Autoimmune Diseases

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted Fast Track designation for Cabaletta Bio’s cell therapy CABA-201 for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis (LN), the company announced May 1.
 

The FDA cleared Cabaletta to begin a phase 1/2 clinical trial of CABA-201, the statement says, which will be the first trial accessing Cabaletta’s Chimeric Antigen Receptor T cells for Autoimmunity (CARTA) approach. CABA-201, a 4-1BB–containing fully human CD19-CAR T-cell investigational therapy, is designed to target and deplete CD19-positive B cells, “enabling an ‘immune system reset’ with durable remission in patients with SLE,” according to the press release. This news organization previously reported on a small study in Germany, published in Nature Medicine, that also used anti-CD19 CAR T cells to treat five patients with SLE.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

This upcoming open-label study will enroll two cohorts containing six patients each. One cohort will be patients with SLE and active LN, and the other will be patients with SLE without renal involvement. The therapy is designed as a one-time infusion and will be administered at a dose of 1.0 x 106 cells/kg.

“We believe the FDA’s decision to grant Fast Track Designation for CABA-201 underscores the unmet need for a treatment that has the potential to provide deep and durable responses for people living with lupus and potentially other autoimmune diseases where B cells contribute to disease,” David J. Chang, MD, chief medical officer of Cabaletta, said in the press release.

FDA Fast Track is a process designed to expedite the development and review of drugs and other therapeutics that treat serious conditions and address unmet medical needs. Companies that receive Fast Track designation for a drug have the opportunity for more frequent meetings and written communication with the FDA about the drug’s development plan and design of clinical trials. The fast-tracked drug can also be eligible for accelerated approval and priority review if relevant criteria are met.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted Fast Track designation for Cabaletta Bio’s cell therapy CABA-201 for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis (LN), the company announced May 1.
 

The FDA cleared Cabaletta to begin a phase 1/2 clinical trial of CABA-201, the statement says, which will be the first trial accessing Cabaletta’s Chimeric Antigen Receptor T cells for Autoimmunity (CARTA) approach. CABA-201, a 4-1BB–containing fully human CD19-CAR T-cell investigational therapy, is designed to target and deplete CD19-positive B cells, “enabling an ‘immune system reset’ with durable remission in patients with SLE,” according to the press release. This news organization previously reported on a small study in Germany, published in Nature Medicine, that also used anti-CD19 CAR T cells to treat five patients with SLE.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

This upcoming open-label study will enroll two cohorts containing six patients each. One cohort will be patients with SLE and active LN, and the other will be patients with SLE without renal involvement. The therapy is designed as a one-time infusion and will be administered at a dose of 1.0 x 106 cells/kg.

“We believe the FDA’s decision to grant Fast Track Designation for CABA-201 underscores the unmet need for a treatment that has the potential to provide deep and durable responses for people living with lupus and potentially other autoimmune diseases where B cells contribute to disease,” David J. Chang, MD, chief medical officer of Cabaletta, said in the press release.

FDA Fast Track is a process designed to expedite the development and review of drugs and other therapeutics that treat serious conditions and address unmet medical needs. Companies that receive Fast Track designation for a drug have the opportunity for more frequent meetings and written communication with the FDA about the drug’s development plan and design of clinical trials. The fast-tracked drug can also be eligible for accelerated approval and priority review if relevant criteria are met.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted Fast Track designation for Cabaletta Bio’s cell therapy CABA-201 for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis (LN), the company announced May 1.
 

The FDA cleared Cabaletta to begin a phase 1/2 clinical trial of CABA-201, the statement says, which will be the first trial accessing Cabaletta’s Chimeric Antigen Receptor T cells for Autoimmunity (CARTA) approach. CABA-201, a 4-1BB–containing fully human CD19-CAR T-cell investigational therapy, is designed to target and deplete CD19-positive B cells, “enabling an ‘immune system reset’ with durable remission in patients with SLE,” according to the press release. This news organization previously reported on a small study in Germany, published in Nature Medicine, that also used anti-CD19 CAR T cells to treat five patients with SLE.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

This upcoming open-label study will enroll two cohorts containing six patients each. One cohort will be patients with SLE and active LN, and the other will be patients with SLE without renal involvement. The therapy is designed as a one-time infusion and will be administered at a dose of 1.0 x 106 cells/kg.

“We believe the FDA’s decision to grant Fast Track Designation for CABA-201 underscores the unmet need for a treatment that has the potential to provide deep and durable responses for people living with lupus and potentially other autoimmune diseases where B cells contribute to disease,” David J. Chang, MD, chief medical officer of Cabaletta, said in the press release.

FDA Fast Track is a process designed to expedite the development and review of drugs and other therapeutics that treat serious conditions and address unmet medical needs. Companies that receive Fast Track designation for a drug have the opportunity for more frequent meetings and written communication with the FDA about the drug’s development plan and design of clinical trials. The fast-tracked drug can also be eligible for accelerated approval and priority review if relevant criteria are met.

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

The Diagnosis: Lichen Planus Pemphigoides

Lichen planus pemphigoides (LPP) is a rare acquired autoimmune blistering disorder with an estimated worldwide prevalence of approximately 1 in 1,000,000 individuals.¹ It often manifests with overlapping features of both LP and bullous pemphigoid (BP). The condition usually presents in the fifth decade of life and has a slight female predominance.² Although primarily idiopathic, it has been associated with certain medications and treatments, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitors, programmed cell death ligand 1 inhibitors, labetalol, narrowband UVB, and psoralen plus UVA.^3,4

Patients initially present with lesions of classic lichen planus (LP) with pink-purple, flat-topped, pruritic, polygonal papules and plaques.⁵ After weeks to months, tense vesicles and bullae usually develop on the sites of LP as well as on uninvolved skin. One study found a mean lag time of about 8.3 months for blistering to present after LP,⁵ but concurrent presentations of both have been reported.¹ In addition, oral mucosal involvement has been seen in 36% of cases. The most commonly affected sites are the extremities; however, involvement can be widespread.²

The pathogenesis of LPP currently is unknown. It has been proposed that in LP, injury of basal keratinocytes exposes hidden basement membrane and hemidesmosome antigens including BP180, a 180 kDa transmembrane protein of the basement membrane zone (BMZ),⁶ which triggers an immune response where T cells recognize the extracellular portion of BP180 and antibodies are formed against the likely autoantigen.1 One study has suggested that the autoantigen in LPP is the MCW-4 epitope within the C-terminal end of the NC16A domain of BP180.⁷

Histopathology of LPP reveals characteristics of both LP as well as BP. Typical features of LP on hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining include lichenoid lymphocytic interface dermatitis, sawtooth rete ridges, wedge-shaped hypergranulosis, and colloid bodies, as demonstrated from the biopsy of our patient’s gluteal cleft lesion (quiz image 1), while the predominant feature of BP on H&E staining includes a subepidermal bulla with eosinophils.² Typically, direct immunofluorescence (DIF) shows linear deposits of IgG and/or C3 along the BMZ. Indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) often reveals IgG against the roof of the BMZ in a human split-skin substrate.¹ Antibodies against BP180 or uncommonly BP230 often are detected on enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). For our patient, IIF and ELISA tests were positive. Given the clinical presentation with recurrent oral and gluteal cleft erosions, histologic findings, and the results of our patient’s immunological testing, the diagnosis of LPP was made.

Topical steroids often are used to treat localized disease of LPP.8 Oral prednisone also may be given for widespread or unresponsive disease.⁹ Other treatments include azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, hydroxychloroquine, dapsone, tetracycline in combination with nicotinamide, acitretin, ustekinumab, baricitinib, and rituximab with intravenous immunoglobulin.^3,8,10-12 Any potential medication culprits should be discontinued.⁹ Patients with oral involvement may require a soft diet to avoid further mucosal insult.¹⁰ Additionally, providers should consider dentistry, ophthalmology, and/or otolaryngology referrals depending on disease severity.

Bullous pemphigoid, the most common autoimmune blistering disease, has an estimated incidence of 10 to 43 per million individuals per year.² Classically, it presents with tense bullae on the skin of the lower abdomen, thighs, groin, forearms, and axillae. Circulating antibodies against 2 BMZ proteins—BP180 and BP230—are important factors in BP pathogenesis.² Diagnosis of BP is based on clinical features, histologic findings, and immunological studies including DIF, IIF, and ELISA. An eosinophil-rich subepidermal split typically is seen on H&E staining (Figure 1).

Direct immunofluorescence displays linear IgG and/ or C3 staining at the BMZ. Indirect immunofluorescence on a human salt-split skin substrate commonly shows linear BMZ deposition on the roof of the blister.² Indirect immunofluorescence for IgG deposition on monkey esophagus substrate shows linear BMZ deposition. Antibodies against the NC16A domain of BP180 (NC16A-BP180) are dominant, but BP230 antibodies against BP230 also are detected with ELISA.² Further studies have indicated that the NC16A epitopes of BP180 that are targeted in BP are MCW-0-3,² different from the autoantigen MCW-4 that is targeted in LPP.⁷

Paraneoplastic pemphigus (PNP) is another diagnosis to consider. Patients with PNP initially present with oral findings—most commonly chronic, erosive, and painful mucositis—followed by cutaneous involvement, which varies from the development of bullae to the formation of plaques similar to those of LP.¹³ The latter, in combination with oral erosions, may appear clinically similar to LPP. The results of DIF in conjugation with IIF and ELISA may help to further differentiate these disorders. Direct immunofluorescence in PNP typically reveals positive intercellular and/or BMZ IgG and C3, while DIF in LPP reveals depositions along the BMZ alone. Indirect immunofluorescence performed on rat bladder epithelium is particularly useful, as binding of IgG to rat bladder epithelium is characteristic of PNP and not seen in other disorders.¹⁴ Lastly, patients with PNP may develop IgG antibodies to various antigens such as desmoplakin I, desmoplakin II, envoplakin, periplakin, BP230, desmoglein 1, and desmoglein 3, which would not be expected in LPP patients.¹⁵ Hematoxylin and eosin staining differs from LPP, primarily with the location of the blister being intraepidermal. Acantholysis with hemorrhagic bullae can be seen (Figure 2).

Classic LP is an inflammatory disorder that mainly affects adults, with an estimated incidence of less than 1%.¹⁶ The classic form presents with purple, flat-topped, pruritic, polygonal papules and plaques of varying size that often are characterized by Wickham striae. Lichen planus possesses a broad spectrum of subtypes involving different locations, though skin lesions usually are localized to the extremities. Despite an unknown etiology, activated T cells and T helper type 1 cytokines are considered key in keratinocyte injury. Compact orthokeratosis, wedge-shaped hypergranulosis, focal dyskeratosis, and colloid bodies typically are found on H&E staining, along with a dense bandlike lymphohistiocytic infiltrate at the dermoepidermal junction (DEJ)(Figure 3). Direct immunofluorescence typically shows a shaggy band of fibrinogen along the DEJ in addition to colloid bodies that stain with various autoantibodies including IgM, IgG, IgA, and C3.¹⁶

Bullous LP is a rare variant of LP that commonly develops on the oral mucosa and the legs, with blisters confined on pre-existing LP lesions.⁹ The pathogenesis is related to an epidermal inflammatory infiltrate that leads to basal layer destruction followed by dermal-epidermal separations that cause blistering.¹⁷ Bullous LP does not have positive DIF, IIF, or ELISA because the pathophysiology does not involve autoantibody production. Histopathology typically displays an extensive inflammatory infiltrate and degeneration of the basal keratinocytes, resulting in large dermal-epidermal separations called Max-Joseph spaces (Figure 4).¹⁷ Colloid bodies are prominent in bullous LP but rarely are seen in LPP; eosinophils also are much more prominent in LPP compared to bullous LP.¹⁸ Unlike in LPP, DIF usually is negative in bullous LP, though lichenoid lesions may exhibit globular deposition of IgM, IgG, and IgA in the colloid bodies of the lower epidermis and/or papillary dermis. Similar to LP, DIF of the biopsy specimen shows linear or shaggy deposits of fibrinogen at the DEJ.¹⁷

The Diagnosis: Lichen Planus Pemphigoides

Lichen planus pemphigoides (LPP) is a rare acquired autoimmune blistering disorder with an estimated worldwide prevalence of approximately 1 in 1,000,000 individuals.¹ It often manifests with overlapping features of both LP and bullous pemphigoid (BP). The condition usually presents in the fifth decade of life and has a slight female predominance.² Although primarily idiopathic, it has been associated with certain medications and treatments, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitors, programmed cell death ligand 1 inhibitors, labetalol, narrowband UVB, and psoralen plus UVA.^3,4

Patients initially present with lesions of classic lichen planus (LP) with pink-purple, flat-topped, pruritic, polygonal papules and plaques.⁵ After weeks to months, tense vesicles and bullae usually develop on the sites of LP as well as on uninvolved skin. One study found a mean lag time of about 8.3 months for blistering to present after LP,⁵ but concurrent presentations of both have been reported.¹ In addition, oral mucosal involvement has been seen in 36% of cases. The most commonly affected sites are the extremities; however, involvement can be widespread.²

The pathogenesis of LPP currently is unknown. It has been proposed that in LP, injury of basal keratinocytes exposes hidden basement membrane and hemidesmosome antigens including BP180, a 180 kDa transmembrane protein of the basement membrane zone (BMZ),⁶ which triggers an immune response where T cells recognize the extracellular portion of BP180 and antibodies are formed against the likely autoantigen.1 One study has suggested that the autoantigen in LPP is the MCW-4 epitope within the C-terminal end of the NC16A domain of BP180.⁷

Histopathology of LPP reveals characteristics of both LP as well as BP. Typical features of LP on hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining include lichenoid lymphocytic interface dermatitis, sawtooth rete ridges, wedge-shaped hypergranulosis, and colloid bodies, as demonstrated from the biopsy of our patient’s gluteal cleft lesion (quiz image 1), while the predominant feature of BP on H&E staining includes a subepidermal bulla with eosinophils.² Typically, direct immunofluorescence (DIF) shows linear deposits of IgG and/or C3 along the BMZ. Indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) often reveals IgG against the roof of the BMZ in a human split-skin substrate.¹ Antibodies against BP180 or uncommonly BP230 often are detected on enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). For our patient, IIF and ELISA tests were positive. Given the clinical presentation with recurrent oral and gluteal cleft erosions, histologic findings, and the results of our patient’s immunological testing, the diagnosis of LPP was made.

Topical steroids often are used to treat localized disease of LPP.8 Oral prednisone also may be given for widespread or unresponsive disease.⁹ Other treatments include azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, hydroxychloroquine, dapsone, tetracycline in combination with nicotinamide, acitretin, ustekinumab, baricitinib, and rituximab with intravenous immunoglobulin.^3,8,10-12 Any potential medication culprits should be discontinued.⁹ Patients with oral involvement may require a soft diet to avoid further mucosal insult.¹⁰ Additionally, providers should consider dentistry, ophthalmology, and/or otolaryngology referrals depending on disease severity.

Bullous pemphigoid, the most common autoimmune blistering disease, has an estimated incidence of 10 to 43 per million individuals per year.² Classically, it presents with tense bullae on the skin of the lower abdomen, thighs, groin, forearms, and axillae. Circulating antibodies against 2 BMZ proteins—BP180 and BP230—are important factors in BP pathogenesis.² Diagnosis of BP is based on clinical features, histologic findings, and immunological studies including DIF, IIF, and ELISA. An eosinophil-rich subepidermal split typically is seen on H&E staining (Figure 1).

Direct immunofluorescence displays linear IgG and/ or C3 staining at the BMZ. Indirect immunofluorescence on a human salt-split skin substrate commonly shows linear BMZ deposition on the roof of the blister.² Indirect immunofluorescence for IgG deposition on monkey esophagus substrate shows linear BMZ deposition. Antibodies against the NC16A domain of BP180 (NC16A-BP180) are dominant, but BP230 antibodies against BP230 also are detected with ELISA.² Further studies have indicated that the NC16A epitopes of BP180 that are targeted in BP are MCW-0-3,² different from the autoantigen MCW-4 that is targeted in LPP.⁷

Paraneoplastic pemphigus (PNP) is another diagnosis to consider. Patients with PNP initially present with oral findings—most commonly chronic, erosive, and painful mucositis—followed by cutaneous involvement, which varies from the development of bullae to the formation of plaques similar to those of LP.¹³ The latter, in combination with oral erosions, may appear clinically similar to LPP. The results of DIF in conjugation with IIF and ELISA may help to further differentiate these disorders. Direct immunofluorescence in PNP typically reveals positive intercellular and/or BMZ IgG and C3, while DIF in LPP reveals depositions along the BMZ alone. Indirect immunofluorescence performed on rat bladder epithelium is particularly useful, as binding of IgG to rat bladder epithelium is characteristic of PNP and not seen in other disorders.¹⁴ Lastly, patients with PNP may develop IgG antibodies to various antigens such as desmoplakin I, desmoplakin II, envoplakin, periplakin, BP230, desmoglein 1, and desmoglein 3, which would not be expected in LPP patients.¹⁵ Hematoxylin and eosin staining differs from LPP, primarily with the location of the blister being intraepidermal. Acantholysis with hemorrhagic bullae can be seen (Figure 2).

Classic LP is an inflammatory disorder that mainly affects adults, with an estimated incidence of less than 1%.¹⁶ The classic form presents with purple, flat-topped, pruritic, polygonal papules and plaques of varying size that often are characterized by Wickham striae. Lichen planus possesses a broad spectrum of subtypes involving different locations, though skin lesions usually are localized to the extremities. Despite an unknown etiology, activated T cells and T helper type 1 cytokines are considered key in keratinocyte injury. Compact orthokeratosis, wedge-shaped hypergranulosis, focal dyskeratosis, and colloid bodies typically are found on H&E staining, along with a dense bandlike lymphohistiocytic infiltrate at the dermoepidermal junction (DEJ)(Figure 3). Direct immunofluorescence typically shows a shaggy band of fibrinogen along the DEJ in addition to colloid bodies that stain with various autoantibodies including IgM, IgG, IgA, and C3.¹⁶

Bullous LP is a rare variant of LP that commonly develops on the oral mucosa and the legs, with blisters confined on pre-existing LP lesions.⁹ The pathogenesis is related to an epidermal inflammatory infiltrate that leads to basal layer destruction followed by dermal-epidermal separations that cause blistering.¹⁷ Bullous LP does not have positive DIF, IIF, or ELISA because the pathophysiology does not involve autoantibody production. Histopathology typically displays an extensive inflammatory infiltrate and degeneration of the basal keratinocytes, resulting in large dermal-epidermal separations called Max-Joseph spaces (Figure 4).¹⁷ Colloid bodies are prominent in bullous LP but rarely are seen in LPP; eosinophils also are much more prominent in LPP compared to bullous LP.¹⁸ Unlike in LPP, DIF usually is negative in bullous LP, though lichenoid lesions may exhibit globular deposition of IgM, IgG, and IgA in the colloid bodies of the lower epidermis and/or papillary dermis. Similar to LP, DIF of the biopsy specimen shows linear or shaggy deposits of fibrinogen at the DEJ.¹⁷

The Diagnosis: Lichen Planus Pemphigoides

Lichen planus pemphigoides (LPP) is a rare acquired autoimmune blistering disorder with an estimated worldwide prevalence of approximately 1 in 1,000,000 individuals.¹ It often manifests with overlapping features of both LP and bullous pemphigoid (BP). The condition usually presents in the fifth decade of life and has a slight female predominance.² Although primarily idiopathic, it has been associated with certain medications and treatments, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitors, programmed cell death ligand 1 inhibitors, labetalol, narrowband UVB, and psoralen plus UVA.^3,4

Patients initially present with lesions of classic lichen planus (LP) with pink-purple, flat-topped, pruritic, polygonal papules and plaques.⁵ After weeks to months, tense vesicles and bullae usually develop on the sites of LP as well as on uninvolved skin. One study found a mean lag time of about 8.3 months for blistering to present after LP,⁵ but concurrent presentations of both have been reported.¹ In addition, oral mucosal involvement has been seen in 36% of cases. The most commonly affected sites are the extremities; however, involvement can be widespread.²

The pathogenesis of LPP currently is unknown. It has been proposed that in LP, injury of basal keratinocytes exposes hidden basement membrane and hemidesmosome antigens including BP180, a 180 kDa transmembrane protein of the basement membrane zone (BMZ),⁶ which triggers an immune response where T cells recognize the extracellular portion of BP180 and antibodies are formed against the likely autoantigen.1 One study has suggested that the autoantigen in LPP is the MCW-4 epitope within the C-terminal end of the NC16A domain of BP180.⁷

Histopathology of LPP reveals characteristics of both LP as well as BP. Typical features of LP on hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining include lichenoid lymphocytic interface dermatitis, sawtooth rete ridges, wedge-shaped hypergranulosis, and colloid bodies, as demonstrated from the biopsy of our patient’s gluteal cleft lesion (quiz image 1), while the predominant feature of BP on H&E staining includes a subepidermal bulla with eosinophils.² Typically, direct immunofluorescence (DIF) shows linear deposits of IgG and/or C3 along the BMZ. Indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) often reveals IgG against the roof of the BMZ in a human split-skin substrate.¹ Antibodies against BP180 or uncommonly BP230 often are detected on enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). For our patient, IIF and ELISA tests were positive. Given the clinical presentation with recurrent oral and gluteal cleft erosions, histologic findings, and the results of our patient’s immunological testing, the diagnosis of LPP was made.

