User login
Infections linked with transition to psoriatic arthritis
MADRID – Several novel risk associations with psoriasis progression were found to differ by sex, and collectively appeared to implicate infections and the “stress response” as a trigger of psoriatic arthritis.
The findings come from a risk factor analysis of a U.S. claims database of more than 200,000 adults with psoriasis including more than 4,000 patients who progressed to psoriatic arthritis during nearly 6 years of follow-up.
The new analysis confirmed several previously described risk associations linked with progression to psoriatic arthritis (PsA) that have roughly equal impact on both women and men: fatigue, obesity, and depression, Alexis Ogdie, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology. The new findings also showed several novel, sex-specific associations. In women, these associations included salmonella infection, sepsis, and uveitis; in men, they included gangrene, encephalitis, and hidradenitis suppurativa.
The links with various infections were generally rare; they showed strong nominal associations in multivariate analyses but with wide confidence limits. The findings suggest that events that induce major stress responses, such as infections, often preceded the progression of psoriasis to a diagnosis of PsA, said Dr. Ogdie, director of the psoriatic arthritis clinic at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. Other, noninfectious clinical features that significantly linked with PsA development but at a lower magnitude included anemia and diabetes in women, and irritable bowel syndrome and venous thromboembolism in men.
Dr. Ogdie cautioned that the findings were preliminary and need confirmation in different data sets, as well as in additional subgroup analyses of the data used in the current analysis, taken from the electronic medical records of 215,386 U.S. residents diagnosed with psoriasis in the Optum medical-claims database for 2006-2017.
The analysis focused on patients who received a second diagnostic code in their EMR for psoriasis during the 12 months after the index psoriasis entry. The identified group averaged 50 years old; 55% of the psoriasis patients were women, and 86% were white.
During the year after their first diagnostic-code entry for psoriasis, 4.6% of the patients received a biological drug and 4.2% received an oral drug for their psoriasis. During 5.6 years of follow-up, 4,288 patients (2%) developed PsA, a rate of 3.5 cases/1,000 patient-years. Dr. Ogdie noted that prior studies have documented the challenge of diagnosing PsA in patients with psoriasis, so this may be a conservative estimate of the progression rate.
The researchers assessed possible linkage with PsA progression for more than 250 different entries in the EMR, but the analysis was limited by the absence of measures of rheumatoid susceptibility, such as immunologic markers, which were not included in the EMR. In multivariate analysis of the full cohort, fatigue at baseline was linked with a 77% higher rate of progression to PsA, obesity was linked with a 48% higher rate, and depression with a 29% higher rate of progression when compared with psoriasis patients without each of these factors. All three differences were statistically significant. Dr. Ogdie cited an article she recently coauthored that detailed the background to this approach in studying the etiology of PsA (Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2019 March;15:153-66).
This is the first study to report sex-linked differences in clinical measures that link with progression to PsA, Dr. Ogdie noted. In women, salmonella infection linked with a 9-fold higher rate of PsA development compared with women with psoriasis without salmonella infection, women with uveitis had a 2.9-fold higher rate of PsA development, and those with sepsis had a 2.4-fold increased rate of PsA. Among men, those with gangrene, encephalitis, or hidradenitis suppurativa each had a greater than 4-fold higher rate of developing PsA, and men with osteomyelitis had a 2.7-fold increase.
All these between-group differences were statistically significant. But because each of these was a relatively rare event, the confidence intervals around these point estimates were wide. For example, in women with salmonella infection from a statistical standpoint the possible range of increased risk could be anywhere from 1.3 to 66. The analysis identified among women and men several additional sex-specific risk associations that were statistically significant but with smaller point estimates.
SOURCE: Ogdie A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):131-2. Abstract OP0115. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.4390.
MADRID – Several novel risk associations with psoriasis progression were found to differ by sex, and collectively appeared to implicate infections and the “stress response” as a trigger of psoriatic arthritis.
The findings come from a risk factor analysis of a U.S. claims database of more than 200,000 adults with psoriasis including more than 4,000 patients who progressed to psoriatic arthritis during nearly 6 years of follow-up.
The new analysis confirmed several previously described risk associations linked with progression to psoriatic arthritis (PsA) that have roughly equal impact on both women and men: fatigue, obesity, and depression, Alexis Ogdie, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology. The new findings also showed several novel, sex-specific associations. In women, these associations included salmonella infection, sepsis, and uveitis; in men, they included gangrene, encephalitis, and hidradenitis suppurativa.
The links with various infections were generally rare; they showed strong nominal associations in multivariate analyses but with wide confidence limits. The findings suggest that events that induce major stress responses, such as infections, often preceded the progression of psoriasis to a diagnosis of PsA, said Dr. Ogdie, director of the psoriatic arthritis clinic at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. Other, noninfectious clinical features that significantly linked with PsA development but at a lower magnitude included anemia and diabetes in women, and irritable bowel syndrome and venous thromboembolism in men.
Dr. Ogdie cautioned that the findings were preliminary and need confirmation in different data sets, as well as in additional subgroup analyses of the data used in the current analysis, taken from the electronic medical records of 215,386 U.S. residents diagnosed with psoriasis in the Optum medical-claims database for 2006-2017.
The analysis focused on patients who received a second diagnostic code in their EMR for psoriasis during the 12 months after the index psoriasis entry. The identified group averaged 50 years old; 55% of the psoriasis patients were women, and 86% were white.
During the year after their first diagnostic-code entry for psoriasis, 4.6% of the patients received a biological drug and 4.2% received an oral drug for their psoriasis. During 5.6 years of follow-up, 4,288 patients (2%) developed PsA, a rate of 3.5 cases/1,000 patient-years. Dr. Ogdie noted that prior studies have documented the challenge of diagnosing PsA in patients with psoriasis, so this may be a conservative estimate of the progression rate.
The researchers assessed possible linkage with PsA progression for more than 250 different entries in the EMR, but the analysis was limited by the absence of measures of rheumatoid susceptibility, such as immunologic markers, which were not included in the EMR. In multivariate analysis of the full cohort, fatigue at baseline was linked with a 77% higher rate of progression to PsA, obesity was linked with a 48% higher rate, and depression with a 29% higher rate of progression when compared with psoriasis patients without each of these factors. All three differences were statistically significant. Dr. Ogdie cited an article she recently coauthored that detailed the background to this approach in studying the etiology of PsA (Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2019 March;15:153-66).
This is the first study to report sex-linked differences in clinical measures that link with progression to PsA, Dr. Ogdie noted. In women, salmonella infection linked with a 9-fold higher rate of PsA development compared with women with psoriasis without salmonella infection, women with uveitis had a 2.9-fold higher rate of PsA development, and those with sepsis had a 2.4-fold increased rate of PsA. Among men, those with gangrene, encephalitis, or hidradenitis suppurativa each had a greater than 4-fold higher rate of developing PsA, and men with osteomyelitis had a 2.7-fold increase.
All these between-group differences were statistically significant. But because each of these was a relatively rare event, the confidence intervals around these point estimates were wide. For example, in women with salmonella infection from a statistical standpoint the possible range of increased risk could be anywhere from 1.3 to 66. The analysis identified among women and men several additional sex-specific risk associations that were statistically significant but with smaller point estimates.
SOURCE: Ogdie A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):131-2. Abstract OP0115. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.4390.
MADRID – Several novel risk associations with psoriasis progression were found to differ by sex, and collectively appeared to implicate infections and the “stress response” as a trigger of psoriatic arthritis.
The findings come from a risk factor analysis of a U.S. claims database of more than 200,000 adults with psoriasis including more than 4,000 patients who progressed to psoriatic arthritis during nearly 6 years of follow-up.
The new analysis confirmed several previously described risk associations linked with progression to psoriatic arthritis (PsA) that have roughly equal impact on both women and men: fatigue, obesity, and depression, Alexis Ogdie, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology. The new findings also showed several novel, sex-specific associations. In women, these associations included salmonella infection, sepsis, and uveitis; in men, they included gangrene, encephalitis, and hidradenitis suppurativa.
The links with various infections were generally rare; they showed strong nominal associations in multivariate analyses but with wide confidence limits. The findings suggest that events that induce major stress responses, such as infections, often preceded the progression of psoriasis to a diagnosis of PsA, said Dr. Ogdie, director of the psoriatic arthritis clinic at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. Other, noninfectious clinical features that significantly linked with PsA development but at a lower magnitude included anemia and diabetes in women, and irritable bowel syndrome and venous thromboembolism in men.
Dr. Ogdie cautioned that the findings were preliminary and need confirmation in different data sets, as well as in additional subgroup analyses of the data used in the current analysis, taken from the electronic medical records of 215,386 U.S. residents diagnosed with psoriasis in the Optum medical-claims database for 2006-2017.
The analysis focused on patients who received a second diagnostic code in their EMR for psoriasis during the 12 months after the index psoriasis entry. The identified group averaged 50 years old; 55% of the psoriasis patients were women, and 86% were white.
During the year after their first diagnostic-code entry for psoriasis, 4.6% of the patients received a biological drug and 4.2% received an oral drug for their psoriasis. During 5.6 years of follow-up, 4,288 patients (2%) developed PsA, a rate of 3.5 cases/1,000 patient-years. Dr. Ogdie noted that prior studies have documented the challenge of diagnosing PsA in patients with psoriasis, so this may be a conservative estimate of the progression rate.
The researchers assessed possible linkage with PsA progression for more than 250 different entries in the EMR, but the analysis was limited by the absence of measures of rheumatoid susceptibility, such as immunologic markers, which were not included in the EMR. In multivariate analysis of the full cohort, fatigue at baseline was linked with a 77% higher rate of progression to PsA, obesity was linked with a 48% higher rate, and depression with a 29% higher rate of progression when compared with psoriasis patients without each of these factors. All three differences were statistically significant. Dr. Ogdie cited an article she recently coauthored that detailed the background to this approach in studying the etiology of PsA (Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2019 March;15:153-66).
This is the first study to report sex-linked differences in clinical measures that link with progression to PsA, Dr. Ogdie noted. In women, salmonella infection linked with a 9-fold higher rate of PsA development compared with women with psoriasis without salmonella infection, women with uveitis had a 2.9-fold higher rate of PsA development, and those with sepsis had a 2.4-fold increased rate of PsA. Among men, those with gangrene, encephalitis, or hidradenitis suppurativa each had a greater than 4-fold higher rate of developing PsA, and men with osteomyelitis had a 2.7-fold increase.
All these between-group differences were statistically significant. But because each of these was a relatively rare event, the confidence intervals around these point estimates were wide. For example, in women with salmonella infection from a statistical standpoint the possible range of increased risk could be anywhere from 1.3 to 66. The analysis identified among women and men several additional sex-specific risk associations that were statistically significant but with smaller point estimates.
SOURCE: Ogdie A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):131-2. Abstract OP0115. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.4390.
REPORTING FROM THE EULAR 2019 CONGRESS
Tanezumab improves osteoarthritis pain, function in phase 3 trial
MADRID – Tanezumab, an investigational monoclonal antibody directed against nerve growth factor that is under development to treat osteoarthritis pain, met most of the coprimary efficacy endpoints set for the drug in a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled phase 3 study.
At the end of a 24-week, double-blind treatment period, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain and WOMAC physical function subscale scores were significantly improved, compared with placebo in the two tanezumab (2.5 mg and 5 mg) dose groups.
The least squares (ls) mean change from baseline in WOMAC pain scores were –2.24 for placebo, –2.70 for tanezumab 2.5 mg, and –2.85 for tanezumab 5 mg (P less than or equal to .01 and P less than or equal to .001 vs. placebo).
The ls mean change from baseline in WOMAC physical function scores were a respective –2.11, –2.70, and –2.82 (P less than or equal to .001 for both vs. placebo).
The coprimary endpoint of patients’ global assessment of OA (PGA-OA) was also significantly improved with tanezumab 5 mg (–0.90; P less than or equal to .05) but not 2.5 mg (–0.82) versus placebo (–0.72).
As the 2.5-mg dose of tanezumab didn’t meet one of the three coprimary endpoints, further hypothesis testing was not possible, but exploratory findings suggested that tanezumab at 2.5 mg or 5 mg yielded higher proportions of patients with reductions from baseline in WOMAC pain scores when compared against placebo. This was the case for reductions of at least 30% (65.6%, 68.7%, 56.6%, respectively), 50% (45.4%, 47.9%, 33.8%), or 70% (21.3%, 23.2%, 17.8%).
“I think that we have now a lot of studies with tanezumab showing a significant effect on hip and knee OA pain and function, so we have the studies in order to have the drug on the market,” study first author Francis Berenbaum, MD, PhD, of Saint-Antoine Hospital, Sorbonne Université in Paris, said in an interview at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“Of course, because of the safety issue with rapid progressive osteoarthritis (RPOA), what we are discussing now is: ‘For which patients will there be an optimal benefit-to-risk?’ So, it’s now more a discussion around the population of patients who can benefit the most with the drug,” Dr. Berenbaum added.
A possible link between the use of tanezumab and a risk for developing RPOA was first suggested by preclinical and early clinical trial data, prompting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to place partial holds on its clinical development in 2010, and again in 2012.
However, Dr. Berenbaum noted that a “mitigation plan” had been put in place for the phase 3 program to try to lower the likelihood of RPOA. This included: lowering the dose of the drug used and delivering it subcutaneously rather than intravenously; not prescribing it with NSAIDs and testing its possible effects and safety in a difficult-to-treat population of patients with no known risk factors for the potentially very serious adverse event.
“Based on this mitigation plan, the risk of rapid progressive osteoarthritis has considerably decreased,” Dr. Berenbaum observed. Indeed, in the phase 3 study he presented at the meeting, he said that around 2% of patients developed RPOA, which is “exactly in line with what has already been shown.” RPOA was reported in none of the placebo-treated patients, in 1.4% of those treated with tanezumab 2.5 mg, and in 2.8% in those treated with tanezumab 5 mg.
However, a “striking” finding of the current study was that despite the small increase in RPOA seen, there was no difference between the tanezumab and placebo groups in the number of patients needing total joint replacement (TJR). The percentages of patients undergoing at least one TJR was 6.7% in the placebo group, 7.8% in the tanezumab 2.5-mg group, and 7.0% in the tanezumab 5-mg group.
The joint safety events seen in the study, including TJRs, were adjudicated as being part of the normal progression of OA in the majority (73.4%) of cases. Other joint events of note were one case of subchondral insufficiency fracture occurring in a patient treated with tanezumab 2.5 mg and one case of primary osteonecrosis in a patient treated with tanezumab 5 mg.
During his presentation of the findings in a late-breaking oral abstract session, Dr. Berenbaum noted that this was a difficult-to-treat population of patients. All 849 patients who had been recruited had moderate to severe OA pain of the knee or hip and had a history of insufficient pain relief or intolerance to treatment with acetaminophen, oral NSAIDs, and tramadol and were also not responding to, or unwilling to take, opioid painkillers. Patients had to have no radiographic evidence of specified bone conditions, including RPOA.
Patients had been treated with subcutaneous tanezumab 2.5 mg (n = 283) or 5 mg (n = 284) or placebo (n = 282) at baseline, week 8, and week 16, with the three coprimary efficacy endpoints assessed at week 24.
Discussing the risk-to-benefit ratio of the drug after his presentation, Dr. Berenbaum said: “You have to keep in mind that, first, it was in very difficult-to-treat patients, compared to the other trials in the field of OA symptoms.”
He added: “Second, is that compared to the other trials, this one was able to include patients with Kellgren-Lawrence grade 4, meaning that this is a more serious population,” and third, “when you look at the responders – WOMAC 30%, 50%, 70% – there is a strong difference in terms of responders.”
Dr. Berenbaum and his coauthors noted on the poster that accompanied the late-breaking oral presentation that “an active-controlled study will provide data to further characterize the risk-benefit of tanezumab in patients with OA.”
