courses of TNFi, and 16,482 courses of OMA. There were some differences between these groups, including a significantly lower median age for those in the JAKi pool (57.1 years vs 58.3 and 60.5 years for TNFi and OMA, respectively) and median disease duration (8.3 years vs 11.0 and 11.9 years, respectively).

A greater proportion of patients on TNFi were naive to therapy (44.6%), compared with either JAKi (20.2%) or OMA (16.1%). More patients in the TNFi pool (60.0%) were also on concomitant therapy than those in the JAKi pool (49.5%) or the OMA pool (51.9%).

Other characteristics such as disease activity, body mass index, and percentage of smokers were comparable.

When TNFi was used as the reference, there were no significant differences in the rate of all infections, the rate of all infections excluding herpes zoster, and all serious infections. In all three groups, the incidence rates were numerically but not significantly lower in patients on JAKi vs OMA. With the exception of serious infections, for which the adjusted incidence of JAKi was 0.99 relative to TNFi, both JAKi and OMA had numerically higher incidence rate ratios than TNFi.
 

Herpes Zoster Risk on JAKi Is > Twofold Higher

Because the CIs overlapped in all cases, none of the differences were significant. The exception was herpes zoster. The 1.07 incidence rate ratio for OMA was not significantly different than the TNFi reference, but the 2.27 rate ratio for JAKi far exceeded either of the other two comparators (95% CI, 1.17-3.02).

In a separate analysis of patients at least 55 years of age with at least one cardiovascular risk factor, the numerical differences between groups were narrower and thus did not reach statistical significance, even for herpes zoster. Although the herpes zoster rate ratio was 1.62 for JAKi vs 1.23 for OMA (TNFi as the reference was 1.0), the CI for JAKi (0.86-3.03) overlapped both.

Based on a Poisson regression analysis, this study took into account a wide variety of variables, including age, disease activity, comorbidities, and tobacco use, Mr. Aymon said. He noted that the analyses were performed on data from each registry as well as with the pooled data, and the data were reasonably consistent.

Initially, the investigators had planned to evaluate differences between therapy groups, if any, for COVID-19 infection, but differences in the availability and use of vaccinations among the countries where the registries were maintained made this analysis too complicated to conduct.

Mr. Aymon reported no potential conflicts of interest, but some coauthors reported financial relationships with manufacturers of both bDMARDs and JAKi. Dr. van Gaalen reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and UCB.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — In patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) are associated with a substantially greater risk for herpes zoster, but the risk for other types of infections is about the same and often numerically lower relative to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), according to new data from the JAK-pot study.

“In the real world, we found no significantly greater risk of serious or nonserious infections, with the exception of herpes zoster,” said Romain Aymon, a statistician in the Department of Rheumatology at the University Hospital of Geneva, Switzerland.

Ted Bosworth/Medscape Medical News

This finding is the latest analysis generated by JAK-pot, a collaboration of 20 national registries to answer real-world questions about the efficacy and safety of JAKi in rheumatic diseases. These data have already been used to address such issues as relative rates of discontinuation for JAKi vs bDMARDs and to compare outcomes of RA patients who are switched to a bDMARD vs those who are cycled to another JAKi.

The main conclusion — that JAKi, relative to bDMARDs for RA, is associated with an increased risk for herpes zoster but not other types of infections — is not a surprise, according to Floris A. van Gaalen, MD, PhD, a clinician and researcher in the Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University in the Netherlands.

“There are a number of risks with JAK inhibitors that have generated concern, but I think most clinicians are aware that they should be warning patients about herpes zoster,” said Dr. van Gaalen, who was not involved in the study. He believes the risk is sufficient to warrant a discussion with patients about taking the herpes zoster vaccine prior to treatment.

Relative Risk for Infection on JAKi Is Unclear

Although the greater risk for herpes zoster with JAKi vs bDMARDs is well established, the relative risk for other types of infections has been unclear, according to Mr. Aymon. One reason is that some, but not all, of the initial pivotal trials and safety studies associated JAKi with an increased risk for opportunistic infections, Mr. Aymon said.

The JAK-pot data, presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, provide real-world data that shed light on this controversy, Mr. Aymon said.

Of the 20 national registries now providing data to JAK-pot, only 14 were included in this analysis. The study required data on infection rates from the time that JAKi became commercially available, which narrowed the data pool.

For this analysis, JAKi, which included tofacitinib (Xeljanz), baricitinib (Olumiant), upadacitinib (Rinvoq), and filgotinib (Jyseleca), were compared separately and together with two groups of bDMARDs. One consisted of the tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, or golimumab. The other was composed of bDMARDs with other modes of action (OMA). This group included abatacept, rituximab, sarilumab, and tocilizumab.
 

More Than 50,000 Exposures Included in Analysis

From the pooled registry, data were gathered from 13,374 courses of JAKi, 25,049 courses of TNFi, and 16,482 courses of OMA. There were some differences between these groups, including a significantly lower median age for those in the JAKi pool (57.1 years vs 58.3 and 60.5 years for TNFi and OMA, respectively) and median disease duration (8.3 years vs 11.0 and 11.9 years, respectively).

A greater proportion of patients on TNFi were naive to therapy (44.6%), compared with either JAKi (20.2%) or OMA (16.1%). More patients in the TNFi pool (60.0%) were also on concomitant therapy than those in the JAKi pool (49.5%) or the OMA pool (51.9%).

Other characteristics such as disease activity, body mass index, and percentage of smokers were comparable.

