User login
This test may guide AML therapy for Black pediatric patients
.
The score, dubbed ACS10 and initially highlighted in a 2022 report, predicts how well patients will respond to cytarabine based on their genetic make-up, and has the potential to personalize treatment for Black pediatric patients, a group that often has worse outcomes than White patients.
In the current study, presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) , Black patients with low ACS10 scores had significantly worse outcomes compared with those with high scores when initially treated with low-dose cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide.
The difference in outcomes disappeared, however, for patients who received high-dose cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide or clofarabine and cytarabine.
The genetic traits revealed by the test likely help explain why Black patients with AML typically fare worse on certain regimens, Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, chief of the Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, commented in an ASH press preview briefing.
This study also suggests that clinicians should perform testing for genetic variants and biomarkers that impact outcomes “instead of assuming that a certain dose should be given simply based on perceived or reported race or ethnicity,” said Dr. Dunbar, also secretary of ASH.
The ACS10 test, derived from a combination of 10 single nucleotide polymorphisms, is not yet available, but one could be developed to help guide treatment decisions for clinicians, especially those in developing countries where AML treatment can be very expensive, said study lead author Jatinder Lamba, PhD, MSc, of the University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville, at an ASH press briefing on Thursday.
Prior research shows that Black pediatric patients with AML often have worse outcomes than White patients. A recent study , for instance, found Black patients with AML, especially those aged 18 to 29 years, had a higher early death rate compared with White patients (16% vs 3%) and significantly lower 5-year overall survival rates (22% vs 51%). The authors of this study suggested that genetic differences between young Black and White patients could help explain the disparity.
In the new analysis, Dr. Lamba and colleagues explored how outcomes by race and cytarabine pharmacogenomics varied in pediatric patients with AML.
The study included 86 Black patients and 359 White patients with newly diagnosed AML treated on two multi-institutional clinical trials. The patients received one of three initial treatments that included cytarabine: high-dose or low-dose cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide, or clofarabine and cytarabine.
Most Black patients in the analysis (73%) had low ACS10 scores compared with 30% of White patients.
Unlike other recent reports, this study found that Black and White patients had similar complete remission rates following two courses of induction therapy (92.6% vs 95%) as well as similar rates of minimal residual disease negativity after one course (55.8% vs 55.4%).
Event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival rates were also similar, with 5-year EFS estimates at 58.3% for Black patients and 58.2% for White patients and overall survival rates at 63.8% vs 69.4%, respectively (P = .24).
However, when separating outcomes by ACS10 scores, Black patients with low scores had significantly worse EFS following low-dose cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide compared with those with high ACS10 scores. And when these patients received high-dose cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide or clofarabine and cytarabine induction therapy instead, the differences went away.
Overall, Black patients demonstrated significantly better EFS following treatment with clofarabine and cytarabine compared with the low-dose cytarabine triple therapy (hazard ratio, 0.17; P = .01). After adjusting for cofounders, clofarabine and cytarabine induction was the best treatment for Black patients with low ACS10 scores (HR for EFS, 0.2).
“Our results suggest that pharmacogenomics differences between Black and White patients should be considered when tailoring induction regimens to improve outcomes of Black patients and bridge the racial disparity gap in AML treatment,” the researchers concluded.
In developing countries, especially in Africa, starting patients on high-dose cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide can lead to better results “without increasing much of the economic burden” since this treatment is the cheapest, Dr. Lamba said. “At the same time, if the patients have high ACS10 score, you can reduce their economic burden by giving them standard dose” cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide and achieve similar results.
No study funding was reported. Dr. Lamba reported no relevant financial relationships, and three other authors reported various disclosures. Disclosures for Dr. Dunbar were unavailable..
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
.
The score, dubbed ACS10 and initially highlighted in a 2022 report, predicts how well patients will respond to cytarabine based on their genetic make-up, and has the potential to personalize treatment for Black pediatric patients, a group that often has worse outcomes than White patients.
In the current study, presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) , Black patients with low ACS10 scores had significantly worse outcomes compared with those with high scores when initially treated with low-dose cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide.
The difference in outcomes disappeared, however, for patients who received high-dose cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide or clofarabine and cytarabine.
The genetic traits revealed by the test likely help explain why Black patients with AML typically fare worse on certain regimens, Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, chief of the Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, commented in an ASH press preview briefing.
This study also suggests that clinicians should perform testing for genetic variants and biomarkers that impact outcomes “instead of assuming that a certain dose should be given simply based on perceived or reported race or ethnicity,” said Dr. Dunbar, also secretary of ASH.
The ACS10 test, derived from a combination of 10 single nucleotide polymorphisms, is not yet available, but one could be developed to help guide treatment decisions for clinicians, especially those in developing countries where AML treatment can be very expensive, said study lead author Jatinder Lamba, PhD, MSc, of the University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville, at an ASH press briefing on Thursday.
Prior research shows that Black pediatric patients with AML often have worse outcomes than White patients. A recent study , for instance, found Black patients with AML, especially those aged 18 to 29 years, had a higher early death rate compared with White patients (16% vs 3%) and significantly lower 5-year overall survival rates (22% vs 51%). The authors of this study suggested that genetic differences between young Black and White patients could help explain the disparity.
In the new analysis, Dr. Lamba and colleagues explored how outcomes by race and cytarabine pharmacogenomics varied in pediatric patients with AML.
The study included 86 Black patients and 359 White patients with newly diagnosed AML treated on two multi-institutional clinical trials. The patients received one of three initial treatments that included cytarabine: high-dose or low-dose cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide, or clofarabine and cytarabine.
Most Black patients in the analysis (73%) had low ACS10 scores compared with 30% of White patients.
Unlike other recent reports, this study found that Black and White patients had similar complete remission rates following two courses of induction therapy (92.6% vs 95%) as well as similar rates of minimal residual disease negativity after one course (55.8% vs 55.4%).
Event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival rates were also similar, with 5-year EFS estimates at 58.3% for Black patients and 58.2% for White patients and overall survival rates at 63.8% vs 69.4%, respectively (P = .24).
However, when separating outcomes by ACS10 scores, Black patients with low scores had significantly worse EFS following low-dose cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide compared with those with high ACS10 scores. And when these patients received high-dose cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide or clofarabine and cytarabine induction therapy instead, the differences went away.
Overall, Black patients demonstrated significantly better EFS following treatment with clofarabine and cytarabine compared with the low-dose cytarabine triple therapy (hazard ratio, 0.17; P = .01). After adjusting for cofounders, clofarabine and cytarabine induction was the best treatment for Black patients with low ACS10 scores (HR for EFS, 0.2).
“Our results suggest that pharmacogenomics differences between Black and White patients should be considered when tailoring induction regimens to improve outcomes of Black patients and bridge the racial disparity gap in AML treatment,” the researchers concluded.
In developing countries, especially in Africa, starting patients on high-dose cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide can lead to better results “without increasing much of the economic burden” since this treatment is the cheapest, Dr. Lamba said. “At the same time, if the patients have high ACS10 score, you can reduce their economic burden by giving them standard dose” cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide and achieve similar results.
No study funding was reported. Dr. Lamba reported no relevant financial relationships, and three other authors reported various disclosures. Disclosures for Dr. Dunbar were unavailable..
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
.
The score, dubbed ACS10 and initially highlighted in a 2022 report, predicts how well patients will respond to cytarabine based on their genetic make-up, and has the potential to personalize treatment for Black pediatric patients, a group that often has worse outcomes than White patients.
In the current study, presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) , Black patients with low ACS10 scores had significantly worse outcomes compared with those with high scores when initially treated with low-dose cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide.
The difference in outcomes disappeared, however, for patients who received high-dose cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide or clofarabine and cytarabine.
The genetic traits revealed by the test likely help explain why Black patients with AML typically fare worse on certain regimens, Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, chief of the Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, commented in an ASH press preview briefing.
This study also suggests that clinicians should perform testing for genetic variants and biomarkers that impact outcomes “instead of assuming that a certain dose should be given simply based on perceived or reported race or ethnicity,” said Dr. Dunbar, also secretary of ASH.
The ACS10 test, derived from a combination of 10 single nucleotide polymorphisms, is not yet available, but one could be developed to help guide treatment decisions for clinicians, especially those in developing countries where AML treatment can be very expensive, said study lead author Jatinder Lamba, PhD, MSc, of the University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville, at an ASH press briefing on Thursday.
Prior research shows that Black pediatric patients with AML often have worse outcomes than White patients. A recent study , for instance, found Black patients with AML, especially those aged 18 to 29 years, had a higher early death rate compared with White patients (16% vs 3%) and significantly lower 5-year overall survival rates (22% vs 51%). The authors of this study suggested that genetic differences between young Black and White patients could help explain the disparity.
In the new analysis, Dr. Lamba and colleagues explored how outcomes by race and cytarabine pharmacogenomics varied in pediatric patients with AML.
The study included 86 Black patients and 359 White patients with newly diagnosed AML treated on two multi-institutional clinical trials. The patients received one of three initial treatments that included cytarabine: high-dose or low-dose cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide, or clofarabine and cytarabine.
Most Black patients in the analysis (73%) had low ACS10 scores compared with 30% of White patients.
Unlike other recent reports, this study found that Black and White patients had similar complete remission rates following two courses of induction therapy (92.6% vs 95%) as well as similar rates of minimal residual disease negativity after one course (55.8% vs 55.4%).
Event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival rates were also similar, with 5-year EFS estimates at 58.3% for Black patients and 58.2% for White patients and overall survival rates at 63.8% vs 69.4%, respectively (P = .24).
However, when separating outcomes by ACS10 scores, Black patients with low scores had significantly worse EFS following low-dose cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide compared with those with high ACS10 scores. And when these patients received high-dose cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide or clofarabine and cytarabine induction therapy instead, the differences went away.
Overall, Black patients demonstrated significantly better EFS following treatment with clofarabine and cytarabine compared with the low-dose cytarabine triple therapy (hazard ratio, 0.17; P = .01). After adjusting for cofounders, clofarabine and cytarabine induction was the best treatment for Black patients with low ACS10 scores (HR for EFS, 0.2).
“Our results suggest that pharmacogenomics differences between Black and White patients should be considered when tailoring induction regimens to improve outcomes of Black patients and bridge the racial disparity gap in AML treatment,” the researchers concluded.
In developing countries, especially in Africa, starting patients on high-dose cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide can lead to better results “without increasing much of the economic burden” since this treatment is the cheapest, Dr. Lamba said. “At the same time, if the patients have high ACS10 score, you can reduce their economic burden by giving them standard dose” cytarabine, daunorubicin, and etoposide and achieve similar results.
No study funding was reported. Dr. Lamba reported no relevant financial relationships, and three other authors reported various disclosures. Disclosures for Dr. Dunbar were unavailable..
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ASH 2023
Hematology is in the Brodsky family’s blood
In interviews, Robert and Max Brodsky spoke about the appeal of hematology and the threads that unite them with family members who came before. The elder Brodsky also talked about the work that’s made him the proudest during his year-long presidency at ASH.
Robert A. Brodsky is professor of medicine and director of hematology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. He is stepping down as ASH president at its annual meeting in San Diego, December 9-12. Here are excerpts from our conversation:
Q: What drew your dad into medicine?
Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: He was going through his medical training at the University of Pennsylvania, then the Vietnam War came, and he served at the National Institutes of Health in what they referred to as the Yellow Berets. He got very interested in retroviruses and viruses that lead to cancer, which was a foreign idea at the time. This led him into hematology, stem cells, and myeloproliferative disorders.
He had a very successful career in hematology and just loved it. He performed the first bone marrow transplant in the tristate area of Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey.
Q: What did he like about hematology specifically?
Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: It’s a fascinating field, probably the most scientific area of medicine. It’s so easy to access blood and bone marrow. You can grow it, you can look at it, you can see it. It’s hard to do that with a lung, heart, kidney, or brain. Even back then, they could translate some of the science. What really drew him to hematology — and me, for that matter — was looking at a blood smear or bone marrow and being able to make a diagnosis. The other thing is the personal aspect. Hematologists tend to like the long-term relationships that they develop with their patients over the years.
Q: What were the biggest transformations in hematology during his career?
Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: Bone marrow transplant had the biggest impact, and it’s an area he really pioneered. He was very much involved in some of the early bone marrow transplants and was very close with Dr. George W. Santos, who was at Johns Hopkins and one of the big pioneers in that area as well. To be able to take marrow from related donors, get it to grow without the patient rejecting it, and cure a disease, was really huge. When he started doing this, patients had no other option. To see patients be cured was incredibly satisfying to him.
Q: How did you end up following your father into hematology?
Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: My brother Jeff, who’s a surgeon and older than me, knew he was going into medicine — probably about 3 hours after he was born. I came to it late. I was a political science major as an undergrad and really trying to figure out what I wanted to do. In my sophomore year, I decided I wanted to give this a shot. My dad worked very hard, long hours, but you could tell he loved what he did. And he was never absent, always involved in our lives and still made time for everyone. At some level, that must have had an influence on me.
Q: What has changed in hematology over your 30-plus years in medicine?
A: When I look back at when I was a fellow, it’s just mind-boggling how many lethal or life-threatening diseases are now pretty easy to treat. I studied disorders like aplastic anemia, which was very fatal. Without treatment, patients would die within a year. Now, over 95% are cured. Another classic examples is chronic myeloid leukemia disorder. Back when I was a fellow, the median survival for CML was maybe 4 to 6 years. Now, Kareem Abdul Jabbar has had this[for about 15 years]. Also a lot of hematologic malignancies are being cured with immunotherapy approaches. We’ve figured out the pathophysiology of a lot of diseases, and there are incredible genetic diagnostic assays.
Q: What was your father’s relationship with ASH?
Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: The first ASH meeting was 1958 in Atlantic City, New Jersey. There were 300 hematologists there, and my dad was one of them. We’re going to have over 30,000 people in San Diego, which is a record, and another 5,000 or 6,000 virtually.
Q: As ASH president, what are your biggest accomplishments when it comes to addressing the shortage of hematologists and other issues?
Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: ASH is investing $19 million to develop fellowships with a focus on hematology.* This is going to put lots of new hematologists into the workforce over the next 5 to 10 years. We’ve also been working on the Maintenance of Certification [MOC] process to make it less onerous on physicians. It’s really a bad process, and it’s not just ASH [that’s complaining], it’s all of medicine. We’re hearing this from GI, endocrine, renal and the general internists.
[In a September 2023 letter to the American Board of Internal Medicine’s president and chief officer, Dr. Brodsky wrote that “ASH continues to support the importance of lifelong learning for hematologists via a program that is evidence-based, relevant to one’s practice, and transparent; however, these three basic requirements are not met by the current ABIM MOC program.” ASH is calling for a new and reformed MOC program.]
Q: What convinced ASH to expand its journals by adding Blood Neoplasia and Blood Vessels, Thrombosis & Hemostasis?
Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: ASH has two flagship journals right now, Blood and Blood Advances, and they’re both very competitive, high-impact journals. It turns out there’s not enough room to publish all the new science, and they end up rejecting the majority of the submissions that come to them. We decided to keep these journals in the ASH family because there’s some fantastic clinical trials and science that would be going elsewhere.