Topical steroids often are used to treat localized disease of LPP.8 Oral prednisone also may be given for widespread or unresponsive disease.⁹ Other treatments include azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, hydroxychloroquine, dapsone, tetracycline in combination with nicotinamide, acitretin, ustekinumab, baricitinib, and rituximab with intravenous immunoglobulin.^3,8,10-12 Any potential medication culprits should be discontinued.⁹ Patients with oral involvement may require a soft diet to avoid further mucosal insult.¹⁰ Additionally, providers should consider dentistry, ophthalmology, and/or otolaryngology referrals depending on disease severity.

Bullous pemphigoid, the most common autoimmune blistering disease, has an estimated incidence of 10 to 43 per million individuals per year.² Classically, it presents with tense bullae on the skin of the lower abdomen, thighs, groin, forearms, and axillae. Circulating antibodies against 2 BMZ proteins—BP180 and BP230—are important factors in BP pathogenesis.² Diagnosis of BP is based on clinical features, histologic findings, and immunological studies including DIF, IIF, and ELISA. An eosinophil-rich subepidermal split typically is seen on H&E staining (Figure 1).

Direct immunofluorescence displays linear IgG and/ or C3 staining at the BMZ. Indirect immunofluorescence on a human salt-split skin substrate commonly shows linear BMZ deposition on the roof of the blister.² Indirect immunofluorescence for IgG deposition on monkey esophagus substrate shows linear BMZ deposition. Antibodies against the NC16A domain of BP180 (NC16A-BP180) are dominant, but BP230 antibodies against BP230 also are detected with ELISA.² Further studies have indicated that the NC16A epitopes of BP180 that are targeted in BP are MCW-0-3,² different from the autoantigen MCW-4 that is targeted in LPP.⁷

Paraneoplastic pemphigus (PNP) is another diagnosis to consider. Patients with PNP initially present with oral findings—most commonly chronic, erosive, and painful mucositis—followed by cutaneous involvement, which varies from the development of bullae to the formation of plaques similar to those of LP.¹³ The latter, in combination with oral erosions, may appear clinically similar to LPP. The results of DIF in conjugation with IIF and ELISA may help to further differentiate these disorders. Direct immunofluorescence in PNP typically reveals positive intercellular and/or BMZ IgG and C3, while DIF in LPP reveals depositions along the BMZ alone. Indirect immunofluorescence performed on rat bladder epithelium is particularly useful, as binding of IgG to rat bladder epithelium is characteristic of PNP and not seen in other disorders.¹⁴ Lastly, patients with PNP may develop IgG antibodies to various antigens such as desmoplakin I, desmoplakin II, envoplakin, periplakin, BP230, desmoglein 1, and desmoglein 3, which would not be expected in LPP patients.¹⁵ Hematoxylin and eosin staining differs from LPP, primarily with the location of the blister being intraepidermal. Acantholysis with hemorrhagic bullae can be seen (Figure 2).

Classic LP is an inflammatory disorder that mainly affects adults, with an estimated incidence of less than 1%.¹⁶ The classic form presents with purple, flat-topped, pruritic, polygonal papules and plaques of varying size that often are characterized by Wickham striae. Lichen planus possesses a broad spectrum of subtypes involving different locations, though skin lesions usually are localized to the extremities. Despite an unknown etiology, activated T cells and T helper type 1 cytokines are considered key in keratinocyte injury. Compact orthokeratosis, wedge-shaped hypergranulosis, focal dyskeratosis, and colloid bodies typically are found on H&E staining, along with a dense bandlike lymphohistiocytic infiltrate at the dermoepidermal junction (DEJ)(Figure 3). Direct immunofluorescence typically shows a shaggy band of fibrinogen along the DEJ in addition to colloid bodies that stain with various autoantibodies including IgM, IgG, IgA, and C3.¹⁶

Bullous LP is a rare variant of LP that commonly develops on the oral mucosa and the legs, with blisters confined on pre-existing LP lesions.⁹ The pathogenesis is related to an epidermal inflammatory infiltrate that leads to basal layer destruction followed by dermal-epidermal separations that cause blistering.¹⁷ Bullous LP does not have positive DIF, IIF, or ELISA because the pathophysiology does not involve autoantibody production. Histopathology typically displays an extensive inflammatory infiltrate and degeneration of the basal keratinocytes, resulting in large dermal-epidermal separations called Max-Joseph spaces (Figure 4).¹⁷ Colloid bodies are prominent in bullous LP but rarely are seen in LPP; eosinophils also are much more prominent in LPP compared to bullous LP.¹⁸ Unlike in LPP, DIF usually is negative in bullous LP, though lichenoid lesions may exhibit globular deposition of IgM, IgG, and IgA in the colloid bodies of the lower epidermis and/or papillary dermis. Similar to LP, DIF of the biopsy specimen shows linear or shaggy deposits of fibrinogen at the DEJ.¹⁷

NEW ORLEANS – The sociodemographic characteristics of Black and Hispanic children with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) appear to play a strong role in influencing the severity of disease in these patients, according to two studies presented at the Pediatric Rheumatology Symposium.

One study showed an association between multiple determinants of health and disease severity among children seen in a large Texas city, and a separate descriptive cross-sectional cohort study of predominantly Black children at two centers in Mississippi and Alabama reinforced the finding of greater severity of disease and social hardships among this racial group.

The findings from both studies supplement existing evidence that the prevalence of childhood-onset SLE is greater among Black and Hispanic children.

“Several demographic and social determinants of health parameters influenced disease severity at levels that reached statistical significance, including insurance status, race/ethnicity, referral source, PCP [primary care provider] availability, primary language, and transportation needs,” Emily Beil, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, told attendees at the conference, which was sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology. Her team’s goal, she said, was to “better understand our patient population and social disparities that contribute to disease severity.”

Dr. Beil and her colleagues conducted a retrospective review of 136 children who had been diagnosed with childhood-onset SLE between January 2018 and May 2022 at Texas Children’s Hospital. Only children who were younger than 18 years at the time of diagnosis at Texas Children’s were included. The analysis considered demographics, clinical characteristics, insurance status, social work consultation, access to a primary care provider, transportation needs, primary language, and other parameters related to social determinants of health.

The average age of the patients was 13 years, and most were girls (82%). Just over half were Hispanic (53%), and just over a quarter were Black (26%). Half had Medicaid or participated in the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and 1 in 10 were uninsured (10%). Half the diagnoses were made during an inpatient admission; 36% were made on the floor, and 14% were made in the intensive care unit (ICU).

The average Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) score was 12.5, and 48.5% of patients had severe disease, indicated by a score of at least 12. Only two in three children were documented as having a primary care physician (66%), and 32% preferred a language other than English. Most of the children (80%) had a social work consult.

Black and biracial children had higher SLEDAI scores at presentation. Non-Hispanic White children were less likely to have a social work consult, compared with other racial/ethnic groups (P = .01 for both). Central nervous system involvement was most prevalent among Black patients (P = .004). Cyclophosphamide was used most often for Black and biracial patients.

Uninsured patients were most likely to be diagnosed on an inpatient floor. The highest proportion of ICU admissions was among patients insured by Medicaid (P = .034). Average SLEDAI scores were highest among uninsured patients, followed by Medicaid patients. More than half of the patients who did not have insurance lacked access to a regular primary care provider, compared with 12% of Medicaid patients and 7% of privately insured patients (P = .001). All the uninsured patients had transportation needs, which was a significantly higher rate than among those with Medicaid (13%) or private insurance (15%) (P = .001). The highest percentage of social work consults was among patients who were insured by Medicaid or were without insurance (P = .001).
 

Salient demographics and clinical features

In the second presentation, Anita Dhanrajani, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, began by noting that Alabama and Mississippi are ranked in the top 10 states for the highest poverty rate: Mississippi is No. 1, and Alabama is No. 7. Further, 40% of children in Mississippi and 29% of children in Alabama are of African American ancestry, she said.

“So, we know that this population that we’re dealing with has several high-risk factors that can lead them to have poor outcomes, and yet, we haven’t really ever characterized their clinical features or their social demographic features,” Dr. Dhanrajani told attendees. “My hope is that with this very miniscule first step, we’re able to move towards solutions to decrease health care disparities in this population.”

She presented findings regarding the first of three aims in the study, which was to describe the baseline clinical, demographic, and socioeconomic profiles of childhood lupus patients at the two centers. The two other aims were to examine genetic factors potentially linked to poor outcomes in the cohort and to assess the mental health status of the population.

The study relied on a retrospective chart review for the 17 patients at the University of Mississippi Medical Center and on Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance registry data for the 19 patients at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Most of the patients (86%) were female, Black (78%), and insured by Medicaid (64%). The average age at diagnosis was 13 years. Most (83%) also lived in a ZIP code that met the criteria for a medium-high or high Social Vulnerability Index. The children had to travel an average 75 miles to see a rheumatologist, compared with the national average of 43 miles.

At diagnosis, their average Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) score was 8.8, their average American College of Rheumatology score was 5.2, and their average SLEDAI score was 12.1 – the latter was substantially higher than the average 3.1 score in a multiethnic Canadian cohort (the 1000 Canadian Faces of Lupus Study) with 10% Black children (P < .00001). The SLEDAI score dropped to 6.8 at 6 months and to 4 at 1 year. Nearly half (47%) had a SLICC Damage Index (SDI) greater than 0, and one-third had an SDI of 2 or greater, compared with 16% and 7%, respectively, reported in other recent studies (P < .0001 for both).

“These disparities are very difficult to investigate in terms of causal relationships and [are] likely to be very modifiable,” Coziana Ciurtin, MD, PhD, associate professor of rheumatology at University College London, told this news organization. “I think the socioeconomic status, the level of education, poverty, [type of] medical insurance, and probably genetic variants are all underpinning the presentation, damage, or disease activity being very high, and also organ involvement,” such as the greater CNS involvement seen in non-White patients.

Being mindful of these risk profiles can help doctors in asking about patients’ support at home and their families’ education, beliefs, and cultural practices, Dr. Ciurtin added. “Helping them to engage and be involved in decision-making is probably the most important” aspect of learning this information about families, she said.

Collecting this information should not be the sole responsibility of the physician, added Eve Smith, PhD, MBCHB, an academic clinical lecturer at the University of Liverpool, England, who attended the presentations. Dr. Smith noted a discussion in a work group during the previous day of the conference concerning questionnaires for screening patients regarding the need for social services and for identifying areas in which patients and their families were having difficulties.

“Obviously, if you’re going to do that, you have to have access to someone who can actually help to deal with that. Some hospitals have patient navigators that can help, for example, with a food security issue to highlight resources within the community, so it’s not all on the doctor,” Dr. Smith said. “To really make a difference in this area, it can’t just be down to the doctor. There needs to be social care, there needs to be community-based interventions and things to do about it. Doctors can help identify these patients, or maybe somebody in the [medical] team can help with that, but there needs to be an intervention. Otherwise, you’re left with this problem without a solution that you can’t do anything about.”

The researchers did not note any external funding for either study. Dr. Beil, Dr. Dhanrajani, Dr. Smith, and Dr. Ciurtin reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

NEW ORLEANS – The sociodemographic characteristics of Black and Hispanic children with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) appear to play a strong role in influencing the severity of disease in these patients, according to two studies presented at the Pediatric Rheumatology Symposium.

One study showed an association between multiple determinants of health and disease severity among children seen in a large Texas city, and a separate descriptive cross-sectional cohort study of predominantly Black children at two centers in Mississippi and Alabama reinforced the finding of greater severity of disease and social hardships among this racial group.

The findings from both studies supplement existing evidence that the prevalence of childhood-onset SLE is greater among Black and Hispanic children.

“Several demographic and social determinants of health parameters influenced disease severity at levels that reached statistical significance, including insurance status, race/ethnicity, referral source, PCP [primary care provider] availability, primary language, and transportation needs,” Emily Beil, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, told attendees at the conference, which was sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology. Her team’s goal, she said, was to “better understand our patient population and social disparities that contribute to disease severity.”

Dr. Beil and her colleagues conducted a retrospective review of 136 children who had been diagnosed with childhood-onset SLE between January 2018 and May 2022 at Texas Children’s Hospital. Only children who were younger than 18 years at the time of diagnosis at Texas Children’s were included. The analysis considered demographics, clinical characteristics, insurance status, social work consultation, access to a primary care provider, transportation needs, primary language, and other parameters related to social determinants of health.

The average age of the patients was 13 years, and most were girls (82%). Just over half were Hispanic (53%), and just over a quarter were Black (26%). Half had Medicaid or participated in the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and 1 in 10 were uninsured (10%). Half the diagnoses were made during an inpatient admission; 36% were made on the floor, and 14% were made in the intensive care unit (ICU).

The average Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) score was 12.5, and 48.5% of patients had severe disease, indicated by a score of at least 12. Only two in three children were documented as having a primary care physician (66%), and 32% preferred a language other than English. Most of the children (80%) had a social work consult.

Black and biracial children had higher SLEDAI scores at presentation. Non-Hispanic White children were less likely to have a social work consult, compared with other racial/ethnic groups (P = .01 for both). Central nervous system involvement was most prevalent among Black patients (P = .004). Cyclophosphamide was used most often for Black and biracial patients.

Uninsured patients were most likely to be diagnosed on an inpatient floor. The highest proportion of ICU admissions was among patients insured by Medicaid (P = .034). Average SLEDAI scores were highest among uninsured patients, followed by Medicaid patients. More than half of the patients who did not have insurance lacked access to a regular primary care provider, compared with 12% of Medicaid patients and 7% of privately insured patients (P = .001). All the uninsured patients had transportation needs, which was a significantly higher rate than among those with Medicaid (13%) or private insurance (15%) (P = .001). The highest percentage of social work consults was among patients who were insured by Medicaid or were without insurance (P = .001).
 

Salient demographics and clinical features

In the second presentation, Anita Dhanrajani, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, began by noting that Alabama and Mississippi are ranked in the top 10 states for the highest poverty rate: Mississippi is No. 1, and Alabama is No. 7. Further, 40% of children in Mississippi and 29% of children in Alabama are of African American ancestry, she said.

“So, we know that this population that we’re dealing with has several high-risk factors that can lead them to have poor outcomes, and yet, we haven’t really ever characterized their clinical features or their social demographic features,” Dr. Dhanrajani told attendees. “My hope is that with this very miniscule first step, we’re able to move towards solutions to decrease health care disparities in this population.”

She presented findings regarding the first of three aims in the study, which was to describe the baseline clinical, demographic, and socioeconomic profiles of childhood lupus patients at the two centers. The two other aims were to examine genetic factors potentially linked to poor outcomes in the cohort and to assess the mental health status of the population.

The study relied on a retrospective chart review for the 17 patients at the University of Mississippi Medical Center and on Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance registry data for the 19 patients at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Most of the patients (86%) were female, Black (78%), and insured by Medicaid (64%). The average age at diagnosis was 13 years. Most (83%) also lived in a ZIP code that met the criteria for a medium-high or high Social Vulnerability Index. The children had to travel an average 75 miles to see a rheumatologist, compared with the national average of 43 miles.

At diagnosis, their average Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) score was 8.8, their average American College of Rheumatology score was 5.2, and their average SLEDAI score was 12.1 – the latter was substantially higher than the average 3.1 score in a multiethnic Canadian cohort (the 1000 Canadian Faces of Lupus Study) with 10% Black children (P < .00001). The SLEDAI score dropped to 6.8 at 6 months and to 4 at 1 year. Nearly half (47%) had a SLICC Damage Index (SDI) greater than 0, and one-third had an SDI of 2 or greater, compared with 16% and 7%, respectively, reported in other recent studies (P < .0001 for both).

“These disparities are very difficult to investigate in terms of causal relationships and [are] likely to be very modifiable,” Coziana Ciurtin, MD, PhD, associate professor of rheumatology at University College London, told this news organization. “I think the socioeconomic status, the level of education, poverty, [type of] medical insurance, and probably genetic variants are all underpinning the presentation, damage, or disease activity being very high, and also organ involvement,” such as the greater CNS involvement seen in non-White patients.

Being mindful of these risk profiles can help doctors in asking about patients’ support at home and their families’ education, beliefs, and cultural practices, Dr. Ciurtin added. “Helping them to engage and be involved in decision-making is probably the most important” aspect of learning this information about families, she said.

Collecting this information should not be the sole responsibility of the physician, added Eve Smith, PhD, MBCHB, an academic clinical lecturer at the University of Liverpool, England, who attended the presentations. Dr. Smith noted a discussion in a work group during the previous day of the conference concerning questionnaires for screening patients regarding the need for social services and for identifying areas in which patients and their families were having difficulties.

“Obviously, if you’re going to do that, you have to have access to someone who can actually help to deal with that. Some hospitals have patient navigators that can help, for example, with a food security issue to highlight resources within the community, so it’s not all on the doctor,” Dr. Smith said. “To really make a difference in this area, it can’t just be down to the doctor. There needs to be social care, there needs to be community-based interventions and things to do about it. Doctors can help identify these patients, or maybe somebody in the [medical] team can help with that, but there needs to be an intervention. Otherwise, you’re left with this problem without a solution that you can’t do anything about.”

The researchers did not note any external funding for either study. Dr. Beil, Dr. Dhanrajani, Dr. Smith, and Dr. Ciurtin reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

NEW ORLEANS – The sociodemographic characteristics of Black and Hispanic children with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) appear to play a strong role in influencing the severity of disease in these patients, according to two studies presented at the Pediatric Rheumatology Symposium.

One study showed an association between multiple determinants of health and disease severity among children seen in a large Texas city, and a separate descriptive cross-sectional cohort study of predominantly Black children at two centers in Mississippi and Alabama reinforced the finding of greater severity of disease and social hardships among this racial group.

The findings from both studies supplement existing evidence that the prevalence of childhood-onset SLE is greater among Black and Hispanic children.

“Several demographic and social determinants of health parameters influenced disease severity at levels that reached statistical significance, including insurance status, race/ethnicity, referral source, PCP [primary care provider] availability, primary language, and transportation needs,” Emily Beil, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, told attendees at the conference, which was sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology. Her team’s goal, she said, was to “better understand our patient population and social disparities that contribute to disease severity.”

Dr. Beil and her colleagues conducted a retrospective review of 136 children who had been diagnosed with childhood-onset SLE between January 2018 and May 2022 at Texas Children’s Hospital. Only children who were younger than 18 years at the time of diagnosis at Texas Children’s were included. The analysis considered demographics, clinical characteristics, insurance status, social work consultation, access to a primary care provider, transportation needs, primary language, and other parameters related to social determinants of health.

The average age of the patients was 13 years, and most were girls (82%). Just over half were Hispanic (53%), and just over a quarter were Black (26%). Half had Medicaid or participated in the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and 1 in 10 were uninsured (10%). Half the diagnoses were made during an inpatient admission; 36% were made on the floor, and 14% were made in the intensive care unit (ICU).

The average Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) score was 12.5, and 48.5% of patients had severe disease, indicated by a score of at least 12. Only two in three children were documented as having a primary care physician (66%), and 32% preferred a language other than English. Most of the children (80%) had a social work consult.

Black and biracial children had higher SLEDAI scores at presentation. Non-Hispanic White children were less likely to have a social work consult, compared with other racial/ethnic groups (P = .01 for both). Central nervous system involvement was most prevalent among Black patients (P = .004). Cyclophosphamide was used most often for Black and biracial patients.

Uninsured patients were most likely to be diagnosed on an inpatient floor. The highest proportion of ICU admissions was among patients insured by Medicaid (P = .034). Average SLEDAI scores were highest among uninsured patients, followed by Medicaid patients. More than half of the patients who did not have insurance lacked access to a regular primary care provider, compared with 12% of Medicaid patients and 7% of privately insured patients (P = .001). All the uninsured patients had transportation needs, which was a significantly higher rate than among those with Medicaid (13%) or private insurance (15%) (P = .001). The highest percentage of social work consults was among patients who were insured by Medicaid or were without insurance (P = .001).
 

Salient demographics and clinical features

In the second presentation, Anita Dhanrajani, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, began by noting that Alabama and Mississippi are ranked in the top 10 states for the highest poverty rate: Mississippi is No. 1, and Alabama is No. 7. Further, 40% of children in Mississippi and 29% of children in Alabama are of African American ancestry, she said.

“So, we know that this population that we’re dealing with has several high-risk factors that can lead them to have poor outcomes, and yet, we haven’t really ever characterized their clinical features or their social demographic features,” Dr. Dhanrajani told attendees. “My hope is that with this very miniscule first step, we’re able to move towards solutions to decrease health care disparities in this population.”

She presented findings regarding the first of three aims in the study, which was to describe the baseline clinical, demographic, and socioeconomic profiles of childhood lupus patients at the two centers. The two other aims were to examine genetic factors potentially linked to poor outcomes in the cohort and to assess the mental health status of the population.

The study relied on a retrospective chart review for the 17 patients at the University of Mississippi Medical Center and on Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance registry data for the 19 patients at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Most of the patients (86%) were female, Black (78%), and insured by Medicaid (64%). The average age at diagnosis was 13 years. Most (83%) also lived in a ZIP code that met the criteria for a medium-high or high Social Vulnerability Index. The children had to travel an average 75 miles to see a rheumatologist, compared with the national average of 43 miles.

