Lupus & Connective Tissue Diseases

Two years after the end of a randomized trial that showed a benefit of daily vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acid (n-3 FA) supplementation for reducing risk for autoimmune diseases, the salubrious effects of daily vitamin D appear to have waned after the supplement was discontinued, while the protection from n-3 lived on for at least 2 additional years.

As previously reported, the randomized VITAL, which was designed primarily to study the effects of vitamin D and n-3 supplementation on incident cancer and cardiovascular disease, also showed that 5 years of vitamin D supplementation was associated with a 22% reduction in risk for confirmed autoimmune diseases, and 5 years of n-3 FA supplementation was associated with an 18% reduction in confirmed and probable incident autoimmune diseases.

Now, investigators Karen H. Costenbader, MD, MPH, of Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues reported that among 21,592 participants in VITAL who agreed to be followed for an additional 2 years after discontinuation, the protection against autoimmune diseases from daily vitamin D (cholecalciferol; 2000 IU/d) was no longer statistically significant, but the benefits of daily marine n-3 FAs (1 g/d as a fish-oil capsule containing 460 mg of eicosapentaenoic acid and 380 mg of docosahexaenoic acid) remained significant.

“VITAL observational extension results suggest that vitamin D supplementation should be given on a continuous basis for long-term prevention of [autoimmune diseases]. The beneficial effects of n-3 fatty acids, however, may be prolonged for at least 2 years after discontinuation,” they wrote in an article published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

Dr. Costenbader told this news organization that the results of the observational extension study suggest that the benefits of vitamin D “wear off more quickly, and it should be continued for a longer period of time or indefinitely, rather than only for 5 years.”

In addition to the disparity in the duration of the protective effect, the investigators also saw differences in the effects across different autoimmune diseases.

“The protective effect of vitamin D seemed strongest for psoriasis, while for omega-3 fatty acids, the protective effects were strongest for rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease,” she said.
 

Mixed Effects

In an interview with this news organization, Janet Funk, MD, MS, vice chair of research in the Department of Medicine and professor in the School of Nutritional Science and Wellness at the University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, who was not involved in the study, saidthat the results suggest that while each supplement may offer protection against autoimmune diseases, the effects are inconsistent and may not apply to all patients.

“I think the VITAL extension results suggest that either supplement (or both together) may have benefits in reducing risk of autoimmune diseases, including possible persistent effects posttreatment, but that these effects are nuanced (ie, only in normal weight post-vitamin D treatment) and possibly not uniform across all autoimmune diseases (including possible adverse effects for some — eg, inverse association between prior omega-3 and psoriasis and tendency for increased autoimmune thyroid disease for vitamin D), although the study was not powered sufficiently to draw disease-specific conclusions,” she said.

In an editorial accompanying the study, rheumatologist Joel M. Kremer, MD, of Albany Medical College and the Corrona Research Foundation in Delray Beach, Florida, wrote that “[T]he studies by Dr. Costenbader, et al. have shed new light on the possibility that dietary supplements of n-3 FA [fatty acid] may prevent the onset of [autoimmune disease]. The sustained benefits they describe for as long as 2 years after the supplements are discontinued are consistent with the chronicity of FA species in cellular plasma membranes where they serve as substrates for a diverse array of salient metabolic and inflammatory pathways.”
 

VITAL Then

To test whether vitamin D or marine-derived long-chain n-3 FA supplementation could protect against autoimmune disease over time, Dr. Costenbader and colleagues piggybacked an ancillary study onto the VITAL trial, which had primary outcomes of cancer and cardiovascular disease incidence.

A total of 25,871 participants were enrolled, including 12,786 men aged 50 and older and 13,085 women aged 55 and older. The study had a 2 × 2 factorial design, with patients randomly assigned to vitamin D 2000 IU/d or placebo and then further randomized to either 1 g/d n-3 FAs or placebo in both the vitamin D and placebo primary randomization arms.

In multivariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, race, and other supplement arm, vitamin D alone was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.68 (P = .02) for incident autoimmune disease, n-3 alone was associated with a nonsignificant HR of 0.74, and the combination was associated with an HR of 0.69 (P = .03). However, when probable incident autoimmune disease cases were included, the effect of n-3 became significant, with an HR of 0.82.
 

VITAL Now

In the current analysis, Dr. Costenbader and colleagues reported observational data on 21,592 VITAL participants, a sample representing 83.5% of those who were initially randomized, and 87.9% of those who were alive and could be contacted at the end of the study.

As in the initial trial, the investigators used annual questionnaires to assess incident autoimmune diseases during the randomized follow-up. Participants were asked about new-onset, doctor-diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, psoriasis, autoimmune thyroid disease, and inflammatory bowel disease. Participants could also write in any other new autoimmune disease diagnoses.

There were 236 new cases of confirmed autoimmune disease that occurred since the initial publication of the trial results, as well as 65 probable cases identified during the median 5.3 years of the randomized portion, and 42 probable cases diagnosed during the 2-year observational phase.

The investigators found that after the 2-year observation period, 255 participants initially randomized to receive vitamin D had a newly developed confirmed autoimmune disease, compared with 259 of those initially randomized to a vitamin D placebo. This translated into a nonsignificant HR of 0.98.

Adding probable autoimmune cases to the confirmed cases made little difference, resulting in a nonsignificant adjusted HR of 0.95.

In contrast, there were 234 confirmed autoimmune disease cases among patients initially assigned to n-3, compared with 280 among patients randomized to the n-3 placebo, translating into a statistically significant HR of 0.83 for new-onset autoimmune disease with n-3.

Dr. Costenbader and colleagues acknowledged that the study was limited by the use of doses intended to prevent cancer or cardiovascular disease and that higher doses intended for high-risk or nutritionally deficient populations might reveal larger effects of supplementation. In addition, they noted the difficulty of identifying the timing and onset of incident disease, and that the small number of cases that occurred during the 2-year observational period precluded detailed analyses of individual autoimmune diseases.

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Costenbader, Dr. Funk, and Dr. Kremer reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Two years after the end of a randomized trial that showed a benefit of daily vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acid (n-3 FA) supplementation for reducing risk for autoimmune diseases, the salubrious effects of daily vitamin D appear to have waned after the supplement was discontinued, while the protection from n-3 lived on for at least 2 additional years.

As previously reported, the randomized VITAL, which was designed primarily to study the effects of vitamin D and n-3 supplementation on incident cancer and cardiovascular disease, also showed that 5 years of vitamin D supplementation was associated with a 22% reduction in risk for confirmed autoimmune diseases, and 5 years of n-3 FA supplementation was associated with an 18% reduction in confirmed and probable incident autoimmune diseases.

Now, investigators Karen H. Costenbader, MD, MPH, of Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues reported that among 21,592 participants in VITAL who agreed to be followed for an additional 2 years after discontinuation, the protection against autoimmune diseases from daily vitamin D (cholecalciferol; 2000 IU/d) was no longer statistically significant, but the benefits of daily marine n-3 FAs (1 g/d as a fish-oil capsule containing 460 mg of eicosapentaenoic acid and 380 mg of docosahexaenoic acid) remained significant.

“VITAL observational extension results suggest that vitamin D supplementation should be given on a continuous basis for long-term prevention of [autoimmune diseases]. The beneficial effects of n-3 fatty acids, however, may be prolonged for at least 2 years after discontinuation,” they wrote in an article published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

Dr. Costenbader told this news organization that the results of the observational extension study suggest that the benefits of vitamin D “wear off more quickly, and it should be continued for a longer period of time or indefinitely, rather than only for 5 years.”

In addition to the disparity in the duration of the protective effect, the investigators also saw differences in the effects across different autoimmune diseases.

“The protective effect of vitamin D seemed strongest for psoriasis, while for omega-3 fatty acids, the protective effects were strongest for rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease,” she said.
 

Mixed Effects

In an interview with this news organization, Janet Funk, MD, MS, vice chair of research in the Department of Medicine and professor in the School of Nutritional Science and Wellness at the University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, who was not involved in the study, saidthat the results suggest that while each supplement may offer protection against autoimmune diseases, the effects are inconsistent and may not apply to all patients.

