MDedge Rheumatology

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the biosimilar tocilizumab-aazg (Tyenne), Fresenius Kabi, the drug’s manufacturer, announced on March 7.

This is the second tocilizumab biosimilar approved by the regulatory agency and the first to be approved in both intravenous (IV) and subcutaneous formulations that are available with the reference product, Actemra, the company said in a press release. 

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

Tocilizumab-aazg is an interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor antagonist indicated for:

• Adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response to one or more disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs
• Adults with giant cell arteritis
• Patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis
• Patients aged 2 years or older with active systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis

“Fresenius Kabi is leading the way as the first company to receive FDA approval for both IV and subcutaneous formulations of its tocilizumab biosimilar and is available in prefilled syringe, pen injector, and vial presentations,” Fabrice Romanet, senior vice president of innovation and development at Fresenius Kabi Biopharma, said in a statement.

The FDA approved the first tocilizumab biosimilar, manufactured by Biogen, in late September 2023. It is administered by IV infusion.

Tocilizumab-aazg’s approval was based on outcome and safety data from a dozen clinical studies. The drug can be administered via intravenous formulation (20 mg/mL) or subcutaneously via a single-dose 162-mg/0.9-mL prefilled syringe or single-dose prefilled autoinjector. 

The most common side effects for tocilizumab-aazg include upper respiratory tract infections, headache, hypertension, and injection site reactions. The most serious side effects include serious infections, perforation of the stomach or intestines, hepatotoxicity, and changes in certain lab results.

Tocilizumab-aazg has already launched in 10 countries, Fresenius Kabi shared in the press release, and plans to launch in additional countries in 2024 and 2025. It is not clear when tocilizumab-aazg will be made available in the United States.

“In accordance with its patent settlement agreement with Genentech, Fresenius Kabi has a license to market its tocilizumab products in the United States commencing on the license dates, which are confidential,” the company noted.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the biosimilar tocilizumab-aazg (Tyenne), Fresenius Kabi, the drug’s manufacturer, announced on March 7.

This is the second tocilizumab biosimilar approved by the regulatory agency and the first to be approved in both intravenous (IV) and subcutaneous formulations that are available with the reference product, Actemra, the company said in a press release. 

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

Tocilizumab-aazg is an interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor antagonist indicated for:

• Adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response to one or more disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs
• Adults with giant cell arteritis
• Patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis
• Patients aged 2 years or older with active systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis

“Fresenius Kabi is leading the way as the first company to receive FDA approval for both IV and subcutaneous formulations of its tocilizumab biosimilar and is available in prefilled syringe, pen injector, and vial presentations,” Fabrice Romanet, senior vice president of innovation and development at Fresenius Kabi Biopharma, said in a statement.

The FDA approved the first tocilizumab biosimilar, manufactured by Biogen, in late September 2023. It is administered by IV infusion.

Tocilizumab-aazg’s approval was based on outcome and safety data from a dozen clinical studies. The drug can be administered via intravenous formulation (20 mg/mL) or subcutaneously via a single-dose 162-mg/0.9-mL prefilled syringe or single-dose prefilled autoinjector. 

The most common side effects for tocilizumab-aazg include upper respiratory tract infections, headache, hypertension, and injection site reactions. The most serious side effects include serious infections, perforation of the stomach or intestines, hepatotoxicity, and changes in certain lab results.

Tocilizumab-aazg has already launched in 10 countries, Fresenius Kabi shared in the press release, and plans to launch in additional countries in 2024 and 2025. It is not clear when tocilizumab-aazg will be made available in the United States.

“In accordance with its patent settlement agreement with Genentech, Fresenius Kabi has a license to market its tocilizumab products in the United States commencing on the license dates, which are confidential,” the company noted.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the biosimilar tocilizumab-aazg (Tyenne), Fresenius Kabi, the drug’s manufacturer, announced on March 7.

This is the second tocilizumab biosimilar approved by the regulatory agency and the first to be approved in both intravenous (IV) and subcutaneous formulations that are available with the reference product, Actemra, the company said in a press release. 

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

Tocilizumab-aazg is an interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor antagonist indicated for:

• Adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response to one or more disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs
• Adults with giant cell arteritis
• Patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis
• Patients aged 2 years or older with active systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis

“Fresenius Kabi is leading the way as the first company to receive FDA approval for both IV and subcutaneous formulations of its tocilizumab biosimilar and is available in prefilled syringe, pen injector, and vial presentations,” Fabrice Romanet, senior vice president of innovation and development at Fresenius Kabi Biopharma, said in a statement.

The FDA approved the first tocilizumab biosimilar, manufactured by Biogen, in late September 2023. It is administered by IV infusion.

Tocilizumab-aazg’s approval was based on outcome and safety data from a dozen clinical studies. The drug can be administered via intravenous formulation (20 mg/mL) or subcutaneously via a single-dose 162-mg/0.9-mL prefilled syringe or single-dose prefilled autoinjector. 

The most common side effects for tocilizumab-aazg include upper respiratory tract infections, headache, hypertension, and injection site reactions. The most serious side effects include serious infections, perforation of the stomach or intestines, hepatotoxicity, and changes in certain lab results.

Tocilizumab-aazg has already launched in 10 countries, Fresenius Kabi shared in the press release, and plans to launch in additional countries in 2024 and 2025. It is not clear when tocilizumab-aazg will be made available in the United States.

“In accordance with its patent settlement agreement with Genentech, Fresenius Kabi has a license to market its tocilizumab products in the United States commencing on the license dates, which are confidential,” the company noted.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration’s approval of leflunomide in September 1998 as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis was sandwiched between the debuts of infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars) and etanercept (Enbrel) in August and November of that year, the latter of which was so exciting that “within 2 months you couldn’t get [it],” recalled Eric M. Ruderman, MD. And “like every middle child, [leflunomide] was underloved, underappreciated, and largely dismissed.”

Yet should it have been? Is it worth another look today?

Courtesy Michael Pollard

At the 2024 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium, Dr. Ruderman reflected on some of the clinical trial data published after leflunomide’s approval that “got lost in the shuffle” of the rightful embrace of biologics in United States practice, and urged reconsideration of the loading strategy still advised in the drug’s labeling.

“I’m not telling you that you should be using [leflunomide] in place of biologics, instead of biologics, or before biologics … but it should be in your toolkit,” said Dr. Ruderman, professor of medicine and associate chief of clinical affairs in the division of rheumatology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago. The drug “still has a role in RA, including in combination with methotrexate, and a potential role in other rheumatic diseases.”

“In our PsA clinic,” he noted, “we’ve actually not infrequently added leflunomide to some of the other agents we’ve been using.”
 

Key Findings Over the Years in RA

Leflunomide showed efficacy similar to that of sulfasalazine in a randomized trial published in 1999 that used primary endpoints of tender/swollen joints and physician and patient global scores. Then, against methotrexate, it proved just as efficacious in achieving at least 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology composite response criteria (ACR20) over 52 weeks, and in meeting endpoints similar to those of the sulfasalazine trial, in two trials, one published in 1999 and another in 2000.

“So here were two big trials [comparing it with methotrexate] that suggested the drug was just as good as what had become our standard of care by that point,” Dr. Ruderman said.

Each of these three trials used a loading dose of 100 mg leflunomide for 3 days, followed by 20 mg daily. Sulfasalazine was initiated at 2 g and escalated over 4 weeks. Methotrexate was initiated in one of the trials at a dose of 7.5 mg, then increased to 15 mg in almost two-thirds of patients; in the other methotrexate trial the initial dose was 15 mg escalated over 3 months.

Side effects of leflunomide — GI issues, rash, alopecia (reversible), and elevated liver function tests — were similar across the trials, and represented “about the same toxicities as methotrexate,” he said.

Researchers then tested leflunomide as an add-on to methotrexate in patients who had inadequate response, which “was a little bit daunting since we were still concerned about the toxicity of methotrexate at this point,” Dr. Ruderman said. “The idea that we’d take another drug with similar toxicities and add it on to the methotrexate was a little scary.”

But it worked. Patients on a mean background dose of 16.5 mg methotrexate were randomized to placebo or to a 2-day leflunomide loading dose followed by 10 mg/day that could be escalated at 8 weeks to 20 mg if needed. At 6 months, 19.5% and 46.2%, respectively, met ACR20 (P < .001), and “interestingly,” he said, “adverse events were pretty similar” between combination therapy and methotrexate monotherapy.

“This was very much like all the studies we’ve seen over the years with new biologics — they were all added to background methotrexate,” he said. “And the truth is, the [46%] response seen when adding leflunomide to background methotrexate wasn’t very different from the 50% [ACR20] response you tend to see when you add a biologic.”

However, despite the study’s conclusion that combination therapy provided significant benefit to patients with inadequate response to methotrexate alone, “the drug got lost, because everyone was prescribing the biologics,” Dr. Ruderman said.

He said he found only one study comparing leflunomide with a biologic. In a notably small but well-designed study from Sri Lanka published in 2017, 40 patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate were randomized to low-dose rituximab (500 mg x 2) or 20 mg/day leflunomide (no loading dose). At week 24, ACR20 was nearly identical (85% vs 84%), with a similar rate of adverse events.

The researchers pointed out “that there’s a potential cost benefit in developing countries where biologics aren’t as accessible,” he said, agreeing that “the big opportunity for a drug like leflunomide is outside the US, where you don’t have access to the drugs we take advantage of all the time.”

A meeting participant from Canada pointed out that rheumatologists there are “mandated to use it for PsA in combination with methotrexate before we can get a biologic, and for RA we can use it with Plaquenil [hydroxychloroquine] and methotrexate before we get a biologic, so we’re using it all the time.”

Asked about efficacy, the physician said the combination with methotrexate is “absolutely” efficacious. “It works really well” he said. “The problem is, you really have to watch the white cell count and liver function … and the half-life is long.”

Indeed, Dr. Ruderman said during his talk, the plasma half-life of teriflunomide, its active metabolite, is 15.5 days, which is challenging when adverse events occur. “And it’s a terrible drug in young women thinking about pregnancy because it’s teratogenic and stays around,” he said.

Leflunomide, which, notably, was “developed specifically for RA from the get-go” and not borrowed from another specialty, works by blocking de novo pyrimidine synthesis, Dr. Ruderman said. T-cell activation requires the upregulation of pyrimidine production (salvage pathways are insufficient); the “drug prevents that” by inhibiting an enzyme that catalyzes conversion of dihydroorotate to orotate, which, in turn, is converted to pyrimidine ribonucleotides, he explained.

Other potential mechanisms of action have been proposed — mainly, inhibition of tumor necrosis factor signaling and inhibition of kinase activity, including the JAK/STAT pathway — but “there’s not great data for any of them,” he said.
 

Loading vs Not Loading, and Its Role in PsA and Other Diseases

“We stopped loading years ago because at 100 mg for 3 days in a row, everyone has GI issues,” Dr. Ruderman said. “It may have made sense from a pharmacokinetic standpoint because [based on the long half-life] you could get to a higher drug level quicker, but not a practical standpoint, because patients would stop the drug — they couldn’t take it.” The first study to examine the necessity of loading leflunomide in a “prospective, careful way” was published in 2013. It randomized 120 patients to 100 mg or 20 mg for 3 days, followed by a 3-month open-label period of 20 mg, and found no clinical benefit with loading but more diarrhea and elevated liver enzymes.

“It tells us something about how we need to think about half-lives,” he said. “Maybe [loading is] not necessary because the biological effects are different than the drug levels.”

In the PsA space, in 2004, researchers reported a double-blind randomized trial in which 190 patients with active PsA and cutaneous psoriasis with at least 3% body surface area involvement were randomized to receive leflunomide (a loading dose followed by 20 mg/day) or placebo for 24 weeks. Almost 60% of leflunomide-treated patients, compared with 30% of placebo-treated patients, were classified as responders by the Psoriatic Arthritis Response criteria (P < .0001), “which is a soft endpoint” but was utilized at the time, Dr. Ruderman said. The researchers noted improvements in ACR20 and skin responses as well, and toxicity was similar to that reported in the RA studies.

However, approval was never sought, and the drug was infrequently prescribed, “because etanercept came out for this disease, and then adalimumab … and then the world changed,” he said.

More recently, a single-center, double-blind, randomized trial that included 78 Dutch patients with PsA tested leflunomide plus methotrexate vs methotrexate monotherapy and was published in The Lancet Rheumatology. After 16 weeks, mean Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) had improved for patients in the combination therapy group in comparison with the monotherapy group (3.1 [standard deviation (SD), 1.4] vs 3.7 [SD, 1.3]; treatment difference, -0.6; 90% CI, -1.0 to -0.1; P = .025). The combination therapy group also achieved PASDAS low disease activity at a higher rate (59%) than that of the monotherapy group (34%; P = .019). Three patients in the combination therapy group experienced serious adverse events, two of which were deemed unrelated to leflunomide. The most frequently occurring adverse events were nausea or vomiting, tiredness, and elevated alanine aminotransferase. Mild adverse events were more common in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group.

In an interview after the meeting, Dr. Ruderman explained that in his practice, about 15 years ago, leflunomide was sometimes prescribed as an alternative to a biologic change for patients whose skin disease improved significantly with ustekinumab (Stelara) but who “suddenly had more joint symptoms that they didn’t have before.”

And “we’ve found ourselves a bit recently with the same sort of story, where patients are prescribed IL-23 inhibitors like Skyrizi [risankizumab] and Tremfya [guselkumab] and their skin does really well but now they’re having more joint symptoms than previously,” he said. “Our choices are to switch to a whole different biologic, or to think about adding something as an adjunct — and maybe leflunomide is a reasonable option.”

In the last 5 years, Dr. Ruderman noted, randomized trial data has been published on leflunomide in lupus nephritis induction, and in lupus nephritis maintenance, as well as in IgG4-related disease.

Dr. Ruderman disclosed consulting and/or drug safety monitoring board work for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, NS Pharma, and UCB.

The Food and Drug Administration’s approval of leflunomide in September 1998 as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis was sandwiched between the debuts of infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars) and etanercept (Enbrel) in August and November of that year, the latter of which was so exciting that “within 2 months you couldn’t get [it],” recalled Eric M. Ruderman, MD. And “like every middle child, [leflunomide] was underloved, underappreciated, and largely dismissed.”

Yet should it have been? Is it worth another look today?

Courtesy Michael Pollard

At the 2024 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium, Dr. Ruderman reflected on some of the clinical trial data published after leflunomide’s approval that “got lost in the shuffle” of the rightful embrace of biologics in United States practice, and urged reconsideration of the loading strategy still advised in the drug’s labeling.

“I’m not telling you that you should be using [leflunomide] in place of biologics, instead of biologics, or before biologics … but it should be in your toolkit,” said Dr. Ruderman, professor of medicine and associate chief of clinical affairs in the division of rheumatology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago. The drug “still has a role in RA, including in combination with methotrexate, and a potential role in other rheumatic diseases.”

“In our PsA clinic,” he noted, “we’ve actually not infrequently added leflunomide to some of the other agents we’ve been using.”
 

Key Findings Over the Years in RA

Leflunomide showed efficacy similar to that of sulfasalazine in a randomized trial published in 1999 that used primary endpoints of tender/swollen joints and physician and patient global scores. Then, against methotrexate, it proved just as efficacious in achieving at least 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology composite response criteria (ACR20) over 52 weeks, and in meeting endpoints similar to those of the sulfasalazine trial, in two trials, one published in 1999 and another in 2000.

“So here were two big trials [comparing it with methotrexate] that suggested the drug was just as good as what had become our standard of care by that point,” Dr. Ruderman said.

Each of these three trials used a loading dose of 100 mg leflunomide for 3 days, followed by 20 mg daily. Sulfasalazine was initiated at 2 g and escalated over 4 weeks. Methotrexate was initiated in one of the trials at a dose of 7.5 mg, then increased to 15 mg in almost two-thirds of patients; in the other methotrexate trial the initial dose was 15 mg escalated over 3 months.

Side effects of leflunomide — GI issues, rash, alopecia (reversible), and elevated liver function tests — were similar across the trials, and represented “about the same toxicities as methotrexate,” he said.

Researchers then tested leflunomide as an add-on to methotrexate in patients who had inadequate response, which “was a little bit daunting since we were still concerned about the toxicity of methotrexate at this point,” Dr. Ruderman said. “The idea that we’d take another drug with similar toxicities and add it on to the methotrexate was a little scary.”

But it worked. Patients on a mean background dose of 16.5 mg methotrexate were randomized to placebo or to a 2-day leflunomide loading dose followed by 10 mg/day that could be escalated at 8 weeks to 20 mg if needed. At 6 months, 19.5% and 46.2%, respectively, met ACR20 (P < .001), and “interestingly,” he said, “adverse events were pretty similar” between combination therapy and methotrexate monotherapy.