The study was sponsored by Pfizer and Eli Lilly. Dr. Berenbaum disclosed receiving research funding through his institution from Pfizer and acting as a consultant to, and speaker for, the company as well as multiple other pharmaceutical companies. Coauthors of the study also disclosed research funding or consultancy agreements with Pfizer or Eli Lilly or were employees of the companies.
SOURCE: Berenbaum F et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):262-4. Abstract LB0007, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8660
MADRID – Tanezumab, an investigational monoclonal antibody directed against nerve growth factor that is under development to treat osteoarthritis pain, met most of the coprimary efficacy endpoints set for the drug in a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled phase 3 study.
At the end of a 24-week, double-blind treatment period, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain and WOMAC physical function subscale scores were significantly improved, compared with placebo in the two tanezumab (2.5 mg and 5 mg) dose groups.
The least squares (ls) mean change from baseline in WOMAC pain scores were –2.24 for placebo, –2.70 for tanezumab 2.5 mg, and –2.85 for tanezumab 5 mg (P less than or equal to .01 and P less than or equal to .001 vs. placebo).
The ls mean change from baseline in WOMAC physical function scores were a respective –2.11, –2.70, and –2.82 (P less than or equal to .001 for both vs. placebo).
The coprimary endpoint of patients’ global assessment of OA (PGA-OA) was also significantly improved with tanezumab 5 mg (–0.90; P less than or equal to .05) but not 2.5 mg (–0.82) versus placebo (–0.72).
As the 2.5-mg dose of tanezumab didn’t meet one of the three coprimary endpoints, further hypothesis testing was not possible, but exploratory findings suggested that tanezumab at 2.5 mg or 5 mg yielded higher proportions of patients with reductions from baseline in WOMAC pain scores when compared against placebo. This was the case for reductions of at least 30% (65.6%, 68.7%, 56.6%, respectively), 50% (45.4%, 47.9%, 33.8%), or 70% (21.3%, 23.2%, 17.8%).
“I think that we have now a lot of studies with tanezumab showing a significant effect on hip and knee OA pain and function, so we have the studies in order to have the drug on the market,” study first author Francis Berenbaum, MD, PhD, of Saint-Antoine Hospital, Sorbonne Université in Paris, said in an interview at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“Of course, because of the safety issue with rapid progressive osteoarthritis (RPOA), what we are discussing now is: ‘For which patients will there be an optimal benefit-to-risk?’ So, it’s now more a discussion around the population of patients who can benefit the most with the drug,” Dr. Berenbaum added.
A possible link between the use of tanezumab and a risk for developing RPOA was first suggested by preclinical and early clinical trial data, prompting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to place partial holds on its clinical development in 2010, and again in 2012.
However, Dr. Berenbaum noted that a “mitigation plan” had been put in place for the phase 3 program to try to lower the likelihood of RPOA. This included: lowering the dose of the drug used and delivering it subcutaneously rather than intravenously; not prescribing it with NSAIDs and testing its possible effects and safety in a difficult-to-treat population of patients with no known risk factors for the potentially very serious adverse event.
“Based on this mitigation plan, the risk of rapid progressive osteoarthritis has considerably decreased,” Dr. Berenbaum observed. Indeed, in the phase 3 study he presented at the meeting, he said that around 2% of patients developed RPOA, which is “exactly in line with what has already been shown.” RPOA was reported in none of the placebo-treated patients, in 1.4% of those treated with tanezumab 2.5 mg, and in 2.8% in those treated with tanezumab 5 mg.
However, a “striking” finding of the current study was that despite the small increase in RPOA seen, there was no difference between the tanezumab and placebo groups in the number of patients needing total joint replacement (TJR). The percentages of patients undergoing at least one TJR was 6.7% in the placebo group, 7.8% in the tanezumab 2.5-mg group, and 7.0% in the tanezumab 5-mg group.
The joint safety events seen in the study, including TJRs, were adjudicated as being part of the normal progression of OA in the majority (73.4%) of cases. Other joint events of note were one case of subchondral insufficiency fracture occurring in a patient treated with tanezumab 2.5 mg and one case of primary osteonecrosis in a patient treated with tanezumab 5 mg.
During his presentation of the findings in a late-breaking oral abstract session, Dr. Berenbaum noted that this was a difficult-to-treat population of patients. All 849 patients who had been recruited had moderate to severe OA pain of the knee or hip and had a history of insufficient pain relief or intolerance to treatment with acetaminophen, oral NSAIDs, and tramadol and were also not responding to, or unwilling to take, opioid painkillers. Patients had to have no radiographic evidence of specified bone conditions, including RPOA.
Patients had been treated with subcutaneous tanezumab 2.5 mg (n = 283) or 5 mg (n = 284) or placebo (n = 282) at baseline, week 8, and week 16, with the three coprimary efficacy endpoints assessed at week 24.
Discussing the risk-to-benefit ratio of the drug after his presentation, Dr. Berenbaum said: “You have to keep in mind that, first, it was in very difficult-to-treat patients, compared to the other trials in the field of OA symptoms.”
He added: “Second, is that compared to the other trials, this one was able to include patients with Kellgren-Lawrence grade 4, meaning that this is a more serious population,” and third, “when you look at the responders – WOMAC 30%, 50%, 70% – there is a strong difference in terms of responders.”
Dr. Berenbaum and his coauthors noted on the poster that accompanied the late-breaking oral presentation that “an active-controlled study will provide data to further characterize the risk-benefit of tanezumab in patients with OA.”
The study was sponsored by Pfizer and Eli Lilly. Dr. Berenbaum disclosed receiving research funding through his institution from Pfizer and acting as a consultant to, and speaker for, the company as well as multiple other pharmaceutical companies. Coauthors of the study also disclosed research funding or consultancy agreements with Pfizer or Eli Lilly or were employees of the companies.
SOURCE: Berenbaum F et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):262-4. Abstract LB0007, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8660
MADRID – Tanezumab, an investigational monoclonal antibody directed against nerve growth factor that is under development to treat osteoarthritis pain, met most of the coprimary efficacy endpoints set for the drug in a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled phase 3 study.
At the end of a 24-week, double-blind treatment period, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain and WOMAC physical function subscale scores were significantly improved, compared with placebo in the two tanezumab (2.5 mg and 5 mg) dose groups.
The least squares (ls) mean change from baseline in WOMAC pain scores were –2.24 for placebo, –2.70 for tanezumab 2.5 mg, and –2.85 for tanezumab 5 mg (P less than or equal to .01 and P less than or equal to .001 vs. placebo).
The ls mean change from baseline in WOMAC physical function scores were a respective –2.11, –2.70, and –2.82 (P less than or equal to .001 for both vs. placebo).
The coprimary endpoint of patients’ global assessment of OA (PGA-OA) was also significantly improved with tanezumab 5 mg (–0.90; P less than or equal to .05) but not 2.5 mg (–0.82) versus placebo (–0.72).
As the 2.5-mg dose of tanezumab didn’t meet one of the three coprimary endpoints, further hypothesis testing was not possible, but exploratory findings suggested that tanezumab at 2.5 mg or 5 mg yielded higher proportions of patients with reductions from baseline in WOMAC pain scores when compared against placebo. This was the case for reductions of at least 30% (65.6%, 68.7%, 56.6%, respectively), 50% (45.4%, 47.9%, 33.8%), or 70% (21.3%, 23.2%, 17.8%).
“I think that we have now a lot of studies with tanezumab showing a significant effect on hip and knee OA pain and function, so we have the studies in order to have the drug on the market,” study first author Francis Berenbaum, MD, PhD, of Saint-Antoine Hospital, Sorbonne Université in Paris, said in an interview at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“Of course, because of the safety issue with rapid progressive osteoarthritis (RPOA), what we are discussing now is: ‘For which patients will there be an optimal benefit-to-risk?’ So, it’s now more a discussion around the population of patients who can benefit the most with the drug,” Dr. Berenbaum added.
A possible link between the use of tanezumab and a risk for developing RPOA was first suggested by preclinical and early clinical trial data, prompting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to place partial holds on its clinical development in 2010, and again in 2012.
However, Dr. Berenbaum noted that a “mitigation plan” had been put in place for the phase 3 program to try to lower the likelihood of RPOA. This included: lowering the dose of the drug used and delivering it subcutaneously rather than intravenously; not prescribing it with NSAIDs and testing its possible effects and safety in a difficult-to-treat population of patients with no known risk factors for the potentially very serious adverse event.
“Based on this mitigation plan, the risk of rapid progressive osteoarthritis has considerably decreased,” Dr. Berenbaum observed. Indeed, in the phase 3 study he presented at the meeting, he said that around 2% of patients developed RPOA, which is “exactly in line with what has already been shown.” RPOA was reported in none of the placebo-treated patients, in 1.4% of those treated with tanezumab 2.5 mg, and in 2.8% in those treated with tanezumab 5 mg.
However, a “striking” finding of the current study was that despite the small increase in RPOA seen, there was no difference between the tanezumab and placebo groups in the number of patients needing total joint replacement (TJR). The percentages of patients undergoing at least one TJR was 6.7% in the placebo group, 7.8% in the tanezumab 2.5-mg group, and 7.0% in the tanezumab 5-mg group.
The joint safety events seen in the study, including TJRs, were adjudicated as being part of the normal progression of OA in the majority (73.4%) of cases. Other joint events of note were one case of subchondral insufficiency fracture occurring in a patient treated with tanezumab 2.5 mg and one case of primary osteonecrosis in a patient treated with tanezumab 5 mg.
During his presentation of the findings in a late-breaking oral abstract session, Dr. Berenbaum noted that this was a difficult-to-treat population of patients. All 849 patients who had been recruited had moderate to severe OA pain of the knee or hip and had a history of insufficient pain relief or intolerance to treatment with acetaminophen, oral NSAIDs, and tramadol and were also not responding to, or unwilling to take, opioid painkillers. Patients had to have no radiographic evidence of specified bone conditions, including RPOA.
Patients had been treated with subcutaneous tanezumab 2.5 mg (n = 283) or 5 mg (n = 284) or placebo (n = 282) at baseline, week 8, and week 16, with the three coprimary efficacy endpoints assessed at week 24.
Discussing the risk-to-benefit ratio of the drug after his presentation, Dr. Berenbaum said: “You have to keep in mind that, first, it was in very difficult-to-treat patients, compared to the other trials in the field of OA symptoms.”
He added: “Second, is that compared to the other trials, this one was able to include patients with Kellgren-Lawrence grade 4, meaning that this is a more serious population,” and third, “when you look at the responders – WOMAC 30%, 50%, 70% – there is a strong difference in terms of responders.”
Dr. Berenbaum and his coauthors noted on the poster that accompanied the late-breaking oral presentation that “an active-controlled study will provide data to further characterize the risk-benefit of tanezumab in patients with OA.”
The study was sponsored by Pfizer and Eli Lilly. Dr. Berenbaum disclosed receiving research funding through his institution from Pfizer and acting as a consultant to, and speaker for, the company as well as multiple other pharmaceutical companies. Coauthors of the study also disclosed research funding or consultancy agreements with Pfizer or Eli Lilly or were employees of the companies.
SOURCE: Berenbaum F et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):262-4. Abstract LB0007, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8660
REPORTING FROM EULAR 2019 CONGRESS
Obesity might be targetable driver of psoriatic arthritis progression
MADRID – Two sets of data presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology support the potential for weight loss to be a valuable adjunctive strategy for improving outcomes in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).
One set, drawn from the ongoing PsABio observational study, correlated increasing body mass index with greater disease activity and greater disability. Another, based on patients followed for 12 months, showed that a weight loss of about 15% is associated with a significant reduction in PsA activity.
“As clinicians, we largely focus on drugs in the treatment of PsA, but these data draw attention to obesity as a potential target for improving outcomes in PsA,” said Stefan Siebert, MD, a rheumatologist at the Institute of Infection, Immunity, and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow (Scotland).
Dr. Siebert cautioned that his data show association, not causation, but he said these data add to a growing body of evidence that provide compelling support for trials to test the premise that weight loss improves outcomes.
Although not a trial, a study by Eva Klingberg, MD, PhD, of the Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg (Sweden) and her associates tested this premise and showed weight loss was associated with improvement in multiple PsA activity parameters 6 and 12 months after a significant weight loss program.
“This is just one study, so we need more data, but we are already using weight loss to manage PsA in obese patients in Sweden,” said Dr. Klingberg, speaking about her work in advance of the presentation. Like Dr. Siebert, she agreed that weight loss is an important potential treatment strategy in PsA.
In the observational PsABio study, which is following patients with PsA at rheumatology centers in eight European countries, the goal of its analysis was to evaluate disease activity and outcomes in relationship to baseline weight for patients starting a biologic therapy as part of standard clinical practice. Of the 917 patients evaluated, 450 started ustekinumab (Stelara) and 467 started a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi). The researchers had weight data for 827 of these patients.
At the time of enrollment, 40% were overweight as defined by a body mass index (BMI) ranging from 25 to 29 kg/m2, and 30.4% were obese as defined by a BMI greater than 30 kg/m2. The mean baseline BMI was 28.1 kg/m2. The mean age of the study population was 49.7 years. Slightly more than half were female.
Relative to a BMI of 30 kg/m2 or less, higher BMI at baseline is shown in multiple regression analysis to be independently and significantly linked to disease activity assessed by the clinical Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (cDAPSA; P = .026), to patient perception of disease impact as measured by Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease (PsAID-12; P less than .0001), and to greater disability as measured with Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI; P less than .0001).
“There are multiple sets of data that show obesity predicts who develops PsA. Our data further show that, of patients with PsA who are candidates for a biologic, those with obesity have greater disease activity,” Dr. Siebert said. “We are using all of these expensive drugs, but I think there is now a need to also focus on lifestyle interventions, in addition to drug therapy, to reduce disease activity and improve outcomes in PsA.”
The data to be presented by Dr. Klingberg provide a step in that direction. In this study, 46 PsA patients participated in a weight-loss treatment that restricted calorie intake to 640 kcal/day, and the researchers followed 39 of these patients for 1 year. The participants averaged 56 years old, and almost two-thirds were women. All enrolled patients had to have a BMI of at least 33 kg/m2, and the actual average BMI was 35 kg/m2. The median weight loss among the 39 patients followed for 1 year after the start of a 12- to 16-week weight-loss treatment was 16.1 kg, representing about 16% of their body weight at entry.
Dr. Klingberg showed that disease activity in those who achieved and maintained weight loss after the program was significant at 6 and 12 months when measured with the Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria (PsARC) or the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20, 50, and 70 criteria. In the 39 patients followed for 12 months, 36% fulfilled PsARC, and 54%, 36%, and 15% fulfilled the ACR 20, 50, and 70 responses, respectively.
“In Sweden, any obese individual can be referred for a weight loss program because of the multiple health benefits that are associated with weight reduction,” Dr. Klingberg explained. “We were able to look at patients with PsA and show that this substantially reduces the burden of their joint disease in addition to the other health advantages of losing weight.”
An improvement in symptoms is a logical expectation from reducing the mechanical strain imposed by obesity on inflamed joints, but Dr. Klingberg is more impressed by the potential for weight loss to reduce the proinflammatory signaling generated by adipose tissue. In PsA, there is evidence that weight loss reduces disease activity in the skin, as well as the joints, which supports this link.
“We need more data to document the benefits from weight loss in patients with PsA, but I think management of the comorbidities of PsA, including obesity, is something that should already be routinely discussed with patients,” Dr. Klingberg said.
Dr. Siebert has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB, and he has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Klingberg has been an advisor to Novartis, a speaker on behalf of Lilly, and has receive research funding from Roche.
Mitchel L. Zoler contributed to this report.
SOURCE: Siebert S et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(suppl 2):69. Abstract OP0007. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.5841; Klingberg E et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(suppl 2):69-70. Abstract OP0008. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.5551.
MADRID – Two sets of data presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology support the potential for weight loss to be a valuable adjunctive strategy for improving outcomes in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).
