User login
Risankizumab impresses in phase 2 psoriatic arthritis trial
AMSTERDAM – Phase 2 data with the IL-23 inhibitor risankizumab at week 24 were even more impressive than the week 16 data, showing that without any further dosing after week 16, all doses provided protection against radiographic progression relative to placebo at 24 weeks, according to data presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
In a video interview, first author Philip J. Mease, MD, a rheumatologist at Swedish Medical Center in Seattle, explained that it is not only the high rates of response to risankizumab but also the prolonged response that are attracting attention.
Risankizumab is among several monoclonal antibodies developed to target the p19 subunit of the proinflammatory cytokine IL-23. These drugs have already shown a high degree of efficacy for psoriasis, according to Dr. Mease. However, the new data with risankizumab confirm prolonged responses against a broad range of additional clinical targets specific to psoriatic arthritis, including bone destruction and enthesitis.
A prolonged response in patients treated with a single, relatively low dose of risankizumab is one of the intriguing findings. While three of the four active treatments arms received multiple infusions of 150 mg, the single-dose arm received only 75 mg of risankizumab once at baseline. At 16 weeks and 24 weeks, all arms, including the single-dose arm, met the primary endpoint of superiority to placebo for ACR20. At week 24, the single infusion of 75 mg was also providing significant benefit for several secondary endpoints, including radiographic progression.
However, the higher, more frequent doses did show greater efficacy overall. For example, patients in the arm with the most frequent dosing of risankizumab (every 4 weeks) and no dosing after week 16 continued to show significant improvement in enthesitis. A less frequent schedule of 150 mg risankizumab and the arm receiving a single dose of 75 mg risankizumab were not associated with a significant advantage over placebo for this endpoint.
Still, the prolonged responses at week 24 suggest that it may be possible to administer risankizumab at intervals that are less frequent than many other biologics.
So far, there “is nothing remarkable about safety,” Dr. Mease explained. A higher rate of infection relative to placebo was a treatment-emergent side effect in this study, but Dr. Mease said the drug is well tolerated.
Risankizumab is poised for evaluation in a phase 3 trial for psoriatic arthritis, and Dr. Mease was optimistic about its potential role, predicting that this, as well as other anti-IL23 p19 monoclonal antibodies, is likely to be an “important addition to our armamentarium.”
AbbVie and Boehringer Ingelheim funded the risankizumab study. Dr. Mease has received grant/research support from AbbVie and many other pharmaceutical companies. He also is a consultant to them and is on their speakers bureaus.
SOURCE: Mease P et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(Suppl 2):200-1. Abstract OP0307
AMSTERDAM – Phase 2 data with the IL-23 inhibitor risankizumab at week 24 were even more impressive than the week 16 data, showing that without any further dosing after week 16, all doses provided protection against radiographic progression relative to placebo at 24 weeks, according to data presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
In a video interview, first author Philip J. Mease, MD, a rheumatologist at Swedish Medical Center in Seattle, explained that it is not only the high rates of response to risankizumab but also the prolonged response that are attracting attention.
Risankizumab is among several monoclonal antibodies developed to target the p19 subunit of the proinflammatory cytokine IL-23. These drugs have already shown a high degree of efficacy for psoriasis, according to Dr. Mease. However, the new data with risankizumab confirm prolonged responses against a broad range of additional clinical targets specific to psoriatic arthritis, including bone destruction and enthesitis.
A prolonged response in patients treated with a single, relatively low dose of risankizumab is one of the intriguing findings. While three of the four active treatments arms received multiple infusions of 150 mg, the single-dose arm received only 75 mg of risankizumab once at baseline. At 16 weeks and 24 weeks, all arms, including the single-dose arm, met the primary endpoint of superiority to placebo for ACR20. At week 24, the single infusion of 75 mg was also providing significant benefit for several secondary endpoints, including radiographic progression.
However, the higher, more frequent doses did show greater efficacy overall. For example, patients in the arm with the most frequent dosing of risankizumab (every 4 weeks) and no dosing after week 16 continued to show significant improvement in enthesitis. A less frequent schedule of 150 mg risankizumab and the arm receiving a single dose of 75 mg risankizumab were not associated with a significant advantage over placebo for this endpoint.
Still, the prolonged responses at week 24 suggest that it may be possible to administer risankizumab at intervals that are less frequent than many other biologics.
So far, there “is nothing remarkable about safety,” Dr. Mease explained. A higher rate of infection relative to placebo was a treatment-emergent side effect in this study, but Dr. Mease said the drug is well tolerated.
Risankizumab is poised for evaluation in a phase 3 trial for psoriatic arthritis, and Dr. Mease was optimistic about its potential role, predicting that this, as well as other anti-IL23 p19 monoclonal antibodies, is likely to be an “important addition to our armamentarium.”
AbbVie and Boehringer Ingelheim funded the risankizumab study. Dr. Mease has received grant/research support from AbbVie and many other pharmaceutical companies. He also is a consultant to them and is on their speakers bureaus.
SOURCE: Mease P et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(Suppl 2):200-1. Abstract OP0307
AMSTERDAM – Phase 2 data with the IL-23 inhibitor risankizumab at week 24 were even more impressive than the week 16 data, showing that without any further dosing after week 16, all doses provided protection against radiographic progression relative to placebo at 24 weeks, according to data presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
In a video interview, first author Philip J. Mease, MD, a rheumatologist at Swedish Medical Center in Seattle, explained that it is not only the high rates of response to risankizumab but also the prolonged response that are attracting attention.
Risankizumab is among several monoclonal antibodies developed to target the p19 subunit of the proinflammatory cytokine IL-23. These drugs have already shown a high degree of efficacy for psoriasis, according to Dr. Mease. However, the new data with risankizumab confirm prolonged responses against a broad range of additional clinical targets specific to psoriatic arthritis, including bone destruction and enthesitis.
A prolonged response in patients treated with a single, relatively low dose of risankizumab is one of the intriguing findings. While three of the four active treatments arms received multiple infusions of 150 mg, the single-dose arm received only 75 mg of risankizumab once at baseline. At 16 weeks and 24 weeks, all arms, including the single-dose arm, met the primary endpoint of superiority to placebo for ACR20. At week 24, the single infusion of 75 mg was also providing significant benefit for several secondary endpoints, including radiographic progression.
However, the higher, more frequent doses did show greater efficacy overall. For example, patients in the arm with the most frequent dosing of risankizumab (every 4 weeks) and no dosing after week 16 continued to show significant improvement in enthesitis. A less frequent schedule of 150 mg risankizumab and the arm receiving a single dose of 75 mg risankizumab were not associated with a significant advantage over placebo for this endpoint.
Still, the prolonged responses at week 24 suggest that it may be possible to administer risankizumab at intervals that are less frequent than many other biologics.
So far, there “is nothing remarkable about safety,” Dr. Mease explained. A higher rate of infection relative to placebo was a treatment-emergent side effect in this study, but Dr. Mease said the drug is well tolerated.
Risankizumab is poised for evaluation in a phase 3 trial for psoriatic arthritis, and Dr. Mease was optimistic about its potential role, predicting that this, as well as other anti-IL23 p19 monoclonal antibodies, is likely to be an “important addition to our armamentarium.”
AbbVie and Boehringer Ingelheim funded the risankizumab study. Dr. Mease has received grant/research support from AbbVie and many other pharmaceutical companies. He also is a consultant to them and is on their speakers bureaus.
SOURCE: Mease P et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(Suppl 2):200-1. Abstract OP0307
REPORTING FROM the EULAR 2018 Congress
EULAR scientific program highlights spectrum of translational research
EULAR 2018’s scientific program in Amsterdam is packed with lectures, clinical and basic science symposia, workshops, and special interest sessions covering the full spectrum of rheumatic diseases, said Dr. Robert Landewé, chair of the Scientific Program Committee.
“More than 5,000 scientific abstracts were submitted, which is an absolute, all-time record,” Dr. Landewé said. Four experts scored each abstract, and only the top 7% were invited for oral presentation during abstract sessions or symposia, he explained in an interview.
Wednesday, June 13
A high point of the 2018 scientific program is Wednesday’s opening plenary session, which will feature abstracts that were handpicked by Dr. Landewé and Dr. Thomas Dörner, professor of rheumatology at Charite Universitätsmedizin, Berlin. “This session includes highly scored abstracts, including late-breakers, on current advances in therapeutics and disease classification,” said Dr. Dörner, who chaired this year’s Abstract Selection Committee.
The plenary abstract session will cover new findings on gout and cardiovascular disease from CANTOS (Canakinumab Anti-inflammatory Thrombosis Outcome Study), long-term mortality in patients with early RA from the COBRA (Combinatietherapie Bij Reumatoide Artritis) study, the use of zoledronic acid to treat knee osteoarthritis with bone lesions, and the relationship between bisphosphonate drug holidays and hip fracture risk. Researchers also will discuss baricitinib in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), the value of MRI when treating remitted RA to target, the validation of SLE classification criteria, and draft classification criteria for ANCA-associated vasculitides.
A notable clinical science session on Wednesday will cover cancer and inflammation, Dr. Landewé said. “This is a topic of increasing interest because cancer and inflammation share mutual pathways.”
Novel cancer therapies such as immune checkpoint inhibitors have improved outcomes across a range of tumor types, but also can induce rheumatic disease, he added. Accordingly, presenters will discuss inflammation as “friend” versus “foe” in cancer treatment, the role of tumor necrosis factor in cancer, and risk of malignancy among patients with RA.
Also on Wednesday, a session will tackle the relationship between psychological distress and pain in immune-mediated disease. “Pain is the major symptom of rheumatic diseases, and the role of the psyche remains poorly understood,” Dr. Landewé said. “But we know one thing for sure: There is an association, and speakers from outside the field of rheumatology will help explain.”
Attendees at this bench-to-bedside session will learn how distress appears to exacerbate arthritis pain and how managing psychological stress can help optimize outcomes in arthritis pain. Experts also will describe research on integrated brain pathways in pain and distress, as well as risk factors for cognitive impairment in RA.
Thursday, June 14
Topics in this session will include the use of estrogens and other hormonal therapies in patients with rheumatic disease, registry studies of rheumatologic conditions during pregnancy, and how clinicians can best discuss sexual concerns with their rheumatology patients.
Another clinical science session scheduled for Thursday afternoon will delve into structural damage progression in patients with axial spondyloarthritis, Dr. Landewé said. “Can we inhibit this structural progression? Can we show it? Does it make sense? And which drug company will win the battle to have the precedent?”
He hopes that Dr. Désirée van der Heijde of the Netherlands and Dr. Xenofon Baraliakos of Germany will help answer these questions when they discuss the latest evidence on identifying and treating clinically relevant structural progression. Also in this session, researchers will describe the combined effects of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and NSAIDs on radiographic progression in ankylosing spondylitis, and MRI evidence supporting treating early axial spondyloarthritis to target with the goal of achieving sustained remission of inflammation.
Also on Thursday afternoon, a case-based session will take a deep dive into giant cell arteritis (GCA), Dr. Landewé noted. Attendees will learn about diagnosing and managing vision loss and stroke and the latest on corticosteroid therapy in GCA. The session also will cover biologics. “Giant cell arteritis has entered the field of biologicals!” said Dr. Landewé. “This has major implications for this disease and the clinical choices to be made.”
The past 5 decades have seen marked progress in the diagnosis and treatment of SLE, with corresponding improvements in survival and quality of life. “Still, lupus is awfully difficult,” Dr. Landewé said. “Therefore, we have planned a classical bench-to-bedside symposium to provide an all-inclusive look at current thinking and future developments.”
Talks during this Thursday afternoon session will cover the latest findings on the pathogenesis of SLE, the clinical significance of autoantibodies, distinguishing early SLE from mimics, and the role of blood-brain barrier permeability and neuropsychiatric manifestations of SLE and progressive systemic sclerosis.
Friday, June 15
For the first time, the scientific program also will include a clinical science session held jointly with the European Society of Musculoskeletal Radiology (ESSR). Dr. Joachim Sieper of Germany and ESSR President Dr. Monique Reijnierse of the Netherlands will cochair the Friday afternoon session on the role of MRI in rheumatology. Attendees from both organizations will learn when to use MRI in early and established RA and spondyloarthritis, and how to interpret the results, with abundant time built in for questions and answers. Dr. Landewé called the joint session “a test case” for exciting web-based interactions between EULAR and ESSR.
Another clinical science session on Friday afternoon will dive into the diagnosis of spondyloarthritis, which Dr. Landewé called “a matter of recognizing patterns, not ticking boxes on a list of criteria. This symposium leads you through the art of pattern recognition.”
