Clinical Edge Journal Scan Commentary

Treatment strategies designed to improve or maintain efficacy while minimizing toxicity are desired by both patients and healthcare providers. Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) represents a therapeutic option for certain patients with luminal breast cancers who may not be candidates for chemotherapy because of comorbidities or preferences to avoid certain treatments. Furthermore, studies have demonstrated tumor or nodal downstaging with NET, as well as the ability of genomic assays to predict clinical response to NET and its association with breast-conserving therapy (BCT).^[4,5] The phase 2 ACOSOG Z1031 trial reported outcomes among 509 women with clinical stage II or III estrogen receptor (ER)–positive breast cancer who received an aromatase inhibitor (AI; exemestane, letrozole, or anastrozole) for 16-18 weeks before surgery. A total of 67.2% of patients had BCT, and of the patients thought to require mastectomy or have inoperable breast cancer at presentation (N = 226), 50.4% were able to have BCT. The pCR rate was low (1%); however, the 5-year cumulative incidence rate for local-regional recurrence was estimated at 1.53% (Hunt et al). This study supports the consideration of NET for select patients, demonstrating a favorable impact on surgery and local-regional recurrence rates. It is also thought-provoking in terms of identifying predictors of response to NET and other novel therapies that can be combined with endocrine therapy in the neoadjuvant space.

The CLEOPATRA trial has established a regimen of docetaxel/trastuzumab/pertuzumab as standard first-line treatment for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer with superior progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with a docetaxel/trastuzumab regimen. Crosstalk between HER2 and ER signaling pathways has been implicated in resistance to anti-HER2 and endocrine therapies. Real-world data have shown that the addition of endocrine therapy to first-line dual anti-HER2-targeted therapy post chemotherapy in HER+/hormone receptor positive (HR+) metastatic breast cancer was associated with benefits in PFS and OS.^[6] The phase 2 PERTAIN trial randomly assigned 258 patients with HER2+/HR+ metastatic breast cancer to receive pertuzumab/trastuzumab plus an AI or trastuzumab/AI, with induction chemotherapy given at the investigator’s discretion. At a median follow-up of > 6 years, the PFS benefit seen with the addition of pertuzumab was maintained (20.6 vs 15.8 months in the trastuzumab/AI arm; stratified hazard ratio 0.67; P = .006). Although there was not a statistically significant difference in median OS (60.2 months in the pertuzumab/trastuzumab/AI arm vs 57.2 months in the trastuzumab/AI arm; stratified hazard ratio 1.05; P = .78), the effect of pertuzumab was potentially amplified in those without induction chemotherapy (26.6 vs 12.5 months) (Arpino et al). These data provide further support for the addition of pertuzumab to trastuzumab in the first-line treatment setting for HER2+ metastatic breast cancer and suggest that some patients may benefit from dual HER2 blockade with endocrine therapy (without chemotherapy).

Additional References

1. Schmid P, Cortes J, Pusztai L, et al, for the KEYNOTE-522 Investigators. Pembrolizumab for early triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:810-821. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910549
2. Schmid P, Cortes J, Dent R, et al, for the KEYNOTE-522 Investigators. Event-free survival with pembrolizumab in early triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:556-567. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2112651
3. Loibl S, Untch M, Burchardi N, et al. A randomised phase II study investigating durvalumab in addition to an anthracycline taxane-based neoadjuvant therapy in early triple-negative breast cancer: Clinical results and biomarker analysis of GeparNuevo study. Ann Oncol. 2019;30:1279-1288. Doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz158
4. Cao L, Sugumar K, Keller E, et al. Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy as an alternative to neoadjuvant chemotherapy among hormone receptor-positive breast cancer patients: Pathologic and surgical outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28:5730-5741. Doi: 10.1245/s10434-021-10459-3
5. Iwata H, Masuda N, Yamamoto Y, et al. Validation of the 21-gene test as a predictor of clinical response to neoadjuvant hormonal therapy for ER+, HER2-negative breast cancer: The TransNEOS study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019;173:123-133. Doi: 10.1007/s10549-018-4964-y
6. Loft M, Lok SW, De Boer R, et al. Addition of endocrine therapy to dual anti-HER2 targeted therapy in initial treatment of HER2+/HR+ metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2023;198:67-74. Doi: 10.1007/s10549-022-06856-1

Treatment strategies designed to improve or maintain efficacy while minimizing toxicity are desired by both patients and healthcare providers. Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) represents a therapeutic option for certain patients with luminal breast cancers who may not be candidates for chemotherapy because of comorbidities or preferences to avoid certain treatments. Furthermore, studies have demonstrated tumor or nodal downstaging with NET, as well as the ability of genomic assays to predict clinical response to NET and its association with breast-conserving therapy (BCT).^[4,5] The phase 2 ACOSOG Z1031 trial reported outcomes among 509 women with clinical stage II or III estrogen receptor (ER)–positive breast cancer who received an aromatase inhibitor (AI; exemestane, letrozole, or anastrozole) for 16-18 weeks before surgery. A total of 67.2% of patients had BCT, and of the patients thought to require mastectomy or have inoperable breast cancer at presentation (N = 226), 50.4% were able to have BCT. The pCR rate was low (1%); however, the 5-year cumulative incidence rate for local-regional recurrence was estimated at 1.53% (Hunt et al). This study supports the consideration of NET for select patients, demonstrating a favorable impact on surgery and local-regional recurrence rates. It is also thought-provoking in terms of identifying predictors of response to NET and other novel therapies that can be combined with endocrine therapy in the neoadjuvant space.

The CLEOPATRA trial has established a regimen of docetaxel/trastuzumab/pertuzumab as standard first-line treatment for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer with superior progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with a docetaxel/trastuzumab regimen. Crosstalk between HER2 and ER signaling pathways has been implicated in resistance to anti-HER2 and endocrine therapies. Real-world data have shown that the addition of endocrine therapy to first-line dual anti-HER2-targeted therapy post chemotherapy in HER+/hormone receptor positive (HR+) metastatic breast cancer was associated with benefits in PFS and OS.^[6] The phase 2 PERTAIN trial randomly assigned 258 patients with HER2+/HR+ metastatic breast cancer to receive pertuzumab/trastuzumab plus an AI or trastuzumab/AI, with induction chemotherapy given at the investigator’s discretion. At a median follow-up of > 6 years, the PFS benefit seen with the addition of pertuzumab was maintained (20.6 vs 15.8 months in the trastuzumab/AI arm; stratified hazard ratio 0.67; P = .006). Although there was not a statistically significant difference in median OS (60.2 months in the pertuzumab/trastuzumab/AI arm vs 57.2 months in the trastuzumab/AI arm; stratified hazard ratio 1.05; P = .78), the effect of pertuzumab was potentially amplified in those without induction chemotherapy (26.6 vs 12.5 months) (Arpino et al). These data provide further support for the addition of pertuzumab to trastuzumab in the first-line treatment setting for HER2+ metastatic breast cancer and suggest that some patients may benefit from dual HER2 blockade with endocrine therapy (without chemotherapy).

Additional References

1. Schmid P, Cortes J, Pusztai L, et al, for the KEYNOTE-522 Investigators. Pembrolizumab for early triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:810-821. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910549
2. Schmid P, Cortes J, Dent R, et al, for the KEYNOTE-522 Investigators. Event-free survival with pembrolizumab in early triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:556-567. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2112651
3. Loibl S, Untch M, Burchardi N, et al. A randomised phase II study investigating durvalumab in addition to an anthracycline taxane-based neoadjuvant therapy in early triple-negative breast cancer: Clinical results and biomarker analysis of GeparNuevo study. Ann Oncol. 2019;30:1279-1288. Doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz158
4. Cao L, Sugumar K, Keller E, et al. Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy as an alternative to neoadjuvant chemotherapy among hormone receptor-positive breast cancer patients: Pathologic and surgical outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28:5730-5741. Doi: 10.1245/s10434-021-10459-3
5. Iwata H, Masuda N, Yamamoto Y, et al. Validation of the 21-gene test as a predictor of clinical response to neoadjuvant hormonal therapy for ER+, HER2-negative breast cancer: The TransNEOS study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019;173:123-133. Doi: 10.1007/s10549-018-4964-y
6. Loft M, Lok SW, De Boer R, et al. Addition of endocrine therapy to dual anti-HER2 targeted therapy in initial treatment of HER2+/HR+ metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2023;198:67-74. Doi: 10.1007/s10549-022-06856-1

Treatment strategies designed to improve or maintain efficacy while minimizing toxicity are desired by both patients and healthcare providers. Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) represents a therapeutic option for certain patients with luminal breast cancers who may not be candidates for chemotherapy because of comorbidities or preferences to avoid certain treatments. Furthermore, studies have demonstrated tumor or nodal downstaging with NET, as well as the ability of genomic assays to predict clinical response to NET and its association with breast-conserving therapy (BCT).^[4,5] The phase 2 ACOSOG Z1031 trial reported outcomes among 509 women with clinical stage II or III estrogen receptor (ER)–positive breast cancer who received an aromatase inhibitor (AI; exemestane, letrozole, or anastrozole) for 16-18 weeks before surgery. A total of 67.2% of patients had BCT, and of the patients thought to require mastectomy or have inoperable breast cancer at presentation (N = 226), 50.4% were able to have BCT. The pCR rate was low (1%); however, the 5-year cumulative incidence rate for local-regional recurrence was estimated at 1.53% (Hunt et al). This study supports the consideration of NET for select patients, demonstrating a favorable impact on surgery and local-regional recurrence rates. It is also thought-provoking in terms of identifying predictors of response to NET and other novel therapies that can be combined with endocrine therapy in the neoadjuvant space.

The CLEOPATRA trial has established a regimen of docetaxel/trastuzumab/pertuzumab as standard first-line treatment for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer with superior progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with a docetaxel/trastuzumab regimen. Crosstalk between HER2 and ER signaling pathways has been implicated in resistance to anti-HER2 and endocrine therapies. Real-world data have shown that the addition of endocrine therapy to first-line dual anti-HER2-targeted therapy post chemotherapy in HER+/hormone receptor positive (HR+) metastatic breast cancer was associated with benefits in PFS and OS.^[6] The phase 2 PERTAIN trial randomly assigned 258 patients with HER2+/HR+ metastatic breast cancer to receive pertuzumab/trastuzumab plus an AI or trastuzumab/AI, with induction chemotherapy given at the investigator’s discretion. At a median follow-up of > 6 years, the PFS benefit seen with the addition of pertuzumab was maintained (20.6 vs 15.8 months in the trastuzumab/AI arm; stratified hazard ratio 0.67; P = .006). Although there was not a statistically significant difference in median OS (60.2 months in the pertuzumab/trastuzumab/AI arm vs 57.2 months in the trastuzumab/AI arm; stratified hazard ratio 1.05; P = .78), the effect of pertuzumab was potentially amplified in those without induction chemotherapy (26.6 vs 12.5 months) (Arpino et al). These data provide further support for the addition of pertuzumab to trastuzumab in the first-line treatment setting for HER2+ metastatic breast cancer and suggest that some patients may benefit from dual HER2 blockade with endocrine therapy (without chemotherapy).

