Rheumatology

With the approval by the Food and Drug Administration of the calcineurin inhibitor voclosporin (Lupkynis) in January and belimumab (Benlysta) a month before that, clinicians now have new options for treating lupus nephritis in combination with a background immunosuppressive agent, such as mycophenolate mofetil.

But which combination should clinicians choose?

Brad Rovin, MD, a nephrologist with the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, who worked on the phase 3 voclosprin trial, pointed to that drug’s fast reduction in proteinuria in a session of the Pan American League of Associations for Rheumatology (PANLAR) 2021 Annual Meeting. That effect on proteinuria is likely due to its effect on podocytes, special epithelial cells that cover the outside of capillaries in the kidney, he said.

These crucial cells have an elaborate cytoskeleton that is stabilized by the protein synaptopodin, which can be subject to harm from calcineurin. But because voclosporin blocks calcineurin, synaptopodin is protected, which consequently protects podocytes and the kidney, Dr. Rovin said.

“There’s a lot of data in the nephrology literature that suggests as you lose podocytes, you actually can develop glomerular sclerosis and loss of renal function,” he said. “In fact, if you lose a critical number of podocytes, then no matter what you do, the kidney is likely to progress to end-stage kidney disease.

“The way I think about it now is, what else do these drugs add? And this idea of preserving the histology of the kidney is really important, and this can be done with voclosporin,” Dr. Rovin said.

Belimumab is also hailed as an effective tool, particularly for the prevention of flares. In the trial leading to its approval), just under 16% of patients experienced a renal-related event or death over 2 years, compared with 28% of the group that received placebo. Those receiving belimumab had a 50% greater chance of reaching the primary efficacy renal response, which was defined as a ratio of urinary protein to creatinine of 0.7 or less, an estimated glomerular filtration rate that was no worse than 20% below the pre-flare value or at least 60 mL/min per 1.73 m², and no use of rescue therapy for treatment failure.

The endpoints in the belimumab lupus nephritis trial were “quite rigorous,” Richard A. Furie, MD, said in the same session at the meeting. Patients with class V lupus nephritis were included in the trial, although disease of this severity is known to be particularly difficult to treat, he noted.

“There’s little question that our patients with lupus nephritis will benefit from such a therapeutic approach” with belimumab and mycophenolate, said Dr. Furie, professor of medicine at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, in Hempstead, N.Y. “But regardless of which combination clinicians use, we are making advances, and that means better outcomes for our patients with lupus and lupus nephritis.”

Graciela Alarcon, MD, MPH, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, who moderated the discussion, said there is no sure answer regarding the best choice for clinicians.

“As long as there’s no head-to-head comparison between the two new compounds, I don’t think that the question can be answered,” she said.

Indeed, the answer for many clinicians might be that for certain patients, dual therapy isn’t necessary, Dr. Furie said.

“The fundamental question, before we choose the second drug, is whether a second drug should be chosen,” he said. “There’s a lot of people in the community who are just sticking to the old-fashioned algorithm and that is just choosing one drug, like mycophenolate. ... Others might pick a second drug, but not until they see that mycophenolate is not doing an effective job.”

All agreed that the response rates are still not optimal for patients with lupus nephritis, even with these new combinations – they are still only in the 30%-40% range.

“We haven’t really boosted the response rate to where we want it to be, at least as measured by our current measurements and composite renal response,” Dr. Rovin said.

With voclosporin’s protective effects and belimumab’s flare prevention, the two could potentially be used together at some point, he suggested.

“I think these two drugs show us the possibility that we might use them together and get rid of the older drugs, and really minimize the older drugs and then use them on a longer-term basis to preserve kidney function, as well as keep the lupus in check,” he said.

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

With the approval by the Food and Drug Administration of the calcineurin inhibitor voclosporin (Lupkynis) in January and belimumab (Benlysta) a month before that, clinicians now have new options for treating lupus nephritis in combination with a background immunosuppressive agent, such as mycophenolate mofetil.

But which combination should clinicians choose?

Brad Rovin, MD, a nephrologist with the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, who worked on the phase 3 voclosprin trial, pointed to that drug’s fast reduction in proteinuria in a session of the Pan American League of Associations for Rheumatology (PANLAR) 2021 Annual Meeting. That effect on proteinuria is likely due to its effect on podocytes, special epithelial cells that cover the outside of capillaries in the kidney, he said.

These crucial cells have an elaborate cytoskeleton that is stabilized by the protein synaptopodin, which can be subject to harm from calcineurin. But because voclosporin blocks calcineurin, synaptopodin is protected, which consequently protects podocytes and the kidney, Dr. Rovin said.

“There’s a lot of data in the nephrology literature that suggests as you lose podocytes, you actually can develop glomerular sclerosis and loss of renal function,” he said. “In fact, if you lose a critical number of podocytes, then no matter what you do, the kidney is likely to progress to end-stage kidney disease.

“The way I think about it now is, what else do these drugs add? And this idea of preserving the histology of the kidney is really important, and this can be done with voclosporin,” Dr. Rovin said.

Belimumab is also hailed as an effective tool, particularly for the prevention of flares. In the trial leading to its approval), just under 16% of patients experienced a renal-related event or death over 2 years, compared with 28% of the group that received placebo. Those receiving belimumab had a 50% greater chance of reaching the primary efficacy renal response, which was defined as a ratio of urinary protein to creatinine of 0.7 or less, an estimated glomerular filtration rate that was no worse than 20% below the pre-flare value or at least 60 mL/min per 1.73 m², and no use of rescue therapy for treatment failure.

The endpoints in the belimumab lupus nephritis trial were “quite rigorous,” Richard A. Furie, MD, said in the same session at the meeting. Patients with class V lupus nephritis were included in the trial, although disease of this severity is known to be particularly difficult to treat, he noted.

“There’s little question that our patients with lupus nephritis will benefit from such a therapeutic approach” with belimumab and mycophenolate, said Dr. Furie, professor of medicine at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, in Hempstead, N.Y. “But regardless of which combination clinicians use, we are making advances, and that means better outcomes for our patients with lupus and lupus nephritis.”

Graciela Alarcon, MD, MPH, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, who moderated the discussion, said there is no sure answer regarding the best choice for clinicians.

“As long as there’s no head-to-head comparison between the two new compounds, I don’t think that the question can be answered,” she said.

Indeed, the answer for many clinicians might be that for certain patients, dual therapy isn’t necessary, Dr. Furie said.

“The fundamental question, before we choose the second drug, is whether a second drug should be chosen,” he said. “There’s a lot of people in the community who are just sticking to the old-fashioned algorithm and that is just choosing one drug, like mycophenolate. ... Others might pick a second drug, but not until they see that mycophenolate is not doing an effective job.”

All agreed that the response rates are still not optimal for patients with lupus nephritis, even with these new combinations – they are still only in the 30%-40% range.

“We haven’t really boosted the response rate to where we want it to be, at least as measured by our current measurements and composite renal response,” Dr. Rovin said.

With voclosporin’s protective effects and belimumab’s flare prevention, the two could potentially be used together at some point, he suggested.

“I think these two drugs show us the possibility that we might use them together and get rid of the older drugs, and really minimize the older drugs and then use them on a longer-term basis to preserve kidney function, as well as keep the lupus in check,” he said.

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

With the approval by the Food and Drug Administration of the calcineurin inhibitor voclosporin (Lupkynis) in January and belimumab (Benlysta) a month before that, clinicians now have new options for treating lupus nephritis in combination with a background immunosuppressive agent, such as mycophenolate mofetil.

But which combination should clinicians choose?

Brad Rovin, MD, a nephrologist with the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, who worked on the phase 3 voclosprin trial, pointed to that drug’s fast reduction in proteinuria in a session of the Pan American League of Associations for Rheumatology (PANLAR) 2021 Annual Meeting. That effect on proteinuria is likely due to its effect on podocytes, special epithelial cells that cover the outside of capillaries in the kidney, he said.

These crucial cells have an elaborate cytoskeleton that is stabilized by the protein synaptopodin, which can be subject to harm from calcineurin. But because voclosporin blocks calcineurin, synaptopodin is protected, which consequently protects podocytes and the kidney, Dr. Rovin said.

“There’s a lot of data in the nephrology literature that suggests as you lose podocytes, you actually can develop glomerular sclerosis and loss of renal function,” he said. “In fact, if you lose a critical number of podocytes, then no matter what you do, the kidney is likely to progress to end-stage kidney disease.

“The way I think about it now is, what else do these drugs add? And this idea of preserving the histology of the kidney is really important, and this can be done with voclosporin,” Dr. Rovin said.

Belimumab is also hailed as an effective tool, particularly for the prevention of flares. In the trial leading to its approval), just under 16% of patients experienced a renal-related event or death over 2 years, compared with 28% of the group that received placebo. Those receiving belimumab had a 50% greater chance of reaching the primary efficacy renal response, which was defined as a ratio of urinary protein to creatinine of 0.7 or less, an estimated glomerular filtration rate that was no worse than 20% below the pre-flare value or at least 60 mL/min per 1.73 m², and no use of rescue therapy for treatment failure.

The endpoints in the belimumab lupus nephritis trial were “quite rigorous,” Richard A. Furie, MD, said in the same session at the meeting. Patients with class V lupus nephritis were included in the trial, although disease of this severity is known to be particularly difficult to treat, he noted.

“There’s little question that our patients with lupus nephritis will benefit from such a therapeutic approach” with belimumab and mycophenolate, said Dr. Furie, professor of medicine at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, in Hempstead, N.Y. “But regardless of which combination clinicians use, we are making advances, and that means better outcomes for our patients with lupus and lupus nephritis.”

Graciela Alarcon, MD, MPH, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, who moderated the discussion, said there is no sure answer regarding the best choice for clinicians.

“As long as there’s no head-to-head comparison between the two new compounds, I don’t think that the question can be answered,” she said.

Indeed, the answer for many clinicians might be that for certain patients, dual therapy isn’t necessary, Dr. Furie said.

“The fundamental question, before we choose the second drug, is whether a second drug should be chosen,” he said. “There’s a lot of people in the community who are just sticking to the old-fashioned algorithm and that is just choosing one drug, like mycophenolate. ... Others might pick a second drug, but not until they see that mycophenolate is not doing an effective job.”

All agreed that the response rates are still not optimal for patients with lupus nephritis, even with these new combinations – they are still only in the 30%-40% range.

“We haven’t really boosted the response rate to where we want it to be, at least as measured by our current measurements and composite renal response,” Dr. Rovin said.

With voclosporin’s protective effects and belimumab’s flare prevention, the two could potentially be used together at some point, he suggested.

“I think these two drugs show us the possibility that we might use them together and get rid of the older drugs, and really minimize the older drugs and then use them on a longer-term basis to preserve kidney function, as well as keep the lupus in check,” he said.

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

Childhood exposure to parental smoking appears to greatly boost the risk of confirmed cases of rheumatoid arthritis in adult women, although the overall rate is small, a new study reports. The findings, published Aug. 18, 2021, in Arthritis & Rheumatology, follows other evidence that early second-hand smoke exposure can trigger lifelong damage to the immune system.

pmphoto/iStockphoto.com

“We estimated that there is 75% increased risk of adult seropositive RA due to the direct impact of childhood parental smoking,” said study lead author and Brigham & Women’s Hospital epidemiologist Kazuki Yoshida, MD, ScD, referring to an adjusted analysis conducted in the study. “Passive smoking is likely harmful throughout an individual’s life course regarding rheumatoid arthritis but potentially more harmful during the childhood period.”

The researchers launched the study to fill an evidence gap, Dr. Yoshida said in an interview. “Active smoking is a well-established risk factor for RA. However, studies on passive smoking’s impact on RA are sparse, and few studies had a well-characterized cohort of participants with comprehensive data of passive smoking during life course – in utero exposure, childhood exposure, adult exposure – and chart review–adjudicated RA outcomes.”

The study authors retrospectively tracked 90,923 subjects who joined the Nurses’ Health Study II in 1989 when they were aged 25-42. At the study’s start, the average age of subjects was 34.5, 93% were White, and 98% were premenopausal. Almost two-thirds had never smoked themselves, and 65% said their parents had smoked during their childhoods.

Of the subjects, the researchers found that 532 were identified as having RA over a median follow-up period of 27.7 years. Two-thirds of those cases (n = 352) were confirmed as seropositive by clinical testing.

The study linked maternal smoking during pregnancy to confirmed RA in adulthood via a confounder-adjusted analysis (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.52), but the connection vanished after researchers adjusted their statistics to reflect possible influences by later exposures to smoke.

After adjustment for confounders, the study linked childhood exposure to parental smoking to a 41% in increase in risk of confirmed adulthood RA (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.08-1.83). A controlled direct effect analysis boosted the excess risk to 75% (HR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.03-2.98).

This analysis reveals that “childhood parental smoking seems to be associated with adult rheumatoid arthritis beyond what is explained by the fact that childhood passive smoking can promote personal smoking uptake, a known risk factor for rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Yoshida said.

The overall rate of RA in the study population – roughly 0.6% – aligns with risk levels in the general population, he said. As a result, “the absolute risk increase may not be extremely high. But the concept that early life exposure may affect immunological health later in life is important.”

Potential pathophysiological mechanisms

Why might parental smoking boost the risk of RA? Exposure to secondhand smoke may irritate the lungs and cause abnormal proteins to form, Dr. Yoshida said. “The immune system produces antibodies in an attempt to attack such abnormal proteins. This immune reaction can spread to other body sites and attack normal tissues, including the joints.”

In addition, “smoking increases the risk of infections, which could in turn increase the risk of RA. Smoking is also known to result in epigenetic changes which could trigger RA in susceptible people,” University of California, San Francisco, autoimmune disease epidemiologist Milena A. Gianfrancesco, PhD, MPH, said in an interview. She cowrote a commentary accompanying the new study.

Other studies have linked smoking exposure to autoimmune disorders. Earlier this year, researchers who tracked 79,806 French women reported at the EULAR 2021 annual meeting that they found a link between exposure to second-hand smoking during childhood or adulthood and higher rates of RA.

Dr. Yoshida and colleagues noted their study’s limitations, including the inability to track cases of RA in subjects up to the age when they entered the nurses research project. Also, only one questionnaire over the entire period of the Nurses’ Health Study II asks subjects about whether they were exposed to secondhand smoke as adults.

The study also says nothing about whether a similar risk exists for males, and the nurse subjects are overwhelmingly White.

Still, Dr. Gianfrancesco praised the study and said it relies on extensive data and strong statistical methods. “The findings are important because they drive home the importance of reducing cigarette smoke exposure to reduce risk of disease,” she said. “They highlight the need to not only focus on one’s personal smoking habits, but also other sources of secondhand smoke exposure.”

She added that children with a family history of RA or other autoimmune diseases are especially vulnerable to the effects of secondhand smoke because they may be more susceptible to developing the diseases themselves. “Rheumatologists and other health care providers should be sure to discuss the risks of smoking with their patients, as well as the risk of secondhand smoke,” she said. “And parents should keep their children away from secondhand smoke in the home or other environments in which smoke is prevalent, such as the home of another caregiver or a workplace if the child accompanies their parent to work.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health. The study and commentary authors, including Dr. Yoshida and Dr. Gianfrancesco, reported having no relevant disclosures.

Childhood exposure to parental smoking appears to greatly boost the risk of confirmed cases of rheumatoid arthritis in adult women, although the overall rate is small, a new study reports. The findings, published Aug. 18, 2021, in Arthritis & Rheumatology, follows other evidence that early second-hand smoke exposure can trigger lifelong damage to the immune system.

pmphoto/iStockphoto.com

“We estimated that there is 75% increased risk of adult seropositive RA due to the direct impact of childhood parental smoking,” said study lead author and Brigham & Women’s Hospital epidemiologist Kazuki Yoshida, MD, ScD, referring to an adjusted analysis conducted in the study. “Passive smoking is likely harmful throughout an individual’s life course regarding rheumatoid arthritis but potentially more harmful during the childhood period.”

The researchers launched the study to fill an evidence gap, Dr. Yoshida said in an interview. “Active smoking is a well-established risk factor for RA. However, studies on passive smoking’s impact on RA are sparse, and few studies had a well-characterized cohort of participants with comprehensive data of passive smoking during life course – in utero exposure, childhood exposure, adult exposure – and chart review–adjudicated RA outcomes.”

The study authors retrospectively tracked 90,923 subjects who joined the Nurses’ Health Study II in 1989 when they were aged 25-42. At the study’s start, the average age of subjects was 34.5, 93% were White, and 98% were premenopausal. Almost two-thirds had never smoked themselves, and 65% said their parents had smoked during their childhoods.

Of the subjects, the researchers found that 532 were identified as having RA over a median follow-up period of 27.7 years. Two-thirds of those cases (n = 352) were confirmed as seropositive by clinical testing.

The study linked maternal smoking during pregnancy to confirmed RA in adulthood via a confounder-adjusted analysis (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.52), but the connection vanished after researchers adjusted their statistics to reflect possible influences by later exposures to smoke.

