Lupus & Connective Tissue Diseases

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – An age-appropriate version of the Lupus Low Disease Activity State (LLDAS) has been developed by an international task force that will hopefully enable childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus (cSLE) to be treated to target in the near future.

The new childhood LLDAS (cLLDAS) has been purposefully developed to align with that already used for adults, Eve Smith, MBChB, PhD, explained at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

“There’s a lot of compelling data that’s accumulating from adult lupus and increasingly from childhood lupus that [treat to target] might be a good idea,” said Dr. Smith, who is a senior clinical fellow and honorary consultant at the University of Liverpool (England) and Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust Hospital, also in Liverpool.
 

Urgent need to improve childhood lupus outcomes

“We urgently need to do something to try and improve outcomes for children,” Dr. Smith said.

“We know that childhood lupus patients have got higher disease activity as compared to adults; they have a greater medication burden, particularly steroids; and they tend to have more severe organ manifestations,” she added.

Moreover, data show that one-fifth of pediatric patients with lupus have already accrued early damage, and there is much higher mortality associated with childhood lupus than there is with adult lupus.

“So, really we want to use treat to target as a way to try and improve on these aspects,” Dr. Smith said.

The treat-to-target (T2T) approach is not a new idea in lupus, with a lot of work already done in adult patients. One large study of more than 3,300 patients conducted in 13 countries has shown that patients who never achieve LLDAS are more likely to have high levels of damage, greater glucocorticoid use, worse quality of life, and higher mortality than are those who do.

Conversely, data have also shown that achieving a LLDAS is associated with a reduction in the risk for new damage, flares, and hospitalization, as well as reducing health care costs and improving patients’ overall health-related quality of life.

T2T is a recognized approach in European adult SLE guidelines, Dr. Smith said, although the approach has not really been fully realized as of yet, even in adult practice.
 

The cSLE T2T international task force and cLLDAS definition

With evidence accumulating on the benefits of getting children with SLE to a low disease activity state, Dr. Smith and colleague Michael Beresford, MBChB, PhD, Brough Chair, Professor of Child Health at the University of Liverpool, put out a call to develop a task force to look into the feasibility of a T2T approach.

“We had a really enthusiastic response internationally, which we were really encouraged by,” Dr. Smith said, “and we now lead a task force of 20 experts from across all five continents, and we have really strong patient involvement.”

Through a consensus process, an international cSLE T2T Task Force agreed on overarching principles and points to consider that will “lay the foundation for future T2T approaches in cSLE,” according to the recommendations statement, which was endorsed by the Paediatric Rheumatology European Society.

Next, they looked to develop an age-appropriate definition for low disease activity.

“We’re deliberately wanting to maintain sufficient unity with the adult definition, so that we could facilitate life-course studies,” said Dr. Smith, who presented the results of a literature review and series of Delphi surveys at the meeting.

The conceptual definition of cLLDAS is similar to adults in describing it as a sustained state that is associated with a low likelihood of adverse outcome, Dr. Smith said, but with the added wording of “considering disease activity, damage, and medication toxicity.”

The definition is achieved when the SLE Disease Activity Index-2K is ≤ 4 and there is no activity in major organ systems; there are no new features of lupus disease activity since the last assessment; there is a score of ≤ 1 on Physician Global Assessment; steroid doses are ≤ 0.15 mg/kg/day or a maximum of 7.5 mg/day (whichever is lower); and immunosuppressive treatment is stable, with any changes to medication only because of side effects, adherence, changes in weight, or when in the process of reaching a target dose.

“It’s all very well having a definition, but you need to think about how that will work in practice,” Dr. Smith said. This is something that the task force is thinking about very carefully.

The task force next aims to validate the cLLDAS definition, form an extensive research agenda to inform the T2T methods, and develop innovative methods to apply the approach in practice.

The work is supported by the Wellcome Trust, National Institutes for Health Research, Versus Arthritis, and the University of Liverpool, Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust and the Alder Hey Charity. Dr. Smith reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – An age-appropriate version of the Lupus Low Disease Activity State (LLDAS) has been developed by an international task force that will hopefully enable childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus (cSLE) to be treated to target in the near future.

The new childhood LLDAS (cLLDAS) has been purposefully developed to align with that already used for adults, Eve Smith, MBChB, PhD, explained at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

“There’s a lot of compelling data that’s accumulating from adult lupus and increasingly from childhood lupus that [treat to target] might be a good idea,” said Dr. Smith, who is a senior clinical fellow and honorary consultant at the University of Liverpool (England) and Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust Hospital, also in Liverpool.
 

Urgent need to improve childhood lupus outcomes

“We urgently need to do something to try and improve outcomes for children,” Dr. Smith said.

“We know that childhood lupus patients have got higher disease activity as compared to adults; they have a greater medication burden, particularly steroids; and they tend to have more severe organ manifestations,” she added.

Moreover, data show that one-fifth of pediatric patients with lupus have already accrued early damage, and there is much higher mortality associated with childhood lupus than there is with adult lupus.

“So, really we want to use treat to target as a way to try and improve on these aspects,” Dr. Smith said.

The treat-to-target (T2T) approach is not a new idea in lupus, with a lot of work already done in adult patients. One large study of more than 3,300 patients conducted in 13 countries has shown that patients who never achieve LLDAS are more likely to have high levels of damage, greater glucocorticoid use, worse quality of life, and higher mortality than are those who do.

Conversely, data have also shown that achieving a LLDAS is associated with a reduction in the risk for new damage, flares, and hospitalization, as well as reducing health care costs and improving patients’ overall health-related quality of life.

T2T is a recognized approach in European adult SLE guidelines, Dr. Smith said, although the approach has not really been fully realized as of yet, even in adult practice.
 

The cSLE T2T international task force and cLLDAS definition

With evidence accumulating on the benefits of getting children with SLE to a low disease activity state, Dr. Smith and colleague Michael Beresford, MBChB, PhD, Brough Chair, Professor of Child Health at the University of Liverpool, put out a call to develop a task force to look into the feasibility of a T2T approach.

“We had a really enthusiastic response internationally, which we were really encouraged by,” Dr. Smith said, “and we now lead a task force of 20 experts from across all five continents, and we have really strong patient involvement.”

Through a consensus process, an international cSLE T2T Task Force agreed on overarching principles and points to consider that will “lay the foundation for future T2T approaches in cSLE,” according to the recommendations statement, which was endorsed by the Paediatric Rheumatology European Society.

Next, they looked to develop an age-appropriate definition for low disease activity.

“We’re deliberately wanting to maintain sufficient unity with the adult definition, so that we could facilitate life-course studies,” said Dr. Smith, who presented the results of a literature review and series of Delphi surveys at the meeting.

The conceptual definition of cLLDAS is similar to adults in describing it as a sustained state that is associated with a low likelihood of adverse outcome, Dr. Smith said, but with the added wording of “considering disease activity, damage, and medication toxicity.”

The definition is achieved when the SLE Disease Activity Index-2K is ≤ 4 and there is no activity in major organ systems; there are no new features of lupus disease activity since the last assessment; there is a score of ≤ 1 on Physician Global Assessment; steroid doses are ≤ 0.15 mg/kg/day or a maximum of 7.5 mg/day (whichever is lower); and immunosuppressive treatment is stable, with any changes to medication only because of side effects, adherence, changes in weight, or when in the process of reaching a target dose.