“This was very much like all the studies we’ve seen over the years with new biologics — they were all added to background methotrexate,” he said. “And the truth is, the [46%] response seen when adding leflunomide to background methotrexate wasn’t very different from the 50% [ACR20] response you tend to see when you add a biologic.”

However, despite the study’s conclusion that combination therapy provided significant benefit to patients with inadequate response to methotrexate alone, “the drug got lost, because everyone was prescribing the biologics,” Dr. Ruderman said.

He said he found only one study comparing leflunomide with a biologic. In a notably small but well-designed study from Sri Lanka published in 2017, 40 patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate were randomized to low-dose rituximab (500 mg x 2) or 20 mg/day leflunomide (no loading dose). At week 24, ACR20 was nearly identical (85% vs 84%), with a similar rate of adverse events.

The researchers pointed out “that there’s a potential cost benefit in developing countries where biologics aren’t as accessible,” he said, agreeing that “the big opportunity for a drug like leflunomide is outside the US, where you don’t have access to the drugs we take advantage of all the time.”

A meeting participant from Canada pointed out that rheumatologists there are “mandated to use it for PsA in combination with methotrexate before we can get a biologic, and for RA we can use it with Plaquenil [hydroxychloroquine] and methotrexate before we get a biologic, so we’re using it all the time.”

Asked about efficacy, the physician said the combination with methotrexate is “absolutely” efficacious. “It works really well” he said. “The problem is, you really have to watch the white cell count and liver function … and the half-life is long.”

Indeed, Dr. Ruderman said during his talk, the plasma half-life of teriflunomide, its active metabolite, is 15.5 days, which is challenging when adverse events occur. “And it’s a terrible drug in young women thinking about pregnancy because it’s teratogenic and stays around,” he said.

Leflunomide, which, notably, was “developed specifically for RA from the get-go” and not borrowed from another specialty, works by blocking de novo pyrimidine synthesis, Dr. Ruderman said. T-cell activation requires the upregulation of pyrimidine production (salvage pathways are insufficient); the “drug prevents that” by inhibiting an enzyme that catalyzes conversion of dihydroorotate to orotate, which, in turn, is converted to pyrimidine ribonucleotides, he explained.

Other potential mechanisms of action have been proposed — mainly, inhibition of tumor necrosis factor signaling and inhibition of kinase activity, including the JAK/STAT pathway — but “there’s not great data for any of them,” he said.
 

Loading vs Not Loading, and Its Role in PsA and Other Diseases

“We stopped loading years ago because at 100 mg for 3 days in a row, everyone has GI issues,” Dr. Ruderman said. “It may have made sense from a pharmacokinetic standpoint because [based on the long half-life] you could get to a higher drug level quicker, but not a practical standpoint, because patients would stop the drug — they couldn’t take it.” The first study to examine the necessity of loading leflunomide in a “prospective, careful way” was published in 2013. It randomized 120 patients to 100 mg or 20 mg for 3 days, followed by a 3-month open-label period of 20 mg, and found no clinical benefit with loading but more diarrhea and elevated liver enzymes.

“It tells us something about how we need to think about half-lives,” he said. “Maybe [loading is] not necessary because the biological effects are different than the drug levels.”

In the PsA space, in 2004, researchers reported a double-blind randomized trial in which 190 patients with active PsA and cutaneous psoriasis with at least 3% body surface area involvement were randomized to receive leflunomide (a loading dose followed by 20 mg/day) or placebo for 24 weeks. Almost 60% of leflunomide-treated patients, compared with 30% of placebo-treated patients, were classified as responders by the Psoriatic Arthritis Response criteria (P < .0001), “which is a soft endpoint” but was utilized at the time, Dr. Ruderman said. The researchers noted improvements in ACR20 and skin responses as well, and toxicity was similar to that reported in the RA studies.

However, approval was never sought, and the drug was infrequently prescribed, “because etanercept came out for this disease, and then adalimumab … and then the world changed,” he said.

More recently, a single-center, double-blind, randomized trial that included 78 Dutch patients with PsA tested leflunomide plus methotrexate vs methotrexate monotherapy and was published in The Lancet Rheumatology. After 16 weeks, mean Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) had improved for patients in the combination therapy group in comparison with the monotherapy group (3.1 [standard deviation (SD), 1.4] vs 3.7 [SD, 1.3]; treatment difference, -0.6; 90% CI, -1.0 to -0.1; P = .025). The combination therapy group also achieved PASDAS low disease activity at a higher rate (59%) than that of the monotherapy group (34%; P = .019). Three patients in the combination therapy group experienced serious adverse events, two of which were deemed unrelated to leflunomide. The most frequently occurring adverse events were nausea or vomiting, tiredness, and elevated alanine aminotransferase. Mild adverse events were more common in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group.

In an interview after the meeting, Dr. Ruderman explained that in his practice, about 15 years ago, leflunomide was sometimes prescribed as an alternative to a biologic change for patients whose skin disease improved significantly with ustekinumab (Stelara) but who “suddenly had more joint symptoms that they didn’t have before.”

And “we’ve found ourselves a bit recently with the same sort of story, where patients are prescribed IL-23 inhibitors like Skyrizi [risankizumab] and Tremfya [guselkumab] and their skin does really well but now they’re having more joint symptoms than previously,” he said. “Our choices are to switch to a whole different biologic, or to think about adding something as an adjunct — and maybe leflunomide is a reasonable option.”

In the last 5 years, Dr. Ruderman noted, randomized trial data has been published on leflunomide in lupus nephritis induction, and in lupus nephritis maintenance, as well as in IgG4-related disease.

Dr. Ruderman disclosed consulting and/or drug safety monitoring board work for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, NS Pharma, and UCB.

The Food and Drug Administration’s approval of leflunomide in September 1998 as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis was sandwiched between the debuts of infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars) and etanercept (Enbrel) in August and November of that year, the latter of which was so exciting that “within 2 months you couldn’t get [it],” recalled Eric M. Ruderman, MD. And “like every middle child, [leflunomide] was underloved, underappreciated, and largely dismissed.”

Yet should it have been? Is it worth another look today?

Courtesy Michael Pollard

At the 2024 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium, Dr. Ruderman reflected on some of the clinical trial data published after leflunomide’s approval that “got lost in the shuffle” of the rightful embrace of biologics in United States practice, and urged reconsideration of the loading strategy still advised in the drug’s labeling.

“I’m not telling you that you should be using [leflunomide] in place of biologics, instead of biologics, or before biologics … but it should be in your toolkit,” said Dr. Ruderman, professor of medicine and associate chief of clinical affairs in the division of rheumatology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago. The drug “still has a role in RA, including in combination with methotrexate, and a potential role in other rheumatic diseases.”

“In our PsA clinic,” he noted, “we’ve actually not infrequently added leflunomide to some of the other agents we’ve been using.”
 

Key Findings Over the Years in RA

Leflunomide showed efficacy similar to that of sulfasalazine in a randomized trial published in 1999 that used primary endpoints of tender/swollen joints and physician and patient global scores. Then, against methotrexate, it proved just as efficacious in achieving at least 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology composite response criteria (ACR20) over 52 weeks, and in meeting endpoints similar to those of the sulfasalazine trial, in two trials, one published in 1999 and another in 2000.

“So here were two big trials [comparing it with methotrexate] that suggested the drug was just as good as what had become our standard of care by that point,” Dr. Ruderman said.

Each of these three trials used a loading dose of 100 mg leflunomide for 3 days, followed by 20 mg daily. Sulfasalazine was initiated at 2 g and escalated over 4 weeks. Methotrexate was initiated in one of the trials at a dose of 7.5 mg, then increased to 15 mg in almost two-thirds of patients; in the other methotrexate trial the initial dose was 15 mg escalated over 3 months.

Side effects of leflunomide — GI issues, rash, alopecia (reversible), and elevated liver function tests — were similar across the trials, and represented “about the same toxicities as methotrexate,” he said.

Researchers then tested leflunomide as an add-on to methotrexate in patients who had inadequate response, which “was a little bit daunting since we were still concerned about the toxicity of methotrexate at this point,” Dr. Ruderman said. “The idea that we’d take another drug with similar toxicities and add it on to the methotrexate was a little scary.”

But it worked. Patients on a mean background dose of 16.5 mg methotrexate were randomized to placebo or to a 2-day leflunomide loading dose followed by 10 mg/day that could be escalated at 8 weeks to 20 mg if needed. At 6 months, 19.5% and 46.2%, respectively, met ACR20 (P < .001), and “interestingly,” he said, “adverse events were pretty similar” between combination therapy and methotrexate monotherapy.

“This was very much like all the studies we’ve seen over the years with new biologics — they were all added to background methotrexate,” he said. “And the truth is, the [46%] response seen when adding leflunomide to background methotrexate wasn’t very different from the 50% [ACR20] response you tend to see when you add a biologic.”

However, despite the study’s conclusion that combination therapy provided significant benefit to patients with inadequate response to methotrexate alone, “the drug got lost, because everyone was prescribing the biologics,” Dr. Ruderman said.

He said he found only one study comparing leflunomide with a biologic. In a notably small but well-designed study from Sri Lanka published in 2017, 40 patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate were randomized to low-dose rituximab (500 mg x 2) or 20 mg/day leflunomide (no loading dose). At week 24, ACR20 was nearly identical (85% vs 84%), with a similar rate of adverse events.

The researchers pointed out “that there’s a potential cost benefit in developing countries where biologics aren’t as accessible,” he said, agreeing that “the big opportunity for a drug like leflunomide is outside the US, where you don’t have access to the drugs we take advantage of all the time.”

A meeting participant from Canada pointed out that rheumatologists there are “mandated to use it for PsA in combination with methotrexate before we can get a biologic, and for RA we can use it with Plaquenil [hydroxychloroquine] and methotrexate before we get a biologic, so we’re using it all the time.”

Asked about efficacy, the physician said the combination with methotrexate is “absolutely” efficacious. “It works really well” he said. “The problem is, you really have to watch the white cell count and liver function … and the half-life is long.”

Indeed, Dr. Ruderman said during his talk, the plasma half-life of teriflunomide, its active metabolite, is 15.5 days, which is challenging when adverse events occur. “And it’s a terrible drug in young women thinking about pregnancy because it’s teratogenic and stays around,” he said.

Leflunomide, which, notably, was “developed specifically for RA from the get-go” and not borrowed from another specialty, works by blocking de novo pyrimidine synthesis, Dr. Ruderman said. T-cell activation requires the upregulation of pyrimidine production (salvage pathways are insufficient); the “drug prevents that” by inhibiting an enzyme that catalyzes conversion of dihydroorotate to orotate, which, in turn, is converted to pyrimidine ribonucleotides, he explained.

Other potential mechanisms of action have been proposed — mainly, inhibition of tumor necrosis factor signaling and inhibition of kinase activity, including the JAK/STAT pathway — but “there’s not great data for any of them,” he said.
 

Loading vs Not Loading, and Its Role in PsA and Other Diseases

“We stopped loading years ago because at 100 mg for 3 days in a row, everyone has GI issues,” Dr. Ruderman said. “It may have made sense from a pharmacokinetic standpoint because [based on the long half-life] you could get to a higher drug level quicker, but not a practical standpoint, because patients would stop the drug — they couldn’t take it.” The first study to examine the necessity of loading leflunomide in a “prospective, careful way” was published in 2013. It randomized 120 patients to 100 mg or 20 mg for 3 days, followed by a 3-month open-label period of 20 mg, and found no clinical benefit with loading but more diarrhea and elevated liver enzymes.

“It tells us something about how we need to think about half-lives,” he said. “Maybe [loading is] not necessary because the biological effects are different than the drug levels.”

In the PsA space, in 2004, researchers reported a double-blind randomized trial in which 190 patients with active PsA and cutaneous psoriasis with at least 3% body surface area involvement were randomized to receive leflunomide (a loading dose followed by 20 mg/day) or placebo for 24 weeks. Almost 60% of leflunomide-treated patients, compared with 30% of placebo-treated patients, were classified as responders by the Psoriatic Arthritis Response criteria (P < .0001), “which is a soft endpoint” but was utilized at the time, Dr. Ruderman said. The researchers noted improvements in ACR20 and skin responses as well, and toxicity was similar to that reported in the RA studies.

However, approval was never sought, and the drug was infrequently prescribed, “because etanercept came out for this disease, and then adalimumab … and then the world changed,” he said.

More recently, a single-center, double-blind, randomized trial that included 78 Dutch patients with PsA tested leflunomide plus methotrexate vs methotrexate monotherapy and was published in The Lancet Rheumatology. After 16 weeks, mean Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) had improved for patients in the combination therapy group in comparison with the monotherapy group (3.1 [standard deviation (SD), 1.4] vs 3.7 [SD, 1.3]; treatment difference, -0.6; 90% CI, -1.0 to -0.1; P = .025). The combination therapy group also achieved PASDAS low disease activity at a higher rate (59%) than that of the monotherapy group (34%; P = .019). Three patients in the combination therapy group experienced serious adverse events, two of which were deemed unrelated to leflunomide. The most frequently occurring adverse events were nausea or vomiting, tiredness, and elevated alanine aminotransferase. Mild adverse events were more common in the methotrexate plus leflunomide group.

In an interview after the meeting, Dr. Ruderman explained that in his practice, about 15 years ago, leflunomide was sometimes prescribed as an alternative to a biologic change for patients whose skin disease improved significantly with ustekinumab (Stelara) but who “suddenly had more joint symptoms that they didn’t have before.”

And “we’ve found ourselves a bit recently with the same sort of story, where patients are prescribed IL-23 inhibitors like Skyrizi [risankizumab] and Tremfya [guselkumab] and their skin does really well but now they’re having more joint symptoms than previously,” he said. “Our choices are to switch to a whole different biologic, or to think about adding something as an adjunct — and maybe leflunomide is a reasonable option.”

In the last 5 years, Dr. Ruderman noted, randomized trial data has been published on leflunomide in lupus nephritis induction, and in lupus nephritis maintenance, as well as in IgG4-related disease.

Dr. Ruderman disclosed consulting and/or drug safety monitoring board work for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, NS Pharma, and UCB.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hospital administrators and some department heads have been vocal about the potential for unions to affect both the attending-resident relationship and the ability for residents to directly discuss concerns and educational plans.

Critics feel that having a third party at the table, such as a union representative who isn’t as knowledgeable about the nuances of medical education, could complicate the decision-making process.

Sometimes, there are institution-specific issues as well. One example was at Loma Linda. They argued that unionization would go against their religious principles. They filed a lawsuit. That didn’t go through, and the residents won a few months later.

I know there’s always that one senior, older doctor who says, “Back in our day, we just worked, and we never complained.”

Look at the current situation that residents are facing now, with housing and rent prices and increasing costs of childcare. Sprinkle in some inflation, poor hospital staffing, increasing workload, and add in the fact that the average first-year resident salary in 2023 was around $64,000.

Now, if you look back to 2012, the average salary was around $55,000. If you adjust that for inflation, it would be around $75,000 today, which is more than what the average resident is getting paid.

Then, there are hospital administrators who say that the hospital does not have the money to meet these demands; meanwhile, hospital graduate medical education (GME) offices receive about $150,000 of Medicare funds per resident.

Obviously, there are additional costs when it comes to training and supporting residents. In general, unionizing freaks out the people handling all the cash.

There’s also the threat of a strike, which no hospital wants on their public record. A recent highly publicized event happened at New York’s Elmhurst Hospital, when 160 residents went on strike for 3 days until a deal was made.

Critics of unionizing also cite a particular study in JAMA, which included a survey of 5700 general surgery residents at 285 programs. It found that while unions helped with vacation time and housing stipends, the unions were not associated with improved burnout rates, suicidality, job satisfaction, duty hour violations, mistreatment, educational environment, or salary.

Now, granted, this isn’t the strongest study. It only sampled one group of residents, so I wouldn’t generalize these findings, but it’s still commonly cited by anti-union advocates.

Another potential downside, which is purely anecdotal because I can’t find any data to support this, is potential retaliation against residents or harm to the attending-resident relationship.

I’m an attending. I don’t really understand this one. I don’t exactly own stock in my hospital, nor am I making millions of dollars by siphoning GME money. I’m just trying to focus on educating and supporting my residents the best I can.

Dr. Patel is Clinical Instructor, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons; Pediatric Hospitalist, Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital of NewYork–Presbyterian, and Benioff Children’s Hospital, University of California San Francisco. He disclosed ties with Medumo Inc.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hospital administrators and some department heads have been vocal about the potential for unions to affect both the attending-resident relationship and the ability for residents to directly discuss concerns and educational plans.

Critics feel that having a third party at the table, such as a union representative who isn’t as knowledgeable about the nuances of medical education, could complicate the decision-making process.

