Psoriatic Arthritis ICYMI

Not all chronic systemic inflammatory diseases are equal enhancers of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk, according to a large case-control study.  

Current AHA/American College of Cardiology guidelines cite three chronic inflammatory diseases as atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk enhancers: rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and HIV infection. But this study of those three diseases, along with three others marked by elevated high sensitivity C-reactive protein (systemic sclerosis, inflammatory bowel disease, and systemic lupus erythematosus [SLE]), showed that chronic inflammatory diseases are not monolithic in terms of their associated risk of incident coronary heart disease (CHD).

Indeed, two of the six inflammatory diseases – psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease – turned out to be not at all associated with increased cardiovascular risk in the 37,117-patient study. The highest-risk disease was SLE, not specifically mentioned in the guidelines, Arjun Sinha, MD, a cardiology fellow at Northwestern University, Chicago, noted in his presentation at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions. 

The study included 18,129 patients with one of the six chronic inflammatory diseases and 18,988 matched controls, none with CHD at baseline. All regularly received outpatient care at Northwestern during 2000-2019. There were 1,011 incident CHD events during a median of 3.5 years of follow-up. 

In a Cox proportional hazards analysis adjusted for demographics, insurance status, hypertension, diabetes, current smoking, total cholesterol, and estimated glomerular filtration rate, here’s how the chronic inflammatory diseases stacked up in terms of incident CHD and MI risks: 

• SLE: hazard ratio for CHD, 2.85; for MI, 4.76.
• Systemic sclerosis: HR for CHD, 2.14; for MI, 3.19.
• HIV: HR for CHD, 1.38; for MI, 1.69.
• Rheumatoid arthritis: HR for CHD, 1.22; for MI, 1.45.
• Psoriasis: no significant increase.
• Inflammatory bowel disease: no significant increase.

In an exploratory analysis, Dr. Sinha and coinvestigators evaluated the risk of incident CHD stratified by disease severity. For lack of standardized disease severity scales, the investigators relied upon tertiles of CD4 T cell count in the HIV group and CRP in the others. The HR for new-onset CHD in the more than 5,000 patients with psoriasis didn’t vary by CRP tertile. However, there was a nonsignificant trend for greater disease severity, as reflected by CRP tertile, to be associated with increased incident CHD risk in the HIV and inflammatory bowel disease groups. 

In contrast, patients with rheumatoid arthritis or systemic sclerosis who were in the top CRP tertile had a significantly greater risk of developing CHD than that of controls, with HRs of 2.11 in the rheumatoid arthritis group and 4.59 with systemic sclerosis, although patients in the other two tertiles weren’t at significantly increased risk. But all three tertiles of CRP in patients with SLE were associated with significantly increased CHD risk: 3.17-fold in the lowest tertile of lupus severity, 5.38-fold in the middle tertile, and 4.04-fold in the top tertile for inflammation. 

These findings could be used in clinical practice to fine-tune atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk assessment based upon chronic inflammatory disease type and severity. That’s information which in turn can help guide the timing and intensity of preventive therapy for patients with each disease type. 

But studying the association between chronic systemic inflammatory diseases and CHD risk can be useful in additional ways, according to Dr. Sinha. These inflammatory diseases can serve as models of atherosclerosis that shed light on the non–lipid-related mechanisms involved in cardiovascular disease. 

“The gradient in risk may be hypothesis-generating with respect to which specific inflammatory pathways may contribute to CHD,” he explained. 

Each of these six chronic inflammatory diseases is characterized by a different form of major immune dysfunction, Dr. Sinha continued. A case in point is SLE, the inflammatory disease associated with the highest risk of CHD and MI. Lupus is characterized by a form of neutrophil dysfunction marked by increased formation and reduced degradation of neutrophil extracellular traps, or NETs, as well as by an increase in autoreactive B cells and dysfunctional CD4+ T helper cells. The increase in NETs of of particular interest because NETs have also been shown to contribute to the development of atherosclerosis, endothelial dysfunction, plaque erosion, and thrombosis. 

In another exploratory analysis, Dr. Sinha and coworkers found that SLE patients with a neutrophil count above the median level were twice as likely to develop CHD than were those with a neutrophil count below the median. 

A better understanding of the upstream pathways linking NET formation in SLE and atherosclerosis could lead to development of new or repurposed medications that target immune dysfunction in order to curb atherosclerosis, said Dr. Sinha, whose study won the AHA’s Samuel A. Levine Early Career Clinical Investigator Award. 

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study. 

[email protected] 

Not all chronic systemic inflammatory diseases are equal enhancers of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk, according to a large case-control study.  

Current AHA/American College of Cardiology guidelines cite three chronic inflammatory diseases as atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk enhancers: rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and HIV infection. But this study of those three diseases, along with three others marked by elevated high sensitivity C-reactive protein (systemic sclerosis, inflammatory bowel disease, and systemic lupus erythematosus [SLE]), showed that chronic inflammatory diseases are not monolithic in terms of their associated risk of incident coronary heart disease (CHD).

Indeed, two of the six inflammatory diseases – psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease – turned out to be not at all associated with increased cardiovascular risk in the 37,117-patient study. The highest-risk disease was SLE, not specifically mentioned in the guidelines, Arjun Sinha, MD, a cardiology fellow at Northwestern University, Chicago, noted in his presentation at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions. 

The study included 18,129 patients with one of the six chronic inflammatory diseases and 18,988 matched controls, none with CHD at baseline. All regularly received outpatient care at Northwestern during 2000-2019. There were 1,011 incident CHD events during a median of 3.5 years of follow-up. 

In a Cox proportional hazards analysis adjusted for demographics, insurance status, hypertension, diabetes, current smoking, total cholesterol, and estimated glomerular filtration rate, here’s how the chronic inflammatory diseases stacked up in terms of incident CHD and MI risks: 

• SLE: hazard ratio for CHD, 2.85; for MI, 4.76.
• Systemic sclerosis: HR for CHD, 2.14; for MI, 3.19.
• HIV: HR for CHD, 1.38; for MI, 1.69.
• Rheumatoid arthritis: HR for CHD, 1.22; for MI, 1.45.
• Psoriasis: no significant increase.
• Inflammatory bowel disease: no significant increase.

In an exploratory analysis, Dr. Sinha and coinvestigators evaluated the risk of incident CHD stratified by disease severity. For lack of standardized disease severity scales, the investigators relied upon tertiles of CD4 T cell count in the HIV group and CRP in the others. The HR for new-onset CHD in the more than 5,000 patients with psoriasis didn’t vary by CRP tertile. However, there was a nonsignificant trend for greater disease severity, as reflected by CRP tertile, to be associated with increased incident CHD risk in the HIV and inflammatory bowel disease groups. 

In contrast, patients with rheumatoid arthritis or systemic sclerosis who were in the top CRP tertile had a significantly greater risk of developing CHD than that of controls, with HRs of 2.11 in the rheumatoid arthritis group and 4.59 with systemic sclerosis, although patients in the other two tertiles weren’t at significantly increased risk. But all three tertiles of CRP in patients with SLE were associated with significantly increased CHD risk: 3.17-fold in the lowest tertile of lupus severity, 5.38-fold in the middle tertile, and 4.04-fold in the top tertile for inflammation. 

These findings could be used in clinical practice to fine-tune atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk assessment based upon chronic inflammatory disease type and severity. That’s information which in turn can help guide the timing and intensity of preventive therapy for patients with each disease type. 

But studying the association between chronic systemic inflammatory diseases and CHD risk can be useful in additional ways, according to Dr. Sinha. These inflammatory diseases can serve as models of atherosclerosis that shed light on the non–lipid-related mechanisms involved in cardiovascular disease. 

“The gradient in risk may be hypothesis-generating with respect to which specific inflammatory pathways may contribute to CHD,” he explained. 

Each of these six chronic inflammatory diseases is characterized by a different form of major immune dysfunction, Dr. Sinha continued. A case in point is SLE, the inflammatory disease associated with the highest risk of CHD and MI. Lupus is characterized by a form of neutrophil dysfunction marked by increased formation and reduced degradation of neutrophil extracellular traps, or NETs, as well as by an increase in autoreactive B cells and dysfunctional CD4+ T helper cells. The increase in NETs of of particular interest because NETs have also been shown to contribute to the development of atherosclerosis, endothelial dysfunction, plaque erosion, and thrombosis. 

In another exploratory analysis, Dr. Sinha and coworkers found that SLE patients with a neutrophil count above the median level were twice as likely to develop CHD than were those with a neutrophil count below the median. 

A better understanding of the upstream pathways linking NET formation in SLE and atherosclerosis could lead to development of new or repurposed medications that target immune dysfunction in order to curb atherosclerosis, said Dr. Sinha, whose study won the AHA’s Samuel A. Levine Early Career Clinical Investigator Award. 

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study. 

[email protected] 

Not all chronic systemic inflammatory diseases are equal enhancers of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk, according to a large case-control study.  

Current AHA/American College of Cardiology guidelines cite three chronic inflammatory diseases as atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk enhancers: rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and HIV infection. But this study of those three diseases, along with three others marked by elevated high sensitivity C-reactive protein (systemic sclerosis, inflammatory bowel disease, and systemic lupus erythematosus [SLE]), showed that chronic inflammatory diseases are not monolithic in terms of their associated risk of incident coronary heart disease (CHD).

Indeed, two of the six inflammatory diseases – psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease – turned out to be not at all associated with increased cardiovascular risk in the 37,117-patient study. The highest-risk disease was SLE, not specifically mentioned in the guidelines, Arjun Sinha, MD, a cardiology fellow at Northwestern University, Chicago, noted in his presentation at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions. 

The study included 18,129 patients with one of the six chronic inflammatory diseases and 18,988 matched controls, none with CHD at baseline. All regularly received outpatient care at Northwestern during 2000-2019. There were 1,011 incident CHD events during a median of 3.5 years of follow-up. 

In a Cox proportional hazards analysis adjusted for demographics, insurance status, hypertension, diabetes, current smoking, total cholesterol, and estimated glomerular filtration rate, here’s how the chronic inflammatory diseases stacked up in terms of incident CHD and MI risks: 

• SLE: hazard ratio for CHD, 2.85; for MI, 4.76.
• Systemic sclerosis: HR for CHD, 2.14; for MI, 3.19.
• HIV: HR for CHD, 1.38; for MI, 1.69.
• Rheumatoid arthritis: HR for CHD, 1.22; for MI, 1.45.
• Psoriasis: no significant increase.
• Inflammatory bowel disease: no significant increase.

In an exploratory analysis, Dr. Sinha and coinvestigators evaluated the risk of incident CHD stratified by disease severity. For lack of standardized disease severity scales, the investigators relied upon tertiles of CD4 T cell count in the HIV group and CRP in the others. The HR for new-onset CHD in the more than 5,000 patients with psoriasis didn’t vary by CRP tertile. However, there was a nonsignificant trend for greater disease severity, as reflected by CRP tertile, to be associated with increased incident CHD risk in the HIV and inflammatory bowel disease groups. 

In contrast, patients with rheumatoid arthritis or systemic sclerosis who were in the top CRP tertile had a significantly greater risk of developing CHD than that of controls, with HRs of 2.11 in the rheumatoid arthritis group and 4.59 with systemic sclerosis, although patients in the other two tertiles weren’t at significantly increased risk. But all three tertiles of CRP in patients with SLE were associated with significantly increased CHD risk: 3.17-fold in the lowest tertile of lupus severity, 5.38-fold in the middle tertile, and 4.04-fold in the top tertile for inflammation. 

These findings could be used in clinical practice to fine-tune atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk assessment based upon chronic inflammatory disease type and severity. That’s information which in turn can help guide the timing and intensity of preventive therapy for patients with each disease type. 

But studying the association between chronic systemic inflammatory diseases and CHD risk can be useful in additional ways, according to Dr. Sinha. These inflammatory diseases can serve as models of atherosclerosis that shed light on the non–lipid-related mechanisms involved in cardiovascular disease. 

“The gradient in risk may be hypothesis-generating with respect to which specific inflammatory pathways may contribute to CHD,” he explained. 

Each of these six chronic inflammatory diseases is characterized by a different form of major immune dysfunction, Dr. Sinha continued. A case in point is SLE, the inflammatory disease associated with the highest risk of CHD and MI. Lupus is characterized by a form of neutrophil dysfunction marked by increased formation and reduced degradation of neutrophil extracellular traps, or NETs, as well as by an increase in autoreactive B cells and dysfunctional CD4+ T helper cells. The increase in NETs of of particular interest because NETs have also been shown to contribute to the development of atherosclerosis, endothelial dysfunction, plaque erosion, and thrombosis. 

In another exploratory analysis, Dr. Sinha and coworkers found that SLE patients with a neutrophil count above the median level were twice as likely to develop CHD than were those with a neutrophil count below the median. 

A better understanding of the upstream pathways linking NET formation in SLE and atherosclerosis could lead to development of new or repurposed medications that target immune dysfunction in order to curb atherosclerosis, said Dr. Sinha, whose study won the AHA’s Samuel A. Levine Early Career Clinical Investigator Award. 

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study. 

[email protected] 

People taking even low-dose methotrexate need tuberculosis screening and ongoing clinical care if they live in areas where TB is common, results of a study presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology suggest.

Coauthor Carol Hitchon, MD, MSc, a rheumatologist with the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, who presented the findings, warned that methotrexate (MTX) users who also take corticosteroids or other immunosuppressants are at particular risk and need TB screening.

Current management guidelines for rheumatic disease address TB in relation to biologics, but not in relation to methotrexate, Dr. Hitchon said.

“We know that methotrexate is the foundational DMARD [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug] for many rheumatic diseases, especially rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Hitchon noted at a press conference. “It’s safe and effective when dosed properly. However, methotrexate does have the potential for significant liver toxicity as well as infection, particularly for infectious organisms that are targeted by cell-mediated immunity, and TB is one of those agents.”

Using multiple databases, researchers conducted a systematic review of the literature published from 1990 to 2018 on TB rates among people who take less than 30 mg of methotrexate a week. Of the 4,700 studies they examined, 31 fit the criteria for this analysis.

They collected data on tuberculosis incidence or new TB diagnoses vs. reactivation of latent TB infection as well as TB outcomes, such as pulmonary symptoms, dissemination, and mortality.

They found a modest increase in the risk of TB infections in the setting of low-dose methotrexate. In addition, rates of TB in people with rheumatic disease who are treated with either methotrexate or biologics are generally higher than in the general population.

They also found that methotrexate users had higher rates of the type of TB that spreads beyond a patient’s lungs, compared with the general population.

Safety of INH with methotrexate

Researchers also looked at the safety of isoniazid (INH), the antibiotic used to treat TB, and found that isoniazid-related liver toxicity and neutropenia were more common when people took the antibiotic along with methotrexate, but those effects were usually reversible.

TB is endemic in various regions around the world. Historically there hasn’t been much rheumatology capacity in many of these areas, but as that capacity increases more people who are at high risk for developing or reactivating TB will be receiving methotrexate for rheumatic diseases, Dr. Hitchon said.

“It’s prudent for people managing patients who may be at higher risk for TB either from where they live or from where they travel that we should have a high suspicion for TB and consider screening as part of our workup in the course of initiating treatment like methotrexate,” she said.

Narender Annapureddy, MD, a rheumatologist at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who was not involved in the research, pointed out that a limitation of the work is that only 27% of the studies are from developing countries, which are more likely to have endemic TB, and those studies had very few cases.