At diagnosis, their average Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) score was 8.8, their average American College of Rheumatology score was 5.2, and their average SLEDAI score was 12.1 – the latter was substantially higher than the average 3.1 score in a multiethnic Canadian cohort (the 1000 Canadian Faces of Lupus Study) with 10% Black children (P < .00001). The SLEDAI score dropped to 6.8 at 6 months and to 4 at 1 year. Nearly half (47%) had a SLICC Damage Index (SDI) greater than 0, and one-third had an SDI of 2 or greater, compared with 16% and 7%, respectively, reported in other recent studies (P < .0001 for both).

“These disparities are very difficult to investigate in terms of causal relationships and [are] likely to be very modifiable,” Coziana Ciurtin, MD, PhD, associate professor of rheumatology at University College London, told this news organization. “I think the socioeconomic status, the level of education, poverty, [type of] medical insurance, and probably genetic variants are all underpinning the presentation, damage, or disease activity being very high, and also organ involvement,” such as the greater CNS involvement seen in non-White patients.

Being mindful of these risk profiles can help doctors in asking about patients’ support at home and their families’ education, beliefs, and cultural practices, Dr. Ciurtin added. “Helping them to engage and be involved in decision-making is probably the most important” aspect of learning this information about families, she said.

Collecting this information should not be the sole responsibility of the physician, added Eve Smith, PhD, MBCHB, an academic clinical lecturer at the University of Liverpool, England, who attended the presentations. Dr. Smith noted a discussion in a work group during the previous day of the conference concerning questionnaires for screening patients regarding the need for social services and for identifying areas in which patients and their families were having difficulties.

“Obviously, if you’re going to do that, you have to have access to someone who can actually help to deal with that. Some hospitals have patient navigators that can help, for example, with a food security issue to highlight resources within the community, so it’s not all on the doctor,” Dr. Smith said. “To really make a difference in this area, it can’t just be down to the doctor. There needs to be social care, there needs to be community-based interventions and things to do about it. Doctors can help identify these patients, or maybe somebody in the [medical] team can help with that, but there needs to be an intervention. Otherwise, you’re left with this problem without a solution that you can’t do anything about.”

The researchers did not note any external funding for either study. Dr. Beil, Dr. Dhanrajani, Dr. Smith, and Dr. Ciurtin reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Clinical research into lupus has long been hampered by failures of medications that initially seemed promising. Now, a coalition of drugmakers, federal regulators, and activists has come together to forge a path toward better-designed studies and – potentially – groundbreaking new drugs.

“We have an opportunity to work collaboratively in lupus to address the challenges in drug development,” Teodora Staeva, PhD, vice president and chief scientific officer of the Lupus Research Alliance, said in an interview.

The alliance held a press conference on March 29 to announce the formation of the public-private Lupus Accelerating Breakthroughs Consortium. Coalition members include several major drugmakers, lupus organizations such as the LRA, the American College of Rheumatology, the Food and Drug Administration, and other federal agencies. Academic researchers, people living with lupus, caregivers and family members, and other members of the lupus community are also on board.

As Dr. Staeva explained, research into lupus has been marked by a high rate of failure. “Often, phase 2 trial successes have not translated into phase 3 successes,” she said.

But researchers, she said, don’t tend to think this is because the drugs themselves are useless.

Instead, it appears that “trial designs are not adequate to capture meaningful readouts of the drug effects, and that may have contributed to the multiple failures,” she said.

According to her, this may because the trials aren’t yet designed to fully detect whether drugs are useful. This is difficult to accomplish since patients have so many manifestations of the disease and trial participants already take a variety of existing drugs.

“Another major limitation has been the lack of integration of the patient’s voice and needs in the drug development process,” she said. It’s also challenging to recruit patients with the most severe lupus to participate in studies, especially since the trials often last 52 weeks.

The new coalition will not directly develop or favor specific drugs. Instead, it will focus on clinical research priorities. “It’s all open and collaborative,” Dr. Staeva explained, and a patient council will provide input. “We have a unique opportunity to bring the voice of people [living with lupus] to the table for the first time and be able to integrate their needs and priorities into the infrastructure.”

The new coalition was inspired by existing public-private partnerships such as the Kidney Health Initiative, she said. That initiative was founded in 2012 by the FDA and the American Society of Nephrology and has dozens of members, including multiple drugmakers and medical societies.

The leadership of the Lupus ABC coalition will include three nonvoting members from the FDA. They’ll offer guidance, Dr. Staeva said. At the press conference, Albert T. Roy, president and CEO of the LRA, said drug companies will appreciate the opportunity to speak with FDA representatives “in a space that is not competitive with respect to intellectual property or anything like that.”

The coalition will meet later in spring 2023, Dr. Staeva said. She hopes it will launch a couple of projects by the end of 2023 and be able to release preliminary results by the end of 2024.

One challenge will be figuring out how to stratify trial subjects so drug studies will more easily detect medications that may work in smaller populations of patients, Hoang Nguyen, PhD, director of scientific partnerships at the LRA, said in an interview. “Now we lump [patients] all together, and that’s not the optimal way to test drugs on patients who have a lot of differences.”

According to Dr. Staeva, the LRA funded the development of the coalition, and drugmakers will primarily provide financial support going forward. The pharmaceutical company members of the coalition are Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Takeda.

Dr. Staeva, Dr. Nguyen, and Mr. Roy have no disclosures.

Clinical research into lupus has long been hampered by failures of medications that initially seemed promising. Now, a coalition of drugmakers, federal regulators, and activists has come together to forge a path toward better-designed studies and – potentially – groundbreaking new drugs.

“We have an opportunity to work collaboratively in lupus to address the challenges in drug development,” Teodora Staeva, PhD, vice president and chief scientific officer of the Lupus Research Alliance, said in an interview.

The alliance held a press conference on March 29 to announce the formation of the public-private Lupus Accelerating Breakthroughs Consortium. Coalition members include several major drugmakers, lupus organizations such as the LRA, the American College of Rheumatology, the Food and Drug Administration, and other federal agencies. Academic researchers, people living with lupus, caregivers and family members, and other members of the lupus community are also on board.

As Dr. Staeva explained, research into lupus has been marked by a high rate of failure. “Often, phase 2 trial successes have not translated into phase 3 successes,” she said.

But researchers, she said, don’t tend to think this is because the drugs themselves are useless.

Instead, it appears that “trial designs are not adequate to capture meaningful readouts of the drug effects, and that may have contributed to the multiple failures,” she said.

According to her, this may because the trials aren’t yet designed to fully detect whether drugs are useful. This is difficult to accomplish since patients have so many manifestations of the disease and trial participants already take a variety of existing drugs.

“Another major limitation has been the lack of integration of the patient’s voice and needs in the drug development process,” she said. It’s also challenging to recruit patients with the most severe lupus to participate in studies, especially since the trials often last 52 weeks.

The new coalition will not directly develop or favor specific drugs. Instead, it will focus on clinical research priorities. “It’s all open and collaborative,” Dr. Staeva explained, and a patient council will provide input. “We have a unique opportunity to bring the voice of people [living with lupus] to the table for the first time and be able to integrate their needs and priorities into the infrastructure.”

The new coalition was inspired by existing public-private partnerships such as the Kidney Health Initiative, she said. That initiative was founded in 2012 by the FDA and the American Society of Nephrology and has dozens of members, including multiple drugmakers and medical societies.

The leadership of the Lupus ABC coalition will include three nonvoting members from the FDA. They’ll offer guidance, Dr. Staeva said. At the press conference, Albert T. Roy, president and CEO of the LRA, said drug companies will appreciate the opportunity to speak with FDA representatives “in a space that is not competitive with respect to intellectual property or anything like that.”

The coalition will meet later in spring 2023, Dr. Staeva said. She hopes it will launch a couple of projects by the end of 2023 and be able to release preliminary results by the end of 2024.

One challenge will be figuring out how to stratify trial subjects so drug studies will more easily detect medications that may work in smaller populations of patients, Hoang Nguyen, PhD, director of scientific partnerships at the LRA, said in an interview. “Now we lump [patients] all together, and that’s not the optimal way to test drugs on patients who have a lot of differences.”

According to Dr. Staeva, the LRA funded the development of the coalition, and drugmakers will primarily provide financial support going forward. The pharmaceutical company members of the coalition are Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Takeda.

Dr. Staeva, Dr. Nguyen, and Mr. Roy have no disclosures.

Clinical research into lupus has long been hampered by failures of medications that initially seemed promising. Now, a coalition of drugmakers, federal regulators, and activists has come together to forge a path toward better-designed studies and – potentially – groundbreaking new drugs.

“We have an opportunity to work collaboratively in lupus to address the challenges in drug development,” Teodora Staeva, PhD, vice president and chief scientific officer of the Lupus Research Alliance, said in an interview.

The alliance held a press conference on March 29 to announce the formation of the public-private Lupus Accelerating Breakthroughs Consortium. Coalition members include several major drugmakers, lupus organizations such as the LRA, the American College of Rheumatology, the Food and Drug Administration, and other federal agencies. Academic researchers, people living with lupus, caregivers and family members, and other members of the lupus community are also on board.

As Dr. Staeva explained, research into lupus has been marked by a high rate of failure. “Often, phase 2 trial successes have not translated into phase 3 successes,” she said.

But researchers, she said, don’t tend to think this is because the drugs themselves are useless.

Instead, it appears that “trial designs are not adequate to capture meaningful readouts of the drug effects, and that may have contributed to the multiple failures,” she said.

According to her, this may because the trials aren’t yet designed to fully detect whether drugs are useful. This is difficult to accomplish since patients have so many manifestations of the disease and trial participants already take a variety of existing drugs.

“Another major limitation has been the lack of integration of the patient’s voice and needs in the drug development process,” she said. It’s also challenging to recruit patients with the most severe lupus to participate in studies, especially since the trials often last 52 weeks.

The new coalition will not directly develop or favor specific drugs. Instead, it will focus on clinical research priorities. “It’s all open and collaborative,” Dr. Staeva explained, and a patient council will provide input. “We have a unique opportunity to bring the voice of people [living with lupus] to the table for the first time and be able to integrate their needs and priorities into the infrastructure.”

The new coalition was inspired by existing public-private partnerships such as the Kidney Health Initiative, she said. That initiative was founded in 2012 by the FDA and the American Society of Nephrology and has dozens of members, including multiple drugmakers and medical societies.

The leadership of the Lupus ABC coalition will include three nonvoting members from the FDA. They’ll offer guidance, Dr. Staeva said. At the press conference, Albert T. Roy, president and CEO of the LRA, said drug companies will appreciate the opportunity to speak with FDA representatives “in a space that is not competitive with respect to intellectual property or anything like that.”

The coalition will meet later in spring 2023, Dr. Staeva said. She hopes it will launch a couple of projects by the end of 2023 and be able to release preliminary results by the end of 2024.

One challenge will be figuring out how to stratify trial subjects so drug studies will more easily detect medications that may work in smaller populations of patients, Hoang Nguyen, PhD, director of scientific partnerships at the LRA, said in an interview. “Now we lump [patients] all together, and that’s not the optimal way to test drugs on patients who have a lot of differences.”

According to Dr. Staeva, the LRA funded the development of the coalition, and drugmakers will primarily provide financial support going forward. The pharmaceutical company members of the coalition are Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Takeda.

Dr. Staeva, Dr. Nguyen, and Mr. Roy have no disclosures.

Rheumatologist Marcus Snow, MD, is comfortable with prescribing biosimilars as a first-line, first-time biologic, and discussing them with patients.

“If a biosimilar is on the market, it has gone through rigorous study proving its effectiveness and equivalence to a bio-originator,” said Dr. Snow, a rheumatologist with the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care.

The formulary makes a big difference in the conversation about options, he said. “The formularies dictate what we can prescribe. It may not be appropriate, but it is reality. The cost of biologics for a patient without insurance coverage makes it impossible to afford.”

He will often tell patients that he’ll fight any changes or formulary restrictions he does not agree with. “However, when I see patients in follow-up, even if there is no known change on the horizon, I may bring up biosimilars when we have a moment to chat about them to familiarize them with what may happen in the future.”

The need for patient education on biosimilars presents a barrier to realizing their potential to save money and expand choice, noted Cardinal Health in its 2023 biosimilars report. Of 103 rheumatologists who responded to a Cardinal Health survey, 85% agreed that patient education was important. But those conversations can take an uncomfortable turn if the patient pushes back against taking a biosimilar owing to cost or safety concerns.

It’s not uncommon for a patient to express some anxiety about biosimilars, especially if they’re doing well on a current treatment plan. Most patients do not want any changes that may lead to worsening disease control, Dr. Snow said.

Kaiser Permanente

Patients and physicians alike often don’t understand the mechanics of biosimilars. “There’s a lot of misinformation about this,” said Sameer Awsare, MD, an associate executive director for The Permanente Medical Group in Campbell, Calif. Patients should know that a biosimilar will be as clinically efficacious as the medicine they’ve been on, with the same safety profiles, said Dr. Awsare, who works with Kaiser Permanente’s pharmacy partners on biosimilars.
 

Insurance often drives the conversation

The global anti-inflammatory biologics market is anticipated to reach $150 billion by 2027, according to a recent CVS report. As of March 2023, the Food and Drug Administration had approved 40 biosimilars to 11 different reference products. There are 28 on the U.S. market and 100 more in development. Projected to save more than $180 billion over the next 5 years, they are anticipated to expand choice and drive competition.

Rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists are frequent prescribers, although their choices for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases are limited to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (infliximab [Remicade] originator and adalimumab [Humira] originator) and anti-CD20 agents, such as rituximab (Rituxan) originator.

Benefit design or formulary usually dictates what medicine a patient receives. “Because of significantly higher out-of-pocket cost or formulary positioning, patients may end up with a generic or a biosimilar instead of a brand-name medicine or branded biologic,” said Robert Popovian, PharmD, MS, chief science policy officer of the Global Healthy Living Foundation.

Insurers rarely offer both Remicade and biosimilar infliximab, allowing the doctor to choose, said Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Cleveland Clinic’s Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, who prescribes infliximab biosimilars. Most often, the payer will choose the lower-cost biosimilar. “I am fine with the biosimilar, either as a new start or a switch from the reference product.”

However, the patient might feel differently. They can form an attachment to the reference medication if it has prevented severe illness. “They do not want to change, as they feel they are going on a ‘new’ medication that will not work as well,” Dr. Regueiro said.

This is where the education comes in: to reassure patients that a biosimilar will work just as well as the reference product. “For patients who have done well for years on a biologic, more time needs to be spent reassuring them and answering questions,” compared with a patient just starting on a biosimilar, he advised.

But not all physicians are quick to prescribe biosimilars.

Julie Miller Photography

Especially with psoriasis, which has so many strong options for reference drugs, a switch may be hard to justify, said dermatologist Stephanie K. Fabbro, MD, assistant professor at Northeast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown. “If I have a preference, I would rather switch a patient to a drug from a different class without a biosimilar option to reduce the possibility of pushback.”

Dr. Fabbro, part of the core faculty in the Riverside Methodist Hospital Dermatology Residency Program in Columbus, will share data from clinical trials and postmarket surveillance with patients to support her decision.
 

Conversations about cost

Patients may also push back if they don’t save money when switching to a biosimilar. “This dilemma raises the question of who is profiting when a biosimilar is dispensed,” Dr. Popovian said. Insurers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) that take additional concessions from biopharmaceutical manufacturers in the form of rebates and fees will often pocket this money as profit instead of passing savings back to the patient to help reduce their out-of-pocket requirement, he added.

If an originator biologic and a biosimilar are available, “as a pharmacist, I will choose the medicine that will incur the lowest out-of-pocket cost for the patient,” Dr. Popovian said.

Discussing cost – and who dictates which biosimilar is on the formulary – is an important conversation to have with patients, said Vivek Kaul, MD, Segal-Watson Professor of Medicine at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center.

Providing equivalent clinical efficacy while saving costs is the economic reality of biosimilars, Dr. Kaul said. Third-party payers regularly evaluate how to provide the same quality of care while saving money. Physicians and patients alike “must be mindful that as time goes on, if the science on biosimilars stays robust, if the adoption is more widespread and the cost-saving proposition turns out to be true, more formularies will be attracted to replacing the reference product with the biosimilar counterpart.”

Providers and patients can weigh the options if a formulary suddenly switches to a biosimilar, Dr. Kaul continued. “You can accept the novel product on the formulary or may have to face out-of-pocket expenses as a patient.” If providers and patients have concerns about the biosimilar, they can always appeal if there’s solid scientific evidence that supports reverting back to the reference product.

“If you think the biosimilar is equally efficacious, comes at a lower cost, and is right for the patient, then the providers should tell the patient that,” he added.

Some studies have questioned whether the biosimilars will save money, compared with the reference drug, Dr. Fabbro noted. Medicare, for example, may pay only for a certain percentage of an approved biosimilar, saddling the patient with a monthly copay costing thousands of dollars. “It is unclear whether biosimilar manufacturers will have the same level of patient support programs as the reference drug companies.”

For that reason, physicians should also inform patients about the robust patient assistance and copay assistance programs many reference drug manufacturers offer, she said.

Biosimilars 101: Familiarizing patients

Safety and ease of use are other common concerns about biosimilars. Patients may ask if the application is different, or why it’s advantageous to switch to a biosimilar, Dr. Awsare said.

Sometimes the syringe or injector for a biosimilar might look different from that of the originator drug, he said.

Anecdotally, Dr. Fabbro has heard stories of patients having injection reactions that they did not experience with the reference drug or having a disease flare-up after starting a biosimilar. 

rubberball/Getty Images

As is the case with reference products, in their conversations with patients, clinicians should address the adverse event profile of biosimilars, offering data points from published studies and clinical guidelines that support the use of these products. “There should be an emphasis on patient education around efficacy and any side effects, and how the profile of the reference product compares with a proposed biosimilar,” Dr. Kaul suggested.

When Dr. Snow discusses biosimilars and generics, “I make sure to share this in an understandable way based on the patient’s scientific background, or lack thereof,” he said. If there is enough time, he also discusses how European- and U.S.-sourced biologics are slightly different.

Pharmacists should tell patients to expect the same clinical outcomes from a biosimilar, Dr. Popovian said. However, if they have any reduction in efficacy or potential safety concerns, they should communicate with their physician or pharmacist immediately.

In Dr. Regueiro’s practice, a pharmacist specializing in inflammatory bowel disease often has a one-on-one meeting with patients to educate and answer questions. “Additionally, we provide them the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation web link on biosimilars,” said Dr. Regueiro.
 

A village approach to education

When biosimilars first came out, there were no formal education materials, Dr. Awsare said. Kaiser Permanente decided to create its own educational materials, not just for patients but also to help educate its primary care doctors; the rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists using the biosimilars; the nurses infusing patients; and the pharmacists preparing the biosimilars.

The health system also has a different approach to choosing medication. Instead of having an insurance company or PBM decide what’s in the formulary, clinicians work with the pharmacists at Kaiser to look at clinical evidence and decide which biosimilar to use. Most of its plans also provide lower copays to patients when they use the biosimilar. 

This was the approach for Humira biosimilars, Dr. Awsare said. Eight will be on the market in 2023. “Our rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists looked at the data from Europe, looked at some real-world evidence, and then said: ‘We think this one’s going to be the best one for our patients.’ ”

Having clinicians choose the biosimilar instead of a health plan makes it a lot easier to have conversations with patients, he said. “Once we’ve moved that market share to that particular biosimilar, we give our physicians the time to have those discussions.”

Clinical pharmacists also provide educational support, offering guidance on issues such as side effects, as patients transition to the biosimilar. “We like to use the word ‘transition’ because it’s essentially the same biologic. So, you’re not actually switching,” Dr. Awsare said.

No consensus on interchangeability

Whether the conversation on interchangeability will affect patient conversations with physicians depends on who you ask.

If a biosimilar has an interchangeability designation, it means that the pharmacist can substitute it without the intervention of the clinician who prescribed the reference product. It does not relate to the quality, safety, or effectiveness of biosimilars or interchangeable biosimilar products, Dr. Popovian said.

The United States is the only country that has this designation. Even though it’s not identical to the originator drug, a biosimilar has the same clinical efficacy and safety profile. “So clinically, interchangeability is meaningless,” Dr. Awsare said.

In its report on biosimilars in the autoimmune category, CVS acknowledged that interchangeability was important but would not be a significant factor in driving adoption of biosimilars. However, in a Cardinal Health survey of 72 gastroenterologists, 38% cited the interchangeability of biosimilars as a top concern for adalimumab biosimilars, along with transitioning patients from Humira to a biosimilar (44%).

“Patient education regarding biosimilar safety, efficacy, and interchangeability appears paramount to the acceptance of these products, particularly for patients who are switched from a reference product,” Dr. Kaul noted in the Cardinal Health report.

Wherever supported by data, Dr. Kaul recommends incorporating biosimilar use and interchangeability into best practice guidelines going forward. “That will go a long way in disseminating the latest information on this topic and position this paradigm for increased adoption among providers.”

Some physicians like Dr. Snow aren’t that concerned with interchangeability. This hasn’t affected conversations with patients, he said. Multiple studies demonstrating the lack of antibody formation with multiple switches from different biosimilar drugs has eased his concern about multiple switches causing problems.

“Initially, there was a gap in demonstrating the long-term effect of multiple switches on antibody production and drug effectiveness. That gap has started to close as more data from Europe’s experience with biosimilars becomes available,” Dr. Snow said.
 

