ACR 2024

WASHINGTON — When the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) released its updated guideline for management of lupus nephritis (LN) at its 2024 Annual Meeting, they included recommendations for managing pediatric LN for the first time. 

The pediatric recommendations use the same classification criteria, outcome measures, and treatments as in adults — including the first-line triple therapy recommendation — but there remain important differences between pediatric and adult LN, Mary Beth Son, MD, clinical chief of immunology and section chief of rheumatology at Boston Children’s Hospital in Massachusetts, and an associate professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston, told attendees. 

“In general, kids and adolescents with lupus are sicker,” Son said. They are more likely to have renal manifestations and neuropsychiatric lupus at diagnosis, compared with adults. Further, “although the disease is the same, it’s happening to kids and adolescents who are undergoing critical periods of growth and development.” 

Medication risk profiles also shift for younger patients, Son noted. 

“Importantly, they’re at risk for higher cumulative dosing of both glucocorticoids and cyclophosphamide,” Son said. “When we give an adolescent a course of cyclophosphamide, we have to be aware that this might be the first of a few courses over the course of the lifetime disease, and with increasing numbers of cyclophosphamide courses, you have increased risk for infertility and malignancy.” 

Son also acknowledged challenges of pediatric literature, including differences in definitions of pediatric lupus, very few randomized controlled trials, and fewer pediatric studies in general, with fewer participants. Given these research gaps, the guideline panels included pediatric rheumatologists and nephrologists, and the patient panel included several patients with childhood-onset disease.

Son also addressed differences in pediatric drug development. Dosing studies also do not always directly translate from adults to children because children have larger drug volume distribution and differences in drug clearance, and they may need different formulations, she said. Children tend to tolerate medications better than adults because they usually have fewer comorbidities, but the assessment of a drug’s safety must take its impact on growth and development into consideration.

During a press conference after the session where the guideline was presented, Linda Hiraki, MD, ScD, a clinician-scientist in rheumatology at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, said the panel took into consideration that pediatric patients receive their diagnosis during a critical time of development, so considerations of medication risks include the fact that children “have much more life to live.”

 

Triple Therapy Recommended

As with adults, the pediatric LN guideline recommends a triple therapy approach: glucocorticoids plus mycophenolate mofetil and belimumab, in addition to the usual renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors and hydroxychloroquine. But Son acknowledged limitations of applying the new guideline to children. For one, voclosporin has not been studied in or approved for pediatric patients, although there exists modest evidence for other calcineurin inhibitors, mainly tacrolimus, in children.

“The other important consideration is that the lower dose of prednisone that’s being offered by the guidelines of 40 mg per day as a starting dose has not been studied in pediatric lupus nephritis patients,” Son said. “However, I would offer that, given that we know that kids get higher doses and longer courses, it’s even more important to consider a lower dose to begin with in the setting of other immunosuppressants.”

 

Good Practice Statements for Pediatric LN

Son also reviewed three good practice statements for pediatric LN. First, “glucocorticoid regimens should use pediatric-appropriate doses for children, as reduction of human glucocorticoid dosing is critically important given the early age of pediatric lupus onset and attendant comorbidities,” she said.

That statement is based on both common sense and some literature, including awareness that children are more likely to receive higher doses of steroids and that children’s higher damage scores are driven in part by steroid-related toxicity, such as avascular necrosis and cataracts. In addition, glucocorticoids can have profound effects on body mass index, mood, and height attainment.

“This is during a period of emerging self-identity and struggles with appearance; steroids exacerbate that” as well as mood issues already associated with puberty, Son said.

The second good practice statement recommends that clinicians monitor patients “for delayed pubertal onset and decreased growth velocity that can result from disease activity and glucocorticoid treatment and consider referral to pediatric endocrinology if indicated.” The third states that “a structured, intentional transition from pediatric to adult rheumatology care is indicated to avoid poor outcomes during this vulnerable period.” 

During the press conference, Hiraki said that pediatric rheumatologists already recognize the need for discussions about transfer to adult care to begin very early, even years before patients are ready to transfer.

“The transition from being a pediatric patient to being an adult patient is very challenging for a number of reasons,” starting with loss of insurance coverage, added Bonnie Bermas, MD, a professor of internal medicine at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, Texas. When adult rheumatologists take on these patients, they may not have had care for 2 or 3 years, she said. 

Rebecca Sadun, MD, PhD, an associate professor of pediatrics in rheumatology at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, and vice-chair of the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Committee for the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance, was not involved in the guideline development process but reviewed the new guideline. 

“We appreciate that the ACR took care to involve pediatric rheumatologists, pediatric nephrologists, and patients with childhood-onset lupus in the development of the newest lupus nephritis treatment guidelines,” she said in an interview. She also noted, however, that “the dearth of pediatric-specific clinical trial data means that we continue to wonder when it is appropriate to extrapolate from adult data regarding the efficacy, safety, and dosing of certain medications, including steroids and voclosporin.” She also noted that voclosporin use can increase pill burden and therefore be difficult to use in pediatrics.

“Children, adolescents, and young adults are a unique population with unique challenges, including significant struggles with adherence to complex medication regimens,” she said. Sadun drew attention to two themes from the guideline that she found particularly applicable to management of pediatric LN.

“First, we must remain wary of the serious consequences of long-term, high-dose glucocorticoids, and we should continue to look towards steroid-sparing strategies that will reduce reliance on glucocorticoids,” Sadun said. “Second, we are likely to see better outcomes, including better renal response, when we take advantage of combination immunosuppression earlier in the disease course.”

Son, Bermas, and Sadun had no disclosures. Hiraki has consulted for Janssen. The guideline development did not involve outside funding.

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

WASHINGTON — When the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) released its updated guideline for management of lupus nephritis (LN) at its 2024 Annual Meeting, they included recommendations for managing pediatric LN for the first time. 

The pediatric recommendations use the same classification criteria, outcome measures, and treatments as in adults — including the first-line triple therapy recommendation — but there remain important differences between pediatric and adult LN, Mary Beth Son, MD, clinical chief of immunology and section chief of rheumatology at Boston Children’s Hospital in Massachusetts, and an associate professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston, told attendees. 

“In general, kids and adolescents with lupus are sicker,” Son said. They are more likely to have renal manifestations and neuropsychiatric lupus at diagnosis, compared with adults. Further, “although the disease is the same, it’s happening to kids and adolescents who are undergoing critical periods of growth and development.” 

Medication risk profiles also shift for younger patients, Son noted. 

“Importantly, they’re at risk for higher cumulative dosing of both glucocorticoids and cyclophosphamide,” Son said. “When we give an adolescent a course of cyclophosphamide, we have to be aware that this might be the first of a few courses over the course of the lifetime disease, and with increasing numbers of cyclophosphamide courses, you have increased risk for infertility and malignancy.” 

Son also acknowledged challenges of pediatric literature, including differences in definitions of pediatric lupus, very few randomized controlled trials, and fewer pediatric studies in general, with fewer participants. Given these research gaps, the guideline panels included pediatric rheumatologists and nephrologists, and the patient panel included several patients with childhood-onset disease.

Son also addressed differences in pediatric drug development. Dosing studies also do not always directly translate from adults to children because children have larger drug volume distribution and differences in drug clearance, and they may need different formulations, she said. Children tend to tolerate medications better than adults because they usually have fewer comorbidities, but the assessment of a drug’s safety must take its impact on growth and development into consideration.

During a press conference after the session where the guideline was presented, Linda Hiraki, MD, ScD, a clinician-scientist in rheumatology at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, said the panel took into consideration that pediatric patients receive their diagnosis during a critical time of development, so considerations of medication risks include the fact that children “have much more life to live.”

 

Triple Therapy Recommended

As with adults, the pediatric LN guideline recommends a triple therapy approach: glucocorticoids plus mycophenolate mofetil and belimumab, in addition to the usual renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors and hydroxychloroquine. But Son acknowledged limitations of applying the new guideline to children. For one, voclosporin has not been studied in or approved for pediatric patients, although there exists modest evidence for other calcineurin inhibitors, mainly tacrolimus, in children.

“The other important consideration is that the lower dose of prednisone that’s being offered by the guidelines of 40 mg per day as a starting dose has not been studied in pediatric lupus nephritis patients,” Son said. “However, I would offer that, given that we know that kids get higher doses and longer courses, it’s even more important to consider a lower dose to begin with in the setting of other immunosuppressants.”

 

Good Practice Statements for Pediatric LN

Son also reviewed three good practice statements for pediatric LN. First, “glucocorticoid regimens should use pediatric-appropriate doses for children, as reduction of human glucocorticoid dosing is critically important given the early age of pediatric lupus onset and attendant comorbidities,” she said.

That statement is based on both common sense and some literature, including awareness that children are more likely to receive higher doses of steroids and that children’s higher damage scores are driven in part by steroid-related toxicity, such as avascular necrosis and cataracts. In addition, glucocorticoids can have profound effects on body mass index, mood, and height attainment.

“This is during a period of emerging self-identity and struggles with appearance; steroids exacerbate that” as well as mood issues already associated with puberty, Son said.

The second good practice statement recommends that clinicians monitor patients “for delayed pubertal onset and decreased growth velocity that can result from disease activity and glucocorticoid treatment and consider referral to pediatric endocrinology if indicated.” The third states that “a structured, intentional transition from pediatric to adult rheumatology care is indicated to avoid poor outcomes during this vulnerable period.” 

During the press conference, Hiraki said that pediatric rheumatologists already recognize the need for discussions about transfer to adult care to begin very early, even years before patients are ready to transfer.

“The transition from being a pediatric patient to being an adult patient is very challenging for a number of reasons,” starting with loss of insurance coverage, added Bonnie Bermas, MD, a professor of internal medicine at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, Texas. When adult rheumatologists take on these patients, they may not have had care for 2 or 3 years, she said. 

Rebecca Sadun, MD, PhD, an associate professor of pediatrics in rheumatology at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, and vice-chair of the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Committee for the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance, was not involved in the guideline development process but reviewed the new guideline. 

“We appreciate that the ACR took care to involve pediatric rheumatologists, pediatric nephrologists, and patients with childhood-onset lupus in the development of the newest lupus nephritis treatment guidelines,” she said in an interview. She also noted, however, that “the dearth of pediatric-specific clinical trial data means that we continue to wonder when it is appropriate to extrapolate from adult data regarding the efficacy, safety, and dosing of certain medications, including steroids and voclosporin.” She also noted that voclosporin use can increase pill burden and therefore be difficult to use in pediatrics.

“Children, adolescents, and young adults are a unique population with unique challenges, including significant struggles with adherence to complex medication regimens,” she said. Sadun drew attention to two themes from the guideline that she found particularly applicable to management of pediatric LN.

“First, we must remain wary of the serious consequences of long-term, high-dose glucocorticoids, and we should continue to look towards steroid-sparing strategies that will reduce reliance on glucocorticoids,” Sadun said. “Second, we are likely to see better outcomes, including better renal response, when we take advantage of combination immunosuppression earlier in the disease course.”

Son, Bermas, and Sadun had no disclosures. Hiraki has consulted for Janssen. The guideline development did not involve outside funding.

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

WASHINGTON — When the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) released its updated guideline for management of lupus nephritis (LN) at its 2024 Annual Meeting, they included recommendations for managing pediatric LN for the first time. 

The pediatric recommendations use the same classification criteria, outcome measures, and treatments as in adults — including the first-line triple therapy recommendation — but there remain important differences between pediatric and adult LN, Mary Beth Son, MD, clinical chief of immunology and section chief of rheumatology at Boston Children’s Hospital in Massachusetts, and an associate professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston, told attendees. 

“In general, kids and adolescents with lupus are sicker,” Son said. They are more likely to have renal manifestations and neuropsychiatric lupus at diagnosis, compared with adults. Further, “although the disease is the same, it’s happening to kids and adolescents who are undergoing critical periods of growth and development.” 

Medication risk profiles also shift for younger patients, Son noted. 

“Importantly, they’re at risk for higher cumulative dosing of both glucocorticoids and cyclophosphamide,” Son said. “When we give an adolescent a course of cyclophosphamide, we have to be aware that this might be the first of a few courses over the course of the lifetime disease, and with increasing numbers of cyclophosphamide courses, you have increased risk for infertility and malignancy.” 

Son also acknowledged challenges of pediatric literature, including differences in definitions of pediatric lupus, very few randomized controlled trials, and fewer pediatric studies in general, with fewer participants. Given these research gaps, the guideline panels included pediatric rheumatologists and nephrologists, and the patient panel included several patients with childhood-onset disease.

Son also addressed differences in pediatric drug development. Dosing studies also do not always directly translate from adults to children because children have larger drug volume distribution and differences in drug clearance, and they may need different formulations, she said. Children tend to tolerate medications better than adults because they usually have fewer comorbidities, but the assessment of a drug’s safety must take its impact on growth and development into consideration.

During a press conference after the session where the guideline was presented, Linda Hiraki, MD, ScD, a clinician-scientist in rheumatology at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, said the panel took into consideration that pediatric patients receive their diagnosis during a critical time of development, so considerations of medication risks include the fact that children “have much more life to live.”

 

Triple Therapy Recommended

As with adults, the pediatric LN guideline recommends a triple therapy approach: glucocorticoids plus mycophenolate mofetil and belimumab, in addition to the usual renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors and hydroxychloroquine. But Son acknowledged limitations of applying the new guideline to children. For one, voclosporin has not been studied in or approved for pediatric patients, although there exists modest evidence for other calcineurin inhibitors, mainly tacrolimus, in children.

“The other important consideration is that the lower dose of prednisone that’s being offered by the guidelines of 40 mg per day as a starting dose has not been studied in pediatric lupus nephritis patients,” Son said. “However, I would offer that, given that we know that kids get higher doses and longer courses, it’s even more important to consider a lower dose to begin with in the setting of other immunosuppressants.”

 

Good Practice Statements for Pediatric LN

Son also reviewed three good practice statements for pediatric LN. First, “glucocorticoid regimens should use pediatric-appropriate doses for children, as reduction of human glucocorticoid dosing is critically important given the early age of pediatric lupus onset and attendant comorbidities,” she said.

That statement is based on both common sense and some literature, including awareness that children are more likely to receive higher doses of steroids and that children’s higher damage scores are driven in part by steroid-related toxicity, such as avascular necrosis and cataracts. In addition, glucocorticoids can have profound effects on body mass index, mood, and height attainment.

“This is during a period of emerging self-identity and struggles with appearance; steroids exacerbate that” as well as mood issues already associated with puberty, Son said.

The second good practice statement recommends that clinicians monitor patients “for delayed pubertal onset and decreased growth velocity that can result from disease activity and glucocorticoid treatment and consider referral to pediatric endocrinology if indicated.” The third states that “a structured, intentional transition from pediatric to adult rheumatology care is indicated to avoid poor outcomes during this vulnerable period.” 

During the press conference, Hiraki said that pediatric rheumatologists already recognize the need for discussions about transfer to adult care to begin very early, even years before patients are ready to transfer.

“The transition from being a pediatric patient to being an adult patient is very challenging for a number of reasons,” starting with loss of insurance coverage, added Bonnie Bermas, MD, a professor of internal medicine at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, Texas. When adult rheumatologists take on these patients, they may not have had care for 2 or 3 years, she said. 

Rebecca Sadun, MD, PhD, an associate professor of pediatrics in rheumatology at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, and vice-chair of the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Committee for the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance, was not involved in the guideline development process but reviewed the new guideline. 

“We appreciate that the ACR took care to involve pediatric rheumatologists, pediatric nephrologists, and patients with childhood-onset lupus in the development of the newest lupus nephritis treatment guidelines,” she said in an interview. She also noted, however, that “the dearth of pediatric-specific clinical trial data means that we continue to wonder when it is appropriate to extrapolate from adult data regarding the efficacy, safety, and dosing of certain medications, including steroids and voclosporin.” She also noted that voclosporin use can increase pill burden and therefore be difficult to use in pediatrics.

“Children, adolescents, and young adults are a unique population with unique challenges, including significant struggles with adherence to complex medication regimens,” she said. Sadun drew attention to two themes from the guideline that she found particularly applicable to management of pediatric LN.

“First, we must remain wary of the serious consequences of long-term, high-dose glucocorticoids, and we should continue to look towards steroid-sparing strategies that will reduce reliance on glucocorticoids,” Sadun said. “Second, we are likely to see better outcomes, including better renal response, when we take advantage of combination immunosuppression earlier in the disease course.”

Son, Bermas, and Sadun had no disclosures. Hiraki has consulted for Janssen. The guideline development did not involve outside funding.

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

WASHINGTON — Investigational treatments aimed specifically at reducing pain in knee osteoarthritis (OA) are moving forward in parallel with disease-modifying approaches.

“We still have very few treatments for the pain of osteoarthritis…It worries me that people think the only way forward is structure modification. I think while we’re waiting for some drugs to be structure modifying, we still need more pain relief. About 70% of people can’t tolerate or shouldn’t be on a [nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug], and that leaves a large number of people with pain,” Philip Conaghan, MBBS, PhD, Chair of Musculoskeletal Medicine at the University of Leeds in England, said in an interview.

At the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, Conaghan, who is also honorary consultant rheumatologist for the Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, presented new data for two novel approaches, both targeting peripheral nociceptive pain signaling.

In a late-breaking poster, he presented phase 2 trial data on RTX-GRT7039 (resiniferatoxin [RTX]), an agonist of the transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 that is a driver of OA pain. The trial investigated the efficacy and safety of a single intra-articular injection of RTX-GRT7039 in people with knee OA.

And separately, in a late-breaking oral abstract session, Conaghan presented phase 2 trial safety and efficacy data for another investigational agent called LEVI-04, a first-in-class neurotrophin receptor fusion protein (p75NTR-Fc) that supplements the endogenous protein and provides analgesia via inhibition of NT-3 activity.

“I think both have potential to provide good pain relief, through slightly different mechanisms,” Conaghan said in an interview.

Asked to comment, session moderator Gregory C. Gardner, MD, emeritus professor in the Division of Rheumatology at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview: “I think the results are really exciting terms of the ability to control pain to a significant degree in patients with osteoarthritis.”

However, Gardner also said, “The molecules can be very expensive ... so who do we give them to? Will insurance companies pay for this simply for OA pain? They improve function ... so clearly, [they] will be a boon to treating osteoarthritis, but do we give them to people with only more advanced forms of osteoarthritis or earlier on?”

Moreover, Gardner said, “One of my concerns about treating osteoarthritis is I don’t want to do too good of a job treating pain in somebody who has a biomechanically abnormal joint. ... You’ve got a knee that’s worn out some of the cartilage, and now you feel like you can go out and play soccer again. That’s not a good thing. That joint will wear out very quickly, even though it doesn’t feel pain.”

Another OA expert, Matlock Jeffries, MD, director of the Arthritis Research Unit at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, said in an interview, “I think we don’t focus nearly enough on pain, and that’s [partly] because the [Food and Drug Administration] has defined endpoints for knee OA trials that are radiographic. ... Patients do not care what their joint space narrowing is. They care what their pain is. And joint space changes and pain do not correlate in knee OA. ... About 20% or 30% of patients who have completely normal x-rays have a lot of pain…I hope that we’ll have some new OA pain therapeutics in the future because that’s what patients actually care about.”

But Jeffries noted that it will be very important to ensure that these agents don’t produce significant side effects, as had been seen previously in several large industry-sponsored trials of drugs targeting nerve growth factors.

“The big concern that we have in the field ... is that the nerve growth factor antibody trials were all stopped because there was a low but persistent risk of rapidly progressive OA in a small percent of patients. I think one of the questions in the field is whether targeting other things having to do with OA pain is going to result in similar bad outcomes. I think the answer is probably not, but that’s one thing that people do worry about, and they never really figured out why the [rapidly progressive OA] was happening.”

 

‘Potential to Provide Meaningful and Sustained Analgesia’

The phase 2 trial of RTX-GRT7039, funded by manufacturer Grünenthal, enrolled 40 patients with a baseline visual analog pain score (VAS) of > 40 mm on motion for average joint pain in the target knee over the past 2 days with or without analgesic medication and Kellgren-Lawrence grades 2-4.

They were randomized to receive a single intra-articular injection of 2 mg or 4 mg RTX-GRT7039 within 1 minute after receiving 5 mL ropivacaine (0.5%) or 4 mg or 8 mg RTX-GRT7039 administered 15 minutes after 5 mL ropivacaine pretreatment, or equivalent placebo treatments plus ropivacaine.

Plasma samples were collected for up to 2 hours, and VAS pain scores were collected for up to 3 hours post injection.

Reductions in VAS scores from baseline in the treated knee were seen in all RTX treatment groups as early as day 8 post injection and were maintained up to 6 months, while no reductions in VAS pain on motion scores were seen in the placebo group.

At 3 months, the absolute baseline-adjusted reductions in VAS scores were similar for RTX 2 mg (–39.75), RTX 4 mg (–40.20), and RTX 8 mg (–30.25), while the reduction in the placebo group was just –8.50. At 6 months, the mean absolute reduction in VAS score was numerically greater in the RTX 2-mg (–46.49), RTX 4-mg (–43.40), and RTX 8-mg (–38.60) groups vs the group that received RTX 4 mg within 1 minute after receiving ropivacaine (–22.00).

At both 3 and 6 months, a higher proportion of patients receiving any dose of RTX-GRT7039 achieved ≥ 50% and ≥ 70% reduction in pain on motion, compared with those who received placebo. All RTX-GRT7039 treatment groups reported a greater improvement in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total score than the placebo group at both 3 and 6 months.

Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between the RTX groups (85.7%-90.9%) and placebo (85.7%) and slightly lower in the group that received RTX 4 mg within 1 minute of receiving ropivacaine (60.0%).

