Rheumatology

The Food and Drug Administration has approved secukinumab (Cosentyx) for the treatment of active nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA), according to an announcement from the drug’s manufacturer, Novartis.

FDA approval was based on results of the 2-year PREVENT trial, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study in 555 adults with active nr-axSpA who received a loading dose of 150 mg secukinumab subcutaneously weekly for 4 weeks, then maintenance dosing with 150 mg secukinumab monthly; 150 mg secukinumab monthly with no loading dose; or placebo. Patients were included if they were aged at least 18 years with 6 months or more of inflammatory back pain, had objective signs of inflammation (sacroiliitis on MRI and/or C-reactive protein at 5.0 mg/dL or higher), had active disease and spinal pain according to the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index, had total back pain with a visual analog scale of 40 mm or greater, and had not received a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor or had an inadequate response to no more than one TNF inhibitor. A total of 501 patients had not previously taken a biologic medication.

A significantly greater proportion of biologic-naive patients taking secukinumab in both active treatment arm met the trial’s primary endpoint of at least a 40% improvement in the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria versus placebo after 52 weeks. Both loading and nonloading arms saw significant improvements in Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life scores, compared with those in the placebo group.

The safety profile of secukinumab in PREVENT was shown to be consistent with previous clinical trials, with no new safety signals detected.

Secukinumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that directly inhibits interleukin-17A, also received European Medicines Agency approval for the treatment of nr-axSpA in April 2020. It is already approved by the FDA for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved secukinumab (Cosentyx) for the treatment of active nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA), according to an announcement from the drug’s manufacturer, Novartis.

FDA approval was based on results of the 2-year PREVENT trial, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study in 555 adults with active nr-axSpA who received a loading dose of 150 mg secukinumab subcutaneously weekly for 4 weeks, then maintenance dosing with 150 mg secukinumab monthly; 150 mg secukinumab monthly with no loading dose; or placebo. Patients were included if they were aged at least 18 years with 6 months or more of inflammatory back pain, had objective signs of inflammation (sacroiliitis on MRI and/or C-reactive protein at 5.0 mg/dL or higher), had active disease and spinal pain according to the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index, had total back pain with a visual analog scale of 40 mm or greater, and had not received a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor or had an inadequate response to no more than one TNF inhibitor. A total of 501 patients had not previously taken a biologic medication.

A significantly greater proportion of biologic-naive patients taking secukinumab in both active treatment arm met the trial’s primary endpoint of at least a 40% improvement in the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria versus placebo after 52 weeks. Both loading and nonloading arms saw significant improvements in Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life scores, compared with those in the placebo group.

The safety profile of secukinumab in PREVENT was shown to be consistent with previous clinical trials, with no new safety signals detected.

Secukinumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that directly inhibits interleukin-17A, also received European Medicines Agency approval for the treatment of nr-axSpA in April 2020. It is already approved by the FDA for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved secukinumab (Cosentyx) for the treatment of active nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA), according to an announcement from the drug’s manufacturer, Novartis.

FDA approval was based on results of the 2-year PREVENT trial, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study in 555 adults with active nr-axSpA who received a loading dose of 150 mg secukinumab subcutaneously weekly for 4 weeks, then maintenance dosing with 150 mg secukinumab monthly; 150 mg secukinumab monthly with no loading dose; or placebo. Patients were included if they were aged at least 18 years with 6 months or more of inflammatory back pain, had objective signs of inflammation (sacroiliitis on MRI and/or C-reactive protein at 5.0 mg/dL or higher), had active disease and spinal pain according to the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index, had total back pain with a visual analog scale of 40 mm or greater, and had not received a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor or had an inadequate response to no more than one TNF inhibitor. A total of 501 patients had not previously taken a biologic medication.

A significantly greater proportion of biologic-naive patients taking secukinumab in both active treatment arm met the trial’s primary endpoint of at least a 40% improvement in the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria versus placebo after 52 weeks. Both loading and nonloading arms saw significant improvements in Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life scores, compared with those in the placebo group.

The safety profile of secukinumab in PREVENT was shown to be consistent with previous clinical trials, with no new safety signals detected.

Secukinumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that directly inhibits interleukin-17A, also received European Medicines Agency approval for the treatment of nr-axSpA in April 2020. It is already approved by the FDA for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis.

[email protected]

The results from a pair of clinical trials should help to take the guesswork out of starting and stopping the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) in patients with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA). The trials were reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

Optimal use of etanercept in this disease is still being defined, according to the investigators. Its effects, if any, when given very early in the disease course is unclear, and guidance is conflicting when it comes to stopping the drug after inactive disease is achieved.

In the Dutch randomized controlled PrevAS trial of 80 patients with suspected very early nr-axSpA, initiating etanercept instead of placebo did not significantly improve the odds of achieving a 20% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS 20) response criteria at week 16.

And in the multinational, open-label, phase 4 RE-EMBARK trial, three-quarters of the 119 patients with nr-axSpA who achieved inactive disease on etanercept and stopped the drug experienced a flare within 40 weeks. However, the majority were able to regain disease inactivity after restarting the drug.
 

Findings in context

“We all have some patients like this [PrevAS population] where we strongly believe they have axial spondyloarthritis but do not fully qualify,” Nigil Haroon MD, PhD, said in an interview. “From a clinical decision-making process, we may diagnose these patients with axial spondyloarthritis, but due to restrictions in access to medications, we have difficulty accessing biologic medications for them. Hence, this study has practical implications.”

“It has already been shown in other, much larger studies that, even in patients who satisfy the criteria of axial spondyloarthritis, those who are MRI and CRP [C-reactive protein] negative are unlikely to respond, so the results are not surprising,” commented Dr. Haroon, who is codirector of the spondylitis program at the University Health Network and associate professor of medicine and rheumatology at the University of Toronto.

Although intended to be a population with suspected very early disease, several of the PrevAS patients would have met ASAS criteria for the disease at baseline, Dr. Haroon cautioned. In addition, the small sample size precluded subgroup analyses.

“The overall conclusion should be, this is a negative study, rather than state there was a trend to better improvement on etanercept. Although there are practical implications, as mentioned, I don’t think this study, with the numbers and the results presented, will change clinical practice,” he said.

The question of stopping biologics in nr-axSpA was previously addressed in the ABILITY-3 randomized trial of adalimumab (Humira), which found that flares were significantly more common with stopping versus continuing the drug and only about half of patients were able to get back in remission by restarting the drug, according to Dr. Haroon.

However, the RE-EMBARK and ABILITY-3 studies differed in both design and patient population, he noted. For example, the mean disease duration was only about 2 years in the former study, compared with 7 years in the latter.

The initial 59% rate of attaining inactive disease on etanercept in RE-EMBARK was “impressive,” Dr. Haroon said, “but as this was an open-label study, higher values are expected.”

“The message in both studies is that stopping biologics completely is not a good idea as the majority of patients, 70%-75%, will relapse within a short period,” he concluded. “However, it should be kept in mind that these [RE-EMBARK] patients received biologic only for a short 24-week period. This study does not answer the question of whether nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis patients with sustained inactive disease can be taken off biologics abruptly without a taper over time.”

Details of the studies

In the PrevAS trial, Tamara Rusman, a PhD candidate in Rheumatology at the VU University Medical Center Amsterdam and coinvestigators studied patients meeting Calin criteria for inflammatory back pain who had high disease activity plus either HLA-B27 positivity with at least one feature of axial spondyloarthritis or HLA-B27 negativity with two features.

This population is of interest because “most studies have included only patients with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis with a positive MRI of the sacroiliac joints and/or an elevated C-reactive protein level,” she noted.

Results showed that, during 16 weeks of treatment, etanercept users had a nonsignficantly higher rate of achieving an ASAS 20 response with etanercept versus placebo users (17% vs. 11%; hazard ratio, 2.1; P = .2). The etanercept group also had a somewhat higher rate of response as defined by the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score CRP (ASDAS-CRP) criterion (25% vs. 13%; hazard ratio, 1.1; P = .8).

“Based on these data, early treatment in inflammatory back pain patients prone to develop axial spondyloarthritis seems not to be useful,” Ms. Rusman concluded. “However, monitoring of these patients should be continued since they remain a risk group for developing axial spondyloarthritis.”

In the RE-EMBARK trial, investigators led by Filip Van den Bosch, MD, PhD, Rheumatology Head-of-Clinic at Ghent (Belgium) University Hospital, started with a cohort of 208 patients with nr-axSpA who were given etanercept and background NSAIDs for 24 weeks.

“Current guidelines do not agree on whether a TNF-blocking agent or another biological DMARD should be tapered once a status of low disease activity or remission is achieved,” he noted.

Overall, 59% of the patients achieved inactive disease (defined as an ASDAS-CRP < 1.3) and discontinued etanercept.

During the next 40 weeks, 24% of these patients maintained inactive disease with only the background NSAID therapy. Among the 75% who experienced a flare, defined as an ASDAS with erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ASDAS-ESR) score of 2.1 or greater, the median time to flare was 16.1 weeks. Fully 62% of this group were able to regain disease inactivity within 12 weeks of restarting etanercept.

In a comparative analysis, relative to the RE-EMBARK patients discontinuing etanercept, similar patients who continued etanercept on the companion EMBARK trial had a longer time to flare (P < .0001) and an 85% lower risk of this outcome.

“There were no new safety signals identified, and as expected, the number of treatment-emergent adverse events dropped during the drug-free period and, interestingly, remained stable over retreatment,” Dr. Van den Bosch noted.

“Temporarily discontinuing etanercept may be an option for some patients with stable inactive nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis,” he concluded.

The PrevAS trial was financially supported by Pfizer and ReumaNederland. Ms. Rusman declared no relevant conflicts of interest; four coauthors reported financial relationship(s) with Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies. The RE-EMBARK trial was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Van den Bosch disclosed receiving grant/research support from AbbVie, Merck, and UCB, and consulting fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Four coauthors reported financial ties to Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies, and five coauthors were employees and shareholders of Pfizer.

SOURCES: Rusman T et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:72-3; and Van den Bosch F et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:70.

The results from a pair of clinical trials should help to take the guesswork out of starting and stopping the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) in patients with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA). The trials were reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

Optimal use of etanercept in this disease is still being defined, according to the investigators. Its effects, if any, when given very early in the disease course is unclear, and guidance is conflicting when it comes to stopping the drug after inactive disease is achieved.

In the Dutch randomized controlled PrevAS trial of 80 patients with suspected very early nr-axSpA, initiating etanercept instead of placebo did not significantly improve the odds of achieving a 20% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS 20) response criteria at week 16.

And in the multinational, open-label, phase 4 RE-EMBARK trial, three-quarters of the 119 patients with nr-axSpA who achieved inactive disease on etanercept and stopped the drug experienced a flare within 40 weeks. However, the majority were able to regain disease inactivity after restarting the drug.
 

Findings in context

“We all have some patients like this [PrevAS population] where we strongly believe they have axial spondyloarthritis but do not fully qualify,” Nigil Haroon MD, PhD, said in an interview. “From a clinical decision-making process, we may diagnose these patients with axial spondyloarthritis, but due to restrictions in access to medications, we have difficulty accessing biologic medications for them. Hence, this study has practical implications.”

“It has already been shown in other, much larger studies that, even in patients who satisfy the criteria of axial spondyloarthritis, those who are MRI and CRP [C-reactive protein] negative are unlikely to respond, so the results are not surprising,” commented Dr. Haroon, who is codirector of the spondylitis program at the University Health Network and associate professor of medicine and rheumatology at the University of Toronto.

Although intended to be a population with suspected very early disease, several of the PrevAS patients would have met ASAS criteria for the disease at baseline, Dr. Haroon cautioned. In addition, the small sample size precluded subgroup analyses.

“The overall conclusion should be, this is a negative study, rather than state there was a trend to better improvement on etanercept. Although there are practical implications, as mentioned, I don’t think this study, with the numbers and the results presented, will change clinical practice,” he said.

The question of stopping biologics in nr-axSpA was previously addressed in the ABILITY-3 randomized trial of adalimumab (Humira), which found that flares were significantly more common with stopping versus continuing the drug and only about half of patients were able to get back in remission by restarting the drug, according to Dr. Haroon.

However, the RE-EMBARK and ABILITY-3 studies differed in both design and patient population, he noted. For example, the mean disease duration was only about 2 years in the former study, compared with 7 years in the latter.

The initial 59% rate of attaining inactive disease on etanercept in RE-EMBARK was “impressive,” Dr. Haroon said, “but as this was an open-label study, higher values are expected.”

“The message in both studies is that stopping biologics completely is not a good idea as the majority of patients, 70%-75%, will relapse within a short period,” he concluded. “However, it should be kept in mind that these [RE-EMBARK] patients received biologic only for a short 24-week period. This study does not answer the question of whether nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis patients with sustained inactive disease can be taken off biologics abruptly without a taper over time.”

Details of the studies

In the PrevAS trial, Tamara Rusman, a PhD candidate in Rheumatology at the VU University Medical Center Amsterdam and coinvestigators studied patients meeting Calin criteria for inflammatory back pain who had high disease activity plus either HLA-B27 positivity with at least one feature of axial spondyloarthritis or HLA-B27 negativity with two features.

This population is of interest because “most studies have included only patients with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis with a positive MRI of the sacroiliac joints and/or an elevated C-reactive protein level,” she noted.

Results showed that, during 16 weeks of treatment, etanercept users had a nonsignficantly higher rate of achieving an ASAS 20 response with etanercept versus placebo users (17% vs. 11%; hazard ratio, 2.1; P = .2). The etanercept group also had a somewhat higher rate of response as defined by the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score CRP (ASDAS-CRP) criterion (25% vs. 13%; hazard ratio, 1.1; P = .8).

“Based on these data, early treatment in inflammatory back pain patients prone to develop axial spondyloarthritis seems not to be useful,” Ms. Rusman concluded. “However, monitoring of these patients should be continued since they remain a risk group for developing axial spondyloarthritis.”

In the RE-EMBARK trial, investigators led by Filip Van den Bosch, MD, PhD, Rheumatology Head-of-Clinic at Ghent (Belgium) University Hospital, started with a cohort of 208 patients with nr-axSpA who were given etanercept and background NSAIDs for 24 weeks.

“Current guidelines do not agree on whether a TNF-blocking agent or another biological DMARD should be tapered once a status of low disease activity or remission is achieved,” he noted.

Overall, 59% of the patients achieved inactive disease (defined as an ASDAS-CRP < 1.3) and discontinued etanercept.

During the next 40 weeks, 24% of these patients maintained inactive disease with only the background NSAID therapy. Among the 75% who experienced a flare, defined as an ASDAS with erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ASDAS-ESR) score of 2.1 or greater, the median time to flare was 16.1 weeks. Fully 62% of this group were able to regain disease inactivity within 12 weeks of restarting etanercept.

In a comparative analysis, relative to the RE-EMBARK patients discontinuing etanercept, similar patients who continued etanercept on the companion EMBARK trial had a longer time to flare (P < .0001) and an 85% lower risk of this outcome.

