Psoriatic Arthritis ICYMI

It took years for Elle Moxley to get a diagnosis that explained her crippling gastrointestinal pain, digestion problems, fatigue, and hot, red rashes. And after learning in 2016 that she had Crohn’s disease, a chronic inflammation of the digestive tract, she spent more than 4 years trying medications before getting her disease under control with a biologic drug called Remicade.

So Ms. Moxley, 33, was dismayed to receive a notice from her insurer in January that Remicade would no longer be covered as a preferred drug on her plan. Another drug, Inflectra, which the Food and Drug Administration says has no meaningful clinical differences from Remicade, is now preferred. It is a “biosimilar” drug.

“I felt very powerless,” said Ms. Moxley, who recently started a job as a public relations coordinator for Kansas City (Mo.) Public Schools. “I have this decision being made for me and my doctor that’s not in my best interest, and it might knock me out of remission.”

After Ms. Moxley’s first Inflectra infusion in July, she developed a painful rash. It went away after a few days, but she said she continues to feel extremely fatigued and experiences gastrointestinal pain, constipation, diarrhea and nausea.

Many medical professionals look to biosimilar drugs as a way to increase competition and give consumers cheaper options, much as generic drugs do, and they point to the more robust use of these products in Europe to cut costs.

Yet the United States has been slower to adopt biosimilar drugs since the first such medicine was approved in 2015. That’s partly because of concerns raised by patients like Moxley and their doctors, but also because brand-name biologics have kept biosimilars from entering the market. The companies behind the brand-name drugs have used legal actions to extend the life of their patents and incentives that make offering the brand biologic more attractive than offering a biosimilar on a formulary, listing which drugs are covered on an insurance plan.

“It distorts the market and makes it so that patients can’t get access,” said Jinoos Yazdany, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine and chief of the rheumatology division at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital.

The FDA has approved 31 biosimilar medications since 2015, but only about 60% have made it to market, according to an analysis by NORC, a research organization at the University of Chicago.

Remicade’s manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer, which makes the Remicade biosimilar Inflectra, have been embroiled in a long-running lawsuit over Pfizer’s claims that Johnson & Johnson tried to choke off competition through exclusionary contracts with insurers and other anticompetitive actions. In July, the companies settled the case on undisclosed terms.

In a statement, Pfizer said it would continue to sell Inflectra in the United States but noted ongoing challenges: “Pfizer has begun to see progress in the overall biosimilars marketplace in the U.S. However, changes in policy at a government level and acceptance of biosimilars among key stakeholders are critical to deliver more meaningful uptake so patients and the health care system at large can benefit from the cost savings these medicines may deliver.”

Johnson & Johnson said it is committed to making Remicade available to patients who choose it, which “compels us to compete responsibly on both price and value.”

Biologic medicines, which are generally grown from living organisms such as animal cells or bacteria, are more complex and expensive to manufacture than drugs made from chemicals. In recent years, biologic drugs have become a mainstay of treatment for autoimmune conditions like Crohn’s disease and rheumatoid arthritis, as well as certain cancers and diabetes, among other conditions.

Other drugmakers can’t exactly reproduce these biologic drugs by following chemical recipes as they do for generic versions of conventional drugs.

Instead, biosimilar versions of biologic drugs are generally made from the same types of materials as the original biologics and must be “highly similar” to them to be approved by the FDA. They must have no clinically meaningful differences from the biologic drug, and be just as safe, pure and potent. More than a decade after Congress created an approval pathway for biosimilars, they are widely accepted as safe and effective alternatives to brand biologics.

Medical experts hope that as biosimilars become more widely used they will increasingly provide a brake on drug spending.

From 2015 to 2019, drug spending overall grew 6.1%, while spending on biologics grew more than twice as much – 14.6% – according to a report by IQVIA, a health care analytics company. In 2019, biologics accounted for 43% of drug spending in the United States

Biosimilars provide a roughly 30% discount over brand biologics in the United States but have the potential to reduce spending by more than $100 billion in the next 5 years, the IQVIA analysis found.

In a survey of 602 physicians who prescribe biologic medications, more than three-quarters said they believed biosimilars are just as safe and effective as their biologic counterparts, according to NORC.

But they were less comfortable with switching patients from a brand biologic to a biosimilar. While about half said they were very likely to prescribe a biosimilar to a patient just starting biologic therapy, only 31% said they were very likely to prescribe a biosimilar to a patient already doing well on a brand biologic.

It can be challenging to find a treatment regimen that works for patients with complicated chronic conditions, and physicians and patients often don’t want to rock the boat once that is achieved.

In Ms. Moxley’s case, for example, before her condition stabilized on Remicade, she tried a conventional pill called Lialda, the biologic drug Humira and a lower dose of Remicade.

Some doctors and patients raise concerns that switching between these drugs might cause patients to develop antibodies that cause the drugs to lose effectiveness. They want to see more research about the effects of such switches.

“We haven’t seen enough studies about patients going from the biologic to the biosimilar and bouncing back and forth,” said Marcus Snow, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care. “We don’t want our patients to be guinea pigs.”

Manufacturers of biologic and biosimilar drugs have participated in advertising, exhibit or sponsorship opportunities with the American College of Rheumatology, according to ACR spokesperson Jocelyn Givens.

But studies show a one-time switch from Remicade to a biosimilar like Inflectra does not cause side effects or the development of antibodies, said Ross Maltz, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, and former member of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation’s National Scientific Advisory Committee. Studies may be conducted by researchers with extensive ties to the industry and funded by drugmakers.

Situations like Ms. Moxley’s are unusual, said Kristine Grow, senior vice president of communications at AHIP, an insurer trade group.

“For patients who have been taking a brand-name biologic for some time, health insurance providers do not typically encourage them to switch to a biosimilar because of a formulary change, and most plans exclude these patients from any changes in cost sharing due to formulary changes,” she said.

Drugmakers can seek approval from the FDA of their biosimilar as interchangeable with a biologic drug, allowing pharmacists, subject to state law, to switch a physician’s prescription from the brand drug, as they often do with generic drugs.

However, the FDA has approved only one biosimilar (Semglee, a form of insulin) as interchangeable with a biologic (Lantus).

Like Ms. Moxley, many other patients using biologics get copay assistance from drug companies, but the money often isn’t enough to cover the full cost. In her old job as a radio reporter, Ms. Moxley said, she hit the $7,000 maximum annual out-of-pocket spending limit for her plan by May.

In her new job, Ms. Moxley has an individual plan with a $4,000 maximum out-of-pocket limit, which she expects to blow past once again within months.

But she received good news recently: Her new plan will cover Remicade.

“I’m still concerned that I will have developed antibodies since my last dose,” she said. “But it feels like a step in the direction of good health again.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

It took years for Elle Moxley to get a diagnosis that explained her crippling gastrointestinal pain, digestion problems, fatigue, and hot, red rashes. And after learning in 2016 that she had Crohn’s disease, a chronic inflammation of the digestive tract, she spent more than 4 years trying medications before getting her disease under control with a biologic drug called Remicade.

So Ms. Moxley, 33, was dismayed to receive a notice from her insurer in January that Remicade would no longer be covered as a preferred drug on her plan. Another drug, Inflectra, which the Food and Drug Administration says has no meaningful clinical differences from Remicade, is now preferred. It is a “biosimilar” drug.

“I felt very powerless,” said Ms. Moxley, who recently started a job as a public relations coordinator for Kansas City (Mo.) Public Schools. “I have this decision being made for me and my doctor that’s not in my best interest, and it might knock me out of remission.”

After Ms. Moxley’s first Inflectra infusion in July, she developed a painful rash. It went away after a few days, but she said she continues to feel extremely fatigued and experiences gastrointestinal pain, constipation, diarrhea and nausea.

Many medical professionals look to biosimilar drugs as a way to increase competition and give consumers cheaper options, much as generic drugs do, and they point to the more robust use of these products in Europe to cut costs.

Yet the United States has been slower to adopt biosimilar drugs since the first such medicine was approved in 2015. That’s partly because of concerns raised by patients like Moxley and their doctors, but also because brand-name biologics have kept biosimilars from entering the market. The companies behind the brand-name drugs have used legal actions to extend the life of their patents and incentives that make offering the brand biologic more attractive than offering a biosimilar on a formulary, listing which drugs are covered on an insurance plan.

“It distorts the market and makes it so that patients can’t get access,” said Jinoos Yazdany, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine and chief of the rheumatology division at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital.

The FDA has approved 31 biosimilar medications since 2015, but only about 60% have made it to market, according to an analysis by NORC, a research organization at the University of Chicago.

Remicade’s manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer, which makes the Remicade biosimilar Inflectra, have been embroiled in a long-running lawsuit over Pfizer’s claims that Johnson & Johnson tried to choke off competition through exclusionary contracts with insurers and other anticompetitive actions. In July, the companies settled the case on undisclosed terms.

In a statement, Pfizer said it would continue to sell Inflectra in the United States but noted ongoing challenges: “Pfizer has begun to see progress in the overall biosimilars marketplace in the U.S. However, changes in policy at a government level and acceptance of biosimilars among key stakeholders are critical to deliver more meaningful uptake so patients and the health care system at large can benefit from the cost savings these medicines may deliver.”

Johnson & Johnson said it is committed to making Remicade available to patients who choose it, which “compels us to compete responsibly on both price and value.”

Biologic medicines, which are generally grown from living organisms such as animal cells or bacteria, are more complex and expensive to manufacture than drugs made from chemicals. In recent years, biologic drugs have become a mainstay of treatment for autoimmune conditions like Crohn’s disease and rheumatoid arthritis, as well as certain cancers and diabetes, among other conditions.

Other drugmakers can’t exactly reproduce these biologic drugs by following chemical recipes as they do for generic versions of conventional drugs.

Instead, biosimilar versions of biologic drugs are generally made from the same types of materials as the original biologics and must be “highly similar” to them to be approved by the FDA. They must have no clinically meaningful differences from the biologic drug, and be just as safe, pure and potent. More than a decade after Congress created an approval pathway for biosimilars, they are widely accepted as safe and effective alternatives to brand biologics.

Medical experts hope that as biosimilars become more widely used they will increasingly provide a brake on drug spending.

From 2015 to 2019, drug spending overall grew 6.1%, while spending on biologics grew more than twice as much – 14.6% – according to a report by IQVIA, a health care analytics company. In 2019, biologics accounted for 43% of drug spending in the United States

Biosimilars provide a roughly 30% discount over brand biologics in the United States but have the potential to reduce spending by more than $100 billion in the next 5 years, the IQVIA analysis found.

In a survey of 602 physicians who prescribe biologic medications, more than three-quarters said they believed biosimilars are just as safe and effective as their biologic counterparts, according to NORC.

But they were less comfortable with switching patients from a brand biologic to a biosimilar. While about half said they were very likely to prescribe a biosimilar to a patient just starting biologic therapy, only 31% said they were very likely to prescribe a biosimilar to a patient already doing well on a brand biologic.

It can be challenging to find a treatment regimen that works for patients with complicated chronic conditions, and physicians and patients often don’t want to rock the boat once that is achieved.

In Ms. Moxley’s case, for example, before her condition stabilized on Remicade, she tried a conventional pill called Lialda, the biologic drug Humira and a lower dose of Remicade.

Some doctors and patients raise concerns that switching between these drugs might cause patients to develop antibodies that cause the drugs to lose effectiveness. They want to see more research about the effects of such switches.

“We haven’t seen enough studies about patients going from the biologic to the biosimilar and bouncing back and forth,” said Marcus Snow, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care. “We don’t want our patients to be guinea pigs.”

Manufacturers of biologic and biosimilar drugs have participated in advertising, exhibit or sponsorship opportunities with the American College of Rheumatology, according to ACR spokesperson Jocelyn Givens.

But studies show a one-time switch from Remicade to a biosimilar like Inflectra does not cause side effects or the development of antibodies, said Ross Maltz, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, and former member of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation’s National Scientific Advisory Committee. Studies may be conducted by researchers with extensive ties to the industry and funded by drugmakers.

Situations like Ms. Moxley’s are unusual, said Kristine Grow, senior vice president of communications at AHIP, an insurer trade group.

“For patients who have been taking a brand-name biologic for some time, health insurance providers do not typically encourage them to switch to a biosimilar because of a formulary change, and most plans exclude these patients from any changes in cost sharing due to formulary changes,” she said.

Drugmakers can seek approval from the FDA of their biosimilar as interchangeable with a biologic drug, allowing pharmacists, subject to state law, to switch a physician’s prescription from the brand drug, as they often do with generic drugs.

However, the FDA has approved only one biosimilar (Semglee, a form of insulin) as interchangeable with a biologic (Lantus).

Like Ms. Moxley, many other patients using biologics get copay assistance from drug companies, but the money often isn’t enough to cover the full cost. In her old job as a radio reporter, Ms. Moxley said, she hit the $7,000 maximum annual out-of-pocket spending limit for her plan by May.

In her new job, Ms. Moxley has an individual plan with a $4,000 maximum out-of-pocket limit, which she expects to blow past once again within months.

But she received good news recently: Her new plan will cover Remicade.

“I’m still concerned that I will have developed antibodies since my last dose,” she said. “But it feels like a step in the direction of good health again.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

It took years for Elle Moxley to get a diagnosis that explained her crippling gastrointestinal pain, digestion problems, fatigue, and hot, red rashes. And after learning in 2016 that she had Crohn’s disease, a chronic inflammation of the digestive tract, she spent more than 4 years trying medications before getting her disease under control with a biologic drug called Remicade.

So Ms. Moxley, 33, was dismayed to receive a notice from her insurer in January that Remicade would no longer be covered as a preferred drug on her plan. Another drug, Inflectra, which the Food and Drug Administration says has no meaningful clinical differences from Remicade, is now preferred. It is a “biosimilar” drug.

“I felt very powerless,” said Ms. Moxley, who recently started a job as a public relations coordinator for Kansas City (Mo.) Public Schools. “I have this decision being made for me and my doctor that’s not in my best interest, and it might knock me out of remission.”

After Ms. Moxley’s first Inflectra infusion in July, she developed a painful rash. It went away after a few days, but she said she continues to feel extremely fatigued and experiences gastrointestinal pain, constipation, diarrhea and nausea.

Many medical professionals look to biosimilar drugs as a way to increase competition and give consumers cheaper options, much as generic drugs do, and they point to the more robust use of these products in Europe to cut costs.

Yet the United States has been slower to adopt biosimilar drugs since the first such medicine was approved in 2015. That’s partly because of concerns raised by patients like Moxley and their doctors, but also because brand-name biologics have kept biosimilars from entering the market. The companies behind the brand-name drugs have used legal actions to extend the life of their patents and incentives that make offering the brand biologic more attractive than offering a biosimilar on a formulary, listing which drugs are covered on an insurance plan.

“It distorts the market and makes it so that patients can’t get access,” said Jinoos Yazdany, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine and chief of the rheumatology division at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital.

The FDA has approved 31 biosimilar medications since 2015, but only about 60% have made it to market, according to an analysis by NORC, a research organization at the University of Chicago.

Remicade’s manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer, which makes the Remicade biosimilar Inflectra, have been embroiled in a long-running lawsuit over Pfizer’s claims that Johnson & Johnson tried to choke off competition through exclusionary contracts with insurers and other anticompetitive actions. In July, the companies settled the case on undisclosed terms.

In a statement, Pfizer said it would continue to sell Inflectra in the United States but noted ongoing challenges: “Pfizer has begun to see progress in the overall biosimilars marketplace in the U.S. However, changes in policy at a government level and acceptance of biosimilars among key stakeholders are critical to deliver more meaningful uptake so patients and the health care system at large can benefit from the cost savings these medicines may deliver.”

Johnson & Johnson said it is committed to making Remicade available to patients who choose it, which “compels us to compete responsibly on both price and value.”

