Lupus & Connective Tissue Diseases

People with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases who are taking immunosuppressants don’t mount as strong of an immune defense against the Omicron variant as they did against the original SARS-CoV-2 wild-type virus, according to two studies published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. One of the studies further showed that vaccinated individuals taking immunosuppressants have poorer cross-neutralizing responses to Omicron than do healthy vaccinated individuals, even after three doses of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

filadendron/E+/Getty Images

“We carefully suggest that if Omicron-specific vaccination can be administered, it may be an effective way to reduce the risk of breakthrough infections in patients with autoimmune rheumatic disease,” Sang Tae Choi, MD, PhD, of the University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and one of the authors of the study on cross-neutralizing protection, told this news organization. “However, further research is needed on Omicron-specific vaccine effectiveness in patients with immune dysfunctions. We believe that these study results can be of great benefit in determining the strategy of vaccination in the future.”

The earlier study, published in July, examined the ability of COVID-19 vaccines to induce cross-reactive antibody responses against Omicron infections in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs). The observational study involved 149 patients with ARDs and 94 health care workers as controls, all of whom provided blood samples a median 15 weeks after their second COVID vaccine dose or a median 8 weeks after their third dose. A little more than two-thirds of the patients (68.5%) had received a third mRNA vaccine dose. None of the participants previously had COVID-19.

The researchers compared the rate of breakthrough infections with the Omicron variant to the neutralizing responses in patients’ blood, specifically the cross-neutralizing antibody responses because the original mRNA vaccines targeted a different variant than Omicron. Breakthrough infections were assessed by survey questions.

“Our findings suggested that neither primary series vaccinations nor booster doses are sufficient to induce Omicron-neutralizing responses above the threshold in patients with ARDs, although responses were noticeably increased following the third dose of an mRNA vaccine,” write Woo-Joong Kim, of the Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and his colleagues. “This impairment of cross-neutralization responses across most of our patients contrasts starkly with a potent elicitation of the Omicron-neutralizing responses after the third vaccination in healthy recipients.”

The average neutralizing responses against the original SARS-CoV-2 strain were similar in both groups: 76% in patients with ARDs and 72% in health care workers after the second dose. The mean response after a third dose was 97% in health care workers and 88% in patients.

The average cross-neutralizing response against the Omicron variant was far lower, particularly in those with rheumatic disease: only 11.5%, which rose to 27% after the third dose. Only 39% of the patient sera showed neutralization of Omicron, even after the third dose. Meanwhile, the mean cross-neutralizing response in health care workers was 18% after the second dose and 50% after the third.

When the researchers compared seropositivity rates against the original virus to neutralizing responses against Omicron, the association between these was stronger in health care workers than in those with ARDs. In fact, among patients with ARDs who seroconverted, only 41% showed any response against Omicron. Among all the patients, most of those who didn’t respond to Omicron (93.5%) had initially seroconverted.

The researchers also looked at the ability to neutralize Omicron on the basis of disease in those who received three doses of the vaccine. About half of those with lupus (52%) showed any neutralization against Omicron, compared with 25% of those with rheumatoid arthritis, 37.5% of those with ankylosing spondylitis, 33% of those with Behçet snydrome, and all of those with adult-onset Still’s disease.

The rate of breakthrough infections was lower in patients (19%) than in health care workers (33%). A similar pattern was seen in the more recent study published Sept. 5. Researchers used data from a prospective cohort study in the Netherlands to examine incidence and severity of Omicron breakthrough infections in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. The researchers compared infection rates and severity among 1,593 vaccinated patients with inflammatory disease who were taking immunosuppressants and 579 vaccinated controls (418 patients with inflammatory disease not on immunosuppressants and 161 healthy controls).

One in five patients with inflammatory disease (21%) were taking immunosuppressants that substantially impair antibodies, such as anti-CD20 therapy, S1P modulators, or mycophenolate mofetil combination therapy, and 48% of these patients seroconverted after primary vaccination, compared with 96% of patients taking other immunosuppressants and 98% of controls.

Breakthrough infection rates were similar between the control group (31%) and those taking immunosuppressants (30%). Only three participants had severe disease requiring hospitalization: one control and two patients taking immunosuppressants.

“In both studies, the controls had similar or higher rates of breakthrough infections, compared with the immunosuppressed,” noted Alfred Kim, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Washington University, St Louis, but he added, “one has to consider differences in mitigation strategies, such as masking, that may explain these findings.” That is, patients taking immunosuppressants may be taking fewer risks in the community or have fewer potential exposures, especially in the Korean study, wherein the controls were health care workers.

A greater disparity in infections occurred when considering seroconversion rates. Breakthrough incidence was 38% among those taking immunosuppressants who did not seroconvert, compared with 29% among those who did. A similar trend was seen in breakthrough incidence between those taking strongly antibody-impairing immunosuppressants (36% breakthrough rate) and those taking other immunosuppressants (28%).

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

People with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases who are taking immunosuppressants don’t mount as strong of an immune defense against the Omicron variant as they did against the original SARS-CoV-2 wild-type virus, according to two studies published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. One of the studies further showed that vaccinated individuals taking immunosuppressants have poorer cross-neutralizing responses to Omicron than do healthy vaccinated individuals, even after three doses of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

filadendron/E+/Getty Images

“We carefully suggest that if Omicron-specific vaccination can be administered, it may be an effective way to reduce the risk of breakthrough infections in patients with autoimmune rheumatic disease,” Sang Tae Choi, MD, PhD, of the University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and one of the authors of the study on cross-neutralizing protection, told this news organization. “However, further research is needed on Omicron-specific vaccine effectiveness in patients with immune dysfunctions. We believe that these study results can be of great benefit in determining the strategy of vaccination in the future.”

The earlier study, published in July, examined the ability of COVID-19 vaccines to induce cross-reactive antibody responses against Omicron infections in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs). The observational study involved 149 patients with ARDs and 94 health care workers as controls, all of whom provided blood samples a median 15 weeks after their second COVID vaccine dose or a median 8 weeks after their third dose. A little more than two-thirds of the patients (68.5%) had received a third mRNA vaccine dose. None of the participants previously had COVID-19.

The researchers compared the rate of breakthrough infections with the Omicron variant to the neutralizing responses in patients’ blood, specifically the cross-neutralizing antibody responses because the original mRNA vaccines targeted a different variant than Omicron. Breakthrough infections were assessed by survey questions.

“Our findings suggested that neither primary series vaccinations nor booster doses are sufficient to induce Omicron-neutralizing responses above the threshold in patients with ARDs, although responses were noticeably increased following the third dose of an mRNA vaccine,” write Woo-Joong Kim, of the Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and his colleagues. “This impairment of cross-neutralization responses across most of our patients contrasts starkly with a potent elicitation of the Omicron-neutralizing responses after the third vaccination in healthy recipients.”

The average neutralizing responses against the original SARS-CoV-2 strain were similar in both groups: 76% in patients with ARDs and 72% in health care workers after the second dose. The mean response after a third dose was 97% in health care workers and 88% in patients.

The average cross-neutralizing response against the Omicron variant was far lower, particularly in those with rheumatic disease: only 11.5%, which rose to 27% after the third dose. Only 39% of the patient sera showed neutralization of Omicron, even after the third dose. Meanwhile, the mean cross-neutralizing response in health care workers was 18% after the second dose and 50% after the third.

When the researchers compared seropositivity rates against the original virus to neutralizing responses against Omicron, the association between these was stronger in health care workers than in those with ARDs. In fact, among patients with ARDs who seroconverted, only 41% showed any response against Omicron. Among all the patients, most of those who didn’t respond to Omicron (93.5%) had initially seroconverted.

The researchers also looked at the ability to neutralize Omicron on the basis of disease in those who received three doses of the vaccine. About half of those with lupus (52%) showed any neutralization against Omicron, compared with 25% of those with rheumatoid arthritis, 37.5% of those with ankylosing spondylitis, 33% of those with Behçet snydrome, and all of those with adult-onset Still’s disease.

The rate of breakthrough infections was lower in patients (19%) than in health care workers (33%). A similar pattern was seen in the more recent study published Sept. 5. Researchers used data from a prospective cohort study in the Netherlands to examine incidence and severity of Omicron breakthrough infections in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. The researchers compared infection rates and severity among 1,593 vaccinated patients with inflammatory disease who were taking immunosuppressants and 579 vaccinated controls (418 patients with inflammatory disease not on immunosuppressants and 161 healthy controls).

One in five patients with inflammatory disease (21%) were taking immunosuppressants that substantially impair antibodies, such as anti-CD20 therapy, S1P modulators, or mycophenolate mofetil combination therapy, and 48% of these patients seroconverted after primary vaccination, compared with 96% of patients taking other immunosuppressants and 98% of controls.

Breakthrough infection rates were similar between the control group (31%) and those taking immunosuppressants (30%). Only three participants had severe disease requiring hospitalization: one control and two patients taking immunosuppressants.

“In both studies, the controls had similar or higher rates of breakthrough infections, compared with the immunosuppressed,” noted Alfred Kim, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Washington University, St Louis, but he added, “one has to consider differences in mitigation strategies, such as masking, that may explain these findings.” That is, patients taking immunosuppressants may be taking fewer risks in the community or have fewer potential exposures, especially in the Korean study, wherein the controls were health care workers.

A greater disparity in infections occurred when considering seroconversion rates. Breakthrough incidence was 38% among those taking immunosuppressants who did not seroconvert, compared with 29% among those who did. A similar trend was seen in breakthrough incidence between those taking strongly antibody-impairing immunosuppressants (36% breakthrough rate) and those taking other immunosuppressants (28%).

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

People with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases who are taking immunosuppressants don’t mount as strong of an immune defense against the Omicron variant as they did against the original SARS-CoV-2 wild-type virus, according to two studies published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. One of the studies further showed that vaccinated individuals taking immunosuppressants have poorer cross-neutralizing responses to Omicron than do healthy vaccinated individuals, even after three doses of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

filadendron/E+/Getty Images

“We carefully suggest that if Omicron-specific vaccination can be administered, it may be an effective way to reduce the risk of breakthrough infections in patients with autoimmune rheumatic disease,” Sang Tae Choi, MD, PhD, of the University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and one of the authors of the study on cross-neutralizing protection, told this news organization. “However, further research is needed on Omicron-specific vaccine effectiveness in patients with immune dysfunctions. We believe that these study results can be of great benefit in determining the strategy of vaccination in the future.”

The earlier study, published in July, examined the ability of COVID-19 vaccines to induce cross-reactive antibody responses against Omicron infections in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs). The observational study involved 149 patients with ARDs and 94 health care workers as controls, all of whom provided blood samples a median 15 weeks after their second COVID vaccine dose or a median 8 weeks after their third dose. A little more than two-thirds of the patients (68.5%) had received a third mRNA vaccine dose. None of the participants previously had COVID-19.

The researchers compared the rate of breakthrough infections with the Omicron variant to the neutralizing responses in patients’ blood, specifically the cross-neutralizing antibody responses because the original mRNA vaccines targeted a different variant than Omicron. Breakthrough infections were assessed by survey questions.

“Our findings suggested that neither primary series vaccinations nor booster doses are sufficient to induce Omicron-neutralizing responses above the threshold in patients with ARDs, although responses were noticeably increased following the third dose of an mRNA vaccine,” write Woo-Joong Kim, of the Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and his colleagues. “This impairment of cross-neutralization responses across most of our patients contrasts starkly with a potent elicitation of the Omicron-neutralizing responses after the third vaccination in healthy recipients.”

The average neutralizing responses against the original SARS-CoV-2 strain were similar in both groups: 76% in patients with ARDs and 72% in health care workers after the second dose. The mean response after a third dose was 97% in health care workers and 88% in patients.

The average cross-neutralizing response against the Omicron variant was far lower, particularly in those with rheumatic disease: only 11.5%, which rose to 27% after the third dose. Only 39% of the patient sera showed neutralization of Omicron, even after the third dose. Meanwhile, the mean cross-neutralizing response in health care workers was 18% after the second dose and 50% after the third.

When the researchers compared seropositivity rates against the original virus to neutralizing responses against Omicron, the association between these was stronger in health care workers than in those with ARDs. In fact, among patients with ARDs who seroconverted, only 41% showed any response against Omicron. Among all the patients, most of those who didn’t respond to Omicron (93.5%) had initially seroconverted.

The researchers also looked at the ability to neutralize Omicron on the basis of disease in those who received three doses of the vaccine. About half of those with lupus (52%) showed any neutralization against Omicron, compared with 25% of those with rheumatoid arthritis, 37.5% of those with ankylosing spondylitis, 33% of those with Behçet snydrome, and all of those with adult-onset Still’s disease.

The rate of breakthrough infections was lower in patients (19%) than in health care workers (33%). A similar pattern was seen in the more recent study published Sept. 5. Researchers used data from a prospective cohort study in the Netherlands to examine incidence and severity of Omicron breakthrough infections in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. The researchers compared infection rates and severity among 1,593 vaccinated patients with inflammatory disease who were taking immunosuppressants and 579 vaccinated controls (418 patients with inflammatory disease not on immunosuppressants and 161 healthy controls).

One in five patients with inflammatory disease (21%) were taking immunosuppressants that substantially impair antibodies, such as anti-CD20 therapy, S1P modulators, or mycophenolate mofetil combination therapy, and 48% of these patients seroconverted after primary vaccination, compared with 96% of patients taking other immunosuppressants and 98% of controls.

Breakthrough infection rates were similar between the control group (31%) and those taking immunosuppressants (30%). Only three participants had severe disease requiring hospitalization: one control and two patients taking immunosuppressants.

“In both studies, the controls had similar or higher rates of breakthrough infections, compared with the immunosuppressed,” noted Alfred Kim, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Washington University, St Louis, but he added, “one has to consider differences in mitigation strategies, such as masking, that may explain these findings.” That is, patients taking immunosuppressants may be taking fewer risks in the community or have fewer potential exposures, especially in the Korean study, wherein the controls were health care workers.

A greater disparity in infections occurred when considering seroconversion rates. Breakthrough incidence was 38% among those taking immunosuppressants who did not seroconvert, compared with 29% among those who did. A similar trend was seen in breakthrough incidence between those taking strongly antibody-impairing immunosuppressants (36% breakthrough rate) and those taking other immunosuppressants (28%).

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

Gender-affirming hormone therapy’s effect on transgender patients with rheumatic disease is unclear but does not appear to modulate its course and does not need to be strictly contraindicated in most patients, according to a case series and systematic literature review.

More doctors are practicing transgender medicine, yet a limited amount of information is available on rheumatic disease in transgender and gender diverse (TGGD) individuals, Kristen Mathias, MD, a rheumatology fellow at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in her presentation of the study at the Lancet Summit on Sex and Gender in Rheumatology.

“This is important, as it is well known that sex hormones affect the pathogenesis and expression of autoimmune diseases,” Dr. Mathias said. Knowing more about the effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) and gender-affirming surgery on disease activity in TGGD individuals could better inform decisions about care in this population.

Dr. Mathias and colleagues identified 7 transgender patients with rheumatic diseases from a pool of 1,053 patients seen at the Los Angeles County and University of Southern California Medical Center, Los Angeles, from June 2019 to June 2021. This included five transgender males and two transgender females. They ranged in age from 13 to 52 years.

All seven were on GAHT, and its impact on disease activity was considered “possible” in two of the seven patients.

In a systematic literature review, investigators found 11 studies that included 11 transgender women and 2 transgender men, ranging in age from 22 to 49 years. All the patients were on GAHT. In 12 of 13 patients, the hormones were considered possibly related to their rheumatic disease activity.

The 20 patients had diagnoses of rheumatoid arthritis, cutaneous and systemic lupus erythematosus, adult-onset Still disease, spondyloarthritis, myositis, and systemic sclerosis.

GAHT should not be a strict contraindication in these patients, based on these findings, Dr. Mathias noted. Information to clarify the effect of GAHT on rheumatic disease is sparse, however. Physicians should adopt a personalized, shared decision-making approach when consulting patients.

“During patient encounters, they should be screened for psychosocial barriers when appropriate,” Dr. Mathias recommended.

Findings could pave way for larger studies, more data

Studies on the impact and consequences of rheumatic disease in TGGD individuals are sorely lacking, said Vagishwari Murugesan, MBBS, a clinical fellow in rheumatology at the University of Toronto.

“While this is a small study of only seven patients and no conclusive results can be drawn, studies like these can help pave the way for larger multicentric studies, which can give us more definitive data on gender-affirming hormone therapy and its consequences on rheumatic diseases,” said Dr. Murugesan, who was not involved in the study.

A registry would be a great way to collaborate with other stakeholders interested in the same topic and conduct larger studies, she said. “I would recommend that not only do we screen for psychosocial barriers but also actively engage as a health care community in addressing how we can overcome the barriers for patients to access effective health care.”

No external funding was obtained for the study.

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

Gender-affirming hormone therapy’s effect on transgender patients with rheumatic disease is unclear but does not appear to modulate its course and does not need to be strictly contraindicated in most patients, according to a case series and systematic literature review.

More doctors are practicing transgender medicine, yet a limited amount of information is available on rheumatic disease in transgender and gender diverse (TGGD) individuals, Kristen Mathias, MD, a rheumatology fellow at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in her presentation of the study at the Lancet Summit on Sex and Gender in Rheumatology.

“This is important, as it is well known that sex hormones affect the pathogenesis and expression of autoimmune diseases,” Dr. Mathias said. Knowing more about the effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) and gender-affirming surgery on disease activity in TGGD individuals could better inform decisions about care in this population.

Dr. Mathias and colleagues identified 7 transgender patients with rheumatic diseases from a pool of 1,053 patients seen at the Los Angeles County and University of Southern California Medical Center, Los Angeles, from June 2019 to June 2021. This included five transgender males and two transgender females. They ranged in age from 13 to 52 years.

All seven were on GAHT, and its impact on disease activity was considered “possible” in two of the seven patients.

In a systematic literature review, investigators found 11 studies that included 11 transgender women and 2 transgender men, ranging in age from 22 to 49 years. All the patients were on GAHT. In 12 of 13 patients, the hormones were considered possibly related to their rheumatic disease activity.

The 20 patients had diagnoses of rheumatoid arthritis, cutaneous and systemic lupus erythematosus, adult-onset Still disease, spondyloarthritis, myositis, and systemic sclerosis.

GAHT should not be a strict contraindication in these patients, based on these findings, Dr. Mathias noted. Information to clarify the effect of GAHT on rheumatic disease is sparse, however. Physicians should adopt a personalized, shared decision-making approach when consulting patients.

“During patient encounters, they should be screened for psychosocial barriers when appropriate,” Dr. Mathias recommended.

Findings could pave way for larger studies, more data

Studies on the impact and consequences of rheumatic disease in TGGD individuals are sorely lacking, said Vagishwari Murugesan, MBBS, a clinical fellow in rheumatology at the University of Toronto.

“While this is a small study of only seven patients and no conclusive results can be drawn, studies like these can help pave the way for larger multicentric studies, which can give us more definitive data on gender-affirming hormone therapy and its consequences on rheumatic diseases,” said Dr. Murugesan, who was not involved in the study.

A registry would be a great way to collaborate with other stakeholders interested in the same topic and conduct larger studies, she said. “I would recommend that not only do we screen for psychosocial barriers but also actively engage as a health care community in addressing how we can overcome the barriers for patients to access effective health care.”

No external funding was obtained for the study.

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

Gender-affirming hormone therapy’s effect on transgender patients with rheumatic disease is unclear but does not appear to modulate its course and does not need to be strictly contraindicated in most patients, according to a case series and systematic literature review.

More doctors are practicing transgender medicine, yet a limited amount of information is available on rheumatic disease in transgender and gender diverse (TGGD) individuals, Kristen Mathias, MD, a rheumatology fellow at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in her presentation of the study at the Lancet Summit on Sex and Gender in Rheumatology.

“This is important, as it is well known that sex hormones affect the pathogenesis and expression of autoimmune diseases,” Dr. Mathias said. Knowing more about the effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) and gender-affirming surgery on disease activity in TGGD individuals could better inform decisions about care in this population.

Dr. Mathias and colleagues identified 7 transgender patients with rheumatic diseases from a pool of 1,053 patients seen at the Los Angeles County and University of Southern California Medical Center, Los Angeles, from June 2019 to June 2021. This included five transgender males and two transgender females. They ranged in age from 13 to 52 years.

All seven were on GAHT, and its impact on disease activity was considered “possible” in two of the seven patients.

In a systematic literature review, investigators found 11 studies that included 11 transgender women and 2 transgender men, ranging in age from 22 to 49 years. All the patients were on GAHT. In 12 of 13 patients, the hormones were considered possibly related to their rheumatic disease activity.

The 20 patients had diagnoses of rheumatoid arthritis, cutaneous and systemic lupus erythematosus, adult-onset Still disease, spondyloarthritis, myositis, and systemic sclerosis.

GAHT should not be a strict contraindication in these patients, based on these findings, Dr. Mathias noted. Information to clarify the effect of GAHT on rheumatic disease is sparse, however. Physicians should adopt a personalized, shared decision-making approach when consulting patients.