Additional References

1. Schmid P, Cortes J, Pusztai L, et al, for the KEYNOTE-522 Investigators. Pembrolizumab for early triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:810-821. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910549
2. Schmid P, Cortes J, Dent R, et al, for the KEYNOTE-522 Investigators. Event-free survival with pembrolizumab in early triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:556-567. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2112651
3. Loibl S, Untch M, Burchardi N, et al. A randomised phase II study investigating durvalumab in addition to an anthracycline taxane-based neoadjuvant therapy in early triple-negative breast cancer: Clinical results and biomarker analysis of GeparNuevo study. Ann Oncol. 2019;30:1279-1288. Doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz158
4. Cao L, Sugumar K, Keller E, et al. Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy as an alternative to neoadjuvant chemotherapy among hormone receptor-positive breast cancer patients: Pathologic and surgical outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28:5730-5741. Doi: 10.1245/s10434-021-10459-3
5. Iwata H, Masuda N, Yamamoto Y, et al. Validation of the 21-gene test as a predictor of clinical response to neoadjuvant hormonal therapy for ER+, HER2-negative breast cancer: The TransNEOS study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019;173:123-133. Doi: 10.1007/s10549-018-4964-y
6. Loft M, Lok SW, De Boer R, et al. Addition of endocrine therapy to dual anti-HER2 targeted therapy in initial treatment of HER2+/HR+ metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2023;198:67-74. Doi: 10.1007/s10549-022-06856-1

Another study caught my attention this month for having presented a lot of information with no clinically important conclusions. In "Mode of Delivery and Offspring Atopic Dermatitis in a Swedish Nationwide Study," Mubanga and colleagues studied 1.4 million children! With that many participants, they were almost certain to find associations that were statistically significant and clinically irrelevant. They reported that children born by instrumental vaginal delivery, emergency caesarean section, and elective caesarean section were at a higher risk for AD compared with those born by uncomplicated vaginal delivery. They failed to report the absolute magnitude of the associations, which were undoubtedly so small as to be clinically meaningless. Even if the observed association were not due to some hidden bias, the association is not anything that would change treatment in any way.

On the other hand, the small, open label registry analysis, "Experiences From Daily Practice of Upadacitinib Treatment on Atopic Dermatitis With a Focus on Hand Eczema: Results From the BioDay Registry," published by Kamphuis and colleagues, is of much greater value, reporting the effectiveness and safety of upadacitinib on hand eczema. Not surprisingly, there were large improvements in the investigators' assessments of the dermatitis and in patients' quality of life. This small study is informative about efficacy; it is too small, though, to evaluate how frequently rare severe adverse events occur.

The use of probiotics to safely improve skin disease is such an appealing concept, yet it sounds a lot like hocus-pocus to me. Feíto-Rodríguez and colleagues report in the journal Clinical and Experimental Dermatology that a probiotic mixture of Bifidobacterium lactis, Bifidobacterium longum, and Lactobacillus casei improved atopic dermatitis more than did placebo. The findings are not compelling. Differences were small. Rates of being clear or almost clear weren't reported. We can get atopic dermatitis to clear up in a few days with topical triamcinolone (if we can get patients to use it); so far, the effects of probiotics on the presumed gut-immune system-skin axis seem very much underwhelming.

Another study caught my attention this month for having presented a lot of information with no clinically important conclusions. In "Mode of Delivery and Offspring Atopic Dermatitis in a Swedish Nationwide Study," Mubanga and colleagues studied 1.4 million children! With that many participants, they were almost certain to find associations that were statistically significant and clinically irrelevant. They reported that children born by instrumental vaginal delivery, emergency caesarean section, and elective caesarean section were at a higher risk for AD compared with those born by uncomplicated vaginal delivery. They failed to report the absolute magnitude of the associations, which were undoubtedly so small as to be clinically meaningless. Even if the observed association were not due to some hidden bias, the association is not anything that would change treatment in any way.

On the other hand, the small, open label registry analysis, "Experiences From Daily Practice of Upadacitinib Treatment on Atopic Dermatitis With a Focus on Hand Eczema: Results From the BioDay Registry," published by Kamphuis and colleagues, is of much greater value, reporting the effectiveness and safety of upadacitinib on hand eczema. Not surprisingly, there were large improvements in the investigators' assessments of the dermatitis and in patients' quality of life. This small study is informative about efficacy; it is too small, though, to evaluate how frequently rare severe adverse events occur.

The use of probiotics to safely improve skin disease is such an appealing concept, yet it sounds a lot like hocus-pocus to me. Feíto-Rodríguez and colleagues report in the journal Clinical and Experimental Dermatology that a probiotic mixture of Bifidobacterium lactis, Bifidobacterium longum, and Lactobacillus casei improved atopic dermatitis more than did placebo. The findings are not compelling. Differences were small. Rates of being clear or almost clear weren't reported. We can get atopic dermatitis to clear up in a few days with topical triamcinolone (if we can get patients to use it); so far, the effects of probiotics on the presumed gut-immune system-skin axis seem very much underwhelming.

Another study caught my attention this month for having presented a lot of information with no clinically important conclusions. In "Mode of Delivery and Offspring Atopic Dermatitis in a Swedish Nationwide Study," Mubanga and colleagues studied 1.4 million children! With that many participants, they were almost certain to find associations that were statistically significant and clinically irrelevant. They reported that children born by instrumental vaginal delivery, emergency caesarean section, and elective caesarean section were at a higher risk for AD compared with those born by uncomplicated vaginal delivery. They failed to report the absolute magnitude of the associations, which were undoubtedly so small as to be clinically meaningless. Even if the observed association were not due to some hidden bias, the association is not anything that would change treatment in any way.

On the other hand, the small, open label registry analysis, "Experiences From Daily Practice of Upadacitinib Treatment on Atopic Dermatitis With a Focus on Hand Eczema: Results From the BioDay Registry," published by Kamphuis and colleagues, is of much greater value, reporting the effectiveness and safety of upadacitinib on hand eczema. Not surprisingly, there were large improvements in the investigators' assessments of the dermatitis and in patients' quality of life. This small study is informative about efficacy; it is too small, though, to evaluate how frequently rare severe adverse events occur.

The use of probiotics to safely improve skin disease is such an appealing concept, yet it sounds a lot like hocus-pocus to me. Feíto-Rodríguez and colleagues report in the journal Clinical and Experimental Dermatology that a probiotic mixture of Bifidobacterium lactis, Bifidobacterium longum, and Lactobacillus casei improved atopic dermatitis more than did placebo. The findings are not compelling. Differences were small. Rates of being clear or almost clear weren't reported. We can get atopic dermatitis to clear up in a few days with topical triamcinolone (if we can get patients to use it); so far, the effects of probiotics on the presumed gut-immune system-skin axis seem very much underwhelming.

With regard to advanced targeted therapies, there is concern about the side effects of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, especially in patients with comorbidities. To address safety concerns with upadacitinib, a selective JAK1 inhibitor, Burmester and colleagues conducted an integrated safety analysis of 12 phase 3 trials that included 6991 patients (PsA n = 907; rheumatoid arthritis [RA] n = 3209; ankylosing spondylitis n = 182; and atopic dermatitis n = 2693) who received upadacitinib (15 or 30 mg once daily). Some trials included active comparators; therefore, safety among 1008 patients (RA n = 579; PsA n = 429) who received 40-mg adalimumab every other week and 314 patients with RA who received methotrexate were compared with those treated with upadacitinib. Overall, patients with PsA receiving 15-mg upadacitinib once daily had acceptable rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE; 244.8/100 patient-years [PY]), serious TEAE (11.1/100 PY), TEAE leading to discontinuation (5.4/100 PY), and death (0.8/100 PY). Patients with PsA treated with upadacitinib had higher rates of herpes zoster, nonmelanoma skin cancer, and elevations in creatine phosphokinase when compared with patients treated with adalimumab. Although these results are reassuring to clinicians treating PsA, continued surveillance regarding the risks for venous thrombosis, cardiovascular events, and cancer are required.

In a post hoc analysis of 10 clinical trials that included patients with PsA (n = 783) and psoriasis (n = 3663) who received tofacitinib, Kristensen and colleagues reported that the risk for major adverse cardiac events was higher among patients with PsA and a high 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk vs patients with a low ASCVD risk. The incidence of cancer was highest in patients with PsA and an intermediate 10-year ASCVD risk. Although these studies are reassuring, the assessment and risk stratification of adverse events with JAK inhibitors and therapies in PsA will require longer-term comparative clinical trials as well as an evaluation of observational data from disease registries.

Comorbidities also have an impact on treatment persistence in PsA. Tillett and colleagues conducted a retrospective study including 9057 patients with plaque psoriasis alone or with concomitant PsA who received either ustekinumab or conventional systemic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. They demonstrated that among patients receiving ustekinumab, those with concomitant PsA had a higher comorbidity burden, including diabetes, hypertension, and obesity, and a shorter time to ustekinumab discontinuation when compared with those with psoriasis alone. Secondary failure of advanced therapies is increasingly noted in the management of psoriatic disease. Female sex, depression, previous exposure to biologics, and the presence of comorbidities are important risk factors. Comprehensive management of psoriatic disease should include appropriate management of comorbidities for better long-term treatment persistence and outcomes.

With regard to advanced targeted therapies, there is concern about the side effects of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, especially in patients with comorbidities. To address safety concerns with upadacitinib, a selective JAK1 inhibitor, Burmester and colleagues conducted an integrated safety analysis of 12 phase 3 trials that included 6991 patients (PsA n = 907; rheumatoid arthritis [RA] n = 3209; ankylosing spondylitis n = 182; and atopic dermatitis n = 2693) who received upadacitinib (15 or 30 mg once daily). Some trials included active comparators; therefore, safety among 1008 patients (RA n = 579; PsA n = 429) who received 40-mg adalimumab every other week and 314 patients with RA who received methotrexate were compared with those treated with upadacitinib. Overall, patients with PsA receiving 15-mg upadacitinib once daily had acceptable rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE; 244.8/100 patient-years [PY]), serious TEAE (11.1/100 PY), TEAE leading to discontinuation (5.4/100 PY), and death (0.8/100 PY). Patients with PsA treated with upadacitinib had higher rates of herpes zoster, nonmelanoma skin cancer, and elevations in creatine phosphokinase when compared with patients treated with adalimumab. Although these results are reassuring to clinicians treating PsA, continued surveillance regarding the risks for venous thrombosis, cardiovascular events, and cancer are required.

In a post hoc analysis of 10 clinical trials that included patients with PsA (n = 783) and psoriasis (n = 3663) who received tofacitinib, Kristensen and colleagues reported that the risk for major adverse cardiac events was higher among patients with PsA and a high 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk vs patients with a low ASCVD risk. The incidence of cancer was highest in patients with PsA and an intermediate 10-year ASCVD risk. Although these studies are reassuring, the assessment and risk stratification of adverse events with JAK inhibitors and therapies in PsA will require longer-term comparative clinical trials as well as an evaluation of observational data from disease registries.

