User login
Methotrexate’s impact on COVID-19 vaccination: New insights made
Patients who take methotrexate for a variety of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and pause taking the drug following receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine dose did not have a higher risk of disease flare and had higher antireceptor binding domain (anti-RBD) antibody titers and increased immunogenicity when compared with continuing the drug, three recent studies suggest.
In one study, British researchers examined the effects of a 2-week break in methotrexate therapy on anti-RBD titers following receipt of a third COVID-19 vaccine dose. In their paper published in The Lancet: Respiratory Medicine, they reported results from a randomized, open-label, superiority trial that suggested pausing the drug improved immunogenicity, compared with no break.
In two trials presented at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2022 Congress, a team from India set out to determine whether holding methotrexate after receiving both doses of a COVID-19 vaccine, or holding it only after the second dose, was safe and effective. They found that pausing methotrexate only following the second dose contributed to a lower flare risk, and that patients had higher anti-RBD titers when holding methotrexate for 2 weeks following each dose.
Pausing methotrexate after booster
The 2-week methotrexate break and booster vaccine dose data in the Vaccine Response On Off Methotrexate (VROOM) trial showed that after a month, the geometric mean antispike 1 (S1)-RBD antibody titer was 10,798 U/mL (95% confidence interval [CI], 8,970-12,997) in the group that continued methotrexate and 22,750 U/mL (95% CI, 19,314-26,796) in the group that suspended methotrexate; the geometric mean ratio was 2.19 (P < .0001; mixed-effects model), reported Abhishek Abhishek, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Nottingham in Nottingham, England, and colleagues.
Prior research showed that stopping methotrexate therapy for 2 weeks following the seasonal influenza vaccine contributed to better vaccine immunity among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, but there was no impact of stopping the drug for up to 4 weeks before vaccination on vaccine-related immunity, the researchers noted.
It is crucial in maximizing long-lasting vaccine protection in people who are possibly susceptible through immune suppression at this point in the COVID-19 vaccination regimen, the study team noted.
“Evidence from this study will be useful for policymakers, national immunization advisory committees, and specialist societies formulating recommendations on the use of methotrexate around the time of COVID-19 vaccination. This evidence will help patients and clinicians make informed choices about the risks and benefits of interrupting methotrexate treatment around the time of COVID-19 vaccination, with implications for the potential to extend such approaches to other therapeutics,” they wrote.
In American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidance for COVID-19 vaccination, the organization advised against using standard synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic medicines such as methotrexate “for 1-2 weeks (as disease activity allows) after each COVID-19 vaccine dose,” given the at-risk population and public health concerns, Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, assistant professor of medicine and associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Sara K. Tedeschi, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, noted in an accompanying editorial in The Lancet: Respiratory Medicine.
However, when the ACR developed this statement, there was only one trial involving patients with rheumatoid arthritis who paused methotrexate following seasonal influenza vaccination, the editorialists said.
“Although this finding adds to the evidence base to support interruption of methotrexate after vaccination, a shared decision process is needed to weigh the possible benefit of optimizing protection from COVID-19 and the possible risk of underlying disease flare,” they added.
Dr. Abhishek and colleagues assessed 254 patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disease from dermatology and rheumatology clinics across 26 hospitals in the United Kingdom. Participants had been diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, atopic dermatitis, polymyalgia rheumatica, axial spondyloarthritis, and psoriasis without or with arthritis. They had also been taking up to 25 mg of methotrexate per week for 3 months or longer and had received two doses of either the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine or AstraZeneca/Oxford viral vector vaccine. The booster dose was most often the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine (82%). The patients’ mean age was 59 years, with females comprising 61% of the cohort. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to either group.
Investigators performing laboratory analysis were masked to cohort assignment, and clinical research staff, data analysts, participants, and researchers were unmasked.
The elevated antibody response of patients who suspended methotrexate was the same across different kinds of immune-mediated inflammatory disease, primary vaccination platform, SARS-CoV-2 infection history, and age.
Notably, no intervention-associated adverse events were reported, the study team noted.
The conclusions that could be drawn from the booster-dose study were limited by the trial’s modest cohort size, the small number of patients in exploratory subgroup analyses, a lack of information about differences in prescription drug behavior, and early termination’s effect on the researchers’ ability to identify differences between subgroups and in secondary outcomes, the authors noted.
Other limitations included a lack of generalizability to patients with active disease who couldn’t stop therapy and were not included in the investigation, and participants were not blinded to what group they were in, the researchers said.
Expert commentary
This current study is consistent with other studies over the last several months showing that methotrexate harms both humoral and cell-mediated COVID-19 responses, noted Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious disease and public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who was not involved in the study. “And so now the new wave of studies are like this one, where they are holding methotrexate experimentally and seeing if it makes a difference,” he said.
“The one shortcoming of this study – and so far, the studies to date – is that no one has looked at whether the experimental hold has resulted in a change in T-cell responses, which ... we are [now] recognizing [the importance of] more and more in long-term protection, particularly in severe disease. Theoretically, holding [methotrexate] might help enhance T-cell responses, but that hasn’t been shown experimentally.”
Dr. Winthrop pointed out that one might get the same benefit from holding methotrexate for 1 week instead of 2 and that there likely is a reduced risk of flare-up from underlying autoimmune disease.
It is still not certain that this benefit extends to other vaccines, Dr. Winthrop noted. “It is probably true for most vaccines that if you hold methotrexate for 1 or 2 weeks, you might see some short-term benefit in responsiveness, but you don’t know that there is any clinical meaningfulness of this. That’s going to take other long-term studies. You don’t know how long this benefit lasts.”
Pausing methotrexate during initial COVID vaccine doses
Patients with either rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis had higher anti-RBD antibody titers when methotrexate was stopped after both doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine, or simply after the second dose, than when methotrexate was continued, according to results from two single-center, randomized controlled trials called MIVAC I and II, Anu Sreekanth, MD, of Sree Sudheendra Medical Mission in Kochi, Kerala, India, and colleagues reported at EULAR 2022.
Results from MIVAC I indicated that there was a higher flare rate when methotrexate was stopped after both vaccine doses, but there was no difference in flare rate in MIVAC II when methotrexate was stopped only after the second dose as opposed to stopping it after both doses.
In the MIVAC I trial, 158 unvaccinated patients were randomized 1:1 to a cohort in which methotrexate was held for 2 weeks after both doses and a cohort in which methotrexate was continued despite the vaccine. In MIVAC II, 157 patients continued methotrexate while receiving the first vaccine dose. These patients were subsequently randomized either to continue or to stop methotrexate for 2 weeks following the second dose.
The findings from MIVAC I demonstrated the flare rate was lower in the methotrexate-continue group than in the methotrexate-pause group (8% vs. 25%; P = .005) and that the median anti-RBD titer was significantly higher for the methotrexate-pause group than the methotrexate-continue group (2,484 vs. 1,147; P = .001).
The results from MIVAC II trial indicated that there was no difference in flare rates between the two study groups (7.9% vs. 11.8%; P = .15). Yet, the median anti-RBD titer was significantly higher in the methotrexate-pause cohort than in the methotrexate-continue cohort (2,553 vs. 990; P = .001).
The report suggests there is a flare risk when methotrexate is stopped, Dr. Sreekanth noted. “It appears more logical to hold only after the second dose, as comparable anti-RBD titers are generated” with either approach, Dr. Sreekanth said.
Expert commentary: MIVAC I and II
Inés Colmegna, MD, associate professor at McGill University in Montreal, noted that it was intriguing that the risk of flares in MIVAC II is half of that reported after each of the doses of MIVAC I. “It is also worth emphasizing that despite the reported frequency of flares, the actual disease activity [as measured by the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints] in patients who did or did not withhold methotrexate was similar.
“MIVAC I and II have practical implications as they help to adequately inform patients about the risk and benefit trade of withholding methotrexate post–COVID-19 vaccination,” Dr. Colmegna told this news organization.
“Additional information would help to [further] interpret the findings of these studies, including whether any of the participants were taking any other DMARDs; data on the severity of the flares and functional impact; analysis of factors that predict the risk of flares, such as higher doses of methotrexate; [and change in] disease activity scores pre- and postvaccination,” Dr. Colmegna concluded.
Dr. Abhishek disclosed relationships with Springer, UpTodate, Oxford, Immunotec, AstraZeneca, Inflazome, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Menarini Pharmaceuticals, and Cadila Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Abhishek is cochair of the ACR/EULAR CPPD Classification Criteria Working Group and the OMERACT CPPD Working Group. Dr. Sparks disclosed relationships with Gilead, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AbbVie, unrelated to this study. Dr. Tedeschi disclosed relationships with ModernaTx and NGM Biopharmaceuticals. Dr. Winthrop disclosed a research grant and serving as a scientific consultant for Pfizer. Dr. Sreekanth and Dr. Colmegna have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients who take methotrexate for a variety of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and pause taking the drug following receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine dose did not have a higher risk of disease flare and had higher antireceptor binding domain (anti-RBD) antibody titers and increased immunogenicity when compared with continuing the drug, three recent studies suggest.
In one study, British researchers examined the effects of a 2-week break in methotrexate therapy on anti-RBD titers following receipt of a third COVID-19 vaccine dose. In their paper published in The Lancet: Respiratory Medicine, they reported results from a randomized, open-label, superiority trial that suggested pausing the drug improved immunogenicity, compared with no break.
In two trials presented at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2022 Congress, a team from India set out to determine whether holding methotrexate after receiving both doses of a COVID-19 vaccine, or holding it only after the second dose, was safe and effective. They found that pausing methotrexate only following the second dose contributed to a lower flare risk, and that patients had higher anti-RBD titers when holding methotrexate for 2 weeks following each dose.
Pausing methotrexate after booster
The 2-week methotrexate break and booster vaccine dose data in the Vaccine Response On Off Methotrexate (VROOM) trial showed that after a month, the geometric mean antispike 1 (S1)-RBD antibody titer was 10,798 U/mL (95% confidence interval [CI], 8,970-12,997) in the group that continued methotrexate and 22,750 U/mL (95% CI, 19,314-26,796) in the group that suspended methotrexate; the geometric mean ratio was 2.19 (P < .0001; mixed-effects model), reported Abhishek Abhishek, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Nottingham in Nottingham, England, and colleagues.
Prior research showed that stopping methotrexate therapy for 2 weeks following the seasonal influenza vaccine contributed to better vaccine immunity among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, but there was no impact of stopping the drug for up to 4 weeks before vaccination on vaccine-related immunity, the researchers noted.
It is crucial in maximizing long-lasting vaccine protection in people who are possibly susceptible through immune suppression at this point in the COVID-19 vaccination regimen, the study team noted.
“Evidence from this study will be useful for policymakers, national immunization advisory committees, and specialist societies formulating recommendations on the use of methotrexate around the time of COVID-19 vaccination. This evidence will help patients and clinicians make informed choices about the risks and benefits of interrupting methotrexate treatment around the time of COVID-19 vaccination, with implications for the potential to extend such approaches to other therapeutics,” they wrote.
In American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidance for COVID-19 vaccination, the organization advised against using standard synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic medicines such as methotrexate “for 1-2 weeks (as disease activity allows) after each COVID-19 vaccine dose,” given the at-risk population and public health concerns, Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, assistant professor of medicine and associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Sara K. Tedeschi, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, noted in an accompanying editorial in The Lancet: Respiratory Medicine.
However, when the ACR developed this statement, there was only one trial involving patients with rheumatoid arthritis who paused methotrexate following seasonal influenza vaccination, the editorialists said.
“Although this finding adds to the evidence base to support interruption of methotrexate after vaccination, a shared decision process is needed to weigh the possible benefit of optimizing protection from COVID-19 and the possible risk of underlying disease flare,” they added.
Dr. Abhishek and colleagues assessed 254 patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disease from dermatology and rheumatology clinics across 26 hospitals in the United Kingdom. Participants had been diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, atopic dermatitis, polymyalgia rheumatica, axial spondyloarthritis, and psoriasis without or with arthritis. They had also been taking up to 25 mg of methotrexate per week for 3 months or longer and had received two doses of either the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine or AstraZeneca/Oxford viral vector vaccine. The booster dose was most often the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine (82%). The patients’ mean age was 59 years, with females comprising 61% of the cohort. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to either group.
Investigators performing laboratory analysis were masked to cohort assignment, and clinical research staff, data analysts, participants, and researchers were unmasked.
The elevated antibody response of patients who suspended methotrexate was the same across different kinds of immune-mediated inflammatory disease, primary vaccination platform, SARS-CoV-2 infection history, and age.
Notably, no intervention-associated adverse events were reported, the study team noted.
The conclusions that could be drawn from the booster-dose study were limited by the trial’s modest cohort size, the small number of patients in exploratory subgroup analyses, a lack of information about differences in prescription drug behavior, and early termination’s effect on the researchers’ ability to identify differences between subgroups and in secondary outcomes, the authors noted.
Other limitations included a lack of generalizability to patients with active disease who couldn’t stop therapy and were not included in the investigation, and participants were not blinded to what group they were in, the researchers said.
Expert commentary
This current study is consistent with other studies over the last several months showing that methotrexate harms both humoral and cell-mediated COVID-19 responses, noted Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious disease and public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who was not involved in the study. “And so now the new wave of studies are like this one, where they are holding methotrexate experimentally and seeing if it makes a difference,” he said.
“The one shortcoming of this study – and so far, the studies to date – is that no one has looked at whether the experimental hold has resulted in a change in T-cell responses, which ... we are [now] recognizing [the importance of] more and more in long-term protection, particularly in severe disease. Theoretically, holding [methotrexate] might help enhance T-cell responses, but that hasn’t been shown experimentally.”
Dr. Winthrop pointed out that one might get the same benefit from holding methotrexate for 1 week instead of 2 and that there likely is a reduced risk of flare-up from underlying autoimmune disease.
It is still not certain that this benefit extends to other vaccines, Dr. Winthrop noted. “It is probably true for most vaccines that if you hold methotrexate for 1 or 2 weeks, you might see some short-term benefit in responsiveness, but you don’t know that there is any clinical meaningfulness of this. That’s going to take other long-term studies. You don’t know how long this benefit lasts.”
Pausing methotrexate during initial COVID vaccine doses
Patients with either rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis had higher anti-RBD antibody titers when methotrexate was stopped after both doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine, or simply after the second dose, than when methotrexate was continued, according to results from two single-center, randomized controlled trials called MIVAC I and II, Anu Sreekanth, MD, of Sree Sudheendra Medical Mission in Kochi, Kerala, India, and colleagues reported at EULAR 2022.
Results from MIVAC I indicated that there was a higher flare rate when methotrexate was stopped after both vaccine doses, but there was no difference in flare rate in MIVAC II when methotrexate was stopped only after the second dose as opposed to stopping it after both doses.
In the MIVAC I trial, 158 unvaccinated patients were randomized 1:1 to a cohort in which methotrexate was held for 2 weeks after both doses and a cohort in which methotrexate was continued despite the vaccine. In MIVAC II, 157 patients continued methotrexate while receiving the first vaccine dose. These patients were subsequently randomized either to continue or to stop methotrexate for 2 weeks following the second dose.
The findings from MIVAC I demonstrated the flare rate was lower in the methotrexate-continue group than in the methotrexate-pause group (8% vs. 25%; P = .005) and that the median anti-RBD titer was significantly higher for the methotrexate-pause group than the methotrexate-continue group (2,484 vs. 1,147; P = .001).
The results from MIVAC II trial indicated that there was no difference in flare rates between the two study groups (7.9% vs. 11.8%; P = .15). Yet, the median anti-RBD titer was significantly higher in the methotrexate-pause cohort than in the methotrexate-continue cohort (2,553 vs. 990; P = .001).
The report suggests there is a flare risk when methotrexate is stopped, Dr. Sreekanth noted. “It appears more logical to hold only after the second dose, as comparable anti-RBD titers are generated” with either approach, Dr. Sreekanth said.
Expert commentary: MIVAC I and II
Inés Colmegna, MD, associate professor at McGill University in Montreal, noted that it was intriguing that the risk of flares in MIVAC II is half of that reported after each of the doses of MIVAC I. “It is also worth emphasizing that despite the reported frequency of flares, the actual disease activity [as measured by the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints] in patients who did or did not withhold methotrexate was similar.
“MIVAC I and II have practical implications as they help to adequately inform patients about the risk and benefit trade of withholding methotrexate post–COVID-19 vaccination,” Dr. Colmegna told this news organization.
“Additional information would help to [further] interpret the findings of these studies, including whether any of the participants were taking any other DMARDs; data on the severity of the flares and functional impact; analysis of factors that predict the risk of flares, such as higher doses of methotrexate; [and change in] disease activity scores pre- and postvaccination,” Dr. Colmegna concluded.
Dr. Abhishek disclosed relationships with Springer, UpTodate, Oxford, Immunotec, AstraZeneca, Inflazome, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Menarini Pharmaceuticals, and Cadila Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Abhishek is cochair of the ACR/EULAR CPPD Classification Criteria Working Group and the OMERACT CPPD Working Group. Dr. Sparks disclosed relationships with Gilead, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AbbVie, unrelated to this study. Dr. Tedeschi disclosed relationships with ModernaTx and NGM Biopharmaceuticals. Dr. Winthrop disclosed a research grant and serving as a scientific consultant for Pfizer. Dr. Sreekanth and Dr. Colmegna have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients who take methotrexate for a variety of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and pause taking the drug following receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine dose did not have a higher risk of disease flare and had higher antireceptor binding domain (anti-RBD) antibody titers and increased immunogenicity when compared with continuing the drug, three recent studies suggest.
In one study, British researchers examined the effects of a 2-week break in methotrexate therapy on anti-RBD titers following receipt of a third COVID-19 vaccine dose. In their paper published in The Lancet: Respiratory Medicine, they reported results from a randomized, open-label, superiority trial that suggested pausing the drug improved immunogenicity, compared with no break.
In two trials presented at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2022 Congress, a team from India set out to determine whether holding methotrexate after receiving both doses of a COVID-19 vaccine, or holding it only after the second dose, was safe and effective. They found that pausing methotrexate only following the second dose contributed to a lower flare risk, and that patients had higher anti-RBD titers when holding methotrexate for 2 weeks following each dose.
Pausing methotrexate after booster
The 2-week methotrexate break and booster vaccine dose data in the Vaccine Response On Off Methotrexate (VROOM) trial showed that after a month, the geometric mean antispike 1 (S1)-RBD antibody titer was 10,798 U/mL (95% confidence interval [CI], 8,970-12,997) in the group that continued methotrexate and 22,750 U/mL (95% CI, 19,314-26,796) in the group that suspended methotrexate; the geometric mean ratio was 2.19 (P < .0001; mixed-effects model), reported Abhishek Abhishek, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Nottingham in Nottingham, England, and colleagues.
Prior research showed that stopping methotrexate therapy for 2 weeks following the seasonal influenza vaccine contributed to better vaccine immunity among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, but there was no impact of stopping the drug for up to 4 weeks before vaccination on vaccine-related immunity, the researchers noted.
It is crucial in maximizing long-lasting vaccine protection in people who are possibly susceptible through immune suppression at this point in the COVID-19 vaccination regimen, the study team noted.
“Evidence from this study will be useful for policymakers, national immunization advisory committees, and specialist societies formulating recommendations on the use of methotrexate around the time of COVID-19 vaccination. This evidence will help patients and clinicians make informed choices about the risks and benefits of interrupting methotrexate treatment around the time of COVID-19 vaccination, with implications for the potential to extend such approaches to other therapeutics,” they wrote.
In American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidance for COVID-19 vaccination, the organization advised against using standard synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic medicines such as methotrexate “for 1-2 weeks (as disease activity allows) after each COVID-19 vaccine dose,” given the at-risk population and public health concerns, Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, assistant professor of medicine and associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Sara K. Tedeschi, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, noted in an accompanying editorial in The Lancet: Respiratory Medicine.
However, when the ACR developed this statement, there was only one trial involving patients with rheumatoid arthritis who paused methotrexate following seasonal influenza vaccination, the editorialists said.
“Although this finding adds to the evidence base to support interruption of methotrexate after vaccination, a shared decision process is needed to weigh the possible benefit of optimizing protection from COVID-19 and the possible risk of underlying disease flare,” they added.
Dr. Abhishek and colleagues assessed 254 patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disease from dermatology and rheumatology clinics across 26 hospitals in the United Kingdom. Participants had been diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, atopic dermatitis, polymyalgia rheumatica, axial spondyloarthritis, and psoriasis without or with arthritis. They had also been taking up to 25 mg of methotrexate per week for 3 months or longer and had received two doses of either the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine or AstraZeneca/Oxford viral vector vaccine. The booster dose was most often the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine (82%). The patients’ mean age was 59 years, with females comprising 61% of the cohort. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to either group.
Investigators performing laboratory analysis were masked to cohort assignment, and clinical research staff, data analysts, participants, and researchers were unmasked.
The elevated antibody response of patients who suspended methotrexate was the same across different kinds of immune-mediated inflammatory disease, primary vaccination platform, SARS-CoV-2 infection history, and age.
Notably, no intervention-associated adverse events were reported, the study team noted.
The conclusions that could be drawn from the booster-dose study were limited by the trial’s modest cohort size, the small number of patients in exploratory subgroup analyses, a lack of information about differences in prescription drug behavior, and early termination’s effect on the researchers’ ability to identify differences between subgroups and in secondary outcomes, the authors noted.
Other limitations included a lack of generalizability to patients with active disease who couldn’t stop therapy and were not included in the investigation, and participants were not blinded to what group they were in, the researchers said.
Expert commentary
This current study is consistent with other studies over the last several months showing that methotrexate harms both humoral and cell-mediated COVID-19 responses, noted Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious disease and public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who was not involved in the study. “And so now the new wave of studies are like this one, where they are holding methotrexate experimentally and seeing if it makes a difference,” he said.