“During patient encounters, they should be screened for psychosocial barriers when appropriate,” Dr. Mathias recommended.

Findings could pave way for larger studies, more data

Studies on the impact and consequences of rheumatic disease in TGGD individuals are sorely lacking, said Vagishwari Murugesan, MBBS, a clinical fellow in rheumatology at the University of Toronto.

“While this is a small study of only seven patients and no conclusive results can be drawn, studies like these can help pave the way for larger multicentric studies, which can give us more definitive data on gender-affirming hormone therapy and its consequences on rheumatic diseases,” said Dr. Murugesan, who was not involved in the study.

A registry would be a great way to collaborate with other stakeholders interested in the same topic and conduct larger studies, she said. “I would recommend that not only do we screen for psychosocial barriers but also actively engage as a health care community in addressing how we can overcome the barriers for patients to access effective health care.”

No external funding was obtained for the study.

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

In a first-of-its-kind clinical trial, researchers in Germany used a cancer-killing cell therapy to successfully treat lupus in a small number of patients.

Their study, published online in Nature Medicine, included five patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). All of the patients were treated with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, a treatment regularly used to kill cancer cells. Researchers harvested the patients’ immune cells and engineered them to destroy dysfunctional cells when infused back into the body.

The five patients – all of whom had an aggressive form of the autoimmune disease – underwent a single infusion of the experimental treatment. All five patients were able to stop their standard treatments for as long as 17 months following the therapy, the study found. The patients also stopped experiencing severe symptoms such as lung inflammation, fibrosis of the heart valves, arthritis, and fatigue. The patients have not relapsed.

“Our data reveal unexpected insights for a role of CAR T cells in nonmalignant diseases that could provide new opportunities for the treatment of autoimmune disease,” the study authors wrote.

Lupus is a chronic inflammatory disease in which the immune system attacks the body’s own cells. Both antibody-producing B and T cells in individuals with lupus become overactive, which can lead to a flare of symptoms that range from mild pain and fatigue to life-threatening inflammation and tissue damage. They are often treated with medications that deplete their B cells or change the way they function to help wipe out infected cells.

The approach used by the study researchers is similar to monoclonal antibody therapies that destroy dysfunctional B cells, such as rituximab (Rituxan and biosimilars) and obinutuzumab (Gazyva), according to Michael Belmont, MD, codirector of New York University’s Lupus Center and medical director of Bellevue Hospital Lupus Clinic, also in New York.

“Previously, this has been accomplished with monoclonal antibodies that target surface markers on B cells and results in their removal,” said Dr. Belmont, who was not connected to the study. “The report describes a novel approach that harnesses a patient’s own T cells, another type of white blood cell, to eliminate that patient’s own B cells.”

Preclinical studies involving mice previously showed that CAR T-cell therapy could help to reset the immune system. However, this latest study also found that patients did not need to continue any of their previous therapies, even after they regained their B cells about 4 months after the therapy.

“A deep depletion of CD19+ B cells and plasmablasts in the tissues could trigger an immune reset in SLE that could allow the cessation of immunosuppressive treatment,” said Mehrnaz Hojjati, MD, a rheumatologist and director of rheumatology operations at Loma Linda (Calif.) University Health. Dr. Hojjati was not affiliated with the study.

While the single-treatment therapy is promising, transfused T cells do carry risks. Some of the patients in the study experienced fever and muscle pain following the procedure, the authors noted. Dr. Belmont said more serious risks for this kind of therapy may include organ injury.

“This treatment can [also] increase incidence, for example, of pneumonia or shingles,” he said.

The study authors initially documented their work in a correspondence published in August 2021 in the New England Journal of Medicine. At that time, they reported that a 20-year-old woman with a severe refractory SLE went into remission following the treatment.

The five patients in the current study – four women and one man – were aged 18-24 years. All of the patients had previously been treated with several immunosuppressive medications, the study authors noted.

“This is an exciting approach, but many more patients need to be treated to really understand the efficacy and safety,” Dr. Belmont said.

Experts, including Dr. Belmont, also said the procedure is also costly and requires access to labs that can engineer a patient’s own T cells after they’ve been donated.

“The entire process must maintain sterility to avoid contamination, which would be harmful when reinfused into the patient,” he said.

According to Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at UC San Diego Health, this form of therapy may be an option for severe refractory patients who have not responded well to other more established therapies.

“[It’s] exciting data, but very intense and so not likely to be something for an average patient in the near future,” said Dr. Kavanaugh, who was not affiliated with the study.

The study authors say they intend to create a larger trial to further explore which type of patient may benefit the most from this treatment, and for how long.

The study was supported by the German Research Foundation, the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, the European Union, and the Innovative Medicines Initiative–funded project, Rheuma Tolerance for Cure. The study received no commercial funding, and the authors said they had no competing interests related to the study. None of the experts interviewed reported relevant financial relationships.

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

In a first-of-its-kind clinical trial, researchers in Germany used a cancer-killing cell therapy to successfully treat lupus in a small number of patients.

Their study, published online in Nature Medicine, included five patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). All of the patients were treated with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, a treatment regularly used to kill cancer cells. Researchers harvested the patients’ immune cells and engineered them to destroy dysfunctional cells when infused back into the body.

The five patients – all of whom had an aggressive form of the autoimmune disease – underwent a single infusion of the experimental treatment. All five patients were able to stop their standard treatments for as long as 17 months following the therapy, the study found. The patients also stopped experiencing severe symptoms such as lung inflammation, fibrosis of the heart valves, arthritis, and fatigue. The patients have not relapsed.

“Our data reveal unexpected insights for a role of CAR T cells in nonmalignant diseases that could provide new opportunities for the treatment of autoimmune disease,” the study authors wrote.

Lupus is a chronic inflammatory disease in which the immune system attacks the body’s own cells. Both antibody-producing B and T cells in individuals with lupus become overactive, which can lead to a flare of symptoms that range from mild pain and fatigue to life-threatening inflammation and tissue damage. They are often treated with medications that deplete their B cells or change the way they function to help wipe out infected cells.

The approach used by the study researchers is similar to monoclonal antibody therapies that destroy dysfunctional B cells, such as rituximab (Rituxan and biosimilars) and obinutuzumab (Gazyva), according to Michael Belmont, MD, codirector of New York University’s Lupus Center and medical director of Bellevue Hospital Lupus Clinic, also in New York.

“Previously, this has been accomplished with monoclonal antibodies that target surface markers on B cells and results in their removal,” said Dr. Belmont, who was not connected to the study. “The report describes a novel approach that harnesses a patient’s own T cells, another type of white blood cell, to eliminate that patient’s own B cells.”

Preclinical studies involving mice previously showed that CAR T-cell therapy could help to reset the immune system. However, this latest study also found that patients did not need to continue any of their previous therapies, even after they regained their B cells about 4 months after the therapy.

“A deep depletion of CD19+ B cells and plasmablasts in the tissues could trigger an immune reset in SLE that could allow the cessation of immunosuppressive treatment,” said Mehrnaz Hojjati, MD, a rheumatologist and director of rheumatology operations at Loma Linda (Calif.) University Health. Dr. Hojjati was not affiliated with the study.

While the single-treatment therapy is promising, transfused T cells do carry risks. Some of the patients in the study experienced fever and muscle pain following the procedure, the authors noted. Dr. Belmont said more serious risks for this kind of therapy may include organ injury.

“This treatment can [also] increase incidence, for example, of pneumonia or shingles,” he said.

The study authors initially documented their work in a correspondence published in August 2021 in the New England Journal of Medicine. At that time, they reported that a 20-year-old woman with a severe refractory SLE went into remission following the treatment.

The five patients in the current study – four women and one man – were aged 18-24 years. All of the patients had previously been treated with several immunosuppressive medications, the study authors noted.

“This is an exciting approach, but many more patients need to be treated to really understand the efficacy and safety,” Dr. Belmont said.

Experts, including Dr. Belmont, also said the procedure is also costly and requires access to labs that can engineer a patient’s own T cells after they’ve been donated.

“The entire process must maintain sterility to avoid contamination, which would be harmful when reinfused into the patient,” he said.

According to Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at UC San Diego Health, this form of therapy may be an option for severe refractory patients who have not responded well to other more established therapies.

“[It’s] exciting data, but very intense and so not likely to be something for an average patient in the near future,” said Dr. Kavanaugh, who was not affiliated with the study.

The study authors say they intend to create a larger trial to further explore which type of patient may benefit the most from this treatment, and for how long.

The study was supported by the German Research Foundation, the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, the European Union, and the Innovative Medicines Initiative–funded project, Rheuma Tolerance for Cure. The study received no commercial funding, and the authors said they had no competing interests related to the study. None of the experts interviewed reported relevant financial relationships.

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

In a first-of-its-kind clinical trial, researchers in Germany used a cancer-killing cell therapy to successfully treat lupus in a small number of patients.

Their study, published online in Nature Medicine, included five patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). All of the patients were treated with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, a treatment regularly used to kill cancer cells. Researchers harvested the patients’ immune cells and engineered them to destroy dysfunctional cells when infused back into the body.

The five patients – all of whom had an aggressive form of the autoimmune disease – underwent a single infusion of the experimental treatment. All five patients were able to stop their standard treatments for as long as 17 months following the therapy, the study found. The patients also stopped experiencing severe symptoms such as lung inflammation, fibrosis of the heart valves, arthritis, and fatigue. The patients have not relapsed.

“Our data reveal unexpected insights for a role of CAR T cells in nonmalignant diseases that could provide new opportunities for the treatment of autoimmune disease,” the study authors wrote.

Lupus is a chronic inflammatory disease in which the immune system attacks the body’s own cells. Both antibody-producing B and T cells in individuals with lupus become overactive, which can lead to a flare of symptoms that range from mild pain and fatigue to life-threatening inflammation and tissue damage. They are often treated with medications that deplete their B cells or change the way they function to help wipe out infected cells.

The approach used by the study researchers is similar to monoclonal antibody therapies that destroy dysfunctional B cells, such as rituximab (Rituxan and biosimilars) and obinutuzumab (Gazyva), according to Michael Belmont, MD, codirector of New York University’s Lupus Center and medical director of Bellevue Hospital Lupus Clinic, also in New York.

“Previously, this has been accomplished with monoclonal antibodies that target surface markers on B cells and results in their removal,” said Dr. Belmont, who was not connected to the study. “The report describes a novel approach that harnesses a patient’s own T cells, another type of white blood cell, to eliminate that patient’s own B cells.”

Preclinical studies involving mice previously showed that CAR T-cell therapy could help to reset the immune system. However, this latest study also found that patients did not need to continue any of their previous therapies, even after they regained their B cells about 4 months after the therapy.

“A deep depletion of CD19+ B cells and plasmablasts in the tissues could trigger an immune reset in SLE that could allow the cessation of immunosuppressive treatment,” said Mehrnaz Hojjati, MD, a rheumatologist and director of rheumatology operations at Loma Linda (Calif.) University Health. Dr. Hojjati was not affiliated with the study.

While the single-treatment therapy is promising, transfused T cells do carry risks. Some of the patients in the study experienced fever and muscle pain following the procedure, the authors noted. Dr. Belmont said more serious risks for this kind of therapy may include organ injury.

“This treatment can [also] increase incidence, for example, of pneumonia or shingles,” he said.

The study authors initially documented their work in a correspondence published in August 2021 in the New England Journal of Medicine. At that time, they reported that a 20-year-old woman with a severe refractory SLE went into remission following the treatment.

The five patients in the current study – four women and one man – were aged 18-24 years. All of the patients had previously been treated with several immunosuppressive medications, the study authors noted.

“This is an exciting approach, but many more patients need to be treated to really understand the efficacy and safety,” Dr. Belmont said.

Experts, including Dr. Belmont, also said the procedure is also costly and requires access to labs that can engineer a patient’s own T cells after they’ve been donated.

“The entire process must maintain sterility to avoid contamination, which would be harmful when reinfused into the patient,” he said.

According to Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at UC San Diego Health, this form of therapy may be an option for severe refractory patients who have not responded well to other more established therapies.

“[It’s] exciting data, but very intense and so not likely to be something for an average patient in the near future,” said Dr. Kavanaugh, who was not affiliated with the study.

The study authors say they intend to create a larger trial to further explore which type of patient may benefit the most from this treatment, and for how long.

The study was supported by the German Research Foundation, the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, the European Union, and the Innovative Medicines Initiative–funded project, Rheuma Tolerance for Cure. The study received no commercial funding, and the authors said they had no competing interests related to the study. None of the experts interviewed reported relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with a rheumatic immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID) had worse outcomes, especially for mortality, after a myocardial infarction than those without an IMID, in a large propensity-matched analysis.

At a median of 2 years after their MI, Medicare beneficiaries with an IMID had adjusted risks that were:

• 15% higher for all-cause death (hazard ratio, 1.15);
• 12% higher for heart failure (HR, 1.12);
• 8% higher for recurrent MI (HR, 1.08); and
• 6% higher risk for coronary reintervention (HR, 1.06; P < .05 for all).

In addition, interventions known to improve outcomes in this context, such as coronary revascularization, were less common in patients with IMID.

“This could be because they usually are sicker and have more risk factors when they present, like kidney disease, so maybe they’re not eligible for the therapy. But by itself, it was surprising they’re not offered these interventions as common[ly] as people who don’t have the disease,” Amgad Mentias, MD, a clinical cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

The study was published Sept. 14 in the Journal of the American Heart Association, with Dr. Mentias as senior author and Heba Wassif, MD, MPH, also with Cleveland Clinic, as first author.

IMIDs, such as rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, lupus, and inflammatory bowel disease, are known to be associated with significantly higher cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk due to a greater prevalence of traditional CVD risk factors and chronic systemic inflammation.

Certain disease-modifying agents may also increase patients’ cardiovascular risk. This has been a long-simmering issue for the arthritis and ulcerative colitis drug tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR), resulting in an updated boxed warning in 2021.

Many of these patients also have joint disease, pain, and fatigue, which can limit physical activity, Dr. Mentias said. “So these small nuances of how to manage these patients, or balance between controlling the inflammation but also improv[ing] cardiac risk factors, is not an easy task.”

Evidence regarding post-MI events has been inconsistent and limited to smaller single-center studies, he said. After propensity-score matching, the present study included 59,820 patients with and 178,547 patients without rheumatic IMIDs followed for a maximum of 6 years.

They were drawn from a cohort of 1.6 million persons aged 65 or older in the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MedPAR) file who had been admitted for an MI between 2014 and 2019. Of these, 60,072 had a prior history of rheumatic IMIDs, most commonly rheumatoid arthritis (77.8%), followed by systemic lupus erythematosus (12.2%), psoriasis (5.1%), systemic sclerosis (2.8%), and myositis/dermatomyositis (1.8%).

Patients with an IMID were more often women; had a higher prevalence of valve disease, pulmonary hypertension, hypothyroidism, and anemia; and were more likely to present with non–ST-segment MI (NSTEMI).

Rates of coronary angiography (46.1% vs. 51.5%), percutaneous coronary intervention (31.6% vs. 33.6%), and coronary artery bypass grafting (7.7% vs. 10.7%) were significantly lower in patients with IMIDs who had NSTEMI, compared with patients without an IMID who had NSTEMI. Rates of these interventions were also lower in patients with IMIDs who presented with STEMI versus their peers without an IMID, at 78.2% vs. 80.7%, 70.2% vs. 71.5%, and 4.9% vs. 6.4%, respectively.

Dr. Mentias pointed out that the emerging subspecialty of cardiorheumatology is gaining traction, especially at large hospitals and academic centers, but that less than one-third of persons in the United States with an IMID are likely to be under the care of such specialists.

“It’s important before developing an MI to try and control the different risk factors and improve the risk profile for these patients as much as possible by both specialties, and then, after an unfortunate event like MI happens, it’s important to make sure we offer therapies and treatments that are known to improve outcomes,” he said.

Commenting for this article, Jon Tyler Giles, MD, a clinical researcher who focuses on cardiovascular diseases in rheumatology at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, said that “at least for rheumatoid arthritis, this is something that we already knew. People with rheumatic arthritis, when they have a heart attack, are less likely to get the standard kind of treatments and have worse outcomes. This is a little larger sample, but it’s not a surprise, not a surprise at all.”

He noted that the study could have answered questions regarding potential drivers, but “they didn’t dig down into any of the factors that were associated with the poorer outcomes in the patients with rheumatoid arthritis and lupus and scleroderma.”

Indeed, the investigators acknowledge that the study lacked information on coronary anatomy, duration and severity of the autoimmune disease, imaging data, and medications such as anti-inflammatory or immune-targeted therapies.

Dr. Giles highlighted several factors that can contribute to a poorer post-MI prognosis in patients with rheumatic diseases; these include frailty, being more hypercoaguable, increased rates of myocardial dysfunction and other heart and blood vessel diseases, and chronic treatment with steroids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs that often interferes with anticoagulation after a MI or when putting in a stent. “So, there’s lot of moving parts, and not one single thing that is likely the answer.”

In addition, he said, “there’s always going to be a portion of these patients who, despite doing the best that we can with treatment, are going to have very severe disease. That may or may not be the subset of patients that did the worst, but likely they’re overrepresented in those patients.”

Finally, the inability to move the needle may lie with the lack of evidence-based screening and management guidelines for cardiovascular disease in any rheumatic disease, Dr. Giles observed. “There’s no guideline for us to use to decide who needs screening over and above what’s recommended for the general population, and then, even if you do screen, what do you do other than what you would normally?”

Rheumatologists are often reluctant to take up the cardiovascular screening side of things because visits are short, and a lot of that time is spent trying to manage the inflammatory components of a patient’s disease, he said. There’s also a barrier in getting some patients to add a cardiologist to the mix of physicians they already see, especially if they don’t have any symptoms.

“If someone has had an event, it’s a lot easier for people to be convinced to go see the cardiologist, obviously, but prior to having an event, the preventative side of things is something that often gets missed or goes to the wayside,” Dr. Giles said.

The study was partly funded by philanthropic gifts by the Haslam family, Bailey family, and Khouri family to the Cleveland Clinic for coauthor Dr. Milind Desai’s research. Dr. Desai is a consultant for Medtronic and Bristol Myers Squibb and serves on an executive steering committee of a BMS-sponsored trial. The remaining authors report having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Giles is a consultant on drug cardiovascular safety for Pfizer, AbbVie, and Eli Lilly.

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

Patients with a rheumatic immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID) had worse outcomes, especially for mortality, after a myocardial infarction than those without an IMID, in a large propensity-matched analysis.

At a median of 2 years after their MI, Medicare beneficiaries with an IMID had adjusted risks that were:

• 15% higher for all-cause death (hazard ratio, 1.15);
• 12% higher for heart failure (HR, 1.12);
• 8% higher for recurrent MI (HR, 1.08); and
• 6% higher risk for coronary reintervention (HR, 1.06; P < .05 for all).

In addition, interventions known to improve outcomes in this context, such as coronary revascularization, were less common in patients with IMID.

“This could be because they usually are sicker and have more risk factors when they present, like kidney disease, so maybe they’re not eligible for the therapy. But by itself, it was surprising they’re not offered these interventions as common[ly] as people who don’t have the disease,” Amgad Mentias, MD, a clinical cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

The study was published Sept. 14 in the Journal of the American Heart Association, with Dr. Mentias as senior author and Heba Wassif, MD, MPH, also with Cleveland Clinic, as first author.

IMIDs, such as rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, lupus, and inflammatory bowel disease, are known to be associated with significantly higher cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk due to a greater prevalence of traditional CVD risk factors and chronic systemic inflammation.

Certain disease-modifying agents may also increase patients’ cardiovascular risk. This has been a long-simmering issue for the arthritis and ulcerative colitis drug tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR), resulting in an updated boxed warning in 2021.

Many of these patients also have joint disease, pain, and fatigue, which can limit physical activity, Dr. Mentias said. “So these small nuances of how to manage these patients, or balance between controlling the inflammation but also improv[ing] cardiac risk factors, is not an easy task.”

Evidence regarding post-MI events has been inconsistent and limited to smaller single-center studies, he said. After propensity-score matching, the present study included 59,820 patients with and 178,547 patients without rheumatic IMIDs followed for a maximum of 6 years.

They were drawn from a cohort of 1.6 million persons aged 65 or older in the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MedPAR) file who had been admitted for an MI between 2014 and 2019. Of these, 60,072 had a prior history of rheumatic IMIDs, most commonly rheumatoid arthritis (77.8%), followed by systemic lupus erythematosus (12.2%), psoriasis (5.1%), systemic sclerosis (2.8%), and myositis/dermatomyositis (1.8%).

Patients with an IMID were more often women; had a higher prevalence of valve disease, pulmonary hypertension, hypothyroidism, and anemia; and were more likely to present with non–ST-segment MI (NSTEMI).

Rates of coronary angiography (46.1% vs. 51.5%), percutaneous coronary intervention (31.6% vs. 33.6%), and coronary artery bypass grafting (7.7% vs. 10.7%) were significantly lower in patients with IMIDs who had NSTEMI, compared with patients without an IMID who had NSTEMI. Rates of these interventions were also lower in patients with IMIDs who presented with STEMI versus their peers without an IMID, at 78.2% vs. 80.7%, 70.2% vs. 71.5%, and 4.9% vs. 6.4%, respectively.