Biologic medicines, which are generally grown from living organisms such as animal cells or bacteria, are more complex and expensive to manufacture than drugs made from chemicals. In recent years, biologic drugs have become a mainstay of treatment for autoimmune conditions like Crohn’s disease and rheumatoid arthritis, as well as certain cancers and diabetes, among other conditions.

Other drugmakers can’t exactly reproduce these biologic drugs by following chemical recipes as they do for generic versions of conventional drugs.

Instead, biosimilar versions of biologic drugs are generally made from the same types of materials as the original biologics and must be “highly similar” to them to be approved by the FDA. They must have no clinically meaningful differences from the biologic drug, and be just as safe, pure and potent. More than a decade after Congress created an approval pathway for biosimilars, they are widely accepted as safe and effective alternatives to brand biologics.

Medical experts hope that as biosimilars become more widely used they will increasingly provide a brake on drug spending.

From 2015 to 2019, drug spending overall grew 6.1%, while spending on biologics grew more than twice as much – 14.6% – according to a report by IQVIA, a health care analytics company. In 2019, biologics accounted for 43% of drug spending in the United States

Biosimilars provide a roughly 30% discount over brand biologics in the United States but have the potential to reduce spending by more than $100 billion in the next 5 years, the IQVIA analysis found.

In a survey of 602 physicians who prescribe biologic medications, more than three-quarters said they believed biosimilars are just as safe and effective as their biologic counterparts, according to NORC.

But they were less comfortable with switching patients from a brand biologic to a biosimilar. While about half said they were very likely to prescribe a biosimilar to a patient just starting biologic therapy, only 31% said they were very likely to prescribe a biosimilar to a patient already doing well on a brand biologic.

It can be challenging to find a treatment regimen that works for patients with complicated chronic conditions, and physicians and patients often don’t want to rock the boat once that is achieved.

In Ms. Moxley’s case, for example, before her condition stabilized on Remicade, she tried a conventional pill called Lialda, the biologic drug Humira and a lower dose of Remicade.

Some doctors and patients raise concerns that switching between these drugs might cause patients to develop antibodies that cause the drugs to lose effectiveness. They want to see more research about the effects of such switches.

“We haven’t seen enough studies about patients going from the biologic to the biosimilar and bouncing back and forth,” said Marcus Snow, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care. “We don’t want our patients to be guinea pigs.”

Manufacturers of biologic and biosimilar drugs have participated in advertising, exhibit or sponsorship opportunities with the American College of Rheumatology, according to ACR spokesperson Jocelyn Givens.

But studies show a one-time switch from Remicade to a biosimilar like Inflectra does not cause side effects or the development of antibodies, said Ross Maltz, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, and former member of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation’s National Scientific Advisory Committee. Studies may be conducted by researchers with extensive ties to the industry and funded by drugmakers.

Situations like Ms. Moxley’s are unusual, said Kristine Grow, senior vice president of communications at AHIP, an insurer trade group.

“For patients who have been taking a brand-name biologic for some time, health insurance providers do not typically encourage them to switch to a biosimilar because of a formulary change, and most plans exclude these patients from any changes in cost sharing due to formulary changes,” she said.

Drugmakers can seek approval from the FDA of their biosimilar as interchangeable with a biologic drug, allowing pharmacists, subject to state law, to switch a physician’s prescription from the brand drug, as they often do with generic drugs.

However, the FDA has approved only one biosimilar (Semglee, a form of insulin) as interchangeable with a biologic (Lantus).

Like Ms. Moxley, many other patients using biologics get copay assistance from drug companies, but the money often isn’t enough to cover the full cost. In her old job as a radio reporter, Ms. Moxley said, she hit the $7,000 maximum annual out-of-pocket spending limit for her plan by May.

In her new job, Ms. Moxley has an individual plan with a $4,000 maximum out-of-pocket limit, which she expects to blow past once again within months.

But she received good news recently: Her new plan will cover Remicade.

“I’m still concerned that I will have developed antibodies since my last dose,” she said. “But it feels like a step in the direction of good health again.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

In almost 80% of cases, cutaneous psoriasis predates the onset of arthritic psoriasis. Therefore, identifying risk factors for the development of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients with skin psoriasis is of significant clinical and research interest. One such risk factor that has previous been described is the severity of psoriasis. In a prospective population-based cohort study performed within The Health Improvement Network in the UK, Ogdie et al demonstrated that in a cohort of 8881 patients aged 25–60 years with a code for psoriasis randomly selected between 2008 and 2011, the extent of psoriasis as measured by the body surface area affected (BSA) was a strong predictor of developing PsA. Comorbidities, such as obesity and depression, were additive risk factors. In this cohort, after a mean follow-up time of 4.2 years (SD 2.1), the incidence of PsA was 5.4 cases per 1000 person-years. After adjusting for age and sex, BSA > 10% [hazard ratio (HR) 2.01, 95% CI 1.29, 3.13], BSA 3–10% (HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.02, 2.03), obesity (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.19, 2.26) and depression (HR 1.68, 95% CI 1.21, 2.33) were associated with incident PsA. Thus, patients with these risk factors should be carefully evaluated at each visit for signs of PsA.

One important question is whether treatment of psoriasis with targeted therapies reduces the risk of incident PsA. In a retrospective cohort study using the electronic medical records of the Maccabi Healthcare Services in Israel, Rosenthal et al, using propensity score matching compared patients who had received biological treatment for psoriasis and were not diagnosed with PsA before or at the time of biologic treatment initiation to controls not on such treatment. Patients were matched by age at diagnosis, gender, time until treatment initiation, maximum body mass index (BMI), and smoking. Multivariable Cox regression analysis showed that the control group had a significantly higher risk for PsA compared to patients treated with biologics (adjusted HR 1.39; 95%CI 1.03-1.87). Thus, there is increasing evidence that biologic therapy may decrease the risk of developing PsA.

Management of comorbidities remain an ongoing challenge in the management of psoriatic disease. In a cross-sectional multi-center study conducted by the Turkish League Against Rheumatism involving 1033 patients with PsA, 383 (37.1%) of whom were obese, Gok et al report that obesity was significantly associated with higher disease activity, lower quality of life scores, anxiety, depression, and fatigue. Comorbidities including obesity must be addressed for holistic management of PsA.

But counseling about modifiable risk factors remains low. Taylor et al reported that counseling or education for modifiable lifestyle risk factors were rare during psoriatic disease outpatient visits. Using data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (2002-2016) and the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (2002-2011) conducted in the United States, they demonstrate low rates of counseling for any modifiable lifestyle risk factor (11.1%; 95% CI 7.9%-15.3%), tobacco (4.8%; 95% CI 2.8%-8.0%), and obesity (2.8%; 95% CI 1.7%-4.5%). Thus, in addition to counseling about medications, an effort must be made to counsel about modifiable risk factors and comorbidities to improve quality of life of patients with psoriatic disease.

References

Ogdie A, Shin DB, Love TJ, Gelfand JM. Body surface area affected by psoriasis and the risk for psoriatic arthritis: a prospective population-based cohort study. Rheumatology (Oxf). 2021:Sep 11:keab622 (in press). doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab622 PMID: 34508558.

Shalev Rosenthal Y, Schwartz N, Sagy I, Pavlovsky L. Psoriatic arthritis incidence among patients receiving biologic medications for psoriasis: A nested case control study. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021:Aug 23. doi: 10.1002/art.41946. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34423909.

Shalev Rosenthal Y, Schwartz N, Sagy I, Pavlovsky L. Psoriatic arthritis incidence among patients receiving biologic medications for psoriasis: A nested case control study. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021:Aug 23. doi: 10.1002/art.41946. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34423909.

Gok K, Nas K, Tekeoglu I, Sunar I, Keskin Y, Kilic E, Sargin B, Acer Kasman S, Alkan H, Sahin N, Cengiz G, Cuzdan N, Albayrak Gezer İ, Keskin D, Mulkoglu C, Resorlu H, Bal A, Duruoz MT, Kucukakkas O, Yurdakul OV, Alkan Melikoglu M, Aydin Y, Ayhan FF, Bodur H, Calis M, Capkin E, Devrimsel G, Ecesoy H, Hizmetli S, Kamanli A, Kutluk O, Sen N, Sendur OF, Tolu S, Toprak M, Tuncer T. Impact of obesity on quality of life, psychological status, and disease activity in psoriatic arthritis: a multi‑center study. Rheumatol Int. 2021:Aug 28. doi: 10.1007/s00296-021-04971-8. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34453579.

Taylor MT, Keller M, Barbieri JS. Lifestyle risk factor counseling at visits for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis in the United States. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021:Aug 25:S0190-9622(21)02376-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2021.08.034. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34450204

In almost 80% of cases, cutaneous psoriasis predates the onset of arthritic psoriasis. Therefore, identifying risk factors for the development of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients with skin psoriasis is of significant clinical and research interest. One such risk factor that has previous been described is the severity of psoriasis. In a prospective population-based cohort study performed within The Health Improvement Network in the UK, Ogdie et al demonstrated that in a cohort of 8881 patients aged 25–60 years with a code for psoriasis randomly selected between 2008 and 2011, the extent of psoriasis as measured by the body surface area affected (BSA) was a strong predictor of developing PsA. Comorbidities, such as obesity and depression, were additive risk factors. In this cohort, after a mean follow-up time of 4.2 years (SD 2.1), the incidence of PsA was 5.4 cases per 1000 person-years. After adjusting for age and sex, BSA > 10% [hazard ratio (HR) 2.01, 95% CI 1.29, 3.13], BSA 3–10% (HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.02, 2.03), obesity (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.19, 2.26) and depression (HR 1.68, 95% CI 1.21, 2.33) were associated with incident PsA. Thus, patients with these risk factors should be carefully evaluated at each visit for signs of PsA.

One important question is whether treatment of psoriasis with targeted therapies reduces the risk of incident PsA. In a retrospective cohort study using the electronic medical records of the Maccabi Healthcare Services in Israel, Rosenthal et al, using propensity score matching compared patients who had received biological treatment for psoriasis and were not diagnosed with PsA before or at the time of biologic treatment initiation to controls not on such treatment. Patients were matched by age at diagnosis, gender, time until treatment initiation, maximum body mass index (BMI), and smoking. Multivariable Cox regression analysis showed that the control group had a significantly higher risk for PsA compared to patients treated with biologics (adjusted HR 1.39; 95%CI 1.03-1.87). Thus, there is increasing evidence that biologic therapy may decrease the risk of developing PsA.

Management of comorbidities remain an ongoing challenge in the management of psoriatic disease. In a cross-sectional multi-center study conducted by the Turkish League Against Rheumatism involving 1033 patients with PsA, 383 (37.1%) of whom were obese, Gok et al report that obesity was significantly associated with higher disease activity, lower quality of life scores, anxiety, depression, and fatigue. Comorbidities including obesity must be addressed for holistic management of PsA.

But counseling about modifiable risk factors remains low. Taylor et al reported that counseling or education for modifiable lifestyle risk factors were rare during psoriatic disease outpatient visits. Using data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (2002-2016) and the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (2002-2011) conducted in the United States, they demonstrate low rates of counseling for any modifiable lifestyle risk factor (11.1%; 95% CI 7.9%-15.3%), tobacco (4.8%; 95% CI 2.8%-8.0%), and obesity (2.8%; 95% CI 1.7%-4.5%). Thus, in addition to counseling about medications, an effort must be made to counsel about modifiable risk factors and comorbidities to improve quality of life of patients with psoriatic disease.

References

Ogdie A, Shin DB, Love TJ, Gelfand JM. Body surface area affected by psoriasis and the risk for psoriatic arthritis: a prospective population-based cohort study. Rheumatology (Oxf). 2021:Sep 11:keab622 (in press). doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab622 PMID: 34508558.

Shalev Rosenthal Y, Schwartz N, Sagy I, Pavlovsky L. Psoriatic arthritis incidence among patients receiving biologic medications for psoriasis: A nested case control study. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021:Aug 23. doi: 10.1002/art.41946. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34423909.

Shalev Rosenthal Y, Schwartz N, Sagy I, Pavlovsky L. Psoriatic arthritis incidence among patients receiving biologic medications for psoriasis: A nested case control study. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021:Aug 23. doi: 10.1002/art.41946. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34423909.

Gok K, Nas K, Tekeoglu I, Sunar I, Keskin Y, Kilic E, Sargin B, Acer Kasman S, Alkan H, Sahin N, Cengiz G, Cuzdan N, Albayrak Gezer İ, Keskin D, Mulkoglu C, Resorlu H, Bal A, Duruoz MT, Kucukakkas O, Yurdakul OV, Alkan Melikoglu M, Aydin Y, Ayhan FF, Bodur H, Calis M, Capkin E, Devrimsel G, Ecesoy H, Hizmetli S, Kamanli A, Kutluk O, Sen N, Sendur OF, Tolu S, Toprak M, Tuncer T. Impact of obesity on quality of life, psychological status, and disease activity in psoriatic arthritis: a multi‑center study. Rheumatol Int. 2021:Aug 28. doi: 10.1007/s00296-021-04971-8. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34453579.

Taylor MT, Keller M, Barbieri JS. Lifestyle risk factor counseling at visits for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis in the United States. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021:Aug 25:S0190-9622(21)02376-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2021.08.034. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34450204

In almost 80% of cases, cutaneous psoriasis predates the onset of arthritic psoriasis. Therefore, identifying risk factors for the development of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients with skin psoriasis is of significant clinical and research interest. One such risk factor that has previous been described is the severity of psoriasis. In a prospective population-based cohort study performed within The Health Improvement Network in the UK, Ogdie et al demonstrated that in a cohort of 8881 patients aged 25–60 years with a code for psoriasis randomly selected between 2008 and 2011, the extent of psoriasis as measured by the body surface area affected (BSA) was a strong predictor of developing PsA. Comorbidities, such as obesity and depression, were additive risk factors. In this cohort, after a mean follow-up time of 4.2 years (SD 2.1), the incidence of PsA was 5.4 cases per 1000 person-years. After adjusting for age and sex, BSA > 10% [hazard ratio (HR) 2.01, 95% CI 1.29, 3.13], BSA 3–10% (HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.02, 2.03), obesity (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.19, 2.26) and depression (HR 1.68, 95% CI 1.21, 2.33) were associated with incident PsA. Thus, patients with these risk factors should be carefully evaluated at each visit for signs of PsA.

One important question is whether treatment of psoriasis with targeted therapies reduces the risk of incident PsA. In a retrospective cohort study using the electronic medical records of the Maccabi Healthcare Services in Israel, Rosenthal et al, using propensity score matching compared patients who had received biological treatment for psoriasis and were not diagnosed with PsA before or at the time of biologic treatment initiation to controls not on such treatment. Patients were matched by age at diagnosis, gender, time until treatment initiation, maximum body mass index (BMI), and smoking. Multivariable Cox regression analysis showed that the control group had a significantly higher risk for PsA compared to patients treated with biologics (adjusted HR 1.39; 95%CI 1.03-1.87). Thus, there is increasing evidence that biologic therapy may decrease the risk of developing PsA.

Management of comorbidities remain an ongoing challenge in the management of psoriatic disease. In a cross-sectional multi-center study conducted by the Turkish League Against Rheumatism involving 1033 patients with PsA, 383 (37.1%) of whom were obese, Gok et al report that obesity was significantly associated with higher disease activity, lower quality of life scores, anxiety, depression, and fatigue. Comorbidities including obesity must be addressed for holistic management of PsA.

But counseling about modifiable risk factors remains low. Taylor et al reported that counseling or education for modifiable lifestyle risk factors were rare during psoriatic disease outpatient visits. Using data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (2002-2016) and the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (2002-2011) conducted in the United States, they demonstrate low rates of counseling for any modifiable lifestyle risk factor (11.1%; 95% CI 7.9%-15.3%), tobacco (4.8%; 95% CI 2.8%-8.0%), and obesity (2.8%; 95% CI 1.7%-4.5%). Thus, in addition to counseling about medications, an effort must be made to counsel about modifiable risk factors and comorbidities to improve quality of life of patients with psoriatic disease.

