Rheumatology News

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted breakthrough designation to an LSD-based treatment for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) based on promising topline data from a phase 2b clinical trial. Mind Medicine (MindMed) Inc is developing the treatment — MM120 (lysergide d-tartrate).

In a news release, the company reports that a single oral dose of MM120 met its key secondary endpoint, maintaining “clinically and statistically significant” reductions in Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) score, compared with placebo, at 12 weeks with a 65% clinical response rate and 48% clinical remission rate.

The company previously announced statistically significant improvements on the HAM-A compared with placebo at 4 weeks, which was the trial’s primary endpoint.

“I’ve conducted clinical research studies in psychiatry for over two decades and have seen studies of many drugs under development for the treatment of anxiety. That MM120 exhibited rapid and robust efficacy, solidly sustained for 12 weeks after a single dose, is truly remarkable,” study investigator David Feifel, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, and director of the Kadima Neuropsychiatry Institute in La Jolla, California, said in the news release.

“These results suggest the potential MM120 has in the treatment of anxiety, and those of us who struggle every day to alleviate anxiety in our patients look forward to seeing results from future phase 3 trials,” Dr. Feifel added.

MM120 was administered as a single dose in a monitored clinical setting with no additional therapeutic intervention. Prior to treatment with MM120, study participants were clinically tapered and then washed out from any anxiolytic or antidepressant treatments and did not receive any form of study-related psychotherapy for the duration of their participation in the study.

MM120 100 µg — the dose that demonstrated optimal clinical activity — produced a 7.7-point improvement over placebo at week 12 (P < .003; Cohen’s d = 0.81), with a 65% clinical response rate and a 48% clinical remission rate sustained to week 12.

Also at week 12, Clinical Global Impressions–Severity (CGI-S) scores on average improved from 4.8 to 2.2 in the 100-µg dose group, representing a two-category shift from ‘markedly ill’ to ‘borderline ill’ at week 12 (P < .004), the company reported.

Improvement was noted as early as study day 2, and durable with further improvements observed in mean HAM-A or CGI-S scores between 4 and 12 weeks.

MM120 was generally well-tolerated with most adverse events rated as mild to moderate and transient and occurred on the day of administration day, in line with the expected acute effects of the study drug.

The most common adverse events on dosing day included illusion, hallucinations, euphoric mood, anxiety, abnormal thinking, headache, paresthesia, dizziness, tremor, nausea, vomiting, feeling abnormal, mydriasis, and hyperhidrosis.

The company plans to hold an end-of-phase 2 meeting with the FDA in the first half of 2024 and start phase 3 testing in the second half of 2024.

“The FDA’s decision to designate MM120 as a breakthrough therapy for GAD and the durability data from our phase 2b study provide further validation of the important potential role this treatment can play in addressing the huge unmet need among individuals living with GAD,” Robert Barrow, director and CEO of MindMed said in the release.

The primary data analyses from the trial will be presented at the American Psychiatric Association (APA) annual meeting in May.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted breakthrough designation to an LSD-based treatment for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) based on promising topline data from a phase 2b clinical trial. Mind Medicine (MindMed) Inc is developing the treatment — MM120 (lysergide d-tartrate).

In a news release, the company reports that a single oral dose of MM120 met its key secondary endpoint, maintaining “clinically and statistically significant” reductions in Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) score, compared with placebo, at 12 weeks with a 65% clinical response rate and 48% clinical remission rate.

The company previously announced statistically significant improvements on the HAM-A compared with placebo at 4 weeks, which was the trial’s primary endpoint.

“I’ve conducted clinical research studies in psychiatry for over two decades and have seen studies of many drugs under development for the treatment of anxiety. That MM120 exhibited rapid and robust efficacy, solidly sustained for 12 weeks after a single dose, is truly remarkable,” study investigator David Feifel, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, and director of the Kadima Neuropsychiatry Institute in La Jolla, California, said in the news release.

“These results suggest the potential MM120 has in the treatment of anxiety, and those of us who struggle every day to alleviate anxiety in our patients look forward to seeing results from future phase 3 trials,” Dr. Feifel added.

MM120 was administered as a single dose in a monitored clinical setting with no additional therapeutic intervention. Prior to treatment with MM120, study participants were clinically tapered and then washed out from any anxiolytic or antidepressant treatments and did not receive any form of study-related psychotherapy for the duration of their participation in the study.

MM120 100 µg — the dose that demonstrated optimal clinical activity — produced a 7.7-point improvement over placebo at week 12 (P < .003; Cohen’s d = 0.81), with a 65% clinical response rate and a 48% clinical remission rate sustained to week 12.

Also at week 12, Clinical Global Impressions–Severity (CGI-S) scores on average improved from 4.8 to 2.2 in the 100-µg dose group, representing a two-category shift from ‘markedly ill’ to ‘borderline ill’ at week 12 (P < .004), the company reported.

Improvement was noted as early as study day 2, and durable with further improvements observed in mean HAM-A or CGI-S scores between 4 and 12 weeks.

MM120 was generally well-tolerated with most adverse events rated as mild to moderate and transient and occurred on the day of administration day, in line with the expected acute effects of the study drug.

The most common adverse events on dosing day included illusion, hallucinations, euphoric mood, anxiety, abnormal thinking, headache, paresthesia, dizziness, tremor, nausea, vomiting, feeling abnormal, mydriasis, and hyperhidrosis.

The company plans to hold an end-of-phase 2 meeting with the FDA in the first half of 2024 and start phase 3 testing in the second half of 2024.

“The FDA’s decision to designate MM120 as a breakthrough therapy for GAD and the durability data from our phase 2b study provide further validation of the important potential role this treatment can play in addressing the huge unmet need among individuals living with GAD,” Robert Barrow, director and CEO of MindMed said in the release.

The primary data analyses from the trial will be presented at the American Psychiatric Association (APA) annual meeting in May.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted breakthrough designation to an LSD-based treatment for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) based on promising topline data from a phase 2b clinical trial. Mind Medicine (MindMed) Inc is developing the treatment — MM120 (lysergide d-tartrate).

In a news release, the company reports that a single oral dose of MM120 met its key secondary endpoint, maintaining “clinically and statistically significant” reductions in Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) score, compared with placebo, at 12 weeks with a 65% clinical response rate and 48% clinical remission rate.

The company previously announced statistically significant improvements on the HAM-A compared with placebo at 4 weeks, which was the trial’s primary endpoint.

“I’ve conducted clinical research studies in psychiatry for over two decades and have seen studies of many drugs under development for the treatment of anxiety. That MM120 exhibited rapid and robust efficacy, solidly sustained for 12 weeks after a single dose, is truly remarkable,” study investigator David Feifel, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, and director of the Kadima Neuropsychiatry Institute in La Jolla, California, said in the news release.

“These results suggest the potential MM120 has in the treatment of anxiety, and those of us who struggle every day to alleviate anxiety in our patients look forward to seeing results from future phase 3 trials,” Dr. Feifel added.

MM120 was administered as a single dose in a monitored clinical setting with no additional therapeutic intervention. Prior to treatment with MM120, study participants were clinically tapered and then washed out from any anxiolytic or antidepressant treatments and did not receive any form of study-related psychotherapy for the duration of their participation in the study.

MM120 100 µg — the dose that demonstrated optimal clinical activity — produced a 7.7-point improvement over placebo at week 12 (P < .003; Cohen’s d = 0.81), with a 65% clinical response rate and a 48% clinical remission rate sustained to week 12.

Also at week 12, Clinical Global Impressions–Severity (CGI-S) scores on average improved from 4.8 to 2.2 in the 100-µg dose group, representing a two-category shift from ‘markedly ill’ to ‘borderline ill’ at week 12 (P < .004), the company reported.

Improvement was noted as early as study day 2, and durable with further improvements observed in mean HAM-A or CGI-S scores between 4 and 12 weeks.

MM120 was generally well-tolerated with most adverse events rated as mild to moderate and transient and occurred on the day of administration day, in line with the expected acute effects of the study drug.

The most common adverse events on dosing day included illusion, hallucinations, euphoric mood, anxiety, abnormal thinking, headache, paresthesia, dizziness, tremor, nausea, vomiting, feeling abnormal, mydriasis, and hyperhidrosis.

The company plans to hold an end-of-phase 2 meeting with the FDA in the first half of 2024 and start phase 3 testing in the second half of 2024.

“The FDA’s decision to designate MM120 as a breakthrough therapy for GAD and the durability data from our phase 2b study provide further validation of the important potential role this treatment can play in addressing the huge unmet need among individuals living with GAD,” Robert Barrow, director and CEO of MindMed said in the release.

The primary data analyses from the trial will be presented at the American Psychiatric Association (APA) annual meeting in May.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sulfites, present in foods, drinks, pharmaceuticals, and personal care products, have been named the “Allergen of the Year” for 2024 by the American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS).

Sulfites are currently not found in most screening patch test series, so may be missed as a relevant contact allergen, Donald V. Belsito, MD, emeritus professor in the Department of Dermatology at Columbia University, New York City, said in his presentation on the Allergen of the Year on March 7 at the annual meeting of the American Contact Dermatitis Society in San Diego. Sulfites, he noted, are distinct from sulfates, and the groups do not cross-react with each other.

FabrikaCr/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Sodium disulfite, an inorganic compound, belongs to a group of sulfiting agents, which contain the sulfite ion SO₃²⁻ and include ammonium sulfite, potassium sulfite, and sodium sulfite, Dr. Belsito said. Sulfites function as antioxidants and preservatives in a range of products including food and beverages, personal care products, and pharmaceuticals.

The type of sulfite allergy diagnosed by patch testing is type IV hypersensitivity or delayed-type hypersensitivity, where patients present with pruritic, red, scaling macules, papulovesicles, and patches, Dr. Belsito told this news organization. “It is not the type I, immediate hypersensitivity that causes hives and, in some cases, anaphylaxis,” he said. Sulfites also can cause these side effects, so correct labeling of food and beverages is important, he noted.

Some common nonoccupational sulfite sources include hair coloring and bleach products, hairspray, tanning lotions, makeup, sunscreens, and deodorants, Dr. Belsito said in his presentation. Medications including topical antifungals, topical corticosteroids, and nasal solutions can be culprits, as can water in swimming pools, he noted.

In occupational settings, sulfites may be present not only in food and drink products but also can be used in production of products, such as those used for sterilization during beer and wine fermentation, Dr. Belsito said. Other potential occupational sources of sulfite exposure include healthcare settings and textile, chemical, rubber, and pharmaceutical manufacturing.

High-sulfite food products (> 100 ppm) to be aware of include dried fruit (raisins and prunes are exceptions), bottled lemon or lime juice (but not frozen products), wine, molasses, grape juice (white, or white, pink, and red sparkling), and pickled cocktail onions, Dr. Belsito said.

“Like other contact allergens, the clinical presentation correlates with exposure,” he added. A study by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) found that 28.8% of patients positive for sulfite allergy on patch testing presented with facial dermatitis, which was not only related to cosmetics and medications used on the face but also from products, such as shampoo, used on the scalp that dripped onto the face. “The scalp is relatively resistant to the expression of contact allergy and may not be involved at all,” he said.

According to the NACDG study, the hands were the second most common site of dermatitis associated with sulfites (20.5%) followed by generalized distribution (13.6%). These sites are to be expected, given the sources of food and beverage, personal care products, and occupational materials, Dr. Belsito said.

“Eczematous dermatitis of the lips is also common in patients with ingested food sources of sulfites,” he said.

Systemic contact dermatitis to sulfites has been documented following oral, rectal, and parental exposure, Dr. Belsito told this news organization. “Systemic dermatitis may present as a scattered/generalized dermatitis, symmetrical drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema (also referred to as baboon syndrome), or erythroderma,” he said.
 

How to Spot Sulfite Allergies

The exclusion of sulfites from most patch test series means that sulfite allergy diagnoses are often missed, despite the wide range of potential exposures, Dr. Belsito said.

