Lupus & Connective Tissue Diseases

MILAN – Results of a phase 3 trial with the investigational drug telitacicept show that patients with systemic lupus erythematosus have a significantly greater rate of response to SLE response criteria, compared with placebo, while results from a phase 2 trial of the drug in patients with primary Sjögren’s syndrome (pSS) also show significant improvements versus placebo.

“With only a limited number of treatments available for patients with lupus, this additional option is certainly an advance and the trial shows a strong efficacy result,” said Ronald van Vollenhoven, MD, PhD, who was not an investigator for either trial but presented the results for both at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. He is professor of clinical immunology and rheumatology at Amsterdam University Medical Center and VU University Medical Center, also in Amsterdam.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

Telitacicept is a recombinant fusion protein that targets B-lymphocyte stimulator and a proliferating-inducing ligand. It is currently undergoing testing in another phase 3 trial (REMESLE-1) at sites in the United States, Europe, and Asia. The current SLE results relate to the phase 3 study conducted in China, Dr. van Vollenhoven clarified.
 

SLE trial

The double-blind, placebo-controlled trial included 335 patients with SLE who had an average age of 35 years, a body mass index of 22-23 kg/m², and a mean SELENA-SLEDAI (Safety of Estrogens in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus National Assessment–Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index) score of at least 11.5, indicating high disease activity. Most patients were on glucocorticoids and immunosuppressants.

Patients were randomized 1:1 to weekly subcutaneous injections of telitacicept (160 mg; n = 167) or placebo (n = 168) in combination with standard therapy for 52 weeks. The primary endpoint was the SLE Responder Index-4 (SRI4) response rate at week 52, while key secondary endpoints included SELENA-SLEDAI, physician global assessment, and levels of immunologic biomarkers including C3, C4, IgM, IgG, IgA, and CD19+ B cells. Safety was also assessed.

At week 52, Dr. van Vollenhoven reported that significantly more patients taking telitacicept achieved a SRI4 response, compared with placebo, at 67.1% versus 32.7%, respectively (P < .001). “The difference was seen at 4-8 weeks and stabilized at around 20 weeks,” he said.

Time to first SLE flare was also reduced in patients on the trial drug at a median of 198 days (95% confidence interval, 169-254 days), compared with placebo at 115 days (95% CI, 92-140 days).

“The secondary outcomes also supported efficacy in these patients,” Dr. van Vollenhoven added, noting that there was a rapid and sustained increase of C3 and C4, the latter being significantly greater than placebo, and reduction of IgM, IgG, IgA, and CD19+ B cells observed following telitacicept treatment.

A significantly higher proportion of patients in the telitacicept group showed improvement in SELENA-SLEDAI at week 52, defined as a 4-point or greater reduction, compared with placebo (70.1% vs. 40.5%).

Telitacicept did not increase the risk of infections. Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 84.5% with telitacicept versus 91.6% with placebo, with infections (mostly upper respiratory) seen in 65.3% and 60.1%, respectively.
 

Sjögren’s trial

The second trial was a phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled, 24-week study in 42 patients with pSS. Patients (18-65 years) received telitacicept at 160 mg or 240 mg subcutaneously once a week, or placebo, for a total of 24 doses. Patients had a EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI) score of 5 points or more, and were anti-SSA antibody positive.

“Compared with placebo, telitacicept treatment resulted in significant improvement in ESSDAI and MFI-20 [20-item Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory],” Dr. van Vollenhoven reported, adding that, “there was a trend for improvement in salivary gland function and lacrimal gland function relative to placebo, as well as a favorable safety profile.”

ESSDAI change from baseline was 0.5, –3.8, and –2.3 in placebo, 160-mg, and 240-mg telitacicept doses, respectively. MFI-20 change from baseline was 7.0, –4.0, and –5.1, respectively. Dr. Van Vollenhoven said the difference between the doses was not statistically significant.

“If these results are confirmed, it could be the first time a biologic is proven efficacious in this disease,” Dr. Van Vollenhoven said in an interview. “It’s encouraging to know that a new treatment is showing promise in this phase 2 trial. A phase 3 trial is warranted.”
 

Studies yield promising but confusing results

In an interview, Roy Fleischmann, MD, who was not involved with either study, wondered whether the results of the SLE study could be race specific given the magnitude of response to the drug and that the trial was conducted only in China, and whether the positive results of the small Sjögren’s study will pan out in a larger trial.

“The SLE study was very interesting, but the problem is that it’s a Chinese drug in Chinese patients with Chinese doctors, so they are very dramatic results,” he said, questioning whether “these results are race specific,” and that “we will find out when they do the multinational study, but we haven’t seen this type of separation before [in response]. It’s interesting.

“The Sjögren’s was a positive study, but it was confusing because the low dose seemed to be better than the higher dose, and there were very few patients,” said Dr. Fleischmann, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and codirector of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, both in Dallas. The left and right eyes gave different results, which was strange, and the salivary gland test was the same [mixed results], so what can we conclude? All in all, it was a small study with a suggestion of efficacy, but we have to do the phase 3 and see what it shows.”

Both trials were sponsored by RemeGen. Dr. van Vollenhoven reported serving as a paid adviser to AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Pfizer, RemeGen, and UCB. He has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and UCB and educational support from AstraZeneca, Galapagos, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB. Dr. Fleischmann said he had has no relevant financial relationships.

MILAN – Results of a phase 3 trial with the investigational drug telitacicept show that patients with systemic lupus erythematosus have a significantly greater rate of response to SLE response criteria, compared with placebo, while results from a phase 2 trial of the drug in patients with primary Sjögren’s syndrome (pSS) also show significant improvements versus placebo.

“With only a limited number of treatments available for patients with lupus, this additional option is certainly an advance and the trial shows a strong efficacy result,” said Ronald van Vollenhoven, MD, PhD, who was not an investigator for either trial but presented the results for both at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. He is professor of clinical immunology and rheumatology at Amsterdam University Medical Center and VU University Medical Center, also in Amsterdam.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

Telitacicept is a recombinant fusion protein that targets B-lymphocyte stimulator and a proliferating-inducing ligand. It is currently undergoing testing in another phase 3 trial (REMESLE-1) at sites in the United States, Europe, and Asia. The current SLE results relate to the phase 3 study conducted in China, Dr. van Vollenhoven clarified.
 

SLE trial

The double-blind, placebo-controlled trial included 335 patients with SLE who had an average age of 35 years, a body mass index of 22-23 kg/m², and a mean SELENA-SLEDAI (Safety of Estrogens in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus National Assessment–Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index) score of at least 11.5, indicating high disease activity. Most patients were on glucocorticoids and immunosuppressants.

Patients were randomized 1:1 to weekly subcutaneous injections of telitacicept (160 mg; n = 167) or placebo (n = 168) in combination with standard therapy for 52 weeks. The primary endpoint was the SLE Responder Index-4 (SRI4) response rate at week 52, while key secondary endpoints included SELENA-SLEDAI, physician global assessment, and levels of immunologic biomarkers including C3, C4, IgM, IgG, IgA, and CD19+ B cells. Safety was also assessed.

At week 52, Dr. van Vollenhoven reported that significantly more patients taking telitacicept achieved a SRI4 response, compared with placebo, at 67.1% versus 32.7%, respectively (P < .001). “The difference was seen at 4-8 weeks and stabilized at around 20 weeks,” he said.

Time to first SLE flare was also reduced in patients on the trial drug at a median of 198 days (95% confidence interval, 169-254 days), compared with placebo at 115 days (95% CI, 92-140 days).

“The secondary outcomes also supported efficacy in these patients,” Dr. van Vollenhoven added, noting that there was a rapid and sustained increase of C3 and C4, the latter being significantly greater than placebo, and reduction of IgM, IgG, IgA, and CD19+ B cells observed following telitacicept treatment.

A significantly higher proportion of patients in the telitacicept group showed improvement in SELENA-SLEDAI at week 52, defined as a 4-point or greater reduction, compared with placebo (70.1% vs. 40.5%).

Telitacicept did not increase the risk of infections. Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 84.5% with telitacicept versus 91.6% with placebo, with infections (mostly upper respiratory) seen in 65.3% and 60.1%, respectively.
 

Sjögren’s trial

The second trial was a phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled, 24-week study in 42 patients with pSS. Patients (18-65 years) received telitacicept at 160 mg or 240 mg subcutaneously once a week, or placebo, for a total of 24 doses. Patients had a EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI) score of 5 points or more, and were anti-SSA antibody positive.

“Compared with placebo, telitacicept treatment resulted in significant improvement in ESSDAI and MFI-20 [20-item Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory],” Dr. van Vollenhoven reported, adding that, “there was a trend for improvement in salivary gland function and lacrimal gland function relative to placebo, as well as a favorable safety profile.”

ESSDAI change from baseline was 0.5, –3.8, and –2.3 in placebo, 160-mg, and 240-mg telitacicept doses, respectively. MFI-20 change from baseline was 7.0, –4.0, and –5.1, respectively. Dr. Van Vollenhoven said the difference between the doses was not statistically significant.

“If these results are confirmed, it could be the first time a biologic is proven efficacious in this disease,” Dr. Van Vollenhoven said in an interview. “It’s encouraging to know that a new treatment is showing promise in this phase 2 trial. A phase 3 trial is warranted.”
 

Studies yield promising but confusing results

In an interview, Roy Fleischmann, MD, who was not involved with either study, wondered whether the results of the SLE study could be race specific given the magnitude of response to the drug and that the trial was conducted only in China, and whether the positive results of the small Sjögren’s study will pan out in a larger trial.

“The SLE study was very interesting, but the problem is that it’s a Chinese drug in Chinese patients with Chinese doctors, so they are very dramatic results,” he said, questioning whether “these results are race specific,” and that “we will find out when they do the multinational study, but we haven’t seen this type of separation before [in response]. It’s interesting.

“The Sjögren’s was a positive study, but it was confusing because the low dose seemed to be better than the higher dose, and there were very few patients,” said Dr. Fleischmann, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and codirector of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, both in Dallas. The left and right eyes gave different results, which was strange, and the salivary gland test was the same [mixed results], so what can we conclude? All in all, it was a small study with a suggestion of efficacy, but we have to do the phase 3 and see what it shows.”

Both trials were sponsored by RemeGen. Dr. van Vollenhoven reported serving as a paid adviser to AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Pfizer, RemeGen, and UCB. He has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and UCB and educational support from AstraZeneca, Galapagos, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB. Dr. Fleischmann said he had has no relevant financial relationships.

MILAN – Results of a phase 3 trial with the investigational drug telitacicept show that patients with systemic lupus erythematosus have a significantly greater rate of response to SLE response criteria, compared with placebo, while results from a phase 2 trial of the drug in patients with primary Sjögren’s syndrome (pSS) also show significant improvements versus placebo.

“With only a limited number of treatments available for patients with lupus, this additional option is certainly an advance and the trial shows a strong efficacy result,” said Ronald van Vollenhoven, MD, PhD, who was not an investigator for either trial but presented the results for both at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. He is professor of clinical immunology and rheumatology at Amsterdam University Medical Center and VU University Medical Center, also in Amsterdam.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

Telitacicept is a recombinant fusion protein that targets B-lymphocyte stimulator and a proliferating-inducing ligand. It is currently undergoing testing in another phase 3 trial (REMESLE-1) at sites in the United States, Europe, and Asia. The current SLE results relate to the phase 3 study conducted in China, Dr. van Vollenhoven clarified.
 