“The one shortcoming of this study – and so far, the studies to date – is that no one has looked at whether the experimental hold has resulted in a change in T-cell responses, which ... we are [now] recognizing [the importance of] more and more in long-term protection, particularly in severe disease. Theoretically, holding [methotrexate] might help enhance T-cell responses, but that hasn’t been shown experimentally.”
Dr. Winthrop pointed out that one might get the same benefit from holding methotrexate for 1 week instead of 2 and that there likely is a reduced risk of flare-up from underlying autoimmune disease.
It is still not certain that this benefit extends to other vaccines, Dr. Winthrop noted. “It is probably true for most vaccines that if you hold methotrexate for 1 or 2 weeks, you might see some short-term benefit in responsiveness, but you don’t know that there is any clinical meaningfulness of this. That’s going to take other long-term studies. You don’t know how long this benefit lasts.”
Pausing methotrexate during initial COVID vaccine doses
Patients with either rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis had higher anti-RBD antibody titers when methotrexate was stopped after both doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine, or simply after the second dose, than when methotrexate was continued, according to results from two single-center, randomized controlled trials called MIVAC I and II, Anu Sreekanth, MD, of Sree Sudheendra Medical Mission in Kochi, Kerala, India, and colleagues reported at EULAR 2022.
Results from MIVAC I indicated that there was a higher flare rate when methotrexate was stopped after both vaccine doses, but there was no difference in flare rate in MIVAC II when methotrexate was stopped only after the second dose as opposed to stopping it after both doses.
In the MIVAC I trial, 158 unvaccinated patients were randomized 1:1 to a cohort in which methotrexate was held for 2 weeks after both doses and a cohort in which methotrexate was continued despite the vaccine. In MIVAC II, 157 patients continued methotrexate while receiving the first vaccine dose. These patients were subsequently randomized either to continue or to stop methotrexate for 2 weeks following the second dose.
The findings from MIVAC I demonstrated the flare rate was lower in the methotrexate-continue group than in the methotrexate-pause group (8% vs. 25%; P = .005) and that the median anti-RBD titer was significantly higher for the methotrexate-pause group than the methotrexate-continue group (2,484 vs. 1,147; P = .001).
The results from MIVAC II trial indicated that there was no difference in flare rates between the two study groups (7.9% vs. 11.8%; P = .15). Yet, the median anti-RBD titer was significantly higher in the methotrexate-pause cohort than in the methotrexate-continue cohort (2,553 vs. 990; P = .001).
The report suggests there is a flare risk when methotrexate is stopped, Dr. Sreekanth noted. “It appears more logical to hold only after the second dose, as comparable anti-RBD titers are generated” with either approach, Dr. Sreekanth said.
Expert commentary: MIVAC I and II
Inés Colmegna, MD, associate professor at McGill University in Montreal, noted that it was intriguing that the risk of flares in MIVAC II is half of that reported after each of the doses of MIVAC I. “It is also worth emphasizing that despite the reported frequency of flares, the actual disease activity [as measured by the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints] in patients who did or did not withhold methotrexate was similar.
“MIVAC I and II have practical implications as they help to adequately inform patients about the risk and benefit trade of withholding methotrexate post–COVID-19 vaccination,” Dr. Colmegna told this news organization.
“Additional information would help to [further] interpret the findings of these studies, including whether any of the participants were taking any other DMARDs; data on the severity of the flares and functional impact; analysis of factors that predict the risk of flares, such as higher doses of methotrexate; [and change in] disease activity scores pre- and postvaccination,” Dr. Colmegna concluded.
Dr. Abhishek disclosed relationships with Springer, UpTodate, Oxford, Immunotec, AstraZeneca, Inflazome, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Menarini Pharmaceuticals, and Cadila Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Abhishek is cochair of the ACR/EULAR CPPD Classification Criteria Working Group and the OMERACT CPPD Working Group. Dr. Sparks disclosed relationships with Gilead, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AbbVie, unrelated to this study. Dr. Tedeschi disclosed relationships with ModernaTx and NGM Biopharmaceuticals. Dr. Winthrop disclosed a research grant and serving as a scientific consultant for Pfizer. Dr. Sreekanth and Dr. Colmegna have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Treat-to-target strategy with tapering proves effective in PsA and axSpA
Aiming for a disease activity target while reducing biologic therapy could be a winning approach for patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), according to the results of a new study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
The findings show that a treat-to-target (T2T) strategy with tapering using a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor produces results that are noninferior to a T2T strategy that doesn’t include tapering in these patients.
“Our study has for the first time shown that a treat-to-target tapering strategy is just as good as full-dose continuation, while reducing medication use substantially,” first author Celia Michielsens, MD, a PhD student and researcher at Sint Maartenskliniek in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said in an interview before her presentation of the study during an oral abstract session at the congress. “Stepwise tapering is also better than fixed-dose reduction or discontinuation, since it is much more individualized.”
The study is now published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
In the randomized, controlled, open-label, noninferiority study, researchers enrolled patients with PsA or axSpA who were using a TNF inhibitor such as etanercept, adalimumab, or infliximab, and had stable low disease activity for at least 6 months. Patients needed to have a Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) of 3.2 or less, or an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) of at 2.1 or less. In cases of flare, patients were treated with NSAIDs and/or glucorticoids, and if they still had not reached low disease activity after a month, their previous TNF inhibitor dose was reinstated to the last effective interval or dosage, which was maintained throughout the study period. When the patient was already using a full TNF-inhibitor dose or if dose adjustment did not suffice, patients were switched to another biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD).
Participants were randomized, from January 2019 to June 2021, to a tapering or a nontapering T2T strategy in a 2:1 fashion. Then researchers then followed them for 12 months and aimed to determine if the tapering strategy proved noninferior to not tapering within a predefined 20% margin for noninferiority, which Dr. Michielsens said was derived from other studies and what her group determined to be “an acceptable risk.”
Results show strategy is ‘feasible in daily clinical care’
A total of 81 patients – 42 with PsA and 39 with axSpA – were in the group with tapering, and 41 were in the group without tapering: 22 with PsA and 19 with axSpA.
At 12 months, researchers found that 69% of the patients in the group with tapering had low disease activity, measured via the PASDAS and ASDAS, compared with 73% in patients who did not taper. And those in the tapering group saw their medication use dramatically reduced. At the 12-month mark, they were taking just 53% of the defined daily dose for maintenance, compared with 91% of the defined daily dose for the group that didn’t taper.
The researchers were able to successfully taper 72% of the patients in the tapering group, with 28% of them discontinuing their TNF-inhibitor medication entirely. The incidence of flares was 85% in the tapering group and 78% in the nontapering group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .32).
The start of a new medication or an increase in use of an existing medication was more frequent in the tapering group, and significantly so for NSAIDs. An increase in NSAID use was seen in 54% of the tapering group and in just 24% of the nontapering group (P = .002).
Conventional synthetic DMARD use went up in the tapering group, compared with the nontapering group, but this was only among the PsA patients and the change in use was not statistically significant. There were also more frequent increases in glucocorticoid use in the tapering group, compared with the nontapering group, but this was not significant.
Dr. Michielsens said the findings show the value of an individualized approach in treating patients with PsA or axSpA.
“Our study – and those [studies] in rheumatoid arthritis earlier – deliver the highest quality of evidence that disease activity–guided dose personalization can, and in fact should, be used in clinical practice,” she said. “Our pragmatic treat-to-target tapering strategy is feasible in daily clinical care, although treat-to-target using PASDAS and ASDAS needs some implementation. In shared decision-making with patients, a 50% reduction in TNFi use is obtainable, while maintaining low disease activity.”
The increase in the use of NSAIDs is something to be aware of, but it is “not concerning,” Dr. Michielsens added. She pointed out that the NSAID use was typically temporary, used when flares arose, and that the drugs are effective, safe, and inexpensive. She also noted that the use of TNF blockers decreased more than the use of NSAIDs increased.
“This seems a perfectly acceptable trade-off that can be discussed with your patient,” she said.
The 12-month duration of the study is likely long enough to show that the tapering strategy works, Dr. Michielsens said. In rheumatoid arthritis studies, for example, differences in strategies didn’t change after 1 year.
“That said, we are doing an observational extension study to provide more insights in the long-term effects of this treat-to-target strategy,” she said. “At the end of this summer, all patients will have completed their extended follow-up period – a 12-month observational period – so hopefully we can present the results next year at EULAR.”
This study received funding from ReumaNederland. Dr. Michielsens did not have any financial interests to disclose. Two coauthors reported financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.
Aiming for a disease activity target while reducing biologic therapy could be a winning approach for patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), according to the results of a new study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
The findings show that a treat-to-target (T2T) strategy with tapering using a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor produces results that are noninferior to a T2T strategy that doesn’t include tapering in these patients.
“Our study has for the first time shown that a treat-to-target tapering strategy is just as good as full-dose continuation, while reducing medication use substantially,” first author Celia Michielsens, MD, a PhD student and researcher at Sint Maartenskliniek in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said in an interview before her presentation of the study during an oral abstract session at the congress. “Stepwise tapering is also better than fixed-dose reduction or discontinuation, since it is much more individualized.”
The study is now published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
In the randomized, controlled, open-label, noninferiority study, researchers enrolled patients with PsA or axSpA who were using a TNF inhibitor such as etanercept, adalimumab, or infliximab, and had stable low disease activity for at least 6 months. Patients needed to have a Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) of 3.2 or less, or an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) of at 2.1 or less. In cases of flare, patients were treated with NSAIDs and/or glucorticoids, and if they still had not reached low disease activity after a month, their previous TNF inhibitor dose was reinstated to the last effective interval or dosage, which was maintained throughout the study period. When the patient was already using a full TNF-inhibitor dose or if dose adjustment did not suffice, patients were switched to another biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD).
Participants were randomized, from January 2019 to June 2021, to a tapering or a nontapering T2T strategy in a 2:1 fashion. Then researchers then followed them for 12 months and aimed to determine if the tapering strategy proved noninferior to not tapering within a predefined 20% margin for noninferiority, which Dr. Michielsens said was derived from other studies and what her group determined to be “an acceptable risk.”
Results show strategy is ‘feasible in daily clinical care’
A total of 81 patients – 42 with PsA and 39 with axSpA – were in the group with tapering, and 41 were in the group without tapering: 22 with PsA and 19 with axSpA.
At 12 months, researchers found that 69% of the patients in the group with tapering had low disease activity, measured via the PASDAS and ASDAS, compared with 73% in patients who did not taper. And those in the tapering group saw their medication use dramatically reduced. At the 12-month mark, they were taking just 53% of the defined daily dose for maintenance, compared with 91% of the defined daily dose for the group that didn’t taper.
The researchers were able to successfully taper 72% of the patients in the tapering group, with 28% of them discontinuing their TNF-inhibitor medication entirely. The incidence of flares was 85% in the tapering group and 78% in the nontapering group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .32).
The start of a new medication or an increase in use of an existing medication was more frequent in the tapering group, and significantly so for NSAIDs. An increase in NSAID use was seen in 54% of the tapering group and in just 24% of the nontapering group (P = .002).
Conventional synthetic DMARD use went up in the tapering group, compared with the nontapering group, but this was only among the PsA patients and the change in use was not statistically significant. There were also more frequent increases in glucocorticoid use in the tapering group, compared with the nontapering group, but this was not significant.
Dr. Michielsens said the findings show the value of an individualized approach in treating patients with PsA or axSpA.
“Our study – and those [studies] in rheumatoid arthritis earlier – deliver the highest quality of evidence that disease activity–guided dose personalization can, and in fact should, be used in clinical practice,” she said. “Our pragmatic treat-to-target tapering strategy is feasible in daily clinical care, although treat-to-target using PASDAS and ASDAS needs some implementation. In shared decision-making with patients, a 50% reduction in TNFi use is obtainable, while maintaining low disease activity.”
The increase in the use of NSAIDs is something to be aware of, but it is “not concerning,” Dr. Michielsens added. She pointed out that the NSAID use was typically temporary, used when flares arose, and that the drugs are effective, safe, and inexpensive. She also noted that the use of TNF blockers decreased more than the use of NSAIDs increased.
“This seems a perfectly acceptable trade-off that can be discussed with your patient,” she said.
The 12-month duration of the study is likely long enough to show that the tapering strategy works, Dr. Michielsens said. In rheumatoid arthritis studies, for example, differences in strategies didn’t change after 1 year.
“That said, we are doing an observational extension study to provide more insights in the long-term effects of this treat-to-target strategy,” she said. “At the end of this summer, all patients will have completed their extended follow-up period – a 12-month observational period – so hopefully we can present the results next year at EULAR.”
This study received funding from ReumaNederland. Dr. Michielsens did not have any financial interests to disclose. Two coauthors reported financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.
Aiming for a disease activity target while reducing biologic therapy could be a winning approach for patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), according to the results of a new study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
The findings show that a treat-to-target (T2T) strategy with tapering using a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor produces results that are noninferior to a T2T strategy that doesn’t include tapering in these patients.
“Our study has for the first time shown that a treat-to-target tapering strategy is just as good as full-dose continuation, while reducing medication use substantially,” first author Celia Michielsens, MD, a PhD student and researcher at Sint Maartenskliniek in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said in an interview before her presentation of the study during an oral abstract session at the congress. “Stepwise tapering is also better than fixed-dose reduction or discontinuation, since it is much more individualized.”
The study is now published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
In the randomized, controlled, open-label, noninferiority study, researchers enrolled patients with PsA or axSpA who were using a TNF inhibitor such as etanercept, adalimumab, or infliximab, and had stable low disease activity for at least 6 months. Patients needed to have a Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) of 3.2 or less, or an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) of at 2.1 or less. In cases of flare, patients were treated with NSAIDs and/or glucorticoids, and if they still had not reached low disease activity after a month, their previous TNF inhibitor dose was reinstated to the last effective interval or dosage, which was maintained throughout the study period. When the patient was already using a full TNF-inhibitor dose or if dose adjustment did not suffice, patients were switched to another biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD).
Participants were randomized, from January 2019 to June 2021, to a tapering or a nontapering T2T strategy in a 2:1 fashion. Then researchers then followed them for 12 months and aimed to determine if the tapering strategy proved noninferior to not tapering within a predefined 20% margin for noninferiority, which Dr. Michielsens said was derived from other studies and what her group determined to be “an acceptable risk.”
Results show strategy is ‘feasible in daily clinical care’
A total of 81 patients – 42 with PsA and 39 with axSpA – were in the group with tapering, and 41 were in the group without tapering: 22 with PsA and 19 with axSpA.
At 12 months, researchers found that 69% of the patients in the group with tapering had low disease activity, measured via the PASDAS and ASDAS, compared with 73% in patients who did not taper. And those in the tapering group saw their medication use dramatically reduced. At the 12-month mark, they were taking just 53% of the defined daily dose for maintenance, compared with 91% of the defined daily dose for the group that didn’t taper.
The researchers were able to successfully taper 72% of the patients in the tapering group, with 28% of them discontinuing their TNF-inhibitor medication entirely. The incidence of flares was 85% in the tapering group and 78% in the nontapering group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .32).
The start of a new medication or an increase in use of an existing medication was more frequent in the tapering group, and significantly so for NSAIDs. An increase in NSAID use was seen in 54% of the tapering group and in just 24% of the nontapering group (P = .002).
Conventional synthetic DMARD use went up in the tapering group, compared with the nontapering group, but this was only among the PsA patients and the change in use was not statistically significant. There were also more frequent increases in glucocorticoid use in the tapering group, compared with the nontapering group, but this was not significant.
Dr. Michielsens said the findings show the value of an individualized approach in treating patients with PsA or axSpA.
“Our study – and those [studies] in rheumatoid arthritis earlier – deliver the highest quality of evidence that disease activity–guided dose personalization can, and in fact should, be used in clinical practice,” she said. “Our pragmatic treat-to-target tapering strategy is feasible in daily clinical care, although treat-to-target using PASDAS and ASDAS needs some implementation. In shared decision-making with patients, a 50% reduction in TNFi use is obtainable, while maintaining low disease activity.”
The increase in the use of NSAIDs is something to be aware of, but it is “not concerning,” Dr. Michielsens added. She pointed out that the NSAID use was typically temporary, used when flares arose, and that the drugs are effective, safe, and inexpensive. She also noted that the use of TNF blockers decreased more than the use of NSAIDs increased.
“This seems a perfectly acceptable trade-off that can be discussed with your patient,” she said.
The 12-month duration of the study is likely long enough to show that the tapering strategy works, Dr. Michielsens said. In rheumatoid arthritis studies, for example, differences in strategies didn’t change after 1 year.
“That said, we are doing an observational extension study to provide more insights in the long-term effects of this treat-to-target strategy,” she said. “At the end of this summer, all patients will have completed their extended follow-up period – a 12-month observational period – so hopefully we can present the results next year at EULAR.”
This study received funding from ReumaNederland. Dr. Michielsens did not have any financial interests to disclose. Two coauthors reported financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.
FROM THE EULAR 2022 CONGRESS
Osteoporosis risk rises with air pollution levels
COPENHAGEN – Chronic exposure to high levels of particulate matter (PM) air pollution 2.5 mcm (PM2.5) or larger, and 10 mcm (PM10) or larger, in size is associated with a significantly higher likelihood of having osteoporosis, according to research presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
The results of the 7-year longitudinal study carried out across Italy from 2013 to 2019 dovetail with other recent published accounts from the same team of Italian researchers, led by Giovanni Adami, MD, of the rheumatology unit at the University of Verona (Italy). In addition to the current report presented at EULAR 2022, Dr. Adami and associates have reported an increased risk of flares of both rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis following periods of elevated pollution, as well as an overall elevated risk for autoimmune diseases with higher concentrations of PM2.5 and PM10.
The pathogenesis of osteoporosis is thought to involve both genetic and environmental input, such as smoking, which is itself environmental air pollution, Dr. Adami said. The biological rationale for why air pollution might contribute to risk for osteoporosis comes from studies showing that exposure to indoor air pollution from biomass combustion raises serum levels of RANKL (receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa ligand 1) but lowers serum osteoprotegerin – suggesting an increased risk of bone resorption – and that toxic metals such as lead, cadmium, mercury, and aluminum accumulate in the skeleton and negatively affect bone health.
In their study, Dr. Adami and colleagues found that, overall, the average exposure during the period 2013-2019 across Italy was 16.0 mcg/m3 for PM2.5 and 25.0 mcg/m3 for PM10.
“I can tell you that [25.0 mcg/m3 for PM10] is a very high exposure. It’s not very good for your health,” Dr. Adami said.
Data on more than 59,000 Italian women
Dr. Adami and colleagues used clinical characteristics and densitometric data from Italy’s osteoporosis fracture risk and osteoporosis screening reimbursement tool known as DeFRAcalc79, which has amassed variables from more than 59,000 women across the country. They used long-term average PM concentrations across Italy during 2013-2019 that were obtained from the Italian Institute for Environmental Protection and Research’s 617 air quality stations in 110 Italian provinces. The researchers linked individuals to a PM exposure value determined from the average concentration of urban, rural, and near-traffic stations in each person’s province of residence.
For 59,950 women across Italy who were at high risk for fracture, the researchers found 64.5% with bone mineral density that was defined as osteoporotic. At PM10 concentrations of 30 mcg/m3 or greater, there was a significantly higher likelihood of osteoporosis at both the femoral neck (odds ratio, 1.15) and lumbar spine (OR, 1.17).
The likelihood of osteoporosis was slightly greater with PM2.5 at concentrations of 25 mcg/m3 or more at the femoral neck (OR, 1.22) and lumbar spine (OR, 1.18). These comparisons were adjusted for age, body mass index (BMI), presence of prevalent fragility fractures, family history of osteoporosis, menopause, glucocorticoid use, comorbidities, and for residency in northern, central, or southern Italy.
Both thresholds of PM10 > 30 mcg/m3 and PM2.5 > 25 mcg/m3 “are considered safe … by the World Health Organization,” Dr. Adami pointed out.
“If you live in a place where the chronic exposure is less than 30 mcg/m3, you probably have slightly lower risk of osteoporosis as compared to those who live in a highly industrialized, polluted zone,” he explained.
“The cortical bone – femoral neck – seemed to be more susceptible, compared to trabecular bone, which is the lumbar spine. We have no idea why this is true, but we might speculate that somehow chronic inflammation like the [kind] seen in rheumatoid arthritis might be responsible for cortical bone impairment and not trabecular bone impairment,” Dr. Adami said.
One audience member, Kenneth Poole, BM, PhD, senior lecturer and honorary consultant in Metabolic Bone Disease and Rheumatology at the University of Cambridge (England), asked whether it was possible to account for the possibility of confounding caused by areas with dense housing in places where the particulate matter would be highest, and where residents may be less active and use stairs less often.
Dr. Adami noted that confounding is indeed a possibility, but he said Italy is unique in that its most polluted area – the Po River valley – is also its most wealthy area and in general has less crowded living situations with a healthier population, which could have attenuated, rather than reinforced, the results.
Does air pollution have an immunologic effect?
In interviews with this news organization, session comoderators Filipe Araújo, MD, and Irene Bultink, MD, PhD, said that the growth in evidence for the impact of air pollution on risk for, and severity of, various diseases suggests air pollution might have an immunologic effect.
“I think it’s very important to point this out. I also think it’s very hard to rule out confounding, because when you’re living in a city with crowded housing you may not walk or ride your bike but instead go by car or metro, and [the lifestyle is different],” said Dr. Bultink of Amsterdam University Medical Centers.
“It stresses that these diseases [that are associated with air pollution] although they are different in their pathophysiology, it points toward the systemic nature of rheumatic diseases, including osteoporosis,” said Dr. Araújo of Hospital Cuf Cascais (Portugal) and Hospital Ortopédico de Sant’Ana, Parede, Portugal.