“I think the VITAL extension results suggest that either supplement (or both together) may have benefits in reducing risk of autoimmune diseases, including possible persistent effects posttreatment, but that these effects are nuanced (ie, only in normal weight post-vitamin D treatment) and possibly not uniform across all autoimmune diseases (including possible adverse effects for some — eg, inverse association between prior omega-3 and psoriasis and tendency for increased autoimmune thyroid disease for vitamin D), although the study was not powered sufficiently to draw disease-specific conclusions,” she said.

In an editorial accompanying the study, rheumatologist Joel M. Kremer, MD, of Albany Medical College and the Corrona Research Foundation in Delray Beach, Florida, wrote that “[T]he studies by Dr. Costenbader, et al. have shed new light on the possibility that dietary supplements of n-3 FA [fatty acid] may prevent the onset of [autoimmune disease]. The sustained benefits they describe for as long as 2 years after the supplements are discontinued are consistent with the chronicity of FA species in cellular plasma membranes where they serve as substrates for a diverse array of salient metabolic and inflammatory pathways.”
 

VITAL Then

To test whether vitamin D or marine-derived long-chain n-3 FA supplementation could protect against autoimmune disease over time, Dr. Costenbader and colleagues piggybacked an ancillary study onto the VITAL trial, which had primary outcomes of cancer and cardiovascular disease incidence.

A total of 25,871 participants were enrolled, including 12,786 men aged 50 and older and 13,085 women aged 55 and older. The study had a 2 × 2 factorial design, with patients randomly assigned to vitamin D 2000 IU/d or placebo and then further randomized to either 1 g/d n-3 FAs or placebo in both the vitamin D and placebo primary randomization arms.

In multivariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, race, and other supplement arm, vitamin D alone was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.68 (P = .02) for incident autoimmune disease, n-3 alone was associated with a nonsignificant HR of 0.74, and the combination was associated with an HR of 0.69 (P = .03). However, when probable incident autoimmune disease cases were included, the effect of n-3 became significant, with an HR of 0.82.
 

VITAL Now

In the current analysis, Dr. Costenbader and colleagues reported observational data on 21,592 VITAL participants, a sample representing 83.5% of those who were initially randomized, and 87.9% of those who were alive and could be contacted at the end of the study.

As in the initial trial, the investigators used annual questionnaires to assess incident autoimmune diseases during the randomized follow-up. Participants were asked about new-onset, doctor-diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, psoriasis, autoimmune thyroid disease, and inflammatory bowel disease. Participants could also write in any other new autoimmune disease diagnoses.

There were 236 new cases of confirmed autoimmune disease that occurred since the initial publication of the trial results, as well as 65 probable cases identified during the median 5.3 years of the randomized portion, and 42 probable cases diagnosed during the 2-year observational phase.

The investigators found that after the 2-year observation period, 255 participants initially randomized to receive vitamin D had a newly developed confirmed autoimmune disease, compared with 259 of those initially randomized to a vitamin D placebo. This translated into a nonsignificant HR of 0.98.

Adding probable autoimmune cases to the confirmed cases made little difference, resulting in a nonsignificant adjusted HR of 0.95.

In contrast, there were 234 confirmed autoimmune disease cases among patients initially assigned to n-3, compared with 280 among patients randomized to the n-3 placebo, translating into a statistically significant HR of 0.83 for new-onset autoimmune disease with n-3.

Dr. Costenbader and colleagues acknowledged that the study was limited by the use of doses intended to prevent cancer or cardiovascular disease and that higher doses intended for high-risk or nutritionally deficient populations might reveal larger effects of supplementation. In addition, they noted the difficulty of identifying the timing and onset of incident disease, and that the small number of cases that occurred during the 2-year observational period precluded detailed analyses of individual autoimmune diseases.

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Costenbader, Dr. Funk, and Dr. Kremer reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Two years after the end of a randomized trial that showed a benefit of daily vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acid (n-3 FA) supplementation for reducing risk for autoimmune diseases, the salubrious effects of daily vitamin D appear to have waned after the supplement was discontinued, while the protection from n-3 lived on for at least 2 additional years.

As previously reported, the randomized VITAL, which was designed primarily to study the effects of vitamin D and n-3 supplementation on incident cancer and cardiovascular disease, also showed that 5 years of vitamin D supplementation was associated with a 22% reduction in risk for confirmed autoimmune diseases, and 5 years of n-3 FA supplementation was associated with an 18% reduction in confirmed and probable incident autoimmune diseases.

Now, investigators Karen H. Costenbader, MD, MPH, of Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, and colleagues reported that among 21,592 participants in VITAL who agreed to be followed for an additional 2 years after discontinuation, the protection against autoimmune diseases from daily vitamin D (cholecalciferol; 2000 IU/d) was no longer statistically significant, but the benefits of daily marine n-3 FAs (1 g/d as a fish-oil capsule containing 460 mg of eicosapentaenoic acid and 380 mg of docosahexaenoic acid) remained significant.

“VITAL observational extension results suggest that vitamin D supplementation should be given on a continuous basis for long-term prevention of [autoimmune diseases]. The beneficial effects of n-3 fatty acids, however, may be prolonged for at least 2 years after discontinuation,” they wrote in an article published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

Dr. Costenbader told this news organization that the results of the observational extension study suggest that the benefits of vitamin D “wear off more quickly, and it should be continued for a longer period of time or indefinitely, rather than only for 5 years.”

In addition to the disparity in the duration of the protective effect, the investigators also saw differences in the effects across different autoimmune diseases.

“The protective effect of vitamin D seemed strongest for psoriasis, while for omega-3 fatty acids, the protective effects were strongest for rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease,” she said.
 

Mixed Effects

In an interview with this news organization, Janet Funk, MD, MS, vice chair of research in the Department of Medicine and professor in the School of Nutritional Science and Wellness at the University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, who was not involved in the study, saidthat the results suggest that while each supplement may offer protection against autoimmune diseases, the effects are inconsistent and may not apply to all patients.

“I think the VITAL extension results suggest that either supplement (or both together) may have benefits in reducing risk of autoimmune diseases, including possible persistent effects posttreatment, but that these effects are nuanced (ie, only in normal weight post-vitamin D treatment) and possibly not uniform across all autoimmune diseases (including possible adverse effects for some — eg, inverse association between prior omega-3 and psoriasis and tendency for increased autoimmune thyroid disease for vitamin D), although the study was not powered sufficiently to draw disease-specific conclusions,” she said.

In an editorial accompanying the study, rheumatologist Joel M. Kremer, MD, of Albany Medical College and the Corrona Research Foundation in Delray Beach, Florida, wrote that “[T]he studies by Dr. Costenbader, et al. have shed new light on the possibility that dietary supplements of n-3 FA [fatty acid] may prevent the onset of [autoimmune disease]. The sustained benefits they describe for as long as 2 years after the supplements are discontinued are consistent with the chronicity of FA species in cellular plasma membranes where they serve as substrates for a diverse array of salient metabolic and inflammatory pathways.”
 

VITAL Then

To test whether vitamin D or marine-derived long-chain n-3 FA supplementation could protect against autoimmune disease over time, Dr. Costenbader and colleagues piggybacked an ancillary study onto the VITAL trial, which had primary outcomes of cancer and cardiovascular disease incidence.

A total of 25,871 participants were enrolled, including 12,786 men aged 50 and older and 13,085 women aged 55 and older. The study had a 2 × 2 factorial design, with patients randomly assigned to vitamin D 2000 IU/d or placebo and then further randomized to either 1 g/d n-3 FAs or placebo in both the vitamin D and placebo primary randomization arms.

In multivariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, race, and other supplement arm, vitamin D alone was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.68 (P = .02) for incident autoimmune disease, n-3 alone was associated with a nonsignificant HR of 0.74, and the combination was associated with an HR of 0.69 (P = .03). However, when probable incident autoimmune disease cases were included, the effect of n-3 became significant, with an HR of 0.82.
 

VITAL Now

In the current analysis, Dr. Costenbader and colleagues reported observational data on 21,592 VITAL participants, a sample representing 83.5% of those who were initially randomized, and 87.9% of those who were alive and could be contacted at the end of the study.