After adjustment for confounders, the study linked childhood exposure to parental smoking to a 41% in increase in risk of confirmed adulthood RA (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.08-1.83). A controlled direct effect analysis boosted the excess risk to 75% (HR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.03-2.98).

This analysis reveals that “childhood parental smoking seems to be associated with adult rheumatoid arthritis beyond what is explained by the fact that childhood passive smoking can promote personal smoking uptake, a known risk factor for rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Yoshida said.

The overall rate of RA in the study population – roughly 0.6% – aligns with risk levels in the general population, he said. As a result, “the absolute risk increase may not be extremely high. But the concept that early life exposure may affect immunological health later in life is important.”

Potential pathophysiological mechanisms

Why might parental smoking boost the risk of RA? Exposure to secondhand smoke may irritate the lungs and cause abnormal proteins to form, Dr. Yoshida said. “The immune system produces antibodies in an attempt to attack such abnormal proteins. This immune reaction can spread to other body sites and attack normal tissues, including the joints.”

In addition, “smoking increases the risk of infections, which could in turn increase the risk of RA. Smoking is also known to result in epigenetic changes which could trigger RA in susceptible people,” University of California, San Francisco, autoimmune disease epidemiologist Milena A. Gianfrancesco, PhD, MPH, said in an interview. She cowrote a commentary accompanying the new study.

Other studies have linked smoking exposure to autoimmune disorders. Earlier this year, researchers who tracked 79,806 French women reported at the EULAR 2021 annual meeting that they found a link between exposure to second-hand smoking during childhood or adulthood and higher rates of RA.

Dr. Yoshida and colleagues noted their study’s limitations, including the inability to track cases of RA in subjects up to the age when they entered the nurses research project. Also, only one questionnaire over the entire period of the Nurses’ Health Study II asks subjects about whether they were exposed to secondhand smoke as adults.

The study also says nothing about whether a similar risk exists for males, and the nurse subjects are overwhelmingly White.

Still, Dr. Gianfrancesco praised the study and said it relies on extensive data and strong statistical methods. “The findings are important because they drive home the importance of reducing cigarette smoke exposure to reduce risk of disease,” she said. “They highlight the need to not only focus on one’s personal smoking habits, but also other sources of secondhand smoke exposure.”

She added that children with a family history of RA or other autoimmune diseases are especially vulnerable to the effects of secondhand smoke because they may be more susceptible to developing the diseases themselves. “Rheumatologists and other health care providers should be sure to discuss the risks of smoking with their patients, as well as the risk of secondhand smoke,” she said. “And parents should keep their children away from secondhand smoke in the home or other environments in which smoke is prevalent, such as the home of another caregiver or a workplace if the child accompanies their parent to work.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health. The study and commentary authors, including Dr. Yoshida and Dr. Gianfrancesco, reported having no relevant disclosures.

Childhood exposure to parental smoking appears to greatly boost the risk of confirmed cases of rheumatoid arthritis in adult women, although the overall rate is small, a new study reports. The findings, published Aug. 18, 2021, in Arthritis & Rheumatology, follows other evidence that early second-hand smoke exposure can trigger lifelong damage to the immune system.

pmphoto/iStockphoto.com

“We estimated that there is 75% increased risk of adult seropositive RA due to the direct impact of childhood parental smoking,” said study lead author and Brigham & Women’s Hospital epidemiologist Kazuki Yoshida, MD, ScD, referring to an adjusted analysis conducted in the study. “Passive smoking is likely harmful throughout an individual’s life course regarding rheumatoid arthritis but potentially more harmful during the childhood period.”

The researchers launched the study to fill an evidence gap, Dr. Yoshida said in an interview. “Active smoking is a well-established risk factor for RA. However, studies on passive smoking’s impact on RA are sparse, and few studies had a well-characterized cohort of participants with comprehensive data of passive smoking during life course – in utero exposure, childhood exposure, adult exposure – and chart review–adjudicated RA outcomes.”

The study authors retrospectively tracked 90,923 subjects who joined the Nurses’ Health Study II in 1989 when they were aged 25-42. At the study’s start, the average age of subjects was 34.5, 93% were White, and 98% were premenopausal. Almost two-thirds had never smoked themselves, and 65% said their parents had smoked during their childhoods.

Of the subjects, the researchers found that 532 were identified as having RA over a median follow-up period of 27.7 years. Two-thirds of those cases (n = 352) were confirmed as seropositive by clinical testing.

The study linked maternal smoking during pregnancy to confirmed RA in adulthood via a confounder-adjusted analysis (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.52), but the connection vanished after researchers adjusted their statistics to reflect possible influences by later exposures to smoke.

After adjustment for confounders, the study linked childhood exposure to parental smoking to a 41% in increase in risk of confirmed adulthood RA (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.08-1.83). A controlled direct effect analysis boosted the excess risk to 75% (HR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.03-2.98).

This analysis reveals that “childhood parental smoking seems to be associated with adult rheumatoid arthritis beyond what is explained by the fact that childhood passive smoking can promote personal smoking uptake, a known risk factor for rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Yoshida said.

The overall rate of RA in the study population – roughly 0.6% – aligns with risk levels in the general population, he said. As a result, “the absolute risk increase may not be extremely high. But the concept that early life exposure may affect immunological health later in life is important.”

Potential pathophysiological mechanisms

Why might parental smoking boost the risk of RA? Exposure to secondhand smoke may irritate the lungs and cause abnormal proteins to form, Dr. Yoshida said. “The immune system produces antibodies in an attempt to attack such abnormal proteins. This immune reaction can spread to other body sites and attack normal tissues, including the joints.”

In addition, “smoking increases the risk of infections, which could in turn increase the risk of RA. Smoking is also known to result in epigenetic changes which could trigger RA in susceptible people,” University of California, San Francisco, autoimmune disease epidemiologist Milena A. Gianfrancesco, PhD, MPH, said in an interview. She cowrote a commentary accompanying the new study.

Other studies have linked smoking exposure to autoimmune disorders. Earlier this year, researchers who tracked 79,806 French women reported at the EULAR 2021 annual meeting that they found a link between exposure to second-hand smoking during childhood or adulthood and higher rates of RA.

Dr. Yoshida and colleagues noted their study’s limitations, including the inability to track cases of RA in subjects up to the age when they entered the nurses research project. Also, only one questionnaire over the entire period of the Nurses’ Health Study II asks subjects about whether they were exposed to secondhand smoke as adults.

The study also says nothing about whether a similar risk exists for males, and the nurse subjects are overwhelmingly White.

Still, Dr. Gianfrancesco praised the study and said it relies on extensive data and strong statistical methods. “The findings are important because they drive home the importance of reducing cigarette smoke exposure to reduce risk of disease,” she said. “They highlight the need to not only focus on one’s personal smoking habits, but also other sources of secondhand smoke exposure.”

She added that children with a family history of RA or other autoimmune diseases are especially vulnerable to the effects of secondhand smoke because they may be more susceptible to developing the diseases themselves. “Rheumatologists and other health care providers should be sure to discuss the risks of smoking with their patients, as well as the risk of secondhand smoke,” she said. “And parents should keep their children away from secondhand smoke in the home or other environments in which smoke is prevalent, such as the home of another caregiver or a workplace if the child accompanies their parent to work.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health. The study and commentary authors, including Dr. Yoshida and Dr. Gianfrancesco, reported having no relevant disclosures.

With worldwide supplies of tocilizumab dwindling as the COVID-19 pandemic rages on, a shortage of the agent will persist “for at least the next several weeks,” according to Genentech, the Roche unit that manufactures tocilizumab under the trade name Actemra IV.

The World Health Organization and Unitaid have called on Genentech to guarantee equitable distribution of the biologic agent globally and to ease up on technology transfer restrictions to make the treatment more accessible.

At this point, supplies of tocilizumab for subcutaneous use to treat rheumatoid arthritis and its other approved indications for inflammatory conditions aren’t as dire, but Genentech is watching them as well, the company says.

In June, the Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization for intravenous tocilizumab for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Since then, it has been included in the WHO Therapeutics and COVID-19: living guideline. And on the same day Genentech and Roche reported the tocilizumab shortage, the European Medicines Agency posted a statement that it had started evaluating RoActemra, the European brand name for tocilizumab, for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

The FDA authorization has caused an unprecedented run on supplies for the biologic agent, which is FDA approved to treat RA, giant cell arteritis, systemic sclerosis–associated interstitial lung disease, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and cytokine release syndrome. 
 

Depleted stocks

In the United States, stocks of the 200- and 400-mg units were unavailable, according to an FDA update in mid-August on its website, and the 80-mg/4-mL unit is available by drop ship only. Supplies of 80-mg units were expected to be depleted by the end of the third week in August, Genentech said in a press release.

The company expects to resupply stocks by the end of August. “However,” the Genentech statement added, “if the pandemic continues to spread at its current pace, we anticipate additional periods of stockout in the weeks and months ahead.”

For patients with RA or other approved indications taking the subcutaneous formulation – pens and prefilled syringes – supplies continue to be available, but, the company added, “the supply situation continues to evolve.” The subcutaneous formulations aren’t authorized for use in COVID-19 patients. However, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists’ website lists the 162-mg/0.9-mL prefilled syringe as one of the products affected by the shortage.

In a separate statement, Roche said that demand for tocilizumab increased 300% in developing countries over prepandemic orders, and that U.S. demand spiked more than 400% in the first 2 weeks of August.

Roche laid out four reasons for the shortage: global manufacturing capacity limits; raw material shortages; the overall complex process of manufacturing biologic agents; and “the dynamically evolving nature of the pandemic.”

The Roche statement noted the company ramped up manufacturing of tocilizumab more than 100% over prepandemic capacity.

With regard to issues WHO and Unitaid raised in their statement, Roche stated that about 60% of its COVID-19 supplies have gone to developing countries, and that Roche and partner Chugai – both of whom hold tocilizumab-related patents – won’t assert any patents over its use for COVID-19 in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) during the pandemic.

“Roche is in the midst of discussions with WHO and we are committed to support access in LMICs as much as we can,” a Roche spokesperson said in an interview.

Blair Solow, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s government affairs committee, said the organization supports the equitable distribution of tocilizumab. “We will work to ensure that our patients continue to have access to the medications they need,” she said. “We will continue to engage with the FDA and others to address shortages and ensure patient access to critical therapies.”

The ACR said that any health care professionals having difficulty getting tocilizumab IV or any other COVID-19-related issues can contact the organization at [email protected].

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

With worldwide supplies of tocilizumab dwindling as the COVID-19 pandemic rages on, a shortage of the agent will persist “for at least the next several weeks,” according to Genentech, the Roche unit that manufactures tocilizumab under the trade name Actemra IV.

The World Health Organization and Unitaid have called on Genentech to guarantee equitable distribution of the biologic agent globally and to ease up on technology transfer restrictions to make the treatment more accessible.

At this point, supplies of tocilizumab for subcutaneous use to treat rheumatoid arthritis and its other approved indications for inflammatory conditions aren’t as dire, but Genentech is watching them as well, the company says.

In June, the Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization for intravenous tocilizumab for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Since then, it has been included in the WHO Therapeutics and COVID-19: living guideline. And on the same day Genentech and Roche reported the tocilizumab shortage, the European Medicines Agency posted a statement that it had started evaluating RoActemra, the European brand name for tocilizumab, for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

The FDA authorization has caused an unprecedented run on supplies for the biologic agent, which is FDA approved to treat RA, giant cell arteritis, systemic sclerosis–associated interstitial lung disease, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and cytokine release syndrome. 
 

Depleted stocks

In the United States, stocks of the 200- and 400-mg units were unavailable, according to an FDA update in mid-August on its website, and the 80-mg/4-mL unit is available by drop ship only. Supplies of 80-mg units were expected to be depleted by the end of the third week in August, Genentech said in a press release.

The company expects to resupply stocks by the end of August. “However,” the Genentech statement added, “if the pandemic continues to spread at its current pace, we anticipate additional periods of stockout in the weeks and months ahead.”

For patients with RA or other approved indications taking the subcutaneous formulation – pens and prefilled syringes – supplies continue to be available, but, the company added, “the supply situation continues to evolve.” The subcutaneous formulations aren’t authorized for use in COVID-19 patients. However, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists’ website lists the 162-mg/0.9-mL prefilled syringe as one of the products affected by the shortage.

In a separate statement, Roche said that demand for tocilizumab increased 300% in developing countries over prepandemic orders, and that U.S. demand spiked more than 400% in the first 2 weeks of August.

Roche laid out four reasons for the shortage: global manufacturing capacity limits; raw material shortages; the overall complex process of manufacturing biologic agents; and “the dynamically evolving nature of the pandemic.”

The Roche statement noted the company ramped up manufacturing of tocilizumab more than 100% over prepandemic capacity.

With regard to issues WHO and Unitaid raised in their statement, Roche stated that about 60% of its COVID-19 supplies have gone to developing countries, and that Roche and partner Chugai – both of whom hold tocilizumab-related patents – won’t assert any patents over its use for COVID-19 in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) during the pandemic.

“Roche is in the midst of discussions with WHO and we are committed to support access in LMICs as much as we can,” a Roche spokesperson said in an interview.

Blair Solow, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s government affairs committee, said the organization supports the equitable distribution of tocilizumab. “We will work to ensure that our patients continue to have access to the medications they need,” she said. “We will continue to engage with the FDA and others to address shortages and ensure patient access to critical therapies.”

The ACR said that any health care professionals having difficulty getting tocilizumab IV or any other COVID-19-related issues can contact the organization at [email protected].

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

With worldwide supplies of tocilizumab dwindling as the COVID-19 pandemic rages on, a shortage of the agent will persist “for at least the next several weeks,” according to Genentech, the Roche unit that manufactures tocilizumab under the trade name Actemra IV.

The World Health Organization and Unitaid have called on Genentech to guarantee equitable distribution of the biologic agent globally and to ease up on technology transfer restrictions to make the treatment more accessible.

At this point, supplies of tocilizumab for subcutaneous use to treat rheumatoid arthritis and its other approved indications for inflammatory conditions aren’t as dire, but Genentech is watching them as well, the company says.

In June, the Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization for intravenous tocilizumab for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Since then, it has been included in the WHO Therapeutics and COVID-19: living guideline. And on the same day Genentech and Roche reported the tocilizumab shortage, the European Medicines Agency posted a statement that it had started evaluating RoActemra, the European brand name for tocilizumab, for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

The FDA authorization has caused an unprecedented run on supplies for the biologic agent, which is FDA approved to treat RA, giant cell arteritis, systemic sclerosis–associated interstitial lung disease, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and cytokine release syndrome. 
 

Depleted stocks

In the United States, stocks of the 200- and 400-mg units were unavailable, according to an FDA update in mid-August on its website, and the 80-mg/4-mL unit is available by drop ship only. Supplies of 80-mg units were expected to be depleted by the end of the third week in August, Genentech said in a press release.

The company expects to resupply stocks by the end of August. “However,” the Genentech statement added, “if the pandemic continues to spread at its current pace, we anticipate additional periods of stockout in the weeks and months ahead.”

For patients with RA or other approved indications taking the subcutaneous formulation – pens and prefilled syringes – supplies continue to be available, but, the company added, “the supply situation continues to evolve.” The subcutaneous formulations aren’t authorized for use in COVID-19 patients. However, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists’ website lists the 162-mg/0.9-mL prefilled syringe as one of the products affected by the shortage.

In a separate statement, Roche said that demand for tocilizumab increased 300% in developing countries over prepandemic orders, and that U.S. demand spiked more than 400% in the first 2 weeks of August.

Roche laid out four reasons for the shortage: global manufacturing capacity limits; raw material shortages; the overall complex process of manufacturing biologic agents; and “the dynamically evolving nature of the pandemic.”

The Roche statement noted the company ramped up manufacturing of tocilizumab more than 100% over prepandemic capacity.

With regard to issues WHO and Unitaid raised in their statement, Roche stated that about 60% of its COVID-19 supplies have gone to developing countries, and that Roche and partner Chugai – both of whom hold tocilizumab-related patents – won’t assert any patents over its use for COVID-19 in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) during the pandemic.

“Roche is in the midst of discussions with WHO and we are committed to support access in LMICs as much as we can,” a Roche spokesperson said in an interview.

Blair Solow, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s government affairs committee, said the organization supports the equitable distribution of tocilizumab. “We will work to ensure that our patients continue to have access to the medications they need,” she said. “We will continue to engage with the FDA and others to address shortages and ensure patient access to critical therapies.”

The ACR said that any health care professionals having difficulty getting tocilizumab IV or any other COVID-19-related issues can contact the organization at [email protected].

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

Older patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) who underwent lengthy diet and exercise interventions reported less pain and maintained some weight loss years after the program ended, according to a new study published in Arthritis Care & Research.