When TNFi was used as the reference, there were no significant differences in the rate of all infections, the rate of all infections excluding herpes zoster, and all serious infections. In all three groups, the incidence rates were numerically but not significantly lower in patients on JAKi vs OMA. With the exception of serious infections, for which the adjusted incidence of JAKi was 0.99 relative to TNFi, both JAKi and OMA had numerically higher incidence rate ratios than TNFi.
 

Herpes Zoster Risk on JAKi Is > Twofold Higher

Because the CIs overlapped in all cases, none of the differences were significant. The exception was herpes zoster. The 1.07 incidence rate ratio for OMA was not significantly different than the TNFi reference, but the 2.27 rate ratio for JAKi far exceeded either of the other two comparators (95% CI, 1.17-3.02).

In a separate analysis of patients at least 55 years of age with at least one cardiovascular risk factor, the numerical differences between groups were narrower and thus did not reach statistical significance, even for herpes zoster. Although the herpes zoster rate ratio was 1.62 for JAKi vs 1.23 for OMA (TNFi as the reference was 1.0), the CI for JAKi (0.86-3.03) overlapped both.

Based on a Poisson regression analysis, this study took into account a wide variety of variables, including age, disease activity, comorbidities, and tobacco use, Mr. Aymon said. He noted that the analyses were performed on data from each registry as well as with the pooled data, and the data were reasonably consistent.

Initially, the investigators had planned to evaluate differences between therapy groups, if any, for COVID-19 infection, but differences in the availability and use of vaccinations among the countries where the registries were maintained made this analysis too complicated to conduct.

Mr. Aymon reported no potential conflicts of interest, but some coauthors reported financial relationships with manufacturers of both bDMARDs and JAKi. Dr. van Gaalen reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and UCB.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — In patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) are associated with a substantially greater risk for herpes zoster, but the risk for other types of infections is about the same and often numerically lower relative to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), according to new data from the JAK-pot study.

“In the real world, we found no significantly greater risk of serious or nonserious infections, with the exception of herpes zoster,” said Romain Aymon, a statistician in the Department of Rheumatology at the University Hospital of Geneva, Switzerland.

Ted Bosworth/Medscape Medical News

This finding is the latest analysis generated by JAK-pot, a collaboration of 20 national registries to answer real-world questions about the efficacy and safety of JAKi in rheumatic diseases. These data have already been used to address such issues as relative rates of discontinuation for JAKi vs bDMARDs and to compare outcomes of RA patients who are switched to a bDMARD vs those who are cycled to another JAKi.

The main conclusion — that JAKi, relative to bDMARDs for RA, is associated with an increased risk for herpes zoster but not other types of infections — is not a surprise, according to Floris A. van Gaalen, MD, PhD, a clinician and researcher in the Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University in the Netherlands.

“There are a number of risks with JAK inhibitors that have generated concern, but I think most clinicians are aware that they should be warning patients about herpes zoster,” said Dr. van Gaalen, who was not involved in the study. He believes the risk is sufficient to warrant a discussion with patients about taking the herpes zoster vaccine prior to treatment.

Relative Risk for Infection on JAKi Is Unclear

Although the greater risk for herpes zoster with JAKi vs bDMARDs is well established, the relative risk for other types of infections has been unclear, according to Mr. Aymon. One reason is that some, but not all, of the initial pivotal trials and safety studies associated JAKi with an increased risk for opportunistic infections, Mr. Aymon said.

The JAK-pot data, presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, provide real-world data that shed light on this controversy, Mr. Aymon said.

Of the 20 national registries now providing data to JAK-pot, only 14 were included in this analysis. The study required data on infection rates from the time that JAKi became commercially available, which narrowed the data pool.

For this analysis, JAKi, which included tofacitinib (Xeljanz), baricitinib (Olumiant), upadacitinib (Rinvoq), and filgotinib (Jyseleca), were compared separately and together with two groups of bDMARDs. One consisted of the tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, or golimumab. The other was composed of bDMARDs with other modes of action (OMA). This group included abatacept, rituximab, sarilumab, and tocilizumab.
 

More Than 50,000 Exposures Included in Analysis

From the pooled registry, data were gathered from 13,374 courses of JAKi, 25,049 courses of TNFi, and 16,482 courses of OMA. There were some differences between these groups, including a significantly lower median age for those in the JAKi pool (57.1 years vs 58.3 and 60.5 years for TNFi and OMA, respectively) and median disease duration (8.3 years vs 11.0 and 11.9 years, respectively).

A greater proportion of patients on TNFi were naive to therapy (44.6%), compared with either JAKi (20.2%) or OMA (16.1%). More patients in the TNFi pool (60.0%) were also on concomitant therapy than those in the JAKi pool (49.5%) or the OMA pool (51.9%).

Other characteristics such as disease activity, body mass index, and percentage of smokers were comparable.

When TNFi was used as the reference, there were no significant differences in the rate of all infections, the rate of all infections excluding herpes zoster, and all serious infections. In all three groups, the incidence rates were numerically but not significantly lower in patients on JAKi vs OMA. With the exception of serious infections, for which the adjusted incidence of JAKi was 0.99 relative to TNFi, both JAKi and OMA had numerically higher incidence rate ratios than TNFi.
 

Herpes Zoster Risk on JAKi Is > Twofold Higher

Because the CIs overlapped in all cases, none of the differences were significant. The exception was herpes zoster. The 1.07 incidence rate ratio for OMA was not significantly different than the TNFi reference, but the 2.27 rate ratio for JAKi far exceeded either of the other two comparators (95% CI, 1.17-3.02).