The study was independently supported.Dr. Adami disclosed being a shareholder of Galapagos and Theramex.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COPENHAGEN – Chronic exposure to high levels of particulate matter (PM) air pollution 2.5 mcm (PM2.5) or larger, and 10 mcm (PM10) or larger, in size is associated with a significantly higher likelihood of having osteoporosis, according to research presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
The results of the 7-year longitudinal study carried out across Italy from 2013 to 2019 dovetail with other recent published accounts from the same team of Italian researchers, led by Giovanni Adami, MD, of the rheumatology unit at the University of Verona (Italy). In addition to the current report presented at EULAR 2022, Dr. Adami and associates have reported an increased risk of flares of both rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis following periods of elevated pollution, as well as an overall elevated risk for autoimmune diseases with higher concentrations of PM2.5 and PM10.
The pathogenesis of osteoporosis is thought to involve both genetic and environmental input, such as smoking, which is itself environmental air pollution, Dr. Adami said. The biological rationale for why air pollution might contribute to risk for osteoporosis comes from studies showing that exposure to indoor air pollution from biomass combustion raises serum levels of RANKL (receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa ligand 1) but lowers serum osteoprotegerin – suggesting an increased risk of bone resorption – and that toxic metals such as lead, cadmium, mercury, and aluminum accumulate in the skeleton and negatively affect bone health.
In their study, Dr. Adami and colleagues found that, overall, the average exposure during the period 2013-2019 across Italy was 16.0 mcg/m3 for PM2.5 and 25.0 mcg/m3 for PM10.
“I can tell you that [25.0 mcg/m3 for PM10] is a very high exposure. It’s not very good for your health,” Dr. Adami said.
Data on more than 59,000 Italian women
Dr. Adami and colleagues used clinical characteristics and densitometric data from Italy’s osteoporosis fracture risk and osteoporosis screening reimbursement tool known as DeFRAcalc79, which has amassed variables from more than 59,000 women across the country. They used long-term average PM concentrations across Italy during 2013-2019 that were obtained from the Italian Institute for Environmental Protection and Research’s 617 air quality stations in 110 Italian provinces. The researchers linked individuals to a PM exposure value determined from the average concentration of urban, rural, and near-traffic stations in each person’s province of residence.
For 59,950 women across Italy who were at high risk for fracture, the researchers found 64.5% with bone mineral density that was defined as osteoporotic. At PM10 concentrations of 30 mcg/m3 or greater, there was a significantly higher likelihood of osteoporosis at both the femoral neck (odds ratio, 1.15) and lumbar spine (OR, 1.17).
The likelihood of osteoporosis was slightly greater with PM2.5 at concentrations of 25 mcg/m3 or more at the femoral neck (OR, 1.22) and lumbar spine (OR, 1.18). These comparisons were adjusted for age, body mass index (BMI), presence of prevalent fragility fractures, family history of osteoporosis, menopause, glucocorticoid use, comorbidities, and for residency in northern, central, or southern Italy.
Both thresholds of PM10 > 30 mcg/m3 and PM2.5 > 25 mcg/m3 “are considered safe … by the World Health Organization,” Dr. Adami pointed out.
“If you live in a place where the chronic exposure is less than 30 mcg/m3, you probably have slightly lower risk of osteoporosis as compared to those who live in a highly industrialized, polluted zone,” he explained.
“The cortical bone – femoral neck – seemed to be more susceptible, compared to trabecular bone, which is the lumbar spine. We have no idea why this is true, but we might speculate that somehow chronic inflammation like the [kind] seen in rheumatoid arthritis might be responsible for cortical bone impairment and not trabecular bone impairment,” Dr. Adami said.
One audience member, Kenneth Poole, BM, PhD, senior lecturer and honorary consultant in Metabolic Bone Disease and Rheumatology at the University of Cambridge (England), asked whether it was possible to account for the possibility of confounding caused by areas with dense housing in places where the particulate matter would be highest, and where residents may be less active and use stairs less often.
Dr. Adami noted that confounding is indeed a possibility, but he said Italy is unique in that its most polluted area – the Po River valley – is also its most wealthy area and in general has less crowded living situations with a healthier population, which could have attenuated, rather than reinforced, the results.
Does air pollution have an immunologic effect?
In interviews with this news organization, session comoderators Filipe Araújo, MD, and Irene Bultink, MD, PhD, said that the growth in evidence for the impact of air pollution on risk for, and severity of, various diseases suggests air pollution might have an immunologic effect.
“I think it’s very important to point this out. I also think it’s very hard to rule out confounding, because when you’re living in a city with crowded housing you may not walk or ride your bike but instead go by car or metro, and [the lifestyle is different],” said Dr. Bultink of Amsterdam University Medical Centers.
“It stresses that these diseases [that are associated with air pollution] although they are different in their pathophysiology, it points toward the systemic nature of rheumatic diseases, including osteoporosis,” said Dr. Araújo of Hospital Cuf Cascais (Portugal) and Hospital Ortopédico de Sant’Ana, Parede, Portugal.
The study was independently supported.Dr. Adami disclosed being a shareholder of Galapagos and Theramex.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COPENHAGEN – Chronic exposure to high levels of particulate matter (PM) air pollution 2.5 mcm (PM2.5) or larger, and 10 mcm (PM10) or larger, in size is associated with a significantly higher likelihood of having osteoporosis, according to research presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
The results of the 7-year longitudinal study carried out across Italy from 2013 to 2019 dovetail with other recent published accounts from the same team of Italian researchers, led by Giovanni Adami, MD, of the rheumatology unit at the University of Verona (Italy). In addition to the current report presented at EULAR 2022, Dr. Adami and associates have reported an increased risk of flares of both rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis following periods of elevated pollution, as well as an overall elevated risk for autoimmune diseases with higher concentrations of PM2.5 and PM10.
The pathogenesis of osteoporosis is thought to involve both genetic and environmental input, such as smoking, which is itself environmental air pollution, Dr. Adami said. The biological rationale for why air pollution might contribute to risk for osteoporosis comes from studies showing that exposure to indoor air pollution from biomass combustion raises serum levels of RANKL (receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa ligand 1) but lowers serum osteoprotegerin – suggesting an increased risk of bone resorption – and that toxic metals such as lead, cadmium, mercury, and aluminum accumulate in the skeleton and negatively affect bone health.
In their study, Dr. Adami and colleagues found that, overall, the average exposure during the period 2013-2019 across Italy was 16.0 mcg/m3 for PM2.5 and 25.0 mcg/m3 for PM10.
“I can tell you that [25.0 mcg/m3 for PM10] is a very high exposure. It’s not very good for your health,” Dr. Adami said.
Data on more than 59,000 Italian women
Dr. Adami and colleagues used clinical characteristics and densitometric data from Italy’s osteoporosis fracture risk and osteoporosis screening reimbursement tool known as DeFRAcalc79, which has amassed variables from more than 59,000 women across the country. They used long-term average PM concentrations across Italy during 2013-2019 that were obtained from the Italian Institute for Environmental Protection and Research’s 617 air quality stations in 110 Italian provinces. The researchers linked individuals to a PM exposure value determined from the average concentration of urban, rural, and near-traffic stations in each person’s province of residence.
For 59,950 women across Italy who were at high risk for fracture, the researchers found 64.5% with bone mineral density that was defined as osteoporotic. At PM10 concentrations of 30 mcg/m3 or greater, there was a significantly higher likelihood of osteoporosis at both the femoral neck (odds ratio, 1.15) and lumbar spine (OR, 1.17).
The likelihood of osteoporosis was slightly greater with PM2.5 at concentrations of 25 mcg/m3 or more at the femoral neck (OR, 1.22) and lumbar spine (OR, 1.18). These comparisons were adjusted for age, body mass index (BMI), presence of prevalent fragility fractures, family history of osteoporosis, menopause, glucocorticoid use, comorbidities, and for residency in northern, central, or southern Italy.
Both thresholds of PM10 > 30 mcg/m3 and PM2.5 > 25 mcg/m3 “are considered safe … by the World Health Organization,” Dr. Adami pointed out.
“If you live in a place where the chronic exposure is less than 30 mcg/m3, you probably have slightly lower risk of osteoporosis as compared to those who live in a highly industrialized, polluted zone,” he explained.
“The cortical bone – femoral neck – seemed to be more susceptible, compared to trabecular bone, which is the lumbar spine. We have no idea why this is true, but we might speculate that somehow chronic inflammation like the [kind] seen in rheumatoid arthritis might be responsible for cortical bone impairment and not trabecular bone impairment,” Dr. Adami said.
One audience member, Kenneth Poole, BM, PhD, senior lecturer and honorary consultant in Metabolic Bone Disease and Rheumatology at the University of Cambridge (England), asked whether it was possible to account for the possibility of confounding caused by areas with dense housing in places where the particulate matter would be highest, and where residents may be less active and use stairs less often.
Dr. Adami noted that confounding is indeed a possibility, but he said Italy is unique in that its most polluted area – the Po River valley – is also its most wealthy area and in general has less crowded living situations with a healthier population, which could have attenuated, rather than reinforced, the results.
Does air pollution have an immunologic effect?
In interviews with this news organization, session comoderators Filipe Araújo, MD, and Irene Bultink, MD, PhD, said that the growth in evidence for the impact of air pollution on risk for, and severity of, various diseases suggests air pollution might have an immunologic effect.
“I think it’s very important to point this out. I also think it’s very hard to rule out confounding, because when you’re living in a city with crowded housing you may not walk or ride your bike but instead go by car or metro, and [the lifestyle is different],” said Dr. Bultink of Amsterdam University Medical Centers.
“It stresses that these diseases [that are associated with air pollution] although they are different in their pathophysiology, it points toward the systemic nature of rheumatic diseases, including osteoporosis,” said Dr. Araújo of Hospital Cuf Cascais (Portugal) and Hospital Ortopédico de Sant’Ana, Parede, Portugal.
The study was independently supported.Dr. Adami disclosed being a shareholder of Galapagos and Theramex.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT THE EULAR 2022 CONGRESS
Bimekizumab calms psoriatic arthritis in phase 3 ‘BE’ trials
COPENHAGEN – For patients with active psoriatic arthritis for whom tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors failed to produce an adequate response, use of the dual interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitor bimekizumab (Bimzelx) was associated with significant improvement in joint, skin, and health-related quality-of-life parameters, compared with placebo, reported investigators in the phase 3, double-blind, randomized BE COMPLETE trial.
The primary endpoint, which was the percentage of patients who had 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR50) at 16 weeks, was achieved in 43.4% of patients assigned to receive bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks, compared with 6.8% among patients who received placebo, reported Joseph F. Merola, MD, a dermatologist and rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
“The high-level and exciting take-home [message is] that BE COMPLETE did meet all primary and all ranked secondary endpoints at week 16,” he said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
Also at the congress, Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Infection, Immunity, and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, presented data from a second phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial called BE OPTIMAL that showed similar benefits for patients with psoriatic arthritis who had not previously received biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.
“This is a new mode of action, inhibiting two cytokines simultaneously,” he said in a late-breaking oral abstract session.
As previously reported by this news organization, use of bimekizumab led to rapid reductions in signs and symptoms of radiographic axial spondyloarthritis in the phase 3 trial called BE MOBILE 2.
Bimekizumab is a monoclonal immunoglobulin G1 antibody that selectively inhibits IL-17A and IL-17F. It is approved in the European Union for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.
BE COMPLETE efficacy
Inclusion criteria comprised adult-onset psoriatic arthritis meeting Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis (CASPAR) for at least 6 months; tender and swollen joint counts of at least 3/68; one or more active psoriatic lesions; and/or a documented history of psoriasis characterized by intolerance to one or two TNF inhibitors or failure of TNF inhibitors. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks (n = 267) or placebo (n = 133) for 16 weeks.
Some participants are being followed in the extension BE VITAL study, which will evaluate response to treatment and long-term safety. Patients who do enroll in the extension study will be followed for safety for a period of 20 weeks after the last dose.
As noted before, the trial met its primary endpoint of a significant improvement over placebo in ACR50 (hazard ratio, 11.1; P < .001).
In addition, the trial met all ranked secondary endpoints, including the Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index change from baseline, 90% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI90), Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey, and minimal disease activity (P < .001 for all comparisons).
Improvement with bimekizumab was rapid; curves began to separate from placebo by week 4, Dr. Merola said.
BE OPTIMAL efficacy
In this study, which had the same eligibility criteria as BE COMPLETE, patients were randomly assigned in a 2:3:1 ratio to receive 16 weeks of treatment with either placebo, bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks, or adalimumab 40 mg every 2 weeks as a reference treatment.
This trial also met its primary and ranked secondary endpoints, which were similar to those of BE COMPLETE but also included measures of pooled resolution of enthesitis and dactylitis and change from baseline in van der Heijde modified total Sharp score (P < .001 for all comparisons).
In all, 43.9% of patients who received bimekizumab and 45.7% who received adalimumab achieved ACR50 at week 16, compared with 10% of patients who received placebo. The difference between the placebo and bimekizumab groups was significant (P < .001).
Safety
More patients who received the two active agents in this trial had treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in comparison with those in the placebo arm, but the incidence of serious TEAEs was less than 2% in each arm.
The most frequent events were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, diarrhea, and hypertension.
Patients tolerated bimekizumab well, and there were no unexpected safety signals, Dr. McInnes said.
Clues to efficacy
In the question-and-answer session following Dr. McInnes’ presentation, Ronald Van Vollenhoven, MD, of the University of Amsterdam, said, “I have a question that is sort of generic in studies of psoriatic arthritis, so it does not only apply to this study, but the skin responses seem to be excellent – PASI90 sounds wonderful – but given that this is the case, is it reasonable to claim that the study is double-blinded in respect to the joints?”
Dr. McInnes replied that while he has considered this conundrum for many years in trials of drugs for psoriatic arthritis, “it doesn’t seem to be a major determinant of the outcome.”
The studies were supported by UCB Pharma. Dr. Merola and Dr. McInnes have consulted for UCB and other pharmaceutical companies that market drugs for psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis. Dr. Van Vollenhoven has received research support, has consulted for, and has spoken on behalf of UCB and other pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COPENHAGEN – For patients with active psoriatic arthritis for whom tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors failed to produce an adequate response, use of the dual interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitor bimekizumab (Bimzelx) was associated with significant improvement in joint, skin, and health-related quality-of-life parameters, compared with placebo, reported investigators in the phase 3, double-blind, randomized BE COMPLETE trial.
The primary endpoint, which was the percentage of patients who had 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR50) at 16 weeks, was achieved in 43.4% of patients assigned to receive bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks, compared with 6.8% among patients who received placebo, reported Joseph F. Merola, MD, a dermatologist and rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
“The high-level and exciting take-home [message is] that BE COMPLETE did meet all primary and all ranked secondary endpoints at week 16,” he said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
Also at the congress, Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Infection, Immunity, and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, presented data from a second phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial called BE OPTIMAL that showed similar benefits for patients with psoriatic arthritis who had not previously received biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.
“This is a new mode of action, inhibiting two cytokines simultaneously,” he said in a late-breaking oral abstract session.
As previously reported by this news organization, use of bimekizumab led to rapid reductions in signs and symptoms of radiographic axial spondyloarthritis in the phase 3 trial called BE MOBILE 2.
Bimekizumab is a monoclonal immunoglobulin G1 antibody that selectively inhibits IL-17A and IL-17F. It is approved in the European Union for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.
BE COMPLETE efficacy
Inclusion criteria comprised adult-onset psoriatic arthritis meeting Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis (CASPAR) for at least 6 months; tender and swollen joint counts of at least 3/68; one or more active psoriatic lesions; and/or a documented history of psoriasis characterized by intolerance to one or two TNF inhibitors or failure of TNF inhibitors. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks (n = 267) or placebo (n = 133) for 16 weeks.
Some participants are being followed in the extension BE VITAL study, which will evaluate response to treatment and long-term safety. Patients who do enroll in the extension study will be followed for safety for a period of 20 weeks after the last dose.
As noted before, the trial met its primary endpoint of a significant improvement over placebo in ACR50 (hazard ratio, 11.1; P < .001).
In addition, the trial met all ranked secondary endpoints, including the Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index change from baseline, 90% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI90), Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey, and minimal disease activity (P < .001 for all comparisons).
Improvement with bimekizumab was rapid; curves began to separate from placebo by week 4, Dr. Merola said.
BE OPTIMAL efficacy
In this study, which had the same eligibility criteria as BE COMPLETE, patients were randomly assigned in a 2:3:1 ratio to receive 16 weeks of treatment with either placebo, bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks, or adalimumab 40 mg every 2 weeks as a reference treatment.
This trial also met its primary and ranked secondary endpoints, which were similar to those of BE COMPLETE but also included measures of pooled resolution of enthesitis and dactylitis and change from baseline in van der Heijde modified total Sharp score (P < .001 for all comparisons).
In all, 43.9% of patients who received bimekizumab and 45.7% who received adalimumab achieved ACR50 at week 16, compared with 10% of patients who received placebo. The difference between the placebo and bimekizumab groups was significant (P < .001).
Safety
More patients who received the two active agents in this trial had treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in comparison with those in the placebo arm, but the incidence of serious TEAEs was less than 2% in each arm.
The most frequent events were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, diarrhea, and hypertension.
Patients tolerated bimekizumab well, and there were no unexpected safety signals, Dr. McInnes said.
Clues to efficacy
In the question-and-answer session following Dr. McInnes’ presentation, Ronald Van Vollenhoven, MD, of the University of Amsterdam, said, “I have a question that is sort of generic in studies of psoriatic arthritis, so it does not only apply to this study, but the skin responses seem to be excellent – PASI90 sounds wonderful – but given that this is the case, is it reasonable to claim that the study is double-blinded in respect to the joints?”
Dr. McInnes replied that while he has considered this conundrum for many years in trials of drugs for psoriatic arthritis, “it doesn’t seem to be a major determinant of the outcome.”
The studies were supported by UCB Pharma. Dr. Merola and Dr. McInnes have consulted for UCB and other pharmaceutical companies that market drugs for psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis. Dr. Van Vollenhoven has received research support, has consulted for, and has spoken on behalf of UCB and other pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COPENHAGEN – For patients with active psoriatic arthritis for whom tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors failed to produce an adequate response, use of the dual interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitor bimekizumab (Bimzelx) was associated with significant improvement in joint, skin, and health-related quality-of-life parameters, compared with placebo, reported investigators in the phase 3, double-blind, randomized BE COMPLETE trial.
The primary endpoint, which was the percentage of patients who had 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR50) at 16 weeks, was achieved in 43.4% of patients assigned to receive bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks, compared with 6.8% among patients who received placebo, reported Joseph F. Merola, MD, a dermatologist and rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
“The high-level and exciting take-home [message is] that BE COMPLETE did meet all primary and all ranked secondary endpoints at week 16,” he said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
Also at the congress, Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Infection, Immunity, and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, presented data from a second phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial called BE OPTIMAL that showed similar benefits for patients with psoriatic arthritis who had not previously received biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.
“This is a new mode of action, inhibiting two cytokines simultaneously,” he said in a late-breaking oral abstract session.
As previously reported by this news organization, use of bimekizumab led to rapid reductions in signs and symptoms of radiographic axial spondyloarthritis in the phase 3 trial called BE MOBILE 2.
Bimekizumab is a monoclonal immunoglobulin G1 antibody that selectively inhibits IL-17A and IL-17F. It is approved in the European Union for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.
BE COMPLETE efficacy
Inclusion criteria comprised adult-onset psoriatic arthritis meeting Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis (CASPAR) for at least 6 months; tender and swollen joint counts of at least 3/68; one or more active psoriatic lesions; and/or a documented history of psoriasis characterized by intolerance to one or two TNF inhibitors or failure of TNF inhibitors. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks (n = 267) or placebo (n = 133) for 16 weeks.
Some participants are being followed in the extension BE VITAL study, which will evaluate response to treatment and long-term safety. Patients who do enroll in the extension study will be followed for safety for a period of 20 weeks after the last dose.
As noted before, the trial met its primary endpoint of a significant improvement over placebo in ACR50 (hazard ratio, 11.1; P < .001).
In addition, the trial met all ranked secondary endpoints, including the Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index change from baseline, 90% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI90), Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey, and minimal disease activity (P < .001 for all comparisons).
Improvement with bimekizumab was rapid; curves began to separate from placebo by week 4, Dr. Merola said.
BE OPTIMAL efficacy
In this study, which had the same eligibility criteria as BE COMPLETE, patients were randomly assigned in a 2:3:1 ratio to receive 16 weeks of treatment with either placebo, bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks, or adalimumab 40 mg every 2 weeks as a reference treatment.
This trial also met its primary and ranked secondary endpoints, which were similar to those of BE COMPLETE but also included measures of pooled resolution of enthesitis and dactylitis and change from baseline in van der Heijde modified total Sharp score (P < .001 for all comparisons).
In all, 43.9% of patients who received bimekizumab and 45.7% who received adalimumab achieved ACR50 at week 16, compared with 10% of patients who received placebo. The difference between the placebo and bimekizumab groups was significant (P < .001).
Safety
More patients who received the two active agents in this trial had treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in comparison with those in the placebo arm, but the incidence of serious TEAEs was less than 2% in each arm.
The most frequent events were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, diarrhea, and hypertension.
Patients tolerated bimekizumab well, and there were no unexpected safety signals, Dr. McInnes said.
Clues to efficacy
In the question-and-answer session following Dr. McInnes’ presentation, Ronald Van Vollenhoven, MD, of the University of Amsterdam, said, “I have a question that is sort of generic in studies of psoriatic arthritis, so it does not only apply to this study, but the skin responses seem to be excellent – PASI90 sounds wonderful – but given that this is the case, is it reasonable to claim that the study is double-blinded in respect to the joints?”
Dr. McInnes replied that while he has considered this conundrum for many years in trials of drugs for psoriatic arthritis, “it doesn’t seem to be a major determinant of the outcome.”
The studies were supported by UCB Pharma. Dr. Merola and Dr. McInnes have consulted for UCB and other pharmaceutical companies that market drugs for psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis. Dr. Van Vollenhoven has received research support, has consulted for, and has spoken on behalf of UCB and other pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT THE EULAR 2022 CONGRESS
New onset-depression after RA diagnosis raises mortality risk ‘more than sixfold’
The development of depression after a rheumatoid arthritis diagnosis increased the risk for death “more than sixfold” when compared with having no depression at diagnosis, according to Danish researchers.