There was a trend toward greater procedural/injection site pain in the RTX treatment groups, compared with placebo, most commonly arthralgia (37.5%), headache (17.5%), and back pain (10%). This tended to peak around 0.5 hours post injection and resolve by 1.5-3.0 hours.

No treatment-related serious adverse events occurred, and no treatment-emergent adverse events led to discontinuation or death.

“This early-phase trial indicates that RTX-GRT7039 has the potential to provide meaningful and sustained analgesia for patients with knee OA pain,” Conaghan and colleagues wrote in their poster.

The drug is now being evaluated in three phase 3 trials (NCT05248386, NCT05449132, and NCT05377489).

 

LEVI-04: Modulation of NT-3 Appears to Work Safely

LEVI-04 was evaluated in a phase 2, 20-week, 13-center (Europe and Hong Kong) randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 518 people with knee OA who had WOMAC pain subscale scores ≥ 20, mean average daily pain numeric rating scale score of 4-9, and radiographic Kellgren-Lawrence grade ≥ 2.

They were randomized to a total of five infusions of placebo or 0.3 mg/kg, 0.1 mg/kg, or 2 mg/kg LEVI-04 from baseline through week 16, with safety follow-up to week 30.

The primary endpoint, change in WOMAC pain from baseline to weeks 5 and 17, was met for all three doses. At 17 weeks, those were –2.79, –2.89, and –3.08 for 0.3 mg, 1.0 mg, and 2 mg, respectively, vs –2.28 for placebo (all P < .05).

Secondary endpoints, including WOMAC physical function, WOMAC stiffness, and Patient Global Assessment, and > 50% pain responders, were also all met at weeks 5 and 17. More than 50% of the LEVI-04–treated patients reported ≥ 50% reduction in pain, and > 25% reported ≥ 75% reduction at weeks 5 and 17.

“So, this modulation of NT-3 is working,” Conaghan commented.

There were no increased incidences of severe adverse events, treatment-emergent adverse events, or joint pathologies, including rapidly progressive OA, compared with placebo.

There were more paresthesias reported with the active drug, 2-4 vs 1 with placebo. “That says to me that the drug is working and that it’s having an effect on peripheral nerves, but luckily these were all mild or moderate and didn’t lead to any study withdrawal or discontinuation,” Conaghan said.

Phase 3 trials are in the planning stages, he noted.

 

Other Approaches to Treating OA Pain

Other approaches to treating OA pain have included methotrexate, for which Conaghan was also a coauthor on one paper that came out earlier in 2024. “This presumably works by treating inflammation, but it’s not clear if that is within-joint inflammation or systemic inflammation,” he said in an interview.

Another approach, using the weight loss drug semaglutide, was presented in April 2024 at the 2024 World Congress on Osteoarthritis annual meeting and published in October 2024 in The New England Journal of Medicine

The trial involving RTX-GRT7039 was funded by Grünenthal, and some study coauthors are employees of the company. The trial involving LEVI-04 was funded by Levicept, and some study coauthors are employees of the company. Conaghan is a consultant and/or speaker for Eli Lilly, Eupraxia Pharmaceuticals, Formation Bio, Galapagos, Genascence, GlaxoSmithKline, Grünenthal, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Kolon TissueGene, Levicept, Medipost, Moebius, Novartis, Pacira, Sandoz, Stryker Corporation, and Takeda. Gardner and Jeffries had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — Investigational treatments aimed specifically at reducing pain in knee osteoarthritis (OA) are moving forward in parallel with disease-modifying approaches.

“We still have very few treatments for the pain of osteoarthritis…It worries me that people think the only way forward is structure modification. I think while we’re waiting for some drugs to be structure modifying, we still need more pain relief. About 70% of people can’t tolerate or shouldn’t be on a [nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug], and that leaves a large number of people with pain,” Philip Conaghan, MBBS, PhD, Chair of Musculoskeletal Medicine at the University of Leeds in England, said in an interview.

At the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, Conaghan, who is also honorary consultant rheumatologist for the Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, presented new data for two novel approaches, both targeting peripheral nociceptive pain signaling.

In a late-breaking poster, he presented phase 2 trial data on RTX-GRT7039 (resiniferatoxin [RTX]), an agonist of the transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 that is a driver of OA pain. The trial investigated the efficacy and safety of a single intra-articular injection of RTX-GRT7039 in people with knee OA.

And separately, in a late-breaking oral abstract session, Conaghan presented phase 2 trial safety and efficacy data for another investigational agent called LEVI-04, a first-in-class neurotrophin receptor fusion protein (p75NTR-Fc) that supplements the endogenous protein and provides analgesia via inhibition of NT-3 activity.

“I think both have potential to provide good pain relief, through slightly different mechanisms,” Conaghan said in an interview.

Asked to comment, session moderator Gregory C. Gardner, MD, emeritus professor in the Division of Rheumatology at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview: “I think the results are really exciting terms of the ability to control pain to a significant degree in patients with osteoarthritis.”

However, Gardner also said, “The molecules can be very expensive ... so who do we give them to? Will insurance companies pay for this simply for OA pain? They improve function ... so clearly, [they] will be a boon to treating osteoarthritis, but do we give them to people with only more advanced forms of osteoarthritis or earlier on?”

Moreover, Gardner said, “One of my concerns about treating osteoarthritis is I don’t want to do too good of a job treating pain in somebody who has a biomechanically abnormal joint. ... You’ve got a knee that’s worn out some of the cartilage, and now you feel like you can go out and play soccer again. That’s not a good thing. That joint will wear out very quickly, even though it doesn’t feel pain.”

Another OA expert, Matlock Jeffries, MD, director of the Arthritis Research Unit at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, said in an interview, “I think we don’t focus nearly enough on pain, and that’s [partly] because the [Food and Drug Administration] has defined endpoints for knee OA trials that are radiographic. ... Patients do not care what their joint space narrowing is. They care what their pain is. And joint space changes and pain do not correlate in knee OA. ... About 20% or 30% of patients who have completely normal x-rays have a lot of pain…I hope that we’ll have some new OA pain therapeutics in the future because that’s what patients actually care about.”

But Jeffries noted that it will be very important to ensure that these agents don’t produce significant side effects, as had been seen previously in several large industry-sponsored trials of drugs targeting nerve growth factors.

“The big concern that we have in the field ... is that the nerve growth factor antibody trials were all stopped because there was a low but persistent risk of rapidly progressive OA in a small percent of patients. I think one of the questions in the field is whether targeting other things having to do with OA pain is going to result in similar bad outcomes. I think the answer is probably not, but that’s one thing that people do worry about, and they never really figured out why the [rapidly progressive OA] was happening.”

 

‘Potential to Provide Meaningful and Sustained Analgesia’

The phase 2 trial of RTX-GRT7039, funded by manufacturer Grünenthal, enrolled 40 patients with a baseline visual analog pain score (VAS) of > 40 mm on motion for average joint pain in the target knee over the past 2 days with or without analgesic medication and Kellgren-Lawrence grades 2-4.

They were randomized to receive a single intra-articular injection of 2 mg or 4 mg RTX-GRT7039 within 1 minute after receiving 5 mL ropivacaine (0.5%) or 4 mg or 8 mg RTX-GRT7039 administered 15 minutes after 5 mL ropivacaine pretreatment, or equivalent placebo treatments plus ropivacaine.

Plasma samples were collected for up to 2 hours, and VAS pain scores were collected for up to 3 hours post injection.

Reductions in VAS scores from baseline in the treated knee were seen in all RTX treatment groups as early as day 8 post injection and were maintained up to 6 months, while no reductions in VAS pain on motion scores were seen in the placebo group.

At 3 months, the absolute baseline-adjusted reductions in VAS scores were similar for RTX 2 mg (–39.75), RTX 4 mg (–40.20), and RTX 8 mg (–30.25), while the reduction in the placebo group was just –8.50. At 6 months, the mean absolute reduction in VAS score was numerically greater in the RTX 2-mg (–46.49), RTX 4-mg (–43.40), and RTX 8-mg (–38.60) groups vs the group that received RTX 4 mg within 1 minute after receiving ropivacaine (–22.00).

At both 3 and 6 months, a higher proportion of patients receiving any dose of RTX-GRT7039 achieved ≥ 50% and ≥ 70% reduction in pain on motion, compared with those who received placebo. All RTX-GRT7039 treatment groups reported a greater improvement in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total score than the placebo group at both 3 and 6 months.

Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between the RTX groups (85.7%-90.9%) and placebo (85.7%) and slightly lower in the group that received RTX 4 mg within 1 minute of receiving ropivacaine (60.0%).

There was a trend toward greater procedural/injection site pain in the RTX treatment groups, compared with placebo, most commonly arthralgia (37.5%), headache (17.5%), and back pain (10%). This tended to peak around 0.5 hours post injection and resolve by 1.5-3.0 hours.

No treatment-related serious adverse events occurred, and no treatment-emergent adverse events led to discontinuation or death.

“This early-phase trial indicates that RTX-GRT7039 has the potential to provide meaningful and sustained analgesia for patients with knee OA pain,” Conaghan and colleagues wrote in their poster.

The drug is now being evaluated in three phase 3 trials (NCT05248386, NCT05449132, and NCT05377489).

 

LEVI-04: Modulation of NT-3 Appears to Work Safely

LEVI-04 was evaluated in a phase 2, 20-week, 13-center (Europe and Hong Kong) randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 518 people with knee OA who had WOMAC pain subscale scores ≥ 20, mean average daily pain numeric rating scale score of 4-9, and radiographic Kellgren-Lawrence grade ≥ 2.

They were randomized to a total of five infusions of placebo or 0.3 mg/kg, 0.1 mg/kg, or 2 mg/kg LEVI-04 from baseline through week 16, with safety follow-up to week 30.

The primary endpoint, change in WOMAC pain from baseline to weeks 5 and 17, was met for all three doses. At 17 weeks, those were –2.79, –2.89, and –3.08 for 0.3 mg, 1.0 mg, and 2 mg, respectively, vs –2.28 for placebo (all P < .05).

Secondary endpoints, including WOMAC physical function, WOMAC stiffness, and Patient Global Assessment, and > 50% pain responders, were also all met at weeks 5 and 17. More than 50% of the LEVI-04–treated patients reported ≥ 50% reduction in pain, and > 25% reported ≥ 75% reduction at weeks 5 and 17.

“So, this modulation of NT-3 is working,” Conaghan commented.

There were no increased incidences of severe adverse events, treatment-emergent adverse events, or joint pathologies, including rapidly progressive OA, compared with placebo.

There were more paresthesias reported with the active drug, 2-4 vs 1 with placebo. “That says to me that the drug is working and that it’s having an effect on peripheral nerves, but luckily these were all mild or moderate and didn’t lead to any study withdrawal or discontinuation,” Conaghan said.

Phase 3 trials are in the planning stages, he noted.

 

Other Approaches to Treating OA Pain

Other approaches to treating OA pain have included methotrexate, for which Conaghan was also a coauthor on one paper that came out earlier in 2024. “This presumably works by treating inflammation, but it’s not clear if that is within-joint inflammation or systemic inflammation,” he said in an interview.

Another approach, using the weight loss drug semaglutide, was presented in April 2024 at the 2024 World Congress on Osteoarthritis annual meeting and published in October 2024 in The New England Journal of Medicine

The trial involving RTX-GRT7039 was funded by Grünenthal, and some study coauthors are employees of the company. The trial involving LEVI-04 was funded by Levicept, and some study coauthors are employees of the company. Conaghan is a consultant and/or speaker for Eli Lilly, Eupraxia Pharmaceuticals, Formation Bio, Galapagos, Genascence, GlaxoSmithKline, Grünenthal, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Kolon TissueGene, Levicept, Medipost, Moebius, Novartis, Pacira, Sandoz, Stryker Corporation, and Takeda. Gardner and Jeffries had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — Investigational treatments aimed specifically at reducing pain in knee osteoarthritis (OA) are moving forward in parallel with disease-modifying approaches.

“We still have very few treatments for the pain of osteoarthritis…It worries me that people think the only way forward is structure modification. I think while we’re waiting for some drugs to be structure modifying, we still need more pain relief. About 70% of people can’t tolerate or shouldn’t be on a [nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug], and that leaves a large number of people with pain,” Philip Conaghan, MBBS, PhD, Chair of Musculoskeletal Medicine at the University of Leeds in England, said in an interview.

At the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, Conaghan, who is also honorary consultant rheumatologist for the Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, presented new data for two novel approaches, both targeting peripheral nociceptive pain signaling.

In a late-breaking poster, he presented phase 2 trial data on RTX-GRT7039 (resiniferatoxin [RTX]), an agonist of the transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 that is a driver of OA pain. The trial investigated the efficacy and safety of a single intra-articular injection of RTX-GRT7039 in people with knee OA.

And separately, in a late-breaking oral abstract session, Conaghan presented phase 2 trial safety and efficacy data for another investigational agent called LEVI-04, a first-in-class neurotrophin receptor fusion protein (p75NTR-Fc) that supplements the endogenous protein and provides analgesia via inhibition of NT-3 activity.

“I think both have potential to provide good pain relief, through slightly different mechanisms,” Conaghan said in an interview.

Asked to comment, session moderator Gregory C. Gardner, MD, emeritus professor in the Division of Rheumatology at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview: “I think the results are really exciting terms of the ability to control pain to a significant degree in patients with osteoarthritis.”

However, Gardner also said, “The molecules can be very expensive ... so who do we give them to? Will insurance companies pay for this simply for OA pain? They improve function ... so clearly, [they] will be a boon to treating osteoarthritis, but do we give them to people with only more advanced forms of osteoarthritis or earlier on?”

Moreover, Gardner said, “One of my concerns about treating osteoarthritis is I don’t want to do too good of a job treating pain in somebody who has a biomechanically abnormal joint. ... You’ve got a knee that’s worn out some of the cartilage, and now you feel like you can go out and play soccer again. That’s not a good thing. That joint will wear out very quickly, even though it doesn’t feel pain.”

Another OA expert, Matlock Jeffries, MD, director of the Arthritis Research Unit at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, said in an interview, “I think we don’t focus nearly enough on pain, and that’s [partly] because the [Food and Drug Administration] has defined endpoints for knee OA trials that are radiographic. ... Patients do not care what their joint space narrowing is. They care what their pain is. And joint space changes and pain do not correlate in knee OA. ... About 20% or 30% of patients who have completely normal x-rays have a lot of pain…I hope that we’ll have some new OA pain therapeutics in the future because that’s what patients actually care about.”

But Jeffries noted that it will be very important to ensure that these agents don’t produce significant side effects, as had been seen previously in several large industry-sponsored trials of drugs targeting nerve growth factors.

“The big concern that we have in the field ... is that the nerve growth factor antibody trials were all stopped because there was a low but persistent risk of rapidly progressive OA in a small percent of patients. I think one of the questions in the field is whether targeting other things having to do with OA pain is going to result in similar bad outcomes. I think the answer is probably not, but that’s one thing that people do worry about, and they never really figured out why the [rapidly progressive OA] was happening.”

 

‘Potential to Provide Meaningful and Sustained Analgesia’

The phase 2 trial of RTX-GRT7039, funded by manufacturer Grünenthal, enrolled 40 patients with a baseline visual analog pain score (VAS) of > 40 mm on motion for average joint pain in the target knee over the past 2 days with or without analgesic medication and Kellgren-Lawrence grades 2-4.

They were randomized to receive a single intra-articular injection of 2 mg or 4 mg RTX-GRT7039 within 1 minute after receiving 5 mL ropivacaine (0.5%) or 4 mg or 8 mg RTX-GRT7039 administered 15 minutes after 5 mL ropivacaine pretreatment, or equivalent placebo treatments plus ropivacaine.

Plasma samples were collected for up to 2 hours, and VAS pain scores were collected for up to 3 hours post injection.

Reductions in VAS scores from baseline in the treated knee were seen in all RTX treatment groups as early as day 8 post injection and were maintained up to 6 months, while no reductions in VAS pain on motion scores were seen in the placebo group.

At 3 months, the absolute baseline-adjusted reductions in VAS scores were similar for RTX 2 mg (–39.75), RTX 4 mg (–40.20), and RTX 8 mg (–30.25), while the reduction in the placebo group was just –8.50. At 6 months, the mean absolute reduction in VAS score was numerically greater in the RTX 2-mg (–46.49), RTX 4-mg (–43.40), and RTX 8-mg (–38.60) groups vs the group that received RTX 4 mg within 1 minute after receiving ropivacaine (–22.00).

At both 3 and 6 months, a higher proportion of patients receiving any dose of RTX-GRT7039 achieved ≥ 50% and ≥ 70% reduction in pain on motion, compared with those who received placebo. All RTX-GRT7039 treatment groups reported a greater improvement in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total score than the placebo group at both 3 and 6 months.

Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between the RTX groups (85.7%-90.9%) and placebo (85.7%) and slightly lower in the group that received RTX 4 mg within 1 minute of receiving ropivacaine (60.0%).

There was a trend toward greater procedural/injection site pain in the RTX treatment groups, compared with placebo, most commonly arthralgia (37.5%), headache (17.5%), and back pain (10%). This tended to peak around 0.5 hours post injection and resolve by 1.5-3.0 hours.

No treatment-related serious adverse events occurred, and no treatment-emergent adverse events led to discontinuation or death.

“This early-phase trial indicates that RTX-GRT7039 has the potential to provide meaningful and sustained analgesia for patients with knee OA pain,” Conaghan and colleagues wrote in their poster.

The drug is now being evaluated in three phase 3 trials (NCT05248386, NCT05449132, and NCT05377489).

 

LEVI-04: Modulation of NT-3 Appears to Work Safely

LEVI-04 was evaluated in a phase 2, 20-week, 13-center (Europe and Hong Kong) randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 518 people with knee OA who had WOMAC pain subscale scores ≥ 20, mean average daily pain numeric rating scale score of 4-9, and radiographic Kellgren-Lawrence grade ≥ 2.

They were randomized to a total of five infusions of placebo or 0.3 mg/kg, 0.1 mg/kg, or 2 mg/kg LEVI-04 from baseline through week 16, with safety follow-up to week 30.

The primary endpoint, change in WOMAC pain from baseline to weeks 5 and 17, was met for all three doses. At 17 weeks, those were –2.79, –2.89, and –3.08 for 0.3 mg, 1.0 mg, and 2 mg, respectively, vs –2.28 for placebo (all P < .05).

Secondary endpoints, including WOMAC physical function, WOMAC stiffness, and Patient Global Assessment, and > 50% pain responders, were also all met at weeks 5 and 17. More than 50% of the LEVI-04–treated patients reported ≥ 50% reduction in pain, and > 25% reported ≥ 75% reduction at weeks 5 and 17.

“So, this modulation of NT-3 is working,” Conaghan commented.

There were no increased incidences of severe adverse events, treatment-emergent adverse events, or joint pathologies, including rapidly progressive OA, compared with placebo.

There were more paresthesias reported with the active drug, 2-4 vs 1 with placebo. “That says to me that the drug is working and that it’s having an effect on peripheral nerves, but luckily these were all mild or moderate and didn’t lead to any study withdrawal or discontinuation,” Conaghan said.

Phase 3 trials are in the planning stages, he noted.

 

Other Approaches to Treating OA Pain

Other approaches to treating OA pain have included methotrexate, for which Conaghan was also a coauthor on one paper that came out earlier in 2024. “This presumably works by treating inflammation, but it’s not clear if that is within-joint inflammation or systemic inflammation,” he said in an interview.

Another approach, using the weight loss drug semaglutide, was presented in April 2024 at the 2024 World Congress on Osteoarthritis annual meeting and published in October 2024 in The New England Journal of Medicine

The trial involving RTX-GRT7039 was funded by Grünenthal, and some study coauthors are employees of the company. The trial involving LEVI-04 was funded by Levicept, and some study coauthors are employees of the company. Conaghan is a consultant and/or speaker for Eli Lilly, Eupraxia Pharmaceuticals, Formation Bio, Galapagos, Genascence, GlaxoSmithKline, Grünenthal, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Kolon TissueGene, Levicept, Medipost, Moebius, Novartis, Pacira, Sandoz, Stryker Corporation, and Takeda. Gardner and Jeffries had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — A new guideline for management of lupus nephritis (LN) was unveiled at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), updating the 2012 LN guideline to recommend a more aggressive first-line approach to treating the disease.

“The biggest differences are that we are recommending what we’re calling triple therapy, where we incorporate the glucocorticoid therapy with baseline conventional immunosuppressants, usually mycophenolate with cyclophosphamide, and the addition of one of the newer agents more recently approved by the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] — belimumab, voclosporin, or another CNI [calcineurin inhibitor],” said Lisa Sammaritano, MD, director of the Rheumatology Reproductive Health Program of the Barbara Volcker Center for Women and Rheumatic Diseases at the Hospital for Special Surgery and professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, both in New York City.

“This is a bit of a change from not only our previous guideline but some of the other guidelines out there, and it is based on the fact that we have very convincing evidence that starting with triple therapy yields to better long-term outcomes for our patients than starting with only two agents and waiting to see if they respond before escalating therapy,” she said. Other key updates include recommending use of pulse glucocorticoid therapy with a lower dose and more rapid steroid taper and treating patients with the recommended therapy for 3-5 years.

The guiding principles of the guideline are not only to preserve kidney function and minimize morbidity and mortality but also to ensure collaborative care with nephrology, to utilize shared decision-making that includes patients’ values and preferences, to reduce healthcare disparities, and to consider pediatric and geriatric populations. The guidelines are based on a quantitative synthesis of 105 studies that yielded 7 strong recommendations, 21 conditional recommendations, and 13 good practice statements — those commonly accepted as beneficial or practical advice even if there is little direct evidence to support them. The voting panel of 19 members included not only 3 nephrologists and 2 pediatric rheumatologists but also 2 patient representatives with LN.

