TBD Meeting (3521-19)

MADRID – Results from an ongoing study of postmenopausal women who discontinue osteoporosis treatment with denosumab (Prolia) so far support the use of denosumab as a second-line therapy after a bisphosphonate, unless otherwise indicated, in order to reduce the loss of bone mineral density (BMD) after its discontinuation and also to support treatment to reduce bone turnover biomarkers as much as possible after stopping denosumab.

“We saw in our study that, even if you give bisphosphonates after denosumab discontinuation, [patients] could lose bone, and the group that controlled the loss of bone had very high control of bone turnover markers,” study author and presenter Bérengère Rozier Aubry, MD, said in an interview at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

She and her colleagues at the Center of Bone Diseases at Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital are conducting the ReoLaus (Rebound Effect Observatory in Lausanne) Bone Project to determine whether giving a bisphosphonate to postmenopausal women with osteoporosis after they have discontinued denosumab can stop the loss of bone mineral density (BMD) observed in many patients up to 2 years after stopping denosumab. This postdenosumab BMD loss has also been observed to occur with multiple spontaneous vertebral fractures.

Nearly half of patients who start denosumab discontinue it within 1 year, and 64% by 2 years, according to U.S. administrative claims data (Osteoporos Int. 2017 Apr. doi: 10.1007/s00198-016-3886-y), even though it can be taken for up to 10 years. The discontinuation is either because the patient wishes to do so or there’s a medical indication such as stopping aromatase inhibitor treatment, resolution of osteoporosis, or side effects, Dr. Rozier Aubry said in a press conference at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

Upon discontinuing denosumab, there’s a marked rebound effect in which levels of bone turnover markers rise for 2 years, and some or all of the BMD that was gained is lost (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011 Apr. doi: 10.1210/jc.2010-1502). Multiple spontaneous vertebral fractures also have been reported in 5%-7%, as Dr. Rozier Aubry and colleagues first described in 2016 (Osteoporos Int. 2016 May. doi: 10.1007/s00198-015-3380-y) and others have reported subsequently.

Recommendations from the Endocrine Society in March 2019, a 2017 position statement from the European Calcified Tissue Society, and guidelines from other groups advise giving antiresorptive treatment (bisphosphonates, hormone therapy, or selective estrogen-receptor modulators) but do not say which one, in what dose, when, or for how long, Dr. Rozier Aubry noted.

Treatment with zoledronate 6 months after the last denosumab injection achieves partial preservation of BMD, but multiple vertebral fractures have still been reported when raloxifene, ibandronate, or alendronate have been given after stopping denosumab, she said.

In the ReoLaus Bone Project, Dr. Rozier Aubry and associates are following 170 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at Lausanne University Hospital who are taking denosumab therapy. At the congress, she reported on the first 71 women in the cohort with 1 year of follow-up. They had a mean age of 64 years, had fewer than one prevalent fracture before starting denosumab, and stopped denosumab after a mean of 7.7 injections. Overall, 8% took glucocorticoids, and 22% took aromatase inhibitors.

The investigators collected data on what treatment was used after denosumab, how bone turnover markers changed 1-3 months after the last denosumab injection and then regularly afterward, how bone mineral density changed after 1 year, and any new osteoporotic fractures.

At the time of denosumab discontinuation, 59% received zoledronate, 24% alendronate, 3% other drugs, and 14% nothing. At a mean of about 17 months after the last denosumab injection, the investigators classified 30 patients as BMD losers (losing at least 3.96%), and 41 had stable BMD. The researchers found that BMD losers were younger (61.4 years vs. 65.5 years), were less likely to use zoledronate before starting denosumab (0% vs. 12%), and had greater serum CTX (C-telopeptide cross-linked type 1 collagen) levels at denosumab initiation (644 ng/mL vs. 474 ng/mL) and 12.8 months after stopping denosumab (592 ng/mL vs. 336 ng/mL) than did those with stable BMD. All differences were statistically significant.

“Our results support the use of denosumab in second line after bisphosphonate therapy to restrain the BMD loss at its discontinuation ... and a strategy to maintain the bone turnover marker serum CTX as low as possible after denosumab discontinuation,” she concluded.

“Our proposition is to start with 1 or 2 years of bisphosphonates, and if the osteoporosis is severe, to switch to denosumab treatment for 4, 6 years. … We can use denosumab for 10 years without side effects, and after that we give bisphosphonates to consolidate the treatment,” she said.

Dr. Rozier Aubry and her associates plan to follow patients in their study for 2 years.

Dr. Rozier Aubry disclosed serving on speakers bureaus for Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen, and Novartis.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Rozier Aubry B et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):115; Abstract OP0085. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.4175.

MADRID – Results from an ongoing study of postmenopausal women who discontinue osteoporosis treatment with denosumab (Prolia) so far support the use of denosumab as a second-line therapy after a bisphosphonate, unless otherwise indicated, in order to reduce the loss of bone mineral density (BMD) after its discontinuation and also to support treatment to reduce bone turnover biomarkers as much as possible after stopping denosumab.

“We saw in our study that, even if you give bisphosphonates after denosumab discontinuation, [patients] could lose bone, and the group that controlled the loss of bone had very high control of bone turnover markers,” study author and presenter Bérengère Rozier Aubry, MD, said in an interview at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

She and her colleagues at the Center of Bone Diseases at Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital are conducting the ReoLaus (Rebound Effect Observatory in Lausanne) Bone Project to determine whether giving a bisphosphonate to postmenopausal women with osteoporosis after they have discontinued denosumab can stop the loss of bone mineral density (BMD) observed in many patients up to 2 years after stopping denosumab. This postdenosumab BMD loss has also been observed to occur with multiple spontaneous vertebral fractures.

Nearly half of patients who start denosumab discontinue it within 1 year, and 64% by 2 years, according to U.S. administrative claims data (Osteoporos Int. 2017 Apr. doi: 10.1007/s00198-016-3886-y), even though it can be taken for up to 10 years. The discontinuation is either because the patient wishes to do so or there’s a medical indication such as stopping aromatase inhibitor treatment, resolution of osteoporosis, or side effects, Dr. Rozier Aubry said in a press conference at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

Upon discontinuing denosumab, there’s a marked rebound effect in which levels of bone turnover markers rise for 2 years, and some or all of the BMD that was gained is lost (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011 Apr. doi: 10.1210/jc.2010-1502). Multiple spontaneous vertebral fractures also have been reported in 5%-7%, as Dr. Rozier Aubry and colleagues first described in 2016 (Osteoporos Int. 2016 May. doi: 10.1007/s00198-015-3380-y) and others have reported subsequently.

Recommendations from the Endocrine Society in March 2019, a 2017 position statement from the European Calcified Tissue Society, and guidelines from other groups advise giving antiresorptive treatment (bisphosphonates, hormone therapy, or selective estrogen-receptor modulators) but do not say which one, in what dose, when, or for how long, Dr. Rozier Aubry noted.

Treatment with zoledronate 6 months after the last denosumab injection achieves partial preservation of BMD, but multiple vertebral fractures have still been reported when raloxifene, ibandronate, or alendronate have been given after stopping denosumab, she said.

In the ReoLaus Bone Project, Dr. Rozier Aubry and associates are following 170 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at Lausanne University Hospital who are taking denosumab therapy. At the congress, she reported on the first 71 women in the cohort with 1 year of follow-up. They had a mean age of 64 years, had fewer than one prevalent fracture before starting denosumab, and stopped denosumab after a mean of 7.7 injections. Overall, 8% took glucocorticoids, and 22% took aromatase inhibitors.

The investigators collected data on what treatment was used after denosumab, how bone turnover markers changed 1-3 months after the last denosumab injection and then regularly afterward, how bone mineral density changed after 1 year, and any new osteoporotic fractures.

At the time of denosumab discontinuation, 59% received zoledronate, 24% alendronate, 3% other drugs, and 14% nothing. At a mean of about 17 months after the last denosumab injection, the investigators classified 30 patients as BMD losers (losing at least 3.96%), and 41 had stable BMD. The researchers found that BMD losers were younger (61.4 years vs. 65.5 years), were less likely to use zoledronate before starting denosumab (0% vs. 12%), and had greater serum CTX (C-telopeptide cross-linked type 1 collagen) levels at denosumab initiation (644 ng/mL vs. 474 ng/mL) and 12.8 months after stopping denosumab (592 ng/mL vs. 336 ng/mL) than did those with stable BMD. All differences were statistically significant.

“Our results support the use of denosumab in second line after bisphosphonate therapy to restrain the BMD loss at its discontinuation ... and a strategy to maintain the bone turnover marker serum CTX as low as possible after denosumab discontinuation,” she concluded.

“Our proposition is to start with 1 or 2 years of bisphosphonates, and if the osteoporosis is severe, to switch to denosumab treatment for 4, 6 years. … We can use denosumab for 10 years without side effects, and after that we give bisphosphonates to consolidate the treatment,” she said.

Dr. Rozier Aubry and her associates plan to follow patients in their study for 2 years.

Dr. Rozier Aubry disclosed serving on speakers bureaus for Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen, and Novartis.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Rozier Aubry B et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):115; Abstract OP0085. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.4175.

MADRID – Results from an ongoing study of postmenopausal women who discontinue osteoporosis treatment with denosumab (Prolia) so far support the use of denosumab as a second-line therapy after a bisphosphonate, unless otherwise indicated, in order to reduce the loss of bone mineral density (BMD) after its discontinuation and also to support treatment to reduce bone turnover biomarkers as much as possible after stopping denosumab.

“We saw in our study that, even if you give bisphosphonates after denosumab discontinuation, [patients] could lose bone, and the group that controlled the loss of bone had very high control of bone turnover markers,” study author and presenter Bérengère Rozier Aubry, MD, said in an interview at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

She and her colleagues at the Center of Bone Diseases at Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital are conducting the ReoLaus (Rebound Effect Observatory in Lausanne) Bone Project to determine whether giving a bisphosphonate to postmenopausal women with osteoporosis after they have discontinued denosumab can stop the loss of bone mineral density (BMD) observed in many patients up to 2 years after stopping denosumab. This postdenosumab BMD loss has also been observed to occur with multiple spontaneous vertebral fractures.

Nearly half of patients who start denosumab discontinue it within 1 year, and 64% by 2 years, according to U.S. administrative claims data (Osteoporos Int. 2017 Apr. doi: 10.1007/s00198-016-3886-y), even though it can be taken for up to 10 years. The discontinuation is either because the patient wishes to do so or there’s a medical indication such as stopping aromatase inhibitor treatment, resolution of osteoporosis, or side effects, Dr. Rozier Aubry said in a press conference at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

Upon discontinuing denosumab, there’s a marked rebound effect in which levels of bone turnover markers rise for 2 years, and some or all of the BMD that was gained is lost (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011 Apr. doi: 10.1210/jc.2010-1502). Multiple spontaneous vertebral fractures also have been reported in 5%-7%, as Dr. Rozier Aubry and colleagues first described in 2016 (Osteoporos Int. 2016 May. doi: 10.1007/s00198-015-3380-y) and others have reported subsequently.