In a separate analysis of patients at least 55 years of age with at least one cardiovascular risk factor, the numerical differences between groups were narrower and thus did not reach statistical significance, even for herpes zoster. Although the herpes zoster rate ratio was 1.62 for JAKi vs 1.23 for OMA (TNFi as the reference was 1.0), the CI for JAKi (0.86-3.03) overlapped both.

Based on a Poisson regression analysis, this study took into account a wide variety of variables, including age, disease activity, comorbidities, and tobacco use, Mr. Aymon said. He noted that the analyses were performed on data from each registry as well as with the pooled data, and the data were reasonably consistent.

Initially, the investigators had planned to evaluate differences between therapy groups, if any, for COVID-19 infection, but differences in the availability and use of vaccinations among the countries where the registries were maintained made this analysis too complicated to conduct.

Mr. Aymon reported no potential conflicts of interest, but some coauthors reported financial relationships with manufacturers of both bDMARDs and JAKi. Dr. van Gaalen reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and UCB.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Results from the phase 3 SELECT-GCA study showed that the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq) induces significant and sustained remission in people with new-onset or relapsing giant cell arteritis (GCA).

The primary endpoint of sustained remission — the absence of GCA signs or symptoms from weeks 12 to 52 together with adherence to a steroid-tapering regimen — occurred in 46% of 210 individuals randomly assigned to treatment treated with a once-daily 15-mg dose of upadacitinib and 29% of 105 randomly assigned to placebo (P = .0019).

Nine of the 11 secondary endpoints were also positive for upadacitinib 15 mg vs placebo, and no new safety concerns were identified in a late-breaking abstract presented at the at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
 

First JAK Trial in GCA

This is the first trial to look at the use of a JAK inhibitor for the treatment of GCA, and it is addressing a real unmet need, the presenting study investigator Daniel Blockmans, MD, PhD, of University Hospitals Leuven in Belgium, told this news organization.

Glucocorticoids remain the mainstay of treatment, and tocilizumab has been licensed for use, but people don’t always get better or can relapse, he explained.

“I have the impression that these only suppress the disease but do not cure it,” Dr. Blockmans said, adding that “patients get very well soon after these treatments are started, but there are more and more reports that there is a kind of smoldering vasculitis that exists, and this can lead to dilatation of the aorta.”

Upadacitinib inhibits two JAK-dependent cytokines, interleukin 6 and interferon gamma, which have been implicated in the pathogenesis of GCA. The latter could be particularly important, Dr. Blockmans suggested.
 

Study Details

SELECT-GCA is an ongoing multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of upadacitinib vs placebo in patients with GCA.

A total of 428 patients have been included: 210 were randomly allocated to treatment with upadacitinib 15 mg, 105 to upadacitinib 7.5 mg, and 105 to placebo. The inclusion of the lower “minimally effective” upadacitinib dose was a requirement of the regulatory authorities, Dr. Blockmans said; the licensed dose in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is 15 mg.

Dr. Blockmans reported data from the first 52 weeks of the trial during which all patients underwent glucocorticoid tapering — 26 weeks for upadacitinib and 52 weeks for placebo.

No imaging was done in this trial, which Dr. Blockmans said should be considered for future studies.
 

Secondary Endpoints

One of the key secondary endpoints was sustained complete remission, defined as sustained remission plus a normalized erythrocyte sedimentation rate to ≤ 30 mm/h and reducing high-sensitivity C-reactive protein to < 1 mg/dL.

Sustained complete remission occurred in 37% and 16% of patients treated with upadacitinib 15 mg and placebo, respectively (P < .0001).

Additionally, a significantly lower proportion of upadacitinib 15 mg- than placebo-treated patients experienced at least one disease flare through week 52 (34% vs 56%, P = .0014).

Other positive secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg vs placebo out to week 52 were the number of disease flares per patient, cumulative glucocorticoid exposure, and complete remission (also at week 24).

And significant changes in SF-36 and FACIT-Fatigue from baseline to week 52 were seen for upadacitinib 15 mg.

The only secondary endpoints not showing a clear benefit for upadacitinib 15 mg were the changes in the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication at 52 weeks and the rate of glucocorticoid-related adverse events through week 52.

As for the 7.5-mg dose of upadacitinib, neither the primary nor secondary endpoints were significantly better vs placebo.
 

‘Life-Changing’

The study’s findings could be “really life-changing” for patients with this type of vasculitis if upadacitinib gets approval for use in this indication, Milena Bond, MD, PhD, of Brunico Hospital in Italy, told this news organization at the meeting.

“Unfortunately, nowadays, we still have only a few options for treating these patients,” she said. “So, this drug could be really, really important.”

Dr. Bond added: “The data ... also shows there is a very good safety profile, which was a main concern given the class of the drug. So, I’m very positive about this treatment and very excited to see the preliminary results.”

After his presentation, Dr. Blockmans said, “Of course, if we already had an ideal treatment for GCA, there would be no need for a JAK inhibitor, but I don’t think that steroid treatment or tocilizumab treatment is the ideal treatment.”
 

Judicious Use Still Warranted

Upadacitinib still needs to be used cautiously, following appropriate guidance from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration.

Dr. Bond said: “It is not advised to use to the drug when people are older than 65 years old,” according to the EMA, for example, and “given the rules that we have, I would not use this drug as a first-line treatment. We do not do that for rheumatoid arthritis.”