Dr. Mentias pointed out that the emerging subspecialty of cardiorheumatology is gaining traction, especially at large hospitals and academic centers, but that less than one-third of persons in the United States with an IMID are likely to be under the care of such specialists.

“It’s important before developing an MI to try and control the different risk factors and improve the risk profile for these patients as much as possible by both specialties, and then, after an unfortunate event like MI happens, it’s important to make sure we offer therapies and treatments that are known to improve outcomes,” he said.

Commenting for this article, Jon Tyler Giles, MD, a clinical researcher who focuses on cardiovascular diseases in rheumatology at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, said that “at least for rheumatoid arthritis, this is something that we already knew. People with rheumatic arthritis, when they have a heart attack, are less likely to get the standard kind of treatments and have worse outcomes. This is a little larger sample, but it’s not a surprise, not a surprise at all.”

He noted that the study could have answered questions regarding potential drivers, but “they didn’t dig down into any of the factors that were associated with the poorer outcomes in the patients with rheumatoid arthritis and lupus and scleroderma.”

Indeed, the investigators acknowledge that the study lacked information on coronary anatomy, duration and severity of the autoimmune disease, imaging data, and medications such as anti-inflammatory or immune-targeted therapies.

Dr. Giles highlighted several factors that can contribute to a poorer post-MI prognosis in patients with rheumatic diseases; these include frailty, being more hypercoaguable, increased rates of myocardial dysfunction and other heart and blood vessel diseases, and chronic treatment with steroids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs that often interferes with anticoagulation after a MI or when putting in a stent. “So, there’s lot of moving parts, and not one single thing that is likely the answer.”

In addition, he said, “there’s always going to be a portion of these patients who, despite doing the best that we can with treatment, are going to have very severe disease. That may or may not be the subset of patients that did the worst, but likely they’re overrepresented in those patients.”

Finally, the inability to move the needle may lie with the lack of evidence-based screening and management guidelines for cardiovascular disease in any rheumatic disease, Dr. Giles observed. “There’s no guideline for us to use to decide who needs screening over and above what’s recommended for the general population, and then, even if you do screen, what do you do other than what you would normally?”

Rheumatologists are often reluctant to take up the cardiovascular screening side of things because visits are short, and a lot of that time is spent trying to manage the inflammatory components of a patient’s disease, he said. There’s also a barrier in getting some patients to add a cardiologist to the mix of physicians they already see, especially if they don’t have any symptoms.

“If someone has had an event, it’s a lot easier for people to be convinced to go see the cardiologist, obviously, but prior to having an event, the preventative side of things is something that often gets missed or goes to the wayside,” Dr. Giles said.

The study was partly funded by philanthropic gifts by the Haslam family, Bailey family, and Khouri family to the Cleveland Clinic for coauthor Dr. Milind Desai’s research. Dr. Desai is a consultant for Medtronic and Bristol Myers Squibb and serves on an executive steering committee of a BMS-sponsored trial. The remaining authors report having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Giles is a consultant on drug cardiovascular safety for Pfizer, AbbVie, and Eli Lilly.

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

Patients with a rheumatic immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID) had worse outcomes, especially for mortality, after a myocardial infarction than those without an IMID, in a large propensity-matched analysis.

At a median of 2 years after their MI, Medicare beneficiaries with an IMID had adjusted risks that were:

• 15% higher for all-cause death (hazard ratio, 1.15);
• 12% higher for heart failure (HR, 1.12);
• 8% higher for recurrent MI (HR, 1.08); and
• 6% higher risk for coronary reintervention (HR, 1.06; P < .05 for all).

In addition, interventions known to improve outcomes in this context, such as coronary revascularization, were less common in patients with IMID.

“This could be because they usually are sicker and have more risk factors when they present, like kidney disease, so maybe they’re not eligible for the therapy. But by itself, it was surprising they’re not offered these interventions as common[ly] as people who don’t have the disease,” Amgad Mentias, MD, a clinical cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

The study was published Sept. 14 in the Journal of the American Heart Association, with Dr. Mentias as senior author and Heba Wassif, MD, MPH, also with Cleveland Clinic, as first author.

IMIDs, such as rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, lupus, and inflammatory bowel disease, are known to be associated with significantly higher cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk due to a greater prevalence of traditional CVD risk factors and chronic systemic inflammation.

Certain disease-modifying agents may also increase patients’ cardiovascular risk. This has been a long-simmering issue for the arthritis and ulcerative colitis drug tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR), resulting in an updated boxed warning in 2021.

Many of these patients also have joint disease, pain, and fatigue, which can limit physical activity, Dr. Mentias said. “So these small nuances of how to manage these patients, or balance between controlling the inflammation but also improv[ing] cardiac risk factors, is not an easy task.”

Evidence regarding post-MI events has been inconsistent and limited to smaller single-center studies, he said. After propensity-score matching, the present study included 59,820 patients with and 178,547 patients without rheumatic IMIDs followed for a maximum of 6 years.

They were drawn from a cohort of 1.6 million persons aged 65 or older in the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MedPAR) file who had been admitted for an MI between 2014 and 2019. Of these, 60,072 had a prior history of rheumatic IMIDs, most commonly rheumatoid arthritis (77.8%), followed by systemic lupus erythematosus (12.2%), psoriasis (5.1%), systemic sclerosis (2.8%), and myositis/dermatomyositis (1.8%).

Patients with an IMID were more often women; had a higher prevalence of valve disease, pulmonary hypertension, hypothyroidism, and anemia; and were more likely to present with non–ST-segment MI (NSTEMI).

Rates of coronary angiography (46.1% vs. 51.5%), percutaneous coronary intervention (31.6% vs. 33.6%), and coronary artery bypass grafting (7.7% vs. 10.7%) were significantly lower in patients with IMIDs who had NSTEMI, compared with patients without an IMID who had NSTEMI. Rates of these interventions were also lower in patients with IMIDs who presented with STEMI versus their peers without an IMID, at 78.2% vs. 80.7%, 70.2% vs. 71.5%, and 4.9% vs. 6.4%, respectively.

Dr. Mentias pointed out that the emerging subspecialty of cardiorheumatology is gaining traction, especially at large hospitals and academic centers, but that less than one-third of persons in the United States with an IMID are likely to be under the care of such specialists.

“It’s important before developing an MI to try and control the different risk factors and improve the risk profile for these patients as much as possible by both specialties, and then, after an unfortunate event like MI happens, it’s important to make sure we offer therapies and treatments that are known to improve outcomes,” he said.

Commenting for this article, Jon Tyler Giles, MD, a clinical researcher who focuses on cardiovascular diseases in rheumatology at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, said that “at least for rheumatoid arthritis, this is something that we already knew. People with rheumatic arthritis, when they have a heart attack, are less likely to get the standard kind of treatments and have worse outcomes. This is a little larger sample, but it’s not a surprise, not a surprise at all.”

He noted that the study could have answered questions regarding potential drivers, but “they didn’t dig down into any of the factors that were associated with the poorer outcomes in the patients with rheumatoid arthritis and lupus and scleroderma.”

Indeed, the investigators acknowledge that the study lacked information on coronary anatomy, duration and severity of the autoimmune disease, imaging data, and medications such as anti-inflammatory or immune-targeted therapies.

Dr. Giles highlighted several factors that can contribute to a poorer post-MI prognosis in patients with rheumatic diseases; these include frailty, being more hypercoaguable, increased rates of myocardial dysfunction and other heart and blood vessel diseases, and chronic treatment with steroids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs that often interferes with anticoagulation after a MI or when putting in a stent. “So, there’s lot of moving parts, and not one single thing that is likely the answer.”

In addition, he said, “there’s always going to be a portion of these patients who, despite doing the best that we can with treatment, are going to have very severe disease. That may or may not be the subset of patients that did the worst, but likely they’re overrepresented in those patients.”

Finally, the inability to move the needle may lie with the lack of evidence-based screening and management guidelines for cardiovascular disease in any rheumatic disease, Dr. Giles observed. “There’s no guideline for us to use to decide who needs screening over and above what’s recommended for the general population, and then, even if you do screen, what do you do other than what you would normally?”

Rheumatologists are often reluctant to take up the cardiovascular screening side of things because visits are short, and a lot of that time is spent trying to manage the inflammatory components of a patient’s disease, he said. There’s also a barrier in getting some patients to add a cardiologist to the mix of physicians they already see, especially if they don’t have any symptoms.

“If someone has had an event, it’s a lot easier for people to be convinced to go see the cardiologist, obviously, but prior to having an event, the preventative side of things is something that often gets missed or goes to the wayside,” Dr. Giles said.

The study was partly funded by philanthropic gifts by the Haslam family, Bailey family, and Khouri family to the Cleveland Clinic for coauthor Dr. Milind Desai’s research. Dr. Desai is a consultant for Medtronic and Bristol Myers Squibb and serves on an executive steering committee of a BMS-sponsored trial. The remaining authors report having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Giles is a consultant on drug cardiovascular safety for Pfizer, AbbVie, and Eli Lilly.

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

Treatment with the humanized monoclonal antibody litifilimab for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) led to greater improvements in joint manifestations than did placebo in an international phase 2 trial that reflects keen interest in targeting type 1 interferon and the innate immune system.

Litifilimab was associated with an approximately three-joint reduction in the number of swollen and tender joints, compared with placebo, over 24 weeks in the study, which was published  in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The study was the first part of the LILAC trial, a two-part, phase 2 study. The second part involved cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) with or without systemic manifestations. Treatment led to improvements in skin disease, as measured by Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index–Activity (CLASI-A) scores. It was published  in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The investigational drug targets blood dendritic cell antigen 2 (BDCA2). The antigen is expressed solely on plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs), which accumulate in skin lesions and organs of patients with SLE. When the antibody binds to BDCA2, “the synthesis of a variety of cytokines is shut down – type 1 interferons, type 3 interferons, TNF [tumor necrosis factor], and [other cytokines and chemokines] made by the pDCs,” Richard A. Furie, MD, lead author of the article, said in an interview.

In a phase 1 trial involving patients with SLE and CLE, the drug’s biologic activity was shown by a dampened interferon signature in blood and modulated type 1 interferon-induced proteins in the skin, he and his coinvestigators noted.

Dr. Furie is chief of rheumatology at Northwell Health and professor of medicine at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research at Northwell and at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Uniondale, New York.
 

Impact on the joints

The primary analysis in the SLE trial involved 102 patients who had SLE, arthritis, and active skin disease. The patients received litifilimab 450 mg or placebo, administered subcutaneously, at weeks 0, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20. The patients were required to have at least four tender joints and at least four swollen joints, and these active joints had to be those classically involved in lupus arthritis.

The mean (± standard deviation) baseline number of active joints was 19 ± 8.4 in the litifilimab group and 21.6 ± 8.5 in placebo group. From baseline to week 24, the least-squares mean (± standard deviation) change in the total number of active joints was –15.0 ± 1.2 with litifilimab and –11.6 ± 1.3 with placebo (mean difference, –3.4; 95% confidence interval, –6.7 to -0.2; P = .04).

Most of the secondary endpoints did not support the results of the primary analysis. However, improvement was seen in the SLE Responder Index (SRI-4) – a three-component global index that Dr. Furie and others developed in 2009 using data from the phase 2 SLE trial of belimumab (Benlysta).

The composite index, used in the phase 3 trial of belimumab, captures improvement in disease activity without a worsening of the condition overall or new significant disease activity in other domains. “It’s a dichotomous measure – either you’re a responder or not,” Dr. Furie said in the interview.

Response on the SRI-4 was defined as a reduction of at least 4 points from baseline in the SLEDAI-2K score (the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index), no new disease activity as measured by one score of A (severe) or more than one score of B (moderate) on the BILAG (British Isles Lupus Assessment Group) index, and no increase of 0.3 points or more on the Physician’s Global Assessment.

A total of 56% of the patients in the litifilimab group showed responses on the SRI-4 at week 24, compared with 29% in the placebo group (least-squares mean difference, 26.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.5-43.2). This is “a robust response” that is much greater than the effect size seen in the phase 3 trial of belimumab or in research on anifrolumab (Saphnelo). Both of those drugs are approved for SLE, Dr. Furie said. “We’ll need to see if it’s reproduced in phase 3.”

There’s “little question that litifilimab works for the skin,” Dr. Furie noted. In the second part of the LILAC study, which focused on CLE, litifilimab demonstrated efficacy, and the SLE trial lends more support. Among several secondary endpoints evaluating skin-related disease activity, a reduction of at least 7 points from baseline in the CLASI-A score (a clinically relevant threshold) occurred in 56% of the litifilimab group and 34% of the placebo group.

The trial was conducted at 55 centers in Asia, Europe, Latin America, and the United States. The SLE part of the study began as a dose-ranging study aimed at evaluating cutaneous lupus activity, but owing to “slow enrollment and to allow an assessment of the effect of litifilimab on arthritis in SLE,” the protocol and primary endpoint were amended before the trial data were unblinded to evaluate only the 450-mg dose among participants with active arthritis and skin disease (at least one active skin lesion), the investigators explained.

Background therapy for SLE was allowed if the therapy was initiated at least 12 weeks before randomization and if dose levels were stable through the trial period. Glucocorticoids had to be tapered to ≤ 10 mg/day according to a specified regimen.

Making progress for lupus

Jane E. Salmon, MD, director of the Lupus and APS Center of Excellence and codirector of the Mary Kirkland Center for Lupus Research at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, who was not involved in the research, said in an email that she is “cautiously optimistic, because in SLE, successful phase 2 trials too often are followed by unsuccessful phase 3 trials.”

Courtesy Hospital for Special Surgery

Blocking the production of type 1 interferon by pDCs implicated in SLE pathogenesis has the theoretical advantage of preserving type 1 interferon critical to protection from viruses, she noted. Herpes infections were reported among patients who received litifilimab, but rates were not increased, compared with placebo.

Diversity is an important priority in further research, Dr. Salmon said.

Daniel J. Wallace, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, similarly pointed out in an editorial that accompanied the SLE phase 2 trial that while Black patients make up one-third of the U.S. population with lupus, only about 10% of study participants whose race and ethnicity was reported were Black). (Race was not reported by sites in Europe.)

The results of the LILAC trials “encourage further exploration of interventions that affect upstream lupus inflammatory pathways in the innate immune system in lupus,” Dr. Wallace wrote. He noted that lupus has “lagged behind its rheumatic cousins,” such as rheumatoid arthritis and vasculitis, in drug development.

Developing endpoints and study designs for SLE trials has been challenging, at least partly because it is a multisystem disease, Dr. Furie said. “But we’re making progress.”

Anifrolumab, a type 1 interferon receptor monoclonal antibody that was approved for SLE in July 2021, “may have a broader effect on type 1 interferons,” he noted, while litifilimab “may have a broader effect on proinflammatory cytokines, at least those expressed by pDCs.”

Biogen, the sponsor of the LILAC trial, is currently enrolling patients in phase 3 studies – TOPAZ-1 and TOPAZ-2 – to evaluate litifilimab in SLE over a 52-week period. The company also plans to start a pivotal study of the drug in CLE later this year, according to a press release.

Six coauthors are employees of Biogen; five, including Dr. Furie, reported serving as a consultant to the company; one served on a data and safety monitoring board for Biogen; and Dr. Salmon owns stock in the company.

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

Treatment with the humanized monoclonal antibody litifilimab for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) led to greater improvements in joint manifestations than did placebo in an international phase 2 trial that reflects keen interest in targeting type 1 interferon and the innate immune system.

Litifilimab was associated with an approximately three-joint reduction in the number of swollen and tender joints, compared with placebo, over 24 weeks in the study, which was published  in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The study was the first part of the LILAC trial, a two-part, phase 2 study. The second part involved cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) with or without systemic manifestations. Treatment led to improvements in skin disease, as measured by Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index–Activity (CLASI-A) scores. It was published  in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The investigational drug targets blood dendritic cell antigen 2 (BDCA2). The antigen is expressed solely on plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs), which accumulate in skin lesions and organs of patients with SLE. When the antibody binds to BDCA2, “the synthesis of a variety of cytokines is shut down – type 1 interferons, type 3 interferons, TNF [tumor necrosis factor], and [other cytokines and chemokines] made by the pDCs,” Richard A. Furie, MD, lead author of the article, said in an interview.

In a phase 1 trial involving patients with SLE and CLE, the drug’s biologic activity was shown by a dampened interferon signature in blood and modulated type 1 interferon-induced proteins in the skin, he and his coinvestigators noted.

Dr. Furie is chief of rheumatology at Northwell Health and professor of medicine at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research at Northwell and at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Uniondale, New York.
 

Impact on the joints

The primary analysis in the SLE trial involved 102 patients who had SLE, arthritis, and active skin disease. The patients received litifilimab 450 mg or placebo, administered subcutaneously, at weeks 0, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20. The patients were required to have at least four tender joints and at least four swollen joints, and these active joints had to be those classically involved in lupus arthritis.

The mean (± standard deviation) baseline number of active joints was 19 ± 8.4 in the litifilimab group and 21.6 ± 8.5 in placebo group. From baseline to week 24, the least-squares mean (± standard deviation) change in the total number of active joints was –15.0 ± 1.2 with litifilimab and –11.6 ± 1.3 with placebo (mean difference, –3.4; 95% confidence interval, –6.7 to -0.2; P = .04).

Most of the secondary endpoints did not support the results of the primary analysis. However, improvement was seen in the SLE Responder Index (SRI-4) – a three-component global index that Dr. Furie and others developed in 2009 using data from the phase 2 SLE trial of belimumab (Benlysta).

The composite index, used in the phase 3 trial of belimumab, captures improvement in disease activity without a worsening of the condition overall or new significant disease activity in other domains. “It’s a dichotomous measure – either you’re a responder or not,” Dr. Furie said in the interview.

Response on the SRI-4 was defined as a reduction of at least 4 points from baseline in the SLEDAI-2K score (the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index), no new disease activity as measured by one score of A (severe) or more than one score of B (moderate) on the BILAG (British Isles Lupus Assessment Group) index, and no increase of 0.3 points or more on the Physician’s Global Assessment.

A total of 56% of the patients in the litifilimab group showed responses on the SRI-4 at week 24, compared with 29% in the placebo group (least-squares mean difference, 26.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.5-43.2). This is “a robust response” that is much greater than the effect size seen in the phase 3 trial of belimumab or in research on anifrolumab (Saphnelo). Both of those drugs are approved for SLE, Dr. Furie said. “We’ll need to see if it’s reproduced in phase 3.”

There’s “little question that litifilimab works for the skin,” Dr. Furie noted. In the second part of the LILAC study, which focused on CLE, litifilimab demonstrated efficacy, and the SLE trial lends more support. Among several secondary endpoints evaluating skin-related disease activity, a reduction of at least 7 points from baseline in the CLASI-A score (a clinically relevant threshold) occurred in 56% of the litifilimab group and 34% of the placebo group.

The trial was conducted at 55 centers in Asia, Europe, Latin America, and the United States. The SLE part of the study began as a dose-ranging study aimed at evaluating cutaneous lupus activity, but owing to “slow enrollment and to allow an assessment of the effect of litifilimab on arthritis in SLE,” the protocol and primary endpoint were amended before the trial data were unblinded to evaluate only the 450-mg dose among participants with active arthritis and skin disease (at least one active skin lesion), the investigators explained.

Background therapy for SLE was allowed if the therapy was initiated at least 12 weeks before randomization and if dose levels were stable through the trial period. Glucocorticoids had to be tapered to ≤ 10 mg/day according to a specified regimen.

Making progress for lupus

Jane E. Salmon, MD, director of the Lupus and APS Center of Excellence and codirector of the Mary Kirkland Center for Lupus Research at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, who was not involved in the research, said in an email that she is “cautiously optimistic, because in SLE, successful phase 2 trials too often are followed by unsuccessful phase 3 trials.”

Courtesy Hospital for Special Surgery

Blocking the production of type 1 interferon by pDCs implicated in SLE pathogenesis has the theoretical advantage of preserving type 1 interferon critical to protection from viruses, she noted. Herpes infections were reported among patients who received litifilimab, but rates were not increased, compared with placebo.

Diversity is an important priority in further research, Dr. Salmon said.

Daniel J. Wallace, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, similarly pointed out in an editorial that accompanied the SLE phase 2 trial that while Black patients make up one-third of the U.S. population with lupus, only about 10% of study participants whose race and ethnicity was reported were Black). (Race was not reported by sites in Europe.)

The results of the LILAC trials “encourage further exploration of interventions that affect upstream lupus inflammatory pathways in the innate immune system in lupus,” Dr. Wallace wrote. He noted that lupus has “lagged behind its rheumatic cousins,” such as rheumatoid arthritis and vasculitis, in drug development.

Developing endpoints and study designs for SLE trials has been challenging, at least partly because it is a multisystem disease, Dr. Furie said. “But we’re making progress.”

Anifrolumab, a type 1 interferon receptor monoclonal antibody that was approved for SLE in July 2021, “may have a broader effect on type 1 interferons,” he noted, while litifilimab “may have a broader effect on proinflammatory cytokines, at least those expressed by pDCs.”

