Rheumatology

Adding a single cycle of rituximab to belimumab (Benlysta) did not improve disease control for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in comparison with belimumab alone in a phase 3, randomized, controlled trial.

Among patients with SLE who were randomly assigned to receive belimumab with either rituximab, placebo, or standard care, there were no statistically significant differences between the rituximab and placebo arms for the primary endpoint of the proportion of patients with disease control at week 52 or in the secondary endpoints of clinical remission at week 64 or disease control at week 104, Cynthia Aranow, MD, reported in a late-breaking poster session presented during the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Using a new, clinically meaningful endpoint underscores the efficacy of belimumab for disease control, with some patients maintaining disease control with considerable reductions in steroids, and no immunosuppressants,” said Dr. Aranow, a rheumatologist specializing in SLE and RA in New York and director of the Clinical Autoimmunity Center of Excellence at Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, N.Y.

Use of the combination of belimumab and rituximab was, however, associated with significant improvement over belimumab and placebo in several secondary efficacy endpoints.

Investigators in the randomized, controlled trial, dubbed BLISS-BELIEVE, had previously published a rationale for sequential therapy with belimumab, a human monoclonal antibody that binds to soluble B-lymphocyte stimulator, and rituximab, a B-cell–depleting anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody.

“These biologics, which operate through complementary mechanisms, might result in an enhanced depletion of circulating and tissue-resident autoreactive B lymphocytes when administered together. Thus, belimumab and rituximab combination may be a highly effective treatment of SLE,” they wrote in an article published in 2019 in BMJ Open.
 

Three-arm trial

The investigators screened 396 patients, of whom 292 were randomly assigned in a 1:2:1 ratio to receive either subcutaneous belimumab 200 mg/wk plus intravenous placebo at weeks 4 and 6 (BEL/PBO, 72 patients), belimumab plus IV rituximab 1,000 mg at weeks 4 and 6 (BEL/RTX, 144 patients), or open-label belimumab plus standard therapy. Patients were allowed to continue taking antimalarial and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs throughout the study.

The primary disease-control endpoint was defined as a Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) score of 2 or less, achieved without other immunosuppression, equivalent to that achieved with prednisone 5 mg/day or less.

As noted before, there were no significant differences between the BEL/RTX and BEL/PBO arms in either disease control at week 52 or in the secondary endpoints of clinical remission at week 64 (SLEDAI-2K score, 0) or in the proportion of patients with disease control at week 104.

However, use of BEL/RTX was associated with a significantly longer duration of disease control through 52 weeks than was BEL/PBO (mean, 105.4 days vs. 60.1 days; P = .0188) and with a large SLEDAI-2K mean change from baseline at week 104 (–7.2 vs 5.1; P = .0033).

In addition, there was a trend toward a shift in proteinuria from baseline high (>0.5 g/24 h) to normal in the BEL/RTX group at week 52 and a significantly greater shift at week 104 (P = .0085).

The overall adverse event profiles were generally consistent with those of the individual agents, although serious infections and infestations occurred more frequently with BEL/RTX than BEL/PBO.
 

Further analyses planned to look for subgroups that benefit

In a poster discussion session, Akshat Khanna, PhD, of Newtown, Pa., a consultant with Effimed Life Sciences Research, asked Dr. Aranow about the rationale for giving rituximab and belimumab concurrently and noted that, in the BEAT-LUPUS and CALIBRATE trials, anti-CD20 agents were given first, followed by belimumab, to prevent activation of humoral immunity.

“The two B-cell agents were given sequentially. Belimumab was given first to maximize the effect of peripheral B-cell depletion and [was] then continued after rituximab to suppress the elevation [of B-lymphocyte stimulator] that occurs after rituximab monotherapy. We used this approach (instead of that used in CALIBRATE and BEAT LUPUS), as we thought this might be more efficacious,” she explained.

When asked whether there were subgroups of patients who might still benefit from the combination, compared with belimumab alone, Dr. Aranow replied: “There may be individual patients in which it might be considered. Further analyses of the data are ongoing/planned.”

The study was supported by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Aranow has received grant/research support from GlaxoSmithKline and has consulted for Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Khanna has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adding a single cycle of rituximab to belimumab (Benlysta) did not improve disease control for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in comparison with belimumab alone in a phase 3, randomized, controlled trial.

Among patients with SLE who were randomly assigned to receive belimumab with either rituximab, placebo, or standard care, there were no statistically significant differences between the rituximab and placebo arms for the primary endpoint of the proportion of patients with disease control at week 52 or in the secondary endpoints of clinical remission at week 64 or disease control at week 104, Cynthia Aranow, MD, reported in a late-breaking poster session presented during the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Using a new, clinically meaningful endpoint underscores the efficacy of belimumab for disease control, with some patients maintaining disease control with considerable reductions in steroids, and no immunosuppressants,” said Dr. Aranow, a rheumatologist specializing in SLE and RA in New York and director of the Clinical Autoimmunity Center of Excellence at Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, N.Y.

Use of the combination of belimumab and rituximab was, however, associated with significant improvement over belimumab and placebo in several secondary efficacy endpoints.

Investigators in the randomized, controlled trial, dubbed BLISS-BELIEVE, had previously published a rationale for sequential therapy with belimumab, a human monoclonal antibody that binds to soluble B-lymphocyte stimulator, and rituximab, a B-cell–depleting anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody.

“These biologics, which operate through complementary mechanisms, might result in an enhanced depletion of circulating and tissue-resident autoreactive B lymphocytes when administered together. Thus, belimumab and rituximab combination may be a highly effective treatment of SLE,” they wrote in an article published in 2019 in BMJ Open.
 

Three-arm trial

The investigators screened 396 patients, of whom 292 were randomly assigned in a 1:2:1 ratio to receive either subcutaneous belimumab 200 mg/wk plus intravenous placebo at weeks 4 and 6 (BEL/PBO, 72 patients), belimumab plus IV rituximab 1,000 mg at weeks 4 and 6 (BEL/RTX, 144 patients), or open-label belimumab plus standard therapy. Patients were allowed to continue taking antimalarial and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs throughout the study.

The primary disease-control endpoint was defined as a Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) score of 2 or less, achieved without other immunosuppression, equivalent to that achieved with prednisone 5 mg/day or less.

As noted before, there were no significant differences between the BEL/RTX and BEL/PBO arms in either disease control at week 52 or in the secondary endpoints of clinical remission at week 64 (SLEDAI-2K score, 0) or in the proportion of patients with disease control at week 104.

However, use of BEL/RTX was associated with a significantly longer duration of disease control through 52 weeks than was BEL/PBO (mean, 105.4 days vs. 60.1 days; P = .0188) and with a large SLEDAI-2K mean change from baseline at week 104 (–7.2 vs 5.1; P = .0033).

In addition, there was a trend toward a shift in proteinuria from baseline high (>0.5 g/24 h) to normal in the BEL/RTX group at week 52 and a significantly greater shift at week 104 (P = .0085).

The overall adverse event profiles were generally consistent with those of the individual agents, although serious infections and infestations occurred more frequently with BEL/RTX than BEL/PBO.
 

Further analyses planned to look for subgroups that benefit

In a poster discussion session, Akshat Khanna, PhD, of Newtown, Pa., a consultant with Effimed Life Sciences Research, asked Dr. Aranow about the rationale for giving rituximab and belimumab concurrently and noted that, in the BEAT-LUPUS and CALIBRATE trials, anti-CD20 agents were given first, followed by belimumab, to prevent activation of humoral immunity.

“The two B-cell agents were given sequentially. Belimumab was given first to maximize the effect of peripheral B-cell depletion and [was] then continued after rituximab to suppress the elevation [of B-lymphocyte stimulator] that occurs after rituximab monotherapy. We used this approach (instead of that used in CALIBRATE and BEAT LUPUS), as we thought this might be more efficacious,” she explained.

When asked whether there were subgroups of patients who might still benefit from the combination, compared with belimumab alone, Dr. Aranow replied: “There may be individual patients in which it might be considered. Further analyses of the data are ongoing/planned.”

The study was supported by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Aranow has received grant/research support from GlaxoSmithKline and has consulted for Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Khanna has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adding a single cycle of rituximab to belimumab (Benlysta) did not improve disease control for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in comparison with belimumab alone in a phase 3, randomized, controlled trial.

Among patients with SLE who were randomly assigned to receive belimumab with either rituximab, placebo, or standard care, there were no statistically significant differences between the rituximab and placebo arms for the primary endpoint of the proportion of patients with disease control at week 52 or in the secondary endpoints of clinical remission at week 64 or disease control at week 104, Cynthia Aranow, MD, reported in a late-breaking poster session presented during the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Using a new, clinically meaningful endpoint underscores the efficacy of belimumab for disease control, with some patients maintaining disease control with considerable reductions in steroids, and no immunosuppressants,” said Dr. Aranow, a rheumatologist specializing in SLE and RA in New York and director of the Clinical Autoimmunity Center of Excellence at Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, N.Y.

Use of the combination of belimumab and rituximab was, however, associated with significant improvement over belimumab and placebo in several secondary efficacy endpoints.

Investigators in the randomized, controlled trial, dubbed BLISS-BELIEVE, had previously published a rationale for sequential therapy with belimumab, a human monoclonal antibody that binds to soluble B-lymphocyte stimulator, and rituximab, a B-cell–depleting anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody.

“These biologics, which operate through complementary mechanisms, might result in an enhanced depletion of circulating and tissue-resident autoreactive B lymphocytes when administered together. Thus, belimumab and rituximab combination may be a highly effective treatment of SLE,” they wrote in an article published in 2019 in BMJ Open.
 

Three-arm trial

The investigators screened 396 patients, of whom 292 were randomly assigned in a 1:2:1 ratio to receive either subcutaneous belimumab 200 mg/wk plus intravenous placebo at weeks 4 and 6 (BEL/PBO, 72 patients), belimumab plus IV rituximab 1,000 mg at weeks 4 and 6 (BEL/RTX, 144 patients), or open-label belimumab plus standard therapy. Patients were allowed to continue taking antimalarial and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs throughout the study.

The primary disease-control endpoint was defined as a Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) score of 2 or less, achieved without other immunosuppression, equivalent to that achieved with prednisone 5 mg/day or less.

As noted before, there were no significant differences between the BEL/RTX and BEL/PBO arms in either disease control at week 52 or in the secondary endpoints of clinical remission at week 64 (SLEDAI-2K score, 0) or in the proportion of patients with disease control at week 104.

However, use of BEL/RTX was associated with a significantly longer duration of disease control through 52 weeks than was BEL/PBO (mean, 105.4 days vs. 60.1 days; P = .0188) and with a large SLEDAI-2K mean change from baseline at week 104 (–7.2 vs 5.1; P = .0033).

In addition, there was a trend toward a shift in proteinuria from baseline high (>0.5 g/24 h) to normal in the BEL/RTX group at week 52 and a significantly greater shift at week 104 (P = .0085).

The overall adverse event profiles were generally consistent with those of the individual agents, although serious infections and infestations occurred more frequently with BEL/RTX than BEL/PBO.
 

Further analyses planned to look for subgroups that benefit

In a poster discussion session, Akshat Khanna, PhD, of Newtown, Pa., a consultant with Effimed Life Sciences Research, asked Dr. Aranow about the rationale for giving rituximab and belimumab concurrently and noted that, in the BEAT-LUPUS and CALIBRATE trials, anti-CD20 agents were given first, followed by belimumab, to prevent activation of humoral immunity.

“The two B-cell agents were given sequentially. Belimumab was given first to maximize the effect of peripheral B-cell depletion and [was] then continued after rituximab to suppress the elevation [of B-lymphocyte stimulator] that occurs after rituximab monotherapy. We used this approach (instead of that used in CALIBRATE and BEAT LUPUS), as we thought this might be more efficacious,” she explained.

When asked whether there were subgroups of patients who might still benefit from the combination, compared with belimumab alone, Dr. Aranow replied: “There may be individual patients in which it might be considered. Further analyses of the data are ongoing/planned.”

The study was supported by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Aranow has received grant/research support from GlaxoSmithKline and has consulted for Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Khanna has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Additional analyses of a postmarketing trial that was required after the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR) has identified characteristics of older patients with rheumatoid arthritis with at least one cardiovascular risk factor who may be at higher risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) when taking the drug.

Results from the phase 3b/4 ORAL Surveillance trial presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology show that people taking tofacitinib for RA with at least one cardiovascular (CV) risk factor had a nonsignificant higher risk for MACE than did people taking tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), with the risk from tofacitinib more pronounced in current smokers, aspirin users, people older than 65 years, and men, compared with women.

“It is the first large, randomized safety study of active RA patients with increased CV risk comparing tofacitinib to TNF inhibition,” study author Christina Charles-Schoeman, MD, said in an interview. “These data emphasize the importance of assessing baseline CV risk when treating patients with RA.” Dr. Charles-Schoeman is chief of rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles.

The results shed further light on the trial’s findings, which the FDA used in September 2021 to mandate boxed warnings about the risk of MI or stroke, cancer, venous thromboembolism, and death, as well as updated indications, for tofacitinib and other JAK inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq). The FDA limited all approved uses of these three medications to patients who have not responded well to TNFi to ensure their benefits outweigh their risks.

Tofacitinib is indicated for RA, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Baricitinib and upadacitinib are approved only for RA.

While the overall results of the trial results show nonsignificant increased incidence rates for MACE in tofacitinib users versus TNFI users, Katherine Liao, MD, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, noted that more information is needed to determine who is at greatest risk. “Another thing to keep in mind is, while there was evidence of an elevated relative risk for MACE, compared to TNFi, the absolute risk, based on the numbers what we know so far, is small,” she said.

The trial compared two different doses of tofacitinib – 5 mg (1,455 patients) and 10 mg (n = 1,456) twice daily – and TNFi (n = 1,451) in people with moderate to severe RA over age 50. Patient characteristics were similar across all three treatment arms, Dr. Charles-Schoeman said. All patients had inadequate response to methotrexate, and about 57% in all three treatment groups were taking corticosteroids. The 10-mg tofacitinib patients switched to the 5-mg dose in February 2019 but represent the 10-mg group in the study analysis.

ORAL Surveillance demonstrated a 24% greater risk of MACE in the 5-mg tofacitinib patients and a 43% heightened risk the 10-mg group, compared with patients who received a TNFi.

The differentiating factor for MACE incidence was MI. The higher- and lower-dose tofacitinib groups had 69% and 80% greater risk for MI. While the risk for fatal MI were similar across all three treatment groups, the risk for nonfatal MI were more than doubled in the respective tofacitinib groups: hazard ratios of 2.32 and 2.08. The incidence of stroke was similar across all three arms, Dr. Charles-Schoeman said.

The study identified a number of baseline characteristics as independent overall risk factors for MACE across all treatment groups. Current smoking and aspirin use more than doubled the risk (HR, 2.18; P < .0001 and HR, 2.11; P = .004, respectively), while age greater than 65 years and male sex approached that level (HR, 1.81; P = .0011 and HR, 1.81; P = .0015) approached that level. Other factors that elevated the risk of MACE to a lesser extent were a history of diabetes, hypertension or coronary artery procedures, and a total cholesterol to HDL ratio greater than4.

Other ORAL Surveillance subanalyses and tofacitinib real-world data reported

This was one of several analyses presented at ACR 2021 that compared adverse event risks for tofacitinib versus TNFi drugs. A separate analysis of claims data from patients with RA in two U.S. insurance databases plus Medicare found a statistically nonsignificant increased risk of adverse CV outcomes (MI or stroke) with tofacitinib, compared with TNFi users, among patients who met the same inclusion and exclusion criteria of the ORAL Surveillance trial but not in a “real-world evidence” cohort of more than 102,000 patients with RA in routine care from the databases.

Two additional ORAL Surveillance analyses presented at ACR 2021 gave details about risk factors for higher rates of malignancies and venous thromboembolic events found in patients taking tofacitinib with at least one CV risk factor. As would be expected, older age (≥65 vs. 50-64 years) and current or past smoking (vs. never smoking) were independent risk factors for higher malignancy rates across all treatment arms. Pulmonary embolism events across treatment groups were independently associated with a history of venous thromboembolism, baseline use of oral contraceptives or hormone replacement therapy, baseline body mass index of at least 30 kg/m², age 65 or older, and history of hypertension.

The ORAL Surveillance findings are worth considering when determining treatments for RA patients with CV risk factors, Dr. Charles-Schoeman said. “Tofacitinib remains an effective RA treatment,” she said. “The choice of specific RA treatment for any patient remains an individual decision between the patient and physician, which is decided based on a number of different factors. This new study provides additional information regarding both tofacitinib as well as traditional CV risk factors for discussion with the patient.”

The ORAL Surveillance results may give rheumatologists reason to rethink use of tofacitinib in some patients with CV risk, said Dr. Liao of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “Currently, we have limited data and are still awaiting a report of the full trial results,” she said in an interview. “Based on the data available, I can think of a few patients in my clinic where I would reconsider use of these drugs, i.e., history of heart attack with stable angina, especially if there are other options.” However, she noted that many patients on tofacitinib have already failed on older treatments.

These data emphasize the importance of addressing CV risk with patients, said Brittany N. Weber, MD, PhD, a cardio-rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital who works with Dr. Liao. “It is also an opportunity to discuss modification of risk factors and to discuss primary prevention therapies, such as statin therapy, where appropriate,” she added. “Based on the individual’s cardiovascular risk, there may be a role for further risk stratification to further understand an individual’s risk, which can also inform primary prevention cardiovascular therapies and help guide these discussions.” Risk stratification could include cardiac CT for calcium scoring or cardiac coronary CT angiography for determining atherosclerotic burden.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Charles-Schoeman disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, and Regeneron-Sanofi. Dr. Liao and Dr. Weber have no relevant disclosures.

Additional analyses of a postmarketing trial that was required after the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR) has identified characteristics of older patients with rheumatoid arthritis with at least one cardiovascular risk factor who may be at higher risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) when taking the drug.

Results from the phase 3b/4 ORAL Surveillance trial presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology show that people taking tofacitinib for RA with at least one cardiovascular (CV) risk factor had a nonsignificant higher risk for MACE than did people taking tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), with the risk from tofacitinib more pronounced in current smokers, aspirin users, people older than 65 years, and men, compared with women.

“It is the first large, randomized safety study of active RA patients with increased CV risk comparing tofacitinib to TNF inhibition,” study author Christina Charles-Schoeman, MD, said in an interview. “These data emphasize the importance of assessing baseline CV risk when treating patients with RA.” Dr. Charles-Schoeman is chief of rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles.

The results shed further light on the trial’s findings, which the FDA used in September 2021 to mandate boxed warnings about the risk of MI or stroke, cancer, venous thromboembolism, and death, as well as updated indications, for tofacitinib and other JAK inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq). The FDA limited all approved uses of these three medications to patients who have not responded well to TNFi to ensure their benefits outweigh their risks.