SLE trial

The double-blind, placebo-controlled trial included 335 patients with SLE who had an average age of 35 years, a body mass index of 22-23 kg/m², and a mean SELENA-SLEDAI (Safety of Estrogens in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus National Assessment–Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index) score of at least 11.5, indicating high disease activity. Most patients were on glucocorticoids and immunosuppressants.

Patients were randomized 1:1 to weekly subcutaneous injections of telitacicept (160 mg; n = 167) or placebo (n = 168) in combination with standard therapy for 52 weeks. The primary endpoint was the SLE Responder Index-4 (SRI4) response rate at week 52, while key secondary endpoints included SELENA-SLEDAI, physician global assessment, and levels of immunologic biomarkers including C3, C4, IgM, IgG, IgA, and CD19+ B cells. Safety was also assessed.

At week 52, Dr. van Vollenhoven reported that significantly more patients taking telitacicept achieved a SRI4 response, compared with placebo, at 67.1% versus 32.7%, respectively (P < .001). “The difference was seen at 4-8 weeks and stabilized at around 20 weeks,” he said.

Time to first SLE flare was also reduced in patients on the trial drug at a median of 198 days (95% confidence interval, 169-254 days), compared with placebo at 115 days (95% CI, 92-140 days).

“The secondary outcomes also supported efficacy in these patients,” Dr. van Vollenhoven added, noting that there was a rapid and sustained increase of C3 and C4, the latter being significantly greater than placebo, and reduction of IgM, IgG, IgA, and CD19+ B cells observed following telitacicept treatment.

A significantly higher proportion of patients in the telitacicept group showed improvement in SELENA-SLEDAI at week 52, defined as a 4-point or greater reduction, compared with placebo (70.1% vs. 40.5%).

Telitacicept did not increase the risk of infections. Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 84.5% with telitacicept versus 91.6% with placebo, with infections (mostly upper respiratory) seen in 65.3% and 60.1%, respectively.
 

Sjögren’s trial

The second trial was a phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled, 24-week study in 42 patients with pSS. Patients (18-65 years) received telitacicept at 160 mg or 240 mg subcutaneously once a week, or placebo, for a total of 24 doses. Patients had a EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI) score of 5 points or more, and were anti-SSA antibody positive.

“Compared with placebo, telitacicept treatment resulted in significant improvement in ESSDAI and MFI-20 [20-item Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory],” Dr. van Vollenhoven reported, adding that, “there was a trend for improvement in salivary gland function and lacrimal gland function relative to placebo, as well as a favorable safety profile.”

ESSDAI change from baseline was 0.5, –3.8, and –2.3 in placebo, 160-mg, and 240-mg telitacicept doses, respectively. MFI-20 change from baseline was 7.0, –4.0, and –5.1, respectively. Dr. Van Vollenhoven said the difference between the doses was not statistically significant.

“If these results are confirmed, it could be the first time a biologic is proven efficacious in this disease,” Dr. Van Vollenhoven said in an interview. “It’s encouraging to know that a new treatment is showing promise in this phase 2 trial. A phase 3 trial is warranted.”
 

Studies yield promising but confusing results

In an interview, Roy Fleischmann, MD, who was not involved with either study, wondered whether the results of the SLE study could be race specific given the magnitude of response to the drug and that the trial was conducted only in China, and whether the positive results of the small Sjögren’s study will pan out in a larger trial.

“The SLE study was very interesting, but the problem is that it’s a Chinese drug in Chinese patients with Chinese doctors, so they are very dramatic results,” he said, questioning whether “these results are race specific,” and that “we will find out when they do the multinational study, but we haven’t seen this type of separation before [in response]. It’s interesting.

“The Sjögren’s was a positive study, but it was confusing because the low dose seemed to be better than the higher dose, and there were very few patients,” said Dr. Fleischmann, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and codirector of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, both in Dallas. The left and right eyes gave different results, which was strange, and the salivary gland test was the same [mixed results], so what can we conclude? All in all, it was a small study with a suggestion of efficacy, but we have to do the phase 3 and see what it shows.”

Both trials were sponsored by RemeGen. Dr. van Vollenhoven reported serving as a paid adviser to AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Pfizer, RemeGen, and UCB. He has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and UCB and educational support from AstraZeneca, Galapagos, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB. Dr. Fleischmann said he had has no relevant financial relationships.

MILAN – The oral Janus kinase (JAK) 1/2 inhibitor baricitinib (Olumiant) demonstrated significantly better efficacy than cyclophosphamide infusions in the treatment of lupus nephritis in a small, independently funded, phase 3, double-blind clinical trial, Manal Hassanien, MD, reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Baricitinib, licensed by Eli Lilly, has been recognized as a potential therapeutic option in systemic lupus, and is approved in the United States to treat RA, alopecia areata, and COVID-19 in certain hospitalized adults. It is also approved to treat atopic dermatitis in Europe. However, it previously yielded disappointing results in phase 3 clinical trials SLE-BRAVE-I and SLE-BRAVE-II for systemic lupus erythematosus. The trial results presented at EULAR suggest that baricitinib could be beneficial in the treatment of lupus nephritis, further establishing the role of JAK inhibitors in autoimmune disease therapy.

“Lupus nephritis typically develops within 5 years of initial lupus symptoms,” said Dr. Hassanien, of the rheumatology research and advanced therapeutics department at Assiut (Egypt) University. “Research has shown that up to 60% of lupus patients will eventually develop lupus nephritis. The management of proliferative lupus nephritis usually involves an initial phase focused on preventing the development of irreversible damage, followed by a maintenance phase to control lupus activity. Despite significant progress, lupus nephritis still carries an increased risk of end-stage renal disease and mortality.”

The study’s primary endpoint of 24-hour proteinuria response rate (≥ 50% reduction from baseline) at week 12 was significantly greater with baricitinib 4 mg daily, compared with monthly cyclophosphamide infusions at 0.7 mg/m² (70% vs. 43%; P < .0001). At week 24, 76.6% of the baricitinib group met the primary endpoint, compared with 50% in the cyclophosphamide group. Two multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints, C3 serum level and the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K), also showed statistical significance at 12 weeks (P < .01).

The 6-month trial included 60 adult patients (age 18 years and older) with a clinical diagnosis of lupus nephritis fulfilling classification criteria for LN grade III and IV. Patients needed to demonstrate objective signs of active nephritis consistent with persistent proteinuria greater than 0.5 g/day and/or cellular casts at screening to be included. Additional inclusion criteria were SLEDAI-2K greater than 4 and assessment of anti–double-stranded DNA and C3 serum levels at study entry. The patients were randomly assigned to two equal-sized groups, with one group receiving baricitinib 4 mg daily and a monthly placebo saline infusion, and the other group receiving monthly cyclophosphamide infusions and oral placebo tablets.

The incidence of adverse events was comparable between the two treatment groups, with 48% of patients in the baricitinib group and 46% in the cyclophosphamide group experiencing adverse events. Only three serious adverse events, specifically serious infection or herpes zoster, were recorded, leading to treatment discontinuation.

Two patients (6.6%) in the baricitinib group and one patient (3.3%) in the cyclophosphamide group were affected. The researchers recorded no major adverse cardiovascular or venous thromboembolic events, which are known to occur at higher rates among some users of baricitinib and other JAK inhibitors. The safety profile of baricitinib was consistent with observations made in other inflammatory musculoskeletal diseases, and no new risks were identified.

However, there were some concerns expressed by audience members during the presentation.

“The primary endpoint is limited at proteinuria, while biopsy is considered the gold standard for measuring efficacy,” said Eric F. Morand, MD, head of the Monash Health rheumatology unit, Melbourne. This was not the only critical comment regarding the study that emerged during the discussion. The use of a 4-mg dosage regimen throughout the entire study duration (despite official recommendations suggesting a 2-mg dosage in the long run) and the positive outcomes observed in the control group treated with cyclophosphamide were also mentioned.

Dr. Hassanien acknowledged that this is a small and relatively short study and disclosed plans to extend the follow-up period to 1 year and conduct a renal biopsy.

Dr. Hassanien reported no relevant financial relationships. Assiut University funded the trial.

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

MILAN – The oral Janus kinase (JAK) 1/2 inhibitor baricitinib (Olumiant) demonstrated significantly better efficacy than cyclophosphamide infusions in the treatment of lupus nephritis in a small, independently funded, phase 3, double-blind clinical trial, Manal Hassanien, MD, reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Baricitinib, licensed by Eli Lilly, has been recognized as a potential therapeutic option in systemic lupus, and is approved in the United States to treat RA, alopecia areata, and COVID-19 in certain hospitalized adults. It is also approved to treat atopic dermatitis in Europe. However, it previously yielded disappointing results in phase 3 clinical trials SLE-BRAVE-I and SLE-BRAVE-II for systemic lupus erythematosus. The trial results presented at EULAR suggest that baricitinib could be beneficial in the treatment of lupus nephritis, further establishing the role of JAK inhibitors in autoimmune disease therapy.

“Lupus nephritis typically develops within 5 years of initial lupus symptoms,” said Dr. Hassanien, of the rheumatology research and advanced therapeutics department at Assiut (Egypt) University. “Research has shown that up to 60% of lupus patients will eventually develop lupus nephritis. The management of proliferative lupus nephritis usually involves an initial phase focused on preventing the development of irreversible damage, followed by a maintenance phase to control lupus activity. Despite significant progress, lupus nephritis still carries an increased risk of end-stage renal disease and mortality.”

The study’s primary endpoint of 24-hour proteinuria response rate (≥ 50% reduction from baseline) at week 12 was significantly greater with baricitinib 4 mg daily, compared with monthly cyclophosphamide infusions at 0.7 mg/m² (70% vs. 43%; P < .0001). At week 24, 76.6% of the baricitinib group met the primary endpoint, compared with 50% in the cyclophosphamide group. Two multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints, C3 serum level and the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K), also showed statistical significance at 12 weeks (P < .01).

The 6-month trial included 60 adult patients (age 18 years and older) with a clinical diagnosis of lupus nephritis fulfilling classification criteria for LN grade III and IV. Patients needed to demonstrate objective signs of active nephritis consistent with persistent proteinuria greater than 0.5 g/day and/or cellular casts at screening to be included. Additional inclusion criteria were SLEDAI-2K greater than 4 and assessment of anti–double-stranded DNA and C3 serum levels at study entry. The patients were randomly assigned to two equal-sized groups, with one group receiving baricitinib 4 mg daily and a monthly placebo saline infusion, and the other group receiving monthly cyclophosphamide infusions and oral placebo tablets.

The incidence of adverse events was comparable between the two treatment groups, with 48% of patients in the baricitinib group and 46% in the cyclophosphamide group experiencing adverse events. Only three serious adverse events, specifically serious infection or herpes zoster, were recorded, leading to treatment discontinuation.

Two patients (6.6%) in the baricitinib group and one patient (3.3%) in the cyclophosphamide group were affected. The researchers recorded no major adverse cardiovascular or venous thromboembolic events, which are known to occur at higher rates among some users of baricitinib and other JAK inhibitors. The safety profile of baricitinib was consistent with observations made in other inflammatory musculoskeletal diseases, and no new risks were identified.

However, there were some concerns expressed by audience members during the presentation.

“The primary endpoint is limited at proteinuria, while biopsy is considered the gold standard for measuring efficacy,” said Eric F. Morand, MD, head of the Monash Health rheumatology unit, Melbourne. This was not the only critical comment regarding the study that emerged during the discussion. The use of a 4-mg dosage regimen throughout the entire study duration (despite official recommendations suggesting a 2-mg dosage in the long run) and the positive outcomes observed in the control group treated with cyclophosphamide were also mentioned.

