Psoriatic Arthritis ICYMI

Key clinical point: Patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who received ustekinumab for 160 weeks showed rapid and sustained improvements in the signs and symptoms of PsA.

Major finding: A decrease in both tender joint count (TJC; 8.0 to 5.8) and swollen joint count (SJC; 4.5 to 3.1) was observed from baseline to week 4, with further decrease until week 28. Improvements were sustained up to week 160 (TJC 1.0; SJC 0.4). Minimal disease activity was achieved by 31.9% of patients at week 28 and 33.6% of patients at week 52.

Study details: Findings are from the prospective, non-interventional SUSTAIN study including 129 patients with active PsA and a previous inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs who were followed up to week 160.

Disclosures: The SUSTAIN study was funded by Janssen-Cilag GmbH. Three authors declared being employees of Janssen-Cilag GmbH and holding stocks in Johnson and Johnson, the parent company of Janssen. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Wendler J et al. Ustekinumab is rapid-acting and is an effective long-term treatment for patients with active psoriatic arthritis: Real-world evidence from the non-interventional SUSTAIN study. Rheumatol Ther. 2022 (Sep 6). Doi: 10.1007/s40744-022-00484-3

Key clinical point: Patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who received ustekinumab for 160 weeks showed rapid and sustained improvements in the signs and symptoms of PsA.

Major finding: A decrease in both tender joint count (TJC; 8.0 to 5.8) and swollen joint count (SJC; 4.5 to 3.1) was observed from baseline to week 4, with further decrease until week 28. Improvements were sustained up to week 160 (TJC 1.0; SJC 0.4). Minimal disease activity was achieved by 31.9% of patients at week 28 and 33.6% of patients at week 52.

Study details: Findings are from the prospective, non-interventional SUSTAIN study including 129 patients with active PsA and a previous inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs who were followed up to week 160.

Disclosures: The SUSTAIN study was funded by Janssen-Cilag GmbH. Three authors declared being employees of Janssen-Cilag GmbH and holding stocks in Johnson and Johnson, the parent company of Janssen. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Wendler J et al. Ustekinumab is rapid-acting and is an effective long-term treatment for patients with active psoriatic arthritis: Real-world evidence from the non-interventional SUSTAIN study. Rheumatol Ther. 2022 (Sep 6). Doi: 10.1007/s40744-022-00484-3

Key clinical point: Patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who received ustekinumab for 160 weeks showed rapid and sustained improvements in the signs and symptoms of PsA.

Major finding: A decrease in both tender joint count (TJC; 8.0 to 5.8) and swollen joint count (SJC; 4.5 to 3.1) was observed from baseline to week 4, with further decrease until week 28. Improvements were sustained up to week 160 (TJC 1.0; SJC 0.4). Minimal disease activity was achieved by 31.9% of patients at week 28 and 33.6% of patients at week 52.

Study details: Findings are from the prospective, non-interventional SUSTAIN study including 129 patients with active PsA and a previous inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs who were followed up to week 160.

Disclosures: The SUSTAIN study was funded by Janssen-Cilag GmbH. Three authors declared being employees of Janssen-Cilag GmbH and holding stocks in Johnson and Johnson, the parent company of Janssen. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Wendler J et al. Ustekinumab is rapid-acting and is an effective long-term treatment for patients with active psoriatic arthritis: Real-world evidence from the non-interventional SUSTAIN study. Rheumatol Ther. 2022 (Sep 6). Doi: 10.1007/s40744-022-00484-3

Key clinical point: Patients with isolated axial psoriatic arthritis (PsA) had a better functional status than those with both axial and peripheral disease. Human leucocyte antigen (HLA)-B*27 positivity was associated with isolated axial PsA and predicted the development of peripheral disease over time.

Major finding: Compared with patients with concomitant axial and peripheral disease, HLA-B*27 positivity (odds ratio [OR] 25.00; P < .003) and lower Health Assessment Questionnaire scores (OR 0.004; P < .01) were associated with isolated axial disease. HLA-B*27 positivity predicted the development of peripheral PsA in patients with isolated axial PsA (hazard ratio 7.544; P < .006).

Study details: Findings are from a longitudinal study including 1688 patients with ankylosing spondylitis and psoriasis and 1576 patients with PsA, of which 32 had isolated axial disease and 463 had axial with peripheral disease.

Disclosures: The University of Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Program is supported by a grant from the Krembil Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Kwok TSH et al. Isolated axial disease in psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis with psoriasis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022 (Aug 16). Doi: 10.1136/ard-2022-222537

Key clinical point: Patients with isolated axial psoriatic arthritis (PsA) had a better functional status than those with both axial and peripheral disease. Human leucocyte antigen (HLA)-B*27 positivity was associated with isolated axial PsA and predicted the development of peripheral disease over time.

Major finding: Compared with patients with concomitant axial and peripheral disease, HLA-B*27 positivity (odds ratio [OR] 25.00; P < .003) and lower Health Assessment Questionnaire scores (OR 0.004; P < .01) were associated with isolated axial disease. HLA-B*27 positivity predicted the development of peripheral PsA in patients with isolated axial PsA (hazard ratio 7.544; P < .006).

Study details: Findings are from a longitudinal study including 1688 patients with ankylosing spondylitis and psoriasis and 1576 patients with PsA, of which 32 had isolated axial disease and 463 had axial with peripheral disease.

Disclosures: The University of Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Program is supported by a grant from the Krembil Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Kwok TSH et al. Isolated axial disease in psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis with psoriasis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022 (Aug 16). Doi: 10.1136/ard-2022-222537

Key clinical point: Patients with isolated axial psoriatic arthritis (PsA) had a better functional status than those with both axial and peripheral disease. Human leucocyte antigen (HLA)-B*27 positivity was associated with isolated axial PsA and predicted the development of peripheral disease over time.

Major finding: Compared with patients with concomitant axial and peripheral disease, HLA-B*27 positivity (odds ratio [OR] 25.00; P < .003) and lower Health Assessment Questionnaire scores (OR 0.004; P < .01) were associated with isolated axial disease. HLA-B*27 positivity predicted the development of peripheral PsA in patients with isolated axial PsA (hazard ratio 7.544; P < .006).

Study details: Findings are from a longitudinal study including 1688 patients with ankylosing spondylitis and psoriasis and 1576 patients with PsA, of which 32 had isolated axial disease and 463 had axial with peripheral disease.

Disclosures: The University of Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Program is supported by a grant from the Krembil Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Kwok TSH et al. Isolated axial disease in psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis with psoriasis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022 (Aug 16). Doi: 10.1136/ard-2022-222537

Key clinical point: Secukinumab significantly delayed disease flare compared with placebo and showed a consistent safety profile in patients with juvenile psoriatic arthritis (JPsA).

Major finding: Secukinumab vs placebo was associated with a significant delay in disease flare (hazard ratio 0.15; P < .001) and a higher proportion of patients achieving juvenile idiopathic arthritis American College of Rheumatology 30 response at week 104 (86.7% vs 62.5%). No new safety concerns were observed.

Study details: Findings are from a treatment-withdrawal, phase 3 study including 86 biologic-naive patients with active enthesitis-related arthritis (n = 52) or JPsA (n = 34) who were randomly assigned to receive secukinumab or placebo for up to 104 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Novartis Pharma AG. Four authors declared being employees and shareholders of Novartis. The other authors reported ties with several sources, including Novartis.

Source: Brunner HI et al on behalf of Paediatric Rheumatology INternational Trials Organization (PRINTO) and Pediatric Rheumatology Collaborative Study Group (PRCSG). Secukinumab in enthesitis-related arthritis and juvenile psoriatic arthritis: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, treatment withdrawal, phase 3 trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022 (Aug 12). Doi: 10.1136/ard-2022-222849

Key clinical point: Secukinumab significantly delayed disease flare compared with placebo and showed a consistent safety profile in patients with juvenile psoriatic arthritis (JPsA).

Major finding: Secukinumab vs placebo was associated with a significant delay in disease flare (hazard ratio 0.15; P < .001) and a higher proportion of patients achieving juvenile idiopathic arthritis American College of Rheumatology 30 response at week 104 (86.7% vs 62.5%). No new safety concerns were observed.

Study details: Findings are from a treatment-withdrawal, phase 3 study including 86 biologic-naive patients with active enthesitis-related arthritis (n = 52) or JPsA (n = 34) who were randomly assigned to receive secukinumab or placebo for up to 104 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Novartis Pharma AG. Four authors declared being employees and shareholders of Novartis. The other authors reported ties with several sources, including Novartis.

Source: Brunner HI et al on behalf of Paediatric Rheumatology INternational Trials Organization (PRINTO) and Pediatric Rheumatology Collaborative Study Group (PRCSG). Secukinumab in enthesitis-related arthritis and juvenile psoriatic arthritis: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, treatment withdrawal, phase 3 trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022 (Aug 12). Doi: 10.1136/ard-2022-222849

Key clinical point: Secukinumab significantly delayed disease flare compared with placebo and showed a consistent safety profile in patients with juvenile psoriatic arthritis (JPsA).

Major finding: Secukinumab vs placebo was associated with a significant delay in disease flare (hazard ratio 0.15; P < .001) and a higher proportion of patients achieving juvenile idiopathic arthritis American College of Rheumatology 30 response at week 104 (86.7% vs 62.5%). No new safety concerns were observed.

Study details: Findings are from a treatment-withdrawal, phase 3 study including 86 biologic-naive patients with active enthesitis-related arthritis (n = 52) or JPsA (n = 34) who were randomly assigned to receive secukinumab or placebo for up to 104 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Novartis Pharma AG. Four authors declared being employees and shareholders of Novartis. The other authors reported ties with several sources, including Novartis.

Source: Brunner HI et al on behalf of Paediatric Rheumatology INternational Trials Organization (PRINTO) and Pediatric Rheumatology Collaborative Study Group (PRCSG). Secukinumab in enthesitis-related arthritis and juvenile psoriatic arthritis: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, treatment withdrawal, phase 3 trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022 (Aug 12). Doi: 10.1136/ard-2022-222849

Patients with a rheumatic immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID) had worse outcomes, especially for mortality, after a myocardial infarction than those without an IMID, in a large propensity-matched analysis.

At a median of 2 years after their MI, Medicare beneficiaries with an IMID had adjusted risks that were:

• 15% higher for all-cause death (hazard ratio, 1.15);
• 12% higher for heart failure (HR, 1.12);
• 8% higher for recurrent MI (HR, 1.08); and
• 6% higher risk for coronary reintervention (HR, 1.06; P < .05 for all).

In addition, interventions known to improve outcomes in this context, such as coronary revascularization, were less common in patients with IMID.

“This could be because they usually are sicker and have more risk factors when they present, like kidney disease, so maybe they’re not eligible for the therapy. But by itself, it was surprising they’re not offered these interventions as common[ly] as people who don’t have the disease,” Amgad Mentias, MD, a clinical cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

The study was published Sept. 14 in the Journal of the American Heart Association, with Dr. Mentias as senior author and Heba Wassif, MD, MPH, also with Cleveland Clinic, as first author.

IMIDs, such as rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, lupus, and inflammatory bowel disease, are known to be associated with significantly higher cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk due to a greater prevalence of traditional CVD risk factors and chronic systemic inflammation.

Certain disease-modifying agents may also increase patients’ cardiovascular risk. This has been a long-simmering issue for the arthritis and ulcerative colitis drug tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR), resulting in an updated boxed warning in 2021.

Many of these patients also have joint disease, pain, and fatigue, which can limit physical activity, Dr. Mentias said. “So these small nuances of how to manage these patients, or balance between controlling the inflammation but also improv[ing] cardiac risk factors, is not an easy task.”

Evidence regarding post-MI events has been inconsistent and limited to smaller single-center studies, he said. After propensity-score matching, the present study included 59,820 patients with and 178,547 patients without rheumatic IMIDs followed for a maximum of 6 years.

They were drawn from a cohort of 1.6 million persons aged 65 or older in the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MedPAR) file who had been admitted for an MI between 2014 and 2019. Of these, 60,072 had a prior history of rheumatic IMIDs, most commonly rheumatoid arthritis (77.8%), followed by systemic lupus erythematosus (12.2%), psoriasis (5.1%), systemic sclerosis (2.8%), and myositis/dermatomyositis (1.8%).

Patients with an IMID were more often women; had a higher prevalence of valve disease, pulmonary hypertension, hypothyroidism, and anemia; and were more likely to present with non–ST-segment MI (NSTEMI).

Rates of coronary angiography (46.1% vs. 51.5%), percutaneous coronary intervention (31.6% vs. 33.6%), and coronary artery bypass grafting (7.7% vs. 10.7%) were significantly lower in patients with IMIDs who had NSTEMI, compared with patients without an IMID who had NSTEMI. Rates of these interventions were also lower in patients with IMIDs who presented with STEMI versus their peers without an IMID, at 78.2% vs. 80.7%, 70.2% vs. 71.5%, and 4.9% vs. 6.4%, respectively.

Dr. Mentias pointed out that the emerging subspecialty of cardiorheumatology is gaining traction, especially at large hospitals and academic centers, but that less than one-third of persons in the United States with an IMID are likely to be under the care of such specialists.

“It’s important before developing an MI to try and control the different risk factors and improve the risk profile for these patients as much as possible by both specialties, and then, after an unfortunate event like MI happens, it’s important to make sure we offer therapies and treatments that are known to improve outcomes,” he said.

Commenting for this article, Jon Tyler Giles, MD, a clinical researcher who focuses on cardiovascular diseases in rheumatology at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, said that “at least for rheumatoid arthritis, this is something that we already knew. People with rheumatic arthritis, when they have a heart attack, are less likely to get the standard kind of treatments and have worse outcomes. This is a little larger sample, but it’s not a surprise, not a surprise at all.”

He noted that the study could have answered questions regarding potential drivers, but “they didn’t dig down into any of the factors that were associated with the poorer outcomes in the patients with rheumatoid arthritis and lupus and scleroderma.”

Indeed, the investigators acknowledge that the study lacked information on coronary anatomy, duration and severity of the autoimmune disease, imaging data, and medications such as anti-inflammatory or immune-targeted therapies.

Dr. Giles highlighted several factors that can contribute to a poorer post-MI prognosis in patients with rheumatic diseases; these include frailty, being more hypercoaguable, increased rates of myocardial dysfunction and other heart and blood vessel diseases, and chronic treatment with steroids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs that often interferes with anticoagulation after a MI or when putting in a stent. “So, there’s lot of moving parts, and not one single thing that is likely the answer.”

In addition, he said, “there’s always going to be a portion of these patients who, despite doing the best that we can with treatment, are going to have very severe disease. That may or may not be the subset of patients that did the worst, but likely they’re overrepresented in those patients.”

Finally, the inability to move the needle may lie with the lack of evidence-based screening and management guidelines for cardiovascular disease in any rheumatic disease, Dr. Giles observed. “There’s no guideline for us to use to decide who needs screening over and above what’s recommended for the general population, and then, even if you do screen, what do you do other than what you would normally?”

Rheumatologists are often reluctant to take up the cardiovascular screening side of things because visits are short, and a lot of that time is spent trying to manage the inflammatory components of a patient’s disease, he said. There’s also a barrier in getting some patients to add a cardiologist to the mix of physicians they already see, especially if they don’t have any symptoms.

“If someone has had an event, it’s a lot easier for people to be convinced to go see the cardiologist, obviously, but prior to having an event, the preventative side of things is something that often gets missed or goes to the wayside,” Dr. Giles said.

The study was partly funded by philanthropic gifts by the Haslam family, Bailey family, and Khouri family to the Cleveland Clinic for coauthor Dr. Milind Desai’s research. Dr. Desai is a consultant for Medtronic and Bristol Myers Squibb and serves on an executive steering committee of a BMS-sponsored trial. The remaining authors report having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Giles is a consultant on drug cardiovascular safety for Pfizer, AbbVie, and Eli Lilly.

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

Patients with a rheumatic immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID) had worse outcomes, especially for mortality, after a myocardial infarction than those without an IMID, in a large propensity-matched analysis.

