CHICAGO -- Circulating tumor DNA successfully identified minimal residual disease in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer who are at high risk for recurrence – generally years before metastases occurs. The findings come from the CHiRP study, which included patients who were at least 5 years post diagnosis.

The researchers and other groups previously showed that minimal residual disease (MRD) status is associated with distant-recurrence free survival, “yet little is known about ctDNA in the late adjuvant setting in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer,” said Marla Lipsyc-Sharf, MD, a clinical fellow in medicine at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. Dr. Lipsyc-Sharf presented her findings June 4 in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The study was simultaneously published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Plasma samples were collected at follow-up visits every 6-12 months, and a personalized version of the RaDaR assay was used to detect ctDNA associated with MRD. Although the technology is currently only useful for research, the team hopes it can soon provide clinical guidance. “The CHiRP study is an important first step toward an understanding of the baseline prevalence and role of ctDNA in this setting. Multiple prospective clinical trials are underway or beginning to establish the clinical utility of ctDNA assays in this setting and understand whether intervention after MRD detection improves patient outcomes, such as survival or quality of life,” she said.

Ben Ho Park, MD, PhD, an oncologist with Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., described the findings as encouraging.

“I think most of us saw this very striking data that you could actually predict who’s going to recur and that all patients who did recur were ctDNA positive. The numbers are really, indeed very encouraging that we can develop assays now that detect minimal residual disease with serum monitoring. It really opens up the floodgates for designing studies [to determine] who to treat with additional adjuvant therapies while they’re still in the adjuvant phase of breast cancer therapy,” Dr. Park said during a discussion that followed the presentation.

The study included 83 patients with high-risk HR+ breast cancer and no evidence of recurrence within 5 years of diagnosis. High risk was defined as T3/T4 and/or N2/N3 disease; T1/N1 disease with 3 or more lymph nodes involved; or T2N1 disease with Ki67 ≥ 20%, grade 3, or oncotype DX score ≥ 26.

For each patient, clinicians designed a tumor-informed liquid biopsy assay to detect plasma ctDNA. A total of 68.7% of participants had stage 3 disease. A total of 90.4% received curative-intent chemotherapy, and all received endocrine therapy. A total of 47% remained on endocrine therapy at their last follow-up.

A total of 93.2% of patients who completed adjuvant endocrine therapy had at least 5 years of treatment. A median of 8.4 years elapsed between diagnosis and first ctDNA sample, and the median follow-up was 10.4 years from diagnosis and 1.8 years from the first sample.

A total of 5% of patients had MRD when they entered the study, and 10% were found to have MRD at any time. Of 6 patients (7.2%) who experienced a metastatic recurrence, all were MRD+, and ctDNA evidence appeared as soon as 37.6 months before diagnosis (median 12.4 months). Of eight patients who were MRD+ at some point, two of them had not had a recurrence at the latest follow-up, and one patient had no follow-up at all, and the other had a follow-up 15.4 months after ctDNA detection.

Limitations of the study included a limited follow-up period and low rate of recurrence, as well as infrequent plasma sampling.

Dr. Lipsyc-Sharf has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Park has financial relationships and/or has received funding from Celcuity, Loxo, Casdin Capital, EQRx, Guardant Health, Hologic, Horizon Discovery, Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, Abbvie, GE Healthcare, Lilly, Pfizer, Horizon Discovery, and Tempus.

CHICAGO -- Circulating tumor DNA successfully identified minimal residual disease in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer who are at high risk for recurrence – generally years before metastases occurs. The findings come from the CHiRP study, which included patients who were at least 5 years post diagnosis.

The researchers and other groups previously showed that minimal residual disease (MRD) status is associated with distant-recurrence free survival, “yet little is known about ctDNA in the late adjuvant setting in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer,” said Marla Lipsyc-Sharf, MD, a clinical fellow in medicine at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. Dr. Lipsyc-Sharf presented her findings June 4 in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The study was simultaneously published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Plasma samples were collected at follow-up visits every 6-12 months, and a personalized version of the RaDaR assay was used to detect ctDNA associated with MRD. Although the technology is currently only useful for research, the team hopes it can soon provide clinical guidance. “The CHiRP study is an important first step toward an understanding of the baseline prevalence and role of ctDNA in this setting. Multiple prospective clinical trials are underway or beginning to establish the clinical utility of ctDNA assays in this setting and understand whether intervention after MRD detection improves patient outcomes, such as survival or quality of life,” she said.

Ben Ho Park, MD, PhD, an oncologist with Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., described the findings as encouraging.

“I think most of us saw this very striking data that you could actually predict who’s going to recur and that all patients who did recur were ctDNA positive. The numbers are really, indeed very encouraging that we can develop assays now that detect minimal residual disease with serum monitoring. It really opens up the floodgates for designing studies [to determine] who to treat with additional adjuvant therapies while they’re still in the adjuvant phase of breast cancer therapy,” Dr. Park said during a discussion that followed the presentation.

The study included 83 patients with high-risk HR+ breast cancer and no evidence of recurrence within 5 years of diagnosis. High risk was defined as T3/T4 and/or N2/N3 disease; T1/N1 disease with 3 or more lymph nodes involved; or T2N1 disease with Ki67 ≥ 20%, grade 3, or oncotype DX score ≥ 26.

For each patient, clinicians designed a tumor-informed liquid biopsy assay to detect plasma ctDNA. A total of 68.7% of participants had stage 3 disease. A total of 90.4% received curative-intent chemotherapy, and all received endocrine therapy. A total of 47% remained on endocrine therapy at their last follow-up.

A total of 93.2% of patients who completed adjuvant endocrine therapy had at least 5 years of treatment. A median of 8.4 years elapsed between diagnosis and first ctDNA sample, and the median follow-up was 10.4 years from diagnosis and 1.8 years from the first sample.

A total of 5% of patients had MRD when they entered the study, and 10% were found to have MRD at any time. Of 6 patients (7.2%) who experienced a metastatic recurrence, all were MRD+, and ctDNA evidence appeared as soon as 37.6 months before diagnosis (median 12.4 months). Of eight patients who were MRD+ at some point, two of them had not had a recurrence at the latest follow-up, and one patient had no follow-up at all, and the other had a follow-up 15.4 months after ctDNA detection.

Limitations of the study included a limited follow-up period and low rate of recurrence, as well as infrequent plasma sampling.

Dr. Lipsyc-Sharf has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Park has financial relationships and/or has received funding from Celcuity, Loxo, Casdin Capital, EQRx, Guardant Health, Hologic, Horizon Discovery, Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, Abbvie, GE Healthcare, Lilly, Pfizer, Horizon Discovery, and Tempus.

CHICAGO -- Circulating tumor DNA successfully identified minimal residual disease in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer who are at high risk for recurrence – generally years before metastases occurs. The findings come from the CHiRP study, which included patients who were at least 5 years post diagnosis.

The researchers and other groups previously showed that minimal residual disease (MRD) status is associated with distant-recurrence free survival, “yet little is known about ctDNA in the late adjuvant setting in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer,” said Marla Lipsyc-Sharf, MD, a clinical fellow in medicine at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. Dr. Lipsyc-Sharf presented her findings June 4 in Chicago at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The study was simultaneously published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Plasma samples were collected at follow-up visits every 6-12 months, and a personalized version of the RaDaR assay was used to detect ctDNA associated with MRD. Although the technology is currently only useful for research, the team hopes it can soon provide clinical guidance. “The CHiRP study is an important first step toward an understanding of the baseline prevalence and role of ctDNA in this setting. Multiple prospective clinical trials are underway or beginning to establish the clinical utility of ctDNA assays in this setting and understand whether intervention after MRD detection improves patient outcomes, such as survival or quality of life,” she said.

Ben Ho Park, MD, PhD, an oncologist with Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., described the findings as encouraging.

“I think most of us saw this very striking data that you could actually predict who’s going to recur and that all patients who did recur were ctDNA positive. The numbers are really, indeed very encouraging that we can develop assays now that detect minimal residual disease with serum monitoring. It really opens up the floodgates for designing studies [to determine] who to treat with additional adjuvant therapies while they’re still in the adjuvant phase of breast cancer therapy,” Dr. Park said during a discussion that followed the presentation.

The study included 83 patients with high-risk HR+ breast cancer and no evidence of recurrence within 5 years of diagnosis. High risk was defined as T3/T4 and/or N2/N3 disease; T1/N1 disease with 3 or more lymph nodes involved; or T2N1 disease with Ki67 ≥ 20%, grade 3, or oncotype DX score ≥ 26.

For each patient, clinicians designed a tumor-informed liquid biopsy assay to detect plasma ctDNA. A total of 68.7% of participants had stage 3 disease. A total of 90.4% received curative-intent chemotherapy, and all received endocrine therapy. A total of 47% remained on endocrine therapy at their last follow-up.

A total of 93.2% of patients who completed adjuvant endocrine therapy had at least 5 years of treatment. A median of 8.4 years elapsed between diagnosis and first ctDNA sample, and the median follow-up was 10.4 years from diagnosis and 1.8 years from the first sample.

A total of 5% of patients had MRD when they entered the study, and 10% were found to have MRD at any time. Of 6 patients (7.2%) who experienced a metastatic recurrence, all were MRD+, and ctDNA evidence appeared as soon as 37.6 months before diagnosis (median 12.4 months). Of eight patients who were MRD+ at some point, two of them had not had a recurrence at the latest follow-up, and one patient had no follow-up at all, and the other had a follow-up 15.4 months after ctDNA detection.

Limitations of the study included a limited follow-up period and low rate of recurrence, as well as infrequent plasma sampling.

Dr. Lipsyc-Sharf has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Park has financial relationships and/or has received funding from Celcuity, Loxo, Casdin Capital, EQRx, Guardant Health, Hologic, Horizon Discovery, Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, Abbvie, GE Healthcare, Lilly, Pfizer, Horizon Discovery, and Tempus.

COPENHAGEN – Here’s reassuring news for pregnant women with rheumatic diseases treated with tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha inhibitors: Although the drugs vary widely in their transmissibility across the placenta, there appears to be no excess risk for serious infections in children exposed in utero to TNF inhibitors with high, compared with low, placental transfer.

That’s according to investigators at McGill University in Montreal, who studied outcomes for nearly 3,000 infants who were exposed to TNF inhibitors during gestation.

“Our data are reassuring as we saw no strong signal, which suggests that there is no need to switch the mother’s drugs. More studies are needed, but this is a step in the right direction to reduce maternal stress and reassure physicians,” said Leah K. Flatman, MSc, a PhD candidate in epidemiology at McGill.

Ms. Flatman presented the findings in an oral abstract session at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Not without risks

Approximately 20% of pregnant women with chronic inflammatory diseases are prescribed a TNF inhibitor, a class of drug that is effective for disease control but also increases risk for infection because of immunosuppressive effects.

“Similarly, offspring exposed in utero to TNF inhibitors may also experience immunosuppression and subsequent serious infections in their first year of life. This is the result of the TNF inhibitor entering the fetal bloodstream at different concentrations,» Ms. Flatman said.

Anti-TNF monoclonal immunoglobulins, such as infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars), adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars), and golimumab (Simponi) have the highest placental transfer, reaching higher levels in fetal circulation than in maternal circulation, she noted.

In contrast, certolizumab (Cimzia), a pegylated humanized antigen-binding fragment, and etanercept (Enbrel and biosimilars), a fusion protein, have the lowest placental penetration, Ms. Flatman said.

Population study

The investigators conducted a population cohort study using the IBM MarketScan database of commercial claims from employer-provided health insurance plans in the United States.

They looked at data on offspring of mothers with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis and/or inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD; Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis). The children were born from Jan. 1, 2011 through Dec. 31, 2019.

The exposure was at least one filled prescription and/or infusion procedure claim for TNF inhibitors in the 6 months before delivery. The exposures were divided into high and low placental-transfer categories.

A total of 26,088 offspring were identified, of whom 2,902 (11.1%) were exposed to a TNF inhibitor in utero. A little more than half of these children were born to mothers treated with TNF inhibitors for IBD.

For the primary outcome of serious infections (based on at least one hospitalization with infection in the first year of life), the investigators plotted Kaplan-Meier curves, which showed that the survival probability of serious infections in the high and low groups overlapped, indicating no large differences.

Of 2,105 offspring of mothers treated with a high–placental-transfer drug, 38 (1.8%) had serious infections, compared with 10 of 797 offspring (1.3%) of mothers who received low–placental-transfer drugs.

In multivariable analysis that controlled for maternal age at delivery, any RA diagnosis without an IBD diagnosis, and IBD diagnosis, gestational or pregestational diabetes, maternal asthma, preterm delivery, corticosteroid use, and disease-modifying antirheumatic drug use, the investigators saw that the hazard ratio for risk for serious infection in the high–, compared with the low–placental-transfer group was 1.20, with a confidence interval crossing 1, indicating nonsignificance.

Similar results reported

Frauke Förger, MD, professor of rheumatology and immunology at the University of Bern (Switzerland), who comoderated the oral abstract session where the data were presented, told this news organization that the findings were in line with those of a recent meta-analysis looking at the safety of biologic agents in pregnant women with IBD.

She added, however, that although the meta-analysis also showed little difference in outcomes for the children of women treated with high– compared with low–placental-transfer drugs, “we need more data to be sure about this.”

Comoderator Gabriela Riemekasten, MD, director of the clinic for rheumatology and clinical immunology at University Hospital in Lübeck, Germany, told this news organization that she was surprised to see that more women received high– than low–placental-transfer drugs.

Although there was a 20% difference between the groups, the numbers were relatively low, and “I would consider this in my practice and give my patients the advice of these data,” she said.

The study was supported by an Arthritis Society PhD Salary Award, and a Canadian Institutes of Health Project grant. Ms. Flatman, Dr. Förger, and Dr. Riemekasten reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COPENHAGEN – Here’s reassuring news for pregnant women with rheumatic diseases treated with tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha inhibitors: Although the drugs vary widely in their transmissibility across the placenta, there appears to be no excess risk for serious infections in children exposed in utero to TNF inhibitors with high, compared with low, placental transfer.

That’s according to investigators at McGill University in Montreal, who studied outcomes for nearly 3,000 infants who were exposed to TNF inhibitors during gestation.

“Our data are reassuring as we saw no strong signal, which suggests that there is no need to switch the mother’s drugs. More studies are needed, but this is a step in the right direction to reduce maternal stress and reassure physicians,” said Leah K. Flatman, MSc, a PhD candidate in epidemiology at McGill.

Ms. Flatman presented the findings in an oral abstract session at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Not without risks

Approximately 20% of pregnant women with chronic inflammatory diseases are prescribed a TNF inhibitor, a class of drug that is effective for disease control but also increases risk for infection because of immunosuppressive effects.

“Similarly, offspring exposed in utero to TNF inhibitors may also experience immunosuppression and subsequent serious infections in their first year of life. This is the result of the TNF inhibitor entering the fetal bloodstream at different concentrations,» Ms. Flatman said.

Anti-TNF monoclonal immunoglobulins, such as infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars), adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars), and golimumab (Simponi) have the highest placental transfer, reaching higher levels in fetal circulation than in maternal circulation, she noted.

In contrast, certolizumab (Cimzia), a pegylated humanized antigen-binding fragment, and etanercept (Enbrel and biosimilars), a fusion protein, have the lowest placental penetration, Ms. Flatman said.

Population study

The investigators conducted a population cohort study using the IBM MarketScan database of commercial claims from employer-provided health insurance plans in the United States.

They looked at data on offspring of mothers with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis and/or inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD; Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis). The children were born from Jan. 1, 2011 through Dec. 31, 2019.

The exposure was at least one filled prescription and/or infusion procedure claim for TNF inhibitors in the 6 months before delivery. The exposures were divided into high and low placental-transfer categories.

A total of 26,088 offspring were identified, of whom 2,902 (11.1%) were exposed to a TNF inhibitor in utero. A little more than half of these children were born to mothers treated with TNF inhibitors for IBD.

For the primary outcome of serious infections (based on at least one hospitalization with infection in the first year of life), the investigators plotted Kaplan-Meier curves, which showed that the survival probability of serious infections in the high and low groups overlapped, indicating no large differences.

Of 2,105 offspring of mothers treated with a high–placental-transfer drug, 38 (1.8%) had serious infections, compared with 10 of 797 offspring (1.3%) of mothers who received low–placental-transfer drugs.

In multivariable analysis that controlled for maternal age at delivery, any RA diagnosis without an IBD diagnosis, and IBD diagnosis, gestational or pregestational diabetes, maternal asthma, preterm delivery, corticosteroid use, and disease-modifying antirheumatic drug use, the investigators saw that the hazard ratio for risk for serious infection in the high–, compared with the low–placental-transfer group was 1.20, with a confidence interval crossing 1, indicating nonsignificance.

Similar results reported

Frauke Förger, MD, professor of rheumatology and immunology at the University of Bern (Switzerland), who comoderated the oral abstract session where the data were presented, told this news organization that the findings were in line with those of a recent meta-analysis looking at the safety of biologic agents in pregnant women with IBD.

She added, however, that although the meta-analysis also showed little difference in outcomes for the children of women treated with high– compared with low–placental-transfer drugs, “we need more data to be sure about this.”

Comoderator Gabriela Riemekasten, MD, director of the clinic for rheumatology and clinical immunology at University Hospital in Lübeck, Germany, told this news organization that she was surprised to see that more women received high– than low–placental-transfer drugs.