References

Ogdie A, Shin DB, Love TJ, Gelfand JM. Body surface area affected by psoriasis and the risk for psoriatic arthritis: a prospective population-based cohort study. Rheumatology (Oxf). 2021:Sep 11:keab622 (in press). doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab622 PMID: 34508558.

Shalev Rosenthal Y, Schwartz N, Sagy I, Pavlovsky L. Psoriatic arthritis incidence among patients receiving biologic medications for psoriasis: A nested case control study. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021:Aug 23. doi: 10.1002/art.41946. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34423909.

Shalev Rosenthal Y, Schwartz N, Sagy I, Pavlovsky L. Psoriatic arthritis incidence among patients receiving biologic medications for psoriasis: A nested case control study. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021:Aug 23. doi: 10.1002/art.41946. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34423909.

Gok K, Nas K, Tekeoglu I, Sunar I, Keskin Y, Kilic E, Sargin B, Acer Kasman S, Alkan H, Sahin N, Cengiz G, Cuzdan N, Albayrak Gezer İ, Keskin D, Mulkoglu C, Resorlu H, Bal A, Duruoz MT, Kucukakkas O, Yurdakul OV, Alkan Melikoglu M, Aydin Y, Ayhan FF, Bodur H, Calis M, Capkin E, Devrimsel G, Ecesoy H, Hizmetli S, Kamanli A, Kutluk O, Sen N, Sendur OF, Tolu S, Toprak M, Tuncer T. Impact of obesity on quality of life, psychological status, and disease activity in psoriatic arthritis: a multi‑center study. Rheumatol Int. 2021:Aug 28. doi: 10.1007/s00296-021-04971-8. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34453579.

Taylor MT, Keller M, Barbieri JS. Lifestyle risk factor counseling at visits for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis in the United States. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021:Aug 25:S0190-9622(21)02376-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2021.08.034. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34450204

The risk of developing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) may increase as the severity of psoriasis increases, results from a large analysis of U.S. medical records demonstrated.

Factors that predict the development of psoriasis in patients with psoriasis include nail, inverse, and scalp psoriasis; family history of PsA; as well as severity of skin disease. And like psoriasis, “PsA is associated with a multitude of comorbidities, including cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, Crohn’s disease, obesity, diabetes, uveitis, anxiety, and depression, with correspondingly higher healthcare utilization and direct healthcare costs,” wrote corresponding author Joseph F. Merola, MD, MMSc, and colleagues. The study was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. “Timely and accurate diagnosis of PsA is important for improved patient outcomes and appropriate disease management and may prevent prolonged inflammation that leads to structural joint damage and worsening physical function,” they added.

The mean time of onset of PsA among patients with psoriasis who develop PsA is 10 years after the first signs of psoriasis appear. An estimated 20%-30% of patients with psoriasis have a concurrent diagnosis of PsA, and the annual incidence of PsA has been reported to be 2.7 cases per 100 patients with psoriasis. While previous studies have suggested that a higher incidence of PsA is associated with greater disease severity, there are limited data in the United States on the topic.

For the study, Dr. Merola, a dermatologist and rheumatologist who directs the Center for Skin and Related Musculoskeletal Diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and his colleagues drew from the Optum EHR database to identify adult patients newly diagnosed with psoriasis between Jan. 1, 2009, and March 31, 2019. Patients diagnosed with psoriasis or PsA prior to the index date were excluded from the analysis for evaluation of incidence but included for evaluation of prevalence. The patients were followed from the index date until the earliest PsA event, death, or end of study or follow-up, whichever came first. The researchers calculated the incidence of PsA among adults with psoriasis as the number of incident PsA events divided by the number of patient-years (PY) at risk, which was reported as the raw incidence per 100 psoriasis PY. They calculated the prevalence of PsA among adults with psoriasis as “the number of prevalent PsA events divided by the number of eligible patients with [psoriasis] and reported by years in the follow-up period,” which was a median of 3.7 years.

A total of 114,868 patients were included in the analysis. At baseline, their mean age was 54 years, 53% were female, 89% were White, and 39% were obese. Most patients (102,553) were on nonsystemic agents during the year after their psoriasis diagnosis, while 6,345 were on nonbiologic systemic therapies (NBSTs) and 5,970 were on biologics. The researchers classified patients as having mild psoriasis if they were taking nonsystemic agents, moderate disease if they were taking NBSTs, or severe disease if they were taking biologics.

The overall incidence rate of PsA was 2.9 events per 100 PY and increased by severity of disease. When calculated by severity, the incidence was 2.1 events per 100 PY for patients with mild psoriasis, 9.9 events per 100 PY for those with moderate psoriasis, and 17.6 events per 100 PY for those with severe psoriasis.

When the researchers excluded patients diagnosed with PsA up to 1 year after being diagnosed with psoriasis, the overall incidence was lower (1.7 events per 100 PY), with similar trends for categories of treatment severity. Specifically, the incidence was 1.5, 3.1, and 4.7 events per 100 PY among those with mild, moderate, and severe psoriasis, based on their treatment groups, respectively.

Among the 120,523 patients with psoriasis who were eligible for the assessment of prevalence of PsA, the overall 5-year prevalence of PsA was 14.2% and rose with severity of disease: 9.9% in patients with mild psoriasis, 35% in patients with moderate psoriasis, and 54.9% in patients with severe psoriasis.

Other predictors of PsA onset for both index-date cohorts included weight of 90 kg or greater, female gender, age group 25-65 years (compared with the age group over 65 years), and rheumatic risk factors such as wrist pain and unspecified rheumatism.

“To ensure timely diagnosis and treatment for management and prevention of PsA, patients with [psoriasis] should be routinely screened, especially those with more severe disease and other PsA risk factors,” the authors advised.

Dr. Merola and colleagues acknowledged certain limitations of their analysis, including the potential for selection bias and its reliance on EHR data which “lacked clinical measures of disease severity such as the PASI, and data on BSA were not available for all study participants; therefore, treatment groups were used as a surrogate for disease severity,” they wrote. “As a result, some patients may have been miscategorized, especially patients with severe disease who were untreated.”

The study was sponsored by Novartis. Dr. Merola disclosed that he is a consultant and/or investigator for Merck, AbbVie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, UCB, Celgene, Sanofi, Regeneron, Arena, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Biogen, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Avotres, and LEO Pharma. Four authors are Novartis employees, or employees of a consulting company that provides services to Novartis; and another author disclosed serving as an investigator or consultant for several pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis.

[email protected]

The risk of developing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) may increase as the severity of psoriasis increases, results from a large analysis of U.S. medical records demonstrated.

Factors that predict the development of psoriasis in patients with psoriasis include nail, inverse, and scalp psoriasis; family history of PsA; as well as severity of skin disease. And like psoriasis, “PsA is associated with a multitude of comorbidities, including cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, Crohn’s disease, obesity, diabetes, uveitis, anxiety, and depression, with correspondingly higher healthcare utilization and direct healthcare costs,” wrote corresponding author Joseph F. Merola, MD, MMSc, and colleagues. The study was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. “Timely and accurate diagnosis of PsA is important for improved patient outcomes and appropriate disease management and may prevent prolonged inflammation that leads to structural joint damage and worsening physical function,” they added.

The mean time of onset of PsA among patients with psoriasis who develop PsA is 10 years after the first signs of psoriasis appear. An estimated 20%-30% of patients with psoriasis have a concurrent diagnosis of PsA, and the annual incidence of PsA has been reported to be 2.7 cases per 100 patients with psoriasis. While previous studies have suggested that a higher incidence of PsA is associated with greater disease severity, there are limited data in the United States on the topic.

For the study, Dr. Merola, a dermatologist and rheumatologist who directs the Center for Skin and Related Musculoskeletal Diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and his colleagues drew from the Optum EHR database to identify adult patients newly diagnosed with psoriasis between Jan. 1, 2009, and March 31, 2019. Patients diagnosed with psoriasis or PsA prior to the index date were excluded from the analysis for evaluation of incidence but included for evaluation of prevalence. The patients were followed from the index date until the earliest PsA event, death, or end of study or follow-up, whichever came first. The researchers calculated the incidence of PsA among adults with psoriasis as the number of incident PsA events divided by the number of patient-years (PY) at risk, which was reported as the raw incidence per 100 psoriasis PY. They calculated the prevalence of PsA among adults with psoriasis as “the number of prevalent PsA events divided by the number of eligible patients with [psoriasis] and reported by years in the follow-up period,” which was a median of 3.7 years.

A total of 114,868 patients were included in the analysis. At baseline, their mean age was 54 years, 53% were female, 89% were White, and 39% were obese. Most patients (102,553) were on nonsystemic agents during the year after their psoriasis diagnosis, while 6,345 were on nonbiologic systemic therapies (NBSTs) and 5,970 were on biologics. The researchers classified patients as having mild psoriasis if they were taking nonsystemic agents, moderate disease if they were taking NBSTs, or severe disease if they were taking biologics.

The overall incidence rate of PsA was 2.9 events per 100 PY and increased by severity of disease. When calculated by severity, the incidence was 2.1 events per 100 PY for patients with mild psoriasis, 9.9 events per 100 PY for those with moderate psoriasis, and 17.6 events per 100 PY for those with severe psoriasis.

When the researchers excluded patients diagnosed with PsA up to 1 year after being diagnosed with psoriasis, the overall incidence was lower (1.7 events per 100 PY), with similar trends for categories of treatment severity. Specifically, the incidence was 1.5, 3.1, and 4.7 events per 100 PY among those with mild, moderate, and severe psoriasis, based on their treatment groups, respectively.

Among the 120,523 patients with psoriasis who were eligible for the assessment of prevalence of PsA, the overall 5-year prevalence of PsA was 14.2% and rose with severity of disease: 9.9% in patients with mild psoriasis, 35% in patients with moderate psoriasis, and 54.9% in patients with severe psoriasis.

Other predictors of PsA onset for both index-date cohorts included weight of 90 kg or greater, female gender, age group 25-65 years (compared with the age group over 65 years), and rheumatic risk factors such as wrist pain and unspecified rheumatism.

“To ensure timely diagnosis and treatment for management and prevention of PsA, patients with [psoriasis] should be routinely screened, especially those with more severe disease and other PsA risk factors,” the authors advised.

Dr. Merola and colleagues acknowledged certain limitations of their analysis, including the potential for selection bias and its reliance on EHR data which “lacked clinical measures of disease severity such as the PASI, and data on BSA were not available for all study participants; therefore, treatment groups were used as a surrogate for disease severity,” they wrote. “As a result, some patients may have been miscategorized, especially patients with severe disease who were untreated.”

The study was sponsored by Novartis. Dr. Merola disclosed that he is a consultant and/or investigator for Merck, AbbVie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, UCB, Celgene, Sanofi, Regeneron, Arena, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Biogen, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Avotres, and LEO Pharma. Four authors are Novartis employees, or employees of a consulting company that provides services to Novartis; and another author disclosed serving as an investigator or consultant for several pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis.

[email protected]

The risk of developing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) may increase as the severity of psoriasis increases, results from a large analysis of U.S. medical records demonstrated.

Factors that predict the development of psoriasis in patients with psoriasis include nail, inverse, and scalp psoriasis; family history of PsA; as well as severity of skin disease. And like psoriasis, “PsA is associated with a multitude of comorbidities, including cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, Crohn’s disease, obesity, diabetes, uveitis, anxiety, and depression, with correspondingly higher healthcare utilization and direct healthcare costs,” wrote corresponding author Joseph F. Merola, MD, MMSc, and colleagues. The study was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. “Timely and accurate diagnosis of PsA is important for improved patient outcomes and appropriate disease management and may prevent prolonged inflammation that leads to structural joint damage and worsening physical function,” they added.

The mean time of onset of PsA among patients with psoriasis who develop PsA is 10 years after the first signs of psoriasis appear. An estimated 20%-30% of patients with psoriasis have a concurrent diagnosis of PsA, and the annual incidence of PsA has been reported to be 2.7 cases per 100 patients with psoriasis. While previous studies have suggested that a higher incidence of PsA is associated with greater disease severity, there are limited data in the United States on the topic.

For the study, Dr. Merola, a dermatologist and rheumatologist who directs the Center for Skin and Related Musculoskeletal Diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and his colleagues drew from the Optum EHR database to identify adult patients newly diagnosed with psoriasis between Jan. 1, 2009, and March 31, 2019. Patients diagnosed with psoriasis or PsA prior to the index date were excluded from the analysis for evaluation of incidence but included for evaluation of prevalence. The patients were followed from the index date until the earliest PsA event, death, or end of study or follow-up, whichever came first. The researchers calculated the incidence of PsA among adults with psoriasis as the number of incident PsA events divided by the number of patient-years (PY) at risk, which was reported as the raw incidence per 100 psoriasis PY. They calculated the prevalence of PsA among adults with psoriasis as “the number of prevalent PsA events divided by the number of eligible patients with [psoriasis] and reported by years in the follow-up period,” which was a median of 3.7 years.

A total of 114,868 patients were included in the analysis. At baseline, their mean age was 54 years, 53% were female, 89% were White, and 39% were obese. Most patients (102,553) were on nonsystemic agents during the year after their psoriasis diagnosis, while 6,345 were on nonbiologic systemic therapies (NBSTs) and 5,970 were on biologics. The researchers classified patients as having mild psoriasis if they were taking nonsystemic agents, moderate disease if they were taking NBSTs, or severe disease if they were taking biologics.

The overall incidence rate of PsA was 2.9 events per 100 PY and increased by severity of disease. When calculated by severity, the incidence was 2.1 events per 100 PY for patients with mild psoriasis, 9.9 events per 100 PY for those with moderate psoriasis, and 17.6 events per 100 PY for those with severe psoriasis.

When the researchers excluded patients diagnosed with PsA up to 1 year after being diagnosed with psoriasis, the overall incidence was lower (1.7 events per 100 PY), with similar trends for categories of treatment severity. Specifically, the incidence was 1.5, 3.1, and 4.7 events per 100 PY among those with mild, moderate, and severe psoriasis, based on their treatment groups, respectively.

Among the 120,523 patients with psoriasis who were eligible for the assessment of prevalence of PsA, the overall 5-year prevalence of PsA was 14.2% and rose with severity of disease: 9.9% in patients with mild psoriasis, 35% in patients with moderate psoriasis, and 54.9% in patients with severe psoriasis.

Other predictors of PsA onset for both index-date cohorts included weight of 90 kg or greater, female gender, age group 25-65 years (compared with the age group over 65 years), and rheumatic risk factors such as wrist pain and unspecified rheumatism.

“To ensure timely diagnosis and treatment for management and prevention of PsA, patients with [psoriasis] should be routinely screened, especially those with more severe disease and other PsA risk factors,” the authors advised.

Dr. Merola and colleagues acknowledged certain limitations of their analysis, including the potential for selection bias and its reliance on EHR data which “lacked clinical measures of disease severity such as the PASI, and data on BSA were not available for all study participants; therefore, treatment groups were used as a surrogate for disease severity,” they wrote. “As a result, some patients may have been miscategorized, especially patients with severe disease who were untreated.”

The study was sponsored by Novartis. Dr. Merola disclosed that he is a consultant and/or investigator for Merck, AbbVie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, UCB, Celgene, Sanofi, Regeneron, Arena, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Biogen, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Avotres, and LEO Pharma. Four authors are Novartis employees, or employees of a consulting company that provides services to Novartis; and another author disclosed serving as an investigator or consultant for several pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis.

[email protected]

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use recommended marketing authorization this week for two new adalimumab biosimilars, Hukyndra and Libmyris.

