Spondyloarthropathies

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.

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.

Opioid use does not decline after patients with inflammatory arthritis start TNF inhibitor therapy; in fact, average use appears to increase, results from a new study show.

“Starting a TNF inhibitor, you would think the pain would go down, and we were hoping the dose of opioids would go down with it,” said investigator Olafur Palsson, MD, from the University of Iceland in Reykjavik and Lund University in Sweden.

“But this research shows that the insertion of a TNF inhibitor has only a minor effect on that,” he told Medscape Medical News.

The findings are an “important reminder” to rheumatologists that they should broaden their consideration of other pain treatments and techniques for patients with inflammatory arthritis, Dr. Palsson said. “They should focus on trying other tactics to get patients’ pain and stiffness under control; there may be some underlying factors.”

The investigators compared opioid prescription rates in 940 patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and undifferentiated arthritis with a control group of 4,700 matched subjects. Dr. Palsson presented the findings at the virtual European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2020 Congress.

The team assessed nationwide databases that capture all patients taking biologics for rheumatic diseases and more than 90% of all drug prescriptions. They found that patients with inflammatory arthritis in Iceland were more likely to have received at least one opioid prescription than control subjects (75% vs. 43%).

During the study period, average yearly opioid dose rose much more in the patient group than in the control group. And 2 years after the initiation of TNF inhibitors, the number of patients taking opioids was unchanged from baseline, at about 40%.

Overall, the patient group was prescribed nearly six times more opioids than the control group. The investigators used a bootstrapping analysis to obtain a reliable confidence interval.

“In a way, the data are extremely skewed,” Dr. Palsson explained. “Most patients were taking very low doses of opioids and a few were taking extremely high doses. It’s hard to do a statistical analysis.”

“With bootstrapping, you don’t detect small fluctuations in data,” he said, acknowledging this study limitation. Also, “prescription data don’t necessarily reflect consumption” of a drug. People prescribed high doses may not necessarily be consuming high doses.”

Additionally, the risk for addiction is low when opioids are used as intended, said John Isaacs, MBBS, PhD, from Newcastle University in Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom, who is chair of the EULAR scientific program committee.

To alleviate chronic pain, opioids “should, in any case, only be part of a comprehensive therapy program in which doctors, psychologists, and physiotherapists work together,” Dr. Isaacs said in a EULAR news release.

Dr. Palsson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Isaacs is a consultant or has received honoraria or grants from Pfizer, AbbVie, Amgen, Merck, Roche, and UCB.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.



 

Opioid use does not decline after patients with inflammatory arthritis start TNF inhibitor therapy; in fact, average use appears to increase, results from a new study show.

“Starting a TNF inhibitor, you would think the pain would go down, and we were hoping the dose of opioids would go down with it,” said investigator Olafur Palsson, MD, from the University of Iceland in Reykjavik and Lund University in Sweden.

“But this research shows that the insertion of a TNF inhibitor has only a minor effect on that,” he told Medscape Medical News.

The findings are an “important reminder” to rheumatologists that they should broaden their consideration of other pain treatments and techniques for patients with inflammatory arthritis, Dr. Palsson said. “They should focus on trying other tactics to get patients’ pain and stiffness under control; there may be some underlying factors.”

The investigators compared opioid prescription rates in 940 patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and undifferentiated arthritis with a control group of 4,700 matched subjects. Dr. Palsson presented the findings at the virtual European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2020 Congress.

The team assessed nationwide databases that capture all patients taking biologics for rheumatic diseases and more than 90% of all drug prescriptions. They found that patients with inflammatory arthritis in Iceland were more likely to have received at least one opioid prescription than control subjects (75% vs. 43%).

During the study period, average yearly opioid dose rose much more in the patient group than in the control group. And 2 years after the initiation of TNF inhibitors, the number of patients taking opioids was unchanged from baseline, at about 40%.

Overall, the patient group was prescribed nearly six times more opioids than the control group. The investigators used a bootstrapping analysis to obtain a reliable confidence interval.

“In a way, the data are extremely skewed,” Dr. Palsson explained. “Most patients were taking very low doses of opioids and a few were taking extremely high doses. It’s hard to do a statistical analysis.”

“With bootstrapping, you don’t detect small fluctuations in data,” he said, acknowledging this study limitation. Also, “prescription data don’t necessarily reflect consumption” of a drug. People prescribed high doses may not necessarily be consuming high doses.”

Additionally, the risk for addiction is low when opioids are used as intended, said John Isaacs, MBBS, PhD, from Newcastle University in Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom, who is chair of the EULAR scientific program committee.

To alleviate chronic pain, opioids “should, in any case, only be part of a comprehensive therapy program in which doctors, psychologists, and physiotherapists work together,” Dr. Isaacs said in a EULAR news release.

Dr. Palsson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Isaacs is a consultant or has received honoraria or grants from Pfizer, AbbVie, Amgen, Merck, Roche, and UCB.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.



 

Opioid use does not decline after patients with inflammatory arthritis start TNF inhibitor therapy; in fact, average use appears to increase, results from a new study show.

“Starting a TNF inhibitor, you would think the pain would go down, and we were hoping the dose of opioids would go down with it,” said investigator Olafur Palsson, MD, from the University of Iceland in Reykjavik and Lund University in Sweden.

“But this research shows that the insertion of a TNF inhibitor has only a minor effect on that,” he told Medscape Medical News.

The findings are an “important reminder” to rheumatologists that they should broaden their consideration of other pain treatments and techniques for patients with inflammatory arthritis, Dr. Palsson said. “They should focus on trying other tactics to get patients’ pain and stiffness under control; there may be some underlying factors.”

The investigators compared opioid prescription rates in 940 patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and undifferentiated arthritis with a control group of 4,700 matched subjects. Dr. Palsson presented the findings at the virtual European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2020 Congress.

The team assessed nationwide databases that capture all patients taking biologics for rheumatic diseases and more than 90% of all drug prescriptions. They found that patients with inflammatory arthritis in Iceland were more likely to have received at least one opioid prescription than control subjects (75% vs. 43%).

During the study period, average yearly opioid dose rose much more in the patient group than in the control group. And 2 years after the initiation of TNF inhibitors, the number of patients taking opioids was unchanged from baseline, at about 40%.

Overall, the patient group was prescribed nearly six times more opioids than the control group. The investigators used a bootstrapping analysis to obtain a reliable confidence interval.

“In a way, the data are extremely skewed,” Dr. Palsson explained. “Most patients were taking very low doses of opioids and a few were taking extremely high doses. It’s hard to do a statistical analysis.”

“With bootstrapping, you don’t detect small fluctuations in data,” he said, acknowledging this study limitation. Also, “prescription data don’t necessarily reflect consumption” of a drug. People prescribed high doses may not necessarily be consuming high doses.”

Additionally, the risk for addiction is low when opioids are used as intended, said John Isaacs, MBBS, PhD, from Newcastle University in Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom, who is chair of the EULAR scientific program committee.

To alleviate chronic pain, opioids “should, in any case, only be part of a comprehensive therapy program in which doctors, psychologists, and physiotherapists work together,” Dr. Isaacs said in a EULAR news release.

Dr. Palsson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Isaacs is a consultant or has received honoraria or grants from Pfizer, AbbVie, Amgen, Merck, Roche, and UCB.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.



 

Being aged older than 65 years was associated with the highest risk of people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) needing hospital treatment for COVID-19, according to the first results to be reported from ReCoVery, the German national COVID-19 registry.

Older patients with RMDs were five times more likely than younger patients to be hospitalized if they tested positive for SARS‑CoV‑2 and developed COVID-19 (odds ratio, 5.1; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-11.4).

The likelihood of hospitalization was also significantly increased by the current or prior use of glucocorticoids (OR, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.2-5.4) and by the presence of cardiovascular disease (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.2-5.4).

“The register is a joint initiative of the German Society for Rheumatology and the Justus Liebig University in Giessen,” explained Anne Regierer, MD, during a live session of the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

“The current pandemic has changed all of our lives. For patients it brought a lot of uncertainty and fears,” said Dr. Regierer, of the German Rheumatism Research Center Berlin.