Tofacitinib is indicated for RA, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Baricitinib and upadacitinib are approved only for RA.

While the overall results of the trial results show nonsignificant increased incidence rates for MACE in tofacitinib users versus TNFI users, Katherine Liao, MD, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, noted that more information is needed to determine who is at greatest risk. “Another thing to keep in mind is, while there was evidence of an elevated relative risk for MACE, compared to TNFi, the absolute risk, based on the numbers what we know so far, is small,” she said.

The trial compared two different doses of tofacitinib – 5 mg (1,455 patients) and 10 mg (n = 1,456) twice daily – and TNFi (n = 1,451) in people with moderate to severe RA over age 50. Patient characteristics were similar across all three treatment arms, Dr. Charles-Schoeman said. All patients had inadequate response to methotrexate, and about 57% in all three treatment groups were taking corticosteroids. The 10-mg tofacitinib patients switched to the 5-mg dose in February 2019 but represent the 10-mg group in the study analysis.

ORAL Surveillance demonstrated a 24% greater risk of MACE in the 5-mg tofacitinib patients and a 43% heightened risk the 10-mg group, compared with patients who received a TNFi.

The differentiating factor for MACE incidence was MI. The higher- and lower-dose tofacitinib groups had 69% and 80% greater risk for MI. While the risk for fatal MI were similar across all three treatment groups, the risk for nonfatal MI were more than doubled in the respective tofacitinib groups: hazard ratios of 2.32 and 2.08. The incidence of stroke was similar across all three arms, Dr. Charles-Schoeman said.

The study identified a number of baseline characteristics as independent overall risk factors for MACE across all treatment groups. Current smoking and aspirin use more than doubled the risk (HR, 2.18; P < .0001 and HR, 2.11; P = .004, respectively), while age greater than 65 years and male sex approached that level (HR, 1.81; P = .0011 and HR, 1.81; P = .0015) approached that level. Other factors that elevated the risk of MACE to a lesser extent were a history of diabetes, hypertension or coronary artery procedures, and a total cholesterol to HDL ratio greater than4.

Other ORAL Surveillance subanalyses and tofacitinib real-world data reported

This was one of several analyses presented at ACR 2021 that compared adverse event risks for tofacitinib versus TNFi drugs. A separate analysis of claims data from patients with RA in two U.S. insurance databases plus Medicare found a statistically nonsignificant increased risk of adverse CV outcomes (MI or stroke) with tofacitinib, compared with TNFi users, among patients who met the same inclusion and exclusion criteria of the ORAL Surveillance trial but not in a “real-world evidence” cohort of more than 102,000 patients with RA in routine care from the databases.

Two additional ORAL Surveillance analyses presented at ACR 2021 gave details about risk factors for higher rates of malignancies and venous thromboembolic events found in patients taking tofacitinib with at least one CV risk factor. As would be expected, older age (≥65 vs. 50-64 years) and current or past smoking (vs. never smoking) were independent risk factors for higher malignancy rates across all treatment arms. Pulmonary embolism events across treatment groups were independently associated with a history of venous thromboembolism, baseline use of oral contraceptives or hormone replacement therapy, baseline body mass index of at least 30 kg/m², age 65 or older, and history of hypertension.

The ORAL Surveillance findings are worth considering when determining treatments for RA patients with CV risk factors, Dr. Charles-Schoeman said. “Tofacitinib remains an effective RA treatment,” she said. “The choice of specific RA treatment for any patient remains an individual decision between the patient and physician, which is decided based on a number of different factors. This new study provides additional information regarding both tofacitinib as well as traditional CV risk factors for discussion with the patient.”

The ORAL Surveillance results may give rheumatologists reason to rethink use of tofacitinib in some patients with CV risk, said Dr. Liao of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “Currently, we have limited data and are still awaiting a report of the full trial results,” she said in an interview. “Based on the data available, I can think of a few patients in my clinic where I would reconsider use of these drugs, i.e., history of heart attack with stable angina, especially if there are other options.” However, she noted that many patients on tofacitinib have already failed on older treatments.

These data emphasize the importance of addressing CV risk with patients, said Brittany N. Weber, MD, PhD, a cardio-rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital who works with Dr. Liao. “It is also an opportunity to discuss modification of risk factors and to discuss primary prevention therapies, such as statin therapy, where appropriate,” she added. “Based on the individual’s cardiovascular risk, there may be a role for further risk stratification to further understand an individual’s risk, which can also inform primary prevention cardiovascular therapies and help guide these discussions.” Risk stratification could include cardiac CT for calcium scoring or cardiac coronary CT angiography for determining atherosclerotic burden.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Charles-Schoeman disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, and Regeneron-Sanofi. Dr. Liao and Dr. Weber have no relevant disclosures.

Additional analyses of a postmarketing trial that was required after the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR) has identified characteristics of older patients with rheumatoid arthritis with at least one cardiovascular risk factor who may be at higher risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) when taking the drug.

Results from the phase 3b/4 ORAL Surveillance trial presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology show that people taking tofacitinib for RA with at least one cardiovascular (CV) risk factor had a nonsignificant higher risk for MACE than did people taking tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), with the risk from tofacitinib more pronounced in current smokers, aspirin users, people older than 65 years, and men, compared with women.

“It is the first large, randomized safety study of active RA patients with increased CV risk comparing tofacitinib to TNF inhibition,” study author Christina Charles-Schoeman, MD, said in an interview. “These data emphasize the importance of assessing baseline CV risk when treating patients with RA.” Dr. Charles-Schoeman is chief of rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles.

The results shed further light on the trial’s findings, which the FDA used in September 2021 to mandate boxed warnings about the risk of MI or stroke, cancer, venous thromboembolism, and death, as well as updated indications, for tofacitinib and other JAK inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq). The FDA limited all approved uses of these three medications to patients who have not responded well to TNFi to ensure their benefits outweigh their risks.

Tofacitinib is indicated for RA, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Baricitinib and upadacitinib are approved only for RA.

While the overall results of the trial results show nonsignificant increased incidence rates for MACE in tofacitinib users versus TNFI users, Katherine Liao, MD, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, noted that more information is needed to determine who is at greatest risk. “Another thing to keep in mind is, while there was evidence of an elevated relative risk for MACE, compared to TNFi, the absolute risk, based on the numbers what we know so far, is small,” she said.

The trial compared two different doses of tofacitinib – 5 mg (1,455 patients) and 10 mg (n = 1,456) twice daily – and TNFi (n = 1,451) in people with moderate to severe RA over age 50. Patient characteristics were similar across all three treatment arms, Dr. Charles-Schoeman said. All patients had inadequate response to methotrexate, and about 57% in all three treatment groups were taking corticosteroids. The 10-mg tofacitinib patients switched to the 5-mg dose in February 2019 but represent the 10-mg group in the study analysis.

ORAL Surveillance demonstrated a 24% greater risk of MACE in the 5-mg tofacitinib patients and a 43% heightened risk the 10-mg group, compared with patients who received a TNFi.

The differentiating factor for MACE incidence was MI. The higher- and lower-dose tofacitinib groups had 69% and 80% greater risk for MI. While the risk for fatal MI were similar across all three treatment groups, the risk for nonfatal MI were more than doubled in the respective tofacitinib groups: hazard ratios of 2.32 and 2.08. The incidence of stroke was similar across all three arms, Dr. Charles-Schoeman said.

The study identified a number of baseline characteristics as independent overall risk factors for MACE across all treatment groups. Current smoking and aspirin use more than doubled the risk (HR, 2.18; P < .0001 and HR, 2.11; P = .004, respectively), while age greater than 65 years and male sex approached that level (HR, 1.81; P = .0011 and HR, 1.81; P = .0015) approached that level. Other factors that elevated the risk of MACE to a lesser extent were a history of diabetes, hypertension or coronary artery procedures, and a total cholesterol to HDL ratio greater than4.

Other ORAL Surveillance subanalyses and tofacitinib real-world data reported

This was one of several analyses presented at ACR 2021 that compared adverse event risks for tofacitinib versus TNFi drugs. A separate analysis of claims data from patients with RA in two U.S. insurance databases plus Medicare found a statistically nonsignificant increased risk of adverse CV outcomes (MI or stroke) with tofacitinib, compared with TNFi users, among patients who met the same inclusion and exclusion criteria of the ORAL Surveillance trial but not in a “real-world evidence” cohort of more than 102,000 patients with RA in routine care from the databases.

Two additional ORAL Surveillance analyses presented at ACR 2021 gave details about risk factors for higher rates of malignancies and venous thromboembolic events found in patients taking tofacitinib with at least one CV risk factor. As would be expected, older age (≥65 vs. 50-64 years) and current or past smoking (vs. never smoking) were independent risk factors for higher malignancy rates across all treatment arms. Pulmonary embolism events across treatment groups were independently associated with a history of venous thromboembolism, baseline use of oral contraceptives or hormone replacement therapy, baseline body mass index of at least 30 kg/m², age 65 or older, and history of hypertension.

The ORAL Surveillance findings are worth considering when determining treatments for RA patients with CV risk factors, Dr. Charles-Schoeman said. “Tofacitinib remains an effective RA treatment,” she said. “The choice of specific RA treatment for any patient remains an individual decision between the patient and physician, which is decided based on a number of different factors. This new study provides additional information regarding both tofacitinib as well as traditional CV risk factors for discussion with the patient.”

The ORAL Surveillance results may give rheumatologists reason to rethink use of tofacitinib in some patients with CV risk, said Dr. Liao of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “Currently, we have limited data and are still awaiting a report of the full trial results,” she said in an interview. “Based on the data available, I can think of a few patients in my clinic where I would reconsider use of these drugs, i.e., history of heart attack with stable angina, especially if there are other options.” However, she noted that many patients on tofacitinib have already failed on older treatments.

These data emphasize the importance of addressing CV risk with patients, said Brittany N. Weber, MD, PhD, a cardio-rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital who works with Dr. Liao. “It is also an opportunity to discuss modification of risk factors and to discuss primary prevention therapies, such as statin therapy, where appropriate,” she added. “Based on the individual’s cardiovascular risk, there may be a role for further risk stratification to further understand an individual’s risk, which can also inform primary prevention cardiovascular therapies and help guide these discussions.” Risk stratification could include cardiac CT for calcium scoring or cardiac coronary CT angiography for determining atherosclerotic burden.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Charles-Schoeman disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, and Regeneron-Sanofi. Dr. Liao and Dr. Weber have no relevant disclosures.

Allopurinol may finally start to get the respect that many rheumatologists feel it deserves as a first-line urate-lowering treatment for gout, following results of a randomized trial showing that it was noninferior to febuxostat both in the overall trial population and in patients with stage 3 chronic kidney disease (CKD).

Sirisak Boakaew/Getty Images

In the multicenter, randomized, double-blinded comparison trial that used a treat-to-target strategy, allopurinol met the primary outcome of noninferiority to febuxostat for preventing gout flare during the observation phase of therapy, reported James O’Dell, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology and vice chair for education in the department of internal medicine at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha.

“Both agents were well tolerated, with or without CKD. Most importantly, both agents were highly effective when used in a treat-to-target protocol in getting patients to target urate levels,” he said in an oral abstract presentation during the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2021 Annual Meeting, which was held online.

And although febuxostat contains a boxed warning about the risks of cardiovascular adverse events with its use, there were no signals for increased cardiovascular toxicity with febuxostat compared with allopurinol, the investigators found.

The trial is the first to compare allopurinol, a decades-old drug, with febuxostat, approved in 2009, in a treat-to-target approach, Dr. O’Dell said.
 

American College of Physicians’ guideline ‘antiquated’

The results of the study “will hopefully teach doctors how to treat gout better by encouraging them to use higher doses of gout medications safely than they’re actually using at this time,” said Donald Thomas Jr., MD, in private practice in Greenbelt, Md., and associate professor of medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md.

Dr. Thomas, who moderated a media briefing where Dr. O’Dell discussed the results of the trial, said that he had recently read the 2017 gout guideline by the American College of Physicians (ACP), which he called “antiquated.”

The ACP recommends the use of corticosteroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), or low-dose colchicine to treat patients with acute gout. The ACP also recommends “against initiating long-term urate-lowering therapy in most patients after a first gout attack or in patients with infrequent attacks.”

The guideline recommends that clinicians discuss potential benefits, risks, costs, and personal preferences before starting patients on urate-lowering therapy in patients with recurrent gout attacks.

The 2017 guidelines also state, however, that “[e]vidence was insufficient to conclude whether the benefits of escalating urate-lowering therapy to reach a serum urate target (‘treat to target’) outweigh the harms associated with repeated monitoring and medication escalation.”

“I’ve been a proud member of the American College of Physicians for years, I’m a master of the ACP, and they do a lot of great things, but this is one case where their insistence that they’re not going to have a guideline that isn’t completely based in evidence from studies is getting in the way of common sense,” Dr. O’Dell said.

“Their contention is that what matters to a gout patient is a gout flare, and how do we know that gout flares are less if you treat to target or not – and that’s a fair question,” he continued, “except for the fact that in uric acid metabolism we know physiologically that there’s a magic number and that’s 6.8 mg/dL, and anything above that, every day uric acid is above 6.8, you are literally putting crystal out into all places in your body.”

In contrast, the ACR’s 2020 guideline for the management of gout strongly recommends starting urate-lowering therapy for all patients with tophaceous gout, radiographic damage because of gout, or frequent gout flares. It also advises using allopurinol as the preferred first-line urate-lowering therapy, including for those with stage 3 or greater CKD, and using a low starting dose of allopurinol of 100 mg/day or less (lower in CKD) or febuxostat at 40 mg/day or less. It endorses a treat-to-target management strategy that aims for serum urate < 6 mg/dL with dose titration of urate-lowering agents guided by serial serum urate measurements.

Dr. Thomas and Dr. O’Dell expressed hope that the results of this clinical trial will put the issue to rest, and that the ACP will update its guideline accordingly.

VA-sponsored trial

The study was conducted at 19 Veterans Affairs medical centers and two non-VA sites. The trial was divided into dose-titration, maintenance, and observation phases, each lasting 24 weeks.

A total of 950 participants with gout and a serum urate concentration 6.8 mg/dL or greater were randomly assigned on a 1:1 basis to receive allopurinol 100-800 mg or febuxostat 40 mg to 80/120 mg daily. In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration requested that the maximum titrated dose of febuxostat in the trial be capped at 80 mg daily. All patients stopped prophylaxis with NSAIDs, colchicine, or prednisone before the observation phase.

Patients with persistent hyperuricemia despite treatment with allopurinol were eligible, and these patients were started in the titration phase at their current dose.

The mean patient age was 62.9 years in the allopurinol arm and 61.3 years in the febuxostat arm. Men comprised 98% of patients in each study arm.

The racial/ethnic distribution of patients was similar between the groups. In all, 38.7% of patients assigned to allopurinol and 36% assigned to febuxostat had CKD stages 1-3. (Patients with stage 4 or 5 CKD were excluded from the study.)

A gout flare occurred if a participants reported three or more symptoms of tender, warm, swollen joints, or gout flare, or if the participant reported use of medication for gout flare in the observation phase during weeks 49-72.

As noted before, the trial met its primary endpoint, with 36.5% of patients on allopurinol reporting gout flare in the observation phase, compared with 43.5% on febuxostat (P for noninferiority < .001).

Among patients with CKD stage 3, the respective percentages of patients reporting at least one gout flare in the observation phase were 31.9% and 45.3% (P for noninferiority < .001).

Approximately 80% of patients in each arm had mean serum urate concentrations less than 6.0 mg/dL during the maintenance phase (weeks 36, 42, and 48).

In each arm, about 20% of patients left the study before completing 72 weeks of follow-up. Serious adverse events occurred in 26.7% of patients assigned to allopurinol and 26.1% of patients assigned to febuxostat.

Cardiovascular adverse events occurred in 8.1% and 6.8%, respectively. There were three cases of cardiovascular death in the allopurinol arm and one in the febuxostat arm. Nonfatal myocardial infarction occurred in two and four patients, respectively, stroke in one and two, and unstable angina requiring urgent revascularization in four and three patients.

In the question-and-answer session of the briefing, this news organization asked Dr. Thomas whether he would use the agents interchangeably in his practice. He replied “no, I start off with allopurinol in all of my patients, even those with chronic kidney disease, because it has been shown to be safe. I start off at a very low dose, go up slowly, [and] if they have a reaction, I change it to febuxostat.”

The study was supported by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. O’Dell and Dr. Thomas have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Allopurinol may finally start to get the respect that many rheumatologists feel it deserves as a first-line urate-lowering treatment for gout, following results of a randomized trial showing that it was noninferior to febuxostat both in the overall trial population and in patients with stage 3 chronic kidney disease (CKD).

Sirisak Boakaew/Getty Images

In the multicenter, randomized, double-blinded comparison trial that used a treat-to-target strategy, allopurinol met the primary outcome of noninferiority to febuxostat for preventing gout flare during the observation phase of therapy, reported James O’Dell, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology and vice chair for education in the department of internal medicine at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha.

“Both agents were well tolerated, with or without CKD. Most importantly, both agents were highly effective when used in a treat-to-target protocol in getting patients to target urate levels,” he said in an oral abstract presentation during the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2021 Annual Meeting, which was held online.

And although febuxostat contains a boxed warning about the risks of cardiovascular adverse events with its use, there were no signals for increased cardiovascular toxicity with febuxostat compared with allopurinol, the investigators found.

The trial is the first to compare allopurinol, a decades-old drug, with febuxostat, approved in 2009, in a treat-to-target approach, Dr. O’Dell said.
 

American College of Physicians’ guideline ‘antiquated’

The results of the study “will hopefully teach doctors how to treat gout better by encouraging them to use higher doses of gout medications safely than they’re actually using at this time,” said Donald Thomas Jr., MD, in private practice in Greenbelt, Md., and associate professor of medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md.

Dr. Thomas, who moderated a media briefing where Dr. O’Dell discussed the results of the trial, said that he had recently read the 2017 gout guideline by the American College of Physicians (ACP), which he called “antiquated.”

The ACP recommends the use of corticosteroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), or low-dose colchicine to treat patients with acute gout. The ACP also recommends “against initiating long-term urate-lowering therapy in most patients after a first gout attack or in patients with infrequent attacks.”

The guideline recommends that clinicians discuss potential benefits, risks, costs, and personal preferences before starting patients on urate-lowering therapy in patients with recurrent gout attacks.

The 2017 guidelines also state, however, that “[e]vidence was insufficient to conclude whether the benefits of escalating urate-lowering therapy to reach a serum urate target (‘treat to target’) outweigh the harms associated with repeated monitoring and medication escalation.”

“I’ve been a proud member of the American College of Physicians for years, I’m a master of the ACP, and they do a lot of great things, but this is one case where their insistence that they’re not going to have a guideline that isn’t completely based in evidence from studies is getting in the way of common sense,” Dr. O’Dell said.