Biogen, the sponsor of the LILAC trial, is currently enrolling patients in phase 3 studies – TOPAZ-1 and TOPAZ-2 – to evaluate litifilimab in SLE over a 52-week period. The company also plans to start a pivotal study of the drug in CLE later this year, according to a press release.

Six coauthors are employees of Biogen; five, including Dr. Furie, reported serving as a consultant to the company; one served on a data and safety monitoring board for Biogen; and Dr. Salmon owns stock in the company.

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

Treatment with the humanized monoclonal antibody litifilimab for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) led to greater improvements in joint manifestations than did placebo in an international phase 2 trial that reflects keen interest in targeting type 1 interferon and the innate immune system.

Litifilimab was associated with an approximately three-joint reduction in the number of swollen and tender joints, compared with placebo, over 24 weeks in the study, which was published  in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The study was the first part of the LILAC trial, a two-part, phase 2 study. The second part involved cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) with or without systemic manifestations. Treatment led to improvements in skin disease, as measured by Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index–Activity (CLASI-A) scores. It was published  in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The investigational drug targets blood dendritic cell antigen 2 (BDCA2). The antigen is expressed solely on plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs), which accumulate in skin lesions and organs of patients with SLE. When the antibody binds to BDCA2, “the synthesis of a variety of cytokines is shut down – type 1 interferons, type 3 interferons, TNF [tumor necrosis factor], and [other cytokines and chemokines] made by the pDCs,” Richard A. Furie, MD, lead author of the article, said in an interview.

In a phase 1 trial involving patients with SLE and CLE, the drug’s biologic activity was shown by a dampened interferon signature in blood and modulated type 1 interferon-induced proteins in the skin, he and his coinvestigators noted.

Dr. Furie is chief of rheumatology at Northwell Health and professor of medicine at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research at Northwell and at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Uniondale, New York.
 

Impact on the joints

The primary analysis in the SLE trial involved 102 patients who had SLE, arthritis, and active skin disease. The patients received litifilimab 450 mg or placebo, administered subcutaneously, at weeks 0, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20. The patients were required to have at least four tender joints and at least four swollen joints, and these active joints had to be those classically involved in lupus arthritis.

The mean (± standard deviation) baseline number of active joints was 19 ± 8.4 in the litifilimab group and 21.6 ± 8.5 in placebo group. From baseline to week 24, the least-squares mean (± standard deviation) change in the total number of active joints was –15.0 ± 1.2 with litifilimab and –11.6 ± 1.3 with placebo (mean difference, –3.4; 95% confidence interval, –6.7 to -0.2; P = .04).

Most of the secondary endpoints did not support the results of the primary analysis. However, improvement was seen in the SLE Responder Index (SRI-4) – a three-component global index that Dr. Furie and others developed in 2009 using data from the phase 2 SLE trial of belimumab (Benlysta).

The composite index, used in the phase 3 trial of belimumab, captures improvement in disease activity without a worsening of the condition overall or new significant disease activity in other domains. “It’s a dichotomous measure – either you’re a responder or not,” Dr. Furie said in the interview.

Response on the SRI-4 was defined as a reduction of at least 4 points from baseline in the SLEDAI-2K score (the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index), no new disease activity as measured by one score of A (severe) or more than one score of B (moderate) on the BILAG (British Isles Lupus Assessment Group) index, and no increase of 0.3 points or more on the Physician’s Global Assessment.

A total of 56% of the patients in the litifilimab group showed responses on the SRI-4 at week 24, compared with 29% in the placebo group (least-squares mean difference, 26.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.5-43.2). This is “a robust response” that is much greater than the effect size seen in the phase 3 trial of belimumab or in research on anifrolumab (Saphnelo). Both of those drugs are approved for SLE, Dr. Furie said. “We’ll need to see if it’s reproduced in phase 3.”

There’s “little question that litifilimab works for the skin,” Dr. Furie noted. In the second part of the LILAC study, which focused on CLE, litifilimab demonstrated efficacy, and the SLE trial lends more support. Among several secondary endpoints evaluating skin-related disease activity, a reduction of at least 7 points from baseline in the CLASI-A score (a clinically relevant threshold) occurred in 56% of the litifilimab group and 34% of the placebo group.

The trial was conducted at 55 centers in Asia, Europe, Latin America, and the United States. The SLE part of the study began as a dose-ranging study aimed at evaluating cutaneous lupus activity, but owing to “slow enrollment and to allow an assessment of the effect of litifilimab on arthritis in SLE,” the protocol and primary endpoint were amended before the trial data were unblinded to evaluate only the 450-mg dose among participants with active arthritis and skin disease (at least one active skin lesion), the investigators explained.

Background therapy for SLE was allowed if the therapy was initiated at least 12 weeks before randomization and if dose levels were stable through the trial period. Glucocorticoids had to be tapered to ≤ 10 mg/day according to a specified regimen.

Making progress for lupus

Jane E. Salmon, MD, director of the Lupus and APS Center of Excellence and codirector of the Mary Kirkland Center for Lupus Research at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, who was not involved in the research, said in an email that she is “cautiously optimistic, because in SLE, successful phase 2 trials too often are followed by unsuccessful phase 3 trials.”

Courtesy Hospital for Special Surgery

Blocking the production of type 1 interferon by pDCs implicated in SLE pathogenesis has the theoretical advantage of preserving type 1 interferon critical to protection from viruses, she noted. Herpes infections were reported among patients who received litifilimab, but rates were not increased, compared with placebo.

Diversity is an important priority in further research, Dr. Salmon said.

Daniel J. Wallace, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, similarly pointed out in an editorial that accompanied the SLE phase 2 trial that while Black patients make up one-third of the U.S. population with lupus, only about 10% of study participants whose race and ethnicity was reported were Black). (Race was not reported by sites in Europe.)

The results of the LILAC trials “encourage further exploration of interventions that affect upstream lupus inflammatory pathways in the innate immune system in lupus,” Dr. Wallace wrote. He noted that lupus has “lagged behind its rheumatic cousins,” such as rheumatoid arthritis and vasculitis, in drug development.

Developing endpoints and study designs for SLE trials has been challenging, at least partly because it is a multisystem disease, Dr. Furie said. “But we’re making progress.”

Anifrolumab, a type 1 interferon receptor monoclonal antibody that was approved for SLE in July 2021, “may have a broader effect on type 1 interferons,” he noted, while litifilimab “may have a broader effect on proinflammatory cytokines, at least those expressed by pDCs.”

Biogen, the sponsor of the LILAC trial, is currently enrolling patients in phase 3 studies – TOPAZ-1 and TOPAZ-2 – to evaluate litifilimab in SLE over a 52-week period. The company also plans to start a pivotal study of the drug in CLE later this year, according to a press release.

Six coauthors are employees of Biogen; five, including Dr. Furie, reported serving as a consultant to the company; one served on a data and safety monitoring board for Biogen; and Dr. Salmon owns stock in the company.

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

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), or lupus, shows a marked sex bias, affecting about nine females for every one male, according to Susan Kovats, PhD, who studies sex differences in immunity at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation in Oklahoma City. This characteristic of lupus suggests that hormones are involved in the pathogenesis of the disease. It also suggests, Dr. Kovats said, that the X chromosome might play a role.

Though studies since the 1970s have indicated a significant role for hormones, the issue is still complex and not well understood, and relatively little research has been done on the molecular mechanisms that might be responsible. This may be because of difficulties with influencing the immune system in vitro, said George A. Robinson, PhD, of University College London’s Centre for Rheumatology.

But Dr. Robinson and his team found a unique way of investigating the role of sex chromosomes and hormones in the inflammatory profiles across subjects of different sex, gender, age, and disease status. In research published online in The Lancet Rheumatology, Dr. Robinson and his team looked at immune cells taken from both cisgender men and women and transgender men and women, and thus were able to “get a more physiological view of what sex hormones are doing to the immune system,” he said.

Dr. Kovats agreed that it was a useful approach. “The transgender people provided an opportunity to effectively separate sex hormone levels from chromosome content,” she said in an interview.
 

Methods and findings

Peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) samples were taken from cisgender individuals with and without juvenile-onset lupus and assessed for 28 immune-cell subsets, including different T-cell, B-cell, and monotype subsets. Subjects included 39 postpubertal cisgender men and women (17 men and 22 women) who did not have juvenile-onset lupus, and 35 postpubertal cisgender men and women (12 men and 23 women) who did have juvenile onset lupus. All were aged 16-25 years. The transgender group included five transgender men and five transgender women (aged 18-19) who were undergoing gender-affirming sex hormone treatment.

The analysis found that one of the key differences between young postpubertal cisgender men and age-matched cisgender women was that the men had significantly elevated frequencies of regulatory T cells (T-reg cells), and the T-reg cells from young cisgender men had greater suppressive capacity in vitro than did those from cisgender women. In addition, RNA sequencing data from isolated T-reg cells showed the transcriptomic signature of the cisgender men’s T-regs were significantly enriched for genes in the P13K-AKT signaling pathway. The frequency of T-reg cells was not influenced by sex hormones, but their transcriptomic profile was affected.

“These results are beginning to give us an indication of which genes might be differentially regulated by sex hormones and how these are associated with autoimmunity,” Dr. Robinson said. “We’ve also found that, depending on whether you’re a cisgender man or woman, you may have a different pathogenic process to developing lupus. It’s not necessarily that one mechanism drives the disease across both sexes.”
 

New approaches, better insights

Dr. Kovats was particularly impressed by the methods of this study. “It was a natural study, the kind of thing we can usually do only in mice,” she said.

Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation

“One problem with studies on the effects of hormones in disease is that historically researchers have not paid that much attention to the actual hormone levels in the humans they studied. They might look at 100 women and 100 men, roughly between the ages of 20 and 50. We’re starting to see more, but there aren’t a lot of studies correlating numbers of cells in blood with actual hormone levels in the person. And as we know, just because someone’s a certain age doesn’t mean that they have a textbook hormone level. Early menopause, birth-control pills, many things can affect those levels.”

The researchers hope that these findings will shed light on the mechanisms that create sexual bias in autoimmune diseases, particularly lupus, as well as help researchers to better understand the innate and adaptive immunological differences between men and women. It could also be useful in the clinical setting, Dr. Robinson said. Because of the extreme sex bias in lupus, doctors see far more women with the illness than men. When they do see men with lupus, they need to be able to consider how the patient’s sex affects the development and course of the disease. “I think that people need to start looking at patients as clinically different, depending on their sex and gender,” he said. Information like that analyzed in this study could help with that. This could be especially important because as Dr. Kovats pointed out, although men get lupus far less often than women, when they do have it, they tend to have more severe disease.
 

Help from machines

This study was groundbreaking in another area as well. The researchers used machine learning to analyze the data. “We’ve started working a lot more with these analysis methods to try to answer as much as we can with these smaller data sets,” Dr. Robinson said. “Rather than the conventional analysis that we would typically perform, we’re able to use machine learning and artificial intelligence to try and learn from the data and increase the numbers that we’re working with by using a training data set. This allows us to interrogate the data with a lot more precision.”

The authors declared no competing interests.

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), or lupus, shows a marked sex bias, affecting about nine females for every one male, according to Susan Kovats, PhD, who studies sex differences in immunity at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation in Oklahoma City. This characteristic of lupus suggests that hormones are involved in the pathogenesis of the disease. It also suggests, Dr. Kovats said, that the X chromosome might play a role.

Though studies since the 1970s have indicated a significant role for hormones, the issue is still complex and not well understood, and relatively little research has been done on the molecular mechanisms that might be responsible. This may be because of difficulties with influencing the immune system in vitro, said George A. Robinson, PhD, of University College London’s Centre for Rheumatology.

But Dr. Robinson and his team found a unique way of investigating the role of sex chromosomes and hormones in the inflammatory profiles across subjects of different sex, gender, age, and disease status. In research published online in The Lancet Rheumatology, Dr. Robinson and his team looked at immune cells taken from both cisgender men and women and transgender men and women, and thus were able to “get a more physiological view of what sex hormones are doing to the immune system,” he said.

Dr. Kovats agreed that it was a useful approach. “The transgender people provided an opportunity to effectively separate sex hormone levels from chromosome content,” she said in an interview.
 

Methods and findings

Peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) samples were taken from cisgender individuals with and without juvenile-onset lupus and assessed for 28 immune-cell subsets, including different T-cell, B-cell, and monotype subsets. Subjects included 39 postpubertal cisgender men and women (17 men and 22 women) who did not have juvenile-onset lupus, and 35 postpubertal cisgender men and women (12 men and 23 women) who did have juvenile onset lupus. All were aged 16-25 years. The transgender group included five transgender men and five transgender women (aged 18-19) who were undergoing gender-affirming sex hormone treatment.

The analysis found that one of the key differences between young postpubertal cisgender men and age-matched cisgender women was that the men had significantly elevated frequencies of regulatory T cells (T-reg cells), and the T-reg cells from young cisgender men had greater suppressive capacity in vitro than did those from cisgender women. In addition, RNA sequencing data from isolated T-reg cells showed the transcriptomic signature of the cisgender men’s T-regs were significantly enriched for genes in the P13K-AKT signaling pathway. The frequency of T-reg cells was not influenced by sex hormones, but their transcriptomic profile was affected.

“These results are beginning to give us an indication of which genes might be differentially regulated by sex hormones and how these are associated with autoimmunity,” Dr. Robinson said. “We’ve also found that, depending on whether you’re a cisgender man or woman, you may have a different pathogenic process to developing lupus. It’s not necessarily that one mechanism drives the disease across both sexes.”
 

New approaches, better insights

Dr. Kovats was particularly impressed by the methods of this study. “It was a natural study, the kind of thing we can usually do only in mice,” she said.

Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation

“One problem with studies on the effects of hormones in disease is that historically researchers have not paid that much attention to the actual hormone levels in the humans they studied. They might look at 100 women and 100 men, roughly between the ages of 20 and 50. We’re starting to see more, but there aren’t a lot of studies correlating numbers of cells in blood with actual hormone levels in the person. And as we know, just because someone’s a certain age doesn’t mean that they have a textbook hormone level. Early menopause, birth-control pills, many things can affect those levels.”

The researchers hope that these findings will shed light on the mechanisms that create sexual bias in autoimmune diseases, particularly lupus, as well as help researchers to better understand the innate and adaptive immunological differences between men and women. It could also be useful in the clinical setting, Dr. Robinson said. Because of the extreme sex bias in lupus, doctors see far more women with the illness than men. When they do see men with lupus, they need to be able to consider how the patient’s sex affects the development and course of the disease. “I think that people need to start looking at patients as clinically different, depending on their sex and gender,” he said. Information like that analyzed in this study could help with that. This could be especially important because as Dr. Kovats pointed out, although men get lupus far less often than women, when they do have it, they tend to have more severe disease.
 

Help from machines

This study was groundbreaking in another area as well. The researchers used machine learning to analyze the data. “We’ve started working a lot more with these analysis methods to try to answer as much as we can with these smaller data sets,” Dr. Robinson said. “Rather than the conventional analysis that we would typically perform, we’re able to use machine learning and artificial intelligence to try and learn from the data and increase the numbers that we’re working with by using a training data set. This allows us to interrogate the data with a lot more precision.”

The authors declared no competing interests.

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), or lupus, shows a marked sex bias, affecting about nine females for every one male, according to Susan Kovats, PhD, who studies sex differences in immunity at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation in Oklahoma City. This characteristic of lupus suggests that hormones are involved in the pathogenesis of the disease. It also suggests, Dr. Kovats said, that the X chromosome might play a role.

Though studies since the 1970s have indicated a significant role for hormones, the issue is still complex and not well understood, and relatively little research has been done on the molecular mechanisms that might be responsible. This may be because of difficulties with influencing the immune system in vitro, said George A. Robinson, PhD, of University College London’s Centre for Rheumatology.

But Dr. Robinson and his team found a unique way of investigating the role of sex chromosomes and hormones in the inflammatory profiles across subjects of different sex, gender, age, and disease status. In research published online in The Lancet Rheumatology, Dr. Robinson and his team looked at immune cells taken from both cisgender men and women and transgender men and women, and thus were able to “get a more physiological view of what sex hormones are doing to the immune system,” he said.

Dr. Kovats agreed that it was a useful approach. “The transgender people provided an opportunity to effectively separate sex hormone levels from chromosome content,” she said in an interview.
 

Methods and findings

Peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) samples were taken from cisgender individuals with and without juvenile-onset lupus and assessed for 28 immune-cell subsets, including different T-cell, B-cell, and monotype subsets. Subjects included 39 postpubertal cisgender men and women (17 men and 22 women) who did not have juvenile-onset lupus, and 35 postpubertal cisgender men and women (12 men and 23 women) who did have juvenile onset lupus. All were aged 16-25 years. The transgender group included five transgender men and five transgender women (aged 18-19) who were undergoing gender-affirming sex hormone treatment.

The analysis found that one of the key differences between young postpubertal cisgender men and age-matched cisgender women was that the men had significantly elevated frequencies of regulatory T cells (T-reg cells), and the T-reg cells from young cisgender men had greater suppressive capacity in vitro than did those from cisgender women. In addition, RNA sequencing data from isolated T-reg cells showed the transcriptomic signature of the cisgender men’s T-regs were significantly enriched for genes in the P13K-AKT signaling pathway. The frequency of T-reg cells was not influenced by sex hormones, but their transcriptomic profile was affected.

“These results are beginning to give us an indication of which genes might be differentially regulated by sex hormones and how these are associated with autoimmunity,” Dr. Robinson said. “We’ve also found that, depending on whether you’re a cisgender man or woman, you may have a different pathogenic process to developing lupus. It’s not necessarily that one mechanism drives the disease across both sexes.”
 

New approaches, better insights

Dr. Kovats was particularly impressed by the methods of this study. “It was a natural study, the kind of thing we can usually do only in mice,” she said.

Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation

“One problem with studies on the effects of hormones in disease is that historically researchers have not paid that much attention to the actual hormone levels in the humans they studied. They might look at 100 women and 100 men, roughly between the ages of 20 and 50. We’re starting to see more, but there aren’t a lot of studies correlating numbers of cells in blood with actual hormone levels in the person. And as we know, just because someone’s a certain age doesn’t mean that they have a textbook hormone level. Early menopause, birth-control pills, many things can affect those levels.”

The researchers hope that these findings will shed light on the mechanisms that create sexual bias in autoimmune diseases, particularly lupus, as well as help researchers to better understand the innate and adaptive immunological differences between men and women. It could also be useful in the clinical setting, Dr. Robinson said. Because of the extreme sex bias in lupus, doctors see far more women with the illness than men. When they do see men with lupus, they need to be able to consider how the patient’s sex affects the development and course of the disease. “I think that people need to start looking at patients as clinically different, depending on their sex and gender,” he said. Information like that analyzed in this study could help with that. This could be especially important because as Dr. Kovats pointed out, although men get lupus far less often than women, when they do have it, they tend to have more severe disease.
 

Help from machines

This study was groundbreaking in another area as well. The researchers used machine learning to analyze the data. “We’ve started working a lot more with these analysis methods to try to answer as much as we can with these smaller data sets,” Dr. Robinson said. “Rather than the conventional analysis that we would typically perform, we’re able to use machine learning and artificial intelligence to try and learn from the data and increase the numbers that we’re working with by using a training data set. This allows us to interrogate the data with a lot more precision.”

The authors declared no competing interests.

New research links the use of glucocorticoids with changes in white matter microstructure – which may explain the development of anxiety, depression, and other neuropsychiatric side effects related to these drugs, investigators say.

Results from a cross-sectional study showed that use of both systemic and inhaled glucocorticoids was associated with widespread reductions in fractional anisotropy (FA) and increases in mean diffusivity.

Glucocorticoids have “a whole catalogue” of adverse events, and effects on brain structure “adds to the list,” co-investigator Onno C. Meijer, PhD, professor of molecular neuroendocrinology of corticosteroids, department of medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands, told this news organization.

Serious side effects

Glucocorticoids, a class of synthetic steroids with immunosuppressive properties, are prescribed for a wide range of conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis and asthma.

However, they are also associated with potentially serious metabolic, cardiovascular, and musculoskeletal side effects as well as neuropsychiatric side effects such as depression, mania, and cognitive impairment.

About 1 in 3 patients exposed to “quite a lot of these drugs” will experience neuropsychiatric symptoms, Dr. Meijer said.

Most previous studies that investigated effects from high levels of glucocorticoids on brain structure have been small and involved selected populations, such as those with Cushing disease.

The new study included participants from the UK Biobank, a large population-based cohort. Participants had undergone imaging and did not have a history of psychiatric disease – although they could have conditions associated with glucocorticoid use, including anxiety, depression, mania, or delirium.

The analysis included 222 patients using oral or parenteral glucocorticoids at the time of imaging (systemic group), 557 using inhaled glucocorticoids, and 24,106 not using glucocorticoids (the control group).

Inhaled steroids target the lungs, whereas a steroid in pill form “travels in the blood and reaches each and every organ and cell in the body and typically requires higher doses,” Dr. Meijer noted.

