Rheumatology

Adults with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treated with guselkumab (Tremfya) showed significant improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria and disease activity after 1 year, based on data from the phase 3 DISCOVER-2 trial.

The findings, published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, extend the previously published 24-week, primary endpoint results of the trial, which tested guselkumab for adults with PsA who had not previously taken a biologic drug. Guselkumab was approved in July 2020 in the United States.

Iain B. McInnes, MD, PhD, of the University of Glasgow and his colleagues described guselkumab as “a fully-human monoclonal antibody specific to interleukin (IL)-23’s p19-subunit” that offers a potential alternative for PsA patients who discontinue their index tumor necrosis factor inhibitor because of insufficient efficacy.

The study enrolled 739 PsA patients at 118 sites worldwide. Participants were randomized to receive subcutaneous injections of 100 mg guselkumab every 4 weeks; 100 mg guselkumab at week 0 and 4, then every 8 weeks; or a placebo; 238 placebo-treated patients crossed over at 24 weeks to receive 100 mg guselkumab every 4 weeks. Patients on nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs at baseline were allowed to continue stable doses. Overall, about 93% of patients originally randomized to the three groups remained on guselkumab at 52 weeks.

Overall, 71% and 75% of 4-week and 8-week guselkumab patients, respectively, showed an improvement of at least 20% from baseline in ACR response criteria components at 52 weeks, which was up from 64% of patients seen at 24 weeks in both groups.

The study participants had an average disease duration of more than 5 years with no biologic treatment, and an average of 12-13 swollen joints and 20-22 tender joints at baseline. Approximately half were male, half had psoriasis or dactylitis, and two-thirds had enthesitis. Skin disease severity was assessed using the Investigator’s Global Assessment and Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI).

At 52 weeks, 75% and 58% of patients in the guselkumab groups had resolution of dactylitis and enthesitis, respectively. In addition, 86% of patients in both guselkumab groups achieved PASI 75 at 52 weeks, and 58% and 53% of the 4-week and 8-week groups, respectively, achieved PASI 100.

In addition, patients treated with guselkumab showed low levels of radiographic progression and significant improvements from baseline in measures of physical function and quality of life.

The most frequently reported adverse events in guselkumab patients were upper respiratory tract infections, nasopharyngitis, bronchitis, and investigator-reported laboratory values of increased alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase; these rates were similar to those seen in the previously published 24-week data. Approximately 2% of guselkumab and placebo patients discontinued their treatments because of adverse events.

No patient developed an opportunistic infection or died during the study period.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively short 1-year duration, the shorter duration of placebo, compared with guselkumab, and by potential confounding from missing data on patients who discontinued, the researchers noted. However, the results support the effectiveness of guselkumab for improving a range of manifestations of active PsA, and the overall treatment and safety profiles seen at 24 weeks were maintained, they said.

“Data obtained during the second year of DISCOVER-2 will augment current knowledge of the guselkumab benefit-risk profile and further our understanding of longer-term radiographic outcomes with both guselkumab dosing regimens,” they concluded.

The study was supported by Janssen. Many authors reported financial relationships with Janssen and other pharmaceutical companies. Nine of the 15 authors are employees of Janssen (a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson) and own Johnson & Johnson stock or stock options.

SOURCE: McInnes IB et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Oct 11. doi: 10.1002/art.41553.

Adults with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treated with guselkumab (Tremfya) showed significant improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria and disease activity after 1 year, based on data from the phase 3 DISCOVER-2 trial.

The findings, published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, extend the previously published 24-week, primary endpoint results of the trial, which tested guselkumab for adults with PsA who had not previously taken a biologic drug. Guselkumab was approved in July 2020 in the United States.

Iain B. McInnes, MD, PhD, of the University of Glasgow and his colleagues described guselkumab as “a fully-human monoclonal antibody specific to interleukin (IL)-23’s p19-subunit” that offers a potential alternative for PsA patients who discontinue their index tumor necrosis factor inhibitor because of insufficient efficacy.

The study enrolled 739 PsA patients at 118 sites worldwide. Participants were randomized to receive subcutaneous injections of 100 mg guselkumab every 4 weeks; 100 mg guselkumab at week 0 and 4, then every 8 weeks; or a placebo; 238 placebo-treated patients crossed over at 24 weeks to receive 100 mg guselkumab every 4 weeks. Patients on nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs at baseline were allowed to continue stable doses. Overall, about 93% of patients originally randomized to the three groups remained on guselkumab at 52 weeks.

Overall, 71% and 75% of 4-week and 8-week guselkumab patients, respectively, showed an improvement of at least 20% from baseline in ACR response criteria components at 52 weeks, which was up from 64% of patients seen at 24 weeks in both groups.

The study participants had an average disease duration of more than 5 years with no biologic treatment, and an average of 12-13 swollen joints and 20-22 tender joints at baseline. Approximately half were male, half had psoriasis or dactylitis, and two-thirds had enthesitis. Skin disease severity was assessed using the Investigator’s Global Assessment and Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI).

At 52 weeks, 75% and 58% of patients in the guselkumab groups had resolution of dactylitis and enthesitis, respectively. In addition, 86% of patients in both guselkumab groups achieved PASI 75 at 52 weeks, and 58% and 53% of the 4-week and 8-week groups, respectively, achieved PASI 100.

In addition, patients treated with guselkumab showed low levels of radiographic progression and significant improvements from baseline in measures of physical function and quality of life.

The most frequently reported adverse events in guselkumab patients were upper respiratory tract infections, nasopharyngitis, bronchitis, and investigator-reported laboratory values of increased alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase; these rates were similar to those seen in the previously published 24-week data. Approximately 2% of guselkumab and placebo patients discontinued their treatments because of adverse events.

No patient developed an opportunistic infection or died during the study period.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively short 1-year duration, the shorter duration of placebo, compared with guselkumab, and by potential confounding from missing data on patients who discontinued, the researchers noted. However, the results support the effectiveness of guselkumab for improving a range of manifestations of active PsA, and the overall treatment and safety profiles seen at 24 weeks were maintained, they said.

“Data obtained during the second year of DISCOVER-2 will augment current knowledge of the guselkumab benefit-risk profile and further our understanding of longer-term radiographic outcomes with both guselkumab dosing regimens,” they concluded.

The study was supported by Janssen. Many authors reported financial relationships with Janssen and other pharmaceutical companies. Nine of the 15 authors are employees of Janssen (a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson) and own Johnson & Johnson stock or stock options.

SOURCE: McInnes IB et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Oct 11. doi: 10.1002/art.41553.

Adults with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treated with guselkumab (Tremfya) showed significant improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria and disease activity after 1 year, based on data from the phase 3 DISCOVER-2 trial.

The findings, published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, extend the previously published 24-week, primary endpoint results of the trial, which tested guselkumab for adults with PsA who had not previously taken a biologic drug. Guselkumab was approved in July 2020 in the United States.

Iain B. McInnes, MD, PhD, of the University of Glasgow and his colleagues described guselkumab as “a fully-human monoclonal antibody specific to interleukin (IL)-23’s p19-subunit” that offers a potential alternative for PsA patients who discontinue their index tumor necrosis factor inhibitor because of insufficient efficacy.

The study enrolled 739 PsA patients at 118 sites worldwide. Participants were randomized to receive subcutaneous injections of 100 mg guselkumab every 4 weeks; 100 mg guselkumab at week 0 and 4, then every 8 weeks; or a placebo; 238 placebo-treated patients crossed over at 24 weeks to receive 100 mg guselkumab every 4 weeks. Patients on nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs at baseline were allowed to continue stable doses. Overall, about 93% of patients originally randomized to the three groups remained on guselkumab at 52 weeks.

Overall, 71% and 75% of 4-week and 8-week guselkumab patients, respectively, showed an improvement of at least 20% from baseline in ACR response criteria components at 52 weeks, which was up from 64% of patients seen at 24 weeks in both groups.

The study participants had an average disease duration of more than 5 years with no biologic treatment, and an average of 12-13 swollen joints and 20-22 tender joints at baseline. Approximately half were male, half had psoriasis or dactylitis, and two-thirds had enthesitis. Skin disease severity was assessed using the Investigator’s Global Assessment and Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI).

At 52 weeks, 75% and 58% of patients in the guselkumab groups had resolution of dactylitis and enthesitis, respectively. In addition, 86% of patients in both guselkumab groups achieved PASI 75 at 52 weeks, and 58% and 53% of the 4-week and 8-week groups, respectively, achieved PASI 100.

In addition, patients treated with guselkumab showed low levels of radiographic progression and significant improvements from baseline in measures of physical function and quality of life.

The most frequently reported adverse events in guselkumab patients were upper respiratory tract infections, nasopharyngitis, bronchitis, and investigator-reported laboratory values of increased alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase; these rates were similar to those seen in the previously published 24-week data. Approximately 2% of guselkumab and placebo patients discontinued their treatments because of adverse events.

No patient developed an opportunistic infection or died during the study period.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively short 1-year duration, the shorter duration of placebo, compared with guselkumab, and by potential confounding from missing data on patients who discontinued, the researchers noted. However, the results support the effectiveness of guselkumab for improving a range of manifestations of active PsA, and the overall treatment and safety profiles seen at 24 weeks were maintained, they said.

“Data obtained during the second year of DISCOVER-2 will augment current knowledge of the guselkumab benefit-risk profile and further our understanding of longer-term radiographic outcomes with both guselkumab dosing regimens,” they concluded.

The study was supported by Janssen. Many authors reported financial relationships with Janssen and other pharmaceutical companies. Nine of the 15 authors are employees of Janssen (a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson) and own Johnson & Johnson stock or stock options.

SOURCE: McInnes IB et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Oct 11. doi: 10.1002/art.41553.

Use of febuxostat (Uloric) decreased among patients with gout in the United States following a Food and Drug Administration–mandated black-box warning that cited cardiovascular concerns, but overall use of urate-lowering therapy remained stable, according to data from a study of commercial insurance enrollees in the United States between 2009 and 2019.

Initiation of urate-lowering therapy (ULT) is recommended for gout patients, and allopurinol remains the first-line treatment, but it is not effective in all patients, and febuxostat was developed as an alternative, wrote Seoyoung C. Kim, MD, ScD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

However, based on data from a postmarketing safety trial (the CARES trial) mandated by the FDA, the agency first issued a safety announcement about an increased risk of cardiovascular mortality with febuxostat in November 2017, followed in February 2019 with a black-box warning after full CARES trial results were published in March 2018 showing a greater risk of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in febuxostat versus allopurinol.

In a study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, the researchers examined trends in the use of ULT before and after the FDA warning. They analyzed claims data from a national commercial health database that included 838,432 adult ULT users and 633,229 gout patients.

Overall, allopurinol accounted for the majority of ULT use between 2009 (95% in the first quarter) and 2019 (92% in the fourth quarter).

Febuxostat use peaked at 10% of all ULT use in 2013 and 2014, after a gradual increase following its introduction into the market in 2009, the researchers noted, but decreased to 6% of all ULT use in the fourth quarter of 2019. Other medications, including probenecid, lesinurad (Zurampic), and pegloticase (Krystexxa), accounted for no more than 5% of ULT use.

When the researchers examined gout patients in particular, they found a slight increase in any ULT use from 567 per 1,000 patients in the first quarter of 2009 to 656 per 1,000 patients in the fourth quarter of 2019.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including potential lack of generalizability to other health plans and lack of adjustment for comorbid conditions, the researchers noted.

However, the results highlight the suboptimal use of ULT as a class and the need to address the treatment gap in gout patients “with appropriate ULT prescribing and monitoring,” they said. “While the decrease in febuxostat use was accompanied by a compensatory increase in allopurinol use, the proportion of patients with gout without any ULT remained high throughout the study period,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Dr. Kim disclosed receiving research grants to Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb for research unrelated to the current study.