“There were no new safety signals identified, and as expected, the number of treatment-emergent adverse events dropped during the drug-free period and, interestingly, remained stable over retreatment,” Dr. Van den Bosch noted.

“Temporarily discontinuing etanercept may be an option for some patients with stable inactive nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis,” he concluded.

The PrevAS trial was financially supported by Pfizer and ReumaNederland. Ms. Rusman declared no relevant conflicts of interest; four coauthors reported financial relationship(s) with Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies. The RE-EMBARK trial was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Van den Bosch disclosed receiving grant/research support from AbbVie, Merck, and UCB, and consulting fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Four coauthors reported financial ties to Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies, and five coauthors were employees and shareholders of Pfizer.

SOURCES: Rusman T et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:72-3; and Van den Bosch F et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:70.

The results from a pair of clinical trials should help to take the guesswork out of starting and stopping the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) in patients with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA). The trials were reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

Optimal use of etanercept in this disease is still being defined, according to the investigators. Its effects, if any, when given very early in the disease course is unclear, and guidance is conflicting when it comes to stopping the drug after inactive disease is achieved.

In the Dutch randomized controlled PrevAS trial of 80 patients with suspected very early nr-axSpA, initiating etanercept instead of placebo did not significantly improve the odds of achieving a 20% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS 20) response criteria at week 16.

And in the multinational, open-label, phase 4 RE-EMBARK trial, three-quarters of the 119 patients with nr-axSpA who achieved inactive disease on etanercept and stopped the drug experienced a flare within 40 weeks. However, the majority were able to regain disease inactivity after restarting the drug.
 

Findings in context

“We all have some patients like this [PrevAS population] where we strongly believe they have axial spondyloarthritis but do not fully qualify,” Nigil Haroon MD, PhD, said in an interview. “From a clinical decision-making process, we may diagnose these patients with axial spondyloarthritis, but due to restrictions in access to medications, we have difficulty accessing biologic medications for them. Hence, this study has practical implications.”

“It has already been shown in other, much larger studies that, even in patients who satisfy the criteria of axial spondyloarthritis, those who are MRI and CRP [C-reactive protein] negative are unlikely to respond, so the results are not surprising,” commented Dr. Haroon, who is codirector of the spondylitis program at the University Health Network and associate professor of medicine and rheumatology at the University of Toronto.

Although intended to be a population with suspected very early disease, several of the PrevAS patients would have met ASAS criteria for the disease at baseline, Dr. Haroon cautioned. In addition, the small sample size precluded subgroup analyses.

“The overall conclusion should be, this is a negative study, rather than state there was a trend to better improvement on etanercept. Although there are practical implications, as mentioned, I don’t think this study, with the numbers and the results presented, will change clinical practice,” he said.

The question of stopping biologics in nr-axSpA was previously addressed in the ABILITY-3 randomized trial of adalimumab (Humira), which found that flares were significantly more common with stopping versus continuing the drug and only about half of patients were able to get back in remission by restarting the drug, according to Dr. Haroon.

However, the RE-EMBARK and ABILITY-3 studies differed in both design and patient population, he noted. For example, the mean disease duration was only about 2 years in the former study, compared with 7 years in the latter.

The initial 59% rate of attaining inactive disease on etanercept in RE-EMBARK was “impressive,” Dr. Haroon said, “but as this was an open-label study, higher values are expected.”

“The message in both studies is that stopping biologics completely is not a good idea as the majority of patients, 70%-75%, will relapse within a short period,” he concluded. “However, it should be kept in mind that these [RE-EMBARK] patients received biologic only for a short 24-week period. This study does not answer the question of whether nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis patients with sustained inactive disease can be taken off biologics abruptly without a taper over time.”

Details of the studies

In the PrevAS trial, Tamara Rusman, a PhD candidate in Rheumatology at the VU University Medical Center Amsterdam and coinvestigators studied patients meeting Calin criteria for inflammatory back pain who had high disease activity plus either HLA-B27 positivity with at least one feature of axial spondyloarthritis or HLA-B27 negativity with two features.

This population is of interest because “most studies have included only patients with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis with a positive MRI of the sacroiliac joints and/or an elevated C-reactive protein level,” she noted.

Results showed that, during 16 weeks of treatment, etanercept users had a nonsignficantly higher rate of achieving an ASAS 20 response with etanercept versus placebo users (17% vs. 11%; hazard ratio, 2.1; P = .2). The etanercept group also had a somewhat higher rate of response as defined by the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score CRP (ASDAS-CRP) criterion (25% vs. 13%; hazard ratio, 1.1; P = .8).

“Based on these data, early treatment in inflammatory back pain patients prone to develop axial spondyloarthritis seems not to be useful,” Ms. Rusman concluded. “However, monitoring of these patients should be continued since they remain a risk group for developing axial spondyloarthritis.”

In the RE-EMBARK trial, investigators led by Filip Van den Bosch, MD, PhD, Rheumatology Head-of-Clinic at Ghent (Belgium) University Hospital, started with a cohort of 208 patients with nr-axSpA who were given etanercept and background NSAIDs for 24 weeks.

“Current guidelines do not agree on whether a TNF-blocking agent or another biological DMARD should be tapered once a status of low disease activity or remission is achieved,” he noted.

Overall, 59% of the patients achieved inactive disease (defined as an ASDAS-CRP < 1.3) and discontinued etanercept.

During the next 40 weeks, 24% of these patients maintained inactive disease with only the background NSAID therapy. Among the 75% who experienced a flare, defined as an ASDAS with erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ASDAS-ESR) score of 2.1 or greater, the median time to flare was 16.1 weeks. Fully 62% of this group were able to regain disease inactivity within 12 weeks of restarting etanercept.

In a comparative analysis, relative to the RE-EMBARK patients discontinuing etanercept, similar patients who continued etanercept on the companion EMBARK trial had a longer time to flare (P < .0001) and an 85% lower risk of this outcome.

“There were no new safety signals identified, and as expected, the number of treatment-emergent adverse events dropped during the drug-free period and, interestingly, remained stable over retreatment,” Dr. Van den Bosch noted.

“Temporarily discontinuing etanercept may be an option for some patients with stable inactive nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis,” he concluded.

The PrevAS trial was financially supported by Pfizer and ReumaNederland. Ms. Rusman declared no relevant conflicts of interest; four coauthors reported financial relationship(s) with Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies. The RE-EMBARK trial was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Van den Bosch disclosed receiving grant/research support from AbbVie, Merck, and UCB, and consulting fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Four coauthors reported financial ties to Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies, and five coauthors were employees and shareholders of Pfizer.

SOURCES: Rusman T et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:72-3; and Van den Bosch F et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:70.

New recommendations from the European League Against Rheumatism on interpreting the results of antinuclear antibody (ANA) testing advised taking the test methodology into account because of differences in performance.

copyright Martynasfoto/Thinkstock

ANA results vary not only by the test being used but also by the underlying disease they are being used to assess, warned Pier Luigi Meroni, MD, director of the Immunorheumatology Research Laboratory at the IRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano in Milan.

“Antinuclear antibody testing is a known diagnostic tool. But the recent advances in methodologies strongly suggests that we have to update our knowledge for a better interpretation of the results,” Dr. Meroni said in his presentation at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

There is “no doubt that ANA testing is useful,” he continued, adding that ANA is used as a primary screening tool in many rheumatic diseases, notably systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), primary Sjögren’s syndrome, and systemic sclerosis. It’s also recently been suggested as an important entry criterion for the classification of SLE.

In fact, the 2019 SLE classification criteria – developed by EULAR in collaboration with the American College of Rheumatology – state that “testing by immunofluorescence on HEp-2 cells or a solid-phase ANA screening immunoassay with at least equivalent performance is highly recommended,” Dr. Meroni said.

The ideas underpinning that recommendation was that “ANA expression is invariable in SLE, and that ANA-negative lupus is quite rare,” he explained. Also, as SLE expression persists over time, ANA testing could be used for classification at any point in the disease course. These assumptions have been borne out in several studies, with very small percentages of patients (6% or less) having ANA-negative lupus, and more than 80% having a positive HEp-2 test over time, even with immunosuppressive treatment.

Which test methodology to use?

There are several methods that can be used to detect ANA, including the preferred HEp-2 indirect fluorescence assay (IFA), several solid-phase assays (SpA), and line- or dot-blot immunoassays. The issue is which assay should be used in which disease?

The performance of a particular assay can depend on the disease in which they are used. For instance, while the HEp-2 IFA and SpA are equivalent in SLE and in other connective tissue diseases, “this is not the case for other autoimmune diseases in which basically we don’t know exactly all the autoantigens,” Dr. Meroni explained. “Most of the autoantigens are undefined. They cannot be found in solid-phase kits, and we have to use the IFA for detecting all these autoantibodies.”

Importantly, neither the IFA nor the SpA is superior to the other. “We just say that one technique can detect relevant antibodies that are not detectable by the other one, and maybe the combination of the two techniques can be the right strategy to get the highest sensitivity,” Dr. Meroni said.

“Clinicians should be aware of the type of assay used for ANA detection,” he said, “because there are strong differences in the performance, for example between IFA and SpA, and such differences can have important clinical and relevant consequences.”

The test selected will depend on if the aim is to exclude or confirm a disease, and the optimal strategy will depend on pretest probability. For instance, IFA is more sensitive than SpA for SLE and scleroderma, whereas IFA is less sensitive than SpA for Sjögren’s. For SLE, it is suggested to use both the IFA and SpA. A combination of both tests is also considered optimal for scleroderma. SpA testing offers the best sensitivity for Sjögren’s.

“The story is a little bit more complicated for inflammatory myopathies in which we don’t have assays able to detect all the autoantibodies,” Dr. Meroni said. In that situation, several different techniques have to be used to check if the SpA results fit with the IFA pattern.

In 2019, the ACR released its own position statement on ANA testing, highlighting that it supported the use of the HEp-2 IFA assay as the preferred option for ANA testing and that labs should specify the methods being used to test for ANA when reporting their results. The ACR position statement also noted that “ordering health care professionals should select specific ANA subserologies based on a patient’s signs and symptoms and when there is a high pretest suspicion for a specific condition.”

Dr. Meroni disclosed serving as a consultant to Inova Diagnostics, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Pfizer, AbbVie, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and UCB.

New recommendations from the European League Against Rheumatism on interpreting the results of antinuclear antibody (ANA) testing advised taking the test methodology into account because of differences in performance.

copyright Martynasfoto/Thinkstock

ANA results vary not only by the test being used but also by the underlying disease they are being used to assess, warned Pier Luigi Meroni, MD, director of the Immunorheumatology Research Laboratory at the IRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano in Milan.

“Antinuclear antibody testing is a known diagnostic tool. But the recent advances in methodologies strongly suggests that we have to update our knowledge for a better interpretation of the results,” Dr. Meroni said in his presentation at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

There is “no doubt that ANA testing is useful,” he continued, adding that ANA is used as a primary screening tool in many rheumatic diseases, notably systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), primary Sjögren’s syndrome, and systemic sclerosis. It’s also recently been suggested as an important entry criterion for the classification of SLE.

In fact, the 2019 SLE classification criteria – developed by EULAR in collaboration with the American College of Rheumatology – state that “testing by immunofluorescence on HEp-2 cells or a solid-phase ANA screening immunoassay with at least equivalent performance is highly recommended,” Dr. Meroni said.

The ideas underpinning that recommendation was that “ANA expression is invariable in SLE, and that ANA-negative lupus is quite rare,” he explained. Also, as SLE expression persists over time, ANA testing could be used for classification at any point in the disease course. These assumptions have been borne out in several studies, with very small percentages of patients (6% or less) having ANA-negative lupus, and more than 80% having a positive HEp-2 test over time, even with immunosuppressive treatment.

Which test methodology to use?

There are several methods that can be used to detect ANA, including the preferred HEp-2 indirect fluorescence assay (IFA), several solid-phase assays (SpA), and line- or dot-blot immunoassays. The issue is which assay should be used in which disease?

The performance of a particular assay can depend on the disease in which they are used. For instance, while the HEp-2 IFA and SpA are equivalent in SLE and in other connective tissue diseases, “this is not the case for other autoimmune diseases in which basically we don’t know exactly all the autoantigens,” Dr. Meroni explained. “Most of the autoantigens are undefined. They cannot be found in solid-phase kits, and we have to use the IFA for detecting all these autoantibodies.”

Importantly, neither the IFA nor the SpA is superior to the other. “We just say that one technique can detect relevant antibodies that are not detectable by the other one, and maybe the combination of the two techniques can be the right strategy to get the highest sensitivity,” Dr. Meroni said.

“Clinicians should be aware of the type of assay used for ANA detection,” he said, “because there are strong differences in the performance, for example between IFA and SpA, and such differences can have important clinical and relevant consequences.”

The test selected will depend on if the aim is to exclude or confirm a disease, and the optimal strategy will depend on pretest probability. For instance, IFA is more sensitive than SpA for SLE and scleroderma, whereas IFA is less sensitive than SpA for Sjögren’s. For SLE, it is suggested to use both the IFA and SpA. A combination of both tests is also considered optimal for scleroderma. SpA testing offers the best sensitivity for Sjögren’s.

“The story is a little bit more complicated for inflammatory myopathies in which we don’t have assays able to detect all the autoantibodies,” Dr. Meroni said. In that situation, several different techniques have to be used to check if the SpA results fit with the IFA pattern.

In 2019, the ACR released its own position statement on ANA testing, highlighting that it supported the use of the HEp-2 IFA assay as the preferred option for ANA testing and that labs should specify the methods being used to test for ANA when reporting their results. The ACR position statement also noted that “ordering health care professionals should select specific ANA subserologies based on a patient’s signs and symptoms and when there is a high pretest suspicion for a specific condition.”

Dr. Meroni disclosed serving as a consultant to Inova Diagnostics, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Pfizer, AbbVie, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and UCB.

New recommendations from the European League Against Rheumatism on interpreting the results of antinuclear antibody (ANA) testing advised taking the test methodology into account because of differences in performance.

copyright Martynasfoto/Thinkstock

ANA results vary not only by the test being used but also by the underlying disease they are being used to assess, warned Pier Luigi Meroni, MD, director of the Immunorheumatology Research Laboratory at the IRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano in Milan.

“Antinuclear antibody testing is a known diagnostic tool. But the recent advances in methodologies strongly suggests that we have to update our knowledge for a better interpretation of the results,” Dr. Meroni said in his presentation at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

There is “no doubt that ANA testing is useful,” he continued, adding that ANA is used as a primary screening tool in many rheumatic diseases, notably systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), primary Sjögren’s syndrome, and systemic sclerosis. It’s also recently been suggested as an important entry criterion for the classification of SLE.

In fact, the 2019 SLE classification criteria – developed by EULAR in collaboration with the American College of Rheumatology – state that “testing by immunofluorescence on HEp-2 cells or a solid-phase ANA screening immunoassay with at least equivalent performance is highly recommended,” Dr. Meroni said.