“The risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases [IRD] is still largely unknown. We still don’t know whether they have a high risk of getting the infection or whether they have a higher risk of a severer case ... therefore there’s an urgent need to have data to generate evidence for the management of our patients.”

Launched at the end of March 2020, the German registry now includes data on 251 patients – 194 of whom have recovered – provided by more than 200 registered rheumatologists. The registry data have now been integrated into the EULAR COVID-19 Database, which is itself part of a global effort to better understand and optimally manage RMD patients during the pandemic.

“The data presented by Dr. Regierer looked at similar outcomes and found quite similar results, which is reassuring,” Kimme Hyrich, MD, PhD, professor of epidemiology at the University of Manchester (England) and a consultant rheumatologist in the Kellgren Centre for Rheumatology at Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, said in an interview.

“We are very grateful for this collaboration [with the German society and others]. Our first publication has looked at hospitalization, but with more data we may have the opportunity to look at less-common outcomes [e.g. death, other COVID complications] or within individual diseases or treatments. So far I don’t think we will come to a different conclusion,” observed Dr. Hyrich, who is on the steering committee for the EULAR COVID-19 Database.

“These initial data are reassuring in that the majority of cases of COVID reported to our database have recovered, including those who were hospitalized,” she said.

Current EULAR advice is to continue treatment with glucocorticoids in patients who are being chronically treated, but to use them at the lowest possible dose.

The objectives of this first analysis of the German registry was to provide a description of the patients who did and did not require hospitalization and those who needed ventilation, as well as look at possible risk factors for hospitalization.

Dr. Regierer reported that, of 192 patients they included – all with a positive lab test for SARS-CoV-2 – 128 (67%) did not require hospital admission. Of those that did (n = 64), 43 (22%) did not need ventilation and 21 (11%) did. Fifteen patients died, all of whom had been hospitalized, and all but one of them had needed ventilation.

Concerning the characteristics of the patients, those who needed hospital treatment with and without ventilation were older than those who were not admitted (70 vs. 65 vs. 54 years, respectively).

“Looking at the sexes, the gender distribution is also interesting. We see 69% females in the nonhospitalized patients, 65% of the inpatients without ventilation, but only 43% females in the ventilated patients. So in this group, the male patients are the majority,” Dr. Regierer observed.

Just over half of all patients in the nonhospitalized and the hospitalized without ventilation groups had IRD in remission, but those in the hospitalized with ventilation group less than one-fifth had their IRD under control.

“Of course we have to keep in mind the small sample sizes,” Dr. Regierer said, but the distribution of patients by disease type was “what you’d expect in clinical care.” The majority of patients in each of the three groups had RA (47%, 56%, and 57%), followed by psoriatic arthritis (19%, 7%, and 14%), axial spondyloarthritis (11%, 5%, and 0%), systemic lupus erythematosus (6%, 2%, and 0%), and vasculitis (1%, 5%, and 5%).

Patients who were hospitalized with and without ventilation were more likely to have more than one comorbidity than those who were not hospitalized with COVID-19.

“The most frequent comorbidity was cardiovascular disease with 58% and 76% in the inpatient groups,” Dr. Regierer reported. One-third of the nonhospitalized patients had a cardiovascular comorbidity.

“If we look at pulmonary disease, we see that 38% of the ventilator patients had an underlying pulmonary disease,” she added. This was in comparison with 19% of the hospitalized without ventilation and 13% of the nonhospitalized patients. Diabetes was another common comorbidity in hospitalized patients with (16%) and without (19%) ventilation versus just 2% of nonhospitalized patients. While these and other comorbidities such as chronic renal insufficiency were associated with higher odds ratios in the multivariate risk factor analysis, they did not reach statistical significance.

With regard to RMD treatments, more than 60% of patients in the hospitalized group had received treatment with glucocorticoids versus 37% of those who did not get admitted. No differences were seen for the other treatments.

Interestingly, “female sex, remission, and use of NSAIDs have an odds ratio smaller than 1. So there might be a lower risk of hospitalization associated with these factors,” Dr. Regierer said.

Dr. Regierer has received grant support and is part of speaker’s bureaus for a variety of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Hyrich disclosed grant income from Bristol-Myers Squibb, UCB, and Pfizer, and receiving speaker fees from AbbVie.

Being aged older than 65 years was associated with the highest risk of people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) needing hospital treatment for COVID-19, according to the first results to be reported from ReCoVery, the German national COVID-19 registry.

Older patients with RMDs were five times more likely than younger patients to be hospitalized if they tested positive for SARS‑CoV‑2 and developed COVID-19 (odds ratio, 5.1; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-11.4).

The likelihood of hospitalization was also significantly increased by the current or prior use of glucocorticoids (OR, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.2-5.4) and by the presence of cardiovascular disease (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.2-5.4).

“The register is a joint initiative of the German Society for Rheumatology and the Justus Liebig University in Giessen,” explained Anne Regierer, MD, during a live session of the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

“The current pandemic has changed all of our lives. For patients it brought a lot of uncertainty and fears,” said Dr. Regierer, of the German Rheumatism Research Center Berlin.

“The risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases [IRD] is still largely unknown. We still don’t know whether they have a high risk of getting the infection or whether they have a higher risk of a severer case ... therefore there’s an urgent need to have data to generate evidence for the management of our patients.”

Launched at the end of March 2020, the German registry now includes data on 251 patients – 194 of whom have recovered – provided by more than 200 registered rheumatologists. The registry data have now been integrated into the EULAR COVID-19 Database, which is itself part of a global effort to better understand and optimally manage RMD patients during the pandemic.

“The data presented by Dr. Regierer looked at similar outcomes and found quite similar results, which is reassuring,” Kimme Hyrich, MD, PhD, professor of epidemiology at the University of Manchester (England) and a consultant rheumatologist in the Kellgren Centre for Rheumatology at Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, said in an interview.

“We are very grateful for this collaboration [with the German society and others]. Our first publication has looked at hospitalization, but with more data we may have the opportunity to look at less-common outcomes [e.g. death, other COVID complications] or within individual diseases or treatments. So far I don’t think we will come to a different conclusion,” observed Dr. Hyrich, who is on the steering committee for the EULAR COVID-19 Database.

“These initial data are reassuring in that the majority of cases of COVID reported to our database have recovered, including those who were hospitalized,” she said.

Current EULAR advice is to continue treatment with glucocorticoids in patients who are being chronically treated, but to use them at the lowest possible dose.

The objectives of this first analysis of the German registry was to provide a description of the patients who did and did not require hospitalization and those who needed ventilation, as well as look at possible risk factors for hospitalization.

Dr. Regierer reported that, of 192 patients they included – all with a positive lab test for SARS-CoV-2 – 128 (67%) did not require hospital admission. Of those that did (n = 64), 43 (22%) did not need ventilation and 21 (11%) did. Fifteen patients died, all of whom had been hospitalized, and all but one of them had needed ventilation.

Concerning the characteristics of the patients, those who needed hospital treatment with and without ventilation were older than those who were not admitted (70 vs. 65 vs. 54 years, respectively).

“Looking at the sexes, the gender distribution is also interesting. We see 69% females in the nonhospitalized patients, 65% of the inpatients without ventilation, but only 43% females in the ventilated patients. So in this group, the male patients are the majority,” Dr. Regierer observed.

Just over half of all patients in the nonhospitalized and the hospitalized without ventilation groups had IRD in remission, but those in the hospitalized with ventilation group less than one-fifth had their IRD under control.

“Of course we have to keep in mind the small sample sizes,” Dr. Regierer said, but the distribution of patients by disease type was “what you’d expect in clinical care.” The majority of patients in each of the three groups had RA (47%, 56%, and 57%), followed by psoriatic arthritis (19%, 7%, and 14%), axial spondyloarthritis (11%, 5%, and 0%), systemic lupus erythematosus (6%, 2%, and 0%), and vasculitis (1%, 5%, and 5%).

Patients who were hospitalized with and without ventilation were more likely to have more than one comorbidity than those who were not hospitalized with COVID-19.

“The most frequent comorbidity was cardiovascular disease with 58% and 76% in the inpatient groups,” Dr. Regierer reported. One-third of the nonhospitalized patients had a cardiovascular comorbidity.

