Sara Freeman

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – The use of NSAIDs may mask the true level of inflammation of the sacroiliac joint (SIJ), as seen on MRI, among people with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), according to results of the DyNAMISM study.

“We’ve found that in about one in four patients, NSAIDs make a difference to the scan results,” Gareth T. Jones, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

A total of 23% of patients whose MRI results were positive for sacroiliitis when no NSAIDs had been used for a couple of weeks received negative MRI results 6 weeks after the NSAIDs were reinstated.

“This is important in terms of diagnosis, in terms of disease classification, and may be important in terms of future treatment decisions,” added Dr. Jones, professor of epidemiology at the Aberdeen Centre for Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Health at the University of Aberdeen, (Scotland).

“Our recommendation from these results is that if a patient is willing to attempt to wash out [NSAIDs] prior to an MRI, we would recommend that they do so,” Dr. Jones said.
 

NSAIDs and AxSpA inflammation

“NSAIDs are often used as the first-line treatment for axial spondyloarthritis due to their ability to effectively reduce pain and stiffness associated with the condition,” Denis Poddubnyy, MD, who was not involved in the research, told this news organization.

“However, there is still a question as to whether NSAIDs have a true anti-inflammatory effect on the axial inflammation, as detected by MRI,” added Dr. Poddubnyy, head of rheumatology at Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany.

With an absence of randomized, controlled trials, it remains “uncertain how much of the observed reduction in inflammation is attributable to the natural course of the disease and spontaneous resolution of inflammation rather than the effect of NSAIDs,” Dr. Poddubnyy said.
 

The DyNAMISM Study

“Sacroiliitis is a painful inflammatory condition. This is investigated looking for the evidence of inflammation on MRI, but many patients are taking anti-inflammatory medication,” Dr. Jones said at the meeting.

“So perhaps patients are taking drugs [that are] hiding the very thing that we’re looking for,” he added. Hence, the DyNAMISM study (Do Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs Mask Inflammation in Spondyloarthritis on MRI) was conceived.

The researchers recruited 311 adults with suspected or established axSpA who were taking daily NSAIDs such as ibuprofen or diclofenac across 34 centers in England and Scotland. Patients taking other anti-inflammatory medications that could not be stopped were excluded, as were patients who were currently taking or had recently taken tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.

The study used a standardized MRI protocol. Two independent readers experienced in scoring SIJ scans were employed; a third was used when the two disagreed. The primary outcome was meeting the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis international Society criteria for a positive result on MRI.

The average age of the study subjects was 42 years, 62% were men, and 87% were White. The median duration of symptoms was 9 years, and the median time since diagnosis was 1 year.

The study design required that patients stop NSAID use over a period of 1-2 weeks before undergoing an MRI scan, which 286 did. Of these, 146 received MRI results that were positive for SIJ inflammation; those patients continued in the study. The 140 patients with negative scans were excluded. Patients could then resume taking NSAIDs before being scanned again around 6 weeks later. In all, 129 patients underwent both MRI scans.
 

How much might fluctuating inflammation matter?

‘It’s a shame you didn’t scan the negative people, because the natural history is a fluctuating inflammation,” Fraser Birrell, MBChB, PhD, of Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, pointed out in discussion.

“Nonsteroidals are modestly effective and probably made no difference,” he argued. “I would have expected a certain proportion of the negatives are positive.”

The study had a pragmatic design, Dr. Jones countered. “We had enormous debate before the study; it would have been nice to do a sort of a randomized, crossover design, but it would have resulted in a lot of inefficiency.”

Regarding the duration of the NSAID washout period, Dr. Jones noted that they saw little difference between shorter or longer washout periods and that the data showed that “a 2-week washout is a reasonable target.”

Performing the second scan 6 weeks after NSAIDs were reinstated “exceeds the period where clinical benefits should be expected. It may be that if we’d waited longer, the proportion would have gone up. So, we would argue that actually, if anything, that 23% may be an underestimate of the real effect.”

Although some patients may have declined to participate in the study because they did not want to stop taking NSAIDs, Dr. Jones noted that a good proportion did stop taking them, and so the study shows that patients can tolerate washout. Around 45% of patients reported experiencing disease flares during this time, but this did not have any significant effect on validated disease activity or pain measures, Dr. Jones reported.

So, if patients are willing to stop NSAIDs before a scan, “they should be counseled that they may experience a small increase in disease activity and spinal pain, but also to be counseled that the majority of patients can tolerate this,” Dr. Jones suggested.

Trials are needed, Dr. Poddubnyy said: “Future randomized, controlled studies are needed to conclusively determine the efficacy of NSAIDs in reducing inflammation in the axial skeleton of axSpA patients.”

Dr. Poddubnyy added: “It would also be valuable to assess in a randomized setting whether the use of NSAIDs impacts the diagnostic performance of MRI, which takes into account not only inflammatory but also structural changes, which are not influenced by NSAIDs.”

The DyNAMISM study was funded by Arthritis Research UK and was run by the University of Aberdeen in conjunction with NHS Grampian, Scotland. Dr. Jones has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Poddubnyy disclosed ties with AbbVie, Biocad, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Moonlake, Novartis, PeerVoice, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and UCB.

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – The use of NSAIDs may mask the true level of inflammation of the sacroiliac joint (SIJ), as seen on MRI, among people with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), according to results of the DyNAMISM study.

“We’ve found that in about one in four patients, NSAIDs make a difference to the scan results,” Gareth T. Jones, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

A total of 23% of patients whose MRI results were positive for sacroiliitis when no NSAIDs had been used for a couple of weeks received negative MRI results 6 weeks after the NSAIDs were reinstated.

“This is important in terms of diagnosis, in terms of disease classification, and may be important in terms of future treatment decisions,” added Dr. Jones, professor of epidemiology at the Aberdeen Centre for Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Health at the University of Aberdeen, (Scotland).

“Our recommendation from these results is that if a patient is willing to attempt to wash out [NSAIDs] prior to an MRI, we would recommend that they do so,” Dr. Jones said.
 

NSAIDs and AxSpA inflammation

“NSAIDs are often used as the first-line treatment for axial spondyloarthritis due to their ability to effectively reduce pain and stiffness associated with the condition,” Denis Poddubnyy, MD, who was not involved in the research, told this news organization.

“However, there is still a question as to whether NSAIDs have a true anti-inflammatory effect on the axial inflammation, as detected by MRI,” added Dr. Poddubnyy, head of rheumatology at Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany.

With an absence of randomized, controlled trials, it remains “uncertain how much of the observed reduction in inflammation is attributable to the natural course of the disease and spontaneous resolution of inflammation rather than the effect of NSAIDs,” Dr. Poddubnyy said.
 

The DyNAMISM Study

“Sacroiliitis is a painful inflammatory condition. This is investigated looking for the evidence of inflammation on MRI, but many patients are taking anti-inflammatory medication,” Dr. Jones said at the meeting.

“So perhaps patients are taking drugs [that are] hiding the very thing that we’re looking for,” he added. Hence, the DyNAMISM study (Do Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs Mask Inflammation in Spondyloarthritis on MRI) was conceived.

The researchers recruited 311 adults with suspected or established axSpA who were taking daily NSAIDs such as ibuprofen or diclofenac across 34 centers in England and Scotland. Patients taking other anti-inflammatory medications that could not be stopped were excluded, as were patients who were currently taking or had recently taken tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.

The study used a standardized MRI protocol. Two independent readers experienced in scoring SIJ scans were employed; a third was used when the two disagreed. The primary outcome was meeting the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis international Society criteria for a positive result on MRI.

The average age of the study subjects was 42 years, 62% were men, and 87% were White. The median duration of symptoms was 9 years, and the median time since diagnosis was 1 year.

The study design required that patients stop NSAID use over a period of 1-2 weeks before undergoing an MRI scan, which 286 did. Of these, 146 received MRI results that were positive for SIJ inflammation; those patients continued in the study. The 140 patients with negative scans were excluded. Patients could then resume taking NSAIDs before being scanned again around 6 weeks later. In all, 129 patients underwent both MRI scans.
 

How much might fluctuating inflammation matter?

‘It’s a shame you didn’t scan the negative people, because the natural history is a fluctuating inflammation,” Fraser Birrell, MBChB, PhD, of Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, pointed out in discussion.

“Nonsteroidals are modestly effective and probably made no difference,” he argued. “I would have expected a certain proportion of the negatives are positive.”

The study had a pragmatic design, Dr. Jones countered. “We had enormous debate before the study; it would have been nice to do a sort of a randomized, crossover design, but it would have resulted in a lot of inefficiency.”

Regarding the duration of the NSAID washout period, Dr. Jones noted that they saw little difference between shorter or longer washout periods and that the data showed that “a 2-week washout is a reasonable target.”

Performing the second scan 6 weeks after NSAIDs were reinstated “exceeds the period where clinical benefits should be expected. It may be that if we’d waited longer, the proportion would have gone up. So, we would argue that actually, if anything, that 23% may be an underestimate of the real effect.”

Although some patients may have declined to participate in the study because they did not want to stop taking NSAIDs, Dr. Jones noted that a good proportion did stop taking them, and so the study shows that patients can tolerate washout. Around 45% of patients reported experiencing disease flares during this time, but this did not have any significant effect on validated disease activity or pain measures, Dr. Jones reported.

So, if patients are willing to stop NSAIDs before a scan, “they should be counseled that they may experience a small increase in disease activity and spinal pain, but also to be counseled that the majority of patients can tolerate this,” Dr. Jones suggested.

Trials are needed, Dr. Poddubnyy said: “Future randomized, controlled studies are needed to conclusively determine the efficacy of NSAIDs in reducing inflammation in the axial skeleton of axSpA patients.”

Dr. Poddubnyy added: “It would also be valuable to assess in a randomized setting whether the use of NSAIDs impacts the diagnostic performance of MRI, which takes into account not only inflammatory but also structural changes, which are not influenced by NSAIDs.”

The DyNAMISM study was funded by Arthritis Research UK and was run by the University of Aberdeen in conjunction with NHS Grampian, Scotland. Dr. Jones has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Poddubnyy disclosed ties with AbbVie, Biocad, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Moonlake, Novartis, PeerVoice, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and UCB.

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – The use of NSAIDs may mask the true level of inflammation of the sacroiliac joint (SIJ), as seen on MRI, among people with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), according to results of the DyNAMISM study.

“We’ve found that in about one in four patients, NSAIDs make a difference to the scan results,” Gareth T. Jones, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

A total of 23% of patients whose MRI results were positive for sacroiliitis when no NSAIDs had been used for a couple of weeks received negative MRI results 6 weeks after the NSAIDs were reinstated.

“This is important in terms of diagnosis, in terms of disease classification, and may be important in terms of future treatment decisions,” added Dr. Jones, professor of epidemiology at the Aberdeen Centre for Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Health at the University of Aberdeen, (Scotland).

“Our recommendation from these results is that if a patient is willing to attempt to wash out [NSAIDs] prior to an MRI, we would recommend that they do so,” Dr. Jones said.
 

NSAIDs and AxSpA inflammation

“NSAIDs are often used as the first-line treatment for axial spondyloarthritis due to their ability to effectively reduce pain and stiffness associated with the condition,” Denis Poddubnyy, MD, who was not involved in the research, told this news organization.

“However, there is still a question as to whether NSAIDs have a true anti-inflammatory effect on the axial inflammation, as detected by MRI,” added Dr. Poddubnyy, head of rheumatology at Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany.

With an absence of randomized, controlled trials, it remains “uncertain how much of the observed reduction in inflammation is attributable to the natural course of the disease and spontaneous resolution of inflammation rather than the effect of NSAIDs,” Dr. Poddubnyy said.
 

The DyNAMISM Study

“Sacroiliitis is a painful inflammatory condition. This is investigated looking for the evidence of inflammation on MRI, but many patients are taking anti-inflammatory medication,” Dr. Jones said at the meeting.

“So perhaps patients are taking drugs [that are] hiding the very thing that we’re looking for,” he added. Hence, the DyNAMISM study (Do Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs Mask Inflammation in Spondyloarthritis on MRI) was conceived.

The researchers recruited 311 adults with suspected or established axSpA who were taking daily NSAIDs such as ibuprofen or diclofenac across 34 centers in England and Scotland. Patients taking other anti-inflammatory medications that could not be stopped were excluded, as were patients who were currently taking or had recently taken tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.

The study used a standardized MRI protocol. Two independent readers experienced in scoring SIJ scans were employed; a third was used when the two disagreed. The primary outcome was meeting the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis international Society criteria for a positive result on MRI.

The average age of the study subjects was 42 years, 62% were men, and 87% were White. The median duration of symptoms was 9 years, and the median time since diagnosis was 1 year.

The study design required that patients stop NSAID use over a period of 1-2 weeks before undergoing an MRI scan, which 286 did. Of these, 146 received MRI results that were positive for SIJ inflammation; those patients continued in the study. The 140 patients with negative scans were excluded. Patients could then resume taking NSAIDs before being scanned again around 6 weeks later. In all, 129 patients underwent both MRI scans.
 

How much might fluctuating inflammation matter?

‘It’s a shame you didn’t scan the negative people, because the natural history is a fluctuating inflammation,” Fraser Birrell, MBChB, PhD, of Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, pointed out in discussion.

“Nonsteroidals are modestly effective and probably made no difference,” he argued. “I would have expected a certain proportion of the negatives are positive.”

The study had a pragmatic design, Dr. Jones countered. “We had enormous debate before the study; it would have been nice to do a sort of a randomized, crossover design, but it would have resulted in a lot of inefficiency.”

Regarding the duration of the NSAID washout period, Dr. Jones noted that they saw little difference between shorter or longer washout periods and that the data showed that “a 2-week washout is a reasonable target.”

Performing the second scan 6 weeks after NSAIDs were reinstated “exceeds the period where clinical benefits should be expected. It may be that if we’d waited longer, the proportion would have gone up. So, we would argue that actually, if anything, that 23% may be an underestimate of the real effect.”

Although some patients may have declined to participate in the study because they did not want to stop taking NSAIDs, Dr. Jones noted that a good proportion did stop taking them, and so the study shows that patients can tolerate washout. Around 45% of patients reported experiencing disease flares during this time, but this did not have any significant effect on validated disease activity or pain measures, Dr. Jones reported.

So, if patients are willing to stop NSAIDs before a scan, “they should be counseled that they may experience a small increase in disease activity and spinal pain, but also to be counseled that the majority of patients can tolerate this,” Dr. Jones suggested.

Trials are needed, Dr. Poddubnyy said: “Future randomized, controlled studies are needed to conclusively determine the efficacy of NSAIDs in reducing inflammation in the axial skeleton of axSpA patients.”

Dr. Poddubnyy added: “It would also be valuable to assess in a randomized setting whether the use of NSAIDs impacts the diagnostic performance of MRI, which takes into account not only inflammatory but also structural changes, which are not influenced by NSAIDs.”

The DyNAMISM study was funded by Arthritis Research UK and was run by the University of Aberdeen in conjunction with NHS Grampian, Scotland. Dr. Jones has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Poddubnyy disclosed ties with AbbVie, Biocad, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Moonlake, Novartis, PeerVoice, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and UCB.

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors may be associated with a higher risk for cancer relative to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, according to a meta-analysis reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Looking at all phase 2, 3, and 4 trials and long-term extension studies across the indications of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis, axial spondyloarthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and atopic dermatitis, the risk ratio for any cancer developing was 1.63 when compared with anti-TNF therapy (95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.09).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

By comparison, JAK inhibitor use was not significantly associated with any greater risk for cancer than methotrexate (RR, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.94) or placebo (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.75-1.80).

“Our data suggests that rather than JAK inhibitors necessarily being harmful, it could be more a case of TNF inhibitors being protective,” said Christopher Stovin, MBChB, a specialist registrar in rheumatology at the Princess Royal University Hospital, King’s College Hospital NHS Trust, London.

“We should stress that these are rare events in our study, roughly around 1 in every 100 patient-years of exposure,” Dr. Stovin said.

“Despite having over 80,000 years of patient exposure, the median follow-up duration for JAK inhibitors was still only 118 weeks, which for cancers [that] obviously have long latency periods is still a relatively small duration of time,” the researcher added.

“People worry about the drugs. But there is a possibility that [a] disturbed immune system plays a role per se in development of cancers,” consultant rheumatologist Anurag Bharadwaj, MD, DM, said in an interview.

“Although there are studies which attribute increased risk of cancer to different DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] and biologics like TNF, but on other hand, it’s maybe that we are giving these drugs to patients who have got more serious immunological disease,” suggested Bharadwaj, who serves as the clinical lead for rheumatology at Basildon (England) Hospital, Mid & South Essex Foundation Trust.

“So, a possibility may be that the more severe or the more active the immunological inflammatory disease, the higher the chance of cancer, and these are the patients who go for the stronger medications,” Dr. Bharadwaj said.

There is an “immunological window of opportunity” when treating these inflammatory diseases, said Dr. Bharadwaj, noting that the first few months of treatment are vital. “For all immunological diseases, the more quickly you bring the immunological abnormality down, the chances of long-term complications go down, including [possibly that the] chances of cancer go down, chances of cardiovascular disease go down, and chances of lung disease go down. Hit it early, hit it hard.”

Concern over a possible higher risk for cancer with JAK inhibitors than with TNF inhibitors was raised following the release of data from the ORAL Surveillance trial, a postmarketing trial of tofacitinib (Xeljanz) that had been mandated by the Food and Drug Administration.