Sometimes, there are institution-specific issues as well. One example was at Loma Linda. They argued that unionization would go against their religious principles. They filed a lawsuit. That didn’t go through, and the residents won a few months later.

I know there’s always that one senior, older doctor who says, “Back in our day, we just worked, and we never complained.”

Look at the current situation that residents are facing now, with housing and rent prices and increasing costs of childcare. Sprinkle in some inflation, poor hospital staffing, increasing workload, and add in the fact that the average first-year resident salary in 2023 was around $64,000.

Now, if you look back to 2012, the average salary was around $55,000. If you adjust that for inflation, it would be around $75,000 today, which is more than what the average resident is getting paid.

Then, there are hospital administrators who say that the hospital does not have the money to meet these demands; meanwhile, hospital graduate medical education (GME) offices receive about $150,000 of Medicare funds per resident.

Obviously, there are additional costs when it comes to training and supporting residents. In general, unionizing freaks out the people handling all the cash.

There’s also the threat of a strike, which no hospital wants on their public record. A recent highly publicized event happened at New York’s Elmhurst Hospital, when 160 residents went on strike for 3 days until a deal was made.

Critics of unionizing also cite a particular study in JAMA, which included a survey of 5700 general surgery residents at 285 programs. It found that while unions helped with vacation time and housing stipends, the unions were not associated with improved burnout rates, suicidality, job satisfaction, duty hour violations, mistreatment, educational environment, or salary.

Now, granted, this isn’t the strongest study. It only sampled one group of residents, so I wouldn’t generalize these findings, but it’s still commonly cited by anti-union advocates.

Another potential downside, which is purely anecdotal because I can’t find any data to support this, is potential retaliation against residents or harm to the attending-resident relationship.

I’m an attending. I don’t really understand this one. I don’t exactly own stock in my hospital, nor am I making millions of dollars by siphoning GME money. I’m just trying to focus on educating and supporting my residents the best I can.

Dr. Patel is Clinical Instructor, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons; Pediatric Hospitalist, Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital of NewYork–Presbyterian, and Benioff Children’s Hospital, University of California San Francisco. He disclosed ties with Medumo Inc.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hospital administrators and some department heads have been vocal about the potential for unions to affect both the attending-resident relationship and the ability for residents to directly discuss concerns and educational plans.

Critics feel that having a third party at the table, such as a union representative who isn’t as knowledgeable about the nuances of medical education, could complicate the decision-making process.

Sometimes, there are institution-specific issues as well. One example was at Loma Linda. They argued that unionization would go against their religious principles. They filed a lawsuit. That didn’t go through, and the residents won a few months later.

I know there’s always that one senior, older doctor who says, “Back in our day, we just worked, and we never complained.”

Look at the current situation that residents are facing now, with housing and rent prices and increasing costs of childcare. Sprinkle in some inflation, poor hospital staffing, increasing workload, and add in the fact that the average first-year resident salary in 2023 was around $64,000.

Now, if you look back to 2012, the average salary was around $55,000. If you adjust that for inflation, it would be around $75,000 today, which is more than what the average resident is getting paid.

Then, there are hospital administrators who say that the hospital does not have the money to meet these demands; meanwhile, hospital graduate medical education (GME) offices receive about $150,000 of Medicare funds per resident.

Obviously, there are additional costs when it comes to training and supporting residents. In general, unionizing freaks out the people handling all the cash.

There’s also the threat of a strike, which no hospital wants on their public record. A recent highly publicized event happened at New York’s Elmhurst Hospital, when 160 residents went on strike for 3 days until a deal was made.

Critics of unionizing also cite a particular study in JAMA, which included a survey of 5700 general surgery residents at 285 programs. It found that while unions helped with vacation time and housing stipends, the unions were not associated with improved burnout rates, suicidality, job satisfaction, duty hour violations, mistreatment, educational environment, or salary.

Now, granted, this isn’t the strongest study. It only sampled one group of residents, so I wouldn’t generalize these findings, but it’s still commonly cited by anti-union advocates.

Another potential downside, which is purely anecdotal because I can’t find any data to support this, is potential retaliation against residents or harm to the attending-resident relationship.

I’m an attending. I don’t really understand this one. I don’t exactly own stock in my hospital, nor am I making millions of dollars by siphoning GME money. I’m just trying to focus on educating and supporting my residents the best I can.

Dr. Patel is Clinical Instructor, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons; Pediatric Hospitalist, Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital of NewYork–Presbyterian, and Benioff Children’s Hospital, University of California San Francisco. He disclosed ties with Medumo Inc.

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

Lawmakers have added a provision to raise Medicare payments to clinicians to a $460 billion bipartisan package of federal spending bills that passed in the House on March 6 and is expected to be passed in the Senate and signed by President Biden before then end of March 8, but industry groups have criticized it as paltry.

Lawmakers often tweak Medicare policy by adding provisions to other kinds of legislation, including the spending bills Congress must pass to keep the federal government running.

Physicians’ groups and some lawmakers have long pressed Congress to change Medicare payment rules with little success, even as inflation has caused physicians’ expenses to rise. Doctors now face a 3.4% cut to Medicare reimbursements in 2024, which would be only partly mitigated by the recently announced provision.

The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) said the proposed increase would total 1.68%. The increase, part of a bipartisan package of bills released by the House and Senate Appropriations committees on March 3, would apply to the budget for fiscal 2024, which began on October 1, 2023.

“We are deeply disappointed with Congress’ half-hearted attempt to remedy the devastating blow physician practices were dealt by the 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule,” Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of MGMA, said in a statement. “Anything less than a full reversal of the 3.4% cut is appallingly inadequate.”

The American Medical Association said it was “extremely disappointed” that the boost only eased, but did not fully reverse, a deeper planned cut.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) also expressed disappointment with the proposed increase.

“The AAFP has repeatedly told Congress that the 3.4% Medicare payment reduction that went into effect on January 1 is untenable for family physicians and threatens patients’ access to primary care,” the group said in a statement.

“While we appreciate the partial relief, family physicians continue to face an annual threat of payment cuts that are detrimental to practices and patients,” AAFP said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lawmakers have added a provision to raise Medicare payments to clinicians to a $460 billion bipartisan package of federal spending bills that passed in the House on March 6 and is expected to be passed in the Senate and signed by President Biden before then end of March 8, but industry groups have criticized it as paltry.

Lawmakers often tweak Medicare policy by adding provisions to other kinds of legislation, including the spending bills Congress must pass to keep the federal government running.

Physicians’ groups and some lawmakers have long pressed Congress to change Medicare payment rules with little success, even as inflation has caused physicians’ expenses to rise. Doctors now face a 3.4% cut to Medicare reimbursements in 2024, which would be only partly mitigated by the recently announced provision.

The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) said the proposed increase would total 1.68%. The increase, part of a bipartisan package of bills released by the House and Senate Appropriations committees on March 3, would apply to the budget for fiscal 2024, which began on October 1, 2023.

“We are deeply disappointed with Congress’ half-hearted attempt to remedy the devastating blow physician practices were dealt by the 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule,” Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of MGMA, said in a statement. “Anything less than a full reversal of the 3.4% cut is appallingly inadequate.”

The American Medical Association said it was “extremely disappointed” that the boost only eased, but did not fully reverse, a deeper planned cut.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) also expressed disappointment with the proposed increase.

“The AAFP has repeatedly told Congress that the 3.4% Medicare payment reduction that went into effect on January 1 is untenable for family physicians and threatens patients’ access to primary care,” the group said in a statement.

“While we appreciate the partial relief, family physicians continue to face an annual threat of payment cuts that are detrimental to practices and patients,” AAFP said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lawmakers have added a provision to raise Medicare payments to clinicians to a $460 billion bipartisan package of federal spending bills that passed in the House on March 6 and is expected to be passed in the Senate and signed by President Biden before then end of March 8, but industry groups have criticized it as paltry.

Lawmakers often tweak Medicare policy by adding provisions to other kinds of legislation, including the spending bills Congress must pass to keep the federal government running.

Physicians’ groups and some lawmakers have long pressed Congress to change Medicare payment rules with little success, even as inflation has caused physicians’ expenses to rise. Doctors now face a 3.4% cut to Medicare reimbursements in 2024, which would be only partly mitigated by the recently announced provision.

The Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) said the proposed increase would total 1.68%. The increase, part of a bipartisan package of bills released by the House and Senate Appropriations committees on March 3, would apply to the budget for fiscal 2024, which began on October 1, 2023.

“We are deeply disappointed with Congress’ half-hearted attempt to remedy the devastating blow physician practices were dealt by the 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule,” Anders Gilberg, senior vice president of MGMA, said in a statement. “Anything less than a full reversal of the 3.4% cut is appallingly inadequate.”

The American Medical Association said it was “extremely disappointed” that the boost only eased, but did not fully reverse, a deeper planned cut.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) also expressed disappointment with the proposed increase.

“The AAFP has repeatedly told Congress that the 3.4% Medicare payment reduction that went into effect on January 1 is untenable for family physicians and threatens patients’ access to primary care,” the group said in a statement.

“While we appreciate the partial relief, family physicians continue to face an annual threat of payment cuts that are detrimental to practices and patients,” AAFP said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

In patients with type 2 diabetes, there was no difference in risk of developing autoimmune disease if prescribed glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1-RAs), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors.

METHODOLOGY:

• The effect of GLP-1-RAs and SGLT2 inhibitors on autoimmune rheumatic disease (ARD) is understudied, though previous case reports and one study have hinted at increased risk.
• Researchers used administrative health data from 2014 to 2021 to identify 34,400 patients prescribed GLP-1-RAs and 83,500 patients prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors.
• They compared patients prescribed GLP-1-RAs or SGLT2 inhibitors with 68,400 patients prescribed DPP-4 inhibitors, which previous studies suggest do not increase ARD risk.
• Primary outcome was ARD incidence, defined by diagnostic codes.

TAKEAWAY:

• There were no significant differences in incident ARDs between the three groups.
• Mean follow-up time was 0.88-1.53 years.
• The hazard ratio (HR) for developing ARDs with GLP-1-RAs exposure was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.66-1.30) compared with DPP-4 inhibitors.
• The HR for developing ARDs with SGLT2 inhibitor exposure was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.76-1.24).

IN PRACTICE: 

“Extended longitudinal data are needed to assess risk and benefit with longer-term exposure,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE: 

First author Derin Karacabeyli, MD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, presented the study in abstract form at the Canadian Rheumatology Association (CRA) 2024 Annual Meeting in Winnipeg on February 29.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study was observational, which could have some residual or unmeasured confounding of data. The researchers relied on diagnostic codes and the average follow-up time was short. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The authors had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

In patients with type 2 diabetes, there was no difference in risk of developing autoimmune disease if prescribed glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1-RAs), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors.

METHODOLOGY:

• The effect of GLP-1-RAs and SGLT2 inhibitors on autoimmune rheumatic disease (ARD) is understudied, though previous case reports and one study have hinted at increased risk.
• Researchers used administrative health data from 2014 to 2021 to identify 34,400 patients prescribed GLP-1-RAs and 83,500 patients prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors.
• They compared patients prescribed GLP-1-RAs or SGLT2 inhibitors with 68,400 patients prescribed DPP-4 inhibitors, which previous studies suggest do not increase ARD risk.
• Primary outcome was ARD incidence, defined by diagnostic codes.

TAKEAWAY:

• There were no significant differences in incident ARDs between the three groups.
• Mean follow-up time was 0.88-1.53 years.
• The hazard ratio (HR) for developing ARDs with GLP-1-RAs exposure was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.66-1.30) compared with DPP-4 inhibitors.
• The HR for developing ARDs with SGLT2 inhibitor exposure was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.76-1.24).

IN PRACTICE: 

“Extended longitudinal data are needed to assess risk and benefit with longer-term exposure,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE: 

First author Derin Karacabeyli, MD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, presented the study in abstract form at the Canadian Rheumatology Association (CRA) 2024 Annual Meeting in Winnipeg on February 29.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study was observational, which could have some residual or unmeasured confounding of data. The researchers relied on diagnostic codes and the average follow-up time was short. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The authors had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

In patients with type 2 diabetes, there was no difference in risk of developing autoimmune disease if prescribed glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1-RAs), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors.

METHODOLOGY:

• The effect of GLP-1-RAs and SGLT2 inhibitors on autoimmune rheumatic disease (ARD) is understudied, though previous case reports and one study have hinted at increased risk.
• Researchers used administrative health data from 2014 to 2021 to identify 34,400 patients prescribed GLP-1-RAs and 83,500 patients prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors.
• They compared patients prescribed GLP-1-RAs or SGLT2 inhibitors with 68,400 patients prescribed DPP-4 inhibitors, which previous studies suggest do not increase ARD risk.
• Primary outcome was ARD incidence, defined by diagnostic codes.

TAKEAWAY:

• There were no significant differences in incident ARDs between the three groups.
• Mean follow-up time was 0.88-1.53 years.
• The hazard ratio (HR) for developing ARDs with GLP-1-RAs exposure was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.66-1.30) compared with DPP-4 inhibitors.
• The HR for developing ARDs with SGLT2 inhibitor exposure was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.76-1.24).

IN PRACTICE: 

“Extended longitudinal data are needed to assess risk and benefit with longer-term exposure,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE: 

First author Derin Karacabeyli, MD, of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, presented the study in abstract form at the Canadian Rheumatology Association (CRA) 2024 Annual Meeting in Winnipeg on February 29.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study was observational, which could have some residual or unmeasured confounding of data. The researchers relied on diagnostic codes and the average follow-up time was short. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The authors had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the first biosimilar to denosumab, denosumab-bddz (Wyost/Jubbonti).

The biosimilar was also granted interchangeability status, which allows pharmacists to substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without involving the prescribing clinician (according to state law). Sandoz announced the approval on March 5, 2024. The lower dosage of denosumab-bddz, marketed as Jubbonti, was also approved by Health Canada in February. 

The FDA approval “is based on robust clinical studies and accompanied by labeling with safety warnings,” according to the press release. Like the reference products Prolia and Xgeva, denosumab-bddz is approved for two indications at separate doses.

Wyost (120-mg/1.7-mL injection) is approved to:

• Prevent skeletal-related events in patients with multiple myeloma and in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors
• Treat adults and skeletally mature adolescents with giant cell tumor of bone that is unresectable or where surgical resection is likely to result in severe morbidity
• Treat hypercalcemia of cancer that is refractory to bisphosphonate therapy

Jubbonti (60-mg/1-mL injection) is approved to:

• Treat postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who are at high risk for fracture
• Increase bone mass in men with osteoporosis who are at high risk for fracture
• Treat glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in men and women who are at high risk for fracture
• Increase bone mass in men who are at high risk for fracture who are receiving androgen deprivation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer
• Increase bone mass in women who are at high risk for fracture who are receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy for breast cancer.

Both doses are contraindicated for hypocalcemia and known clinically significant hypersensitivity to denosumab products. Exposure to denosumab products during pregnancy can cause fetal harm, so women of reproductive potential should be advised to use effective contraception during therapy and for at least 5 months after the last dose of denosumab-bddz.

Sandoz did not provide information on US launch details, citing “ongoing patent litigation around these products.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the first biosimilar to denosumab, denosumab-bddz (Wyost/Jubbonti).

The biosimilar was also granted interchangeability status, which allows pharmacists to substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without involving the prescribing clinician (according to state law). Sandoz announced the approval on March 5, 2024. The lower dosage of denosumab-bddz, marketed as Jubbonti, was also approved by Health Canada in February. 

The FDA approval “is based on robust clinical studies and accompanied by labeling with safety warnings,” according to the press release. Like the reference products Prolia and Xgeva, denosumab-bddz is approved for two indications at separate doses.

Wyost (120-mg/1.7-mL injection) is approved to:

• Prevent skeletal-related events in patients with multiple myeloma and in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors
• Treat adults and skeletally mature adolescents with giant cell tumor of bone that is unresectable or where surgical resection is likely to result in severe morbidity
• Treat hypercalcemia of cancer that is refractory to bisphosphonate therapy

Jubbonti (60-mg/1-mL injection) is approved to:

• Treat postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who are at high risk for fracture
• Increase bone mass in men with osteoporosis who are at high risk for fracture
• Treat glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in men and women who are at high risk for fracture
• Increase bone mass in men who are at high risk for fracture who are receiving androgen deprivation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer
• Increase bone mass in women who are at high risk for fracture who are receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy for breast cancer.

Both doses are contraindicated for hypocalcemia and known clinically significant hypersensitivity to denosumab products. Exposure to denosumab products during pregnancy can cause fetal harm, so women of reproductive potential should be advised to use effective contraception during therapy and for at least 5 months after the last dose of denosumab-bddz.

Sandoz did not provide information on US launch details, citing “ongoing patent litigation around these products.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the first biosimilar to denosumab, denosumab-bddz (Wyost/Jubbonti).