The groups were similar with respect to sex, education, and smoking status. However, the systemic glucocorticoid group was slightly older (mean age, 66.1 years vs. 63.3 years for inhaled glucocorticoid users and 63.5 years for the control group).

In addition to age, researchers adjusted for sex, education level, head position in the scanner, head size, assessment center, and year of imaging.
 

Imaging analyses

Imaging analyses showed systemic glucocorticoid use was associated with reduced global FA (adjusted mean difference, -3.7e-3; 95% confidence interval, -6.4e-3 to 1.0e-3), and reductions in regional FA in the body and genu of the corpus callosum versus the control group.

Inhaled glucocorticoid use was associated with reduced global FA (AMD, -2.3e-3; 95% CI, -4.0e-3 to -5.7e-4), and lower FA in the splenium of the corpus callosum and the cingulum of the hippocampus.

Global mean diffusivity was higher in systemic glucocorticoid users (AMD, 7.2e-6; 95% CI, 3.2e-6 to 1.1e-5) and inhaled glucocorticoid users (AMD, 2.7e-6; 95% CI, 1.7e-7 to 5.2e-6), compared with the control group.

The effects of glucocorticoids on white matter were “pervasive,” and the “most important finding” of the study, Dr. Meijer said. “We were impressed by the fact white matter is so sensitive to these drugs.”

He noted that it is likely that functional connectivity between brain regions is affected by use of glucocorticoids. “You could say communication between brain regions is probably somewhat impaired or challenged,” he said.

Subgroup analyses among participants using glucocorticoids chronically, defined as reported at two consecutive visits, suggested a potential dose-dependent or duration-dependent effect of glucocorticoids on white matter microstructure.

Systemic glucocorticoid use was also associated with an increase in total and grey matter volume of the caudate nucleus.

In addition, there was a significant association between inhaled glucocorticoid use and decreased grey matter volume of the amygdala, which Dr. Meijer said was surprising because studies have shown that glucocorticoids “can drive amygdala big time.”
 

Move away from ‘one dose for all’?

Another surprise was that the results showed no hippocampal volume differences with steroid use, Dr. Meijer noted.

The modest association between glucocorticoid use and brain volumes could indicate that white matter integrity is more sensitive to glucocorticoids than is grey matter volume, “at least at the structural level,” he said.

He added that longer use or higher doses may be necessary to also induce volumetric changes.

Participants also completed a questionnaire to assess mood over the previous 2 weeks. Systemic glucocorticoid users had more depressive symptoms, disinterest, tenseness/restlessness, and tiredness/lethargy, compared with the control group. Inhaled glucocorticoid users only reported more tiredness/lethargy.

The investigators note that mood-related effects could be linked to the condition for which glucocorticoids were prescribed: for example, rheumatoid arthritis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

In terms of cognition, systemic glucocorticoid users performed significantly worse on the symbol digit substitution task, compared with participants in the control group.

In light of these findings, pharmaceutical companies that make inhaled corticosteroids “should perhaps find out if glucocorticoids can be dosed by kilogram body weight rather than simply one dose fits all,” which is currently the case, Dr. Meijer said.
 

Impressive, but several limitations

Commenting on the findings, E. Sherwood Brown, MD, PhD, Distinguished Chair in Psychiatric Research and professor and vice chair for clinical research, department of psychiatry, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, called the study sample size “impressive.”

In addition, the study is the first to look at systemic as well as inhaled corticosteroids, said Dr. Brown, who was not involved with the research. He noted that previously, there had been only case reports of psychiatric symptoms with inhaled corticosteroids.

That results are in the same direction but greater with systemic, compared with inhaled corticosteroids, is “particularly interesting” because this might suggest dose-dependent effects, Dr. Brown said.

He noted that cognitive differences were also only observed with systemic corticosteroids.

Some study observations, such as smaller amygdala volume with inhaled but not systemic corticosteroids, “are harder to understand,” said Dr. Brown.

However, he pointed out some study limitations. For example, data were apparently unavailable for verbal and declarative memory test data, despite corticosteroids probably affecting the hippocampus and causing memory changes.

Other drawbacks were that the dose and duration of corticosteroid use, as well as the medical histories of study participants, were not available, Dr. Brown said.

No study funding was reported. Dr. Meijer has received research grants and honorariums from Corcept Therapeutics and a speakers’ fee from Ipsen. Dr. Brown is on an advisory board for Sage Pharmaceuticals, which is developing neurosteroids (not corticosteroids) for mood disorders. He is also on a Medscape advisory board related to bipolar disorder.

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

New research links the use of glucocorticoids with changes in white matter microstructure – which may explain the development of anxiety, depression, and other neuropsychiatric side effects related to these drugs, investigators say.

Results from a cross-sectional study showed that use of both systemic and inhaled glucocorticoids was associated with widespread reductions in fractional anisotropy (FA) and increases in mean diffusivity.

Glucocorticoids have “a whole catalogue” of adverse events, and effects on brain structure “adds to the list,” co-investigator Onno C. Meijer, PhD, professor of molecular neuroendocrinology of corticosteroids, department of medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands, told this news organization.

Serious side effects

Glucocorticoids, a class of synthetic steroids with immunosuppressive properties, are prescribed for a wide range of conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis and asthma.

However, they are also associated with potentially serious metabolic, cardiovascular, and musculoskeletal side effects as well as neuropsychiatric side effects such as depression, mania, and cognitive impairment.

About 1 in 3 patients exposed to “quite a lot of these drugs” will experience neuropsychiatric symptoms, Dr. Meijer said.

Most previous studies that investigated effects from high levels of glucocorticoids on brain structure have been small and involved selected populations, such as those with Cushing disease.

The new study included participants from the UK Biobank, a large population-based cohort. Participants had undergone imaging and did not have a history of psychiatric disease – although they could have conditions associated with glucocorticoid use, including anxiety, depression, mania, or delirium.

The analysis included 222 patients using oral or parenteral glucocorticoids at the time of imaging (systemic group), 557 using inhaled glucocorticoids, and 24,106 not using glucocorticoids (the control group).

Inhaled steroids target the lungs, whereas a steroid in pill form “travels in the blood and reaches each and every organ and cell in the body and typically requires higher doses,” Dr. Meijer noted.

The groups were similar with respect to sex, education, and smoking status. However, the systemic glucocorticoid group was slightly older (mean age, 66.1 years vs. 63.3 years for inhaled glucocorticoid users and 63.5 years for the control group).

In addition to age, researchers adjusted for sex, education level, head position in the scanner, head size, assessment center, and year of imaging.
 

Imaging analyses

Imaging analyses showed systemic glucocorticoid use was associated with reduced global FA (adjusted mean difference, -3.7e-3; 95% confidence interval, -6.4e-3 to 1.0e-3), and reductions in regional FA in the body and genu of the corpus callosum versus the control group.

Inhaled glucocorticoid use was associated with reduced global FA (AMD, -2.3e-3; 95% CI, -4.0e-3 to -5.7e-4), and lower FA in the splenium of the corpus callosum and the cingulum of the hippocampus.

Global mean diffusivity was higher in systemic glucocorticoid users (AMD, 7.2e-6; 95% CI, 3.2e-6 to 1.1e-5) and inhaled glucocorticoid users (AMD, 2.7e-6; 95% CI, 1.7e-7 to 5.2e-6), compared with the control group.

The effects of glucocorticoids on white matter were “pervasive,” and the “most important finding” of the study, Dr. Meijer said. “We were impressed by the fact white matter is so sensitive to these drugs.”

He noted that it is likely that functional connectivity between brain regions is affected by use of glucocorticoids. “You could say communication between brain regions is probably somewhat impaired or challenged,” he said.

Subgroup analyses among participants using glucocorticoids chronically, defined as reported at two consecutive visits, suggested a potential dose-dependent or duration-dependent effect of glucocorticoids on white matter microstructure.

Systemic glucocorticoid use was also associated with an increase in total and grey matter volume of the caudate nucleus.

In addition, there was a significant association between inhaled glucocorticoid use and decreased grey matter volume of the amygdala, which Dr. Meijer said was surprising because studies have shown that glucocorticoids “can drive amygdala big time.”
 

Move away from ‘one dose for all’?

Another surprise was that the results showed no hippocampal volume differences with steroid use, Dr. Meijer noted.

The modest association between glucocorticoid use and brain volumes could indicate that white matter integrity is more sensitive to glucocorticoids than is grey matter volume, “at least at the structural level,” he said.

He added that longer use or higher doses may be necessary to also induce volumetric changes.

Participants also completed a questionnaire to assess mood over the previous 2 weeks. Systemic glucocorticoid users had more depressive symptoms, disinterest, tenseness/restlessness, and tiredness/lethargy, compared with the control group. Inhaled glucocorticoid users only reported more tiredness/lethargy.

The investigators note that mood-related effects could be linked to the condition for which glucocorticoids were prescribed: for example, rheumatoid arthritis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

In terms of cognition, systemic glucocorticoid users performed significantly worse on the symbol digit substitution task, compared with participants in the control group.

In light of these findings, pharmaceutical companies that make inhaled corticosteroids “should perhaps find out if glucocorticoids can be dosed by kilogram body weight rather than simply one dose fits all,” which is currently the case, Dr. Meijer said.
 

Impressive, but several limitations

Commenting on the findings, E. Sherwood Brown, MD, PhD, Distinguished Chair in Psychiatric Research and professor and vice chair for clinical research, department of psychiatry, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, called the study sample size “impressive.”

In addition, the study is the first to look at systemic as well as inhaled corticosteroids, said Dr. Brown, who was not involved with the research. He noted that previously, there had been only case reports of psychiatric symptoms with inhaled corticosteroids.

That results are in the same direction but greater with systemic, compared with inhaled corticosteroids, is “particularly interesting” because this might suggest dose-dependent effects, Dr. Brown said.

He noted that cognitive differences were also only observed with systemic corticosteroids.

Some study observations, such as smaller amygdala volume with inhaled but not systemic corticosteroids, “are harder to understand,” said Dr. Brown.

However, he pointed out some study limitations. For example, data were apparently unavailable for verbal and declarative memory test data, despite corticosteroids probably affecting the hippocampus and causing memory changes.

Other drawbacks were that the dose and duration of corticosteroid use, as well as the medical histories of study participants, were not available, Dr. Brown said.

No study funding was reported. Dr. Meijer has received research grants and honorariums from Corcept Therapeutics and a speakers’ fee from Ipsen. Dr. Brown is on an advisory board for Sage Pharmaceuticals, which is developing neurosteroids (not corticosteroids) for mood disorders. He is also on a Medscape advisory board related to bipolar disorder.

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

New research links the use of glucocorticoids with changes in white matter microstructure – which may explain the development of anxiety, depression, and other neuropsychiatric side effects related to these drugs, investigators say.

Results from a cross-sectional study showed that use of both systemic and inhaled glucocorticoids was associated with widespread reductions in fractional anisotropy (FA) and increases in mean diffusivity.

Glucocorticoids have “a whole catalogue” of adverse events, and effects on brain structure “adds to the list,” co-investigator Onno C. Meijer, PhD, professor of molecular neuroendocrinology of corticosteroids, department of medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands, told this news organization.

Serious side effects

Glucocorticoids, a class of synthetic steroids with immunosuppressive properties, are prescribed for a wide range of conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis and asthma.

However, they are also associated with potentially serious metabolic, cardiovascular, and musculoskeletal side effects as well as neuropsychiatric side effects such as depression, mania, and cognitive impairment.

About 1 in 3 patients exposed to “quite a lot of these drugs” will experience neuropsychiatric symptoms, Dr. Meijer said.

Most previous studies that investigated effects from high levels of glucocorticoids on brain structure have been small and involved selected populations, such as those with Cushing disease.

The new study included participants from the UK Biobank, a large population-based cohort. Participants had undergone imaging and did not have a history of psychiatric disease – although they could have conditions associated with glucocorticoid use, including anxiety, depression, mania, or delirium.

The analysis included 222 patients using oral or parenteral glucocorticoids at the time of imaging (systemic group), 557 using inhaled glucocorticoids, and 24,106 not using glucocorticoids (the control group).

Inhaled steroids target the lungs, whereas a steroid in pill form “travels in the blood and reaches each and every organ and cell in the body and typically requires higher doses,” Dr. Meijer noted.

The groups were similar with respect to sex, education, and smoking status. However, the systemic glucocorticoid group was slightly older (mean age, 66.1 years vs. 63.3 years for inhaled glucocorticoid users and 63.5 years for the control group).

In addition to age, researchers adjusted for sex, education level, head position in the scanner, head size, assessment center, and year of imaging.
 

Imaging analyses

Imaging analyses showed systemic glucocorticoid use was associated with reduced global FA (adjusted mean difference, -3.7e-3; 95% confidence interval, -6.4e-3 to 1.0e-3), and reductions in regional FA in the body and genu of the corpus callosum versus the control group.

Inhaled glucocorticoid use was associated with reduced global FA (AMD, -2.3e-3; 95% CI, -4.0e-3 to -5.7e-4), and lower FA in the splenium of the corpus callosum and the cingulum of the hippocampus.

Global mean diffusivity was higher in systemic glucocorticoid users (AMD, 7.2e-6; 95% CI, 3.2e-6 to 1.1e-5) and inhaled glucocorticoid users (AMD, 2.7e-6; 95% CI, 1.7e-7 to 5.2e-6), compared with the control group.

The effects of glucocorticoids on white matter were “pervasive,” and the “most important finding” of the study, Dr. Meijer said. “We were impressed by the fact white matter is so sensitive to these drugs.”

He noted that it is likely that functional connectivity between brain regions is affected by use of glucocorticoids. “You could say communication between brain regions is probably somewhat impaired or challenged,” he said.

Subgroup analyses among participants using glucocorticoids chronically, defined as reported at two consecutive visits, suggested a potential dose-dependent or duration-dependent effect of glucocorticoids on white matter microstructure.

Systemic glucocorticoid use was also associated with an increase in total and grey matter volume of the caudate nucleus.

In addition, there was a significant association between inhaled glucocorticoid use and decreased grey matter volume of the amygdala, which Dr. Meijer said was surprising because studies have shown that glucocorticoids “can drive amygdala big time.”
 

Move away from ‘one dose for all’?

Another surprise was that the results showed no hippocampal volume differences with steroid use, Dr. Meijer noted.

The modest association between glucocorticoid use and brain volumes could indicate that white matter integrity is more sensitive to glucocorticoids than is grey matter volume, “at least at the structural level,” he said.

He added that longer use or higher doses may be necessary to also induce volumetric changes.

Participants also completed a questionnaire to assess mood over the previous 2 weeks. Systemic glucocorticoid users had more depressive symptoms, disinterest, tenseness/restlessness, and tiredness/lethargy, compared with the control group. Inhaled glucocorticoid users only reported more tiredness/lethargy.

The investigators note that mood-related effects could be linked to the condition for which glucocorticoids were prescribed: for example, rheumatoid arthritis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

In terms of cognition, systemic glucocorticoid users performed significantly worse on the symbol digit substitution task, compared with participants in the control group.

In light of these findings, pharmaceutical companies that make inhaled corticosteroids “should perhaps find out if glucocorticoids can be dosed by kilogram body weight rather than simply one dose fits all,” which is currently the case, Dr. Meijer said.
 

Impressive, but several limitations

Commenting on the findings, E. Sherwood Brown, MD, PhD, Distinguished Chair in Psychiatric Research and professor and vice chair for clinical research, department of psychiatry, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, called the study sample size “impressive.”

In addition, the study is the first to look at systemic as well as inhaled corticosteroids, said Dr. Brown, who was not involved with the research. He noted that previously, there had been only case reports of psychiatric symptoms with inhaled corticosteroids.

That results are in the same direction but greater with systemic, compared with inhaled corticosteroids, is “particularly interesting” because this might suggest dose-dependent effects, Dr. Brown said.

He noted that cognitive differences were also only observed with systemic corticosteroids.

Some study observations, such as smaller amygdala volume with inhaled but not systemic corticosteroids, “are harder to understand,” said Dr. Brown.

However, he pointed out some study limitations. For example, data were apparently unavailable for verbal and declarative memory test data, despite corticosteroids probably affecting the hippocampus and causing memory changes.

Other drawbacks were that the dose and duration of corticosteroid use, as well as the medical histories of study participants, were not available, Dr. Brown said.

No study funding was reported. Dr. Meijer has received research grants and honorariums from Corcept Therapeutics and a speakers’ fee from Ipsen. Dr. Brown is on an advisory board for Sage Pharmaceuticals, which is developing neurosteroids (not corticosteroids) for mood disorders. He is also on a Medscape advisory board related to bipolar disorder.

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

Clinical research in rheumatology was suffering from an identity crisis of sorts 40 years ago. A lack of consensus across continents resulted in differing views about clinical outcome measures and judgments about treatments.

Patients were not allowed to be the generating source of a clinical outcome, according to Peter Tugwell, MSc, MD. “The only outcomes that were acceptable were clinician assessments, blood tests, and imaging,” said Dr. Tugwell, professor of medicine, epidemiology, and public health at the University of Ottawa (Ont.) and a practicing rheumatologist at Ottawa Hospital.

Clinicians were coming to different conclusions about patient responses to treatment when managing rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice.

OMERACT sought to address this lack of uniformity. This international group, formed in 1992, leverages stakeholder groups to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology endpoints through a consensus-building, data-driven format.

It was originally known as “Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials,” but its leaders have since broadened its scope to “Outcome Measures in Rheumatology.” Over the years, it has evolved into an international network that assesses measurement across a wide variety of intervention studies. Now 30 years old, the network spans 40 active working groups and has influenced work in patient outcomes across 500 peer-reviewed publications.

The network meets every 2 years to address what is always a challenging agenda, said Dr. Tugwell, one of its founding members and chair. “There’s lots of strong opinions.” Participating in the discussions are individuals from all stages of seniority in rheumatology and clinical epidemiology, patient research partners, industry, approval agencies, and many countries who are committed to the spirit of OMERACT.

“The secret to our success has been getting world leaders to come together and have those discussions, work them through, and identify common ground in such a way that the approval agencies accept these outcome measures in clinical trials,” he added.

“My impression was the founders perceived a problem in the early 1990s and devised a consensus method in an attempt to quantify clinical parameters to define disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis – an important first step to do clinical trials and allow comparisons between them,” said Patricia Woo, CBE, FMedSci, FRCP, emeritus professor of pediatric rheumatology and previous head of the Centre for Paediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology at UCL, London. At that time, even disease definitions varied between the United States and Europe and other parts of the world, said Dr. Woo, who is not a part of OMERACT. “This was especially true for pediatric rheumatology.”
 

Fusing the continental divide

OMERACT arose from a need to streamline clinical outcome measures in rheumatology. Research papers during the 1980s demonstrated a lack of coherence in managing patients with rheumatoid arthritis in routine practice. In addition, the measures used to define clinical endpoints in clinical trials operated in silos – they were either too specific to a certain trial, overlapped with other concepts, or didn’t reflect changes in treatment.

Approval agencies in Europe and North America were approving only outcomes measures developed by their respective researchers. This was also true of patients they tested on. “This seemed crazy,” Dr. Tugwell said.

Dr. Tugwell was involved in the Cochrane collaboration, which conducts systematic reviews of best evidence across the world that assesses the magnitude of benefits versus harms.

To achieve this goal, “you need to pull studies from around the world,” he said. Maarten Boers, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist (and later professor of clinical epidemiology at Amsterdam University Medical Center) from the Netherlands, spent a year in Ontario, Canada, to train as a clinical epidemiologist. Together, Dr. Tugwell and Dr. Boers began discussing options to develop more streamlined outcome measures.

Courtesy OMERACT

They initiated the first OMERACT conference in Maastricht, the Netherlands, in 1992. The Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency participated, along with leaders of outcomes measurement in Europe and in North America.

Discussions centered on methods to develop outcomes in a meaningful fashion. During the first meeting, North American and European approval agencies agreed to accept each other’s studies and endpoints and patient reported outcomes.

Agreement was achieved on a preliminary set of outcome domains and measures that later became known as the WHO-ILAR (World Health Organization–International League of Associations for Rheumatology) core set. The set included seven outcome domains: tender joints, swollen joints, pain, physician global assessment, patient global assessment, physical disability, and acute phase reactants, and one additional outcome domain for studies lasting 1 year or more: radiographs of the joints.

“A proactive program was planned to test not only the validity of these endpoints, but also the methods for their measurement. This was the start of a continuing process,” OMERACT members said in a joint statement for this article. Meetings have since taken place every 2 years.

Courtesy OMERACT

OMERACT accomplishments

OMERACT now requires buy-in from four continents: Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America.

Its leaders have developed an explicit process for gaining endorsement of core outcome domains and instrument measurement sets. To fully capture the possibilities of “what to measure,” i.e., “measurable aspects of health conditions,” OMERACT has developed a framework of concepts, core areas, and outcome domains. The key concepts are pathophysiology (with a core area termed “manifestations/abnormalities”) and impact (with core areas of “death/lifespan,” and “life impact,” and the optional area of “societal/resource use”). An outcome domain defines an element of a core area to measure the effects of a treatment, such as blood markers, pain intensity, physical function, or emotional well-being.