“This finding needs to be studied in larger populations in TB-endemic areas and in high-risk populations,” he said in an interview.

As for practice implications in the United States, Dr. Annapureddy noted that TB is rare in the United States and most of the cases occur in people born in other countries.

“This population may be at risk for TB and should probably be screened for TB before initiating methotrexate,” he said. “Since biologics are usually the next step, especially in RA after patients fail methotrexate, having information on TB status may also help guide management options after MTX failure.

“Since high-dose steroids are another important risk factor for TB activation,” Dr. Annapureddy continued, “rheumatologists should likely consider screening patients who are going to be on moderate to high doses of steroids with MTX.”

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

People taking even low-dose methotrexate need tuberculosis screening and ongoing clinical care if they live in areas where TB is common, results of a study presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology suggest.

Coauthor Carol Hitchon, MD, MSc, a rheumatologist with the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, who presented the findings, warned that methotrexate (MTX) users who also take corticosteroids or other immunosuppressants are at particular risk and need TB screening.

Current management guidelines for rheumatic disease address TB in relation to biologics, but not in relation to methotrexate, Dr. Hitchon said.

“We know that methotrexate is the foundational DMARD [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug] for many rheumatic diseases, especially rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Hitchon noted at a press conference. “It’s safe and effective when dosed properly. However, methotrexate does have the potential for significant liver toxicity as well as infection, particularly for infectious organisms that are targeted by cell-mediated immunity, and TB is one of those agents.”

Using multiple databases, researchers conducted a systematic review of the literature published from 1990 to 2018 on TB rates among people who take less than 30 mg of methotrexate a week. Of the 4,700 studies they examined, 31 fit the criteria for this analysis.

They collected data on tuberculosis incidence or new TB diagnoses vs. reactivation of latent TB infection as well as TB outcomes, such as pulmonary symptoms, dissemination, and mortality.

They found a modest increase in the risk of TB infections in the setting of low-dose methotrexate. In addition, rates of TB in people with rheumatic disease who are treated with either methotrexate or biologics are generally higher than in the general population.

They also found that methotrexate users had higher rates of the type of TB that spreads beyond a patient’s lungs, compared with the general population.

Safety of INH with methotrexate

Researchers also looked at the safety of isoniazid (INH), the antibiotic used to treat TB, and found that isoniazid-related liver toxicity and neutropenia were more common when people took the antibiotic along with methotrexate, but those effects were usually reversible.

TB is endemic in various regions around the world. Historically there hasn’t been much rheumatology capacity in many of these areas, but as that capacity increases more people who are at high risk for developing or reactivating TB will be receiving methotrexate for rheumatic diseases, Dr. Hitchon said.

“It’s prudent for people managing patients who may be at higher risk for TB either from where they live or from where they travel that we should have a high suspicion for TB and consider screening as part of our workup in the course of initiating treatment like methotrexate,” she said.

Narender Annapureddy, MD, a rheumatologist at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who was not involved in the research, pointed out that a limitation of the work is that only 27% of the studies are from developing countries, which are more likely to have endemic TB, and those studies had very few cases.

“This finding needs to be studied in larger populations in TB-endemic areas and in high-risk populations,” he said in an interview.

As for practice implications in the United States, Dr. Annapureddy noted that TB is rare in the United States and most of the cases occur in people born in other countries.

“This population may be at risk for TB and should probably be screened for TB before initiating methotrexate,” he said. “Since biologics are usually the next step, especially in RA after patients fail methotrexate, having information on TB status may also help guide management options after MTX failure.

“Since high-dose steroids are another important risk factor for TB activation,” Dr. Annapureddy continued, “rheumatologists should likely consider screening patients who are going to be on moderate to high doses of steroids with MTX.”

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

People taking even low-dose methotrexate need tuberculosis screening and ongoing clinical care if they live in areas where TB is common, results of a study presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology suggest.

Coauthor Carol Hitchon, MD, MSc, a rheumatologist with the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, who presented the findings, warned that methotrexate (MTX) users who also take corticosteroids or other immunosuppressants are at particular risk and need TB screening.

Current management guidelines for rheumatic disease address TB in relation to biologics, but not in relation to methotrexate, Dr. Hitchon said.

“We know that methotrexate is the foundational DMARD [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug] for many rheumatic diseases, especially rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Hitchon noted at a press conference. “It’s safe and effective when dosed properly. However, methotrexate does have the potential for significant liver toxicity as well as infection, particularly for infectious organisms that are targeted by cell-mediated immunity, and TB is one of those agents.”

Using multiple databases, researchers conducted a systematic review of the literature published from 1990 to 2018 on TB rates among people who take less than 30 mg of methotrexate a week. Of the 4,700 studies they examined, 31 fit the criteria for this analysis.

They collected data on tuberculosis incidence or new TB diagnoses vs. reactivation of latent TB infection as well as TB outcomes, such as pulmonary symptoms, dissemination, and mortality.

They found a modest increase in the risk of TB infections in the setting of low-dose methotrexate. In addition, rates of TB in people with rheumatic disease who are treated with either methotrexate or biologics are generally higher than in the general population.

They also found that methotrexate users had higher rates of the type of TB that spreads beyond a patient’s lungs, compared with the general population.

Safety of INH with methotrexate

Researchers also looked at the safety of isoniazid (INH), the antibiotic used to treat TB, and found that isoniazid-related liver toxicity and neutropenia were more common when people took the antibiotic along with methotrexate, but those effects were usually reversible.

TB is endemic in various regions around the world. Historically there hasn’t been much rheumatology capacity in many of these areas, but as that capacity increases more people who are at high risk for developing or reactivating TB will be receiving methotrexate for rheumatic diseases, Dr. Hitchon said.

“It’s prudent for people managing patients who may be at higher risk for TB either from where they live or from where they travel that we should have a high suspicion for TB and consider screening as part of our workup in the course of initiating treatment like methotrexate,” she said.

Narender Annapureddy, MD, a rheumatologist at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who was not involved in the research, pointed out that a limitation of the work is that only 27% of the studies are from developing countries, which are more likely to have endemic TB, and those studies had very few cases.

“This finding needs to be studied in larger populations in TB-endemic areas and in high-risk populations,” he said in an interview.

As for practice implications in the United States, Dr. Annapureddy noted that TB is rare in the United States and most of the cases occur in people born in other countries.

“This population may be at risk for TB and should probably be screened for TB before initiating methotrexate,” he said. “Since biologics are usually the next step, especially in RA after patients fail methotrexate, having information on TB status may also help guide management options after MTX failure.

“Since high-dose steroids are another important risk factor for TB activation,” Dr. Annapureddy continued, “rheumatologists should likely consider screening patients who are going to be on moderate to high doses of steroids with MTX.”

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

Among people with COVID-19, those with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases had an elevated 30-day risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation, and acute kidney injury, compared to a group without rheumatic diseases at 4 months in a match-controlled study.

When investigators expanded the study to 6 months, the difference in need for mechanical ventilation disappeared. However, relative risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) emerged as 74% higher among people with COVID-19 and with rheumatic disease, said Kristin D’Silva, MD, who presented the findings during a plenary session at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. She noted that rheumatic disease itself could contribute to VTE risk.

Comorbidities including hypertension, diabetes, and asthma were more common among people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). After adjustment for comorbidities, “the risks of hospitalization and ICU admission were attenuated, suggesting comorbidities are likely key mediators of the increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes observed in SARDs patients versus comparators,” Dr. D’Silva, a rheumatology fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview.

“The risk of venous thromboembolism persisted even after adjusting for comorbidities,” Dr. D’Silva said. Patients with SARDs should be closely monitored for VTE during COVID-19 infection, she added. “Patients with significant cardiovascular, pulmonary, and metabolic comorbidities should be closely monitored for severe COVID-19.”

At the same time, a systematic review of 15 published studies revealed a low incidence of COVID-19 infection among people with rheumatic disease. Furthermore, most experienced a mild clinical course and low mortality, Akhil Sood, MD, said when presenting results of his poster at the meeting.

Underlying immunosuppression, chronic inflammation, comorbidities, and disparities based on racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic status could predispose people with rheumatic disease to poorer COVID-19 outcomes. However, the risks and outcomes of COVID-19 infection among this population “are not well understood,” said Dr. Sood, a second-year resident in internal medicine at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston.

Elevated risks in match-controlled study

Dr. D’Silva and colleagues examined a COVID-19 population and compared 716 people with SARDs and another 716 people from the general public at 4 months, as well as 2,379 people each in similar groups at 6 months. They used real-time electronic medical record data from the TriNetX research network to identify ICD-10 codes for inflammatory arthritis, connective tissue diseases, and systemic vasculitis. They also used ICD-10 codes and positive PCR tests to identify people with COVID-19.

Mean age was 57 years and women accounted for 79% of both groups evaluated at 4 months. Those with SARDs were 23% more likely to be hospitalized (relative risk, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.50). This group was 75% more likely to be admitted to the ICU (RR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.11-2.75), 77% more likely to require mechanical ventilation (RR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.06-2.96), and 83% more likely to experience acute kidney injury (RR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.11-3.00).

Risk of death was not significantly higher in the SARDs group (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.73-1.86).

When Dr. D’Silva expanded the study to more people at 6 months, they added additional 30-day outcomes of interest: renal replacement therapy, VTE, and ischemic stroke. Risk of need for renal replacement therapy, for example, was 81% higher in the SARDs group (RR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.07-3.07). Risk of stroke was not significantly different between groups.The improvement in mechanical ventilation risk between 4 and 6 months was not completely unexpected, Dr. D’Silva said. The relative risk dropped from 1.77 to 1.05. “This is not particularly surprising given national trends in the general population reporting decreased severe outcomes of COVID-19 including mortality as the pandemic progresses. This is likely multifactorial including changes in COVID-19 management (such as increasing use of nonintubated prone positioning rather than early intubation and treatments such as dexamethasone and remdesivir), decreased strain on hospitals and staffing compared to the early crisis phase of the pandemic, and higher testing capacity leading to detection of milder cases.”

When the 6-month analysis was further adjusted for comorbidities and a history of prior hospitalization within 1 year, only risk for acute kidney injury and VTE remained significant with relative risks of 1.33 and 1.60, respectively, likely because comorbidities are causal intermediates of COVID-19 30-day outcomes rather than confounders.

When asked to comment on the results, session comoderator Victoria K. Shanmugam, MD, said in an interview that the study “is of great interest both to rheumatologists and to patients with rheumatic disease.”

The higher risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, and heart failure “is an important finding with implications for how our patients navigate risk during this pandemic,” said Dr. Shanmugam, director of the division of rheumatology at George Washington University in Washington.
 

Lower risks emerge in systematic review

The 15 observational studies in the systematic review included 11,815 participants. A total of 179, or 1.5%, tested positive for COVID-19.

“The incidence of COVID-19 infection among patients with rheumatic disease was low,” Dr. Sood said.

Within the COVID-19-positive group, almost 50% required hospitalization, 10% required ICU admission, and 8% died. The pooled event rate for hospitalization was 0.440 (95% CI, 0.296-0.596), while for ICU admission it was 0.132 (95% CI, 0.087-0.194) and for death it was 0.125 (95% CI, 0.082-0.182).
 

Different calculations of risk

The two studies seem to offer contradictory findings, but the disparities could be explained by study design differences. For example, Dr. D’Silva’s study evaluated a population with COVID-19 and compared those with SARDs versus a matched group from the general public. Dr. Sood and colleagues assessed study populations with rheumatic disease and assessed incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and difference in outcomes.

“We are asking very different questions,” Dr. D’Silva said.

“The study by D’Silva et al. was able to account for different factors to reduce confounding,” Dr. Sood said, adding that Dr. D’Silva and colleagues included a high proportion of minorities, compared with a less diverse population in the systematic review, which featured a large number of studies from Italy.

The authors of the two studies had no relevant financial disclosures to report.

SOURCES: D’Silva K et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 0430, and Sood A et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 0008.

Among people with COVID-19, those with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases had an elevated 30-day risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation, and acute kidney injury, compared to a group without rheumatic diseases at 4 months in a match-controlled study.

When investigators expanded the study to 6 months, the difference in need for mechanical ventilation disappeared. However, relative risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) emerged as 74% higher among people with COVID-19 and with rheumatic disease, said Kristin D’Silva, MD, who presented the findings during a plenary session at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. She noted that rheumatic disease itself could contribute to VTE risk.

Comorbidities including hypertension, diabetes, and asthma were more common among people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). After adjustment for comorbidities, “the risks of hospitalization and ICU admission were attenuated, suggesting comorbidities are likely key mediators of the increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes observed in SARDs patients versus comparators,” Dr. D’Silva, a rheumatology fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview.

“The risk of venous thromboembolism persisted even after adjusting for comorbidities,” Dr. D’Silva said. Patients with SARDs should be closely monitored for VTE during COVID-19 infection, she added. “Patients with significant cardiovascular, pulmonary, and metabolic comorbidities should be closely monitored for severe COVID-19.”

At the same time, a systematic review of 15 published studies revealed a low incidence of COVID-19 infection among people with rheumatic disease. Furthermore, most experienced a mild clinical course and low mortality, Akhil Sood, MD, said when presenting results of his poster at the meeting.

Underlying immunosuppression, chronic inflammation, comorbidities, and disparities based on racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic status could predispose people with rheumatic disease to poorer COVID-19 outcomes. However, the risks and outcomes of COVID-19 infection among this population “are not well understood,” said Dr. Sood, a second-year resident in internal medicine at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston.

Elevated risks in match-controlled study

Dr. D’Silva and colleagues examined a COVID-19 population and compared 716 people with SARDs and another 716 people from the general public at 4 months, as well as 2,379 people each in similar groups at 6 months. They used real-time electronic medical record data from the TriNetX research network to identify ICD-10 codes for inflammatory arthritis, connective tissue diseases, and systemic vasculitis. They also used ICD-10 codes and positive PCR tests to identify people with COVID-19.

Mean age was 57 years and women accounted for 79% of both groups evaluated at 4 months. Those with SARDs were 23% more likely to be hospitalized (relative risk, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.50). This group was 75% more likely to be admitted to the ICU (RR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.11-2.75), 77% more likely to require mechanical ventilation (RR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.06-2.96), and 83% more likely to experience acute kidney injury (RR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.11-3.00).

Risk of death was not significantly higher in the SARDs group (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.73-1.86).

When Dr. D’Silva expanded the study to more people at 6 months, they added additional 30-day outcomes of interest: renal replacement therapy, VTE, and ischemic stroke. Risk of need for renal replacement therapy, for example, was 81% higher in the SARDs group (RR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.07-3.07). Risk of stroke was not significantly different between groups.The improvement in mechanical ventilation risk between 4 and 6 months was not completely unexpected, Dr. D’Silva said. The relative risk dropped from 1.77 to 1.05. “This is not particularly surprising given national trends in the general population reporting decreased severe outcomes of COVID-19 including mortality as the pandemic progresses. This is likely multifactorial including changes in COVID-19 management (such as increasing use of nonintubated prone positioning rather than early intubation and treatments such as dexamethasone and remdesivir), decreased strain on hospitals and staffing compared to the early crisis phase of the pandemic, and higher testing capacity leading to detection of milder cases.”

