Rheumatology News

A federal advisory panel strongly supported a bid for Novavax to win U.S. emergency authorization for its COVID-19 vaccine, which is based on a more traditional, protein-based approach than the cutting-edge technology used in mRNA-based shots.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration voted almost unanimously June 7 in favor of Novavax’s two-dose COVID-19 vaccine for those 18 or older – despite some concerns over rare events of myocarditis and pericarditis.

The tally was 21 “yes” votes, without any “no” votes, but one abstention from a panelist who then offered a largely positive take on this vaccine.

Panelist Bruce Gellin, MD, explained at the end of the meeting that he would have cast a conditional vote in favor of the Novavax vaccine, called NVX-CoV2373, had that been an option. Dr. Gellin, chief of global public health strategy for the Rockefeller Foundation and a vaccine expert, said he didn’t want his abstention to be considered as signaling opposition to the Novavax shot.

Instead, he said, he expects FDA officials will gather more data and evidence about the Novavax vaccine, especially in relation to certain manufacturing issues, before making its decision on the company’s application.

Earlier in the day, a top FDA vaccine reviewer, Doran Fink, MD, PhD, noted that there were important manufacturing differences between the Novavax vaccine supply used in different projects, complicating efforts to assess the company’s application for emergency use authorization (EUA).

But Dr. Fink noted that the FDA staff already had made a convincing case in its briefing document, with enough evidence for an initial conditional clearance to be found in available data.

The FDA is not bound to follow the suggestions of its advisory committees but it often does.
 

Using the ‘bully pulpit’

At the beginning of the meeting, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said he was seizing the “bully pulpit” in addressing the need to persuade more people in the United States to take shots against COVID-19.

About 67% of people in the United States aged 18 and older are fully vaccinated, but only about 50% of those in this group have had a first booster, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The two-dose mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna have been the subject of intense misinformation campaigns on social media, despite efforts by the FDA and other public health officials to convey the message about their strong benefit-risk profile. The FDA in May limited the authorized use of Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose COVID-19 shot, which is based on a different technology, because of concerns about rare and potentially life-threatening blood clots.

Novavax has been described as a more traditional vaccine – a protein subunit shot similar to one people have long received for protection against influenza, pertussis (whooping cough), diphtheria, and tetanus.

“Having a protein-based alternative may be more comfortable for some in terms of their acceptance of vaccines,” Dr. Marks said. “We do have a problem with vaccine uptake that is very serious in the United States. And anything we can do to get people more comfortable to be able to accept these potentially life-saving medical products is something that we feel we are compelled to do.”

Dr. Marks offered these remarks in answer to an FDA panelist’s question about the need to consider an EUA for yet another vaccine.

EUAs are special clearances the FDA can grant in connection with public health emergencies such as the pandemic. The FDA used EUAs for the initial December 2020 clearances of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. It has since granted normal approvals for both of these mRNA-based vaccines, based on larger bodies of evidence gathered and submitted by their developers.

During the meeting, the FDA panelists in general appeared comfortable with the idea of granting another EUA for a vaccine. There was agreement that the shot appeared to work in key tests, although these were done before the rise of the Omicron variant.

In a key test, known as study 301, the Novavax vaccine was judged to be 90.4% effective. In the study, 17 of the 17,272 people who got the Novavax vaccine developed COVID-19, compared with 79 of the 8,385 in the placebo group.

Panelists expressed disappointment with the lack of information about how the shot would work now.

“We’re looking at the efficacy against strains that don’t exist any longer,” said panelist Eric J. Rubin, MD, PhD, a Harvard professor and editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.

Still, Dr. Rubin added that he agreed with the argument the FDA’s Dr. Marks had made earlier for an EUA for the Novavax vaccine.

“If there really is a population of patients who are willing to take this and not willing to take the existing vaccines, I think it’s pretty compelling,” Dr. Rubin said.

Other FDA panelists were skeptical of this argument. Jay Portnoy, MD, who was listed on the FDA roster as the panel’s consumer representative, said he has close friends who are vaccine skeptics.

“Their hesitancy is more ideological than technological,” said Dr. Portnoy of Children’s Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, Mo. “So I really doubt that this vaccine is going to crack that nut, but perhaps some individuals would get this when they wouldn’t get the other ones.”
 

Myocarditis, pericarditis

The Novavax vaccine is already authorized in other countries, including Canada. Novavax in February announced that it had begun shipping its first doses of the vaccine to European Union member states. The vaccine can be moved through existing vaccine supply and cold chain channels instead of requiring complex new delivery procedures.

That could prove an advantage in time, said FDA panelist Michael Nelson, MD, PhD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

“Who knows even with supply chain challenges down the road, it will be nice to have options going forward,” Dr. Nelson said. 

As with other COVID-19 vaccines, clinicians and researchers are still working to understand the potential risk for inflammation of heart muscle and nearby tissue with vaccination. Most patients with myocarditis or pericarditis who sought medical care for these conditions responded well to medicine and rest and felt better quickly, the CDC says on its website. They usually return to their normal daily activities after their symptoms improve.

At the June 7 meeting, Dr. Nelson said there may be cases of myocarditis that go undetected.

“Our signals are those who get admitted to the emergency room and the hospital,” he said. “I’m quite convinced that there are others who are experiencing cardiac events of lesser severity that are worthy of being studied, both from mechanistic and outcomes standpoints. So we have a lot of work to do.”

In looking at results for an initial pool of 40,000 people who received the Novavax vaccine, there were five reported cases of myocarditis or pericarditis developing within 20 days of people getting the shot, the FDA staff said in its presentation on safety.

In a briefing document released ahead of the advisory committee meeting, the FDA staff flagged this number of cases in a relatively small database as a concern, noting it “could be higher than reported during postauthorization use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (for which no cases were identified in preauthorization evaluation).”

Novavax officials took a somewhat unusual step of responding in public. The Gaithersburg, Md.–based company on June 3 issued a statement saying researchers had come to “expect to see natural background events of myocarditis in any sufficiently large database, and that young males are at higher risk.”

The data from the company’s placebo-controlled studies show that, overall, in its clinical development program, the rate of myocarditis was balanced between the vaccine and placebo arms (0.007% and 0.005%), Novavax said.

At the June 7 meeting, FDA panelists including Dr. Nelson, and Paul A. Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, urged continued study to try to determine whether and how the vaccines could trigger myocarditis. Investments made now in pursuing these questions related to COVID-19 shots may pay off later, Dr. Offit said.

“We can use that knowledge to make safer vaccines for a disease that is going to be with us for decades, if not longer,” he said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A federal advisory panel strongly supported a bid for Novavax to win U.S. emergency authorization for its COVID-19 vaccine, which is based on a more traditional, protein-based approach than the cutting-edge technology used in mRNA-based shots.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration voted almost unanimously June 7 in favor of Novavax’s two-dose COVID-19 vaccine for those 18 or older – despite some concerns over rare events of myocarditis and pericarditis.

The tally was 21 “yes” votes, without any “no” votes, but one abstention from a panelist who then offered a largely positive take on this vaccine.

Panelist Bruce Gellin, MD, explained at the end of the meeting that he would have cast a conditional vote in favor of the Novavax vaccine, called NVX-CoV2373, had that been an option. Dr. Gellin, chief of global public health strategy for the Rockefeller Foundation and a vaccine expert, said he didn’t want his abstention to be considered as signaling opposition to the Novavax shot.

Instead, he said, he expects FDA officials will gather more data and evidence about the Novavax vaccine, especially in relation to certain manufacturing issues, before making its decision on the company’s application.

Earlier in the day, a top FDA vaccine reviewer, Doran Fink, MD, PhD, noted that there were important manufacturing differences between the Novavax vaccine supply used in different projects, complicating efforts to assess the company’s application for emergency use authorization (EUA).

But Dr. Fink noted that the FDA staff already had made a convincing case in its briefing document, with enough evidence for an initial conditional clearance to be found in available data.

The FDA is not bound to follow the suggestions of its advisory committees but it often does.
 

Using the ‘bully pulpit’

At the beginning of the meeting, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said he was seizing the “bully pulpit” in addressing the need to persuade more people in the United States to take shots against COVID-19.

About 67% of people in the United States aged 18 and older are fully vaccinated, but only about 50% of those in this group have had a first booster, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The two-dose mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna have been the subject of intense misinformation campaigns on social media, despite efforts by the FDA and other public health officials to convey the message about their strong benefit-risk profile. The FDA in May limited the authorized use of Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose COVID-19 shot, which is based on a different technology, because of concerns about rare and potentially life-threatening blood clots.

Novavax has been described as a more traditional vaccine – a protein subunit shot similar to one people have long received for protection against influenza, pertussis (whooping cough), diphtheria, and tetanus.

“Having a protein-based alternative may be more comfortable for some in terms of their acceptance of vaccines,” Dr. Marks said. “We do have a problem with vaccine uptake that is very serious in the United States. And anything we can do to get people more comfortable to be able to accept these potentially life-saving medical products is something that we feel we are compelled to do.”

Dr. Marks offered these remarks in answer to an FDA panelist’s question about the need to consider an EUA for yet another vaccine.

EUAs are special clearances the FDA can grant in connection with public health emergencies such as the pandemic. The FDA used EUAs for the initial December 2020 clearances of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. It has since granted normal approvals for both of these mRNA-based vaccines, based on larger bodies of evidence gathered and submitted by their developers.

During the meeting, the FDA panelists in general appeared comfortable with the idea of granting another EUA for a vaccine. There was agreement that the shot appeared to work in key tests, although these were done before the rise of the Omicron variant.

In a key test, known as study 301, the Novavax vaccine was judged to be 90.4% effective. In the study, 17 of the 17,272 people who got the Novavax vaccine developed COVID-19, compared with 79 of the 8,385 in the placebo group.

Panelists expressed disappointment with the lack of information about how the shot would work now.

“We’re looking at the efficacy against strains that don’t exist any longer,” said panelist Eric J. Rubin, MD, PhD, a Harvard professor and editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.

Still, Dr. Rubin added that he agreed with the argument the FDA’s Dr. Marks had made earlier for an EUA for the Novavax vaccine.

“If there really is a population of patients who are willing to take this and not willing to take the existing vaccines, I think it’s pretty compelling,” Dr. Rubin said.

Other FDA panelists were skeptical of this argument. Jay Portnoy, MD, who was listed on the FDA roster as the panel’s consumer representative, said he has close friends who are vaccine skeptics.

“Their hesitancy is more ideological than technological,” said Dr. Portnoy of Children’s Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, Mo. “So I really doubt that this vaccine is going to crack that nut, but perhaps some individuals would get this when they wouldn’t get the other ones.”
 

Myocarditis, pericarditis

The Novavax vaccine is already authorized in other countries, including Canada. Novavax in February announced that it had begun shipping its first doses of the vaccine to European Union member states. The vaccine can be moved through existing vaccine supply and cold chain channels instead of requiring complex new delivery procedures.

That could prove an advantage in time, said FDA panelist Michael Nelson, MD, PhD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

“Who knows even with supply chain challenges down the road, it will be nice to have options going forward,” Dr. Nelson said. 

As with other COVID-19 vaccines, clinicians and researchers are still working to understand the potential risk for inflammation of heart muscle and nearby tissue with vaccination. Most patients with myocarditis or pericarditis who sought medical care for these conditions responded well to medicine and rest and felt better quickly, the CDC says on its website. They usually return to their normal daily activities after their symptoms improve.

At the June 7 meeting, Dr. Nelson said there may be cases of myocarditis that go undetected.

“Our signals are those who get admitted to the emergency room and the hospital,” he said. “I’m quite convinced that there are others who are experiencing cardiac events of lesser severity that are worthy of being studied, both from mechanistic and outcomes standpoints. So we have a lot of work to do.”

In looking at results for an initial pool of 40,000 people who received the Novavax vaccine, there were five reported cases of myocarditis or pericarditis developing within 20 days of people getting the shot, the FDA staff said in its presentation on safety.

In a briefing document released ahead of the advisory committee meeting, the FDA staff flagged this number of cases in a relatively small database as a concern, noting it “could be higher than reported during postauthorization use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (for which no cases were identified in preauthorization evaluation).”

Novavax officials took a somewhat unusual step of responding in public. The Gaithersburg, Md.–based company on June 3 issued a statement saying researchers had come to “expect to see natural background events of myocarditis in any sufficiently large database, and that young males are at higher risk.”

The data from the company’s placebo-controlled studies show that, overall, in its clinical development program, the rate of myocarditis was balanced between the vaccine and placebo arms (0.007% and 0.005%), Novavax said.

At the June 7 meeting, FDA panelists including Dr. Nelson, and Paul A. Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, urged continued study to try to determine whether and how the vaccines could trigger myocarditis. Investments made now in pursuing these questions related to COVID-19 shots may pay off later, Dr. Offit said.

“We can use that knowledge to make safer vaccines for a disease that is going to be with us for decades, if not longer,” he said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A federal advisory panel strongly supported a bid for Novavax to win U.S. emergency authorization for its COVID-19 vaccine, which is based on a more traditional, protein-based approach than the cutting-edge technology used in mRNA-based shots.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration voted almost unanimously June 7 in favor of Novavax’s two-dose COVID-19 vaccine for those 18 or older – despite some concerns over rare events of myocarditis and pericarditis.

The tally was 21 “yes” votes, without any “no” votes, but one abstention from a panelist who then offered a largely positive take on this vaccine.

Panelist Bruce Gellin, MD, explained at the end of the meeting that he would have cast a conditional vote in favor of the Novavax vaccine, called NVX-CoV2373, had that been an option. Dr. Gellin, chief of global public health strategy for the Rockefeller Foundation and a vaccine expert, said he didn’t want his abstention to be considered as signaling opposition to the Novavax shot.

Instead, he said, he expects FDA officials will gather more data and evidence about the Novavax vaccine, especially in relation to certain manufacturing issues, before making its decision on the company’s application.

Earlier in the day, a top FDA vaccine reviewer, Doran Fink, MD, PhD, noted that there were important manufacturing differences between the Novavax vaccine supply used in different projects, complicating efforts to assess the company’s application for emergency use authorization (EUA).

But Dr. Fink noted that the FDA staff already had made a convincing case in its briefing document, with enough evidence for an initial conditional clearance to be found in available data.

The FDA is not bound to follow the suggestions of its advisory committees but it often does.
 

Using the ‘bully pulpit’

At the beginning of the meeting, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said he was seizing the “bully pulpit” in addressing the need to persuade more people in the United States to take shots against COVID-19.

About 67% of people in the United States aged 18 and older are fully vaccinated, but only about 50% of those in this group have had a first booster, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The two-dose mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna have been the subject of intense misinformation campaigns on social media, despite efforts by the FDA and other public health officials to convey the message about their strong benefit-risk profile. The FDA in May limited the authorized use of Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose COVID-19 shot, which is based on a different technology, because of concerns about rare and potentially life-threatening blood clots.

Novavax has been described as a more traditional vaccine – a protein subunit shot similar to one people have long received for protection against influenza, pertussis (whooping cough), diphtheria, and tetanus.

“Having a protein-based alternative may be more comfortable for some in terms of their acceptance of vaccines,” Dr. Marks said. “We do have a problem with vaccine uptake that is very serious in the United States. And anything we can do to get people more comfortable to be able to accept these potentially life-saving medical products is something that we feel we are compelled to do.”

Dr. Marks offered these remarks in answer to an FDA panelist’s question about the need to consider an EUA for yet another vaccine.

EUAs are special clearances the FDA can grant in connection with public health emergencies such as the pandemic. The FDA used EUAs for the initial December 2020 clearances of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. It has since granted normal approvals for both of these mRNA-based vaccines, based on larger bodies of evidence gathered and submitted by their developers.