Dr. Brodsky’s sons both have medical degrees: Brett Brodsky, DO, is a resident at Virginia Commonwealth University who plans to become a sports medicine specialist, and Max Brodsky, MD, is a second-year fellow in hematology at Johns Hopkins University.
In an interview, Max Brodsky, MD, talked about the roots of his family’s dedication to caring for others.
Q: What drew you to hematology?
Dr. Max Brodsky: I’ve watched both my dad and my grandfather be leaders in the field as both physicians and scientists, and that was very inspirational for me to see. And I went to a medical school [Drexel University College of Medicine] that my dad went to and where my grandfather was on faculty. That was like walking in their footsteps in a major way.
Q: What do you hope to focus on as a hematologist?
Dr. Max Brodsky: I’m still working through that, but I am really interested in thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura. Patients used to not be able to survive their initial episodes, but now we have good treatments and are able to follow them as outpatients. With this whole cohort of patients that are surviving, we’re seeing that they have more health problems — more heart disease, more strokes and kidney disease. There’s a whole growing field exploring how to treat these patients for their lifespan.
Q: How do you deal with the reality that more of your patients will die than in some other medical fields?
Dr. Max Brodsky: It is challenging, but I also see those moments as opportunities to support patients and families. I’m good at connecting to patients and families who are in scary situations. I’ve always had that skill of putting people at ease, making people feel calm, knowing that they can trust me, and I have their best interests in mind.
Q: Why do you think your family is so committed to medicine?
Dr. Max Brodsky: We’re Jewish, and looking to help the world is one of the main core values of Judaism. The Torah expects us to make this world better. Actually, my great-grandfather Max, whom I’m named after, used to dig tunnels to help people escape Ukraine and get to freedom. He was always looking to help others as well. My great-grandmother was shot crossing the border escaping from Ukraine, and he carried her the whole way to the boat. They lived in very poor West Philadelphia and poured everything into my grandfather. He became a great doctor, and his sons and his grandchildren are in medicine today.
*Correction, 12/11: A previous version of this story misstated the amount of ASH’s $19 million investment in developing fellowships with a focus on hematology.
In interviews, Robert and Max Brodsky spoke about the appeal of hematology and the threads that unite them with family members who came before. The elder Brodsky also talked about the work that’s made him the proudest during his year-long presidency at ASH.
Robert A. Brodsky is professor of medicine and director of hematology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. He is stepping down as ASH president at its annual meeting in San Diego, December 9-12. Here are excerpts from our conversation:
Q: What drew your dad into medicine?
Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: He was going through his medical training at the University of Pennsylvania, then the Vietnam War came, and he served at the National Institutes of Health in what they referred to as the Yellow Berets. He got very interested in retroviruses and viruses that lead to cancer, which was a foreign idea at the time. This led him into hematology, stem cells, and myeloproliferative disorders.
He had a very successful career in hematology and just loved it. He performed the first bone marrow transplant in the tristate area of Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey.
Q: What did he like about hematology specifically?
Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: It’s a fascinating field, probably the most scientific area of medicine. It’s so easy to access blood and bone marrow. You can grow it, you can look at it, you can see it. It’s hard to do that with a lung, heart, kidney, or brain. Even back then, they could translate some of the science. What really drew him to hematology — and me, for that matter — was looking at a blood smear or bone marrow and being able to make a diagnosis. The other thing is the personal aspect. Hematologists tend to like the long-term relationships that they develop with their patients over the years.
Q: What were the biggest transformations in hematology during his career?
Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: Bone marrow transplant had the biggest impact, and it’s an area he really pioneered. He was very much involved in some of the early bone marrow transplants and was very close with Dr. George W. Santos, who was at Johns Hopkins and one of the big pioneers in that area as well. To be able to take marrow from related donors, get it to grow without the patient rejecting it, and cure a disease, was really huge. When he started doing this, patients had no other option. To see patients be cured was incredibly satisfying to him.
Q: How did you end up following your father into hematology?
Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: My brother Jeff, who’s a surgeon and older than me, knew he was going into medicine — probably about 3 hours after he was born. I came to it late. I was a political science major as an undergrad and really trying to figure out what I wanted to do. In my sophomore year, I decided I wanted to give this a shot. My dad worked very hard, long hours, but you could tell he loved what he did. And he was never absent, always involved in our lives and still made time for everyone. At some level, that must have had an influence on me.
Q: What has changed in hematology over your 30-plus years in medicine?
A: When I look back at when I was a fellow, it’s just mind-boggling how many lethal or life-threatening diseases are now pretty easy to treat. I studied disorders like aplastic anemia, which was very fatal. Without treatment, patients would die within a year. Now, over 95% are cured. Another classic examples is chronic myeloid leukemia disorder. Back when I was a fellow, the median survival for CML was maybe 4 to 6 years. Now, Kareem Abdul Jabbar has had this[for about 15 years]. Also a lot of hematologic malignancies are being cured with immunotherapy approaches. We’ve figured out the pathophysiology of a lot of diseases, and there are incredible genetic diagnostic assays.
Q: What was your father’s relationship with ASH?
Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: The first ASH meeting was 1958 in Atlantic City, New Jersey. There were 300 hematologists there, and my dad was one of them. We’re going to have over 30,000 people in San Diego, which is a record, and another 5,000 or 6,000 virtually.
Q: As ASH president, what are your biggest accomplishments when it comes to addressing the shortage of hematologists and other issues?
Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: ASH is investing $19 million to develop fellowships with a focus on hematology.* This is going to put lots of new hematologists into the workforce over the next 5 to 10 years. We’ve also been working on the Maintenance of Certification [MOC] process to make it less onerous on physicians. It’s really a bad process, and it’s not just ASH [that’s complaining], it’s all of medicine. We’re hearing this from GI, endocrine, renal and the general internists.
[In a September 2023 letter to the American Board of Internal Medicine’s president and chief officer, Dr. Brodsky wrote that “ASH continues to support the importance of lifelong learning for hematologists via a program that is evidence-based, relevant to one’s practice, and transparent; however, these three basic requirements are not met by the current ABIM MOC program.” ASH is calling for a new and reformed MOC program.]
Q: What convinced ASH to expand its journals by adding Blood Neoplasia and Blood Vessels, Thrombosis & Hemostasis?
Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: ASH has two flagship journals right now, Blood and Blood Advances, and they’re both very competitive, high-impact journals. It turns out there’s not enough room to publish all the new science, and they end up rejecting the majority of the submissions that come to them. We decided to keep these journals in the ASH family because there’s some fantastic clinical trials and science that would be going elsewhere.
Dr. Brodsky’s sons both have medical degrees: Brett Brodsky, DO, is a resident at Virginia Commonwealth University who plans to become a sports medicine specialist, and Max Brodsky, MD, is a second-year fellow in hematology at Johns Hopkins University.
In an interview, Max Brodsky, MD, talked about the roots of his family’s dedication to caring for others.
Q: What drew you to hematology?
Dr. Max Brodsky: I’ve watched both my dad and my grandfather be leaders in the field as both physicians and scientists, and that was very inspirational for me to see. And I went to a medical school [Drexel University College of Medicine] that my dad went to and where my grandfather was on faculty. That was like walking in their footsteps in a major way.
Q: What do you hope to focus on as a hematologist?
Dr. Max Brodsky: I’m still working through that, but I am really interested in thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura. Patients used to not be able to survive their initial episodes, but now we have good treatments and are able to follow them as outpatients. With this whole cohort of patients that are surviving, we’re seeing that they have more health problems — more heart disease, more strokes and kidney disease. There’s a whole growing field exploring how to treat these patients for their lifespan.
Q: How do you deal with the reality that more of your patients will die than in some other medical fields?
Dr. Max Brodsky: It is challenging, but I also see those moments as opportunities to support patients and families. I’m good at connecting to patients and families who are in scary situations. I’ve always had that skill of putting people at ease, making people feel calm, knowing that they can trust me, and I have their best interests in mind.
Q: Why do you think your family is so committed to medicine?
Dr. Max Brodsky: We’re Jewish, and looking to help the world is one of the main core values of Judaism. The Torah expects us to make this world better. Actually, my great-grandfather Max, whom I’m named after, used to dig tunnels to help people escape Ukraine and get to freedom. He was always looking to help others as well. My great-grandmother was shot crossing the border escaping from Ukraine, and he carried her the whole way to the boat. They lived in very poor West Philadelphia and poured everything into my grandfather. He became a great doctor, and his sons and his grandchildren are in medicine today.
*Correction, 12/11: A previous version of this story misstated the amount of ASH’s $19 million investment in developing fellowships with a focus on hematology.
In interviews, Robert and Max Brodsky spoke about the appeal of hematology and the threads that unite them with family members who came before. The elder Brodsky also talked about the work that’s made him the proudest during his year-long presidency at ASH.
Robert A. Brodsky is professor of medicine and director of hematology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. He is stepping down as ASH president at its annual meeting in San Diego, December 9-12. Here are excerpts from our conversation:
Q: What drew your dad into medicine?
Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: He was going through his medical training at the University of Pennsylvania, then the Vietnam War came, and he served at the National Institutes of Health in what they referred to as the Yellow Berets. He got very interested in retroviruses and viruses that lead to cancer, which was a foreign idea at the time. This led him into hematology, stem cells, and myeloproliferative disorders.
He had a very successful career in hematology and just loved it. He performed the first bone marrow transplant in the tristate area of Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey.
Q: What did he like about hematology specifically?
Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: It’s a fascinating field, probably the most scientific area of medicine. It’s so easy to access blood and bone marrow. You can grow it, you can look at it, you can see it. It’s hard to do that with a lung, heart, kidney, or brain. Even back then, they could translate some of the science. What really drew him to hematology — and me, for that matter — was looking at a blood smear or bone marrow and being able to make a diagnosis. The other thing is the personal aspect. Hematologists tend to like the long-term relationships that they develop with their patients over the years.
Q: What were the biggest transformations in hematology during his career?
Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: Bone marrow transplant had the biggest impact, and it’s an area he really pioneered. He was very much involved in some of the early bone marrow transplants and was very close with Dr. George W. Santos, who was at Johns Hopkins and one of the big pioneers in that area as well. To be able to take marrow from related donors, get it to grow without the patient rejecting it, and cure a disease, was really huge. When he started doing this, patients had no other option. To see patients be cured was incredibly satisfying to him.
Q: How did you end up following your father into hematology?
Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: My brother Jeff, who’s a surgeon and older than me, knew he was going into medicine — probably about 3 hours after he was born. I came to it late. I was a political science major as an undergrad and really trying to figure out what I wanted to do. In my sophomore year, I decided I wanted to give this a shot. My dad worked very hard, long hours, but you could tell he loved what he did. And he was never absent, always involved in our lives and still made time for everyone. At some level, that must have had an influence on me.
Q: What has changed in hematology over your 30-plus years in medicine?
A: When I look back at when I was a fellow, it’s just mind-boggling how many lethal or life-threatening diseases are now pretty easy to treat. I studied disorders like aplastic anemia, which was very fatal. Without treatment, patients would die within a year. Now, over 95% are cured. Another classic examples is chronic myeloid leukemia disorder. Back when I was a fellow, the median survival for CML was maybe 4 to 6 years. Now, Kareem Abdul Jabbar has had this[for about 15 years]. Also a lot of hematologic malignancies are being cured with immunotherapy approaches. We’ve figured out the pathophysiology of a lot of diseases, and there are incredible genetic diagnostic assays.
Q: What was your father’s relationship with ASH?
Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: The first ASH meeting was 1958 in Atlantic City, New Jersey. There were 300 hematologists there, and my dad was one of them. We’re going to have over 30,000 people in San Diego, which is a record, and another 5,000 or 6,000 virtually.
Q: As ASH president, what are your biggest accomplishments when it comes to addressing the shortage of hematologists and other issues?
Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: ASH is investing $19 million to develop fellowships with a focus on hematology.* This is going to put lots of new hematologists into the workforce over the next 5 to 10 years. We’ve also been working on the Maintenance of Certification [MOC] process to make it less onerous on physicians. It’s really a bad process, and it’s not just ASH [that’s complaining], it’s all of medicine. We’re hearing this from GI, endocrine, renal and the general internists.
[In a September 2023 letter to the American Board of Internal Medicine’s president and chief officer, Dr. Brodsky wrote that “ASH continues to support the importance of lifelong learning for hematologists via a program that is evidence-based, relevant to one’s practice, and transparent; however, these three basic requirements are not met by the current ABIM MOC program.” ASH is calling for a new and reformed MOC program.]
Q: What convinced ASH to expand its journals by adding Blood Neoplasia and Blood Vessels, Thrombosis & Hemostasis?
Dr. Robert A. Brodsky: ASH has two flagship journals right now, Blood and Blood Advances, and they’re both very competitive, high-impact journals. It turns out there’s not enough room to publish all the new science, and they end up rejecting the majority of the submissions that come to them. We decided to keep these journals in the ASH family because there’s some fantastic clinical trials and science that would be going elsewhere.
Dr. Brodsky’s sons both have medical degrees: Brett Brodsky, DO, is a resident at Virginia Commonwealth University who plans to become a sports medicine specialist, and Max Brodsky, MD, is a second-year fellow in hematology at Johns Hopkins University.
In an interview, Max Brodsky, MD, talked about the roots of his family’s dedication to caring for others.
Q: What drew you to hematology?
Dr. Max Brodsky: I’ve watched both my dad and my grandfather be leaders in the field as both physicians and scientists, and that was very inspirational for me to see. And I went to a medical school [Drexel University College of Medicine] that my dad went to and where my grandfather was on faculty. That was like walking in their footsteps in a major way.
Q: What do you hope to focus on as a hematologist?
Dr. Max Brodsky: I’m still working through that, but I am really interested in thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura. Patients used to not be able to survive their initial episodes, but now we have good treatments and are able to follow them as outpatients. With this whole cohort of patients that are surviving, we’re seeing that they have more health problems — more heart disease, more strokes and kidney disease. There’s a whole growing field exploring how to treat these patients for their lifespan.
Q: How do you deal with the reality that more of your patients will die than in some other medical fields?
Dr. Max Brodsky: It is challenging, but I also see those moments as opportunities to support patients and families. I’m good at connecting to patients and families who are in scary situations. I’ve always had that skill of putting people at ease, making people feel calm, knowing that they can trust me, and I have their best interests in mind.
Q: Why do you think your family is so committed to medicine?
Dr. Max Brodsky: We’re Jewish, and looking to help the world is one of the main core values of Judaism. The Torah expects us to make this world better. Actually, my great-grandfather Max, whom I’m named after, used to dig tunnels to help people escape Ukraine and get to freedom. He was always looking to help others as well. My great-grandmother was shot crossing the border escaping from Ukraine, and he carried her the whole way to the boat. They lived in very poor West Philadelphia and poured everything into my grandfather. He became a great doctor, and his sons and his grandchildren are in medicine today.
*Correction, 12/11: A previous version of this story misstated the amount of ASH’s $19 million investment in developing fellowships with a focus on hematology.
FROM ASH 2023
ASH 2023: Equity, Sickle Cell, and Real-Life Outcomes
Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, chief of the Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and secretary of ASH, added that insight into actual patient experiences also will be a major theme at ASH 2023.
“There is a huge growth in research on outcomes and focusing on using real-world data and how important that is,” Dr. Dunbar said. “Academic research and hematology is really focusing on patient-reported outcomes and how care is delivered in a real-world setting – actually looking at what matters to patients. Are they alive in a certain number of years? And how are they feeling?”