AlexRaths/Getty Images

“These data imply that clinicians who treat people with knee osteoarthritis have a variety of nonpharmacologic options that preserve clinically important effects 3.5 years after the treatments end,” wrote lead author Stephen P. Messier, PhD, professor and director of the J.B. Snow Biomechanics Laboratory at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

The study involved patients with overweight or obesity aged 55 years or older who were previously enrolled in the 1.5-year Intensive Diet and Exercise for Arthritis (IDEA) trial.

“You have to remember, this is 3.5 years after the IDEA trial ended,” Dr. Messier said in an interview. “There was no contact with them for that entire time; you’d expect, based on the literature, that they’d revert back to where they were before they entered the trial. And certainly, there was some regression, there was some weight regain, but the important part of the study is that, even after 3.5 years, and even with some weight regain, there were some clinically important effects that lasted.”

“What we feel now is that if we can somehow prepare people better for that time after they finish a weight loss intervention, from a psychological standpoint, it will make a real difference,” he added. “We are very good at helping people have the confidence to lose weight. But having the confidence to lose weight is totally different than having confidence to maintain weight loss. If we can give folks an intervention that has a psychological component, hopefully we can increase their confidence to maintain the weight loss that they attained.”
 

Study details

Of the 184 participants who were contacted for a follow-up visit, 94 consented to participate, 67% of whom were females and 88% of whom were White. A total of 27 participants had completed the diet and exercise intervention, and another 35 completed the diet-only and 32 exercise-only interventions.

In the 3.5-year period between the IDEA trial’s end and follow-up, body weight increased by 5.9 kg in the diet and exercise group (P < .0001) and by 3.1 kg in the diet-only group (P = .0006) but decreased in the exercise-only group by 1.0 kg (P = .25). However, from baseline to 5-year follow-up, all groups saw a reduction in body weight. Mean weight loss was –3.7 kg for the diet and exercise group (P = .0007), –5.8 kg for the diet group (P < .0001), and –2.9 kg for the exercise group (P = .003). Body mass index also decreased in all groups: by –1.2 kg/m2 in the diet and exercise group (P = .001), by –2.0 kg/m² in the diet group (P < .0001), and by –1.0 kg/m² in the exercise group (P = .004).

Pain – as measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score – was reduced in all groups across 5-year follow-up: –1.2 (P = .03) for the diet and exercise group, –1.5 (P = .001) for the diet-only group, and –1.6 (P = .0008) for the exercise-only group. WOMAC function also significantly improved relative to baseline by 6.2 (P = .0001) in the diet and exercise group, by 6.1 (P < .0001) in the diet group, and by 3.7 (P = .01) in the exercise-only group.
 

Finding time to advise on weight loss, exercise

“If exercise and weight loss were easy, this country wouldn’t be in the state we’re in,” Tuhina Neogi, MD, PhD, of Boston University said in an interview. “Shared decision-making and personalized medicine are important; unfortunately, for the majority of physicians – particularly primary care physicians, where a good deal of OA management is undertaken – they don’t have a lot of time in their 20 minutes with a patient who has OA to counsel individuals toward a healthy weight and physical activity program when they’re also addressing common comorbidities seen in OA such as diabetes and heart disease.

“But as we know,” she added, “when you do address weight loss and physical activity, it has wide-ranging health benefits. This study provides support for utilizing formal diet and exercise programs to achieve important and durable benefits for people with OA.”

Dr. Neogi did note one of the study’s acknowledged limitations: Only slightly more than half of the contacted participants returned for follow-up. Though the authors stated that the individuals who returned were representative of both the pool of potential participants and the IDEA cohort as a whole, “we don’t want to make too many inferences when you don’t have the whole study population available,” she said. “The people who have agreed to come back 3.5 years later for follow-up testing, maybe they are a little more health conscious, more resilient. Those people might be systematically different than the people who [did not return], even though most of the factors were not statistically different between the groups.

“Whatever positive attributes they may have, though, we need to understand more about them,” she added. “We need to know how they maintained the benefits they had 3.5 years prior. That kind of understanding is important to inform long-term strategies in OA management.”

Dr. Messier highlighted a related, ongoing study he’s leading in which more than 800 overweight patients in North Carolina who suffer from knee pain are being led through diet and exercise interventions in a community setting. The goal is to replicate the IDEA results outside of a clinical trial setting and show skeptical physicians that diet and exercise can be enacted and maintained in this subset of patients.

“I think we know how effective weight loss is, especially when combined with exercise, in reducing pain, improving function, improving quality of life in these patients,” he said. “The next step is to allow them to maintain those benefits for a long period of time after the intervention ends.”

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and by General Nutrition Centers. Its authors reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Older patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) who underwent lengthy diet and exercise interventions reported less pain and maintained some weight loss years after the program ended, according to a new study published in Arthritis Care & Research.

AlexRaths/Getty Images

“These data imply that clinicians who treat people with knee osteoarthritis have a variety of nonpharmacologic options that preserve clinically important effects 3.5 years after the treatments end,” wrote lead author Stephen P. Messier, PhD, professor and director of the J.B. Snow Biomechanics Laboratory at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

The study involved patients with overweight or obesity aged 55 years or older who were previously enrolled in the 1.5-year Intensive Diet and Exercise for Arthritis (IDEA) trial.

“You have to remember, this is 3.5 years after the IDEA trial ended,” Dr. Messier said in an interview. “There was no contact with them for that entire time; you’d expect, based on the literature, that they’d revert back to where they were before they entered the trial. And certainly, there was some regression, there was some weight regain, but the important part of the study is that, even after 3.5 years, and even with some weight regain, there were some clinically important effects that lasted.”

“What we feel now is that if we can somehow prepare people better for that time after they finish a weight loss intervention, from a psychological standpoint, it will make a real difference,” he added. “We are very good at helping people have the confidence to lose weight. But having the confidence to lose weight is totally different than having confidence to maintain weight loss. If we can give folks an intervention that has a psychological component, hopefully we can increase their confidence to maintain the weight loss that they attained.”
 

Study details

Of the 184 participants who were contacted for a follow-up visit, 94 consented to participate, 67% of whom were females and 88% of whom were White. A total of 27 participants had completed the diet and exercise intervention, and another 35 completed the diet-only and 32 exercise-only interventions.

In the 3.5-year period between the IDEA trial’s end and follow-up, body weight increased by 5.9 kg in the diet and exercise group (P < .0001) and by 3.1 kg in the diet-only group (P = .0006) but decreased in the exercise-only group by 1.0 kg (P = .25). However, from baseline to 5-year follow-up, all groups saw a reduction in body weight. Mean weight loss was –3.7 kg for the diet and exercise group (P = .0007), –5.8 kg for the diet group (P < .0001), and –2.9 kg for the exercise group (P = .003). Body mass index also decreased in all groups: by –1.2 kg/m2 in the diet and exercise group (P = .001), by –2.0 kg/m² in the diet group (P < .0001), and by –1.0 kg/m² in the exercise group (P = .004).

Pain – as measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score – was reduced in all groups across 5-year follow-up: –1.2 (P = .03) for the diet and exercise group, –1.5 (P = .001) for the diet-only group, and –1.6 (P = .0008) for the exercise-only group. WOMAC function also significantly improved relative to baseline by 6.2 (P = .0001) in the diet and exercise group, by 6.1 (P < .0001) in the diet group, and by 3.7 (P = .01) in the exercise-only group.
 

Finding time to advise on weight loss, exercise

“If exercise and weight loss were easy, this country wouldn’t be in the state we’re in,” Tuhina Neogi, MD, PhD, of Boston University said in an interview. “Shared decision-making and personalized medicine are important; unfortunately, for the majority of physicians – particularly primary care physicians, where a good deal of OA management is undertaken – they don’t have a lot of time in their 20 minutes with a patient who has OA to counsel individuals toward a healthy weight and physical activity program when they’re also addressing common comorbidities seen in OA such as diabetes and heart disease.

“But as we know,” she added, “when you do address weight loss and physical activity, it has wide-ranging health benefits. This study provides support for utilizing formal diet and exercise programs to achieve important and durable benefits for people with OA.”

Dr. Neogi did note one of the study’s acknowledged limitations: Only slightly more than half of the contacted participants returned for follow-up. Though the authors stated that the individuals who returned were representative of both the pool of potential participants and the IDEA cohort as a whole, “we don’t want to make too many inferences when you don’t have the whole study population available,” she said. “The people who have agreed to come back 3.5 years later for follow-up testing, maybe they are a little more health conscious, more resilient. Those people might be systematically different than the people who [did not return], even though most of the factors were not statistically different between the groups.

“Whatever positive attributes they may have, though, we need to understand more about them,” she added. “We need to know how they maintained the benefits they had 3.5 years prior. That kind of understanding is important to inform long-term strategies in OA management.”

Dr. Messier highlighted a related, ongoing study he’s leading in which more than 800 overweight patients in North Carolina who suffer from knee pain are being led through diet and exercise interventions in a community setting. The goal is to replicate the IDEA results outside of a clinical trial setting and show skeptical physicians that diet and exercise can be enacted and maintained in this subset of patients.

“I think we know how effective weight loss is, especially when combined with exercise, in reducing pain, improving function, improving quality of life in these patients,” he said. “The next step is to allow them to maintain those benefits for a long period of time after the intervention ends.”

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and by General Nutrition Centers. Its authors reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Older patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) who underwent lengthy diet and exercise interventions reported less pain and maintained some weight loss years after the program ended, according to a new study published in Arthritis Care & Research.

AlexRaths/Getty Images

“These data imply that clinicians who treat people with knee osteoarthritis have a variety of nonpharmacologic options that preserve clinically important effects 3.5 years after the treatments end,” wrote lead author Stephen P. Messier, PhD, professor and director of the J.B. Snow Biomechanics Laboratory at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

The study involved patients with overweight or obesity aged 55 years or older who were previously enrolled in the 1.5-year Intensive Diet and Exercise for Arthritis (IDEA) trial.

“You have to remember, this is 3.5 years after the IDEA trial ended,” Dr. Messier said in an interview. “There was no contact with them for that entire time; you’d expect, based on the literature, that they’d revert back to where they were before they entered the trial. And certainly, there was some regression, there was some weight regain, but the important part of the study is that, even after 3.5 years, and even with some weight regain, there were some clinically important effects that lasted.”

“What we feel now is that if we can somehow prepare people better for that time after they finish a weight loss intervention, from a psychological standpoint, it will make a real difference,” he added. “We are very good at helping people have the confidence to lose weight. But having the confidence to lose weight is totally different than having confidence to maintain weight loss. If we can give folks an intervention that has a psychological component, hopefully we can increase their confidence to maintain the weight loss that they attained.”
 

Study details

Of the 184 participants who were contacted for a follow-up visit, 94 consented to participate, 67% of whom were females and 88% of whom were White. A total of 27 participants had completed the diet and exercise intervention, and another 35 completed the diet-only and 32 exercise-only interventions.

In the 3.5-year period between the IDEA trial’s end and follow-up, body weight increased by 5.9 kg in the diet and exercise group (P < .0001) and by 3.1 kg in the diet-only group (P = .0006) but decreased in the exercise-only group by 1.0 kg (P = .25). However, from baseline to 5-year follow-up, all groups saw a reduction in body weight. Mean weight loss was –3.7 kg for the diet and exercise group (P = .0007), –5.8 kg for the diet group (P < .0001), and –2.9 kg for the exercise group (P = .003). Body mass index also decreased in all groups: by –1.2 kg/m2 in the diet and exercise group (P = .001), by –2.0 kg/m² in the diet group (P < .0001), and by –1.0 kg/m² in the exercise group (P = .004).

Pain – as measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score – was reduced in all groups across 5-year follow-up: –1.2 (P = .03) for the diet and exercise group, –1.5 (P = .001) for the diet-only group, and –1.6 (P = .0008) for the exercise-only group. WOMAC function also significantly improved relative to baseline by 6.2 (P = .0001) in the diet and exercise group, by 6.1 (P < .0001) in the diet group, and by 3.7 (P = .01) in the exercise-only group.
 

Finding time to advise on weight loss, exercise

“If exercise and weight loss were easy, this country wouldn’t be in the state we’re in,” Tuhina Neogi, MD, PhD, of Boston University said in an interview. “Shared decision-making and personalized medicine are important; unfortunately, for the majority of physicians – particularly primary care physicians, where a good deal of OA management is undertaken – they don’t have a lot of time in their 20 minutes with a patient who has OA to counsel individuals toward a healthy weight and physical activity program when they’re also addressing common comorbidities seen in OA such as diabetes and heart disease.

“But as we know,” she added, “when you do address weight loss and physical activity, it has wide-ranging health benefits. This study provides support for utilizing formal diet and exercise programs to achieve important and durable benefits for people with OA.”

Dr. Neogi did note one of the study’s acknowledged limitations: Only slightly more than half of the contacted participants returned for follow-up. Though the authors stated that the individuals who returned were representative of both the pool of potential participants and the IDEA cohort as a whole, “we don’t want to make too many inferences when you don’t have the whole study population available,” she said. “The people who have agreed to come back 3.5 years later for follow-up testing, maybe they are a little more health conscious, more resilient. Those people might be systematically different than the people who [did not return], even though most of the factors were not statistically different between the groups.

“Whatever positive attributes they may have, though, we need to understand more about them,” she added. “We need to know how they maintained the benefits they had 3.5 years prior. That kind of understanding is important to inform long-term strategies in OA management.”

Dr. Messier highlighted a related, ongoing study he’s leading in which more than 800 overweight patients in North Carolina who suffer from knee pain are being led through diet and exercise interventions in a community setting. The goal is to replicate the IDEA results outside of a clinical trial setting and show skeptical physicians that diet and exercise can be enacted and maintained in this subset of patients.

“I think we know how effective weight loss is, especially when combined with exercise, in reducing pain, improving function, improving quality of life in these patients,” he said. “The next step is to allow them to maintain those benefits for a long period of time after the intervention ends.”

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and by General Nutrition Centers. Its authors reported no potential conflicts of interest.

A blood test that uses a patient’s unique genetic signature has shown some ability to predict nonresponse to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors as treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, an observational clinical study has found, but the test’s predictive accuracy was well below 100%.

The test is the blood-based molecular signature response classifier (MSRC) that uses RNA sequencing data based on 23 different biomarkers: 19 RNA transcripts and 4 clinical features. The clinical features are body mass index, gender, patient global assessment, and anticyclic citrullinated protein (anti-CCP) status.

The NETWORK-004 study, published in Rheumatology and Therapy, was able to stratify patients who were likely to respond inadequately to TNFi therapy and could provide patient-specific information to guide therapy choice in RA patients regardless of whether they’ve already been on TNFi therapy. The study evaluated the MSRC test in 504 patients, 391 of whom were treatment naive.
 

Avoiding ‘fail first’ approach

The idea behind the test is to circumvent the “fail first” approach in finding the right therapy for RA in an individual patient. While the test costs $4,995, Alif Saleh, chief executive officer of Scipher Medicine, which markets the test under the name PrismRA, said in a press release that it has the potential to reduce costs by $19,000 or more per patient per year by avoiding treatments that don’t work. A previous study, which Scipher funded, reported that the test resulted in savings of $7,379 in per-patient costs of ineffective therapy. The same study reported a 25% decrease in costs for ineffective treatments for Medicare-eligible patients.

The price of RA drugs, particularly anti-TNF agents, is hefty and rising. GoodRx has reported that the price of RA drugs increased 92% from 2014 to 2019, and the prices for anti-TNF agents such as etanercept and adalimumab more than doubled in that period. Adalimumab can cost upwards of $84,000 per year while etanercept has a list price of around $72,000 a year. The pharmacy benefit manager WellDyne started covering the test MSRC in February.

Nehad Soloman, MD, a rheumatologist and internist at Midwestern University Arizona College of Osteopathic Medicine in Glendale and a compensated NETWORK-004 investigator, said the MSRC test would be indicated for confirmed RA patients for whom rheumatologists are considering biologic agents, particularly TNFi drugs. “You wouldn’t do it on an RA patient who’s been on several different medications because it doesn’t serve a purpose at that point,” he said.

The potential cost savings may not be the only reason to use the test, Dr. Soloman said. “You don’t want to be dabbling with the wrong drug if there’s another path you can try and save society some money as well as the time and energy it takes to monitor the patients – as well as the patient’s pain,” he said.
 

How the MSRC test works

The MSRC test detects a signal that’s associated with a high or very high likelihood of inadequate response to TNFi therapies and indicates that the patient is unlikely to achieve low disease activity or remission with TNFi therapies. Response is defined as achieving ACR50 – meaning 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria – at 6 months.

Test results are reported on a continuous 1-25 scale, explained Slava Akmaev, PhD, chief technology officer and head of therapeutics at Scipher. “The higher the score, the more likely the patient will have an inadequate response to TNFi therapies and be unable to reach low disease activity; the lower the score, the less likely the patient will have an inadequate response to TNFi therapies,” he said. However, Dr. Akmaev noted that a low score does not ensure a positive response to TNFi therapies.