Later on Friday afternoon, a session will explore advances in biologic therapy of small-vessel vasculitis, he added. “Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [bDMARDs] are becoming more and more important in this area of expanding interest.” Experts will address complement inhibition in ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV), the use of induction and maintenance rituximab in AAV, the evolving role of mepolizumab in eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis, survival in AAV, and the use of rituximab for treating children with granulomatosis with polyangiitis and microscopic polyangiitis.
Saturday, June 16
On Saturday, a bench-to-bedside session will cover gout and kidney function. “This is an area with important new insights,” Dr. Dörner said. Presenters will discuss the genetics of hyperuricemia, renal urate transporters, and the pros and cons of using xanthine oxidase inhibitors to treat chronic kidney disease. Researchers will also cover studies of impaired neutrophil chemotaxis in patients with chronic kidney disease and hyperuricemia, and the relationship between renal medullar hyperechogenicity and gout severity.
Also on Saturday, a clinical science session titled, “Rheumatoid arthritis: Is it all in your head?” will explore emerging data on the relationship between inflammation and depression. Patients with RA often face both clinical depression and social isolation, and these complex psychosocial conditions can worsen one another. “In addition to proper drug choice, treating RA effectively depends on how concomitant problems, such as nonspecific pain, depression, and social isolation, are coped with in a broad context,” Dr. Landewé said. “When it comes to optimal management, rheumatologists need to communicate and prescribe, not just prescribe.”
Christian Apfelbacher, PhD, of Germany will discuss prevention and treatment strategies and Dr. Jonathan Cavanagh of the United Kingdom will cover neuroimaging in RA. Researchers also will discuss new findings on pain, depression, and anxiety in patients recently diagnosed with RA.
Also on Saturday, a special session will cover EULAR’s initiatives to improve clinical approaches (ESSCA), Dr. Dörner noted. This effort has produced new or updated recommendations on topics such as vaccination, Sjögren’s syndrome, glucocorticoid therapy, and management of hand osteoarthritis, he said. “These recommendations follow a number of others and are expected to impact clinical science as well as clinical practice.”
EULAR 2018’s scientific program in Amsterdam is packed with lectures, clinical and basic science symposia, workshops, and special interest sessions covering the full spectrum of rheumatic diseases, said Dr. Robert Landewé, chair of the Scientific Program Committee.
“More than 5,000 scientific abstracts were submitted, which is an absolute, all-time record,” Dr. Landewé said. Four experts scored each abstract, and only the top 7% were invited for oral presentation during abstract sessions or symposia, he explained in an interview.
Wednesday, June 13
A high point of the 2018 scientific program is Wednesday’s opening plenary session, which will feature abstracts that were handpicked by Dr. Landewé and Dr. Thomas Dörner, professor of rheumatology at Charite Universitätsmedizin, Berlin. “This session includes highly scored abstracts, including late-breakers, on current advances in therapeutics and disease classification,” said Dr. Dörner, who chaired this year’s Abstract Selection Committee.
The plenary abstract session will cover new findings on gout and cardiovascular disease from CANTOS (Canakinumab Anti-inflammatory Thrombosis Outcome Study), long-term mortality in patients with early RA from the COBRA (Combinatietherapie Bij Reumatoide Artritis) study, the use of zoledronic acid to treat knee osteoarthritis with bone lesions, and the relationship between bisphosphonate drug holidays and hip fracture risk. Researchers also will discuss baricitinib in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), the value of MRI when treating remitted RA to target, the validation of SLE classification criteria, and draft classification criteria for ANCA-associated vasculitides.
A notable clinical science session on Wednesday will cover cancer and inflammation, Dr. Landewé said. “This is a topic of increasing interest because cancer and inflammation share mutual pathways.”
Novel cancer therapies such as immune checkpoint inhibitors have improved outcomes across a range of tumor types, but also can induce rheumatic disease, he added. Accordingly, presenters will discuss inflammation as “friend” versus “foe” in cancer treatment, the role of tumor necrosis factor in cancer, and risk of malignancy among patients with RA.
Also on Wednesday, a session will tackle the relationship between psychological distress and pain in immune-mediated disease. “Pain is the major symptom of rheumatic diseases, and the role of the psyche remains poorly understood,” Dr. Landewé said. “But we know one thing for sure: There is an association, and speakers from outside the field of rheumatology will help explain.”
Attendees at this bench-to-bedside session will learn how distress appears to exacerbate arthritis pain and how managing psychological stress can help optimize outcomes in arthritis pain. Experts also will describe research on integrated brain pathways in pain and distress, as well as risk factors for cognitive impairment in RA.
Thursday, June 14
Topics in this session will include the use of estrogens and other hormonal therapies in patients with rheumatic disease, registry studies of rheumatologic conditions during pregnancy, and how clinicians can best discuss sexual concerns with their rheumatology patients.
Another clinical science session scheduled for Thursday afternoon will delve into structural damage progression in patients with axial spondyloarthritis, Dr. Landewé said. “Can we inhibit this structural progression? Can we show it? Does it make sense? And which drug company will win the battle to have the precedent?”
He hopes that Dr. Désirée van der Heijde of the Netherlands and Dr. Xenofon Baraliakos of Germany will help answer these questions when they discuss the latest evidence on identifying and treating clinically relevant structural progression. Also in this session, researchers will describe the combined effects of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and NSAIDs on radiographic progression in ankylosing spondylitis, and MRI evidence supporting treating early axial spondyloarthritis to target with the goal of achieving sustained remission of inflammation.
Also on Thursday afternoon, a case-based session will take a deep dive into giant cell arteritis (GCA), Dr. Landewé noted. Attendees will learn about diagnosing and managing vision loss and stroke and the latest on corticosteroid therapy in GCA. The session also will cover biologics. “Giant cell arteritis has entered the field of biologicals!” said Dr. Landewé. “This has major implications for this disease and the clinical choices to be made.”
The past 5 decades have seen marked progress in the diagnosis and treatment of SLE, with corresponding improvements in survival and quality of life. “Still, lupus is awfully difficult,” Dr. Landewé said. “Therefore, we have planned a classical bench-to-bedside symposium to provide an all-inclusive look at current thinking and future developments.”
Talks during this Thursday afternoon session will cover the latest findings on the pathogenesis of SLE, the clinical significance of autoantibodies, distinguishing early SLE from mimics, and the role of blood-brain barrier permeability and neuropsychiatric manifestations of SLE and progressive systemic sclerosis.
Friday, June 15
For the first time, the scientific program also will include a clinical science session held jointly with the European Society of Musculoskeletal Radiology (ESSR). Dr. Joachim Sieper of Germany and ESSR President Dr. Monique Reijnierse of the Netherlands will cochair the Friday afternoon session on the role of MRI in rheumatology. Attendees from both organizations will learn when to use MRI in early and established RA and spondyloarthritis, and how to interpret the results, with abundant time built in for questions and answers. Dr. Landewé called the joint session “a test case” for exciting web-based interactions between EULAR and ESSR.
Another clinical science session on Friday afternoon will dive into the diagnosis of spondyloarthritis, which Dr. Landewé called “a matter of recognizing patterns, not ticking boxes on a list of criteria. This symposium leads you through the art of pattern recognition.”
Later on Friday afternoon, a session will explore advances in biologic therapy of small-vessel vasculitis, he added. “Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [bDMARDs] are becoming more and more important in this area of expanding interest.” Experts will address complement inhibition in ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV), the use of induction and maintenance rituximab in AAV, the evolving role of mepolizumab in eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis, survival in AAV, and the use of rituximab for treating children with granulomatosis with polyangiitis and microscopic polyangiitis.
Saturday, June 16
On Saturday, a bench-to-bedside session will cover gout and kidney function. “This is an area with important new insights,” Dr. Dörner said. Presenters will discuss the genetics of hyperuricemia, renal urate transporters, and the pros and cons of using xanthine oxidase inhibitors to treat chronic kidney disease. Researchers will also cover studies of impaired neutrophil chemotaxis in patients with chronic kidney disease and hyperuricemia, and the relationship between renal medullar hyperechogenicity and gout severity.
Also on Saturday, a clinical science session titled, “Rheumatoid arthritis: Is it all in your head?” will explore emerging data on the relationship between inflammation and depression. Patients with RA often face both clinical depression and social isolation, and these complex psychosocial conditions can worsen one another. “In addition to proper drug choice, treating RA effectively depends on how concomitant problems, such as nonspecific pain, depression, and social isolation, are coped with in a broad context,” Dr. Landewé said. “When it comes to optimal management, rheumatologists need to communicate and prescribe, not just prescribe.”
Christian Apfelbacher, PhD, of Germany will discuss prevention and treatment strategies and Dr. Jonathan Cavanagh of the United Kingdom will cover neuroimaging in RA. Researchers also will discuss new findings on pain, depression, and anxiety in patients recently diagnosed with RA.
Also on Saturday, a special session will cover EULAR’s initiatives to improve clinical approaches (ESSCA), Dr. Dörner noted. This effort has produced new or updated recommendations on topics such as vaccination, Sjögren’s syndrome, glucocorticoid therapy, and management of hand osteoarthritis, he said. “These recommendations follow a number of others and are expected to impact clinical science as well as clinical practice.”
EULAR 2018’s scientific program in Amsterdam is packed with lectures, clinical and basic science symposia, workshops, and special interest sessions covering the full spectrum of rheumatic diseases, said Dr. Robert Landewé, chair of the Scientific Program Committee.
“More than 5,000 scientific abstracts were submitted, which is an absolute, all-time record,” Dr. Landewé said. Four experts scored each abstract, and only the top 7% were invited for oral presentation during abstract sessions or symposia, he explained in an interview.
Wednesday, June 13
A high point of the 2018 scientific program is Wednesday’s opening plenary session, which will feature abstracts that were handpicked by Dr. Landewé and Dr. Thomas Dörner, professor of rheumatology at Charite Universitätsmedizin, Berlin. “This session includes highly scored abstracts, including late-breakers, on current advances in therapeutics and disease classification,” said Dr. Dörner, who chaired this year’s Abstract Selection Committee.
The plenary abstract session will cover new findings on gout and cardiovascular disease from CANTOS (Canakinumab Anti-inflammatory Thrombosis Outcome Study), long-term mortality in patients with early RA from the COBRA (Combinatietherapie Bij Reumatoide Artritis) study, the use of zoledronic acid to treat knee osteoarthritis with bone lesions, and the relationship between bisphosphonate drug holidays and hip fracture risk. Researchers also will discuss baricitinib in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), the value of MRI when treating remitted RA to target, the validation of SLE classification criteria, and draft classification criteria for ANCA-associated vasculitides.
A notable clinical science session on Wednesday will cover cancer and inflammation, Dr. Landewé said. “This is a topic of increasing interest because cancer and inflammation share mutual pathways.”
Novel cancer therapies such as immune checkpoint inhibitors have improved outcomes across a range of tumor types, but also can induce rheumatic disease, he added. Accordingly, presenters will discuss inflammation as “friend” versus “foe” in cancer treatment, the role of tumor necrosis factor in cancer, and risk of malignancy among patients with RA.
Also on Wednesday, a session will tackle the relationship between psychological distress and pain in immune-mediated disease. “Pain is the major symptom of rheumatic diseases, and the role of the psyche remains poorly understood,” Dr. Landewé said. “But we know one thing for sure: There is an association, and speakers from outside the field of rheumatology will help explain.”
Attendees at this bench-to-bedside session will learn how distress appears to exacerbate arthritis pain and how managing psychological stress can help optimize outcomes in arthritis pain. Experts also will describe research on integrated brain pathways in pain and distress, as well as risk factors for cognitive impairment in RA.
Thursday, June 14
Topics in this session will include the use of estrogens and other hormonal therapies in patients with rheumatic disease, registry studies of rheumatologic conditions during pregnancy, and how clinicians can best discuss sexual concerns with their rheumatology patients.
Another clinical science session scheduled for Thursday afternoon will delve into structural damage progression in patients with axial spondyloarthritis, Dr. Landewé said. “Can we inhibit this structural progression? Can we show it? Does it make sense? And which drug company will win the battle to have the precedent?”
He hopes that Dr. Désirée van der Heijde of the Netherlands and Dr. Xenofon Baraliakos of Germany will help answer these questions when they discuss the latest evidence on identifying and treating clinically relevant structural progression. Also in this session, researchers will describe the combined effects of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and NSAIDs on radiographic progression in ankylosing spondylitis, and MRI evidence supporting treating early axial spondyloarthritis to target with the goal of achieving sustained remission of inflammation.