“If we look at pulmonary disease, we see that 38% of the ventilator patients had an underlying pulmonary disease,” she added. This was in comparison with 19% of the hospitalized without ventilation and 13% of the nonhospitalized patients. Diabetes was another common comorbidity in hospitalized patients with (16%) and without (19%) ventilation versus just 2% of nonhospitalized patients. While these and other comorbidities such as chronic renal insufficiency were associated with higher odds ratios in the multivariate risk factor analysis, they did not reach statistical significance.

With regard to RMD treatments, more than 60% of patients in the hospitalized group had received treatment with glucocorticoids versus 37% of those who did not get admitted. No differences were seen for the other treatments.

Interestingly, “female sex, remission, and use of NSAIDs have an odds ratio smaller than 1. So there might be a lower risk of hospitalization associated with these factors,” Dr. Regierer said.

Dr. Regierer has received grant support and is part of speaker’s bureaus for a variety of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Hyrich disclosed grant income from Bristol-Myers Squibb, UCB, and Pfizer, and receiving speaker fees from AbbVie.

Being aged older than 65 years was associated with the highest risk of people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) needing hospital treatment for COVID-19, according to the first results to be reported from ReCoVery, the German national COVID-19 registry.

Older patients with RMDs were five times more likely than younger patients to be hospitalized if they tested positive for SARS‑CoV‑2 and developed COVID-19 (odds ratio, 5.1; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-11.4).

The likelihood of hospitalization was also significantly increased by the current or prior use of glucocorticoids (OR, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.2-5.4) and by the presence of cardiovascular disease (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.2-5.4).

“The register is a joint initiative of the German Society for Rheumatology and the Justus Liebig University in Giessen,” explained Anne Regierer, MD, during a live session of the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

“The current pandemic has changed all of our lives. For patients it brought a lot of uncertainty and fears,” said Dr. Regierer, of the German Rheumatism Research Center Berlin.

“The risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases [IRD] is still largely unknown. We still don’t know whether they have a high risk of getting the infection or whether they have a higher risk of a severer case ... therefore there’s an urgent need to have data to generate evidence for the management of our patients.”

Launched at the end of March 2020, the German registry now includes data on 251 patients – 194 of whom have recovered – provided by more than 200 registered rheumatologists. The registry data have now been integrated into the EULAR COVID-19 Database, which is itself part of a global effort to better understand and optimally manage RMD patients during the pandemic.

“The data presented by Dr. Regierer looked at similar outcomes and found quite similar results, which is reassuring,” Kimme Hyrich, MD, PhD, professor of epidemiology at the University of Manchester (England) and a consultant rheumatologist in the Kellgren Centre for Rheumatology at Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, said in an interview.

“We are very grateful for this collaboration [with the German society and others]. Our first publication has looked at hospitalization, but with more data we may have the opportunity to look at less-common outcomes [e.g. death, other COVID complications] or within individual diseases or treatments. So far I don’t think we will come to a different conclusion,” observed Dr. Hyrich, who is on the steering committee for the EULAR COVID-19 Database.

“These initial data are reassuring in that the majority of cases of COVID reported to our database have recovered, including those who were hospitalized,” she said.

Current EULAR advice is to continue treatment with glucocorticoids in patients who are being chronically treated, but to use them at the lowest possible dose.

The objectives of this first analysis of the German registry was to provide a description of the patients who did and did not require hospitalization and those who needed ventilation, as well as look at possible risk factors for hospitalization.

Dr. Regierer reported that, of 192 patients they included – all with a positive lab test for SARS-CoV-2 – 128 (67%) did not require hospital admission. Of those that did (n = 64), 43 (22%) did not need ventilation and 21 (11%) did. Fifteen patients died, all of whom had been hospitalized, and all but one of them had needed ventilation.

Concerning the characteristics of the patients, those who needed hospital treatment with and without ventilation were older than those who were not admitted (70 vs. 65 vs. 54 years, respectively).

“Looking at the sexes, the gender distribution is also interesting. We see 69% females in the nonhospitalized patients, 65% of the inpatients without ventilation, but only 43% females in the ventilated patients. So in this group, the male patients are the majority,” Dr. Regierer observed.

Just over half of all patients in the nonhospitalized and the hospitalized without ventilation groups had IRD in remission, but those in the hospitalized with ventilation group less than one-fifth had their IRD under control.

“Of course we have to keep in mind the small sample sizes,” Dr. Regierer said, but the distribution of patients by disease type was “what you’d expect in clinical care.” The majority of patients in each of the three groups had RA (47%, 56%, and 57%), followed by psoriatic arthritis (19%, 7%, and 14%), axial spondyloarthritis (11%, 5%, and 0%), systemic lupus erythematosus (6%, 2%, and 0%), and vasculitis (1%, 5%, and 5%).

Patients who were hospitalized with and without ventilation were more likely to have more than one comorbidity than those who were not hospitalized with COVID-19.

“The most frequent comorbidity was cardiovascular disease with 58% and 76% in the inpatient groups,” Dr. Regierer reported. One-third of the nonhospitalized patients had a cardiovascular comorbidity.

“If we look at pulmonary disease, we see that 38% of the ventilator patients had an underlying pulmonary disease,” she added. This was in comparison with 19% of the hospitalized without ventilation and 13% of the nonhospitalized patients. Diabetes was another common comorbidity in hospitalized patients with (16%) and without (19%) ventilation versus just 2% of nonhospitalized patients. While these and other comorbidities such as chronic renal insufficiency were associated with higher odds ratios in the multivariate risk factor analysis, they did not reach statistical significance.

With regard to RMD treatments, more than 60% of patients in the hospitalized group had received treatment with glucocorticoids versus 37% of those who did not get admitted. No differences were seen for the other treatments.

Interestingly, “female sex, remission, and use of NSAIDs have an odds ratio smaller than 1. So there might be a lower risk of hospitalization associated with these factors,” Dr. Regierer said.

Dr. Regierer has received grant support and is part of speaker’s bureaus for a variety of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Hyrich disclosed grant income from Bristol-Myers Squibb, UCB, and Pfizer, and receiving speaker fees from AbbVie.

Among patients with ankylosing spondylitis or undifferentiated spondyloarthritis, risk for anterior uveitis may hinge on the choice of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD), a large Swedish cohort study suggests.

Study results were reported in the opening plenary abstract session at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

“Randomized, controlled trials indicate that compared to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, secukinumab has similar efficacy regarding axial inflammation in spondyloarthritis and better efficacy regarding cutaneous psoriasis, but is inferior in inflammatory bowel disease,” noted lead investigator Ulf Lindström, MD, PhD, of the department of rheumatology and inflammation research in the Institute of Medicine at the University of Gothenburg (Sweden). “However, the efficacy of secukinumab, compared to TNF inhibitors, in anterior uveitis has not been extensively studied.”

The investigators used national registry data to study 3,568 patients with ankylosing spondylitis or undifferentiated spondyloarthritis who started bDMARDs in 2005-2018. They considered four agents: the anti–interleukin-17A antibody secukinumab (Cosentyx) and the TNF inhibitors etanercept (Enbrel), adalimumab (Humira), and infliximab (Remicade).

Analyses based on 4,523 treatment episodes showed that after excluding the 23% of patients who had previously experienced anterior uveitis, merely 0.9% of patients experienced new-onset anterior uveitis while on their bDMARD, Dr. Lindström reported.

There was confounding by indication, whereby patients with previous anterior uveitis were channeled toward adalimumab and infliximab, and away from secukinumab and etanercept. In addition, there was confounding by line of treatment, with secukinumab usually used in the third line.

After excluding patients who had experienced anterior uveitis in the past year to partly address confounding, the adjusted risk for first on-treatment anterior uveitis was about twice as high with secukinumab and with etanercept as compared with adalimumab. After additionally excluding all biologic treatment episodes beyond the third line, elevation of risk remained significant only for etanercept.

“There is probably a higher occurrence of anterior uveitis on treatment with secukinumab, compared to adalimumab, but there may still be residual confounding and bias that we need to consider,” Dr. Lindström concluded. “As seen previously, there is a higher occurrence of anterior uveitis on etanercept compared to adalimumab or infliximab.”