The MSRC test differs from the multibiomarker disease activity blood test (MBDA; marketed as Vectra by Myriad Genetics) in the number of biomarkers it measures: 19 RNA transcripts vs. 12 serum protein biomarkers in MBDA. The MBDA test is also intended to provide a quantitative, objective measurement of RA disease activity rather than to predict nonresponse to TNFi or other biologics. A number of studies have validated the MBDA test for predicting disease control in RA patients, but not necessarily response to TNFi therapy.

The “high” category threshold of the MSRC test corresponds to an approximate 90% chance of inadequate response to TNFi therapy, or a 10% chance of responding. The “very high” category threshold corresponds to an approximate 95% chance of inadequate response to TNFi therapy, Dr. Akmaev said.

NETWORK-004 used area under the curve (AUC) to measure the accuracy of the MSRC test. An AUC of 1 represents 100% accuracy. Overall, the MSRC had an AUC of 0.64, or 64% accuracy of predicting patients unlikely to respond to TNFi therapy and to achieve ACR50 at 6 months, with an odds ratio of 4.1 (95% confidence interval, 2.0-8.3; P = .0001).

The predictive accuracy went up to 74% with ORs of 3.4-8.8 for additional endpoints at 3 and 6 months (P < .01). Among patients who had already been on TNFi therapy, the predictive accuracy was 83% and associated with ORs of 3.3-26.6 based on ACR, 28-joint Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP), and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) metrics.

The investigators also performed an in-cohort cross-validation of the MSRC using baseline blood samples of 245 treatment-naive patients from the CERTAIN study, which yielded a 66% predictive accuracy for the ACR50 outcome at 6 months. Using the 19 RNA transcripts from the test, but not the clinical factors, the predictive accuracy was 62.5%. Using ACR70, CDAI, and DAS28 as measures for 6-month response, the cross-validation analysis of all 23 MSRC features yielded predictive accuracy of 64%-67%.

The study found significant differences in model scores between patients who did and did not have the molecular signal of nonresponse, and the proportion of patients who achieved low disease activity or remission at 6 months based on CDAI and DAS28-CRP measures was greater among those who lacked a molecular signature of nonresponse.

“Those who lack this signature can proceed with TNFi therapy and possibly achieve an increased response rate relative to the unstratified population,” wrote lead study author Stanley B. Cohen, MD, and colleagues.

Daniel E. Furst, MD, emeritus professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, described the design of the NETWORK-004 study as “excellent,” but said that it didn’t overcome potential issues with the MSRC test itself. “The results unfortunately are great for group data but not for individuals, with a predictive area under the curve of 60% to 80%, it really is not that useful,” he said. “Let’s say you’re a patient who’s not doing well, and I do a test and it’s positive; that still means that 20% of the time you will respond.”

He also noted that he coauthored a paper that used decreases in DAS28 to predict nonresponse to certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate with 95% probability in the first 12 weeks of treatment. “That’s closer to what we need,” Dr. Furst said.

However, the MSRC test is a promising sign of where testing for predicting RA therapy is headed, he said. “We are steadily working toward genetic signatures that really are predictive on an individual basis,” Dr. Furst said. “It’s coming; it’s just not here yet.”

Dr. Furst had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. Dr. Soloman is a paid investigator and consultant to Scipher Medicine.
 

A blood test that uses a patient’s unique genetic signature has shown some ability to predict nonresponse to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors as treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, an observational clinical study has found, but the test’s predictive accuracy was well below 100%.

The test is the blood-based molecular signature response classifier (MSRC) that uses RNA sequencing data based on 23 different biomarkers: 19 RNA transcripts and 4 clinical features. The clinical features are body mass index, gender, patient global assessment, and anticyclic citrullinated protein (anti-CCP) status.

The NETWORK-004 study, published in Rheumatology and Therapy, was able to stratify patients who were likely to respond inadequately to TNFi therapy and could provide patient-specific information to guide therapy choice in RA patients regardless of whether they’ve already been on TNFi therapy. The study evaluated the MSRC test in 504 patients, 391 of whom were treatment naive.
 

Avoiding ‘fail first’ approach

The idea behind the test is to circumvent the “fail first” approach in finding the right therapy for RA in an individual patient. While the test costs $4,995, Alif Saleh, chief executive officer of Scipher Medicine, which markets the test under the name PrismRA, said in a press release that it has the potential to reduce costs by $19,000 or more per patient per year by avoiding treatments that don’t work. A previous study, which Scipher funded, reported that the test resulted in savings of $7,379 in per-patient costs of ineffective therapy. The same study reported a 25% decrease in costs for ineffective treatments for Medicare-eligible patients.

The price of RA drugs, particularly anti-TNF agents, is hefty and rising. GoodRx has reported that the price of RA drugs increased 92% from 2014 to 2019, and the prices for anti-TNF agents such as etanercept and adalimumab more than doubled in that period. Adalimumab can cost upwards of $84,000 per year while etanercept has a list price of around $72,000 a year. The pharmacy benefit manager WellDyne started covering the test MSRC in February.

Nehad Soloman, MD, a rheumatologist and internist at Midwestern University Arizona College of Osteopathic Medicine in Glendale and a compensated NETWORK-004 investigator, said the MSRC test would be indicated for confirmed RA patients for whom rheumatologists are considering biologic agents, particularly TNFi drugs. “You wouldn’t do it on an RA patient who’s been on several different medications because it doesn’t serve a purpose at that point,” he said.

The potential cost savings may not be the only reason to use the test, Dr. Soloman said. “You don’t want to be dabbling with the wrong drug if there’s another path you can try and save society some money as well as the time and energy it takes to monitor the patients – as well as the patient’s pain,” he said.
 

How the MSRC test works

The MSRC test detects a signal that’s associated with a high or very high likelihood of inadequate response to TNFi therapies and indicates that the patient is unlikely to achieve low disease activity or remission with TNFi therapies. Response is defined as achieving ACR50 – meaning 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria – at 6 months.

Test results are reported on a continuous 1-25 scale, explained Slava Akmaev, PhD, chief technology officer and head of therapeutics at Scipher. “The higher the score, the more likely the patient will have an inadequate response to TNFi therapies and be unable to reach low disease activity; the lower the score, the less likely the patient will have an inadequate response to TNFi therapies,” he said. However, Dr. Akmaev noted that a low score does not ensure a positive response to TNFi therapies.

The MSRC test differs from the multibiomarker disease activity blood test (MBDA; marketed as Vectra by Myriad Genetics) in the number of biomarkers it measures: 19 RNA transcripts vs. 12 serum protein biomarkers in MBDA. The MBDA test is also intended to provide a quantitative, objective measurement of RA disease activity rather than to predict nonresponse to TNFi or other biologics. A number of studies have validated the MBDA test for predicting disease control in RA patients, but not necessarily response to TNFi therapy.

The “high” category threshold of the MSRC test corresponds to an approximate 90% chance of inadequate response to TNFi therapy, or a 10% chance of responding. The “very high” category threshold corresponds to an approximate 95% chance of inadequate response to TNFi therapy, Dr. Akmaev said.

NETWORK-004 used area under the curve (AUC) to measure the accuracy of the MSRC test. An AUC of 1 represents 100% accuracy. Overall, the MSRC had an AUC of 0.64, or 64% accuracy of predicting patients unlikely to respond to TNFi therapy and to achieve ACR50 at 6 months, with an odds ratio of 4.1 (95% confidence interval, 2.0-8.3; P = .0001).

The predictive accuracy went up to 74% with ORs of 3.4-8.8 for additional endpoints at 3 and 6 months (P < .01). Among patients who had already been on TNFi therapy, the predictive accuracy was 83% and associated with ORs of 3.3-26.6 based on ACR, 28-joint Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP), and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) metrics.

The investigators also performed an in-cohort cross-validation of the MSRC using baseline blood samples of 245 treatment-naive patients from the CERTAIN study, which yielded a 66% predictive accuracy for the ACR50 outcome at 6 months. Using the 19 RNA transcripts from the test, but not the clinical factors, the predictive accuracy was 62.5%. Using ACR70, CDAI, and DAS28 as measures for 6-month response, the cross-validation analysis of all 23 MSRC features yielded predictive accuracy of 64%-67%.

The study found significant differences in model scores between patients who did and did not have the molecular signal of nonresponse, and the proportion of patients who achieved low disease activity or remission at 6 months based on CDAI and DAS28-CRP measures was greater among those who lacked a molecular signature of nonresponse.

“Those who lack this signature can proceed with TNFi therapy and possibly achieve an increased response rate relative to the unstratified population,” wrote lead study author Stanley B. Cohen, MD, and colleagues.

Daniel E. Furst, MD, emeritus professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, described the design of the NETWORK-004 study as “excellent,” but said that it didn’t overcome potential issues with the MSRC test itself. “The results unfortunately are great for group data but not for individuals, with a predictive area under the curve of 60% to 80%, it really is not that useful,” he said. “Let’s say you’re a patient who’s not doing well, and I do a test and it’s positive; that still means that 20% of the time you will respond.”

He also noted that he coauthored a paper that used decreases in DAS28 to predict nonresponse to certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate with 95% probability in the first 12 weeks of treatment. “That’s closer to what we need,” Dr. Furst said.

However, the MSRC test is a promising sign of where testing for predicting RA therapy is headed, he said. “We are steadily working toward genetic signatures that really are predictive on an individual basis,” Dr. Furst said. “It’s coming; it’s just not here yet.”

Dr. Furst had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. Dr. Soloman is a paid investigator and consultant to Scipher Medicine.
 

A blood test that uses a patient’s unique genetic signature has shown some ability to predict nonresponse to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors as treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, an observational clinical study has found, but the test’s predictive accuracy was well below 100%.

The test is the blood-based molecular signature response classifier (MSRC) that uses RNA sequencing data based on 23 different biomarkers: 19 RNA transcripts and 4 clinical features. The clinical features are body mass index, gender, patient global assessment, and anticyclic citrullinated protein (anti-CCP) status.

The NETWORK-004 study, published in Rheumatology and Therapy, was able to stratify patients who were likely to respond inadequately to TNFi therapy and could provide patient-specific information to guide therapy choice in RA patients regardless of whether they’ve already been on TNFi therapy. The study evaluated the MSRC test in 504 patients, 391 of whom were treatment naive.
 

Avoiding ‘fail first’ approach

The idea behind the test is to circumvent the “fail first” approach in finding the right therapy for RA in an individual patient. While the test costs $4,995, Alif Saleh, chief executive officer of Scipher Medicine, which markets the test under the name PrismRA, said in a press release that it has the potential to reduce costs by $19,000 or more per patient per year by avoiding treatments that don’t work. A previous study, which Scipher funded, reported that the test resulted in savings of $7,379 in per-patient costs of ineffective therapy. The same study reported a 25% decrease in costs for ineffective treatments for Medicare-eligible patients.

The price of RA drugs, particularly anti-TNF agents, is hefty and rising. GoodRx has reported that the price of RA drugs increased 92% from 2014 to 2019, and the prices for anti-TNF agents such as etanercept and adalimumab more than doubled in that period. Adalimumab can cost upwards of $84,000 per year while etanercept has a list price of around $72,000 a year. The pharmacy benefit manager WellDyne started covering the test MSRC in February.

Nehad Soloman, MD, a rheumatologist and internist at Midwestern University Arizona College of Osteopathic Medicine in Glendale and a compensated NETWORK-004 investigator, said the MSRC test would be indicated for confirmed RA patients for whom rheumatologists are considering biologic agents, particularly TNFi drugs. “You wouldn’t do it on an RA patient who’s been on several different medications because it doesn’t serve a purpose at that point,” he said.

The potential cost savings may not be the only reason to use the test, Dr. Soloman said. “You don’t want to be dabbling with the wrong drug if there’s another path you can try and save society some money as well as the time and energy it takes to monitor the patients – as well as the patient’s pain,” he said.
 

How the MSRC test works

The MSRC test detects a signal that’s associated with a high or very high likelihood of inadequate response to TNFi therapies and indicates that the patient is unlikely to achieve low disease activity or remission with TNFi therapies. Response is defined as achieving ACR50 – meaning 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria – at 6 months.

Test results are reported on a continuous 1-25 scale, explained Slava Akmaev, PhD, chief technology officer and head of therapeutics at Scipher. “The higher the score, the more likely the patient will have an inadequate response to TNFi therapies and be unable to reach low disease activity; the lower the score, the less likely the patient will have an inadequate response to TNFi therapies,” he said. However, Dr. Akmaev noted that a low score does not ensure a positive response to TNFi therapies.

The MSRC test differs from the multibiomarker disease activity blood test (MBDA; marketed as Vectra by Myriad Genetics) in the number of biomarkers it measures: 19 RNA transcripts vs. 12 serum protein biomarkers in MBDA. The MBDA test is also intended to provide a quantitative, objective measurement of RA disease activity rather than to predict nonresponse to TNFi or other biologics. A number of studies have validated the MBDA test for predicting disease control in RA patients, but not necessarily response to TNFi therapy.

The “high” category threshold of the MSRC test corresponds to an approximate 90% chance of inadequate response to TNFi therapy, or a 10% chance of responding. The “very high” category threshold corresponds to an approximate 95% chance of inadequate response to TNFi therapy, Dr. Akmaev said.

NETWORK-004 used area under the curve (AUC) to measure the accuracy of the MSRC test. An AUC of 1 represents 100% accuracy. Overall, the MSRC had an AUC of 0.64, or 64% accuracy of predicting patients unlikely to respond to TNFi therapy and to achieve ACR50 at 6 months, with an odds ratio of 4.1 (95% confidence interval, 2.0-8.3; P = .0001).

The predictive accuracy went up to 74% with ORs of 3.4-8.8 for additional endpoints at 3 and 6 months (P < .01). Among patients who had already been on TNFi therapy, the predictive accuracy was 83% and associated with ORs of 3.3-26.6 based on ACR, 28-joint Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP), and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) metrics.

The investigators also performed an in-cohort cross-validation of the MSRC using baseline blood samples of 245 treatment-naive patients from the CERTAIN study, which yielded a 66% predictive accuracy for the ACR50 outcome at 6 months. Using the 19 RNA transcripts from the test, but not the clinical factors, the predictive accuracy was 62.5%. Using ACR70, CDAI, and DAS28 as measures for 6-month response, the cross-validation analysis of all 23 MSRC features yielded predictive accuracy of 64%-67%.

The study found significant differences in model scores between patients who did and did not have the molecular signal of nonresponse, and the proportion of patients who achieved low disease activity or remission at 6 months based on CDAI and DAS28-CRP measures was greater among those who lacked a molecular signature of nonresponse.

“Those who lack this signature can proceed with TNFi therapy and possibly achieve an increased response rate relative to the unstratified population,” wrote lead study author Stanley B. Cohen, MD, and colleagues.

Daniel E. Furst, MD, emeritus professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, described the design of the NETWORK-004 study as “excellent,” but said that it didn’t overcome potential issues with the MSRC test itself. “The results unfortunately are great for group data but not for individuals, with a predictive area under the curve of 60% to 80%, it really is not that useful,” he said. “Let’s say you’re a patient who’s not doing well, and I do a test and it’s positive; that still means that 20% of the time you will respond.”

He also noted that he coauthored a paper that used decreases in DAS28 to predict nonresponse to certolizumab pegol plus methotrexate with 95% probability in the first 12 weeks of treatment. “That’s closer to what we need,” Dr. Furst said.

However, the MSRC test is a promising sign of where testing for predicting RA therapy is headed, he said. “We are steadily working toward genetic signatures that really are predictive on an individual basis,” Dr. Furst said. “It’s coming; it’s just not here yet.”

Dr. Furst had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. Dr. Soloman is a paid investigator and consultant to Scipher Medicine.
 

People beginning treatment with the immunosuppressive drugs tocilizumab (Actemra) or tofacitinib (Xeljanz) are infrequently screened for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, according to a new study of patients with rheumatic diseases who are starting one of the two treatments.

“Perhaps not unexpectedly, these screening patterns conform more with recommendations from the American College of Rheumatology, which do not explicitly stipulate universal HBV screening,” wrote lead author Amir M. Mohareb, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. The study was published in The Journal of Rheumatology.

To determine the frequency of HBV screening among this specific population, the researchers conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional study of patients 18 years or older within the Mass General Brigham health system in the Boston area who initiated either of the two drugs before Dec. 31, 2018. Tocilizumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration on Jan. 11, 2010, and tofacitinib was approved on Nov. 6, 2012.