The recommendations are just that, “a recommendation, not an order,” Sammaritano said, and strong recommendations are those “where we think, unequivocally, almost everybody should follow that recommendation. When we feel that we cannot make a strong recommendation, then we call our recommendation conditional, and it is conditional on looking at different things,” she said.

“Patients are different, especially lupus patients, and so one lupus nephritis patient may have different clinical characteristics, different thoughts about what therapy will work for them in their lives, or what therapy they really do not want to pursue,” Sammaritano said. “Maybe they can’t conceive of coming to the hospital once a month for intravenous therapy. Maybe they’re concerned about pill burden, which is something that our patient panel really emphasized to us. So, conditional recommendation means this voting panel thought that this was the best overall for most patients and most circumstances, recognizing there will still be a significant number of people, clinicians and patients, who may feel differently for that particular situation. So, that’s where you know the patient-clinician discussion can help with decision-making.”

 

What Are the Recommendations?

All patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are strongly recommended to undergo proteinuria screening every 6-12 months or at the time of a flare. Those suspected of having LN should receive a prompt kidney biopsy and treatment with glucocorticoids while awaiting the biopsy and results. Two conditional recommendations for kidney biopsy include patients with SLE with unexplained impaired kidney function or a protein to creatinine ratio > 0.5 g/g, and patients with LN with a suspected flare after initial response or a lack of response or worsening after 6 months of therapy.

The guidelines include a strong recommendation for all patients with SLE to receive hydroxychloroquine and a conditional recommendation for all patients with elevated proteinuria (> 0.5 g/g) to receive renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAAS-I). Dosages in patients with LN with decreased glomerular filtration rate (GFR) should be adjusted as needed.

Sammaritano then reviewed the specifics on medication treatment. The glucocorticoid therapy in all patients with LN should begin with Pulse IV Therapy at 250-1000 mg/d for 1-3 days, followed by oral prednisone ≤ 0.5 mg/kg per day up to 40 mg/d, then tapered to a target dose > 5 mg/d within 6 months. The justification for this course comes from a 2024 systematic review finding pulse followed by oral glucocorticoids maximized complete renal response while minimizing toxicities, Sammaritano said.

“We have all become acutely aware of the very high risk of prolonged high dose of glucocorticoids for our patients,” she said, “and importantly, our patient panel participants strongly emphasized their preference for minimizing glucocorticoids dose.”

In addition to the recommendation of all patients receiving hydroxychloroquine and RAAS-I, first-line treatment of active, new-onset, or flaring LN should begin with triple therapy — glucocorticoids with two additional immunosuppressive agents. For patients with class III/IV LN, triple therapy includes the glucocorticoids course with a mycophenolic acid analog (MPAA) and either belimumab or a CNI. Conditional recommendations support MPAA with belimumab for significant extrarenal manifestations and MPAA with CNI for proteinuria ≥ 3 g/g.

An alternative triple therapy for class III/IV is glucocorticoids with low-dose cyclophosphamide and belimumab, but MPAA at 2-3 g/d is preferred over cyclophosphamide. The preferred regimen for cyclophosphamide is derived from the Euro-Lupus Nephritis Trial: Intravenous 500 mg every 2 weeks for six doses and then MPAA. Sammaritano noted that there are some limited data on using cyclophosphamide with belimumab, but “we do not specifically recommend cyclophosphamide with a CNI as one of our options because this combination has not been studied in randomized controlled trials.”

There are less data supporting class V recommendations, Sammaritano said, but for those with proteinuria of at least 1 g/g, the panel still recommends triple therapy with glucocorticoids, a MPAA, and a CNI. A CNI is preferred over belimumab because of its stabilizing effects on the podocyte cytoskeleton. Two alternative triple therapies for class V–only patients are glucocorticoids with belimumab and either low-dose cyclophosphamide or MPAA.

Dual therapy is only recommended if triple therapy is not available or not tolerated. The voting panel chose to recommend triple therapy over dual therapy with escalation for two reasons. First, the BLISS-LN and AURORA 1 trials showed improved outcomes with initial triple therapy over initial dual therapies.

Second, “nephron loss proceeds throughout a person’s lifetime even for those who do not have lupus nephritis, and every case of lupus nephritis or every period of time with uncontrolled lupus nephritis changes the course of that decline for the worse,” Sammaritano said. “So, we feel we can’t wait for nephron loss to implement what has been shown to be the most efficacious therapy. We want to gain rapid control of inflammation using the most effective regimen to prevent further damage and flare and maintain survival.”

Therapy is conditionally recommended for at least 3-5 years because “not only do we want to gain rapid control of disease activity [but we also] want to maintain control of disease activity until there’s sustained inactive disease,” Sammaritano said. “Repeat kidney biopsies show that immunologic activity persists in the kidneys for several years, and the withdrawal of immunosuppression when there is histologic activity predisposes patients to flare.” But immunosuppressive therapy can be tapered over time as determined by renal disease activity and medication tolerability.

For patients with refractory disease, consider additional factors that could be affecting the disease, such as adherence, the presence of other diagnoses, or advanced chronicity.

“If true refractory nephritis is present,” she said, “we recommend escalation to a more intensive regimen,” including the addition of anti-CD20 agents, combination therapy with three immunosuppressives, or referral for investigational therapy.

“We also emphasize the importance of other adjunctive therapies preventing comorbidities, such as cardiovascular disease, changes in bone health, or infection risk,” she said. In older patients, avoid polypharmacy as much as possible and be mindful of age-related GFR, she added.

A strong recommendation supported monitoring patients with LN and proteinuria at least every 3 months if they have not achieved complete renal response and every 3-6 months after sustained complete renal response.

Last, in patients with LN and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), the voting panel strongly recommends transplant over dialysis and conditionally recommends proceeding to the transplant without requiring a complete clinical or serologic remission as long as no other organs are involved. In patients with LN at risk for ESKD, the guideline conditionally recommends consideration of a preemptive transplant, and patients on dialysis or post transplant are strongly recommended to regularly follow up with rheumatology.

Gabriel Kirsch, MD, a resident rheumatologist at the University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, said he found the guidelines helpful, “especially the guidance on the dichotomy between using belimumab and voclosporin and the clinical and patient preference that help you make that decision.”

Kirsch had hoped, however, to hear more about the impact of therapeutic drug monitoring of hydroxychloroquine on LN outcomes. He also noted a clinical scenario he’s come across that wasn’t addressed.

“When you’re checking GFR on these folks, a lot of our eGFR calculators are creatinine based, and creatinine at the extremes of muscle mass can be inaccurate,” such as getting artificially low creatinine readings from pediatric patients because of their low muscle mass or from patients with muscle atrophy caused by a lot of glucocorticoid exposure. “I was hoping for some more guidance on that,” he said.

Ellen Ginzler, MD, MPH, chief of rheumatology at SUNY Health Science Center in Brooklyn, New York, said the guidelines were pretty much what she expected them to be. She agreed with the panel’s advice that, when deciding between belimumab or voclosporin, “if it’s pure proteinuria, then you add voclosporin. If the patient has extra renal manifestations, you go with belimumab first.” 

“They really made it quite clear that, despite the fact that people really want to reduce the amount of immunosuppression — and I agree you should taper steroids quickly — you really need to keep the immunosuppression for a prolonged period of time because all of the studies that have been done for years show that the longer you’re on immunosuppression after you achieve remission or a low disease activity state, the better your chance of not flaring,” Ginzler said. “Rapid tapering or discontinuation really increases the risk of flare.”

Sammaritano, Kirsch, and Ginzler had no disclosures. No external funding was used.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — A new guideline for management of lupus nephritis (LN) was unveiled at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), updating the 2012 LN guideline to recommend a more aggressive first-line approach to treating the disease.

“The biggest differences are that we are recommending what we’re calling triple therapy, where we incorporate the glucocorticoid therapy with baseline conventional immunosuppressants, usually mycophenolate with cyclophosphamide, and the addition of one of the newer agents more recently approved by the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] — belimumab, voclosporin, or another CNI [calcineurin inhibitor],” said Lisa Sammaritano, MD, director of the Rheumatology Reproductive Health Program of the Barbara Volcker Center for Women and Rheumatic Diseases at the Hospital for Special Surgery and professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, both in New York City.

“This is a bit of a change from not only our previous guideline but some of the other guidelines out there, and it is based on the fact that we have very convincing evidence that starting with triple therapy yields to better long-term outcomes for our patients than starting with only two agents and waiting to see if they respond before escalating therapy,” she said. Other key updates include recommending use of pulse glucocorticoid therapy with a lower dose and more rapid steroid taper and treating patients with the recommended therapy for 3-5 years.

The guiding principles of the guideline are not only to preserve kidney function and minimize morbidity and mortality but also to ensure collaborative care with nephrology, to utilize shared decision-making that includes patients’ values and preferences, to reduce healthcare disparities, and to consider pediatric and geriatric populations. The guidelines are based on a quantitative synthesis of 105 studies that yielded 7 strong recommendations, 21 conditional recommendations, and 13 good practice statements — those commonly accepted as beneficial or practical advice even if there is little direct evidence to support them. The voting panel of 19 members included not only 3 nephrologists and 2 pediatric rheumatologists but also 2 patient representatives with LN.

The recommendations are just that, “a recommendation, not an order,” Sammaritano said, and strong recommendations are those “where we think, unequivocally, almost everybody should follow that recommendation. When we feel that we cannot make a strong recommendation, then we call our recommendation conditional, and it is conditional on looking at different things,” she said.

“Patients are different, especially lupus patients, and so one lupus nephritis patient may have different clinical characteristics, different thoughts about what therapy will work for them in their lives, or what therapy they really do not want to pursue,” Sammaritano said. “Maybe they can’t conceive of coming to the hospital once a month for intravenous therapy. Maybe they’re concerned about pill burden, which is something that our patient panel really emphasized to us. So, conditional recommendation means this voting panel thought that this was the best overall for most patients and most circumstances, recognizing there will still be a significant number of people, clinicians and patients, who may feel differently for that particular situation. So, that’s where you know the patient-clinician discussion can help with decision-making.”

 

What Are the Recommendations?

All patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are strongly recommended to undergo proteinuria screening every 6-12 months or at the time of a flare. Those suspected of having LN should receive a prompt kidney biopsy and treatment with glucocorticoids while awaiting the biopsy and results. Two conditional recommendations for kidney biopsy include patients with SLE with unexplained impaired kidney function or a protein to creatinine ratio > 0.5 g/g, and patients with LN with a suspected flare after initial response or a lack of response or worsening after 6 months of therapy.

The guidelines include a strong recommendation for all patients with SLE to receive hydroxychloroquine and a conditional recommendation for all patients with elevated proteinuria (> 0.5 g/g) to receive renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAAS-I). Dosages in patients with LN with decreased glomerular filtration rate (GFR) should be adjusted as needed.

Sammaritano then reviewed the specifics on medication treatment. The glucocorticoid therapy in all patients with LN should begin with Pulse IV Therapy at 250-1000 mg/d for 1-3 days, followed by oral prednisone ≤ 0.5 mg/kg per day up to 40 mg/d, then tapered to a target dose > 5 mg/d within 6 months. The justification for this course comes from a 2024 systematic review finding pulse followed by oral glucocorticoids maximized complete renal response while minimizing toxicities, Sammaritano said.

“We have all become acutely aware of the very high risk of prolonged high dose of glucocorticoids for our patients,” she said, “and importantly, our patient panel participants strongly emphasized their preference for minimizing glucocorticoids dose.”

In addition to the recommendation of all patients receiving hydroxychloroquine and RAAS-I, first-line treatment of active, new-onset, or flaring LN should begin with triple therapy — glucocorticoids with two additional immunosuppressive agents. For patients with class III/IV LN, triple therapy includes the glucocorticoids course with a mycophenolic acid analog (MPAA) and either belimumab or a CNI. Conditional recommendations support MPAA with belimumab for significant extrarenal manifestations and MPAA with CNI for proteinuria ≥ 3 g/g.

An alternative triple therapy for class III/IV is glucocorticoids with low-dose cyclophosphamide and belimumab, but MPAA at 2-3 g/d is preferred over cyclophosphamide. The preferred regimen for cyclophosphamide is derived from the Euro-Lupus Nephritis Trial: Intravenous 500 mg every 2 weeks for six doses and then MPAA. Sammaritano noted that there are some limited data on using cyclophosphamide with belimumab, but “we do not specifically recommend cyclophosphamide with a CNI as one of our options because this combination has not been studied in randomized controlled trials.”

There are less data supporting class V recommendations, Sammaritano said, but for those with proteinuria of at least 1 g/g, the panel still recommends triple therapy with glucocorticoids, a MPAA, and a CNI. A CNI is preferred over belimumab because of its stabilizing effects on the podocyte cytoskeleton. Two alternative triple therapies for class V–only patients are glucocorticoids with belimumab and either low-dose cyclophosphamide or MPAA.

Dual therapy is only recommended if triple therapy is not available or not tolerated. The voting panel chose to recommend triple therapy over dual therapy with escalation for two reasons. First, the BLISS-LN and AURORA 1 trials showed improved outcomes with initial triple therapy over initial dual therapies.

Second, “nephron loss proceeds throughout a person’s lifetime even for those who do not have lupus nephritis, and every case of lupus nephritis or every period of time with uncontrolled lupus nephritis changes the course of that decline for the worse,” Sammaritano said. “So, we feel we can’t wait for nephron loss to implement what has been shown to be the most efficacious therapy. We want to gain rapid control of inflammation using the most effective regimen to prevent further damage and flare and maintain survival.”

Therapy is conditionally recommended for at least 3-5 years because “not only do we want to gain rapid control of disease activity [but we also] want to maintain control of disease activity until there’s sustained inactive disease,” Sammaritano said. “Repeat kidney biopsies show that immunologic activity persists in the kidneys for several years, and the withdrawal of immunosuppression when there is histologic activity predisposes patients to flare.” But immunosuppressive therapy can be tapered over time as determined by renal disease activity and medication tolerability.

For patients with refractory disease, consider additional factors that could be affecting the disease, such as adherence, the presence of other diagnoses, or advanced chronicity.

“If true refractory nephritis is present,” she said, “we recommend escalation to a more intensive regimen,” including the addition of anti-CD20 agents, combination therapy with three immunosuppressives, or referral for investigational therapy.

“We also emphasize the importance of other adjunctive therapies preventing comorbidities, such as cardiovascular disease, changes in bone health, or infection risk,” she said. In older patients, avoid polypharmacy as much as possible and be mindful of age-related GFR, she added.

A strong recommendation supported monitoring patients with LN and proteinuria at least every 3 months if they have not achieved complete renal response and every 3-6 months after sustained complete renal response.

Last, in patients with LN and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), the voting panel strongly recommends transplant over dialysis and conditionally recommends proceeding to the transplant without requiring a complete clinical or serologic remission as long as no other organs are involved. In patients with LN at risk for ESKD, the guideline conditionally recommends consideration of a preemptive transplant, and patients on dialysis or post transplant are strongly recommended to regularly follow up with rheumatology.

Gabriel Kirsch, MD, a resident rheumatologist at the University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, said he found the guidelines helpful, “especially the guidance on the dichotomy between using belimumab and voclosporin and the clinical and patient preference that help you make that decision.”

Kirsch had hoped, however, to hear more about the impact of therapeutic drug monitoring of hydroxychloroquine on LN outcomes. He also noted a clinical scenario he’s come across that wasn’t addressed.

“When you’re checking GFR on these folks, a lot of our eGFR calculators are creatinine based, and creatinine at the extremes of muscle mass can be inaccurate,” such as getting artificially low creatinine readings from pediatric patients because of their low muscle mass or from patients with muscle atrophy caused by a lot of glucocorticoid exposure. “I was hoping for some more guidance on that,” he said.

Ellen Ginzler, MD, MPH, chief of rheumatology at SUNY Health Science Center in Brooklyn, New York, said the guidelines were pretty much what she expected them to be. She agreed with the panel’s advice that, when deciding between belimumab or voclosporin, “if it’s pure proteinuria, then you add voclosporin. If the patient has extra renal manifestations, you go with belimumab first.” 

“They really made it quite clear that, despite the fact that people really want to reduce the amount of immunosuppression — and I agree you should taper steroids quickly — you really need to keep the immunosuppression for a prolonged period of time because all of the studies that have been done for years show that the longer you’re on immunosuppression after you achieve remission or a low disease activity state, the better your chance of not flaring,” Ginzler said. “Rapid tapering or discontinuation really increases the risk of flare.”

Sammaritano, Kirsch, and Ginzler had no disclosures. No external funding was used.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — A new guideline for management of lupus nephritis (LN) was unveiled at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), updating the 2012 LN guideline to recommend a more aggressive first-line approach to treating the disease.

“The biggest differences are that we are recommending what we’re calling triple therapy, where we incorporate the glucocorticoid therapy with baseline conventional immunosuppressants, usually mycophenolate with cyclophosphamide, and the addition of one of the newer agents more recently approved by the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] — belimumab, voclosporin, or another CNI [calcineurin inhibitor],” said Lisa Sammaritano, MD, director of the Rheumatology Reproductive Health Program of the Barbara Volcker Center for Women and Rheumatic Diseases at the Hospital for Special Surgery and professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, both in New York City.

“This is a bit of a change from not only our previous guideline but some of the other guidelines out there, and it is based on the fact that we have very convincing evidence that starting with triple therapy yields to better long-term outcomes for our patients than starting with only two agents and waiting to see if they respond before escalating therapy,” she said. Other key updates include recommending use of pulse glucocorticoid therapy with a lower dose and more rapid steroid taper and treating patients with the recommended therapy for 3-5 years.

The guiding principles of the guideline are not only to preserve kidney function and minimize morbidity and mortality but also to ensure collaborative care with nephrology, to utilize shared decision-making that includes patients’ values and preferences, to reduce healthcare disparities, and to consider pediatric and geriatric populations. The guidelines are based on a quantitative synthesis of 105 studies that yielded 7 strong recommendations, 21 conditional recommendations, and 13 good practice statements — those commonly accepted as beneficial or practical advice even if there is little direct evidence to support them. The voting panel of 19 members included not only 3 nephrologists and 2 pediatric rheumatologists but also 2 patient representatives with LN.

The recommendations are just that, “a recommendation, not an order,” Sammaritano said, and strong recommendations are those “where we think, unequivocally, almost everybody should follow that recommendation. When we feel that we cannot make a strong recommendation, then we call our recommendation conditional, and it is conditional on looking at different things,” she said.

“Patients are different, especially lupus patients, and so one lupus nephritis patient may have different clinical characteristics, different thoughts about what therapy will work for them in their lives, or what therapy they really do not want to pursue,” Sammaritano said. “Maybe they can’t conceive of coming to the hospital once a month for intravenous therapy. Maybe they’re concerned about pill burden, which is something that our patient panel really emphasized to us. So, conditional recommendation means this voting panel thought that this was the best overall for most patients and most circumstances, recognizing there will still be a significant number of people, clinicians and patients, who may feel differently for that particular situation. So, that’s where you know the patient-clinician discussion can help with decision-making.”

 

What Are the Recommendations?

All patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are strongly recommended to undergo proteinuria screening every 6-12 months or at the time of a flare. Those suspected of having LN should receive a prompt kidney biopsy and treatment with glucocorticoids while awaiting the biopsy and results. Two conditional recommendations for kidney biopsy include patients with SLE with unexplained impaired kidney function or a protein to creatinine ratio > 0.5 g/g, and patients with LN with a suspected flare after initial response or a lack of response or worsening after 6 months of therapy.

The guidelines include a strong recommendation for all patients with SLE to receive hydroxychloroquine and a conditional recommendation for all patients with elevated proteinuria (> 0.5 g/g) to receive renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAAS-I). Dosages in patients with LN with decreased glomerular filtration rate (GFR) should be adjusted as needed.

Sammaritano then reviewed the specifics on medication treatment. The glucocorticoid therapy in all patients with LN should begin with Pulse IV Therapy at 250-1000 mg/d for 1-3 days, followed by oral prednisone ≤ 0.5 mg/kg per day up to 40 mg/d, then tapered to a target dose > 5 mg/d within 6 months. The justification for this course comes from a 2024 systematic review finding pulse followed by oral glucocorticoids maximized complete renal response while minimizing toxicities, Sammaritano said.

“We have all become acutely aware of the very high risk of prolonged high dose of glucocorticoids for our patients,” she said, “and importantly, our patient panel participants strongly emphasized their preference for minimizing glucocorticoids dose.”

In addition to the recommendation of all patients receiving hydroxychloroquine and RAAS-I, first-line treatment of active, new-onset, or flaring LN should begin with triple therapy — glucocorticoids with two additional immunosuppressive agents. For patients with class III/IV LN, triple therapy includes the glucocorticoids course with a mycophenolic acid analog (MPAA) and either belimumab or a CNI. Conditional recommendations support MPAA with belimumab for significant extrarenal manifestations and MPAA with CNI for proteinuria ≥ 3 g/g.

An alternative triple therapy for class III/IV is glucocorticoids with low-dose cyclophosphamide and belimumab, but MPAA at 2-3 g/d is preferred over cyclophosphamide. The preferred regimen for cyclophosphamide is derived from the Euro-Lupus Nephritis Trial: Intravenous 500 mg every 2 weeks for six doses and then MPAA. Sammaritano noted that there are some limited data on using cyclophosphamide with belimumab, but “we do not specifically recommend cyclophosphamide with a CNI as one of our options because this combination has not been studied in randomized controlled trials.”