A core outcome domain set is developed by agreeing to at least one outcome domain within one of the three core areas. Subsequently, a core outcome measurement set is developed by agreeing to at least one applicable measurement instrument for each core outcome domain. This requires documentation of validity, summarized under three metrics: truth, discrimination, and feasibility.

OMERACT’s handbook provides tutelage on establishing and implementing core outcomes, and several workbooks offer guidance on developing core outcome domain sets, selecting instruments for core outcome measurement sets, and OMERACT methodology.

All this work has led to widespread adoption.

Approval agencies have accepted OMERACT’s filter and methods advances, which have been adopted by many research groups in rheumatology and among nonrheumatology research groups. Organizations such as the U.S. National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke have sought its advice.

Its core outcomes have been adopted and used for approval in the great majority of studies on rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. Tugwell said.

Several BMJ articles underscore the influence and uptake of OMERACT’s core outcome set. One 2017 paper, which analyzed 273 randomized trials of rheumatoid arthritis drug treatments on ClinicalTrials.gov, found that the WHO-ILAR arthritis core outcome set was reported in 81% of the studies. “The adoption of a core outcome set has the potential to increase consistency in outcomes measured across trials and ensure that trials are more likely to measure appropriate outcomes,” the authors concluded.

Since the initial 1992 meeting, OMERACT has broadened its focus from rheumatoid arthritis to 25 other musculoskeletal conditions.

For example, other OMERACT conferences have led to consensus on core sets of measures for osteoarthritis and osteoporosis, psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis, psychosocial measures, and a core set of data for cost-effectiveness evaluations.
 

‘Speed is a limitation’

OMERACT is a bottom-up volunteer organization. It doesn’t represent any official organization of any clinical society. “We’ve not asked to be adopted by the American College of Rheumatology, EULAR [European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology], or other international organizations,” Dr. Tugwell said. It offers a chance for patients, users, and doers of research to work together to agree on rigorous criteria accepted by the approval agencies and take the necessary time to work things through.

This is not a fast process, usually taking 4-6 years to initiate and establish an outcome domain set, he emphasized. “It would be beneficial to do it faster if we had the resources to meet every year. The fact is we’re a volunteer organization that meets every 2 years.”

Speed is a limitation, he acknowledged, but it’s an acceptable trade-off for doing things correctly.

The group has faced other challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, pivoting to a virtual format that had benefits and limitations.

In one respect, moving to a virtual meeting increased uptake in participation and voting, Dr. Tugwell said. Patient participants with severe rheumatoid arthritis no longer faced the challenges of travel. “On the other hand, we didn’t have the same opportunity to achieve common ground virtually,” he said. “Where there are strong disagreements, I’m a great believer that people need to know one another. There needs to be relationship building.”

OMERACT’s emerging leader program has been a cornerstone of its in-person meetings, engaging young rheumatologists to interact with some of the leaders of outcome measurement. The virtual format dampened this process somewhat, eliminating those important “café chats” between the stakeholders.

The hope is to bring people face-to-face once more at the next meeting in May 2023. The agenda will focus on relationship building, identifying controversial areas, and bringing younger people to develop relationships, Dr. Tugwell said. OMERACT will retain a virtual option for the worldwide voting, “which will allow for more buy-in from so many more people,” he added.
 

A consensus on pain

The onus of developing outcome measures that move with the times is sometimes too great for one group to manage. In 2018, OMERACT became a part of the Red Hat Group (RHG), an organization conceived at the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) VII meeting in Amsterdam.

RHG aims to improve the choice of outcomes in health research. It includes eight groups: COMET; OMERACT; the Cochrane Skin Core Outcome Set Initiative; Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations; Center for Medical Technology Policy; COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments; Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium; and Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology.

The collaboration between groups offers a “very interesting interface between consensus building as well as hard evidence,” Dr. Tugwell said. The focus goes beyond rheumatology to other clinical areas of common interest, exploring how one classifies outcome domains in terms of symptoms, life impact, or death.

Pain is an important common denominator that the RHG has evaluated.

“We believe it’s too general. We’re trying to define pain across all Red Hat Groups because it’s clear that the research community has all these different scales for defining pain severity,” Dr. Tugwell said. “We have to find a way to make ruthless decisions and rules for doing it. And of course, it has to be transparent.”
 

Looking ahead

As part of its ongoing work, OMERACT is evaluating the robustness of instruments that rheumatologists use as outcome measures in clinical trials, which can be a laborious process. The OMERACT Filter 2.0, part of the latest iteration of the handbook, offers strong guidance for researchers but needs a long-term strategy and key methodological support. “To that end, we set up a technical advisory group to help people in the instrument selection work and that remains an ongoing process,” OMERACT leaders said in their joint statement.

OMERACT is looking at opportunities to create benchmark processes for developing core sets outside of rheumatology and a methodology around outcome measures such as contextual factors, composites, and surrogates.

It will also be taking a step back to solicit opinions from the approval agencies represented by the OMERACT membership on the OMERACT handbook.

The goal is to make sure the handbook aligns with everyone else’s approval and labeling requirements.
 

OMERACT’s patient participants bring important perspectives

OMERACT over the years has sought to become a more patient-centered group. Patients have been involved in OMERACT activities since its sixth meeting, forming an independent, yet integrated, group within the network. They have their own steering committee and produced and helped to update a glossary for OMERACT patients and professionals. 

Catherine (McGowan) Hofstetter, who was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis 30 years ago, chairs OMERACT’s Patient Research Partners Support Team. In a Q&A, she discussed the importance of patient voices and OMERACT’s plans to further educate and include patients in the dialogue on outcomes.

Question: Have patients always been a part of OMERACT meetings? 

Answer: Patients have been involved with OMERACT since 2002. The patient voice adds relevance to all the work that OMERACT does. You can’t begin to talk about outcomes unless there is a patient at the table with lived experience.

Q: Can you cite a few examples of how the patient voice enriches the conversation on outcomes research? 

A: Outcomes and priorities that are important to patients are often completely different than those of the clinician. For instance, a work outcome is important to someone who doesn’t have any medical insurance or disability insurance, so that you can ensure that there is food on the table and a roof over your head. Or it may be important to someone because the employment provides medical and disability insurance to provide security for them and their family. These are two different perspectives on work and therefore work priorities and outcomes.

Q: What have been some of the challenges of getting patients to participate?

A: Training patients is one challenge. OMERACT’s work has a very steep learning curve, and while the basics are the same between the groups in terms of looking at what we measure and how we measure it, the nuances of different working groups require a lot of time and energy to be comfortable enough with the work, and then be confident enough to bring your perspective and lived experience to the table. It’s also a very accomplished group, which can be quite intimidating. Self-disclosure is a very personal and intimate undertaking that requires patience, compassion, and respect.

Q: Are there any plans to enhance patient engagement?

A: When we had OMERACT 2020 it was a virtual conference that took place over about 6 months. We had far more patient research partners [PRPs] participate than we have ever had at any OMERACT face-to-face meeting. There is a desire and passion on the part of patients to lend their voices to the work. The working groups meet virtually throughout the year to advance their agendas, and PRPs are a part of each of the working groups. 

Hopefully, we can start working toward including more voices at the conferences by enabling a hybrid model. The PRP Support Team will begin engaging patients this fall with education, mentoring, and team-building exercises so by the time we meet in person in May 2023, they will have enough background knowledge and information to give them the confidence that will enhance their experience at the face-to-face meeting.

We also need to ensure that those patients who want to stay engaged can. This means that the education and training should continue long after the face-to-face meeting is over. We need to build capacity in the PRP group and look to succession planning and be a resource to working groups struggling to find PRPs to work with them on a longer-term basis.

Clinical research in rheumatology was suffering from an identity crisis of sorts 40 years ago. A lack of consensus across continents resulted in differing views about clinical outcome measures and judgments about treatments.

Patients were not allowed to be the generating source of a clinical outcome, according to Peter Tugwell, MSc, MD. “The only outcomes that were acceptable were clinician assessments, blood tests, and imaging,” said Dr. Tugwell, professor of medicine, epidemiology, and public health at the University of Ottawa (Ont.) and a practicing rheumatologist at Ottawa Hospital.

Clinicians were coming to different conclusions about patient responses to treatment when managing rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice.

OMERACT sought to address this lack of uniformity. This international group, formed in 1992, leverages stakeholder groups to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology endpoints through a consensus-building, data-driven format.

It was originally known as “Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials,” but its leaders have since broadened its scope to “Outcome Measures in Rheumatology.” Over the years, it has evolved into an international network that assesses measurement across a wide variety of intervention studies. Now 30 years old, the network spans 40 active working groups and has influenced work in patient outcomes across 500 peer-reviewed publications.

The network meets every 2 years to address what is always a challenging agenda, said Dr. Tugwell, one of its founding members and chair. “There’s lots of strong opinions.” Participating in the discussions are individuals from all stages of seniority in rheumatology and clinical epidemiology, patient research partners, industry, approval agencies, and many countries who are committed to the spirit of OMERACT.

“The secret to our success has been getting world leaders to come together and have those discussions, work them through, and identify common ground in such a way that the approval agencies accept these outcome measures in clinical trials,” he added.

“My impression was the founders perceived a problem in the early 1990s and devised a consensus method in an attempt to quantify clinical parameters to define disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis – an important first step to do clinical trials and allow comparisons between them,” said Patricia Woo, CBE, FMedSci, FRCP, emeritus professor of pediatric rheumatology and previous head of the Centre for Paediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology at UCL, London. At that time, even disease definitions varied between the United States and Europe and other parts of the world, said Dr. Woo, who is not a part of OMERACT. “This was especially true for pediatric rheumatology.”
 

Fusing the continental divide

OMERACT arose from a need to streamline clinical outcome measures in rheumatology. Research papers during the 1980s demonstrated a lack of coherence in managing patients with rheumatoid arthritis in routine practice. In addition, the measures used to define clinical endpoints in clinical trials operated in silos – they were either too specific to a certain trial, overlapped with other concepts, or didn’t reflect changes in treatment.

Approval agencies in Europe and North America were approving only outcomes measures developed by their respective researchers. This was also true of patients they tested on. “This seemed crazy,” Dr. Tugwell said.

Dr. Tugwell was involved in the Cochrane collaboration, which conducts systematic reviews of best evidence across the world that assesses the magnitude of benefits versus harms.

To achieve this goal, “you need to pull studies from around the world,” he said. Maarten Boers, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist (and later professor of clinical epidemiology at Amsterdam University Medical Center) from the Netherlands, spent a year in Ontario, Canada, to train as a clinical epidemiologist. Together, Dr. Tugwell and Dr. Boers began discussing options to develop more streamlined outcome measures.

Courtesy OMERACT

They initiated the first OMERACT conference in Maastricht, the Netherlands, in 1992. The Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency participated, along with leaders of outcomes measurement in Europe and in North America.

Discussions centered on methods to develop outcomes in a meaningful fashion. During the first meeting, North American and European approval agencies agreed to accept each other’s studies and endpoints and patient reported outcomes.

Agreement was achieved on a preliminary set of outcome domains and measures that later became known as the WHO-ILAR (World Health Organization–International League of Associations for Rheumatology) core set. The set included seven outcome domains: tender joints, swollen joints, pain, physician global assessment, patient global assessment, physical disability, and acute phase reactants, and one additional outcome domain for studies lasting 1 year or more: radiographs of the joints.

“A proactive program was planned to test not only the validity of these endpoints, but also the methods for their measurement. This was the start of a continuing process,” OMERACT members said in a joint statement for this article. Meetings have since taken place every 2 years.

Courtesy OMERACT

OMERACT accomplishments

OMERACT now requires buy-in from four continents: Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America.

Its leaders have developed an explicit process for gaining endorsement of core outcome domains and instrument measurement sets. To fully capture the possibilities of “what to measure,” i.e., “measurable aspects of health conditions,” OMERACT has developed a framework of concepts, core areas, and outcome domains. The key concepts are pathophysiology (with a core area termed “manifestations/abnormalities”) and impact (with core areas of “death/lifespan,” and “life impact,” and the optional area of “societal/resource use”). An outcome domain defines an element of a core area to measure the effects of a treatment, such as blood markers, pain intensity, physical function, or emotional well-being.

A core outcome domain set is developed by agreeing to at least one outcome domain within one of the three core areas. Subsequently, a core outcome measurement set is developed by agreeing to at least one applicable measurement instrument for each core outcome domain. This requires documentation of validity, summarized under three metrics: truth, discrimination, and feasibility.

OMERACT’s handbook provides tutelage on establishing and implementing core outcomes, and several workbooks offer guidance on developing core outcome domain sets, selecting instruments for core outcome measurement sets, and OMERACT methodology.

All this work has led to widespread adoption.

Approval agencies have accepted OMERACT’s filter and methods advances, which have been adopted by many research groups in rheumatology and among nonrheumatology research groups. Organizations such as the U.S. National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke have sought its advice.

Its core outcomes have been adopted and used for approval in the great majority of studies on rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. Tugwell said.

Several BMJ articles underscore the influence and uptake of OMERACT’s core outcome set. One 2017 paper, which analyzed 273 randomized trials of rheumatoid arthritis drug treatments on ClinicalTrials.gov, found that the WHO-ILAR arthritis core outcome set was reported in 81% of the studies. “The adoption of a core outcome set has the potential to increase consistency in outcomes measured across trials and ensure that trials are more likely to measure appropriate outcomes,” the authors concluded.

Since the initial 1992 meeting, OMERACT has broadened its focus from rheumatoid arthritis to 25 other musculoskeletal conditions.

For example, other OMERACT conferences have led to consensus on core sets of measures for osteoarthritis and osteoporosis, psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis, psychosocial measures, and a core set of data for cost-effectiveness evaluations.
 

‘Speed is a limitation’

OMERACT is a bottom-up volunteer organization. It doesn’t represent any official organization of any clinical society. “We’ve not asked to be adopted by the American College of Rheumatology, EULAR [European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology], or other international organizations,” Dr. Tugwell said. It offers a chance for patients, users, and doers of research to work together to agree on rigorous criteria accepted by the approval agencies and take the necessary time to work things through.

This is not a fast process, usually taking 4-6 years to initiate and establish an outcome domain set, he emphasized. “It would be beneficial to do it faster if we had the resources to meet every year. The fact is we’re a volunteer organization that meets every 2 years.”

Speed is a limitation, he acknowledged, but it’s an acceptable trade-off for doing things correctly.

The group has faced other challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, pivoting to a virtual format that had benefits and limitations.

In one respect, moving to a virtual meeting increased uptake in participation and voting, Dr. Tugwell said. Patient participants with severe rheumatoid arthritis no longer faced the challenges of travel. “On the other hand, we didn’t have the same opportunity to achieve common ground virtually,” he said. “Where there are strong disagreements, I’m a great believer that people need to know one another. There needs to be relationship building.”

OMERACT’s emerging leader program has been a cornerstone of its in-person meetings, engaging young rheumatologists to interact with some of the leaders of outcome measurement. The virtual format dampened this process somewhat, eliminating those important “café chats” between the stakeholders.

The hope is to bring people face-to-face once more at the next meeting in May 2023. The agenda will focus on relationship building, identifying controversial areas, and bringing younger people to develop relationships, Dr. Tugwell said. OMERACT will retain a virtual option for the worldwide voting, “which will allow for more buy-in from so many more people,” he added.
 

A consensus on pain

The onus of developing outcome measures that move with the times is sometimes too great for one group to manage. In 2018, OMERACT became a part of the Red Hat Group (RHG), an organization conceived at the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) VII meeting in Amsterdam.

RHG aims to improve the choice of outcomes in health research. It includes eight groups: COMET; OMERACT; the Cochrane Skin Core Outcome Set Initiative; Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations; Center for Medical Technology Policy; COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments; Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium; and Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology.

The collaboration between groups offers a “very interesting interface between consensus building as well as hard evidence,” Dr. Tugwell said. The focus goes beyond rheumatology to other clinical areas of common interest, exploring how one classifies outcome domains in terms of symptoms, life impact, or death.

Pain is an important common denominator that the RHG has evaluated.

“We believe it’s too general. We’re trying to define pain across all Red Hat Groups because it’s clear that the research community has all these different scales for defining pain severity,” Dr. Tugwell said. “We have to find a way to make ruthless decisions and rules for doing it. And of course, it has to be transparent.”
 

Looking ahead

As part of its ongoing work, OMERACT is evaluating the robustness of instruments that rheumatologists use as outcome measures in clinical trials, which can be a laborious process. The OMERACT Filter 2.0, part of the latest iteration of the handbook, offers strong guidance for researchers but needs a long-term strategy and key methodological support. “To that end, we set up a technical advisory group to help people in the instrument selection work and that remains an ongoing process,” OMERACT leaders said in their joint statement.

OMERACT is looking at opportunities to create benchmark processes for developing core sets outside of rheumatology and a methodology around outcome measures such as contextual factors, composites, and surrogates.

It will also be taking a step back to solicit opinions from the approval agencies represented by the OMERACT membership on the OMERACT handbook.

The goal is to make sure the handbook aligns with everyone else’s approval and labeling requirements.
 

OMERACT’s patient participants bring important perspectives

OMERACT over the years has sought to become a more patient-centered group. Patients have been involved in OMERACT activities since its sixth meeting, forming an independent, yet integrated, group within the network. They have their own steering committee and produced and helped to update a glossary for OMERACT patients and professionals. 

Catherine (McGowan) Hofstetter, who was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis 30 years ago, chairs OMERACT’s Patient Research Partners Support Team. In a Q&A, she discussed the importance of patient voices and OMERACT’s plans to further educate and include patients in the dialogue on outcomes.

Question: Have patients always been a part of OMERACT meetings? 

Answer: Patients have been involved with OMERACT since 2002. The patient voice adds relevance to all the work that OMERACT does. You can’t begin to talk about outcomes unless there is a patient at the table with lived experience.

Q: Can you cite a few examples of how the patient voice enriches the conversation on outcomes research? 

A: Outcomes and priorities that are important to patients are often completely different than those of the clinician. For instance, a work outcome is important to someone who doesn’t have any medical insurance or disability insurance, so that you can ensure that there is food on the table and a roof over your head. Or it may be important to someone because the employment provides medical and disability insurance to provide security for them and their family. These are two different perspectives on work and therefore work priorities and outcomes.

Q: What have been some of the challenges of getting patients to participate?

A: Training patients is one challenge. OMERACT’s work has a very steep learning curve, and while the basics are the same between the groups in terms of looking at what we measure and how we measure it, the nuances of different working groups require a lot of time and energy to be comfortable enough with the work, and then be confident enough to bring your perspective and lived experience to the table. It’s also a very accomplished group, which can be quite intimidating. Self-disclosure is a very personal and intimate undertaking that requires patience, compassion, and respect.

Q: Are there any plans to enhance patient engagement?

A: When we had OMERACT 2020 it was a virtual conference that took place over about 6 months. We had far more patient research partners [PRPs] participate than we have ever had at any OMERACT face-to-face meeting. There is a desire and passion on the part of patients to lend their voices to the work. The working groups meet virtually throughout the year to advance their agendas, and PRPs are a part of each of the working groups. 

Hopefully, we can start working toward including more voices at the conferences by enabling a hybrid model. The PRP Support Team will begin engaging patients this fall with education, mentoring, and team-building exercises so by the time we meet in person in May 2023, they will have enough background knowledge and information to give them the confidence that will enhance their experience at the face-to-face meeting.

We also need to ensure that those patients who want to stay engaged can. This means that the education and training should continue long after the face-to-face meeting is over. We need to build capacity in the PRP group and look to succession planning and be a resource to working groups struggling to find PRPs to work with them on a longer-term basis.

Clinical research in rheumatology was suffering from an identity crisis of sorts 40 years ago. A lack of consensus across continents resulted in differing views about clinical outcome measures and judgments about treatments.

Patients were not allowed to be the generating source of a clinical outcome, according to Peter Tugwell, MSc, MD. “The only outcomes that were acceptable were clinician assessments, blood tests, and imaging,” said Dr. Tugwell, professor of medicine, epidemiology, and public health at the University of Ottawa (Ont.) and a practicing rheumatologist at Ottawa Hospital.

Clinicians were coming to different conclusions about patient responses to treatment when managing rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice.

OMERACT sought to address this lack of uniformity. This international group, formed in 1992, leverages stakeholder groups to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology endpoints through a consensus-building, data-driven format.

It was originally known as “Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials,” but its leaders have since broadened its scope to “Outcome Measures in Rheumatology.” Over the years, it has evolved into an international network that assesses measurement across a wide variety of intervention studies. Now 30 years old, the network spans 40 active working groups and has influenced work in patient outcomes across 500 peer-reviewed publications.

The network meets every 2 years to address what is always a challenging agenda, said Dr. Tugwell, one of its founding members and chair. “There’s lots of strong opinions.” Participating in the discussions are individuals from all stages of seniority in rheumatology and clinical epidemiology, patient research partners, industry, approval agencies, and many countries who are committed to the spirit of OMERACT.

“The secret to our success has been getting world leaders to come together and have those discussions, work them through, and identify common ground in such a way that the approval agencies accept these outcome measures in clinical trials,” he added.