The final study population included 678 patients on tocilizumab and 391 patients on tofacitinib. The mean age of the patients in each group was 61 years for tocilizumab and 60 years for tofacitinib. A large majority were female (78% of the tocilizumab group, 88% of the tofacitinib group) and 84% of patients in both groups were white. Their primary diagnosis was rheumatoid arthritis (53% of the tocilizumab group, 77% of the tofacitinib group), and most of them – 57% of patients on tocilizumab and 72% of patients on tofacitinib – had a history of being on both conventional synthetic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

HBV screening patterns were classified into three categories: complete (all three of the HBV surface antigen [HBsAg], total core antibody [anti-HBcAb], and surface antibody [HBsAb] tests); partial (any one to two tests); and none. Of the 678 patients on tocilizumab, 194 (29%) underwent complete screening, 307 (45%) underwent partial screening, and 177 (26%) had no screening. Of the 391 patients on tofacitinib, 94 (24%) underwent complete screening, 195 (50%) underwent partial screening, and 102 (26%) had none.

Inappropriate testing – defined as either HBV e-antigen (HBeAg), anti-HBcAb IgM, or HBV DNA without a positive HBsAg or total anti-HBcAb – occurred in 22% of patients on tocilizumab and 23% of patients on tofacitinib. After multivariable analysis, the authors found that Whites were less likely to undergo complete screening (odds ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.95) compared to non-Whites. Previous use of immunosuppressive agents such as conventional synthetic DMARDs (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.72-1.55) and biologic DMARDs with or without prior csDMARDs (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.48-1.12) was not associated with a likelihood of complete appropriate screening.

“These data add to the evidence indicating that clinicians are not completing pretreatment screening for latent infections prior to patients starting high-risk immunosuppressant drugs,” Gabriela Schmajuk, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview. “It can be dangerous, since a fraction of these patients may reactivate latent infections with HBV that can result in liver failure or death.

“On the bright side,” she added, “we have antivirals that can be given as prophylaxis against reactivation of latent HBV if patients do test positive.”

Dr. Schmajuk was previously the senior author of a similar study from the 2019 American College of Rheumatology annual meeting that found only a small percentage of patients who were new users of biologics or new synthetic DMARDs were screened for HBV or hepatitis C virus.

When asked if anything in the study stood out, she acknowledged being “somewhat surprised that patients with prior immunosuppression did not have higher rates of screening. One might expect that since those patients had more opportunities for screening – since they started new medications more times – they would have higher rates, but this did not appear to be the case.”

As a message to rheumatologists who may be starting their patients on any biologic or new synthetic DMARD, she reinforced that “we need universal HBV screening for patients starting these medications. Many clinicians are used to ordering a hepatitis B surface antigen test, but one key message is that we also need to be ordering hepatitis B core antibody tests. Patients with a positive core antibody are still at risk for reactivation.”

The authors noted their study’s limitations, including the data being retrospectively collected and some of the subjects potentially being screened in laboratories outside of the Mass General Brigham health system. In addition, they stated that their findings “may not be generalizable to nonrheumatologic settings or other immunomodulators,” although they added that studies of other patient populations have also uncovered “similarly low HBV screening frequencies.”

Several of the authors reported being supported by institutes within the National Institutes of Health. Beyond that, they declared no potential conflicts of interest.

People beginning treatment with the immunosuppressive drugs tocilizumab (Actemra) or tofacitinib (Xeljanz) are infrequently screened for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, according to a new study of patients with rheumatic diseases who are starting one of the two treatments.

“Perhaps not unexpectedly, these screening patterns conform more with recommendations from the American College of Rheumatology, which do not explicitly stipulate universal HBV screening,” wrote lead author Amir M. Mohareb, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. The study was published in The Journal of Rheumatology.

To determine the frequency of HBV screening among this specific population, the researchers conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional study of patients 18 years or older within the Mass General Brigham health system in the Boston area who initiated either of the two drugs before Dec. 31, 2018. Tocilizumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration on Jan. 11, 2010, and tofacitinib was approved on Nov. 6, 2012.

The final study population included 678 patients on tocilizumab and 391 patients on tofacitinib. The mean age of the patients in each group was 61 years for tocilizumab and 60 years for tofacitinib. A large majority were female (78% of the tocilizumab group, 88% of the tofacitinib group) and 84% of patients in both groups were white. Their primary diagnosis was rheumatoid arthritis (53% of the tocilizumab group, 77% of the tofacitinib group), and most of them – 57% of patients on tocilizumab and 72% of patients on tofacitinib – had a history of being on both conventional synthetic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

HBV screening patterns were classified into three categories: complete (all three of the HBV surface antigen [HBsAg], total core antibody [anti-HBcAb], and surface antibody [HBsAb] tests); partial (any one to two tests); and none. Of the 678 patients on tocilizumab, 194 (29%) underwent complete screening, 307 (45%) underwent partial screening, and 177 (26%) had no screening. Of the 391 patients on tofacitinib, 94 (24%) underwent complete screening, 195 (50%) underwent partial screening, and 102 (26%) had none.

Inappropriate testing – defined as either HBV e-antigen (HBeAg), anti-HBcAb IgM, or HBV DNA without a positive HBsAg or total anti-HBcAb – occurred in 22% of patients on tocilizumab and 23% of patients on tofacitinib. After multivariable analysis, the authors found that Whites were less likely to undergo complete screening (odds ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.95) compared to non-Whites. Previous use of immunosuppressive agents such as conventional synthetic DMARDs (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.72-1.55) and biologic DMARDs with or without prior csDMARDs (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.48-1.12) was not associated with a likelihood of complete appropriate screening.

“These data add to the evidence indicating that clinicians are not completing pretreatment screening for latent infections prior to patients starting high-risk immunosuppressant drugs,” Gabriela Schmajuk, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview. “It can be dangerous, since a fraction of these patients may reactivate latent infections with HBV that can result in liver failure or death.

“On the bright side,” she added, “we have antivirals that can be given as prophylaxis against reactivation of latent HBV if patients do test positive.”

Dr. Schmajuk was previously the senior author of a similar study from the 2019 American College of Rheumatology annual meeting that found only a small percentage of patients who were new users of biologics or new synthetic DMARDs were screened for HBV or hepatitis C virus.

When asked if anything in the study stood out, she acknowledged being “somewhat surprised that patients with prior immunosuppression did not have higher rates of screening. One might expect that since those patients had more opportunities for screening – since they started new medications more times – they would have higher rates, but this did not appear to be the case.”

As a message to rheumatologists who may be starting their patients on any biologic or new synthetic DMARD, she reinforced that “we need universal HBV screening for patients starting these medications. Many clinicians are used to ordering a hepatitis B surface antigen test, but one key message is that we also need to be ordering hepatitis B core antibody tests. Patients with a positive core antibody are still at risk for reactivation.”

The authors noted their study’s limitations, including the data being retrospectively collected and some of the subjects potentially being screened in laboratories outside of the Mass General Brigham health system. In addition, they stated that their findings “may not be generalizable to nonrheumatologic settings or other immunomodulators,” although they added that studies of other patient populations have also uncovered “similarly low HBV screening frequencies.”

Several of the authors reported being supported by institutes within the National Institutes of Health. Beyond that, they declared no potential conflicts of interest.

People beginning treatment with the immunosuppressive drugs tocilizumab (Actemra) or tofacitinib (Xeljanz) are infrequently screened for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, according to a new study of patients with rheumatic diseases who are starting one of the two treatments.

“Perhaps not unexpectedly, these screening patterns conform more with recommendations from the American College of Rheumatology, which do not explicitly stipulate universal HBV screening,” wrote lead author Amir M. Mohareb, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. The study was published in The Journal of Rheumatology.

To determine the frequency of HBV screening among this specific population, the researchers conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional study of patients 18 years or older within the Mass General Brigham health system in the Boston area who initiated either of the two drugs before Dec. 31, 2018. Tocilizumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration on Jan. 11, 2010, and tofacitinib was approved on Nov. 6, 2012.

The final study population included 678 patients on tocilizumab and 391 patients on tofacitinib. The mean age of the patients in each group was 61 years for tocilizumab and 60 years for tofacitinib. A large majority were female (78% of the tocilizumab group, 88% of the tofacitinib group) and 84% of patients in both groups were white. Their primary diagnosis was rheumatoid arthritis (53% of the tocilizumab group, 77% of the tofacitinib group), and most of them – 57% of patients on tocilizumab and 72% of patients on tofacitinib – had a history of being on both conventional synthetic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

HBV screening patterns were classified into three categories: complete (all three of the HBV surface antigen [HBsAg], total core antibody [anti-HBcAb], and surface antibody [HBsAb] tests); partial (any one to two tests); and none. Of the 678 patients on tocilizumab, 194 (29%) underwent complete screening, 307 (45%) underwent partial screening, and 177 (26%) had no screening. Of the 391 patients on tofacitinib, 94 (24%) underwent complete screening, 195 (50%) underwent partial screening, and 102 (26%) had none.

Inappropriate testing – defined as either HBV e-antigen (HBeAg), anti-HBcAb IgM, or HBV DNA without a positive HBsAg or total anti-HBcAb – occurred in 22% of patients on tocilizumab and 23% of patients on tofacitinib. After multivariable analysis, the authors found that Whites were less likely to undergo complete screening (odds ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.95) compared to non-Whites. Previous use of immunosuppressive agents such as conventional synthetic DMARDs (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.72-1.55) and biologic DMARDs with or without prior csDMARDs (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.48-1.12) was not associated with a likelihood of complete appropriate screening.

“These data add to the evidence indicating that clinicians are not completing pretreatment screening for latent infections prior to patients starting high-risk immunosuppressant drugs,” Gabriela Schmajuk, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview. “It can be dangerous, since a fraction of these patients may reactivate latent infections with HBV that can result in liver failure or death.

“On the bright side,” she added, “we have antivirals that can be given as prophylaxis against reactivation of latent HBV if patients do test positive.”

Dr. Schmajuk was previously the senior author of a similar study from the 2019 American College of Rheumatology annual meeting that found only a small percentage of patients who were new users of biologics or new synthetic DMARDs were screened for HBV or hepatitis C virus.

When asked if anything in the study stood out, she acknowledged being “somewhat surprised that patients with prior immunosuppression did not have higher rates of screening. One might expect that since those patients had more opportunities for screening – since they started new medications more times – they would have higher rates, but this did not appear to be the case.”

As a message to rheumatologists who may be starting their patients on any biologic or new synthetic DMARD, she reinforced that “we need universal HBV screening for patients starting these medications. Many clinicians are used to ordering a hepatitis B surface antigen test, but one key message is that we also need to be ordering hepatitis B core antibody tests. Patients with a positive core antibody are still at risk for reactivation.”

The authors noted their study’s limitations, including the data being retrospectively collected and some of the subjects potentially being screened in laboratories outside of the Mass General Brigham health system. In addition, they stated that their findings “may not be generalizable to nonrheumatologic settings or other immunomodulators,” although they added that studies of other patient populations have also uncovered “similarly low HBV screening frequencies.”

Several of the authors reported being supported by institutes within the National Institutes of Health. Beyond that, they declared no potential conflicts of interest.

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors have long been the go-to treatment of choice for patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). They’ve served patients well since etanercept was first approved for PsA in 2002, but today, with the availability of more attractive interleukin-17 and IL-23 inhibitors, dermatologists and rheumatologists are asking whether it’s time to reconsider the use of TNF inhibitors as first-line therapy in psoriasis and PsA.

“TNF inhibitors have served psoriasis patients well for many years. The question is, ‘Is it time to move on from them as first-line agents for psoriasis?’ ” said April W. Armstrong, MD, MPH, a dermatologist and associate dean for clinical research at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Dr. Armstrong participated in a point/counterpoint debate about the merits of IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors over TNF inhibitors at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. “For the majority of our patients, IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors are probably rationally better than TNF inhibitors as first-line agents for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis,” she said.

In this debate, dermatologists and rheumatologists cited studies showing the safety and efficacy of IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors over TNF inhibitors. TNF inhibitors include etanercept (Enbrel and biosimilars), infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars), adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars), certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), and golimumab (Simponi). IL-12/23 inhibitors are limited to ustekinumab (Stelara). IL-17 inhibitors include secukinumab (Cosentyx), ixekizumab (Taltz), and brodalumab (Siliq). IL-23 inhibitors include guselkumab (Tremfya), tildrakizumab (Ilumya), and risankizumab (Skyrizi).

TNF inhibitors are recommended by the American College of Rheumatology as first-line therapy for treatment-naive patients with active PsA, and they, along with IL-12/23, IL-17, and IL-23 inhibitors are all recommended by the American Academy of Dermatology as monotherapy treatment options in adult patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. However, some studies have shown that non–TNF-inhibitor biologics have a higher efficacy than TNF inhibitors in some cases for some patients, such as those with moderate to severe psoriasis alone or for musculoskeletal efficacy in patients with PsA who have peripheral arthritis, enthesitis, dactylitis, or axial manifestations.

Favorable characteristics of non–TNF-inhibitor biologics

Dr. Armstrong cited a number of head-to-head trials to support her view that IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors are better than TNF inhibitors as first-line agents for patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. In the first head-to-head study of its kind in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis, ustekinumab proved superior to etanercept. Guselkumab was shown to be superior to adalimumab for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. Tildrakizumab also proved superior to etanercept for patients with psoriasis. Risankizumab bested adalimumab in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. Ixekizumab proved superior to etanercept in two pivotal studies of patients with widespread moderate-to-severe psoriasis.

IL-23 and IL-17 inhibitors tend to have less frequent maintenance dosing, with IL-17 inhibitors being once every 2 or 4 weeks and IL-23 inhibitors once every 8 or 12 weeks, compared with frequencies ranging from every week to every 8 weeks with TNF inhibitors, Dr. Armstrong said.

IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors also appear to have fewer safety concerns than TNF inhibitors, although there is less long-term data for them overall and there are some notable exceptions in certain patient populations. TNF inhibitors should be avoided in patients with a history of demyelinating disease or hepatitis B virus infection, and they are not preferred in patients who have a history of latent tuberculosis or advanced heart failure. IL-17 inhibitors should not be used in patients with a history of inflammatory bowel disease, and their use is associated with a higher rate of oral candidiasis. IL-23 inhibitors have a good safety profile overall, she said.

“The IL-17/23 axis is very important to psoriatic arthritis and should be the focus of our treatments” for PsA, said Deepak Jadon, MBBCh, MRCP, PhD, a rheumatologist and director of the rheumatology research unit at Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge (England) University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. In his presentation, he proposed that IL-17 inhibitors and IL-23 inhibitors be used as first-line therapies in PsA ahead of TNF inhibitors.

One reason to go with IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors may be to ”get it right immunologically the first time,” Dr. Jadon said. He cited evidence showing substantially better response to guselkumab when given to biologic-naive patients with PsA versus those who had a inadequate response to TNF inhibitors, as well as data indicating better response with secukinumab regardless of previous TNF inhibitor use.

IL-17 inhibitors target more domains of psoriatic disease than do TNF inhibitors, he said, noting that “they have excellent musculoskeletal efficacy in patients with moderate skin psoriasis, not just those with severe psoriasis.” Ixekizumab proved superior to adalimumab in biologic-naive patients with PsA. The results of this study also indicated that IL-17 inhibitors should not be reserved only for patients with severe psoriasis since a higher percentage of patients with moderate psoriasis who were taking ixekizumab achieved very low PsA activity. Secukinumab also beat adalimumab in a head-to-head comparison and showed a greater impact on some measures of health-related quality of life.

IL-17 inhibitors also do not require concomitant methotrexate, he said, “which is a major bonus for our patients. All of my patients wish to stop methotrexate even if tolerated. Not having to cope with prescribed methotrexate improves risk of adverse events and frequency of blood test monitoring.”

IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors appear to have good efficacy against axial disease in patients with PsA. Randomized trial results for secukinumab versus placebo show high percentages of patients improving either 20% or 40% in Assessment in Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria and reduced inflammatory MRI lesions in the spine and sacroiliac joints. Analyses of trial results in guselkumab-treated patients with axial manifestations of PsA have shown the IL-23 inhibitor’s efficacy versus placebo across different measures of disease activity.

Dr. Jadon also cited real-world data showing that patients stay longer on IL-17 and IL-12/23 inhibitors versus TNF inhibitors. A 2016 study of patients with psoriasis in the PSOLAR registry showed that patients persisted on treatment longer with ustekinumab than with adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab. Similarly, a 2020 study of patients with psoriasis from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register found that both ustekinumab and secukinumab had better sustained drug survival than did adalimumab.


Accessibility weighs heavily in using TNF inhibitor first

Clinical trials data show that IL-17 inhibitors outperform TNF inhibitors for psoriasis, but in clinical practice, TNF inhibitors still perform very well in individual patients and are well tolerated, said Amit Garg, MD, founding chair of the department of dermatology at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y.

He argued in favor of TNF inhibitors as first-line therapy over IL-17 inhibitors for psoriasis. In this case, treatment decisions often come down to accessibility, Dr. Garg said. Not all insurance companies cover the cost of the newer IL-23 inhibitors. Plus, access to TNF inhibitors is widespread and costs are generally lower.