There are less data supporting class V recommendations, Sammaritano said, but for those with proteinuria of at least 1 g/g, the panel still recommends triple therapy with glucocorticoids, a MPAA, and a CNI. A CNI is preferred over belimumab because of its stabilizing effects on the podocyte cytoskeleton. Two alternative triple therapies for class V–only patients are glucocorticoids with belimumab and either low-dose cyclophosphamide or MPAA.

Dual therapy is only recommended if triple therapy is not available or not tolerated. The voting panel chose to recommend triple therapy over dual therapy with escalation for two reasons. First, the BLISS-LN and AURORA 1 trials showed improved outcomes with initial triple therapy over initial dual therapies.

Second, “nephron loss proceeds throughout a person’s lifetime even for those who do not have lupus nephritis, and every case of lupus nephritis or every period of time with uncontrolled lupus nephritis changes the course of that decline for the worse,” Sammaritano said. “So, we feel we can’t wait for nephron loss to implement what has been shown to be the most efficacious therapy. We want to gain rapid control of inflammation using the most effective regimen to prevent further damage and flare and maintain survival.”

Therapy is conditionally recommended for at least 3-5 years because “not only do we want to gain rapid control of disease activity [but we also] want to maintain control of disease activity until there’s sustained inactive disease,” Sammaritano said. “Repeat kidney biopsies show that immunologic activity persists in the kidneys for several years, and the withdrawal of immunosuppression when there is histologic activity predisposes patients to flare.” But immunosuppressive therapy can be tapered over time as determined by renal disease activity and medication tolerability.

For patients with refractory disease, consider additional factors that could be affecting the disease, such as adherence, the presence of other diagnoses, or advanced chronicity.

“If true refractory nephritis is present,” she said, “we recommend escalation to a more intensive regimen,” including the addition of anti-CD20 agents, combination therapy with three immunosuppressives, or referral for investigational therapy.

“We also emphasize the importance of other adjunctive therapies preventing comorbidities, such as cardiovascular disease, changes in bone health, or infection risk,” she said. In older patients, avoid polypharmacy as much as possible and be mindful of age-related GFR, she added.

A strong recommendation supported monitoring patients with LN and proteinuria at least every 3 months if they have not achieved complete renal response and every 3-6 months after sustained complete renal response.

Last, in patients with LN and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), the voting panel strongly recommends transplant over dialysis and conditionally recommends proceeding to the transplant without requiring a complete clinical or serologic remission as long as no other organs are involved. In patients with LN at risk for ESKD, the guideline conditionally recommends consideration of a preemptive transplant, and patients on dialysis or post transplant are strongly recommended to regularly follow up with rheumatology.

Gabriel Kirsch, MD, a resident rheumatologist at the University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, said he found the guidelines helpful, “especially the guidance on the dichotomy between using belimumab and voclosporin and the clinical and patient preference that help you make that decision.”

Kirsch had hoped, however, to hear more about the impact of therapeutic drug monitoring of hydroxychloroquine on LN outcomes. He also noted a clinical scenario he’s come across that wasn’t addressed.

“When you’re checking GFR on these folks, a lot of our eGFR calculators are creatinine based, and creatinine at the extremes of muscle mass can be inaccurate,” such as getting artificially low creatinine readings from pediatric patients because of their low muscle mass or from patients with muscle atrophy caused by a lot of glucocorticoid exposure. “I was hoping for some more guidance on that,” he said.

Ellen Ginzler, MD, MPH, chief of rheumatology at SUNY Health Science Center in Brooklyn, New York, said the guidelines were pretty much what she expected them to be. She agreed with the panel’s advice that, when deciding between belimumab or voclosporin, “if it’s pure proteinuria, then you add voclosporin. If the patient has extra renal manifestations, you go with belimumab first.” 

“They really made it quite clear that, despite the fact that people really want to reduce the amount of immunosuppression — and I agree you should taper steroids quickly — you really need to keep the immunosuppression for a prolonged period of time because all of the studies that have been done for years show that the longer you’re on immunosuppression after you achieve remission or a low disease activity state, the better your chance of not flaring,” Ginzler said. “Rapid tapering or discontinuation really increases the risk of flare.”

Sammaritano, Kirsch, and Ginzler had no disclosures. No external funding was used.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) medications appear beneficial for people with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis, two new studies suggest. 

“The risk of cardiovascular disease is thought to be at least double that for people with lupus ... and we know the risk of progressing to end-stage renal disease [ESKD] for patients with lupus nephritis can be as high as 10%-30%, so there’s clearly a major unmet need for new treatments and approaches to improve these outcomes, perhaps with adjunctive treatment beyond our typical immunosuppressive therapy,” April Jorge, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). 

The GLP-1 RAs are approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity. They also have proven cardiovascular benefit, along with emerging data suggesting kidney protection independent of glucose lowering. Jorge presented findings from a study using data from the US multicenter electronic health record database TriNetX, showing that, among patients who had both T2D and SLE, those using GLP-1 RAs had lower risks for major adverse cardiac events (MACE), venous thrombosis, kidney disease progression, and all-cause mortality, compared with those using a different class of T2D medication. 

A second study using TriNetX, presented at the same ACR meeting session by Anna-Kay Palmer, MD, a third-year internal medicine resident at Jefferson Einstein Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, showed that GLP-1 RAs reduced the risk of progression to ESKD in patients with lupus nephritis, possibly caused by reductions in pro-inflammatory mediators.

Asked to comment, session moderator Diane L. Kamen, MD, professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina Division of Rheumatology, Charleston, said in an interview that she definitely supports the use of GLP-1 RAs for patients who have SLE and/or lupus nephritis and also a drug label indication, either T2D or obesity. “[The GLP-1 RA prescriber] will usually run it by rheumatology to make sure that it doesn’t conflict with any of their other medical treatment, and it’s very reassuring to know that they could actually get a win-win.” 

But as far as prescribing off-label for those with SLE/lupus nephritis who don’t have other GLP-1 RA indications, Kamen said, “that’s a black hole at this point. We need to do those prospective studies. But if they have another indication, yes.”

 

Cardiovascular, Kidney Benefits of GLP-1 RAs

Jorge noted that patients with lupus were excluded from the randomized clinical trials of GLP-1 RAs, so the current study was designed to investigate the potential impact of these medications on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in patients with SLE and lupus nephritis. 

From TriNetX data for 46 healthcare organizations nationwide, a total of 96,511 patients with both SLE and T2D but not ESKD had initiated either a GLP-1 RA or another diabetes drug class, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4i), between October 2006 and August 2021. Of those, 29,177 had lupus nephritis. 

Propensity score matching for factors such as demographics, lupus severity, comorbidities, and medication use was used to emulate a randomized trial. This yielded 25,838 with SLE and T2D, of whom 910 initiated a GLP-1 RA and 1004 started a DPP4i, and 12,387 with lupus nephritis and T2D, including 267 on a GLP-1 RA and 324 on a DPP4i. After matching, the mean age was 55 years, more than 90% were women, and just under half were White individuals. About one third had chronic kidney disease stages ≥ 3, and about 15% had heart failure. 

Over an average follow-up time of 1.2-1.4 years among those with SLE, the hazard ratio (HR) for MACE (a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure) for those taking a GLP-1 RA vs a DPP4i was 0.66, a significant difference. And for venous thrombosis, the HR was also significant at 0.49.

Kidney disease progression, defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate decline of 30% or more or new ESKD, was significantly less likely in the GLP-1 RA group, with a HR of 0.77. All-cause mortality also was dramatically reduced (HR, 0.26). As expected, there was no difference in control outcome, genital infections (HR, 1.02). 

In the subgroup with lupus nephritis, there were also lower risks for both MACE (HR, 0.64) and for renal progression (HR, 0.70). “The findings suggest similar cardiac and kidney benefits among patients with SLE and lupus nephritis as have been observed in other populations,” Jorge concluded. 

Kamen commented that the study design “was pretty brilliant, because you wouldn’t be able to do a placebo-controlled trial since the indication was diabetes ... but the fact is you do see that the GLP-1 RA gets the benefit whereas the other drug does not.”

Next steps, Jorge said, will be mechanistic studies to better understand the effects of GLP-1 RAs in lupus and other rheumatic diseases, prospective studies of GLP-1 RAs in SLE and lupus nephritis without diabetes, and clarification of ideal timing for GLP-1 RA use in SLE and lupus nephritis. 

“Ideally, with our prospective studies with these patients we can try to isolate the effect on patients with lupus and also better understand whether there might be an impact on disease activity through the anti-inflammatory effects of these medications, rather than just the cardioprotective and nephroprotective benefits,” she said. 

 

In Those With Lupus Nephritis, Kidney Protection Seen

In her presentation, Palmer noted that, despite immunosuppressive therapies for SLE, 10%-20% of patients who develop lupus nephritis will progress to ESKD within 5 years of diagnosis. 

She added that GLP-1 RAs have been shown to reduce albuminuria in people with diabetes and have been hypothesized to reduce inflammation through multiple pathways, thereby potentially reducing kidney disease independently of the presence of diabetes or weight loss. These pathways include modulating immune cell signaling and reducing pro-inflammatory cytokines. 

Based on all this, Palmer and colleagues used International Classification of Diseases – 10th edition diagnostic codes in TriNetX to identify 839 patients who had been diagnosed with lupus nephritis between 2014 and 2024 and who were prescribed liraglutide, dulaglutide, semaglutide, or exenatide for any time after the lupus nephritis diagnosis. Another 29,840 patients with lupus nephritis had not used GLP-1 RAs. 

After 1:1 propensity score matching for age, sex, race, ethnicity, presence of hypertension, diabetes, use of immunosuppressive and diabetes medication, smoking, obesity, and statin use, there were 735 individuals in each group. About two thirds in each had diabetes, whereas the rest had been prescribed the GLP-1 RAs for other indications. 

Patients who were not on GLP-1 RAs were twice as likely to develop ESKD or dialysis (8.88% vs 3.971%; odds ratio, 2.35; P = .001). 

Kamen pointed out that not including the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers was a study flaw. On the other hand, the fact that not everyone in this study had diabetes was an advantage.

Jorge received grant/research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cabaletta Bio, and the Lupus Clinical Investigator Network. Kamen is an adviser/review panel member for Alpine Immune Sciences. Palmer had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) medications appear beneficial for people with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis, two new studies suggest. 

“The risk of cardiovascular disease is thought to be at least double that for people with lupus ... and we know the risk of progressing to end-stage renal disease [ESKD] for patients with lupus nephritis can be as high as 10%-30%, so there’s clearly a major unmet need for new treatments and approaches to improve these outcomes, perhaps with adjunctive treatment beyond our typical immunosuppressive therapy,” April Jorge, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). 

The GLP-1 RAs are approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity. They also have proven cardiovascular benefit, along with emerging data suggesting kidney protection independent of glucose lowering. Jorge presented findings from a study using data from the US multicenter electronic health record database TriNetX, showing that, among patients who had both T2D and SLE, those using GLP-1 RAs had lower risks for major adverse cardiac events (MACE), venous thrombosis, kidney disease progression, and all-cause mortality, compared with those using a different class of T2D medication. 

A second study using TriNetX, presented at the same ACR meeting session by Anna-Kay Palmer, MD, a third-year internal medicine resident at Jefferson Einstein Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, showed that GLP-1 RAs reduced the risk of progression to ESKD in patients with lupus nephritis, possibly caused by reductions in pro-inflammatory mediators.

Asked to comment, session moderator Diane L. Kamen, MD, professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina Division of Rheumatology, Charleston, said in an interview that she definitely supports the use of GLP-1 RAs for patients who have SLE and/or lupus nephritis and also a drug label indication, either T2D or obesity. “[The GLP-1 RA prescriber] will usually run it by rheumatology to make sure that it doesn’t conflict with any of their other medical treatment, and it’s very reassuring to know that they could actually get a win-win.” 

But as far as prescribing off-label for those with SLE/lupus nephritis who don’t have other GLP-1 RA indications, Kamen said, “that’s a black hole at this point. We need to do those prospective studies. But if they have another indication, yes.”

 

Cardiovascular, Kidney Benefits of GLP-1 RAs

Jorge noted that patients with lupus were excluded from the randomized clinical trials of GLP-1 RAs, so the current study was designed to investigate the potential impact of these medications on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in patients with SLE and lupus nephritis. 

From TriNetX data for 46 healthcare organizations nationwide, a total of 96,511 patients with both SLE and T2D but not ESKD had initiated either a GLP-1 RA or another diabetes drug class, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4i), between October 2006 and August 2021. Of those, 29,177 had lupus nephritis. 

Propensity score matching for factors such as demographics, lupus severity, comorbidities, and medication use was used to emulate a randomized trial. This yielded 25,838 with SLE and T2D, of whom 910 initiated a GLP-1 RA and 1004 started a DPP4i, and 12,387 with lupus nephritis and T2D, including 267 on a GLP-1 RA and 324 on a DPP4i. After matching, the mean age was 55 years, more than 90% were women, and just under half were White individuals. About one third had chronic kidney disease stages ≥ 3, and about 15% had heart failure. 

Over an average follow-up time of 1.2-1.4 years among those with SLE, the hazard ratio (HR) for MACE (a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure) for those taking a GLP-1 RA vs a DPP4i was 0.66, a significant difference. And for venous thrombosis, the HR was also significant at 0.49.

Kidney disease progression, defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate decline of 30% or more or new ESKD, was significantly less likely in the GLP-1 RA group, with a HR of 0.77. All-cause mortality also was dramatically reduced (HR, 0.26). As expected, there was no difference in control outcome, genital infections (HR, 1.02). 

In the subgroup with lupus nephritis, there were also lower risks for both MACE (HR, 0.64) and for renal progression (HR, 0.70). “The findings suggest similar cardiac and kidney benefits among patients with SLE and lupus nephritis as have been observed in other populations,” Jorge concluded. 

Kamen commented that the study design “was pretty brilliant, because you wouldn’t be able to do a placebo-controlled trial since the indication was diabetes ... but the fact is you do see that the GLP-1 RA gets the benefit whereas the other drug does not.”

Next steps, Jorge said, will be mechanistic studies to better understand the effects of GLP-1 RAs in lupus and other rheumatic diseases, prospective studies of GLP-1 RAs in SLE and lupus nephritis without diabetes, and clarification of ideal timing for GLP-1 RA use in SLE and lupus nephritis. 

“Ideally, with our prospective studies with these patients we can try to isolate the effect on patients with lupus and also better understand whether there might be an impact on disease activity through the anti-inflammatory effects of these medications, rather than just the cardioprotective and nephroprotective benefits,” she said. 

 

In Those With Lupus Nephritis, Kidney Protection Seen

In her presentation, Palmer noted that, despite immunosuppressive therapies for SLE, 10%-20% of patients who develop lupus nephritis will progress to ESKD within 5 years of diagnosis. 

She added that GLP-1 RAs have been shown to reduce albuminuria in people with diabetes and have been hypothesized to reduce inflammation through multiple pathways, thereby potentially reducing kidney disease independently of the presence of diabetes or weight loss. These pathways include modulating immune cell signaling and reducing pro-inflammatory cytokines. 

Based on all this, Palmer and colleagues used International Classification of Diseases – 10th edition diagnostic codes in TriNetX to identify 839 patients who had been diagnosed with lupus nephritis between 2014 and 2024 and who were prescribed liraglutide, dulaglutide, semaglutide, or exenatide for any time after the lupus nephritis diagnosis. Another 29,840 patients with lupus nephritis had not used GLP-1 RAs. 

After 1:1 propensity score matching for age, sex, race, ethnicity, presence of hypertension, diabetes, use of immunosuppressive and diabetes medication, smoking, obesity, and statin use, there were 735 individuals in each group. About two thirds in each had diabetes, whereas the rest had been prescribed the GLP-1 RAs for other indications. 

Patients who were not on GLP-1 RAs were twice as likely to develop ESKD or dialysis (8.88% vs 3.971%; odds ratio, 2.35; P = .001). 

Kamen pointed out that not including the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers was a study flaw. On the other hand, the fact that not everyone in this study had diabetes was an advantage.

Jorge received grant/research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cabaletta Bio, and the Lupus Clinical Investigator Network. Kamen is an adviser/review panel member for Alpine Immune Sciences. Palmer had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) medications appear beneficial for people with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis, two new studies suggest. 

“The risk of cardiovascular disease is thought to be at least double that for people with lupus ... and we know the risk of progressing to end-stage renal disease [ESKD] for patients with lupus nephritis can be as high as 10%-30%, so there’s clearly a major unmet need for new treatments and approaches to improve these outcomes, perhaps with adjunctive treatment beyond our typical immunosuppressive therapy,” April Jorge, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). 

The GLP-1 RAs are approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity. They also have proven cardiovascular benefit, along with emerging data suggesting kidney protection independent of glucose lowering. Jorge presented findings from a study using data from the US multicenter electronic health record database TriNetX, showing that, among patients who had both T2D and SLE, those using GLP-1 RAs had lower risks for major adverse cardiac events (MACE), venous thrombosis, kidney disease progression, and all-cause mortality, compared with those using a different class of T2D medication. 

A second study using TriNetX, presented at the same ACR meeting session by Anna-Kay Palmer, MD, a third-year internal medicine resident at Jefferson Einstein Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, showed that GLP-1 RAs reduced the risk of progression to ESKD in patients with lupus nephritis, possibly caused by reductions in pro-inflammatory mediators.

Asked to comment, session moderator Diane L. Kamen, MD, professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina Division of Rheumatology, Charleston, said in an interview that she definitely supports the use of GLP-1 RAs for patients who have SLE and/or lupus nephritis and also a drug label indication, either T2D or obesity. “[The GLP-1 RA prescriber] will usually run it by rheumatology to make sure that it doesn’t conflict with any of their other medical treatment, and it’s very reassuring to know that they could actually get a win-win.” 

But as far as prescribing off-label for those with SLE/lupus nephritis who don’t have other GLP-1 RA indications, Kamen said, “that’s a black hole at this point. We need to do those prospective studies. But if they have another indication, yes.”

 

Cardiovascular, Kidney Benefits of GLP-1 RAs

Jorge noted that patients with lupus were excluded from the randomized clinical trials of GLP-1 RAs, so the current study was designed to investigate the potential impact of these medications on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in patients with SLE and lupus nephritis. 

From TriNetX data for 46 healthcare organizations nationwide, a total of 96,511 patients with both SLE and T2D but not ESKD had initiated either a GLP-1 RA or another diabetes drug class, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4i), between October 2006 and August 2021. Of those, 29,177 had lupus nephritis. 

Propensity score matching for factors such as demographics, lupus severity, comorbidities, and medication use was used to emulate a randomized trial. This yielded 25,838 with SLE and T2D, of whom 910 initiated a GLP-1 RA and 1004 started a DPP4i, and 12,387 with lupus nephritis and T2D, including 267 on a GLP-1 RA and 324 on a DPP4i. After matching, the mean age was 55 years, more than 90% were women, and just under half were White individuals. About one third had chronic kidney disease stages ≥ 3, and about 15% had heart failure. 

Over an average follow-up time of 1.2-1.4 years among those with SLE, the hazard ratio (HR) for MACE (a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure) for those taking a GLP-1 RA vs a DPP4i was 0.66, a significant difference. And for venous thrombosis, the HR was also significant at 0.49.

Kidney disease progression, defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate decline of 30% or more or new ESKD, was significantly less likely in the GLP-1 RA group, with a HR of 0.77. All-cause mortality also was dramatically reduced (HR, 0.26). As expected, there was no difference in control outcome, genital infections (HR, 1.02). 

In the subgroup with lupus nephritis, there were also lower risks for both MACE (HR, 0.64) and for renal progression (HR, 0.70). “The findings suggest similar cardiac and kidney benefits among patients with SLE and lupus nephritis as have been observed in other populations,” Jorge concluded. 

Kamen commented that the study design “was pretty brilliant, because you wouldn’t be able to do a placebo-controlled trial since the indication was diabetes ... but the fact is you do see that the GLP-1 RA gets the benefit whereas the other drug does not.”

Next steps, Jorge said, will be mechanistic studies to better understand the effects of GLP-1 RAs in lupus and other rheumatic diseases, prospective studies of GLP-1 RAs in SLE and lupus nephritis without diabetes, and clarification of ideal timing for GLP-1 RA use in SLE and lupus nephritis. 

“Ideally, with our prospective studies with these patients we can try to isolate the effect on patients with lupus and also better understand whether there might be an impact on disease activity through the anti-inflammatory effects of these medications, rather than just the cardioprotective and nephroprotective benefits,” she said. 

 

In Those With Lupus Nephritis, Kidney Protection Seen

In her presentation, Palmer noted that, despite immunosuppressive therapies for SLE, 10%-20% of patients who develop lupus nephritis will progress to ESKD within 5 years of diagnosis. 

She added that GLP-1 RAs have been shown to reduce albuminuria in people with diabetes and have been hypothesized to reduce inflammation through multiple pathways, thereby potentially reducing kidney disease independently of the presence of diabetes or weight loss. These pathways include modulating immune cell signaling and reducing pro-inflammatory cytokines. 

Based on all this, Palmer and colleagues used International Classification of Diseases – 10th edition diagnostic codes in TriNetX to identify 839 patients who had been diagnosed with lupus nephritis between 2014 and 2024 and who were prescribed liraglutide, dulaglutide, semaglutide, or exenatide for any time after the lupus nephritis diagnosis. Another 29,840 patients with lupus nephritis had not used GLP-1 RAs. 