Cumulative mortality at 10 years was approximately 37% in patients with comorbid RA and depression versus around 13.5% of RA patients with no depression, Jens Kristian Pedersen, MD, PhD, of Odense (Denmark) University Hospital–Svendborg Hospital and the department of clinical research at the University of Southern Denmark, also in Odense, reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
“According to [antidepressant] exposure status, the cumulative mortality followed two clearly different paths,” Dr. Pedersen said. “The mortality curves separated early and already within the first and second year of follow-up.”
RA, depression, and mortality
Rates of depression in patients with RA are high, Dr. Pedersen said, and while it’s previously been reported that their coexistence can increase mortality, this is the first time that the link has been investigated in a population newly diagnosed with RA.
In this study, Dr. Pedersen and collaborators wanted to look at the association in incident RA and defined depression as the first filling of an antidepressant prescription.
“Although antidepressants are used for different indications, we have recently described that in RA the most frequent indication for filling antidepressants is depression,” he explained. Moreover, that research found that “the frequency of filling coincides with the occurrence of depressive disorder previously reported in the scientific literature.”
Data sourced from multiple Danish registers
To examine the mortality risk associated with newly diagnosed RA and new-onset depression, Dr. Pedersen described how five different Danish registers were used.
First, data from the DANBIO register were used to identify patients with incident RA living in Denmark over a 10-year period ending in December 2018. Although perhaps widely known as a biologics register, DANBIO is required by the Danish National Board of Health to collect information on all patients with RA, regardless of their treatment.
Next, the Danish National Prescription Register and Danish National Patient Register were consulted to obtain data on patients who had a first prescription for antidepressant treatment and information on those who developed a diagnosis of depression. Demographic, vital status, and socioeconomic data were collated from the Danish Civil Registration System and Statistics Denmark databases.
To be sure they were looking at incident cases of RA and new cases of depression, the researchers excluded anyone with an existing prescription of antidepressants or methotrexate, or who had a confirmed diagnosis of either disorder 3 years prior to the index date of Jan. 1, 2008.
This meant that, from a total population of 18,000 patients in the DANBIO database, there were just over 11,000 who could be included in the analyses.
Overall, the median age at RA diagnosis was 61 years, two-thirds were female, and two-thirds had seropositive disease.
New-onset depression in incident RA
“During follow-up, about 10% filled a prescription of antidepressants,” said Dr. Pedersen, adding that there were 671 deaths, representing around 57,000 person-years at risk.
“The majority died from natural causes,” he said, although the cause of death was unknown in 30% of cases.
Comparing those who did and did not have a prescription for antidepressants, there were some differences in the age at which death occurred, the percentage of females to males, the presence of other comorbidities, and levels of higher education and income. These were all adjusted for in the analyses.
Adjusted hazard rate ratios were calculated to look at the mortality risk in patients who had antidepressant exposure. The highest HRR for mortality with antidepressant use was seen in patients aged 55 years or younger at 6.66, with the next highest HRRs being for male gender (3.70) and seropositive RA (3.45).
But HRRs for seronegative RA, female gender, and age 55-70 years or older than 75 years were all still around 3.0.
Depression definition questioned
“My only concern is about the definition of depression in your analysis,” said a member of the audience at the congress.
“You used antidepressant use as a proxy of depression diagnosis, but it might be that most or many patients have taken [medication] like duloxetine for pain control, and you are just seeing higher disease activity and more aggressive RA.”
Dr. Pedersen responded: “After the EULAR 2022 submission deadline, we reanalyzed our data using two other measures of depression.
“First, we use treatment with antidepressants with a positive indication of depression, according to the prescribing physician, and secondly, we used first diagnosis with depression according to ICD-10 Code F32 – ‘depressive episode after discharge from hospital as an outpatient,’ ” he said.
“All definitions end up with a hazard rate ratio of about three. So, in my opinion, it doesn’t matter whether you focus on one measure of depression or the other.”
David Isenberg, MD, FRCP, professor of rheumatology at University College London, wanted to know more about the antecedent history of depression and whether people who had been depressed maybe a decade or 2 decades before, were more likely to get RA.
That calculation has not been done, Dr. Pedersen said, adding that the study also can’t account for people who may have had recurrent depression. Depression treatment guidelines often recommend nonpharmacologic intervention in the first instance, “so we do not necessarily get the right picture of recurrent depression if we look further back.”
Pointing out that the sixfold increase in mortality was impressive, another delegate asked about whether it was because of a higher disease activity or joint damage and if the mortality risk might be lower in patients who are in remission.
“We don’t know that yet,” Dr. Pedersen answered. “We haven’t done the calculations, but there is the issue of residual confounding if we don’t take all relevant covariates into account. So, we need to do that calculation as well.”
The study was supported by the Danish Rheumatism Association. Dr. Pedersen had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
The development of depression after a rheumatoid arthritis diagnosis increased the risk for death “more than sixfold” when compared with having no depression at diagnosis, according to Danish researchers.
Cumulative mortality at 10 years was approximately 37% in patients with comorbid RA and depression versus around 13.5% of RA patients with no depression, Jens Kristian Pedersen, MD, PhD, of Odense (Denmark) University Hospital–Svendborg Hospital and the department of clinical research at the University of Southern Denmark, also in Odense, reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
“According to [antidepressant] exposure status, the cumulative mortality followed two clearly different paths,” Dr. Pedersen said. “The mortality curves separated early and already within the first and second year of follow-up.”
RA, depression, and mortality
Rates of depression in patients with RA are high, Dr. Pedersen said, and while it’s previously been reported that their coexistence can increase mortality, this is the first time that the link has been investigated in a population newly diagnosed with RA.
In this study, Dr. Pedersen and collaborators wanted to look at the association in incident RA and defined depression as the first filling of an antidepressant prescription.
“Although antidepressants are used for different indications, we have recently described that in RA the most frequent indication for filling antidepressants is depression,” he explained. Moreover, that research found that “the frequency of filling coincides with the occurrence of depressive disorder previously reported in the scientific literature.”
Data sourced from multiple Danish registers
To examine the mortality risk associated with newly diagnosed RA and new-onset depression, Dr. Pedersen described how five different Danish registers were used.
First, data from the DANBIO register were used to identify patients with incident RA living in Denmark over a 10-year period ending in December 2018. Although perhaps widely known as a biologics register, DANBIO is required by the Danish National Board of Health to collect information on all patients with RA, regardless of their treatment.
Next, the Danish National Prescription Register and Danish National Patient Register were consulted to obtain data on patients who had a first prescription for antidepressant treatment and information on those who developed a diagnosis of depression. Demographic, vital status, and socioeconomic data were collated from the Danish Civil Registration System and Statistics Denmark databases.
To be sure they were looking at incident cases of RA and new cases of depression, the researchers excluded anyone with an existing prescription of antidepressants or methotrexate, or who had a confirmed diagnosis of either disorder 3 years prior to the index date of Jan. 1, 2008.
This meant that, from a total population of 18,000 patients in the DANBIO database, there were just over 11,000 who could be included in the analyses.
Overall, the median age at RA diagnosis was 61 years, two-thirds were female, and two-thirds had seropositive disease.
New-onset depression in incident RA
“During follow-up, about 10% filled a prescription of antidepressants,” said Dr. Pedersen, adding that there were 671 deaths, representing around 57,000 person-years at risk.
“The majority died from natural causes,” he said, although the cause of death was unknown in 30% of cases.
Comparing those who did and did not have a prescription for antidepressants, there were some differences in the age at which death occurred, the percentage of females to males, the presence of other comorbidities, and levels of higher education and income. These were all adjusted for in the analyses.
Adjusted hazard rate ratios were calculated to look at the mortality risk in patients who had antidepressant exposure. The highest HRR for mortality with antidepressant use was seen in patients aged 55 years or younger at 6.66, with the next highest HRRs being for male gender (3.70) and seropositive RA (3.45).
But HRRs for seronegative RA, female gender, and age 55-70 years or older than 75 years were all still around 3.0.
Depression definition questioned
“My only concern is about the definition of depression in your analysis,” said a member of the audience at the congress.
“You used antidepressant use as a proxy of depression diagnosis, but it might be that most or many patients have taken [medication] like duloxetine for pain control, and you are just seeing higher disease activity and more aggressive RA.”
Dr. Pedersen responded: “After the EULAR 2022 submission deadline, we reanalyzed our data using two other measures of depression.
“First, we use treatment with antidepressants with a positive indication of depression, according to the prescribing physician, and secondly, we used first diagnosis with depression according to ICD-10 Code F32 – ‘depressive episode after discharge from hospital as an outpatient,’ ” he said.
“All definitions end up with a hazard rate ratio of about three. So, in my opinion, it doesn’t matter whether you focus on one measure of depression or the other.”
David Isenberg, MD, FRCP, professor of rheumatology at University College London, wanted to know more about the antecedent history of depression and whether people who had been depressed maybe a decade or 2 decades before, were more likely to get RA.
That calculation has not been done, Dr. Pedersen said, adding that the study also can’t account for people who may have had recurrent depression. Depression treatment guidelines often recommend nonpharmacologic intervention in the first instance, “so we do not necessarily get the right picture of recurrent depression if we look further back.”
Pointing out that the sixfold increase in mortality was impressive, another delegate asked about whether it was because of a higher disease activity or joint damage and if the mortality risk might be lower in patients who are in remission.
“We don’t know that yet,” Dr. Pedersen answered. “We haven’t done the calculations, but there is the issue of residual confounding if we don’t take all relevant covariates into account. So, we need to do that calculation as well.”
The study was supported by the Danish Rheumatism Association. Dr. Pedersen had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
The development of depression after a rheumatoid arthritis diagnosis increased the risk for death “more than sixfold” when compared with having no depression at diagnosis, according to Danish researchers.
Cumulative mortality at 10 years was approximately 37% in patients with comorbid RA and depression versus around 13.5% of RA patients with no depression, Jens Kristian Pedersen, MD, PhD, of Odense (Denmark) University Hospital–Svendborg Hospital and the department of clinical research at the University of Southern Denmark, also in Odense, reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
“According to [antidepressant] exposure status, the cumulative mortality followed two clearly different paths,” Dr. Pedersen said. “The mortality curves separated early and already within the first and second year of follow-up.”
RA, depression, and mortality
Rates of depression in patients with RA are high, Dr. Pedersen said, and while it’s previously been reported that their coexistence can increase mortality, this is the first time that the link has been investigated in a population newly diagnosed with RA.
In this study, Dr. Pedersen and collaborators wanted to look at the association in incident RA and defined depression as the first filling of an antidepressant prescription.
“Although antidepressants are used for different indications, we have recently described that in RA the most frequent indication for filling antidepressants is depression,” he explained. Moreover, that research found that “the frequency of filling coincides with the occurrence of depressive disorder previously reported in the scientific literature.”
Data sourced from multiple Danish registers
To examine the mortality risk associated with newly diagnosed RA and new-onset depression, Dr. Pedersen described how five different Danish registers were used.
First, data from the DANBIO register were used to identify patients with incident RA living in Denmark over a 10-year period ending in December 2018. Although perhaps widely known as a biologics register, DANBIO is required by the Danish National Board of Health to collect information on all patients with RA, regardless of their treatment.
Next, the Danish National Prescription Register and Danish National Patient Register were consulted to obtain data on patients who had a first prescription for antidepressant treatment and information on those who developed a diagnosis of depression. Demographic, vital status, and socioeconomic data were collated from the Danish Civil Registration System and Statistics Denmark databases.
To be sure they were looking at incident cases of RA and new cases of depression, the researchers excluded anyone with an existing prescription of antidepressants or methotrexate, or who had a confirmed diagnosis of either disorder 3 years prior to the index date of Jan. 1, 2008.
This meant that, from a total population of 18,000 patients in the DANBIO database, there were just over 11,000 who could be included in the analyses.
Overall, the median age at RA diagnosis was 61 years, two-thirds were female, and two-thirds had seropositive disease.
New-onset depression in incident RA
“During follow-up, about 10% filled a prescription of antidepressants,” said Dr. Pedersen, adding that there were 671 deaths, representing around 57,000 person-years at risk.
“The majority died from natural causes,” he said, although the cause of death was unknown in 30% of cases.
Comparing those who did and did not have a prescription for antidepressants, there were some differences in the age at which death occurred, the percentage of females to males, the presence of other comorbidities, and levels of higher education and income. These were all adjusted for in the analyses.
Adjusted hazard rate ratios were calculated to look at the mortality risk in patients who had antidepressant exposure. The highest HRR for mortality with antidepressant use was seen in patients aged 55 years or younger at 6.66, with the next highest HRRs being for male gender (3.70) and seropositive RA (3.45).
But HRRs for seronegative RA, female gender, and age 55-70 years or older than 75 years were all still around 3.0.
Depression definition questioned
“My only concern is about the definition of depression in your analysis,” said a member of the audience at the congress.
“You used antidepressant use as a proxy of depression diagnosis, but it might be that most or many patients have taken [medication] like duloxetine for pain control, and you are just seeing higher disease activity and more aggressive RA.”
Dr. Pedersen responded: “After the EULAR 2022 submission deadline, we reanalyzed our data using two other measures of depression.
“First, we use treatment with antidepressants with a positive indication of depression, according to the prescribing physician, and secondly, we used first diagnosis with depression according to ICD-10 Code F32 – ‘depressive episode after discharge from hospital as an outpatient,’ ” he said.
“All definitions end up with a hazard rate ratio of about three. So, in my opinion, it doesn’t matter whether you focus on one measure of depression or the other.”
David Isenberg, MD, FRCP, professor of rheumatology at University College London, wanted to know more about the antecedent history of depression and whether people who had been depressed maybe a decade or 2 decades before, were more likely to get RA.
That calculation has not been done, Dr. Pedersen said, adding that the study also can’t account for people who may have had recurrent depression. Depression treatment guidelines often recommend nonpharmacologic intervention in the first instance, “so we do not necessarily get the right picture of recurrent depression if we look further back.”
Pointing out that the sixfold increase in mortality was impressive, another delegate asked about whether it was because of a higher disease activity or joint damage and if the mortality risk might be lower in patients who are in remission.
“We don’t know that yet,” Dr. Pedersen answered. “We haven’t done the calculations, but there is the issue of residual confounding if we don’t take all relevant covariates into account. So, we need to do that calculation as well.”
The study was supported by the Danish Rheumatism Association. Dr. Pedersen had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
FROM THE EULAR 2022 CONGRESS
Diagnostic axSpA MRI features differ in men and women
MRI criteria used to diagnose axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) may require gender-specific revision, according to research conducted at Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin.
Although established MRI markers were detected in both sexes, their prevalence was substantially different in some cases – ankylosis and fat metaplasia were more prevalent in male than female patients, for example, while sclerosis was far more common in females.
“There’s increasing evidence in the literature and awareness in clinical practice that there are some sex differences in the clinical presentation of axSpA,” said radiologist Sevtap Tugce Ulas, MD, at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
She presented the first results of a study examining the diagnostic performance of MRI findings for men and women. “Men have a high risk of structural damage, while women are more likely to be affected by peripheral manifestations with a higher risk for pain, stiffness, and fatigue.”
Joint biomechanics are different in men and women, she pointed out, which might explain some of the disparities. She observed that diagnostic delay – a known problem in axSpA – was “significantly longer” in female patients.
Dr. Ulas and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of participants in six prospective axSpA cohorts. From a total of more than 1,100 participants, the researchers identified 684 who had both a clinical diagnosis and complete imaging data available for evaluation. The study population included 379 men and women with and 305 men and women without axSpA.
The mean age overall in all groups was 37 years, with axSpA patients more likely than controls to have elevated C-reactive protein levels; levels were also higher in men with axSpA, compared with in women with axSpA.
Men with axSpA also were more likely than women to be HLA-B27 positive (91% vs. 79%), but there were similar mean Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index scores recorded (4.4 vs. 4.6) among the subjects with axSpA.
Two experienced radiologists, blinded to the clinical diagnosis, scored the MRI images independently of each other, looking for the presence of ankylosis; erosions; sclerosis; fat metaplasia; and bone marrow edema in the ventral, mid, and dorsal regions of the sacroiliac joints. Any disagreement between the two reviewers was assessed by a third, more experienced radiologist.
Clear differences in MRI markers
“If you look in detail, we found no major sex-specific differences for erosion and bone marrow edema,” Dr. Ulas reported.
The situation was quite different for other MRI parameters examined. Indeed, more men than women had evidence of ankylosis (24.3% vs. 7.4%) and fat metaplasia (58.8% vs. 42.6%). Conversely, women were more likely than men to have evidence of sclerosis (75.0% vs. 57.6%).
“To make the performance more easily comparable, we calculated a diagnostic odds ratio, which is simply positive likelihood ratio divided by negative likelihood ratio,” Dr. Ulas said.
Doing this showed that the presence of ankylosis had “an almost 10 times stronger performance in men,” with a DOR of 40.1 versus 4.7 for women.
“Interestingly, this was not only caused by low prevalence in females, but also by high rates of false positives,” she said.
DOR for the other parameters in men and women were 18.6 and 6.3 for fat metaplasia, 2.5 and 3.0 for sclerosis, 17.6 and 11.1 for joint erosion, and 2.5 and 3.7 for bone edema.
Overall, diagnostic accuracy was improved only when middle and dorsal lesions were considered.
‘Remarkably different’ results
“By definition, these patients have the same disease,” said Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, of Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (Germany).
Yet these are “remarkably different” findings, Dr. Schulze-Koops said during a closing highlights session of the congress.
Current imaging practices don’t differentiate between the sexes but perhaps they might need to, he said, because these data suggest “female patients have a different MRI pattern from what we learn from the textbooks.
“[The investigators] say diagnostic performance of established imaging markers on MRI is significantly lower in female axSpA patients, and we should consider this when we are in the situation where we question the disease.”
Marta Mosca, MD, PhD, of the University of Pisa (Italy) and who cochaired the session in which Dr. Ulas had presented the findings commented: “I think is very interesting. We always talk about gender differences in treatment and in the assessment.”
However, Dr. Mosca asked if there were plans to study other patient cohorts, notably those not just referred by a rheumatologist, as that was “a big limitation.”
Dr. Ulas replied: “I think we need follow-up studies to investigate this problem, because we know that there are differences in the clinical presentation and also in the imaging, and this is an important point.”
Of course, there are other limitations, Dr. Ulas said, such as the sole use of conventional T1-weighted spin echo sequences. Although often routinely used in clinical practice, this imaging technique can lead to overestimation of structural damage. Moreover, “subtle differences might have been missed” in bone marrow edema because it wasn’t included in the semiquantitative scoring system used.
“Most importantly, the MRI images under investigation were also used in the diagnostic process, which carries the risk of circular reasoning,” Dr. Ulas said.
However, there are clearly some differences in imaging appearance between men and women, and “we show a significantly lower performance of many typical MRI findings in women,” Dr. Ulas said. “We hope that these findings might spark a critical discussion on the appropriateness of sex-blind classification criteria for axSpA, and hopefully, eventually lead to refined criteria for both sexes.”
Dr. Ulas had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Schulze-Koops and Dr. Mosca were not involved in the study and had no relevant disclosures.
MRI criteria used to diagnose axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) may require gender-specific revision, according to research conducted at Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin.
Although established MRI markers were detected in both sexes, their prevalence was substantially different in some cases – ankylosis and fat metaplasia were more prevalent in male than female patients, for example, while sclerosis was far more common in females.
“There’s increasing evidence in the literature and awareness in clinical practice that there are some sex differences in the clinical presentation of axSpA,” said radiologist Sevtap Tugce Ulas, MD, at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
She presented the first results of a study examining the diagnostic performance of MRI findings for men and women. “Men have a high risk of structural damage, while women are more likely to be affected by peripheral manifestations with a higher risk for pain, stiffness, and fatigue.”
Joint biomechanics are different in men and women, she pointed out, which might explain some of the disparities. She observed that diagnostic delay – a known problem in axSpA – was “significantly longer” in female patients.
Dr. Ulas and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of participants in six prospective axSpA cohorts. From a total of more than 1,100 participants, the researchers identified 684 who had both a clinical diagnosis and complete imaging data available for evaluation. The study population included 379 men and women with and 305 men and women without axSpA.
The mean age overall in all groups was 37 years, with axSpA patients more likely than controls to have elevated C-reactive protein levels; levels were also higher in men with axSpA, compared with in women with axSpA.
Men with axSpA also were more likely than women to be HLA-B27 positive (91% vs. 79%), but there were similar mean Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index scores recorded (4.4 vs. 4.6) among the subjects with axSpA.
Two experienced radiologists, blinded to the clinical diagnosis, scored the MRI images independently of each other, looking for the presence of ankylosis; erosions; sclerosis; fat metaplasia; and bone marrow edema in the ventral, mid, and dorsal regions of the sacroiliac joints. Any disagreement between the two reviewers was assessed by a third, more experienced radiologist.
Clear differences in MRI markers
“If you look in detail, we found no major sex-specific differences for erosion and bone marrow edema,” Dr. Ulas reported.
The situation was quite different for other MRI parameters examined. Indeed, more men than women had evidence of ankylosis (24.3% vs. 7.4%) and fat metaplasia (58.8% vs. 42.6%). Conversely, women were more likely than men to have evidence of sclerosis (75.0% vs. 57.6%).
“To make the performance more easily comparable, we calculated a diagnostic odds ratio, which is simply positive likelihood ratio divided by negative likelihood ratio,” Dr. Ulas said.
Doing this showed that the presence of ankylosis had “an almost 10 times stronger performance in men,” with a DOR of 40.1 versus 4.7 for women.
“Interestingly, this was not only caused by low prevalence in females, but also by high rates of false positives,” she said.
DOR for the other parameters in men and women were 18.6 and 6.3 for fat metaplasia, 2.5 and 3.0 for sclerosis, 17.6 and 11.1 for joint erosion, and 2.5 and 3.7 for bone edema.
Overall, diagnostic accuracy was improved only when middle and dorsal lesions were considered.