Resources for physicians, patients

The federal government has taken steps to advance biosimilars education and adoption. In 2021, President Biden signed the Advancing Education on Biosimilars Act into law, which directs the FDA to develop or improve continuing education programs that address prescribing of biosimilars and biological products.

The FDA provides educational materials on its website, including a comprehensive curriculum toolkit. The Accreditation Council for Medical Affairs has also created an online 40-hour curriculum for health care professionals called the Board-Certified Biologics and Biosimilars Specialist Program.

Dr. Fabbro recommended patients use the FDA page Biosimilar Basics for Patients to educate themselves on biosimilars. The Global Healthy Living Foundation’s podcast, Breaking Down Biosimilars, is another free resource for patients.

“While much has changed, the continued need for multistakeholder education, awareness, and dedicated research remains even more important as we expand into newer therapeutic areas and classes,” wrote the authors of the Cardinal Health report.

Help patients understand biologics and biosimilars by using AGA resources for providers and patients available at gastro.org/biosimilars.

Dr. Regueiro is on advisory boards and consults for AbbVie, Janssen, UCB, Takeda, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Organon, Amgen, Genentech, Gilead, Salix, Prometheus, Lilly, Celgene, TARGET PharmaSolutions, Trellis, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Fabbro is a principal investigator for Castle Biosciences, on the speakers bureau for Valchlor, and on the advisory boards of Janssen and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Popovian, Dr. Snow, Dr. Awsare, and Dr. Kaul had no disclosures.

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

Rheumatologist Marcus Snow, MD, is comfortable with prescribing biosimilars as a first-line, first-time biologic, and discussing them with patients.

“If a biosimilar is on the market, it has gone through rigorous study proving its effectiveness and equivalence to a bio-originator,” said Dr. Snow, a rheumatologist with the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care.

The formulary makes a big difference in the conversation about options, he said. “The formularies dictate what we can prescribe. It may not be appropriate, but it is reality. The cost of biologics for a patient without insurance coverage makes it impossible to afford.”

He will often tell patients that he’ll fight any changes or formulary restrictions he does not agree with. “However, when I see patients in follow-up, even if there is no known change on the horizon, I may bring up biosimilars when we have a moment to chat about them to familiarize them with what may happen in the future.”

The need for patient education on biosimilars presents a barrier to realizing their potential to save money and expand choice, noted Cardinal Health in its 2023 biosimilars report. Of 103 rheumatologists who responded to a Cardinal Health survey, 85% agreed that patient education was important. But those conversations can take an uncomfortable turn if the patient pushes back against taking a biosimilar owing to cost or safety concerns.

It’s not uncommon for a patient to express some anxiety about biosimilars, especially if they’re doing well on a current treatment plan. Most patients do not want any changes that may lead to worsening disease control, Dr. Snow said.

Kaiser Permanente

Patients and physicians alike often don’t understand the mechanics of biosimilars. “There’s a lot of misinformation about this,” said Sameer Awsare, MD, an associate executive director for The Permanente Medical Group in Campbell, Calif. Patients should know that a biosimilar will be as clinically efficacious as the medicine they’ve been on, with the same safety profiles, said Dr. Awsare, who works with Kaiser Permanente’s pharmacy partners on biosimilars.
 

Insurance often drives the conversation

The global anti-inflammatory biologics market is anticipated to reach $150 billion by 2027, according to a recent CVS report. As of March 2023, the Food and Drug Administration had approved 40 biosimilars to 11 different reference products. There are 28 on the U.S. market and 100 more in development. Projected to save more than $180 billion over the next 5 years, they are anticipated to expand choice and drive competition.

Rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists are frequent prescribers, although their choices for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases are limited to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (infliximab [Remicade] originator and adalimumab [Humira] originator) and anti-CD20 agents, such as rituximab (Rituxan) originator.

Benefit design or formulary usually dictates what medicine a patient receives. “Because of significantly higher out-of-pocket cost or formulary positioning, patients may end up with a generic or a biosimilar instead of a brand-name medicine or branded biologic,” said Robert Popovian, PharmD, MS, chief science policy officer of the Global Healthy Living Foundation.

Insurers rarely offer both Remicade and biosimilar infliximab, allowing the doctor to choose, said Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Cleveland Clinic’s Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, who prescribes infliximab biosimilars. Most often, the payer will choose the lower-cost biosimilar. “I am fine with the biosimilar, either as a new start or a switch from the reference product.”

However, the patient might feel differently. They can form an attachment to the reference medication if it has prevented severe illness. “They do not want to change, as they feel they are going on a ‘new’ medication that will not work as well,” Dr. Regueiro said.

This is where the education comes in: to reassure patients that a biosimilar will work just as well as the reference product. “For patients who have done well for years on a biologic, more time needs to be spent reassuring them and answering questions,” compared with a patient just starting on a biosimilar, he advised.

But not all physicians are quick to prescribe biosimilars.

Julie Miller Photography

Especially with psoriasis, which has so many strong options for reference drugs, a switch may be hard to justify, said dermatologist Stephanie K. Fabbro, MD, assistant professor at Northeast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown. “If I have a preference, I would rather switch a patient to a drug from a different class without a biosimilar option to reduce the possibility of pushback.”

Dr. Fabbro, part of the core faculty in the Riverside Methodist Hospital Dermatology Residency Program in Columbus, will share data from clinical trials and postmarket surveillance with patients to support her decision.
 

Conversations about cost

Patients may also push back if they don’t save money when switching to a biosimilar. “This dilemma raises the question of who is profiting when a biosimilar is dispensed,” Dr. Popovian said. Insurers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) that take additional concessions from biopharmaceutical manufacturers in the form of rebates and fees will often pocket this money as profit instead of passing savings back to the patient to help reduce their out-of-pocket requirement, he added.

If an originator biologic and a biosimilar are available, “as a pharmacist, I will choose the medicine that will incur the lowest out-of-pocket cost for the patient,” Dr. Popovian said.

Discussing cost – and who dictates which biosimilar is on the formulary – is an important conversation to have with patients, said Vivek Kaul, MD, Segal-Watson Professor of Medicine at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center.

Providing equivalent clinical efficacy while saving costs is the economic reality of biosimilars, Dr. Kaul said. Third-party payers regularly evaluate how to provide the same quality of care while saving money. Physicians and patients alike “must be mindful that as time goes on, if the science on biosimilars stays robust, if the adoption is more widespread and the cost-saving proposition turns out to be true, more formularies will be attracted to replacing the reference product with the biosimilar counterpart.”

Providers and patients can weigh the options if a formulary suddenly switches to a biosimilar, Dr. Kaul continued. “You can accept the novel product on the formulary or may have to face out-of-pocket expenses as a patient.” If providers and patients have concerns about the biosimilar, they can always appeal if there’s solid scientific evidence that supports reverting back to the reference product.

“If you think the biosimilar is equally efficacious, comes at a lower cost, and is right for the patient, then the providers should tell the patient that,” he added.

Some studies have questioned whether the biosimilars will save money, compared with the reference drug, Dr. Fabbro noted. Medicare, for example, may pay only for a certain percentage of an approved biosimilar, saddling the patient with a monthly copay costing thousands of dollars. “It is unclear whether biosimilar manufacturers will have the same level of patient support programs as the reference drug companies.”

For that reason, physicians should also inform patients about the robust patient assistance and copay assistance programs many reference drug manufacturers offer, she said.

Biosimilars 101: Familiarizing patients

Safety and ease of use are other common concerns about biosimilars. Patients may ask if the application is different, or why it’s advantageous to switch to a biosimilar, Dr. Awsare said.

Sometimes the syringe or injector for a biosimilar might look different from that of the originator drug, he said.

Anecdotally, Dr. Fabbro has heard stories of patients having injection reactions that they did not experience with the reference drug or having a disease flare-up after starting a biosimilar. 

rubberball/Getty Images

As is the case with reference products, in their conversations with patients, clinicians should address the adverse event profile of biosimilars, offering data points from published studies and clinical guidelines that support the use of these products. “There should be an emphasis on patient education around efficacy and any side effects, and how the profile of the reference product compares with a proposed biosimilar,” Dr. Kaul suggested.

When Dr. Snow discusses biosimilars and generics, “I make sure to share this in an understandable way based on the patient’s scientific background, or lack thereof,” he said. If there is enough time, he also discusses how European- and U.S.-sourced biologics are slightly different.

Pharmacists should tell patients to expect the same clinical outcomes from a biosimilar, Dr. Popovian said. However, if they have any reduction in efficacy or potential safety concerns, they should communicate with their physician or pharmacist immediately.

In Dr. Regueiro’s practice, a pharmacist specializing in inflammatory bowel disease often has a one-on-one meeting with patients to educate and answer questions. “Additionally, we provide them the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation web link on biosimilars,” said Dr. Regueiro.
 

A village approach to education

When biosimilars first came out, there were no formal education materials, Dr. Awsare said. Kaiser Permanente decided to create its own educational materials, not just for patients but also to help educate its primary care doctors; the rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists using the biosimilars; the nurses infusing patients; and the pharmacists preparing the biosimilars.

The health system also has a different approach to choosing medication. Instead of having an insurance company or PBM decide what’s in the formulary, clinicians work with the pharmacists at Kaiser to look at clinical evidence and decide which biosimilar to use. Most of its plans also provide lower copays to patients when they use the biosimilar. 

This was the approach for Humira biosimilars, Dr. Awsare said. Eight will be on the market in 2023. “Our rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists looked at the data from Europe, looked at some real-world evidence, and then said: ‘We think this one’s going to be the best one for our patients.’ ”

Having clinicians choose the biosimilar instead of a health plan makes it a lot easier to have conversations with patients, he said. “Once we’ve moved that market share to that particular biosimilar, we give our physicians the time to have those discussions.”

Clinical pharmacists also provide educational support, offering guidance on issues such as side effects, as patients transition to the biosimilar. “We like to use the word ‘transition’ because it’s essentially the same biologic. So, you’re not actually switching,” Dr. Awsare said.

No consensus on interchangeability

Whether the conversation on interchangeability will affect patient conversations with physicians depends on who you ask.

If a biosimilar has an interchangeability designation, it means that the pharmacist can substitute it without the intervention of the clinician who prescribed the reference product. It does not relate to the quality, safety, or effectiveness of biosimilars or interchangeable biosimilar products, Dr. Popovian said.

The United States is the only country that has this designation. Even though it’s not identical to the originator drug, a biosimilar has the same clinical efficacy and safety profile. “So clinically, interchangeability is meaningless,” Dr. Awsare said.

In its report on biosimilars in the autoimmune category, CVS acknowledged that interchangeability was important but would not be a significant factor in driving adoption of biosimilars. However, in a Cardinal Health survey of 72 gastroenterologists, 38% cited the interchangeability of biosimilars as a top concern for adalimumab biosimilars, along with transitioning patients from Humira to a biosimilar (44%).

“Patient education regarding biosimilar safety, efficacy, and interchangeability appears paramount to the acceptance of these products, particularly for patients who are switched from a reference product,” Dr. Kaul noted in the Cardinal Health report.

Wherever supported by data, Dr. Kaul recommends incorporating biosimilar use and interchangeability into best practice guidelines going forward. “That will go a long way in disseminating the latest information on this topic and position this paradigm for increased adoption among providers.”

Some physicians like Dr. Snow aren’t that concerned with interchangeability. This hasn’t affected conversations with patients, he said. Multiple studies demonstrating the lack of antibody formation with multiple switches from different biosimilar drugs has eased his concern about multiple switches causing problems.

“Initially, there was a gap in demonstrating the long-term effect of multiple switches on antibody production and drug effectiveness. That gap has started to close as more data from Europe’s experience with biosimilars becomes available,” Dr. Snow said.
 

Resources for physicians, patients

The federal government has taken steps to advance biosimilars education and adoption. In 2021, President Biden signed the Advancing Education on Biosimilars Act into law, which directs the FDA to develop or improve continuing education programs that address prescribing of biosimilars and biological products.

The FDA provides educational materials on its website, including a comprehensive curriculum toolkit. The Accreditation Council for Medical Affairs has also created an online 40-hour curriculum for health care professionals called the Board-Certified Biologics and Biosimilars Specialist Program.

Dr. Fabbro recommended patients use the FDA page Biosimilar Basics for Patients to educate themselves on biosimilars. The Global Healthy Living Foundation’s podcast, Breaking Down Biosimilars, is another free resource for patients.

“While much has changed, the continued need for multistakeholder education, awareness, and dedicated research remains even more important as we expand into newer therapeutic areas and classes,” wrote the authors of the Cardinal Health report.

Help patients understand biologics and biosimilars by using AGA resources for providers and patients available at gastro.org/biosimilars.

Dr. Regueiro is on advisory boards and consults for AbbVie, Janssen, UCB, Takeda, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Organon, Amgen, Genentech, Gilead, Salix, Prometheus, Lilly, Celgene, TARGET PharmaSolutions, Trellis, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Fabbro is a principal investigator for Castle Biosciences, on the speakers bureau for Valchlor, and on the advisory boards of Janssen and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Popovian, Dr. Snow, Dr. Awsare, and Dr. Kaul had no disclosures.

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

Rheumatologist Marcus Snow, MD, is comfortable with prescribing biosimilars as a first-line, first-time biologic, and discussing them with patients.

“If a biosimilar is on the market, it has gone through rigorous study proving its effectiveness and equivalence to a bio-originator,” said Dr. Snow, a rheumatologist with the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care.

The formulary makes a big difference in the conversation about options, he said. “The formularies dictate what we can prescribe. It may not be appropriate, but it is reality. The cost of biologics for a patient without insurance coverage makes it impossible to afford.”

He will often tell patients that he’ll fight any changes or formulary restrictions he does not agree with. “However, when I see patients in follow-up, even if there is no known change on the horizon, I may bring up biosimilars when we have a moment to chat about them to familiarize them with what may happen in the future.”

The need for patient education on biosimilars presents a barrier to realizing their potential to save money and expand choice, noted Cardinal Health in its 2023 biosimilars report. Of 103 rheumatologists who responded to a Cardinal Health survey, 85% agreed that patient education was important. But those conversations can take an uncomfortable turn if the patient pushes back against taking a biosimilar owing to cost or safety concerns.

It’s not uncommon for a patient to express some anxiety about biosimilars, especially if they’re doing well on a current treatment plan. Most patients do not want any changes that may lead to worsening disease control, Dr. Snow said.

Kaiser Permanente

Patients and physicians alike often don’t understand the mechanics of biosimilars. “There’s a lot of misinformation about this,” said Sameer Awsare, MD, an associate executive director for The Permanente Medical Group in Campbell, Calif. Patients should know that a biosimilar will be as clinically efficacious as the medicine they’ve been on, with the same safety profiles, said Dr. Awsare, who works with Kaiser Permanente’s pharmacy partners on biosimilars.
 

Insurance often drives the conversation

The global anti-inflammatory biologics market is anticipated to reach $150 billion by 2027, according to a recent CVS report. As of March 2023, the Food and Drug Administration had approved 40 biosimilars to 11 different reference products. There are 28 on the U.S. market and 100 more in development. Projected to save more than $180 billion over the next 5 years, they are anticipated to expand choice and drive competition.

Rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists are frequent prescribers, although their choices for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases are limited to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (infliximab [Remicade] originator and adalimumab [Humira] originator) and anti-CD20 agents, such as rituximab (Rituxan) originator.

Benefit design or formulary usually dictates what medicine a patient receives. “Because of significantly higher out-of-pocket cost or formulary positioning, patients may end up with a generic or a biosimilar instead of a brand-name medicine or branded biologic,” said Robert Popovian, PharmD, MS, chief science policy officer of the Global Healthy Living Foundation.

Insurers rarely offer both Remicade and biosimilar infliximab, allowing the doctor to choose, said Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Cleveland Clinic’s Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, who prescribes infliximab biosimilars. Most often, the payer will choose the lower-cost biosimilar. “I am fine with the biosimilar, either as a new start or a switch from the reference product.”

However, the patient might feel differently. They can form an attachment to the reference medication if it has prevented severe illness. “They do not want to change, as they feel they are going on a ‘new’ medication that will not work as well,” Dr. Regueiro said.

This is where the education comes in: to reassure patients that a biosimilar will work just as well as the reference product. “For patients who have done well for years on a biologic, more time needs to be spent reassuring them and answering questions,” compared with a patient just starting on a biosimilar, he advised.

But not all physicians are quick to prescribe biosimilars.

Julie Miller Photography

Especially with psoriasis, which has so many strong options for reference drugs, a switch may be hard to justify, said dermatologist Stephanie K. Fabbro, MD, assistant professor at Northeast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown. “If I have a preference, I would rather switch a patient to a drug from a different class without a biosimilar option to reduce the possibility of pushback.”

Dr. Fabbro, part of the core faculty in the Riverside Methodist Hospital Dermatology Residency Program in Columbus, will share data from clinical trials and postmarket surveillance with patients to support her decision.
 

Conversations about cost

Patients may also push back if they don’t save money when switching to a biosimilar. “This dilemma raises the question of who is profiting when a biosimilar is dispensed,” Dr. Popovian said. Insurers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) that take additional concessions from biopharmaceutical manufacturers in the form of rebates and fees will often pocket this money as profit instead of passing savings back to the patient to help reduce their out-of-pocket requirement, he added.

If an originator biologic and a biosimilar are available, “as a pharmacist, I will choose the medicine that will incur the lowest out-of-pocket cost for the patient,” Dr. Popovian said.

Discussing cost – and who dictates which biosimilar is on the formulary – is an important conversation to have with patients, said Vivek Kaul, MD, Segal-Watson Professor of Medicine at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center.

Providing equivalent clinical efficacy while saving costs is the economic reality of biosimilars, Dr. Kaul said. Third-party payers regularly evaluate how to provide the same quality of care while saving money. Physicians and patients alike “must be mindful that as time goes on, if the science on biosimilars stays robust, if the adoption is more widespread and the cost-saving proposition turns out to be true, more formularies will be attracted to replacing the reference product with the biosimilar counterpart.”

Providers and patients can weigh the options if a formulary suddenly switches to a biosimilar, Dr. Kaul continued. “You can accept the novel product on the formulary or may have to face out-of-pocket expenses as a patient.” If providers and patients have concerns about the biosimilar, they can always appeal if there’s solid scientific evidence that supports reverting back to the reference product.

“If you think the biosimilar is equally efficacious, comes at a lower cost, and is right for the patient, then the providers should tell the patient that,” he added.

Some studies have questioned whether the biosimilars will save money, compared with the reference drug, Dr. Fabbro noted. Medicare, for example, may pay only for a certain percentage of an approved biosimilar, saddling the patient with a monthly copay costing thousands of dollars. “It is unclear whether biosimilar manufacturers will have the same level of patient support programs as the reference drug companies.”

For that reason, physicians should also inform patients about the robust patient assistance and copay assistance programs many reference drug manufacturers offer, she said.

Biosimilars 101: Familiarizing patients

Safety and ease of use are other common concerns about biosimilars. Patients may ask if the application is different, or why it’s advantageous to switch to a biosimilar, Dr. Awsare said.

Sometimes the syringe or injector for a biosimilar might look different from that of the originator drug, he said.

Anecdotally, Dr. Fabbro has heard stories of patients having injection reactions that they did not experience with the reference drug or having a disease flare-up after starting a biosimilar. 

rubberball/Getty Images

As is the case with reference products, in their conversations with patients, clinicians should address the adverse event profile of biosimilars, offering data points from published studies and clinical guidelines that support the use of these products. “There should be an emphasis on patient education around efficacy and any side effects, and how the profile of the reference product compares with a proposed biosimilar,” Dr. Kaul suggested.

When Dr. Snow discusses biosimilars and generics, “I make sure to share this in an understandable way based on the patient’s scientific background, or lack thereof,” he said. If there is enough time, he also discusses how European- and U.S.-sourced biologics are slightly different.

Pharmacists should tell patients to expect the same clinical outcomes from a biosimilar, Dr. Popovian said. However, if they have any reduction in efficacy or potential safety concerns, they should communicate with their physician or pharmacist immediately.

In Dr. Regueiro’s practice, a pharmacist specializing in inflammatory bowel disease often has a one-on-one meeting with patients to educate and answer questions. “Additionally, we provide them the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation web link on biosimilars,” said Dr. Regueiro.
 

A village approach to education

When biosimilars first came out, there were no formal education materials, Dr. Awsare said. Kaiser Permanente decided to create its own educational materials, not just for patients but also to help educate its primary care doctors; the rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists using the biosimilars; the nurses infusing patients; and the pharmacists preparing the biosimilars.

The health system also has a different approach to choosing medication. Instead of having an insurance company or PBM decide what’s in the formulary, clinicians work with the pharmacists at Kaiser to look at clinical evidence and decide which biosimilar to use. Most of its plans also provide lower copays to patients when they use the biosimilar. 

This was the approach for Humira biosimilars, Dr. Awsare said. Eight will be on the market in 2023. “Our rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists looked at the data from Europe, looked at some real-world evidence, and then said: ‘We think this one’s going to be the best one for our patients.’ ”

Having clinicians choose the biosimilar instead of a health plan makes it a lot easier to have conversations with patients, he said. “Once we’ve moved that market share to that particular biosimilar, we give our physicians the time to have those discussions.”

Clinical pharmacists also provide educational support, offering guidance on issues such as side effects, as patients transition to the biosimilar. “We like to use the word ‘transition’ because it’s essentially the same biologic. So, you’re not actually switching,” Dr. Awsare said.