SOURCE: Kim SC et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Oct 7. doi: 10.1002/art.41550.

Use of febuxostat (Uloric) decreased among patients with gout in the United States following a Food and Drug Administration–mandated black-box warning that cited cardiovascular concerns, but overall use of urate-lowering therapy remained stable, according to data from a study of commercial insurance enrollees in the United States between 2009 and 2019.

Initiation of urate-lowering therapy (ULT) is recommended for gout patients, and allopurinol remains the first-line treatment, but it is not effective in all patients, and febuxostat was developed as an alternative, wrote Seoyoung C. Kim, MD, ScD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

However, based on data from a postmarketing safety trial (the CARES trial) mandated by the FDA, the agency first issued a safety announcement about an increased risk of cardiovascular mortality with febuxostat in November 2017, followed in February 2019 with a black-box warning after full CARES trial results were published in March 2018 showing a greater risk of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in febuxostat versus allopurinol.

In a study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, the researchers examined trends in the use of ULT before and after the FDA warning. They analyzed claims data from a national commercial health database that included 838,432 adult ULT users and 633,229 gout patients.

Overall, allopurinol accounted for the majority of ULT use between 2009 (95% in the first quarter) and 2019 (92% in the fourth quarter).

Febuxostat use peaked at 10% of all ULT use in 2013 and 2014, after a gradual increase following its introduction into the market in 2009, the researchers noted, but decreased to 6% of all ULT use in the fourth quarter of 2019. Other medications, including probenecid, lesinurad (Zurampic), and pegloticase (Krystexxa), accounted for no more than 5% of ULT use.

When the researchers examined gout patients in particular, they found a slight increase in any ULT use from 567 per 1,000 patients in the first quarter of 2009 to 656 per 1,000 patients in the fourth quarter of 2019.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including potential lack of generalizability to other health plans and lack of adjustment for comorbid conditions, the researchers noted.

However, the results highlight the suboptimal use of ULT as a class and the need to address the treatment gap in gout patients “with appropriate ULT prescribing and monitoring,” they said. “While the decrease in febuxostat use was accompanied by a compensatory increase in allopurinol use, the proportion of patients with gout without any ULT remained high throughout the study period,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Dr. Kim disclosed receiving research grants to Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb for research unrelated to the current study.

SOURCE: Kim SC et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Oct 7. doi: 10.1002/art.41550.

Use of febuxostat (Uloric) decreased among patients with gout in the United States following a Food and Drug Administration–mandated black-box warning that cited cardiovascular concerns, but overall use of urate-lowering therapy remained stable, according to data from a study of commercial insurance enrollees in the United States between 2009 and 2019.

Initiation of urate-lowering therapy (ULT) is recommended for gout patients, and allopurinol remains the first-line treatment, but it is not effective in all patients, and febuxostat was developed as an alternative, wrote Seoyoung C. Kim, MD, ScD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.

However, based on data from a postmarketing safety trial (the CARES trial) mandated by the FDA, the agency first issued a safety announcement about an increased risk of cardiovascular mortality with febuxostat in November 2017, followed in February 2019 with a black-box warning after full CARES trial results were published in March 2018 showing a greater risk of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in febuxostat versus allopurinol.

In a study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, the researchers examined trends in the use of ULT before and after the FDA warning. They analyzed claims data from a national commercial health database that included 838,432 adult ULT users and 633,229 gout patients.

Overall, allopurinol accounted for the majority of ULT use between 2009 (95% in the first quarter) and 2019 (92% in the fourth quarter).

Febuxostat use peaked at 10% of all ULT use in 2013 and 2014, after a gradual increase following its introduction into the market in 2009, the researchers noted, but decreased to 6% of all ULT use in the fourth quarter of 2019. Other medications, including probenecid, lesinurad (Zurampic), and pegloticase (Krystexxa), accounted for no more than 5% of ULT use.

When the researchers examined gout patients in particular, they found a slight increase in any ULT use from 567 per 1,000 patients in the first quarter of 2009 to 656 per 1,000 patients in the fourth quarter of 2019.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including potential lack of generalizability to other health plans and lack of adjustment for comorbid conditions, the researchers noted.

However, the results highlight the suboptimal use of ULT as a class and the need to address the treatment gap in gout patients “with appropriate ULT prescribing and monitoring,” they said. “While the decrease in febuxostat use was accompanied by a compensatory increase in allopurinol use, the proportion of patients with gout without any ULT remained high throughout the study period,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Dr. Kim disclosed receiving research grants to Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb for research unrelated to the current study.

SOURCE: Kim SC et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Oct 7. doi: 10.1002/art.41550.

Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) proved superior to abatacept in both disease activity and remission in rheumatoid arthritis patients yet led to more adverse events, according to a new study that compared the two drugs.

“Additional data from longer and larger trials are needed to better understand long-term outcomes and safety of upadacitinib as compared with other drugs for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis,” wrote Andrea Rubbert-Roth, MD, of the Cantonal Clinic St. Gallen in St. Gallen, Switzerland, and her colleagues. The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The Food and Drug Administration approved upadacitinib for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in August 2019.

To compare the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib and the biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) abatacept as safe and effective treatments for RA, the researchers launched a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial dubbed SELECT-CHOICE at 120 sites in 28 countries. All patients had moderate to severe active disease after previously having inadequate responses to at least one biologic DMARD. Slightly more than 82% of the participants were female, with a mean age of 55 years and mean RA duration of 12 years.

Patients were assigned either 15 mg of oral upadacitinib daily (n = 303) or intravenous abatacept at day 1 and weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 (n = 309) with dosage tied to body weight, each in combination with stable synthetic DMARDs. Disease activity was measured after 12 weeks via the Disease Activity Score for 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP). A DAS28-CRP of more than 5.1 was categorized as high disease activity, while 3.2-5.1 meant moderate disease activity, 2.6-3.2 meant low disease activity, and less than 2.6 indicated remission.

The mean DAS28-CRP at baseline was 5.70 in the upadacitinib group and 5.88 in the abatacept group. After 12 weeks, the mean change from baseline was –2.52 points and –2.00 points, respectively (difference, –0.52 points; 95% confidence interval, –0.69 to –0.35; P < .001 for noninferiority; P < .001 for superiority). In patients with a DAS28-CRP of less than 2.6, the percentage of those having remission was 30% with upadacitinib and 13.3% with abatacept (difference, 16.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 10.4 to 23.2; P < .001 for superiority).

Over the 24-week trial period, the incidence of all adverse events (209 vs. 189) and serious adverse events (10 vs. 5) was higher in the upadacitinib group than in the abatacept group. There were 23 cases of hepatic disorder with upadacitinib, compared with 5 with abatacept; 2 thromboembolic events with upadacitinib, compared with 0 with abatacept; and 2 deaths with upadacitinib, compared with 1 with abatacept.

“The thing that bothers me, actually, is the adverse events,” Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) and rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. “There were a fair number of them, all of which were a little higher in upadacitinib. They certainly made very little of those.”

He noted several other concerns about the study, including a potential geographic effect stemming from 60% of the study’s centers being in South and Central America and Eastern Europe. “Those patients don’t always have very good medical care,” he said. “They have an inherent, underlying placebo response that can be much different than Western Europe and North America.”

He also questioned their choice of primary endpoint metric.

“I think a much more legitimate way at looking at remission is the CDAI [Clinical Disease Activity Index] rather than the DAS28,” he said. “The DAS28, even at its best, is low disease activity, not true remission.”

“Bottom line,” he added, “this is a legitimate study that supports previous findings. One more important thing that is overlooked, though, is an economic analysis. A true economic analysis would be very important to place this in the armamentarium.”
 

Study affirms upadacitinib’s place in the RA treatment pecking order

By showing that upadacitinib was not only noninferior but superior to abatacept in decreasing disease activity, Rubbert-Roth and colleagues have positioned the JAK inhibitor at “the forefront of treatment for rheumatoid arthritis,” wrote Guro L. Goll, MD, PhD, and Tore K. Kvien, MD, PhD, of Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, in an accompanying editorial.

Though the authors noted that the 24-week trial was likely too short to make meaningful assumptions about long-term outcomes, they recognized the notably improved treatment outcomes over the study period and stated the importance of “head-to-head trials ... to inform evidence-based clinical decisions.” Similar to Dr. Furst, however, they stated an interest in “detailed data on changes in the CDAI score as a continuous measure.”

They also acknowledged the significant increase in adverse events among patients in the upadacitinib group, underlining the need to learn more in forthcoming, lengthier trials. “Rheumatologists will be looking hard at future data,” they wrote, “to assess whether improved treatment outcomes justify an increased risk of adverse events.”

The study was supported by AbbVie. The authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving research grants and fees from various pharmaceutical companies for consulting, lectures, and being on advisory boards.

SOURCE: Rubbert-Roth A et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 14. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2008250.

Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) proved superior to abatacept in both disease activity and remission in rheumatoid arthritis patients yet led to more adverse events, according to a new study that compared the two drugs.

“Additional data from longer and larger trials are needed to better understand long-term outcomes and safety of upadacitinib as compared with other drugs for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis,” wrote Andrea Rubbert-Roth, MD, of the Cantonal Clinic St. Gallen in St. Gallen, Switzerland, and her colleagues. The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The Food and Drug Administration approved upadacitinib for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in August 2019.

To compare the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib and the biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) abatacept as safe and effective treatments for RA, the researchers launched a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial dubbed SELECT-CHOICE at 120 sites in 28 countries. All patients had moderate to severe active disease after previously having inadequate responses to at least one biologic DMARD. Slightly more than 82% of the participants were female, with a mean age of 55 years and mean RA duration of 12 years.

Patients were assigned either 15 mg of oral upadacitinib daily (n = 303) or intravenous abatacept at day 1 and weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 (n = 309) with dosage tied to body weight, each in combination with stable synthetic DMARDs. Disease activity was measured after 12 weeks via the Disease Activity Score for 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP). A DAS28-CRP of more than 5.1 was categorized as high disease activity, while 3.2-5.1 meant moderate disease activity, 2.6-3.2 meant low disease activity, and less than 2.6 indicated remission.

The mean DAS28-CRP at baseline was 5.70 in the upadacitinib group and 5.88 in the abatacept group. After 12 weeks, the mean change from baseline was –2.52 points and –2.00 points, respectively (difference, –0.52 points; 95% confidence interval, –0.69 to –0.35; P < .001 for noninferiority; P < .001 for superiority). In patients with a DAS28-CRP of less than 2.6, the percentage of those having remission was 30% with upadacitinib and 13.3% with abatacept (difference, 16.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 10.4 to 23.2; P < .001 for superiority).

Over the 24-week trial period, the incidence of all adverse events (209 vs. 189) and serious adverse events (10 vs. 5) was higher in the upadacitinib group than in the abatacept group. There were 23 cases of hepatic disorder with upadacitinib, compared with 5 with abatacept; 2 thromboembolic events with upadacitinib, compared with 0 with abatacept; and 2 deaths with upadacitinib, compared with 1 with abatacept.

“The thing that bothers me, actually, is the adverse events,” Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) and rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. “There were a fair number of them, all of which were a little higher in upadacitinib. They certainly made very little of those.”

He noted several other concerns about the study, including a potential geographic effect stemming from 60% of the study’s centers being in South and Central America and Eastern Europe. “Those patients don’t always have very good medical care,” he said. “They have an inherent, underlying placebo response that can be much different than Western Europe and North America.”

He also questioned their choice of primary endpoint metric.

“I think a much more legitimate way at looking at remission is the CDAI [Clinical Disease Activity Index] rather than the DAS28,” he said. “The DAS28, even at its best, is low disease activity, not true remission.”

“Bottom line,” he added, “this is a legitimate study that supports previous findings. One more important thing that is overlooked, though, is an economic analysis. A true economic analysis would be very important to place this in the armamentarium.”
 