“Most cases of allergic contact dermatitis occur at the site of application of the allergen,” he noted. Depending on the location of the dermatitis, a detailed history of exposures that includes cosmetics and topical medications, work-related materials, and foods and beverages might suggest a sulfite allergy, he said.

Given the range of potential clinical presentations and the many and varied exposures to sulfites, Dr. Belsito’s best tip for clinicians is to routinely screen for them and evaluate the many avenues of exposure if a patch test is positive, he said.

For now, he said he does not think additional research is needed on sulfites as allergens; instead, sulfites, such as sodium metabisulfite/sodium disulfite, should be included in all clinicians’ baseline screening series, he said.

The Allergen of the Year was also recently announced in the journal Dermatitis. Authors Samuel F. Ekstein, MS, and Erin M. Warshaw, MD, from the Department of Dermatology, Park Nicollet Health Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota, noted that the ACDS hoped to raise awareness of sulfites as a “significant allergen” and called for their increased inclusion in screening patch test series.

Patients identified with sulfite allergies can find alternative products on the ACDS CAMP (Contact Allergen Management Program) website, Dr. Warshaw said in an interview.

She also highlighted some examples of sulfites as allergens in healthcare settings in particular. She described one patient who presented with dermatitis at the site of three previous hand orthopedic procedures.

“Although surgical cleansers were suspected, the patient reacted to sodium metabisulfite. Review of the operating room contactants confirmed sulfites as preservatives in an injectable anesthetic and antibiotic used for wound irrigation,” she said. Another patient who had been treated for recurrent otitis externa and seborrheic dermatitis was found to be allergic to sulfites in an otic antibiotic suspension as well as in a ketoconazole cream product, she added.

In the paper, Dr. Warshaw and Mr. Ekstein called for the addition of sulfites to the test series. Although the NACDG added sodium metabisulfite to the series in 2017, sulfites are not part of the American Contact Dermatitis Core Series, they wrote. Sodium metabisulfite, they said, was added to the European baseline standard series after review of the 2019-2020 patch test reactivity and clinical relevance data.

The ACDS meeting is held every year the day before the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Dr. Belsito and Dr. Warshaw had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sulfites, present in foods, drinks, pharmaceuticals, and personal care products, have been named the “Allergen of the Year” for 2024 by the American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS).

Sulfites are currently not found in most screening patch test series, so may be missed as a relevant contact allergen, Donald V. Belsito, MD, emeritus professor in the Department of Dermatology at Columbia University, New York City, said in his presentation on the Allergen of the Year on March 7 at the annual meeting of the American Contact Dermatitis Society in San Diego. Sulfites, he noted, are distinct from sulfates, and the groups do not cross-react with each other.

FabrikaCr/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Sodium disulfite, an inorganic compound, belongs to a group of sulfiting agents, which contain the sulfite ion SO₃²⁻ and include ammonium sulfite, potassium sulfite, and sodium sulfite, Dr. Belsito said. Sulfites function as antioxidants and preservatives in a range of products including food and beverages, personal care products, and pharmaceuticals.

The type of sulfite allergy diagnosed by patch testing is type IV hypersensitivity or delayed-type hypersensitivity, where patients present with pruritic, red, scaling macules, papulovesicles, and patches, Dr. Belsito told this news organization. “It is not the type I, immediate hypersensitivity that causes hives and, in some cases, anaphylaxis,” he said. Sulfites also can cause these side effects, so correct labeling of food and beverages is important, he noted.

Some common nonoccupational sulfite sources include hair coloring and bleach products, hairspray, tanning lotions, makeup, sunscreens, and deodorants, Dr. Belsito said in his presentation. Medications including topical antifungals, topical corticosteroids, and nasal solutions can be culprits, as can water in swimming pools, he noted.

In occupational settings, sulfites may be present not only in food and drink products but also can be used in production of products, such as those used for sterilization during beer and wine fermentation, Dr. Belsito said. Other potential occupational sources of sulfite exposure include healthcare settings and textile, chemical, rubber, and pharmaceutical manufacturing.

High-sulfite food products (> 100 ppm) to be aware of include dried fruit (raisins and prunes are exceptions), bottled lemon or lime juice (but not frozen products), wine, molasses, grape juice (white, or white, pink, and red sparkling), and pickled cocktail onions, Dr. Belsito said.

“Like other contact allergens, the clinical presentation correlates with exposure,” he added. A study by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) found that 28.8% of patients positive for sulfite allergy on patch testing presented with facial dermatitis, which was not only related to cosmetics and medications used on the face but also from products, such as shampoo, used on the scalp that dripped onto the face. “The scalp is relatively resistant to the expression of contact allergy and may not be involved at all,” he said.

According to the NACDG study, the hands were the second most common site of dermatitis associated with sulfites (20.5%) followed by generalized distribution (13.6%). These sites are to be expected, given the sources of food and beverage, personal care products, and occupational materials, Dr. Belsito said.

“Eczematous dermatitis of the lips is also common in patients with ingested food sources of sulfites,” he said.

Systemic contact dermatitis to sulfites has been documented following oral, rectal, and parental exposure, Dr. Belsito told this news organization. “Systemic dermatitis may present as a scattered/generalized dermatitis, symmetrical drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema (also referred to as baboon syndrome), or erythroderma,” he said.
 

How to Spot Sulfite Allergies

The exclusion of sulfites from most patch test series means that sulfite allergy diagnoses are often missed, despite the wide range of potential exposures, Dr. Belsito said.

“Most cases of allergic contact dermatitis occur at the site of application of the allergen,” he noted. Depending on the location of the dermatitis, a detailed history of exposures that includes cosmetics and topical medications, work-related materials, and foods and beverages might suggest a sulfite allergy, he said.

Given the range of potential clinical presentations and the many and varied exposures to sulfites, Dr. Belsito’s best tip for clinicians is to routinely screen for them and evaluate the many avenues of exposure if a patch test is positive, he said.

For now, he said he does not think additional research is needed on sulfites as allergens; instead, sulfites, such as sodium metabisulfite/sodium disulfite, should be included in all clinicians’ baseline screening series, he said.

The Allergen of the Year was also recently announced in the journal Dermatitis. Authors Samuel F. Ekstein, MS, and Erin M. Warshaw, MD, from the Department of Dermatology, Park Nicollet Health Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota, noted that the ACDS hoped to raise awareness of sulfites as a “significant allergen” and called for their increased inclusion in screening patch test series.

Patients identified with sulfite allergies can find alternative products on the ACDS CAMP (Contact Allergen Management Program) website, Dr. Warshaw said in an interview.

She also highlighted some examples of sulfites as allergens in healthcare settings in particular. She described one patient who presented with dermatitis at the site of three previous hand orthopedic procedures.

“Although surgical cleansers were suspected, the patient reacted to sodium metabisulfite. Review of the operating room contactants confirmed sulfites as preservatives in an injectable anesthetic and antibiotic used for wound irrigation,” she said. Another patient who had been treated for recurrent otitis externa and seborrheic dermatitis was found to be allergic to sulfites in an otic antibiotic suspension as well as in a ketoconazole cream product, she added.

In the paper, Dr. Warshaw and Mr. Ekstein called for the addition of sulfites to the test series. Although the NACDG added sodium metabisulfite to the series in 2017, sulfites are not part of the American Contact Dermatitis Core Series, they wrote. Sodium metabisulfite, they said, was added to the European baseline standard series after review of the 2019-2020 patch test reactivity and clinical relevance data.

The ACDS meeting is held every year the day before the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Dr. Belsito and Dr. Warshaw had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sulfites, present in foods, drinks, pharmaceuticals, and personal care products, have been named the “Allergen of the Year” for 2024 by the American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS).

Sulfites are currently not found in most screening patch test series, so may be missed as a relevant contact allergen, Donald V. Belsito, MD, emeritus professor in the Department of Dermatology at Columbia University, New York City, said in his presentation on the Allergen of the Year on March 7 at the annual meeting of the American Contact Dermatitis Society in San Diego. Sulfites, he noted, are distinct from sulfates, and the groups do not cross-react with each other.

FabrikaCr/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Sodium disulfite, an inorganic compound, belongs to a group of sulfiting agents, which contain the sulfite ion SO₃²⁻ and include ammonium sulfite, potassium sulfite, and sodium sulfite, Dr. Belsito said. Sulfites function as antioxidants and preservatives in a range of products including food and beverages, personal care products, and pharmaceuticals.

The type of sulfite allergy diagnosed by patch testing is type IV hypersensitivity or delayed-type hypersensitivity, where patients present with pruritic, red, scaling macules, papulovesicles, and patches, Dr. Belsito told this news organization. “It is not the type I, immediate hypersensitivity that causes hives and, in some cases, anaphylaxis,” he said. Sulfites also can cause these side effects, so correct labeling of food and beverages is important, he noted.

Some common nonoccupational sulfite sources include hair coloring and bleach products, hairspray, tanning lotions, makeup, sunscreens, and deodorants, Dr. Belsito said in his presentation. Medications including topical antifungals, topical corticosteroids, and nasal solutions can be culprits, as can water in swimming pools, he noted.

In occupational settings, sulfites may be present not only in food and drink products but also can be used in production of products, such as those used for sterilization during beer and wine fermentation, Dr. Belsito said. Other potential occupational sources of sulfite exposure include healthcare settings and textile, chemical, rubber, and pharmaceutical manufacturing.

High-sulfite food products (> 100 ppm) to be aware of include dried fruit (raisins and prunes are exceptions), bottled lemon or lime juice (but not frozen products), wine, molasses, grape juice (white, or white, pink, and red sparkling), and pickled cocktail onions, Dr. Belsito said.

“Like other contact allergens, the clinical presentation correlates with exposure,” he added. A study by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) found that 28.8% of patients positive for sulfite allergy on patch testing presented with facial dermatitis, which was not only related to cosmetics and medications used on the face but also from products, such as shampoo, used on the scalp that dripped onto the face. “The scalp is relatively resistant to the expression of contact allergy and may not be involved at all,” he said.

According to the NACDG study, the hands were the second most common site of dermatitis associated with sulfites (20.5%) followed by generalized distribution (13.6%). These sites are to be expected, given the sources of food and beverage, personal care products, and occupational materials, Dr. Belsito said.

“Eczematous dermatitis of the lips is also common in patients with ingested food sources of sulfites,” he said.

Systemic contact dermatitis to sulfites has been documented following oral, rectal, and parental exposure, Dr. Belsito told this news organization. “Systemic dermatitis may present as a scattered/generalized dermatitis, symmetrical drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema (also referred to as baboon syndrome), or erythroderma,” he said.
 

How to Spot Sulfite Allergies

The exclusion of sulfites from most patch test series means that sulfite allergy diagnoses are often missed, despite the wide range of potential exposures, Dr. Belsito said.

“Most cases of allergic contact dermatitis occur at the site of application of the allergen,” he noted. Depending on the location of the dermatitis, a detailed history of exposures that includes cosmetics and topical medications, work-related materials, and foods and beverages might suggest a sulfite allergy, he said.

Given the range of potential clinical presentations and the many and varied exposures to sulfites, Dr. Belsito’s best tip for clinicians is to routinely screen for them and evaluate the many avenues of exposure if a patch test is positive, he said.

For now, he said he does not think additional research is needed on sulfites as allergens; instead, sulfites, such as sodium metabisulfite/sodium disulfite, should be included in all clinicians’ baseline screening series, he said.

The Allergen of the Year was also recently announced in the journal Dermatitis. Authors Samuel F. Ekstein, MS, and Erin M. Warshaw, MD, from the Department of Dermatology, Park Nicollet Health Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota, noted that the ACDS hoped to raise awareness of sulfites as a “significant allergen” and called for their increased inclusion in screening patch test series.

Patients identified with sulfite allergies can find alternative products on the ACDS CAMP (Contact Allergen Management Program) website, Dr. Warshaw said in an interview.