Dr. Hassanien acknowledged that this is a small and relatively short study and disclosed plans to extend the follow-up period to 1 year and conduct a renal biopsy.

Dr. Hassanien reported no relevant financial relationships. Assiut University funded the trial.

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

MILAN – The oral Janus kinase (JAK) 1/2 inhibitor baricitinib (Olumiant) demonstrated significantly better efficacy than cyclophosphamide infusions in the treatment of lupus nephritis in a small, independently funded, phase 3, double-blind clinical trial, Manal Hassanien, MD, reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Baricitinib, licensed by Eli Lilly, has been recognized as a potential therapeutic option in systemic lupus, and is approved in the United States to treat RA, alopecia areata, and COVID-19 in certain hospitalized adults. It is also approved to treat atopic dermatitis in Europe. However, it previously yielded disappointing results in phase 3 clinical trials SLE-BRAVE-I and SLE-BRAVE-II for systemic lupus erythematosus. The trial results presented at EULAR suggest that baricitinib could be beneficial in the treatment of lupus nephritis, further establishing the role of JAK inhibitors in autoimmune disease therapy.

“Lupus nephritis typically develops within 5 years of initial lupus symptoms,” said Dr. Hassanien, of the rheumatology research and advanced therapeutics department at Assiut (Egypt) University. “Research has shown that up to 60% of lupus patients will eventually develop lupus nephritis. The management of proliferative lupus nephritis usually involves an initial phase focused on preventing the development of irreversible damage, followed by a maintenance phase to control lupus activity. Despite significant progress, lupus nephritis still carries an increased risk of end-stage renal disease and mortality.”

The study’s primary endpoint of 24-hour proteinuria response rate (≥ 50% reduction from baseline) at week 12 was significantly greater with baricitinib 4 mg daily, compared with monthly cyclophosphamide infusions at 0.7 mg/m² (70% vs. 43%; P < .0001). At week 24, 76.6% of the baricitinib group met the primary endpoint, compared with 50% in the cyclophosphamide group. Two multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints, C3 serum level and the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K), also showed statistical significance at 12 weeks (P < .01).

The 6-month trial included 60 adult patients (age 18 years and older) with a clinical diagnosis of lupus nephritis fulfilling classification criteria for LN grade III and IV. Patients needed to demonstrate objective signs of active nephritis consistent with persistent proteinuria greater than 0.5 g/day and/or cellular casts at screening to be included. Additional inclusion criteria were SLEDAI-2K greater than 4 and assessment of anti–double-stranded DNA and C3 serum levels at study entry. The patients were randomly assigned to two equal-sized groups, with one group receiving baricitinib 4 mg daily and a monthly placebo saline infusion, and the other group receiving monthly cyclophosphamide infusions and oral placebo tablets.

The incidence of adverse events was comparable between the two treatment groups, with 48% of patients in the baricitinib group and 46% in the cyclophosphamide group experiencing adverse events. Only three serious adverse events, specifically serious infection or herpes zoster, were recorded, leading to treatment discontinuation.

Two patients (6.6%) in the baricitinib group and one patient (3.3%) in the cyclophosphamide group were affected. The researchers recorded no major adverse cardiovascular or venous thromboembolic events, which are known to occur at higher rates among some users of baricitinib and other JAK inhibitors. The safety profile of baricitinib was consistent with observations made in other inflammatory musculoskeletal diseases, and no new risks were identified.

However, there were some concerns expressed by audience members during the presentation.

“The primary endpoint is limited at proteinuria, while biopsy is considered the gold standard for measuring efficacy,” said Eric F. Morand, MD, head of the Monash Health rheumatology unit, Melbourne. This was not the only critical comment regarding the study that emerged during the discussion. The use of a 4-mg dosage regimen throughout the entire study duration (despite official recommendations suggesting a 2-mg dosage in the long run) and the positive outcomes observed in the control group treated with cyclophosphamide were also mentioned.

Dr. Hassanien acknowledged that this is a small and relatively short study and disclosed plans to extend the follow-up period to 1 year and conduct a renal biopsy.

Dr. Hassanien reported no relevant financial relationships. Assiut University funded the trial.

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

Women with Sjögren’s syndrome have pregnancy outcomes similar to those of the general population, according to the first study to prospectively track pregnancy outcomes among people with the autoimmune condition.

“Most early studies of pregnancy in rheumatic disease patients were retrospective and included only small numbers, making it difficult to know how generalizable the reported results were,” said Lisa Sammaritano, MD, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, in an email interview with this news organization. She was not involved with the research.

Most of these previous studies suggested an increased risk of adverse outcomes, such as miscarriages, preterm deliveries, and small-for-gestational-age birth weight. But in addition to small patient numbers, retrospective studies “are subject to greater reporting bias, which may predispose patients with negative outcomes being more likely to be included because they were followed more closely,” Dr. Sammaritano said.

“This prospective study has several advantages over the earlier retrospective reports: The same data were collected in the same way for all the patients, the patients were recruited at similar time points, and – due to the multicenter nature of the cohort – numbers are larger than in prior studies. All these factors make the results stronger and more generalizable to the Sjögren’s patients we see in our practices,” she added.

In the study, published May 8 in The Lancet Rheumatology, first author Grégoire Martin de Frémont, MD, of the rheumatology service at Bicêtre Hospital, Paris-Saclay University and colleagues used the GR2 registry, an observational database of pregnancies of women with systemic autoimmune diseases managed at 76 participating centers in France, to identify pregnant women with primary Sjögren’s syndrome. To avoid bias, only women who entered the database before 18 weeks’ gestation were included. The final cohort included 106 pregnancies in 96 women with primary Sjögren’s syndrome and 420 control pregnancies that were matched from the general population.

Adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preterm delivery (< 37 weeks of gestation), intrauterine growth retardation, and low birth weight occurred in nine pregnancies (9%) in the Sjögren’s syndrome group and in 28 pregnancies in the control group (7%). Adverse pregnancy outcomes were not significantly associated with Sjögren’s syndrome (P = .52). Researchers found that there were more adverse pregnancy outcomes among women with Sjögren’s syndrome with antiphospholipid (aPL) antibodies. Negative outcomes also increased among those with anti-RNP antibodies, but this association was not statistically significant.

“The main message – based on strong data from a well-designed study – is that patients with Sjögren’s overall do as well as the general population in terms of standard adverse pregnancy outcomes. The rate of flare of Sjögren’s disease was relatively low during the second and third trimesters, also reassuring,” Dr. Sammaritano said. She noted that the association between adverse pregnancy outcomes and aPL antibodies was not unexpected, given that they are a known risk factor.

The study authors recommend that patients with Sjögren’s syndrome be screened for aPL and anti-RNP antibodies prior to conception because of the potential increased risk for complications and that patients with positive screens be closely monitored during their pregnancy.

Dr. Sammaritano noted that there are other health problems to keep in mind. “It is important to remember that Sjögren’s patients – more than any other rheumatic disease patients – have the additional risk for neonatal lupus and complete heart block in their infant, since about two-thirds of Sjögren’s patients are positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibody,” she said. “This is a distinct issue related to the presence of this antibody alone and not specifically related to the underlying diagnosis. In clinical practice, positive anti-Ro/SSA antibody is often the main reason for counseling, monitoring, and even recommending therapy (hydroxychloroquine) in these patients.”

The study received funding from Lupus France, the France Association of Scleroderma, and the Association Gougerot Sjögren, among others. Dr. Sammaritano reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women with Sjögren’s syndrome have pregnancy outcomes similar to those of the general population, according to the first study to prospectively track pregnancy outcomes among people with the autoimmune condition.

“Most early studies of pregnancy in rheumatic disease patients were retrospective and included only small numbers, making it difficult to know how generalizable the reported results were,” said Lisa Sammaritano, MD, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, in an email interview with this news organization. She was not involved with the research.

Most of these previous studies suggested an increased risk of adverse outcomes, such as miscarriages, preterm deliveries, and small-for-gestational-age birth weight. But in addition to small patient numbers, retrospective studies “are subject to greater reporting bias, which may predispose patients with negative outcomes being more likely to be included because they were followed more closely,” Dr. Sammaritano said.

“This prospective study has several advantages over the earlier retrospective reports: The same data were collected in the same way for all the patients, the patients were recruited at similar time points, and – due to the multicenter nature of the cohort – numbers are larger than in prior studies. All these factors make the results stronger and more generalizable to the Sjögren’s patients we see in our practices,” she added.

In the study, published May 8 in The Lancet Rheumatology, first author Grégoire Martin de Frémont, MD, of the rheumatology service at Bicêtre Hospital, Paris-Saclay University and colleagues used the GR2 registry, an observational database of pregnancies of women with systemic autoimmune diseases managed at 76 participating centers in France, to identify pregnant women with primary Sjögren’s syndrome. To avoid bias, only women who entered the database before 18 weeks’ gestation were included. The final cohort included 106 pregnancies in 96 women with primary Sjögren’s syndrome and 420 control pregnancies that were matched from the general population.

Adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preterm delivery (< 37 weeks of gestation), intrauterine growth retardation, and low birth weight occurred in nine pregnancies (9%) in the Sjögren’s syndrome group and in 28 pregnancies in the control group (7%). Adverse pregnancy outcomes were not significantly associated with Sjögren’s syndrome (P = .52). Researchers found that there were more adverse pregnancy outcomes among women with Sjögren’s syndrome with antiphospholipid (aPL) antibodies. Negative outcomes also increased among those with anti-RNP antibodies, but this association was not statistically significant.

“The main message – based on strong data from a well-designed study – is that patients with Sjögren’s overall do as well as the general population in terms of standard adverse pregnancy outcomes. The rate of flare of Sjögren’s disease was relatively low during the second and third trimesters, also reassuring,” Dr. Sammaritano said. She noted that the association between adverse pregnancy outcomes and aPL antibodies was not unexpected, given that they are a known risk factor.

The study authors recommend that patients with Sjögren’s syndrome be screened for aPL and anti-RNP antibodies prior to conception because of the potential increased risk for complications and that patients with positive screens be closely monitored during their pregnancy.

Dr. Sammaritano noted that there are other health problems to keep in mind. “It is important to remember that Sjögren’s patients – more than any other rheumatic disease patients – have the additional risk for neonatal lupus and complete heart block in their infant, since about two-thirds of Sjögren’s patients are positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibody,” she said. “This is a distinct issue related to the presence of this antibody alone and not specifically related to the underlying diagnosis. In clinical practice, positive anti-Ro/SSA antibody is often the main reason for counseling, monitoring, and even recommending therapy (hydroxychloroquine) in these patients.”

The study received funding from Lupus France, the France Association of Scleroderma, and the Association Gougerot Sjögren, among others. Dr. Sammaritano reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women with Sjögren’s syndrome have pregnancy outcomes similar to those of the general population, according to the first study to prospectively track pregnancy outcomes among people with the autoimmune condition.

“Most early studies of pregnancy in rheumatic disease patients were retrospective and included only small numbers, making it difficult to know how generalizable the reported results were,” said Lisa Sammaritano, MD, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, in an email interview with this news organization. She was not involved with the research.

Most of these previous studies suggested an increased risk of adverse outcomes, such as miscarriages, preterm deliveries, and small-for-gestational-age birth weight. But in addition to small patient numbers, retrospective studies “are subject to greater reporting bias, which may predispose patients with negative outcomes being more likely to be included because they were followed more closely,” Dr. Sammaritano said.