“It’s all very well having a definition, but you need to think about how that will work in practice,” Dr. Smith said. This is something that the task force is thinking about very carefully.

The task force next aims to validate the cLLDAS definition, form an extensive research agenda to inform the T2T methods, and develop innovative methods to apply the approach in practice.

The work is supported by the Wellcome Trust, National Institutes for Health Research, Versus Arthritis, and the University of Liverpool, Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust and the Alder Hey Charity. Dr. Smith reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – An age-appropriate version of the Lupus Low Disease Activity State (LLDAS) has been developed by an international task force that will hopefully enable childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus (cSLE) to be treated to target in the near future.

The new childhood LLDAS (cLLDAS) has been purposefully developed to align with that already used for adults, Eve Smith, MBChB, PhD, explained at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

“There’s a lot of compelling data that’s accumulating from adult lupus and increasingly from childhood lupus that [treat to target] might be a good idea,” said Dr. Smith, who is a senior clinical fellow and honorary consultant at the University of Liverpool (England) and Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust Hospital, also in Liverpool.
 

Urgent need to improve childhood lupus outcomes

“We urgently need to do something to try and improve outcomes for children,” Dr. Smith said.

“We know that childhood lupus patients have got higher disease activity as compared to adults; they have a greater medication burden, particularly steroids; and they tend to have more severe organ manifestations,” she added.

Moreover, data show that one-fifth of pediatric patients with lupus have already accrued early damage, and there is much higher mortality associated with childhood lupus than there is with adult lupus.

“So, really we want to use treat to target as a way to try and improve on these aspects,” Dr. Smith said.

The treat-to-target (T2T) approach is not a new idea in lupus, with a lot of work already done in adult patients. One large study of more than 3,300 patients conducted in 13 countries has shown that patients who never achieve LLDAS are more likely to have high levels of damage, greater glucocorticoid use, worse quality of life, and higher mortality than are those who do.

Conversely, data have also shown that achieving a LLDAS is associated with a reduction in the risk for new damage, flares, and hospitalization, as well as reducing health care costs and improving patients’ overall health-related quality of life.

T2T is a recognized approach in European adult SLE guidelines, Dr. Smith said, although the approach has not really been fully realized as of yet, even in adult practice.
 

The cSLE T2T international task force and cLLDAS definition

With evidence accumulating on the benefits of getting children with SLE to a low disease activity state, Dr. Smith and colleague Michael Beresford, MBChB, PhD, Brough Chair, Professor of Child Health at the University of Liverpool, put out a call to develop a task force to look into the feasibility of a T2T approach.

“We had a really enthusiastic response internationally, which we were really encouraged by,” Dr. Smith said, “and we now lead a task force of 20 experts from across all five continents, and we have really strong patient involvement.”

Through a consensus process, an international cSLE T2T Task Force agreed on overarching principles and points to consider that will “lay the foundation for future T2T approaches in cSLE,” according to the recommendations statement, which was endorsed by the Paediatric Rheumatology European Society.

Next, they looked to develop an age-appropriate definition for low disease activity.

“We’re deliberately wanting to maintain sufficient unity with the adult definition, so that we could facilitate life-course studies,” said Dr. Smith, who presented the results of a literature review and series of Delphi surveys at the meeting.

The conceptual definition of cLLDAS is similar to adults in describing it as a sustained state that is associated with a low likelihood of adverse outcome, Dr. Smith said, but with the added wording of “considering disease activity, damage, and medication toxicity.”

The definition is achieved when the SLE Disease Activity Index-2K is ≤ 4 and there is no activity in major organ systems; there are no new features of lupus disease activity since the last assessment; there is a score of ≤ 1 on Physician Global Assessment; steroid doses are ≤ 0.15 mg/kg/day or a maximum of 7.5 mg/day (whichever is lower); and immunosuppressive treatment is stable, with any changes to medication only because of side effects, adherence, changes in weight, or when in the process of reaching a target dose.

“It’s all very well having a definition, but you need to think about how that will work in practice,” Dr. Smith said. This is something that the task force is thinking about very carefully.

The task force next aims to validate the cLLDAS definition, form an extensive research agenda to inform the T2T methods, and develop innovative methods to apply the approach in practice.

The work is supported by the Wellcome Trust, National Institutes for Health Research, Versus Arthritis, and the University of Liverpool, Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust and the Alder Hey Charity. Dr. Smith reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The incidence and prevalence of IgG4-related disease each rose considerably from 2015 to 2019 in the United States, and the risk of death in those with the immune-mediated condition is about 2.5 times higher than those who are not affected, based on an analysis of claims data from commercially insured adults.

The first population-based study of IgG4-RD incidence, prevalence, and mortality establishes “key benchmarks for informing the diagnosis and management of patients” with a condition “that causes fibrosing inflammatory lesions at nearly any anatomic site,” and wasn’t initially described until 2001, Zachary S. Wallace, MD, and associates said in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The increases in incidence and prevalence likely reflected increased disease awareness, they suggested. Overall U.S. incidence was 1.2 per 100,000 person-years for the 5-year period of 2015-2019, rising 86% from 0.78 per 100,000 person-years to 1.45 in 2018 before dropping to 1.39 in 2019. The change in prevalence was even greater, increasing 122% from 2.41 per 100,000 persons in 2015 to 5.34 per 100,000 in 2019, the investigators said.

Previous studies had indicated that the majority of patients with IgG4-RD were male, but the current study, using Optum’s Clinformatics Data Mart, which includes commercial health plan and Medicare Advantage members in all 50 states, showed that both incidence and prevalence (see graph) were higher among women, noted Dr. Wallace of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and associates. They identified 524 patients (57.6% female) in the database who met the criteria for IgG4-RD from Jan. 1, 2010, to Dec. 31, 2019.

Incidence over the course of the study “was similar in patients identified as Asian or White but lower in those identified as Black or Hispanic,” they noted, adding that “the prevalence of IgG4-RD during this period reflected similar trends.” A jump in prevalence from 2018 to 2019, however, left White patients with a much higher rate (6.13 per 100,000 persons) than Asian patients (4.54 per 100,000), Black patients (3.42), and Hispanic patients (3.02).

For the mortality analysis, 516 patients with IgG4-RD were age-, sex-, and race-matched with 5,160 patients without IgG4-RD. Mortality was 3.42 and 1.46 per 100 person-years, respectively, over the 5.5 years of follow-up, so IgG4-RD was associated with a 2.5-fold higher risk of death. “The association of IgG4-RD with a higher risk of death was observed across the age spectrum and among both male and female patients,” the researchers said.

The incidence and prevalence of IgG4-related disease each rose considerably from 2015 to 2019 in the United States, and the risk of death in those with the immune-mediated condition is about 2.5 times higher than those who are not affected, based on an analysis of claims data from commercially insured adults.

The first population-based study of IgG4-RD incidence, prevalence, and mortality establishes “key benchmarks for informing the diagnosis and management of patients” with a condition “that causes fibrosing inflammatory lesions at nearly any anatomic site,” and wasn’t initially described until 2001, Zachary S. Wallace, MD, and associates said in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The increases in incidence and prevalence likely reflected increased disease awareness, they suggested. Overall U.S. incidence was 1.2 per 100,000 person-years for the 5-year period of 2015-2019, rising 86% from 0.78 per 100,000 person-years to 1.45 in 2018 before dropping to 1.39 in 2019. The change in prevalence was even greater, increasing 122% from 2.41 per 100,000 persons in 2015 to 5.34 per 100,000 in 2019, the investigators said.