The ideas underpinning that recommendation was that “ANA expression is invariable in SLE, and that ANA-negative lupus is quite rare,” he explained. Also, as SLE expression persists over time, ANA testing could be used for classification at any point in the disease course. These assumptions have been borne out in several studies, with very small percentages of patients (6% or less) having ANA-negative lupus, and more than 80% having a positive HEp-2 test over time, even with immunosuppressive treatment.

Which test methodology to use?

There are several methods that can be used to detect ANA, including the preferred HEp-2 indirect fluorescence assay (IFA), several solid-phase assays (SpA), and line- or dot-blot immunoassays. The issue is which assay should be used in which disease?

The performance of a particular assay can depend on the disease in which they are used. For instance, while the HEp-2 IFA and SpA are equivalent in SLE and in other connective tissue diseases, “this is not the case for other autoimmune diseases in which basically we don’t know exactly all the autoantigens,” Dr. Meroni explained. “Most of the autoantigens are undefined. They cannot be found in solid-phase kits, and we have to use the IFA for detecting all these autoantibodies.”

Importantly, neither the IFA nor the SpA is superior to the other. “We just say that one technique can detect relevant antibodies that are not detectable by the other one, and maybe the combination of the two techniques can be the right strategy to get the highest sensitivity,” Dr. Meroni said.

“Clinicians should be aware of the type of assay used for ANA detection,” he said, “because there are strong differences in the performance, for example between IFA and SpA, and such differences can have important clinical and relevant consequences.”

The test selected will depend on if the aim is to exclude or confirm a disease, and the optimal strategy will depend on pretest probability. For instance, IFA is more sensitive than SpA for SLE and scleroderma, whereas IFA is less sensitive than SpA for Sjögren’s. For SLE, it is suggested to use both the IFA and SpA. A combination of both tests is also considered optimal for scleroderma. SpA testing offers the best sensitivity for Sjögren’s.

“The story is a little bit more complicated for inflammatory myopathies in which we don’t have assays able to detect all the autoantibodies,” Dr. Meroni said. In that situation, several different techniques have to be used to check if the SpA results fit with the IFA pattern.

In 2019, the ACR released its own position statement on ANA testing, highlighting that it supported the use of the HEp-2 IFA assay as the preferred option for ANA testing and that labs should specify the methods being used to test for ANA when reporting their results. The ACR position statement also noted that “ordering health care professionals should select specific ANA subserologies based on a patient’s signs and symptoms and when there is a high pretest suspicion for a specific condition.”

Dr. Meroni disclosed serving as a consultant to Inova Diagnostics, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Pfizer, AbbVie, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and UCB.

Scleroderma renal crisis is often the most challenging type of scleroderma emergency to identify promptly, according to Francesco Boin, MD, professor of medicine and director of the scleroderma center at the University of California, San Francisco.

“Fortunately, it’s not a frequent event. But it’s severe enough that all rheumatologists should be aware of it,” he said at the virtual edition of the American College of Rheumatology’s 2020 State-of-the-Art Clinical Symposium.
 

Atypical presentations occur in 30%

Scleroderma renal crisis (SRC) occurs in 5%-10% of scleroderma patients. A vexing feature of this emergency is that not uncommonly it actually precedes the diagnosis of scleroderma. Indeed, 20% of patients with SRC present with sine scleroderma – that is, they have no skin disease and their renal crisis is their first symptom of scleroderma. In contrast, critical digital ischemia – the most common scleroderma emergency – is invariably preceded by worsening episodes of Raynaud’s, and impending intestinal pseudo-obstruction – also among the most common scleroderma emergencies – is heralded by an established history of dysmotility, loss of appetite, abdominal bloating, small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, and bowel distension.

While sine SRC often poses a formidable diagnostic challenge, SRC occurs most often in patients with early, rapidly progressing diffuse scleroderma skin disease. Indeed, the median duration of scleroderma when SRC strikes is just 8 months. The use of glucocorticoids at 15 mg or more per day, or at lower doses for a lengthy period, is an independent risk factor for SRC. Detection of anti–RNA polymerase III antibodies warrants increased vigilance, since 60% of patients with SRC are anti–RNA polymerase III antibody positive. Other autoantibodies are not a risk factor. Neither is preexisting hypertension nor a high baseline serum creatinine.

The classic textbook presentation of SRC is abrupt onset of blood pressures greater than 20 mm Hg above normal for that individual, along with sudden renal failure; a climbing creatinine; proteinuria; and expressions of malignant hypertension such as pulmonary edema, new-onset heart failure, encephalopathy, and/or development of a thrombotic microangiopathy.

Notably, however, 30% of individuals with SRC don’t fit this picture at all. They may present with abrupt-onset severe hypertension but no evidence of renal failure, at least early on. Or they may have sudden renal failure without a hypertensive crisis. Alternatively, they may have no signs of malignant hypertension, just an asymptomatic pericardial effusion or mild arrhythmias.

“Also, the thrombotic microangiopathy can be present without the other features of scleroderma renal crisis, so no renal failure or hypertensive emergency. Be aware of the possibility of atypical presentations, and always suspect this unfolding problem in the right individuals,” the rheumatologist urged.

Anyone with scleroderma who presents with new-onset hypertension needs to begin keeping a careful home blood pressure diary. If the blood pressure shoots up, or symptoms of malignant hypertension develop, or laboratory monitoring reveals evidence of thrombotic microangiopathy, the patient should immediately go to the ED because these events are often followed by accelerated progression to renal crisis.

Inpatient management of SRC is critical. “In the hospital we can monitor renal function in a more refined way, we can manage the malignant hypertension, and early on, hospitalization provides the opportunity to do a renal biopsy. I always consider doing this early. The pathologist often pushes back, but I think it’s relevant. It confirms the diagnosis. We’ve had patients where we were surprised: We thought it was scleroderma renal crisis, but instead they had interstitial nephritis or glomerulonephritis. Most important, biopsy has major prognostic implications: You can measure the extent of damage and therefore have a sense of whether the patient will be able to recover renal function,” Dr. Boin explained.

Prognosis and predictors

Outcome of SRC is often poor: the 1-year mortality is 20%-30%, with a 5-year mortality of 30%-50%. Normotensive SRC with renal crisis, which accounts for about 10% of all cases of SRC, is particularly serious in its implication, with a 1-year mortality of 60%. Half of patients with SRC require hemodialysis, and only one-quarter of them recover spontaneous renal function.

Predictors of worse outcome include older age at onset of SRC, male gender, a serum creatinine level above 3 mg/dL at presentation, incomplete blood pressure control within the first 3 days of the crisis, and normotensive SRC. Use of an ACE inhibitor prior to SRC is also an independent predictor of poor outcome, possibly because by keeping the blood pressure under control the medication blunts recognition of the unfolding renal crisis.

“This is why experts don’t recommend prophylactic ACE inhibitors in patients who are at risk for SRC,” according to Dr. Boin.

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

[email protected]

Scleroderma renal crisis is often the most challenging type of scleroderma emergency to identify promptly, according to Francesco Boin, MD, professor of medicine and director of the scleroderma center at the University of California, San Francisco.

“Fortunately, it’s not a frequent event. But it’s severe enough that all rheumatologists should be aware of it,” he said at the virtual edition of the American College of Rheumatology’s 2020 State-of-the-Art Clinical Symposium.
 

Atypical presentations occur in 30%

Scleroderma renal crisis (SRC) occurs in 5%-10% of scleroderma patients. A vexing feature of this emergency is that not uncommonly it actually precedes the diagnosis of scleroderma. Indeed, 20% of patients with SRC present with sine scleroderma – that is, they have no skin disease and their renal crisis is their first symptom of scleroderma. In contrast, critical digital ischemia – the most common scleroderma emergency – is invariably preceded by worsening episodes of Raynaud’s, and impending intestinal pseudo-obstruction – also among the most common scleroderma emergencies – is heralded by an established history of dysmotility, loss of appetite, abdominal bloating, small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, and bowel distension.

While sine SRC often poses a formidable diagnostic challenge, SRC occurs most often in patients with early, rapidly progressing diffuse scleroderma skin disease. Indeed, the median duration of scleroderma when SRC strikes is just 8 months. The use of glucocorticoids at 15 mg or more per day, or at lower doses for a lengthy period, is an independent risk factor for SRC. Detection of anti–RNA polymerase III antibodies warrants increased vigilance, since 60% of patients with SRC are anti–RNA polymerase III antibody positive. Other autoantibodies are not a risk factor. Neither is preexisting hypertension nor a high baseline serum creatinine.

The classic textbook presentation of SRC is abrupt onset of blood pressures greater than 20 mm Hg above normal for that individual, along with sudden renal failure; a climbing creatinine; proteinuria; and expressions of malignant hypertension such as pulmonary edema, new-onset heart failure, encephalopathy, and/or development of a thrombotic microangiopathy.

Notably, however, 30% of individuals with SRC don’t fit this picture at all. They may present with abrupt-onset severe hypertension but no evidence of renal failure, at least early on. Or they may have sudden renal failure without a hypertensive crisis. Alternatively, they may have no signs of malignant hypertension, just an asymptomatic pericardial effusion or mild arrhythmias.

“Also, the thrombotic microangiopathy can be present without the other features of scleroderma renal crisis, so no renal failure or hypertensive emergency. Be aware of the possibility of atypical presentations, and always suspect this unfolding problem in the right individuals,” the rheumatologist urged.

Anyone with scleroderma who presents with new-onset hypertension needs to begin keeping a careful home blood pressure diary. If the blood pressure shoots up, or symptoms of malignant hypertension develop, or laboratory monitoring reveals evidence of thrombotic microangiopathy, the patient should immediately go to the ED because these events are often followed by accelerated progression to renal crisis.

Inpatient management of SRC is critical. “In the hospital we can monitor renal function in a more refined way, we can manage the malignant hypertension, and early on, hospitalization provides the opportunity to do a renal biopsy. I always consider doing this early. The pathologist often pushes back, but I think it’s relevant. It confirms the diagnosis. We’ve had patients where we were surprised: We thought it was scleroderma renal crisis, but instead they had interstitial nephritis or glomerulonephritis. Most important, biopsy has major prognostic implications: You can measure the extent of damage and therefore have a sense of whether the patient will be able to recover renal function,” Dr. Boin explained.

Prognosis and predictors

Outcome of SRC is often poor: the 1-year mortality is 20%-30%, with a 5-year mortality of 30%-50%. Normotensive SRC with renal crisis, which accounts for about 10% of all cases of SRC, is particularly serious in its implication, with a 1-year mortality of 60%. Half of patients with SRC require hemodialysis, and only one-quarter of them recover spontaneous renal function.

Predictors of worse outcome include older age at onset of SRC, male gender, a serum creatinine level above 3 mg/dL at presentation, incomplete blood pressure control within the first 3 days of the crisis, and normotensive SRC. Use of an ACE inhibitor prior to SRC is also an independent predictor of poor outcome, possibly because by keeping the blood pressure under control the medication blunts recognition of the unfolding renal crisis.

“This is why experts don’t recommend prophylactic ACE inhibitors in patients who are at risk for SRC,” according to Dr. Boin.

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

[email protected]

Scleroderma renal crisis is often the most challenging type of scleroderma emergency to identify promptly, according to Francesco Boin, MD, professor of medicine and director of the scleroderma center at the University of California, San Francisco.

“Fortunately, it’s not a frequent event. But it’s severe enough that all rheumatologists should be aware of it,” he said at the virtual edition of the American College of Rheumatology’s 2020 State-of-the-Art Clinical Symposium.
 

Atypical presentations occur in 30%

Scleroderma renal crisis (SRC) occurs in 5%-10% of scleroderma patients. A vexing feature of this emergency is that not uncommonly it actually precedes the diagnosis of scleroderma. Indeed, 20% of patients with SRC present with sine scleroderma – that is, they have no skin disease and their renal crisis is their first symptom of scleroderma. In contrast, critical digital ischemia – the most common scleroderma emergency – is invariably preceded by worsening episodes of Raynaud’s, and impending intestinal pseudo-obstruction – also among the most common scleroderma emergencies – is heralded by an established history of dysmotility, loss of appetite, abdominal bloating, small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, and bowel distension.

While sine SRC often poses a formidable diagnostic challenge, SRC occurs most often in patients with early, rapidly progressing diffuse scleroderma skin disease. Indeed, the median duration of scleroderma when SRC strikes is just 8 months. The use of glucocorticoids at 15 mg or more per day, or at lower doses for a lengthy period, is an independent risk factor for SRC. Detection of anti–RNA polymerase III antibodies warrants increased vigilance, since 60% of patients with SRC are anti–RNA polymerase III antibody positive. Other autoantibodies are not a risk factor. Neither is preexisting hypertension nor a high baseline serum creatinine.

The classic textbook presentation of SRC is abrupt onset of blood pressures greater than 20 mm Hg above normal for that individual, along with sudden renal failure; a climbing creatinine; proteinuria; and expressions of malignant hypertension such as pulmonary edema, new-onset heart failure, encephalopathy, and/or development of a thrombotic microangiopathy.

Notably, however, 30% of individuals with SRC don’t fit this picture at all. They may present with abrupt-onset severe hypertension but no evidence of renal failure, at least early on. Or they may have sudden renal failure without a hypertensive crisis. Alternatively, they may have no signs of malignant hypertension, just an asymptomatic pericardial effusion or mild arrhythmias.

“Also, the thrombotic microangiopathy can be present without the other features of scleroderma renal crisis, so no renal failure or hypertensive emergency. Be aware of the possibility of atypical presentations, and always suspect this unfolding problem in the right individuals,” the rheumatologist urged.

Anyone with scleroderma who presents with new-onset hypertension needs to begin keeping a careful home blood pressure diary. If the blood pressure shoots up, or symptoms of malignant hypertension develop, or laboratory monitoring reveals evidence of thrombotic microangiopathy, the patient should immediately go to the ED because these events are often followed by accelerated progression to renal crisis.

Inpatient management of SRC is critical. “In the hospital we can monitor renal function in a more refined way, we can manage the malignant hypertension, and early on, hospitalization provides the opportunity to do a renal biopsy. I always consider doing this early. The pathologist often pushes back, but I think it’s relevant. It confirms the diagnosis. We’ve had patients where we were surprised: We thought it was scleroderma renal crisis, but instead they had interstitial nephritis or glomerulonephritis. Most important, biopsy has major prognostic implications: You can measure the extent of damage and therefore have a sense of whether the patient will be able to recover renal function,” Dr. Boin explained.

Prognosis and predictors

Outcome of SRC is often poor: the 1-year mortality is 20%-30%, with a 5-year mortality of 30%-50%. Normotensive SRC with renal crisis, which accounts for about 10% of all cases of SRC, is particularly serious in its implication, with a 1-year mortality of 60%. Half of patients with SRC require hemodialysis, and only one-quarter of them recover spontaneous renal function.

Predictors of worse outcome include older age at onset of SRC, male gender, a serum creatinine level above 3 mg/dL at presentation, incomplete blood pressure control within the first 3 days of the crisis, and normotensive SRC. Use of an ACE inhibitor prior to SRC is also an independent predictor of poor outcome, possibly because by keeping the blood pressure under control the medication blunts recognition of the unfolding renal crisis.