But, she added, “As for arthritis, when you fail treating patients with the other alternatives, you could use this drug, and you have to discuss risks with the patients.”

Dr. Blockmans reported there had been no increased risk for major adverse cardiovascular events or venous thromboembolism associated with upadacitinib relative to placebo in the population of patients studied, and he pointed out that they had a much higher risk for these events than perhaps an RA population.

He said: “It’s effective, and it’s apparently safe in these older people, despite what we heard about tofacitinib in the ORAL [Surveillance] study; we didn’t see these problems here in this elderly population.”

The SELECT-GCA trial was funded by AbbVie, and the company participated in all aspects of the study, including its design, conduct, interpretation of data, and reporting. Dr. Blockmans received no funding or other honoraria from the company but reported a research grant from Roche and consulting fees from GlaxoSmithKline. Most of his coauthors reported financial relationships with AbbVie, and some are employees of the company. Dr. Bond reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Results from the phase 3 SELECT-GCA study showed that the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq) induces significant and sustained remission in people with new-onset or relapsing giant cell arteritis (GCA).

The primary endpoint of sustained remission — the absence of GCA signs or symptoms from weeks 12 to 52 together with adherence to a steroid-tapering regimen — occurred in 46% of 210 individuals randomly assigned to treatment treated with a once-daily 15-mg dose of upadacitinib and 29% of 105 randomly assigned to placebo (P = .0019).

Nine of the 11 secondary endpoints were also positive for upadacitinib 15 mg vs placebo, and no new safety concerns were identified in a late-breaking abstract presented at the at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
 

First JAK Trial in GCA

This is the first trial to look at the use of a JAK inhibitor for the treatment of GCA, and it is addressing a real unmet need, the presenting study investigator Daniel Blockmans, MD, PhD, of University Hospitals Leuven in Belgium, told this news organization.

Glucocorticoids remain the mainstay of treatment, and tocilizumab has been licensed for use, but people don’t always get better or can relapse, he explained.

“I have the impression that these only suppress the disease but do not cure it,” Dr. Blockmans said, adding that “patients get very well soon after these treatments are started, but there are more and more reports that there is a kind of smoldering vasculitis that exists, and this can lead to dilatation of the aorta.”

Upadacitinib inhibits two JAK-dependent cytokines, interleukin 6 and interferon gamma, which have been implicated in the pathogenesis of GCA. The latter could be particularly important, Dr. Blockmans suggested.
 

Study Details

SELECT-GCA is an ongoing multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of upadacitinib vs placebo in patients with GCA.

A total of 428 patients have been included: 210 were randomly allocated to treatment with upadacitinib 15 mg, 105 to upadacitinib 7.5 mg, and 105 to placebo. The inclusion of the lower “minimally effective” upadacitinib dose was a requirement of the regulatory authorities, Dr. Blockmans said; the licensed dose in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is 15 mg.

Dr. Blockmans reported data from the first 52 weeks of the trial during which all patients underwent glucocorticoid tapering — 26 weeks for upadacitinib and 52 weeks for placebo.

No imaging was done in this trial, which Dr. Blockmans said should be considered for future studies.
 

Secondary Endpoints

One of the key secondary endpoints was sustained complete remission, defined as sustained remission plus a normalized erythrocyte sedimentation rate to ≤ 30 mm/h and reducing high-sensitivity C-reactive protein to < 1 mg/dL.

Sustained complete remission occurred in 37% and 16% of patients treated with upadacitinib 15 mg and placebo, respectively (P < .0001).

Additionally, a significantly lower proportion of upadacitinib 15 mg- than placebo-treated patients experienced at least one disease flare through week 52 (34% vs 56%, P = .0014).

Other positive secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg vs placebo out to week 52 were the number of disease flares per patient, cumulative glucocorticoid exposure, and complete remission (also at week 24).

And significant changes in SF-36 and FACIT-Fatigue from baseline to week 52 were seen for upadacitinib 15 mg.

The only secondary endpoints not showing a clear benefit for upadacitinib 15 mg were the changes in the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication at 52 weeks and the rate of glucocorticoid-related adverse events through week 52.

As for the 7.5-mg dose of upadacitinib, neither the primary nor secondary endpoints were significantly better vs placebo.
 

‘Life-Changing’

The study’s findings could be “really life-changing” for patients with this type of vasculitis if upadacitinib gets approval for use in this indication, Milena Bond, MD, PhD, of Brunico Hospital in Italy, told this news organization at the meeting.

“Unfortunately, nowadays, we still have only a few options for treating these patients,” she said. “So, this drug could be really, really important.”

Dr. Bond added: “The data ... also shows there is a very good safety profile, which was a main concern given the class of the drug. So, I’m very positive about this treatment and very excited to see the preliminary results.”

After his presentation, Dr. Blockmans said, “Of course, if we already had an ideal treatment for GCA, there would be no need for a JAK inhibitor, but I don’t think that steroid treatment or tocilizumab treatment is the ideal treatment.”
 

Judicious Use Still Warranted

Upadacitinib still needs to be used cautiously, following appropriate guidance from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration.

Dr. Bond said: “It is not advised to use to the drug when people are older than 65 years old,” according to the EMA, for example, and “given the rules that we have, I would not use this drug as a first-line treatment. We do not do that for rheumatoid arthritis.”

But, she added, “As for arthritis, when you fail treating patients with the other alternatives, you could use this drug, and you have to discuss risks with the patients.”