As an example, Dr. Dunbar pointed to an abstract that examined clinical databases in Canada and found that real-world outcomes in multiple myeloma treatments were much worse than those in the original clinical trials for the therapies. Patients reached relapse 44% faster and their overall survival was 75% worse.
In the media briefing, ASH chair of communications Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, of the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami, noted that patients in these types of clinical trials “are just these pristine specimens of human beings except for the cancer that’s being treated.”
Dr. Dunbar agreed, noting that “patients who are able to enroll in clinical trials are more likely to be able to show up at the treatment center at the right time and for every dose, have transportation, and afford drugs to prevent side effects. They might stay on the drug for longer, or they have nurses who are always encouraging them of how to make it through a toxicity.”
Hematologists and patients should consider randomized controlled trials to be “the best possible outcome, and perhaps adjust their thinking if an individual patient is older, sicker, or less able to follow a regimen exactly,” she said.
Another highlighted study linked worse outcomes in African-Americans with pediatric acute myeloid leukemia to genetic traits that are more common in that population. The traits “likely explain at least in part the worst outcomes in Black patients in prior studies and on some regimens,” Dr. Dunbar said.
She added that the findings emphasize how testing for genetic variants and biomarkers that impact outcomes should be performed “instead of assuming that a certain dose should be given simply based on perceived or reported race or ethnicity.”
ASH President Robert A. Brodsky, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, highlighted an abstract that reported on the use of AI as a clinical decision support tool to differentiate two easily confused conditions — prefibrotic primary myelofibrosis and essential thrombocythemia.
AI “is a tool that’s going to help pathologists make more accurate and faster diagnoses,” he said. He also spotlighted an abstract about the use of “social media listening” to understand the experiences of patients with SCD and their caregivers. “There can be a lot of misuse and waste of time with social media, but they used this in a way to try and gain insight as to what’s really important to the patients and the caregiver.”
Also, in regard to SCD, Dr. Dunbar pointed to a study that reports on outcomes in patients who received lovotibeglogene autotemcel (lovo-cel) gene therapy for up to 60 months. Both this treatment and a CRISPR-based therapy called exa-cel “appear to result in comparable very impressive efficacy in terms of pain crises and organ dysfunction,” she said. “The hurdle is going to be figuring out how to deliver what will be very expensive and complicated therapies — but likely curative — therapies to patients.”
Another study to be presented at ASH — coauthored by Dr. Brodsky — shows promising results from reduced-intensity haploidentical bone marrow transplantation in adults with severe SCD. Results were similar to those seen with bone marrow from matched siblings, Dr. Sekeres said.
He added that more clarity is needed about new treatment options for SCD, perhaps through a “randomized trial where patients upfront get a haploidentical bone marrow transplant or fully matched bone marrow transplant. Then other patients are randomized to some of these other, newer technology therapies, and we follow them over time. We’re looking not only for overall survival but complications of the therapy itself and how many patients relapse from the treatment.”
Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, chief of the Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and secretary of ASH, added that insight into actual patient experiences also will be a major theme at ASH 2023.
“There is a huge growth in research on outcomes and focusing on using real-world data and how important that is,” Dr. Dunbar said. “Academic research and hematology is really focusing on patient-reported outcomes and how care is delivered in a real-world setting – actually looking at what matters to patients. Are they alive in a certain number of years? And how are they feeling?”
As an example, Dr. Dunbar pointed to an abstract that examined clinical databases in Canada and found that real-world outcomes in multiple myeloma treatments were much worse than those in the original clinical trials for the therapies. Patients reached relapse 44% faster and their overall survival was 75% worse.
In the media briefing, ASH chair of communications Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, of the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami, noted that patients in these types of clinical trials “are just these pristine specimens of human beings except for the cancer that’s being treated.”
Dr. Dunbar agreed, noting that “patients who are able to enroll in clinical trials are more likely to be able to show up at the treatment center at the right time and for every dose, have transportation, and afford drugs to prevent side effects. They might stay on the drug for longer, or they have nurses who are always encouraging them of how to make it through a toxicity.”
Hematologists and patients should consider randomized controlled trials to be “the best possible outcome, and perhaps adjust their thinking if an individual patient is older, sicker, or less able to follow a regimen exactly,” she said.
Another highlighted study linked worse outcomes in African-Americans with pediatric acute myeloid leukemia to genetic traits that are more common in that population. The traits “likely explain at least in part the worst outcomes in Black patients in prior studies and on some regimens,” Dr. Dunbar said.
She added that the findings emphasize how testing for genetic variants and biomarkers that impact outcomes should be performed “instead of assuming that a certain dose should be given simply based on perceived or reported race or ethnicity.”
ASH President Robert A. Brodsky, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, highlighted an abstract that reported on the use of AI as a clinical decision support tool to differentiate two easily confused conditions — prefibrotic primary myelofibrosis and essential thrombocythemia.
AI “is a tool that’s going to help pathologists make more accurate and faster diagnoses,” he said. He also spotlighted an abstract about the use of “social media listening” to understand the experiences of patients with SCD and their caregivers. “There can be a lot of misuse and waste of time with social media, but they used this in a way to try and gain insight as to what’s really important to the patients and the caregiver.”
Also, in regard to SCD, Dr. Dunbar pointed to a study that reports on outcomes in patients who received lovotibeglogene autotemcel (lovo-cel) gene therapy for up to 60 months. Both this treatment and a CRISPR-based therapy called exa-cel “appear to result in comparable very impressive efficacy in terms of pain crises and organ dysfunction,” she said. “The hurdle is going to be figuring out how to deliver what will be very expensive and complicated therapies — but likely curative — therapies to patients.”
Another study to be presented at ASH — coauthored by Dr. Brodsky — shows promising results from reduced-intensity haploidentical bone marrow transplantation in adults with severe SCD. Results were similar to those seen with bone marrow from matched siblings, Dr. Sekeres said.
He added that more clarity is needed about new treatment options for SCD, perhaps through a “randomized trial where patients upfront get a haploidentical bone marrow transplant or fully matched bone marrow transplant. Then other patients are randomized to some of these other, newer technology therapies, and we follow them over time. We’re looking not only for overall survival but complications of the therapy itself and how many patients relapse from the treatment.”
Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, chief of the Translational Stem Cell Biology Branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and secretary of ASH, added that insight into actual patient experiences also will be a major theme at ASH 2023.
“There is a huge growth in research on outcomes and focusing on using real-world data and how important that is,” Dr. Dunbar said. “Academic research and hematology is really focusing on patient-reported outcomes and how care is delivered in a real-world setting – actually looking at what matters to patients. Are they alive in a certain number of years? And how are they feeling?”
As an example, Dr. Dunbar pointed to an abstract that examined clinical databases in Canada and found that real-world outcomes in multiple myeloma treatments were much worse than those in the original clinical trials for the therapies. Patients reached relapse 44% faster and their overall survival was 75% worse.
In the media briefing, ASH chair of communications Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, of the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami, noted that patients in these types of clinical trials “are just these pristine specimens of human beings except for the cancer that’s being treated.”
Dr. Dunbar agreed, noting that “patients who are able to enroll in clinical trials are more likely to be able to show up at the treatment center at the right time and for every dose, have transportation, and afford drugs to prevent side effects. They might stay on the drug for longer, or they have nurses who are always encouraging them of how to make it through a toxicity.”
Hematologists and patients should consider randomized controlled trials to be “the best possible outcome, and perhaps adjust their thinking if an individual patient is older, sicker, or less able to follow a regimen exactly,” she said.
Another highlighted study linked worse outcomes in African-Americans with pediatric acute myeloid leukemia to genetic traits that are more common in that population. The traits “likely explain at least in part the worst outcomes in Black patients in prior studies and on some regimens,” Dr. Dunbar said.
She added that the findings emphasize how testing for genetic variants and biomarkers that impact outcomes should be performed “instead of assuming that a certain dose should be given simply based on perceived or reported race or ethnicity.”
ASH President Robert A. Brodsky, MD, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, highlighted an abstract that reported on the use of AI as a clinical decision support tool to differentiate two easily confused conditions — prefibrotic primary myelofibrosis and essential thrombocythemia.
AI “is a tool that’s going to help pathologists make more accurate and faster diagnoses,” he said. He also spotlighted an abstract about the use of “social media listening” to understand the experiences of patients with SCD and their caregivers. “There can be a lot of misuse and waste of time with social media, but they used this in a way to try and gain insight as to what’s really important to the patients and the caregiver.”
Also, in regard to SCD, Dr. Dunbar pointed to a study that reports on outcomes in patients who received lovotibeglogene autotemcel (lovo-cel) gene therapy for up to 60 months. Both this treatment and a CRISPR-based therapy called exa-cel “appear to result in comparable very impressive efficacy in terms of pain crises and organ dysfunction,” she said. “The hurdle is going to be figuring out how to deliver what will be very expensive and complicated therapies — but likely curative — therapies to patients.”
Another study to be presented at ASH — coauthored by Dr. Brodsky — shows promising results from reduced-intensity haploidentical bone marrow transplantation in adults with severe SCD. Results were similar to those seen with bone marrow from matched siblings, Dr. Sekeres said.
He added that more clarity is needed about new treatment options for SCD, perhaps through a “randomized trial where patients upfront get a haploidentical bone marrow transplant or fully matched bone marrow transplant. Then other patients are randomized to some of these other, newer technology therapies, and we follow them over time. We’re looking not only for overall survival but complications of the therapy itself and how many patients relapse from the treatment.”
AT ASH 2023
One VA Cancer Pathway to Rule Them All?
CHICAGO – The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has developed clinical pathways to guide its clinicians through cancer care, but they should not be considered mandatory strategies, a top VA cancer director told colleagues at the 2023 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology.
“They’re not a cookbook for how to practice oncology,” said Michael Kelley, MD, the VA National Program Director for Oncology, Professor of Medicine at Duke University, and Chief of Hematology and Oncology at the Durham VA Medical Center. “You cannot look at the pathway and think that you know how to practice. It is a preferred-decision flow map—not a requirement to do that. We expect that all providers will be off the pathways some of the time and most of the time, they will be on there.”
The VA has an extensive series of clinical pathways in oncology that are designed to help clinicians navigate through the treatment of 20 types of cancer, including common types—breast, lung, and colon—and rarer types, such as salivary gland and biliary tract cancer. Many of the pathways have been updated within just the past few months, and more are in the works.
The pathways are developed through subject-matter expert groups made up of experts from National Cancer Institute–designated cancer centers, Kelley said. “The pathway is published as a PDF document on internally and externally facing websites, then it's built into the medical record system.” Clinicians who diverge from the pathways have to note this in the health record system, enter reasons why, and provide the alternative care strategy, Kelley explained.
Moving forward, the VA is “committed to doing a formal review of all the pathways at least quarterly, and we will do ad hoc reviews and alterations as information merits.” He said, “There are hundreds of oncology providers in the VA, and we want everyone to have an opportunity to have input. That's your opportunity: We do read every comment, and we'll actually generate a response to every comment.”
CHICAGO – The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has developed clinical pathways to guide its clinicians through cancer care, but they should not be considered mandatory strategies, a top VA cancer director told colleagues at the 2023 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology.
“They’re not a cookbook for how to practice oncology,” said Michael Kelley, MD, the VA National Program Director for Oncology, Professor of Medicine at Duke University, and Chief of Hematology and Oncology at the Durham VA Medical Center. “You cannot look at the pathway and think that you know how to practice. It is a preferred-decision flow map—not a requirement to do that. We expect that all providers will be off the pathways some of the time and most of the time, they will be on there.”
The VA has an extensive series of clinical pathways in oncology that are designed to help clinicians navigate through the treatment of 20 types of cancer, including common types—breast, lung, and colon—and rarer types, such as salivary gland and biliary tract cancer. Many of the pathways have been updated within just the past few months, and more are in the works.
The pathways are developed through subject-matter expert groups made up of experts from National Cancer Institute–designated cancer centers, Kelley said. “The pathway is published as a PDF document on internally and externally facing websites, then it's built into the medical record system.” Clinicians who diverge from the pathways have to note this in the health record system, enter reasons why, and provide the alternative care strategy, Kelley explained.
Moving forward, the VA is “committed to doing a formal review of all the pathways at least quarterly, and we will do ad hoc reviews and alterations as information merits.” He said, “There are hundreds of oncology providers in the VA, and we want everyone to have an opportunity to have input. That's your opportunity: We do read every comment, and we'll actually generate a response to every comment.”
CHICAGO – The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has developed clinical pathways to guide its clinicians through cancer care, but they should not be considered mandatory strategies, a top VA cancer director told colleagues at the 2023 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology.
“They’re not a cookbook for how to practice oncology,” said Michael Kelley, MD, the VA National Program Director for Oncology, Professor of Medicine at Duke University, and Chief of Hematology and Oncology at the Durham VA Medical Center. “You cannot look at the pathway and think that you know how to practice. It is a preferred-decision flow map—not a requirement to do that. We expect that all providers will be off the pathways some of the time and most of the time, they will be on there.”
The VA has an extensive series of clinical pathways in oncology that are designed to help clinicians navigate through the treatment of 20 types of cancer, including common types—breast, lung, and colon—and rarer types, such as salivary gland and biliary tract cancer. Many of the pathways have been updated within just the past few months, and more are in the works.
The pathways are developed through subject-matter expert groups made up of experts from National Cancer Institute–designated cancer centers, Kelley said. “The pathway is published as a PDF document on internally and externally facing websites, then it's built into the medical record system.” Clinicians who diverge from the pathways have to note this in the health record system, enter reasons why, and provide the alternative care strategy, Kelley explained.
Moving forward, the VA is “committed to doing a formal review of all the pathways at least quarterly, and we will do ad hoc reviews and alterations as information merits.” He said, “There are hundreds of oncology providers in the VA, and we want everyone to have an opportunity to have input. That's your opportunity: We do read every comment, and we'll actually generate a response to every comment.”
Telitacicept shows efficacy, safety in methotrexate-resistant RA
SAN DIEGO – A new randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study of the first-in-class drug telitacicept showed efficacy and safety in patients aged 18-65 with rheumatoid arthritis who were resistant to methotrexate, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
Telitacicept is a recombinant fusion protein that aims to target and neutralize B lymphocyte stimulator (also known as B-cell activating factor) and a proliferation-inducing ligand (APRIL), both of which are linked to autoimmunity. Per the industry-funded trial, patients who took 160 mg weekly of the drug versus placebo for 24 weeks met the primary endpoint of achieving at least a 20% improvement in ACR response criteria (60.0% vs. 26.9%, respectively, P < .001), researcher Qing Zuraw, MD, MPH, MBA, of drug developer RemeGen, said in her presentation.
Rheumatologist Jeffrey A. Sparks MD, MMSc, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, who did not take part in the study but is familiar with the findings, said in an interview that the results are promising. “The magnitude of effect is impressive, and it seems it was well tolerated with relatively few serious adverse events. I would want to see this replicated in other patient populations. Also, more data are needed to truly establish safety.”
He added that, “once more data emerges, there would be a debate on where to place this in the treatment lines.”
According to Dr. Sparks, nearly half of patients with RA either cannot tolerate methotrexate or have partial or no response. “There are currently several available treatment options. These patients typically use either [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitors, another targeted medication, or combination therapy.”