“As a physician, I don’t have complete autonomy in prescribing what I want. The reality is whether it be because of cross indication or discount pricing, [TNF inhibitors] – in particular adalimumab – is widely available on all plans and is usually the preferred treatment plan, at least in our area,” he said. “I’m not a big fan of plans that allow drugs at low or no cost for a year or 2, and then abandon the patients at that point thereafter. I like to use something that insurance will cover sustainably, and, quite frankly, TNFs have served well in that regard.”

However, TNF inhibitors are associated with more safety signals, plus they carry a greater risk of infection, leading to tolerability and persistence issues with patients.

“Psoriasis is a lifelong disease. I wish I could tell you that every drug is going to work well forever for individual patients, but I don’t think we know that yet. From my perspective, for efficacy, general well tolerance, convenience, and access, TNFs are still an important part of our ability to treat psoriasis effectively. I have no problem starting there and transitioning as needed for individual patients.

“In my experience, I think patients on TNFs generally do well. We don’t always get the patients clear and certainly there’s drop off of efficacy over time, but I’m not sure that’s a rationale for [changing treatment],” Dr. Garg said.

Ying Ying (Katy) Leung, MD, a rheumatologist with Singapore General Hospital, and a member of the GRAPPA peripheral arthritis working group, argued against the use of IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors as first-line treatment for PsA over TNF inhibitors. She reasoned that TNF blockers are more accessible, have more long-term safety data (including data indicating safety during pregnancy), and have better cardiovascular protection. She also noted that GRAPPA treatment recommendations strongly advise using TNF blockers (or IL-17 inhibitors) for treatment-naive patients with PsA.

“Accessibility is very important as I learned along the way of leading the peripheral arthritis [GRAPPA] working group. Accessibility [issues] can be coming from a lot of sources, but if you don’t take good care of accessibility, you might be developing a guideline that is way out of reality and nobody is going to use it,” she said.

In her native Singapore, Dr. Leung said that patients pay for biologics out of pocket, so cost is a key factor for her patients. She stated that adalimumab is available as a biosimilar at about $200 monthly for patients with PsA in Singapore, while the average monthly costs are $1,400 for originator infliximab and $1,500 for originator etanercept. By comparison, secukinumab sells for about $750 monthly, ixekizumab $540 monthly, and guselkumab $2,000 monthly.

Treatment choices should be aligned with the disease manifestations of PsA, Dr. Leung said, keeping in mind that accessibility and individual patient needs and preferences should be considered as well. She conducted an informal comparison that found TNF inhibitors are most effective for patients with uveitis or inflammatory bowel disease. Evidence from head-to-head studies indicates that TNF inhibitors and IL-17 inhibitors have similar efficacy for peripheral arthritis, enthesitis, and dactylitis. But caution is warranted, she suggested, for determining the best biologics for axial disease because no head-to-head comparison trials have been conducted for IL-17 or IL-23 inhibitors versus TNF inhibitors.

Dr. Armstrong has been a consultant to AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermira, Genzyme, Incyte, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Jadon has been a consultant to, has been on speakers bureaus for, and has received grant/research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Celltrion, Gilead, Janssen, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, and UCB. Dr. Garg has consulted for AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, and UCB. Dr. Leung has been a consultant to AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer. She has been on speakers bureaus for AbbVie, Janssen Eli Lilly, and Novartis. She has received grant/research support from Pfizer and conference support from AbbVie,

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors have long been the go-to treatment of choice for patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). They’ve served patients well since etanercept was first approved for PsA in 2002, but today, with the availability of more attractive interleukin-17 and IL-23 inhibitors, dermatologists and rheumatologists are asking whether it’s time to reconsider the use of TNF inhibitors as first-line therapy in psoriasis and PsA.

“TNF inhibitors have served psoriasis patients well for many years. The question is, ‘Is it time to move on from them as first-line agents for psoriasis?’ ” said April W. Armstrong, MD, MPH, a dermatologist and associate dean for clinical research at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Dr. Armstrong participated in a point/counterpoint debate about the merits of IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors over TNF inhibitors at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. “For the majority of our patients, IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors are probably rationally better than TNF inhibitors as first-line agents for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis,” she said.

In this debate, dermatologists and rheumatologists cited studies showing the safety and efficacy of IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors over TNF inhibitors. TNF inhibitors include etanercept (Enbrel and biosimilars), infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars), adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars), certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), and golimumab (Simponi). IL-12/23 inhibitors are limited to ustekinumab (Stelara). IL-17 inhibitors include secukinumab (Cosentyx), ixekizumab (Taltz), and brodalumab (Siliq). IL-23 inhibitors include guselkumab (Tremfya), tildrakizumab (Ilumya), and risankizumab (Skyrizi).

TNF inhibitors are recommended by the American College of Rheumatology as first-line therapy for treatment-naive patients with active PsA, and they, along with IL-12/23, IL-17, and IL-23 inhibitors are all recommended by the American Academy of Dermatology as monotherapy treatment options in adult patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. However, some studies have shown that non–TNF-inhibitor biologics have a higher efficacy than TNF inhibitors in some cases for some patients, such as those with moderate to severe psoriasis alone or for musculoskeletal efficacy in patients with PsA who have peripheral arthritis, enthesitis, dactylitis, or axial manifestations.

Favorable characteristics of non–TNF-inhibitor biologics

Dr. Armstrong cited a number of head-to-head trials to support her view that IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors are better than TNF inhibitors as first-line agents for patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. In the first head-to-head study of its kind in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis, ustekinumab proved superior to etanercept. Guselkumab was shown to be superior to adalimumab for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. Tildrakizumab also proved superior to etanercept for patients with psoriasis. Risankizumab bested adalimumab in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. Ixekizumab proved superior to etanercept in two pivotal studies of patients with widespread moderate-to-severe psoriasis.

IL-23 and IL-17 inhibitors tend to have less frequent maintenance dosing, with IL-17 inhibitors being once every 2 or 4 weeks and IL-23 inhibitors once every 8 or 12 weeks, compared with frequencies ranging from every week to every 8 weeks with TNF inhibitors, Dr. Armstrong said.

IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors also appear to have fewer safety concerns than TNF inhibitors, although there is less long-term data for them overall and there are some notable exceptions in certain patient populations. TNF inhibitors should be avoided in patients with a history of demyelinating disease or hepatitis B virus infection, and they are not preferred in patients who have a history of latent tuberculosis or advanced heart failure. IL-17 inhibitors should not be used in patients with a history of inflammatory bowel disease, and their use is associated with a higher rate of oral candidiasis. IL-23 inhibitors have a good safety profile overall, she said.

“The IL-17/23 axis is very important to psoriatic arthritis and should be the focus of our treatments” for PsA, said Deepak Jadon, MBBCh, MRCP, PhD, a rheumatologist and director of the rheumatology research unit at Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge (England) University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. In his presentation, he proposed that IL-17 inhibitors and IL-23 inhibitors be used as first-line therapies in PsA ahead of TNF inhibitors.

One reason to go with IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors may be to ”get it right immunologically the first time,” Dr. Jadon said. He cited evidence showing substantially better response to guselkumab when given to biologic-naive patients with PsA versus those who had a inadequate response to TNF inhibitors, as well as data indicating better response with secukinumab regardless of previous TNF inhibitor use.

IL-17 inhibitors target more domains of psoriatic disease than do TNF inhibitors, he said, noting that “they have excellent musculoskeletal efficacy in patients with moderate skin psoriasis, not just those with severe psoriasis.” Ixekizumab proved superior to adalimumab in biologic-naive patients with PsA. The results of this study also indicated that IL-17 inhibitors should not be reserved only for patients with severe psoriasis since a higher percentage of patients with moderate psoriasis who were taking ixekizumab achieved very low PsA activity. Secukinumab also beat adalimumab in a head-to-head comparison and showed a greater impact on some measures of health-related quality of life.

IL-17 inhibitors also do not require concomitant methotrexate, he said, “which is a major bonus for our patients. All of my patients wish to stop methotrexate even if tolerated. Not having to cope with prescribed methotrexate improves risk of adverse events and frequency of blood test monitoring.”

IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors appear to have good efficacy against axial disease in patients with PsA. Randomized trial results for secukinumab versus placebo show high percentages of patients improving either 20% or 40% in Assessment in Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria and reduced inflammatory MRI lesions in the spine and sacroiliac joints. Analyses of trial results in guselkumab-treated patients with axial manifestations of PsA have shown the IL-23 inhibitor’s efficacy versus placebo across different measures of disease activity.

Dr. Jadon also cited real-world data showing that patients stay longer on IL-17 and IL-12/23 inhibitors versus TNF inhibitors. A 2016 study of patients with psoriasis in the PSOLAR registry showed that patients persisted on treatment longer with ustekinumab than with adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab. Similarly, a 2020 study of patients with psoriasis from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register found that both ustekinumab and secukinumab had better sustained drug survival than did adalimumab.


Accessibility weighs heavily in using TNF inhibitor first

Clinical trials data show that IL-17 inhibitors outperform TNF inhibitors for psoriasis, but in clinical practice, TNF inhibitors still perform very well in individual patients and are well tolerated, said Amit Garg, MD, founding chair of the department of dermatology at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y.

He argued in favor of TNF inhibitors as first-line therapy over IL-17 inhibitors for psoriasis. In this case, treatment decisions often come down to accessibility, Dr. Garg said. Not all insurance companies cover the cost of the newer IL-23 inhibitors. Plus, access to TNF inhibitors is widespread and costs are generally lower.

“As a physician, I don’t have complete autonomy in prescribing what I want. The reality is whether it be because of cross indication or discount pricing, [TNF inhibitors] – in particular adalimumab – is widely available on all plans and is usually the preferred treatment plan, at least in our area,” he said. “I’m not a big fan of plans that allow drugs at low or no cost for a year or 2, and then abandon the patients at that point thereafter. I like to use something that insurance will cover sustainably, and, quite frankly, TNFs have served well in that regard.”

However, TNF inhibitors are associated with more safety signals, plus they carry a greater risk of infection, leading to tolerability and persistence issues with patients.

“Psoriasis is a lifelong disease. I wish I could tell you that every drug is going to work well forever for individual patients, but I don’t think we know that yet. From my perspective, for efficacy, general well tolerance, convenience, and access, TNFs are still an important part of our ability to treat psoriasis effectively. I have no problem starting there and transitioning as needed for individual patients.

“In my experience, I think patients on TNFs generally do well. We don’t always get the patients clear and certainly there’s drop off of efficacy over time, but I’m not sure that’s a rationale for [changing treatment],” Dr. Garg said.

Ying Ying (Katy) Leung, MD, a rheumatologist with Singapore General Hospital, and a member of the GRAPPA peripheral arthritis working group, argued against the use of IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors as first-line treatment for PsA over TNF inhibitors. She reasoned that TNF blockers are more accessible, have more long-term safety data (including data indicating safety during pregnancy), and have better cardiovascular protection. She also noted that GRAPPA treatment recommendations strongly advise using TNF blockers (or IL-17 inhibitors) for treatment-naive patients with PsA.

“Accessibility is very important as I learned along the way of leading the peripheral arthritis [GRAPPA] working group. Accessibility [issues] can be coming from a lot of sources, but if you don’t take good care of accessibility, you might be developing a guideline that is way out of reality and nobody is going to use it,” she said.

In her native Singapore, Dr. Leung said that patients pay for biologics out of pocket, so cost is a key factor for her patients. She stated that adalimumab is available as a biosimilar at about $200 monthly for patients with PsA in Singapore, while the average monthly costs are $1,400 for originator infliximab and $1,500 for originator etanercept. By comparison, secukinumab sells for about $750 monthly, ixekizumab $540 monthly, and guselkumab $2,000 monthly.

Treatment choices should be aligned with the disease manifestations of PsA, Dr. Leung said, keeping in mind that accessibility and individual patient needs and preferences should be considered as well. She conducted an informal comparison that found TNF inhibitors are most effective for patients with uveitis or inflammatory bowel disease. Evidence from head-to-head studies indicates that TNF inhibitors and IL-17 inhibitors have similar efficacy for peripheral arthritis, enthesitis, and dactylitis. But caution is warranted, she suggested, for determining the best biologics for axial disease because no head-to-head comparison trials have been conducted for IL-17 or IL-23 inhibitors versus TNF inhibitors.

Dr. Armstrong has been a consultant to AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermira, Genzyme, Incyte, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Jadon has been a consultant to, has been on speakers bureaus for, and has received grant/research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Celltrion, Gilead, Janssen, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, and UCB. Dr. Garg has consulted for AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, and UCB. Dr. Leung has been a consultant to AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer. She has been on speakers bureaus for AbbVie, Janssen Eli Lilly, and Novartis. She has received grant/research support from Pfizer and conference support from AbbVie,

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors have long been the go-to treatment of choice for patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). They’ve served patients well since etanercept was first approved for PsA in 2002, but today, with the availability of more attractive interleukin-17 and IL-23 inhibitors, dermatologists and rheumatologists are asking whether it’s time to reconsider the use of TNF inhibitors as first-line therapy in psoriasis and PsA.

“TNF inhibitors have served psoriasis patients well for many years. The question is, ‘Is it time to move on from them as first-line agents for psoriasis?’ ” said April W. Armstrong, MD, MPH, a dermatologist and associate dean for clinical research at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Dr. Armstrong participated in a point/counterpoint debate about the merits of IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors over TNF inhibitors at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. “For the majority of our patients, IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors are probably rationally better than TNF inhibitors as first-line agents for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis,” she said.

In this debate, dermatologists and rheumatologists cited studies showing the safety and efficacy of IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors over TNF inhibitors. TNF inhibitors include etanercept (Enbrel and biosimilars), infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars), adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars), certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), and golimumab (Simponi). IL-12/23 inhibitors are limited to ustekinumab (Stelara). IL-17 inhibitors include secukinumab (Cosentyx), ixekizumab (Taltz), and brodalumab (Siliq). IL-23 inhibitors include guselkumab (Tremfya), tildrakizumab (Ilumya), and risankizumab (Skyrizi).

TNF inhibitors are recommended by the American College of Rheumatology as first-line therapy for treatment-naive patients with active PsA, and they, along with IL-12/23, IL-17, and IL-23 inhibitors are all recommended by the American Academy of Dermatology as monotherapy treatment options in adult patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. However, some studies have shown that non–TNF-inhibitor biologics have a higher efficacy than TNF inhibitors in some cases for some patients, such as those with moderate to severe psoriasis alone or for musculoskeletal efficacy in patients with PsA who have peripheral arthritis, enthesitis, dactylitis, or axial manifestations.

Favorable characteristics of non–TNF-inhibitor biologics

Dr. Armstrong cited a number of head-to-head trials to support her view that IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors are better than TNF inhibitors as first-line agents for patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. In the first head-to-head study of its kind in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis, ustekinumab proved superior to etanercept. Guselkumab was shown to be superior to adalimumab for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. Tildrakizumab also proved superior to etanercept for patients with psoriasis. Risankizumab bested adalimumab in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. Ixekizumab proved superior to etanercept in two pivotal studies of patients with widespread moderate-to-severe psoriasis.

IL-23 and IL-17 inhibitors tend to have less frequent maintenance dosing, with IL-17 inhibitors being once every 2 or 4 weeks and IL-23 inhibitors once every 8 or 12 weeks, compared with frequencies ranging from every week to every 8 weeks with TNF inhibitors, Dr. Armstrong said.

IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors also appear to have fewer safety concerns than TNF inhibitors, although there is less long-term data for them overall and there are some notable exceptions in certain patient populations. TNF inhibitors should be avoided in patients with a history of demyelinating disease or hepatitis B virus infection, and they are not preferred in patients who have a history of latent tuberculosis or advanced heart failure. IL-17 inhibitors should not be used in patients with a history of inflammatory bowel disease, and their use is associated with a higher rate of oral candidiasis. IL-23 inhibitors have a good safety profile overall, she said.

“The IL-17/23 axis is very important to psoriatic arthritis and should be the focus of our treatments” for PsA, said Deepak Jadon, MBBCh, MRCP, PhD, a rheumatologist and director of the rheumatology research unit at Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge (England) University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. In his presentation, he proposed that IL-17 inhibitors and IL-23 inhibitors be used as first-line therapies in PsA ahead of TNF inhibitors.

One reason to go with IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors may be to ”get it right immunologically the first time,” Dr. Jadon said. He cited evidence showing substantially better response to guselkumab when given to biologic-naive patients with PsA versus those who had a inadequate response to TNF inhibitors, as well as data indicating better response with secukinumab regardless of previous TNF inhibitor use.