Although there was a 20% difference between the groups, the numbers were relatively low, and “I would consider this in my practice and give my patients the advice of these data,” she said.

The study was supported by an Arthritis Society PhD Salary Award, and a Canadian Institutes of Health Project grant. Ms. Flatman, Dr. Förger, and Dr. Riemekasten reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COPENHAGEN – Here’s reassuring news for pregnant women with rheumatic diseases treated with tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha inhibitors: Although the drugs vary widely in their transmissibility across the placenta, there appears to be no excess risk for serious infections in children exposed in utero to TNF inhibitors with high, compared with low, placental transfer.

That’s according to investigators at McGill University in Montreal, who studied outcomes for nearly 3,000 infants who were exposed to TNF inhibitors during gestation.

“Our data are reassuring as we saw no strong signal, which suggests that there is no need to switch the mother’s drugs. More studies are needed, but this is a step in the right direction to reduce maternal stress and reassure physicians,” said Leah K. Flatman, MSc, a PhD candidate in epidemiology at McGill.

Ms. Flatman presented the findings in an oral abstract session at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Not without risks

Approximately 20% of pregnant women with chronic inflammatory diseases are prescribed a TNF inhibitor, a class of drug that is effective for disease control but also increases risk for infection because of immunosuppressive effects.

“Similarly, offspring exposed in utero to TNF inhibitors may also experience immunosuppression and subsequent serious infections in their first year of life. This is the result of the TNF inhibitor entering the fetal bloodstream at different concentrations,» Ms. Flatman said.

Anti-TNF monoclonal immunoglobulins, such as infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars), adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars), and golimumab (Simponi) have the highest placental transfer, reaching higher levels in fetal circulation than in maternal circulation, she noted.

In contrast, certolizumab (Cimzia), a pegylated humanized antigen-binding fragment, and etanercept (Enbrel and biosimilars), a fusion protein, have the lowest placental penetration, Ms. Flatman said.

Population study

The investigators conducted a population cohort study using the IBM MarketScan database of commercial claims from employer-provided health insurance plans in the United States.

They looked at data on offspring of mothers with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis and/or inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD; Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis). The children were born from Jan. 1, 2011 through Dec. 31, 2019.

The exposure was at least one filled prescription and/or infusion procedure claim for TNF inhibitors in the 6 months before delivery. The exposures were divided into high and low placental-transfer categories.

A total of 26,088 offspring were identified, of whom 2,902 (11.1%) were exposed to a TNF inhibitor in utero. A little more than half of these children were born to mothers treated with TNF inhibitors for IBD.

For the primary outcome of serious infections (based on at least one hospitalization with infection in the first year of life), the investigators plotted Kaplan-Meier curves, which showed that the survival probability of serious infections in the high and low groups overlapped, indicating no large differences.

Of 2,105 offspring of mothers treated with a high–placental-transfer drug, 38 (1.8%) had serious infections, compared with 10 of 797 offspring (1.3%) of mothers who received low–placental-transfer drugs.

In multivariable analysis that controlled for maternal age at delivery, any RA diagnosis without an IBD diagnosis, and IBD diagnosis, gestational or pregestational diabetes, maternal asthma, preterm delivery, corticosteroid use, and disease-modifying antirheumatic drug use, the investigators saw that the hazard ratio for risk for serious infection in the high–, compared with the low–placental-transfer group was 1.20, with a confidence interval crossing 1, indicating nonsignificance.

Similar results reported

Frauke Förger, MD, professor of rheumatology and immunology at the University of Bern (Switzerland), who comoderated the oral abstract session where the data were presented, told this news organization that the findings were in line with those of a recent meta-analysis looking at the safety of biologic agents in pregnant women with IBD.

She added, however, that although the meta-analysis also showed little difference in outcomes for the children of women treated with high– compared with low–placental-transfer drugs, “we need more data to be sure about this.”

Comoderator Gabriela Riemekasten, MD, director of the clinic for rheumatology and clinical immunology at University Hospital in Lübeck, Germany, told this news organization that she was surprised to see that more women received high– than low–placental-transfer drugs.

Although there was a 20% difference between the groups, the numbers were relatively low, and “I would consider this in my practice and give my patients the advice of these data,” she said.

The study was supported by an Arthritis Society PhD Salary Award, and a Canadian Institutes of Health Project grant. Ms. Flatman, Dr. Förger, and Dr. Riemekasten reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

COPENHAGEN – Baricitinib (Olumiant), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, significantly increases time to disease flare and decreases frequency of flares in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), according to the results of a phase 3, placebo-controlled study.

The results support use of baricitinib when biologic or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) fail.

 The difference in the proportion of patients who flared between baricitinib and placebo was seen as soon as 4 weeks after half of the patients switched from active drug to placebo, at 3.7% versus 23.5% respectively, reported Athimalaipet Ramanan, MD, from the University of Bristol (England) who presented the findings of the withdrawal, efficacy, and safety study at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

  “Our patients and parents have been waiting for alternative drugs for JIA, so JAK inhibitors have come at the right time,” he said. “These are really very encouraging findings for families, caregivers, and patients with JIA, to have an effective oral JAK inhibitor for managing these children.”

 In reporting the key findings, Dr. Ramanan added that the majority of patients (76%) achieved a JIA-ACR (American College of Rheumatology) 30 score during the 12-week open-label phase and went on to enter the double-blind withdrawal phase of the trial.

 Baricitinib 2-mg tablets are already Food and Drug Administration approved for the treatment of adults with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis. This study, sponsored by the drug manufacturer Eli Lilly, aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety in pediatric patients with JIA who have shown an inadequate response to conventional synthetic or biologic DMARDs.

“For juvenile patients we need to make a dose adjustment [from the adult dosing], especially because we don’t have long-term safety data from JAK inhibitors in general,” said Osama Elfayad, MD, rheumatologist from Mouwasat Hospital, Dammam, Saudi Arabia who attended the presentation and commented on the findings.

He emphasized that safety was of primary concern in the pediatric population who have a long life expectancy. “For me it is essential to have good long-term safety data in juvenile patients. If we start with 4 mg and if the patient is controlled, we should shift to 2 mg which will be much better. I understand some clinicians are asking for 1 mg.”

Study details

The study population included patients aged from 2 to 17 years old with extended oligo- or polyarticular JIA, enthesitis-related juvenile idiopathic arthritis (ERA) and juvenile psoriatic arthritis.

 The trial was divided into three periods: a 2-week safety assessment, a 12-week open-label lead-in phase, and an up-to 32-week double-blind withdrawal phase. After confirmation of dose and safety, children were enrolled in the open-label phase receiving age-based, oral, once daily doses of baricitinib.

 “The primary endpoint is really concerned with the next phase of the study [double-blind withdrawal phase] looking at the proportion of patients who have shown a response at week 12 [achieved JIA-ACR30] but when switched from active drug to placebo have a flare,” explained Dr. Ramanan.

Patients were randomized 1:1 to continuing baricitinib or newly starting placebo until disease flare or up to week 32. The time to flare during the double-blind phase was the primary endpoint, while secondary endpoints included JIA-ACR30/50/70/90 response rates at week 12, and the proportion of patients with a flare during the double-blind phase.

 “These secondary endpoints are more relevant to the clinic,” noted Dr. Ramanan.

 A total of 219 patients entered the open-label phase, and of these, 163 achieved a JIA-ACR 30. These 163 children entered the double-blind stage and were randomized to baricitinib four times a day (56 completed), or placebo (32 completed).

 Two-thirds of patients were female, which is typical of the disease, explained Dr. Ramanan, and over two-thirds were White. “Most patients had had disease for around 4 years, and about half had had prior biologic therapy. About half were on baseline methotrexate and almost one-third had used corticosteroids although at doses of under 0.2mg/kg.

“It’s gratifying to see that over 75% achieved a JIA-ACR 30 [76.3%]. More importantly, two-thirds of the patients have a JIA-ACR 50 [63.5%], and almost half of the patients have a JIA-ACR 70 [46.1%]. This is pretty significant at 12 weeks only,” he remarked.

The key finding, however, was in the withdrawal phase, said Dr. Ramanan. “We see that those patients who had a response at week 12 and were then switched to placebo, about half [50.6%] flared on placebo, compared to only 17% of those who continued with baricitinib. So not only do those who switch to placebo have a higher frequency of flares but they are more likely to flare quickly, as early as 4 weeks.”

With respect to safety, he said: “This shows short-term safety, but what we really need is medium and long-term safety data. It is no surprise that most of the events seen were as expected in children including nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infections, and nausea.”  

In the baricitinib versus placebo phase, 4.9% had serious adverse events in the baricitinib group compared to 3.7% in the placebo group. “There was nothing we didn’t expect to see which was mainly infection,” said Dr. Ramanan.

Dr. Elfayad has no disclosures. Professor Ramanan is a consultant for Eli Lilly, Abbvie, Roche, UCB, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sobi. He has received grant/research support from Eli Lilly.

COPENHAGEN – Baricitinib (Olumiant), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, significantly increases time to disease flare and decreases frequency of flares in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), according to the results of a phase 3, placebo-controlled study.

The results support use of baricitinib when biologic or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) fail.

 The difference in the proportion of patients who flared between baricitinib and placebo was seen as soon as 4 weeks after half of the patients switched from active drug to placebo, at 3.7% versus 23.5% respectively, reported Athimalaipet Ramanan, MD, from the University of Bristol (England) who presented the findings of the withdrawal, efficacy, and safety study at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

  “Our patients and parents have been waiting for alternative drugs for JIA, so JAK inhibitors have come at the right time,” he said. “These are really very encouraging findings for families, caregivers, and patients with JIA, to have an effective oral JAK inhibitor for managing these children.”

 In reporting the key findings, Dr. Ramanan added that the majority of patients (76%) achieved a JIA-ACR (American College of Rheumatology) 30 score during the 12-week open-label phase and went on to enter the double-blind withdrawal phase of the trial.

 Baricitinib 2-mg tablets are already Food and Drug Administration approved for the treatment of adults with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis. This study, sponsored by the drug manufacturer Eli Lilly, aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety in pediatric patients with JIA who have shown an inadequate response to conventional synthetic or biologic DMARDs.

“For juvenile patients we need to make a dose adjustment [from the adult dosing], especially because we don’t have long-term safety data from JAK inhibitors in general,” said Osama Elfayad, MD, rheumatologist from Mouwasat Hospital, Dammam, Saudi Arabia who attended the presentation and commented on the findings.

He emphasized that safety was of primary concern in the pediatric population who have a long life expectancy. “For me it is essential to have good long-term safety data in juvenile patients. If we start with 4 mg and if the patient is controlled, we should shift to 2 mg which will be much better. I understand some clinicians are asking for 1 mg.”

Study details

The study population included patients aged from 2 to 17 years old with extended oligo- or polyarticular JIA, enthesitis-related juvenile idiopathic arthritis (ERA) and juvenile psoriatic arthritis.

 The trial was divided into three periods: a 2-week safety assessment, a 12-week open-label lead-in phase, and an up-to 32-week double-blind withdrawal phase. After confirmation of dose and safety, children were enrolled in the open-label phase receiving age-based, oral, once daily doses of baricitinib.

 “The primary endpoint is really concerned with the next phase of the study [double-blind withdrawal phase] looking at the proportion of patients who have shown a response at week 12 [achieved JIA-ACR30] but when switched from active drug to placebo have a flare,” explained Dr. Ramanan.

Patients were randomized 1:1 to continuing baricitinib or newly starting placebo until disease flare or up to week 32. The time to flare during the double-blind phase was the primary endpoint, while secondary endpoints included JIA-ACR30/50/70/90 response rates at week 12, and the proportion of patients with a flare during the double-blind phase.

 “These secondary endpoints are more relevant to the clinic,” noted Dr. Ramanan.

 A total of 219 patients entered the open-label phase, and of these, 163 achieved a JIA-ACR 30. These 163 children entered the double-blind stage and were randomized to baricitinib four times a day (56 completed), or placebo (32 completed).

 Two-thirds of patients were female, which is typical of the disease, explained Dr. Ramanan, and over two-thirds were White. “Most patients had had disease for around 4 years, and about half had had prior biologic therapy. About half were on baseline methotrexate and almost one-third had used corticosteroids although at doses of under 0.2mg/kg.

“It’s gratifying to see that over 75% achieved a JIA-ACR 30 [76.3%]. More importantly, two-thirds of the patients have a JIA-ACR 50 [63.5%], and almost half of the patients have a JIA-ACR 70 [46.1%]. This is pretty significant at 12 weeks only,” he remarked.

The key finding, however, was in the withdrawal phase, said Dr. Ramanan. “We see that those patients who had a response at week 12 and were then switched to placebo, about half [50.6%] flared on placebo, compared to only 17% of those who continued with baricitinib. So not only do those who switch to placebo have a higher frequency of flares but they are more likely to flare quickly, as early as 4 weeks.”

With respect to safety, he said: “This shows short-term safety, but what we really need is medium and long-term safety data. It is no surprise that most of the events seen were as expected in children including nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infections, and nausea.”  

In the baricitinib versus placebo phase, 4.9% had serious adverse events in the baricitinib group compared to 3.7% in the placebo group. “There was nothing we didn’t expect to see which was mainly infection,” said Dr. Ramanan.

Dr. Elfayad has no disclosures. Professor Ramanan is a consultant for Eli Lilly, Abbvie, Roche, UCB, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sobi. He has received grant/research support from Eli Lilly.

COPENHAGEN – Baricitinib (Olumiant), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, significantly increases time to disease flare and decreases frequency of flares in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), according to the results of a phase 3, placebo-controlled study.

The results support use of baricitinib when biologic or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) fail.

 The difference in the proportion of patients who flared between baricitinib and placebo was seen as soon as 4 weeks after half of the patients switched from active drug to placebo, at 3.7% versus 23.5% respectively, reported Athimalaipet Ramanan, MD, from the University of Bristol (England) who presented the findings of the withdrawal, efficacy, and safety study at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

  “Our patients and parents have been waiting for alternative drugs for JIA, so JAK inhibitors have come at the right time,” he said. “These are really very encouraging findings for families, caregivers, and patients with JIA, to have an effective oral JAK inhibitor for managing these children.”

 In reporting the key findings, Dr. Ramanan added that the majority of patients (76%) achieved a JIA-ACR (American College of Rheumatology) 30 score during the 12-week open-label phase and went on to enter the double-blind withdrawal phase of the trial.

 Baricitinib 2-mg tablets are already Food and Drug Administration approved for the treatment of adults with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis. This study, sponsored by the drug manufacturer Eli Lilly, aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety in pediatric patients with JIA who have shown an inadequate response to conventional synthetic or biologic DMARDs.

“For juvenile patients we need to make a dose adjustment [from the adult dosing], especially because we don’t have long-term safety data from JAK inhibitors in general,” said Osama Elfayad, MD, rheumatologist from Mouwasat Hospital, Dammam, Saudi Arabia who attended the presentation and commented on the findings.

He emphasized that safety was of primary concern in the pediatric population who have a long life expectancy. “For me it is essential to have good long-term safety data in juvenile patients. If we start with 4 mg and if the patient is controlled, we should shift to 2 mg which will be much better. I understand some clinicians are asking for 1 mg.”

Study details

The study population included patients aged from 2 to 17 years old with extended oligo- or polyarticular JIA, enthesitis-related juvenile idiopathic arthritis (ERA) and juvenile psoriatic arthritis.

 The trial was divided into three periods: a 2-week safety assessment, a 12-week open-label lead-in phase, and an up-to 32-week double-blind withdrawal phase. After confirmation of dose and safety, children were enrolled in the open-label phase receiving age-based, oral, once daily doses of baricitinib.

 “The primary endpoint is really concerned with the next phase of the study [double-blind withdrawal phase] looking at the proportion of patients who have shown a response at week 12 [achieved JIA-ACR30] but when switched from active drug to placebo have a flare,” explained Dr. Ramanan.

Patients were randomized 1:1 to continuing baricitinib or newly starting placebo until disease flare or up to week 32. The time to flare during the double-blind phase was the primary endpoint, while secondary endpoints included JIA-ACR30/50/70/90 response rates at week 12, and the proportion of patients with a flare during the double-blind phase.

 “These secondary endpoints are more relevant to the clinic,” noted Dr. Ramanan.

 A total of 219 patients entered the open-label phase, and of these, 163 achieved a JIA-ACR 30. These 163 children entered the double-blind stage and were randomized to baricitinib four times a day (56 completed), or placebo (32 completed).

 Two-thirds of patients were female, which is typical of the disease, explained Dr. Ramanan, and over two-thirds were White. “Most patients had had disease for around 4 years, and about half had had prior biologic therapy. About half were on baseline methotrexate and almost one-third had used corticosteroids although at doses of under 0.2mg/kg.

“It’s gratifying to see that over 75% achieved a JIA-ACR 30 [76.3%]. More importantly, two-thirds of the patients have a JIA-ACR 50 [63.5%], and almost half of the patients have a JIA-ACR 70 [46.1%]. This is pretty significant at 12 weeks only,” he remarked.

The key finding, however, was in the withdrawal phase, said Dr. Ramanan. “We see that those patients who had a response at week 12 and were then switched to placebo, about half [50.6%] flared on placebo, compared to only 17% of those who continued with baricitinib. So not only do those who switch to placebo have a higher frequency of flares but they are more likely to flare quickly, as early as 4 weeks.”