Also on Thursday afternoon, a case-based session will take a deep dive into giant cell arteritis (GCA), Dr. Landewé noted. Attendees will learn about diagnosing and managing vision loss and stroke and the latest on corticosteroid therapy in GCA. The session also will cover biologics. “Giant cell arteritis has entered the field of biologicals!” said Dr. Landewé. “This has major implications for this disease and the clinical choices to be made.”
The past 5 decades have seen marked progress in the diagnosis and treatment of SLE, with corresponding improvements in survival and quality of life. “Still, lupus is awfully difficult,” Dr. Landewé said. “Therefore, we have planned a classical bench-to-bedside symposium to provide an all-inclusive look at current thinking and future developments.”
Talks during this Thursday afternoon session will cover the latest findings on the pathogenesis of SLE, the clinical significance of autoantibodies, distinguishing early SLE from mimics, and the role of blood-brain barrier permeability and neuropsychiatric manifestations of SLE and progressive systemic sclerosis.
Friday, June 15
For the first time, the scientific program also will include a clinical science session held jointly with the European Society of Musculoskeletal Radiology (ESSR). Dr. Joachim Sieper of Germany and ESSR President Dr. Monique Reijnierse of the Netherlands will cochair the Friday afternoon session on the role of MRI in rheumatology. Attendees from both organizations will learn when to use MRI in early and established RA and spondyloarthritis, and how to interpret the results, with abundant time built in for questions and answers. Dr. Landewé called the joint session “a test case” for exciting web-based interactions between EULAR and ESSR.
Another clinical science session on Friday afternoon will dive into the diagnosis of spondyloarthritis, which Dr. Landewé called “a matter of recognizing patterns, not ticking boxes on a list of criteria. This symposium leads you through the art of pattern recognition.”
Later on Friday afternoon, a session will explore advances in biologic therapy of small-vessel vasculitis, he added. “Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [bDMARDs] are becoming more and more important in this area of expanding interest.” Experts will address complement inhibition in ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV), the use of induction and maintenance rituximab in AAV, the evolving role of mepolizumab in eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis, survival in AAV, and the use of rituximab for treating children with granulomatosis with polyangiitis and microscopic polyangiitis.
Saturday, June 16
On Saturday, a bench-to-bedside session will cover gout and kidney function. “This is an area with important new insights,” Dr. Dörner said. Presenters will discuss the genetics of hyperuricemia, renal urate transporters, and the pros and cons of using xanthine oxidase inhibitors to treat chronic kidney disease. Researchers will also cover studies of impaired neutrophil chemotaxis in patients with chronic kidney disease and hyperuricemia, and the relationship between renal medullar hyperechogenicity and gout severity.
Also on Saturday, a clinical science session titled, “Rheumatoid arthritis: Is it all in your head?” will explore emerging data on the relationship between inflammation and depression. Patients with RA often face both clinical depression and social isolation, and these complex psychosocial conditions can worsen one another. “In addition to proper drug choice, treating RA effectively depends on how concomitant problems, such as nonspecific pain, depression, and social isolation, are coped with in a broad context,” Dr. Landewé said. “When it comes to optimal management, rheumatologists need to communicate and prescribe, not just prescribe.”
Christian Apfelbacher, PhD, of Germany will discuss prevention and treatment strategies and Dr. Jonathan Cavanagh of the United Kingdom will cover neuroimaging in RA. Researchers also will discuss new findings on pain, depression, and anxiety in patients recently diagnosed with RA.
Also on Saturday, a special session will cover EULAR’s initiatives to improve clinical approaches (ESSCA), Dr. Dörner noted. This effort has produced new or updated recommendations on topics such as vaccination, Sjögren’s syndrome, glucocorticoid therapy, and management of hand osteoarthritis, he said. “These recommendations follow a number of others and are expected to impact clinical science as well as clinical practice.”
Psoriasis therapy with biologics not linked to increased cancer risk
Biologic treatments were not associated with an increased risk of cancer among patients with psoriasis in the medium term, in a study that analyzed data from patient registries.
“Cumulative length of exposure to biologics was not associated with the risk of developing cancers, even after controlling for the effect of age, gender, location,” as well as for previous exposure to methotrexate, cyclosporine, and phototherapy; duration of psoriasis; and comorbidities, reported Ignacio García-Doval, MD, of the Fundación Academia Española de Dermatología y Venereología, Madrid, and his associates.
The pooled adjusted odds ratio of cancer per year of biologic exposure was 1.02 (95% confidence interval, 0.92-1.13), demonstrating no significantly increased risk of cancer per cumulative year of biologic exposure for psoriasis therapy, Dr. García-Doval and his associates reported in the study, published in the British Journal of Dermatology. This was true even when broken down within the registries for comparison, and when analyzed by type of cancers, such as squamous cell carcinoma and basal cell carcinoma.
A limitation of the study was inadequate power to detect and compare risk between individual biologics, they said. Also, “as our data describe limited follow-up and latencies, it is still possible that a risk after longer periods of exposure and latencies exists.”
Most of the authors had numerous financial disclosures related to pharmaceutical companies. Psonet was supported with funds from the European Association of Venereology and Dermatology and the Italian Drug Agency. Funding for the individual registries includes support from pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: García-Doval I et al. Br J Dermatol. 2018 May 3. doi: 10.1111/bjd.16715.
Biologic treatments were not associated with an increased risk of cancer among patients with psoriasis in the medium term, in a study that analyzed data from patient registries.
“Cumulative length of exposure to biologics was not associated with the risk of developing cancers, even after controlling for the effect of age, gender, location,” as well as for previous exposure to methotrexate, cyclosporine, and phototherapy; duration of psoriasis; and comorbidities, reported Ignacio García-Doval, MD, of the Fundación Academia Española de Dermatología y Venereología, Madrid, and his associates.
The pooled adjusted odds ratio of cancer per year of biologic exposure was 1.02 (95% confidence interval, 0.92-1.13), demonstrating no significantly increased risk of cancer per cumulative year of biologic exposure for psoriasis therapy, Dr. García-Doval and his associates reported in the study, published in the British Journal of Dermatology. This was true even when broken down within the registries for comparison, and when analyzed by type of cancers, such as squamous cell carcinoma and basal cell carcinoma.
A limitation of the study was inadequate power to detect and compare risk between individual biologics, they said. Also, “as our data describe limited follow-up and latencies, it is still possible that a risk after longer periods of exposure and latencies exists.”
Most of the authors had numerous financial disclosures related to pharmaceutical companies. Psonet was supported with funds from the European Association of Venereology and Dermatology and the Italian Drug Agency. Funding for the individual registries includes support from pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: García-Doval I et al. Br J Dermatol. 2018 May 3. doi: 10.1111/bjd.16715.
Biologic treatments were not associated with an increased risk of cancer among patients with psoriasis in the medium term, in a study that analyzed data from patient registries.
“Cumulative length of exposure to biologics was not associated with the risk of developing cancers, even after controlling for the effect of age, gender, location,” as well as for previous exposure to methotrexate, cyclosporine, and phototherapy; duration of psoriasis; and comorbidities, reported Ignacio García-Doval, MD, of the Fundación Academia Española de Dermatología y Venereología, Madrid, and his associates.
The pooled adjusted odds ratio of cancer per year of biologic exposure was 1.02 (95% confidence interval, 0.92-1.13), demonstrating no significantly increased risk of cancer per cumulative year of biologic exposure for psoriasis therapy, Dr. García-Doval and his associates reported in the study, published in the British Journal of Dermatology. This was true even when broken down within the registries for comparison, and when analyzed by type of cancers, such as squamous cell carcinoma and basal cell carcinoma.
A limitation of the study was inadequate power to detect and compare risk between individual biologics, they said. Also, “as our data describe limited follow-up and latencies, it is still possible that a risk after longer periods of exposure and latencies exists.”
Most of the authors had numerous financial disclosures related to pharmaceutical companies. Psonet was supported with funds from the European Association of Venereology and Dermatology and the Italian Drug Agency. Funding for the individual registries includes support from pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: García-Doval I et al. Br J Dermatol. 2018 May 3. doi: 10.1111/bjd.16715.
FROM THE BRITISH JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY
Key clinical point:
Major finding: The pooled adjusted odds ratio of cancer per year of biologic exposure was 1.02.
Study details: Patient data were drawn from four national databases within Psonet, which included 579 cancer cases and 2,671 matched controls.
Disclosures: Most of the authors had numerous financial disclosures related to pharmaceutical companies. Psonet was supported with funds from the European Association of Venereology and Dermatology and the Italian Drug Agency. Funding for the individual registries includes support from pharmaceutical companies.
Source: García-Doval I et al. Br J Dermatol. 2018 May 3. doi: 10.1111/bjd.16715.
Effects of psoriatic arthritis not just physical
conducted by the Harris Poll on behalf of Pfizer.
Over 90% of respondents said that their psoriatic arthritis had negatively impacted their emotional and mental well-being and 75% reported negative effects on their relationships with friends and family, Pfizer reported. Among the 301 adults aged 18 years and older who responded to the survey, 58% had stopped participating in sports or recreational activities and 51% had stopped participating in social activities.
The effects on patients’ professional lives also were considerable: Almost 74% said that it had a negative effect on their career path, 41% had experienced decreased productivity, and 13% had quit or been let go from a job, Pfizer said.
Some of the survey results suggested a disconnect between patients and their physicians. Of the 89% of patients who were very or somewhat satisfied with their prescription medication, 90% said that they would like to make changes to their treatment regimen and 89% described their illness as moderate to severe, Pfizer reported.
The survey was conducted online from Nov. 2 to Dec. 1, 2017.
conducted by the Harris Poll on behalf of Pfizer.
Over 90% of respondents said that their psoriatic arthritis had negatively impacted their emotional and mental well-being and 75% reported negative effects on their relationships with friends and family, Pfizer reported. Among the 301 adults aged 18 years and older who responded to the survey, 58% had stopped participating in sports or recreational activities and 51% had stopped participating in social activities.
The effects on patients’ professional lives also were considerable: Almost 74% said that it had a negative effect on their career path, 41% had experienced decreased productivity, and 13% had quit or been let go from a job, Pfizer said.
Some of the survey results suggested a disconnect between patients and their physicians. Of the 89% of patients who were very or somewhat satisfied with their prescription medication, 90% said that they would like to make changes to their treatment regimen and 89% described their illness as moderate to severe, Pfizer reported.
The survey was conducted online from Nov. 2 to Dec. 1, 2017.
conducted by the Harris Poll on behalf of Pfizer.
Over 90% of respondents said that their psoriatic arthritis had negatively impacted their emotional and mental well-being and 75% reported negative effects on their relationships with friends and family, Pfizer reported. Among the 301 adults aged 18 years and older who responded to the survey, 58% had stopped participating in sports or recreational activities and 51% had stopped participating in social activities.
The effects on patients’ professional lives also were considerable: Almost 74% said that it had a negative effect on their career path, 41% had experienced decreased productivity, and 13% had quit or been let go from a job, Pfizer said.
Some of the survey results suggested a disconnect between patients and their physicians. Of the 89% of patients who were very or somewhat satisfied with their prescription medication, 90% said that they would like to make changes to their treatment regimen and 89% described their illness as moderate to severe, Pfizer reported.
The survey was conducted online from Nov. 2 to Dec. 1, 2017.
Ixekizumab improves psoriatic arthritis patient-reported outcomes
LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND – In biologic-experienced patients with psoriatic arthritis, the interleukin-17 inhibitor ixekizumab not only met the primary efficacy endpoint of a pivotal phase 3 trial, but also improved multiple patient-reported outcomes in doing so.
Newly-released results from the Study of Ixekizumab in Participants With Active Psoriatic Arthritis (SPIRIT-P2) showed that patients who received active treatment exhibited significantly better changes in physical function, quality of life, itch score, and work productivity compared with those given placebo.
Patients treated with ixekizumab 80 mg every 2 or 4 weeks more often achieved the MCID by week 24, reaching 40% for 80 mg every 2 weeks and 43% for every 4 weeks, compared with 17% for placebo.
A total of 363 patients who met CASPAR (Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis) criteria were randomized into the SPIRIT-P2 trial. Patients could be included only if they had at least three tender and three swollen joints, active skin lesions, or a documented history of skin psoriasis, and had received prior treatment with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi).