Recommendations from the Endocrine Society in March 2019, a 2017 position statement from the European Calcified Tissue Society, and guidelines from other groups advise giving antiresorptive treatment (bisphosphonates, hormone therapy, or selective estrogen-receptor modulators) but do not say which one, in what dose, when, or for how long, Dr. Rozier Aubry noted.

Treatment with zoledronate 6 months after the last denosumab injection achieves partial preservation of BMD, but multiple vertebral fractures have still been reported when raloxifene, ibandronate, or alendronate have been given after stopping denosumab, she said.

In the ReoLaus Bone Project, Dr. Rozier Aubry and associates are following 170 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at Lausanne University Hospital who are taking denosumab therapy. At the congress, she reported on the first 71 women in the cohort with 1 year of follow-up. They had a mean age of 64 years, had fewer than one prevalent fracture before starting denosumab, and stopped denosumab after a mean of 7.7 injections. Overall, 8% took glucocorticoids, and 22% took aromatase inhibitors.

The investigators collected data on what treatment was used after denosumab, how bone turnover markers changed 1-3 months after the last denosumab injection and then regularly afterward, how bone mineral density changed after 1 year, and any new osteoporotic fractures.

At the time of denosumab discontinuation, 59% received zoledronate, 24% alendronate, 3% other drugs, and 14% nothing. At a mean of about 17 months after the last denosumab injection, the investigators classified 30 patients as BMD losers (losing at least 3.96%), and 41 had stable BMD. The researchers found that BMD losers were younger (61.4 years vs. 65.5 years), were less likely to use zoledronate before starting denosumab (0% vs. 12%), and had greater serum CTX (C-telopeptide cross-linked type 1 collagen) levels at denosumab initiation (644 ng/mL vs. 474 ng/mL) and 12.8 months after stopping denosumab (592 ng/mL vs. 336 ng/mL) than did those with stable BMD. All differences were statistically significant.

“Our results support the use of denosumab in second line after bisphosphonate therapy to restrain the BMD loss at its discontinuation ... and a strategy to maintain the bone turnover marker serum CTX as low as possible after denosumab discontinuation,” she concluded.

“Our proposition is to start with 1 or 2 years of bisphosphonates, and if the osteoporosis is severe, to switch to denosumab treatment for 4, 6 years. … We can use denosumab for 10 years without side effects, and after that we give bisphosphonates to consolidate the treatment,” she said.

Dr. Rozier Aubry and her associates plan to follow patients in their study for 2 years.

Dr. Rozier Aubry disclosed serving on speakers bureaus for Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen, and Novartis.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Rozier Aubry B et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):115; Abstract OP0085. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.4175.

MADRID – The first consensus recommendations for the identification and management of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) place particular emphasis on routine screening in all systemic sclerosis patients for early detection, monitoring, and, when warranted, treatment, Anna-Maria Hoffmann-Vold, MD, PhD, reported at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

“Everyone with systemic sclerosis needs to be screened because this is the most important risk factor for ILD,” said Dr. Hoffmann-Vold, a clinical scientist in the division of rheumatology at the University of Oslo and head of scleroderma research at Oslo University Hospital.

Although the frequency of screening is not specified based on the opinion that this should be based on risk factors and other clinical characteristics, there was unanimous agreement that lung function tests do not represent an adequate screening tool or method for assessing ILD severity. Rather, the recommendations make clear that lung function studies are adjunctive to high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT).

“HRCT is the primary tool for evaluating ILD, but there was 100% agreement that assessment should include more than one measure, including lung function tests and clinical assessment,” Dr. Hoffmann-Vold reported.

There was a strong opinion that the numerous potential biomarkers described for ILD, although promising, are not yet ready for clinical use.

In developing these new recommendations, 95 potential statements were considered by the panel of 27 rheumatologists, pulmonologists, and others with experience in this field. A Delphi process was used for members of the panel to identify areas of agreement to produce consensus statements.

The result has been more than 50 statements issued in six major domains. These include statements on risk factors, appropriate methodology for diagnosis and severity assessment, when to initiate therapy, and when and how to initiate treatment escalation.

“We want to increase clinician awareness and provide standardized guidance for evaluating patients for the presence and medical management of ILD-SSc,” Dr. Hoffmann-Vold explained.

ILD occurs in about half of all patients with systemic sclerosis. Among these, approximately one out of three will experience lung disease progression. Although these high prevalence rates are well recognized and associated with high morbidity and mortality, Dr. Hoffmann-Vold said that there has been uncertainty about how to screen systemic sclerosis patients for ILD and what steps to take when it was found. It is this uncertainty that prompted the present initiative.

The consensus recommendations are an initial step to guide clinicians, but Dr. Hoffmann-Vold noted that the many statements are based on expert opinion, suggesting more studies are needed to compare strategies for objective severity grading and prediction of which patients are most at risk for ILD progression.

“There are still huge knowledge gaps we need to fill,” she stated. Still, she believes these recommendations represent progress in this field. While they are likely “to increase the standard of care” for those who develop ILD-SSc, they also have identified where to concentrate further research.

Dr. Hoffmann-Vold reported financial relationships with Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, and GlaxoSmithKline.

SOURCE: Hoffmann-Vold A-M et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):104, Abstract OPO064, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.3225.

MADRID – The first consensus recommendations for the identification and management of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) place particular emphasis on routine screening in all systemic sclerosis patients for early detection, monitoring, and, when warranted, treatment, Anna-Maria Hoffmann-Vold, MD, PhD, reported at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

“Everyone with systemic sclerosis needs to be screened because this is the most important risk factor for ILD,” said Dr. Hoffmann-Vold, a clinical scientist in the division of rheumatology at the University of Oslo and head of scleroderma research at Oslo University Hospital.

Although the frequency of screening is not specified based on the opinion that this should be based on risk factors and other clinical characteristics, there was unanimous agreement that lung function tests do not represent an adequate screening tool or method for assessing ILD severity. Rather, the recommendations make clear that lung function studies are adjunctive to high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT).

“HRCT is the primary tool for evaluating ILD, but there was 100% agreement that assessment should include more than one measure, including lung function tests and clinical assessment,” Dr. Hoffmann-Vold reported.

There was a strong opinion that the numerous potential biomarkers described for ILD, although promising, are not yet ready for clinical use.

In developing these new recommendations, 95 potential statements were considered by the panel of 27 rheumatologists, pulmonologists, and others with experience in this field. A Delphi process was used for members of the panel to identify areas of agreement to produce consensus statements.

The result has been more than 50 statements issued in six major domains. These include statements on risk factors, appropriate methodology for diagnosis and severity assessment, when to initiate therapy, and when and how to initiate treatment escalation.

“We want to increase clinician awareness and provide standardized guidance for evaluating patients for the presence and medical management of ILD-SSc,” Dr. Hoffmann-Vold explained.

ILD occurs in about half of all patients with systemic sclerosis. Among these, approximately one out of three will experience lung disease progression. Although these high prevalence rates are well recognized and associated with high morbidity and mortality, Dr. Hoffmann-Vold said that there has been uncertainty about how to screen systemic sclerosis patients for ILD and what steps to take when it was found. It is this uncertainty that prompted the present initiative.

The consensus recommendations are an initial step to guide clinicians, but Dr. Hoffmann-Vold noted that the many statements are based on expert opinion, suggesting more studies are needed to compare strategies for objective severity grading and prediction of which patients are most at risk for ILD progression.

“There are still huge knowledge gaps we need to fill,” she stated. Still, she believes these recommendations represent progress in this field. While they are likely “to increase the standard of care” for those who develop ILD-SSc, they also have identified where to concentrate further research.

Dr. Hoffmann-Vold reported financial relationships with Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, and GlaxoSmithKline.

SOURCE: Hoffmann-Vold A-M et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):104, Abstract OPO064, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.3225.

MADRID – The first consensus recommendations for the identification and management of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) place particular emphasis on routine screening in all systemic sclerosis patients for early detection, monitoring, and, when warranted, treatment, Anna-Maria Hoffmann-Vold, MD, PhD, reported at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

“Everyone with systemic sclerosis needs to be screened because this is the most important risk factor for ILD,” said Dr. Hoffmann-Vold, a clinical scientist in the division of rheumatology at the University of Oslo and head of scleroderma research at Oslo University Hospital.

Although the frequency of screening is not specified based on the opinion that this should be based on risk factors and other clinical characteristics, there was unanimous agreement that lung function tests do not represent an adequate screening tool or method for assessing ILD severity. Rather, the recommendations make clear that lung function studies are adjunctive to high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT).

“HRCT is the primary tool for evaluating ILD, but there was 100% agreement that assessment should include more than one measure, including lung function tests and clinical assessment,” Dr. Hoffmann-Vold reported.

There was a strong opinion that the numerous potential biomarkers described for ILD, although promising, are not yet ready for clinical use.

In developing these new recommendations, 95 potential statements were considered by the panel of 27 rheumatologists, pulmonologists, and others with experience in this field. A Delphi process was used for members of the panel to identify areas of agreement to produce consensus statements.

The result has been more than 50 statements issued in six major domains. These include statements on risk factors, appropriate methodology for diagnosis and severity assessment, when to initiate therapy, and when and how to initiate treatment escalation.

“We want to increase clinician awareness and provide standardized guidance for evaluating patients for the presence and medical management of ILD-SSc,” Dr. Hoffmann-Vold explained.

ILD occurs in about half of all patients with systemic sclerosis. Among these, approximately one out of three will experience lung disease progression. Although these high prevalence rates are well recognized and associated with high morbidity and mortality, Dr. Hoffmann-Vold said that there has been uncertainty about how to screen systemic sclerosis patients for ILD and what steps to take when it was found. It is this uncertainty that prompted the present initiative.

The consensus recommendations are an initial step to guide clinicians, but Dr. Hoffmann-Vold noted that the many statements are based on expert opinion, suggesting more studies are needed to compare strategies for objective severity grading and prediction of which patients are most at risk for ILD progression.

“There are still huge knowledge gaps we need to fill,” she stated. Still, she believes these recommendations represent progress in this field. While they are likely “to increase the standard of care” for those who develop ILD-SSc, they also have identified where to concentrate further research.

Dr. Hoffmann-Vold reported financial relationships with Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, and GlaxoSmithKline.

SOURCE: Hoffmann-Vold A-M et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):104, Abstract OPO064, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.3225.