During the meeting, the FDA panelists in general appeared comfortable with the idea of granting another EUA for a vaccine. There was agreement that the shot appeared to work in key tests, although these were done before the rise of the Omicron variant.

In a key test, known as study 301, the Novavax vaccine was judged to be 90.4% effective. In the study, 17 of the 17,272 people who got the Novavax vaccine developed COVID-19, compared with 79 of the 8,385 in the placebo group.

Panelists expressed disappointment with the lack of information about how the shot would work now.

“We’re looking at the efficacy against strains that don’t exist any longer,” said panelist Eric J. Rubin, MD, PhD, a Harvard professor and editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.

Still, Dr. Rubin added that he agreed with the argument the FDA’s Dr. Marks had made earlier for an EUA for the Novavax vaccine.

“If there really is a population of patients who are willing to take this and not willing to take the existing vaccines, I think it’s pretty compelling,” Dr. Rubin said.

Other FDA panelists were skeptical of this argument. Jay Portnoy, MD, who was listed on the FDA roster as the panel’s consumer representative, said he has close friends who are vaccine skeptics.

“Their hesitancy is more ideological than technological,” said Dr. Portnoy of Children’s Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, Mo. “So I really doubt that this vaccine is going to crack that nut, but perhaps some individuals would get this when they wouldn’t get the other ones.”
 

Myocarditis, pericarditis

The Novavax vaccine is already authorized in other countries, including Canada. Novavax in February announced that it had begun shipping its first doses of the vaccine to European Union member states. The vaccine can be moved through existing vaccine supply and cold chain channels instead of requiring complex new delivery procedures.

That could prove an advantage in time, said FDA panelist Michael Nelson, MD, PhD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

“Who knows even with supply chain challenges down the road, it will be nice to have options going forward,” Dr. Nelson said. 

As with other COVID-19 vaccines, clinicians and researchers are still working to understand the potential risk for inflammation of heart muscle and nearby tissue with vaccination. Most patients with myocarditis or pericarditis who sought medical care for these conditions responded well to medicine and rest and felt better quickly, the CDC says on its website. They usually return to their normal daily activities after their symptoms improve.

At the June 7 meeting, Dr. Nelson said there may be cases of myocarditis that go undetected.

“Our signals are those who get admitted to the emergency room and the hospital,” he said. “I’m quite convinced that there are others who are experiencing cardiac events of lesser severity that are worthy of being studied, both from mechanistic and outcomes standpoints. So we have a lot of work to do.”

In looking at results for an initial pool of 40,000 people who received the Novavax vaccine, there were five reported cases of myocarditis or pericarditis developing within 20 days of people getting the shot, the FDA staff said in its presentation on safety.

In a briefing document released ahead of the advisory committee meeting, the FDA staff flagged this number of cases in a relatively small database as a concern, noting it “could be higher than reported during postauthorization use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (for which no cases were identified in preauthorization evaluation).”

Novavax officials took a somewhat unusual step of responding in public. The Gaithersburg, Md.–based company on June 3 issued a statement saying researchers had come to “expect to see natural background events of myocarditis in any sufficiently large database, and that young males are at higher risk.”

The data from the company’s placebo-controlled studies show that, overall, in its clinical development program, the rate of myocarditis was balanced between the vaccine and placebo arms (0.007% and 0.005%), Novavax said.

At the June 7 meeting, FDA panelists including Dr. Nelson, and Paul A. Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, urged continued study to try to determine whether and how the vaccines could trigger myocarditis. Investments made now in pursuing these questions related to COVID-19 shots may pay off later, Dr. Offit said.

“We can use that knowledge to make safer vaccines for a disease that is going to be with us for decades, if not longer,” he said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved adding adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis to the list of indications for the rituximab biosimilar Riabni (rituximab-arrx) on the basis of results of a randomized, double-blind, comparative clinical study with the CD20-directed cytolytic antibody reference product, Rituxan, the biosimilar’s manufacturer, Amgen, announced June 6.

The RA indication is specifically for adults with moderate to severely active disease who have had an inadequate response to one or more tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. Riabni was approved in December 2020 for the treatment of adult patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, granulomatosis with polyangiitis, and microscopic polyangiitis.

The clinical study testing Riabni against Rituxan involved 311 patients with moderate to severe RA who received Riabni, Rituxan manufactured in the United States, and Rituxan manufactured in the European Union. The patients who received the U.S.-manufactured Rituxan were transitioned to receive Riabni for their second dose of rituximab, whereas patients in other groups stayed with the same treatment. The trial’s primary efficacy endpoint of the change in Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein from baseline to week 24 was within the predefined equivalence margin for clinical efficacy between Riabni and Rituxan. The two products also had similar safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity profiles, according to Amgen.

Currently, Riabni and Ruxience (rituximab-pvvr) are the only two approved rituximab biosimilars in the United States. Ruxience is approved for the same indications. Rituxan alone has protected orphan drug status for the indication of adult patients with moderate to severe pemphigus vulgaris.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved adding adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis to the list of indications for the rituximab biosimilar Riabni (rituximab-arrx) on the basis of results of a randomized, double-blind, comparative clinical study with the CD20-directed cytolytic antibody reference product, Rituxan, the biosimilar’s manufacturer, Amgen, announced June 6.

The RA indication is specifically for adults with moderate to severely active disease who have had an inadequate response to one or more tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. Riabni was approved in December 2020 for the treatment of adult patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, granulomatosis with polyangiitis, and microscopic polyangiitis.

The clinical study testing Riabni against Rituxan involved 311 patients with moderate to severe RA who received Riabni, Rituxan manufactured in the United States, and Rituxan manufactured in the European Union. The patients who received the U.S.-manufactured Rituxan were transitioned to receive Riabni for their second dose of rituximab, whereas patients in other groups stayed with the same treatment. The trial’s primary efficacy endpoint of the change in Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein from baseline to week 24 was within the predefined equivalence margin for clinical efficacy between Riabni and Rituxan. The two products also had similar safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity profiles, according to Amgen.

Currently, Riabni and Ruxience (rituximab-pvvr) are the only two approved rituximab biosimilars in the United States. Ruxience is approved for the same indications. Rituxan alone has protected orphan drug status for the indication of adult patients with moderate to severe pemphigus vulgaris.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved adding adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis to the list of indications for the rituximab biosimilar Riabni (rituximab-arrx) on the basis of results of a randomized, double-blind, comparative clinical study with the CD20-directed cytolytic antibody reference product, Rituxan, the biosimilar’s manufacturer, Amgen, announced June 6.

The RA indication is specifically for adults with moderate to severely active disease who have had an inadequate response to one or more tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. Riabni was approved in December 2020 for the treatment of adult patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, granulomatosis with polyangiitis, and microscopic polyangiitis.

The clinical study testing Riabni against Rituxan involved 311 patients with moderate to severe RA who received Riabni, Rituxan manufactured in the United States, and Rituxan manufactured in the European Union. The patients who received the U.S.-manufactured Rituxan were transitioned to receive Riabni for their second dose of rituximab, whereas patients in other groups stayed with the same treatment. The trial’s primary efficacy endpoint of the change in Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein from baseline to week 24 was within the predefined equivalence margin for clinical efficacy between Riabni and Rituxan. The two products also had similar safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity profiles, according to Amgen.

Currently, Riabni and Ruxience (rituximab-pvvr) are the only two approved rituximab biosimilars in the United States. Ruxience is approved for the same indications. Rituxan alone has protected orphan drug status for the indication of adult patients with moderate to severe pemphigus vulgaris.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COPENHAGEN – Most patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID) should not be considered at high risk for severe COVID-19 breakthrough infections, but those on anti-CD20 therapy are the exception, data from a large prospective, cohort study show.

“Overall, the data are reassuring, with conventional risk factors, such as age, and comorbidities seeming to be more important regarding risk of severe COVID-19 breakthrough infections than rheumatic disease or immunosuppressant medication,” said Laura Boekel, MD, from Amsterdam UMC, who presented the study at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

But, she added, there was an exception for anti-CD20 therapy. “This is especially relevant for patients with conventional risk factors that might accumulate, and rheumatologists might want to consider alternative treatment options if possible. It is important to inform patients about the risks of anti-CD20.”

Another study, presented during the same session at the congress by Rebecca Hasseli, MD, from the University of Giessen (Germany) saw no deaths and no COVID-19 related complications in a cohort of triple-vaccinated patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases, despite a higher median age and a higher rate of comorbidities compared to double-vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts.

Ingrid Jyssum, MD, from Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, who presented results of the Nor-vaC study investigating the impact of different DMARDs on the immunogenicity of a third COVID-19 vaccine dose, welcomed the research by Dr. Boekel and Dr. Hasseli.

“The findings of Hasseli are interesting in the light of our data on serological response after the third dose, with a lack of breakthrough infections after three doses corresponding well to the robust antibody response that we found in our cohort,” she remarked. “This is very reassuring for our patients. Our own work together with the findings of Hasseli and Boekel demonstrate that additional vaccine doses are important to keep this population well protected against severe COVID-19 infections.”

The Nor-vaC study was conducted with a cohort of 1,100 patients with inflammatory joint and bowel diseases. “These patients had attenuated antibody responses after two vaccine doses; however, we found that a third vaccine dose brought the humoral response in patients up to the antibody levels that healthy controls had after two doses,” said Dr. Jyssum. “In addition, we found that the decline in antibodies after the third dose was less than the decline seen after the second dose. Importantly, the third dose was safe in our patients, with no new safety issues.”
 

Breakthrough infections and immunosuppressants

“Like the rest of the world, we were wondering if our patients were at increased risk of COVID-19, and if the immunosuppressants used by these patients influenced their risk,” said Dr. Boekel.

The researchers compared both the incidence and severity of COVID-19 breakthrough infections with the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant in a population of fully vaccinated IMID patients taking immunosuppressants and controls (IMID patients not taking immunosuppressants and healthy controls).

Two large ongoing, prospective, multicenter cohort studies provided pooled data collected between February and December 2021 using digital questionnaires, standardized electronic case record forms, and medical files.

Finger-prick tests were used to collect blood samples that were analyzed after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 for anti–receptor-binding domain (RBD) antibodies, and antinucleocapsid antibodies to identify asymptomatic breakthrough infections. Any associations between antibodies and the incidence of breakthrough infections were generated, and results were adjusted for sex, cardiovascular disease, chronic pulmonary disease, obesity, and vaccine type.

The analysis included 3,207 IMID patients taking immunosuppressants, and 1,810 controls (985 IMID patients not on immunosuppressants and 825 healthy controls).

Initially, Dr. Boekel and her colleagues looked at incidence of infections and hospitalizations prior to vaccination, and then after vaccination, which was the main aim of the study.

Prior to vaccination, hospitalization risk for COVID-19 was somewhat higher for IMID patients overall compared with controls, reported Dr. Boekel. “But those treated with anti-CD20 therapy, demonstrated much greater risk for severe disease.”

After the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination campaign began, the researchers then looked at how immunosuppressants influenced humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

“Anti-CD20 therapy showed the greatest impact on humoral immune response after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination,” said Dr. Boekel. Other immunosuppressant drugs had variable effects on humoral and cellular immunity. 

Once they had established that immunosuppressant drugs impaired immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, the researchers wanted to determine if this affected clinical outcomes. Blood samples taken 28 days after the second vaccination enabled Dr. Boekel and her colleagues to see if antibody production was associated with breakthrough infections.   

Breakthrough infections were seen in 5% of patients on immunosuppressants, 5% of patients not on immunosuppressants, and 4% of healthy controls. Also, asymptomatic COVID-19 breakthrough cases were comparable between IMID patients taking immunosuppressants and controls, at 10% in each group.

“We saw that the incidence [of getting COVID-19] was comparable between groups, independent of whether they were receiving immunosuppressants or not, or healthy controls. However, if they developed antibodies against the two vaccinations the chance of getting infected was lower,” reported Dr. Boekel.

Hospitalization (severe disease) rates were also comparable between groups. “Patients with rheumatic diseases, even when treated with immunosuppressants were not at increased risk of severe disease from Delta breakthrough infections,” added the researcher. “Cases that were hospitalized were mainly elderly and those with comorbidities, for example cardiovascular disease and cardiopulmonary disease.”

Hospital admissions were 5.4% in patients on immunosuppressants, 5.7% in those not on immunosuppressants, and 6% in health controls.

However, once again, there was one exception, Dr. Boekel stressed. “Patients treated with anti-CD20 therapy were at increased risk of severe disease and hospitalization.”

Omicron variant has a different transmissibility than Delta, so the researchers continued the study looking at the Omicron variant. The data “were mostly reassuring,” said Dr. Boekel. “As expected, hospitalization rates decreased overall, with the exception of patients on anti-CD20 therapy where, despite overall reduced pathogenicity, patients remain at increased risk.”

She said that they were awaiting long-term data so the data reflect only short-term immunity against Omicron. “However, we included many elderly and patients with comorbidities, so this made the analysis very sensitive to detect severe cases,” she added.

Breakthrough infection among double- and triple-vaccinated patients

A lower rate of COVID-19 related complications and deaths were seen in patients who were triple-vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, than in double-vaccinated or unvaccinated patients, despite the former having more comorbidities and use of rituximab (Rituxan), said Dr. Hasseli.

“These data support the recommendation of booster vaccination to reduce COVID-19-related mortality in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases [IRDs],” she said.

“A small number of COVID-19 cases were seen in patients with IRD after vaccinations, and in a few cases, hospitalizations were required. Breakthrough infections were mostly seen in patients on B-cell depletion therapy,” she added.

Dr. Hasseli and her colleagues looked at the characteristics and outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections among double- and triple-vaccinated patients with IRD.

“We wanted to understand if patients with IRD are protected in the same way as the general population following vaccination, given that these patients receive drugs that might impair the immune response,” she explained.

Data for analysis were drawn from the German COVID-19-IRD registry covering February 2021 and January 2022, and patients who were double- or triple- vaccinated against COVID-19 either 14 days or more prior to a SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. Type of IRD, vaccine, immunomodulation, comorbidities, and outcome of the infection were compared with 737 unvaccinated IRD patients with COVID-19. Those with prior COVID-19 were excluded.

Cases were stratified by vaccinations status: unvaccinated (1,388 patients, median age 57 years); double vaccinated (462, 56 years) and triple vaccinated (301, 53 years). Body mass index was similar across groups (25-26 kg/m²), and time between SARS-CoV-2 infection and last vaccination was 156 days in double-vaccinated patients, and 62 days in triple-vaccinated patients.

Patients had rheumatoid arthritis in 44.7% and 44.4% of unvaccinated and double-vaccinated patients respectively, but fewer triple-vaccinated patients had RA (37.2%). Triple vaccination was seen in 32.2% of patients with spondyloarthritis, 16.6% connective tissue diseases, 5.3% other vasculitis, and 3.3% ANCA-associated vasculitis. Of triple-vaccinated patients, 26.2% were treated with tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) inhibitors, and 6.3% with rituximab, while 5.3% were not on immunomodulation. At least 25% were treated with glucocorticoids, reported Dr. Hasseli.

“Arterial hypertension and diabetes, that might be risk factors for COVID-19, were less frequently reported in triple-vaccinated patients. More patients in the double-vaccinated group [42.9%] than the triple-vaccinated [23.8%] reported absence of relevant comorbidities,” she said.

COVID-19 related complications were less often reported in double- and triple-vaccinated groups with hospitalizations at 9.5% and 4.3% in double and triple-vaccinated people respectively.

Dr. Boekel and Dr. Hasseli report no relevant conflicts of interest.