After 1:1 propensity score matching for age, sex, race, ethnicity, presence of hypertension, diabetes, use of immunosuppressive and diabetes medication, smoking, obesity, and statin use, there were 735 individuals in each group. About two thirds in each had diabetes, whereas the rest had been prescribed the GLP-1 RAs for other indications. 

Patients who were not on GLP-1 RAs were twice as likely to develop ESKD or dialysis (8.88% vs 3.971%; odds ratio, 2.35; P = .001). 

Kamen pointed out that not including the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers was a study flaw. On the other hand, the fact that not everyone in this study had diabetes was an advantage.

Jorge received grant/research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cabaletta Bio, and the Lupus Clinical Investigator Network. Kamen is an adviser/review panel member for Alpine Immune Sciences. Palmer had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — A fully automated ultrasound scanning system combined with artificial intelligence–based disease activity scoring performed as well as expert rheumatologists in hand joint assessment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), new research found.

The system, made by a Danish company called ROPCA, comprises an ultrasound scanner called ARTHUR (RA Ultrasound Robot) that interacts directly with the patient and scans 11 joints per hand and a neural network–based software system, DIANA (Diagnosis Aid Network for RA), that evaluates the images and monitors RA activity.

 

The combined system classifies the degree of RA according to the joint European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR)–Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) standards for RA diagnosis. It received a CE Mark in Europe in 2022 and is currently in use in six rheumatology clinics in Denmark, Germany, Switzerland, and Austria, with more to come, ROPCA Co-founder and Chief Medical Officer Søren A. Just, MD, said in an interview.

“Automated systems could help rheumatologists in the early detection and monitoring of arthritis diseases. Systems can be placed or move in areas with insufficient rheumatological expertise,” Just said during a special late-breaker session presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

He said in an interview: “Currently, there are so many people referred and few and fewer rheumatologists. So we need to think differently. We need good automated assistants.” As a screening tool, the system can determine whether a person with hand pain has RA or just osteoarthritis “and also can give the patient an immediate answer, instead of waiting sometimes up to 6 months to get the information.”

Just, who is also a senior physician in the Department of Internal Medicine at Odense University Hospital in Denmark, said that his department is also using the system to assess flares in patients with established RA. “They can have a blood sample taken. They’re scanned by the robot, and you can see if there is any disease activity. But I think that screening of patients with joint pain is the beginning.”

Asked to comment, session moderator Gregory C. Gardner, MD, Emeritus Professor in the Division of Rheumatology at the University of Washington, Seattle, and a member of the ACR conference program committee, said in an interview “one of the reasons we chose to feature this abstract is because we’re interested in science at the convergence. We really thought this was a potential way to move the field forward for rheumatologists.”

Gardner said it’s an advantage that the patient could potentially have an ARTHUR scan with a DIANA report and get blood tests done prior to a visit with the rheumatologist. “It’s really time-consuming for a human to do these studies, so if you automate it, that’s a step forward in terms of having the data available for the rheumatologist to view and use sequentially to follow how patients are doing.”

When introducing Just’s presentation, Gardner called it “the coolest abstract of the meeting.”

 

Both DIANA and ARTHUR Performed At Least as Well as Human Rheumatologists

In the study, 30 patients with RA underwent two scans by ARTHUR, followed by a scan from a rheumatologist specialist in musculoskeletal ultrasound. The scans were sent to DIANA, who graded the images according to the Global OMERACT-EULAR Synovitis Score, as did the human rheumatologist.

A “ground truth” was established by another human expert who evaluated both ARTHUR’s and the other rheumatologist’s images, blinded to the scanning method. The image with the highest disease activity was deemed “ground truth,” and agreement with that was assessed for the two individual methods.

 

Just showed a video of a patient being scanned by ARTHUR. The machine verbally guided her through removing her jewelry, applying the gel, and placing her hand on the screen under the scanner. ARTHUR’s arm moved around on the patient’s hand, locating the best angles to take grayscale images and Doppler images and Doppler video. The scan takes 15-20 minutes, and the images are stored, Just said.

The study patients had a mean age of 65 years, and 23 of the 30 were men. Their average disease duration was 11 years, and mean Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein was 3.86, indicating moderate disease. A majority (73%) of patients were taking disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and about one third were taking biologics. ARTHUR scanned a total of 660 joints, and 564 scans were successful.

For repeatability between the two ARTHUR scans, percent exact agreement was 63% for synovial hypertrophy, 75% for Doppler activity, and 60% combined. Percent close (within a point) agreements were 93%, 94%, and 92%, respectively. Binary agreements as to whether the joint was healthy vs diseased were 88%, 91%, and 85%, respectively.

At the joint level, ARTHUR and DIANA’s percent exact agreement with ground truth was 49% for synovial hypertrophy, 63% for Doppler activity, and 48% combined. Binary agreements with disease vs healthy were 80%, 88%, and 78%, respectively.

The human rheumatologists scored very similarly. Percent exact agreement with ground truth was 51% for synovial hypertrophy, 64% for Doppler activity, and 50% combined. Percent close agreements were 94%, 94%, and 92%, respectively. And binary agreements with diseased vs healthy were 83%, 91%, and 80%, respectively.

At the patient level (all joints combined), ARTHUR and DIANA’s binary disease assessment of healthy vs disease showed agreement with the ground truth of 87% for synovial hypertrophy, 83% for Doppler activity, and 87% combined. Here, the rheumatologists scored lower, at 53%, 67%, and 60%, respectively.

“In this study, we think the precision of ARTHUR and DIANA was comparable to that of an experienced rheumatologist, at both the joint and patient level,” Just said.

Gardner pointed out another advantage of the system. “DIANA doesn’t get fatigued. ... With human reading, the precision may change based on the time of day or stress level. ... But with DIANA, you’re going to get consistent information.”

Just said that the Arthritis Foundation in Germany recently put ARTHUR and DIANA on a bus and took it to cities that lacked a rheumatologist. Patients lined up, answered a questionnaire, had blood drawn, and received their scans. A rheumatologist on the bus then interpreted the data and consulted with the individuals about their RA risk. “In the last trip, we screened 800 patients in 6 days. So there are definitely possibilities here.”

Just is co-owner of ROPCA. Gardner had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — A fully automated ultrasound scanning system combined with artificial intelligence–based disease activity scoring performed as well as expert rheumatologists in hand joint assessment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), new research found.

The system, made by a Danish company called ROPCA, comprises an ultrasound scanner called ARTHUR (RA Ultrasound Robot) that interacts directly with the patient and scans 11 joints per hand and a neural network–based software system, DIANA (Diagnosis Aid Network for RA), that evaluates the images and monitors RA activity.

 

The combined system classifies the degree of RA according to the joint European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR)–Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) standards for RA diagnosis. It received a CE Mark in Europe in 2022 and is currently in use in six rheumatology clinics in Denmark, Germany, Switzerland, and Austria, with more to come, ROPCA Co-founder and Chief Medical Officer Søren A. Just, MD, said in an interview.

“Automated systems could help rheumatologists in the early detection and monitoring of arthritis diseases. Systems can be placed or move in areas with insufficient rheumatological expertise,” Just said during a special late-breaker session presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

He said in an interview: “Currently, there are so many people referred and few and fewer rheumatologists. So we need to think differently. We need good automated assistants.” As a screening tool, the system can determine whether a person with hand pain has RA or just osteoarthritis “and also can give the patient an immediate answer, instead of waiting sometimes up to 6 months to get the information.”

Just, who is also a senior physician in the Department of Internal Medicine at Odense University Hospital in Denmark, said that his department is also using the system to assess flares in patients with established RA. “They can have a blood sample taken. They’re scanned by the robot, and you can see if there is any disease activity. But I think that screening of patients with joint pain is the beginning.”

Asked to comment, session moderator Gregory C. Gardner, MD, Emeritus Professor in the Division of Rheumatology at the University of Washington, Seattle, and a member of the ACR conference program committee, said in an interview “one of the reasons we chose to feature this abstract is because we’re interested in science at the convergence. We really thought this was a potential way to move the field forward for rheumatologists.”

Gardner said it’s an advantage that the patient could potentially have an ARTHUR scan with a DIANA report and get blood tests done prior to a visit with the rheumatologist. “It’s really time-consuming for a human to do these studies, so if you automate it, that’s a step forward in terms of having the data available for the rheumatologist to view and use sequentially to follow how patients are doing.”

When introducing Just’s presentation, Gardner called it “the coolest abstract of the meeting.”

 

Both DIANA and ARTHUR Performed At Least as Well as Human Rheumatologists

In the study, 30 patients with RA underwent two scans by ARTHUR, followed by a scan from a rheumatologist specialist in musculoskeletal ultrasound. The scans were sent to DIANA, who graded the images according to the Global OMERACT-EULAR Synovitis Score, as did the human rheumatologist.

A “ground truth” was established by another human expert who evaluated both ARTHUR’s and the other rheumatologist’s images, blinded to the scanning method. The image with the highest disease activity was deemed “ground truth,” and agreement with that was assessed for the two individual methods.

 

Just showed a video of a patient being scanned by ARTHUR. The machine verbally guided her through removing her jewelry, applying the gel, and placing her hand on the screen under the scanner. ARTHUR’s arm moved around on the patient’s hand, locating the best angles to take grayscale images and Doppler images and Doppler video. The scan takes 15-20 minutes, and the images are stored, Just said.

The study patients had a mean age of 65 years, and 23 of the 30 were men. Their average disease duration was 11 years, and mean Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein was 3.86, indicating moderate disease. A majority (73%) of patients were taking disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and about one third were taking biologics. ARTHUR scanned a total of 660 joints, and 564 scans were successful.

For repeatability between the two ARTHUR scans, percent exact agreement was 63% for synovial hypertrophy, 75% for Doppler activity, and 60% combined. Percent close (within a point) agreements were 93%, 94%, and 92%, respectively. Binary agreements as to whether the joint was healthy vs diseased were 88%, 91%, and 85%, respectively.

At the joint level, ARTHUR and DIANA’s percent exact agreement with ground truth was 49% for synovial hypertrophy, 63% for Doppler activity, and 48% combined. Binary agreements with disease vs healthy were 80%, 88%, and 78%, respectively.

The human rheumatologists scored very similarly. Percent exact agreement with ground truth was 51% for synovial hypertrophy, 64% for Doppler activity, and 50% combined. Percent close agreements were 94%, 94%, and 92%, respectively. And binary agreements with diseased vs healthy were 83%, 91%, and 80%, respectively.

At the patient level (all joints combined), ARTHUR and DIANA’s binary disease assessment of healthy vs disease showed agreement with the ground truth of 87% for synovial hypertrophy, 83% for Doppler activity, and 87% combined. Here, the rheumatologists scored lower, at 53%, 67%, and 60%, respectively.

“In this study, we think the precision of ARTHUR and DIANA was comparable to that of an experienced rheumatologist, at both the joint and patient level,” Just said.

Gardner pointed out another advantage of the system. “DIANA doesn’t get fatigued. ... With human reading, the precision may change based on the time of day or stress level. ... But with DIANA, you’re going to get consistent information.”

Just said that the Arthritis Foundation in Germany recently put ARTHUR and DIANA on a bus and took it to cities that lacked a rheumatologist. Patients lined up, answered a questionnaire, had blood drawn, and received their scans. A rheumatologist on the bus then interpreted the data and consulted with the individuals about their RA risk. “In the last trip, we screened 800 patients in 6 days. So there are definitely possibilities here.”

Just is co-owner of ROPCA. Gardner had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — A fully automated ultrasound scanning system combined with artificial intelligence–based disease activity scoring performed as well as expert rheumatologists in hand joint assessment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), new research found.

The system, made by a Danish company called ROPCA, comprises an ultrasound scanner called ARTHUR (RA Ultrasound Robot) that interacts directly with the patient and scans 11 joints per hand and a neural network–based software system, DIANA (Diagnosis Aid Network for RA), that evaluates the images and monitors RA activity.

 

The combined system classifies the degree of RA according to the joint European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR)–Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) standards for RA diagnosis. It received a CE Mark in Europe in 2022 and is currently in use in six rheumatology clinics in Denmark, Germany, Switzerland, and Austria, with more to come, ROPCA Co-founder and Chief Medical Officer Søren A. Just, MD, said in an interview.

“Automated systems could help rheumatologists in the early detection and monitoring of arthritis diseases. Systems can be placed or move in areas with insufficient rheumatological expertise,” Just said during a special late-breaker session presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

He said in an interview: “Currently, there are so many people referred and few and fewer rheumatologists. So we need to think differently. We need good automated assistants.” As a screening tool, the system can determine whether a person with hand pain has RA or just osteoarthritis “and also can give the patient an immediate answer, instead of waiting sometimes up to 6 months to get the information.”

Just, who is also a senior physician in the Department of Internal Medicine at Odense University Hospital in Denmark, said that his department is also using the system to assess flares in patients with established RA. “They can have a blood sample taken. They’re scanned by the robot, and you can see if there is any disease activity. But I think that screening of patients with joint pain is the beginning.”

Asked to comment, session moderator Gregory C. Gardner, MD, Emeritus Professor in the Division of Rheumatology at the University of Washington, Seattle, and a member of the ACR conference program committee, said in an interview “one of the reasons we chose to feature this abstract is because we’re interested in science at the convergence. We really thought this was a potential way to move the field forward for rheumatologists.”

Gardner said it’s an advantage that the patient could potentially have an ARTHUR scan with a DIANA report and get blood tests done prior to a visit with the rheumatologist. “It’s really time-consuming for a human to do these studies, so if you automate it, that’s a step forward in terms of having the data available for the rheumatologist to view and use sequentially to follow how patients are doing.”

When introducing Just’s presentation, Gardner called it “the coolest abstract of the meeting.”

 

Both DIANA and ARTHUR Performed At Least as Well as Human Rheumatologists

In the study, 30 patients with RA underwent two scans by ARTHUR, followed by a scan from a rheumatologist specialist in musculoskeletal ultrasound. The scans were sent to DIANA, who graded the images according to the Global OMERACT-EULAR Synovitis Score, as did the human rheumatologist.

A “ground truth” was established by another human expert who evaluated both ARTHUR’s and the other rheumatologist’s images, blinded to the scanning method. The image with the highest disease activity was deemed “ground truth,” and agreement with that was assessed for the two individual methods.

 

Just showed a video of a patient being scanned by ARTHUR. The machine verbally guided her through removing her jewelry, applying the gel, and placing her hand on the screen under the scanner. ARTHUR’s arm moved around on the patient’s hand, locating the best angles to take grayscale images and Doppler images and Doppler video. The scan takes 15-20 minutes, and the images are stored, Just said.

The study patients had a mean age of 65 years, and 23 of the 30 were men. Their average disease duration was 11 years, and mean Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein was 3.86, indicating moderate disease. A majority (73%) of patients were taking disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and about one third were taking biologics. ARTHUR scanned a total of 660 joints, and 564 scans were successful.

For repeatability between the two ARTHUR scans, percent exact agreement was 63% for synovial hypertrophy, 75% for Doppler activity, and 60% combined. Percent close (within a point) agreements were 93%, 94%, and 92%, respectively. Binary agreements as to whether the joint was healthy vs diseased were 88%, 91%, and 85%, respectively.

At the joint level, ARTHUR and DIANA’s percent exact agreement with ground truth was 49% for synovial hypertrophy, 63% for Doppler activity, and 48% combined. Binary agreements with disease vs healthy were 80%, 88%, and 78%, respectively.

The human rheumatologists scored very similarly. Percent exact agreement with ground truth was 51% for synovial hypertrophy, 64% for Doppler activity, and 50% combined. Percent close agreements were 94%, 94%, and 92%, respectively. And binary agreements with diseased vs healthy were 83%, 91%, and 80%, respectively.

At the patient level (all joints combined), ARTHUR and DIANA’s binary disease assessment of healthy vs disease showed agreement with the ground truth of 87% for synovial hypertrophy, 83% for Doppler activity, and 87% combined. Here, the rheumatologists scored lower, at 53%, 67%, and 60%, respectively.

“In this study, we think the precision of ARTHUR and DIANA was comparable to that of an experienced rheumatologist, at both the joint and patient level,” Just said.

Gardner pointed out another advantage of the system. “DIANA doesn’t get fatigued. ... With human reading, the precision may change based on the time of day or stress level. ... But with DIANA, you’re going to get consistent information.”

Just said that the Arthritis Foundation in Germany recently put ARTHUR and DIANA on a bus and took it to cities that lacked a rheumatologist. Patients lined up, answered a questionnaire, had blood drawn, and received their scans. A rheumatologist on the bus then interpreted the data and consulted with the individuals about their RA risk. “In the last trip, we screened 800 patients in 6 days. So there are definitely possibilities here.”

Just is co-owner of ROPCA. Gardner had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — The investigational anti-CD40 ligand agent dapirolizumab pegol (DZP) outperformed placebo in improving disease activity and reducing high-dose corticosteroid use in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in the phase 3 PHOENYCS GO trial.

“We really think that dapirolizumab pegol may represent a novel treatment for lupus, particularly given its broad immune modulatory effects,” said Megan Clowse, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine and chief of the Division of Rheumatology and Immunology at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina. She presented the study in a late-breaking poster session at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2024 Annual Meeting.

There is a “huge unmet need” for drugs for lupus, Clowse told this news organization. Patients with SLE continue to have high disease burden, including ongoing symptoms often driven by inflammation. Corticosteroids are often the best medications to control disease activity, she said, but they can result in long-term toxicity.

 

What Makes DZP Unique?

Through CD40 ligand signaling, DZP has been shown to reduce B- and T-cell activation and to downregulate interferon pathways. Previous antibodies targeting the CD40 ligand have been associated with an increased risk for thromboembolic events. However, DZP lacks the Fc portion of the antibody, which can bind to platelets and cause clotting. Data from phase 1, 2, and 3 trials thus far do not show an elevated risk for these events, Clowse explained. In fact, safety signals were strong enough that patients with antiphospholipid antibodies — a key driver for blood clots in patients with SLE — were included in the trial.

In PHOENYCS GO, investigators enrolled 321 patients with moderate to severe SLE with persistently active or frequently flaring/relapsing-remitting disease activity despite stable standard of care (SOC) medications such as antimalarials, corticosteroids, and immunosuppressants.

Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive intravenous DZP (24 mg/kg) plus SOC or intravenous placebo plus SOC every 4 weeks, with patients and investigators blinded to treatment assignments.

Patients taking a corticosteroid dose > 7.5 mg/day began a mandatory steroid taper by week 8 of the trial, with the goal of reducing that to < 7.5 mg/day. The tapering regimen was at the discretion of providers and was adapted to each patient’s individual disease activity.

The primary endpoint was British Isles Lupus Assessment Group–based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) response at week 48.

Patients in the DZP and placebo groups were on average 43.5 and 41.5 years old, respectively. More than 90% of patients were women, all on concomitant SLE medications. About half of the participants took a daily corticosteroid dose > 7.5 mg.

At 48 weeks, half of the DZP group (49.5%) achieved BICLA response compared with 34.6% in the placebo group (P = .0110). A higher proportion of patients taking DZP achieved SLE Responder Index-4 response than those taking placebo (60.1% vs 41.1%, respectively; P = .0014), and the rate of severe British Isles Lupus Assessment Group flares in the DZP group was half that of the placebo group (11.6% vs 23.4%; P = .0257). In the subgroup of patients who underwent corticosteroid tapering, 72.4% receiving DZP and 52.9% taking placebo reduced their dose to < 7.5 mg/day by 48 weeks (P = .0404).

DZP was generally well tolerated. Over 48 weeks, 82.6% of the DZP group and 75% of the placebo group reported treatment-emergent adverse events, but serious occurrences were more common in the placebo group (14.8%) than in the DZP group (9.9%). Herpes viral infections were higher in the placebo group, although there were three ophthalmic herpes cases in the DZP group. There was one case of acute myocardial infarction and one death linked to gangrene-related sepsis in patients receiving DZP.

 

A ‘Mild to Moderate’ Response

Although these are definitely positive results, they show a “mild to moderate response” to DZP, commented Gregory Gardner, MD, an emeritus professor in the Division of Rheumatology at the University of Washington, Seattle, and chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s annual meeting planning committee. He moderated the session where the research was presented. Although DZP showed efficacy among some patients, he noted, “there were still 51% patients that it didn’t work for.” 

The drug uses an alternative pathway to current lupus drugs, Gardner added, and more research is needed to understand how best to use this medication in practice.

Clowse noted that DZP could be particularly beneficial for patients with SLE who want to get pregnant. Many drugs used to treat the disease are teratogenic; however, “because of the lack of Fc portion on this drug, it very likely does not cross the placenta in any kind of significant amount,” she said. Although there are not yet any reproductive safety data on DZP, she added, “that is a great potential niche.”

Biogen and UCB, which are jointly developing DZP, aim to start a second phase 3 trial of DZP in patients with SLE, called PHOENYCS FLY, in 2024.

The trial was sponsored by UCB. Clowse is a consultant and has received grant/research support from GSK and UCB. Gardner had no relevant disclosures.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — The investigational anti-CD40 ligand agent dapirolizumab pegol (DZP) outperformed placebo in improving disease activity and reducing high-dose corticosteroid use in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in the phase 3 PHOENYCS GO trial.

“We really think that dapirolizumab pegol may represent a novel treatment for lupus, particularly given its broad immune modulatory effects,” said Megan Clowse, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine and chief of the Division of Rheumatology and Immunology at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina. She presented the study in a late-breaking poster session at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2024 Annual Meeting.

There is a “huge unmet need” for drugs for lupus, Clowse told this news organization. Patients with SLE continue to have high disease burden, including ongoing symptoms often driven by inflammation. Corticosteroids are often the best medications to control disease activity, she said, but they can result in long-term toxicity.

 

What Makes DZP Unique?