At a median of 2 years after their MI, Medicare beneficiaries with an IMID had adjusted risks that were:

• 15% higher for all-cause death (hazard ratio, 1.15);
• 12% higher for heart failure (HR, 1.12);
• 8% higher for recurrent MI (HR, 1.08); and
• 6% higher risk for coronary reintervention (HR, 1.06; P < .05 for all).

In addition, interventions known to improve outcomes in this context, such as coronary revascularization, were less common in patients with IMID.

“This could be because they usually are sicker and have more risk factors when they present, like kidney disease, so maybe they’re not eligible for the therapy. But by itself, it was surprising they’re not offered these interventions as common[ly] as people who don’t have the disease,” Amgad Mentias, MD, a clinical cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

The study was published Sept. 14 in the Journal of the American Heart Association, with Dr. Mentias as senior author and Heba Wassif, MD, MPH, also with Cleveland Clinic, as first author.

IMIDs, such as rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, lupus, and inflammatory bowel disease, are known to be associated with significantly higher cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk due to a greater prevalence of traditional CVD risk factors and chronic systemic inflammation.

Certain disease-modifying agents may also increase patients’ cardiovascular risk. This has been a long-simmering issue for the arthritis and ulcerative colitis drug tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR), resulting in an updated boxed warning in 2021.

Many of these patients also have joint disease, pain, and fatigue, which can limit physical activity, Dr. Mentias said. “So these small nuances of how to manage these patients, or balance between controlling the inflammation but also improv[ing] cardiac risk factors, is not an easy task.”

Evidence regarding post-MI events has been inconsistent and limited to smaller single-center studies, he said. After propensity-score matching, the present study included 59,820 patients with and 178,547 patients without rheumatic IMIDs followed for a maximum of 6 years.

They were drawn from a cohort of 1.6 million persons aged 65 or older in the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MedPAR) file who had been admitted for an MI between 2014 and 2019. Of these, 60,072 had a prior history of rheumatic IMIDs, most commonly rheumatoid arthritis (77.8%), followed by systemic lupus erythematosus (12.2%), psoriasis (5.1%), systemic sclerosis (2.8%), and myositis/dermatomyositis (1.8%).

Patients with an IMID were more often women; had a higher prevalence of valve disease, pulmonary hypertension, hypothyroidism, and anemia; and were more likely to present with non–ST-segment MI (NSTEMI).

Rates of coronary angiography (46.1% vs. 51.5%), percutaneous coronary intervention (31.6% vs. 33.6%), and coronary artery bypass grafting (7.7% vs. 10.7%) were significantly lower in patients with IMIDs who had NSTEMI, compared with patients without an IMID who had NSTEMI. Rates of these interventions were also lower in patients with IMIDs who presented with STEMI versus their peers without an IMID, at 78.2% vs. 80.7%, 70.2% vs. 71.5%, and 4.9% vs. 6.4%, respectively.

Dr. Mentias pointed out that the emerging subspecialty of cardiorheumatology is gaining traction, especially at large hospitals and academic centers, but that less than one-third of persons in the United States with an IMID are likely to be under the care of such specialists.

“It’s important before developing an MI to try and control the different risk factors and improve the risk profile for these patients as much as possible by both specialties, and then, after an unfortunate event like MI happens, it’s important to make sure we offer therapies and treatments that are known to improve outcomes,” he said.

Commenting for this article, Jon Tyler Giles, MD, a clinical researcher who focuses on cardiovascular diseases in rheumatology at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, said that “at least for rheumatoid arthritis, this is something that we already knew. People with rheumatic arthritis, when they have a heart attack, are less likely to get the standard kind of treatments and have worse outcomes. This is a little larger sample, but it’s not a surprise, not a surprise at all.”

He noted that the study could have answered questions regarding potential drivers, but “they didn’t dig down into any of the factors that were associated with the poorer outcomes in the patients with rheumatoid arthritis and lupus and scleroderma.”

Indeed, the investigators acknowledge that the study lacked information on coronary anatomy, duration and severity of the autoimmune disease, imaging data, and medications such as anti-inflammatory or immune-targeted therapies.

Dr. Giles highlighted several factors that can contribute to a poorer post-MI prognosis in patients with rheumatic diseases; these include frailty, being more hypercoaguable, increased rates of myocardial dysfunction and other heart and blood vessel diseases, and chronic treatment with steroids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs that often interferes with anticoagulation after a MI or when putting in a stent. “So, there’s lot of moving parts, and not one single thing that is likely the answer.”

In addition, he said, “there’s always going to be a portion of these patients who, despite doing the best that we can with treatment, are going to have very severe disease. That may or may not be the subset of patients that did the worst, but likely they’re overrepresented in those patients.”

Finally, the inability to move the needle may lie with the lack of evidence-based screening and management guidelines for cardiovascular disease in any rheumatic disease, Dr. Giles observed. “There’s no guideline for us to use to decide who needs screening over and above what’s recommended for the general population, and then, even if you do screen, what do you do other than what you would normally?”

Rheumatologists are often reluctant to take up the cardiovascular screening side of things because visits are short, and a lot of that time is spent trying to manage the inflammatory components of a patient’s disease, he said. There’s also a barrier in getting some patients to add a cardiologist to the mix of physicians they already see, especially if they don’t have any symptoms.

“If someone has had an event, it’s a lot easier for people to be convinced to go see the cardiologist, obviously, but prior to having an event, the preventative side of things is something that often gets missed or goes to the wayside,” Dr. Giles said.

The study was partly funded by philanthropic gifts by the Haslam family, Bailey family, and Khouri family to the Cleveland Clinic for coauthor Dr. Milind Desai’s research. Dr. Desai is a consultant for Medtronic and Bristol Myers Squibb and serves on an executive steering committee of a BMS-sponsored trial. The remaining authors report having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Giles is a consultant on drug cardiovascular safety for Pfizer, AbbVie, and Eli Lilly.

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

Patients with a rheumatic immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID) had worse outcomes, especially for mortality, after a myocardial infarction than those without an IMID, in a large propensity-matched analysis.

At a median of 2 years after their MI, Medicare beneficiaries with an IMID had adjusted risks that were:

• 15% higher for all-cause death (hazard ratio, 1.15);
• 12% higher for heart failure (HR, 1.12);
• 8% higher for recurrent MI (HR, 1.08); and
• 6% higher risk for coronary reintervention (HR, 1.06; P < .05 for all).

In addition, interventions known to improve outcomes in this context, such as coronary revascularization, were less common in patients with IMID.

“This could be because they usually are sicker and have more risk factors when they present, like kidney disease, so maybe they’re not eligible for the therapy. But by itself, it was surprising they’re not offered these interventions as common[ly] as people who don’t have the disease,” Amgad Mentias, MD, a clinical cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

The study was published Sept. 14 in the Journal of the American Heart Association, with Dr. Mentias as senior author and Heba Wassif, MD, MPH, also with Cleveland Clinic, as first author.

IMIDs, such as rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, lupus, and inflammatory bowel disease, are known to be associated with significantly higher cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk due to a greater prevalence of traditional CVD risk factors and chronic systemic inflammation.

Certain disease-modifying agents may also increase patients’ cardiovascular risk. This has been a long-simmering issue for the arthritis and ulcerative colitis drug tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR), resulting in an updated boxed warning in 2021.

Many of these patients also have joint disease, pain, and fatigue, which can limit physical activity, Dr. Mentias said. “So these small nuances of how to manage these patients, or balance between controlling the inflammation but also improv[ing] cardiac risk factors, is not an easy task.”

Evidence regarding post-MI events has been inconsistent and limited to smaller single-center studies, he said. After propensity-score matching, the present study included 59,820 patients with and 178,547 patients without rheumatic IMIDs followed for a maximum of 6 years.

They were drawn from a cohort of 1.6 million persons aged 65 or older in the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MedPAR) file who had been admitted for an MI between 2014 and 2019. Of these, 60,072 had a prior history of rheumatic IMIDs, most commonly rheumatoid arthritis (77.8%), followed by systemic lupus erythematosus (12.2%), psoriasis (5.1%), systemic sclerosis (2.8%), and myositis/dermatomyositis (1.8%).

Patients with an IMID were more often women; had a higher prevalence of valve disease, pulmonary hypertension, hypothyroidism, and anemia; and were more likely to present with non–ST-segment MI (NSTEMI).

Rates of coronary angiography (46.1% vs. 51.5%), percutaneous coronary intervention (31.6% vs. 33.6%), and coronary artery bypass grafting (7.7% vs. 10.7%) were significantly lower in patients with IMIDs who had NSTEMI, compared with patients without an IMID who had NSTEMI. Rates of these interventions were also lower in patients with IMIDs who presented with STEMI versus their peers without an IMID, at 78.2% vs. 80.7%, 70.2% vs. 71.5%, and 4.9% vs. 6.4%, respectively.

Dr. Mentias pointed out that the emerging subspecialty of cardiorheumatology is gaining traction, especially at large hospitals and academic centers, but that less than one-third of persons in the United States with an IMID are likely to be under the care of such specialists.

“It’s important before developing an MI to try and control the different risk factors and improve the risk profile for these patients as much as possible by both specialties, and then, after an unfortunate event like MI happens, it’s important to make sure we offer therapies and treatments that are known to improve outcomes,” he said.

Commenting for this article, Jon Tyler Giles, MD, a clinical researcher who focuses on cardiovascular diseases in rheumatology at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, said that “at least for rheumatoid arthritis, this is something that we already knew. People with rheumatic arthritis, when they have a heart attack, are less likely to get the standard kind of treatments and have worse outcomes. This is a little larger sample, but it’s not a surprise, not a surprise at all.”

He noted that the study could have answered questions regarding potential drivers, but “they didn’t dig down into any of the factors that were associated with the poorer outcomes in the patients with rheumatoid arthritis and lupus and scleroderma.”

Indeed, the investigators acknowledge that the study lacked information on coronary anatomy, duration and severity of the autoimmune disease, imaging data, and medications such as anti-inflammatory or immune-targeted therapies.

Dr. Giles highlighted several factors that can contribute to a poorer post-MI prognosis in patients with rheumatic diseases; these include frailty, being more hypercoaguable, increased rates of myocardial dysfunction and other heart and blood vessel diseases, and chronic treatment with steroids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs that often interferes with anticoagulation after a MI or when putting in a stent. “So, there’s lot of moving parts, and not one single thing that is likely the answer.”

In addition, he said, “there’s always going to be a portion of these patients who, despite doing the best that we can with treatment, are going to have very severe disease. That may or may not be the subset of patients that did the worst, but likely they’re overrepresented in those patients.”

Finally, the inability to move the needle may lie with the lack of evidence-based screening and management guidelines for cardiovascular disease in any rheumatic disease, Dr. Giles observed. “There’s no guideline for us to use to decide who needs screening over and above what’s recommended for the general population, and then, even if you do screen, what do you do other than what you would normally?”

Rheumatologists are often reluctant to take up the cardiovascular screening side of things because visits are short, and a lot of that time is spent trying to manage the inflammatory components of a patient’s disease, he said. There’s also a barrier in getting some patients to add a cardiologist to the mix of physicians they already see, especially if they don’t have any symptoms.

“If someone has had an event, it’s a lot easier for people to be convinced to go see the cardiologist, obviously, but prior to having an event, the preventative side of things is something that often gets missed or goes to the wayside,” Dr. Giles said.

The study was partly funded by philanthropic gifts by the Haslam family, Bailey family, and Khouri family to the Cleveland Clinic for coauthor Dr. Milind Desai’s research. Dr. Desai is a consultant for Medtronic and Bristol Myers Squibb and serves on an executive steering committee of a BMS-sponsored trial. The remaining authors report having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Giles is a consultant on drug cardiovascular safety for Pfizer, AbbVie, and Eli Lilly.

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

MILAN – The day after deucravacitinib became the first TYK2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis, long-term data were presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, suggesting that a high degree of benefit persists for at least 2 years, making this oral drug a potential competitor for biologics.

As a once-daily drug, deucravacitinib has “the potential to be a treatment of choice and a new standard of care for patients who require systemic therapy for their moderate to severe plaque psoriasis,” said Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, professor of dermatology and dean of clinical therapeutics, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Just 2 months after the 52-week data from the phase 3 POETYK PSO-1 trial were published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, a long-term extension study found essentially no loss of benefit at 112 weeks, according to Dr. Lebwohl.

One of the two co-primary endpoints was a 75% clearance on the Psoriasis and Severity Index (PASI75) score. At 52 weeks, 80.2% of patients on deucravacitinib had met this criterion of benefit. At 112 weeks, the proportion was 84.4%.

The other primary endpoint was a static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) score of clear or almost clear skin. The proportion of patients meeting this criterion at weeks 52 and 112 weeks were 65.6% and 67.6%, respectively.

When assessed by Treatment Failure Rule (TFR) or modified nonresponder imputation (mNRI), results were similar. For both, the primary endpoints at every time interval were just one or two percentage points lower but not clinically meaningfully different, according to Dr. Lebwohl.

The same type of sustained response out to 112 weeks was observed in multiple analyses. When the researchers isolated the subgroup of patients who had achieved a PASI 75 response at 16 weeks (100%), there was a modest decline in the PASI 75 rate at week 52 (90.2%) but then no additional decline at week 112 (91.3%).

There were essentially no changes in the PASI 90 rates at week 16 (63%), week 52 (65.3%), and week 112 (63.1%), Dr. Lebwohl reported. PASI 100 rates, once achieved, were sustained long term.

The target, TYK2, is one of four Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. Until now, almost all JAK inhibitors have had greater relative specificity for JAK 1, JAK 2, and JAK 3, but several inhibitors of TYK2 inhibitors other than deucravacitinib are in development for inflammatory diseases. Deucravacitinib (Sotyktu), approved by the Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 9, is the only TYK2 inhibitor with regulatory approval for plaque psoriasis.

In the POETYK PSO-1 trial, 666 patients were initially randomized in a 2:1:1 ratio to 6 mg deucravacitinib (now the approved dose), placebo, or the oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor apremilast. At week 16, patients on placebo were switched over to deucravacitinib. At week 24, patients who did not achieve a PASI 50 on apremilast (which had been titrated to 10 mg daily to 30 mg twice a day over the first 5 days of dosing) were switched to deucravacitinib.

In the previously reported data, deucravacitinib was superior for all efficacy endpoints at week 16, including an analysis of quality of life when compared with placebo (P < .0001) or apremilast (P = .0088). At week 52, after having been switched to deucravacitinib at week 16, patients on placebo achieved comparable responses on the efficacy measures in this study, including PASI75.

Relative to JAK inhibitors commonly used in rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory diseases, the greater specificity of deucravacitinib for TYK2 appears to have meaningful safety advantages, according to Dr. Lebwohl. Targeted mostly on the TYK2 regulatory domain, deucravacitinib largely avoids inhibition of the JAK 1, 2, and 3 subtypes. Dr. Lebwohl said this explains why deucravacitinib labeling does not share the boxed warnings about off-target effects, such as those on the cardiovascular system, that can be found in the labeling of other JAK inhibitors.

In the published 52-week data, the discontinuation rate for adverse events was lower in the group randomized to deucravacitinib arm than in the placebo arm. In the extended follow-up, there were no new signals for adverse events, including those involving the CV system or immune function.

The key message so far from the long-term follow-up, which is ongoing, is that “continuous treatment with deucravacitinib is associated with durable efficacy,” Dr. Lebwohl said. It is this combination of sustained efficacy and safety that led Dr. Lebwohl to suggest it as a reasonable oral competitor to injectable biologics.

“Patients now have a choice,” he said.

Jashin J. Wu, MD, a board member of the National Psoriasis Foundation and an associate professor in the department of dermatology, University of Miami, has been following the development of deucravacitinib. He said that the recent FDA approval validates the clinical evidence of benefit and safety, while the long-term data presented at the EADV congress support its role in expanding treatment options.

“Deucravacitinib is a very effective oral agent for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis with strong maintenance of effect through week 112,” he said. Differentiating it from other JAK inhibitors, the FDA approval “confirms the safety of this agent as there is no boxed warning,” he added.