COPENHAGEN – Most patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID) should not be considered at high risk for severe COVID-19 breakthrough infections, but those on anti-CD20 therapy are the exception, data from a large prospective, cohort study show.

“Overall, the data are reassuring, with conventional risk factors, such as age, and comorbidities seeming to be more important regarding risk of severe COVID-19 breakthrough infections than rheumatic disease or immunosuppressant medication,” said Laura Boekel, MD, from Amsterdam UMC, who presented the study at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

But, she added, there was an exception for anti-CD20 therapy. “This is especially relevant for patients with conventional risk factors that might accumulate, and rheumatologists might want to consider alternative treatment options if possible. It is important to inform patients about the risks of anti-CD20.”

Another study, presented during the same session at the congress by Rebecca Hasseli, MD, from the University of Giessen (Germany) saw no deaths and no COVID-19 related complications in a cohort of triple-vaccinated patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases, despite a higher median age and a higher rate of comorbidities compared to double-vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts.

Ingrid Jyssum, MD, from Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, who presented results of the Nor-vaC study investigating the impact of different DMARDs on the immunogenicity of a third COVID-19 vaccine dose, welcomed the research by Dr. Boekel and Dr. Hasseli.

“The findings of Hasseli are interesting in the light of our data on serological response after the third dose, with a lack of breakthrough infections after three doses corresponding well to the robust antibody response that we found in our cohort,” she remarked. “This is very reassuring for our patients. Our own work together with the findings of Hasseli and Boekel demonstrate that additional vaccine doses are important to keep this population well protected against severe COVID-19 infections.”

The Nor-vaC study was conducted with a cohort of 1,100 patients with inflammatory joint and bowel diseases. “These patients had attenuated antibody responses after two vaccine doses; however, we found that a third vaccine dose brought the humoral response in patients up to the antibody levels that healthy controls had after two doses,” said Dr. Jyssum. “In addition, we found that the decline in antibodies after the third dose was less than the decline seen after the second dose. Importantly, the third dose was safe in our patients, with no new safety issues.”
 

Breakthrough infections and immunosuppressants

“Like the rest of the world, we were wondering if our patients were at increased risk of COVID-19, and if the immunosuppressants used by these patients influenced their risk,” said Dr. Boekel.

The researchers compared both the incidence and severity of COVID-19 breakthrough infections with the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant in a population of fully vaccinated IMID patients taking immunosuppressants and controls (IMID patients not taking immunosuppressants and healthy controls).

Two large ongoing, prospective, multicenter cohort studies provided pooled data collected between February and December 2021 using digital questionnaires, standardized electronic case record forms, and medical files.

Finger-prick tests were used to collect blood samples that were analyzed after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 for anti–receptor-binding domain (RBD) antibodies, and antinucleocapsid antibodies to identify asymptomatic breakthrough infections. Any associations between antibodies and the incidence of breakthrough infections were generated, and results were adjusted for sex, cardiovascular disease, chronic pulmonary disease, obesity, and vaccine type.

The analysis included 3,207 IMID patients taking immunosuppressants, and 1,810 controls (985 IMID patients not on immunosuppressants and 825 healthy controls).

Initially, Dr. Boekel and her colleagues looked at incidence of infections and hospitalizations prior to vaccination, and then after vaccination, which was the main aim of the study.

Prior to vaccination, hospitalization risk for COVID-19 was somewhat higher for IMID patients overall compared with controls, reported Dr. Boekel. “But those treated with anti-CD20 therapy, demonstrated much greater risk for severe disease.”

After the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination campaign began, the researchers then looked at how immunosuppressants influenced humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

“Anti-CD20 therapy showed the greatest impact on humoral immune response after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination,” said Dr. Boekel. Other immunosuppressant drugs had variable effects on humoral and cellular immunity. 

Once they had established that immunosuppressant drugs impaired immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, the researchers wanted to determine if this affected clinical outcomes. Blood samples taken 28 days after the second vaccination enabled Dr. Boekel and her colleagues to see if antibody production was associated with breakthrough infections.   

Breakthrough infections were seen in 5% of patients on immunosuppressants, 5% of patients not on immunosuppressants, and 4% of healthy controls. Also, asymptomatic COVID-19 breakthrough cases were comparable between IMID patients taking immunosuppressants and controls, at 10% in each group.

“We saw that the incidence [of getting COVID-19] was comparable between groups, independent of whether they were receiving immunosuppressants or not, or healthy controls. However, if they developed antibodies against the two vaccinations the chance of getting infected was lower,” reported Dr. Boekel.

Hospitalization (severe disease) rates were also comparable between groups. “Patients with rheumatic diseases, even when treated with immunosuppressants were not at increased risk of severe disease from Delta breakthrough infections,” added the researcher. “Cases that were hospitalized were mainly elderly and those with comorbidities, for example cardiovascular disease and cardiopulmonary disease.”

Hospital admissions were 5.4% in patients on immunosuppressants, 5.7% in those not on immunosuppressants, and 6% in health controls.

However, once again, there was one exception, Dr. Boekel stressed. “Patients treated with anti-CD20 therapy were at increased risk of severe disease and hospitalization.”

Omicron variant has a different transmissibility than Delta, so the researchers continued the study looking at the Omicron variant. The data “were mostly reassuring,” said Dr. Boekel. “As expected, hospitalization rates decreased overall, with the exception of patients on anti-CD20 therapy where, despite overall reduced pathogenicity, patients remain at increased risk.”

She said that they were awaiting long-term data so the data reflect only short-term immunity against Omicron. “However, we included many elderly and patients with comorbidities, so this made the analysis very sensitive to detect severe cases,” she added.

Breakthrough infection among double- and triple-vaccinated patients

A lower rate of COVID-19 related complications and deaths were seen in patients who were triple-vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, than in double-vaccinated or unvaccinated patients, despite the former having more comorbidities and use of rituximab (Rituxan), said Dr. Hasseli.

“These data support the recommendation of booster vaccination to reduce COVID-19-related mortality in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases [IRDs],” she said.

“A small number of COVID-19 cases were seen in patients with IRD after vaccinations, and in a few cases, hospitalizations were required. Breakthrough infections were mostly seen in patients on B-cell depletion therapy,” she added.

Dr. Hasseli and her colleagues looked at the characteristics and outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections among double- and triple-vaccinated patients with IRD.

“We wanted to understand if patients with IRD are protected in the same way as the general population following vaccination, given that these patients receive drugs that might impair the immune response,” she explained.

Data for analysis were drawn from the German COVID-19-IRD registry covering February 2021 and January 2022, and patients who were double- or triple- vaccinated against COVID-19 either 14 days or more prior to a SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. Type of IRD, vaccine, immunomodulation, comorbidities, and outcome of the infection were compared with 737 unvaccinated IRD patients with COVID-19. Those with prior COVID-19 were excluded.

Cases were stratified by vaccinations status: unvaccinated (1,388 patients, median age 57 years); double vaccinated (462, 56 years) and triple vaccinated (301, 53 years). Body mass index was similar across groups (25-26 kg/m²), and time between SARS-CoV-2 infection and last vaccination was 156 days in double-vaccinated patients, and 62 days in triple-vaccinated patients.

Patients had rheumatoid arthritis in 44.7% and 44.4% of unvaccinated and double-vaccinated patients respectively, but fewer triple-vaccinated patients had RA (37.2%). Triple vaccination was seen in 32.2% of patients with spondyloarthritis, 16.6% connective tissue diseases, 5.3% other vasculitis, and 3.3% ANCA-associated vasculitis. Of triple-vaccinated patients, 26.2% were treated with tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) inhibitors, and 6.3% with rituximab, while 5.3% were not on immunomodulation. At least 25% were treated with glucocorticoids, reported Dr. Hasseli.

“Arterial hypertension and diabetes, that might be risk factors for COVID-19, were less frequently reported in triple-vaccinated patients. More patients in the double-vaccinated group [42.9%] than the triple-vaccinated [23.8%] reported absence of relevant comorbidities,” she said.

COVID-19 related complications were less often reported in double- and triple-vaccinated groups with hospitalizations at 9.5% and 4.3% in double and triple-vaccinated people respectively.

Dr. Boekel and Dr. Hasseli report no relevant conflicts of interest.

COPENHAGEN – Most patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID) should not be considered at high risk for severe COVID-19 breakthrough infections, but those on anti-CD20 therapy are the exception, data from a large prospective, cohort study show.

“Overall, the data are reassuring, with conventional risk factors, such as age, and comorbidities seeming to be more important regarding risk of severe COVID-19 breakthrough infections than rheumatic disease or immunosuppressant medication,” said Laura Boekel, MD, from Amsterdam UMC, who presented the study at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

But, she added, there was an exception for anti-CD20 therapy. “This is especially relevant for patients with conventional risk factors that might accumulate, and rheumatologists might want to consider alternative treatment options if possible. It is important to inform patients about the risks of anti-CD20.”

Another study, presented during the same session at the congress by Rebecca Hasseli, MD, from the University of Giessen (Germany) saw no deaths and no COVID-19 related complications in a cohort of triple-vaccinated patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases, despite a higher median age and a higher rate of comorbidities compared to double-vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts.

Ingrid Jyssum, MD, from Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, who presented results of the Nor-vaC study investigating the impact of different DMARDs on the immunogenicity of a third COVID-19 vaccine dose, welcomed the research by Dr. Boekel and Dr. Hasseli.

“The findings of Hasseli are interesting in the light of our data on serological response after the third dose, with a lack of breakthrough infections after three doses corresponding well to the robust antibody response that we found in our cohort,” she remarked. “This is very reassuring for our patients. Our own work together with the findings of Hasseli and Boekel demonstrate that additional vaccine doses are important to keep this population well protected against severe COVID-19 infections.”

The Nor-vaC study was conducted with a cohort of 1,100 patients with inflammatory joint and bowel diseases. “These patients had attenuated antibody responses after two vaccine doses; however, we found that a third vaccine dose brought the humoral response in patients up to the antibody levels that healthy controls had after two doses,” said Dr. Jyssum. “In addition, we found that the decline in antibodies after the third dose was less than the decline seen after the second dose. Importantly, the third dose was safe in our patients, with no new safety issues.”
 

Breakthrough infections and immunosuppressants

“Like the rest of the world, we were wondering if our patients were at increased risk of COVID-19, and if the immunosuppressants used by these patients influenced their risk,” said Dr. Boekel.

The researchers compared both the incidence and severity of COVID-19 breakthrough infections with the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant in a population of fully vaccinated IMID patients taking immunosuppressants and controls (IMID patients not taking immunosuppressants and healthy controls).

Two large ongoing, prospective, multicenter cohort studies provided pooled data collected between February and December 2021 using digital questionnaires, standardized electronic case record forms, and medical files.

Finger-prick tests were used to collect blood samples that were analyzed after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 for anti–receptor-binding domain (RBD) antibodies, and antinucleocapsid antibodies to identify asymptomatic breakthrough infections. Any associations between antibodies and the incidence of breakthrough infections were generated, and results were adjusted for sex, cardiovascular disease, chronic pulmonary disease, obesity, and vaccine type.

The analysis included 3,207 IMID patients taking immunosuppressants, and 1,810 controls (985 IMID patients not on immunosuppressants and 825 healthy controls).

Initially, Dr. Boekel and her colleagues looked at incidence of infections and hospitalizations prior to vaccination, and then after vaccination, which was the main aim of the study.

Prior to vaccination, hospitalization risk for COVID-19 was somewhat higher for IMID patients overall compared with controls, reported Dr. Boekel. “But those treated with anti-CD20 therapy, demonstrated much greater risk for severe disease.”

After the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination campaign began, the researchers then looked at how immunosuppressants influenced humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

“Anti-CD20 therapy showed the greatest impact on humoral immune response after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination,” said Dr. Boekel. Other immunosuppressant drugs had variable effects on humoral and cellular immunity. 

Once they had established that immunosuppressant drugs impaired immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, the researchers wanted to determine if this affected clinical outcomes. Blood samples taken 28 days after the second vaccination enabled Dr. Boekel and her colleagues to see if antibody production was associated with breakthrough infections.   

Breakthrough infections were seen in 5% of patients on immunosuppressants, 5% of patients not on immunosuppressants, and 4% of healthy controls. Also, asymptomatic COVID-19 breakthrough cases were comparable between IMID patients taking immunosuppressants and controls, at 10% in each group.

“We saw that the incidence [of getting COVID-19] was comparable between groups, independent of whether they were receiving immunosuppressants or not, or healthy controls. However, if they developed antibodies against the two vaccinations the chance of getting infected was lower,” reported Dr. Boekel.

Hospitalization (severe disease) rates were also comparable between groups. “Patients with rheumatic diseases, even when treated with immunosuppressants were not at increased risk of severe disease from Delta breakthrough infections,” added the researcher. “Cases that were hospitalized were mainly elderly and those with comorbidities, for example cardiovascular disease and cardiopulmonary disease.”

Hospital admissions were 5.4% in patients on immunosuppressants, 5.7% in those not on immunosuppressants, and 6% in health controls.

However, once again, there was one exception, Dr. Boekel stressed. “Patients treated with anti-CD20 therapy were at increased risk of severe disease and hospitalization.”

Omicron variant has a different transmissibility than Delta, so the researchers continued the study looking at the Omicron variant. The data “were mostly reassuring,” said Dr. Boekel. “As expected, hospitalization rates decreased overall, with the exception of patients on anti-CD20 therapy where, despite overall reduced pathogenicity, patients remain at increased risk.”

She said that they were awaiting long-term data so the data reflect only short-term immunity against Omicron. “However, we included many elderly and patients with comorbidities, so this made the analysis very sensitive to detect severe cases,” she added.

Breakthrough infection among double- and triple-vaccinated patients

A lower rate of COVID-19 related complications and deaths were seen in patients who were triple-vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, than in double-vaccinated or unvaccinated patients, despite the former having more comorbidities and use of rituximab (Rituxan), said Dr. Hasseli.

“These data support the recommendation of booster vaccination to reduce COVID-19-related mortality in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases [IRDs],” she said.

“A small number of COVID-19 cases were seen in patients with IRD after vaccinations, and in a few cases, hospitalizations were required. Breakthrough infections were mostly seen in patients on B-cell depletion therapy,” she added.

Dr. Hasseli and her colleagues looked at the characteristics and outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections among double- and triple-vaccinated patients with IRD.

“We wanted to understand if patients with IRD are protected in the same way as the general population following vaccination, given that these patients receive drugs that might impair the immune response,” she explained.

Data for analysis were drawn from the German COVID-19-IRD registry covering February 2021 and January 2022, and patients who were double- or triple- vaccinated against COVID-19 either 14 days or more prior to a SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. Type of IRD, vaccine, immunomodulation, comorbidities, and outcome of the infection were compared with 737 unvaccinated IRD patients with COVID-19. Those with prior COVID-19 were excluded.

Cases were stratified by vaccinations status: unvaccinated (1,388 patients, median age 57 years); double vaccinated (462, 56 years) and triple vaccinated (301, 53 years). Body mass index was similar across groups (25-26 kg/m²), and time between SARS-CoV-2 infection and last vaccination was 156 days in double-vaccinated patients, and 62 days in triple-vaccinated patients.

Patients had rheumatoid arthritis in 44.7% and 44.4% of unvaccinated and double-vaccinated patients respectively, but fewer triple-vaccinated patients had RA (37.2%). Triple vaccination was seen in 32.2% of patients with spondyloarthritis, 16.6% connective tissue diseases, 5.3% other vasculitis, and 3.3% ANCA-associated vasculitis. Of triple-vaccinated patients, 26.2% were treated with tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) inhibitors, and 6.3% with rituximab, while 5.3% were not on immunomodulation. At least 25% were treated with glucocorticoids, reported Dr. Hasseli.