She also highlighted some examples of sulfites as allergens in healthcare settings in particular. She described one patient who presented with dermatitis at the site of three previous hand orthopedic procedures.

“Although surgical cleansers were suspected, the patient reacted to sodium metabisulfite. Review of the operating room contactants confirmed sulfites as preservatives in an injectable anesthetic and antibiotic used for wound irrigation,” she said. Another patient who had been treated for recurrent otitis externa and seborrheic dermatitis was found to be allergic to sulfites in an otic antibiotic suspension as well as in a ketoconazole cream product, she added.

In the paper, Dr. Warshaw and Mr. Ekstein called for the addition of sulfites to the test series. Although the NACDG added sodium metabisulfite to the series in 2017, sulfites are not part of the American Contact Dermatitis Core Series, they wrote. Sodium metabisulfite, they said, was added to the European baseline standard series after review of the 2019-2020 patch test reactivity and clinical relevance data.

The ACDS meeting is held every year the day before the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Dr. Belsito and Dr. Warshaw had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the biosimilar tocilizumab-aazg (Tyenne), Fresenius Kabi, the drug’s manufacturer, announced on March 7.

This is the second tocilizumab biosimilar approved by the regulatory agency and the first to be approved in both intravenous (IV) and subcutaneous formulations that are available with the reference product, Actemra, the company said in a press release. 

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

Tocilizumab-aazg is an interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor antagonist indicated for:

• Adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response to one or more disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs
• Adults with giant cell arteritis
• Patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis
• Patients aged 2 years or older with active systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis

“Fresenius Kabi is leading the way as the first company to receive FDA approval for both IV and subcutaneous formulations of its tocilizumab biosimilar and is available in prefilled syringe, pen injector, and vial presentations,” Fabrice Romanet, senior vice president of innovation and development at Fresenius Kabi Biopharma, said in a statement.

The FDA approved the first tocilizumab biosimilar, manufactured by Biogen, in late September 2023. It is administered by IV infusion.

Tocilizumab-aazg’s approval was based on outcome and safety data from a dozen clinical studies. The drug can be administered via intravenous formulation (20 mg/mL) or subcutaneously via a single-dose 162-mg/0.9-mL prefilled syringe or single-dose prefilled autoinjector. 

The most common side effects for tocilizumab-aazg include upper respiratory tract infections, headache, hypertension, and injection site reactions. The most serious side effects include serious infections, perforation of the stomach or intestines, hepatotoxicity, and changes in certain lab results.

Tocilizumab-aazg has already launched in 10 countries, Fresenius Kabi shared in the press release, and plans to launch in additional countries in 2024 and 2025. It is not clear when tocilizumab-aazg will be made available in the United States.

“In accordance with its patent settlement agreement with Genentech, Fresenius Kabi has a license to market its tocilizumab products in the United States commencing on the license dates, which are confidential,” the company noted.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the biosimilar tocilizumab-aazg (Tyenne), Fresenius Kabi, the drug’s manufacturer, announced on March 7.

This is the second tocilizumab biosimilar approved by the regulatory agency and the first to be approved in both intravenous (IV) and subcutaneous formulations that are available with the reference product, Actemra, the company said in a press release. 

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

Tocilizumab-aazg is an interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor antagonist indicated for:

• Adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response to one or more disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs
• Adults with giant cell arteritis
• Patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis
• Patients aged 2 years or older with active systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis

“Fresenius Kabi is leading the way as the first company to receive FDA approval for both IV and subcutaneous formulations of its tocilizumab biosimilar and is available in prefilled syringe, pen injector, and vial presentations,” Fabrice Romanet, senior vice president of innovation and development at Fresenius Kabi Biopharma, said in a statement.

The FDA approved the first tocilizumab biosimilar, manufactured by Biogen, in late September 2023. It is administered by IV infusion.

Tocilizumab-aazg’s approval was based on outcome and safety data from a dozen clinical studies. The drug can be administered via intravenous formulation (20 mg/mL) or subcutaneously via a single-dose 162-mg/0.9-mL prefilled syringe or single-dose prefilled autoinjector. 

The most common side effects for tocilizumab-aazg include upper respiratory tract infections, headache, hypertension, and injection site reactions. The most serious side effects include serious infections, perforation of the stomach or intestines, hepatotoxicity, and changes in certain lab results.

Tocilizumab-aazg has already launched in 10 countries, Fresenius Kabi shared in the press release, and plans to launch in additional countries in 2024 and 2025. It is not clear when tocilizumab-aazg will be made available in the United States.

“In accordance with its patent settlement agreement with Genentech, Fresenius Kabi has a license to market its tocilizumab products in the United States commencing on the license dates, which are confidential,” the company noted.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the biosimilar tocilizumab-aazg (Tyenne), Fresenius Kabi, the drug’s manufacturer, announced on March 7.

This is the second tocilizumab biosimilar approved by the regulatory agency and the first to be approved in both intravenous (IV) and subcutaneous formulations that are available with the reference product, Actemra, the company said in a press release. 

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

Tocilizumab-aazg is an interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor antagonist indicated for:

• Adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response to one or more disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs
• Adults with giant cell arteritis
• Patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis
• Patients aged 2 years or older with active systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis

“Fresenius Kabi is leading the way as the first company to receive FDA approval for both IV and subcutaneous formulations of its tocilizumab biosimilar and is available in prefilled syringe, pen injector, and vial presentations,” Fabrice Romanet, senior vice president of innovation and development at Fresenius Kabi Biopharma, said in a statement.

The FDA approved the first tocilizumab biosimilar, manufactured by Biogen, in late September 2023. It is administered by IV infusion.

Tocilizumab-aazg’s approval was based on outcome and safety data from a dozen clinical studies. The drug can be administered via intravenous formulation (20 mg/mL) or subcutaneously via a single-dose 162-mg/0.9-mL prefilled syringe or single-dose prefilled autoinjector. 

The most common side effects for tocilizumab-aazg include upper respiratory tract infections, headache, hypertension, and injection site reactions. The most serious side effects include serious infections, perforation of the stomach or intestines, hepatotoxicity, and changes in certain lab results.

Tocilizumab-aazg has already launched in 10 countries, Fresenius Kabi shared in the press release, and plans to launch in additional countries in 2024 and 2025. It is not clear when tocilizumab-aazg will be made available in the United States.

“In accordance with its patent settlement agreement with Genentech, Fresenius Kabi has a license to market its tocilizumab products in the United States commencing on the license dates, which are confidential,” the company noted.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration’s approval of leflunomide in September 1998 as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis was sandwiched between the debuts of infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars) and etanercept (Enbrel) in August and November of that year, the latter of which was so exciting that “within 2 months you couldn’t get [it],” recalled Eric M. Ruderman, MD. And “like every middle child, [leflunomide] was underloved, underappreciated, and largely dismissed.”

Yet should it have been? Is it worth another look today?

Courtesy Michael Pollard

At the 2024 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium, Dr. Ruderman reflected on some of the clinical trial data published after leflunomide’s approval that “got lost in the shuffle” of the rightful embrace of biologics in United States practice, and urged reconsideration of the loading strategy still advised in the drug’s labeling.

“I’m not telling you that you should be using [leflunomide] in place of biologics, instead of biologics, or before biologics … but it should be in your toolkit,” said Dr. Ruderman, professor of medicine and associate chief of clinical affairs in the division of rheumatology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago. The drug “still has a role in RA, including in combination with methotrexate, and a potential role in other rheumatic diseases.”

“In our PsA clinic,” he noted, “we’ve actually not infrequently added leflunomide to some of the other agents we’ve been using.”
 

Key Findings Over the Years in RA

Leflunomide showed efficacy similar to that of sulfasalazine in a randomized trial published in 1999 that used primary endpoints of tender/swollen joints and physician and patient global scores. Then, against methotrexate, it proved just as efficacious in achieving at least 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology composite response criteria (ACR20) over 52 weeks, and in meeting endpoints similar to those of the sulfasalazine trial, in two trials, one published in 1999 and another in 2000.

“So here were two big trials [comparing it with methotrexate] that suggested the drug was just as good as what had become our standard of care by that point,” Dr. Ruderman said.

Each of these three trials used a loading dose of 100 mg leflunomide for 3 days, followed by 20 mg daily. Sulfasalazine was initiated at 2 g and escalated over 4 weeks. Methotrexate was initiated in one of the trials at a dose of 7.5 mg, then increased to 15 mg in almost two-thirds of patients; in the other methotrexate trial the initial dose was 15 mg escalated over 3 months.

Side effects of leflunomide — GI issues, rash, alopecia (reversible), and elevated liver function tests — were similar across the trials, and represented “about the same toxicities as methotrexate,” he said.

Researchers then tested leflunomide as an add-on to methotrexate in patients who had inadequate response, which “was a little bit daunting since we were still concerned about the toxicity of methotrexate at this point,” Dr. Ruderman said. “The idea that we’d take another drug with similar toxicities and add it on to the methotrexate was a little scary.”

But it worked. Patients on a mean background dose of 16.5 mg methotrexate were randomized to placebo or to a 2-day leflunomide loading dose followed by 10 mg/day that could be escalated at 8 weeks to 20 mg if needed. At 6 months, 19.5% and 46.2%, respectively, met ACR20 (P < .001), and “interestingly,” he said, “adverse events were pretty similar” between combination therapy and methotrexate monotherapy.

“This was very much like all the studies we’ve seen over the years with new biologics — they were all added to background methotrexate,” he said. “And the truth is, the [46%] response seen when adding leflunomide to background methotrexate wasn’t very different from the 50% [ACR20] response you tend to see when you add a biologic.”

However, despite the study’s conclusion that combination therapy provided significant benefit to patients with inadequate response to methotrexate alone, “the drug got lost, because everyone was prescribing the biologics,” Dr. Ruderman said.

He said he found only one study comparing leflunomide with a biologic. In a notably small but well-designed study from Sri Lanka published in 2017, 40 patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate were randomized to low-dose rituximab (500 mg x 2) or 20 mg/day leflunomide (no loading dose). At week 24, ACR20 was nearly identical (85% vs 84%), with a similar rate of adverse events.

The researchers pointed out “that there’s a potential cost benefit in developing countries where biologics aren’t as accessible,” he said, agreeing that “the big opportunity for a drug like leflunomide is outside the US, where you don’t have access to the drugs we take advantage of all the time.”

A meeting participant from Canada pointed out that rheumatologists there are “mandated to use it for PsA in combination with methotrexate before we can get a biologic, and for RA we can use it with Plaquenil [hydroxychloroquine] and methotrexate before we get a biologic, so we’re using it all the time.”

Asked about efficacy, the physician said the combination with methotrexate is “absolutely” efficacious. “It works really well” he said. “The problem is, you really have to watch the white cell count and liver function … and the half-life is long.”

Indeed, Dr. Ruderman said during his talk, the plasma half-life of teriflunomide, its active metabolite, is 15.5 days, which is challenging when adverse events occur. “And it’s a terrible drug in young women thinking about pregnancy because it’s teratogenic and stays around,” he said.

Leflunomide, which, notably, was “developed specifically for RA from the get-go” and not borrowed from another specialty, works by blocking de novo pyrimidine synthesis, Dr. Ruderman said. T-cell activation requires the upregulation of pyrimidine production (salvage pathways are insufficient); the “drug prevents that” by inhibiting an enzyme that catalyzes conversion of dihydroorotate to orotate, which, in turn, is converted to pyrimidine ribonucleotides, he explained.

Other potential mechanisms of action have been proposed — mainly, inhibition of tumor necrosis factor signaling and inhibition of kinase activity, including the JAK/STAT pathway — but “there’s not great data for any of them,” he said.
 