Dr. Lebwohl reports financial relationships with more than 30 pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, the manufacturer of deucravacitinib. Dr. Wu has financial relationships with 14 pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, but he was not an investigator for the phase 3 trials of deucravacitinib.

MILAN – The day after deucravacitinib became the first TYK2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis, long-term data were presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, suggesting that a high degree of benefit persists for at least 2 years, making this oral drug a potential competitor for biologics.

As a once-daily drug, deucravacitinib has “the potential to be a treatment of choice and a new standard of care for patients who require systemic therapy for their moderate to severe plaque psoriasis,” said Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, professor of dermatology and dean of clinical therapeutics, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Just 2 months after the 52-week data from the phase 3 POETYK PSO-1 trial were published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, a long-term extension study found essentially no loss of benefit at 112 weeks, according to Dr. Lebwohl.

One of the two co-primary endpoints was a 75% clearance on the Psoriasis and Severity Index (PASI75) score. At 52 weeks, 80.2% of patients on deucravacitinib had met this criterion of benefit. At 112 weeks, the proportion was 84.4%.

The other primary endpoint was a static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) score of clear or almost clear skin. The proportion of patients meeting this criterion at weeks 52 and 112 weeks were 65.6% and 67.6%, respectively.

When assessed by Treatment Failure Rule (TFR) or modified nonresponder imputation (mNRI), results were similar. For both, the primary endpoints at every time interval were just one or two percentage points lower but not clinically meaningfully different, according to Dr. Lebwohl.

The same type of sustained response out to 112 weeks was observed in multiple analyses. When the researchers isolated the subgroup of patients who had achieved a PASI 75 response at 16 weeks (100%), there was a modest decline in the PASI 75 rate at week 52 (90.2%) but then no additional decline at week 112 (91.3%).

There were essentially no changes in the PASI 90 rates at week 16 (63%), week 52 (65.3%), and week 112 (63.1%), Dr. Lebwohl reported. PASI 100 rates, once achieved, were sustained long term.

The target, TYK2, is one of four Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. Until now, almost all JAK inhibitors have had greater relative specificity for JAK 1, JAK 2, and JAK 3, but several inhibitors of TYK2 inhibitors other than deucravacitinib are in development for inflammatory diseases. Deucravacitinib (Sotyktu), approved by the Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 9, is the only TYK2 inhibitor with regulatory approval for plaque psoriasis.

In the POETYK PSO-1 trial, 666 patients were initially randomized in a 2:1:1 ratio to 6 mg deucravacitinib (now the approved dose), placebo, or the oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor apremilast. At week 16, patients on placebo were switched over to deucravacitinib. At week 24, patients who did not achieve a PASI 50 on apremilast (which had been titrated to 10 mg daily to 30 mg twice a day over the first 5 days of dosing) were switched to deucravacitinib.

In the previously reported data, deucravacitinib was superior for all efficacy endpoints at week 16, including an analysis of quality of life when compared with placebo (P < .0001) or apremilast (P = .0088). At week 52, after having been switched to deucravacitinib at week 16, patients on placebo achieved comparable responses on the efficacy measures in this study, including PASI75.

Relative to JAK inhibitors commonly used in rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory diseases, the greater specificity of deucravacitinib for TYK2 appears to have meaningful safety advantages, according to Dr. Lebwohl. Targeted mostly on the TYK2 regulatory domain, deucravacitinib largely avoids inhibition of the JAK 1, 2, and 3 subtypes. Dr. Lebwohl said this explains why deucravacitinib labeling does not share the boxed warnings about off-target effects, such as those on the cardiovascular system, that can be found in the labeling of other JAK inhibitors.

In the published 52-week data, the discontinuation rate for adverse events was lower in the group randomized to deucravacitinib arm than in the placebo arm. In the extended follow-up, there were no new signals for adverse events, including those involving the CV system or immune function.

The key message so far from the long-term follow-up, which is ongoing, is that “continuous treatment with deucravacitinib is associated with durable efficacy,” Dr. Lebwohl said. It is this combination of sustained efficacy and safety that led Dr. Lebwohl to suggest it as a reasonable oral competitor to injectable biologics.

“Patients now have a choice,” he said.

Jashin J. Wu, MD, a board member of the National Psoriasis Foundation and an associate professor in the department of dermatology, University of Miami, has been following the development of deucravacitinib. He said that the recent FDA approval validates the clinical evidence of benefit and safety, while the long-term data presented at the EADV congress support its role in expanding treatment options.

“Deucravacitinib is a very effective oral agent for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis with strong maintenance of effect through week 112,” he said. Differentiating it from other JAK inhibitors, the FDA approval “confirms the safety of this agent as there is no boxed warning,” he added.

Dr. Lebwohl reports financial relationships with more than 30 pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, the manufacturer of deucravacitinib. Dr. Wu has financial relationships with 14 pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, but he was not an investigator for the phase 3 trials of deucravacitinib.

MILAN – The day after deucravacitinib became the first TYK2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis, long-term data were presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, suggesting that a high degree of benefit persists for at least 2 years, making this oral drug a potential competitor for biologics.

As a once-daily drug, deucravacitinib has “the potential to be a treatment of choice and a new standard of care for patients who require systemic therapy for their moderate to severe plaque psoriasis,” said Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, professor of dermatology and dean of clinical therapeutics, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Just 2 months after the 52-week data from the phase 3 POETYK PSO-1 trial were published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, a long-term extension study found essentially no loss of benefit at 112 weeks, according to Dr. Lebwohl.

One of the two co-primary endpoints was a 75% clearance on the Psoriasis and Severity Index (PASI75) score. At 52 weeks, 80.2% of patients on deucravacitinib had met this criterion of benefit. At 112 weeks, the proportion was 84.4%.

The other primary endpoint was a static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) score of clear or almost clear skin. The proportion of patients meeting this criterion at weeks 52 and 112 weeks were 65.6% and 67.6%, respectively.

When assessed by Treatment Failure Rule (TFR) or modified nonresponder imputation (mNRI), results were similar. For both, the primary endpoints at every time interval were just one or two percentage points lower but not clinically meaningfully different, according to Dr. Lebwohl.

The same type of sustained response out to 112 weeks was observed in multiple analyses. When the researchers isolated the subgroup of patients who had achieved a PASI 75 response at 16 weeks (100%), there was a modest decline in the PASI 75 rate at week 52 (90.2%) but then no additional decline at week 112 (91.3%).

There were essentially no changes in the PASI 90 rates at week 16 (63%), week 52 (65.3%), and week 112 (63.1%), Dr. Lebwohl reported. PASI 100 rates, once achieved, were sustained long term.

The target, TYK2, is one of four Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. Until now, almost all JAK inhibitors have had greater relative specificity for JAK 1, JAK 2, and JAK 3, but several inhibitors of TYK2 inhibitors other than deucravacitinib are in development for inflammatory diseases. Deucravacitinib (Sotyktu), approved by the Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 9, is the only TYK2 inhibitor with regulatory approval for plaque psoriasis.

In the POETYK PSO-1 trial, 666 patients were initially randomized in a 2:1:1 ratio to 6 mg deucravacitinib (now the approved dose), placebo, or the oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor apremilast. At week 16, patients on placebo were switched over to deucravacitinib. At week 24, patients who did not achieve a PASI 50 on apremilast (which had been titrated to 10 mg daily to 30 mg twice a day over the first 5 days of dosing) were switched to deucravacitinib.

In the previously reported data, deucravacitinib was superior for all efficacy endpoints at week 16, including an analysis of quality of life when compared with placebo (P < .0001) or apremilast (P = .0088). At week 52, after having been switched to deucravacitinib at week 16, patients on placebo achieved comparable responses on the efficacy measures in this study, including PASI75.

Relative to JAK inhibitors commonly used in rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory diseases, the greater specificity of deucravacitinib for TYK2 appears to have meaningful safety advantages, according to Dr. Lebwohl. Targeted mostly on the TYK2 regulatory domain, deucravacitinib largely avoids inhibition of the JAK 1, 2, and 3 subtypes. Dr. Lebwohl said this explains why deucravacitinib labeling does not share the boxed warnings about off-target effects, such as those on the cardiovascular system, that can be found in the labeling of other JAK inhibitors.

In the published 52-week data, the discontinuation rate for adverse events was lower in the group randomized to deucravacitinib arm than in the placebo arm. In the extended follow-up, there were no new signals for adverse events, including those involving the CV system or immune function.

The key message so far from the long-term follow-up, which is ongoing, is that “continuous treatment with deucravacitinib is associated with durable efficacy,” Dr. Lebwohl said. It is this combination of sustained efficacy and safety that led Dr. Lebwohl to suggest it as a reasonable oral competitor to injectable biologics.

“Patients now have a choice,” he said.

Jashin J. Wu, MD, a board member of the National Psoriasis Foundation and an associate professor in the department of dermatology, University of Miami, has been following the development of deucravacitinib. He said that the recent FDA approval validates the clinical evidence of benefit and safety, while the long-term data presented at the EADV congress support its role in expanding treatment options.

“Deucravacitinib is a very effective oral agent for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis with strong maintenance of effect through week 112,” he said. Differentiating it from other JAK inhibitors, the FDA approval “confirms the safety of this agent as there is no boxed warning,” he added.

Dr. Lebwohl reports financial relationships with more than 30 pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, the manufacturer of deucravacitinib. Dr. Wu has financial relationships with 14 pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, but he was not an investigator for the phase 3 trials of deucravacitinib.

Deucravacitinib, an oral, selective tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor, has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy, the manufacturer announced on Sept. 9.

Deucravacitinib targets TYK2, which inhibits signaling of interleukin-23, interleukin-12, and type 1 interferons, key cytokines involved in the pathogenesis of multiple immune-mediated diseases, according to Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS). This is the first approval for deucravacitinib, which will be marketed as Sotyktu, and the first drug in this class to be approved.

It is also currently under review for the same indication in Europe and Japan, and elsewhere, and for treating pustular psoriasis and erythrodermic psoriasis in Japan.

FDA approval was based on the results of POETYK PSO-1 and POETYK PSO-2, phase 3 trials of almost 1,700 adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. In these studies, treatment with once-daily deucravacitinib showed significant and clinically meaningful improvements in skin clearance and symptoms, compared with placebo and with apremilast (Otezla), according to the company.

In the two studies, patients were randomly assigned to receive 6 mg daily of deucravacitinib, placebo, or a 30-mg twice-daily dose of apremilast, the oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor approved for psoriasis. The primary endpoints were the percentage of patients who achieved a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 response and a static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) at 16 weeks.

At 16 weeks, 58% and 53% of patients receiving deucravacitinib in the POETYK PSO-1 and POETYK PSO-2 studies, respectively, achieved PASI 75 response, compared with 13% and 9% of those receiving placebo (P < .0001 for both) and 35% and 40% receiving apremilast (P < .0001, P = .0004, respectively), according to the company’s announcement of the approval. PASI 75 responses were maintained through 52 weeks among the patients who remained on treatment, in both studies, according to BMS.

In the POETYK PSO-1 and PSO-2 studies, respectively, 54% and 50% of those on deucravacitinib achieved an sPGA of 0/1 at 16 weeks, compared with 7% and 9% of those receiving placebo (P < .0001 for both) and 32% and 34% of those receiving apremilast (P < .0001 for both).

Across the two studies, at 16 weeks, the most common adverse events that affected at least 1% of patients on deucravacitinib and that occurred at higher rates than in the placebo group were upper respiratory infections (19.2%), increases in serum creatine phosphokinase (2.7%), herpes simplex (2%), mouth ulcers (1.9%), folliculitis (1.7%), and acne (1.4%). Adverse events resulting in discontinuation of treatment were reported in 2.4% of persons receiving deucravacitinib and 5.2% of those receiving apremilast, compared with 3.8% of those receiving placebo.

Up to 16 weeks, according to the BMS statement, 28% of persons receiving deucravacitinib had infections, most of which were mild to moderate and not serious and did not result in stopping treatment, compared with 22% of those receiving placebo. In addition, five patients treated with deucravacitinib and five patients receiving placebo had serious infections, and three patients receiving deucravacitinib had cancer (not including nonmelanoma skin cancer).

Deucravacitinib is also being evaluated in clinical trials for psoriatic arthritis, lupus, and inflammatory bowel disease. It is not recommended for use in combination with other potent immunosuppressants, according to BMS.

The prescribing information and patient medication guide are available online.

The POETYK PSO-1 and POETYK PSO-2 studies were funded by Bristol Myers Squibb.

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

Deucravacitinib, an oral, selective tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor, has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy, the manufacturer announced on Sept. 9.

Deucravacitinib targets TYK2, which inhibits signaling of interleukin-23, interleukin-12, and type 1 interferons, key cytokines involved in the pathogenesis of multiple immune-mediated diseases, according to Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS). This is the first approval for deucravacitinib, which will be marketed as Sotyktu, and the first drug in this class to be approved.

It is also currently under review for the same indication in Europe and Japan, and elsewhere, and for treating pustular psoriasis and erythrodermic psoriasis in Japan.

FDA approval was based on the results of POETYK PSO-1 and POETYK PSO-2, phase 3 trials of almost 1,700 adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. In these studies, treatment with once-daily deucravacitinib showed significant and clinically meaningful improvements in skin clearance and symptoms, compared with placebo and with apremilast (Otezla), according to the company.

In the two studies, patients were randomly assigned to receive 6 mg daily of deucravacitinib, placebo, or a 30-mg twice-daily dose of apremilast, the oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor approved for psoriasis. The primary endpoints were the percentage of patients who achieved a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 response and a static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) at 16 weeks.

At 16 weeks, 58% and 53% of patients receiving deucravacitinib in the POETYK PSO-1 and POETYK PSO-2 studies, respectively, achieved PASI 75 response, compared with 13% and 9% of those receiving placebo (P < .0001 for both) and 35% and 40% receiving apremilast (P < .0001, P = .0004, respectively), according to the company’s announcement of the approval. PASI 75 responses were maintained through 52 weeks among the patients who remained on treatment, in both studies, according to BMS.

In the POETYK PSO-1 and PSO-2 studies, respectively, 54% and 50% of those on deucravacitinib achieved an sPGA of 0/1 at 16 weeks, compared with 7% and 9% of those receiving placebo (P < .0001 for both) and 32% and 34% of those receiving apremilast (P < .0001 for both).

Across the two studies, at 16 weeks, the most common adverse events that affected at least 1% of patients on deucravacitinib and that occurred at higher rates than in the placebo group were upper respiratory infections (19.2%), increases in serum creatine phosphokinase (2.7%), herpes simplex (2%), mouth ulcers (1.9%), folliculitis (1.7%), and acne (1.4%). Adverse events resulting in discontinuation of treatment were reported in 2.4% of persons receiving deucravacitinib and 5.2% of those receiving apremilast, compared with 3.8% of those receiving placebo.

Up to 16 weeks, according to the BMS statement, 28% of persons receiving deucravacitinib had infections, most of which were mild to moderate and not serious and did not result in stopping treatment, compared with 22% of those receiving placebo. In addition, five patients treated with deucravacitinib and five patients receiving placebo had serious infections, and three patients receiving deucravacitinib had cancer (not including nonmelanoma skin cancer).

Deucravacitinib is also being evaluated in clinical trials for psoriatic arthritis, lupus, and inflammatory bowel disease. It is not recommended for use in combination with other potent immunosuppressants, according to BMS.

The prescribing information and patient medication guide are available online.

The POETYK PSO-1 and POETYK PSO-2 studies were funded by Bristol Myers Squibb.

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

Deucravacitinib, an oral, selective tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor, has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy, the manufacturer announced on Sept. 9.

Deucravacitinib targets TYK2, which inhibits signaling of interleukin-23, interleukin-12, and type 1 interferons, key cytokines involved in the pathogenesis of multiple immune-mediated diseases, according to Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS). This is the first approval for deucravacitinib, which will be marketed as Sotyktu, and the first drug in this class to be approved.

It is also currently under review for the same indication in Europe and Japan, and elsewhere, and for treating pustular psoriasis and erythrodermic psoriasis in Japan.