When the 6-month analysis was further adjusted for comorbidities and a history of prior hospitalization within 1 year, only risk for acute kidney injury and VTE remained significant with relative risks of 1.33 and 1.60, respectively, likely because comorbidities are causal intermediates of COVID-19 30-day outcomes rather than confounders.

When asked to comment on the results, session comoderator Victoria K. Shanmugam, MD, said in an interview that the study “is of great interest both to rheumatologists and to patients with rheumatic disease.”

The higher risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, and heart failure “is an important finding with implications for how our patients navigate risk during this pandemic,” said Dr. Shanmugam, director of the division of rheumatology at George Washington University in Washington.
 

Lower risks emerge in systematic review

The 15 observational studies in the systematic review included 11,815 participants. A total of 179, or 1.5%, tested positive for COVID-19.

“The incidence of COVID-19 infection among patients with rheumatic disease was low,” Dr. Sood said.

Within the COVID-19-positive group, almost 50% required hospitalization, 10% required ICU admission, and 8% died. The pooled event rate for hospitalization was 0.440 (95% CI, 0.296-0.596), while for ICU admission it was 0.132 (95% CI, 0.087-0.194) and for death it was 0.125 (95% CI, 0.082-0.182).
 

Different calculations of risk

The two studies seem to offer contradictory findings, but the disparities could be explained by study design differences. For example, Dr. D’Silva’s study evaluated a population with COVID-19 and compared those with SARDs versus a matched group from the general public. Dr. Sood and colleagues assessed study populations with rheumatic disease and assessed incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and difference in outcomes.

“We are asking very different questions,” Dr. D’Silva said.

“The study by D’Silva et al. was able to account for different factors to reduce confounding,” Dr. Sood said, adding that Dr. D’Silva and colleagues included a high proportion of minorities, compared with a less diverse population in the systematic review, which featured a large number of studies from Italy.

The authors of the two studies had no relevant financial disclosures to report.

SOURCES: D’Silva K et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 0430, and Sood A et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 0008.

Among people with COVID-19, those with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases had an elevated 30-day risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, need for mechanical ventilation, and acute kidney injury, compared to a group without rheumatic diseases at 4 months in a match-controlled study.

When investigators expanded the study to 6 months, the difference in need for mechanical ventilation disappeared. However, relative risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) emerged as 74% higher among people with COVID-19 and with rheumatic disease, said Kristin D’Silva, MD, who presented the findings during a plenary session at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. She noted that rheumatic disease itself could contribute to VTE risk.

Comorbidities including hypertension, diabetes, and asthma were more common among people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). After adjustment for comorbidities, “the risks of hospitalization and ICU admission were attenuated, suggesting comorbidities are likely key mediators of the increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes observed in SARDs patients versus comparators,” Dr. D’Silva, a rheumatology fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview.

“The risk of venous thromboembolism persisted even after adjusting for comorbidities,” Dr. D’Silva said. Patients with SARDs should be closely monitored for VTE during COVID-19 infection, she added. “Patients with significant cardiovascular, pulmonary, and metabolic comorbidities should be closely monitored for severe COVID-19.”

At the same time, a systematic review of 15 published studies revealed a low incidence of COVID-19 infection among people with rheumatic disease. Furthermore, most experienced a mild clinical course and low mortality, Akhil Sood, MD, said when presenting results of his poster at the meeting.

Underlying immunosuppression, chronic inflammation, comorbidities, and disparities based on racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic status could predispose people with rheumatic disease to poorer COVID-19 outcomes. However, the risks and outcomes of COVID-19 infection among this population “are not well understood,” said Dr. Sood, a second-year resident in internal medicine at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston.

Elevated risks in match-controlled study

Dr. D’Silva and colleagues examined a COVID-19 population and compared 716 people with SARDs and another 716 people from the general public at 4 months, as well as 2,379 people each in similar groups at 6 months. They used real-time electronic medical record data from the TriNetX research network to identify ICD-10 codes for inflammatory arthritis, connective tissue diseases, and systemic vasculitis. They also used ICD-10 codes and positive PCR tests to identify people with COVID-19.

Mean age was 57 years and women accounted for 79% of both groups evaluated at 4 months. Those with SARDs were 23% more likely to be hospitalized (relative risk, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.50). This group was 75% more likely to be admitted to the ICU (RR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.11-2.75), 77% more likely to require mechanical ventilation (RR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.06-2.96), and 83% more likely to experience acute kidney injury (RR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.11-3.00).

Risk of death was not significantly higher in the SARDs group (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.73-1.86).

When Dr. D’Silva expanded the study to more people at 6 months, they added additional 30-day outcomes of interest: renal replacement therapy, VTE, and ischemic stroke. Risk of need for renal replacement therapy, for example, was 81% higher in the SARDs group (RR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.07-3.07). Risk of stroke was not significantly different between groups.The improvement in mechanical ventilation risk between 4 and 6 months was not completely unexpected, Dr. D’Silva said. The relative risk dropped from 1.77 to 1.05. “This is not particularly surprising given national trends in the general population reporting decreased severe outcomes of COVID-19 including mortality as the pandemic progresses. This is likely multifactorial including changes in COVID-19 management (such as increasing use of nonintubated prone positioning rather than early intubation and treatments such as dexamethasone and remdesivir), decreased strain on hospitals and staffing compared to the early crisis phase of the pandemic, and higher testing capacity leading to detection of milder cases.”

When the 6-month analysis was further adjusted for comorbidities and a history of prior hospitalization within 1 year, only risk for acute kidney injury and VTE remained significant with relative risks of 1.33 and 1.60, respectively, likely because comorbidities are causal intermediates of COVID-19 30-day outcomes rather than confounders.

When asked to comment on the results, session comoderator Victoria K. Shanmugam, MD, said in an interview that the study “is of great interest both to rheumatologists and to patients with rheumatic disease.”

The higher risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, and heart failure “is an important finding with implications for how our patients navigate risk during this pandemic,” said Dr. Shanmugam, director of the division of rheumatology at George Washington University in Washington.
 

Lower risks emerge in systematic review

The 15 observational studies in the systematic review included 11,815 participants. A total of 179, or 1.5%, tested positive for COVID-19.

“The incidence of COVID-19 infection among patients with rheumatic disease was low,” Dr. Sood said.

Within the COVID-19-positive group, almost 50% required hospitalization, 10% required ICU admission, and 8% died. The pooled event rate for hospitalization was 0.440 (95% CI, 0.296-0.596), while for ICU admission it was 0.132 (95% CI, 0.087-0.194) and for death it was 0.125 (95% CI, 0.082-0.182).
 

Different calculations of risk

The two studies seem to offer contradictory findings, but the disparities could be explained by study design differences. For example, Dr. D’Silva’s study evaluated a population with COVID-19 and compared those with SARDs versus a matched group from the general public. Dr. Sood and colleagues assessed study populations with rheumatic disease and assessed incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and difference in outcomes.

“We are asking very different questions,” Dr. D’Silva said.

“The study by D’Silva et al. was able to account for different factors to reduce confounding,” Dr. Sood said, adding that Dr. D’Silva and colleagues included a high proportion of minorities, compared with a less diverse population in the systematic review, which featured a large number of studies from Italy.

The authors of the two studies had no relevant financial disclosures to report.

SOURCES: D’Silva K et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 0430, and Sood A et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 0008.

Tapinarof cream 1% applied once daily in patients with plaque psoriasis convincingly hit its primary and secondary endpoints and was well tolerated in two identical pivotal phase 3, randomized trials, Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“Tapinarof cream has the potential to be a first-in-class topical therapeutic aryl hydrocarbon receptor modulating agent and will provide physicians and patients with a novel nonsteroidal topical treatment option that’s effective and well tolerated,” predicted Dr. Lebwohl, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Dermavant Sciences, the company developing topical tapinarof for treatment of atopic dermatitis as well as psoriasis, announced that upon completion of an ongoing long-term extension study the company plans to file for approval of the drug for psoriasis in 2021.

The two pivotal phase 3 trials, PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2, randomized a total of 1,025 patients with plaque psoriasis to once-daily tapinarof cream 1% or its vehicle. “This was a fairly difficult group of patients,” Dr. Lebwohl said. Roughly 80% had moderate psoriasis as defined by a baseline Physician Global Assessment (PGA) score of 3, with the remainder split evenly between mild and severe disease. Participants averaged 8% body surface area involvement. Body mass index was on average greater than 31 kg/m².

The primary efficacy endpoint was a PGA score of 0 or 1 – that is, clear or almost clear – plus at least a 2-grade improvement in PGA from baseline at week 12. This was achieved in 35.4% of patients on tapinarof cream once daily in PSOARING 1 and 40.2% in PSOARING 2, compared with 6.0% and 6.3% of vehicle-treated controls, a highly significant difference (both P < .0001).

The prespecified secondary endpoint was a 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score from baseline to week 12. The PASI 75 rates were 36.1% and 47.6% with tapinarof, significantly better than the 10.2% and 6.9% rates in controls.

The most common adverse event associated with tapinarof was folliculitis, which occurred in 20.6% of treated patients in PSOARING 1 and in 15.7% in PSOARING 2. More than 98% of cases were mild or moderate. The folliculitis led to study discontinuation in only 1.8% and 0.9% of subjects in the two trials.

The other noteworthy adverse event was contact dermatitis. It occurred in 3.8% and 4.7% of tapinarof-treated patients, again with low study discontinuation rates of 1.5% and 2.2%.

During the audience discussion, Linda Stein Gold, MD, lead investigator for PSOARING 2, was asked about this folliculitis. She said the mechanism is unclear, as is the best management. She encountered it in patients, didn’t treat it, and it went away on its own. It’s not a bacterial folliculitis; when cultured it invariably proved culture negative, she noted.

The comparative efficacy of tapinarof cream versus the potent and superpotent topical corticosteroids commonly used in the treatment of psoriasis hasn’t been evaluated in head-to-head studies. Her experience and that of the other investigators has been that tapinarof’s efficacy is comparably strong, “but we don’t have the steroid side effects,” said Dr. Stein Gold, director of dermatology clinical research at Henry Ford Health System in Detroit.

In an interview, Dr. Lebwohl said tapinarof, if approved, could help meet a major unmet need for new and better topical therapies for psoriasis.

“You keep hearing about all these biologic agents and small-molecule pills coming out, but the majority of patients still only need topical therapy,” he observed.

Moreover, even when patients with more severe disease achieve a PASI 75 or PASI 90 response with systemic therapy, they usually still need supplemental topical therapy to get them closer to the goal of clear skin.

The superpotent steroids that are the current mainstay of topical therapy come with predictable side effects that dictate a 2- to 4-week limit on their approved use. Also, they’re not supposed to be applied to the face or to intertriginous sites, including the groin, axillae, and under the breasts. In contrast, tapinarof has proved safe and effective in these sensitive areas.

Asked to predict how tapinarof is likely to be used in clinical practice, Dr. Lebwohl replied: “The efficacy was equivalent to strong topical steroids, so I think it could be used first line in place of topical steroids. And in particular, in patients with psoriasis at facial and intertriginous sites, I think an argument can be made for insisting that it be first line.”

He also expects that physicians will end up utilizing tapinarof for a varied group of steroid-responsive dermatoses beyond psoriasis and atopic dermatitis.

“It clearly reduces inflammation, which is why I would expect it would work well for those,” the dermatologist said.

The mechanism of action of tapinarof has been worked out. The drug enters the cell and binds to the aryl hydrocarbon receptor, forming a complex that enters the nucleus. There it joins with the aryl hydrocarbon receptor nuclear translocator, which regulates gene expression so as to reduce production of inflammatory cytokines while promoting an increase in skin barrier proteins, which is why tapinarof is also being developed as an atopic dermatitis therapy.

Dr. Lebwohl and Dr. Stein Gold reported receiving research funds from and serving as consultants to Dermavant Sciences as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

Tapinarof cream 1% applied once daily in patients with plaque psoriasis convincingly hit its primary and secondary endpoints and was well tolerated in two identical pivotal phase 3, randomized trials, Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“Tapinarof cream has the potential to be a first-in-class topical therapeutic aryl hydrocarbon receptor modulating agent and will provide physicians and patients with a novel nonsteroidal topical treatment option that’s effective and well tolerated,” predicted Dr. Lebwohl, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Dermavant Sciences, the company developing topical tapinarof for treatment of atopic dermatitis as well as psoriasis, announced that upon completion of an ongoing long-term extension study the company plans to file for approval of the drug for psoriasis in 2021.

The two pivotal phase 3 trials, PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2, randomized a total of 1,025 patients with plaque psoriasis to once-daily tapinarof cream 1% or its vehicle. “This was a fairly difficult group of patients,” Dr. Lebwohl said. Roughly 80% had moderate psoriasis as defined by a baseline Physician Global Assessment (PGA) score of 3, with the remainder split evenly between mild and severe disease. Participants averaged 8% body surface area involvement. Body mass index was on average greater than 31 kg/m².

The primary efficacy endpoint was a PGA score of 0 or 1 – that is, clear or almost clear – plus at least a 2-grade improvement in PGA from baseline at week 12. This was achieved in 35.4% of patients on tapinarof cream once daily in PSOARING 1 and 40.2% in PSOARING 2, compared with 6.0% and 6.3% of vehicle-treated controls, a highly significant difference (both P < .0001).

The prespecified secondary endpoint was a 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score from baseline to week 12. The PASI 75 rates were 36.1% and 47.6% with tapinarof, significantly better than the 10.2% and 6.9% rates in controls.

The most common adverse event associated with tapinarof was folliculitis, which occurred in 20.6% of treated patients in PSOARING 1 and in 15.7% in PSOARING 2. More than 98% of cases were mild or moderate. The folliculitis led to study discontinuation in only 1.8% and 0.9% of subjects in the two trials.

The other noteworthy adverse event was contact dermatitis. It occurred in 3.8% and 4.7% of tapinarof-treated patients, again with low study discontinuation rates of 1.5% and 2.2%.

During the audience discussion, Linda Stein Gold, MD, lead investigator for PSOARING 2, was asked about this folliculitis. She said the mechanism is unclear, as is the best management. She encountered it in patients, didn’t treat it, and it went away on its own. It’s not a bacterial folliculitis; when cultured it invariably proved culture negative, she noted.

The comparative efficacy of tapinarof cream versus the potent and superpotent topical corticosteroids commonly used in the treatment of psoriasis hasn’t been evaluated in head-to-head studies. Her experience and that of the other investigators has been that tapinarof’s efficacy is comparably strong, “but we don’t have the steroid side effects,” said Dr. Stein Gold, director of dermatology clinical research at Henry Ford Health System in Detroit.

In an interview, Dr. Lebwohl said tapinarof, if approved, could help meet a major unmet need for new and better topical therapies for psoriasis.

“You keep hearing about all these biologic agents and small-molecule pills coming out, but the majority of patients still only need topical therapy,” he observed.

Moreover, even when patients with more severe disease achieve a PASI 75 or PASI 90 response with systemic therapy, they usually still need supplemental topical therapy to get them closer to the goal of clear skin.

The superpotent steroids that are the current mainstay of topical therapy come with predictable side effects that dictate a 2- to 4-week limit on their approved use. Also, they’re not supposed to be applied to the face or to intertriginous sites, including the groin, axillae, and under the breasts. In contrast, tapinarof has proved safe and effective in these sensitive areas.