With respect to safety, he said: “This shows short-term safety, but what we really need is medium and long-term safety data. It is no surprise that most of the events seen were as expected in children including nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infections, and nausea.”  

In the baricitinib versus placebo phase, 4.9% had serious adverse events in the baricitinib group compared to 3.7% in the placebo group. “There was nothing we didn’t expect to see which was mainly infection,” said Dr. Ramanan.

Dr. Elfayad has no disclosures. Professor Ramanan is a consultant for Eli Lilly, Abbvie, Roche, UCB, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sobi. He has received grant/research support from Eli Lilly.

A host of psoriatic arthritis symptoms can be improved by the investigational interleukin (IL)-17 blocker izokibep, according to the results of a phase 2 trial presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Around half of all participants in the trial who were treated with izokibep achieved a 50% or higher improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR50) at week 16, the trial’s primary endpoint. This was highly significant (P = .0003) when compared to the control group, where only 13% of patients given a placebo achieved an ACR50.

There was also a significant improvement in skin symptoms, as assessed by the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and resolution of enthesitis in 88% of patients given the highest dose of izokibep.

Aurelie Najm, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Infection, Immunity and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow, who tweeted about the main results, said that the data also looked “promising for the enthesitis domain” with a “safety profile similar to that observed in PsO [psoriasis].”Peter Taylor, MA, PhD, FRCP, FRCPE, of the University of Oxford in England, said: “The improvements demonstrated in arthritis, psoriasis, and enthesitis are exciting relative to responses reported for the current standard of care.”

He continued, in a statement issued jointly by Affibody, Acelyrin, and Immagene Biopharmaceuticals – the three companies assessing izokibep’s therapeutic potential – that the drug “seems promising” and that he was “eager to see its continued development for patients.”

Small and potent, a novel IL-17 inhibitor

Izokibep is an antibody mimetic that inhibits IL-17A designed to “overcome the limitations of monoclonal antibodies,” according to its developers.

Due to its small molecular size – reportedly about one-tenth of the size of a monoclonal antibody – they say that levels of high drug exposure can be achieved from a single, subcutaneous injection rather than an intravenous infusion, which is needed for monoclonal antibodies.

Moreover, izokibep’s small size means it could potentially reach target tissues “that may otherwise be inaccessible to the much larger monoclonal antibodies.” 

So far more than 300 patients have been treated with izokibep, some for up to 3 years, but not all have had psoriatic arthritis. Indeed, the drug has been tested in patients with psoriasis, and there are a few actively recruiting trials including one in ankylosing spondylitis, another in noninfective uveitis, and one in the rare and painful skin condition hidradenitis suppurativa.

Testing two doses of izokibep in psoriatic arthritis

The trial presented at the EULAR 2022 Congress tested two doses of izokibep – 40 mg and 80 mg – given by subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks – against placebo in 135 adult patients with active psoriatic arthritis. For inclusion in the trial patients had to have at least three swollen and at least three tender joints and have had an inadequate response to prior therapy including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, or tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.

Principle investigator Frank Behrens, MD, of Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany, reported that it was a multicenter effort conducted at 22 European sites with the primary endpoint being an ACR50 response at 16 weeks. This was met by 52% of patients given the 80-mg dose of izokibep, 48% of patients given the 40-mg dose of izokibep, and just 13% of patients who had been randomized to placebo.

ACR20 and ACR70 response were one of several key secondary endpoints tested, again at 16 weeks, with a respective 75%, 60%, and 20% of patients in each group achieving the lower response target and 20%, 32%, and 5%, achieving the more stringent response target.

“Izokibep demonstrated a robust efficacy in the musculoskeletal arthritic domains, but also in the extra-articular musculoskeletal domain,” Dr. Behrens said.

Not only that, but the values were “at the top end” of what’s been demonstrated for drugs currently regarded as the standard of care.

More than 80% of patients achieved a PASI75 response and 57% a PASI50 response with the two doses of izokibep, and 63%-88% achieved a resolution of enthesitis. The latter was measured using the Leeds Enthesitis Index.

There was also improvement in quality of life, measured using the Psoriatic Impact of Disease questionnaire, with a percentage increase beyond the MCID of 31%-41% with izokibep versus 12% for placebo.

“These are the first data of the phase 2 study in psoriatic arthritis,” Dr. Behrens reported.

“The safety profile was consistent with placebo,” with the only “standout aspect” being a higher number of injection-site reactions with izokibep versus placebo; but there were no serious infections, no serious adverse events,” he added.

“The interesting thing is from the preclinical research there was no dose-limiting toxicity with izokibep, therefore, I think the plan in the future is maybe to increase the dose to optimize treatment outcome based on the really robust effectiveness we see here in the first study in this clinical trial,” he said.

As a small study, stratifying results by gender wasn’t an option, Dr. Behrens noted in answering a question during the discussion period, but might be something that will be included in future and larger trials based on the post-hoc findings of other IL-17 trials.

Moving forward, the next step will involve a phase 2b/3 pivotal study which will likely include a higher dosing regimen of 160 mg once weekly alongside the twice-weekly dosing used in this trial.

Izokibep is an investigational treatment being developed by Affibody AB, Sweden, and ACELYRIN, USA. All three companies funded the phase 2 trial and were involved in the study design, conduct and reporting of results.

Dr. Behrens and Dr. Taylor were investigators in the study.

Dr. Behrens disclosed he was a shareholder of Pfizer, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead Sciences, Inc. and Novartis; part of the speakers’ bureau for Amgen, Horizon, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Genzyme, Flexion and AbbVie; a consultant of AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Flexion, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, Regeneron, SUN Pharma Advanced Research, Gilead Sciences, Inc.; and had received grant or research support from Pfizer, Janssen, Chugai, Celgene and Roche

Dr. Taylor acknowledged grant or research support from: Celgene and Galapagos, and acted as a consultant for AbbVie, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and UCB.
 

A host of psoriatic arthritis symptoms can be improved by the investigational interleukin (IL)-17 blocker izokibep, according to the results of a phase 2 trial presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Around half of all participants in the trial who were treated with izokibep achieved a 50% or higher improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR50) at week 16, the trial’s primary endpoint. This was highly significant (P = .0003) when compared to the control group, where only 13% of patients given a placebo achieved an ACR50.

There was also a significant improvement in skin symptoms, as assessed by the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and resolution of enthesitis in 88% of patients given the highest dose of izokibep.

Aurelie Najm, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Infection, Immunity and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow, who tweeted about the main results, said that the data also looked “promising for the enthesitis domain” with a “safety profile similar to that observed in PsO [psoriasis].”Peter Taylor, MA, PhD, FRCP, FRCPE, of the University of Oxford in England, said: “The improvements demonstrated in arthritis, psoriasis, and enthesitis are exciting relative to responses reported for the current standard of care.”

He continued, in a statement issued jointly by Affibody, Acelyrin, and Immagene Biopharmaceuticals – the three companies assessing izokibep’s therapeutic potential – that the drug “seems promising” and that he was “eager to see its continued development for patients.”

Small and potent, a novel IL-17 inhibitor

Izokibep is an antibody mimetic that inhibits IL-17A designed to “overcome the limitations of monoclonal antibodies,” according to its developers.

Due to its small molecular size – reportedly about one-tenth of the size of a monoclonal antibody – they say that levels of high drug exposure can be achieved from a single, subcutaneous injection rather than an intravenous infusion, which is needed for monoclonal antibodies.

Moreover, izokibep’s small size means it could potentially reach target tissues “that may otherwise be inaccessible to the much larger monoclonal antibodies.” 

So far more than 300 patients have been treated with izokibep, some for up to 3 years, but not all have had psoriatic arthritis. Indeed, the drug has been tested in patients with psoriasis, and there are a few actively recruiting trials including one in ankylosing spondylitis, another in noninfective uveitis, and one in the rare and painful skin condition hidradenitis suppurativa.

Testing two doses of izokibep in psoriatic arthritis

The trial presented at the EULAR 2022 Congress tested two doses of izokibep – 40 mg and 80 mg – given by subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks – against placebo in 135 adult patients with active psoriatic arthritis. For inclusion in the trial patients had to have at least three swollen and at least three tender joints and have had an inadequate response to prior therapy including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, or tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.

Principle investigator Frank Behrens, MD, of Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany, reported that it was a multicenter effort conducted at 22 European sites with the primary endpoint being an ACR50 response at 16 weeks. This was met by 52% of patients given the 80-mg dose of izokibep, 48% of patients given the 40-mg dose of izokibep, and just 13% of patients who had been randomized to placebo.

ACR20 and ACR70 response were one of several key secondary endpoints tested, again at 16 weeks, with a respective 75%, 60%, and 20% of patients in each group achieving the lower response target and 20%, 32%, and 5%, achieving the more stringent response target.

“Izokibep demonstrated a robust efficacy in the musculoskeletal arthritic domains, but also in the extra-articular musculoskeletal domain,” Dr. Behrens said.

Not only that, but the values were “at the top end” of what’s been demonstrated for drugs currently regarded as the standard of care.

More than 80% of patients achieved a PASI75 response and 57% a PASI50 response with the two doses of izokibep, and 63%-88% achieved a resolution of enthesitis. The latter was measured using the Leeds Enthesitis Index.

There was also improvement in quality of life, measured using the Psoriatic Impact of Disease questionnaire, with a percentage increase beyond the MCID of 31%-41% with izokibep versus 12% for placebo.

“These are the first data of the phase 2 study in psoriatic arthritis,” Dr. Behrens reported.

“The safety profile was consistent with placebo,” with the only “standout aspect” being a higher number of injection-site reactions with izokibep versus placebo; but there were no serious infections, no serious adverse events,” he added.

“The interesting thing is from the preclinical research there was no dose-limiting toxicity with izokibep, therefore, I think the plan in the future is maybe to increase the dose to optimize treatment outcome based on the really robust effectiveness we see here in the first study in this clinical trial,” he said.

As a small study, stratifying results by gender wasn’t an option, Dr. Behrens noted in answering a question during the discussion period, but might be something that will be included in future and larger trials based on the post-hoc findings of other IL-17 trials.

Moving forward, the next step will involve a phase 2b/3 pivotal study which will likely include a higher dosing regimen of 160 mg once weekly alongside the twice-weekly dosing used in this trial.

Izokibep is an investigational treatment being developed by Affibody AB, Sweden, and ACELYRIN, USA. All three companies funded the phase 2 trial and were involved in the study design, conduct and reporting of results.

Dr. Behrens and Dr. Taylor were investigators in the study.

Dr. Behrens disclosed he was a shareholder of Pfizer, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead Sciences, Inc. and Novartis; part of the speakers’ bureau for Amgen, Horizon, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Genzyme, Flexion and AbbVie; a consultant of AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Flexion, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, Regeneron, SUN Pharma Advanced Research, Gilead Sciences, Inc.; and had received grant or research support from Pfizer, Janssen, Chugai, Celgene and Roche

Dr. Taylor acknowledged grant or research support from: Celgene and Galapagos, and acted as a consultant for AbbVie, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and UCB.
 

A host of psoriatic arthritis symptoms can be improved by the investigational interleukin (IL)-17 blocker izokibep, according to the results of a phase 2 trial presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Around half of all participants in the trial who were treated with izokibep achieved a 50% or higher improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR50) at week 16, the trial’s primary endpoint. This was highly significant (P = .0003) when compared to the control group, where only 13% of patients given a placebo achieved an ACR50.

There was also a significant improvement in skin symptoms, as assessed by the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and resolution of enthesitis in 88% of patients given the highest dose of izokibep.

Aurelie Najm, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Infection, Immunity and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow, who tweeted about the main results, said that the data also looked “promising for the enthesitis domain” with a “safety profile similar to that observed in PsO [psoriasis].”Peter Taylor, MA, PhD, FRCP, FRCPE, of the University of Oxford in England, said: “The improvements demonstrated in arthritis, psoriasis, and enthesitis are exciting relative to responses reported for the current standard of care.”

He continued, in a statement issued jointly by Affibody, Acelyrin, and Immagene Biopharmaceuticals – the three companies assessing izokibep’s therapeutic potential – that the drug “seems promising” and that he was “eager to see its continued development for patients.”

Small and potent, a novel IL-17 inhibitor

Izokibep is an antibody mimetic that inhibits IL-17A designed to “overcome the limitations of monoclonal antibodies,” according to its developers.

Due to its small molecular size – reportedly about one-tenth of the size of a monoclonal antibody – they say that levels of high drug exposure can be achieved from a single, subcutaneous injection rather than an intravenous infusion, which is needed for monoclonal antibodies.

Moreover, izokibep’s small size means it could potentially reach target tissues “that may otherwise be inaccessible to the much larger monoclonal antibodies.” 

So far more than 300 patients have been treated with izokibep, some for up to 3 years, but not all have had psoriatic arthritis. Indeed, the drug has been tested in patients with psoriasis, and there are a few actively recruiting trials including one in ankylosing spondylitis, another in noninfective uveitis, and one in the rare and painful skin condition hidradenitis suppurativa.

Testing two doses of izokibep in psoriatic arthritis

The trial presented at the EULAR 2022 Congress tested two doses of izokibep – 40 mg and 80 mg – given by subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks – against placebo in 135 adult patients with active psoriatic arthritis. For inclusion in the trial patients had to have at least three swollen and at least three tender joints and have had an inadequate response to prior therapy including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, or tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.

Principle investigator Frank Behrens, MD, of Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany, reported that it was a multicenter effort conducted at 22 European sites with the primary endpoint being an ACR50 response at 16 weeks. This was met by 52% of patients given the 80-mg dose of izokibep, 48% of patients given the 40-mg dose of izokibep, and just 13% of patients who had been randomized to placebo.

ACR20 and ACR70 response were one of several key secondary endpoints tested, again at 16 weeks, with a respective 75%, 60%, and 20% of patients in each group achieving the lower response target and 20%, 32%, and 5%, achieving the more stringent response target.

“Izokibep demonstrated a robust efficacy in the musculoskeletal arthritic domains, but also in the extra-articular musculoskeletal domain,” Dr. Behrens said.

Not only that, but the values were “at the top end” of what’s been demonstrated for drugs currently regarded as the standard of care.

More than 80% of patients achieved a PASI75 response and 57% a PASI50 response with the two doses of izokibep, and 63%-88% achieved a resolution of enthesitis. The latter was measured using the Leeds Enthesitis Index.

There was also improvement in quality of life, measured using the Psoriatic Impact of Disease questionnaire, with a percentage increase beyond the MCID of 31%-41% with izokibep versus 12% for placebo.

“These are the first data of the phase 2 study in psoriatic arthritis,” Dr. Behrens reported.

“The safety profile was consistent with placebo,” with the only “standout aspect” being a higher number of injection-site reactions with izokibep versus placebo; but there were no serious infections, no serious adverse events,” he added.

“The interesting thing is from the preclinical research there was no dose-limiting toxicity with izokibep, therefore, I think the plan in the future is maybe to increase the dose to optimize treatment outcome based on the really robust effectiveness we see here in the first study in this clinical trial,” he said.

As a small study, stratifying results by gender wasn’t an option, Dr. Behrens noted in answering a question during the discussion period, but might be something that will be included in future and larger trials based on the post-hoc findings of other IL-17 trials.

Moving forward, the next step will involve a phase 2b/3 pivotal study which will likely include a higher dosing regimen of 160 mg once weekly alongside the twice-weekly dosing used in this trial.

Izokibep is an investigational treatment being developed by Affibody AB, Sweden, and ACELYRIN, USA. All three companies funded the phase 2 trial and were involved in the study design, conduct and reporting of results.

Dr. Behrens and Dr. Taylor were investigators in the study.

Dr. Behrens disclosed he was a shareholder of Pfizer, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead Sciences, Inc. and Novartis; part of the speakers’ bureau for Amgen, Horizon, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Genzyme, Flexion and AbbVie; a consultant of AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Flexion, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, Regeneron, SUN Pharma Advanced Research, Gilead Sciences, Inc.; and had received grant or research support from Pfizer, Janssen, Chugai, Celgene and Roche

Dr. Taylor acknowledged grant or research support from: Celgene and Galapagos, and acted as a consultant for AbbVie, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and UCB.
 

An investigational agent has shown promise in a subgroup of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer, offering hope of a clinical advance in a cancer that remains very difficult to treat. 

The drug is nimotuzumab, developed as a joint Chinese-Cuban venture, a monoclonal antibody that targets the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), inhibiting tumor cells that overexpress EGFR.

When nimotuzumab was added to gemcitabine, it significantly improved overall survival, compared with gemcitabine alone, in a trial conducted in China in 92 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer who had KRAS wild-type tumors.

One-year survival rates were 43.6% with nimotuzumab versus 26.8% with placebo, while 3-year survival rates were 13.9% versus 2.7%.

The results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and highlighted at a press briefing.

“We believe our NOTABLE trial will be a breakthrough in the field of pancreatic cancer,” co-lead author Shukui Qin, MD, department of medical oncology, Cancer Center, Jinling Hospital, Nanjing, China, commented in an ASCO press release.

“The outcomes in this trial may bring new hope to patients with KRAS wild-type pancreatic cancer,” he added. 