‘Remarkably different’ results
“By definition, these patients have the same disease,” said Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, of Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (Germany).
Yet these are “remarkably different” findings, Dr. Schulze-Koops said during a closing highlights session of the congress.
Current imaging practices don’t differentiate between the sexes but perhaps they might need to, he said, because these data suggest “female patients have a different MRI pattern from what we learn from the textbooks.
“[The investigators] say diagnostic performance of established imaging markers on MRI is significantly lower in female axSpA patients, and we should consider this when we are in the situation where we question the disease.”
Marta Mosca, MD, PhD, of the University of Pisa (Italy) and who cochaired the session in which Dr. Ulas had presented the findings commented: “I think is very interesting. We always talk about gender differences in treatment and in the assessment.”
However, Dr. Mosca asked if there were plans to study other patient cohorts, notably those not just referred by a rheumatologist, as that was “a big limitation.”
Dr. Ulas replied: “I think we need follow-up studies to investigate this problem, because we know that there are differences in the clinical presentation and also in the imaging, and this is an important point.”
Of course, there are other limitations, Dr. Ulas said, such as the sole use of conventional T1-weighted spin echo sequences. Although often routinely used in clinical practice, this imaging technique can lead to overestimation of structural damage. Moreover, “subtle differences might have been missed” in bone marrow edema because it wasn’t included in the semiquantitative scoring system used.
“Most importantly, the MRI images under investigation were also used in the diagnostic process, which carries the risk of circular reasoning,” Dr. Ulas said.
However, there are clearly some differences in imaging appearance between men and women, and “we show a significantly lower performance of many typical MRI findings in women,” Dr. Ulas said. “We hope that these findings might spark a critical discussion on the appropriateness of sex-blind classification criteria for axSpA, and hopefully, eventually lead to refined criteria for both sexes.”
Dr. Ulas had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Schulze-Koops and Dr. Mosca were not involved in the study and had no relevant disclosures.
MRI criteria used to diagnose axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) may require gender-specific revision, according to research conducted at Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin.
Although established MRI markers were detected in both sexes, their prevalence was substantially different in some cases – ankylosis and fat metaplasia were more prevalent in male than female patients, for example, while sclerosis was far more common in females.
“There’s increasing evidence in the literature and awareness in clinical practice that there are some sex differences in the clinical presentation of axSpA,” said radiologist Sevtap Tugce Ulas, MD, at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
She presented the first results of a study examining the diagnostic performance of MRI findings for men and women. “Men have a high risk of structural damage, while women are more likely to be affected by peripheral manifestations with a higher risk for pain, stiffness, and fatigue.”
Joint biomechanics are different in men and women, she pointed out, which might explain some of the disparities. She observed that diagnostic delay – a known problem in axSpA – was “significantly longer” in female patients.
Dr. Ulas and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of participants in six prospective axSpA cohorts. From a total of more than 1,100 participants, the researchers identified 684 who had both a clinical diagnosis and complete imaging data available for evaluation. The study population included 379 men and women with and 305 men and women without axSpA.
The mean age overall in all groups was 37 years, with axSpA patients more likely than controls to have elevated C-reactive protein levels; levels were also higher in men with axSpA, compared with in women with axSpA.
Men with axSpA also were more likely than women to be HLA-B27 positive (91% vs. 79%), but there were similar mean Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index scores recorded (4.4 vs. 4.6) among the subjects with axSpA.
Two experienced radiologists, blinded to the clinical diagnosis, scored the MRI images independently of each other, looking for the presence of ankylosis; erosions; sclerosis; fat metaplasia; and bone marrow edema in the ventral, mid, and dorsal regions of the sacroiliac joints. Any disagreement between the two reviewers was assessed by a third, more experienced radiologist.
Clear differences in MRI markers
“If you look in detail, we found no major sex-specific differences for erosion and bone marrow edema,” Dr. Ulas reported.
The situation was quite different for other MRI parameters examined. Indeed, more men than women had evidence of ankylosis (24.3% vs. 7.4%) and fat metaplasia (58.8% vs. 42.6%). Conversely, women were more likely than men to have evidence of sclerosis (75.0% vs. 57.6%).
“To make the performance more easily comparable, we calculated a diagnostic odds ratio, which is simply positive likelihood ratio divided by negative likelihood ratio,” Dr. Ulas said.
Doing this showed that the presence of ankylosis had “an almost 10 times stronger performance in men,” with a DOR of 40.1 versus 4.7 for women.
“Interestingly, this was not only caused by low prevalence in females, but also by high rates of false positives,” she said.
DOR for the other parameters in men and women were 18.6 and 6.3 for fat metaplasia, 2.5 and 3.0 for sclerosis, 17.6 and 11.1 for joint erosion, and 2.5 and 3.7 for bone edema.
Overall, diagnostic accuracy was improved only when middle and dorsal lesions were considered.
‘Remarkably different’ results
“By definition, these patients have the same disease,” said Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, of Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (Germany).
Yet these are “remarkably different” findings, Dr. Schulze-Koops said during a closing highlights session of the congress.
Current imaging practices don’t differentiate between the sexes but perhaps they might need to, he said, because these data suggest “female patients have a different MRI pattern from what we learn from the textbooks.
“[The investigators] say diagnostic performance of established imaging markers on MRI is significantly lower in female axSpA patients, and we should consider this when we are in the situation where we question the disease.”
Marta Mosca, MD, PhD, of the University of Pisa (Italy) and who cochaired the session in which Dr. Ulas had presented the findings commented: “I think is very interesting. We always talk about gender differences in treatment and in the assessment.”
However, Dr. Mosca asked if there were plans to study other patient cohorts, notably those not just referred by a rheumatologist, as that was “a big limitation.”
Dr. Ulas replied: “I think we need follow-up studies to investigate this problem, because we know that there are differences in the clinical presentation and also in the imaging, and this is an important point.”
Of course, there are other limitations, Dr. Ulas said, such as the sole use of conventional T1-weighted spin echo sequences. Although often routinely used in clinical practice, this imaging technique can lead to overestimation of structural damage. Moreover, “subtle differences might have been missed” in bone marrow edema because it wasn’t included in the semiquantitative scoring system used.
“Most importantly, the MRI images under investigation were also used in the diagnostic process, which carries the risk of circular reasoning,” Dr. Ulas said.
However, there are clearly some differences in imaging appearance between men and women, and “we show a significantly lower performance of many typical MRI findings in women,” Dr. Ulas said. “We hope that these findings might spark a critical discussion on the appropriateness of sex-blind classification criteria for axSpA, and hopefully, eventually lead to refined criteria for both sexes.”
Dr. Ulas had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Schulze-Koops and Dr. Mosca were not involved in the study and had no relevant disclosures.
FROM THE EULAR 2022 CONGRESS
Bimekizumab tames active ankylosing spondylitis in BE MOBILE 2
COPENHAGEN – Use of the dual interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitor bimekizumab (Bimzelx) was associated with rapid reductions in signs and symptoms of radiographic axial spondyloarthritis, reported investigators in the BE MOBILE 2 phase 3 trial.
At least half of all patients achieved an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) of less than 2.1 by week 24 of treatment with bimekizumab, and there were marked reductions in objective signs of inflammation, reported Désiréé van der Heijde, MD, PhD, of Leiden (Netherlands) University Medical Center.
“The safety we have seen in this trial was consistent with what we have seen [with bimekizumab] in other trials and other diseases,” she said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
IL-17 inhibitor times 2
Bimekizumab is a monoclonal immunoglobulin 1 antibody that selectively inhibits IL-17A and IL-17F. It is approved in the European Union for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.
In the BE MOBILE 2 trial, investigators enrolled patients aged 18 years and older who had ankylosing spondylitis, who met modified New York criteria, who had active disease at screening and at baseline, as defined by having a Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score of 4 or more and spinal pain of 4 or more on a scale of 0-10, and whose disease failed to respond to two different NSAIDs or who were either intolerant of or had contraindications to NSAIDs.
The patients were randomly assigned on a 2:1 basis to receive either bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks (221 patients) or placebo (111 patients) for 16 weeks. All patients were switched over at 16 weeks to bimekizumab maintenance for up to 1 year of total treatment.
Dr. Van der Heijde reported 24-week data from the trial, including data from 8 weeks of additional follow-up.
All endpoints met
The trial met its primary endpoint of 40% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40) at week 16. There was a 44.8% improvement with bimekizumab, compared with 22.6% with placebo (P < .001).
All secondary endpoints also favored the bimekizumab arm, including ASAS 40 among patients who had not previously received a tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha inhibitor, ASAS 20, BASDAI functional index, ankylosing spondylitis quality-of-life index, and others.
Responses to bimekizumab were consistent across subpopulations of patients with or without prior TNF-alpha inhibitor exposure, Dr. van der Heidje said.
In addition, use of bimekizumab was associated with a significant improvement from baseline, compared with placebo, in objective measures of inflammation, including MRI spine Berlin score at week 16 (mean, –2.3 vs. 0; P < .001), Spondylitis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) MRI sacroiliac joint score at week 16 (mean, –5.6 vs. 1.1), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein at week 16 (mean, 2.4 vs. 6.3 mg/L; P < .001).
The most frequent treatment-related adverse events were nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, and oral candidiasis, all of which were more common in the bimekizumab arm, as well as headache, the incidence of which was similar between the arms.
Overall, 6.4% of patients taking bimekizumab had fungal infections, compared with none in the placebo group. The infections were mild or moderate, localized, and mucocutaneous in nature. Only two patients discontinued the drug because of fungal infections: one for oral candidiasis, and one for esophageal candidiasis.
‘Promising results’
Fabian Proft, MD, head of the clinical trials unit at Charité University Hospital in Berlin, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization that the data looked very good.
“These are the first phase 3 data on dual inhibition of IL-17A and F with bimekizumab in axial spondyloarthritis, and the data are really promising,” he said. “For nonradiographic disease, the data also look very promising, and when we’re looking into the future, it might be a therapeutic option for us as treating rheumatologists.”
The study was funded by UCB Pharma. Dr. van der Heijde has received consulting fees from the company and others. Dr. Proft has consulted for and has been on the speaker’s bureau for UCB and other pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COPENHAGEN – Use of the dual interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitor bimekizumab (Bimzelx) was associated with rapid reductions in signs and symptoms of radiographic axial spondyloarthritis, reported investigators in the BE MOBILE 2 phase 3 trial.
At least half of all patients achieved an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) of less than 2.1 by week 24 of treatment with bimekizumab, and there were marked reductions in objective signs of inflammation, reported Désiréé van der Heijde, MD, PhD, of Leiden (Netherlands) University Medical Center.
“The safety we have seen in this trial was consistent with what we have seen [with bimekizumab] in other trials and other diseases,” she said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
IL-17 inhibitor times 2
Bimekizumab is a monoclonal immunoglobulin 1 antibody that selectively inhibits IL-17A and IL-17F. It is approved in the European Union for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.
In the BE MOBILE 2 trial, investigators enrolled patients aged 18 years and older who had ankylosing spondylitis, who met modified New York criteria, who had active disease at screening and at baseline, as defined by having a Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score of 4 or more and spinal pain of 4 or more on a scale of 0-10, and whose disease failed to respond to two different NSAIDs or who were either intolerant of or had contraindications to NSAIDs.
The patients were randomly assigned on a 2:1 basis to receive either bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks (221 patients) or placebo (111 patients) for 16 weeks. All patients were switched over at 16 weeks to bimekizumab maintenance for up to 1 year of total treatment.
Dr. Van der Heijde reported 24-week data from the trial, including data from 8 weeks of additional follow-up.
All endpoints met
The trial met its primary endpoint of 40% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40) at week 16. There was a 44.8% improvement with bimekizumab, compared with 22.6% with placebo (P < .001).
All secondary endpoints also favored the bimekizumab arm, including ASAS 40 among patients who had not previously received a tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha inhibitor, ASAS 20, BASDAI functional index, ankylosing spondylitis quality-of-life index, and others.
Responses to bimekizumab were consistent across subpopulations of patients with or without prior TNF-alpha inhibitor exposure, Dr. van der Heidje said.
In addition, use of bimekizumab was associated with a significant improvement from baseline, compared with placebo, in objective measures of inflammation, including MRI spine Berlin score at week 16 (mean, –2.3 vs. 0; P < .001), Spondylitis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) MRI sacroiliac joint score at week 16 (mean, –5.6 vs. 1.1), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein at week 16 (mean, 2.4 vs. 6.3 mg/L; P < .001).
The most frequent treatment-related adverse events were nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, and oral candidiasis, all of which were more common in the bimekizumab arm, as well as headache, the incidence of which was similar between the arms.
Overall, 6.4% of patients taking bimekizumab had fungal infections, compared with none in the placebo group. The infections were mild or moderate, localized, and mucocutaneous in nature. Only two patients discontinued the drug because of fungal infections: one for oral candidiasis, and one for esophageal candidiasis.
‘Promising results’
Fabian Proft, MD, head of the clinical trials unit at Charité University Hospital in Berlin, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization that the data looked very good.
“These are the first phase 3 data on dual inhibition of IL-17A and F with bimekizumab in axial spondyloarthritis, and the data are really promising,” he said. “For nonradiographic disease, the data also look very promising, and when we’re looking into the future, it might be a therapeutic option for us as treating rheumatologists.”
The study was funded by UCB Pharma. Dr. van der Heijde has received consulting fees from the company and others. Dr. Proft has consulted for and has been on the speaker’s bureau for UCB and other pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COPENHAGEN – Use of the dual interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitor bimekizumab (Bimzelx) was associated with rapid reductions in signs and symptoms of radiographic axial spondyloarthritis, reported investigators in the BE MOBILE 2 phase 3 trial.
At least half of all patients achieved an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) of less than 2.1 by week 24 of treatment with bimekizumab, and there were marked reductions in objective signs of inflammation, reported Désiréé van der Heijde, MD, PhD, of Leiden (Netherlands) University Medical Center.
“The safety we have seen in this trial was consistent with what we have seen [with bimekizumab] in other trials and other diseases,” she said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
IL-17 inhibitor times 2
Bimekizumab is a monoclonal immunoglobulin 1 antibody that selectively inhibits IL-17A and IL-17F. It is approved in the European Union for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.
In the BE MOBILE 2 trial, investigators enrolled patients aged 18 years and older who had ankylosing spondylitis, who met modified New York criteria, who had active disease at screening and at baseline, as defined by having a Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score of 4 or more and spinal pain of 4 or more on a scale of 0-10, and whose disease failed to respond to two different NSAIDs or who were either intolerant of or had contraindications to NSAIDs.
The patients were randomly assigned on a 2:1 basis to receive either bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks (221 patients) or placebo (111 patients) for 16 weeks. All patients were switched over at 16 weeks to bimekizumab maintenance for up to 1 year of total treatment.
Dr. Van der Heijde reported 24-week data from the trial, including data from 8 weeks of additional follow-up.
All endpoints met
The trial met its primary endpoint of 40% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40) at week 16. There was a 44.8% improvement with bimekizumab, compared with 22.6% with placebo (P < .001).
All secondary endpoints also favored the bimekizumab arm, including ASAS 40 among patients who had not previously received a tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha inhibitor, ASAS 20, BASDAI functional index, ankylosing spondylitis quality-of-life index, and others.
Responses to bimekizumab were consistent across subpopulations of patients with or without prior TNF-alpha inhibitor exposure, Dr. van der Heidje said.
In addition, use of bimekizumab was associated with a significant improvement from baseline, compared with placebo, in objective measures of inflammation, including MRI spine Berlin score at week 16 (mean, –2.3 vs. 0; P < .001), Spondylitis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) MRI sacroiliac joint score at week 16 (mean, –5.6 vs. 1.1), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein at week 16 (mean, 2.4 vs. 6.3 mg/L; P < .001).
The most frequent treatment-related adverse events were nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, and oral candidiasis, all of which were more common in the bimekizumab arm, as well as headache, the incidence of which was similar between the arms.
Overall, 6.4% of patients taking bimekizumab had fungal infections, compared with none in the placebo group. The infections were mild or moderate, localized, and mucocutaneous in nature. Only two patients discontinued the drug because of fungal infections: one for oral candidiasis, and one for esophageal candidiasis.
‘Promising results’
Fabian Proft, MD, head of the clinical trials unit at Charité University Hospital in Berlin, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization that the data looked very good.
“These are the first phase 3 data on dual inhibition of IL-17A and F with bimekizumab in axial spondyloarthritis, and the data are really promising,” he said. “For nonradiographic disease, the data also look very promising, and when we’re looking into the future, it might be a therapeutic option for us as treating rheumatologists.”
The study was funded by UCB Pharma. Dr. van der Heijde has received consulting fees from the company and others. Dr. Proft has consulted for and has been on the speaker’s bureau for UCB and other pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT THE EULAR 2022 CONGRESS
Deucravacitinib and orelabrutinib perform well in early lupus trials
Deucravacitinib and orelabrutinib – two novel oral drugs under investigation for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) – have performed well in early clinical trials reported as late-breaking abstracts at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
In the phase 2 PAISLEY study, up to 58% of patients treated with deucravacitinib versus 34% of placebo-treated patients met the primary study endpoint of an SLE Responder Index-4 (SRI-4) after 38 weeks of treatment. Deucravacitinib also “achieved or meaningfully improved” all of the secondary endpoints set out in the 363-patient trial and was reported to have a safety and tolerability profile that was generally similar to placebo.
“Deucravacitinib shows promise as a novel therapy for SLE and warrants further investigation in phase 3 trials,” said Eric F. Morand, MD, PhD, a clinical rheumatologist and head of the School of Clinical Sciences at Monash University in Melbourne.
In a separate, ongoing phase 1b/2a study designed to evaluate orelabrutinib as a potential treatment for SLE, no safety concerns were seen with the investigational drug, along with “trending efficacy,” that supports “further studies in larger and longer-term trials,” according to the study’s investigators.
“What sets these two new drugs apart from currently available targeted therapies are their mode of action,” said Md Yuzaiful Md Yusof, MBChB, PhD, who was not involved in either study.
“The results from the PAISLEY study are promising, and it’s good to see the patients recruited were of diverse ethnicity [50%–60% were White],” added Dr. Md Yusof, a senior research fellow within the Leeds (England) Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine and a consultant rheumatologist at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust.
He noted that the placebo rate was also low: “This could be contributed to by keeping the background prednisolone dose low, which is often a challenge in designing SLE trials.”
Deucravacitinib – the distant cousin of the JAK family?
“Deucravacitinib is a compound you might not have heard of before,” Dr. Morand said.
“It’s an inhibitor of a kinase called TYK2, which, broadly speaking, is a member of JAK [Janus kinase] family,” he explained in an interview. TYK2 regulates signal transduction downstream of receptors for interleukin (IL)-23 and IL-12 pathways and the type I interferon family.
“It’s a very finite set of cytokine signals” that are being blocked with deucravacitinib, he said, adding that this means it’s more directly targeting SLE pathogenic mechanisms than perhaps other JAK inhibitor compounds.
“It also means that it shouldn’t have some of the downsides of the other JAK inhibitors,” Dr. Morand said, “such as hematopoietic side effects, including cytopenias.”
The phase 2 PAISLEY study
This study involved 363 patients with moderate to severe, active SLE were recruited and randomized to receive placebo (n = 90) or one of three doses of deucravacitinib: 3 mg twice daily (n = 91), 6 mg twice daily (n = 93), or 12 mg once daily (n = 89). Most patients were also taking multiple background therapies, but this was similar across the four treatment arms.
The SRI-4 primary endpoint after 38 weeks of treatment was met by 34.4% of patients who received placebo, but 58.2% of those treated with deucravacitinib 3 mg twice daily (P = .0006 versus placebo), 49.5% (P = .021) of those treated with 6 mg twice daily, and 44.9% (P = .078) treated with 12 mg once daily.
“All secondary outcome measures were achieved or meaningfully improved at week 48, including SRI-4, BICLA [British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment], low-level disease activity state [LLDAS], reduction in skin disease and reduction in arthritis,” Dr. Morand said.
In addition, early biomarker results showed reductions in double-stranded DNA titers and increases in serum C4 complement with deucravacitinib across the duration of the study.
In discussion, Dr. Morand was asked about the seemingly negative or inverse dose response seen in the trial, with the best results seen with the 3-mg twice daily dose, then lower effects seen with two higher doses.
“Our analysis is that it’s not an inverse dose response, but rather a flat dose response above the 3-mg [twice daily] dose,” he said, noting that there was a higher dropout rate because of adverse effects in the 12-mg once daily group and those participants were recorded as nonresponders.
“We think what we’ve seen here is that 3 mg twice daily is a sufficient dose and there was no additional therapeutic gain above that.”
Rates of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, and AEs of interest were overall fairly similar between deucravacitinib and placebo groups. The most common side effects seen with deucravacitinib were upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, headache, and urinary tract infection. Skin reactions, such as acne, rash, and pruritis, among others, were more common in deucravacitinib- than in placebo-treated patients.
Importantly, Dr. Morand noted that there were no major cardiac events or thrombotic events and no deaths seen in the study. There was no signal for an increase in serious or opportunistic infections, including herpes zoster. There was no effect on common laboratory parameters.
“These are very encouraging results for patients with SLE,” Albert Roy, executive director of Lupus Therapeutics, said in a press release issued by the Lupus Research Alliance.
“We are honored to have played a role in this exciting work by helping to conduct this clinical trial through our Lupus Clinical Investigators Network of renowned North American academic centers.”
In an interview, he added: “We’re cautiously optimistic. Hopefully, if it continues to progress through phase 3, it’ll be the first oral agent that would be approved for lupus, notwithstanding prednisone and Plaquenil [hydroxychloroquine], back in the 50s.”
Orelabrutinib phase 2 study in SLE
Another approach to oral route of administration under investigation in SLE is the use of orelabrutinib, an irreversible inhibitor of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) that was approved in China in December 2020 for the treatment of certain lymphomas and leukemias.