Through CD40 ligand signaling, DZP has been shown to reduce B- and T-cell activation and to downregulate interferon pathways. Previous antibodies targeting the CD40 ligand have been associated with an increased risk for thromboembolic events. However, DZP lacks the Fc portion of the antibody, which can bind to platelets and cause clotting. Data from phase 1, 2, and 3 trials thus far do not show an elevated risk for these events, Clowse explained. In fact, safety signals were strong enough that patients with antiphospholipid antibodies — a key driver for blood clots in patients with SLE — were included in the trial.

In PHOENYCS GO, investigators enrolled 321 patients with moderate to severe SLE with persistently active or frequently flaring/relapsing-remitting disease activity despite stable standard of care (SOC) medications such as antimalarials, corticosteroids, and immunosuppressants.

Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive intravenous DZP (24 mg/kg) plus SOC or intravenous placebo plus SOC every 4 weeks, with patients and investigators blinded to treatment assignments.

Patients taking a corticosteroid dose > 7.5 mg/day began a mandatory steroid taper by week 8 of the trial, with the goal of reducing that to < 7.5 mg/day. The tapering regimen was at the discretion of providers and was adapted to each patient’s individual disease activity.

The primary endpoint was British Isles Lupus Assessment Group–based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) response at week 48.

Patients in the DZP and placebo groups were on average 43.5 and 41.5 years old, respectively. More than 90% of patients were women, all on concomitant SLE medications. About half of the participants took a daily corticosteroid dose > 7.5 mg.

At 48 weeks, half of the DZP group (49.5%) achieved BICLA response compared with 34.6% in the placebo group (P = .0110). A higher proportion of patients taking DZP achieved SLE Responder Index-4 response than those taking placebo (60.1% vs 41.1%, respectively; P = .0014), and the rate of severe British Isles Lupus Assessment Group flares in the DZP group was half that of the placebo group (11.6% vs 23.4%; P = .0257). In the subgroup of patients who underwent corticosteroid tapering, 72.4% receiving DZP and 52.9% taking placebo reduced their dose to < 7.5 mg/day by 48 weeks (P = .0404).

DZP was generally well tolerated. Over 48 weeks, 82.6% of the DZP group and 75% of the placebo group reported treatment-emergent adverse events, but serious occurrences were more common in the placebo group (14.8%) than in the DZP group (9.9%). Herpes viral infections were higher in the placebo group, although there were three ophthalmic herpes cases in the DZP group. There was one case of acute myocardial infarction and one death linked to gangrene-related sepsis in patients receiving DZP.

 

A ‘Mild to Moderate’ Response

Although these are definitely positive results, they show a “mild to moderate response” to DZP, commented Gregory Gardner, MD, an emeritus professor in the Division of Rheumatology at the University of Washington, Seattle, and chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s annual meeting planning committee. He moderated the session where the research was presented. Although DZP showed efficacy among some patients, he noted, “there were still 51% patients that it didn’t work for.” 

The drug uses an alternative pathway to current lupus drugs, Gardner added, and more research is needed to understand how best to use this medication in practice.

Clowse noted that DZP could be particularly beneficial for patients with SLE who want to get pregnant. Many drugs used to treat the disease are teratogenic; however, “because of the lack of Fc portion on this drug, it very likely does not cross the placenta in any kind of significant amount,” she said. Although there are not yet any reproductive safety data on DZP, she added, “that is a great potential niche.”

Biogen and UCB, which are jointly developing DZP, aim to start a second phase 3 trial of DZP in patients with SLE, called PHOENYCS FLY, in 2024.

The trial was sponsored by UCB. Clowse is a consultant and has received grant/research support from GSK and UCB. Gardner had no relevant disclosures.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — The investigational anti-CD40 ligand agent dapirolizumab pegol (DZP) outperformed placebo in improving disease activity and reducing high-dose corticosteroid use in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in the phase 3 PHOENYCS GO trial.

“We really think that dapirolizumab pegol may represent a novel treatment for lupus, particularly given its broad immune modulatory effects,” said Megan Clowse, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine and chief of the Division of Rheumatology and Immunology at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina. She presented the study in a late-breaking poster session at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2024 Annual Meeting.

There is a “huge unmet need” for drugs for lupus, Clowse told this news organization. Patients with SLE continue to have high disease burden, including ongoing symptoms often driven by inflammation. Corticosteroids are often the best medications to control disease activity, she said, but they can result in long-term toxicity.

 

What Makes DZP Unique?

Through CD40 ligand signaling, DZP has been shown to reduce B- and T-cell activation and to downregulate interferon pathways. Previous antibodies targeting the CD40 ligand have been associated with an increased risk for thromboembolic events. However, DZP lacks the Fc portion of the antibody, which can bind to platelets and cause clotting. Data from phase 1, 2, and 3 trials thus far do not show an elevated risk for these events, Clowse explained. In fact, safety signals were strong enough that patients with antiphospholipid antibodies — a key driver for blood clots in patients with SLE — were included in the trial.

In PHOENYCS GO, investigators enrolled 321 patients with moderate to severe SLE with persistently active or frequently flaring/relapsing-remitting disease activity despite stable standard of care (SOC) medications such as antimalarials, corticosteroids, and immunosuppressants.

Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive intravenous DZP (24 mg/kg) plus SOC or intravenous placebo plus SOC every 4 weeks, with patients and investigators blinded to treatment assignments.

Patients taking a corticosteroid dose > 7.5 mg/day began a mandatory steroid taper by week 8 of the trial, with the goal of reducing that to < 7.5 mg/day. The tapering regimen was at the discretion of providers and was adapted to each patient’s individual disease activity.

The primary endpoint was British Isles Lupus Assessment Group–based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) response at week 48.

Patients in the DZP and placebo groups were on average 43.5 and 41.5 years old, respectively. More than 90% of patients were women, all on concomitant SLE medications. About half of the participants took a daily corticosteroid dose > 7.5 mg.

At 48 weeks, half of the DZP group (49.5%) achieved BICLA response compared with 34.6% in the placebo group (P = .0110). A higher proportion of patients taking DZP achieved SLE Responder Index-4 response than those taking placebo (60.1% vs 41.1%, respectively; P = .0014), and the rate of severe British Isles Lupus Assessment Group flares in the DZP group was half that of the placebo group (11.6% vs 23.4%; P = .0257). In the subgroup of patients who underwent corticosteroid tapering, 72.4% receiving DZP and 52.9% taking placebo reduced their dose to < 7.5 mg/day by 48 weeks (P = .0404).

DZP was generally well tolerated. Over 48 weeks, 82.6% of the DZP group and 75% of the placebo group reported treatment-emergent adverse events, but serious occurrences were more common in the placebo group (14.8%) than in the DZP group (9.9%). Herpes viral infections were higher in the placebo group, although there were three ophthalmic herpes cases in the DZP group. There was one case of acute myocardial infarction and one death linked to gangrene-related sepsis in patients receiving DZP.

 

A ‘Mild to Moderate’ Response

Although these are definitely positive results, they show a “mild to moderate response” to DZP, commented Gregory Gardner, MD, an emeritus professor in the Division of Rheumatology at the University of Washington, Seattle, and chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s annual meeting planning committee. He moderated the session where the research was presented. Although DZP showed efficacy among some patients, he noted, “there were still 51% patients that it didn’t work for.” 

The drug uses an alternative pathway to current lupus drugs, Gardner added, and more research is needed to understand how best to use this medication in practice.

Clowse noted that DZP could be particularly beneficial for patients with SLE who want to get pregnant. Many drugs used to treat the disease are teratogenic; however, “because of the lack of Fc portion on this drug, it very likely does not cross the placenta in any kind of significant amount,” she said. Although there are not yet any reproductive safety data on DZP, she added, “that is a great potential niche.”

Biogen and UCB, which are jointly developing DZP, aim to start a second phase 3 trial of DZP in patients with SLE, called PHOENYCS FLY, in 2024.

The trial was sponsored by UCB. Clowse is a consultant and has received grant/research support from GSK and UCB. Gardner had no relevant disclosures.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy does not increase mortality in people with preexisting autoimmune diseases, new research has found. 

Results from a large database analysis of patients with and without autoimmune diseases suggest it is safe to treat them with ICI if they develop a cancer for which it is indicated, Greg Challener, MD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Rheumatology and Allergy Clinical Epidemiology Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said at the American College of Rheumatology 2024 Annual Meeting.

“One message is that, when rheumatologists are asked by oncologists about patients with rheumatoid arthritis or vasculitis or other autoimmune diseases and whether it’s safe to treat them with immune checkpoint inhibitors, this result provides some evidence that it probably is safe…. Checkpoint inhibitors are really incredible drugs, and they’ve improved mortality for a lot of cancers, particularly melanoma, and so I think there should be a pretty high threshold for us to say a patient shouldn’t receive them because of an autoimmune condition,” he told this news organization.

Another implication, Challener said, is that people with autoimmune diseases shouldn’t routinely be excluded from clinical trials of ICIs. Currently they are excluded because of concerns about exacerbation of underlying autoimmunity, possible interference between the ICI and the immunosuppressive drugs used to treat the autoimmune condition, and a theoretical risk for serious adverse events. 

“Clinical trials are continuing to exclude these patients, and they paint with a very broad brush anyone with underlying autoimmunity ... I’m hoping that that changes. I don’t think there’s a great evidence base to support that practice, and it’s unfortunate that patients with underlying autoimmune diseases are excluded from important studies,” Challener said.

Asked to comment, session moderator Matlock Jeffries, MD, director of the Arthritis Research Unit at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, told this news organization that he agrees the data are generally reassuring. “If one of our patients gets cancer and their oncologist wants to use a checkpoint inhibitor, we’d obviously still monitor them for complications, but we wouldn’t automatically assume the combination of a checkpoint inhibitor and autoimmune disease would increase their mortality.” 

 

No Difference in Mortality for Those With and Without Autoimmune Disease

Challener and colleagues used administrative health data from the TriNetX Diamond network of 92 US healthcare sites with 212 million patients. All patients included in the study were receiving anti-programmed death protein 1/programmed death ligand 1 to treat malignancies involving the skin, lung/bronchus, digestive organs, or urinary tract. The study population also had at least one rheumatologic, gastrointestinal, neurologic, dermatologic, or endocrine autoimmune disease.

Propensity score matching between those with and without autoimmune disease was performed for about 100 covariates. Prior to the matching, the autoimmune disease group had significantly higher rates of cardiovascular and other comorbidities. The matching yielded 23,714 individuals with autoimmune disease and the same number without who had similar demographics and comorbidity rates, as well as malignancy type, alcohol/tobacco use, and medication use. 

At a median follow-up of 250 days, the risk for mortality prior to propensity matching was 40.0% in the autoimmune disease group and 38.1% for those without, a significant difference with hazard ratio 1.07 (95% CI, 1.05-1.10). But after the matching, the difference was no longer significant: 39.8% vs 40.2%, respectively (0.97, 0.94-1.00). 

The Kaplan-Meier curves for survival probability for those with or without autoimmune disease were nearly superimposed, showing no difference up to 1600 days. An analysis of just the patients with rheumatic diseases yielded similar results, Challener said. 

 

Some Caveats About the Data

Jeffries, who is also an associate professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and the Oklahoma VA, said he would like to see additional data on outcomes, both for the autoimmune conditions and the cancers. Challener said there are plans to look at other hard endpoints such as myocardial infarction and end-stage renal disease, but that the database is limited. 

Both Challener and Jeffries also cautioned that the reassurance may not apply to patients with active disease. 

“One thing this research doesn’t address is whether active autoimmune disease might have a different outcome compared to more kind of quiet disease…. If you have a patient who has extremely active rheumatoid arthritis or extremely active giant cell arthritis, for instance, I think that could be more challenging. I would be frightened to put a patient with really active GCA on pembrolizumab or say that it’s safe without their disease being controlled. But for someone who has well-controlled disease or minimally active disease, this is very reassuring,” Challener told this news organization.

“I think this may also be important in that it’s a good argument to tell the drug companies to include autoimmune patients in these trials so we can get better data,” Jeffries said.

Challener and Jeffries had no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy does not increase mortality in people with preexisting autoimmune diseases, new research has found. 

Results from a large database analysis of patients with and without autoimmune diseases suggest it is safe to treat them with ICI if they develop a cancer for which it is indicated, Greg Challener, MD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Rheumatology and Allergy Clinical Epidemiology Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said at the American College of Rheumatology 2024 Annual Meeting.

“One message is that, when rheumatologists are asked by oncologists about patients with rheumatoid arthritis or vasculitis or other autoimmune diseases and whether it’s safe to treat them with immune checkpoint inhibitors, this result provides some evidence that it probably is safe…. Checkpoint inhibitors are really incredible drugs, and they’ve improved mortality for a lot of cancers, particularly melanoma, and so I think there should be a pretty high threshold for us to say a patient shouldn’t receive them because of an autoimmune condition,” he told this news organization.

Another implication, Challener said, is that people with autoimmune diseases shouldn’t routinely be excluded from clinical trials of ICIs. Currently they are excluded because of concerns about exacerbation of underlying autoimmunity, possible interference between the ICI and the immunosuppressive drugs used to treat the autoimmune condition, and a theoretical risk for serious adverse events. 

“Clinical trials are continuing to exclude these patients, and they paint with a very broad brush anyone with underlying autoimmunity ... I’m hoping that that changes. I don’t think there’s a great evidence base to support that practice, and it’s unfortunate that patients with underlying autoimmune diseases are excluded from important studies,” Challener said.

Asked to comment, session moderator Matlock Jeffries, MD, director of the Arthritis Research Unit at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, told this news organization that he agrees the data are generally reassuring. “If one of our patients gets cancer and their oncologist wants to use a checkpoint inhibitor, we’d obviously still monitor them for complications, but we wouldn’t automatically assume the combination of a checkpoint inhibitor and autoimmune disease would increase their mortality.” 

 

No Difference in Mortality for Those With and Without Autoimmune Disease

Challener and colleagues used administrative health data from the TriNetX Diamond network of 92 US healthcare sites with 212 million patients. All patients included in the study were receiving anti-programmed death protein 1/programmed death ligand 1 to treat malignancies involving the skin, lung/bronchus, digestive organs, or urinary tract. The study population also had at least one rheumatologic, gastrointestinal, neurologic, dermatologic, or endocrine autoimmune disease.

Propensity score matching between those with and without autoimmune disease was performed for about 100 covariates. Prior to the matching, the autoimmune disease group had significantly higher rates of cardiovascular and other comorbidities. The matching yielded 23,714 individuals with autoimmune disease and the same number without who had similar demographics and comorbidity rates, as well as malignancy type, alcohol/tobacco use, and medication use. 

At a median follow-up of 250 days, the risk for mortality prior to propensity matching was 40.0% in the autoimmune disease group and 38.1% for those without, a significant difference with hazard ratio 1.07 (95% CI, 1.05-1.10). But after the matching, the difference was no longer significant: 39.8% vs 40.2%, respectively (0.97, 0.94-1.00). 

The Kaplan-Meier curves for survival probability for those with or without autoimmune disease were nearly superimposed, showing no difference up to 1600 days. An analysis of just the patients with rheumatic diseases yielded similar results, Challener said. 

 

Some Caveats About the Data

Jeffries, who is also an associate professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and the Oklahoma VA, said he would like to see additional data on outcomes, both for the autoimmune conditions and the cancers. Challener said there are plans to look at other hard endpoints such as myocardial infarction and end-stage renal disease, but that the database is limited. 

Both Challener and Jeffries also cautioned that the reassurance may not apply to patients with active disease. 

“One thing this research doesn’t address is whether active autoimmune disease might have a different outcome compared to more kind of quiet disease…. If you have a patient who has extremely active rheumatoid arthritis or extremely active giant cell arthritis, for instance, I think that could be more challenging. I would be frightened to put a patient with really active GCA on pembrolizumab or say that it’s safe without their disease being controlled. But for someone who has well-controlled disease or minimally active disease, this is very reassuring,” Challener told this news organization.

“I think this may also be important in that it’s a good argument to tell the drug companies to include autoimmune patients in these trials so we can get better data,” Jeffries said.

Challener and Jeffries had no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy does not increase mortality in people with preexisting autoimmune diseases, new research has found. 

Results from a large database analysis of patients with and without autoimmune diseases suggest it is safe to treat them with ICI if they develop a cancer for which it is indicated, Greg Challener, MD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Rheumatology and Allergy Clinical Epidemiology Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said at the American College of Rheumatology 2024 Annual Meeting.

“One message is that, when rheumatologists are asked by oncologists about patients with rheumatoid arthritis or vasculitis or other autoimmune diseases and whether it’s safe to treat them with immune checkpoint inhibitors, this result provides some evidence that it probably is safe…. Checkpoint inhibitors are really incredible drugs, and they’ve improved mortality for a lot of cancers, particularly melanoma, and so I think there should be a pretty high threshold for us to say a patient shouldn’t receive them because of an autoimmune condition,” he told this news organization.

Another implication, Challener said, is that people with autoimmune diseases shouldn’t routinely be excluded from clinical trials of ICIs. Currently they are excluded because of concerns about exacerbation of underlying autoimmunity, possible interference between the ICI and the immunosuppressive drugs used to treat the autoimmune condition, and a theoretical risk for serious adverse events. 

“Clinical trials are continuing to exclude these patients, and they paint with a very broad brush anyone with underlying autoimmunity ... I’m hoping that that changes. I don’t think there’s a great evidence base to support that practice, and it’s unfortunate that patients with underlying autoimmune diseases are excluded from important studies,” Challener said.

Asked to comment, session moderator Matlock Jeffries, MD, director of the Arthritis Research Unit at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, told this news organization that he agrees the data are generally reassuring. “If one of our patients gets cancer and their oncologist wants to use a checkpoint inhibitor, we’d obviously still monitor them for complications, but we wouldn’t automatically assume the combination of a checkpoint inhibitor and autoimmune disease would increase their mortality.” 

 

No Difference in Mortality for Those With and Without Autoimmune Disease

Challener and colleagues used administrative health data from the TriNetX Diamond network of 92 US healthcare sites with 212 million patients. All patients included in the study were receiving anti-programmed death protein 1/programmed death ligand 1 to treat malignancies involving the skin, lung/bronchus, digestive organs, or urinary tract. The study population also had at least one rheumatologic, gastrointestinal, neurologic, dermatologic, or endocrine autoimmune disease.

Propensity score matching between those with and without autoimmune disease was performed for about 100 covariates. Prior to the matching, the autoimmune disease group had significantly higher rates of cardiovascular and other comorbidities. The matching yielded 23,714 individuals with autoimmune disease and the same number without who had similar demographics and comorbidity rates, as well as malignancy type, alcohol/tobacco use, and medication use. 

At a median follow-up of 250 days, the risk for mortality prior to propensity matching was 40.0% in the autoimmune disease group and 38.1% for those without, a significant difference with hazard ratio 1.07 (95% CI, 1.05-1.10). But after the matching, the difference was no longer significant: 39.8% vs 40.2%, respectively (0.97, 0.94-1.00). 

The Kaplan-Meier curves for survival probability for those with or without autoimmune disease were nearly superimposed, showing no difference up to 1600 days. An analysis of just the patients with rheumatic diseases yielded similar results, Challener said. 

 

Some Caveats About the Data

Jeffries, who is also an associate professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and the Oklahoma VA, said he would like to see additional data on outcomes, both for the autoimmune conditions and the cancers. Challener said there are plans to look at other hard endpoints such as myocardial infarction and end-stage renal disease, but that the database is limited. 

Both Challener and Jeffries also cautioned that the reassurance may not apply to patients with active disease. 

“One thing this research doesn’t address is whether active autoimmune disease might have a different outcome compared to more kind of quiet disease…. If you have a patient who has extremely active rheumatoid arthritis or extremely active giant cell arthritis, for instance, I think that could be more challenging. I would be frightened to put a patient with really active GCA on pembrolizumab or say that it’s safe without their disease being controlled. But for someone who has well-controlled disease or minimally active disease, this is very reassuring,” Challener told this news organization.

“I think this may also be important in that it’s a good argument to tell the drug companies to include autoimmune patients in these trials so we can get better data,” Jeffries said.

Challener and Jeffries had no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — An implantable vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) device effectively treats moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients who had previously failed at least one biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD), according to results from a phase 3 trial.

Of the 242 patients in the RESET-RA study, all received the VNS device implant but were blinded as to whether the device was turned on. At 12 weeks, 35.2% of patients receiving daily stimulation achieved 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20) compared with 24.2% of those with an inactive device. The response was more pronounced among patients with exposure to only one prior b/tsDMARD. A greater proportion of patients in the overall treatment group also reached low disease activity or remission compared with those who did not receive stimulation. 

The research was presented as a late-breaking poster at the ACR 2024 Annual Meeting.

“This is a particularly tough-to-treat patient population, since the patients enrolled were considered refractory to biologic therapy,” said Elena Schiopu, MD, professor of medicine in the Division of Rheumatology and director of clinical trials at the Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University. More than one third of patients in the study had tried three or more b/tsDMARDs prior to the study. “I’m pretty excited about these results,” she added. Schiopu was a RESET-RA institutional principal investigator and enrolled two patients in the trial.

These positive results are a first for VNS treatment in rheumatic diseases. Previous studies demonstrating the potential therapeutic effect of this implant approach have largely been open-label, proof-of-concept, or pilot studies. Noninvasive, wearable stimulation devices have also shown promise in open-label studies; however, a sham-controlled trial published in 2023 showed that transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation on the ear was no more effective than placebo. 

 

But How Does It Work?