The biosimilar was also granted interchangeability status, which allows pharmacists to substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without involving the prescribing clinician (according to state law). Sandoz announced the approval on March 5, 2024. The lower dosage of denosumab-bddz, marketed as Jubbonti, was also approved by Health Canada in February. 

The FDA approval “is based on robust clinical studies and accompanied by labeling with safety warnings,” according to the press release. Like the reference products Prolia and Xgeva, denosumab-bddz is approved for two indications at separate doses.

Wyost (120-mg/1.7-mL injection) is approved to:

• Prevent skeletal-related events in patients with multiple myeloma and in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors
• Treat adults and skeletally mature adolescents with giant cell tumor of bone that is unresectable or where surgical resection is likely to result in severe morbidity
• Treat hypercalcemia of cancer that is refractory to bisphosphonate therapy

Jubbonti (60-mg/1-mL injection) is approved to:

• Treat postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who are at high risk for fracture
• Increase bone mass in men with osteoporosis who are at high risk for fracture
• Treat glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis in men and women who are at high risk for fracture
• Increase bone mass in men who are at high risk for fracture who are receiving androgen deprivation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer
• Increase bone mass in women who are at high risk for fracture who are receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy for breast cancer.

Both doses are contraindicated for hypocalcemia and known clinically significant hypersensitivity to denosumab products. Exposure to denosumab products during pregnancy can cause fetal harm, so women of reproductive potential should be advised to use effective contraception during therapy and for at least 5 months after the last dose of denosumab-bddz.

Sandoz did not provide information on US launch details, citing “ongoing patent litigation around these products.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Hospital mergers and acquisitions continue to garner intense scrutiny from lawmakers, with pressure likely to hold steady following the recent announcement of new antitrust guidelines and state and federal investigations into potential healthcare monopolies.

In December, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released updated guidelines outlining the factors they consider when determining if a merger illegally monopolizes a local healthcare market or jeopardizes access to critical healthcare services.

Last week, the DOJ also announced a UnitedHealth Group antitrust probe, just months after the healthcare conglomerate’s workforce numbers indicated it is now affiliated with or employs 10% of the US physician workforce.

While the impact of the latest guidelines is yet to be seen, concerns over healthcare market consolidation are not new. Over the past two decades, mergers have attracted attention for contributing to a decline in independent hospitals, said Rachel M. Werner, MD, PhD, executive director of the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

“At this point, most hospitals are operating in a pretty concentrated market,” she said.

Here are five things to know about the current state of hospital mergers.

1. Record-Breaking Merger Enforcements

The DOJ and FTC reported the highest level of enforcement activity in over 20 years in fiscal year 2022 — the latest available data. Together, the agencies filed 50 merger enforcement actions and brought a record-breaking number of merger enforcement challenges, resulting in 11 approved actions, the restructuring or abandonment of seven mergers, and six business deals entering litigation.

Included in those statistics was a proposed merger between the two largest health systems in Rhode Island, Lifespan and Care New England Health System, which was abandoned after the FTC and the state Attorney General took steps to block it. the HCA branch in Utah Healthcare abandoned plans for to acquire five Salt Lake City area hospitals from competitor Steward Health Care System, as did RWJBarnabas Health after exploring a merger with Saint Peter's Healthcare System in New Jersey.

2. New Antitrust Guidelines Consider Labor Market

The new guidelines notably focus on labor competition, said Jody Boudreault, JD, attorney and chair of the Antitrust Life Sciences and Healthcare Group at Baker Botts law firm in Washington, DC. Health professionals typically have more employment opportunities in an urban area, unless hindered by restrictive noncompete agreements, and fewer options in rural settings.

In the Lifespan merger that fell through, Ms. Boudreault said that the newly created hospital system would have employed two thirds of Rhode Island's full-time nurses, limiting opportunities for local employment elsewhere.

“Going forward, I would expect federal authorities to review not only the competitive impact of the hospitals merging but also the competitive impact of the physician, and especially nursing, workforce,” she said.

FTC Chair Lina M. Khan noted similar labor market concerns.

In a statement to Congress, she said that hospital consolidation reduces options for employees, who fear “being blacklisted from further hiring in a system that controls many of the hospitals in the area” and “makes workers afraid to file complaints, organize their workplace, or leave before the end of a contract.”

3. Mergers Can Drive Care Costs Higher

When hospital markets become less competitive, the cost of care often increases. In Indiana, inpatient prices rose 13% in hospitals that merged. Another study found that prices at monopoly hospitals are 12% higher than in markets with four or more rivals. Even cross-market mergers, when hospitals in different geographic locations combine, can drive prices higher.

Dr. Werner told this news organization that more significant price hikes of 20-30% aren’t unheard of, with reimbursements by some commercial insurance companies rising as much as 50%. “That’s the direct price that the insurers pay, but the burden of those higher prices ultimately falls on patients through higher premiums,” she said.

Still, the American Hospital Association (AHA) says that mergers and acquisitions can significantly lower annual operating expenses per admission and reduce inpatient readmission rates and mortality measures. In comments to the FTC, the AHA stated that mergers could provide a lifeline for rural and community hospitals struggling with shrinking payer reimbursement and rising labor and supply costs. The business arrangements also could ensure these communities maintain continuity of care.

Although a cross-market merger may initially benefit cash-strapped rural hospitals, Dr. Werner urged caution.

“In the long run, it’s not clear that it is good for patients because we start to see decreased access to some types of service, like labor and delivery, which are services needed in rural markets,” she said.

4. Mergers to Watch in 2024

Ms. Boudreault, who represented RWJBarnabas in the abandoned Saint Peter’s transaction, says the courts widely accepted the old merger guidelines, and it will take time to see how the new measures are interpreted. “The guidelines don’t yet have the force of law, but they can be persuasive to a court.”

Looking ahead, she is watching how Steward Health Care navigates its impending financial collapse. The nation’s largest private for-profit health system was previously owned by private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management and includes nine Massachusetts hospitals plus entities in at least seven other states.

Ms. Boudreault also plans to monitor Jefferson Health’s intent to merge with Lehigh Valley Health Network. “It’s a pretty big deal because they would become a 30-hospital system,” said Ms. Boudreault. The newly formed network would become the largest employer in Philadelphia.

5. Merger and Acquisition Reversals Unlikely

Dr. Werner said that mergers and acquisitions are complicated business moves that are nearly impossible to undo once approved, so it makes sense for agencies to continue to evaluate them closely.

“The costs of healthcare are borne by us as a society,” she said. “We’re going to have to live with the ill effects of a consolidated market once we let hospitals merge, so they deserve additional scrutiny.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Hospital mergers and acquisitions continue to garner intense scrutiny from lawmakers, with pressure likely to hold steady following the recent announcement of new antitrust guidelines and state and federal investigations into potential healthcare monopolies.

In December, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released updated guidelines outlining the factors they consider when determining if a merger illegally monopolizes a local healthcare market or jeopardizes access to critical healthcare services.

Last week, the DOJ also announced a UnitedHealth Group antitrust probe, just months after the healthcare conglomerate’s workforce numbers indicated it is now affiliated with or employs 10% of the US physician workforce.

While the impact of the latest guidelines is yet to be seen, concerns over healthcare market consolidation are not new. Over the past two decades, mergers have attracted attention for contributing to a decline in independent hospitals, said Rachel M. Werner, MD, PhD, executive director of the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

“At this point, most hospitals are operating in a pretty concentrated market,” she said.

Here are five things to know about the current state of hospital mergers.

1. Record-Breaking Merger Enforcements

The DOJ and FTC reported the highest level of enforcement activity in over 20 years in fiscal year 2022 — the latest available data. Together, the agencies filed 50 merger enforcement actions and brought a record-breaking number of merger enforcement challenges, resulting in 11 approved actions, the restructuring or abandonment of seven mergers, and six business deals entering litigation.

Included in those statistics was a proposed merger between the two largest health systems in Rhode Island, Lifespan and Care New England Health System, which was abandoned after the FTC and the state Attorney General took steps to block it. the HCA branch in Utah Healthcare abandoned plans for to acquire five Salt Lake City area hospitals from competitor Steward Health Care System, as did RWJBarnabas Health after exploring a merger with Saint Peter's Healthcare System in New Jersey.

2. New Antitrust Guidelines Consider Labor Market

The new guidelines notably focus on labor competition, said Jody Boudreault, JD, attorney and chair of the Antitrust Life Sciences and Healthcare Group at Baker Botts law firm in Washington, DC. Health professionals typically have more employment opportunities in an urban area, unless hindered by restrictive noncompete agreements, and fewer options in rural settings.

In the Lifespan merger that fell through, Ms. Boudreault said that the newly created hospital system would have employed two thirds of Rhode Island's full-time nurses, limiting opportunities for local employment elsewhere.

“Going forward, I would expect federal authorities to review not only the competitive impact of the hospitals merging but also the competitive impact of the physician, and especially nursing, workforce,” she said.

FTC Chair Lina M. Khan noted similar labor market concerns.

In a statement to Congress, she said that hospital consolidation reduces options for employees, who fear “being blacklisted from further hiring in a system that controls many of the hospitals in the area” and “makes workers afraid to file complaints, organize their workplace, or leave before the end of a contract.”

3. Mergers Can Drive Care Costs Higher

When hospital markets become less competitive, the cost of care often increases. In Indiana, inpatient prices rose 13% in hospitals that merged. Another study found that prices at monopoly hospitals are 12% higher than in markets with four or more rivals. Even cross-market mergers, when hospitals in different geographic locations combine, can drive prices higher.

Dr. Werner told this news organization that more significant price hikes of 20-30% aren’t unheard of, with reimbursements by some commercial insurance companies rising as much as 50%. “That’s the direct price that the insurers pay, but the burden of those higher prices ultimately falls on patients through higher premiums,” she said.

Still, the American Hospital Association (AHA) says that mergers and acquisitions can significantly lower annual operating expenses per admission and reduce inpatient readmission rates and mortality measures. In comments to the FTC, the AHA stated that mergers could provide a lifeline for rural and community hospitals struggling with shrinking payer reimbursement and rising labor and supply costs. The business arrangements also could ensure these communities maintain continuity of care.

Although a cross-market merger may initially benefit cash-strapped rural hospitals, Dr. Werner urged caution.

“In the long run, it’s not clear that it is good for patients because we start to see decreased access to some types of service, like labor and delivery, which are services needed in rural markets,” she said.

4. Mergers to Watch in 2024

Ms. Boudreault, who represented RWJBarnabas in the abandoned Saint Peter’s transaction, says the courts widely accepted the old merger guidelines, and it will take time to see how the new measures are interpreted. “The guidelines don’t yet have the force of law, but they can be persuasive to a court.”

Looking ahead, she is watching how Steward Health Care navigates its impending financial collapse. The nation’s largest private for-profit health system was previously owned by private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management and includes nine Massachusetts hospitals plus entities in at least seven other states.

Ms. Boudreault also plans to monitor Jefferson Health’s intent to merge with Lehigh Valley Health Network. “It’s a pretty big deal because they would become a 30-hospital system,” said Ms. Boudreault. The newly formed network would become the largest employer in Philadelphia.

5. Merger and Acquisition Reversals Unlikely

Dr. Werner said that mergers and acquisitions are complicated business moves that are nearly impossible to undo once approved, so it makes sense for agencies to continue to evaluate them closely.

“The costs of healthcare are borne by us as a society,” she said. “We’re going to have to live with the ill effects of a consolidated market once we let hospitals merge, so they deserve additional scrutiny.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Hospital mergers and acquisitions continue to garner intense scrutiny from lawmakers, with pressure likely to hold steady following the recent announcement of new antitrust guidelines and state and federal investigations into potential healthcare monopolies.

In December, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released updated guidelines outlining the factors they consider when determining if a merger illegally monopolizes a local healthcare market or jeopardizes access to critical healthcare services.

Last week, the DOJ also announced a UnitedHealth Group antitrust probe, just months after the healthcare conglomerate’s workforce numbers indicated it is now affiliated with or employs 10% of the US physician workforce.

While the impact of the latest guidelines is yet to be seen, concerns over healthcare market consolidation are not new. Over the past two decades, mergers have attracted attention for contributing to a decline in independent hospitals, said Rachel M. Werner, MD, PhD, executive director of the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

“At this point, most hospitals are operating in a pretty concentrated market,” she said.

Here are five things to know about the current state of hospital mergers.

1. Record-Breaking Merger Enforcements

The DOJ and FTC reported the highest level of enforcement activity in over 20 years in fiscal year 2022 — the latest available data. Together, the agencies filed 50 merger enforcement actions and brought a record-breaking number of merger enforcement challenges, resulting in 11 approved actions, the restructuring or abandonment of seven mergers, and six business deals entering litigation.

Included in those statistics was a proposed merger between the two largest health systems in Rhode Island, Lifespan and Care New England Health System, which was abandoned after the FTC and the state Attorney General took steps to block it. the HCA branch in Utah Healthcare abandoned plans for to acquire five Salt Lake City area hospitals from competitor Steward Health Care System, as did RWJBarnabas Health after exploring a merger with Saint Peter's Healthcare System in New Jersey.

2. New Antitrust Guidelines Consider Labor Market

The new guidelines notably focus on labor competition, said Jody Boudreault, JD, attorney and chair of the Antitrust Life Sciences and Healthcare Group at Baker Botts law firm in Washington, DC. Health professionals typically have more employment opportunities in an urban area, unless hindered by restrictive noncompete agreements, and fewer options in rural settings.

In the Lifespan merger that fell through, Ms. Boudreault said that the newly created hospital system would have employed two thirds of Rhode Island's full-time nurses, limiting opportunities for local employment elsewhere.

“Going forward, I would expect federal authorities to review not only the competitive impact of the hospitals merging but also the competitive impact of the physician, and especially nursing, workforce,” she said.

FTC Chair Lina M. Khan noted similar labor market concerns.

In a statement to Congress, she said that hospital consolidation reduces options for employees, who fear “being blacklisted from further hiring in a system that controls many of the hospitals in the area” and “makes workers afraid to file complaints, organize their workplace, or leave before the end of a contract.”

3. Mergers Can Drive Care Costs Higher

When hospital markets become less competitive, the cost of care often increases. In Indiana, inpatient prices rose 13% in hospitals that merged. Another study found that prices at monopoly hospitals are 12% higher than in markets with four or more rivals. Even cross-market mergers, when hospitals in different geographic locations combine, can drive prices higher.

Dr. Werner told this news organization that more significant price hikes of 20-30% aren’t unheard of, with reimbursements by some commercial insurance companies rising as much as 50%. “That’s the direct price that the insurers pay, but the burden of those higher prices ultimately falls on patients through higher premiums,” she said.

Still, the American Hospital Association (AHA) says that mergers and acquisitions can significantly lower annual operating expenses per admission and reduce inpatient readmission rates and mortality measures. In comments to the FTC, the AHA stated that mergers could provide a lifeline for rural and community hospitals struggling with shrinking payer reimbursement and rising labor and supply costs. The business arrangements also could ensure these communities maintain continuity of care.

Although a cross-market merger may initially benefit cash-strapped rural hospitals, Dr. Werner urged caution.

“In the long run, it’s not clear that it is good for patients because we start to see decreased access to some types of service, like labor and delivery, which are services needed in rural markets,” she said.

4. Mergers to Watch in 2024

Ms. Boudreault, who represented RWJBarnabas in the abandoned Saint Peter’s transaction, says the courts widely accepted the old merger guidelines, and it will take time to see how the new measures are interpreted. “The guidelines don’t yet have the force of law, but they can be persuasive to a court.”

Looking ahead, she is watching how Steward Health Care navigates its impending financial collapse. The nation’s largest private for-profit health system was previously owned by private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management and includes nine Massachusetts hospitals plus entities in at least seven other states.

Ms. Boudreault also plans to monitor Jefferson Health’s intent to merge with Lehigh Valley Health Network. “It’s a pretty big deal because they would become a 30-hospital system,” said Ms. Boudreault. The newly formed network would become the largest employer in Philadelphia.

5. Merger and Acquisition Reversals Unlikely

Dr. Werner said that mergers and acquisitions are complicated business moves that are nearly impossible to undo once approved, so it makes sense for agencies to continue to evaluate them closely.

“The costs of healthcare are borne by us as a society,” she said. “We’re going to have to live with the ill effects of a consolidated market once we let hospitals merge, so they deserve additional scrutiny.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The risk of developing a new autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic disease (AIRD) is greater following a COVID-19 infection than after an influenza infection or in the general population, according to a study published March 5 in Annals of Internal Medicine. More severe COVID-19 infections were linked to a greater risk of incident rheumatic disease, but vaccination appeared protective against development of a new AIRD.