“Their contention is that what matters to a gout patient is a gout flare, and how do we know that gout flares are less if you treat to target or not – and that’s a fair question,” he continued, “except for the fact that in uric acid metabolism we know physiologically that there’s a magic number and that’s 6.8 mg/dL, and anything above that, every day uric acid is above 6.8, you are literally putting crystal out into all places in your body.”

In contrast, the ACR’s 2020 guideline for the management of gout strongly recommends starting urate-lowering therapy for all patients with tophaceous gout, radiographic damage because of gout, or frequent gout flares. It also advises using allopurinol as the preferred first-line urate-lowering therapy, including for those with stage 3 or greater CKD, and using a low starting dose of allopurinol of 100 mg/day or less (lower in CKD) or febuxostat at 40 mg/day or less. It endorses a treat-to-target management strategy that aims for serum urate < 6 mg/dL with dose titration of urate-lowering agents guided by serial serum urate measurements.

Dr. Thomas and Dr. O’Dell expressed hope that the results of this clinical trial will put the issue to rest, and that the ACP will update its guideline accordingly.

VA-sponsored trial

The study was conducted at 19 Veterans Affairs medical centers and two non-VA sites. The trial was divided into dose-titration, maintenance, and observation phases, each lasting 24 weeks.

A total of 950 participants with gout and a serum urate concentration 6.8 mg/dL or greater were randomly assigned on a 1:1 basis to receive allopurinol 100-800 mg or febuxostat 40 mg to 80/120 mg daily. In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration requested that the maximum titrated dose of febuxostat in the trial be capped at 80 mg daily. All patients stopped prophylaxis with NSAIDs, colchicine, or prednisone before the observation phase.

Patients with persistent hyperuricemia despite treatment with allopurinol were eligible, and these patients were started in the titration phase at their current dose.

The mean patient age was 62.9 years in the allopurinol arm and 61.3 years in the febuxostat arm. Men comprised 98% of patients in each study arm.

The racial/ethnic distribution of patients was similar between the groups. In all, 38.7% of patients assigned to allopurinol and 36% assigned to febuxostat had CKD stages 1-3. (Patients with stage 4 or 5 CKD were excluded from the study.)

A gout flare occurred if a participants reported three or more symptoms of tender, warm, swollen joints, or gout flare, or if the participant reported use of medication for gout flare in the observation phase during weeks 49-72.

As noted before, the trial met its primary endpoint, with 36.5% of patients on allopurinol reporting gout flare in the observation phase, compared with 43.5% on febuxostat (P for noninferiority < .001).

Among patients with CKD stage 3, the respective percentages of patients reporting at least one gout flare in the observation phase were 31.9% and 45.3% (P for noninferiority < .001).

Approximately 80% of patients in each arm had mean serum urate concentrations less than 6.0 mg/dL during the maintenance phase (weeks 36, 42, and 48).

In each arm, about 20% of patients left the study before completing 72 weeks of follow-up. Serious adverse events occurred in 26.7% of patients assigned to allopurinol and 26.1% of patients assigned to febuxostat.

Cardiovascular adverse events occurred in 8.1% and 6.8%, respectively. There were three cases of cardiovascular death in the allopurinol arm and one in the febuxostat arm. Nonfatal myocardial infarction occurred in two and four patients, respectively, stroke in one and two, and unstable angina requiring urgent revascularization in four and three patients.

In the question-and-answer session of the briefing, this news organization asked Dr. Thomas whether he would use the agents interchangeably in his practice. He replied “no, I start off with allopurinol in all of my patients, even those with chronic kidney disease, because it has been shown to be safe. I start off at a very low dose, go up slowly, [and] if they have a reaction, I change it to febuxostat.”

The study was supported by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. O’Dell and Dr. Thomas have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Allopurinol may finally start to get the respect that many rheumatologists feel it deserves as a first-line urate-lowering treatment for gout, following results of a randomized trial showing that it was noninferior to febuxostat both in the overall trial population and in patients with stage 3 chronic kidney disease (CKD).

Sirisak Boakaew/Getty Images

In the multicenter, randomized, double-blinded comparison trial that used a treat-to-target strategy, allopurinol met the primary outcome of noninferiority to febuxostat for preventing gout flare during the observation phase of therapy, reported James O’Dell, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology and vice chair for education in the department of internal medicine at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha.

“Both agents were well tolerated, with or without CKD. Most importantly, both agents were highly effective when used in a treat-to-target protocol in getting patients to target urate levels,” he said in an oral abstract presentation during the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2021 Annual Meeting, which was held online.

And although febuxostat contains a boxed warning about the risks of cardiovascular adverse events with its use, there were no signals for increased cardiovascular toxicity with febuxostat compared with allopurinol, the investigators found.

The trial is the first to compare allopurinol, a decades-old drug, with febuxostat, approved in 2009, in a treat-to-target approach, Dr. O’Dell said.
 

American College of Physicians’ guideline ‘antiquated’

The results of the study “will hopefully teach doctors how to treat gout better by encouraging them to use higher doses of gout medications safely than they’re actually using at this time,” said Donald Thomas Jr., MD, in private practice in Greenbelt, Md., and associate professor of medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md.

Dr. Thomas, who moderated a media briefing where Dr. O’Dell discussed the results of the trial, said that he had recently read the 2017 gout guideline by the American College of Physicians (ACP), which he called “antiquated.”

The ACP recommends the use of corticosteroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), or low-dose colchicine to treat patients with acute gout. The ACP also recommends “against initiating long-term urate-lowering therapy in most patients after a first gout attack or in patients with infrequent attacks.”

The guideline recommends that clinicians discuss potential benefits, risks, costs, and personal preferences before starting patients on urate-lowering therapy in patients with recurrent gout attacks.

The 2017 guidelines also state, however, that “[e]vidence was insufficient to conclude whether the benefits of escalating urate-lowering therapy to reach a serum urate target (‘treat to target’) outweigh the harms associated with repeated monitoring and medication escalation.”

“I’ve been a proud member of the American College of Physicians for years, I’m a master of the ACP, and they do a lot of great things, but this is one case where their insistence that they’re not going to have a guideline that isn’t completely based in evidence from studies is getting in the way of common sense,” Dr. O’Dell said.

“Their contention is that what matters to a gout patient is a gout flare, and how do we know that gout flares are less if you treat to target or not – and that’s a fair question,” he continued, “except for the fact that in uric acid metabolism we know physiologically that there’s a magic number and that’s 6.8 mg/dL, and anything above that, every day uric acid is above 6.8, you are literally putting crystal out into all places in your body.”

In contrast, the ACR’s 2020 guideline for the management of gout strongly recommends starting urate-lowering therapy for all patients with tophaceous gout, radiographic damage because of gout, or frequent gout flares. It also advises using allopurinol as the preferred first-line urate-lowering therapy, including for those with stage 3 or greater CKD, and using a low starting dose of allopurinol of 100 mg/day or less (lower in CKD) or febuxostat at 40 mg/day or less. It endorses a treat-to-target management strategy that aims for serum urate < 6 mg/dL with dose titration of urate-lowering agents guided by serial serum urate measurements.

Dr. Thomas and Dr. O’Dell expressed hope that the results of this clinical trial will put the issue to rest, and that the ACP will update its guideline accordingly.

VA-sponsored trial

The study was conducted at 19 Veterans Affairs medical centers and two non-VA sites. The trial was divided into dose-titration, maintenance, and observation phases, each lasting 24 weeks.

A total of 950 participants with gout and a serum urate concentration 6.8 mg/dL or greater were randomly assigned on a 1:1 basis to receive allopurinol 100-800 mg or febuxostat 40 mg to 80/120 mg daily. In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration requested that the maximum titrated dose of febuxostat in the trial be capped at 80 mg daily. All patients stopped prophylaxis with NSAIDs, colchicine, or prednisone before the observation phase.

Patients with persistent hyperuricemia despite treatment with allopurinol were eligible, and these patients were started in the titration phase at their current dose.

The mean patient age was 62.9 years in the allopurinol arm and 61.3 years in the febuxostat arm. Men comprised 98% of patients in each study arm.

The racial/ethnic distribution of patients was similar between the groups. In all, 38.7% of patients assigned to allopurinol and 36% assigned to febuxostat had CKD stages 1-3. (Patients with stage 4 or 5 CKD were excluded from the study.)

A gout flare occurred if a participants reported three or more symptoms of tender, warm, swollen joints, or gout flare, or if the participant reported use of medication for gout flare in the observation phase during weeks 49-72.

As noted before, the trial met its primary endpoint, with 36.5% of patients on allopurinol reporting gout flare in the observation phase, compared with 43.5% on febuxostat (P for noninferiority < .001).

Among patients with CKD stage 3, the respective percentages of patients reporting at least one gout flare in the observation phase were 31.9% and 45.3% (P for noninferiority < .001).

Approximately 80% of patients in each arm had mean serum urate concentrations less than 6.0 mg/dL during the maintenance phase (weeks 36, 42, and 48).

In each arm, about 20% of patients left the study before completing 72 weeks of follow-up. Serious adverse events occurred in 26.7% of patients assigned to allopurinol and 26.1% of patients assigned to febuxostat.

Cardiovascular adverse events occurred in 8.1% and 6.8%, respectively. There were three cases of cardiovascular death in the allopurinol arm and one in the febuxostat arm. Nonfatal myocardial infarction occurred in two and four patients, respectively, stroke in one and two, and unstable angina requiring urgent revascularization in four and three patients.

In the question-and-answer session of the briefing, this news organization asked Dr. Thomas whether he would use the agents interchangeably in his practice. He replied “no, I start off with allopurinol in all of my patients, even those with chronic kidney disease, because it has been shown to be safe. I start off at a very low dose, go up slowly, [and] if they have a reaction, I change it to febuxostat.”

The study was supported by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. O’Dell and Dr. Thomas have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Immunosuppressed patients with autoimmune diseases who received the Moderna mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 two-dose vaccine series had a frequency of adverse events similar to the general population albeit with a somewhat reduced, but still significant, antibody response with no severe vaccine-related disease flares, results of a prospective, nonrandomized open-label comparative trial in Canada demonstrated.

At the same time, patients with RA who were taking rituximab and patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who were taking mycophenolate mofetil seemed to have reduced humoral responses after receiving the vaccine, said Ines Colmegna, MD, reporting results of the COVID-19 Vaccine in Immunosuppressed Adults with Autoimmune Disease (COVIAAD) study as a late-breaking poster abstract at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. Dr. Colmegna is an associate professor of rheumatology in the division of experimental medicine at McGill University, Montreal.

“The frequency of adverse events, specifically the reactogenicity in people with comorbid conditions regardless of their diagnosis, was similar to healthy controls in this study, and their frequency was similar also the initial studies in the general population,” Dr. Colmegna said.

COVIAAD prospectively enrolled 220 fully vaccinated patients, 162 with rheumatic disease (131 with RA, 23 with SLE, and 8 with other diseases) and 58 controls. Adverse events a week and a month after each dose was the primary outcome. The postvaccine presence of the IgG antibody against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and the receptor binding domain (IgG-RBD) was the secondary outcome. Dr. Colmegna said that the study will continue evaluating participants after they get a third dose.

The Canadian trial appears to validate the ACR’s COVID-19 vaccine guidance, the fourth version of which was issued in October, said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, MS, MPH, professor of immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and lead of the ACR COVID-19 Vaccine Guidance Task Force. Specifically, the guidance recommends that patients on rituximab or other anti-CD20 B-cell–depleting agents discuss vaccine timing with their rheumatologist.

“A few things changed over time when there was a paucity of evidence for any vaccine, but as time has gone on, mostly we were more correct than we weren’t,” Dr. Curtis said of the task force’s work. “The evidence that now is in this poster with regard to systemic lupus erythematosus and mycophenolate mofetil is [that] you have impaired vaccine response. If you’re on a B-cell drug like rituximab, you really have impaired vaccine response.”

In the study, 100% of controls had immunogenicity in terms of anti-spike and anti-RBD levels after the first and second dose. The rate of immunogenicity after the first and second dose were 67% and 88% in all patients with RA, and 35% and 78% in patients with SLE who were taking mycophenolate mofetil. The subset of patients with RA on rituximab (n = 17) had rates of immunogenicity of 5.9% and 17.6%, respectively.

“Measured antibody response is not the only way in which people develop a response to a vaccine, and there are also similar responses that occur even in people who are on rituximab and have not developed antibodies,” Dr. Colmegna said. “That’s a very important message also that we need to convey to patients: The immune response really extends beyond antibody protection.”

Overall, disease activity in both patients with RA and SLE did not appreciably change from baseline within 7 days and 28 days of each vaccine dose.

The study raises important questions about the timing of the vaccine, particularly in patients on rituximab, Dr. Colmegna said in an interview. “In theory, there is no element to suggest that, if you would schedule the vaccine a month prior to the next dose of rituximab, the effect of the drug would have decreased the number of B cells, and that the possibility of developing antibodies in response to the vaccine might be better if you give rituximab a month later when the amount of the drug and the effect of the drug is maximal,” she said. The average interval between patients receiving rituximab and vaccines was 4.5 months, Dr. Colmegna said in answering a question after her presentation.

Dr. Curtis said that the effect of holding rituximab or the vaccine to boost antibodies “is somewhat yet unknown. We think it will help, but that’s not a guarantee,” he said. “We don’t have direct evidence that just because the drug impairs vaccine response, that holding that drug for a week or 2 is going to take care of the problem.”

The study does arm rheumatologists with more information for discussing COVID vaccines with vaccine-hesitant patients with autoimmune diseases, Dr. Curtis said.

“It gives them evidence that for most of our immunomodulatory drugs the vaccine works pretty well,” he said. “The poster provides evidence that, compared to healthy controls, the vaccine doesn’t work quite as well in some patients, but for most people it actually did work pretty well. That reinforces the message: Go get vaccinated because [you] will mount [an immune] response, even, if that response isn’t quite as brisk as it is in healthy people.”

Dr. Colmegna and Dr. Curtis have no relevant relationships to disclose. The study received funding from Health and Social Services Quebec.

Immunosuppressed patients with autoimmune diseases who received the Moderna mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 two-dose vaccine series had a frequency of adverse events similar to the general population albeit with a somewhat reduced, but still significant, antibody response with no severe vaccine-related disease flares, results of a prospective, nonrandomized open-label comparative trial in Canada demonstrated.

At the same time, patients with RA who were taking rituximab and patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who were taking mycophenolate mofetil seemed to have reduced humoral responses after receiving the vaccine, said Ines Colmegna, MD, reporting results of the COVID-19 Vaccine in Immunosuppressed Adults with Autoimmune Disease (COVIAAD) study as a late-breaking poster abstract at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. Dr. Colmegna is an associate professor of rheumatology in the division of experimental medicine at McGill University, Montreal.

“The frequency of adverse events, specifically the reactogenicity in people with comorbid conditions regardless of their diagnosis, was similar to healthy controls in this study, and their frequency was similar also the initial studies in the general population,” Dr. Colmegna said.

COVIAAD prospectively enrolled 220 fully vaccinated patients, 162 with rheumatic disease (131 with RA, 23 with SLE, and 8 with other diseases) and 58 controls. Adverse events a week and a month after each dose was the primary outcome. The postvaccine presence of the IgG antibody against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and the receptor binding domain (IgG-RBD) was the secondary outcome. Dr. Colmegna said that the study will continue evaluating participants after they get a third dose.

The Canadian trial appears to validate the ACR’s COVID-19 vaccine guidance, the fourth version of which was issued in October, said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, MS, MPH, professor of immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and lead of the ACR COVID-19 Vaccine Guidance Task Force. Specifically, the guidance recommends that patients on rituximab or other anti-CD20 B-cell–depleting agents discuss vaccine timing with their rheumatologist.

“A few things changed over time when there was a paucity of evidence for any vaccine, but as time has gone on, mostly we were more correct than we weren’t,” Dr. Curtis said of the task force’s work. “The evidence that now is in this poster with regard to systemic lupus erythematosus and mycophenolate mofetil is [that] you have impaired vaccine response. If you’re on a B-cell drug like rituximab, you really have impaired vaccine response.”

In the study, 100% of controls had immunogenicity in terms of anti-spike and anti-RBD levels after the first and second dose. The rate of immunogenicity after the first and second dose were 67% and 88% in all patients with RA, and 35% and 78% in patients with SLE who were taking mycophenolate mofetil. The subset of patients with RA on rituximab (n = 17) had rates of immunogenicity of 5.9% and 17.6%, respectively.

“Measured antibody response is not the only way in which people develop a response to a vaccine, and there are also similar responses that occur even in people who are on rituximab and have not developed antibodies,” Dr. Colmegna said. “That’s a very important message also that we need to convey to patients: The immune response really extends beyond antibody protection.”

Overall, disease activity in both patients with RA and SLE did not appreciably change from baseline within 7 days and 28 days of each vaccine dose.

The study raises important questions about the timing of the vaccine, particularly in patients on rituximab, Dr. Colmegna said in an interview. “In theory, there is no element to suggest that, if you would schedule the vaccine a month prior to the next dose of rituximab, the effect of the drug would have decreased the number of B cells, and that the possibility of developing antibodies in response to the vaccine might be better if you give rituximab a month later when the amount of the drug and the effect of the drug is maximal,” she said. The average interval between patients receiving rituximab and vaccines was 4.5 months, Dr. Colmegna said in answering a question after her presentation.

Dr. Curtis said that the effect of holding rituximab or the vaccine to boost antibodies “is somewhat yet unknown. We think it will help, but that’s not a guarantee,” he said. “We don’t have direct evidence that just because the drug impairs vaccine response, that holding that drug for a week or 2 is going to take care of the problem.”

The study does arm rheumatologists with more information for discussing COVID vaccines with vaccine-hesitant patients with autoimmune diseases, Dr. Curtis said.

“It gives them evidence that for most of our immunomodulatory drugs the vaccine works pretty well,” he said. “The poster provides evidence that, compared to healthy controls, the vaccine doesn’t work quite as well in some patients, but for most people it actually did work pretty well. That reinforces the message: Go get vaccinated because [you] will mount [an immune] response, even, if that response isn’t quite as brisk as it is in healthy people.”

Dr. Colmegna and Dr. Curtis have no relevant relationships to disclose. The study received funding from Health and Social Services Quebec.

Immunosuppressed patients with autoimmune diseases who received the Moderna mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 two-dose vaccine series had a frequency of adverse events similar to the general population albeit with a somewhat reduced, but still significant, antibody response with no severe vaccine-related disease flares, results of a prospective, nonrandomized open-label comparative trial in Canada demonstrated.

At the same time, patients with RA who were taking rituximab and patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who were taking mycophenolate mofetil seemed to have reduced humoral responses after receiving the vaccine, said Ines Colmegna, MD, reporting results of the COVID-19 Vaccine in Immunosuppressed Adults with Autoimmune Disease (COVIAAD) study as a late-breaking poster abstract at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. Dr. Colmegna is an associate professor of rheumatology in the division of experimental medicine at McGill University, Montreal.