Asked to predict how tapinarof is likely to be used in clinical practice, Dr. Lebwohl replied: “The efficacy was equivalent to strong topical steroids, so I think it could be used first line in place of topical steroids. And in particular, in patients with psoriasis at facial and intertriginous sites, I think an argument can be made for insisting that it be first line.”

He also expects that physicians will end up utilizing tapinarof for a varied group of steroid-responsive dermatoses beyond psoriasis and atopic dermatitis.

“It clearly reduces inflammation, which is why I would expect it would work well for those,” the dermatologist said.

The mechanism of action of tapinarof has been worked out. The drug enters the cell and binds to the aryl hydrocarbon receptor, forming a complex that enters the nucleus. There it joins with the aryl hydrocarbon receptor nuclear translocator, which regulates gene expression so as to reduce production of inflammatory cytokines while promoting an increase in skin barrier proteins, which is why tapinarof is also being developed as an atopic dermatitis therapy.

Dr. Lebwohl and Dr. Stein Gold reported receiving research funds from and serving as consultants to Dermavant Sciences as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

Tapinarof cream 1% applied once daily in patients with plaque psoriasis convincingly hit its primary and secondary endpoints and was well tolerated in two identical pivotal phase 3, randomized trials, Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“Tapinarof cream has the potential to be a first-in-class topical therapeutic aryl hydrocarbon receptor modulating agent and will provide physicians and patients with a novel nonsteroidal topical treatment option that’s effective and well tolerated,” predicted Dr. Lebwohl, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Dermavant Sciences, the company developing topical tapinarof for treatment of atopic dermatitis as well as psoriasis, announced that upon completion of an ongoing long-term extension study the company plans to file for approval of the drug for psoriasis in 2021.

The two pivotal phase 3 trials, PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2, randomized a total of 1,025 patients with plaque psoriasis to once-daily tapinarof cream 1% or its vehicle. “This was a fairly difficult group of patients,” Dr. Lebwohl said. Roughly 80% had moderate psoriasis as defined by a baseline Physician Global Assessment (PGA) score of 3, with the remainder split evenly between mild and severe disease. Participants averaged 8% body surface area involvement. Body mass index was on average greater than 31 kg/m².

The primary efficacy endpoint was a PGA score of 0 or 1 – that is, clear or almost clear – plus at least a 2-grade improvement in PGA from baseline at week 12. This was achieved in 35.4% of patients on tapinarof cream once daily in PSOARING 1 and 40.2% in PSOARING 2, compared with 6.0% and 6.3% of vehicle-treated controls, a highly significant difference (both P < .0001).

The prespecified secondary endpoint was a 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score from baseline to week 12. The PASI 75 rates were 36.1% and 47.6% with tapinarof, significantly better than the 10.2% and 6.9% rates in controls.

The most common adverse event associated with tapinarof was folliculitis, which occurred in 20.6% of treated patients in PSOARING 1 and in 15.7% in PSOARING 2. More than 98% of cases were mild or moderate. The folliculitis led to study discontinuation in only 1.8% and 0.9% of subjects in the two trials.

The other noteworthy adverse event was contact dermatitis. It occurred in 3.8% and 4.7% of tapinarof-treated patients, again with low study discontinuation rates of 1.5% and 2.2%.

During the audience discussion, Linda Stein Gold, MD, lead investigator for PSOARING 2, was asked about this folliculitis. She said the mechanism is unclear, as is the best management. She encountered it in patients, didn’t treat it, and it went away on its own. It’s not a bacterial folliculitis; when cultured it invariably proved culture negative, she noted.

The comparative efficacy of tapinarof cream versus the potent and superpotent topical corticosteroids commonly used in the treatment of psoriasis hasn’t been evaluated in head-to-head studies. Her experience and that of the other investigators has been that tapinarof’s efficacy is comparably strong, “but we don’t have the steroid side effects,” said Dr. Stein Gold, director of dermatology clinical research at Henry Ford Health System in Detroit.

In an interview, Dr. Lebwohl said tapinarof, if approved, could help meet a major unmet need for new and better topical therapies for psoriasis.

“You keep hearing about all these biologic agents and small-molecule pills coming out, but the majority of patients still only need topical therapy,” he observed.

Moreover, even when patients with more severe disease achieve a PASI 75 or PASI 90 response with systemic therapy, they usually still need supplemental topical therapy to get them closer to the goal of clear skin.

The superpotent steroids that are the current mainstay of topical therapy come with predictable side effects that dictate a 2- to 4-week limit on their approved use. Also, they’re not supposed to be applied to the face or to intertriginous sites, including the groin, axillae, and under the breasts. In contrast, tapinarof has proved safe and effective in these sensitive areas.

Asked to predict how tapinarof is likely to be used in clinical practice, Dr. Lebwohl replied: “The efficacy was equivalent to strong topical steroids, so I think it could be used first line in place of topical steroids. And in particular, in patients with psoriasis at facial and intertriginous sites, I think an argument can be made for insisting that it be first line.”

He also expects that physicians will end up utilizing tapinarof for a varied group of steroid-responsive dermatoses beyond psoriasis and atopic dermatitis.

“It clearly reduces inflammation, which is why I would expect it would work well for those,” the dermatologist said.

The mechanism of action of tapinarof has been worked out. The drug enters the cell and binds to the aryl hydrocarbon receptor, forming a complex that enters the nucleus. There it joins with the aryl hydrocarbon receptor nuclear translocator, which regulates gene expression so as to reduce production of inflammatory cytokines while promoting an increase in skin barrier proteins, which is why tapinarof is also being developed as an atopic dermatitis therapy.

Dr. Lebwohl and Dr. Stein Gold reported receiving research funds from and serving as consultants to Dermavant Sciences as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

Biologic therapy for psoriasis may protect against severe COVID-19, according to two large observational studies from Italy and France presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“Biologics seem to be very protective against severe, poor-prognosis COVID-19, but they do not prevent infection with the virus,” reported Giovanni Damiani, MD, a dermatologist at the University of Milan.

This apparent protective effect of biologic agents against severe and even fatal COVID-19 is all the more impressive because the psoriasis patients included in the Italian study – as is true of those elsewhere throughout the world – had relatively high rates of obesity, smoking, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, known risk factors for severe COVID-19, he added.

He presented a case-control study including 1,193 adult psoriasis patients on biologics or apremilast (Otezla) at Milan’s San Donato Hospital during the period from Feb. 21 to April 9, 2020. The control group comprised more than 10 million individuals, the entire adult population of the Lombardy region, of which Milan is the capital. This was the hardest-hit area in all of Italy during the first wave of COVID-19.

Twenty-two of the 1,193 psoriasis patients experienced confirmed COVID-19 during the study period. Seventeen were quarantined at home because their disease was mild. Five were hospitalized. But no psoriasis patients were placed in intensive care, and none died.

Psoriasis patients on biologics were significantly more likely than the general Lombardian population to test positive for COVID-19, with an unadjusted odds ratio of 3.43. They were at 9.05-fold increased risk of home quarantine for mild disease, and at 3.59-fold greater risk than controls for hospitalization for COVID-19. However, they were not at significantly increased risk of ICU admission. And while they actually had a 59% relative risk reduction for death, this didn’t achieve statistical significance.

Forty-five percent of the psoriasis patients were on an interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitor, 22% were on a tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitor, and 20% were taking an IL-12/23 inhibitor. Of note, none of 77 patients on apremilast developed COVID-19, even though it is widely considered a less potent psoriasis therapy than the injectable monoclonal antibody biologics.

The French experience

Anne-Claire Fougerousse, MD, and her French coinvestigators conducted a study designed to address a different question: Is it safe to start psoriasis patients on biologics or older conventional systemic agents such as methotrexate during the pandemic?

She presented a French national cross-sectional study of 1,418 adult psoriasis patients on a biologic or standard systemic therapy during a snapshot in time near the peak of the first wave of the pandemic in France: the period from April 27 to May 7, 2020. The group included 1,188 psoriasis patients on maintenance therapy and 230 who had initiated systemic treatment within the past 4 months. More than one-third of the patients had at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19.

Although testing wasn’t available to confirm all cases, 54 patients developed probable COVID-19 during the study period. Only five required hospitalization. None died. The two hospitalized psoriasis patients admitted to an ICU had obesity as a risk factor for severe COVID-19, as did another of the five hospitalized patients, reported Dr. Fougerousse, a dermatologist at the Bégin Military Teaching Hospital in Saint-Mandé, France. Hospitalization for COVID-19 was required in 0.43% of the French treatment initiators, not significantly different from the 0.34% rate in patients on maintenance systemic therapy. A study limitation was the lack of a control group.

Nonetheless, the data did answer the investigators’ main question: “This is the first data showing no increased incidence of severe COVID-19 in psoriasis patients receiving systemic therapy in the treatment initiation period compared to those on maintenance therapy. This may now allow physicians to initiate conventional systemic or biologic therapy in patients with severe psoriasis on a case-by-case basis in the context of the persistent COVID-19 pandemic,” Dr. Fougerousse concluded.


 

Proposed mechanism of benefit

The Italian study findings that biologics boost the risk of infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus in psoriasis patients while potentially protecting them against ICU admission and death are backed by a biologically plausible albeit as yet unproven mechanism of action, Dr. Damiani asserted.

He elaborated: A vast body of high-quality clinical trials data demonstrates that these targeted immunosuppressive agents are associated with modestly increased risk of viral infections, including both skin and respiratory tract infections. So there is no reason to suppose these agents would offer protection against the first phase of COVID-19, involving SARS-CoV-2 infection, nor protect against the second (pulmonary phase), whose hallmarks are dyspnea with or without hypoxia. But progression to the third phase, involving hyperinflammation and hypercoagulation – dubbed the cytokine storm – could be a different matter.

“Of particular interest was that our patients on IL-17 inhibitors displayed a really great outcome. Interleukin-17 has procoagulant and prothrombotic effects, organizes bronchoalveolar remodeling, has a profibrotic effect, induces mitochondrial dysfunction, and encourages dendritic cell migration in peribronchial lymph nodes. Therefore, by antagonizing this interleukin, we may have a better prognosis, although further studies are needed to be certain,” Dr. Damiani commented.
 

Publication of his preliminary findings drew the attention of a group of highly respected thought leaders in psoriasis, including James G. Krueger, MD, head of the laboratory for investigative dermatology and codirector of the center for clinical and investigative science at Rockefeller University, New York.

The Italian report prompted them to analyze data from the phase 4, double-blind, randomized ObePso-S study investigating the effects of the IL-17 inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) on systemic inflammatory markers and gene expression in psoriasis patients. The investigators demonstrated that IL-17–mediated inflammation in psoriasis patients was associated with increased expression of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor in lesional skin, and that treatment with secukinumab dropped ACE2 expression to levels seen in nonlesional skin. Given that ACE2 is the chief portal of entry for SARS-CoV-2 and that IL-17 exerts systemic proinflammatory effects, it’s plausible that inhibition of IL-17–mediated inflammation via dampening of ACE2 expression in noncutaneous epithelia “could prove to be advantageous in patients with psoriasis who are at risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection,” according to Dr. Krueger and his coinvestigators in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

Dr. Damiani and Dr. Fougerousse reported having no financial conflicts regarding their studies. The secukinumab/ACE2 receptor study was funded by Novartis.
 

[email protected]

Biologic therapy for psoriasis may protect against severe COVID-19, according to two large observational studies from Italy and France presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“Biologics seem to be very protective against severe, poor-prognosis COVID-19, but they do not prevent infection with the virus,” reported Giovanni Damiani, MD, a dermatologist at the University of Milan.

This apparent protective effect of biologic agents against severe and even fatal COVID-19 is all the more impressive because the psoriasis patients included in the Italian study – as is true of those elsewhere throughout the world – had relatively high rates of obesity, smoking, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, known risk factors for severe COVID-19, he added.

He presented a case-control study including 1,193 adult psoriasis patients on biologics or apremilast (Otezla) at Milan’s San Donato Hospital during the period from Feb. 21 to April 9, 2020. The control group comprised more than 10 million individuals, the entire adult population of the Lombardy region, of which Milan is the capital. This was the hardest-hit area in all of Italy during the first wave of COVID-19.

Twenty-two of the 1,193 psoriasis patients experienced confirmed COVID-19 during the study period. Seventeen were quarantined at home because their disease was mild. Five were hospitalized. But no psoriasis patients were placed in intensive care, and none died.

Psoriasis patients on biologics were significantly more likely than the general Lombardian population to test positive for COVID-19, with an unadjusted odds ratio of 3.43. They were at 9.05-fold increased risk of home quarantine for mild disease, and at 3.59-fold greater risk than controls for hospitalization for COVID-19. However, they were not at significantly increased risk of ICU admission. And while they actually had a 59% relative risk reduction for death, this didn’t achieve statistical significance.

Forty-five percent of the psoriasis patients were on an interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitor, 22% were on a tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitor, and 20% were taking an IL-12/23 inhibitor. Of note, none of 77 patients on apremilast developed COVID-19, even though it is widely considered a less potent psoriasis therapy than the injectable monoclonal antibody biologics.

The French experience

Anne-Claire Fougerousse, MD, and her French coinvestigators conducted a study designed to address a different question: Is it safe to start psoriasis patients on biologics or older conventional systemic agents such as methotrexate during the pandemic?

She presented a French national cross-sectional study of 1,418 adult psoriasis patients on a biologic or standard systemic therapy during a snapshot in time near the peak of the first wave of the pandemic in France: the period from April 27 to May 7, 2020. The group included 1,188 psoriasis patients on maintenance therapy and 230 who had initiated systemic treatment within the past 4 months. More than one-third of the patients had at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19.

Although testing wasn’t available to confirm all cases, 54 patients developed probable COVID-19 during the study period. Only five required hospitalization. None died. The two hospitalized psoriasis patients admitted to an ICU had obesity as a risk factor for severe COVID-19, as did another of the five hospitalized patients, reported Dr. Fougerousse, a dermatologist at the Bégin Military Teaching Hospital in Saint-Mandé, France. Hospitalization for COVID-19 was required in 0.43% of the French treatment initiators, not significantly different from the 0.34% rate in patients on maintenance systemic therapy. A study limitation was the lack of a control group.

Nonetheless, the data did answer the investigators’ main question: “This is the first data showing no increased incidence of severe COVID-19 in psoriasis patients receiving systemic therapy in the treatment initiation period compared to those on maintenance therapy. This may now allow physicians to initiate conventional systemic or biologic therapy in patients with severe psoriasis on a case-by-case basis in the context of the persistent COVID-19 pandemic,” Dr. Fougerousse concluded.


 

Proposed mechanism of benefit

The Italian study findings that biologics boost the risk of infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus in psoriasis patients while potentially protecting them against ICU admission and death are backed by a biologically plausible albeit as yet unproven mechanism of action, Dr. Damiani asserted.

He elaborated: A vast body of high-quality clinical trials data demonstrates that these targeted immunosuppressive agents are associated with modestly increased risk of viral infections, including both skin and respiratory tract infections. So there is no reason to suppose these agents would offer protection against the first phase of COVID-19, involving SARS-CoV-2 infection, nor protect against the second (pulmonary phase), whose hallmarks are dyspnea with or without hypoxia. But progression to the third phase, involving hyperinflammation and hypercoagulation – dubbed the cytokine storm – could be a different matter.