“This was a study looking at the coprimary endpoints of malignancy and major adverse cardiovascular events, and it was enriched with patients over the age of 50, with one additional cardiac risk factor, designed to amplify the detection of these rare events,” Dr. Stovin said.

“There was a signal of an increased risk of malignancy in the tofacitinib group, and this led to the FDA issuing a [boxed warning for all licensed JAK inhibitors] at that time,” he added.

Dr. Stovin and colleagues aimed to determine what, if any, cancer risk was associated with all available JAK inhibitors relative to placebo, TNF inhibitors, and methotrexate.

In all, data from 62 randomized controlled trials and 14 long-term extension studies were included in the meta-analysis, accounting for 82,366 patient years of follow-up. The JAK inhibitors analyzed included tofacitinib, baricitinib (Olumiant), upadacitinib (Rinvoq), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and peficitinib (Smyraf). (Filgotinib and peficitinib have not been approved by the FDA.)

The researchers performed sensitivity analyses that excluded cancers detected within the first 6 months of treatment, the use of higher than licensed JAK inhibitor doses, and patients with non-rheumatoid arthritis diagnoses, but the results remained largely unchanged, Dr. Stovin reported.  

“Perhaps not surprisingly, when we removed ORAL Surveillance” from the analysis comparing JAK inhibitors and TNF inhibitors, “we lost statistical significance,” he said.

“Longitudinal observational data is needed but currently remains limited,” Dr. Stovin concluded.

Dr. Stovin and Dr. Bharadwaj reported no relevant financial relationships. The meta-analysis was independently supported. Dr. Bharadwaj was not involved in the study and provided comment ahead of the presentation.

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors may be associated with a higher risk for cancer relative to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, according to a meta-analysis reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Looking at all phase 2, 3, and 4 trials and long-term extension studies across the indications of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis, axial spondyloarthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and atopic dermatitis, the risk ratio for any cancer developing was 1.63 when compared with anti-TNF therapy (95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.09).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

By comparison, JAK inhibitor use was not significantly associated with any greater risk for cancer than methotrexate (RR, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.94) or placebo (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.75-1.80).

“Our data suggests that rather than JAK inhibitors necessarily being harmful, it could be more a case of TNF inhibitors being protective,” said Christopher Stovin, MBChB, a specialist registrar in rheumatology at the Princess Royal University Hospital, King’s College Hospital NHS Trust, London.

“We should stress that these are rare events in our study, roughly around 1 in every 100 patient-years of exposure,” Dr. Stovin said.

“Despite having over 80,000 years of patient exposure, the median follow-up duration for JAK inhibitors was still only 118 weeks, which for cancers [that] obviously have long latency periods is still a relatively small duration of time,” the researcher added.

“People worry about the drugs. But there is a possibility that [a] disturbed immune system plays a role per se in development of cancers,” consultant rheumatologist Anurag Bharadwaj, MD, DM, said in an interview.

“Although there are studies which attribute increased risk of cancer to different DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] and biologics like TNF, but on other hand, it’s maybe that we are giving these drugs to patients who have got more serious immunological disease,” suggested Bharadwaj, who serves as the clinical lead for rheumatology at Basildon (England) Hospital, Mid & South Essex Foundation Trust.

“So, a possibility may be that the more severe or the more active the immunological inflammatory disease, the higher the chance of cancer, and these are the patients who go for the stronger medications,” Dr. Bharadwaj said.

There is an “immunological window of opportunity” when treating these inflammatory diseases, said Dr. Bharadwaj, noting that the first few months of treatment are vital. “For all immunological diseases, the more quickly you bring the immunological abnormality down, the chances of long-term complications go down, including [possibly that the] chances of cancer go down, chances of cardiovascular disease go down, and chances of lung disease go down. Hit it early, hit it hard.”

Concern over a possible higher risk for cancer with JAK inhibitors than with TNF inhibitors was raised following the release of data from the ORAL Surveillance trial, a postmarketing trial of tofacitinib (Xeljanz) that had been mandated by the Food and Drug Administration.

“This was a study looking at the coprimary endpoints of malignancy and major adverse cardiovascular events, and it was enriched with patients over the age of 50, with one additional cardiac risk factor, designed to amplify the detection of these rare events,” Dr. Stovin said.

“There was a signal of an increased risk of malignancy in the tofacitinib group, and this led to the FDA issuing a [boxed warning for all licensed JAK inhibitors] at that time,” he added.

Dr. Stovin and colleagues aimed to determine what, if any, cancer risk was associated with all available JAK inhibitors relative to placebo, TNF inhibitors, and methotrexate.

In all, data from 62 randomized controlled trials and 14 long-term extension studies were included in the meta-analysis, accounting for 82,366 patient years of follow-up. The JAK inhibitors analyzed included tofacitinib, baricitinib (Olumiant), upadacitinib (Rinvoq), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and peficitinib (Smyraf). (Filgotinib and peficitinib have not been approved by the FDA.)

The researchers performed sensitivity analyses that excluded cancers detected within the first 6 months of treatment, the use of higher than licensed JAK inhibitor doses, and patients with non-rheumatoid arthritis diagnoses, but the results remained largely unchanged, Dr. Stovin reported.  

“Perhaps not surprisingly, when we removed ORAL Surveillance” from the analysis comparing JAK inhibitors and TNF inhibitors, “we lost statistical significance,” he said.

“Longitudinal observational data is needed but currently remains limited,” Dr. Stovin concluded.

Dr. Stovin and Dr. Bharadwaj reported no relevant financial relationships. The meta-analysis was independently supported. Dr. Bharadwaj was not involved in the study and provided comment ahead of the presentation.

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors may be associated with a higher risk for cancer relative to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, according to a meta-analysis reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Looking at all phase 2, 3, and 4 trials and long-term extension studies across the indications of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis, axial spondyloarthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and atopic dermatitis, the risk ratio for any cancer developing was 1.63 when compared with anti-TNF therapy (95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.09).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

By comparison, JAK inhibitor use was not significantly associated with any greater risk for cancer than methotrexate (RR, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.94) or placebo (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.75-1.80).

“Our data suggests that rather than JAK inhibitors necessarily being harmful, it could be more a case of TNF inhibitors being protective,” said Christopher Stovin, MBChB, a specialist registrar in rheumatology at the Princess Royal University Hospital, King’s College Hospital NHS Trust, London.

“We should stress that these are rare events in our study, roughly around 1 in every 100 patient-years of exposure,” Dr. Stovin said.

“Despite having over 80,000 years of patient exposure, the median follow-up duration for JAK inhibitors was still only 118 weeks, which for cancers [that] obviously have long latency periods is still a relatively small duration of time,” the researcher added.

“People worry about the drugs. But there is a possibility that [a] disturbed immune system plays a role per se in development of cancers,” consultant rheumatologist Anurag Bharadwaj, MD, DM, said in an interview.

“Although there are studies which attribute increased risk of cancer to different DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] and biologics like TNF, but on other hand, it’s maybe that we are giving these drugs to patients who have got more serious immunological disease,” suggested Bharadwaj, who serves as the clinical lead for rheumatology at Basildon (England) Hospital, Mid & South Essex Foundation Trust.

“So, a possibility may be that the more severe or the more active the immunological inflammatory disease, the higher the chance of cancer, and these are the patients who go for the stronger medications,” Dr. Bharadwaj said.

There is an “immunological window of opportunity” when treating these inflammatory diseases, said Dr. Bharadwaj, noting that the first few months of treatment are vital. “For all immunological diseases, the more quickly you bring the immunological abnormality down, the chances of long-term complications go down, including [possibly that the] chances of cancer go down, chances of cardiovascular disease go down, and chances of lung disease go down. Hit it early, hit it hard.”

Concern over a possible higher risk for cancer with JAK inhibitors than with TNF inhibitors was raised following the release of data from the ORAL Surveillance trial, a postmarketing trial of tofacitinib (Xeljanz) that had been mandated by the Food and Drug Administration.

“This was a study looking at the coprimary endpoints of malignancy and major adverse cardiovascular events, and it was enriched with patients over the age of 50, with one additional cardiac risk factor, designed to amplify the detection of these rare events,” Dr. Stovin said.

“There was a signal of an increased risk of malignancy in the tofacitinib group, and this led to the FDA issuing a [boxed warning for all licensed JAK inhibitors] at that time,” he added.

Dr. Stovin and colleagues aimed to determine what, if any, cancer risk was associated with all available JAK inhibitors relative to placebo, TNF inhibitors, and methotrexate.

In all, data from 62 randomized controlled trials and 14 long-term extension studies were included in the meta-analysis, accounting for 82,366 patient years of follow-up. The JAK inhibitors analyzed included tofacitinib, baricitinib (Olumiant), upadacitinib (Rinvoq), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and peficitinib (Smyraf). (Filgotinib and peficitinib have not been approved by the FDA.)

The researchers performed sensitivity analyses that excluded cancers detected within the first 6 months of treatment, the use of higher than licensed JAK inhibitor doses, and patients with non-rheumatoid arthritis diagnoses, but the results remained largely unchanged, Dr. Stovin reported.  

“Perhaps not surprisingly, when we removed ORAL Surveillance” from the analysis comparing JAK inhibitors and TNF inhibitors, “we lost statistical significance,” he said.

“Longitudinal observational data is needed but currently remains limited,” Dr. Stovin concluded.

Dr. Stovin and Dr. Bharadwaj reported no relevant financial relationships. The meta-analysis was independently supported. Dr. Bharadwaj was not involved in the study and provided comment ahead of the presentation.

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – Rheumatoid arthritis patients are no more likely to have a heart attack if they are treated with an interleukin-6 inhibitor (IL-6i) than if they are treated with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), according to data presented at the British Society for Rheumatology annual meeting.

Results of a large analysis from the long-running British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register–Rheumatoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA) found no statistical difference in the rate of myocardial infarction (MI), considering treatment in almost 21,000 patients. The overall propensity-score adjusted hazard ratio for MI risk comparing TNFi and IL-6i was 0.77, but the 95% confidence interval crossed the line for statistical significance.

“This result reassures patients and clinical teams about the long-term treatment effects on myocardial infarction in a real-world setting,” said Tian Zixing, a PhD student at the University of Manchester (England).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“Patients with rheumatoid arthritis have an increased risk of myocardial infarction, compared to the general population,” Ms. Tian explained. However, this risk has been “considerably improved” with biologic treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, notably with the TNFi drugs vs. nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

The reasoning behind the current analysis was to see if there was any risk associated with IL-6i, as these drugs have been noted to increase low-density cholesterol levels, which in turn can raise the risk for MI.

The study population consisted of all patients registered in the BSRBR-RA over the past 20 years who had started treatment with one of the many TNFi drugs available in the UK – adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars), etanercept (Enbrel), infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars), certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), and golimumab (Simponi) – or the two available drugs that target the effects of IL-6 – tocilizumab (RoActemra, but Actemra in the U.S.), which targets IL-6 itself, and sarilumab (Kevzara), which targets the IL-6 receptor.

Clinical follow-up forms, death certificates, and patient reports confirmed by the clinical team were used to identify patients who experienced a MI, but only MIs that occurred while on treatment were counted.

More than 30,000 lines of therapy in 20,898 patients were recorded. Ms. Tian noted that most (> 90%) patients had been treated with a TNFi across all lines of therapy.

“It is very important to consider the treatment sequence,” she said. “Most patients start first-line treatment with a TNF inhibitor, with only a few patients starting an IL-6 inhibitor,” she noted. “IL-6 inhibitors are more commonly used in the later stages of disease, when more cardiovascular risk factors have accumulated.”

Thus, to ensure that the MI risk was fairly evaluated, the statistical analyses compared TNFi and IL-6i according to the line of treatment. “That means only patients on their first-line treatment will be compared to each other, and only those on their second-line treatment will be compared to each other, and so on,” Ms. Tian explained.

Baseline characteristics were broadly similar for patients treated with TNFi and IL-6i drugs, except for hyperlipidemia, which was higher in patients treated with an IL-6i. Nevertheless, there was no suggestion of any difference in the MI rates after adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors.

There are a lot of strengths to these data, but of course the possibilities of residual confounding and confounding by indication exist, Ms. Tian said. There were also missing data that had to be imputed.

“There has been quite a bit around interleukin-1 blockers being cardiovascular protective,” observed Kenneth Baker, MBChB, PhD, who chaired the RA oral abstracts session during which Ms. Tian presented the findings.

“IL-6 is quite good at suppressing CRP [C-reactive protein],” added Dr. Baker, a senior clinical research fellow at Newcastle University and honorary consultant rheumatologist at Freeman Hospital, both in Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“You’ve hypothesized or extrapolated that the differences in the lipid levels may not be relevant,” he said to Ms. Tian, “but do you think there might be an extra element going on here?” Maybe IL-6i drugs such as tocilizumab are better at suppressing inflammation, and that counterbalances the effects on lipids, he suggested.

Ms. Tian and Dr. Baker disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The BSRBR-RA is managed by the University of Manchester on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. The registry is supported by funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Amgen, Celltrion Healthcare, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and Sanofi, and in the past Hospira, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Sandoz, SOBI, and UCB.

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – Rheumatoid arthritis patients are no more likely to have a heart attack if they are treated with an interleukin-6 inhibitor (IL-6i) than if they are treated with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), according to data presented at the British Society for Rheumatology annual meeting.

Results of a large analysis from the long-running British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register–Rheumatoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA) found no statistical difference in the rate of myocardial infarction (MI), considering treatment in almost 21,000 patients. The overall propensity-score adjusted hazard ratio for MI risk comparing TNFi and IL-6i was 0.77, but the 95% confidence interval crossed the line for statistical significance.

“This result reassures patients and clinical teams about the long-term treatment effects on myocardial infarction in a real-world setting,” said Tian Zixing, a PhD student at the University of Manchester (England).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“Patients with rheumatoid arthritis have an increased risk of myocardial infarction, compared to the general population,” Ms. Tian explained. However, this risk has been “considerably improved” with biologic treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, notably with the TNFi drugs vs. nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

The reasoning behind the current analysis was to see if there was any risk associated with IL-6i, as these drugs have been noted to increase low-density cholesterol levels, which in turn can raise the risk for MI.

The study population consisted of all patients registered in the BSRBR-RA over the past 20 years who had started treatment with one of the many TNFi drugs available in the UK – adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars), etanercept (Enbrel), infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars), certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), and golimumab (Simponi) – or the two available drugs that target the effects of IL-6 – tocilizumab (RoActemra, but Actemra in the U.S.), which targets IL-6 itself, and sarilumab (Kevzara), which targets the IL-6 receptor.

Clinical follow-up forms, death certificates, and patient reports confirmed by the clinical team were used to identify patients who experienced a MI, but only MIs that occurred while on treatment were counted.

More than 30,000 lines of therapy in 20,898 patients were recorded. Ms. Tian noted that most (> 90%) patients had been treated with a TNFi across all lines of therapy.

“It is very important to consider the treatment sequence,” she said. “Most patients start first-line treatment with a TNF inhibitor, with only a few patients starting an IL-6 inhibitor,” she noted. “IL-6 inhibitors are more commonly used in the later stages of disease, when more cardiovascular risk factors have accumulated.”

Thus, to ensure that the MI risk was fairly evaluated, the statistical analyses compared TNFi and IL-6i according to the line of treatment. “That means only patients on their first-line treatment will be compared to each other, and only those on their second-line treatment will be compared to each other, and so on,” Ms. Tian explained.

Baseline characteristics were broadly similar for patients treated with TNFi and IL-6i drugs, except for hyperlipidemia, which was higher in patients treated with an IL-6i. Nevertheless, there was no suggestion of any difference in the MI rates after adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors.

There are a lot of strengths to these data, but of course the possibilities of residual confounding and confounding by indication exist, Ms. Tian said. There were also missing data that had to be imputed.

“There has been quite a bit around interleukin-1 blockers being cardiovascular protective,” observed Kenneth Baker, MBChB, PhD, who chaired the RA oral abstracts session during which Ms. Tian presented the findings.

“IL-6 is quite good at suppressing CRP [C-reactive protein],” added Dr. Baker, a senior clinical research fellow at Newcastle University and honorary consultant rheumatologist at Freeman Hospital, both in Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“You’ve hypothesized or extrapolated that the differences in the lipid levels may not be relevant,” he said to Ms. Tian, “but do you think there might be an extra element going on here?” Maybe IL-6i drugs such as tocilizumab are better at suppressing inflammation, and that counterbalances the effects on lipids, he suggested.

Ms. Tian and Dr. Baker disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The BSRBR-RA is managed by the University of Manchester on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. The registry is supported by funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Amgen, Celltrion Healthcare, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and Sanofi, and in the past Hospira, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Sandoz, SOBI, and UCB.

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – Rheumatoid arthritis patients are no more likely to have a heart attack if they are treated with an interleukin-6 inhibitor (IL-6i) than if they are treated with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), according to data presented at the British Society for Rheumatology annual meeting.

Results of a large analysis from the long-running British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register–Rheumatoid Arthritis (BSRBR-RA) found no statistical difference in the rate of myocardial infarction (MI), considering treatment in almost 21,000 patients. The overall propensity-score adjusted hazard ratio for MI risk comparing TNFi and IL-6i was 0.77, but the 95% confidence interval crossed the line for statistical significance.