Findings in context

“These results are not surprising as we have known that secukinumab and etanercept are not good for controlling recurrent and chronic uveitis,” Nigil Haroon MD, PhD, DM, commented in an interview. However, “a single episode of uveitis or infrequent episodes are not usually considered a contraindication to starting these drugs.”

Study caveats included lack of adjustment for uveitis severity and potentially missed uveitis episodes in patients who treated it themselves with steroid eyedrops, he said. “Standard practice is to keep drops with them to start at the earliest possible time point.”

“It would be useful to know the number of patients who stopped medications as a result of uveitis,” added 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. “Time-to-event analysis may also be interesting.”

“The study raises an important point regarding channeling bias, and this is important to consider when interpreting clinical trial data as well. Investigators are unlikely to include patients with history of uveitis (or strong family history of inflammatory bowel disease or personal history of gut symptoms) in studies with IL-17 inhibitors and etanercept. Hence, the results have to be interpreted with caution.”
 

Study details

Dr. Lindström and coinvestigators assessed incidences of any anterior uveitis (ascertained from outpatient ophthalmology visits having this diagnostic code) and of anterior uveitis flares (the subset occurring after a gap of at least 90 days without the diagnosis).

When they excluded patients who had experienced anterior uveitis in the year before starting therapy, secukinumab and etanercept carried the highest incidences of anterior uveitis (6.8 and 7.5 per 100 patient-years, respectively) and anterior uveitis flares (2.8 per 100 patient-years for each), he reported.

With adalimumab as the comparator, adjusted risk for first on-treatment anterior uveitis in this population was significantly higher with secukinumab (hazard ratio, 2.23) and etanercept (hazard ratio, 1.80).

When the investigators additionally excluded episodes of therapy beyond the third line, only etanercept carried notably higher incidences of anterior uveitis (7.0 per 100 patient-years) and anterior uveitis flares (2.6 per 100 patient-years). “This could imply that some of the higher incidence rate seen for secukinumab could be due to the fact that these patients are harder to treat and have received more biologics before,” Dr. Lindström proposed.

With adalimumab again as the comparator, the adjusted risk for first on-treatment anterior uveitis in this population was significantly higher only with etanercept (hazard ratio, 1.85).

A final analysis included all patients who started adalimumab in 2004-2018 and then switched to one of the other agents, dramatically reducing confounding by indication. In this population, the incidence rate ratio of anterior uveitis flares was 3.05 for secukinumab, 1.79 for etanercept, and 0.53 for infliximab, compared with adalimumab.

Dr. Lindström disclosed that he had no relevant conflicts of interest. The study did not receive any specific funding. Dr. Haroon disclosed consulting for Amgen, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB.

SOURCE: Lindström U et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:9, Abstract OP0014.

Among patients with ankylosing spondylitis or undifferentiated spondyloarthritis, risk for anterior uveitis may hinge on the choice of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD), a large Swedish cohort study suggests.

Study results were reported in the opening plenary abstract session at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

“Randomized, controlled trials indicate that compared to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, secukinumab has similar efficacy regarding axial inflammation in spondyloarthritis and better efficacy regarding cutaneous psoriasis, but is inferior in inflammatory bowel disease,” noted lead investigator Ulf Lindström, MD, PhD, of the department of rheumatology and inflammation research in the Institute of Medicine at the University of Gothenburg (Sweden). “However, the efficacy of secukinumab, compared to TNF inhibitors, in anterior uveitis has not been extensively studied.”

The investigators used national registry data to study 3,568 patients with ankylosing spondylitis or undifferentiated spondyloarthritis who started bDMARDs in 2005-2018. They considered four agents: the anti–interleukin-17A antibody secukinumab (Cosentyx) and the TNF inhibitors etanercept (Enbrel), adalimumab (Humira), and infliximab (Remicade).

Analyses based on 4,523 treatment episodes showed that after excluding the 23% of patients who had previously experienced anterior uveitis, merely 0.9% of patients experienced new-onset anterior uveitis while on their bDMARD, Dr. Lindström reported.

There was confounding by indication, whereby patients with previous anterior uveitis were channeled toward adalimumab and infliximab, and away from secukinumab and etanercept. In addition, there was confounding by line of treatment, with secukinumab usually used in the third line.

After excluding patients who had experienced anterior uveitis in the past year to partly address confounding, the adjusted risk for first on-treatment anterior uveitis was about twice as high with secukinumab and with etanercept as compared with adalimumab. After additionally excluding all biologic treatment episodes beyond the third line, elevation of risk remained significant only for etanercept.

“There is probably a higher occurrence of anterior uveitis on treatment with secukinumab, compared to adalimumab, but there may still be residual confounding and bias that we need to consider,” Dr. Lindström concluded. “As seen previously, there is a higher occurrence of anterior uveitis on etanercept compared to adalimumab or infliximab.”

Findings in context

“These results are not surprising as we have known that secukinumab and etanercept are not good for controlling recurrent and chronic uveitis,” Nigil Haroon MD, PhD, DM, commented in an interview. However, “a single episode of uveitis or infrequent episodes are not usually considered a contraindication to starting these drugs.”

Study caveats included lack of adjustment for uveitis severity and potentially missed uveitis episodes in patients who treated it themselves with steroid eyedrops, he said. “Standard practice is to keep drops with them to start at the earliest possible time point.”

“It would be useful to know the number of patients who stopped medications as a result of uveitis,” added 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. “Time-to-event analysis may also be interesting.”

“The study raises an important point regarding channeling bias, and this is important to consider when interpreting clinical trial data as well. Investigators are unlikely to include patients with history of uveitis (or strong family history of inflammatory bowel disease or personal history of gut symptoms) in studies with IL-17 inhibitors and etanercept. Hence, the results have to be interpreted with caution.”
 

Study details

Dr. Lindström and coinvestigators assessed incidences of any anterior uveitis (ascertained from outpatient ophthalmology visits having this diagnostic code) and of anterior uveitis flares (the subset occurring after a gap of at least 90 days without the diagnosis).

When they excluded patients who had experienced anterior uveitis in the year before starting therapy, secukinumab and etanercept carried the highest incidences of anterior uveitis (6.8 and 7.5 per 100 patient-years, respectively) and anterior uveitis flares (2.8 per 100 patient-years for each), he reported.

With adalimumab as the comparator, adjusted risk for first on-treatment anterior uveitis in this population was significantly higher with secukinumab (hazard ratio, 2.23) and etanercept (hazard ratio, 1.80).

When the investigators additionally excluded episodes of therapy beyond the third line, only etanercept carried notably higher incidences of anterior uveitis (7.0 per 100 patient-years) and anterior uveitis flares (2.6 per 100 patient-years). “This could imply that some of the higher incidence rate seen for secukinumab could be due to the fact that these patients are harder to treat and have received more biologics before,” Dr. Lindström proposed.

With adalimumab again as the comparator, the adjusted risk for first on-treatment anterior uveitis in this population was significantly higher only with etanercept (hazard ratio, 1.85).

A final analysis included all patients who started adalimumab in 2004-2018 and then switched to one of the other agents, dramatically reducing confounding by indication. In this population, the incidence rate ratio of anterior uveitis flares was 3.05 for secukinumab, 1.79 for etanercept, and 0.53 for infliximab, compared with adalimumab.

Dr. Lindström disclosed that he had no relevant conflicts of interest. The study did not receive any specific funding. Dr. Haroon disclosed consulting for Amgen, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB.

SOURCE: Lindström U et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:9, Abstract OP0014.

Among patients with ankylosing spondylitis or undifferentiated spondyloarthritis, risk for anterior uveitis may hinge on the choice of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD), a large Swedish cohort study suggests.

Study results were reported in the opening plenary abstract session at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

“Randomized, controlled trials indicate that compared to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, secukinumab has similar efficacy regarding axial inflammation in spondyloarthritis and better efficacy regarding cutaneous psoriasis, but is inferior in inflammatory bowel disease,” noted lead investigator Ulf Lindström, MD, PhD, of the department of rheumatology and inflammation research in the Institute of Medicine at the University of Gothenburg (Sweden). “However, the efficacy of secukinumab, compared to TNF inhibitors, in anterior uveitis has not been extensively studied.”