Study affirms upadacitinib’s place in the RA treatment pecking order

By showing that upadacitinib was not only noninferior but superior to abatacept in decreasing disease activity, Rubbert-Roth and colleagues have positioned the JAK inhibitor at “the forefront of treatment for rheumatoid arthritis,” wrote Guro L. Goll, MD, PhD, and Tore K. Kvien, MD, PhD, of Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, in an accompanying editorial.

Though the authors noted that the 24-week trial was likely too short to make meaningful assumptions about long-term outcomes, they recognized the notably improved treatment outcomes over the study period and stated the importance of “head-to-head trials ... to inform evidence-based clinical decisions.” Similar to Dr. Furst, however, they stated an interest in “detailed data on changes in the CDAI score as a continuous measure.”

They also acknowledged the significant increase in adverse events among patients in the upadacitinib group, underlining the need to learn more in forthcoming, lengthier trials. “Rheumatologists will be looking hard at future data,” they wrote, “to assess whether improved treatment outcomes justify an increased risk of adverse events.”

The study was supported by AbbVie. The authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving research grants and fees from various pharmaceutical companies for consulting, lectures, and being on advisory boards.

SOURCE: Rubbert-Roth A et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 14. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2008250.

Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) proved superior to abatacept in both disease activity and remission in rheumatoid arthritis patients yet led to more adverse events, according to a new study that compared the two drugs.

“Additional data from longer and larger trials are needed to better understand long-term outcomes and safety of upadacitinib as compared with other drugs for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis,” wrote Andrea Rubbert-Roth, MD, of the Cantonal Clinic St. Gallen in St. Gallen, Switzerland, and her colleagues. The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The Food and Drug Administration approved upadacitinib for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in August 2019.

To compare the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib and the biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) abatacept as safe and effective treatments for RA, the researchers launched a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial dubbed SELECT-CHOICE at 120 sites in 28 countries. All patients had moderate to severe active disease after previously having inadequate responses to at least one biologic DMARD. Slightly more than 82% of the participants were female, with a mean age of 55 years and mean RA duration of 12 years.

Patients were assigned either 15 mg of oral upadacitinib daily (n = 303) or intravenous abatacept at day 1 and weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 (n = 309) with dosage tied to body weight, each in combination with stable synthetic DMARDs. Disease activity was measured after 12 weeks via the Disease Activity Score for 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP). A DAS28-CRP of more than 5.1 was categorized as high disease activity, while 3.2-5.1 meant moderate disease activity, 2.6-3.2 meant low disease activity, and less than 2.6 indicated remission.

The mean DAS28-CRP at baseline was 5.70 in the upadacitinib group and 5.88 in the abatacept group. After 12 weeks, the mean change from baseline was –2.52 points and –2.00 points, respectively (difference, –0.52 points; 95% confidence interval, –0.69 to –0.35; P < .001 for noninferiority; P < .001 for superiority). In patients with a DAS28-CRP of less than 2.6, the percentage of those having remission was 30% with upadacitinib and 13.3% with abatacept (difference, 16.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 10.4 to 23.2; P < .001 for superiority).

Over the 24-week trial period, the incidence of all adverse events (209 vs. 189) and serious adverse events (10 vs. 5) was higher in the upadacitinib group than in the abatacept group. There were 23 cases of hepatic disorder with upadacitinib, compared with 5 with abatacept; 2 thromboembolic events with upadacitinib, compared with 0 with abatacept; and 2 deaths with upadacitinib, compared with 1 with abatacept.

“The thing that bothers me, actually, is the adverse events,” Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) and rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. “There were a fair number of them, all of which were a little higher in upadacitinib. They certainly made very little of those.”

He noted several other concerns about the study, including a potential geographic effect stemming from 60% of the study’s centers being in South and Central America and Eastern Europe. “Those patients don’t always have very good medical care,” he said. “They have an inherent, underlying placebo response that can be much different than Western Europe and North America.”

He also questioned their choice of primary endpoint metric.

“I think a much more legitimate way at looking at remission is the CDAI [Clinical Disease Activity Index] rather than the DAS28,” he said. “The DAS28, even at its best, is low disease activity, not true remission.”

“Bottom line,” he added, “this is a legitimate study that supports previous findings. One more important thing that is overlooked, though, is an economic analysis. A true economic analysis would be very important to place this in the armamentarium.”
 

Study affirms upadacitinib’s place in the RA treatment pecking order

By showing that upadacitinib was not only noninferior but superior to abatacept in decreasing disease activity, Rubbert-Roth and colleagues have positioned the JAK inhibitor at “the forefront of treatment for rheumatoid arthritis,” wrote Guro L. Goll, MD, PhD, and Tore K. Kvien, MD, PhD, of Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, in an accompanying editorial.

Though the authors noted that the 24-week trial was likely too short to make meaningful assumptions about long-term outcomes, they recognized the notably improved treatment outcomes over the study period and stated the importance of “head-to-head trials ... to inform evidence-based clinical decisions.” Similar to Dr. Furst, however, they stated an interest in “detailed data on changes in the CDAI score as a continuous measure.”

They also acknowledged the significant increase in adverse events among patients in the upadacitinib group, underlining the need to learn more in forthcoming, lengthier trials. “Rheumatologists will be looking hard at future data,” they wrote, “to assess whether improved treatment outcomes justify an increased risk of adverse events.”

The study was supported by AbbVie. The authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving research grants and fees from various pharmaceutical companies for consulting, lectures, and being on advisory boards.

SOURCE: Rubbert-Roth A et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 14. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2008250.

The 2019 systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) classification criteria jointly developed by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) proved significantly better at detecting true positive cases of the disease in children and young adults than did the 1997 ACR criteria, according to results from a single-center, retrospective study.

However, the 2019 criteria, which were developed using cohorts of adult patients with SLE, were statistically no better than the 1997 ACR criteria at identifying those without the disease, first author Najla Aljaberi, MBBS, of the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and colleagues reported in Arthritis Care & Research.

The 2019 criteria were especially good at correctly classifying SLE in non-White youths, but the two sets of criteria performed equally well among male and female youths with SLE and across age groups.

“Our study confirms superior sensitivity of the new criteria over the 1997-ACR criteria in youths with SLE. The difference in sensitivity estimates between the two criteria sets (2019-EULAR/ACR vs. 1997-ACR) may be explained by a higher weight being assigned to immunologic criteria, less strict hematologic criteria (not requiring >2 occurrences), and the inclusion of subjective features of arthritis. Notably, our estimates of the sensitivity of the 2019-EULAR/ACR criteria were similar to those reported from a Brazilian pediatric study by Fonseca et al. (87.7%) that also used physician diagnosis as reference standard,” the researchers wrote.

Dr. Aljaberi and colleagues reviewed electronic medical records of 112 patients with SLE aged 2-21 years and 105 controls aged 1-19 years at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center during 2008-2019. Patients identified in the records at the center were considered to have SLE based on ICD-10 codes assigned by experienced pediatric rheumatologists. The control patients included 69 (66%) with juvenile dermatomyositis and 36 with juvenile scleroderma/systemic sclerosis, based on corresponding ICD-10 codes.

Among the SLE cases, 57% were White and 81% were female, while Whites represented 83% and females 71% of control patients. Young adults aged 18-21 years represented a minority of SLE cases (18%) and controls (7%).

The 2019 criteria had significantly higher sensitivity than did the 1997 criteria (85% vs. 72%, respectively; P = .023) but similar specificity (83% vs. 87%; P = .456). A total of 17 out of the 112 SLE cases failed to meet the 2019 criteria, 13 (76%) of whom were White. Overall, 31 SLE cases did not meet the 1997 criteria, but 15 of those fulfilled the 2019 criteria. While there was no statistically significant difference in the sensitivity of the 2019 criteria between non-White and White cases (92% vs. 80%, respectively; P = .08), the difference in sensitivity was significant with the 1997 criteria (83% vs. 64%; P < .02).

The 2019 criteria had similar sensitivity in males and females (86% vs. 81%, respectively), as well as specificity (81% vs. 87%). The 1997 criteria also provided similar sensitivity between males and females (71% vs. 76%) as well as specificity (85% vs. 90%).

In only four instances did SLE cases meet 2019 criteria before ICD-10 diagnosis of SLE, whereas in the other 108 cases the ICD-10 diagnosis coincided with reaching the threshold for meeting 2019 criteria.

There was no funding secured for the study, and the authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Aljaberi N et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Aug 25. doi: 10.1002/acr.24430.

The 2019 systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) classification criteria jointly developed by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) proved significantly better at detecting true positive cases of the disease in children and young adults than did the 1997 ACR criteria, according to results from a single-center, retrospective study.

However, the 2019 criteria, which were developed using cohorts of adult patients with SLE, were statistically no better than the 1997 ACR criteria at identifying those without the disease, first author Najla Aljaberi, MBBS, of the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and colleagues reported in Arthritis Care & Research.

The 2019 criteria were especially good at correctly classifying SLE in non-White youths, but the two sets of criteria performed equally well among male and female youths with SLE and across age groups.

“Our study confirms superior sensitivity of the new criteria over the 1997-ACR criteria in youths with SLE. The difference in sensitivity estimates between the two criteria sets (2019-EULAR/ACR vs. 1997-ACR) may be explained by a higher weight being assigned to immunologic criteria, less strict hematologic criteria (not requiring >2 occurrences), and the inclusion of subjective features of arthritis. Notably, our estimates of the sensitivity of the 2019-EULAR/ACR criteria were similar to those reported from a Brazilian pediatric study by Fonseca et al. (87.7%) that also used physician diagnosis as reference standard,” the researchers wrote.

Dr. Aljaberi and colleagues reviewed electronic medical records of 112 patients with SLE aged 2-21 years and 105 controls aged 1-19 years at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center during 2008-2019. Patients identified in the records at the center were considered to have SLE based on ICD-10 codes assigned by experienced pediatric rheumatologists. The control patients included 69 (66%) with juvenile dermatomyositis and 36 with juvenile scleroderma/systemic sclerosis, based on corresponding ICD-10 codes.

Among the SLE cases, 57% were White and 81% were female, while Whites represented 83% and females 71% of control patients. Young adults aged 18-21 years represented a minority of SLE cases (18%) and controls (7%).

The 2019 criteria had significantly higher sensitivity than did the 1997 criteria (85% vs. 72%, respectively; P = .023) but similar specificity (83% vs. 87%; P = .456). A total of 17 out of the 112 SLE cases failed to meet the 2019 criteria, 13 (76%) of whom were White. Overall, 31 SLE cases did not meet the 1997 criteria, but 15 of those fulfilled the 2019 criteria. While there was no statistically significant difference in the sensitivity of the 2019 criteria between non-White and White cases (92% vs. 80%, respectively; P = .08), the difference in sensitivity was significant with the 1997 criteria (83% vs. 64%; P < .02).

The 2019 criteria had similar sensitivity in males and females (86% vs. 81%, respectively), as well as specificity (81% vs. 87%). The 1997 criteria also provided similar sensitivity between males and females (71% vs. 76%) as well as specificity (85% vs. 90%).

In only four instances did SLE cases meet 2019 criteria before ICD-10 diagnosis of SLE, whereas in the other 108 cases the ICD-10 diagnosis coincided with reaching the threshold for meeting 2019 criteria.

There was no funding secured for the study, and the authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Aljaberi N et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Aug 25. doi: 10.1002/acr.24430.

The 2019 systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) classification criteria jointly developed by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) proved significantly better at detecting true positive cases of the disease in children and young adults than did the 1997 ACR criteria, according to results from a single-center, retrospective study.

However, the 2019 criteria, which were developed using cohorts of adult patients with SLE, were statistically no better than the 1997 ACR criteria at identifying those without the disease, first author Najla Aljaberi, MBBS, of the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and colleagues reported in Arthritis Care & Research.