As in the initial trial, the investigators used annual questionnaires to assess incident autoimmune diseases during the randomized follow-up. Participants were asked about new-onset, doctor-diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, psoriasis, autoimmune thyroid disease, and inflammatory bowel disease. Participants could also write in any other new autoimmune disease diagnoses.

There were 236 new cases of confirmed autoimmune disease that occurred since the initial publication of the trial results, as well as 65 probable cases identified during the median 5.3 years of the randomized portion, and 42 probable cases diagnosed during the 2-year observational phase.

The investigators found that after the 2-year observation period, 255 participants initially randomized to receive vitamin D had a newly developed confirmed autoimmune disease, compared with 259 of those initially randomized to a vitamin D placebo. This translated into a nonsignificant HR of 0.98.

Adding probable autoimmune cases to the confirmed cases made little difference, resulting in a nonsignificant adjusted HR of 0.95.

In contrast, there were 234 confirmed autoimmune disease cases among patients initially assigned to n-3, compared with 280 among patients randomized to the n-3 placebo, translating into a statistically significant HR of 0.83 for new-onset autoimmune disease with n-3.

Dr. Costenbader and colleagues acknowledged that the study was limited by the use of doses intended to prevent cancer or cardiovascular disease and that higher doses intended for high-risk or nutritionally deficient populations might reveal larger effects of supplementation. In addition, they noted the difficulty of identifying the timing and onset of incident disease, and that the small number of cases that occurred during the 2-year observational period precluded detailed analyses of individual autoimmune diseases.

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Costenbader, Dr. Funk, and Dr. Kremer reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sirolimus may be an effective treatment for patients with persistent cutaneous sarcoidosis.

In a small clinical trial, 7 of 10 patients treated with sirolimus via oral solution had improvements in skin lesions after 4 months, which was sustained for up to 2 years after the study concluded.

The results suggested that mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibition is a potential therapeutic avenue for sarcoidosis, which the authors said should be explored in larger clinical trials. 

In the past decade, there has been a growing amount of evidence suggesting mTOR’s role in sarcoidosis. In 2017, researchers showed that activation of mTOR in macrophages could cause progressive sarcoidosis in mice. In additional studies, high levels of mTOR activity were detected in human sarcoidosis granulomas in various organs, including the skin, lung, and heart.

Three case reports also documented using the mTOR inhibitor sirolimus to effectively treat systemic sarcoidosis.

“Although all reports observed improvement of the disease following the treatment, no clinical trial investigating the efficacy and safety of sirolimus in patients with sarcoidosis had been published” prior to this study, wrote senior author Georg Stary, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna and the Research Center for Molecular Medicine of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, Austria, and colleagues. 

The findings were published in the The Lancet Rheumatology.

For the study, researchers recruited 16 individuals with persistent and glucocorticoid-refractory cutaneous sarcoidosis between September 2019 and June 2021. A total of 14 participants were randomly assigned to the topical phase of the study, whereas two immediately received systemic treatment. All treatment was conducted at Vienna General Hospital.

In the placebo-controlled, double-blinded topical treatment arm, patients received either 0.1% topical sirolimus in Vaseline or Vaseline alone (placebo) twice daily for 2 months. After a 1-month washout period, participants were switched to the alternate treatment arm for an additional 2 months.

Following this topical phase and an additional 1-month washout period, all remaining participants received systemic sirolimus via a 1-mg/mL solution, starting with a 6-mg loading dose and continuing with 2 mg once daily for 4 months. The primary outcome was change in Cutaneous Sarcoidosis Activity and Morphology Index (CSAMI) from baseline, with decrease of more than five points representing a response to treatment.

A total of 10 patients completed the trial.

There was no change in CSAMI in either topical treatment groups. In the systemic group, 70% of patients had clinical improvement in skin lesions, with three responders in this group having complete resolution of skin lesions. The median change in CSAMI was −7.0 points (P = .018). 

This improvement persisted for 2 months following study conclusion, with more pronounced improvement from baseline after 2 years of drug-free follow-up (−11.5 points).

There were no serious adverse events reported during the study, but 42% of patients treated with systemic sirolimus reported mild skin reactions, such as acne and eczema. Other related adverse events were hypertriglyceridemia (17%), hyperglycemia (17%), and proteinuria (8%).

Compared with clinical outcomes with tofacitinib and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, “the strength of our study lies in the sustained treatment effect after drug withdrawal among all responders. This prolonged effect has not yet been explored with tofacitinib, whereas with TNF inhibitors disease relapse was seen in more than 50% of patients at 3-8 months,” the authors wrote.

The researchers also analyzed participants’ skin biopsies to gain a better understanding of how mTOR inhibition affected granuloma structures. They found that, at baseline, mTOR activity was significantly lower in the fibroblasts of treatment nonresponders than in responders. They speculated that lower expression of mTOR could make these granuloma-associated cells resistant to systemic sirolimus.

These promising findings combine “clinical response with a molecular analysis,” Avrom Caplan, MD, co-director of the Sarcoidosis Program at NYU Langone in New York City, told this news organization. He was not involved with the research. Adding molecular information to clinical outcome data “helps solidify that [the mTOR] pathway has relevance in the sarcoid granuloma formation.”

The study had a limited sample size — a challenge for many clinical trials of rare diseases, Dr. Caplan said. Larger clinical trials are necessary to explore mTOR inhibition in sarcoidosis, both he and the authors agreed. A larger trial could also include greater heterogeneity of patients, including varied sarcoid presentation and demographics, Dr. Caplan noted. In this study, all but one participants were White individuals, and 63% of participants were female.

Larger studies could also address important questions on ideal length of therapy, dosing, and where this therapy “would fall within the therapeutic step ladder,” Dr. Caplan continued. 

Whether mTOR inhibition could be effective at treating individuals with sarcoidosis in other organs beyond the skin is also unknown. 

“If the pathogenesis of sarcoid granuloma formation does include mTOR upregulation, which they are showing here…then you could hypothesize that, yes, using this therapy could benefit other organs,” he said. “But that has to be investigated in larger trials.”

The study was funded in part by a Vienna Science and Technology Fund project. Several authors report receiving grants from the Austrian Science Fund and one from the Ann Theodore Foundation Breakthrough Sarcoidosis Initiative. Dr. Caplan reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Sirolimus may be an effective treatment for patients with persistent cutaneous sarcoidosis.

In a small clinical trial, 7 of 10 patients treated with sirolimus via oral solution had improvements in skin lesions after 4 months, which was sustained for up to 2 years after the study concluded.

The results suggested that mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibition is a potential therapeutic avenue for sarcoidosis, which the authors said should be explored in larger clinical trials. 

In the past decade, there has been a growing amount of evidence suggesting mTOR’s role in sarcoidosis. In 2017, researchers showed that activation of mTOR in macrophages could cause progressive sarcoidosis in mice. In additional studies, high levels of mTOR activity were detected in human sarcoidosis granulomas in various organs, including the skin, lung, and heart.

Three case reports also documented using the mTOR inhibitor sirolimus to effectively treat systemic sarcoidosis.

“Although all reports observed improvement of the disease following the treatment, no clinical trial investigating the efficacy and safety of sirolimus in patients with sarcoidosis had been published” prior to this study, wrote senior author Georg Stary, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna and the Research Center for Molecular Medicine of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, Austria, and colleagues. 

The findings were published in the The Lancet Rheumatology.

For the study, researchers recruited 16 individuals with persistent and glucocorticoid-refractory cutaneous sarcoidosis between September 2019 and June 2021. A total of 14 participants were randomly assigned to the topical phase of the study, whereas two immediately received systemic treatment. All treatment was conducted at Vienna General Hospital.

In the placebo-controlled, double-blinded topical treatment arm, patients received either 0.1% topical sirolimus in Vaseline or Vaseline alone (placebo) twice daily for 2 months. After a 1-month washout period, participants were switched to the alternate treatment arm for an additional 2 months.

Following this topical phase and an additional 1-month washout period, all remaining participants received systemic sirolimus via a 1-mg/mL solution, starting with a 6-mg loading dose and continuing with 2 mg once daily for 4 months. The primary outcome was change in Cutaneous Sarcoidosis Activity and Morphology Index (CSAMI) from baseline, with decrease of more than five points representing a response to treatment.