“Importantly, this study shows the value of vaccination to prevent severe disease and these types of sequelae,” Anne Davidson, MBBS, a professor in the Institute of Molecular Medicine at The Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset, New York, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

More Robust and Rigorous Research

Past cohort studies finding an increased risk of rheumatic disease after COVID-19 “based their findings solely on comparisons between infected and uninfected groups, which could be influenced by ascertainment bias due to disparities in care, differences in health-seeking tendencies, and inherent risks among the groups,” Min Seo Kim, MD, of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and his colleagues reported. Their study, however, required at least two claims with codes for rheumatic disease and compared patients with COVID-19 to those with flu “to adjust for the potentially heightened detection of AIRD in SARS-CoV-2–infected persons owing to their interactions with the health care system.”

Dr. Alfred Kim said the fact that they used at least two claims codes “gives a little more credence that the patients were actually experiencing some sort of autoimmune inflammatory condition as opposed to a very transient issue post COVID that just went away on its own.”

He acknowledged that the previous research was reasonably strong, “especially in light of the fact that there has been so much work done on a molecular level demonstrating that COVID-19 is associated with a substantial increase in autoantibodies in a significant proportion of patients, so this always opened up the possibility that this could associate with some sort of autoimmune disease downstream.”

While the study is well done with a large population, “it still has limitations that might overestimate the effect,” Kevin W. Byram, MD, associate professor of medicine in rheumatology and immunology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. “We certainly have seen individual cases of new rheumatic disease where COVID-19 infection is likely the trigger,” but the phenomenon is not new, he added.

“Many autoimmune diseases are spurred by a loss of tolerance that might be induced by a pathogen of some sort,” Dr. Byram said. “The study is right to point out different forms of bias that might be at play. One in particular that is important to consider in a study like this is the lack of case-level adjudication regarding the diagnosis of rheumatic disease” since the study relied on available ICD-10 codes and medication prescriptions.

Risk Varied With Disease Severity and Vaccination Status

Among the Korean patients, 3.9% had a COVID-19 infection and 0.98% had an influenza infection. After matching, the comparison populations included 94,504 patients with COVID-19 versus 94,504 patients with flu, and 177,083 patients with COVID-19 versus 675,750 uninfected controls.

The risk of developing an AIRD at least 1 month after infection in South Korean patients with COVID-19 was 25% higher than in uninfected control participants (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.25; 95% CI, 1.18–1.31; P < .05) and 30% higher than in influenza patients (aHR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.02–1.59; P < .05). Specifically, risk in South Korean patients with COVID-19 was significantly increased for connective tissue disease and both treated and untreated AIRD but not for inflammatory arthritis.

Among the Japanese patients, 8.2% had COVID-19 and 0.99% had flu, resulting in matched populations of 115,003 with COVID-19 versus 110,310 with flu, and 960,849 with COVID-19 versus 1,606,873 uninfected patients. The effect size was larger in Japanese patients, with a 79% increased risk for AIRD in patients with COVID-19, compared with the general population (aHR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.77–1.82; P < .05) and a 14% increased risk, compared with patients with influenza infection (aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.10–1.17; P < .05). In Japanese patients, risk was increased across all four categories, including a doubled risk for inflammatory arthritis (aHR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.96–2.07; P < .05), compared with the general population.

The researchers had data only from the South Korean cohort to calculate risk based on vaccination status, SARS-CoV-2 variant (wild type versus Delta), and COVID-19 severity. Researchers determined a COVID-19 infection to be moderate-to-severe based on billing codes for ICU admission or requiring oxygen therapy, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, renal replacement, or CPR.

Infection with both the original strain and the Delta variant were linked to similar increased risks for AIRD, but moderate to severe COVID-19 infections had greater risk of subsequent AIRD (aHR, 1.42; P < .05) than mild infections (aHR, 1.22; P < .05). Vaccination was linked to a lower risk of AIRD within the COVID-19 patient population: One dose was linked to a 41% reduced risk (HR, 0.59; P < .05) and two doses were linked to a 58% reduced risk (HR, 0.42; P < .05), regardless of the vaccine type, compared with unvaccinated patients with COVID-19. The apparent protective effect of vaccination was true only for patients with mild COVID-19, not those with moderate to severe infection.

“One has to wonder whether or not these people were at much higher risk of developing autoimmune disease that just got exposed because they got COVID, so that a fraction of these would have gotten an autoimmune disease downstream,” Dr. Alfred Kim said. Regardless, one clinical implication of the findings is the reduced risk in vaccinated patients, regardless of the vaccine type, given the fact that “mRNA vaccination in particular has not been associated with any autoantibody development,” he said.

Though the correlations in the study cannot translate to causation, several mechanisms might be at play in a viral infection contributing to autoimmune risk, Dr. Davidson said. Given that viral nucleic acids also recognize self-nucleic acids, “a large load of viral nucleic acid may break tolerance,” or “viral proteins could also mimic self-proteins,” she said. “In addition, tolerance may be broken by a highly inflammatory environment associated with the release of cytokines and other inflammatory mediators.”

The association between new-onset autoimmune disease and severe COVID-19 infection suggests multiple mechanisms may be involved in excess immune stimulation, Dr. Davidson said. But she added that it’s unclear how these findings, involving the original strain and Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, might relate to currently circulating variants.

The research was funded by the National Research Foundation of Korea, the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety of the Republic of Korea. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships with industry. Dr. Alfred Kim has sponsored research agreements with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Novartis; receives royalties from a patent with Kypha Inc.; and has done consulting or speaking for Amgen, ANI Pharmaceuticals, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Exagen Diagnostics, GlaxoSmithKline, Kypha, Miltenyi Biotech, Pfizer, Rheumatology & Arthritis Learning Network, Synthekine, Techtonic Therapeutics, and UpToDate. Dr. Byram reported consulting for TenSixteen Bio. Dr. Davidson had no disclosures.

The risk of developing a new autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic disease (AIRD) is greater following a COVID-19 infection than after an influenza infection or in the general population, according to a study published March 5 in Annals of Internal Medicine. More severe COVID-19 infections were linked to a greater risk of incident rheumatic disease, but vaccination appeared protective against development of a new AIRD.

“Importantly, this study shows the value of vaccination to prevent severe disease and these types of sequelae,” Anne Davidson, MBBS, a professor in the Institute of Molecular Medicine at The Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset, New York, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

More Robust and Rigorous Research

Past cohort studies finding an increased risk of rheumatic disease after COVID-19 “based their findings solely on comparisons between infected and uninfected groups, which could be influenced by ascertainment bias due to disparities in care, differences in health-seeking tendencies, and inherent risks among the groups,” Min Seo Kim, MD, of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and his colleagues reported. Their study, however, required at least two claims with codes for rheumatic disease and compared patients with COVID-19 to those with flu “to adjust for the potentially heightened detection of AIRD in SARS-CoV-2–infected persons owing to their interactions with the health care system.”

Dr. Alfred Kim said the fact that they used at least two claims codes “gives a little more credence that the patients were actually experiencing some sort of autoimmune inflammatory condition as opposed to a very transient issue post COVID that just went away on its own.”

He acknowledged that the previous research was reasonably strong, “especially in light of the fact that there has been so much work done on a molecular level demonstrating that COVID-19 is associated with a substantial increase in autoantibodies in a significant proportion of patients, so this always opened up the possibility that this could associate with some sort of autoimmune disease downstream.”

While the study is well done with a large population, “it still has limitations that might overestimate the effect,” Kevin W. Byram, MD, associate professor of medicine in rheumatology and immunology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. “We certainly have seen individual cases of new rheumatic disease where COVID-19 infection is likely the trigger,” but the phenomenon is not new, he added.

“Many autoimmune diseases are spurred by a loss of tolerance that might be induced by a pathogen of some sort,” Dr. Byram said. “The study is right to point out different forms of bias that might be at play. One in particular that is important to consider in a study like this is the lack of case-level adjudication regarding the diagnosis of rheumatic disease” since the study relied on available ICD-10 codes and medication prescriptions.

Risk Varied With Disease Severity and Vaccination Status

Among the Korean patients, 3.9% had a COVID-19 infection and 0.98% had an influenza infection. After matching, the comparison populations included 94,504 patients with COVID-19 versus 94,504 patients with flu, and 177,083 patients with COVID-19 versus 675,750 uninfected controls.

The risk of developing an AIRD at least 1 month after infection in South Korean patients with COVID-19 was 25% higher than in uninfected control participants (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.25; 95% CI, 1.18–1.31; P < .05) and 30% higher than in influenza patients (aHR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.02–1.59; P < .05). Specifically, risk in South Korean patients with COVID-19 was significantly increased for connective tissue disease and both treated and untreated AIRD but not for inflammatory arthritis.

Among the Japanese patients, 8.2% had COVID-19 and 0.99% had flu, resulting in matched populations of 115,003 with COVID-19 versus 110,310 with flu, and 960,849 with COVID-19 versus 1,606,873 uninfected patients. The effect size was larger in Japanese patients, with a 79% increased risk for AIRD in patients with COVID-19, compared with the general population (aHR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.77–1.82; P < .05) and a 14% increased risk, compared with patients with influenza infection (aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.10–1.17; P < .05). In Japanese patients, risk was increased across all four categories, including a doubled risk for inflammatory arthritis (aHR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.96–2.07; P < .05), compared with the general population.

The researchers had data only from the South Korean cohort to calculate risk based on vaccination status, SARS-CoV-2 variant (wild type versus Delta), and COVID-19 severity. Researchers determined a COVID-19 infection to be moderate-to-severe based on billing codes for ICU admission or requiring oxygen therapy, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, renal replacement, or CPR.

Infection with both the original strain and the Delta variant were linked to similar increased risks for AIRD, but moderate to severe COVID-19 infections had greater risk of subsequent AIRD (aHR, 1.42; P < .05) than mild infections (aHR, 1.22; P < .05). Vaccination was linked to a lower risk of AIRD within the COVID-19 patient population: One dose was linked to a 41% reduced risk (HR, 0.59; P < .05) and two doses were linked to a 58% reduced risk (HR, 0.42; P < .05), regardless of the vaccine type, compared with unvaccinated patients with COVID-19. The apparent protective effect of vaccination was true only for patients with mild COVID-19, not those with moderate to severe infection.

“One has to wonder whether or not these people were at much higher risk of developing autoimmune disease that just got exposed because they got COVID, so that a fraction of these would have gotten an autoimmune disease downstream,” Dr. Alfred Kim said. Regardless, one clinical implication of the findings is the reduced risk in vaccinated patients, regardless of the vaccine type, given the fact that “mRNA vaccination in particular has not been associated with any autoantibody development,” he said.

Though the correlations in the study cannot translate to causation, several mechanisms might be at play in a viral infection contributing to autoimmune risk, Dr. Davidson said. Given that viral nucleic acids also recognize self-nucleic acids, “a large load of viral nucleic acid may break tolerance,” or “viral proteins could also mimic self-proteins,” she said. “In addition, tolerance may be broken by a highly inflammatory environment associated with the release of cytokines and other inflammatory mediators.”

The association between new-onset autoimmune disease and severe COVID-19 infection suggests multiple mechanisms may be involved in excess immune stimulation, Dr. Davidson said. But she added that it’s unclear how these findings, involving the original strain and Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, might relate to currently circulating variants.

The research was funded by the National Research Foundation of Korea, the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety of the Republic of Korea. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships with industry. Dr. Alfred Kim has sponsored research agreements with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Novartis; receives royalties from a patent with Kypha Inc.; and has done consulting or speaking for Amgen, ANI Pharmaceuticals, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Exagen Diagnostics, GlaxoSmithKline, Kypha, Miltenyi Biotech, Pfizer, Rheumatology & Arthritis Learning Network, Synthekine, Techtonic Therapeutics, and UpToDate. Dr. Byram reported consulting for TenSixteen Bio. Dr. Davidson had no disclosures.

The risk of developing a new autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic disease (AIRD) is greater following a COVID-19 infection than after an influenza infection or in the general population, according to a study published March 5 in Annals of Internal Medicine. More severe COVID-19 infections were linked to a greater risk of incident rheumatic disease, but vaccination appeared protective against development of a new AIRD.

“Importantly, this study shows the value of vaccination to prevent severe disease and these types of sequelae,” Anne Davidson, MBBS, a professor in the Institute of Molecular Medicine at The Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset, New York, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

More Robust and Rigorous Research

Past cohort studies finding an increased risk of rheumatic disease after COVID-19 “based their findings solely on comparisons between infected and uninfected groups, which could be influenced by ascertainment bias due to disparities in care, differences in health-seeking tendencies, and inherent risks among the groups,” Min Seo Kim, MD, of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and his colleagues reported. Their study, however, required at least two claims with codes for rheumatic disease and compared patients with COVID-19 to those with flu “to adjust for the potentially heightened detection of AIRD in SARS-CoV-2–infected persons owing to their interactions with the health care system.”

Dr. Alfred Kim said the fact that they used at least two claims codes “gives a little more credence that the patients were actually experiencing some sort of autoimmune inflammatory condition as opposed to a very transient issue post COVID that just went away on its own.”

He acknowledged that the previous research was reasonably strong, “especially in light of the fact that there has been so much work done on a molecular level demonstrating that COVID-19 is associated with a substantial increase in autoantibodies in a significant proportion of patients, so this always opened up the possibility that this could associate with some sort of autoimmune disease downstream.”

While the study is well done with a large population, “it still has limitations that might overestimate the effect,” Kevin W. Byram, MD, associate professor of medicine in rheumatology and immunology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. “We certainly have seen individual cases of new rheumatic disease where COVID-19 infection is likely the trigger,” but the phenomenon is not new, he added.

“Many autoimmune diseases are spurred by a loss of tolerance that might be induced by a pathogen of some sort,” Dr. Byram said. “The study is right to point out different forms of bias that might be at play. One in particular that is important to consider in a study like this is the lack of case-level adjudication regarding the diagnosis of rheumatic disease” since the study relied on available ICD-10 codes and medication prescriptions.

Risk Varied With Disease Severity and Vaccination Status

Among the Korean patients, 3.9% had a COVID-19 infection and 0.98% had an influenza infection. After matching, the comparison populations included 94,504 patients with COVID-19 versus 94,504 patients with flu, and 177,083 patients with COVID-19 versus 675,750 uninfected controls.

The risk of developing an AIRD at least 1 month after infection in South Korean patients with COVID-19 was 25% higher than in uninfected control participants (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.25; 95% CI, 1.18–1.31; P < .05) and 30% higher than in influenza patients (aHR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.02–1.59; P < .05). Specifically, risk in South Korean patients with COVID-19 was significantly increased for connective tissue disease and both treated and untreated AIRD but not for inflammatory arthritis.

Among the Japanese patients, 8.2% had COVID-19 and 0.99% had flu, resulting in matched populations of 115,003 with COVID-19 versus 110,310 with flu, and 960,849 with COVID-19 versus 1,606,873 uninfected patients. The effect size was larger in Japanese patients, with a 79% increased risk for AIRD in patients with COVID-19, compared with the general population (aHR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.77–1.82; P < .05) and a 14% increased risk, compared with patients with influenza infection (aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.10–1.17; P < .05). In Japanese patients, risk was increased across all four categories, including a doubled risk for inflammatory arthritis (aHR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.96–2.07; P < .05), compared with the general population.

The researchers had data only from the South Korean cohort to calculate risk based on vaccination status, SARS-CoV-2 variant (wild type versus Delta), and COVID-19 severity. Researchers determined a COVID-19 infection to be moderate-to-severe based on billing codes for ICU admission or requiring oxygen therapy, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, renal replacement, or CPR.

Infection with both the original strain and the Delta variant were linked to similar increased risks for AIRD, but moderate to severe COVID-19 infections had greater risk of subsequent AIRD (aHR, 1.42; P < .05) than mild infections (aHR, 1.22; P < .05). Vaccination was linked to a lower risk of AIRD within the COVID-19 patient population: One dose was linked to a 41% reduced risk (HR, 0.59; P < .05) and two doses were linked to a 58% reduced risk (HR, 0.42; P < .05), regardless of the vaccine type, compared with unvaccinated patients with COVID-19. The apparent protective effect of vaccination was true only for patients with mild COVID-19, not those with moderate to severe infection.

“One has to wonder whether or not these people were at much higher risk of developing autoimmune disease that just got exposed because they got COVID, so that a fraction of these would have gotten an autoimmune disease downstream,” Dr. Alfred Kim said. Regardless, one clinical implication of the findings is the reduced risk in vaccinated patients, regardless of the vaccine type, given the fact that “mRNA vaccination in particular has not been associated with any autoantibody development,” he said.

Though the correlations in the study cannot translate to causation, several mechanisms might be at play in a viral infection contributing to autoimmune risk, Dr. Davidson said. Given that viral nucleic acids also recognize self-nucleic acids, “a large load of viral nucleic acid may break tolerance,” or “viral proteins could also mimic self-proteins,” she said. “In addition, tolerance may be broken by a highly inflammatory environment associated with the release of cytokines and other inflammatory mediators.”