The 2019 criteria were especially good at correctly classifying SLE in non-White youths, but the two sets of criteria performed equally well among male and female youths with SLE and across age groups.

“Our study confirms superior sensitivity of the new criteria over the 1997-ACR criteria in youths with SLE. The difference in sensitivity estimates between the two criteria sets (2019-EULAR/ACR vs. 1997-ACR) may be explained by a higher weight being assigned to immunologic criteria, less strict hematologic criteria (not requiring >2 occurrences), and the inclusion of subjective features of arthritis. Notably, our estimates of the sensitivity of the 2019-EULAR/ACR criteria were similar to those reported from a Brazilian pediatric study by Fonseca et al. (87.7%) that also used physician diagnosis as reference standard,” the researchers wrote.

Dr. Aljaberi and colleagues reviewed electronic medical records of 112 patients with SLE aged 2-21 years and 105 controls aged 1-19 years at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center during 2008-2019. Patients identified in the records at the center were considered to have SLE based on ICD-10 codes assigned by experienced pediatric rheumatologists. The control patients included 69 (66%) with juvenile dermatomyositis and 36 with juvenile scleroderma/systemic sclerosis, based on corresponding ICD-10 codes.

Among the SLE cases, 57% were White and 81% were female, while Whites represented 83% and females 71% of control patients. Young adults aged 18-21 years represented a minority of SLE cases (18%) and controls (7%).

The 2019 criteria had significantly higher sensitivity than did the 1997 criteria (85% vs. 72%, respectively; P = .023) but similar specificity (83% vs. 87%; P = .456). A total of 17 out of the 112 SLE cases failed to meet the 2019 criteria, 13 (76%) of whom were White. Overall, 31 SLE cases did not meet the 1997 criteria, but 15 of those fulfilled the 2019 criteria. While there was no statistically significant difference in the sensitivity of the 2019 criteria between non-White and White cases (92% vs. 80%, respectively; P = .08), the difference in sensitivity was significant with the 1997 criteria (83% vs. 64%; P < .02).

The 2019 criteria had similar sensitivity in males and females (86% vs. 81%, respectively), as well as specificity (81% vs. 87%). The 1997 criteria also provided similar sensitivity between males and females (71% vs. 76%) as well as specificity (85% vs. 90%).

In only four instances did SLE cases meet 2019 criteria before ICD-10 diagnosis of SLE, whereas in the other 108 cases the ICD-10 diagnosis coincided with reaching the threshold for meeting 2019 criteria.

There was no funding secured for the study, and the authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Aljaberi N et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Aug 25. doi: 10.1002/acr.24430.

In a new review, a group of infectious disease experts have summarized and made recommendations about recent findings regarding infections that can occur during treatment with an evolving set of targeted and biologic therapies for rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis.

“We claim for the need for multicenter registries and multidisciplinary approaches, for new vaccines trials in RA and PsA, and for better defining when and how biologics can be restarted after severe infections,” lead author Olivier Lortholary, MD, of the Institut Pasteur in Paris, and his coauthors wrote in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

Assessing infection risk related to various inhibitors

Regarding infections caused by TNF-alpha inhibitors (TNFIs), the experts acknowledged a broad increase in risk for mycobacterial and fungal infections, especially tuberculosis and histoplasmosis. They added that patients on TNFIs are more prone to developing pneumonia and soft tissue infections, while smaller studies have indicated a higher risk of listeriosis, legionellosis, herpes zoster (HZ), and reactivation of chronic hepatitis B virus infection.

As for recommendations, they endorsed discontinuing TNFIs when a serious infection occurs and not restarting until after treatment and clinical response. Patients should be screened for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) before starting the drug, and anti-TB drugs should be presented to patients with LTBI so they do not progress to active TB.

Regarding other biologics, they cited several studies indicating that IL-6 inhibitors can increase infection risks in RA patients at a rate similar to TNFIs. Among the most common infections were pneumonia and cellulitis. In addition, although PsA patients on IL-17 inhibitors have a dose-dependent risk of mild to moderate mucocutaneous candidiasis, there was no increased risk of serious opportunistic infections like TB.

In assessing JAK inhibitors, they cited a pooled analysis that indicated pneumonia and skin and soft-tissue infections as the most common and noted the high incidence of HZ, compared with other infections. They added that abatacept (Orencia) did not appear to increase risk of infections in RA patients, such as HZ, dermatomycosis, candidiasis, or endemic mycoses. Those same patients did not see an increased overall infection risk after treatment with rituximab (Rituxan), and clinical trials containing treatment with apremilast (Otezla) reported a rare occurrence of serious infections.

Recommendation-wise, they endorsed screening for LTBI before starting IL-6 inhibitors and antiviral prophylaxis with acyclovir in particularly at-risk patients on JAK inhibitors. Age-appropriate influenza vaccinations were also recommended for rituximab, because of the development of rituximab-induced hypogammaglobulinemia.
 

Prediction and prevention

When it comes to predicting infections in patients on biologics, the experts wrote that it “remains a challenge.” The potential effects of pretreatment underlying disease, the lack of validated biomarkers, and the relatively low rate of infections all combine to stymie prediction. That said, they acknowledged ongoing efforts in monitoring lymphocyte subpopulation counts and immunoglobin levels, as well as a clinical score called the RABBIT Risk Score for Infections, which was validated in two separate cohorts.

“As Yogi Berra said, predictions are hard, especially about the future,” Dr. Kavanaugh said. “Discussions with your patient are always important.”

In regard to overall prevention, they acknowledged that most of their recommendations are of low evidence, except for antiviral prophylaxis for hepatitis B patients on rituximab and the aforementioned LTBI therapy in patients on TNFIs. Broadly, they advocated for all RA and PsA patients to receive a full infectious disease evaluation before the start of targeted and biologic therapies.

They also addressed vaccinations, recommending an evaluation of the patient’s immunization history and potentially planning a catch-up schedule for those in need of the influenza vaccine, a diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis booster, or the pneumococcal vaccine. More broadly, they stated that “a better response is expected if [non-live] vaccination is performed before the introduction of immunosuppressive drugs.” They added that live vaccines should be administered as soon as possible.
 

What rheumatologists can do

“So how do you mitigate risk?” Dr. Winthrop asked. “You have to be able to predict the risk, see what’s modifiable, and try to act on it. A lot of the risk of infection has more to do with the patient than the therapy.

“You try to minimize what you’re doing to the patient, particularly around steroids,” he said. “And then you think about screening and vaccinations. Rheumatologists need to be involved in those conversations because they’re the ones who know how these drugs interact with vaccines. A lot of the drugs might dumb down vaccine responses. Be sure to consider that and give the vaccines at times that will optimize their immunogenicity and likely efficacy.”

“Thankfully, infections are not that common,” Dr. Kavanaugh said. “Rheumatologists depend on data from trials, but more safety data comes from registry data and personal and shared experience.”

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Lortholary O et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Sep 22. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217092.

In a new review, a group of infectious disease experts have summarized and made recommendations about recent findings regarding infections that can occur during treatment with an evolving set of targeted and biologic therapies for rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis.

“We claim for the need for multicenter registries and multidisciplinary approaches, for new vaccines trials in RA and PsA, and for better defining when and how biologics can be restarted after severe infections,” lead author Olivier Lortholary, MD, of the Institut Pasteur in Paris, and his coauthors wrote in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

Assessing infection risk related to various inhibitors

Regarding infections caused by TNF-alpha inhibitors (TNFIs), the experts acknowledged a broad increase in risk for mycobacterial and fungal infections, especially tuberculosis and histoplasmosis. They added that patients on TNFIs are more prone to developing pneumonia and soft tissue infections, while smaller studies have indicated a higher risk of listeriosis, legionellosis, herpes zoster (HZ), and reactivation of chronic hepatitis B virus infection.

As for recommendations, they endorsed discontinuing TNFIs when a serious infection occurs and not restarting until after treatment and clinical response. Patients should be screened for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) before starting the drug, and anti-TB drugs should be presented to patients with LTBI so they do not progress to active TB.

Regarding other biologics, they cited several studies indicating that IL-6 inhibitors can increase infection risks in RA patients at a rate similar to TNFIs. Among the most common infections were pneumonia and cellulitis. In addition, although PsA patients on IL-17 inhibitors have a dose-dependent risk of mild to moderate mucocutaneous candidiasis, there was no increased risk of serious opportunistic infections like TB.

In assessing JAK inhibitors, they cited a pooled analysis that indicated pneumonia and skin and soft-tissue infections as the most common and noted the high incidence of HZ, compared with other infections. They added that abatacept (Orencia) did not appear to increase risk of infections in RA patients, such as HZ, dermatomycosis, candidiasis, or endemic mycoses. Those same patients did not see an increased overall infection risk after treatment with rituximab (Rituxan), and clinical trials containing treatment with apremilast (Otezla) reported a rare occurrence of serious infections.

Recommendation-wise, they endorsed screening for LTBI before starting IL-6 inhibitors and antiviral prophylaxis with acyclovir in particularly at-risk patients on JAK inhibitors. Age-appropriate influenza vaccinations were also recommended for rituximab, because of the development of rituximab-induced hypogammaglobulinemia.
 

Prediction and prevention

When it comes to predicting infections in patients on biologics, the experts wrote that it “remains a challenge.” The potential effects of pretreatment underlying disease, the lack of validated biomarkers, and the relatively low rate of infections all combine to stymie prediction. That said, they acknowledged ongoing efforts in monitoring lymphocyte subpopulation counts and immunoglobin levels, as well as a clinical score called the RABBIT Risk Score for Infections, which was validated in two separate cohorts.

“As Yogi Berra said, predictions are hard, especially about the future,” Dr. Kavanaugh said. “Discussions with your patient are always important.”

In regard to overall prevention, they acknowledged that most of their recommendations are of low evidence, except for antiviral prophylaxis for hepatitis B patients on rituximab and the aforementioned LTBI therapy in patients on TNFIs. Broadly, they advocated for all RA and PsA patients to receive a full infectious disease evaluation before the start of targeted and biologic therapies.

They also addressed vaccinations, recommending an evaluation of the patient’s immunization history and potentially planning a catch-up schedule for those in need of the influenza vaccine, a diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis booster, or the pneumococcal vaccine. More broadly, they stated that “a better response is expected if [non-live] vaccination is performed before the introduction of immunosuppressive drugs.” They added that live vaccines should be administered as soon as possible.
 

What rheumatologists can do

“So how do you mitigate risk?” Dr. Winthrop asked. “You have to be able to predict the risk, see what’s modifiable, and try to act on it. A lot of the risk of infection has more to do with the patient than the therapy.

“You try to minimize what you’re doing to the patient, particularly around steroids,” he said. “And then you think about screening and vaccinations. Rheumatologists need to be involved in those conversations because they’re the ones who know how these drugs interact with vaccines. A lot of the drugs might dumb down vaccine responses. Be sure to consider that and give the vaccines at times that will optimize their immunogenicity and likely efficacy.”

“Thankfully, infections are not that common,” Dr. Kavanaugh said. “Rheumatologists depend on data from trials, but more safety data comes from registry data and personal and shared experience.”

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Lortholary O et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Sep 22. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217092.

In a new review, a group of infectious disease experts have summarized and made recommendations about recent findings regarding infections that can occur during treatment with an evolving set of targeted and biologic therapies for rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis.

“We claim for the need for multicenter registries and multidisciplinary approaches, for new vaccines trials in RA and PsA, and for better defining when and how biologics can be restarted after severe infections,” lead author Olivier Lortholary, MD, of the Institut Pasteur in Paris, and his coauthors wrote in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

Assessing infection risk related to various inhibitors

Regarding infections caused by TNF-alpha inhibitors (TNFIs), the experts acknowledged a broad increase in risk for mycobacterial and fungal infections, especially tuberculosis and histoplasmosis. They added that patients on TNFIs are more prone to developing pneumonia and soft tissue infections, while smaller studies have indicated a higher risk of listeriosis, legionellosis, herpes zoster (HZ), and reactivation of chronic hepatitis B virus infection.