“This result reassures patients and clinical teams about the long-term treatment effects on myocardial infarction in a real-world setting,” said Tian Zixing, a PhD student at the University of Manchester (England).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“Patients with rheumatoid arthritis have an increased risk of myocardial infarction, compared to the general population,” Ms. Tian explained. However, this risk has been “considerably improved” with biologic treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, notably with the TNFi drugs vs. nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

The reasoning behind the current analysis was to see if there was any risk associated with IL-6i, as these drugs have been noted to increase low-density cholesterol levels, which in turn can raise the risk for MI.

The study population consisted of all patients registered in the BSRBR-RA over the past 20 years who had started treatment with one of the many TNFi drugs available in the UK – adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars), etanercept (Enbrel), infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars), certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), and golimumab (Simponi) – or the two available drugs that target the effects of IL-6 – tocilizumab (RoActemra, but Actemra in the U.S.), which targets IL-6 itself, and sarilumab (Kevzara), which targets the IL-6 receptor.

Clinical follow-up forms, death certificates, and patient reports confirmed by the clinical team were used to identify patients who experienced a MI, but only MIs that occurred while on treatment were counted.

More than 30,000 lines of therapy in 20,898 patients were recorded. Ms. Tian noted that most (> 90%) patients had been treated with a TNFi across all lines of therapy.

“It is very important to consider the treatment sequence,” she said. “Most patients start first-line treatment with a TNF inhibitor, with only a few patients starting an IL-6 inhibitor,” she noted. “IL-6 inhibitors are more commonly used in the later stages of disease, when more cardiovascular risk factors have accumulated.”

Thus, to ensure that the MI risk was fairly evaluated, the statistical analyses compared TNFi and IL-6i according to the line of treatment. “That means only patients on their first-line treatment will be compared to each other, and only those on their second-line treatment will be compared to each other, and so on,” Ms. Tian explained.

Baseline characteristics were broadly similar for patients treated with TNFi and IL-6i drugs, except for hyperlipidemia, which was higher in patients treated with an IL-6i. Nevertheless, there was no suggestion of any difference in the MI rates after adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors.

There are a lot of strengths to these data, but of course the possibilities of residual confounding and confounding by indication exist, Ms. Tian said. There were also missing data that had to be imputed.

“There has been quite a bit around interleukin-1 blockers being cardiovascular protective,” observed Kenneth Baker, MBChB, PhD, who chaired the RA oral abstracts session during which Ms. Tian presented the findings.

“IL-6 is quite good at suppressing CRP [C-reactive protein],” added Dr. Baker, a senior clinical research fellow at Newcastle University and honorary consultant rheumatologist at Freeman Hospital, both in Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

“You’ve hypothesized or extrapolated that the differences in the lipid levels may not be relevant,” he said to Ms. Tian, “but do you think there might be an extra element going on here?” Maybe IL-6i drugs such as tocilizumab are better at suppressing inflammation, and that counterbalances the effects on lipids, he suggested.

Ms. Tian and Dr. Baker disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The BSRBR-RA is managed by the University of Manchester on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. The registry is supported by funding from multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Amgen, Celltrion Healthcare, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and Sanofi, and in the past Hospira, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Sandoz, SOBI, and UCB.

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

A re-evaluation of cardiovascular risk management guidelines intended for use by rheumatologists may be warranted based on findings from a recently published population-based study of the risks for 12 different cardiovascular disease outcomes in patients with autoimmune diseases.

“The notion that patients with rheumatic diseases are at increased risk of developing cardiovascular diseases has been ongoing for many years,” Nathalie Conrad, PhD, and coauthors wrote in a viewpoint article in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

This has “sparked much debate concerning whether and when to initiate cardiovascular prevention therapies,” they said.

Dr. Conrad was first author on the population-based study published in The Lancet in August 2022 that used linked primary and secondary care records from datasets in the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink involving individuals who were recently diagnosed with any of 19 different autoimmune diseases during an 18-year period stretching from 2000 to 2017 but free of cardiovascular disease until at least 12 months after incident autoimmune disease. “Every single autoimmune disorder we looked at was associated with increased cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Conrad, of the department of public health and primary care at Catholic University Leuven (Belgium), said in an interview.

Not only was the risk for cardiovascular disease increased for people with rheumatic diseases by an average of 68%, compared with people without rheumatic diseases, but also the whole spectrum of cardiovascular disorders was seen.

“We saw increases in thromboembolic diseases, degenerative heart diseases, and heart inflammation,” Dr. Conrad said.
 

Large datasets examined

The idea for the epidemiologic study came from mounting evidence for cardiovascular disease risk among people with autoimmune diseases but not enough to support the design of specific prevention measures.

Dr. Conrad’s Lancet study examined electronic health records of 446,449 individuals with autoimmune diseases and matched them to 2,102,830 individuals without autoimmune disease. This included 160,217 individuals with seven rheumatic diseases: rheumatoid arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, vasculitis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren’s syndrome, ankylosing spondylitis, and systemic sclerosis.

In addition to looking for any evidence of cardiovascular disease, Dr. Conrad and coauthors looked at 12 specific outcomes: atherosclerotic diseases, peripheral arterial disease, stroke or transient ischemic attack, heart failure, valve disorders, thromboembolic disease, atrial fibrillation or flutter, conduction system disease, supraventricular arrhythmias, aortic aneurysm, myocarditis and pericarditis, and infective endocarditis.
 

CV risk in rheumatic diseases

As might be expected, “greater magnitudes of risk” were seen for individuals with systemic lupus erythematosus and systemic sclerosis than for people in the general population, with the chances of cardiovascular disease being two to four times higher. But what perhaps wasn’t expected was that all rheumatic diseases carried an increased risk for heart or vascular-related problems.

Furthermore, the increased risk could not solely be accounted for by the presence of traditional risk factors, such as blood pressure, smoking, or obesity.

“The background here is that any context of systemic inflammation would be predicted to lead to an increased vascular risk,” Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and rheumatology at the University of Glasgow, said in an interview. Dr. McInnes was a coauthor of the viewpoint article in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

“The implication is that there may well be increased vascular risk across the whole range of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” he added. “We should not, however, infer the magnitude of risk will be the same for each disease.”

What is more intriguing, Dr. McInnes said, is that “we don’t know yet whether there’s one final common pathway that leads to the blood vessel being damaged or whether different diseases might contribute different pathways.”

He added: “A question for the future is to see what are those mechanisms that drive risk across different diseases? And the reason that matters, of course, is that we might want to think about the effectiveness of different therapeutic interventions.”
 

Determining cardiovascular risk

Dr. Conrad and associates in their viewpoint article suggested that an update to the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology guidelines for cardiovascular risk management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) could tailor cardiovascular risk scores to certain diseases.

They suggested that the guidelines could consider a risk multiplier of 2.5 for systemic sclerosis, 2.0 for lupus, and 1.5 for any other rheumatic disease.

“We argue that [EULAR] recommendations should consider this new evidence of poorer cardiovascular health in numerous RMDs and envisage cardiovascular screening and associated prevention measures,” Dr. Conrad said.

While they recognize that risk multipliers aren’t perfect, “they are the best available option until personalized risk prediction tools are developed specifically for patients with RMDs.”
 

Addressing cardiovascular risk

As a former president of EULAR, Dr. McInnes was keen to point out that “EULAR’s recommendations are evidence based and are rigorously built on [standard operating procedures] that work and have stood the test of time. I’m quite sure that the members of relevant EULAR task forces will be looking at these data, but they’ll be looking at the whole range of literature to see whether change is necessary.”

Good-quality inflammatory disease control will certainly contribute to reducing vascular risk, “but we should not make the assumption that it will be sufficient,” he cautioned. “We still have to be very careful in addressing so called conventional risk factors, but in particular thinking about obesity and cardiometabolic syndrome to be sure that when those are present, that we detect them and we treat them appropriately.”

As to who is best placed to manage a patient’s cardiovascular risk profile, Dr. McInnes said: “I think the rheumatologist has a responsibility to make sure that as much of the patient’s disease spectrum is being treated as possible.”

“As a rheumatologist, I would like to know that those elements of a patient’s disease presentation are being addressed,” whether that is by a primary care physician, cardiologist, diabetologist, or other specialist involved in the optimal management of the patient.

Dr. Conrad acknowledged receiving support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Program, the European Society for Cardiology, and grant funding paid to her institution from the Belgian-based Research Foundation Flounders. She also acknowledged receipt of royalties in regard to the intellectual property of a home-monitoring system for heart failure paid to Oxford University Innovation. Dr. McInnes acknowledged financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.

*This article was updated 12/30/2022.

A re-evaluation of cardiovascular risk management guidelines intended for use by rheumatologists may be warranted based on findings from a recently published population-based study of the risks for 12 different cardiovascular disease outcomes in patients with autoimmune diseases.

“The notion that patients with rheumatic diseases are at increased risk of developing cardiovascular diseases has been ongoing for many years,” Nathalie Conrad, PhD, and coauthors wrote in a viewpoint article in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

This has “sparked much debate concerning whether and when to initiate cardiovascular prevention therapies,” they said.

Dr. Conrad was first author on the population-based study published in The Lancet in August 2022 that used linked primary and secondary care records from datasets in the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink involving individuals who were recently diagnosed with any of 19 different autoimmune diseases during an 18-year period stretching from 2000 to 2017 but free of cardiovascular disease until at least 12 months after incident autoimmune disease. “Every single autoimmune disorder we looked at was associated with increased cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Conrad, of the department of public health and primary care at Catholic University Leuven (Belgium), said in an interview.

Not only was the risk for cardiovascular disease increased for people with rheumatic diseases by an average of 68%, compared with people without rheumatic diseases, but also the whole spectrum of cardiovascular disorders was seen.

“We saw increases in thromboembolic diseases, degenerative heart diseases, and heart inflammation,” Dr. Conrad said.
 

Large datasets examined

The idea for the epidemiologic study came from mounting evidence for cardiovascular disease risk among people with autoimmune diseases but not enough to support the design of specific prevention measures.

Dr. Conrad’s Lancet study examined electronic health records of 446,449 individuals with autoimmune diseases and matched them to 2,102,830 individuals without autoimmune disease. This included 160,217 individuals with seven rheumatic diseases: rheumatoid arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, vasculitis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren’s syndrome, ankylosing spondylitis, and systemic sclerosis.

In addition to looking for any evidence of cardiovascular disease, Dr. Conrad and coauthors looked at 12 specific outcomes: atherosclerotic diseases, peripheral arterial disease, stroke or transient ischemic attack, heart failure, valve disorders, thromboembolic disease, atrial fibrillation or flutter, conduction system disease, supraventricular arrhythmias, aortic aneurysm, myocarditis and pericarditis, and infective endocarditis.
 

CV risk in rheumatic diseases

As might be expected, “greater magnitudes of risk” were seen for individuals with systemic lupus erythematosus and systemic sclerosis than for people in the general population, with the chances of cardiovascular disease being two to four times higher. But what perhaps wasn’t expected was that all rheumatic diseases carried an increased risk for heart or vascular-related problems.

Furthermore, the increased risk could not solely be accounted for by the presence of traditional risk factors, such as blood pressure, smoking, or obesity.

“The background here is that any context of systemic inflammation would be predicted to lead to an increased vascular risk,” Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and rheumatology at the University of Glasgow, said in an interview. Dr. McInnes was a coauthor of the viewpoint article in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

“The implication is that there may well be increased vascular risk across the whole range of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” he added. “We should not, however, infer the magnitude of risk will be the same for each disease.”

What is more intriguing, Dr. McInnes said, is that “we don’t know yet whether there’s one final common pathway that leads to the blood vessel being damaged or whether different diseases might contribute different pathways.”

He added: “A question for the future is to see what are those mechanisms that drive risk across different diseases? And the reason that matters, of course, is that we might want to think about the effectiveness of different therapeutic interventions.”
 

Determining cardiovascular risk

Dr. Conrad and associates in their viewpoint article suggested that an update to the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology guidelines for cardiovascular risk management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) could tailor cardiovascular risk scores to certain diseases.

They suggested that the guidelines could consider a risk multiplier of 2.5 for systemic sclerosis, 2.0 for lupus, and 1.5 for any other rheumatic disease.

“We argue that [EULAR] recommendations should consider this new evidence of poorer cardiovascular health in numerous RMDs and envisage cardiovascular screening and associated prevention measures,” Dr. Conrad said.

While they recognize that risk multipliers aren’t perfect, “they are the best available option until personalized risk prediction tools are developed specifically for patients with RMDs.”
 

Addressing cardiovascular risk

As a former president of EULAR, Dr. McInnes was keen to point out that “EULAR’s recommendations are evidence based and are rigorously built on [standard operating procedures] that work and have stood the test of time. I’m quite sure that the members of relevant EULAR task forces will be looking at these data, but they’ll be looking at the whole range of literature to see whether change is necessary.”

Good-quality inflammatory disease control will certainly contribute to reducing vascular risk, “but we should not make the assumption that it will be sufficient,” he cautioned. “We still have to be very careful in addressing so called conventional risk factors, but in particular thinking about obesity and cardiometabolic syndrome to be sure that when those are present, that we detect them and we treat them appropriately.”

As to who is best placed to manage a patient’s cardiovascular risk profile, Dr. McInnes said: “I think the rheumatologist has a responsibility to make sure that as much of the patient’s disease spectrum is being treated as possible.”

“As a rheumatologist, I would like to know that those elements of a patient’s disease presentation are being addressed,” whether that is by a primary care physician, cardiologist, diabetologist, or other specialist involved in the optimal management of the patient.

Dr. Conrad acknowledged receiving support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Program, the European Society for Cardiology, and grant funding paid to her institution from the Belgian-based Research Foundation Flounders. She also acknowledged receipt of royalties in regard to the intellectual property of a home-monitoring system for heart failure paid to Oxford University Innovation. Dr. McInnes acknowledged financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.

*This article was updated 12/30/2022.

A re-evaluation of cardiovascular risk management guidelines intended for use by rheumatologists may be warranted based on findings from a recently published population-based study of the risks for 12 different cardiovascular disease outcomes in patients with autoimmune diseases.

“The notion that patients with rheumatic diseases are at increased risk of developing cardiovascular diseases has been ongoing for many years,” Nathalie Conrad, PhD, and coauthors wrote in a viewpoint article in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

This has “sparked much debate concerning whether and when to initiate cardiovascular prevention therapies,” they said.

Dr. Conrad was first author on the population-based study published in The Lancet in August 2022 that used linked primary and secondary care records from datasets in the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink involving individuals who were recently diagnosed with any of 19 different autoimmune diseases during an 18-year period stretching from 2000 to 2017 but free of cardiovascular disease until at least 12 months after incident autoimmune disease. “Every single autoimmune disorder we looked at was associated with increased cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Conrad, of the department of public health and primary care at Catholic University Leuven (Belgium), said in an interview.

Not only was the risk for cardiovascular disease increased for people with rheumatic diseases by an average of 68%, compared with people without rheumatic diseases, but also the whole spectrum of cardiovascular disorders was seen.

“We saw increases in thromboembolic diseases, degenerative heart diseases, and heart inflammation,” Dr. Conrad said.
 

Large datasets examined

The idea for the epidemiologic study came from mounting evidence for cardiovascular disease risk among people with autoimmune diseases but not enough to support the design of specific prevention measures.

Dr. Conrad’s Lancet study examined electronic health records of 446,449 individuals with autoimmune diseases and matched them to 2,102,830 individuals without autoimmune disease. This included 160,217 individuals with seven rheumatic diseases: rheumatoid arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, vasculitis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren’s syndrome, ankylosing spondylitis, and systemic sclerosis.

In addition to looking for any evidence of cardiovascular disease, Dr. Conrad and coauthors looked at 12 specific outcomes: atherosclerotic diseases, peripheral arterial disease, stroke or transient ischemic attack, heart failure, valve disorders, thromboembolic disease, atrial fibrillation or flutter, conduction system disease, supraventricular arrhythmias, aortic aneurysm, myocarditis and pericarditis, and infective endocarditis.
 

CV risk in rheumatic diseases

As might be expected, “greater magnitudes of risk” were seen for individuals with systemic lupus erythematosus and systemic sclerosis than for people in the general population, with the chances of cardiovascular disease being two to four times higher. But what perhaps wasn’t expected was that all rheumatic diseases carried an increased risk for heart or vascular-related problems.

Furthermore, the increased risk could not solely be accounted for by the presence of traditional risk factors, such as blood pressure, smoking, or obesity.

“The background here is that any context of systemic inflammation would be predicted to lead to an increased vascular risk,” Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and rheumatology at the University of Glasgow, said in an interview. Dr. McInnes was a coauthor of the viewpoint article in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

“The implication is that there may well be increased vascular risk across the whole range of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” he added. “We should not, however, infer the magnitude of risk will be the same for each disease.”

What is more intriguing, Dr. McInnes said, is that “we don’t know yet whether there’s one final common pathway that leads to the blood vessel being damaged or whether different diseases might contribute different pathways.”

He added: “A question for the future is to see what are those mechanisms that drive risk across different diseases? And the reason that matters, of course, is that we might want to think about the effectiveness of different therapeutic interventions.”
 