“Of particular interest was that our patients on IL-17 inhibitors displayed a really great outcome. Interleukin-17 has procoagulant and prothrombotic effects, organizes bronchoalveolar remodeling, has a profibrotic effect, induces mitochondrial dysfunction, and encourages dendritic cell migration in peribronchial lymph nodes. Therefore, by antagonizing this interleukin, we may have a better prognosis, although further studies are needed to be certain,” Dr. Damiani commented.
 

Publication of his preliminary findings drew the attention of a group of highly respected thought leaders in psoriasis, including James G. Krueger, MD, head of the laboratory for investigative dermatology and codirector of the center for clinical and investigative science at Rockefeller University, New York.

The Italian report prompted them to analyze data from the phase 4, double-blind, randomized ObePso-S study investigating the effects of the IL-17 inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) on systemic inflammatory markers and gene expression in psoriasis patients. The investigators demonstrated that IL-17–mediated inflammation in psoriasis patients was associated with increased expression of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor in lesional skin, and that treatment with secukinumab dropped ACE2 expression to levels seen in nonlesional skin. Given that ACE2 is the chief portal of entry for SARS-CoV-2 and that IL-17 exerts systemic proinflammatory effects, it’s plausible that inhibition of IL-17–mediated inflammation via dampening of ACE2 expression in noncutaneous epithelia “could prove to be advantageous in patients with psoriasis who are at risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection,” according to Dr. Krueger and his coinvestigators in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

Dr. Damiani and Dr. Fougerousse reported having no financial conflicts regarding their studies. The secukinumab/ACE2 receptor study was funded by Novartis.
 

[email protected]

Biologic therapy for psoriasis may protect against severe COVID-19, according to two large observational studies from Italy and France presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“Biologics seem to be very protective against severe, poor-prognosis COVID-19, but they do not prevent infection with the virus,” reported Giovanni Damiani, MD, a dermatologist at the University of Milan.

This apparent protective effect of biologic agents against severe and even fatal COVID-19 is all the more impressive because the psoriasis patients included in the Italian study – as is true of those elsewhere throughout the world – had relatively high rates of obesity, smoking, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, known risk factors for severe COVID-19, he added.

He presented a case-control study including 1,193 adult psoriasis patients on biologics or apremilast (Otezla) at Milan’s San Donato Hospital during the period from Feb. 21 to April 9, 2020. The control group comprised more than 10 million individuals, the entire adult population of the Lombardy region, of which Milan is the capital. This was the hardest-hit area in all of Italy during the first wave of COVID-19.

Twenty-two of the 1,193 psoriasis patients experienced confirmed COVID-19 during the study period. Seventeen were quarantined at home because their disease was mild. Five were hospitalized. But no psoriasis patients were placed in intensive care, and none died.

Psoriasis patients on biologics were significantly more likely than the general Lombardian population to test positive for COVID-19, with an unadjusted odds ratio of 3.43. They were at 9.05-fold increased risk of home quarantine for mild disease, and at 3.59-fold greater risk than controls for hospitalization for COVID-19. However, they were not at significantly increased risk of ICU admission. And while they actually had a 59% relative risk reduction for death, this didn’t achieve statistical significance.

Forty-five percent of the psoriasis patients were on an interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitor, 22% were on a tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitor, and 20% were taking an IL-12/23 inhibitor. Of note, none of 77 patients on apremilast developed COVID-19, even though it is widely considered a less potent psoriasis therapy than the injectable monoclonal antibody biologics.

The French experience

Anne-Claire Fougerousse, MD, and her French coinvestigators conducted a study designed to address a different question: Is it safe to start psoriasis patients on biologics or older conventional systemic agents such as methotrexate during the pandemic?

She presented a French national cross-sectional study of 1,418 adult psoriasis patients on a biologic or standard systemic therapy during a snapshot in time near the peak of the first wave of the pandemic in France: the period from April 27 to May 7, 2020. The group included 1,188 psoriasis patients on maintenance therapy and 230 who had initiated systemic treatment within the past 4 months. More than one-third of the patients had at least one risk factor for severe COVID-19.

Although testing wasn’t available to confirm all cases, 54 patients developed probable COVID-19 during the study period. Only five required hospitalization. None died. The two hospitalized psoriasis patients admitted to an ICU had obesity as a risk factor for severe COVID-19, as did another of the five hospitalized patients, reported Dr. Fougerousse, a dermatologist at the Bégin Military Teaching Hospital in Saint-Mandé, France. Hospitalization for COVID-19 was required in 0.43% of the French treatment initiators, not significantly different from the 0.34% rate in patients on maintenance systemic therapy. A study limitation was the lack of a control group.

Nonetheless, the data did answer the investigators’ main question: “This is the first data showing no increased incidence of severe COVID-19 in psoriasis patients receiving systemic therapy in the treatment initiation period compared to those on maintenance therapy. This may now allow physicians to initiate conventional systemic or biologic therapy in patients with severe psoriasis on a case-by-case basis in the context of the persistent COVID-19 pandemic,” Dr. Fougerousse concluded.


 

Proposed mechanism of benefit

The Italian study findings that biologics boost the risk of infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus in psoriasis patients while potentially protecting them against ICU admission and death are backed by a biologically plausible albeit as yet unproven mechanism of action, Dr. Damiani asserted.

He elaborated: A vast body of high-quality clinical trials data demonstrates that these targeted immunosuppressive agents are associated with modestly increased risk of viral infections, including both skin and respiratory tract infections. So there is no reason to suppose these agents would offer protection against the first phase of COVID-19, involving SARS-CoV-2 infection, nor protect against the second (pulmonary phase), whose hallmarks are dyspnea with or without hypoxia. But progression to the third phase, involving hyperinflammation and hypercoagulation – dubbed the cytokine storm – could be a different matter.

“Of particular interest was that our patients on IL-17 inhibitors displayed a really great outcome. Interleukin-17 has procoagulant and prothrombotic effects, organizes bronchoalveolar remodeling, has a profibrotic effect, induces mitochondrial dysfunction, and encourages dendritic cell migration in peribronchial lymph nodes. Therefore, by antagonizing this interleukin, we may have a better prognosis, although further studies are needed to be certain,” Dr. Damiani commented.
 

Publication of his preliminary findings drew the attention of a group of highly respected thought leaders in psoriasis, including James G. Krueger, MD, head of the laboratory for investigative dermatology and codirector of the center for clinical and investigative science at Rockefeller University, New York.

The Italian report prompted them to analyze data from the phase 4, double-blind, randomized ObePso-S study investigating the effects of the IL-17 inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) on systemic inflammatory markers and gene expression in psoriasis patients. The investigators demonstrated that IL-17–mediated inflammation in psoriasis patients was associated with increased expression of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor in lesional skin, and that treatment with secukinumab dropped ACE2 expression to levels seen in nonlesional skin. Given that ACE2 is the chief portal of entry for SARS-CoV-2 and that IL-17 exerts systemic proinflammatory effects, it’s plausible that inhibition of IL-17–mediated inflammation via dampening of ACE2 expression in noncutaneous epithelia “could prove to be advantageous in patients with psoriasis who are at risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection,” according to Dr. Krueger and his coinvestigators in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

Dr. Damiani and Dr. Fougerousse reported having no financial conflicts regarding their studies. The secukinumab/ACE2 receptor study was funded by Novartis.
 

[email protected]

The investigational monoclonal antibody mirikizumab performed more robustly against placebo overall – and the interleukin-17 inhibitor secukinumab at key endpoints – for treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis, according to new long-term OASIS-2 trial data.

Both doses of mirikizumab in the international, double-blind trial achieved improvements in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores in larger numbers of participants at week 52 than secukinumab (Cosentyx), with low adverse event rates.

If approved, mirikizumab, which binds the p19 subunit of IL-23, would join three other IL-23 drugs already marketed in the United States for moderate to severe psoriasis, said OASIS-2 lead investigator Kim A. Papp, MD, PhD, founder and president of Probity Medical Research in Waterloo, Ont.

But Dr. Papp feels larger studies “will be necessary to put these data into perspective,” he said during a presentation at the virtual annual European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Congress.

“Probably the most important takeaway here is that we may have another option to choose from,” Dr. Papp said in an interview. “People tend to think we have an adequate stable of treatment options, and I would argue we do not.”

“There are variations over time that occur in terms of an individual’s biological response, and the consequence is that nothing we have works for everyone, and nothing we have works forever,” he added. Psoriasis biologics “are increasingly competent, compared to medications we had even 5 or 10 years ago ... but they still don’t satisfy all our needs, so we do need to keep replenishing our stock.”

The multicenter trial included 1,465 patients who were randomly split into four groups. Subcutaneously, one group received 250 mg of mirikizumab every 4 weeks, and then 250 mg of the drug every 8 weeks starting at week 16. Another group received 250 mg of mirikizumab every 4 weeks and then 125 mg every 8 weeks starting at week 16.

The third group received 300 mg of secukinumab weekly for 4 weeks and then every 4 weeks starting at week 4. The last group received placebo every 4 weeks, and then 250 mg of mirikizumab every 4 weeks from week 16 to 32 and every 8 weeks thereafter.

Primary endpoints measured the percentage of patients achieving a static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) of 0 or 1, with an improvement of at least 2 points from baseline; and the proportion of patients with PASI 90 at week 16, compared with placebo.

Major secondary endpoints were PASI 75 and PASI 100, compared with placebo at week 16; an sPGA of 0 or 1 and PASI 90 noninferiority, compared with secukinumab at week 16; and sPGA of 0 or 1, PASI 90, and PASI 100 superiority, compared with secukinumab at week 52.

More than 91% of participants completed all 52 weeks in the trial. Mirikizumab met primary endpoints compared with placebo and major secondary endpoints vs secukinumab at week 16 (P < .001). PASI 90 and sPGA (0,1) response rates far exceeded placebo for both 250 mg mirikizumab (74.4% and 79.7%, respectively) and secukinumab (72.8% and 76.3%, respectively).

At week 52, major secondary endpoints for both mirikizumab doses were superior to secukinumab (all P < .001). PASI 90 was achieved by 81.4% of 125 mg and 82.4% of 250 mg mirikizumab patients versus 69.4% of secukinumab patients; sPGA (0,1) by 83.1% of 125 mg and 83.3% of 250 mg mirikizumab patients versus 68.5% of secukinumab patients; and PASI 100 by 53.9% of 125 mg and 58.8% of 250 mg mirikizumab patients versus 42.9% of secukinumab patients.

Treatment-associated adverse effects were similar across all treatment groups and study periods. The most common were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, back pain, and arthralgia. But serious adverse effects were minimal, Dr. Papp said. One death occurred in a mirikizumab patient from acute MI, which was deemed unrelated to the study drug.

Myrto Georgia Trakatelli, MD, PhD, from Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Greece), said the results indicate that dermatologists “should not be afraid to use” mirikizumab long term if it is approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

“Sometimes patients use many treatments for a long time and all of a sudden, they stop working,” Dr. Trakatelli said in an interview. “A new biologic is always welcome because we do see patients not responding to other treatment.”

But Dr. Trakatelli said “a point that troubled me in the study” was that mirikizumab was compared with an IL-17 inhibitor “instead of a molecule targeting IL-23, such as guselkumab [Tremfya], for example.”

“I would have liked to see a head-to-head comparison with a molecule that blocks the same target,” said Dr. Trakatelli, chair of the EADV education committee.

Dr. Papp countered that “there are various reasons for running comparator studies.” Secukinumab, he said, “was the market leader and was widely used, so it makes sense that one is going to compare against a product as the market lead.”

“Not to say there won’t be future studies” in which mirikizumab is compared “head to head with IL-23s,” Dr. Papp added.

But larger patient numbers and longer treatment times are still needed with mirikizumab “to characterize the level of response, duration of response, and any adverse event profiles,” Dr. Papp stressed.

“One study does not a drug make,” he said. “It’s just exciting that we still have things to offer. This is an important example, and of course opportunity, for patients.”

The trial was funded by Lilly. Dr. Papp disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, Valeant, Baxalta, Baxter, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Coherus, Dermira, Forward Pharma, Galderma, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Medimmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Stiefel, Sun Pharma, Takeda, and UCB. Dr. Trakatelli is a speaker for Novartis.

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

The investigational monoclonal antibody mirikizumab performed more robustly against placebo overall – and the interleukin-17 inhibitor secukinumab at key endpoints – for treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis, according to new long-term OASIS-2 trial data.

Both doses of mirikizumab in the international, double-blind trial achieved improvements in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores in larger numbers of participants at week 52 than secukinumab (Cosentyx), with low adverse event rates.

If approved, mirikizumab, which binds the p19 subunit of IL-23, would join three other IL-23 drugs already marketed in the United States for moderate to severe psoriasis, said OASIS-2 lead investigator Kim A. Papp, MD, PhD, founder and president of Probity Medical Research in Waterloo, Ont.

But Dr. Papp feels larger studies “will be necessary to put these data into perspective,” he said during a presentation at the virtual annual European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Congress.

“Probably the most important takeaway here is that we may have another option to choose from,” Dr. Papp said in an interview. “People tend to think we have an adequate stable of treatment options, and I would argue we do not.”

“There are variations over time that occur in terms of an individual’s biological response, and the consequence is that nothing we have works for everyone, and nothing we have works forever,” he added. Psoriasis biologics “are increasingly competent, compared to medications we had even 5 or 10 years ago ... but they still don’t satisfy all our needs, so we do need to keep replenishing our stock.”

The multicenter trial included 1,465 patients who were randomly split into four groups. Subcutaneously, one group received 250 mg of mirikizumab every 4 weeks, and then 250 mg of the drug every 8 weeks starting at week 16. Another group received 250 mg of mirikizumab every 4 weeks and then 125 mg every 8 weeks starting at week 16.

The third group received 300 mg of secukinumab weekly for 4 weeks and then every 4 weeks starting at week 4. The last group received placebo every 4 weeks, and then 250 mg of mirikizumab every 4 weeks from week 16 to 32 and every 8 weeks thereafter.

Primary endpoints measured the percentage of patients achieving a static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) of 0 or 1, with an improvement of at least 2 points from baseline; and the proportion of patients with PASI 90 at week 16, compared with placebo.

Major secondary endpoints were PASI 75 and PASI 100, compared with placebo at week 16; an sPGA of 0 or 1 and PASI 90 noninferiority, compared with secukinumab at week 16; and sPGA of 0 or 1, PASI 90, and PASI 100 superiority, compared with secukinumab at week 52.

More than 91% of participants completed all 52 weeks in the trial. Mirikizumab met primary endpoints compared with placebo and major secondary endpoints vs secukinumab at week 16 (P < .001). PASI 90 and sPGA (0,1) response rates far exceeded placebo for both 250 mg mirikizumab (74.4% and 79.7%, respectively) and secukinumab (72.8% and 76.3%, respectively).

At week 52, major secondary endpoints for both mirikizumab doses were superior to secukinumab (all P < .001). PASI 90 was achieved by 81.4% of 125 mg and 82.4% of 250 mg mirikizumab patients versus 69.4% of secukinumab patients; sPGA (0,1) by 83.1% of 125 mg and 83.3% of 250 mg mirikizumab patients versus 68.5% of secukinumab patients; and PASI 100 by 53.9% of 125 mg and 58.8% of 250 mg mirikizumab patients versus 42.9% of secukinumab patients.