“To see any survival benefit in a trial for metastatic pancreatic cancer is of interest,” commented Cathy Eng, MD, an ASCO expert in gastrointestinal cancers.

However, she pointed out that the subgroup of patients who may benefit is small – KRAS wild-type tumors are found in fewer than 10% of patients with pancreatic cancer.

“Additional studies in comparison with the combination of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel would be of interest,” Dr. Eng added, to validate “any potential advances to make a true difference in the lives of all patients with pancreatic cancer.”
 

Already marketed in China

Nimotuzumab is already marketed in China: It was approved in 2008 by the Chinese National Medical Products Administration for the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma and is currently being investigated in head and neck, cervical, esophageal, and other cancers.

Julie R. Gralow, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice president, commented in an interview that it will be “interesting to see the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s response to the current data.”

She explained that the FDA has recently rejected drugs developed and tested in China, mostly notably sintilimab in non–small cell lung cancer, because the clinical data submitted were from China and not “reflective of the U.S. cancer population” and also because in this case there were already a number of other similar drugs available in this therapeutic area.

However, pancreatic cancer represents an unmet clinical need, which is a different situation, and there may be some consideration for an accelerated approval while awaiting a U.S. clinical trial, she speculated.

This trial showed an interesting proof of principle, she added – it showed that an EGRF inhibitor was active in KRAS wild-type advanced pancreatic cancer. This opens the door for exploration with other drugs that also act as EGFR blockers, as well as drugs with other actions such as BRAF antagonists, MAP kinase inhibitors, and/or immunotherapy.  
 

Study details

The phase 3 NOTABLE trial involved 92 Chinese patients with locally advanced or metastatic KRAS wild-type pancreatic cancer randomized to nimotuzumab weekly or placebo plus gemcitabine until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Median overall survival was significantly longer with nimotuzumab, at 10.9 versus 8.5 months with placebo, at a hazard ratio of 0.50.

The results showed that median progression-free survival (PFS) was also significantly longer among patients given nimotuzumab, at 4.2 versus 3.6 months in the placebo group, or a hazard ratio of 0.56.

Patients were then stratified based on whether they needed surgery to remove bile duct obstructions prior to chemotherapy, as those not requiring surgery tend to have better liver function and so may better tolerate chemotherapy.

The overall survival benefit with nimotuzumab was greater among patients with no surgical history, at 15.8 versus 6.0 months with placebo, at a hazard ratio of 0.40, compared with 11.9 versus 8.5 months among those with biliary obstruction, at a hazard ratio of 0.54.

Patients who did not receive treatment for biliary obstruction had a significantly longer PFS than those who underwent surgery, at 5.5 versus 3.4 months (P = .008).

The researchers report that the incidence of adverse events in the nimotuzumab group was similar to that among patients given placebo.

The most common grade 3 treatment-related adverse events with the combination therapy were neutropenia, in 11.1% of patients, leukopenia (8.9%), and thrombocytopenia (6.7%). There were no grade 4 adverse events.

The study was sponsored by Biotech Pharmaceutical. Dr. Qin has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Eng has disclosed relationships with Bayer Health, Gilead/Forty Seven, GlaxoSmithKline, Hookipa Biotech, Mirati Therapeutics, Natera, Pfizer, Elevar, Fruquitinib, Merck, and Pfizer. Dr. Gralow has disclosed relationships with Genentech, AstraZeneca, Hexal, Puma Biotechnology, Roche, Novartis, Seagen, and Genomic Health.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An investigational agent has shown promise in a subgroup of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer, offering hope of a clinical advance in a cancer that remains very difficult to treat. 

The drug is nimotuzumab, developed as a joint Chinese-Cuban venture, a monoclonal antibody that targets the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), inhibiting tumor cells that overexpress EGFR.

When nimotuzumab was added to gemcitabine, it significantly improved overall survival, compared with gemcitabine alone, in a trial conducted in China in 92 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer who had KRAS wild-type tumors.

One-year survival rates were 43.6% with nimotuzumab versus 26.8% with placebo, while 3-year survival rates were 13.9% versus 2.7%.

The results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and highlighted at a press briefing.

“We believe our NOTABLE trial will be a breakthrough in the field of pancreatic cancer,” co-lead author Shukui Qin, MD, department of medical oncology, Cancer Center, Jinling Hospital, Nanjing, China, commented in an ASCO press release.

“The outcomes in this trial may bring new hope to patients with KRAS wild-type pancreatic cancer,” he added. 

“To see any survival benefit in a trial for metastatic pancreatic cancer is of interest,” commented Cathy Eng, MD, an ASCO expert in gastrointestinal cancers.

However, she pointed out that the subgroup of patients who may benefit is small – KRAS wild-type tumors are found in fewer than 10% of patients with pancreatic cancer.

“Additional studies in comparison with the combination of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel would be of interest,” Dr. Eng added, to validate “any potential advances to make a true difference in the lives of all patients with pancreatic cancer.”
 

Already marketed in China

Nimotuzumab is already marketed in China: It was approved in 2008 by the Chinese National Medical Products Administration for the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma and is currently being investigated in head and neck, cervical, esophageal, and other cancers.

Julie R. Gralow, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice president, commented in an interview that it will be “interesting to see the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s response to the current data.”

She explained that the FDA has recently rejected drugs developed and tested in China, mostly notably sintilimab in non–small cell lung cancer, because the clinical data submitted were from China and not “reflective of the U.S. cancer population” and also because in this case there were already a number of other similar drugs available in this therapeutic area.

However, pancreatic cancer represents an unmet clinical need, which is a different situation, and there may be some consideration for an accelerated approval while awaiting a U.S. clinical trial, she speculated.

This trial showed an interesting proof of principle, she added – it showed that an EGRF inhibitor was active in KRAS wild-type advanced pancreatic cancer. This opens the door for exploration with other drugs that also act as EGFR blockers, as well as drugs with other actions such as BRAF antagonists, MAP kinase inhibitors, and/or immunotherapy.  
 

Study details

The phase 3 NOTABLE trial involved 92 Chinese patients with locally advanced or metastatic KRAS wild-type pancreatic cancer randomized to nimotuzumab weekly or placebo plus gemcitabine until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Median overall survival was significantly longer with nimotuzumab, at 10.9 versus 8.5 months with placebo, at a hazard ratio of 0.50.

The results showed that median progression-free survival (PFS) was also significantly longer among patients given nimotuzumab, at 4.2 versus 3.6 months in the placebo group, or a hazard ratio of 0.56.

Patients were then stratified based on whether they needed surgery to remove bile duct obstructions prior to chemotherapy, as those not requiring surgery tend to have better liver function and so may better tolerate chemotherapy.

The overall survival benefit with nimotuzumab was greater among patients with no surgical history, at 15.8 versus 6.0 months with placebo, at a hazard ratio of 0.40, compared with 11.9 versus 8.5 months among those with biliary obstruction, at a hazard ratio of 0.54.

Patients who did not receive treatment for biliary obstruction had a significantly longer PFS than those who underwent surgery, at 5.5 versus 3.4 months (P = .008).

The researchers report that the incidence of adverse events in the nimotuzumab group was similar to that among patients given placebo.

The most common grade 3 treatment-related adverse events with the combination therapy were neutropenia, in 11.1% of patients, leukopenia (8.9%), and thrombocytopenia (6.7%). There were no grade 4 adverse events.

The study was sponsored by Biotech Pharmaceutical. Dr. Qin has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Eng has disclosed relationships with Bayer Health, Gilead/Forty Seven, GlaxoSmithKline, Hookipa Biotech, Mirati Therapeutics, Natera, Pfizer, Elevar, Fruquitinib, Merck, and Pfizer. Dr. Gralow has disclosed relationships with Genentech, AstraZeneca, Hexal, Puma Biotechnology, Roche, Novartis, Seagen, and Genomic Health.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An investigational agent has shown promise in a subgroup of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer, offering hope of a clinical advance in a cancer that remains very difficult to treat. 

The drug is nimotuzumab, developed as a joint Chinese-Cuban venture, a monoclonal antibody that targets the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), inhibiting tumor cells that overexpress EGFR.

When nimotuzumab was added to gemcitabine, it significantly improved overall survival, compared with gemcitabine alone, in a trial conducted in China in 92 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer who had KRAS wild-type tumors.

One-year survival rates were 43.6% with nimotuzumab versus 26.8% with placebo, while 3-year survival rates were 13.9% versus 2.7%.

The results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and highlighted at a press briefing.

“We believe our NOTABLE trial will be a breakthrough in the field of pancreatic cancer,” co-lead author Shukui Qin, MD, department of medical oncology, Cancer Center, Jinling Hospital, Nanjing, China, commented in an ASCO press release.

“The outcomes in this trial may bring new hope to patients with KRAS wild-type pancreatic cancer,” he added. 

“To see any survival benefit in a trial for metastatic pancreatic cancer is of interest,” commented Cathy Eng, MD, an ASCO expert in gastrointestinal cancers.

However, she pointed out that the subgroup of patients who may benefit is small – KRAS wild-type tumors are found in fewer than 10% of patients with pancreatic cancer.

“Additional studies in comparison with the combination of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel would be of interest,” Dr. Eng added, to validate “any potential advances to make a true difference in the lives of all patients with pancreatic cancer.”
 

Already marketed in China

Nimotuzumab is already marketed in China: It was approved in 2008 by the Chinese National Medical Products Administration for the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma and is currently being investigated in head and neck, cervical, esophageal, and other cancers.

Julie R. Gralow, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice president, commented in an interview that it will be “interesting to see the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s response to the current data.”

She explained that the FDA has recently rejected drugs developed and tested in China, mostly notably sintilimab in non–small cell lung cancer, because the clinical data submitted were from China and not “reflective of the U.S. cancer population” and also because in this case there were already a number of other similar drugs available in this therapeutic area.

However, pancreatic cancer represents an unmet clinical need, which is a different situation, and there may be some consideration for an accelerated approval while awaiting a U.S. clinical trial, she speculated.

This trial showed an interesting proof of principle, she added – it showed that an EGRF inhibitor was active in KRAS wild-type advanced pancreatic cancer. This opens the door for exploration with other drugs that also act as EGFR blockers, as well as drugs with other actions such as BRAF antagonists, MAP kinase inhibitors, and/or immunotherapy.  
 

Study details

The phase 3 NOTABLE trial involved 92 Chinese patients with locally advanced or metastatic KRAS wild-type pancreatic cancer randomized to nimotuzumab weekly or placebo plus gemcitabine until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Median overall survival was significantly longer with nimotuzumab, at 10.9 versus 8.5 months with placebo, at a hazard ratio of 0.50.

The results showed that median progression-free survival (PFS) was also significantly longer among patients given nimotuzumab, at 4.2 versus 3.6 months in the placebo group, or a hazard ratio of 0.56.

Patients were then stratified based on whether they needed surgery to remove bile duct obstructions prior to chemotherapy, as those not requiring surgery tend to have better liver function and so may better tolerate chemotherapy.

The overall survival benefit with nimotuzumab was greater among patients with no surgical history, at 15.8 versus 6.0 months with placebo, at a hazard ratio of 0.40, compared with 11.9 versus 8.5 months among those with biliary obstruction, at a hazard ratio of 0.54.

Patients who did not receive treatment for biliary obstruction had a significantly longer PFS than those who underwent surgery, at 5.5 versus 3.4 months (P = .008).

The researchers report that the incidence of adverse events in the nimotuzumab group was similar to that among patients given placebo.

The most common grade 3 treatment-related adverse events with the combination therapy were neutropenia, in 11.1% of patients, leukopenia (8.9%), and thrombocytopenia (6.7%). There were no grade 4 adverse events.

The study was sponsored by Biotech Pharmaceutical. Dr. Qin has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Eng has disclosed relationships with Bayer Health, Gilead/Forty Seven, GlaxoSmithKline, Hookipa Biotech, Mirati Therapeutics, Natera, Pfizer, Elevar, Fruquitinib, Merck, and Pfizer. Dr. Gralow has disclosed relationships with Genentech, AstraZeneca, Hexal, Puma Biotechnology, Roche, Novartis, Seagen, and Genomic Health.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adagrasib, an investigational drug that acts as a KRASG12C inhibitor, has shown durable clinical benefit in patients with previously treated, advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with tumors with KRAS G12C mutations.

“KRAS G12C mutations occur in over 10% of patients with NSCL [and] remain difficult to target, and outcomes for this patient population have remained poor,” co-investigator Joshua Sabari, MD, assistant professor of medicine, Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone, said in a statement.

“Our patients benefited clinically from this agent, and it appears to have improved overall survival (OS), compared with historical outcomes with docetaxel, a standard-of-care chemotherapy regimen, in the second-line setting,” he added.

New data on adagrasib were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Adagrasib (developed by Mirati) is currently awaiting approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as a treatment for patients with NSCLC harboring the KRAS G12C mutation who have received at least one prior systemic therapy. This would be an accelerated approval based on overall response data from the KRYSTAL-1 study detailed below. The company has an ongoing confirmatory Phase 3 trial, KRYSTAL-12, evaluating adagrasib versus docetaxel in patients previously treated for metastatic NSCLC with a KRAS G12C mutation.

If approved, adagrasib would be the second in this class of agents. The first KRASG12C inhibitor for use in lung cancer was sotorasib (Lumakras), approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in May 2021.  

Dr. Sabari noted that there are several differences between the two drugs. Adagrasib has CNS penetration and is the first KRASG12C inhibitor to demonstrate clinical activity in patients with KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC with untreated active CNS metastases.
 

Published clinical data

The results published in the New England Journal of Medicine are from the company-funded KRYSTAL-1 clinical trial, which had the primary endpoint of objective response rate.

It was conducted in patients with KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC who had previously received treatment with at least one platinum-containing chemotherapy regimen and checkpoint inhibitor therapy either sequentially or concurrently.

Patients were treated with oral adagrasib 600 mg twice a day until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or death.

On Oct. 15, 2021, the data cutoff date, a total of 116 patients had received at least one dose of adagrasib. At a median follow-up of 12.9 months, the confirmed objective response rate was 42.9% among 112 patients with measurable disease at baseline. One patient achieved a complete response: 42% achieved a partial response, and disease stabilized for a minimum of 6 weeks in over 36% of the group.

Only 5.4% of patients had progressive disease as their best overall response, investigators note. Among those patients who responded to twice-daily KRASG12C inhibition, the median time to response was 1.4 months and the median duration of response was 8.5 months. As of the data cutoff date, one-third of the group were still receiving treatment, the authors note.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.5 months and median OS was 11.7 months. With a longer median follow-up of 15.6 months, median OS was 12.6 months, and the estimated OS at 1 year was close to 51%.

“The majority of treatment-related adverse events were low-grade, started early in treatment, and quickly resolved after occurrence,” Dr. Sabari noted.

Grade 1-2 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 53% of patients while 45% had grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events, and there were two fatal grade 5 treatment-related adverse events. The same events led to a dose reduction in 52% of the group overall and dose interruption in 61%, while in 7% of patients, treatment-related adverse events led to discontinuation of the drug.
 

CNS metastases

At baseline, some 42 patients had evidence of central nervous system (CNS) metastases. At a median follow-up of 15.4 months, an intracranial-confirmed objective response was achieved in one-third of this subgroup overall while median duration of the intracranial response was 11.2 months. Again, within the same subgroup, the median PFS was 5.4 months.

As Dr. Sabari noted, CNS metastases from KRAS mutant NSCLC are common. “Adagrasib demonstrated encouraging and durable CNS-specific activity in patients with KRAS G12C-mutant NSCLC and active, untreated CNS metastases,” he said.

The study was funded by Mirati Therapeutics.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adagrasib, an investigational drug that acts as a KRASG12C inhibitor, has shown durable clinical benefit in patients with previously treated, advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with tumors with KRAS G12C mutations.

“KRAS G12C mutations occur in over 10% of patients with NSCL [and] remain difficult to target, and outcomes for this patient population have remained poor,” co-investigator Joshua Sabari, MD, assistant professor of medicine, Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone, said in a statement.

“Our patients benefited clinically from this agent, and it appears to have improved overall survival (OS), compared with historical outcomes with docetaxel, a standard-of-care chemotherapy regimen, in the second-line setting,” he added.

New data on adagrasib were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Adagrasib (developed by Mirati) is currently awaiting approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as a treatment for patients with NSCLC harboring the KRAS G12C mutation who have received at least one prior systemic therapy. This would be an accelerated approval based on overall response data from the KRYSTAL-1 study detailed below. The company has an ongoing confirmatory Phase 3 trial, KRYSTAL-12, evaluating adagrasib versus docetaxel in patients previously treated for metastatic NSCLC with a KRAS G12C mutation.

If approved, adagrasib would be the second in this class of agents. The first KRASG12C inhibitor for use in lung cancer was sotorasib (Lumakras), approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in May 2021.  

Dr. Sabari noted that there are several differences between the two drugs. Adagrasib has CNS penetration and is the first KRASG12C inhibitor to demonstrate clinical activity in patients with KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC with untreated active CNS metastases.
 

Published clinical data

The results published in the New England Journal of Medicine are from the company-funded KRYSTAL-1 clinical trial, which had the primary endpoint of objective response rate.

It was conducted in patients with KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC who had previously received treatment with at least one platinum-containing chemotherapy regimen and checkpoint inhibitor therapy either sequentially or concurrently.