“My impression was the founders perceived a problem in the early 1990s and devised a consensus method in an attempt to quantify clinical parameters to define disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis – an important first step to do clinical trials and allow comparisons between them,” said Patricia Woo, CBE, FMedSci, FRCP, emeritus professor of pediatric rheumatology and previous head of the Centre for Paediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology at UCL, London. At that time, even disease definitions varied between the United States and Europe and other parts of the world, said Dr. Woo, who is not a part of OMERACT. “This was especially true for pediatric rheumatology.”
 

Fusing the continental divide

OMERACT arose from a need to streamline clinical outcome measures in rheumatology. Research papers during the 1980s demonstrated a lack of coherence in managing patients with rheumatoid arthritis in routine practice. In addition, the measures used to define clinical endpoints in clinical trials operated in silos – they were either too specific to a certain trial, overlapped with other concepts, or didn’t reflect changes in treatment.

Approval agencies in Europe and North America were approving only outcomes measures developed by their respective researchers. This was also true of patients they tested on. “This seemed crazy,” Dr. Tugwell said.

Dr. Tugwell was involved in the Cochrane collaboration, which conducts systematic reviews of best evidence across the world that assesses the magnitude of benefits versus harms.

To achieve this goal, “you need to pull studies from around the world,” he said. Maarten Boers, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist (and later professor of clinical epidemiology at Amsterdam University Medical Center) from the Netherlands, spent a year in Ontario, Canada, to train as a clinical epidemiologist. Together, Dr. Tugwell and Dr. Boers began discussing options to develop more streamlined outcome measures.

Courtesy OMERACT

They initiated the first OMERACT conference in Maastricht, the Netherlands, in 1992. The Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency participated, along with leaders of outcomes measurement in Europe and in North America.

Discussions centered on methods to develop outcomes in a meaningful fashion. During the first meeting, North American and European approval agencies agreed to accept each other’s studies and endpoints and patient reported outcomes.

Agreement was achieved on a preliminary set of outcome domains and measures that later became known as the WHO-ILAR (World Health Organization–International League of Associations for Rheumatology) core set. The set included seven outcome domains: tender joints, swollen joints, pain, physician global assessment, patient global assessment, physical disability, and acute phase reactants, and one additional outcome domain for studies lasting 1 year or more: radiographs of the joints.

“A proactive program was planned to test not only the validity of these endpoints, but also the methods for their measurement. This was the start of a continuing process,” OMERACT members said in a joint statement for this article. Meetings have since taken place every 2 years.

Courtesy OMERACT

OMERACT accomplishments

OMERACT now requires buy-in from four continents: Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America.

Its leaders have developed an explicit process for gaining endorsement of core outcome domains and instrument measurement sets. To fully capture the possibilities of “what to measure,” i.e., “measurable aspects of health conditions,” OMERACT has developed a framework of concepts, core areas, and outcome domains. The key concepts are pathophysiology (with a core area termed “manifestations/abnormalities”) and impact (with core areas of “death/lifespan,” and “life impact,” and the optional area of “societal/resource use”). An outcome domain defines an element of a core area to measure the effects of a treatment, such as blood markers, pain intensity, physical function, or emotional well-being.

A core outcome domain set is developed by agreeing to at least one outcome domain within one of the three core areas. Subsequently, a core outcome measurement set is developed by agreeing to at least one applicable measurement instrument for each core outcome domain. This requires documentation of validity, summarized under three metrics: truth, discrimination, and feasibility.

OMERACT’s handbook provides tutelage on establishing and implementing core outcomes, and several workbooks offer guidance on developing core outcome domain sets, selecting instruments for core outcome measurement sets, and OMERACT methodology.

All this work has led to widespread adoption.

Approval agencies have accepted OMERACT’s filter and methods advances, which have been adopted by many research groups in rheumatology and among nonrheumatology research groups. Organizations such as the U.S. National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke have sought its advice.

Its core outcomes have been adopted and used for approval in the great majority of studies on rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. Tugwell said.

Several BMJ articles underscore the influence and uptake of OMERACT’s core outcome set. One 2017 paper, which analyzed 273 randomized trials of rheumatoid arthritis drug treatments on ClinicalTrials.gov, found that the WHO-ILAR arthritis core outcome set was reported in 81% of the studies. “The adoption of a core outcome set has the potential to increase consistency in outcomes measured across trials and ensure that trials are more likely to measure appropriate outcomes,” the authors concluded.

Since the initial 1992 meeting, OMERACT has broadened its focus from rheumatoid arthritis to 25 other musculoskeletal conditions.

For example, other OMERACT conferences have led to consensus on core sets of measures for osteoarthritis and osteoporosis, psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis, psychosocial measures, and a core set of data for cost-effectiveness evaluations.
 

‘Speed is a limitation’

OMERACT is a bottom-up volunteer organization. It doesn’t represent any official organization of any clinical society. “We’ve not asked to be adopted by the American College of Rheumatology, EULAR [European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology], or other international organizations,” Dr. Tugwell said. It offers a chance for patients, users, and doers of research to work together to agree on rigorous criteria accepted by the approval agencies and take the necessary time to work things through.

This is not a fast process, usually taking 4-6 years to initiate and establish an outcome domain set, he emphasized. “It would be beneficial to do it faster if we had the resources to meet every year. The fact is we’re a volunteer organization that meets every 2 years.”

Speed is a limitation, he acknowledged, but it’s an acceptable trade-off for doing things correctly.

The group has faced other challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, pivoting to a virtual format that had benefits and limitations.

In one respect, moving to a virtual meeting increased uptake in participation and voting, Dr. Tugwell said. Patient participants with severe rheumatoid arthritis no longer faced the challenges of travel. “On the other hand, we didn’t have the same opportunity to achieve common ground virtually,” he said. “Where there are strong disagreements, I’m a great believer that people need to know one another. There needs to be relationship building.”

OMERACT’s emerging leader program has been a cornerstone of its in-person meetings, engaging young rheumatologists to interact with some of the leaders of outcome measurement. The virtual format dampened this process somewhat, eliminating those important “café chats” between the stakeholders.

The hope is to bring people face-to-face once more at the next meeting in May 2023. The agenda will focus on relationship building, identifying controversial areas, and bringing younger people to develop relationships, Dr. Tugwell said. OMERACT will retain a virtual option for the worldwide voting, “which will allow for more buy-in from so many more people,” he added.
 

A consensus on pain

The onus of developing outcome measures that move with the times is sometimes too great for one group to manage. In 2018, OMERACT became a part of the Red Hat Group (RHG), an organization conceived at the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) VII meeting in Amsterdam.

RHG aims to improve the choice of outcomes in health research. It includes eight groups: COMET; OMERACT; the Cochrane Skin Core Outcome Set Initiative; Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations; Center for Medical Technology Policy; COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments; Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium; and Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology.

The collaboration between groups offers a “very interesting interface between consensus building as well as hard evidence,” Dr. Tugwell said. The focus goes beyond rheumatology to other clinical areas of common interest, exploring how one classifies outcome domains in terms of symptoms, life impact, or death.

Pain is an important common denominator that the RHG has evaluated.

“We believe it’s too general. We’re trying to define pain across all Red Hat Groups because it’s clear that the research community has all these different scales for defining pain severity,” Dr. Tugwell said. “We have to find a way to make ruthless decisions and rules for doing it. And of course, it has to be transparent.”
 

Looking ahead

As part of its ongoing work, OMERACT is evaluating the robustness of instruments that rheumatologists use as outcome measures in clinical trials, which can be a laborious process. The OMERACT Filter 2.0, part of the latest iteration of the handbook, offers strong guidance for researchers but needs a long-term strategy and key methodological support. “To that end, we set up a technical advisory group to help people in the instrument selection work and that remains an ongoing process,” OMERACT leaders said in their joint statement.

OMERACT is looking at opportunities to create benchmark processes for developing core sets outside of rheumatology and a methodology around outcome measures such as contextual factors, composites, and surrogates.

It will also be taking a step back to solicit opinions from the approval agencies represented by the OMERACT membership on the OMERACT handbook.

The goal is to make sure the handbook aligns with everyone else’s approval and labeling requirements.
 

OMERACT’s patient participants bring important perspectives

OMERACT over the years has sought to become a more patient-centered group. Patients have been involved in OMERACT activities since its sixth meeting, forming an independent, yet integrated, group within the network. They have their own steering committee and produced and helped to update a glossary for OMERACT patients and professionals. 

Catherine (McGowan) Hofstetter, who was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis 30 years ago, chairs OMERACT’s Patient Research Partners Support Team. In a Q&A, she discussed the importance of patient voices and OMERACT’s plans to further educate and include patients in the dialogue on outcomes.

Question: Have patients always been a part of OMERACT meetings? 

Answer: Patients have been involved with OMERACT since 2002. The patient voice adds relevance to all the work that OMERACT does. You can’t begin to talk about outcomes unless there is a patient at the table with lived experience.

Q: Can you cite a few examples of how the patient voice enriches the conversation on outcomes research? 

A: Outcomes and priorities that are important to patients are often completely different than those of the clinician. For instance, a work outcome is important to someone who doesn’t have any medical insurance or disability insurance, so that you can ensure that there is food on the table and a roof over your head. Or it may be important to someone because the employment provides medical and disability insurance to provide security for them and their family. These are two different perspectives on work and therefore work priorities and outcomes.

Q: What have been some of the challenges of getting patients to participate?

A: Training patients is one challenge. OMERACT’s work has a very steep learning curve, and while the basics are the same between the groups in terms of looking at what we measure and how we measure it, the nuances of different working groups require a lot of time and energy to be comfortable enough with the work, and then be confident enough to bring your perspective and lived experience to the table. It’s also a very accomplished group, which can be quite intimidating. Self-disclosure is a very personal and intimate undertaking that requires patience, compassion, and respect.

Q: Are there any plans to enhance patient engagement?

A: When we had OMERACT 2020 it was a virtual conference that took place over about 6 months. We had far more patient research partners [PRPs] participate than we have ever had at any OMERACT face-to-face meeting. There is a desire and passion on the part of patients to lend their voices to the work. The working groups meet virtually throughout the year to advance their agendas, and PRPs are a part of each of the working groups. 

Hopefully, we can start working toward including more voices at the conferences by enabling a hybrid model. The PRP Support Team will begin engaging patients this fall with education, mentoring, and team-building exercises so by the time we meet in person in May 2023, they will have enough background knowledge and information to give them the confidence that will enhance their experience at the face-to-face meeting.

We also need to ensure that those patients who want to stay engaged can. This means that the education and training should continue long after the face-to-face meeting is over. We need to build capacity in the PRP group and look to succession planning and be a resource to working groups struggling to find PRPs to work with them on a longer-term basis.

A new study in The Lancet Rheumatology examines the strength and duration of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine–induced immunoglobulin-G antibody responses over time for patients with a variety of autoimmune diseases, compared with healthy controls.

The presence of humoral antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to correlate with protection against COVID infection. But for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), host response to COVID infection or to vaccination is affected by the immune dysfunction imposed by the IMID and by the use of immune-modulating drugs to treat it.

This new study finds a weaker – as shown previously – and less sustained immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with a variety of IMIDs, including rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, psoriasis, inflammatory bowel diseases, and other systemic autoimmune diseases such as lupus. It also points toward the possibility of adjusting treatment and vaccination schedules and strategies for these patients based on their antibody levels, among other factors, to preserve best protection against severe COVID.

Kmatta/Moment/Getty Images

“It is important to assess immune response in these patients to see if they still have protection against severe COVID infection,” said lead author David Simon, MD, senior clinical scientist in clinical immunology and rheumatology at University Hospital Erlangen (Germany). “We know that antibody response is an immune correlate. Therefore, it is important to see how large and durable the immune response is to the coronavirus vaccine in these IMID patients, and whether specific drugs or therapies have negative effects on their immune response.”
 

What was studied?

For this large prospective cohort study, researchers registered 5076 coronavirus-vaccinated individuals. They analyzed serum samples obtained between December 15, 2020, and December 1, 2021, from 2,535 patients diagnosed with IMIDs and participating in a prospective coronavirus study program at the Deutsches Zentrum Immuntherapie in Erlangen. The IMID patients had a mean age of 55.0 years, and 58.9% were women.

A healthy control group of 1,198 individuals without IMID who had a mean age of 40.7 years, including 53.8% men, was also recruited for the analysis. All approved coronavirus vaccines were included, following standard vaccination schedules. Antibody response was measured over time by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay from 8 weeks after first vaccination to week 40.

Among the findings, the healthy controls had higher postvaccine antibody levels than did those with IMIDs. But the majority of vaccinated patients with IMID were able to build up a humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2. Patients who were taking B-cell inhibitors like rituximab (Rituxan, Genentech; and biosimilars) and T-cell inhibitors like abatacept (Orencia, Bristol Myers Squibb) for IMIDs had significantly poorer antibody response.

Greater age and the use of combination therapies for IMIDs, compared with monotherapy, further reduced immune response to the vaccine. In terms of vaccination modality, messenger RNA–based vaccines induced higher antibody levels than did vector-based vaccines. The researchers noted that patients with IMID who were given a third vaccine dose could actually catch up well with the antibody responses observed in healthy controls.

“We looked at whether different IMIDs had a different humoral response, and we also assessed if there are effects from different therapeutic strategies,” Dr. Simon explained. “It doesn’t matter so much what kind of IMID patients have; much more important is the specific drug treatment and its impact on their antibody response.” Some participants were advised to briefly stop taking some immunosuppressive treatments before or after vaccination.

One of Dr. Simon’s coauthors, statistician and rheumatologist Koray Tascilar, MD, added, “This research is important because we looked not only at who responded less, which has been previously established, but who are at greater risk of losing their immune response, and how quickly.”
 

Need to take care

“Most treatments we as rheumatologists give to our patients don’t affect their SARS-CoV-2 humoral response,” Dr. Simon said. “However, there are specific drugs that are associated with lower antibody response. With respect to those drugs, we have to be more careful.”

It is important to be able to tell patients which drugs are safe and won’t have a negative impact on their immune response to vaccinations, Dr. Tascilar said. “But it would be too strong to say we’re ready to choose therapies based on their potential impact on protection against COVID. Yes, there is a risk from catching COVID, but we need to balance that risk with the risk of not giving patients the medications that are necessary to treat their rheumatologic condition.”

These diseases are serious, sometimes life-threatening. “We might think of strategies for how to mitigate the risk of underprotection from COVID that is brought about by these treatments,” he said. For example, offering boosters sooner or more frequently, or prophylactically treating with monoclonal antibodies.

“This study, along other recent studies, has found that antibody levels in patients with immune-mediated diseases wane more rapidly than in healthy controls, and this is especially true of those on medications that interfere with the B and T cells and anticytokine therapies,” Rebecca Haberman, MD, assistant professor, division of rheumatology, New York University Langone Health, noted in an email to this news organization.

“While there is no known antibody level that specifically correlates with clinical protection, and each patient needs to be thought of individually, these findings support the use of supplemental booster dosing in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” Dr. Haberman said, adding that her own research in this area has shown similar results.

“As a rheumatologist, I would be more likely to encourage my patients – especially those on immunomodulatory medications – to get boosted.”

Dr. Tascilar said his study does not directly answer the question of whether an earlier booster shot would be an effective strategy for patients with IMID. “In our department, we have an early boosting strategy, based on level of immune response.” But the decision of revaccination or not, and when, is based on a number of factors, not only on the level of antibodies. “It’s just part of the instruments we are using.”

The study was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Dr. Simon and Dr. Tascilar declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study in The Lancet Rheumatology examines the strength and duration of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine–induced immunoglobulin-G antibody responses over time for patients with a variety of autoimmune diseases, compared with healthy controls.

The presence of humoral antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to correlate with protection against COVID infection. But for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), host response to COVID infection or to vaccination is affected by the immune dysfunction imposed by the IMID and by the use of immune-modulating drugs to treat it.

This new study finds a weaker – as shown previously – and less sustained immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with a variety of IMIDs, including rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, psoriasis, inflammatory bowel diseases, and other systemic autoimmune diseases such as lupus. It also points toward the possibility of adjusting treatment and vaccination schedules and strategies for these patients based on their antibody levels, among other factors, to preserve best protection against severe COVID.

Kmatta/Moment/Getty Images

“It is important to assess immune response in these patients to see if they still have protection against severe COVID infection,” said lead author David Simon, MD, senior clinical scientist in clinical immunology and rheumatology at University Hospital Erlangen (Germany). “We know that antibody response is an immune correlate. Therefore, it is important to see how large and durable the immune response is to the coronavirus vaccine in these IMID patients, and whether specific drugs or therapies have negative effects on their immune response.”
 

What was studied?

For this large prospective cohort study, researchers registered 5076 coronavirus-vaccinated individuals. They analyzed serum samples obtained between December 15, 2020, and December 1, 2021, from 2,535 patients diagnosed with IMIDs and participating in a prospective coronavirus study program at the Deutsches Zentrum Immuntherapie in Erlangen. The IMID patients had a mean age of 55.0 years, and 58.9% were women.

A healthy control group of 1,198 individuals without IMID who had a mean age of 40.7 years, including 53.8% men, was also recruited for the analysis. All approved coronavirus vaccines were included, following standard vaccination schedules. Antibody response was measured over time by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay from 8 weeks after first vaccination to week 40.

Among the findings, the healthy controls had higher postvaccine antibody levels than did those with IMIDs. But the majority of vaccinated patients with IMID were able to build up a humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2. Patients who were taking B-cell inhibitors like rituximab (Rituxan, Genentech; and biosimilars) and T-cell inhibitors like abatacept (Orencia, Bristol Myers Squibb) for IMIDs had significantly poorer antibody response.

Greater age and the use of combination therapies for IMIDs, compared with monotherapy, further reduced immune response to the vaccine. In terms of vaccination modality, messenger RNA–based vaccines induced higher antibody levels than did vector-based vaccines. The researchers noted that patients with IMID who were given a third vaccine dose could actually catch up well with the antibody responses observed in healthy controls.

“We looked at whether different IMIDs had a different humoral response, and we also assessed if there are effects from different therapeutic strategies,” Dr. Simon explained. “It doesn’t matter so much what kind of IMID patients have; much more important is the specific drug treatment and its impact on their antibody response.” Some participants were advised to briefly stop taking some immunosuppressive treatments before or after vaccination.

One of Dr. Simon’s coauthors, statistician and rheumatologist Koray Tascilar, MD, added, “This research is important because we looked not only at who responded less, which has been previously established, but who are at greater risk of losing their immune response, and how quickly.”
 

Need to take care

“Most treatments we as rheumatologists give to our patients don’t affect their SARS-CoV-2 humoral response,” Dr. Simon said. “However, there are specific drugs that are associated with lower antibody response. With respect to those drugs, we have to be more careful.”

It is important to be able to tell patients which drugs are safe and won’t have a negative impact on their immune response to vaccinations, Dr. Tascilar said. “But it would be too strong to say we’re ready to choose therapies based on their potential impact on protection against COVID. Yes, there is a risk from catching COVID, but we need to balance that risk with the risk of not giving patients the medications that are necessary to treat their rheumatologic condition.”

These diseases are serious, sometimes life-threatening. “We might think of strategies for how to mitigate the risk of underprotection from COVID that is brought about by these treatments,” he said. For example, offering boosters sooner or more frequently, or prophylactically treating with monoclonal antibodies.

“This study, along other recent studies, has found that antibody levels in patients with immune-mediated diseases wane more rapidly than in healthy controls, and this is especially true of those on medications that interfere with the B and T cells and anticytokine therapies,” Rebecca Haberman, MD, assistant professor, division of rheumatology, New York University Langone Health, noted in an email to this news organization.

“While there is no known antibody level that specifically correlates with clinical protection, and each patient needs to be thought of individually, these findings support the use of supplemental booster dosing in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” Dr. Haberman said, adding that her own research in this area has shown similar results.

“As a rheumatologist, I would be more likely to encourage my patients – especially those on immunomodulatory medications – to get boosted.”

Dr. Tascilar said his study does not directly answer the question of whether an earlier booster shot would be an effective strategy for patients with IMID. “In our department, we have an early boosting strategy, based on level of immune response.” But the decision of revaccination or not, and when, is based on a number of factors, not only on the level of antibodies. “It’s just part of the instruments we are using.”

The study was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Dr. Simon and Dr. Tascilar declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study in The Lancet Rheumatology examines the strength and duration of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine–induced immunoglobulin-G antibody responses over time for patients with a variety of autoimmune diseases, compared with healthy controls.

The presence of humoral antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to correlate with protection against COVID infection. But for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), host response to COVID infection or to vaccination is affected by the immune dysfunction imposed by the IMID and by the use of immune-modulating drugs to treat it.

This new study finds a weaker – as shown previously – and less sustained immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with a variety of IMIDs, including rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, psoriasis, inflammatory bowel diseases, and other systemic autoimmune diseases such as lupus. It also points toward the possibility of adjusting treatment and vaccination schedules and strategies for these patients based on their antibody levels, among other factors, to preserve best protection against severe COVID.