Loading vs Not Loading, and Its Role in PsA and Other Diseases

“We stopped loading years ago because at 100 mg for 3 days in a row, everyone has GI issues,” Dr. Ruderman said. “It may have made sense from a pharmacokinetic standpoint because [based on the long half-life] you could get to a higher drug level quicker, but not a practical standpoint, because patients would stop the drug — they couldn’t take it.” The first study to examine the necessity of loading leflunomide in a “prospective, careful way” was published in 2013. It randomized 120 patients to 100 mg or 20 mg for 3 days, followed by a 3-month open-label period of 20 mg, and found no clinical benefit with loading but more diarrhea and elevated liver enzymes.

“It tells us something about how we need to think about half-lives,” he said. “Maybe [loading is] not necessary because the biological effects are different than the drug levels.”

In the PsA space, in 2004, researchers reported a double-blind randomized trial in which 190 patients with active PsA and cutaneous psoriasis with at least 3% body surface area involvement were randomized to receive leflunomide (a loading dose followed by 20 mg/day) or placebo for 24 weeks. Almost 60% of leflunomide-treated patients, compared with 30% of placebo-treated patients, were classified as responders by the Psoriatic Arthritis Response criteria (P < .0001), “which is a soft endpoint” but was utilized at the time, Dr. Ruderman said. The researchers noted improvements in ACR20 and skin responses as well, and toxicity was similar to that reported in the RA studies.

However, approval was never sought, and the drug was infrequently prescribed, “because etanercept came out for this disease, and then adalimumab … and then the world changed,” he said.

More recently, a single-center, double-blind, randomized trial that included 78 Dutch patients with PsA tested leflunomide plus methotrexate vs methotrexate monotherapy and was published in The Lancet Rheumatology. After 16 weeks, mean Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) had improved for patients in the combination therapy group in comparison with the monotherapy group (3.1 [standard deviation (SD), 1.4] vs 3.7 [SD, 1.3]; treatment difference, -0.6; 90% CI, -1.0 to -0.1; P = .025). The combination therapy group also achieved PASDAS low disease activity at a higher rate (59%) than that of the monotherapy group (34%; P = .019). Three patients in the combination therapy group experienced serious adverse events, two of which were deemed unrelated to leflunomide. The most frequently occurring adverse events were nausea or vomiting, tiredness, and elevated alanine aminotransferase. Mild adverse events were more common in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group.

In an interview after the meeting, Dr. Ruderman explained that in his practice, about 15 years ago, leflunomide was sometimes prescribed as an alternative to a biologic change for patients whose skin disease improved significantly with ustekinumab (Stelara) but who “suddenly had more joint symptoms that they didn’t have before.”

And “we’ve found ourselves a bit recently with the same sort of story, where patients are prescribed IL-23 inhibitors like Skyrizi [risankizumab] and Tremfya [guselkumab] and their skin does really well but now they’re having more joint symptoms than previously,” he said. “Our choices are to switch to a whole different biologic, or to think about adding something as an adjunct — and maybe leflunomide is a reasonable option.”

In the last 5 years, Dr. Ruderman noted, randomized trial data has been published on leflunomide in lupus nephritis induction, and in lupus nephritis maintenance, as well as in IgG4-related disease.

Dr. Ruderman disclosed consulting and/or drug safety monitoring board work for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, NS Pharma, and UCB.

The Food and Drug Administration’s approval of leflunomide in September 1998 as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis was sandwiched between the debuts of infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars) and etanercept (Enbrel) in August and November of that year, the latter of which was so exciting that “within 2 months you couldn’t get [it],” recalled Eric M. Ruderman, MD. And “like every middle child, [leflunomide] was underloved, underappreciated, and largely dismissed.”

Yet should it have been? Is it worth another look today?

Courtesy Michael Pollard

At the 2024 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium, Dr. Ruderman reflected on some of the clinical trial data published after leflunomide’s approval that “got lost in the shuffle” of the rightful embrace of biologics in United States practice, and urged reconsideration of the loading strategy still advised in the drug’s labeling.

“I’m not telling you that you should be using [leflunomide] in place of biologics, instead of biologics, or before biologics … but it should be in your toolkit,” said Dr. Ruderman, professor of medicine and associate chief of clinical affairs in the division of rheumatology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago. The drug “still has a role in RA, including in combination with methotrexate, and a potential role in other rheumatic diseases.”

“In our PsA clinic,” he noted, “we’ve actually not infrequently added leflunomide to some of the other agents we’ve been using.”
 

Key Findings Over the Years in RA

Leflunomide showed efficacy similar to that of sulfasalazine in a randomized trial published in 1999 that used primary endpoints of tender/swollen joints and physician and patient global scores. Then, against methotrexate, it proved just as efficacious in achieving at least 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology composite response criteria (ACR20) over 52 weeks, and in meeting endpoints similar to those of the sulfasalazine trial, in two trials, one published in 1999 and another in 2000.

“So here were two big trials [comparing it with methotrexate] that suggested the drug was just as good as what had become our standard of care by that point,” Dr. Ruderman said.

Each of these three trials used a loading dose of 100 mg leflunomide for 3 days, followed by 20 mg daily. Sulfasalazine was initiated at 2 g and escalated over 4 weeks. Methotrexate was initiated in one of the trials at a dose of 7.5 mg, then increased to 15 mg in almost two-thirds of patients; in the other methotrexate trial the initial dose was 15 mg escalated over 3 months.

Side effects of leflunomide — GI issues, rash, alopecia (reversible), and elevated liver function tests — were similar across the trials, and represented “about the same toxicities as methotrexate,” he said.

Researchers then tested leflunomide as an add-on to methotrexate in patients who had inadequate response, which “was a little bit daunting since we were still concerned about the toxicity of methotrexate at this point,” Dr. Ruderman said. “The idea that we’d take another drug with similar toxicities and add it on to the methotrexate was a little scary.”

But it worked. Patients on a mean background dose of 16.5 mg methotrexate were randomized to placebo or to a 2-day leflunomide loading dose followed by 10 mg/day that could be escalated at 8 weeks to 20 mg if needed. At 6 months, 19.5% and 46.2%, respectively, met ACR20 (P < .001), and “interestingly,” he said, “adverse events were pretty similar” between combination therapy and methotrexate monotherapy.

“This was very much like all the studies we’ve seen over the years with new biologics — they were all added to background methotrexate,” he said. “And the truth is, the [46%] response seen when adding leflunomide to background methotrexate wasn’t very different from the 50% [ACR20] response you tend to see when you add a biologic.”

However, despite the study’s conclusion that combination therapy provided significant benefit to patients with inadequate response to methotrexate alone, “the drug got lost, because everyone was prescribing the biologics,” Dr. Ruderman said.

He said he found only one study comparing leflunomide with a biologic. In a notably small but well-designed study from Sri Lanka published in 2017, 40 patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate were randomized to low-dose rituximab (500 mg x 2) or 20 mg/day leflunomide (no loading dose). At week 24, ACR20 was nearly identical (85% vs 84%), with a similar rate of adverse events.

The researchers pointed out “that there’s a potential cost benefit in developing countries where biologics aren’t as accessible,” he said, agreeing that “the big opportunity for a drug like leflunomide is outside the US, where you don’t have access to the drugs we take advantage of all the time.”

A meeting participant from Canada pointed out that rheumatologists there are “mandated to use it for PsA in combination with methotrexate before we can get a biologic, and for RA we can use it with Plaquenil [hydroxychloroquine] and methotrexate before we get a biologic, so we’re using it all the time.”

Asked about efficacy, the physician said the combination with methotrexate is “absolutely” efficacious. “It works really well” he said. “The problem is, you really have to watch the white cell count and liver function … and the half-life is long.”

Indeed, Dr. Ruderman said during his talk, the plasma half-life of teriflunomide, its active metabolite, is 15.5 days, which is challenging when adverse events occur. “And it’s a terrible drug in young women thinking about pregnancy because it’s teratogenic and stays around,” he said.

Leflunomide, which, notably, was “developed specifically for RA from the get-go” and not borrowed from another specialty, works by blocking de novo pyrimidine synthesis, Dr. Ruderman said. T-cell activation requires the upregulation of pyrimidine production (salvage pathways are insufficient); the “drug prevents that” by inhibiting an enzyme that catalyzes conversion of dihydroorotate to orotate, which, in turn, is converted to pyrimidine ribonucleotides, he explained.

Other potential mechanisms of action have been proposed — mainly, inhibition of tumor necrosis factor signaling and inhibition of kinase activity, including the JAK/STAT pathway — but “there’s not great data for any of them,” he said.
 

Loading vs Not Loading, and Its Role in PsA and Other Diseases

“We stopped loading years ago because at 100 mg for 3 days in a row, everyone has GI issues,” Dr. Ruderman said. “It may have made sense from a pharmacokinetic standpoint because [based on the long half-life] you could get to a higher drug level quicker, but not a practical standpoint, because patients would stop the drug — they couldn’t take it.” The first study to examine the necessity of loading leflunomide in a “prospective, careful way” was published in 2013. It randomized 120 patients to 100 mg or 20 mg for 3 days, followed by a 3-month open-label period of 20 mg, and found no clinical benefit with loading but more diarrhea and elevated liver enzymes.

“It tells us something about how we need to think about half-lives,” he said. “Maybe [loading is] not necessary because the biological effects are different than the drug levels.”

In the PsA space, in 2004, researchers reported a double-blind randomized trial in which 190 patients with active PsA and cutaneous psoriasis with at least 3% body surface area involvement were randomized to receive leflunomide (a loading dose followed by 20 mg/day) or placebo for 24 weeks. Almost 60% of leflunomide-treated patients, compared with 30% of placebo-treated patients, were classified as responders by the Psoriatic Arthritis Response criteria (P < .0001), “which is a soft endpoint” but was utilized at the time, Dr. Ruderman said. The researchers noted improvements in ACR20 and skin responses as well, and toxicity was similar to that reported in the RA studies.

However, approval was never sought, and the drug was infrequently prescribed, “because etanercept came out for this disease, and then adalimumab … and then the world changed,” he said.

More recently, a single-center, double-blind, randomized trial that included 78 Dutch patients with PsA tested leflunomide plus methotrexate vs methotrexate monotherapy and was published in The Lancet Rheumatology. After 16 weeks, mean Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) had improved for patients in the combination therapy group in comparison with the monotherapy group (3.1 [standard deviation (SD), 1.4] vs 3.7 [SD, 1.3]; treatment difference, -0.6; 90% CI, -1.0 to -0.1; P = .025). The combination therapy group also achieved PASDAS low disease activity at a higher rate (59%) than that of the monotherapy group (34%; P = .019). Three patients in the combination therapy group experienced serious adverse events, two of which were deemed unrelated to leflunomide. The most frequently occurring adverse events were nausea or vomiting, tiredness, and elevated alanine aminotransferase. Mild adverse events were more common in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group.

In an interview after the meeting, Dr. Ruderman explained that in his practice, about 15 years ago, leflunomide was sometimes prescribed as an alternative to a biologic change for patients whose skin disease improved significantly with ustekinumab (Stelara) but who “suddenly had more joint symptoms that they didn’t have before.”

And “we’ve found ourselves a bit recently with the same sort of story, where patients are prescribed IL-23 inhibitors like Skyrizi [risankizumab] and Tremfya [guselkumab] and their skin does really well but now they’re having more joint symptoms than previously,” he said. “Our choices are to switch to a whole different biologic, or to think about adding something as an adjunct — and maybe leflunomide is a reasonable option.”

In the last 5 years, Dr. Ruderman noted, randomized trial data has been published on leflunomide in lupus nephritis induction, and in lupus nephritis maintenance, as well as in IgG4-related disease.

Dr. Ruderman disclosed consulting and/or drug safety monitoring board work for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, NS Pharma, and UCB.

The Food and Drug Administration’s approval of leflunomide in September 1998 as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis was sandwiched between the debuts of infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars) and etanercept (Enbrel) in August and November of that year, the latter of which was so exciting that “within 2 months you couldn’t get [it],” recalled Eric M. Ruderman, MD. And “like every middle child, [leflunomide] was underloved, underappreciated, and largely dismissed.”