MADRID – The musculoskeletal complications of checkpoint inhibitors therapy are sometimes described as RA like, but a detailed analysis of a consecutive series of patients presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology produced the conclusion that the phenotypic expression is unique.

“These manifestations do not necessarily include synovial involvement, so their description as a rheumatoid arthritis–like presentation is not accurate. Rather, our findings suggest the pathology is something completely different and completely new,” said Alexandra Filippopoulou, MD, a rheumatology resident at the University of Patras (Greece).

This comment was based on a prospective study evaluating musculoskeletal complications in patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors over a recent 2-year period. Of the 130 consecutive patients who received a checkpoint inhibitor in the study period, 10 (7.7%) complained of joint pain and were determined to have an inflammatory complication.

The median time to development of musculoskeletal symptoms in this mostly male patient series was 2.5 months. The site of cancer was lung in four, bladder in three, kidney in two, and skin in one. Nivolumab (Opdivo) was the most common checkpoint inhibitor used, but others were represented.

MRI studies were conducted in 8 of the 10 patients. Overall, the MRI studies showed more myofascial than synovial involvement, but Dr. Filippopoulou described three distinct patterns.

In four patients, there was prominent periarticular involvement marked by diffuse swelling in the hands, feet, knees, or a combination of these joints. Synovitis, when observed, was mild, but myositis and fasciitis were common in adjacent tissues.

In three patients with a chief complaint of knee pain, myofasciitis was prominent in the surrounding muscles. Again, synovitis, when observed, was mild. It was unclear whether a partial tear of the quadriceps tendon observed in one patient was checkpoint inhibitor related.

In a third pattern, shared by three other patients, synovitis was prominent, but so was myositis in adjacent muscles. In two of these patients, the inflammatory activity was confined to the hands; in the third, both the knees and the ankle were also involved.


Regardless of these patterns of inflammation, “almost all of these patients continued to show good range of motion, which is not something that is commonly seen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Filippopoulou observed.

Overall, the joint pain tended to be mild to moderate. They all responded well to low-dose glucocorticoids or analgesics without need to discontinue the anticancer therapy, Dr. Filippopoulou reported.

Not least interesting of the findings, 50% of the patients with musculoskeletal adverse events had a favorable response to the checkpoint inhibitor therapy, compared with just 12.5% of patients without these complaints, a difference that reached statistical significance (P = .0016), according to Dr. Filippopoulou. This observation is consistent with a study published last year that also associated immune-related adverse events with a greater likelihood of an anticancer response (Ann Rheumatic Dis. 2018;77:393-8).

“This is an interesting finding, but the theory that musculoskeletal adverse events predict a better response to checkpoint inhibitor therapy needs to be proven,” she said.

A larger case series is needed to better characterize joint inflammation associated with checkpoint inhibitors, but Dr. Filippopoulou concluded from her series that these adverse events are not accurately described as RA like. Rather, the phenotypic expression appears to be unique, not fully resembling any other joint pathology.

Dr. Filippopoulou reported no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Filippopoulou A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78 (Suppl 2):251. Abstract OP0335. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.5029.

MADRID – The musculoskeletal complications of checkpoint inhibitors therapy are sometimes described as RA like, but a detailed analysis of a consecutive series of patients presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology produced the conclusion that the phenotypic expression is unique.

“These manifestations do not necessarily include synovial involvement, so their description as a rheumatoid arthritis–like presentation is not accurate. Rather, our findings suggest the pathology is something completely different and completely new,” said Alexandra Filippopoulou, MD, a rheumatology resident at the University of Patras (Greece).

This comment was based on a prospective study evaluating musculoskeletal complications in patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors over a recent 2-year period. Of the 130 consecutive patients who received a checkpoint inhibitor in the study period, 10 (7.7%) complained of joint pain and were determined to have an inflammatory complication.

The median time to development of musculoskeletal symptoms in this mostly male patient series was 2.5 months. The site of cancer was lung in four, bladder in three, kidney in two, and skin in one. Nivolumab (Opdivo) was the most common checkpoint inhibitor used, but others were represented.

MRI studies were conducted in 8 of the 10 patients. Overall, the MRI studies showed more myofascial than synovial involvement, but Dr. Filippopoulou described three distinct patterns.

In four patients, there was prominent periarticular involvement marked by diffuse swelling in the hands, feet, knees, or a combination of these joints. Synovitis, when observed, was mild, but myositis and fasciitis were common in adjacent tissues.

In three patients with a chief complaint of knee pain, myofasciitis was prominent in the surrounding muscles. Again, synovitis, when observed, was mild. It was unclear whether a partial tear of the quadriceps tendon observed in one patient was checkpoint inhibitor related.

In a third pattern, shared by three other patients, synovitis was prominent, but so was myositis in adjacent muscles. In two of these patients, the inflammatory activity was confined to the hands; in the third, both the knees and the ankle were also involved.


Regardless of these patterns of inflammation, “almost all of these patients continued to show good range of motion, which is not something that is commonly seen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Filippopoulou observed.

Overall, the joint pain tended to be mild to moderate. They all responded well to low-dose glucocorticoids or analgesics without need to discontinue the anticancer therapy, Dr. Filippopoulou reported.

Not least interesting of the findings, 50% of the patients with musculoskeletal adverse events had a favorable response to the checkpoint inhibitor therapy, compared with just 12.5% of patients without these complaints, a difference that reached statistical significance (P = .0016), according to Dr. Filippopoulou. This observation is consistent with a study published last year that also associated immune-related adverse events with a greater likelihood of an anticancer response (Ann Rheumatic Dis. 2018;77:393-8).

“This is an interesting finding, but the theory that musculoskeletal adverse events predict a better response to checkpoint inhibitor therapy needs to be proven,” she said.

A larger case series is needed to better characterize joint inflammation associated with checkpoint inhibitors, but Dr. Filippopoulou concluded from her series that these adverse events are not accurately described as RA like. Rather, the phenotypic expression appears to be unique, not fully resembling any other joint pathology.

Dr. Filippopoulou reported no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Filippopoulou A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78 (Suppl 2):251. Abstract OP0335. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.5029.

MADRID – The musculoskeletal complications of checkpoint inhibitors therapy are sometimes described as RA like, but a detailed analysis of a consecutive series of patients presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology produced the conclusion that the phenotypic expression is unique.

“These manifestations do not necessarily include synovial involvement, so their description as a rheumatoid arthritis–like presentation is not accurate. Rather, our findings suggest the pathology is something completely different and completely new,” said Alexandra Filippopoulou, MD, a rheumatology resident at the University of Patras (Greece).

This comment was based on a prospective study evaluating musculoskeletal complications in patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors over a recent 2-year period. Of the 130 consecutive patients who received a checkpoint inhibitor in the study period, 10 (7.7%) complained of joint pain and were determined to have an inflammatory complication.

The median time to development of musculoskeletal symptoms in this mostly male patient series was 2.5 months. The site of cancer was lung in four, bladder in three, kidney in two, and skin in one. Nivolumab (Opdivo) was the most common checkpoint inhibitor used, but others were represented.

MRI studies were conducted in 8 of the 10 patients. Overall, the MRI studies showed more myofascial than synovial involvement, but Dr. Filippopoulou described three distinct patterns.

In four patients, there was prominent periarticular involvement marked by diffuse swelling in the hands, feet, knees, or a combination of these joints. Synovitis, when observed, was mild, but myositis and fasciitis were common in adjacent tissues.

In three patients with a chief complaint of knee pain, myofasciitis was prominent in the surrounding muscles. Again, synovitis, when observed, was mild. It was unclear whether a partial tear of the quadriceps tendon observed in one patient was checkpoint inhibitor related.

In a third pattern, shared by three other patients, synovitis was prominent, but so was myositis in adjacent muscles. In two of these patients, the inflammatory activity was confined to the hands; in the third, both the knees and the ankle were also involved.


Regardless of these patterns of inflammation, “almost all of these patients continued to show good range of motion, which is not something that is commonly seen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Filippopoulou observed.

Overall, the joint pain tended to be mild to moderate. They all responded well to low-dose glucocorticoids or analgesics without need to discontinue the anticancer therapy, Dr. Filippopoulou reported.

Not least interesting of the findings, 50% of the patients with musculoskeletal adverse events had a favorable response to the checkpoint inhibitor therapy, compared with just 12.5% of patients without these complaints, a difference that reached statistical significance (P = .0016), according to Dr. Filippopoulou. This observation is consistent with a study published last year that also associated immune-related adverse events with a greater likelihood of an anticancer response (Ann Rheumatic Dis. 2018;77:393-8).

“This is an interesting finding, but the theory that musculoskeletal adverse events predict a better response to checkpoint inhibitor therapy needs to be proven,” she said.

A larger case series is needed to better characterize joint inflammation associated with checkpoint inhibitors, but Dr. Filippopoulou concluded from her series that these adverse events are not accurately described as RA like. Rather, the phenotypic expression appears to be unique, not fully resembling any other joint pathology.

Dr. Filippopoulou reported no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Filippopoulou A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78 (Suppl 2):251. Abstract OP0335. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.5029.

MADRID – The interleukin-17A inhibitor ixekizumab surpassed the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor adalimumab for treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis in a multicenter, randomized study with 566 enrolled patients, the first reported results from a head-to-head comparison for this disease of two different classes of biological drugs.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The results showed that a standard, 24-week regimen with each of these agents, both of which already have regulatory approval for treating psoriatic arthritis (PsA), led to achievement of the primary endpoint in 36% of patients treated with ixekizumab (Taltz) and 28% of patients treated with adalimumab (Humira), a statistically significant difference, Philip J. Mease, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

“Ixekizumab was superior to adalimumab for improving signs and symptoms of active PsA, as measured by simultaneous achievement of ACR50 [American College of Rheumatology] and PASI 100 [Psoriasis Area and Severity Index],” the study’s primary endpoint that combined a measure of joint disease activity with a measure of skin involvement, said Dr. Mease, a rheumatologist at Swedish Medical Center in Seattle.

This unconventional primary endpoint for testing drugs that treat PsA was called out during discussion of the report for having an inherent bias favoring ixekizumab by its inclusion of a skin outcome that received equal weight with an assessment tool that focused on joint responses. “This was a very unusual primary endpoint that favored ixekizumab,” Roy M. Fleischmann, MD, a Dallas rheumatologist, commented during the discussion.

Dr. Mease readily admitted that the study’s design stacked the deck in favor of ixekizumab, but he added that this decision reflected a desire by the researchers who ran the study to choose a primary endpoint that represented both of the prominent pathologies seen in patients with PsA.