Dr. Blockmans reported there had been no increased risk for major adverse cardiovascular events or venous thromboembolism associated with upadacitinib relative to placebo in the population of patients studied, and he pointed out that they had a much higher risk for these events than perhaps an RA population.

He said: “It’s effective, and it’s apparently safe in these older people, despite what we heard about tofacitinib in the ORAL [Surveillance] study; we didn’t see these problems here in this elderly population.”

The SELECT-GCA trial was funded by AbbVie, and the company participated in all aspects of the study, including its design, conduct, interpretation of data, and reporting. Dr. Blockmans received no funding or other honoraria from the company but reported a research grant from Roche and consulting fees from GlaxoSmithKline. Most of his coauthors reported financial relationships with AbbVie, and some are employees of the company. Dr. Bond reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Results from the phase 3 SELECT-GCA study showed that the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq) induces significant and sustained remission in people with new-onset or relapsing giant cell arteritis (GCA).

The primary endpoint of sustained remission — the absence of GCA signs or symptoms from weeks 12 to 52 together with adherence to a steroid-tapering regimen — occurred in 46% of 210 individuals randomly assigned to treatment treated with a once-daily 15-mg dose of upadacitinib and 29% of 105 randomly assigned to placebo (P = .0019).

Nine of the 11 secondary endpoints were also positive for upadacitinib 15 mg vs placebo, and no new safety concerns were identified in a late-breaking abstract presented at the at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
 

First JAK Trial in GCA

This is the first trial to look at the use of a JAK inhibitor for the treatment of GCA, and it is addressing a real unmet need, the presenting study investigator Daniel Blockmans, MD, PhD, of University Hospitals Leuven in Belgium, told this news organization.

Glucocorticoids remain the mainstay of treatment, and tocilizumab has been licensed for use, but people don’t always get better or can relapse, he explained.

“I have the impression that these only suppress the disease but do not cure it,” Dr. Blockmans said, adding that “patients get very well soon after these treatments are started, but there are more and more reports that there is a kind of smoldering vasculitis that exists, and this can lead to dilatation of the aorta.”

Upadacitinib inhibits two JAK-dependent cytokines, interleukin 6 and interferon gamma, which have been implicated in the pathogenesis of GCA. The latter could be particularly important, Dr. Blockmans suggested.
 

Study Details

SELECT-GCA is an ongoing multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of upadacitinib vs placebo in patients with GCA.

A total of 428 patients have been included: 210 were randomly allocated to treatment with upadacitinib 15 mg, 105 to upadacitinib 7.5 mg, and 105 to placebo. The inclusion of the lower “minimally effective” upadacitinib dose was a requirement of the regulatory authorities, Dr. Blockmans said; the licensed dose in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is 15 mg.

Dr. Blockmans reported data from the first 52 weeks of the trial during which all patients underwent glucocorticoid tapering — 26 weeks for upadacitinib and 52 weeks for placebo.

No imaging was done in this trial, which Dr. Blockmans said should be considered for future studies.
 

Secondary Endpoints

One of the key secondary endpoints was sustained complete remission, defined as sustained remission plus a normalized erythrocyte sedimentation rate to ≤ 30 mm/h and reducing high-sensitivity C-reactive protein to < 1 mg/dL.

Sustained complete remission occurred in 37% and 16% of patients treated with upadacitinib 15 mg and placebo, respectively (P < .0001).

Additionally, a significantly lower proportion of upadacitinib 15 mg- than placebo-treated patients experienced at least one disease flare through week 52 (34% vs 56%, P = .0014).

Other positive secondary endpoints for upadacitinib 15 mg vs placebo out to week 52 were the number of disease flares per patient, cumulative glucocorticoid exposure, and complete remission (also at week 24).

And significant changes in SF-36 and FACIT-Fatigue from baseline to week 52 were seen for upadacitinib 15 mg.

The only secondary endpoints not showing a clear benefit for upadacitinib 15 mg were the changes in the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication at 52 weeks and the rate of glucocorticoid-related adverse events through week 52.

As for the 7.5-mg dose of upadacitinib, neither the primary nor secondary endpoints were significantly better vs placebo.
 

‘Life-Changing’

The study’s findings could be “really life-changing” for patients with this type of vasculitis if upadacitinib gets approval for use in this indication, Milena Bond, MD, PhD, of Brunico Hospital in Italy, told this news organization at the meeting.

“Unfortunately, nowadays, we still have only a few options for treating these patients,” she said. “So, this drug could be really, really important.”

Dr. Bond added: “The data ... also shows there is a very good safety profile, which was a main concern given the class of the drug. So, I’m very positive about this treatment and very excited to see the preliminary results.”

After his presentation, Dr. Blockmans said, “Of course, if we already had an ideal treatment for GCA, there would be no need for a JAK inhibitor, but I don’t think that steroid treatment or tocilizumab treatment is the ideal treatment.”
 

Judicious Use Still Warranted

Upadacitinib still needs to be used cautiously, following appropriate guidance from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration.

Dr. Bond said: “It is not advised to use to the drug when people are older than 65 years old,” according to the EMA, for example, and “given the rules that we have, I would not use this drug as a first-line treatment. We do not do that for rheumatoid arthritis.”

But, she added, “As for arthritis, when you fail treating patients with the other alternatives, you could use this drug, and you have to discuss risks with the patients.”