As for recommendations, they endorsed discontinuing TNFIs when a serious infection occurs and not restarting until after treatment and clinical response. Patients should be screened for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) before starting the drug, and anti-TB drugs should be presented to patients with LTBI so they do not progress to active TB.

Regarding other biologics, they cited several studies indicating that IL-6 inhibitors can increase infection risks in RA patients at a rate similar to TNFIs. Among the most common infections were pneumonia and cellulitis. In addition, although PsA patients on IL-17 inhibitors have a dose-dependent risk of mild to moderate mucocutaneous candidiasis, there was no increased risk of serious opportunistic infections like TB.

In assessing JAK inhibitors, they cited a pooled analysis that indicated pneumonia and skin and soft-tissue infections as the most common and noted the high incidence of HZ, compared with other infections. They added that abatacept (Orencia) did not appear to increase risk of infections in RA patients, such as HZ, dermatomycosis, candidiasis, or endemic mycoses. Those same patients did not see an increased overall infection risk after treatment with rituximab (Rituxan), and clinical trials containing treatment with apremilast (Otezla) reported a rare occurrence of serious infections.

Recommendation-wise, they endorsed screening for LTBI before starting IL-6 inhibitors and antiviral prophylaxis with acyclovir in particularly at-risk patients on JAK inhibitors. Age-appropriate influenza vaccinations were also recommended for rituximab, because of the development of rituximab-induced hypogammaglobulinemia.
 

Prediction and prevention

When it comes to predicting infections in patients on biologics, the experts wrote that it “remains a challenge.” The potential effects of pretreatment underlying disease, the lack of validated biomarkers, and the relatively low rate of infections all combine to stymie prediction. That said, they acknowledged ongoing efforts in monitoring lymphocyte subpopulation counts and immunoglobin levels, as well as a clinical score called the RABBIT Risk Score for Infections, which was validated in two separate cohorts.

“As Yogi Berra said, predictions are hard, especially about the future,” Dr. Kavanaugh said. “Discussions with your patient are always important.”

In regard to overall prevention, they acknowledged that most of their recommendations are of low evidence, except for antiviral prophylaxis for hepatitis B patients on rituximab and the aforementioned LTBI therapy in patients on TNFIs. Broadly, they advocated for all RA and PsA patients to receive a full infectious disease evaluation before the start of targeted and biologic therapies.

They also addressed vaccinations, recommending an evaluation of the patient’s immunization history and potentially planning a catch-up schedule for those in need of the influenza vaccine, a diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis booster, or the pneumococcal vaccine. More broadly, they stated that “a better response is expected if [non-live] vaccination is performed before the introduction of immunosuppressive drugs.” They added that live vaccines should be administered as soon as possible.
 

What rheumatologists can do

“So how do you mitigate risk?” Dr. Winthrop asked. “You have to be able to predict the risk, see what’s modifiable, and try to act on it. A lot of the risk of infection has more to do with the patient than the therapy.

“You try to minimize what you’re doing to the patient, particularly around steroids,” he said. “And then you think about screening and vaccinations. Rheumatologists need to be involved in those conversations because they’re the ones who know how these drugs interact with vaccines. A lot of the drugs might dumb down vaccine responses. Be sure to consider that and give the vaccines at times that will optimize their immunogenicity and likely efficacy.”

“Thankfully, infections are not that common,” Dr. Kavanaugh said. “Rheumatologists depend on data from trials, but more safety data comes from registry data and personal and shared experience.”

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Lortholary O et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Sep 22. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217092.

The adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine Shingrix appears to be effective in older adults with autoimmune diseases who are not receiving treatment regimens that suppress the immune system, according to a post hoc analysis of patients in two clinical trials.

jarun011/thinkstock

A two-dose regimen of Shingrix was effective in 90.5% of a subset of patients in two phase 3 clinical trials of adults who were aged at least 50 years, according to Alemnew F. Dagnew, MD, of GlaxoSmithKline and colleagues. The lowest rates of effectiveness with Shingrix, for patients aged between 70-79 years, was 84.4%, the researchers reported in Rheumatology.

The CDC recommends adults aged at least 50 years receive two doses of Shingrix to help prevent reoccurrence of herpes zoster, or Zostavax (zoster vaccine live) if adults are allergic to components of the Shingrix vaccine or have tested negative for varicella zoster virus immunity.

Dr. Dagnew and colleagues evaluated Shingrix in 983 patients who received two doses of Shingrix and 960 patients who received placebo from the ZOE-50 and ZOE-70 trials, where each dose was administered at least 2 months apart. The mean age of patients in both groups was 68.8 years in the Shingrix group and 69.4 years in the placebo group, and more than half of patients in both Shingrix (59.9%) and placebo groups (60.8%) were women. About 7% of the patients in two clinical trial had a pIMD.

At enrollment, the most common preexisting immune-mediated disorders (pIMDs) were psoriasis (215 patients taking Shingrix vs. 239 patients on placebo), spondyloarthropathy (109 patients taking Shingrix vs. 89 patients on placebo), rheumatoid arthritis (96 patients taking Shingrix vs. 94 patients on placebo), and celiac disease (41 patients taking Shingrix vs. 34 patients on placebo). Dr. Dagnew and colleagues examined the subgroup of patients with pIMDs for safety and vaccine efficacy, which was defined as not developing herpes zoster before the second dose.

Overall, the efficacy of Shingrix was 90.5% across all age groups (95% confidence interval, 73.5%-97.5%), with the group aged between 70-79 years having the lowest rate of effectiveness (95% CI, 30.8%-98.3%). The rate of severe adverse events was 14.6% in the Shingrix group and 11.7% in the placebo group between the first Shingrix dose and for up to 1 year after the second dose. The most common adverse events were infections and infestations as well as cardiac disorders. “Our data show a balance between study groups in the frequency and nature of SAEs, confirming the favorable safety profile of [Shingrix] in populations with pIMDs,” Dr. Dagnew and colleagues wrote.

The researchers acknowledged that the ZOE-50/70 studies were underpowered to detect the efficacy and safety of Shingrix in individuals with pIMDs but said that the large number of participants in the studies let them estimate efficacy and adverse events for this subgroup. They also noted there was no randomization of pIMDs at enrollment, even though pIMDs occurred at similar rates between Shingrix and placebo groups.

This study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline; the company helped with conducting and analyzing the study and also provided the costs associated with publishing it. Five authors reported being an employee of GlaxoSmithKline during the time the work was conducted, and four of the five own stock in the company. One author is now an employee of UCB. One author reported having served on the advisory boards for Merck Sharp & Dohme, GlaxoSmithKline, and Curevo.

SOURCE: Dagnew AF et al. Rheumatology. 2020 Sep 10. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keaa424.

The adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine Shingrix appears to be effective in older adults with autoimmune diseases who are not receiving treatment regimens that suppress the immune system, according to a post hoc analysis of patients in two clinical trials.

jarun011/thinkstock

A two-dose regimen of Shingrix was effective in 90.5% of a subset of patients in two phase 3 clinical trials of adults who were aged at least 50 years, according to Alemnew F. Dagnew, MD, of GlaxoSmithKline and colleagues. The lowest rates of effectiveness with Shingrix, for patients aged between 70-79 years, was 84.4%, the researchers reported in Rheumatology.

The CDC recommends adults aged at least 50 years receive two doses of Shingrix to help prevent reoccurrence of herpes zoster, or Zostavax (zoster vaccine live) if adults are allergic to components of the Shingrix vaccine or have tested negative for varicella zoster virus immunity.

Dr. Dagnew and colleagues evaluated Shingrix in 983 patients who received two doses of Shingrix and 960 patients who received placebo from the ZOE-50 and ZOE-70 trials, where each dose was administered at least 2 months apart. The mean age of patients in both groups was 68.8 years in the Shingrix group and 69.4 years in the placebo group, and more than half of patients in both Shingrix (59.9%) and placebo groups (60.8%) were women. About 7% of the patients in two clinical trial had a pIMD.

At enrollment, the most common preexisting immune-mediated disorders (pIMDs) were psoriasis (215 patients taking Shingrix vs. 239 patients on placebo), spondyloarthropathy (109 patients taking Shingrix vs. 89 patients on placebo), rheumatoid arthritis (96 patients taking Shingrix vs. 94 patients on placebo), and celiac disease (41 patients taking Shingrix vs. 34 patients on placebo). Dr. Dagnew and colleagues examined the subgroup of patients with pIMDs for safety and vaccine efficacy, which was defined as not developing herpes zoster before the second dose.

Overall, the efficacy of Shingrix was 90.5% across all age groups (95% confidence interval, 73.5%-97.5%), with the group aged between 70-79 years having the lowest rate of effectiveness (95% CI, 30.8%-98.3%). The rate of severe adverse events was 14.6% in the Shingrix group and 11.7% in the placebo group between the first Shingrix dose and for up to 1 year after the second dose. The most common adverse events were infections and infestations as well as cardiac disorders. “Our data show a balance between study groups in the frequency and nature of SAEs, confirming the favorable safety profile of [Shingrix] in populations with pIMDs,” Dr. Dagnew and colleagues wrote.

The researchers acknowledged that the ZOE-50/70 studies were underpowered to detect the efficacy and safety of Shingrix in individuals with pIMDs but said that the large number of participants in the studies let them estimate efficacy and adverse events for this subgroup. They also noted there was no randomization of pIMDs at enrollment, even though pIMDs occurred at similar rates between Shingrix and placebo groups.

This study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline; the company helped with conducting and analyzing the study and also provided the costs associated with publishing it. Five authors reported being an employee of GlaxoSmithKline during the time the work was conducted, and four of the five own stock in the company. One author is now an employee of UCB. One author reported having served on the advisory boards for Merck Sharp & Dohme, GlaxoSmithKline, and Curevo.

SOURCE: Dagnew AF et al. Rheumatology. 2020 Sep 10. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keaa424.

The adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine Shingrix appears to be effective in older adults with autoimmune diseases who are not receiving treatment regimens that suppress the immune system, according to a post hoc analysis of patients in two clinical trials.

jarun011/thinkstock

A two-dose regimen of Shingrix was effective in 90.5% of a subset of patients in two phase 3 clinical trials of adults who were aged at least 50 years, according to Alemnew F. Dagnew, MD, of GlaxoSmithKline and colleagues. The lowest rates of effectiveness with Shingrix, for patients aged between 70-79 years, was 84.4%, the researchers reported in Rheumatology.

The CDC recommends adults aged at least 50 years receive two doses of Shingrix to help prevent reoccurrence of herpes zoster, or Zostavax (zoster vaccine live) if adults are allergic to components of the Shingrix vaccine or have tested negative for varicella zoster virus immunity.

Dr. Dagnew and colleagues evaluated Shingrix in 983 patients who received two doses of Shingrix and 960 patients who received placebo from the ZOE-50 and ZOE-70 trials, where each dose was administered at least 2 months apart. The mean age of patients in both groups was 68.8 years in the Shingrix group and 69.4 years in the placebo group, and more than half of patients in both Shingrix (59.9%) and placebo groups (60.8%) were women. About 7% of the patients in two clinical trial had a pIMD.

At enrollment, the most common preexisting immune-mediated disorders (pIMDs) were psoriasis (215 patients taking Shingrix vs. 239 patients on placebo), spondyloarthropathy (109 patients taking Shingrix vs. 89 patients on placebo), rheumatoid arthritis (96 patients taking Shingrix vs. 94 patients on placebo), and celiac disease (41 patients taking Shingrix vs. 34 patients on placebo). Dr. Dagnew and colleagues examined the subgroup of patients with pIMDs for safety and vaccine efficacy, which was defined as not developing herpes zoster before the second dose.