The primary endpoint used in the study “looks at PsA more holistically,” Dr. Mease said in an interview. “It forced clinicians to look beyond just the joints,” in PsA patients. “That has been a limitation of prior PsA treatment assessments,” which until this study have uniformly used single primary outcomes that focus on joint responses, most commonly the ACR20 measure of joint disease activity.

The SPIRIT-H2H (A Study of Ixekizumab [LY2439821] Versus Adalimumab in Participants With Psoriatic Arthritis) study enrolled adults with active PsA who had never before received treatment with a biological drug. Enrolled patients had to have both active disease in their joints and active plaque psoriasis, with an inadequate response to at least one conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. The 566 patients randomized in the study averaged about 48 years old, a bit more than half were men, and patients averaged about 6 years with diagnosed PsA and about 15 years diagnosed with psoriasis. Just over two-thirds of the patients were on concurrent treatment with a conventional synthetic agent, most often methotrexate.

The two components of the primary endpoint each showed the anticipated result. Among the 269 patients treated with adalimumab for the full 24 weeks, 47% had an ACR50 response, as did 51% of the 262 patients who completed their full course of ixekizumab, a between-group difference that was not statistically significant. In contrast, the PASI 100 measure of complete skin resolution occurred in 47% of the adalimumab-treated patients and 60% of those on ixekizumab, a statistically significant difference.


Dr. Mease reported results for several other efficacy measures, and what was notable was statistically significant superiority for ixekizumab in a measure of entheses disease activity, the SPARCC [Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada] Enthesitis Index, which fell to zero in 57% of the ixekizumab patients and 45% of those on adalimumab. “It makes you wonder whether there is something special about interleukin-17 in enthesitis,” Dr. Mease said.

The safety results of the study were consistent with the known adverse effect profiles of both drugs.

The impact of these findings on practice remains to be seen, and will likely depend on both cost considerations as well as clinicians trying to tailor drug choices to individual patients. The relatively new drug, ixekizumab, is consequentially more expensive than the older adalimumab, which has had its price depressed by the recent introduction of a biosimilar agent as well as long-standing competition from multiple TNF inhibitors.

“I think in the United States insurers will continue to steer patients toward whichever drug is cheapest among the highly-effective options,” but this result should lead to more use of interleukin-17 inhibitors as second-line agents for PsA, and it might push some clinicians to prescribe it as the first-line treatment, Dr. Mease said. He was confident that the efficacy profile shown by ixekizumab in SPIRIT-H2H was likely a class effect. Economics aside, the impetus to prescribe ixekizumab or another interleukin-17 inhibitor will be greatest when a patient has more extensive skin involvement, while for patients with little or no skin symptoms clinicians will likely stick with the more established TNF inhibitors as the first drug class to prescribe for PsA.

SPIRIT-H2H was sponsored by Eli Lilly, the company that markets ixekizumab (Taltz). Dr. Mease has been a consultant to, speaker for, and received research funding from Eli Lilly and from several other companies. Dr. Fleischmann has been a consultant to and has received research funding from several companies including Eli Lilly.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mease PJ et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Jun. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8709.

MADRID – The interleukin-17A inhibitor ixekizumab surpassed the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor adalimumab for treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis in a multicenter, randomized study with 566 enrolled patients, the first reported results from a head-to-head comparison for this disease of two different classes of biological drugs.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The results showed that a standard, 24-week regimen with each of these agents, both of which already have regulatory approval for treating psoriatic arthritis (PsA), led to achievement of the primary endpoint in 36% of patients treated with ixekizumab (Taltz) and 28% of patients treated with adalimumab (Humira), a statistically significant difference, Philip J. Mease, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

“Ixekizumab was superior to adalimumab for improving signs and symptoms of active PsA, as measured by simultaneous achievement of ACR50 [American College of Rheumatology] and PASI 100 [Psoriasis Area and Severity Index],” the study’s primary endpoint that combined a measure of joint disease activity with a measure of skin involvement, said Dr. Mease, a rheumatologist at Swedish Medical Center in Seattle.

This unconventional primary endpoint for testing drugs that treat PsA was called out during discussion of the report for having an inherent bias favoring ixekizumab by its inclusion of a skin outcome that received equal weight with an assessment tool that focused on joint responses. “This was a very unusual primary endpoint that favored ixekizumab,” Roy M. Fleischmann, MD, a Dallas rheumatologist, commented during the discussion.

Dr. Mease readily admitted that the study’s design stacked the deck in favor of ixekizumab, but he added that this decision reflected a desire by the researchers who ran the study to choose a primary endpoint that represented both of the prominent pathologies seen in patients with PsA.

The primary endpoint used in the study “looks at PsA more holistically,” Dr. Mease said in an interview. “It forced clinicians to look beyond just the joints,” in PsA patients. “That has been a limitation of prior PsA treatment assessments,” which until this study have uniformly used single primary outcomes that focus on joint responses, most commonly the ACR20 measure of joint disease activity.

The SPIRIT-H2H (A Study of Ixekizumab [LY2439821] Versus Adalimumab in Participants With Psoriatic Arthritis) study enrolled adults with active PsA who had never before received treatment with a biological drug. Enrolled patients had to have both active disease in their joints and active plaque psoriasis, with an inadequate response to at least one conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. The 566 patients randomized in the study averaged about 48 years old, a bit more than half were men, and patients averaged about 6 years with diagnosed PsA and about 15 years diagnosed with psoriasis. Just over two-thirds of the patients were on concurrent treatment with a conventional synthetic agent, most often methotrexate.

The two components of the primary endpoint each showed the anticipated result. Among the 269 patients treated with adalimumab for the full 24 weeks, 47% had an ACR50 response, as did 51% of the 262 patients who completed their full course of ixekizumab, a between-group difference that was not statistically significant. In contrast, the PASI 100 measure of complete skin resolution occurred in 47% of the adalimumab-treated patients and 60% of those on ixekizumab, a statistically significant difference.


Dr. Mease reported results for several other efficacy measures, and what was notable was statistically significant superiority for ixekizumab in a measure of entheses disease activity, the SPARCC [Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada] Enthesitis Index, which fell to zero in 57% of the ixekizumab patients and 45% of those on adalimumab. “It makes you wonder whether there is something special about interleukin-17 in enthesitis,” Dr. Mease said.

The safety results of the study were consistent with the known adverse effect profiles of both drugs.

The impact of these findings on practice remains to be seen, and will likely depend on both cost considerations as well as clinicians trying to tailor drug choices to individual patients. The relatively new drug, ixekizumab, is consequentially more expensive than the older adalimumab, which has had its price depressed by the recent introduction of a biosimilar agent as well as long-standing competition from multiple TNF inhibitors.

“I think in the United States insurers will continue to steer patients toward whichever drug is cheapest among the highly-effective options,” but this result should lead to more use of interleukin-17 inhibitors as second-line agents for PsA, and it might push some clinicians to prescribe it as the first-line treatment, Dr. Mease said. He was confident that the efficacy profile shown by ixekizumab in SPIRIT-H2H was likely a class effect. Economics aside, the impetus to prescribe ixekizumab or another interleukin-17 inhibitor will be greatest when a patient has more extensive skin involvement, while for patients with little or no skin symptoms clinicians will likely stick with the more established TNF inhibitors as the first drug class to prescribe for PsA.

SPIRIT-H2H was sponsored by Eli Lilly, the company that markets ixekizumab (Taltz). Dr. Mease has been a consultant to, speaker for, and received research funding from Eli Lilly and from several other companies. Dr. Fleischmann has been a consultant to and has received research funding from several companies including Eli Lilly.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mease PJ et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Jun. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8709.

MADRID – The interleukin-17A inhibitor ixekizumab surpassed the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor adalimumab for treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis in a multicenter, randomized study with 566 enrolled patients, the first reported results from a head-to-head comparison for this disease of two different classes of biological drugs.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The results showed that a standard, 24-week regimen with each of these agents, both of which already have regulatory approval for treating psoriatic arthritis (PsA), led to achievement of the primary endpoint in 36% of patients treated with ixekizumab (Taltz) and 28% of patients treated with adalimumab (Humira), a statistically significant difference, Philip J. Mease, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

“Ixekizumab was superior to adalimumab for improving signs and symptoms of active PsA, as measured by simultaneous achievement of ACR50 [American College of Rheumatology] and PASI 100 [Psoriasis Area and Severity Index],” the study’s primary endpoint that combined a measure of joint disease activity with a measure of skin involvement, said Dr. Mease, a rheumatologist at Swedish Medical Center in Seattle.

This unconventional primary endpoint for testing drugs that treat PsA was called out during discussion of the report for having an inherent bias favoring ixekizumab by its inclusion of a skin outcome that received equal weight with an assessment tool that focused on joint responses. “This was a very unusual primary endpoint that favored ixekizumab,” Roy M. Fleischmann, MD, a Dallas rheumatologist, commented during the discussion.

Dr. Mease readily admitted that the study’s design stacked the deck in favor of ixekizumab, but he added that this decision reflected a desire by the researchers who ran the study to choose a primary endpoint that represented both of the prominent pathologies seen in patients with PsA.

The primary endpoint used in the study “looks at PsA more holistically,” Dr. Mease said in an interview. “It forced clinicians to look beyond just the joints,” in PsA patients. “That has been a limitation of prior PsA treatment assessments,” which until this study have uniformly used single primary outcomes that focus on joint responses, most commonly the ACR20 measure of joint disease activity.

The SPIRIT-H2H (A Study of Ixekizumab [LY2439821] Versus Adalimumab in Participants With Psoriatic Arthritis) study enrolled adults with active PsA who had never before received treatment with a biological drug. Enrolled patients had to have both active disease in their joints and active plaque psoriasis, with an inadequate response to at least one conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. The 566 patients randomized in the study averaged about 48 years old, a bit more than half were men, and patients averaged about 6 years with diagnosed PsA and about 15 years diagnosed with psoriasis. Just over two-thirds of the patients were on concurrent treatment with a conventional synthetic agent, most often methotrexate.

The two components of the primary endpoint each showed the anticipated result. Among the 269 patients treated with adalimumab for the full 24 weeks, 47% had an ACR50 response, as did 51% of the 262 patients who completed their full course of ixekizumab, a between-group difference that was not statistically significant. In contrast, the PASI 100 measure of complete skin resolution occurred in 47% of the adalimumab-treated patients and 60% of those on ixekizumab, a statistically significant difference.


Dr. Mease reported results for several other efficacy measures, and what was notable was statistically significant superiority for ixekizumab in a measure of entheses disease activity, the SPARCC [Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada] Enthesitis Index, which fell to zero in 57% of the ixekizumab patients and 45% of those on adalimumab. “It makes you wonder whether there is something special about interleukin-17 in enthesitis,” Dr. Mease said.