“The frequency of adverse events, specifically the reactogenicity in people with comorbid conditions regardless of their diagnosis, was similar to healthy controls in this study, and their frequency was similar also the initial studies in the general population,” Dr. Colmegna said.

COVIAAD prospectively enrolled 220 fully vaccinated patients, 162 with rheumatic disease (131 with RA, 23 with SLE, and 8 with other diseases) and 58 controls. Adverse events a week and a month after each dose was the primary outcome. The postvaccine presence of the IgG antibody against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and the receptor binding domain (IgG-RBD) was the secondary outcome. Dr. Colmegna said that the study will continue evaluating participants after they get a third dose.

The Canadian trial appears to validate the ACR’s COVID-19 vaccine guidance, the fourth version of which was issued in October, said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, MS, MPH, professor of immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and lead of the ACR COVID-19 Vaccine Guidance Task Force. Specifically, the guidance recommends that patients on rituximab or other anti-CD20 B-cell–depleting agents discuss vaccine timing with their rheumatologist.

“A few things changed over time when there was a paucity of evidence for any vaccine, but as time has gone on, mostly we were more correct than we weren’t,” Dr. Curtis said of the task force’s work. “The evidence that now is in this poster with regard to systemic lupus erythematosus and mycophenolate mofetil is [that] you have impaired vaccine response. If you’re on a B-cell drug like rituximab, you really have impaired vaccine response.”

In the study, 100% of controls had immunogenicity in terms of anti-spike and anti-RBD levels after the first and second dose. The rate of immunogenicity after the first and second dose were 67% and 88% in all patients with RA, and 35% and 78% in patients with SLE who were taking mycophenolate mofetil. The subset of patients with RA on rituximab (n = 17) had rates of immunogenicity of 5.9% and 17.6%, respectively.

“Measured antibody response is not the only way in which people develop a response to a vaccine, and there are also similar responses that occur even in people who are on rituximab and have not developed antibodies,” Dr. Colmegna said. “That’s a very important message also that we need to convey to patients: The immune response really extends beyond antibody protection.”

Overall, disease activity in both patients with RA and SLE did not appreciably change from baseline within 7 days and 28 days of each vaccine dose.

The study raises important questions about the timing of the vaccine, particularly in patients on rituximab, Dr. Colmegna said in an interview. “In theory, there is no element to suggest that, if you would schedule the vaccine a month prior to the next dose of rituximab, the effect of the drug would have decreased the number of B cells, and that the possibility of developing antibodies in response to the vaccine might be better if you give rituximab a month later when the amount of the drug and the effect of the drug is maximal,” she said. The average interval between patients receiving rituximab and vaccines was 4.5 months, Dr. Colmegna said in answering a question after her presentation.

Dr. Curtis said that the effect of holding rituximab or the vaccine to boost antibodies “is somewhat yet unknown. We think it will help, but that’s not a guarantee,” he said. “We don’t have direct evidence that just because the drug impairs vaccine response, that holding that drug for a week or 2 is going to take care of the problem.”

The study does arm rheumatologists with more information for discussing COVID vaccines with vaccine-hesitant patients with autoimmune diseases, Dr. Curtis said.

“It gives them evidence that for most of our immunomodulatory drugs the vaccine works pretty well,” he said. “The poster provides evidence that, compared to healthy controls, the vaccine doesn’t work quite as well in some patients, but for most people it actually did work pretty well. That reinforces the message: Go get vaccinated because [you] will mount [an immune] response, even, if that response isn’t quite as brisk as it is in healthy people.”

Dr. Colmegna and Dr. Curtis have no relevant relationships to disclose. The study received funding from Health and Social Services Quebec.

For patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for whom a first Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi) has failed, there appears to be no difference in treatment effectiveness whether the patient is cycled to a second JAKi or receives a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD), a study of international patient registry data suggests.

However, patients who are prescribed a different JAKi after the first has failed them tend to have conditions that are more difficult to treat than do patients who are switched to a bDMARD after JAKi failure. In addition, adverse events that occur with the first JAKi are likely to occur again if a different agent in the same class is used, reported Manuel Pombo-Suarez, MD, PhD, adjunct professor of medicine at the University Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, Spain.

“When the first JAK inhibitor was stopped due to an adverse event, it was also more likely that the second JAK inhibitor would be stopped for the same reason,” he said in an oral abstract presentation during the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2021 Annual Meeting, which was held online.

The 2019 update of the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) guidelines for RA recommend that for patients for whom a first JAKi has failed, clinicians can consider a different JAKi or switch to a bDMARD. But at the time the guidelines were published, no data were available from studies in which a second JAKi was used after the failure of a first JAKi, Dr. Pombo-Suarez noted.

“We are trying to shed a light on this growing population of patients, as prescription of these drugs is increasing and new JAK inhibitors come into play, meaning that this scenario, we propose, is becoming more and more frequent in real life. We must provide a solution for these patients,” he said.
 

Pooled registry data

The investigators compared the effectiveness of the two approaches with respect to rates of drug retention and Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28).

They conducted a nested cohort study using data from 14 national registries that are part of the JAK-pot collaboration.

They pooled data from each registry on patients with RA for whom a first JAKi had failed and who were then treated with either a second JAKi or a bDMARD.

They identified a total of 708 patients for whom a JAKi had failed initially. Of these patients, 154 were given a different JAKi, and 554 were switched to a bDMARD. In each group, women accounted for a large majority of patients.

The mean age was slightly older among those who received a second JAKi (58.41 years vs. 54.74 years for patients who were given a bDMARD). The mean disease duration was 13.95 years and 11.37 years, respectively.

In each group, approximately 77% of patients received tofacitinib (Xeljanz).

At baseline, the mean DAS28 scores were similar between the groups: 4.10 in the group that received a second JAKi, and 4.17 in the group given a bDMARD.

Reasons for initially stopping use of a JAKi were as follows: adverse events (27.3% of those who took a second JAKi after they had stopped taking one initially, and 17.9% of patients who received a bDMARD); lack of efficacy (61% and 65%, respectively), and other reasons (11.7% and 17.1%, respectively).

At 2 years’ follow-up, drug survival rates were similar between the two treatment arms, although there was a nonsignificant trend toward a higher rate of discontinuation among patients who were given a second JAKi after they stopped taking the first JAKi because of adverse events. In contrast, there was also a nonsignificant trend toward lower discontinuation rates among patients who were given a second JAKi after they had stopped taking the first JAKi because of lack of efficacy.

As noted before, patients who stopped taking the first JAKi because of an adverse event were more likely to stop taking the second JAKi because of they experienced either the same or a different adverse event, whereas patients who started taking a bDMARD were equally likely to stop taking the second therapy because of either adverse events or lack of efficacy.

The treatment strategies were virtually identical with respect to improvement of DAS28 at 7 months after the start of therapy.

Dr. Pombo-Suarez acknowledged that the study was limited by the fact that heterogeneity between countries could not be assessed, owing to the small sample sizes in each nation’s registry. Other limitations include short follow-up and the fact that tofacitinib was used as the first JAKi by the large majority of patients.

What’s your practice?

In a media briefing during which Dr. Pombo-Suarez discussed the study findings, this news organization polled other speakers who were not involved in the study about their go-to strategies when JAKi therapy fails.

Silje Watterdal Syversen, MD, PhD, a consultant rheumatologist and researcher at Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, said that she would choose to switch to a tumor necrosis factor [TNF] inhibitor.

“I think it would depend on what prior treatment the patient had received,” said April Jorge, MD, a rheumatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “In my practice, patients receiving a JAK inhibitor typically failed on their biologics. I haven’t had many fail a JAK inhibitor – a small sample size.”

“That’s what we see in our study,” Dr. Pombo-Suarez said. “Most of the patients that cycled JAK inhibitors had higher numbers of biologics compared with switchers.”

“I can share my experience, which is a greater comfort level with cycling a TNF antagonist. I agree with Dr Jorge: I don’t use JAK inhibitors in the first line for rheumatoid arthritis, but based on the work that’s been described here and future data, I might have a greater comfort level cycling JAK inhibitors once the data support such an approach,” commented H. Michael Belmont, MD, professor of medicine at New York University, co-director of the NYU Lupus Center, and medical director of Bellevue Hospital Lupus Center, New York.

The JAK-pot study is supported by unrestricted research grants from AbbVie and Galapagos. Dr. Pombo-Suarez has received adviser and speaker honoraria from several companies other than the funders. Dr. Syversen has received honoraria from Thermo Fisher. Dr. Jorge has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Belmont has received honoraria from Alexion.

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

For patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for whom a first Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi) has failed, there appears to be no difference in treatment effectiveness whether the patient is cycled to a second JAKi or receives a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD), a study of international patient registry data suggests.

However, patients who are prescribed a different JAKi after the first has failed them tend to have conditions that are more difficult to treat than do patients who are switched to a bDMARD after JAKi failure. In addition, adverse events that occur with the first JAKi are likely to occur again if a different agent in the same class is used, reported Manuel Pombo-Suarez, MD, PhD, adjunct professor of medicine at the University Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, Spain.

“When the first JAK inhibitor was stopped due to an adverse event, it was also more likely that the second JAK inhibitor would be stopped for the same reason,” he said in an oral abstract presentation during the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2021 Annual Meeting, which was held online.

The 2019 update of the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) guidelines for RA recommend that for patients for whom a first JAKi has failed, clinicians can consider a different JAKi or switch to a bDMARD. But at the time the guidelines were published, no data were available from studies in which a second JAKi was used after the failure of a first JAKi, Dr. Pombo-Suarez noted.

“We are trying to shed a light on this growing population of patients, as prescription of these drugs is increasing and new JAK inhibitors come into play, meaning that this scenario, we propose, is becoming more and more frequent in real life. We must provide a solution for these patients,” he said.
 

Pooled registry data

The investigators compared the effectiveness of the two approaches with respect to rates of drug retention and Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28).

They conducted a nested cohort study using data from 14 national registries that are part of the JAK-pot collaboration.

They pooled data from each registry on patients with RA for whom a first JAKi had failed and who were then treated with either a second JAKi or a bDMARD.

They identified a total of 708 patients for whom a JAKi had failed initially. Of these patients, 154 were given a different JAKi, and 554 were switched to a bDMARD. In each group, women accounted for a large majority of patients.

The mean age was slightly older among those who received a second JAKi (58.41 years vs. 54.74 years for patients who were given a bDMARD). The mean disease duration was 13.95 years and 11.37 years, respectively.

In each group, approximately 77% of patients received tofacitinib (Xeljanz).

At baseline, the mean DAS28 scores were similar between the groups: 4.10 in the group that received a second JAKi, and 4.17 in the group given a bDMARD.

Reasons for initially stopping use of a JAKi were as follows: adverse events (27.3% of those who took a second JAKi after they had stopped taking one initially, and 17.9% of patients who received a bDMARD); lack of efficacy (61% and 65%, respectively), and other reasons (11.7% and 17.1%, respectively).

At 2 years’ follow-up, drug survival rates were similar between the two treatment arms, although there was a nonsignificant trend toward a higher rate of discontinuation among patients who were given a second JAKi after they stopped taking the first JAKi because of adverse events. In contrast, there was also a nonsignificant trend toward lower discontinuation rates among patients who were given a second JAKi after they had stopped taking the first JAKi because of lack of efficacy.

As noted before, patients who stopped taking the first JAKi because of an adverse event were more likely to stop taking the second JAKi because of they experienced either the same or a different adverse event, whereas patients who started taking a bDMARD were equally likely to stop taking the second therapy because of either adverse events or lack of efficacy.

The treatment strategies were virtually identical with respect to improvement of DAS28 at 7 months after the start of therapy.

Dr. Pombo-Suarez acknowledged that the study was limited by the fact that heterogeneity between countries could not be assessed, owing to the small sample sizes in each nation’s registry. Other limitations include short follow-up and the fact that tofacitinib was used as the first JAKi by the large majority of patients.

What’s your practice?

In a media briefing during which Dr. Pombo-Suarez discussed the study findings, this news organization polled other speakers who were not involved in the study about their go-to strategies when JAKi therapy fails.

Silje Watterdal Syversen, MD, PhD, a consultant rheumatologist and researcher at Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, said that she would choose to switch to a tumor necrosis factor [TNF] inhibitor.

“I think it would depend on what prior treatment the patient had received,” said April Jorge, MD, a rheumatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “In my practice, patients receiving a JAK inhibitor typically failed on their biologics. I haven’t had many fail a JAK inhibitor – a small sample size.”

“That’s what we see in our study,” Dr. Pombo-Suarez said. “Most of the patients that cycled JAK inhibitors had higher numbers of biologics compared with switchers.”

“I can share my experience, which is a greater comfort level with cycling a TNF antagonist. I agree with Dr Jorge: I don’t use JAK inhibitors in the first line for rheumatoid arthritis, but based on the work that’s been described here and future data, I might have a greater comfort level cycling JAK inhibitors once the data support such an approach,” commented H. Michael Belmont, MD, professor of medicine at New York University, co-director of the NYU Lupus Center, and medical director of Bellevue Hospital Lupus Center, New York.

The JAK-pot study is supported by unrestricted research grants from AbbVie and Galapagos. Dr. Pombo-Suarez has received adviser and speaker honoraria from several companies other than the funders. Dr. Syversen has received honoraria from Thermo Fisher. Dr. Jorge has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Belmont has received honoraria from Alexion.

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

For patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for whom a first Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi) has failed, there appears to be no difference in treatment effectiveness whether the patient is cycled to a second JAKi or receives a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD), a study of international patient registry data suggests.

However, patients who are prescribed a different JAKi after the first has failed them tend to have conditions that are more difficult to treat than do patients who are switched to a bDMARD after JAKi failure. In addition, adverse events that occur with the first JAKi are likely to occur again if a different agent in the same class is used, reported Manuel Pombo-Suarez, MD, PhD, adjunct professor of medicine at the University Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, Spain.

“When the first JAK inhibitor was stopped due to an adverse event, it was also more likely that the second JAK inhibitor would be stopped for the same reason,” he said in an oral abstract presentation during the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2021 Annual Meeting, which was held online.

The 2019 update of the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) guidelines for RA recommend that for patients for whom a first JAKi has failed, clinicians can consider a different JAKi or switch to a bDMARD. But at the time the guidelines were published, no data were available from studies in which a second JAKi was used after the failure of a first JAKi, Dr. Pombo-Suarez noted.

“We are trying to shed a light on this growing population of patients, as prescription of these drugs is increasing and new JAK inhibitors come into play, meaning that this scenario, we propose, is becoming more and more frequent in real life. We must provide a solution for these patients,” he said.
 

Pooled registry data

The investigators compared the effectiveness of the two approaches with respect to rates of drug retention and Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28).

They conducted a nested cohort study using data from 14 national registries that are part of the JAK-pot collaboration.

They pooled data from each registry on patients with RA for whom a first JAKi had failed and who were then treated with either a second JAKi or a bDMARD.

They identified a total of 708 patients for whom a JAKi had failed initially. Of these patients, 154 were given a different JAKi, and 554 were switched to a bDMARD. In each group, women accounted for a large majority of patients.

The mean age was slightly older among those who received a second JAKi (58.41 years vs. 54.74 years for patients who were given a bDMARD). The mean disease duration was 13.95 years and 11.37 years, respectively.

In each group, approximately 77% of patients received tofacitinib (Xeljanz).

At baseline, the mean DAS28 scores were similar between the groups: 4.10 in the group that received a second JAKi, and 4.17 in the group given a bDMARD.

Reasons for initially stopping use of a JAKi were as follows: adverse events (27.3% of those who took a second JAKi after they had stopped taking one initially, and 17.9% of patients who received a bDMARD); lack of efficacy (61% and 65%, respectively), and other reasons (11.7% and 17.1%, respectively).

At 2 years’ follow-up, drug survival rates were similar between the two treatment arms, although there was a nonsignificant trend toward a higher rate of discontinuation among patients who were given a second JAKi after they stopped taking the first JAKi because of adverse events. In contrast, there was also a nonsignificant trend toward lower discontinuation rates among patients who were given a second JAKi after they had stopped taking the first JAKi because of lack of efficacy.

As noted before, patients who stopped taking the first JAKi because of an adverse event were more likely to stop taking the second JAKi because of they experienced either the same or a different adverse event, whereas patients who started taking a bDMARD were equally likely to stop taking the second therapy because of either adverse events or lack of efficacy.

The treatment strategies were virtually identical with respect to improvement of DAS28 at 7 months after the start of therapy.

Dr. Pombo-Suarez acknowledged that the study was limited by the fact that heterogeneity between countries could not be assessed, owing to the small sample sizes in each nation’s registry. Other limitations include short follow-up and the fact that tofacitinib was used as the first JAKi by the large majority of patients.

What’s your practice?

In a media briefing during which Dr. Pombo-Suarez discussed the study findings, this news organization polled other speakers who were not involved in the study about their go-to strategies when JAKi therapy fails.

Silje Watterdal Syversen, MD, PhD, a consultant rheumatologist and researcher at Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, said that she would choose to switch to a tumor necrosis factor [TNF] inhibitor.

“I think it would depend on what prior treatment the patient had received,” said April Jorge, MD, a rheumatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “In my practice, patients receiving a JAK inhibitor typically failed on their biologics. I haven’t had many fail a JAK inhibitor – a small sample size.”

“That’s what we see in our study,” Dr. Pombo-Suarez said. “Most of the patients that cycled JAK inhibitors had higher numbers of biologics compared with switchers.”

“I can share my experience, which is a greater comfort level with cycling a TNF antagonist. I agree with Dr Jorge: I don’t use JAK inhibitors in the first line for rheumatoid arthritis, but based on the work that’s been described here and future data, I might have a greater comfort level cycling JAK inhibitors once the data support such an approach,” commented H. Michael Belmont, MD, professor of medicine at New York University, co-director of the NYU Lupus Center, and medical director of Bellevue Hospital Lupus Center, New York.

The JAK-pot study is supported by unrestricted research grants from AbbVie and Galapagos. Dr. Pombo-Suarez has received adviser and speaker honoraria from several companies other than the funders. Dr. Syversen has received honoraria from Thermo Fisher. Dr. Jorge has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Belmont has received honoraria from Alexion.

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

Initiating treatment of polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (polyJIA) with both a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug and a biologic DMARD resulted in more patients achieving clinical inactive disease 2 years later than did starting with only a csDMARD and stepping up to a biologic, according to data presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“The 24-month results support the 12-month primary results that suggested that the early-combination group was superior and that, at 24 months, more early combination CTP [consensus treatment plan] patients achieve CID [clinical inactive disease], compared to step up,” Yukiko Kimura, MD, division chief of pediatric rheumatology at HMH Hackensack (N.J.) University Medical Center, told attendees. “This suggests that starting biologics early in polyJIA may lead to better long-term outcomes in many patients.”

Dr. Kimura noted that polyarticular JIA patients are already at risk for poor outcomes, and initial therapy can especially impact outcomes. Further, little evidence exists to suggest when the best time is to start biologics, a gap this study aimed to address.