Telitacicept is approved in China to treat systemic lupus erythematosus, Dr. Zuraw noted.
The researchers randomly assigned patients with moderate to severe RA at a 3:1 ratio to the drug (n = 360) or placebo (n = 119). The participants were aged 18-65 with a mean age of 49-50 depending on group, and 81.1%-87.4% females depending on group. Ethnicity/race was not reported.
At week 24, patients in the telitacicept group were more likely to achieve an ACR 50 response versus placebo (21.4% vs. 5.9%, respectively; P < .001).
“Significantly more patients in the telitacicept 160 mg group showed no radiographic progression (change in modified Total Sharp Score [mTSS] ≤ 0) at week 24, compared with placebo (90.2% vs. 66.4%; P < .001),” the researchers reported. “Additionally, patients in the telitacicept 160-mg group showed significantly less progression of joint damage (as measured by mTSS, joint space narrowing score, erosion score) from baseline to week 24.”
Treatment-emergent adverse effect levels were similar between the two groups (79.7% in the drug group and 77.3% in the placebo group), as were serious adverse events (6.4% and 6.7%, respectively) and infections/infestations (41.1% and 42.0%, respectively).
Dr. Zuraw noted limitations: The trial lacked a comparator treatment, and the study took place in a Chinese population with limited racial diversity.
In a Q&A session following Dr. Zuraw’s presentation, an audience member offered some perspective instead of a question by noting that most biologic drugs reach an ACR 20 response rate of about 60%, and most fail to move patients to low disease activity. “That’s the case for your product,” he told Dr. Zuraw. “That’s true for basically everything.”
He added that failing to discuss clinical importance is “a flaw of many talks.”
Dr. Zuraw responded that the many drugs do indeed have a response rate in the range of 60%, and she said the company will consider providing information about clinical impact in future talks.
No information is available about the potential cost of the drug. “This targets two proteins, so it is possible that it could have additional costs than typical biologics,” Dr. Sparks said.
RemeGen funded the study. Dr. Zuraw and some other authors disclosed financial relationships with RemeGen. Dr. Sparks reported receiving support from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Gordon and Llura Gund Foundation; research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb; and consulting for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova, Janssen, Optum, Pfizer, Recor, Sobi, and UCB.
SAN DIEGO – A new randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study of the first-in-class drug telitacicept showed efficacy and safety in patients aged 18-65 with rheumatoid arthritis who were resistant to methotrexate, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
Telitacicept is a recombinant fusion protein that aims to target and neutralize B lymphocyte stimulator (also known as B-cell activating factor) and a proliferation-inducing ligand (APRIL), both of which are linked to autoimmunity. Per the industry-funded trial, patients who took 160 mg weekly of the drug versus placebo for 24 weeks met the primary endpoint of achieving at least a 20% improvement in ACR response criteria (60.0% vs. 26.9%, respectively, P < .001), researcher Qing Zuraw, MD, MPH, MBA, of drug developer RemeGen, said in her presentation.
Rheumatologist Jeffrey A. Sparks MD, MMSc, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, who did not take part in the study but is familiar with the findings, said in an interview that the results are promising. “The magnitude of effect is impressive, and it seems it was well tolerated with relatively few serious adverse events. I would want to see this replicated in other patient populations. Also, more data are needed to truly establish safety.”
He added that, “once more data emerges, there would be a debate on where to place this in the treatment lines.”
According to Dr. Sparks, nearly half of patients with RA either cannot tolerate methotrexate or have partial or no response. “There are currently several available treatment options. These patients typically use either [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitors, another targeted medication, or combination therapy.”
Telitacicept is approved in China to treat systemic lupus erythematosus, Dr. Zuraw noted.
The researchers randomly assigned patients with moderate to severe RA at a 3:1 ratio to the drug (n = 360) or placebo (n = 119). The participants were aged 18-65 with a mean age of 49-50 depending on group, and 81.1%-87.4% females depending on group. Ethnicity/race was not reported.
At week 24, patients in the telitacicept group were more likely to achieve an ACR 50 response versus placebo (21.4% vs. 5.9%, respectively; P < .001).
“Significantly more patients in the telitacicept 160 mg group showed no radiographic progression (change in modified Total Sharp Score [mTSS] ≤ 0) at week 24, compared with placebo (90.2% vs. 66.4%; P < .001),” the researchers reported. “Additionally, patients in the telitacicept 160-mg group showed significantly less progression of joint damage (as measured by mTSS, joint space narrowing score, erosion score) from baseline to week 24.”
Treatment-emergent adverse effect levels were similar between the two groups (79.7% in the drug group and 77.3% in the placebo group), as were serious adverse events (6.4% and 6.7%, respectively) and infections/infestations (41.1% and 42.0%, respectively).
Dr. Zuraw noted limitations: The trial lacked a comparator treatment, and the study took place in a Chinese population with limited racial diversity.
In a Q&A session following Dr. Zuraw’s presentation, an audience member offered some perspective instead of a question by noting that most biologic drugs reach an ACR 20 response rate of about 60%, and most fail to move patients to low disease activity. “That’s the case for your product,” he told Dr. Zuraw. “That’s true for basically everything.”
He added that failing to discuss clinical importance is “a flaw of many talks.”
Dr. Zuraw responded that the many drugs do indeed have a response rate in the range of 60%, and she said the company will consider providing information about clinical impact in future talks.
No information is available about the potential cost of the drug. “This targets two proteins, so it is possible that it could have additional costs than typical biologics,” Dr. Sparks said.
RemeGen funded the study. Dr. Zuraw and some other authors disclosed financial relationships with RemeGen. Dr. Sparks reported receiving support from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Gordon and Llura Gund Foundation; research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb; and consulting for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova, Janssen, Optum, Pfizer, Recor, Sobi, and UCB.
SAN DIEGO – A new randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study of the first-in-class drug telitacicept showed efficacy and safety in patients aged 18-65 with rheumatoid arthritis who were resistant to methotrexate, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
Telitacicept is a recombinant fusion protein that aims to target and neutralize B lymphocyte stimulator (also known as B-cell activating factor) and a proliferation-inducing ligand (APRIL), both of which are linked to autoimmunity. Per the industry-funded trial, patients who took 160 mg weekly of the drug versus placebo for 24 weeks met the primary endpoint of achieving at least a 20% improvement in ACR response criteria (60.0% vs. 26.9%, respectively, P < .001), researcher Qing Zuraw, MD, MPH, MBA, of drug developer RemeGen, said in her presentation.
Rheumatologist Jeffrey A. Sparks MD, MMSc, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, who did not take part in the study but is familiar with the findings, said in an interview that the results are promising. “The magnitude of effect is impressive, and it seems it was well tolerated with relatively few serious adverse events. I would want to see this replicated in other patient populations. Also, more data are needed to truly establish safety.”
He added that, “once more data emerges, there would be a debate on where to place this in the treatment lines.”
According to Dr. Sparks, nearly half of patients with RA either cannot tolerate methotrexate or have partial or no response. “There are currently several available treatment options. These patients typically use either [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitors, another targeted medication, or combination therapy.”
Telitacicept is approved in China to treat systemic lupus erythematosus, Dr. Zuraw noted.
The researchers randomly assigned patients with moderate to severe RA at a 3:1 ratio to the drug (n = 360) or placebo (n = 119). The participants were aged 18-65 with a mean age of 49-50 depending on group, and 81.1%-87.4% females depending on group. Ethnicity/race was not reported.
At week 24, patients in the telitacicept group were more likely to achieve an ACR 50 response versus placebo (21.4% vs. 5.9%, respectively; P < .001).
“Significantly more patients in the telitacicept 160 mg group showed no radiographic progression (change in modified Total Sharp Score [mTSS] ≤ 0) at week 24, compared with placebo (90.2% vs. 66.4%; P < .001),” the researchers reported. “Additionally, patients in the telitacicept 160-mg group showed significantly less progression of joint damage (as measured by mTSS, joint space narrowing score, erosion score) from baseline to week 24.”
Treatment-emergent adverse effect levels were similar between the two groups (79.7% in the drug group and 77.3% in the placebo group), as were serious adverse events (6.4% and 6.7%, respectively) and infections/infestations (41.1% and 42.0%, respectively).
Dr. Zuraw noted limitations: The trial lacked a comparator treatment, and the study took place in a Chinese population with limited racial diversity.
In a Q&A session following Dr. Zuraw’s presentation, an audience member offered some perspective instead of a question by noting that most biologic drugs reach an ACR 20 response rate of about 60%, and most fail to move patients to low disease activity. “That’s the case for your product,” he told Dr. Zuraw. “That’s true for basically everything.”
He added that failing to discuss clinical importance is “a flaw of many talks.”
Dr. Zuraw responded that the many drugs do indeed have a response rate in the range of 60%, and she said the company will consider providing information about clinical impact in future talks.
No information is available about the potential cost of the drug. “This targets two proteins, so it is possible that it could have additional costs than typical biologics,” Dr. Sparks said.
RemeGen funded the study. Dr. Zuraw and some other authors disclosed financial relationships with RemeGen. Dr. Sparks reported receiving support from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Gordon and Llura Gund Foundation; research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb; and consulting for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova, Janssen, Optum, Pfizer, Recor, Sobi, and UCB.
AT ACR 2023
Novel blood test can detect RA
SAN DIEGO – Researchers say they’ve developed a novel blood-based assay that can differentiate patients with seropositive or seronegative rheumatoid arthritis from healthy people and those with other inflammatory diseases or osteoarthritis.
While cautioning that the results need to be confirmed, University of Oxford (England) rheumatologist Peter Taylor, PhD, MA, told an audience at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology that the test has an overall mean sensitivity of 90.8% (standard deviation, 0.94%; 95% confidence interval, 83.2%-95.4%) and mean specificity of 96.1% (SD, 0.64%; 95% CI, 92.7%-97.9%). The mean area under the curve (AUC) is 0.991 (SD, 0.001; 95% CI, 97.2%-99.6%).
“That is to say that it can correctly identify 96% of people without rheumatoid arthritis, and it can correctly identify over 90% of those who do have rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Taylor said. In the big picture, he said, “we’ve developed a blood-based assay that detects both organ-specific and systemic biological processes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.”
Rheumatologist Kevin W. Byram, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who did not take part in the study but is familiar with its findings, noted in an interview that “there is a constant search for biomarkers to help aide in more accurate and faster diagnosis of all rheumatic conditions, including RA.”
He added that “a common clinical scenario for the rheumatologist is a patient presenting with painful and/or swollen joints and other features that might suggest a few different diagnoses. A diagnostic assay like this might help distinguish patients with RA from other inflammatory conditions or non-inflammatory conditions that might mimic RA.”
In his presentation, Dr. Taylor noted that “we haven’t yet integrated precision medicine into routine clinical practice in rheumatology.” While blood-based assays are prevalent in other types of clinical diagnostics, rheumatology relies on synovial biopsies that are “rarely used in routine clinical practice,” he said.
The new test is a “non-invasive DNA capture assay that can identify specific gene expression from synovium-specific signatures in blood plasma of patients with rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Taylor said. Specifically, it focuses on the “unique patterns and sizes of cell-free DNA,” he said. “Analysis of [long] fragments has the potential to give us a great deal of information about disease progression, potentially about customizing treatments and even evaluating the effectiveness of therapies.”
For the new study, researchers examined 229 samples from 191 patients, of whom 63.3% were White and 67.9% were female, with a median age of 56. A total of 89 patients with RA provided 89 samples and 102 without RA provided 140 samples, including 29 healthy controls (66 samples) and others with conditions such as psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and osteoarthritis.
The machine learning model “identified 3,425 epigenetic features with statistically significant discrimination between the patients with and without rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Taylor said. These features were mapped to 929 genes which had some overlap with known blood pathway genes.
“Over and above that, there’s a whole set of these epigenetic features which represent novel pathways and potentially rich hunting ground for therapeutic targets and other translational investigation,” he said.
For seronegative cases, mean AUC was 0.971 (SD, 0.001; 95% CI, 93.8%-99.2%), sensitivity was 83.7% (SD, 2.03; 95% CI, 63.3%-91.8%) and specificity was 95.4% (SD, 0.69; 95% CI, 90.8%-97.5%).
Specificity for RA versus healthy controls was 100 (SD, 0; 95% CI, 94.4-100.0).
Dr. Byram described the study as small but intriguing. He cautioned that “there is always some likelihood that the actual components of the test are just recognizing some combination of things we are already testing in the clinic,” he said. Details about the patients in the study can offer insight into “whether the assay is actually just recognizing something about patients with RA that is truly different, or rather is it recognizing how a common factor among patients with RA is transcribed by the cell.”
Moving forward, “it is important to get a grasp of how these biomarkers might perform in various settings,” he said.
Dr. Taylor did not discuss the potential cost of the assay in his presentation. “Tests like these have to strike a real balance in being useful and cost-effective and, since they are still made by commercial companies with commercial interests, also make a margin for their owner,” Dr. Byram said. “Turnaround time is also an important factor to think about.”
Aqtual funded the study. Dr. Taylor reports consulting for AbbVie, Aqtual, Biogen, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB and receiving grant support from Galapagos. The other study authors all have relationships with Aqtual, and some report various other disclosures. Dr. Byram has no disclosures.
SAN DIEGO – Researchers say they’ve developed a novel blood-based assay that can differentiate patients with seropositive or seronegative rheumatoid arthritis from healthy people and those with other inflammatory diseases or osteoarthritis.
While cautioning that the results need to be confirmed, University of Oxford (England) rheumatologist Peter Taylor, PhD, MA, told an audience at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology that the test has an overall mean sensitivity of 90.8% (standard deviation, 0.94%; 95% confidence interval, 83.2%-95.4%) and mean specificity of 96.1% (SD, 0.64%; 95% CI, 92.7%-97.9%). The mean area under the curve (AUC) is 0.991 (SD, 0.001; 95% CI, 97.2%-99.6%).
“That is to say that it can correctly identify 96% of people without rheumatoid arthritis, and it can correctly identify over 90% of those who do have rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Taylor said. In the big picture, he said, “we’ve developed a blood-based assay that detects both organ-specific and systemic biological processes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.”
Rheumatologist Kevin W. Byram, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who did not take part in the study but is familiar with its findings, noted in an interview that “there is a constant search for biomarkers to help aide in more accurate and faster diagnosis of all rheumatic conditions, including RA.”
He added that “a common clinical scenario for the rheumatologist is a patient presenting with painful and/or swollen joints and other features that might suggest a few different diagnoses. A diagnostic assay like this might help distinguish patients with RA from other inflammatory conditions or non-inflammatory conditions that might mimic RA.”
In his presentation, Dr. Taylor noted that “we haven’t yet integrated precision medicine into routine clinical practice in rheumatology.” While blood-based assays are prevalent in other types of clinical diagnostics, rheumatology relies on synovial biopsies that are “rarely used in routine clinical practice,” he said.
The new test is a “non-invasive DNA capture assay that can identify specific gene expression from synovium-specific signatures in blood plasma of patients with rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Taylor said. Specifically, it focuses on the “unique patterns and sizes of cell-free DNA,” he said. “Analysis of [long] fragments has the potential to give us a great deal of information about disease progression, potentially about customizing treatments and even evaluating the effectiveness of therapies.”