The safety results of the study were consistent with the known adverse effect profiles of both drugs.

The impact of these findings on practice remains to be seen, and will likely depend on both cost considerations as well as clinicians trying to tailor drug choices to individual patients. The relatively new drug, ixekizumab, is consequentially more expensive than the older adalimumab, which has had its price depressed by the recent introduction of a biosimilar agent as well as long-standing competition from multiple TNF inhibitors.

“I think in the United States insurers will continue to steer patients toward whichever drug is cheapest among the highly-effective options,” but this result should lead to more use of interleukin-17 inhibitors as second-line agents for PsA, and it might push some clinicians to prescribe it as the first-line treatment, Dr. Mease said. He was confident that the efficacy profile shown by ixekizumab in SPIRIT-H2H was likely a class effect. Economics aside, the impetus to prescribe ixekizumab or another interleukin-17 inhibitor will be greatest when a patient has more extensive skin involvement, while for patients with little or no skin symptoms clinicians will likely stick with the more established TNF inhibitors as the first drug class to prescribe for PsA.

SPIRIT-H2H was sponsored by Eli Lilly, the company that markets ixekizumab (Taltz). Dr. Mease has been a consultant to, speaker for, and received research funding from Eli Lilly and from several other companies. Dr. Fleischmann has been a consultant to and has received research funding from several companies including Eli Lilly.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mease PJ et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Jun. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8709.

MADRID – Administration of live attenuated booster of the MMR vaccine with or without varicella (MMR/V) was not associated with serious adverse events in children on immunosuppressive therapy for a rheumatic disease, according to data presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

“The study implies that patients can receive booster vaccinations regardless of age, diagnosis, or therapy,” reported Veronica Bergonzo Moshe, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Meir Medical Center, Kfar Saba, Israel.

In the absence of safety data, the vaccination of children with rheumatic diseases taking immunosuppressive therapies has been controversial. Although these children face communicable and sometimes life-threatening diseases without vaccination, many clinicians are not offering this protection because they fear adverse consequences.

Current Paediatric Rheumatology European Society (PReS) guidelines have been equivocal, recommending that vaccines be considered on a “case-by-case basis” in children with a rheumatic disease if they are taking high doses of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), glucocorticoids, or any dose of biologics.

“The fear is that a state of immune suppression might decrease response to the vaccine or lead to a flare of the rheumatologic disease,” Dr. Moshe said.

In the retrospective study presented by Dr. Moshe, data were collected on 234 children with rheumatic diseases who received a live attenuated MMR/V booster. The children were drawn from 12 pediatric rheumatology centers in 10 countries.

In this relatively large series, 82% of the children had oligoarticular or polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). A range of other rheumatic diseases, including juvenile dermatomyositis, localized scleroderma, and isolated idiopathic uveitis were represented among the remaining patients. All were taking medication, and 48% were in remission.

When broken down by therapy, there were three localized reactions in 110 (2.7%) children who received the booster while on methotrexate. No other adverse events, including disease flare, were observed.

Similarly, six of the seven adverse events observed in 76 (8%) patients who were taking methotrexate plus a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor biologic at the time of vaccination were local reactions. Fever was reported in one patient. All of these events were transient.

In the 39 patients taking a TNF inhibitor alone, there was a single case of transient fever. There were no adverse events reported in the three patients vaccinated while on tocilizumab, seven patients while on anakinra, or five patients while on canakinumab.

Following vaccination, there were no signs of symptoms of the diseases that the vaccines are designed to prevent. In the minority of patients who did develop localized reactions or fever in this series, there was no apparent relationship with disease activity, age, or sex when compared to those who did not develop an adverse event.

These retrospective data are not definitive, but they are reassuring, according to Dr. Moshe. A larger prospective study by the PReS vaccination study group is now planned. The issue of leaving children unvaccinated is topical due to the recent outbreaks of measles in the United States.

“We must have clear guidelines on how to deal with the administration of live vaccines in this patient population so that we can provide the safest and most effective practice,” Dr. Moshe said.

These data are a first step.

“This large retrospective study demonstrates that live attenuated booster vaccine is probably safe in children with rheumatic diseases,” said Dr. Moshe, but she deferred to the PReS guidelines in suggesting that the decision to vaccinate still might best be performed on a case-by-case basis.

SOURCE: Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl2)178-179.

MADRID – Administration of live attenuated booster of the MMR vaccine with or without varicella (MMR/V) was not associated with serious adverse events in children on immunosuppressive therapy for a rheumatic disease, according to data presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

“The study implies that patients can receive booster vaccinations regardless of age, diagnosis, or therapy,” reported Veronica Bergonzo Moshe, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Meir Medical Center, Kfar Saba, Israel.

In the absence of safety data, the vaccination of children with rheumatic diseases taking immunosuppressive therapies has been controversial. Although these children face communicable and sometimes life-threatening diseases without vaccination, many clinicians are not offering this protection because they fear adverse consequences.

Current Paediatric Rheumatology European Society (PReS) guidelines have been equivocal, recommending that vaccines be considered on a “case-by-case basis” in children with a rheumatic disease if they are taking high doses of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), glucocorticoids, or any dose of biologics.

“The fear is that a state of immune suppression might decrease response to the vaccine or lead to a flare of the rheumatologic disease,” Dr. Moshe said.

In the retrospective study presented by Dr. Moshe, data were collected on 234 children with rheumatic diseases who received a live attenuated MMR/V booster. The children were drawn from 12 pediatric rheumatology centers in 10 countries.

In this relatively large series, 82% of the children had oligoarticular or polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). A range of other rheumatic diseases, including juvenile dermatomyositis, localized scleroderma, and isolated idiopathic uveitis were represented among the remaining patients. All were taking medication, and 48% were in remission.

When broken down by therapy, there were three localized reactions in 110 (2.7%) children who received the booster while on methotrexate. No other adverse events, including disease flare, were observed.

Similarly, six of the seven adverse events observed in 76 (8%) patients who were taking methotrexate plus a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor biologic at the time of vaccination were local reactions. Fever was reported in one patient. All of these events were transient.

In the 39 patients taking a TNF inhibitor alone, there was a single case of transient fever. There were no adverse events reported in the three patients vaccinated while on tocilizumab, seven patients while on anakinra, or five patients while on canakinumab.

Following vaccination, there were no signs of symptoms of the diseases that the vaccines are designed to prevent. In the minority of patients who did develop localized reactions or fever in this series, there was no apparent relationship with disease activity, age, or sex when compared to those who did not develop an adverse event.

These retrospective data are not definitive, but they are reassuring, according to Dr. Moshe. A larger prospective study by the PReS vaccination study group is now planned. The issue of leaving children unvaccinated is topical due to the recent outbreaks of measles in the United States.

“We must have clear guidelines on how to deal with the administration of live vaccines in this patient population so that we can provide the safest and most effective practice,” Dr. Moshe said.

These data are a first step.

“This large retrospective study demonstrates that live attenuated booster vaccine is probably safe in children with rheumatic diseases,” said Dr. Moshe, but she deferred to the PReS guidelines in suggesting that the decision to vaccinate still might best be performed on a case-by-case basis.

SOURCE: Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl2)178-179.

MADRID – Administration of live attenuated booster of the MMR vaccine with or without varicella (MMR/V) was not associated with serious adverse events in children on immunosuppressive therapy for a rheumatic disease, according to data presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

“The study implies that patients can receive booster vaccinations regardless of age, diagnosis, or therapy,” reported Veronica Bergonzo Moshe, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Meir Medical Center, Kfar Saba, Israel.

In the absence of safety data, the vaccination of children with rheumatic diseases taking immunosuppressive therapies has been controversial. Although these children face communicable and sometimes life-threatening diseases without vaccination, many clinicians are not offering this protection because they fear adverse consequences.

Current Paediatric Rheumatology European Society (PReS) guidelines have been equivocal, recommending that vaccines be considered on a “case-by-case basis” in children with a rheumatic disease if they are taking high doses of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), glucocorticoids, or any dose of biologics.

“The fear is that a state of immune suppression might decrease response to the vaccine or lead to a flare of the rheumatologic disease,” Dr. Moshe said.

In the retrospective study presented by Dr. Moshe, data were collected on 234 children with rheumatic diseases who received a live attenuated MMR/V booster. The children were drawn from 12 pediatric rheumatology centers in 10 countries.

In this relatively large series, 82% of the children had oligoarticular or polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). A range of other rheumatic diseases, including juvenile dermatomyositis, localized scleroderma, and isolated idiopathic uveitis were represented among the remaining patients. All were taking medication, and 48% were in remission.

When broken down by therapy, there were three localized reactions in 110 (2.7%) children who received the booster while on methotrexate. No other adverse events, including disease flare, were observed.

Similarly, six of the seven adverse events observed in 76 (8%) patients who were taking methotrexate plus a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor biologic at the time of vaccination were local reactions. Fever was reported in one patient. All of these events were transient.

In the 39 patients taking a TNF inhibitor alone, there was a single case of transient fever. There were no adverse events reported in the three patients vaccinated while on tocilizumab, seven patients while on anakinra, or five patients while on canakinumab.

Following vaccination, there were no signs of symptoms of the diseases that the vaccines are designed to prevent. In the minority of patients who did develop localized reactions or fever in this series, there was no apparent relationship with disease activity, age, or sex when compared to those who did not develop an adverse event.

These retrospective data are not definitive, but they are reassuring, according to Dr. Moshe. A larger prospective study by the PReS vaccination study group is now planned. The issue of leaving children unvaccinated is topical due to the recent outbreaks of measles in the United States.

“We must have clear guidelines on how to deal with the administration of live vaccines in this patient population so that we can provide the safest and most effective practice,” Dr. Moshe said.

These data are a first step.

“This large retrospective study demonstrates that live attenuated booster vaccine is probably safe in children with rheumatic diseases,” said Dr. Moshe, but she deferred to the PReS guidelines in suggesting that the decision to vaccinate still might best be performed on a case-by-case basis.

SOURCE: Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl2)178-179.

MADRID – Retreatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an ultra low-dose of rituximab failed to meet the predefined noninferiority endpoint relative to a higher dose in a double-blind randomized trial, but the investigators still think this strategy may be viable in selected patients.

Lise M. Verhoef, MSc, a researcher in rheumatology at the Sint Maartenskliniek in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, who presented the data as a late-breaker at the European Congress of Rheumatology, explains in a video interview why the negative trial still might support an ultra low-dose strategy.

This trial, called REDO, was conceived after it was observed that most patients with RA are well controlled on a single injection of 1,000 mg of rituximab even though this is half the standard dose of two 1,000 mg doses given 15 days apart. The study was designed to determine whether even lower doses could be used.