“Arterial hypertension and diabetes, that might be risk factors for COVID-19, were less frequently reported in triple-vaccinated patients. More patients in the double-vaccinated group [42.9%] than the triple-vaccinated [23.8%] reported absence of relevant comorbidities,” she said.

COVID-19 related complications were less often reported in double- and triple-vaccinated groups with hospitalizations at 9.5% and 4.3% in double and triple-vaccinated people respectively.

Dr. Boekel and Dr. Hasseli report no relevant conflicts of interest.

In patients with uncontrolled gout, response rates were increased by 32% when methotrexate was used in conjunction with pegloticase versus pegloticase plus a placebo, it was reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

In the phase 4 MIRROR trial, 71% of patients who received pretreatment with methotrexate and then the combination of methotrexate and pegloticase achieved uric-acid levels lower than 6 mg/dL for more than 80% of the time during weeks 20-24 of the 52-week study. By comparison, only 39% of those treated with pegloticase plus a placebo achieved this primary endpoint (P < .0001).

This is good news for patients, suggested two rheumatologists who were not involved in the study. The combination appears “useful for a select group of gout patients,” observed Christian Ammitzbøll, MD, PhD, from Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark.

“Very promising in refractory gout,” agreed Emre Bilgin, MD, from Ankara, Turkey.
 

Rationale for using methotrexate

“Oral urate lowering agents are the mainstay of treatment of gout, but there are patients that just don’t respond to oral agents,” said Dr. Botson, a rheumatologist in private practice from Anchorage, Alaska.

“These patients are very difficult to treat,” he added. “They have a lot of physical disabilities, they have high medical comorbidities, and they have a low quality of life. Their treatment options are extremely limited.”

One of the few options they have is pegloticase, a pegylated uric acid specific enzyme sold under the brand name Krystexxa for the past 12 years. It lowers serum uric acid by converting it to allantoin, which is more water soluble and thus is easier to excrete from the body.

However, one of the problems of using the drug is that anti-drug antibodies frequently develop, meaning that discontinuation rates can be as high as 50%, with around a quarter of patients at high risk of experiencing an infusion reaction.

“Methotrexate is a medication we’re very familiar with for other rheumatologic conditions that use biologic medications, and we use this to prevent anti-drug antibodies. So, the MIRROR RCT was a study we performed to examine the pegloticase therapy in combination with methotrexate co therapy,” explained Dr. Botson.

In fact, co-administration of methotrexate and pegloticase was associated with fewer infusion reactions than using pegloticase alone (3% vs. 31%).
 

Study design and results

A total of 152 patients were included in the trial and were treated with methotrexate at a weekly dose of 15 mg for 2 weeks before being randomized, 2:1, to either continue methotrexate and then receive intravenous pegloticase or receive the latter with a placebo. Pegloticase was given at a dose of 8 mg every 2 weeks. Treatment was for 52 weeks, with the primary endpoint of serum uric acid response tested at 6 months.

The reason for the 2-week run-in period with methotrexate was to check that patients would be able to tolerate it, Dr. Botson explained.

The mean age of patients was around 54 years, the majority (> 84%) were male and were White (69%). The average duration of gout was about 14 years, with over 74% having tophi present at screening and experiencing 10-11 flares in the previous year. Baseline serum uric acid averaged at about 9 mg/dL.

Almost three-quarters of the 100 patients (73%) who were treated with the combination completed treatment to week 24 while the corresponding percentage in the placebo arm (n = 52) was 39%. The main reason for stopping was due to lack of efficacy (27% and 61% of cases, respectively), defined as having serum uric acid levels above 6 mg/dL on two consecutive measurements.

The median time to discontinuation was 69 days for those in the placebo arm; “it was non-estimable” in the methotrexate arm, Dr. Botson reported.

The mean change in serum uric acid through to week 24 was higher in the methotrexate than placebo arm, at a respective 7.66 and 5.23 mg/dL, giving a significant mean difference of 2.43 mg/dL.

There was a “dramatic resolution of tophaceous deposits,” Dr. Botson said. Complete resolution of tophi was seen in 34.6% of methotrexate-treated patients versus 13.8% of pegloticase-placebo–treated patients (P = .043).

One of the most common adverse events associated with pegloticase treatment is gout flare, which occurred in about 70% of participants in both study arms. Overall, the addition of methotrexate did not increase the risk for adverse events in general, and of the two deaths seen in the study – both in methotrexate-treated patients – one was because of a heart attack and another due COVID-19, so they were unrelated to study treatment.

In patients with renal insufficiency

Concern was raised during the discussion, however, on how to handle methotrexate use in patients with renal insufficiency.

“That’s been a debate that we’ve had in this study and others,” said Dr. Botson, acknowledging that “methotrexate is often a concern for the nephrologist that we’re co-treating these patients with.” However, no dose adjustments were needed in the study.

“There are some other studies with other immunomodulators that do suggest that other agents could be used that may be a little less potentially renal toxic, but we didn’t see any toxicity in the patients that we had, even in those that had a reduced [glomerular filtration rate],” he added.

Dr. Botson has received research support from Horizon and Radius Health. He also acknowledged receiving speakers fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Aurinia, ChemoCentryx*, Horizon, Eli Lilly, and Novartis.
 

Correction, 6/7/22: The name of the company ChemoCentryx was misstated.

In patients with uncontrolled gout, response rates were increased by 32% when methotrexate was used in conjunction with pegloticase versus pegloticase plus a placebo, it was reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

In the phase 4 MIRROR trial, 71% of patients who received pretreatment with methotrexate and then the combination of methotrexate and pegloticase achieved uric-acid levels lower than 6 mg/dL for more than 80% of the time during weeks 20-24 of the 52-week study. By comparison, only 39% of those treated with pegloticase plus a placebo achieved this primary endpoint (P < .0001).

This is good news for patients, suggested two rheumatologists who were not involved in the study. The combination appears “useful for a select group of gout patients,” observed Christian Ammitzbøll, MD, PhD, from Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark.

“Very promising in refractory gout,” agreed Emre Bilgin, MD, from Ankara, Turkey.
 

Rationale for using methotrexate

“Oral urate lowering agents are the mainstay of treatment of gout, but there are patients that just don’t respond to oral agents,” said Dr. Botson, a rheumatologist in private practice from Anchorage, Alaska.

“These patients are very difficult to treat,” he added. “They have a lot of physical disabilities, they have high medical comorbidities, and they have a low quality of life. Their treatment options are extremely limited.”

One of the few options they have is pegloticase, a pegylated uric acid specific enzyme sold under the brand name Krystexxa for the past 12 years. It lowers serum uric acid by converting it to allantoin, which is more water soluble and thus is easier to excrete from the body.

However, one of the problems of using the drug is that anti-drug antibodies frequently develop, meaning that discontinuation rates can be as high as 50%, with around a quarter of patients at high risk of experiencing an infusion reaction.

“Methotrexate is a medication we’re very familiar with for other rheumatologic conditions that use biologic medications, and we use this to prevent anti-drug antibodies. So, the MIRROR RCT was a study we performed to examine the pegloticase therapy in combination with methotrexate co therapy,” explained Dr. Botson.

In fact, co-administration of methotrexate and pegloticase was associated with fewer infusion reactions than using pegloticase alone (3% vs. 31%).
 

Study design and results

A total of 152 patients were included in the trial and were treated with methotrexate at a weekly dose of 15 mg for 2 weeks before being randomized, 2:1, to either continue methotrexate and then receive intravenous pegloticase or receive the latter with a placebo. Pegloticase was given at a dose of 8 mg every 2 weeks. Treatment was for 52 weeks, with the primary endpoint of serum uric acid response tested at 6 months.

The reason for the 2-week run-in period with methotrexate was to check that patients would be able to tolerate it, Dr. Botson explained.

The mean age of patients was around 54 years, the majority (> 84%) were male and were White (69%). The average duration of gout was about 14 years, with over 74% having tophi present at screening and experiencing 10-11 flares in the previous year. Baseline serum uric acid averaged at about 9 mg/dL.

Almost three-quarters of the 100 patients (73%) who were treated with the combination completed treatment to week 24 while the corresponding percentage in the placebo arm (n = 52) was 39%. The main reason for stopping was due to lack of efficacy (27% and 61% of cases, respectively), defined as having serum uric acid levels above 6 mg/dL on two consecutive measurements.

The median time to discontinuation was 69 days for those in the placebo arm; “it was non-estimable” in the methotrexate arm, Dr. Botson reported.

The mean change in serum uric acid through to week 24 was higher in the methotrexate than placebo arm, at a respective 7.66 and 5.23 mg/dL, giving a significant mean difference of 2.43 mg/dL.

There was a “dramatic resolution of tophaceous deposits,” Dr. Botson said. Complete resolution of tophi was seen in 34.6% of methotrexate-treated patients versus 13.8% of pegloticase-placebo–treated patients (P = .043).

One of the most common adverse events associated with pegloticase treatment is gout flare, which occurred in about 70% of participants in both study arms. Overall, the addition of methotrexate did not increase the risk for adverse events in general, and of the two deaths seen in the study – both in methotrexate-treated patients – one was because of a heart attack and another due COVID-19, so they were unrelated to study treatment.

In patients with renal insufficiency

Concern was raised during the discussion, however, on how to handle methotrexate use in patients with renal insufficiency.

“That’s been a debate that we’ve had in this study and others,” said Dr. Botson, acknowledging that “methotrexate is often a concern for the nephrologist that we’re co-treating these patients with.” However, no dose adjustments were needed in the study.

“There are some other studies with other immunomodulators that do suggest that other agents could be used that may be a little less potentially renal toxic, but we didn’t see any toxicity in the patients that we had, even in those that had a reduced [glomerular filtration rate],” he added.

Dr. Botson has received research support from Horizon and Radius Health. He also acknowledged receiving speakers fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Aurinia, ChemoCentryx*, Horizon, Eli Lilly, and Novartis.
 

Correction, 6/7/22: The name of the company ChemoCentryx was misstated.

In patients with uncontrolled gout, response rates were increased by 32% when methotrexate was used in conjunction with pegloticase versus pegloticase plus a placebo, it was reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

In the phase 4 MIRROR trial, 71% of patients who received pretreatment with methotrexate and then the combination of methotrexate and pegloticase achieved uric-acid levels lower than 6 mg/dL for more than 80% of the time during weeks 20-24 of the 52-week study. By comparison, only 39% of those treated with pegloticase plus a placebo achieved this primary endpoint (P < .0001).

This is good news for patients, suggested two rheumatologists who were not involved in the study. The combination appears “useful for a select group of gout patients,” observed Christian Ammitzbøll, MD, PhD, from Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark.

“Very promising in refractory gout,” agreed Emre Bilgin, MD, from Ankara, Turkey.
 

Rationale for using methotrexate

“Oral urate lowering agents are the mainstay of treatment of gout, but there are patients that just don’t respond to oral agents,” said Dr. Botson, a rheumatologist in private practice from Anchorage, Alaska.

“These patients are very difficult to treat,” he added. “They have a lot of physical disabilities, they have high medical comorbidities, and they have a low quality of life. Their treatment options are extremely limited.”

One of the few options they have is pegloticase, a pegylated uric acid specific enzyme sold under the brand name Krystexxa for the past 12 years. It lowers serum uric acid by converting it to allantoin, which is more water soluble and thus is easier to excrete from the body.

However, one of the problems of using the drug is that anti-drug antibodies frequently develop, meaning that discontinuation rates can be as high as 50%, with around a quarter of patients at high risk of experiencing an infusion reaction.

“Methotrexate is a medication we’re very familiar with for other rheumatologic conditions that use biologic medications, and we use this to prevent anti-drug antibodies. So, the MIRROR RCT was a study we performed to examine the pegloticase therapy in combination with methotrexate co therapy,” explained Dr. Botson.

In fact, co-administration of methotrexate and pegloticase was associated with fewer infusion reactions than using pegloticase alone (3% vs. 31%).
 

Study design and results

A total of 152 patients were included in the trial and were treated with methotrexate at a weekly dose of 15 mg for 2 weeks before being randomized, 2:1, to either continue methotrexate and then receive intravenous pegloticase or receive the latter with a placebo. Pegloticase was given at a dose of 8 mg every 2 weeks. Treatment was for 52 weeks, with the primary endpoint of serum uric acid response tested at 6 months.

The reason for the 2-week run-in period with methotrexate was to check that patients would be able to tolerate it, Dr. Botson explained.

The mean age of patients was around 54 years, the majority (> 84%) were male and were White (69%). The average duration of gout was about 14 years, with over 74% having tophi present at screening and experiencing 10-11 flares in the previous year. Baseline serum uric acid averaged at about 9 mg/dL.

Almost three-quarters of the 100 patients (73%) who were treated with the combination completed treatment to week 24 while the corresponding percentage in the placebo arm (n = 52) was 39%. The main reason for stopping was due to lack of efficacy (27% and 61% of cases, respectively), defined as having serum uric acid levels above 6 mg/dL on two consecutive measurements.

The median time to discontinuation was 69 days for those in the placebo arm; “it was non-estimable” in the methotrexate arm, Dr. Botson reported.

The mean change in serum uric acid through to week 24 was higher in the methotrexate than placebo arm, at a respective 7.66 and 5.23 mg/dL, giving a significant mean difference of 2.43 mg/dL.

There was a “dramatic resolution of tophaceous deposits,” Dr. Botson said. Complete resolution of tophi was seen in 34.6% of methotrexate-treated patients versus 13.8% of pegloticase-placebo–treated patients (P = .043).

One of the most common adverse events associated with pegloticase treatment is gout flare, which occurred in about 70% of participants in both study arms. Overall, the addition of methotrexate did not increase the risk for adverse events in general, and of the two deaths seen in the study – both in methotrexate-treated patients – one was because of a heart attack and another due COVID-19, so they were unrelated to study treatment.

In patients with renal insufficiency

Concern was raised during the discussion, however, on how to handle methotrexate use in patients with renal insufficiency.

“That’s been a debate that we’ve had in this study and others,” said Dr. Botson, acknowledging that “methotrexate is often a concern for the nephrologist that we’re co-treating these patients with.” However, no dose adjustments were needed in the study.

“There are some other studies with other immunomodulators that do suggest that other agents could be used that may be a little less potentially renal toxic, but we didn’t see any toxicity in the patients that we had, even in those that had a reduced [glomerular filtration rate],” he added.

Dr. Botson has received research support from Horizon and Radius Health. He also acknowledged receiving speakers fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Aurinia, ChemoCentryx*, Horizon, Eli Lilly, and Novartis.
 

Correction, 6/7/22: The name of the company ChemoCentryx was misstated.

Cannabis-based products may control chronic pain as effectively as opioids, but adverse effects are common, and long-term safety remains unknown, according to a new study.

Several other systematic reviews have recently evaluated cannabinoids for treating chronic pain, but the new study’s methodology was “distinct” in “important ways,” leading to “conclusions that differ from other reviews,” according to the authors of the paper published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

In the new systematic review, synthetic products with high THC:CBD ratios were associated with moderate improvements in pain, whereas plant-based products with comparable THC:CBD ratios offered less relief, said study author Marian S. McDonagh, PharmD, professor of medical informatics and clinical epidemiology, and codirector of the Evidence-based Practice Center at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues.

Specifically, the investigators stratified cannabis-based interventions according to relative content of two key cannabinoids: THC and CBD. Products were sorted into five categories: high THC:CBD ratio (at least 2:1), comparable THC:CBD ratio (less than 2:1 but more than 1:2), low THC:CBD ratio (no more than 1:2), whole-plant cannabis products, and other cannabinoids.