Overall, the efficacy of Shingrix was 90.5% across all age groups (95% confidence interval, 73.5%-97.5%), with the group aged between 70-79 years having the lowest rate of effectiveness (95% CI, 30.8%-98.3%). The rate of severe adverse events was 14.6% in the Shingrix group and 11.7% in the placebo group between the first Shingrix dose and for up to 1 year after the second dose. The most common adverse events were infections and infestations as well as cardiac disorders. “Our data show a balance between study groups in the frequency and nature of SAEs, confirming the favorable safety profile of [Shingrix] in populations with pIMDs,” Dr. Dagnew and colleagues wrote.

The researchers acknowledged that the ZOE-50/70 studies were underpowered to detect the efficacy and safety of Shingrix in individuals with pIMDs but said that the large number of participants in the studies let them estimate efficacy and adverse events for this subgroup. They also noted there was no randomization of pIMDs at enrollment, even though pIMDs occurred at similar rates between Shingrix and placebo groups.

This study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline; the company helped with conducting and analyzing the study and also provided the costs associated with publishing it. Five authors reported being an employee of GlaxoSmithKline during the time the work was conducted, and four of the five own stock in the company. One author is now an employee of UCB. One author reported having served on the advisory boards for Merck Sharp & Dohme, GlaxoSmithKline, and Curevo.

SOURCE: Dagnew AF et al. Rheumatology. 2020 Sep 10. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keaa424.

Patients aged 2 years and older now have intravenous golimumab (Simponi Aria) as an option to treat active polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) after the Food and Drug Administration approved the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor for these indications on Sept. 30, according to an announcement from its manufacturer, Janssen.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Results from the open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase 3, GO-VIVA clinical trial formed the basis for the agency’s approval of IV golimumab. GO-VIVA was conducted in 127 patients aged 2-17 years with JIA with arthritis in five or more joints (despite receiving treatment with methotrexate for at least 2 months) as part of a postmarketing requirement under the Pediatric Research Equity Act after the intravenous formulation of the biologic was approved for adults with rheumatoid arthritis in 2013. It demonstrated that pediatric patients had a level of pharmacokinetic exposure to golimumab that was similar to what was observed in two pivotal phase 3 trials in adults with moderately to severely active RA and active PsA, as well as efficacy that was generally consistent with responses seen in adult patients with RA, the manufacturer said.

Besides RA, intravenous golimumab was previously approved for adults with PsA and ankylosing spondylitis. As opposed to the IV dosing for adults with RA, PsA, and ankylosing spondylitis at 2 mg/kg infused over 30 minutes at weeks 0 and 4, and every 8 weeks thereafter, dosing for pediatric patients with pJIA and PsA is based on body surface area at 80 mg/m², also given as an IV infusion over 30 minutes at weeks 0 and 4, and every 8 weeks thereafter.

The adverse reactions observed in GO-VIVA were consistent with the established safety profile of intravenous golimumab in adult patients with RA and PsA, according to Janssen.

The full prescribing information for intravenous golimumab can be found on the FDA website.

[email protected]

Patients aged 2 years and older now have intravenous golimumab (Simponi Aria) as an option to treat active polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) after the Food and Drug Administration approved the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor for these indications on Sept. 30, according to an announcement from its manufacturer, Janssen.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Results from the open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase 3, GO-VIVA clinical trial formed the basis for the agency’s approval of IV golimumab. GO-VIVA was conducted in 127 patients aged 2-17 years with JIA with arthritis in five or more joints (despite receiving treatment with methotrexate for at least 2 months) as part of a postmarketing requirement under the Pediatric Research Equity Act after the intravenous formulation of the biologic was approved for adults with rheumatoid arthritis in 2013. It demonstrated that pediatric patients had a level of pharmacokinetic exposure to golimumab that was similar to what was observed in two pivotal phase 3 trials in adults with moderately to severely active RA and active PsA, as well as efficacy that was generally consistent with responses seen in adult patients with RA, the manufacturer said.

Besides RA, intravenous golimumab was previously approved for adults with PsA and ankylosing spondylitis. As opposed to the IV dosing for adults with RA, PsA, and ankylosing spondylitis at 2 mg/kg infused over 30 minutes at weeks 0 and 4, and every 8 weeks thereafter, dosing for pediatric patients with pJIA and PsA is based on body surface area at 80 mg/m², also given as an IV infusion over 30 minutes at weeks 0 and 4, and every 8 weeks thereafter.

The adverse reactions observed in GO-VIVA were consistent with the established safety profile of intravenous golimumab in adult patients with RA and PsA, according to Janssen.

The full prescribing information for intravenous golimumab can be found on the FDA website.

[email protected]

Patients aged 2 years and older now have intravenous golimumab (Simponi Aria) as an option to treat active polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) after the Food and Drug Administration approved the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor for these indications on Sept. 30, according to an announcement from its manufacturer, Janssen.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Results from the open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase 3, GO-VIVA clinical trial formed the basis for the agency’s approval of IV golimumab. GO-VIVA was conducted in 127 patients aged 2-17 years with JIA with arthritis in five or more joints (despite receiving treatment with methotrexate for at least 2 months) as part of a postmarketing requirement under the Pediatric Research Equity Act after the intravenous formulation of the biologic was approved for adults with rheumatoid arthritis in 2013. It demonstrated that pediatric patients had a level of pharmacokinetic exposure to golimumab that was similar to what was observed in two pivotal phase 3 trials in adults with moderately to severely active RA and active PsA, as well as efficacy that was generally consistent with responses seen in adult patients with RA, the manufacturer said.

Besides RA, intravenous golimumab was previously approved for adults with PsA and ankylosing spondylitis. As opposed to the IV dosing for adults with RA, PsA, and ankylosing spondylitis at 2 mg/kg infused over 30 minutes at weeks 0 and 4, and every 8 weeks thereafter, dosing for pediatric patients with pJIA and PsA is based on body surface area at 80 mg/m², also given as an IV infusion over 30 minutes at weeks 0 and 4, and every 8 weeks thereafter.

The adverse reactions observed in GO-VIVA were consistent with the established safety profile of intravenous golimumab in adult patients with RA and PsA, according to Janssen.

The full prescribing information for intravenous golimumab can be found on the FDA website.

[email protected]

Machine-based learning of genetic and epigenetic characteristics of patients with rheumatoid arthritis could help to predict who is likely to benefit from the biologic drugs adalimumab and etanercept, according to results from a longitudinal, observational cohort study.

In the study, machine learning models created by researchers from Utrecht University in the Netherlands using different parameters predicted true-positive rates for response to adalimumab ranging from 76% to 90% and true-negative rates ranging from 70% to 89%, while for etanercept true-positive rates ranged from about 60% to 80% and true-negative rates ranged from about 82% to 98%.

“These results suggest that we can accurately predict the clinical response before adalimumab and etanercept treatment using molecular signatures-based machine learning models, although the prediction accuracy of these molecular signatures differs between cell types and treatments, underlining the need to study more than one drug, cell type, or epigenetic layers,” first author Weiyang Tao and colleagues wrote in Arthritis & Rheumatology. The ability to predict which tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) is the first choice for treatment would be highly beneficial in reducing the time to effective treatment, which has been extensively proven to be a paramount factor for achieving long-sustained disease remission, they noted.

The researchers analyzed gene expression and epigenetic signatures in 80 patients with rheumatoid arthritis prior to treatment with adalimumab or etanercept and then examined patients’ response to treatment at 6 months. They then used that information to build a machine learning model to try to predict treatment response.

Overall, 47.5% of patients were treated with adalimumab, and 52.5% were treated with etanercept. Among the adalimumab group, 53% had a good or moderate response to treatment at 6 months, and among those treated with etanercept, 45% had a good or moderate response.

While there were no differences in baseline clinical parameters between responders and nonresponders, the study found significant genetic and epigenetic differences between patients.

They identified 549 genes that showed significantly different levels of expression between responders and nonresponders treated with adalimumab – in particular, genes involved in DNA and nucleotide binding – and 460 genes that were differentially expressed between etanercept responders and nonresponders, including genes involved in TNF-receptor signaling. However, only 2% of these differentially expressed genes were common in both the adalimumab and etanercept groups, suggesting treatment responses for these two medications have distinct gene signatures.

Looking at DNA methylation, researchers found 16,141 CpG positions – sites of DNA methylation – that were differentially methylated between adalimumab responders and nonresponders, 46% of which were hypermethylated among responders but not nonresponders. In the etanercept group, there were 17,026 differentially methylated sites in responders and nonresponders, 76.3% of which were hypermethylated among responders.

The researchers also noted that among the adalimumab responders, the hypermethylated sites were more likely to be found in the upstream and promoter regions of genes, and on CpG islands.

“Thus, on epigenetic level, we observed a distinct hypermethylation pattern between adalimumab and etanercept responders, suggesting the role of epigenetics in defining response towards adalimumab and to etanercept in PBMCs [peripheral blood mononuclear cells],” the authors wrote.

Given the differences in gene signatures seen in the adalimumab responders and etanercept responders, researchers speculated that different cell types might be involved in the responses to these two treatments. They undertook RNA sequencing on the variety of immune cell types known to be involved in rheumatoid arthritis, which revealed gene-expression differences between adalimumab responders and nonresponders in their CD4+ T cells but not in monocytes. However, the gene-expression differences between etanercept responders and nonresponders were seen in both CD4+ T cells and monocytes.

The study was supported by AbbVie, which manufactures adalimumab, and two authors were supported by the China Scholarship Council and the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research. No conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Tao W et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Sep 10. doi: 10.1002/art.41516.

Machine-based learning of genetic and epigenetic characteristics of patients with rheumatoid arthritis could help to predict who is likely to benefit from the biologic drugs adalimumab and etanercept, according to results from a longitudinal, observational cohort study.

In the study, machine learning models created by researchers from Utrecht University in the Netherlands using different parameters predicted true-positive rates for response to adalimumab ranging from 76% to 90% and true-negative rates ranging from 70% to 89%, while for etanercept true-positive rates ranged from about 60% to 80% and true-negative rates ranged from about 82% to 98%.

“These results suggest that we can accurately predict the clinical response before adalimumab and etanercept treatment using molecular signatures-based machine learning models, although the prediction accuracy of these molecular signatures differs between cell types and treatments, underlining the need to study more than one drug, cell type, or epigenetic layers,” first author Weiyang Tao and colleagues wrote in Arthritis & Rheumatology. The ability to predict which tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) is the first choice for treatment would be highly beneficial in reducing the time to effective treatment, which has been extensively proven to be a paramount factor for achieving long-sustained disease remission, they noted.

The researchers analyzed gene expression and epigenetic signatures in 80 patients with rheumatoid arthritis prior to treatment with adalimumab or etanercept and then examined patients’ response to treatment at 6 months. They then used that information to build a machine learning model to try to predict treatment response.

Overall, 47.5% of patients were treated with adalimumab, and 52.5% were treated with etanercept. Among the adalimumab group, 53% had a good or moderate response to treatment at 6 months, and among those treated with etanercept, 45% had a good or moderate response.

While there were no differences in baseline clinical parameters between responders and nonresponders, the study found significant genetic and epigenetic differences between patients.

They identified 549 genes that showed significantly different levels of expression between responders and nonresponders treated with adalimumab – in particular, genes involved in DNA and nucleotide binding – and 460 genes that were differentially expressed between etanercept responders and nonresponders, including genes involved in TNF-receptor signaling. However, only 2% of these differentially expressed genes were common in both the adalimumab and etanercept groups, suggesting treatment responses for these two medications have distinct gene signatures.

Looking at DNA methylation, researchers found 16,141 CpG positions – sites of DNA methylation – that were differentially methylated between adalimumab responders and nonresponders, 46% of which were hypermethylated among responders but not nonresponders. In the etanercept group, there were 17,026 differentially methylated sites in responders and nonresponders, 76.3% of which were hypermethylated among responders.