IL-17 inhibitors target more domains of psoriatic disease than do TNF inhibitors, he said, noting that “they have excellent musculoskeletal efficacy in patients with moderate skin psoriasis, not just those with severe psoriasis.” Ixekizumab proved superior to adalimumab in biologic-naive patients with PsA. The results of this study also indicated that IL-17 inhibitors should not be reserved only for patients with severe psoriasis since a higher percentage of patients with moderate psoriasis who were taking ixekizumab achieved very low PsA activity. Secukinumab also beat adalimumab in a head-to-head comparison and showed a greater impact on some measures of health-related quality of life.

IL-17 inhibitors also do not require concomitant methotrexate, he said, “which is a major bonus for our patients. All of my patients wish to stop methotrexate even if tolerated. Not having to cope with prescribed methotrexate improves risk of adverse events and frequency of blood test monitoring.”

IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors appear to have good efficacy against axial disease in patients with PsA. Randomized trial results for secukinumab versus placebo show high percentages of patients improving either 20% or 40% in Assessment in Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria and reduced inflammatory MRI lesions in the spine and sacroiliac joints. Analyses of trial results in guselkumab-treated patients with axial manifestations of PsA have shown the IL-23 inhibitor’s efficacy versus placebo across different measures of disease activity.

Dr. Jadon also cited real-world data showing that patients stay longer on IL-17 and IL-12/23 inhibitors versus TNF inhibitors. A 2016 study of patients with psoriasis in the PSOLAR registry showed that patients persisted on treatment longer with ustekinumab than with adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab. Similarly, a 2020 study of patients with psoriasis from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register found that both ustekinumab and secukinumab had better sustained drug survival than did adalimumab.


Accessibility weighs heavily in using TNF inhibitor first

Clinical trials data show that IL-17 inhibitors outperform TNF inhibitors for psoriasis, but in clinical practice, TNF inhibitors still perform very well in individual patients and are well tolerated, said Amit Garg, MD, founding chair of the department of dermatology at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y.

He argued in favor of TNF inhibitors as first-line therapy over IL-17 inhibitors for psoriasis. In this case, treatment decisions often come down to accessibility, Dr. Garg said. Not all insurance companies cover the cost of the newer IL-23 inhibitors. Plus, access to TNF inhibitors is widespread and costs are generally lower.

“As a physician, I don’t have complete autonomy in prescribing what I want. The reality is whether it be because of cross indication or discount pricing, [TNF inhibitors] – in particular adalimumab – is widely available on all plans and is usually the preferred treatment plan, at least in our area,” he said. “I’m not a big fan of plans that allow drugs at low or no cost for a year or 2, and then abandon the patients at that point thereafter. I like to use something that insurance will cover sustainably, and, quite frankly, TNFs have served well in that regard.”

However, TNF inhibitors are associated with more safety signals, plus they carry a greater risk of infection, leading to tolerability and persistence issues with patients.

“Psoriasis is a lifelong disease. I wish I could tell you that every drug is going to work well forever for individual patients, but I don’t think we know that yet. From my perspective, for efficacy, general well tolerance, convenience, and access, TNFs are still an important part of our ability to treat psoriasis effectively. I have no problem starting there and transitioning as needed for individual patients.

“In my experience, I think patients on TNFs generally do well. We don’t always get the patients clear and certainly there’s drop off of efficacy over time, but I’m not sure that’s a rationale for [changing treatment],” Dr. Garg said.

Ying Ying (Katy) Leung, MD, a rheumatologist with Singapore General Hospital, and a member of the GRAPPA peripheral arthritis working group, argued against the use of IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors as first-line treatment for PsA over TNF inhibitors. She reasoned that TNF blockers are more accessible, have more long-term safety data (including data indicating safety during pregnancy), and have better cardiovascular protection. She also noted that GRAPPA treatment recommendations strongly advise using TNF blockers (or IL-17 inhibitors) for treatment-naive patients with PsA.

“Accessibility is very important as I learned along the way of leading the peripheral arthritis [GRAPPA] working group. Accessibility [issues] can be coming from a lot of sources, but if you don’t take good care of accessibility, you might be developing a guideline that is way out of reality and nobody is going to use it,” she said.

In her native Singapore, Dr. Leung said that patients pay for biologics out of pocket, so cost is a key factor for her patients. She stated that adalimumab is available as a biosimilar at about $200 monthly for patients with PsA in Singapore, while the average monthly costs are $1,400 for originator infliximab and $1,500 for originator etanercept. By comparison, secukinumab sells for about $750 monthly, ixekizumab $540 monthly, and guselkumab $2,000 monthly.

Treatment choices should be aligned with the disease manifestations of PsA, Dr. Leung said, keeping in mind that accessibility and individual patient needs and preferences should be considered as well. She conducted an informal comparison that found TNF inhibitors are most effective for patients with uveitis or inflammatory bowel disease. Evidence from head-to-head studies indicates that TNF inhibitors and IL-17 inhibitors have similar efficacy for peripheral arthritis, enthesitis, and dactylitis. But caution is warranted, she suggested, for determining the best biologics for axial disease because no head-to-head comparison trials have been conducted for IL-17 or IL-23 inhibitors versus TNF inhibitors.

Dr. Armstrong has been a consultant to AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermira, Genzyme, Incyte, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Jadon has been a consultant to, has been on speakers bureaus for, and has received grant/research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Celltrion, Gilead, Janssen, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, and UCB. Dr. Garg has consulted for AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, and UCB. Dr. Leung has been a consultant to AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer. She has been on speakers bureaus for AbbVie, Janssen Eli Lilly, and Novartis. She has received grant/research support from Pfizer and conference support from AbbVie,

Double-dose vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) doesn’t appear to boost the risk of flares, a new study shows. The risk of adverse effects after vaccination is high, just as it is in the general population, but no patients experienced allergic reactions.

“Our findings suggest that COVID-19 vaccines are safe in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. Overall, rates of flare are low and mild, while local and systemic reactions should be anticipated,” lead author Caoilfhionn Connolly, MD, MSc, a rheumatology fellow at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview. “Many of our patients are at increased risk of severe infection and or complications from COVID-19. It has been shown that patients with RMDs are more willing to reconsider vaccination if it is recommended by a physician, and these data should help inform these critical discussions.”

The study appeared Aug. 4 in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

According to Dr. Connolly, the researchers launched their study to better understand the effect of two-dose SARS-CoV-2 messenger RNA vaccinations authorized for emergency use by the Food and Drug Administration (Pfizer and Moderna vaccines) on immunosuppressed patients. As she noted, patients with RMDs were largely excluded from vaccine trials, and “studies have shown that some patients with RMDs are hesitant about vaccination due to the lack of safety data.”

Some data about this patient population have started to appear. A study published July 21 in Lancet Rheumatology found that patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) reported few flares within a median of 3 days after receiving one or two doses of various COVID-19 vaccines. Side effects were common but were mainly mild or moderate.

For the new study, researchers surveyed 1,377 patients with RMDs who’d received two vaccination doses between December 2020 and April 2021. The patients had a median age of 47, 92% were female, and 10% were non-White. The patients had a variety of RMDs, including inflammatory arthritis (47%), SLE (20%), overlap connective tissue disease (20%), and Sjögren’s syndrome and myositis (each 5%).

A total of 11% said they’d experienced a flare that required treatment, but none were severe. In comparison, 56% of patients said they had experienced a flare of their RMD in the 6 months prior to their first vaccine dose. Several groups had a greater likelihood of flares, including those who’d had COVID-19 previously (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR], 2.09; P = .02). “COVID-19 can cause both acute and delayed inflammatory syndromes through activation of the immune system,” Dr. Connolly said. “Vaccination possibly triggered further activation of the immune system resulting in disease flare. This is an area that warrants further research.”

Patients who took combination immunomodulatory therapy were also more likely to flare after vaccination (IRR, 1.95; P < .001). And patients were more likely to report flares after vaccination if they experienced a flare in the 6 months preceding vaccination (IRR, 2.36; P < .001). “This may suggest more active disease at baseline,” Dr. Connolly said. “It is difficult to differentiate whether these patients would have experienced flare even without the vaccine.”

A number of factors didn’t appear to affect the likelihood of flares: gender, age, ethnicity, type of RMD, and type of vaccine.

Local and systemic side effects were frequently reported, including injection site pain (87% and 86% after first and second doses, respectively) and fatigue (60% and 80%, respectively). As is common among people receiving COVID-19 vaccines, side effects were more frequent after the second dose.

As for future research, “we are evaluating the long-term safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines in patients with RMDs,” study coauthor Julie J. Paik, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins, said in an interview. “We are also evaluating the impact of changes in immunosuppression around vaccination.”

The study was funded by the Ben-Dov family and grants from several institutes of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Connolly and Dr. Paik reported no relevant disclosures. Other study authors reported various financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

Double-dose vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) doesn’t appear to boost the risk of flares, a new study shows. The risk of adverse effects after vaccination is high, just as it is in the general population, but no patients experienced allergic reactions.

“Our findings suggest that COVID-19 vaccines are safe in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. Overall, rates of flare are low and mild, while local and systemic reactions should be anticipated,” lead author Caoilfhionn Connolly, MD, MSc, a rheumatology fellow at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview. “Many of our patients are at increased risk of severe infection and or complications from COVID-19. It has been shown that patients with RMDs are more willing to reconsider vaccination if it is recommended by a physician, and these data should help inform these critical discussions.”

The study appeared Aug. 4 in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

According to Dr. Connolly, the researchers launched their study to better understand the effect of two-dose SARS-CoV-2 messenger RNA vaccinations authorized for emergency use by the Food and Drug Administration (Pfizer and Moderna vaccines) on immunosuppressed patients. As she noted, patients with RMDs were largely excluded from vaccine trials, and “studies have shown that some patients with RMDs are hesitant about vaccination due to the lack of safety data.”

Some data about this patient population have started to appear. A study published July 21 in Lancet Rheumatology found that patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) reported few flares within a median of 3 days after receiving one or two doses of various COVID-19 vaccines. Side effects were common but were mainly mild or moderate.

For the new study, researchers surveyed 1,377 patients with RMDs who’d received two vaccination doses between December 2020 and April 2021. The patients had a median age of 47, 92% were female, and 10% were non-White. The patients had a variety of RMDs, including inflammatory arthritis (47%), SLE (20%), overlap connective tissue disease (20%), and Sjögren’s syndrome and myositis (each 5%).

A total of 11% said they’d experienced a flare that required treatment, but none were severe. In comparison, 56% of patients said they had experienced a flare of their RMD in the 6 months prior to their first vaccine dose. Several groups had a greater likelihood of flares, including those who’d had COVID-19 previously (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR], 2.09; P = .02). “COVID-19 can cause both acute and delayed inflammatory syndromes through activation of the immune system,” Dr. Connolly said. “Vaccination possibly triggered further activation of the immune system resulting in disease flare. This is an area that warrants further research.”

Patients who took combination immunomodulatory therapy were also more likely to flare after vaccination (IRR, 1.95; P < .001). And patients were more likely to report flares after vaccination if they experienced a flare in the 6 months preceding vaccination (IRR, 2.36; P < .001). “This may suggest more active disease at baseline,” Dr. Connolly said. “It is difficult to differentiate whether these patients would have experienced flare even without the vaccine.”

A number of factors didn’t appear to affect the likelihood of flares: gender, age, ethnicity, type of RMD, and type of vaccine.

Local and systemic side effects were frequently reported, including injection site pain (87% and 86% after first and second doses, respectively) and fatigue (60% and 80%, respectively). As is common among people receiving COVID-19 vaccines, side effects were more frequent after the second dose.

As for future research, “we are evaluating the long-term safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines in patients with RMDs,” study coauthor Julie J. Paik, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins, said in an interview. “We are also evaluating the impact of changes in immunosuppression around vaccination.”

The study was funded by the Ben-Dov family and grants from several institutes of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Connolly and Dr. Paik reported no relevant disclosures. Other study authors reported various financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

Double-dose vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) doesn’t appear to boost the risk of flares, a new study shows. The risk of adverse effects after vaccination is high, just as it is in the general population, but no patients experienced allergic reactions.

“Our findings suggest that COVID-19 vaccines are safe in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. Overall, rates of flare are low and mild, while local and systemic reactions should be anticipated,” lead author Caoilfhionn Connolly, MD, MSc, a rheumatology fellow at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview. “Many of our patients are at increased risk of severe infection and or complications from COVID-19. It has been shown that patients with RMDs are more willing to reconsider vaccination if it is recommended by a physician, and these data should help inform these critical discussions.”

The study appeared Aug. 4 in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

According to Dr. Connolly, the researchers launched their study to better understand the effect of two-dose SARS-CoV-2 messenger RNA vaccinations authorized for emergency use by the Food and Drug Administration (Pfizer and Moderna vaccines) on immunosuppressed patients. As she noted, patients with RMDs were largely excluded from vaccine trials, and “studies have shown that some patients with RMDs are hesitant about vaccination due to the lack of safety data.”

Some data about this patient population have started to appear. A study published July 21 in Lancet Rheumatology found that patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) reported few flares within a median of 3 days after receiving one or two doses of various COVID-19 vaccines. Side effects were common but were mainly mild or moderate.

For the new study, researchers surveyed 1,377 patients with RMDs who’d received two vaccination doses between December 2020 and April 2021. The patients had a median age of 47, 92% were female, and 10% were non-White. The patients had a variety of RMDs, including inflammatory arthritis (47%), SLE (20%), overlap connective tissue disease (20%), and Sjögren’s syndrome and myositis (each 5%).

A total of 11% said they’d experienced a flare that required treatment, but none were severe. In comparison, 56% of patients said they had experienced a flare of their RMD in the 6 months prior to their first vaccine dose. Several groups had a greater likelihood of flares, including those who’d had COVID-19 previously (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR], 2.09; P = .02). “COVID-19 can cause both acute and delayed inflammatory syndromes through activation of the immune system,” Dr. Connolly said. “Vaccination possibly triggered further activation of the immune system resulting in disease flare. This is an area that warrants further research.”

Patients who took combination immunomodulatory therapy were also more likely to flare after vaccination (IRR, 1.95; P < .001). And patients were more likely to report flares after vaccination if they experienced a flare in the 6 months preceding vaccination (IRR, 2.36; P < .001). “This may suggest more active disease at baseline,” Dr. Connolly said. “It is difficult to differentiate whether these patients would have experienced flare even without the vaccine.”

A number of factors didn’t appear to affect the likelihood of flares: gender, age, ethnicity, type of RMD, and type of vaccine.

Local and systemic side effects were frequently reported, including injection site pain (87% and 86% after first and second doses, respectively) and fatigue (60% and 80%, respectively). As is common among people receiving COVID-19 vaccines, side effects were more frequent after the second dose.

As for future research, “we are evaluating the long-term safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines in patients with RMDs,” study coauthor Julie J. Paik, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins, said in an interview. “We are also evaluating the impact of changes in immunosuppression around vaccination.”

The study was funded by the Ben-Dov family and grants from several institutes of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Connolly and Dr. Paik reported no relevant disclosures. Other study authors reported various financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

Anifrolumab, an inhibitor of type 1 interferons, received approval from the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of adults with moderate to severe systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who are receiving standard therapy, according to a statement released Aug. 2 from its manufacturer, AstraZeneca.

Courtesy AstraZeneca

Anifrolumab will be marketed as Saphnelo. It is a fully human monoclonal antibody against subunit 1 of the type 1 interferon receptor, and its approval represents the only new treatment approved for patients with SLE in a decade. The recommended dosage is 300 mg as an intravenous infusion over a 30-minute period every 4 weeks, according to its prescribing information, and it will be sold in a single-dose vial containing 300 mg/2 mL (150 mg/mL).

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Increased type I interferon (IFN) signaling is associated with increased disease activity in patients with SLE, and the option of a type I IFN receptor antagonist may allow physicians to treat patients with fewer corticosteroids, according to the statement.

The approval was based on data from three trials. The TULIP (Treatment of Uncontrolled Lupus via the Interferon Pathway) phase 3 research included two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies, TULIP-1 and TULIP-2. The TULIP trials each enrolled seropositive patients with moderate to severe active disease despite standard-of-care therapy (SOC), which included oral corticosteroids, antimalarials, and immunosuppressants (methotrexate, azathioprine, or mycophenolate mofetil). All patients met American College of Rheumatology criteria and had an SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI)-2K of 6 or greater, as well as British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG) index scoring showing one or more organ systems with grade A involvement or two or more with grade B. Both trials required stable SOC therapy throughout the study except for mandatory attempts at oral corticosteroid tapering for patients who were receiving 10 mg/day or more of prednisone or its equivalent at study entry.

TULIP-1 failed to meet its primary endpoint of SLE Responder Index (SRI) at 52 weeks, but investigators determined after the trial that some patients taking anifrolumab had been inappropriately labeled as nonresponders because the trial automatically required any patient who used a restricted drug, including NSAIDs, to be classified as a nonresponder even if they used the medication for something unrelated to SLE. When these rules were amended in a post hoc analysis, differences between the groups treated with anifrolumab and placebo widened in secondary endpoints for oral corticosteroid dose reduction, Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Severity Index response, and BILAG-Based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) response.