One set, drawn from the ongoing PsABio observational study, correlated increasing body mass index with greater disease activity and greater disability. Another, based on patients followed for 12 months, showed that a weight loss of about 15% is associated with a significant reduction in PsA activity.
“As clinicians, we largely focus on drugs in the treatment of PsA, but these data draw attention to obesity as a potential target for improving outcomes in PsA,” said Stefan Siebert, MD, a rheumatologist at the Institute of Infection, Immunity, and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow (Scotland).
Dr. Siebert cautioned that his data show association, not causation, but he said these data add to a growing body of evidence that provide compelling support for trials to test the premise that weight loss improves outcomes.
Although not a trial, a study by Eva Klingberg, MD, PhD, of the Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg (Sweden) and her associates tested this premise and showed weight loss was associated with improvement in multiple PsA activity parameters 6 and 12 months after a significant weight loss program.
“This is just one study, so we need more data, but we are already using weight loss to manage PsA in obese patients in Sweden,” said Dr. Klingberg, speaking about her work in advance of the presentation. Like Dr. Siebert, she agreed that weight loss is an important potential treatment strategy in PsA.
In the observational PsABio study, which is following patients with PsA at rheumatology centers in eight European countries, the goal of its analysis was to evaluate disease activity and outcomes in relationship to baseline weight for patients starting a biologic therapy as part of standard clinical practice. Of the 917 patients evaluated, 450 started ustekinumab (Stelara) and 467 started a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi). The researchers had weight data for 827 of these patients.
At the time of enrollment, 40% were overweight as defined by a body mass index (BMI) ranging from 25 to 29 kg/m2, and 30.4% were obese as defined by a BMI greater than 30 kg/m2. The mean baseline BMI was 28.1 kg/m2. The mean age of the study population was 49.7 years. Slightly more than half were female.
Relative to a BMI of 30 kg/m2 or less, higher BMI at baseline is shown in multiple regression analysis to be independently and significantly linked to disease activity assessed by the clinical Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (cDAPSA; P = .026), to patient perception of disease impact as measured by Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease (PsAID-12; P less than .0001), and to greater disability as measured with Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI; P less than .0001).
“There are multiple sets of data that show obesity predicts who develops PsA. Our data further show that, of patients with PsA who are candidates for a biologic, those with obesity have greater disease activity,” Dr. Siebert said. “We are using all of these expensive drugs, but I think there is now a need to also focus on lifestyle interventions, in addition to drug therapy, to reduce disease activity and improve outcomes in PsA.”
The data to be presented by Dr. Klingberg provide a step in that direction. In this study, 46 PsA patients participated in a weight-loss treatment that restricted calorie intake to 640 kcal/day, and the researchers followed 39 of these patients for 1 year. The participants averaged 56 years old, and almost two-thirds were women. All enrolled patients had to have a BMI of at least 33 kg/m2, and the actual average BMI was 35 kg/m2. The median weight loss among the 39 patients followed for 1 year after the start of a 12- to 16-week weight-loss treatment was 16.1 kg, representing about 16% of their body weight at entry.
Dr. Klingberg showed that disease activity in those who achieved and maintained weight loss after the program was significant at 6 and 12 months when measured with the Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria (PsARC) or the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20, 50, and 70 criteria. In the 39 patients followed for 12 months, 36% fulfilled PsARC, and 54%, 36%, and 15% fulfilled the ACR 20, 50, and 70 responses, respectively.
“In Sweden, any obese individual can be referred for a weight loss program because of the multiple health benefits that are associated with weight reduction,” Dr. Klingberg explained. “We were able to look at patients with PsA and show that this substantially reduces the burden of their joint disease in addition to the other health advantages of losing weight.”
An improvement in symptoms is a logical expectation from reducing the mechanical strain imposed by obesity on inflamed joints, but Dr. Klingberg is more impressed by the potential for weight loss to reduce the proinflammatory signaling generated by adipose tissue. In PsA, there is evidence that weight loss reduces disease activity in the skin, as well as the joints, which supports this link.
“We need more data to document the benefits from weight loss in patients with PsA, but I think management of the comorbidities of PsA, including obesity, is something that should already be routinely discussed with patients,” Dr. Klingberg said.
Dr. Siebert has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB, and he has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Klingberg has been an advisor to Novartis, a speaker on behalf of Lilly, and has receive research funding from Roche.
Mitchel L. Zoler contributed to this report.
SOURCE: Siebert S et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(suppl 2):69. Abstract OP0007. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.5841; Klingberg E et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(suppl 2):69-70. Abstract OP0008. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.5551.
MADRID – Two sets of data presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology support the potential for weight loss to be a valuable adjunctive strategy for improving outcomes in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).
One set, drawn from the ongoing PsABio observational study, correlated increasing body mass index with greater disease activity and greater disability. Another, based on patients followed for 12 months, showed that a weight loss of about 15% is associated with a significant reduction in PsA activity.
“As clinicians, we largely focus on drugs in the treatment of PsA, but these data draw attention to obesity as a potential target for improving outcomes in PsA,” said Stefan Siebert, MD, a rheumatologist at the Institute of Infection, Immunity, and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow (Scotland).
Dr. Siebert cautioned that his data show association, not causation, but he said these data add to a growing body of evidence that provide compelling support for trials to test the premise that weight loss improves outcomes.
Although not a trial, a study by Eva Klingberg, MD, PhD, of the Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg (Sweden) and her associates tested this premise and showed weight loss was associated with improvement in multiple PsA activity parameters 6 and 12 months after a significant weight loss program.
“This is just one study, so we need more data, but we are already using weight loss to manage PsA in obese patients in Sweden,” said Dr. Klingberg, speaking about her work in advance of the presentation. Like Dr. Siebert, she agreed that weight loss is an important potential treatment strategy in PsA.
In the observational PsABio study, which is following patients with PsA at rheumatology centers in eight European countries, the goal of its analysis was to evaluate disease activity and outcomes in relationship to baseline weight for patients starting a biologic therapy as part of standard clinical practice. Of the 917 patients evaluated, 450 started ustekinumab (Stelara) and 467 started a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi). The researchers had weight data for 827 of these patients.
At the time of enrollment, 40% were overweight as defined by a body mass index (BMI) ranging from 25 to 29 kg/m2, and 30.4% were obese as defined by a BMI greater than 30 kg/m2. The mean baseline BMI was 28.1 kg/m2. The mean age of the study population was 49.7 years. Slightly more than half were female.
Relative to a BMI of 30 kg/m2 or less, higher BMI at baseline is shown in multiple regression analysis to be independently and significantly linked to disease activity assessed by the clinical Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (cDAPSA; P = .026), to patient perception of disease impact as measured by Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease (PsAID-12; P less than .0001), and to greater disability as measured with Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI; P less than .0001).
“There are multiple sets of data that show obesity predicts who develops PsA. Our data further show that, of patients with PsA who are candidates for a biologic, those with obesity have greater disease activity,” Dr. Siebert said. “We are using all of these expensive drugs, but I think there is now a need to also focus on lifestyle interventions, in addition to drug therapy, to reduce disease activity and improve outcomes in PsA.”
The data to be presented by Dr. Klingberg provide a step in that direction. In this study, 46 PsA patients participated in a weight-loss treatment that restricted calorie intake to 640 kcal/day, and the researchers followed 39 of these patients for 1 year. The participants averaged 56 years old, and almost two-thirds were women. All enrolled patients had to have a BMI of at least 33 kg/m2, and the actual average BMI was 35 kg/m2. The median weight loss among the 39 patients followed for 1 year after the start of a 12- to 16-week weight-loss treatment was 16.1 kg, representing about 16% of their body weight at entry.
Dr. Klingberg showed that disease activity in those who achieved and maintained weight loss after the program was significant at 6 and 12 months when measured with the Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria (PsARC) or the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20, 50, and 70 criteria. In the 39 patients followed for 12 months, 36% fulfilled PsARC, and 54%, 36%, and 15% fulfilled the ACR 20, 50, and 70 responses, respectively.
“In Sweden, any obese individual can be referred for a weight loss program because of the multiple health benefits that are associated with weight reduction,” Dr. Klingberg explained. “We were able to look at patients with PsA and show that this substantially reduces the burden of their joint disease in addition to the other health advantages of losing weight.”
An improvement in symptoms is a logical expectation from reducing the mechanical strain imposed by obesity on inflamed joints, but Dr. Klingberg is more impressed by the potential for weight loss to reduce the proinflammatory signaling generated by adipose tissue. In PsA, there is evidence that weight loss reduces disease activity in the skin, as well as the joints, which supports this link.
“We need more data to document the benefits from weight loss in patients with PsA, but I think management of the comorbidities of PsA, including obesity, is something that should already be routinely discussed with patients,” Dr. Klingberg said.
Dr. Siebert has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB, and he has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Klingberg has been an advisor to Novartis, a speaker on behalf of Lilly, and has receive research funding from Roche.
Mitchel L. Zoler contributed to this report.
SOURCE: Siebert S et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(suppl 2):69. Abstract OP0007. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.5841; Klingberg E et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(suppl 2):69-70. Abstract OP0008. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.5551.
REPORTING FROM EULAR 2019 CONGRESS
Leflunomide added to glucocorticoids reduces relapse in IgG4-related disease
MADRID – The addition of leflunomide to standard glucocorticoids (GCs) in the treatment of IgG4-related disease increases the median duration of response, reduces the proportion of patients with relapse within 12 months, and permits GCs to be tapered, according to results of a randomized trial presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“The rate of adverse events with the addition of leflunomide was numerically higher, but there were no significant differences in risks of any specific adverse event,” reported Feng Huang, MD, of the department of rheumatology at Chinese People’s Liberation Army General Hospital in Beijing.
GCs are highly effective in IgG4-related disease, which is an autoimmune process driven by elevated concentrations of the antibody IgG4 in the tissue of affected organs and in the serum. It has been described in a broad array of sites, including the heart, lung, kidneys, and meninges. It has been widely recognized only in the last 10 years, according to Dr. Huang. Although most patients respond to GCs, he said the problem is that about 50% of patients relapse within 12 months and more than 90% within 3 years.
This randomized, controlled study was conducted after positive results were observed with leflunomide in a small, uncontrolled pilot study published several years ago (Intern Med J. 2017 Jun;47[6]:680-9. doi: 10.1111/imj.13430). In this randomized trial, the objectives were to confirm that leflunomide extends the relapse-free period and has acceptable safety relative to GC alone.
Patients with confirmed IgG4-related disease were enrolled. Patients randomized to GC were started on 0.5 to 0.8 mg/kg per day. A predefined taper regimen was employed in those with symptom control. Those randomized to the experimental arm received GC in the same dose and schedule plus 20 mg/day of leflunomide.
The 33 patients in each group were well matched at baseline for age, comorbidities, and disease severity.
At the end of 12 months, 50% of those treated with GC alone versus 21.2% of those treated with GC plus leflunomide had relapse. That translated into a significantly higher hazard ratio (HR) for relapse in the GC monotherapy group (HR, 1.75; P = .034).
The mean duration of remission was 7 months on the combination versus 3 months on GC alone. Dr. Huang also reported a significantly higher proportion of complete responses in the group receiving the combination.
In addition, “more patients on the combination therapy were able to adhere to the steroid-tapering schedule without relapse,” Dr. Huang reported. The rate of 54.5% of patients on combination therapy who were able to reach a daily GC dose of 5 mg/day or less proved significantly higher than the 18.2% rate seen with GC alone (P = .002).
Adverse events were reported by 54% of those on the combination versus 42% of those on monotherapy, but this difference did not reach statistical significance. The biggest differences in adverse events were the proportions of patients with infections (18.2% vs. 12.1%) and elevated liver enzymes (12.1% vs. 3.0%), both of which were more common in the combination therapy group. Neither of these differences was statistically significant.
Of patients with relapses, the most common organs involved were the salivary gland, the pancreas, and the bile ducts, each accounting for relapse in five patients. Other organs in which relapse occurred included the lacrimal gland and the skin. There were three cases of relapse characterized by retroperitoneal fibrosis.
Over the course of follow-up, new-onset diabetes mellitus occurred in 21.2% and 27.3% of the combination and GC-only groups, respectively. This difference also did not reach statistical significance.
Although this study was small with an open-label design, Dr. Huang said the data strongly suggest that a combination of leflunomide and GC is superior to GC alone. Based on these results, he said a starting dose of 20 mg/day of leflunomide is a reasonable standard in this setting.
Dr. Huang and colleagues reported no potential conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Wang Y et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):157. Abstract OPO164, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.5717
MADRID – The addition of leflunomide to standard glucocorticoids (GCs) in the treatment of IgG4-related disease increases the median duration of response, reduces the proportion of patients with relapse within 12 months, and permits GCs to be tapered, according to results of a randomized trial presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“The rate of adverse events with the addition of leflunomide was numerically higher, but there were no significant differences in risks of any specific adverse event,” reported Feng Huang, MD, of the department of rheumatology at Chinese People’s Liberation Army General Hospital in Beijing.
GCs are highly effective in IgG4-related disease, which is an autoimmune process driven by elevated concentrations of the antibody IgG4 in the tissue of affected organs and in the serum. It has been described in a broad array of sites, including the heart, lung, kidneys, and meninges. It has been widely recognized only in the last 10 years, according to Dr. Huang. Although most patients respond to GCs, he said the problem is that about 50% of patients relapse within 12 months and more than 90% within 3 years.
This randomized, controlled study was conducted after positive results were observed with leflunomide in a small, uncontrolled pilot study published several years ago (Intern Med J. 2017 Jun;47[6]:680-9. doi: 10.1111/imj.13430). In this randomized trial, the objectives were to confirm that leflunomide extends the relapse-free period and has acceptable safety relative to GC alone.
Patients with confirmed IgG4-related disease were enrolled. Patients randomized to GC were started on 0.5 to 0.8 mg/kg per day. A predefined taper regimen was employed in those with symptom control. Those randomized to the experimental arm received GC in the same dose and schedule plus 20 mg/day of leflunomide.
The 33 patients in each group were well matched at baseline for age, comorbidities, and disease severity.
At the end of 12 months, 50% of those treated with GC alone versus 21.2% of those treated with GC plus leflunomide had relapse. That translated into a significantly higher hazard ratio (HR) for relapse in the GC monotherapy group (HR, 1.75; P = .034).
The mean duration of remission was 7 months on the combination versus 3 months on GC alone. Dr. Huang also reported a significantly higher proportion of complete responses in the group receiving the combination.
In addition, “more patients on the combination therapy were able to adhere to the steroid-tapering schedule without relapse,” Dr. Huang reported. The rate of 54.5% of patients on combination therapy who were able to reach a daily GC dose of 5 mg/day or less proved significantly higher than the 18.2% rate seen with GC alone (P = .002).
Adverse events were reported by 54% of those on the combination versus 42% of those on monotherapy, but this difference did not reach statistical significance. The biggest differences in adverse events were the proportions of patients with infections (18.2% vs. 12.1%) and elevated liver enzymes (12.1% vs. 3.0%), both of which were more common in the combination therapy group. Neither of these differences was statistically significant.
Of patients with relapses, the most common organs involved were the salivary gland, the pancreas, and the bile ducts, each accounting for relapse in five patients. Other organs in which relapse occurred included the lacrimal gland and the skin. There were three cases of relapse characterized by retroperitoneal fibrosis.
Over the course of follow-up, new-onset diabetes mellitus occurred in 21.2% and 27.3% of the combination and GC-only groups, respectively. This difference also did not reach statistical significance.
Although this study was small with an open-label design, Dr. Huang said the data strongly suggest that a combination of leflunomide and GC is superior to GC alone. Based on these results, he said a starting dose of 20 mg/day of leflunomide is a reasonable standard in this setting.