Yet should it have been? Is it worth another look today?

Courtesy Michael Pollard

At the 2024 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium, Dr. Ruderman reflected on some of the clinical trial data published after leflunomide’s approval that “got lost in the shuffle” of the rightful embrace of biologics in United States practice, and urged reconsideration of the loading strategy still advised in the drug’s labeling.

“I’m not telling you that you should be using [leflunomide] in place of biologics, instead of biologics, or before biologics … but it should be in your toolkit,” said Dr. Ruderman, professor of medicine and associate chief of clinical affairs in the division of rheumatology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago. The drug “still has a role in RA, including in combination with methotrexate, and a potential role in other rheumatic diseases.”

“In our PsA clinic,” he noted, “we’ve actually not infrequently added leflunomide to some of the other agents we’ve been using.”
 

Key Findings Over the Years in RA

Leflunomide showed efficacy similar to that of sulfasalazine in a randomized trial published in 1999 that used primary endpoints of tender/swollen joints and physician and patient global scores. Then, against methotrexate, it proved just as efficacious in achieving at least 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology composite response criteria (ACR20) over 52 weeks, and in meeting endpoints similar to those of the sulfasalazine trial, in two trials, one published in 1999 and another in 2000.

“So here were two big trials [comparing it with methotrexate] that suggested the drug was just as good as what had become our standard of care by that point,” Dr. Ruderman said.

Each of these three trials used a loading dose of 100 mg leflunomide for 3 days, followed by 20 mg daily. Sulfasalazine was initiated at 2 g and escalated over 4 weeks. Methotrexate was initiated in one of the trials at a dose of 7.5 mg, then increased to 15 mg in almost two-thirds of patients; in the other methotrexate trial the initial dose was 15 mg escalated over 3 months.

Side effects of leflunomide — GI issues, rash, alopecia (reversible), and elevated liver function tests — were similar across the trials, and represented “about the same toxicities as methotrexate,” he said.

Researchers then tested leflunomide as an add-on to methotrexate in patients who had inadequate response, which “was a little bit daunting since we were still concerned about the toxicity of methotrexate at this point,” Dr. Ruderman said. “The idea that we’d take another drug with similar toxicities and add it on to the methotrexate was a little scary.”

But it worked. Patients on a mean background dose of 16.5 mg methotrexate were randomized to placebo or to a 2-day leflunomide loading dose followed by 10 mg/day that could be escalated at 8 weeks to 20 mg if needed. At 6 months, 19.5% and 46.2%, respectively, met ACR20 (P < .001), and “interestingly,” he said, “adverse events were pretty similar” between combination therapy and methotrexate monotherapy.

“This was very much like all the studies we’ve seen over the years with new biologics — they were all added to background methotrexate,” he said. “And the truth is, the [46%] response seen when adding leflunomide to background methotrexate wasn’t very different from the 50% [ACR20] response you tend to see when you add a biologic.”

However, despite the study’s conclusion that combination therapy provided significant benefit to patients with inadequate response to methotrexate alone, “the drug got lost, because everyone was prescribing the biologics,” Dr. Ruderman said.

He said he found only one study comparing leflunomide with a biologic. In a notably small but well-designed study from Sri Lanka published in 2017, 40 patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate were randomized to low-dose rituximab (500 mg x 2) or 20 mg/day leflunomide (no loading dose). At week 24, ACR20 was nearly identical (85% vs 84%), with a similar rate of adverse events.

The researchers pointed out “that there’s a potential cost benefit in developing countries where biologics aren’t as accessible,” he said, agreeing that “the big opportunity for a drug like leflunomide is outside the US, where you don’t have access to the drugs we take advantage of all the time.”

A meeting participant from Canada pointed out that rheumatologists there are “mandated to use it for PsA in combination with methotrexate before we can get a biologic, and for RA we can use it with Plaquenil [hydroxychloroquine] and methotrexate before we get a biologic, so we’re using it all the time.”

Asked about efficacy, the physician said the combination with methotrexate is “absolutely” efficacious. “It works really well” he said. “The problem is, you really have to watch the white cell count and liver function … and the half-life is long.”

Indeed, Dr. Ruderman said during his talk, the plasma half-life of teriflunomide, its active metabolite, is 15.5 days, which is challenging when adverse events occur. “And it’s a terrible drug in young women thinking about pregnancy because it’s teratogenic and stays around,” he said.

Leflunomide, which, notably, was “developed specifically for RA from the get-go” and not borrowed from another specialty, works by blocking de novo pyrimidine synthesis, Dr. Ruderman said. T-cell activation requires the upregulation of pyrimidine production (salvage pathways are insufficient); the “drug prevents that” by inhibiting an enzyme that catalyzes conversion of dihydroorotate to orotate, which, in turn, is converted to pyrimidine ribonucleotides, he explained.

Other potential mechanisms of action have been proposed — mainly, inhibition of tumor necrosis factor signaling and inhibition of kinase activity, including the JAK/STAT pathway — but “there’s not great data for any of them,” he said.
 

Loading vs Not Loading, and Its Role in PsA and Other Diseases

“We stopped loading years ago because at 100 mg for 3 days in a row, everyone has GI issues,” Dr. Ruderman said. “It may have made sense from a pharmacokinetic standpoint because [based on the long half-life] you could get to a higher drug level quicker, but not a practical standpoint, because patients would stop the drug — they couldn’t take it.” The first study to examine the necessity of loading leflunomide in a “prospective, careful way” was published in 2013. It randomized 120 patients to 100 mg or 20 mg for 3 days, followed by a 3-month open-label period of 20 mg, and found no clinical benefit with loading but more diarrhea and elevated liver enzymes.

“It tells us something about how we need to think about half-lives,” he said. “Maybe [loading is] not necessary because the biological effects are different than the drug levels.”

In the PsA space, in 2004, researchers reported a double-blind randomized trial in which 190 patients with active PsA and cutaneous psoriasis with at least 3% body surface area involvement were randomized to receive leflunomide (a loading dose followed by 20 mg/day) or placebo for 24 weeks. Almost 60% of leflunomide-treated patients, compared with 30% of placebo-treated patients, were classified as responders by the Psoriatic Arthritis Response criteria (P < .0001), “which is a soft endpoint” but was utilized at the time, Dr. Ruderman said. The researchers noted improvements in ACR20 and skin responses as well, and toxicity was similar to that reported in the RA studies.

However, approval was never sought, and the drug was infrequently prescribed, “because etanercept came out for this disease, and then adalimumab … and then the world changed,” he said.

More recently, a single-center, double-blind, randomized trial that included 78 Dutch patients with PsA tested leflunomide plus methotrexate vs methotrexate monotherapy and was published in The Lancet Rheumatology. After 16 weeks, mean Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) had improved for patients in the combination therapy group in comparison with the monotherapy group (3.1 [standard deviation (SD), 1.4] vs 3.7 [SD, 1.3]; treatment difference, -0.6; 90% CI, -1.0 to -0.1; P = .025). The combination therapy group also achieved PASDAS low disease activity at a higher rate (59%) than that of the monotherapy group (34%; P = .019). Three patients in the combination therapy group experienced serious adverse events, two of which were deemed unrelated to leflunomide. The most frequently occurring adverse events were nausea or vomiting, tiredness, and elevated alanine aminotransferase. Mild adverse events were more common in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group.

In an interview after the meeting, Dr. Ruderman explained that in his practice, about 15 years ago, leflunomide was sometimes prescribed as an alternative to a biologic change for patients whose skin disease improved significantly with ustekinumab (Stelara) but who “suddenly had more joint symptoms that they didn’t have before.”

And “we’ve found ourselves a bit recently with the same sort of story, where patients are prescribed IL-23 inhibitors like Skyrizi [risankizumab] and Tremfya [guselkumab] and their skin does really well but now they’re having more joint symptoms than previously,” he said. “Our choices are to switch to a whole different biologic, or to think about adding something as an adjunct — and maybe leflunomide is a reasonable option.”

In the last 5 years, Dr. Ruderman noted, randomized trial data has been published on leflunomide in lupus nephritis induction, and in lupus nephritis maintenance, as well as in IgG4-related disease.

Dr. Ruderman disclosed consulting and/or drug safety monitoring board work for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, NS Pharma, and UCB.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hospital administrators and some department heads have been vocal about the potential for unions to affect both the attending-resident relationship and the ability for residents to directly discuss concerns and educational plans.

Critics feel that having a third party at the table, such as a union representative who isn’t as knowledgeable about the nuances of medical education, could complicate the decision-making process.

Sometimes, there are institution-specific issues as well. One example was at Loma Linda. They argued that unionization would go against their religious principles. They filed a lawsuit. That didn’t go through, and the residents won a few months later.

I know there’s always that one senior, older doctor who says, “Back in our day, we just worked, and we never complained.”

Look at the current situation that residents are facing now, with housing and rent prices and increasing costs of childcare. Sprinkle in some inflation, poor hospital staffing, increasing workload, and add in the fact that the average first-year resident salary in 2023 was around $64,000.

Now, if you look back to 2012, the average salary was around $55,000. If you adjust that for inflation, it would be around $75,000 today, which is more than what the average resident is getting paid.

Then, there are hospital administrators who say that the hospital does not have the money to meet these demands; meanwhile, hospital graduate medical education (GME) offices receive about $150,000 of Medicare funds per resident.

Obviously, there are additional costs when it comes to training and supporting residents. In general, unionizing freaks out the people handling all the cash.

There’s also the threat of a strike, which no hospital wants on their public record. A recent highly publicized event happened at New York’s Elmhurst Hospital, when 160 residents went on strike for 3 days until a deal was made.

Critics of unionizing also cite a particular study in JAMA, which included a survey of 5700 general surgery residents at 285 programs. It found that while unions helped with vacation time and housing stipends, the unions were not associated with improved burnout rates, suicidality, job satisfaction, duty hour violations, mistreatment, educational environment, or salary.

Now, granted, this isn’t the strongest study. It only sampled one group of residents, so I wouldn’t generalize these findings, but it’s still commonly cited by anti-union advocates.

Another potential downside, which is purely anecdotal because I can’t find any data to support this, is potential retaliation against residents or harm to the attending-resident relationship.

I’m an attending. I don’t really understand this one. I don’t exactly own stock in my hospital, nor am I making millions of dollars by siphoning GME money. I’m just trying to focus on educating and supporting my residents the best I can.

Dr. Patel is Clinical Instructor, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons; Pediatric Hospitalist, Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital of NewYork–Presbyterian, and Benioff Children’s Hospital, University of California San Francisco. He disclosed ties with Medumo Inc.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hospital administrators and some department heads have been vocal about the potential for unions to affect both the attending-resident relationship and the ability for residents to directly discuss concerns and educational plans.

Critics feel that having a third party at the table, such as a union representative who isn’t as knowledgeable about the nuances of medical education, could complicate the decision-making process.

Sometimes, there are institution-specific issues as well. One example was at Loma Linda. They argued that unionization would go against their religious principles. They filed a lawsuit. That didn’t go through, and the residents won a few months later.

I know there’s always that one senior, older doctor who says, “Back in our day, we just worked, and we never complained.”

Look at the current situation that residents are facing now, with housing and rent prices and increasing costs of childcare. Sprinkle in some inflation, poor hospital staffing, increasing workload, and add in the fact that the average first-year resident salary in 2023 was around $64,000.

Now, if you look back to 2012, the average salary was around $55,000. If you adjust that for inflation, it would be around $75,000 today, which is more than what the average resident is getting paid.

Then, there are hospital administrators who say that the hospital does not have the money to meet these demands; meanwhile, hospital graduate medical education (GME) offices receive about $150,000 of Medicare funds per resident.

Obviously, there are additional costs when it comes to training and supporting residents. In general, unionizing freaks out the people handling all the cash.

There’s also the threat of a strike, which no hospital wants on their public record. A recent highly publicized event happened at New York’s Elmhurst Hospital, when 160 residents went on strike for 3 days until a deal was made.