“In preclinical studies, THC and related compounds have demonstrated analgesic properties, although its psychoactive effects and addiction potential may limit its suitability as an analgesic,” the investigators wrote. “CBD and other cannabinoids may also have some analgesic or anti-inflammatory properties and are not believed to be psychoactive or addictive. Given the variation in analgesic effect with THC and CBD, response may differ according to the ratio of THC to CBD in products used to treat pain.”

The final analysis included 18 randomized placebo-controlled trials involving 1,740 individuals and 7 cohort studies involving 13,095 individuals. Most of the studies were short-term, lasting 1-6 months.

Pain was scored on a ten-point scale, with improvements reported as the mean difference from baseline to post treatment. A mean difference in pain score of 0.5-1.0 was considered a “small effect,” an improvement of 1-2 points was considered a “moderate effect,” and an improvement greater than 2 points was considered a “large effect.”
 

Cannabis-based products with relatively high THC:CBD ratios showed efficacy

Synthetic products with high THC:CBD ratios offered moderate pain relief, based on a mean difference in pain score of –1.15 (95% confidence interval, –1.99 to –0.54), whereas products with comparable THC:CBD ratios were associated with a small effect on pain, with a mean difference of –0.52 (95% CI, –0.95 to –0.19).

According to Dr. McDonagh, treatment response rates were on par with response rates for more conventional treatments, “such as opioids or specific antidepressant drugs,” but data for the cannabis-based products are weaker.

“The amount of evidence available for cannabis-related products is very limited for [response rates], and therefore less certain,” Dr. McDonagh said in an interview. “The average reduction in pain severity is also similar to some other treatments, but we do not have studies directly comparing these treatments to draw conclusions.”

Although the cannabis-based products with relatively high and comparable THC:CBD ratios showed efficacy, they were also associated with “moderate to large increased risk for dizziness, sedation, and nausea,” the investigators wrote, noting that evidence was insufficient to characterize other “key adverse event outcomes” that may occur with long-term use, such as “psychosis, cannabis use disorder, and cognitive deficits.”

For products with low THC:CBD ratios, or without reported THC:CBD ratios, data were too scarce to reach any conclusions at all about safety or efficacy, highlighting the sizable knowledge gaps that remain in the area, the authors said.

“The current evidence on cannabis-related products for chronic pain is quite limited,” Dr. McDonagh said in an interview. “Patients with chronic pain should consult with their doctor to discuss which of the many options for treating chronic pain is best for them to start with.”
 

Patients may face resistance when asking about cannabis

According to Kevin F. Boehnke, PhD, and Daniel J. Clauw, MD, of the anesthesiology department and Chronic Pain and Fatigue Research Center at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, patients with chronic pain may face resistance, or even risk of being reported, when asking about cannabis-based products.

“Some physicians cite lack of data as rationale for not engaging with patients who wish to use or currently use cannabis,” Dr. Boehnke and Dr. Clauw wrote in an accompanying editorial. “Such practices may reflect consideration of cannabis solely as a drug of misuse (even in the 37 states where medical cannabis is legal) and requirements to refer patients who disclose or test positive for cannabis use to addiction services or decline to refill opioid prescriptions.”

Instead of shutting patients out, Dr. Boehnke and Dr. Clauw suggested clinicians engage in an “open information exchange” with their patients that focuses on “pragmatism, patient experience, known cannabinoid effects, and harm reduction.” In these conversations, the editorialists recommend noting that, “as with other analgesics, some persons will benefit, and others will not.”

They also offered some practical guidance: “Clinicians could suggest using tinctures (effect onset, 15-45 minutes) for breakthrough pain and edibles or capsules (which last about 6-8 hours) for extended relief. ... The scientific literature suggests that CBD doses could start at 5-10 mg twice daily and increase to 40-50 mg daily, whereas THC doses could start at 0.5-3 mg (initially at night) and increase to 30-40 mg/day.”

David Copenhaver, MD, MPH, clinical professor and chief of the division of pain medicine at UC Davis Health, Sacramento, shared a similar clinical mindset for patients choosing between opioids and cannabis-based products, specifically, CBD.

Compared with opioids, “the side-effect profile for CBD is less and the risk of mortality is less,” Dr. Copenhaver said in an interview, pointing out that nobody, to his knowledge, has ever died from an overdose of cannabis alone, and that CBD doses up to 1,000 mg/kg have been safely tolerated in people. “You present that, and most patients will say, ‘You know, I’d like to give this a try.’”

If so, Dr. Copenhaver makes sure patients know about a nonmedical risk: “The risk to the pocketbook.” Unlike opioids, which are covered under most insurance policies, most cannabis-based therapies are self-pay.

Buyers may get what they pay for, Dr. Copenhaver said, since products vary in quality, as do the dispensaries, from “very modest,” to highly sophisticated, with some even using chromatographic datasets to support the purity of their products.

Dr. Copenhaver steers his patients toward these more sophisticated retailers. Their expertise appears to be paying off, he said, not only in relief for patients, but also in market share. “Survival of the most fit will occur in the marketplace based on the results,” he said. “Unfortunately, some of that information doesn’t get percolated out into the literature.”

For investigators to fully uncover what cannabis-based products can do for chronic pain, Dr. Copenhaver said they need to get as “granular” as the leading dispensaries, which may first require recognition of the “very expansive opportunity” that less-studied cannabinoids may provide.

The study was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The investigators, Dr. Boehnke, Dr. Clauw, and Dr. Copenhaver, disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Cannabis-based products may control chronic pain as effectively as opioids, but adverse effects are common, and long-term safety remains unknown, according to a new study.

Several other systematic reviews have recently evaluated cannabinoids for treating chronic pain, but the new study’s methodology was “distinct” in “important ways,” leading to “conclusions that differ from other reviews,” according to the authors of the paper published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

In the new systematic review, synthetic products with high THC:CBD ratios were associated with moderate improvements in pain, whereas plant-based products with comparable THC:CBD ratios offered less relief, said study author Marian S. McDonagh, PharmD, professor of medical informatics and clinical epidemiology, and codirector of the Evidence-based Practice Center at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues.

Specifically, the investigators stratified cannabis-based interventions according to relative content of two key cannabinoids: THC and CBD. Products were sorted into five categories: high THC:CBD ratio (at least 2:1), comparable THC:CBD ratio (less than 2:1 but more than 1:2), low THC:CBD ratio (no more than 1:2), whole-plant cannabis products, and other cannabinoids.

“In preclinical studies, THC and related compounds have demonstrated analgesic properties, although its psychoactive effects and addiction potential may limit its suitability as an analgesic,” the investigators wrote. “CBD and other cannabinoids may also have some analgesic or anti-inflammatory properties and are not believed to be psychoactive or addictive. Given the variation in analgesic effect with THC and CBD, response may differ according to the ratio of THC to CBD in products used to treat pain.”

The final analysis included 18 randomized placebo-controlled trials involving 1,740 individuals and 7 cohort studies involving 13,095 individuals. Most of the studies were short-term, lasting 1-6 months.

Pain was scored on a ten-point scale, with improvements reported as the mean difference from baseline to post treatment. A mean difference in pain score of 0.5-1.0 was considered a “small effect,” an improvement of 1-2 points was considered a “moderate effect,” and an improvement greater than 2 points was considered a “large effect.”
 

Cannabis-based products with relatively high THC:CBD ratios showed efficacy

Synthetic products with high THC:CBD ratios offered moderate pain relief, based on a mean difference in pain score of –1.15 (95% confidence interval, –1.99 to –0.54), whereas products with comparable THC:CBD ratios were associated with a small effect on pain, with a mean difference of –0.52 (95% CI, –0.95 to –0.19).

According to Dr. McDonagh, treatment response rates were on par with response rates for more conventional treatments, “such as opioids or specific antidepressant drugs,” but data for the cannabis-based products are weaker.

“The amount of evidence available for cannabis-related products is very limited for [response rates], and therefore less certain,” Dr. McDonagh said in an interview. “The average reduction in pain severity is also similar to some other treatments, but we do not have studies directly comparing these treatments to draw conclusions.”

Although the cannabis-based products with relatively high and comparable THC:CBD ratios showed efficacy, they were also associated with “moderate to large increased risk for dizziness, sedation, and nausea,” the investigators wrote, noting that evidence was insufficient to characterize other “key adverse event outcomes” that may occur with long-term use, such as “psychosis, cannabis use disorder, and cognitive deficits.”

For products with low THC:CBD ratios, or without reported THC:CBD ratios, data were too scarce to reach any conclusions at all about safety or efficacy, highlighting the sizable knowledge gaps that remain in the area, the authors said.

“The current evidence on cannabis-related products for chronic pain is quite limited,” Dr. McDonagh said in an interview. “Patients with chronic pain should consult with their doctor to discuss which of the many options for treating chronic pain is best for them to start with.”
 

Patients may face resistance when asking about cannabis

According to Kevin F. Boehnke, PhD, and Daniel J. Clauw, MD, of the anesthesiology department and Chronic Pain and Fatigue Research Center at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, patients with chronic pain may face resistance, or even risk of being reported, when asking about cannabis-based products.

“Some physicians cite lack of data as rationale for not engaging with patients who wish to use or currently use cannabis,” Dr. Boehnke and Dr. Clauw wrote in an accompanying editorial. “Such practices may reflect consideration of cannabis solely as a drug of misuse (even in the 37 states where medical cannabis is legal) and requirements to refer patients who disclose or test positive for cannabis use to addiction services or decline to refill opioid prescriptions.”

Instead of shutting patients out, Dr. Boehnke and Dr. Clauw suggested clinicians engage in an “open information exchange” with their patients that focuses on “pragmatism, patient experience, known cannabinoid effects, and harm reduction.” In these conversations, the editorialists recommend noting that, “as with other analgesics, some persons will benefit, and others will not.”

They also offered some practical guidance: “Clinicians could suggest using tinctures (effect onset, 15-45 minutes) for breakthrough pain and edibles or capsules (which last about 6-8 hours) for extended relief. ... The scientific literature suggests that CBD doses could start at 5-10 mg twice daily and increase to 40-50 mg daily, whereas THC doses could start at 0.5-3 mg (initially at night) and increase to 30-40 mg/day.”

David Copenhaver, MD, MPH, clinical professor and chief of the division of pain medicine at UC Davis Health, Sacramento, shared a similar clinical mindset for patients choosing between opioids and cannabis-based products, specifically, CBD.

Compared with opioids, “the side-effect profile for CBD is less and the risk of mortality is less,” Dr. Copenhaver said in an interview, pointing out that nobody, to his knowledge, has ever died from an overdose of cannabis alone, and that CBD doses up to 1,000 mg/kg have been safely tolerated in people. “You present that, and most patients will say, ‘You know, I’d like to give this a try.’”

If so, Dr. Copenhaver makes sure patients know about a nonmedical risk: “The risk to the pocketbook.” Unlike opioids, which are covered under most insurance policies, most cannabis-based therapies are self-pay.

Buyers may get what they pay for, Dr. Copenhaver said, since products vary in quality, as do the dispensaries, from “very modest,” to highly sophisticated, with some even using chromatographic datasets to support the purity of their products.

Dr. Copenhaver steers his patients toward these more sophisticated retailers. Their expertise appears to be paying off, he said, not only in relief for patients, but also in market share. “Survival of the most fit will occur in the marketplace based on the results,” he said. “Unfortunately, some of that information doesn’t get percolated out into the literature.”

For investigators to fully uncover what cannabis-based products can do for chronic pain, Dr. Copenhaver said they need to get as “granular” as the leading dispensaries, which may first require recognition of the “very expansive opportunity” that less-studied cannabinoids may provide.

The study was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The investigators, Dr. Boehnke, Dr. Clauw, and Dr. Copenhaver, disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Cannabis-based products may control chronic pain as effectively as opioids, but adverse effects are common, and long-term safety remains unknown, according to a new study.

Several other systematic reviews have recently evaluated cannabinoids for treating chronic pain, but the new study’s methodology was “distinct” in “important ways,” leading to “conclusions that differ from other reviews,” according to the authors of the paper published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

In the new systematic review, synthetic products with high THC:CBD ratios were associated with moderate improvements in pain, whereas plant-based products with comparable THC:CBD ratios offered less relief, said study author Marian S. McDonagh, PharmD, professor of medical informatics and clinical epidemiology, and codirector of the Evidence-based Practice Center at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues.

Specifically, the investigators stratified cannabis-based interventions according to relative content of two key cannabinoids: THC and CBD. Products were sorted into five categories: high THC:CBD ratio (at least 2:1), comparable THC:CBD ratio (less than 2:1 but more than 1:2), low THC:CBD ratio (no more than 1:2), whole-plant cannabis products, and other cannabinoids.

“In preclinical studies, THC and related compounds have demonstrated analgesic properties, although its psychoactive effects and addiction potential may limit its suitability as an analgesic,” the investigators wrote. “CBD and other cannabinoids may also have some analgesic or anti-inflammatory properties and are not believed to be psychoactive or addictive. Given the variation in analgesic effect with THC and CBD, response may differ according to the ratio of THC to CBD in products used to treat pain.”

The final analysis included 18 randomized placebo-controlled trials involving 1,740 individuals and 7 cohort studies involving 13,095 individuals. Most of the studies were short-term, lasting 1-6 months.

Pain was scored on a ten-point scale, with improvements reported as the mean difference from baseline to post treatment. A mean difference in pain score of 0.5-1.0 was considered a “small effect,” an improvement of 1-2 points was considered a “moderate effect,” and an improvement greater than 2 points was considered a “large effect.”
 

Cannabis-based products with relatively high THC:CBD ratios showed efficacy

Synthetic products with high THC:CBD ratios offered moderate pain relief, based on a mean difference in pain score of –1.15 (95% confidence interval, –1.99 to –0.54), whereas products with comparable THC:CBD ratios were associated with a small effect on pain, with a mean difference of –0.52 (95% CI, –0.95 to –0.19).

According to Dr. McDonagh, treatment response rates were on par with response rates for more conventional treatments, “such as opioids or specific antidepressant drugs,” but data for the cannabis-based products are weaker.

“The amount of evidence available for cannabis-related products is very limited for [response rates], and therefore less certain,” Dr. McDonagh said in an interview. “The average reduction in pain severity is also similar to some other treatments, but we do not have studies directly comparing these treatments to draw conclusions.”

Although the cannabis-based products with relatively high and comparable THC:CBD ratios showed efficacy, they were also associated with “moderate to large increased risk for dizziness, sedation, and nausea,” the investigators wrote, noting that evidence was insufficient to characterize other “key adverse event outcomes” that may occur with long-term use, such as “psychosis, cannabis use disorder, and cognitive deficits.”

For products with low THC:CBD ratios, or without reported THC:CBD ratios, data were too scarce to reach any conclusions at all about safety or efficacy, highlighting the sizable knowledge gaps that remain in the area, the authors said.

“The current evidence on cannabis-related products for chronic pain is quite limited,” Dr. McDonagh said in an interview. “Patients with chronic pain should consult with their doctor to discuss which of the many options for treating chronic pain is best for them to start with.”
 

Patients may face resistance when asking about cannabis

According to Kevin F. Boehnke, PhD, and Daniel J. Clauw, MD, of the anesthesiology department and Chronic Pain and Fatigue Research Center at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, patients with chronic pain may face resistance, or even risk of being reported, when asking about cannabis-based products.

“Some physicians cite lack of data as rationale for not engaging with patients who wish to use or currently use cannabis,” Dr. Boehnke and Dr. Clauw wrote in an accompanying editorial. “Such practices may reflect consideration of cannabis solely as a drug of misuse (even in the 37 states where medical cannabis is legal) and requirements to refer patients who disclose or test positive for cannabis use to addiction services or decline to refill opioid prescriptions.”