Dr. Huang and colleagues reported no potential conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Wang Y et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):157. Abstract OPO164, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.5717
MADRID – The addition of leflunomide to standard glucocorticoids (GCs) in the treatment of IgG4-related disease increases the median duration of response, reduces the proportion of patients with relapse within 12 months, and permits GCs to be tapered, according to results of a randomized trial presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“The rate of adverse events with the addition of leflunomide was numerically higher, but there were no significant differences in risks of any specific adverse event,” reported Feng Huang, MD, of the department of rheumatology at Chinese People’s Liberation Army General Hospital in Beijing.
GCs are highly effective in IgG4-related disease, which is an autoimmune process driven by elevated concentrations of the antibody IgG4 in the tissue of affected organs and in the serum. It has been described in a broad array of sites, including the heart, lung, kidneys, and meninges. It has been widely recognized only in the last 10 years, according to Dr. Huang. Although most patients respond to GCs, he said the problem is that about 50% of patients relapse within 12 months and more than 90% within 3 years.
This randomized, controlled study was conducted after positive results were observed with leflunomide in a small, uncontrolled pilot study published several years ago (Intern Med J. 2017 Jun;47[6]:680-9. doi: 10.1111/imj.13430). In this randomized trial, the objectives were to confirm that leflunomide extends the relapse-free period and has acceptable safety relative to GC alone.
Patients with confirmed IgG4-related disease were enrolled. Patients randomized to GC were started on 0.5 to 0.8 mg/kg per day. A predefined taper regimen was employed in those with symptom control. Those randomized to the experimental arm received GC in the same dose and schedule plus 20 mg/day of leflunomide.
The 33 patients in each group were well matched at baseline for age, comorbidities, and disease severity.
At the end of 12 months, 50% of those treated with GC alone versus 21.2% of those treated with GC plus leflunomide had relapse. That translated into a significantly higher hazard ratio (HR) for relapse in the GC monotherapy group (HR, 1.75; P = .034).
The mean duration of remission was 7 months on the combination versus 3 months on GC alone. Dr. Huang also reported a significantly higher proportion of complete responses in the group receiving the combination.
In addition, “more patients on the combination therapy were able to adhere to the steroid-tapering schedule without relapse,” Dr. Huang reported. The rate of 54.5% of patients on combination therapy who were able to reach a daily GC dose of 5 mg/day or less proved significantly higher than the 18.2% rate seen with GC alone (P = .002).
Adverse events were reported by 54% of those on the combination versus 42% of those on monotherapy, but this difference did not reach statistical significance. The biggest differences in adverse events were the proportions of patients with infections (18.2% vs. 12.1%) and elevated liver enzymes (12.1% vs. 3.0%), both of which were more common in the combination therapy group. Neither of these differences was statistically significant.
Of patients with relapses, the most common organs involved were the salivary gland, the pancreas, and the bile ducts, each accounting for relapse in five patients. Other organs in which relapse occurred included the lacrimal gland and the skin. There were three cases of relapse characterized by retroperitoneal fibrosis.
Over the course of follow-up, new-onset diabetes mellitus occurred in 21.2% and 27.3% of the combination and GC-only groups, respectively. This difference also did not reach statistical significance.
Although this study was small with an open-label design, Dr. Huang said the data strongly suggest that a combination of leflunomide and GC is superior to GC alone. Based on these results, he said a starting dose of 20 mg/day of leflunomide is a reasonable standard in this setting.
Dr. Huang and colleagues reported no potential conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Wang Y et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):157. Abstract OPO164, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.5717
REPORTING FROM EULAR 2019 CONGRESS
Despite advances, imaging of axSpA remains an adjunctive tool
MADRID – Evidence for always using imaging in an adjunctive role to clinical findings in the diagnosis and assessment of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) continues to grow, two experts agreed in a scientific session at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“Imaging has to be understood in the context of other findings. With the patient history, the physical examination, and the laboratory results, the value of imaging improves substantially. Therefore, before an image is ordered it is important to ask how likely is it that a patient has axial spondylitis,” said Floris A. van Gaalen, MD, PhD, of Leiden (Netherlands) University Medical Center.
As one of the experts who participated in the scientific session, Dr. van Gaalen focused specifically on the value of x-ray and MRI in the diagnosis of axSpA, emphasizing their limited value if interpreted without clinical context. He explained that even highly experienced radiologists are fooled, particularly at early stages of disease.
Although the quality of imaging has been increasing steadily, “there is no cookbook approach with which you can guarantee a diagnosis of spondyloarthritis. Imaging can be valuable, but there is a risk of false positives because features on imaging, such as bone marrow edema, are shared with other sources of back pain,” Dr. van Gaalen said.
Considering the importance of context, Dr. van Gaalen advised clinicians against reading the radiology report without evaluating the images themselves. He said the features on imaging make more sense when they are considered at the same time as the patient’s history, symptoms, and laboratory reports.
Order imaging relevant to treatment decisions
Assigned to discuss the value of imaging for assessing progression, Xenofon Baraliakos, MD, a rheumatologist and clinical researcher at Rheumazentrum Ruhrgebiet, Ruhr-University Bochum, Herne, Germany, offered the same message.
“It is important to consider all of the clinical information available, not just the features on imaging,” Dr. Baraliakos said. Often, MRI findings provide corroboration for other objective measures of disease status, but Dr. Baraliakos advised that imaging should be ordered only when it has the potential to alter therapy.
“What we can learn from imaging might be interesting, but the question to ask is whether it is useful,” Dr. Baraliakos said. Rather than incurring the costs of imaging for reassurance, Dr. Baraliakos recommended ordering these studies with specific objectives relevant to treatment decisions.
Neither Dr. van Gaalen nor Dr. Baraliakos denied the value of imaging, particularly MRI, to increase confidence in the diagnosis of axSpA or to guide therapy. Rather, their point was that imaging should not be considered a reliable stand-alone axSpA assessment strategy.
Clinical and imaging findings better then imaging alone
Data from a blinded radiology study presented during the same scientific session reinforced this conclusion. Led by Dr. Baraliakos and presented separately from his discussion about the adjunctive nature of imaging data in axSpA, the study showed that rheumatologists with access to both clinical and imaging data can detect a greater proportion of axSpA than radiologists working from imaging data alone.
In this study, 300 consecutive patients suspected of axSpA were enrolled. All had chronic back pain of more than 3 months’ duration. While highly experienced radiologists were asked to diagnose or rule out a diagnosis of axSpA on the basis of the MRI blinded to other clinical information, experienced rheumatologists evaluated the patients with access to all clinical, laboratory, and imaging data.
A diagnosis of axSpA was reached in 131 patients by the rheumatologists. The remaining 169 were determined not to have axSpA. Although the radiologists agreed on those with or without axSpA in 86.3% of cases, there were 31 cases (28.1%) in which rheumatologists diagnosed axSpA but radiologists did not.
In an analysis of which MRI features were considered critical by radiologists when there was agreement, they identified bone marrow edema in seven cases (7.2%). In 30 cases (30.9%), the radiologists considered the presence of chronic lesions to be critical to their diagnosis. In the remaining 69.9% of cases, radiologists were confident in their diagnosis only when both bone edema and chronic lesions were present.
Not surprisingly, the presence of chronic lesions and more pronounced bone marrow edema permitted both radiologists and rheumatologists to increase their confidence when discriminating between axSpA and non-axSpA patients.
“The combination of structural changes and bone marrow edema as assessed by MRI performed best in the process of diagnosing or ruling out axSpA in this real-life setting at our center,” Dr. Baraliakos said.
However, when only one or two features are considered, trade-offs of lower sensitivity for higher specificity or higher sensitivity for lower specificity occur. For example, although the specificity for a diagnosis of axSpA reached 99.4% when both bone marrow edema and ankylosis are present, the sensitivity of this finding was only 5.3%, according to data provided by Dr. Baraliakos. Conversely, the presence of sclerosis had a sensitivity of 81.7% but a specificity of only 43.2%.
One lesson from this analysis is that there is “increasing insecurity of only including bone marrow edema of the sacroiliac joint as the major criterion for diagnosing axSpA,” Dr. Baraliakos said. However, the larger point in the context of the earlier expert comments is that MRI findings should be considered important but insufficient for the evaluation of axSpA.
SOURCE: Baraliakos X et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):255-6. Abstract OPO344, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.5027
MADRID – Evidence for always using imaging in an adjunctive role to clinical findings in the diagnosis and assessment of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) continues to grow, two experts agreed in a scientific session at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“Imaging has to be understood in the context of other findings. With the patient history, the physical examination, and the laboratory results, the value of imaging improves substantially. Therefore, before an image is ordered it is important to ask how likely is it that a patient has axial spondylitis,” said Floris A. van Gaalen, MD, PhD, of Leiden (Netherlands) University Medical Center.
As one of the experts who participated in the scientific session, Dr. van Gaalen focused specifically on the value of x-ray and MRI in the diagnosis of axSpA, emphasizing their limited value if interpreted without clinical context. He explained that even highly experienced radiologists are fooled, particularly at early stages of disease.
Although the quality of imaging has been increasing steadily, “there is no cookbook approach with which you can guarantee a diagnosis of spondyloarthritis. Imaging can be valuable, but there is a risk of false positives because features on imaging, such as bone marrow edema, are shared with other sources of back pain,” Dr. van Gaalen said.
Considering the importance of context, Dr. van Gaalen advised clinicians against reading the radiology report without evaluating the images themselves. He said the features on imaging make more sense when they are considered at the same time as the patient’s history, symptoms, and laboratory reports.
Order imaging relevant to treatment decisions
Assigned to discuss the value of imaging for assessing progression, Xenofon Baraliakos, MD, a rheumatologist and clinical researcher at Rheumazentrum Ruhrgebiet, Ruhr-University Bochum, Herne, Germany, offered the same message.
“It is important to consider all of the clinical information available, not just the features on imaging,” Dr. Baraliakos said. Often, MRI findings provide corroboration for other objective measures of disease status, but Dr. Baraliakos advised that imaging should be ordered only when it has the potential to alter therapy.
“What we can learn from imaging might be interesting, but the question to ask is whether it is useful,” Dr. Baraliakos said. Rather than incurring the costs of imaging for reassurance, Dr. Baraliakos recommended ordering these studies with specific objectives relevant to treatment decisions.
Neither Dr. van Gaalen nor Dr. Baraliakos denied the value of imaging, particularly MRI, to increase confidence in the diagnosis of axSpA or to guide therapy. Rather, their point was that imaging should not be considered a reliable stand-alone axSpA assessment strategy.
Clinical and imaging findings better then imaging alone
Data from a blinded radiology study presented during the same scientific session reinforced this conclusion. Led by Dr. Baraliakos and presented separately from his discussion about the adjunctive nature of imaging data in axSpA, the study showed that rheumatologists with access to both clinical and imaging data can detect a greater proportion of axSpA than radiologists working from imaging data alone.
In this study, 300 consecutive patients suspected of axSpA were enrolled. All had chronic back pain of more than 3 months’ duration. While highly experienced radiologists were asked to diagnose or rule out a diagnosis of axSpA on the basis of the MRI blinded to other clinical information, experienced rheumatologists evaluated the patients with access to all clinical, laboratory, and imaging data.
A diagnosis of axSpA was reached in 131 patients by the rheumatologists. The remaining 169 were determined not to have axSpA. Although the radiologists agreed on those with or without axSpA in 86.3% of cases, there were 31 cases (28.1%) in which rheumatologists diagnosed axSpA but radiologists did not.
In an analysis of which MRI features were considered critical by radiologists when there was agreement, they identified bone marrow edema in seven cases (7.2%). In 30 cases (30.9%), the radiologists considered the presence of chronic lesions to be critical to their diagnosis. In the remaining 69.9% of cases, radiologists were confident in their diagnosis only when both bone edema and chronic lesions were present.
Not surprisingly, the presence of chronic lesions and more pronounced bone marrow edema permitted both radiologists and rheumatologists to increase their confidence when discriminating between axSpA and non-axSpA patients.
“The combination of structural changes and bone marrow edema as assessed by MRI performed best in the process of diagnosing or ruling out axSpA in this real-life setting at our center,” Dr. Baraliakos said.
However, when only one or two features are considered, trade-offs of lower sensitivity for higher specificity or higher sensitivity for lower specificity occur. For example, although the specificity for a diagnosis of axSpA reached 99.4% when both bone marrow edema and ankylosis are present, the sensitivity of this finding was only 5.3%, according to data provided by Dr. Baraliakos. Conversely, the presence of sclerosis had a sensitivity of 81.7% but a specificity of only 43.2%.
One lesson from this analysis is that there is “increasing insecurity of only including bone marrow edema of the sacroiliac joint as the major criterion for diagnosing axSpA,” Dr. Baraliakos said. However, the larger point in the context of the earlier expert comments is that MRI findings should be considered important but insufficient for the evaluation of axSpA.
SOURCE: Baraliakos X et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):255-6. Abstract OPO344, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.5027
MADRID – Evidence for always using imaging in an adjunctive role to clinical findings in the diagnosis and assessment of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) continues to grow, two experts agreed in a scientific session at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“Imaging has to be understood in the context of other findings. With the patient history, the physical examination, and the laboratory results, the value of imaging improves substantially. Therefore, before an image is ordered it is important to ask how likely is it that a patient has axial spondylitis,” said Floris A. van Gaalen, MD, PhD, of Leiden (Netherlands) University Medical Center.
As one of the experts who participated in the scientific session, Dr. van Gaalen focused specifically on the value of x-ray and MRI in the diagnosis of axSpA, emphasizing their limited value if interpreted without clinical context. He explained that even highly experienced radiologists are fooled, particularly at early stages of disease.
Although the quality of imaging has been increasing steadily, “there is no cookbook approach with which you can guarantee a diagnosis of spondyloarthritis. Imaging can be valuable, but there is a risk of false positives because features on imaging, such as bone marrow edema, are shared with other sources of back pain,” Dr. van Gaalen said.
Considering the importance of context, Dr. van Gaalen advised clinicians against reading the radiology report without evaluating the images themselves. He said the features on imaging make more sense when they are considered at the same time as the patient’s history, symptoms, and laboratory reports.
Order imaging relevant to treatment decisions
Assigned to discuss the value of imaging for assessing progression, Xenofon Baraliakos, MD, a rheumatologist and clinical researcher at Rheumazentrum Ruhrgebiet, Ruhr-University Bochum, Herne, Germany, offered the same message.
“It is important to consider all of the clinical information available, not just the features on imaging,” Dr. Baraliakos said. Often, MRI findings provide corroboration for other objective measures of disease status, but Dr. Baraliakos advised that imaging should be ordered only when it has the potential to alter therapy.
“What we can learn from imaging might be interesting, but the question to ask is whether it is useful,” Dr. Baraliakos said. Rather than incurring the costs of imaging for reassurance, Dr. Baraliakos recommended ordering these studies with specific objectives relevant to treatment decisions.
Neither Dr. van Gaalen nor Dr. Baraliakos denied the value of imaging, particularly MRI, to increase confidence in the diagnosis of axSpA or to guide therapy. Rather, their point was that imaging should not be considered a reliable stand-alone axSpA assessment strategy.
Clinical and imaging findings better then imaging alone
Data from a blinded radiology study presented during the same scientific session reinforced this conclusion. Led by Dr. Baraliakos and presented separately from his discussion about the adjunctive nature of imaging data in axSpA, the study showed that rheumatologists with access to both clinical and imaging data can detect a greater proportion of axSpA than radiologists working from imaging data alone.
In this study, 300 consecutive patients suspected of axSpA were enrolled. All had chronic back pain of more than 3 months’ duration. While highly experienced radiologists were asked to diagnose or rule out a diagnosis of axSpA on the basis of the MRI blinded to other clinical information, experienced rheumatologists evaluated the patients with access to all clinical, laboratory, and imaging data.
A diagnosis of axSpA was reached in 131 patients by the rheumatologists. The remaining 169 were determined not to have axSpA. Although the radiologists agreed on those with or without axSpA in 86.3% of cases, there were 31 cases (28.1%) in which rheumatologists diagnosed axSpA but radiologists did not.