The study enrolled 142 patients with RA who were being retreated with rituximab after responding previously to this therapy. In a 1:2:2 ratio, patients were randomized to single rituximab injections of 1,000 mg, 500 mg, or 200 mg. Outcome then were compared at the end of 6 months.

Noninferiority was defined as 0.5 difference in DAS28-CRP score (disease activity score using C-reactive protein instead of erythrocyte sedimentation rate) score adjusted for baseline disease status and use of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

Although noninferior at 3 months, the 500 mg dose did not meet the noninferiority criteria at 6 months. Due to a hierarchical design, evaluation of the 200 mg dose was precluded by the negative result with the 500 mg dose.

However, the majority of patients did respond to both the 500 mg and 200 mg dose. The failure to meet noninferiority was due to a limited number of patients who required rescue therapy for a flare. As a result, the investigators believe a trial of ultra low-dose therapy still might be reasonable.

In this interview, Ms. Verhoef explains that at her center patients who are well controlled on a 1,000 mg dose of rituximab now are being offered a 500 mg dose for retreatment. If they continue to respond, further retreatment with a 200 mg dose is considered.

Ms. Verhoef had no relevant financial disclosures.

MADRID – Retreatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an ultra low-dose of rituximab failed to meet the predefined noninferiority endpoint relative to a higher dose in a double-blind randomized trial, but the investigators still think this strategy may be viable in selected patients.

Lise M. Verhoef, MSc, a researcher in rheumatology at the Sint Maartenskliniek in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, who presented the data as a late-breaker at the European Congress of Rheumatology, explains in a video interview why the negative trial still might support an ultra low-dose strategy.

This trial, called REDO, was conceived after it was observed that most patients with RA are well controlled on a single injection of 1,000 mg of rituximab even though this is half the standard dose of two 1,000 mg doses given 15 days apart. The study was designed to determine whether even lower doses could be used.

The study enrolled 142 patients with RA who were being retreated with rituximab after responding previously to this therapy. In a 1:2:2 ratio, patients were randomized to single rituximab injections of 1,000 mg, 500 mg, or 200 mg. Outcome then were compared at the end of 6 months.

Noninferiority was defined as 0.5 difference in DAS28-CRP score (disease activity score using C-reactive protein instead of erythrocyte sedimentation rate) score adjusted for baseline disease status and use of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

Although noninferior at 3 months, the 500 mg dose did not meet the noninferiority criteria at 6 months. Due to a hierarchical design, evaluation of the 200 mg dose was precluded by the negative result with the 500 mg dose.

However, the majority of patients did respond to both the 500 mg and 200 mg dose. The failure to meet noninferiority was due to a limited number of patients who required rescue therapy for a flare. As a result, the investigators believe a trial of ultra low-dose therapy still might be reasonable.

In this interview, Ms. Verhoef explains that at her center patients who are well controlled on a 1,000 mg dose of rituximab now are being offered a 500 mg dose for retreatment. If they continue to respond, further retreatment with a 200 mg dose is considered.

Ms. Verhoef had no relevant financial disclosures.

MADRID – Retreatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an ultra low-dose of rituximab failed to meet the predefined noninferiority endpoint relative to a higher dose in a double-blind randomized trial, but the investigators still think this strategy may be viable in selected patients.

Lise M. Verhoef, MSc, a researcher in rheumatology at the Sint Maartenskliniek in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, who presented the data as a late-breaker at the European Congress of Rheumatology, explains in a video interview why the negative trial still might support an ultra low-dose strategy.

This trial, called REDO, was conceived after it was observed that most patients with RA are well controlled on a single injection of 1,000 mg of rituximab even though this is half the standard dose of two 1,000 mg doses given 15 days apart. The study was designed to determine whether even lower doses could be used.

The study enrolled 142 patients with RA who were being retreated with rituximab after responding previously to this therapy. In a 1:2:2 ratio, patients were randomized to single rituximab injections of 1,000 mg, 500 mg, or 200 mg. Outcome then were compared at the end of 6 months.

Noninferiority was defined as 0.5 difference in DAS28-CRP score (disease activity score using C-reactive protein instead of erythrocyte sedimentation rate) score adjusted for baseline disease status and use of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

Although noninferior at 3 months, the 500 mg dose did not meet the noninferiority criteria at 6 months. Due to a hierarchical design, evaluation of the 200 mg dose was precluded by the negative result with the 500 mg dose.

However, the majority of patients did respond to both the 500 mg and 200 mg dose. The failure to meet noninferiority was due to a limited number of patients who required rescue therapy for a flare. As a result, the investigators believe a trial of ultra low-dose therapy still might be reasonable.

In this interview, Ms. Verhoef explains that at her center patients who are well controlled on a 1,000 mg dose of rituximab now are being offered a 500 mg dose for retreatment. If they continue to respond, further retreatment with a 200 mg dose is considered.

Ms. Verhoef had no relevant financial disclosures.

MADRID – More patients with limited cutaneous systemic sclerosis (SSc) experienced improvement in gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms when given a gut microbiota transplant, compared with control subjects in a 16-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

The effects were most pronounced on lower GI symptoms, including bloating, diarrhea, and fecal incontinence, with improvement reported by three of five of the patients given the gut microbiota transplant, compared with two of the five patients who received placebo.

“We were surprised by the effect the patients reported, as all had longstanding SSc with GI symptoms,” Anna-Maria Hoffmann-Vold, MD, PhD, of Oslo University Hospital, said in an interview ahead of the congress. “We were especially surprised at the strong effect FMT had on fecal incontinence.”“Patients with systemic sclerosis are very prone to having gastrointestinal involvement – up to 90% of patients have GI symptoms, and it’s associated with very high morbidity and mortality,” she observed during her presentation at the Congress. Despite that, there currently are no disease-modifying treatments that specifically addresses GI involvement in SSc.

It’s been known for a while that patients with SSc have a different intestinal microbiota composition, or dysbiosis, compared with healthy controls, and the possibility of permanent modification of the microbiome through fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) from healthy to ill individuals has become a subject of increased attention in the scientific literature in recent years,. Dr. Hoffmann-Vold said.

In particular, FMT has shown promising results in the treatment of Clostridium difficile infections. While the current study did not focus on mechanistic pathways by which FMT might be exerting its effects, such studies are definitely warranted, she said. “One could speculate that there is a mechanistic link between dysmotility and dysbiosis in SSc, and that the manipulation of gut microbiota with FMT primarily affects motility patterns, which in turn leads to improvement of GI symptoms.”

Together with colleagues at the Oslo University Hospital, Dr. Hoffmann-Vold randomly assigned 10 patients – all women – with limited cutaneous SSc either to treatment with a commercially-available gut microbiota preparation known as anaerobic cultivated human intestinal microbiota (ACHIM) or to placebo. Both ACHIM and placebo were given via gastroduodenoscopy. Their aim was to determine the safety of the approach, as well as to obtain preliminary data on its therapeutic potential.

The UCLA GIT 2.0 score questionnaire was used to assess GI symptoms, with patients defined as responders if they met the questionnaire’s definition of a minimally clinically important difference.

Primary endpoints were safety and clinical efficacy on GI symptoms assessed at weeks 4 and 16, and safety was assessed by observation, interviews, and a standardized safety form.

Results showed improvement in GI symptoms (total UCLA GIT score) in three of the five patients who received the gut microbiota transplant versus two of the five placebo-treated patients at 16 weeks. Two patients in the active treatment versus one in the placebo group had unchanged symptoms, and one patient in the placebo group had worsening symptoms.

Adverse events associated with treatment were “transient and mild”. However, one procedure-related serious adverse event occurred in a placebo-treated patient, which was a duodenal perforation.

Concluding her presentation, Dr. Hoffman-Vold said: “FMT of commercially-available ACHIM in patients with SSc appeared safe, had beneficial effects on lower GI symptoms, altered gut microbiota composition – richness and diversity – and appeared to affect the mucosal immune system.”

The research team has just received national funding for a larger randomized clinical trial that will involve 70 SSc patients and should start towards the end of the year.

The study was sponsored by Helse Sør-øst and NKS. Dr. Hoffmann-Vold has received research funding, consulting fees, or other remuneration from Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, and Actelion. A coauthor is the owner of the company that provided the gut microbiota.

SOURCE: Hoffmann-Vold AM et al., Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Jun. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.4684 .

MADRID – More patients with limited cutaneous systemic sclerosis (SSc) experienced improvement in gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms when given a gut microbiota transplant, compared with control subjects in a 16-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

The effects were most pronounced on lower GI symptoms, including bloating, diarrhea, and fecal incontinence, with improvement reported by three of five of the patients given the gut microbiota transplant, compared with two of the five patients who received placebo.

“We were surprised by the effect the patients reported, as all had longstanding SSc with GI symptoms,” Anna-Maria Hoffmann-Vold, MD, PhD, of Oslo University Hospital, said in an interview ahead of the congress. “We were especially surprised at the strong effect FMT had on fecal incontinence.”“Patients with systemic sclerosis are very prone to having gastrointestinal involvement – up to 90% of patients have GI symptoms, and it’s associated with very high morbidity and mortality,” she observed during her presentation at the Congress. Despite that, there currently are no disease-modifying treatments that specifically addresses GI involvement in SSc.

It’s been known for a while that patients with SSc have a different intestinal microbiota composition, or dysbiosis, compared with healthy controls, and the possibility of permanent modification of the microbiome through fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) from healthy to ill individuals has become a subject of increased attention in the scientific literature in recent years,. Dr. Hoffmann-Vold said.

In particular, FMT has shown promising results in the treatment of Clostridium difficile infections. While the current study did not focus on mechanistic pathways by which FMT might be exerting its effects, such studies are definitely warranted, she said. “One could speculate that there is a mechanistic link between dysmotility and dysbiosis in SSc, and that the manipulation of gut microbiota with FMT primarily affects motility patterns, which in turn leads to improvement of GI symptoms.”

Together with colleagues at the Oslo University Hospital, Dr. Hoffmann-Vold randomly assigned 10 patients – all women – with limited cutaneous SSc either to treatment with a commercially-available gut microbiota preparation known as anaerobic cultivated human intestinal microbiota (ACHIM) or to placebo. Both ACHIM and placebo were given via gastroduodenoscopy. Their aim was to determine the safety of the approach, as well as to obtain preliminary data on its therapeutic potential.

The UCLA GIT 2.0 score questionnaire was used to assess GI symptoms, with patients defined as responders if they met the questionnaire’s definition of a minimally clinically important difference.

Primary endpoints were safety and clinical efficacy on GI symptoms assessed at weeks 4 and 16, and safety was assessed by observation, interviews, and a standardized safety form.