Determining cardiovascular risk

Dr. Conrad and associates in their viewpoint article suggested that an update to the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology guidelines for cardiovascular risk management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) could tailor cardiovascular risk scores to certain diseases.

They suggested that the guidelines could consider a risk multiplier of 2.5 for systemic sclerosis, 2.0 for lupus, and 1.5 for any other rheumatic disease.

“We argue that [EULAR] recommendations should consider this new evidence of poorer cardiovascular health in numerous RMDs and envisage cardiovascular screening and associated prevention measures,” Dr. Conrad said.

While they recognize that risk multipliers aren’t perfect, “they are the best available option until personalized risk prediction tools are developed specifically for patients with RMDs.”
 

Addressing cardiovascular risk

As a former president of EULAR, Dr. McInnes was keen to point out that “EULAR’s recommendations are evidence based and are rigorously built on [standard operating procedures] that work and have stood the test of time. I’m quite sure that the members of relevant EULAR task forces will be looking at these data, but they’ll be looking at the whole range of literature to see whether change is necessary.”

Good-quality inflammatory disease control will certainly contribute to reducing vascular risk, “but we should not make the assumption that it will be sufficient,” he cautioned. “We still have to be very careful in addressing so called conventional risk factors, but in particular thinking about obesity and cardiometabolic syndrome to be sure that when those are present, that we detect them and we treat them appropriately.”

As to who is best placed to manage a patient’s cardiovascular risk profile, Dr. McInnes said: “I think the rheumatologist has a responsibility to make sure that as much of the patient’s disease spectrum is being treated as possible.”

“As a rheumatologist, I would like to know that those elements of a patient’s disease presentation are being addressed,” whether that is by a primary care physician, cardiologist, diabetologist, or other specialist involved in the optimal management of the patient.

Dr. Conrad acknowledged receiving support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Program, the European Society for Cardiology, and grant funding paid to her institution from the Belgian-based Research Foundation Flounders. She also acknowledged receipt of royalties in regard to the intellectual property of a home-monitoring system for heart failure paid to Oxford University Innovation. Dr. McInnes acknowledged financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.

*This article was updated 12/30/2022.

Exposure to inhaled agents in the workplace could be putting people at risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis, according to research published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

In an analysis of data from the long-running Swedish Epidemiological Investigation of RA (EIRA) population-based cohort study, there was a 21% increased risk of RA and a 25% increased risk of anti–citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)–positive RA associated with exposure to any occupationally inhaled agent.

LOOK PHOTO / Fotolia.com

“We have investigated a number of occupational airborne exposures and found that exposure for those agents infer a high risk for RA,” Lars Klareskog, MD, PhD, senior professor of rheumatology at the Karolinska Institute and Karolinska University Hospital (Solna) in Stockholm, said in an interview.

Dr. Klareskog, who is one of the lead authors of the published work, added that the risk is particularly high in individuals who had a genetic susceptibility and in those who smoked.

“The importance of this is that it further demonstrates that exposures to the lung may trigger immune reactions associated with the major subset of rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Klareskog said. “Second, it shows that those exposed to these agents should be very keen to not smoke.” “These findings further implicate the respiratory tract mucosa in ACPA-positive RA pathogenesis,” agreed Vanessa L. Kronzer, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

They also “impress the need for public policy initiatives related to occupational inhalants to prevent RA,” they suggested in an editorial.

Multiple occupational inhalable exposures assessed

In the analysis, the researchers assessed exposure to 32 inhalable agents in people with (n = 4,033) and without RA (n = 6,485). The list of agents considered included detergents, diesel engine exhaust, fine particulate matter, solvents, and agricultural chemicals.

A total of 17 agents showed a positive association with an increased risk of ACPA-positive RA. Dr. Kronzer and Dr. Sparks noted that breathing in insecticides and fungicides at work was associated with the highest odds ratios for having ACPA-positive RA (both 2.38).

“Importantly, both the number and duration of exposures exhibited a dose-response effect on RA risk,” the editorialists said.

They also picked out that there was “a gene-environment interaction for RA risk for certain inhalants,” including diesel engine exhaust, asbestos, carbon monoxide, and quartz dust.

Smoking amplified the risk for ACPA-positive RA associated with certain agents, such as detergents, and adding in genetic susceptibility for a third exposure increased the risk still further.

A key message is that there are many agents that can affect the airways and increase the risk of RA rather than there being a specific one, Dr. Klareskog said.

“On one hand, it’s a message of public health,” he said. Many public health authorities are aware of the potential risks of inhaled agents on the lung, “but this just adds another dimension that it’s bad also for rheumatoid arthritis.” Thus, greater efforts to help protect people from being exposed at work may be needed.

From the individual’s perspective, “if you have RA or other immune diseases in your family, then you may know that you’re at increased risk,” Dr. Klareskog said. The message here is perhaps to “be aware, [protect yourself], and stop smoking.”

The EIRA study was supported by funding from the Swedish Research Foundation for Health, Working Life, and Welfare, the Swedish Research Council, the AFA foundation, Region Stockholm, King Gustaf V’s 80-year foundation, and the Swedish Rheumatic Foundation. Dr. Klareskog and coauthors had no competing interests to disclose. Dr. Kronzer and Dr. Sparks had no disclosures of relevance to their comments.

Exposure to inhaled agents in the workplace could be putting people at risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis, according to research published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

In an analysis of data from the long-running Swedish Epidemiological Investigation of RA (EIRA) population-based cohort study, there was a 21% increased risk of RA and a 25% increased risk of anti–citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)–positive RA associated with exposure to any occupationally inhaled agent.

LOOK PHOTO / Fotolia.com

“We have investigated a number of occupational airborne exposures and found that exposure for those agents infer a high risk for RA,” Lars Klareskog, MD, PhD, senior professor of rheumatology at the Karolinska Institute and Karolinska University Hospital (Solna) in Stockholm, said in an interview.

Dr. Klareskog, who is one of the lead authors of the published work, added that the risk is particularly high in individuals who had a genetic susceptibility and in those who smoked.

“The importance of this is that it further demonstrates that exposures to the lung may trigger immune reactions associated with the major subset of rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Klareskog said. “Second, it shows that those exposed to these agents should be very keen to not smoke.” “These findings further implicate the respiratory tract mucosa in ACPA-positive RA pathogenesis,” agreed Vanessa L. Kronzer, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

They also “impress the need for public policy initiatives related to occupational inhalants to prevent RA,” they suggested in an editorial.

Multiple occupational inhalable exposures assessed

In the analysis, the researchers assessed exposure to 32 inhalable agents in people with (n = 4,033) and without RA (n = 6,485). The list of agents considered included detergents, diesel engine exhaust, fine particulate matter, solvents, and agricultural chemicals.

A total of 17 agents showed a positive association with an increased risk of ACPA-positive RA. Dr. Kronzer and Dr. Sparks noted that breathing in insecticides and fungicides at work was associated with the highest odds ratios for having ACPA-positive RA (both 2.38).

“Importantly, both the number and duration of exposures exhibited a dose-response effect on RA risk,” the editorialists said.

They also picked out that there was “a gene-environment interaction for RA risk for certain inhalants,” including diesel engine exhaust, asbestos, carbon monoxide, and quartz dust.

Smoking amplified the risk for ACPA-positive RA associated with certain agents, such as detergents, and adding in genetic susceptibility for a third exposure increased the risk still further.

A key message is that there are many agents that can affect the airways and increase the risk of RA rather than there being a specific one, Dr. Klareskog said.

“On one hand, it’s a message of public health,” he said. Many public health authorities are aware of the potential risks of inhaled agents on the lung, “but this just adds another dimension that it’s bad also for rheumatoid arthritis.” Thus, greater efforts to help protect people from being exposed at work may be needed.

From the individual’s perspective, “if you have RA or other immune diseases in your family, then you may know that you’re at increased risk,” Dr. Klareskog said. The message here is perhaps to “be aware, [protect yourself], and stop smoking.”

The EIRA study was supported by funding from the Swedish Research Foundation for Health, Working Life, and Welfare, the Swedish Research Council, the AFA foundation, Region Stockholm, King Gustaf V’s 80-year foundation, and the Swedish Rheumatic Foundation. Dr. Klareskog and coauthors had no competing interests to disclose. Dr. Kronzer and Dr. Sparks had no disclosures of relevance to their comments.

Exposure to inhaled agents in the workplace could be putting people at risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis, according to research published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

In an analysis of data from the long-running Swedish Epidemiological Investigation of RA (EIRA) population-based cohort study, there was a 21% increased risk of RA and a 25% increased risk of anti–citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)–positive RA associated with exposure to any occupationally inhaled agent.

LOOK PHOTO / Fotolia.com

“We have investigated a number of occupational airborne exposures and found that exposure for those agents infer a high risk for RA,” Lars Klareskog, MD, PhD, senior professor of rheumatology at the Karolinska Institute and Karolinska University Hospital (Solna) in Stockholm, said in an interview.

Dr. Klareskog, who is one of the lead authors of the published work, added that the risk is particularly high in individuals who had a genetic susceptibility and in those who smoked.

“The importance of this is that it further demonstrates that exposures to the lung may trigger immune reactions associated with the major subset of rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Klareskog said. “Second, it shows that those exposed to these agents should be very keen to not smoke.” “These findings further implicate the respiratory tract mucosa in ACPA-positive RA pathogenesis,” agreed Vanessa L. Kronzer, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

They also “impress the need for public policy initiatives related to occupational inhalants to prevent RA,” they suggested in an editorial.

Multiple occupational inhalable exposures assessed

In the analysis, the researchers assessed exposure to 32 inhalable agents in people with (n = 4,033) and without RA (n = 6,485). The list of agents considered included detergents, diesel engine exhaust, fine particulate matter, solvents, and agricultural chemicals.

A total of 17 agents showed a positive association with an increased risk of ACPA-positive RA. Dr. Kronzer and Dr. Sparks noted that breathing in insecticides and fungicides at work was associated with the highest odds ratios for having ACPA-positive RA (both 2.38).

“Importantly, both the number and duration of exposures exhibited a dose-response effect on RA risk,” the editorialists said.

They also picked out that there was “a gene-environment interaction for RA risk for certain inhalants,” including diesel engine exhaust, asbestos, carbon monoxide, and quartz dust.

Smoking amplified the risk for ACPA-positive RA associated with certain agents, such as detergents, and adding in genetic susceptibility for a third exposure increased the risk still further.

A key message is that there are many agents that can affect the airways and increase the risk of RA rather than there being a specific one, Dr. Klareskog said.

“On one hand, it’s a message of public health,” he said. Many public health authorities are aware of the potential risks of inhaled agents on the lung, “but this just adds another dimension that it’s bad also for rheumatoid arthritis.” Thus, greater efforts to help protect people from being exposed at work may be needed.

From the individual’s perspective, “if you have RA or other immune diseases in your family, then you may know that you’re at increased risk,” Dr. Klareskog said. The message here is perhaps to “be aware, [protect yourself], and stop smoking.”

The EIRA study was supported by funding from the Swedish Research Foundation for Health, Working Life, and Welfare, the Swedish Research Council, the AFA foundation, Region Stockholm, King Gustaf V’s 80-year foundation, and the Swedish Rheumatic Foundation. Dr. Klareskog and coauthors had no competing interests to disclose. Dr. Kronzer and Dr. Sparks had no disclosures of relevance to their comments.

Women who develop transient hypertensive disorders during their pregnancy are at risk for developing subsequent cardiovascular disease (CVD), particularly if this experienced at the same time as gestational diabetes.

In a large population-based study, the adjusted hazard ratios for developing CVD following a gestational hypertensive disorder (GHTD) alone were 1.90 (95% confidence interval, 1.151-2.25) within 5 years and 1.41 (95% CI, 1.12-1.76) after 5 years or more.

Vesnaandjic/E+/Getty Images

When gestational diabetes was added into the mix, however, the risk for CVD after 5 years more than doubled (aHR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.60-3.67). Risk in the earlier postpartum period was also raised by the combination, but this was not significant (aHR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.78-2.58).

Having gestational diabetes by itself did not seem to increase the risk for later CVD in the analysis, despite being linked to higher heart disease risk in other studies.

“These are women coming out of a pregnancy – young women of reproductive age – so this is not a group that typically has cardiovascular events,” said Ravi Retnakaran, MD, in an interview, an investigator in the new study, which is published in JAMA Network Open.

“If they are somebody who has both disorders concurrently in their pregnancy, they may be at even greater risk than a woman with one or the other disorder,” added Dr. Retnakaran, who is professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and an endocrinologist at the Leadership Sinai Centre for Diabetes, Mount Sinai Hospital, also in Toronto. “In other words, amongst already high-risk patients. This is identifying a subset at maybe an even higher risk.”

It doesn’t mean that there is a huge absolute risk, Dr. Retnakaran said, but it is showing that there is a heightened risk such that women and their clinicians need to be aware of and potentially the need for greater preventative care in the future.

“It is allowing you to identify future lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease,” he said.
 

Study rationale and design

GHTD is “a forerunner of hypertension,” and gestational diabetes is “a precursor of diabetes” – each associated with a high risk of developing CVD in the years after pregnancy, the investigators said. While studies have looked at their individual contributions to future CVD risk, not many had looked to see what risks having both may confer in the postpregnancy years.

For the analysis, data on 886,295 women with GHTD (43,861), gestational diabetes (54,061), both (4,975), or neither (783,398) were obtained from several Canadian administrative health databases.

The mean age was around 30 years across the groups, with those with both conditions or gestational diabetes alone more likely to be older than those with GTHD alone or neither condition (32 vs. 29 years, respectively, P < .001).

After a total follow-up period of 12 years, 1,999 CVD events were recorded, most of them (1,162) 5 years after the pregnancy.
 

Pregnancy is a stress test for the heart

“We know that what we call adverse pregnancy outcomes – things like gestational hypertension, and gestational diabetes, and preeclampsia – are on the rise globally,” Natalie A. Bello, MD, director of hypertension research at the Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, commented in an interview.

Women who develop transient hypertensive disorders during their pregnancy are at risk for developing subsequent cardiovascular disease (CVD), particularly if this experienced at the same time as gestational diabetes.

In a large population-based study, the adjusted hazard ratios for developing CVD following a gestational hypertensive disorder (GHTD) alone were 1.90 (95% confidence interval, 1.151-2.25) within 5 years and 1.41 (95% CI, 1.12-1.76) after 5 years or more.

Vesnaandjic/E+/Getty Images

When gestational diabetes was added into the mix, however, the risk for CVD after 5 years more than doubled (aHR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.60-3.67). Risk in the earlier postpartum period was also raised by the combination, but this was not significant (aHR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.78-2.58).

Having gestational diabetes by itself did not seem to increase the risk for later CVD in the analysis, despite being linked to higher heart disease risk in other studies.

“These are women coming out of a pregnancy – young women of reproductive age – so this is not a group that typically has cardiovascular events,” said Ravi Retnakaran, MD, in an interview, an investigator in the new study, which is published in JAMA Network Open.

“If they are somebody who has both disorders concurrently in their pregnancy, they may be at even greater risk than a woman with one or the other disorder,” added Dr. Retnakaran, who is professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and an endocrinologist at the Leadership Sinai Centre for Diabetes, Mount Sinai Hospital, also in Toronto. “In other words, amongst already high-risk patients. This is identifying a subset at maybe an even higher risk.”

It doesn’t mean that there is a huge absolute risk, Dr. Retnakaran said, but it is showing that there is a heightened risk such that women and their clinicians need to be aware of and potentially the need for greater preventative care in the future.

“It is allowing you to identify future lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease,” he said.
 

Study rationale and design

GHTD is “a forerunner of hypertension,” and gestational diabetes is “a precursor of diabetes” – each associated with a high risk of developing CVD in the years after pregnancy, the investigators said. While studies have looked at their individual contributions to future CVD risk, not many had looked to see what risks having both may confer in the postpregnancy years.

For the analysis, data on 886,295 women with GHTD (43,861), gestational diabetes (54,061), both (4,975), or neither (783,398) were obtained from several Canadian administrative health databases.

The mean age was around 30 years across the groups, with those with both conditions or gestational diabetes alone more likely to be older than those with GTHD alone or neither condition (32 vs. 29 years, respectively, P < .001).

After a total follow-up period of 12 years, 1,999 CVD events were recorded, most of them (1,162) 5 years after the pregnancy.
 

Pregnancy is a stress test for the heart

“We know that what we call adverse pregnancy outcomes – things like gestational hypertension, and gestational diabetes, and preeclampsia – are on the rise globally,” Natalie A. Bello, MD, director of hypertension research at the Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, commented in an interview.

Women who develop transient hypertensive disorders during their pregnancy are at risk for developing subsequent cardiovascular disease (CVD), particularly if this experienced at the same time as gestational diabetes.

In a large population-based study, the adjusted hazard ratios for developing CVD following a gestational hypertensive disorder (GHTD) alone were 1.90 (95% confidence interval, 1.151-2.25) within 5 years and 1.41 (95% CI, 1.12-1.76) after 5 years or more.

Vesnaandjic/E+/Getty Images

When gestational diabetes was added into the mix, however, the risk for CVD after 5 years more than doubled (aHR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.60-3.67). Risk in the earlier postpartum period was also raised by the combination, but this was not significant (aHR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.78-2.58).

Having gestational diabetes by itself did not seem to increase the risk for later CVD in the analysis, despite being linked to higher heart disease risk in other studies.