The biosimilars, both developed by STADA Arzneimittel AG, will be available as a 40-mg solution for injection in a pre-filled syringe and pre-filled pen and 80-mg solution for injection in a pre-filled syringe. Both biosimilars will have 15 indications:

• rheumatoid arthritis
• polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis
• enthesitis-related arthritis
• ankylosing spondylitis
• axial spondyloarthritis without radiographic evidence of ankylosing spondylitis
• psoriatic arthritis
• chronic plaque psoriasis (adults and children)
• hidradenitis suppurativa
• Crohn’s disease (adults and children)
• ulcerative colitis (adults and children)
• uveitis (adults and children)

Data show that both Hukyndra and Libmyris are highly similar to the reference product Humira (adalimumab), a monoclonal antibody to tumor necrosis factor alpha, and have comparable quality, safety, and efficacy.

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

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use recommended marketing authorization this week for two new adalimumab biosimilars, Hukyndra and Libmyris.

The biosimilars, both developed by STADA Arzneimittel AG, will be available as a 40-mg solution for injection in a pre-filled syringe and pre-filled pen and 80-mg solution for injection in a pre-filled syringe. Both biosimilars will have 15 indications:

• rheumatoid arthritis
• polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis
• enthesitis-related arthritis
• ankylosing spondylitis
• axial spondyloarthritis without radiographic evidence of ankylosing spondylitis
• psoriatic arthritis
• chronic plaque psoriasis (adults and children)
• hidradenitis suppurativa
• Crohn’s disease (adults and children)
• ulcerative colitis (adults and children)
• uveitis (adults and children)

Data show that both Hukyndra and Libmyris are highly similar to the reference product Humira (adalimumab), a monoclonal antibody to tumor necrosis factor alpha, and have comparable quality, safety, and efficacy.

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

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use recommended marketing authorization this week for two new adalimumab biosimilars, Hukyndra and Libmyris.

The biosimilars, both developed by STADA Arzneimittel AG, will be available as a 40-mg solution for injection in a pre-filled syringe and pre-filled pen and 80-mg solution for injection in a pre-filled syringe. Both biosimilars will have 15 indications:

• rheumatoid arthritis
• polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis
• enthesitis-related arthritis
• ankylosing spondylitis
• axial spondyloarthritis without radiographic evidence of ankylosing spondylitis
• psoriatic arthritis
• chronic plaque psoriasis (adults and children)
• hidradenitis suppurativa
• Crohn’s disease (adults and children)
• ulcerative colitis (adults and children)
• uveitis (adults and children)

Data show that both Hukyndra and Libmyris are highly similar to the reference product Humira (adalimumab), a monoclonal antibody to tumor necrosis factor alpha, and have comparable quality, safety, and efficacy.

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

High out-of-pocket costs for medications remain a barrier for patients with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis on Medicare, according to findings from a cross-sectional analysis of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Prescription Drug Plan Formulary Data from the fourth quarter of 2020.

Mathier/Thinkstock

Although biologics have demonstrated safety and effectiveness for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, their costs have risen, which has led patients to switch or discontinue biologics and consequently incur greater health care costs, wrote Sarah P. Pourali and colleagues at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

The authors also noted that Medicare patients in particular experience a financial burden if they have no limits on out-of-pocket spending, and while patient assistance programs may offset some out-of-pocket spending for specialty drugs, not all patients are aware of or qualify for them. Ineligibility for low-income subsidies also serves as a barrier and is associated with lower adherence to treatment.

In a study published in JAMA Dermatology, the researchers identified 5,011 formularies using the CMS data. The medications were etanercept, adalimumab, golimumab, ustekinumab, certolizumab pegol, apremilast, secukinumab, abatacept, ixekizumab, brodalumab, tofacitinib, tofacitinib XR, guselkumab, tildrakizumab, and risankizumab.

Overall, coverage for those 15 specialty medications ranged from 10.0% to 99.8% across products and Part D plans. The most commonly covered medications were adalimumab and ustekinumab (99.8% for both) and the least covered were brodalumab and tildrakizumab (10.9% and 10.0%, respectively).

Prior authorization was required by 90.5%-100% of the plans when medications were covered, and plans with limits on the quantity of medications covered ranged from 1.0% of plans (for guselkumab) to 78% of plans (for tofacitinib).

Copays were relatively rare; 2.4%-5.5% of the plans offered copays on any of the 15 medications.

The standard Medicare benefit for 2021 included a $445 deductible, 25% coinsurance for initial drug spending, and 5% coinsurance for drug spending in the catastrophic phase of coverage, the researchers noted. Overall, apremilast had the lowest estimated out-of-pocket costs for initial fills, under the catastrophic coverage phase, and annual cost, and ustekinumab had the highest. The estimated out-of-pocket costs for an initial fill ranged from $1,234 for apremilast to $3,426 for ustekinumab. Out-of-pocket costs for medications under the catastrophic phase ranged from $181 for apremilast to $1,175 for ustekinumab. Estimated out-of-pocket costs for a year of treatment ranged from $4,423 for apremilast to $6,950 for ustekinumab.

Median point-of-sale prices per fill – meaning pricing with no rebates or discounts – were lowest for apremilast ($3,620.40) and reached $23,492.93 per fill for ustekinumab, the researchers wrote. Other medications with point-of-sale prices above $10,000 were guselkumab ($11,511.52), tildrakizumab ($14,112.13), and risankizumab ($16,248.90).

The study was supported by grants from the Commonwealth Fund and the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. One author disclosed receiving grants from Arnold Ventures, the Commonwealth Fund, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for unrelated work, as well as honoraria from West Health and the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review.

High out-of-pocket costs for medications remain a barrier for patients with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis on Medicare, according to findings from a cross-sectional analysis of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Prescription Drug Plan Formulary Data from the fourth quarter of 2020.

Mathier/Thinkstock

Although biologics have demonstrated safety and effectiveness for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, their costs have risen, which has led patients to switch or discontinue biologics and consequently incur greater health care costs, wrote Sarah P. Pourali and colleagues at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

The authors also noted that Medicare patients in particular experience a financial burden if they have no limits on out-of-pocket spending, and while patient assistance programs may offset some out-of-pocket spending for specialty drugs, not all patients are aware of or qualify for them. Ineligibility for low-income subsidies also serves as a barrier and is associated with lower adherence to treatment.

In a study published in JAMA Dermatology, the researchers identified 5,011 formularies using the CMS data. The medications were etanercept, adalimumab, golimumab, ustekinumab, certolizumab pegol, apremilast, secukinumab, abatacept, ixekizumab, brodalumab, tofacitinib, tofacitinib XR, guselkumab, tildrakizumab, and risankizumab.

Overall, coverage for those 15 specialty medications ranged from 10.0% to 99.8% across products and Part D plans. The most commonly covered medications were adalimumab and ustekinumab (99.8% for both) and the least covered were brodalumab and tildrakizumab (10.9% and 10.0%, respectively).

Prior authorization was required by 90.5%-100% of the plans when medications were covered, and plans with limits on the quantity of medications covered ranged from 1.0% of plans (for guselkumab) to 78% of plans (for tofacitinib).

Copays were relatively rare; 2.4%-5.5% of the plans offered copays on any of the 15 medications.

The standard Medicare benefit for 2021 included a $445 deductible, 25% coinsurance for initial drug spending, and 5% coinsurance for drug spending in the catastrophic phase of coverage, the researchers noted. Overall, apremilast had the lowest estimated out-of-pocket costs for initial fills, under the catastrophic coverage phase, and annual cost, and ustekinumab had the highest. The estimated out-of-pocket costs for an initial fill ranged from $1,234 for apremilast to $3,426 for ustekinumab. Out-of-pocket costs for medications under the catastrophic phase ranged from $181 for apremilast to $1,175 for ustekinumab. Estimated out-of-pocket costs for a year of treatment ranged from $4,423 for apremilast to $6,950 for ustekinumab.

Median point-of-sale prices per fill – meaning pricing with no rebates or discounts – were lowest for apremilast ($3,620.40) and reached $23,492.93 per fill for ustekinumab, the researchers wrote. Other medications with point-of-sale prices above $10,000 were guselkumab ($11,511.52), tildrakizumab ($14,112.13), and risankizumab ($16,248.90).

The study was supported by grants from the Commonwealth Fund and the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. One author disclosed receiving grants from Arnold Ventures, the Commonwealth Fund, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for unrelated work, as well as honoraria from West Health and the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review.

High out-of-pocket costs for medications remain a barrier for patients with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis on Medicare, according to findings from a cross-sectional analysis of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Prescription Drug Plan Formulary Data from the fourth quarter of 2020.

Mathier/Thinkstock

Although biologics have demonstrated safety and effectiveness for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, their costs have risen, which has led patients to switch or discontinue biologics and consequently incur greater health care costs, wrote Sarah P. Pourali and colleagues at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

The authors also noted that Medicare patients in particular experience a financial burden if they have no limits on out-of-pocket spending, and while patient assistance programs may offset some out-of-pocket spending for specialty drugs, not all patients are aware of or qualify for them. Ineligibility for low-income subsidies also serves as a barrier and is associated with lower adherence to treatment.

In a study published in JAMA Dermatology, the researchers identified 5,011 formularies using the CMS data. The medications were etanercept, adalimumab, golimumab, ustekinumab, certolizumab pegol, apremilast, secukinumab, abatacept, ixekizumab, brodalumab, tofacitinib, tofacitinib XR, guselkumab, tildrakizumab, and risankizumab.

Overall, coverage for those 15 specialty medications ranged from 10.0% to 99.8% across products and Part D plans. The most commonly covered medications were adalimumab and ustekinumab (99.8% for both) and the least covered were brodalumab and tildrakizumab (10.9% and 10.0%, respectively).

Prior authorization was required by 90.5%-100% of the plans when medications were covered, and plans with limits on the quantity of medications covered ranged from 1.0% of plans (for guselkumab) to 78% of plans (for tofacitinib).

Copays were relatively rare; 2.4%-5.5% of the plans offered copays on any of the 15 medications.

The standard Medicare benefit for 2021 included a $445 deductible, 25% coinsurance for initial drug spending, and 5% coinsurance for drug spending in the catastrophic phase of coverage, the researchers noted. Overall, apremilast had the lowest estimated out-of-pocket costs for initial fills, under the catastrophic coverage phase, and annual cost, and ustekinumab had the highest. The estimated out-of-pocket costs for an initial fill ranged from $1,234 for apremilast to $3,426 for ustekinumab. Out-of-pocket costs for medications under the catastrophic phase ranged from $181 for apremilast to $1,175 for ustekinumab. Estimated out-of-pocket costs for a year of treatment ranged from $4,423 for apremilast to $6,950 for ustekinumab.

Median point-of-sale prices per fill – meaning pricing with no rebates or discounts – were lowest for apremilast ($3,620.40) and reached $23,492.93 per fill for ustekinumab, the researchers wrote. Other medications with point-of-sale prices above $10,000 were guselkumab ($11,511.52), tildrakizumab ($14,112.13), and risankizumab ($16,248.90).

The study was supported by grants from the Commonwealth Fund and the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. One author disclosed receiving grants from Arnold Ventures, the Commonwealth Fund, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for unrelated work, as well as honoraria from West Health and the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review.

Use of cannabidiol (CBD) as an add-on pain management technique in patients with either hand osteoarthritis (OA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) did not significantly decrease pain intensity when compared with a placebo in a randomized, double-blind trial described as the first of its kind to investigate the effect of pure CBD as an add-on analgesic therapy in patients with joint disease.

Anatoliy Sizov/Getty Images

Although data on the use of medical cannabis as a modulator of joint pain are limited, some studies suggest an effect from CBD without the addition of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), wrote Jonathan Vela, MD, of Aalborg (Denmark) University Hospital, and colleagues.

CBD is being used for pain conditions despite a lack of data on safety and effectiveness, the researchers emphasized. Notably, in a 2018 online survey, 62% of respondents reported using CBD for medical conditions, primarily for chronic pain and arthritis or joint pain, they wrote.

In a study published in the journal Pain, the researchers randomized 59 adults with PsA and 77 adults with hand OA to 20-30 mg of synthetic CBD or a placebo daily for 12 weeks in addition to conventional pain management. Patients initially received either oral CBD 10 mg or a placebo tablet once daily, increasing to 10 mg twice daily after 2 weeks, and once again up to 10 mg three times daily at 4 weeks if the patient did not experience more than 20-mm improvement on the visual analog scale (VAS).

The primary outcome in the trial was patient-reported pain intensity during the last 24 hours as assessed on a paper-based 100-mm VAS with the text, “How much pain have you experienced in the most symptomatic joint during the last 24 hours?” with 0 representing no pain and 100 representing the worst pain imaginable.

Overall, both CBD and placebo groups achieved significant reductions in pain intensity of 11-12 mm at 12 weeks. The mean between-group difference on the VAS was 0.23 mm (P = .96). Twenty-two percent of patients who received CBD and 21% who received placebo demonstrated a pain intensity reduction greater than 30 mm on the VAS. Pain reduction greater than 50% was reported by 17 patients (25%) in the CBD group and 16 (27%) in the placebo group. CBD had a similar effect in patients with either PsA or hand OA.

Four serious adverse events occurred during the 12-week study period, but none of these were deemed adverse drug reactions. Serious adverse events in the CBD patients included one case of ductal carcinoma and one case of lipotymia; serious adverse events in the placebo group included one case of acute shoulder fracture and one case of malignant hypertension. Fifty-nine patients reported adverse events during the study. The CBD group reported more ear-nose-throat adverse events, compared with the placebo group (8 vs. 0).

The researchers assessed the impact of CBD vs. placebo on sleep quality, depression, anxiety, or pain catastrophizing scores using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, and Health Assessment Questionnaire but found no differences in patients taking CBD vs. placebo.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the potentially insufficient dose level to evoke a pain relief response, and a lack of data on additional daily use of analgesics or of the study drug beyond the prescribed dosage, the researchers noted.

The results were strengthened by the randomized, double-blind trial design and its relatively large sample size, they wrote. However, the researchers also cautioned that their study focused on CBD as a single ingredient, and the results might not generalize to other CBD formulations. They also noted that more research is needed to examine both higher doses of CBD and different types of pain disorders.

The study was supported by the Danish Psoriasis Foundation Grant and the Danish Rheumatism Foundation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of cannabidiol (CBD) as an add-on pain management technique in patients with either hand osteoarthritis (OA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) did not significantly decrease pain intensity when compared with a placebo in a randomized, double-blind trial described as the first of its kind to investigate the effect of pure CBD as an add-on analgesic therapy in patients with joint disease.

Anatoliy Sizov/Getty Images

Although data on the use of medical cannabis as a modulator of joint pain are limited, some studies suggest an effect from CBD without the addition of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), wrote Jonathan Vela, MD, of Aalborg (Denmark) University Hospital, and colleagues.

CBD is being used for pain conditions despite a lack of data on safety and effectiveness, the researchers emphasized. Notably, in a 2018 online survey, 62% of respondents reported using CBD for medical conditions, primarily for chronic pain and arthritis or joint pain, they wrote.

In a study published in the journal Pain, the researchers randomized 59 adults with PsA and 77 adults with hand OA to 20-30 mg of synthetic CBD or a placebo daily for 12 weeks in addition to conventional pain management. Patients initially received either oral CBD 10 mg or a placebo tablet once daily, increasing to 10 mg twice daily after 2 weeks, and once again up to 10 mg three times daily at 4 weeks if the patient did not experience more than 20-mm improvement on the visual analog scale (VAS).

The primary outcome in the trial was patient-reported pain intensity during the last 24 hours as assessed on a paper-based 100-mm VAS with the text, “How much pain have you experienced in the most symptomatic joint during the last 24 hours?” with 0 representing no pain and 100 representing the worst pain imaginable.