Previous studies had indicated that the majority of patients with IgG4-RD were male, but the current study, using Optum’s Clinformatics Data Mart, which includes commercial health plan and Medicare Advantage members in all 50 states, showed that both incidence and prevalence (see graph) were higher among women, noted Dr. Wallace of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and associates. They identified 524 patients (57.6% female) in the database who met the criteria for IgG4-RD from Jan. 1, 2010, to Dec. 31, 2019.

Incidence over the course of the study “was similar in patients identified as Asian or White but lower in those identified as Black or Hispanic,” they noted, adding that “the prevalence of IgG4-RD during this period reflected similar trends.” A jump in prevalence from 2018 to 2019, however, left White patients with a much higher rate (6.13 per 100,000 persons) than Asian patients (4.54 per 100,000), Black patients (3.42), and Hispanic patients (3.02).

For the mortality analysis, 516 patients with IgG4-RD were age-, sex-, and race-matched with 5,160 patients without IgG4-RD. Mortality was 3.42 and 1.46 per 100 person-years, respectively, over the 5.5 years of follow-up, so IgG4-RD was associated with a 2.5-fold higher risk of death. “The association of IgG4-RD with a higher risk of death was observed across the age spectrum and among both male and female patients,” the researchers said.

The incidence and prevalence of IgG4-related disease each rose considerably from 2015 to 2019 in the United States, and the risk of death in those with the immune-mediated condition is about 2.5 times higher than those who are not affected, based on an analysis of claims data from commercially insured adults.

The first population-based study of IgG4-RD incidence, prevalence, and mortality establishes “key benchmarks for informing the diagnosis and management of patients” with a condition “that causes fibrosing inflammatory lesions at nearly any anatomic site,” and wasn’t initially described until 2001, Zachary S. Wallace, MD, and associates said in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The increases in incidence and prevalence likely reflected increased disease awareness, they suggested. Overall U.S. incidence was 1.2 per 100,000 person-years for the 5-year period of 2015-2019, rising 86% from 0.78 per 100,000 person-years to 1.45 in 2018 before dropping to 1.39 in 2019. The change in prevalence was even greater, increasing 122% from 2.41 per 100,000 persons in 2015 to 5.34 per 100,000 in 2019, the investigators said.

Previous studies had indicated that the majority of patients with IgG4-RD were male, but the current study, using Optum’s Clinformatics Data Mart, which includes commercial health plan and Medicare Advantage members in all 50 states, showed that both incidence and prevalence (see graph) were higher among women, noted Dr. Wallace of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and associates. They identified 524 patients (57.6% female) in the database who met the criteria for IgG4-RD from Jan. 1, 2010, to Dec. 31, 2019.

Incidence over the course of the study “was similar in patients identified as Asian or White but lower in those identified as Black or Hispanic,” they noted, adding that “the prevalence of IgG4-RD during this period reflected similar trends.” A jump in prevalence from 2018 to 2019, however, left White patients with a much higher rate (6.13 per 100,000 persons) than Asian patients (4.54 per 100,000), Black patients (3.42), and Hispanic patients (3.02).

For the mortality analysis, 516 patients with IgG4-RD were age-, sex-, and race-matched with 5,160 patients without IgG4-RD. Mortality was 3.42 and 1.46 per 100 person-years, respectively, over the 5.5 years of follow-up, so IgG4-RD was associated with a 2.5-fold higher risk of death. “The association of IgG4-RD with a higher risk of death was observed across the age spectrum and among both male and female patients,” the researchers said.

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

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

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

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

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

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

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

Since the COVID-19 pandemic started more than 3 years ago, the longer-lasting effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection have continued to reveal themselves. Approximately 28% of Americans report having ever experienced post-COVID conditions, such as brain fog, postexertional malaise, and joint pain, and 11% say they are still experiencing these long-term effects. Now, new research is showing that people who have had COVID are more likely to newly develop an autoimmune disease. Exactly why this is happening is less clear, experts say.

Two preprint studies and one study published in a peer-reviewed journal provide strong evidence that patients who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 are at elevated risk of developing an autoimmune disease. The studies retrospectively reviewed medical records from three countries and compared the incidence of new-onset autoimmune disease among patients who had polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19 and those who had never been diagnosed with the virus.

A study analyzing the health records of 3.8 million U.S. patients – more than 888,460 with confirmed COVID-19 – found that the COVID-19 group was two to three times as likely to develop various autoimmune diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and systemic sclerosis. A U.K. preprint study that included more than 458,000 people with confirmed COVID found that those who had previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2 were 22% more likely to develop an autoimmune disease compared with the control group. In this cohort, the diseases most strongly associated with COVID-19 were type 1 diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, and psoriasis. A preprint study from German researchers found that COVID-19 patients were almost 43% more likely to develop an autoimmune disease, compared with those who had never been infected. COVID-19 was most strongly linked to vasculitis.
 

These large studies are telling us, “Yes, this link is there, so we have to accept it,” Sonia Sharma, PhD, of the Center for Autoimmunity and Inflammation at the La Jolla (Calif.) Institute for Immunology, told this news organization. But this is not the first time that autoimmune diseases have been linked to previous infections.

La Jolla Institute for Immunology

Researchers have known for decades that Epstein-Barr virus infection is linked to several autoimmune diseases, including systemic lupus erythematosus, multiple sclerosis, and rheumatoid arthritis. More recent research suggests the virus may activate certain genes associated with these immune disorders. Hepatitis C virus can induce cryoglobulinemia, and infection with cytomegalovirus has been implicated in several autoimmune diseases. Bacterial infections have also been linked to autoimmunity, such as group A streptococcus and rheumatic fever, as well as salmonella and reactive arthritis, to name only a few.

“In a way, this isn’t necessarily a new concept to physicians, particularly rheumatologists,” said Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “There’s a fine line between appropriately clearing an infection and the body overreacting and setting off a cascade where the immune system is chronically overactive that can manifest as an autoimmune disease,” he told this news organization.

A dysregulated response to infection

It takes the immune system a week or two to develop antigen-specific antibodies to a new pathogen. But for patients with serious infections – in this instance, COVID-19 – that’s time they don’t have. Therefore, the immune system has an alternative pathway, called extrafollicular activation, that creates fast-acting antibodies, explained Matthew Woodruff, PhD, an instructor of immunology and rheumatology at Emory University, Atlanta.

Emory University School of Medicine

The trade-off is that these antibodies are not as specific and can target the body’s own tissues. This dysregulation of antibody selection is generally short lived and fades when more targeted antibodies are produced and take over, but in some cases, this process can lead to high levels of self-targeting antibodies that can harm the body’s organs and tissues. Research also suggests that for patients who experience long COVID, the same autoantibodies that drive the initial immune response are detectable in the body months after infection, though it is not known whether these lingering immune cells cause these longer-lasting symptoms.

“If you have a virus that causes hyperinflammation plus organ damage, that is a recipe for disaster,” Dr. Sharma said. “It’s a recipe for autoantibodies and autoreactive T cells that down the road can attack the body’s own tissues, especially in people whose immune system is trained in such a way to cause self-reactivity,” she added.