Comorbidities also have an impact on treatment persistence in PsA. Tillett and colleagues conducted a retrospective study including 9057 patients with plaque psoriasis alone or with concomitant PsA who received either ustekinumab or conventional systemic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. They demonstrated that among patients receiving ustekinumab, those with concomitant PsA had a higher comorbidity burden, including diabetes, hypertension, and obesity, and a shorter time to ustekinumab discontinuation when compared with those with psoriasis alone. Secondary failure of advanced therapies is increasingly noted in the management of psoriatic disease. Female sex, depression, previous exposure to biologics, and the presence of comorbidities are important risk factors. Comprehensive management of psoriatic disease should include appropriate management of comorbidities for better long-term treatment persistence and outcomes.

With regard to advanced targeted therapies, there is concern about the side effects of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, especially in patients with comorbidities. To address safety concerns with upadacitinib, a selective JAK1 inhibitor, Burmester and colleagues conducted an integrated safety analysis of 12 phase 3 trials that included 6991 patients (PsA n = 907; rheumatoid arthritis [RA] n = 3209; ankylosing spondylitis n = 182; and atopic dermatitis n = 2693) who received upadacitinib (15 or 30 mg once daily). Some trials included active comparators; therefore, safety among 1008 patients (RA n = 579; PsA n = 429) who received 40-mg adalimumab every other week and 314 patients with RA who received methotrexate were compared with those treated with upadacitinib. Overall, patients with PsA receiving 15-mg upadacitinib once daily had acceptable rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE; 244.8/100 patient-years [PY]), serious TEAE (11.1/100 PY), TEAE leading to discontinuation (5.4/100 PY), and death (0.8/100 PY). Patients with PsA treated with upadacitinib had higher rates of herpes zoster, nonmelanoma skin cancer, and elevations in creatine phosphokinase when compared with patients treated with adalimumab. Although these results are reassuring to clinicians treating PsA, continued surveillance regarding the risks for venous thrombosis, cardiovascular events, and cancer are required.

In a post hoc analysis of 10 clinical trials that included patients with PsA (n = 783) and psoriasis (n = 3663) who received tofacitinib, Kristensen and colleagues reported that the risk for major adverse cardiac events was higher among patients with PsA and a high 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk vs patients with a low ASCVD risk. The incidence of cancer was highest in patients with PsA and an intermediate 10-year ASCVD risk. Although these studies are reassuring, the assessment and risk stratification of adverse events with JAK inhibitors and therapies in PsA will require longer-term comparative clinical trials as well as an evaluation of observational data from disease registries.

Comorbidities also have an impact on treatment persistence in PsA. Tillett and colleagues conducted a retrospective study including 9057 patients with plaque psoriasis alone or with concomitant PsA who received either ustekinumab or conventional systemic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. They demonstrated that among patients receiving ustekinumab, those with concomitant PsA had a higher comorbidity burden, including diabetes, hypertension, and obesity, and a shorter time to ustekinumab discontinuation when compared with those with psoriasis alone. Secondary failure of advanced therapies is increasingly noted in the management of psoriatic disease. Female sex, depression, previous exposure to biologics, and the presence of comorbidities are important risk factors. Comprehensive management of psoriatic disease should include appropriate management of comorbidities for better long-term treatment persistence and outcomes.

Several recent studies have assessed the use of glucocorticoids, a frequent companion to disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) and biologic therapy. Many patients are treated with glucocorticoids early in their disease course as a bridging therapy to long-term treatment, and others receive glucocorticoid therapy chronically or intermittently for flares. Van Ouwerkerk and colleagues performed a combined analysis of seven clinical trials, identified in a systematic literature review, that included a glucocorticoid taper protocol for the treatment of newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis (RA), undifferentiated arthritis, or "high-risk profile for persistent arthritis." These studies encompassed intravenous, intramuscular, and oral glucocorticoid regimens, and the continued use of glucocorticoids after bridging. These regimens, including cumulative doses, were examined and found to result in a low probability of ongoing use, especially in patients with lower initial doses and shorter bridging schedules. However, though reassuring as to the early use of glucocorticoids in clinical practice, this finding can be affected by patient characteristics not examined in detail in the aggregated results, including whether the patients were classified as having RA, undifferentiated arthritis, or a "high-risk profile."

Adami and colleagues also looked at tapering of glucocorticoids in patients with RA (though not necessarily early RA) in order to determine risk for flare associated with different tapering schedules. They examined the characteristics of patients with RA experiencing a flare (defined as an increase in Disease Activity Score 28 for Rheumatoid Arthritis with C-reactive protein [DAS28-CRP] > 1.2) and their glucocorticoid therapy in the preceding 6 months and found that tapering to a prednisone equivalent ≤ 2.5 mg daily was associated with a higher risk for flare but that doses > 2.5 mg daily were not. Though this finding is perhaps expected, it does not provide further insight into a strategy to minimize the associated adverse effects of glucocorticoid therapy.

Adding further weight to this point is a study performed in Denmark by Dieperink and colleagues examining risk for Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) using a nation-wide registry of over 30,000 patients with RA. They found 180 cases of SAB and examined the patient characteristics. Patients who were currently using or previously used a biologic DMARD had an increased risk for SAB as well as those with moderate to high RA disease activity. Study participants who were currently using a prednisone-equivalent of ≤ 7.5 mg daily had an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 2.2 and those using > 7.5 mg daily had an aOR of 9.5 for SAB. This concerning finding suggests that even a relatively "low" dose of prednisone use is not benign for patients with RA, and these studies bring to light the need to research optimal strategies for disease control and balancing immunosuppression with the risk for infection and other adverse events.

Heckert and colleagues looked at another aspect of RA disease control, namely, local progression in a single affected joint. Their prior work has suggested that patients with RA may be prone to recurrent inflammation in a single joint despite systemic treatment, a finding that aligns with common clinical observations. This study evaluates radiographic progression in susceptible joints via post hoc analysis using data from the BeSt study including tender and swollen joints, hand and foot radiographs, and disease activity scores. Despite systemic treatment to a target low disease activity or remission state (as per the BeSt protocol), the study found an association between recurrent joint inflammation and radiographic progression (ie, erosions). However, because they only looked at hand and foot joints, the strength of this association in other joints is unknown, as is the use of local treatment, such as steroid injection to minimize inflammation, though both questions may be difficult to evaluate in a small prospective study.

Several recent studies have assessed the use of glucocorticoids, a frequent companion to disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) and biologic therapy. Many patients are treated with glucocorticoids early in their disease course as a bridging therapy to long-term treatment, and others receive glucocorticoid therapy chronically or intermittently for flares. Van Ouwerkerk and colleagues performed a combined analysis of seven clinical trials, identified in a systematic literature review, that included a glucocorticoid taper protocol for the treatment of newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis (RA), undifferentiated arthritis, or "high-risk profile for persistent arthritis." These studies encompassed intravenous, intramuscular, and oral glucocorticoid regimens, and the continued use of glucocorticoids after bridging. These regimens, including cumulative doses, were examined and found to result in a low probability of ongoing use, especially in patients with lower initial doses and shorter bridging schedules. However, though reassuring as to the early use of glucocorticoids in clinical practice, this finding can be affected by patient characteristics not examined in detail in the aggregated results, including whether the patients were classified as having RA, undifferentiated arthritis, or a "high-risk profile."

Adami and colleagues also looked at tapering of glucocorticoids in patients with RA (though not necessarily early RA) in order to determine risk for flare associated with different tapering schedules. They examined the characteristics of patients with RA experiencing a flare (defined as an increase in Disease Activity Score 28 for Rheumatoid Arthritis with C-reactive protein [DAS28-CRP] > 1.2) and their glucocorticoid therapy in the preceding 6 months and found that tapering to a prednisone equivalent ≤ 2.5 mg daily was associated with a higher risk for flare but that doses > 2.5 mg daily were not. Though this finding is perhaps expected, it does not provide further insight into a strategy to minimize the associated adverse effects of glucocorticoid therapy.

Adding further weight to this point is a study performed in Denmark by Dieperink and colleagues examining risk for Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) using a nation-wide registry of over 30,000 patients with RA. They found 180 cases of SAB and examined the patient characteristics. Patients who were currently using or previously used a biologic DMARD had an increased risk for SAB as well as those with moderate to high RA disease activity. Study participants who were currently using a prednisone-equivalent of ≤ 7.5 mg daily had an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 2.2 and those using > 7.5 mg daily had an aOR of 9.5 for SAB. This concerning finding suggests that even a relatively "low" dose of prednisone use is not benign for patients with RA, and these studies bring to light the need to research optimal strategies for disease control and balancing immunosuppression with the risk for infection and other adverse events.

Heckert and colleagues looked at another aspect of RA disease control, namely, local progression in a single affected joint. Their prior work has suggested that patients with RA may be prone to recurrent inflammation in a single joint despite systemic treatment, a finding that aligns with common clinical observations. This study evaluates radiographic progression in susceptible joints via post hoc analysis using data from the BeSt study including tender and swollen joints, hand and foot radiographs, and disease activity scores. Despite systemic treatment to a target low disease activity or remission state (as per the BeSt protocol), the study found an association between recurrent joint inflammation and radiographic progression (ie, erosions). However, because they only looked at hand and foot joints, the strength of this association in other joints is unknown, as is the use of local treatment, such as steroid injection to minimize inflammation, though both questions may be difficult to evaluate in a small prospective study.

Several recent studies have assessed the use of glucocorticoids, a frequent companion to disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) and biologic therapy. Many patients are treated with glucocorticoids early in their disease course as a bridging therapy to long-term treatment, and others receive glucocorticoid therapy chronically or intermittently for flares. Van Ouwerkerk and colleagues performed a combined analysis of seven clinical trials, identified in a systematic literature review, that included a glucocorticoid taper protocol for the treatment of newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis (RA), undifferentiated arthritis, or "high-risk profile for persistent arthritis." These studies encompassed intravenous, intramuscular, and oral glucocorticoid regimens, and the continued use of glucocorticoids after bridging. These regimens, including cumulative doses, were examined and found to result in a low probability of ongoing use, especially in patients with lower initial doses and shorter bridging schedules. However, though reassuring as to the early use of glucocorticoids in clinical practice, this finding can be affected by patient characteristics not examined in detail in the aggregated results, including whether the patients were classified as having RA, undifferentiated arthritis, or a "high-risk profile."

Adami and colleagues also looked at tapering of glucocorticoids in patients with RA (though not necessarily early RA) in order to determine risk for flare associated with different tapering schedules. They examined the characteristics of patients with RA experiencing a flare (defined as an increase in Disease Activity Score 28 for Rheumatoid Arthritis with C-reactive protein [DAS28-CRP] > 1.2) and their glucocorticoid therapy in the preceding 6 months and found that tapering to a prednisone equivalent ≤ 2.5 mg daily was associated with a higher risk for flare but that doses > 2.5 mg daily were not. Though this finding is perhaps expected, it does not provide further insight into a strategy to minimize the associated adverse effects of glucocorticoid therapy.

Adding further weight to this point is a study performed in Denmark by Dieperink and colleagues examining risk for Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) using a nation-wide registry of over 30,000 patients with RA. They found 180 cases of SAB and examined the patient characteristics. Patients who were currently using or previously used a biologic DMARD had an increased risk for SAB as well as those with moderate to high RA disease activity. Study participants who were currently using a prednisone-equivalent of ≤ 7.5 mg daily had an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 2.2 and those using > 7.5 mg daily had an aOR of 9.5 for SAB. This concerning finding suggests that even a relatively "low" dose of prednisone use is not benign for patients with RA, and these studies bring to light the need to research optimal strategies for disease control and balancing immunosuppression with the risk for infection and other adverse events.