Overall, both CBD and placebo groups achieved significant reductions in pain intensity of 11-12 mm at 12 weeks. The mean between-group difference on the VAS was 0.23 mm (P = .96). Twenty-two percent of patients who received CBD and 21% who received placebo demonstrated a pain intensity reduction greater than 30 mm on the VAS. Pain reduction greater than 50% was reported by 17 patients (25%) in the CBD group and 16 (27%) in the placebo group. CBD had a similar effect in patients with either PsA or hand OA.

Four serious adverse events occurred during the 12-week study period, but none of these were deemed adverse drug reactions. Serious adverse events in the CBD patients included one case of ductal carcinoma and one case of lipotymia; serious adverse events in the placebo group included one case of acute shoulder fracture and one case of malignant hypertension. Fifty-nine patients reported adverse events during the study. The CBD group reported more ear-nose-throat adverse events, compared with the placebo group (8 vs. 0).

The researchers assessed the impact of CBD vs. placebo on sleep quality, depression, anxiety, or pain catastrophizing scores using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, and Health Assessment Questionnaire but found no differences in patients taking CBD vs. placebo.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the potentially insufficient dose level to evoke a pain relief response, and a lack of data on additional daily use of analgesics or of the study drug beyond the prescribed dosage, the researchers noted.

The results were strengthened by the randomized, double-blind trial design and its relatively large sample size, they wrote. However, the researchers also cautioned that their study focused on CBD as a single ingredient, and the results might not generalize to other CBD formulations. They also noted that more research is needed to examine both higher doses of CBD and different types of pain disorders.

The study was supported by the Danish Psoriasis Foundation Grant and the Danish Rheumatism Foundation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of cannabidiol (CBD) as an add-on pain management technique in patients with either hand osteoarthritis (OA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) did not significantly decrease pain intensity when compared with a placebo in a randomized, double-blind trial described as the first of its kind to investigate the effect of pure CBD as an add-on analgesic therapy in patients with joint disease.

Anatoliy Sizov/Getty Images

Although data on the use of medical cannabis as a modulator of joint pain are limited, some studies suggest an effect from CBD without the addition of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), wrote Jonathan Vela, MD, of Aalborg (Denmark) University Hospital, and colleagues.

CBD is being used for pain conditions despite a lack of data on safety and effectiveness, the researchers emphasized. Notably, in a 2018 online survey, 62% of respondents reported using CBD for medical conditions, primarily for chronic pain and arthritis or joint pain, they wrote.

In a study published in the journal Pain, the researchers randomized 59 adults with PsA and 77 adults with hand OA to 20-30 mg of synthetic CBD or a placebo daily for 12 weeks in addition to conventional pain management. Patients initially received either oral CBD 10 mg or a placebo tablet once daily, increasing to 10 mg twice daily after 2 weeks, and once again up to 10 mg three times daily at 4 weeks if the patient did not experience more than 20-mm improvement on the visual analog scale (VAS).

The primary outcome in the trial was patient-reported pain intensity during the last 24 hours as assessed on a paper-based 100-mm VAS with the text, “How much pain have you experienced in the most symptomatic joint during the last 24 hours?” with 0 representing no pain and 100 representing the worst pain imaginable.

Overall, both CBD and placebo groups achieved significant reductions in pain intensity of 11-12 mm at 12 weeks. The mean between-group difference on the VAS was 0.23 mm (P = .96). Twenty-two percent of patients who received CBD and 21% who received placebo demonstrated a pain intensity reduction greater than 30 mm on the VAS. Pain reduction greater than 50% was reported by 17 patients (25%) in the CBD group and 16 (27%) in the placebo group. CBD had a similar effect in patients with either PsA or hand OA.

Four serious adverse events occurred during the 12-week study period, but none of these were deemed adverse drug reactions. Serious adverse events in the CBD patients included one case of ductal carcinoma and one case of lipotymia; serious adverse events in the placebo group included one case of acute shoulder fracture and one case of malignant hypertension. Fifty-nine patients reported adverse events during the study. The CBD group reported more ear-nose-throat adverse events, compared with the placebo group (8 vs. 0).

The researchers assessed the impact of CBD vs. placebo on sleep quality, depression, anxiety, or pain catastrophizing scores using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, and Health Assessment Questionnaire but found no differences in patients taking CBD vs. placebo.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the potentially insufficient dose level to evoke a pain relief response, and a lack of data on additional daily use of analgesics or of the study drug beyond the prescribed dosage, the researchers noted.

The results were strengthened by the randomized, double-blind trial design and its relatively large sample size, they wrote. However, the researchers also cautioned that their study focused on CBD as a single ingredient, and the results might not generalize to other CBD formulations. They also noted that more research is needed to examine both higher doses of CBD and different types of pain disorders.

The study was supported by the Danish Psoriasis Foundation Grant and the Danish Rheumatism Foundation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

During the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, Amy S. Paller, MD, MS, marveled on the remarkable advances in the treatment of inflammatory skin disorders during the past 2 decades.

“We’ve come a long way, from disease features being red, thick, and scaly and being treated with nonspecific therapy like topical steroids, keratolytics, and tar, to understanding disease pathogenesis and finding new targeted therapies for inflammatory skin disorders in children,” said Dr. Paller, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. “There are now studies moving forward with gene correction, gene replacement, the gene product replaced, or pathway inhibition to prevent the effects of genetic change.”

Technology is leading the way in generating new therapeutic advances, she continued, beyond traditional “omics” to lipidomics, metabolomics, glycomics, and kinomics. “This has enabled us to find new genetic disorders and their causes, to look at changes in gene expression patterns, and to look at changes in protein expression patterns that give us clues as to how to move forward with better therapy,” she said. “When we’re talking about new insights into pathogenesis-based therapy, we’re talking largely about understanding the pathways that lead to either inflammation or promoting cell proliferation and abnormal differentiation.”

Treating pediatric psoriasis

Dr. Paller discussed her approach to managing patients with pediatric psoriasis, an inflammatory disorder with IL-23/Th17 skewing. “First of all, ask about itch and pain with these patients,” she advised. “Interviews have shown that 61% of children experience some itch, 39% have pain or stinging, and in the ixekizumab trials, 72% had what’s considered meaningful itch, with at least 4 out of 10 (mean intensity 5.3) on the itch numeric rating scale. Little is known about the itch associated with psoriasis and its underlying cause – unrelated to the IL-4/IL-13 pathway activation of atopic dermatitis – but it’s worth asking about. I find that itch of the scalp is especially a problem in psoriasis.”

Physicians should also ask pediatric psoriasis patients about joint pain, because about 1% of them have psoriatic arthritis, which is much less common than in adults, “but important to find and manage,” she added. Dr. Paller recommends the new R-JET rapid joint exam technique, which is accompanied by a three-question survey and body diagram that facilitates identification of true arthritis, “so you can know how quickly to refer”.

Several studies have described an increased risk of metabolic syndrome in adolescents with pediatric psoriasis and now in prepubertal children with the disease. In a recent study of 60 consecutive prepubertal children with psoriasis, 70% of whom had mild disease, 40% were overweight or obese, 53% had central obesity, 27% had high levels of the HOMA-IR (homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance) despite generally normal levels of fasting glucose, and 30% met criteria for metabolic syndrome.

“This really struck me because our AAD [American Academy of Dermatology] guidelines did not recommend screening for type 2 diabetes in prepubertal children, even if overweight, because the risk is so small,” Dr. Paller said. “This report suggests that we may need to reconsider this recommendation in prepubertal children with psoriasis.”

Meanwhile, the number of medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for children with psoriasis who are 6 years of age and above continues to expand, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitors, and IL-17 inhibitors. Most children can now achieve a PASI 90 within 12 weeks with the IL-23 inhibitor ustekinumab and the IL-17 inhibitors ixekizumab and secukinumab, Dr. Paller said.

In the ixekizumab trial, there are head-to-head comparison data in a European arm that involved the use of etanercept, she said. “What’s most noticeable is the significant difference in those who were able to achieve PASI 90 or above with this IL-17 inhibitor, versus etanercept,” which she added, raises the question of whether aiming for a PASI 75 is adequate, "or should we strive for PASI 90?” A pediatric psoriasis study published in 2020 found that the greatest improvement in quality of life was associated with a PASI 90 and use of systemic treatments (JAMA Dermatol. 2020;156[1]:72-8).

Looking forward, phase 3 clinical trials are underway in pediatric patients with moderate to severe psoriasis for guselkumab, tildrakizumab, risankizumab, certolizumab, bimekizumab, and brodalumab. “The cost of all of these biologics is high, however. I remind everyone that we still have methotrexate,” she said. “The risk of side effects with our low-dose methotrexate treatment for psoriasis remains low, but methotrexate doesn’t hit these [high] PASI numbers and it’s much slower in its onset than biologics.”

Dr. Paller disclosed that she is a consultant to and/or an investigator for AbbVie, Arena, Bausch, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Forte, LEO Pharma, LifeMax, Pfizer, RAPT Therapeutics, Regeneron, and Sanofi.

Commentary by Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH

Dr. Paller reminds us of some essential features of pediatric psoriasis:
•    It can hurt. Ask your patients if it does.
•    It can itch. Look for excoriations, especially in the scalp.
•    It is often associated with metabolic syndrome, so check relevant biometrics and labs, and consider coincident insulin resistance.
•    Our traditional clinical trial target of PASI75, or a 75% reduction in body surface area involvement, is just not good enough. Studies have shown that the most meaningful quality-of-life gains come at PASI90 or above. 
•    With our newer biologics, such as IL-12/23 blockers (for instance, ustekinumab) and IL-17 blockers (for example, ixekizumab and secukinumab), PASI90 and better is a reasonable expectation, not a pipe dream. 

Dr. Sidbury is chief of dermatology at Seattle Children's Hospital and professor, department of pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle. He is a site principal investigator for dupilumab trials, for which the hospital has a contract with Regeneron.

This article was updated 6/16/22.

During the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, Amy S. Paller, MD, MS, marveled on the remarkable advances in the treatment of inflammatory skin disorders during the past 2 decades.

“We’ve come a long way, from disease features being red, thick, and scaly and being treated with nonspecific therapy like topical steroids, keratolytics, and tar, to understanding disease pathogenesis and finding new targeted therapies for inflammatory skin disorders in children,” said Dr. Paller, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. “There are now studies moving forward with gene correction, gene replacement, the gene product replaced, or pathway inhibition to prevent the effects of genetic change.”

Technology is leading the way in generating new therapeutic advances, she continued, beyond traditional “omics” to lipidomics, metabolomics, glycomics, and kinomics. “This has enabled us to find new genetic disorders and their causes, to look at changes in gene expression patterns, and to look at changes in protein expression patterns that give us clues as to how to move forward with better therapy,” she said. “When we’re talking about new insights into pathogenesis-based therapy, we’re talking largely about understanding the pathways that lead to either inflammation or promoting cell proliferation and abnormal differentiation.”

Treating pediatric psoriasis

Dr. Paller discussed her approach to managing patients with pediatric psoriasis, an inflammatory disorder with IL-23/Th17 skewing. “First of all, ask about itch and pain with these patients,” she advised. “Interviews have shown that 61% of children experience some itch, 39% have pain or stinging, and in the ixekizumab trials, 72% had what’s considered meaningful itch, with at least 4 out of 10 (mean intensity 5.3) on the itch numeric rating scale. Little is known about the itch associated with psoriasis and its underlying cause – unrelated to the IL-4/IL-13 pathway activation of atopic dermatitis – but it’s worth asking about. I find that itch of the scalp is especially a problem in psoriasis.”

Physicians should also ask pediatric psoriasis patients about joint pain, because about 1% of them have psoriatic arthritis, which is much less common than in adults, “but important to find and manage,” she added. Dr. Paller recommends the new R-JET rapid joint exam technique, which is accompanied by a three-question survey and body diagram that facilitates identification of true arthritis, “so you can know how quickly to refer”.

Several studies have described an increased risk of metabolic syndrome in adolescents with pediatric psoriasis and now in prepubertal children with the disease. In a recent study of 60 consecutive prepubertal children with psoriasis, 70% of whom had mild disease, 40% were overweight or obese, 53% had central obesity, 27% had high levels of the HOMA-IR (homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance) despite generally normal levels of fasting glucose, and 30% met criteria for metabolic syndrome.

“This really struck me because our AAD [American Academy of Dermatology] guidelines did not recommend screening for type 2 diabetes in prepubertal children, even if overweight, because the risk is so small,” Dr. Paller said. “This report suggests that we may need to reconsider this recommendation in prepubertal children with psoriasis.”

Meanwhile, the number of medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for children with psoriasis who are 6 years of age and above continues to expand, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitors, and IL-17 inhibitors. Most children can now achieve a PASI 90 within 12 weeks with the IL-23 inhibitor ustekinumab and the IL-17 inhibitors ixekizumab and secukinumab, Dr. Paller said.

In the ixekizumab trial, there are head-to-head comparison data in a European arm that involved the use of etanercept, she said. “What’s most noticeable is the significant difference in those who were able to achieve PASI 90 or above with this IL-17 inhibitor, versus etanercept,” which she added, raises the question of whether aiming for a PASI 75 is adequate, "or should we strive for PASI 90?” A pediatric psoriasis study published in 2020 found that the greatest improvement in quality of life was associated with a PASI 90 and use of systemic treatments (JAMA Dermatol. 2020;156[1]:72-8).

Looking forward, phase 3 clinical trials are underway in pediatric patients with moderate to severe psoriasis for guselkumab, tildrakizumab, risankizumab, certolizumab, bimekizumab, and brodalumab. “The cost of all of these biologics is high, however. I remind everyone that we still have methotrexate,” she said. “The risk of side effects with our low-dose methotrexate treatment for psoriasis remains low, but methotrexate doesn’t hit these [high] PASI numbers and it’s much slower in its onset than biologics.”

Dr. Paller disclosed that she is a consultant to and/or an investigator for AbbVie, Arena, Bausch, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Forte, LEO Pharma, LifeMax, Pfizer, RAPT Therapeutics, Regeneron, and Sanofi.

Commentary by Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH

Dr. Paller reminds us of some essential features of pediatric psoriasis:
•    It can hurt. Ask your patients if it does.
•    It can itch. Look for excoriations, especially in the scalp.
•    It is often associated with metabolic syndrome, so check relevant biometrics and labs, and consider coincident insulin resistance.
•    Our traditional clinical trial target of PASI75, or a 75% reduction in body surface area involvement, is just not good enough. Studies have shown that the most meaningful quality-of-life gains come at PASI90 or above. 
•    With our newer biologics, such as IL-12/23 blockers (for instance, ustekinumab) and IL-17 blockers (for example, ixekizumab and secukinumab), PASI90 and better is a reasonable expectation, not a pipe dream. 

Dr. Sidbury is chief of dermatology at Seattle Children's Hospital and professor, department of pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle. He is a site principal investigator for dupilumab trials, for which the hospital has a contract with Regeneron.

This article was updated 6/16/22.

During the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, Amy S. Paller, MD, MS, marveled on the remarkable advances in the treatment of inflammatory skin disorders during the past 2 decades.

“We’ve come a long way, from disease features being red, thick, and scaly and being treated with nonspecific therapy like topical steroids, keratolytics, and tar, to understanding disease pathogenesis and finding new targeted therapies for inflammatory skin disorders in children,” said Dr. Paller, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. “There are now studies moving forward with gene correction, gene replacement, the gene product replaced, or pathway inhibition to prevent the effects of genetic change.”

Technology is leading the way in generating new therapeutic advances, she continued, beyond traditional “omics” to lipidomics, metabolomics, glycomics, and kinomics. “This has enabled us to find new genetic disorders and their causes, to look at changes in gene expression patterns, and to look at changes in protein expression patterns that give us clues as to how to move forward with better therapy,” she said. “When we’re talking about new insights into pathogenesis-based therapy, we’re talking largely about understanding the pathways that lead to either inflammation or promoting cell proliferation and abnormal differentiation.”