Diane Brown, MD, PhD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles who was not involved in the study, was pleased to see the results, which she said support her own preferences and practice patterns.

“Starting sooner with combination therapy, taking advantage of the advances with biologics and our long history with methotrexate at the same time, gives better outcomes for the long run,” Dr. Brown said in an interview. “Having studies like this to back up my own recommendations can be very powerful when talking to families, and it is absolutely invaluable when battling with insurance companies who always want you to take the cheapest road.”
 

Study details

The findings were an update of 12-month results in the CARRA STOP-JIA study that enrolled 400 untreated patients with polyJIA and compared three Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) CTPs. Overall, 49.5% of participants received biologics within 3 months of starting the study. For these updated results, 275 participants had complete data at 24 months for the three CTPs:

• A step-up group of 177 patients who started therapy with a csDMARD and added a biologic if needed at least 3 months later
• An early-combination group of 73 patients who started therapy with a csDMARD and biologic together
• A biologic-first group of 25 patients who started with biologic monotherapy, adding a csDMARD only if needed at least 3 months later.

The primary outcome was the percentage of participants who reached CID without taking glucocorticoids at 24 months. Since the participants were not randomized, the researchers made adjustments to account for baseline differences between the groups, including differences in JIA categories, number of active joints, physician global assessment of disease activity, and the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score based on 10 joints (cJADAS10).

At 24 months in an intention to treat analysis, 59.4% of the early-combination group had achieved CID, compared with 48% of the biologic-first group and 40.1% of the step-up group (P = .009 for early combination vs. step up). All three groups had improved since the 12-month time point, when 37% of the early-combination group, 24% of the biologic-first group, and 32% of the step-up group had reached CID.

There were no significant differences between the groups in secondary outcomes of achieving cJADAS10 inactive disease of 2.5 or less or 70% improvement in pediatric ACR response criteria at 24 months. All groups improved in PROMIS pain interference or mobility measures from baseline. Most of the 17 severe adverse events were infections.
 

Moving from step-up therapy to early-combination treatment

Dr. Brown said that she spent many years in her practice using the step-up therapy because it was difficult to get insurance companies to pay for biologics without first showing that methotrexate was insufficient.

”But methotrexate takes so long to control the disease that you need a lot of steroids, with all of their side effects, at least temporarily, or you must simply accept a longer period of active and symptomatic disease before you get to that desired state of clinically inactive disease,” Dr. Brown said. “And during that time, you can be accumulating what may be permanent damage to joints, as well as increase in risk of contractures and deconditioning for that child who is too uncomfortable to move and exercise and play normally.”

Dr. Brown is also wary of using a biologic as an initial therapy by itself because the actions of biologics are so specific. ”I like to back up the powerful, rapid, and specific actions of a biologic with the broader, if slower, action of methotrexate to minimize chances that the immune system is going to find a way around blockade of a single cytokine by your biologic,” she said.

While patient preference will also play a role in what CTP patients with polyJIA start with, Dr. Brown said that she believes more medication upfront can result in less medication and better outcomes in the long run, as the findings of this study suggest. The results here are helpful when speaking with families who are anxious about “so much medicine” or “such powerful medicines,” she said. ”I hope it will also help ease the fears of other providers who share the same concerns about ‘so much medicine.’ ”

The study’s biggest limitation is not being a randomized, controlled trial, but Dr. Brown said the researchers demonstrated effectively that the disease burden remains similar across the groups at baseline.

”It would also be useful to have a clear breakdown of adverse events and opportunistic infections because an excess of opportunistic infections would be a key concern with early combination therapy,” she said, although she added that the study overall was a ”beautiful example of the value of registry data.”

Dr. Kimura emphasized that polyJIA remains a challenging disease to treat, with 40%-60% of participants not reaching CID at 24 months. The registry follow-up will continue for up to 10 years to hopefully provide more information about longer-term outcomes from different treatments.

The research was funded by a grant from Genentech to CARRA. Dr. Kimura reported royalties from UpToDate and salary support from CARRA. Dr. Brown had no disclosures.

Initiating treatment of polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (polyJIA) with both a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug and a biologic DMARD resulted in more patients achieving clinical inactive disease 2 years later than did starting with only a csDMARD and stepping up to a biologic, according to data presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“The 24-month results support the 12-month primary results that suggested that the early-combination group was superior and that, at 24 months, more early combination CTP [consensus treatment plan] patients achieve CID [clinical inactive disease], compared to step up,” Yukiko Kimura, MD, division chief of pediatric rheumatology at HMH Hackensack (N.J.) University Medical Center, told attendees. “This suggests that starting biologics early in polyJIA may lead to better long-term outcomes in many patients.”

Dr. Kimura noted that polyarticular JIA patients are already at risk for poor outcomes, and initial therapy can especially impact outcomes. Further, little evidence exists to suggest when the best time is to start biologics, a gap this study aimed to address.

Diane Brown, MD, PhD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles who was not involved in the study, was pleased to see the results, which she said support her own preferences and practice patterns.

“Starting sooner with combination therapy, taking advantage of the advances with biologics and our long history with methotrexate at the same time, gives better outcomes for the long run,” Dr. Brown said in an interview. “Having studies like this to back up my own recommendations can be very powerful when talking to families, and it is absolutely invaluable when battling with insurance companies who always want you to take the cheapest road.”
 

Study details

The findings were an update of 12-month results in the CARRA STOP-JIA study that enrolled 400 untreated patients with polyJIA and compared three Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) CTPs. Overall, 49.5% of participants received biologics within 3 months of starting the study. For these updated results, 275 participants had complete data at 24 months for the three CTPs:

• A step-up group of 177 patients who started therapy with a csDMARD and added a biologic if needed at least 3 months later
• An early-combination group of 73 patients who started therapy with a csDMARD and biologic together
• A biologic-first group of 25 patients who started with biologic monotherapy, adding a csDMARD only if needed at least 3 months later.

The primary outcome was the percentage of participants who reached CID without taking glucocorticoids at 24 months. Since the participants were not randomized, the researchers made adjustments to account for baseline differences between the groups, including differences in JIA categories, number of active joints, physician global assessment of disease activity, and the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score based on 10 joints (cJADAS10).

At 24 months in an intention to treat analysis, 59.4% of the early-combination group had achieved CID, compared with 48% of the biologic-first group and 40.1% of the step-up group (P = .009 for early combination vs. step up). All three groups had improved since the 12-month time point, when 37% of the early-combination group, 24% of the biologic-first group, and 32% of the step-up group had reached CID.

There were no significant differences between the groups in secondary outcomes of achieving cJADAS10 inactive disease of 2.5 or less or 70% improvement in pediatric ACR response criteria at 24 months. All groups improved in PROMIS pain interference or mobility measures from baseline. Most of the 17 severe adverse events were infections.
 

Moving from step-up therapy to early-combination treatment

Dr. Brown said that she spent many years in her practice using the step-up therapy because it was difficult to get insurance companies to pay for biologics without first showing that methotrexate was insufficient.

”But methotrexate takes so long to control the disease that you need a lot of steroids, with all of their side effects, at least temporarily, or you must simply accept a longer period of active and symptomatic disease before you get to that desired state of clinically inactive disease,” Dr. Brown said. “And during that time, you can be accumulating what may be permanent damage to joints, as well as increase in risk of contractures and deconditioning for that child who is too uncomfortable to move and exercise and play normally.”

Dr. Brown is also wary of using a biologic as an initial therapy by itself because the actions of biologics are so specific. ”I like to back up the powerful, rapid, and specific actions of a biologic with the broader, if slower, action of methotrexate to minimize chances that the immune system is going to find a way around blockade of a single cytokine by your biologic,” she said.

While patient preference will also play a role in what CTP patients with polyJIA start with, Dr. Brown said that she believes more medication upfront can result in less medication and better outcomes in the long run, as the findings of this study suggest. The results here are helpful when speaking with families who are anxious about “so much medicine” or “such powerful medicines,” she said. ”I hope it will also help ease the fears of other providers who share the same concerns about ‘so much medicine.’ ”

The study’s biggest limitation is not being a randomized, controlled trial, but Dr. Brown said the researchers demonstrated effectively that the disease burden remains similar across the groups at baseline.

”It would also be useful to have a clear breakdown of adverse events and opportunistic infections because an excess of opportunistic infections would be a key concern with early combination therapy,” she said, although she added that the study overall was a ”beautiful example of the value of registry data.”

Dr. Kimura emphasized that polyJIA remains a challenging disease to treat, with 40%-60% of participants not reaching CID at 24 months. The registry follow-up will continue for up to 10 years to hopefully provide more information about longer-term outcomes from different treatments.

The research was funded by a grant from Genentech to CARRA. Dr. Kimura reported royalties from UpToDate and salary support from CARRA. Dr. Brown had no disclosures.

Initiating treatment of polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (polyJIA) with both a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug and a biologic DMARD resulted in more patients achieving clinical inactive disease 2 years later than did starting with only a csDMARD and stepping up to a biologic, according to data presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“The 24-month results support the 12-month primary results that suggested that the early-combination group was superior and that, at 24 months, more early combination CTP [consensus treatment plan] patients achieve CID [clinical inactive disease], compared to step up,” Yukiko Kimura, MD, division chief of pediatric rheumatology at HMH Hackensack (N.J.) University Medical Center, told attendees. “This suggests that starting biologics early in polyJIA may lead to better long-term outcomes in many patients.”

Dr. Kimura noted that polyarticular JIA patients are already at risk for poor outcomes, and initial therapy can especially impact outcomes. Further, little evidence exists to suggest when the best time is to start biologics, a gap this study aimed to address.

Diane Brown, MD, PhD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles who was not involved in the study, was pleased to see the results, which she said support her own preferences and practice patterns.

“Starting sooner with combination therapy, taking advantage of the advances with biologics and our long history with methotrexate at the same time, gives better outcomes for the long run,” Dr. Brown said in an interview. “Having studies like this to back up my own recommendations can be very powerful when talking to families, and it is absolutely invaluable when battling with insurance companies who always want you to take the cheapest road.”
 

Study details

The findings were an update of 12-month results in the CARRA STOP-JIA study that enrolled 400 untreated patients with polyJIA and compared three Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) CTPs. Overall, 49.5% of participants received biologics within 3 months of starting the study. For these updated results, 275 participants had complete data at 24 months for the three CTPs:

• A step-up group of 177 patients who started therapy with a csDMARD and added a biologic if needed at least 3 months later
• An early-combination group of 73 patients who started therapy with a csDMARD and biologic together
• A biologic-first group of 25 patients who started with biologic monotherapy, adding a csDMARD only if needed at least 3 months later.

The primary outcome was the percentage of participants who reached CID without taking glucocorticoids at 24 months. Since the participants were not randomized, the researchers made adjustments to account for baseline differences between the groups, including differences in JIA categories, number of active joints, physician global assessment of disease activity, and the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score based on 10 joints (cJADAS10).

At 24 months in an intention to treat analysis, 59.4% of the early-combination group had achieved CID, compared with 48% of the biologic-first group and 40.1% of the step-up group (P = .009 for early combination vs. step up). All three groups had improved since the 12-month time point, when 37% of the early-combination group, 24% of the biologic-first group, and 32% of the step-up group had reached CID.

There were no significant differences between the groups in secondary outcomes of achieving cJADAS10 inactive disease of 2.5 or less or 70% improvement in pediatric ACR response criteria at 24 months. All groups improved in PROMIS pain interference or mobility measures from baseline. Most of the 17 severe adverse events were infections.
 

Moving from step-up therapy to early-combination treatment

Dr. Brown said that she spent many years in her practice using the step-up therapy because it was difficult to get insurance companies to pay for biologics without first showing that methotrexate was insufficient.

”But methotrexate takes so long to control the disease that you need a lot of steroids, with all of their side effects, at least temporarily, or you must simply accept a longer period of active and symptomatic disease before you get to that desired state of clinically inactive disease,” Dr. Brown said. “And during that time, you can be accumulating what may be permanent damage to joints, as well as increase in risk of contractures and deconditioning for that child who is too uncomfortable to move and exercise and play normally.”

Dr. Brown is also wary of using a biologic as an initial therapy by itself because the actions of biologics are so specific. ”I like to back up the powerful, rapid, and specific actions of a biologic with the broader, if slower, action of methotrexate to minimize chances that the immune system is going to find a way around blockade of a single cytokine by your biologic,” she said.

While patient preference will also play a role in what CTP patients with polyJIA start with, Dr. Brown said that she believes more medication upfront can result in less medication and better outcomes in the long run, as the findings of this study suggest. The results here are helpful when speaking with families who are anxious about “so much medicine” or “such powerful medicines,” she said. ”I hope it will also help ease the fears of other providers who share the same concerns about ‘so much medicine.’ ”

The study’s biggest limitation is not being a randomized, controlled trial, but Dr. Brown said the researchers demonstrated effectively that the disease burden remains similar across the groups at baseline.

”It would also be useful to have a clear breakdown of adverse events and opportunistic infections because an excess of opportunistic infections would be a key concern with early combination therapy,” she said, although she added that the study overall was a ”beautiful example of the value of registry data.”

Dr. Kimura emphasized that polyJIA remains a challenging disease to treat, with 40%-60% of participants not reaching CID at 24 months. The registry follow-up will continue for up to 10 years to hopefully provide more information about longer-term outcomes from different treatments.

The research was funded by a grant from Genentech to CARRA. Dr. Kimura reported royalties from UpToDate and salary support from CARRA. Dr. Brown had no disclosures.

The use of statins by patients with rheumatoid arthritis appears to provide an overall net benefit on cardiovascular disease outcomes that outweighs the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) seen with the drugs in the general population, according to evidence from a cohort study of more than 16,000 people in the United Kingdom that was presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Our study emphasizes that RA patients should be assessed for statin initiation to improve CVD risk,” lead study author Gulsen Ozen, MD, a third-year resident at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, said in an interview. Because the risk of T2DM with statin use is no worse in patients with RA than in the general population, statin initiation “is actually a great opportunity to address the risk factors for T2DM such as activity and exercise, obesity and weight loss, and [use of glucocorticoids], which have other important health effects,” she said.

“Also, importantly, even if [patients] develop T2DM, statins still work on CVD and mortality outcomes as in patients without diabetes,” Dr. Ozen added. “Given all, the benefits of statins way outweigh the hazards.”

Dr. Ozen said this was the first large cohort study to evaluate CVD mortality and T2DM risks with statins in patients with RA, a claim with which rheumatologist Elena Myasoedova, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., concurred.

Dr. Myasoedova, professor of rheumatology and epidemiology at Mayo, said in an interview that the study was “methodologically rigorous” using time-conditional propensity score (TCPS) matching and a prevalent new-user design, “thus addressing the immortal time bias” found in the design of studies in which patients enter a cohort but do not start a treatment before developing the outcome of interest and are assigned to the untreated group or when the period of delay from when patients enter the cohort to when they are treated is excluded from the analysis. An earlier study from the same authors did not use TCPS matching, she said.

“The study findings suggest that patients with RA can benefit from statin use in terms of CVD outcomes and mortality but physicians should use vigilance regarding increased T2DM risk and discuss this possibility with patients,” Dr. Myasoedova said. “Identifying patients who are at higher risk of developing T2DM after statin initiation would be important to personalize the approach to statin therapy.”
 

Study details

The study accessed records from the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink and linked Hospital Episode Statistics and Office of National Statistics databases. It analyzed adult patients with RA who were diagnosed during 1989-2018 in two cohorts: One for CVD and all-cause mortality, consisting of 1,768 statin initiators and 3,528 TCPS-matched nonusers; and a T2DM cohort with 3,608 statin initiators and 7,208 TCPS-matched nonusers.

In the entire cohort, statin use was associated with a 32% reduction in CV events (composite endpoint of the nonfatal or fatal MI, stroke, hospitalized heart failure, or CVD mortality), a 54% reduction in all-cause mortality, and a 33% increase in risk for T2DM, Dr. Ozen said. Results were similar in both sexes, although CV event reduction with statins in men did not reach statistical significance, likely because of a smaller sample size, she said.

Patients with and without a history of CVD had a similar reduction in CV events and all-cause mortality, and risk for T2DM increased with statins, but the latter reached statistical significance only in patients without a history of CVD, Dr. Ozen said.

Patients with RA who are at risk for T2DM and who are taking statins require blood glucose monitoring, which is typically done in patients with RA on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and hemoglobin A1c testing when glucose levels are impaired, she said. “Any concerns for T2DM would be also communicated by the primary care providers of the patients to initiate further assessment and management,” she said.

But Dr. Ozen noted that confusion exists among primary care physicians and rheumatologists about who’s responsible for prescribing statins in these patients. “I would like to remind you that instead of assigning this role to a certain specialty, just good communication could improve this care gap of statin underutilization in RA,” she said. “Also, for rheumatologists, given that all-cause mortality reduction with statins was as high as CV event reduction, statins may be reducing other causes of mortality through improving disease activity.”

Bristol-Myers Squibb provided funding for the study. Dr. Ozen and Dr. Myasoedova have no relevant disclosures.

The use of statins by patients with rheumatoid arthritis appears to provide an overall net benefit on cardiovascular disease outcomes that outweighs the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) seen with the drugs in the general population, according to evidence from a cohort study of more than 16,000 people in the United Kingdom that was presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Our study emphasizes that RA patients should be assessed for statin initiation to improve CVD risk,” lead study author Gulsen Ozen, MD, a third-year resident at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, said in an interview. Because the risk of T2DM with statin use is no worse in patients with RA than in the general population, statin initiation “is actually a great opportunity to address the risk factors for T2DM such as activity and exercise, obesity and weight loss, and [use of glucocorticoids], which have other important health effects,” she said.

“Also, importantly, even if [patients] develop T2DM, statins still work on CVD and mortality outcomes as in patients without diabetes,” Dr. Ozen added. “Given all, the benefits of statins way outweigh the hazards.”

Dr. Ozen said this was the first large cohort study to evaluate CVD mortality and T2DM risks with statins in patients with RA, a claim with which rheumatologist Elena Myasoedova, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., concurred.

Dr. Myasoedova, professor of rheumatology and epidemiology at Mayo, said in an interview that the study was “methodologically rigorous” using time-conditional propensity score (TCPS) matching and a prevalent new-user design, “thus addressing the immortal time bias” found in the design of studies in which patients enter a cohort but do not start a treatment before developing the outcome of interest and are assigned to the untreated group or when the period of delay from when patients enter the cohort to when they are treated is excluded from the analysis. An earlier study from the same authors did not use TCPS matching, she said.

“The study findings suggest that patients with RA can benefit from statin use in terms of CVD outcomes and mortality but physicians should use vigilance regarding increased T2DM risk and discuss this possibility with patients,” Dr. Myasoedova said. “Identifying patients who are at higher risk of developing T2DM after statin initiation would be important to personalize the approach to statin therapy.”
 