Results showed improvement in GI symptoms (total UCLA GIT score) in three of the five patients who received the gut microbiota transplant versus two of the five placebo-treated patients at 16 weeks. Two patients in the active treatment versus one in the placebo group had unchanged symptoms, and one patient in the placebo group had worsening symptoms.

Adverse events associated with treatment were “transient and mild”. However, one procedure-related serious adverse event occurred in a placebo-treated patient, which was a duodenal perforation.

Concluding her presentation, Dr. Hoffman-Vold said: “FMT of commercially-available ACHIM in patients with SSc appeared safe, had beneficial effects on lower GI symptoms, altered gut microbiota composition – richness and diversity – and appeared to affect the mucosal immune system.”

The research team has just received national funding for a larger randomized clinical trial that will involve 70 SSc patients and should start towards the end of the year.

The study was sponsored by Helse Sør-øst and NKS. Dr. Hoffmann-Vold has received research funding, consulting fees, or other remuneration from Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, and Actelion. A coauthor is the owner of the company that provided the gut microbiota.

SOURCE: Hoffmann-Vold AM et al., Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Jun. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.4684 .

MADRID – More patients with limited cutaneous systemic sclerosis (SSc) experienced improvement in gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms when given a gut microbiota transplant, compared with control subjects in a 16-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

The effects were most pronounced on lower GI symptoms, including bloating, diarrhea, and fecal incontinence, with improvement reported by three of five of the patients given the gut microbiota transplant, compared with two of the five patients who received placebo.

“We were surprised by the effect the patients reported, as all had longstanding SSc with GI symptoms,” Anna-Maria Hoffmann-Vold, MD, PhD, of Oslo University Hospital, said in an interview ahead of the congress. “We were especially surprised at the strong effect FMT had on fecal incontinence.”“Patients with systemic sclerosis are very prone to having gastrointestinal involvement – up to 90% of patients have GI symptoms, and it’s associated with very high morbidity and mortality,” she observed during her presentation at the Congress. Despite that, there currently are no disease-modifying treatments that specifically addresses GI involvement in SSc.

It’s been known for a while that patients with SSc have a different intestinal microbiota composition, or dysbiosis, compared with healthy controls, and the possibility of permanent modification of the microbiome through fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) from healthy to ill individuals has become a subject of increased attention in the scientific literature in recent years,. Dr. Hoffmann-Vold said.

In particular, FMT has shown promising results in the treatment of Clostridium difficile infections. While the current study did not focus on mechanistic pathways by which FMT might be exerting its effects, such studies are definitely warranted, she said. “One could speculate that there is a mechanistic link between dysmotility and dysbiosis in SSc, and that the manipulation of gut microbiota with FMT primarily affects motility patterns, which in turn leads to improvement of GI symptoms.”

Together with colleagues at the Oslo University Hospital, Dr. Hoffmann-Vold randomly assigned 10 patients – all women – with limited cutaneous SSc either to treatment with a commercially-available gut microbiota preparation known as anaerobic cultivated human intestinal microbiota (ACHIM) or to placebo. Both ACHIM and placebo were given via gastroduodenoscopy. Their aim was to determine the safety of the approach, as well as to obtain preliminary data on its therapeutic potential.

The UCLA GIT 2.0 score questionnaire was used to assess GI symptoms, with patients defined as responders if they met the questionnaire’s definition of a minimally clinically important difference.

Primary endpoints were safety and clinical efficacy on GI symptoms assessed at weeks 4 and 16, and safety was assessed by observation, interviews, and a standardized safety form.

Results showed improvement in GI symptoms (total UCLA GIT score) in three of the five patients who received the gut microbiota transplant versus two of the five placebo-treated patients at 16 weeks. Two patients in the active treatment versus one in the placebo group had unchanged symptoms, and one patient in the placebo group had worsening symptoms.

Adverse events associated with treatment were “transient and mild”. However, one procedure-related serious adverse event occurred in a placebo-treated patient, which was a duodenal perforation.

Concluding her presentation, Dr. Hoffman-Vold said: “FMT of commercially-available ACHIM in patients with SSc appeared safe, had beneficial effects on lower GI symptoms, altered gut microbiota composition – richness and diversity – and appeared to affect the mucosal immune system.”

The research team has just received national funding for a larger randomized clinical trial that will involve 70 SSc patients and should start towards the end of the year.

The study was sponsored by Helse Sør-øst and NKS. Dr. Hoffmann-Vold has received research funding, consulting fees, or other remuneration from Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, and Actelion. A coauthor is the owner of the company that provided the gut microbiota.

SOURCE: Hoffmann-Vold AM et al., Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Jun. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.4684 .

MADRID – Patients achieve comparable long-term control of spondyloarthritis on biosimilars as they do on the originator biologic drug, judging from data drawn from registries in five Scandinavian countries in a study that evaluated retention rates after 1 year of therapy.

Bente Glintborg, MD, PhD, from the Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Rigshospitalet, Glostrup, Denmark, explains in a video interview that the indication provided to biosimilars for spondyloarthritis was extended from comparisons conducted in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

In the absence of a randomized trial in spondyloarthritis, she suggested that this comparison might be the best opportunity to evaluate whether biosimilars perform as well as their biologic originator. This is an important aim based on the theoretical possibility that equivalence in RA does not translate into equivalence in other rheumatic conditions where biologics are indicated.

As she explains, 1,015 biologic-naïve patients initiating etanercept, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, or a biosimilar were assessed at baseline and at the end of 1 year of therapy. The patients were enrolled in biologic registries maintained in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, or Sweden.

Retention rates at 1 year were numerically lower on etanercept than the biosimilars, but the difference was not significant (66% vs. 73%; P = 0.18). There also were no significant differences between the biosimilars and etanercept when disease activity was compared at 6 months.

Retention rates are a reasonable surrogate for both efficacy and tolerability based on the expectation that more patients would switch or discontinue agents in the event of lack of efficacy or unacceptable side effects, Dr. Glintborg said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

In this interview, she notes that a similar study from the Nordic registries led by a coinvestigator also showed equivalent retention rates among spondyloarthritis patients when biosimilars and infliximab were compared at 2 years.

Dr. Glintborg received research support from Biogen, Pfizer, and Abbievie.

MADRID – Patients achieve comparable long-term control of spondyloarthritis on biosimilars as they do on the originator biologic drug, judging from data drawn from registries in five Scandinavian countries in a study that evaluated retention rates after 1 year of therapy.

Bente Glintborg, MD, PhD, from the Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Rigshospitalet, Glostrup, Denmark, explains in a video interview that the indication provided to biosimilars for spondyloarthritis was extended from comparisons conducted in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

In the absence of a randomized trial in spondyloarthritis, she suggested that this comparison might be the best opportunity to evaluate whether biosimilars perform as well as their biologic originator. This is an important aim based on the theoretical possibility that equivalence in RA does not translate into equivalence in other rheumatic conditions where biologics are indicated.

As she explains, 1,015 biologic-naïve patients initiating etanercept, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, or a biosimilar were assessed at baseline and at the end of 1 year of therapy. The patients were enrolled in biologic registries maintained in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, or Sweden.

Retention rates at 1 year were numerically lower on etanercept than the biosimilars, but the difference was not significant (66% vs. 73%; P = 0.18). There also were no significant differences between the biosimilars and etanercept when disease activity was compared at 6 months.

Retention rates are a reasonable surrogate for both efficacy and tolerability based on the expectation that more patients would switch or discontinue agents in the event of lack of efficacy or unacceptable side effects, Dr. Glintborg said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

In this interview, she notes that a similar study from the Nordic registries led by a coinvestigator also showed equivalent retention rates among spondyloarthritis patients when biosimilars and infliximab were compared at 2 years.

Dr. Glintborg received research support from Biogen, Pfizer, and Abbievie.

MADRID – Patients achieve comparable long-term control of spondyloarthritis on biosimilars as they do on the originator biologic drug, judging from data drawn from registries in five Scandinavian countries in a study that evaluated retention rates after 1 year of therapy.

Bente Glintborg, MD, PhD, from the Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Rigshospitalet, Glostrup, Denmark, explains in a video interview that the indication provided to biosimilars for spondyloarthritis was extended from comparisons conducted in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

In the absence of a randomized trial in spondyloarthritis, she suggested that this comparison might be the best opportunity to evaluate whether biosimilars perform as well as their biologic originator. This is an important aim based on the theoretical possibility that equivalence in RA does not translate into equivalence in other rheumatic conditions where biologics are indicated.

As she explains, 1,015 biologic-naïve patients initiating etanercept, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, or a biosimilar were assessed at baseline and at the end of 1 year of therapy. The patients were enrolled in biologic registries maintained in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, or Sweden.

Retention rates at 1 year were numerically lower on etanercept than the biosimilars, but the difference was not significant (66% vs. 73%; P = 0.18). There also were no significant differences between the biosimilars and etanercept when disease activity was compared at 6 months.

Retention rates are a reasonable surrogate for both efficacy and tolerability based on the expectation that more patients would switch or discontinue agents in the event of lack of efficacy or unacceptable side effects, Dr. Glintborg said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

In this interview, she notes that a similar study from the Nordic registries led by a coinvestigator also showed equivalent retention rates among spondyloarthritis patients when biosimilars and infliximab were compared at 2 years.

Dr. Glintborg received research support from Biogen, Pfizer, and Abbievie.

MADRID – A video-based educational program on the goals of treatment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is showing promise as a tool to engage patients in their own care, according to data generated from a randomized trial.

One of the major goals of the video program is to inform patients about the treat-to-target concept of RA management, explained Maria I. Danila, MD, a rheumatologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Although physicians know this to be a guiding tenet for RA management, she explains in this video interview that 50% or more of patients are unaware of this therapeutic goal.

For patients who resist treatment escalation for fear of side effects, this lack of awareness might provide one explanation for failing to adhere to guideline-recommended therapy, Dr. Danila said at the European Congress of Rheumatology. She believes that patients need more information about the potential for treatment escalation to improve function.

To address this issue, a short video was developed to explain the treat-to-target concept. It was then tested in a randomized trial. Those who viewed the video expressed greater willingness to change intervention on the advice of their rheumatologist relative to those who did not (P = 0.01).

Further studies are planned, including studies to test whether willingness to escalate treatment results in better outcomes and whether linking patient behavioral goals such as being able to play golf again will enhance treatment adherence. Dr. Danila envisions wide distribution of this video if further studies demonstrate that it helps patients cooperate with treatment escalation when needed.

Dr. Danila received research support from Pfizer.

MADRID – A video-based educational program on the goals of treatment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is showing promise as a tool to engage patients in their own care, according to data generated from a randomized trial.