Critics of unionizing also cite a particular study in JAMA, which included a survey of 5700 general surgery residents at 285 programs. It found that while unions helped with vacation time and housing stipends, the unions were not associated with improved burnout rates, suicidality, job satisfaction, duty hour violations, mistreatment, educational environment, or salary.

Now, granted, this isn’t the strongest study. It only sampled one group of residents, so I wouldn’t generalize these findings, but it’s still commonly cited by anti-union advocates.

Another potential downside, which is purely anecdotal because I can’t find any data to support this, is potential retaliation against residents or harm to the attending-resident relationship.

I’m an attending. I don’t really understand this one. I don’t exactly own stock in my hospital, nor am I making millions of dollars by siphoning GME money. I’m just trying to focus on educating and supporting my residents the best I can.

Dr. Patel is Clinical Instructor, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons; Pediatric Hospitalist, Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital of NewYork–Presbyterian, and Benioff Children’s Hospital, University of California San Francisco. He disclosed ties with Medumo Inc.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hospital administrators and some department heads have been vocal about the potential for unions to affect both the attending-resident relationship and the ability for residents to directly discuss concerns and educational plans.

Critics feel that having a third party at the table, such as a union representative who isn’t as knowledgeable about the nuances of medical education, could complicate the decision-making process.

Sometimes, there are institution-specific issues as well. One example was at Loma Linda. They argued that unionization would go against their religious principles. They filed a lawsuit. That didn’t go through, and the residents won a few months later.

I know there’s always that one senior, older doctor who says, “Back in our day, we just worked, and we never complained.”

Look at the current situation that residents are facing now, with housing and rent prices and increasing costs of childcare. Sprinkle in some inflation, poor hospital staffing, increasing workload, and add in the fact that the average first-year resident salary in 2023 was around $64,000.

Now, if you look back to 2012, the average salary was around $55,000. If you adjust that for inflation, it would be around $75,000 today, which is more than what the average resident is getting paid.

Then, there are hospital administrators who say that the hospital does not have the money to meet these demands; meanwhile, hospital graduate medical education (GME) offices receive about $150,000 of Medicare funds per resident.

Obviously, there are additional costs when it comes to training and supporting residents. In general, unionizing freaks out the people handling all the cash.

There’s also the threat of a strike, which no hospital wants on their public record. A recent highly publicized event happened at New York’s Elmhurst Hospital, when 160 residents went on strike for 3 days until a deal was made.

Critics of unionizing also cite a particular study in JAMA, which included a survey of 5700 general surgery residents at 285 programs. It found that while unions helped with vacation time and housing stipends, the unions were not associated with improved burnout rates, suicidality, job satisfaction, duty hour violations, mistreatment, educational environment, or salary.

Now, granted, this isn’t the strongest study. It only sampled one group of residents, so I wouldn’t generalize these findings, but it’s still commonly cited by anti-union advocates.

Another potential downside, which is purely anecdotal because I can’t find any data to support this, is potential retaliation against residents or harm to the attending-resident relationship.

I’m an attending. I don’t really understand this one. I don’t exactly own stock in my hospital, nor am I making millions of dollars by siphoning GME money. I’m just trying to focus on educating and supporting my residents the best I can.

Dr. Patel is Clinical Instructor, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons; Pediatric Hospitalist, Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital of NewYork–Presbyterian, and Benioff Children’s Hospital, University of California San Francisco. He disclosed ties with Medumo Inc.

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

Lawmakers have added a provision to raise Medicare payments to clinicians to a $460 billion bipartisan package of federal spending bills that passed in the House on March 6 and is expected to be passed in the Senate and signed by President Biden before then end of March 8, but industry groups have criticized it as paltry.

Lawmakers often tweak Medicare policy by adding provisions to other kinds of legislation, including the spending bills Congress must pass to keep the federal government running.

Physicians’ groups and some lawmakers have long pressed Congress to change Medicare payment rules with little success, even as inflation has caused physicians’ expenses to rise. Doctors now face a 3.4% cut to Medicare reimbursements in 2024, which would be only partly mitigated by the recently announced provision.

The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) said the proposed increase would total 1.68%. The increase, part of a bipartisan package of bills released by the House and Senate Appropriations committees on March 3, would apply to the budget for fiscal 2024, which began on October 1, 2023.

“We are deeply disappointed with Congress’ half-hearted attempt to remedy the devastating blow physician practices were dealt by the 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule,” Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of MGMA, said in a statement. “Anything less than a full reversal of the 3.4% cut is appallingly inadequate.”

The American Medical Association said it was “extremely disappointed” that the boost only eased, but did not fully reverse, a deeper planned cut.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) also expressed disappointment with the proposed increase.

“The AAFP has repeatedly told Congress that the 3.4% Medicare payment reduction that went into effect on January 1 is untenable for family physicians and threatens patients’ access to primary care,” the group said in a statement.

“While we appreciate the partial relief, family physicians continue to face an annual threat of payment cuts that are detrimental to practices and patients,” AAFP said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lawmakers have added a provision to raise Medicare payments to clinicians to a $460 billion bipartisan package of federal spending bills that passed in the House on March 6 and is expected to be passed in the Senate and signed by President Biden before then end of March 8, but industry groups have criticized it as paltry.

Lawmakers often tweak Medicare policy by adding provisions to other kinds of legislation, including the spending bills Congress must pass to keep the federal government running.

Physicians’ groups and some lawmakers have long pressed Congress to change Medicare payment rules with little success, even as inflation has caused physicians’ expenses to rise. Doctors now face a 3.4% cut to Medicare reimbursements in 2024, which would be only partly mitigated by the recently announced provision.

The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) said the proposed increase would total 1.68%. The increase, part of a bipartisan package of bills released by the House and Senate Appropriations committees on March 3, would apply to the budget for fiscal 2024, which began on October 1, 2023.

“We are deeply disappointed with Congress’ half-hearted attempt to remedy the devastating blow physician practices were dealt by the 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule,” Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of MGMA, said in a statement. “Anything less than a full reversal of the 3.4% cut is appallingly inadequate.”

The American Medical Association said it was “extremely disappointed” that the boost only eased, but did not fully reverse, a deeper planned cut.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) also expressed disappointment with the proposed increase.

“The AAFP has repeatedly told Congress that the 3.4% Medicare payment reduction that went into effect on January 1 is untenable for family physicians and threatens patients’ access to primary care,” the group said in a statement.

“While we appreciate the partial relief, family physicians continue to face an annual threat of payment cuts that are detrimental to practices and patients,” AAFP said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lawmakers have added a provision to raise Medicare payments to clinicians to a $460 billion bipartisan package of federal spending bills that passed in the House on March 6 and is expected to be passed in the Senate and signed by President Biden before then end of March 8, but industry groups have criticized it as paltry.

Lawmakers often tweak Medicare policy by adding provisions to other kinds of legislation, including the spending bills Congress must pass to keep the federal government running.

Physicians’ groups and some lawmakers have long pressed Congress to change Medicare payment rules with little success, even as inflation has caused physicians’ expenses to rise. Doctors now face a 3.4% cut to Medicare reimbursements in 2024, which would be only partly mitigated by the recently announced provision.

The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) said the proposed increase would total 1.68%. The increase, part of a bipartisan package of bills released by the House and Senate Appropriations committees on March 3, would apply to the budget for fiscal 2024, which began on October 1, 2023.

“We are deeply disappointed with Congress’ half-hearted attempt to remedy the devastating blow physician practices were dealt by the 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule,” Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of MGMA, said in a statement. “Anything less than a full reversal of the 3.4% cut is appallingly inadequate.”

The American Medical Association said it was “extremely disappointed” that the boost only eased, but did not fully reverse, a deeper planned cut.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) also expressed disappointment with the proposed increase.

“The AAFP has repeatedly told Congress that the 3.4% Medicare payment reduction that went into effect on January 1 is untenable for family physicians and threatens patients’ access to primary care,” the group said in a statement.

“While we appreciate the partial relief, family physicians continue to face an annual threat of payment cuts that are detrimental to practices and patients,” AAFP said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

In patients with type 2 diabetes, there was no difference in risk of developing autoimmune disease if prescribed glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1-RAs), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors.

METHODOLOGY:

• The effect of GLP-1-RAs and SGLT2 inhibitors on autoimmune rheumatic disease (ARD) is understudied, though previous case reports and one study have hinted at increased risk.
• Researchers used administrative health data from 2014 to 2021 to identify 34,400 patients prescribed GLP-1-RAs and 83,500 patients prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors.
• They compared patients prescribed GLP-1-RAs or SGLT2 inhibitors with 68,400 patients prescribed DPP-4 inhibitors, which previous studies suggest do not increase ARD risk.
• Primary outcome was ARD incidence, defined by diagnostic codes.

TAKEAWAY:

• There were no significant differences in incident ARDs between the three groups.
• Mean follow-up time was 0.88-1.53 years.
• The hazard ratio (HR) for developing ARDs with GLP-1-RAs exposure was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.66-1.30) compared with DPP-4 inhibitors.
• The HR for developing ARDs with SGLT2 inhibitor exposure was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.76-1.24).

IN PRACTICE: 

“Extended longitudinal data are needed to assess risk and benefit with longer-term exposure,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE: 

First author Derin Karacabeyli, MD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, presented the study in abstract form at the Canadian Rheumatology Association (CRA) 2024 Annual Meeting in Winnipeg on February 29.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study was observational, which could have some residual or unmeasured confounding of data. The researchers relied on diagnostic codes and the average follow-up time was short. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The authors had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

In patients with type 2 diabetes, there was no difference in risk of developing autoimmune disease if prescribed glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1-RAs), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors.

METHODOLOGY:

• The effect of GLP-1-RAs and SGLT2 inhibitors on autoimmune rheumatic disease (ARD) is understudied, though previous case reports and one study have hinted at increased risk.
• Researchers used administrative health data from 2014 to 2021 to identify 34,400 patients prescribed GLP-1-RAs and 83,500 patients prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors.
• They compared patients prescribed GLP-1-RAs or SGLT2 inhibitors with 68,400 patients prescribed DPP-4 inhibitors, which previous studies suggest do not increase ARD risk.
• Primary outcome was ARD incidence, defined by diagnostic codes.

TAKEAWAY:

• There were no significant differences in incident ARDs between the three groups.
• Mean follow-up time was 0.88-1.53 years.
• The hazard ratio (HR) for developing ARDs with GLP-1-RAs exposure was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.66-1.30) compared with DPP-4 inhibitors.
• The HR for developing ARDs with SGLT2 inhibitor exposure was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.76-1.24).

IN PRACTICE: 

“Extended longitudinal data are needed to assess risk and benefit with longer-term exposure,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE: 

First author Derin Karacabeyli, MD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, presented the study in abstract form at the Canadian Rheumatology Association (CRA) 2024 Annual Meeting in Winnipeg on February 29.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study was observational, which could have some residual or unmeasured confounding of data. The researchers relied on diagnostic codes and the average follow-up time was short. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The authors had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

In patients with type 2 diabetes, there was no difference in risk of developing autoimmune disease if prescribed glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1-RAs), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors.

METHODOLOGY:

• The effect of GLP-1-RAs and SGLT2 inhibitors on autoimmune rheumatic disease (ARD) is understudied, though previous case reports and one study have hinted at increased risk.
• Researchers used administrative health data from 2014 to 2021 to identify 34,400 patients prescribed GLP-1-RAs and 83,500 patients prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors.
• They compared patients prescribed GLP-1-RAs or SGLT2 inhibitors with 68,400 patients prescribed DPP-4 inhibitors, which previous studies suggest do not increase ARD risk.
• Primary outcome was ARD incidence, defined by diagnostic codes.