The investigators used national registry data to study 3,568 patients with ankylosing spondylitis or undifferentiated spondyloarthritis who started bDMARDs in 2005-2018. They considered four agents: the anti–interleukin-17A antibody secukinumab (Cosentyx) and the TNF inhibitors etanercept (Enbrel), adalimumab (Humira), and infliximab (Remicade).

Analyses based on 4,523 treatment episodes showed that after excluding the 23% of patients who had previously experienced anterior uveitis, merely 0.9% of patients experienced new-onset anterior uveitis while on their bDMARD, Dr. Lindström reported.

There was confounding by indication, whereby patients with previous anterior uveitis were channeled toward adalimumab and infliximab, and away from secukinumab and etanercept. In addition, there was confounding by line of treatment, with secukinumab usually used in the third line.

After excluding patients who had experienced anterior uveitis in the past year to partly address confounding, the adjusted risk for first on-treatment anterior uveitis was about twice as high with secukinumab and with etanercept as compared with adalimumab. After additionally excluding all biologic treatment episodes beyond the third line, elevation of risk remained significant only for etanercept.

“There is probably a higher occurrence of anterior uveitis on treatment with secukinumab, compared to adalimumab, but there may still be residual confounding and bias that we need to consider,” Dr. Lindström concluded. “As seen previously, there is a higher occurrence of anterior uveitis on etanercept compared to adalimumab or infliximab.”

Findings in context

“These results are not surprising as we have known that secukinumab and etanercept are not good for controlling recurrent and chronic uveitis,” Nigil Haroon MD, PhD, DM, commented in an interview. However, “a single episode of uveitis or infrequent episodes are not usually considered a contraindication to starting these drugs.”

Study caveats included lack of adjustment for uveitis severity and potentially missed uveitis episodes in patients who treated it themselves with steroid eyedrops, he said. “Standard practice is to keep drops with them to start at the earliest possible time point.”

“It would be useful to know the number of patients who stopped medications as a result of uveitis,” added 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. “Time-to-event analysis may also be interesting.”

“The study raises an important point regarding channeling bias, and this is important to consider when interpreting clinical trial data as well. Investigators are unlikely to include patients with history of uveitis (or strong family history of inflammatory bowel disease or personal history of gut symptoms) in studies with IL-17 inhibitors and etanercept. Hence, the results have to be interpreted with caution.”
 

Study details

Dr. Lindström and coinvestigators assessed incidences of any anterior uveitis (ascertained from outpatient ophthalmology visits having this diagnostic code) and of anterior uveitis flares (the subset occurring after a gap of at least 90 days without the diagnosis).

When they excluded patients who had experienced anterior uveitis in the year before starting therapy, secukinumab and etanercept carried the highest incidences of anterior uveitis (6.8 and 7.5 per 100 patient-years, respectively) and anterior uveitis flares (2.8 per 100 patient-years for each), he reported.

With adalimumab as the comparator, adjusted risk for first on-treatment anterior uveitis in this population was significantly higher with secukinumab (hazard ratio, 2.23) and etanercept (hazard ratio, 1.80).

When the investigators additionally excluded episodes of therapy beyond the third line, only etanercept carried notably higher incidences of anterior uveitis (7.0 per 100 patient-years) and anterior uveitis flares (2.6 per 100 patient-years). “This could imply that some of the higher incidence rate seen for secukinumab could be due to the fact that these patients are harder to treat and have received more biologics before,” Dr. Lindström proposed.

With adalimumab again as the comparator, the adjusted risk for first on-treatment anterior uveitis in this population was significantly higher only with etanercept (hazard ratio, 1.85).

A final analysis included all patients who started adalimumab in 2004-2018 and then switched to one of the other agents, dramatically reducing confounding by indication. In this population, the incidence rate ratio of anterior uveitis flares was 3.05 for secukinumab, 1.79 for etanercept, and 0.53 for infliximab, compared with adalimumab.

Dr. Lindström disclosed that he had no relevant conflicts of interest. The study did not receive any specific funding. Dr. Haroon disclosed consulting for Amgen, Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB.

SOURCE: Lindström U et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:9, Abstract OP0014.

The vast majority of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases who contract COVID-19 recover from the virus, regardless of which medication they receive for their rheumatic condition, new international research suggests.

“These results provide, for the first time, information about the outcome of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases,” said study investigator Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, from University College London. “They should provide some reassurance to patients and healthcare providers.”

Machado and his colleagues looked at 600 COVID-19 patients from 40 countries, and found that those taking TNF inhibitors for their rheumatic disease were less likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19. However, treatment with more than 10 mg of prednisone daily — considered a moderate to high dose — was associated with a higher probability of hospitalization.

In addition, hospitalization was not associated with biologics; JAK inhibitors; conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), such as methotrexate; antimalarials, such as hydroxychloroquine; or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) — either alone or in combination with other biologics, such as TNF-alpha inhibitors.

The findings were presented at the virtual European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2020 Congress and were published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

“Initially, there was a huge concern that these drugs could affect the outcome of patients getting COVID-19, but what this is showing is that probably these drugs do not increase their risk of severe outcome,” Machado, who is chair of the EULAR standing committee on epidemiology and health services research, told Medscape Medical News.

As of June 1, 1061 patients from 28 participating countries had been entered into the EULAR COVID-19 database, which was launched as part of the international Global Rheumatology Alliance registry. Patient data are categorized by factors such as top rheumatology diagnosis, comorbidities, top-five COVID-19 symptoms, and DMARD therapy at the time of virus infection. Anonymized data will be shared with an international register based in the United States.

Machado’s team combined data from the EULAR and Global Rheumatology Alliance COVID-19 registries from March 24 to April 20. They looked at patient factors — such as age, sex, smoking status, rheumatic diagnosis, comorbidities, and rheumatic therapies — to examine the association of rheumatic therapies with hospitalization rates and COVID-19 disease course.

Of the 277 patients (46%) in the study cohort who required hospitalization, 55 (9%) died. But this finding shouldn’t be viewed as the true rate of hospitalization or death in patients with rheumatic disease and COVID-19, said Gerd Burmester, MD, from Charité–University Medicine Berlin.

“There’s tremendous bias in terms of more serious cases of COVID-19 being reported to the registries,” he explained, “because the mild cases won’t even show up at their rheumatologist’s office.”

“This can skew the idea that COVID-19 is much more dangerous to rheumatic patients than to the regular population,” Burmester told Medscape Medical News. “It scares the patients, obviously, but we believe this is not justified.”

It’s still unclear whether rituximab use raises the risk for severe COVID-19, he said. “It appears to be the only biologic for which the jury is still out,” he said.

“Anti-TNFs and anti-IL-6 drugs may even be beneficial, although we don’t have robust data,” he added.

The study can only highlight associations between rheumatic drugs and COVID-19 outcomes. “We cannot say there is a causal relationship between the findings,” Machado said.

Longer-term data, when available, should illuminate “more granular” aspects of COVID-19 outcomes in rheumatic patients, including their risks of requiring ventilation or developing a cytokine storm, he noted.

Burmester and Machado agree that research needs to continue as the pandemic rages on. But so far, “there are no data suggesting that, if you’re on a targeted, dedicated immunomodulator, your risk is higher to have a worse course of COVID-19 than the general population,” Burmester said.

“We simply didn’t know that when the pandemic started, and some patients even discontinued their drugs out of this fear,” he added. “It’s more reassuring than we originally thought.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The vast majority of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases who contract COVID-19 recover from the virus, regardless of which medication they receive for their rheumatic condition, new international research suggests.

“These results provide, for the first time, information about the outcome of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases,” said study investigator Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, from University College London. “They should provide some reassurance to patients and healthcare providers.”

Machado and his colleagues looked at 600 COVID-19 patients from 40 countries, and found that those taking TNF inhibitors for their rheumatic disease were less likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19. However, treatment with more than 10 mg of prednisone daily — considered a moderate to high dose — was associated with a higher probability of hospitalization.