Instead of shutting patients out, Dr. Boehnke and Dr. Clauw suggested clinicians engage in an “open information exchange” with their patients that focuses on “pragmatism, patient experience, known cannabinoid effects, and harm reduction.” In these conversations, the editorialists recommend noting that, “as with other analgesics, some persons will benefit, and others will not.”

They also offered some practical guidance: “Clinicians could suggest using tinctures (effect onset, 15-45 minutes) for breakthrough pain and edibles or capsules (which last about 6-8 hours) for extended relief. ... The scientific literature suggests that CBD doses could start at 5-10 mg twice daily and increase to 40-50 mg daily, whereas THC doses could start at 0.5-3 mg (initially at night) and increase to 30-40 mg/day.”

David Copenhaver, MD, MPH, clinical professor and chief of the division of pain medicine at UC Davis Health, Sacramento, shared a similar clinical mindset for patients choosing between opioids and cannabis-based products, specifically, CBD.

Compared with opioids, “the side-effect profile for CBD is less and the risk of mortality is less,” Dr. Copenhaver said in an interview, pointing out that nobody, to his knowledge, has ever died from an overdose of cannabis alone, and that CBD doses up to 1,000 mg/kg have been safely tolerated in people. “You present that, and most patients will say, ‘You know, I’d like to give this a try.’”

If so, Dr. Copenhaver makes sure patients know about a nonmedical risk: “The risk to the pocketbook.” Unlike opioids, which are covered under most insurance policies, most cannabis-based therapies are self-pay.

Buyers may get what they pay for, Dr. Copenhaver said, since products vary in quality, as do the dispensaries, from “very modest,” to highly sophisticated, with some even using chromatographic datasets to support the purity of their products.

Dr. Copenhaver steers his patients toward these more sophisticated retailers. Their expertise appears to be paying off, he said, not only in relief for patients, but also in market share. “Survival of the most fit will occur in the marketplace based on the results,” he said. “Unfortunately, some of that information doesn’t get percolated out into the literature.”

For investigators to fully uncover what cannabis-based products can do for chronic pain, Dr. Copenhaver said they need to get as “granular” as the leading dispensaries, which may first require recognition of the “very expansive opportunity” that less-studied cannabinoids may provide.

The study was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The investigators, Dr. Boehnke, Dr. Clauw, and Dr. Copenhaver, disclosed no conflicts of interest.

COPENHAGEN – European recommendations and overarching principles for the management of patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) have remained largely unchanged since 2016 – with a few notable but very important exceptions.

The 2022 updated recommendations include a new point regarding which biologic agents to use for patients with recurrent uveitis, active inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), or significant psoriasis, as well as new advice to reevaluate the diagnosis and consider the presence of comorbidities if the disease doesn’t respond to current therapies, reported Sofia Ramiro, MD, PhD, from Leiden (Netherlands) University Medical Center.

She summarized the 2022 updates at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology on behalf of colleagues in the ASAS (Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society)/EULAR committee.

Among other significant updates are a recommendation for managing patients with persistently high disease activity despite conventional therapy, and a recommendation as to what to do when a first biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) fails, Dr. Ramiro said at the meeting.

“Although we have more changes in the pharmacological part, I would like to emphasize the importance of nonpharmacological treatment in axial SpA,” she said.

Overarching principles

The members of the committee that created the recommendations were in complete agreement that axSpA, as they state in the overarching principles, “is a potentially severe disease with diverse manifestations, usually requiring multidisciplinary management coordinated by the rheumatologist.”

They also universally acknowledged that “the primary goal of treating the patient with axSpA is to maximize health-related quality of life through control of symptoms and inflammation, prevention of progressive structural damage, preservation/normalization of function, and social participation.”

The overarching principles include the aforementioned emphasis on both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic management, shared decision-making between patients and rheumatologists, and awareness of the potential financial toxicities and societal problems that patients face.

A closer look: New recommendations

As noted before, there are two new recommendations since the 2016 iteration.

Recommendation No. 10 states, “If there is a history of recurrent uveitis or active IBD, preference should be given to a monoclonal antibody against TNF-alpha [tumor necrosis factor–alpha]. For patients with significant psoriasis, an IL-17 [interleukin-17] inhibitor may be preferred.”

This recommendation stipulates that it refers only to IL-17A inhibitors.

The other new recommendation, No. 11, seems like plain common sense. It states, “Absence of response to treatment should trigger reevaluation of the diagnosis and consideration of the presence of comorbidities.”

Revised recommendations

The two significantly revised recommendations deal with drug therapy.

Recommendation No. 9 holds that for patients with persistently high disease activity despite conventional therapy, a TNF inhibitor, including the pegylated humanized antigen-binding fragment certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), an IL-17 inhibitor, or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, should be considered.

Recommendation No. 12 states that if the first biologic or targeted synthetic DMARD fails, switching to another biologic DMARD (TNF inhibitor or IL-17 inhibitor) or JAK inhibitor should be considered.

Transatlantic similarities, differences

Lianne Gensler, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, who served on the committee that developed the 2019 American College of Rheumatology guidelines for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis and nonradiographic axSpA, said that, while there are similarities between some of the recommendations promulgated on each side of the Atlantic, there are significant differences and even opposing viewpoints.

A primary difference between the two is the methodology used to arrive at the recommendations in the first place, she said in an interview with this news organization.

“ACR uses a very robust approach to guideline development, where each question is addressed by a ‘PICO’ ” population, intervention, control, and outcomes – and that’s good if you have good evidence, but sometimes – often, in fact – we don’t have strong evidence that would lead everyone to choose the same approach every time, and that’s true especially in inflammatory arthritis, where there’s a lot of shared decision-making, so many of the recommendations out of ACR are conditional,” she said.

In contrast, the ASAS/EULAR recommendations are based largely on broader levels of evidence and on consensus. In developing the European recommendations, the authors were able to take into account drugs that were newly approved since the 2019 ACR guidelines were issued, she noted.

Although many of the broader recommendations are similar, they diverge when it comes to specific issues, such as whether to treat to target.

“ACR guidelines say, ‘Do not treat to target.’ EULAR guidelines say it’s okay to treat to target. ACR guidelines made that decision because at that time, there was no treat-to-target data,” Dr, Gensler said.

“I think, as rheumatologists, we always want to aim for a goal in a patient, so it’s not unreasonable, but I think we shouldn’t attach too much to a number,” she said.

Another difference is that the ACR guidelines recommend against switching to a biosimilar agent when a patient’s condition is stable with the originator biologic.

Dr. Gensler said that she particularly appreciated the new EULAR recommendation (No. 11) to reconsider the diagnosis for patients for whom therapies have failed.

“The sense that nonresponse means ongoing disease activity and therefore drug escalation or change needs to happen is not always the right answer,” she said.

The process for developing the recommendations was supported by EULAR. Dr. Ramiro has received research grants and consulting and/or speaking fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB. Dr. Gensler has received research grant support from Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB and has consulting relationships with AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, MoonLake, Novartis, and Pfizer.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COPENHAGEN – European recommendations and overarching principles for the management of patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) have remained largely unchanged since 2016 – with a few notable but very important exceptions.

The 2022 updated recommendations include a new point regarding which biologic agents to use for patients with recurrent uveitis, active inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), or significant psoriasis, as well as new advice to reevaluate the diagnosis and consider the presence of comorbidities if the disease doesn’t respond to current therapies, reported Sofia Ramiro, MD, PhD, from Leiden (Netherlands) University Medical Center.

She summarized the 2022 updates at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology on behalf of colleagues in the ASAS (Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society)/EULAR committee.

Among other significant updates are a recommendation for managing patients with persistently high disease activity despite conventional therapy, and a recommendation as to what to do when a first biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) fails, Dr. Ramiro said at the meeting.

“Although we have more changes in the pharmacological part, I would like to emphasize the importance of nonpharmacological treatment in axial SpA,” she said.

Overarching principles

The members of the committee that created the recommendations were in complete agreement that axSpA, as they state in the overarching principles, “is a potentially severe disease with diverse manifestations, usually requiring multidisciplinary management coordinated by the rheumatologist.”

They also universally acknowledged that “the primary goal of treating the patient with axSpA is to maximize health-related quality of life through control of symptoms and inflammation, prevention of progressive structural damage, preservation/normalization of function, and social participation.”

The overarching principles include the aforementioned emphasis on both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic management, shared decision-making between patients and rheumatologists, and awareness of the potential financial toxicities and societal problems that patients face.

A closer look: New recommendations

As noted before, there are two new recommendations since the 2016 iteration.

Recommendation No. 10 states, “If there is a history of recurrent uveitis or active IBD, preference should be given to a monoclonal antibody against TNF-alpha [tumor necrosis factor–alpha]. For patients with significant psoriasis, an IL-17 [interleukin-17] inhibitor may be preferred.”

This recommendation stipulates that it refers only to IL-17A inhibitors.

The other new recommendation, No. 11, seems like plain common sense. It states, “Absence of response to treatment should trigger reevaluation of the diagnosis and consideration of the presence of comorbidities.”

Revised recommendations

The two significantly revised recommendations deal with drug therapy.

Recommendation No. 9 holds that for patients with persistently high disease activity despite conventional therapy, a TNF inhibitor, including the pegylated humanized antigen-binding fragment certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), an IL-17 inhibitor, or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, should be considered.

Recommendation No. 12 states that if the first biologic or targeted synthetic DMARD fails, switching to another biologic DMARD (TNF inhibitor or IL-17 inhibitor) or JAK inhibitor should be considered.

Transatlantic similarities, differences

Lianne Gensler, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, who served on the committee that developed the 2019 American College of Rheumatology guidelines for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis and nonradiographic axSpA, said that, while there are similarities between some of the recommendations promulgated on each side of the Atlantic, there are significant differences and even opposing viewpoints.

A primary difference between the two is the methodology used to arrive at the recommendations in the first place, she said in an interview with this news organization.

“ACR uses a very robust approach to guideline development, where each question is addressed by a ‘PICO’ ” population, intervention, control, and outcomes – and that’s good if you have good evidence, but sometimes – often, in fact – we don’t have strong evidence that would lead everyone to choose the same approach every time, and that’s true especially in inflammatory arthritis, where there’s a lot of shared decision-making, so many of the recommendations out of ACR are conditional,” she said.

In contrast, the ASAS/EULAR recommendations are based largely on broader levels of evidence and on consensus. In developing the European recommendations, the authors were able to take into account drugs that were newly approved since the 2019 ACR guidelines were issued, she noted.

Although many of the broader recommendations are similar, they diverge when it comes to specific issues, such as whether to treat to target.

“ACR guidelines say, ‘Do not treat to target.’ EULAR guidelines say it’s okay to treat to target. ACR guidelines made that decision because at that time, there was no treat-to-target data,” Dr, Gensler said.

“I think, as rheumatologists, we always want to aim for a goal in a patient, so it’s not unreasonable, but I think we shouldn’t attach too much to a number,” she said.

Another difference is that the ACR guidelines recommend against switching to a biosimilar agent when a patient’s condition is stable with the originator biologic.

Dr. Gensler said that she particularly appreciated the new EULAR recommendation (No. 11) to reconsider the diagnosis for patients for whom therapies have failed.

“The sense that nonresponse means ongoing disease activity and therefore drug escalation or change needs to happen is not always the right answer,” she said.

The process for developing the recommendations was supported by EULAR. Dr. Ramiro has received research grants and consulting and/or speaking fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB. Dr. Gensler has received research grant support from Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB and has consulting relationships with AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, MoonLake, Novartis, and Pfizer.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COPENHAGEN – European recommendations and overarching principles for the management of patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) have remained largely unchanged since 2016 – with a few notable but very important exceptions.

The 2022 updated recommendations include a new point regarding which biologic agents to use for patients with recurrent uveitis, active inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), or significant psoriasis, as well as new advice to reevaluate the diagnosis and consider the presence of comorbidities if the disease doesn’t respond to current therapies, reported Sofia Ramiro, MD, PhD, from Leiden (Netherlands) University Medical Center.

She summarized the 2022 updates at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology on behalf of colleagues in the ASAS (Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society)/EULAR committee.

Among other significant updates are a recommendation for managing patients with persistently high disease activity despite conventional therapy, and a recommendation as to what to do when a first biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) fails, Dr. Ramiro said at the meeting.

“Although we have more changes in the pharmacological part, I would like to emphasize the importance of nonpharmacological treatment in axial SpA,” she said.

Overarching principles

The members of the committee that created the recommendations were in complete agreement that axSpA, as they state in the overarching principles, “is a potentially severe disease with diverse manifestations, usually requiring multidisciplinary management coordinated by the rheumatologist.”

They also universally acknowledged that “the primary goal of treating the patient with axSpA is to maximize health-related quality of life through control of symptoms and inflammation, prevention of progressive structural damage, preservation/normalization of function, and social participation.”

The overarching principles include the aforementioned emphasis on both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic management, shared decision-making between patients and rheumatologists, and awareness of the potential financial toxicities and societal problems that patients face.

A closer look: New recommendations

As noted before, there are two new recommendations since the 2016 iteration.

Recommendation No. 10 states, “If there is a history of recurrent uveitis or active IBD, preference should be given to a monoclonal antibody against TNF-alpha [tumor necrosis factor–alpha]. For patients with significant psoriasis, an IL-17 [interleukin-17] inhibitor may be preferred.”

This recommendation stipulates that it refers only to IL-17A inhibitors.

The other new recommendation, No. 11, seems like plain common sense. It states, “Absence of response to treatment should trigger reevaluation of the diagnosis and consideration of the presence of comorbidities.”

Revised recommendations

The two significantly revised recommendations deal with drug therapy.

Recommendation No. 9 holds that for patients with persistently high disease activity despite conventional therapy, a TNF inhibitor, including the pegylated humanized antigen-binding fragment certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), an IL-17 inhibitor, or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, should be considered.

Recommendation No. 12 states that if the first biologic or targeted synthetic DMARD fails, switching to another biologic DMARD (TNF inhibitor or IL-17 inhibitor) or JAK inhibitor should be considered.

Transatlantic similarities, differences

Lianne Gensler, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, who served on the committee that developed the 2019 American College of Rheumatology guidelines for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis and nonradiographic axSpA, said that, while there are similarities between some of the recommendations promulgated on each side of the Atlantic, there are significant differences and even opposing viewpoints.

A primary difference between the two is the methodology used to arrive at the recommendations in the first place, she said in an interview with this news organization.

“ACR uses a very robust approach to guideline development, where each question is addressed by a ‘PICO’ ” population, intervention, control, and outcomes – and that’s good if you have good evidence, but sometimes – often, in fact – we don’t have strong evidence that would lead everyone to choose the same approach every time, and that’s true especially in inflammatory arthritis, where there’s a lot of shared decision-making, so many of the recommendations out of ACR are conditional,” she said.

In contrast, the ASAS/EULAR recommendations are based largely on broader levels of evidence and on consensus. In developing the European recommendations, the authors were able to take into account drugs that were newly approved since the 2019 ACR guidelines were issued, she noted.

Although many of the broader recommendations are similar, they diverge when it comes to specific issues, such as whether to treat to target.

“ACR guidelines say, ‘Do not treat to target.’ EULAR guidelines say it’s okay to treat to target. ACR guidelines made that decision because at that time, there was no treat-to-target data,” Dr, Gensler said.

“I think, as rheumatologists, we always want to aim for a goal in a patient, so it’s not unreasonable, but I think we shouldn’t attach too much to a number,” she said.

Another difference is that the ACR guidelines recommend against switching to a biosimilar agent when a patient’s condition is stable with the originator biologic.