For the new study, researchers examined 229 samples from 191 patients, of whom 63.3% were White and 67.9% were female, with a median age of 56. A total of 89 patients with RA provided 89 samples and 102 without RA provided 140 samples, including 29 healthy controls (66 samples) and others with conditions such as psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and osteoarthritis.
The machine learning model “identified 3,425 epigenetic features with statistically significant discrimination between the patients with and without rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Taylor said. These features were mapped to 929 genes which had some overlap with known blood pathway genes.
“Over and above that, there’s a whole set of these epigenetic features which represent novel pathways and potentially rich hunting ground for therapeutic targets and other translational investigation,” he said.
For seronegative cases, mean AUC was 0.971 (SD, 0.001; 95% CI, 93.8%-99.2%), sensitivity was 83.7% (SD, 2.03; 95% CI, 63.3%-91.8%) and specificity was 95.4% (SD, 0.69; 95% CI, 90.8%-97.5%).
Specificity for RA versus healthy controls was 100 (SD, 0; 95% CI, 94.4-100.0).
Dr. Byram described the study as small but intriguing. He cautioned that “there is always some likelihood that the actual components of the test are just recognizing some combination of things we are already testing in the clinic,” he said. Details about the patients in the study can offer insight into “whether the assay is actually just recognizing something about patients with RA that is truly different, or rather is it recognizing how a common factor among patients with RA is transcribed by the cell.”
Moving forward, “it is important to get a grasp of how these biomarkers might perform in various settings,” he said.
Dr. Taylor did not discuss the potential cost of the assay in his presentation. “Tests like these have to strike a real balance in being useful and cost-effective and, since they are still made by commercial companies with commercial interests, also make a margin for their owner,” Dr. Byram said. “Turnaround time is also an important factor to think about.”
Aqtual funded the study. Dr. Taylor reports consulting for AbbVie, Aqtual, Biogen, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB and receiving grant support from Galapagos. The other study authors all have relationships with Aqtual, and some report various other disclosures. Dr. Byram has no disclosures.
SAN DIEGO – Researchers say they’ve developed a novel blood-based assay that can differentiate patients with seropositive or seronegative rheumatoid arthritis from healthy people and those with other inflammatory diseases or osteoarthritis.
While cautioning that the results need to be confirmed, University of Oxford (England) rheumatologist Peter Taylor, PhD, MA, told an audience at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology that the test has an overall mean sensitivity of 90.8% (standard deviation, 0.94%; 95% confidence interval, 83.2%-95.4%) and mean specificity of 96.1% (SD, 0.64%; 95% CI, 92.7%-97.9%). The mean area under the curve (AUC) is 0.991 (SD, 0.001; 95% CI, 97.2%-99.6%).
“That is to say that it can correctly identify 96% of people without rheumatoid arthritis, and it can correctly identify over 90% of those who do have rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Taylor said. In the big picture, he said, “we’ve developed a blood-based assay that detects both organ-specific and systemic biological processes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.”
Rheumatologist Kevin W. Byram, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who did not take part in the study but is familiar with its findings, noted in an interview that “there is a constant search for biomarkers to help aide in more accurate and faster diagnosis of all rheumatic conditions, including RA.”
He added that “a common clinical scenario for the rheumatologist is a patient presenting with painful and/or swollen joints and other features that might suggest a few different diagnoses. A diagnostic assay like this might help distinguish patients with RA from other inflammatory conditions or non-inflammatory conditions that might mimic RA.”
In his presentation, Dr. Taylor noted that “we haven’t yet integrated precision medicine into routine clinical practice in rheumatology.” While blood-based assays are prevalent in other types of clinical diagnostics, rheumatology relies on synovial biopsies that are “rarely used in routine clinical practice,” he said.
The new test is a “non-invasive DNA capture assay that can identify specific gene expression from synovium-specific signatures in blood plasma of patients with rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Taylor said. Specifically, it focuses on the “unique patterns and sizes of cell-free DNA,” he said. “Analysis of [long] fragments has the potential to give us a great deal of information about disease progression, potentially about customizing treatments and even evaluating the effectiveness of therapies.”
For the new study, researchers examined 229 samples from 191 patients, of whom 63.3% were White and 67.9% were female, with a median age of 56. A total of 89 patients with RA provided 89 samples and 102 without RA provided 140 samples, including 29 healthy controls (66 samples) and others with conditions such as psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and osteoarthritis.
The machine learning model “identified 3,425 epigenetic features with statistically significant discrimination between the patients with and without rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Taylor said. These features were mapped to 929 genes which had some overlap with known blood pathway genes.
“Over and above that, there’s a whole set of these epigenetic features which represent novel pathways and potentially rich hunting ground for therapeutic targets and other translational investigation,” he said.
For seronegative cases, mean AUC was 0.971 (SD, 0.001; 95% CI, 93.8%-99.2%), sensitivity was 83.7% (SD, 2.03; 95% CI, 63.3%-91.8%) and specificity was 95.4% (SD, 0.69; 95% CI, 90.8%-97.5%).
Specificity for RA versus healthy controls was 100 (SD, 0; 95% CI, 94.4-100.0).
Dr. Byram described the study as small but intriguing. He cautioned that “there is always some likelihood that the actual components of the test are just recognizing some combination of things we are already testing in the clinic,” he said. Details about the patients in the study can offer insight into “whether the assay is actually just recognizing something about patients with RA that is truly different, or rather is it recognizing how a common factor among patients with RA is transcribed by the cell.”
Moving forward, “it is important to get a grasp of how these biomarkers might perform in various settings,” he said.
Dr. Taylor did not discuss the potential cost of the assay in his presentation. “Tests like these have to strike a real balance in being useful and cost-effective and, since they are still made by commercial companies with commercial interests, also make a margin for their owner,” Dr. Byram said. “Turnaround time is also an important factor to think about.”
Aqtual funded the study. Dr. Taylor reports consulting for AbbVie, Aqtual, Biogen, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB and receiving grant support from Galapagos. The other study authors all have relationships with Aqtual, and some report various other disclosures. Dr. Byram has no disclosures.
AT ACR 2023
IV secukinumab, alternative to self-injections, reaches primary endpoints in PsA, axSpA
SAN DIEGO – Monthly use of intravenously administered secukinumab (Cosentyx) proved its efficacy over placebo in treating psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) in two industry-sponsored, randomized, double-blinded, phase 3 trials of the drug’s second and newly approved route of administration.
The studies of the human monoclonal antibody secukinumab, an interleukin-17 inhibitor, were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. A subcutaneously injectable formulation of the drug is available, and the Food and Drug Administration approved the IV form for the conditions in October, although at a recommended lower monthly dose than the new trials examined.
In the PsA trial, 191 patients took IV secukinumab, and 190 took placebo. For the primary endpoint, the percentages who reached at least a 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR 50) at 16 weeks were 31.4% and 6.3%, respectively (P < .0001).
In the axSpA trial, 264 patients took IV secukinumab, and 262 took placebo. The primary endpoint, at least a 40% improvement in Assessment of the Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40), was met at 16 weeks by 40.9% and 22.9%, respectively (P < .0001).
“Both studies appear to present clear efficacy of IV route administration of secukinumab with no clear increase in safety signals,” consultant rheumatologist Nicola Goodson, MBChB, PhD, of Aintree University Hospital in Liverpool, England, said in an interview.
“Offering IV administration as an option to patients is helpful,” added Dr. Goodson, who was not involved with the study but is familiar with its findings.
As Dr. Goodson explained, secukinumab “was the first IL [interleukin]-17 inhibitor used to treat spondyloarthropathies, and we have been using subcutaneous secukinumab to treat psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and axial spondyloarthritis/ankylosing spondylitis since 2016 in the U.K. Our experience with this medication has been good with similar efficacy to anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] therapy in axial spondyloarthritis. The medication is generally well-tolerated, and the subcutaneous pen injection device is easy for patients to use.”
However, IV treatment may speed up onset of action, she said, and it may be useful in situations when compliance is a challenge.
PsA trial details
In the PsA trial, known as INVIGORATE-2, researchers recruited patients who met the CASPAR criteria for active PsA with symptoms for ≥ 6 months, and had ≥ 3 tender joints out of 78 joints and ≥ 3 swollen joints out of 76.
Participants with a mean age of 48, including 55% females, were randomized 1:1 to receive placebo or secukinumab (6 mg/kg at baseline followed by 3 mg/kg every 4 weeks). Those in the placebo group were switched to the same monthly doses of secukinumab at 16 weeks.
“Patients who switched from the placebo had a similar increase of efficacy as the original treated group,” rheumatologist Alan J. Kivitz, MD, of the Altoona Center for Clinical Research, in Duncansville, Penn., said in his presentation at the meeting. Specifically, at 52 weeks, the groups had similar ACR 50 response rates: 58% with secukinumab and 64% with placebo-to-secukinumab.
The fact that patients in the original placebo group who received 3 mg IV doses without 6-mg loading doses achieved ACR response rates similar to those who took secukinumab during the whole trial “could suggest that the IV loading dose may not be required. This would need to be explored in a randomized head-to-head study, but it’s an interesting observation that may reduce costs and exposure to higher doses of medication at the start of treatment,” Dr. Goodson said.
Among the patients who received secukinumab at any point in the study, 63% had a treatment-emergent adverse event, including 5.9% with serious events. One death was reported in the placebo group before week 16. No other deaths were reported.
AxSpA trial details
In the axSpA trial, called INVIGORATE-1, researchers recruited people aged ≥18 years with a diagnosis of active radiographic axSpA according to modified New York criteria or nonradiographic axSpA according to ASAS criteria, and all had inflammatory back pain for ≥6 months with an onset before age 45. They were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive IV secukinumab (6 mg/kg loading dose, followed by 3 mg/kg every 4 weeks) or placebo for 16 weeks. At that point, the placebo group switched to the same monthly doses of IV secukinumab.
Participants had a mean age of about 39, and about one-third were female.
Following the statistical superiority in ASAS 40 response rates seen with IV secukinumab at week 16, patients who from there switched from placebo to IV secukinumab achieved comparable ASAS 40 response rates to those of patients originally randomized to secukinumab by week 24, reaching 66.8% for those on secukinumab the whole time and 74.9% for those who switched.
Secondary outcome measures were similar in both groups at week 52.
Among all patients who took secukinumab – the percentage with any adverse event was 63.2%, and 6% had a nonfatal adverse event deemed serious. There was one death during secukinumab treatment not suspected to be related to treatment.
In a presentation about the axSpA study findings, Atul Deodhar, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, noted that “having an IV biologic available in the U.S. has some advantages. There are certain insurance providers such as Medicare where it is more economical for the patient to have an IV drug available.”
Dr. Deodhar also noted that in October the FDA approved a recommended lower dose for the IV treatment than in the study: 1.75 mg/kg instead of 3 mg/kg following the loading dose. That’s because the 3 mg/kg dose caused blood levels to be higher than those in the subcutaneous form, he said.
The FDA made the same dose recommendation for PsA.
Study limitations
Dr. Goodson, the U.K. consultant rheumatologist, noted a limitation of the trials: “It would have been interesting to compare IV to subcutaneous route secukinumab.” Still, the findings suggest that “the safety and efficacy of IV administration appears comparable,” she said.
“IV administration will have associated costs of attending hospital or infusion clinics,” she added, “and the cost of additional staff and administration need to be considered.”
Novartis, the maker of secukinumab, funded both studies. The PsA study authors report multiple relationships with industry, and some, such as Dr. Kivitz, have connections to Novartis. The axSpA study authors also report multiple relationships with industry, and some, such as Dr. Deodhar, have connections to Novartis. Some authors of both studies are Novartis employees. Dr. Goodson disclosed financial relationships with UCB and AbbVie.
SAN DIEGO – Monthly use of intravenously administered secukinumab (Cosentyx) proved its efficacy over placebo in treating psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) in two industry-sponsored, randomized, double-blinded, phase 3 trials of the drug’s second and newly approved route of administration.
The studies of the human monoclonal antibody secukinumab, an interleukin-17 inhibitor, were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. A subcutaneously injectable formulation of the drug is available, and the Food and Drug Administration approved the IV form for the conditions in October, although at a recommended lower monthly dose than the new trials examined.
In the PsA trial, 191 patients took IV secukinumab, and 190 took placebo. For the primary endpoint, the percentages who reached at least a 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR 50) at 16 weeks were 31.4% and 6.3%, respectively (P < .0001).
In the axSpA trial, 264 patients took IV secukinumab, and 262 took placebo. The primary endpoint, at least a 40% improvement in Assessment of the Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40), was met at 16 weeks by 40.9% and 22.9%, respectively (P < .0001).
“Both studies appear to present clear efficacy of IV route administration of secukinumab with no clear increase in safety signals,” consultant rheumatologist Nicola Goodson, MBChB, PhD, of Aintree University Hospital in Liverpool, England, said in an interview.
“Offering IV administration as an option to patients is helpful,” added Dr. Goodson, who was not involved with the study but is familiar with its findings.
As Dr. Goodson explained, secukinumab “was the first IL [interleukin]-17 inhibitor used to treat spondyloarthropathies, and we have been using subcutaneous secukinumab to treat psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and axial spondyloarthritis/ankylosing spondylitis since 2016 in the U.K. Our experience with this medication has been good with similar efficacy to anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] therapy in axial spondyloarthritis. The medication is generally well-tolerated, and the subcutaneous pen injection device is easy for patients to use.”
However, IV treatment may speed up onset of action, she said, and it may be useful in situations when compliance is a challenge.
PsA trial details
In the PsA trial, known as INVIGORATE-2, researchers recruited patients who met the CASPAR criteria for active PsA with symptoms for ≥ 6 months, and had ≥ 3 tender joints out of 78 joints and ≥ 3 swollen joints out of 76.
Participants with a mean age of 48, including 55% females, were randomized 1:1 to receive placebo or secukinumab (6 mg/kg at baseline followed by 3 mg/kg every 4 weeks). Those in the placebo group were switched to the same monthly doses of secukinumab at 16 weeks.
“Patients who switched from the placebo had a similar increase of efficacy as the original treated group,” rheumatologist Alan J. Kivitz, MD, of the Altoona Center for Clinical Research, in Duncansville, Penn., said in his presentation at the meeting. Specifically, at 52 weeks, the groups had similar ACR 50 response rates: 58% with secukinumab and 64% with placebo-to-secukinumab.
The fact that patients in the original placebo group who received 3 mg IV doses without 6-mg loading doses achieved ACR response rates similar to those who took secukinumab during the whole trial “could suggest that the IV loading dose may not be required. This would need to be explored in a randomized head-to-head study, but it’s an interesting observation that may reduce costs and exposure to higher doses of medication at the start of treatment,” Dr. Goodson said.
Among the patients who received secukinumab at any point in the study, 63% had a treatment-emergent adverse event, including 5.9% with serious events. One death was reported in the placebo group before week 16. No other deaths were reported.
AxSpA trial details
In the axSpA trial, called INVIGORATE-1, researchers recruited people aged ≥18 years with a diagnosis of active radiographic axSpA according to modified New York criteria or nonradiographic axSpA according to ASAS criteria, and all had inflammatory back pain for ≥6 months with an onset before age 45. They were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive IV secukinumab (6 mg/kg loading dose, followed by 3 mg/kg every 4 weeks) or placebo for 16 weeks. At that point, the placebo group switched to the same monthly doses of IV secukinumab.