Treating pediatric psoriasis

Dr. Paller discussed her approach to managing patients with pediatric psoriasis, an inflammatory disorder with IL-23/Th17 skewing. “First of all, ask about itch and pain with these patients,” she advised. “Interviews have shown that 61% of children experience some itch, 39% have pain or stinging, and in the ixekizumab trials, 72% had what’s considered meaningful itch, with at least 4 out of 10 (mean intensity 5.3) on the itch numeric rating scale. Little is known about the itch associated with psoriasis and its underlying cause – unrelated to the IL-4/IL-13 pathway activation of atopic dermatitis – but it’s worth asking about. I find that itch of the scalp is especially a problem in psoriasis.”

Physicians should also ask pediatric psoriasis patients about joint pain, because about 1% of them have psoriatic arthritis, which is much less common than in adults, “but important to find and manage,” she added. Dr. Paller recommends the new R-JET rapid joint exam technique, which is accompanied by a three-question survey and body diagram that facilitates identification of true arthritis, “so you can know how quickly to refer”.

Several studies have described an increased risk of metabolic syndrome in adolescents with pediatric psoriasis and now in prepubertal children with the disease. In a recent study of 60 consecutive prepubertal children with psoriasis, 70% of whom had mild disease, 40% were overweight or obese, 53% had central obesity, 27% had high levels of the HOMA-IR (homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance) despite generally normal levels of fasting glucose, and 30% met criteria for metabolic syndrome.

“This really struck me because our AAD [American Academy of Dermatology] guidelines did not recommend screening for type 2 diabetes in prepubertal children, even if overweight, because the risk is so small,” Dr. Paller said. “This report suggests that we may need to reconsider this recommendation in prepubertal children with psoriasis.”

Meanwhile, the number of medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for children with psoriasis who are 6 years of age and above continues to expand, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitors, and IL-17 inhibitors. Most children can now achieve a PASI 90 within 12 weeks with the IL-23 inhibitor ustekinumab and the IL-17 inhibitors ixekizumab and secukinumab, Dr. Paller said.

In the ixekizumab trial, there are head-to-head comparison data in a European arm that involved the use of etanercept, she said. “What’s most noticeable is the significant difference in those who were able to achieve PASI 90 or above with this IL-17 inhibitor, versus etanercept,” which she added, raises the question of whether aiming for a PASI 75 is adequate, "or should we strive for PASI 90?” A pediatric psoriasis study published in 2020 found that the greatest improvement in quality of life was associated with a PASI 90 and use of systemic treatments (JAMA Dermatol. 2020;156[1]:72-8).

Looking forward, phase 3 clinical trials are underway in pediatric patients with moderate to severe psoriasis for guselkumab, tildrakizumab, risankizumab, certolizumab, bimekizumab, and brodalumab. “The cost of all of these biologics is high, however. I remind everyone that we still have methotrexate,” she said. “The risk of side effects with our low-dose methotrexate treatment for psoriasis remains low, but methotrexate doesn’t hit these [high] PASI numbers and it’s much slower in its onset than biologics.”

Dr. Paller disclosed that she is a consultant to and/or an investigator for AbbVie, Arena, Bausch, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Forte, LEO Pharma, LifeMax, Pfizer, RAPT Therapeutics, Regeneron, and Sanofi.

Commentary by Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH

Dr. Paller reminds us of some essential features of pediatric psoriasis:
•    It can hurt. Ask your patients if it does.
•    It can itch. Look for excoriations, especially in the scalp.
•    It is often associated with metabolic syndrome, so check relevant biometrics and labs, and consider coincident insulin resistance.
•    Our traditional clinical trial target of PASI75, or a 75% reduction in body surface area involvement, is just not good enough. Studies have shown that the most meaningful quality-of-life gains come at PASI90 or above. 
•    With our newer biologics, such as IL-12/23 blockers (for instance, ustekinumab) and IL-17 blockers (for example, ixekizumab and secukinumab), PASI90 and better is a reasonable expectation, not a pipe dream. 

Dr. Sidbury is chief of dermatology at Seattle Children's Hospital and professor, department of pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle. He is a site principal investigator for dupilumab trials, for which the hospital has a contract with Regeneron.

This article was updated 6/16/22.

The arthritis and ulcerative colitis medicine tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR) poses an increased risk of serious cardiac events such as heart attack or stroke, cancer, blood clots, and death, the Food and Drug Administration announced Sept 1.

Manufacturers of this drug along with other Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq) must update their boxed warnings to include information about these health risks. The FDA made the determination after new study data from Pfizer, which manufacturers Xeljanz, found an association between a lower dose of Xeljanz and increased risk of blood clots and death.

“Recommendations for healthcare professionals will include consideration of the benefits and risks for the individual patient prior to initiating or continuing therapy,” the agency stated.

The FDA is limiting all approved uses of these three medications to patients who have not responded well to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers to ensure their benefits outweigh their risks. Tofacitinib is indicated for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Baricitinib and upadacitinib are approved only for RA. The FDA included baricitinib and upadacitinib in the warning because of the similar properties they share with tofacitinib, even though they haven’t been studied as extensively.

“We believe this update will bring important clarity for healthcare plans on the risk/benefit profile of Xeljanz, which is a medicine informed by more clinical data than any other JAK inhibitor,” Pfizer said in a statement.

Investigators for the ORAL Surveillance trial compared two doses of tofacitinib (5 mg twice daily and 10 mg twice daily) with TNF blockers in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were aged 50 years or older with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor.

For both dose regimens of tofacitinib, they found an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, malignancies, thrombosis, and death compared with the TNF blocker regimen. In addition, rates of lung cancers and lymphomas were higher with tofacitinib. In trial data released earlier this year, Pfizer revealed that the tofacitinib group had a much higher incidence of adjudicated malignancies compared with the TNF blocker group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.09).

Impact on clinical practice

Physicians treating patients who have rheumatoid arthritis with tofacitinib may initially decrease prescriptions following the FDA’s drug safety communication, said Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles, adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and a research professor at the University of Florence (Italy) – particularly those with a principal mechanism of action slightly different from that of tofacitinib, he added.

“Tofacitinib is principally a JAK 1,3 inhibitor at usual concentrations, whereas upadacitinib and baricitinib are JAK 1,2 inhibitors. Thus, I speculate that the tofacitinib prescriptions will go down more than the upadacitinib and baricitinib prescriptions,” he said in an interview.

Some patients may also be worried about taking tofacitinib, particularly those with previous events or predisposing conditions, Dr. Furst noted.

“First and foremost, I think we need to actually look at the data in a publication rather than just an FDA statement before making huge changes in our practice,” he advised.

“I am looking forward to the data finally being published ... It’s interesting that the full data still isn’t really out there beyond the press releases and an abstract. I think there’s a lot more to learn about how these drugs work and who is really at risk for harmful events,” said Alexis R. Ogdie, MD, MSCE, associate professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Pfizer’s data also may be affecting FDA approvals of other JAK inhibitors. This past summer, AbbVie and Eli Lilly stated that the FDA’s ongoing assessment of the safety trial was delaying the agency’s decisions about expanding use of their respective drugs upadacitinib and baricitinib.

“I think many rheumatologists have already taken this information in, and begun to incorporate it into their discussions with their patients” since it has been over a year since the first public release of information about the ORAL Surveillance trial, said Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego. “I don’t know that it will affect the approvals, but it will impact their labels.”

Wariness to prescribing tofacitinib may be lower for patients younger than those in the ORAL Surveillance trial without additional cardiovascular risk factors who are taking tofacitinib for non-RA indications, said gastroenterologist Miguel Regueiro, MD.

“The JAK inhibitor warning by the FDA is an important consideration for any prescriber or patient. The risk of cardiovascular disease and venous thromboembolism with this class of medicine appears higher in older rheumatoid arthritis patients with underlying cardiovascular disease. While the warning applies to all JAK inhibitors and likely the newer selective JAK inhibitors to come, we need to weigh the risk and benefit based on the indication for prescribing,” said Dr. Regueiro, chair of the Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute and of the department of gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.

“I do think that there will be a heightened awareness and wariness for older RA patients and for the prescribers. However, for inflammatory bowel disease (and other non-RA indications), it does not appear that the risk for cardiovascular disease and VTE are significantly increased. To that end, in my own practice, I still use tofacitinib for ulcerative colitis and will do the same for the selective JAK inhibitors to come for IBD. Of course, as with any medication, we need to have discussions with our patients, alert them to potential side effects and have an open line of communication for any questions or concerns.”

Gastroenterologist Stephen Hanauer, MD, professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, thought that while patients with RA have many other treatment options besides JAK inhibitors, fewer options available to patients with IBD “may motivate the use of oral [sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulator] agents such as ozanimod, although IBD patients are younger and [have fewer] MACE risk factors than RA patients, so absolute risk is very small in the ulcerative colitis population.”

Pfizer’s data may be affecting FDA approvals of other JAK inhibitors. This past summer, AbbVie and Eli Lilly stated that the FDA’s ongoing assessment of the safety trial was delaying the agency’s decisions about expanding use of their respective drugs upadacitinib and baricitinib.

The agency’s decision corroborates an earlier 2019 warning about the increased risk of blood clots and of death in patients with ulcerative colitis taking 10 mg tofacitinib twice daily.

The FDA said that two other JAK inhibitors, ruxolitinib (Jakafi) and fedratinib (Inrebic), are not indicated for the treatment of arthritis and other inflammatory conditions, and so are not a part of the updates being required.

Baricitinib, abrocitinib, and upadacitinib are currently under FDA review for treating atopic dermatitis (AD); a topical formulation of the JAK1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib is under review for treating AD. Reviews for all 4 have been extended. In September 2020, baricitinib was approved for treating moderate to severe AD in Europe, at a dose of 4 mg once a day, with recommendations that the dose can be reduced to 2 mg once a day when the disease is under control, and that the dose may need to be reduced in patients with impaired kidney function, those with an increased risk of infections, and those older than aged 75 years.

In an interview, Jacob Thyssen, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen, said that in the EU, there has been “extensive education” about cardiovascular risks with baricitinib “and it is my impression that payers and dermatologists in Europe are confident that it is safe to use in AD.” In addition, there has been an emphasis on the differences in cardiovascular risk factors between RA and AD patients, “given that the latter group is generally young and lean.” In the United States, he added, it will be interesting to see which doses of the JAK inhibitors will be approved for AD.

Dr. Thyssen disclosed that he is a speaker, advisory board member and/or investigator for Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, LEO Pharma, AbbVie, and Almirall.
 

*This story was updated 9/3/21 and 9/6/2021.

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

The arthritis and ulcerative colitis medicine tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR) poses an increased risk of serious cardiac events such as heart attack or stroke, cancer, blood clots, and death, the Food and Drug Administration announced Sept 1.

Manufacturers of this drug along with other Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq) must update their boxed warnings to include information about these health risks. The FDA made the determination after new study data from Pfizer, which manufacturers Xeljanz, found an association between a lower dose of Xeljanz and increased risk of blood clots and death.

“Recommendations for healthcare professionals will include consideration of the benefits and risks for the individual patient prior to initiating or continuing therapy,” the agency stated.

The FDA is limiting all approved uses of these three medications to patients who have not responded well to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers to ensure their benefits outweigh their risks. Tofacitinib is indicated for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Baricitinib and upadacitinib are approved only for RA. The FDA included baricitinib and upadacitinib in the warning because of the similar properties they share with tofacitinib, even though they haven’t been studied as extensively.

“We believe this update will bring important clarity for healthcare plans on the risk/benefit profile of Xeljanz, which is a medicine informed by more clinical data than any other JAK inhibitor,” Pfizer said in a statement.

Investigators for the ORAL Surveillance trial compared two doses of tofacitinib (5 mg twice daily and 10 mg twice daily) with TNF blockers in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were aged 50 years or older with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor.

For both dose regimens of tofacitinib, they found an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, malignancies, thrombosis, and death compared with the TNF blocker regimen. In addition, rates of lung cancers and lymphomas were higher with tofacitinib. In trial data released earlier this year, Pfizer revealed that the tofacitinib group had a much higher incidence of adjudicated malignancies compared with the TNF blocker group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.09).

Impact on clinical practice

Physicians treating patients who have rheumatoid arthritis with tofacitinib may initially decrease prescriptions following the FDA’s drug safety communication, said Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles, adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and a research professor at the University of Florence (Italy) – particularly those with a principal mechanism of action slightly different from that of tofacitinib, he added.

“Tofacitinib is principally a JAK 1,3 inhibitor at usual concentrations, whereas upadacitinib and baricitinib are JAK 1,2 inhibitors. Thus, I speculate that the tofacitinib prescriptions will go down more than the upadacitinib and baricitinib prescriptions,” he said in an interview.

Some patients may also be worried about taking tofacitinib, particularly those with previous events or predisposing conditions, Dr. Furst noted.

“First and foremost, I think we need to actually look at the data in a publication rather than just an FDA statement before making huge changes in our practice,” he advised.

“I am looking forward to the data finally being published ... It’s interesting that the full data still isn’t really out there beyond the press releases and an abstract. I think there’s a lot more to learn about how these drugs work and who is really at risk for harmful events,” said Alexis R. Ogdie, MD, MSCE, associate professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Pfizer’s data also may be affecting FDA approvals of other JAK inhibitors. This past summer, AbbVie and Eli Lilly stated that the FDA’s ongoing assessment of the safety trial was delaying the agency’s decisions about expanding use of their respective drugs upadacitinib and baricitinib.

“I think many rheumatologists have already taken this information in, and begun to incorporate it into their discussions with their patients” since it has been over a year since the first public release of information about the ORAL Surveillance trial, said Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego. “I don’t know that it will affect the approvals, but it will impact their labels.”

Wariness to prescribing tofacitinib may be lower for patients younger than those in the ORAL Surveillance trial without additional cardiovascular risk factors who are taking tofacitinib for non-RA indications, said gastroenterologist Miguel Regueiro, MD.

“The JAK inhibitor warning by the FDA is an important consideration for any prescriber or patient. The risk of cardiovascular disease and venous thromboembolism with this class of medicine appears higher in older rheumatoid arthritis patients with underlying cardiovascular disease. While the warning applies to all JAK inhibitors and likely the newer selective JAK inhibitors to come, we need to weigh the risk and benefit based on the indication for prescribing,” said Dr. Regueiro, chair of the Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute and of the department of gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.

“I do think that there will be a heightened awareness and wariness for older RA patients and for the prescribers. However, for inflammatory bowel disease (and other non-RA indications), it does not appear that the risk for cardiovascular disease and VTE are significantly increased. To that end, in my own practice, I still use tofacitinib for ulcerative colitis and will do the same for the selective JAK inhibitors to come for IBD. Of course, as with any medication, we need to have discussions with our patients, alert them to potential side effects and have an open line of communication for any questions or concerns.”

Gastroenterologist Stephen Hanauer, MD, professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, thought that while patients with RA have many other treatment options besides JAK inhibitors, fewer options available to patients with IBD “may motivate the use of oral [sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulator] agents such as ozanimod, although IBD patients are younger and [have fewer] MACE risk factors than RA patients, so absolute risk is very small in the ulcerative colitis population.”

Pfizer’s data may be affecting FDA approvals of other JAK inhibitors. This past summer, AbbVie and Eli Lilly stated that the FDA’s ongoing assessment of the safety trial was delaying the agency’s decisions about expanding use of their respective drugs upadacitinib and baricitinib.

The agency’s decision corroborates an earlier 2019 warning about the increased risk of blood clots and of death in patients with ulcerative colitis taking 10 mg tofacitinib twice daily.

The FDA said that two other JAK inhibitors, ruxolitinib (Jakafi) and fedratinib (Inrebic), are not indicated for the treatment of arthritis and other inflammatory conditions, and so are not a part of the updates being required.