The association between new-onset autoimmune disease and severe COVID-19 infection suggests multiple mechanisms may be involved in excess immune stimulation, Dr. Davidson said. But she added that it’s unclear how these findings, involving the original strain and Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, might relate to currently circulating variants.

The research was funded by the National Research Foundation of Korea, the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety of the Republic of Korea. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships with industry. Dr. Alfred Kim has sponsored research agreements with AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Novartis; receives royalties from a patent with Kypha Inc.; and has done consulting or speaking for Amgen, ANI Pharmaceuticals, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Exagen Diagnostics, GlaxoSmithKline, Kypha, Miltenyi Biotech, Pfizer, Rheumatology & Arthritis Learning Network, Synthekine, Techtonic Therapeutics, and UpToDate. Dr. Byram reported consulting for TenSixteen Bio. Dr. Davidson had no disclosures.

A Danish study showing that about half of patients with newly diagnosed inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) had findings consistent with spondyloarthritis (SpA) was highlighted as one of last year’s more actionable studies on SpA and axial SpA (axSpa) at the 2024 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium (RWCS).

“There’s a lesson here,” said Eric M. Ruderman, MD, professor of medicine and associate chief of clinical affairs in the division of rheumatology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. “We’ve spent a lot of time working with the dermatologists in the last 10 years to try to coordinate what we’re doing [for psoriatic disease]. It’s time to start working with the gastroenterologists more.”

The findings offer “more evidence” for an increasingly documented overlap of IBD with SpA — whether axial or peripheral — and suggest there is underdiagnosis of SpA among patients with IBD. “It’s important,” he said at the meeting, “because if there are meaningful joint symptoms, this should be considered when making treatment choices [for IBD],” just as rheumatologists must be aware of the potential for IBD in choosing therapies.

Dr. Ruderman also urged rheumatologists making treatment decisions for axSpA to more carefully consider the role of central pain in driving residual symptoms in patients on biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). He pointed to a 2023 study of patients with radiographic axSpA (r-axSpA) receiving bDMARDs that showed significant associations between high central pain and a greater odds of having higher disease activity, independent of elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) levels.

“I’ve come to the conclusion that there’s a huge amount of central pain in our patients — that it [affects] 20%-30% of our patients, no matter what rheumatologic disease they have,” he said, “and if you don’t acknowledge and consider that, you’ll keep churning through medications that aren’t going to work because you’re not addressing a fundamental issue.”

Among other key studies of 2023 highlighted by Dr. Ruderman was a large retrospective cohort study showing a similar incidence of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) in US military men and women screened for chronic back pain and the GO-BACK withdrawal and retreatment trial of golimumab suggesting that dosing can be extended.

Meanwhile, last year brought more bad news for interleukin (IL)-23 inhibition in axSpA, with the termination of a phase 2 study of tildrakizumab (Ilumya). Good news came with the US Food and Drug Administration approval in 2023 of an intravenous formulation of the IL-17 inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx), which will be helpful for some Medicare patients. And moving forward, the biologic pipeline is SpA is “almost all about new pathways in the IL-17 arena,” Dr. Ruderman said.

Making Good Drug Choices for the Gut and the Joints

In the study of SpA among patients with IBD, reported at the EULAR 2023 meeting in Milan, Italy, rheumatologists assessed 110 consecutive patients — 34% of whom were diagnosed with Crohn’s disease and 59% of whom had ulcerative colitis — from a Danish IBD inception cohort. The patients, about 40% of whom were male, had a mean age of 42.

At the time of IBD diagnosis, 49% had arthralgias/musculoskeletal symptoms, 52% fulfilled Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) classification criteria for peripheral SpA, and 49% had synovitis and/or enthesitis verified by ultrasound, Dr. Ruderman said.

Gastroenterologists like the integrin antagonist vedolizumab (Entyvio) for some patients with IBD because “it’s a very gut-specific drug and doesn’t have as much impact on the systemic immune system as other drugs, but because it’s gut specific, it does nothing for peripheral or axial joint symptoms,” Dr. Ruderman said in an interview after the meeting. “We’ve seen patients switched to this drug from Humira [or other biologics] and suddenly they have joint pains they never had before.”

The IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab (Stelara) and the IL-23 inhibitor risankizumab (Skyrizi) are also sometimes selected for IBD, but “neither work well for patients with confirmed axSpA or inflammatory axial spine pain and arthritis,” he said. “Maybe these patients belong on a TNF [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitor or a JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitor, which will manage both the joints and the gut.”

“It’s not that we don’t talk to one another, but as we get more and more drugs in this space — both us and the gastroenterologists — it behooves us to communicate better to make sure we’re making the right choices for patients,” Dr. Ruderman said in the interview.

On the flip side, there’s a clear link between patients with axSpA who have or later develop IBD, as was further documented in 2023 by a multicenter Spanish study that evaluated patients with SpA (including both radiographic and nonradiographic axSpA) for the prevalence of undiagnosed IBD, Dr. Ruderman said at the RWCS.

The study, reported at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2023 annual meeting, included only patients who were bDAMRD-naive and off of steroids for at least 30 days. The researchers used elevated fecal calprotectin levels (≥ 80 mcg/g) followed by colonoscopy — and an endoscopic capsule study or MRI if colonoscopy was normal — to confirm a diagnosis of IBD. Of 559 patients, 4.4% had such a confirmed diagnosis (95% with Crohn’s disease), and interestingly, only 30% of these patients had clinical IBD symptoms.

“These are people who had no suspicion,” Dr. Ruderman said at the meeting. “You could say that maybe not having symptoms is not a big deal, but over time, maybe there will be consequences.”

The IL-17 inhibitors ixekizumab (Taltz), secukinumab, and bimekizumab (Bimzelx) are generally felt to be contraindicated in patients who have confirmed IBD, Dr. Ruderman noted in the interview. “While we don’t want to necessarily avoid those drugs, we need to be aware of the potential [for IBD],” he said, “and we need to have a low threshold of suspicion if our patients develop any GI symptoms.”

Considering Noninflammatory Residual Pain

The 2023 central pain study that caught Dr. Ruderman’s attention — research reported at the EULAR 2023 meeting — looked at 70 patients with r-axSpA receiving bDMARD treatment (mostly TNF inhibitors) who were being followed in an extension of the German Spondyloarthritis Inception Cohort. Investigators used the Widespread Pain Index (WPI) to help quantify central pain/central sensitization and the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein (ASDAS-CRP) to measure disease activity.

“Central pain was actually associated with having residual symptoms,” Dr. Ruderman said at the RWCS. Higher WPI scores were significantly associated with higher ASDAS-CRP scores, and a high WPI was also associated with higher odds of having high or very high disease activity (ASDAS > 2.1), independent of other factors including elevated CRP, the investigators reported in their abstract.

Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, commented that “we don’t have great [non-opioid] treatments for pain,” prompting Dr. Ruderman to emphasize the importance of “resisting the urge to [automatically] switch to another biologic” without trying to discern whether residual pain is inflammatory or noninflammatory in nature.

“I’m really comfortable with this,” Dr. Ruderman said, noting that he prescribes drugs like duloxetine or pregabalin for suspected central pain. “For the statin (for cardiovascular disease prevention), I’m more likely to turn back to the primary care physician and work with them, but here it’s part of what we’re treating — it becomes part of our tool kits.”

The central pain issue, Dr. Ruderman said after the meeting, is one of recognition and nomenclature. In the last few years, “there’s been a tendency to get away from secondary fibromyalgia as a label. There’s a lot of baggage with the diagnosis, unfortunately,” he said in the interview. “And it’s all connected. … It’s very likely that the [central] pain signaling is triggered by the inflammatory pain in the first place.”

A New Look at Sex-Specific Incidence of AS

The study on AS in a retrospective cohort of 729,000 working-age US military service members “flew under the radar,” but its finding of a similar incidence in men and women who underwent screening for chronic back pain is “fascinating,” Dr. Ruderman said. Compared with females, men were not significantly more likely to have a diagnosis of AS (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.61-1.02; P = .072), the researchers reported.

“We’ve always assumed that AS is a male disease, and that, as we got into nonradiographic axSpA, we would see more women. This study calls that into question,” he said.

More Light on bDMARD Dosage Extension and Withdrawal

The GO-BACK study of the TNF inhibitor golimumab (Simponi) randomized 188 patients with inactive nonradiographic axSpA after 6 months of 50 mg golimumab monthly to treatment withdrawal/monthly placebo, continued monthly treatment, or treatment every 2 months. The take-home message, Dr. Ruderman said, is that “withdrawal, but not reduction in dose, led to a higher risk of flare.”

Also notable in this study published in 2023 is that “almost 100% of those who flared were recaptured with the reinitiation of monthly dosing,” he said. “So you don’t lose if you try to stop … [although] I don’t think that will ever be a successful strategy.” (The proportion of patients without a disease flare over 12 months was 34% in the withdrawal group, 68% in the extended dosing group, and 84% in the continued monthly treatment group.)

Dosing extensions have been shown to be potentially viable with other biologics, “but with this one, it looks like you can spread it out almost with impunity because it doesn’t look like there’s much difference” between continuing monthly and extending, Dr. Kavanaugh commented.

Another study from 2023 of the IL-17A inhibitor ixekizumab in axSpA similarly showed a high recapture rate for patients who withdrew from therapy and then flared. In this phase 3 extension study in which 155 patients with inactive or low-level disease were randomized at week 24 to continued ixekizumab or placebo, 53% of placebo patients flared by 2 years, compared with 13% in the ixekizumab arm. Of those who flared, 96% recaptured low disease activity with re-initiation of therapy.

“It’s the same story. You might get away with [stopping the therapy] because it’s not 100% who flared. But is it worth it?” Dr. Ruderman said.

IL-23 Inhibition in Axial Disease and the Pipeline

Is the chapter on IL-23 inhibitors closed for axSpA? Aside from a possible role for axial disease in psoriatic arthritis (PsA), it likely is, Dr. Ruderman said, pointing to the phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of tildrakizumab in patients with AS that was terminated at week 24 after the drug showed no difference in efficacy from placebo.

Dr. Kavanaugh agreed. “This adds to the data on risankizumab and ustekinumab in studies done properly in AS,” he said. “There’s no benefit.”

The “real issue” still to be determined, said Dr. Ruderman, “is what is the role of IL-23 inhibitors in patients with axial PsA?”

A post-hoc analysis of data from the SELECT PsA 1 and 2 trials, published in 2023, showed greater improvement in the overall Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score in patients with axial disease who received 15 mg upadacitinib (Rinvoq), compared with placebo.

“It suggests there’s improvement in the patients with axial PsA as defined [by a high BASDAI score], but they didn’t compare this with patients without axial disease … it’s muddy,” Dr. Ruderman said. Other research that’s underway should provide clarity, Dr. Kavanaugh said.

The pipeline for new treatments for SpA, including axSpA, is focused on new biologics targeting the IL-17 pathways, as well as a fair number of targeted synthetics, Dr. Ruderman said. “What will be interesting to me is what happens with the TYK2 inhibitors … because one of the postulated mechanisms is that the IL-23 signals through TYK-2,” he said. “So if that’s the mechanism, will they really help our patients with axial disease? We need the trials to find out.”

The intravenous formulation of secukinumab, approved in 2023 for AS, nr-axSpA, and PsA, is a “nice addition to our armamentarium, Dr. Ruderman noted in his 2023 review. “For years, a patient doing well on an IL-17 inhibitor for their axial disease or their psoriatic disease would hit Medicare age and suddenly couldn’t afford subcutaneous administration, and we had to switch them over to an IV-TNF inhibitor,” he said. “Now we have an IV IL-17 inhibitor.”

A Danish study showing that about half of patients with newly diagnosed inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) had findings consistent with spondyloarthritis (SpA) was highlighted as one of last year’s more actionable studies on SpA and axial SpA (axSpa) at the 2024 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium (RWCS).

“There’s a lesson here,” said Eric M. Ruderman, MD, professor of medicine and associate chief of clinical affairs in the division of rheumatology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. “We’ve spent a lot of time working with the dermatologists in the last 10 years to try to coordinate what we’re doing [for psoriatic disease]. It’s time to start working with the gastroenterologists more.”

The findings offer “more evidence” for an increasingly documented overlap of IBD with SpA — whether axial or peripheral — and suggest there is underdiagnosis of SpA among patients with IBD. “It’s important,” he said at the meeting, “because if there are meaningful joint symptoms, this should be considered when making treatment choices [for IBD],” just as rheumatologists must be aware of the potential for IBD in choosing therapies.

Dr. Ruderman also urged rheumatologists making treatment decisions for axSpA to more carefully consider the role of central pain in driving residual symptoms in patients on biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). He pointed to a 2023 study of patients with radiographic axSpA (r-axSpA) receiving bDMARDs that showed significant associations between high central pain and a greater odds of having higher disease activity, independent of elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) levels.

“I’ve come to the conclusion that there’s a huge amount of central pain in our patients — that it [affects] 20%-30% of our patients, no matter what rheumatologic disease they have,” he said, “and if you don’t acknowledge and consider that, you’ll keep churning through medications that aren’t going to work because you’re not addressing a fundamental issue.”

Among other key studies of 2023 highlighted by Dr. Ruderman was a large retrospective cohort study showing a similar incidence of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) in US military men and women screened for chronic back pain and the GO-BACK withdrawal and retreatment trial of golimumab suggesting that dosing can be extended.

Meanwhile, last year brought more bad news for interleukin (IL)-23 inhibition in axSpA, with the termination of a phase 2 study of tildrakizumab (Ilumya). Good news came with the US Food and Drug Administration approval in 2023 of an intravenous formulation of the IL-17 inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx), which will be helpful for some Medicare patients. And moving forward, the biologic pipeline is SpA is “almost all about new pathways in the IL-17 arena,” Dr. Ruderman said.

Making Good Drug Choices for the Gut and the Joints

In the study of SpA among patients with IBD, reported at the EULAR 2023 meeting in Milan, Italy, rheumatologists assessed 110 consecutive patients — 34% of whom were diagnosed with Crohn’s disease and 59% of whom had ulcerative colitis — from a Danish IBD inception cohort. The patients, about 40% of whom were male, had a mean age of 42.

At the time of IBD diagnosis, 49% had arthralgias/musculoskeletal symptoms, 52% fulfilled Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) classification criteria for peripheral SpA, and 49% had synovitis and/or enthesitis verified by ultrasound, Dr. Ruderman said.

Gastroenterologists like the integrin antagonist vedolizumab (Entyvio) for some patients with IBD because “it’s a very gut-specific drug and doesn’t have as much impact on the systemic immune system as other drugs, but because it’s gut specific, it does nothing for peripheral or axial joint symptoms,” Dr. Ruderman said in an interview after the meeting. “We’ve seen patients switched to this drug from Humira [or other biologics] and suddenly they have joint pains they never had before.”

The IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab (Stelara) and the IL-23 inhibitor risankizumab (Skyrizi) are also sometimes selected for IBD, but “neither work well for patients with confirmed axSpA or inflammatory axial spine pain and arthritis,” he said. “Maybe these patients belong on a TNF [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitor or a JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitor, which will manage both the joints and the gut.”

“It’s not that we don’t talk to one another, but as we get more and more drugs in this space — both us and the gastroenterologists — it behooves us to communicate better to make sure we’re making the right choices for patients,” Dr. Ruderman said in the interview.

On the flip side, there’s a clear link between patients with axSpA who have or later develop IBD, as was further documented in 2023 by a multicenter Spanish study that evaluated patients with SpA (including both radiographic and nonradiographic axSpA) for the prevalence of undiagnosed IBD, Dr. Ruderman said at the RWCS.

The study, reported at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2023 annual meeting, included only patients who were bDAMRD-naive and off of steroids for at least 30 days. The researchers used elevated fecal calprotectin levels (≥ 80 mcg/g) followed by colonoscopy — and an endoscopic capsule study or MRI if colonoscopy was normal — to confirm a diagnosis of IBD. Of 559 patients, 4.4% had such a confirmed diagnosis (95% with Crohn’s disease), and interestingly, only 30% of these patients had clinical IBD symptoms.

“These are people who had no suspicion,” Dr. Ruderman said at the meeting. “You could say that maybe not having symptoms is not a big deal, but over time, maybe there will be consequences.”

The IL-17 inhibitors ixekizumab (Taltz), secukinumab, and bimekizumab (Bimzelx) are generally felt to be contraindicated in patients who have confirmed IBD, Dr. Ruderman noted in the interview. “While we don’t want to necessarily avoid those drugs, we need to be aware of the potential [for IBD],” he said, “and we need to have a low threshold of suspicion if our patients develop any GI symptoms.”