“This prospective study has several advantages over the earlier retrospective reports: The same data were collected in the same way for all the patients, the patients were recruited at similar time points, and – due to the multicenter nature of the cohort – numbers are larger than in prior studies. All these factors make the results stronger and more generalizable to the Sjögren’s patients we see in our practices,” she added.

In the study, published May 8 in The Lancet Rheumatology, first author Grégoire Martin de Frémont, MD, of the rheumatology service at Bicêtre Hospital, Paris-Saclay University and colleagues used the GR2 registry, an observational database of pregnancies of women with systemic autoimmune diseases managed at 76 participating centers in France, to identify pregnant women with primary Sjögren’s syndrome. To avoid bias, only women who entered the database before 18 weeks’ gestation were included. The final cohort included 106 pregnancies in 96 women with primary Sjögren’s syndrome and 420 control pregnancies that were matched from the general population.

Adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preterm delivery (< 37 weeks of gestation), intrauterine growth retardation, and low birth weight occurred in nine pregnancies (9%) in the Sjögren’s syndrome group and in 28 pregnancies in the control group (7%). Adverse pregnancy outcomes were not significantly associated with Sjögren’s syndrome (P = .52). Researchers found that there were more adverse pregnancy outcomes among women with Sjögren’s syndrome with antiphospholipid (aPL) antibodies. Negative outcomes also increased among those with anti-RNP antibodies, but this association was not statistically significant.

“The main message – based on strong data from a well-designed study – is that patients with Sjögren’s overall do as well as the general population in terms of standard adverse pregnancy outcomes. The rate of flare of Sjögren’s disease was relatively low during the second and third trimesters, also reassuring,” Dr. Sammaritano said. She noted that the association between adverse pregnancy outcomes and aPL antibodies was not unexpected, given that they are a known risk factor.

The study authors recommend that patients with Sjögren’s syndrome be screened for aPL and anti-RNP antibodies prior to conception because of the potential increased risk for complications and that patients with positive screens be closely monitored during their pregnancy.

Dr. Sammaritano noted that there are other health problems to keep in mind. “It is important to remember that Sjögren’s patients – more than any other rheumatic disease patients – have the additional risk for neonatal lupus and complete heart block in their infant, since about two-thirds of Sjögren’s patients are positive for anti-Ro/SSA antibody,” she said. “This is a distinct issue related to the presence of this antibody alone and not specifically related to the underlying diagnosis. In clinical practice, positive anti-Ro/SSA antibody is often the main reason for counseling, monitoring, and even recommending therapy (hydroxychloroquine) in these patients.”

The study received funding from Lupus France, the France Association of Scleroderma, and the Association Gougerot Sjögren, among others. Dr. Sammaritano reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – A once-daily, oral dose of the investigational drug cenerimod, developed for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus, has shown a greater response rate among individuals with more severe disease, according to data presented at an international congress on SLE.

Cenerimod is a potent, highly-selective sphingosine 1–phosphate receptor 1 (S1P1) modulator with attenuated calcium signaling, which targets an important signaling molecule in immunity and cell migration, said rheumatologist Sandra Navarra, MD, of the University of Santo Tomas Hospital and St. Luke’s Medical Center in Manila, Philippines.

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – A once-daily, oral dose of the investigational drug cenerimod, developed for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus, has shown a greater response rate among individuals with more severe disease, according to data presented at an international congress on SLE.

Cenerimod is a potent, highly-selective sphingosine 1–phosphate receptor 1 (S1P1) modulator with attenuated calcium signaling, which targets an important signaling molecule in immunity and cell migration, said rheumatologist Sandra Navarra, MD, of the University of Santo Tomas Hospital and St. Luke’s Medical Center in Manila, Philippines.

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – A once-daily, oral dose of the investigational drug cenerimod, developed for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus, has shown a greater response rate among individuals with more severe disease, according to data presented at an international congress on SLE.

Cenerimod is a potent, highly-selective sphingosine 1–phosphate receptor 1 (S1P1) modulator with attenuated calcium signaling, which targets an important signaling molecule in immunity and cell migration, said rheumatologist Sandra Navarra, MD, of the University of Santo Tomas Hospital and St. Luke’s Medical Center in Manila, Philippines.

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – Regular testing of hydroxychloroquine levels in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus – especially those who are experiencing a disease flare – could help to identify patients who are not taking their treatment and are at risk of worse outcomes.

Data presented at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus showed that 7.3% of patients with SLE are severely nonadherent to their medication and have a higher risk of flare, early damage, and mortality.

Rheumatologist Nathalie Costedoat-Chalumeau, MD, PhD, professor of internal medicine at Cochin Hospital, Paris, presented data from 660 patients enrolled in the international longitudinal SLICC Inception Cohort, who had all been on hydroxychloroquine therapy for at least 3 months at baseline.

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

Patients’ serum hydroxychloroquine levels were measured at baseline and follow-up, and severe nonadherence was defined as below 106 ng/mL for those on 400 mg/day or 53 ng/mL for those on 200 mg/day.

Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau said that those thresholds were chosen based on earlier work that analyzed the blood concentration of hydroxychloroquine in a group of patients and identified a group with very low concentrations corresponding to severe nonadherence.

“Since then, it has been reproduced by others with the same threshold,” she said. “When you have very low levels of hydroxychloroquine in their blood, you know that your patients don’t take their treatment.”

In the present study, the 7.3% of patients who met the criteria for severe nonadherence had a significant 3.3-fold higher risk of disease flare within a year of enrollment than did those who were adherent. They also had significantly higher mortality at 5 years after enrollment.

While the study didn’t show a significant difference in the level of damage at 5 years – defined as a worsening of their SLICC damage index – Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau said they saw significantly greater damage occurring at 1, 2, and 3 years after enrollment among those who were severely nonadherent.

The challenge with recognizing these nonadherent patients is that they have no obvious differences at baseline from those who are adherent, Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau said. The rates of nonadherence were similar regardless of what dose the patient was on, their ethnicity, gender, education level, or other demographic variables.

“I believe strongly that there is a benefit of testing hydroxychloroquine levels in the blood or serum to detect severe nonadherence,” she said.

At Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau’s clinic, patients’ hydroxychloroquine levels are tested at every clinic visit, she said in an interview, and especially if they are experiencing a disease flare. “We want to know if the flare is because the patient is not taking the treatment or if it’s because the treatment is not effective, which is very different in terms of management,” she said. She recommended waiting at least 1 month after patients start treatment before measuring their hydroxychloroquine levels.

As to why some patients choose to stop taking their medication, Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau said sometimes it was because patients were worried about side effects, but others were also unclear about why they needed to keep taking hydroxychloroquine.

“They think steroids are effective because when they take it they are better, but they don’t see the effect of hydroxychloroquine,” she said. “You have to explain that it doesn’t work the same.”

Commenting on the findings, session chair Joan Merrill, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, said the data show that severe nonadherence does have prognostic significance. “Many patients with SLE have low-grade disease or inflammation in the blood vessels that may not be clinically apparent and which hydroxychloroquine can help, so it might be wise to routinely get blood levels,” she said.

Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau reported no relevant financial relationships apart from unrestricted institutional research grants from UCB and Roche.

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – Regular testing of hydroxychloroquine levels in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus – especially those who are experiencing a disease flare – could help to identify patients who are not taking their treatment and are at risk of worse outcomes.

Data presented at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus showed that 7.3% of patients with SLE are severely nonadherent to their medication and have a higher risk of flare, early damage, and mortality.

Rheumatologist Nathalie Costedoat-Chalumeau, MD, PhD, professor of internal medicine at Cochin Hospital, Paris, presented data from 660 patients enrolled in the international longitudinal SLICC Inception Cohort, who had all been on hydroxychloroquine therapy for at least 3 months at baseline.

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

Patients’ serum hydroxychloroquine levels were measured at baseline and follow-up, and severe nonadherence was defined as below 106 ng/mL for those on 400 mg/day or 53 ng/mL for those on 200 mg/day.

Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau said that those thresholds were chosen based on earlier work that analyzed the blood concentration of hydroxychloroquine in a group of patients and identified a group with very low concentrations corresponding to severe nonadherence.

“Since then, it has been reproduced by others with the same threshold,” she said. “When you have very low levels of hydroxychloroquine in their blood, you know that your patients don’t take their treatment.”

In the present study, the 7.3% of patients who met the criteria for severe nonadherence had a significant 3.3-fold higher risk of disease flare within a year of enrollment than did those who were adherent. They also had significantly higher mortality at 5 years after enrollment.

While the study didn’t show a significant difference in the level of damage at 5 years – defined as a worsening of their SLICC damage index – Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau said they saw significantly greater damage occurring at 1, 2, and 3 years after enrollment among those who were severely nonadherent.

The challenge with recognizing these nonadherent patients is that they have no obvious differences at baseline from those who are adherent, Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau said. The rates of nonadherence were similar regardless of what dose the patient was on, their ethnicity, gender, education level, or other demographic variables.

“I believe strongly that there is a benefit of testing hydroxychloroquine levels in the blood or serum to detect severe nonadherence,” she said.

At Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau’s clinic, patients’ hydroxychloroquine levels are tested at every clinic visit, she said in an interview, and especially if they are experiencing a disease flare. “We want to know if the flare is because the patient is not taking the treatment or if it’s because the treatment is not effective, which is very different in terms of management,” she said. She recommended waiting at least 1 month after patients start treatment before measuring their hydroxychloroquine levels.

As to why some patients choose to stop taking their medication, Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau said sometimes it was because patients were worried about side effects, but others were also unclear about why they needed to keep taking hydroxychloroquine.

“They think steroids are effective because when they take it they are better, but they don’t see the effect of hydroxychloroquine,” she said. “You have to explain that it doesn’t work the same.”

Commenting on the findings, session chair Joan Merrill, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, said the data show that severe nonadherence does have prognostic significance. “Many patients with SLE have low-grade disease or inflammation in the blood vessels that may not be clinically apparent and which hydroxychloroquine can help, so it might be wise to routinely get blood levels,” she said.

Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau reported no relevant financial relationships apart from unrestricted institutional research grants from UCB and Roche.

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – Regular testing of hydroxychloroquine levels in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus – especially those who are experiencing a disease flare – could help to identify patients who are not taking their treatment and are at risk of worse outcomes.

Data presented at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus showed that 7.3% of patients with SLE are severely nonadherent to their medication and have a higher risk of flare, early damage, and mortality.

Rheumatologist Nathalie Costedoat-Chalumeau, MD, PhD, professor of internal medicine at Cochin Hospital, Paris, presented data from 660 patients enrolled in the international longitudinal SLICC Inception Cohort, who had all been on hydroxychloroquine therapy for at least 3 months at baseline.

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

Patients’ serum hydroxychloroquine levels were measured at baseline and follow-up, and severe nonadherence was defined as below 106 ng/mL for those on 400 mg/day or 53 ng/mL for those on 200 mg/day.

Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau said that those thresholds were chosen based on earlier work that analyzed the blood concentration of hydroxychloroquine in a group of patients and identified a group with very low concentrations corresponding to severe nonadherence.

“Since then, it has been reproduced by others with the same threshold,” she said. “When you have very low levels of hydroxychloroquine in their blood, you know that your patients don’t take their treatment.”

In the present study, the 7.3% of patients who met the criteria for severe nonadherence had a significant 3.3-fold higher risk of disease flare within a year of enrollment than did those who were adherent. They also had significantly higher mortality at 5 years after enrollment.