The researchers also noted that among the adalimumab responders, the hypermethylated sites were more likely to be found in the upstream and promoter regions of genes, and on CpG islands.

“Thus, on epigenetic level, we observed a distinct hypermethylation pattern between adalimumab and etanercept responders, suggesting the role of epigenetics in defining response towards adalimumab and to etanercept in PBMCs [peripheral blood mononuclear cells],” the authors wrote.

Given the differences in gene signatures seen in the adalimumab responders and etanercept responders, researchers speculated that different cell types might be involved in the responses to these two treatments. They undertook RNA sequencing on the variety of immune cell types known to be involved in rheumatoid arthritis, which revealed gene-expression differences between adalimumab responders and nonresponders in their CD4+ T cells but not in monocytes. However, the gene-expression differences between etanercept responders and nonresponders were seen in both CD4+ T cells and monocytes.

The study was supported by AbbVie, which manufactures adalimumab, and two authors were supported by the China Scholarship Council and the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research. No conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Tao W et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Sep 10. doi: 10.1002/art.41516.

Machine-based learning of genetic and epigenetic characteristics of patients with rheumatoid arthritis could help to predict who is likely to benefit from the biologic drugs adalimumab and etanercept, according to results from a longitudinal, observational cohort study.

In the study, machine learning models created by researchers from Utrecht University in the Netherlands using different parameters predicted true-positive rates for response to adalimumab ranging from 76% to 90% and true-negative rates ranging from 70% to 89%, while for etanercept true-positive rates ranged from about 60% to 80% and true-negative rates ranged from about 82% to 98%.

“These results suggest that we can accurately predict the clinical response before adalimumab and etanercept treatment using molecular signatures-based machine learning models, although the prediction accuracy of these molecular signatures differs between cell types and treatments, underlining the need to study more than one drug, cell type, or epigenetic layers,” first author Weiyang Tao and colleagues wrote in Arthritis & Rheumatology. The ability to predict which tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) is the first choice for treatment would be highly beneficial in reducing the time to effective treatment, which has been extensively proven to be a paramount factor for achieving long-sustained disease remission, they noted.

The researchers analyzed gene expression and epigenetic signatures in 80 patients with rheumatoid arthritis prior to treatment with adalimumab or etanercept and then examined patients’ response to treatment at 6 months. They then used that information to build a machine learning model to try to predict treatment response.

Overall, 47.5% of patients were treated with adalimumab, and 52.5% were treated with etanercept. Among the adalimumab group, 53% had a good or moderate response to treatment at 6 months, and among those treated with etanercept, 45% had a good or moderate response.

While there were no differences in baseline clinical parameters between responders and nonresponders, the study found significant genetic and epigenetic differences between patients.

They identified 549 genes that showed significantly different levels of expression between responders and nonresponders treated with adalimumab – in particular, genes involved in DNA and nucleotide binding – and 460 genes that were differentially expressed between etanercept responders and nonresponders, including genes involved in TNF-receptor signaling. However, only 2% of these differentially expressed genes were common in both the adalimumab and etanercept groups, suggesting treatment responses for these two medications have distinct gene signatures.

Looking at DNA methylation, researchers found 16,141 CpG positions – sites of DNA methylation – that were differentially methylated between adalimumab responders and nonresponders, 46% of which were hypermethylated among responders but not nonresponders. In the etanercept group, there were 17,026 differentially methylated sites in responders and nonresponders, 76.3% of which were hypermethylated among responders.

The researchers also noted that among the adalimumab responders, the hypermethylated sites were more likely to be found in the upstream and promoter regions of genes, and on CpG islands.

“Thus, on epigenetic level, we observed a distinct hypermethylation pattern between adalimumab and etanercept responders, suggesting the role of epigenetics in defining response towards adalimumab and to etanercept in PBMCs [peripheral blood mononuclear cells],” the authors wrote.

Given the differences in gene signatures seen in the adalimumab responders and etanercept responders, researchers speculated that different cell types might be involved in the responses to these two treatments. They undertook RNA sequencing on the variety of immune cell types known to be involved in rheumatoid arthritis, which revealed gene-expression differences between adalimumab responders and nonresponders in their CD4+ T cells but not in monocytes. However, the gene-expression differences between etanercept responders and nonresponders were seen in both CD4+ T cells and monocytes.

The study was supported by AbbVie, which manufactures adalimumab, and two authors were supported by the China Scholarship Council and the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research. No conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Tao W et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Sep 10. doi: 10.1002/art.41516.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved tablet and oral solution formulations of the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofactinib (Xeljanz) for the treatment of children and adolescents 2 years and older with active polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA).

The approval, announced Sept. 28 by tofacitinib’s manufacturer, Pfizer, marks the first JAK inhibitor to be approved for the condition in the United States and is the fourth indication to be approved for the drug after approvals in adult patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis following methotrexate failure, active psoriatic arthritis after disease-modifying antirheumatic drug failure, and moderate to severe ulcerative colitis after failure on a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor.

The agency based its approval on a phase 3, multinational, randomized, double-blind, controlled withdrawal study that had an 18-week, open-label, run-in phase involving 225 patients who twice daily took either a 5-mg tablet or, in patients under 40 kg, a weight-based lower dose in the form of a 1 mg/mL oral solution, according to the company press release. A total of 173 patients from this phase met JIA American College of Rheumatology 30 response criteria, defined as 30% or greater improvement in three of six JIA core set variables and worsening in no more than one of the core set variables; they were then randomized in part 2 of the study to continue the same dose of tofacitinib or receive placebo until 44 weeks. By the end of this period, 31% who received tofacitinib had a disease flare, compared with 55% on placebo (P = .0007). Disease flare was defined as a 30% or greater worsening in at least three of the six variables of the JIA core set, with no more than one of the remaining JIA core response variables improving by 30% or more after randomization.

The types of adverse drug reactions in patients with pJIA were consistent with those seen in adult rheumatoid arthritis patients, according to Pfizer. Serious adverse drug reactions have most commonly been serious infections that may lead to hospitalization or death, and most patients who developed these infections were taking concomitant immunosuppressants, such as methotrexate or corticosteroids. Common adverse drug reactions reported in 2% or more of patients during the first 3 months in controlled clinical trials in patients with rheumatoid arthritis taking tofacitinib at 5 mg twice daily were upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, headache, and hypertension.

While the 5-mg tablet formulation is already available, Pfizer said it expects the oral solution to be available by the end of the first quarter in 2021.

Prescribing information can be found on the FDA website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved tablet and oral solution formulations of the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofactinib (Xeljanz) for the treatment of children and adolescents 2 years and older with active polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA).

The approval, announced Sept. 28 by tofacitinib’s manufacturer, Pfizer, marks the first JAK inhibitor to be approved for the condition in the United States and is the fourth indication to be approved for the drug after approvals in adult patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis following methotrexate failure, active psoriatic arthritis after disease-modifying antirheumatic drug failure, and moderate to severe ulcerative colitis after failure on a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor.

The agency based its approval on a phase 3, multinational, randomized, double-blind, controlled withdrawal study that had an 18-week, open-label, run-in phase involving 225 patients who twice daily took either a 5-mg tablet or, in patients under 40 kg, a weight-based lower dose in the form of a 1 mg/mL oral solution, according to the company press release. A total of 173 patients from this phase met JIA American College of Rheumatology 30 response criteria, defined as 30% or greater improvement in three of six JIA core set variables and worsening in no more than one of the core set variables; they were then randomized in part 2 of the study to continue the same dose of tofacitinib or receive placebo until 44 weeks. By the end of this period, 31% who received tofacitinib had a disease flare, compared with 55% on placebo (P = .0007). Disease flare was defined as a 30% or greater worsening in at least three of the six variables of the JIA core set, with no more than one of the remaining JIA core response variables improving by 30% or more after randomization.

The types of adverse drug reactions in patients with pJIA were consistent with those seen in adult rheumatoid arthritis patients, according to Pfizer. Serious adverse drug reactions have most commonly been serious infections that may lead to hospitalization or death, and most patients who developed these infections were taking concomitant immunosuppressants, such as methotrexate or corticosteroids. Common adverse drug reactions reported in 2% or more of patients during the first 3 months in controlled clinical trials in patients with rheumatoid arthritis taking tofacitinib at 5 mg twice daily were upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, headache, and hypertension.

While the 5-mg tablet formulation is already available, Pfizer said it expects the oral solution to be available by the end of the first quarter in 2021.

Prescribing information can be found on the FDA website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved tablet and oral solution formulations of the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofactinib (Xeljanz) for the treatment of children and adolescents 2 years and older with active polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA).

The approval, announced Sept. 28 by tofacitinib’s manufacturer, Pfizer, marks the first JAK inhibitor to be approved for the condition in the United States and is the fourth indication to be approved for the drug after approvals in adult patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis following methotrexate failure, active psoriatic arthritis after disease-modifying antirheumatic drug failure, and moderate to severe ulcerative colitis after failure on a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor.

The agency based its approval on a phase 3, multinational, randomized, double-blind, controlled withdrawal study that had an 18-week, open-label, run-in phase involving 225 patients who twice daily took either a 5-mg tablet or, in patients under 40 kg, a weight-based lower dose in the form of a 1 mg/mL oral solution, according to the company press release. A total of 173 patients from this phase met JIA American College of Rheumatology 30 response criteria, defined as 30% or greater improvement in three of six JIA core set variables and worsening in no more than one of the core set variables; they were then randomized in part 2 of the study to continue the same dose of tofacitinib or receive placebo until 44 weeks. By the end of this period, 31% who received tofacitinib had a disease flare, compared with 55% on placebo (P = .0007). Disease flare was defined as a 30% or greater worsening in at least three of the six variables of the JIA core set, with no more than one of the remaining JIA core response variables improving by 30% or more after randomization.

The types of adverse drug reactions in patients with pJIA were consistent with those seen in adult rheumatoid arthritis patients, according to Pfizer. Serious adverse drug reactions have most commonly been serious infections that may lead to hospitalization or death, and most patients who developed these infections were taking concomitant immunosuppressants, such as methotrexate or corticosteroids. Common adverse drug reactions reported in 2% or more of patients during the first 3 months in controlled clinical trials in patients with rheumatoid arthritis taking tofacitinib at 5 mg twice daily were upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, headache, and hypertension.

While the 5-mg tablet formulation is already available, Pfizer said it expects the oral solution to be available by the end of the first quarter in 2021.

Prescribing information can be found on the FDA website.

[email protected]

Guidance on the initiation and use of urate-lowering therapies was among the strong recommendations in the updated gout guideline recently issued by the American College of Rheumatology, said Brian F. Mandell, MD, PhD, in a virtual presentation at the annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases held by Global Academy for Medical Education.

The 2020 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Management of Gout is “intended to provide guidance for particular patterns of practice and not to dictate the care of a particular patient,” said Dr. Mandell, chair of academic medicine at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio and cochair of the conference. However, “there was a hope that, with additional evidence since the previous guideline issued in 2012, the recommendations are more firmly based and will improve care,” he said.

Of 42 recommendations, 16 were strong, and these included guidance on several points: when to initiate urate-lowering therapy and using a treat-to-target strategy for lowering serum uric acid to less than 6 mg/dL; prophylaxis against attacks; the use of allopurinol as the first-choice drug and how to avoid hypersensitivity reactions; the use of pegloticase (Krystexxa); and treating flares.

Hyperuricemia does not automatically equal gout, Dr. Mandell said. A 2018 published analysis of data from several large cohorts including 18,889 adults who were gout-free at baseline showed that serum uric acid levels could not accurately predict an initial gout attack. Therefore, the guideline conditionally recommends against initiating any pharmacologic urate-lowering therapy in patients with asymptomatic hyperuricemia. The guideline authors intentionally did not include the presence of comorbidities or deposits of uric acid in making their recommendation. But when advising an individual patient, these factors plus the patient’s age and family history should be considered, he said. “Individualize the decision to use ULT [urate-lowering therapy] to prevent possible future flares,” he advised, with consideration of age, the effects of the flare on the patient’s life, and challenges in treating flares.