The rationale for testing it in SLE comes from two preclinical studies that had suggested a possible benefit in reducing disease activity, explained Zhanguo Li, MD, PhD, professor at Peking University People’s Hospital in Beijing. He presented the results of an ongoing randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase Ib/IIa dose-finding study comparing three different doses of orelabrutinib (50, 80, and 100 mg, once daily) to placebo.
As in the deucravacitinib trial, the SRI-4 was used to assess the potential efficacy of orelabrutinib, although in a much smaller patient population (n = 92) and at a shorter time point (12 weeks). Results showed an 11%-20% difference between the percentage of patients who met SRI-4 response criteria with orelabrutinib and those on placebo, at a respective 46.5%, 53.3%, 56.3% and 35.7%.
SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) scores showed a similar benefit of orelabrutinib over placebo, with 54%-63% and 30% of patients, respectively, achieving a score of 8 or more.
Adverse event rates were similar to those of placebo with most events being of mild or moderate nature. Three patients treated with orelabrutinib experienced serious adverse events, of which one was grade 3, but there were no reported deaths.
Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data showed a dose effect, and nearly complete occupancy of BTK was achieved at all dose levels for 24 hours, consistent with once-daily dosing.
“BTK plays an important role in B-cell regulation, thus B-cell and myeloid-cell blockade through BTK inhibition is an interesting potential new target for SLE,” Dr. Md Yusof said.
“Data from this early dose-ranging trial is encouraging. No major safety signal apart from mild reduction in lymphocyte and white cell counts,” he added.
“There are still plenty of challenges ahead for this drug’s development, particularly as none of the BTK inhibitors have yet to succeed in phase 3 trials in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases,” Dr. Md Yusof said.
Early days for both agents
While both seem currently promising, it’s very early days for deucravacitinib and orelabrutinib as possible new agents for SLE.
Aside from SLE, deucravacitinib is being tested across multiple immune-mediated diseases. This includes psoriasis, where two phase 3 trials – POETYK PSO-1 and POETYK PSO-2 – have already been completed, and psoriatic arthritis, where a phase 2 trial has been reported; all with positive results.
Phase 3 testing of deucravacitinib will go ahead and recruitment may start toward the end of this year, but it’ll take years to complete the studies, Dr. Morand said. Even if the trials prove positive, neither agent is going to be available for clinical use for several years.
A case in point is anifrolumab (Saphnelo), which Dr. Morand was involved in assessing. Despite gaining approval in the United States and across much of the world, the drug still going through reimbursement processes.
“The trial data, and lots of post hoc analysis, show clearly that it’s a major step forward in treating lupus,” he said in an interview, but “access is limited in most places, so hands-on experience with that new treatment is still limited for most clinicians.”
As for all the other new targeted approaches under investigation, “although there’s a lot of trial activity, there’s still a couple of years away before any of the current trials deliver new treatment. That’s if they provide positive findings. Indeed, there have been numerous agents that have shown promise at phase 2 but then fall at the final phase 3 hurdle, including baricitinib, which Dr. Morand reported on in a separate poster presentation.
Phase 3 data proved disappointing: “Results are not sufficiently positive for that to go forward,” he said, adding that “transitioning from a successful phase 2 to a successful phase 3 is challenging, and many products have failed.”
Dr. Morand added: “It’s a very exciting time to be in lupus research, and there’s a lot of optimism about the future. But when I go back to my clinic tomorrow, I treat my patients exactly the same as I did last week and last year.”
It’s yet to be seen if deucravacitinib will fulfill its early promise, but it’s off to an impressive start. A positive for patients is that it’s an oral drug, with the potential to improve access to treatment across the world where getting infusions may be an issue.
“These are some of the most exciting data that I’ve seen at the phase 2 level in terms of effect size across all the readouts that are used,” Dr. Morand said. “There’s no guesswork here; it worked across all the measures. That’s very reassuring.”
The PAISLEY study was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Morand has acted as a consultant to the company and received research support for the conduct of the trial. He disclosed acting as a consultant or receiving research funding from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Janssen, Genentech, Servier, Novartis, and UCB. Mr. Roy is the executive director of Lupus Therapeutics, which manages the Lupus Clinical Investigators Network based in North America. Lupus Therapeutics is the clinical trials arm of the Lupus Research Alliance, a nongovernmental, nonprofit funder of lupus research worldwide. The orelabrutinib study was sponsored by InnoCare Pharma. Dr. Li is the principal investigator for the trial but had no conflicts of interest to declare. Dr. Md Yusof disclosed receiving consultancy fees from Aurinia Pharmaceuticals.
Deucravacitinib and orelabrutinib – two novel oral drugs under investigation for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) – have performed well in early clinical trials reported as late-breaking abstracts at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
In the phase 2 PAISLEY study, up to 58% of patients treated with deucravacitinib versus 34% of placebo-treated patients met the primary study endpoint of an SLE Responder Index-4 (SRI-4) after 38 weeks of treatment. Deucravacitinib also “achieved or meaningfully improved” all of the secondary endpoints set out in the 363-patient trial and was reported to have a safety and tolerability profile that was generally similar to placebo.
“Deucravacitinib shows promise as a novel therapy for SLE and warrants further investigation in phase 3 trials,” said Eric F. Morand, MD, PhD, a clinical rheumatologist and head of the School of Clinical Sciences at Monash University in Melbourne.
In a separate, ongoing phase 1b/2a study designed to evaluate orelabrutinib as a potential treatment for SLE, no safety concerns were seen with the investigational drug, along with “trending efficacy,” that supports “further studies in larger and longer-term trials,” according to the study’s investigators.
“What sets these two new drugs apart from currently available targeted therapies are their mode of action,” said Md Yuzaiful Md Yusof, MBChB, PhD, who was not involved in either study.
“The results from the PAISLEY study are promising, and it’s good to see the patients recruited were of diverse ethnicity [50%–60% were White],” added Dr. Md Yusof, a senior research fellow within the Leeds (England) Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine and a consultant rheumatologist at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust.
He noted that the placebo rate was also low: “This could be contributed to by keeping the background prednisolone dose low, which is often a challenge in designing SLE trials.”
Deucravacitinib – the distant cousin of the JAK family?
“Deucravacitinib is a compound you might not have heard of before,” Dr. Morand said.
“It’s an inhibitor of a kinase called TYK2, which, broadly speaking, is a member of JAK [Janus kinase] family,” he explained in an interview. TYK2 regulates signal transduction downstream of receptors for interleukin (IL)-23 and IL-12 pathways and the type I interferon family.
“It’s a very finite set of cytokine signals” that are being blocked with deucravacitinib, he said, adding that this means it’s more directly targeting SLE pathogenic mechanisms than perhaps other JAK inhibitor compounds.
“It also means that it shouldn’t have some of the downsides of the other JAK inhibitors,” Dr. Morand said, “such as hematopoietic side effects, including cytopenias.”
The phase 2 PAISLEY study
This study involved 363 patients with moderate to severe, active SLE were recruited and randomized to receive placebo (n = 90) or one of three doses of deucravacitinib: 3 mg twice daily (n = 91), 6 mg twice daily (n = 93), or 12 mg once daily (n = 89). Most patients were also taking multiple background therapies, but this was similar across the four treatment arms.
The SRI-4 primary endpoint after 38 weeks of treatment was met by 34.4% of patients who received placebo, but 58.2% of those treated with deucravacitinib 3 mg twice daily (P = .0006 versus placebo), 49.5% (P = .021) of those treated with 6 mg twice daily, and 44.9% (P = .078) treated with 12 mg once daily.
“All secondary outcome measures were achieved or meaningfully improved at week 48, including SRI-4, BICLA [British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment], low-level disease activity state [LLDAS], reduction in skin disease and reduction in arthritis,” Dr. Morand said.
In addition, early biomarker results showed reductions in double-stranded DNA titers and increases in serum C4 complement with deucravacitinib across the duration of the study.
In discussion, Dr. Morand was asked about the seemingly negative or inverse dose response seen in the trial, with the best results seen with the 3-mg twice daily dose, then lower effects seen with two higher doses.
“Our analysis is that it’s not an inverse dose response, but rather a flat dose response above the 3-mg [twice daily] dose,” he said, noting that there was a higher dropout rate because of adverse effects in the 12-mg once daily group and those participants were recorded as nonresponders.
“We think what we’ve seen here is that 3 mg twice daily is a sufficient dose and there was no additional therapeutic gain above that.”
Rates of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, and AEs of interest were overall fairly similar between deucravacitinib and placebo groups. The most common side effects seen with deucravacitinib were upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, headache, and urinary tract infection. Skin reactions, such as acne, rash, and pruritis, among others, were more common in deucravacitinib- than in placebo-treated patients.
Importantly, Dr. Morand noted that there were no major cardiac events or thrombotic events and no deaths seen in the study. There was no signal for an increase in serious or opportunistic infections, including herpes zoster. There was no effect on common laboratory parameters.
“These are very encouraging results for patients with SLE,” Albert Roy, executive director of Lupus Therapeutics, said in a press release issued by the Lupus Research Alliance.
“We are honored to have played a role in this exciting work by helping to conduct this clinical trial through our Lupus Clinical Investigators Network of renowned North American academic centers.”
In an interview, he added: “We’re cautiously optimistic. Hopefully, if it continues to progress through phase 3, it’ll be the first oral agent that would be approved for lupus, notwithstanding prednisone and Plaquenil [hydroxychloroquine], back in the 50s.”
Orelabrutinib phase 2 study in SLE
Another approach to oral route of administration under investigation in SLE is the use of orelabrutinib, an irreversible inhibitor of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) that was approved in China in December 2020 for the treatment of certain lymphomas and leukemias.
The rationale for testing it in SLE comes from two preclinical studies that had suggested a possible benefit in reducing disease activity, explained Zhanguo Li, MD, PhD, professor at Peking University People’s Hospital in Beijing. He presented the results of an ongoing randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase Ib/IIa dose-finding study comparing three different doses of orelabrutinib (50, 80, and 100 mg, once daily) to placebo.
As in the deucravacitinib trial, the SRI-4 was used to assess the potential efficacy of orelabrutinib, although in a much smaller patient population (n = 92) and at a shorter time point (12 weeks). Results showed an 11%-20% difference between the percentage of patients who met SRI-4 response criteria with orelabrutinib and those on placebo, at a respective 46.5%, 53.3%, 56.3% and 35.7%.
SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) scores showed a similar benefit of orelabrutinib over placebo, with 54%-63% and 30% of patients, respectively, achieving a score of 8 or more.
Adverse event rates were similar to those of placebo with most events being of mild or moderate nature. Three patients treated with orelabrutinib experienced serious adverse events, of which one was grade 3, but there were no reported deaths.
Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data showed a dose effect, and nearly complete occupancy of BTK was achieved at all dose levels for 24 hours, consistent with once-daily dosing.
“BTK plays an important role in B-cell regulation, thus B-cell and myeloid-cell blockade through BTK inhibition is an interesting potential new target for SLE,” Dr. Md Yusof said.
“Data from this early dose-ranging trial is encouraging. No major safety signal apart from mild reduction in lymphocyte and white cell counts,” he added.
“There are still plenty of challenges ahead for this drug’s development, particularly as none of the BTK inhibitors have yet to succeed in phase 3 trials in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases,” Dr. Md Yusof said.
Early days for both agents
While both seem currently promising, it’s very early days for deucravacitinib and orelabrutinib as possible new agents for SLE.
Aside from SLE, deucravacitinib is being tested across multiple immune-mediated diseases. This includes psoriasis, where two phase 3 trials – POETYK PSO-1 and POETYK PSO-2 – have already been completed, and psoriatic arthritis, where a phase 2 trial has been reported; all with positive results.
Phase 3 testing of deucravacitinib will go ahead and recruitment may start toward the end of this year, but it’ll take years to complete the studies, Dr. Morand said. Even if the trials prove positive, neither agent is going to be available for clinical use for several years.
A case in point is anifrolumab (Saphnelo), which Dr. Morand was involved in assessing. Despite gaining approval in the United States and across much of the world, the drug still going through reimbursement processes.
“The trial data, and lots of post hoc analysis, show clearly that it’s a major step forward in treating lupus,” he said in an interview, but “access is limited in most places, so hands-on experience with that new treatment is still limited for most clinicians.”
As for all the other new targeted approaches under investigation, “although there’s a lot of trial activity, there’s still a couple of years away before any of the current trials deliver new treatment. That’s if they provide positive findings. Indeed, there have been numerous agents that have shown promise at phase 2 but then fall at the final phase 3 hurdle, including baricitinib, which Dr. Morand reported on in a separate poster presentation.
Phase 3 data proved disappointing: “Results are not sufficiently positive for that to go forward,” he said, adding that “transitioning from a successful phase 2 to a successful phase 3 is challenging, and many products have failed.”
Dr. Morand added: “It’s a very exciting time to be in lupus research, and there’s a lot of optimism about the future. But when I go back to my clinic tomorrow, I treat my patients exactly the same as I did last week and last year.”
It’s yet to be seen if deucravacitinib will fulfill its early promise, but it’s off to an impressive start. A positive for patients is that it’s an oral drug, with the potential to improve access to treatment across the world where getting infusions may be an issue.
“These are some of the most exciting data that I’ve seen at the phase 2 level in terms of effect size across all the readouts that are used,” Dr. Morand said. “There’s no guesswork here; it worked across all the measures. That’s very reassuring.”
The PAISLEY study was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Morand has acted as a consultant to the company and received research support for the conduct of the trial. He disclosed acting as a consultant or receiving research funding from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Janssen, Genentech, Servier, Novartis, and UCB. Mr. Roy is the executive director of Lupus Therapeutics, which manages the Lupus Clinical Investigators Network based in North America. Lupus Therapeutics is the clinical trials arm of the Lupus Research Alliance, a nongovernmental, nonprofit funder of lupus research worldwide. The orelabrutinib study was sponsored by InnoCare Pharma. Dr. Li is the principal investigator for the trial but had no conflicts of interest to declare. Dr. Md Yusof disclosed receiving consultancy fees from Aurinia Pharmaceuticals.
Deucravacitinib and orelabrutinib – two novel oral drugs under investigation for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) – have performed well in early clinical trials reported as late-breaking abstracts at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
In the phase 2 PAISLEY study, up to 58% of patients treated with deucravacitinib versus 34% of placebo-treated patients met the primary study endpoint of an SLE Responder Index-4 (SRI-4) after 38 weeks of treatment. Deucravacitinib also “achieved or meaningfully improved” all of the secondary endpoints set out in the 363-patient trial and was reported to have a safety and tolerability profile that was generally similar to placebo.
“Deucravacitinib shows promise as a novel therapy for SLE and warrants further investigation in phase 3 trials,” said Eric F. Morand, MD, PhD, a clinical rheumatologist and head of the School of Clinical Sciences at Monash University in Melbourne.
In a separate, ongoing phase 1b/2a study designed to evaluate orelabrutinib as a potential treatment for SLE, no safety concerns were seen with the investigational drug, along with “trending efficacy,” that supports “further studies in larger and longer-term trials,” according to the study’s investigators.
“What sets these two new drugs apart from currently available targeted therapies are their mode of action,” said Md Yuzaiful Md Yusof, MBChB, PhD, who was not involved in either study.
“The results from the PAISLEY study are promising, and it’s good to see the patients recruited were of diverse ethnicity [50%–60% were White],” added Dr. Md Yusof, a senior research fellow within the Leeds (England) Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine and a consultant rheumatologist at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust.
He noted that the placebo rate was also low: “This could be contributed to by keeping the background prednisolone dose low, which is often a challenge in designing SLE trials.”
Deucravacitinib – the distant cousin of the JAK family?
“Deucravacitinib is a compound you might not have heard of before,” Dr. Morand said.
“It’s an inhibitor of a kinase called TYK2, which, broadly speaking, is a member of JAK [Janus kinase] family,” he explained in an interview. TYK2 regulates signal transduction downstream of receptors for interleukin (IL)-23 and IL-12 pathways and the type I interferon family.
“It’s a very finite set of cytokine signals” that are being blocked with deucravacitinib, he said, adding that this means it’s more directly targeting SLE pathogenic mechanisms than perhaps other JAK inhibitor compounds.
“It also means that it shouldn’t have some of the downsides of the other JAK inhibitors,” Dr. Morand said, “such as hematopoietic side effects, including cytopenias.”
The phase 2 PAISLEY study
This study involved 363 patients with moderate to severe, active SLE were recruited and randomized to receive placebo (n = 90) or one of three doses of deucravacitinib: 3 mg twice daily (n = 91), 6 mg twice daily (n = 93), or 12 mg once daily (n = 89). Most patients were also taking multiple background therapies, but this was similar across the four treatment arms.
The SRI-4 primary endpoint after 38 weeks of treatment was met by 34.4% of patients who received placebo, but 58.2% of those treated with deucravacitinib 3 mg twice daily (P = .0006 versus placebo), 49.5% (P = .021) of those treated with 6 mg twice daily, and 44.9% (P = .078) treated with 12 mg once daily.
“All secondary outcome measures were achieved or meaningfully improved at week 48, including SRI-4, BICLA [British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment], low-level disease activity state [LLDAS], reduction in skin disease and reduction in arthritis,” Dr. Morand said.
In addition, early biomarker results showed reductions in double-stranded DNA titers and increases in serum C4 complement with deucravacitinib across the duration of the study.
In discussion, Dr. Morand was asked about the seemingly negative or inverse dose response seen in the trial, with the best results seen with the 3-mg twice daily dose, then lower effects seen with two higher doses.
“Our analysis is that it’s not an inverse dose response, but rather a flat dose response above the 3-mg [twice daily] dose,” he said, noting that there was a higher dropout rate because of adverse effects in the 12-mg once daily group and those participants were recorded as nonresponders.
“We think what we’ve seen here is that 3 mg twice daily is a sufficient dose and there was no additional therapeutic gain above that.”
Rates of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, and AEs of interest were overall fairly similar between deucravacitinib and placebo groups. The most common side effects seen with deucravacitinib were upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, headache, and urinary tract infection. Skin reactions, such as acne, rash, and pruritis, among others, were more common in deucravacitinib- than in placebo-treated patients.
Importantly, Dr. Morand noted that there were no major cardiac events or thrombotic events and no deaths seen in the study. There was no signal for an increase in serious or opportunistic infections, including herpes zoster. There was no effect on common laboratory parameters.
“These are very encouraging results for patients with SLE,” Albert Roy, executive director of Lupus Therapeutics, said in a press release issued by the Lupus Research Alliance.
“We are honored to have played a role in this exciting work by helping to conduct this clinical trial through our Lupus Clinical Investigators Network of renowned North American academic centers.”
In an interview, he added: “We’re cautiously optimistic. Hopefully, if it continues to progress through phase 3, it’ll be the first oral agent that would be approved for lupus, notwithstanding prednisone and Plaquenil [hydroxychloroquine], back in the 50s.”
Orelabrutinib phase 2 study in SLE
Another approach to oral route of administration under investigation in SLE is the use of orelabrutinib, an irreversible inhibitor of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) that was approved in China in December 2020 for the treatment of certain lymphomas and leukemias.
The rationale for testing it in SLE comes from two preclinical studies that had suggested a possible benefit in reducing disease activity, explained Zhanguo Li, MD, PhD, professor at Peking University People’s Hospital in Beijing. He presented the results of an ongoing randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase Ib/IIa dose-finding study comparing three different doses of orelabrutinib (50, 80, and 100 mg, once daily) to placebo.
As in the deucravacitinib trial, the SRI-4 was used to assess the potential efficacy of orelabrutinib, although in a much smaller patient population (n = 92) and at a shorter time point (12 weeks). Results showed an 11%-20% difference between the percentage of patients who met SRI-4 response criteria with orelabrutinib and those on placebo, at a respective 46.5%, 53.3%, 56.3% and 35.7%.
SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) scores showed a similar benefit of orelabrutinib over placebo, with 54%-63% and 30% of patients, respectively, achieving a score of 8 or more.
Adverse event rates were similar to those of placebo with most events being of mild or moderate nature. Three patients treated with orelabrutinib experienced serious adverse events, of which one was grade 3, but there were no reported deaths.
Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data showed a dose effect, and nearly complete occupancy of BTK was achieved at all dose levels for 24 hours, consistent with once-daily dosing.
“BTK plays an important role in B-cell regulation, thus B-cell and myeloid-cell blockade through BTK inhibition is an interesting potential new target for SLE,” Dr. Md Yusof said.
“Data from this early dose-ranging trial is encouraging. No major safety signal apart from mild reduction in lymphocyte and white cell counts,” he added.
“There are still plenty of challenges ahead for this drug’s development, particularly as none of the BTK inhibitors have yet to succeed in phase 3 trials in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases,” Dr. Md Yusof said.
Early days for both agents
While both seem currently promising, it’s very early days for deucravacitinib and orelabrutinib as possible new agents for SLE.
Aside from SLE, deucravacitinib is being tested across multiple immune-mediated diseases. This includes psoriasis, where two phase 3 trials – POETYK PSO-1 and POETYK PSO-2 – have already been completed, and psoriatic arthritis, where a phase 2 trial has been reported; all with positive results.
Phase 3 testing of deucravacitinib will go ahead and recruitment may start toward the end of this year, but it’ll take years to complete the studies, Dr. Morand said. Even if the trials prove positive, neither agent is going to be available for clinical use for several years.
A case in point is anifrolumab (Saphnelo), which Dr. Morand was involved in assessing. Despite gaining approval in the United States and across much of the world, the drug still going through reimbursement processes.
“The trial data, and lots of post hoc analysis, show clearly that it’s a major step forward in treating lupus,” he said in an interview, but “access is limited in most places, so hands-on experience with that new treatment is still limited for most clinicians.”
As for all the other new targeted approaches under investigation, “although there’s a lot of trial activity, there’s still a couple of years away before any of the current trials deliver new treatment. That’s if they provide positive findings. Indeed, there have been numerous agents that have shown promise at phase 2 but then fall at the final phase 3 hurdle, including baricitinib, which Dr. Morand reported on in a separate poster presentation.