No consensus on interchangeability

Whether the conversation on interchangeability will affect patient conversations with physicians depends on who you ask.

If a biosimilar has an interchangeability designation, it means that the pharmacist can substitute it without the intervention of the clinician who prescribed the reference product. It does not relate to the quality, safety, or effectiveness of biosimilars or interchangeable biosimilar products, Dr. Popovian said.

The United States is the only country that has this designation. Even though it’s not identical to the originator drug, a biosimilar has the same clinical efficacy and safety profile. “So clinically, interchangeability is meaningless,” Dr. Awsare said.

In its report on biosimilars in the autoimmune category, CVS acknowledged that interchangeability was important but would not be a significant factor in driving adoption of biosimilars. However, in a Cardinal Health survey of 72 gastroenterologists, 38% cited the interchangeability of biosimilars as a top concern for adalimumab biosimilars, along with transitioning patients from Humira to a biosimilar (44%).

“Patient education regarding biosimilar safety, efficacy, and interchangeability appears paramount to the acceptance of these products, particularly for patients who are switched from a reference product,” Dr. Kaul noted in the Cardinal Health report.

Wherever supported by data, Dr. Kaul recommends incorporating biosimilar use and interchangeability into best practice guidelines going forward. “That will go a long way in disseminating the latest information on this topic and position this paradigm for increased adoption among providers.”

Some physicians like Dr. Snow aren’t that concerned with interchangeability. This hasn’t affected conversations with patients, he said. Multiple studies demonstrating the lack of antibody formation with multiple switches from different biosimilar drugs has eased his concern about multiple switches causing problems.

“Initially, there was a gap in demonstrating the long-term effect of multiple switches on antibody production and drug effectiveness. That gap has started to close as more data from Europe’s experience with biosimilars becomes available,” Dr. Snow said.
 

Resources for physicians, patients

The federal government has taken steps to advance biosimilars education and adoption. In 2021, President Biden signed the Advancing Education on Biosimilars Act into law, which directs the FDA to develop or improve continuing education programs that address prescribing of biosimilars and biological products.

The FDA provides educational materials on its website, including a comprehensive curriculum toolkit. The Accreditation Council for Medical Affairs has also created an online 40-hour curriculum for health care professionals called the Board-Certified Biologics and Biosimilars Specialist Program.

Dr. Fabbro recommended patients use the FDA page Biosimilar Basics for Patients to educate themselves on biosimilars. The Global Healthy Living Foundation’s podcast, Breaking Down Biosimilars, is another free resource for patients.

“While much has changed, the continued need for multistakeholder education, awareness, and dedicated research remains even more important as we expand into newer therapeutic areas and classes,” wrote the authors of the Cardinal Health report.

Help patients understand biologics and biosimilars by using AGA resources for providers and patients available at gastro.org/biosimilars.

Dr. Regueiro is on advisory boards and consults for AbbVie, Janssen, UCB, Takeda, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Organon, Amgen, Genentech, Gilead, Salix, Prometheus, Lilly, Celgene, TARGET PharmaSolutions, Trellis, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Fabbro is a principal investigator for Castle Biosciences, on the speakers bureau for Valchlor, and on the advisory boards of Janssen and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Popovian, Dr. Snow, Dr. Awsare, and Dr. Kaul had no disclosures.

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

Anifrolumab appears to improve outcomes in patients with refractory discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE), especially in those with severe or recalcitrant disease, a small retrospective study reports.

DLE, the most common form of chronic cutaneous lupus erythematosus, can permanently scar and disfigure patients, and traditional treatments such as antimalarials, steroid-sparing immunosuppressive agents, thalidomide, retinoids, and lenalidomide don’t consistently improve refractory DLE, the authors noted.

“All patients demonstrated significant improvement in symptomatology and disease activity within 2 months of initiating anifrolumab,” lead study author Katharina Shaw, MD, of the department of dermatology of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues wrote in a research letter published in JAMA Dermatology. “These early results highlight the potential for anifrolumab to be a viable therapeutic option for patients with DLE, particularly those with severe or recalcitrant disease.”

The Food and Drug Administration approved anifrolumab (Saphnelo), a human monoclonal antibody targeting type 1 interferon receptor subunit 1, in 2021 for adults with moderate to severe systemic lupus erythematosus, but it has not been approved for the treatment of DLE.

Dr. Shaw and colleagues queried the medical records from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, to find all cases of DLE based on biopsy, expert opinion, or both from January 2000 to October 2022.

The researchers identified eight female patients who had received anifrolumab for at least 8 weeks. The women were aged between 19 and 75 years (median, 42.5 years), and all had DLE recalcitrant to standard therapies and had been treated with hydroxychloroquine and between 1 and 10 other drugs, most commonly methotrexate and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF).

The authors looked for improvements in patient-reported symptoms and Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index scores, including CLASI A (activity) score 0-70, and CLASI-D (damage) score 0-56.

All patients showed significantly improved symptoms and disease activity within 2 months of their first infusion of the treatment. The mean decrease and mean percentage decrease in CLASI-A scores were 17.1 and 65.1%, respectively. The mean decrease and mean percentage decrease in CLASI-D scores were 0.5 and 2.9%, respectively.

The rapid clinical improvements with anifrolumab, compared with improvements with traditional medications, were striking, the authors wrote. “Given the risk for permanent scarring, dyspigmentation, and alopecia with poorly controlled DLE, the importance of rapidly mitigating disease activity cannot be overemphasized.”

They acknowledged that the results are limited by the study’s small sample size and retrospective design, and they recommend larger related prospective studies.

Dr. Kaveh Ardalan

Asked to comment on the results, Kaveh Ardalan, MD, MS, assistant professor of pediatrics in the division of pediatric rheumatology at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said that finding new DLE therapeutics is important because of the huge impact of uncontrolled DLE on patients’ quality of life, body image, and social roles.

Dr. Ardalan noted that he sees DLE in his pediatric patients, “either as an isolated finding or in the context of systemic lupus erythematosus. Anifrolumab is not approved by the FDA to treat DLE or children.

“Randomized controlled trials, including the TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 studies of anifrolumab in systemic lupus, have indicated that lupus skin manifestations can improve in patients who receive anifrolumab,” said Dr. Ardalan, who was not involved in the study. “And we know that type I interferons are major drivers of cutaneous disease activity in patients with lupus, so targeting that mechanism with anifrolumab makes biological sense.”

The authors’ use of the validated CLASI classification system to quantify disease activity and damage over time, and their determination of the length of time for the drug to take effect are strengths of the study, he added.

Funding information was not provided. Two authors reported financial relationships with Pfizer, which does not manufacture anifrolumab. Dr. Ardalan reported no conflicts of interest with the study.

Anifrolumab appears to improve outcomes in patients with refractory discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE), especially in those with severe or recalcitrant disease, a small retrospective study reports.

DLE, the most common form of chronic cutaneous lupus erythematosus, can permanently scar and disfigure patients, and traditional treatments such as antimalarials, steroid-sparing immunosuppressive agents, thalidomide, retinoids, and lenalidomide don’t consistently improve refractory DLE, the authors noted.

“All patients demonstrated significant improvement in symptomatology and disease activity within 2 months of initiating anifrolumab,” lead study author Katharina Shaw, MD, of the department of dermatology of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues wrote in a research letter published in JAMA Dermatology. “These early results highlight the potential for anifrolumab to be a viable therapeutic option for patients with DLE, particularly those with severe or recalcitrant disease.”

The Food and Drug Administration approved anifrolumab (Saphnelo), a human monoclonal antibody targeting type 1 interferon receptor subunit 1, in 2021 for adults with moderate to severe systemic lupus erythematosus, but it has not been approved for the treatment of DLE.

Dr. Shaw and colleagues queried the medical records from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, to find all cases of DLE based on biopsy, expert opinion, or both from January 2000 to October 2022.

The researchers identified eight female patients who had received anifrolumab for at least 8 weeks. The women were aged between 19 and 75 years (median, 42.5 years), and all had DLE recalcitrant to standard therapies and had been treated with hydroxychloroquine and between 1 and 10 other drugs, most commonly methotrexate and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF).

The authors looked for improvements in patient-reported symptoms and Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index scores, including CLASI A (activity) score 0-70, and CLASI-D (damage) score 0-56.

All patients showed significantly improved symptoms and disease activity within 2 months of their first infusion of the treatment. The mean decrease and mean percentage decrease in CLASI-A scores were 17.1 and 65.1%, respectively. The mean decrease and mean percentage decrease in CLASI-D scores were 0.5 and 2.9%, respectively.

The rapid clinical improvements with anifrolumab, compared with improvements with traditional medications, were striking, the authors wrote. “Given the risk for permanent scarring, dyspigmentation, and alopecia with poorly controlled DLE, the importance of rapidly mitigating disease activity cannot be overemphasized.”

They acknowledged that the results are limited by the study’s small sample size and retrospective design, and they recommend larger related prospective studies.

Dr. Kaveh Ardalan

Asked to comment on the results, Kaveh Ardalan, MD, MS, assistant professor of pediatrics in the division of pediatric rheumatology at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said that finding new DLE therapeutics is important because of the huge impact of uncontrolled DLE on patients’ quality of life, body image, and social roles.

Dr. Ardalan noted that he sees DLE in his pediatric patients, “either as an isolated finding or in the context of systemic lupus erythematosus. Anifrolumab is not approved by the FDA to treat DLE or children.

“Randomized controlled trials, including the TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 studies of anifrolumab in systemic lupus, have indicated that lupus skin manifestations can improve in patients who receive anifrolumab,” said Dr. Ardalan, who was not involved in the study. “And we know that type I interferons are major drivers of cutaneous disease activity in patients with lupus, so targeting that mechanism with anifrolumab makes biological sense.”

The authors’ use of the validated CLASI classification system to quantify disease activity and damage over time, and their determination of the length of time for the drug to take effect are strengths of the study, he added.

Funding information was not provided. Two authors reported financial relationships with Pfizer, which does not manufacture anifrolumab. Dr. Ardalan reported no conflicts of interest with the study.

Anifrolumab appears to improve outcomes in patients with refractory discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE), especially in those with severe or recalcitrant disease, a small retrospective study reports.

DLE, the most common form of chronic cutaneous lupus erythematosus, can permanently scar and disfigure patients, and traditional treatments such as antimalarials, steroid-sparing immunosuppressive agents, thalidomide, retinoids, and lenalidomide don’t consistently improve refractory DLE, the authors noted.

“All patients demonstrated significant improvement in symptomatology and disease activity within 2 months of initiating anifrolumab,” lead study author Katharina Shaw, MD, of the department of dermatology of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues wrote in a research letter published in JAMA Dermatology. “These early results highlight the potential for anifrolumab to be a viable therapeutic option for patients with DLE, particularly those with severe or recalcitrant disease.”

The Food and Drug Administration approved anifrolumab (Saphnelo), a human monoclonal antibody targeting type 1 interferon receptor subunit 1, in 2021 for adults with moderate to severe systemic lupus erythematosus, but it has not been approved for the treatment of DLE.

Dr. Shaw and colleagues queried the medical records from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, to find all cases of DLE based on biopsy, expert opinion, or both from January 2000 to October 2022.

The researchers identified eight female patients who had received anifrolumab for at least 8 weeks. The women were aged between 19 and 75 years (median, 42.5 years), and all had DLE recalcitrant to standard therapies and had been treated with hydroxychloroquine and between 1 and 10 other drugs, most commonly methotrexate and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF).

The authors looked for improvements in patient-reported symptoms and Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index scores, including CLASI A (activity) score 0-70, and CLASI-D (damage) score 0-56.

All patients showed significantly improved symptoms and disease activity within 2 months of their first infusion of the treatment. The mean decrease and mean percentage decrease in CLASI-A scores were 17.1 and 65.1%, respectively. The mean decrease and mean percentage decrease in CLASI-D scores were 0.5 and 2.9%, respectively.

The rapid clinical improvements with anifrolumab, compared with improvements with traditional medications, were striking, the authors wrote. “Given the risk for permanent scarring, dyspigmentation, and alopecia with poorly controlled DLE, the importance of rapidly mitigating disease activity cannot be overemphasized.”

They acknowledged that the results are limited by the study’s small sample size and retrospective design, and they recommend larger related prospective studies.

Dr. Kaveh Ardalan

Asked to comment on the results, Kaveh Ardalan, MD, MS, assistant professor of pediatrics in the division of pediatric rheumatology at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said that finding new DLE therapeutics is important because of the huge impact of uncontrolled DLE on patients’ quality of life, body image, and social roles.

Dr. Ardalan noted that he sees DLE in his pediatric patients, “either as an isolated finding or in the context of systemic lupus erythematosus. Anifrolumab is not approved by the FDA to treat DLE or children.

“Randomized controlled trials, including the TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 studies of anifrolumab in systemic lupus, have indicated that lupus skin manifestations can improve in patients who receive anifrolumab,” said Dr. Ardalan, who was not involved in the study. “And we know that type I interferons are major drivers of cutaneous disease activity in patients with lupus, so targeting that mechanism with anifrolumab makes biological sense.”

The authors’ use of the validated CLASI classification system to quantify disease activity and damage over time, and their determination of the length of time for the drug to take effect are strengths of the study, he added.

Funding information was not provided. Two authors reported financial relationships with Pfizer, which does not manufacture anifrolumab. Dr. Ardalan reported no conflicts of interest with the study.

Targeting cancer screenings based on idiopathic inflammatory myositis (IIM) subtype, autoantibodies, and age may help to maximize cancer detection while limiting false positives.

In a retrospective, single-center study conducted at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, researchers found that when screening patients with IIM for cancer via CT imaging, the diagnostic yield (number of cancers detected/tests performed) was highest in patients with dermatomyositis and the autoantibody anti–TIF1-gamma. Screening patients below age 40 years was associated with lower diagnostic yields and higher false positives, regardless of subtype.

Because of the well-known association between IIM and contemporaneous cancer, newly diagnosed patients with IIM often undergo screening. Yet, there is little research on the most efficient assessment approaches, Christopher Mecoli, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at John Hopkins University School of Medicine and lead author of the study, told this news organization. “There has been a lot written about how these patients should be evaluated for cancer. Unfortunately, the majority of literature is based on eminence,” he said. This study is “one of the first pieces of real data to inform that conversation,” he added.

The research was published online in Arthritis Care & Research.

In the study, Dr. Mecoli and colleagues looked at 1,086 patients enrolled in the center’s Myositis Research Registry from 2003 through 2020. The analysis included patients with a diagnosis of dermatomyositis, polymyositis, immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy (IMNM), and antisynthetase syndrome (ASyS). The researchers also looked at myositis-specific autoantibodies, including anti–TIF1-gamma, –Jo1, and –HMGCR. Patients were excluded from the analysis if they had a cancer diagnosis prior to their IIM onset.

Among patients included in the analysis, the average age of IIM onset was 49 years, and median follow-up duration was 5.3 years. Most patients were female (71%), 68% were white, 21% were Black, 3.6% were Asian, and 7.4% had a listed race of other or unknown. About 66% of all patients received a chest CT scan within 3 years of IIM onset, and 51% received an abdomen/pelvis CT in that same time frame. False positives were defined as the percentage of scans that led to a noncancerous biopsy.

During the study period, 62 patients had a cancer diagnosis within the first 3 years of IIM onset, with the most common cancers being breast (19%), melanoma (13%), and cervical/uterine (10%). Of 1,011 chest scans performed, 9 led to a cancer diagnosis (0.9%), compared with 12 of the 657 abdomen/pelvis (a/p) CT scans (1.8%). Patients with the dermatomyositis-specific autoantibody anti–TIF1-gamma had the highest diagnostic yield (2.9% in chest CT and 2.4% in a/p CT). Regardless of autoantibodies, dermatomyositis patients above 40 years of age had a diagnostic yield of 1.4% in chest CT and 2.7% in a/p CT. For patients under the age of 40 with polymyositis, IMNM, and ASyS, the diagnostic yield for all CT scans was 0.0%. The diagnostic yield in patients under 40 with dermatomyositis was also low (0.0% in chest CT, 0.8% in a/p CT).

The false-positive rate for all chest CT scans was 2.8%, with patients with IMNM and ASyS having the highest frequency of false positivity (both 4.4%). “Based on our data, CT chest imaging in ASyS and IMNM patients are associated with the most harm from a cancer screening perspective,” the authors write. In a/p CT, patients with dermatomyositis under 40 and patients with ASyS had the highest false-positive rates (4.9% and 3.8%, respectively).

“Age was a really big deal in terms of predicting diagnostic yield and false-positivity rate,” Dr. Mecoli said, particularly in patients with dermatomyositis. “This subgroup has historically been thought to have the biggest dissociation with cancer,” he said, but in patients under 40, “it doesn’t look like CT scans were that helpful. They were not picking up a lot of cancers, and they were leading to a lot of false-positive results.”

Still, Rohit Aggarwal, MD, of the division of rheumatology and clinical immunology at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, noted that the diagnostic yields of 1%-2% and even 2%-4% in higher-risk populations were high. By comparison, lung cancer screening trials had a diagnostic yield of about 1%, and trials examining CT screening for colorectal cancers had diagnostic yields of 0.5%, the authors write.

“The key message for me is that we should definitely perform CT scans of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis within 3 years of diagnosis – typically at presentation – if the patient has any risk factor for increased risk of cancer, which include dermatomyositis and age above 40,” Dr. Aggarwal toldthis news organization. He was not involved with the research. There are also other clinical factors to consider that were not included in the study, he added, such as severe dysphagia, patients with refractory treatment, and male sex.

Both Dr. Aggarwal and Dr. Mecoli agreed that there are limitations to this single-center, retrospective study that make it difficult to generalize the results. Similar studies should be conducted at other institutions to see if these associations hold true, Dr. Mecoli said. A prospective study could also help control for factors such as selection bias, Dr. Aggarwal added. “I don’t think these are definitive data, but I think these data were needed at retrospective levels” to plan future research, he said.

The study was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Jerome L. Greene Foundation, the Donald B. and Dorothy L. Stabler Foundation, the Huayi and Siuling Zhang Discovery Fund, and Dr. Peter Buck. Dr. Mecoli and Dr. Aggarwal have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Targeting cancer screenings based on idiopathic inflammatory myositis (IIM) subtype, autoantibodies, and age may help to maximize cancer detection while limiting false positives.

In a retrospective, single-center study conducted at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, researchers found that when screening patients with IIM for cancer via CT imaging, the diagnostic yield (number of cancers detected/tests performed) was highest in patients with dermatomyositis and the autoantibody anti–TIF1-gamma. Screening patients below age 40 years was associated with lower diagnostic yields and higher false positives, regardless of subtype.

Because of the well-known association between IIM and contemporaneous cancer, newly diagnosed patients with IIM often undergo screening. Yet, there is little research on the most efficient assessment approaches, Christopher Mecoli, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at John Hopkins University School of Medicine and lead author of the study, told this news organization. “There has been a lot written about how these patients should be evaluated for cancer. Unfortunately, the majority of literature is based on eminence,” he said. This study is “one of the first pieces of real data to inform that conversation,” he added.

The research was published online in Arthritis Care & Research.

In the study, Dr. Mecoli and colleagues looked at 1,086 patients enrolled in the center’s Myositis Research Registry from 2003 through 2020. The analysis included patients with a diagnosis of dermatomyositis, polymyositis, immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy (IMNM), and antisynthetase syndrome (ASyS). The researchers also looked at myositis-specific autoantibodies, including anti–TIF1-gamma, –Jo1, and –HMGCR. Patients were excluded from the analysis if they had a cancer diagnosis prior to their IIM onset.

Among patients included in the analysis, the average age of IIM onset was 49 years, and median follow-up duration was 5.3 years. Most patients were female (71%), 68% were white, 21% were Black, 3.6% were Asian, and 7.4% had a listed race of other or unknown. About 66% of all patients received a chest CT scan within 3 years of IIM onset, and 51% received an abdomen/pelvis CT in that same time frame. False positives were defined as the percentage of scans that led to a noncancerous biopsy.

During the study period, 62 patients had a cancer diagnosis within the first 3 years of IIM onset, with the most common cancers being breast (19%), melanoma (13%), and cervical/uterine (10%). Of 1,011 chest scans performed, 9 led to a cancer diagnosis (0.9%), compared with 12 of the 657 abdomen/pelvis (a/p) CT scans (1.8%). Patients with the dermatomyositis-specific autoantibody anti–TIF1-gamma had the highest diagnostic yield (2.9% in chest CT and 2.4% in a/p CT). Regardless of autoantibodies, dermatomyositis patients above 40 years of age had a diagnostic yield of 1.4% in chest CT and 2.7% in a/p CT. For patients under the age of 40 with polymyositis, IMNM, and ASyS, the diagnostic yield for all CT scans was 0.0%. The diagnostic yield in patients under 40 with dermatomyositis was also low (0.0% in chest CT, 0.8% in a/p CT).

The false-positive rate for all chest CT scans was 2.8%, with patients with IMNM and ASyS having the highest frequency of false positivity (both 4.4%). “Based on our data, CT chest imaging in ASyS and IMNM patients are associated with the most harm from a cancer screening perspective,” the authors write. In a/p CT, patients with dermatomyositis under 40 and patients with ASyS had the highest false-positive rates (4.9% and 3.8%, respectively).