For patients who are being treated with urate-lowering therapy, a published study indicated that if treatment is discontinued, “gout attacks will recur, depending on the new serum urate level,” Dr. Mandell said. “Maintenance of low SUA [serum uric acid] must be lifelong to stop attacks,” he emphasized, noting that this is counter to a management guideline published by the American College of Physicians in 2017.

“For patients starting any ULT, we strongly recommend allopurinol over all other urate-lowering therapies as the preferred first-line agent for all patients, including those with CKD [chronic kidney disease] stage 3 or higher,” according to the new guideline, which also recommends starting at a low dose followed by dose titration to target versus starting at a higher dose.

Two reasons in support of a slow up-titration of urate-lowering therapy are a lower frequency of mobilization flares and a possibly lower chance of allopurinol hypersensitivity reactions, Dr. Mandell said.

Although the guideline recommends allopurinol over probenecid, “probenecid works well as monotherapy and effectively as add-on therapy to a xanthine oxidase inhibitor, and it is cheap,” Dr. Mandell said.

Allopurinol can be associated with life-threatening hypersensitivity reactions, but most of these have been associated with a higher-than-recommended starting dose, according to the literature, he noted. The new guideline suggests checking for the HLA-B*5801 haplotype in high-risk demographic groups, and if it is present, to use an alternative to allopurinol if possible

The updated guideline also carries a strong recommendation for the use of pegloticase for patients with frequent gout flares and nonresolving subcutaneous tophi, but it strongly recommends against switching to pegloticase for patients with infrequent gout flares and no tophi.

However, Dr. Mandell said that he will consider off-label treatment of gout with pegloticase “in patients where a shorter time to response really matters,” which is consistent with his belief that, within these treatment principles, the management of gout must be individualized to the specific patient.

For treating acute gout flares, the guideline recommendations strongly supports the use of oral colchicine, NSAIDs, or glucocorticoids as an appropriate first-line therapy, based on patient factors and preferences, instead of using interleukin-1 inhibitors or adrenocorticotropic hormone. However, the interleukin-1 inhibitor anakinra has shown relatively rapid and successful response in treating patients hospitalized with acute gout, Dr. Mandell said. No large, randomized, trials have been conducted, but he cited his experience at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, where anakinra is the most common treatment for acute gout on inpatient consults, and he cited a representative small study of 26 patients in which 73% showed “significant response” within 5 days of treatment, which meant that they were able to move and bear weight without pain. In addition, a more recent study of 100 hospitalized patients in the Journal of Rheumatology, found that 75% showed a rapid response to anakinra and improvement or resolution of flares within 4 days, Dr. Mandell said.

Dr. Mandell disclosed relationships with companies including Horizon, Ardea/AstraZeneca/Ironwood, and Takeda. He served as coauthor on the 2012 American College of Rheumatology gout guideline.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Guidance on the initiation and use of urate-lowering therapies was among the strong recommendations in the updated gout guideline recently issued by the American College of Rheumatology, said Brian F. Mandell, MD, PhD, in a virtual presentation at the annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases held by Global Academy for Medical Education.

The 2020 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Management of Gout is “intended to provide guidance for particular patterns of practice and not to dictate the care of a particular patient,” said Dr. Mandell, chair of academic medicine at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio and cochair of the conference. However, “there was a hope that, with additional evidence since the previous guideline issued in 2012, the recommendations are more firmly based and will improve care,” he said.

Of 42 recommendations, 16 were strong, and these included guidance on several points: when to initiate urate-lowering therapy and using a treat-to-target strategy for lowering serum uric acid to less than 6 mg/dL; prophylaxis against attacks; the use of allopurinol as the first-choice drug and how to avoid hypersensitivity reactions; the use of pegloticase (Krystexxa); and treating flares.

Hyperuricemia does not automatically equal gout, Dr. Mandell said. A 2018 published analysis of data from several large cohorts including 18,889 adults who were gout-free at baseline showed that serum uric acid levels could not accurately predict an initial gout attack. Therefore, the guideline conditionally recommends against initiating any pharmacologic urate-lowering therapy in patients with asymptomatic hyperuricemia. The guideline authors intentionally did not include the presence of comorbidities or deposits of uric acid in making their recommendation. But when advising an individual patient, these factors plus the patient’s age and family history should be considered, he said. “Individualize the decision to use ULT [urate-lowering therapy] to prevent possible future flares,” he advised, with consideration of age, the effects of the flare on the patient’s life, and challenges in treating flares.

For patients who are being treated with urate-lowering therapy, a published study indicated that if treatment is discontinued, “gout attacks will recur, depending on the new serum urate level,” Dr. Mandell said. “Maintenance of low SUA [serum uric acid] must be lifelong to stop attacks,” he emphasized, noting that this is counter to a management guideline published by the American College of Physicians in 2017.

“For patients starting any ULT, we strongly recommend allopurinol over all other urate-lowering therapies as the preferred first-line agent for all patients, including those with CKD [chronic kidney disease] stage 3 or higher,” according to the new guideline, which also recommends starting at a low dose followed by dose titration to target versus starting at a higher dose.

Two reasons in support of a slow up-titration of urate-lowering therapy are a lower frequency of mobilization flares and a possibly lower chance of allopurinol hypersensitivity reactions, Dr. Mandell said.

Although the guideline recommends allopurinol over probenecid, “probenecid works well as monotherapy and effectively as add-on therapy to a xanthine oxidase inhibitor, and it is cheap,” Dr. Mandell said.

Allopurinol can be associated with life-threatening hypersensitivity reactions, but most of these have been associated with a higher-than-recommended starting dose, according to the literature, he noted. The new guideline suggests checking for the HLA-B*5801 haplotype in high-risk demographic groups, and if it is present, to use an alternative to allopurinol if possible

The updated guideline also carries a strong recommendation for the use of pegloticase for patients with frequent gout flares and nonresolving subcutaneous tophi, but it strongly recommends against switching to pegloticase for patients with infrequent gout flares and no tophi.

However, Dr. Mandell said that he will consider off-label treatment of gout with pegloticase “in patients where a shorter time to response really matters,” which is consistent with his belief that, within these treatment principles, the management of gout must be individualized to the specific patient.

For treating acute gout flares, the guideline recommendations strongly supports the use of oral colchicine, NSAIDs, or glucocorticoids as an appropriate first-line therapy, based on patient factors and preferences, instead of using interleukin-1 inhibitors or adrenocorticotropic hormone. However, the interleukin-1 inhibitor anakinra has shown relatively rapid and successful response in treating patients hospitalized with acute gout, Dr. Mandell said. No large, randomized, trials have been conducted, but he cited his experience at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, where anakinra is the most common treatment for acute gout on inpatient consults, and he cited a representative small study of 26 patients in which 73% showed “significant response” within 5 days of treatment, which meant that they were able to move and bear weight without pain. In addition, a more recent study of 100 hospitalized patients in the Journal of Rheumatology, found that 75% showed a rapid response to anakinra and improvement or resolution of flares within 4 days, Dr. Mandell said.

Dr. Mandell disclosed relationships with companies including Horizon, Ardea/AstraZeneca/Ironwood, and Takeda. He served as coauthor on the 2012 American College of Rheumatology gout guideline.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Guidance on the initiation and use of urate-lowering therapies was among the strong recommendations in the updated gout guideline recently issued by the American College of Rheumatology, said Brian F. Mandell, MD, PhD, in a virtual presentation at the annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases held by Global Academy for Medical Education.

The 2020 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Management of Gout is “intended to provide guidance for particular patterns of practice and not to dictate the care of a particular patient,” said Dr. Mandell, chair of academic medicine at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio and cochair of the conference. However, “there was a hope that, with additional evidence since the previous guideline issued in 2012, the recommendations are more firmly based and will improve care,” he said.

Of 42 recommendations, 16 were strong, and these included guidance on several points: when to initiate urate-lowering therapy and using a treat-to-target strategy for lowering serum uric acid to less than 6 mg/dL; prophylaxis against attacks; the use of allopurinol as the first-choice drug and how to avoid hypersensitivity reactions; the use of pegloticase (Krystexxa); and treating flares.

Hyperuricemia does not automatically equal gout, Dr. Mandell said. A 2018 published analysis of data from several large cohorts including 18,889 adults who were gout-free at baseline showed that serum uric acid levels could not accurately predict an initial gout attack. Therefore, the guideline conditionally recommends against initiating any pharmacologic urate-lowering therapy in patients with asymptomatic hyperuricemia. The guideline authors intentionally did not include the presence of comorbidities or deposits of uric acid in making their recommendation. But when advising an individual patient, these factors plus the patient’s age and family history should be considered, he said. “Individualize the decision to use ULT [urate-lowering therapy] to prevent possible future flares,” he advised, with consideration of age, the effects of the flare on the patient’s life, and challenges in treating flares.

For patients who are being treated with urate-lowering therapy, a published study indicated that if treatment is discontinued, “gout attacks will recur, depending on the new serum urate level,” Dr. Mandell said. “Maintenance of low SUA [serum uric acid] must be lifelong to stop attacks,” he emphasized, noting that this is counter to a management guideline published by the American College of Physicians in 2017.

“For patients starting any ULT, we strongly recommend allopurinol over all other urate-lowering therapies as the preferred first-line agent for all patients, including those with CKD [chronic kidney disease] stage 3 or higher,” according to the new guideline, which also recommends starting at a low dose followed by dose titration to target versus starting at a higher dose.

Two reasons in support of a slow up-titration of urate-lowering therapy are a lower frequency of mobilization flares and a possibly lower chance of allopurinol hypersensitivity reactions, Dr. Mandell said.

Although the guideline recommends allopurinol over probenecid, “probenecid works well as monotherapy and effectively as add-on therapy to a xanthine oxidase inhibitor, and it is cheap,” Dr. Mandell said.

Allopurinol can be associated with life-threatening hypersensitivity reactions, but most of these have been associated with a higher-than-recommended starting dose, according to the literature, he noted. The new guideline suggests checking for the HLA-B*5801 haplotype in high-risk demographic groups, and if it is present, to use an alternative to allopurinol if possible

The updated guideline also carries a strong recommendation for the use of pegloticase for patients with frequent gout flares and nonresolving subcutaneous tophi, but it strongly recommends against switching to pegloticase for patients with infrequent gout flares and no tophi.

However, Dr. Mandell said that he will consider off-label treatment of gout with pegloticase “in patients where a shorter time to response really matters,” which is consistent with his belief that, within these treatment principles, the management of gout must be individualized to the specific patient.

For treating acute gout flares, the guideline recommendations strongly supports the use of oral colchicine, NSAIDs, or glucocorticoids as an appropriate first-line therapy, based on patient factors and preferences, instead of using interleukin-1 inhibitors or adrenocorticotropic hormone. However, the interleukin-1 inhibitor anakinra has shown relatively rapid and successful response in treating patients hospitalized with acute gout, Dr. Mandell said. No large, randomized, trials have been conducted, but he cited his experience at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, where anakinra is the most common treatment for acute gout on inpatient consults, and he cited a representative small study of 26 patients in which 73% showed “significant response” within 5 days of treatment, which meant that they were able to move and bear weight without pain. In addition, a more recent study of 100 hospitalized patients in the Journal of Rheumatology, found that 75% showed a rapid response to anakinra and improvement or resolution of flares within 4 days, Dr. Mandell said.

Dr. Mandell disclosed relationships with companies including Horizon, Ardea/AstraZeneca/Ironwood, and Takeda. He served as coauthor on the 2012 American College of Rheumatology gout guideline.

Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.