“The population of patients studied is representative of the patients we see in our clinics,” said Dr. Marzo-Ortega, a consultant rheumatologist at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, England. The mean age was 52 years, a similar percentage of men and women were seen, and the majority (53%-58%) were inadequate responders to one TNFi. One-third had not responded to two TNFis, and 8%-10% had an intolerance.
The primary endpoint results, which have been previously presented and published (Lancet. 2017;389[10086]:2317-27), showed that a significantly (P less than .0001) higher percentage of patients treated with either of the two regimens of ixekizumab achieved a 20% response level on American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at 24 weeks. Indeed, 48% of 123 patients given 80 mg of ixekizumab every 2 weeks and 53% of 122 given 80 mg every 4 weeks achieved an ACR20 versus 20% of 118 placebo-treated patients. Also, on two key secondary endpoints at 24 weeks, an ACR50 response was achieved by a respective 33%, 35%, and 5% of patients, and an ACR70 by 12%, 22%, and 0%, she said.
Dr. Marzo-Ortega noted that the study had only been powered to show a difference between the active treatment and placebo, and not between the two doses, and that, looking at the speed of response, a difference from placebo was already being seen by week 2 “and certainly by week 4,” indicating an early effect. Data from the trial at 52 weeks are being analyzed and should be available soon, she said.
Another efficacy measure used was the percentage of patients achieving minimum disease activity at week 24. “These are stringent criteria to achieve: Five of seven criteria need to be met,” Dr. Marzo-Ortega said. “This was achieved by almost 30% of patients on the 4-weekly dose,” and by 24% on the 2-weekly dose, but by just 3% of those given placebo.
“One of the remarkable things is that nearly a third [of patients] achieved PASI [Psoriasis Area Severity Index] 100 by week 24, which is complete resolution of skin psoriasis,” she said. This is one of the first times this type of skin response has been seen in a psoriasis trial, she noted.
However, there was little difference between the active treatment and placebo arms in terms of the percentage of patients seeing a response on enthesitis, and only the dose taken every 4 weeks had a significant benefit over placebo in terms of improving dactylitis.
It is not clear why these modest results were seen in the joints, perhaps there were too few patients. While this is surprising, Dr. Marzo-Ortega noted that she “wouldn’t put too much weight on” the lack of an enthesis response; these are “fantastic drugs for the skin,” she said. “There is no doubt about it.”
Other findings from the trial included a significant improvement in itch with both ixekizumab regimens versus placebo, as shown by a greater reduction in numerical rating scale scores from baseline to week 24 (–3.4 and –3.5 vs. –1.2; P less than .001).
Significant improvements with ixekizumab versus placebo in patients’ mental and physical health were also seen when data from the Short Form–36 and EQ-5D instruments were analyzed.
There was also evidence that treatment with ixekizumab significantly improved patients’ presenteeism, work productivity, and activity impairment at work when compared against placebo. There was no difference in absenteeism, as measured by changes in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire–Specific Health Problem scores from baseline to week 24.
SPIRIT-P2 is one of two pivotal trials conducted with ixekizumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis; the other is SPIRIT-P1, which was conducted in biologic-naive patients (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76[1]:79-87). Investigators recently reported 1-year data from it (J Rheumatol. 2018;45[3]:367-77.).
Eli Lilly, which markets ixekizumab as Taltz, sponsored the study. Dr. Marzo-Ortega disclosed receiving honoraria from AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and UCB, and honoraria and research funding from Janssen and Pfizer. Several other authors reported disclosures with many manufacturers of biologics for psoriatic arthritis, including Eli Lilly.
SOURCE: Marzo-Ortega H et al. Rheumatology. 2018;57[Suppl. 3]:key075.185.
LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND – In biologic-experienced patients with psoriatic arthritis, the interleukin-17 inhibitor ixekizumab not only met the primary efficacy endpoint of a pivotal phase 3 trial, but also improved multiple patient-reported outcomes in doing so.
Newly-released results from the Study of Ixekizumab in Participants With Active Psoriatic Arthritis (SPIRIT-P2) showed that patients who received active treatment exhibited significantly better changes in physical function, quality of life, itch score, and work productivity compared with those given placebo.
Patients treated with ixekizumab 80 mg every 2 or 4 weeks more often achieved the MCID by week 24, reaching 40% for 80 mg every 2 weeks and 43% for every 4 weeks, compared with 17% for placebo.
A total of 363 patients who met CASPAR (Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis) criteria were randomized into the SPIRIT-P2 trial. Patients could be included only if they had at least three tender and three swollen joints, active skin lesions, or a documented history of skin psoriasis, and had received prior treatment with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi).
“The population of patients studied is representative of the patients we see in our clinics,” said Dr. Marzo-Ortega, a consultant rheumatologist at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, England. The mean age was 52 years, a similar percentage of men and women were seen, and the majority (53%-58%) were inadequate responders to one TNFi. One-third had not responded to two TNFis, and 8%-10% had an intolerance.
The primary endpoint results, which have been previously presented and published (Lancet. 2017;389[10086]:2317-27), showed that a significantly (P less than .0001) higher percentage of patients treated with either of the two regimens of ixekizumab achieved a 20% response level on American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at 24 weeks. Indeed, 48% of 123 patients given 80 mg of ixekizumab every 2 weeks and 53% of 122 given 80 mg every 4 weeks achieved an ACR20 versus 20% of 118 placebo-treated patients. Also, on two key secondary endpoints at 24 weeks, an ACR50 response was achieved by a respective 33%, 35%, and 5% of patients, and an ACR70 by 12%, 22%, and 0%, she said.
Dr. Marzo-Ortega noted that the study had only been powered to show a difference between the active treatment and placebo, and not between the two doses, and that, looking at the speed of response, a difference from placebo was already being seen by week 2 “and certainly by week 4,” indicating an early effect. Data from the trial at 52 weeks are being analyzed and should be available soon, she said.
Another efficacy measure used was the percentage of patients achieving minimum disease activity at week 24. “These are stringent criteria to achieve: Five of seven criteria need to be met,” Dr. Marzo-Ortega said. “This was achieved by almost 30% of patients on the 4-weekly dose,” and by 24% on the 2-weekly dose, but by just 3% of those given placebo.
“One of the remarkable things is that nearly a third [of patients] achieved PASI [Psoriasis Area Severity Index] 100 by week 24, which is complete resolution of skin psoriasis,” she said. This is one of the first times this type of skin response has been seen in a psoriasis trial, she noted.
However, there was little difference between the active treatment and placebo arms in terms of the percentage of patients seeing a response on enthesitis, and only the dose taken every 4 weeks had a significant benefit over placebo in terms of improving dactylitis.
It is not clear why these modest results were seen in the joints, perhaps there were too few patients. While this is surprising, Dr. Marzo-Ortega noted that she “wouldn’t put too much weight on” the lack of an enthesis response; these are “fantastic drugs for the skin,” she said. “There is no doubt about it.”
Other findings from the trial included a significant improvement in itch with both ixekizumab regimens versus placebo, as shown by a greater reduction in numerical rating scale scores from baseline to week 24 (–3.4 and –3.5 vs. –1.2; P less than .001).
Significant improvements with ixekizumab versus placebo in patients’ mental and physical health were also seen when data from the Short Form–36 and EQ-5D instruments were analyzed.
There was also evidence that treatment with ixekizumab significantly improved patients’ presenteeism, work productivity, and activity impairment at work when compared against placebo. There was no difference in absenteeism, as measured by changes in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire–Specific Health Problem scores from baseline to week 24.
SPIRIT-P2 is one of two pivotal trials conducted with ixekizumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis; the other is SPIRIT-P1, which was conducted in biologic-naive patients (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76[1]:79-87). Investigators recently reported 1-year data from it (J Rheumatol. 2018;45[3]:367-77.).
Eli Lilly, which markets ixekizumab as Taltz, sponsored the study. Dr. Marzo-Ortega disclosed receiving honoraria from AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and UCB, and honoraria and research funding from Janssen and Pfizer. Several other authors reported disclosures with many manufacturers of biologics for psoriatic arthritis, including Eli Lilly.
SOURCE: Marzo-Ortega H et al. Rheumatology. 2018;57[Suppl. 3]:key075.185.
LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND – In biologic-experienced patients with psoriatic arthritis, the interleukin-17 inhibitor ixekizumab not only met the primary efficacy endpoint of a pivotal phase 3 trial, but also improved multiple patient-reported outcomes in doing so.
Newly-released results from the Study of Ixekizumab in Participants With Active Psoriatic Arthritis (SPIRIT-P2) showed that patients who received active treatment exhibited significantly better changes in physical function, quality of life, itch score, and work productivity compared with those given placebo.
Patients treated with ixekizumab 80 mg every 2 or 4 weeks more often achieved the MCID by week 24, reaching 40% for 80 mg every 2 weeks and 43% for every 4 weeks, compared with 17% for placebo.
A total of 363 patients who met CASPAR (Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis) criteria were randomized into the SPIRIT-P2 trial. Patients could be included only if they had at least three tender and three swollen joints, active skin lesions, or a documented history of skin psoriasis, and had received prior treatment with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi).
“The population of patients studied is representative of the patients we see in our clinics,” said Dr. Marzo-Ortega, a consultant rheumatologist at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, England. The mean age was 52 years, a similar percentage of men and women were seen, and the majority (53%-58%) were inadequate responders to one TNFi. One-third had not responded to two TNFis, and 8%-10% had an intolerance.
The primary endpoint results, which have been previously presented and published (Lancet. 2017;389[10086]:2317-27), showed that a significantly (P less than .0001) higher percentage of patients treated with either of the two regimens of ixekizumab achieved a 20% response level on American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at 24 weeks. Indeed, 48% of 123 patients given 80 mg of ixekizumab every 2 weeks and 53% of 122 given 80 mg every 4 weeks achieved an ACR20 versus 20% of 118 placebo-treated patients. Also, on two key secondary endpoints at 24 weeks, an ACR50 response was achieved by a respective 33%, 35%, and 5% of patients, and an ACR70 by 12%, 22%, and 0%, she said.
Dr. Marzo-Ortega noted that the study had only been powered to show a difference between the active treatment and placebo, and not between the two doses, and that, looking at the speed of response, a difference from placebo was already being seen by week 2 “and certainly by week 4,” indicating an early effect. Data from the trial at 52 weeks are being analyzed and should be available soon, she said.
Another efficacy measure used was the percentage of patients achieving minimum disease activity at week 24. “These are stringent criteria to achieve: Five of seven criteria need to be met,” Dr. Marzo-Ortega said. “This was achieved by almost 30% of patients on the 4-weekly dose,” and by 24% on the 2-weekly dose, but by just 3% of those given placebo.
“One of the remarkable things is that nearly a third [of patients] achieved PASI [Psoriasis Area Severity Index] 100 by week 24, which is complete resolution of skin psoriasis,” she said. This is one of the first times this type of skin response has been seen in a psoriasis trial, she noted.
However, there was little difference between the active treatment and placebo arms in terms of the percentage of patients seeing a response on enthesitis, and only the dose taken every 4 weeks had a significant benefit over placebo in terms of improving dactylitis.
It is not clear why these modest results were seen in the joints, perhaps there were too few patients. While this is surprising, Dr. Marzo-Ortega noted that she “wouldn’t put too much weight on” the lack of an enthesis response; these are “fantastic drugs for the skin,” she said. “There is no doubt about it.”
Other findings from the trial included a significant improvement in itch with both ixekizumab regimens versus placebo, as shown by a greater reduction in numerical rating scale scores from baseline to week 24 (–3.4 and –3.5 vs. –1.2; P less than .001).
Significant improvements with ixekizumab versus placebo in patients’ mental and physical health were also seen when data from the Short Form–36 and EQ-5D instruments were analyzed.
There was also evidence that treatment with ixekizumab significantly improved patients’ presenteeism, work productivity, and activity impairment at work when compared against placebo. There was no difference in absenteeism, as measured by changes in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire–Specific Health Problem scores from baseline to week 24.
SPIRIT-P2 is one of two pivotal trials conducted with ixekizumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis; the other is SPIRIT-P1, which was conducted in biologic-naive patients (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76[1]:79-87). Investigators recently reported 1-year data from it (J Rheumatol. 2018;45[3]:367-77.).
Eli Lilly, which markets ixekizumab as Taltz, sponsored the study. Dr. Marzo-Ortega disclosed receiving honoraria from AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and UCB, and honoraria and research funding from Janssen and Pfizer. Several other authors reported disclosures with many manufacturers of biologics for psoriatic arthritis, including Eli Lilly.