The device, developed by SetPoint Medical in Valencia, California, is about the size of a multivitamin and implanted in an outpatient setting. During the 45-minute procedure, surgeons isolate the vagus nerve on the left side of the neck and place the nerve stimulator with a silicone positioning pod to hold it in place.

The device is programmed to deliver stimulation for 1 minute every day and needs charging for only 10 minutes once a week, which is done remotely with a necklace.

The device takes advantage of the vagus nerve’s anti-inflammatory properties, stimulating the nerve to help regulate an overactive immune system of someone with RA, explained David Chernoff, MD, Setpoint Medical’s chief medical officer. 

“We’re recapitulating what nature has developed over millions of years, which is the nexus between the brain and the immune system, which happens to be mediated by the vagus nerve,” he told Medscape Medical News. 

This novel VNS approach also does not have the same immunosuppressive safety concerns as drugs commonly used to treat RA, he said. 

“We’re able to adjust the amount of inflammation, but we don’t cause the host defense issues” that are present with some of these drugs, he continued.

SetPoint Medical’s pilot study of the device in 14 patients showed promising results. Five of 10 patients randomly assigned to active VNS over 12 weeks showed clinical improvements, measured by 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) and the Clinical Disease Activity Index. In the remaining four patients who received sham stimulation — where the device was implanted but not activated — there were no clinical disease improvements.

 

RESET-RA Details

The most recent, much larger phase 3 study enrolled patients from 41 sites in the United States. Patients were on average 56 years old and had a body mass index of 30; 86% were women. A total of 39% had previously tried one b/tsDMARD, 22% had tried two, and 39% had tried three or more. Patients, on average, had 15 tender joints and 10 swollen joints. Patients discontinued their prior b/tsDMARD before the procedure and remained on conventional DMARDS during the trial, including methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, and sulfasalazine.

The researchers randomly assigned patients 1:1 to active (treatment) or nonactive (control) stimulation. 

“The perception of stimulation varies from patient to patient, which itself is helpful in blinding as there is no expected perception of whether or how stimulation will be felt,” Chernoff explained. The 1-minute stimulation was scheduled in the early hours of the morning, when a patient typically would be asleep, he said.

Patients were excluded from the analysis if they were rescued by steroids or b/tsDMARDs through week 12. After week 12, the control group was switched to stimulation and efficacy was reassessed at week 24.

 

Higher ACR20 Response Rate, Lower Disease Activity

Beyond meeting the primary endpoint of ACR20 response, patients on the active stimulation group showed lower disease activity at week 12. Compared with 15.8% of patients in the control group, 27% of those in the treatment group achieved a DAS28-CRP ≤ 3.2. 

The active stimulation was particularly effective in patients who had experience with only one prior b/tsDMARD. In this subset of patients, 44.2% in the treatment group achieved ACR20 compared with 19.0% in the control group.

During this sham-controlled trial period, 13.1% of patients in the treatment group and 18.3% of patients in the control group reported an adverse event (AE) related to the procedure or device, most commonly vocal cord paresis or dysphonia. In the treatment group, 8.2% reported stimulation-related AEs, most commonly mild/moderate pain that was managed by adjusting the stimulation level. 

Serious adverse events (SAEs) were relatively rare, with four treatment-related SAEs across both study groups. No AEs led to study discontinuation through week 24.

The 12-week results mirror those of the initial Humira and Enbrel trials in the late 1990s and early 2000s, Schiopu said, although in those trials, the patients were naive to biologics, and some were naive to methotrexate. A more appropriate comparison, she said, would be biologic-experienced populations.

At week 24, the percentage of patients achieving ACR20 further increased to 51.5% in the treatment group and to 53.1% in the previous control group who were now crossed over to active stimulation. In this secondary period, patients could add any additional therapies like steroids or b/tsDMARDs. At 24 weeks, 81% of patients remained on stimulation without needing additional medication, beyond their continued background DMARDs. 

The results also show “a continuum of improvement over time,” Schiopu said, where response rates climbed through week 24. 

Schiopu is particularly excited about the potential to use this stimulation device in older patients, who have perhaps been on immunosuppressant drugs for decades. 

“Aside from being chronically immunosuppressed, their immune system is more tired [due to age],” she said. With VNS therapies like SetPoint’s, “we could offer [these patients] a lesser immunosuppressive alternative that is still immune-modular enough to manage their RA.”

Schiopu is a consultant for Johnson & Johnson and reported receiving research funding for serving as an institutional principal investigator for SetPoint, Galapagos, Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, argenx, EMD Serono, Priovant, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Zena Pharmaceuticals, and Horizon/Amgen.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — An implantable vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) device effectively treats moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients who had previously failed at least one biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD), according to results from a phase 3 trial.

Of the 242 patients in the RESET-RA study, all received the VNS device implant but were blinded as to whether the device was turned on. At 12 weeks, 35.2% of patients receiving daily stimulation achieved 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20) compared with 24.2% of those with an inactive device. The response was more pronounced among patients with exposure to only one prior b/tsDMARD. A greater proportion of patients in the overall treatment group also reached low disease activity or remission compared with those who did not receive stimulation. 

The research was presented as a late-breaking poster at the ACR 2024 Annual Meeting.

“This is a particularly tough-to-treat patient population, since the patients enrolled were considered refractory to biologic therapy,” said Elena Schiopu, MD, professor of medicine in the Division of Rheumatology and director of clinical trials at the Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University. More than one third of patients in the study had tried three or more b/tsDMARDs prior to the study. “I’m pretty excited about these results,” she added. Schiopu was a RESET-RA institutional principal investigator and enrolled two patients in the trial.

These positive results are a first for VNS treatment in rheumatic diseases. Previous studies demonstrating the potential therapeutic effect of this implant approach have largely been open-label, proof-of-concept, or pilot studies. Noninvasive, wearable stimulation devices have also shown promise in open-label studies; however, a sham-controlled trial published in 2023 showed that transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation on the ear was no more effective than placebo. 

 

But How Does It Work?

The device, developed by SetPoint Medical in Valencia, California, is about the size of a multivitamin and implanted in an outpatient setting. During the 45-minute procedure, surgeons isolate the vagus nerve on the left side of the neck and place the nerve stimulator with a silicone positioning pod to hold it in place.

The device is programmed to deliver stimulation for 1 minute every day and needs charging for only 10 minutes once a week, which is done remotely with a necklace.

The device takes advantage of the vagus nerve’s anti-inflammatory properties, stimulating the nerve to help regulate an overactive immune system of someone with RA, explained David Chernoff, MD, Setpoint Medical’s chief medical officer. 

“We’re recapitulating what nature has developed over millions of years, which is the nexus between the brain and the immune system, which happens to be mediated by the vagus nerve,” he told Medscape Medical News. 

This novel VNS approach also does not have the same immunosuppressive safety concerns as drugs commonly used to treat RA, he said. 

“We’re able to adjust the amount of inflammation, but we don’t cause the host defense issues” that are present with some of these drugs, he continued.

SetPoint Medical’s pilot study of the device in 14 patients showed promising results. Five of 10 patients randomly assigned to active VNS over 12 weeks showed clinical improvements, measured by 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) and the Clinical Disease Activity Index. In the remaining four patients who received sham stimulation — where the device was implanted but not activated — there were no clinical disease improvements.

 

RESET-RA Details

The most recent, much larger phase 3 study enrolled patients from 41 sites in the United States. Patients were on average 56 years old and had a body mass index of 30; 86% were women. A total of 39% had previously tried one b/tsDMARD, 22% had tried two, and 39% had tried three or more. Patients, on average, had 15 tender joints and 10 swollen joints. Patients discontinued their prior b/tsDMARD before the procedure and remained on conventional DMARDS during the trial, including methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, and sulfasalazine.

The researchers randomly assigned patients 1:1 to active (treatment) or nonactive (control) stimulation. 

“The perception of stimulation varies from patient to patient, which itself is helpful in blinding as there is no expected perception of whether or how stimulation will be felt,” Chernoff explained. The 1-minute stimulation was scheduled in the early hours of the morning, when a patient typically would be asleep, he said.

Patients were excluded from the analysis if they were rescued by steroids or b/tsDMARDs through week 12. After week 12, the control group was switched to stimulation and efficacy was reassessed at week 24.

 

Higher ACR20 Response Rate, Lower Disease Activity

Beyond meeting the primary endpoint of ACR20 response, patients on the active stimulation group showed lower disease activity at week 12. Compared with 15.8% of patients in the control group, 27% of those in the treatment group achieved a DAS28-CRP ≤ 3.2. 

The active stimulation was particularly effective in patients who had experience with only one prior b/tsDMARD. In this subset of patients, 44.2% in the treatment group achieved ACR20 compared with 19.0% in the control group.

During this sham-controlled trial period, 13.1% of patients in the treatment group and 18.3% of patients in the control group reported an adverse event (AE) related to the procedure or device, most commonly vocal cord paresis or dysphonia. In the treatment group, 8.2% reported stimulation-related AEs, most commonly mild/moderate pain that was managed by adjusting the stimulation level. 

Serious adverse events (SAEs) were relatively rare, with four treatment-related SAEs across both study groups. No AEs led to study discontinuation through week 24.

The 12-week results mirror those of the initial Humira and Enbrel trials in the late 1990s and early 2000s, Schiopu said, although in those trials, the patients were naive to biologics, and some were naive to methotrexate. A more appropriate comparison, she said, would be biologic-experienced populations.

At week 24, the percentage of patients achieving ACR20 further increased to 51.5% in the treatment group and to 53.1% in the previous control group who were now crossed over to active stimulation. In this secondary period, patients could add any additional therapies like steroids or b/tsDMARDs. At 24 weeks, 81% of patients remained on stimulation without needing additional medication, beyond their continued background DMARDs. 

The results also show “a continuum of improvement over time,” Schiopu said, where response rates climbed through week 24. 

Schiopu is particularly excited about the potential to use this stimulation device in older patients, who have perhaps been on immunosuppressant drugs for decades. 

“Aside from being chronically immunosuppressed, their immune system is more tired [due to age],” she said. With VNS therapies like SetPoint’s, “we could offer [these patients] a lesser immunosuppressive alternative that is still immune-modular enough to manage their RA.”

Schiopu is a consultant for Johnson & Johnson and reported receiving research funding for serving as an institutional principal investigator for SetPoint, Galapagos, Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, argenx, EMD Serono, Priovant, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Zena Pharmaceuticals, and Horizon/Amgen.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — An implantable vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) device effectively treats moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients who had previously failed at least one biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD), according to results from a phase 3 trial.

Of the 242 patients in the RESET-RA study, all received the VNS device implant but were blinded as to whether the device was turned on. At 12 weeks, 35.2% of patients receiving daily stimulation achieved 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20) compared with 24.2% of those with an inactive device. The response was more pronounced among patients with exposure to only one prior b/tsDMARD. A greater proportion of patients in the overall treatment group also reached low disease activity or remission compared with those who did not receive stimulation. 

The research was presented as a late-breaking poster at the ACR 2024 Annual Meeting.

“This is a particularly tough-to-treat patient population, since the patients enrolled were considered refractory to biologic therapy,” said Elena Schiopu, MD, professor of medicine in the Division of Rheumatology and director of clinical trials at the Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University. More than one third of patients in the study had tried three or more b/tsDMARDs prior to the study. “I’m pretty excited about these results,” she added. Schiopu was a RESET-RA institutional principal investigator and enrolled two patients in the trial.

These positive results are a first for VNS treatment in rheumatic diseases. Previous studies demonstrating the potential therapeutic effect of this implant approach have largely been open-label, proof-of-concept, or pilot studies. Noninvasive, wearable stimulation devices have also shown promise in open-label studies; however, a sham-controlled trial published in 2023 showed that transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation on the ear was no more effective than placebo. 

 

But How Does It Work?

The device, developed by SetPoint Medical in Valencia, California, is about the size of a multivitamin and implanted in an outpatient setting. During the 45-minute procedure, surgeons isolate the vagus nerve on the left side of the neck and place the nerve stimulator with a silicone positioning pod to hold it in place.

The device is programmed to deliver stimulation for 1 minute every day and needs charging for only 10 minutes once a week, which is done remotely with a necklace.

The device takes advantage of the vagus nerve’s anti-inflammatory properties, stimulating the nerve to help regulate an overactive immune system of someone with RA, explained David Chernoff, MD, Setpoint Medical’s chief medical officer. 

“We’re recapitulating what nature has developed over millions of years, which is the nexus between the brain and the immune system, which happens to be mediated by the vagus nerve,” he told Medscape Medical News. 

This novel VNS approach also does not have the same immunosuppressive safety concerns as drugs commonly used to treat RA, he said. 

“We’re able to adjust the amount of inflammation, but we don’t cause the host defense issues” that are present with some of these drugs, he continued.

SetPoint Medical’s pilot study of the device in 14 patients showed promising results. Five of 10 patients randomly assigned to active VNS over 12 weeks showed clinical improvements, measured by 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) and the Clinical Disease Activity Index. In the remaining four patients who received sham stimulation — where the device was implanted but not activated — there were no clinical disease improvements.

 

RESET-RA Details

The most recent, much larger phase 3 study enrolled patients from 41 sites in the United States. Patients were on average 56 years old and had a body mass index of 30; 86% were women. A total of 39% had previously tried one b/tsDMARD, 22% had tried two, and 39% had tried three or more. Patients, on average, had 15 tender joints and 10 swollen joints. Patients discontinued their prior b/tsDMARD before the procedure and remained on conventional DMARDS during the trial, including methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, and sulfasalazine.

The researchers randomly assigned patients 1:1 to active (treatment) or nonactive (control) stimulation. 

“The perception of stimulation varies from patient to patient, which itself is helpful in blinding as there is no expected perception of whether or how stimulation will be felt,” Chernoff explained. The 1-minute stimulation was scheduled in the early hours of the morning, when a patient typically would be asleep, he said.

Patients were excluded from the analysis if they were rescued by steroids or b/tsDMARDs through week 12. After week 12, the control group was switched to stimulation and efficacy was reassessed at week 24.

 

Higher ACR20 Response Rate, Lower Disease Activity

Beyond meeting the primary endpoint of ACR20 response, patients on the active stimulation group showed lower disease activity at week 12. Compared with 15.8% of patients in the control group, 27% of those in the treatment group achieved a DAS28-CRP ≤ 3.2. 

The active stimulation was particularly effective in patients who had experience with only one prior b/tsDMARD. In this subset of patients, 44.2% in the treatment group achieved ACR20 compared with 19.0% in the control group.

During this sham-controlled trial period, 13.1% of patients in the treatment group and 18.3% of patients in the control group reported an adverse event (AE) related to the procedure or device, most commonly vocal cord paresis or dysphonia. In the treatment group, 8.2% reported stimulation-related AEs, most commonly mild/moderate pain that was managed by adjusting the stimulation level. 

Serious adverse events (SAEs) were relatively rare, with four treatment-related SAEs across both study groups. No AEs led to study discontinuation through week 24.

The 12-week results mirror those of the initial Humira and Enbrel trials in the late 1990s and early 2000s, Schiopu said, although in those trials, the patients were naive to biologics, and some were naive to methotrexate. A more appropriate comparison, she said, would be biologic-experienced populations.

At week 24, the percentage of patients achieving ACR20 further increased to 51.5% in the treatment group and to 53.1% in the previous control group who were now crossed over to active stimulation. In this secondary period, patients could add any additional therapies like steroids or b/tsDMARDs. At 24 weeks, 81% of patients remained on stimulation without needing additional medication, beyond their continued background DMARDs. 

The results also show “a continuum of improvement over time,” Schiopu said, where response rates climbed through week 24. 

Schiopu is particularly excited about the potential to use this stimulation device in older patients, who have perhaps been on immunosuppressant drugs for decades. 

“Aside from being chronically immunosuppressed, their immune system is more tired [due to age],” she said. With VNS therapies like SetPoint’s, “we could offer [these patients] a lesser immunosuppressive alternative that is still immune-modular enough to manage their RA.”

Schiopu is a consultant for Johnson & Johnson and reported receiving research funding for serving as an institutional principal investigator for SetPoint, Galapagos, Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, argenx, EMD Serono, Priovant, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Zena Pharmaceuticals, and Horizon/Amgen.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — A diagnostic test to predict preeclampsia does not effectively rule in or out this pregnancy complication in women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and proteinuria, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

“If you have a patient who has proteinuria during pregnancy, I’m not sure we know what to do with this test,” said Megan Clowse, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine and chief of the Division of Rheumatology and Immunology at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina. She led the research and presented the work.

The results “are probably a step in the right direction to understanding that we need more biochemical markers for differentiating preeclampsia [in this patient population],” Leanna Wise, MD, of the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. She comoderated the session where the research was presented. “It exposed that we have a lot of gray areas in which we need to do more research.”

The test is a ratio of two biomarkers that measure spiral artery and placental health: Soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFlt-1) and placental growth factor (PlGF). In the general population, a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ≤ 38 effectively rules out the short-term risk for preeclampsia, whereas a ratio ≥ 85 is moderately predictive of preeclampsia. However, it was not known how this test would fare in pregnant women with SLE who are already at a higher risk for the complication.

To answer this question, Clowse and colleagues pulled patient data from an ongoing prospective registry of lupus pregnancies. The analysis included patients with a confirmed SLE diagnosis who had enrolled in the registry prior to 30 weeks’ gestation. All participants had provided a serum sample prior to 16 weeks’ gestation and had singleton pregnancies.

In an extensive chart review, preeclampsia was determined by a roundtable of six experts: Two rheumatologists, two maternal-fetal medicine doctors, and two nephrologists.

The analysis included 79 pregnancies, of which 30% developed preeclampsia. Nearly half (47%) of the participants identified as Black or African American. About 30% had a history of lupus nephritis, and half of these patients had active disease during their pregnancy. About half of the women reported that this was their first pregnancy, and an additional 17% of women reported a prior episode of preeclampsia. Most patients were on aspirin (92%) and hydroxychloroquine (87%), and another 43% were prescribed prednisone and 37% were taking azathioprine.

Researchers assessed whether a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio (≤ 38) was associated with the absence of preeclampsia at 4- and 8-weeks post–blood draw, as well as during the entire pregnancy. They also tested if a high ratio (≥ 85) was associated with the development of preeclampsia within 4- and 8-weeks post–blood draw and through the entire pregnancy.

Across all pregnancies in the cohort, those with sFlt-1/PlGF ≤ 38 were unlikely to develop preeclampsia at 4 weeks post draw (negative predictive value [NPV], 98%) and 8 weeks post draw (NPV, 96%). Still, 20% of patients with this low ratio went on to develop preeclampsia at some point during their pregnancy.

Similar to the general population, sFlt-1/PlGF ≥ 85 was only moderately predictive of preeclampsia. Over half of all patients with this high ratio developed preeclampsia, but more than 40% did not.

Researchers also stratified patients by urine protein:creatinine ratio (UPCR) at the time of their rheumatology visit, defining proteinuria as a UPCR ≥ 300 mg/g.

In patients without proteinuria (n = 63), a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ruled out preeclampsia over the next 8 weeks, but a high sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was not usefully predictive of preeclampsia.

 

Low Ratio to Rule Out Preeclampsia ‘Reassuring’

The high reliability in ruling out preeclampsia in this subset of patients with a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio is “reassuring,” Wise said, and suggests that these patients are “relatively safe moving forward,” given regular follow-up.

In the small group of patients with proteinuria (n = 16), 44% ultimately developed preeclampsia. One third of patients with sFlt-1/PlGF ≤ 38 developed preeclampsia in 8 weeks, and half experienced preeclampsia at some point during their pregnancy. Among the patients with sFlt-1:PlGF ≥ 85, 56% developed preeclampsia during their pregnancy.

“The negative predictive values are not really great, and the positive predictive values are not really very useful,” Clowse said. For a pregnant patient with proteinuria, “I don’t think that a high [ratio] is going to tell us that she definitely has preeclampsia today or tomorrow. I also am not convinced yet that a low [ratio] tells us that she’s out of the woods. So, I think we definitely need more research on what to do with this test in patients with proteinuria.”

Clowse is a consultant and has received research support/grants from GSK and UCB. She also reported consulting for AstraZeneca. Wise is a consultant for Aurinia Pharmaceuticals and has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, and GSK.

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

WASHINGTON — A diagnostic test to predict preeclampsia does not effectively rule in or out this pregnancy complication in women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and proteinuria, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

“If you have a patient who has proteinuria during pregnancy, I’m not sure we know what to do with this test,” said Megan Clowse, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine and chief of the Division of Rheumatology and Immunology at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina. She led the research and presented the work.

The results “are probably a step in the right direction to understanding that we need more biochemical markers for differentiating preeclampsia [in this patient population],” Leanna Wise, MD, of the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. She comoderated the session where the research was presented. “It exposed that we have a lot of gray areas in which we need to do more research.”

The test is a ratio of two biomarkers that measure spiral artery and placental health: Soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFlt-1) and placental growth factor (PlGF). In the general population, a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ≤ 38 effectively rules out the short-term risk for preeclampsia, whereas a ratio ≥ 85 is moderately predictive of preeclampsia. However, it was not known how this test would fare in pregnant women with SLE who are already at a higher risk for the complication.

To answer this question, Clowse and colleagues pulled patient data from an ongoing prospective registry of lupus pregnancies. The analysis included patients with a confirmed SLE diagnosis who had enrolled in the registry prior to 30 weeks’ gestation. All participants had provided a serum sample prior to 16 weeks’ gestation and had singleton pregnancies.

In an extensive chart review, preeclampsia was determined by a roundtable of six experts: Two rheumatologists, two maternal-fetal medicine doctors, and two nephrologists.