Participants had a mean age of about 39, and about one-third were female.
Following the statistical superiority in ASAS 40 response rates seen with IV secukinumab at week 16, patients who from there switched from placebo to IV secukinumab achieved comparable ASAS 40 response rates to those of patients originally randomized to secukinumab by week 24, reaching 66.8% for those on secukinumab the whole time and 74.9% for those who switched.
Secondary outcome measures were similar in both groups at week 52.
Among all patients who took secukinumab – the percentage with any adverse event was 63.2%, and 6% had a nonfatal adverse event deemed serious. There was one death during secukinumab treatment not suspected to be related to treatment.
In a presentation about the axSpA study findings, Atul Deodhar, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, noted that “having an IV biologic available in the U.S. has some advantages. There are certain insurance providers such as Medicare where it is more economical for the patient to have an IV drug available.”
Dr. Deodhar also noted that in October the FDA approved a recommended lower dose for the IV treatment than in the study: 1.75 mg/kg instead of 3 mg/kg following the loading dose. That’s because the 3 mg/kg dose caused blood levels to be higher than those in the subcutaneous form, he said.
The FDA made the same dose recommendation for PsA.
Study limitations
Dr. Goodson, the U.K. consultant rheumatologist, noted a limitation of the trials: “It would have been interesting to compare IV to subcutaneous route secukinumab.” Still, the findings suggest that “the safety and efficacy of IV administration appears comparable,” she said.
“IV administration will have associated costs of attending hospital or infusion clinics,” she added, “and the cost of additional staff and administration need to be considered.”
Novartis, the maker of secukinumab, funded both studies. The PsA study authors report multiple relationships with industry, and some, such as Dr. Kivitz, have connections to Novartis. The axSpA study authors also report multiple relationships with industry, and some, such as Dr. Deodhar, have connections to Novartis. Some authors of both studies are Novartis employees. Dr. Goodson disclosed financial relationships with UCB and AbbVie.
SAN DIEGO – Monthly use of intravenously administered secukinumab (Cosentyx) proved its efficacy over placebo in treating psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) in two industry-sponsored, randomized, double-blinded, phase 3 trials of the drug’s second and newly approved route of administration.
The studies of the human monoclonal antibody secukinumab, an interleukin-17 inhibitor, were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. A subcutaneously injectable formulation of the drug is available, and the Food and Drug Administration approved the IV form for the conditions in October, although at a recommended lower monthly dose than the new trials examined.
In the PsA trial, 191 patients took IV secukinumab, and 190 took placebo. For the primary endpoint, the percentages who reached at least a 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR 50) at 16 weeks were 31.4% and 6.3%, respectively (P < .0001).
In the axSpA trial, 264 patients took IV secukinumab, and 262 took placebo. The primary endpoint, at least a 40% improvement in Assessment of the Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40), was met at 16 weeks by 40.9% and 22.9%, respectively (P < .0001).
“Both studies appear to present clear efficacy of IV route administration of secukinumab with no clear increase in safety signals,” consultant rheumatologist Nicola Goodson, MBChB, PhD, of Aintree University Hospital in Liverpool, England, said in an interview.
“Offering IV administration as an option to patients is helpful,” added Dr. Goodson, who was not involved with the study but is familiar with its findings.
As Dr. Goodson explained, secukinumab “was the first IL [interleukin]-17 inhibitor used to treat spondyloarthropathies, and we have been using subcutaneous secukinumab to treat psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and axial spondyloarthritis/ankylosing spondylitis since 2016 in the U.K. Our experience with this medication has been good with similar efficacy to anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] therapy in axial spondyloarthritis. The medication is generally well-tolerated, and the subcutaneous pen injection device is easy for patients to use.”
However, IV treatment may speed up onset of action, she said, and it may be useful in situations when compliance is a challenge.
PsA trial details
In the PsA trial, known as INVIGORATE-2, researchers recruited patients who met the CASPAR criteria for active PsA with symptoms for ≥ 6 months, and had ≥ 3 tender joints out of 78 joints and ≥ 3 swollen joints out of 76.
Participants with a mean age of 48, including 55% females, were randomized 1:1 to receive placebo or secukinumab (6 mg/kg at baseline followed by 3 mg/kg every 4 weeks). Those in the placebo group were switched to the same monthly doses of secukinumab at 16 weeks.
“Patients who switched from the placebo had a similar increase of efficacy as the original treated group,” rheumatologist Alan J. Kivitz, MD, of the Altoona Center for Clinical Research, in Duncansville, Penn., said in his presentation at the meeting. Specifically, at 52 weeks, the groups had similar ACR 50 response rates: 58% with secukinumab and 64% with placebo-to-secukinumab.
The fact that patients in the original placebo group who received 3 mg IV doses without 6-mg loading doses achieved ACR response rates similar to those who took secukinumab during the whole trial “could suggest that the IV loading dose may not be required. This would need to be explored in a randomized head-to-head study, but it’s an interesting observation that may reduce costs and exposure to higher doses of medication at the start of treatment,” Dr. Goodson said.
Among the patients who received secukinumab at any point in the study, 63% had a treatment-emergent adverse event, including 5.9% with serious events. One death was reported in the placebo group before week 16. No other deaths were reported.
AxSpA trial details
In the axSpA trial, called INVIGORATE-1, researchers recruited people aged ≥18 years with a diagnosis of active radiographic axSpA according to modified New York criteria or nonradiographic axSpA according to ASAS criteria, and all had inflammatory back pain for ≥6 months with an onset before age 45. They were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive IV secukinumab (6 mg/kg loading dose, followed by 3 mg/kg every 4 weeks) or placebo for 16 weeks. At that point, the placebo group switched to the same monthly doses of IV secukinumab.
Participants had a mean age of about 39, and about one-third were female.
Following the statistical superiority in ASAS 40 response rates seen with IV secukinumab at week 16, patients who from there switched from placebo to IV secukinumab achieved comparable ASAS 40 response rates to those of patients originally randomized to secukinumab by week 24, reaching 66.8% for those on secukinumab the whole time and 74.9% for those who switched.
Secondary outcome measures were similar in both groups at week 52.
Among all patients who took secukinumab – the percentage with any adverse event was 63.2%, and 6% had a nonfatal adverse event deemed serious. There was one death during secukinumab treatment not suspected to be related to treatment.
In a presentation about the axSpA study findings, Atul Deodhar, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, noted that “having an IV biologic available in the U.S. has some advantages. There are certain insurance providers such as Medicare where it is more economical for the patient to have an IV drug available.”
Dr. Deodhar also noted that in October the FDA approved a recommended lower dose for the IV treatment than in the study: 1.75 mg/kg instead of 3 mg/kg following the loading dose. That’s because the 3 mg/kg dose caused blood levels to be higher than those in the subcutaneous form, he said.
The FDA made the same dose recommendation for PsA.
Study limitations
Dr. Goodson, the U.K. consultant rheumatologist, noted a limitation of the trials: “It would have been interesting to compare IV to subcutaneous route secukinumab.” Still, the findings suggest that “the safety and efficacy of IV administration appears comparable,” she said.
“IV administration will have associated costs of attending hospital or infusion clinics,” she added, “and the cost of additional staff and administration need to be considered.”
Novartis, the maker of secukinumab, funded both studies. The PsA study authors report multiple relationships with industry, and some, such as Dr. Kivitz, have connections to Novartis. The axSpA study authors also report multiple relationships with industry, and some, such as Dr. Deodhar, have connections to Novartis. Some authors of both studies are Novartis employees. Dr. Goodson disclosed financial relationships with UCB and AbbVie.
AT ACR 2023
Physician’s dispute with Mayo Clinic raises free speech, academic freedom concerns
Michael J. Joyner, MD, claims that the Mayo Clinic violated its own policies by muzzling him, slapping him with an unpaid 1-week suspension, and labeling his comments to the media “unprofessional.”
In his Nov. 13 lawsuit, filed in Minnesota state court, Dr. Joyner asks that a judge order Mayo Clinic to stop its “retaliation and interference” with his “communications about his research.” He that claims the retaliation stems from his 2020 report about a Mayo Clinic business partner’s “attempt to unlawfully access and use protected patient data.”
Medical institutions often refuse to comment on pending litigation. But in a pair of unusual statements, the Mayo Clinic forcefully rebutted Joyner’s claims in some detail: “Dr. Joyner’s lawsuit is yet another manifestation of his refusal to recognize or accept responsibility for his inappropriate behaviors,” it told Becker’s Hospital Review.
In a June letter to colleagues, the institution’s communications head said Dr. Joyner was not punished over his transgender athlete comments but instead because he mistreated coworkers and made “unprofessional” comments to The New York Times.
Dr. Joyner, a prominent physiologist and anesthesiologist who has worked for Mayo Clinic for 36 years, has become a cause célèbre in academic and free-speech circles over the past several months.
Two conversations with journalists appear to be at the heart of the Mayo Clinic’s complaints.
First, a 2022 New York Times article about transgender athletes quoted him about how testosterone dramatically affects performance in males: “There are social aspects to sport, but physiology and biology underpin it. Testosterone is the 800-pound gorilla.”
“The language was at best, insensitive. At worst, transphobic,” an LGBTQ advocate told a TV news station in Rochester, Minn., where the Mayo Clinic is based. The article didn’t elaborate on why the advocate believed the language could be transphobic.
Then, a CNN story in 2023 noted that Dr. Joyner has studied convalescent plasma as a treatment for COVID-19 and quoted him about how the National Institutes of Health declined to take a stand on the use of the therapy: “Joyner said he’s ‘frustrated’ with the NIH’s ‘bureaucratic rope-a-dope,’ calling the agency’s guidelines ‘a wet blanket.’ ”
It is not unusual for medical researchers to comment bluntly to the media about federal agencies.
For example, a 2020 New York Times story that unraveled the Trump Administration’s apparent mischaracterization of Dr. Joyner’s research into convalescent plasma quoted a University of Pittsburgh physician as saying, “For the first time ever, I feel like official people in communications and people at the FDA grossly misrepresented data about a therapy.”
In a March 5 letter, a Mayo Clinic administrator wrote to Dr. Joyner to complain that his comments regarding the NIH were an example of his “problematic” use of “idiomatic language” that “reflects poorly on Mayo Clinic’s brand and reputation.” A paragraph in the letter is redacted in the version posted by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which supports Dr. Joyner.
The letter adds that Dr. Joyner’s comments to The New York Times “were problematic in the media and the LGBTQI+ community at Mayo Clinic.” The letter, which didn’t elaborate about the blowback, also says that “concerns remain with disrespectful communications with colleagues who describe your tone as unpleasant and having a ‘bullying’ quality to it.”
Kellie Miller, one of Dr. Joyner’s attorneys, noted in a statement that “Dr. Joyner’s personnel file is free of any documentation of Mayo’s ongoing and vague allegations of bullying and unprofessionalism with colleagues.”
The letter also ordered Dr. Joyner to not be rude or criticize the work of others and repair his relationship with Mayo Clinic’s public affairs staff: “This will take individual effort on your part.” It also ordered him to “discuss approved topics only” with reporters, “stick to prescribed messaging,” and not resist if the public affairs department doesn’t let him be interviewed: “Accept ‘no’ for an answer and move forward.”
Medical institutions often monitor how their employees interact with the media in order to control “messaging.” But firm rules at academic medical institutions like the Mayo Clinic may run the risk of running afoul of the tenets of academic freedom.
The institution and its CEO then retaliated by calling his claims “unprofessional,” according to the lawsuit, which provided no further details about the situation.
In a statement, the Mayo Clinic said it “hired an outside attorney to investigate these concerns. The attorney, who is now a federal judge, found there was no retaliation and that Dr. Joyner had engaged in a pattern of asserting inflammatory allegations grounded almost entirely in speculation.”
A petition signed by dozens of professors demands that Mayo Clinic “revoke the penalties and constraints it has imposed on him.”
“Dr. Joyner, a faculty member at a medical school that avows a commitment to academic freedom and to free expression, did not exceed the limits of his expertise in any of his statements to the press that led to these sanctions,” they wrote. “At no time did he claim to be speaking for the Mayo Clinic, and his remarks were well within the mainstream of the range of scientific opinion on topics in which he is expert.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Michael J. Joyner, MD, claims that the Mayo Clinic violated its own policies by muzzling him, slapping him with an unpaid 1-week suspension, and labeling his comments to the media “unprofessional.”
In his Nov. 13 lawsuit, filed in Minnesota state court, Dr. Joyner asks that a judge order Mayo Clinic to stop its “retaliation and interference” with his “communications about his research.” He that claims the retaliation stems from his 2020 report about a Mayo Clinic business partner’s “attempt to unlawfully access and use protected patient data.”
Medical institutions often refuse to comment on pending litigation. But in a pair of unusual statements, the Mayo Clinic forcefully rebutted Joyner’s claims in some detail: “Dr. Joyner’s lawsuit is yet another manifestation of his refusal to recognize or accept responsibility for his inappropriate behaviors,” it told Becker’s Hospital Review.
In a June letter to colleagues, the institution’s communications head said Dr. Joyner was not punished over his transgender athlete comments but instead because he mistreated coworkers and made “unprofessional” comments to The New York Times.
Dr. Joyner, a prominent physiologist and anesthesiologist who has worked for Mayo Clinic for 36 years, has become a cause célèbre in academic and free-speech circles over the past several months.
Two conversations with journalists appear to be at the heart of the Mayo Clinic’s complaints.
First, a 2022 New York Times article about transgender athletes quoted him about how testosterone dramatically affects performance in males: “There are social aspects to sport, but physiology and biology underpin it. Testosterone is the 800-pound gorilla.”
“The language was at best, insensitive. At worst, transphobic,” an LGBTQ advocate told a TV news station in Rochester, Minn., where the Mayo Clinic is based. The article didn’t elaborate on why the advocate believed the language could be transphobic.
Then, a CNN story in 2023 noted that Dr. Joyner has studied convalescent plasma as a treatment for COVID-19 and quoted him about how the National Institutes of Health declined to take a stand on the use of the therapy: “Joyner said he’s ‘frustrated’ with the NIH’s ‘bureaucratic rope-a-dope,’ calling the agency’s guidelines ‘a wet blanket.’ ”
It is not unusual for medical researchers to comment bluntly to the media about federal agencies.
For example, a 2020 New York Times story that unraveled the Trump Administration’s apparent mischaracterization of Dr. Joyner’s research into convalescent plasma quoted a University of Pittsburgh physician as saying, “For the first time ever, I feel like official people in communications and people at the FDA grossly misrepresented data about a therapy.”
In a March 5 letter, a Mayo Clinic administrator wrote to Dr. Joyner to complain that his comments regarding the NIH were an example of his “problematic” use of “idiomatic language” that “reflects poorly on Mayo Clinic’s brand and reputation.” A paragraph in the letter is redacted in the version posted by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which supports Dr. Joyner.
The letter adds that Dr. Joyner’s comments to The New York Times “were problematic in the media and the LGBTQI+ community at Mayo Clinic.” The letter, which didn’t elaborate about the blowback, also says that “concerns remain with disrespectful communications with colleagues who describe your tone as unpleasant and having a ‘bullying’ quality to it.”