SOURCE: Marzo-Ortega H et al. Rheumatology. 2018;57[Suppl. 3]:key075.185.
REPORTING FROM RHEUMATOLOGY 2018
Key clinical point: Ixekizumab has multiple beneficial effects in patients with psoriatic arthritis previously treated with biologics.
Major finding: Mean HAQ-DI score changes (baseline to week 24) were –0.4 and –0.6 with ixekizumab (80 mg every 2 or 4 weeks) and –0.2 for placebo (P less than or equal to .001).
Study details: SPIRIT-P2: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial of ixekizumab in 363 biologic-experienced patients.
Disclosures: Eli Lilly, which markets ixekizumab as Taltz, sponsored the study. Dr. Marzo-Ortega disclosed receiving honoraria from AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and UCB, and honoraria and research funding from Janssen and Pfizer. Several other authors reported disclosures with many manufacturers of biologics for psoriatic arthritis, including Eli Lilly.
Source: Marzo-Ortega H et al. Rheumatology. 2018;57[Suppl. 3]:key075.185.
Psoriatic arthritis patients’ cardiovascular risks aren’t spurring increased management
CAMBRIDGE, MASS. – Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) receive risk factor management and follow-up for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) that is similar to the population at large, according to research presented in a poster session at the annual meeting of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN).
The researchers found that patients with PsA in their single-center study did not receive more intensive management and follow-up despite having a higher risk score for ASCVD. This may be caused in part by the fact that there are no specific guidelines for ASCVD management in patients with PsA, according to study authors Linh Truong, MD, and Nicole Ridolfi, DO, internal medicine residents at the University of California, Irvine.
Even though this study and others have shown that patients with psoriatic arthritis have a higher risk for ASCVD, “currently, patients with PsA are being managed exactly the same way as everyone else,” Dr. Truong said.
In addition to assessing ASCVD morbidity in patients with PsA, Dr. Truong and Dr. Ridolfi also wanted to investigate how management of the known ASCVD risk in these patients in a primary care settings compared with national guidelines. Their research came in two parts. In the first part, they calculated 10-year ASCVD risk using a risk score estimator from the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology. They then calculated an odds ratio for relevant atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events, such as MI, heart failure, and cerebrovascular accidents. In the second part, they evaluated how the risk factors for ASCVD in patients with PsA were managed in the primary care setting.
The researchers compared data from a single center for 103 patients – 61 with PsA and 42 matching controls. Patients in both groups had an average age in the mid-60s, an average body mass index above 29 kg/m2, and were also mostly male (four patients with PsA were female) and mostly white.
Patients with PsA had an average ASCVD risk score of 21.2, compared with a score of 16.5 in the control arm (P less than .0001).
Of patients with psoriatic arthritis, 23 experienced an ASCVD event, compared with 10 patients in the control arm (OR, 1.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-4.66). Patients with PsA appeared to experience increased risk for MI (OR, 2.5), heart failure (OR, 7.09), and cerebrovascular accident (OR, 1.96). These increased risks had confidence intervals that approached statistical significance, but did not achieve it.
“We believe that because these data approach [statistical] significance, that further studies are needed,” Dr. Ridolfi said. “Our own validation studies are currently underway.”
In part two of the study, yearly ASCVD risk outcomes were averaged over 5 years and then evaluated based on the frequency of primary care visits, lab checks for HbA1c and lipid profile, and the use of cardioprotective ancillary referrals. The researchers also investigated statin and aspirin use in primary and secondary atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease per guidelines from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and the United States Preventive Services Task Force.
Patients in both groups had similar primary care visits, HbA1c and lipid profiles, and use of cardioprotective supplements (such as fish oil and niacin). However, 36% of patients in the control arm received a nonpharmacologic ancillary referral, compared with just 11% of patients with PsA. Those referrals were in regard to weight loss and diabetes and dietary education, according to the research.
Dr. Truong and Dr. Ridolfi reported that, for primary prevention of ASCVD, PsA patients received treatment less often than did the controls with aspirin (0% vs. 26%, respectively) and statins (40% vs. 50%); there was also less use of statins for secondary prevention (73% vs. 85%).
“These data show that there is an educational opportunity in the primary care setting,” Dr. Truong said. “Or that there is an argument to be made that PsA should be managed by a rheumatology specialist.”
Dr. Truong and Dr. Ridolfi reported no disclosures.
CAMBRIDGE, MASS. – Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) receive risk factor management and follow-up for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) that is similar to the population at large, according to research presented in a poster session at the annual meeting of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN).
The researchers found that patients with PsA in their single-center study did not receive more intensive management and follow-up despite having a higher risk score for ASCVD. This may be caused in part by the fact that there are no specific guidelines for ASCVD management in patients with PsA, according to study authors Linh Truong, MD, and Nicole Ridolfi, DO, internal medicine residents at the University of California, Irvine.
Even though this study and others have shown that patients with psoriatic arthritis have a higher risk for ASCVD, “currently, patients with PsA are being managed exactly the same way as everyone else,” Dr. Truong said.
In addition to assessing ASCVD morbidity in patients with PsA, Dr. Truong and Dr. Ridolfi also wanted to investigate how management of the known ASCVD risk in these patients in a primary care settings compared with national guidelines. Their research came in two parts. In the first part, they calculated 10-year ASCVD risk using a risk score estimator from the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology. They then calculated an odds ratio for relevant atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events, such as MI, heart failure, and cerebrovascular accidents. In the second part, they evaluated how the risk factors for ASCVD in patients with PsA were managed in the primary care setting.
The researchers compared data from a single center for 103 patients – 61 with PsA and 42 matching controls. Patients in both groups had an average age in the mid-60s, an average body mass index above 29 kg/m2, and were also mostly male (four patients with PsA were female) and mostly white.
Patients with PsA had an average ASCVD risk score of 21.2, compared with a score of 16.5 in the control arm (P less than .0001).
Of patients with psoriatic arthritis, 23 experienced an ASCVD event, compared with 10 patients in the control arm (OR, 1.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-4.66). Patients with PsA appeared to experience increased risk for MI (OR, 2.5), heart failure (OR, 7.09), and cerebrovascular accident (OR, 1.96). These increased risks had confidence intervals that approached statistical significance, but did not achieve it.
“We believe that because these data approach [statistical] significance, that further studies are needed,” Dr. Ridolfi said. “Our own validation studies are currently underway.”
In part two of the study, yearly ASCVD risk outcomes were averaged over 5 years and then evaluated based on the frequency of primary care visits, lab checks for HbA1c and lipid profile, and the use of cardioprotective ancillary referrals. The researchers also investigated statin and aspirin use in primary and secondary atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease per guidelines from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and the United States Preventive Services Task Force.
Patients in both groups had similar primary care visits, HbA1c and lipid profiles, and use of cardioprotective supplements (such as fish oil and niacin). However, 36% of patients in the control arm received a nonpharmacologic ancillary referral, compared with just 11% of patients with PsA. Those referrals were in regard to weight loss and diabetes and dietary education, according to the research.
Dr. Truong and Dr. Ridolfi reported that, for primary prevention of ASCVD, PsA patients received treatment less often than did the controls with aspirin (0% vs. 26%, respectively) and statins (40% vs. 50%); there was also less use of statins for secondary prevention (73% vs. 85%).
“These data show that there is an educational opportunity in the primary care setting,” Dr. Truong said. “Or that there is an argument to be made that PsA should be managed by a rheumatology specialist.”
Dr. Truong and Dr. Ridolfi reported no disclosures.
CAMBRIDGE, MASS. – Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) receive risk factor management and follow-up for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) that is similar to the population at large, according to research presented in a poster session at the annual meeting of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN).
The researchers found that patients with PsA in their single-center study did not receive more intensive management and follow-up despite having a higher risk score for ASCVD. This may be caused in part by the fact that there are no specific guidelines for ASCVD management in patients with PsA, according to study authors Linh Truong, MD, and Nicole Ridolfi, DO, internal medicine residents at the University of California, Irvine.
Even though this study and others have shown that patients with psoriatic arthritis have a higher risk for ASCVD, “currently, patients with PsA are being managed exactly the same way as everyone else,” Dr. Truong said.
In addition to assessing ASCVD morbidity in patients with PsA, Dr. Truong and Dr. Ridolfi also wanted to investigate how management of the known ASCVD risk in these patients in a primary care settings compared with national guidelines. Their research came in two parts. In the first part, they calculated 10-year ASCVD risk using a risk score estimator from the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology. They then calculated an odds ratio for relevant atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events, such as MI, heart failure, and cerebrovascular accidents. In the second part, they evaluated how the risk factors for ASCVD in patients with PsA were managed in the primary care setting.
The researchers compared data from a single center for 103 patients – 61 with PsA and 42 matching controls. Patients in both groups had an average age in the mid-60s, an average body mass index above 29 kg/m2, and were also mostly male (four patients with PsA were female) and mostly white.
Patients with PsA had an average ASCVD risk score of 21.2, compared with a score of 16.5 in the control arm (P less than .0001).
Of patients with psoriatic arthritis, 23 experienced an ASCVD event, compared with 10 patients in the control arm (OR, 1.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-4.66). Patients with PsA appeared to experience increased risk for MI (OR, 2.5), heart failure (OR, 7.09), and cerebrovascular accident (OR, 1.96). These increased risks had confidence intervals that approached statistical significance, but did not achieve it.
“We believe that because these data approach [statistical] significance, that further studies are needed,” Dr. Ridolfi said. “Our own validation studies are currently underway.”
In part two of the study, yearly ASCVD risk outcomes were averaged over 5 years and then evaluated based on the frequency of primary care visits, lab checks for HbA1c and lipid profile, and the use of cardioprotective ancillary referrals. The researchers also investigated statin and aspirin use in primary and secondary atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease per guidelines from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and the United States Preventive Services Task Force.
Patients in both groups had similar primary care visits, HbA1c and lipid profiles, and use of cardioprotective supplements (such as fish oil and niacin). However, 36% of patients in the control arm received a nonpharmacologic ancillary referral, compared with just 11% of patients with PsA. Those referrals were in regard to weight loss and diabetes and dietary education, according to the research.
Dr. Truong and Dr. Ridolfi reported that, for primary prevention of ASCVD, PsA patients received treatment less often than did the controls with aspirin (0% vs. 26%, respectively) and statins (40% vs. 50%); there was also less use of statins for secondary prevention (73% vs. 85%).
“These data show that there is an educational opportunity in the primary care setting,” Dr. Truong said. “Or that there is an argument to be made that PsA should be managed by a rheumatology specialist.”
Dr. Truong and Dr. Ridolfi reported no disclosures.
REPORTING FROM SPARTAN 2018
Key clinical point: PsA patients have increased risk for ASCVD but are managed with the same intensity as the general population.
Major finding: Patients with PsA had an average ASCVD risk score of 21.2, compared with a score of 16.5 in the control arm.
Study details: A single-center study of 61 patients with PsA and 42 matching controls.
Disclosures: The presenters reported having no disclosures.
CBC values linked to CVD risk in psoriasis
ORLANDO – conducted by researchers at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.*
It’s generally accepted that psoriasis increases the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), but it’s not clear who’s most at risk. “We really wanted to find something that is cheap and easy to risk stratify these patients” said lead investigator Rosalynn Conic, MD, of Case Western’s department of dermatology.
What they found was “very impressive, for sure,” Dr. Conic said at the International Investigative Dermatology meeting.
The incidence of MI was highest among the 1,920 patients (5%) with elevated RDW and MPV (odds ratio, 3.4; 95% confidence interval, 2.7-4.2; P less than .001), followed by the 7,060 (18%) patients with high RDW and normal MPV (OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 2.1-2.8; P less than .001), as compared with normal/low MPV and RDW patients.
Elevated RDW or elevated RDW plus MPV increased the odds of atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, heart failure, and peripheral vascular disease anywhere from 2 to 8.3 times (P less than .001). Among psoriatic arthritis patients, elevated RDW almost doubled the risk of MI (OR, 1.8; P less than .001). Results were adjusted for age, gender, and hypertension.
In a subanalysis of treatment effects, 4 of 23 psoriasis patients at Case Western had elevated RDWs at baseline. Values normalized in the three patients who achieved a 75% reduction in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score after about a year of systemic treatment.
“We aim to validate [the study results] with a Veterans Administration data set,” Dr. Conic said. If it pans out, “one use would be to send [patients with elevated values] to a cardiologist earlier” so other CVD risk factors can be monitored and treated. The findings also add to the case for good control, she noted.