Heckert and colleagues looked at another aspect of RA disease control, namely, local progression in a single affected joint. Their prior work has suggested that patients with RA may be prone to recurrent inflammation in a single joint despite systemic treatment, a finding that aligns with common clinical observations. This study evaluates radiographic progression in susceptible joints via post hoc analysis using data from the BeSt study including tender and swollen joints, hand and foot radiographs, and disease activity scores. Despite systemic treatment to a target low disease activity or remission state (as per the BeSt protocol), the study found an association between recurrent joint inflammation and radiographic progression (ie, erosions). However, because they only looked at hand and foot joints, the strength of this association in other joints is unknown, as is the use of local treatment, such as steroid injection to minimize inflammation, though both questions may be difficult to evaluate in a small prospective study.

Appropriate assessment of MSK symptoms and signs by dermatologists may lead to more appropriate referral to rheumatologists. MSUS is being increasingly explored for early identification of PsA. A handheld, chip-based ultrasound device (HHUD) is a novel promising instrument that can be easily implemented in clinical practice. In a prospective study including 140 patients with psoriasis who presented to dermatologists with arthralgia. Grobelski and colleagues screened for PsA using medical history, CE, and the German Psoriasis Arthritis Diagnostic PsA screening questionnaire (GEPARD) paired with MSUS examination of up to three painful joints by trained dermatologists. Nineteen patients (13.6%) were diagnosed with PsA by rheumatologists. Interestingly, in 45 of the 46 patients the preliminary diagnosis of PsA was revised to "no PsA" after MSUS. The addition of MSUS changed the sensitivity and specificity of early PsA screening strategy from 88.2% and 54.4% to 70.6% and 90.4%, respectively. The positive predictive value increased to 56.5% from 25.4% after MSUS. Thus, the use of a quick MSUS using HHUD may lead to more accurate referral to rheumatologists. The challenge is seamless integration of MSUS into busy dermatology practices.

The goal of PsA treatment is to achieve a state of remission or low disease activity. Criteria for minimal disease activity (MDA) have been established. Achieving MDA leads to better health-related quality of life (HRQOL), as well as less joint damage. In a prospective cohort study that included 240 patients with newly diagnosed disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-naive PsA, Snoeck Henkemans and colleagues demonstrate that failure to achieve MDA in the first year after the diagnosis of PsA was associated with worse HRQOL and health status, functional impairment, fatigue, pain, and higher anxiety and depression. Compared with patients who achieved sustained MDA in the first year after diagnosis, those who did not achieve MDA had higher scores for pain, fatigue, and functional ability and higher anxiety and depression during follow-up, which persisted despite treatment intensification. Thus, implementation of treat-to-target strategies with the aim of achieving sustained MDA within 1 year of diagnosis is likely to have better long-term benefits in this lifelong disease.

Another study emphasized the need for early treatment to improve long-term outcomes. In a post hoc analysis of two phase 3 trials including 1554 patients with PsA who received 300-mg or 150-mg secukinumab with or without a loading dose, Mease and colleagues showed that high baseline radiographic damage reduced the likelihood of achieving MDA.

Overall, these studies indicate that early diagnosis and treatment prior to developing joint damage with the aim to achieve sustained MDA within a year will lead to better long-term outcome for patients with PsA.

Appropriate assessment of MSK symptoms and signs by dermatologists may lead to more appropriate referral to rheumatologists. MSUS is being increasingly explored for early identification of PsA. A handheld, chip-based ultrasound device (HHUD) is a novel promising instrument that can be easily implemented in clinical practice. In a prospective study including 140 patients with psoriasis who presented to dermatologists with arthralgia. Grobelski and colleagues screened for PsA using medical history, CE, and the German Psoriasis Arthritis Diagnostic PsA screening questionnaire (GEPARD) paired with MSUS examination of up to three painful joints by trained dermatologists. Nineteen patients (13.6%) were diagnosed with PsA by rheumatologists. Interestingly, in 45 of the 46 patients the preliminary diagnosis of PsA was revised to "no PsA" after MSUS. The addition of MSUS changed the sensitivity and specificity of early PsA screening strategy from 88.2% and 54.4% to 70.6% and 90.4%, respectively. The positive predictive value increased to 56.5% from 25.4% after MSUS. Thus, the use of a quick MSUS using HHUD may lead to more accurate referral to rheumatologists. The challenge is seamless integration of MSUS into busy dermatology practices.

The goal of PsA treatment is to achieve a state of remission or low disease activity. Criteria for minimal disease activity (MDA) have been established. Achieving MDA leads to better health-related quality of life (HRQOL), as well as less joint damage. In a prospective cohort study that included 240 patients with newly diagnosed disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-naive PsA, Snoeck Henkemans and colleagues demonstrate that failure to achieve MDA in the first year after the diagnosis of PsA was associated with worse HRQOL and health status, functional impairment, fatigue, pain, and higher anxiety and depression. Compared with patients who achieved sustained MDA in the first year after diagnosis, those who did not achieve MDA had higher scores for pain, fatigue, and functional ability and higher anxiety and depression during follow-up, which persisted despite treatment intensification. Thus, implementation of treat-to-target strategies with the aim of achieving sustained MDA within 1 year of diagnosis is likely to have better long-term benefits in this lifelong disease.

Another study emphasized the need for early treatment to improve long-term outcomes. In a post hoc analysis of two phase 3 trials including 1554 patients with PsA who received 300-mg or 150-mg secukinumab with or without a loading dose, Mease and colleagues showed that high baseline radiographic damage reduced the likelihood of achieving MDA.

Overall, these studies indicate that early diagnosis and treatment prior to developing joint damage with the aim to achieve sustained MDA within a year will lead to better long-term outcome for patients with PsA.

Appropriate assessment of MSK symptoms and signs by dermatologists may lead to more appropriate referral to rheumatologists. MSUS is being increasingly explored for early identification of PsA. A handheld, chip-based ultrasound device (HHUD) is a novel promising instrument that can be easily implemented in clinical practice. In a prospective study including 140 patients with psoriasis who presented to dermatologists with arthralgia. Grobelski and colleagues screened for PsA using medical history, CE, and the German Psoriasis Arthritis Diagnostic PsA screening questionnaire (GEPARD) paired with MSUS examination of up to three painful joints by trained dermatologists. Nineteen patients (13.6%) were diagnosed with PsA by rheumatologists. Interestingly, in 45 of the 46 patients the preliminary diagnosis of PsA was revised to "no PsA" after MSUS. The addition of MSUS changed the sensitivity and specificity of early PsA screening strategy from 88.2% and 54.4% to 70.6% and 90.4%, respectively. The positive predictive value increased to 56.5% from 25.4% after MSUS. Thus, the use of a quick MSUS using HHUD may lead to more accurate referral to rheumatologists. The challenge is seamless integration of MSUS into busy dermatology practices.

The goal of PsA treatment is to achieve a state of remission or low disease activity. Criteria for minimal disease activity (MDA) have been established. Achieving MDA leads to better health-related quality of life (HRQOL), as well as less joint damage. In a prospective cohort study that included 240 patients with newly diagnosed disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-naive PsA, Snoeck Henkemans and colleagues demonstrate that failure to achieve MDA in the first year after the diagnosis of PsA was associated with worse HRQOL and health status, functional impairment, fatigue, pain, and higher anxiety and depression. Compared with patients who achieved sustained MDA in the first year after diagnosis, those who did not achieve MDA had higher scores for pain, fatigue, and functional ability and higher anxiety and depression during follow-up, which persisted despite treatment intensification. Thus, implementation of treat-to-target strategies with the aim of achieving sustained MDA within 1 year of diagnosis is likely to have better long-term benefits in this lifelong disease.

Another study emphasized the need for early treatment to improve long-term outcomes. In a post hoc analysis of two phase 3 trials including 1554 patients with PsA who received 300-mg or 150-mg secukinumab with or without a loading dose, Mease and colleagues showed that high baseline radiographic damage reduced the likelihood of achieving MDA.

Overall, these studies indicate that early diagnosis and treatment prior to developing joint damage with the aim to achieve sustained MDA within a year will lead to better long-term outcome for patients with PsA.

The elevated risk for recurrence in young women with HR+ early breast cancer highlights the importance of aggressive endocrine therapy in the majority of patients in this population. Examples of approaches to maximize endocrine therapy benefit include the addition of ovarian suppression to either tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor (AI) as well as an extended duration of adjuvant endocrine therapy.^4,5 Among 3047 premenopausal women included in SOFT study, at 12 years follow-up, the addition of ovarian function suppression (OFS) to tamoxifen significantly improved disease-free survival (DFS) compared with tamoxifen alone (hazard ratio 0.82; P = .03) with a more pronounced DFS benefit with exemestane plus OFS compared with tamoxifen (hazard ratio 0.69) (Francis et al). In the HER2- subgroup, those who received prior chemotherapy had 12-year OFS rates of 78.8% with tamoxifen, 81.1% with tamoxifen plus OFS and 84.4% with exemestane plus OFS. Furthermore, in the HER2- subgroup, women younger than 35 years had absolute improvements in 12-year OS of 9.1% with tamoxifen plus OFS and 16.5% with exemestane plus OFS compared with tamoxifen. These updated results provide further support for OFS added to tamoxifen or an AI (with more benefit seen with an AI) in the treatment of HR+ early breast cancer in young women who are at high risk for recurrence. Longer follow-up will be important to better define the treatment effect considering recurrence patterns for this subtype of breast cancer.

Various guidelines recommend the use of adjuvant bisphosphonates for postmenopausal patients with early breast cancer on the basis of disease-free and bone metastasis-free survival benefits.⁶ A regimen of zolendronic acid every 6 months for 3 years is commonly used in clinical practice. A substudy of ABCSG-12, including 725 premenopausal patients with HR+ early breast cancer on ovarian suppression randomly assigned to receive tamoxifen or anastrozole with or without zolendronic acid every 6 months, investigated the effect of shorter duration of bisphosphonate therapy on breast cancer outcomes (Beltran-Bless et al). After a median follow-up of 96 months, there was no statistically significant difference in DFS (hazard ratio 0.88; log-rank P = .642) or OS (stratified hazard ratio 1.16; log-rank P = .796) between patients who received ≤6 or ≥7 infusions. Rates of adverse events were increased in the patients who received ≥7 or ≤6 infusions (arthralgia, 20.1% vs 12.4%; nausea, 12.8% vs 7.3%; bone pain, 41.6% vs 34.9%). Modifications to adjuvant breast cancer regimens that can provide more ease for patients with less toxicity while maintaining efficacy are greatly desired to simultaneously support quality of life and disease outcomes.