While the study didn’t show a significant difference in the level of damage at 5 years – defined as a worsening of their SLICC damage index – Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau said they saw significantly greater damage occurring at 1, 2, and 3 years after enrollment among those who were severely nonadherent.

The challenge with recognizing these nonadherent patients is that they have no obvious differences at baseline from those who are adherent, Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau said. The rates of nonadherence were similar regardless of what dose the patient was on, their ethnicity, gender, education level, or other demographic variables.

“I believe strongly that there is a benefit of testing hydroxychloroquine levels in the blood or serum to detect severe nonadherence,” she said.

At Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau’s clinic, patients’ hydroxychloroquine levels are tested at every clinic visit, she said in an interview, and especially if they are experiencing a disease flare. “We want to know if the flare is because the patient is not taking the treatment or if it’s because the treatment is not effective, which is very different in terms of management,” she said. She recommended waiting at least 1 month after patients start treatment before measuring their hydroxychloroquine levels.

As to why some patients choose to stop taking their medication, Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau said sometimes it was because patients were worried about side effects, but others were also unclear about why they needed to keep taking hydroxychloroquine.

“They think steroids are effective because when they take it they are better, but they don’t see the effect of hydroxychloroquine,” she said. “You have to explain that it doesn’t work the same.”

Commenting on the findings, session chair Joan Merrill, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, said the data show that severe nonadherence does have prognostic significance. “Many patients with SLE have low-grade disease or inflammation in the blood vessels that may not be clinically apparent and which hydroxychloroquine can help, so it might be wise to routinely get blood levels,” she said.

Dr. Costedoat-Chalumeau reported no relevant financial relationships apart from unrestricted institutional research grants from UCB and Roche.

A new prospective, observational study from the Lupus Research Alliance (LRA) aims to enroll 3,500 patients in an effort to accelerate the development of personalized treatments for individuals living with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

The LRA on May 23 announced the launch of the Lupus Landmark Study (LLS). The study will be conducted in partnership with Lupus Therapeutics, the clinical research affiliate of the LRA.

The study will be a key feature of the Lupus Nexus, a unique combination of lupus patient registry, biorepository, and portal for data sharing and analysis.

“The aim of the Lupus Nexus is to transform lupus research and drug development through unprecedented information exchange capabilities,” according to the LRA press release.

“SLE is a debilitating autoimmune disease that disproportionately impacts women and people from minority groups, but the cause of lupus is unknown, and no single laboratory test can definitively identify lupus,” lead investigator S. Sam Lim, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, told this news organization.

“Nevertheless, early detection and treatment can often lessen the progression and severity of the disease. Although there are numerous contributing factors to the lag in research discoveries and new treatments for patients with lupus, limited access to standardized, high-quality biological samples and natural history data provides a significant roadblock to advancing lupus research,” Dr. Lim said.

“Existing registry and biorepository resources in the lupus field are largely siloed, mostly limited to relatively small or discrete patient populations, and frequently not designed for broad sharing across all stakeholders of the research community,” Dr. Lim said. The LRA and its affiliate Lupus Therapeutics are committed to developing Lupus Nexus, a first-of-its-kind registry and biorepository, to serve as a collaborative research platform for lupus and a leading source of prospective, longitudinal patient data and biological samples for the research community, Dr. Lim added.

“The Lupus Landmark Study will form the foundation of this registry and biorepository and will provide a critical resource to enable the understanding of lupus heterogeneity at the molecular level,” Dr. Lim said. The molecular data can be linked to clinical phenotypes, he explained, “while providing an opportunity to better understand the holistic experience of patients with lupus, thus helping patients address the daily life challenges they face.”

The Lupus Accelerating Breakthroughs Consortium (Lupus ABC) was announced earlier this spring by the LRA. It represents a collaboration between the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the lupus community to improve and accelerate the development of safer and more effective treatments for people with lupus, Dr. Lim said. “Data and other results from the LLS will inform this collaboration,” he said.

“The LLS will provide greater insight into the pathogenesis and evolution of the condition, providing much needed information and guidance to clinicians so that the disease can be detected and treated earlier and with better precision,” Dr. Lim said. “The partnership with patients will ensure that advances will not only be meaningful to clinicians but their patients and caregivers as well,” he added.

Individuals living with lupus were essential to the development of the Lupus Nexus, and patients will continue to be engaged through participation in the LLS, which will not only generate data to promote patient-centered treatments but will also give participants more insight into their health data, according to the LRA press release.

The clinical coordinating center and biorepository elements of the Lupus Nexus will be managed by Embleema and Azenta Life Sciences, respectively, according the LRA.

Biomarker analysis will be conducted by DxTerity Diagnostics via the company’s proprietary DxCollection MicroCollection Device and Modular Immune Profile platform.

The LLS is scheduled to begin enrolling patients through select academic medical centers in the Lupus Therapeutics Lupus Clinical Investigators Network later in 2023, with an expanded roll-out in 2024, according to the press release. More information about the Lupus Landmark Study is available from Lupus Nexus at [email protected].

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

A new prospective, observational study from the Lupus Research Alliance (LRA) aims to enroll 3,500 patients in an effort to accelerate the development of personalized treatments for individuals living with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

The LRA on May 23 announced the launch of the Lupus Landmark Study (LLS). The study will be conducted in partnership with Lupus Therapeutics, the clinical research affiliate of the LRA.

The study will be a key feature of the Lupus Nexus, a unique combination of lupus patient registry, biorepository, and portal for data sharing and analysis.

“The aim of the Lupus Nexus is to transform lupus research and drug development through unprecedented information exchange capabilities,” according to the LRA press release.

“SLE is a debilitating autoimmune disease that disproportionately impacts women and people from minority groups, but the cause of lupus is unknown, and no single laboratory test can definitively identify lupus,” lead investigator S. Sam Lim, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, told this news organization.

“Nevertheless, early detection and treatment can often lessen the progression and severity of the disease. Although there are numerous contributing factors to the lag in research discoveries and new treatments for patients with lupus, limited access to standardized, high-quality biological samples and natural history data provides a significant roadblock to advancing lupus research,” Dr. Lim said.

“Existing registry and biorepository resources in the lupus field are largely siloed, mostly limited to relatively small or discrete patient populations, and frequently not designed for broad sharing across all stakeholders of the research community,” Dr. Lim said. The LRA and its affiliate Lupus Therapeutics are committed to developing Lupus Nexus, a first-of-its-kind registry and biorepository, to serve as a collaborative research platform for lupus and a leading source of prospective, longitudinal patient data and biological samples for the research community, Dr. Lim added.

“The Lupus Landmark Study will form the foundation of this registry and biorepository and will provide a critical resource to enable the understanding of lupus heterogeneity at the molecular level,” Dr. Lim said. The molecular data can be linked to clinical phenotypes, he explained, “while providing an opportunity to better understand the holistic experience of patients with lupus, thus helping patients address the daily life challenges they face.”

The Lupus Accelerating Breakthroughs Consortium (Lupus ABC) was announced earlier this spring by the LRA. It represents a collaboration between the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the lupus community to improve and accelerate the development of safer and more effective treatments for people with lupus, Dr. Lim said. “Data and other results from the LLS will inform this collaboration,” he said.

“The LLS will provide greater insight into the pathogenesis and evolution of the condition, providing much needed information and guidance to clinicians so that the disease can be detected and treated earlier and with better precision,” Dr. Lim said. “The partnership with patients will ensure that advances will not only be meaningful to clinicians but their patients and caregivers as well,” he added.

Individuals living with lupus were essential to the development of the Lupus Nexus, and patients will continue to be engaged through participation in the LLS, which will not only generate data to promote patient-centered treatments but will also give participants more insight into their health data, according to the LRA press release.

The clinical coordinating center and biorepository elements of the Lupus Nexus will be managed by Embleema and Azenta Life Sciences, respectively, according the LRA.

Biomarker analysis will be conducted by DxTerity Diagnostics via the company’s proprietary DxCollection MicroCollection Device and Modular Immune Profile platform.

The LLS is scheduled to begin enrolling patients through select academic medical centers in the Lupus Therapeutics Lupus Clinical Investigators Network later in 2023, with an expanded roll-out in 2024, according to the press release. More information about the Lupus Landmark Study is available from Lupus Nexus at [email protected].

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

A new prospective, observational study from the Lupus Research Alliance (LRA) aims to enroll 3,500 patients in an effort to accelerate the development of personalized treatments for individuals living with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

The LRA on May 23 announced the launch of the Lupus Landmark Study (LLS). The study will be conducted in partnership with Lupus Therapeutics, the clinical research affiliate of the LRA.

The study will be a key feature of the Lupus Nexus, a unique combination of lupus patient registry, biorepository, and portal for data sharing and analysis.

“The aim of the Lupus Nexus is to transform lupus research and drug development through unprecedented information exchange capabilities,” according to the LRA press release.

“SLE is a debilitating autoimmune disease that disproportionately impacts women and people from minority groups, but the cause of lupus is unknown, and no single laboratory test can definitively identify lupus,” lead investigator S. Sam Lim, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, told this news organization.

“Nevertheless, early detection and treatment can often lessen the progression and severity of the disease. Although there are numerous contributing factors to the lag in research discoveries and new treatments for patients with lupus, limited access to standardized, high-quality biological samples and natural history data provides a significant roadblock to advancing lupus research,” Dr. Lim said.

“Existing registry and biorepository resources in the lupus field are largely siloed, mostly limited to relatively small or discrete patient populations, and frequently not designed for broad sharing across all stakeholders of the research community,” Dr. Lim said. The LRA and its affiliate Lupus Therapeutics are committed to developing Lupus Nexus, a first-of-its-kind registry and biorepository, to serve as a collaborative research platform for lupus and a leading source of prospective, longitudinal patient data and biological samples for the research community, Dr. Lim added.

“The Lupus Landmark Study will form the foundation of this registry and biorepository and will provide a critical resource to enable the understanding of lupus heterogeneity at the molecular level,” Dr. Lim said. The molecular data can be linked to clinical phenotypes, he explained, “while providing an opportunity to better understand the holistic experience of patients with lupus, thus helping patients address the daily life challenges they face.”

The Lupus Accelerating Breakthroughs Consortium (Lupus ABC) was announced earlier this spring by the LRA. It represents a collaboration between the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the lupus community to improve and accelerate the development of safer and more effective treatments for people with lupus, Dr. Lim said. “Data and other results from the LLS will inform this collaboration,” he said.

“The LLS will provide greater insight into the pathogenesis and evolution of the condition, providing much needed information and guidance to clinicians so that the disease can be detected and treated earlier and with better precision,” Dr. Lim said. “The partnership with patients will ensure that advances will not only be meaningful to clinicians but their patients and caregivers as well,” he added.

Individuals living with lupus were essential to the development of the Lupus Nexus, and patients will continue to be engaged through participation in the LLS, which will not only generate data to promote patient-centered treatments but will also give participants more insight into their health data, according to the LRA press release.

The clinical coordinating center and biorepository elements of the Lupus Nexus will be managed by Embleema and Azenta Life Sciences, respectively, according the LRA.

Biomarker analysis will be conducted by DxTerity Diagnostics via the company’s proprietary DxCollection MicroCollection Device and Modular Immune Profile platform.

The LLS is scheduled to begin enrolling patients through select academic medical centers in the Lupus Therapeutics Lupus Clinical Investigators Network later in 2023, with an expanded roll-out in 2024, according to the press release. More information about the Lupus Landmark Study is available from Lupus Nexus at [email protected].

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

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – Nearly 8% of people with lupus nephritis who achieve complete remission of disease within 1 year of starting treatment will still go on to develop advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), according to a presentation at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus.