In addition, hospitalization was not associated with biologics; JAK inhibitors; conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), such as methotrexate; antimalarials, such as hydroxychloroquine; or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) — either alone or in combination with other biologics, such as TNF-alpha inhibitors.

The findings were presented at the virtual European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2020 Congress and were published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

“Initially, there was a huge concern that these drugs could affect the outcome of patients getting COVID-19, but what this is showing is that probably these drugs do not increase their risk of severe outcome,” Machado, who is chair of the EULAR standing committee on epidemiology and health services research, told Medscape Medical News.

As of June 1, 1061 patients from 28 participating countries had been entered into the EULAR COVID-19 database, which was launched as part of the international Global Rheumatology Alliance registry. Patient data are categorized by factors such as top rheumatology diagnosis, comorbidities, top-five COVID-19 symptoms, and DMARD therapy at the time of virus infection. Anonymized data will be shared with an international register based in the United States.

Machado’s team combined data from the EULAR and Global Rheumatology Alliance COVID-19 registries from March 24 to April 20. They looked at patient factors — such as age, sex, smoking status, rheumatic diagnosis, comorbidities, and rheumatic therapies — to examine the association of rheumatic therapies with hospitalization rates and COVID-19 disease course.

Of the 277 patients (46%) in the study cohort who required hospitalization, 55 (9%) died. But this finding shouldn’t be viewed as the true rate of hospitalization or death in patients with rheumatic disease and COVID-19, said Gerd Burmester, MD, from Charité–University Medicine Berlin.

“There’s tremendous bias in terms of more serious cases of COVID-19 being reported to the registries,” he explained, “because the mild cases won’t even show up at their rheumatologist’s office.”

“This can skew the idea that COVID-19 is much more dangerous to rheumatic patients than to the regular population,” Burmester told Medscape Medical News. “It scares the patients, obviously, but we believe this is not justified.”

It’s still unclear whether rituximab use raises the risk for severe COVID-19, he said. “It appears to be the only biologic for which the jury is still out,” he said.

“Anti-TNFs and anti-IL-6 drugs may even be beneficial, although we don’t have robust data,” he added.

The study can only highlight associations between rheumatic drugs and COVID-19 outcomes. “We cannot say there is a causal relationship between the findings,” Machado said.

Longer-term data, when available, should illuminate “more granular” aspects of COVID-19 outcomes in rheumatic patients, including their risks of requiring ventilation or developing a cytokine storm, he noted.

Burmester and Machado agree that research needs to continue as the pandemic rages on. But so far, “there are no data suggesting that, if you’re on a targeted, dedicated immunomodulator, your risk is higher to have a worse course of COVID-19 than the general population,” Burmester said.

“We simply didn’t know that when the pandemic started, and some patients even discontinued their drugs out of this fear,” he added. “It’s more reassuring than we originally thought.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The vast majority of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases who contract COVID-19 recover from the virus, regardless of which medication they receive for their rheumatic condition, new international research suggests.

“These results provide, for the first time, information about the outcome of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases,” said study investigator Pedro Machado, MD, PhD, from University College London. “They should provide some reassurance to patients and healthcare providers.”

Machado and his colleagues looked at 600 COVID-19 patients from 40 countries, and found that those taking TNF inhibitors for their rheumatic disease were less likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19. However, treatment with more than 10 mg of prednisone daily — considered a moderate to high dose — was associated with a higher probability of hospitalization.

In addition, hospitalization was not associated with biologics; JAK inhibitors; conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), such as methotrexate; antimalarials, such as hydroxychloroquine; or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) — either alone or in combination with other biologics, such as TNF-alpha inhibitors.

The findings were presented at the virtual European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2020 Congress and were published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

“Initially, there was a huge concern that these drugs could affect the outcome of patients getting COVID-19, but what this is showing is that probably these drugs do not increase their risk of severe outcome,” Machado, who is chair of the EULAR standing committee on epidemiology and health services research, told Medscape Medical News.

As of June 1, 1061 patients from 28 participating countries had been entered into the EULAR COVID-19 database, which was launched as part of the international Global Rheumatology Alliance registry. Patient data are categorized by factors such as top rheumatology diagnosis, comorbidities, top-five COVID-19 symptoms, and DMARD therapy at the time of virus infection. Anonymized data will be shared with an international register based in the United States.

Machado’s team combined data from the EULAR and Global Rheumatology Alliance COVID-19 registries from March 24 to April 20. They looked at patient factors — such as age, sex, smoking status, rheumatic diagnosis, comorbidities, and rheumatic therapies — to examine the association of rheumatic therapies with hospitalization rates and COVID-19 disease course.

Of the 277 patients (46%) in the study cohort who required hospitalization, 55 (9%) died. But this finding shouldn’t be viewed as the true rate of hospitalization or death in patients with rheumatic disease and COVID-19, said Gerd Burmester, MD, from Charité–University Medicine Berlin.

“There’s tremendous bias in terms of more serious cases of COVID-19 being reported to the registries,” he explained, “because the mild cases won’t even show up at their rheumatologist’s office.”

“This can skew the idea that COVID-19 is much more dangerous to rheumatic patients than to the regular population,” Burmester told Medscape Medical News. “It scares the patients, obviously, but we believe this is not justified.”

It’s still unclear whether rituximab use raises the risk for severe COVID-19, he said. “It appears to be the only biologic for which the jury is still out,” he said.

“Anti-TNFs and anti-IL-6 drugs may even be beneficial, although we don’t have robust data,” he added.

The study can only highlight associations between rheumatic drugs and COVID-19 outcomes. “We cannot say there is a causal relationship between the findings,” Machado said.

Longer-term data, when available, should illuminate “more granular” aspects of COVID-19 outcomes in rheumatic patients, including their risks of requiring ventilation or developing a cytokine storm, he noted.

Burmester and Machado agree that research needs to continue as the pandemic rages on. But so far, “there are no data suggesting that, if you’re on a targeted, dedicated immunomodulator, your risk is higher to have a worse course of COVID-19 than the general population,” Burmester said.

“We simply didn’t know that when the pandemic started, and some patients even discontinued their drugs out of this fear,” he added. “It’s more reassuring than we originally thought.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

What constitutes a structural lesion of the sacroiliac joints on MRI that’s indicative of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) has long been a matter of conjecture, but the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) MRI Working Group has developed new definitions that showed a high degree of specificity in identifying such lesions in the disease.

“There is a lack of consensus as to what defines a structural lesion on MRI of the sacroiliac joint [SIJ] typical of axial spondyloarthritis. Previous studies have described structural lesions in different ways, precluding meaningful comparisons between studies. The ASAS MRI group has generated updated consensus lesion definitions that describe each of the MRI lesions in the sacroiliac joint. These definitions have been validated by seven expert readers from the ASAS MRI group on MRI images from the ASAS classification cohort,” Walter P. Maksymowych, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

Making a definitive diagnosis of axSpA can be difficult because MRI can show a variety of SIJ abnormalities in healthy people as well as those with axSpA, said Dr. Maksymowych, chief medical officer of CARE Arthritis and professor in rheumatology at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, said in an interview prior to his presentation at the e-congress. “People who evaluate MRI scans are looking for clues as to what types of lesions they can be confident are indicative of axSpA.”

That started a process by the ASAS MRI group to evaluate scans from the landmark ASAS Classification Cohort study (Ann Rheum Dis. 2019;78:1550-8). “But,” said Dr. Maksymowych, “the MRI scans from that study were never evaluated.” So that work was handed off to the working group, whose 25 members included 7 expert image readers who evaluated the MRI scans.

The group adopted a standardized approach for evaluating MRIs of the SIJ in 148 cases, dividing each SIJ into quadrants and then evaluating consecutive MRI slices. The readers first documented whether they observed a definite structural lesion on the scan, which they then used as an external reference standard. They then analyzed which lesion, and in how many SIJ quadrants or slices, best reflected this external standard.