Baricitinib, abrocitinib, and upadacitinib are currently under FDA review for treating atopic dermatitis (AD); a topical formulation of the JAK1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib is under review for treating AD. Reviews for all 4 have been extended. In September 2020, baricitinib was approved for treating moderate to severe AD in Europe, at a dose of 4 mg once a day, with recommendations that the dose can be reduced to 2 mg once a day when the disease is under control, and that the dose may need to be reduced in patients with impaired kidney function, those with an increased risk of infections, and those older than aged 75 years.

In an interview, Jacob Thyssen, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen, said that in the EU, there has been “extensive education” about cardiovascular risks with baricitinib “and it is my impression that payers and dermatologists in Europe are confident that it is safe to use in AD.” In addition, there has been an emphasis on the differences in cardiovascular risk factors between RA and AD patients, “given that the latter group is generally young and lean.” In the United States, he added, it will be interesting to see which doses of the JAK inhibitors will be approved for AD.

Dr. Thyssen disclosed that he is a speaker, advisory board member and/or investigator for Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, LEO Pharma, AbbVie, and Almirall.
 

*This story was updated 9/3/21 and 9/6/2021.

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

The arthritis and ulcerative colitis medicine tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR) poses an increased risk of serious cardiac events such as heart attack or stroke, cancer, blood clots, and death, the Food and Drug Administration announced Sept 1.

Manufacturers of this drug along with other Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq) must update their boxed warnings to include information about these health risks. The FDA made the determination after new study data from Pfizer, which manufacturers Xeljanz, found an association between a lower dose of Xeljanz and increased risk of blood clots and death.

“Recommendations for healthcare professionals will include consideration of the benefits and risks for the individual patient prior to initiating or continuing therapy,” the agency stated.

The FDA is limiting all approved uses of these three medications to patients who have not responded well to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers to ensure their benefits outweigh their risks. Tofacitinib is indicated for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Baricitinib and upadacitinib are approved only for RA. The FDA included baricitinib and upadacitinib in the warning because of the similar properties they share with tofacitinib, even though they haven’t been studied as extensively.

“We believe this update will bring important clarity for healthcare plans on the risk/benefit profile of Xeljanz, which is a medicine informed by more clinical data than any other JAK inhibitor,” Pfizer said in a statement.

Investigators for the ORAL Surveillance trial compared two doses of tofacitinib (5 mg twice daily and 10 mg twice daily) with TNF blockers in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were aged 50 years or older with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor.

For both dose regimens of tofacitinib, they found an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, malignancies, thrombosis, and death compared with the TNF blocker regimen. In addition, rates of lung cancers and lymphomas were higher with tofacitinib. In trial data released earlier this year, Pfizer revealed that the tofacitinib group had a much higher incidence of adjudicated malignancies compared with the TNF blocker group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.09).

Impact on clinical practice

Physicians treating patients who have rheumatoid arthritis with tofacitinib may initially decrease prescriptions following the FDA’s drug safety communication, said Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles, adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and a research professor at the University of Florence (Italy) – particularly those with a principal mechanism of action slightly different from that of tofacitinib, he added.

“Tofacitinib is principally a JAK 1,3 inhibitor at usual concentrations, whereas upadacitinib and baricitinib are JAK 1,2 inhibitors. Thus, I speculate that the tofacitinib prescriptions will go down more than the upadacitinib and baricitinib prescriptions,” he said in an interview.

Some patients may also be worried about taking tofacitinib, particularly those with previous events or predisposing conditions, Dr. Furst noted.

“First and foremost, I think we need to actually look at the data in a publication rather than just an FDA statement before making huge changes in our practice,” he advised.

“I am looking forward to the data finally being published ... It’s interesting that the full data still isn’t really out there beyond the press releases and an abstract. I think there’s a lot more to learn about how these drugs work and who is really at risk for harmful events,” said Alexis R. Ogdie, MD, MSCE, associate professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Pfizer’s data also may be affecting FDA approvals of other JAK inhibitors. This past summer, AbbVie and Eli Lilly stated that the FDA’s ongoing assessment of the safety trial was delaying the agency’s decisions about expanding use of their respective drugs upadacitinib and baricitinib.

“I think many rheumatologists have already taken this information in, and begun to incorporate it into their discussions with their patients” since it has been over a year since the first public release of information about the ORAL Surveillance trial, said Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego. “I don’t know that it will affect the approvals, but it will impact their labels.”

Wariness to prescribing tofacitinib may be lower for patients younger than those in the ORAL Surveillance trial without additional cardiovascular risk factors who are taking tofacitinib for non-RA indications, said gastroenterologist Miguel Regueiro, MD.

“The JAK inhibitor warning by the FDA is an important consideration for any prescriber or patient. The risk of cardiovascular disease and venous thromboembolism with this class of medicine appears higher in older rheumatoid arthritis patients with underlying cardiovascular disease. While the warning applies to all JAK inhibitors and likely the newer selective JAK inhibitors to come, we need to weigh the risk and benefit based on the indication for prescribing,” said Dr. Regueiro, chair of the Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute and of the department of gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.

“I do think that there will be a heightened awareness and wariness for older RA patients and for the prescribers. However, for inflammatory bowel disease (and other non-RA indications), it does not appear that the risk for cardiovascular disease and VTE are significantly increased. To that end, in my own practice, I still use tofacitinib for ulcerative colitis and will do the same for the selective JAK inhibitors to come for IBD. Of course, as with any medication, we need to have discussions with our patients, alert them to potential side effects and have an open line of communication for any questions or concerns.”

Gastroenterologist Stephen Hanauer, MD, professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, thought that while patients with RA have many other treatment options besides JAK inhibitors, fewer options available to patients with IBD “may motivate the use of oral [sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulator] agents such as ozanimod, although IBD patients are younger and [have fewer] MACE risk factors than RA patients, so absolute risk is very small in the ulcerative colitis population.”

Pfizer’s data may be affecting FDA approvals of other JAK inhibitors. This past summer, AbbVie and Eli Lilly stated that the FDA’s ongoing assessment of the safety trial was delaying the agency’s decisions about expanding use of their respective drugs upadacitinib and baricitinib.

The agency’s decision corroborates an earlier 2019 warning about the increased risk of blood clots and of death in patients with ulcerative colitis taking 10 mg tofacitinib twice daily.

The FDA said that two other JAK inhibitors, ruxolitinib (Jakafi) and fedratinib (Inrebic), are not indicated for the treatment of arthritis and other inflammatory conditions, and so are not a part of the updates being required.

Baricitinib, abrocitinib, and upadacitinib are currently under FDA review for treating atopic dermatitis (AD); a topical formulation of the JAK1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib is under review for treating AD. Reviews for all 4 have been extended. In September 2020, baricitinib was approved for treating moderate to severe AD in Europe, at a dose of 4 mg once a day, with recommendations that the dose can be reduced to 2 mg once a day when the disease is under control, and that the dose may need to be reduced in patients with impaired kidney function, those with an increased risk of infections, and those older than aged 75 years.

In an interview, Jacob Thyssen, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen, said that in the EU, there has been “extensive education” about cardiovascular risks with baricitinib “and it is my impression that payers and dermatologists in Europe are confident that it is safe to use in AD.” In addition, there has been an emphasis on the differences in cardiovascular risk factors between RA and AD patients, “given that the latter group is generally young and lean.” In the United States, he added, it will be interesting to see which doses of the JAK inhibitors will be approved for AD.

Dr. Thyssen disclosed that he is a speaker, advisory board member and/or investigator for Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, LEO Pharma, AbbVie, and Almirall.
 

*This story was updated 9/3/21 and 9/6/2021.

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

Identifying risk factors for onset of Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) is a major unmet need. Comparing potential risk factors for the diagnosis of PsA, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is of interest. Such studies may help us identify shared and unique risk factors of onset of chronic inflammatory arthritis. Meer E et al compared potential risk factors for the diagnosis of PsA, psoriasis, RA, and AS. They conducted four parallel case-control studies using data collected between 1994 and 2015 in The Health Improvement Network, an anonymized longitudinal patient dataset collected at primary care clinics throughout the United Kingdom. PsA was associated with obesity, pharyngitis, skin infections, moderate alcohol intake, gout, and uveitis. As expected, PsA and AS were associated with uveitis. Interestingly, PsA and RA were associated with preceding gout. Smoking was a risk factor for all disease and statin use was inversely associated with all 4 diseases. This study has identified potential risk factors for inflammatory diseases including PsA and may help in early identification as well as risk mitigation.

Most patients develop psoriatic arthritis (PsA) after or simultaneously with cutaneous psoriasis. The mechanisms underlying progression from cutaneous psoriasis to arthritis psoriasis are currently unclear. An important question is whether modern targeted treatment of cutaneous psoriasis reduces the risk of developing PsA. To address this, Acosta Felquer ML et al  conducted a retrospective cohort study to compare the incidence of PsA in 1719 patients with psoriasis (14,721 patient/years of follow up) grouped according to different treatments for their skin psoriasis: topicals, phototherapy or no treatment (n= 1387), conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs) or biological DMARDs (bDMARDs). During follow-up, 239 patients (14%) developed PsA. The risk of developing PsA in patients treated with bDMARDs was significantly lower (incidence rate ratio (IRR)=0.26; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.94), compared with topicals, but not compared with cDMARDs (IRR=0.35; 95% CI 0.035 to 1.96). Male sex, nail involvement and higher body mass index were associated with increased risk of developing PsA, while bDMARD use was protective. Thus, this study provides some evidence that systemic treatment might ‘protect’ against development if PsA. Appropriately designed prospective studies are required.

One important clinical question is whether patients with oligoarthritis (involvement of <5 joints) progress to polyarthritis. In an observational study Gladman DD et al  reported that in 407 patients evaluated within 12 months of diagnosis, 192 (47%) presented with oligoarthritis. More patients with polyarthritis presented with dactylitis, enthesitis, higher HAQ and lower SF-36 scores. Of the 192 patients with oligoarthritis, 75 (39%) progressed to polyarthritis. Lower SF-36 mental component summary score was the predictor for progressing to polyarthritis. Thus, except for the burden of musculoskeletal involvement, oligoarticular PsA resembles polyarticular PsA and therefore the two PsA subclasses should simply be classified together as peripheral arthritis.

Identifying risk factors for onset of Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) is a major unmet need. Comparing potential risk factors for the diagnosis of PsA, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is of interest. Such studies may help us identify shared and unique risk factors of onset of chronic inflammatory arthritis. Meer E et al compared potential risk factors for the diagnosis of PsA, psoriasis, RA, and AS. They conducted four parallel case-control studies using data collected between 1994 and 2015 in The Health Improvement Network, an anonymized longitudinal patient dataset collected at primary care clinics throughout the United Kingdom. PsA was associated with obesity, pharyngitis, skin infections, moderate alcohol intake, gout, and uveitis. As expected, PsA and AS were associated with uveitis. Interestingly, PsA and RA were associated with preceding gout. Smoking was a risk factor for all disease and statin use was inversely associated with all 4 diseases. This study has identified potential risk factors for inflammatory diseases including PsA and may help in early identification as well as risk mitigation.

Most patients develop psoriatic arthritis (PsA) after or simultaneously with cutaneous psoriasis. The mechanisms underlying progression from cutaneous psoriasis to arthritis psoriasis are currently unclear. An important question is whether modern targeted treatment of cutaneous psoriasis reduces the risk of developing PsA. To address this, Acosta Felquer ML et al  conducted a retrospective cohort study to compare the incidence of PsA in 1719 patients with psoriasis (14,721 patient/years of follow up) grouped according to different treatments for their skin psoriasis: topicals, phototherapy or no treatment (n= 1387), conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs) or biological DMARDs (bDMARDs). During follow-up, 239 patients (14%) developed PsA. The risk of developing PsA in patients treated with bDMARDs was significantly lower (incidence rate ratio (IRR)=0.26; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.94), compared with topicals, but not compared with cDMARDs (IRR=0.35; 95% CI 0.035 to 1.96). Male sex, nail involvement and higher body mass index were associated with increased risk of developing PsA, while bDMARD use was protective. Thus, this study provides some evidence that systemic treatment might ‘protect’ against development if PsA. Appropriately designed prospective studies are required.

One important clinical question is whether patients with oligoarthritis (involvement of <5 joints) progress to polyarthritis. In an observational study Gladman DD et al  reported that in 407 patients evaluated within 12 months of diagnosis, 192 (47%) presented with oligoarthritis. More patients with polyarthritis presented with dactylitis, enthesitis, higher HAQ and lower SF-36 scores. Of the 192 patients with oligoarthritis, 75 (39%) progressed to polyarthritis. Lower SF-36 mental component summary score was the predictor for progressing to polyarthritis. Thus, except for the burden of musculoskeletal involvement, oligoarticular PsA resembles polyarticular PsA and therefore the two PsA subclasses should simply be classified together as peripheral arthritis.

Identifying risk factors for onset of Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) is a major unmet need. Comparing potential risk factors for the diagnosis of PsA, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is of interest. Such studies may help us identify shared and unique risk factors of onset of chronic inflammatory arthritis. Meer E et al compared potential risk factors for the diagnosis of PsA, psoriasis, RA, and AS. They conducted four parallel case-control studies using data collected between 1994 and 2015 in The Health Improvement Network, an anonymized longitudinal patient dataset collected at primary care clinics throughout the United Kingdom. PsA was associated with obesity, pharyngitis, skin infections, moderate alcohol intake, gout, and uveitis. As expected, PsA and AS were associated with uveitis. Interestingly, PsA and RA were associated with preceding gout. Smoking was a risk factor for all disease and statin use was inversely associated with all 4 diseases. This study has identified potential risk factors for inflammatory diseases including PsA and may help in early identification as well as risk mitigation.

Most patients develop psoriatic arthritis (PsA) after or simultaneously with cutaneous psoriasis. The mechanisms underlying progression from cutaneous psoriasis to arthritis psoriasis are currently unclear. An important question is whether modern targeted treatment of cutaneous psoriasis reduces the risk of developing PsA. To address this, Acosta Felquer ML et al  conducted a retrospective cohort study to compare the incidence of PsA in 1719 patients with psoriasis (14,721 patient/years of follow up) grouped according to different treatments for their skin psoriasis: topicals, phototherapy or no treatment (n= 1387), conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs) or biological DMARDs (bDMARDs). During follow-up, 239 patients (14%) developed PsA. The risk of developing PsA in patients treated with bDMARDs was significantly lower (incidence rate ratio (IRR)=0.26; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.94), compared with topicals, but not compared with cDMARDs (IRR=0.35; 95% CI 0.035 to 1.96). Male sex, nail involvement and higher body mass index were associated with increased risk of developing PsA, while bDMARD use was protective. Thus, this study provides some evidence that systemic treatment might ‘protect’ against development if PsA. Appropriately designed prospective studies are required.

One important clinical question is whether patients with oligoarthritis (involvement of <5 joints) progress to polyarthritis. In an observational study Gladman DD et al  reported that in 407 patients evaluated within 12 months of diagnosis, 192 (47%) presented with oligoarthritis. More patients with polyarthritis presented with dactylitis, enthesitis, higher HAQ and lower SF-36 scores. Of the 192 patients with oligoarthritis, 75 (39%) progressed to polyarthritis. Lower SF-36 mental component summary score was the predictor for progressing to polyarthritis. Thus, except for the burden of musculoskeletal involvement, oligoarticular PsA resembles polyarticular PsA and therefore the two PsA subclasses should simply be classified together as peripheral arthritis.

Receiving treatment with a biologic medication, compared with no biologic treatment, appeared to be associated with a lower risk for developing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients with psoriasis.

That’s according to the results of a nested case-control study involving electronic medical record data from an Israeli health maintenance organization in Arthritis & Rheumatology. Compared with no biologic treatment, the risk for developing PsA among PsO patients was reduced by 39%.