Study details

The study accessed records from the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink and linked Hospital Episode Statistics and Office of National Statistics databases. It analyzed adult patients with RA who were diagnosed during 1989-2018 in two cohorts: One for CVD and all-cause mortality, consisting of 1,768 statin initiators and 3,528 TCPS-matched nonusers; and a T2DM cohort with 3,608 statin initiators and 7,208 TCPS-matched nonusers.

In the entire cohort, statin use was associated with a 32% reduction in CV events (composite endpoint of the nonfatal or fatal MI, stroke, hospitalized heart failure, or CVD mortality), a 54% reduction in all-cause mortality, and a 33% increase in risk for T2DM, Dr. Ozen said. Results were similar in both sexes, although CV event reduction with statins in men did not reach statistical significance, likely because of a smaller sample size, she said.

Patients with and without a history of CVD had a similar reduction in CV events and all-cause mortality, and risk for T2DM increased with statins, but the latter reached statistical significance only in patients without a history of CVD, Dr. Ozen said.

Patients with RA who are at risk for T2DM and who are taking statins require blood glucose monitoring, which is typically done in patients with RA on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and hemoglobin A1c testing when glucose levels are impaired, she said. “Any concerns for T2DM would be also communicated by the primary care providers of the patients to initiate further assessment and management,” she said.

But Dr. Ozen noted that confusion exists among primary care physicians and rheumatologists about who’s responsible for prescribing statins in these patients. “I would like to remind you that instead of assigning this role to a certain specialty, just good communication could improve this care gap of statin underutilization in RA,” she said. “Also, for rheumatologists, given that all-cause mortality reduction with statins was as high as CV event reduction, statins may be reducing other causes of mortality through improving disease activity.”

Bristol-Myers Squibb provided funding for the study. Dr. Ozen and Dr. Myasoedova have no relevant disclosures.

The use of statins by patients with rheumatoid arthritis appears to provide an overall net benefit on cardiovascular disease outcomes that outweighs the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) seen with the drugs in the general population, according to evidence from a cohort study of more than 16,000 people in the United Kingdom that was presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Our study emphasizes that RA patients should be assessed for statin initiation to improve CVD risk,” lead study author Gulsen Ozen, MD, a third-year resident at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, said in an interview. Because the risk of T2DM with statin use is no worse in patients with RA than in the general population, statin initiation “is actually a great opportunity to address the risk factors for T2DM such as activity and exercise, obesity and weight loss, and [use of glucocorticoids], which have other important health effects,” she said.

“Also, importantly, even if [patients] develop T2DM, statins still work on CVD and mortality outcomes as in patients without diabetes,” Dr. Ozen added. “Given all, the benefits of statins way outweigh the hazards.”

Dr. Ozen said this was the first large cohort study to evaluate CVD mortality and T2DM risks with statins in patients with RA, a claim with which rheumatologist Elena Myasoedova, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., concurred.

Dr. Myasoedova, professor of rheumatology and epidemiology at Mayo, said in an interview that the study was “methodologically rigorous” using time-conditional propensity score (TCPS) matching and a prevalent new-user design, “thus addressing the immortal time bias” found in the design of studies in which patients enter a cohort but do not start a treatment before developing the outcome of interest and are assigned to the untreated group or when the period of delay from when patients enter the cohort to when they are treated is excluded from the analysis. An earlier study from the same authors did not use TCPS matching, she said.

“The study findings suggest that patients with RA can benefit from statin use in terms of CVD outcomes and mortality but physicians should use vigilance regarding increased T2DM risk and discuss this possibility with patients,” Dr. Myasoedova said. “Identifying patients who are at higher risk of developing T2DM after statin initiation would be important to personalize the approach to statin therapy.”
 

Study details

The study accessed records from the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink and linked Hospital Episode Statistics and Office of National Statistics databases. It analyzed adult patients with RA who were diagnosed during 1989-2018 in two cohorts: One for CVD and all-cause mortality, consisting of 1,768 statin initiators and 3,528 TCPS-matched nonusers; and a T2DM cohort with 3,608 statin initiators and 7,208 TCPS-matched nonusers.

In the entire cohort, statin use was associated with a 32% reduction in CV events (composite endpoint of the nonfatal or fatal MI, stroke, hospitalized heart failure, or CVD mortality), a 54% reduction in all-cause mortality, and a 33% increase in risk for T2DM, Dr. Ozen said. Results were similar in both sexes, although CV event reduction with statins in men did not reach statistical significance, likely because of a smaller sample size, she said.

Patients with and without a history of CVD had a similar reduction in CV events and all-cause mortality, and risk for T2DM increased with statins, but the latter reached statistical significance only in patients without a history of CVD, Dr. Ozen said.

Patients with RA who are at risk for T2DM and who are taking statins require blood glucose monitoring, which is typically done in patients with RA on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and hemoglobin A1c testing when glucose levels are impaired, she said. “Any concerns for T2DM would be also communicated by the primary care providers of the patients to initiate further assessment and management,” she said.

But Dr. Ozen noted that confusion exists among primary care physicians and rheumatologists about who’s responsible for prescribing statins in these patients. “I would like to remind you that instead of assigning this role to a certain specialty, just good communication could improve this care gap of statin underutilization in RA,” she said. “Also, for rheumatologists, given that all-cause mortality reduction with statins was as high as CV event reduction, statins may be reducing other causes of mortality through improving disease activity.”

Bristol-Myers Squibb provided funding for the study. Dr. Ozen and Dr. Myasoedova have no relevant disclosures.

Among patients with the recently defined severe autoinflammatory syndrome VEXAS, those who are transfusion dependent or have a specific amino acid substitution are at highest risk for death, whereas those with ear chondritis are at significantly lower risk, a multinational team of investigators has found.

Courtesy Dr. Marcela Ferrada

Their study of mortality and predictors of survival among patients with genetically confirmed VEXAS showed that patients with a VEXAS variant resulting in an amino acid substitution of a methionine for a valine had a 3.5-fold higher risk for death, compared with patients with either a methionine-to-threonine substitution or a methionine-to-leucine swap.

Transfusion dependence was an independent predictor of mortality. Patients who became dependent on transfusions after symptom onset had a nearly threefold higher risk for death, reported Marcela A. Ferrada, MD, a clinical fellow at the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases.

“These findings should inform risk assessment and clinical management in patients with VEXAS syndrome,” she said in an oral abstract presentation during the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“These genetic findings have proven right now to be not only diagnostic, but we have shown that they’re also prognostic, and we hope that this is going to help us identify patients who could have more aggressive treatment,” Dr. Ferrada said.

She also discussed her findings in a media briefing held 2 days prior to her plenary presentation. At that briefing, this news organization asked participating clinicians whether they had patients who they suspected may have had undiagnosed VEXAS.

“My answer to that is interesting,” replied moderator Vaneet Sandhu, MD, from Loma Linda (Calif.) University and Riverside University Health System.

“In the last couple of days, I’ve been reading about VEXAS, and actually texted one of my colleagues yesterday and said, ‘Hey, you know these patients we’ve been seeing who have these strange rashes and chondritis and have maybe a diagnosis of leukocytoclastic vasculitis or something else – are we not diagnosing these patients?’ ” she said.

“I think we are looking at every patient with chondritis and reexamining their phenotype. We had dismissed certain symptoms because they didn’t fit the archetype for relapsing polychondritis, for example, but it could be VEXAS,” said Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, of Washington University in St. Louis, who also presented data during the briefing.

Three variants

VEXAS is caused by somatic mutations in UBA1, a gene that initiates cytoplasmic ubiquitylation, a process by which misfolded proteins are tagged for degradation.

The syndrome’s name is an acronym descriptive of the major features:

• Vacuoles in bone marrow cells.
• E-1 activating enzyme that UBA1 encodes for.
• X-linked.
• Autoinflammatory.
• Somatic mutation featuring hematologic mosaicism.

VEXAS results in rheumatologic, dermatologic, and hematologic symptoms that are often misdiagnosed as being caused by treatment-refractory relapsing polychondritis, polyarteritis nodosa, Sweet syndrome, giant cell arteritis, or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS).

VEXAS was identified as a distinct syndrome within the past year by Dr. Ferrada and other investigators at NIAMS, the National Human Genome Research Institute, and other institutions.

In the study reported at ACR 2021, Dr. Ferrada and colleagues assessed 83 men who had been referred for genetic testing for VEXAS at the National Institutes of Health, in Bethesda, Md., and at Leeds (England) Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust.

All patients were confirmed to have VEXAS-defining genetic mutations in UBA1 by Sanger sequencing of peripheral blood samples. Only those patients with mutations at codon p.Met41 were included in the investigators’ analysis. Mutations at that site account for nearly all cases of VEXAS that have been identified to date.

The most common clinical manifestation of VEXAS was skin involvement, which occurred in all but one of the 83 patients. Other common manifestations included arthritis (58 patients), pulmonary infiltrates (57 patients), and ear chondritis (54 patients).

Fifteen patients were found to have the leucine variant, 18 had the valine variant, and 50 had the threonine variant. The median age at disease onset was 66 years in the leucine and threonine variant groups and 65 in the valine variant group.

The clinical diagnosis differed according to genotype: 4 of 18 patients (22%) with the valine variant were diagnosed with relapsing polychondritis, compared with 8 of 15 (53%) with the leucine variant and 31 of 50 (62%) with the threonine variant (P = .01).

In contrast, 55% of patients with valine genotype were diagnosed with undifferentiated fever, compared with 6% of those with the leucine and 16% with the threonine genotypes (P = .001). More patients with the leucine variant (60%) were diagnosed with Sweet syndrome, compared with 11% and 14% of patients with the valine and threonine variants, respectively (P = .001).

There was no significant difference among the three genotypes in the percentage of patients diagnosed with MDS.

The follow-up period ranged from 1 to 18 years (median, 4.7 years). The median survival time from disease onset for all patients was 10 years.

Among patients with the valine variant, median survival was 9 years, which was significantly less than among patients with the other two variants (P = .01).

In univariable analysis, independent predictors of mortality were ear chondritis (hazard ratio, 0.26; P = .005), transfusion dependence, a time-dependent variable (HR, 2.59; P = .03), and the valine variant (HR, 3.5; P = .008).

The association between VEXAS genotype and phenotype could be explained by the finding that, among patients with the valine variant, there was significantly less translation of the catalytically proficient UBA1b isoform than in patients with the other two variants, Dr. Ferrada said.

Therapeutic options

Dr. Ferrada noted that to date no drugs have been shown to provide consistent therapeutic benefits for patients with VEXAS, but evidence as to the etiology of the syndrome points to possible treatment approaches.

“All of these findings I think are extremely important to help us guide management of these patients, as we know that the mutation is located in the stem cells in the bone marrow. So we suspect that doing a bone marrow transplant in these patients is going to be curative,” Dr. Ferrada said during the briefing.

Investigators are planning a phase 2 trial of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant for patients with VEXAS.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ferrada, Dr. Sandhu, and Dr. Kim have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among patients with the recently defined severe autoinflammatory syndrome VEXAS, those who are transfusion dependent or have a specific amino acid substitution are at highest risk for death, whereas those with ear chondritis are at significantly lower risk, a multinational team of investigators has found.

Courtesy Dr. Marcela Ferrada

Their study of mortality and predictors of survival among patients with genetically confirmed VEXAS showed that patients with a VEXAS variant resulting in an amino acid substitution of a methionine for a valine had a 3.5-fold higher risk for death, compared with patients with either a methionine-to-threonine substitution or a methionine-to-leucine swap.

Transfusion dependence was an independent predictor of mortality. Patients who became dependent on transfusions after symptom onset had a nearly threefold higher risk for death, reported Marcela A. Ferrada, MD, a clinical fellow at the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases.

“These findings should inform risk assessment and clinical management in patients with VEXAS syndrome,” she said in an oral abstract presentation during the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“These genetic findings have proven right now to be not only diagnostic, but we have shown that they’re also prognostic, and we hope that this is going to help us identify patients who could have more aggressive treatment,” Dr. Ferrada said.

She also discussed her findings in a media briefing held 2 days prior to her plenary presentation. At that briefing, this news organization asked participating clinicians whether they had patients who they suspected may have had undiagnosed VEXAS.

“My answer to that is interesting,” replied moderator Vaneet Sandhu, MD, from Loma Linda (Calif.) University and Riverside University Health System.

“In the last couple of days, I’ve been reading about VEXAS, and actually texted one of my colleagues yesterday and said, ‘Hey, you know these patients we’ve been seeing who have these strange rashes and chondritis and have maybe a diagnosis of leukocytoclastic vasculitis or something else – are we not diagnosing these patients?’ ” she said.

“I think we are looking at every patient with chondritis and reexamining their phenotype. We had dismissed certain symptoms because they didn’t fit the archetype for relapsing polychondritis, for example, but it could be VEXAS,” said Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, of Washington University in St. Louis, who also presented data during the briefing.

Three variants

VEXAS is caused by somatic mutations in UBA1, a gene that initiates cytoplasmic ubiquitylation, a process by which misfolded proteins are tagged for degradation.

The syndrome’s name is an acronym descriptive of the major features:

• Vacuoles in bone marrow cells.
• E-1 activating enzyme that UBA1 encodes for.
• X-linked.
• Autoinflammatory.
• Somatic mutation featuring hematologic mosaicism.

VEXAS results in rheumatologic, dermatologic, and hematologic symptoms that are often misdiagnosed as being caused by treatment-refractory relapsing polychondritis, polyarteritis nodosa, Sweet syndrome, giant cell arteritis, or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS).

VEXAS was identified as a distinct syndrome within the past year by Dr. Ferrada and other investigators at NIAMS, the National Human Genome Research Institute, and other institutions.

In the study reported at ACR 2021, Dr. Ferrada and colleagues assessed 83 men who had been referred for genetic testing for VEXAS at the National Institutes of Health, in Bethesda, Md., and at Leeds (England) Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust.

All patients were confirmed to have VEXAS-defining genetic mutations in UBA1 by Sanger sequencing of peripheral blood samples. Only those patients with mutations at codon p.Met41 were included in the investigators’ analysis. Mutations at that site account for nearly all cases of VEXAS that have been identified to date.

The most common clinical manifestation of VEXAS was skin involvement, which occurred in all but one of the 83 patients. Other common manifestations included arthritis (58 patients), pulmonary infiltrates (57 patients), and ear chondritis (54 patients).

Fifteen patients were found to have the leucine variant, 18 had the valine variant, and 50 had the threonine variant. The median age at disease onset was 66 years in the leucine and threonine variant groups and 65 in the valine variant group.

The clinical diagnosis differed according to genotype: 4 of 18 patients (22%) with the valine variant were diagnosed with relapsing polychondritis, compared with 8 of 15 (53%) with the leucine variant and 31 of 50 (62%) with the threonine variant (P = .01).

In contrast, 55% of patients with valine genotype were diagnosed with undifferentiated fever, compared with 6% of those with the leucine and 16% with the threonine genotypes (P = .001). More patients with the leucine variant (60%) were diagnosed with Sweet syndrome, compared with 11% and 14% of patients with the valine and threonine variants, respectively (P = .001).

There was no significant difference among the three genotypes in the percentage of patients diagnosed with MDS.

The follow-up period ranged from 1 to 18 years (median, 4.7 years). The median survival time from disease onset for all patients was 10 years.

Among patients with the valine variant, median survival was 9 years, which was significantly less than among patients with the other two variants (P = .01).

In univariable analysis, independent predictors of mortality were ear chondritis (hazard ratio, 0.26; P = .005), transfusion dependence, a time-dependent variable (HR, 2.59; P = .03), and the valine variant (HR, 3.5; P = .008).

The association between VEXAS genotype and phenotype could be explained by the finding that, among patients with the valine variant, there was significantly less translation of the catalytically proficient UBA1b isoform than in patients with the other two variants, Dr. Ferrada said.

Therapeutic options

Dr. Ferrada noted that to date no drugs have been shown to provide consistent therapeutic benefits for patients with VEXAS, but evidence as to the etiology of the syndrome points to possible treatment approaches.

“All of these findings I think are extremely important to help us guide management of these patients, as we know that the mutation is located in the stem cells in the bone marrow. So we suspect that doing a bone marrow transplant in these patients is going to be curative,” Dr. Ferrada said during the briefing.

Investigators are planning a phase 2 trial of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant for patients with VEXAS.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ferrada, Dr. Sandhu, and Dr. Kim have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among patients with the recently defined severe autoinflammatory syndrome VEXAS, those who are transfusion dependent or have a specific amino acid substitution are at highest risk for death, whereas those with ear chondritis are at significantly lower risk, a multinational team of investigators has found.

Courtesy Dr. Marcela Ferrada

Their study of mortality and predictors of survival among patients with genetically confirmed VEXAS showed that patients with a VEXAS variant resulting in an amino acid substitution of a methionine for a valine had a 3.5-fold higher risk for death, compared with patients with either a methionine-to-threonine substitution or a methionine-to-leucine swap.

Transfusion dependence was an independent predictor of mortality. Patients who became dependent on transfusions after symptom onset had a nearly threefold higher risk for death, reported Marcela A. Ferrada, MD, a clinical fellow at the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases.

“These findings should inform risk assessment and clinical management in patients with VEXAS syndrome,” she said in an oral abstract presentation during the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“These genetic findings have proven right now to be not only diagnostic, but we have shown that they’re also prognostic, and we hope that this is going to help us identify patients who could have more aggressive treatment,” Dr. Ferrada said.

She also discussed her findings in a media briefing held 2 days prior to her plenary presentation. At that briefing, this news organization asked participating clinicians whether they had patients who they suspected may have had undiagnosed VEXAS.

“My answer to that is interesting,” replied moderator Vaneet Sandhu, MD, from Loma Linda (Calif.) University and Riverside University Health System.

“In the last couple of days, I’ve been reading about VEXAS, and actually texted one of my colleagues yesterday and said, ‘Hey, you know these patients we’ve been seeing who have these strange rashes and chondritis and have maybe a diagnosis of leukocytoclastic vasculitis or something else – are we not diagnosing these patients?’ ” she said.

“I think we are looking at every patient with chondritis and reexamining their phenotype. We had dismissed certain symptoms because they didn’t fit the archetype for relapsing polychondritis, for example, but it could be VEXAS,” said Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, of Washington University in St. Louis, who also presented data during the briefing.

Three variants

VEXAS is caused by somatic mutations in UBA1, a gene that initiates cytoplasmic ubiquitylation, a process by which misfolded proteins are tagged for degradation.

The syndrome’s name is an acronym descriptive of the major features:

• Vacuoles in bone marrow cells.
• E-1 activating enzyme that UBA1 encodes for.
• X-linked.
• Autoinflammatory.
• Somatic mutation featuring hematologic mosaicism.

VEXAS results in rheumatologic, dermatologic, and hematologic symptoms that are often misdiagnosed as being caused by treatment-refractory relapsing polychondritis, polyarteritis nodosa, Sweet syndrome, giant cell arteritis, or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS).