Phase 3 data proved disappointing: “Results are not sufficiently positive for that to go forward,” he said, adding that “transitioning from a successful phase 2 to a successful phase 3 is challenging, and many products have failed.”
Dr. Morand added: “It’s a very exciting time to be in lupus research, and there’s a lot of optimism about the future. But when I go back to my clinic tomorrow, I treat my patients exactly the same as I did last week and last year.”
It’s yet to be seen if deucravacitinib will fulfill its early promise, but it’s off to an impressive start. A positive for patients is that it’s an oral drug, with the potential to improve access to treatment across the world where getting infusions may be an issue.
“These are some of the most exciting data that I’ve seen at the phase 2 level in terms of effect size across all the readouts that are used,” Dr. Morand said. “There’s no guesswork here; it worked across all the measures. That’s very reassuring.”
The PAISLEY study was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Morand has acted as a consultant to the company and received research support for the conduct of the trial. He disclosed acting as a consultant or receiving research funding from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Janssen, Genentech, Servier, Novartis, and UCB. Mr. Roy is the executive director of Lupus Therapeutics, which manages the Lupus Clinical Investigators Network based in North America. Lupus Therapeutics is the clinical trials arm of the Lupus Research Alliance, a nongovernmental, nonprofit funder of lupus research worldwide. The orelabrutinib study was sponsored by InnoCare Pharma. Dr. Li is the principal investigator for the trial but had no conflicts of interest to declare. Dr. Md Yusof disclosed receiving consultancy fees from Aurinia Pharmaceuticals.
FROM THE EULAR 2022 CONGRESS
Stopping immunosuppressives in lupus nephritis isn’t noninferior to continuing
COPENHAGEN – Discontinuing maintenance immunosuppressive therapy (IST) in patients with proliferative lupus nephritis in remission proved less effective than continuing it in terms of the rates of renal relapse and severe systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) flare, results from the WIN-Lupus trial show.
Lead researcher Noemie Jourde-Chiche, MD, assistant professor at Aix-Marseille (France) University, presented the results at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
The randomized, controlled trial aimed to determine the optimal duration of maintenance IST for proliferative lupus nephritis, by asking whether discontinuation of such therapy after 2-3 years was noninferior to IST continuation for 2 more years.
“This is the first randomized IST trial in proliferative lupus nephritis,” Dr. Jourde-Chiche reported. “We found that noninferiority of IST discontinuation was not demonstrated, and those who discontinued had a higher risk of SLE flares, but the majority of patients who discontinued did not experience flare.”
Regarding the incidence of renal relapse, no statistically significant difference was found between patients who continued versus those who discontinued IST.
Rheumatologist Christophe Richez, MD, of the Groupe Hospitalier Pellegrin-CHU de Bordeaux (France) welcomed the trial. “The work does not find a significant difference but suggests that with more power, the difference would have been significant,” he said in an interview.
He added that a significant number of patients refused to enter the study for several reasons, including scheduling a pregnancy and fear of relapse after stopping the treatment. “This in itself shows that we need this type of study to know if we can stop the treatment to plan a pregnancy or if a relay treatment is necessary. These data also mean we can now better inform our patients about the benefit-risk [profile] of continuing treatment or not.”
Dr. Richez, who was not involved in the trial, noted that the data provide information that strongly suggest more research is needed to better determine which patients are at risk of relapse, and consequently, for which patients is discontinuation possible. “There’s also a need for further analysis of tolerance to the immunosuppressive drugs according to the strategy.”
Finally, he referred to the issue around therapeutic adherence that is often faced with management of lupus. “The data from this study will allow us to better explain to patients the need to continue or discontinue their treatments, including hydroxychloroquine, and also the possibility of decreasing the immunosuppressive drugs to half-dose.”
Maintenance therapy in lupus nephritis: To continue or not?
Conducted in 28 French centers, participants had class III or IV lupus nephritis with active lesions and had previously received induction IST of cyclophosphamide or mycophenolate mofetil with hydroxychloroquine and glucocorticoids. Maintenance IST was azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil, hydroxychloroquine, and possibly low-dose glucocorticoids (below 10 mg/day).
A total of 96 patients were randomized into two groups: continuation of maintenance therapy (azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil for 2-3 more years, hydroxychloroquine, and possibly low-dose glucocorticoids (below 10 mg/day), or discontinuation of maintenance therapy (azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil) over 3 months.
Both study arms were similar with a mean age of 36-37 years, and 82%-86% of patients were female, 59%-67% were White. They had a mean disease duration of 7-9 years, and 72%-80% had experienced their first flare of proliferative nephritis. A total of 54%-65% had received cyclophosphamide induction therapy, and 75%-81% were on mycophenolate mofetil maintenance therapy that had been ongoing for a mean of 2.8 years. Tests of patients’ kidney function revealed a mean serum creatinine of 67-72 micromol/L and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 94-101 mL/min per 1.73 m2. The mean SLE Disease Activity Index score was around 2.
Follow-up visits were conducted every 3 months for 2 years, and the trial had a primary end point of renal relapse rate at 24 months (confirmed by kidney biopsy), while secondary endpoints included rate of severe SLE flares, survival without renal relapse, or severe flare and adverse events, among others.
Patients were excluded if they were not taking hydroxychloroquine, had extrarenal SLE, an eGFR less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 or stage VI disease. After some participants did not finish the trial because of pregnancy, wish for pregnancy, or adverse events, data from a total of 40 in the IST continuation group and 44 in the discontinuation group were analyzed.
Noninferiority of discontinuation versus continuation not shown
A total of 12.5% in the continuation arm experienced renal relapse over 24 months, compared with 27.3% in the discontinuation arm (P = .079).
“The endpoint of noninferiority of discontinuation of immunosuppressive therapy was not shown, but no statistically significant difference was found between groups for renal relapse,” Dr. Jourde-Chiche said.
Severe SLE flares (renal or extrarenal) occurred significantly less often over 24 months in the continuation arm at 12.5% versus 31.8% in the discontinuation arm (P = .034).
However, Dr. Jourde-Chiche pointed out that “the majority of patients who discontinued treatment did not experience a flare.”
No differences were seen between groups with respect to any secondary endpoints. “Fortunately, no patients died or reached end-stage renal disease, and overall, the adverse events did not differ between groups,” she reported.
The study identified several risk factors for renal relapse, among which were low complement component 3 and higher baseline urinary protein to creatinine ratio.
Longer immunosuppressive therapy prediscontinuation leads to better results
Gabriella Moroni, MD, of the nephrology unit at Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, authored a review of studies that attempted to interrupt glucocorticoids and other immunosuppressive agents in lupus nephritis and in SLE. Her review concluded that “the available data suggest that therapy withdrawal is feasible at least in patients enjoying a complete clinical remission after a prolonged therapy.”
Asked to comment on the French study, Dr. Moroni said the trial was very welcome. “In our long-term experience, we have stopped IST in 73 patients with lupus nephritis, followed for a mean of 23 years. Of these, 32 never reassumed therapy and 20 had at least one flare.”
Dr. Moroni noted that those participants who did not experience flares had significantly longer IST and longer remission before discontinuation and took hydroxychloroquine more frequently.
“We feel that, to prevent severe flares, firstly, lupus nephritis should be in complete remission for at least 3 years, and secondly, patients should have received IST for at least 5 years before discontinuation; immunosuppressive drugs should be tapered off very slowly and after strict clinical surveillance, and finally, hydroxychloroquine can prevent extrarenal flares.
Dr. Jourde-Chiche reported serving on a speakers bureau for Vifor Pharma and receiving grant/research support from Fresenius Medical Care. Some coauthors reported financial ties to many pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Richez said he has received fees for lectures or boards from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, and Novartis. Dr. Moroni had no relevant disclosures.
COPENHAGEN – Discontinuing maintenance immunosuppressive therapy (IST) in patients with proliferative lupus nephritis in remission proved less effective than continuing it in terms of the rates of renal relapse and severe systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) flare, results from the WIN-Lupus trial show.
Lead researcher Noemie Jourde-Chiche, MD, assistant professor at Aix-Marseille (France) University, presented the results at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
The randomized, controlled trial aimed to determine the optimal duration of maintenance IST for proliferative lupus nephritis, by asking whether discontinuation of such therapy after 2-3 years was noninferior to IST continuation for 2 more years.
“This is the first randomized IST trial in proliferative lupus nephritis,” Dr. Jourde-Chiche reported. “We found that noninferiority of IST discontinuation was not demonstrated, and those who discontinued had a higher risk of SLE flares, but the majority of patients who discontinued did not experience flare.”
Regarding the incidence of renal relapse, no statistically significant difference was found between patients who continued versus those who discontinued IST.
Rheumatologist Christophe Richez, MD, of the Groupe Hospitalier Pellegrin-CHU de Bordeaux (France) welcomed the trial. “The work does not find a significant difference but suggests that with more power, the difference would have been significant,” he said in an interview.
He added that a significant number of patients refused to enter the study for several reasons, including scheduling a pregnancy and fear of relapse after stopping the treatment. “This in itself shows that we need this type of study to know if we can stop the treatment to plan a pregnancy or if a relay treatment is necessary. These data also mean we can now better inform our patients about the benefit-risk [profile] of continuing treatment or not.”
Dr. Richez, who was not involved in the trial, noted that the data provide information that strongly suggest more research is needed to better determine which patients are at risk of relapse, and consequently, for which patients is discontinuation possible. “There’s also a need for further analysis of tolerance to the immunosuppressive drugs according to the strategy.”
Finally, he referred to the issue around therapeutic adherence that is often faced with management of lupus. “The data from this study will allow us to better explain to patients the need to continue or discontinue their treatments, including hydroxychloroquine, and also the possibility of decreasing the immunosuppressive drugs to half-dose.”
Maintenance therapy in lupus nephritis: To continue or not?
Conducted in 28 French centers, participants had class III or IV lupus nephritis with active lesions and had previously received induction IST of cyclophosphamide or mycophenolate mofetil with hydroxychloroquine and glucocorticoids. Maintenance IST was azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil, hydroxychloroquine, and possibly low-dose glucocorticoids (below 10 mg/day).
A total of 96 patients were randomized into two groups: continuation of maintenance therapy (azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil for 2-3 more years, hydroxychloroquine, and possibly low-dose glucocorticoids (below 10 mg/day), or discontinuation of maintenance therapy (azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil) over 3 months.
Both study arms were similar with a mean age of 36-37 years, and 82%-86% of patients were female, 59%-67% were White. They had a mean disease duration of 7-9 years, and 72%-80% had experienced their first flare of proliferative nephritis. A total of 54%-65% had received cyclophosphamide induction therapy, and 75%-81% were on mycophenolate mofetil maintenance therapy that had been ongoing for a mean of 2.8 years. Tests of patients’ kidney function revealed a mean serum creatinine of 67-72 micromol/L and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 94-101 mL/min per 1.73 m2. The mean SLE Disease Activity Index score was around 2.
Follow-up visits were conducted every 3 months for 2 years, and the trial had a primary end point of renal relapse rate at 24 months (confirmed by kidney biopsy), while secondary endpoints included rate of severe SLE flares, survival without renal relapse, or severe flare and adverse events, among others.
Patients were excluded if they were not taking hydroxychloroquine, had extrarenal SLE, an eGFR less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 or stage VI disease. After some participants did not finish the trial because of pregnancy, wish for pregnancy, or adverse events, data from a total of 40 in the IST continuation group and 44 in the discontinuation group were analyzed.
Noninferiority of discontinuation versus continuation not shown
A total of 12.5% in the continuation arm experienced renal relapse over 24 months, compared with 27.3% in the discontinuation arm (P = .079).
“The endpoint of noninferiority of discontinuation of immunosuppressive therapy was not shown, but no statistically significant difference was found between groups for renal relapse,” Dr. Jourde-Chiche said.
Severe SLE flares (renal or extrarenal) occurred significantly less often over 24 months in the continuation arm at 12.5% versus 31.8% in the discontinuation arm (P = .034).
However, Dr. Jourde-Chiche pointed out that “the majority of patients who discontinued treatment did not experience a flare.”
No differences were seen between groups with respect to any secondary endpoints. “Fortunately, no patients died or reached end-stage renal disease, and overall, the adverse events did not differ between groups,” she reported.
The study identified several risk factors for renal relapse, among which were low complement component 3 and higher baseline urinary protein to creatinine ratio.
Longer immunosuppressive therapy prediscontinuation leads to better results
Gabriella Moroni, MD, of the nephrology unit at Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, authored a review of studies that attempted to interrupt glucocorticoids and other immunosuppressive agents in lupus nephritis and in SLE. Her review concluded that “the available data suggest that therapy withdrawal is feasible at least in patients enjoying a complete clinical remission after a prolonged therapy.”
Asked to comment on the French study, Dr. Moroni said the trial was very welcome. “In our long-term experience, we have stopped IST in 73 patients with lupus nephritis, followed for a mean of 23 years. Of these, 32 never reassumed therapy and 20 had at least one flare.”
Dr. Moroni noted that those participants who did not experience flares had significantly longer IST and longer remission before discontinuation and took hydroxychloroquine more frequently.
“We feel that, to prevent severe flares, firstly, lupus nephritis should be in complete remission for at least 3 years, and secondly, patients should have received IST for at least 5 years before discontinuation; immunosuppressive drugs should be tapered off very slowly and after strict clinical surveillance, and finally, hydroxychloroquine can prevent extrarenal flares.
Dr. Jourde-Chiche reported serving on a speakers bureau for Vifor Pharma and receiving grant/research support from Fresenius Medical Care. Some coauthors reported financial ties to many pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Richez said he has received fees for lectures or boards from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, and Novartis. Dr. Moroni had no relevant disclosures.
COPENHAGEN – Discontinuing maintenance immunosuppressive therapy (IST) in patients with proliferative lupus nephritis in remission proved less effective than continuing it in terms of the rates of renal relapse and severe systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) flare, results from the WIN-Lupus trial show.
Lead researcher Noemie Jourde-Chiche, MD, assistant professor at Aix-Marseille (France) University, presented the results at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
The randomized, controlled trial aimed to determine the optimal duration of maintenance IST for proliferative lupus nephritis, by asking whether discontinuation of such therapy after 2-3 years was noninferior to IST continuation for 2 more years.
“This is the first randomized IST trial in proliferative lupus nephritis,” Dr. Jourde-Chiche reported. “We found that noninferiority of IST discontinuation was not demonstrated, and those who discontinued had a higher risk of SLE flares, but the majority of patients who discontinued did not experience flare.”
Regarding the incidence of renal relapse, no statistically significant difference was found between patients who continued versus those who discontinued IST.
Rheumatologist Christophe Richez, MD, of the Groupe Hospitalier Pellegrin-CHU de Bordeaux (France) welcomed the trial. “The work does not find a significant difference but suggests that with more power, the difference would have been significant,” he said in an interview.
He added that a significant number of patients refused to enter the study for several reasons, including scheduling a pregnancy and fear of relapse after stopping the treatment. “This in itself shows that we need this type of study to know if we can stop the treatment to plan a pregnancy or if a relay treatment is necessary. These data also mean we can now better inform our patients about the benefit-risk [profile] of continuing treatment or not.”
Dr. Richez, who was not involved in the trial, noted that the data provide information that strongly suggest more research is needed to better determine which patients are at risk of relapse, and consequently, for which patients is discontinuation possible. “There’s also a need for further analysis of tolerance to the immunosuppressive drugs according to the strategy.”
Finally, he referred to the issue around therapeutic adherence that is often faced with management of lupus. “The data from this study will allow us to better explain to patients the need to continue or discontinue their treatments, including hydroxychloroquine, and also the possibility of decreasing the immunosuppressive drugs to half-dose.”
Maintenance therapy in lupus nephritis: To continue or not?
Conducted in 28 French centers, participants had class III or IV lupus nephritis with active lesions and had previously received induction IST of cyclophosphamide or mycophenolate mofetil with hydroxychloroquine and glucocorticoids. Maintenance IST was azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil, hydroxychloroquine, and possibly low-dose glucocorticoids (below 10 mg/day).
A total of 96 patients were randomized into two groups: continuation of maintenance therapy (azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil for 2-3 more years, hydroxychloroquine, and possibly low-dose glucocorticoids (below 10 mg/day), or discontinuation of maintenance therapy (azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil) over 3 months.
Both study arms were similar with a mean age of 36-37 years, and 82%-86% of patients were female, 59%-67% were White. They had a mean disease duration of 7-9 years, and 72%-80% had experienced their first flare of proliferative nephritis. A total of 54%-65% had received cyclophosphamide induction therapy, and 75%-81% were on mycophenolate mofetil maintenance therapy that had been ongoing for a mean of 2.8 years. Tests of patients’ kidney function revealed a mean serum creatinine of 67-72 micromol/L and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 94-101 mL/min per 1.73 m2. The mean SLE Disease Activity Index score was around 2.
Follow-up visits were conducted every 3 months for 2 years, and the trial had a primary end point of renal relapse rate at 24 months (confirmed by kidney biopsy), while secondary endpoints included rate of severe SLE flares, survival without renal relapse, or severe flare and adverse events, among others.
Patients were excluded if they were not taking hydroxychloroquine, had extrarenal SLE, an eGFR less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 or stage VI disease. After some participants did not finish the trial because of pregnancy, wish for pregnancy, or adverse events, data from a total of 40 in the IST continuation group and 44 in the discontinuation group were analyzed.
Noninferiority of discontinuation versus continuation not shown
A total of 12.5% in the continuation arm experienced renal relapse over 24 months, compared with 27.3% in the discontinuation arm (P = .079).
“The endpoint of noninferiority of discontinuation of immunosuppressive therapy was not shown, but no statistically significant difference was found between groups for renal relapse,” Dr. Jourde-Chiche said.
Severe SLE flares (renal or extrarenal) occurred significantly less often over 24 months in the continuation arm at 12.5% versus 31.8% in the discontinuation arm (P = .034).
However, Dr. Jourde-Chiche pointed out that “the majority of patients who discontinued treatment did not experience a flare.”
No differences were seen between groups with respect to any secondary endpoints. “Fortunately, no patients died or reached end-stage renal disease, and overall, the adverse events did not differ between groups,” she reported.
The study identified several risk factors for renal relapse, among which were low complement component 3 and higher baseline urinary protein to creatinine ratio.
Longer immunosuppressive therapy prediscontinuation leads to better results
Gabriella Moroni, MD, of the nephrology unit at Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, authored a review of studies that attempted to interrupt glucocorticoids and other immunosuppressive agents in lupus nephritis and in SLE. Her review concluded that “the available data suggest that therapy withdrawal is feasible at least in patients enjoying a complete clinical remission after a prolonged therapy.”
Asked to comment on the French study, Dr. Moroni said the trial was very welcome. “In our long-term experience, we have stopped IST in 73 patients with lupus nephritis, followed for a mean of 23 years. Of these, 32 never reassumed therapy and 20 had at least one flare.”
Dr. Moroni noted that those participants who did not experience flares had significantly longer IST and longer remission before discontinuation and took hydroxychloroquine more frequently.
“We feel that, to prevent severe flares, firstly, lupus nephritis should be in complete remission for at least 3 years, and secondly, patients should have received IST for at least 5 years before discontinuation; immunosuppressive drugs should be tapered off very slowly and after strict clinical surveillance, and finally, hydroxychloroquine can prevent extrarenal flares.
Dr. Jourde-Chiche reported serving on a speakers bureau for Vifor Pharma and receiving grant/research support from Fresenius Medical Care. Some coauthors reported financial ties to many pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Richez said he has received fees for lectures or boards from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, and Novartis. Dr. Moroni had no relevant disclosures.
AT THE EULAR 2022 CONGRESS
Immunosuppressed rheumatic patients not at high risk of breakthrough COVID-19
COPENHAGEN – Most patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID) should not be considered at high risk for severe COVID-19 breakthrough infections, but those on anti-CD20 therapy are the exception, data from a large prospective, cohort study show.
“Overall, the data are reassuring, with conventional risk factors, such as age, and comorbidities seeming to be more important regarding risk of severe COVID-19 breakthrough infections than rheumatic disease or immunosuppressant medication,” said Laura Boekel, MD, from Amsterdam UMC, who presented the study at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
But, she added, there was an exception for anti-CD20 therapy. “This is especially relevant for patients with conventional risk factors that might accumulate, and rheumatologists might want to consider alternative treatment options if possible. It is important to inform patients about the risks of anti-CD20.”
Another study, presented during the same session at the congress by Rebecca Hasseli, MD, from the University of Giessen (Germany) saw no deaths and no COVID-19 related complications in a cohort of triple-vaccinated patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases, despite a higher median age and a higher rate of comorbidities compared to double-vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts.
Ingrid Jyssum, MD, from Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, who presented results of the Nor-vaC study investigating the impact of different DMARDs on the immunogenicity of a third COVID-19 vaccine dose, welcomed the research by Dr. Boekel and Dr. Hasseli.
“The findings of Hasseli are interesting in the light of our data on serological response after the third dose, with a lack of breakthrough infections after three doses corresponding well to the robust antibody response that we found in our cohort,” she remarked. “This is very reassuring for our patients. Our own work together with the findings of Hasseli and Boekel demonstrate that additional vaccine doses are important to keep this population well protected against severe COVID-19 infections.”
The Nor-vaC study was conducted with a cohort of 1,100 patients with inflammatory joint and bowel diseases. “These patients had attenuated antibody responses after two vaccine doses; however, we found that a third vaccine dose brought the humoral response in patients up to the antibody levels that healthy controls had after two doses,” said Dr. Jyssum. “In addition, we found that the decline in antibodies after the third dose was less than the decline seen after the second dose. Importantly, the third dose was safe in our patients, with no new safety issues.”
Breakthrough infections and immunosuppressants
“Like the rest of the world, we were wondering if our patients were at increased risk of COVID-19, and if the immunosuppressants used by these patients influenced their risk,” said Dr. Boekel.
The researchers compared both the incidence and severity of COVID-19 breakthrough infections with the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant in a population of fully vaccinated IMID patients taking immunosuppressants and controls (IMID patients not taking immunosuppressants and healthy controls).