“This is why experts don’t recommend prophylactic ACE inhibitors in patients who are at risk for SRC,” according to Dr. Boin.

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

[email protected]

Seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients had twice the risk for developing pneumonia, compared with seronegative patients, in a study of more than 4,000 RA patients from a single U.S. medical system.

“Patients with seropositive RA, particularly RF [rheumatoid factor]-positive RA, had increased risk for pneumonia throughout the RA disease course that was not explained by measured confounders, including smoking status, multimorbidity, medications, and [erythrocyte sedimentation rate] level,” Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

“There has been much interest about the relationship between lung inflammation and the generation of RF and CCP [cyclic citrullinated protein] prior to the onset of RA. We hypothesized that patients with seropositive RA might have subclinical lung injury that could predispose them to pneumonia after clinical RA onset,” Dr. Sparks said in an interview. “Pneumonia is one of the most common serious infections in both patients with RA and the general population, and it causes serious morbidity and mortality.”

The doubled relative risk for pneumonia seen in the findings “translates into a clinically meaningful finding when considering the high rate and the many patients at risk since RA is relatively common,” said Dr. Sparks, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

“Patients with RF-positive RA who present with symptoms concerning for pneumonia should be evaluated carefully for this and for other possible pulmonary manifestations of RA. Vaccination for pneumonia should be strongly considered for patients with RA who are on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and we hope that our report encourages clinicians and patients” to undertake vaccination, he said.

His study used a database of more than 60,000 patients diagnosed with RA as of November 2013 in the records of a large Boston-area medical system that includes physicians affiliated with Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital. The researchers applied a validated algorithm for calculating a patient’s probability of having RA, and at the level of 97% probability they narrowed the cohort down to just under 10,000 patients. Additional winnowing because of missing data or a history of pneumonia yielded a study group of 4,110, which included 3,279 (80%) who were seropositive for either or both CCP and RF, and 831 (20%) who were seronegative. During a median follow-up of 7.8 years and total follow-up of more than 32,000 patient-years, the overall pneumonia incidence was 5.8%, with a 2.8% rate among the seronegatives and a 6.6% rate among seropositives. After adjustment for age, sex, glucocorticoid use, disease-modifying antirheumatic drug use, and several other possible confounders, the researchers calculated a 99% relative increased rate of pneumonia among all seropositive patients, compared with the seronegatives.

Further analysis looked at pneumonia incidence rates among patients positive only for CCP antibody, positive only for RF antibody, or both, compared with seronegative patients. This showed that CCP seropositivity had no statistically significant link with incident pneumonia, while RF seropositivity linked with a statistically significant, roughly twofold higher rate. Only 6% of all seropositive patients were positive only for CCP antibody, 59% were positive specifically for RF antibody, and 35% for both.

The data Dr. Sparks presented did not include information on pneumonia type, the timing of the pneumonia, compared with the onset of RA, disease activity, or smoking intensity.

“We anticipated that both RF positive and CCP positive would each be associated with pneumonia, so it was somewhat surprising that we only detected this for RF,” Dr. Sparks said. But he added that, because the number of patients with only CCP positivity was relatively so small, “it is still possible that CCP [antibody] could also increase pneumonia risk.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Sparks had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Sparks JA et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79[suppl 1]:73, Abstract OP0111.

Seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients had twice the risk for developing pneumonia, compared with seronegative patients, in a study of more than 4,000 RA patients from a single U.S. medical system.

“Patients with seropositive RA, particularly RF [rheumatoid factor]-positive RA, had increased risk for pneumonia throughout the RA disease course that was not explained by measured confounders, including smoking status, multimorbidity, medications, and [erythrocyte sedimentation rate] level,” Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

“There has been much interest about the relationship between lung inflammation and the generation of RF and CCP [cyclic citrullinated protein] prior to the onset of RA. We hypothesized that patients with seropositive RA might have subclinical lung injury that could predispose them to pneumonia after clinical RA onset,” Dr. Sparks said in an interview. “Pneumonia is one of the most common serious infections in both patients with RA and the general population, and it causes serious morbidity and mortality.”

The doubled relative risk for pneumonia seen in the findings “translates into a clinically meaningful finding when considering the high rate and the many patients at risk since RA is relatively common,” said Dr. Sparks, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

“Patients with RF-positive RA who present with symptoms concerning for pneumonia should be evaluated carefully for this and for other possible pulmonary manifestations of RA. Vaccination for pneumonia should be strongly considered for patients with RA who are on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and we hope that our report encourages clinicians and patients” to undertake vaccination, he said.

His study used a database of more than 60,000 patients diagnosed with RA as of November 2013 in the records of a large Boston-area medical system that includes physicians affiliated with Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital. The researchers applied a validated algorithm for calculating a patient’s probability of having RA, and at the level of 97% probability they narrowed the cohort down to just under 10,000 patients. Additional winnowing because of missing data or a history of pneumonia yielded a study group of 4,110, which included 3,279 (80%) who were seropositive for either or both CCP and RF, and 831 (20%) who were seronegative. During a median follow-up of 7.8 years and total follow-up of more than 32,000 patient-years, the overall pneumonia incidence was 5.8%, with a 2.8% rate among the seronegatives and a 6.6% rate among seropositives. After adjustment for age, sex, glucocorticoid use, disease-modifying antirheumatic drug use, and several other possible confounders, the researchers calculated a 99% relative increased rate of pneumonia among all seropositive patients, compared with the seronegatives.

Further analysis looked at pneumonia incidence rates among patients positive only for CCP antibody, positive only for RF antibody, or both, compared with seronegative patients. This showed that CCP seropositivity had no statistically significant link with incident pneumonia, while RF seropositivity linked with a statistically significant, roughly twofold higher rate. Only 6% of all seropositive patients were positive only for CCP antibody, 59% were positive specifically for RF antibody, and 35% for both.

The data Dr. Sparks presented did not include information on pneumonia type, the timing of the pneumonia, compared with the onset of RA, disease activity, or smoking intensity.

“We anticipated that both RF positive and CCP positive would each be associated with pneumonia, so it was somewhat surprising that we only detected this for RF,” Dr. Sparks said. But he added that, because the number of patients with only CCP positivity was relatively so small, “it is still possible that CCP [antibody] could also increase pneumonia risk.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Sparks had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Sparks JA et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79[suppl 1]:73, Abstract OP0111.

Seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients had twice the risk for developing pneumonia, compared with seronegative patients, in a study of more than 4,000 RA patients from a single U.S. medical system.

“Patients with seropositive RA, particularly RF [rheumatoid factor]-positive RA, had increased risk for pneumonia throughout the RA disease course that was not explained by measured confounders, including smoking status, multimorbidity, medications, and [erythrocyte sedimentation rate] level,” Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

“There has been much interest about the relationship between lung inflammation and the generation of RF and CCP [cyclic citrullinated protein] prior to the onset of RA. We hypothesized that patients with seropositive RA might have subclinical lung injury that could predispose them to pneumonia after clinical RA onset,” Dr. Sparks said in an interview. “Pneumonia is one of the most common serious infections in both patients with RA and the general population, and it causes serious morbidity and mortality.”

The doubled relative risk for pneumonia seen in the findings “translates into a clinically meaningful finding when considering the high rate and the many patients at risk since RA is relatively common,” said Dr. Sparks, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

“Patients with RF-positive RA who present with symptoms concerning for pneumonia should be evaluated carefully for this and for other possible pulmonary manifestations of RA. Vaccination for pneumonia should be strongly considered for patients with RA who are on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and we hope that our report encourages clinicians and patients” to undertake vaccination, he said.

His study used a database of more than 60,000 patients diagnosed with RA as of November 2013 in the records of a large Boston-area medical system that includes physicians affiliated with Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital. The researchers applied a validated algorithm for calculating a patient’s probability of having RA, and at the level of 97% probability they narrowed the cohort down to just under 10,000 patients. Additional winnowing because of missing data or a history of pneumonia yielded a study group of 4,110, which included 3,279 (80%) who were seropositive for either or both CCP and RF, and 831 (20%) who were seronegative. During a median follow-up of 7.8 years and total follow-up of more than 32,000 patient-years, the overall pneumonia incidence was 5.8%, with a 2.8% rate among the seronegatives and a 6.6% rate among seropositives. After adjustment for age, sex, glucocorticoid use, disease-modifying antirheumatic drug use, and several other possible confounders, the researchers calculated a 99% relative increased rate of pneumonia among all seropositive patients, compared with the seronegatives.

Further analysis looked at pneumonia incidence rates among patients positive only for CCP antibody, positive only for RF antibody, or both, compared with seronegative patients. This showed that CCP seropositivity had no statistically significant link with incident pneumonia, while RF seropositivity linked with a statistically significant, roughly twofold higher rate. Only 6% of all seropositive patients were positive only for CCP antibody, 59% were positive specifically for RF antibody, and 35% for both.

The data Dr. Sparks presented did not include information on pneumonia type, the timing of the pneumonia, compared with the onset of RA, disease activity, or smoking intensity.

“We anticipated that both RF positive and CCP positive would each be associated with pneumonia, so it was somewhat surprising that we only detected this for RF,” Dr. Sparks said. But he added that, because the number of patients with only CCP positivity was relatively so small, “it is still possible that CCP [antibody] could also increase pneumonia risk.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Sparks had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Sparks JA et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79[suppl 1]:73, Abstract OP0111.

Structural entheseal lesions and reduced bone mineral density detected using high-resolution CT imaging of a pair of knuckle joints in patients with psoriasis strongly linked with subsequent development of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in a single-center study with 114 patients followed for an average of 2.3 years.

“These findings substantiate the concept of mechano-inflammation in the pathogenesis of psoriatic disease,” and suggest that interventions with high efficacy for controlling entheseal inflammation may be a “particularly valuable strategy in interfering with the onset of PsA in patients with psoriatic disease,” David Simon, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

The study, which is now published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, began with 377 patients with psoriasis who had been referred to the University Hospital in Erlangen, Germany, during 2011-2018, and who tested positive on the German Psoriasis Arthritis Diagnostic questionnaire. The researchers excluded patients with existing signs of PsA, any arthritis or enthesitis or other signs of inflammatory rheumatic disease, and they also excluded patients who had not undergoing a high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT (HR-pQCT) examination of the second and third metacarpal joints of the patient’s nondominant hand, which left 114 patients for their analysis. During a mean follow-up of 28 months, 24 patients (27%) developed PsA. The study patients were an average age of 45 years, and they had been diagnosed with psoriasis for an average of about 16 years.

Dr. Simon and associates used the baseline HR-pQCT scans to make two assessments of each patient: the presence of structural entheseal lesions (SEL) in the two metacarpal joints and the calculated volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD). Their analysis showed that the number and severity of SEL were increased among patients who later developed PsA. In a multivariable model that adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, duration of psoriasis, and arthralgia, patients with any SEL had a fivefold higher rate of developing PsA, compared with patients with no SEL, reported Dr. Simon, a rheumatologist at Erlangen University Hospital.

The analysis of vBMD also showed a strong link between bone density at the entheseal sites of the two studied joints and subsequent PsA development. For every standard deviation increase in vBMD at these sites the subsequent rate of PsA incidence fell by about 67% in an analysis that controlled for the same covariants as well as presence of SEL. The same relationship between higher vBMD and a lower risk for PsA held for both total vBMD measurement and for cortical vBMD, but only at the entheseal site. Levels of vBMD at the intra-articular site of the joints had no statistically significant relationship with subsequent PsA development.

The two metrics also appeared to identify additive risks. Nearly 90% of patients with at least one SEL who also had low vBMD at the entheseal site developed PsA during follow-up, compared with about a 50% rate among patients with at least one SEL but high vBMD.

courtesy EULAR

The imaging method used to run these analyses, HR-pQCT, remains for the time being a “research technique” that “is not generalizable for routine practice,” but further development of this method or of a surrogate measure might make it feasible for future widespread practice, commented Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, president of the European League Against Rheumatism and professor of rheumatology and director of the Institute of Infection, Immunity, and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow.

“We’ve thought for many years that psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are on a spectrum, and this work is consistent with the idea that some patients with psoriasis develop tissue involvement at entheses and joints,” Dr. McInnes said in an interview. The higher incidence of PsA seen in patients with adverse SEL and vBMD markers was in an “interesting range” that warrants further study. A next step is to run an intervention study in which patients with these adverse markers would receive an intervention randomized against placebo to see if it improved their outcomes, he suggested. Good candidate agents to study in psoriasis patients who have these adverse markers include drugs that inhibit the action of interleukin-17, drugs that target the p19 cytokine subunit of IL-23, and possibly Janus kinase inhibitor drugs.

Dr. Simon has been a consultant to AbbVie and Eli Lilly, a speaker on behalf of Eli Lilly, Janssen, and Novartis, and has received research funding from Eli Lilly and Novartis. Dr. McInnes has been a consultant to AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, and he has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and UCB.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Simon D et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79[suppl 1]:33-4, Abstract OP0051.

Structural entheseal lesions and reduced bone mineral density detected using high-resolution CT imaging of a pair of knuckle joints in patients with psoriasis strongly linked with subsequent development of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in a single-center study with 114 patients followed for an average of 2.3 years.

“These findings substantiate the concept of mechano-inflammation in the pathogenesis of psoriatic disease,” and suggest that interventions with high efficacy for controlling entheseal inflammation may be a “particularly valuable strategy in interfering with the onset of PsA in patients with psoriatic disease,” David Simon, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

The study, which is now published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, began with 377 patients with psoriasis who had been referred to the University Hospital in Erlangen, Germany, during 2011-2018, and who tested positive on the German Psoriasis Arthritis Diagnostic questionnaire. The researchers excluded patients with existing signs of PsA, any arthritis or enthesitis or other signs of inflammatory rheumatic disease, and they also excluded patients who had not undergoing a high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT (HR-pQCT) examination of the second and third metacarpal joints of the patient’s nondominant hand, which left 114 patients for their analysis. During a mean follow-up of 28 months, 24 patients (27%) developed PsA. The study patients were an average age of 45 years, and they had been diagnosed with psoriasis for an average of about 16 years.

Dr. Simon and associates used the baseline HR-pQCT scans to make two assessments of each patient: the presence of structural entheseal lesions (SEL) in the two metacarpal joints and the calculated volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD). Their analysis showed that the number and severity of SEL were increased among patients who later developed PsA. In a multivariable model that adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, duration of psoriasis, and arthralgia, patients with any SEL had a fivefold higher rate of developing PsA, compared with patients with no SEL, reported Dr. Simon, a rheumatologist at Erlangen University Hospital.

The analysis of vBMD also showed a strong link between bone density at the entheseal sites of the two studied joints and subsequent PsA development. For every standard deviation increase in vBMD at these sites the subsequent rate of PsA incidence fell by about 67% in an analysis that controlled for the same covariants as well as presence of SEL. The same relationship between higher vBMD and a lower risk for PsA held for both total vBMD measurement and for cortical vBMD, but only at the entheseal site. Levels of vBMD at the intra-articular site of the joints had no statistically significant relationship with subsequent PsA development.