This study shows “a statistically and clinically significant lower risk for developing PsA among patients receiving biologic medications for psoriasis treatment,” wrote Yael Shalev Rosenthal, MPH, of the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University and colleagues. “The results suggest considering treatment with biologic medications in patients [who] present with significant risk factors for PsA at an earlier stage of treatment.”

“It would be nice to believe this story, but I don’t think we can based on the evidence we’ve got so far,” commented Philip Helliwell, PhD, DM, in an interview.

Dr. Helliwell, who is professor of clinical rheumatology at the University of Leeds (England) and an Honorary Consultant Rheumatologist for the Leeds Teaching Hospitals and Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, noted that there were several issues with the current evidence.

Aside from their often retrospective or nonrandomized nature, prior analyses, including the current one, were based on EMR data.

“There’s actually no face-to-face patient contact going on here. It’s all done on coding, and coding can be unreliable,” Dr. Helliwell said.

While the study’s findings are “in line with other studies that have looked at this, and suggest that if you get a biologic, you’re less likely to get PsA with your psoriasis, there could be lots of reasons why.”

The big problem here is confounding by indication. “You don’t get on a biologic unless you’ve got bad psoriasis,” Dr. Helliwell explained. The Israeli criteria for starting a biologic are much higher than in the United Kingdom, he added, requiring more than 50% of patients’ body surface area to be affected, or a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score of more than 50. Moreover, people with bad psoriasis are more likely to get PsA. This, however, makes the results more impressive.

Confounding by indication is an issue with this study, agreed consultant rheumatologist Adewale Adebajo, PhD, in a separate interview. He acknowledged, however, that the study’s authors did try to account for this by limiting the timescale of their analysis to the first 10 years of biologic therapy. They also used the usual methods of propensity score matching and multivariate Cox regression analysis to hopefully iron out any differences between the two groups of patients.

Study details and results

Ms. Rosenthal and coauthors analyzed EMR data on patients with psoriasis but not PsA that were logged in the Maccabi Healthcare Services (MHS) database. The MHS is the second-largest health maintenance organization in Israel, insuring over 2 million members, the researchers said.

In all, 663 patients with psoriasis but not PsA before or at initiation of biologic treatment were included in their analysis and matched to a control group of 663 patients with psoriasis who had not received biologic treatment. Propensity score matching was used to iron out some differences in baseline characteristics that had been seen between the groups, such as older age at diagnosis, higher body mass index, and a longer time between diagnosis and treatment seen in patients treated without biologics.

After adjusting for multiple risk factors and confounders, “the control group still had a significantly higher risk for PsA, compared to the biological treatment group,” the researchers wrote. Indeed, the adjusted hazard ratio was 1.39, with a 95% confidence interval between 1.03 and 1.87.

An ‘intriguing study’

“This is a retrospective study, and it has all the faults of a retrospective study,” said Dr. Adebajo, associate medical director for research and development at Barnsley (England) NHS Foundation Trust. But “these were patients who hopefully hadn’t yet developed psoriatic arthritis, although it is difficult to exclude subclinical psoriatic arthritis.”

The ideal would of course be to look at patients prospectively, but a randomized clinical trial would be unlikely to ever be conducted, Dr. Helliwell noted. “It would be unfair to randomize people who have got bad psoriasis and need a biologic to placebo just to prove the point really,” he said. “Getting control groups in this arena is very difficult.”

That doesn’t mean that prospective evaluation is not possible. Dr. Adebajo noted that there were already cohorts of newly diagnosed patients who were being prospectively followed up and those could perhaps be used to look at the question again in the future.

“You’re then looking at the natural history, the natural outcome, and you don’t need to worry about confounding because you’re just collecting all of the information as you go along.”

The idea that biologics might slow or even prevent the onset of PsA is “an interesting and enchanting hypothesis,” Dr. Adebajo said. “The study doesn’t prove the hypothesis, but it’s an intriguing study because it doesn’t disprove the hypothesis either.

“It gives us food for thought and a basis for further studies,” as well as some “encouragement to perhaps use biologics earlier because there may be additional benefits of doing so.”

That’s still to be proven of course, as it has been reported that patients with psoriasis can develop PsA while taking biologics.

“Clinically, that’s what we see in the combined clinic. We get people referred with psoriasis [who are] already on a biologic who developed musculoskeletal problems,” Dr. Helliwell said.

“It would be nice to believe” that biologics prevent or slow PsA in patients with psoriasis, Dr. Helliwell added, but I’m not sure these data are conclusive. From this study we know nothing about the phenotype of psoriasis, which is important in the development of PsA. In addition, we know that of the 30% of people with psoriasis who develop PsA, about half of these are undiagnosed at the time of such studies. In that case, what the biologic is doing is just treating preexisting PsA. If you count those numbers up, some of the differences between the two groups seen in this study are accounted for. From registry data there is no way of checking this.”

No external funding was used for the study. One author acknowledged acting as an investigator, adviser, or consultant to several pharmaceutical companies including AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Coherus, Dexcel Pharma, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer. All other authors had nothing to disclose.

Dr. Helliwell and Dr. Adebajo had no conflicts of interest.

Receiving treatment with a biologic medication, compared with no biologic treatment, appeared to be associated with a lower risk for developing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients with psoriasis.

That’s according to the results of a nested case-control study involving electronic medical record data from an Israeli health maintenance organization in Arthritis & Rheumatology. Compared with no biologic treatment, the risk for developing PsA among PsO patients was reduced by 39%.

This study shows “a statistically and clinically significant lower risk for developing PsA among patients receiving biologic medications for psoriasis treatment,” wrote Yael Shalev Rosenthal, MPH, of the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University and colleagues. “The results suggest considering treatment with biologic medications in patients [who] present with significant risk factors for PsA at an earlier stage of treatment.”

“It would be nice to believe this story, but I don’t think we can based on the evidence we’ve got so far,” commented Philip Helliwell, PhD, DM, in an interview.

Dr. Helliwell, who is professor of clinical rheumatology at the University of Leeds (England) and an Honorary Consultant Rheumatologist for the Leeds Teaching Hospitals and Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, noted that there were several issues with the current evidence.

Aside from their often retrospective or nonrandomized nature, prior analyses, including the current one, were based on EMR data.

“There’s actually no face-to-face patient contact going on here. It’s all done on coding, and coding can be unreliable,” Dr. Helliwell said.

While the study’s findings are “in line with other studies that have looked at this, and suggest that if you get a biologic, you’re less likely to get PsA with your psoriasis, there could be lots of reasons why.”

The big problem here is confounding by indication. “You don’t get on a biologic unless you’ve got bad psoriasis,” Dr. Helliwell explained. The Israeli criteria for starting a biologic are much higher than in the United Kingdom, he added, requiring more than 50% of patients’ body surface area to be affected, or a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score of more than 50. Moreover, people with bad psoriasis are more likely to get PsA. This, however, makes the results more impressive.

Confounding by indication is an issue with this study, agreed consultant rheumatologist Adewale Adebajo, PhD, in a separate interview. He acknowledged, however, that the study’s authors did try to account for this by limiting the timescale of their analysis to the first 10 years of biologic therapy. They also used the usual methods of propensity score matching and multivariate Cox regression analysis to hopefully iron out any differences between the two groups of patients.

Study details and results

Ms. Rosenthal and coauthors analyzed EMR data on patients with psoriasis but not PsA that were logged in the Maccabi Healthcare Services (MHS) database. The MHS is the second-largest health maintenance organization in Israel, insuring over 2 million members, the researchers said.

In all, 663 patients with psoriasis but not PsA before or at initiation of biologic treatment were included in their analysis and matched to a control group of 663 patients with psoriasis who had not received biologic treatment. Propensity score matching was used to iron out some differences in baseline characteristics that had been seen between the groups, such as older age at diagnosis, higher body mass index, and a longer time between diagnosis and treatment seen in patients treated without biologics.

After adjusting for multiple risk factors and confounders, “the control group still had a significantly higher risk for PsA, compared to the biological treatment group,” the researchers wrote. Indeed, the adjusted hazard ratio was 1.39, with a 95% confidence interval between 1.03 and 1.87.

An ‘intriguing study’

“This is a retrospective study, and it has all the faults of a retrospective study,” said Dr. Adebajo, associate medical director for research and development at Barnsley (England) NHS Foundation Trust. But “these were patients who hopefully hadn’t yet developed psoriatic arthritis, although it is difficult to exclude subclinical psoriatic arthritis.”

The ideal would of course be to look at patients prospectively, but a randomized clinical trial would be unlikely to ever be conducted, Dr. Helliwell noted. “It would be unfair to randomize people who have got bad psoriasis and need a biologic to placebo just to prove the point really,” he said. “Getting control groups in this arena is very difficult.”

That doesn’t mean that prospective evaluation is not possible. Dr. Adebajo noted that there were already cohorts of newly diagnosed patients who were being prospectively followed up and those could perhaps be used to look at the question again in the future.

“You’re then looking at the natural history, the natural outcome, and you don’t need to worry about confounding because you’re just collecting all of the information as you go along.”

The idea that biologics might slow or even prevent the onset of PsA is “an interesting and enchanting hypothesis,” Dr. Adebajo said. “The study doesn’t prove the hypothesis, but it’s an intriguing study because it doesn’t disprove the hypothesis either.

“It gives us food for thought and a basis for further studies,” as well as some “encouragement to perhaps use biologics earlier because there may be additional benefits of doing so.”

That’s still to be proven of course, as it has been reported that patients with psoriasis can develop PsA while taking biologics.

“Clinically, that’s what we see in the combined clinic. We get people referred with psoriasis [who are] already on a biologic who developed musculoskeletal problems,” Dr. Helliwell said.

“It would be nice to believe” that biologics prevent or slow PsA in patients with psoriasis, Dr. Helliwell added, but I’m not sure these data are conclusive. From this study we know nothing about the phenotype of psoriasis, which is important in the development of PsA. In addition, we know that of the 30% of people with psoriasis who develop PsA, about half of these are undiagnosed at the time of such studies. In that case, what the biologic is doing is just treating preexisting PsA. If you count those numbers up, some of the differences between the two groups seen in this study are accounted for. From registry data there is no way of checking this.”

No external funding was used for the study. One author acknowledged acting as an investigator, adviser, or consultant to several pharmaceutical companies including AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Coherus, Dexcel Pharma, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer. All other authors had nothing to disclose.

Dr. Helliwell and Dr. Adebajo had no conflicts of interest.

Receiving treatment with a biologic medication, compared with no biologic treatment, appeared to be associated with a lower risk for developing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients with psoriasis.

That’s according to the results of a nested case-control study involving electronic medical record data from an Israeli health maintenance organization in Arthritis & Rheumatology. Compared with no biologic treatment, the risk for developing PsA among PsO patients was reduced by 39%.

This study shows “a statistically and clinically significant lower risk for developing PsA among patients receiving biologic medications for psoriasis treatment,” wrote Yael Shalev Rosenthal, MPH, of the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University and colleagues. “The results suggest considering treatment with biologic medications in patients [who] present with significant risk factors for PsA at an earlier stage of treatment.”

“It would be nice to believe this story, but I don’t think we can based on the evidence we’ve got so far,” commented Philip Helliwell, PhD, DM, in an interview.

Dr. Helliwell, who is professor of clinical rheumatology at the University of Leeds (England) and an Honorary Consultant Rheumatologist for the Leeds Teaching Hospitals and Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, noted that there were several issues with the current evidence.

Aside from their often retrospective or nonrandomized nature, prior analyses, including the current one, were based on EMR data.

“There’s actually no face-to-face patient contact going on here. It’s all done on coding, and coding can be unreliable,” Dr. Helliwell said.

While the study’s findings are “in line with other studies that have looked at this, and suggest that if you get a biologic, you’re less likely to get PsA with your psoriasis, there could be lots of reasons why.”

The big problem here is confounding by indication. “You don’t get on a biologic unless you’ve got bad psoriasis,” Dr. Helliwell explained. The Israeli criteria for starting a biologic are much higher than in the United Kingdom, he added, requiring more than 50% of patients’ body surface area to be affected, or a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score of more than 50. Moreover, people with bad psoriasis are more likely to get PsA. This, however, makes the results more impressive.

Confounding by indication is an issue with this study, agreed consultant rheumatologist Adewale Adebajo, PhD, in a separate interview. He acknowledged, however, that the study’s authors did try to account for this by limiting the timescale of their analysis to the first 10 years of biologic therapy. They also used the usual methods of propensity score matching and multivariate Cox regression analysis to hopefully iron out any differences between the two groups of patients.

Study details and results

Ms. Rosenthal and coauthors analyzed EMR data on patients with psoriasis but not PsA that were logged in the Maccabi Healthcare Services (MHS) database. The MHS is the second-largest health maintenance organization in Israel, insuring over 2 million members, the researchers said.

In all, 663 patients with psoriasis but not PsA before or at initiation of biologic treatment were included in their analysis and matched to a control group of 663 patients with psoriasis who had not received biologic treatment. Propensity score matching was used to iron out some differences in baseline characteristics that had been seen between the groups, such as older age at diagnosis, higher body mass index, and a longer time between diagnosis and treatment seen in patients treated without biologics.

After adjusting for multiple risk factors and confounders, “the control group still had a significantly higher risk for PsA, compared to the biological treatment group,” the researchers wrote. Indeed, the adjusted hazard ratio was 1.39, with a 95% confidence interval between 1.03 and 1.87.

An ‘intriguing study’

“This is a retrospective study, and it has all the faults of a retrospective study,” said Dr. Adebajo, associate medical director for research and development at Barnsley (England) NHS Foundation Trust. But “these were patients who hopefully hadn’t yet developed psoriatic arthritis, although it is difficult to exclude subclinical psoriatic arthritis.”

The ideal would of course be to look at patients prospectively, but a randomized clinical trial would be unlikely to ever be conducted, Dr. Helliwell noted. “It would be unfair to randomize people who have got bad psoriasis and need a biologic to placebo just to prove the point really,” he said. “Getting control groups in this arena is very difficult.”

That doesn’t mean that prospective evaluation is not possible. Dr. Adebajo noted that there were already cohorts of newly diagnosed patients who were being prospectively followed up and those could perhaps be used to look at the question again in the future.

“You’re then looking at the natural history, the natural outcome, and you don’t need to worry about confounding because you’re just collecting all of the information as you go along.”

The idea that biologics might slow or even prevent the onset of PsA is “an interesting and enchanting hypothesis,” Dr. Adebajo said. “The study doesn’t prove the hypothesis, but it’s an intriguing study because it doesn’t disprove the hypothesis either.

“It gives us food for thought and a basis for further studies,” as well as some “encouragement to perhaps use biologics earlier because there may be additional benefits of doing so.”

That’s still to be proven of course, as it has been reported that patients with psoriasis can develop PsA while taking biologics.

“Clinically, that’s what we see in the combined clinic. We get people referred with psoriasis [who are] already on a biologic who developed musculoskeletal problems,” Dr. Helliwell said.

“It would be nice to believe” that biologics prevent or slow PsA in patients with psoriasis, Dr. Helliwell added, but I’m not sure these data are conclusive. From this study we know nothing about the phenotype of psoriasis, which is important in the development of PsA. In addition, we know that of the 30% of people with psoriasis who develop PsA, about half of these are undiagnosed at the time of such studies. In that case, what the biologic is doing is just treating preexisting PsA. If you count those numbers up, some of the differences between the two groups seen in this study are accounted for. From registry data there is no way of checking this.”

No external funding was used for the study. One author acknowledged acting as an investigator, adviser, or consultant to several pharmaceutical companies including AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Coherus, Dexcel Pharma, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer. All other authors had nothing to disclose.

Dr. Helliwell and Dr. Adebajo had no conflicts of interest.