Treatment-associated adverse effects were similar across all treatment groups and study periods. The most common were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, back pain, and arthralgia. But serious adverse effects were minimal, Dr. Papp said. One death occurred in a mirikizumab patient from acute MI, which was deemed unrelated to the study drug.

Myrto Georgia Trakatelli, MD, PhD, from Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Greece), said the results indicate that dermatologists “should not be afraid to use” mirikizumab long term if it is approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

“Sometimes patients use many treatments for a long time and all of a sudden, they stop working,” Dr. Trakatelli said in an interview. “A new biologic is always welcome because we do see patients not responding to other treatment.”

But Dr. Trakatelli said “a point that troubled me in the study” was that mirikizumab was compared with an IL-17 inhibitor “instead of a molecule targeting IL-23, such as guselkumab [Tremfya], for example.”

“I would have liked to see a head-to-head comparison with a molecule that blocks the same target,” said Dr. Trakatelli, chair of the EADV education committee.

Dr. Papp countered that “there are various reasons for running comparator studies.” Secukinumab, he said, “was the market leader and was widely used, so it makes sense that one is going to compare against a product as the market lead.”

“Not to say there won’t be future studies” in which mirikizumab is compared “head to head with IL-23s,” Dr. Papp added.

But larger patient numbers and longer treatment times are still needed with mirikizumab “to characterize the level of response, duration of response, and any adverse event profiles,” Dr. Papp stressed.

“One study does not a drug make,” he said. “It’s just exciting that we still have things to offer. This is an important example, and of course opportunity, for patients.”

The trial was funded by Lilly. Dr. Papp disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, Valeant, Baxalta, Baxter, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Coherus, Dermira, Forward Pharma, Galderma, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Medimmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Stiefel, Sun Pharma, Takeda, and UCB. Dr. Trakatelli is a speaker for Novartis.

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

The investigational monoclonal antibody mirikizumab performed more robustly against placebo overall – and the interleukin-17 inhibitor secukinumab at key endpoints – for treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis, according to new long-term OASIS-2 trial data.

Both doses of mirikizumab in the international, double-blind trial achieved improvements in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores in larger numbers of participants at week 52 than secukinumab (Cosentyx), with low adverse event rates.

If approved, mirikizumab, which binds the p19 subunit of IL-23, would join three other IL-23 drugs already marketed in the United States for moderate to severe psoriasis, said OASIS-2 lead investigator Kim A. Papp, MD, PhD, founder and president of Probity Medical Research in Waterloo, Ont.

But Dr. Papp feels larger studies “will be necessary to put these data into perspective,” he said during a presentation at the virtual annual European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Congress.

“Probably the most important takeaway here is that we may have another option to choose from,” Dr. Papp said in an interview. “People tend to think we have an adequate stable of treatment options, and I would argue we do not.”

“There are variations over time that occur in terms of an individual’s biological response, and the consequence is that nothing we have works for everyone, and nothing we have works forever,” he added. Psoriasis biologics “are increasingly competent, compared to medications we had even 5 or 10 years ago ... but they still don’t satisfy all our needs, so we do need to keep replenishing our stock.”

The multicenter trial included 1,465 patients who were randomly split into four groups. Subcutaneously, one group received 250 mg of mirikizumab every 4 weeks, and then 250 mg of the drug every 8 weeks starting at week 16. Another group received 250 mg of mirikizumab every 4 weeks and then 125 mg every 8 weeks starting at week 16.

The third group received 300 mg of secukinumab weekly for 4 weeks and then every 4 weeks starting at week 4. The last group received placebo every 4 weeks, and then 250 mg of mirikizumab every 4 weeks from week 16 to 32 and every 8 weeks thereafter.

Primary endpoints measured the percentage of patients achieving a static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) of 0 or 1, with an improvement of at least 2 points from baseline; and the proportion of patients with PASI 90 at week 16, compared with placebo.

Major secondary endpoints were PASI 75 and PASI 100, compared with placebo at week 16; an sPGA of 0 or 1 and PASI 90 noninferiority, compared with secukinumab at week 16; and sPGA of 0 or 1, PASI 90, and PASI 100 superiority, compared with secukinumab at week 52.

More than 91% of participants completed all 52 weeks in the trial. Mirikizumab met primary endpoints compared with placebo and major secondary endpoints vs secukinumab at week 16 (P < .001). PASI 90 and sPGA (0,1) response rates far exceeded placebo for both 250 mg mirikizumab (74.4% and 79.7%, respectively) and secukinumab (72.8% and 76.3%, respectively).

At week 52, major secondary endpoints for both mirikizumab doses were superior to secukinumab (all P < .001). PASI 90 was achieved by 81.4% of 125 mg and 82.4% of 250 mg mirikizumab patients versus 69.4% of secukinumab patients; sPGA (0,1) by 83.1% of 125 mg and 83.3% of 250 mg mirikizumab patients versus 68.5% of secukinumab patients; and PASI 100 by 53.9% of 125 mg and 58.8% of 250 mg mirikizumab patients versus 42.9% of secukinumab patients.

Treatment-associated adverse effects were similar across all treatment groups and study periods. The most common were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, back pain, and arthralgia. But serious adverse effects were minimal, Dr. Papp said. One death occurred in a mirikizumab patient from acute MI, which was deemed unrelated to the study drug.

Myrto Georgia Trakatelli, MD, PhD, from Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Greece), said the results indicate that dermatologists “should not be afraid to use” mirikizumab long term if it is approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

“Sometimes patients use many treatments for a long time and all of a sudden, they stop working,” Dr. Trakatelli said in an interview. “A new biologic is always welcome because we do see patients not responding to other treatment.”

But Dr. Trakatelli said “a point that troubled me in the study” was that mirikizumab was compared with an IL-17 inhibitor “instead of a molecule targeting IL-23, such as guselkumab [Tremfya], for example.”

“I would have liked to see a head-to-head comparison with a molecule that blocks the same target,” said Dr. Trakatelli, chair of the EADV education committee.

Dr. Papp countered that “there are various reasons for running comparator studies.” Secukinumab, he said, “was the market leader and was widely used, so it makes sense that one is going to compare against a product as the market lead.”

“Not to say there won’t be future studies” in which mirikizumab is compared “head to head with IL-23s,” Dr. Papp added.

But larger patient numbers and longer treatment times are still needed with mirikizumab “to characterize the level of response, duration of response, and any adverse event profiles,” Dr. Papp stressed.

“One study does not a drug make,” he said. “It’s just exciting that we still have things to offer. This is an important example, and of course opportunity, for patients.”

The trial was funded by Lilly. Dr. Papp disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, Valeant, Baxalta, Baxter, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Coherus, Dermira, Forward Pharma, Galderma, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Medimmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Stiefel, Sun Pharma, Takeda, and UCB. Dr. Trakatelli is a speaker for Novartis.

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

The available data suggest that the risks posed by COVID-19 infection to patients with psoriasis, including those on therapies that affect immune function, are modest at most, according to a summary of published studies and expert opinions summarized at the annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium, held virtually.

For patients with psoriasis concerned about their outcome if infected with COVID-19, “there is no evidence to support stopping biologics or systemic agents, so I am asking my patients to continue,” Kristina C. Duffin, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said at the meeting.

The National Psoriasis Foundation, which created a COVID-19 task force and maintains a COVID-19 Resource Center on its website, has provided similar advice. Many statements are phrased cautiously and clinicians are encouraged to practice shared decision-making, but the NPF guidance supports continuing effective therapy – or, in newly diagnosed patients, starting effective therapy – among those who are not infected with SARS-CoV2.

Patients with a new diagnosis of psoriasis “should be aware that untreated psoriatic disease is associated with serious impact on physical and emotional health, and in the case of psoriatic arthritis, can lead to permanent joint damage and disability,” according to the NPF guidance.

Overall, the “existing data generally suggest” that most treatments for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis “do not meaningfully alter the risks of contracting SARS-CoV2 or having a worse course of COVID-19 illness,” the current guidance states. Yet, because of limited data this “is not known with certainty.”

Chronic systemic steroids are an exception. In a review of recently published studies evaluating whether psoriasis or its therapies increase risk of adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19 infection, Dr. Duffin pointed to several that associated systemic steroids with hospitalization or other markers of severe disease.

The NPF guidance also recommends avoiding chronic systemic steroids in patients with psoriasis during the current COVID-19 era “if possible.” In patients with psoriatic arthritis who require systemic steroids, the guidance recommends “the lowest dose necessary to achieve the desired therapeutic effect.”

This is not necessarily true in patients with psoriasis and COVID-19 infection. Based on the potential for systemic steroids to improve outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients requiring oxygen, steroids “should not be withheld” even when the justification is concern about the potential risk of flares with withdrawal, according to the NPF guidance statement.

The NPF guidance specifically cautions against use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for prevention or treatment of COVID-19. In addition to an uncertain benefit, these antimalarial drugs have been associated previously with flares of psoriasis.

Dr. Duffin agreed and went on to warn that COVID-19 infection itself is a potential trigger for flares. She cited two published case reports of flares associated with psoriasis. Although one patient had also been exposed to hydroxychloroquine, she said the risk of psoriasis-induced flare “makes sense” based on previous associations made between flares and other viral infections and stress.

In patients with psoriasis who contract COVID-19 infection, Dr. Duffin concurred with the NPF guidance that management decisions should be made on a “case-by-case basis.” Although the NPF guidance states that “most patients can restart psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis treatments after complete resolution of COVID-19 symptoms,” no specific advice was offered on the decision to stop treatments.

For protecting psoriasis patients from infection and managing COVID-19 in those who become infected, much of the NPF advice is consistent with that offered to patients without psoriasis. This involves practicing infection control that reduces risk of transmission. Both the NPF guidance and Dr. Duffin suggested telemedicine is appropriate for limiting in-patient visits under pandemic conditions.

Although patients with psoriasis are more likely than the general population to have the comorbidities associated with bad COVID-19 infection outcomes, according to the NPF guidance, Dr. Duffin called the overall data evaluating susceptibility among psoriasis patients “reassuring.” She cautioned that the data are still limited, but the evidence so far suggests that neither psoriasis nor biologics are independent risk factors for acquiring COVID-19 or having a worse outcome if infected.

Yet, more definitive data are needed, and Dr. Duffin advised clinicians and patients to consult the NPF website for updates. “More up-to-date information will certainly be added as we go forward,” she said at the meeting, jointly presented by the University of Louisville and Global Academy for Medical Education.

This NPF task force on COVID-19 is meeting every 2 weeks, according to Joel M. Gelfand, MD, professor of dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and cochair of the task force. Dr. Gelfand reported that updates are based on a discussion of the available data.

“We will be releasing additional recommendations as necessary based on the developments,” he said in an interview. Updates are not necessarily required at this frequency but can be if appropriate. The goal is to keep recommendations current and evidence-based.

Dr. Duffin reported financial relationships with Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Siena, and UCB. Dr. Gelfand reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

This publication and Global Academy for Medical Education are owned by the same parent company.
 

The available data suggest that the risks posed by COVID-19 infection to patients with psoriasis, including those on therapies that affect immune function, are modest at most, according to a summary of published studies and expert opinions summarized at the annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium, held virtually.

For patients with psoriasis concerned about their outcome if infected with COVID-19, “there is no evidence to support stopping biologics or systemic agents, so I am asking my patients to continue,” Kristina C. Duffin, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said at the meeting.

The National Psoriasis Foundation, which created a COVID-19 task force and maintains a COVID-19 Resource Center on its website, has provided similar advice. Many statements are phrased cautiously and clinicians are encouraged to practice shared decision-making, but the NPF guidance supports continuing effective therapy – or, in newly diagnosed patients, starting effective therapy – among those who are not infected with SARS-CoV2.

Patients with a new diagnosis of psoriasis “should be aware that untreated psoriatic disease is associated with serious impact on physical and emotional health, and in the case of psoriatic arthritis, can lead to permanent joint damage and disability,” according to the NPF guidance.

Overall, the “existing data generally suggest” that most treatments for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis “do not meaningfully alter the risks of contracting SARS-CoV2 or having a worse course of COVID-19 illness,” the current guidance states. Yet, because of limited data this “is not known with certainty.”

Chronic systemic steroids are an exception. In a review of recently published studies evaluating whether psoriasis or its therapies increase risk of adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19 infection, Dr. Duffin pointed to several that associated systemic steroids with hospitalization or other markers of severe disease.

The NPF guidance also recommends avoiding chronic systemic steroids in patients with psoriasis during the current COVID-19 era “if possible.” In patients with psoriatic arthritis who require systemic steroids, the guidance recommends “the lowest dose necessary to achieve the desired therapeutic effect.”

This is not necessarily true in patients with psoriasis and COVID-19 infection. Based on the potential for systemic steroids to improve outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients requiring oxygen, steroids “should not be withheld” even when the justification is concern about the potential risk of flares with withdrawal, according to the NPF guidance statement.

The NPF guidance specifically cautions against use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for prevention or treatment of COVID-19. In addition to an uncertain benefit, these antimalarial drugs have been associated previously with flares of psoriasis.

Dr. Duffin agreed and went on to warn that COVID-19 infection itself is a potential trigger for flares. She cited two published case reports of flares associated with psoriasis. Although one patient had also been exposed to hydroxychloroquine, she said the risk of psoriasis-induced flare “makes sense” based on previous associations made between flares and other viral infections and stress.

In patients with psoriasis who contract COVID-19 infection, Dr. Duffin concurred with the NPF guidance that management decisions should be made on a “case-by-case basis.” Although the NPF guidance states that “most patients can restart psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis treatments after complete resolution of COVID-19 symptoms,” no specific advice was offered on the decision to stop treatments.

For protecting psoriasis patients from infection and managing COVID-19 in those who become infected, much of the NPF advice is consistent with that offered to patients without psoriasis. This involves practicing infection control that reduces risk of transmission. Both the NPF guidance and Dr. Duffin suggested telemedicine is appropriate for limiting in-patient visits under pandemic conditions.

Although patients with psoriasis are more likely than the general population to have the comorbidities associated with bad COVID-19 infection outcomes, according to the NPF guidance, Dr. Duffin called the overall data evaluating susceptibility among psoriasis patients “reassuring.” She cautioned that the data are still limited, but the evidence so far suggests that neither psoriasis nor biologics are independent risk factors for acquiring COVID-19 or having a worse outcome if infected.

Yet, more definitive data are needed, and Dr. Duffin advised clinicians and patients to consult the NPF website for updates. “More up-to-date information will certainly be added as we go forward,” she said at the meeting, jointly presented by the University of Louisville and Global Academy for Medical Education.

This NPF task force on COVID-19 is meeting every 2 weeks, according to Joel M. Gelfand, MD, professor of dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and cochair of the task force. Dr. Gelfand reported that updates are based on a discussion of the available data.

“We will be releasing additional recommendations as necessary based on the developments,” he said in an interview. Updates are not necessarily required at this frequency but can be if appropriate. The goal is to keep recommendations current and evidence-based.

Dr. Duffin reported financial relationships with Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Siena, and UCB. Dr. Gelfand reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

This publication and Global Academy for Medical Education are owned by the same parent company.
 

The available data suggest that the risks posed by COVID-19 infection to patients with psoriasis, including those on therapies that affect immune function, are modest at most, according to a summary of published studies and expert opinions summarized at the annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium, held virtually.

For patients with psoriasis concerned about their outcome if infected with COVID-19, “there is no evidence to support stopping biologics or systemic agents, so I am asking my patients to continue,” Kristina C. Duffin, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said at the meeting.