Patients were treated with oral adagrasib 600 mg twice a day until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or death.

On Oct. 15, 2021, the data cutoff date, a total of 116 patients had received at least one dose of adagrasib. At a median follow-up of 12.9 months, the confirmed objective response rate was 42.9% among 112 patients with measurable disease at baseline. One patient achieved a complete response: 42% achieved a partial response, and disease stabilized for a minimum of 6 weeks in over 36% of the group.

Only 5.4% of patients had progressive disease as their best overall response, investigators note. Among those patients who responded to twice-daily KRASG12C inhibition, the median time to response was 1.4 months and the median duration of response was 8.5 months. As of the data cutoff date, one-third of the group were still receiving treatment, the authors note.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.5 months and median OS was 11.7 months. With a longer median follow-up of 15.6 months, median OS was 12.6 months, and the estimated OS at 1 year was close to 51%.

“The majority of treatment-related adverse events were low-grade, started early in treatment, and quickly resolved after occurrence,” Dr. Sabari noted.

Grade 1-2 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 53% of patients while 45% had grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events, and there were two fatal grade 5 treatment-related adverse events. The same events led to a dose reduction in 52% of the group overall and dose interruption in 61%, while in 7% of patients, treatment-related adverse events led to discontinuation of the drug.
 

CNS metastases

At baseline, some 42 patients had evidence of central nervous system (CNS) metastases. At a median follow-up of 15.4 months, an intracranial-confirmed objective response was achieved in one-third of this subgroup overall while median duration of the intracranial response was 11.2 months. Again, within the same subgroup, the median PFS was 5.4 months.

As Dr. Sabari noted, CNS metastases from KRAS mutant NSCLC are common. “Adagrasib demonstrated encouraging and durable CNS-specific activity in patients with KRAS G12C-mutant NSCLC and active, untreated CNS metastases,” he said.

The study was funded by Mirati Therapeutics.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adagrasib, an investigational drug that acts as a KRASG12C inhibitor, has shown durable clinical benefit in patients with previously treated, advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with tumors with KRAS G12C mutations.

“KRAS G12C mutations occur in over 10% of patients with NSCL [and] remain difficult to target, and outcomes for this patient population have remained poor,” co-investigator Joshua Sabari, MD, assistant professor of medicine, Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone, said in a statement.

“Our patients benefited clinically from this agent, and it appears to have improved overall survival (OS), compared with historical outcomes with docetaxel, a standard-of-care chemotherapy regimen, in the second-line setting,” he added.

New data on adagrasib were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Clinical Oncology and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Adagrasib (developed by Mirati) is currently awaiting approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as a treatment for patients with NSCLC harboring the KRAS G12C mutation who have received at least one prior systemic therapy. This would be an accelerated approval based on overall response data from the KRYSTAL-1 study detailed below. The company has an ongoing confirmatory Phase 3 trial, KRYSTAL-12, evaluating adagrasib versus docetaxel in patients previously treated for metastatic NSCLC with a KRAS G12C mutation.

If approved, adagrasib would be the second in this class of agents. The first KRASG12C inhibitor for use in lung cancer was sotorasib (Lumakras), approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in May 2021.  

Dr. Sabari noted that there are several differences between the two drugs. Adagrasib has CNS penetration and is the first KRASG12C inhibitor to demonstrate clinical activity in patients with KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC with untreated active CNS metastases.
 

Published clinical data

The results published in the New England Journal of Medicine are from the company-funded KRYSTAL-1 clinical trial, which had the primary endpoint of objective response rate.

It was conducted in patients with KRAS G12C-mutated NSCLC who had previously received treatment with at least one platinum-containing chemotherapy regimen and checkpoint inhibitor therapy either sequentially or concurrently.

Patients were treated with oral adagrasib 600 mg twice a day until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or death.

On Oct. 15, 2021, the data cutoff date, a total of 116 patients had received at least one dose of adagrasib. At a median follow-up of 12.9 months, the confirmed objective response rate was 42.9% among 112 patients with measurable disease at baseline. One patient achieved a complete response: 42% achieved a partial response, and disease stabilized for a minimum of 6 weeks in over 36% of the group.

Only 5.4% of patients had progressive disease as their best overall response, investigators note. Among those patients who responded to twice-daily KRASG12C inhibition, the median time to response was 1.4 months and the median duration of response was 8.5 months. As of the data cutoff date, one-third of the group were still receiving treatment, the authors note.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.5 months and median OS was 11.7 months. With a longer median follow-up of 15.6 months, median OS was 12.6 months, and the estimated OS at 1 year was close to 51%.

“The majority of treatment-related adverse events were low-grade, started early in treatment, and quickly resolved after occurrence,” Dr. Sabari noted.

Grade 1-2 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 53% of patients while 45% had grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events, and there were two fatal grade 5 treatment-related adverse events. The same events led to a dose reduction in 52% of the group overall and dose interruption in 61%, while in 7% of patients, treatment-related adverse events led to discontinuation of the drug.
 

CNS metastases

At baseline, some 42 patients had evidence of central nervous system (CNS) metastases. At a median follow-up of 15.4 months, an intracranial-confirmed objective response was achieved in one-third of this subgroup overall while median duration of the intracranial response was 11.2 months. Again, within the same subgroup, the median PFS was 5.4 months.

As Dr. Sabari noted, CNS metastases from KRAS mutant NSCLC are common. “Adagrasib demonstrated encouraging and durable CNS-specific activity in patients with KRAS G12C-mutant NSCLC and active, untreated CNS metastases,” he said.

The study was funded by Mirati Therapeutics.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO -- A “liquid biopsy” that detects circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) after surgery for stage 2 colon cancer helps identify patients most likely to benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy and also identifies those who are unlikely to benefit, allowing them to skip that treatment.

The results are from the phase 2 DYNAMIC trial.

“The strategy of using ctDNA results to inform treatment almost halved the number of patients who received chemotherapy postsurgery, from 28% down to 15%,” commented first author Jeanne Tie, MD, from the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, University of Melbourne.

The overall proportion of patients who were alive and cancer-free at 3 years after ctDNA-guided treatment was 92% – the same as in patients randomized to standard management, she added.

The chance of being alive and cancer-free was 86.4% and 92.5%, respectively, in ctDNA-positive patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy and in ctDNA-negative patients who did not, she said. Conversely, the risk of recurrence is greater than 80% without treatment in ctDNA-positive patients, said Dr. Tie.

Dr. Tie reported the results at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, which were simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The study supports a ctDNA-guided approach to treatment in this patient population, Dr. Tie said, noting that this approach addresses what has been a clinical dilemma: Surgery can cure more than 80% of stage 2 patients, but the benefits of chemotherapy after surgery have been less clear – fewer than 1 in 20 patients will benefit, but the ability to predict which patients will benefit has been lacking.

The findings are practice-changing, commented Julie Gralow, MD, ASCO’s chief medical officer and executive vice president.

“I see this study as an important kind of new concept in cancers, where for the most part we have really very good survival and outcomes ... and now we’re starting to look at ways we can deescalate therapy in a subgroup who we know are going to do well while continuing the more intensive therapy, or even escalating therapy, in the group who we know are not going to do well with our conventional therapies,” Dr. Gralow said at a press briefing where the study was highlighted.

“I do believe the results are going to help us guide our selection of who benefits from chemo and who can avoid it – and all the toxicities of it – in stage 2 colon cancer,” she added.

They may also identify patients who may need more than standard treatment. This is a group in which “we might need to think outside the box and do even more besides just thinking about adjuvant chemo,” she told this news organization in a preconference interview. “Maybe this is a group we should be thinking about adjuvant immunotherapy, for example, or adjuvant EGFR-targeted therapy, or other things that we have shown [to have benefit] in the metastatic setting.”
 

Study details

For the DYNAMIC trial, Dr. Tie and colleagues enrolled 455 patients with resected stage 2 colon cancer at multiple centers between August 2015 and August 2019. Of those, 302 were randomized to receive ctDNA-guided chemotherapy and 153 received standard management based on conventional criteria, including tumor stage of disease, number of lymph nodes assessed, whether the tumor had perforated the bowel wall, and other factors.

The Safe-SeqS tumor-informed personalized ctDNA assay was used to detect ctDNA in the experimental group. Patients with a ctDNA-positive result at 4 or 7 weeks after surgery received oxaliplatin-based or fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy; those who were ctDNA-negative were observed during follow-up.

Fewer patients overall in the ctDNA-guided group, compared with the standard management group, received adjuvant chemotherapy (15.3% vs. 27.9%; odds ratio, 2.14).

Two-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) in the ctDNA-guided treatment group was noninferior to that in the standard management group (93.5% vs. 92.4%). Three-year RFS was 86.4% in ctDNA-positive patients who received chemotherapy, 92.5% in ctDNA-negative patients without chemotherapy, and 96.7% in a clinical low-risk subgroup.

ASCO expert Cathy Eng, MD, applauded the findings, stating in a press release that “thanks to the results of this study, we may now be able to use it to better identify which patient with stage 2 colon cancer would benefit from post surgery treatment with chemotherapy and which ones can be spared the additional treatment, without compromising relapse-free survival.”

Dr. Eng is the David H. Johnson Chair in Surgical and Medical Oncology, co-leader of the Gastrointestinal Cancer Research Program, co-director of GI oncology, and professor of medicine in hematology and oncology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.
 

Next steps

The authors note that a randomized trial is being considered in which ctDNA-positive and -negative patients would be randomized to treatment versus no treatment. This could provide more definitive evidence of treatment impact, or lack of impact, in each of the patient subsets, according to the press release.

The DYNAMIC trial was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, U.S. National Institutes of Health, the Marcus Foundation, the Virginia and D.K. Ludwig Fund for Cancer Research, Lustgarten Foundation, the Conrad R. Hilton Foundation, the Sol Goldman Charitable Trust, John Templeton Foundation, and Eastern Health Research Foundation. Dr. Tie has reported receiving honoraria from Inivata and Servier and serving as a consultant or advisor for AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Haystack Oncology, Inivata, MSD Oncology, and Pierre Fabre.  

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO -- A “liquid biopsy” that detects circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) after surgery for stage 2 colon cancer helps identify patients most likely to benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy and also identifies those who are unlikely to benefit, allowing them to skip that treatment.

The results are from the phase 2 DYNAMIC trial.

“The strategy of using ctDNA results to inform treatment almost halved the number of patients who received chemotherapy postsurgery, from 28% down to 15%,” commented first author Jeanne Tie, MD, from the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, University of Melbourne.

The overall proportion of patients who were alive and cancer-free at 3 years after ctDNA-guided treatment was 92% – the same as in patients randomized to standard management, she added.

The chance of being alive and cancer-free was 86.4% and 92.5%, respectively, in ctDNA-positive patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy and in ctDNA-negative patients who did not, she said. Conversely, the risk of recurrence is greater than 80% without treatment in ctDNA-positive patients, said Dr. Tie.

Dr. Tie reported the results at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, which were simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The study supports a ctDNA-guided approach to treatment in this patient population, Dr. Tie said, noting that this approach addresses what has been a clinical dilemma: Surgery can cure more than 80% of stage 2 patients, but the benefits of chemotherapy after surgery have been less clear – fewer than 1 in 20 patients will benefit, but the ability to predict which patients will benefit has been lacking.

The findings are practice-changing, commented Julie Gralow, MD, ASCO’s chief medical officer and executive vice president.

“I see this study as an important kind of new concept in cancers, where for the most part we have really very good survival and outcomes ... and now we’re starting to look at ways we can deescalate therapy in a subgroup who we know are going to do well while continuing the more intensive therapy, or even escalating therapy, in the group who we know are not going to do well with our conventional therapies,” Dr. Gralow said at a press briefing where the study was highlighted.

“I do believe the results are going to help us guide our selection of who benefits from chemo and who can avoid it – and all the toxicities of it – in stage 2 colon cancer,” she added.

They may also identify patients who may need more than standard treatment. This is a group in which “we might need to think outside the box and do even more besides just thinking about adjuvant chemo,” she told this news organization in a preconference interview. “Maybe this is a group we should be thinking about adjuvant immunotherapy, for example, or adjuvant EGFR-targeted therapy, or other things that we have shown [to have benefit] in the metastatic setting.”
 

Study details

For the DYNAMIC trial, Dr. Tie and colleagues enrolled 455 patients with resected stage 2 colon cancer at multiple centers between August 2015 and August 2019. Of those, 302 were randomized to receive ctDNA-guided chemotherapy and 153 received standard management based on conventional criteria, including tumor stage of disease, number of lymph nodes assessed, whether the tumor had perforated the bowel wall, and other factors.

The Safe-SeqS tumor-informed personalized ctDNA assay was used to detect ctDNA in the experimental group. Patients with a ctDNA-positive result at 4 or 7 weeks after surgery received oxaliplatin-based or fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy; those who were ctDNA-negative were observed during follow-up.

Fewer patients overall in the ctDNA-guided group, compared with the standard management group, received adjuvant chemotherapy (15.3% vs. 27.9%; odds ratio, 2.14).

Two-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) in the ctDNA-guided treatment group was noninferior to that in the standard management group (93.5% vs. 92.4%). Three-year RFS was 86.4% in ctDNA-positive patients who received chemotherapy, 92.5% in ctDNA-negative patients without chemotherapy, and 96.7% in a clinical low-risk subgroup.

ASCO expert Cathy Eng, MD, applauded the findings, stating in a press release that “thanks to the results of this study, we may now be able to use it to better identify which patient with stage 2 colon cancer would benefit from post surgery treatment with chemotherapy and which ones can be spared the additional treatment, without compromising relapse-free survival.”

Dr. Eng is the David H. Johnson Chair in Surgical and Medical Oncology, co-leader of the Gastrointestinal Cancer Research Program, co-director of GI oncology, and professor of medicine in hematology and oncology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.
 

Next steps

The authors note that a randomized trial is being considered in which ctDNA-positive and -negative patients would be randomized to treatment versus no treatment. This could provide more definitive evidence of treatment impact, or lack of impact, in each of the patient subsets, according to the press release.

The DYNAMIC trial was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, U.S. National Institutes of Health, the Marcus Foundation, the Virginia and D.K. Ludwig Fund for Cancer Research, Lustgarten Foundation, the Conrad R. Hilton Foundation, the Sol Goldman Charitable Trust, John Templeton Foundation, and Eastern Health Research Foundation. Dr. Tie has reported receiving honoraria from Inivata and Servier and serving as a consultant or advisor for AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Haystack Oncology, Inivata, MSD Oncology, and Pierre Fabre.  

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO -- A “liquid biopsy” that detects circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) after surgery for stage 2 colon cancer helps identify patients most likely to benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy and also identifies those who are unlikely to benefit, allowing them to skip that treatment.

The results are from the phase 2 DYNAMIC trial.

“The strategy of using ctDNA results to inform treatment almost halved the number of patients who received chemotherapy postsurgery, from 28% down to 15%,” commented first author Jeanne Tie, MD, from the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, University of Melbourne.

The overall proportion of patients who were alive and cancer-free at 3 years after ctDNA-guided treatment was 92% – the same as in patients randomized to standard management, she added.

The chance of being alive and cancer-free was 86.4% and 92.5%, respectively, in ctDNA-positive patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy and in ctDNA-negative patients who did not, she said. Conversely, the risk of recurrence is greater than 80% without treatment in ctDNA-positive patients, said Dr. Tie.

Dr. Tie reported the results at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, which were simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The study supports a ctDNA-guided approach to treatment in this patient population, Dr. Tie said, noting that this approach addresses what has been a clinical dilemma: Surgery can cure more than 80% of stage 2 patients, but the benefits of chemotherapy after surgery have been less clear – fewer than 1 in 20 patients will benefit, but the ability to predict which patients will benefit has been lacking.

The findings are practice-changing, commented Julie Gralow, MD, ASCO’s chief medical officer and executive vice president.

“I see this study as an important kind of new concept in cancers, where for the most part we have really very good survival and outcomes ... and now we’re starting to look at ways we can deescalate therapy in a subgroup who we know are going to do well while continuing the more intensive therapy, or even escalating therapy, in the group who we know are not going to do well with our conventional therapies,” Dr. Gralow said at a press briefing where the study was highlighted.

“I do believe the results are going to help us guide our selection of who benefits from chemo and who can avoid it – and all the toxicities of it – in stage 2 colon cancer,” she added.

They may also identify patients who may need more than standard treatment. This is a group in which “we might need to think outside the box and do even more besides just thinking about adjuvant chemo,” she told this news organization in a preconference interview. “Maybe this is a group we should be thinking about adjuvant immunotherapy, for example, or adjuvant EGFR-targeted therapy, or other things that we have shown [to have benefit] in the metastatic setting.”
 

Study details

For the DYNAMIC trial, Dr. Tie and colleagues enrolled 455 patients with resected stage 2 colon cancer at multiple centers between August 2015 and August 2019. Of those, 302 were randomized to receive ctDNA-guided chemotherapy and 153 received standard management based on conventional criteria, including tumor stage of disease, number of lymph nodes assessed, whether the tumor had perforated the bowel wall, and other factors.

The Safe-SeqS tumor-informed personalized ctDNA assay was used to detect ctDNA in the experimental group. Patients with a ctDNA-positive result at 4 or 7 weeks after surgery received oxaliplatin-based or fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy; those who were ctDNA-negative were observed during follow-up.