“These are women coming out of a pregnancy – young women of reproductive age – so this is not a group that typically has cardiovascular events,” said Ravi Retnakaran, MD, in an interview, an investigator in the new study, which is published in JAMA Network Open.

“If they are somebody who has both disorders concurrently in their pregnancy, they may be at even greater risk than a woman with one or the other disorder,” added Dr. Retnakaran, who is professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and an endocrinologist at the Leadership Sinai Centre for Diabetes, Mount Sinai Hospital, also in Toronto. “In other words, amongst already high-risk patients. This is identifying a subset at maybe an even higher risk.”

It doesn’t mean that there is a huge absolute risk, Dr. Retnakaran said, but it is showing that there is a heightened risk such that women and their clinicians need to be aware of and potentially the need for greater preventative care in the future.

“It is allowing you to identify future lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease,” he said.
 

Study rationale and design

GHTD is “a forerunner of hypertension,” and gestational diabetes is “a precursor of diabetes” – each associated with a high risk of developing CVD in the years after pregnancy, the investigators said. While studies have looked at their individual contributions to future CVD risk, not many had looked to see what risks having both may confer in the postpregnancy years.

For the analysis, data on 886,295 women with GHTD (43,861), gestational diabetes (54,061), both (4,975), or neither (783,398) were obtained from several Canadian administrative health databases.

The mean age was around 30 years across the groups, with those with both conditions or gestational diabetes alone more likely to be older than those with GTHD alone or neither condition (32 vs. 29 years, respectively, P < .001).

After a total follow-up period of 12 years, 1,999 CVD events were recorded, most of them (1,162) 5 years after the pregnancy.
 

Pregnancy is a stress test for the heart

“We know that what we call adverse pregnancy outcomes – things like gestational hypertension, and gestational diabetes, and preeclampsia – are on the rise globally,” Natalie A. Bello, MD, director of hypertension research at the Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, commented in an interview.

More patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) were in remission at 6 months if they had received rituximab (Rituxan) rather than cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) as induction therapy, according to a target trial emulation performed by the French Vasculitis Study Group (FVSG).

Remission, which was defined as a score of zero on the validated Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS) and use of no more than 10 mg of prednisone a day, was documented in 73.1% of rituximab-treated patients and 40.1% of cyclophosphamide-treated patients.

Similar rates of remission were observed regardless of whether patients were newly diagnosed with GPA (76.1% vs. 41.6%) or had been recently treated for relapsing disease (75.2% vs. 44.5%), FVSG researchers reported in JAMA Network Open.

This research “may inform clinical decision-making regarding the choice of remission-inducing regimen for patients with GPA,” the researchers suggested.
 

Practice already shifting to rituximab

“The results are largely in line with previous perceptions,” David R.W. Jayne, MD, honorary consultant and director of the vasculitis and lupus service at Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, England, observed in an emailed comment.

“The difference is a bit bigger [in favor of rituximab] than I would have expected,” said Dr. Jayne, who is also professor of clinical autoimmunity at the University of Cambridge. He noted that clinical practice was already moving toward using rituximab in place of cyclophosphamide.

Rituximab gained a European license to treat antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitides (AAV) just over a decade ago. Since then, it has slowly started to replace the use of cyclophosphamide and glucocorticoids, which were the preferred method up until then.

Part of the reason for this shift is the toxicity associated with cyclophosphamide, although that’s not to say that rituximab is free from safety concerns, Dr. Jayne said.

“Toxicity issues with rituximab, especially secondary immunodeficiency, more severe COVID, and blocking vaccine responses, are becoming bigger issues for day-to-day practice,” he noted. Nonetheless, “the introduction of rituximab has been a revolution in AAV treatment. It has encouraged pharma investment in the disease, such as recent approval of avacopan [Tavneos], and it is helping patients.”

Why simulate and not perform a randomized trial?

There were several reasons for performing the current evaluation, study coauthor Benjamin Terrier, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

“The pivotal study, published in 2010, that led to the approval of rituximab was a noninferiority study in comparison with cyclophosphamide, but it included patients with both GPA, granulomatosis with polyangiitis, and MPA, microscopic polyangiitis,” explained Dr. Terrier, professor of internal medicine at the National Referral Center for Rare Systemic Autoimmune Diseases at Cochin Hospital in Paris.

“A post hoc analysis showed that, in the patients with a PR3 [proteinase 3]-ANCA and in the patients with relapsing disease, rituximab was superior,” he added.

“So, there was some data which suggest that rituximab could be differentially effective between the different subgroups of patients. So that’s why we wanted to answer this question.”

Since it is not always feasible to do a randomized trial, particularly when it concerns a rare disease such as GPA, Dr. Terrier and associates decided to perform a target trial emulation using data from the FVSG registry, which collates information from 32 hospitals in France. Such studies are gaining in popularity and have been shown to provide a very good level of evidence, he said.
 

Data collections and secondary endpoint results

The researchers obtained data on 194 patients in the registry who were treated for GPA between April 2008 and April 2018. The majority (85.1%) of patients included were newly diagnosed with GPA, and 56.7% were men. The mean age of patients was 54 years.

Information on the PR3-ANCA status of patients was available for 182 patients, and this showed that the majority (80.8%) were positive for this autoantibody.

A weighted analysis was undertaken to iron out any differences in baseline characteristics, such as the fact that more patients had been treated with at least one dose of cyclophosphamide than rituximab (133 vs. 61).

The primary outcome was remission at 6 months, but a key secondary endpoint was the percentage of patients with a BVAS score of zero at this time point. This turned out to be similar among the rituximab- and cyclophosphamide-treated patients (85.5% vs. 82.6%, respectively).

Another secondary endpoint looked at the retention rate without failure at 24 months, with fewer postinclusion treatment failures seen with rituximab than with cyclophosphamide (7 vs. 51 patients, respectively). Most treatment failures were caused by relapses (7 vs. 33).

In terms of safety, the researchers said they found “no increased toxicity signal” for rituximab over cyclophosphamide. In fact, more severe adverse events were noted in the latter group.

Take-home messages

While of course there are limitations, considering the earlier data and the current results, “we probably have enough data to consider that, in the vast majority of GPA patients, in PR3-ANCA patients, rituximab is probably the best option,” Dr. Terrier said.

There are still patients for whom there isn’t a definitive answer on which drug may be best, such as those with severe disease who were not included in the trials or represent few patients in the registry. For them, it is “still a case-by-case discussion, and I think we have to decide really, with caution,” Dr. Terrier said.

What this study also shows is that emulated trials are possible, he added. “I think it shows that we could have some answers to other questions by emulating trials in this rare disease.”

The FVSG registry has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program. Dr. Terrier reported receiving personal fees from Vifor Pharma Group, GlaxoSmithKline, and AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study. Dr. Jayne has received lecture fees and a research grant from Roche/Genentech.

More patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) were in remission at 6 months if they had received rituximab (Rituxan) rather than cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) as induction therapy, according to a target trial emulation performed by the French Vasculitis Study Group (FVSG).

Remission, which was defined as a score of zero on the validated Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS) and use of no more than 10 mg of prednisone a day, was documented in 73.1% of rituximab-treated patients and 40.1% of cyclophosphamide-treated patients.

Similar rates of remission were observed regardless of whether patients were newly diagnosed with GPA (76.1% vs. 41.6%) or had been recently treated for relapsing disease (75.2% vs. 44.5%), FVSG researchers reported in JAMA Network Open.

This research “may inform clinical decision-making regarding the choice of remission-inducing regimen for patients with GPA,” the researchers suggested.
 

Practice already shifting to rituximab

“The results are largely in line with previous perceptions,” David R.W. Jayne, MD, honorary consultant and director of the vasculitis and lupus service at Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, England, observed in an emailed comment.

“The difference is a bit bigger [in favor of rituximab] than I would have expected,” said Dr. Jayne, who is also professor of clinical autoimmunity at the University of Cambridge. He noted that clinical practice was already moving toward using rituximab in place of cyclophosphamide.

Rituximab gained a European license to treat antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitides (AAV) just over a decade ago. Since then, it has slowly started to replace the use of cyclophosphamide and glucocorticoids, which were the preferred method up until then.

Part of the reason for this shift is the toxicity associated with cyclophosphamide, although that’s not to say that rituximab is free from safety concerns, Dr. Jayne said.

“Toxicity issues with rituximab, especially secondary immunodeficiency, more severe COVID, and blocking vaccine responses, are becoming bigger issues for day-to-day practice,” he noted. Nonetheless, “the introduction of rituximab has been a revolution in AAV treatment. It has encouraged pharma investment in the disease, such as recent approval of avacopan [Tavneos], and it is helping patients.”

Why simulate and not perform a randomized trial?

There were several reasons for performing the current evaluation, study coauthor Benjamin Terrier, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

“The pivotal study, published in 2010, that led to the approval of rituximab was a noninferiority study in comparison with cyclophosphamide, but it included patients with both GPA, granulomatosis with polyangiitis, and MPA, microscopic polyangiitis,” explained Dr. Terrier, professor of internal medicine at the National Referral Center for Rare Systemic Autoimmune Diseases at Cochin Hospital in Paris.

“A post hoc analysis showed that, in the patients with a PR3 [proteinase 3]-ANCA and in the patients with relapsing disease, rituximab was superior,” he added.

“So, there was some data which suggest that rituximab could be differentially effective between the different subgroups of patients. So that’s why we wanted to answer this question.”

Since it is not always feasible to do a randomized trial, particularly when it concerns a rare disease such as GPA, Dr. Terrier and associates decided to perform a target trial emulation using data from the FVSG registry, which collates information from 32 hospitals in France. Such studies are gaining in popularity and have been shown to provide a very good level of evidence, he said.
 

Data collections and secondary endpoint results

The researchers obtained data on 194 patients in the registry who were treated for GPA between April 2008 and April 2018. The majority (85.1%) of patients included were newly diagnosed with GPA, and 56.7% were men. The mean age of patients was 54 years.

Information on the PR3-ANCA status of patients was available for 182 patients, and this showed that the majority (80.8%) were positive for this autoantibody.

A weighted analysis was undertaken to iron out any differences in baseline characteristics, such as the fact that more patients had been treated with at least one dose of cyclophosphamide than rituximab (133 vs. 61).

The primary outcome was remission at 6 months, but a key secondary endpoint was the percentage of patients with a BVAS score of zero at this time point. This turned out to be similar among the rituximab- and cyclophosphamide-treated patients (85.5% vs. 82.6%, respectively).

Another secondary endpoint looked at the retention rate without failure at 24 months, with fewer postinclusion treatment failures seen with rituximab than with cyclophosphamide (7 vs. 51 patients, respectively). Most treatment failures were caused by relapses (7 vs. 33).

In terms of safety, the researchers said they found “no increased toxicity signal” for rituximab over cyclophosphamide. In fact, more severe adverse events were noted in the latter group.

Take-home messages

While of course there are limitations, considering the earlier data and the current results, “we probably have enough data to consider that, in the vast majority of GPA patients, in PR3-ANCA patients, rituximab is probably the best option,” Dr. Terrier said.

There are still patients for whom there isn’t a definitive answer on which drug may be best, such as those with severe disease who were not included in the trials or represent few patients in the registry. For them, it is “still a case-by-case discussion, and I think we have to decide really, with caution,” Dr. Terrier said.

What this study also shows is that emulated trials are possible, he added. “I think it shows that we could have some answers to other questions by emulating trials in this rare disease.”

The FVSG registry has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program. Dr. Terrier reported receiving personal fees from Vifor Pharma Group, GlaxoSmithKline, and AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study. Dr. Jayne has received lecture fees and a research grant from Roche/Genentech.

More patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) were in remission at 6 months if they had received rituximab (Rituxan) rather than cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan) as induction therapy, according to a target trial emulation performed by the French Vasculitis Study Group (FVSG).

Remission, which was defined as a score of zero on the validated Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS) and use of no more than 10 mg of prednisone a day, was documented in 73.1% of rituximab-treated patients and 40.1% of cyclophosphamide-treated patients.

Similar rates of remission were observed regardless of whether patients were newly diagnosed with GPA (76.1% vs. 41.6%) or had been recently treated for relapsing disease (75.2% vs. 44.5%), FVSG researchers reported in JAMA Network Open.

This research “may inform clinical decision-making regarding the choice of remission-inducing regimen for patients with GPA,” the researchers suggested.
 

Practice already shifting to rituximab

“The results are largely in line with previous perceptions,” David R.W. Jayne, MD, honorary consultant and director of the vasculitis and lupus service at Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, England, observed in an emailed comment.

“The difference is a bit bigger [in favor of rituximab] than I would have expected,” said Dr. Jayne, who is also professor of clinical autoimmunity at the University of Cambridge. He noted that clinical practice was already moving toward using rituximab in place of cyclophosphamide.

Rituximab gained a European license to treat antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitides (AAV) just over a decade ago. Since then, it has slowly started to replace the use of cyclophosphamide and glucocorticoids, which were the preferred method up until then.

Part of the reason for this shift is the toxicity associated with cyclophosphamide, although that’s not to say that rituximab is free from safety concerns, Dr. Jayne said.

“Toxicity issues with rituximab, especially secondary immunodeficiency, more severe COVID, and blocking vaccine responses, are becoming bigger issues for day-to-day practice,” he noted. Nonetheless, “the introduction of rituximab has been a revolution in AAV treatment. It has encouraged pharma investment in the disease, such as recent approval of avacopan [Tavneos], and it is helping patients.”

Why simulate and not perform a randomized trial?

There were several reasons for performing the current evaluation, study coauthor Benjamin Terrier, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

“The pivotal study, published in 2010, that led to the approval of rituximab was a noninferiority study in comparison with cyclophosphamide, but it included patients with both GPA, granulomatosis with polyangiitis, and MPA, microscopic polyangiitis,” explained Dr. Terrier, professor of internal medicine at the National Referral Center for Rare Systemic Autoimmune Diseases at Cochin Hospital in Paris.

“A post hoc analysis showed that, in the patients with a PR3 [proteinase 3]-ANCA and in the patients with relapsing disease, rituximab was superior,” he added.

“So, there was some data which suggest that rituximab could be differentially effective between the different subgroups of patients. So that’s why we wanted to answer this question.”

Since it is not always feasible to do a randomized trial, particularly when it concerns a rare disease such as GPA, Dr. Terrier and associates decided to perform a target trial emulation using data from the FVSG registry, which collates information from 32 hospitals in France. Such studies are gaining in popularity and have been shown to provide a very good level of evidence, he said.
 

Data collections and secondary endpoint results

The researchers obtained data on 194 patients in the registry who were treated for GPA between April 2008 and April 2018. The majority (85.1%) of patients included were newly diagnosed with GPA, and 56.7% were men. The mean age of patients was 54 years.

Information on the PR3-ANCA status of patients was available for 182 patients, and this showed that the majority (80.8%) were positive for this autoantibody.

A weighted analysis was undertaken to iron out any differences in baseline characteristics, such as the fact that more patients had been treated with at least one dose of cyclophosphamide than rituximab (133 vs. 61).

The primary outcome was remission at 6 months, but a key secondary endpoint was the percentage of patients with a BVAS score of zero at this time point. This turned out to be similar among the rituximab- and cyclophosphamide-treated patients (85.5% vs. 82.6%, respectively).

Another secondary endpoint looked at the retention rate without failure at 24 months, with fewer postinclusion treatment failures seen with rituximab than with cyclophosphamide (7 vs. 51 patients, respectively). Most treatment failures were caused by relapses (7 vs. 33).

In terms of safety, the researchers said they found “no increased toxicity signal” for rituximab over cyclophosphamide. In fact, more severe adverse events were noted in the latter group.

Take-home messages

While of course there are limitations, considering the earlier data and the current results, “we probably have enough data to consider that, in the vast majority of GPA patients, in PR3-ANCA patients, rituximab is probably the best option,” Dr. Terrier said.

There are still patients for whom there isn’t a definitive answer on which drug may be best, such as those with severe disease who were not included in the trials or represent few patients in the registry. For them, it is “still a case-by-case discussion, and I think we have to decide really, with caution,” Dr. Terrier said.

What this study also shows is that emulated trials are possible, he added. “I think it shows that we could have some answers to other questions by emulating trials in this rare disease.”

The FVSG registry has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program. Dr. Terrier reported receiving personal fees from Vifor Pharma Group, GlaxoSmithKline, and AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study. Dr. Jayne has received lecture fees and a research grant from Roche/Genentech.

Efficacy of the investigational drug lebrikizumab is maintained in patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis for at least 1 year, according to new results from the phase 3 ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials.

“We’re focused on the responders,” said Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, as he presented the positive findings at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Responders were the 291 people whose atopic dermatitis greatly improved after an initial 16 weeks’ treatment with lebrikizumab in both trials and who were then randomly allocated to receive injections every 2 weeks (Q2W, n = 113) or every 4 weeks (Q4W, n = 118), or to receive placebo injections Q2W (n = 60).

“Very interestingly, for me, the Q4W maintenance dosing was just as good as the Q2W maintenance dosing,” said Dr. Blauvelt, president of Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland.

“Another highlight of these data is that the patients who went on to placebo, about 50% of the patients maintained good responses, despite no treatment from week 16 to week 52,” he added.

Most patients did not require topical steroids, and “there were no surprises here” in terms of the safety profile. Lebrikizumab, a monoclonal antibody, binds to soluble interleukin-13 and blocks IL-13 signaling.