Courtesy Dr. Walter P. Maksymowych

The investigators defined an erosion as “a defect in subchondral bone associated with full-thickness loss of a dark appearance of the subchondral cortex at its expected location, with loss of signal on a T1-weighted, non–fat-suppressed sequence, compared with the normal bright appearance of adjacent bone marrow.” They defined a fat lesion or fat metaplasia as a “bright signal seen on a T1-weighted, non–fat-suppressed sequence that is brighter than normal bone marrow which meets the following requirements: It is homogeneously bright, located in a typical anatomical area (specifically subchondral bone), and has a sharply defined border along its nonarticular border with normal bone marrow.”

An erosion in one quadrant isn’t sufficient to define a scan as positive for a definite structural lesion, said Dr. Maksymowych; but an erosion in three quadrants or in two or more consecutive slices meets the group’s designation of a definite structural lesion. “This showed over a 95% specificity for being associated with a definite structural lesion as defined by a majority of the seven experts,” he said.

The group also determined that a fat lesion typical of axSpA has a homogeneous white appearance on T1-weighted scans with a sharply defined border. The group also determined that such a fat lesion with at least 1-cm horizontal depth from the joint margin in at least one SIJ quadrant is strongly indicative of axSpA.

Courtesy Dr. Walter P. Maksymowych

“So we now have definitions for two structural lesions, erosion and fat lesions, that reflect what a majority of experts consider to be a definite structural lesion according to at least 95% specificity,” he said. Sensitivity values were 90% for erosion in three quadrants and 83% for erosions in two or more consecutive slices. and 59% for a fat lesion with at least 1-cm horizontal depth from the joint margin in at least one SIJ quadrant.

The second part of the analysis evaluated the predictive capacity of these lesion definitions for a rheumatologic diagnosis of axSpA at 4.4 years of follow-up. “These lesions predicted SpA with over 95% positive predictive value,” he said. “In other words, if you see them at baseline they’re going to predict SpA with high certainty at follow-up after 4.4 years.”

Three aspects of this study design are unique, Dr. Maksymowych noted. First is the high number of expert MRI readers who evaluated the scans. “There aren’t really too many studies I can think of that used more than two or three expert MRI readers,” he said.

Second is the way in which the study “very precisely and in a very standardized way” applied all the consensus-based ASAS definitions of structural SIJ lesions. “In the past, a variety of ways were used to define these lesions,” he said. “A good example would be the different ways in which erosions have been defined.”

The third novel aspect of the study is that the expert readers’ assessment of what constitutes a definite structural lesion was used as an external reference standard. For example, the study calculated sensitivity and specificity for numbers of SIJ quadrants and consecutive slices with erosion, sclerosis, and fat lesions where a majority of readers agreed on the presence of a structural lesion typical of axSpA with high confidence (3 or greater on a scale of 1-4). “The reason this was put in place is because we recognize sometimes lesions are very subtle and you can’t be certain that they’re reflecting SpA,” he said.

The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB.

Maksymowych WP et al. Ann Rheum Dis, 2020;79[suppl 1]:53. Abstract OP0079.

What constitutes a structural lesion of the sacroiliac joints on MRI that’s indicative of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) has long been a matter of conjecture, but the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) MRI Working Group has developed new definitions that showed a high degree of specificity in identifying such lesions in the disease.

“There is a lack of consensus as to what defines a structural lesion on MRI of the sacroiliac joint [SIJ] typical of axial spondyloarthritis. Previous studies have described structural lesions in different ways, precluding meaningful comparisons between studies. The ASAS MRI group has generated updated consensus lesion definitions that describe each of the MRI lesions in the sacroiliac joint. These definitions have been validated by seven expert readers from the ASAS MRI group on MRI images from the ASAS classification cohort,” Walter P. Maksymowych, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

Making a definitive diagnosis of axSpA can be difficult because MRI can show a variety of SIJ abnormalities in healthy people as well as those with axSpA, said Dr. Maksymowych, chief medical officer of CARE Arthritis and professor in rheumatology at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, said in an interview prior to his presentation at the e-congress. “People who evaluate MRI scans are looking for clues as to what types of lesions they can be confident are indicative of axSpA.”

That started a process by the ASAS MRI group to evaluate scans from the landmark ASAS Classification Cohort study (Ann Rheum Dis. 2019;78:1550-8). “But,” said Dr. Maksymowych, “the MRI scans from that study were never evaluated.” So that work was handed off to the working group, whose 25 members included 7 expert image readers who evaluated the MRI scans.

The group adopted a standardized approach for evaluating MRIs of the SIJ in 148 cases, dividing each SIJ into quadrants and then evaluating consecutive MRI slices. The readers first documented whether they observed a definite structural lesion on the scan, which they then used as an external reference standard. They then analyzed which lesion, and in how many SIJ quadrants or slices, best reflected this external standard.

Courtesy Dr. Walter P. Maksymowych

The investigators defined an erosion as “a defect in subchondral bone associated with full-thickness loss of a dark appearance of the subchondral cortex at its expected location, with loss of signal on a T1-weighted, non–fat-suppressed sequence, compared with the normal bright appearance of adjacent bone marrow.” They defined a fat lesion or fat metaplasia as a “bright signal seen on a T1-weighted, non–fat-suppressed sequence that is brighter than normal bone marrow which meets the following requirements: It is homogeneously bright, located in a typical anatomical area (specifically subchondral bone), and has a sharply defined border along its nonarticular border with normal bone marrow.”

An erosion in one quadrant isn’t sufficient to define a scan as positive for a definite structural lesion, said Dr. Maksymowych; but an erosion in three quadrants or in two or more consecutive slices meets the group’s designation of a definite structural lesion. “This showed over a 95% specificity for being associated with a definite structural lesion as defined by a majority of the seven experts,” he said.

The group also determined that a fat lesion typical of axSpA has a homogeneous white appearance on T1-weighted scans with a sharply defined border. The group also determined that such a fat lesion with at least 1-cm horizontal depth from the joint margin in at least one SIJ quadrant is strongly indicative of axSpA.

Courtesy Dr. Walter P. Maksymowych

“So we now have definitions for two structural lesions, erosion and fat lesions, that reflect what a majority of experts consider to be a definite structural lesion according to at least 95% specificity,” he said. Sensitivity values were 90% for erosion in three quadrants and 83% for erosions in two or more consecutive slices. and 59% for a fat lesion with at least 1-cm horizontal depth from the joint margin in at least one SIJ quadrant.

The second part of the analysis evaluated the predictive capacity of these lesion definitions for a rheumatologic diagnosis of axSpA at 4.4 years of follow-up. “These lesions predicted SpA with over 95% positive predictive value,” he said. “In other words, if you see them at baseline they’re going to predict SpA with high certainty at follow-up after 4.4 years.”

Three aspects of this study design are unique, Dr. Maksymowych noted. First is the high number of expert MRI readers who evaluated the scans. “There aren’t really too many studies I can think of that used more than two or three expert MRI readers,” he said.

Second is the way in which the study “very precisely and in a very standardized way” applied all the consensus-based ASAS definitions of structural SIJ lesions. “In the past, a variety of ways were used to define these lesions,” he said. “A good example would be the different ways in which erosions have been defined.”

The third novel aspect of the study is that the expert readers’ assessment of what constitutes a definite structural lesion was used as an external reference standard. For example, the study calculated sensitivity and specificity for numbers of SIJ quadrants and consecutive slices with erosion, sclerosis, and fat lesions where a majority of readers agreed on the presence of a structural lesion typical of axSpA with high confidence (3 or greater on a scale of 1-4). “The reason this was put in place is because we recognize sometimes lesions are very subtle and you can’t be certain that they’re reflecting SpA,” he said.

The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB.

Maksymowych WP et al. Ann Rheum Dis, 2020;79[suppl 1]:53. Abstract OP0079.

What constitutes a structural lesion of the sacroiliac joints on MRI that’s indicative of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) has long been a matter of conjecture, but the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) MRI Working Group has developed new definitions that showed a high degree of specificity in identifying such lesions in the disease.