Dr. Blockmans reported there had been no increased risk for major adverse cardiovascular events or venous thromboembolism associated with upadacitinib relative to placebo in the population of patients studied, and he pointed out that they had a much higher risk for these events than perhaps an RA population.

He said: “It’s effective, and it’s apparently safe in these older people, despite what we heard about tofacitinib in the ORAL [Surveillance] study; we didn’t see these problems here in this elderly population.”

The SELECT-GCA trial was funded by AbbVie, and the company participated in all aspects of the study, including its design, conduct, interpretation of data, and reporting. Dr. Blockmans received no funding or other honoraria from the company but reported a research grant from Roche and consulting fees from GlaxoSmithKline. Most of his coauthors reported financial relationships with AbbVie, and some are employees of the company. Dr. Bond reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Key clinical point: The leptin/body mass index (BMI) ratio was higher in women with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) than in men with the disease and was also associated with pain intensity in women.

Major finding: The leptin/BMI ratio was significantly higher in women than in men (median 0.8 vs 0.2; P < .001). Pain intensity was associated with the leptin/BMI ratio in women (β 0.29; P < .004), while there was no significant association in men (P = .46).

Study details: This observational cross-sectional study included 203 patients with PsA aged 18 years or older, of whom 46.8% were women.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any external funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Toledano E, Gómez-Lechón L, Chacón CC, et al. Clinical features and disease activity in psoriatic arthritis: A sex-related perspective on leptin and comorbidity. J Clin Med. 2024;13(10):2959 (May 17). doi: 10.3390/jcm13102959 Source

Key clinical point: The leptin/body mass index (BMI) ratio was higher in women with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) than in men with the disease and was also associated with pain intensity in women.

Major finding: The leptin/BMI ratio was significantly higher in women than in men (median 0.8 vs 0.2; P < .001). Pain intensity was associated with the leptin/BMI ratio in women (β 0.29; P < .004), while there was no significant association in men (P = .46).

Study details: This observational cross-sectional study included 203 patients with PsA aged 18 years or older, of whom 46.8% were women.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any external funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Toledano E, Gómez-Lechón L, Chacón CC, et al. Clinical features and disease activity in psoriatic arthritis: A sex-related perspective on leptin and comorbidity. J Clin Med. 2024;13(10):2959 (May 17). doi: 10.3390/jcm13102959 Source

Key clinical point: The leptin/body mass index (BMI) ratio was higher in women with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) than in men with the disease and was also associated with pain intensity in women.

Major finding: The leptin/BMI ratio was significantly higher in women than in men (median 0.8 vs 0.2; P < .001). Pain intensity was associated with the leptin/BMI ratio in women (β 0.29; P < .004), while there was no significant association in men (P = .46).

Study details: This observational cross-sectional study included 203 patients with PsA aged 18 years or older, of whom 46.8% were women.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any external funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Toledano E, Gómez-Lechón L, Chacón CC, et al. Clinical features and disease activity in psoriatic arthritis: A sex-related perspective on leptin and comorbidity. J Clin Med. 2024;13(10):2959 (May 17). doi: 10.3390/jcm13102959 Source

Key clinical point: A real-world study showed that old age and initial radiographic damage were potential risk factors, while female sex was a protective factor, for radiographic progression in patients with early psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: Female sex (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.48; P = .043) was a protective factor, while old age (IRR 1.10; P = .000) and initial radiographic damage (IRR 1.11; P = .000) were risk factors for development of radiographic progression over time. Initial Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis (IRR 1.05; P = .006) and swollen joint count (IRR 1.07; P = .034) could predict radiographic changes in the subgroup of patients with existing progressive damage.

Study details: This study analyzed data from the Dutch South West Psoriatic Arthritis cohort including 476 patients with early PsA of whom 14% demonstrated progressive radiographic damage.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by an unrestricted grant from Janssen. The authors did not declare any conflicts of interest.

Source: Koc GH, Kok MR, do Rosario Y, et al. Determinants of radiographic progression in early psoriatic arthritis: Insights from a real-world cohort. RMD Open. 2024; 10(2):e004080 (may 24). doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2024-004080 Source

Key clinical point: A real-world study showed that old age and initial radiographic damage were potential risk factors, while female sex was a protective factor, for radiographic progression in patients with early psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: Female sex (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.48; P = .043) was a protective factor, while old age (IRR 1.10; P = .000) and initial radiographic damage (IRR 1.11; P = .000) were risk factors for development of radiographic progression over time. Initial Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis (IRR 1.05; P = .006) and swollen joint count (IRR 1.07; P = .034) could predict radiographic changes in the subgroup of patients with existing progressive damage.

Study details: This study analyzed data from the Dutch South West Psoriatic Arthritis cohort including 476 patients with early PsA of whom 14% demonstrated progressive radiographic damage.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by an unrestricted grant from Janssen. The authors did not declare any conflicts of interest.

Source: Koc GH, Kok MR, do Rosario Y, et al. Determinants of radiographic progression in early psoriatic arthritis: Insights from a real-world cohort. RMD Open. 2024; 10(2):e004080 (may 24). doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2024-004080 Source

Key clinical point: A real-world study showed that old age and initial radiographic damage were potential risk factors, while female sex was a protective factor, for radiographic progression in patients with early psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: Female sex (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.48; P = .043) was a protective factor, while old age (IRR 1.10; P = .000) and initial radiographic damage (IRR 1.11; P = .000) were risk factors for development of radiographic progression over time. Initial Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis (IRR 1.05; P = .006) and swollen joint count (IRR 1.07; P = .034) could predict radiographic changes in the subgroup of patients with existing progressive damage.