The two metrics also appeared to identify additive risks. Nearly 90% of patients with at least one SEL who also had low vBMD at the entheseal site developed PsA during follow-up, compared with about a 50% rate among patients with at least one SEL but high vBMD.

courtesy EULAR

The imaging method used to run these analyses, HR-pQCT, remains for the time being a “research technique” that “is not generalizable for routine practice,” but further development of this method or of a surrogate measure might make it feasible for future widespread practice, commented Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, president of the European League Against Rheumatism and professor of rheumatology and director of the Institute of Infection, Immunity, and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow.

“We’ve thought for many years that psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are on a spectrum, and this work is consistent with the idea that some patients with psoriasis develop tissue involvement at entheses and joints,” Dr. McInnes said in an interview. The higher incidence of PsA seen in patients with adverse SEL and vBMD markers was in an “interesting range” that warrants further study. A next step is to run an intervention study in which patients with these adverse markers would receive an intervention randomized against placebo to see if it improved their outcomes, he suggested. Good candidate agents to study in psoriasis patients who have these adverse markers include drugs that inhibit the action of interleukin-17, drugs that target the p19 cytokine subunit of IL-23, and possibly Janus kinase inhibitor drugs.

Dr. Simon has been a consultant to AbbVie and Eli Lilly, a speaker on behalf of Eli Lilly, Janssen, and Novartis, and has received research funding from Eli Lilly and Novartis. Dr. McInnes has been a consultant to AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, and he has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and UCB.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Simon D et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79[suppl 1]:33-4, Abstract OP0051.

Structural entheseal lesions and reduced bone mineral density detected using high-resolution CT imaging of a pair of knuckle joints in patients with psoriasis strongly linked with subsequent development of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in a single-center study with 114 patients followed for an average of 2.3 years.

“These findings substantiate the concept of mechano-inflammation in the pathogenesis of psoriatic disease,” and suggest that interventions with high efficacy for controlling entheseal inflammation may be a “particularly valuable strategy in interfering with the onset of PsA in patients with psoriatic disease,” David Simon, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

The study, which is now published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, began with 377 patients with psoriasis who had been referred to the University Hospital in Erlangen, Germany, during 2011-2018, and who tested positive on the German Psoriasis Arthritis Diagnostic questionnaire. The researchers excluded patients with existing signs of PsA, any arthritis or enthesitis or other signs of inflammatory rheumatic disease, and they also excluded patients who had not undergoing a high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT (HR-pQCT) examination of the second and third metacarpal joints of the patient’s nondominant hand, which left 114 patients for their analysis. During a mean follow-up of 28 months, 24 patients (27%) developed PsA. The study patients were an average age of 45 years, and they had been diagnosed with psoriasis for an average of about 16 years.

Dr. Simon and associates used the baseline HR-pQCT scans to make two assessments of each patient: the presence of structural entheseal lesions (SEL) in the two metacarpal joints and the calculated volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD). Their analysis showed that the number and severity of SEL were increased among patients who later developed PsA. In a multivariable model that adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, duration of psoriasis, and arthralgia, patients with any SEL had a fivefold higher rate of developing PsA, compared with patients with no SEL, reported Dr. Simon, a rheumatologist at Erlangen University Hospital.

The analysis of vBMD also showed a strong link between bone density at the entheseal sites of the two studied joints and subsequent PsA development. For every standard deviation increase in vBMD at these sites the subsequent rate of PsA incidence fell by about 67% in an analysis that controlled for the same covariants as well as presence of SEL. The same relationship between higher vBMD and a lower risk for PsA held for both total vBMD measurement and for cortical vBMD, but only at the entheseal site. Levels of vBMD at the intra-articular site of the joints had no statistically significant relationship with subsequent PsA development.

The two metrics also appeared to identify additive risks. Nearly 90% of patients with at least one SEL who also had low vBMD at the entheseal site developed PsA during follow-up, compared with about a 50% rate among patients with at least one SEL but high vBMD.

courtesy EULAR

The imaging method used to run these analyses, HR-pQCT, remains for the time being a “research technique” that “is not generalizable for routine practice,” but further development of this method or of a surrogate measure might make it feasible for future widespread practice, commented Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, president of the European League Against Rheumatism and professor of rheumatology and director of the Institute of Infection, Immunity, and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow.

“We’ve thought for many years that psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are on a spectrum, and this work is consistent with the idea that some patients with psoriasis develop tissue involvement at entheses and joints,” Dr. McInnes said in an interview. The higher incidence of PsA seen in patients with adverse SEL and vBMD markers was in an “interesting range” that warrants further study. A next step is to run an intervention study in which patients with these adverse markers would receive an intervention randomized against placebo to see if it improved their outcomes, he suggested. Good candidate agents to study in psoriasis patients who have these adverse markers include drugs that inhibit the action of interleukin-17, drugs that target the p19 cytokine subunit of IL-23, and possibly Janus kinase inhibitor drugs.

Dr. Simon has been a consultant to AbbVie and Eli Lilly, a speaker on behalf of Eli Lilly, Janssen, and Novartis, and has received research funding from Eli Lilly and Novartis. Dr. McInnes has been a consultant to AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, and he has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and UCB.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Simon D et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79[suppl 1]:33-4, Abstract OP0051.

As might be expected, the “EULAR [European League Against Rheumatism] provisional recommendations for the management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases [RMDs] in the context of SARS-CoV-2” concur with much of the guidance already released on how best to manage patients during the current pandemic.

Highlights of the five overarching principles are that, contrary to earlier expectations, “there is no indication that patients with RMDs have an additional, or have a higher, risk of contracting the virus, or that they fare a worse course” than the general population, said the task force convener Robert Landewé, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Amsterdam.

“The second pertinent highlight is that, when it comes to managerial discussions, whether or not to stop or to start treatment for RMDs, rheumatologists should definitely be involved,” Dr. Landewé said during a live session at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19. “In practice, something that happens very often is that immunosuppressive drugs are stopped by medical specialists involved in the care of COVID but without any expertise in treating patients with rheumatic diseases. We should try to avoid that situation.”

The third highlight, something many rheumatologists may already be well aware of, is that rheumatology drugs are being used to treat COVID-19 patients without RMDs and a shortage of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) agents is a real possibility. As such, the fifth overarching highlight states that the availability of both synthetic and biologic DMARDs is “a delicate societal responsibility” and that “the off-label use of DMARDs in COVID-19 outside the context of clinical trials should be discouraged.”

The EULAR recommendation are now published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases and they are “what you could call an unprecedented set of recommendations,” Dr. Landewé said. “We have never done this before,” he added, referring to the speed and way in which they had to be put together, remotely, and with little scientific evidence currently available. “Three months ago we hadn’t even heard about the virus.”

From the first patient being identified in the Hubei province of China in November 2019, to the first U.S. patient in the state of Washington on Jan. 20, 2020, and to the first European patient identified a little over 10 days later, the COVID-19 pandemic has taken the world by storm. It was only declared a pandemic on March 11, 2020, however, and Dr. Landewé noted that the response to the pandemic had been very variable – some countries locking down their borders early, while others took their time to make an appropriate response, if at all.

The rheumatology community was particularly concerned, Dr. Landewé said, because people with autoimmune diseases who were taking immunosuppressant drugs might be at higher risk for becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, and may be at higher risk than others for a worse disease course. Thankfully, that seems not to be the case according to data that are emerging from new registries that have been set up, including EULAR’s own COVID-19 registry.

There are 13 recommendations that cover 4 themes: general measures and prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection; the management of RMD patients during the pandemic; the management of RMD patients who have COVID-19; and the prevention of other pulmonary infections in RMD patients.

Highlighting the first three general recommendations, Dr. Landewé said: “Follow the regular guidelines in your country; if a patient with RMD does not have symptoms of COVID-19, simply continue RMD treatments,” albeit with a couple of exceptions.

The next four recommendation highlights are to avoid visits to the hospital or to the office; use remote monitoring via the telephone, for example; and if visits cannot be avoided, then take appropriate precautions. Finally, if you suspect a patient has COVID-19, do a test.

If patients test positive, then the next four recommendations cover what to do, such as continuing use of RMD treatments, but in the case of glucocorticoids this should be the lowest possible dose necessary. There is no consensus on what to do in cases of mild symptoms; the recommendation is to “decide on a case-by-case basis,” said Dr. Landewé. If a patient’s symptoms worsen, then “seek expert advice immediately and follow local treatment recommendations. The rheumatologist is not the expert to treat COVID-19,” he added. That responsibility lies with the pulmonologist, infectious disease specialist, or maybe the intensive care specialist, depending on local situations.

On the whole, the EULAR recommendations are pretty similar to those already released by the American College of Rheumatology, said Ted Mikuls, MD, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha. The ACR recommendations are “slightly more prescriptive”, he suggested, with 25 final guidance statements. For example, general statements focused not only on the use of glucocorticoids, but also other medicines, such as antihypertensives.

“There’s really not a [lot of], I would say, major differences in the two efforts and that’s ... somewhat reassuring that we’re approaching the unknown from very different parts of the world, and driving in a very similar place,” commented Dr. Mikuls, who is a member of the ACR COVID-19 recommendations task force.

“I think one of the very important similarities that I would highlight is that, in the absence of known exposure, in the absence of COVID-19 infection, our panel felt very strongly about the importance of continuing rheumatic disease treatments,” Dr. Mikuls observed. The ACR guidelines also touch upon societal perspectives, including “some statements that were made very specific to lupus, and the use of antimalarials, given supply chain issues that we have encountered.”

Dr. Mikuls also said that the American recommendations emphasized that “you really have to manage active inflammatory rheumatic disease. Even in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, given what we saw as the potential risk of unchecked inflammation and unchecked rheumatic disease.”

One notable difference, however, is that the European recommendations advise on immunizations and pneumonia prophylaxis, saying that all patients without COVID-19 symptoms should make sure they are up to date with any recommended vaccinations, “with a particular focus on pneumococcal and influenza vaccinations,” Dr. Landewé said.

Another difference is that the ACR recommendations are a living document and could potentially be updated monthly if the evidence arrives to allow that. In that sense, the American guidance is more agile, with EULAR expecting to update its recommendations every 3 months.

“The current evidence is extremely sparse and fragmented,” Dr. Landewé said. “We, as a task force are essentially flying blindly. We also have to cover many jurisdictions within Europe, with many conflicting opinions. So the last word to say is that updates are truly necessary, but we have to wait a while.”

SOURCE: Landewé RB et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun 5. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217877.

As might be expected, the “EULAR [European League Against Rheumatism] provisional recommendations for the management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases [RMDs] in the context of SARS-CoV-2” concur with much of the guidance already released on how best to manage patients during the current pandemic.

Highlights of the five overarching principles are that, contrary to earlier expectations, “there is no indication that patients with RMDs have an additional, or have a higher, risk of contracting the virus, or that they fare a worse course” than the general population, said the task force convener Robert Landewé, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Amsterdam.

“The second pertinent highlight is that, when it comes to managerial discussions, whether or not to stop or to start treatment for RMDs, rheumatologists should definitely be involved,” Dr. Landewé said during a live session at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19. “In practice, something that happens very often is that immunosuppressive drugs are stopped by medical specialists involved in the care of COVID but without any expertise in treating patients with rheumatic diseases. We should try to avoid that situation.”

The third highlight, something many rheumatologists may already be well aware of, is that rheumatology drugs are being used to treat COVID-19 patients without RMDs and a shortage of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) agents is a real possibility. As such, the fifth overarching highlight states that the availability of both synthetic and biologic DMARDs is “a delicate societal responsibility” and that “the off-label use of DMARDs in COVID-19 outside the context of clinical trials should be discouraged.”

The EULAR recommendation are now published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases and they are “what you could call an unprecedented set of recommendations,” Dr. Landewé said. “We have never done this before,” he added, referring to the speed and way in which they had to be put together, remotely, and with little scientific evidence currently available. “Three months ago we hadn’t even heard about the virus.”

From the first patient being identified in the Hubei province of China in November 2019, to the first U.S. patient in the state of Washington on Jan. 20, 2020, and to the first European patient identified a little over 10 days later, the COVID-19 pandemic has taken the world by storm. It was only declared a pandemic on March 11, 2020, however, and Dr. Landewé noted that the response to the pandemic had been very variable – some countries locking down their borders early, while others took their time to make an appropriate response, if at all.

The rheumatology community was particularly concerned, Dr. Landewé said, because people with autoimmune diseases who were taking immunosuppressant drugs might be at higher risk for becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, and may be at higher risk than others for a worse disease course. Thankfully, that seems not to be the case according to data that are emerging from new registries that have been set up, including EULAR’s own COVID-19 registry.

There are 13 recommendations that cover 4 themes: general measures and prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection; the management of RMD patients during the pandemic; the management of RMD patients who have COVID-19; and the prevention of other pulmonary infections in RMD patients.

Highlighting the first three general recommendations, Dr. Landewé said: “Follow the regular guidelines in your country; if a patient with RMD does not have symptoms of COVID-19, simply continue RMD treatments,” albeit with a couple of exceptions.

The next four recommendation highlights are to avoid visits to the hospital or to the office; use remote monitoring via the telephone, for example; and if visits cannot be avoided, then take appropriate precautions. Finally, if you suspect a patient has COVID-19, do a test.

If patients test positive, then the next four recommendations cover what to do, such as continuing use of RMD treatments, but in the case of glucocorticoids this should be the lowest possible dose necessary. There is no consensus on what to do in cases of mild symptoms; the recommendation is to “decide on a case-by-case basis,” said Dr. Landewé. If a patient’s symptoms worsen, then “seek expert advice immediately and follow local treatment recommendations. The rheumatologist is not the expert to treat COVID-19,” he added. That responsibility lies with the pulmonologist, infectious disease specialist, or maybe the intensive care specialist, depending on local situations.

On the whole, the EULAR recommendations are pretty similar to those already released by the American College of Rheumatology, said Ted Mikuls, MD, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha. The ACR recommendations are “slightly more prescriptive”, he suggested, with 25 final guidance statements. For example, general statements focused not only on the use of glucocorticoids, but also other medicines, such as antihypertensives.

“There’s really not a [lot of], I would say, major differences in the two efforts and that’s ... somewhat reassuring that we’re approaching the unknown from very different parts of the world, and driving in a very similar place,” commented Dr. Mikuls, who is a member of the ACR COVID-19 recommendations task force.

“I think one of the very important similarities that I would highlight is that, in the absence of known exposure, in the absence of COVID-19 infection, our panel felt very strongly about the importance of continuing rheumatic disease treatments,” Dr. Mikuls observed. The ACR guidelines also touch upon societal perspectives, including “some statements that were made very specific to lupus, and the use of antimalarials, given supply chain issues that we have encountered.”