The National Psoriasis Foundation, which created a COVID-19 task force and maintains a COVID-19 Resource Center on its website, has provided similar advice. Many statements are phrased cautiously and clinicians are encouraged to practice shared decision-making, but the NPF guidance supports continuing effective therapy – or, in newly diagnosed patients, starting effective therapy – among those who are not infected with SARS-CoV2.

Patients with a new diagnosis of psoriasis “should be aware that untreated psoriatic disease is associated with serious impact on physical and emotional health, and in the case of psoriatic arthritis, can lead to permanent joint damage and disability,” according to the NPF guidance.

Overall, the “existing data generally suggest” that most treatments for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis “do not meaningfully alter the risks of contracting SARS-CoV2 or having a worse course of COVID-19 illness,” the current guidance states. Yet, because of limited data this “is not known with certainty.”

Chronic systemic steroids are an exception. In a review of recently published studies evaluating whether psoriasis or its therapies increase risk of adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19 infection, Dr. Duffin pointed to several that associated systemic steroids with hospitalization or other markers of severe disease.

The NPF guidance also recommends avoiding chronic systemic steroids in patients with psoriasis during the current COVID-19 era “if possible.” In patients with psoriatic arthritis who require systemic steroids, the guidance recommends “the lowest dose necessary to achieve the desired therapeutic effect.”

This is not necessarily true in patients with psoriasis and COVID-19 infection. Based on the potential for systemic steroids to improve outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients requiring oxygen, steroids “should not be withheld” even when the justification is concern about the potential risk of flares with withdrawal, according to the NPF guidance statement.

The NPF guidance specifically cautions against use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for prevention or treatment of COVID-19. In addition to an uncertain benefit, these antimalarial drugs have been associated previously with flares of psoriasis.

Dr. Duffin agreed and went on to warn that COVID-19 infection itself is a potential trigger for flares. She cited two published case reports of flares associated with psoriasis. Although one patient had also been exposed to hydroxychloroquine, she said the risk of psoriasis-induced flare “makes sense” based on previous associations made between flares and other viral infections and stress.

In patients with psoriasis who contract COVID-19 infection, Dr. Duffin concurred with the NPF guidance that management decisions should be made on a “case-by-case basis.” Although the NPF guidance states that “most patients can restart psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis treatments after complete resolution of COVID-19 symptoms,” no specific advice was offered on the decision to stop treatments.

For protecting psoriasis patients from infection and managing COVID-19 in those who become infected, much of the NPF advice is consistent with that offered to patients without psoriasis. This involves practicing infection control that reduces risk of transmission. Both the NPF guidance and Dr. Duffin suggested telemedicine is appropriate for limiting in-patient visits under pandemic conditions.

Although patients with psoriasis are more likely than the general population to have the comorbidities associated with bad COVID-19 infection outcomes, according to the NPF guidance, Dr. Duffin called the overall data evaluating susceptibility among psoriasis patients “reassuring.” She cautioned that the data are still limited, but the evidence so far suggests that neither psoriasis nor biologics are independent risk factors for acquiring COVID-19 or having a worse outcome if infected.

Yet, more definitive data are needed, and Dr. Duffin advised clinicians and patients to consult the NPF website for updates. “More up-to-date information will certainly be added as we go forward,” she said at the meeting, jointly presented by the University of Louisville and Global Academy for Medical Education.

This NPF task force on COVID-19 is meeting every 2 weeks, according to Joel M. Gelfand, MD, professor of dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and cochair of the task force. Dr. Gelfand reported that updates are based on a discussion of the available data.

“We will be releasing additional recommendations as necessary based on the developments,” he said in an interview. Updates are not necessarily required at this frequency but can be if appropriate. The goal is to keep recommendations current and evidence-based.

Dr. Duffin reported financial relationships with Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Siena, and UCB. Dr. Gelfand reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

This publication and Global Academy for Medical Education are owned by the same parent company.
 

Non-White patient participation in phase 3 therapeutic trials for plaque psoriasis is less than 15%, according to a recently published analysis of data from the ClinicalTrials.gov database.

The exact figure drawn from the survey of 82 trials was 14.2%, but 20 (24%) of the trials did not include ethnoracial data at all, and only 65% of those with data had complete data, according to a report in the British Journal of Dermatology by a team of investigators from the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco.

“The remaining studies reported the percentage of white participants only or white participants and one additional ethnoracial group,” reported the investigators, led by Vidhatha D. Reddy, a medical student at UCSF.

The investigators broke down participation by race in all phase 3 plaque psoriasis trials that enrolled adults and had posted results by May 2020. Data from trials of medications yet to be approved were excluded.

Most trials were multinational. The medications evaluated included 11 biologics, 10 topicals, 2 oral systemic agents, and a phosphodiesterase type-4 inhibitor. The 82 trials included in this analysis enrolled 48,846 collectively.

From trials that identified race, 85.8% of 39,161 participants were White, 3.09% of 25,565 patients were Black, 19.55% of 11,364 patients were Hispanic or Latino, and 9.21% of 30,009 patients were Asian. Of trials that included Native Americans or Pacific Islanders, fewer than 2% of participants represented this category.

Non-White patients remain underrepresented even when recognizing differences in the prevalence of psoriasis. For example, one recent survey found the U.S, prevalence of psoriasis to be about half as great in Blacks as it is in Whites (1.9% vs. 3.9%), but the representation of Blacks in the phase 3 trials evaluated by Mr. Reddy and colleagues was more than 20 times lower.

There are many reasons to suspect that lack of diversification in psoriasis trials is impeding optimal care in those underrepresented. Of several examples offered by the authors, one involved differential responses to adalimumab among patients with hidradenitis suppurativa with genetic variants in the BCL2 gene, but the authors reported racially associated genetic differences are not uncommon.

“Estimates have shown that approximately one-fifth of newly developed medications demonstrate interracial/ethnic variability in regard to various factors, such as pharmacokinetics, safety and efficacy profiles, dosing, and pharmacogenetics,” Mr. Reddy and his coinvestigators stated.

Although racial diversity in the design and recruitment for clinical trials has not been a priority in trials involving psoriasis, other skin diseases, or most diseases in general, the authors cited some evidence that this is changing.

“Since 2017, research funded by the National Institutes of Health has been required to report race and ethnicity of participants following an amendment to the Health Revitalization Act,” according to the authors, who suggested that other such initiatives are needed. They advocated “explicit goals to increase recruitment of people of color” as a standard step in clinical trial conduct.

Hypertension trials were cited as an example in which diversity has made a difference.

“Although Black patients are at an elevated risk of developing hypertension, it was not until the enrollment of a substantial proportion of black participants in ALLHAT (Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial) that enough data on Black patients were available to make specific treatment recommendations in this population,” they noted.
 

Impossible to know treatment benefits without ethnoracial data

Penn Medicine

Another investigator who has considered this issue, Junko Takeshita, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, agreed.

“Lack of diversity among participants in phase 3 clinical trials for psoriasis is a problem,” said Dr. Takeshita, who led a study of racial differences in perceptions of psoriasis therapies that was published last year.

In that study, “my research group not only found differences in perceptions about biologics between Black and White patients with psoriasis, but we have also shown that Black patients with psoriasis are less likely to receive biologic treatment,” she reported. There are many explanations. For example, she found in another study that Black patients are underrepresented in direct-to-consumer advertisements for biologics.

This problem is not unique to psoriasis. Underrepresentation of Blacks and other ethnoracial groups is true of other skin diseases and many diseases in general, according to Dr. Takeshita. However, she cautioned that the 3% figure for Black participation in psoriasis trials reported by Mr. Reddy and colleagues is not necessarily reflective of trials in the United States.

“This study included international study sites that are recruiting patients from populations with different demographics than the U.S.,” she noted. By including sites with only Asian patients or countries with few Blacks in the population, it dilutes Black representation. She would expect the exact proportion of Black participants to be somewhat higher even if they are “still likely to be underrepresented” if the analysis has been limited to U.S. data.

The research had no funding source. Three of the nine authors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Reddy VD et al. Br J Dermatol. 2020 Sep 17. doi: 10.1111/bjd.19468.

Non-White patient participation in phase 3 therapeutic trials for plaque psoriasis is less than 15%, according to a recently published analysis of data from the ClinicalTrials.gov database.

The exact figure drawn from the survey of 82 trials was 14.2%, but 20 (24%) of the trials did not include ethnoracial data at all, and only 65% of those with data had complete data, according to a report in the British Journal of Dermatology by a team of investigators from the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco.

“The remaining studies reported the percentage of white participants only or white participants and one additional ethnoracial group,” reported the investigators, led by Vidhatha D. Reddy, a medical student at UCSF.

The investigators broke down participation by race in all phase 3 plaque psoriasis trials that enrolled adults and had posted results by May 2020. Data from trials of medications yet to be approved were excluded.

Most trials were multinational. The medications evaluated included 11 biologics, 10 topicals, 2 oral systemic agents, and a phosphodiesterase type-4 inhibitor. The 82 trials included in this analysis enrolled 48,846 collectively.

From trials that identified race, 85.8% of 39,161 participants were White, 3.09% of 25,565 patients were Black, 19.55% of 11,364 patients were Hispanic or Latino, and 9.21% of 30,009 patients were Asian. Of trials that included Native Americans or Pacific Islanders, fewer than 2% of participants represented this category.

Non-White patients remain underrepresented even when recognizing differences in the prevalence of psoriasis. For example, one recent survey found the U.S, prevalence of psoriasis to be about half as great in Blacks as it is in Whites (1.9% vs. 3.9%), but the representation of Blacks in the phase 3 trials evaluated by Mr. Reddy and colleagues was more than 20 times lower.

There are many reasons to suspect that lack of diversification in psoriasis trials is impeding optimal care in those underrepresented. Of several examples offered by the authors, one involved differential responses to adalimumab among patients with hidradenitis suppurativa with genetic variants in the BCL2 gene, but the authors reported racially associated genetic differences are not uncommon.

“Estimates have shown that approximately one-fifth of newly developed medications demonstrate interracial/ethnic variability in regard to various factors, such as pharmacokinetics, safety and efficacy profiles, dosing, and pharmacogenetics,” Mr. Reddy and his coinvestigators stated.

Although racial diversity in the design and recruitment for clinical trials has not been a priority in trials involving psoriasis, other skin diseases, or most diseases in general, the authors cited some evidence that this is changing.

“Since 2017, research funded by the National Institutes of Health has been required to report race and ethnicity of participants following an amendment to the Health Revitalization Act,” according to the authors, who suggested that other such initiatives are needed. They advocated “explicit goals to increase recruitment of people of color” as a standard step in clinical trial conduct.

Hypertension trials were cited as an example in which diversity has made a difference.

“Although Black patients are at an elevated risk of developing hypertension, it was not until the enrollment of a substantial proportion of black participants in ALLHAT (Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial) that enough data on Black patients were available to make specific treatment recommendations in this population,” they noted.
 

Impossible to know treatment benefits without ethnoracial data

Penn Medicine

Another investigator who has considered this issue, Junko Takeshita, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, agreed.

“Lack of diversity among participants in phase 3 clinical trials for psoriasis is a problem,” said Dr. Takeshita, who led a study of racial differences in perceptions of psoriasis therapies that was published last year.

In that study, “my research group not only found differences in perceptions about biologics between Black and White patients with psoriasis, but we have also shown that Black patients with psoriasis are less likely to receive biologic treatment,” she reported. There are many explanations. For example, she found in another study that Black patients are underrepresented in direct-to-consumer advertisements for biologics.

This problem is not unique to psoriasis. Underrepresentation of Blacks and other ethnoracial groups is true of other skin diseases and many diseases in general, according to Dr. Takeshita. However, she cautioned that the 3% figure for Black participation in psoriasis trials reported by Mr. Reddy and colleagues is not necessarily reflective of trials in the United States.

“This study included international study sites that are recruiting patients from populations with different demographics than the U.S.,” she noted. By including sites with only Asian patients or countries with few Blacks in the population, it dilutes Black representation. She would expect the exact proportion of Black participants to be somewhat higher even if they are “still likely to be underrepresented” if the analysis has been limited to U.S. data.

The research had no funding source. Three of the nine authors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Reddy VD et al. Br J Dermatol. 2020 Sep 17. doi: 10.1111/bjd.19468.

Non-White patient participation in phase 3 therapeutic trials for plaque psoriasis is less than 15%, according to a recently published analysis of data from the ClinicalTrials.gov database.

The exact figure drawn from the survey of 82 trials was 14.2%, but 20 (24%) of the trials did not include ethnoracial data at all, and only 65% of those with data had complete data, according to a report in the British Journal of Dermatology by a team of investigators from the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco.

“The remaining studies reported the percentage of white participants only or white participants and one additional ethnoracial group,” reported the investigators, led by Vidhatha D. Reddy, a medical student at UCSF.

The investigators broke down participation by race in all phase 3 plaque psoriasis trials that enrolled adults and had posted results by May 2020. Data from trials of medications yet to be approved were excluded.

Most trials were multinational. The medications evaluated included 11 biologics, 10 topicals, 2 oral systemic agents, and a phosphodiesterase type-4 inhibitor. The 82 trials included in this analysis enrolled 48,846 collectively.

From trials that identified race, 85.8% of 39,161 participants were White, 3.09% of 25,565 patients were Black, 19.55% of 11,364 patients were Hispanic or Latino, and 9.21% of 30,009 patients were Asian. Of trials that included Native Americans or Pacific Islanders, fewer than 2% of participants represented this category.

Non-White patients remain underrepresented even when recognizing differences in the prevalence of psoriasis. For example, one recent survey found the U.S, prevalence of psoriasis to be about half as great in Blacks as it is in Whites (1.9% vs. 3.9%), but the representation of Blacks in the phase 3 trials evaluated by Mr. Reddy and colleagues was more than 20 times lower.

There are many reasons to suspect that lack of diversification in psoriasis trials is impeding optimal care in those underrepresented. Of several examples offered by the authors, one involved differential responses to adalimumab among patients with hidradenitis suppurativa with genetic variants in the BCL2 gene, but the authors reported racially associated genetic differences are not uncommon.

“Estimates have shown that approximately one-fifth of newly developed medications demonstrate interracial/ethnic variability in regard to various factors, such as pharmacokinetics, safety and efficacy profiles, dosing, and pharmacogenetics,” Mr. Reddy and his coinvestigators stated.

Although racial diversity in the design and recruitment for clinical trials has not been a priority in trials involving psoriasis, other skin diseases, or most diseases in general, the authors cited some evidence that this is changing.

“Since 2017, research funded by the National Institutes of Health has been required to report race and ethnicity of participants following an amendment to the Health Revitalization Act,” according to the authors, who suggested that other such initiatives are needed. They advocated “explicit goals to increase recruitment of people of color” as a standard step in clinical trial conduct.

Hypertension trials were cited as an example in which diversity has made a difference.

“Although Black patients are at an elevated risk of developing hypertension, it was not until the enrollment of a substantial proportion of black participants in ALLHAT (Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial) that enough data on Black patients were available to make specific treatment recommendations in this population,” they noted.
 

Impossible to know treatment benefits without ethnoracial data

Penn Medicine

Another investigator who has considered this issue, Junko Takeshita, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, agreed.