A total of 10 patients completed the trial.

There was no change in CSAMI in either topical treatment groups. In the systemic group, 70% of patients had clinical improvement in skin lesions, with three responders in this group having complete resolution of skin lesions. The median change in CSAMI was −7.0 points (P = .018). 

This improvement persisted for 2 months following study conclusion, with more pronounced improvement from baseline after 2 years of drug-free follow-up (−11.5 points).

There were no serious adverse events reported during the study, but 42% of patients treated with systemic sirolimus reported mild skin reactions, such as acne and eczema. Other related adverse events were hypertriglyceridemia (17%), hyperglycemia (17%), and proteinuria (8%).

Compared with clinical outcomes with tofacitinib and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, “the strength of our study lies in the sustained treatment effect after drug withdrawal among all responders. This prolonged effect has not yet been explored with tofacitinib, whereas with TNF inhibitors disease relapse was seen in more than 50% of patients at 3-8 months,” the authors wrote.

The researchers also analyzed participants’ skin biopsies to gain a better understanding of how mTOR inhibition affected granuloma structures. They found that, at baseline, mTOR activity was significantly lower in the fibroblasts of treatment nonresponders than in responders. They speculated that lower expression of mTOR could make these granuloma-associated cells resistant to systemic sirolimus.

These promising findings combine “clinical response with a molecular analysis,” Avrom Caplan, MD, co-director of the Sarcoidosis Program at NYU Langone in New York City, told this news organization. He was not involved with the research. Adding molecular information to clinical outcome data “helps solidify that [the mTOR] pathway has relevance in the sarcoid granuloma formation.”

The study had a limited sample size — a challenge for many clinical trials of rare diseases, Dr. Caplan said. Larger clinical trials are necessary to explore mTOR inhibition in sarcoidosis, both he and the authors agreed. A larger trial could also include greater heterogeneity of patients, including varied sarcoid presentation and demographics, Dr. Caplan noted. In this study, all but one participants were White individuals, and 63% of participants were female.

Larger studies could also address important questions on ideal length of therapy, dosing, and where this therapy “would fall within the therapeutic step ladder,” Dr. Caplan continued. 

Whether mTOR inhibition could be effective at treating individuals with sarcoidosis in other organs beyond the skin is also unknown. 

“If the pathogenesis of sarcoid granuloma formation does include mTOR upregulation, which they are showing here…then you could hypothesize that, yes, using this therapy could benefit other organs,” he said. “But that has to be investigated in larger trials.”

The study was funded in part by a Vienna Science and Technology Fund project. Several authors report receiving grants from the Austrian Science Fund and one from the Ann Theodore Foundation Breakthrough Sarcoidosis Initiative. Dr. Caplan reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Sirolimus may be an effective treatment for patients with persistent cutaneous sarcoidosis.

In a small clinical trial, 7 of 10 patients treated with sirolimus via oral solution had improvements in skin lesions after 4 months, which was sustained for up to 2 years after the study concluded.

The results suggested that mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibition is a potential therapeutic avenue for sarcoidosis, which the authors said should be explored in larger clinical trials. 

In the past decade, there has been a growing amount of evidence suggesting mTOR’s role in sarcoidosis. In 2017, researchers showed that activation of mTOR in macrophages could cause progressive sarcoidosis in mice. In additional studies, high levels of mTOR activity were detected in human sarcoidosis granulomas in various organs, including the skin, lung, and heart.

Three case reports also documented using the mTOR inhibitor sirolimus to effectively treat systemic sarcoidosis.

“Although all reports observed improvement of the disease following the treatment, no clinical trial investigating the efficacy and safety of sirolimus in patients with sarcoidosis had been published” prior to this study, wrote senior author Georg Stary, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna and the Research Center for Molecular Medicine of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, Austria, and colleagues. 

The findings were published in the The Lancet Rheumatology.

For the study, researchers recruited 16 individuals with persistent and glucocorticoid-refractory cutaneous sarcoidosis between September 2019 and June 2021. A total of 14 participants were randomly assigned to the topical phase of the study, whereas two immediately received systemic treatment. All treatment was conducted at Vienna General Hospital.

In the placebo-controlled, double-blinded topical treatment arm, patients received either 0.1% topical sirolimus in Vaseline or Vaseline alone (placebo) twice daily for 2 months. After a 1-month washout period, participants were switched to the alternate treatment arm for an additional 2 months.

Following this topical phase and an additional 1-month washout period, all remaining participants received systemic sirolimus via a 1-mg/mL solution, starting with a 6-mg loading dose and continuing with 2 mg once daily for 4 months. The primary outcome was change in Cutaneous Sarcoidosis Activity and Morphology Index (CSAMI) from baseline, with decrease of more than five points representing a response to treatment.

A total of 10 patients completed the trial.

There was no change in CSAMI in either topical treatment groups. In the systemic group, 70% of patients had clinical improvement in skin lesions, with three responders in this group having complete resolution of skin lesions. The median change in CSAMI was −7.0 points (P = .018). 

This improvement persisted for 2 months following study conclusion, with more pronounced improvement from baseline after 2 years of drug-free follow-up (−11.5 points).

There were no serious adverse events reported during the study, but 42% of patients treated with systemic sirolimus reported mild skin reactions, such as acne and eczema. Other related adverse events were hypertriglyceridemia (17%), hyperglycemia (17%), and proteinuria (8%).

Compared with clinical outcomes with tofacitinib and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, “the strength of our study lies in the sustained treatment effect after drug withdrawal among all responders. This prolonged effect has not yet been explored with tofacitinib, whereas with TNF inhibitors disease relapse was seen in more than 50% of patients at 3-8 months,” the authors wrote.

The researchers also analyzed participants’ skin biopsies to gain a better understanding of how mTOR inhibition affected granuloma structures. They found that, at baseline, mTOR activity was significantly lower in the fibroblasts of treatment nonresponders than in responders. They speculated that lower expression of mTOR could make these granuloma-associated cells resistant to systemic sirolimus.

These promising findings combine “clinical response with a molecular analysis,” Avrom Caplan, MD, co-director of the Sarcoidosis Program at NYU Langone in New York City, told this news organization. He was not involved with the research. Adding molecular information to clinical outcome data “helps solidify that [the mTOR] pathway has relevance in the sarcoid granuloma formation.”

The study had a limited sample size — a challenge for many clinical trials of rare diseases, Dr. Caplan said. Larger clinical trials are necessary to explore mTOR inhibition in sarcoidosis, both he and the authors agreed. A larger trial could also include greater heterogeneity of patients, including varied sarcoid presentation and demographics, Dr. Caplan noted. In this study, all but one participants were White individuals, and 63% of participants were female.

Larger studies could also address important questions on ideal length of therapy, dosing, and where this therapy “would fall within the therapeutic step ladder,” Dr. Caplan continued. 

Whether mTOR inhibition could be effective at treating individuals with sarcoidosis in other organs beyond the skin is also unknown. 

“If the pathogenesis of sarcoid granuloma formation does include mTOR upregulation, which they are showing here…then you could hypothesize that, yes, using this therapy could benefit other organs,” he said. “But that has to be investigated in larger trials.”

The study was funded in part by a Vienna Science and Technology Fund project. Several authors report receiving grants from the Austrian Science Fund and one from the Ann Theodore Foundation Breakthrough Sarcoidosis Initiative. Dr. Caplan reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

ORLANDO, FLORIDA — Advances in treating medical conditions rarely emerge in a straight line. Oftentimes, progress comes in fits and starts, and therapies to treat cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) and dermatomyositis are no exception.

Beyond approved treatments that deserve more attention, like belimumab, approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in 2011, and Octagam 10%, an intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) preparation approved for dermatomyositis in 2021, anticipation is growing for emerging therapies and their potential to provide relief to patients, Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, said at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgical Conference. The tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor deucravacitinib, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors brepocitinib and baricitinib, and the monoclonal antibody anifrolumab, he noted, are prime examples.

“There have been significant advances in the development of treatments for lupus erythematosus and dermatomyositis. In my opinion, this is the start of what will be the most exciting decade in the history of these two diseases,” said Dr. Fernandez, director of medical dermatology at the Cleveland Clinic.
 