Kellie Miller, one of Dr. Joyner’s attorneys, noted in a statement that “Dr. Joyner’s personnel file is free of any documentation of Mayo’s ongoing and vague allegations of bullying and unprofessionalism with colleagues.”
The letter also ordered Dr. Joyner to not be rude or criticize the work of others and repair his relationship with Mayo Clinic’s public affairs staff: “This will take individual effort on your part.” It also ordered him to “discuss approved topics only” with reporters, “stick to prescribed messaging,” and not resist if the public affairs department doesn’t let him be interviewed: “Accept ‘no’ for an answer and move forward.”
Medical institutions often monitor how their employees interact with the media in order to control “messaging.” But firm rules at academic medical institutions like the Mayo Clinic may run the risk of running afoul of the tenets of academic freedom.
The institution and its CEO then retaliated by calling his claims “unprofessional,” according to the lawsuit, which provided no further details about the situation.
In a statement, the Mayo Clinic said it “hired an outside attorney to investigate these concerns. The attorney, who is now a federal judge, found there was no retaliation and that Dr. Joyner had engaged in a pattern of asserting inflammatory allegations grounded almost entirely in speculation.”
A petition signed by dozens of professors demands that Mayo Clinic “revoke the penalties and constraints it has imposed on him.”
“Dr. Joyner, a faculty member at a medical school that avows a commitment to academic freedom and to free expression, did not exceed the limits of his expertise in any of his statements to the press that led to these sanctions,” they wrote. “At no time did he claim to be speaking for the Mayo Clinic, and his remarks were well within the mainstream of the range of scientific opinion on topics in which he is expert.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Michael J. Joyner, MD, claims that the Mayo Clinic violated its own policies by muzzling him, slapping him with an unpaid 1-week suspension, and labeling his comments to the media “unprofessional.”
In his Nov. 13 lawsuit, filed in Minnesota state court, Dr. Joyner asks that a judge order Mayo Clinic to stop its “retaliation and interference” with his “communications about his research.” He that claims the retaliation stems from his 2020 report about a Mayo Clinic business partner’s “attempt to unlawfully access and use protected patient data.”
Medical institutions often refuse to comment on pending litigation. But in a pair of unusual statements, the Mayo Clinic forcefully rebutted Joyner’s claims in some detail: “Dr. Joyner’s lawsuit is yet another manifestation of his refusal to recognize or accept responsibility for his inappropriate behaviors,” it told Becker’s Hospital Review.
In a June letter to colleagues, the institution’s communications head said Dr. Joyner was not punished over his transgender athlete comments but instead because he mistreated coworkers and made “unprofessional” comments to The New York Times.
Dr. Joyner, a prominent physiologist and anesthesiologist who has worked for Mayo Clinic for 36 years, has become a cause célèbre in academic and free-speech circles over the past several months.
Two conversations with journalists appear to be at the heart of the Mayo Clinic’s complaints.
First, a 2022 New York Times article about transgender athletes quoted him about how testosterone dramatically affects performance in males: “There are social aspects to sport, but physiology and biology underpin it. Testosterone is the 800-pound gorilla.”
“The language was at best, insensitive. At worst, transphobic,” an LGBTQ advocate told a TV news station in Rochester, Minn., where the Mayo Clinic is based. The article didn’t elaborate on why the advocate believed the language could be transphobic.
Then, a CNN story in 2023 noted that Dr. Joyner has studied convalescent plasma as a treatment for COVID-19 and quoted him about how the National Institutes of Health declined to take a stand on the use of the therapy: “Joyner said he’s ‘frustrated’ with the NIH’s ‘bureaucratic rope-a-dope,’ calling the agency’s guidelines ‘a wet blanket.’ ”
It is not unusual for medical researchers to comment bluntly to the media about federal agencies.
For example, a 2020 New York Times story that unraveled the Trump Administration’s apparent mischaracterization of Dr. Joyner’s research into convalescent plasma quoted a University of Pittsburgh physician as saying, “For the first time ever, I feel like official people in communications and people at the FDA grossly misrepresented data about a therapy.”
In a March 5 letter, a Mayo Clinic administrator wrote to Dr. Joyner to complain that his comments regarding the NIH were an example of his “problematic” use of “idiomatic language” that “reflects poorly on Mayo Clinic’s brand and reputation.” A paragraph in the letter is redacted in the version posted by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which supports Dr. Joyner.
The letter adds that Dr. Joyner’s comments to The New York Times “were problematic in the media and the LGBTQI+ community at Mayo Clinic.” The letter, which didn’t elaborate about the blowback, also says that “concerns remain with disrespectful communications with colleagues who describe your tone as unpleasant and having a ‘bullying’ quality to it.”
Kellie Miller, one of Dr. Joyner’s attorneys, noted in a statement that “Dr. Joyner’s personnel file is free of any documentation of Mayo’s ongoing and vague allegations of bullying and unprofessionalism with colleagues.”
The letter also ordered Dr. Joyner to not be rude or criticize the work of others and repair his relationship with Mayo Clinic’s public affairs staff: “This will take individual effort on your part.” It also ordered him to “discuss approved topics only” with reporters, “stick to prescribed messaging,” and not resist if the public affairs department doesn’t let him be interviewed: “Accept ‘no’ for an answer and move forward.”
Medical institutions often monitor how their employees interact with the media in order to control “messaging.” But firm rules at academic medical institutions like the Mayo Clinic may run the risk of running afoul of the tenets of academic freedom.
The institution and its CEO then retaliated by calling his claims “unprofessional,” according to the lawsuit, which provided no further details about the situation.
In a statement, the Mayo Clinic said it “hired an outside attorney to investigate these concerns. The attorney, who is now a federal judge, found there was no retaliation and that Dr. Joyner had engaged in a pattern of asserting inflammatory allegations grounded almost entirely in speculation.”
A petition signed by dozens of professors demands that Mayo Clinic “revoke the penalties and constraints it has imposed on him.”
“Dr. Joyner, a faculty member at a medical school that avows a commitment to academic freedom and to free expression, did not exceed the limits of his expertise in any of his statements to the press that led to these sanctions,” they wrote. “At no time did he claim to be speaking for the Mayo Clinic, and his remarks were well within the mainstream of the range of scientific opinion on topics in which he is expert.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Study takes fine-grained look at MACE risk with glucocorticoids in RA
SAN DIEGO – Even when taken at low doses and over short periods, glucocorticoids (GCs) were linked to a higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) over the long term in a Veterans Affairs population of older, mostly male patients with rheumatoid arthritis, a new retrospective cohort study has found.
The analysis of nearly 19,000 patients, presented by rheumatologist Beth Wallace, MD, MSc, at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, showed that the level of risk for MACE rose with the dose, duration, and recency of GC use, in which risk increased significantly at prednisone-equivalent doses as low as 5 mg/day, durations as short as 30 days, and with last use as long as 1 year before MACE.
“Up to half of RA patients in the United States use long-term glucocorticoids despite previous work suggesting they increase MACE in a dose-dependent way,” said Dr. Wallace, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a rheumatologist at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare Center. “Our group previously presented work suggesting that less than 14 days of glucocorticoid use in a 6-month period is associated with a two-thirds increase in odds of MACE over the following 6 months, with 90 days of use associated with more than twofold increase.”
In recent years, researchers such as Dr. Wallace have focused attention on the risks of GCs in RA. The American College of Rheumatology and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology emphasize avoiding long-term use of GCs in RA and keeping doses as small and over the shortest amount of time as possible.
When Dr. Wallace and colleagues looked at the clinical pattern of GC use for patients with RA during the past 2 years, those who took 5 mg, 7.5 mg, and 10 mg daily doses for 30 days and had stopped at least a year before had risk for MACE that rose significantly by 3%, 5%, and 7%, respectively, compared with those who didn’t take GCs in the past 2 years.
While those increases were small, risk for MACE rose even more for those who took the same daily doses for 90 days, increasing 10%, 15%, and 21%, respectively. Researchers linked current ongoing use of GCs for the past 90 days to a 13%, 19%, and 27% higher risk for MACE at those respective doses.
The findings “add to the literature suggesting that there is some risk even with low-dose steroids,” said Michael George, MD, assistant professor of rheumatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who did not take part in the research but is familiar with the findings.
“We can see that even glucocorticoids taken several years ago may affect cardiovascular risk but that recent use has a bigger effect on risk,” Dr. George said in an interview. “This study also suggests that very low-dose use affects risk.”
For the new study, Dr. Wallace and colleagues examined a Veterans Affairs database and identified 18,882 patients with RA (mean age, 62.5 years; 84% male; 66% GC users) who met the criteria of being > 40 and < 90 years old. The subjects had an initial VA rheumatology visit during 2010-2018 and were excluded if they had a non-RA rheumatologic disorder, prior MACE, or heart failure. MACE was defined as MI, stroke/TIA, cardiac arrest, coronary revascularization, or death from CV cause.
A total of 16% of the cohort had the largest exposure to GCs, defined as use for 90 days or more; 23% had exposure of 14-89 days, and 14% had exposure of 1-13 days.
The median 5-year MACE risk at baseline was 5.3%, and 3,754 patients (19.9%) had high baseline MACE risk. Incident MACE occurred in 4.1% of patients, and the median time to MACE was 2.67 years (interquartile ratio, 1.26-4.45 years).
Covariates included factors such as age, race, sex, body mass index, smoking status, adjusted Elixhauser index, VA risk score for cardiovascular disease, cancer, hospitalization for infection, number of rheumatology clinic visits, and use of lipid-lowering drugs, opioids, methotrexate, biologics, and hydroxychloroquine.
Dr. Wallace noted limitations including the possibility of residual confounding and the influence of background cardiovascular risk. The study didn’t examine the clinical value of taking GCs or compare that to the potential risk. Nor did it examine cost or the risks and benefits of alternative therapeutic options.
A study released earlier this year suggested that patients taking daily prednisolone doses under 5 mg do not have a higher risk of MACE. Previous studies had reached conflicting results.
“Glucocorticoids can provide major benefits to patients, but these benefits must be balanced with the potential risks,” Dr. George said. At low doses, these risks may be small, but they are present. In many cases, escalating DMARD [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug] therapy may be safer than continuing glucocorticoids.”
He added that the risks of GCs may be especially high in older patients and in those who have cardiovascular risk factors: “Often biologics are avoided in these higher-risk patients. But in fact, in many cases biologics may be the safer choice.”
No study funding was reported. Dr. Wallace reported no relevant financial relationships, and some of the other authors reported various ties with industry. Dr. George reported research funding from GlaxoSmithKline and Janssen and consulting fees from AbbVie.
SAN DIEGO – Even when taken at low doses and over short periods, glucocorticoids (GCs) were linked to a higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) over the long term in a Veterans Affairs population of older, mostly male patients with rheumatoid arthritis, a new retrospective cohort study has found.
The analysis of nearly 19,000 patients, presented by rheumatologist Beth Wallace, MD, MSc, at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, showed that the level of risk for MACE rose with the dose, duration, and recency of GC use, in which risk increased significantly at prednisone-equivalent doses as low as 5 mg/day, durations as short as 30 days, and with last use as long as 1 year before MACE.
“Up to half of RA patients in the United States use long-term glucocorticoids despite previous work suggesting they increase MACE in a dose-dependent way,” said Dr. Wallace, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a rheumatologist at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare Center. “Our group previously presented work suggesting that less than 14 days of glucocorticoid use in a 6-month period is associated with a two-thirds increase in odds of MACE over the following 6 months, with 90 days of use associated with more than twofold increase.”
In recent years, researchers such as Dr. Wallace have focused attention on the risks of GCs in RA. The American College of Rheumatology and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology emphasize avoiding long-term use of GCs in RA and keeping doses as small and over the shortest amount of time as possible.
When Dr. Wallace and colleagues looked at the clinical pattern of GC use for patients with RA during the past 2 years, those who took 5 mg, 7.5 mg, and 10 mg daily doses for 30 days and had stopped at least a year before had risk for MACE that rose significantly by 3%, 5%, and 7%, respectively, compared with those who didn’t take GCs in the past 2 years.
While those increases were small, risk for MACE rose even more for those who took the same daily doses for 90 days, increasing 10%, 15%, and 21%, respectively. Researchers linked current ongoing use of GCs for the past 90 days to a 13%, 19%, and 27% higher risk for MACE at those respective doses.
The findings “add to the literature suggesting that there is some risk even with low-dose steroids,” said Michael George, MD, assistant professor of rheumatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who did not take part in the research but is familiar with the findings.
“We can see that even glucocorticoids taken several years ago may affect cardiovascular risk but that recent use has a bigger effect on risk,” Dr. George said in an interview. “This study also suggests that very low-dose use affects risk.”
For the new study, Dr. Wallace and colleagues examined a Veterans Affairs database and identified 18,882 patients with RA (mean age, 62.5 years; 84% male; 66% GC users) who met the criteria of being > 40 and < 90 years old. The subjects had an initial VA rheumatology visit during 2010-2018 and were excluded if they had a non-RA rheumatologic disorder, prior MACE, or heart failure. MACE was defined as MI, stroke/TIA, cardiac arrest, coronary revascularization, or death from CV cause.
A total of 16% of the cohort had the largest exposure to GCs, defined as use for 90 days or more; 23% had exposure of 14-89 days, and 14% had exposure of 1-13 days.
The median 5-year MACE risk at baseline was 5.3%, and 3,754 patients (19.9%) had high baseline MACE risk. Incident MACE occurred in 4.1% of patients, and the median time to MACE was 2.67 years (interquartile ratio, 1.26-4.45 years).
Covariates included factors such as age, race, sex, body mass index, smoking status, adjusted Elixhauser index, VA risk score for cardiovascular disease, cancer, hospitalization for infection, number of rheumatology clinic visits, and use of lipid-lowering drugs, opioids, methotrexate, biologics, and hydroxychloroquine.
Dr. Wallace noted limitations including the possibility of residual confounding and the influence of background cardiovascular risk. The study didn’t examine the clinical value of taking GCs or compare that to the potential risk. Nor did it examine cost or the risks and benefits of alternative therapeutic options.
A study released earlier this year suggested that patients taking daily prednisolone doses under 5 mg do not have a higher risk of MACE. Previous studies had reached conflicting results.
“Glucocorticoids can provide major benefits to patients, but these benefits must be balanced with the potential risks,” Dr. George said. At low doses, these risks may be small, but they are present. In many cases, escalating DMARD [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug] therapy may be safer than continuing glucocorticoids.”
He added that the risks of GCs may be especially high in older patients and in those who have cardiovascular risk factors: “Often biologics are avoided in these higher-risk patients. But in fact, in many cases biologics may be the safer choice.”
No study funding was reported. Dr. Wallace reported no relevant financial relationships, and some of the other authors reported various ties with industry. Dr. George reported research funding from GlaxoSmithKline and Janssen and consulting fees from AbbVie.
SAN DIEGO – Even when taken at low doses and over short periods, glucocorticoids (GCs) were linked to a higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) over the long term in a Veterans Affairs population of older, mostly male patients with rheumatoid arthritis, a new retrospective cohort study has found.
The analysis of nearly 19,000 patients, presented by rheumatologist Beth Wallace, MD, MSc, at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, showed that the level of risk for MACE rose with the dose, duration, and recency of GC use, in which risk increased significantly at prednisone-equivalent doses as low as 5 mg/day, durations as short as 30 days, and with last use as long as 1 year before MACE.