The TULIP-2 trial included 362 patients who received a fixed dose of 300 mg anifrolumab or a placebo intravenously every 4 weeks for 48 weeks. In this study, anifrolumab patients showed significant improvement in disease activity on the BICLA scale, compared with placebo patients. The BICLA response was 47.8% in patients taking anifrolumab and 31.5% in placebo-treated patients (P = .001).

In the MUSE phase 2 trial, 305 adults with SLE were randomized to a fixed-dose intravenous infusion of 300 mg or 1,000 mg of anifrolumab or a placebo every 4 weeks, plus SOC, for 48 weeks. Patients in this study showed significant improvement on either dose, compared with placebo.

The results from the MUSE trial were published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology Nov. 7, 2016, followed by the TULIP-1 trial in The Lancet Rheumatology Nov. 11, 2019, and the TULIP-2 trial in the New England Journal of Medicine Jan. 16, 2020.

The most common treatment-related adverse events in all three studies were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, bronchitis, infusion-related reactions, herpes zoster, and cough. Infusion-related reactions in the trials were similar in anifrolumab and placebo patients, and included headache, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and dizziness.

Anifrolumab has not been evaluated in patients with severe active lupus nephritis or severe active central nervous system lupus and is not recommended for these patients, according to the statement.

AstraZeneca said in its statement that anifrolumab is also under regulatory review in Japan and the European Union, and it continues to evaluate anifrolumab in patients with SLE in a long-term extension phase 3 trial and a phase 3 trial assessing subcutaneous delivery. The company said it “is exploring the potential of Saphnelo in a variety of diseases where type I IFN plays a key role, including lupus nephritis, cutaneous lupus erythematosus, and myositis.”

Anifrolumab, an inhibitor of type 1 interferons, received approval from the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of adults with moderate to severe systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who are receiving standard therapy, according to a statement released Aug. 2 from its manufacturer, AstraZeneca.

Courtesy AstraZeneca

Anifrolumab will be marketed as Saphnelo. It is a fully human monoclonal antibody against subunit 1 of the type 1 interferon receptor, and its approval represents the only new treatment approved for patients with SLE in a decade. The recommended dosage is 300 mg as an intravenous infusion over a 30-minute period every 4 weeks, according to its prescribing information, and it will be sold in a single-dose vial containing 300 mg/2 mL (150 mg/mL).

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Increased type I interferon (IFN) signaling is associated with increased disease activity in patients with SLE, and the option of a type I IFN receptor antagonist may allow physicians to treat patients with fewer corticosteroids, according to the statement.

The approval was based on data from three trials. The TULIP (Treatment of Uncontrolled Lupus via the Interferon Pathway) phase 3 research included two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies, TULIP-1 and TULIP-2. The TULIP trials each enrolled seropositive patients with moderate to severe active disease despite standard-of-care therapy (SOC), which included oral corticosteroids, antimalarials, and immunosuppressants (methotrexate, azathioprine, or mycophenolate mofetil). All patients met American College of Rheumatology criteria and had an SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI)-2K of 6 or greater, as well as British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG) index scoring showing one or more organ systems with grade A involvement or two or more with grade B. Both trials required stable SOC therapy throughout the study except for mandatory attempts at oral corticosteroid tapering for patients who were receiving 10 mg/day or more of prednisone or its equivalent at study entry.

TULIP-1 failed to meet its primary endpoint of SLE Responder Index (SRI) at 52 weeks, but investigators determined after the trial that some patients taking anifrolumab had been inappropriately labeled as nonresponders because the trial automatically required any patient who used a restricted drug, including NSAIDs, to be classified as a nonresponder even if they used the medication for something unrelated to SLE. When these rules were amended in a post hoc analysis, differences between the groups treated with anifrolumab and placebo widened in secondary endpoints for oral corticosteroid dose reduction, Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Severity Index response, and BILAG-Based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) response.

The TULIP-2 trial included 362 patients who received a fixed dose of 300 mg anifrolumab or a placebo intravenously every 4 weeks for 48 weeks. In this study, anifrolumab patients showed significant improvement in disease activity on the BICLA scale, compared with placebo patients. The BICLA response was 47.8% in patients taking anifrolumab and 31.5% in placebo-treated patients (P = .001).

In the MUSE phase 2 trial, 305 adults with SLE were randomized to a fixed-dose intravenous infusion of 300 mg or 1,000 mg of anifrolumab or a placebo every 4 weeks, plus SOC, for 48 weeks. Patients in this study showed significant improvement on either dose, compared with placebo.

The results from the MUSE trial were published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology Nov. 7, 2016, followed by the TULIP-1 trial in The Lancet Rheumatology Nov. 11, 2019, and the TULIP-2 trial in the New England Journal of Medicine Jan. 16, 2020.

The most common treatment-related adverse events in all three studies were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, bronchitis, infusion-related reactions, herpes zoster, and cough. Infusion-related reactions in the trials were similar in anifrolumab and placebo patients, and included headache, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and dizziness.

Anifrolumab has not been evaluated in patients with severe active lupus nephritis or severe active central nervous system lupus and is not recommended for these patients, according to the statement.

AstraZeneca said in its statement that anifrolumab is also under regulatory review in Japan and the European Union, and it continues to evaluate anifrolumab in patients with SLE in a long-term extension phase 3 trial and a phase 3 trial assessing subcutaneous delivery. The company said it “is exploring the potential of Saphnelo in a variety of diseases where type I IFN plays a key role, including lupus nephritis, cutaneous lupus erythematosus, and myositis.”

Anifrolumab, an inhibitor of type 1 interferons, received approval from the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of adults with moderate to severe systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who are receiving standard therapy, according to a statement released Aug. 2 from its manufacturer, AstraZeneca.

Courtesy AstraZeneca

Anifrolumab will be marketed as Saphnelo. It is a fully human monoclonal antibody against subunit 1 of the type 1 interferon receptor, and its approval represents the only new treatment approved for patients with SLE in a decade. The recommended dosage is 300 mg as an intravenous infusion over a 30-minute period every 4 weeks, according to its prescribing information, and it will be sold in a single-dose vial containing 300 mg/2 mL (150 mg/mL).

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Increased type I interferon (IFN) signaling is associated with increased disease activity in patients with SLE, and the option of a type I IFN receptor antagonist may allow physicians to treat patients with fewer corticosteroids, according to the statement.

The approval was based on data from three trials. The TULIP (Treatment of Uncontrolled Lupus via the Interferon Pathway) phase 3 research included two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies, TULIP-1 and TULIP-2. The TULIP trials each enrolled seropositive patients with moderate to severe active disease despite standard-of-care therapy (SOC), which included oral corticosteroids, antimalarials, and immunosuppressants (methotrexate, azathioprine, or mycophenolate mofetil). All patients met American College of Rheumatology criteria and had an SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI)-2K of 6 or greater, as well as British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG) index scoring showing one or more organ systems with grade A involvement or two or more with grade B. Both trials required stable SOC therapy throughout the study except for mandatory attempts at oral corticosteroid tapering for patients who were receiving 10 mg/day or more of prednisone or its equivalent at study entry.

TULIP-1 failed to meet its primary endpoint of SLE Responder Index (SRI) at 52 weeks, but investigators determined after the trial that some patients taking anifrolumab had been inappropriately labeled as nonresponders because the trial automatically required any patient who used a restricted drug, including NSAIDs, to be classified as a nonresponder even if they used the medication for something unrelated to SLE. When these rules were amended in a post hoc analysis, differences between the groups treated with anifrolumab and placebo widened in secondary endpoints for oral corticosteroid dose reduction, Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Severity Index response, and BILAG-Based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) response.

The TULIP-2 trial included 362 patients who received a fixed dose of 300 mg anifrolumab or a placebo intravenously every 4 weeks for 48 weeks. In this study, anifrolumab patients showed significant improvement in disease activity on the BICLA scale, compared with placebo patients. The BICLA response was 47.8% in patients taking anifrolumab and 31.5% in placebo-treated patients (P = .001).

In the MUSE phase 2 trial, 305 adults with SLE were randomized to a fixed-dose intravenous infusion of 300 mg or 1,000 mg of anifrolumab or a placebo every 4 weeks, plus SOC, for 48 weeks. Patients in this study showed significant improvement on either dose, compared with placebo.

The results from the MUSE trial were published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology Nov. 7, 2016, followed by the TULIP-1 trial in The Lancet Rheumatology Nov. 11, 2019, and the TULIP-2 trial in the New England Journal of Medicine Jan. 16, 2020.

The most common treatment-related adverse events in all three studies were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, bronchitis, infusion-related reactions, herpes zoster, and cough. Infusion-related reactions in the trials were similar in anifrolumab and placebo patients, and included headache, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and dizziness.

Anifrolumab has not been evaluated in patients with severe active lupus nephritis or severe active central nervous system lupus and is not recommended for these patients, according to the statement.

AstraZeneca said in its statement that anifrolumab is also under regulatory review in Japan and the European Union, and it continues to evaluate anifrolumab in patients with SLE in a long-term extension phase 3 trial and a phase 3 trial assessing subcutaneous delivery. The company said it “is exploring the potential of Saphnelo in a variety of diseases where type I IFN plays a key role, including lupus nephritis, cutaneous lupus erythematosus, and myositis.”

A former rheumatologist in Billings, Mont., and his business have agreed to pay more than $2 million to settle civil claims for alleged False Claims Act violations, according to Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Montana Leif M. Johnson.

utah778/Thinkstock

Enrico Arguelles, MD, and his business, the Arthritis & Osteoporosis Center (AOC), which closed in September 2018, agreed to the settlement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office on July 14.

Under terms of the settlement, Dr. Arguelles and the AOC must pay $1,268,646 and relinquish any claim to $802,018 in Medicare payment suspensions held in escrow for AOC for the past 4 years by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Attempts to reach Dr. Arguelles or his attorney for comment were unsuccessful.

“This civil settlement resolves claims of improper medical treatments and false billing to a federal program. Over billed and unnecessary claims, like the ones at issue in this case, drive up the costs for providing care to the people who really need it,” Mr. Johnson said in a statement.

Among the allegations, related to diagnosis and treatment of RA, were improper billing for MRI scans, improper billing for patient visits, and administration of biologic infusions such as infliximab (Remicade) for some patients who did not have seronegative RA, from Jan. 1, 2015, to the closure of the AOC office in 2018, the press release from the Department of Justice stated.

The press release notes that the settlement is not an admission of liability by Dr. Arguelles or AOC, nor a concession by the United States that its case is not well founded.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael A. Kakuk represented the United States in the case, which was investigated by the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s Health Care Fraud Investigative Team, Department of Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General, and FBI.

Special Agent in Charge Curt L. Muller, of the HHS-OIG, said in the statement: “Working with our law enforcement partners, we will hold accountable individuals who provide medically unnecessary treatments and pass along the cost to taxpayers.”

According to the Billings Gazette, Dr. Arguelles’ offices in Billings were raided on March 31, 2017, by agents from the HHS-OIG, FBI, and Montana Medicaid Fraud Control Unit.

A spokesperson for the OIG did not disclose to the Gazette the nature of the raid or what, if anything, was found, as it was an open investigation.

In the month after the raid, the Gazette reported, the FBI set up a hotline for patients after a number of them began calling state and federal authorities with concerns “about the medical care they have received at Arthritis & Osteoporosis Center,” Katherine Harris, an OIG spokeswoman, said in a statement. 

The settlement comes after the previous fiscal year saw significant recovery of funds for U.S. medical fraud cases.

As this news organization has reported, the OIG recently announced that it had won or negotiated more than $1.8 billion in health care fraud settlements over the past fiscal year. The Department of Justice opened 1,148 criminal health care fraud investigations and 1,079 civil health care fraud investigations from Oct. 1, 2019, to Sept. 30, 2020.

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

A former rheumatologist in Billings, Mont., and his business have agreed to pay more than $2 million to settle civil claims for alleged False Claims Act violations, according to Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Montana Leif M. Johnson.

utah778/Thinkstock

Enrico Arguelles, MD, and his business, the Arthritis & Osteoporosis Center (AOC), which closed in September 2018, agreed to the settlement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office on July 14.

Under terms of the settlement, Dr. Arguelles and the AOC must pay $1,268,646 and relinquish any claim to $802,018 in Medicare payment suspensions held in escrow for AOC for the past 4 years by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Attempts to reach Dr. Arguelles or his attorney for comment were unsuccessful.

“This civil settlement resolves claims of improper medical treatments and false billing to a federal program. Over billed and unnecessary claims, like the ones at issue in this case, drive up the costs for providing care to the people who really need it,” Mr. Johnson said in a statement.

Among the allegations, related to diagnosis and treatment of RA, were improper billing for MRI scans, improper billing for patient visits, and administration of biologic infusions such as infliximab (Remicade) for some patients who did not have seronegative RA, from Jan. 1, 2015, to the closure of the AOC office in 2018, the press release from the Department of Justice stated.

The press release notes that the settlement is not an admission of liability by Dr. Arguelles or AOC, nor a concession by the United States that its case is not well founded.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael A. Kakuk represented the United States in the case, which was investigated by the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s Health Care Fraud Investigative Team, Department of Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General, and FBI.

Special Agent in Charge Curt L. Muller, of the HHS-OIG, said in the statement: “Working with our law enforcement partners, we will hold accountable individuals who provide medically unnecessary treatments and pass along the cost to taxpayers.”

According to the Billings Gazette, Dr. Arguelles’ offices in Billings were raided on March 31, 2017, by agents from the HHS-OIG, FBI, and Montana Medicaid Fraud Control Unit.

A spokesperson for the OIG did not disclose to the Gazette the nature of the raid or what, if anything, was found, as it was an open investigation.

In the month after the raid, the Gazette reported, the FBI set up a hotline for patients after a number of them began calling state and federal authorities with concerns “about the medical care they have received at Arthritis & Osteoporosis Center,” Katherine Harris, an OIG spokeswoman, said in a statement. 

The settlement comes after the previous fiscal year saw significant recovery of funds for U.S. medical fraud cases.

As this news organization has reported, the OIG recently announced that it had won or negotiated more than $1.8 billion in health care fraud settlements over the past fiscal year. The Department of Justice opened 1,148 criminal health care fraud investigations and 1,079 civil health care fraud investigations from Oct. 1, 2019, to Sept. 30, 2020.

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

A former rheumatologist in Billings, Mont., and his business have agreed to pay more than $2 million to settle civil claims for alleged False Claims Act violations, according to Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Montana Leif M. Johnson.

utah778/Thinkstock

Enrico Arguelles, MD, and his business, the Arthritis & Osteoporosis Center (AOC), which closed in September 2018, agreed to the settlement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office on July 14.

Under terms of the settlement, Dr. Arguelles and the AOC must pay $1,268,646 and relinquish any claim to $802,018 in Medicare payment suspensions held in escrow for AOC for the past 4 years by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Attempts to reach Dr. Arguelles or his attorney for comment were unsuccessful.

“This civil settlement resolves claims of improper medical treatments and false billing to a federal program. Over billed and unnecessary claims, like the ones at issue in this case, drive up the costs for providing care to the people who really need it,” Mr. Johnson said in a statement.

Among the allegations, related to diagnosis and treatment of RA, were improper billing for MRI scans, improper billing for patient visits, and administration of biologic infusions such as infliximab (Remicade) for some patients who did not have seronegative RA, from Jan. 1, 2015, to the closure of the AOC office in 2018, the press release from the Department of Justice stated.

The press release notes that the settlement is not an admission of liability by Dr. Arguelles or AOC, nor a concession by the United States that its case is not well founded.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael A. Kakuk represented the United States in the case, which was investigated by the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s Health Care Fraud Investigative Team, Department of Health & Human Services Office of Inspector General, and FBI.

Special Agent in Charge Curt L. Muller, of the HHS-OIG, said in the statement: “Working with our law enforcement partners, we will hold accountable individuals who provide medically unnecessary treatments and pass along the cost to taxpayers.”

According to the Billings Gazette, Dr. Arguelles’ offices in Billings were raided on March 31, 2017, by agents from the HHS-OIG, FBI, and Montana Medicaid Fraud Control Unit.

A spokesperson for the OIG did not disclose to the Gazette the nature of the raid or what, if anything, was found, as it was an open investigation.

In the month after the raid, the Gazette reported, the FBI set up a hotline for patients after a number of them began calling state and federal authorities with concerns “about the medical care they have received at Arthritis & Osteoporosis Center,” Katherine Harris, an OIG spokeswoman, said in a statement. 

The settlement comes after the previous fiscal year saw significant recovery of funds for U.S. medical fraud cases.

As this news organization has reported, the OIG recently announced that it had won or negotiated more than $1.8 billion in health care fraud settlements over the past fiscal year. The Department of Justice opened 1,148 criminal health care fraud investigations and 1,079 civil health care fraud investigations from Oct. 1, 2019, to Sept. 30, 2020.

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