This hyperinflammation can result in rare but serious complications, such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children and adults, which can occur 2-6 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection. But even in these patients with severe illness, organ-specific complications tend to resolve in 6 months with “no significant sequelae 1 year after diagnosis,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And while long COVID can last for a year or longer, data suggest that symptoms do eventually resolve for most people. What is not clear is why acute autoimmunity triggered by COVID-19 can become a chronic condition in certain patients.
 

Predisposition to autoimmunity

P. J. Utz, MD, PhD, professor of immunology and rheumatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, said that people who develop autoimmune disease after SARS-CoV-2 infection may have already been predisposed toward autoimmunity. Especially for autoimmune diseases such as type 1 diabetes and lupus, autoantibodies can appear and circulate in the body for more than a decade in some people before they present with any clinical symptoms. “Their immune system is primed such that if they get infected with something – or they have some other environmental trigger that maybe we don’t know about yet – that is enough to then push them over the edge so that they get full-blown autoimmunity,” he said. What is not known is whether these patients’ conditions would have advanced to true clinical disease had they not been infected, he said.

Steve Fisch

He also noted that the presence of autoantibodies does not necessarily mean someone has autoimmune disease; healthy people can also have autoantibodies, and everyone develops them with age. “My advice would be, ‘Don’t lose sleep over this,’ “ he said.

Dr. Sparks agreed that while these retrospective studies did show an elevated risk of autoimmune disease after COVID-19, that risk appears to be relatively small. “As a practicing rheumatologist, we aren’t seeing a stampede of patients with new-onset rheumatic diseases,” he said. “It’s not like we’re overwhelmed with autoimmune patients, even though almost everyone’s had COVID. So, if there is a risk, it’s very modest.”

Dr. Sparks is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Llura Gund Award for Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Care. Dr. Utz receives research funding from Pfizer. Dr. Sharma and Dr. Woodruff have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Since the COVID-19 pandemic started more than 3 years ago, the longer-lasting effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection have continued to reveal themselves. Approximately 28% of Americans report having ever experienced post-COVID conditions, such as brain fog, postexertional malaise, and joint pain, and 11% say they are still experiencing these long-term effects. Now, new research is showing that people who have had COVID are more likely to newly develop an autoimmune disease. Exactly why this is happening is less clear, experts say.

Two preprint studies and one study published in a peer-reviewed journal provide strong evidence that patients who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 are at elevated risk of developing an autoimmune disease. The studies retrospectively reviewed medical records from three countries and compared the incidence of new-onset autoimmune disease among patients who had polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19 and those who had never been diagnosed with the virus.

A study analyzing the health records of 3.8 million U.S. patients – more than 888,460 with confirmed COVID-19 – found that the COVID-19 group was two to three times as likely to develop various autoimmune diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and systemic sclerosis. A U.K. preprint study that included more than 458,000 people with confirmed COVID found that those who had previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2 were 22% more likely to develop an autoimmune disease compared with the control group. In this cohort, the diseases most strongly associated with COVID-19 were type 1 diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, and psoriasis. A preprint study from German researchers found that COVID-19 patients were almost 43% more likely to develop an autoimmune disease, compared with those who had never been infected. COVID-19 was most strongly linked to vasculitis.
 

These large studies are telling us, “Yes, this link is there, so we have to accept it,” Sonia Sharma, PhD, of the Center for Autoimmunity and Inflammation at the La Jolla (Calif.) Institute for Immunology, told this news organization. But this is not the first time that autoimmune diseases have been linked to previous infections.

La Jolla Institute for Immunology

Researchers have known for decades that Epstein-Barr virus infection is linked to several autoimmune diseases, including systemic lupus erythematosus, multiple sclerosis, and rheumatoid arthritis. More recent research suggests the virus may activate certain genes associated with these immune disorders. Hepatitis C virus can induce cryoglobulinemia, and infection with cytomegalovirus has been implicated in several autoimmune diseases. Bacterial infections have also been linked to autoimmunity, such as group A streptococcus and rheumatic fever, as well as salmonella and reactive arthritis, to name only a few.

“In a way, this isn’t necessarily a new concept to physicians, particularly rheumatologists,” said Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “There’s a fine line between appropriately clearing an infection and the body overreacting and setting off a cascade where the immune system is chronically overactive that can manifest as an autoimmune disease,” he told this news organization.

A dysregulated response to infection

It takes the immune system a week or two to develop antigen-specific antibodies to a new pathogen. But for patients with serious infections – in this instance, COVID-19 – that’s time they don’t have. Therefore, the immune system has an alternative pathway, called extrafollicular activation, that creates fast-acting antibodies, explained Matthew Woodruff, PhD, an instructor of immunology and rheumatology at Emory University, Atlanta.

Emory University School of Medicine

The trade-off is that these antibodies are not as specific and can target the body’s own tissues. This dysregulation of antibody selection is generally short lived and fades when more targeted antibodies are produced and take over, but in some cases, this process can lead to high levels of self-targeting antibodies that can harm the body’s organs and tissues. Research also suggests that for patients who experience long COVID, the same autoantibodies that drive the initial immune response are detectable in the body months after infection, though it is not known whether these lingering immune cells cause these longer-lasting symptoms.

“If you have a virus that causes hyperinflammation plus organ damage, that is a recipe for disaster,” Dr. Sharma said. “It’s a recipe for autoantibodies and autoreactive T cells that down the road can attack the body’s own tissues, especially in people whose immune system is trained in such a way to cause self-reactivity,” she added.

This hyperinflammation can result in rare but serious complications, such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children and adults, which can occur 2-6 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection. But even in these patients with severe illness, organ-specific complications tend to resolve in 6 months with “no significant sequelae 1 year after diagnosis,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And while long COVID can last for a year or longer, data suggest that symptoms do eventually resolve for most people. What is not clear is why acute autoimmunity triggered by COVID-19 can become a chronic condition in certain patients.
 

Predisposition to autoimmunity

P. J. Utz, MD, PhD, professor of immunology and rheumatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, said that people who develop autoimmune disease after SARS-CoV-2 infection may have already been predisposed toward autoimmunity. Especially for autoimmune diseases such as type 1 diabetes and lupus, autoantibodies can appear and circulate in the body for more than a decade in some people before they present with any clinical symptoms. “Their immune system is primed such that if they get infected with something – or they have some other environmental trigger that maybe we don’t know about yet – that is enough to then push them over the edge so that they get full-blown autoimmunity,” he said. What is not known is whether these patients’ conditions would have advanced to true clinical disease had they not been infected, he said.

Steve Fisch

He also noted that the presence of autoantibodies does not necessarily mean someone has autoimmune disease; healthy people can also have autoantibodies, and everyone develops them with age. “My advice would be, ‘Don’t lose sleep over this,’ “ he said.

Dr. Sparks agreed that while these retrospective studies did show an elevated risk of autoimmune disease after COVID-19, that risk appears to be relatively small. “As a practicing rheumatologist, we aren’t seeing a stampede of patients with new-onset rheumatic diseases,” he said. “It’s not like we’re overwhelmed with autoimmune patients, even though almost everyone’s had COVID. So, if there is a risk, it’s very modest.”