Emerging Treatments for Cutaneous Lupus

Although SLE can involve many organ systems, the skin is one of the most affected. There are specific cutaneous lesions categorized as either acute cutaneous lupus, subacute cutaneous lupus, or chronic cutaneous lupus.

The oral TYK2 inhibitor deucravacitinib, for example, should be able to dampen interleukin responses in people with CLE, Dr. Fernandez said. Deucravacitinib was approved by the FDA to treat psoriasis in September 2022.

Cleveland Clinic Foundation

A phase 2 study published in 2023 focused on this agent for relief of systemic lupus. Improvements in cutaneous disease were a secondary endpoint. The trial demonstrated that the patients treated with deucravacitinib achieved a 56%-70% CLASI-50 response, depending on dosing, compared with a 17% response among those on placebo at week 48.

Based on the trial results, recruitment has begun for a phase 2 trial to evaluate deucravacitinib, compared with placebo, in patients with discoid and/or subacute cutaneous lupus. “This may be another medicine we have available to give to any of our patients with cutaneous lupus,” Dr. Fernandez said.
 

Anifrolumab Appears Promising

The FDA approval of anifrolumab, a type I interferon (IFN) receptor antagonist, for treating moderate to severe SLE in July 2021, for example, is good news for dermatologists and their patients, added Dr. Fernandez. “Almost immediately after approval, case studies showed marked improvement in patients with refractory cutaneous lupus.” While the therapy was approved for treating systemic lupus, it allows for off-label treatment of the cutaneous predominant form of the disease, he said.

Furthermore, the manufacturer of anifrolumab, AstraZeneca, is launching the LAVENDER clinical trial to assess the monoclonal antibody specifically for treating CLE. “This is a big deal because we may be able to prescribe anifrolumab for our cutaneous lupus patients who don’t have systemic lupus,” Dr. Fernandez said.

Phase 3 data supported use the of anifrolumab in systemic lupus, including the TULIP-2 trial, which demonstrated its superiority to placebo for reducing severity of systemic disease and lowering corticosteroid use. A study published in March 2023 of 11 patients showed that they had a “very fast response” to the agent, Dr. Fernandez said, with a 50% or greater improvement in the Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index activity score reached by all participants at week 16. Improvements of 50% or more in this scoring system are considered clinically meaningful, he added.
 

Upcoming Dermatomyositis Treatments

Why highlight emerging therapies for CLE and dermatomyositis in the same ODAC presentation? Although distinct conditions, these autoimmune conditions are both mediated by type 1 IFN inflammation.

Dermatomyositis is a relatively rare immune-mediated disease that most commonly affects the skin and muscle. Doctors score disease presentation, activity, and clinical improvements on a scale similar to CLASI for cutaneous lupus, the CDASI or Cutaneous Dermatomyositis Disease Area and Severity Index. Among people with CDASI activity scores of at least 14, which is the threshold for moderate to severe disease, a 20% improvement is clinically meaningful, Dr. Fernandez said. In addition, a 40% or greater improvement correlates with significant improvements in quality of life.

There is now more evidence for the use of IVIG to treat dermatomyositis. “Among those of us who treat dermatomyositis on a regular basis, we believe IVIG is the most potent treatment. We’ve known that for a long time,” Dr. Fernandez said.

Despite this tenet, for years, there was only one placebo-controlled trial, published in 1993, that evaluated IVIG treatment for dermatomyositis, and it included only 15 participants. That was until October 2022, he said, when the New England Journal of Medicine published a study comparing a specific brand of IVIG (Octagam) with placebo in 95 people with dermatomyositis.

In the study, 79% of participants treated with IVIG had a total improvement score of at least 20 (minimal improvement), the primary endpoint, at 16 weeks, compared with 44% of those receiving a placebo. Those treated with IVIG also had significant improvements in the CDASI score, a secondary endpoint, compared with those on placebo, he said.

Based on results of this trial, the FDA approved Octagam 10% for dermatomyositis in adults. Dr. Fernandez noted the approval is restricted to the brand of IVIG in the trial, not all IVIG products. However, “the FDA approval is most important to us because it gives us ammunition to fight for insurers to approve IVIG when we feel our patients with dermatomyositis need it,” regardless of the brand.
 

The Potential of JAK1 Inhibitors

An open-label study of the JAK inhibitor tofacitinib, published in December 2020, showed that mean changes in CDASI activity scores at 12 weeks were statistically significant compared with baseline in 10 people with dermatomyositis. “The importance of this study is that it is proof of concept that JAK inhibition can be effective for treating dermatomyositis, especially with active skin disease,” Dr. Fernandez said.

In addition, two large phase 3 trials are evaluating JAK inhibitor safety and efficacy for treating dermatomyositis. One is the VALOR trial, currently recruiting people with recalcitrant dermatomyositis to evaluate treatment with brepocitinib. Researchers in France are looking at another JAK inhibitor, baricitinib, for treating relapsing or treatment-naive dermatomyositis. Recruitment for the BIRD clinical trial is ongoing.

Monoclonal Antibody Showing Promise

“When it comes to looking specifically at dermatomyositis cutaneous disease, it’s been found that the levels of IFN beta correlate best with not only lesional skin type 1 IFN inflammatory signatures but also overall clinical disease activity,” Dr. Fernandez said. This correlation is stronger than for any other IFN-1-type cytokine active in the disorder.

“Perhaps blocking IFN beta might be best way to get control of dermatomyositis activity,” he added.

With that in mind, a phase 2 trial of dazukibart presented at the American Academy of Dermatology 2023 annual meeting highlighted the promise of this agent that targets type 1 IFN beta.

The primary endpoint was improvement in CDASI at 12 weeks. “This medication has remarkable efficacy,” Dr. Fernandez said. “We were one of the sites for this trial. Despite being blinded, there was no question about who was receiving drug and who was receiving placebo.”

“A minimal clinical improvement in disease activity was seen in more than 90%, so almost every patient who received this medication had meaningful improvement,” he added.

Based on the results, the manufacturer, Pfizer, is recruiting participants for a phase 3 trial to further assess dazukibart in dermatomyositis and polymyositis. Dr. Fernandez said, “This is a story you should pay attention to if you treat any dermatomyositis patients at all.”

Regarding these emerging therapies for CLE and dermatomyositis, “This looks very much like the early days of psoriasis, in the early 2000s, when there was a lot of activity developing treatments,” Dr. Fernandez said. “I will predict that within 10 years, we will have multiple novel agents available that will probably work better than anything we have today.”

Dr. Fernandez reported receiving grant and/or research support from Alexion, Incyte, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pfizer, and Priovant Therapeutics; acting as a consultant or advisory board member for AbbVie, Biogen, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals; and being a member of the speaker bureau or receiving honoraria for non-CME from AbbVie, Kyowa Kirin, and Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO, FLORIDA — Advances in treating medical conditions rarely emerge in a straight line. Oftentimes, progress comes in fits and starts, and therapies to treat cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) and dermatomyositis are no exception.

Beyond approved treatments that deserve more attention, like belimumab, approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in 2011, and Octagam 10%, an intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) preparation approved for dermatomyositis in 2021, anticipation is growing for emerging therapies and their potential to provide relief to patients, Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, said at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgical Conference. The tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor deucravacitinib, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors brepocitinib and baricitinib, and the monoclonal antibody anifrolumab, he noted, are prime examples.

“There have been significant advances in the development of treatments for lupus erythematosus and dermatomyositis. In my opinion, this is the start of what will be the most exciting decade in the history of these two diseases,” said Dr. Fernandez, director of medical dermatology at the Cleveland Clinic.
 

Emerging Treatments for Cutaneous Lupus

Although SLE can involve many organ systems, the skin is one of the most affected. There are specific cutaneous lesions categorized as either acute cutaneous lupus, subacute cutaneous lupus, or chronic cutaneous lupus.

The oral TYK2 inhibitor deucravacitinib, for example, should be able to dampen interleukin responses in people with CLE, Dr. Fernandez said. Deucravacitinib was approved by the FDA to treat psoriasis in September 2022.