Study details: This study analyzed data from the Dutch South West Psoriatic Arthritis cohort including 476 patients with early PsA of whom 14% demonstrated progressive radiographic damage.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by an unrestricted grant from Janssen. The authors did not declare any conflicts of interest.

Source: Koc GH, Kok MR, do Rosario Y, et al. Determinants of radiographic progression in early psoriatic arthritis: Insights from a real-world cohort. RMD Open. 2024; 10(2):e004080 (may 24). doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2024-004080 Source

Key clinical point: Fibromyalgia and widespread pain were prevalent and associated with elevated disease activity in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: Fibromyalgia and widespread pain were present in 11.1% and 20.6% of patients, respectively. The scores for Clinical Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis were elevated in patients with vs without fibromyalgia (mean difference [Δ] 13.02; 95% CI 10.42-15.63) and in those with vs without widespread pain (Δ 11.94; 95% CI 9.96-13.92). Fibromyalgia was more prevalent in women (P < .001), patients with increased BMI (P = .002), patients diagnosed with spondyloarthritis (P = .005), and patients with a history of cardiovascular diseases (P = .004) and diabetes (P = .007).

Study details: This cross-sectional study included 1823 patients with PsA (age ≥ 18 years) from the CorEvitas US registry.

Disclosures: This study was funded and supported by the Corrona Research Foundation. The data is licensed to the Corrona Research Foundation by CorEvitas, LLC. All authors declared receiving consulting fees or grants from CorEvitas, LLC; Corrona Research Foundation; and other sources.

Source: Mease P, Reed G, Ogdie A, et al. Prevalence of fibromyalgia and widespread pain in psoriatic arthritis: Association with disease severity assessment in a large US registry. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2024 (May 12). doi: 10.1002/acr.25358 Source

Key clinical point: Fibromyalgia and widespread pain were prevalent and associated with elevated disease activity in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: Fibromyalgia and widespread pain were present in 11.1% and 20.6% of patients, respectively. The scores for Clinical Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis were elevated in patients with vs without fibromyalgia (mean difference [Δ] 13.02; 95% CI 10.42-15.63) and in those with vs without widespread pain (Δ 11.94; 95% CI 9.96-13.92). Fibromyalgia was more prevalent in women (P < .001), patients with increased BMI (P = .002), patients diagnosed with spondyloarthritis (P = .005), and patients with a history of cardiovascular diseases (P = .004) and diabetes (P = .007).

Study details: This cross-sectional study included 1823 patients with PsA (age ≥ 18 years) from the CorEvitas US registry.

Disclosures: This study was funded and supported by the Corrona Research Foundation. The data is licensed to the Corrona Research Foundation by CorEvitas, LLC. All authors declared receiving consulting fees or grants from CorEvitas, LLC; Corrona Research Foundation; and other sources.

Source: Mease P, Reed G, Ogdie A, et al. Prevalence of fibromyalgia and widespread pain in psoriatic arthritis: Association with disease severity assessment in a large US registry. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2024 (May 12). doi: 10.1002/acr.25358 Source

Key clinical point: Fibromyalgia and widespread pain were prevalent and associated with elevated disease activity in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: Fibromyalgia and widespread pain were present in 11.1% and 20.6% of patients, respectively. The scores for Clinical Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis were elevated in patients with vs without fibromyalgia (mean difference [Δ] 13.02; 95% CI 10.42-15.63) and in those with vs without widespread pain (Δ 11.94; 95% CI 9.96-13.92). Fibromyalgia was more prevalent in women (P < .001), patients with increased BMI (P = .002), patients diagnosed with spondyloarthritis (P = .005), and patients with a history of cardiovascular diseases (P = .004) and diabetes (P = .007).

Study details: This cross-sectional study included 1823 patients with PsA (age ≥ 18 years) from the CorEvitas US registry.

Disclosures: This study was funded and supported by the Corrona Research Foundation. The data is licensed to the Corrona Research Foundation by CorEvitas, LLC. All authors declared receiving consulting fees or grants from CorEvitas, LLC; Corrona Research Foundation; and other sources.

Source: Mease P, Reed G, Ogdie A, et al. Prevalence of fibromyalgia and widespread pain in psoriatic arthritis: Association with disease severity assessment in a large US registry. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2024 (May 12). doi: 10.1002/acr.25358 Source

Key clinical point: Aortic stiffness was significantly higher in individuals with vs without psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and a longer disease duration was a predictor of increased aortic stiffness in the PsA population.

Major finding: Aortic stiffness, measured by carotid femoral pulse wave velocity, was significantly higher in patients with PsA than in healthy individuals without systemic inflammatory disease (7.80 vs 6.76 m/s; regression coefficient [β] 0.457; P_adj = .034). Aortic stiffness was positively associated with disease duration (β 0.028; P_adj = .020), red cell distribution width (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.190; P = .020), and systolic blood pressure (Spearman correlation coefficient [ρ] 0.351; P < .001), and inversely associated with glomerular filtration rate (ρ −0.264; P = .001).