Fewer patients overall in the ctDNA-guided group, compared with the standard management group, received adjuvant chemotherapy (15.3% vs. 27.9%; odds ratio, 2.14).

Two-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) in the ctDNA-guided treatment group was noninferior to that in the standard management group (93.5% vs. 92.4%). Three-year RFS was 86.4% in ctDNA-positive patients who received chemotherapy, 92.5% in ctDNA-negative patients without chemotherapy, and 96.7% in a clinical low-risk subgroup.

ASCO expert Cathy Eng, MD, applauded the findings, stating in a press release that “thanks to the results of this study, we may now be able to use it to better identify which patient with stage 2 colon cancer would benefit from post surgery treatment with chemotherapy and which ones can be spared the additional treatment, without compromising relapse-free survival.”

Dr. Eng is the David H. Johnson Chair in Surgical and Medical Oncology, co-leader of the Gastrointestinal Cancer Research Program, co-director of GI oncology, and professor of medicine in hematology and oncology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.
 

Next steps

The authors note that a randomized trial is being considered in which ctDNA-positive and -negative patients would be randomized to treatment versus no treatment. This could provide more definitive evidence of treatment impact, or lack of impact, in each of the patient subsets, according to the press release.

The DYNAMIC trial was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, U.S. National Institutes of Health, the Marcus Foundation, the Virginia and D.K. Ludwig Fund for Cancer Research, Lustgarten Foundation, the Conrad R. Hilton Foundation, the Sol Goldman Charitable Trust, John Templeton Foundation, and Eastern Health Research Foundation. Dr. Tie has reported receiving honoraria from Inivata and Servier and serving as a consultant or advisor for AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Haystack Oncology, Inivata, MSD Oncology, and Pierre Fabre.  

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The “twincretin” tirzepatide might become part of the “arsenal” against diabetic kidney disease, new research suggests. Notably, the drug significantly reduced the likelihood of macroalbuminuria, in a prespecified subanalysis of the SURPASS-4 clinical trial.

“Once-per-week tirzepatide compared to [daily] insulin glargine treatment resulted in a meaningful improvement in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline and reduced urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) and the risk of end stage kidney disease (ESKD) – with low risk of clinically relevant hypoglycemia in participants with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk and varying degrees of chronic kidney disease (CKD),” lead investigator Hiddo J. L. Heerspink, PhD, PharmD, summarized in an email to this news organization.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has just approved tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Eli Lilly) – a novel, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) combined with a glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist – to treat glycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes, based on five pivotal SURPASS trials.

Dr. Heerspink presented the new findings about tirzepatide’s impact on kidney function in an oral session at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

40% reduced risk of kidney function decline

The main results of SURPASS-4 were published in the Lancet in October 2021, and showed that tirzepatide appeared superior to insulin glargine in lowering hemoglobin A1c in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk who were inadequately controlled on oral diabetes treatments.

Now, Dr. Heerspink has shown that patients who received tirzepatide as opposed to insulin glargine were significantly less likely to have kidney function decline that included new-onset macroalbuminuria (hazard ratio, 0.59; P < .05).

“These are very large benefits and clearly indicate the potential of tirzepatide to be a very strong kidney protective drug,” said Dr. Heerspink, from the department of clinical pharmacy and pharmacology, University Medical Center Groningen (the Netherlands).

“Based on results from the SURPASS-4 trial, tirzepatide has significant kidney-protective effects in adults with type 2 diabetes with high cardiovascular risk and largely normal kidney function,” Christine Limonte, MD, chair of the session in which the analysis was presented, agreed, in an email to this news organization.

The approximate 40% reduced risk of kidney function decline in this population “is important because it suggests that this novel agent may contribute to the growing arsenal for preventing and treating diabetic kidney disease,” added Dr. Limonte, a clinical research fellow in the division of nephrology, University of Washington, Seattle.

“Over the last several years,” she noted, “sodium glucose cotransporter-2 [SGLT2] inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists have been identified as having significant kidney-protective effects in type 2 diabetes, and as such are becoming first-line agents in the treatment of diabetic kidney disease.”

Additional studies are needed, she added, to assess the impacts of tirzepatide compared to these agents (particularly GLP-1 receptor agonists, which overlap in their mechanism of action).

“With the growing number of therapeutic options for diabetic kidney disease, future research should also focus on identifying combinations of agents which benefit individuals in a ‘targeted’ manner,” according to Dr. Limonte.

“Ensuring accessibility to kidney-protective agents by promoting access to health care and reducing drug costs is essential to improving outcomes in diabetic kidney disease,” she added.

Strongest reduction seen in risk of new macroalbuminuria

One in three adults with diabetes has CKD, according to a press release issued by the ADA. Therefore, there is a need for therapies to reduce the development and progression of CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The prespecified analysis of SUPRESS-4 investigated potential renoprotective effects of tirzepatide.

The trial enrolled 1,995 patients with type 2 diabetes who were at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. The patients had a mean age of 63.6 years and a mean hemoglobin A1c of 8.5%.

Most patients had normal kidney function. The mean eGFR based on the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation was 81.3 mL/min per 1.73 m².

Few patients (17%) had moderately or severely reduced kidney function (eGFR <60 mL/min per 1.73 m²). Around a quarter of the patients (28%) had microalbuminuria (UACR 30-300 mg/g) and 8% had macroalbuminuria (UACR >300 mg/g).

The patients were randomized to receive a weekly injection of 5, 10, or 15 mg tirzepatide or a daily individualized injection of insulin glargine starting at 10 IU/day at bedtime, titrated to a fasting blood glucose <100 mg/dL, in addition to existing oral glucose-lowering agents. The primary outcomes in the subanalysis were:

• Endpoint 1: a composite of ≥40% decline in eGFR from baseline, renal death, progression to ESKD, and new-onset macroalbuminuria.
• Endpoint 2: the same as endpoint 1 excluding new-onset macroalbuminuria.

During a median follow up of 85 weeks and up to 104 weeks, patients who received tirzepatide versus insulin glargine were significantly less likely to reach endpoint 1 but not endpoint 2.

In addition, tirzepatide “very strongly” reduced the risk of new-onset macroalbuminuria, compared to insulin glargine, by approximately 60% in the complete study cohort (hazard ratio, 0.41; P < .05), Dr. Limonte noted.

Tirzepatide also reduced the risk of a >40% decline in eGFR, but this effect was not statistically significant, possibly because this outcome was underpowered. There were also too few kidney deaths and progressions to ESKD to meaningfully assess the effects of tirzepatide on these outcomes.

Therefore, Dr. Limonte noted, “it is likely that tirzepatide’s significant benefit on composite endpoint 1 was largely driven by this agent’s impact on reducing macroalbuminuria onset [explaining why a significant benefit was not seen with composite endpoint 2, which excluded new-onset macroalbuminuria].”

The study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Heerspink disclosed that he is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chinook Therapeutics, CSL Behring, Gilead Sciences, Goldfinch Bio, Janssen Research & Development, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Mundipharma, and Traveere Pharmaceuticals, and has received research support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk.

Dr. Limonte disclosed that she receives funds from the American Kidney Fund’s Clinical Scientist in Nephrology Award.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The “twincretin” tirzepatide might become part of the “arsenal” against diabetic kidney disease, new research suggests. Notably, the drug significantly reduced the likelihood of macroalbuminuria, in a prespecified subanalysis of the SURPASS-4 clinical trial.

“Once-per-week tirzepatide compared to [daily] insulin glargine treatment resulted in a meaningful improvement in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline and reduced urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) and the risk of end stage kidney disease (ESKD) – with low risk of clinically relevant hypoglycemia in participants with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk and varying degrees of chronic kidney disease (CKD),” lead investigator Hiddo J. L. Heerspink, PhD, PharmD, summarized in an email to this news organization.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has just approved tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Eli Lilly) – a novel, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) combined with a glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist – to treat glycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes, based on five pivotal SURPASS trials.

Dr. Heerspink presented the new findings about tirzepatide’s impact on kidney function in an oral session at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

40% reduced risk of kidney function decline

The main results of SURPASS-4 were published in the Lancet in October 2021, and showed that tirzepatide appeared superior to insulin glargine in lowering hemoglobin A1c in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk who were inadequately controlled on oral diabetes treatments.

Now, Dr. Heerspink has shown that patients who received tirzepatide as opposed to insulin glargine were significantly less likely to have kidney function decline that included new-onset macroalbuminuria (hazard ratio, 0.59; P < .05).

“These are very large benefits and clearly indicate the potential of tirzepatide to be a very strong kidney protective drug,” said Dr. Heerspink, from the department of clinical pharmacy and pharmacology, University Medical Center Groningen (the Netherlands).

“Based on results from the SURPASS-4 trial, tirzepatide has significant kidney-protective effects in adults with type 2 diabetes with high cardiovascular risk and largely normal kidney function,” Christine Limonte, MD, chair of the session in which the analysis was presented, agreed, in an email to this news organization.

The approximate 40% reduced risk of kidney function decline in this population “is important because it suggests that this novel agent may contribute to the growing arsenal for preventing and treating diabetic kidney disease,” added Dr. Limonte, a clinical research fellow in the division of nephrology, University of Washington, Seattle.

“Over the last several years,” she noted, “sodium glucose cotransporter-2 [SGLT2] inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists have been identified as having significant kidney-protective effects in type 2 diabetes, and as such are becoming first-line agents in the treatment of diabetic kidney disease.”

Additional studies are needed, she added, to assess the impacts of tirzepatide compared to these agents (particularly GLP-1 receptor agonists, which overlap in their mechanism of action).

“With the growing number of therapeutic options for diabetic kidney disease, future research should also focus on identifying combinations of agents which benefit individuals in a ‘targeted’ manner,” according to Dr. Limonte.

“Ensuring accessibility to kidney-protective agents by promoting access to health care and reducing drug costs is essential to improving outcomes in diabetic kidney disease,” she added.

Strongest reduction seen in risk of new macroalbuminuria

One in three adults with diabetes has CKD, according to a press release issued by the ADA. Therefore, there is a need for therapies to reduce the development and progression of CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The prespecified analysis of SUPRESS-4 investigated potential renoprotective effects of tirzepatide.

The trial enrolled 1,995 patients with type 2 diabetes who were at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. The patients had a mean age of 63.6 years and a mean hemoglobin A1c of 8.5%.

Most patients had normal kidney function. The mean eGFR based on the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation was 81.3 mL/min per 1.73 m².

Few patients (17%) had moderately or severely reduced kidney function (eGFR <60 mL/min per 1.73 m²). Around a quarter of the patients (28%) had microalbuminuria (UACR 30-300 mg/g) and 8% had macroalbuminuria (UACR >300 mg/g).

The patients were randomized to receive a weekly injection of 5, 10, or 15 mg tirzepatide or a daily individualized injection of insulin glargine starting at 10 IU/day at bedtime, titrated to a fasting blood glucose <100 mg/dL, in addition to existing oral glucose-lowering agents. The primary outcomes in the subanalysis were:

• Endpoint 1: a composite of ≥40% decline in eGFR from baseline, renal death, progression to ESKD, and new-onset macroalbuminuria.
• Endpoint 2: the same as endpoint 1 excluding new-onset macroalbuminuria.

During a median follow up of 85 weeks and up to 104 weeks, patients who received tirzepatide versus insulin glargine were significantly less likely to reach endpoint 1 but not endpoint 2.

In addition, tirzepatide “very strongly” reduced the risk of new-onset macroalbuminuria, compared to insulin glargine, by approximately 60% in the complete study cohort (hazard ratio, 0.41; P < .05), Dr. Limonte noted.

Tirzepatide also reduced the risk of a >40% decline in eGFR, but this effect was not statistically significant, possibly because this outcome was underpowered. There were also too few kidney deaths and progressions to ESKD to meaningfully assess the effects of tirzepatide on these outcomes.

Therefore, Dr. Limonte noted, “it is likely that tirzepatide’s significant benefit on composite endpoint 1 was largely driven by this agent’s impact on reducing macroalbuminuria onset [explaining why a significant benefit was not seen with composite endpoint 2, which excluded new-onset macroalbuminuria].”

The study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Heerspink disclosed that he is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chinook Therapeutics, CSL Behring, Gilead Sciences, Goldfinch Bio, Janssen Research & Development, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Mundipharma, and Traveere Pharmaceuticals, and has received research support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk.

Dr. Limonte disclosed that she receives funds from the American Kidney Fund’s Clinical Scientist in Nephrology Award.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The “twincretin” tirzepatide might become part of the “arsenal” against diabetic kidney disease, new research suggests. Notably, the drug significantly reduced the likelihood of macroalbuminuria, in a prespecified subanalysis of the SURPASS-4 clinical trial.

“Once-per-week tirzepatide compared to [daily] insulin glargine treatment resulted in a meaningful improvement in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline and reduced urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) and the risk of end stage kidney disease (ESKD) – with low risk of clinically relevant hypoglycemia in participants with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk and varying degrees of chronic kidney disease (CKD),” lead investigator Hiddo J. L. Heerspink, PhD, PharmD, summarized in an email to this news organization.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has just approved tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Eli Lilly) – a novel, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) combined with a glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist – to treat glycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes, based on five pivotal SURPASS trials.

Dr. Heerspink presented the new findings about tirzepatide’s impact on kidney function in an oral session at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

40% reduced risk of kidney function decline

The main results of SURPASS-4 were published in the Lancet in October 2021, and showed that tirzepatide appeared superior to insulin glargine in lowering hemoglobin A1c in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk who were inadequately controlled on oral diabetes treatments.

Now, Dr. Heerspink has shown that patients who received tirzepatide as opposed to insulin glargine were significantly less likely to have kidney function decline that included new-onset macroalbuminuria (hazard ratio, 0.59; P < .05).

“These are very large benefits and clearly indicate the potential of tirzepatide to be a very strong kidney protective drug,” said Dr. Heerspink, from the department of clinical pharmacy and pharmacology, University Medical Center Groningen (the Netherlands).

“Based on results from the SURPASS-4 trial, tirzepatide has significant kidney-protective effects in adults with type 2 diabetes with high cardiovascular risk and largely normal kidney function,” Christine Limonte, MD, chair of the session in which the analysis was presented, agreed, in an email to this news organization.

The approximate 40% reduced risk of kidney function decline in this population “is important because it suggests that this novel agent may contribute to the growing arsenal for preventing and treating diabetic kidney disease,” added Dr. Limonte, a clinical research fellow in the division of nephrology, University of Washington, Seattle.

“Over the last several years,” she noted, “sodium glucose cotransporter-2 [SGLT2] inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists have been identified as having significant kidney-protective effects in type 2 diabetes, and as such are becoming first-line agents in the treatment of diabetic kidney disease.”

Additional studies are needed, she added, to assess the impacts of tirzepatide compared to these agents (particularly GLP-1 receptor agonists, which overlap in their mechanism of action).

“With the growing number of therapeutic options for diabetic kidney disease, future research should also focus on identifying combinations of agents which benefit individuals in a ‘targeted’ manner,” according to Dr. Limonte.

“Ensuring accessibility to kidney-protective agents by promoting access to health care and reducing drug costs is essential to improving outcomes in diabetic kidney disease,” she added.

Strongest reduction seen in risk of new macroalbuminuria

One in three adults with diabetes has CKD, according to a press release issued by the ADA. Therefore, there is a need for therapies to reduce the development and progression of CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The prespecified analysis of SUPRESS-4 investigated potential renoprotective effects of tirzepatide.

The trial enrolled 1,995 patients with type 2 diabetes who were at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. The patients had a mean age of 63.6 years and a mean hemoglobin A1c of 8.5%.

Most patients had normal kidney function. The mean eGFR based on the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation was 81.3 mL/min per 1.73 m².

Few patients (17%) had moderately or severely reduced kidney function (eGFR <60 mL/min per 1.73 m²). Around a quarter of the patients (28%) had microalbuminuria (UACR 30-300 mg/g) and 8% had macroalbuminuria (UACR >300 mg/g).

The patients were randomized to receive a weekly injection of 5, 10, or 15 mg tirzepatide or a daily individualized injection of insulin glargine starting at 10 IU/day at bedtime, titrated to a fasting blood glucose <100 mg/dL, in addition to existing oral glucose-lowering agents. The primary outcomes in the subanalysis were:

• Endpoint 1: a composite of ≥40% decline in eGFR from baseline, renal death, progression to ESKD, and new-onset macroalbuminuria.
• Endpoint 2: the same as endpoint 1 excluding new-onset macroalbuminuria.

During a median follow up of 85 weeks and up to 104 weeks, patients who received tirzepatide versus insulin glargine were significantly less likely to reach endpoint 1 but not endpoint 2.

In addition, tirzepatide “very strongly” reduced the risk of new-onset macroalbuminuria, compared to insulin glargine, by approximately 60% in the complete study cohort (hazard ratio, 0.41; P < .05), Dr. Limonte noted.

Tirzepatide also reduced the risk of a >40% decline in eGFR, but this effect was not statistically significant, possibly because this outcome was underpowered. There were also too few kidney deaths and progressions to ESKD to meaningfully assess the effects of tirzepatide on these outcomes.

Therefore, Dr. Limonte noted, “it is likely that tirzepatide’s significant benefit on composite endpoint 1 was largely driven by this agent’s impact on reducing macroalbuminuria onset [explaining why a significant benefit was not seen with composite endpoint 2, which excluded new-onset macroalbuminuria].”