Two large ongoing, prospective, multicenter cohort studies provided pooled data collected between February and December 2021 using digital questionnaires, standardized electronic case record forms, and medical files.
Finger-prick tests were used to collect blood samples that were analyzed after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 for anti–receptor-binding domain (RBD) antibodies, and antinucleocapsid antibodies to identify asymptomatic breakthrough infections. Any associations between antibodies and the incidence of breakthrough infections were generated, and results were adjusted for sex, cardiovascular disease, chronic pulmonary disease, obesity, and vaccine type.
The analysis included 3,207 IMID patients taking immunosuppressants, and 1,810 controls (985 IMID patients not on immunosuppressants and 825 healthy controls).
Initially, Dr. Boekel and her colleagues looked at incidence of infections and hospitalizations prior to vaccination, and then after vaccination, which was the main aim of the study.
Prior to vaccination, hospitalization risk for COVID-19 was somewhat higher for IMID patients overall compared with controls, reported Dr. Boekel. “But those treated with anti-CD20 therapy, demonstrated much greater risk for severe disease.”
After the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination campaign began, the researchers then looked at how immunosuppressants influenced humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.
“Anti-CD20 therapy showed the greatest impact on humoral immune response after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination,” said Dr. Boekel. Other immunosuppressant drugs had variable effects on humoral and cellular immunity.
Once they had established that immunosuppressant drugs impaired immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, the researchers wanted to determine if this affected clinical outcomes. Blood samples taken 28 days after the second vaccination enabled Dr. Boekel and her colleagues to see if antibody production was associated with breakthrough infections.
Breakthrough infections were seen in 5% of patients on immunosuppressants, 5% of patients not on immunosuppressants, and 4% of healthy controls. Also, asymptomatic COVID-19 breakthrough cases were comparable between IMID patients taking immunosuppressants and controls, at 10% in each group.
“We saw that the incidence [of getting COVID-19] was comparable between groups, independent of whether they were receiving immunosuppressants or not, or healthy controls. However, if they developed antibodies against the two vaccinations the chance of getting infected was lower,” reported Dr. Boekel.
Hospitalization (severe disease) rates were also comparable between groups. “Patients with rheumatic diseases, even when treated with immunosuppressants were not at increased risk of severe disease from Delta breakthrough infections,” added the researcher. “Cases that were hospitalized were mainly elderly and those with comorbidities, for example cardiovascular disease and cardiopulmonary disease.”
Hospital admissions were 5.4% in patients on immunosuppressants, 5.7% in those not on immunosuppressants, and 6% in health controls.
However, once again, there was one exception, Dr. Boekel stressed. “Patients treated with anti-CD20 therapy were at increased risk of severe disease and hospitalization.”
Omicron variant has a different transmissibility than Delta, so the researchers continued the study looking at the Omicron variant. The data “were mostly reassuring,” said Dr. Boekel. “As expected, hospitalization rates decreased overall, with the exception of patients on anti-CD20 therapy where, despite overall reduced pathogenicity, patients remain at increased risk.”
She said that they were awaiting long-term data so the data reflect only short-term immunity against Omicron. “However, we included many elderly and patients with comorbidities, so this made the analysis very sensitive to detect severe cases,” she added.
Breakthrough infection among double- and triple-vaccinated patients
A lower rate of COVID-19 related complications and deaths were seen in patients who were triple-vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, than in double-vaccinated or unvaccinated patients, despite the former having more comorbidities and use of rituximab (Rituxan), said Dr. Hasseli.
“These data support the recommendation of booster vaccination to reduce COVID-19-related mortality in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases [IRDs],” she said.
“A small number of COVID-19 cases were seen in patients with IRD after vaccinations, and in a few cases, hospitalizations were required. Breakthrough infections were mostly seen in patients on B-cell depletion therapy,” she added.
Dr. Hasseli and her colleagues looked at the characteristics and outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections among double- and triple-vaccinated patients with IRD.
“We wanted to understand if patients with IRD are protected in the same way as the general population following vaccination, given that these patients receive drugs that might impair the immune response,” she explained.
Data for analysis were drawn from the German COVID-19-IRD registry covering February 2021 and January 2022, and patients who were double- or triple- vaccinated against COVID-19 either 14 days or more prior to a SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. Type of IRD, vaccine, immunomodulation, comorbidities, and outcome of the infection were compared with 737 unvaccinated IRD patients with COVID-19. Those with prior COVID-19 were excluded.
Cases were stratified by vaccinations status: unvaccinated (1,388 patients, median age 57 years); double vaccinated (462, 56 years) and triple vaccinated (301, 53 years). Body mass index was similar across groups (25-26 kg/m2), and time between SARS-CoV-2 infection and last vaccination was 156 days in double-vaccinated patients, and 62 days in triple-vaccinated patients.
Patients had rheumatoid arthritis in 44.7% and 44.4% of unvaccinated and double-vaccinated patients respectively, but fewer triple-vaccinated patients had RA (37.2%). Triple vaccination was seen in 32.2% of patients with spondyloarthritis, 16.6% connective tissue diseases, 5.3% other vasculitis, and 3.3% ANCA-associated vasculitis. Of triple-vaccinated patients, 26.2% were treated with tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) inhibitors, and 6.3% with rituximab, while 5.3% were not on immunomodulation. At least 25% were treated with glucocorticoids, reported Dr. Hasseli.
“Arterial hypertension and diabetes, that might be risk factors for COVID-19, were less frequently reported in triple-vaccinated patients. More patients in the double-vaccinated group [42.9%] than the triple-vaccinated [23.8%] reported absence of relevant comorbidities,” she said.
COVID-19 related complications were less often reported in double- and triple-vaccinated groups with hospitalizations at 9.5% and 4.3% in double and triple-vaccinated people respectively.
Dr. Boekel and Dr. Hasseli report no relevant conflicts of interest.
COPENHAGEN – Most patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID) should not be considered at high risk for severe COVID-19 breakthrough infections, but those on anti-CD20 therapy are the exception, data from a large prospective, cohort study show.
“Overall, the data are reassuring, with conventional risk factors, such as age, and comorbidities seeming to be more important regarding risk of severe COVID-19 breakthrough infections than rheumatic disease or immunosuppressant medication,” said Laura Boekel, MD, from Amsterdam UMC, who presented the study at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
But, she added, there was an exception for anti-CD20 therapy. “This is especially relevant for patients with conventional risk factors that might accumulate, and rheumatologists might want to consider alternative treatment options if possible. It is important to inform patients about the risks of anti-CD20.”
Another study, presented during the same session at the congress by Rebecca Hasseli, MD, from the University of Giessen (Germany) saw no deaths and no COVID-19 related complications in a cohort of triple-vaccinated patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases, despite a higher median age and a higher rate of comorbidities compared to double-vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts.
Ingrid Jyssum, MD, from Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, who presented results of the Nor-vaC study investigating the impact of different DMARDs on the immunogenicity of a third COVID-19 vaccine dose, welcomed the research by Dr. Boekel and Dr. Hasseli.
“The findings of Hasseli are interesting in the light of our data on serological response after the third dose, with a lack of breakthrough infections after three doses corresponding well to the robust antibody response that we found in our cohort,” she remarked. “This is very reassuring for our patients. Our own work together with the findings of Hasseli and Boekel demonstrate that additional vaccine doses are important to keep this population well protected against severe COVID-19 infections.”
The Nor-vaC study was conducted with a cohort of 1,100 patients with inflammatory joint and bowel diseases. “These patients had attenuated antibody responses after two vaccine doses; however, we found that a third vaccine dose brought the humoral response in patients up to the antibody levels that healthy controls had after two doses,” said Dr. Jyssum. “In addition, we found that the decline in antibodies after the third dose was less than the decline seen after the second dose. Importantly, the third dose was safe in our patients, with no new safety issues.”
Breakthrough infections and immunosuppressants
“Like the rest of the world, we were wondering if our patients were at increased risk of COVID-19, and if the immunosuppressants used by these patients influenced their risk,” said Dr. Boekel.
The researchers compared both the incidence and severity of COVID-19 breakthrough infections with the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant in a population of fully vaccinated IMID patients taking immunosuppressants and controls (IMID patients not taking immunosuppressants and healthy controls).
Two large ongoing, prospective, multicenter cohort studies provided pooled data collected between February and December 2021 using digital questionnaires, standardized electronic case record forms, and medical files.
Finger-prick tests were used to collect blood samples that were analyzed after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 for anti–receptor-binding domain (RBD) antibodies, and antinucleocapsid antibodies to identify asymptomatic breakthrough infections. Any associations between antibodies and the incidence of breakthrough infections were generated, and results were adjusted for sex, cardiovascular disease, chronic pulmonary disease, obesity, and vaccine type.
The analysis included 3,207 IMID patients taking immunosuppressants, and 1,810 controls (985 IMID patients not on immunosuppressants and 825 healthy controls).
Initially, Dr. Boekel and her colleagues looked at incidence of infections and hospitalizations prior to vaccination, and then after vaccination, which was the main aim of the study.
Prior to vaccination, hospitalization risk for COVID-19 was somewhat higher for IMID patients overall compared with controls, reported Dr. Boekel. “But those treated with anti-CD20 therapy, demonstrated much greater risk for severe disease.”
After the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination campaign began, the researchers then looked at how immunosuppressants influenced humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.
“Anti-CD20 therapy showed the greatest impact on humoral immune response after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination,” said Dr. Boekel. Other immunosuppressant drugs had variable effects on humoral and cellular immunity.
Once they had established that immunosuppressant drugs impaired immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, the researchers wanted to determine if this affected clinical outcomes. Blood samples taken 28 days after the second vaccination enabled Dr. Boekel and her colleagues to see if antibody production was associated with breakthrough infections.
Breakthrough infections were seen in 5% of patients on immunosuppressants, 5% of patients not on immunosuppressants, and 4% of healthy controls. Also, asymptomatic COVID-19 breakthrough cases were comparable between IMID patients taking immunosuppressants and controls, at 10% in each group.
“We saw that the incidence [of getting COVID-19] was comparable between groups, independent of whether they were receiving immunosuppressants or not, or healthy controls. However, if they developed antibodies against the two vaccinations the chance of getting infected was lower,” reported Dr. Boekel.
Hospitalization (severe disease) rates were also comparable between groups. “Patients with rheumatic diseases, even when treated with immunosuppressants were not at increased risk of severe disease from Delta breakthrough infections,” added the researcher. “Cases that were hospitalized were mainly elderly and those with comorbidities, for example cardiovascular disease and cardiopulmonary disease.”
Hospital admissions were 5.4% in patients on immunosuppressants, 5.7% in those not on immunosuppressants, and 6% in health controls.
However, once again, there was one exception, Dr. Boekel stressed. “Patients treated with anti-CD20 therapy were at increased risk of severe disease and hospitalization.”
Omicron variant has a different transmissibility than Delta, so the researchers continued the study looking at the Omicron variant. The data “were mostly reassuring,” said Dr. Boekel. “As expected, hospitalization rates decreased overall, with the exception of patients on anti-CD20 therapy where, despite overall reduced pathogenicity, patients remain at increased risk.”
She said that they were awaiting long-term data so the data reflect only short-term immunity against Omicron. “However, we included many elderly and patients with comorbidities, so this made the analysis very sensitive to detect severe cases,” she added.
Breakthrough infection among double- and triple-vaccinated patients
A lower rate of COVID-19 related complications and deaths were seen in patients who were triple-vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, than in double-vaccinated or unvaccinated patients, despite the former having more comorbidities and use of rituximab (Rituxan), said Dr. Hasseli.
“These data support the recommendation of booster vaccination to reduce COVID-19-related mortality in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases [IRDs],” she said.
“A small number of COVID-19 cases were seen in patients with IRD after vaccinations, and in a few cases, hospitalizations were required. Breakthrough infections were mostly seen in patients on B-cell depletion therapy,” she added.
Dr. Hasseli and her colleagues looked at the characteristics and outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections among double- and triple-vaccinated patients with IRD.
“We wanted to understand if patients with IRD are protected in the same way as the general population following vaccination, given that these patients receive drugs that might impair the immune response,” she explained.
Data for analysis were drawn from the German COVID-19-IRD registry covering February 2021 and January 2022, and patients who were double- or triple- vaccinated against COVID-19 either 14 days or more prior to a SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. Type of IRD, vaccine, immunomodulation, comorbidities, and outcome of the infection were compared with 737 unvaccinated IRD patients with COVID-19. Those with prior COVID-19 were excluded.
Cases were stratified by vaccinations status: unvaccinated (1,388 patients, median age 57 years); double vaccinated (462, 56 years) and triple vaccinated (301, 53 years). Body mass index was similar across groups (25-26 kg/m2), and time between SARS-CoV-2 infection and last vaccination was 156 days in double-vaccinated patients, and 62 days in triple-vaccinated patients.
Patients had rheumatoid arthritis in 44.7% and 44.4% of unvaccinated and double-vaccinated patients respectively, but fewer triple-vaccinated patients had RA (37.2%). Triple vaccination was seen in 32.2% of patients with spondyloarthritis, 16.6% connective tissue diseases, 5.3% other vasculitis, and 3.3% ANCA-associated vasculitis. Of triple-vaccinated patients, 26.2% were treated with tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) inhibitors, and 6.3% with rituximab, while 5.3% were not on immunomodulation. At least 25% were treated with glucocorticoids, reported Dr. Hasseli.
“Arterial hypertension and diabetes, that might be risk factors for COVID-19, were less frequently reported in triple-vaccinated patients. More patients in the double-vaccinated group [42.9%] than the triple-vaccinated [23.8%] reported absence of relevant comorbidities,” she said.
COVID-19 related complications were less often reported in double- and triple-vaccinated groups with hospitalizations at 9.5% and 4.3% in double and triple-vaccinated people respectively.
Dr. Boekel and Dr. Hasseli report no relevant conflicts of interest.
COPENHAGEN – Most patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID) should not be considered at high risk for severe COVID-19 breakthrough infections, but those on anti-CD20 therapy are the exception, data from a large prospective, cohort study show.
“Overall, the data are reassuring, with conventional risk factors, such as age, and comorbidities seeming to be more important regarding risk of severe COVID-19 breakthrough infections than rheumatic disease or immunosuppressant medication,” said Laura Boekel, MD, from Amsterdam UMC, who presented the study at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
But, she added, there was an exception for anti-CD20 therapy. “This is especially relevant for patients with conventional risk factors that might accumulate, and rheumatologists might want to consider alternative treatment options if possible. It is important to inform patients about the risks of anti-CD20.”
Another study, presented during the same session at the congress by Rebecca Hasseli, MD, from the University of Giessen (Germany) saw no deaths and no COVID-19 related complications in a cohort of triple-vaccinated patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases, despite a higher median age and a higher rate of comorbidities compared to double-vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts.
Ingrid Jyssum, MD, from Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, who presented results of the Nor-vaC study investigating the impact of different DMARDs on the immunogenicity of a third COVID-19 vaccine dose, welcomed the research by Dr. Boekel and Dr. Hasseli.
“The findings of Hasseli are interesting in the light of our data on serological response after the third dose, with a lack of breakthrough infections after three doses corresponding well to the robust antibody response that we found in our cohort,” she remarked. “This is very reassuring for our patients. Our own work together with the findings of Hasseli and Boekel demonstrate that additional vaccine doses are important to keep this population well protected against severe COVID-19 infections.”
The Nor-vaC study was conducted with a cohort of 1,100 patients with inflammatory joint and bowel diseases. “These patients had attenuated antibody responses after two vaccine doses; however, we found that a third vaccine dose brought the humoral response in patients up to the antibody levels that healthy controls had after two doses,” said Dr. Jyssum. “In addition, we found that the decline in antibodies after the third dose was less than the decline seen after the second dose. Importantly, the third dose was safe in our patients, with no new safety issues.”
Breakthrough infections and immunosuppressants
“Like the rest of the world, we were wondering if our patients were at increased risk of COVID-19, and if the immunosuppressants used by these patients influenced their risk,” said Dr. Boekel.
The researchers compared both the incidence and severity of COVID-19 breakthrough infections with the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant in a population of fully vaccinated IMID patients taking immunosuppressants and controls (IMID patients not taking immunosuppressants and healthy controls).
Two large ongoing, prospective, multicenter cohort studies provided pooled data collected between February and December 2021 using digital questionnaires, standardized electronic case record forms, and medical files.
Finger-prick tests were used to collect blood samples that were analyzed after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 for anti–receptor-binding domain (RBD) antibodies, and antinucleocapsid antibodies to identify asymptomatic breakthrough infections. Any associations between antibodies and the incidence of breakthrough infections were generated, and results were adjusted for sex, cardiovascular disease, chronic pulmonary disease, obesity, and vaccine type.
The analysis included 3,207 IMID patients taking immunosuppressants, and 1,810 controls (985 IMID patients not on immunosuppressants and 825 healthy controls).
Initially, Dr. Boekel and her colleagues looked at incidence of infections and hospitalizations prior to vaccination, and then after vaccination, which was the main aim of the study.
Prior to vaccination, hospitalization risk for COVID-19 was somewhat higher for IMID patients overall compared with controls, reported Dr. Boekel. “But those treated with anti-CD20 therapy, demonstrated much greater risk for severe disease.”
After the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination campaign began, the researchers then looked at how immunosuppressants influenced humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.
“Anti-CD20 therapy showed the greatest impact on humoral immune response after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination,” said Dr. Boekel. Other immunosuppressant drugs had variable effects on humoral and cellular immunity.
Once they had established that immunosuppressant drugs impaired immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, the researchers wanted to determine if this affected clinical outcomes. Blood samples taken 28 days after the second vaccination enabled Dr. Boekel and her colleagues to see if antibody production was associated with breakthrough infections.
Breakthrough infections were seen in 5% of patients on immunosuppressants, 5% of patients not on immunosuppressants, and 4% of healthy controls. Also, asymptomatic COVID-19 breakthrough cases were comparable between IMID patients taking immunosuppressants and controls, at 10% in each group.
“We saw that the incidence [of getting COVID-19] was comparable between groups, independent of whether they were receiving immunosuppressants or not, or healthy controls. However, if they developed antibodies against the two vaccinations the chance of getting infected was lower,” reported Dr. Boekel.
Hospitalization (severe disease) rates were also comparable between groups. “Patients with rheumatic diseases, even when treated with immunosuppressants were not at increased risk of severe disease from Delta breakthrough infections,” added the researcher. “Cases that were hospitalized were mainly elderly and those with comorbidities, for example cardiovascular disease and cardiopulmonary disease.”
Hospital admissions were 5.4% in patients on immunosuppressants, 5.7% in those not on immunosuppressants, and 6% in health controls.
However, once again, there was one exception, Dr. Boekel stressed. “Patients treated with anti-CD20 therapy were at increased risk of severe disease and hospitalization.”
Omicron variant has a different transmissibility than Delta, so the researchers continued the study looking at the Omicron variant. The data “were mostly reassuring,” said Dr. Boekel. “As expected, hospitalization rates decreased overall, with the exception of patients on anti-CD20 therapy where, despite overall reduced pathogenicity, patients remain at increased risk.”
She said that they were awaiting long-term data so the data reflect only short-term immunity against Omicron. “However, we included many elderly and patients with comorbidities, so this made the analysis very sensitive to detect severe cases,” she added.
Breakthrough infection among double- and triple-vaccinated patients
A lower rate of COVID-19 related complications and deaths were seen in patients who were triple-vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, than in double-vaccinated or unvaccinated patients, despite the former having more comorbidities and use of rituximab (Rituxan), said Dr. Hasseli.
“These data support the recommendation of booster vaccination to reduce COVID-19-related mortality in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases [IRDs],” she said.
“A small number of COVID-19 cases were seen in patients with IRD after vaccinations, and in a few cases, hospitalizations were required. Breakthrough infections were mostly seen in patients on B-cell depletion therapy,” she added.
Dr. Hasseli and her colleagues looked at the characteristics and outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections among double- and triple-vaccinated patients with IRD.
“We wanted to understand if patients with IRD are protected in the same way as the general population following vaccination, given that these patients receive drugs that might impair the immune response,” she explained.
Data for analysis were drawn from the German COVID-19-IRD registry covering February 2021 and January 2022, and patients who were double- or triple- vaccinated against COVID-19 either 14 days or more prior to a SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. Type of IRD, vaccine, immunomodulation, comorbidities, and outcome of the infection were compared with 737 unvaccinated IRD patients with COVID-19. Those with prior COVID-19 were excluded.
Cases were stratified by vaccinations status: unvaccinated (1,388 patients, median age 57 years); double vaccinated (462, 56 years) and triple vaccinated (301, 53 years). Body mass index was similar across groups (25-26 kg/m2), and time between SARS-CoV-2 infection and last vaccination was 156 days in double-vaccinated patients, and 62 days in triple-vaccinated patients.
Patients had rheumatoid arthritis in 44.7% and 44.4% of unvaccinated and double-vaccinated patients respectively, but fewer triple-vaccinated patients had RA (37.2%). Triple vaccination was seen in 32.2% of patients with spondyloarthritis, 16.6% connective tissue diseases, 5.3% other vasculitis, and 3.3% ANCA-associated vasculitis. Of triple-vaccinated patients, 26.2% were treated with tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) inhibitors, and 6.3% with rituximab, while 5.3% were not on immunomodulation. At least 25% were treated with glucocorticoids, reported Dr. Hasseli.
“Arterial hypertension and diabetes, that might be risk factors for COVID-19, were less frequently reported in triple-vaccinated patients. More patients in the double-vaccinated group [42.9%] than the triple-vaccinated [23.8%] reported absence of relevant comorbidities,” she said.
COVID-19 related complications were less often reported in double- and triple-vaccinated groups with hospitalizations at 9.5% and 4.3% in double and triple-vaccinated people respectively.
Dr. Boekel and Dr. Hasseli report no relevant conflicts of interest.
AT THE EULAR 2022 CONGRESS