In an analysis of which MRI features were considered critical by radiologists when there was agreement, they identified bone marrow edema in seven cases (7.2%). In 30 cases (30.9%), the radiologists considered the presence of chronic lesions to be critical to their diagnosis. In the remaining 69.9% of cases, radiologists were confident in their diagnosis only when both bone edema and chronic lesions were present.
Not surprisingly, the presence of chronic lesions and more pronounced bone marrow edema permitted both radiologists and rheumatologists to increase their confidence when discriminating between axSpA and non-axSpA patients.
“The combination of structural changes and bone marrow edema as assessed by MRI performed best in the process of diagnosing or ruling out axSpA in this real-life setting at our center,” Dr. Baraliakos said.
However, when only one or two features are considered, trade-offs of lower sensitivity for higher specificity or higher sensitivity for lower specificity occur. For example, although the specificity for a diagnosis of axSpA reached 99.4% when both bone marrow edema and ankylosis are present, the sensitivity of this finding was only 5.3%, according to data provided by Dr. Baraliakos. Conversely, the presence of sclerosis had a sensitivity of 81.7% but a specificity of only 43.2%.
One lesson from this analysis is that there is “increasing insecurity of only including bone marrow edema of the sacroiliac joint as the major criterion for diagnosing axSpA,” Dr. Baraliakos said. However, the larger point in the context of the earlier expert comments is that MRI findings should be considered important but insufficient for the evaluation of axSpA.
SOURCE: Baraliakos X et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):255-6. Abstract OPO344, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.5027
REPORTING FROM EULAR 2019 CONGRESS
Tocilizumab preserves lung function in systemic sclerosis
MADRID – , according to a secondary endpoint analysis of the phase 3, double-blind, randomized, controlled focuSSced trial.
After 48 weeks, a significantly lower proportion of patients treated with tocilizumab than placebo experienced any decline in lung function from baseline (50.5% versus 70.3% (P = .015), as defined by the percentage increase in predicted forced vital capacity (%pFVC). When only patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) were considered, the respective percentages were 51.7% and 75.5% (P = .003).
In SSc-ILD patients, a clinically meaningful decline of 10% or more of the %pFVC in lung function was seen in 24.5% given placebo but in just 8.6% of those treated with tocilizumab.
“ILD is a major complication of scleroderma; it has high morbidity and mortality ... and it’s largely irreversible,” Dinesh Khanna, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“In this day and age, when we treat ILD, we wait for a patient to develop clinical ILD,” added Dr. Khanna, director of the scleroderma program at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Clinical ILD can be defined by symptoms, abnormal pulmonary function tests, and marked abnormalities on high resolution computed tomography (HRCT) scans. He indicated that if improving ILD was not possible, then the next best thing would be to stabilize the disease and ensure there was no worsening in lung function.
As yet, there are no disease-modifying treatments available to treat SSc but there are “ample data that interleukin-6 plays a very important role in the pathogenesis of scleroderma,” Dr. Khanna observed. Tocilizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody against the interleukin-6 receptor.
Data from the phase 2 faSScinate trial showed initial promise for the drug in SSc where a numerical, but not statistically significant, improvement in skin thickening was seen, and the results had hinted at a possible benefit on lung function (Lancet. 2016 Jun 25;387:2630-40).
However, in the phase 3 focuSSced trial, there was no statistically significant difference in the change from baseline to week 48 modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS) between tocilizumab and placebo, which was the primary endpoint. The least square mean change in mRSS was –6.14 for tocilizumab and –4.41 for placebo (P = .0983).
A total of 205 patients with SSc were studied and randomized, 1:1 in a double-blind fashion, to receive either a once-weekly, subcutaneous dose of 162 mg tocilizumab or a weekly subcutaneous placebo injection for 48 weeks.
For inclusion in the study, patients had to have SSc that met American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) criteria and be diagnosed less than 60 months previously. Patients had to have an mRSS of 10-35 units and active disease with one or more of the following: C-reactive protein of 6 mg/L or higher; erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 28 mm/h or higher; and platelet count of330 x 109 L.
“What was astonishing in the trial was that every patient had HRCT at baseline and at the end of the study,” Dr. Khanna reported. These scans showed that 64% of patients had evidence of ILD at baseline and that those treated with tocilizumab had less evidence of fibrosis at week 48 versus placebo, indicating a stabilization rather than worsening of disease.
A time to treatment failure analysis also favored tocilizumab over placebo, but there were no significant changes in patient-reported outcomes.
Dr. Khanna’s slides stated that “given that the primary endpoint for mRSS was not met, all other P values are presented for information purposes only and cannot be considered statistically significant despite the strength of the evidence.” During the Q&A after his presentation, he noted that it was unlikely that the study’s sponsors (Roche/Genentech) will now pursue a license for tocilizumab in SSc.
Nevertheless, Dr. Khanna concluded, “we have the opportunity, based on these data, to treat these patients early on, where you can preserve the lung function, which is a paradigm shift versus waiting for the lung function to decline, become clinically meaningful, significant, and then treat this patient population.”
Roche/Genentech sponsored the study. Dr. Khanna acts as a consultant to Roche/Genentech and eight other pharmaceutical companies. He owns stock in Eicos Sciences.
SOURCE: Khanna D et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):202-3. Abstract OP0245, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.2120
MADRID – , according to a secondary endpoint analysis of the phase 3, double-blind, randomized, controlled focuSSced trial.
After 48 weeks, a significantly lower proportion of patients treated with tocilizumab than placebo experienced any decline in lung function from baseline (50.5% versus 70.3% (P = .015), as defined by the percentage increase in predicted forced vital capacity (%pFVC). When only patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) were considered, the respective percentages were 51.7% and 75.5% (P = .003).
In SSc-ILD patients, a clinically meaningful decline of 10% or more of the %pFVC in lung function was seen in 24.5% given placebo but in just 8.6% of those treated with tocilizumab.
“ILD is a major complication of scleroderma; it has high morbidity and mortality ... and it’s largely irreversible,” Dinesh Khanna, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“In this day and age, when we treat ILD, we wait for a patient to develop clinical ILD,” added Dr. Khanna, director of the scleroderma program at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Clinical ILD can be defined by symptoms, abnormal pulmonary function tests, and marked abnormalities on high resolution computed tomography (HRCT) scans. He indicated that if improving ILD was not possible, then the next best thing would be to stabilize the disease and ensure there was no worsening in lung function.
As yet, there are no disease-modifying treatments available to treat SSc but there are “ample data that interleukin-6 plays a very important role in the pathogenesis of scleroderma,” Dr. Khanna observed. Tocilizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody against the interleukin-6 receptor.
Data from the phase 2 faSScinate trial showed initial promise for the drug in SSc where a numerical, but not statistically significant, improvement in skin thickening was seen, and the results had hinted at a possible benefit on lung function (Lancet. 2016 Jun 25;387:2630-40).
However, in the phase 3 focuSSced trial, there was no statistically significant difference in the change from baseline to week 48 modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS) between tocilizumab and placebo, which was the primary endpoint. The least square mean change in mRSS was –6.14 for tocilizumab and –4.41 for placebo (P = .0983).
A total of 205 patients with SSc were studied and randomized, 1:1 in a double-blind fashion, to receive either a once-weekly, subcutaneous dose of 162 mg tocilizumab or a weekly subcutaneous placebo injection for 48 weeks.
For inclusion in the study, patients had to have SSc that met American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) criteria and be diagnosed less than 60 months previously. Patients had to have an mRSS of 10-35 units and active disease with one or more of the following: C-reactive protein of 6 mg/L or higher; erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 28 mm/h or higher; and platelet count of330 x 109 L.
“What was astonishing in the trial was that every patient had HRCT at baseline and at the end of the study,” Dr. Khanna reported. These scans showed that 64% of patients had evidence of ILD at baseline and that those treated with tocilizumab had less evidence of fibrosis at week 48 versus placebo, indicating a stabilization rather than worsening of disease.
A time to treatment failure analysis also favored tocilizumab over placebo, but there were no significant changes in patient-reported outcomes.
Dr. Khanna’s slides stated that “given that the primary endpoint for mRSS was not met, all other P values are presented for information purposes only and cannot be considered statistically significant despite the strength of the evidence.” During the Q&A after his presentation, he noted that it was unlikely that the study’s sponsors (Roche/Genentech) will now pursue a license for tocilizumab in SSc.
Nevertheless, Dr. Khanna concluded, “we have the opportunity, based on these data, to treat these patients early on, where you can preserve the lung function, which is a paradigm shift versus waiting for the lung function to decline, become clinically meaningful, significant, and then treat this patient population.”
Roche/Genentech sponsored the study. Dr. Khanna acts as a consultant to Roche/Genentech and eight other pharmaceutical companies. He owns stock in Eicos Sciences.
SOURCE: Khanna D et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):202-3. Abstract OP0245, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.2120
MADRID – , according to a secondary endpoint analysis of the phase 3, double-blind, randomized, controlled focuSSced trial.
After 48 weeks, a significantly lower proportion of patients treated with tocilizumab than placebo experienced any decline in lung function from baseline (50.5% versus 70.3% (P = .015), as defined by the percentage increase in predicted forced vital capacity (%pFVC). When only patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) were considered, the respective percentages were 51.7% and 75.5% (P = .003).
In SSc-ILD patients, a clinically meaningful decline of 10% or more of the %pFVC in lung function was seen in 24.5% given placebo but in just 8.6% of those treated with tocilizumab.
“ILD is a major complication of scleroderma; it has high morbidity and mortality ... and it’s largely irreversible,” Dinesh Khanna, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“In this day and age, when we treat ILD, we wait for a patient to develop clinical ILD,” added Dr. Khanna, director of the scleroderma program at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Clinical ILD can be defined by symptoms, abnormal pulmonary function tests, and marked abnormalities on high resolution computed tomography (HRCT) scans. He indicated that if improving ILD was not possible, then the next best thing would be to stabilize the disease and ensure there was no worsening in lung function.
As yet, there are no disease-modifying treatments available to treat SSc but there are “ample data that interleukin-6 plays a very important role in the pathogenesis of scleroderma,” Dr. Khanna observed. Tocilizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody against the interleukin-6 receptor.
Data from the phase 2 faSScinate trial showed initial promise for the drug in SSc where a numerical, but not statistically significant, improvement in skin thickening was seen, and the results had hinted at a possible benefit on lung function (Lancet. 2016 Jun 25;387:2630-40).
However, in the phase 3 focuSSced trial, there was no statistically significant difference in the change from baseline to week 48 modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS) between tocilizumab and placebo, which was the primary endpoint. The least square mean change in mRSS was –6.14 for tocilizumab and –4.41 for placebo (P = .0983).
A total of 205 patients with SSc were studied and randomized, 1:1 in a double-blind fashion, to receive either a once-weekly, subcutaneous dose of 162 mg tocilizumab or a weekly subcutaneous placebo injection for 48 weeks.
For inclusion in the study, patients had to have SSc that met American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) criteria and be diagnosed less than 60 months previously. Patients had to have an mRSS of 10-35 units and active disease with one or more of the following: C-reactive protein of 6 mg/L or higher; erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 28 mm/h or higher; and platelet count of330 x 109 L.
“What was astonishing in the trial was that every patient had HRCT at baseline and at the end of the study,” Dr. Khanna reported. These scans showed that 64% of patients had evidence of ILD at baseline and that those treated with tocilizumab had less evidence of fibrosis at week 48 versus placebo, indicating a stabilization rather than worsening of disease.
A time to treatment failure analysis also favored tocilizumab over placebo, but there were no significant changes in patient-reported outcomes.
Dr. Khanna’s slides stated that “given that the primary endpoint for mRSS was not met, all other P values are presented for information purposes only and cannot be considered statistically significant despite the strength of the evidence.” During the Q&A after his presentation, he noted that it was unlikely that the study’s sponsors (Roche/Genentech) will now pursue a license for tocilizumab in SSc.
Nevertheless, Dr. Khanna concluded, “we have the opportunity, based on these data, to treat these patients early on, where you can preserve the lung function, which is a paradigm shift versus waiting for the lung function to decline, become clinically meaningful, significant, and then treat this patient population.”
Roche/Genentech sponsored the study. Dr. Khanna acts as a consultant to Roche/Genentech and eight other pharmaceutical companies. He owns stock in Eicos Sciences.
SOURCE: Khanna D et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):202-3. Abstract OP0245, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.2120
REPORTING FROM THE EULAR 2019 CONGRESS
Refractory RA responds to vagus nerve stimulation
MADRID –
A minimal clinically important difference in the 28-joint Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) and the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) at 12 weeks was achieved or exceeded by 5 out of 10 patients; with 2 patients achieving DAS28-CRP–defined remission.
The disease activity scores also were paired with MRI scans and showed, in a handful of individuals, that there was improvement in erosions in those with a clinical response. Greater reductions in proinflammatory cytokines – interleukin (IL)-1-beta, IL-6, IL-17, IL-23, and tumor necrosis factor – were seen with neurostimulation, compared with a sham control group.
“The goal here was to use electrical stimulation to modify or modulate, and improve the treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis,” Mark C. Genovese, MD, said in an interview at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“The reason for choosing refractory patients is, one, there’s a clear unmet need, but two, because this was a first-in-human study using a novel microregulatory device stimulating the vagus nerve, we thought the benefits-to-risk ratio was most appropriate for its first trial in patients with refractory disease,” explained Dr. Genovese, professor of medicine and director of the rheumatology clinic in the division of immunology and rheumatology at Stanford (Calif.) University.
He added: “Over time, if the device proves successful for modulating disease, one can see it potentially being used earlier in the disease. Whether it is developed as a stand-alone or used as an adjunct on additional therapy will have to be determined based on both its efficacy and its safety.”
Neurostimulation is a novel concept in rheumatology but has been used with success in other areas of medicine – including epilepsy and depression – using electrical pulses instead of drugs. The idea behind it is that it stimulates the inflammatory reflex that modulates multiple the inflammatory pathways. Essentially, it’s thought that electrically stimulating the vagus nerve sends signals to the spleen where T-lymphocytes then signal to other immune cells, such as macrophages and monocytes, to temper their production of proinflammatory cytokines and other mediators.
“Unlike traditional immunosuppressive biologics that may be specifically targeting one inflammatory process, by suppressing the inflammatory reflex we believe we can suppress a variety of inflammatory cytokines in the region of between 30% and 70%,” Dr. Genovese said at a press briefing.
Data from a 12-week, open-label study (Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113:8284-9) have already shown that the approach works in patients with refractory RA (n = 17). Once-daily electrical vagus nerve stimulation using an existing device made for treating epilepsy showed that clinically meaningful changes in DAS28-CRP could be achieved through TNF suppression. The effects on systemic TNF release lasted for around 24-48 hours after stimulation.
For the current study, a much smaller, leadless, investigational neurostimulation device was used. Called a MicroRegulator (SetPoint Medical), it is about 1 inch long, less than 2 cc in total volume, and is surgically implanted by a neurosurgeon at the top of the vagus nerve. When activated through an iPad app by the health care professional, it sends electrical impulses down the vagus nerve. The device’s battery is charged externally and wirelessly a few minutes each week. Dr. Genovese noted that the device needs to be turned on for only 60 seconds at a time to have an effect and that patients may feel a vibration but this was not reported in the study as an adverse event.
Results of the first in-human study with the device were presented by Dr. Genovese during the late-breaking clinical trials session at the meeting. He described how a total of 14 patients had the device implanted, the first 3 of whom received once-daily, open-label neurostimulation. The remaining 11 patients were randomized to either once-daily or four-times-daily neurostimulation via the device, or to receive sham therapy in which the device was implanted but not switched on. The patients had moderate to severe RA, defined as four or more tender joints, four or more swollen joints, and a CDAI score greater than 10, plus they had radiologically active disease and an insufficient response to at least two biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs with differing mechanisms of action.