The study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Heerspink disclosed that he is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chinook Therapeutics, CSL Behring, Gilead Sciences, Goldfinch Bio, Janssen Research & Development, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Mundipharma, and Traveere Pharmaceuticals, and has received research support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk.

Dr. Limonte disclosed that she receives funds from the American Kidney Fund’s Clinical Scientist in Nephrology Award.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN FRANCISCO – Interstitial lung disease is a difficult diagnosis to make, but a combination of artificial intelligence (AI) techniques and automated language processing could help clinicians identify the early signs of ILD and start patients on therapy, investigators say.

For example, applying an AI algorithm to spirometry readings taken from patients whose data were registered in the UK Biobank identified 27% as having ILD, and of this group, 66% had ostensibly normal lung function on spirometry but were later diagnosed with ILD, reported Marko Topalovic, PhD, from the AI company ArtiQ in Leuven, Belgium, at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

“A diagnosis of ILD is very challenging, so you have patients who are going to be misdiagnosed or have a very late diagnosis, so we aimed to apply our AI algorithm on spirometry to see whether we could detect ILD much earlier,” he said in an interview conducted during a poster discussion session.

AI detected ILD up to 6.8 years before a clinician’s diagnosis, Dr. Topalovic said.
 

Reading between the lines

In a separate study, investigators at the University of California, Davis, used language analysis software to scour electronic health records for words indicative of early ILD, and found that the technique dramatically shortened the median time to a pulmonary referral, compared with historical controls.

“This is a language processing program that can essentially look through the radiology reports and look for the key words that often describe interstitial lung disease, like traction, honeycomb, fibrotic, etc. With those studies being flagged, an actual pulmonologist will then further review the scan, and see whether it meets criteria for one of the interstitial lung diseases,” lead author William Leon, MD, a resident in the department of internal medicine at the University of California, Davis, said in an interview.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

“We then sent the primary care doctor a message to say: ‘Hey, this patient has ILD. You need to send them to a pulmonologist,’ ” he added.
 

Putting it together

Philip L. Molyneaux, MRCP (UK), MBBS, BS (Hons), from Imperial College London, who comoderated the session but was not involved in the studies, speculated that combining these and other, nontechnical interventions also discussed could help to improve diagnosis of ILD and allow clinicians to prescribe therapy earlier in the disease course.

“What’s going to give you the biggest impact for patients? Everyone working individually is coming up with great advances, and if you put them all together it’s going to provide much greater benefit for our patients,” he said in an interview.
 

AI Spirometry details

In collaboration with colleagues at the Laboratory of Respiratory Disease at University Hospital in Leuven, Dr. Topalovic applied AI to results of spirometry performed prior to diagnosis of ILD among 109 patients registered in the UK Biobank, a repository of information on more than 500,000 volunteers.

The patients selected had ILD listed as their cause of death, had spirometry performed up to 7 years before their deaths, and did not receive a diagnosis of ILD on the day of the index spirometry.

In all 73% of patients were men, 27% women, with an average age of 64.6 years. A large majority of the sample (77.15%) had a history of smoking, and 60 of the patients (55%) died within one year of an ILD diagnosis.

The investigators plugged the spirometry data and each patients demographic information – including gender, age, height, weight, race, and smoking status – into the AI clinical decision support program, which yielded a statistical probability for each subject of having normal lung function, asthma, COPD, ILD, another obstructive disease, or another unidentifiable respiratory disease.

In 29 patients (27%) the software listed ILD as the highest probability, and of this group 19 patients (66%) had normal lung function according to standard interpretation guidelines.

Spirometry parameters among patients identified as having probable ILD were different from those where ILD was not detected. For example, forced vital capacity (FVC) was 76% of predicted among patients with likely ILD versus 87% of predicted in those who had a diagnosis later (P = .003). Similar differences were seen in the forced expiratory volume in 1 second to FVC ratio, at 0.82 vs. 0.75, respectively (P = .007).

There were no differences in mortality or in median time between spirometry and clinician diagnosis between the groups.
 

Language processing details

Dr. Leon and colleagues used a language analysis software package to review CT chest reports. Reports were flagged if they contained the words traction, honeycomb, fibrotic, fibrosis, reticular, or reticulation.

The CT scan accompanying each flagged reported was reviewed by a pulmonologist for the presence of ILD, and scans with ILD identified were referred to pulmonary specialists. The results of 2,198 prospective scans followed by prospective screening were compared with those of 1,690 historical controls seen in 2015 and 2016.

The investigators found that 85 incident cases of ILD were identified in the historical controls, compared with 143 in the prospective cohort, leading to 38 and 120 pulmonary referrals, respectively.

For the primary outcome of median time from CT to pulmonary referral, the authors found that it was 1.27 months for the prospective cohort, compared with not reached (censored after 18 months) in historical controls.

The hazard ratio for a pulmonary referral in the prospective versus historical cohort was 2.79, an association that was strengthened after adjusting for sex, age, race, smoking pack-years, cough, crackles, and dyspnea (HR, 4.54; both comparisons significant according to confidence intervals).

The studies were internally funded. Dr. Topalovic is CEO and cofounder of ArtiQ. Dr. Leon and Dr. Molyneaux reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SAN FRANCISCO – Interstitial lung disease is a difficult diagnosis to make, but a combination of artificial intelligence (AI) techniques and automated language processing could help clinicians identify the early signs of ILD and start patients on therapy, investigators say.

For example, applying an AI algorithm to spirometry readings taken from patients whose data were registered in the UK Biobank identified 27% as having ILD, and of this group, 66% had ostensibly normal lung function on spirometry but were later diagnosed with ILD, reported Marko Topalovic, PhD, from the AI company ArtiQ in Leuven, Belgium, at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

“A diagnosis of ILD is very challenging, so you have patients who are going to be misdiagnosed or have a very late diagnosis, so we aimed to apply our AI algorithm on spirometry to see whether we could detect ILD much earlier,” he said in an interview conducted during a poster discussion session.

AI detected ILD up to 6.8 years before a clinician’s diagnosis, Dr. Topalovic said.
 

Reading between the lines

In a separate study, investigators at the University of California, Davis, used language analysis software to scour electronic health records for words indicative of early ILD, and found that the technique dramatically shortened the median time to a pulmonary referral, compared with historical controls.

“This is a language processing program that can essentially look through the radiology reports and look for the key words that often describe interstitial lung disease, like traction, honeycomb, fibrotic, etc. With those studies being flagged, an actual pulmonologist will then further review the scan, and see whether it meets criteria for one of the interstitial lung diseases,” lead author William Leon, MD, a resident in the department of internal medicine at the University of California, Davis, said in an interview.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

“We then sent the primary care doctor a message to say: ‘Hey, this patient has ILD. You need to send them to a pulmonologist,’ ” he added.
 

Putting it together

Philip L. Molyneaux, MRCP (UK), MBBS, BS (Hons), from Imperial College London, who comoderated the session but was not involved in the studies, speculated that combining these and other, nontechnical interventions also discussed could help to improve diagnosis of ILD and allow clinicians to prescribe therapy earlier in the disease course.

“What’s going to give you the biggest impact for patients? Everyone working individually is coming up with great advances, and if you put them all together it’s going to provide much greater benefit for our patients,” he said in an interview.
 

AI Spirometry details

In collaboration with colleagues at the Laboratory of Respiratory Disease at University Hospital in Leuven, Dr. Topalovic applied AI to results of spirometry performed prior to diagnosis of ILD among 109 patients registered in the UK Biobank, a repository of information on more than 500,000 volunteers.

The patients selected had ILD listed as their cause of death, had spirometry performed up to 7 years before their deaths, and did not receive a diagnosis of ILD on the day of the index spirometry.

In all 73% of patients were men, 27% women, with an average age of 64.6 years. A large majority of the sample (77.15%) had a history of smoking, and 60 of the patients (55%) died within one year of an ILD diagnosis.

The investigators plugged the spirometry data and each patients demographic information – including gender, age, height, weight, race, and smoking status – into the AI clinical decision support program, which yielded a statistical probability for each subject of having normal lung function, asthma, COPD, ILD, another obstructive disease, or another unidentifiable respiratory disease.

In 29 patients (27%) the software listed ILD as the highest probability, and of this group 19 patients (66%) had normal lung function according to standard interpretation guidelines.

Spirometry parameters among patients identified as having probable ILD were different from those where ILD was not detected. For example, forced vital capacity (FVC) was 76% of predicted among patients with likely ILD versus 87% of predicted in those who had a diagnosis later (P = .003). Similar differences were seen in the forced expiratory volume in 1 second to FVC ratio, at 0.82 vs. 0.75, respectively (P = .007).

There were no differences in mortality or in median time between spirometry and clinician diagnosis between the groups.
 

Language processing details

Dr. Leon and colleagues used a language analysis software package to review CT chest reports. Reports were flagged if they contained the words traction, honeycomb, fibrotic, fibrosis, reticular, or reticulation.

The CT scan accompanying each flagged reported was reviewed by a pulmonologist for the presence of ILD, and scans with ILD identified were referred to pulmonary specialists. The results of 2,198 prospective scans followed by prospective screening were compared with those of 1,690 historical controls seen in 2015 and 2016.

The investigators found that 85 incident cases of ILD were identified in the historical controls, compared with 143 in the prospective cohort, leading to 38 and 120 pulmonary referrals, respectively.

For the primary outcome of median time from CT to pulmonary referral, the authors found that it was 1.27 months for the prospective cohort, compared with not reached (censored after 18 months) in historical controls.

The hazard ratio for a pulmonary referral in the prospective versus historical cohort was 2.79, an association that was strengthened after adjusting for sex, age, race, smoking pack-years, cough, crackles, and dyspnea (HR, 4.54; both comparisons significant according to confidence intervals).

The studies were internally funded. Dr. Topalovic is CEO and cofounder of ArtiQ. Dr. Leon and Dr. Molyneaux reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SAN FRANCISCO – Interstitial lung disease is a difficult diagnosis to make, but a combination of artificial intelligence (AI) techniques and automated language processing could help clinicians identify the early signs of ILD and start patients on therapy, investigators say.

For example, applying an AI algorithm to spirometry readings taken from patients whose data were registered in the UK Biobank identified 27% as having ILD, and of this group, 66% had ostensibly normal lung function on spirometry but were later diagnosed with ILD, reported Marko Topalovic, PhD, from the AI company ArtiQ in Leuven, Belgium, at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

“A diagnosis of ILD is very challenging, so you have patients who are going to be misdiagnosed or have a very late diagnosis, so we aimed to apply our AI algorithm on spirometry to see whether we could detect ILD much earlier,” he said in an interview conducted during a poster discussion session.

AI detected ILD up to 6.8 years before a clinician’s diagnosis, Dr. Topalovic said.
 

Reading between the lines

In a separate study, investigators at the University of California, Davis, used language analysis software to scour electronic health records for words indicative of early ILD, and found that the technique dramatically shortened the median time to a pulmonary referral, compared with historical controls.

“This is a language processing program that can essentially look through the radiology reports and look for the key words that often describe interstitial lung disease, like traction, honeycomb, fibrotic, etc. With those studies being flagged, an actual pulmonologist will then further review the scan, and see whether it meets criteria for one of the interstitial lung diseases,” lead author William Leon, MD, a resident in the department of internal medicine at the University of California, Davis, said in an interview.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

“We then sent the primary care doctor a message to say: ‘Hey, this patient has ILD. You need to send them to a pulmonologist,’ ” he added.
 

Putting it together

Philip L. Molyneaux, MRCP (UK), MBBS, BS (Hons), from Imperial College London, who comoderated the session but was not involved in the studies, speculated that combining these and other, nontechnical interventions also discussed could help to improve diagnosis of ILD and allow clinicians to prescribe therapy earlier in the disease course.

“What’s going to give you the biggest impact for patients? Everyone working individually is coming up with great advances, and if you put them all together it’s going to provide much greater benefit for our patients,” he said in an interview.
 

AI Spirometry details

In collaboration with colleagues at the Laboratory of Respiratory Disease at University Hospital in Leuven, Dr. Topalovic applied AI to results of spirometry performed prior to diagnosis of ILD among 109 patients registered in the UK Biobank, a repository of information on more than 500,000 volunteers.

The patients selected had ILD listed as their cause of death, had spirometry performed up to 7 years before their deaths, and did not receive a diagnosis of ILD on the day of the index spirometry.

In all 73% of patients were men, 27% women, with an average age of 64.6 years. A large majority of the sample (77.15%) had a history of smoking, and 60 of the patients (55%) died within one year of an ILD diagnosis.

The investigators plugged the spirometry data and each patients demographic information – including gender, age, height, weight, race, and smoking status – into the AI clinical decision support program, which yielded a statistical probability for each subject of having normal lung function, asthma, COPD, ILD, another obstructive disease, or another unidentifiable respiratory disease.

In 29 patients (27%) the software listed ILD as the highest probability, and of this group 19 patients (66%) had normal lung function according to standard interpretation guidelines.

Spirometry parameters among patients identified as having probable ILD were different from those where ILD was not detected. For example, forced vital capacity (FVC) was 76% of predicted among patients with likely ILD versus 87% of predicted in those who had a diagnosis later (P = .003). Similar differences were seen in the forced expiratory volume in 1 second to FVC ratio, at 0.82 vs. 0.75, respectively (P = .007).

There were no differences in mortality or in median time between spirometry and clinician diagnosis between the groups.
 

Language processing details

Dr. Leon and colleagues used a language analysis software package to review CT chest reports. Reports were flagged if they contained the words traction, honeycomb, fibrotic, fibrosis, reticular, or reticulation.

The CT scan accompanying each flagged reported was reviewed by a pulmonologist for the presence of ILD, and scans with ILD identified were referred to pulmonary specialists. The results of 2,198 prospective scans followed by prospective screening were compared with those of 1,690 historical controls seen in 2015 and 2016.

The investigators found that 85 incident cases of ILD were identified in the historical controls, compared with 143 in the prospective cohort, leading to 38 and 120 pulmonary referrals, respectively.

For the primary outcome of median time from CT to pulmonary referral, the authors found that it was 1.27 months for the prospective cohort, compared with not reached (censored after 18 months) in historical controls.

The hazard ratio for a pulmonary referral in the prospective versus historical cohort was 2.79, an association that was strengthened after adjusting for sex, age, race, smoking pack-years, cough, crackles, and dyspnea (HR, 4.54; both comparisons significant according to confidence intervals).

The studies were internally funded. Dr. Topalovic is CEO and cofounder of ArtiQ. Dr. Leon and Dr. Molyneaux reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

COPENHAGEN – Temporary methotrexate in clinically suspected arthralgia delays but does not prevent clinical arthritis development; however, it does lead to sustained reduction of disease burden and MRI-detected inflammation in all at-risk groups, shows the 2-year Treat Earlier study.

“These data provide the first evidence for disease modification when intervening in ‘pre-RA [rheumatoid arthritis]’ or arthralgia,” said Doortje Krijbolder, MD, of Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, who presented her study at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.  

The randomized, double-blind, study aimed to find out if giving methotrexate in the pre-arthritis phase of arthralgia (with subclinical joint inflammation) prevents the development of clinical arthritis or reduces the burden of disease.  

“This is the first trial that aims to reduce the burden of disease, and as such, in pre-RA, it is important that disease modification is sustained after temporary treatment otherwise patients will start regressing with disease activity,” said Dr. Krijbolder.

She explained that methotrexate is usually initiated as first-line treatment when arthritis becomes clinically apparent with joint swelling, but “disease processes begin long before this, and only become clinically recognizable when patients develop symptoms.” 

 

Clinically detectable arthritis development

All 236 patients included in the study had arthralgia of the small joints that, because of the character of the symptoms, was found clinically suspect for progression to RA over time.

“Importantly, these participants had not yet developed clinical arthritis that could be detected on physical joint examination, and were clinically suspected of progressing to RA. They had all undergone an MRI and subclinical joint-inflammation had been detected that was more than prevalent in symptom-free controls,” said Dr. Krijbolder.

Patients were randomized (1:1) to either a single intramuscular glucocorticoid injection (120 mg methylprednisolone [Depo Medrol]) and a 1-year course of oral methotrexate (up to 25 mg/week), or to placebo injection and placebo tablets, and were then followed for a further year without medication to see whether disease progressed.  

Treatment and placebo groups were matched with an average age of 46-47 years, 62%-68% were women, they had had symptoms (joint pain) for 27-28 weeks, C-reactive protein was increased in 27%-30%, and 20%-26% were anti-citrullinated protein autoantibody (ACPA) positive.  

The primary endpoint was the development of clinically detectable arthritis (fulfilling the 2010 RA-criteria or involving ≥ 2 joints) that persisted for at least 2 weeks. The main secondary endpoints were related to disease burden, including patient-reported physical functioning, along with symptoms and workability (presenteeism at work – the percentage of productivity lost caused by the joint complaints), and measured every 4 months, said Dr. Krijbolder.

She and her colleagues also followed the course of MRI-detected inflammation, which comprised the sum of tenosynovitis, synovitis, and osteitis scored with the RA-MRI Scoring (RAMRIS) method.  