FDA approval was based on the results of POETYK PSO-1 and POETYK PSO-2, phase 3 trials of almost 1,700 adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. In these studies, treatment with once-daily deucravacitinib showed significant and clinically meaningful improvements in skin clearance and symptoms, compared with placebo and with apremilast (Otezla), according to the company.

In the two studies, patients were randomly assigned to receive 6 mg daily of deucravacitinib, placebo, or a 30-mg twice-daily dose of apremilast, the oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor approved for psoriasis. The primary endpoints were the percentage of patients who achieved a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 response and a static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) at 16 weeks.

At 16 weeks, 58% and 53% of patients receiving deucravacitinib in the POETYK PSO-1 and POETYK PSO-2 studies, respectively, achieved PASI 75 response, compared with 13% and 9% of those receiving placebo (P < .0001 for both) and 35% and 40% receiving apremilast (P < .0001, P = .0004, respectively), according to the company’s announcement of the approval. PASI 75 responses were maintained through 52 weeks among the patients who remained on treatment, in both studies, according to BMS.

In the POETYK PSO-1 and PSO-2 studies, respectively, 54% and 50% of those on deucravacitinib achieved an sPGA of 0/1 at 16 weeks, compared with 7% and 9% of those receiving placebo (P < .0001 for both) and 32% and 34% of those receiving apremilast (P < .0001 for both).

Across the two studies, at 16 weeks, the most common adverse events that affected at least 1% of patients on deucravacitinib and that occurred at higher rates than in the placebo group were upper respiratory infections (19.2%), increases in serum creatine phosphokinase (2.7%), herpes simplex (2%), mouth ulcers (1.9%), folliculitis (1.7%), and acne (1.4%). Adverse events resulting in discontinuation of treatment were reported in 2.4% of persons receiving deucravacitinib and 5.2% of those receiving apremilast, compared with 3.8% of those receiving placebo.

Up to 16 weeks, according to the BMS statement, 28% of persons receiving deucravacitinib had infections, most of which were mild to moderate and not serious and did not result in stopping treatment, compared with 22% of those receiving placebo. In addition, five patients treated with deucravacitinib and five patients receiving placebo had serious infections, and three patients receiving deucravacitinib had cancer (not including nonmelanoma skin cancer).

Deucravacitinib is also being evaluated in clinical trials for psoriatic arthritis, lupus, and inflammatory bowel disease. It is not recommended for use in combination with other potent immunosuppressants, according to BMS.

The prescribing information and patient medication guide are available online.

The POETYK PSO-1 and POETYK PSO-2 studies were funded by Bristol Myers Squibb.

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

A new study provides evidence that two conditions that fall under the umbrella of spondyloarthritis – isolated axial disease in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and isolated axial disease in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) accompanied by psoriasis – are different clinical entities and may need different treatments. These relatively rare rheumatologic conditions, defined by their back involvement, have considerable clinical overlap and are often lumped together under the label axial spondyloarthritis.

This is a hot topic and current matter of debate within the scientific community: Are axial PsA and axial AS two separate diseases or just two phenotypes under the spondyloarthritis umbrella? said Fabian Proft, MD, a rheumatologist and researcher at Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, commenting on the new study, which was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

Both conditions belong to the spectrum of spondyloarthritis, but with varying viewpoints on nomenclature. They have intersections and overlaps, but not all treatments are equally effective for both. “We need to better understand their differences and similarities,” Dr. Proft said, adding that the new study is noteworthy for the size of the population included, its long-term follow-up data, and the researchers’ depth of experience treating these patients.

The researchers are based at the University of Toronto, which has separate clinics dedicated to PsA and to AS, said Dafna D. Gladman, MD, professor of medicine at the university, codirector of the PsA clinic, and corresponding author for the new study. The two clinics follow the same standardized protocols, including clinical, radiographic, genetic, and laboratory assessments. Even though the patients present quite similarly, she credits referring physicians for recognizing the distinctions by their referrals to the PsA or AS clinic.

According to previous research, pure axial PsA, without peripheral involvement, is rare, affecting about 2%-5% of patients with PsA. For this study, an observational cohort of 1,576 patients from the PsA clinic included 31% (n = 495) with axial disease, 2% (n = 32) with isolated axial PsA, and 29% (n = 463) with both axial and peripheral involvement. A total of 25 of the patients with isolated axial PsA ultimately developed peripheral disease by their most recent clinic follow-up visit. In a second cohort of 1,688 patients with AS, nearly 5% (n = 68) had isolated axial disease with psoriasis.

“In our logistic regression analysis, isolated axial PsA was found to be a different clinical entity than isolated AS with psoriasis. They are not the same patients,” Dr. Gladman said. The patients with isolated axial PsA were older at diagnosis, more likely to have psoriatic nail lesions, and less likely to have inflammatory back pain than were patients with isolated axial AS and accompanying psoriasis.

When interviewed in early September, Dr. Gladman was preparing to fly to Ghent, Belgium, to participate in a debate at the International Congress on Spondyloarthritides, taking the pro position on the thesis: Is axial inflammation in PsA distinct from axial spondyloarthritis? Taking the con position was to be Robert Landewé, MD, PhD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center in the Netherlands.

“This is an old debate, splitters versus lumpers,” Dr. Gladman told this news organization. “My message is that when you place patients in more homogeneous groups, you can learn more and perhaps find better opportunities for treating their disease.” For example, even with the similarities, do these patients need to be treated with different medications? Medications for psoriasis, including those targeting the interleukin-23 cytokine, may not be effective for AS, but patients with axial PsA may not get them because of the association with axial AS.

“Now is the opportunity to really understand what – if any – are the differences between various components of this disease group. If you lump people together, you may miss the forest for the trees,” Dr. Gladman said. “If, at the end of the day, we find out these patients essentially are the same, I will lump. But until we have proved that there are no important differences, I will split.” She added that it is important for practicing rheumatologists to make the correct diagnosis so that they know to access certain drugs.

Dr. Proft credited Dr. Gladman and colleagues’ study for adding another piece of the puzzle to better understand differences and similarities for these two axial diseases. He noted, however, that the study did not include MRI scans for every participating patient, which could have given a deeper picture.

“International efforts are being made to recruit patients for a multinational, multicenter study of axial involvement in PsA,” which will include MRI data, Dr. Gladman said. She and Dr. Proft are both part of AXIS, the Axial Involvement in Psoriatic Arthritis cohort, now recruiting patients for such a study. AXIS is a joint project of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society and the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

“We don’t have final answers yet, although we have given evidence to support the differences.” The proof is in the pudding, she said, and that pudding will be the clinical trials.

The University of Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Program is supported by a grant from the Krembil Foundation. The study authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Proft reported receiving research support from Novartis, Eli Lilly, and UCB, and fees for consulting and serving on speakers bureaus from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hexal, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

A new study provides evidence that two conditions that fall under the umbrella of spondyloarthritis – isolated axial disease in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and isolated axial disease in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) accompanied by psoriasis – are different clinical entities and may need different treatments. These relatively rare rheumatologic conditions, defined by their back involvement, have considerable clinical overlap and are often lumped together under the label axial spondyloarthritis.

This is a hot topic and current matter of debate within the scientific community: Are axial PsA and axial AS two separate diseases or just two phenotypes under the spondyloarthritis umbrella? said Fabian Proft, MD, a rheumatologist and researcher at Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, commenting on the new study, which was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

Both conditions belong to the spectrum of spondyloarthritis, but with varying viewpoints on nomenclature. They have intersections and overlaps, but not all treatments are equally effective for both. “We need to better understand their differences and similarities,” Dr. Proft said, adding that the new study is noteworthy for the size of the population included, its long-term follow-up data, and the researchers’ depth of experience treating these patients.

The researchers are based at the University of Toronto, which has separate clinics dedicated to PsA and to AS, said Dafna D. Gladman, MD, professor of medicine at the university, codirector of the PsA clinic, and corresponding author for the new study. The two clinics follow the same standardized protocols, including clinical, radiographic, genetic, and laboratory assessments. Even though the patients present quite similarly, she credits referring physicians for recognizing the distinctions by their referrals to the PsA or AS clinic.

According to previous research, pure axial PsA, without peripheral involvement, is rare, affecting about 2%-5% of patients with PsA. For this study, an observational cohort of 1,576 patients from the PsA clinic included 31% (n = 495) with axial disease, 2% (n = 32) with isolated axial PsA, and 29% (n = 463) with both axial and peripheral involvement. A total of 25 of the patients with isolated axial PsA ultimately developed peripheral disease by their most recent clinic follow-up visit. In a second cohort of 1,688 patients with AS, nearly 5% (n = 68) had isolated axial disease with psoriasis.

“In our logistic regression analysis, isolated axial PsA was found to be a different clinical entity than isolated AS with psoriasis. They are not the same patients,” Dr. Gladman said. The patients with isolated axial PsA were older at diagnosis, more likely to have psoriatic nail lesions, and less likely to have inflammatory back pain than were patients with isolated axial AS and accompanying psoriasis.

When interviewed in early September, Dr. Gladman was preparing to fly to Ghent, Belgium, to participate in a debate at the International Congress on Spondyloarthritides, taking the pro position on the thesis: Is axial inflammation in PsA distinct from axial spondyloarthritis? Taking the con position was to be Robert Landewé, MD, PhD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center in the Netherlands.

“This is an old debate, splitters versus lumpers,” Dr. Gladman told this news organization. “My message is that when you place patients in more homogeneous groups, you can learn more and perhaps find better opportunities for treating their disease.” For example, even with the similarities, do these patients need to be treated with different medications? Medications for psoriasis, including those targeting the interleukin-23 cytokine, may not be effective for AS, but patients with axial PsA may not get them because of the association with axial AS.

“Now is the opportunity to really understand what – if any – are the differences between various components of this disease group. If you lump people together, you may miss the forest for the trees,” Dr. Gladman said. “If, at the end of the day, we find out these patients essentially are the same, I will lump. But until we have proved that there are no important differences, I will split.” She added that it is important for practicing rheumatologists to make the correct diagnosis so that they know to access certain drugs.

Dr. Proft credited Dr. Gladman and colleagues’ study for adding another piece of the puzzle to better understand differences and similarities for these two axial diseases. He noted, however, that the study did not include MRI scans for every participating patient, which could have given a deeper picture.

“International efforts are being made to recruit patients for a multinational, multicenter study of axial involvement in PsA,” which will include MRI data, Dr. Gladman said. She and Dr. Proft are both part of AXIS, the Axial Involvement in Psoriatic Arthritis cohort, now recruiting patients for such a study. AXIS is a joint project of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society and the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

“We don’t have final answers yet, although we have given evidence to support the differences.” The proof is in the pudding, she said, and that pudding will be the clinical trials.

The University of Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Program is supported by a grant from the Krembil Foundation. The study authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Proft reported receiving research support from Novartis, Eli Lilly, and UCB, and fees for consulting and serving on speakers bureaus from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hexal, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

A new study provides evidence that two conditions that fall under the umbrella of spondyloarthritis – isolated axial disease in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and isolated axial disease in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) accompanied by psoriasis – are different clinical entities and may need different treatments. These relatively rare rheumatologic conditions, defined by their back involvement, have considerable clinical overlap and are often lumped together under the label axial spondyloarthritis.

This is a hot topic and current matter of debate within the scientific community: Are axial PsA and axial AS two separate diseases or just two phenotypes under the spondyloarthritis umbrella? said Fabian Proft, MD, a rheumatologist and researcher at Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, commenting on the new study, which was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

Both conditions belong to the spectrum of spondyloarthritis, but with varying viewpoints on nomenclature. They have intersections and overlaps, but not all treatments are equally effective for both. “We need to better understand their differences and similarities,” Dr. Proft said, adding that the new study is noteworthy for the size of the population included, its long-term follow-up data, and the researchers’ depth of experience treating these patients.

The researchers are based at the University of Toronto, which has separate clinics dedicated to PsA and to AS, said Dafna D. Gladman, MD, professor of medicine at the university, codirector of the PsA clinic, and corresponding author for the new study. The two clinics follow the same standardized protocols, including clinical, radiographic, genetic, and laboratory assessments. Even though the patients present quite similarly, she credits referring physicians for recognizing the distinctions by their referrals to the PsA or AS clinic.

According to previous research, pure axial PsA, without peripheral involvement, is rare, affecting about 2%-5% of patients with PsA. For this study, an observational cohort of 1,576 patients from the PsA clinic included 31% (n = 495) with axial disease, 2% (n = 32) with isolated axial PsA, and 29% (n = 463) with both axial and peripheral involvement. A total of 25 of the patients with isolated axial PsA ultimately developed peripheral disease by their most recent clinic follow-up visit. In a second cohort of 1,688 patients with AS, nearly 5% (n = 68) had isolated axial disease with psoriasis.

“In our logistic regression analysis, isolated axial PsA was found to be a different clinical entity than isolated AS with psoriasis. They are not the same patients,” Dr. Gladman said. The patients with isolated axial PsA were older at diagnosis, more likely to have psoriatic nail lesions, and less likely to have inflammatory back pain than were patients with isolated axial AS and accompanying psoriasis.

When interviewed in early September, Dr. Gladman was preparing to fly to Ghent, Belgium, to participate in a debate at the International Congress on Spondyloarthritides, taking the pro position on the thesis: Is axial inflammation in PsA distinct from axial spondyloarthritis? Taking the con position was to be Robert Landewé, MD, PhD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center in the Netherlands.

“This is an old debate, splitters versus lumpers,” Dr. Gladman told this news organization. “My message is that when you place patients in more homogeneous groups, you can learn more and perhaps find better opportunities for treating their disease.” For example, even with the similarities, do these patients need to be treated with different medications? Medications for psoriasis, including those targeting the interleukin-23 cytokine, may not be effective for AS, but patients with axial PsA may not get them because of the association with axial AS.

“Now is the opportunity to really understand what – if any – are the differences between various components of this disease group. If you lump people together, you may miss the forest for the trees,” Dr. Gladman said. “If, at the end of the day, we find out these patients essentially are the same, I will lump. But until we have proved that there are no important differences, I will split.” She added that it is important for practicing rheumatologists to make the correct diagnosis so that they know to access certain drugs.

Dr. Proft credited Dr. Gladman and colleagues’ study for adding another piece of the puzzle to better understand differences and similarities for these two axial diseases. He noted, however, that the study did not include MRI scans for every participating patient, which could have given a deeper picture.

“International efforts are being made to recruit patients for a multinational, multicenter study of axial involvement in PsA,” which will include MRI data, Dr. Gladman said. She and Dr. Proft are both part of AXIS, the Axial Involvement in Psoriatic Arthritis cohort, now recruiting patients for such a study. AXIS is a joint project of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society and the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

“We don’t have final answers yet, although we have given evidence to support the differences.” The proof is in the pudding, she said, and that pudding will be the clinical trials.

The University of Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Program is supported by a grant from the Krembil Foundation. The study authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Proft reported receiving research support from Novartis, Eli Lilly, and UCB, and fees for consulting and serving on speakers bureaus from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hexal, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

Recent publications on psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have focused on targeted therapies, particularly those targeting interleukin (IL) 17 and 23. Bimekizumab is a novel biologic that dually inhibits IL-17A and IL-17F. Coates and colleagues reported 3-year results from the phase 2b BE ACTIVE trial that included 206 adults with active PsA randomly assigned to receive bimekizumab or placebo for 48 weeks, of which 184 patients were enrolled in the open-label extension phase for a further 104 weeks of treatment. They report that at least 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology score was maintained by 64.1% of patients at week 152 compared with 72.3% of patients at week 48. By week 152, 89.3% of patients had reported one or more treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), with serious TEAE being reported by 10.7% of patients. Fungal infections are of special interest when inhibiting both IL-17A and IL-17F. It was observed that 9.7% had fungal infections (all mild-to-moderate and localized), of which 4.6% had candidiasis. Thus, bimekizumab shows promise as a new therapy for PsA.

In addition to improving signs and symptoms, clinically meaningful improvement in health-related quality of life is an important goal of treatment. Two studies reported improvement in patient reported outcomes on treatment with IL-23 inhibitors.