One of the major goals of the video program is to inform patients about the treat-to-target concept of RA management, explained Maria I. Danila, MD, a rheumatologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Although physicians know this to be a guiding tenet for RA management, she explains in this video interview that 50% or more of patients are unaware of this therapeutic goal.

For patients who resist treatment escalation for fear of side effects, this lack of awareness might provide one explanation for failing to adhere to guideline-recommended therapy, Dr. Danila said at the European Congress of Rheumatology. She believes that patients need more information about the potential for treatment escalation to improve function.

To address this issue, a short video was developed to explain the treat-to-target concept. It was then tested in a randomized trial. Those who viewed the video expressed greater willingness to change intervention on the advice of their rheumatologist relative to those who did not (P = 0.01).

Further studies are planned, including studies to test whether willingness to escalate treatment results in better outcomes and whether linking patient behavioral goals such as being able to play golf again will enhance treatment adherence. Dr. Danila envisions wide distribution of this video if further studies demonstrate that it helps patients cooperate with treatment escalation when needed.

Dr. Danila received research support from Pfizer.

MADRID – A video-based educational program on the goals of treatment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is showing promise as a tool to engage patients in their own care, according to data generated from a randomized trial.

One of the major goals of the video program is to inform patients about the treat-to-target concept of RA management, explained Maria I. Danila, MD, a rheumatologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Although physicians know this to be a guiding tenet for RA management, she explains in this video interview that 50% or more of patients are unaware of this therapeutic goal.

For patients who resist treatment escalation for fear of side effects, this lack of awareness might provide one explanation for failing to adhere to guideline-recommended therapy, Dr. Danila said at the European Congress of Rheumatology. She believes that patients need more information about the potential for treatment escalation to improve function.

To address this issue, a short video was developed to explain the treat-to-target concept. It was then tested in a randomized trial. Those who viewed the video expressed greater willingness to change intervention on the advice of their rheumatologist relative to those who did not (P = 0.01).

Further studies are planned, including studies to test whether willingness to escalate treatment results in better outcomes and whether linking patient behavioral goals such as being able to play golf again will enhance treatment adherence. Dr. Danila envisions wide distribution of this video if further studies demonstrate that it helps patients cooperate with treatment escalation when needed.

Dr. Danila received research support from Pfizer.

MADRID – U.S. patients with rheumatoid arthritis stopped having an excess of cardiovascular disease events during the 2000s.

During both the 1980s and 1990s, patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) residing in a 27-county region in southeastern Minnesota and northwestern Wisconsin had cardiovascular disease event rates that were more than twice the rates in similar adults without RA, but that changed during the 2000s, Elena Myasoedova, MD, said in a poster she presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology. During 2000-2009, RA patients enrolled in the Rochester (Minn.) Epidemiology Project had an incidence of cardiovascular disease events at a rate that was 12% lower, compared with matched adults without RA who were also enrolled in the same regional database, reported Dr. Myasoedova, a rheumatologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, and her associates.

“We hypothesize that improved management of RA, including implementation of a treat-to-target strategy and the introduction of biological drugs could have influenced this, as well as increased awareness of and improved prevention of cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Myasoedova said in an interview. The findings “give us a hint that tight control of RA disease activity is also likely to help cardiovascular disease burden.”

She and her associates identified 906 people enrolled in the Rochester Epidemiology Project who had incident RA based on the 1987 criteria of the American College of Rheumatology and matched them by age, sex, and index year with 905 people in the registry without RA. These cohorts included roughly 200 people from each subgroup tracked during the 1980s, 300 from each subgroup tracked during the 1990s, and about 400 in each subgroup tracked during the 2000s. They averaged about 56 years old, and about two-thirds were women.

During the 1980s, the cumulative incidence of nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular disease (CVD) death was 2.11-fold more common among the RA patients than in the matched controls without RA, and during the 1990s this ratio showed a 2.13-fold excess of CVD events among the RA patients. The between-group differences in both decades were statistically significant. During the 2000s, the RA patients actually had a nominally lower rate of CVD events, at 0.88 times the rate of the controls, a difference that was not statistically significant.


Dr. Myasoedova and her associates had previously reported a similar finding in an analysis that used a smaller number of people and focused exclusively on rates of CVD (J Rheumatol. 2017 Jun;44[6]:732-9).

A few factors limit the generalizability of the finding, Dr. Myasoedova cautioned. First, the population studied was about 90% white. Also, people in the Rochester Epidemiology Project receive their medical care from clinicians at the Mayo Clinic or an affiliated hospital in the region covered by the Project.

“These data are from a large, tertiary care center,” and so the findings are most directly applicable to patients who receive medical care in a similar setting that provides guideline-directed management of both RA and CVD risk.

A long-standing hypothesis is that CVD has an inflammatory component. These data support that concept by suggesting that when inflammatory disease is well controlled in RA patients, their CVD risk drops, Dr. Myasoedova said. “CVD has been seen as the number one comorbidity for RA patients, and it remains that way, but it’s very reassuring that the CVD rate has improved. It shows we’re doing something right.”

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Myasoedova had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Myasoedova E et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):1024-5. Abstract FRI0654. DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.4996.

MADRID – U.S. patients with rheumatoid arthritis stopped having an excess of cardiovascular disease events during the 2000s.

During both the 1980s and 1990s, patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) residing in a 27-county region in southeastern Minnesota and northwestern Wisconsin had cardiovascular disease event rates that were more than twice the rates in similar adults without RA, but that changed during the 2000s, Elena Myasoedova, MD, said in a poster she presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology. During 2000-2009, RA patients enrolled in the Rochester (Minn.) Epidemiology Project had an incidence of cardiovascular disease events at a rate that was 12% lower, compared with matched adults without RA who were also enrolled in the same regional database, reported Dr. Myasoedova, a rheumatologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, and her associates.

“We hypothesize that improved management of RA, including implementation of a treat-to-target strategy and the introduction of biological drugs could have influenced this, as well as increased awareness of and improved prevention of cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Myasoedova said in an interview. The findings “give us a hint that tight control of RA disease activity is also likely to help cardiovascular disease burden.”

She and her associates identified 906 people enrolled in the Rochester Epidemiology Project who had incident RA based on the 1987 criteria of the American College of Rheumatology and matched them by age, sex, and index year with 905 people in the registry without RA. These cohorts included roughly 200 people from each subgroup tracked during the 1980s, 300 from each subgroup tracked during the 1990s, and about 400 in each subgroup tracked during the 2000s. They averaged about 56 years old, and about two-thirds were women.

During the 1980s, the cumulative incidence of nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular disease (CVD) death was 2.11-fold more common among the RA patients than in the matched controls without RA, and during the 1990s this ratio showed a 2.13-fold excess of CVD events among the RA patients. The between-group differences in both decades were statistically significant. During the 2000s, the RA patients actually had a nominally lower rate of CVD events, at 0.88 times the rate of the controls, a difference that was not statistically significant.


Dr. Myasoedova and her associates had previously reported a similar finding in an analysis that used a smaller number of people and focused exclusively on rates of CVD (J Rheumatol. 2017 Jun;44[6]:732-9).

A few factors limit the generalizability of the finding, Dr. Myasoedova cautioned. First, the population studied was about 90% white. Also, people in the Rochester Epidemiology Project receive their medical care from clinicians at the Mayo Clinic or an affiliated hospital in the region covered by the Project.

“These data are from a large, tertiary care center,” and so the findings are most directly applicable to patients who receive medical care in a similar setting that provides guideline-directed management of both RA and CVD risk.

A long-standing hypothesis is that CVD has an inflammatory component. These data support that concept by suggesting that when inflammatory disease is well controlled in RA patients, their CVD risk drops, Dr. Myasoedova said. “CVD has been seen as the number one comorbidity for RA patients, and it remains that way, but it’s very reassuring that the CVD rate has improved. It shows we’re doing something right.”

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Myasoedova had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Myasoedova E et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):1024-5. Abstract FRI0654. DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.4996.

MADRID – U.S. patients with rheumatoid arthritis stopped having an excess of cardiovascular disease events during the 2000s.

During both the 1980s and 1990s, patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) residing in a 27-county region in southeastern Minnesota and northwestern Wisconsin had cardiovascular disease event rates that were more than twice the rates in similar adults without RA, but that changed during the 2000s, Elena Myasoedova, MD, said in a poster she presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology. During 2000-2009, RA patients enrolled in the Rochester (Minn.) Epidemiology Project had an incidence of cardiovascular disease events at a rate that was 12% lower, compared with matched adults without RA who were also enrolled in the same regional database, reported Dr. Myasoedova, a rheumatologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, and her associates.

“We hypothesize that improved management of RA, including implementation of a treat-to-target strategy and the introduction of biological drugs could have influenced this, as well as increased awareness of and improved prevention of cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Myasoedova said in an interview. The findings “give us a hint that tight control of RA disease activity is also likely to help cardiovascular disease burden.”

She and her associates identified 906 people enrolled in the Rochester Epidemiology Project who had incident RA based on the 1987 criteria of the American College of Rheumatology and matched them by age, sex, and index year with 905 people in the registry without RA. These cohorts included roughly 200 people from each subgroup tracked during the 1980s, 300 from each subgroup tracked during the 1990s, and about 400 in each subgroup tracked during the 2000s. They averaged about 56 years old, and about two-thirds were women.

During the 1980s, the cumulative incidence of nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular disease (CVD) death was 2.11-fold more common among the RA patients than in the matched controls without RA, and during the 1990s this ratio showed a 2.13-fold excess of CVD events among the RA patients. The between-group differences in both decades were statistically significant. During the 2000s, the RA patients actually had a nominally lower rate of CVD events, at 0.88 times the rate of the controls, a difference that was not statistically significant.


Dr. Myasoedova and her associates had previously reported a similar finding in an analysis that used a smaller number of people and focused exclusively on rates of CVD (J Rheumatol. 2017 Jun;44[6]:732-9).

A few factors limit the generalizability of the finding, Dr. Myasoedova cautioned. First, the population studied was about 90% white. Also, people in the Rochester Epidemiology Project receive their medical care from clinicians at the Mayo Clinic or an affiliated hospital in the region covered by the Project.

“These data are from a large, tertiary care center,” and so the findings are most directly applicable to patients who receive medical care in a similar setting that provides guideline-directed management of both RA and CVD risk.

A long-standing hypothesis is that CVD has an inflammatory component. These data support that concept by suggesting that when inflammatory disease is well controlled in RA patients, their CVD risk drops, Dr. Myasoedova said. “CVD has been seen as the number one comorbidity for RA patients, and it remains that way, but it’s very reassuring that the CVD rate has improved. It shows we’re doing something right.”

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Myasoedova had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Myasoedova E et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):1024-5. Abstract FRI0654. DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.4996.