Dr. Sparks is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Llura Gund Award for Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Care. Dr. Utz receives research funding from Pfizer. Dr. Sharma and Dr. Woodruff have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Since the COVID-19 pandemic started more than 3 years ago, the longer-lasting effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection have continued to reveal themselves. Approximately 28% of Americans report having ever experienced post-COVID conditions, such as brain fog, postexertional malaise, and joint pain, and 11% say they are still experiencing these long-term effects. Now, new research is showing that people who have had COVID are more likely to newly develop an autoimmune disease. Exactly why this is happening is less clear, experts say.

Two preprint studies and one study published in a peer-reviewed journal provide strong evidence that patients who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 are at elevated risk of developing an autoimmune disease. The studies retrospectively reviewed medical records from three countries and compared the incidence of new-onset autoimmune disease among patients who had polymerase chain reaction–confirmed COVID-19 and those who had never been diagnosed with the virus.

A study analyzing the health records of 3.8 million U.S. patients – more than 888,460 with confirmed COVID-19 – found that the COVID-19 group was two to three times as likely to develop various autoimmune diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and systemic sclerosis. A U.K. preprint study that included more than 458,000 people with confirmed COVID found that those who had previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2 were 22% more likely to develop an autoimmune disease compared with the control group. In this cohort, the diseases most strongly associated with COVID-19 were type 1 diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, and psoriasis. A preprint study from German researchers found that COVID-19 patients were almost 43% more likely to develop an autoimmune disease, compared with those who had never been infected. COVID-19 was most strongly linked to vasculitis.
 

These large studies are telling us, “Yes, this link is there, so we have to accept it,” Sonia Sharma, PhD, of the Center for Autoimmunity and Inflammation at the La Jolla (Calif.) Institute for Immunology, told this news organization. But this is not the first time that autoimmune diseases have been linked to previous infections.

La Jolla Institute for Immunology

Researchers have known for decades that Epstein-Barr virus infection is linked to several autoimmune diseases, including systemic lupus erythematosus, multiple sclerosis, and rheumatoid arthritis. More recent research suggests the virus may activate certain genes associated with these immune disorders. Hepatitis C virus can induce cryoglobulinemia, and infection with cytomegalovirus has been implicated in several autoimmune diseases. Bacterial infections have also been linked to autoimmunity, such as group A streptococcus and rheumatic fever, as well as salmonella and reactive arthritis, to name only a few.

“In a way, this isn’t necessarily a new concept to physicians, particularly rheumatologists,” said Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “There’s a fine line between appropriately clearing an infection and the body overreacting and setting off a cascade where the immune system is chronically overactive that can manifest as an autoimmune disease,” he told this news organization.

A dysregulated response to infection

It takes the immune system a week or two to develop antigen-specific antibodies to a new pathogen. But for patients with serious infections – in this instance, COVID-19 – that’s time they don’t have. Therefore, the immune system has an alternative pathway, called extrafollicular activation, that creates fast-acting antibodies, explained Matthew Woodruff, PhD, an instructor of immunology and rheumatology at Emory University, Atlanta.

Emory University School of Medicine

The trade-off is that these antibodies are not as specific and can target the body’s own tissues. This dysregulation of antibody selection is generally short lived and fades when more targeted antibodies are produced and take over, but in some cases, this process can lead to high levels of self-targeting antibodies that can harm the body’s organs and tissues. Research also suggests that for patients who experience long COVID, the same autoantibodies that drive the initial immune response are detectable in the body months after infection, though it is not known whether these lingering immune cells cause these longer-lasting symptoms.

“If you have a virus that causes hyperinflammation plus organ damage, that is a recipe for disaster,” Dr. Sharma said. “It’s a recipe for autoantibodies and autoreactive T cells that down the road can attack the body’s own tissues, especially in people whose immune system is trained in such a way to cause self-reactivity,” she added.

This hyperinflammation can result in rare but serious complications, such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children and adults, which can occur 2-6 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection. But even in these patients with severe illness, organ-specific complications tend to resolve in 6 months with “no significant sequelae 1 year after diagnosis,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And while long COVID can last for a year or longer, data suggest that symptoms do eventually resolve for most people. What is not clear is why acute autoimmunity triggered by COVID-19 can become a chronic condition in certain patients.
 

Predisposition to autoimmunity

P. J. Utz, MD, PhD, professor of immunology and rheumatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, said that people who develop autoimmune disease after SARS-CoV-2 infection may have already been predisposed toward autoimmunity. Especially for autoimmune diseases such as type 1 diabetes and lupus, autoantibodies can appear and circulate in the body for more than a decade in some people before they present with any clinical symptoms. “Their immune system is primed such that if they get infected with something – or they have some other environmental trigger that maybe we don’t know about yet – that is enough to then push them over the edge so that they get full-blown autoimmunity,” he said. What is not known is whether these patients’ conditions would have advanced to true clinical disease had they not been infected, he said.

Steve Fisch

He also noted that the presence of autoantibodies does not necessarily mean someone has autoimmune disease; healthy people can also have autoantibodies, and everyone develops them with age. “My advice would be, ‘Don’t lose sleep over this,’ “ he said.

Dr. Sparks agreed that while these retrospective studies did show an elevated risk of autoimmune disease after COVID-19, that risk appears to be relatively small. “As a practicing rheumatologist, we aren’t seeing a stampede of patients with new-onset rheumatic diseases,” he said. “It’s not like we’re overwhelmed with autoimmune patients, even though almost everyone’s had COVID. So, if there is a risk, it’s very modest.”

Dr. Sparks is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Llura Gund Award for Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Care. Dr. Utz receives research funding from Pfizer. Dr. Sharma and Dr. Woodruff have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Nasal damage from cocaine use can be misdiagnosed as a rare, nonthreatening nasal disease, according to researchers from the United Kingdom.

Granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), a disorder which causes inflammation in the nose, sinuses, throat, lungs, and kidneys, can have similar symptoms to cocaine-induced vasculitis, the researchers wrote. Drug testing can help identify patients who have cocaine-induced disease, they argued.

“Patients with destructive nasal lesions, especially young patients, should have urine toxicology performed for cocaine before diagnosing GPA and considering immunosuppressive therapy,” the authors wrote.

The paper was published in Rheumatology Advances in Practice.

Cocaine is the second-most popular drug in the United Kingdom, with 2.0% of people aged 16-59 years reporting using the drug in the past year. In the United States, about 1.7% of people aged 12 years and older (about 4.8 million people) used cocaine in the last 12 months, according to the 2021 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. The drug can cause midline destructive lesions, skin rash, and other vascular problems, and it can also trigger the production of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA) that lead to a clinical presentation that mimics GPA, which can make diagnosis more difficult. Treating cocaine-induced disease with immunosuppressant medication can be ineffective if the patient does not stop using the drug, and can have dangerous side effects, previous case studies suggest.

To better understand cocaine-induced disease, researchers conducted a review of patients who visited vasculitis clinics at Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham, England, and at the Royal Free Hospital in London between 2016 and 2021. They identified 42 patients with GPA-like symptoms who disclosed cocaine use or tested positive for the drug in urine toxicology test. The study included 23 men, 18 women, and 1 individual who did not identify with either gender. The median age was 41 years, and most patients were white.