All patients went through the same schedule of device charging and they did not know if they were in the active or sham groups. At the end of the study, patients had the option to continue in a long-term safety extension phase, have the device switched off, or could have it surgically removed.
“This trial was specifically a pilot trial to assess the MicroRegulator from a safety standpoint,” Dr. Genovese noted, but it also was designed to “help understand whether or not there was going to be clinical efficacy and applicability.”
While “there were no device or treatment-related serious adverse events,” there were some “surgical complications associated with the initial procedure.” One patient experienced paralysis of the left vocal cord during implantation that later resolved, and others experienced the following: Horner’s syndrome, tenderness and swelling at the surgical site, acute postoperative pain, and rash and pruritus. That said, there were no withdrawals from the study due to adverse events.
Commenting in a press release issued by the European League Against Rheumatism, Thomas Dörner, MD, of Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, said, “This is a really exciting development. For many patients suffering from rheumatoid arthritis, current treatments don’t work, or aren’t tolerated. These results open the door to a novel approach to treating not only rheumatoid arthritis, but other chronic inflammatory diseases. This is certainly an area for further study.”
The study was sponsored by SetPoint Medical. Dr. Genovese disclosed receiving consulting fees from and having contracts with/grants with the company and acting as a consultant to Galvani and Vorso. He has also received research support from and served as a consultant to Sanofi/Genzyme, Genentech/Roche, and R-Pharm. Dr. Dörner was not involved in the study and commented as part of his role as the chairperson of the EULAR Scientific Program Committee.
SOURCE: Genovese M et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019; 78(Suppl 2):264. Abstract LB0009, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8716
MADRID –
A minimal clinically important difference in the 28-joint Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) and the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) at 12 weeks was achieved or exceeded by 5 out of 10 patients; with 2 patients achieving DAS28-CRP–defined remission.
The disease activity scores also were paired with MRI scans and showed, in a handful of individuals, that there was improvement in erosions in those with a clinical response. Greater reductions in proinflammatory cytokines – interleukin (IL)-1-beta, IL-6, IL-17, IL-23, and tumor necrosis factor – were seen with neurostimulation, compared with a sham control group.
“The goal here was to use electrical stimulation to modify or modulate, and improve the treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis,” Mark C. Genovese, MD, said in an interview at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“The reason for choosing refractory patients is, one, there’s a clear unmet need, but two, because this was a first-in-human study using a novel microregulatory device stimulating the vagus nerve, we thought the benefits-to-risk ratio was most appropriate for its first trial in patients with refractory disease,” explained Dr. Genovese, professor of medicine and director of the rheumatology clinic in the division of immunology and rheumatology at Stanford (Calif.) University.
He added: “Over time, if the device proves successful for modulating disease, one can see it potentially being used earlier in the disease. Whether it is developed as a stand-alone or used as an adjunct on additional therapy will have to be determined based on both its efficacy and its safety.”
Neurostimulation is a novel concept in rheumatology but has been used with success in other areas of medicine – including epilepsy and depression – using electrical pulses instead of drugs. The idea behind it is that it stimulates the inflammatory reflex that modulates multiple the inflammatory pathways. Essentially, it’s thought that electrically stimulating the vagus nerve sends signals to the spleen where T-lymphocytes then signal to other immune cells, such as macrophages and monocytes, to temper their production of proinflammatory cytokines and other mediators.
“Unlike traditional immunosuppressive biologics that may be specifically targeting one inflammatory process, by suppressing the inflammatory reflex we believe we can suppress a variety of inflammatory cytokines in the region of between 30% and 70%,” Dr. Genovese said at a press briefing.
Data from a 12-week, open-label study (Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113:8284-9) have already shown that the approach works in patients with refractory RA (n = 17). Once-daily electrical vagus nerve stimulation using an existing device made for treating epilepsy showed that clinically meaningful changes in DAS28-CRP could be achieved through TNF suppression. The effects on systemic TNF release lasted for around 24-48 hours after stimulation.
For the current study, a much smaller, leadless, investigational neurostimulation device was used. Called a MicroRegulator (SetPoint Medical), it is about 1 inch long, less than 2 cc in total volume, and is surgically implanted by a neurosurgeon at the top of the vagus nerve. When activated through an iPad app by the health care professional, it sends electrical impulses down the vagus nerve. The device’s battery is charged externally and wirelessly a few minutes each week. Dr. Genovese noted that the device needs to be turned on for only 60 seconds at a time to have an effect and that patients may feel a vibration but this was not reported in the study as an adverse event.
Results of the first in-human study with the device were presented by Dr. Genovese during the late-breaking clinical trials session at the meeting. He described how a total of 14 patients had the device implanted, the first 3 of whom received once-daily, open-label neurostimulation. The remaining 11 patients were randomized to either once-daily or four-times-daily neurostimulation via the device, or to receive sham therapy in which the device was implanted but not switched on. The patients had moderate to severe RA, defined as four or more tender joints, four or more swollen joints, and a CDAI score greater than 10, plus they had radiologically active disease and an insufficient response to at least two biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs with differing mechanisms of action.
All patients went through the same schedule of device charging and they did not know if they were in the active or sham groups. At the end of the study, patients had the option to continue in a long-term safety extension phase, have the device switched off, or could have it surgically removed.
“This trial was specifically a pilot trial to assess the MicroRegulator from a safety standpoint,” Dr. Genovese noted, but it also was designed to “help understand whether or not there was going to be clinical efficacy and applicability.”
While “there were no device or treatment-related serious adverse events,” there were some “surgical complications associated with the initial procedure.” One patient experienced paralysis of the left vocal cord during implantation that later resolved, and others experienced the following: Horner’s syndrome, tenderness and swelling at the surgical site, acute postoperative pain, and rash and pruritus. That said, there were no withdrawals from the study due to adverse events.
Commenting in a press release issued by the European League Against Rheumatism, Thomas Dörner, MD, of Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, said, “This is a really exciting development. For many patients suffering from rheumatoid arthritis, current treatments don’t work, or aren’t tolerated. These results open the door to a novel approach to treating not only rheumatoid arthritis, but other chronic inflammatory diseases. This is certainly an area for further study.”
The study was sponsored by SetPoint Medical. Dr. Genovese disclosed receiving consulting fees from and having contracts with/grants with the company and acting as a consultant to Galvani and Vorso. He has also received research support from and served as a consultant to Sanofi/Genzyme, Genentech/Roche, and R-Pharm. Dr. Dörner was not involved in the study and commented as part of his role as the chairperson of the EULAR Scientific Program Committee.
SOURCE: Genovese M et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019; 78(Suppl 2):264. Abstract LB0009, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8716
MADRID –
A minimal clinically important difference in the 28-joint Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) and the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) at 12 weeks was achieved or exceeded by 5 out of 10 patients; with 2 patients achieving DAS28-CRP–defined remission.
The disease activity scores also were paired with MRI scans and showed, in a handful of individuals, that there was improvement in erosions in those with a clinical response. Greater reductions in proinflammatory cytokines – interleukin (IL)-1-beta, IL-6, IL-17, IL-23, and tumor necrosis factor – were seen with neurostimulation, compared with a sham control group.
“The goal here was to use electrical stimulation to modify or modulate, and improve the treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis,” Mark C. Genovese, MD, said in an interview at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“The reason for choosing refractory patients is, one, there’s a clear unmet need, but two, because this was a first-in-human study using a novel microregulatory device stimulating the vagus nerve, we thought the benefits-to-risk ratio was most appropriate for its first trial in patients with refractory disease,” explained Dr. Genovese, professor of medicine and director of the rheumatology clinic in the division of immunology and rheumatology at Stanford (Calif.) University.
He added: “Over time, if the device proves successful for modulating disease, one can see it potentially being used earlier in the disease. Whether it is developed as a stand-alone or used as an adjunct on additional therapy will have to be determined based on both its efficacy and its safety.”
Neurostimulation is a novel concept in rheumatology but has been used with success in other areas of medicine – including epilepsy and depression – using electrical pulses instead of drugs. The idea behind it is that it stimulates the inflammatory reflex that modulates multiple the inflammatory pathways. Essentially, it’s thought that electrically stimulating the vagus nerve sends signals to the spleen where T-lymphocytes then signal to other immune cells, such as macrophages and monocytes, to temper their production of proinflammatory cytokines and other mediators.
“Unlike traditional immunosuppressive biologics that may be specifically targeting one inflammatory process, by suppressing the inflammatory reflex we believe we can suppress a variety of inflammatory cytokines in the region of between 30% and 70%,” Dr. Genovese said at a press briefing.
Data from a 12-week, open-label study (Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113:8284-9) have already shown that the approach works in patients with refractory RA (n = 17). Once-daily electrical vagus nerve stimulation using an existing device made for treating epilepsy showed that clinically meaningful changes in DAS28-CRP could be achieved through TNF suppression. The effects on systemic TNF release lasted for around 24-48 hours after stimulation.
For the current study, a much smaller, leadless, investigational neurostimulation device was used. Called a MicroRegulator (SetPoint Medical), it is about 1 inch long, less than 2 cc in total volume, and is surgically implanted by a neurosurgeon at the top of the vagus nerve. When activated through an iPad app by the health care professional, it sends electrical impulses down the vagus nerve. The device’s battery is charged externally and wirelessly a few minutes each week. Dr. Genovese noted that the device needs to be turned on for only 60 seconds at a time to have an effect and that patients may feel a vibration but this was not reported in the study as an adverse event.
Results of the first in-human study with the device were presented by Dr. Genovese during the late-breaking clinical trials session at the meeting. He described how a total of 14 patients had the device implanted, the first 3 of whom received once-daily, open-label neurostimulation. The remaining 11 patients were randomized to either once-daily or four-times-daily neurostimulation via the device, or to receive sham therapy in which the device was implanted but not switched on. The patients had moderate to severe RA, defined as four or more tender joints, four or more swollen joints, and a CDAI score greater than 10, plus they had radiologically active disease and an insufficient response to at least two biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs with differing mechanisms of action.
All patients went through the same schedule of device charging and they did not know if they were in the active or sham groups. At the end of the study, patients had the option to continue in a long-term safety extension phase, have the device switched off, or could have it surgically removed.
“This trial was specifically a pilot trial to assess the MicroRegulator from a safety standpoint,” Dr. Genovese noted, but it also was designed to “help understand whether or not there was going to be clinical efficacy and applicability.”
While “there were no device or treatment-related serious adverse events,” there were some “surgical complications associated with the initial procedure.” One patient experienced paralysis of the left vocal cord during implantation that later resolved, and others experienced the following: Horner’s syndrome, tenderness and swelling at the surgical site, acute postoperative pain, and rash and pruritus. That said, there were no withdrawals from the study due to adverse events.
Commenting in a press release issued by the European League Against Rheumatism, Thomas Dörner, MD, of Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, said, “This is a really exciting development. For many patients suffering from rheumatoid arthritis, current treatments don’t work, or aren’t tolerated. These results open the door to a novel approach to treating not only rheumatoid arthritis, but other chronic inflammatory diseases. This is certainly an area for further study.”
The study was sponsored by SetPoint Medical. Dr. Genovese disclosed receiving consulting fees from and having contracts with/grants with the company and acting as a consultant to Galvani and Vorso. He has also received research support from and served as a consultant to Sanofi/Genzyme, Genentech/Roche, and R-Pharm. Dr. Dörner was not involved in the study and commented as part of his role as the chairperson of the EULAR Scientific Program Committee.
SOURCE: Genovese M et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019; 78(Suppl 2):264. Abstract LB0009, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8716
REPORTING FROM EULAR 2019 CONGRESS
Imaging remission decried as ticket to RA overtreatment
MADRID – Defining remission in patients with rheumatoid arthritis depends on their clinical status, not on the presence or absence of inflammatory signals on ultrasound or MRI, many rheumatologists now agree.
The strong consensus that’s formed against using imaging as a criterion for RA remission was apparent at the European Congress of Rheumatology during presentation of a pending update to the EULAR recommendations for managing RA, as well as in at least two separate, invited lectures.
“Imaging is out,” proclaimed Josef S. Smolen, MD, as he spoke at the congress about the pending RA management revisions. This condemnation of imaging by ultrasound or MRI as an unsafe and misleading target for RA treatment by Dr. Smolen, professor of medicine at the Medical University of Vienna, was perhaps the most forceful statement he made while presenting the draft revision of EULAR’s RA recommendations.
The case for using ultrasound or MR to find inflammatory signatures in joints that can function as treatment targets collapsed earlier in 2019 with publication of results from IMAGINE-RA (An MRI-guided Treatment Strategy to Prevent Disease Progression in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis), a multicenter Danish study that randomized 200 RA patients in remission to either a conventional, disease activity–guided treatment target (in this case the DAS28-CRP [Disease Activity Score in 28 joints plus C-reactive protein]), or a treatment target that included the conventional clinical target plus treating to eliminate any bone marrow edema visualized by MRI. After 24 months of treatment, the prevalence of clinical remission and MRI remission was about the same in both arms, with no statistically significant differences. But serious adverse events in 6 patients managed by their clinical assessment compared favorably against 17 among those managed to an imaging remission endpoint, a difference that strongly hinted at dangerous overtreatment of the imaging-guided patients (JAMA. 2019 Feb 5;321[5]:461-72).
The failure of MRI assessment of inflammation to improve RA treatment in IMAGINE-RA came against the backdrop of two 2016 reports that documented the same limitation when using ultrasound to detect joint inflammation and guide treatment in RA patients. The TaSER (Targeting Synovitis in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis) study randomized 111 patients with newly diagnosed RA or undifferentiated arthritis to conventional disease activity assessment, DAS28–erythrocyte sedimentation rate, or to that plus assessment by musculoskeletal ultrasound, and found no difference in clinical or imaging outcomes (Ann Rheum Dis. 2016 Jun;75[6]:1043-50). The second report, ARCTIC (Aiming for Remission in Rheumatoid Arthritis), randomized 238 RA patients to either a tight RA control strategy based on DAS alone or based on DAS plus serial examination of joints with ultrasound. The results showed that, after 16-24 months on treatment, the two strategies produced no significant difference in the rates of sustained RA remission with no radiographic damage or swollen joints detected (BMJ. 2016 Aug 16;354:i4205).
The results from these three studies have shown that “not all inflammation seen by ultrasound or MR is pathological,” and that “no imaging technique or biomarker has shown superiority to clinical assessment as a treat-to-target” goal, Sofia Ramiro, MD, said in a talk at the congress during which she reviewed this evidence.
“Treat-to-target that takes imaging into account is high risk because it exposes patients to overtreatment, which has costs in the broad sense, safety included,” said Dr. Ramiro, a rheumatologist at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center. “I think that systematically evaluating a patient’s joint with imaging won’t have additional value, and is the wrong approach.”
A similar assessment came from Stefan Siebert, MD, during a separate lecture during the congress. He highlighted that use of ultrasound or MRI to guide treatment in these three studies consistently led to substantially higher rates of treatment escalation, treatment with biologics, and in two of the three studies a notable increase in serious adverse events. Treatment with a biologic drug was roughly twice as frequent in the imaging-guided arms of TaSER and ARCTIC, compared with the control arms in those studies, and in IMAGINE-RA, the use of a biologic drug occurred more than 20 times more often in the imaging arms, he noted. And in both TaSER and IMAGINE-RA the rate of serious adverse events was more than doubled in the imaging arms, compared with the controls.
“Just identifying inflammation [in a joint] is not enough to make a diagnosis. Inflammation is normal process, and finding it does not identify a pathological state,” noted Dr. Siebert, a rheumatologist at the University of Glasgow. “Imaging leads to overdiagnosis and overtreatment when physicians use imaging inappropriately,” he concluded.
Dr. Smolen has been a consultant to several drug companies. Dr. Ramiro has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, and Sanofi, and she has received research funding from Merck. Dr. Siebert has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB, and he has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.
MADRID – Defining remission in patients with rheumatoid arthritis depends on their clinical status, not on the presence or absence of inflammatory signals on ultrasound or MRI, many rheumatologists now agree.