Dr. Gensler said that she particularly appreciated the new EULAR recommendation (No. 11) to reconsider the diagnosis for patients for whom therapies have failed.

“The sense that nonresponse means ongoing disease activity and therefore drug escalation or change needs to happen is not always the right answer,” she said.

The process for developing the recommendations was supported by EULAR. Dr. Ramiro has received research grants and consulting and/or speaking fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB. Dr. Gensler has received research grant support from Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB and has consulting relationships with AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, MoonLake, Novartis, and Pfizer.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COPENHAGEN – Here’s reassuring news for pregnant women with rheumatic diseases treated with tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha inhibitors: Although the drugs vary widely in their transmissibility across the placenta, there appears to be no excess risk for serious infections in children exposed in utero to TNF inhibitors with high, compared with low, placental transfer.

That’s according to investigators at McGill University in Montreal, who studied outcomes for nearly 3,000 infants who were exposed to TNF inhibitors during gestation.

“Our data are reassuring as we saw no strong signal, which suggests that there is no need to switch the mother’s drugs. More studies are needed, but this is a step in the right direction to reduce maternal stress and reassure physicians,” said Leah K. Flatman, MSc, a PhD candidate in epidemiology at McGill.

Ms. Flatman presented the findings in an oral abstract session at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Not without risks

Approximately 20% of pregnant women with chronic inflammatory diseases are prescribed a TNF inhibitor, a class of drug that is effective for disease control but also increases risk for infection because of immunosuppressive effects.

“Similarly, offspring exposed in utero to TNF inhibitors may also experience immunosuppression and subsequent serious infections in their first year of life. This is the result of the TNF inhibitor entering the fetal bloodstream at different concentrations,» Ms. Flatman said.

Anti-TNF monoclonal immunoglobulins, such as infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars), adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars), and golimumab (Simponi) have the highest placental transfer, reaching higher levels in fetal circulation than in maternal circulation, she noted.

In contrast, certolizumab (Cimzia), a pegylated humanized antigen-binding fragment, and etanercept (Enbrel and biosimilars), a fusion protein, have the lowest placental penetration, Ms. Flatman said.

Population study

The investigators conducted a population cohort study using the IBM MarketScan database of commercial claims from employer-provided health insurance plans in the United States.

They looked at data on offspring of mothers with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis and/or inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD; Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis). The children were born from Jan. 1, 2011 through Dec. 31, 2019.

The exposure was at least one filled prescription and/or infusion procedure claim for TNF inhibitors in the 6 months before delivery. The exposures were divided into high and low placental-transfer categories.

A total of 26,088 offspring were identified, of whom 2,902 (11.1%) were exposed to a TNF inhibitor in utero. A little more than half of these children were born to mothers treated with TNF inhibitors for IBD.

For the primary outcome of serious infections (based on at least one hospitalization with infection in the first year of life), the investigators plotted Kaplan-Meier curves, which showed that the survival probability of serious infections in the high and low groups overlapped, indicating no large differences.

Of 2,105 offspring of mothers treated with a high–placental-transfer drug, 38 (1.8%) had serious infections, compared with 10 of 797 offspring (1.3%) of mothers who received low–placental-transfer drugs.

In multivariable analysis that controlled for maternal age at delivery, any RA diagnosis without an IBD diagnosis, and IBD diagnosis, gestational or pregestational diabetes, maternal asthma, preterm delivery, corticosteroid use, and disease-modifying antirheumatic drug use, the investigators saw that the hazard ratio for risk for serious infection in the high–, compared with the low–placental-transfer group was 1.20, with a confidence interval crossing 1, indicating nonsignificance.

Similar results reported

Frauke Förger, MD, professor of rheumatology and immunology at the University of Bern (Switzerland), who comoderated the oral abstract session where the data were presented, told this news organization that the findings were in line with those of a recent meta-analysis looking at the safety of biologic agents in pregnant women with IBD.

She added, however, that although the meta-analysis also showed little difference in outcomes for the children of women treated with high– compared with low–placental-transfer drugs, “we need more data to be sure about this.”

Comoderator Gabriela Riemekasten, MD, director of the clinic for rheumatology and clinical immunology at University Hospital in Lübeck, Germany, told this news organization that she was surprised to see that more women received high– than low–placental-transfer drugs.

Although there was a 20% difference between the groups, the numbers were relatively low, and “I would consider this in my practice and give my patients the advice of these data,” she said.

The study was supported by an Arthritis Society PhD Salary Award, and a Canadian Institutes of Health Project grant. Ms. Flatman, Dr. Förger, and Dr. Riemekasten reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COPENHAGEN – Here’s reassuring news for pregnant women with rheumatic diseases treated with tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha inhibitors: Although the drugs vary widely in their transmissibility across the placenta, there appears to be no excess risk for serious infections in children exposed in utero to TNF inhibitors with high, compared with low, placental transfer.

That’s according to investigators at McGill University in Montreal, who studied outcomes for nearly 3,000 infants who were exposed to TNF inhibitors during gestation.

“Our data are reassuring as we saw no strong signal, which suggests that there is no need to switch the mother’s drugs. More studies are needed, but this is a step in the right direction to reduce maternal stress and reassure physicians,” said Leah K. Flatman, MSc, a PhD candidate in epidemiology at McGill.

Ms. Flatman presented the findings in an oral abstract session at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Not without risks

Approximately 20% of pregnant women with chronic inflammatory diseases are prescribed a TNF inhibitor, a class of drug that is effective for disease control but also increases risk for infection because of immunosuppressive effects.

“Similarly, offspring exposed in utero to TNF inhibitors may also experience immunosuppression and subsequent serious infections in their first year of life. This is the result of the TNF inhibitor entering the fetal bloodstream at different concentrations,» Ms. Flatman said.

Anti-TNF monoclonal immunoglobulins, such as infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars), adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars), and golimumab (Simponi) have the highest placental transfer, reaching higher levels in fetal circulation than in maternal circulation, she noted.

In contrast, certolizumab (Cimzia), a pegylated humanized antigen-binding fragment, and etanercept (Enbrel and biosimilars), a fusion protein, have the lowest placental penetration, Ms. Flatman said.

Population study

The investigators conducted a population cohort study using the IBM MarketScan database of commercial claims from employer-provided health insurance plans in the United States.

They looked at data on offspring of mothers with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis and/or inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD; Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis). The children were born from Jan. 1, 2011 through Dec. 31, 2019.

The exposure was at least one filled prescription and/or infusion procedure claim for TNF inhibitors in the 6 months before delivery. The exposures were divided into high and low placental-transfer categories.

A total of 26,088 offspring were identified, of whom 2,902 (11.1%) were exposed to a TNF inhibitor in utero. A little more than half of these children were born to mothers treated with TNF inhibitors for IBD.

For the primary outcome of serious infections (based on at least one hospitalization with infection in the first year of life), the investigators plotted Kaplan-Meier curves, which showed that the survival probability of serious infections in the high and low groups overlapped, indicating no large differences.

Of 2,105 offspring of mothers treated with a high–placental-transfer drug, 38 (1.8%) had serious infections, compared with 10 of 797 offspring (1.3%) of mothers who received low–placental-transfer drugs.

In multivariable analysis that controlled for maternal age at delivery, any RA diagnosis without an IBD diagnosis, and IBD diagnosis, gestational or pregestational diabetes, maternal asthma, preterm delivery, corticosteroid use, and disease-modifying antirheumatic drug use, the investigators saw that the hazard ratio for risk for serious infection in the high–, compared with the low–placental-transfer group was 1.20, with a confidence interval crossing 1, indicating nonsignificance.

Similar results reported

Frauke Förger, MD, professor of rheumatology and immunology at the University of Bern (Switzerland), who comoderated the oral abstract session where the data were presented, told this news organization that the findings were in line with those of a recent meta-analysis looking at the safety of biologic agents in pregnant women with IBD.

She added, however, that although the meta-analysis also showed little difference in outcomes for the children of women treated with high– compared with low–placental-transfer drugs, “we need more data to be sure about this.”

Comoderator Gabriela Riemekasten, MD, director of the clinic for rheumatology and clinical immunology at University Hospital in Lübeck, Germany, told this news organization that she was surprised to see that more women received high– than low–placental-transfer drugs.

Although there was a 20% difference between the groups, the numbers were relatively low, and “I would consider this in my practice and give my patients the advice of these data,” she said.

The study was supported by an Arthritis Society PhD Salary Award, and a Canadian Institutes of Health Project grant. Ms. Flatman, Dr. Förger, and Dr. Riemekasten reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COPENHAGEN – Here’s reassuring news for pregnant women with rheumatic diseases treated with tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha inhibitors: Although the drugs vary widely in their transmissibility across the placenta, there appears to be no excess risk for serious infections in children exposed in utero to TNF inhibitors with high, compared with low, placental transfer.

That’s according to investigators at McGill University in Montreal, who studied outcomes for nearly 3,000 infants who were exposed to TNF inhibitors during gestation.

“Our data are reassuring as we saw no strong signal, which suggests that there is no need to switch the mother’s drugs. More studies are needed, but this is a step in the right direction to reduce maternal stress and reassure physicians,” said Leah K. Flatman, MSc, a PhD candidate in epidemiology at McGill.

Ms. Flatman presented the findings in an oral abstract session at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Not without risks

Approximately 20% of pregnant women with chronic inflammatory diseases are prescribed a TNF inhibitor, a class of drug that is effective for disease control but also increases risk for infection because of immunosuppressive effects.

“Similarly, offspring exposed in utero to TNF inhibitors may also experience immunosuppression and subsequent serious infections in their first year of life. This is the result of the TNF inhibitor entering the fetal bloodstream at different concentrations,» Ms. Flatman said.

Anti-TNF monoclonal immunoglobulins, such as infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars), adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars), and golimumab (Simponi) have the highest placental transfer, reaching higher levels in fetal circulation than in maternal circulation, she noted.

In contrast, certolizumab (Cimzia), a pegylated humanized antigen-binding fragment, and etanercept (Enbrel and biosimilars), a fusion protein, have the lowest placental penetration, Ms. Flatman said.

Population study

The investigators conducted a population cohort study using the IBM MarketScan database of commercial claims from employer-provided health insurance plans in the United States.

They looked at data on offspring of mothers with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis and/or inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD; Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis). The children were born from Jan. 1, 2011 through Dec. 31, 2019.

The exposure was at least one filled prescription and/or infusion procedure claim for TNF inhibitors in the 6 months before delivery. The exposures were divided into high and low placental-transfer categories.

A total of 26,088 offspring were identified, of whom 2,902 (11.1%) were exposed to a TNF inhibitor in utero. A little more than half of these children were born to mothers treated with TNF inhibitors for IBD.

For the primary outcome of serious infections (based on at least one hospitalization with infection in the first year of life), the investigators plotted Kaplan-Meier curves, which showed that the survival probability of serious infections in the high and low groups overlapped, indicating no large differences.

Of 2,105 offspring of mothers treated with a high–placental-transfer drug, 38 (1.8%) had serious infections, compared with 10 of 797 offspring (1.3%) of mothers who received low–placental-transfer drugs.

In multivariable analysis that controlled for maternal age at delivery, any RA diagnosis without an IBD diagnosis, and IBD diagnosis, gestational or pregestational diabetes, maternal asthma, preterm delivery, corticosteroid use, and disease-modifying antirheumatic drug use, the investigators saw that the hazard ratio for risk for serious infection in the high–, compared with the low–placental-transfer group was 1.20, with a confidence interval crossing 1, indicating nonsignificance.

Similar results reported

Frauke Förger, MD, professor of rheumatology and immunology at the University of Bern (Switzerland), who comoderated the oral abstract session where the data were presented, told this news organization that the findings were in line with those of a recent meta-analysis looking at the safety of biologic agents in pregnant women with IBD.

She added, however, that although the meta-analysis also showed little difference in outcomes for the children of women treated with high– compared with low–placental-transfer drugs, “we need more data to be sure about this.”

Comoderator Gabriela Riemekasten, MD, director of the clinic for rheumatology and clinical immunology at University Hospital in Lübeck, Germany, told this news organization that she was surprised to see that more women received high– than low–placental-transfer drugs.

Although there was a 20% difference between the groups, the numbers were relatively low, and “I would consider this in my practice and give my patients the advice of these data,” she said.

The study was supported by an Arthritis Society PhD Salary Award, and a Canadian Institutes of Health Project grant. Ms. Flatman, Dr. Förger, and Dr. Riemekasten reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COPENHAGEN – Baricitinib (Olumiant), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, significantly increases time to disease flare and decreases frequency of flares in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), according to the results of a phase 3, placebo-controlled study.

The results support use of baricitinib when biologic or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) fail.

 The difference in the proportion of patients who flared between baricitinib and placebo was seen as soon as 4 weeks after half of the patients switched from active drug to placebo, at 3.7% versus 23.5% respectively, reported Athimalaipet Ramanan, MD, from the University of Bristol (England) who presented the findings of the withdrawal, efficacy, and safety study at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

  “Our patients and parents have been waiting for alternative drugs for JIA, so JAK inhibitors have come at the right time,” he said. “These are really very encouraging findings for families, caregivers, and patients with JIA, to have an effective oral JAK inhibitor for managing these children.”

 In reporting the key findings, Dr. Ramanan added that the majority of patients (76%) achieved a JIA-ACR (American College of Rheumatology) 30 score during the 12-week open-label phase and went on to enter the double-blind withdrawal phase of the trial.

 Baricitinib 2-mg tablets are already Food and Drug Administration approved for the treatment of adults with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis. This study, sponsored by the drug manufacturer Eli Lilly, aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety in pediatric patients with JIA who have shown an inadequate response to conventional synthetic or biologic DMARDs.

“For juvenile patients we need to make a dose adjustment [from the adult dosing], especially because we don’t have long-term safety data from JAK inhibitors in general,” said Osama Elfayad, MD, rheumatologist from Mouwasat Hospital, Dammam, Saudi Arabia who attended the presentation and commented on the findings.

He emphasized that safety was of primary concern in the pediatric population who have a long life expectancy. “For me it is essential to have good long-term safety data in juvenile patients. If we start with 4 mg and if the patient is controlled, we should shift to 2 mg which will be much better. I understand some clinicians are asking for 1 mg.”

Study details

The study population included patients aged from 2 to 17 years old with extended oligo- or polyarticular JIA, enthesitis-related juvenile idiopathic arthritis (ERA) and juvenile psoriatic arthritis.

 The trial was divided into three periods: a 2-week safety assessment, a 12-week open-label lead-in phase, and an up-to 32-week double-blind withdrawal phase. After confirmation of dose and safety, children were enrolled in the open-label phase receiving age-based, oral, once daily doses of baricitinib.

 “The primary endpoint is really concerned with the next phase of the study [double-blind withdrawal phase] looking at the proportion of patients who have shown a response at week 12 [achieved JIA-ACR30] but when switched from active drug to placebo have a flare,” explained Dr. Ramanan.

Patients were randomized 1:1 to continuing baricitinib or newly starting placebo until disease flare or up to week 32. The time to flare during the double-blind phase was the primary endpoint, while secondary endpoints included JIA-ACR30/50/70/90 response rates at week 12, and the proportion of patients with a flare during the double-blind phase.

 “These secondary endpoints are more relevant to the clinic,” noted Dr. Ramanan.

 A total of 219 patients entered the open-label phase, and of these, 163 achieved a JIA-ACR 30. These 163 children entered the double-blind stage and were randomized to baricitinib four times a day (56 completed), or placebo (32 completed).