Of those who underwent drug testing, more than 85% were positive. Nine patients who denied ever using cocaine were positive for the drug and 11 patients who said they were ex-users also tested positive via urine analysis. During clinical examinations, 30 patients had evidence of septal perforation, of which 6 had oronasal fistulas. Most patients’ symptoms were limited to the upper respiratory tract, though 12 did have other systemic symptoms, including skin lesions, joint pain, breathlessness, fatigue, and diplopia. Of the patients who received blood tests for ANCA, 87.5% tested positive for the antibodies.

The researchers noted that patients who continued cocaine use did not see improvement of symptoms, even if they were treated with immunosuppressant drugs.

“The experience in our two different centers suggests that discontinuation of cocaine is required to manage patients and that symptoms will persist despite immunosuppression if there is ongoing cocaine use,” the authors wrote.

“It can feel like chasing your tail at times if you’re trying to treat the inflammation but the real culprit – what’s driving the inflammation – is persistent,” Lindsay S. Lally, MD, a rheumatologist at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview. She was not involved with the work.

Dr. Lally said the paper had a decent-sized cohort, and “helps us recognize that cocaine use is probably an under-recognized mimic of GPA, even though it’s something we all learn about and talk about.” She added that routine toxicology screening for patients deserves some consideration, though asking patients to complete a drug test could also undermine trust in the doctor-patient relationship. Patients who deny cocaine use may leave the office without providing a urine sample.

If Dr. Lally does suspect cocaine may be the cause of a patient’s systems, having a candid conversation with the patient may have a better chance at getting a patient to open up about their potential drug use. In practice, this means explaining “why it’s so important for me as their partner in this treatment to understand what factors are at play, and how dangerous it could potentially be if I was giving strong immunosuppressive medications [for a condition] that is being induced by a drug,” she said. “I do think that partnership and talking to the patients, at least in many patients, is more helpful than sort of the ‘gotcha’ moment” that can happen with drug testing.

The study authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lally reported receiving consulting fees from Amgen.

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

Nasal damage from cocaine use can be misdiagnosed as a rare, nonthreatening nasal disease, according to researchers from the United Kingdom.

Granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), a disorder which causes inflammation in the nose, sinuses, throat, lungs, and kidneys, can have similar symptoms to cocaine-induced vasculitis, the researchers wrote. Drug testing can help identify patients who have cocaine-induced disease, they argued.

“Patients with destructive nasal lesions, especially young patients, should have urine toxicology performed for cocaine before diagnosing GPA and considering immunosuppressive therapy,” the authors wrote.

The paper was published in Rheumatology Advances in Practice.

Cocaine is the second-most popular drug in the United Kingdom, with 2.0% of people aged 16-59 years reporting using the drug in the past year. In the United States, about 1.7% of people aged 12 years and older (about 4.8 million people) used cocaine in the last 12 months, according to the 2021 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. The drug can cause midline destructive lesions, skin rash, and other vascular problems, and it can also trigger the production of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA) that lead to a clinical presentation that mimics GPA, which can make diagnosis more difficult. Treating cocaine-induced disease with immunosuppressant medication can be ineffective if the patient does not stop using the drug, and can have dangerous side effects, previous case studies suggest.

To better understand cocaine-induced disease, researchers conducted a review of patients who visited vasculitis clinics at Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham, England, and at the Royal Free Hospital in London between 2016 and 2021. They identified 42 patients with GPA-like symptoms who disclosed cocaine use or tested positive for the drug in urine toxicology test. The study included 23 men, 18 women, and 1 individual who did not identify with either gender. The median age was 41 years, and most patients were white.

Of those who underwent drug testing, more than 85% were positive. Nine patients who denied ever using cocaine were positive for the drug and 11 patients who said they were ex-users also tested positive via urine analysis. During clinical examinations, 30 patients had evidence of septal perforation, of which 6 had oronasal fistulas. Most patients’ symptoms were limited to the upper respiratory tract, though 12 did have other systemic symptoms, including skin lesions, joint pain, breathlessness, fatigue, and diplopia. Of the patients who received blood tests for ANCA, 87.5% tested positive for the antibodies.

The researchers noted that patients who continued cocaine use did not see improvement of symptoms, even if they were treated with immunosuppressant drugs.

“The experience in our two different centers suggests that discontinuation of cocaine is required to manage patients and that symptoms will persist despite immunosuppression if there is ongoing cocaine use,” the authors wrote.

“It can feel like chasing your tail at times if you’re trying to treat the inflammation but the real culprit – what’s driving the inflammation – is persistent,” Lindsay S. Lally, MD, a rheumatologist at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview. She was not involved with the work.

Dr. Lally said the paper had a decent-sized cohort, and “helps us recognize that cocaine use is probably an under-recognized mimic of GPA, even though it’s something we all learn about and talk about.” She added that routine toxicology screening for patients deserves some consideration, though asking patients to complete a drug test could also undermine trust in the doctor-patient relationship. Patients who deny cocaine use may leave the office without providing a urine sample.

If Dr. Lally does suspect cocaine may be the cause of a patient’s systems, having a candid conversation with the patient may have a better chance at getting a patient to open up about their potential drug use. In practice, this means explaining “why it’s so important for me as their partner in this treatment to understand what factors are at play, and how dangerous it could potentially be if I was giving strong immunosuppressive medications [for a condition] that is being induced by a drug,” she said. “I do think that partnership and talking to the patients, at least in many patients, is more helpful than sort of the ‘gotcha’ moment” that can happen with drug testing.

The study authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lally reported receiving consulting fees from Amgen.

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

Nasal damage from cocaine use can be misdiagnosed as a rare, nonthreatening nasal disease, according to researchers from the United Kingdom.

Granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), a disorder which causes inflammation in the nose, sinuses, throat, lungs, and kidneys, can have similar symptoms to cocaine-induced vasculitis, the researchers wrote. Drug testing can help identify patients who have cocaine-induced disease, they argued.

“Patients with destructive nasal lesions, especially young patients, should have urine toxicology performed for cocaine before diagnosing GPA and considering immunosuppressive therapy,” the authors wrote.

The paper was published in Rheumatology Advances in Practice.

Cocaine is the second-most popular drug in the United Kingdom, with 2.0% of people aged 16-59 years reporting using the drug in the past year. In the United States, about 1.7% of people aged 12 years and older (about 4.8 million people) used cocaine in the last 12 months, according to the 2021 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. The drug can cause midline destructive lesions, skin rash, and other vascular problems, and it can also trigger the production of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA) that lead to a clinical presentation that mimics GPA, which can make diagnosis more difficult. Treating cocaine-induced disease with immunosuppressant medication can be ineffective if the patient does not stop using the drug, and can have dangerous side effects, previous case studies suggest.

To better understand cocaine-induced disease, researchers conducted a review of patients who visited vasculitis clinics at Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham, England, and at the Royal Free Hospital in London between 2016 and 2021. They identified 42 patients with GPA-like symptoms who disclosed cocaine use or tested positive for the drug in urine toxicology test. The study included 23 men, 18 women, and 1 individual who did not identify with either gender. The median age was 41 years, and most patients were white.

Of those who underwent drug testing, more than 85% were positive. Nine patients who denied ever using cocaine were positive for the drug and 11 patients who said they were ex-users also tested positive via urine analysis. During clinical examinations, 30 patients had evidence of septal perforation, of which 6 had oronasal fistulas. Most patients’ symptoms were limited to the upper respiratory tract, though 12 did have other systemic symptoms, including skin lesions, joint pain, breathlessness, fatigue, and diplopia. Of the patients who received blood tests for ANCA, 87.5% tested positive for the antibodies.