Systemic inflammation is the common denominator between the blood value elevations and CVD. The same inflammatory cytokines that cause skin problems in psoriasis also stimulate bone marrow to release immature red blood cells, which are larger than mature cells, leading to an increased RDW. Similarly, elevated MPV indicates a higher number of larger, younger platelets in the blood.
“It’s probably something along those lines, but I think we need to go back to basic science and really figure it out,” Dr. Conic said.
Patients were 18-65 years old. The study excluded patients with diabetes, Crohn’s disease, RA, and generalized atherosclerosis.
The National Institutes of Health funded the work. Dr. Conic reported no relevant financial disclosures.
*This article was updated on May 30, 2018.
SOURCE: Conic R et al. IID 2018, Abstract 550.
ORLANDO – conducted by researchers at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.*
It’s generally accepted that psoriasis increases the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), but it’s not clear who’s most at risk. “We really wanted to find something that is cheap and easy to risk stratify these patients” said lead investigator Rosalynn Conic, MD, of Case Western’s department of dermatology.
What they found was “very impressive, for sure,” Dr. Conic said at the International Investigative Dermatology meeting.
The incidence of MI was highest among the 1,920 patients (5%) with elevated RDW and MPV (odds ratio, 3.4; 95% confidence interval, 2.7-4.2; P less than .001), followed by the 7,060 (18%) patients with high RDW and normal MPV (OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 2.1-2.8; P less than .001), as compared with normal/low MPV and RDW patients.
Elevated RDW or elevated RDW plus MPV increased the odds of atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, heart failure, and peripheral vascular disease anywhere from 2 to 8.3 times (P less than .001). Among psoriatic arthritis patients, elevated RDW almost doubled the risk of MI (OR, 1.8; P less than .001). Results were adjusted for age, gender, and hypertension.
In a subanalysis of treatment effects, 4 of 23 psoriasis patients at Case Western had elevated RDWs at baseline. Values normalized in the three patients who achieved a 75% reduction in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score after about a year of systemic treatment.
“We aim to validate [the study results] with a Veterans Administration data set,” Dr. Conic said. If it pans out, “one use would be to send [patients with elevated values] to a cardiologist earlier” so other CVD risk factors can be monitored and treated. The findings also add to the case for good control, she noted.
Systemic inflammation is the common denominator between the blood value elevations and CVD. The same inflammatory cytokines that cause skin problems in psoriasis also stimulate bone marrow to release immature red blood cells, which are larger than mature cells, leading to an increased RDW. Similarly, elevated MPV indicates a higher number of larger, younger platelets in the blood.
“It’s probably something along those lines, but I think we need to go back to basic science and really figure it out,” Dr. Conic said.
Patients were 18-65 years old. The study excluded patients with diabetes, Crohn’s disease, RA, and generalized atherosclerosis.
The National Institutes of Health funded the work. Dr. Conic reported no relevant financial disclosures.
*This article was updated on May 30, 2018.
SOURCE: Conic R et al. IID 2018, Abstract 550.
ORLANDO – conducted by researchers at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.*
It’s generally accepted that psoriasis increases the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), but it’s not clear who’s most at risk. “We really wanted to find something that is cheap and easy to risk stratify these patients” said lead investigator Rosalynn Conic, MD, of Case Western’s department of dermatology.
What they found was “very impressive, for sure,” Dr. Conic said at the International Investigative Dermatology meeting.
The incidence of MI was highest among the 1,920 patients (5%) with elevated RDW and MPV (odds ratio, 3.4; 95% confidence interval, 2.7-4.2; P less than .001), followed by the 7,060 (18%) patients with high RDW and normal MPV (OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 2.1-2.8; P less than .001), as compared with normal/low MPV and RDW patients.
Elevated RDW or elevated RDW plus MPV increased the odds of atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, heart failure, and peripheral vascular disease anywhere from 2 to 8.3 times (P less than .001). Among psoriatic arthritis patients, elevated RDW almost doubled the risk of MI (OR, 1.8; P less than .001). Results were adjusted for age, gender, and hypertension.
In a subanalysis of treatment effects, 4 of 23 psoriasis patients at Case Western had elevated RDWs at baseline. Values normalized in the three patients who achieved a 75% reduction in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score after about a year of systemic treatment.
“We aim to validate [the study results] with a Veterans Administration data set,” Dr. Conic said. If it pans out, “one use would be to send [patients with elevated values] to a cardiologist earlier” so other CVD risk factors can be monitored and treated. The findings also add to the case for good control, she noted.
Systemic inflammation is the common denominator between the blood value elevations and CVD. The same inflammatory cytokines that cause skin problems in psoriasis also stimulate bone marrow to release immature red blood cells, which are larger than mature cells, leading to an increased RDW. Similarly, elevated MPV indicates a higher number of larger, younger platelets in the blood.
“It’s probably something along those lines, but I think we need to go back to basic science and really figure it out,” Dr. Conic said.
Patients were 18-65 years old. The study excluded patients with diabetes, Crohn’s disease, RA, and generalized atherosclerosis.
The National Institutes of Health funded the work. Dr. Conic reported no relevant financial disclosures.
*This article was updated on May 30, 2018.
SOURCE: Conic R et al. IID 2018, Abstract 550.
REPORTING FROM IID 2018
Key clinical point: Elevated red blood cell distribution width and mean platelet volume might identify psoriasis patients at risk for cardiovascular disease.
Major finding: The incidence of MI was highest among the 1,920 patients with elevated red cell distribution width and mean platelet volume (odds ratio, 3.4; 95% confidence interval, 2.7-4.2; P less than .001).
Study details: A database review of 39,510 patients with psoriasis.
Disclosures: The National Institutes of Health funded the work. The lead investigator had no disclosures to report.
Source: Conic R et al. IID 2018, Abstract 550.
VIDEO: Second wave of psoriatic arthritis therapies
SANDESTIN, FLA. – An array of potential new options for psoriatic arthritis offers new targeted options and poses challenges for how to use the drugs, Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, said in a video interview at the annual Congress of Clinical Rheumatology.
“We’re seeing a second wave – a second wave driven by the additional ways that we have to target aspects of the immune system relevant to psoriatic arthritis,” he said.
First used to treat rheumatoid arthritis, monoclonal antibodies to interleukin targets, including IL12 and IL23 (ustekinumab) and IL17 (secukinumab and ixekizumab), have become established psoriatic arthritis therapies. Additionally, the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofacitinib has become an option.
Other options in the pipeline include the JAK inhibitor baricitinib; the anti-IL23 monoclonal antibodies guselkumab, risankizumab, and tildrakizumab; and even more anti-IL17 therapies, including brodalumab and bimekizumab .
“Now we have the synergy of having novel therapeutic approaches to maybe address some of the different domains of disease,” he said. Despite efforts to develop better biomarkers, it’s hard to predict how an individual patient will respond to a specific therapy. The longer the menu of therapeutic options, the better it is for patients.
As methotrexate remains a go-to treatment for many patients, new data from the SEAM trial assessing etanercept and methotrexate will address the question of whether the conventional drug and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors create therapeutic synergy in patients with psoriatic arthritis.
Dr. Kavanaugh discussed the implications of the trial’s findings, which are expected to go public this summer.
SANDESTIN, FLA. – An array of potential new options for psoriatic arthritis offers new targeted options and poses challenges for how to use the drugs, Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, said in a video interview at the annual Congress of Clinical Rheumatology.
“We’re seeing a second wave – a second wave driven by the additional ways that we have to target aspects of the immune system relevant to psoriatic arthritis,” he said.
First used to treat rheumatoid arthritis, monoclonal antibodies to interleukin targets, including IL12 and IL23 (ustekinumab) and IL17 (secukinumab and ixekizumab), have become established psoriatic arthritis therapies. Additionally, the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofacitinib has become an option.
Other options in the pipeline include the JAK inhibitor baricitinib; the anti-IL23 monoclonal antibodies guselkumab, risankizumab, and tildrakizumab; and even more anti-IL17 therapies, including brodalumab and bimekizumab .
“Now we have the synergy of having novel therapeutic approaches to maybe address some of the different domains of disease,” he said. Despite efforts to develop better biomarkers, it’s hard to predict how an individual patient will respond to a specific therapy. The longer the menu of therapeutic options, the better it is for patients.
As methotrexate remains a go-to treatment for many patients, new data from the SEAM trial assessing etanercept and methotrexate will address the question of whether the conventional drug and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors create therapeutic synergy in patients with psoriatic arthritis.
Dr. Kavanaugh discussed the implications of the trial’s findings, which are expected to go public this summer.
SANDESTIN, FLA. – An array of potential new options for psoriatic arthritis offers new targeted options and poses challenges for how to use the drugs, Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, said in a video interview at the annual Congress of Clinical Rheumatology.
“We’re seeing a second wave – a second wave driven by the additional ways that we have to target aspects of the immune system relevant to psoriatic arthritis,” he said.
First used to treat rheumatoid arthritis, monoclonal antibodies to interleukin targets, including IL12 and IL23 (ustekinumab) and IL17 (secukinumab and ixekizumab), have become established psoriatic arthritis therapies. Additionally, the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofacitinib has become an option.
Other options in the pipeline include the JAK inhibitor baricitinib; the anti-IL23 monoclonal antibodies guselkumab, risankizumab, and tildrakizumab; and even more anti-IL17 therapies, including brodalumab and bimekizumab .
“Now we have the synergy of having novel therapeutic approaches to maybe address some of the different domains of disease,” he said. Despite efforts to develop better biomarkers, it’s hard to predict how an individual patient will respond to a specific therapy. The longer the menu of therapeutic options, the better it is for patients.
As methotrexate remains a go-to treatment for many patients, new data from the SEAM trial assessing etanercept and methotrexate will address the question of whether the conventional drug and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors create therapeutic synergy in patients with psoriatic arthritis.
Dr. Kavanaugh discussed the implications of the trial’s findings, which are expected to go public this summer.
REPORTING FROM CCR
Novel x-ray score distinguishes psoriatic arthritis from osteoarthritis of the hand
LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND – A novel radiologic scoring system differentiated psoriatic arthritis (PsA) from nodal osteoarthritis (OA) of the hand in a pilot study.
“It’s a dilemma that’s faced, perhaps every couple of weeks, by most [rheumatologists]: Is it osteoarthritis or is it early psoriatic arthritis?” said Sardar Bahadur, MD, at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference.
Both conditions are seen in daily practice, although the prevalence of hand OA is less frequent than knee OA. Approximately one in five of all adults in the United Kingdom have OA and 1%-2% have psoriasis. Of these, the prevalence of hand OA is about 11% and 0.1%-0.3% have psoriatic arthritis.
Being able to differentiate between the two conditions has important consequences for treatment, Dr. Bahadur said.
“Getting the diagnosis wrong could have major implications,” he said. “If you miss psoriatic arthritis, then potentially you are going to find irreversible joint damage causing pain and disability, and the opposite is also true, with misdiagnosis of osteoarthritis, with overuse of immunosuppression and all the cost implications as well as medicolegal consequences.”
Dr. Bahadur of the department of rehabilitation medicine and rheumatology at the Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre Headley Court, in Epsom, England, added: “So early diagnosis is very important, it means early treatment, it means better care, potentially preventing serious and irreversible damage.”
Together with researchers at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust, London, Dr. Bahadur hypothesized that changes in hand x-rays were distinct and could be reliably used to differentiate between the two conditions. They developed a scoring system for hand radiographs that looked at the differences in the interphalangeal joints, soft tissue, and bone features of patients with known OA or PsA.
Dr. Bahadur noted that the aim was to focus on plain film radiographs of the hands because these were inexpensive, universally accessible, did not rely on radiologists’ interpretation, and changes in the hands were known to occur in both OA and PsA.
A total of 99 sets of hand x-rays taken between 2008 and 2016 from 50 patients with OA and 49 patients with PsA were obtained. These were anonymized and then analyzed by a musculoskeletal radiologist using the scoring system the team had developed. The radiologist was unaware of the patients’ clinical status. The results were then compared to the clinical diagnosis.
The novel method of scoring each x-ray was then taught to two rheumatology and one radiology trainee during a 1-hour training session and were then asked to score the same radiographs.
Dr. Bahadur reported that the radiologist reported normal hand radiographs in five patients and, of the remaining 94 sets of left- and right-hand radiographs, the scoring system correctly allocated 100% of images to either PsA, OA, or rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
Of note was that the radiologist correctly identified two patients with nodal hand OA who later developed PsA several years later, and one patient with RA who was initially thought to have PsA.