TAKEAWAY:

• There were no significant differences in incident ARDs between the three groups.
• Mean follow-up time was 0.88-1.53 years.
• The hazard ratio (HR) for developing ARDs with GLP-1-RAs exposure was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.66-1.30) compared with DPP-4 inhibitors.
• The HR for developing ARDs with SGLT2 inhibitor exposure was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.76-1.24).

IN PRACTICE: 

“Extended longitudinal data are needed to assess risk and benefit with longer-term exposure,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE: 

First author Derin Karacabeyli, MD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, presented the study in abstract form at the Canadian Rheumatology Association (CRA) 2024 Annual Meeting in Winnipeg on February 29.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study was observational, which could have some residual or unmeasured confounding of data. The researchers relied on diagnostic codes and the average follow-up time was short. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The authors had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the first biosimilar to denosumab, denosumab-bddz (Wyost/Jubbonti).

The biosimilar was also granted interchangeability status, which allows pharmacists to substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without involving the prescribing clinician (according to state law). Sandoz announced the approval on March 5, 2024. The lower dosage of denosumab-bddz, marketed as Jubbonti, was also approved by Health Canada in February. 

The FDA approval “is based on robust clinical studies and accompanied by labeling with safety warnings,” according to the press release. Like the reference products Prolia and Xgeva, denosumab-bddz is approved for two indications at separate doses.

Wyost (120-mg/1.7-mL injection) is approved to:

• Prevent skeletal-related events in patients with multiple myeloma and in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors
• Treat adults and skeletally mature adolescents with giant cell tumor of bone that is unresectable or where surgical resection is likely to result in severe morbidity
• Treat hypercalcemia of cancer that is refractory to bisphosphonate therapy

Jubbonti (60-mg/1-mL injection) is approved to:

• Treat postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who are at high risk for fracture
• Increase bone mass in men with osteoporosis who are at high risk for fracture
• Treat glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in men and women who are at high risk for fracture
• Increase bone mass in men who are at high risk for fracture who are receiving androgen deprivation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer
• Increase bone mass in women who are at high risk for fracture who are receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy for breast cancer.

Both doses are contraindicated for hypocalcemia and known clinically significant hypersensitivity to denosumab products. Exposure to denosumab products during pregnancy can cause fetal harm, so women of reproductive potential should be advised to use effective contraception during therapy and for at least 5 months after the last dose of denosumab-bddz.

Sandoz did not provide information on US launch details, citing “ongoing patent litigation around these products.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the first biosimilar to denosumab, denosumab-bddz (Wyost/Jubbonti).

The biosimilar was also granted interchangeability status, which allows pharmacists to substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without involving the prescribing clinician (according to state law). Sandoz announced the approval on March 5, 2024. The lower dosage of denosumab-bddz, marketed as Jubbonti, was also approved by Health Canada in February. 

The FDA approval “is based on robust clinical studies and accompanied by labeling with safety warnings,” according to the press release. Like the reference products Prolia and Xgeva, denosumab-bddz is approved for two indications at separate doses.

Wyost (120-mg/1.7-mL injection) is approved to:

• Prevent skeletal-related events in patients with multiple myeloma and in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors
• Treat adults and skeletally mature adolescents with giant cell tumor of bone that is unresectable or where surgical resection is likely to result in severe morbidity
• Treat hypercalcemia of cancer that is refractory to bisphosphonate therapy

Jubbonti (60-mg/1-mL injection) is approved to:

• Treat postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who are at high risk for fracture
• Increase bone mass in men with osteoporosis who are at high risk for fracture
• Treat glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in men and women who are at high risk for fracture
• Increase bone mass in men who are at high risk for fracture who are receiving androgen deprivation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer
• Increase bone mass in women who are at high risk for fracture who are receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy for breast cancer.

Both doses are contraindicated for hypocalcemia and known clinically significant hypersensitivity to denosumab products. Exposure to denosumab products during pregnancy can cause fetal harm, so women of reproductive potential should be advised to use effective contraception during therapy and for at least 5 months after the last dose of denosumab-bddz.

Sandoz did not provide information on US launch details, citing “ongoing patent litigation around these products.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the first biosimilar to denosumab, denosumab-bddz (Wyost/Jubbonti).

The biosimilar was also granted interchangeability status, which allows pharmacists to substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without involving the prescribing clinician (according to state law). Sandoz announced the approval on March 5, 2024. The lower dosage of denosumab-bddz, marketed as Jubbonti, was also approved by Health Canada in February. 

The FDA approval “is based on robust clinical studies and accompanied by labeling with safety warnings,” according to the press release. Like the reference products Prolia and Xgeva, denosumab-bddz is approved for two indications at separate doses.

Wyost (120-mg/1.7-mL injection) is approved to:

• Prevent skeletal-related events in patients with multiple myeloma and in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors
• Treat adults and skeletally mature adolescents with giant cell tumor of bone that is unresectable or where surgical resection is likely to result in severe morbidity
• Treat hypercalcemia of cancer that is refractory to bisphosphonate therapy

Jubbonti (60-mg/1-mL injection) is approved to:

• Treat postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who are at high risk for fracture
• Increase bone mass in men with osteoporosis who are at high risk for fracture
• Treat glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in men and women who are at high risk for fracture
• Increase bone mass in men who are at high risk for fracture who are receiving androgen deprivation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer
• Increase bone mass in women who are at high risk for fracture who are receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy for breast cancer.

Both doses are contraindicated for hypocalcemia and known clinically significant hypersensitivity to denosumab products. Exposure to denosumab products during pregnancy can cause fetal harm, so women of reproductive potential should be advised to use effective contraception during therapy and for at least 5 months after the last dose of denosumab-bddz.

Sandoz did not provide information on US launch details, citing “ongoing patent litigation around these products.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The risk of developing a new autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic disease (AIRD) is greater following a COVID-19 infection than after an influenza infection or in the general population, according to a study published March 5 in Annals of Internal Medicine. More severe COVID-19 infections were linked to a greater risk of incident rheumatic disease, but vaccination appeared protective against development of a new AIRD.

“Importantly, this study shows the value of vaccination to prevent severe disease and these types of sequelae,” Anne Davidson, MBBS, a professor in the Institute of Molecular Medicine at The Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset, New York, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

More Robust and Rigorous Research

Past cohort studies finding an increased risk of rheumatic disease after COVID-19 “based their findings solely on comparisons between infected and uninfected groups, which could be influenced by ascertainment bias due to disparities in care, differences in health-seeking tendencies, and inherent risks among the groups,” Min Seo Kim, MD, of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and his colleagues reported. Their study, however, required at least two claims with codes for rheumatic disease and compared patients with COVID-19 to those with flu “to adjust for the potentially heightened detection of AIRD in SARS-CoV-2–infected persons owing to their interactions with the health care system.”

Dr. Alfred Kim said the fact that they used at least two claims codes “gives a little more credence that the patients were actually experiencing some sort of autoimmune inflammatory condition as opposed to a very transient issue post COVID that just went away on its own.”

He acknowledged that the previous research was reasonably strong, “especially in light of the fact that there has been so much work done on a molecular level demonstrating that COVID-19 is associated with a substantial increase in autoantibodies in a significant proportion of patients, so this always opened up the possibility that this could associate with some sort of autoimmune disease downstream.”

While the study is well done with a large population, “it still has limitations that might overestimate the effect,” Kevin W. Byram, MD, associate professor of medicine in rheumatology and immunology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. “We certainly have seen individual cases of new rheumatic disease where COVID-19 infection is likely the trigger,” but the phenomenon is not new, he added.

“Many autoimmune diseases are spurred by a loss of tolerance that might be induced by a pathogen of some sort,” Dr. Byram said. “The study is right to point out different forms of bias that might be at play. One in particular that is important to consider in a study like this is the lack of case-level adjudication regarding the diagnosis of rheumatic disease” since the study relied on available ICD-10 codes and medication prescriptions.

Risk Varied With Disease Severity and Vaccination Status

Among the Korean patients, 3.9% had a COVID-19 infection and 0.98% had an influenza infection. After matching, the comparison populations included 94,504 patients with COVID-19 versus 94,504 patients with flu, and 177,083 patients with COVID-19 versus 675,750 uninfected controls.

The risk of developing an AIRD at least 1 month after infection in South Korean patients with COVID-19 was 25% higher than in uninfected control participants (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.25; 95% CI, 1.18–1.31; P < .05) and 30% higher than in influenza patients (aHR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.02–1.59; P < .05). Specifically, risk in South Korean patients with COVID-19 was significantly increased for connective tissue disease and both treated and untreated AIRD but not for inflammatory arthritis.

Among the Japanese patients, 8.2% had COVID-19 and 0.99% had flu, resulting in matched populations of 115,003 with COVID-19 versus 110,310 with flu, and 960,849 with COVID-19 versus 1,606,873 uninfected patients. The effect size was larger in Japanese patients, with a 79% increased risk for AIRD in patients with COVID-19, compared with the general population (aHR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.77–1.82; P < .05) and a 14% increased risk, compared with patients with influenza infection (aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.10–1.17; P < .05). In Japanese patients, risk was increased across all four categories, including a doubled risk for inflammatory arthritis (aHR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.96–2.07; P < .05), compared with the general population.

The researchers had data only from the South Korean cohort to calculate risk based on vaccination status, SARS-CoV-2 variant (wild type versus Delta), and COVID-19 severity. Researchers determined a COVID-19 infection to be moderate-to-severe based on billing codes for ICU admission or requiring oxygen therapy, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, renal replacement, or CPR.

Infection with both the original strain and the Delta variant were linked to similar increased risks for AIRD, but moderate to severe COVID-19 infections had greater risk of subsequent AIRD (aHR, 1.42; P < .05) than mild infections (aHR, 1.22; P < .05). Vaccination was linked to a lower risk of AIRD within the COVID-19 patient population: One dose was linked to a 41% reduced risk (HR, 0.59; P < .05) and two doses were linked to a 58% reduced risk (HR, 0.42; P < .05), regardless of the vaccine type, compared with unvaccinated patients with COVID-19. The apparent protective effect of vaccination was true only for patients with mild COVID-19, not those with moderate to severe infection.

“One has to wonder whether or not these people were at much higher risk of developing autoimmune disease that just got exposed because they got COVID, so that a fraction of these would have gotten an autoimmune disease downstream,” Dr. Alfred Kim said. Regardless, one clinical implication of the findings is the reduced risk in vaccinated patients, regardless of the vaccine type, given the fact that “mRNA vaccination in particular has not been associated with any autoantibody development,” he said.

Though the correlations in the study cannot translate to causation, several mechanisms might be at play in a viral infection contributing to autoimmune risk, Dr. Davidson said. Given that viral nucleic acids also recognize self-nucleic acids, “a large load of viral nucleic acid may break tolerance,” or “viral proteins could also mimic self-proteins,” she said. “In addition, tolerance may be broken by a highly inflammatory environment associated with the release of cytokines and other inflammatory mediators.”

The association between new-onset autoimmune disease and severe COVID-19 infection suggests multiple mechanisms may be involved in excess immune stimulation, Dr. Davidson said. But she added that it’s unclear how these findings, involving the original strain and Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, might relate to currently circulating variants.

The research was funded by the National Research Foundation of Korea, the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety of the Republic of Korea. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships with industry. Dr. Alfred Kim has sponsored research agreements with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Novartis; receives royalties from a patent with Kypha Inc.; and has done consulting or speaking for Amgen, ANI Pharmaceuticals, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Exagen Diagnostics, GlaxoSmithKline, Kypha, Miltenyi Biotech, Pfizer, Rheumatology & Arthritis Learning Network, Synthekine, Techtonic Therapeutics, and UpToDate. Dr. Byram reported consulting for TenSixteen Bio. Dr. Davidson had no disclosures.

The risk of developing a new autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic disease (AIRD) is greater following a COVID-19 infection than after an influenza infection or in the general population, according to a study published March 5 in Annals of Internal Medicine. More severe COVID-19 infections were linked to a greater risk of incident rheumatic disease, but vaccination appeared protective against development of a new AIRD.