The researchers noted that patients who continued cocaine use did not see improvement of symptoms, even if they were treated with immunosuppressant drugs.

“The experience in our two different centers suggests that discontinuation of cocaine is required to manage patients and that symptoms will persist despite immunosuppression if there is ongoing cocaine use,” the authors wrote.

“It can feel like chasing your tail at times if you’re trying to treat the inflammation but the real culprit – what’s driving the inflammation – is persistent,” Lindsay S. Lally, MD, a rheumatologist at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview. She was not involved with the work.

Dr. Lally said the paper had a decent-sized cohort, and “helps us recognize that cocaine use is probably an under-recognized mimic of GPA, even though it’s something we all learn about and talk about.” She added that routine toxicology screening for patients deserves some consideration, though asking patients to complete a drug test could also undermine trust in the doctor-patient relationship. Patients who deny cocaine use may leave the office without providing a urine sample.

If Dr. Lally does suspect cocaine may be the cause of a patient’s systems, having a candid conversation with the patient may have a better chance at getting a patient to open up about their potential drug use. In practice, this means explaining “why it’s so important for me as their partner in this treatment to understand what factors are at play, and how dangerous it could potentially be if I was giving strong immunosuppressive medications [for a condition] that is being induced by a drug,” she said. “I do think that partnership and talking to the patients, at least in many patients, is more helpful than sort of the ‘gotcha’ moment” that can happen with drug testing.

The study authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lally reported receiving consulting fees from Amgen.

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

The presence of antiphospholipid antibodies is associated with an increased risk for future cardiovascular events, according to a new study.

The findings point to possible new approaches to risk stratification and the potential for new therapeutic targets in heart disease.

“In this study of the general population, we found that two antiphospholipid antibodies were associated with an increased risk of having a serious cardiovascular event over a follow-up of 8 years,” coauthor Jason Knight, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

“If confirmed in further studies, these findings could be used to identify a subgroup of patients who need more careful monitoring and more aggressive risk-factor modification, and if the increased risk linked to these antibodies is high enough, it may also justify preemptive treatments such as the anticoagulants that are routinely used in antiphospholipid syndrome,” Dr. Knight said.

“The long-term vision is that we may identify some people in the general population who would benefit from treating the immune system for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease instead of, or in addition to, using typical cardiovascular medications,” he added.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Individuals with autoimmune and inflammatory diseases have a greater risk for cardiovascular events than expected based on traditional cardiovascular risk factors, with mechanisms proposed to explain this risk including inflammation-mediated disruption of vascular integrity and activation of platelets and coagulation pathways, the authors explained. However, the role of autoantibodies remains unclear.

They noted that antiphospholipid antibodies can activate endothelial cells, platelets, and neutrophils, and some patients with persistently circulating antiphospholipid antibodies can develop antiphospholipid syndrome – an acquired thromboinflammatory disease characterized by arterial, venous, and microvascular thrombotic events and obstetric complications.

Cross-sectional studies have shown that antiphospholipid antibodies are acutely present in up to 17.4% of patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack, and small cohort studies have suggested that such antibodies may be present in 1%-12% of seemingly healthy individuals. However, the impact of sex, race, and ethnicity on the prevalence of antiphospholipid antibodies and their association with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is not known.

The researchers conducted the current study to look at the association between antiphospholipid antibodies and future risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular events.

They analyzed data from 2,427 participants in the population-based Dallas Heart Study who had no history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or autoimmune diseases requiring immunosuppressive medications at the time of blood sampling at study entry in 2007-2009.

Eight different types of antiphospholipid antibodies were measured, and data on cardiovascular events over the next 8 years was recorded.

Results showed that 14.5% of the cohort tested positive for one of these antiphospholipid antibodies at the start of the study, with approximately one-third of those detected at a moderate or high titer.

The researchers also found that the IgA isotypes of two antiphospholipid antibodies – anticardiolipin and anti-beta-2 glycoprotein – were associated with future atherosclerotic cardiovascular events.

After adjustment for other known risk factors, individuals testing positive for the IgA isotype of anticardiolipin had an almost five times increased risk (hazard ratio, 4.92) of the primary endpoint (myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or cardiovascular death); while those testing positive for anti–beta₂-glycoprotein had an almost three times increased risk (HR, 2.91).

Furthermore, there was what appeared to be a dose effect. People with the highest levels of these antibodies also had the highest risk for cardiovascular events, with up to an almost 10-fold increased risk with the higher level of anticardiolipin. 

Dr. Knight said that more research into the IgA isotypes of these antiphospholipid antibodies is needed.

“Most of the mechanistic work in the antiphospholipid syndrome field has focused on IgG antiphospholipid antibodies. While we commonly find these IgA antibodies in patients with APS, the extent to which they contribute to disease has not been firmly established,” he said. “The fact that IgA was the primary hit in our unbiased screen suggests that there is more to the story and we need to better understand the implications of having these antibodies in circulation, and what specific problems they may be causing.”

Noting that antiphospholipid antibodies can form transiently after certain situations, such as infections, Dr. Knight said that further studies were needed with repeat blood testing to detect the chronic presence of the antibodies.

He added that information of venous thromboses was not available in this study and “perhaps some of the other antibodies might have stood out if we were able to analyze for different outcomes.”

This study was supported by a Pfizer Aspire Award. Dr. Knight reported receiving research funding and consulting fees from Jazz Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work.

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

The presence of antiphospholipid antibodies is associated with an increased risk for future cardiovascular events, according to a new study.

The findings point to possible new approaches to risk stratification and the potential for new therapeutic targets in heart disease.

“In this study of the general population, we found that two antiphospholipid antibodies were associated with an increased risk of having a serious cardiovascular event over a follow-up of 8 years,” coauthor Jason Knight, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

“If confirmed in further studies, these findings could be used to identify a subgroup of patients who need more careful monitoring and more aggressive risk-factor modification, and if the increased risk linked to these antibodies is high enough, it may also justify preemptive treatments such as the anticoagulants that are routinely used in antiphospholipid syndrome,” Dr. Knight said.

“The long-term vision is that we may identify some people in the general population who would benefit from treating the immune system for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease instead of, or in addition to, using typical cardiovascular medications,” he added.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Individuals with autoimmune and inflammatory diseases have a greater risk for cardiovascular events than expected based on traditional cardiovascular risk factors, with mechanisms proposed to explain this risk including inflammation-mediated disruption of vascular integrity and activation of platelets and coagulation pathways, the authors explained. However, the role of autoantibodies remains unclear.

They noted that antiphospholipid antibodies can activate endothelial cells, platelets, and neutrophils, and some patients with persistently circulating antiphospholipid antibodies can develop antiphospholipid syndrome – an acquired thromboinflammatory disease characterized by arterial, venous, and microvascular thrombotic events and obstetric complications.

Cross-sectional studies have shown that antiphospholipid antibodies are acutely present in up to 17.4% of patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack, and small cohort studies have suggested that such antibodies may be present in 1%-12% of seemingly healthy individuals. However, the impact of sex, race, and ethnicity on the prevalence of antiphospholipid antibodies and their association with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is not known.

The researchers conducted the current study to look at the association between antiphospholipid antibodies and future risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular events.