The analysis included 79 pregnancies, of which 30% developed preeclampsia. Nearly half (47%) of the participants identified as Black or African American. About 30% had a history of lupus nephritis, and half of these patients had active disease during their pregnancy. About half of the women reported that this was their first pregnancy, and an additional 17% of women reported a prior episode of preeclampsia. Most patients were on aspirin (92%) and hydroxychloroquine (87%), and another 43% were prescribed prednisone and 37% were taking azathioprine.

Researchers assessed whether a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio (≤ 38) was associated with the absence of preeclampsia at 4- and 8-weeks post–blood draw, as well as during the entire pregnancy. They also tested if a high ratio (≥ 85) was associated with the development of preeclampsia within 4- and 8-weeks post–blood draw and through the entire pregnancy.

Across all pregnancies in the cohort, those with sFlt-1/PlGF ≤ 38 were unlikely to develop preeclampsia at 4 weeks post draw (negative predictive value [NPV], 98%) and 8 weeks post draw (NPV, 96%). Still, 20% of patients with this low ratio went on to develop preeclampsia at some point during their pregnancy.

Similar to the general population, sFlt-1/PlGF ≥ 85 was only moderately predictive of preeclampsia. Over half of all patients with this high ratio developed preeclampsia, but more than 40% did not.

Researchers also stratified patients by urine protein:creatinine ratio (UPCR) at the time of their rheumatology visit, defining proteinuria as a UPCR ≥ 300 mg/g.

In patients without proteinuria (n = 63), a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ruled out preeclampsia over the next 8 weeks, but a high sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was not usefully predictive of preeclampsia.

 

Low Ratio to Rule Out Preeclampsia ‘Reassuring’

The high reliability in ruling out preeclampsia in this subset of patients with a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio is “reassuring,” Wise said, and suggests that these patients are “relatively safe moving forward,” given regular follow-up.

In the small group of patients with proteinuria (n = 16), 44% ultimately developed preeclampsia. One third of patients with sFlt-1/PlGF ≤ 38 developed preeclampsia in 8 weeks, and half experienced preeclampsia at some point during their pregnancy. Among the patients with sFlt-1:PlGF ≥ 85, 56% developed preeclampsia during their pregnancy.

“The negative predictive values are not really great, and the positive predictive values are not really very useful,” Clowse said. For a pregnant patient with proteinuria, “I don’t think that a high [ratio] is going to tell us that she definitely has preeclampsia today or tomorrow. I also am not convinced yet that a low [ratio] tells us that she’s out of the woods. So, I think we definitely need more research on what to do with this test in patients with proteinuria.”

Clowse is a consultant and has received research support/grants from GSK and UCB. She also reported consulting for AstraZeneca. Wise is a consultant for Aurinia Pharmaceuticals and has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, and GSK.

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

WASHINGTON — A diagnostic test to predict preeclampsia does not effectively rule in or out this pregnancy complication in women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and proteinuria, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

“If you have a patient who has proteinuria during pregnancy, I’m not sure we know what to do with this test,” said Megan Clowse, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine and chief of the Division of Rheumatology and Immunology at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina. She led the research and presented the work.

The results “are probably a step in the right direction to understanding that we need more biochemical markers for differentiating preeclampsia [in this patient population],” Leanna Wise, MD, of the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. She comoderated the session where the research was presented. “It exposed that we have a lot of gray areas in which we need to do more research.”

The test is a ratio of two biomarkers that measure spiral artery and placental health: Soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFlt-1) and placental growth factor (PlGF). In the general population, a sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ≤ 38 effectively rules out the short-term risk for preeclampsia, whereas a ratio ≥ 85 is moderately predictive of preeclampsia. However, it was not known how this test would fare in pregnant women with SLE who are already at a higher risk for the complication.

To answer this question, Clowse and colleagues pulled patient data from an ongoing prospective registry of lupus pregnancies. The analysis included patients with a confirmed SLE diagnosis who had enrolled in the registry prior to 30 weeks’ gestation. All participants had provided a serum sample prior to 16 weeks’ gestation and had singleton pregnancies.

In an extensive chart review, preeclampsia was determined by a roundtable of six experts: Two rheumatologists, two maternal-fetal medicine doctors, and two nephrologists.

The analysis included 79 pregnancies, of which 30% developed preeclampsia. Nearly half (47%) of the participants identified as Black or African American. About 30% had a history of lupus nephritis, and half of these patients had active disease during their pregnancy. About half of the women reported that this was their first pregnancy, and an additional 17% of women reported a prior episode of preeclampsia. Most patients were on aspirin (92%) and hydroxychloroquine (87%), and another 43% were prescribed prednisone and 37% were taking azathioprine.

Researchers assessed whether a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio (≤ 38) was associated with the absence of preeclampsia at 4- and 8-weeks post–blood draw, as well as during the entire pregnancy. They also tested if a high ratio (≥ 85) was associated with the development of preeclampsia within 4- and 8-weeks post–blood draw and through the entire pregnancy.

Across all pregnancies in the cohort, those with sFlt-1/PlGF ≤ 38 were unlikely to develop preeclampsia at 4 weeks post draw (negative predictive value [NPV], 98%) and 8 weeks post draw (NPV, 96%). Still, 20% of patients with this low ratio went on to develop preeclampsia at some point during their pregnancy.

Similar to the general population, sFlt-1/PlGF ≥ 85 was only moderately predictive of preeclampsia. Over half of all patients with this high ratio developed preeclampsia, but more than 40% did not.

Researchers also stratified patients by urine protein:creatinine ratio (UPCR) at the time of their rheumatology visit, defining proteinuria as a UPCR ≥ 300 mg/g.

In patients without proteinuria (n = 63), a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ruled out preeclampsia over the next 8 weeks, but a high sFlt-1/PlGF ratio was not usefully predictive of preeclampsia.

 

Low Ratio to Rule Out Preeclampsia ‘Reassuring’

The high reliability in ruling out preeclampsia in this subset of patients with a low sFlt-1/PlGF ratio is “reassuring,” Wise said, and suggests that these patients are “relatively safe moving forward,” given regular follow-up.

In the small group of patients with proteinuria (n = 16), 44% ultimately developed preeclampsia. One third of patients with sFlt-1/PlGF ≤ 38 developed preeclampsia in 8 weeks, and half experienced preeclampsia at some point during their pregnancy. Among the patients with sFlt-1:PlGF ≥ 85, 56% developed preeclampsia during their pregnancy.

“The negative predictive values are not really great, and the positive predictive values are not really very useful,” Clowse said. For a pregnant patient with proteinuria, “I don’t think that a high [ratio] is going to tell us that she definitely has preeclampsia today or tomorrow. I also am not convinced yet that a low [ratio] tells us that she’s out of the woods. So, I think we definitely need more research on what to do with this test in patients with proteinuria.”

Clowse is a consultant and has received research support/grants from GSK and UCB. She also reported consulting for AstraZeneca. Wise is a consultant for Aurinia Pharmaceuticals and has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, and GSK.

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

WASHINGTON — There is no benefit to interrupting treatment with many of the available targeted synthetic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or spondyloarthritis (SpA) at the time of a repeat COVID-19 vaccine dose, new research found.

In the multicenter, randomized controlled COVID Vaccine Response (COVER) trial of 577 patients with RA or SpA taking either abatacept, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitors, or tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, holding those drugs for 2 weeks at the time of COVID-19 vaccination supplemental doses didn’t improve antibody response to the vaccine but did lead to disease flares. Most participants had significant antibody responses to the vaccine, regardless of whether their medication had been held or continued, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, the Harbert-Ball Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology, and Computer Science at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

Guidelines issued by ACR in 2023 recommended holding abatacept for the COVID vaccine but said that “the task force failed to reach consensus” on whether or not to temporarily interrupt the other medications following primary vaccination or supplemental/booster dosing.

Curtis, who was an author on those guidelines, said in an interview, “to date, we haven’t known whether it might be a good idea to hold certain drugs at the time patients receive their next dose of the COVID vaccine. ... That’s because without direct evidence, you have people trading opinions based on extrapolated data.” 

The inability to measure cell-mediated immunity and only humoral (ie, antibody-based) immunity is a limitation in COVER. “Nevertheless, based on what we know now, it isn’t advisable to hold any of the four drug classes that we studied at the time patients receive their next COVID vaccine dose. This finding is in contrast to data from a different trial showing that holding methotrexate for 2 weeks does appear to help in response to COVID-19 vaccination, as well as influenza vaccine,” Curtis said.

Asked to comment, session moderator Elena Myasoedova, MD, PhD, consultant rheumatologist and director of the Inflammatory Arthritis Clinic at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, said in an interview: “This has been an area of clinical uncertainty. It raises a lot of questions from patients and from physicians alike as to whether or not to hold the medication because the implications are flares, and that’s impactful for patients. Patients care about their RA status and how it is controlled, and if there is no difference, then there is no reason to change the medication regimen.”

 

To Hold or Not to Hold: COVER Shows It Makes Little Difference to Vaccine Response

In COVER, 128 patients were taking abatacept, 96 IL-17 inhibitors, 237 JAK inhibitors, and 116 TNF inhibitors. The study was conducted within 30 sites of the Excellence Network in Rheumatology, a rheumatology practice–based research network launched in 2021. Participants were identified and enrolled at clinic visits immediately prior to receiving their COVID-19 boosters (in routine settings).

All had previously received two or more doses of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer or Moderna. Blood was drawn, and they were randomized 1:1 to either continue or hold their disease medication for 2 weeks following the booster. Blood was collected again at 6 weeks post vaccine.

Anti–receptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG antibody titers increased significantly in all drug categories across both study arms, with no differences between the hold vs continue medication groups, even after adjustments for age, sex, body mass index, methotrexate use, steroid use, and time from booster to measurement. All groups also showed increases in geometric mean fold rise of more than 3%.

Subgroup analyses showed no major differences between antibody responses in the hold vs continue groups. The anti-RBD IgG response was lower for abatacept and JAK inhibitors than for the other two drugs, but there was still no significant benefit to holding them for 2 weeks post vaccination.

 

Holding Drugs Leads to Disease Flares

On the flip side, there were significant differences between the two groups in their responses to the question: “Did you experience any flare or worsening of your autoimmune disease following your recent COVID-19 booster dose?” Overall, 27% of the hold group responded that they had, compared with just 13% of the continue group (P < .05). This difference was greatest in the JAK inhibitor group (33% vs 9%; P < .05).

Among those reporting flares or worsening disease, both the severity and the duration of the flares were about the same. “Interestingly, the duration is beyond a week for the majority of patients. The reason that’s important is, any symptoms that are so-called flare might simply be reactogenicity symptoms, and that might be confused for flare or disease worsening, but you see that a majority of patients actually have those symptoms extending beyond the week. Most of them are worsening in arthritis, as you might expect,” Curtis said in his presentation.

Asked what they did about the flare, only a minority of patients reported contacting a healthcare provider. In all, 68% of the hold group and 78% of the continue group took no action. That’s good in the sense that most of the flares weren’t severe, but it has implications for research, Curtis pointed out.

“A lot of times in the vaccine literature, people do retrospective chart review by looking to see what the doctor said as to whether the patient had a flare. And what this would tell you is patients may be reporting a lot of flares that their doctor doesn’t know anything about. So if you really want to know whether people are having a flare, even a mild flare, you really have to collect prospective data.”

 

COVID is Not the Last Pandemic

“These results are reassuring, although I think we need a bit more data on abatacept,” Myasoedova said, adding, “I was also interested in the outcomes, such as severe infections, that actually happened to these patients. What we see in the labs in their immune response is one thing, but then also important is what actually evolves in terms of the outcomes, especially with abatacept.”

Overall, she said, “I think it’s reassuring and definitely informs clinical practice going forward. But then probably we’ll learn more. What we’re hearing is COVID is not the last pandemic.”

The COVER trial receives support from AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer. Curtis has received research grants and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, GSK, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB. Myasoedova has no disclosures.

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

WASHINGTON — There is no benefit to interrupting treatment with many of the available targeted synthetic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or spondyloarthritis (SpA) at the time of a repeat COVID-19 vaccine dose, new research found.

In the multicenter, randomized controlled COVID Vaccine Response (COVER) trial of 577 patients with RA or SpA taking either abatacept, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitors, or tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, holding those drugs for 2 weeks at the time of COVID-19 vaccination supplemental doses didn’t improve antibody response to the vaccine but did lead to disease flares. Most participants had significant antibody responses to the vaccine, regardless of whether their medication had been held or continued, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, the Harbert-Ball Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology, and Computer Science at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

Guidelines issued by ACR in 2023 recommended holding abatacept for the COVID vaccine but said that “the task force failed to reach consensus” on whether or not to temporarily interrupt the other medications following primary vaccination or supplemental/booster dosing.

Curtis, who was an author on those guidelines, said in an interview, “to date, we haven’t known whether it might be a good idea to hold certain drugs at the time patients receive their next dose of the COVID vaccine. ... That’s because without direct evidence, you have people trading opinions based on extrapolated data.” 

The inability to measure cell-mediated immunity and only humoral (ie, antibody-based) immunity is a limitation in COVER. “Nevertheless, based on what we know now, it isn’t advisable to hold any of the four drug classes that we studied at the time patients receive their next COVID vaccine dose. This finding is in contrast to data from a different trial showing that holding methotrexate for 2 weeks does appear to help in response to COVID-19 vaccination, as well as influenza vaccine,” Curtis said.

Asked to comment, session moderator Elena Myasoedova, MD, PhD, consultant rheumatologist and director of the Inflammatory Arthritis Clinic at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, said in an interview: “This has been an area of clinical uncertainty. It raises a lot of questions from patients and from physicians alike as to whether or not to hold the medication because the implications are flares, and that’s impactful for patients. Patients care about their RA status and how it is controlled, and if there is no difference, then there is no reason to change the medication regimen.”

 

To Hold or Not to Hold: COVER Shows It Makes Little Difference to Vaccine Response

In COVER, 128 patients were taking abatacept, 96 IL-17 inhibitors, 237 JAK inhibitors, and 116 TNF inhibitors. The study was conducted within 30 sites of the Excellence Network in Rheumatology, a rheumatology practice–based research network launched in 2021. Participants were identified and enrolled at clinic visits immediately prior to receiving their COVID-19 boosters (in routine settings).

All had previously received two or more doses of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer or Moderna. Blood was drawn, and they were randomized 1:1 to either continue or hold their disease medication for 2 weeks following the booster. Blood was collected again at 6 weeks post vaccine.

Anti–receptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG antibody titers increased significantly in all drug categories across both study arms, with no differences between the hold vs continue medication groups, even after adjustments for age, sex, body mass index, methotrexate use, steroid use, and time from booster to measurement. All groups also showed increases in geometric mean fold rise of more than 3%.

Subgroup analyses showed no major differences between antibody responses in the hold vs continue groups. The anti-RBD IgG response was lower for abatacept and JAK inhibitors than for the other two drugs, but there was still no significant benefit to holding them for 2 weeks post vaccination.

 

Holding Drugs Leads to Disease Flares

On the flip side, there were significant differences between the two groups in their responses to the question: “Did you experience any flare or worsening of your autoimmune disease following your recent COVID-19 booster dose?” Overall, 27% of the hold group responded that they had, compared with just 13% of the continue group (P < .05). This difference was greatest in the JAK inhibitor group (33% vs 9%; P < .05).

Among those reporting flares or worsening disease, both the severity and the duration of the flares were about the same. “Interestingly, the duration is beyond a week for the majority of patients. The reason that’s important is, any symptoms that are so-called flare might simply be reactogenicity symptoms, and that might be confused for flare or disease worsening, but you see that a majority of patients actually have those symptoms extending beyond the week. Most of them are worsening in arthritis, as you might expect,” Curtis said in his presentation.

Asked what they did about the flare, only a minority of patients reported contacting a healthcare provider. In all, 68% of the hold group and 78% of the continue group took no action. That’s good in the sense that most of the flares weren’t severe, but it has implications for research, Curtis pointed out.

“A lot of times in the vaccine literature, people do retrospective chart review by looking to see what the doctor said as to whether the patient had a flare. And what this would tell you is patients may be reporting a lot of flares that their doctor doesn’t know anything about. So if you really want to know whether people are having a flare, even a mild flare, you really have to collect prospective data.”

 

COVID is Not the Last Pandemic

“These results are reassuring, although I think we need a bit more data on abatacept,” Myasoedova said, adding, “I was also interested in the outcomes, such as severe infections, that actually happened to these patients. What we see in the labs in their immune response is one thing, but then also important is what actually evolves in terms of the outcomes, especially with abatacept.”

Overall, she said, “I think it’s reassuring and definitely informs clinical practice going forward. But then probably we’ll learn more. What we’re hearing is COVID is not the last pandemic.”

The COVER trial receives support from AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer. Curtis has received research grants and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, GSK, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB. Myasoedova has no disclosures.

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

WASHINGTON — There is no benefit to interrupting treatment with many of the available targeted synthetic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or spondyloarthritis (SpA) at the time of a repeat COVID-19 vaccine dose, new research found.

In the multicenter, randomized controlled COVID Vaccine Response (COVER) trial of 577 patients with RA or SpA taking either abatacept, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitors, or tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, holding those drugs for 2 weeks at the time of COVID-19 vaccination supplemental doses didn’t improve antibody response to the vaccine but did lead to disease flares. Most participants had significant antibody responses to the vaccine, regardless of whether their medication had been held or continued, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, the Harbert-Ball Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology, and Computer Science at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

Guidelines issued by ACR in 2023 recommended holding abatacept for the COVID vaccine but said that “the task force failed to reach consensus” on whether or not to temporarily interrupt the other medications following primary vaccination or supplemental/booster dosing.

Curtis, who was an author on those guidelines, said in an interview, “to date, we haven’t known whether it might be a good idea to hold certain drugs at the time patients receive their next dose of the COVID vaccine. ... That’s because without direct evidence, you have people trading opinions based on extrapolated data.” 

The inability to measure cell-mediated immunity and only humoral (ie, antibody-based) immunity is a limitation in COVER. “Nevertheless, based on what we know now, it isn’t advisable to hold any of the four drug classes that we studied at the time patients receive their next COVID vaccine dose. This finding is in contrast to data from a different trial showing that holding methotrexate for 2 weeks does appear to help in response to COVID-19 vaccination, as well as influenza vaccine,” Curtis said.

Asked to comment, session moderator Elena Myasoedova, MD, PhD, consultant rheumatologist and director of the Inflammatory Arthritis Clinic at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, said in an interview: “This has been an area of clinical uncertainty. It raises a lot of questions from patients and from physicians alike as to whether or not to hold the medication because the implications are flares, and that’s impactful for patients. Patients care about their RA status and how it is controlled, and if there is no difference, then there is no reason to change the medication regimen.”

 

To Hold or Not to Hold: COVER Shows It Makes Little Difference to Vaccine Response

In COVER, 128 patients were taking abatacept, 96 IL-17 inhibitors, 237 JAK inhibitors, and 116 TNF inhibitors. The study was conducted within 30 sites of the Excellence Network in Rheumatology, a rheumatology practice–based research network launched in 2021. Participants were identified and enrolled at clinic visits immediately prior to receiving their COVID-19 boosters (in routine settings).

All had previously received two or more doses of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer or Moderna. Blood was drawn, and they were randomized 1:1 to either continue or hold their disease medication for 2 weeks following the booster. Blood was collected again at 6 weeks post vaccine.

Anti–receptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG antibody titers increased significantly in all drug categories across both study arms, with no differences between the hold vs continue medication groups, even after adjustments for age, sex, body mass index, methotrexate use, steroid use, and time from booster to measurement. All groups also showed increases in geometric mean fold rise of more than 3%.

Subgroup analyses showed no major differences between antibody responses in the hold vs continue groups. The anti-RBD IgG response was lower for abatacept and JAK inhibitors than for the other two drugs, but there was still no significant benefit to holding them for 2 weeks post vaccination.

 

Holding Drugs Leads to Disease Flares

On the flip side, there were significant differences between the two groups in their responses to the question: “Did you experience any flare or worsening of your autoimmune disease following your recent COVID-19 booster dose?” Overall, 27% of the hold group responded that they had, compared with just 13% of the continue group (P < .05). This difference was greatest in the JAK inhibitor group (33% vs 9%; P < .05).

Among those reporting flares or worsening disease, both the severity and the duration of the flares were about the same. “Interestingly, the duration is beyond a week for the majority of patients. The reason that’s important is, any symptoms that are so-called flare might simply be reactogenicity symptoms, and that might be confused for flare or disease worsening, but you see that a majority of patients actually have those symptoms extending beyond the week. Most of them are worsening in arthritis, as you might expect,” Curtis said in his presentation.

Asked what they did about the flare, only a minority of patients reported contacting a healthcare provider. In all, 68% of the hold group and 78% of the continue group took no action. That’s good in the sense that most of the flares weren’t severe, but it has implications for research, Curtis pointed out.

“A lot of times in the vaccine literature, people do retrospective chart review by looking to see what the doctor said as to whether the patient had a flare. And what this would tell you is patients may be reporting a lot of flares that their doctor doesn’t know anything about. So if you really want to know whether people are having a flare, even a mild flare, you really have to collect prospective data.”

 

COVID is Not the Last Pandemic

“These results are reassuring, although I think we need a bit more data on abatacept,” Myasoedova said, adding, “I was also interested in the outcomes, such as severe infections, that actually happened to these patients. What we see in the labs in their immune response is one thing, but then also important is what actually evolves in terms of the outcomes, especially with abatacept.”

Overall, she said, “I think it’s reassuring and definitely informs clinical practice going forward. But then probably we’ll learn more. What we’re hearing is COVID is not the last pandemic.”

The COVER trial receives support from AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer. Curtis has received research grants and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, GSK, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB. Myasoedova has no disclosures.

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