“So, the study really shows that specific targeting of IL-13 with lebrikizumab, either Q2W or Q4W, has high maintenance of efficacy and is reasonably tolerated and safe in adolescents and adults with atopic dermatitis,” Dr. Blauvelt concluded.

“We know now that IL-13 is a critical cytokine in AD [atopic dermatitis] pathogenesis. The unique features of this drug I want to highlight is that it has high binding affinity for IL-13,” he said.

“It has a slow dissociation off rate, meaning it binds IL-13 tightly, very potently, and stays blocking and stays hold of IL-13 in a strong manner,” he added. The drug has a half-life of 25 days.

These features could be very important for long-term dosing of the drug, he argued.
 

Lebrikizumab phase 3 trials

ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 are two of several phase 3 trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab for the treatment of atopic dermatitis.

These include the completed ADhere study, in which lebrikizumab was used in combination with topical steroids and showed positive results in skin improvement and relief of pruritus.

The ADore study, an open-label trial in adolescents, is yet to report. The ongoing ADjoin study, a long-term extension study, is actively recruiting.

ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 are two identically designed – multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group – monotherapy trials that initially pitched two dosing regimens of lebrikizumab (250 mg) against placebo with a double loading dose at baseline and week 2 and then one dose every 2 weeks. The pair of trials enrolled a total of 869 adolescents and adults.

After the 16-week induction period, all patients in the lebrikizumab arm who had responded to treatment were rerandomly assigned to receive lebrikizumab 250 mg Q2W or Q4W, or placebo Q2W during a 36-week long-term maintenance treatment period.

This brought the total treatment time to 52 weeks for those whose atopic dermatitis had initially responded to lebrikizumab, explained Blauvelt.

Responders were those who, at 16 weeks, had an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 (IGA 0/1) with a 2-point improvement or who had a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score (EASI 75) without the need for rescue medication, compared with baseline values.
 

Induction and maintenance phase results

At the end of the 16-week induction period, a greater proportion of patients who had been treated with lebrikizumab than placebo met a primary outcome of IGA 0/1 in each trial (43.1% vs. 12.7% in ADvocate1 and 33.2% vs. 10.8% in ADvocate2).

A similar result was seen for another primary outcome, EASI 75 (58.8% vs. 16.2% and 52.1% vs. 18.1%) and for a secondary outcome, improvement in pruritus using a numerical rating scale (45.9% vs. 13.0% and 39.8% vs. 11.5%).

In the maintenance phase, with respect to responders, Dr. Blauvelt reported “very similar results” between the QW2 and Q4W maintenance dosing, “and still a quite high response in [half] the patients who were randomized to placebo at week 16.”

In the ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials, respectively, an IGA 0/1 with at least a 2-point improvement was maintained at week 52 in 75.8% and 64.6% of patients treated with the Q2W lebrikizumab dose, 74.2% and 80.6% of those treated with the Q4W dose, and 46.5% and 49.8% of those given placebo.

EASI 75 was maintained at week 52 in a respective 79.2% and 77.4% of patients treated with the Q2W dose, 79.2% and 84.7% with the Q4W dose, and 61.3% and 72.0% with placebo.

As for maintenance of at least a 4-point improvement in pruritus score, results at 52 weeks were 81.2% and 90.3% for the 2-week dose, 80.4% and 88.1% for the 4-week dose, and 65.4% and 67.6% for placebo.

Although topical corticosteroid treatment was allowed during the maintenance phase, only about 15% of patients needed this, Dr. Blauvelt said.
 

Different dosing results questioned

During the discussion period, one delegate highlighted that the twice-weekly maintenance dosing schedule seemed to “do worse a little bit” than the 4-week dosing, with both “close to placebo,” although “the long-term effect is already very impressive.”

Dr. Blauvelt noted that a pooled analysis had been done and that “it’s very clear that being on lebrikizumab works better than not being on lebrikizumab.

“Now, Q2W versus Q4W. We believe that this may be due to the long half-life of the drug possibly. It could be due to the slow disassociation rate, it’s binding tightly,” he suggested.

“We also could talk about disease modification, right. So, it opens up the concept of hit hard, hit early for 16 weeks, and then maybe you can modify disease over time,” Dr. Blauvelt said.

He added: “That’s highly speculative, of course.”

Short-term safety data

The 52-week safety profile of lebrikizumab is consistent with previously published data at 16 weeks, Dr. Blauvelt said. The most common adverse events during the studies included atopic dermatitis, nasopharyngitis, conjunctivitis, conjunctivitis allergic, headache, and COVID-19.

“This drug has comparable efficacy with dupilumab and tralokinumab,” said Jashin J. Wu, MD, from the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., in an interview. He was not involved in the study.

“As it does not have any significant advantages with less long-term safety data, I do not see a place for it in my practice,” Dr. Wu said.

Dupilumab (Dupixent) and tralokinumab (Adbry) are monoclonal antibodies that also block IL-13. Both are already licensed for treating atopic dermatitis. Dupilumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2017, and tralokinumab was approved in 2021.

The study was funded by Dermira, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly. Eli Lilly has exclusive rights for the development and commercialization of lebrikizumab in the United States and all countries outside Europe; European rights belong to Almirall for all dermatology indications, including atopic dermatitis. Dr. Blauvelt acts as an investigator and adviser to these companies as well as many other pharmaceutical companies that are involved in developing new dermatologic treatments. Dr. Wu has been an investigator, consultant, or speaker for multiple pharmaceutical companies.

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

Efficacy of the investigational drug lebrikizumab is maintained in patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis for at least 1 year, according to new results from the phase 3 ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials.

“We’re focused on the responders,” said Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, as he presented the positive findings at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Responders were the 291 people whose atopic dermatitis greatly improved after an initial 16 weeks’ treatment with lebrikizumab in both trials and who were then randomly allocated to receive injections every 2 weeks (Q2W, n = 113) or every 4 weeks (Q4W, n = 118), or to receive placebo injections Q2W (n = 60).

“Very interestingly, for me, the Q4W maintenance dosing was just as good as the Q2W maintenance dosing,” said Dr. Blauvelt, president of Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland.

“Another highlight of these data is that the patients who went on to placebo, about 50% of the patients maintained good responses, despite no treatment from week 16 to week 52,” he added.

Most patients did not require topical steroids, and “there were no surprises here” in terms of the safety profile. Lebrikizumab, a monoclonal antibody, binds to soluble interleukin-13 and blocks IL-13 signaling.

“So, the study really shows that specific targeting of IL-13 with lebrikizumab, either Q2W or Q4W, has high maintenance of efficacy and is reasonably tolerated and safe in adolescents and adults with atopic dermatitis,” Dr. Blauvelt concluded.

“We know now that IL-13 is a critical cytokine in AD [atopic dermatitis] pathogenesis. The unique features of this drug I want to highlight is that it has high binding affinity for IL-13,” he said.

“It has a slow dissociation off rate, meaning it binds IL-13 tightly, very potently, and stays blocking and stays hold of IL-13 in a strong manner,” he added. The drug has a half-life of 25 days.

These features could be very important for long-term dosing of the drug, he argued.
 

Lebrikizumab phase 3 trials

ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 are two of several phase 3 trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab for the treatment of atopic dermatitis.

These include the completed ADhere study, in which lebrikizumab was used in combination with topical steroids and showed positive results in skin improvement and relief of pruritus.

The ADore study, an open-label trial in adolescents, is yet to report. The ongoing ADjoin study, a long-term extension study, is actively recruiting.

ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 are two identically designed – multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group – monotherapy trials that initially pitched two dosing regimens of lebrikizumab (250 mg) against placebo with a double loading dose at baseline and week 2 and then one dose every 2 weeks. The pair of trials enrolled a total of 869 adolescents and adults.

After the 16-week induction period, all patients in the lebrikizumab arm who had responded to treatment were rerandomly assigned to receive lebrikizumab 250 mg Q2W or Q4W, or placebo Q2W during a 36-week long-term maintenance treatment period.

This brought the total treatment time to 52 weeks for those whose atopic dermatitis had initially responded to lebrikizumab, explained Blauvelt.

Responders were those who, at 16 weeks, had an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 (IGA 0/1) with a 2-point improvement or who had a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score (EASI 75) without the need for rescue medication, compared with baseline values.
 

Induction and maintenance phase results

At the end of the 16-week induction period, a greater proportion of patients who had been treated with lebrikizumab than placebo met a primary outcome of IGA 0/1 in each trial (43.1% vs. 12.7% in ADvocate1 and 33.2% vs. 10.8% in ADvocate2).

A similar result was seen for another primary outcome, EASI 75 (58.8% vs. 16.2% and 52.1% vs. 18.1%) and for a secondary outcome, improvement in pruritus using a numerical rating scale (45.9% vs. 13.0% and 39.8% vs. 11.5%).

In the maintenance phase, with respect to responders, Dr. Blauvelt reported “very similar results” between the QW2 and Q4W maintenance dosing, “and still a quite high response in [half] the patients who were randomized to placebo at week 16.”

In the ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials, respectively, an IGA 0/1 with at least a 2-point improvement was maintained at week 52 in 75.8% and 64.6% of patients treated with the Q2W lebrikizumab dose, 74.2% and 80.6% of those treated with the Q4W dose, and 46.5% and 49.8% of those given placebo.

EASI 75 was maintained at week 52 in a respective 79.2% and 77.4% of patients treated with the Q2W dose, 79.2% and 84.7% with the Q4W dose, and 61.3% and 72.0% with placebo.

As for maintenance of at least a 4-point improvement in pruritus score, results at 52 weeks were 81.2% and 90.3% for the 2-week dose, 80.4% and 88.1% for the 4-week dose, and 65.4% and 67.6% for placebo.

Although topical corticosteroid treatment was allowed during the maintenance phase, only about 15% of patients needed this, Dr. Blauvelt said.
 

Different dosing results questioned

During the discussion period, one delegate highlighted that the twice-weekly maintenance dosing schedule seemed to “do worse a little bit” than the 4-week dosing, with both “close to placebo,” although “the long-term effect is already very impressive.”

Dr. Blauvelt noted that a pooled analysis had been done and that “it’s very clear that being on lebrikizumab works better than not being on lebrikizumab.

“Now, Q2W versus Q4W. We believe that this may be due to the long half-life of the drug possibly. It could be due to the slow disassociation rate, it’s binding tightly,” he suggested.

“We also could talk about disease modification, right. So, it opens up the concept of hit hard, hit early for 16 weeks, and then maybe you can modify disease over time,” Dr. Blauvelt said.

He added: “That’s highly speculative, of course.”

Short-term safety data

The 52-week safety profile of lebrikizumab is consistent with previously published data at 16 weeks, Dr. Blauvelt said. The most common adverse events during the studies included atopic dermatitis, nasopharyngitis, conjunctivitis, conjunctivitis allergic, headache, and COVID-19.

“This drug has comparable efficacy with dupilumab and tralokinumab,” said Jashin J. Wu, MD, from the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., in an interview. He was not involved in the study.

“As it does not have any significant advantages with less long-term safety data, I do not see a place for it in my practice,” Dr. Wu said.

Dupilumab (Dupixent) and tralokinumab (Adbry) are monoclonal antibodies that also block IL-13. Both are already licensed for treating atopic dermatitis. Dupilumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2017, and tralokinumab was approved in 2021.

The study was funded by Dermira, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly. Eli Lilly has exclusive rights for the development and commercialization of lebrikizumab in the United States and all countries outside Europe; European rights belong to Almirall for all dermatology indications, including atopic dermatitis. Dr. Blauvelt acts as an investigator and adviser to these companies as well as many other pharmaceutical companies that are involved in developing new dermatologic treatments. Dr. Wu has been an investigator, consultant, or speaker for multiple pharmaceutical companies.

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

Efficacy of the investigational drug lebrikizumab is maintained in patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis for at least 1 year, according to new results from the phase 3 ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials.

“We’re focused on the responders,” said Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, as he presented the positive findings at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Responders were the 291 people whose atopic dermatitis greatly improved after an initial 16 weeks’ treatment with lebrikizumab in both trials and who were then randomly allocated to receive injections every 2 weeks (Q2W, n = 113) or every 4 weeks (Q4W, n = 118), or to receive placebo injections Q2W (n = 60).

“Very interestingly, for me, the Q4W maintenance dosing was just as good as the Q2W maintenance dosing,” said Dr. Blauvelt, president of Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland.

“Another highlight of these data is that the patients who went on to placebo, about 50% of the patients maintained good responses, despite no treatment from week 16 to week 52,” he added.

Most patients did not require topical steroids, and “there were no surprises here” in terms of the safety profile. Lebrikizumab, a monoclonal antibody, binds to soluble interleukin-13 and blocks IL-13 signaling.

“So, the study really shows that specific targeting of IL-13 with lebrikizumab, either Q2W or Q4W, has high maintenance of efficacy and is reasonably tolerated and safe in adolescents and adults with atopic dermatitis,” Dr. Blauvelt concluded.

“We know now that IL-13 is a critical cytokine in AD [atopic dermatitis] pathogenesis. The unique features of this drug I want to highlight is that it has high binding affinity for IL-13,” he said.

“It has a slow dissociation off rate, meaning it binds IL-13 tightly, very potently, and stays blocking and stays hold of IL-13 in a strong manner,” he added. The drug has a half-life of 25 days.

These features could be very important for long-term dosing of the drug, he argued.
 

Lebrikizumab phase 3 trials

ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 are two of several phase 3 trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab for the treatment of atopic dermatitis.

These include the completed ADhere study, in which lebrikizumab was used in combination with topical steroids and showed positive results in skin improvement and relief of pruritus.

The ADore study, an open-label trial in adolescents, is yet to report. The ongoing ADjoin study, a long-term extension study, is actively recruiting.

ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 are two identically designed – multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group – monotherapy trials that initially pitched two dosing regimens of lebrikizumab (250 mg) against placebo with a double loading dose at baseline and week 2 and then one dose every 2 weeks. The pair of trials enrolled a total of 869 adolescents and adults.

After the 16-week induction period, all patients in the lebrikizumab arm who had responded to treatment were rerandomly assigned to receive lebrikizumab 250 mg Q2W or Q4W, or placebo Q2W during a 36-week long-term maintenance treatment period.

This brought the total treatment time to 52 weeks for those whose atopic dermatitis had initially responded to lebrikizumab, explained Blauvelt.

Responders were those who, at 16 weeks, had an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 (IGA 0/1) with a 2-point improvement or who had a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score (EASI 75) without the need for rescue medication, compared with baseline values.
 

Induction and maintenance phase results

At the end of the 16-week induction period, a greater proportion of patients who had been treated with lebrikizumab than placebo met a primary outcome of IGA 0/1 in each trial (43.1% vs. 12.7% in ADvocate1 and 33.2% vs. 10.8% in ADvocate2).

A similar result was seen for another primary outcome, EASI 75 (58.8% vs. 16.2% and 52.1% vs. 18.1%) and for a secondary outcome, improvement in pruritus using a numerical rating scale (45.9% vs. 13.0% and 39.8% vs. 11.5%).

In the maintenance phase, with respect to responders, Dr. Blauvelt reported “very similar results” between the QW2 and Q4W maintenance dosing, “and still a quite high response in [half] the patients who were randomized to placebo at week 16.”

In the ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials, respectively, an IGA 0/1 with at least a 2-point improvement was maintained at week 52 in 75.8% and 64.6% of patients treated with the Q2W lebrikizumab dose, 74.2% and 80.6% of those treated with the Q4W dose, and 46.5% and 49.8% of those given placebo.

EASI 75 was maintained at week 52 in a respective 79.2% and 77.4% of patients treated with the Q2W dose, 79.2% and 84.7% with the Q4W dose, and 61.3% and 72.0% with placebo.

As for maintenance of at least a 4-point improvement in pruritus score, results at 52 weeks were 81.2% and 90.3% for the 2-week dose, 80.4% and 88.1% for the 4-week dose, and 65.4% and 67.6% for placebo.

Although topical corticosteroid treatment was allowed during the maintenance phase, only about 15% of patients needed this, Dr. Blauvelt said.
 

Different dosing results questioned

During the discussion period, one delegate highlighted that the twice-weekly maintenance dosing schedule seemed to “do worse a little bit” than the 4-week dosing, with both “close to placebo,” although “the long-term effect is already very impressive.”

Dr. Blauvelt noted that a pooled analysis had been done and that “it’s very clear that being on lebrikizumab works better than not being on lebrikizumab.

“Now, Q2W versus Q4W. We believe that this may be due to the long half-life of the drug possibly. It could be due to the slow disassociation rate, it’s binding tightly,” he suggested.

“We also could talk about disease modification, right. So, it opens up the concept of hit hard, hit early for 16 weeks, and then maybe you can modify disease over time,” Dr. Blauvelt said.

He added: “That’s highly speculative, of course.”

Short-term safety data

The 52-week safety profile of lebrikizumab is consistent with previously published data at 16 weeks, Dr. Blauvelt said. The most common adverse events during the studies included atopic dermatitis, nasopharyngitis, conjunctivitis, conjunctivitis allergic, headache, and COVID-19.

“This drug has comparable efficacy with dupilumab and tralokinumab,” said Jashin J. Wu, MD, from the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., in an interview. He was not involved in the study.