VEXAS was identified as a distinct syndrome within the past year by Dr. Ferrada and other investigators at NIAMS, the National Human Genome Research Institute, and other institutions.

In the study reported at ACR 2021, Dr. Ferrada and colleagues assessed 83 men who had been referred for genetic testing for VEXAS at the National Institutes of Health, in Bethesda, Md., and at Leeds (England) Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust.

All patients were confirmed to have VEXAS-defining genetic mutations in UBA1 by Sanger sequencing of peripheral blood samples. Only those patients with mutations at codon p.Met41 were included in the investigators’ analysis. Mutations at that site account for nearly all cases of VEXAS that have been identified to date.

The most common clinical manifestation of VEXAS was skin involvement, which occurred in all but one of the 83 patients. Other common manifestations included arthritis (58 patients), pulmonary infiltrates (57 patients), and ear chondritis (54 patients).

Fifteen patients were found to have the leucine variant, 18 had the valine variant, and 50 had the threonine variant. The median age at disease onset was 66 years in the leucine and threonine variant groups and 65 in the valine variant group.

The clinical diagnosis differed according to genotype: 4 of 18 patients (22%) with the valine variant were diagnosed with relapsing polychondritis, compared with 8 of 15 (53%) with the leucine variant and 31 of 50 (62%) with the threonine variant (P = .01).

In contrast, 55% of patients with valine genotype were diagnosed with undifferentiated fever, compared with 6% of those with the leucine and 16% with the threonine genotypes (P = .001). More patients with the leucine variant (60%) were diagnosed with Sweet syndrome, compared with 11% and 14% of patients with the valine and threonine variants, respectively (P = .001).

There was no significant difference among the three genotypes in the percentage of patients diagnosed with MDS.

The follow-up period ranged from 1 to 18 years (median, 4.7 years). The median survival time from disease onset for all patients was 10 years.

Among patients with the valine variant, median survival was 9 years, which was significantly less than among patients with the other two variants (P = .01).

In univariable analysis, independent predictors of mortality were ear chondritis (hazard ratio, 0.26; P = .005), transfusion dependence, a time-dependent variable (HR, 2.59; P = .03), and the valine variant (HR, 3.5; P = .008).

The association between VEXAS genotype and phenotype could be explained by the finding that, among patients with the valine variant, there was significantly less translation of the catalytically proficient UBA1b isoform than in patients with the other two variants, Dr. Ferrada said.

Therapeutic options

Dr. Ferrada noted that to date no drugs have been shown to provide consistent therapeutic benefits for patients with VEXAS, but evidence as to the etiology of the syndrome points to possible treatment approaches.

“All of these findings I think are extremely important to help us guide management of these patients, as we know that the mutation is located in the stem cells in the bone marrow. So we suspect that doing a bone marrow transplant in these patients is going to be curative,” Dr. Ferrada said during the briefing.

Investigators are planning a phase 2 trial of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant for patients with VEXAS.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ferrada, Dr. Sandhu, and Dr. Kim have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Continuation of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) when a patient’s systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is in remission or has very low disease activity is linked to a lower risk of flares than is reducing or stopping the antimalarial drug, according to new research presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Marc Bruxelle/Getty Images

“Though HCQ is a cornerstone SLE drug, physicians and patients often consider lowering or stopping the drug during remission or low disease activity in order to limit long-term toxicity,” Sasha Bernatsky, MD, PhD, a professor of rheumatology at McGill University in Montreal, told attendees. Her group’s findings revealed a 20% increased risk of flares in those who reduced their HCQ dose and a 56% greater risk of flares in those who discontinued HCQ, compared with those who continued on a maintenance dose.

“I’m going to be using these results in discussions with my patients regarding what the potential implications are of lowering or stopping hydroxychloroquine,” Dr. Bernatsky told attendees. “I think, in the end, this information should be in their hands so that they can be the ones to make these decisions with us, and, of course, given the significant flare rates even in remission, we need to keep on working on optimizing lupus treatments.”
 

Study details

The researchers analyzed prospective data from 1,460 patients enrolled in the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) cohort, which includes 33 sites across Europe, Asia, and North America. Patients in this cohort undergo annual follow-ups after enrollment within 15 months of their diagnosis. The study population was 89% female and 52% white. All participants either had low disease activity, defined as a score of 4 or lower on the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) and/or as a prednisone dose no greater than 7.5 mg/day, or were in complete remission, defined as a 0 on SLEDAI-2K while receiving no therapy, including no prednisone or immunosuppressives in the past year.

In addition to adjusting for sex, race/ethnicity, age, education, and geographic residence, the researchers took into account baseline SLE duration, renal damage, body mass index, smoking status, and use of prednisone, immunosuppressives, and biologics. For the outcome of time to first flare, the researchers analyzed those who discontinued HCQ separately from those who reduced the dose, comparing each to those who continued HCQ maintenance therapy. The researchers defined first flare as either hospitalization because of SLE, increased disease activity (at least 4 points on the SLEDAI-2K), or therapy augmentation with steroids, immunosuppressives, antimalarials, or biologics.

Within each cohort, patients who reduced or stopped HCQ therapy were matched to patients who continued HCQ maintenance therapy based on duration of HCQ since time zero, the point at which participants were considered at risk for SLE flares. In the reduction cohort, time zero was the date of a participant’s first HCQ reduction; in the discontinuation cohort, time zero was the date a participant stopped the therapy. Because of the study’s design and reliance on person-years of exposure, it was possible for a single participant to contribute data to more than one cohort.
 

Results

The overall cohort examining reduction of HCQ dose included 564 patients who reduced their dose, contributing 1,063 person-years of data, and 778 matched patients who started HCQ at the same time but continued HCQ maintenance therapy without a dose reduction, contributing 1,242 person-years. The average duration of HCQ use since time zero in this cohort was 3.4 years.

Before stratifying for disease activity, the group who reduced their therapy experienced 40 first flares per 100 person-years, compared with 31.9 first flares per 100 person-years on maintenance therapy. Those who reduced HCQ had a 20% greater risk of flares than did those who continued it (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.2). However, when those in remission were compared with those not in remission – independent of disease activity level – patients in remission were twice as likely to experience a flare if they reduced their HCQ dose (aHR, 2.14).

In the discontinuation cohort, 389 patients who stopped HCQ therapy contributed 657 person-years, and 577 matched patients who continued HCQ maintenance therapy contributed 924 person-years. The average duration of HCQ use since time zero in this cohort was 4.2 years. Before stratifying for disease activity, the average number of first flares per 100 person-years was 41.3 in the HCQ discontinuation group and 30 in the HCQ maintenance group, resulting in a 56% higher risk of flares for those who stopped HCQ, compared with patients who continued HCQ (aHR, 1.56). Looking only at those in remission, patients were nearly three times more likely to experience a flare if they stopped HCQ than were patients not in remission who continued a maintenance dose (aHR, 2.77).
 

Patient age is an important consideration

Overall, these findings are not surprising, said Jill P. Buyon, MD, director of the division of rheumatology and of the Lupus Center at NYU-Langone Health in New York. Dr. Buyon is not involved in the current study but is studying discontinuation of HCQ in older adults with lupus.

“It has been already shown that when lupus patients discontinue HCQ, flares are more likely, but does this apply to all age groups?” Dr. Buyon asked in an interview. “Data are essential to more accurately weigh the balance between accumulating ocular exposure, the explosion of new tools to assess retinal injury, and the risk of disease flare in a population that may have more stable/quiescent disease than younger patients.”

Although HCQ’s track record with infection risk is consistently better than that of more immunosuppressive drugs and is very safe during pregnancy, Dr. Buyon said her “ophthalmology colleagues persistently emphasize the risk of retinal accumulation of drug and ocular toxicity over time.” She referenced a recent case-control study in which overall prevalence of HCQ retinopathy was 7.5%, and greater for patients taking more than 5 mg/kg of HCQ or who used HCQ for more than 10 years.

”Risk escalates with continued use, and evaluation by sensitive approaches such as multifocal electroretinography suggests nearly a third of patients accrue retinal damage,” Dr. Buyon said. “As the longevity of patients improves and comorbidities such as renal insufficiency (which affects HCQ clearance) may increase, the ratio of efficacy to toxicity would be expected to decrease.” Further, the fact that disease activity may wane as people age means that rheumatologists treating older adults need to address a critical question, she said: “Can HCQ be safely withdrawn? This question is important in the context of an even broader concern regarding management of SLE in the elderly population, a topic which has received minimal attention.”

The study is limited by its observational design and the fact that the intervention was not randomly allocated, although the researchers attempted to adjust for confounders. Dr. Bernatsky also noted that mild flares might have been missed, and the researchers did not evaluate HCQ levels or adherence, nor did the data set include physicians’ or patients’ explicitly stated reasons for HCQ reduction or discontinuation.

”We estimated that 5% of patients may have reduced HCQ therapy as result of the AAO [American Academy of Ophthalmology] guidelines, 55% because of low disease activity state, and the remainder (40%) for other reasons, possibly intolerance or patient preference,” the researchers noted in their abstract. “Among those who discontinued HCQ, 4% had retinal changes of concern, 15% were in clinical remission, and the remainder stopped for unknown reasons, possibly intolerance or patient preference.”

Dr. Buyon also pointed out that the cohort was initially intended for studying cardiovascular risk and not designed to capture all visits during each year of follow-up.

“Thus, while hospitalizations would be well captured, not all flares, particularly those not severe, would be captured, and thus we may not have the complete picture,” she said, reiterating Dr. Bernatsky’s point that mild flares may have been missed.

”Clearly, this is a very important topic for the management of our patients, particularly those who are elderly and may have already reaped the benefits of hydroxychloroquine,” Dr. Buyon said. “Of course, we have to be mindful of the potential benefit with regard to blood clotting and lipid lowering. Nevertheless, accumulated ocular toxicity and cardiac issues such as cardiomyopathy may emerge to tip the balance after years of accumulated drug exposure.”

The research was funded by the Canadian Institute of Health Research, the Singer Family Fund for Lupus Research, and the SLICC Group. Dr. Bernatsky had no disclosures. Dr. Buyon noted that she has an R34 NIH planning grant to study the safety of withdrawal of hydroxychloroquine in elderly lupus patients that is relevant to this study.

Continuation of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) when a patient’s systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is in remission or has very low disease activity is linked to a lower risk of flares than is reducing or stopping the antimalarial drug, according to new research presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Marc Bruxelle/Getty Images

“Though HCQ is a cornerstone SLE drug, physicians and patients often consider lowering or stopping the drug during remission or low disease activity in order to limit long-term toxicity,” Sasha Bernatsky, MD, PhD, a professor of rheumatology at McGill University in Montreal, told attendees. Her group’s findings revealed a 20% increased risk of flares in those who reduced their HCQ dose and a 56% greater risk of flares in those who discontinued HCQ, compared with those who continued on a maintenance dose.

“I’m going to be using these results in discussions with my patients regarding what the potential implications are of lowering or stopping hydroxychloroquine,” Dr. Bernatsky told attendees. “I think, in the end, this information should be in their hands so that they can be the ones to make these decisions with us, and, of course, given the significant flare rates even in remission, we need to keep on working on optimizing lupus treatments.”
 

Study details

The researchers analyzed prospective data from 1,460 patients enrolled in the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) cohort, which includes 33 sites across Europe, Asia, and North America. Patients in this cohort undergo annual follow-ups after enrollment within 15 months of their diagnosis. The study population was 89% female and 52% white. All participants either had low disease activity, defined as a score of 4 or lower on the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) and/or as a prednisone dose no greater than 7.5 mg/day, or were in complete remission, defined as a 0 on SLEDAI-2K while receiving no therapy, including no prednisone or immunosuppressives in the past year.

In addition to adjusting for sex, race/ethnicity, age, education, and geographic residence, the researchers took into account baseline SLE duration, renal damage, body mass index, smoking status, and use of prednisone, immunosuppressives, and biologics. For the outcome of time to first flare, the researchers analyzed those who discontinued HCQ separately from those who reduced the dose, comparing each to those who continued HCQ maintenance therapy. The researchers defined first flare as either hospitalization because of SLE, increased disease activity (at least 4 points on the SLEDAI-2K), or therapy augmentation with steroids, immunosuppressives, antimalarials, or biologics.

Within each cohort, patients who reduced or stopped HCQ therapy were matched to patients who continued HCQ maintenance therapy based on duration of HCQ since time zero, the point at which participants were considered at risk for SLE flares. In the reduction cohort, time zero was the date of a participant’s first HCQ reduction; in the discontinuation cohort, time zero was the date a participant stopped the therapy. Because of the study’s design and reliance on person-years of exposure, it was possible for a single participant to contribute data to more than one cohort.
 

Results

The overall cohort examining reduction of HCQ dose included 564 patients who reduced their dose, contributing 1,063 person-years of data, and 778 matched patients who started HCQ at the same time but continued HCQ maintenance therapy without a dose reduction, contributing 1,242 person-years. The average duration of HCQ use since time zero in this cohort was 3.4 years.

Before stratifying for disease activity, the group who reduced their therapy experienced 40 first flares per 100 person-years, compared with 31.9 first flares per 100 person-years on maintenance therapy. Those who reduced HCQ had a 20% greater risk of flares than did those who continued it (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.2). However, when those in remission were compared with those not in remission – independent of disease activity level – patients in remission were twice as likely to experience a flare if they reduced their HCQ dose (aHR, 2.14).

In the discontinuation cohort, 389 patients who stopped HCQ therapy contributed 657 person-years, and 577 matched patients who continued HCQ maintenance therapy contributed 924 person-years. The average duration of HCQ use since time zero in this cohort was 4.2 years. Before stratifying for disease activity, the average number of first flares per 100 person-years was 41.3 in the HCQ discontinuation group and 30 in the HCQ maintenance group, resulting in a 56% higher risk of flares for those who stopped HCQ, compared with patients who continued HCQ (aHR, 1.56). Looking only at those in remission, patients were nearly three times more likely to experience a flare if they stopped HCQ than were patients not in remission who continued a maintenance dose (aHR, 2.77).
 

Patient age is an important consideration

Overall, these findings are not surprising, said Jill P. Buyon, MD, director of the division of rheumatology and of the Lupus Center at NYU-Langone Health in New York. Dr. Buyon is not involved in the current study but is studying discontinuation of HCQ in older adults with lupus.

“It has been already shown that when lupus patients discontinue HCQ, flares are more likely, but does this apply to all age groups?” Dr. Buyon asked in an interview. “Data are essential to more accurately weigh the balance between accumulating ocular exposure, the explosion of new tools to assess retinal injury, and the risk of disease flare in a population that may have more stable/quiescent disease than younger patients.”

Although HCQ’s track record with infection risk is consistently better than that of more immunosuppressive drugs and is very safe during pregnancy, Dr. Buyon said her “ophthalmology colleagues persistently emphasize the risk of retinal accumulation of drug and ocular toxicity over time.” She referenced a recent case-control study in which overall prevalence of HCQ retinopathy was 7.5%, and greater for patients taking more than 5 mg/kg of HCQ or who used HCQ for more than 10 years.

”Risk escalates with continued use, and evaluation by sensitive approaches such as multifocal electroretinography suggests nearly a third of patients accrue retinal damage,” Dr. Buyon said. “As the longevity of patients improves and comorbidities such as renal insufficiency (which affects HCQ clearance) may increase, the ratio of efficacy to toxicity would be expected to decrease.” Further, the fact that disease activity may wane as people age means that rheumatologists treating older adults need to address a critical question, she said: “Can HCQ be safely withdrawn? This question is important in the context of an even broader concern regarding management of SLE in the elderly population, a topic which has received minimal attention.”

The study is limited by its observational design and the fact that the intervention was not randomly allocated, although the researchers attempted to adjust for confounders. Dr. Bernatsky also noted that mild flares might have been missed, and the researchers did not evaluate HCQ levels or adherence, nor did the data set include physicians’ or patients’ explicitly stated reasons for HCQ reduction or discontinuation.

”We estimated that 5% of patients may have reduced HCQ therapy as result of the AAO [American Academy of Ophthalmology] guidelines, 55% because of low disease activity state, and the remainder (40%) for other reasons, possibly intolerance or patient preference,” the researchers noted in their abstract. “Among those who discontinued HCQ, 4% had retinal changes of concern, 15% were in clinical remission, and the remainder stopped for unknown reasons, possibly intolerance or patient preference.”

Dr. Buyon also pointed out that the cohort was initially intended for studying cardiovascular risk and not designed to capture all visits during each year of follow-up.

“Thus, while hospitalizations would be well captured, not all flares, particularly those not severe, would be captured, and thus we may not have the complete picture,” she said, reiterating Dr. Bernatsky’s point that mild flares may have been missed.

”Clearly, this is a very important topic for the management of our patients, particularly those who are elderly and may have already reaped the benefits of hydroxychloroquine,” Dr. Buyon said. “Of course, we have to be mindful of the potential benefit with regard to blood clotting and lipid lowering. Nevertheless, accumulated ocular toxicity and cardiac issues such as cardiomyopathy may emerge to tip the balance after years of accumulated drug exposure.”

The research was funded by the Canadian Institute of Health Research, the Singer Family Fund for Lupus Research, and the SLICC Group. Dr. Bernatsky had no disclosures. Dr. Buyon noted that she has an R34 NIH planning grant to study the safety of withdrawal of hydroxychloroquine in elderly lupus patients that is relevant to this study.

Continuation of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) when a patient’s systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is in remission or has very low disease activity is linked to a lower risk of flares than is reducing or stopping the antimalarial drug, according to new research presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Marc Bruxelle/Getty Images

“Though HCQ is a cornerstone SLE drug, physicians and patients often consider lowering or stopping the drug during remission or low disease activity in order to limit long-term toxicity,” Sasha Bernatsky, MD, PhD, a professor of rheumatology at McGill University in Montreal, told attendees. Her group’s findings revealed a 20% increased risk of flares in those who reduced their HCQ dose and a 56% greater risk of flares in those who discontinued HCQ, compared with those who continued on a maintenance dose.

“I’m going to be using these results in discussions with my patients regarding what the potential implications are of lowering or stopping hydroxychloroquine,” Dr. Bernatsky told attendees. “I think, in the end, this information should be in their hands so that they can be the ones to make these decisions with us, and, of course, given the significant flare rates even in remission, we need to keep on working on optimizing lupus treatments.”
 

Study details

The researchers analyzed prospective data from 1,460 patients enrolled in the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) cohort, which includes 33 sites across Europe, Asia, and North America. Patients in this cohort undergo annual follow-ups after enrollment within 15 months of their diagnosis. The study population was 89% female and 52% white. All participants either had low disease activity, defined as a score of 4 or lower on the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) and/or as a prednisone dose no greater than 7.5 mg/day, or were in complete remission, defined as a 0 on SLEDAI-2K while receiving no therapy, including no prednisone or immunosuppressives in the past year.