An analysis of data from the phase 3 DISCOVER 2 trial included 738 biologic-naive patients with active PsA and inadequate response to standard treatments. These patients were randomly assigned to receive 100 mg guselkumab every 4 weeks (Q4W) or every 8 weeks (Q8W) or placebo. Curtis and colleagues showed that a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving guselkumab Q4W/Q8W vs placebo reported achieving minimally important differences (MID) in the EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) Index (56.0%/56.0% vs 43.4%; P < .006) and Visual Analog Scale (EQ-VAS) score (62.8%/63.5% vs 44.4%; P < .0001) at week 24, with more than 60% of patients reporting improvements at week 52.

Similarly, analyses of data by Kristensen and colleagues from two phase 3 trials, KEEPsAKE-1 and KEEPsAKE-2, included adults with PsA and inadequate response/intolerance to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or biologics. The patients were randomly assigned to receive risankizumab or placebo for 24 weeks and only risankizumab during weeks 24-52. At week 24, patients receiving risankizumab vs placebo were significantly more likely to report achieving MID in Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA) in both KEEPsAKE-1 (odds ratio [OR] 2.0; P < .001) and KEEPsAKE-2 (OR 1.9; P < .01) studies, with further improvement at week 52. Improvement was also seen on the Patient's Assessment of Pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire – Disability Index, Short-Form 36 Physical and Mental Component Summary scores, EQ-5D-5L, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy – Fatigue, and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment.

An interesting insight from two studies showed the importance of nail disease in predicting treatment response. A post hoc analysis by Helliwell and colleagues of the phase 3 SEAM-PsA trial of 851 biologic/methotrexate-naive patients with active PsA who were randomly assigned to receive methotrexate monotherapy, etanercept monotherapy, or methotrexate + etanercept combination therapy showed that the presence of both dactylitis and nail disease at baseline were significantly associated with the achievement of minimal disease activity (OR 1.4; P = .0457; and OR 1.8; P = .0233, respectively), as well as low PsA Disease Activity Score (OR 1.8; P = .0014; and OR 1.8; P = .0168, respectively).

Similarly, a post hoc analysis by Baraliakos and colleagues of the phase 3b MAXIMISE trial of 473 adult patients with PsA and axial manifestations who were randomly assigned to receive secukinumab (150 or 300 mg) or placebo showed that the presence vs the absence of nail dystrophy was associated with the achievement of significantly better Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society 20 response in the 300 mg secukinumab group (OR 5.0; 95% CI 1.47-17.19).

Recent publications on psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have focused on targeted therapies, particularly those targeting interleukin (IL) 17 and 23. Bimekizumab is a novel biologic that dually inhibits IL-17A and IL-17F. Coates and colleagues reported 3-year results from the phase 2b BE ACTIVE trial that included 206 adults with active PsA randomly assigned to receive bimekizumab or placebo for 48 weeks, of which 184 patients were enrolled in the open-label extension phase for a further 104 weeks of treatment. They report that at least 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology score was maintained by 64.1% of patients at week 152 compared with 72.3% of patients at week 48. By week 152, 89.3% of patients had reported one or more treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), with serious TEAE being reported by 10.7% of patients. Fungal infections are of special interest when inhibiting both IL-17A and IL-17F. It was observed that 9.7% had fungal infections (all mild-to-moderate and localized), of which 4.6% had candidiasis. Thus, bimekizumab shows promise as a new therapy for PsA.

In addition to improving signs and symptoms, clinically meaningful improvement in health-related quality of life is an important goal of treatment. Two studies reported improvement in patient reported outcomes on treatment with IL-23 inhibitors.

An analysis of data from the phase 3 DISCOVER 2 trial included 738 biologic-naive patients with active PsA and inadequate response to standard treatments. These patients were randomly assigned to receive 100 mg guselkumab every 4 weeks (Q4W) or every 8 weeks (Q8W) or placebo. Curtis and colleagues showed that a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving guselkumab Q4W/Q8W vs placebo reported achieving minimally important differences (MID) in the EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) Index (56.0%/56.0% vs 43.4%; P < .006) and Visual Analog Scale (EQ-VAS) score (62.8%/63.5% vs 44.4%; P < .0001) at week 24, with more than 60% of patients reporting improvements at week 52.

Similarly, analyses of data by Kristensen and colleagues from two phase 3 trials, KEEPsAKE-1 and KEEPsAKE-2, included adults with PsA and inadequate response/intolerance to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or biologics. The patients were randomly assigned to receive risankizumab or placebo for 24 weeks and only risankizumab during weeks 24-52. At week 24, patients receiving risankizumab vs placebo were significantly more likely to report achieving MID in Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA) in both KEEPsAKE-1 (odds ratio [OR] 2.0; P < .001) and KEEPsAKE-2 (OR 1.9; P < .01) studies, with further improvement at week 52. Improvement was also seen on the Patient's Assessment of Pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire – Disability Index, Short-Form 36 Physical and Mental Component Summary scores, EQ-5D-5L, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy – Fatigue, and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment.

An interesting insight from two studies showed the importance of nail disease in predicting treatment response. A post hoc analysis by Helliwell and colleagues of the phase 3 SEAM-PsA trial of 851 biologic/methotrexate-naive patients with active PsA who were randomly assigned to receive methotrexate monotherapy, etanercept monotherapy, or methotrexate + etanercept combination therapy showed that the presence of both dactylitis and nail disease at baseline were significantly associated with the achievement of minimal disease activity (OR 1.4; P = .0457; and OR 1.8; P = .0233, respectively), as well as low PsA Disease Activity Score (OR 1.8; P = .0014; and OR 1.8; P = .0168, respectively).

Similarly, a post hoc analysis by Baraliakos and colleagues of the phase 3b MAXIMISE trial of 473 adult patients with PsA and axial manifestations who were randomly assigned to receive secukinumab (150 or 300 mg) or placebo showed that the presence vs the absence of nail dystrophy was associated with the achievement of significantly better Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society 20 response in the 300 mg secukinumab group (OR 5.0; 95% CI 1.47-17.19).

Recent publications on psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have focused on targeted therapies, particularly those targeting interleukin (IL) 17 and 23. Bimekizumab is a novel biologic that dually inhibits IL-17A and IL-17F. Coates and colleagues reported 3-year results from the phase 2b BE ACTIVE trial that included 206 adults with active PsA randomly assigned to receive bimekizumab or placebo for 48 weeks, of which 184 patients were enrolled in the open-label extension phase for a further 104 weeks of treatment. They report that at least 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology score was maintained by 64.1% of patients at week 152 compared with 72.3% of patients at week 48. By week 152, 89.3% of patients had reported one or more treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), with serious TEAE being reported by 10.7% of patients. Fungal infections are of special interest when inhibiting both IL-17A and IL-17F. It was observed that 9.7% had fungal infections (all mild-to-moderate and localized), of which 4.6% had candidiasis. Thus, bimekizumab shows promise as a new therapy for PsA.

In addition to improving signs and symptoms, clinically meaningful improvement in health-related quality of life is an important goal of treatment. Two studies reported improvement in patient reported outcomes on treatment with IL-23 inhibitors.

An analysis of data from the phase 3 DISCOVER 2 trial included 738 biologic-naive patients with active PsA and inadequate response to standard treatments. These patients were randomly assigned to receive 100 mg guselkumab every 4 weeks (Q4W) or every 8 weeks (Q8W) or placebo. Curtis and colleagues showed that a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving guselkumab Q4W/Q8W vs placebo reported achieving minimally important differences (MID) in the EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) Index (56.0%/56.0% vs 43.4%; P < .006) and Visual Analog Scale (EQ-VAS) score (62.8%/63.5% vs 44.4%; P < .0001) at week 24, with more than 60% of patients reporting improvements at week 52.

Similarly, analyses of data by Kristensen and colleagues from two phase 3 trials, KEEPsAKE-1 and KEEPsAKE-2, included adults with PsA and inadequate response/intolerance to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or biologics. The patients were randomly assigned to receive risankizumab or placebo for 24 weeks and only risankizumab during weeks 24-52. At week 24, patients receiving risankizumab vs placebo were significantly more likely to report achieving MID in Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA) in both KEEPsAKE-1 (odds ratio [OR] 2.0; P < .001) and KEEPsAKE-2 (OR 1.9; P < .01) studies, with further improvement at week 52. Improvement was also seen on the Patient's Assessment of Pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire – Disability Index, Short-Form 36 Physical and Mental Component Summary scores, EQ-5D-5L, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy – Fatigue, and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment.

An interesting insight from two studies showed the importance of nail disease in predicting treatment response. A post hoc analysis by Helliwell and colleagues of the phase 3 SEAM-PsA trial of 851 biologic/methotrexate-naive patients with active PsA who were randomly assigned to receive methotrexate monotherapy, etanercept monotherapy, or methotrexate + etanercept combination therapy showed that the presence of both dactylitis and nail disease at baseline were significantly associated with the achievement of minimal disease activity (OR 1.4; P = .0457; and OR 1.8; P = .0233, respectively), as well as low PsA Disease Activity Score (OR 1.8; P = .0014; and OR 1.8; P = .0168, respectively).

Similarly, a post hoc analysis by Baraliakos and colleagues of the phase 3b MAXIMISE trial of 473 adult patients with PsA and axial manifestations who were randomly assigned to receive secukinumab (150 or 300 mg) or placebo showed that the presence vs the absence of nail dystrophy was associated with the achievement of significantly better Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society 20 response in the 300 mg secukinumab group (OR 5.0; 95% CI 1.47-17.19).

New research links the use of glucocorticoids with changes in white matter microstructure – which may explain the development of anxiety, depression, and other neuropsychiatric side effects related to these drugs, investigators say.

Results from a cross-sectional study showed that use of both systemic and inhaled glucocorticoids was associated with widespread reductions in fractional anisotropy (FA) and increases in mean diffusivity.

Glucocorticoids have “a whole catalogue” of adverse events, and effects on brain structure “adds to the list,” co-investigator Onno C. Meijer, PhD, professor of molecular neuroendocrinology of corticosteroids, department of medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands, told this news organization.

Serious side effects

Glucocorticoids, a class of synthetic steroids with immunosuppressive properties, are prescribed for a wide range of conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis and asthma.

However, they are also associated with potentially serious metabolic, cardiovascular, and musculoskeletal side effects as well as neuropsychiatric side effects such as depression, mania, and cognitive impairment.

About 1 in 3 patients exposed to “quite a lot of these drugs” will experience neuropsychiatric symptoms, Dr. Meijer said.

Most previous studies that investigated effects from high levels of glucocorticoids on brain structure have been small and involved selected populations, such as those with Cushing disease.

The new study included participants from the UK Biobank, a large population-based cohort. Participants had undergone imaging and did not have a history of psychiatric disease – although they could have conditions associated with glucocorticoid use, including anxiety, depression, mania, or delirium.

The analysis included 222 patients using oral or parenteral glucocorticoids at the time of imaging (systemic group), 557 using inhaled glucocorticoids, and 24,106 not using glucocorticoids (the control group).

Inhaled steroids target the lungs, whereas a steroid in pill form “travels in the blood and reaches each and every organ and cell in the body and typically requires higher doses,” Dr. Meijer noted.

The groups were similar with respect to sex, education, and smoking status. However, the systemic glucocorticoid group was slightly older (mean age, 66.1 years vs. 63.3 years for inhaled glucocorticoid users and 63.5 years for the control group).

In addition to age, researchers adjusted for sex, education level, head position in the scanner, head size, assessment center, and year of imaging.
 

Imaging analyses

Imaging analyses showed systemic glucocorticoid use was associated with reduced global FA (adjusted mean difference, -3.7e-3; 95% confidence interval, -6.4e-3 to 1.0e-3), and reductions in regional FA in the body and genu of the corpus callosum versus the control group.

Inhaled glucocorticoid use was associated with reduced global FA (AMD, -2.3e-3; 95% CI, -4.0e-3 to -5.7e-4), and lower FA in the splenium of the corpus callosum and the cingulum of the hippocampus.

Global mean diffusivity was higher in systemic glucocorticoid users (AMD, 7.2e-6; 95% CI, 3.2e-6 to 1.1e-5) and inhaled glucocorticoid users (AMD, 2.7e-6; 95% CI, 1.7e-7 to 5.2e-6), compared with the control group.

The effects of glucocorticoids on white matter were “pervasive,” and the “most important finding” of the study, Dr. Meijer said. “We were impressed by the fact white matter is so sensitive to these drugs.”

He noted that it is likely that functional connectivity between brain regions is affected by use of glucocorticoids. “You could say communication between brain regions is probably somewhat impaired or challenged,” he said.

Subgroup analyses among participants using glucocorticoids chronically, defined as reported at two consecutive visits, suggested a potential dose-dependent or duration-dependent effect of glucocorticoids on white matter microstructure.

Systemic glucocorticoid use was also associated with an increase in total and grey matter volume of the caudate nucleus.

In addition, there was a significant association between inhaled glucocorticoid use and decreased grey matter volume of the amygdala, which Dr. Meijer said was surprising because studies have shown that glucocorticoids “can drive amygdala big time.”
 

Move away from ‘one dose for all’?

Another surprise was that the results showed no hippocampal volume differences with steroid use, Dr. Meijer noted.

The modest association between glucocorticoid use and brain volumes could indicate that white matter integrity is more sensitive to glucocorticoids than is grey matter volume, “at least at the structural level,” he said.

He added that longer use or higher doses may be necessary to also induce volumetric changes.

Participants also completed a questionnaire to assess mood over the previous 2 weeks. Systemic glucocorticoid users had more depressive symptoms, disinterest, tenseness/restlessness, and tiredness/lethargy, compared with the control group. Inhaled glucocorticoid users only reported more tiredness/lethargy.

The investigators note that mood-related effects could be linked to the condition for which glucocorticoids were prescribed: for example, rheumatoid arthritis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

In terms of cognition, systemic glucocorticoid users performed significantly worse on the symbol digit substitution task, compared with participants in the control group.

In light of these findings, pharmaceutical companies that make inhaled corticosteroids “should perhaps find out if glucocorticoids can be dosed by kilogram body weight rather than simply one dose fits all,” which is currently the case, Dr. Meijer said.
 

Impressive, but several limitations

Commenting on the findings, E. Sherwood Brown, MD, PhD, Distinguished Chair in Psychiatric Research and professor and vice chair for clinical research, department of psychiatry, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, called the study sample size “impressive.”

In addition, the study is the first to look at systemic as well as inhaled corticosteroids, said Dr. Brown, who was not involved with the research. He noted that previously, there had been only case reports of psychiatric symptoms with inhaled corticosteroids.

That results are in the same direction but greater with systemic, compared with inhaled corticosteroids, is “particularly interesting” because this might suggest dose-dependent effects, Dr. Brown said.

He noted that cognitive differences were also only observed with systemic corticosteroids.

Some study observations, such as smaller amygdala volume with inhaled but not systemic corticosteroids, “are harder to understand,” said Dr. Brown.

However, he pointed out some study limitations. For example, data were apparently unavailable for verbal and declarative memory test data, despite corticosteroids probably affecting the hippocampus and causing memory changes.

Other drawbacks were that the dose and duration of corticosteroid use, as well as the medical histories of study participants, were not available, Dr. Brown said.

No study funding was reported. Dr. Meijer has received research grants and honorariums from Corcept Therapeutics and a speakers’ fee from Ipsen. Dr. Brown is on an advisory board for Sage Pharmaceuticals, which is developing neurosteroids (not corticosteroids) for mood disorders. He is also on a Medscape advisory board related to bipolar disorder.

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

New research links the use of glucocorticoids with changes in white matter microstructure – which may explain the development of anxiety, depression, and other neuropsychiatric side effects related to these drugs, investigators say.

Results from a cross-sectional study showed that use of both systemic and inhaled glucocorticoids was associated with widespread reductions in fractional anisotropy (FA) and increases in mean diffusivity.

Glucocorticoids have “a whole catalogue” of adverse events, and effects on brain structure “adds to the list,” co-investigator Onno C. Meijer, PhD, professor of molecular neuroendocrinology of corticosteroids, department of medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands, told this news organization.