Analysis was carried out on an intention-to-treat basis, and two prespecified subgroup analyses were also performed to obtain a better understanding of the effect of methotrexate and glucocorticoids in participants with high risk of clinical arthritis development (positive predictive value (PPV) ≥ 70%), and in patients stratified for ACPA status.  

 

Delays but does not prevent

There was no difference between treatment and placebo groups in the development of persistent clinical arthritis over 2 years (80% vs. 82%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45, 1.48]); however, in the high-risk group subanalysis, 67% in the placebo group developed persistent clinical arthritis. For the treatment group, 7%developed persistent clinical arthritis at 6 months, 27% at 12 months, 40% at 18 months, and 67% at 24 months. For the placebo group: 56% developed persistent clinical arthritis at 6 months, and 67% at 12 months, 18 months, and 24 months. 

“Strikingly, in the treatment group there was a statistically significant difference between 6 and 12 months, but in year 2, this difference disappeared, suggesting a delayed arthritis development but no prevention,” said Dr. Krijbolder. 

Persistent clinical arthritis became similar at 24 months, at 67% in both groups. A similar, but less pronounced, delaying effect was seen with the ACPA-positive patients, with 48% and 52% developing persistent clinical arthritis at 24 months.  

In joint pain, there was a decline in the treatment group compared with the placebo group and this persisted over 2 years (–9 on scale of 0 to 100: (95%CI, –12,–4; P < .001), and a similar effect was seen in high-risk and ACPA subgroups, reported Dr. Krijbolder.  

Physical functioning improved more in the treatment-group compared with the placebo group during the first months and remained better (mean between-group difference over 2 years HAQ [health assessment questionnaire] –0.1 [–0.2, –0.03; P = .004]), and morning stiffness (–12 [95%CI, –16, –8; P < .001]), and presenteeism (–8% [95%CI, –13%, –3%; P = .001]) also showed improvement over time compared with placebo.  

MRI-detected joint-inflammation was also persistently improved with a mean difference over 2 years –1.4 points (95%CI, –2.0, –0.9; P < .001). “As we know that symptoms and functional impairments are associated with MRI-detected joint inflammation, it was not surprising that treatment induced a decline in joint inflammation that persisted over time, also after the stop of the treatment in the second year,” explained Dr. Krijbolder.  

In the high-risk subgroup, as well as in both ACPA-positive and ACPA-negative participants, a comparable statistically significant decline in MRI-detected inflammation was found.

“It may seem counterintuitive that on the one hand we found a delaying effect of treatment on persistent clinical arthritis but no prevention, while on the other, we saw a sustained treatment effect on MRI-detected joint-inflammation and related symptoms and functional impairments,” added Dr. Krijbolder.

To help understand this, the researchers performed a post hoc analysis in high-risk participants, comparing those who did not progress with those who did progress to arthritis. “Both progressors and nonprogressors showed a sustained treatment effect for pain and MRI-detected joint-inflammation, and in nonprogressors, there was almost a complete relief of pain and they nearly returned to the normal range of MRI-detected joint-inflammation as seen in symptom-free controls,” reported Dr. Krijbolder. 

“In those who progressed to arthritis, there was less pain and less MRI-detected joint inflammation in the treatment group, but also at the time when they developed clinical arthritis. So both progressors and nonprogressors benefit from treatment,” she noted.  

The number of serious adverse events was the same between the groups and adverse events were as expected from methotrexate.  

Dr. Krijbolder said, “the results are encouraging and will open up a new treatment landscape in pre-RA at the future, but at the moment it is too early to give recommendations for clinical practice; we definitely do not want to advocate the start of treatment in all at-risk individuals from now on.”

More research should unravel the mechanisms within the joint that contribute to the development of clinical arthritis and disease chronicity, she said. “If we understand these, we may be able to use more targeted interventions in the future and prevent the development of clinical arthritis all together.

“We are also looking forward to learning more about the long-term beneficial effects of this early treatment in our ongoing observational extension of the trial.” 

Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, of Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, who moderated the session, asked Dr. Krijbolder, “As well as giving methotrexate to the participants in the treatment group, you also gave a single glucocorticoid injection at baseline, and a placebo injection in the placebo group, can you comment on that?”

EULAR

COPENHAGEN – Temporary methotrexate in clinically suspected arthralgia delays but does not prevent clinical arthritis development; however, it does lead to sustained reduction of disease burden and MRI-detected inflammation in all at-risk groups, shows the 2-year Treat Earlier study.

“These data provide the first evidence for disease modification when intervening in ‘pre-RA [rheumatoid arthritis]’ or arthralgia,” said Doortje Krijbolder, MD, of Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, who presented her study at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.  

The randomized, double-blind, study aimed to find out if giving methotrexate in the pre-arthritis phase of arthralgia (with subclinical joint inflammation) prevents the development of clinical arthritis or reduces the burden of disease.  

“This is the first trial that aims to reduce the burden of disease, and as such, in pre-RA, it is important that disease modification is sustained after temporary treatment otherwise patients will start regressing with disease activity,” said Dr. Krijbolder.

She explained that methotrexate is usually initiated as first-line treatment when arthritis becomes clinically apparent with joint swelling, but “disease processes begin long before this, and only become clinically recognizable when patients develop symptoms.” 

 

Clinically detectable arthritis development

All 236 patients included in the study had arthralgia of the small joints that, because of the character of the symptoms, was found clinically suspect for progression to RA over time.

“Importantly, these participants had not yet developed clinical arthritis that could be detected on physical joint examination, and were clinically suspected of progressing to RA. They had all undergone an MRI and subclinical joint-inflammation had been detected that was more than prevalent in symptom-free controls,” said Dr. Krijbolder.

Patients were randomized (1:1) to either a single intramuscular glucocorticoid injection (120 mg methylprednisolone [Depo Medrol]) and a 1-year course of oral methotrexate (up to 25 mg/week), or to placebo injection and placebo tablets, and were then followed for a further year without medication to see whether disease progressed.  

Treatment and placebo groups were matched with an average age of 46-47 years, 62%-68% were women, they had had symptoms (joint pain) for 27-28 weeks, C-reactive protein was increased in 27%-30%, and 20%-26% were anti-citrullinated protein autoantibody (ACPA) positive.  

The primary endpoint was the development of clinically detectable arthritis (fulfilling the 2010 RA-criteria or involving ≥ 2 joints) that persisted for at least 2 weeks. The main secondary endpoints were related to disease burden, including patient-reported physical functioning, along with symptoms and workability (presenteeism at work – the percentage of productivity lost caused by the joint complaints), and measured every 4 months, said Dr. Krijbolder.

She and her colleagues also followed the course of MRI-detected inflammation, which comprised the sum of tenosynovitis, synovitis, and osteitis scored with the RA-MRI Scoring (RAMRIS) method.  

Analysis was carried out on an intention-to-treat basis, and two prespecified subgroup analyses were also performed to obtain a better understanding of the effect of methotrexate and glucocorticoids in participants with high risk of clinical arthritis development (positive predictive value (PPV) ≥ 70%), and in patients stratified for ACPA status.  

 

Delays but does not prevent

There was no difference between treatment and placebo groups in the development of persistent clinical arthritis over 2 years (80% vs. 82%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45, 1.48]); however, in the high-risk group subanalysis, 67% in the placebo group developed persistent clinical arthritis. For the treatment group, 7%developed persistent clinical arthritis at 6 months, 27% at 12 months, 40% at 18 months, and 67% at 24 months. For the placebo group: 56% developed persistent clinical arthritis at 6 months, and 67% at 12 months, 18 months, and 24 months. 

“Strikingly, in the treatment group there was a statistically significant difference between 6 and 12 months, but in year 2, this difference disappeared, suggesting a delayed arthritis development but no prevention,” said Dr. Krijbolder. 

Persistent clinical arthritis became similar at 24 months, at 67% in both groups. A similar, but less pronounced, delaying effect was seen with the ACPA-positive patients, with 48% and 52% developing persistent clinical arthritis at 24 months.  

In joint pain, there was a decline in the treatment group compared with the placebo group and this persisted over 2 years (–9 on scale of 0 to 100: (95%CI, –12,–4; P < .001), and a similar effect was seen in high-risk and ACPA subgroups, reported Dr. Krijbolder.  

Physical functioning improved more in the treatment-group compared with the placebo group during the first months and remained better (mean between-group difference over 2 years HAQ [health assessment questionnaire] –0.1 [–0.2, –0.03; P = .004]), and morning stiffness (–12 [95%CI, –16, –8; P < .001]), and presenteeism (–8% [95%CI, –13%, –3%; P = .001]) also showed improvement over time compared with placebo.  

MRI-detected joint-inflammation was also persistently improved with a mean difference over 2 years –1.4 points (95%CI, –2.0, –0.9; P < .001). “As we know that symptoms and functional impairments are associated with MRI-detected joint inflammation, it was not surprising that treatment induced a decline in joint inflammation that persisted over time, also after the stop of the treatment in the second year,” explained Dr. Krijbolder.  

In the high-risk subgroup, as well as in both ACPA-positive and ACPA-negative participants, a comparable statistically significant decline in MRI-detected inflammation was found.

“It may seem counterintuitive that on the one hand we found a delaying effect of treatment on persistent clinical arthritis but no prevention, while on the other, we saw a sustained treatment effect on MRI-detected joint-inflammation and related symptoms and functional impairments,” added Dr. Krijbolder.

To help understand this, the researchers performed a post hoc analysis in high-risk participants, comparing those who did not progress with those who did progress to arthritis. “Both progressors and nonprogressors showed a sustained treatment effect for pain and MRI-detected joint-inflammation, and in nonprogressors, there was almost a complete relief of pain and they nearly returned to the normal range of MRI-detected joint-inflammation as seen in symptom-free controls,” reported Dr. Krijbolder. 

“In those who progressed to arthritis, there was less pain and less MRI-detected joint inflammation in the treatment group, but also at the time when they developed clinical arthritis. So both progressors and nonprogressors benefit from treatment,” she noted.  

The number of serious adverse events was the same between the groups and adverse events were as expected from methotrexate.  

Dr. Krijbolder said, “the results are encouraging and will open up a new treatment landscape in pre-RA at the future, but at the moment it is too early to give recommendations for clinical practice; we definitely do not want to advocate the start of treatment in all at-risk individuals from now on.”

More research should unravel the mechanisms within the joint that contribute to the development of clinical arthritis and disease chronicity, she said. “If we understand these, we may be able to use more targeted interventions in the future and prevent the development of clinical arthritis all together.

“We are also looking forward to learning more about the long-term beneficial effects of this early treatment in our ongoing observational extension of the trial.” 

Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, of Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, who moderated the session, asked Dr. Krijbolder, “As well as giving methotrexate to the participants in the treatment group, you also gave a single glucocorticoid injection at baseline, and a placebo injection in the placebo group, can you comment on that?”

EULAR

COPENHAGEN – Temporary methotrexate in clinically suspected arthralgia delays but does not prevent clinical arthritis development; however, it does lead to sustained reduction of disease burden and MRI-detected inflammation in all at-risk groups, shows the 2-year Treat Earlier study.

“These data provide the first evidence for disease modification when intervening in ‘pre-RA [rheumatoid arthritis]’ or arthralgia,” said Doortje Krijbolder, MD, of Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, who presented her study at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.  

The randomized, double-blind, study aimed to find out if giving methotrexate in the pre-arthritis phase of arthralgia (with subclinical joint inflammation) prevents the development of clinical arthritis or reduces the burden of disease.  

“This is the first trial that aims to reduce the burden of disease, and as such, in pre-RA, it is important that disease modification is sustained after temporary treatment otherwise patients will start regressing with disease activity,” said Dr. Krijbolder.

She explained that methotrexate is usually initiated as first-line treatment when arthritis becomes clinically apparent with joint swelling, but “disease processes begin long before this, and only become clinically recognizable when patients develop symptoms.” 

 

Clinically detectable arthritis development

All 236 patients included in the study had arthralgia of the small joints that, because of the character of the symptoms, was found clinically suspect for progression to RA over time.

“Importantly, these participants had not yet developed clinical arthritis that could be detected on physical joint examination, and were clinically suspected of progressing to RA. They had all undergone an MRI and subclinical joint-inflammation had been detected that was more than prevalent in symptom-free controls,” said Dr. Krijbolder.

Patients were randomized (1:1) to either a single intramuscular glucocorticoid injection (120 mg methylprednisolone [Depo Medrol]) and a 1-year course of oral methotrexate (up to 25 mg/week), or to placebo injection and placebo tablets, and were then followed for a further year without medication to see whether disease progressed.  

Treatment and placebo groups were matched with an average age of 46-47 years, 62%-68% were women, they had had symptoms (joint pain) for 27-28 weeks, C-reactive protein was increased in 27%-30%, and 20%-26% were anti-citrullinated protein autoantibody (ACPA) positive.  

The primary endpoint was the development of clinically detectable arthritis (fulfilling the 2010 RA-criteria or involving ≥ 2 joints) that persisted for at least 2 weeks. The main secondary endpoints were related to disease burden, including patient-reported physical functioning, along with symptoms and workability (presenteeism at work – the percentage of productivity lost caused by the joint complaints), and measured every 4 months, said Dr. Krijbolder.

She and her colleagues also followed the course of MRI-detected inflammation, which comprised the sum of tenosynovitis, synovitis, and osteitis scored with the RA-MRI Scoring (RAMRIS) method.  

Analysis was carried out on an intention-to-treat basis, and two prespecified subgroup analyses were also performed to obtain a better understanding of the effect of methotrexate and glucocorticoids in participants with high risk of clinical arthritis development (positive predictive value (PPV) ≥ 70%), and in patients stratified for ACPA status.  

 

Delays but does not prevent

There was no difference between treatment and placebo groups in the development of persistent clinical arthritis over 2 years (80% vs. 82%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45, 1.48]); however, in the high-risk group subanalysis, 67% in the placebo group developed persistent clinical arthritis. For the treatment group, 7%developed persistent clinical arthritis at 6 months, 27% at 12 months, 40% at 18 months, and 67% at 24 months. For the placebo group: 56% developed persistent clinical arthritis at 6 months, and 67% at 12 months, 18 months, and 24 months. 

“Strikingly, in the treatment group there was a statistically significant difference between 6 and 12 months, but in year 2, this difference disappeared, suggesting a delayed arthritis development but no prevention,” said Dr. Krijbolder. 

Persistent clinical arthritis became similar at 24 months, at 67% in both groups. A similar, but less pronounced, delaying effect was seen with the ACPA-positive patients, with 48% and 52% developing persistent clinical arthritis at 24 months.  

In joint pain, there was a decline in the treatment group compared with the placebo group and this persisted over 2 years (–9 on scale of 0 to 100: (95%CI, –12,–4; P < .001), and a similar effect was seen in high-risk and ACPA subgroups, reported Dr. Krijbolder.  

Physical functioning improved more in the treatment-group compared with the placebo group during the first months and remained better (mean between-group difference over 2 years HAQ [health assessment questionnaire] –0.1 [–0.2, –0.03; P = .004]), and morning stiffness (–12 [95%CI, –16, –8; P < .001]), and presenteeism (–8% [95%CI, –13%, –3%; P = .001]) also showed improvement over time compared with placebo.  

MRI-detected joint-inflammation was also persistently improved with a mean difference over 2 years –1.4 points (95%CI, –2.0, –0.9; P < .001). “As we know that symptoms and functional impairments are associated with MRI-detected joint inflammation, it was not surprising that treatment induced a decline in joint inflammation that persisted over time, also after the stop of the treatment in the second year,” explained Dr. Krijbolder.  

In the high-risk subgroup, as well as in both ACPA-positive and ACPA-negative participants, a comparable statistically significant decline in MRI-detected inflammation was found.

“It may seem counterintuitive that on the one hand we found a delaying effect of treatment on persistent clinical arthritis but no prevention, while on the other, we saw a sustained treatment effect on MRI-detected joint-inflammation and related symptoms and functional impairments,” added Dr. Krijbolder.

To help understand this, the researchers performed a post hoc analysis in high-risk participants, comparing those who did not progress with those who did progress to arthritis. “Both progressors and nonprogressors showed a sustained treatment effect for pain and MRI-detected joint-inflammation, and in nonprogressors, there was almost a complete relief of pain and they nearly returned to the normal range of MRI-detected joint-inflammation as seen in symptom-free controls,” reported Dr. Krijbolder. 

“In those who progressed to arthritis, there was less pain and less MRI-detected joint inflammation in the treatment group, but also at the time when they developed clinical arthritis. So both progressors and nonprogressors benefit from treatment,” she noted.  

The number of serious adverse events was the same between the groups and adverse events were as expected from methotrexate.  

Dr. Krijbolder said, “the results are encouraging and will open up a new treatment landscape in pre-RA at the future, but at the moment it is too early to give recommendations for clinical practice; we definitely do not want to advocate the start of treatment in all at-risk individuals from now on.”

More research should unravel the mechanisms within the joint that contribute to the development of clinical arthritis and disease chronicity, she said. “If we understand these, we may be able to use more targeted interventions in the future and prevent the development of clinical arthritis all together.

“We are also looking forward to learning more about the long-term beneficial effects of this early treatment in our ongoing observational extension of the trial.” 

Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, of Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, who moderated the session, asked Dr. Krijbolder, “As well as giving methotrexate to the participants in the treatment group, you also gave a single glucocorticoid injection at baseline, and a placebo injection in the placebo group, can you comment on that?”

EULAR