“As it does not have any significant advantages with less long-term safety data, I do not see a place for it in my practice,” Dr. Wu said.

Dupilumab (Dupixent) and tralokinumab (Adbry) are monoclonal antibodies that also block IL-13. Both are already licensed for treating atopic dermatitis. Dupilumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2017, and tralokinumab was approved in 2021.

The study was funded by Dermira, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly. Eli Lilly has exclusive rights for the development and commercialization of lebrikizumab in the United States and all countries outside Europe; European rights belong to Almirall for all dermatology indications, including atopic dermatitis. Dr. Blauvelt acts as an investigator and adviser to these companies as well as many other pharmaceutical companies that are involved in developing new dermatologic treatments. Dr. Wu has been an investigator, consultant, or speaker for multiple pharmaceutical companies.

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

Ruxolitinib cream can help repigment the skin in many body areas affected with vitiligo, researchers reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Those difficult areas include the hands and feet, said Thierry Passeron, MD, PhD, of Université Côte d’Azur and Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice (France).

Indeed, a 50% or greater improvement in the Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (VASI-50) of the hands and feet was achieved with ruxolitinib cream (Opzelura) in around one-third of patients after 52 weeks’ treatment, and more than half of patients showed improvement in the upper and lower extremities.

During one of the late-breaking news sessions, Dr. Passeron presented a pooled analysis of the Topical Ruxolitinib Evaluation in Vitiligo Study 1 (TRuE-V1) and Study 2 (TruE-V2), which assessed VASI-50 data by body regions.

Similarly positive results were seen on the head and neck and the trunk, with VASI-50 being reached in a respective 68% and 48% of patients after a full year of treatment.

“VASI-50 response rates rose steadily through 52 weeks for both the head and trunk,” said Dr. Passeron. He noted that the trials were initially double-blinded for 24 weeks and that there was a further open-label extension phase through week 52.

In the latter phase, all patients were treated with ruxolitinib; those who originally received a vehicle agent as placebo crossed over to the active treatment.
 

First FDA-approved treatment for adults and adolescents with vitiligo

Ruxolitinib is a Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor that has been available for the treatment for atopic dermatitis for more than a year. It was recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of vitiligo in adults and pediatric patients aged 12 years and older.

This approval was based on the positive findings of the TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V2 studies, which showed that after 24 weeks, 30% of patients treated with ruxolitinib had at least 75% improvement in the facial VASI, compared with 10% of placebo-treated patients.

“These studies demonstrated very nice results, especially on the face, which is the easiest part to repigment in vitiligo,” Dr. Passeron said.

“We know that the location is very important when it comes to repigmentation of vitiligo,” he added. He noted that other body areas, “the extremities, for example, are much more difficult.”

The analysis he presented specifically assessed the effect of ruxolitinib cream on repigmentation in other areas.

Pooled analysis performed

Data from the two TRuE-V trials were pooled. The new analysis included a total of 661 individuals; of those patients, 443 had been treated with topical ruxolitinib, and 218 had received a vehicle cream as a placebo.

For the first 24 weeks, patients received twice-daily 1.5% ruxolitinib cream or vehicle cream. This was followed by a 28-week extension phase in which everyone was treated with ruxolitinib cream, after which there was a 30-day final follow-up period.

Dr. Passeron reported data by body region for weeks 12, 24, and 52, which showed an increasing percentage of patients with VASI-50.

“We didn’t look at the face; that we know well, that is a very good result,” he said.

The best results were seen for the head and neck. VASI-50 was reached by 28.3%, 45.3%, and 68.1% of patients treated with ruxolitinib cream at weeks 12, 24, and 52, respectively. Corresponding rates for the placebo-crossover group were 19.8%, 23.8%, and 51%.

Repigmentation rates of the hand, upper extremities, trunk, lower extremities, and feet were about 9%-15% for both ruxolitinib and placebo at 12 weeks, but by 24 weeks, there was a clear increase in repigmentation rates in the ruxolitinib group for all body areas.

The 24-week VASI-50 rates for hand repigmentation were 24.9% for ruxolitinib cream and 14.4% for placebo. Corresponding rates for upper extremity repigmentation were 33.2% and 8.2%; for the trunk, 26.4% and 12.2%; for the lower extremities, 29.5% and 12.2%; and for the feet, 18.5% and 12.5%.

“The results are quite poor at 12 weeks,” Dr. Passeron said. “It’s very important to keep this in mind; it takes time to repigment vitiligo, it takes to 6-24 months. We have to explain to our patients that they will have to wait to see the results.”
 

Steady improvements, no new safety concerns

Regarding VASI-50 over time, there was a steady increase in total body scores; 47.7% of patients who received ruxolitinib and 23.3% of placebo-treated patients hit this target at 52 weeks.

“And what is also very important to see is that we didn’t reach the plateau,” Dr. Passeron reported.

Similar patterns were seen for all the other body areas. Again there was a suggestion that rates may continue to rise with continued long-term treatment.

“About one-third of the patients reached at least 50% repigmentation after 1 year of treatment in the hands and feet,” Dr. Passeron said. He noted that certain areas, such as the back of the hand or tips of the fingers, may be unresponsive.

“So, we have to also to warn the patient that probably on these areas we have to combine it with other treatment because it remains very, very difficult to treat.”

There were no new safety concerns regarding treatment-emergent adverse events, which were reported in 52% of patients who received ruxolitinib and in 36% of placebo-treated patients.

The most common adverse reactions included COVID-19 (6.1% vs. 3.1%), acne at the application site (5.3% vs. 1.3%), and pruritus at the application site (3.9% vs. 2.7%), although cases were “mild or moderate,” said Dr. Passeron.
 

An expert’s take-home

“The results of TRuE-V phase 3 studies are encouraging and exciting,” Viktoria Eleftheriadou, MD, MRCP(UK), SCE(Derm), PhD, said in providing an independent comment for this news organization.

“Although ruxolitinib cream is applied on the skin, this novel treatment for vitiligo is not without risks; therefore, careful monitoring of patients who are started on this topical treatment would be prudent,” said Dr. Eleftheriadou, who is a consultant dermatologist for Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust and the Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom.

“I would like to see how many patients achieved VASI-75 or VASI-80 score, which from patients’ perspectives is a more meaningful outcome, as well as how long these results will last for,” she added.

The study was funded by Incyte Corporation. Dr. Passeron has received grants, honoraria, or both from AbbVie, ACM Pharma, Almirall, Amgen, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Galderma, Genzyme/Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte Corporation, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and UCB. Dr. Passeron is the cofounder of YUKIN Therapeutics and has patents on WNT agonists or GSK2b antagonist for repigmentation of vitiligo and on the use of CXCR3B blockers in vitiligo. Dr. Eleftheriadou is an investigator and trial development group member on the HI-Light Vitiligo Trial (specific), a lead investigator on the pilot HI-Light Vitiligo Trial, and a medical advisory panel member of the Vitiligo Society UK. Dr. Eleftheriadou also provides consultancy services to Incyte and Pfizer.

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

Ruxolitinib cream can help repigment the skin in many body areas affected with vitiligo, researchers reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Those difficult areas include the hands and feet, said Thierry Passeron, MD, PhD, of Université Côte d’Azur and Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice (France).

Indeed, a 50% or greater improvement in the Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (VASI-50) of the hands and feet was achieved with ruxolitinib cream (Opzelura) in around one-third of patients after 52 weeks’ treatment, and more than half of patients showed improvement in the upper and lower extremities.

During one of the late-breaking news sessions, Dr. Passeron presented a pooled analysis of the Topical Ruxolitinib Evaluation in Vitiligo Study 1 (TRuE-V1) and Study 2 (TruE-V2), which assessed VASI-50 data by body regions.

Similarly positive results were seen on the head and neck and the trunk, with VASI-50 being reached in a respective 68% and 48% of patients after a full year of treatment.

“VASI-50 response rates rose steadily through 52 weeks for both the head and trunk,” said Dr. Passeron. He noted that the trials were initially double-blinded for 24 weeks and that there was a further open-label extension phase through week 52.

In the latter phase, all patients were treated with ruxolitinib; those who originally received a vehicle agent as placebo crossed over to the active treatment.
 

First FDA-approved treatment for adults and adolescents with vitiligo

Ruxolitinib is a Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor that has been available for the treatment for atopic dermatitis for more than a year. It was recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of vitiligo in adults and pediatric patients aged 12 years and older.

This approval was based on the positive findings of the TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V2 studies, which showed that after 24 weeks, 30% of patients treated with ruxolitinib had at least 75% improvement in the facial VASI, compared with 10% of placebo-treated patients.

“These studies demonstrated very nice results, especially on the face, which is the easiest part to repigment in vitiligo,” Dr. Passeron said.

“We know that the location is very important when it comes to repigmentation of vitiligo,” he added. He noted that other body areas, “the extremities, for example, are much more difficult.”

The analysis he presented specifically assessed the effect of ruxolitinib cream on repigmentation in other areas.

Pooled analysis performed

Data from the two TRuE-V trials were pooled. The new analysis included a total of 661 individuals; of those patients, 443 had been treated with topical ruxolitinib, and 218 had received a vehicle cream as a placebo.

For the first 24 weeks, patients received twice-daily 1.5% ruxolitinib cream or vehicle cream. This was followed by a 28-week extension phase in which everyone was treated with ruxolitinib cream, after which there was a 30-day final follow-up period.

Dr. Passeron reported data by body region for weeks 12, 24, and 52, which showed an increasing percentage of patients with VASI-50.

“We didn’t look at the face; that we know well, that is a very good result,” he said.

The best results were seen for the head and neck. VASI-50 was reached by 28.3%, 45.3%, and 68.1% of patients treated with ruxolitinib cream at weeks 12, 24, and 52, respectively. Corresponding rates for the placebo-crossover group were 19.8%, 23.8%, and 51%.

Repigmentation rates of the hand, upper extremities, trunk, lower extremities, and feet were about 9%-15% for both ruxolitinib and placebo at 12 weeks, but by 24 weeks, there was a clear increase in repigmentation rates in the ruxolitinib group for all body areas.

The 24-week VASI-50 rates for hand repigmentation were 24.9% for ruxolitinib cream and 14.4% for placebo. Corresponding rates for upper extremity repigmentation were 33.2% and 8.2%; for the trunk, 26.4% and 12.2%; for the lower extremities, 29.5% and 12.2%; and for the feet, 18.5% and 12.5%.

“The results are quite poor at 12 weeks,” Dr. Passeron said. “It’s very important to keep this in mind; it takes time to repigment vitiligo, it takes to 6-24 months. We have to explain to our patients that they will have to wait to see the results.”
 

Steady improvements, no new safety concerns

Regarding VASI-50 over time, there was a steady increase in total body scores; 47.7% of patients who received ruxolitinib and 23.3% of placebo-treated patients hit this target at 52 weeks.

“And what is also very important to see is that we didn’t reach the plateau,” Dr. Passeron reported.

Similar patterns were seen for all the other body areas. Again there was a suggestion that rates may continue to rise with continued long-term treatment.

“About one-third of the patients reached at least 50% repigmentation after 1 year of treatment in the hands and feet,” Dr. Passeron said. He noted that certain areas, such as the back of the hand or tips of the fingers, may be unresponsive.

“So, we have to also to warn the patient that probably on these areas we have to combine it with other treatment because it remains very, very difficult to treat.”

There were no new safety concerns regarding treatment-emergent adverse events, which were reported in 52% of patients who received ruxolitinib and in 36% of placebo-treated patients.

The most common adverse reactions included COVID-19 (6.1% vs. 3.1%), acne at the application site (5.3% vs. 1.3%), and pruritus at the application site (3.9% vs. 2.7%), although cases were “mild or moderate,” said Dr. Passeron.
 

An expert’s take-home

“The results of TRuE-V phase 3 studies are encouraging and exciting,” Viktoria Eleftheriadou, MD, MRCP(UK), SCE(Derm), PhD, said in providing an independent comment for this news organization.

“Although ruxolitinib cream is applied on the skin, this novel treatment for vitiligo is not without risks; therefore, careful monitoring of patients who are started on this topical treatment would be prudent,” said Dr. Eleftheriadou, who is a consultant dermatologist for Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust and the Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom.

“I would like to see how many patients achieved VASI-75 or VASI-80 score, which from patients’ perspectives is a more meaningful outcome, as well as how long these results will last for,” she added.

The study was funded by Incyte Corporation. Dr. Passeron has received grants, honoraria, or both from AbbVie, ACM Pharma, Almirall, Amgen, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Galderma, Genzyme/Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte Corporation, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and UCB. Dr. Passeron is the cofounder of YUKIN Therapeutics and has patents on WNT agonists or GSK2b antagonist for repigmentation of vitiligo and on the use of CXCR3B blockers in vitiligo. Dr. Eleftheriadou is an investigator and trial development group member on the HI-Light Vitiligo Trial (specific), a lead investigator on the pilot HI-Light Vitiligo Trial, and a medical advisory panel member of the Vitiligo Society UK. Dr. Eleftheriadou also provides consultancy services to Incyte and Pfizer.

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

Ruxolitinib cream can help repigment the skin in many body areas affected with vitiligo, researchers reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Those difficult areas include the hands and feet, said Thierry Passeron, MD, PhD, of Université Côte d’Azur and Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice (France).

Indeed, a 50% or greater improvement in the Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (VASI-50) of the hands and feet was achieved with ruxolitinib cream (Opzelura) in around one-third of patients after 52 weeks’ treatment, and more than half of patients showed improvement in the upper and lower extremities.

During one of the late-breaking news sessions, Dr. Passeron presented a pooled analysis of the Topical Ruxolitinib Evaluation in Vitiligo Study 1 (TRuE-V1) and Study 2 (TruE-V2), which assessed VASI-50 data by body regions.

Similarly positive results were seen on the head and neck and the trunk, with VASI-50 being reached in a respective 68% and 48% of patients after a full year of treatment.

“VASI-50 response rates rose steadily through 52 weeks for both the head and trunk,” said Dr. Passeron. He noted that the trials were initially double-blinded for 24 weeks and that there was a further open-label extension phase through week 52.

In the latter phase, all patients were treated with ruxolitinib; those who originally received a vehicle agent as placebo crossed over to the active treatment.
 

First FDA-approved treatment for adults and adolescents with vitiligo

Ruxolitinib is a Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor that has been available for the treatment for atopic dermatitis for more than a year. It was recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of vitiligo in adults and pediatric patients aged 12 years and older.

This approval was based on the positive findings of the TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V2 studies, which showed that after 24 weeks, 30% of patients treated with ruxolitinib had at least 75% improvement in the facial VASI, compared with 10% of placebo-treated patients.

“These studies demonstrated very nice results, especially on the face, which is the easiest part to repigment in vitiligo,” Dr. Passeron said.

“We know that the location is very important when it comes to repigmentation of vitiligo,” he added. He noted that other body areas, “the extremities, for example, are much more difficult.”

The analysis he presented specifically assessed the effect of ruxolitinib cream on repigmentation in other areas.

Pooled analysis performed

Data from the two TRuE-V trials were pooled. The new analysis included a total of 661 individuals; of those patients, 443 had been treated with topical ruxolitinib, and 218 had received a vehicle cream as a placebo.

For the first 24 weeks, patients received twice-daily 1.5% ruxolitinib cream or vehicle cream. This was followed by a 28-week extension phase in which everyone was treated with ruxolitinib cream, after which there was a 30-day final follow-up period.

Dr. Passeron reported data by body region for weeks 12, 24, and 52, which showed an increasing percentage of patients with VASI-50.

“We didn’t look at the face; that we know well, that is a very good result,” he said.

The best results were seen for the head and neck. VASI-50 was reached by 28.3%, 45.3%, and 68.1% of patients treated with ruxolitinib cream at weeks 12, 24, and 52, respectively. Corresponding rates for the placebo-crossover group were 19.8%, 23.8%, and 51%.

Repigmentation rates of the hand, upper extremities, trunk, lower extremities, and feet were about 9%-15% for both ruxolitinib and placebo at 12 weeks, but by 24 weeks, there was a clear increase in repigmentation rates in the ruxolitinib group for all body areas.

The 24-week VASI-50 rates for hand repigmentation were 24.9% for ruxolitinib cream and 14.4% for placebo. Corresponding rates for upper extremity repigmentation were 33.2% and 8.2%; for the trunk, 26.4% and 12.2%; for the lower extremities, 29.5% and 12.2%; and for the feet, 18.5% and 12.5%.

“The results are quite poor at 12 weeks,” Dr. Passeron said. “It’s very important to keep this in mind; it takes time to repigment vitiligo, it takes to 6-24 months. We have to explain to our patients that they will have to wait to see the results.”
 

Steady improvements, no new safety concerns

Regarding VASI-50 over time, there was a steady increase in total body scores; 47.7% of patients who received ruxolitinib and 23.3% of placebo-treated patients hit this target at 52 weeks.

“And what is also very important to see is that we didn’t reach the plateau,” Dr. Passeron reported.

Similar patterns were seen for all the other body areas. Again there was a suggestion that rates may continue to rise with continued long-term treatment.

“About one-third of the patients reached at least 50% repigmentation after 1 year of treatment in the hands and feet,” Dr. Passeron said. He noted that certain areas, such as the back of the hand or tips of the fingers, may be unresponsive.

“So, we have to also to warn the patient that probably on these areas we have to combine it with other treatment because it remains very, very difficult to treat.”