Considering Noninflammatory Residual Pain

The 2023 central pain study that caught Dr. Ruderman’s attention — research reported at the EULAR 2023 meeting — looked at 70 patients with r-axSpA receiving bDMARD treatment (mostly TNF inhibitors) who were being followed in an extension of the German Spondyloarthritis Inception Cohort. Investigators used the Widespread Pain Index (WPI) to help quantify central pain/central sensitization and the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein (ASDAS-CRP) to measure disease activity.

“Central pain was actually associated with having residual symptoms,” Dr. Ruderman said at the RWCS. Higher WPI scores were significantly associated with higher ASDAS-CRP scores, and a high WPI was also associated with higher odds of having high or very high disease activity (ASDAS > 2.1), independent of other factors including elevated CRP, the investigators reported in their abstract.

Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, commented that “we don’t have great [non-opioid] treatments for pain,” prompting Dr. Ruderman to emphasize the importance of “resisting the urge to [automatically] switch to another biologic” without trying to discern whether residual pain is inflammatory or noninflammatory in nature.

“I’m really comfortable with this,” Dr. Ruderman said, noting that he prescribes drugs like duloxetine or pregabalin for suspected central pain. “For the statin (for cardiovascular disease prevention), I’m more likely to turn back to the primary care physician and work with them, but here it’s part of what we’re treating — it becomes part of our tool kits.”

The central pain issue, Dr. Ruderman said after the meeting, is one of recognition and nomenclature. In the last few years, “there’s been a tendency to get away from secondary fibromyalgia as a label. There’s a lot of baggage with the diagnosis, unfortunately,” he said in the interview. “And it’s all connected. … It’s very likely that the [central] pain signaling is triggered by the inflammatory pain in the first place.”

A New Look at Sex-Specific Incidence of AS

The study on AS in a retrospective cohort of 729,000 working-age US military service members “flew under the radar,” but its finding of a similar incidence in men and women who underwent screening for chronic back pain is “fascinating,” Dr. Ruderman said. Compared with females, men were not significantly more likely to have a diagnosis of AS (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.61-1.02; P = .072), the researchers reported.

“We’ve always assumed that AS is a male disease, and that, as we got into nonradiographic axSpA, we would see more women. This study calls that into question,” he said.

More Light on bDMARD Dosage Extension and Withdrawal

The GO-BACK study of the TNF inhibitor golimumab (Simponi) randomized 188 patients with inactive nonradiographic axSpA after 6 months of 50 mg golimumab monthly to treatment withdrawal/monthly placebo, continued monthly treatment, or treatment every 2 months. The take-home message, Dr. Ruderman said, is that “withdrawal, but not reduction in dose, led to a higher risk of flare.”

Also notable in this study published in 2023 is that “almost 100% of those who flared were recaptured with the reinitiation of monthly dosing,” he said. “So you don’t lose if you try to stop … [although] I don’t think that will ever be a successful strategy.” (The proportion of patients without a disease flare over 12 months was 34% in the withdrawal group, 68% in the extended dosing group, and 84% in the continued monthly treatment group.)

Dosing extensions have been shown to be potentially viable with other biologics, “but with this one, it looks like you can spread it out almost with impunity because it doesn’t look like there’s much difference” between continuing monthly and extending, Dr. Kavanaugh commented.

Another study from 2023 of the IL-17A inhibitor ixekizumab in axSpA similarly showed a high recapture rate for patients who withdrew from therapy and then flared. In this phase 3 extension study in which 155 patients with inactive or low-level disease were randomized at week 24 to continued ixekizumab or placebo, 53% of placebo patients flared by 2 years, compared with 13% in the ixekizumab arm. Of those who flared, 96% recaptured low disease activity with re-initiation of therapy.

“It’s the same story. You might get away with [stopping the therapy] because it’s not 100% who flared. But is it worth it?” Dr. Ruderman said.

IL-23 Inhibition in Axial Disease and the Pipeline

Is the chapter on IL-23 inhibitors closed for axSpA? Aside from a possible role for axial disease in psoriatic arthritis (PsA), it likely is, Dr. Ruderman said, pointing to the phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of tildrakizumab in patients with AS that was terminated at week 24 after the drug showed no difference in efficacy from placebo.

Dr. Kavanaugh agreed. “This adds to the data on risankizumab and ustekinumab in studies done properly in AS,” he said. “There’s no benefit.”

The “real issue” still to be determined, said Dr. Ruderman, “is what is the role of IL-23 inhibitors in patients with axial PsA?”

A post-hoc analysis of data from the SELECT PsA 1 and 2 trials, published in 2023, showed greater improvement in the overall Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score in patients with axial disease who received 15 mg upadacitinib (Rinvoq), compared with placebo.

“It suggests there’s improvement in the patients with axial PsA as defined [by a high BASDAI score], but they didn’t compare this with patients without axial disease … it’s muddy,” Dr. Ruderman said. Other research that’s underway should provide clarity, Dr. Kavanaugh said.

The pipeline for new treatments for SpA, including axSpA, is focused on new biologics targeting the IL-17 pathways, as well as a fair number of targeted synthetics, Dr. Ruderman said. “What will be interesting to me is what happens with the TYK2 inhibitors … because one of the postulated mechanisms is that the IL-23 signals through TYK-2,” he said. “So if that’s the mechanism, will they really help our patients with axial disease? We need the trials to find out.”

The intravenous formulation of secukinumab, approved in 2023 for AS, nr-axSpA, and PsA, is a “nice addition to our armamentarium, Dr. Ruderman noted in his 2023 review. “For years, a patient doing well on an IL-17 inhibitor for their axial disease or their psoriatic disease would hit Medicare age and suddenly couldn’t afford subcutaneous administration, and we had to switch them over to an IV-TNF inhibitor,” he said. “Now we have an IV IL-17 inhibitor.”

A Danish study showing that about half of patients with newly diagnosed inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) had findings consistent with spondyloarthritis (SpA) was highlighted as one of last year’s more actionable studies on SpA and axial SpA (axSpa) at the 2024 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium (RWCS).

“There’s a lesson here,” said Eric M. Ruderman, MD, professor of medicine and associate chief of clinical affairs in the division of rheumatology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. “We’ve spent a lot of time working with the dermatologists in the last 10 years to try to coordinate what we’re doing [for psoriatic disease]. It’s time to start working with the gastroenterologists more.”

The findings offer “more evidence” for an increasingly documented overlap of IBD with SpA — whether axial or peripheral — and suggest there is underdiagnosis of SpA among patients with IBD. “It’s important,” he said at the meeting, “because if there are meaningful joint symptoms, this should be considered when making treatment choices [for IBD],” just as rheumatologists must be aware of the potential for IBD in choosing therapies.

Dr. Ruderman also urged rheumatologists making treatment decisions for axSpA to more carefully consider the role of central pain in driving residual symptoms in patients on biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). He pointed to a 2023 study of patients with radiographic axSpA (r-axSpA) receiving bDMARDs that showed significant associations between high central pain and a greater odds of having higher disease activity, independent of elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) levels.

“I’ve come to the conclusion that there’s a huge amount of central pain in our patients — that it [affects] 20%-30% of our patients, no matter what rheumatologic disease they have,” he said, “and if you don’t acknowledge and consider that, you’ll keep churning through medications that aren’t going to work because you’re not addressing a fundamental issue.”

Among other key studies of 2023 highlighted by Dr. Ruderman was a large retrospective cohort study showing a similar incidence of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) in US military men and women screened for chronic back pain and the GO-BACK withdrawal and retreatment trial of golimumab suggesting that dosing can be extended.

Meanwhile, last year brought more bad news for interleukin (IL)-23 inhibition in axSpA, with the termination of a phase 2 study of tildrakizumab (Ilumya). Good news came with the US Food and Drug Administration approval in 2023 of an intravenous formulation of the IL-17 inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx), which will be helpful for some Medicare patients. And moving forward, the biologic pipeline is SpA is “almost all about new pathways in the IL-17 arena,” Dr. Ruderman said.

Making Good Drug Choices for the Gut and the Joints

In the study of SpA among patients with IBD, reported at the EULAR 2023 meeting in Milan, Italy, rheumatologists assessed 110 consecutive patients — 34% of whom were diagnosed with Crohn’s disease and 59% of whom had ulcerative colitis — from a Danish IBD inception cohort. The patients, about 40% of whom were male, had a mean age of 42.

At the time of IBD diagnosis, 49% had arthralgias/musculoskeletal symptoms, 52% fulfilled Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) classification criteria for peripheral SpA, and 49% had synovitis and/or enthesitis verified by ultrasound, Dr. Ruderman said.

Gastroenterologists like the integrin antagonist vedolizumab (Entyvio) for some patients with IBD because “it’s a very gut-specific drug and doesn’t have as much impact on the systemic immune system as other drugs, but because it’s gut specific, it does nothing for peripheral or axial joint symptoms,” Dr. Ruderman said in an interview after the meeting. “We’ve seen patients switched to this drug from Humira [or other biologics] and suddenly they have joint pains they never had before.”

The IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab (Stelara) and the IL-23 inhibitor risankizumab (Skyrizi) are also sometimes selected for IBD, but “neither work well for patients with confirmed axSpA or inflammatory axial spine pain and arthritis,” he said. “Maybe these patients belong on a TNF [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitor or a JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitor, which will manage both the joints and the gut.”

“It’s not that we don’t talk to one another, but as we get more and more drugs in this space — both us and the gastroenterologists — it behooves us to communicate better to make sure we’re making the right choices for patients,” Dr. Ruderman said in the interview.

On the flip side, there’s a clear link between patients with axSpA who have or later develop IBD, as was further documented in 2023 by a multicenter Spanish study that evaluated patients with SpA (including both radiographic and nonradiographic axSpA) for the prevalence of undiagnosed IBD, Dr. Ruderman said at the RWCS.

The study, reported at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2023 annual meeting, included only patients who were bDAMRD-naive and off of steroids for at least 30 days. The researchers used elevated fecal calprotectin levels (≥ 80 mcg/g) followed by colonoscopy — and an endoscopic capsule study or MRI if colonoscopy was normal — to confirm a diagnosis of IBD. Of 559 patients, 4.4% had such a confirmed diagnosis (95% with Crohn’s disease), and interestingly, only 30% of these patients had clinical IBD symptoms.

“These are people who had no suspicion,” Dr. Ruderman said at the meeting. “You could say that maybe not having symptoms is not a big deal, but over time, maybe there will be consequences.”

The IL-17 inhibitors ixekizumab (Taltz), secukinumab, and bimekizumab (Bimzelx) are generally felt to be contraindicated in patients who have confirmed IBD, Dr. Ruderman noted in the interview. “While we don’t want to necessarily avoid those drugs, we need to be aware of the potential [for IBD],” he said, “and we need to have a low threshold of suspicion if our patients develop any GI symptoms.”

Considering Noninflammatory Residual Pain

The 2023 central pain study that caught Dr. Ruderman’s attention — research reported at the EULAR 2023 meeting — looked at 70 patients with r-axSpA receiving bDMARD treatment (mostly TNF inhibitors) who were being followed in an extension of the German Spondyloarthritis Inception Cohort. Investigators used the Widespread Pain Index (WPI) to help quantify central pain/central sensitization and the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein (ASDAS-CRP) to measure disease activity.

“Central pain was actually associated with having residual symptoms,” Dr. Ruderman said at the RWCS. Higher WPI scores were significantly associated with higher ASDAS-CRP scores, and a high WPI was also associated with higher odds of having high or very high disease activity (ASDAS > 2.1), independent of other factors including elevated CRP, the investigators reported in their abstract.

Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, commented that “we don’t have great [non-opioid] treatments for pain,” prompting Dr. Ruderman to emphasize the importance of “resisting the urge to [automatically] switch to another biologic” without trying to discern whether residual pain is inflammatory or noninflammatory in nature.

“I’m really comfortable with this,” Dr. Ruderman said, noting that he prescribes drugs like duloxetine or pregabalin for suspected central pain. “For the statin (for cardiovascular disease prevention), I’m more likely to turn back to the primary care physician and work with them, but here it’s part of what we’re treating — it becomes part of our tool kits.”

The central pain issue, Dr. Ruderman said after the meeting, is one of recognition and nomenclature. In the last few years, “there’s been a tendency to get away from secondary fibromyalgia as a label. There’s a lot of baggage with the diagnosis, unfortunately,” he said in the interview. “And it’s all connected. … It’s very likely that the [central] pain signaling is triggered by the inflammatory pain in the first place.”

A New Look at Sex-Specific Incidence of AS

The study on AS in a retrospective cohort of 729,000 working-age US military service members “flew under the radar,” but its finding of a similar incidence in men and women who underwent screening for chronic back pain is “fascinating,” Dr. Ruderman said. Compared with females, men were not significantly more likely to have a diagnosis of AS (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.61-1.02; P = .072), the researchers reported.

“We’ve always assumed that AS is a male disease, and that, as we got into nonradiographic axSpA, we would see more women. This study calls that into question,” he said.

More Light on bDMARD Dosage Extension and Withdrawal

The GO-BACK study of the TNF inhibitor golimumab (Simponi) randomized 188 patients with inactive nonradiographic axSpA after 6 months of 50 mg golimumab monthly to treatment withdrawal/monthly placebo, continued monthly treatment, or treatment every 2 months. The take-home message, Dr. Ruderman said, is that “withdrawal, but not reduction in dose, led to a higher risk of flare.”

Also notable in this study published in 2023 is that “almost 100% of those who flared were recaptured with the reinitiation of monthly dosing,” he said. “So you don’t lose if you try to stop … [although] I don’t think that will ever be a successful strategy.” (The proportion of patients without a disease flare over 12 months was 34% in the withdrawal group, 68% in the extended dosing group, and 84% in the continued monthly treatment group.)

Dosing extensions have been shown to be potentially viable with other biologics, “but with this one, it looks like you can spread it out almost with impunity because it doesn’t look like there’s much difference” between continuing monthly and extending, Dr. Kavanaugh commented.

Another study from 2023 of the IL-17A inhibitor ixekizumab in axSpA similarly showed a high recapture rate for patients who withdrew from therapy and then flared. In this phase 3 extension study in which 155 patients with inactive or low-level disease were randomized at week 24 to continued ixekizumab or placebo, 53% of placebo patients flared by 2 years, compared with 13% in the ixekizumab arm. Of those who flared, 96% recaptured low disease activity with re-initiation of therapy.

“It’s the same story. You might get away with [stopping the therapy] because it’s not 100% who flared. But is it worth it?” Dr. Ruderman said.

IL-23 Inhibition in Axial Disease and the Pipeline

Is the chapter on IL-23 inhibitors closed for axSpA? Aside from a possible role for axial disease in psoriatic arthritis (PsA), it likely is, Dr. Ruderman said, pointing to the phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of tildrakizumab in patients with AS that was terminated at week 24 after the drug showed no difference in efficacy from placebo.

Dr. Kavanaugh agreed. “This adds to the data on risankizumab and ustekinumab in studies done properly in AS,” he said. “There’s no benefit.”

The “real issue” still to be determined, said Dr. Ruderman, “is what is the role of IL-23 inhibitors in patients with axial PsA?”

A post-hoc analysis of data from the SELECT PsA 1 and 2 trials, published in 2023, showed greater improvement in the overall Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score in patients with axial disease who received 15 mg upadacitinib (Rinvoq), compared with placebo.

“It suggests there’s improvement in the patients with axial PsA as defined [by a high BASDAI score], but they didn’t compare this with patients without axial disease … it’s muddy,” Dr. Ruderman said. Other research that’s underway should provide clarity, Dr. Kavanaugh said.

The pipeline for new treatments for SpA, including axSpA, is focused on new biologics targeting the IL-17 pathways, as well as a fair number of targeted synthetics, Dr. Ruderman said. “What will be interesting to me is what happens with the TYK2 inhibitors … because one of the postulated mechanisms is that the IL-23 signals through TYK-2,” he said. “So if that’s the mechanism, will they really help our patients with axial disease? We need the trials to find out.”

The intravenous formulation of secukinumab, approved in 2023 for AS, nr-axSpA, and PsA, is a “nice addition to our armamentarium, Dr. Ruderman noted in his 2023 review. “For years, a patient doing well on an IL-17 inhibitor for their axial disease or their psoriatic disease would hit Medicare age and suddenly couldn’t afford subcutaneous administration, and we had to switch them over to an IV-TNF inhibitor,” he said. “Now we have an IV IL-17 inhibitor.”

Tools to screen for spondyloarthritis (SpA) among people with the extra-musculoskeletal conditions that commonly co-occur with SpA — psoriasis, uveitis, and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) — show potential for their use in target populations but have limited generalizability for patients at risk for SpA, according to findings from a scoping review of 18 tools.

Prior to the review comparing available tools, first author Vartika Kesarwani, MBBS, of the University of Connecticut, Farmington, and colleagues wrote that the performance of SpA screening tools in dermatology, ophthalmology, and gastroenterology contexts had not been evaluated.