Additional References

1. Swain SM, Baselga J, Kim SB, et al; for the CLEOPATRA Study Group. Pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:724-734. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1413513
2. Miles D, Ciruelos E, Schneeweiss A, et al; for the PERUSE investigators. Final results from the PERUSE study of first-line pertuzumab plus trastuzumab plus a taxane for HER2-positive locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer, with a multivariable approach to guide prognostication. Ann Oncol. 2021;32:1245-1255. Doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.06.024
3. Hua X, Bi X-W, Zhao J-L, et al; for the South China Breast Cancer Group (SCBCG). Trastuzumab plus endocrine therapy or chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with hormone receptor-positive and HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (SYSUCC-002). Clin Cancer Res. 2022;28:637-645. Doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-3435
4. Kim H-A, Lee JW, Nam SJ, et al; for the Korean Breast Cancer Study Group. Adding ovarian suppression to tamoxifen for premenopausal breast Cancer: a randomized phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:434-443. Doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00126
5. Davies C, Pan H, Godwin J, et al; for the Adjuvant Tamoxifen: Longer Against Shorter (ATLAS) Collaborative Group. Long-term effects of continuing adjuvant tamoxifen to 10 years versus stopping at 5 years after diagnosis of oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: ATLAS, a randomised trial. Lancet. 2013;381:805-816. Doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61963-1
6. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Adjuvant bisphosphonate treatment in early breast cancer: meta-analyses of individual patient data from randomised trials. Lancet. 2015;386:1353-1361. Doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60908-4

The elevated risk for recurrence in young women with HR+ early breast cancer highlights the importance of aggressive endocrine therapy in the majority of patients in this population. Examples of approaches to maximize endocrine therapy benefit include the addition of ovarian suppression to either tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor (AI) as well as an extended duration of adjuvant endocrine therapy.^4,5 Among 3047 premenopausal women included in SOFT study, at 12 years follow-up, the addition of ovarian function suppression (OFS) to tamoxifen significantly improved disease-free survival (DFS) compared with tamoxifen alone (hazard ratio 0.82; P = .03) with a more pronounced DFS benefit with exemestane plus OFS compared with tamoxifen (hazard ratio 0.69) (Francis et al). In the HER2- subgroup, those who received prior chemotherapy had 12-year OFS rates of 78.8% with tamoxifen, 81.1% with tamoxifen plus OFS and 84.4% with exemestane plus OFS. Furthermore, in the HER2- subgroup, women younger than 35 years had absolute improvements in 12-year OS of 9.1% with tamoxifen plus OFS and 16.5% with exemestane plus OFS compared with tamoxifen. These updated results provide further support for OFS added to tamoxifen or an AI (with more benefit seen with an AI) in the treatment of HR+ early breast cancer in young women who are at high risk for recurrence. Longer follow-up will be important to better define the treatment effect considering recurrence patterns for this subtype of breast cancer.

Various guidelines recommend the use of adjuvant bisphosphonates for postmenopausal patients with early breast cancer on the basis of disease-free and bone metastasis-free survival benefits.⁶ A regimen of zolendronic acid every 6 months for 3 years is commonly used in clinical practice. A substudy of ABCSG-12, including 725 premenopausal patients with HR+ early breast cancer on ovarian suppression randomly assigned to receive tamoxifen or anastrozole with or without zolendronic acid every 6 months, investigated the effect of shorter duration of bisphosphonate therapy on breast cancer outcomes (Beltran-Bless et al). After a median follow-up of 96 months, there was no statistically significant difference in DFS (hazard ratio 0.88; log-rank P = .642) or OS (stratified hazard ratio 1.16; log-rank P = .796) between patients who received ≤6 or ≥7 infusions. Rates of adverse events were increased in the patients who received ≥7 or ≤6 infusions (arthralgia, 20.1% vs 12.4%; nausea, 12.8% vs 7.3%; bone pain, 41.6% vs 34.9%). Modifications to adjuvant breast cancer regimens that can provide more ease for patients with less toxicity while maintaining efficacy are greatly desired to simultaneously support quality of life and disease outcomes.

Additional References

1. Swain SM, Baselga J, Kim SB, et al; for the CLEOPATRA Study Group. Pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:724-734. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1413513
2. Miles D, Ciruelos E, Schneeweiss A, et al; for the PERUSE investigators. Final results from the PERUSE study of first-line pertuzumab plus trastuzumab plus a taxane for HER2-positive locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer, with a multivariable approach to guide prognostication. Ann Oncol. 2021;32:1245-1255. Doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.06.024
3. Hua X, Bi X-W, Zhao J-L, et al; for the South China Breast Cancer Group (SCBCG). Trastuzumab plus endocrine therapy or chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with hormone receptor-positive and HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (SYSUCC-002). Clin Cancer Res. 2022;28:637-645. Doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-3435
4. Kim H-A, Lee JW, Nam SJ, et al; for the Korean Breast Cancer Study Group. Adding ovarian suppression to tamoxifen for premenopausal breast Cancer: a randomized phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:434-443. Doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00126
5. Davies C, Pan H, Godwin J, et al; for the Adjuvant Tamoxifen: Longer Against Shorter (ATLAS) Collaborative Group. Long-term effects of continuing adjuvant tamoxifen to 10 years versus stopping at 5 years after diagnosis of oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: ATLAS, a randomised trial. Lancet. 2013;381:805-816. Doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61963-1
6. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Adjuvant bisphosphonate treatment in early breast cancer: meta-analyses of individual patient data from randomised trials. Lancet. 2015;386:1353-1361. Doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60908-4

The elevated risk for recurrence in young women with HR+ early breast cancer highlights the importance of aggressive endocrine therapy in the majority of patients in this population. Examples of approaches to maximize endocrine therapy benefit include the addition of ovarian suppression to either tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor (AI) as well as an extended duration of adjuvant endocrine therapy.^4,5 Among 3047 premenopausal women included in SOFT study, at 12 years follow-up, the addition of ovarian function suppression (OFS) to tamoxifen significantly improved disease-free survival (DFS) compared with tamoxifen alone (hazard ratio 0.82; P = .03) with a more pronounced DFS benefit with exemestane plus OFS compared with tamoxifen (hazard ratio 0.69) (Francis et al). In the HER2- subgroup, those who received prior chemotherapy had 12-year OFS rates of 78.8% with tamoxifen, 81.1% with tamoxifen plus OFS and 84.4% with exemestane plus OFS. Furthermore, in the HER2- subgroup, women younger than 35 years had absolute improvements in 12-year OS of 9.1% with tamoxifen plus OFS and 16.5% with exemestane plus OFS compared with tamoxifen. These updated results provide further support for OFS added to tamoxifen or an AI (with more benefit seen with an AI) in the treatment of HR+ early breast cancer in young women who are at high risk for recurrence. Longer follow-up will be important to better define the treatment effect considering recurrence patterns for this subtype of breast cancer.

Various guidelines recommend the use of adjuvant bisphosphonates for postmenopausal patients with early breast cancer on the basis of disease-free and bone metastasis-free survival benefits.⁶ A regimen of zolendronic acid every 6 months for 3 years is commonly used in clinical practice. A substudy of ABCSG-12, including 725 premenopausal patients with HR+ early breast cancer on ovarian suppression randomly assigned to receive tamoxifen or anastrozole with or without zolendronic acid every 6 months, investigated the effect of shorter duration of bisphosphonate therapy on breast cancer outcomes (Beltran-Bless et al). After a median follow-up of 96 months, there was no statistically significant difference in DFS (hazard ratio 0.88; log-rank P = .642) or OS (stratified hazard ratio 1.16; log-rank P = .796) between patients who received ≤6 or ≥7 infusions. Rates of adverse events were increased in the patients who received ≥7 or ≤6 infusions (arthralgia, 20.1% vs 12.4%; nausea, 12.8% vs 7.3%; bone pain, 41.6% vs 34.9%). Modifications to adjuvant breast cancer regimens that can provide more ease for patients with less toxicity while maintaining efficacy are greatly desired to simultaneously support quality of life and disease outcomes.

Additional References

1. Swain SM, Baselga J, Kim SB, et al; for the CLEOPATRA Study Group. Pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:724-734. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1413513
2. Miles D, Ciruelos E, Schneeweiss A, et al; for the PERUSE investigators. Final results from the PERUSE study of first-line pertuzumab plus trastuzumab plus a taxane for HER2-positive locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer, with a multivariable approach to guide prognostication. Ann Oncol. 2021;32:1245-1255. Doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.06.024
3. Hua X, Bi X-W, Zhao J-L, et al; for the South China Breast Cancer Group (SCBCG). Trastuzumab plus endocrine therapy or chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with hormone receptor-positive and HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (SYSUCC-002). Clin Cancer Res. 2022;28:637-645. Doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-3435
4. Kim H-A, Lee JW, Nam SJ, et al; for the Korean Breast Cancer Study Group. Adding ovarian suppression to tamoxifen for premenopausal breast Cancer: a randomized phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:434-443. Doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00126
5. Davies C, Pan H, Godwin J, et al; for the Adjuvant Tamoxifen: Longer Against Shorter (ATLAS) Collaborative Group. Long-term effects of continuing adjuvant tamoxifen to 10 years versus stopping at 5 years after diagnosis of oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: ATLAS, a randomised trial. Lancet. 2013;381:805-816. Doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61963-1
6. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Adjuvant bisphosphonate treatment in early breast cancer: meta-analyses of individual patient data from randomised trials. Lancet. 2015;386:1353-1361. Doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60908-4

I love registries! With large numbers of participants, registries can be very helpful to identify rare side effects and to assess the efficacy and safety of medications in populations that may not be fully represented in clinical trials. I also love dupilumab; it was revolutionary in the management of patients with AD.

Vittrup and colleagues have created a registry of 347 participants treated with dupilumab. This does not yet have the large number of participants needed to identify new issues that wouldn't have been detected in clinical trials, but the study is informative about real-life use. The dramatic improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score is consistent with the high efficacy of dupilumab. The high rate of treatment persistence is also consistent with dupilumab being a very effective and safe treatment (because if the drug wasn't working well or was causing a severe problem, patients would probably stop the treatment). Though the study reported persistent head and neck involvement, the residual involvement may be quite minimal.

The EASI-75 and Investigator Global Assessment response rates reported in dupilumab trials underestimate the value of this drug. With a 2-year persistence rate of nearly 90%, it's clear that dupilumab is making a huge difference in the lives of patients with AD.

Fatigue is a fascinating issue in AD. We might wonder if all the inflammation in patients with AD would directly cause fatigue. Almost certainly all the itching in AD adversely affects sleep and would cause tremendous fatigue. It surprised me that most of the children in the study by Rangel and colleagues were reported as having no or mild fatigue; severe fatigue was very uncommon. It leaves me wondering whether the assessments of fatigue fully capture what's happening. Also, since the fatigue score was reported by the parents, I (as the parent of a child with AD) am wondering whether the parents were projecting, with the score more reflective of the parents' fatigue than with that of the child; alternatively, perhaps the child's hyperactivity leaves parents thinking there is no fatigue when there actually is (and possibly even causing the perceived hyperactivity).

The lack of a control group without AD is another major limitation in our ability to interpret the study findings. Is fatigue more common or less common in children with AD than in children without AD? I cannot tell from these findings. Does fatigue warrant, as the authors suggest, more attention in clinical practice? I don't know. If we are already treating our patients based on patients' global impressions of how they are doing — combined, of course, with our observations of their objective disease severity — I'm not sure how asking about fatigue would change anything, even if future studies were to definitively show that AD is associated with fatigue.