 Two-thirds of patients were female, which is typical of the disease, explained Dr. Ramanan, and over two-thirds were White. “Most patients had had disease for around 4 years, and about half had had prior biologic therapy. About half were on baseline methotrexate and almost one-third had used corticosteroids although at doses of under 0.2mg/kg.

“It’s gratifying to see that over 75% achieved a JIA-ACR 30 [76.3%]. More importantly, two-thirds of the patients have a JIA-ACR 50 [63.5%], and almost half of the patients have a JIA-ACR 70 [46.1%]. This is pretty significant at 12 weeks only,” he remarked.

The key finding, however, was in the withdrawal phase, said Dr. Ramanan. “We see that those patients who had a response at week 12 and were then switched to placebo, about half [50.6%] flared on placebo, compared to only 17% of those who continued with baricitinib. So not only do those who switch to placebo have a higher frequency of flares but they are more likely to flare quickly, as early as 4 weeks.”

With respect to safety, he said: “This shows short-term safety, but what we really need is medium and long-term safety data. It is no surprise that most of the events seen were as expected in children including nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infections, and nausea.”  

In the baricitinib versus placebo phase, 4.9% had serious adverse events in the baricitinib group compared to 3.7% in the placebo group. “There was nothing we didn’t expect to see which was mainly infection,” said Dr. Ramanan.

Dr. Elfayad has no disclosures. Professor Ramanan is a consultant for Eli Lilly, Abbvie, Roche, UCB, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sobi. He has received grant/research support from Eli Lilly.

COPENHAGEN – Baricitinib (Olumiant), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, significantly increases time to disease flare and decreases frequency of flares in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), according to the results of a phase 3, placebo-controlled study.

The results support use of baricitinib when biologic or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) fail.

 The difference in the proportion of patients who flared between baricitinib and placebo was seen as soon as 4 weeks after half of the patients switched from active drug to placebo, at 3.7% versus 23.5% respectively, reported Athimalaipet Ramanan, MD, from the University of Bristol (England) who presented the findings of the withdrawal, efficacy, and safety study at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

  “Our patients and parents have been waiting for alternative drugs for JIA, so JAK inhibitors have come at the right time,” he said. “These are really very encouraging findings for families, caregivers, and patients with JIA, to have an effective oral JAK inhibitor for managing these children.”

 In reporting the key findings, Dr. Ramanan added that the majority of patients (76%) achieved a JIA-ACR (American College of Rheumatology) 30 score during the 12-week open-label phase and went on to enter the double-blind withdrawal phase of the trial.

 Baricitinib 2-mg tablets are already Food and Drug Administration approved for the treatment of adults with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis. This study, sponsored by the drug manufacturer Eli Lilly, aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety in pediatric patients with JIA who have shown an inadequate response to conventional synthetic or biologic DMARDs.

“For juvenile patients we need to make a dose adjustment [from the adult dosing], especially because we don’t have long-term safety data from JAK inhibitors in general,” said Osama Elfayad, MD, rheumatologist from Mouwasat Hospital, Dammam, Saudi Arabia who attended the presentation and commented on the findings.

He emphasized that safety was of primary concern in the pediatric population who have a long life expectancy. “For me it is essential to have good long-term safety data in juvenile patients. If we start with 4 mg and if the patient is controlled, we should shift to 2 mg which will be much better. I understand some clinicians are asking for 1 mg.”

Study details

The study population included patients aged from 2 to 17 years old with extended oligo- or polyarticular JIA, enthesitis-related juvenile idiopathic arthritis (ERA) and juvenile psoriatic arthritis.

 The trial was divided into three periods: a 2-week safety assessment, a 12-week open-label lead-in phase, and an up-to 32-week double-blind withdrawal phase. After confirmation of dose and safety, children were enrolled in the open-label phase receiving age-based, oral, once daily doses of baricitinib.

 “The primary endpoint is really concerned with the next phase of the study [double-blind withdrawal phase] looking at the proportion of patients who have shown a response at week 12 [achieved JIA-ACR30] but when switched from active drug to placebo have a flare,” explained Dr. Ramanan.

Patients were randomized 1:1 to continuing baricitinib or newly starting placebo until disease flare or up to week 32. The time to flare during the double-blind phase was the primary endpoint, while secondary endpoints included JIA-ACR30/50/70/90 response rates at week 12, and the proportion of patients with a flare during the double-blind phase.

 “These secondary endpoints are more relevant to the clinic,” noted Dr. Ramanan.

 A total of 219 patients entered the open-label phase, and of these, 163 achieved a JIA-ACR 30. These 163 children entered the double-blind stage and were randomized to baricitinib four times a day (56 completed), or placebo (32 completed).

 Two-thirds of patients were female, which is typical of the disease, explained Dr. Ramanan, and over two-thirds were White. “Most patients had had disease for around 4 years, and about half had had prior biologic therapy. About half were on baseline methotrexate and almost one-third had used corticosteroids although at doses of under 0.2mg/kg.

“It’s gratifying to see that over 75% achieved a JIA-ACR 30 [76.3%]. More importantly, two-thirds of the patients have a JIA-ACR 50 [63.5%], and almost half of the patients have a JIA-ACR 70 [46.1%]. This is pretty significant at 12 weeks only,” he remarked.

The key finding, however, was in the withdrawal phase, said Dr. Ramanan. “We see that those patients who had a response at week 12 and were then switched to placebo, about half [50.6%] flared on placebo, compared to only 17% of those who continued with baricitinib. So not only do those who switch to placebo have a higher frequency of flares but they are more likely to flare quickly, as early as 4 weeks.”

With respect to safety, he said: “This shows short-term safety, but what we really need is medium and long-term safety data. It is no surprise that most of the events seen were as expected in children including nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infections, and nausea.”  

In the baricitinib versus placebo phase, 4.9% had serious adverse events in the baricitinib group compared to 3.7% in the placebo group. “There was nothing we didn’t expect to see which was mainly infection,” said Dr. Ramanan.

Dr. Elfayad has no disclosures. Professor Ramanan is a consultant for Eli Lilly, Abbvie, Roche, UCB, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sobi. He has received grant/research support from Eli Lilly.

COPENHAGEN – Baricitinib (Olumiant), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, significantly increases time to disease flare and decreases frequency of flares in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), according to the results of a phase 3, placebo-controlled study.

The results support use of baricitinib when biologic or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) fail.

 The difference in the proportion of patients who flared between baricitinib and placebo was seen as soon as 4 weeks after half of the patients switched from active drug to placebo, at 3.7% versus 23.5% respectively, reported Athimalaipet Ramanan, MD, from the University of Bristol (England) who presented the findings of the withdrawal, efficacy, and safety study at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

  “Our patients and parents have been waiting for alternative drugs for JIA, so JAK inhibitors have come at the right time,” he said. “These are really very encouraging findings for families, caregivers, and patients with JIA, to have an effective oral JAK inhibitor for managing these children.”

 In reporting the key findings, Dr. Ramanan added that the majority of patients (76%) achieved a JIA-ACR (American College of Rheumatology) 30 score during the 12-week open-label phase and went on to enter the double-blind withdrawal phase of the trial.

 Baricitinib 2-mg tablets are already Food and Drug Administration approved for the treatment of adults with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis. This study, sponsored by the drug manufacturer Eli Lilly, aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety in pediatric patients with JIA who have shown an inadequate response to conventional synthetic or biologic DMARDs.

“For juvenile patients we need to make a dose adjustment [from the adult dosing], especially because we don’t have long-term safety data from JAK inhibitors in general,” said Osama Elfayad, MD, rheumatologist from Mouwasat Hospital, Dammam, Saudi Arabia who attended the presentation and commented on the findings.

He emphasized that safety was of primary concern in the pediatric population who have a long life expectancy. “For me it is essential to have good long-term safety data in juvenile patients. If we start with 4 mg and if the patient is controlled, we should shift to 2 mg which will be much better. I understand some clinicians are asking for 1 mg.”

Study details

The study population included patients aged from 2 to 17 years old with extended oligo- or polyarticular JIA, enthesitis-related juvenile idiopathic arthritis (ERA) and juvenile psoriatic arthritis.

 The trial was divided into three periods: a 2-week safety assessment, a 12-week open-label lead-in phase, and an up-to 32-week double-blind withdrawal phase. After confirmation of dose and safety, children were enrolled in the open-label phase receiving age-based, oral, once daily doses of baricitinib.

 “The primary endpoint is really concerned with the next phase of the study [double-blind withdrawal phase] looking at the proportion of patients who have shown a response at week 12 [achieved JIA-ACR30] but when switched from active drug to placebo have a flare,” explained Dr. Ramanan.

Patients were randomized 1:1 to continuing baricitinib or newly starting placebo until disease flare or up to week 32. The time to flare during the double-blind phase was the primary endpoint, while secondary endpoints included JIA-ACR30/50/70/90 response rates at week 12, and the proportion of patients with a flare during the double-blind phase.

 “These secondary endpoints are more relevant to the clinic,” noted Dr. Ramanan.

 A total of 219 patients entered the open-label phase, and of these, 163 achieved a JIA-ACR 30. These 163 children entered the double-blind stage and were randomized to baricitinib four times a day (56 completed), or placebo (32 completed).

 Two-thirds of patients were female, which is typical of the disease, explained Dr. Ramanan, and over two-thirds were White. “Most patients had had disease for around 4 years, and about half had had prior biologic therapy. About half were on baseline methotrexate and almost one-third had used corticosteroids although at doses of under 0.2mg/kg.

“It’s gratifying to see that over 75% achieved a JIA-ACR 30 [76.3%]. More importantly, two-thirds of the patients have a JIA-ACR 50 [63.5%], and almost half of the patients have a JIA-ACR 70 [46.1%]. This is pretty significant at 12 weeks only,” he remarked.

The key finding, however, was in the withdrawal phase, said Dr. Ramanan. “We see that those patients who had a response at week 12 and were then switched to placebo, about half [50.6%] flared on placebo, compared to only 17% of those who continued with baricitinib. So not only do those who switch to placebo have a higher frequency of flares but they are more likely to flare quickly, as early as 4 weeks.”

With respect to safety, he said: “This shows short-term safety, but what we really need is medium and long-term safety data. It is no surprise that most of the events seen were as expected in children including nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infections, and nausea.”  

In the baricitinib versus placebo phase, 4.9% had serious adverse events in the baricitinib group compared to 3.7% in the placebo group. “There was nothing we didn’t expect to see which was mainly infection,” said Dr. Ramanan.

Dr. Elfayad has no disclosures. Professor Ramanan is a consultant for Eli Lilly, Abbvie, Roche, UCB, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sobi. He has received grant/research support from Eli Lilly.

A host of psoriatic arthritis symptoms can be improved by the investigational interleukin (IL)-17 blocker izokibep, according to the results of a phase 2 trial presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Around half of all participants in the trial who were treated with izokibep achieved a 50% or higher improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR50) at week 16, the trial’s primary endpoint. This was highly significant (P = .0003) when compared to the control group, where only 13% of patients given a placebo achieved an ACR50.

There was also a significant improvement in skin symptoms, as assessed by the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and resolution of enthesitis in 88% of patients given the highest dose of izokibep.

Aurelie Najm, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Infection, Immunity and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow, who tweeted about the main results, said that the data also looked “promising for the enthesitis domain” with a “safety profile similar to that observed in PsO [psoriasis].”Peter Taylor, MA, PhD, FRCP, FRCPE, of the University of Oxford in England, said: “The improvements demonstrated in arthritis, psoriasis, and enthesitis are exciting relative to responses reported for the current standard of care.”

He continued, in a statement issued jointly by Affibody, Acelyrin, and Immagene Biopharmaceuticals – the three companies assessing izokibep’s therapeutic potential – that the drug “seems promising” and that he was “eager to see its continued development for patients.”

Small and potent, a novel IL-17 inhibitor

Izokibep is an antibody mimetic that inhibits IL-17A designed to “overcome the limitations of monoclonal antibodies,” according to its developers.

Due to its small molecular size – reportedly about one-tenth of the size of a monoclonal antibody – they say that levels of high drug exposure can be achieved from a single, subcutaneous injection rather than an intravenous infusion, which is needed for monoclonal antibodies.

Moreover, izokibep’s small size means it could potentially reach target tissues “that may otherwise be inaccessible to the much larger monoclonal antibodies.” 

So far more than 300 patients have been treated with izokibep, some for up to 3 years, but not all have had psoriatic arthritis. Indeed, the drug has been tested in patients with psoriasis, and there are a few actively recruiting trials including one in ankylosing spondylitis, another in noninfective uveitis, and one in the rare and painful skin condition hidradenitis suppurativa.

Testing two doses of izokibep in psoriatic arthritis

The trial presented at the EULAR 2022 Congress tested two doses of izokibep – 40 mg and 80 mg – given by subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks – against placebo in 135 adult patients with active psoriatic arthritis. For inclusion in the trial patients had to have at least three swollen and at least three tender joints and have had an inadequate response to prior therapy including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, or tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.

Principle investigator Frank Behrens, MD, of Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany, reported that it was a multicenter effort conducted at 22 European sites with the primary endpoint being an ACR50 response at 16 weeks. This was met by 52% of patients given the 80-mg dose of izokibep, 48% of patients given the 40-mg dose of izokibep, and just 13% of patients who had been randomized to placebo.

ACR20 and ACR70 response were one of several key secondary endpoints tested, again at 16 weeks, with a respective 75%, 60%, and 20% of patients in each group achieving the lower response target and 20%, 32%, and 5%, achieving the more stringent response target.

“Izokibep demonstrated a robust efficacy in the musculoskeletal arthritic domains, but also in the extra-articular musculoskeletal domain,” Dr. Behrens said.

Not only that, but the values were “at the top end” of what’s been demonstrated for drugs currently regarded as the standard of care.

More than 80% of patients achieved a PASI75 response and 57% a PASI50 response with the two doses of izokibep, and 63%-88% achieved a resolution of enthesitis. The latter was measured using the Leeds Enthesitis Index.

There was also improvement in quality of life, measured using the Psoriatic Impact of Disease questionnaire, with a percentage increase beyond the MCID of 31%-41% with izokibep versus 12% for placebo.

“These are the first data of the phase 2 study in psoriatic arthritis,” Dr. Behrens reported.

“The safety profile was consistent with placebo,” with the only “standout aspect” being a higher number of injection-site reactions with izokibep versus placebo; but there were no serious infections, no serious adverse events,” he added.

“The interesting thing is from the preclinical research there was no dose-limiting toxicity with izokibep, therefore, I think the plan in the future is maybe to increase the dose to optimize treatment outcome based on the really robust effectiveness we see here in the first study in this clinical trial,” he said.

As a small study, stratifying results by gender wasn’t an option, Dr. Behrens noted in answering a question during the discussion period, but might be something that will be included in future and larger trials based on the post-hoc findings of other IL-17 trials.

Moving forward, the next step will involve a phase 2b/3 pivotal study which will likely include a higher dosing regimen of 160 mg once weekly alongside the twice-weekly dosing used in this trial.

Izokibep is an investigational treatment being developed by Affibody AB, Sweden, and ACELYRIN, USA. All three companies funded the phase 2 trial and were involved in the study design, conduct and reporting of results.

Dr. Behrens and Dr. Taylor were investigators in the study.

Dr. Behrens disclosed he was a shareholder of Pfizer, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead Sciences, Inc. and Novartis; part of the speakers’ bureau for Amgen, Horizon, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Genzyme, Flexion and AbbVie; a consultant of AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Flexion, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, Regeneron, SUN Pharma Advanced Research, Gilead Sciences, Inc.; and had received grant or research support from Pfizer, Janssen, Chugai, Celgene and Roche

Dr. Taylor acknowledged grant or research support from: Celgene and Galapagos, and acted as a consultant for AbbVie, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and UCB.