“Given the evolving landscape of therapeutics for spondyloarthritis, recognizing the full spectrum of disease manifestations in individual patients becomes increasingly important. This knowledge can inform treatment decisions, potentially altering the course of the disease,” corresponding author Joerg Ermann, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

In the study, published on February 1 in Arthritis Care & Research, the investigators identified 13 SpA screening tools for psoriasis (screening specifically for psoriatic arthritis), two for uveitis, and three for IBD. All tools with the exception of one for uveitis were patient-oriented questionnaires with an average completion time of less than 5 minutes.

Overall, the researchers found significant variability in the nature of the questions used to identify clinical features of SpA; 15 tools included at least one question on back pain or stiffness; 16 tools had at least one question on joint pain, swelling, or inflammation; 10 included questions about heel or elbow pain; and 10 included questions about swelling of digits.

All 13 of the psoriasis tools were screened for peripheral arthritis, while 10 screened for axial involvement, eight screened for enthesitis, and eight screened for dactylitis.

All three of the IBD tools were screened for axial involvement and peripheral arthritis, and two were screened for enthesitis and dactylitis.

Both of the uveitis tools were screened for axial involvement, but neither was screened for peripheral arthritis, enthesitis, or dactylitis.

Sensitivities in the primary validation groups were similar for the 16 tools for which sensitivities were reported, ranging mainly from 82% to 92% for 11 psoriasis tools, 91% to 96% for uveitis tools, and 83% to 93% for IBD tools.

Specificities for psoriasis tools ranged from 69% to 83% for all but two of the tools, which was 46% for one and 35%-89% for another across three geographical cohorts. For uveitis tools, specificities were 91%-97% for uveitis tools, and for IBD tools, 77%-90%. Most of the secondary validations involved psoriasis tools, and these were generally lower and also more variable.
 

The Case for a Generic Tool

The relatively few SpA tools for patients with uveitis and IBD, compared with psoriasis, may be attributable to a lack of awareness of the association between these conditions on the part of ophthalmologists and gastroenterologists, the researchers wrote in their discussion. Therefore, a generic SpA screening tool that could apply to any extra-articular manifestation might increase screening across clinical settings and streamline rheumatology referrals, they noted.

The review’s findings were limited by several factors, including the inclusion of only articles in English and the relatively few tools for uveitis and IBD patients, the researchers noted.

The findings suggested that although the performances of the tools are similar, their degree of variability supports the value of a generic tool, they concluded.
 

Streamlining to Increase Screening

“Compared to the large amount of research in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, relatively little has been done with regard to screening for spondyloarthritis in patients with uveitis or IBD,” Dr. Ermann told this news organization. “Despite the numerous screening tools developed for psoriatic arthritis, no ideal screening tool has emerged, and the implementation of effective screening strategies in clinical practice is challenging,” he said. In the current study, the compartmentalization of research into individual conditions like psoriasis, uveitis, and IBD was notable despite the interconnected nature of these conditions with SpA, he added.

In practice, Dr. Ermann advised clinicians to maintain a high index of suspicion for SpA in patients presenting with psoriasis, uveitis, or IBD and proactively ask patients about symptoms outside their primary specialty.

“Future research should focus on developing a universal spondyloarthritis screening tool that is comprehensive, easily understandable, and can be used across various clinical settings,” he said.
 

Need for Early Identification and Closer Collaboration

A delay in SpA diagnosis of as little as 6 months can lead to worse outcomes, Rebecca Haberman, MD, a rheumatologist at NYU Langone Health, New York City, said in an interview. “Patients with these conditions may first present to dermatologists, gastroenterologists, and/or ophthalmologists before rheumatologic evaluation. If we can identify these patients early at this stage, we might be able to improve outcomes, but the question remains of how we get these patients to the proper care,” she said.

The review examined the currently available screening tools for use in patients with psoriasis, IBD, and uveitis and highlights the heterogeneity of these tools in terms of use and disease characteristics, as well as the lack of tools for use in gastroenterology and ophthalmology offices, Dr. Haberman said.

The review “proposes several important ideas, such as creating a unified screening tool that can be used across diseases and fields, to reduce confusion by providers and help provide standardization of the referral process to rheumatologists,” she said.

“Even though SpA is prevalent in many patients with psoriasis, IBD, and uveitis, it remains very underdiagnosed, and often referrals to rheumatologists are not made,” Dr. Haberman told this news organization. Diagnostic challenges likely include SpA’s heterogeneous presentation, the specialists’ lack of knowledge regarding the connection between these conditions and joint disease, and time pressures in clinical settings, she said.

“Other practitioners are not always trained to ask about joint pain and often have limited time in their exams to ask additional questions. To overcome this, more collaboration is needed between dermatologists, gastroenterologists, ophthalmologists, and rheumatologists, as many of our diseases live in the same family,” Dr. Haberman said.

Improving clinician education and creating relationships can help facilitate questions and referrals, she said. Short, effective screening tools that can be filled out by the patient may also help overcome specialists’ discomfort about asking musculoskeletal-related questions and would save time in the clinical visit, she said.

More research is needed to identify the best screening tools and questions and which are the most highly sensitive and specific, Dr. Haberman said. “This will allow for rheumatologists to see patients who may have SpA earlier in their course without overwhelming the system with new referrals.” In addition, more work is needed on how and whether screening tools are being used in clinical practice, not just in research studies, she said.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The researchers and Dr. Haberman had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Tools to screen for spondyloarthritis (SpA) among people with the extra-musculoskeletal conditions that commonly co-occur with SpA — psoriasis, uveitis, and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) — show potential for their use in target populations but have limited generalizability for patients at risk for SpA, according to findings from a scoping review of 18 tools.

Prior to the review comparing available tools, first author Vartika Kesarwani, MBBS, of the University of Connecticut, Farmington, and colleagues wrote that the performance of SpA screening tools in dermatology, ophthalmology, and gastroenterology contexts had not been evaluated.

“Given the evolving landscape of therapeutics for spondyloarthritis, recognizing the full spectrum of disease manifestations in individual patients becomes increasingly important. This knowledge can inform treatment decisions, potentially altering the course of the disease,” corresponding author Joerg Ermann, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

In the study, published on February 1 in Arthritis Care & Research, the investigators identified 13 SpA screening tools for psoriasis (screening specifically for psoriatic arthritis), two for uveitis, and three for IBD. All tools with the exception of one for uveitis were patient-oriented questionnaires with an average completion time of less than 5 minutes.

Overall, the researchers found significant variability in the nature of the questions used to identify clinical features of SpA; 15 tools included at least one question on back pain or stiffness; 16 tools had at least one question on joint pain, swelling, or inflammation; 10 included questions about heel or elbow pain; and 10 included questions about swelling of digits.

All 13 of the psoriasis tools were screened for peripheral arthritis, while 10 screened for axial involvement, eight screened for enthesitis, and eight screened for dactylitis.

All three of the IBD tools were screened for axial involvement and peripheral arthritis, and two were screened for enthesitis and dactylitis.

Both of the uveitis tools were screened for axial involvement, but neither was screened for peripheral arthritis, enthesitis, or dactylitis.

Sensitivities in the primary validation groups were similar for the 16 tools for which sensitivities were reported, ranging mainly from 82% to 92% for 11 psoriasis tools, 91% to 96% for uveitis tools, and 83% to 93% for IBD tools.

Specificities for psoriasis tools ranged from 69% to 83% for all but two of the tools, which was 46% for one and 35%-89% for another across three geographical cohorts. For uveitis tools, specificities were 91%-97% for uveitis tools, and for IBD tools, 77%-90%. Most of the secondary validations involved psoriasis tools, and these were generally lower and also more variable.
 

The Case for a Generic Tool

The relatively few SpA tools for patients with uveitis and IBD, compared with psoriasis, may be attributable to a lack of awareness of the association between these conditions on the part of ophthalmologists and gastroenterologists, the researchers wrote in their discussion. Therefore, a generic SpA screening tool that could apply to any extra-articular manifestation might increase screening across clinical settings and streamline rheumatology referrals, they noted.

The review’s findings were limited by several factors, including the inclusion of only articles in English and the relatively few tools for uveitis and IBD patients, the researchers noted.

The findings suggested that although the performances of the tools are similar, their degree of variability supports the value of a generic tool, they concluded.
 

Streamlining to Increase Screening

“Compared to the large amount of research in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, relatively little has been done with regard to screening for spondyloarthritis in patients with uveitis or IBD,” Dr. Ermann told this news organization. “Despite the numerous screening tools developed for psoriatic arthritis, no ideal screening tool has emerged, and the implementation of effective screening strategies in clinical practice is challenging,” he said. In the current study, the compartmentalization of research into individual conditions like psoriasis, uveitis, and IBD was notable despite the interconnected nature of these conditions with SpA, he added.

In practice, Dr. Ermann advised clinicians to maintain a high index of suspicion for SpA in patients presenting with psoriasis, uveitis, or IBD and proactively ask patients about symptoms outside their primary specialty.

“Future research should focus on developing a universal spondyloarthritis screening tool that is comprehensive, easily understandable, and can be used across various clinical settings,” he said.
 

Need for Early Identification and Closer Collaboration

A delay in SpA diagnosis of as little as 6 months can lead to worse outcomes, Rebecca Haberman, MD, a rheumatologist at NYU Langone Health, New York City, said in an interview. “Patients with these conditions may first present to dermatologists, gastroenterologists, and/or ophthalmologists before rheumatologic evaluation. If we can identify these patients early at this stage, we might be able to improve outcomes, but the question remains of how we get these patients to the proper care,” she said.

The review examined the currently available screening tools for use in patients with psoriasis, IBD, and uveitis and highlights the heterogeneity of these tools in terms of use and disease characteristics, as well as the lack of tools for use in gastroenterology and ophthalmology offices, Dr. Haberman said.

The review “proposes several important ideas, such as creating a unified screening tool that can be used across diseases and fields, to reduce confusion by providers and help provide standardization of the referral process to rheumatologists,” she said.

“Even though SpA is prevalent in many patients with psoriasis, IBD, and uveitis, it remains very underdiagnosed, and often referrals to rheumatologists are not made,” Dr. Haberman told this news organization. Diagnostic challenges likely include SpA’s heterogeneous presentation, the specialists’ lack of knowledge regarding the connection between these conditions and joint disease, and time pressures in clinical settings, she said.

“Other practitioners are not always trained to ask about joint pain and often have limited time in their exams to ask additional questions. To overcome this, more collaboration is needed between dermatologists, gastroenterologists, ophthalmologists, and rheumatologists, as many of our diseases live in the same family,” Dr. Haberman said.

Improving clinician education and creating relationships can help facilitate questions and referrals, she said. Short, effective screening tools that can be filled out by the patient may also help overcome specialists’ discomfort about asking musculoskeletal-related questions and would save time in the clinical visit, she said.

More research is needed to identify the best screening tools and questions and which are the most highly sensitive and specific, Dr. Haberman said. “This will allow for rheumatologists to see patients who may have SpA earlier in their course without overwhelming the system with new referrals.” In addition, more work is needed on how and whether screening tools are being used in clinical practice, not just in research studies, she said.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The researchers and Dr. Haberman had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Tools to screen for spondyloarthritis (SpA) among people with the extra-musculoskeletal conditions that commonly co-occur with SpA — psoriasis, uveitis, and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) — show potential for their use in target populations but have limited generalizability for patients at risk for SpA, according to findings from a scoping review of 18 tools.

Prior to the review comparing available tools, first author Vartika Kesarwani, MBBS, of the University of Connecticut, Farmington, and colleagues wrote that the performance of SpA screening tools in dermatology, ophthalmology, and gastroenterology contexts had not been evaluated.

“Given the evolving landscape of therapeutics for spondyloarthritis, recognizing the full spectrum of disease manifestations in individual patients becomes increasingly important. This knowledge can inform treatment decisions, potentially altering the course of the disease,” corresponding author Joerg Ermann, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

In the study, published on February 1 in Arthritis Care & Research, the investigators identified 13 SpA screening tools for psoriasis (screening specifically for psoriatic arthritis), two for uveitis, and three for IBD. All tools with the exception of one for uveitis were patient-oriented questionnaires with an average completion time of less than 5 minutes.

Overall, the researchers found significant variability in the nature of the questions used to identify clinical features of SpA; 15 tools included at least one question on back pain or stiffness; 16 tools had at least one question on joint pain, swelling, or inflammation; 10 included questions about heel or elbow pain; and 10 included questions about swelling of digits.

All 13 of the psoriasis tools were screened for peripheral arthritis, while 10 screened for axial involvement, eight screened for enthesitis, and eight screened for dactylitis.

All three of the IBD tools were screened for axial involvement and peripheral arthritis, and two were screened for enthesitis and dactylitis.

Both of the uveitis tools were screened for axial involvement, but neither was screened for peripheral arthritis, enthesitis, or dactylitis.

Sensitivities in the primary validation groups were similar for the 16 tools for which sensitivities were reported, ranging mainly from 82% to 92% for 11 psoriasis tools, 91% to 96% for uveitis tools, and 83% to 93% for IBD tools.

Specificities for psoriasis tools ranged from 69% to 83% for all but two of the tools, which was 46% for one and 35%-89% for another across three geographical cohorts. For uveitis tools, specificities were 91%-97% for uveitis tools, and for IBD tools, 77%-90%. Most of the secondary validations involved psoriasis tools, and these were generally lower and also more variable.
 

The Case for a Generic Tool

The relatively few SpA tools for patients with uveitis and IBD, compared with psoriasis, may be attributable to a lack of awareness of the association between these conditions on the part of ophthalmologists and gastroenterologists, the researchers wrote in their discussion. Therefore, a generic SpA screening tool that could apply to any extra-articular manifestation might increase screening across clinical settings and streamline rheumatology referrals, they noted.

The review’s findings were limited by several factors, including the inclusion of only articles in English and the relatively few tools for uveitis and IBD patients, the researchers noted.

The findings suggested that although the performances of the tools are similar, their degree of variability supports the value of a generic tool, they concluded.
 

Streamlining to Increase Screening

“Compared to the large amount of research in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, relatively little has been done with regard to screening for spondyloarthritis in patients with uveitis or IBD,” Dr. Ermann told this news organization. “Despite the numerous screening tools developed for psoriatic arthritis, no ideal screening tool has emerged, and the implementation of effective screening strategies in clinical practice is challenging,” he said. In the current study, the compartmentalization of research into individual conditions like psoriasis, uveitis, and IBD was notable despite the interconnected nature of these conditions with SpA, he added.

In practice, Dr. Ermann advised clinicians to maintain a high index of suspicion for SpA in patients presenting with psoriasis, uveitis, or IBD and proactively ask patients about symptoms outside their primary specialty.

“Future research should focus on developing a universal spondyloarthritis screening tool that is comprehensive, easily understandable, and can be used across various clinical settings,” he said.
 

Need for Early Identification and Closer Collaboration

A delay in SpA diagnosis of as little as 6 months can lead to worse outcomes, Rebecca Haberman, MD, a rheumatologist at NYU Langone Health, New York City, said in an interview. “Patients with these conditions may first present to dermatologists, gastroenterologists, and/or ophthalmologists before rheumatologic evaluation. If we can identify these patients early at this stage, we might be able to improve outcomes, but the question remains of how we get these patients to the proper care,” she said.

The review examined the currently available screening tools for use in patients with psoriasis, IBD, and uveitis and highlights the heterogeneity of these tools in terms of use and disease characteristics, as well as the lack of tools for use in gastroenterology and ophthalmology offices, Dr. Haberman said.

The review “proposes several important ideas, such as creating a unified screening tool that can be used across diseases and fields, to reduce confusion by providers and help provide standardization of the referral process to rheumatologists,” she said.

“Even though SpA is prevalent in many patients with psoriasis, IBD, and uveitis, it remains very underdiagnosed, and often referrals to rheumatologists are not made,” Dr. Haberman told this news organization. Diagnostic challenges likely include SpA’s heterogeneous presentation, the specialists’ lack of knowledge regarding the connection between these conditions and joint disease, and time pressures in clinical settings, she said.

“Other practitioners are not always trained to ask about joint pain and often have limited time in their exams to ask additional questions. To overcome this, more collaboration is needed between dermatologists, gastroenterologists, ophthalmologists, and rheumatologists, as many of our diseases live in the same family,” Dr. Haberman said.

Improving clinician education and creating relationships can help facilitate questions and referrals, she said. Short, effective screening tools that can be filled out by the patient may also help overcome specialists’ discomfort about asking musculoskeletal-related questions and would save time in the clinical visit, she said.

More research is needed to identify the best screening tools and questions and which are the most highly sensitive and specific, Dr. Haberman said. “This will allow for rheumatologists to see patients who may have SpA earlier in their course without overwhelming the system with new referrals.” In addition, more work is needed on how and whether screening tools are being used in clinical practice, not just in research studies, she said.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The researchers and Dr. Haberman had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.