I hate new drugs (well, maybe not hate, but I worry about unknown long-term risks). Clinical trials that help a drug get approved can tell us a lot about a drug's efficacy, but these studies are generally limited in what they tell us about a drug's safety. Clinical trials are generally not powered enough (not enough participants and not followed for long enough) to be informative about rare risks. I love long-term studies of new drugs in large numbers of people because those studies can be very reassuring about the risks of medications. Studying nearly 10,000 patients for 5 years is quite reassuring, confirming my impression that dupilumab has a remarkable, excellent safety profile (Owji et al). Blocking interleukin 4 and interleukin 13 seems to be very specific to AD. Finding no association to cancer is what I would have expected; being able to share this information with patients is likely to be reassuring to them.

Oh, lord help me, another study that claims we should change our disease management because they've identified an increased risk for something. When you compare 70,000 patients with 270,000 controls, you have huge power to detect statistically significant associations of no clinical consequence. Let's assume for the moment that the detected association the authors found between AD and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is real. The odds ratio is 2; the odds ratio for smoking causing cancer is on the order of 100.

In this study, over 99% of individuals in both AD and control groups did not have JIA. The difference between rates of JIA in patients with AD compared with controls was 0.3%! The authors conclude "it is important to inquire actively about symptoms not directly linked to the patients' skin disease"; based on the findings of this study, I would conclude that we don't need to worry about JIA in patients with AD even if there is a (marginally) higher prevalence of JIA in this group.

I love registries! With large numbers of participants, registries can be very helpful to identify rare side effects and to assess the efficacy and safety of medications in populations that may not be fully represented in clinical trials. I also love dupilumab; it was revolutionary in the management of patients with AD.

Vittrup and colleagues have created a registry of 347 participants treated with dupilumab. This does not yet have the large number of participants needed to identify new issues that wouldn't have been detected in clinical trials, but the study is informative about real-life use. The dramatic improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score is consistent with the high efficacy of dupilumab. The high rate of treatment persistence is also consistent with dupilumab being a very effective and safe treatment (because if the drug wasn't working well or was causing a severe problem, patients would probably stop the treatment). Though the study reported persistent head and neck involvement, the residual involvement may be quite minimal.

The EASI-75 and Investigator Global Assessment response rates reported in dupilumab trials underestimate the value of this drug. With a 2-year persistence rate of nearly 90%, it's clear that dupilumab is making a huge difference in the lives of patients with AD.

Fatigue is a fascinating issue in AD. We might wonder if all the inflammation in patients with AD would directly cause fatigue. Almost certainly all the itching in AD adversely affects sleep and would cause tremendous fatigue. It surprised me that most of the children in the study by Rangel and colleagues were reported as having no or mild fatigue; severe fatigue was very uncommon. It leaves me wondering whether the assessments of fatigue fully capture what's happening. Also, since the fatigue score was reported by the parents, I (as the parent of a child with AD) am wondering whether the parents were projecting, with the score more reflective of the parents' fatigue than with that of the child; alternatively, perhaps the child's hyperactivity leaves parents thinking there is no fatigue when there actually is (and possibly even causing the perceived hyperactivity).

The lack of a control group without AD is another major limitation in our ability to interpret the study findings. Is fatigue more common or less common in children with AD than in children without AD? I cannot tell from these findings. Does fatigue warrant, as the authors suggest, more attention in clinical practice? I don't know. If we are already treating our patients based on patients' global impressions of how they are doing — combined, of course, with our observations of their objective disease severity — I'm not sure how asking about fatigue would change anything, even if future studies were to definitively show that AD is associated with fatigue.

I hate new drugs (well, maybe not hate, but I worry about unknown long-term risks). Clinical trials that help a drug get approved can tell us a lot about a drug's efficacy, but these studies are generally limited in what they tell us about a drug's safety. Clinical trials are generally not powered enough (not enough participants and not followed for long enough) to be informative about rare risks. I love long-term studies of new drugs in large numbers of people because those studies can be very reassuring about the risks of medications. Studying nearly 10,000 patients for 5 years is quite reassuring, confirming my impression that dupilumab has a remarkable, excellent safety profile (Owji et al). Blocking interleukin 4 and interleukin 13 seems to be very specific to AD. Finding no association to cancer is what I would have expected; being able to share this information with patients is likely to be reassuring to them.

Oh, lord help me, another study that claims we should change our disease management because they've identified an increased risk for something. When you compare 70,000 patients with 270,000 controls, you have huge power to detect statistically significant associations of no clinical consequence. Let's assume for the moment that the detected association the authors found between AD and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is real. The odds ratio is 2; the odds ratio for smoking causing cancer is on the order of 100.

In this study, over 99% of individuals in both AD and control groups did not have JIA. The difference between rates of JIA in patients with AD compared with controls was 0.3%! The authors conclude "it is important to inquire actively about symptoms not directly linked to the patients' skin disease"; based on the findings of this study, I would conclude that we don't need to worry about JIA in patients with AD even if there is a (marginally) higher prevalence of JIA in this group.

I love registries! With large numbers of participants, registries can be very helpful to identify rare side effects and to assess the efficacy and safety of medications in populations that may not be fully represented in clinical trials. I also love dupilumab; it was revolutionary in the management of patients with AD.

Vittrup and colleagues have created a registry of 347 participants treated with dupilumab. This does not yet have the large number of participants needed to identify new issues that wouldn't have been detected in clinical trials, but the study is informative about real-life use. The dramatic improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score is consistent with the high efficacy of dupilumab. The high rate of treatment persistence is also consistent with dupilumab being a very effective and safe treatment (because if the drug wasn't working well or was causing a severe problem, patients would probably stop the treatment). Though the study reported persistent head and neck involvement, the residual involvement may be quite minimal.

The EASI-75 and Investigator Global Assessment response rates reported in dupilumab trials underestimate the value of this drug. With a 2-year persistence rate of nearly 90%, it's clear that dupilumab is making a huge difference in the lives of patients with AD.

Fatigue is a fascinating issue in AD. We might wonder if all the inflammation in patients with AD would directly cause fatigue. Almost certainly all the itching in AD adversely affects sleep and would cause tremendous fatigue. It surprised me that most of the children in the study by Rangel and colleagues were reported as having no or mild fatigue; severe fatigue was very uncommon. It leaves me wondering whether the assessments of fatigue fully capture what's happening. Also, since the fatigue score was reported by the parents, I (as the parent of a child with AD) am wondering whether the parents were projecting, with the score more reflective of the parents' fatigue than with that of the child; alternatively, perhaps the child's hyperactivity leaves parents thinking there is no fatigue when there actually is (and possibly even causing the perceived hyperactivity).

The lack of a control group without AD is another major limitation in our ability to interpret the study findings. Is fatigue more common or less common in children with AD than in children without AD? I cannot tell from these findings. Does fatigue warrant, as the authors suggest, more attention in clinical practice? I don't know. If we are already treating our patients based on patients' global impressions of how they are doing — combined, of course, with our observations of their objective disease severity — I'm not sure how asking about fatigue would change anything, even if future studies were to definitively show that AD is associated with fatigue.

I hate new drugs (well, maybe not hate, but I worry about unknown long-term risks). Clinical trials that help a drug get approved can tell us a lot about a drug's efficacy, but these studies are generally limited in what they tell us about a drug's safety. Clinical trials are generally not powered enough (not enough participants and not followed for long enough) to be informative about rare risks. I love long-term studies of new drugs in large numbers of people because those studies can be very reassuring about the risks of medications. Studying nearly 10,000 patients for 5 years is quite reassuring, confirming my impression that dupilumab has a remarkable, excellent safety profile (Owji et al). Blocking interleukin 4 and interleukin 13 seems to be very specific to AD. Finding no association to cancer is what I would have expected; being able to share this information with patients is likely to be reassuring to them.

Oh, lord help me, another study that claims we should change our disease management because they've identified an increased risk for something. When you compare 70,000 patients with 270,000 controls, you have huge power to detect statistically significant associations of no clinical consequence. Let's assume for the moment that the detected association the authors found between AD and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is real. The odds ratio is 2; the odds ratio for smoking causing cancer is on the order of 100.

In this study, over 99% of individuals in both AD and control groups did not have JIA. The difference between rates of JIA in patients with AD compared with controls was 0.3%! The authors conclude "it is important to inquire actively about symptoms not directly linked to the patients' skin disease"; based on the findings of this study, I would conclude that we don't need to worry about JIA in patients with AD even if there is a (marginally) higher prevalence of JIA in this group.

Though rheumatoid arthritis (RA)–associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) is a feared complication that can significantly affect morbidity and mortality, the role of methotrexate in treatment and its possible contribution to ILD is yet unknown. Kim and colleagues performed a retrospective analysis of a series of 170 patients with RA-ILD to try to identify risk factors and protective factors for mortality and decline of lung function. Previously known risk factors included older age, smoking, and seropositivity for cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP). In this series, patients who had exposure to methotrexate after a diagnosis of RA-ILD were found to have less progression of decline in lung function and decreased mortality compared with those who did not, which is a finding that warrants further examination. On the other hand, there was a suggestion that sulfasalazine use is associated with increased mortality, though this finding was not borne out in multivariate analysis.

A different group of authors also examined the association with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) with ILD progression in a prospective analysis of 143 patients in the multicenter Korean RA-ILD cohort. Patients were classified regarding exposure to methotrexate, leflunomide, or tacrolimus as well as biologic DMARD and glucocorticoid exposure, with a primary outcome of ILD progression based on pulmonary function tests or mortality. The study did not detect any difference in time to ILD progression with methotrexate exposure, though it is not clear that the study would be able to detect a protective effect as was possible in the prior study. However, patients who were exposed to leflunomide had a shorter time to ILD progression than did those who were not, though this did not persist in multivariate analysis, and tacrolimus exposure had a statistically insignificant impact on ILD progression. Because the study is small, other associations which could affect use of leflunomide in these patients were not examined, though prior studies have suggested an association with leflunomide in ILD progression in patients with existing RA-ILD.

Li and colleagues addressed the characteristics and prognosis of late-onset RA (LORA) in people 60 years or older compared with younger-onset RA (YORA) in a prospective cohort study using a Canadian RA registry. Patients in the registry were enrolled early in the course of their illness and clinical characteristics as well as time to Disease Activity Score (DAS28) remission were analyzed. Of note, YORA and LORA patients had similar times to remission but were on less aggressive medication regimens, such as conventional DMARD without biologic DMARD or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. In this registry, a smaller percentage of LORA patients compared with YORA patients were seropositive, which, given the enrollment of patients early in their disease course, may affect the use of biologic DMARD and JAK inhibitors.

Finally, the issue of noninflammatory pain contributing to disease activity and quality of life in RA has received increased scrutiny recently. Choy and colleagues studied disproportionate articular pain (DP) and its response to sarilumab, adalimumab, or placebo in a post hoc analysis of data from prior randomized clinical trials. DP was defined as a tender joint count that exceeded swollen joint count by seven and was present in about 20% of patients in the three randomized clinical trials examined. In these studies, DP was reduced in patients treated with sarilumab compared with placebo or adalimumab. Although this finding is exciting in raising the possibility of an immunologic explanation for DP via interleukin 6 (IL-6), the results should be considered carefully in the context of this post hoc analysis, especially before considering sarilumab or other IL-6 inhibitors as viable treatment options for DP in RA.