In addition to adjusting for sex, race/ethnicity, age, education, and geographic residence, the researchers took into account baseline SLE duration, renal damage, body mass index, smoking status, and use of prednisone, immunosuppressives, and biologics. For the outcome of time to first flare, the researchers analyzed those who discontinued HCQ separately from those who reduced the dose, comparing each to those who continued HCQ maintenance therapy. The researchers defined first flare as either hospitalization because of SLE, increased disease activity (at least 4 points on the SLEDAI-2K), or therapy augmentation with steroids, immunosuppressives, antimalarials, or biologics.

Within each cohort, patients who reduced or stopped HCQ therapy were matched to patients who continued HCQ maintenance therapy based on duration of HCQ since time zero, the point at which participants were considered at risk for SLE flares. In the reduction cohort, time zero was the date of a participant’s first HCQ reduction; in the discontinuation cohort, time zero was the date a participant stopped the therapy. Because of the study’s design and reliance on person-years of exposure, it was possible for a single participant to contribute data to more than one cohort.
 

Results

The overall cohort examining reduction of HCQ dose included 564 patients who reduced their dose, contributing 1,063 person-years of data, and 778 matched patients who started HCQ at the same time but continued HCQ maintenance therapy without a dose reduction, contributing 1,242 person-years. The average duration of HCQ use since time zero in this cohort was 3.4 years.

Before stratifying for disease activity, the group who reduced their therapy experienced 40 first flares per 100 person-years, compared with 31.9 first flares per 100 person-years on maintenance therapy. Those who reduced HCQ had a 20% greater risk of flares than did those who continued it (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.2). However, when those in remission were compared with those not in remission – independent of disease activity level – patients in remission were twice as likely to experience a flare if they reduced their HCQ dose (aHR, 2.14).

In the discontinuation cohort, 389 patients who stopped HCQ therapy contributed 657 person-years, and 577 matched patients who continued HCQ maintenance therapy contributed 924 person-years. The average duration of HCQ use since time zero in this cohort was 4.2 years. Before stratifying for disease activity, the average number of first flares per 100 person-years was 41.3 in the HCQ discontinuation group and 30 in the HCQ maintenance group, resulting in a 56% higher risk of flares for those who stopped HCQ, compared with patients who continued HCQ (aHR, 1.56). Looking only at those in remission, patients were nearly three times more likely to experience a flare if they stopped HCQ than were patients not in remission who continued a maintenance dose (aHR, 2.77).
 

Patient age is an important consideration

Overall, these findings are not surprising, said Jill P. Buyon, MD, director of the division of rheumatology and of the Lupus Center at NYU-Langone Health in New York. Dr. Buyon is not involved in the current study but is studying discontinuation of HCQ in older adults with lupus.

“It has been already shown that when lupus patients discontinue HCQ, flares are more likely, but does this apply to all age groups?” Dr. Buyon asked in an interview. “Data are essential to more accurately weigh the balance between accumulating ocular exposure, the explosion of new tools to assess retinal injury, and the risk of disease flare in a population that may have more stable/quiescent disease than younger patients.”

Although HCQ’s track record with infection risk is consistently better than that of more immunosuppressive drugs and is very safe during pregnancy, Dr. Buyon said her “ophthalmology colleagues persistently emphasize the risk of retinal accumulation of drug and ocular toxicity over time.” She referenced a recent case-control study in which overall prevalence of HCQ retinopathy was 7.5%, and greater for patients taking more than 5 mg/kg of HCQ or who used HCQ for more than 10 years.

”Risk escalates with continued use, and evaluation by sensitive approaches such as multifocal electroretinography suggests nearly a third of patients accrue retinal damage,” Dr. Buyon said. “As the longevity of patients improves and comorbidities such as renal insufficiency (which affects HCQ clearance) may increase, the ratio of efficacy to toxicity would be expected to decrease.” Further, the fact that disease activity may wane as people age means that rheumatologists treating older adults need to address a critical question, she said: “Can HCQ be safely withdrawn? This question is important in the context of an even broader concern regarding management of SLE in the elderly population, a topic which has received minimal attention.”

The study is limited by its observational design and the fact that the intervention was not randomly allocated, although the researchers attempted to adjust for confounders. Dr. Bernatsky also noted that mild flares might have been missed, and the researchers did not evaluate HCQ levels or adherence, nor did the data set include physicians’ or patients’ explicitly stated reasons for HCQ reduction or discontinuation.

”We estimated that 5% of patients may have reduced HCQ therapy as result of the AAO [American Academy of Ophthalmology] guidelines, 55% because of low disease activity state, and the remainder (40%) for other reasons, possibly intolerance or patient preference,” the researchers noted in their abstract. “Among those who discontinued HCQ, 4% had retinal changes of concern, 15% were in clinical remission, and the remainder stopped for unknown reasons, possibly intolerance or patient preference.”

Dr. Buyon also pointed out that the cohort was initially intended for studying cardiovascular risk and not designed to capture all visits during each year of follow-up.

“Thus, while hospitalizations would be well captured, not all flares, particularly those not severe, would be captured, and thus we may not have the complete picture,” she said, reiterating Dr. Bernatsky’s point that mild flares may have been missed.

”Clearly, this is a very important topic for the management of our patients, particularly those who are elderly and may have already reaped the benefits of hydroxychloroquine,” Dr. Buyon said. “Of course, we have to be mindful of the potential benefit with regard to blood clotting and lipid lowering. Nevertheless, accumulated ocular toxicity and cardiac issues such as cardiomyopathy may emerge to tip the balance after years of accumulated drug exposure.”

The research was funded by the Canadian Institute of Health Research, the Singer Family Fund for Lupus Research, and the SLICC Group. Dr. Bernatsky had no disclosures. Dr. Buyon noted that she has an R34 NIH planning grant to study the safety of withdrawal of hydroxychloroquine in elderly lupus patients that is relevant to this study.

Rituximab effectively reduced skin sclerosis and appeared to have a beneficial effect on interstitial lung disease (ILD) for patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) in a randomized, clinical trial.

Courtesy Charlotte E. LaSenna and Dr. Andrea Maderal, University of Miami

At 24 weeks’ follow-up, there was significant improvement in total skin thickness scores among patients who received four once-weekly rituximab infusions, compared with patients who received placebo infusions. Among patients who received rituximab, there were also small but significant improvements in percentage of forced vital capacity (FVC). Among patients who received placebo, FVC worsened, reported Ayumi Yoshizaki, MD, of the University of Tokyo and colleagues.

“Systemic sclerosis is considered to have high unmet medical needs because of its poor prognosis and the lack of satisfactory and effective treatments,” he said at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Several clinical studies have suggested that B-cell depletion therapy with rituximab anti-CD20 antibody is effective in treating skin and lung fibrosis of SSc. However, no randomized, placebo-controlled trial has been able to confirm the efficacy of rituximab in SSc,” Dr. Yoshizaki said.

A rheumatologist who is currently conducting an investigator-initiated trial in which patients with SSC are undergoing treatment with rituximab followed by belimumab (Benlysta) said in an interview that he found the data to be “super interesting.”

“There are a lot of reasons to think that B cells might be important in systemic sclerosis, and actually that’s why our group had previously done an investigator-initiated trial with belimumab years ago,” said Robert Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis, and Myositis Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York.

Randomized trial

Dr. Yoshizaki and colleagues conducted the randomized, placebo-controlled DESIRES trial in four hospitals in Japan to evaluate the safety and efficacy of rituximab for the treatment of SSc.

In the investigator-initiated trial, patients aged 20-79 years who fulfilled ACR and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology classification criteria for systemic sclerosis and who had a modified Rodnan Skin Score (mRSS) of 10 or more and a life expectancy of at least 6 months were randomly assigned to receive infusions with either rituximab 375 mg/m² or placebo once weekly for 4 weeks. Patients and clinicians were masked to treatment allocation.

The trial included 56 patients (51 women, 5 men). Of all patients enrolled, 27 of 28 who were allocated to receive rituximab and 22 of 28 who were allocated to receive placebo underwent at least one infusion and completed 24 weeks of follow-up.

The absolute change in mRSS at 24 weeks after the start of therapy, the primary endpoint, was –6.30 in the rituximab group, compared with +2.14 in the placebo group, a difference of –8.44 (P < .0001).

In a subgroup analysis, rituximab was superior to placebo regardless of disease duration, disease type (diffuse cutaneous or limited cutaneous SSc), prior receipt of systemic corticosteroids or immunosuppressants, or having C-reactive protein levels less than 0.3 mg/dL or at least 0.3 mg/dL.

However, there was no significant benefit with rituximab for patients with baseline mRSS of at least 20 or for those without ILD at baseline.

There was also evidence that rituximab reduced lung fibrosis. For patients assigned to the active drug, the absolute change in FVC at 24 weeks was +0.09% of the predicted value, compared with –3.56% for patients who received placebo (P = .044).

The researchers also observed radiographic evidence of lung improvement. The absolute change in the percentage of lung field occupied with interstitial shadows was –0.32% in the rituximab arm versus +2.39% in the placebo arm (P = .034). There was no significant between-group difference in the absolute change in diffusing capacity of lung for carbon monoxide, however.

Adverse events that occurred more frequently with rituximab included oral mucositis, diarrhea, and decreased neutrophil and white blood cell counts.

Convincing results

“What I thought the Japanese study did was to give a much more convincing proof of concept than has been out there,” Dr. Spiera said in an interview.

“There have been some preliminary experiences that have been encouraging with rituximab in scleroderma, most of which has been open label,” he said.

He also referred to a retrospective study by EUSTAR, the European Scleroderma Trials and Research group, which indicated that patients who had previously received rituximab seemed to have had better outcomes than patients who had been treated with other therapies.

Dr. Spiera added that, although he was glad to see the data from a randomized, placebo-controlled trial in this population, he was uncomfortable with the idea of leaving patients untreated for 6 months.

“From the standpoint of somebody wanting to know what strategies might be promising, this is great for us, but I would not have designed the trial that way,” he said.

The study results were previously published in the Lancet Rheumatology.

The study was supported by grants from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development and Zenyaku Kogyo. Dr. Yoshizaki disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Spiera has received grant/research support from and has consulted for Roche/Genentech, maker of rituximab, and has received compensation from other companies.

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

Rituximab effectively reduced skin sclerosis and appeared to have a beneficial effect on interstitial lung disease (ILD) for patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) in a randomized, clinical trial.

Courtesy Charlotte E. LaSenna and Dr. Andrea Maderal, University of Miami

At 24 weeks’ follow-up, there was significant improvement in total skin thickness scores among patients who received four once-weekly rituximab infusions, compared with patients who received placebo infusions. Among patients who received rituximab, there were also small but significant improvements in percentage of forced vital capacity (FVC). Among patients who received placebo, FVC worsened, reported Ayumi Yoshizaki, MD, of the University of Tokyo and colleagues.

“Systemic sclerosis is considered to have high unmet medical needs because of its poor prognosis and the lack of satisfactory and effective treatments,” he said at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Several clinical studies have suggested that B-cell depletion therapy with rituximab anti-CD20 antibody is effective in treating skin and lung fibrosis of SSc. However, no randomized, placebo-controlled trial has been able to confirm the efficacy of rituximab in SSc,” Dr. Yoshizaki said.

A rheumatologist who is currently conducting an investigator-initiated trial in which patients with SSC are undergoing treatment with rituximab followed by belimumab (Benlysta) said in an interview that he found the data to be “super interesting.”

“There are a lot of reasons to think that B cells might be important in systemic sclerosis, and actually that’s why our group had previously done an investigator-initiated trial with belimumab years ago,” said Robert Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis, and Myositis Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York.

Randomized trial

Dr. Yoshizaki and colleagues conducted the randomized, placebo-controlled DESIRES trial in four hospitals in Japan to evaluate the safety and efficacy of rituximab for the treatment of SSc.

In the investigator-initiated trial, patients aged 20-79 years who fulfilled ACR and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology classification criteria for systemic sclerosis and who had a modified Rodnan Skin Score (mRSS) of 10 or more and a life expectancy of at least 6 months were randomly assigned to receive infusions with either rituximab 375 mg/m² or placebo once weekly for 4 weeks. Patients and clinicians were masked to treatment allocation.

The trial included 56 patients (51 women, 5 men). Of all patients enrolled, 27 of 28 who were allocated to receive rituximab and 22 of 28 who were allocated to receive placebo underwent at least one infusion and completed 24 weeks of follow-up.

The absolute change in mRSS at 24 weeks after the start of therapy, the primary endpoint, was –6.30 in the rituximab group, compared with +2.14 in the placebo group, a difference of –8.44 (P < .0001).

In a subgroup analysis, rituximab was superior to placebo regardless of disease duration, disease type (diffuse cutaneous or limited cutaneous SSc), prior receipt of systemic corticosteroids or immunosuppressants, or having C-reactive protein levels less than 0.3 mg/dL or at least 0.3 mg/dL.

However, there was no significant benefit with rituximab for patients with baseline mRSS of at least 20 or for those without ILD at baseline.

There was also evidence that rituximab reduced lung fibrosis. For patients assigned to the active drug, the absolute change in FVC at 24 weeks was +0.09% of the predicted value, compared with –3.56% for patients who received placebo (P = .044).

The researchers also observed radiographic evidence of lung improvement. The absolute change in the percentage of lung field occupied with interstitial shadows was –0.32% in the rituximab arm versus +2.39% in the placebo arm (P = .034). There was no significant between-group difference in the absolute change in diffusing capacity of lung for carbon monoxide, however.

Adverse events that occurred more frequently with rituximab included oral mucositis, diarrhea, and decreased neutrophil and white blood cell counts.

Convincing results

“What I thought the Japanese study did was to give a much more convincing proof of concept than has been out there,” Dr. Spiera said in an interview.

“There have been some preliminary experiences that have been encouraging with rituximab in scleroderma, most of which has been open label,” he said.

He also referred to a retrospective study by EUSTAR, the European Scleroderma Trials and Research group, which indicated that patients who had previously received rituximab seemed to have had better outcomes than patients who had been treated with other therapies.

Dr. Spiera added that, although he was glad to see the data from a randomized, placebo-controlled trial in this population, he was uncomfortable with the idea of leaving patients untreated for 6 months.

“From the standpoint of somebody wanting to know what strategies might be promising, this is great for us, but I would not have designed the trial that way,” he said.

The study results were previously published in the Lancet Rheumatology.

The study was supported by grants from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development and Zenyaku Kogyo. Dr. Yoshizaki disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Spiera has received grant/research support from and has consulted for Roche/Genentech, maker of rituximab, and has received compensation from other companies.

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

Rituximab effectively reduced skin sclerosis and appeared to have a beneficial effect on interstitial lung disease (ILD) for patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) in a randomized, clinical trial.

Courtesy Charlotte E. LaSenna and Dr. Andrea Maderal, University of Miami

At 24 weeks’ follow-up, there was significant improvement in total skin thickness scores among patients who received four once-weekly rituximab infusions, compared with patients who received placebo infusions. Among patients who received rituximab, there were also small but significant improvements in percentage of forced vital capacity (FVC). Among patients who received placebo, FVC worsened, reported Ayumi Yoshizaki, MD, of the University of Tokyo and colleagues.

“Systemic sclerosis is considered to have high unmet medical needs because of its poor prognosis and the lack of satisfactory and effective treatments,” he said at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Several clinical studies have suggested that B-cell depletion therapy with rituximab anti-CD20 antibody is effective in treating skin and lung fibrosis of SSc. However, no randomized, placebo-controlled trial has been able to confirm the efficacy of rituximab in SSc,” Dr. Yoshizaki said.

A rheumatologist who is currently conducting an investigator-initiated trial in which patients with SSC are undergoing treatment with rituximab followed by belimumab (Benlysta) said in an interview that he found the data to be “super interesting.”

“There are a lot of reasons to think that B cells might be important in systemic sclerosis, and actually that’s why our group had previously done an investigator-initiated trial with belimumab years ago,” said Robert Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis, and Myositis Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York.

Randomized trial

Dr. Yoshizaki and colleagues conducted the randomized, placebo-controlled DESIRES trial in four hospitals in Japan to evaluate the safety and efficacy of rituximab for the treatment of SSc.

In the investigator-initiated trial, patients aged 20-79 years who fulfilled ACR and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology classification criteria for systemic sclerosis and who had a modified Rodnan Skin Score (mRSS) of 10 or more and a life expectancy of at least 6 months were randomly assigned to receive infusions with either rituximab 375 mg/m² or placebo once weekly for 4 weeks. Patients and clinicians were masked to treatment allocation.

The trial included 56 patients (51 women, 5 men). Of all patients enrolled, 27 of 28 who were allocated to receive rituximab and 22 of 28 who were allocated to receive placebo underwent at least one infusion and completed 24 weeks of follow-up.

The absolute change in mRSS at 24 weeks after the start of therapy, the primary endpoint, was –6.30 in the rituximab group, compared with +2.14 in the placebo group, a difference of –8.44 (P < .0001).

In a subgroup analysis, rituximab was superior to placebo regardless of disease duration, disease type (diffuse cutaneous or limited cutaneous SSc), prior receipt of systemic corticosteroids or immunosuppressants, or having C-reactive protein levels less than 0.3 mg/dL or at least 0.3 mg/dL.

However, there was no significant benefit with rituximab for patients with baseline mRSS of at least 20 or for those without ILD at baseline.

There was also evidence that rituximab reduced lung fibrosis. For patients assigned to the active drug, the absolute change in FVC at 24 weeks was +0.09% of the predicted value, compared with –3.56% for patients who received placebo (P = .044).

The researchers also observed radiographic evidence of lung improvement. The absolute change in the percentage of lung field occupied with interstitial shadows was –0.32% in the rituximab arm versus +2.39% in the placebo arm (P = .034). There was no significant between-group difference in the absolute change in diffusing capacity of lung for carbon monoxide, however.

Adverse events that occurred more frequently with rituximab included oral mucositis, diarrhea, and decreased neutrophil and white blood cell counts.

Convincing results

“What I thought the Japanese study did was to give a much more convincing proof of concept than has been out there,” Dr. Spiera said in an interview.

“There have been some preliminary experiences that have been encouraging with rituximab in scleroderma, most of which has been open label,” he said.

He also referred to a retrospective study by EUSTAR, the European Scleroderma Trials and Research group, which indicated that patients who had previously received rituximab seemed to have had better outcomes than patients who had been treated with other therapies.

Dr. Spiera added that, although he was glad to see the data from a randomized, placebo-controlled trial in this population, he was uncomfortable with the idea of leaving patients untreated for 6 months.

“From the standpoint of somebody wanting to know what strategies might be promising, this is great for us, but I would not have designed the trial that way,” he said.

The study results were previously published in the Lancet Rheumatology.

The study was supported by grants from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development and Zenyaku Kogyo. Dr. Yoshizaki disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Spiera has received grant/research support from and has consulted for Roche/Genentech, maker of rituximab, and has received compensation from other companies.

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