Serious side effects

Glucocorticoids, a class of synthetic steroids with immunosuppressive properties, are prescribed for a wide range of conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis and asthma.

However, they are also associated with potentially serious metabolic, cardiovascular, and musculoskeletal side effects as well as neuropsychiatric side effects such as depression, mania, and cognitive impairment.

About 1 in 3 patients exposed to “quite a lot of these drugs” will experience neuropsychiatric symptoms, Dr. Meijer said.

Most previous studies that investigated effects from high levels of glucocorticoids on brain structure have been small and involved selected populations, such as those with Cushing disease.

The new study included participants from the UK Biobank, a large population-based cohort. Participants had undergone imaging and did not have a history of psychiatric disease – although they could have conditions associated with glucocorticoid use, including anxiety, depression, mania, or delirium.

The analysis included 222 patients using oral or parenteral glucocorticoids at the time of imaging (systemic group), 557 using inhaled glucocorticoids, and 24,106 not using glucocorticoids (the control group).

Inhaled steroids target the lungs, whereas a steroid in pill form “travels in the blood and reaches each and every organ and cell in the body and typically requires higher doses,” Dr. Meijer noted.

The groups were similar with respect to sex, education, and smoking status. However, the systemic glucocorticoid group was slightly older (mean age, 66.1 years vs. 63.3 years for inhaled glucocorticoid users and 63.5 years for the control group).

In addition to age, researchers adjusted for sex, education level, head position in the scanner, head size, assessment center, and year of imaging.
 

Imaging analyses

Imaging analyses showed systemic glucocorticoid use was associated with reduced global FA (adjusted mean difference, -3.7e-3; 95% confidence interval, -6.4e-3 to 1.0e-3), and reductions in regional FA in the body and genu of the corpus callosum versus the control group.

Inhaled glucocorticoid use was associated with reduced global FA (AMD, -2.3e-3; 95% CI, -4.0e-3 to -5.7e-4), and lower FA in the splenium of the corpus callosum and the cingulum of the hippocampus.

Global mean diffusivity was higher in systemic glucocorticoid users (AMD, 7.2e-6; 95% CI, 3.2e-6 to 1.1e-5) and inhaled glucocorticoid users (AMD, 2.7e-6; 95% CI, 1.7e-7 to 5.2e-6), compared with the control group.

The effects of glucocorticoids on white matter were “pervasive,” and the “most important finding” of the study, Dr. Meijer said. “We were impressed by the fact white matter is so sensitive to these drugs.”

He noted that it is likely that functional connectivity between brain regions is affected by use of glucocorticoids. “You could say communication between brain regions is probably somewhat impaired or challenged,” he said.

Subgroup analyses among participants using glucocorticoids chronically, defined as reported at two consecutive visits, suggested a potential dose-dependent or duration-dependent effect of glucocorticoids on white matter microstructure.

Systemic glucocorticoid use was also associated with an increase in total and grey matter volume of the caudate nucleus.

In addition, there was a significant association between inhaled glucocorticoid use and decreased grey matter volume of the amygdala, which Dr. Meijer said was surprising because studies have shown that glucocorticoids “can drive amygdala big time.”
 

Move away from ‘one dose for all’?

Another surprise was that the results showed no hippocampal volume differences with steroid use, Dr. Meijer noted.

The modest association between glucocorticoid use and brain volumes could indicate that white matter integrity is more sensitive to glucocorticoids than is grey matter volume, “at least at the structural level,” he said.

He added that longer use or higher doses may be necessary to also induce volumetric changes.

Participants also completed a questionnaire to assess mood over the previous 2 weeks. Systemic glucocorticoid users had more depressive symptoms, disinterest, tenseness/restlessness, and tiredness/lethargy, compared with the control group. Inhaled glucocorticoid users only reported more tiredness/lethargy.

The investigators note that mood-related effects could be linked to the condition for which glucocorticoids were prescribed: for example, rheumatoid arthritis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

In terms of cognition, systemic glucocorticoid users performed significantly worse on the symbol digit substitution task, compared with participants in the control group.

In light of these findings, pharmaceutical companies that make inhaled corticosteroids “should perhaps find out if glucocorticoids can be dosed by kilogram body weight rather than simply one dose fits all,” which is currently the case, Dr. Meijer said.
 

Impressive, but several limitations

Commenting on the findings, E. Sherwood Brown, MD, PhD, Distinguished Chair in Psychiatric Research and professor and vice chair for clinical research, department of psychiatry, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, called the study sample size “impressive.”

In addition, the study is the first to look at systemic as well as inhaled corticosteroids, said Dr. Brown, who was not involved with the research. He noted that previously, there had been only case reports of psychiatric symptoms with inhaled corticosteroids.

That results are in the same direction but greater with systemic, compared with inhaled corticosteroids, is “particularly interesting” because this might suggest dose-dependent effects, Dr. Brown said.

He noted that cognitive differences were also only observed with systemic corticosteroids.

Some study observations, such as smaller amygdala volume with inhaled but not systemic corticosteroids, “are harder to understand,” said Dr. Brown.

However, he pointed out some study limitations. For example, data were apparently unavailable for verbal and declarative memory test data, despite corticosteroids probably affecting the hippocampus and causing memory changes.

Other drawbacks were that the dose and duration of corticosteroid use, as well as the medical histories of study participants, were not available, Dr. Brown said.

No study funding was reported. Dr. Meijer has received research grants and honorariums from Corcept Therapeutics and a speakers’ fee from Ipsen. Dr. Brown is on an advisory board for Sage Pharmaceuticals, which is developing neurosteroids (not corticosteroids) for mood disorders. He is also on a Medscape advisory board related to bipolar disorder.

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

New research links the use of glucocorticoids with changes in white matter microstructure – which may explain the development of anxiety, depression, and other neuropsychiatric side effects related to these drugs, investigators say.

Results from a cross-sectional study showed that use of both systemic and inhaled glucocorticoids was associated with widespread reductions in fractional anisotropy (FA) and increases in mean diffusivity.

Glucocorticoids have “a whole catalogue” of adverse events, and effects on brain structure “adds to the list,” co-investigator Onno C. Meijer, PhD, professor of molecular neuroendocrinology of corticosteroids, department of medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands, told this news organization.

Serious side effects

Glucocorticoids, a class of synthetic steroids with immunosuppressive properties, are prescribed for a wide range of conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis and asthma.

However, they are also associated with potentially serious metabolic, cardiovascular, and musculoskeletal side effects as well as neuropsychiatric side effects such as depression, mania, and cognitive impairment.

About 1 in 3 patients exposed to “quite a lot of these drugs” will experience neuropsychiatric symptoms, Dr. Meijer said.

Most previous studies that investigated effects from high levels of glucocorticoids on brain structure have been small and involved selected populations, such as those with Cushing disease.

The new study included participants from the UK Biobank, a large population-based cohort. Participants had undergone imaging and did not have a history of psychiatric disease – although they could have conditions associated with glucocorticoid use, including anxiety, depression, mania, or delirium.

The analysis included 222 patients using oral or parenteral glucocorticoids at the time of imaging (systemic group), 557 using inhaled glucocorticoids, and 24,106 not using glucocorticoids (the control group).

Inhaled steroids target the lungs, whereas a steroid in pill form “travels in the blood and reaches each and every organ and cell in the body and typically requires higher doses,” Dr. Meijer noted.

The groups were similar with respect to sex, education, and smoking status. However, the systemic glucocorticoid group was slightly older (mean age, 66.1 years vs. 63.3 years for inhaled glucocorticoid users and 63.5 years for the control group).

In addition to age, researchers adjusted for sex, education level, head position in the scanner, head size, assessment center, and year of imaging.
 

Imaging analyses

Imaging analyses showed systemic glucocorticoid use was associated with reduced global FA (adjusted mean difference, -3.7e-3; 95% confidence interval, -6.4e-3 to 1.0e-3), and reductions in regional FA in the body and genu of the corpus callosum versus the control group.

Inhaled glucocorticoid use was associated with reduced global FA (AMD, -2.3e-3; 95% CI, -4.0e-3 to -5.7e-4), and lower FA in the splenium of the corpus callosum and the cingulum of the hippocampus.

Global mean diffusivity was higher in systemic glucocorticoid users (AMD, 7.2e-6; 95% CI, 3.2e-6 to 1.1e-5) and inhaled glucocorticoid users (AMD, 2.7e-6; 95% CI, 1.7e-7 to 5.2e-6), compared with the control group.

The effects of glucocorticoids on white matter were “pervasive,” and the “most important finding” of the study, Dr. Meijer said. “We were impressed by the fact white matter is so sensitive to these drugs.”

He noted that it is likely that functional connectivity between brain regions is affected by use of glucocorticoids. “You could say communication between brain regions is probably somewhat impaired or challenged,” he said.

Subgroup analyses among participants using glucocorticoids chronically, defined as reported at two consecutive visits, suggested a potential dose-dependent or duration-dependent effect of glucocorticoids on white matter microstructure.

Systemic glucocorticoid use was also associated with an increase in total and grey matter volume of the caudate nucleus.

In addition, there was a significant association between inhaled glucocorticoid use and decreased grey matter volume of the amygdala, which Dr. Meijer said was surprising because studies have shown that glucocorticoids “can drive amygdala big time.”
 

Move away from ‘one dose for all’?

Another surprise was that the results showed no hippocampal volume differences with steroid use, Dr. Meijer noted.

The modest association between glucocorticoid use and brain volumes could indicate that white matter integrity is more sensitive to glucocorticoids than is grey matter volume, “at least at the structural level,” he said.

He added that longer use or higher doses may be necessary to also induce volumetric changes.

Participants also completed a questionnaire to assess mood over the previous 2 weeks. Systemic glucocorticoid users had more depressive symptoms, disinterest, tenseness/restlessness, and tiredness/lethargy, compared with the control group. Inhaled glucocorticoid users only reported more tiredness/lethargy.

The investigators note that mood-related effects could be linked to the condition for which glucocorticoids were prescribed: for example, rheumatoid arthritis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

In terms of cognition, systemic glucocorticoid users performed significantly worse on the symbol digit substitution task, compared with participants in the control group.

In light of these findings, pharmaceutical companies that make inhaled corticosteroids “should perhaps find out if glucocorticoids can be dosed by kilogram body weight rather than simply one dose fits all,” which is currently the case, Dr. Meijer said.
 

Impressive, but several limitations

Commenting on the findings, E. Sherwood Brown, MD, PhD, Distinguished Chair in Psychiatric Research and professor and vice chair for clinical research, department of psychiatry, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, called the study sample size “impressive.”

In addition, the study is the first to look at systemic as well as inhaled corticosteroids, said Dr. Brown, who was not involved with the research. He noted that previously, there had been only case reports of psychiatric symptoms with inhaled corticosteroids.

That results are in the same direction but greater with systemic, compared with inhaled corticosteroids, is “particularly interesting” because this might suggest dose-dependent effects, Dr. Brown said.

He noted that cognitive differences were also only observed with systemic corticosteroids.

Some study observations, such as smaller amygdala volume with inhaled but not systemic corticosteroids, “are harder to understand,” said Dr. Brown.

However, he pointed out some study limitations. For example, data were apparently unavailable for verbal and declarative memory test data, despite corticosteroids probably affecting the hippocampus and causing memory changes.

Other drawbacks were that the dose and duration of corticosteroid use, as well as the medical histories of study participants, were not available, Dr. Brown said.

No study funding was reported. Dr. Meijer has received research grants and honorariums from Corcept Therapeutics and a speakers’ fee from Ipsen. Dr. Brown is on an advisory board for Sage Pharmaceuticals, which is developing neurosteroids (not corticosteroids) for mood disorders. He is also on a Medscape advisory board related to bipolar disorder.

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

Clinical research in rheumatology was suffering from an identity crisis of sorts 40 years ago. A lack of consensus across continents resulted in differing views about clinical outcome measures and judgments about treatments.

Patients were not allowed to be the generating source of a clinical outcome, according to Peter Tugwell, MSc, MD. “The only outcomes that were acceptable were clinician assessments, blood tests, and imaging,” said Dr. Tugwell, professor of medicine, epidemiology, and public health at the University of Ottawa (Ont.) and a practicing rheumatologist at Ottawa Hospital.

Clinicians were coming to different conclusions about patient responses to treatment when managing rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice.

OMERACT sought to address this lack of uniformity. This international group, formed in 1992, leverages stakeholder groups to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology endpoints through a consensus-building, data-driven format.

It was originally known as “Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials,” but its leaders have since broadened its scope to “Outcome Measures in Rheumatology.” Over the years, it has evolved into an international network that assesses measurement across a wide variety of intervention studies. Now 30 years old, the network spans 40 active working groups and has influenced work in patient outcomes across 500 peer-reviewed publications.

The network meets every 2 years to address what is always a challenging agenda, said Dr. Tugwell, one of its founding members and chair. “There’s lots of strong opinions.” Participating in the discussions are individuals from all stages of seniority in rheumatology and clinical epidemiology, patient research partners, industry, approval agencies, and many countries who are committed to the spirit of OMERACT.

“The secret to our success has been getting world leaders to come together and have those discussions, work them through, and identify common ground in such a way that the approval agencies accept these outcome measures in clinical trials,” he added.

“My impression was the founders perceived a problem in the early 1990s and devised a consensus method in an attempt to quantify clinical parameters to define disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis – an important first step to do clinical trials and allow comparisons between them,” said Patricia Woo, CBE, FMedSci, FRCP, emeritus professor of pediatric rheumatology and previous head of the Centre for Paediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology at UCL, London. At that time, even disease definitions varied between the United States and Europe and other parts of the world, said Dr. Woo, who is not a part of OMERACT. “This was especially true for pediatric rheumatology.”
 

Fusing the continental divide

OMERACT arose from a need to streamline clinical outcome measures in rheumatology. Research papers during the 1980s demonstrated a lack of coherence in managing patients with rheumatoid arthritis in routine practice. In addition, the measures used to define clinical endpoints in clinical trials operated in silos – they were either too specific to a certain trial, overlapped with other concepts, or didn’t reflect changes in treatment.

Approval agencies in Europe and North America were approving only outcomes measures developed by their respective researchers. This was also true of patients they tested on. “This seemed crazy,” Dr. Tugwell said.

Dr. Tugwell was involved in the Cochrane collaboration, which conducts systematic reviews of best evidence across the world that assesses the magnitude of benefits versus harms.

To achieve this goal, “you need to pull studies from around the world,” he said. Maarten Boers, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist (and later professor of clinical epidemiology at Amsterdam University Medical Center) from the Netherlands, spent a year in Ontario, Canada, to train as a clinical epidemiologist. Together, Dr. Tugwell and Dr. Boers began discussing options to develop more streamlined outcome measures.

Courtesy OMERACT

They initiated the first OMERACT conference in Maastricht, the Netherlands, in 1992. The Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency participated, along with leaders of outcomes measurement in Europe and in North America.

Discussions centered on methods to develop outcomes in a meaningful fashion. During the first meeting, North American and European approval agencies agreed to accept each other’s studies and endpoints and patient reported outcomes.

Agreement was achieved on a preliminary set of outcome domains and measures that later became known as the WHO-ILAR (World Health Organization–International League of Associations for Rheumatology) core set. The set included seven outcome domains: tender joints, swollen joints, pain, physician global assessment, patient global assessment, physical disability, and acute phase reactants, and one additional outcome domain for studies lasting 1 year or more: radiographs of the joints.

“A proactive program was planned to test not only the validity of these endpoints, but also the methods for their measurement. This was the start of a continuing process,” OMERACT members said in a joint statement for this article. Meetings have since taken place every 2 years.

Courtesy OMERACT

OMERACT accomplishments

OMERACT now requires buy-in from four continents: Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America.

Its leaders have developed an explicit process for gaining endorsement of core outcome domains and instrument measurement sets. To fully capture the possibilities of “what to measure,” i.e., “measurable aspects of health conditions,” OMERACT has developed a framework of concepts, core areas, and outcome domains. The key concepts are pathophysiology (with a core area termed “manifestations/abnormalities”) and impact (with core areas of “death/lifespan,” and “life impact,” and the optional area of “societal/resource use”). An outcome domain defines an element of a core area to measure the effects of a treatment, such as blood markers, pain intensity, physical function, or emotional well-being.