Though rheumatoid arthritis (RA)–associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) is a feared complication that can significantly affect morbidity and mortality, the role of methotrexate in treatment and its possible contribution to ILD is yet unknown. Kim and colleagues performed a retrospective analysis of a series of 170 patients with RA-ILD to try to identify risk factors and protective factors for mortality and decline of lung function. Previously known risk factors included older age, smoking, and seropositivity for cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP). In this series, patients who had exposure to methotrexate after a diagnosis of RA-ILD were found to have less progression of decline in lung function and decreased mortality compared with those who did not, which is a finding that warrants further examination. On the other hand, there was a suggestion that sulfasalazine use is associated with increased mortality, though this finding was not borne out in multivariate analysis.

A different group of authors also examined the association with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) with ILD progression in a prospective analysis of 143 patients in the multicenter Korean RA-ILD cohort. Patients were classified regarding exposure to methotrexate, leflunomide, or tacrolimus as well as biologic DMARD and glucocorticoid exposure, with a primary outcome of ILD progression based on pulmonary function tests or mortality. The study did not detect any difference in time to ILD progression with methotrexate exposure, though it is not clear that the study would be able to detect a protective effect as was possible in the prior study. However, patients who were exposed to leflunomide had a shorter time to ILD progression than did those who were not, though this did not persist in multivariate analysis, and tacrolimus exposure had a statistically insignificant impact on ILD progression. Because the study is small, other associations which could affect use of leflunomide in these patients were not examined, though prior studies have suggested an association with leflunomide in ILD progression in patients with existing RA-ILD.

Li and colleagues addressed the characteristics and prognosis of late-onset RA (LORA) in people 60 years or older compared with younger-onset RA (YORA) in a prospective cohort study using a Canadian RA registry. Patients in the registry were enrolled early in the course of their illness and clinical characteristics as well as time to Disease Activity Score (DAS28) remission were analyzed. Of note, YORA and LORA patients had similar times to remission but were on less aggressive medication regimens, such as conventional DMARD without biologic DMARD or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. In this registry, a smaller percentage of LORA patients compared with YORA patients were seropositive, which, given the enrollment of patients early in their disease course, may affect the use of biologic DMARD and JAK inhibitors.

Finally, the issue of noninflammatory pain contributing to disease activity and quality of life in RA has received increased scrutiny recently. Choy and colleagues studied disproportionate articular pain (DP) and its response to sarilumab, adalimumab, or placebo in a post hoc analysis of data from prior randomized clinical trials. DP was defined as a tender joint count that exceeded swollen joint count by seven and was present in about 20% of patients in the three randomized clinical trials examined. In these studies, DP was reduced in patients treated with sarilumab compared with placebo or adalimumab. Although this finding is exciting in raising the possibility of an immunologic explanation for DP via interleukin 6 (IL-6), the results should be considered carefully in the context of this post hoc analysis, especially before considering sarilumab or other IL-6 inhibitors as viable treatment options for DP in RA.

Though rheumatoid arthritis (RA)–associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) is a feared complication that can significantly affect morbidity and mortality, the role of methotrexate in treatment and its possible contribution to ILD is yet unknown. Kim and colleagues performed a retrospective analysis of a series of 170 patients with RA-ILD to try to identify risk factors and protective factors for mortality and decline of lung function. Previously known risk factors included older age, smoking, and seropositivity for cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP). In this series, patients who had exposure to methotrexate after a diagnosis of RA-ILD were found to have less progression of decline in lung function and decreased mortality compared with those who did not, which is a finding that warrants further examination. On the other hand, there was a suggestion that sulfasalazine use is associated with increased mortality, though this finding was not borne out in multivariate analysis.

A different group of authors also examined the association with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) with ILD progression in a prospective analysis of 143 patients in the multicenter Korean RA-ILD cohort. Patients were classified regarding exposure to methotrexate, leflunomide, or tacrolimus as well as biologic DMARD and glucocorticoid exposure, with a primary outcome of ILD progression based on pulmonary function tests or mortality. The study did not detect any difference in time to ILD progression with methotrexate exposure, though it is not clear that the study would be able to detect a protective effect as was possible in the prior study. However, patients who were exposed to leflunomide had a shorter time to ILD progression than did those who were not, though this did not persist in multivariate analysis, and tacrolimus exposure had a statistically insignificant impact on ILD progression. Because the study is small, other associations which could affect use of leflunomide in these patients were not examined, though prior studies have suggested an association with leflunomide in ILD progression in patients with existing RA-ILD.

Li and colleagues addressed the characteristics and prognosis of late-onset RA (LORA) in people 60 years or older compared with younger-onset RA (YORA) in a prospective cohort study using a Canadian RA registry. Patients in the registry were enrolled early in the course of their illness and clinical characteristics as well as time to Disease Activity Score (DAS28) remission were analyzed. Of note, YORA and LORA patients had similar times to remission but were on less aggressive medication regimens, such as conventional DMARD without biologic DMARD or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. In this registry, a smaller percentage of LORA patients compared with YORA patients were seropositive, which, given the enrollment of patients early in their disease course, may affect the use of biologic DMARD and JAK inhibitors.

Finally, the issue of noninflammatory pain contributing to disease activity and quality of life in RA has received increased scrutiny recently. Choy and colleagues studied disproportionate articular pain (DP) and its response to sarilumab, adalimumab, or placebo in a post hoc analysis of data from prior randomized clinical trials. DP was defined as a tender joint count that exceeded swollen joint count by seven and was present in about 20% of patients in the three randomized clinical trials examined. In these studies, DP was reduced in patients treated with sarilumab compared with placebo or adalimumab. Although this finding is exciting in raising the possibility of an immunologic explanation for DP via interleukin 6 (IL-6), the results should be considered carefully in the context of this post hoc analysis, especially before considering sarilumab or other IL-6 inhibitors as viable treatment options for DP in RA.

When I hear about a new drug for inflammatory skin disease that has a novel target, the first thing I do is Google what happens when you have a deficiency in that pathway. For OX40, the first thing that comes up is "inherited human OX40 deficiency underlying classic Kaposi sarcoma of childhood."¹ That doesn't make this target seem appealing to me. While I might use a new drug targeting this pathway if other options fail, drugs targeting this pathway would not be my first choice, even if clinical trial safety data looked good. Clinical trials are powered to assess efficacy and common safety issues but tend not to be large enough to fully characterize rare risks.

Black box warnings on topical calcineurin inhibitors seem dumb to me. I think black box warnings on topical calcineurin inhibitors would be truly ridiculous, even laughable, except that laughing is not appropriate because these misguided warnings may be hurting our patients. These black box warnings on topical calcineurin inhibitors may exemplify the limitations of governmental bureaucracies. There doesn't seem to be a strong rationale for why these black box warnings were placed on topical calcineurin inhibitors initially. Why regulators haven't removed these black box warnings since then is baffling, as topical calcineurin inhibitors are considerably safer for patients than the alternative, topical corticosteroids. We have good evidence that topical calcineurin inhibitors do not cause cancer in our patients. The continued presence of black box warnings on these products may undermine the credibility of FDA-mandated black box warnings on other products.

Hedderson and colleagues state, in a study of cardiovascular events and atopic dermatitis, "VTE [venous thromboembolism] and DVT [deep vein thrombosis] IRs [incidence rates] were markedly higher in this study than have been observed in the general US adult population (VTE: 2.0 [current study] vs. 1.1; DVT: 1.6 [current study] vs. 0.66 per 1000 person-years." I think that's misleading. The difference of only 1 in 1000 doesn't seem like a markedly higher rate to me and it's also unlikely to be clinically meaningful. Even if there is some increased relative risk of some type of cardiovascular event, even if the rate is doubled, that doesn't mean we need to screen or intervene. We need to be mindful of the absolute risks and not be moved by relative risks. We need to see cost-effectiveness studies showing that an intervention is valuable before we conclude that we should be doing some screening or intervention to chase down and increase the relative risk for some potential adverse event.

Additional Reference

1. Byun M, Ma CS, Akçay A et al. Inherited human OX40 deficiency underlying classic Kaposi sarcoma of childhood. J Exp Med. 2013;210(9):1743–1759. Doi: 10.1084/jem.20130592

When I hear about a new drug for inflammatory skin disease that has a novel target, the first thing I do is Google what happens when you have a deficiency in that pathway. For OX40, the first thing that comes up is "inherited human OX40 deficiency underlying classic Kaposi sarcoma of childhood."¹ That doesn't make this target seem appealing to me. While I might use a new drug targeting this pathway if other options fail, drugs targeting this pathway would not be my first choice, even if clinical trial safety data looked good. Clinical trials are powered to assess efficacy and common safety issues but tend not to be large enough to fully characterize rare risks.

Black box warnings on topical calcineurin inhibitors seem dumb to me. I think black box warnings on topical calcineurin inhibitors would be truly ridiculous, even laughable, except that laughing is not appropriate because these misguided warnings may be hurting our patients. These black box warnings on topical calcineurin inhibitors may exemplify the limitations of governmental bureaucracies. There doesn't seem to be a strong rationale for why these black box warnings were placed on topical calcineurin inhibitors initially. Why regulators haven't removed these black box warnings since then is baffling, as topical calcineurin inhibitors are considerably safer for patients than the alternative, topical corticosteroids. We have good evidence that topical calcineurin inhibitors do not cause cancer in our patients. The continued presence of black box warnings on these products may undermine the credibility of FDA-mandated black box warnings on other products.

Hedderson and colleagues state, in a study of cardiovascular events and atopic dermatitis, "VTE [venous thromboembolism] and DVT [deep vein thrombosis] IRs [incidence rates] were markedly higher in this study than have been observed in the general US adult population (VTE: 2.0 [current study] vs. 1.1; DVT: 1.6 [current study] vs. 0.66 per 1000 person-years." I think that's misleading. The difference of only 1 in 1000 doesn't seem like a markedly higher rate to me and it's also unlikely to be clinically meaningful. Even if there is some increased relative risk of some type of cardiovascular event, even if the rate is doubled, that doesn't mean we need to screen or intervene. We need to be mindful of the absolute risks and not be moved by relative risks. We need to see cost-effectiveness studies showing that an intervention is valuable before we conclude that we should be doing some screening or intervention to chase down and increase the relative risk for some potential adverse event.

Additional Reference

1. Byun M, Ma CS, Akçay A et al. Inherited human OX40 deficiency underlying classic Kaposi sarcoma of childhood. J Exp Med. 2013;210(9):1743–1759. Doi: 10.1084/jem.20130592

When I hear about a new drug for inflammatory skin disease that has a novel target, the first thing I do is Google what happens when you have a deficiency in that pathway. For OX40, the first thing that comes up is "inherited human OX40 deficiency underlying classic Kaposi sarcoma of childhood."¹ That doesn't make this target seem appealing to me. While I might use a new drug targeting this pathway if other options fail, drugs targeting this pathway would not be my first choice, even if clinical trial safety data looked good. Clinical trials are powered to assess efficacy and common safety issues but tend not to be large enough to fully characterize rare risks.