“Age was a really big deal in terms of predicting diagnostic yield and false-positivity rate,” Dr. Mecoli said, particularly in patients with dermatomyositis. “This subgroup has historically been thought to have the biggest dissociation with cancer,” he said, but in patients under 40, “it doesn’t look like CT scans were that helpful. They were not picking up a lot of cancers, and they were leading to a lot of false-positive results.”

Still, Rohit Aggarwal, MD, of the division of rheumatology and clinical immunology at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, noted that the diagnostic yields of 1%-2% and even 2%-4% in higher-risk populations were high. By comparison, lung cancer screening trials had a diagnostic yield of about 1%, and trials examining CT screening for colorectal cancers had diagnostic yields of 0.5%, the authors write.

“The key message for me is that we should definitely perform CT scans of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis within 3 years of diagnosis – typically at presentation – if the patient has any risk factor for increased risk of cancer, which include dermatomyositis and age above 40,” Dr. Aggarwal toldthis news organization. He was not involved with the research. There are also other clinical factors to consider that were not included in the study, he added, such as severe dysphagia, patients with refractory treatment, and male sex.

Both Dr. Aggarwal and Dr. Mecoli agreed that there are limitations to this single-center, retrospective study that make it difficult to generalize the results. Similar studies should be conducted at other institutions to see if these associations hold true, Dr. Mecoli said. A prospective study could also help control for factors such as selection bias, Dr. Aggarwal added. “I don’t think these are definitive data, but I think these data were needed at retrospective levels” to plan future research, he said.

The study was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Jerome L. Greene Foundation, the Donald B. and Dorothy L. Stabler Foundation, the Huayi and Siuling Zhang Discovery Fund, and Dr. Peter Buck. Dr. Mecoli and Dr. Aggarwal have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Targeting cancer screenings based on idiopathic inflammatory myositis (IIM) subtype, autoantibodies, and age may help to maximize cancer detection while limiting false positives.

In a retrospective, single-center study conducted at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, researchers found that when screening patients with IIM for cancer via CT imaging, the diagnostic yield (number of cancers detected/tests performed) was highest in patients with dermatomyositis and the autoantibody anti–TIF1-gamma. Screening patients below age 40 years was associated with lower diagnostic yields and higher false positives, regardless of subtype.

Because of the well-known association between IIM and contemporaneous cancer, newly diagnosed patients with IIM often undergo screening. Yet, there is little research on the most efficient assessment approaches, Christopher Mecoli, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at John Hopkins University School of Medicine and lead author of the study, told this news organization. “There has been a lot written about how these patients should be evaluated for cancer. Unfortunately, the majority of literature is based on eminence,” he said. This study is “one of the first pieces of real data to inform that conversation,” he added.

The research was published online in Arthritis Care & Research.

In the study, Dr. Mecoli and colleagues looked at 1,086 patients enrolled in the center’s Myositis Research Registry from 2003 through 2020. The analysis included patients with a diagnosis of dermatomyositis, polymyositis, immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy (IMNM), and antisynthetase syndrome (ASyS). The researchers also looked at myositis-specific autoantibodies, including anti–TIF1-gamma, –Jo1, and –HMGCR. Patients were excluded from the analysis if they had a cancer diagnosis prior to their IIM onset.

Among patients included in the analysis, the average age of IIM onset was 49 years, and median follow-up duration was 5.3 years. Most patients were female (71%), 68% were white, 21% were Black, 3.6% were Asian, and 7.4% had a listed race of other or unknown. About 66% of all patients received a chest CT scan within 3 years of IIM onset, and 51% received an abdomen/pelvis CT in that same time frame. False positives were defined as the percentage of scans that led to a noncancerous biopsy.

During the study period, 62 patients had a cancer diagnosis within the first 3 years of IIM onset, with the most common cancers being breast (19%), melanoma (13%), and cervical/uterine (10%). Of 1,011 chest scans performed, 9 led to a cancer diagnosis (0.9%), compared with 12 of the 657 abdomen/pelvis (a/p) CT scans (1.8%). Patients with the dermatomyositis-specific autoantibody anti–TIF1-gamma had the highest diagnostic yield (2.9% in chest CT and 2.4% in a/p CT). Regardless of autoantibodies, dermatomyositis patients above 40 years of age had a diagnostic yield of 1.4% in chest CT and 2.7% in a/p CT. For patients under the age of 40 with polymyositis, IMNM, and ASyS, the diagnostic yield for all CT scans was 0.0%. The diagnostic yield in patients under 40 with dermatomyositis was also low (0.0% in chest CT, 0.8% in a/p CT).

The false-positive rate for all chest CT scans was 2.8%, with patients with IMNM and ASyS having the highest frequency of false positivity (both 4.4%). “Based on our data, CT chest imaging in ASyS and IMNM patients are associated with the most harm from a cancer screening perspective,” the authors write. In a/p CT, patients with dermatomyositis under 40 and patients with ASyS had the highest false-positive rates (4.9% and 3.8%, respectively).

“Age was a really big deal in terms of predicting diagnostic yield and false-positivity rate,” Dr. Mecoli said, particularly in patients with dermatomyositis. “This subgroup has historically been thought to have the biggest dissociation with cancer,” he said, but in patients under 40, “it doesn’t look like CT scans were that helpful. They were not picking up a lot of cancers, and they were leading to a lot of false-positive results.”

Still, Rohit Aggarwal, MD, of the division of rheumatology and clinical immunology at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, noted that the diagnostic yields of 1%-2% and even 2%-4% in higher-risk populations were high. By comparison, lung cancer screening trials had a diagnostic yield of about 1%, and trials examining CT screening for colorectal cancers had diagnostic yields of 0.5%, the authors write.

“The key message for me is that we should definitely perform CT scans of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis within 3 years of diagnosis – typically at presentation – if the patient has any risk factor for increased risk of cancer, which include dermatomyositis and age above 40,” Dr. Aggarwal toldthis news organization. He was not involved with the research. There are also other clinical factors to consider that were not included in the study, he added, such as severe dysphagia, patients with refractory treatment, and male sex.

Both Dr. Aggarwal and Dr. Mecoli agreed that there are limitations to this single-center, retrospective study that make it difficult to generalize the results. Similar studies should be conducted at other institutions to see if these associations hold true, Dr. Mecoli said. A prospective study could also help control for factors such as selection bias, Dr. Aggarwal added. “I don’t think these are definitive data, but I think these data were needed at retrospective levels” to plan future research, he said.

The study was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Jerome L. Greene Foundation, the Donald B. and Dorothy L. Stabler Foundation, the Huayi and Siuling Zhang Discovery Fund, and Dr. Peter Buck. Dr. Mecoli and Dr. Aggarwal have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

NEW ORLEANS – A monoclonal antibody targeting interferon-beta (IFN-beta) provided substantial reductions in the skin lesions associated with dermatomyositis in a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial, according to results presented as a late-breaker at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“These findings support the inhibition of IFN-beta as a promising therapeutic strategy in skin-predominant disease,” said principal investigator Aaron Mangold, MD, associate professor of dermatology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Ariz.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Dermatomyositis, a rare autoimmune inflammatory condition that typically involves both skeletal muscles and skin, is a challenging disease with a diverse set of potential complications.

Immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory agents are used with mixed success for myositis, but skin manifestations, which include papular eruptions, heliotrope rash, photoerythema, burning, and pruritus, are often the most troublesome and the most difficult to control. Treatment options other than immunomodulators that target cutaneous involvement – which include steroids, emollients, and photoprotection – are generally modestly effective, according to Dr. Mangold.
 

Targeting an elevated cytokine

Interest in IFN-beta, which is elevated in the blood of individuals with dermatomyositis, was triggered by evidence that this cytokine plays an important role in driving the skin inflammation, Dr. Mangold explained.

“The blood concentrations of IFN-beta are positively correlated with cutaneous disease activity and severity,” he said.

The study drug, currently known as PF-06823859 (Dazukibart), “is a potent, selective humanized IgG1-neutralizing antibody directed at IFN-beta,” Dr. Mangold said. A dose-ranging phase 1 study published 2 years ago provided evidence of acceptable pharmacokinetics and safety in healthy individuals to support treatment studies for disorders associated with elevated IFN-beta levels. In addition to dermatomyositis, this includes systemic lupus erythematosus.

In this phase 2 trial, patients whose condition was not improved by at least one standard-care therapy for skin manifestations of dermatomyositis were eligible if they had moderate to severe disease as measured with the Cutaneous Dermatomyositis Disease Area and Severity Index (CDASI), according to Dr. Mangold. During the study, patients were allowed to remain on a disease modifying antirheumatic drug and/or prednisone if they had been on stable doses and did not change the dose.

Richard Usatine, MD

After a screening run-in, the trial had two blinded stages. In stage 1, 30 patients were randomly assigned either to 600 mg of PF-06823859 or to placebo, both administered intravenously every 4 weeks. A second cohort of 25 patients was randomly assigned in stage 2 to placebo, 150 mg of PF-06823859, or 600 mg of PF-06823859. The primary endpoint assessed at 12 weeks was a greater than 5-point reduction in CDASI score or greater than 40% CDASI improvement from baseline.

Both endpoints are associated with a clinically meaningful response in regard to an improved quality of life, Dr. Mangold noted.
 

Both doses better than placebo

In results from the stage 1 portion, the mean reduction in CDASI at 12 weeks after three doses of the assigned therapy was 18.8 points in the active-treatment group versus 3.9 points in the placebo group. In pooled data from stage 1 and 2, the reductions were 16.6 points, 19.2 points, and 2.9 points for the 150-mg, 600-mg, and placebo arms, respectively. Both doses achieved a highly significant advantage over placebo.

For both stages and doses, the response curves of the active-treatment groups and the placebo group diverged almost immediately. By 4 weeks, both measures of CDASI reductions on active therapy were significantly improved relative to placebo, and the response curves had a consistent downward slope through the end of the 12-week study, Dr. Mangold reported.

The majority of patients responded by either of the primary endpoint criteria. For a CDASI reduction of greater than 5 points, the response rates were 100% and 96% for the 150-mg and 600-mg doses of PF-06823859, respectively. The placebo response was 35.7%. For the CDASI reduction of greater than 40%, the rates were 80%, 82.1%, and 7.1% for the 150-mg, 600-mg, and placebo arms, respectively.

“There were no major safety concerns. Most of the treatment-emergent adverse events were mild, and adverse events did not have a relationship to dose,” Dr. Mangold said. Notably, there were no cases of herpes zoster, and infections of any kind were low in all study groups.

A phase 3 study is being planned with the 600-mg dose, according to Dr. Mangold, but he acknowledged that regulatory authorities have generally required endpoints for both cutaneous and muscle manifestations in previous trials of therapies for dermatomyositis.

It is not yet certain that “there will be a carve-out for skin,” he said in answer to a question about investigations moving forward. So far, studies have been focused on skin response. However, a meaningful degree of benefit against muscle involvement, which has not yet been well studied, has not been ruled out.

Even though this is a phase 2 trial with small numbers, it was controlled and blinded, and the potential of an inhibitor of IFN-beta to control the skin manifestations of dermatomyositis “is kind of a big deal,” said Paul Nghiem, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, University of Washington, Seattle.

“There is definitely an unmet need for better therapies to control the skin involvement,” Dr. Nghiem said.

Hensin Tsao, MD, PhD, clinical director of the Melanoma and Pigmented Lesion Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, agreed. Like Dr. Nghiem, Dr. Tsao was a panelist during the late-breaker session where the study was presented, and he was impressed by the data.

“This is something that is definitely newsworthy,” Dr. Tsao said.

Dr. Mangold reports financial relationships with Actelion, Amgen, Corbus, Eli Lilly, Incyte, miRagen, Novartis, Regeneron, Solagenix, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Teva, and Pfizer, which provided funding for this trial. Both Dr. Nghiem and Dr. Tsao reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

NEW ORLEANS – A monoclonal antibody targeting interferon-beta (IFN-beta) provided substantial reductions in the skin lesions associated with dermatomyositis in a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial, according to results presented as a late-breaker at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“These findings support the inhibition of IFN-beta as a promising therapeutic strategy in skin-predominant disease,” said principal investigator Aaron Mangold, MD, associate professor of dermatology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Ariz.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Dermatomyositis, a rare autoimmune inflammatory condition that typically involves both skeletal muscles and skin, is a challenging disease with a diverse set of potential complications.

Immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory agents are used with mixed success for myositis, but skin manifestations, which include papular eruptions, heliotrope rash, photoerythema, burning, and pruritus, are often the most troublesome and the most difficult to control. Treatment options other than immunomodulators that target cutaneous involvement – which include steroids, emollients, and photoprotection – are generally modestly effective, according to Dr. Mangold.
 

Targeting an elevated cytokine

Interest in IFN-beta, which is elevated in the blood of individuals with dermatomyositis, was triggered by evidence that this cytokine plays an important role in driving the skin inflammation, Dr. Mangold explained.

“The blood concentrations of IFN-beta are positively correlated with cutaneous disease activity and severity,” he said.

The study drug, currently known as PF-06823859 (Dazukibart), “is a potent, selective humanized IgG1-neutralizing antibody directed at IFN-beta,” Dr. Mangold said. A dose-ranging phase 1 study published 2 years ago provided evidence of acceptable pharmacokinetics and safety in healthy individuals to support treatment studies for disorders associated with elevated IFN-beta levels. In addition to dermatomyositis, this includes systemic lupus erythematosus.

In this phase 2 trial, patients whose condition was not improved by at least one standard-care therapy for skin manifestations of dermatomyositis were eligible if they had moderate to severe disease as measured with the Cutaneous Dermatomyositis Disease Area and Severity Index (CDASI), according to Dr. Mangold. During the study, patients were allowed to remain on a disease modifying antirheumatic drug and/or prednisone if they had been on stable doses and did not change the dose.

Richard Usatine, MD

After a screening run-in, the trial had two blinded stages. In stage 1, 30 patients were randomly assigned either to 600 mg of PF-06823859 or to placebo, both administered intravenously every 4 weeks. A second cohort of 25 patients was randomly assigned in stage 2 to placebo, 150 mg of PF-06823859, or 600 mg of PF-06823859. The primary endpoint assessed at 12 weeks was a greater than 5-point reduction in CDASI score or greater than 40% CDASI improvement from baseline.

Both endpoints are associated with a clinically meaningful response in regard to an improved quality of life, Dr. Mangold noted.
 

Both doses better than placebo

In results from the stage 1 portion, the mean reduction in CDASI at 12 weeks after three doses of the assigned therapy was 18.8 points in the active-treatment group versus 3.9 points in the placebo group. In pooled data from stage 1 and 2, the reductions were 16.6 points, 19.2 points, and 2.9 points for the 150-mg, 600-mg, and placebo arms, respectively. Both doses achieved a highly significant advantage over placebo.

For both stages and doses, the response curves of the active-treatment groups and the placebo group diverged almost immediately. By 4 weeks, both measures of CDASI reductions on active therapy were significantly improved relative to placebo, and the response curves had a consistent downward slope through the end of the 12-week study, Dr. Mangold reported.

The majority of patients responded by either of the primary endpoint criteria. For a CDASI reduction of greater than 5 points, the response rates were 100% and 96% for the 150-mg and 600-mg doses of PF-06823859, respectively. The placebo response was 35.7%. For the CDASI reduction of greater than 40%, the rates were 80%, 82.1%, and 7.1% for the 150-mg, 600-mg, and placebo arms, respectively.

“There were no major safety concerns. Most of the treatment-emergent adverse events were mild, and adverse events did not have a relationship to dose,” Dr. Mangold said. Notably, there were no cases of herpes zoster, and infections of any kind were low in all study groups.

A phase 3 study is being planned with the 600-mg dose, according to Dr. Mangold, but he acknowledged that regulatory authorities have generally required endpoints for both cutaneous and muscle manifestations in previous trials of therapies for dermatomyositis.

It is not yet certain that “there will be a carve-out for skin,” he said in answer to a question about investigations moving forward. So far, studies have been focused on skin response. However, a meaningful degree of benefit against muscle involvement, which has not yet been well studied, has not been ruled out.

Even though this is a phase 2 trial with small numbers, it was controlled and blinded, and the potential of an inhibitor of IFN-beta to control the skin manifestations of dermatomyositis “is kind of a big deal,” said Paul Nghiem, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, University of Washington, Seattle.

“There is definitely an unmet need for better therapies to control the skin involvement,” Dr. Nghiem said.

Hensin Tsao, MD, PhD, clinical director of the Melanoma and Pigmented Lesion Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, agreed. Like Dr. Nghiem, Dr. Tsao was a panelist during the late-breaker session where the study was presented, and he was impressed by the data.

“This is something that is definitely newsworthy,” Dr. Tsao said.

Dr. Mangold reports financial relationships with Actelion, Amgen, Corbus, Eli Lilly, Incyte, miRagen, Novartis, Regeneron, Solagenix, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Teva, and Pfizer, which provided funding for this trial. Both Dr. Nghiem and Dr. Tsao reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

NEW ORLEANS – A monoclonal antibody targeting interferon-beta (IFN-beta) provided substantial reductions in the skin lesions associated with dermatomyositis in a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial, according to results presented as a late-breaker at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“These findings support the inhibition of IFN-beta as a promising therapeutic strategy in skin-predominant disease,” said principal investigator Aaron Mangold, MD, associate professor of dermatology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Ariz.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Dermatomyositis, a rare autoimmune inflammatory condition that typically involves both skeletal muscles and skin, is a challenging disease with a diverse set of potential complications.

Immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory agents are used with mixed success for myositis, but skin manifestations, which include papular eruptions, heliotrope rash, photoerythema, burning, and pruritus, are often the most troublesome and the most difficult to control. Treatment options other than immunomodulators that target cutaneous involvement – which include steroids, emollients, and photoprotection – are generally modestly effective, according to Dr. Mangold.
 

Targeting an elevated cytokine

Interest in IFN-beta, which is elevated in the blood of individuals with dermatomyositis, was triggered by evidence that this cytokine plays an important role in driving the skin inflammation, Dr. Mangold explained.

“The blood concentrations of IFN-beta are positively correlated with cutaneous disease activity and severity,” he said.

The study drug, currently known as PF-06823859 (Dazukibart), “is a potent, selective humanized IgG1-neutralizing antibody directed at IFN-beta,” Dr. Mangold said. A dose-ranging phase 1 study published 2 years ago provided evidence of acceptable pharmacokinetics and safety in healthy individuals to support treatment studies for disorders associated with elevated IFN-beta levels. In addition to dermatomyositis, this includes systemic lupus erythematosus.

In this phase 2 trial, patients whose condition was not improved by at least one standard-care therapy for skin manifestations of dermatomyositis were eligible if they had moderate to severe disease as measured with the Cutaneous Dermatomyositis Disease Area and Severity Index (CDASI), according to Dr. Mangold. During the study, patients were allowed to remain on a disease modifying antirheumatic drug and/or prednisone if they had been on stable doses and did not change the dose.

Richard Usatine, MD

After a screening run-in, the trial had two blinded stages. In stage 1, 30 patients were randomly assigned either to 600 mg of PF-06823859 or to placebo, both administered intravenously every 4 weeks. A second cohort of 25 patients was randomly assigned in stage 2 to placebo, 150 mg of PF-06823859, or 600 mg of PF-06823859. The primary endpoint assessed at 12 weeks was a greater than 5-point reduction in CDASI score or greater than 40% CDASI improvement from baseline.

Both endpoints are associated with a clinically meaningful response in regard to an improved quality of life, Dr. Mangold noted.
 

Both doses better than placebo

In results from the stage 1 portion, the mean reduction in CDASI at 12 weeks after three doses of the assigned therapy was 18.8 points in the active-treatment group versus 3.9 points in the placebo group. In pooled data from stage 1 and 2, the reductions were 16.6 points, 19.2 points, and 2.9 points for the 150-mg, 600-mg, and placebo arms, respectively. Both doses achieved a highly significant advantage over placebo.

For both stages and doses, the response curves of the active-treatment groups and the placebo group diverged almost immediately. By 4 weeks, both measures of CDASI reductions on active therapy were significantly improved relative to placebo, and the response curves had a consistent downward slope through the end of the 12-week study, Dr. Mangold reported.

The majority of patients responded by either of the primary endpoint criteria. For a CDASI reduction of greater than 5 points, the response rates were 100% and 96% for the 150-mg and 600-mg doses of PF-06823859, respectively. The placebo response was 35.7%. For the CDASI reduction of greater than 40%, the rates were 80%, 82.1%, and 7.1% for the 150-mg, 600-mg, and placebo arms, respectively.

“There were no major safety concerns. Most of the treatment-emergent adverse events were mild, and adverse events did not have a relationship to dose,” Dr. Mangold said. Notably, there were no cases of herpes zoster, and infections of any kind were low in all study groups.

A phase 3 study is being planned with the 600-mg dose, according to Dr. Mangold, but he acknowledged that regulatory authorities have generally required endpoints for both cutaneous and muscle manifestations in previous trials of therapies for dermatomyositis.

It is not yet certain that “there will be a carve-out for skin,” he said in answer to a question about investigations moving forward. So far, studies have been focused on skin response. However, a meaningful degree of benefit against muscle involvement, which has not yet been well studied, has not been ruled out.

Even though this is a phase 2 trial with small numbers, it was controlled and blinded, and the potential of an inhibitor of IFN-beta to control the skin manifestations of dermatomyositis “is kind of a big deal,” said Paul Nghiem, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, University of Washington, Seattle.

“There is definitely an unmet need for better therapies to control the skin involvement,” Dr. Nghiem said.