The strong consensus that’s formed against using imaging as a criterion for RA remission was apparent at the European Congress of Rheumatology during presentation of a pending update to the EULAR recommendations for managing RA, as well as in at least two separate, invited lectures.
“Imaging is out,” proclaimed Josef S. Smolen, MD, as he spoke at the congress about the pending RA management revisions. This condemnation of imaging by ultrasound or MRI as an unsafe and misleading target for RA treatment by Dr. Smolen, professor of medicine at the Medical University of Vienna, was perhaps the most forceful statement he made while presenting the draft revision of EULAR’s RA recommendations.
The case for using ultrasound or MR to find inflammatory signatures in joints that can function as treatment targets collapsed earlier in 2019 with publication of results from IMAGINE-RA (An MRI-guided Treatment Strategy to Prevent Disease Progression in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis), a multicenter Danish study that randomized 200 RA patients in remission to either a conventional, disease activity–guided treatment target (in this case the DAS28-CRP [Disease Activity Score in 28 joints plus C-reactive protein]), or a treatment target that included the conventional clinical target plus treating to eliminate any bone marrow edema visualized by MRI. After 24 months of treatment, the prevalence of clinical remission and MRI remission was about the same in both arms, with no statistically significant differences. But serious adverse events in 6 patients managed by their clinical assessment compared favorably against 17 among those managed to an imaging remission endpoint, a difference that strongly hinted at dangerous overtreatment of the imaging-guided patients (JAMA. 2019 Feb 5;321[5]:461-72).
The failure of MRI assessment of inflammation to improve RA treatment in IMAGINE-RA came against the backdrop of two 2016 reports that documented the same limitation when using ultrasound to detect joint inflammation and guide treatment in RA patients. The TaSER (Targeting Synovitis in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis) study randomized 111 patients with newly diagnosed RA or undifferentiated arthritis to conventional disease activity assessment, DAS28–erythrocyte sedimentation rate, or to that plus assessment by musculoskeletal ultrasound, and found no difference in clinical or imaging outcomes (Ann Rheum Dis. 2016 Jun;75[6]:1043-50). The second report, ARCTIC (Aiming for Remission in Rheumatoid Arthritis), randomized 238 RA patients to either a tight RA control strategy based on DAS alone or based on DAS plus serial examination of joints with ultrasound. The results showed that, after 16-24 months on treatment, the two strategies produced no significant difference in the rates of sustained RA remission with no radiographic damage or swollen joints detected (BMJ. 2016 Aug 16;354:i4205).
The results from these three studies have shown that “not all inflammation seen by ultrasound or MR is pathological,” and that “no imaging technique or biomarker has shown superiority to clinical assessment as a treat-to-target” goal, Sofia Ramiro, MD, said in a talk at the congress during which she reviewed this evidence.
“Treat-to-target that takes imaging into account is high risk because it exposes patients to overtreatment, which has costs in the broad sense, safety included,” said Dr. Ramiro, a rheumatologist at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center. “I think that systematically evaluating a patient’s joint with imaging won’t have additional value, and is the wrong approach.”
A similar assessment came from Stefan Siebert, MD, during a separate lecture during the congress. He highlighted that use of ultrasound or MRI to guide treatment in these three studies consistently led to substantially higher rates of treatment escalation, treatment with biologics, and in two of the three studies a notable increase in serious adverse events. Treatment with a biologic drug was roughly twice as frequent in the imaging-guided arms of TaSER and ARCTIC, compared with the control arms in those studies, and in IMAGINE-RA, the use of a biologic drug occurred more than 20 times more often in the imaging arms, he noted. And in both TaSER and IMAGINE-RA the rate of serious adverse events was more than doubled in the imaging arms, compared with the controls.
“Just identifying inflammation [in a joint] is not enough to make a diagnosis. Inflammation is normal process, and finding it does not identify a pathological state,” noted Dr. Siebert, a rheumatologist at the University of Glasgow. “Imaging leads to overdiagnosis and overtreatment when physicians use imaging inappropriately,” he concluded.
Dr. Smolen has been a consultant to several drug companies. Dr. Ramiro has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, and Sanofi, and she has received research funding from Merck. Dr. Siebert has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB, and he has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.
MADRID – Defining remission in patients with rheumatoid arthritis depends on their clinical status, not on the presence or absence of inflammatory signals on ultrasound or MRI, many rheumatologists now agree.
The strong consensus that’s formed against using imaging as a criterion for RA remission was apparent at the European Congress of Rheumatology during presentation of a pending update to the EULAR recommendations for managing RA, as well as in at least two separate, invited lectures.
“Imaging is out,” proclaimed Josef S. Smolen, MD, as he spoke at the congress about the pending RA management revisions. This condemnation of imaging by ultrasound or MRI as an unsafe and misleading target for RA treatment by Dr. Smolen, professor of medicine at the Medical University of Vienna, was perhaps the most forceful statement he made while presenting the draft revision of EULAR’s RA recommendations.
The case for using ultrasound or MR to find inflammatory signatures in joints that can function as treatment targets collapsed earlier in 2019 with publication of results from IMAGINE-RA (An MRI-guided Treatment Strategy to Prevent Disease Progression in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis), a multicenter Danish study that randomized 200 RA patients in remission to either a conventional, disease activity–guided treatment target (in this case the DAS28-CRP [Disease Activity Score in 28 joints plus C-reactive protein]), or a treatment target that included the conventional clinical target plus treating to eliminate any bone marrow edema visualized by MRI. After 24 months of treatment, the prevalence of clinical remission and MRI remission was about the same in both arms, with no statistically significant differences. But serious adverse events in 6 patients managed by their clinical assessment compared favorably against 17 among those managed to an imaging remission endpoint, a difference that strongly hinted at dangerous overtreatment of the imaging-guided patients (JAMA. 2019 Feb 5;321[5]:461-72).
The failure of MRI assessment of inflammation to improve RA treatment in IMAGINE-RA came against the backdrop of two 2016 reports that documented the same limitation when using ultrasound to detect joint inflammation and guide treatment in RA patients. The TaSER (Targeting Synovitis in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis) study randomized 111 patients with newly diagnosed RA or undifferentiated arthritis to conventional disease activity assessment, DAS28–erythrocyte sedimentation rate, or to that plus assessment by musculoskeletal ultrasound, and found no difference in clinical or imaging outcomes (Ann Rheum Dis. 2016 Jun;75[6]:1043-50). The second report, ARCTIC (Aiming for Remission in Rheumatoid Arthritis), randomized 238 RA patients to either a tight RA control strategy based on DAS alone or based on DAS plus serial examination of joints with ultrasound. The results showed that, after 16-24 months on treatment, the two strategies produced no significant difference in the rates of sustained RA remission with no radiographic damage or swollen joints detected (BMJ. 2016 Aug 16;354:i4205).
The results from these three studies have shown that “not all inflammation seen by ultrasound or MR is pathological,” and that “no imaging technique or biomarker has shown superiority to clinical assessment as a treat-to-target” goal, Sofia Ramiro, MD, said in a talk at the congress during which she reviewed this evidence.
“Treat-to-target that takes imaging into account is high risk because it exposes patients to overtreatment, which has costs in the broad sense, safety included,” said Dr. Ramiro, a rheumatologist at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center. “I think that systematically evaluating a patient’s joint with imaging won’t have additional value, and is the wrong approach.”
A similar assessment came from Stefan Siebert, MD, during a separate lecture during the congress. He highlighted that use of ultrasound or MRI to guide treatment in these three studies consistently led to substantially higher rates of treatment escalation, treatment with biologics, and in two of the three studies a notable increase in serious adverse events. Treatment with a biologic drug was roughly twice as frequent in the imaging-guided arms of TaSER and ARCTIC, compared with the control arms in those studies, and in IMAGINE-RA, the use of a biologic drug occurred more than 20 times more often in the imaging arms, he noted. And in both TaSER and IMAGINE-RA the rate of serious adverse events was more than doubled in the imaging arms, compared with the controls.
“Just identifying inflammation [in a joint] is not enough to make a diagnosis. Inflammation is normal process, and finding it does not identify a pathological state,” noted Dr. Siebert, a rheumatologist at the University of Glasgow. “Imaging leads to overdiagnosis and overtreatment when physicians use imaging inappropriately,” he concluded.
Dr. Smolen has been a consultant to several drug companies. Dr. Ramiro has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, and Sanofi, and she has received research funding from Merck. Dr. Siebert has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB, and he has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.
REPORTING FROM EULAR 2019 CONGRESS
EULAR revises its RA management recommendations
MADRID – No change to designating methotrexate the first disease-modifying drug to prescribe, before any biologic drug, and no adoption of imaging criteria to determine whether a patient is in remission.
“Imaging with ultrasound or MRI is out” as a remission criterion. “It’s high risk and a waste of resources,” declared Josef S. Smolen, MD, head of the EULAR writing panel, in the most forceful declaration he made while presenting the pending recommendation revision at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
Dr. Smolen’s strong warning against an imaging parameter when treating RA patients toward a remission target was no surprise, as he had already voiced this opinion in an editorial he coauthored earlier this year (JAMA. 2019 Feb 5;321[5]:457-8). The editorial cited data from three independent studies that compared an RA treatment strategy that used an imaging measure of joint inflammation as a treatment target along with clinical assessment against clinical assessment alone. All three studies found no benefit from ultrasound or MRI for defining a treatment goal, and two of the studies showed evidence for harm. “Using imaging to guide therapy led to prescription of potentially harmful medicines without differences in the primary outcomes, but at high costs and potential burden of unnecessary treatment changes and risks for patients,” noted Dr. Smolen and his coauthor in the editorial.
The report that this editorial addressed (JAMA. 2019 Feb 5;321[5]:461-72) also provided some of the most recent evidence for the second omission from the new revision that Dr. Smolen called out: No change to the recommendation to use methotrexate as initial treatment for any RA patient. “We continue to say that methotrexate is the first treatment strategy. There is no new evidence that any biological treatment is better than methotrexate, so there is no change,” said Dr. Smolen, professor of medicine at the Medical University of Vienna, who also led the EULAR writing panel for the immediately preceding set of RA treatment recommendations first unveiled 3 years before (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017 Jun;76[6]:960-77).
Perhaps the most notable changes to the recommendations are the way they handle targeted-synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (tsDMARDs), a class that currently is synonymous with the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. “Because of new evidence we have lifted up the tsDMARDs” so that no preference is given to biologic DMARDs over the ts class as happened in the 2016 version, Dr. Smolen said. Another revision to this recommendation was to change the addition of either a biologic or tsDMARD to a patient not fully responsive to a conventional-synthetic (cs) DMARD and with poor prognostic factors from a “should be considered” to a “should be added” recommendation.
Another way in which the pending revision uplifted tsDMARDs was in the wording for the recommendation that deals with patients who do not respond to a first tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor plus methotrexate or another csDMARD, and now lists as the first option switching to a biologic or tsDMARD with a different mode of action followed by a different TNF inhibitor, a reversal of order from before when a different TNF inhibitor got first mention. This order change was a modest revision that reflected observational evidence that was modestly persuasive that switching to an agent with a different mechanism of action is often the most effective approach, Dr. Smolen said.
The new recommendations also reaffirmed the eleventh recommendation from the 2016 version, which called for tapering of the biologic or tsDMARD from a patient in remission while retaining the csDMARD, usually methotrexate. Dr. Smolen cited new evidence in favor of this approach (Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Jun;78[6]:746-53), which allowed the writing panel to upgrade the evidence supporting this recommendation to the A level. The concept of tapering down the biologic or tsDMARD for a patient in sustained remission while maintaining the csDMARD was “fully confirmed” in a recent report, he added. The writing panel also upticked its rating of the evidence in favor of cautiously tapering the csDMARD in patients who maintain remission on just a csDMARD.
One final element in the pending revision called out a newly identified safety signal, an increased risk for venous thromboembolism among patients on certain high dosages of JAK inhibitors, especially in patients with increased risk for venous thromboembolism. This new safety concern adds to the already-described increased risk for herpes zoster from JAK inhibitors, especially in Japanese and Korean populations, Dr. Smolen said. In general, more long-term safety data for JAK inhibitors are needed.
The draft update also added one new overarching principle: “Patients require access to multiple drugs with different modes of action to address the heterogeneity of RA, and patients may require multiple, successive treatments throughout life.” Overall, pending changes to the RA recommendations were limited because “the EULAR recommendations have achieved a steady state of the art” for defining whom to treat, treatment targets, and appropriate treatment strategies, Dr. Smolen said.
Dr. Smolen had been a consultant to or a speaker on behalf of several drug companies.
MADRID – No change to designating methotrexate the first disease-modifying drug to prescribe, before any biologic drug, and no adoption of imaging criteria to determine whether a patient is in remission.
“Imaging with ultrasound or MRI is out” as a remission criterion. “It’s high risk and a waste of resources,” declared Josef S. Smolen, MD, head of the EULAR writing panel, in the most forceful declaration he made while presenting the pending recommendation revision at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
Dr. Smolen’s strong warning against an imaging parameter when treating RA patients toward a remission target was no surprise, as he had already voiced this opinion in an editorial he coauthored earlier this year (JAMA. 2019 Feb 5;321[5]:457-8). The editorial cited data from three independent studies that compared an RA treatment strategy that used an imaging measure of joint inflammation as a treatment target along with clinical assessment against clinical assessment alone. All three studies found no benefit from ultrasound or MRI for defining a treatment goal, and two of the studies showed evidence for harm. “Using imaging to guide therapy led to prescription of potentially harmful medicines without differences in the primary outcomes, but at high costs and potential burden of unnecessary treatment changes and risks for patients,” noted Dr. Smolen and his coauthor in the editorial.
The report that this editorial addressed (JAMA. 2019 Feb 5;321[5]:461-72) also provided some of the most recent evidence for the second omission from the new revision that Dr. Smolen called out: No change to the recommendation to use methotrexate as initial treatment for any RA patient. “We continue to say that methotrexate is the first treatment strategy. There is no new evidence that any biological treatment is better than methotrexate, so there is no change,” said Dr. Smolen, professor of medicine at the Medical University of Vienna, who also led the EULAR writing panel for the immediately preceding set of RA treatment recommendations first unveiled 3 years before (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017 Jun;76[6]:960-77).
Perhaps the most notable changes to the recommendations are the way they handle targeted-synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (tsDMARDs), a class that currently is synonymous with the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. “Because of new evidence we have lifted up the tsDMARDs” so that no preference is given to biologic DMARDs over the ts class as happened in the 2016 version, Dr. Smolen said. Another revision to this recommendation was to change the addition of either a biologic or tsDMARD to a patient not fully responsive to a conventional-synthetic (cs) DMARD and with poor prognostic factors from a “should be considered” to a “should be added” recommendation.
Another way in which the pending revision uplifted tsDMARDs was in the wording for the recommendation that deals with patients who do not respond to a first tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor plus methotrexate or another csDMARD, and now lists as the first option switching to a biologic or tsDMARD with a different mode of action followed by a different TNF inhibitor, a reversal of order from before when a different TNF inhibitor got first mention. This order change was a modest revision that reflected observational evidence that was modestly persuasive that switching to an agent with a different mechanism of action is often the most effective approach, Dr. Smolen said.
The new recommendations also reaffirmed the eleventh recommendation from the 2016 version, which called for tapering of the biologic or tsDMARD from a patient in remission while retaining the csDMARD, usually methotrexate. Dr. Smolen cited new evidence in favor of this approach (Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Jun;78[6]:746-53), which allowed the writing panel to upgrade the evidence supporting this recommendation to the A level. The concept of tapering down the biologic or tsDMARD for a patient in sustained remission while maintaining the csDMARD was “fully confirmed” in a recent report, he added. The writing panel also upticked its rating of the evidence in favor of cautiously tapering the csDMARD in patients who maintain remission on just a csDMARD.