Rheumatologist Dafna Gladman, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and codirector of the Lupus Clinic at Toronto Western Hospital, showed data from the Lupus Clinic’s prospective longitudinal cohort study in 273 patients with confirmed lupus nephritis who achieved complete remission within 12 months of baseline.

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

Remission was defined as less than 0.5 g proteinuria over 24 hours, inactive urinary sediment, and serum creatinine less than 120% of baseline.

Of this group, 21 (7.7%) progressed to advanced CKD during follow-up, which ranged from 0.7 to 31.7 years with a median of 5.8 years, after enrollment.

Patients who had experienced at least one flare during their first 5 years were around 4.5 times more likely to progress to advanced CKD than were those who did not experience a flare.

While the study excluded patients who already had advanced CKD, the analysis found those with evidence of impaired kidney function at baseline also had more than a fourfold higher risk of developing advanced CKD.

Other significant risk factors for progression were having low complement C3 levels at baseline and having had a longer duration of disease before enrollment.

“Those patients already have abnormal renal function, so the message is that patients who are already in trouble, you’ve got to watch them very carefully,” Dr. Gladman said in an interview.

The study also looked at whether there was a difference between patients who developed advanced CKD earlier – before the median of 5.8 years – or later. While the numbers were small, Dr. Gladman said patients who progressed earlier tended to be older and were more likely to be on antihypertensive treatment and have lower estimated glomerular filtration rate and a lower Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index–2K, compared with those who progressed later. Some patients also were noncompliant and/or experienced concomitant infections; four had moderate to severe interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy.

“We conclude that such patients should be monitored closely despite early remission, and we also highlight the importance of maintenance therapy, which should be communicated to the patients to prevent noncompliance and subsequent flare,” Dr. Gladman told the conference.

Dr. Gladman said her clinic told patients from the very beginning of their treatment that they would need to be seen at 2- to 6-month intervals, regardless of how well their disease was doing.

Commenting on the presentation, rheumatologist Mandana Nikpour MD, PhD, of St. Vincent’s Hospital in Melbourne, said the findings showed the importance of keeping a close eye on patients with lupus nephritis, even if their disease appears to be in remission.

“If you’ve had nephritis, and you go into remission, you may already have a degree of damage in your kidneys,” said Dr. Nikpour, also from the University of Melbourne. “If there’s a degree of uncontrolled hypertension, or if a patient is noncompliant with their treatment, and there’s a degree of grumbling disease activity, that can all conspire and add up to result in long-term kidney damage and loss of renal function.”

Dr. Gladman has received grants or research support from, or has consulted for, Amgen, AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Galapagos, and Gilead.

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – Nearly 8% of people with lupus nephritis who achieve complete remission of disease within 1 year of starting treatment will still go on to develop advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), according to a presentation at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus.

Rheumatologist Dafna Gladman, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and codirector of the Lupus Clinic at Toronto Western Hospital, showed data from the Lupus Clinic’s prospective longitudinal cohort study in 273 patients with confirmed lupus nephritis who achieved complete remission within 12 months of baseline.

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

Remission was defined as less than 0.5 g proteinuria over 24 hours, inactive urinary sediment, and serum creatinine less than 120% of baseline.

Of this group, 21 (7.7%) progressed to advanced CKD during follow-up, which ranged from 0.7 to 31.7 years with a median of 5.8 years, after enrollment.

Patients who had experienced at least one flare during their first 5 years were around 4.5 times more likely to progress to advanced CKD than were those who did not experience a flare.

While the study excluded patients who already had advanced CKD, the analysis found those with evidence of impaired kidney function at baseline also had more than a fourfold higher risk of developing advanced CKD.

Other significant risk factors for progression were having low complement C3 levels at baseline and having had a longer duration of disease before enrollment.

“Those patients already have abnormal renal function, so the message is that patients who are already in trouble, you’ve got to watch them very carefully,” Dr. Gladman said in an interview.

The study also looked at whether there was a difference between patients who developed advanced CKD earlier – before the median of 5.8 years – or later. While the numbers were small, Dr. Gladman said patients who progressed earlier tended to be older and were more likely to be on antihypertensive treatment and have lower estimated glomerular filtration rate and a lower Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index–2K, compared with those who progressed later. Some patients also were noncompliant and/or experienced concomitant infections; four had moderate to severe interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy.

“We conclude that such patients should be monitored closely despite early remission, and we also highlight the importance of maintenance therapy, which should be communicated to the patients to prevent noncompliance and subsequent flare,” Dr. Gladman told the conference.

Dr. Gladman said her clinic told patients from the very beginning of their treatment that they would need to be seen at 2- to 6-month intervals, regardless of how well their disease was doing.

Commenting on the presentation, rheumatologist Mandana Nikpour MD, PhD, of St. Vincent’s Hospital in Melbourne, said the findings showed the importance of keeping a close eye on patients with lupus nephritis, even if their disease appears to be in remission.

“If you’ve had nephritis, and you go into remission, you may already have a degree of damage in your kidneys,” said Dr. Nikpour, also from the University of Melbourne. “If there’s a degree of uncontrolled hypertension, or if a patient is noncompliant with their treatment, and there’s a degree of grumbling disease activity, that can all conspire and add up to result in long-term kidney damage and loss of renal function.”

Dr. Gladman has received grants or research support from, or has consulted for, Amgen, AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Galapagos, and Gilead.

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – Nearly 8% of people with lupus nephritis who achieve complete remission of disease within 1 year of starting treatment will still go on to develop advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), according to a presentation at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus.

Rheumatologist Dafna Gladman, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and codirector of the Lupus Clinic at Toronto Western Hospital, showed data from the Lupus Clinic’s prospective longitudinal cohort study in 273 patients with confirmed lupus nephritis who achieved complete remission within 12 months of baseline.

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

Remission was defined as less than 0.5 g proteinuria over 24 hours, inactive urinary sediment, and serum creatinine less than 120% of baseline.

Of this group, 21 (7.7%) progressed to advanced CKD during follow-up, which ranged from 0.7 to 31.7 years with a median of 5.8 years, after enrollment.

Patients who had experienced at least one flare during their first 5 years were around 4.5 times more likely to progress to advanced CKD than were those who did not experience a flare.

While the study excluded patients who already had advanced CKD, the analysis found those with evidence of impaired kidney function at baseline also had more than a fourfold higher risk of developing advanced CKD.

Other significant risk factors for progression were having low complement C3 levels at baseline and having had a longer duration of disease before enrollment.

“Those patients already have abnormal renal function, so the message is that patients who are already in trouble, you’ve got to watch them very carefully,” Dr. Gladman said in an interview.

The study also looked at whether there was a difference between patients who developed advanced CKD earlier – before the median of 5.8 years – or later. While the numbers were small, Dr. Gladman said patients who progressed earlier tended to be older and were more likely to be on antihypertensive treatment and have lower estimated glomerular filtration rate and a lower Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index–2K, compared with those who progressed later. Some patients also were noncompliant and/or experienced concomitant infections; four had moderate to severe interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy.

“We conclude that such patients should be monitored closely despite early remission, and we also highlight the importance of maintenance therapy, which should be communicated to the patients to prevent noncompliance and subsequent flare,” Dr. Gladman told the conference.

Dr. Gladman said her clinic told patients from the very beginning of their treatment that they would need to be seen at 2- to 6-month intervals, regardless of how well their disease was doing.

Commenting on the presentation, rheumatologist Mandana Nikpour MD, PhD, of St. Vincent’s Hospital in Melbourne, said the findings showed the importance of keeping a close eye on patients with lupus nephritis, even if their disease appears to be in remission.

“If you’ve had nephritis, and you go into remission, you may already have a degree of damage in your kidneys,” said Dr. Nikpour, also from the University of Melbourne. “If there’s a degree of uncontrolled hypertension, or if a patient is noncompliant with their treatment, and there’s a degree of grumbling disease activity, that can all conspire and add up to result in long-term kidney damage and loss of renal function.”

Dr. Gladman has received grants or research support from, or has consulted for, Amgen, AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Galapagos, and Gilead.

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – A panel of urinary biomarkers may do better than measuring proteinuria in predicting which patients with lupus nephritis are going to respond to treatment, according to a presentation at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus.

Physician-scientist Andrea Fava, MD, of the division of rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, presented data from a study using urine proteomics to identify biomarkers present in the urine of patients with lupus nephritis at 3 months after starting treatment that were linked to better outcomes from that treatment at 1 year.

While proteinuria is the standard measure used to guide decisions about whether to do a kidney biopsy and how to treat lupus nephritis, it doesn’t always correlate with what’s actually going on inside the kidney in terms of histology and inflammation, Dr. Fava said.

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

He pointed to an earlier study in which researchers did kidney biopsies 6 months after patients with lupus nephritis started treatment with mycophenolate. This suggested that around half of patients who showed a clinical response to treatment – defined as proteinuria below 500 mg/day – still had significant histologic disease activity. Another study suggested that this elevated histologic disease activity is associated with a risk of flare, which can result in significant nephron loss. On the flip side, nearly two-thirds of patients in complete histologic remission still had elevated proteinuria.

Unfortunately, it’s not possible or practical to biopsy patients on a regular basis, Dr. Fava said. “So we need better biomarkers, and to do so, we need better knowledge of the pathophysiology because if we have biomarkers that reflect tissue biology in real-time, that may surely guide personalized treatments,” he said at the congress.

Dr. Fava and colleagues enrolled 225 patients with SLE who were undergoing kidney biopsy and 10 healthy controls and used proteomics to quantify the urinary levels of around 1,200 proteins at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months after initiating treatment.

The team then analyzed these data to look for protein signatures that correlated with histologic phenotypes – particularly the amount of inflammation in the kidney – and clinical features such as response to treatment.

They found several protein biomarkers that appeared to be linked to histologic activity in the kidney, including interleukin (IL)-16, CD163, and neutrophil granule proteins.

Initially, the team looked at baseline levels of these proteins to see if they predicted who responded to treatment, but found no difference between responders and nonresponders.

However, when they looked at levels at 3 months after treatment, a pattern emerged. “We found that in patients who were not responding, there were no changes after 3 months of treatment in the urine proteome,” Dr. Fava said. Among those who did respond to treatment, the levels of these proteins – IL-16, CD163, galectin-1, and CD206 – decreased significantly.

“So the proteins that are linked to renal activity decrease only in responders, suggesting that effective immunosuppression is effective in reducing intrarenal inflammation, which eventually results in low proteinuria at 1 year.”

The decline in these biomarkers persisted at 1 year, and the study suggested it was a better predictor of which patients would respond to treatment at 1 year than proteinuria.

Dr. Fava said in an interview that better biomarkers could revolutionize the treatment and management of lupus nephritis.

“First of all, it can shift the management strategy from treatment to prevention, because at the very beginning we can nip it in the bud maybe with very gentle treatment,” he said. Different panels of urine biomarkers could identify patients at risk of treatment failure, and also help patients to taper off their immunosuppressive therapy without an increased risk of flare. “If we have a way to tell us there’s still inflammation that needs treatment, that could change the way we do it,” he said.

He acknowledged there are significant challenges to developing these biomarkers for clinical use; one is the decision of how to define disease activity without relying on proteinuria as a measure. “Why do I want a biomarker that can predict another biomarker?” he said.

Another presentation during the same session, by Huihua Ding, MD, of Shanghai Jiao Tong University in Shanghai, China, reported on the use of urinary L-selectin to assess renal disease activity and response to treatment in a multiethnic cohort.