Hensin Tsao, MD, PhD, clinical director of the Melanoma and Pigmented Lesion Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, agreed. Like Dr. Nghiem, Dr. Tsao was a panelist during the late-breaker session where the study was presented, and he was impressed by the data.

“This is something that is definitely newsworthy,” Dr. Tsao said.

Dr. Mangold reports financial relationships with Actelion, Amgen, Corbus, Eli Lilly, Incyte, miRagen, Novartis, Regeneron, Solagenix, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Teva, and Pfizer, which provided funding for this trial. Both Dr. Nghiem and Dr. Tsao reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Although patients with lupus nephritis recently gained two new add-on treatment options in voclosporin (Lupkynis) and belimumab (Benlysta), there have been little data published with real-world experience in using these drugs.

Voclosporin, a calcineurin inhibitor, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in January 2021 to treat lupus nephritis in combination with immunosuppressive medication. Belimumab, a human monoclonal antibody and B-lymphocyte stimulator, was approved in December 2020 in the United States as an add-on treatment for lupus nephritis in adults and later in July 2022 for children who are already receiving standard therapy.

How the two drugs are prescribed for patients with lupus nephritis so far appears to be influenced by presence of extrarenal manifestations of lupus, proteinuria level, clinicians’ prior experience with belimumab, costs of the drugs, and patient preference, experts said.

Voclosporin’s approval was based on data from the phase 3 AURORA 1 trial and phase 2 AURA-LV trial. AURORA 1 evaluated 357 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis who were randomized to receive voclosporin or placebo with mycophenolate mofetil and tapered low-dose oral steroids. In the voclosporin group, the results showed a significantly higher complete renal response at 52 weeks, compared with the placebo group, while having a similar adverse event profile. The AURA-LV trial, evaluating efficacy and safety of 179 patients with lupus nephritis, showed adding low-dose voclosporin to induction therapy improved renal response, compared with placebo. AURORA 2, a continuation of the AURORA trial, showed patients with lupus nephritis receiving voclosporin have a stable estimated glomerular filtration rate and reductions in proteinuria up to 3 years of follow-up.

Results from the phase 3 BLISS-LN trial of 448 patients with confirmed lupus nephritis were the basis for belimumab’s approval and showed a significantly higher proportion of patients who received belimumab had a primary efficacy renal response, complete renal response, and significantly lower risk of a renal-related adverse event or death, compared with the placebo group.
 

Lack of real-world data

The lack of real-world data on either of these treatments can be attributed to lupus nephritis being a rare disease, and the approvals happening fairly recently, experts said.

“This is really due to the recency of the approvals for both of these medications for lupus nephritis,” Amit Saxena, MD, a rheumatologist and assistant professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at NYU Langone Health in New York, said in an interview.

“It’s too soon for any appreciable data to be collected.”

Ashira D. Blazer, MD, MSCI, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery and assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, both in New York, said that rheumatologists “are a little bit hesitant” to use newer agents rather than existing therapies, and have existing guidance from the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) on treating the condition.

“I think when someone has something like lupus nephritis that’s so serious, rheumatologists pull for the tried-and-true drugs that we know will affect the inflammation quickly and get that patient to remission,” she said.

Donald E. Thomas Jr., MD, of Arthritis and Pain Associates of P.G. County in Greenbelt, Md., said he was surprised there was a lack of case studies on voclosporin or belimumab for lupus nephritis, but pointed to the time and cost of publishing a case report and the rheumatologist shortage as potential reasons.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Prescribing experience

Despite the lack of published data on real-world use, the drugs are being prescribed, Dr. Thomas said.

“I have quite a few patients on these drugs,” he said, citing one patient with severe membranoproliferative lupus nephritis not in remission who is receiving a combination of voclosporin, belimumab, and hydroxychloroquine.

“I have had absolutely no problems getting either drug. The indications for the medicines are crystal clear,” he said.

Irene Blanco, MD, MS, professor in the department of medicine-rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said that in her experience, both voclosporin and belimumab have been easy to get for patients.

However, she noted she was seeing mostly patients with government-based insurance in the Bronx, N.Y., prior to moving to Northwestern in September 2022. Belimumab had been available from the New York State Medicaid program for indications other than lupus nephritis for some time, and the program was quick to add voclosporin once it became available. “It wasn’t hard to get at all,” she said.

Dr. Saxena noted the respective pharmaceutical companies have provided help in prescribing voclosporin and belimumab through offering patient assistance programs and navigating insurers’ prior authorization hurdles. As belimumab has been available for many years, its availability hasn’t changed, he noted. “Voclosporin has seen more formulary restrictions, but in my experience, I have been able to get the drug utilizing authorization procedures,” he said.

One issue Dr. Blazer said that she encounters is cost. According to prices obtained from drugs.com in March 2023, belimumab has an estimated annual price of $58.389.96 per patient, and voclosporin has an estimated annual price of $86,506.20 per patient.

“I tend to treat patients who can have some socioeconomic challenges, and so I think very long and hard before prescribing either of them,” she explained. “[C]ertainly in the case of voclosporin, when there are older, cheaper calcineurin inhibitors and I think I need one, I’m more likely to reach for one of the others.”

While GSK offers a patient assistance program for belimumab, which Dr. Blazer said she has used, physicians may not be aware of the program or have the resources in their offices to provide social work support for their patients.

“I have had patients who started it and ... continued to have a flare and needed to go on disability or leave their jobs, and they were just too concerned with the ongoing cost burden, and so I ended up taking them off the medication for that reason at their request,” she said.

The fact that Black patients have lupus nephritis more often than White patients do, as well as greater socioeconomic barriers, points to access to care and cost as major factors in why new drugs are not being used, Dr. Blazer said. “I think that understanding how we can improve access is going to be extremely important in getting more real-world data and getting more patients treated,” she said.

Treatment preference

A chart audit recently released by market research firm Spherix Global Insights highlighted a potential treatment preference for lupus nephritis. Use of voclosporin increased among rheumatologists and nephrologists, but patients with lupus nephritis under the care of rheumatologists were more likely to be treated with belimumab than voclosporin.

Dr. Saxena said he has experience with both and doesn’t have a preference, instead using factors other than experience when deciding the best treatment for patients. “For example, if there are nonrenal manifestations such as arthritis or rashes, I may lean towards belimumab, but if a more rapid reduction in proteinuria is important, I may lean towards voclosporin,” he said.

Dr. Thomas weighs the pros and cons of voclosporin and belimumab with the patient. “With many lupus nephritis scenarios, either drug may be a good choice and it comes down to patient preference. The main scenario where I would choose [voclosporin] over [belimumab] is in patients with [proteinuria of] 3 g protein/day or more,” he said, while belimumab would be the choice for a patient with “nonrenal manifestations of SLE in addition to their nephritis.”

For other rheumatologists, comfort level with belimumab may play a role. “We always had [belimumab] and we were always using [belimumab], and so it would make sense that like we would go for a med, again, that we’re really familiar with and we use,” Dr. Blanco said.

Dr. Blanco has prescribed belimumab, but had been using tacrolimus until recently. “I’ve been using tacrolimus since 2016. I’m probably going to lean on the [tacrolimus] rather than going to [belimumab], which works, but maybe it’s not the end-all, be-all in terms of lupus,” she said.

Although she hasn’t yet prescribed voclosporin, Dr. Blazer said she had “much more experience with belimumab.

“I’ve prescribed other calcineurin inhibitors in the past, and usually for a patient who’s very proteinuric and as an adjunct to that standard of care to try to bring down the proteinuria,” she said.

With belimumab, she would consider adding it to a patient with severe disease who has failed treatment with mycophenolate mofetil or cyclophosphamide and has a recurrent lupus nephritis flare. “It’s something I can use as an adjunct, and I think that I can get some extra benefit from it, and it also tends to be well tolerated,” Dr. Blazer said.

How patients are responding

Dr. Thomas’ patients have been responding well on voclosporin and belimumab. “I was an early adopter of [belimumab] and had patients with lupus nephritis do great on it, way before the FDA approval,” he said.

For voclosporin, Dr. Thomas highlighted the “incredibly rapid” proteinuria response. “I had a patient have marked reduction in proteinuria in just 2 weeks. Proteinuria reduction is the number one predictor of long-term better outcomes,” he said.

Many patients receiving mycophenolate and cyclophosphamide do not go into complete remission, while the clinical trials for voclosporin and belimumab had significantly higher rates of complete response and faster response rates, compared with older therapies. “That is what we need,” he said.

“These drugs are game changers in the treatment of lupus nephritis. In my mind, belimumab and voclosporin should be considered the standard of medical care treating lupus nephritis patients,” he added.

Dr. Blanco said her patients appear to like and are tolerating voclosporin and belimumab well, but because there are no pregnancy data on voclosporin, she may choose belimumab or tacrolimus for patients of reproductive age who are considering starting a family.

Patients with extrarenal symptoms tend to do particularly well with belimumab, such as those with arthritis and skin rash, Dr. Blazer said. “In my experience, as an adjunct with those standard of care medications, I have been able to maintain remission in my patients,” she said.

Dr. Saxena said both medications are “important options” for lupus nephritis in patients who don’t respond to standard therapy. “As more doctors utilize each medication and additional data is published, I’d expect an increase uptake in both medications in the future,” he said.

Dr. Blazer reported being a contributor to GSK’s SLE Educators’ Network and has been a consultant for Aurinia. Dr. Saxena reported being a consultant for GSK and Aurinia. Dr. Thomas reported being on the speakers bureau for GSK and Aurinia. Dr. Blanco reported having no relevant financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

Although patients with lupus nephritis recently gained two new add-on treatment options in voclosporin (Lupkynis) and belimumab (Benlysta), there have been little data published with real-world experience in using these drugs.

Voclosporin, a calcineurin inhibitor, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in January 2021 to treat lupus nephritis in combination with immunosuppressive medication. Belimumab, a human monoclonal antibody and B-lymphocyte stimulator, was approved in December 2020 in the United States as an add-on treatment for lupus nephritis in adults and later in July 2022 for children who are already receiving standard therapy.

How the two drugs are prescribed for patients with lupus nephritis so far appears to be influenced by presence of extrarenal manifestations of lupus, proteinuria level, clinicians’ prior experience with belimumab, costs of the drugs, and patient preference, experts said.

Voclosporin’s approval was based on data from the phase 3 AURORA 1 trial and phase 2 AURA-LV trial. AURORA 1 evaluated 357 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis who were randomized to receive voclosporin or placebo with mycophenolate mofetil and tapered low-dose oral steroids. In the voclosporin group, the results showed a significantly higher complete renal response at 52 weeks, compared with the placebo group, while having a similar adverse event profile. The AURA-LV trial, evaluating efficacy and safety of 179 patients with lupus nephritis, showed adding low-dose voclosporin to induction therapy improved renal response, compared with placebo. AURORA 2, a continuation of the AURORA trial, showed patients with lupus nephritis receiving voclosporin have a stable estimated glomerular filtration rate and reductions in proteinuria up to 3 years of follow-up.

Results from the phase 3 BLISS-LN trial of 448 patients with confirmed lupus nephritis were the basis for belimumab’s approval and showed a significantly higher proportion of patients who received belimumab had a primary efficacy renal response, complete renal response, and significantly lower risk of a renal-related adverse event or death, compared with the placebo group.
 

Lack of real-world data

The lack of real-world data on either of these treatments can be attributed to lupus nephritis being a rare disease, and the approvals happening fairly recently, experts said.

“This is really due to the recency of the approvals for both of these medications for lupus nephritis,” Amit Saxena, MD, a rheumatologist and assistant professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at NYU Langone Health in New York, said in an interview.

“It’s too soon for any appreciable data to be collected.”

Ashira D. Blazer, MD, MSCI, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery and assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, both in New York, said that rheumatologists “are a little bit hesitant” to use newer agents rather than existing therapies, and have existing guidance from the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) on treating the condition.

“I think when someone has something like lupus nephritis that’s so serious, rheumatologists pull for the tried-and-true drugs that we know will affect the inflammation quickly and get that patient to remission,” she said.

Donald E. Thomas Jr., MD, of Arthritis and Pain Associates of P.G. County in Greenbelt, Md., said he was surprised there was a lack of case studies on voclosporin or belimumab for lupus nephritis, but pointed to the time and cost of publishing a case report and the rheumatologist shortage as potential reasons.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Prescribing experience

Despite the lack of published data on real-world use, the drugs are being prescribed, Dr. Thomas said.

“I have quite a few patients on these drugs,” he said, citing one patient with severe membranoproliferative lupus nephritis not in remission who is receiving a combination of voclosporin, belimumab, and hydroxychloroquine.

“I have had absolutely no problems getting either drug. The indications for the medicines are crystal clear,” he said.

Irene Blanco, MD, MS, professor in the department of medicine-rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said that in her experience, both voclosporin and belimumab have been easy to get for patients.

However, she noted she was seeing mostly patients with government-based insurance in the Bronx, N.Y., prior to moving to Northwestern in September 2022. Belimumab had been available from the New York State Medicaid program for indications other than lupus nephritis for some time, and the program was quick to add voclosporin once it became available. “It wasn’t hard to get at all,” she said.

Dr. Saxena noted the respective pharmaceutical companies have provided help in prescribing voclosporin and belimumab through offering patient assistance programs and navigating insurers’ prior authorization hurdles. As belimumab has been available for many years, its availability hasn’t changed, he noted. “Voclosporin has seen more formulary restrictions, but in my experience, I have been able to get the drug utilizing authorization procedures,” he said.

One issue Dr. Blazer said that she encounters is cost. According to prices obtained from drugs.com in March 2023, belimumab has an estimated annual price of $58.389.96 per patient, and voclosporin has an estimated annual price of $86,506.20 per patient.

“I tend to treat patients who can have some socioeconomic challenges, and so I think very long and hard before prescribing either of them,” she explained. “[C]ertainly in the case of voclosporin, when there are older, cheaper calcineurin inhibitors and I think I need one, I’m more likely to reach for one of the others.”

While GSK offers a patient assistance program for belimumab, which Dr. Blazer said she has used, physicians may not be aware of the program or have the resources in their offices to provide social work support for their patients.

“I have had patients who started it and ... continued to have a flare and needed to go on disability or leave their jobs, and they were just too concerned with the ongoing cost burden, and so I ended up taking them off the medication for that reason at their request,” she said.

The fact that Black patients have lupus nephritis more often than White patients do, as well as greater socioeconomic barriers, points to access to care and cost as major factors in why new drugs are not being used, Dr. Blazer said. “I think that understanding how we can improve access is going to be extremely important in getting more real-world data and getting more patients treated,” she said.

Treatment preference

A chart audit recently released by market research firm Spherix Global Insights highlighted a potential treatment preference for lupus nephritis. Use of voclosporin increased among rheumatologists and nephrologists, but patients with lupus nephritis under the care of rheumatologists were more likely to be treated with belimumab than voclosporin.

Dr. Saxena said he has experience with both and doesn’t have a preference, instead using factors other than experience when deciding the best treatment for patients. “For example, if there are nonrenal manifestations such as arthritis or rashes, I may lean towards belimumab, but if a more rapid reduction in proteinuria is important, I may lean towards voclosporin,” he said.

Dr. Thomas weighs the pros and cons of voclosporin and belimumab with the patient. “With many lupus nephritis scenarios, either drug may be a good choice and it comes down to patient preference. The main scenario where I would choose [voclosporin] over [belimumab] is in patients with [proteinuria of] 3 g protein/day or more,” he said, while belimumab would be the choice for a patient with “nonrenal manifestations of SLE in addition to their nephritis.”

For other rheumatologists, comfort level with belimumab may play a role. “We always had [belimumab] and we were always using [belimumab], and so it would make sense that like we would go for a med, again, that we’re really familiar with and we use,” Dr. Blanco said.

Dr. Blanco has prescribed belimumab, but had been using tacrolimus until recently. “I’ve been using tacrolimus since 2016. I’m probably going to lean on the [tacrolimus] rather than going to [belimumab], which works, but maybe it’s not the end-all, be-all in terms of lupus,” she said.

Although she hasn’t yet prescribed voclosporin, Dr. Blazer said she had “much more experience with belimumab.

“I’ve prescribed other calcineurin inhibitors in the past, and usually for a patient who’s very proteinuric and as an adjunct to that standard of care to try to bring down the proteinuria,” she said.

With belimumab, she would consider adding it to a patient with severe disease who has failed treatment with mycophenolate mofetil or cyclophosphamide and has a recurrent lupus nephritis flare. “It’s something I can use as an adjunct, and I think that I can get some extra benefit from it, and it also tends to be well tolerated,” Dr. Blazer said.

How patients are responding

Dr. Thomas’ patients have been responding well on voclosporin and belimumab. “I was an early adopter of [belimumab] and had patients with lupus nephritis do great on it, way before the FDA approval,” he said.

For voclosporin, Dr. Thomas highlighted the “incredibly rapid” proteinuria response. “I had a patient have marked reduction in proteinuria in just 2 weeks. Proteinuria reduction is the number one predictor of long-term better outcomes,” he said.

Many patients receiving mycophenolate and cyclophosphamide do not go into complete remission, while the clinical trials for voclosporin and belimumab had significantly higher rates of complete response and faster response rates, compared with older therapies. “That is what we need,” he said.

“These drugs are game changers in the treatment of lupus nephritis. In my mind, belimumab and voclosporin should be considered the standard of medical care treating lupus nephritis patients,” he added.

Dr. Blanco said her patients appear to like and are tolerating voclosporin and belimumab well, but because there are no pregnancy data on voclosporin, she may choose belimumab or tacrolimus for patients of reproductive age who are considering starting a family.

Patients with extrarenal symptoms tend to do particularly well with belimumab, such as those with arthritis and skin rash, Dr. Blazer said. “In my experience, as an adjunct with those standard of care medications, I have been able to maintain remission in my patients,” she said.

Dr. Saxena said both medications are “important options” for lupus nephritis in patients who don’t respond to standard therapy. “As more doctors utilize each medication and additional data is published, I’d expect an increase uptake in both medications in the future,” he said.

Dr. Blazer reported being a contributor to GSK’s SLE Educators’ Network and has been a consultant for Aurinia. Dr. Saxena reported being a consultant for GSK and Aurinia. Dr. Thomas reported being on the speakers bureau for GSK and Aurinia. Dr. Blanco reported having no relevant financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

Although patients with lupus nephritis recently gained two new add-on treatment options in voclosporin (Lupkynis) and belimumab (Benlysta), there have been little data published with real-world experience in using these drugs.

Voclosporin, a calcineurin inhibitor, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in January 2021 to treat lupus nephritis in combination with immunosuppressive medication. Belimumab, a human monoclonal antibody and B-lymphocyte stimulator, was approved in December 2020 in the United States as an add-on treatment for lupus nephritis in adults and later in July 2022 for children who are already receiving standard therapy.

How the two drugs are prescribed for patients with lupus nephritis so far appears to be influenced by presence of extrarenal manifestations of lupus, proteinuria level, clinicians’ prior experience with belimumab, costs of the drugs, and patient preference, experts said.

Voclosporin’s approval was based on data from the phase 3 AURORA 1 trial and phase 2 AURA-LV trial. AURORA 1 evaluated 357 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis who were randomized to receive voclosporin or placebo with mycophenolate mofetil and tapered low-dose oral steroids. In the voclosporin group, the results showed a significantly higher complete renal response at 52 weeks, compared with the placebo group, while having a similar adverse event profile. The AURA-LV trial, evaluating efficacy and safety of 179 patients with lupus nephritis, showed adding low-dose voclosporin to induction therapy improved renal response, compared with placebo. AURORA 2, a continuation of the AURORA trial, showed patients with lupus nephritis receiving voclosporin have a stable estimated glomerular filtration rate and reductions in proteinuria up to 3 years of follow-up.

Results from the phase 3 BLISS-LN trial of 448 patients with confirmed lupus nephritis were the basis for belimumab’s approval and showed a significantly higher proportion of patients who received belimumab had a primary efficacy renal response, complete renal response, and significantly lower risk of a renal-related adverse event or death, compared with the placebo group.
 

Lack of real-world data

The lack of real-world data on either of these treatments can be attributed to lupus nephritis being a rare disease, and the approvals happening fairly recently, experts said.

“This is really due to the recency of the approvals for both of these medications for lupus nephritis,” Amit Saxena, MD, a rheumatologist and assistant professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at NYU Langone Health in New York, said in an interview.

“It’s too soon for any appreciable data to be collected.”

Ashira D. Blazer, MD, MSCI, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery and assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, both in New York, said that rheumatologists “are a little bit hesitant” to use newer agents rather than existing therapies, and have existing guidance from the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) on treating the condition.

“I think when someone has something like lupus nephritis that’s so serious, rheumatologists pull for the tried-and-true drugs that we know will affect the inflammation quickly and get that patient to remission,” she said.

Donald E. Thomas Jr., MD, of Arthritis and Pain Associates of P.G. County in Greenbelt, Md., said he was surprised there was a lack of case studies on voclosporin or belimumab for lupus nephritis, but pointed to the time and cost of publishing a case report and the rheumatologist shortage as potential reasons.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

Prescribing experience

Despite the lack of published data on real-world use, the drugs are being prescribed, Dr. Thomas said.

“I have quite a few patients on these drugs,” he said, citing one patient with severe membranoproliferative lupus nephritis not in remission who is receiving a combination of voclosporin, belimumab, and hydroxychloroquine.