Cleveland Clinic Foundation

A phase 2 study published in 2023 focused on this agent for relief of systemic lupus. Improvements in cutaneous disease were a secondary endpoint. The trial demonstrated that the patients treated with deucravacitinib achieved a 56%-70% CLASI-50 response, depending on dosing, compared with a 17% response among those on placebo at week 48.

Based on the trial results, recruitment has begun for a phase 2 trial to evaluate deucravacitinib, compared with placebo, in patients with discoid and/or subacute cutaneous lupus. “This may be another medicine we have available to give to any of our patients with cutaneous lupus,” Dr. Fernandez said.
 

Anifrolumab Appears Promising

The FDA approval of anifrolumab, a type I interferon (IFN) receptor antagonist, for treating moderate to severe SLE in July 2021, for example, is good news for dermatologists and their patients, added Dr. Fernandez. “Almost immediately after approval, case studies showed marked improvement in patients with refractory cutaneous lupus.” While the therapy was approved for treating systemic lupus, it allows for off-label treatment of the cutaneous predominant form of the disease, he said.

Furthermore, the manufacturer of anifrolumab, AstraZeneca, is launching the LAVENDER clinical trial to assess the monoclonal antibody specifically for treating CLE. “This is a big deal because we may be able to prescribe anifrolumab for our cutaneous lupus patients who don’t have systemic lupus,” Dr. Fernandez said.

Phase 3 data supported use the of anifrolumab in systemic lupus, including the TULIP-2 trial, which demonstrated its superiority to placebo for reducing severity of systemic disease and lowering corticosteroid use. A study published in March 2023 of 11 patients showed that they had a “very fast response” to the agent, Dr. Fernandez said, with a 50% or greater improvement in the Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index activity score reached by all participants at week 16. Improvements of 50% or more in this scoring system are considered clinically meaningful, he added.
 

Upcoming Dermatomyositis Treatments

Why highlight emerging therapies for CLE and dermatomyositis in the same ODAC presentation? Although distinct conditions, these autoimmune conditions are both mediated by type 1 IFN inflammation.

Dermatomyositis is a relatively rare immune-mediated disease that most commonly affects the skin and muscle. Doctors score disease presentation, activity, and clinical improvements on a scale similar to CLASI for cutaneous lupus, the CDASI or Cutaneous Dermatomyositis Disease Area and Severity Index. Among people with CDASI activity scores of at least 14, which is the threshold for moderate to severe disease, a 20% improvement is clinically meaningful, Dr. Fernandez said. In addition, a 40% or greater improvement correlates with significant improvements in quality of life.

There is now more evidence for the use of IVIG to treat dermatomyositis. “Among those of us who treat dermatomyositis on a regular basis, we believe IVIG is the most potent treatment. We’ve known that for a long time,” Dr. Fernandez said.

Despite this tenet, for years, there was only one placebo-controlled trial, published in 1993, that evaluated IVIG treatment for dermatomyositis, and it included only 15 participants. That was until October 2022, he said, when the New England Journal of Medicine published a study comparing a specific brand of IVIG (Octagam) with placebo in 95 people with dermatomyositis.

In the study, 79% of participants treated with IVIG had a total improvement score of at least 20 (minimal improvement), the primary endpoint, at 16 weeks, compared with 44% of those receiving a placebo. Those treated with IVIG also had significant improvements in the CDASI score, a secondary endpoint, compared with those on placebo, he said.

Based on results of this trial, the FDA approved Octagam 10% for dermatomyositis in adults. Dr. Fernandez noted the approval is restricted to the brand of IVIG in the trial, not all IVIG products. However, “the FDA approval is most important to us because it gives us ammunition to fight for insurers to approve IVIG when we feel our patients with dermatomyositis need it,” regardless of the brand.
 

The Potential of JAK1 Inhibitors

An open-label study of the JAK inhibitor tofacitinib, published in December 2020, showed that mean changes in CDASI activity scores at 12 weeks were statistically significant compared with baseline in 10 people with dermatomyositis. “The importance of this study is that it is proof of concept that JAK inhibition can be effective for treating dermatomyositis, especially with active skin disease,” Dr. Fernandez said.

In addition, two large phase 3 trials are evaluating JAK inhibitor safety and efficacy for treating dermatomyositis. One is the VALOR trial, currently recruiting people with recalcitrant dermatomyositis to evaluate treatment with brepocitinib. Researchers in France are looking at another JAK inhibitor, baricitinib, for treating relapsing or treatment-naive dermatomyositis. Recruitment for the BIRD clinical trial is ongoing.

Monoclonal Antibody Showing Promise

“When it comes to looking specifically at dermatomyositis cutaneous disease, it’s been found that the levels of IFN beta correlate best with not only lesional skin type 1 IFN inflammatory signatures but also overall clinical disease activity,” Dr. Fernandez said. This correlation is stronger than for any other IFN-1-type cytokine active in the disorder.

“Perhaps blocking IFN beta might be best way to get control of dermatomyositis activity,” he added.

With that in mind, a phase 2 trial of dazukibart presented at the American Academy of Dermatology 2023 annual meeting highlighted the promise of this agent that targets type 1 IFN beta.

The primary endpoint was improvement in CDASI at 12 weeks. “This medication has remarkable efficacy,” Dr. Fernandez said. “We were one of the sites for this trial. Despite being blinded, there was no question about who was receiving drug and who was receiving placebo.”

“A minimal clinical improvement in disease activity was seen in more than 90%, so almost every patient who received this medication had meaningful improvement,” he added.

Based on the results, the manufacturer, Pfizer, is recruiting participants for a phase 3 trial to further assess dazukibart in dermatomyositis and polymyositis. Dr. Fernandez said, “This is a story you should pay attention to if you treat any dermatomyositis patients at all.”

Regarding these emerging therapies for CLE and dermatomyositis, “This looks very much like the early days of psoriasis, in the early 2000s, when there was a lot of activity developing treatments,” Dr. Fernandez said. “I will predict that within 10 years, we will have multiple novel agents available that will probably work better than anything we have today.”

Dr. Fernandez reported receiving grant and/or research support from Alexion, Incyte, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pfizer, and Priovant Therapeutics; acting as a consultant or advisory board member for AbbVie, Biogen, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals; and being a member of the speaker bureau or receiving honoraria for non-CME from AbbVie, Kyowa Kirin, and Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO, FLORIDA — Advances in treating medical conditions rarely emerge in a straight line. Oftentimes, progress comes in fits and starts, and therapies to treat cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) and dermatomyositis are no exception.

Beyond approved treatments that deserve more attention, like belimumab, approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in 2011, and Octagam 10%, an intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) preparation approved for dermatomyositis in 2021, anticipation is growing for emerging therapies and their potential to provide relief to patients, Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, said at the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgical Conference. The tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor deucravacitinib, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors brepocitinib and baricitinib, and the monoclonal antibody anifrolumab, he noted, are prime examples.

“There have been significant advances in the development of treatments for lupus erythematosus and dermatomyositis. In my opinion, this is the start of what will be the most exciting decade in the history of these two diseases,” said Dr. Fernandez, director of medical dermatology at the Cleveland Clinic.
 

Emerging Treatments for Cutaneous Lupus

Although SLE can involve many organ systems, the skin is one of the most affected. There are specific cutaneous lesions categorized as either acute cutaneous lupus, subacute cutaneous lupus, or chronic cutaneous lupus.

The oral TYK2 inhibitor deucravacitinib, for example, should be able to dampen interleukin responses in people with CLE, Dr. Fernandez said. Deucravacitinib was approved by the FDA to treat psoriasis in September 2022.

Cleveland Clinic Foundation

A phase 2 study published in 2023 focused on this agent for relief of systemic lupus. Improvements in cutaneous disease were a secondary endpoint. The trial demonstrated that the patients treated with deucravacitinib achieved a 56%-70% CLASI-50 response, depending on dosing, compared with a 17% response among those on placebo at week 48.

Based on the trial results, recruitment has begun for a phase 2 trial to evaluate deucravacitinib, compared with placebo, in patients with discoid and/or subacute cutaneous lupus. “This may be another medicine we have available to give to any of our patients with cutaneous lupus,” Dr. Fernandez said.
 