A core outcome domain set is developed by agreeing to at least one outcome domain within one of the three core areas. Subsequently, a core outcome measurement set is developed by agreeing to at least one applicable measurement instrument for each core outcome domain. This requires documentation of validity, summarized under three metrics: truth, discrimination, and feasibility.

OMERACT’s handbook provides tutelage on establishing and implementing core outcomes, and several workbooks offer guidance on developing core outcome domain sets, selecting instruments for core outcome measurement sets, and OMERACT methodology.

All this work has led to widespread adoption.

Approval agencies have accepted OMERACT’s filter and methods advances, which have been adopted by many research groups in rheumatology and among nonrheumatology research groups. Organizations such as the U.S. National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke have sought its advice.

Its core outcomes have been adopted and used for approval in the great majority of studies on rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. Tugwell said.

Several BMJ articles underscore the influence and uptake of OMERACT’s core outcome set. One 2017 paper, which analyzed 273 randomized trials of rheumatoid arthritis drug treatments on ClinicalTrials.gov, found that the WHO-ILAR arthritis core outcome set was reported in 81% of the studies. “The adoption of a core outcome set has the potential to increase consistency in outcomes measured across trials and ensure that trials are more likely to measure appropriate outcomes,” the authors concluded.

Since the initial 1992 meeting, OMERACT has broadened its focus from rheumatoid arthritis to 25 other musculoskeletal conditions.

For example, other OMERACT conferences have led to consensus on core sets of measures for osteoarthritis and osteoporosis, psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis, psychosocial measures, and a core set of data for cost-effectiveness evaluations.
 

‘Speed is a limitation’

OMERACT is a bottom-up volunteer organization. It doesn’t represent any official organization of any clinical society. “We’ve not asked to be adopted by the American College of Rheumatology, EULAR [European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology], or other international organizations,” Dr. Tugwell said. It offers a chance for patients, users, and doers of research to work together to agree on rigorous criteria accepted by the approval agencies and take the necessary time to work things through.

This is not a fast process, usually taking 4-6 years to initiate and establish an outcome domain set, he emphasized. “It would be beneficial to do it faster if we had the resources to meet every year. The fact is we’re a volunteer organization that meets every 2 years.”

Speed is a limitation, he acknowledged, but it’s an acceptable trade-off for doing things correctly.

The group has faced other challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, pivoting to a virtual format that had benefits and limitations.

In one respect, moving to a virtual meeting increased uptake in participation and voting, Dr. Tugwell said. Patient participants with severe rheumatoid arthritis no longer faced the challenges of travel. “On the other hand, we didn’t have the same opportunity to achieve common ground virtually,” he said. “Where there are strong disagreements, I’m a great believer that people need to know one another. There needs to be relationship building.”

OMERACT’s emerging leader program has been a cornerstone of its in-person meetings, engaging young rheumatologists to interact with some of the leaders of outcome measurement. The virtual format dampened this process somewhat, eliminating those important “café chats” between the stakeholders.

The hope is to bring people face-to-face once more at the next meeting in May 2023. The agenda will focus on relationship building, identifying controversial areas, and bringing younger people to develop relationships, Dr. Tugwell said. OMERACT will retain a virtual option for the worldwide voting, “which will allow for more buy-in from so many more people,” he added.
 

A consensus on pain

The onus of developing outcome measures that move with the times is sometimes too great for one group to manage. In 2018, OMERACT became a part of the Red Hat Group (RHG), an organization conceived at the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) VII meeting in Amsterdam.

RHG aims to improve the choice of outcomes in health research. It includes eight groups: COMET; OMERACT; the Cochrane Skin Core Outcome Set Initiative; Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations; Center for Medical Technology Policy; COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments; Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium; and Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology.

The collaboration between groups offers a “very interesting interface between consensus building as well as hard evidence,” Dr. Tugwell said. The focus goes beyond rheumatology to other clinical areas of common interest, exploring how one classifies outcome domains in terms of symptoms, life impact, or death.

Pain is an important common denominator that the RHG has evaluated.

“We believe it’s too general. We’re trying to define pain across all Red Hat Groups because it’s clear that the research community has all these different scales for defining pain severity,” Dr. Tugwell said. “We have to find a way to make ruthless decisions and rules for doing it. And of course, it has to be transparent.”
 

Looking ahead

As part of its ongoing work, OMERACT is evaluating the robustness of instruments that rheumatologists use as outcome measures in clinical trials, which can be a laborious process. The OMERACT Filter 2.0, part of the latest iteration of the handbook, offers strong guidance for researchers but needs a long-term strategy and key methodological support. “To that end, we set up a technical advisory group to help people in the instrument selection work and that remains an ongoing process,” OMERACT leaders said in their joint statement.

OMERACT is looking at opportunities to create benchmark processes for developing core sets outside of rheumatology and a methodology around outcome measures such as contextual factors, composites, and surrogates.

It will also be taking a step back to solicit opinions from the approval agencies represented by the OMERACT membership on the OMERACT handbook.

The goal is to make sure the handbook aligns with everyone else’s approval and labeling requirements.
 

OMERACT’s patient participants bring important perspectives

OMERACT over the years has sought to become a more patient-centered group. Patients have been involved in OMERACT activities since its sixth meeting, forming an independent, yet integrated, group within the network. They have their own steering committee and produced and helped to update a glossary for OMERACT patients and professionals. 

Catherine (McGowan) Hofstetter, who was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis 30 years ago, chairs OMERACT’s Patient Research Partners Support Team. In a Q&A, she discussed the importance of patient voices and OMERACT’s plans to further educate and include patients in the dialogue on outcomes.

Question: Have patients always been a part of OMERACT meetings? 

Answer: Patients have been involved with OMERACT since 2002. The patient voice adds relevance to all the work that OMERACT does. You can’t begin to talk about outcomes unless there is a patient at the table with lived experience.

Q: Can you cite a few examples of how the patient voice enriches the conversation on outcomes research? 

A: Outcomes and priorities that are important to patients are often completely different than those of the clinician. For instance, a work outcome is important to someone who doesn’t have any medical insurance or disability insurance, so that you can ensure that there is food on the table and a roof over your head. Or it may be important to someone because the employment provides medical and disability insurance to provide security for them and their family. These are two different perspectives on work and therefore work priorities and outcomes.

Q: What have been some of the challenges of getting patients to participate?

A: Training patients is one challenge. OMERACT’s work has a very steep learning curve, and while the basics are the same between the groups in terms of looking at what we measure and how we measure it, the nuances of different working groups require a lot of time and energy to be comfortable enough with the work, and then be confident enough to bring your perspective and lived experience to the table. It’s also a very accomplished group, which can be quite intimidating. Self-disclosure is a very personal and intimate undertaking that requires patience, compassion, and respect.

Q: Are there any plans to enhance patient engagement?

A: When we had OMERACT 2020 it was a virtual conference that took place over about 6 months. We had far more patient research partners [PRPs] participate than we have ever had at any OMERACT face-to-face meeting. There is a desire and passion on the part of patients to lend their voices to the work. The working groups meet virtually throughout the year to advance their agendas, and PRPs are a part of each of the working groups. 

Hopefully, we can start working toward including more voices at the conferences by enabling a hybrid model. The PRP Support Team will begin engaging patients this fall with education, mentoring, and team-building exercises so by the time we meet in person in May 2023, they will have enough background knowledge and information to give them the confidence that will enhance their experience at the face-to-face meeting.

We also need to ensure that those patients who want to stay engaged can. This means that the education and training should continue long after the face-to-face meeting is over. We need to build capacity in the PRP group and look to succession planning and be a resource to working groups struggling to find PRPs to work with them on a longer-term basis.

Clinical research in rheumatology was suffering from an identity crisis of sorts 40 years ago. A lack of consensus across continents resulted in differing views about clinical outcome measures and judgments about treatments.

Patients were not allowed to be the generating source of a clinical outcome, according to Peter Tugwell, MSc, MD. “The only outcomes that were acceptable were clinician assessments, blood tests, and imaging,” said Dr. Tugwell, professor of medicine, epidemiology, and public health at the University of Ottawa (Ont.) and a practicing rheumatologist at Ottawa Hospital.

Clinicians were coming to different conclusions about patient responses to treatment when managing rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice.

OMERACT sought to address this lack of uniformity. This international group, formed in 1992, leverages stakeholder groups to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology endpoints through a consensus-building, data-driven format.

It was originally known as “Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials,” but its leaders have since broadened its scope to “Outcome Measures in Rheumatology.” Over the years, it has evolved into an international network that assesses measurement across a wide variety of intervention studies. Now 30 years old, the network spans 40 active working groups and has influenced work in patient outcomes across 500 peer-reviewed publications.

The network meets every 2 years to address what is always a challenging agenda, said Dr. Tugwell, one of its founding members and chair. “There’s lots of strong opinions.” Participating in the discussions are individuals from all stages of seniority in rheumatology and clinical epidemiology, patient research partners, industry, approval agencies, and many countries who are committed to the spirit of OMERACT.

“The secret to our success has been getting world leaders to come together and have those discussions, work them through, and identify common ground in such a way that the approval agencies accept these outcome measures in clinical trials,” he added.

“My impression was the founders perceived a problem in the early 1990s and devised a consensus method in an attempt to quantify clinical parameters to define disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis – an important first step to do clinical trials and allow comparisons between them,” said Patricia Woo, CBE, FMedSci, FRCP, emeritus professor of pediatric rheumatology and previous head of the Centre for Paediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology at UCL, London. At that time, even disease definitions varied between the United States and Europe and other parts of the world, said Dr. Woo, who is not a part of OMERACT. “This was especially true for pediatric rheumatology.”
 

Fusing the continental divide

OMERACT arose from a need to streamline clinical outcome measures in rheumatology. Research papers during the 1980s demonstrated a lack of coherence in managing patients with rheumatoid arthritis in routine practice. In addition, the measures used to define clinical endpoints in clinical trials operated in silos – they were either too specific to a certain trial, overlapped with other concepts, or didn’t reflect changes in treatment.

Approval agencies in Europe and North America were approving only outcomes measures developed by their respective researchers. This was also true of patients they tested on. “This seemed crazy,” Dr. Tugwell said.

Dr. Tugwell was involved in the Cochrane collaboration, which conducts systematic reviews of best evidence across the world that assesses the magnitude of benefits versus harms.

To achieve this goal, “you need to pull studies from around the world,” he said. Maarten Boers, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist (and later professor of clinical epidemiology at Amsterdam University Medical Center) from the Netherlands, spent a year in Ontario, Canada, to train as a clinical epidemiologist. Together, Dr. Tugwell and Dr. Boers began discussing options to develop more streamlined outcome measures.

Courtesy OMERACT

They initiated the first OMERACT conference in Maastricht, the Netherlands, in 1992. The Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency participated, along with leaders of outcomes measurement in Europe and in North America.

Discussions centered on methods to develop outcomes in a meaningful fashion. During the first meeting, North American and European approval agencies agreed to accept each other’s studies and endpoints and patient reported outcomes.

Agreement was achieved on a preliminary set of outcome domains and measures that later became known as the WHO-ILAR (World Health Organization–International League of Associations for Rheumatology) core set. The set included seven outcome domains: tender joints, swollen joints, pain, physician global assessment, patient global assessment, physical disability, and acute phase reactants, and one additional outcome domain for studies lasting 1 year or more: radiographs of the joints.

“A proactive program was planned to test not only the validity of these endpoints, but also the methods for their measurement. This was the start of a continuing process,” OMERACT members said in a joint statement for this article. Meetings have since taken place every 2 years.

Courtesy OMERACT

OMERACT accomplishments

OMERACT now requires buy-in from four continents: Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America.

Its leaders have developed an explicit process for gaining endorsement of core outcome domains and instrument measurement sets. To fully capture the possibilities of “what to measure,” i.e., “measurable aspects of health conditions,” OMERACT has developed a framework of concepts, core areas, and outcome domains. The key concepts are pathophysiology (with a core area termed “manifestations/abnormalities”) and impact (with core areas of “death/lifespan,” and “life impact,” and the optional area of “societal/resource use”). An outcome domain defines an element of a core area to measure the effects of a treatment, such as blood markers, pain intensity, physical function, or emotional well-being.

A core outcome domain set is developed by agreeing to at least one outcome domain within one of the three core areas. Subsequently, a core outcome measurement set is developed by agreeing to at least one applicable measurement instrument for each core outcome domain. This requires documentation of validity, summarized under three metrics: truth, discrimination, and feasibility.

OMERACT’s handbook provides tutelage on establishing and implementing core outcomes, and several workbooks offer guidance on developing core outcome domain sets, selecting instruments for core outcome measurement sets, and OMERACT methodology.

All this work has led to widespread adoption.

Approval agencies have accepted OMERACT’s filter and methods advances, which have been adopted by many research groups in rheumatology and among nonrheumatology research groups. Organizations such as the U.S. National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke have sought its advice.

Its core outcomes have been adopted and used for approval in the great majority of studies on rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. Tugwell said.

Several BMJ articles underscore the influence and uptake of OMERACT’s core outcome set. One 2017 paper, which analyzed 273 randomized trials of rheumatoid arthritis drug treatments on ClinicalTrials.gov, found that the WHO-ILAR arthritis core outcome set was reported in 81% of the studies. “The adoption of a core outcome set has the potential to increase consistency in outcomes measured across trials and ensure that trials are more likely to measure appropriate outcomes,” the authors concluded.

Since the initial 1992 meeting, OMERACT has broadened its focus from rheumatoid arthritis to 25 other musculoskeletal conditions.

For example, other OMERACT conferences have led to consensus on core sets of measures for osteoarthritis and osteoporosis, psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis, psychosocial measures, and a core set of data for cost-effectiveness evaluations.
 

‘Speed is a limitation’

OMERACT is a bottom-up volunteer organization. It doesn’t represent any official organization of any clinical society. “We’ve not asked to be adopted by the American College of Rheumatology, EULAR [European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology], or other international organizations,” Dr. Tugwell said. It offers a chance for patients, users, and doers of research to work together to agree on rigorous criteria accepted by the approval agencies and take the necessary time to work things through.

This is not a fast process, usually taking 4-6 years to initiate and establish an outcome domain set, he emphasized. “It would be beneficial to do it faster if we had the resources to meet every year. The fact is we’re a volunteer organization that meets every 2 years.”

Speed is a limitation, he acknowledged, but it’s an acceptable trade-off for doing things correctly.

The group has faced other challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, pivoting to a virtual format that had benefits and limitations.

In one respect, moving to a virtual meeting increased uptake in participation and voting, Dr. Tugwell said. Patient participants with severe rheumatoid arthritis no longer faced the challenges of travel. “On the other hand, we didn’t have the same opportunity to achieve common ground virtually,” he said. “Where there are strong disagreements, I’m a great believer that people need to know one another. There needs to be relationship building.”

OMERACT’s emerging leader program has been a cornerstone of its in-person meetings, engaging young rheumatologists to interact with some of the leaders of outcome measurement. The virtual format dampened this process somewhat, eliminating those important “café chats” between the stakeholders.

The hope is to bring people face-to-face once more at the next meeting in May 2023. The agenda will focus on relationship building, identifying controversial areas, and bringing younger people to develop relationships, Dr. Tugwell said. OMERACT will retain a virtual option for the worldwide voting, “which will allow for more buy-in from so many more people,” he added.
 

A consensus on pain

The onus of developing outcome measures that move with the times is sometimes too great for one group to manage. In 2018, OMERACT became a part of the Red Hat Group (RHG), an organization conceived at the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) VII meeting in Amsterdam.

RHG aims to improve the choice of outcomes in health research. It includes eight groups: COMET; OMERACT; the Cochrane Skin Core Outcome Set Initiative; Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations; Center for Medical Technology Policy; COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments; Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium; and Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology.