“I have had absolutely no problems getting either drug. The indications for the medicines are crystal clear,” he said.

Irene Blanco, MD, MS, professor in the department of medicine-rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said that in her experience, both voclosporin and belimumab have been easy to get for patients.

However, she noted she was seeing mostly patients with government-based insurance in the Bronx, N.Y., prior to moving to Northwestern in September 2022. Belimumab had been available from the New York State Medicaid program for indications other than lupus nephritis for some time, and the program was quick to add voclosporin once it became available. “It wasn’t hard to get at all,” she said.

Dr. Saxena noted the respective pharmaceutical companies have provided help in prescribing voclosporin and belimumab through offering patient assistance programs and navigating insurers’ prior authorization hurdles. As belimumab has been available for many years, its availability hasn’t changed, he noted. “Voclosporin has seen more formulary restrictions, but in my experience, I have been able to get the drug utilizing authorization procedures,” he said.

One issue Dr. Blazer said that she encounters is cost. According to prices obtained from drugs.com in March 2023, belimumab has an estimated annual price of $58.389.96 per patient, and voclosporin has an estimated annual price of $86,506.20 per patient.

“I tend to treat patients who can have some socioeconomic challenges, and so I think very long and hard before prescribing either of them,” she explained. “[C]ertainly in the case of voclosporin, when there are older, cheaper calcineurin inhibitors and I think I need one, I’m more likely to reach for one of the others.”

While GSK offers a patient assistance program for belimumab, which Dr. Blazer said she has used, physicians may not be aware of the program or have the resources in their offices to provide social work support for their patients.

“I have had patients who started it and ... continued to have a flare and needed to go on disability or leave their jobs, and they were just too concerned with the ongoing cost burden, and so I ended up taking them off the medication for that reason at their request,” she said.

The fact that Black patients have lupus nephritis more often than White patients do, as well as greater socioeconomic barriers, points to access to care and cost as major factors in why new drugs are not being used, Dr. Blazer said. “I think that understanding how we can improve access is going to be extremely important in getting more real-world data and getting more patients treated,” she said.

Treatment preference

A chart audit recently released by market research firm Spherix Global Insights highlighted a potential treatment preference for lupus nephritis. Use of voclosporin increased among rheumatologists and nephrologists, but patients with lupus nephritis under the care of rheumatologists were more likely to be treated with belimumab than voclosporin.

Dr. Saxena said he has experience with both and doesn’t have a preference, instead using factors other than experience when deciding the best treatment for patients. “For example, if there are nonrenal manifestations such as arthritis or rashes, I may lean towards belimumab, but if a more rapid reduction in proteinuria is important, I may lean towards voclosporin,” he said.

Dr. Thomas weighs the pros and cons of voclosporin and belimumab with the patient. “With many lupus nephritis scenarios, either drug may be a good choice and it comes down to patient preference. The main scenario where I would choose [voclosporin] over [belimumab] is in patients with [proteinuria of] 3 g protein/day or more,” he said, while belimumab would be the choice for a patient with “nonrenal manifestations of SLE in addition to their nephritis.”

For other rheumatologists, comfort level with belimumab may play a role. “We always had [belimumab] and we were always using [belimumab], and so it would make sense that like we would go for a med, again, that we’re really familiar with and we use,” Dr. Blanco said.

Dr. Blanco has prescribed belimumab, but had been using tacrolimus until recently. “I’ve been using tacrolimus since 2016. I’m probably going to lean on the [tacrolimus] rather than going to [belimumab], which works, but maybe it’s not the end-all, be-all in terms of lupus,” she said.

Although she hasn’t yet prescribed voclosporin, Dr. Blazer said she had “much more experience with belimumab.

“I’ve prescribed other calcineurin inhibitors in the past, and usually for a patient who’s very proteinuric and as an adjunct to that standard of care to try to bring down the proteinuria,” she said.

With belimumab, she would consider adding it to a patient with severe disease who has failed treatment with mycophenolate mofetil or cyclophosphamide and has a recurrent lupus nephritis flare. “It’s something I can use as an adjunct, and I think that I can get some extra benefit from it, and it also tends to be well tolerated,” Dr. Blazer said.

How patients are responding

Dr. Thomas’ patients have been responding well on voclosporin and belimumab. “I was an early adopter of [belimumab] and had patients with lupus nephritis do great on it, way before the FDA approval,” he said.

For voclosporin, Dr. Thomas highlighted the “incredibly rapid” proteinuria response. “I had a patient have marked reduction in proteinuria in just 2 weeks. Proteinuria reduction is the number one predictor of long-term better outcomes,” he said.

Many patients receiving mycophenolate and cyclophosphamide do not go into complete remission, while the clinical trials for voclosporin and belimumab had significantly higher rates of complete response and faster response rates, compared with older therapies. “That is what we need,” he said.

“These drugs are game changers in the treatment of lupus nephritis. In my mind, belimumab and voclosporin should be considered the standard of medical care treating lupus nephritis patients,” he added.

Dr. Blanco said her patients appear to like and are tolerating voclosporin and belimumab well, but because there are no pregnancy data on voclosporin, she may choose belimumab or tacrolimus for patients of reproductive age who are considering starting a family.

Patients with extrarenal symptoms tend to do particularly well with belimumab, such as those with arthritis and skin rash, Dr. Blazer said. “In my experience, as an adjunct with those standard of care medications, I have been able to maintain remission in my patients,” she said.

Dr. Saxena said both medications are “important options” for lupus nephritis in patients who don’t respond to standard therapy. “As more doctors utilize each medication and additional data is published, I’d expect an increase uptake in both medications in the future,” he said.

Dr. Blazer reported being a contributor to GSK’s SLE Educators’ Network and has been a consultant for Aurinia. Dr. Saxena reported being a consultant for GSK and Aurinia. Dr. Thomas reported being on the speakers bureau for GSK and Aurinia. Dr. Blanco reported having no relevant financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

Adults with the inflammatory autoimmune myopathy dermatomyositis are at increased for concurrent cancers, but new research suggests that certain autoantibodies in patients with a specific dermatomyositis subtype may actually protect against cancer.

A study of cohorts of patients with dermatomyositis, other rheumatic diseases, and those without disease showed that among patients with dermatomyositis positive for antitranscriptional intermediary factor 1 (anti–TIF1-gamma) autoantibodies – a disease subtype associated with increased cancer risk – the presence of autoantibodies directed against cell division cycle and apoptosis regulator 1 (CCAR1) was associated with reduced cancer risk “to a level comparable to that seen in the general population,” Christopher A. Mecoli, MD, MHS, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues reported.

“Our prior data suggest that there are autoantigens that, when targeted simultaneously with CCAR1, provide additional cancer protection. Although these autoantigens are less frequently targeted, it is likely that additional, more prevalent ‘autoantigen hubs’ remain undiscovered,” they wrote in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

Identification of other autoantibodies both in the anti–TIF1-gamma–positive and other dermatomyositis subgroups may help with cancer risk stratification in patients with the disease and may ultimately improve cancer screening for adults with dermatomyositis, the investigators said.
 

Toward precision medicine

“I think this is a step toward precision medicine in patients with rheumatic disease, specifically myositis,” Dr. Mecoli said in an interview.

The study supports earlier work showing that dermatomyositis and related myopathies are heterogeneous, he said, noting that, “if you put 10 myositis patients in the same room, you wouldn’t get that they all have the same disease because they can look so different from one another.”

The association of dermatomyositis with concurrent cancers has been known for decades, but in recent years his team and other investigators have noted that the association holds true for only some patients with dermatomyositis, most notably those patients positive for anti–TIF1-gamma autoantibodies.

“And then, of course, once you really start studying just one gamma-positive dermatomyositis patient, you realize that even among that group it is heterogeneous in terms of their cancer risk, and that was the main focus of this study: to reconcile this clinical observation that I had a lot of patients with TIF1-gamma dermatomyositis who never get diagnosed with cancer,” Dr. Mecoli said.

Study details

Dr. Dr. Mecoli and colleagues previously reported that immune responses to CCAR1 and other autoantigens seen in patients with dermatomyositis were associated with lower probability of cancer occurrence.

In the current study, they focused on the disease specificity, clinical phenotype, and cancer risk for patients with dermatomyositis and anti-CCAR1 autoantibodies.

They looked at all patients aged 18 or older with a probable or definite finding of dermatomyositis, according to 2017 American College of Rheumatology/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathy criteria, who were seen at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center from August 2004 to April 2020 (101 patients), or the Johns Hopkins Myositis Center (141 patients) from January 2007 to December 2020.

Controls included 44 patients evaluated at the Johns Hopkins Myositis Center with immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy, 186 patients with anti–TIF1-gamma–negative dermatomyositis (defined as an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay readout of less than seven units) evaluated at either Stanford or Johns Hopkins, 44 patients with inclusion body myositis evaluated at Johns Hopkins, and 46 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus from the Hopkins Lupus Cohort. The investigators also assayed serum from 32 healthy individuals.

They found that patients with anti–TIF1-gamma–positive dermatomyositis were significantly more likely than those with anti–TIF1-gamma–negative dermatomyositis to have anti-CCAR1 autoantibodies (32% vs. 8%; P < .001). Additionally, they noted that the anti-CCAR1 autoantibodies were not seen in serum from healthy controls and were found at only very low frequencies among patients with other rheumatic diseases.

When they looked at the incidence of cancer from the time of dermatomyositis onset (defined as the first patient-reported symptoms of rash, weakness, myalgia, or dyspnea) they found that the standardized incidence ratio in anti–TIF1-gamma–positive patients in both the Stanford and Hopkins cohorts was higher than expected, with SIRs of 3.49 and 4.54, respectively (P < .001 for each comparison).

However, among those patients who were both anti–TIF1-gamma positive and anti-CCAR1 positive, the SIRs were 1.78 in the Stanford cohort and 1.61 in the Hopkins cohort, and neither SIR was significantly higher than that of the general population.
 

Risk prediction

Their findings suggest that autoantibody profiles might be used for cancer risk stratification in patients with anti–TIF1-gamma–positive dermatomyositis, Dr. Mecoli said.

“Are we overscreening? What is the cost in terms of patient anxiety, in terms of radiation, and in terms of false positive results?” he asked. “If I had a patient in front of me with anti–TIF1-gamma dermatomyositis, I would probably manage them differently if I knew that they were CCAR1 positive, because the presence of that additional autoantibody attenuates their cancer risk relative to the general population.”

In an editorial accompanying the study, Manabu Fujimoto, MD, of the department of dermatology at Osaka (Japan) University, commented that it “is of clinical importance in that combination of autoantibodies can predict cancer risk with more accuracy. At the same time, this study will give an insight into the pathomechanisms of how antitumor activity may shape autoimmunity in dermatomyositis.”

It will be “intriguing” to discover whether anti-CCAR1 autoantibodies act only against tumors or might also have an impact on dermatomyositis itself, Dr. Fujimoto said.

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health; Huayi and Siuling Zhang Discovery Fund; Peter Buck, MD; and the Donald B. and Dorothy L. Stabler Foundation. The authors and Dr. Fujimoto reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adults with the inflammatory autoimmune myopathy dermatomyositis are at increased for concurrent cancers, but new research suggests that certain autoantibodies in patients with a specific dermatomyositis subtype may actually protect against cancer.

A study of cohorts of patients with dermatomyositis, other rheumatic diseases, and those without disease showed that among patients with dermatomyositis positive for antitranscriptional intermediary factor 1 (anti–TIF1-gamma) autoantibodies – a disease subtype associated with increased cancer risk – the presence of autoantibodies directed against cell division cycle and apoptosis regulator 1 (CCAR1) was associated with reduced cancer risk “to a level comparable to that seen in the general population,” Christopher A. Mecoli, MD, MHS, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues reported.

“Our prior data suggest that there are autoantigens that, when targeted simultaneously with CCAR1, provide additional cancer protection. Although these autoantigens are less frequently targeted, it is likely that additional, more prevalent ‘autoantigen hubs’ remain undiscovered,” they wrote in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

Identification of other autoantibodies both in the anti–TIF1-gamma–positive and other dermatomyositis subgroups may help with cancer risk stratification in patients with the disease and may ultimately improve cancer screening for adults with dermatomyositis, the investigators said.
 

Toward precision medicine

“I think this is a step toward precision medicine in patients with rheumatic disease, specifically myositis,” Dr. Mecoli said in an interview.

The study supports earlier work showing that dermatomyositis and related myopathies are heterogeneous, he said, noting that, “if you put 10 myositis patients in the same room, you wouldn’t get that they all have the same disease because they can look so different from one another.”

The association of dermatomyositis with concurrent cancers has been known for decades, but in recent years his team and other investigators have noted that the association holds true for only some patients with dermatomyositis, most notably those patients positive for anti–TIF1-gamma autoantibodies.

“And then, of course, once you really start studying just one gamma-positive dermatomyositis patient, you realize that even among that group it is heterogeneous in terms of their cancer risk, and that was the main focus of this study: to reconcile this clinical observation that I had a lot of patients with TIF1-gamma dermatomyositis who never get diagnosed with cancer,” Dr. Mecoli said.

Study details

Dr. Dr. Mecoli and colleagues previously reported that immune responses to CCAR1 and other autoantigens seen in patients with dermatomyositis were associated with lower probability of cancer occurrence.

In the current study, they focused on the disease specificity, clinical phenotype, and cancer risk for patients with dermatomyositis and anti-CCAR1 autoantibodies.

They looked at all patients aged 18 or older with a probable or definite finding of dermatomyositis, according to 2017 American College of Rheumatology/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathy criteria, who were seen at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center from August 2004 to April 2020 (101 patients), or the Johns Hopkins Myositis Center (141 patients) from January 2007 to December 2020.

Controls included 44 patients evaluated at the Johns Hopkins Myositis Center with immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy, 186 patients with anti–TIF1-gamma–negative dermatomyositis (defined as an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay readout of less than seven units) evaluated at either Stanford or Johns Hopkins, 44 patients with inclusion body myositis evaluated at Johns Hopkins, and 46 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus from the Hopkins Lupus Cohort. The investigators also assayed serum from 32 healthy individuals.

They found that patients with anti–TIF1-gamma–positive dermatomyositis were significantly more likely than those with anti–TIF1-gamma–negative dermatomyositis to have anti-CCAR1 autoantibodies (32% vs. 8%; P < .001). Additionally, they noted that the anti-CCAR1 autoantibodies were not seen in serum from healthy controls and were found at only very low frequencies among patients with other rheumatic diseases.

When they looked at the incidence of cancer from the time of dermatomyositis onset (defined as the first patient-reported symptoms of rash, weakness, myalgia, or dyspnea) they found that the standardized incidence ratio in anti–TIF1-gamma–positive patients in both the Stanford and Hopkins cohorts was higher than expected, with SIRs of 3.49 and 4.54, respectively (P < .001 for each comparison).

However, among those patients who were both anti–TIF1-gamma positive and anti-CCAR1 positive, the SIRs were 1.78 in the Stanford cohort and 1.61 in the Hopkins cohort, and neither SIR was significantly higher than that of the general population.
 

Risk prediction

Their findings suggest that autoantibody profiles might be used for cancer risk stratification in patients with anti–TIF1-gamma–positive dermatomyositis, Dr. Mecoli said.

“Are we overscreening? What is the cost in terms of patient anxiety, in terms of radiation, and in terms of false positive results?” he asked. “If I had a patient in front of me with anti–TIF1-gamma dermatomyositis, I would probably manage them differently if I knew that they were CCAR1 positive, because the presence of that additional autoantibody attenuates their cancer risk relative to the general population.”

In an editorial accompanying the study, Manabu Fujimoto, MD, of the department of dermatology at Osaka (Japan) University, commented that it “is of clinical importance in that combination of autoantibodies can predict cancer risk with more accuracy. At the same time, this study will give an insight into the pathomechanisms of how antitumor activity may shape autoimmunity in dermatomyositis.”

It will be “intriguing” to discover whether anti-CCAR1 autoantibodies act only against tumors or might also have an impact on dermatomyositis itself, Dr. Fujimoto said.

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health; Huayi and Siuling Zhang Discovery Fund; Peter Buck, MD; and the Donald B. and Dorothy L. Stabler Foundation. The authors and Dr. Fujimoto reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adults with the inflammatory autoimmune myopathy dermatomyositis are at increased for concurrent cancers, but new research suggests that certain autoantibodies in patients with a specific dermatomyositis subtype may actually protect against cancer.

A study of cohorts of patients with dermatomyositis, other rheumatic diseases, and those without disease showed that among patients with dermatomyositis positive for antitranscriptional intermediary factor 1 (anti–TIF1-gamma) autoantibodies – a disease subtype associated with increased cancer risk – the presence of autoantibodies directed against cell division cycle and apoptosis regulator 1 (CCAR1) was associated with reduced cancer risk “to a level comparable to that seen in the general population,” Christopher A. Mecoli, MD, MHS, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues reported.

“Our prior data suggest that there are autoantigens that, when targeted simultaneously with CCAR1, provide additional cancer protection. Although these autoantigens are less frequently targeted, it is likely that additional, more prevalent ‘autoantigen hubs’ remain undiscovered,” they wrote in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

Identification of other autoantibodies both in the anti–TIF1-gamma–positive and other dermatomyositis subgroups may help with cancer risk stratification in patients with the disease and may ultimately improve cancer screening for adults with dermatomyositis, the investigators said.
 

Toward precision medicine

“I think this is a step toward precision medicine in patients with rheumatic disease, specifically myositis,” Dr. Mecoli said in an interview.

The study supports earlier work showing that dermatomyositis and related myopathies are heterogeneous, he said, noting that, “if you put 10 myositis patients in the same room, you wouldn’t get that they all have the same disease because they can look so different from one another.”

The association of dermatomyositis with concurrent cancers has been known for decades, but in recent years his team and other investigators have noted that the association holds true for only some patients with dermatomyositis, most notably those patients positive for anti–TIF1-gamma autoantibodies.

“And then, of course, once you really start studying just one gamma-positive dermatomyositis patient, you realize that even among that group it is heterogeneous in terms of their cancer risk, and that was the main focus of this study: to reconcile this clinical observation that I had a lot of patients with TIF1-gamma dermatomyositis who never get diagnosed with cancer,” Dr. Mecoli said.

Study details

Dr. Dr. Mecoli and colleagues previously reported that immune responses to CCAR1 and other autoantigens seen in patients with dermatomyositis were associated with lower probability of cancer occurrence.

In the current study, they focused on the disease specificity, clinical phenotype, and cancer risk for patients with dermatomyositis and anti-CCAR1 autoantibodies.

They looked at all patients aged 18 or older with a probable or definite finding of dermatomyositis, according to 2017 American College of Rheumatology/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathy criteria, who were seen at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center from August 2004 to April 2020 (101 patients), or the Johns Hopkins Myositis Center (141 patients) from January 2007 to December 2020.

Controls included 44 patients evaluated at the Johns Hopkins Myositis Center with immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy, 186 patients with anti–TIF1-gamma–negative dermatomyositis (defined as an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay readout of less than seven units) evaluated at either Stanford or Johns Hopkins, 44 patients with inclusion body myositis evaluated at Johns Hopkins, and 46 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus from the Hopkins Lupus Cohort. The investigators also assayed serum from 32 healthy individuals.

They found that patients with anti–TIF1-gamma–positive dermatomyositis were significantly more likely than those with anti–TIF1-gamma–negative dermatomyositis to have anti-CCAR1 autoantibodies (32% vs. 8%; P < .001). Additionally, they noted that the anti-CCAR1 autoantibodies were not seen in serum from healthy controls and were found at only very low frequencies among patients with other rheumatic diseases.

When they looked at the incidence of cancer from the time of dermatomyositis onset (defined as the first patient-reported symptoms of rash, weakness, myalgia, or dyspnea) they found that the standardized incidence ratio in anti–TIF1-gamma–positive patients in both the Stanford and Hopkins cohorts was higher than expected, with SIRs of 3.49 and 4.54, respectively (P < .001 for each comparison).

However, among those patients who were both anti–TIF1-gamma positive and anti-CCAR1 positive, the SIRs were 1.78 in the Stanford cohort and 1.61 in the Hopkins cohort, and neither SIR was significantly higher than that of the general population.
 

Risk prediction

Their findings suggest that autoantibody profiles might be used for cancer risk stratification in patients with anti–TIF1-gamma–positive dermatomyositis, Dr. Mecoli said.

“Are we overscreening? What is the cost in terms of patient anxiety, in terms of radiation, and in terms of false positive results?” he asked. “If I had a patient in front of me with anti–TIF1-gamma dermatomyositis, I would probably manage them differently if I knew that they were CCAR1 positive, because the presence of that additional autoantibody attenuates their cancer risk relative to the general population.”

In an editorial accompanying the study, Manabu Fujimoto, MD, of the department of dermatology at Osaka (Japan) University, commented that it “is of clinical importance in that combination of autoantibodies can predict cancer risk with more accuracy. At the same time, this study will give an insight into the pathomechanisms of how antitumor activity may shape autoimmunity in dermatomyositis.”

It will be “intriguing” to discover whether anti-CCAR1 autoantibodies act only against tumors or might also have an impact on dermatomyositis itself, Dr. Fujimoto said.

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health; Huayi and Siuling Zhang Discovery Fund; Peter Buck, MD; and the Donald B. and Dorothy L. Stabler Foundation. The authors and Dr. Fujimoto reported no relevant financial relationships.

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