This study, involving 474 patients with SLE with or without renal involvement in the United States and China, found levels of urinary L-selectin were elevated only in patients with active lupus nephritis and showed patterns that correlated with renal histologic characteristics.

Clinical rheumatologist Eric F. Morand, MD, PhD, and head of the School of Clinical Sciences at Monash University in Melbourne said one challenge with using urinary biomarkers was that it was not yet clear what these biomarkers reveal about the kidney. “It will be important to see whether this proteomic data actually link to renal outcomes,” Dr. Morand said in an interview. “I think predicting the response to treatment should be based around GFR [glomerular filtration rate] preservation, and I don’t think I’ve seen data yet that the urine biomarkers are going to tell us how to do that better.”

Dr. Morand is optimistic that urine biomarkers will one day be able to achieve that, but he stressed the importance of having urine biomarker tests available in the field at low cost. “You’re going to be doing the tests repeatedly, so therefore, you’re probably going to need to come down to a smaller list of proteins that you measure.”

Dr. Fava reported receiving support from Sanofi and Annexion Bio.

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – A panel of urinary biomarkers may do better than measuring proteinuria in predicting which patients with lupus nephritis are going to respond to treatment, according to a presentation at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus.

Physician-scientist Andrea Fava, MD, of the division of rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, presented data from a study using urine proteomics to identify biomarkers present in the urine of patients with lupus nephritis at 3 months after starting treatment that were linked to better outcomes from that treatment at 1 year.

While proteinuria is the standard measure used to guide decisions about whether to do a kidney biopsy and how to treat lupus nephritis, it doesn’t always correlate with what’s actually going on inside the kidney in terms of histology and inflammation, Dr. Fava said.

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

He pointed to an earlier study in which researchers did kidney biopsies 6 months after patients with lupus nephritis started treatment with mycophenolate. This suggested that around half of patients who showed a clinical response to treatment – defined as proteinuria below 500 mg/day – still had significant histologic disease activity. Another study suggested that this elevated histologic disease activity is associated with a risk of flare, which can result in significant nephron loss. On the flip side, nearly two-thirds of patients in complete histologic remission still had elevated proteinuria.

Unfortunately, it’s not possible or practical to biopsy patients on a regular basis, Dr. Fava said. “So we need better biomarkers, and to do so, we need better knowledge of the pathophysiology because if we have biomarkers that reflect tissue biology in real-time, that may surely guide personalized treatments,” he said at the congress.

Dr. Fava and colleagues enrolled 225 patients with SLE who were undergoing kidney biopsy and 10 healthy controls and used proteomics to quantify the urinary levels of around 1,200 proteins at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months after initiating treatment.

The team then analyzed these data to look for protein signatures that correlated with histologic phenotypes – particularly the amount of inflammation in the kidney – and clinical features such as response to treatment.

They found several protein biomarkers that appeared to be linked to histologic activity in the kidney, including interleukin (IL)-16, CD163, and neutrophil granule proteins.

Initially, the team looked at baseline levels of these proteins to see if they predicted who responded to treatment, but found no difference between responders and nonresponders.

However, when they looked at levels at 3 months after treatment, a pattern emerged. “We found that in patients who were not responding, there were no changes after 3 months of treatment in the urine proteome,” Dr. Fava said. Among those who did respond to treatment, the levels of these proteins – IL-16, CD163, galectin-1, and CD206 – decreased significantly.

“So the proteins that are linked to renal activity decrease only in responders, suggesting that effective immunosuppression is effective in reducing intrarenal inflammation, which eventually results in low proteinuria at 1 year.”

The decline in these biomarkers persisted at 1 year, and the study suggested it was a better predictor of which patients would respond to treatment at 1 year than proteinuria.

Dr. Fava said in an interview that better biomarkers could revolutionize the treatment and management of lupus nephritis.

“First of all, it can shift the management strategy from treatment to prevention, because at the very beginning we can nip it in the bud maybe with very gentle treatment,” he said. Different panels of urine biomarkers could identify patients at risk of treatment failure, and also help patients to taper off their immunosuppressive therapy without an increased risk of flare. “If we have a way to tell us there’s still inflammation that needs treatment, that could change the way we do it,” he said.

He acknowledged there are significant challenges to developing these biomarkers for clinical use; one is the decision of how to define disease activity without relying on proteinuria as a measure. “Why do I want a biomarker that can predict another biomarker?” he said.

Another presentation during the same session, by Huihua Ding, MD, of Shanghai Jiao Tong University in Shanghai, China, reported on the use of urinary L-selectin to assess renal disease activity and response to treatment in a multiethnic cohort.

This study, involving 474 patients with SLE with or without renal involvement in the United States and China, found levels of urinary L-selectin were elevated only in patients with active lupus nephritis and showed patterns that correlated with renal histologic characteristics.

Clinical rheumatologist Eric F. Morand, MD, PhD, and head of the School of Clinical Sciences at Monash University in Melbourne said one challenge with using urinary biomarkers was that it was not yet clear what these biomarkers reveal about the kidney. “It will be important to see whether this proteomic data actually link to renal outcomes,” Dr. Morand said in an interview. “I think predicting the response to treatment should be based around GFR [glomerular filtration rate] preservation, and I don’t think I’ve seen data yet that the urine biomarkers are going to tell us how to do that better.”

Dr. Morand is optimistic that urine biomarkers will one day be able to achieve that, but he stressed the importance of having urine biomarker tests available in the field at low cost. “You’re going to be doing the tests repeatedly, so therefore, you’re probably going to need to come down to a smaller list of proteins that you measure.”

Dr. Fava reported receiving support from Sanofi and Annexion Bio.

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – A panel of urinary biomarkers may do better than measuring proteinuria in predicting which patients with lupus nephritis are going to respond to treatment, according to a presentation at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus.

Physician-scientist Andrea Fava, MD, of the division of rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, presented data from a study using urine proteomics to identify biomarkers present in the urine of patients with lupus nephritis at 3 months after starting treatment that were linked to better outcomes from that treatment at 1 year.

While proteinuria is the standard measure used to guide decisions about whether to do a kidney biopsy and how to treat lupus nephritis, it doesn’t always correlate with what’s actually going on inside the kidney in terms of histology and inflammation, Dr. Fava said.

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

He pointed to an earlier study in which researchers did kidney biopsies 6 months after patients with lupus nephritis started treatment with mycophenolate. This suggested that around half of patients who showed a clinical response to treatment – defined as proteinuria below 500 mg/day – still had significant histologic disease activity. Another study suggested that this elevated histologic disease activity is associated with a risk of flare, which can result in significant nephron loss. On the flip side, nearly two-thirds of patients in complete histologic remission still had elevated proteinuria.

Unfortunately, it’s not possible or practical to biopsy patients on a regular basis, Dr. Fava said. “So we need better biomarkers, and to do so, we need better knowledge of the pathophysiology because if we have biomarkers that reflect tissue biology in real-time, that may surely guide personalized treatments,” he said at the congress.

Dr. Fava and colleagues enrolled 225 patients with SLE who were undergoing kidney biopsy and 10 healthy controls and used proteomics to quantify the urinary levels of around 1,200 proteins at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months after initiating treatment.

The team then analyzed these data to look for protein signatures that correlated with histologic phenotypes – particularly the amount of inflammation in the kidney – and clinical features such as response to treatment.

They found several protein biomarkers that appeared to be linked to histologic activity in the kidney, including interleukin (IL)-16, CD163, and neutrophil granule proteins.

Initially, the team looked at baseline levels of these proteins to see if they predicted who responded to treatment, but found no difference between responders and nonresponders.

However, when they looked at levels at 3 months after treatment, a pattern emerged. “We found that in patients who were not responding, there were no changes after 3 months of treatment in the urine proteome,” Dr. Fava said. Among those who did respond to treatment, the levels of these proteins – IL-16, CD163, galectin-1, and CD206 – decreased significantly.

“So the proteins that are linked to renal activity decrease only in responders, suggesting that effective immunosuppression is effective in reducing intrarenal inflammation, which eventually results in low proteinuria at 1 year.”

The decline in these biomarkers persisted at 1 year, and the study suggested it was a better predictor of which patients would respond to treatment at 1 year than proteinuria.

Dr. Fava said in an interview that better biomarkers could revolutionize the treatment and management of lupus nephritis.

“First of all, it can shift the management strategy from treatment to prevention, because at the very beginning we can nip it in the bud maybe with very gentle treatment,” he said. Different panels of urine biomarkers could identify patients at risk of treatment failure, and also help patients to taper off their immunosuppressive therapy without an increased risk of flare. “If we have a way to tell us there’s still inflammation that needs treatment, that could change the way we do it,” he said.

He acknowledged there are significant challenges to developing these biomarkers for clinical use; one is the decision of how to define disease activity without relying on proteinuria as a measure. “Why do I want a biomarker that can predict another biomarker?” he said.

Another presentation during the same session, by Huihua Ding, MD, of Shanghai Jiao Tong University in Shanghai, China, reported on the use of urinary L-selectin to assess renal disease activity and response to treatment in a multiethnic cohort.

This study, involving 474 patients with SLE with or without renal involvement in the United States and China, found levels of urinary L-selectin were elevated only in patients with active lupus nephritis and showed patterns that correlated with renal histologic characteristics.

Clinical rheumatologist Eric F. Morand, MD, PhD, and head of the School of Clinical Sciences at Monash University in Melbourne said one challenge with using urinary biomarkers was that it was not yet clear what these biomarkers reveal about the kidney. “It will be important to see whether this proteomic data actually link to renal outcomes,” Dr. Morand said in an interview. “I think predicting the response to treatment should be based around GFR [glomerular filtration rate] preservation, and I don’t think I’ve seen data yet that the urine biomarkers are going to tell us how to do that better.”

Dr. Morand is optimistic that urine biomarkers will one day be able to achieve that, but he stressed the importance of having urine biomarker tests available in the field at low cost. “You’re going to be doing the tests repeatedly, so therefore, you’re probably going to need to come down to a smaller list of proteins that you measure.”

Dr. Fava reported receiving support from Sanofi and Annexion Bio.

Adults with cutaneous vasculitis experience a significantly diminished quality of life across physical, symptom, and emotional domains, and its measurement with an organ-specific instrument may catch important disease outcomes better than a generic health-related quality of life index, according to survey responses from participants in the Vasculitis Patient-Powered Research Network (VPPRN).

Although cutaneous vasculitis often causes itching, pain, and ulceration, the impact of the disease on specific health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes has not been systematically assessed, wrote Sarah Mann, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.

In a study published in JAMA Dermatology, the researchers used the VPPRN to conduct an online survey of adults aged 18 years and older with cutaneous manifestations of vasculitis. The survey was conducted between January 2020 and August 2021.

The primary outcomes of HRQOL were determined using two validated measures. One measured skin-related HRQOL (the Effects of Skin Disease on Quality-of-Life Survey [Skindex-29]), and the other measured general health and well-being (36-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-36]).

The final analysis included 190 survey responses. The mean age of the respondents was 50.5 years, 84.1% were female, and approximately two-thirds reported a duration of vasculitis of at least 5 years. Respondents’ vasculitides included cutaneous small-vessel vasculitis (14%), IgA vasculitis (6.5%), urticarial vasculitis (8.4%), granulomatosis with polyangiitis (17.6%), microscopic polyangiitis (10.3%), eosinophilic vasculitis (15%), polyarteritis nodosa (3.7%), and other vasculitis types (24.2%).