There were no new safety concerns regarding treatment-emergent adverse events, which were reported in 52% of patients who received ruxolitinib and in 36% of placebo-treated patients.

The most common adverse reactions included COVID-19 (6.1% vs. 3.1%), acne at the application site (5.3% vs. 1.3%), and pruritus at the application site (3.9% vs. 2.7%), although cases were “mild or moderate,” said Dr. Passeron.
 

An expert’s take-home

“The results of TRuE-V phase 3 studies are encouraging and exciting,” Viktoria Eleftheriadou, MD, MRCP(UK), SCE(Derm), PhD, said in providing an independent comment for this news organization.

“Although ruxolitinib cream is applied on the skin, this novel treatment for vitiligo is not without risks; therefore, careful monitoring of patients who are started on this topical treatment would be prudent,” said Dr. Eleftheriadou, who is a consultant dermatologist for Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust and the Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom.

“I would like to see how many patients achieved VASI-75 or VASI-80 score, which from patients’ perspectives is a more meaningful outcome, as well as how long these results will last for,” she added.

The study was funded by Incyte Corporation. Dr. Passeron has received grants, honoraria, or both from AbbVie, ACM Pharma, Almirall, Amgen, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Galderma, Genzyme/Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte Corporation, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and UCB. Dr. Passeron is the cofounder of YUKIN Therapeutics and has patents on WNT agonists or GSK2b antagonist for repigmentation of vitiligo and on the use of CXCR3B blockers in vitiligo. Dr. Eleftheriadou is an investigator and trial development group member on the HI-Light Vitiligo Trial (specific), a lead investigator on the pilot HI-Light Vitiligo Trial, and a medical advisory panel member of the Vitiligo Society UK. Dr. Eleftheriadou also provides consultancy services to Incyte and Pfizer.

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

The oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor baricitinib appears to improve symptoms of atopic dermatitis (AD) in children aged 2 years and up, as indicated by data from the phase 3 BREEZE-AD-PEDS trial.

After 16 weeks of treatment, the primary endpoint – an Investigators Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 with at least a 2-point improvement from baseline – was met by 41.7% of patients given 2 mg (those younger than age 10) or 4 mg of baricitinib (those aged 10-17 years), the highest dose studied in each of those two age groups.

By comparison, the primary endpoint was met in 16.4% of children in the placebo group (P < .001).

Baricitinib is approved for the treatment of AD in adults in many countries, Antonio Torrelo, MD, of the Hospital Infantil Niño Jesús, Madrid, said at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. It was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating adults with severe alopecia areata in June and is under FDA review for the treatment of AD.
 

The phase 3 BREEZE-AD-PEDS trial

BREEZE-AD-PEDS was a randomized, double-blind trial that evaluated the safety and efficacy of baricitinib in 483 children and adolescents with moderate to severe AD. Participants were aged 2-17 years. Those aged 2-5 years had been diagnosed with AD for at least 6 months; if they were older, they had been diagnosed for at least 12 months.

Three dosing levels of baricitinib were tested: 121 patients were given a low dose, which was 0.5 mg/day in children aged 2 to less than 10 years and 1 mg/day in those aged 10 to less than 18 years. A medium dose – 1 mg/day in the younger children and 2 mg/day in the older children – was given to 120 children, while a high dose – 2 mg/day and 4 mg/day, respectively – was given to another 120 children.

Topical treatments were permitted, although for entry into the trial, participants had to have had an inadequate response to steroids and an inadequate or no response to topical calcineurin inhibitors. In all groups, age, gender, race, geographic region, age at diagnosis of AD, and duration of AD “were more or less similar,” Dr. Torello said.
 

Good results, but only with highest dose

The primary IGA endpoint was reached by 25.8% of children in the medium-dose group and by 18.2% in the low-dose group. Neither result was statistically significant in comparison with placebo (16.4%).

When breaking down the results between different ages, “the results in the IGA scores are consistent in both age subgroups – below 10 years and over 10 years,” Dr. Torello noted. The results are also consistent across body weights (< 20 kg, 20-60 kg, and > 60 kg), he added.

Among those treated with the high dose of baricitinib, Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) 75% and 95% improvement scores were reached in 52.5% and 30% of patients, respectively. Corresponding figures for the medium dose were 40% and 21.7%; for the low baricitinib dose, 32.2% and 11.6%; and for placebo, 32% and 12.3%. Again, only the results for the highest baricitinib dose were significant in comparison with placebo.

A similar pattern was seen for improvement in itch, and there was a 75% improvement in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD75) results.
 

Safety of baricitinib in children

The labeling for JAK inhibitors that have been approved to date, including baricitinib, include a boxed warning regarding risks for thrombosis, major adverse cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality. The warning is based on use by patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Dr. Torello summarized baricitinib’s safety profile in the trial as being “consistent with the well-known safety profile for baricitinib in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.”

In the study, no severe adverse effects were noted, and no new safety signals were observed, he said. The rate of any treatment-emergent effect among patients was around 50% and was similar across all baricitinib and placebo groups. Study discontinuations because of a side effect were more frequent in the placebo arm (1.6% of patients) than in the baricitinib low-, medium-, and high-dose arms (0.8%, 0%, and 0.8%, respectively).

There were no cases of deep-vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or other adverse effects of special interest, including major adverse cardiovascular events, gastrointestinal perforations, and opportunistic infections, Dr. Torrelo said.

No patient experienced elevations in liver enzyme levels, although there were some cases of elevated creatinine phosphokinase levels (16% in the placebo group and 19% in the baricitinib arms altogether) that were not from muscle injury. There was a possible increase in low-density cholesterol level (3.3% of those taking placebo vs. 10.1% of baricitinib-treated patients).
 

Is there a role for baricitinib?

“Baricitinib is a potential therapeutic option with a favorable benefit-to-risk profile for children between 2 and 18 years who have moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, and candidates for systemic therapy,” Dr. Torrelo said. “No single drug is capable to treat every patient with atopic dermatitis,” he added in discussing the possible place of baricitinib in pediatric practice.

“There are patients who do not respond to dupilumab, who apparently respond later to JAK inhibitors,” he noted.

“We are trying to work phenotypically, trying to learn what kind of patients – especially children who have a more heterogeneous disease than adults – can be better treated with JAK inhibitors or dupilumab.” There may be other important considerations in choosing a treatment in children, Dr. Torrelo said, including that JAK inhibitors can be given orally, while dupilumab is administered by injection.

Asked to comment on the results, Jashin J. Wu, MD, founder and CEO of the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., pointed out that “only the higher dose is significantly more effective than placebo.”

In his view, “the potentially severe adverse events are not worth the risk compared to more effective agents, such as dupilumab, in this pediatric population,” added Dr. Wu, who recently authored a review of the role of JAK inhibitors in skin disease. He was not involved with the baricitinib study.

The study was funded by Eli Lilly in collaboration with Incyte. Dr. Torello has participated in advisory boards and/or has served as a principal investigator in clinical trials for AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi. Dr. Wu has been an investigator, consultant, or speaker for multiple pharmaceutical companies.

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

The oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor baricitinib appears to improve symptoms of atopic dermatitis (AD) in children aged 2 years and up, as indicated by data from the phase 3 BREEZE-AD-PEDS trial.

After 16 weeks of treatment, the primary endpoint – an Investigators Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 with at least a 2-point improvement from baseline – was met by 41.7% of patients given 2 mg (those younger than age 10) or 4 mg of baricitinib (those aged 10-17 years), the highest dose studied in each of those two age groups.

By comparison, the primary endpoint was met in 16.4% of children in the placebo group (P < .001).

Baricitinib is approved for the treatment of AD in adults in many countries, Antonio Torrelo, MD, of the Hospital Infantil Niño Jesús, Madrid, said at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. It was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating adults with severe alopecia areata in June and is under FDA review for the treatment of AD.
 

The phase 3 BREEZE-AD-PEDS trial

BREEZE-AD-PEDS was a randomized, double-blind trial that evaluated the safety and efficacy of baricitinib in 483 children and adolescents with moderate to severe AD. Participants were aged 2-17 years. Those aged 2-5 years had been diagnosed with AD for at least 6 months; if they were older, they had been diagnosed for at least 12 months.

Three dosing levels of baricitinib were tested: 121 patients were given a low dose, which was 0.5 mg/day in children aged 2 to less than 10 years and 1 mg/day in those aged 10 to less than 18 years. A medium dose – 1 mg/day in the younger children and 2 mg/day in the older children – was given to 120 children, while a high dose – 2 mg/day and 4 mg/day, respectively – was given to another 120 children.

Topical treatments were permitted, although for entry into the trial, participants had to have had an inadequate response to steroids and an inadequate or no response to topical calcineurin inhibitors. In all groups, age, gender, race, geographic region, age at diagnosis of AD, and duration of AD “were more or less similar,” Dr. Torello said.
 

Good results, but only with highest dose

The primary IGA endpoint was reached by 25.8% of children in the medium-dose group and by 18.2% in the low-dose group. Neither result was statistically significant in comparison with placebo (16.4%).

When breaking down the results between different ages, “the results in the IGA scores are consistent in both age subgroups – below 10 years and over 10 years,” Dr. Torello noted. The results are also consistent across body weights (< 20 kg, 20-60 kg, and > 60 kg), he added.

Among those treated with the high dose of baricitinib, Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) 75% and 95% improvement scores were reached in 52.5% and 30% of patients, respectively. Corresponding figures for the medium dose were 40% and 21.7%; for the low baricitinib dose, 32.2% and 11.6%; and for placebo, 32% and 12.3%. Again, only the results for the highest baricitinib dose were significant in comparison with placebo.

A similar pattern was seen for improvement in itch, and there was a 75% improvement in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD75) results.
 

Safety of baricitinib in children

The labeling for JAK inhibitors that have been approved to date, including baricitinib, include a boxed warning regarding risks for thrombosis, major adverse cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality. The warning is based on use by patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Dr. Torello summarized baricitinib’s safety profile in the trial as being “consistent with the well-known safety profile for baricitinib in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.”

In the study, no severe adverse effects were noted, and no new safety signals were observed, he said. The rate of any treatment-emergent effect among patients was around 50% and was similar across all baricitinib and placebo groups. Study discontinuations because of a side effect were more frequent in the placebo arm (1.6% of patients) than in the baricitinib low-, medium-, and high-dose arms (0.8%, 0%, and 0.8%, respectively).

There were no cases of deep-vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or other adverse effects of special interest, including major adverse cardiovascular events, gastrointestinal perforations, and opportunistic infections, Dr. Torrelo said.

No patient experienced elevations in liver enzyme levels, although there were some cases of elevated creatinine phosphokinase levels (16% in the placebo group and 19% in the baricitinib arms altogether) that were not from muscle injury. There was a possible increase in low-density cholesterol level (3.3% of those taking placebo vs. 10.1% of baricitinib-treated patients).
 

Is there a role for baricitinib?

“Baricitinib is a potential therapeutic option with a favorable benefit-to-risk profile for children between 2 and 18 years who have moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, and candidates for systemic therapy,” Dr. Torrelo said. “No single drug is capable to treat every patient with atopic dermatitis,” he added in discussing the possible place of baricitinib in pediatric practice.

“There are patients who do not respond to dupilumab, who apparently respond later to JAK inhibitors,” he noted.

“We are trying to work phenotypically, trying to learn what kind of patients – especially children who have a more heterogeneous disease than adults – can be better treated with JAK inhibitors or dupilumab.” There may be other important considerations in choosing a treatment in children, Dr. Torrelo said, including that JAK inhibitors can be given orally, while dupilumab is administered by injection.

Asked to comment on the results, Jashin J. Wu, MD, founder and CEO of the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., pointed out that “only the higher dose is significantly more effective than placebo.”

In his view, “the potentially severe adverse events are not worth the risk compared to more effective agents, such as dupilumab, in this pediatric population,” added Dr. Wu, who recently authored a review of the role of JAK inhibitors in skin disease. He was not involved with the baricitinib study.

The study was funded by Eli Lilly in collaboration with Incyte. Dr. Torello has participated in advisory boards and/or has served as a principal investigator in clinical trials for AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi. Dr. Wu has been an investigator, consultant, or speaker for multiple pharmaceutical companies.

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

The oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor baricitinib appears to improve symptoms of atopic dermatitis (AD) in children aged 2 years and up, as indicated by data from the phase 3 BREEZE-AD-PEDS trial.

After 16 weeks of treatment, the primary endpoint – an Investigators Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 with at least a 2-point improvement from baseline – was met by 41.7% of patients given 2 mg (those younger than age 10) or 4 mg of baricitinib (those aged 10-17 years), the highest dose studied in each of those two age groups.

By comparison, the primary endpoint was met in 16.4% of children in the placebo group (P < .001).

Baricitinib is approved for the treatment of AD in adults in many countries, Antonio Torrelo, MD, of the Hospital Infantil Niño Jesús, Madrid, said at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. It was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating adults with severe alopecia areata in June and is under FDA review for the treatment of AD.
 

The phase 3 BREEZE-AD-PEDS trial

BREEZE-AD-PEDS was a randomized, double-blind trial that evaluated the safety and efficacy of baricitinib in 483 children and adolescents with moderate to severe AD. Participants were aged 2-17 years. Those aged 2-5 years had been diagnosed with AD for at least 6 months; if they were older, they had been diagnosed for at least 12 months.

Three dosing levels of baricitinib were tested: 121 patients were given a low dose, which was 0.5 mg/day in children aged 2 to less than 10 years and 1 mg/day in those aged 10 to less than 18 years. A medium dose – 1 mg/day in the younger children and 2 mg/day in the older children – was given to 120 children, while a high dose – 2 mg/day and 4 mg/day, respectively – was given to another 120 children.

Topical treatments were permitted, although for entry into the trial, participants had to have had an inadequate response to steroids and an inadequate or no response to topical calcineurin inhibitors. In all groups, age, gender, race, geographic region, age at diagnosis of AD, and duration of AD “were more or less similar,” Dr. Torello said.
 

Good results, but only with highest dose

The primary IGA endpoint was reached by 25.8% of children in the medium-dose group and by 18.2% in the low-dose group. Neither result was statistically significant in comparison with placebo (16.4%).

When breaking down the results between different ages, “the results in the IGA scores are consistent in both age subgroups – below 10 years and over 10 years,” Dr. Torello noted. The results are also consistent across body weights (< 20 kg, 20-60 kg, and > 60 kg), he added.

Among those treated with the high dose of baricitinib, Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) 75% and 95% improvement scores were reached in 52.5% and 30% of patients, respectively. Corresponding figures for the medium dose were 40% and 21.7%; for the low baricitinib dose, 32.2% and 11.6%; and for placebo, 32% and 12.3%. Again, only the results for the highest baricitinib dose were significant in comparison with placebo.

A similar pattern was seen for improvement in itch, and there was a 75% improvement in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD75) results.
 

Safety of baricitinib in children

The labeling for JAK inhibitors that have been approved to date, including baricitinib, include a boxed warning regarding risks for thrombosis, major adverse cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality. The warning is based on use by patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Dr. Torello summarized baricitinib’s safety profile in the trial as being “consistent with the well-known safety profile for baricitinib in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.”

In the study, no severe adverse effects were noted, and no new safety signals were observed, he said. The rate of any treatment-emergent effect among patients was around 50% and was similar across all baricitinib and placebo groups. Study discontinuations because of a side effect were more frequent in the placebo arm (1.6% of patients) than in the baricitinib low-, medium-, and high-dose arms (0.8%, 0%, and 0.8%, respectively).

There were no cases of deep-vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or other adverse effects of special interest, including major adverse cardiovascular events, gastrointestinal perforations, and opportunistic infections, Dr. Torrelo said.

No patient experienced elevations in liver enzyme levels, although there were some cases of elevated creatinine phosphokinase levels (16% in the placebo group and 19% in the baricitinib arms altogether) that were not from muscle injury. There was a possible increase in low-density cholesterol level (3.3% of those taking placebo vs. 10.1% of baricitinib-treated patients).
 

Is there a role for baricitinib?

“Baricitinib is a potential therapeutic option with a favorable benefit-to-risk profile for children between 2 and 18 years who have moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, and candidates for systemic therapy,” Dr. Torrelo said. “No single drug is capable to treat every patient with atopic dermatitis,” he added in discussing the possible place of baricitinib in pediatric practice.

“There are patients who do not respond to dupilumab, who apparently respond later to JAK inhibitors,” he noted.

“We are trying to work phenotypically, trying to learn what kind of patients – especially children who have a more heterogeneous disease than adults – can be better treated with JAK inhibitors or dupilumab.” There may be other important considerations in choosing a treatment in children, Dr. Torrelo said, including that JAK inhibitors can be given orally, while dupilumab is administered by injection.

Asked to comment on the results, Jashin J. Wu, MD, founder and CEO of the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., pointed out that “only the higher dose is significantly more effective than placebo.”

In his view, “the potentially severe adverse events are not worth the risk compared to more effective agents, such as dupilumab, in this pediatric population,” added Dr. Wu, who recently authored a review of the role of JAK inhibitors in skin disease. He was not involved with the baricitinib study.

The study was funded by Eli Lilly in collaboration with Incyte. Dr. Torello has participated in advisory boards and/or has served as a principal investigator in clinical trials for AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi. Dr. Wu has been an investigator, consultant, or speaker for multiple pharmaceutical companies.

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