Anifrolumab Appears Promising

The FDA approval of anifrolumab, a type I interferon (IFN) receptor antagonist, for treating moderate to severe SLE in July 2021, for example, is good news for dermatologists and their patients, added Dr. Fernandez. “Almost immediately after approval, case studies showed marked improvement in patients with refractory cutaneous lupus.” While the therapy was approved for treating systemic lupus, it allows for off-label treatment of the cutaneous predominant form of the disease, he said.

Furthermore, the manufacturer of anifrolumab, AstraZeneca, is launching the LAVENDER clinical trial to assess the monoclonal antibody specifically for treating CLE. “This is a big deal because we may be able to prescribe anifrolumab for our cutaneous lupus patients who don’t have systemic lupus,” Dr. Fernandez said.

Phase 3 data supported use the of anifrolumab in systemic lupus, including the TULIP-2 trial, which demonstrated its superiority to placebo for reducing severity of systemic disease and lowering corticosteroid use. A study published in March 2023 of 11 patients showed that they had a “very fast response” to the agent, Dr. Fernandez said, with a 50% or greater improvement in the Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index activity score reached by all participants at week 16. Improvements of 50% or more in this scoring system are considered clinically meaningful, he added.
 

Upcoming Dermatomyositis Treatments

Why highlight emerging therapies for CLE and dermatomyositis in the same ODAC presentation? Although distinct conditions, these autoimmune conditions are both mediated by type 1 IFN inflammation.

Dermatomyositis is a relatively rare immune-mediated disease that most commonly affects the skin and muscle. Doctors score disease presentation, activity, and clinical improvements on a scale similar to CLASI for cutaneous lupus, the CDASI or Cutaneous Dermatomyositis Disease Area and Severity Index. Among people with CDASI activity scores of at least 14, which is the threshold for moderate to severe disease, a 20% improvement is clinically meaningful, Dr. Fernandez said. In addition, a 40% or greater improvement correlates with significant improvements in quality of life.

There is now more evidence for the use of IVIG to treat dermatomyositis. “Among those of us who treat dermatomyositis on a regular basis, we believe IVIG is the most potent treatment. We’ve known that for a long time,” Dr. Fernandez said.

Despite this tenet, for years, there was only one placebo-controlled trial, published in 1993, that evaluated IVIG treatment for dermatomyositis, and it included only 15 participants. That was until October 2022, he said, when the New England Journal of Medicine published a study comparing a specific brand of IVIG (Octagam) with placebo in 95 people with dermatomyositis.

In the study, 79% of participants treated with IVIG had a total improvement score of at least 20 (minimal improvement), the primary endpoint, at 16 weeks, compared with 44% of those receiving a placebo. Those treated with IVIG also had significant improvements in the CDASI score, a secondary endpoint, compared with those on placebo, he said.

Based on results of this trial, the FDA approved Octagam 10% for dermatomyositis in adults. Dr. Fernandez noted the approval is restricted to the brand of IVIG in the trial, not all IVIG products. However, “the FDA approval is most important to us because it gives us ammunition to fight for insurers to approve IVIG when we feel our patients with dermatomyositis need it,” regardless of the brand.
 

The Potential of JAK1 Inhibitors

An open-label study of the JAK inhibitor tofacitinib, published in December 2020, showed that mean changes in CDASI activity scores at 12 weeks were statistically significant compared with baseline in 10 people with dermatomyositis. “The importance of this study is that it is proof of concept that JAK inhibition can be effective for treating dermatomyositis, especially with active skin disease,” Dr. Fernandez said.

In addition, two large phase 3 trials are evaluating JAK inhibitor safety and efficacy for treating dermatomyositis. One is the VALOR trial, currently recruiting people with recalcitrant dermatomyositis to evaluate treatment with brepocitinib. Researchers in France are looking at another JAK inhibitor, baricitinib, for treating relapsing or treatment-naive dermatomyositis. Recruitment for the BIRD clinical trial is ongoing.

Monoclonal Antibody Showing Promise

“When it comes to looking specifically at dermatomyositis cutaneous disease, it’s been found that the levels of IFN beta correlate best with not only lesional skin type 1 IFN inflammatory signatures but also overall clinical disease activity,” Dr. Fernandez said. This correlation is stronger than for any other IFN-1-type cytokine active in the disorder.

“Perhaps blocking IFN beta might be best way to get control of dermatomyositis activity,” he added.

With that in mind, a phase 2 trial of dazukibart presented at the American Academy of Dermatology 2023 annual meeting highlighted the promise of this agent that targets type 1 IFN beta.

The primary endpoint was improvement in CDASI at 12 weeks. “This medication has remarkable efficacy,” Dr. Fernandez said. “We were one of the sites for this trial. Despite being blinded, there was no question about who was receiving drug and who was receiving placebo.”

“A minimal clinical improvement in disease activity was seen in more than 90%, so almost every patient who received this medication had meaningful improvement,” he added.

Based on the results, the manufacturer, Pfizer, is recruiting participants for a phase 3 trial to further assess dazukibart in dermatomyositis and polymyositis. Dr. Fernandez said, “This is a story you should pay attention to if you treat any dermatomyositis patients at all.”

Regarding these emerging therapies for CLE and dermatomyositis, “This looks very much like the early days of psoriasis, in the early 2000s, when there was a lot of activity developing treatments,” Dr. Fernandez said. “I will predict that within 10 years, we will have multiple novel agents available that will probably work better than anything we have today.”

Dr. Fernandez reported receiving grant and/or research support from Alexion, Incyte, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pfizer, and Priovant Therapeutics; acting as a consultant or advisory board member for AbbVie, Biogen, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals; and being a member of the speaker bureau or receiving honoraria for non-CME from AbbVie, Kyowa Kirin, and Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new diagnostic tool can effectively discriminate different rheumatologic conditions and could potentially aid in the diagnosis of early inflammatory arthritis.

The algorithm — called Genetic Probability tool (G-PROB) — uses genetic information to calculate the probability of certain diseases.

University of Manchester

“At such an early stage of disease, it’s not always easy to determine what the final outcome will be with respect to final diagnosis,” said John Bowes, PhD, a senior lecturer in the division of musculoskeletal & dermatological sciences at the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom. He was a senior author of the newest study of G-PROB. “What we are hoping for here is that genetics can help [clinicians] with the decision-making process and hopefully accelerate the correct diagnosis and get individuals onto the correct treatment as early as possible.”
 

Creating the Algorithm

G-PROB was first developed by an international group of scientists with the goal of using genetic risk scores to predict the probabilities of common diagnoses for patients with early signs of arthritis, such as synovitis and joint swelling. According to the study authors, about 80% of these types of patients are eventually diagnosed with the following conditions: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and gout.

The algorithm combines existing knowledge about single-nucleotide polymorphisms from prior genomic studies to create genetic risk scores — also called polygenic risk score (PRS) — for multiple diseases. Using these scores, the program then calculates the probabilities of certain diagnoses for a patient, based on the assumption that at least one disease was present.

In this first study, researchers trained the tool on simulated data and then tested it in three patient cohorts totaling about 1700 individuals from the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics database and Mass General Brigham Biobank. In the initial study, G-PROB identified a likely diagnosis in 45% of patients, with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 64%. Adding these genetic scores to clinical data improved diagnostic accuracy from 39% to 51%.
 

Validating G-PROB

But data from these biobanks may not necessarily be representative of early arthritis in patients appearing in outpatient clinics, noted Dr. Bowes. In this new study, researchers sought to independently validate the original study’s findings using data from the Norfolk Arthritis Register, a community-based, long-term observational study on inflammatory polyarthritis. The team applied G-PROB in this cohort and then compared the tool’s probabilities for common rheumatic conditions to the final clinician diagnosis.

The study ultimately included 1047 individuals with early inflammatory arthritis with genotype data. In the cohort, more than 70% (756 individuals) were diagnosed with RA. Of the remaining patients, 104 had PsA, 18 had SLE, 16 had AS, and 12 had gout. The research team also added an “other diseases” category to the algorithm. A total of 141 patients fell into this category and were diagnosed with diseases including chronic pain syndrome (52 individuals), polymyalgia rheumatica (29 individuals), and Sjögren’s syndrome (9 individuals).