The collaboration between groups offers a “very interesting interface between consensus building as well as hard evidence,” Dr. Tugwell said. The focus goes beyond rheumatology to other clinical areas of common interest, exploring how one classifies outcome domains in terms of symptoms, life impact, or death.

Pain is an important common denominator that the RHG has evaluated.

“We believe it’s too general. We’re trying to define pain across all Red Hat Groups because it’s clear that the research community has all these different scales for defining pain severity,” Dr. Tugwell said. “We have to find a way to make ruthless decisions and rules for doing it. And of course, it has to be transparent.”
 

Looking ahead

As part of its ongoing work, OMERACT is evaluating the robustness of instruments that rheumatologists use as outcome measures in clinical trials, which can be a laborious process. The OMERACT Filter 2.0, part of the latest iteration of the handbook, offers strong guidance for researchers but needs a long-term strategy and key methodological support. “To that end, we set up a technical advisory group to help people in the instrument selection work and that remains an ongoing process,” OMERACT leaders said in their joint statement.

OMERACT is looking at opportunities to create benchmark processes for developing core sets outside of rheumatology and a methodology around outcome measures such as contextual factors, composites, and surrogates.

It will also be taking a step back to solicit opinions from the approval agencies represented by the OMERACT membership on the OMERACT handbook.

The goal is to make sure the handbook aligns with everyone else’s approval and labeling requirements.
 

OMERACT’s patient participants bring important perspectives

OMERACT over the years has sought to become a more patient-centered group. Patients have been involved in OMERACT activities since its sixth meeting, forming an independent, yet integrated, group within the network. They have their own steering committee and produced and helped to update a glossary for OMERACT patients and professionals. 

Catherine (McGowan) Hofstetter, who was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis 30 years ago, chairs OMERACT’s Patient Research Partners Support Team. In a Q&A, she discussed the importance of patient voices and OMERACT’s plans to further educate and include patients in the dialogue on outcomes.

Question: Have patients always been a part of OMERACT meetings? 

Answer: Patients have been involved with OMERACT since 2002. The patient voice adds relevance to all the work that OMERACT does. You can’t begin to talk about outcomes unless there is a patient at the table with lived experience.

Q: Can you cite a few examples of how the patient voice enriches the conversation on outcomes research? 

A: Outcomes and priorities that are important to patients are often completely different than those of the clinician. For instance, a work outcome is important to someone who doesn’t have any medical insurance or disability insurance, so that you can ensure that there is food on the table and a roof over your head. Or it may be important to someone because the employment provides medical and disability insurance to provide security for them and their family. These are two different perspectives on work and therefore work priorities and outcomes.

Q: What have been some of the challenges of getting patients to participate?

A: Training patients is one challenge. OMERACT’s work has a very steep learning curve, and while the basics are the same between the groups in terms of looking at what we measure and how we measure it, the nuances of different working groups require a lot of time and energy to be comfortable enough with the work, and then be confident enough to bring your perspective and lived experience to the table. It’s also a very accomplished group, which can be quite intimidating. Self-disclosure is a very personal and intimate undertaking that requires patience, compassion, and respect.

Q: Are there any plans to enhance patient engagement?

A: When we had OMERACT 2020 it was a virtual conference that took place over about 6 months. We had far more patient research partners [PRPs] participate than we have ever had at any OMERACT face-to-face meeting. There is a desire and passion on the part of patients to lend their voices to the work. The working groups meet virtually throughout the year to advance their agendas, and PRPs are a part of each of the working groups. 

Hopefully, we can start working toward including more voices at the conferences by enabling a hybrid model. The PRP Support Team will begin engaging patients this fall with education, mentoring, and team-building exercises so by the time we meet in person in May 2023, they will have enough background knowledge and information to give them the confidence that will enhance their experience at the face-to-face meeting.

We also need to ensure that those patients who want to stay engaged can. This means that the education and training should continue long after the face-to-face meeting is over. We need to build capacity in the PRP group and look to succession planning and be a resource to working groups struggling to find PRPs to work with them on a longer-term basis.

Clinical research in rheumatology was suffering from an identity crisis of sorts 40 years ago. A lack of consensus across continents resulted in differing views about clinical outcome measures and judgments about treatments.

Patients were not allowed to be the generating source of a clinical outcome, according to Peter Tugwell, MSc, MD. “The only outcomes that were acceptable were clinician assessments, blood tests, and imaging,” said Dr. Tugwell, professor of medicine, epidemiology, and public health at the University of Ottawa (Ont.) and a practicing rheumatologist at Ottawa Hospital.

Clinicians were coming to different conclusions about patient responses to treatment when managing rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice.

OMERACT sought to address this lack of uniformity. This international group, formed in 1992, leverages stakeholder groups to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology endpoints through a consensus-building, data-driven format.

It was originally known as “Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials,” but its leaders have since broadened its scope to “Outcome Measures in Rheumatology.” Over the years, it has evolved into an international network that assesses measurement across a wide variety of intervention studies. Now 30 years old, the network spans 40 active working groups and has influenced work in patient outcomes across 500 peer-reviewed publications.

The network meets every 2 years to address what is always a challenging agenda, said Dr. Tugwell, one of its founding members and chair. “There’s lots of strong opinions.” Participating in the discussions are individuals from all stages of seniority in rheumatology and clinical epidemiology, patient research partners, industry, approval agencies, and many countries who are committed to the spirit of OMERACT.

“The secret to our success has been getting world leaders to come together and have those discussions, work them through, and identify common ground in such a way that the approval agencies accept these outcome measures in clinical trials,” he added.

“My impression was the founders perceived a problem in the early 1990s and devised a consensus method in an attempt to quantify clinical parameters to define disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis – an important first step to do clinical trials and allow comparisons between them,” said Patricia Woo, CBE, FMedSci, FRCP, emeritus professor of pediatric rheumatology and previous head of the Centre for Paediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology at UCL, London. At that time, even disease definitions varied between the United States and Europe and other parts of the world, said Dr. Woo, who is not a part of OMERACT. “This was especially true for pediatric rheumatology.”
 

Fusing the continental divide

OMERACT arose from a need to streamline clinical outcome measures in rheumatology. Research papers during the 1980s demonstrated a lack of coherence in managing patients with rheumatoid arthritis in routine practice. In addition, the measures used to define clinical endpoints in clinical trials operated in silos – they were either too specific to a certain trial, overlapped with other concepts, or didn’t reflect changes in treatment.

Approval agencies in Europe and North America were approving only outcomes measures developed by their respective researchers. This was also true of patients they tested on. “This seemed crazy,” Dr. Tugwell said.

Dr. Tugwell was involved in the Cochrane collaboration, which conducts systematic reviews of best evidence across the world that assesses the magnitude of benefits versus harms.

To achieve this goal, “you need to pull studies from around the world,” he said. Maarten Boers, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist (and later professor of clinical epidemiology at Amsterdam University Medical Center) from the Netherlands, spent a year in Ontario, Canada, to train as a clinical epidemiologist. Together, Dr. Tugwell and Dr. Boers began discussing options to develop more streamlined outcome measures.

Courtesy OMERACT

They initiated the first OMERACT conference in Maastricht, the Netherlands, in 1992. The Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency participated, along with leaders of outcomes measurement in Europe and in North America.

Discussions centered on methods to develop outcomes in a meaningful fashion. During the first meeting, North American and European approval agencies agreed to accept each other’s studies and endpoints and patient reported outcomes.

Agreement was achieved on a preliminary set of outcome domains and measures that later became known as the WHO-ILAR (World Health Organization–International League of Associations for Rheumatology) core set. The set included seven outcome domains: tender joints, swollen joints, pain, physician global assessment, patient global assessment, physical disability, and acute phase reactants, and one additional outcome domain for studies lasting 1 year or more: radiographs of the joints.

“A proactive program was planned to test not only the validity of these endpoints, but also the methods for their measurement. This was the start of a continuing process,” OMERACT members said in a joint statement for this article. Meetings have since taken place every 2 years.

Courtesy OMERACT

OMERACT accomplishments

OMERACT now requires buy-in from four continents: Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America.

Its leaders have developed an explicit process for gaining endorsement of core outcome domains and instrument measurement sets. To fully capture the possibilities of “what to measure,” i.e., “measurable aspects of health conditions,” OMERACT has developed a framework of concepts, core areas, and outcome domains. The key concepts are pathophysiology (with a core area termed “manifestations/abnormalities”) and impact (with core areas of “death/lifespan,” and “life impact,” and the optional area of “societal/resource use”). An outcome domain defines an element of a core area to measure the effects of a treatment, such as blood markers, pain intensity, physical function, or emotional well-being.

A core outcome domain set is developed by agreeing to at least one outcome domain within one of the three core areas. Subsequently, a core outcome measurement set is developed by agreeing to at least one applicable measurement instrument for each core outcome domain. This requires documentation of validity, summarized under three metrics: truth, discrimination, and feasibility.

OMERACT’s handbook provides tutelage on establishing and implementing core outcomes, and several workbooks offer guidance on developing core outcome domain sets, selecting instruments for core outcome measurement sets, and OMERACT methodology.

All this work has led to widespread adoption.

Approval agencies have accepted OMERACT’s filter and methods advances, which have been adopted by many research groups in rheumatology and among nonrheumatology research groups. Organizations such as the U.S. National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke have sought its advice.

Its core outcomes have been adopted and used for approval in the great majority of studies on rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. Tugwell said.

Several BMJ articles underscore the influence and uptake of OMERACT’s core outcome set. One 2017 paper, which analyzed 273 randomized trials of rheumatoid arthritis drug treatments on ClinicalTrials.gov, found that the WHO-ILAR arthritis core outcome set was reported in 81% of the studies. “The adoption of a core outcome set has the potential to increase consistency in outcomes measured across trials and ensure that trials are more likely to measure appropriate outcomes,” the authors concluded.

Since the initial 1992 meeting, OMERACT has broadened its focus from rheumatoid arthritis to 25 other musculoskeletal conditions.

For example, other OMERACT conferences have led to consensus on core sets of measures for osteoarthritis and osteoporosis, psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis, psychosocial measures, and a core set of data for cost-effectiveness evaluations.
 

‘Speed is a limitation’

OMERACT is a bottom-up volunteer organization. It doesn’t represent any official organization of any clinical society. “We’ve not asked to be adopted by the American College of Rheumatology, EULAR [European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology], or other international organizations,” Dr. Tugwell said. It offers a chance for patients, users, and doers of research to work together to agree on rigorous criteria accepted by the approval agencies and take the necessary time to work things through.

This is not a fast process, usually taking 4-6 years to initiate and establish an outcome domain set, he emphasized. “It would be beneficial to do it faster if we had the resources to meet every year. The fact is we’re a volunteer organization that meets every 2 years.”

Speed is a limitation, he acknowledged, but it’s an acceptable trade-off for doing things correctly.

The group has faced other challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, pivoting to a virtual format that had benefits and limitations.

In one respect, moving to a virtual meeting increased uptake in participation and voting, Dr. Tugwell said. Patient participants with severe rheumatoid arthritis no longer faced the challenges of travel. “On the other hand, we didn’t have the same opportunity to achieve common ground virtually,” he said. “Where there are strong disagreements, I’m a great believer that people need to know one another. There needs to be relationship building.”

OMERACT’s emerging leader program has been a cornerstone of its in-person meetings, engaging young rheumatologists to interact with some of the leaders of outcome measurement. The virtual format dampened this process somewhat, eliminating those important “café chats” between the stakeholders.

The hope is to bring people face-to-face once more at the next meeting in May 2023. The agenda will focus on relationship building, identifying controversial areas, and bringing younger people to develop relationships, Dr. Tugwell said. OMERACT will retain a virtual option for the worldwide voting, “which will allow for more buy-in from so many more people,” he added.
 

A consensus on pain

The onus of developing outcome measures that move with the times is sometimes too great for one group to manage. In 2018, OMERACT became a part of the Red Hat Group (RHG), an organization conceived at the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) VII meeting in Amsterdam.

RHG aims to improve the choice of outcomes in health research. It includes eight groups: COMET; OMERACT; the Cochrane Skin Core Outcome Set Initiative; Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations; Center for Medical Technology Policy; COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments; Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium; and Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology.

The collaboration between groups offers a “very interesting interface between consensus building as well as hard evidence,” Dr. Tugwell said. The focus goes beyond rheumatology to other clinical areas of common interest, exploring how one classifies outcome domains in terms of symptoms, life impact, or death.

Pain is an important common denominator that the RHG has evaluated.

“We believe it’s too general. We’re trying to define pain across all Red Hat Groups because it’s clear that the research community has all these different scales for defining pain severity,” Dr. Tugwell said. “We have to find a way to make ruthless decisions and rules for doing it. And of course, it has to be transparent.”
 

Looking ahead

As part of its ongoing work, OMERACT is evaluating the robustness of instruments that rheumatologists use as outcome measures in clinical trials, which can be a laborious process. The OMERACT Filter 2.0, part of the latest iteration of the handbook, offers strong guidance for researchers but needs a long-term strategy and key methodological support. “To that end, we set up a technical advisory group to help people in the instrument selection work and that remains an ongoing process,” OMERACT leaders said in their joint statement.

OMERACT is looking at opportunities to create benchmark processes for developing core sets outside of rheumatology and a methodology around outcome measures such as contextual factors, composites, and surrogates.

It will also be taking a step back to solicit opinions from the approval agencies represented by the OMERACT membership on the OMERACT handbook.

The goal is to make sure the handbook aligns with everyone else’s approval and labeling requirements.
 

OMERACT’s patient participants bring important perspectives

OMERACT over the years has sought to become a more patient-centered group. Patients have been involved in OMERACT activities since its sixth meeting, forming an independent, yet integrated, group within the network. They have their own steering committee and produced and helped to update a glossary for OMERACT patients and professionals. 

Catherine (McGowan) Hofstetter, who was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis 30 years ago, chairs OMERACT’s Patient Research Partners Support Team. In a Q&A, she discussed the importance of patient voices and OMERACT’s plans to further educate and include patients in the dialogue on outcomes.

Question: Have patients always been a part of OMERACT meetings? 

Answer: Patients have been involved with OMERACT since 2002. The patient voice adds relevance to all the work that OMERACT does. You can’t begin to talk about outcomes unless there is a patient at the table with lived experience.

Q: Can you cite a few examples of how the patient voice enriches the conversation on outcomes research? 

A: Outcomes and priorities that are important to patients are often completely different than those of the clinician. For instance, a work outcome is important to someone who doesn’t have any medical insurance or disability insurance, so that you can ensure that there is food on the table and a roof over your head. Or it may be important to someone because the employment provides medical and disability insurance to provide security for them and their family. These are two different perspectives on work and therefore work priorities and outcomes.

Q: What have been some of the challenges of getting patients to participate?

A: Training patients is one challenge. OMERACT’s work has a very steep learning curve, and while the basics are the same between the groups in terms of looking at what we measure and how we measure it, the nuances of different working groups require a lot of time and energy to be comfortable enough with the work, and then be confident enough to bring your perspective and lived experience to the table. It’s also a very accomplished group, which can be quite intimidating. Self-disclosure is a very personal and intimate undertaking that requires patience, compassion, and respect.

Q: Are there any plans to enhance patient engagement?

A: When we had OMERACT 2020 it was a virtual conference that took place over about 6 months. We had far more patient research partners [PRPs] participate than we have ever had at any OMERACT face-to-face meeting. There is a desire and passion on the part of patients to lend their voices to the work. The working groups meet virtually throughout the year to advance their agendas, and PRPs are a part of each of the working groups. 

Hopefully, we can start working toward including more voices at the conferences by enabling a hybrid model. The PRP Support Team will begin engaging patients this fall with education, mentoring, and team-building exercises so by the time we meet in person in May 2023, they will have enough background knowledge and information to give them the confidence that will enhance their experience at the face-to-face meeting.

We also need to ensure that those patients who want to stay engaged can. This means that the education and training should continue long after the face-to-face meeting is over. We need to build capacity in the PRP group and look to succession planning and be a resource to working groups struggling to find PRPs to work with them on a longer-term basis.