“The system could be successfully used by nonradiologists,” Dr. Bahadur proposed. There was good agreement between the scoring system results and the clinical diagnosis then used by the trainees, with 88% and 67% of the radiographs correctly matched to the clinical diagnosis by the rheumatology trainees, and 70% for the radiology trainee.
Dr. Bahadur noted that the features that were consistently identified as being different between hand OA and PsA patients were soft tissue changes, such as dactylitis, as well as erosions, new bone formation, and other features such as subchondral surface changes and cysts.
The results of this single-center study show that the novel radiologic scoring system of hand radiographs was effective at differentiating patients with PsA from nodal OA.
“The ambition is to make this usable by nonradiologists,” Dr. Bahadur said. A multicenter trial would be the next step to look at the use of the scoring system.
Dr. Bahadur had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
SOURCE: Bahadur S et al. Rheumatology. 2018;57[Suppl. 3]:key075.184
LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND – A novel radiologic scoring system differentiated psoriatic arthritis (PsA) from nodal osteoarthritis (OA) of the hand in a pilot study.
“It’s a dilemma that’s faced, perhaps every couple of weeks, by most [rheumatologists]: Is it osteoarthritis or is it early psoriatic arthritis?” said Sardar Bahadur, MD, at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference.
Both conditions are seen in daily practice, although the prevalence of hand OA is less frequent than knee OA. Approximately one in five of all adults in the United Kingdom have OA and 1%-2% have psoriasis. Of these, the prevalence of hand OA is about 11% and 0.1%-0.3% have psoriatic arthritis.
Being able to differentiate between the two conditions has important consequences for treatment, Dr. Bahadur said.
“Getting the diagnosis wrong could have major implications,” he said. “If you miss psoriatic arthritis, then potentially you are going to find irreversible joint damage causing pain and disability, and the opposite is also true, with misdiagnosis of osteoarthritis, with overuse of immunosuppression and all the cost implications as well as medicolegal consequences.”
Dr. Bahadur of the department of rehabilitation medicine and rheumatology at the Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre Headley Court, in Epsom, England, added: “So early diagnosis is very important, it means early treatment, it means better care, potentially preventing serious and irreversible damage.”
Together with researchers at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust, London, Dr. Bahadur hypothesized that changes in hand x-rays were distinct and could be reliably used to differentiate between the two conditions. They developed a scoring system for hand radiographs that looked at the differences in the interphalangeal joints, soft tissue, and bone features of patients with known OA or PsA.
Dr. Bahadur noted that the aim was to focus on plain film radiographs of the hands because these were inexpensive, universally accessible, did not rely on radiologists’ interpretation, and changes in the hands were known to occur in both OA and PsA.
A total of 99 sets of hand x-rays taken between 2008 and 2016 from 50 patients with OA and 49 patients with PsA were obtained. These were anonymized and then analyzed by a musculoskeletal radiologist using the scoring system the team had developed. The radiologist was unaware of the patients’ clinical status. The results were then compared to the clinical diagnosis.
The novel method of scoring each x-ray was then taught to two rheumatology and one radiology trainee during a 1-hour training session and were then asked to score the same radiographs.
Dr. Bahadur reported that the radiologist reported normal hand radiographs in five patients and, of the remaining 94 sets of left- and right-hand radiographs, the scoring system correctly allocated 100% of images to either PsA, OA, or rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
Of note was that the radiologist correctly identified two patients with nodal hand OA who later developed PsA several years later, and one patient with RA who was initially thought to have PsA.
“The system could be successfully used by nonradiologists,” Dr. Bahadur proposed. There was good agreement between the scoring system results and the clinical diagnosis then used by the trainees, with 88% and 67% of the radiographs correctly matched to the clinical diagnosis by the rheumatology trainees, and 70% for the radiology trainee.
Dr. Bahadur noted that the features that were consistently identified as being different between hand OA and PsA patients were soft tissue changes, such as dactylitis, as well as erosions, new bone formation, and other features such as subchondral surface changes and cysts.
The results of this single-center study show that the novel radiologic scoring system of hand radiographs was effective at differentiating patients with PsA from nodal OA.
“The ambition is to make this usable by nonradiologists,” Dr. Bahadur said. A multicenter trial would be the next step to look at the use of the scoring system.
Dr. Bahadur had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
SOURCE: Bahadur S et al. Rheumatology. 2018;57[Suppl. 3]:key075.184
LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND – A novel radiologic scoring system differentiated psoriatic arthritis (PsA) from nodal osteoarthritis (OA) of the hand in a pilot study.
“It’s a dilemma that’s faced, perhaps every couple of weeks, by most [rheumatologists]: Is it osteoarthritis or is it early psoriatic arthritis?” said Sardar Bahadur, MD, at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference.
Both conditions are seen in daily practice, although the prevalence of hand OA is less frequent than knee OA. Approximately one in five of all adults in the United Kingdom have OA and 1%-2% have psoriasis. Of these, the prevalence of hand OA is about 11% and 0.1%-0.3% have psoriatic arthritis.
Being able to differentiate between the two conditions has important consequences for treatment, Dr. Bahadur said.
“Getting the diagnosis wrong could have major implications,” he said. “If you miss psoriatic arthritis, then potentially you are going to find irreversible joint damage causing pain and disability, and the opposite is also true, with misdiagnosis of osteoarthritis, with overuse of immunosuppression and all the cost implications as well as medicolegal consequences.”
Dr. Bahadur of the department of rehabilitation medicine and rheumatology at the Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre Headley Court, in Epsom, England, added: “So early diagnosis is very important, it means early treatment, it means better care, potentially preventing serious and irreversible damage.”
Together with researchers at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust, London, Dr. Bahadur hypothesized that changes in hand x-rays were distinct and could be reliably used to differentiate between the two conditions. They developed a scoring system for hand radiographs that looked at the differences in the interphalangeal joints, soft tissue, and bone features of patients with known OA or PsA.
Dr. Bahadur noted that the aim was to focus on plain film radiographs of the hands because these were inexpensive, universally accessible, did not rely on radiologists’ interpretation, and changes in the hands were known to occur in both OA and PsA.
A total of 99 sets of hand x-rays taken between 2008 and 2016 from 50 patients with OA and 49 patients with PsA were obtained. These were anonymized and then analyzed by a musculoskeletal radiologist using the scoring system the team had developed. The radiologist was unaware of the patients’ clinical status. The results were then compared to the clinical diagnosis.
The novel method of scoring each x-ray was then taught to two rheumatology and one radiology trainee during a 1-hour training session and were then asked to score the same radiographs.
Dr. Bahadur reported that the radiologist reported normal hand radiographs in five patients and, of the remaining 94 sets of left- and right-hand radiographs, the scoring system correctly allocated 100% of images to either PsA, OA, or rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
Of note was that the radiologist correctly identified two patients with nodal hand OA who later developed PsA several years later, and one patient with RA who was initially thought to have PsA.
“The system could be successfully used by nonradiologists,” Dr. Bahadur proposed. There was good agreement between the scoring system results and the clinical diagnosis then used by the trainees, with 88% and 67% of the radiographs correctly matched to the clinical diagnosis by the rheumatology trainees, and 70% for the radiology trainee.
Dr. Bahadur noted that the features that were consistently identified as being different between hand OA and PsA patients were soft tissue changes, such as dactylitis, as well as erosions, new bone formation, and other features such as subchondral surface changes and cysts.
The results of this single-center study show that the novel radiologic scoring system of hand radiographs was effective at differentiating patients with PsA from nodal OA.
“The ambition is to make this usable by nonradiologists,” Dr. Bahadur said. A multicenter trial would be the next step to look at the use of the scoring system.
Dr. Bahadur had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
SOURCE: Bahadur S et al. Rheumatology. 2018;57[Suppl. 3]:key075.184
REPORTING FROM RHEUMATOLOGY 2018
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Using the scoring system, 100% of images were correctly allocated to PsA, OA, or RA.
Study details: Single center pilot study assessing 99 x-rays of both hands taken between 2008 and 2016 of patients with OA (n = 50) or PsA (n = 49).
Disclosures: Dr. Bahadur had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Source: Bahadur S et al., Rheumatology. 2018;57[Suppl. 3]:key075.184
Methotrexate-induced pulmonary fibrosis risk examined in 10-year study
LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND – A 10-year follow up of patients with inflammatory arthritis has shown that methotrexate does not appear to increase the risk of pulmonary fibrosis.
“As rheumatologists, it’s a really important message that methotrexate does not cause chronic pulmonary fibrosis and it should not be stopped because of pulmonary fibrosis,” Julie Dawson, MD, said in an interview at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference. “It’s the rheumatoid arthritis. It’s not the methotrexate.”
Dr. Dawson, of St. Helens and Knowsley Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St. Helens, England, added that the current findings were consistent with her team’s prior research looking at earlier time periods. There was also no correlation between the duration or dose of methotrexate used and the development of the lung disease, she said.
“If anything, the suggestion is you’d be more symptomatic if you delay using methotrexate,” Dr. Dawson observed. If patients are not doing well on methotrexate, then perhaps adjusting therapy or changing to another drug would of course be the next step, but if patients are well controlled then “stopping it is the worst thing to do” for their arthritis, she said.
“This is of great clinical interest, and we can be reassured now about this, I think. This is really good, long-term data,” said Devesh Mewar, MD, of Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust, Liverpool, England, who was not involved in the research.
“We know that methotrexate is associated with a pneumonitis reaction, but there is no high-quality evidence that methotrexate is associated with a chronic pulmonary fibrosis” Dr. Dawson said, explaining the rationale for the current study she presented during a poster session. Previous studies considered data for up to 5 years, she added, so the aim of the current study, therefore, was to look at the longer-term effect of methotrexate use on the incidence of pulmonary fibrosis.
Data on 129 patients who had started treatment with methotrexate from 2004 to 2007 were analyzed, of whom 63 (49%) had stayed on methotrexate for 10 or more years. Most (82%) had been given methotrexate to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with other indications including inflammatory arthritis (5.4%) and psoriatic arthritis (4.7%).
“Practice was different 10 years ago, so just 56% of patients commenced methotrexate within the first year of the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Dawson reported.
Only four cases of symptomatic pulmonary fibrosis were seen, all in the RA patients, and three of these were in patients who had started methotrexate over 1 year after their diagnosis. The incidence of 3.8% seen in the study matches the expected incidence of pulmonary fibrosis in RA and was actually “at the lower end of the expected incidence,” Dr. Dawson said. Previous studies have suggested an incidence rate of RA-associated interstitial lung disease of about 3%-7%.
All of the pulmonary fibrosis cases had occurred in men and 75% were seropositive for rheumatoid factor. The mean duration of RA at the time of onset of pulmonary fibrosis was 7.8 years and the usual interstitial pattern of fibrosis was seen. The 125 patients without pulmonary fibrosis had taken methotrexate for a mean of 8 years at a mean final weekly dose of 16.3 mg, compared with a mean of 6 years at a mean dose of 18.1 mg per week in the 4 patients with pulmonary fibrosis.
One of the next steps is to look at cases where methotrexate has been stopped and the effects of that on pulmonary fibrosis and disease activity. In Dr. Dawson’s experience, stopping methotrexate just affects the management of the arthritis and had no difference to the progression of pulmonary fibrosis.
If patients start to experience any lung symptoms while continuing methotrexate, such as shortness of breath, then they would need to be assessed and undergo lung function tests to monitor their condition. Treating the fibrosis using an antifibrotic drug, such as pirfenidone, is something that might be possible in the future, but this needs investigation in inflammatory arthritis as the drug is currently only licensed for use in idiopathic cases.
This is something the British Rheumatoid Interstitial Lung network plans to investigate in a placebo-controlled study of RA patients with fibrotic lung disease. “We’re looking to see if antifibrotic agents are going to slow the disease as it does in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, which is obviously quite exciting when it’s such a hard condition to treat,” said Dr. Dawson, who will be one of the study’s investigators.
Dr. Dawson had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Mewar was not involved in the study and had nothing to disclose.
SOURCE: Dawson J et al. Rheumatology. 2018;57[Suppl. 3]:key075.470.
The subject of this retrospective study is of great interest. The authors point out that pulmonary fibrosis (as opposed to acute allergic reaction, which is extremely rare) is also extremely uncommon in patients using methotrexate over the long haul. Over 10 years, their data points to a 3.1% incidence of symptomatic pulmonary fibrosis.