On the Skindex-29 domains, severely or very severely diminished HRQOL was reported by 77.6% of respondents for emotions, 78.5% for symptoms, 60.7% for functioning, and 75.7% for overall HRQOL.

On the SF-36, the HRQOL was below average on six of eight domains, and approximately half of the patients had summative physical component scores (56%) and mental component scores (52%) below 50.

The HRQOL outcomes of cutaneous vasculitis were worse on the Skindex-29 than the SF-36, the researchers noted. “This discordance may reflect the value of disease or organ-specific measures, which may be able to capture important outcomes of disease even when generic measures do not,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the potential lack of generalizability to broader populations of vasculitis patients, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the underrepresentation of male patients and the lack of a disease-specific patient-reported outcome measure, they said.

In addition, “Because half of patients reported having disease which was in remission or mildly active, the study findings may underestimate the true role of active cutaneous vasculitis on HRQOL,” the researchers said.

More studies are needed to assess how HRQOL measures respond to disease treatment and control, the researchers wrote in their discussion. However, the results suggest that cutaneous vasculitis has a significant effect on patients’ perception of their health, as well as on their well-being and symptoms, they said.

The study was supported by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Mann had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple companies, including GlaxoSmithKline.

Adults with cutaneous vasculitis experience a significantly diminished quality of life across physical, symptom, and emotional domains, and its measurement with an organ-specific instrument may catch important disease outcomes better than a generic health-related quality of life index, according to survey responses from participants in the Vasculitis Patient-Powered Research Network (VPPRN).

Although cutaneous vasculitis often causes itching, pain, and ulceration, the impact of the disease on specific health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes has not been systematically assessed, wrote Sarah Mann, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.

In a study published in JAMA Dermatology, the researchers used the VPPRN to conduct an online survey of adults aged 18 years and older with cutaneous manifestations of vasculitis. The survey was conducted between January 2020 and August 2021.

The primary outcomes of HRQOL were determined using two validated measures. One measured skin-related HRQOL (the Effects of Skin Disease on Quality-of-Life Survey [Skindex-29]), and the other measured general health and well-being (36-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-36]).

The final analysis included 190 survey responses. The mean age of the respondents was 50.5 years, 84.1% were female, and approximately two-thirds reported a duration of vasculitis of at least 5 years. Respondents’ vasculitides included cutaneous small-vessel vasculitis (14%), IgA vasculitis (6.5%), urticarial vasculitis (8.4%), granulomatosis with polyangiitis (17.6%), microscopic polyangiitis (10.3%), eosinophilic vasculitis (15%), polyarteritis nodosa (3.7%), and other vasculitis types (24.2%).

On the Skindex-29 domains, severely or very severely diminished HRQOL was reported by 77.6% of respondents for emotions, 78.5% for symptoms, 60.7% for functioning, and 75.7% for overall HRQOL.

On the SF-36, the HRQOL was below average on six of eight domains, and approximately half of the patients had summative physical component scores (56%) and mental component scores (52%) below 50.

The HRQOL outcomes of cutaneous vasculitis were worse on the Skindex-29 than the SF-36, the researchers noted. “This discordance may reflect the value of disease or organ-specific measures, which may be able to capture important outcomes of disease even when generic measures do not,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the potential lack of generalizability to broader populations of vasculitis patients, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the underrepresentation of male patients and the lack of a disease-specific patient-reported outcome measure, they said.

In addition, “Because half of patients reported having disease which was in remission or mildly active, the study findings may underestimate the true role of active cutaneous vasculitis on HRQOL,” the researchers said.

More studies are needed to assess how HRQOL measures respond to disease treatment and control, the researchers wrote in their discussion. However, the results suggest that cutaneous vasculitis has a significant effect on patients’ perception of their health, as well as on their well-being and symptoms, they said.

The study was supported by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Mann had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple companies, including GlaxoSmithKline.

Adults with cutaneous vasculitis experience a significantly diminished quality of life across physical, symptom, and emotional domains, and its measurement with an organ-specific instrument may catch important disease outcomes better than a generic health-related quality of life index, according to survey responses from participants in the Vasculitis Patient-Powered Research Network (VPPRN).

Although cutaneous vasculitis often causes itching, pain, and ulceration, the impact of the disease on specific health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes has not been systematically assessed, wrote Sarah Mann, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.

In a study published in JAMA Dermatology, the researchers used the VPPRN to conduct an online survey of adults aged 18 years and older with cutaneous manifestations of vasculitis. The survey was conducted between January 2020 and August 2021.

The primary outcomes of HRQOL were determined using two validated measures. One measured skin-related HRQOL (the Effects of Skin Disease on Quality-of-Life Survey [Skindex-29]), and the other measured general health and well-being (36-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-36]).

The final analysis included 190 survey responses. The mean age of the respondents was 50.5 years, 84.1% were female, and approximately two-thirds reported a duration of vasculitis of at least 5 years. Respondents’ vasculitides included cutaneous small-vessel vasculitis (14%), IgA vasculitis (6.5%), urticarial vasculitis (8.4%), granulomatosis with polyangiitis (17.6%), microscopic polyangiitis (10.3%), eosinophilic vasculitis (15%), polyarteritis nodosa (3.7%), and other vasculitis types (24.2%).

On the Skindex-29 domains, severely or very severely diminished HRQOL was reported by 77.6% of respondents for emotions, 78.5% for symptoms, 60.7% for functioning, and 75.7% for overall HRQOL.

On the SF-36, the HRQOL was below average on six of eight domains, and approximately half of the patients had summative physical component scores (56%) and mental component scores (52%) below 50.

The HRQOL outcomes of cutaneous vasculitis were worse on the Skindex-29 than the SF-36, the researchers noted. “This discordance may reflect the value of disease or organ-specific measures, which may be able to capture important outcomes of disease even when generic measures do not,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the potential lack of generalizability to broader populations of vasculitis patients, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the underrepresentation of male patients and the lack of a disease-specific patient-reported outcome measure, they said.

In addition, “Because half of patients reported having disease which was in remission or mildly active, the study findings may underestimate the true role of active cutaneous vasculitis on HRQOL,” the researchers said.

More studies are needed to assess how HRQOL measures respond to disease treatment and control, the researchers wrote in their discussion. However, the results suggest that cutaneous vasculitis has a significant effect on patients’ perception of their health, as well as on their well-being and symptoms, they said.

The study was supported by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Mann had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple companies, including GlaxoSmithKline.

Use of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) had no apparent effect on the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in adults with dermatomyositis (DM), based on data from more than 400 individuals.

DM has been associated with an increased risk of VTE in previous studies, wrote Elizabeth T. Rotrosen, of Boston University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues. Although IVIG is often effective for DM patients with recalcitrant disease, it carries a boxed warning for increased thrombosis risk; however, the association between IVIG use and VTE risk in DM has not been well examined, the researchers said.

In a study published in JAMA Dermatology, the researchers identified 458 adults with DM based on the European Alliance of Associations for Reumatology/American College of Rheumatology criteria. The mean age of the participants was 51.8 years, 76% were female, and 82% were White. Of these, 178 were treated with IVIG and 280 were not. The mean duration of IVIG treatment was 32.9 months. The researchers used the chi square test to test for independence between binary variables, the Pearson chi square test to test for independence between categorical variables, and the unpaired t test to compare continuous variables in their statistical analysis.

A total of 23 patients experienced DM-associated VTEs; 6 in the IVIG group and 17 in the non-IVIG group (3.4% vs. 5.7%, P = .20), a nonsignificant difference. The patients in the IVIG group who experienced a DM-associated VTE all underwent IVIG treatment within 4 weeks before the event.

bong hyunjung/iStock/Getty Images

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective design and small number of VTEs. Prospective studies are needed for better assessment of the VTE risk in patients with DM treated with IVIG, the researchers noted. However, the study is the largest known to explore the association between IVIG use and VTE risk in patients with DM, they said, and the results suggest that clinicians may continue IVIG use in these patients with considerations of risks and benefits on an individual basis.

The study received no outside funding. Ms. Rotrosen had no financial conflicts to disclose. Two coauthors reported financial relationships with Pfizer unrelated to this study.

Use of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) had no apparent effect on the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in adults with dermatomyositis (DM), based on data from more than 400 individuals.

DM has been associated with an increased risk of VTE in previous studies, wrote Elizabeth T. Rotrosen, of Boston University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues. Although IVIG is often effective for DM patients with recalcitrant disease, it carries a boxed warning for increased thrombosis risk; however, the association between IVIG use and VTE risk in DM has not been well examined, the researchers said.

In a study published in JAMA Dermatology, the researchers identified 458 adults with DM based on the European Alliance of Associations for Reumatology/American College of Rheumatology criteria. The mean age of the participants was 51.8 years, 76% were female, and 82% were White. Of these, 178 were treated with IVIG and 280 were not. The mean duration of IVIG treatment was 32.9 months. The researchers used the chi square test to test for independence between binary variables, the Pearson chi square test to test for independence between categorical variables, and the unpaired t test to compare continuous variables in their statistical analysis.

A total of 23 patients experienced DM-associated VTEs; 6 in the IVIG group and 17 in the non-IVIG group (3.4% vs. 5.7%, P = .20), a nonsignificant difference. The patients in the IVIG group who experienced a DM-associated VTE all underwent IVIG treatment within 4 weeks before the event.

bong hyunjung/iStock/Getty Images

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective design and small number of VTEs. Prospective studies are needed for better assessment of the VTE risk in patients with DM treated with IVIG, the researchers noted. However, the study is the largest known to explore the association between IVIG use and VTE risk in patients with DM, they said, and the results suggest that clinicians may continue IVIG use in these patients with considerations of risks and benefits on an individual basis.

The study received no outside funding. Ms. Rotrosen had no financial conflicts to disclose. Two coauthors reported financial relationships with Pfizer unrelated to this study.

Use of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) had no apparent effect on the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in adults with dermatomyositis (DM), based on data from more than 400 individuals.

DM has been associated with an increased risk of VTE in previous studies, wrote Elizabeth T. Rotrosen, of Boston University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues. Although IVIG is often effective for DM patients with recalcitrant disease, it carries a boxed warning for increased thrombosis risk; however, the association between IVIG use and VTE risk in DM has not been well examined, the researchers said.

In a study published in JAMA Dermatology, the researchers identified 458 adults with DM based on the European Alliance of Associations for Reumatology/American College of Rheumatology criteria. The mean age of the participants was 51.8 years, 76% were female, and 82% were White. Of these, 178 were treated with IVIG and 280 were not. The mean duration of IVIG treatment was 32.9 months. The researchers used the chi square test to test for independence between binary variables, the Pearson chi square test to test for independence between categorical variables, and the unpaired t test to compare continuous variables in their statistical analysis.

A total of 23 patients experienced DM-associated VTEs; 6 in the IVIG group and 17 in the non-IVIG group (3.4% vs. 5.7%, P = .20), a nonsignificant difference. The patients in the IVIG group who experienced a DM-associated VTE all underwent IVIG treatment within 4 weeks before the event.

bong hyunjung/iStock/Getty Images

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective design and small number of VTEs. Prospective studies are needed for better assessment of the VTE risk in patients with DM treated with IVIG, the researchers noted. However, the study is the largest known to explore the association between IVIG use and VTE risk in patients with DM, they said, and the results suggest that clinicians may continue IVIG use in these patients with considerations of risks and benefits on an individual basis.

The study received no outside funding. Ms. Rotrosen had no financial conflicts to disclose. Two coauthors reported financial relationships with Pfizer unrelated to this study.