Black box warnings on topical calcineurin inhibitors seem dumb to me. I think black box warnings on topical calcineurin inhibitors would be truly ridiculous, even laughable, except that laughing is not appropriate because these misguided warnings may be hurting our patients. These black box warnings on topical calcineurin inhibitors may exemplify the limitations of governmental bureaucracies. There doesn't seem to be a strong rationale for why these black box warnings were placed on topical calcineurin inhibitors initially. Why regulators haven't removed these black box warnings since then is baffling, as topical calcineurin inhibitors are considerably safer for patients than the alternative, topical corticosteroids. We have good evidence that topical calcineurin inhibitors do not cause cancer in our patients. The continued presence of black box warnings on these products may undermine the credibility of FDA-mandated black box warnings on other products.

Hedderson and colleagues state, in a study of cardiovascular events and atopic dermatitis, "VTE [venous thromboembolism] and DVT [deep vein thrombosis] IRs [incidence rates] were markedly higher in this study than have been observed in the general US adult population (VTE: 2.0 [current study] vs. 1.1; DVT: 1.6 [current study] vs. 0.66 per 1000 person-years." I think that's misleading. The difference of only 1 in 1000 doesn't seem like a markedly higher rate to me and it's also unlikely to be clinically meaningful. Even if there is some increased relative risk of some type of cardiovascular event, even if the rate is doubled, that doesn't mean we need to screen or intervene. We need to be mindful of the absolute risks and not be moved by relative risks. We need to see cost-effectiveness studies showing that an intervention is valuable before we conclude that we should be doing some screening or intervention to chase down and increase the relative risk for some potential adverse event.

Additional Reference

1. Byun M, Ma CS, Akçay A et al. Inherited human OX40 deficiency underlying classic Kaposi sarcoma of childhood. J Exp Med. 2013;210(9):1743–1759. Doi: 10.1084/jem.20130592

Two new papers published recently provide evidence of the efficacy and safety of bimekizumab in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Bimekizumab is a novel bispecific monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F and is already approved for the treatment of chronic plaque psoriasis. McInnes and colleagues reported the results of the phase 3 BE OPTIMAL study, which included 852 patients with active PsA who were naive to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) and were randomly assigned to receive bimekizumab, placebo, or adalimumab. At week 16, a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving bimekizumab vs placebo achieved ≥ 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response (ACR50; 44% vs 10%; odds ratio [OR] 7.1; P < .0001). Compared with placebo, significant improvements were also noted in psoriasis, enthesitis, and dactylitis in the bimekizumab group and there was less progression of radiographic damage.

Bimekizumab was also demonstrated to be beneficial in PsA patients with inadequate response or intolerance to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi). In the phase 3 BE COMPLETE study, which included 400 patients with active PsA and previous inadequate response or intolerance to TNFi, patients were randomly assigned to receive 160 mg subcutaneous bimekizumab every 4 weeks or placebo. Merola and colleagues reported that at week 16, a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving bimekizumab vs placebo achieved ACR50 response (43% vs 7%; OR 11.1; P < .0001). Thus, bimekizumab is a welcome addition to the treatment portfolio we have for PsA. In regard to side effects of special concern when inhibiting IL-17, bimekizumab was associated with higher risk for oral and genital candidiasis, occurring in 4% of the treated patients within 16 weeks in the two studies; however, no cases of systemic fungal infections occurred. The incidence of inflammatory bowel disease was also very low, but head-to-head studies against other available agents would be required to help rheumatologists decide the place of bimekizumab in PsA management.

A common clinical question is whether axial PsA is similar to ankylosing spondylitis (AS) with psoriasis. Assuming that it is, clinicians have used treatments approved for AS for managing axial PsA. Recent studies have questioned this assumption, however. Michelena and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional study that included 109 patients with axial PsA and 127 patients with AS and psoriasis from the REGISPONSER registry. Compared with patients with AS and psoriasis, patients with human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-B27–negative axial PsA had less inflammatory pain (P = .002), anterior uveitis (P = .014), and structural damage (P < .001), along with a higher prevalence of nail disease (P = .009). Patients with HLA-B27–positive axial PsA vs AS and psoriasis were similar but had less structural damage to the spine (P < .001). Thus, there seem to be significant clinical and genetic differences between these two diseases that require further investigation. Lack of an accepted definition of axial PsA, however, is a hindrance to multiple high-quality genetic, clinical, and interventional studies comparing axial PsA and AS with psoriasis.

Observational studies have recognized the clinical and familial association between psoriatic disease and Crohn's disease (CD), but such cross-sectional or retrospective studies cannot identify causal relationships. Mendelian randomization is a method used to identify causal relationships. Using this method, Sun and colleagues demonstrated that PsA was associated with a 31.9% increased risk for CD (P < .001) and genetically predicted CD was linked to a 44.8% higher risk for PsA (P = .001). No such association was found with ulcerative colitis. Thus, there is a bidirectional causal relationship between the two diseases. Patients with PsA should be evaluated for symptoms of CD, and those with CD for psoriatic disease, to facilitate early diagnosis and better long-term outcomes.

Two new papers published recently provide evidence of the efficacy and safety of bimekizumab in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Bimekizumab is a novel bispecific monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F and is already approved for the treatment of chronic plaque psoriasis. McInnes and colleagues reported the results of the phase 3 BE OPTIMAL study, which included 852 patients with active PsA who were naive to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) and were randomly assigned to receive bimekizumab, placebo, or adalimumab. At week 16, a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving bimekizumab vs placebo achieved ≥ 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response (ACR50; 44% vs 10%; odds ratio [OR] 7.1; P < .0001). Compared with placebo, significant improvements were also noted in psoriasis, enthesitis, and dactylitis in the bimekizumab group and there was less progression of radiographic damage.

Bimekizumab was also demonstrated to be beneficial in PsA patients with inadequate response or intolerance to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi). In the phase 3 BE COMPLETE study, which included 400 patients with active PsA and previous inadequate response or intolerance to TNFi, patients were randomly assigned to receive 160 mg subcutaneous bimekizumab every 4 weeks or placebo. Merola and colleagues reported that at week 16, a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving bimekizumab vs placebo achieved ACR50 response (43% vs 7%; OR 11.1; P < .0001). Thus, bimekizumab is a welcome addition to the treatment portfolio we have for PsA. In regard to side effects of special concern when inhibiting IL-17, bimekizumab was associated with higher risk for oral and genital candidiasis, occurring in 4% of the treated patients within 16 weeks in the two studies; however, no cases of systemic fungal infections occurred. The incidence of inflammatory bowel disease was also very low, but head-to-head studies against other available agents would be required to help rheumatologists decide the place of bimekizumab in PsA management.

A common clinical question is whether axial PsA is similar to ankylosing spondylitis (AS) with psoriasis. Assuming that it is, clinicians have used treatments approved for AS for managing axial PsA. Recent studies have questioned this assumption, however. Michelena and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional study that included 109 patients with axial PsA and 127 patients with AS and psoriasis from the REGISPONSER registry. Compared with patients with AS and psoriasis, patients with human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-B27–negative axial PsA had less inflammatory pain (P = .002), anterior uveitis (P = .014), and structural damage (P < .001), along with a higher prevalence of nail disease (P = .009). Patients with HLA-B27–positive axial PsA vs AS and psoriasis were similar but had less structural damage to the spine (P < .001). Thus, there seem to be significant clinical and genetic differences between these two diseases that require further investigation. Lack of an accepted definition of axial PsA, however, is a hindrance to multiple high-quality genetic, clinical, and interventional studies comparing axial PsA and AS with psoriasis.

Observational studies have recognized the clinical and familial association between psoriatic disease and Crohn's disease (CD), but such cross-sectional or retrospective studies cannot identify causal relationships. Mendelian randomization is a method used to identify causal relationships. Using this method, Sun and colleagues demonstrated that PsA was associated with a 31.9% increased risk for CD (P < .001) and genetically predicted CD was linked to a 44.8% higher risk for PsA (P = .001). No such association was found with ulcerative colitis. Thus, there is a bidirectional causal relationship between the two diseases. Patients with PsA should be evaluated for symptoms of CD, and those with CD for psoriatic disease, to facilitate early diagnosis and better long-term outcomes.

Two new papers published recently provide evidence of the efficacy and safety of bimekizumab in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Bimekizumab is a novel bispecific monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F and is already approved for the treatment of chronic plaque psoriasis. McInnes and colleagues reported the results of the phase 3 BE OPTIMAL study, which included 852 patients with active PsA who were naive to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) and were randomly assigned to receive bimekizumab, placebo, or adalimumab. At week 16, a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving bimekizumab vs placebo achieved ≥ 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response (ACR50; 44% vs 10%; odds ratio [OR] 7.1; P < .0001). Compared with placebo, significant improvements were also noted in psoriasis, enthesitis, and dactylitis in the bimekizumab group and there was less progression of radiographic damage.

Bimekizumab was also demonstrated to be beneficial in PsA patients with inadequate response or intolerance to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi). In the phase 3 BE COMPLETE study, which included 400 patients with active PsA and previous inadequate response or intolerance to TNFi, patients were randomly assigned to receive 160 mg subcutaneous bimekizumab every 4 weeks or placebo. Merola and colleagues reported that at week 16, a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving bimekizumab vs placebo achieved ACR50 response (43% vs 7%; OR 11.1; P < .0001). Thus, bimekizumab is a welcome addition to the treatment portfolio we have for PsA. In regard to side effects of special concern when inhibiting IL-17, bimekizumab was associated with higher risk for oral and genital candidiasis, occurring in 4% of the treated patients within 16 weeks in the two studies; however, no cases of systemic fungal infections occurred. The incidence of inflammatory bowel disease was also very low, but head-to-head studies against other available agents would be required to help rheumatologists decide the place of bimekizumab in PsA management.

A common clinical question is whether axial PsA is similar to ankylosing spondylitis (AS) with psoriasis. Assuming that it is, clinicians have used treatments approved for AS for managing axial PsA. Recent studies have questioned this assumption, however. Michelena and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional study that included 109 patients with axial PsA and 127 patients with AS and psoriasis from the REGISPONSER registry. Compared with patients with AS and psoriasis, patients with human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-B27–negative axial PsA had less inflammatory pain (P = .002), anterior uveitis (P = .014), and structural damage (P < .001), along with a higher prevalence of nail disease (P = .009). Patients with HLA-B27–positive axial PsA vs AS and psoriasis were similar but had less structural damage to the spine (P < .001). Thus, there seem to be significant clinical and genetic differences between these two diseases that require further investigation. Lack of an accepted definition of axial PsA, however, is a hindrance to multiple high-quality genetic, clinical, and interventional studies comparing axial PsA and AS with psoriasis.

Observational studies have recognized the clinical and familial association between psoriatic disease and Crohn's disease (CD), but such cross-sectional or retrospective studies cannot identify causal relationships. Mendelian randomization is a method used to identify causal relationships. Using this method, Sun and colleagues demonstrated that PsA was associated with a 31.9% increased risk for CD (P < .001) and genetically predicted CD was linked to a 44.8% higher risk for PsA (P = .001). No such association was found with ulcerative colitis. Thus, there is a bidirectional causal relationship between the two diseases. Patients with PsA should be evaluated for symptoms of CD, and those with CD for psoriatic disease, to facilitate early diagnosis and better long-term outcomes.