Dr. Mikuls also said that the American recommendations emphasized that “you really have to manage active inflammatory rheumatic disease. Even in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, given what we saw as the potential risk of unchecked inflammation and unchecked rheumatic disease.”

One notable difference, however, is that the European recommendations advise on immunizations and pneumonia prophylaxis, saying that all patients without COVID-19 symptoms should make sure they are up to date with any recommended vaccinations, “with a particular focus on pneumococcal and influenza vaccinations,” Dr. Landewé said.

Another difference is that the ACR recommendations are a living document and could potentially be updated monthly if the evidence arrives to allow that. In that sense, the American guidance is more agile, with EULAR expecting to update its recommendations every 3 months.

“The current evidence is extremely sparse and fragmented,” Dr. Landewé said. “We, as a task force are essentially flying blindly. We also have to cover many jurisdictions within Europe, with many conflicting opinions. So the last word to say is that updates are truly necessary, but we have to wait a while.”

SOURCE: Landewé RB et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun 5. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217877.

As might be expected, the “EULAR [European League Against Rheumatism] provisional recommendations for the management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases [RMDs] in the context of SARS-CoV-2” concur with much of the guidance already released on how best to manage patients during the current pandemic.

Highlights of the five overarching principles are that, contrary to earlier expectations, “there is no indication that patients with RMDs have an additional, or have a higher, risk of contracting the virus, or that they fare a worse course” than the general population, said the task force convener Robert Landewé, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Amsterdam.

“The second pertinent highlight is that, when it comes to managerial discussions, whether or not to stop or to start treatment for RMDs, rheumatologists should definitely be involved,” Dr. Landewé said during a live session at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19. “In practice, something that happens very often is that immunosuppressive drugs are stopped by medical specialists involved in the care of COVID but without any expertise in treating patients with rheumatic diseases. We should try to avoid that situation.”

The third highlight, something many rheumatologists may already be well aware of, is that rheumatology drugs are being used to treat COVID-19 patients without RMDs and a shortage of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) agents is a real possibility. As such, the fifth overarching highlight states that the availability of both synthetic and biologic DMARDs is “a delicate societal responsibility” and that “the off-label use of DMARDs in COVID-19 outside the context of clinical trials should be discouraged.”

The EULAR recommendation are now published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases and they are “what you could call an unprecedented set of recommendations,” Dr. Landewé said. “We have never done this before,” he added, referring to the speed and way in which they had to be put together, remotely, and with little scientific evidence currently available. “Three months ago we hadn’t even heard about the virus.”

From the first patient being identified in the Hubei province of China in November 2019, to the first U.S. patient in the state of Washington on Jan. 20, 2020, and to the first European patient identified a little over 10 days later, the COVID-19 pandemic has taken the world by storm. It was only declared a pandemic on March 11, 2020, however, and Dr. Landewé noted that the response to the pandemic had been very variable – some countries locking down their borders early, while others took their time to make an appropriate response, if at all.

The rheumatology community was particularly concerned, Dr. Landewé said, because people with autoimmune diseases who were taking immunosuppressant drugs might be at higher risk for becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, and may be at higher risk than others for a worse disease course. Thankfully, that seems not to be the case according to data that are emerging from new registries that have been set up, including EULAR’s own COVID-19 registry.

There are 13 recommendations that cover 4 themes: general measures and prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection; the management of RMD patients during the pandemic; the management of RMD patients who have COVID-19; and the prevention of other pulmonary infections in RMD patients.

Highlighting the first three general recommendations, Dr. Landewé said: “Follow the regular guidelines in your country; if a patient with RMD does not have symptoms of COVID-19, simply continue RMD treatments,” albeit with a couple of exceptions.

The next four recommendation highlights are to avoid visits to the hospital or to the office; use remote monitoring via the telephone, for example; and if visits cannot be avoided, then take appropriate precautions. Finally, if you suspect a patient has COVID-19, do a test.

If patients test positive, then the next four recommendations cover what to do, such as continuing use of RMD treatments, but in the case of glucocorticoids this should be the lowest possible dose necessary. There is no consensus on what to do in cases of mild symptoms; the recommendation is to “decide on a case-by-case basis,” said Dr. Landewé. If a patient’s symptoms worsen, then “seek expert advice immediately and follow local treatment recommendations. The rheumatologist is not the expert to treat COVID-19,” he added. That responsibility lies with the pulmonologist, infectious disease specialist, or maybe the intensive care specialist, depending on local situations.

On the whole, the EULAR recommendations are pretty similar to those already released by the American College of Rheumatology, said Ted Mikuls, MD, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha. The ACR recommendations are “slightly more prescriptive”, he suggested, with 25 final guidance statements. For example, general statements focused not only on the use of glucocorticoids, but also other medicines, such as antihypertensives.

“There’s really not a [lot of], I would say, major differences in the two efforts and that’s ... somewhat reassuring that we’re approaching the unknown from very different parts of the world, and driving in a very similar place,” commented Dr. Mikuls, who is a member of the ACR COVID-19 recommendations task force.

“I think one of the very important similarities that I would highlight is that, in the absence of known exposure, in the absence of COVID-19 infection, our panel felt very strongly about the importance of continuing rheumatic disease treatments,” Dr. Mikuls observed. The ACR guidelines also touch upon societal perspectives, including “some statements that were made very specific to lupus, and the use of antimalarials, given supply chain issues that we have encountered.”

Dr. Mikuls also said that the American recommendations emphasized that “you really have to manage active inflammatory rheumatic disease. Even in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, given what we saw as the potential risk of unchecked inflammation and unchecked rheumatic disease.”

One notable difference, however, is that the European recommendations advise on immunizations and pneumonia prophylaxis, saying that all patients without COVID-19 symptoms should make sure they are up to date with any recommended vaccinations, “with a particular focus on pneumococcal and influenza vaccinations,” Dr. Landewé said.

Another difference is that the ACR recommendations are a living document and could potentially be updated monthly if the evidence arrives to allow that. In that sense, the American guidance is more agile, with EULAR expecting to update its recommendations every 3 months.

“The current evidence is extremely sparse and fragmented,” Dr. Landewé said. “We, as a task force are essentially flying blindly. We also have to cover many jurisdictions within Europe, with many conflicting opinions. So the last word to say is that updates are truly necessary, but we have to wait a while.”

SOURCE: Landewé RB et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun 5. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217877.

A treat-to-target strategy for managing patients with axial spondyloarthritis failed to meet its primary efficacy endpoint but still showed several suggestive indications of benefit compared with usual care in a multicenter, randomized study with 160 patients.

The treat-to-target management strategy tested aimed to get patients to an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) of less than 2.1, as recommended for patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) by an international task force. Also notable about the study was its primary endpoint, at least a 30% improvement in the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society Health Index (ASAS HI), a measure of health-related quality-of-life that the study organizers selected in part because of its distinction from the treatment target.

“For the first time in rheumatology, we targeted inflammation to have an impact on another domain of the disease. Despite not reaching statistical significance, we see a difference between the groups,” Anna Moltó, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

After 12 months in the study, the 80 axSpA patients assigned to the treat-to-target regimen had a 47% rate of attainment of the primary endpoint, compared with 36% of the 80 patients assigned to usual care, an 11% absolute between-group difference with a P value that came close to but failed to achieve the conventional standard of statistical significance after adjustment for potential confounders (P = .09). Six secondary outcomes showed statistically significant improvements compared with the control patients, including the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), the ASAS 20, and ASAS 40. Five additional metrics showed nominal between-group improvements with the treat-to-target strategy that were not statistically significant, including various forms of the ASDAS.

One additional notable finding came from a cost-efficacy analysis run by Dr. Moltó and associates, which showed that the treat-to-target strategy was “dominant” over usual care by producing both better outcomes as well as a lower total cost, compared with control patients, even though twice as many patients on the treat-to-target strategy received a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) compared with patients in the usual care group. The incremental cost utility ratio for treat-to-target was 19,430 euros (about $22,000) per quality-adjusted life-year gained, putting the strategy into the range of a “cost effective” approach, and the two treatment arms also had comparable safety, said Dr. Moltó, a rheumatologist at Cochin Hospital in Paris.

The 11% increase in treat-to-target patients achieving at least a 30% improvement in their ASAS HI score “is potentially clinically relevant” because the comparator arm in the study received “very active” usual care and was not by any measure a true placebo control group, noted Maxime Dougados, MD, a rheumatologist and professor or medicine at Cochin Hospital and senior investigator for the study. In general, in treatment studies of rheumatologic diseases a 10% or greater absolute increase in the incidence of a beneficial outcome is considered clinically meaningful when compared with an actively-treated control arm, he noted.

“Using the ASAS HI score was very ambitious for the study, and it’s a very relevant outcome,” said Sofia Ramiro, MD, a rheumatologist at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center who was not associated with the study and chaired the session where Dr. Moltó gave her report. “We have had treat-to-target trials that showed benefit when disease activity was the endpoint.” But when a study “targets treatment to [reducing] disease activity and then uses disease activity as the outcome measure you expect to see an effect, but it is circular reasoning and we are left with challenges in interpreting the results. Now we have a trial that is formally [neutral] but with a different, more ambitious endpoint. All the indications are for benefit from treat-to-target for both the primary endpoint and for all the other endpoints.”

“We were in a difficult situation when choosing the outcome. We didn’t know whether a 30% improvement in the ASAS HI was really relevant, but it seems to be,” said Désirée van der Heijde, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at Leiden University Medical Center and a collaborator on Dr. Moltó’s study. “I’d choose ASAS HI again as a primary endpoint” for a treat-to-target study in patients with axSpA, she said, but added that a 30% improvement in this score as the response threshold may warrant reconsideration. Both Dr. van der Heijde and Dr. Dougados agreed that at least one additional study with a somewhat similar design is needed to better document and confirm a role for a treat-to-target strategy in axSpA patients.

The Tight Control in Spondyloarthritis (TICOSPA) study ran at 10 French centers and 4 centers each in Belgium and the Netherlands. The study enrolled adults with rheumatologist-diagnosed axSpA with an ASDAS score greater than 2.1 who had not yet received a bDMARD, had not yet maxed out on their dosage of NSAIDs, and had certain baseline immunologic and imaging findings available. The researchers randomized 160 patients to either treat-to-target or usual care management by the center they attended to prevent cross contamination of management strategies. The treat-to-target regimen involved office examinations and consultations every 4 weeks rather than every 3 months with usual care, and also required a predefined management strategy with treatment prompts based on the strategy sent to the treating clinicians via the EMR. The average age of the patients was 38 years, they had been diagnosed with axSpA for an average of just under 4 years, and their mean ASDAS score at entry was 3. During the 12 months of management, 56% of the patients in the treat-to-target arm initiated treatment with a bDMARD, compared with 28% among the controls. Use of NSAIDs was similar between the two study subgroups.

TICOSPA was sponsored by UCB. Dr. Moltó has been a consultant to and received research funding from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Dougados has had financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. van der Heijde has had financial relationships with more than 20 companies including UCB. Dr. Ramiro had been a consultant to or received research funding from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Sanofi.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Moltó A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79[suppl 1]:413.

A treat-to-target strategy for managing patients with axial spondyloarthritis failed to meet its primary efficacy endpoint but still showed several suggestive indications of benefit compared with usual care in a multicenter, randomized study with 160 patients.

The treat-to-target management strategy tested aimed to get patients to an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) of less than 2.1, as recommended for patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) by an international task force. Also notable about the study was its primary endpoint, at least a 30% improvement in the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society Health Index (ASAS HI), a measure of health-related quality-of-life that the study organizers selected in part because of its distinction from the treatment target.

“For the first time in rheumatology, we targeted inflammation to have an impact on another domain of the disease. Despite not reaching statistical significance, we see a difference between the groups,” Anna Moltó, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

After 12 months in the study, the 80 axSpA patients assigned to the treat-to-target regimen had a 47% rate of attainment of the primary endpoint, compared with 36% of the 80 patients assigned to usual care, an 11% absolute between-group difference with a P value that came close to but failed to achieve the conventional standard of statistical significance after adjustment for potential confounders (P = .09). Six secondary outcomes showed statistically significant improvements compared with the control patients, including the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), the ASAS 20, and ASAS 40. Five additional metrics showed nominal between-group improvements with the treat-to-target strategy that were not statistically significant, including various forms of the ASDAS.

One additional notable finding came from a cost-efficacy analysis run by Dr. Moltó and associates, which showed that the treat-to-target strategy was “dominant” over usual care by producing both better outcomes as well as a lower total cost, compared with control patients, even though twice as many patients on the treat-to-target strategy received a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) compared with patients in the usual care group. The incremental cost utility ratio for treat-to-target was 19,430 euros (about $22,000) per quality-adjusted life-year gained, putting the strategy into the range of a “cost effective” approach, and the two treatment arms also had comparable safety, said Dr. Moltó, a rheumatologist at Cochin Hospital in Paris.

The 11% increase in treat-to-target patients achieving at least a 30% improvement in their ASAS HI score “is potentially clinically relevant” because the comparator arm in the study received “very active” usual care and was not by any measure a true placebo control group, noted Maxime Dougados, MD, a rheumatologist and professor or medicine at Cochin Hospital and senior investigator for the study. In general, in treatment studies of rheumatologic diseases a 10% or greater absolute increase in the incidence of a beneficial outcome is considered clinically meaningful when compared with an actively-treated control arm, he noted.

“Using the ASAS HI score was very ambitious for the study, and it’s a very relevant outcome,” said Sofia Ramiro, MD, a rheumatologist at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center who was not associated with the study and chaired the session where Dr. Moltó gave her report. “We have had treat-to-target trials that showed benefit when disease activity was the endpoint.” But when a study “targets treatment to [reducing] disease activity and then uses disease activity as the outcome measure you expect to see an effect, but it is circular reasoning and we are left with challenges in interpreting the results. Now we have a trial that is formally [neutral] but with a different, more ambitious endpoint. All the indications are for benefit from treat-to-target for both the primary endpoint and for all the other endpoints.”

“We were in a difficult situation when choosing the outcome. We didn’t know whether a 30% improvement in the ASAS HI was really relevant, but it seems to be,” said Désirée van der Heijde, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at Leiden University Medical Center and a collaborator on Dr. Moltó’s study. “I’d choose ASAS HI again as a primary endpoint” for a treat-to-target study in patients with axSpA, she said, but added that a 30% improvement in this score as the response threshold may warrant reconsideration. Both Dr. van der Heijde and Dr. Dougados agreed that at least one additional study with a somewhat similar design is needed to better document and confirm a role for a treat-to-target strategy in axSpA patients.