They analyzed data from 2,427 participants in the population-based Dallas Heart Study who had no history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or autoimmune diseases requiring immunosuppressive medications at the time of blood sampling at study entry in 2007-2009.

Eight different types of antiphospholipid antibodies were measured, and data on cardiovascular events over the next 8 years was recorded.

Results showed that 14.5% of the cohort tested positive for one of these antiphospholipid antibodies at the start of the study, with approximately one-third of those detected at a moderate or high titer.

The researchers also found that the IgA isotypes of two antiphospholipid antibodies – anticardiolipin and anti-beta-2 glycoprotein – were associated with future atherosclerotic cardiovascular events.

After adjustment for other known risk factors, individuals testing positive for the IgA isotype of anticardiolipin had an almost five times increased risk (hazard ratio, 4.92) of the primary endpoint (myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or cardiovascular death); while those testing positive for anti–beta₂-glycoprotein had an almost three times increased risk (HR, 2.91).

Furthermore, there was what appeared to be a dose effect. People with the highest levels of these antibodies also had the highest risk for cardiovascular events, with up to an almost 10-fold increased risk with the higher level of anticardiolipin. 

Dr. Knight said that more research into the IgA isotypes of these antiphospholipid antibodies is needed.

“Most of the mechanistic work in the antiphospholipid syndrome field has focused on IgG antiphospholipid antibodies. While we commonly find these IgA antibodies in patients with APS, the extent to which they contribute to disease has not been firmly established,” he said. “The fact that IgA was the primary hit in our unbiased screen suggests that there is more to the story and we need to better understand the implications of having these antibodies in circulation, and what specific problems they may be causing.”

Noting that antiphospholipid antibodies can form transiently after certain situations, such as infections, Dr. Knight said that further studies were needed with repeat blood testing to detect the chronic presence of the antibodies.

He added that information of venous thromboses was not available in this study and “perhaps some of the other antibodies might have stood out if we were able to analyze for different outcomes.”

This study was supported by a Pfizer Aspire Award. Dr. Knight reported receiving research funding and consulting fees from Jazz Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work.

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

The presence of antiphospholipid antibodies is associated with an increased risk for future cardiovascular events, according to a new study.

The findings point to possible new approaches to risk stratification and the potential for new therapeutic targets in heart disease.

“In this study of the general population, we found that two antiphospholipid antibodies were associated with an increased risk of having a serious cardiovascular event over a follow-up of 8 years,” coauthor Jason Knight, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

“If confirmed in further studies, these findings could be used to identify a subgroup of patients who need more careful monitoring and more aggressive risk-factor modification, and if the increased risk linked to these antibodies is high enough, it may also justify preemptive treatments such as the anticoagulants that are routinely used in antiphospholipid syndrome,” Dr. Knight said.

“The long-term vision is that we may identify some people in the general population who would benefit from treating the immune system for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease instead of, or in addition to, using typical cardiovascular medications,” he added.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Individuals with autoimmune and inflammatory diseases have a greater risk for cardiovascular events than expected based on traditional cardiovascular risk factors, with mechanisms proposed to explain this risk including inflammation-mediated disruption of vascular integrity and activation of platelets and coagulation pathways, the authors explained. However, the role of autoantibodies remains unclear.

They noted that antiphospholipid antibodies can activate endothelial cells, platelets, and neutrophils, and some patients with persistently circulating antiphospholipid antibodies can develop antiphospholipid syndrome – an acquired thromboinflammatory disease characterized by arterial, venous, and microvascular thrombotic events and obstetric complications.

Cross-sectional studies have shown that antiphospholipid antibodies are acutely present in up to 17.4% of patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack, and small cohort studies have suggested that such antibodies may be present in 1%-12% of seemingly healthy individuals. However, the impact of sex, race, and ethnicity on the prevalence of antiphospholipid antibodies and their association with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is not known.

The researchers conducted the current study to look at the association between antiphospholipid antibodies and future risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular events.

They analyzed data from 2,427 participants in the population-based Dallas Heart Study who had no history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or autoimmune diseases requiring immunosuppressive medications at the time of blood sampling at study entry in 2007-2009.

Eight different types of antiphospholipid antibodies were measured, and data on cardiovascular events over the next 8 years was recorded.

Results showed that 14.5% of the cohort tested positive for one of these antiphospholipid antibodies at the start of the study, with approximately one-third of those detected at a moderate or high titer.

The researchers also found that the IgA isotypes of two antiphospholipid antibodies – anticardiolipin and anti-beta-2 glycoprotein – were associated with future atherosclerotic cardiovascular events.

After adjustment for other known risk factors, individuals testing positive for the IgA isotype of anticardiolipin had an almost five times increased risk (hazard ratio, 4.92) of the primary endpoint (myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or cardiovascular death); while those testing positive for anti–beta₂-glycoprotein had an almost three times increased risk (HR, 2.91).

Furthermore, there was what appeared to be a dose effect. People with the highest levels of these antibodies also had the highest risk for cardiovascular events, with up to an almost 10-fold increased risk with the higher level of anticardiolipin. 

Dr. Knight said that more research into the IgA isotypes of these antiphospholipid antibodies is needed.

“Most of the mechanistic work in the antiphospholipid syndrome field has focused on IgG antiphospholipid antibodies. While we commonly find these IgA antibodies in patients with APS, the extent to which they contribute to disease has not been firmly established,” he said. “The fact that IgA was the primary hit in our unbiased screen suggests that there is more to the story and we need to better understand the implications of having these antibodies in circulation, and what specific problems they may be causing.”

Noting that antiphospholipid antibodies can form transiently after certain situations, such as infections, Dr. Knight said that further studies were needed with repeat blood testing to detect the chronic presence of the antibodies.

He added that information of venous thromboses was not available in this study and “perhaps some of the other antibodies might have stood out if we were able to analyze for different outcomes.”

This study was supported by a Pfizer Aspire Award. Dr. Knight reported receiving research funding and consulting fees from Jazz Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Salient demographics and clinical features

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Salient demographics and clinical features

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Salient demographics and clinical features

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kaiser Permanente

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

Insurance often drives the conversation

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

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

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

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

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

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

But not all physicians are quick to prescribe biosimilars.

Julie Miller Photography

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

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

Conversations about cost

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biosimilars 101: Familiarizing patients

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

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

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

rubberball/Getty Images

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

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

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

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

A village approach to education

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

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

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

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

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

No consensus on interchangeability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resources for physicians, patients

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kaiser Permanente

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

Insurance often drives the conversation

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

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

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

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

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

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

But not all physicians are quick to prescribe biosimilars.

Julie Miller Photography

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

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

Conversations about cost

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biosimilars 101: Familiarizing patients

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

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

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

rubberball/Getty Images

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

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

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

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

A village approach to education

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

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

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

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

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

No consensus on interchangeability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resources for physicians, patients

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kaiser Permanente

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

Insurance often drives the conversation

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

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

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

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

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

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

But not all physicians are quick to prescribe biosimilars.

Julie Miller Photography

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

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

Conversations about cost

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biosimilars 101: Familiarizing patients

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

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

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

rubberball/Getty Images

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

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

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

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

A village approach to education

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

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

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

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

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

No consensus on interchangeability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resources for physicians, patients

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Kaveh Ardalan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Kaveh Ardalan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Kaveh Ardalan

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

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

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

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

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