“Up to half of RA patients in the United States use long-term glucocorticoids despite previous work suggesting they increase MACE in a dose-dependent way,” said Dr. Wallace, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a rheumatologist at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare Center. “Our group previously presented work suggesting that less than 14 days of glucocorticoid use in a 6-month period is associated with a two-thirds increase in odds of MACE over the following 6 months, with 90 days of use associated with more than twofold increase.”
In recent years, researchers such as Dr. Wallace have focused attention on the risks of GCs in RA. The American College of Rheumatology and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology emphasize avoiding long-term use of GCs in RA and keeping doses as small and over the shortest amount of time as possible.
When Dr. Wallace and colleagues looked at the clinical pattern of GC use for patients with RA during the past 2 years, those who took 5 mg, 7.5 mg, and 10 mg daily doses for 30 days and had stopped at least a year before had risk for MACE that rose significantly by 3%, 5%, and 7%, respectively, compared with those who didn’t take GCs in the past 2 years.
While those increases were small, risk for MACE rose even more for those who took the same daily doses for 90 days, increasing 10%, 15%, and 21%, respectively. Researchers linked current ongoing use of GCs for the past 90 days to a 13%, 19%, and 27% higher risk for MACE at those respective doses.
The findings “add to the literature suggesting that there is some risk even with low-dose steroids,” said Michael George, MD, assistant professor of rheumatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who did not take part in the research but is familiar with the findings.
“We can see that even glucocorticoids taken several years ago may affect cardiovascular risk but that recent use has a bigger effect on risk,” Dr. George said in an interview. “This study also suggests that very low-dose use affects risk.”
For the new study, Dr. Wallace and colleagues examined a Veterans Affairs database and identified 18,882 patients with RA (mean age, 62.5 years; 84% male; 66% GC users) who met the criteria of being > 40 and < 90 years old. The subjects had an initial VA rheumatology visit during 2010-2018 and were excluded if they had a non-RA rheumatologic disorder, prior MACE, or heart failure. MACE was defined as MI, stroke/TIA, cardiac arrest, coronary revascularization, or death from CV cause.
A total of 16% of the cohort had the largest exposure to GCs, defined as use for 90 days or more; 23% had exposure of 14-89 days, and 14% had exposure of 1-13 days.
The median 5-year MACE risk at baseline was 5.3%, and 3,754 patients (19.9%) had high baseline MACE risk. Incident MACE occurred in 4.1% of patients, and the median time to MACE was 2.67 years (interquartile ratio, 1.26-4.45 years).
Covariates included factors such as age, race, sex, body mass index, smoking status, adjusted Elixhauser index, VA risk score for cardiovascular disease, cancer, hospitalization for infection, number of rheumatology clinic visits, and use of lipid-lowering drugs, opioids, methotrexate, biologics, and hydroxychloroquine.
Dr. Wallace noted limitations including the possibility of residual confounding and the influence of background cardiovascular risk. The study didn’t examine the clinical value of taking GCs or compare that to the potential risk. Nor did it examine cost or the risks and benefits of alternative therapeutic options.
A study released earlier this year suggested that patients taking daily prednisolone doses under 5 mg do not have a higher risk of MACE. Previous studies had reached conflicting results.
“Glucocorticoids can provide major benefits to patients, but these benefits must be balanced with the potential risks,” Dr. George said. At low doses, these risks may be small, but they are present. In many cases, escalating DMARD [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug] therapy may be safer than continuing glucocorticoids.”
He added that the risks of GCs may be especially high in older patients and in those who have cardiovascular risk factors: “Often biologics are avoided in these higher-risk patients. But in fact, in many cases biologics may be the safer choice.”
No study funding was reported. Dr. Wallace reported no relevant financial relationships, and some of the other authors reported various ties with industry. Dr. George reported research funding from GlaxoSmithKline and Janssen and consulting fees from AbbVie.
AT ACR 2023
Apremilast beats placebo in early PsA affecting few joints
SAN DIEGO – Patients with early oligoarticular psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who took apremilast (Otezla) had more than double the response rate of placebo-treated patients by 16 weeks in a double-blind and randomized phase 4 study.
Oligoarticular PsA can significantly affect quality of life even though few joints are affected, and there’s a lack of relevant clinical data to guide treatment, said rheumatologist Philip J. Mease, MD, of the University of Washington and Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, who reported the results in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
The findings of the study, called FOREMOST, support the use of the drug in mild PsA, Alexis Ogdie, MD, director of the Penn Psoriatic Arthritis Clinic and the Penn Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview. Dr. Ogdie, who was not involved with the research, noted that rheumatologists commonly prescribe apremilast for mild PsA, although previous research has focused on severe PsA cases.
By 16 weeks, 33.9% of 203 who received apremilast and 16% of 105 who received placebo (difference, 18.5%; 95% confidence interval, 8.9-28.1; P = .0008) met the trial’s primary outcome, a modified version of minimal disease activity score (MDA-Joints), which required attainment of 1 or fewer swollen and/or tender joints plus three of five additional criteria (psoriasis body surface area of 3% or less, a patient pain visual analog scale assessment of 15 mm or less out of 0-100 mm, a patient global assessment of 20 mm or less out of 0-100 mm, a Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index score of 0.5 or less, and a Leeds Enthesitis Index score of 1 or less). The primary analysis was conducted only in joints affected at baseline.
The researchers recruited patients with 2-4 swollen and/or tender joints out of a total of 66-68 joints assessed; most patients (87%) randomized in the study had 4 or fewer active joints at baseline. The patients had a mean age of 50.9. The mean duration of PsA was 9.9 months, and 39.9% of patients were taking a conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug.
In a clinically important outcome, the percentage who had a patient-reported pain response improvement defined as “significant” reached 31.4% with placebo, compared with 48.8% for apremilast (difference, 17.7%; 95% CI, 6.0-29.4; P = .0044), and the percentage who reached a patient-reported pain response defined as “major” totaled 19.1% for placebo vs. 41.3% for apremilast (difference, 22.3%; 95% CI, 11.7-32.9; P = .002).
In an exploratory analysis of all joints, the percentages meeting MDA-Joints criteria for response were 7.9% with placebo and 21.3% with apremilast (difference, 13.6%; 95% CI, 5.9-21.4; P = .0028. Focusing on this exploratory analysis, Dr. Ogdie noted that examination of all joints is “more consistent” with the understanding of disease activity than only looking at the initial joints that had disease activity.
A post-hoc analysis among subjects with 2-4 affected joints found rates similar to the primary endpoint analysis: MDA-Joints response rates were reached by 34.4% of those who took apremilast and by 17.2% of those who took placebo.
When asked about the relatively low response rate for apremilast, Dr. Ogdie said the drug is “a really mild medication, which is why it belongs in the mild disease population. That’s balanced by the fact that it has a pretty good safety profile,” especially compared with the alternative of methotrexate, she said.
Almost all patients can tolerate apremilast, she said, although they may experience nausea or diarrhea. (The study found that adverse events were as expected for apremilast, and the drug was well tolerated.) Blood labs aren’t necessary, she added, as they are in patients taking methotrexate.
As for cost, apremilast is a highly expensive drug, especially when compared to methotrexate, which costs pennies per tablet at some pharmacies. Amgen, the manufacturer of apremilast, lists the price as $4,600 a month. Still, insurers generally cover apremilast, Dr. Ogdie said.
The study was sponsored by Amgen. Dr. Mease reported financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies, including Amgen. Many other coauthors reported financial relationships with Amgen and other pharmaceutical companies or were employees of Amgen. Dr. Ogdie reported having multiple consulting relationships with pharmaceutical companies, including Amgen, and receiving grant funding from multiple companies as well as the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, National Psoriasis Foundation, Rheumatology Research Foundation, and Forward Databank.
SAN DIEGO – Patients with early oligoarticular psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who took apremilast (Otezla) had more than double the response rate of placebo-treated patients by 16 weeks in a double-blind and randomized phase 4 study.
Oligoarticular PsA can significantly affect quality of life even though few joints are affected, and there’s a lack of relevant clinical data to guide treatment, said rheumatologist Philip J. Mease, MD, of the University of Washington and Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, who reported the results in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
The findings of the study, called FOREMOST, support the use of the drug in mild PsA, Alexis Ogdie, MD, director of the Penn Psoriatic Arthritis Clinic and the Penn Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview. Dr. Ogdie, who was not involved with the research, noted that rheumatologists commonly prescribe apremilast for mild PsA, although previous research has focused on severe PsA cases.
By 16 weeks, 33.9% of 203 who received apremilast and 16% of 105 who received placebo (difference, 18.5%; 95% confidence interval, 8.9-28.1; P = .0008) met the trial’s primary outcome, a modified version of minimal disease activity score (MDA-Joints), which required attainment of 1 or fewer swollen and/or tender joints plus three of five additional criteria (psoriasis body surface area of 3% or less, a patient pain visual analog scale assessment of 15 mm or less out of 0-100 mm, a patient global assessment of 20 mm or less out of 0-100 mm, a Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index score of 0.5 or less, and a Leeds Enthesitis Index score of 1 or less). The primary analysis was conducted only in joints affected at baseline.
The researchers recruited patients with 2-4 swollen and/or tender joints out of a total of 66-68 joints assessed; most patients (87%) randomized in the study had 4 or fewer active joints at baseline. The patients had a mean age of 50.9. The mean duration of PsA was 9.9 months, and 39.9% of patients were taking a conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug.
In a clinically important outcome, the percentage who had a patient-reported pain response improvement defined as “significant” reached 31.4% with placebo, compared with 48.8% for apremilast (difference, 17.7%; 95% CI, 6.0-29.4; P = .0044), and the percentage who reached a patient-reported pain response defined as “major” totaled 19.1% for placebo vs. 41.3% for apremilast (difference, 22.3%; 95% CI, 11.7-32.9; P = .002).
In an exploratory analysis of all joints, the percentages meeting MDA-Joints criteria for response were 7.9% with placebo and 21.3% with apremilast (difference, 13.6%; 95% CI, 5.9-21.4; P = .0028. Focusing on this exploratory analysis, Dr. Ogdie noted that examination of all joints is “more consistent” with the understanding of disease activity than only looking at the initial joints that had disease activity.
A post-hoc analysis among subjects with 2-4 affected joints found rates similar to the primary endpoint analysis: MDA-Joints response rates were reached by 34.4% of those who took apremilast and by 17.2% of those who took placebo.
When asked about the relatively low response rate for apremilast, Dr. Ogdie said the drug is “a really mild medication, which is why it belongs in the mild disease population. That’s balanced by the fact that it has a pretty good safety profile,” especially compared with the alternative of methotrexate, she said.
Almost all patients can tolerate apremilast, she said, although they may experience nausea or diarrhea. (The study found that adverse events were as expected for apremilast, and the drug was well tolerated.) Blood labs aren’t necessary, she added, as they are in patients taking methotrexate.
As for cost, apremilast is a highly expensive drug, especially when compared to methotrexate, which costs pennies per tablet at some pharmacies. Amgen, the manufacturer of apremilast, lists the price as $4,600 a month. Still, insurers generally cover apremilast, Dr. Ogdie said.
The study was sponsored by Amgen. Dr. Mease reported financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies, including Amgen. Many other coauthors reported financial relationships with Amgen and other pharmaceutical companies or were employees of Amgen. Dr. Ogdie reported having multiple consulting relationships with pharmaceutical companies, including Amgen, and receiving grant funding from multiple companies as well as the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, National Psoriasis Foundation, Rheumatology Research Foundation, and Forward Databank.
SAN DIEGO – Patients with early oligoarticular psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who took apremilast (Otezla) had more than double the response rate of placebo-treated patients by 16 weeks in a double-blind and randomized phase 4 study.
Oligoarticular PsA can significantly affect quality of life even though few joints are affected, and there’s a lack of relevant clinical data to guide treatment, said rheumatologist Philip J. Mease, MD, of the University of Washington and Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, who reported the results in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
The findings of the study, called FOREMOST, support the use of the drug in mild PsA, Alexis Ogdie, MD, director of the Penn Psoriatic Arthritis Clinic and the Penn Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview. Dr. Ogdie, who was not involved with the research, noted that rheumatologists commonly prescribe apremilast for mild PsA, although previous research has focused on severe PsA cases.
By 16 weeks, 33.9% of 203 who received apremilast and 16% of 105 who received placebo (difference, 18.5%; 95% confidence interval, 8.9-28.1; P = .0008) met the trial’s primary outcome, a modified version of minimal disease activity score (MDA-Joints), which required attainment of 1 or fewer swollen and/or tender joints plus three of five additional criteria (psoriasis body surface area of 3% or less, a patient pain visual analog scale assessment of 15 mm or less out of 0-100 mm, a patient global assessment of 20 mm or less out of 0-100 mm, a Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index score of 0.5 or less, and a Leeds Enthesitis Index score of 1 or less). The primary analysis was conducted only in joints affected at baseline.
The researchers recruited patients with 2-4 swollen and/or tender joints out of a total of 66-68 joints assessed; most patients (87%) randomized in the study had 4 or fewer active joints at baseline. The patients had a mean age of 50.9. The mean duration of PsA was 9.9 months, and 39.9% of patients were taking a conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug.
In a clinically important outcome, the percentage who had a patient-reported pain response improvement defined as “significant” reached 31.4% with placebo, compared with 48.8% for apremilast (difference, 17.7%; 95% CI, 6.0-29.4; P = .0044), and the percentage who reached a patient-reported pain response defined as “major” totaled 19.1% for placebo vs. 41.3% for apremilast (difference, 22.3%; 95% CI, 11.7-32.9; P = .002).
In an exploratory analysis of all joints, the percentages meeting MDA-Joints criteria for response were 7.9% with placebo and 21.3% with apremilast (difference, 13.6%; 95% CI, 5.9-21.4; P = .0028. Focusing on this exploratory analysis, Dr. Ogdie noted that examination of all joints is “more consistent” with the understanding of disease activity than only looking at the initial joints that had disease activity.
A post-hoc analysis among subjects with 2-4 affected joints found rates similar to the primary endpoint analysis: MDA-Joints response rates were reached by 34.4% of those who took apremilast and by 17.2% of those who took placebo.
When asked about the relatively low response rate for apremilast, Dr. Ogdie said the drug is “a really mild medication, which is why it belongs in the mild disease population. That’s balanced by the fact that it has a pretty good safety profile,” especially compared with the alternative of methotrexate, she said.
Almost all patients can tolerate apremilast, she said, although they may experience nausea or diarrhea. (The study found that adverse events were as expected for apremilast, and the drug was well tolerated.) Blood labs aren’t necessary, she added, as they are in patients taking methotrexate.
As for cost, apremilast is a highly expensive drug, especially when compared to methotrexate, which costs pennies per tablet at some pharmacies. Amgen, the manufacturer of apremilast, lists the price as $4,600 a month. Still, insurers generally cover apremilast, Dr. Ogdie said.
The study was sponsored by Amgen. Dr. Mease reported financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies, including Amgen. Many other coauthors reported financial relationships with Amgen and other pharmaceutical companies or were employees of Amgen. Dr. Ogdie reported having multiple consulting relationships with pharmaceutical companies, including Amgen, and receiving grant funding from multiple companies as well as the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, National Psoriasis Foundation, Rheumatology Research Foundation, and Forward Databank.
AT ACR 2023