“Lack of diversity among participants in phase 3 clinical trials for psoriasis is a problem,” said Dr. Takeshita, who led a study of racial differences in perceptions of psoriasis therapies that was published last year.

In that study, “my research group not only found differences in perceptions about biologics between Black and White patients with psoriasis, but we have also shown that Black patients with psoriasis are less likely to receive biologic treatment,” she reported. There are many explanations. For example, she found in another study that Black patients are underrepresented in direct-to-consumer advertisements for biologics.

This problem is not unique to psoriasis. Underrepresentation of Blacks and other ethnoracial groups is true of other skin diseases and many diseases in general, according to Dr. Takeshita. However, she cautioned that the 3% figure for Black participation in psoriasis trials reported by Mr. Reddy and colleagues is not necessarily reflective of trials in the United States.

“This study included international study sites that are recruiting patients from populations with different demographics than the U.S.,” she noted. By including sites with only Asian patients or countries with few Blacks in the population, it dilutes Black representation. She would expect the exact proportion of Black participants to be somewhat higher even if they are “still likely to be underrepresented” if the analysis has been limited to U.S. data.

The research had no funding source. Three of the nine authors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Reddy VD et al. Br J Dermatol. 2020 Sep 17. doi: 10.1111/bjd.19468.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration released new warnings Oct. 15 that most nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs) carry an elevated risk for kidney complications in unborn children when taken around weeks 20 or later in pregnancy.

Citing newly available research, the agency states the risk of low amniotic fluid (known as oligohydramnios) can occur, which in turn can cause rare but serious kidney problems in the offspring. Pregnancy complications also can result.

The FDA action expands on earlier warnings about agents in this drug class, which the FDA previously cautioned about taking after week 30 of pregnancy because of heart-related risks.

Manufacturers of both over-the-counter and prescription NSAIDs – including ibuprofen, naproxen, diclofenac, and celecoxib – will be required to update their labeling with the new warning.

Low-dose (81-mg) aspirin is excluded from this warning.

“Low-dose aspirin may be an important treatment for some women during pregnancy and should be taken under the direction of a healthcare professional,” the agency stated in a news release.

“It is important that women understand the benefits and risks of the medications they may take over the course of their pregnancy,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, states in the release. “To this end, the agency is using its regulatory authority to inform women and their healthcare providers about the risks if NSAIDs are used after around 20 weeks of pregnancy and beyond.”

Oligohydramnios can arise quickly – in as little as 2 days – or weeks after starting regular NSAID use in this patient population. The condition usually resolves if a pregnant woman stops taking the NSAID, the agency notes.

If a health care provider believes NSAIDs are necessary between about 20 and 30 weeks of pregnancy, use should be limited to the lowest effective dose and shortest duration possible, the Drug Safety Communication notes.

As a reminder, health care professionals and patients should report side effects from NSAIDs to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration released new warnings Oct. 15 that most nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs) carry an elevated risk for kidney complications in unborn children when taken around weeks 20 or later in pregnancy.

Citing newly available research, the agency states the risk of low amniotic fluid (known as oligohydramnios) can occur, which in turn can cause rare but serious kidney problems in the offspring. Pregnancy complications also can result.

The FDA action expands on earlier warnings about agents in this drug class, which the FDA previously cautioned about taking after week 30 of pregnancy because of heart-related risks.

Manufacturers of both over-the-counter and prescription NSAIDs – including ibuprofen, naproxen, diclofenac, and celecoxib – will be required to update their labeling with the new warning.

Low-dose (81-mg) aspirin is excluded from this warning.

“Low-dose aspirin may be an important treatment for some women during pregnancy and should be taken under the direction of a healthcare professional,” the agency stated in a news release.

“It is important that women understand the benefits and risks of the medications they may take over the course of their pregnancy,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, states in the release. “To this end, the agency is using its regulatory authority to inform women and their healthcare providers about the risks if NSAIDs are used after around 20 weeks of pregnancy and beyond.”

Oligohydramnios can arise quickly – in as little as 2 days – or weeks after starting regular NSAID use in this patient population. The condition usually resolves if a pregnant woman stops taking the NSAID, the agency notes.

If a health care provider believes NSAIDs are necessary between about 20 and 30 weeks of pregnancy, use should be limited to the lowest effective dose and shortest duration possible, the Drug Safety Communication notes.

As a reminder, health care professionals and patients should report side effects from NSAIDs to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration released new warnings Oct. 15 that most nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs) carry an elevated risk for kidney complications in unborn children when taken around weeks 20 or later in pregnancy.

Citing newly available research, the agency states the risk of low amniotic fluid (known as oligohydramnios) can occur, which in turn can cause rare but serious kidney problems in the offspring. Pregnancy complications also can result.

The FDA action expands on earlier warnings about agents in this drug class, which the FDA previously cautioned about taking after week 30 of pregnancy because of heart-related risks.

Manufacturers of both over-the-counter and prescription NSAIDs – including ibuprofen, naproxen, diclofenac, and celecoxib – will be required to update their labeling with the new warning.

Low-dose (81-mg) aspirin is excluded from this warning.

“Low-dose aspirin may be an important treatment for some women during pregnancy and should be taken under the direction of a healthcare professional,” the agency stated in a news release.

“It is important that women understand the benefits and risks of the medications they may take over the course of their pregnancy,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, states in the release. “To this end, the agency is using its regulatory authority to inform women and their healthcare providers about the risks if NSAIDs are used after around 20 weeks of pregnancy and beyond.”

Oligohydramnios can arise quickly – in as little as 2 days – or weeks after starting regular NSAID use in this patient population. The condition usually resolves if a pregnant woman stops taking the NSAID, the agency notes.

If a health care provider believes NSAIDs are necessary between about 20 and 30 weeks of pregnancy, use should be limited to the lowest effective dose and shortest duration possible, the Drug Safety Communication notes.

As a reminder, health care professionals and patients should report side effects from NSAIDs to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

Adults with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treated with guselkumab (Tremfya) showed significant improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria and disease activity after 1 year, based on data from the phase 3 DISCOVER-2 trial.

The findings, published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, extend the previously published 24-week, primary endpoint results of the trial, which tested guselkumab for adults with PsA who had not previously taken a biologic drug. Guselkumab was approved in July 2020 in the United States.

Iain B. McInnes, MD, PhD, of the University of Glasgow and his colleagues described guselkumab as “a fully-human monoclonal antibody specific to interleukin (IL)-23’s p19-subunit” that offers a potential alternative for PsA patients who discontinue their index tumor necrosis factor inhibitor because of insufficient efficacy.

The study enrolled 739 PsA patients at 118 sites worldwide. Participants were randomized to receive subcutaneous injections of 100 mg guselkumab every 4 weeks; 100 mg guselkumab at week 0 and 4, then every 8 weeks; or a placebo; 238 placebo-treated patients crossed over at 24 weeks to receive 100 mg guselkumab every 4 weeks. Patients on nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs at baseline were allowed to continue stable doses. Overall, about 93% of patients originally randomized to the three groups remained on guselkumab at 52 weeks.

Overall, 71% and 75% of 4-week and 8-week guselkumab patients, respectively, showed an improvement of at least 20% from baseline in ACR response criteria components at 52 weeks, which was up from 64% of patients seen at 24 weeks in both groups.

The study participants had an average disease duration of more than 5 years with no biologic treatment, and an average of 12-13 swollen joints and 20-22 tender joints at baseline. Approximately half were male, half had psoriasis or dactylitis, and two-thirds had enthesitis. Skin disease severity was assessed using the Investigator’s Global Assessment and Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI).

At 52 weeks, 75% and 58% of patients in the guselkumab groups had resolution of dactylitis and enthesitis, respectively. In addition, 86% of patients in both guselkumab groups achieved PASI 75 at 52 weeks, and 58% and 53% of the 4-week and 8-week groups, respectively, achieved PASI 100.

In addition, patients treated with guselkumab showed low levels of radiographic progression and significant improvements from baseline in measures of physical function and quality of life.

The most frequently reported adverse events in guselkumab patients were upper respiratory tract infections, nasopharyngitis, bronchitis, and investigator-reported laboratory values of increased alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase; these rates were similar to those seen in the previously published 24-week data. Approximately 2% of guselkumab and placebo patients discontinued their treatments because of adverse events.

No patient developed an opportunistic infection or died during the study period.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively short 1-year duration, the shorter duration of placebo, compared with guselkumab, and by potential confounding from missing data on patients who discontinued, the researchers noted. However, the results support the effectiveness of guselkumab for improving a range of manifestations of active PsA, and the overall treatment and safety profiles seen at 24 weeks were maintained, they said.

“Data obtained during the second year of DISCOVER-2 will augment current knowledge of the guselkumab benefit-risk profile and further our understanding of longer-term radiographic outcomes with both guselkumab dosing regimens,” they concluded.

The study was supported by Janssen. Many authors reported financial relationships with Janssen and other pharmaceutical companies. Nine of the 15 authors are employees of Janssen (a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson) and own Johnson & Johnson stock or stock options.

SOURCE: McInnes IB et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Oct 11. doi: 10.1002/art.41553.

Adults with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treated with guselkumab (Tremfya) showed significant improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria and disease activity after 1 year, based on data from the phase 3 DISCOVER-2 trial.

The findings, published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, extend the previously published 24-week, primary endpoint results of the trial, which tested guselkumab for adults with PsA who had not previously taken a biologic drug. Guselkumab was approved in July 2020 in the United States.

Iain B. McInnes, MD, PhD, of the University of Glasgow and his colleagues described guselkumab as “a fully-human monoclonal antibody specific to interleukin (IL)-23’s p19-subunit” that offers a potential alternative for PsA patients who discontinue their index tumor necrosis factor inhibitor because of insufficient efficacy.

The study enrolled 739 PsA patients at 118 sites worldwide. Participants were randomized to receive subcutaneous injections of 100 mg guselkumab every 4 weeks; 100 mg guselkumab at week 0 and 4, then every 8 weeks; or a placebo; 238 placebo-treated patients crossed over at 24 weeks to receive 100 mg guselkumab every 4 weeks. Patients on nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs at baseline were allowed to continue stable doses. Overall, about 93% of patients originally randomized to the three groups remained on guselkumab at 52 weeks.

Overall, 71% and 75% of 4-week and 8-week guselkumab patients, respectively, showed an improvement of at least 20% from baseline in ACR response criteria components at 52 weeks, which was up from 64% of patients seen at 24 weeks in both groups.

The study participants had an average disease duration of more than 5 years with no biologic treatment, and an average of 12-13 swollen joints and 20-22 tender joints at baseline. Approximately half were male, half had psoriasis or dactylitis, and two-thirds had enthesitis. Skin disease severity was assessed using the Investigator’s Global Assessment and Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI).

At 52 weeks, 75% and 58% of patients in the guselkumab groups had resolution of dactylitis and enthesitis, respectively. In addition, 86% of patients in both guselkumab groups achieved PASI 75 at 52 weeks, and 58% and 53% of the 4-week and 8-week groups, respectively, achieved PASI 100.

In addition, patients treated with guselkumab showed low levels of radiographic progression and significant improvements from baseline in measures of physical function and quality of life.

The most frequently reported adverse events in guselkumab patients were upper respiratory tract infections, nasopharyngitis, bronchitis, and investigator-reported laboratory values of increased alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase; these rates were similar to those seen in the previously published 24-week data. Approximately 2% of guselkumab and placebo patients discontinued their treatments because of adverse events.

No patient developed an opportunistic infection or died during the study period.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively short 1-year duration, the shorter duration of placebo, compared with guselkumab, and by potential confounding from missing data on patients who discontinued, the researchers noted. However, the results support the effectiveness of guselkumab for improving a range of manifestations of active PsA, and the overall treatment and safety profiles seen at 24 weeks were maintained, they said.

“Data obtained during the second year of DISCOVER-2 will augment current knowledge of the guselkumab benefit-risk profile and further our understanding of longer-term radiographic outcomes with both guselkumab dosing regimens,” they concluded.

The study was supported by Janssen. Many authors reported financial relationships with Janssen and other pharmaceutical companies. Nine of the 15 authors are employees of Janssen (a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson) and own Johnson & Johnson stock or stock options.

SOURCE: McInnes IB et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Oct 11. doi: 10.1002/art.41553.

Adults with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treated with guselkumab (Tremfya) showed significant improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria and disease activity after 1 year, based on data from the phase 3 DISCOVER-2 trial.

The findings, published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, extend the previously published 24-week, primary endpoint results of the trial, which tested guselkumab for adults with PsA who had not previously taken a biologic drug. Guselkumab was approved in July 2020 in the United States.

Iain B. McInnes, MD, PhD, of the University of Glasgow and his colleagues described guselkumab as “a fully-human monoclonal antibody specific to interleukin (IL)-23’s p19-subunit” that offers a potential alternative for PsA patients who discontinue their index tumor necrosis factor inhibitor because of insufficient efficacy.

The study enrolled 739 PsA patients at 118 sites worldwide. Participants were randomized to receive subcutaneous injections of 100 mg guselkumab every 4 weeks; 100 mg guselkumab at week 0 and 4, then every 8 weeks; or a placebo; 238 placebo-treated patients crossed over at 24 weeks to receive 100 mg guselkumab every 4 weeks. Patients on nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs at baseline were allowed to continue stable doses. Overall, about 93% of patients originally randomized to the three groups remained on guselkumab at 52 weeks.

Overall, 71% and 75% of 4-week and 8-week guselkumab patients, respectively, showed an improvement of at least 20% from baseline in ACR response criteria components at 52 weeks, which was up from 64% of patients seen at 24 weeks in both groups.

The study participants had an average disease duration of more than 5 years with no biologic treatment, and an average of 12-13 swollen joints and 20-22 tender joints at baseline. Approximately half were male, half had psoriasis or dactylitis, and two-thirds had enthesitis. Skin disease severity was assessed using the Investigator’s Global Assessment and Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI).

At 52 weeks, 75% and 58% of patients in the guselkumab groups had resolution of dactylitis and enthesitis, respectively. In addition, 86% of patients in both guselkumab groups achieved PASI 75 at 52 weeks, and 58% and 53% of the 4-week and 8-week groups, respectively, achieved PASI 100.

In addition, patients treated with guselkumab showed low levels of radiographic progression and significant improvements from baseline in measures of physical function and quality of life.

The most frequently reported adverse events in guselkumab patients were upper respiratory tract infections, nasopharyngitis, bronchitis, and investigator-reported laboratory values of increased alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase; these rates were similar to those seen in the previously published 24-week data. Approximately 2% of guselkumab and placebo patients discontinued their treatments because of adverse events.

No patient developed an opportunistic infection or died during the study period.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively short 1-year duration, the shorter duration of placebo, compared with guselkumab, and by potential confounding from missing data on patients who discontinued, the researchers noted. However, the results support the effectiveness of guselkumab for improving a range of manifestations of active PsA, and the overall treatment and safety profiles seen at 24 weeks were maintained, they said.

“Data obtained during the second year of DISCOVER-2 will augment current knowledge of the guselkumab benefit-risk profile and further our understanding of longer-term radiographic outcomes with both guselkumab dosing regimens,” they concluded.

The study was supported by Janssen. Many authors reported financial relationships with Janssen and other pharmaceutical companies. Nine of the 15 authors are employees of Janssen (a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson) and own Johnson & Johnson stock or stock options.

SOURCE: McInnes IB et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Oct 11. doi: 10.1002/art.41553.