The Tight Control in Spondyloarthritis (TICOSPA) study ran at 10 French centers and 4 centers each in Belgium and the Netherlands. The study enrolled adults with rheumatologist-diagnosed axSpA with an ASDAS score greater than 2.1 who had not yet received a bDMARD, had not yet maxed out on their dosage of NSAIDs, and had certain baseline immunologic and imaging findings available. The researchers randomized 160 patients to either treat-to-target or usual care management by the center they attended to prevent cross contamination of management strategies. The treat-to-target regimen involved office examinations and consultations every 4 weeks rather than every 3 months with usual care, and also required a predefined management strategy with treatment prompts based on the strategy sent to the treating clinicians via the EMR. The average age of the patients was 38 years, they had been diagnosed with axSpA for an average of just under 4 years, and their mean ASDAS score at entry was 3. During the 12 months of management, 56% of the patients in the treat-to-target arm initiated treatment with a bDMARD, compared with 28% among the controls. Use of NSAIDs was similar between the two study subgroups.

TICOSPA was sponsored by UCB. Dr. Moltó has been a consultant to and received research funding from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Dougados has had financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. van der Heijde has had financial relationships with more than 20 companies including UCB. Dr. Ramiro had been a consultant to or received research funding from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Sanofi.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Moltó A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79[suppl 1]:413.

A treat-to-target strategy for managing patients with axial spondyloarthritis failed to meet its primary efficacy endpoint but still showed several suggestive indications of benefit compared with usual care in a multicenter, randomized study with 160 patients.

The treat-to-target management strategy tested aimed to get patients to an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) of less than 2.1, as recommended for patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) by an international task force. Also notable about the study was its primary endpoint, at least a 30% improvement in the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society Health Index (ASAS HI), a measure of health-related quality-of-life that the study organizers selected in part because of its distinction from the treatment target.

“For the first time in rheumatology, we targeted inflammation to have an impact on another domain of the disease. Despite not reaching statistical significance, we see a difference between the groups,” Anna Moltó, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

After 12 months in the study, the 80 axSpA patients assigned to the treat-to-target regimen had a 47% rate of attainment of the primary endpoint, compared with 36% of the 80 patients assigned to usual care, an 11% absolute between-group difference with a P value that came close to but failed to achieve the conventional standard of statistical significance after adjustment for potential confounders (P = .09). Six secondary outcomes showed statistically significant improvements compared with the control patients, including the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), the ASAS 20, and ASAS 40. Five additional metrics showed nominal between-group improvements with the treat-to-target strategy that were not statistically significant, including various forms of the ASDAS.

One additional notable finding came from a cost-efficacy analysis run by Dr. Moltó and associates, which showed that the treat-to-target strategy was “dominant” over usual care by producing both better outcomes as well as a lower total cost, compared with control patients, even though twice as many patients on the treat-to-target strategy received a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) compared with patients in the usual care group. The incremental cost utility ratio for treat-to-target was 19,430 euros (about $22,000) per quality-adjusted life-year gained, putting the strategy into the range of a “cost effective” approach, and the two treatment arms also had comparable safety, said Dr. Moltó, a rheumatologist at Cochin Hospital in Paris.

The 11% increase in treat-to-target patients achieving at least a 30% improvement in their ASAS HI score “is potentially clinically relevant” because the comparator arm in the study received “very active” usual care and was not by any measure a true placebo control group, noted Maxime Dougados, MD, a rheumatologist and professor or medicine at Cochin Hospital and senior investigator for the study. In general, in treatment studies of rheumatologic diseases a 10% or greater absolute increase in the incidence of a beneficial outcome is considered clinically meaningful when compared with an actively-treated control arm, he noted.

“Using the ASAS HI score was very ambitious for the study, and it’s a very relevant outcome,” said Sofia Ramiro, MD, a rheumatologist at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center who was not associated with the study and chaired the session where Dr. Moltó gave her report. “We have had treat-to-target trials that showed benefit when disease activity was the endpoint.” But when a study “targets treatment to [reducing] disease activity and then uses disease activity as the outcome measure you expect to see an effect, but it is circular reasoning and we are left with challenges in interpreting the results. Now we have a trial that is formally [neutral] but with a different, more ambitious endpoint. All the indications are for benefit from treat-to-target for both the primary endpoint and for all the other endpoints.”

“We were in a difficult situation when choosing the outcome. We didn’t know whether a 30% improvement in the ASAS HI was really relevant, but it seems to be,” said Désirée van der Heijde, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at Leiden University Medical Center and a collaborator on Dr. Moltó’s study. “I’d choose ASAS HI again as a primary endpoint” for a treat-to-target study in patients with axSpA, she said, but added that a 30% improvement in this score as the response threshold may warrant reconsideration. Both Dr. van der Heijde and Dr. Dougados agreed that at least one additional study with a somewhat similar design is needed to better document and confirm a role for a treat-to-target strategy in axSpA patients.

The Tight Control in Spondyloarthritis (TICOSPA) study ran at 10 French centers and 4 centers each in Belgium and the Netherlands. The study enrolled adults with rheumatologist-diagnosed axSpA with an ASDAS score greater than 2.1 who had not yet received a bDMARD, had not yet maxed out on their dosage of NSAIDs, and had certain baseline immunologic and imaging findings available. The researchers randomized 160 patients to either treat-to-target or usual care management by the center they attended to prevent cross contamination of management strategies. The treat-to-target regimen involved office examinations and consultations every 4 weeks rather than every 3 months with usual care, and also required a predefined management strategy with treatment prompts based on the strategy sent to the treating clinicians via the EMR. The average age of the patients was 38 years, they had been diagnosed with axSpA for an average of just under 4 years, and their mean ASDAS score at entry was 3. During the 12 months of management, 56% of the patients in the treat-to-target arm initiated treatment with a bDMARD, compared with 28% among the controls. Use of NSAIDs was similar between the two study subgroups.

TICOSPA was sponsored by UCB. Dr. Moltó has been a consultant to and received research funding from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Dougados has had financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. van der Heijde has had financial relationships with more than 20 companies including UCB. Dr. Ramiro had been a consultant to or received research funding from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Sanofi.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Moltó A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79[suppl 1]:413.

Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) improves joint and skin symptoms in patients with psoriatic arthritis for whom at least one other disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) didn’t work or wasn’t well tolerated, a pair of phase 3 trials suggests.

“In psoriatic arthritis patients, there’s still a high proportion of patients who do not respond to traditional, nonbiologic DMARDs, so there’s room for improvement,” said Marina Magrey, MD, from the MetroHealth Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, in Cleveland.

She and her colleagues evaluated the JAK inhibitor, already approved for rheumatoid arthritis in the United States, in the SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2 trials, which followed more than 2,300 patients with psoriatic arthritis for an average of 6-10 years.

No safety signals emerged for upadacitinib in either trial that weren’t already seen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, the investigators report, although a lower dose appeared to prompt fewer adverse events.

The research adds upadacitinib “to the armamentarium of medications we have against psoriatic arthritis,” said Dr. Magrey, who is a SELECT-PsA 1 investigator.

“The advantage of this medication is it’s available orally, so the convenience is there. It will enable both patients and physicians to choose from efficacious medications,” she told Medscape Medical News.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The team was “pleasantly surprised by the magnitude and rapidity of effect” of upadacitinib in study participants, said Philip Mease, MD, from the Swedish Medical Center and the University of Washington in Seattle, who is lead investigator for SELECT-PsA 2.

“It’s important to be able to understand if there’s adequate effectiveness in patients who’ve already been around the block several times with other treatments,” Dr. Mease told Medscape Medical News. “This trial demonstrated there was a high degree of effectiveness in each of the clinical domains” of psoriatic arthritis.

Results from both studies were presented at the virtual European League Against Rheumatism 2020 Congress.
 

SELECT-PsA 1

In SELECT-PsA 1, upadacitinib was compared with adalimumab and placebo in 1705 patients who previously had an inadequate response or intolerance to at least one nonbiologic DMARD. Participants were randomized to receive upadacitinib – 15 mg or 30 mg once daily – adalimumab 40 mg every other week, or placebo.

The primary endpoint was an improvement of at least 20% (ACR20) at week 12.

Secondary endpoints included change in Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score and change in patient assessment of pain on a numeric rating scale from baseline to week 12, achievement of ACR50 and ACR70 at week 12, and achievement of ACR20 at week 2.

Treatment-related adverse events were reported out to week 24 for patients who received at least one dose of upadacitinib.

Improvement in musculoskeletal symptoms, psoriasis, pain, physical function, and fatigue were seen by week 2 in both upadacitinib groups. At week 12, both doses of upadacitinib were noninferior to adalimumab for the achievement of ACR20 (P < .001), and the 30-mg dose was superior to adalimumab (P < .001).

More patients in the upadacitinib groups than in the placebo group met the stringent criteria for disease control, which included the achievement of minimal disease activity, ACR50, and ACR70.

The difference in effectiveness between the two doses of upadacitinib was small, but “there were relatively more adverse events,” such as infections, in the 30-mg group, Dr. Magrey reported, “so 15 mg seems like it will be the dose to go toward FDA approval.”
 

SELECT-PsA 2

SELECT-PsA 2 compared upadacitinib – 15 mg or 30 mg once daily – with placebo in 641 patients who previously had an inadequate response or intolerance to one or more biologic DMARDs.

The primary endpoint was the achievement of ACR20 at week 12.

Among the many secondary endpoints were a 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI 75) at week 16, change in Self-Assessment of Psoriasis Symptoms (SAPS) score from baseline to week 16, the achievement of minimal disease activity at week 24, the achievement of ACR50 and ACR70 at week 12, and the achievement of ACR20 at week 2.

Adverse events were reported for patients who received at least one dose of upadacitinib.

At week 12, ACR20 was achieved by significantly more patients in the 15 mg and 30 mg upadacitinib groups than in the placebo group (56.9% vs. 63.8% vs. 24.1%; P < .0001), as was ACR50 (31.8% vs. 37.6% vs. 4.1%; P < .0001) and ACR70 (8.5% vs. 16.5% vs. 0.5%; P < .0001). In addition, all secondary endpoints were significantly better with upadacitinib than with placebo.

Rates of adverse events were similar in the 15 mg upadacitinib and placebo groups, but the rate was higher in the 30 mg upadacitinib group, including for herpes zoster.

“I was pleasantly surprised by the overall safety profile,” Dr. Mease said. “Yes, you need to pay attention to the potential for infection, but rates of serious infection were very low.”

“We didn’t see opportunistic infections occurring, and the overall adverse-events profile was one where we could be pretty reassuring with patients when introducing the medication and mechanism of action,” he added.

Upadacitinib appears to have significantly improved PASI scores in both trials, which is surprising, said Christopher Ritchlin, MD, from the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York.

“I think the data indicate that upadacitinib is a viable drug for treatment of psoriatic arthritis,” he told Medscape Medical News. “I don’t think it’s going to be tested in psoriasis, but for those with psoriatic arthritis and those whose burden of psoriasis is not particularly elevated, this drug looks like it might be very helpful to practicing physicians and their patients.”

Dr. Ritchlin added that he hopes future research will address whether upadacitinib is effective for axial disease in psoriatic arthritis, which wasn’t measured in these trials.

“I don’t see this as a weakness” of the current research, he said, but “having some spinal measures would be helpful. It’s something additional we’d like to know.”

Both trials were funded by AbbVie. Dr. Magrey reports financial relationships with Amgen, AbbVie, UCB Pharma, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Janssen. Dr. Mease reports financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB, Genentech, and Janssen. Dr. Ritchlin has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.




 

Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) improves joint and skin symptoms in patients with psoriatic arthritis for whom at least one other disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) didn’t work or wasn’t well tolerated, a pair of phase 3 trials suggests.

“In psoriatic arthritis patients, there’s still a high proportion of patients who do not respond to traditional, nonbiologic DMARDs, so there’s room for improvement,” said Marina Magrey, MD, from the MetroHealth Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, in Cleveland.

She and her colleagues evaluated the JAK inhibitor, already approved for rheumatoid arthritis in the United States, in the SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2 trials, which followed more than 2,300 patients with psoriatic arthritis for an average of 6-10 years.

No safety signals emerged for upadacitinib in either trial that weren’t already seen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, the investigators report, although a lower dose appeared to prompt fewer adverse events.

The research adds upadacitinib “to the armamentarium of medications we have against psoriatic arthritis,” said Dr. Magrey, who is a SELECT-PsA 1 investigator.

“The advantage of this medication is it’s available orally, so the convenience is there. It will enable both patients and physicians to choose from efficacious medications,” she told Medscape Medical News.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The team was “pleasantly surprised by the magnitude and rapidity of effect” of upadacitinib in study participants, said Philip Mease, MD, from the Swedish Medical Center and the University of Washington in Seattle, who is lead investigator for SELECT-PsA 2.

“It’s important to be able to understand if there’s adequate effectiveness in patients who’ve already been around the block several times with other treatments,” Dr. Mease told Medscape Medical News. “This trial demonstrated there was a high degree of effectiveness in each of the clinical domains” of psoriatic arthritis.

Results from both studies were presented at the virtual European League Against Rheumatism 2020 Congress.
 

SELECT-PsA 1

In SELECT-PsA 1, upadacitinib was compared with adalimumab and placebo in 1705 patients who previously had an inadequate response or intolerance to at least one nonbiologic DMARD. Participants were randomized to receive upadacitinib – 15 mg or 30 mg once daily – adalimumab 40 mg every other week, or placebo.

The primary endpoint was an improvement of at least 20% (ACR20) at week 12.

Secondary endpoints included change in Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score and change in patient assessment of pain on a numeric rating scale from baseline to week 12, achievement of ACR50 and ACR70 at week 12, and achievement of ACR20 at week 2.

Treatment-related adverse events were reported out to week 24 for patients who received at least one dose of upadacitinib.

Improvement in musculoskeletal symptoms, psoriasis, pain, physical function, and fatigue were seen by week 2 in both upadacitinib groups. At week 12, both doses of upadacitinib were noninferior to adalimumab for the achievement of ACR20 (P < .001), and the 30-mg dose was superior to adalimumab (P < .001).

More patients in the upadacitinib groups than in the placebo group met the stringent criteria for disease control, which included the achievement of minimal disease activity, ACR50, and ACR70.

The difference in effectiveness between the two doses of upadacitinib was small, but “there were relatively more adverse events,” such as infections, in the 30-mg group, Dr. Magrey reported, “so 15 mg seems like it will be the dose to go toward FDA approval.”
 

SELECT-PsA 2

SELECT-PsA 2 compared upadacitinib – 15 mg or 30 mg once daily – with placebo in 641 patients who previously had an inadequate response or intolerance to one or more biologic DMARDs.

The primary endpoint was the achievement of ACR20 at week 12.

Among the many secondary endpoints were a 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI 75) at week 16, change in Self-Assessment of Psoriasis Symptoms (SAPS) score from baseline to week 16, the achievement of minimal disease activity at week 24, the achievement of ACR50 and ACR70 at week 12, and the achievement of ACR20 at week 2.

Adverse events were reported for patients who received at least one dose of upadacitinib.

At week 12, ACR20 was achieved by significantly more patients in the 15 mg and 30 mg upadacitinib groups than in the placebo group (56.9% vs. 63.8% vs. 24.1%; P < .0001), as was ACR50 (31.8% vs. 37.6% vs. 4.1%; P < .0001) and ACR70 (8.5% vs. 16.5% vs. 0.5%; P < .0001). In addition, all secondary endpoints were significantly better with upadacitinib than with placebo.