“Importantly, this study shows the value of vaccination to prevent severe disease and these types of sequelae,” Anne Davidson, MBBS, a professor in the Institute of Molecular Medicine at The Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset, New York, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

More Robust and Rigorous Research

Past cohort studies finding an increased risk of rheumatic disease after COVID-19 “based their findings solely on comparisons between infected and uninfected groups, which could be influenced by ascertainment bias due to disparities in care, differences in health-seeking tendencies, and inherent risks among the groups,” Min Seo Kim, MD, of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and his colleagues reported. Their study, however, required at least two claims with codes for rheumatic disease and compared patients with COVID-19 to those with flu “to adjust for the potentially heightened detection of AIRD in SARS-CoV-2–infected persons owing to their interactions with the health care system.”

Dr. Alfred Kim said the fact that they used at least two claims codes “gives a little more credence that the patients were actually experiencing some sort of autoimmune inflammatory condition as opposed to a very transient issue post COVID that just went away on its own.”

He acknowledged that the previous research was reasonably strong, “especially in light of the fact that there has been so much work done on a molecular level demonstrating that COVID-19 is associated with a substantial increase in autoantibodies in a significant proportion of patients, so this always opened up the possibility that this could associate with some sort of autoimmune disease downstream.”

While the study is well done with a large population, “it still has limitations that might overestimate the effect,” Kevin W. Byram, MD, associate professor of medicine in rheumatology and immunology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. “We certainly have seen individual cases of new rheumatic disease where COVID-19 infection is likely the trigger,” but the phenomenon is not new, he added.

“Many autoimmune diseases are spurred by a loss of tolerance that might be induced by a pathogen of some sort,” Dr. Byram said. “The study is right to point out different forms of bias that might be at play. One in particular that is important to consider in a study like this is the lack of case-level adjudication regarding the diagnosis of rheumatic disease” since the study relied on available ICD-10 codes and medication prescriptions.

Risk Varied With Disease Severity and Vaccination Status

Among the Korean patients, 3.9% had a COVID-19 infection and 0.98% had an influenza infection. After matching, the comparison populations included 94,504 patients with COVID-19 versus 94,504 patients with flu, and 177,083 patients with COVID-19 versus 675,750 uninfected controls.

The risk of developing an AIRD at least 1 month after infection in South Korean patients with COVID-19 was 25% higher than in uninfected control participants (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.25; 95% CI, 1.18–1.31; P < .05) and 30% higher than in influenza patients (aHR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.02–1.59; P < .05). Specifically, risk in South Korean patients with COVID-19 was significantly increased for connective tissue disease and both treated and untreated AIRD but not for inflammatory arthritis.

Among the Japanese patients, 8.2% had COVID-19 and 0.99% had flu, resulting in matched populations of 115,003 with COVID-19 versus 110,310 with flu, and 960,849 with COVID-19 versus 1,606,873 uninfected patients. The effect size was larger in Japanese patients, with a 79% increased risk for AIRD in patients with COVID-19, compared with the general population (aHR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.77–1.82; P < .05) and a 14% increased risk, compared with patients with influenza infection (aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.10–1.17; P < .05). In Japanese patients, risk was increased across all four categories, including a doubled risk for inflammatory arthritis (aHR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.96–2.07; P < .05), compared with the general population.

The researchers had data only from the South Korean cohort to calculate risk based on vaccination status, SARS-CoV-2 variant (wild type versus Delta), and COVID-19 severity. Researchers determined a COVID-19 infection to be moderate-to-severe based on billing codes for ICU admission or requiring oxygen therapy, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, renal replacement, or CPR.

Infection with both the original strain and the Delta variant were linked to similar increased risks for AIRD, but moderate to severe COVID-19 infections had greater risk of subsequent AIRD (aHR, 1.42; P < .05) than mild infections (aHR, 1.22; P < .05). Vaccination was linked to a lower risk of AIRD within the COVID-19 patient population: One dose was linked to a 41% reduced risk (HR, 0.59; P < .05) and two doses were linked to a 58% reduced risk (HR, 0.42; P < .05), regardless of the vaccine type, compared with unvaccinated patients with COVID-19. The apparent protective effect of vaccination was true only for patients with mild COVID-19, not those with moderate to severe infection.

“One has to wonder whether or not these people were at much higher risk of developing autoimmune disease that just got exposed because they got COVID, so that a fraction of these would have gotten an autoimmune disease downstream,” Dr. Alfred Kim said. Regardless, one clinical implication of the findings is the reduced risk in vaccinated patients, regardless of the vaccine type, given the fact that “mRNA vaccination in particular has not been associated with any autoantibody development,” he said.

Though the correlations in the study cannot translate to causation, several mechanisms might be at play in a viral infection contributing to autoimmune risk, Dr. Davidson said. Given that viral nucleic acids also recognize self-nucleic acids, “a large load of viral nucleic acid may break tolerance,” or “viral proteins could also mimic self-proteins,” she said. “In addition, tolerance may be broken by a highly inflammatory environment associated with the release of cytokines and other inflammatory mediators.”

The association between new-onset autoimmune disease and severe COVID-19 infection suggests multiple mechanisms may be involved in excess immune stimulation, Dr. Davidson said. But she added that it’s unclear how these findings, involving the original strain and Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, might relate to currently circulating variants.

The research was funded by the National Research Foundation of Korea, the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety of the Republic of Korea. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships with industry. Dr. Alfred Kim has sponsored research agreements with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Novartis; receives royalties from a patent with Kypha Inc.; and has done consulting or speaking for Amgen, ANI Pharmaceuticals, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Exagen Diagnostics, GlaxoSmithKline, Kypha, Miltenyi Biotech, Pfizer, Rheumatology & Arthritis Learning Network, Synthekine, Techtonic Therapeutics, and UpToDate. Dr. Byram reported consulting for TenSixteen Bio. Dr. Davidson had no disclosures.

The risk of developing a new autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic disease (AIRD) is greater following a COVID-19 infection than after an influenza infection or in the general population, according to a study published March 5 in Annals of Internal Medicine. More severe COVID-19 infections were linked to a greater risk of incident rheumatic disease, but vaccination appeared protective against development of a new AIRD.

“Importantly, this study shows the value of vaccination to prevent severe disease and these types of sequelae,” Anne Davidson, MBBS, a professor in the Institute of Molecular Medicine at The Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset, New York, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

More Robust and Rigorous Research

Past cohort studies finding an increased risk of rheumatic disease after COVID-19 “based their findings solely on comparisons between infected and uninfected groups, which could be influenced by ascertainment bias due to disparities in care, differences in health-seeking tendencies, and inherent risks among the groups,” Min Seo Kim, MD, of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and his colleagues reported. Their study, however, required at least two claims with codes for rheumatic disease and compared patients with COVID-19 to those with flu “to adjust for the potentially heightened detection of AIRD in SARS-CoV-2–infected persons owing to their interactions with the health care system.”

Dr. Alfred Kim said the fact that they used at least two claims codes “gives a little more credence that the patients were actually experiencing some sort of autoimmune inflammatory condition as opposed to a very transient issue post COVID that just went away on its own.”

He acknowledged that the previous research was reasonably strong, “especially in light of the fact that there has been so much work done on a molecular level demonstrating that COVID-19 is associated with a substantial increase in autoantibodies in a significant proportion of patients, so this always opened up the possibility that this could associate with some sort of autoimmune disease downstream.”

While the study is well done with a large population, “it still has limitations that might overestimate the effect,” Kevin W. Byram, MD, associate professor of medicine in rheumatology and immunology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. “We certainly have seen individual cases of new rheumatic disease where COVID-19 infection is likely the trigger,” but the phenomenon is not new, he added.

“Many autoimmune diseases are spurred by a loss of tolerance that might be induced by a pathogen of some sort,” Dr. Byram said. “The study is right to point out different forms of bias that might be at play. One in particular that is important to consider in a study like this is the lack of case-level adjudication regarding the diagnosis of rheumatic disease” since the study relied on available ICD-10 codes and medication prescriptions.

Risk Varied With Disease Severity and Vaccination Status

Among the Korean patients, 3.9% had a COVID-19 infection and 0.98% had an influenza infection. After matching, the comparison populations included 94,504 patients with COVID-19 versus 94,504 patients with flu, and 177,083 patients with COVID-19 versus 675,750 uninfected controls.

The risk of developing an AIRD at least 1 month after infection in South Korean patients with COVID-19 was 25% higher than in uninfected control participants (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.25; 95% CI, 1.18–1.31; P < .05) and 30% higher than in influenza patients (aHR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.02–1.59; P < .05). Specifically, risk in South Korean patients with COVID-19 was significantly increased for connective tissue disease and both treated and untreated AIRD but not for inflammatory arthritis.

Among the Japanese patients, 8.2% had COVID-19 and 0.99% had flu, resulting in matched populations of 115,003 with COVID-19 versus 110,310 with flu, and 960,849 with COVID-19 versus 1,606,873 uninfected patients. The effect size was larger in Japanese patients, with a 79% increased risk for AIRD in patients with COVID-19, compared with the general population (aHR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.77–1.82; P < .05) and a 14% increased risk, compared with patients with influenza infection (aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.10–1.17; P < .05). In Japanese patients, risk was increased across all four categories, including a doubled risk for inflammatory arthritis (aHR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.96–2.07; P < .05), compared with the general population.

The researchers had data only from the South Korean cohort to calculate risk based on vaccination status, SARS-CoV-2 variant (wild type versus Delta), and COVID-19 severity. Researchers determined a COVID-19 infection to be moderate-to-severe based on billing codes for ICU admission or requiring oxygen therapy, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, renal replacement, or CPR.

Infection with both the original strain and the Delta variant were linked to similar increased risks for AIRD, but moderate to severe COVID-19 infections had greater risk of subsequent AIRD (aHR, 1.42; P < .05) than mild infections (aHR, 1.22; P < .05). Vaccination was linked to a lower risk of AIRD within the COVID-19 patient population: One dose was linked to a 41% reduced risk (HR, 0.59; P < .05) and two doses were linked to a 58% reduced risk (HR, 0.42; P < .05), regardless of the vaccine type, compared with unvaccinated patients with COVID-19. The apparent protective effect of vaccination was true only for patients with mild COVID-19, not those with moderate to severe infection.

“One has to wonder whether or not these people were at much higher risk of developing autoimmune disease that just got exposed because they got COVID, so that a fraction of these would have gotten an autoimmune disease downstream,” Dr. Alfred Kim said. Regardless, one clinical implication of the findings is the reduced risk in vaccinated patients, regardless of the vaccine type, given the fact that “mRNA vaccination in particular has not been associated with any autoantibody development,” he said.

Though the correlations in the study cannot translate to causation, several mechanisms might be at play in a viral infection contributing to autoimmune risk, Dr. Davidson said. Given that viral nucleic acids also recognize self-nucleic acids, “a large load of viral nucleic acid may break tolerance,” or “viral proteins could also mimic self-proteins,” she said. “In addition, tolerance may be broken by a highly inflammatory environment associated with the release of cytokines and other inflammatory mediators.”

The association between new-onset autoimmune disease and severe COVID-19 infection suggests multiple mechanisms may be involved in excess immune stimulation, Dr. Davidson said. But she added that it’s unclear how these findings, involving the original strain and Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, might relate to currently circulating variants.

The research was funded by the National Research Foundation of Korea, the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety of the Republic of Korea. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships with industry. Dr. Alfred Kim has sponsored research agreements with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Novartis; receives royalties from a patent with Kypha Inc.; and has done consulting or speaking for Amgen, ANI Pharmaceuticals, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Exagen Diagnostics, GlaxoSmithKline, Kypha, Miltenyi Biotech, Pfizer, Rheumatology & Arthritis Learning Network, Synthekine, Techtonic Therapeutics, and UpToDate. Dr. Byram reported consulting for TenSixteen Bio. Dr. Davidson had no disclosures.