Kmatta/Moment/Getty Images

“It is important to assess immune response in these patients to see if they still have protection against severe COVID infection,” said lead author David Simon, MD, senior clinical scientist in clinical immunology and rheumatology at University Hospital Erlangen (Germany). “We know that antibody response is an immune correlate. Therefore, it is important to see how large and durable the immune response is to the coronavirus vaccine in these IMID patients, and whether specific drugs or therapies have negative effects on their immune response.”
 

What was studied?

For this large prospective cohort study, researchers registered 5076 coronavirus-vaccinated individuals. They analyzed serum samples obtained between December 15, 2020, and December 1, 2021, from 2,535 patients diagnosed with IMIDs and participating in a prospective coronavirus study program at the Deutsches Zentrum Immuntherapie in Erlangen. The IMID patients had a mean age of 55.0 years, and 58.9% were women.

A healthy control group of 1,198 individuals without IMID who had a mean age of 40.7 years, including 53.8% men, was also recruited for the analysis. All approved coronavirus vaccines were included, following standard vaccination schedules. Antibody response was measured over time by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay from 8 weeks after first vaccination to week 40.

Among the findings, the healthy controls had higher postvaccine antibody levels than did those with IMIDs. But the majority of vaccinated patients with IMID were able to build up a humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2. Patients who were taking B-cell inhibitors like rituximab (Rituxan, Genentech; and biosimilars) and T-cell inhibitors like abatacept (Orencia, Bristol Myers Squibb) for IMIDs had significantly poorer antibody response.

Greater age and the use of combination therapies for IMIDs, compared with monotherapy, further reduced immune response to the vaccine. In terms of vaccination modality, messenger RNA–based vaccines induced higher antibody levels than did vector-based vaccines. The researchers noted that patients with IMID who were given a third vaccine dose could actually catch up well with the antibody responses observed in healthy controls.

“We looked at whether different IMIDs had a different humoral response, and we also assessed if there are effects from different therapeutic strategies,” Dr. Simon explained. “It doesn’t matter so much what kind of IMID patients have; much more important is the specific drug treatment and its impact on their antibody response.” Some participants were advised to briefly stop taking some immunosuppressive treatments before or after vaccination.

One of Dr. Simon’s coauthors, statistician and rheumatologist Koray Tascilar, MD, added, “This research is important because we looked not only at who responded less, which has been previously established, but who are at greater risk of losing their immune response, and how quickly.”
 

Need to take care

“Most treatments we as rheumatologists give to our patients don’t affect their SARS-CoV-2 humoral response,” Dr. Simon said. “However, there are specific drugs that are associated with lower antibody response. With respect to those drugs, we have to be more careful.”

It is important to be able to tell patients which drugs are safe and won’t have a negative impact on their immune response to vaccinations, Dr. Tascilar said. “But it would be too strong to say we’re ready to choose therapies based on their potential impact on protection against COVID. Yes, there is a risk from catching COVID, but we need to balance that risk with the risk of not giving patients the medications that are necessary to treat their rheumatologic condition.”

These diseases are serious, sometimes life-threatening. “We might think of strategies for how to mitigate the risk of underprotection from COVID that is brought about by these treatments,” he said. For example, offering boosters sooner or more frequently, or prophylactically treating with monoclonal antibodies.

“This study, along other recent studies, has found that antibody levels in patients with immune-mediated diseases wane more rapidly than in healthy controls, and this is especially true of those on medications that interfere with the B and T cells and anticytokine therapies,” Rebecca Haberman, MD, assistant professor, division of rheumatology, New York University Langone Health, noted in an email to this news organization.

“While there is no known antibody level that specifically correlates with clinical protection, and each patient needs to be thought of individually, these findings support the use of supplemental booster dosing in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” Dr. Haberman said, adding that her own research in this area has shown similar results.

“As a rheumatologist, I would be more likely to encourage my patients – especially those on immunomodulatory medications – to get boosted.”

Dr. Tascilar said his study does not directly answer the question of whether an earlier booster shot would be an effective strategy for patients with IMID. “In our department, we have an early boosting strategy, based on level of immune response.” But the decision of revaccination or not, and when, is based on a number of factors, not only on the level of antibodies. “It’s just part of the instruments we are using.”

The study was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Dr. Simon and Dr. Tascilar declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Switching from one biosimilar medication to another is safe and effective, a new systematic review indicates, even though this clinical practice is not governed by current health authority regulations or guidance.

“No reduction in effectiveness or increase in adverse events was detected in biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching studies conducted to date,” the review’s authors noted in their study, published online in BioDrugs.

“The possibility of multiple switches between biosimilars of the same reference biologic is already a reality, and these types of switches are expected to become more common in the future. ... Although it is not covered by current health authority regulations or guidance,” added the authors, led by Hillel P. Cohen, PhD, executive director of scientific affairs at Sandoz, a division of Novartis.

The researchers searched electronic databases through December 2021 and found 23 observational studies that met their search criteria, of which 13 were published in peer-reviewed journals; the remainder appeared in abstract form. The studies totaled 3,657 patients. The researchers did not identify any randomized clinical trials.

“The studies were heterogeneous in size, design, and endpoints, providing data on safety, effectiveness, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, patient retention, patient and physician perceptions, and drug-use patterns,” the authors wrote.

The authors found that the majority of studies evaluated switches between biosimilars of infliximab, but they also identified switches between biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and rituximab.

“Some health care providers are hesitant to switch patients from one biosimilar to another biosimilar because of a perceived lack of clinical data on such switches,” Dr. Cohen said in an interview.

The review’s findings – that there were no clinically relevant differences when switching patients from one biosimilar to another – are consistent with the science, Dr. Cohen said. “Physicians should have confidence that the data demonstrate that safety and effectiveness are not impacted if patients switch from one biosimilar to another biosimilar of the same reference biologic,” he said.

Currently, the published data include biosimilars to only four reference biologics. “However, I anticipate additional biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching data will become available in the future,” Dr. Cohen said. “In fact, several new studies have been published in recent months, after the cut-off date for inclusion in our systematic review.”

Switching common in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology

Biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching was observed most commonly in rheumatology practice, but also was seen in the specialties of dermatology and gastroenterology.

Jeffrey Weinberg, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said in an interview that the study is among the best to date showing that switching biosimilars does not compromise efficacy or safety. 

“I would hypothesize that the interchangeability would apply to psoriasis patients,” Dr. Weinberg said. However, “over the next few years, we will have an increasing number of biosimilars for an increasing number of different molecules. We will need to be vigilant to observe if similar behavior is observed with the biosimilars yet to come.”

Keith Choate, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, pathology, and genetics, and associate dean for physician-scientist development at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said that biosimilars have comparable efficacy to the branded medication they replace. “If response is lost to an individual agent, we would not typically then switch to a biosimilar, but would favor another class of therapy or a distinct therapeutic which targets the same pathway.”

When physicians prescribe a biosimilar for rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis, in 9 out 10 people, “it’s going to work as well, and it’s not going to cause any more side effects,” said Stanford Shoor, MD, clinical professor of medicine and rheumatology, Stanford (Calif.) University.

The systematic review, even within its limitations, reinforces confidence in the antitumor necrosis factor biosimilars, said Jean-Frederic Colombel, MD, codirector of the Feinstein Inflammatory Bowel Disease Clinical Center at Mount Sinai, New York, and professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

“Still, studies with longer follow-up are needed,” Dr. Colombel said, adding that the remaining questions relate to the efficacy and safety of switching multiple times, which will likely occur in the near future. There will be a “need to provide information to the patient regarding what originator or biosimilar(s) he has been exposed to during the course of his disease.”

Switching will increasingly become the norm, said Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic. In his clinical practice, he has the most experience with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, and biosimilar-to-biosimilar infliximab switches. “Unless there are data that emerge, I have no concerns with this.” 

He added that it’s an “interesting study that affirms my findings in clinical practice – that one can switch from a biosimilar to biosimilar (of the same reference product).”

The review’s results also make sense from an economic standpoint, said Rajat Bhatt, MD, owner of Prime Rheumatology in Richmond, Tex., and an adjunct faculty member at Caribbean Medical University, Willemstad, Curaçao. “Switching to biosimilars will result in cost savings for the health care system.” Patients on certain insurances also will save by switching to a biosimilar with a lower copay.

However, the review is limited by a relatively small number of studies that have provided primary data on this topic, and most of these were switching from infliximab to a biosimilar for inflammatory bowel disease, said Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, an adult rheumatologist at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, and assistant professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis.

As with any meta-analysis evaluating a small number of studies, “broad applicability to all conditions and reference/biosimilar pair can only be assumed. Also, many of the studies used for this meta-analysis are observational, which can introduce a variety of biases that can be difficult to adjust for,” Dr. Kim said. “Nevertheless, these analyses are an important first step in validating the [Food and Drug Administration’s] approach to evaluating biosimilars, as the clinical outcomes are consistent between different biosimilars.”

This systematic review is not enough to prove that all patients will do fine when switching from one biosimilar to another, said Florence Aslinia, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Kansas Health System in Kansas City. It’s possible that some patients may not do as well, she said, noting that, in one study of patients with inflammatory bowel disease, 10% of patients on a biosimilar infliximab needed to switch back to the originator infliximab (Remicade, Janssen) because of side effects attributed to the biosimilar. The same thing may or may not happen with biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching, and it requires further study.

The authors did not receive any funding for writing this review. Dr. Cohen is an employee of Sandoz, a division of Novartis. He may own stock in Novartis. Two coauthors are also employees of Sandoz. The other three coauthors reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Sandoz and/or Novartis. Dr. Colombel reported financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis and other manufacturers of biosimilars. Dr. Regueiro reports financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including some manufacturers of biosimilars. Dr. Weinberg reported financial relationships with Celgene, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, and Novartis. Kim reports financial relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Aslinia, Dr. Shoor, Dr. Choate, and Dr. Bhatt reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Switching from one biosimilar medication to another is safe and effective, a new systematic review indicates, even though this clinical practice is not governed by current health authority regulations or guidance.

“No reduction in effectiveness or increase in adverse events was detected in biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching studies conducted to date,” the review’s authors noted in their study, published online in BioDrugs.

“The possibility of multiple switches between biosimilars of the same reference biologic is already a reality, and these types of switches are expected to become more common in the future. ... Although it is not covered by current health authority regulations or guidance,” added the authors, led by Hillel P. Cohen, PhD, executive director of scientific affairs at Sandoz, a division of Novartis.

The researchers searched electronic databases through December 2021 and found 23 observational studies that met their search criteria, of which 13 were published in peer-reviewed journals; the remainder appeared in abstract form. The studies totaled 3,657 patients. The researchers did not identify any randomized clinical trials.

“The studies were heterogeneous in size, design, and endpoints, providing data on safety, effectiveness, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, patient retention, patient and physician perceptions, and drug-use patterns,” the authors wrote.

The authors found that the majority of studies evaluated switches between biosimilars of infliximab, but they also identified switches between biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and rituximab.

“Some health care providers are hesitant to switch patients from one biosimilar to another biosimilar because of a perceived lack of clinical data on such switches,” Dr. Cohen said in an interview.

The review’s findings – that there were no clinically relevant differences when switching patients from one biosimilar to another – are consistent with the science, Dr. Cohen said. “Physicians should have confidence that the data demonstrate that safety and effectiveness are not impacted if patients switch from one biosimilar to another biosimilar of the same reference biologic,” he said.

Currently, the published data include biosimilars to only four reference biologics. “However, I anticipate additional biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching data will become available in the future,” Dr. Cohen said. “In fact, several new studies have been published in recent months, after the cut-off date for inclusion in our systematic review.”

Switching common in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology

Biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching was observed most commonly in rheumatology practice, but also was seen in the specialties of dermatology and gastroenterology.

Jeffrey Weinberg, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said in an interview that the study is among the best to date showing that switching biosimilars does not compromise efficacy or safety. 

“I would hypothesize that the interchangeability would apply to psoriasis patients,” Dr. Weinberg said. However, “over the next few years, we will have an increasing number of biosimilars for an increasing number of different molecules. We will need to be vigilant to observe if similar behavior is observed with the biosimilars yet to come.”

Keith Choate, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, pathology, and genetics, and associate dean for physician-scientist development at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said that biosimilars have comparable efficacy to the branded medication they replace. “If response is lost to an individual agent, we would not typically then switch to a biosimilar, but would favor another class of therapy or a distinct therapeutic which targets the same pathway.”

When physicians prescribe a biosimilar for rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis, in 9 out 10 people, “it’s going to work as well, and it’s not going to cause any more side effects,” said Stanford Shoor, MD, clinical professor of medicine and rheumatology, Stanford (Calif.) University.

The systematic review, even within its limitations, reinforces confidence in the antitumor necrosis factor biosimilars, said Jean-Frederic Colombel, MD, codirector of the Feinstein Inflammatory Bowel Disease Clinical Center at Mount Sinai, New York, and professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

“Still, studies with longer follow-up are needed,” Dr. Colombel said, adding that the remaining questions relate to the efficacy and safety of switching multiple times, which will likely occur in the near future. There will be a “need to provide information to the patient regarding what originator or biosimilar(s) he has been exposed to during the course of his disease.”

Switching will increasingly become the norm, said Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic. In his clinical practice, he has the most experience with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, and biosimilar-to-biosimilar infliximab switches. “Unless there are data that emerge, I have no concerns with this.” 

He added that it’s an “interesting study that affirms my findings in clinical practice – that one can switch from a biosimilar to biosimilar (of the same reference product).”

The review’s results also make sense from an economic standpoint, said Rajat Bhatt, MD, owner of Prime Rheumatology in Richmond, Tex., and an adjunct faculty member at Caribbean Medical University, Willemstad, Curaçao. “Switching to biosimilars will result in cost savings for the health care system.” Patients on certain insurances also will save by switching to a biosimilar with a lower copay.

However, the review is limited by a relatively small number of studies that have provided primary data on this topic, and most of these were switching from infliximab to a biosimilar for inflammatory bowel disease, said Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, an adult rheumatologist at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, and assistant professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis.

As with any meta-analysis evaluating a small number of studies, “broad applicability to all conditions and reference/biosimilar pair can only be assumed. Also, many of the studies used for this meta-analysis are observational, which can introduce a variety of biases that can be difficult to adjust for,” Dr. Kim said. “Nevertheless, these analyses are an important first step in validating the [Food and Drug Administration’s] approach to evaluating biosimilars, as the clinical outcomes are consistent between different biosimilars.”

This systematic review is not enough to prove that all patients will do fine when switching from one biosimilar to another, said Florence Aslinia, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Kansas Health System in Kansas City. It’s possible that some patients may not do as well, she said, noting that, in one study of patients with inflammatory bowel disease, 10% of patients on a biosimilar infliximab needed to switch back to the originator infliximab (Remicade, Janssen) because of side effects attributed to the biosimilar. The same thing may or may not happen with biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching, and it requires further study.

The authors did not receive any funding for writing this review. Dr. Cohen is an employee of Sandoz, a division of Novartis. He may own stock in Novartis. Two coauthors are also employees of Sandoz. The other three coauthors reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Sandoz and/or Novartis. Dr. Colombel reported financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis and other manufacturers of biosimilars. Dr. Regueiro reports financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including some manufacturers of biosimilars. Dr. Weinberg reported financial relationships with Celgene, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, and Novartis. Kim reports financial relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Aslinia, Dr. Shoor, Dr. Choate, and Dr. Bhatt reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Switching from one biosimilar medication to another is safe and effective, a new systematic review indicates, even though this clinical practice is not governed by current health authority regulations or guidance.

“No reduction in effectiveness or increase in adverse events was detected in biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching studies conducted to date,” the review’s authors noted in their study, published online in BioDrugs.

“The possibility of multiple switches between biosimilars of the same reference biologic is already a reality, and these types of switches are expected to become more common in the future. ... Although it is not covered by current health authority regulations or guidance,” added the authors, led by Hillel P. Cohen, PhD, executive director of scientific affairs at Sandoz, a division of Novartis.

The researchers searched electronic databases through December 2021 and found 23 observational studies that met their search criteria, of which 13 were published in peer-reviewed journals; the remainder appeared in abstract form. The studies totaled 3,657 patients. The researchers did not identify any randomized clinical trials.

“The studies were heterogeneous in size, design, and endpoints, providing data on safety, effectiveness, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, patient retention, patient and physician perceptions, and drug-use patterns,” the authors wrote.

The authors found that the majority of studies evaluated switches between biosimilars of infliximab, but they also identified switches between biosimilars of adalimumab, etanercept, and rituximab.

“Some health care providers are hesitant to switch patients from one biosimilar to another biosimilar because of a perceived lack of clinical data on such switches,” Dr. Cohen said in an interview.

The review’s findings – that there were no clinically relevant differences when switching patients from one biosimilar to another – are consistent with the science, Dr. Cohen said. “Physicians should have confidence that the data demonstrate that safety and effectiveness are not impacted if patients switch from one biosimilar to another biosimilar of the same reference biologic,” he said.

Currently, the published data include biosimilars to only four reference biologics. “However, I anticipate additional biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching data will become available in the future,” Dr. Cohen said. “In fact, several new studies have been published in recent months, after the cut-off date for inclusion in our systematic review.”

Switching common in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology

Biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching was observed most commonly in rheumatology practice, but also was seen in the specialties of dermatology and gastroenterology.

Jeffrey Weinberg, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said in an interview that the study is among the best to date showing that switching biosimilars does not compromise efficacy or safety. 

“I would hypothesize that the interchangeability would apply to psoriasis patients,” Dr. Weinberg said. However, “over the next few years, we will have an increasing number of biosimilars for an increasing number of different molecules. We will need to be vigilant to observe if similar behavior is observed with the biosimilars yet to come.”

Keith Choate, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, pathology, and genetics, and associate dean for physician-scientist development at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said that biosimilars have comparable efficacy to the branded medication they replace. “If response is lost to an individual agent, we would not typically then switch to a biosimilar, but would favor another class of therapy or a distinct therapeutic which targets the same pathway.”

When physicians prescribe a biosimilar for rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis, in 9 out 10 people, “it’s going to work as well, and it’s not going to cause any more side effects,” said Stanford Shoor, MD, clinical professor of medicine and rheumatology, Stanford (Calif.) University.

The systematic review, even within its limitations, reinforces confidence in the antitumor necrosis factor biosimilars, said Jean-Frederic Colombel, MD, codirector of the Feinstein Inflammatory Bowel Disease Clinical Center at Mount Sinai, New York, and professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

“Still, studies with longer follow-up are needed,” Dr. Colombel said, adding that the remaining questions relate to the efficacy and safety of switching multiple times, which will likely occur in the near future. There will be a “need to provide information to the patient regarding what originator or biosimilar(s) he has been exposed to during the course of his disease.”

Switching will increasingly become the norm, said Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic. In his clinical practice, he has the most experience with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, and biosimilar-to-biosimilar infliximab switches. “Unless there are data that emerge, I have no concerns with this.” 

He added that it’s an “interesting study that affirms my findings in clinical practice – that one can switch from a biosimilar to biosimilar (of the same reference product).”

The review’s results also make sense from an economic standpoint, said Rajat Bhatt, MD, owner of Prime Rheumatology in Richmond, Tex., and an adjunct faculty member at Caribbean Medical University, Willemstad, Curaçao. “Switching to biosimilars will result in cost savings for the health care system.” Patients on certain insurances also will save by switching to a biosimilar with a lower copay.

However, the review is limited by a relatively small number of studies that have provided primary data on this topic, and most of these were switching from infliximab to a biosimilar for inflammatory bowel disease, said Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, an adult rheumatologist at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, and assistant professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis.

As with any meta-analysis evaluating a small number of studies, “broad applicability to all conditions and reference/biosimilar pair can only be assumed. Also, many of the studies used for this meta-analysis are observational, which can introduce a variety of biases that can be difficult to adjust for,” Dr. Kim said. “Nevertheless, these analyses are an important first step in validating the [Food and Drug Administration’s] approach to evaluating biosimilars, as the clinical outcomes are consistent between different biosimilars.”

This systematic review is not enough to prove that all patients will do fine when switching from one biosimilar to another, said Florence Aslinia, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Kansas Health System in Kansas City. It’s possible that some patients may not do as well, she said, noting that, in one study of patients with inflammatory bowel disease, 10% of patients on a biosimilar infliximab needed to switch back to the originator infliximab (Remicade, Janssen) because of side effects attributed to the biosimilar. The same thing may or may not happen with biosimilar-to-biosimilar switching, and it requires further study.

The authors did not receive any funding for writing this review. Dr. Cohen is an employee of Sandoz, a division of Novartis. He may own stock in Novartis. Two coauthors are also employees of Sandoz. The other three coauthors reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Sandoz and/or Novartis. Dr. Colombel reported financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis and other manufacturers of biosimilars. Dr. Regueiro reports financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including some manufacturers of biosimilars. Dr. Weinberg reported financial relationships with Celgene, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, and Novartis. Kim reports financial relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Aslinia, Dr. Shoor, Dr. Choate, and Dr. Bhatt reported no relevant financial relationships.

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