The issue here is its generalizability. There were 63 patients who used methotrexate for 10 years or more and 88 who used it for 5 years or more, according to the poster. This must represent a highly selected population. For example, what percent of the total RA/psoriatic arthritis/”inflammatory arthritis” population do these patients represent, i.e., what is the denominator here? The authors stated that the 63 patients who stayed on methotrexate for 10 or more years represent 49% of the 129 patients on methotrexate overall in the study. This is a highly unusual datum, as most of the literature indicates that only 40% or less of patients stay on methotrexate for even 5 years. And this completely ignores the issue of adherence over this long a period; these patients must represent a truly minuscule percentage of the total if they actually stayed on methotrexate with even moderate adherence for 10 years.
Importantly, the authors point out that they had only four cases of symptomatic pulmonary fibrosis. Once more, this points to the highly selective group of patients seen, as this study does not examine patients with asymptomatic pulmonary fibrosis, including those with fibrosis on high-resolution CT of the lungs or chest film or evidence of abnormalities on pulmonary function tests, but who do not have sufficient symptoms ascribed to methotrexate to bring them to medical attention.
Daniel E. Furst, MD, is professor of rheumatology at the University of Washington, Seattle, who also is affiliated with the University of California, Los Angeles, and the University of Florence, Italy. He was not involved with the study.
The subject of this retrospective study is of great interest. The authors point out that pulmonary fibrosis (as opposed to acute allergic reaction, which is extremely rare) is also extremely uncommon in patients using methotrexate over the long haul. Over 10 years, their data points to a 3.1% incidence of symptomatic pulmonary fibrosis.
The issue here is its generalizability. There were 63 patients who used methotrexate for 10 years or more and 88 who used it for 5 years or more, according to the poster. This must represent a highly selected population. For example, what percent of the total RA/psoriatic arthritis/”inflammatory arthritis” population do these patients represent, i.e., what is the denominator here? The authors stated that the 63 patients who stayed on methotrexate for 10 or more years represent 49% of the 129 patients on methotrexate overall in the study. This is a highly unusual datum, as most of the literature indicates that only 40% or less of patients stay on methotrexate for even 5 years. And this completely ignores the issue of adherence over this long a period; these patients must represent a truly minuscule percentage of the total if they actually stayed on methotrexate with even moderate adherence for 10 years.
Importantly, the authors point out that they had only four cases of symptomatic pulmonary fibrosis. Once more, this points to the highly selective group of patients seen, as this study does not examine patients with asymptomatic pulmonary fibrosis, including those with fibrosis on high-resolution CT of the lungs or chest film or evidence of abnormalities on pulmonary function tests, but who do not have sufficient symptoms ascribed to methotrexate to bring them to medical attention.
Daniel E. Furst, MD, is professor of rheumatology at the University of Washington, Seattle, who also is affiliated with the University of California, Los Angeles, and the University of Florence, Italy. He was not involved with the study.
The subject of this retrospective study is of great interest. The authors point out that pulmonary fibrosis (as opposed to acute allergic reaction, which is extremely rare) is also extremely uncommon in patients using methotrexate over the long haul. Over 10 years, their data points to a 3.1% incidence of symptomatic pulmonary fibrosis.
The issue here is its generalizability. There were 63 patients who used methotrexate for 10 years or more and 88 who used it for 5 years or more, according to the poster. This must represent a highly selected population. For example, what percent of the total RA/psoriatic arthritis/”inflammatory arthritis” population do these patients represent, i.e., what is the denominator here? The authors stated that the 63 patients who stayed on methotrexate for 10 or more years represent 49% of the 129 patients on methotrexate overall in the study. This is a highly unusual datum, as most of the literature indicates that only 40% or less of patients stay on methotrexate for even 5 years. And this completely ignores the issue of adherence over this long a period; these patients must represent a truly minuscule percentage of the total if they actually stayed on methotrexate with even moderate adherence for 10 years.
Importantly, the authors point out that they had only four cases of symptomatic pulmonary fibrosis. Once more, this points to the highly selective group of patients seen, as this study does not examine patients with asymptomatic pulmonary fibrosis, including those with fibrosis on high-resolution CT of the lungs or chest film or evidence of abnormalities on pulmonary function tests, but who do not have sufficient symptoms ascribed to methotrexate to bring them to medical attention.
Daniel E. Furst, MD, is professor of rheumatology at the University of Washington, Seattle, who also is affiliated with the University of California, Los Angeles, and the University of Florence, Italy. He was not involved with the study.
LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND – A 10-year follow up of patients with inflammatory arthritis has shown that methotrexate does not appear to increase the risk of pulmonary fibrosis.
“As rheumatologists, it’s a really important message that methotrexate does not cause chronic pulmonary fibrosis and it should not be stopped because of pulmonary fibrosis,” Julie Dawson, MD, said in an interview at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference. “It’s the rheumatoid arthritis. It’s not the methotrexate.”
Dr. Dawson, of St. Helens and Knowsley Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St. Helens, England, added that the current findings were consistent with her team’s prior research looking at earlier time periods. There was also no correlation between the duration or dose of methotrexate used and the development of the lung disease, she said.
“If anything, the suggestion is you’d be more symptomatic if you delay using methotrexate,” Dr. Dawson observed. If patients are not doing well on methotrexate, then perhaps adjusting therapy or changing to another drug would of course be the next step, but if patients are well controlled then “stopping it is the worst thing to do” for their arthritis, she said.
“This is of great clinical interest, and we can be reassured now about this, I think. This is really good, long-term data,” said Devesh Mewar, MD, of Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust, Liverpool, England, who was not involved in the research.
“We know that methotrexate is associated with a pneumonitis reaction, but there is no high-quality evidence that methotrexate is associated with a chronic pulmonary fibrosis” Dr. Dawson said, explaining the rationale for the current study she presented during a poster session. Previous studies considered data for up to 5 years, she added, so the aim of the current study, therefore, was to look at the longer-term effect of methotrexate use on the incidence of pulmonary fibrosis.
Data on 129 patients who had started treatment with methotrexate from 2004 to 2007 were analyzed, of whom 63 (49%) had stayed on methotrexate for 10 or more years. Most (82%) had been given methotrexate to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with other indications including inflammatory arthritis (5.4%) and psoriatic arthritis (4.7%).
“Practice was different 10 years ago, so just 56% of patients commenced methotrexate within the first year of the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Dawson reported.
Only four cases of symptomatic pulmonary fibrosis were seen, all in the RA patients, and three of these were in patients who had started methotrexate over 1 year after their diagnosis. The incidence of 3.8% seen in the study matches the expected incidence of pulmonary fibrosis in RA and was actually “at the lower end of the expected incidence,” Dr. Dawson said. Previous studies have suggested an incidence rate of RA-associated interstitial lung disease of about 3%-7%.
All of the pulmonary fibrosis cases had occurred in men and 75% were seropositive for rheumatoid factor. The mean duration of RA at the time of onset of pulmonary fibrosis was 7.8 years and the usual interstitial pattern of fibrosis was seen. The 125 patients without pulmonary fibrosis had taken methotrexate for a mean of 8 years at a mean final weekly dose of 16.3 mg, compared with a mean of 6 years at a mean dose of 18.1 mg per week in the 4 patients with pulmonary fibrosis.
One of the next steps is to look at cases where methotrexate has been stopped and the effects of that on pulmonary fibrosis and disease activity. In Dr. Dawson’s experience, stopping methotrexate just affects the management of the arthritis and had no difference to the progression of pulmonary fibrosis.
If patients start to experience any lung symptoms while continuing methotrexate, such as shortness of breath, then they would need to be assessed and undergo lung function tests to monitor their condition. Treating the fibrosis using an antifibrotic drug, such as pirfenidone, is something that might be possible in the future, but this needs investigation in inflammatory arthritis as the drug is currently only licensed for use in idiopathic cases.
This is something the British Rheumatoid Interstitial Lung network plans to investigate in a placebo-controlled study of RA patients with fibrotic lung disease. “We’re looking to see if antifibrotic agents are going to slow the disease as it does in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, which is obviously quite exciting when it’s such a hard condition to treat,” said Dr. Dawson, who will be one of the study’s investigators.
Dr. Dawson had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Mewar was not involved in the study and had nothing to disclose.
SOURCE: Dawson J et al. Rheumatology. 2018;57[Suppl. 3]:key075.470.
LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND – A 10-year follow up of patients with inflammatory arthritis has shown that methotrexate does not appear to increase the risk of pulmonary fibrosis.
“As rheumatologists, it’s a really important message that methotrexate does not cause chronic pulmonary fibrosis and it should not be stopped because of pulmonary fibrosis,” Julie Dawson, MD, said in an interview at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference. “It’s the rheumatoid arthritis. It’s not the methotrexate.”
Dr. Dawson, of St. Helens and Knowsley Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St. Helens, England, added that the current findings were consistent with her team’s prior research looking at earlier time periods. There was also no correlation between the duration or dose of methotrexate used and the development of the lung disease, she said.
“If anything, the suggestion is you’d be more symptomatic if you delay using methotrexate,” Dr. Dawson observed. If patients are not doing well on methotrexate, then perhaps adjusting therapy or changing to another drug would of course be the next step, but if patients are well controlled then “stopping it is the worst thing to do” for their arthritis, she said.
“This is of great clinical interest, and we can be reassured now about this, I think. This is really good, long-term data,” said Devesh Mewar, MD, of Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust, Liverpool, England, who was not involved in the research.
“We know that methotrexate is associated with a pneumonitis reaction, but there is no high-quality evidence that methotrexate is associated with a chronic pulmonary fibrosis” Dr. Dawson said, explaining the rationale for the current study she presented during a poster session. Previous studies considered data for up to 5 years, she added, so the aim of the current study, therefore, was to look at the longer-term effect of methotrexate use on the incidence of pulmonary fibrosis.
Data on 129 patients who had started treatment with methotrexate from 2004 to 2007 were analyzed, of whom 63 (49%) had stayed on methotrexate for 10 or more years. Most (82%) had been given methotrexate to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with other indications including inflammatory arthritis (5.4%) and psoriatic arthritis (4.7%).
“Practice was different 10 years ago, so just 56% of patients commenced methotrexate within the first year of the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Dawson reported.
Only four cases of symptomatic pulmonary fibrosis were seen, all in the RA patients, and three of these were in patients who had started methotrexate over 1 year after their diagnosis. The incidence of 3.8% seen in the study matches the expected incidence of pulmonary fibrosis in RA and was actually “at the lower end of the expected incidence,” Dr. Dawson said. Previous studies have suggested an incidence rate of RA-associated interstitial lung disease of about 3%-7%.
All of the pulmonary fibrosis cases had occurred in men and 75% were seropositive for rheumatoid factor. The mean duration of RA at the time of onset of pulmonary fibrosis was 7.8 years and the usual interstitial pattern of fibrosis was seen. The 125 patients without pulmonary fibrosis had taken methotrexate for a mean of 8 years at a mean final weekly dose of 16.3 mg, compared with a mean of 6 years at a mean dose of 18.1 mg per week in the 4 patients with pulmonary fibrosis.
One of the next steps is to look at cases where methotrexate has been stopped and the effects of that on pulmonary fibrosis and disease activity. In Dr. Dawson’s experience, stopping methotrexate just affects the management of the arthritis and had no difference to the progression of pulmonary fibrosis.
If patients start to experience any lung symptoms while continuing methotrexate, such as shortness of breath, then they would need to be assessed and undergo lung function tests to monitor their condition. Treating the fibrosis using an antifibrotic drug, such as pirfenidone, is something that might be possible in the future, but this needs investigation in inflammatory arthritis as the drug is currently only licensed for use in idiopathic cases.
This is something the British Rheumatoid Interstitial Lung network plans to investigate in a placebo-controlled study of RA patients with fibrotic lung disease. “We’re looking to see if antifibrotic agents are going to slow the disease as it does in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, which is obviously quite exciting when it’s such a hard condition to treat,” said Dr. Dawson, who will be one of the study’s investigators.
Dr. Dawson had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Mewar was not involved in the study and had nothing to disclose.
SOURCE: Dawson J et al. Rheumatology. 2018;57[Suppl. 3]:key075.470.
REPORTING FROM RHEUMATOLOGY 2018
Key clinical point:
Major finding: At 10 years’ follow-up, four patients (3.1%) developed pulmonary fibrosis.
Study details: Retrospective analysis of 129 patients with inflammatory arthritis treated with methotrexate for up to 10 years.
Disclosures: Dr. Dawson had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Mewar was not involved in the study and had nothing to disclose.
Source: Dawson J et al. Rheumatology. 2018;57[Suppl. 3]:key075.470.