Study details: This prospective PSOriatic Arthritis CARDiovascular Disease cohort included 150 patients with PsA and 88 healthy individuals without systemic inflammatory disease.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. One author declared being an editorial board member of Rheumatology and Therapy. Other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Triantafyllias K, Liverakos S, Muthuraman M, et al. Cardiovascular risk evaluation in psoriatic arthritis by aortic stiffness and the Systemic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE): Results of the prospective PSOCARD cohort study. Rheumatol Ther. 2024 (May 31). doi: 10.1007/s40744-024-00676-z Source

Key clinical point: Aortic stiffness was significantly higher in individuals with vs without psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and a longer disease duration was a predictor of increased aortic stiffness in the PsA population.

Major finding: Aortic stiffness, measured by carotid femoral pulse wave velocity, was significantly higher in patients with PsA than in healthy individuals without systemic inflammatory disease (7.80 vs 6.76 m/s; regression coefficient [β] 0.457; P_adj = .034). Aortic stiffness was positively associated with disease duration (β 0.028; P_adj = .020), red cell distribution width (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.190; P = .020), and systolic blood pressure (Spearman correlation coefficient [ρ] 0.351; P < .001), and inversely associated with glomerular filtration rate (ρ −0.264; P = .001).

Study details: This prospective PSOriatic Arthritis CARDiovascular Disease cohort included 150 patients with PsA and 88 healthy individuals without systemic inflammatory disease.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. One author declared being an editorial board member of Rheumatology and Therapy. Other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Triantafyllias K, Liverakos S, Muthuraman M, et al. Cardiovascular risk evaluation in psoriatic arthritis by aortic stiffness and the Systemic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE): Results of the prospective PSOCARD cohort study. Rheumatol Ther. 2024 (May 31). doi: 10.1007/s40744-024-00676-z Source

Key clinical point: Aortic stiffness was significantly higher in individuals with vs without psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and a longer disease duration was a predictor of increased aortic stiffness in the PsA population.

Major finding: Aortic stiffness, measured by carotid femoral pulse wave velocity, was significantly higher in patients with PsA than in healthy individuals without systemic inflammatory disease (7.80 vs 6.76 m/s; regression coefficient [β] 0.457; P_adj = .034). Aortic stiffness was positively associated with disease duration (β 0.028; P_adj = .020), red cell distribution width (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.190; P = .020), and systolic blood pressure (Spearman correlation coefficient [ρ] 0.351; P < .001), and inversely associated with glomerular filtration rate (ρ −0.264; P = .001).

Study details: This prospective PSOriatic Arthritis CARDiovascular Disease cohort included 150 patients with PsA and 88 healthy individuals without systemic inflammatory disease.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. One author declared being an editorial board member of Rheumatology and Therapy. Other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Triantafyllias K, Liverakos S, Muthuraman M, et al. Cardiovascular risk evaluation in psoriatic arthritis by aortic stiffness and the Systemic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE): Results of the prospective PSOCARD cohort study. Rheumatol Ther. 2024 (May 31). doi: 10.1007/s40744-024-00676-z Source

Key clinical point: Treatment with biologics significantly reduced the risk for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) development, including peripheral and axial PsA development, in patients with psoriasis.

Major finding: Patients treated at least once vs never treated with biologics had a significantly lower risk for PsA (8.9% vs 26.1%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.228; P < .001), including for peripheral PsA (aOR 0.182; P < .001) and peripheral PsA with axial involvement (aOR 0.115; P = .039). The protective effect of biologics against PsA persisted irrespective of the class of biologic used.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of a cohort study that included 1023 patients with psoriasis aged 18 years or older, of whom 29.6% received biologics at least once and 21.0% had PsA.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. Four authors declared receiving consulting or speaking fees or having other ties from various sources. Other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Floris A, Mugheddu C, Sichi L, et al. Treatment of psoriasis with different classes of biologics reduces the likelihood of peripheral and axial psoriatic arthritis development. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2024 (May 23). doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keae257 Source

Key clinical point: Treatment with biologics significantly reduced the risk for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) development, including peripheral and axial PsA development, in patients with psoriasis.

Major finding: Patients treated at least once vs never treated with biologics had a significantly lower risk for PsA (8.9% vs 26.1%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.228; P < .001), including for peripheral PsA (aOR 0.182; P < .001) and peripheral PsA with axial involvement (aOR 0.115; P = .039). The protective effect of biologics against PsA persisted irrespective of the class of biologic used.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of a cohort study that included 1023 patients with psoriasis aged 18 years or older, of whom 29.6% received biologics at least once and 21.0% had PsA.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. Four authors declared receiving consulting or speaking fees or having other ties from various sources. Other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Floris A, Mugheddu C, Sichi L, et al. Treatment of psoriasis with different classes of biologics reduces the likelihood of peripheral and axial psoriatic arthritis development. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2024 (May 23). doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keae257 Source

Key clinical point: Treatment with biologics significantly reduced the risk for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) development, including peripheral and axial PsA development, in patients with psoriasis.

Major finding: Patients treated at least once vs never treated with biologics had a significantly lower risk for PsA (8.9% vs 26.1%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.228; P < .001), including for peripheral PsA (aOR 0.182; P < .001) and peripheral PsA with axial involvement (aOR 0.115; P = .039). The protective effect of biologics against PsA persisted irrespective of the class of biologic used.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of a cohort study that included 1023 patients with psoriasis aged 18 years or older, of whom 29.6% received biologics at least once and 21.0% had PsA.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. Four authors declared receiving consulting or speaking fees or having other ties from various sources. Other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Floris A, Mugheddu C, Sichi L, et al. Treatment of psoriasis with different classes of biologics reduces the likelihood of peripheral and axial psoriatic arthritis development. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2024 (May 23). doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keae257 Source