One final element in the pending revision called out a newly identified safety signal, an increased risk for venous thromboembolism among patients on certain high dosages of JAK inhibitors, especially in patients with increased risk for venous thromboembolism. This new safety concern adds to the already-described increased risk for herpes zoster from JAK inhibitors, especially in Japanese and Korean populations, Dr. Smolen said. In general, more long-term safety data for JAK inhibitors are needed.
The draft update also added one new overarching principle: “Patients require access to multiple drugs with different modes of action to address the heterogeneity of RA, and patients may require multiple, successive treatments throughout life.” Overall, pending changes to the RA recommendations were limited because “the EULAR recommendations have achieved a steady state of the art” for defining whom to treat, treatment targets, and appropriate treatment strategies, Dr. Smolen said.
Dr. Smolen had been a consultant to or a speaker on behalf of several drug companies.
MADRID – No change to designating methotrexate the first disease-modifying drug to prescribe, before any biologic drug, and no adoption of imaging criteria to determine whether a patient is in remission.
“Imaging with ultrasound or MRI is out” as a remission criterion. “It’s high risk and a waste of resources,” declared Josef S. Smolen, MD, head of the EULAR writing panel, in the most forceful declaration he made while presenting the pending recommendation revision at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
Dr. Smolen’s strong warning against an imaging parameter when treating RA patients toward a remission target was no surprise, as he had already voiced this opinion in an editorial he coauthored earlier this year (JAMA. 2019 Feb 5;321[5]:457-8). The editorial cited data from three independent studies that compared an RA treatment strategy that used an imaging measure of joint inflammation as a treatment target along with clinical assessment against clinical assessment alone. All three studies found no benefit from ultrasound or MRI for defining a treatment goal, and two of the studies showed evidence for harm. “Using imaging to guide therapy led to prescription of potentially harmful medicines without differences in the primary outcomes, but at high costs and potential burden of unnecessary treatment changes and risks for patients,” noted Dr. Smolen and his coauthor in the editorial.
The report that this editorial addressed (JAMA. 2019 Feb 5;321[5]:461-72) also provided some of the most recent evidence for the second omission from the new revision that Dr. Smolen called out: No change to the recommendation to use methotrexate as initial treatment for any RA patient. “We continue to say that methotrexate is the first treatment strategy. There is no new evidence that any biological treatment is better than methotrexate, so there is no change,” said Dr. Smolen, professor of medicine at the Medical University of Vienna, who also led the EULAR writing panel for the immediately preceding set of RA treatment recommendations first unveiled 3 years before (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017 Jun;76[6]:960-77).
Perhaps the most notable changes to the recommendations are the way they handle targeted-synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (tsDMARDs), a class that currently is synonymous with the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. “Because of new evidence we have lifted up the tsDMARDs” so that no preference is given to biologic DMARDs over the ts class as happened in the 2016 version, Dr. Smolen said. Another revision to this recommendation was to change the addition of either a biologic or tsDMARD to a patient not fully responsive to a conventional-synthetic (cs) DMARD and with poor prognostic factors from a “should be considered” to a “should be added” recommendation.
Another way in which the pending revision uplifted tsDMARDs was in the wording for the recommendation that deals with patients who do not respond to a first tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor plus methotrexate or another csDMARD, and now lists as the first option switching to a biologic or tsDMARD with a different mode of action followed by a different TNF inhibitor, a reversal of order from before when a different TNF inhibitor got first mention. This order change was a modest revision that reflected observational evidence that was modestly persuasive that switching to an agent with a different mechanism of action is often the most effective approach, Dr. Smolen said.
The new recommendations also reaffirmed the eleventh recommendation from the 2016 version, which called for tapering of the biologic or tsDMARD from a patient in remission while retaining the csDMARD, usually methotrexate. Dr. Smolen cited new evidence in favor of this approach (Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Jun;78[6]:746-53), which allowed the writing panel to upgrade the evidence supporting this recommendation to the A level. The concept of tapering down the biologic or tsDMARD for a patient in sustained remission while maintaining the csDMARD was “fully confirmed” in a recent report, he added. The writing panel also upticked its rating of the evidence in favor of cautiously tapering the csDMARD in patients who maintain remission on just a csDMARD.
One final element in the pending revision called out a newly identified safety signal, an increased risk for venous thromboembolism among patients on certain high dosages of JAK inhibitors, especially in patients with increased risk for venous thromboembolism. This new safety concern adds to the already-described increased risk for herpes zoster from JAK inhibitors, especially in Japanese and Korean populations, Dr. Smolen said. In general, more long-term safety data for JAK inhibitors are needed.
The draft update also added one new overarching principle: “Patients require access to multiple drugs with different modes of action to address the heterogeneity of RA, and patients may require multiple, successive treatments throughout life.” Overall, pending changes to the RA recommendations were limited because “the EULAR recommendations have achieved a steady state of the art” for defining whom to treat, treatment targets, and appropriate treatment strategies, Dr. Smolen said.
Dr. Smolen had been a consultant to or a speaker on behalf of several drug companies.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM EULAR 2019 CONGRESS
Efforts toward producing CNO/CRMO classification criteria show first results
MADRID – according to recent findings from international surveys of pediatric rheumatologists that were presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
Melissa Oliver, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Riley Hospital for Children, Indianapolis, and colleagues recently undertook the multiphase study as part of an international collaborative effort led by the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance to establish consensus-based diagnostic and classification criteria for CNO, an autoinflammatory bone disease of unknown cause that primarily affects children and adolescents. CNO is also known as chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis (CRMO). If this disease is not diagnosed and treated appropriately in a timely fashion, damage and long-term disability is possible. In the absence of widely accepted, consensus-driven criteria, treatment is based largely on expert opinion, Dr. Oliver explained in an interview.
“There is an urgent need for a new and more robust set of classification criteria for CRMO, based on large expert consensus and the analysis of a large sample of patients and controls,” she said.
There are two proposed diagnostic criteria, the 2007 classification of nonbacterial osteitis and the 2016 Bristol diagnostic criteria for CRMO, but both are derived from single-center cohort studies and have not been validated, Dr. Oliver explained.
The list of candidate items that have come out of the study is moving clinicians a step closer toward the design of a practical patient data collection form that appropriately weighs each item included in the classification criteria.
The study employed anonymous survey and nominal group techniques with the goal of developing a set of classification criteria sensitive and specific enough to identify CRMO/CNO patients. In phase 1, a Delphi survey was administered among international rheumatologists to generate candidate criteria items. Phase 2 sought to reduce candidate criteria items through consensus processes via input from physicians managing CNO and patients or caregivers of children with CNO.
Altogether, 259 of 865 pediatric rheumatologists (30%) completed an online questionnaire addressing features key to the classification of CNO, including 77 who practice in Europe (30%), 132 in North America (51%), and 50 on other continents (19%). Of these, 138 (53%) had greater than 10 years of clinical practice experience, and 108 (42%) had managed more than 10 CNO patients.
Initially, Dr. Oliver and colleagues identified 33 candidate criteria items that fell into six domains: clinical presentation, physical exam, laboratory findings, imaging findings, bone biopsy, and treatment response. The top eight weighted items that increased the likelihood of CNO/CRMO were exclusion of malignancy by bone biopsy; multifocal bone lesions; presence of bone pain, swelling, and/or warmth; signs of fibrosis and/or inflammation on bone biopsy; typical location of CNO/CRMO lesion, such as the clavicle, metaphysis of long bones, the mandible, and vertebrae; presence of CNO/CRMO–related comorbidities; normal C-reactive protein (CRP) or erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR); and typical MRI findings of CNO/CRMO.
By phase 2, candidate items, which were presented to 39 rheumatologists and 7 parents, were refined or eliminated using item-reduction techniques. A second survey was issued to 77 of 82 members of a work group so that the remaining items could be ranked by their power of distinguishing CNO from conditions that merely mimicked the disease. The greatest mean discriminatory scores were identified with multifocal lesions (ruling out malignancy and infection) and typical location on imaging. Normal C-reactive protein and/or an erythrocyte sedimentation rate more than three times the upper limit of normal had the greatest negative mean discriminatory scores.
The next steps will be to form an expert panel who will use 1000minds software to determine the final criteria and identify a threshold for disease. The investigators hope to build a large multinational case repository of at least 500 patients with CNO/CRMO and 500 patients with mimicking conditions from which to derive a development cohort and an external validation cohort. So far, 10 sites, including 4 in Europe, have obtained approval from an institutional review board. The group has also submitted a proposal for classification criteria to the American College of Rheumatology and the European League Against Rheumatism, Dr. Oliver said.
Dr. Oliver had no disclosures to report, but several coauthors reported financial ties to industry.
SOURCE: Oliver M et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):254-5, Abstract OP0342. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.1539.
MADRID – according to recent findings from international surveys of pediatric rheumatologists that were presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
Melissa Oliver, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Riley Hospital for Children, Indianapolis, and colleagues recently undertook the multiphase study as part of an international collaborative effort led by the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance to establish consensus-based diagnostic and classification criteria for CNO, an autoinflammatory bone disease of unknown cause that primarily affects children and adolescents. CNO is also known as chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis (CRMO). If this disease is not diagnosed and treated appropriately in a timely fashion, damage and long-term disability is possible. In the absence of widely accepted, consensus-driven criteria, treatment is based largely on expert opinion, Dr. Oliver explained in an interview.
“There is an urgent need for a new and more robust set of classification criteria for CRMO, based on large expert consensus and the analysis of a large sample of patients and controls,” she said.
There are two proposed diagnostic criteria, the 2007 classification of nonbacterial osteitis and the 2016 Bristol diagnostic criteria for CRMO, but both are derived from single-center cohort studies and have not been validated, Dr. Oliver explained.
The list of candidate items that have come out of the study is moving clinicians a step closer toward the design of a practical patient data collection form that appropriately weighs each item included in the classification criteria.
The study employed anonymous survey and nominal group techniques with the goal of developing a set of classification criteria sensitive and specific enough to identify CRMO/CNO patients. In phase 1, a Delphi survey was administered among international rheumatologists to generate candidate criteria items. Phase 2 sought to reduce candidate criteria items through consensus processes via input from physicians managing CNO and patients or caregivers of children with CNO.
Altogether, 259 of 865 pediatric rheumatologists (30%) completed an online questionnaire addressing features key to the classification of CNO, including 77 who practice in Europe (30%), 132 in North America (51%), and 50 on other continents (19%). Of these, 138 (53%) had greater than 10 years of clinical practice experience, and 108 (42%) had managed more than 10 CNO patients.
Initially, Dr. Oliver and colleagues identified 33 candidate criteria items that fell into six domains: clinical presentation, physical exam, laboratory findings, imaging findings, bone biopsy, and treatment response. The top eight weighted items that increased the likelihood of CNO/CRMO were exclusion of malignancy by bone biopsy; multifocal bone lesions; presence of bone pain, swelling, and/or warmth; signs of fibrosis and/or inflammation on bone biopsy; typical location of CNO/CRMO lesion, such as the clavicle, metaphysis of long bones, the mandible, and vertebrae; presence of CNO/CRMO–related comorbidities; normal C-reactive protein (CRP) or erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR); and typical MRI findings of CNO/CRMO.
By phase 2, candidate items, which were presented to 39 rheumatologists and 7 parents, were refined or eliminated using item-reduction techniques. A second survey was issued to 77 of 82 members of a work group so that the remaining items could be ranked by their power of distinguishing CNO from conditions that merely mimicked the disease. The greatest mean discriminatory scores were identified with multifocal lesions (ruling out malignancy and infection) and typical location on imaging. Normal C-reactive protein and/or an erythrocyte sedimentation rate more than three times the upper limit of normal had the greatest negative mean discriminatory scores.
The next steps will be to form an expert panel who will use 1000minds software to determine the final criteria and identify a threshold for disease. The investigators hope to build a large multinational case repository of at least 500 patients with CNO/CRMO and 500 patients with mimicking conditions from which to derive a development cohort and an external validation cohort. So far, 10 sites, including 4 in Europe, have obtained approval from an institutional review board. The group has also submitted a proposal for classification criteria to the American College of Rheumatology and the European League Against Rheumatism, Dr. Oliver said.
Dr. Oliver had no disclosures to report, but several coauthors reported financial ties to industry.
SOURCE: Oliver M et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):254-5, Abstract OP0342. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.1539.
MADRID – according to recent findings from international surveys of pediatric rheumatologists that were presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
Melissa Oliver, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Riley Hospital for Children, Indianapolis, and colleagues recently undertook the multiphase study as part of an international collaborative effort led by the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance to establish consensus-based diagnostic and classification criteria for CNO, an autoinflammatory bone disease of unknown cause that primarily affects children and adolescents. CNO is also known as chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis (CRMO). If this disease is not diagnosed and treated appropriately in a timely fashion, damage and long-term disability is possible. In the absence of widely accepted, consensus-driven criteria, treatment is based largely on expert opinion, Dr. Oliver explained in an interview.
“There is an urgent need for a new and more robust set of classification criteria for CRMO, based on large expert consensus and the analysis of a large sample of patients and controls,” she said.
There are two proposed diagnostic criteria, the 2007 classification of nonbacterial osteitis and the 2016 Bristol diagnostic criteria for CRMO, but both are derived from single-center cohort studies and have not been validated, Dr. Oliver explained.
The list of candidate items that have come out of the study is moving clinicians a step closer toward the design of a practical patient data collection form that appropriately weighs each item included in the classification criteria.
The study employed anonymous survey and nominal group techniques with the goal of developing a set of classification criteria sensitive and specific enough to identify CRMO/CNO patients. In phase 1, a Delphi survey was administered among international rheumatologists to generate candidate criteria items. Phase 2 sought to reduce candidate criteria items through consensus processes via input from physicians managing CNO and patients or caregivers of children with CNO.
Altogether, 259 of 865 pediatric rheumatologists (30%) completed an online questionnaire addressing features key to the classification of CNO, including 77 who practice in Europe (30%), 132 in North America (51%), and 50 on other continents (19%). Of these, 138 (53%) had greater than 10 years of clinical practice experience, and 108 (42%) had managed more than 10 CNO patients.
Initially, Dr. Oliver and colleagues identified 33 candidate criteria items that fell into six domains: clinical presentation, physical exam, laboratory findings, imaging findings, bone biopsy, and treatment response. The top eight weighted items that increased the likelihood of CNO/CRMO were exclusion of malignancy by bone biopsy; multifocal bone lesions; presence of bone pain, swelling, and/or warmth; signs of fibrosis and/or inflammation on bone biopsy; typical location of CNO/CRMO lesion, such as the clavicle, metaphysis of long bones, the mandible, and vertebrae; presence of CNO/CRMO–related comorbidities; normal C-reactive protein (CRP) or erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR); and typical MRI findings of CNO/CRMO.
By phase 2, candidate items, which were presented to 39 rheumatologists and 7 parents, were refined or eliminated using item-reduction techniques. A second survey was issued to 77 of 82 members of a work group so that the remaining items could be ranked by their power of distinguishing CNO from conditions that merely mimicked the disease. The greatest mean discriminatory scores were identified with multifocal lesions (ruling out malignancy and infection) and typical location on imaging. Normal C-reactive protein and/or an erythrocyte sedimentation rate more than three times the upper limit of normal had the greatest negative mean discriminatory scores.
The next steps will be to form an expert panel who will use 1000minds software to determine the final criteria and identify a threshold for disease. The investigators hope to build a large multinational case repository of at least 500 patients with CNO/CRMO and 500 patients with mimicking conditions from which to derive a development cohort and an external validation cohort. So far, 10 sites, including 4 in Europe, have obtained approval from an institutional review board. The group has also submitted a proposal for classification criteria to the American College of Rheumatology and the European League Against Rheumatism, Dr. Oliver said.
Dr. Oliver had no disclosures to report, but several coauthors reported financial ties to industry.
SOURCE: Oliver M et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):254-5, Abstract OP0342. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.1539.
REPORTING FROM EULAR 2019 CONGRESS