Rates of adverse events were similar in the 15 mg upadacitinib and placebo groups, but the rate was higher in the 30 mg upadacitinib group, including for herpes zoster.

“I was pleasantly surprised by the overall safety profile,” Dr. Mease said. “Yes, you need to pay attention to the potential for infection, but rates of serious infection were very low.”

“We didn’t see opportunistic infections occurring, and the overall adverse-events profile was one where we could be pretty reassuring with patients when introducing the medication and mechanism of action,” he added.

Upadacitinib appears to have significantly improved PASI scores in both trials, which is surprising, said Christopher Ritchlin, MD, from the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York.

“I think the data indicate that upadacitinib is a viable drug for treatment of psoriatic arthritis,” he told Medscape Medical News. “I don’t think it’s going to be tested in psoriasis, but for those with psoriatic arthritis and those whose burden of psoriasis is not particularly elevated, this drug looks like it might be very helpful to practicing physicians and their patients.”

Dr. Ritchlin added that he hopes future research will address whether upadacitinib is effective for axial disease in psoriatic arthritis, which wasn’t measured in these trials.

“I don’t see this as a weakness” of the current research, he said, but “having some spinal measures would be helpful. It’s something additional we’d like to know.”

Both trials were funded by AbbVie. Dr. Magrey reports financial relationships with Amgen, AbbVie, UCB Pharma, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Janssen. Dr. Mease reports financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB, Genentech, and Janssen. Dr. Ritchlin has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.




 

Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) improves joint and skin symptoms in patients with psoriatic arthritis for whom at least one other disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) didn’t work or wasn’t well tolerated, a pair of phase 3 trials suggests.

“In psoriatic arthritis patients, there’s still a high proportion of patients who do not respond to traditional, nonbiologic DMARDs, so there’s room for improvement,” said Marina Magrey, MD, from the MetroHealth Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, in Cleveland.

She and her colleagues evaluated the JAK inhibitor, already approved for rheumatoid arthritis in the United States, in the SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2 trials, which followed more than 2,300 patients with psoriatic arthritis for an average of 6-10 years.

No safety signals emerged for upadacitinib in either trial that weren’t already seen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, the investigators report, although a lower dose appeared to prompt fewer adverse events.

The research adds upadacitinib “to the armamentarium of medications we have against psoriatic arthritis,” said Dr. Magrey, who is a SELECT-PsA 1 investigator.

“The advantage of this medication is it’s available orally, so the convenience is there. It will enable both patients and physicians to choose from efficacious medications,” she told Medscape Medical News.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The team was “pleasantly surprised by the magnitude and rapidity of effect” of upadacitinib in study participants, said Philip Mease, MD, from the Swedish Medical Center and the University of Washington in Seattle, who is lead investigator for SELECT-PsA 2.

“It’s important to be able to understand if there’s adequate effectiveness in patients who’ve already been around the block several times with other treatments,” Dr. Mease told Medscape Medical News. “This trial demonstrated there was a high degree of effectiveness in each of the clinical domains” of psoriatic arthritis.

Results from both studies were presented at the virtual European League Against Rheumatism 2020 Congress.
 

SELECT-PsA 1

In SELECT-PsA 1, upadacitinib was compared with adalimumab and placebo in 1705 patients who previously had an inadequate response or intolerance to at least one nonbiologic DMARD. Participants were randomized to receive upadacitinib – 15 mg or 30 mg once daily – adalimumab 40 mg every other week, or placebo.

The primary endpoint was an improvement of at least 20% (ACR20) at week 12.

Secondary endpoints included change in Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score and change in patient assessment of pain on a numeric rating scale from baseline to week 12, achievement of ACR50 and ACR70 at week 12, and achievement of ACR20 at week 2.

Treatment-related adverse events were reported out to week 24 for patients who received at least one dose of upadacitinib.

Improvement in musculoskeletal symptoms, psoriasis, pain, physical function, and fatigue were seen by week 2 in both upadacitinib groups. At week 12, both doses of upadacitinib were noninferior to adalimumab for the achievement of ACR20 (P < .001), and the 30-mg dose was superior to adalimumab (P < .001).

More patients in the upadacitinib groups than in the placebo group met the stringent criteria for disease control, which included the achievement of minimal disease activity, ACR50, and ACR70.

The difference in effectiveness between the two doses of upadacitinib was small, but “there were relatively more adverse events,” such as infections, in the 30-mg group, Dr. Magrey reported, “so 15 mg seems like it will be the dose to go toward FDA approval.”
 

SELECT-PsA 2

SELECT-PsA 2 compared upadacitinib – 15 mg or 30 mg once daily – with placebo in 641 patients who previously had an inadequate response or intolerance to one or more biologic DMARDs.

The primary endpoint was the achievement of ACR20 at week 12.

Among the many secondary endpoints were a 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI 75) at week 16, change in Self-Assessment of Psoriasis Symptoms (SAPS) score from baseline to week 16, the achievement of minimal disease activity at week 24, the achievement of ACR50 and ACR70 at week 12, and the achievement of ACR20 at week 2.

Adverse events were reported for patients who received at least one dose of upadacitinib.

At week 12, ACR20 was achieved by significantly more patients in the 15 mg and 30 mg upadacitinib groups than in the placebo group (56.9% vs. 63.8% vs. 24.1%; P < .0001), as was ACR50 (31.8% vs. 37.6% vs. 4.1%; P < .0001) and ACR70 (8.5% vs. 16.5% vs. 0.5%; P < .0001). In addition, all secondary endpoints were significantly better with upadacitinib than with placebo.

Rates of adverse events were similar in the 15 mg upadacitinib and placebo groups, but the rate was higher in the 30 mg upadacitinib group, including for herpes zoster.

“I was pleasantly surprised by the overall safety profile,” Dr. Mease said. “Yes, you need to pay attention to the potential for infection, but rates of serious infection were very low.”

“We didn’t see opportunistic infections occurring, and the overall adverse-events profile was one where we could be pretty reassuring with patients when introducing the medication and mechanism of action,” he added.

Upadacitinib appears to have significantly improved PASI scores in both trials, which is surprising, said Christopher Ritchlin, MD, from the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York.

“I think the data indicate that upadacitinib is a viable drug for treatment of psoriatic arthritis,” he told Medscape Medical News. “I don’t think it’s going to be tested in psoriasis, but for those with psoriatic arthritis and those whose burden of psoriasis is not particularly elevated, this drug looks like it might be very helpful to practicing physicians and their patients.”

Dr. Ritchlin added that he hopes future research will address whether upadacitinib is effective for axial disease in psoriatic arthritis, which wasn’t measured in these trials.

“I don’t see this as a weakness” of the current research, he said, but “having some spinal measures would be helpful. It’s something additional we’d like to know.”

Both trials were funded by AbbVie. Dr. Magrey reports financial relationships with Amgen, AbbVie, UCB Pharma, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Janssen. Dr. Mease reports financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB, Genentech, and Janssen. Dr. Ritchlin has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.




 

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis remained on therapy longer with the relatively new JAK inhibitors than with TNF inhibitors, according to the large international JAK-pot study, offering encouraging signals about the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors in these patients.

“We saw that efficacy with JAK inhibitors was at least as good as other current drugs on the market,” said investigator Kim Lauper, MD, from the University of Geneva in Switzerland and the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom.

“We don’t have datasets on JAK inhibitors over a long period of time, but we do have a lot of registers,” Dr. Lauper told Medscape Medical News.

“In general, we were really happy to see no big difference in effectiveness” for these disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for patients with RA, she said.

In many countries, JAK inhibitors have only recently been approved as a treatment for RA, Lauper explained. In the past several years, baricitinib, tofacitinib, and upadacitinib have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

For their study, Dr. Lauper and her colleagues analyzed data from registers in 19 countries.

When JAK inhibitors became available in each country, the team assessed effectiveness by comparing how long patients remained on JAK inhibitors or on long-available biologics. Dr. Lauper presented the findings at the virtual European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2020 Congress.

“In general, we know that drug retention is a measure of both effectiveness and safety,” she explained.

Of the 25,521 patients in the 19 registers, 6,063 started on a JAK inhibitor during the 3-year study period, 13,879 started on a TNF inhibitor, 2,348 started on abatacept, and 3,231 started on an interleukin-6 inhibitor.

Three-quarters of patients were women (average age, 55 years), and average time since the diagnosis of RA was 10 years.

At baseline, patients taking JAK inhibitors had higher levels of C-reactive protein and disease activity than patients taking a biologic. They had also been treated previously with more traditional and biologic DMARDs.

Ineffectiveness was the most common reason for discontinuing a drug, cited by 49% of patients, followed by adverse events, cited by 21%.

The rate of discontinuation was lower for JAK inhibitors than for TNF inhibitors, after adjustment. However, the discontinuation rate for JAK inhibitors, abatacept, and IL-6 inhibitors was comparable.

The observational nature of the study was a limitation, Dr. Lauper acknowledged, explaining that “we couldn’t adjust for confounding factors that were not measured.”

Notably, there were large variations in JAK inhibitor retention rates in the different countries, which surprised both Dr. Lauper and Loreto Carmona, MD, PhD, from the Musculoskeletal Health Institute in Madrid.

“It’s very interesting because there’s not much heterogeneity with abatacept and IL inhibitors,” said Dr. Carmona, who is chair of the EULAR abstract selection committee.

“It’s all over the spectrum with JAK inhibitors,” she told Medscape Medical News. But “what the research shows is that JAK inhibitors are maintained for longer, which means maybe the mix of efficacy, low toxicity, and adherence, on the whole, is better in JAK inhibitors.”

The study was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Lauper and Dr. Carmona have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.




 

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis remained on therapy longer with the relatively new JAK inhibitors than with TNF inhibitors, according to the large international JAK-pot study, offering encouraging signals about the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors in these patients.

“We saw that efficacy with JAK inhibitors was at least as good as other current drugs on the market,” said investigator Kim Lauper, MD, from the University of Geneva in Switzerland and the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom.

“We don’t have datasets on JAK inhibitors over a long period of time, but we do have a lot of registers,” Dr. Lauper told Medscape Medical News.

“In general, we were really happy to see no big difference in effectiveness” for these disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for patients with RA, she said.

In many countries, JAK inhibitors have only recently been approved as a treatment for RA, Lauper explained. In the past several years, baricitinib, tofacitinib, and upadacitinib have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

For their study, Dr. Lauper and her colleagues analyzed data from registers in 19 countries.

When JAK inhibitors became available in each country, the team assessed effectiveness by comparing how long patients remained on JAK inhibitors or on long-available biologics. Dr. Lauper presented the findings at the virtual European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2020 Congress.

“In general, we know that drug retention is a measure of both effectiveness and safety,” she explained.

Of the 25,521 patients in the 19 registers, 6,063 started on a JAK inhibitor during the 3-year study period, 13,879 started on a TNF inhibitor, 2,348 started on abatacept, and 3,231 started on an interleukin-6 inhibitor.

Three-quarters of patients were women (average age, 55 years), and average time since the diagnosis of RA was 10 years.

At baseline, patients taking JAK inhibitors had higher levels of C-reactive protein and disease activity than patients taking a biologic. They had also been treated previously with more traditional and biologic DMARDs.

Ineffectiveness was the most common reason for discontinuing a drug, cited by 49% of patients, followed by adverse events, cited by 21%.

The rate of discontinuation was lower for JAK inhibitors than for TNF inhibitors, after adjustment. However, the discontinuation rate for JAK inhibitors, abatacept, and IL-6 inhibitors was comparable.

The observational nature of the study was a limitation, Dr. Lauper acknowledged, explaining that “we couldn’t adjust for confounding factors that were not measured.”

Notably, there were large variations in JAK inhibitor retention rates in the different countries, which surprised both Dr. Lauper and Loreto Carmona, MD, PhD, from the Musculoskeletal Health Institute in Madrid.

“It’s very interesting because there’s not much heterogeneity with abatacept and IL inhibitors,” said Dr. Carmona, who is chair of the EULAR abstract selection committee.

“It’s all over the spectrum with JAK inhibitors,” she told Medscape Medical News. But “what the research shows is that JAK inhibitors are maintained for longer, which means maybe the mix of efficacy, low toxicity, and adherence, on the whole, is better in JAK inhibitors.”

The study was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Lauper and Dr. Carmona have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.




 

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis remained on therapy longer with the relatively new JAK inhibitors than with TNF inhibitors, according to the large international JAK-pot study, offering encouraging signals about the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors in these patients.

“We saw that efficacy with JAK inhibitors was at least as good as other current drugs on the market,” said investigator Kim Lauper, MD, from the University of Geneva in Switzerland and the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom.

“We don’t have datasets on JAK inhibitors over a long period of time, but we do have a lot of registers,” Dr. Lauper told Medscape Medical News.

“In general, we were really happy to see no big difference in effectiveness” for these disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for patients with RA, she said.

In many countries, JAK inhibitors have only recently been approved as a treatment for RA, Lauper explained. In the past several years, baricitinib, tofacitinib, and upadacitinib have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

For their study, Dr. Lauper and her colleagues analyzed data from registers in 19 countries.

When JAK inhibitors became available in each country, the team assessed effectiveness by comparing how long patients remained on JAK inhibitors or on long-available biologics. Dr. Lauper presented the findings at the virtual European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2020 Congress.

“In general, we know that drug retention is a measure of both effectiveness and safety,” she explained.

Of the 25,521 patients in the 19 registers, 6,063 started on a JAK inhibitor during the 3-year study period, 13,879 started on a TNF inhibitor, 2,348 started on abatacept, and 3,231 started on an interleukin-6 inhibitor.

Three-quarters of patients were women (average age, 55 years), and average time since the diagnosis of RA was 10 years.

At baseline, patients taking JAK inhibitors had higher levels of C-reactive protein and disease activity than patients taking a biologic. They had also been treated previously with more traditional and biologic DMARDs.

Ineffectiveness was the most common reason for discontinuing a drug, cited by 49% of patients, followed by adverse events, cited by 21%.

The rate of discontinuation was lower for JAK inhibitors than for TNF inhibitors, after adjustment. However, the discontinuation rate for JAK inhibitors, abatacept, and IL-6 inhibitors was comparable.

The observational nature of the study was a limitation, Dr. Lauper acknowledged, explaining that “we couldn’t adjust for confounding factors that were not measured.”

Notably, there were large variations in JAK inhibitor retention rates in the different countries, which surprised both Dr. Lauper and Loreto Carmona, MD, PhD, from the Musculoskeletal Health Institute in Madrid.

“It’s very interesting because there’s not much heterogeneity with abatacept and IL inhibitors,” said Dr. Carmona, who is chair of the EULAR abstract selection committee.

“It’s all over the spectrum with JAK inhibitors,” she told Medscape Medical News. But “what the research shows is that JAK inhibitors are maintained for longer, which means maybe the mix of efficacy, low toxicity, and adherence, on the whole, is better in JAK inhibitors.”

The study was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Lauper and Dr. Carmona have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.