“There is a lack of consensus as to what defines a structural lesion on MRI of the sacroiliac joint [SIJ] typical of axial spondyloarthritis. Previous studies have described structural lesions in different ways, precluding meaningful comparisons between studies. The ASAS MRI group has generated updated consensus lesion definitions that describe each of the MRI lesions in the sacroiliac joint. These definitions have been validated by seven expert readers from the ASAS MRI group on MRI images from the ASAS classification cohort,” Walter P. Maksymowych, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

Making a definitive diagnosis of axSpA can be difficult because MRI can show a variety of SIJ abnormalities in healthy people as well as those with axSpA, said Dr. Maksymowych, chief medical officer of CARE Arthritis and professor in rheumatology at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, said in an interview prior to his presentation at the e-congress. “People who evaluate MRI scans are looking for clues as to what types of lesions they can be confident are indicative of axSpA.”

That started a process by the ASAS MRI group to evaluate scans from the landmark ASAS Classification Cohort study (Ann Rheum Dis. 2019;78:1550-8). “But,” said Dr. Maksymowych, “the MRI scans from that study were never evaluated.” So that work was handed off to the working group, whose 25 members included 7 expert image readers who evaluated the MRI scans.

The group adopted a standardized approach for evaluating MRIs of the SIJ in 148 cases, dividing each SIJ into quadrants and then evaluating consecutive MRI slices. The readers first documented whether they observed a definite structural lesion on the scan, which they then used as an external reference standard. They then analyzed which lesion, and in how many SIJ quadrants or slices, best reflected this external standard.

Courtesy Dr. Walter P. Maksymowych

The investigators defined an erosion as “a defect in subchondral bone associated with full-thickness loss of a dark appearance of the subchondral cortex at its expected location, with loss of signal on a T1-weighted, non–fat-suppressed sequence, compared with the normal bright appearance of adjacent bone marrow.” They defined a fat lesion or fat metaplasia as a “bright signal seen on a T1-weighted, non–fat-suppressed sequence that is brighter than normal bone marrow which meets the following requirements: It is homogeneously bright, located in a typical anatomical area (specifically subchondral bone), and has a sharply defined border along its nonarticular border with normal bone marrow.”

An erosion in one quadrant isn’t sufficient to define a scan as positive for a definite structural lesion, said Dr. Maksymowych; but an erosion in three quadrants or in two or more consecutive slices meets the group’s designation of a definite structural lesion. “This showed over a 95% specificity for being associated with a definite structural lesion as defined by a majority of the seven experts,” he said.

The group also determined that a fat lesion typical of axSpA has a homogeneous white appearance on T1-weighted scans with a sharply defined border. The group also determined that such a fat lesion with at least 1-cm horizontal depth from the joint margin in at least one SIJ quadrant is strongly indicative of axSpA.

Courtesy Dr. Walter P. Maksymowych

“So we now have definitions for two structural lesions, erosion and fat lesions, that reflect what a majority of experts consider to be a definite structural lesion according to at least 95% specificity,” he said. Sensitivity values were 90% for erosion in three quadrants and 83% for erosions in two or more consecutive slices. and 59% for a fat lesion with at least 1-cm horizontal depth from the joint margin in at least one SIJ quadrant.

The second part of the analysis evaluated the predictive capacity of these lesion definitions for a rheumatologic diagnosis of axSpA at 4.4 years of follow-up. “These lesions predicted SpA with over 95% positive predictive value,” he said. “In other words, if you see them at baseline they’re going to predict SpA with high certainty at follow-up after 4.4 years.”

Three aspects of this study design are unique, Dr. Maksymowych noted. First is the high number of expert MRI readers who evaluated the scans. “There aren’t really too many studies I can think of that used more than two or three expert MRI readers,” he said.

Second is the way in which the study “very precisely and in a very standardized way” applied all the consensus-based ASAS definitions of structural SIJ lesions. “In the past, a variety of ways were used to define these lesions,” he said. “A good example would be the different ways in which erosions have been defined.”

The third novel aspect of the study is that the expert readers’ assessment of what constitutes a definite structural lesion was used as an external reference standard. For example, the study calculated sensitivity and specificity for numbers of SIJ quadrants and consecutive slices with erosion, sclerosis, and fat lesions where a majority of readers agreed on the presence of a structural lesion typical of axSpA with high confidence (3 or greater on a scale of 1-4). “The reason this was put in place is because we recognize sometimes lesions are very subtle and you can’t be certain that they’re reflecting SpA,” he said.

The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB.

Maksymowych WP et al. Ann Rheum Dis, 2020;79[suppl 1]:53. Abstract OP0079.

The Food and Drug Administration has extended approval of ixekizumab (Taltz) to the treatment of nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA), according to a press release from its manufacturer, Eli Lilly. Specifically, this supplemental biologics license application refers to nr-axSpA with objective signs of inflammation.

The monoclonal interleukin-17A antagonist has three other indications, including ankylosing spondylitis in adults, psoriatic arthritis in adults, and plaque psoriasis in adults and children aged 6 years and older. It is the first IL-17A antagonist to receive FDA approval for nr-axSpA.

Approval for this indication was based on the phase 3, randomized, double-blind COAST-X trial, which put 96 nr-axSpA patients on 80-mg injections of ixekizumab every 4 weeks and 105 on placebo. After 52 weeks, ixekizumab was superior on the trial’s primary endpoint: 30% of patients had achieved a 40% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40), compared with 13% of patients on placebo (P = .0045).

Warnings and precautions for ixekizumab include considering potentially increased risk of infection and inflammatory bowel disease, as well as evaluating patients for tuberculosis before treatment. The most common adverse reactions (≥1%) are injection-site reactions, upper respiratory tract infections, nausea, and tinea infections. The safety profile for ixekizumab among nr-axSpA patients is mostly consistent with that seen among patients receiving it for other indications, according to Lilly. The full prescribing information is available on Lilly’s website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has extended approval of ixekizumab (Taltz) to the treatment of nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA), according to a press release from its manufacturer, Eli Lilly. Specifically, this supplemental biologics license application refers to nr-axSpA with objective signs of inflammation.

The monoclonal interleukin-17A antagonist has three other indications, including ankylosing spondylitis in adults, psoriatic arthritis in adults, and plaque psoriasis in adults and children aged 6 years and older. It is the first IL-17A antagonist to receive FDA approval for nr-axSpA.

Approval for this indication was based on the phase 3, randomized, double-blind COAST-X trial, which put 96 nr-axSpA patients on 80-mg injections of ixekizumab every 4 weeks and 105 on placebo. After 52 weeks, ixekizumab was superior on the trial’s primary endpoint: 30% of patients had achieved a 40% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40), compared with 13% of patients on placebo (P = .0045).

Warnings and precautions for ixekizumab include considering potentially increased risk of infection and inflammatory bowel disease, as well as evaluating patients for tuberculosis before treatment. The most common adverse reactions (≥1%) are injection-site reactions, upper respiratory tract infections, nausea, and tinea infections. The safety profile for ixekizumab among nr-axSpA patients is mostly consistent with that seen among patients receiving it for other indications, according to Lilly. The full prescribing information is available on Lilly’s website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has extended approval of ixekizumab (Taltz) to the treatment of nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA), according to a press release from its manufacturer, Eli Lilly. Specifically, this supplemental biologics license application refers to nr-axSpA with objective signs of inflammation.

The monoclonal interleukin-17A antagonist has three other indications, including ankylosing spondylitis in adults, psoriatic arthritis in adults, and plaque psoriasis in adults and children aged 6 years and older. It is the first IL-17A antagonist to receive FDA approval for nr-axSpA.

Approval for this indication was based on the phase 3, randomized, double-blind COAST-X trial, which put 96 nr-axSpA patients on 80-mg injections of ixekizumab every 4 weeks and 105 on placebo. After 52 weeks, ixekizumab was superior on the trial’s primary endpoint: 30% of patients had achieved a 40% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40), compared with 13% of patients on placebo (P = .0045).

Warnings and precautions for ixekizumab include considering potentially increased risk of infection and inflammatory bowel disease, as well as evaluating patients for tuberculosis before treatment. The most common adverse reactions (≥1%) are injection-site reactions, upper respiratory tract infections, nausea, and tinea infections. The safety profile for ixekizumab among nr-axSpA patients is mostly consistent with that seen among patients receiving it for other indications, according to Lilly. The full prescribing information is available on Lilly’s website.

[email protected]