G-PROB was best at excluding diagnoses: Probabilities under 5% for a single disease corresponded to a negative predictive value (NPV) of 96%. If probabilities for two diseases were both < 5%, the NPV was 94%.

For patients with a single probability above 50%, the tool had a PPV of 70.3%. In 55.7% of all patients, the disease with the highest probability ended up being the final diagnosis.

Generally, PRSs, as well as tests using biomarkers, were better at excluding diagnoses than affirming them, noted Matthew Brown, MBBS, MD, a professor of medicine at King’s College London, who was not involved with the research. If disease prevalence is low, then a test aimed at diagnosis of that disease would be better at excluding a diagnosis than affirming it, he explained.

Queensland University of Technology

Can G-PROB Improve Diagnosis?

The new study’s key contribution was that it independently validated findings from a previous study, noted Katherine Liao, MD, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. She coauthored an accompanying editorial to the newest study and coauthored the original G-PROB paper.

Dr. Liao

This new study also brought up an important question about G-PROB that has yet to be tested: Will this tool help clinicians make more efficient and accurate diagnoses in practice?

A prospective trial would be necessary to begin answering this question, both Dr. Bowes and Dr. Liao agreed. For example, one clinician group would have access to G-PROB data, while another would not, and “see if that helps [the first group] make the diagnosis faster or more accurately,” Dr. Liao said.

Dr. Bowes was also interested in exploring if combining G-PROB with other clinical data would improve diagnostic performance.

“Genetics isn’t the full story,” he said. Dr. Bowes saw genetics as one additional, complementary tool in a clinician’s toolbox.

Future studies were needed to understand the clinical utility of genetic information in conjunction with current diagnostic practices, such as imaging, physical exams, and lab results, Dr. Liao and her editorial coauthors argued. 

“For example, in cardiovascular disease, the clinical utility of polygenic risk scores has been defined by their ability to improve risk stratification beyond what is already achieved with more common risk factors and measures such as cholesterol levels, smoking status, and coronary calcium scores,” Dr. Liao and her coauthors wrote. “Similarly, a polygenic risk score for breast cancer would not be clinically implemented alone for risk prediction but rather as one risk factor among others, such as hormonal and reproductive factors and prior mammographic data.”
 

Future of Genetics in Rheumatology

An additional hurdle for using tools like G-PROB was that a patient must have undergone DNA sequencing, and these data must be available to clinicians. Even a decade ago, this type of testing may have seemed unrealistic to incorporate in daily practice, Dr. Liao noted, but technological advancements continue to make genetic sequencing more accessible to the public.

There are already efforts in the United Kingdom to incorporate genetics into healthcare, including trials for PRSs and heart disease, noted Dr. Bowes, as well as large-scale studies such as Our Future Health.

“As these population-based studies expand more, a high proportion of individuals should hopefully have access to this kind of data,” he said.

Brown added that genetic testing is already used to make rheumatology diagnoses.

“[HLA] B-27 testing, for example, is an extremely commonly used test to assist in the diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis. Is it that different to change to a PRS as opposed to a straight HLA testing? I don’t think it is,” he said.

While there would need to be systematic training for clinicians to understand how to calculate and use PRSs in daily practice, Dr. Brown did not think this adjustment would be too difficult.

“There is a lot of exceptionalism about genetics, which is actually inappropriate,” he said. “This is actually just a quantitative score that should be easy for people to interpret.”

Dr. Bowes and Dr. Brown reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Liao worked as a consultant for UCB.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new diagnostic tool can effectively discriminate different rheumatologic conditions and could potentially aid in the diagnosis of early inflammatory arthritis.

The algorithm — called Genetic Probability tool (G-PROB) — uses genetic information to calculate the probability of certain diseases.

University of Manchester

“At such an early stage of disease, it’s not always easy to determine what the final outcome will be with respect to final diagnosis,” said John Bowes, PhD, a senior lecturer in the division of musculoskeletal & dermatological sciences at the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom. He was a senior author of the newest study of G-PROB. “What we are hoping for here is that genetics can help [clinicians] with the decision-making process and hopefully accelerate the correct diagnosis and get individuals onto the correct treatment as early as possible.”
 

Creating the Algorithm

G-PROB was first developed by an international group of scientists with the goal of using genetic risk scores to predict the probabilities of common diagnoses for patients with early signs of arthritis, such as synovitis and joint swelling. According to the study authors, about 80% of these types of patients are eventually diagnosed with the following conditions: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and gout.

The algorithm combines existing knowledge about single-nucleotide polymorphisms from prior genomic studies to create genetic risk scores — also called polygenic risk score (PRS) — for multiple diseases. Using these scores, the program then calculates the probabilities of certain diagnoses for a patient, based on the assumption that at least one disease was present.

In this first study, researchers trained the tool on simulated data and then tested it in three patient cohorts totaling about 1700 individuals from the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics database and Mass General Brigham Biobank. In the initial study, G-PROB identified a likely diagnosis in 45% of patients, with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 64%. Adding these genetic scores to clinical data improved diagnostic accuracy from 39% to 51%.
 

Validating G-PROB

But data from these biobanks may not necessarily be representative of early arthritis in patients appearing in outpatient clinics, noted Dr. Bowes. In this new study, researchers sought to independently validate the original study’s findings using data from the Norfolk Arthritis Register, a community-based, long-term observational study on inflammatory polyarthritis. The team applied G-PROB in this cohort and then compared the tool’s probabilities for common rheumatic conditions to the final clinician diagnosis.

The study ultimately included 1047 individuals with early inflammatory arthritis with genotype data. In the cohort, more than 70% (756 individuals) were diagnosed with RA. Of the remaining patients, 104 had PsA, 18 had SLE, 16 had AS, and 12 had gout. The research team also added an “other diseases” category to the algorithm. A total of 141 patients fell into this category and were diagnosed with diseases including chronic pain syndrome (52 individuals), polymyalgia rheumatica (29 individuals), and Sjögren’s syndrome (9 individuals).

G-PROB was best at excluding diagnoses: Probabilities under 5% for a single disease corresponded to a negative predictive value (NPV) of 96%. If probabilities for two diseases were both < 5%, the NPV was 94%.

For patients with a single probability above 50%, the tool had a PPV of 70.3%. In 55.7% of all patients, the disease with the highest probability ended up being the final diagnosis.

Generally, PRSs, as well as tests using biomarkers, were better at excluding diagnoses than affirming them, noted Matthew Brown, MBBS, MD, a professor of medicine at King’s College London, who was not involved with the research. If disease prevalence is low, then a test aimed at diagnosis of that disease would be better at excluding a diagnosis than affirming it, he explained.

Queensland University of Technology

Can G-PROB Improve Diagnosis?

The new study’s key contribution was that it independently validated findings from a previous study, noted Katherine Liao, MD, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. She coauthored an accompanying editorial to the newest study and coauthored the original G-PROB paper.

Dr. Liao

This new study also brought up an important question about G-PROB that has yet to be tested: Will this tool help clinicians make more efficient and accurate diagnoses in practice?

A prospective trial would be necessary to begin answering this question, both Dr. Bowes and Dr. Liao agreed. For example, one clinician group would have access to G-PROB data, while another would not, and “see if that helps [the first group] make the diagnosis faster or more accurately,” Dr. Liao said.

Dr. Bowes was also interested in exploring if combining G-PROB with other clinical data would improve diagnostic performance.

“Genetics isn’t the full story,” he said. Dr. Bowes saw genetics as one additional, complementary tool in a clinician’s toolbox.

Future studies were needed to understand the clinical utility of genetic information in conjunction with current diagnostic practices, such as imaging, physical exams, and lab results, Dr. Liao and her editorial coauthors argued. 

“For example, in cardiovascular disease, the clinical utility of polygenic risk scores has been defined by their ability to improve risk stratification beyond what is already achieved with more common risk factors and measures such as cholesterol levels, smoking status, and coronary calcium scores,” Dr. Liao and her coauthors wrote. “Similarly, a polygenic risk score for breast cancer would not be clinically implemented alone for risk prediction but rather as one risk factor among others, such as hormonal and reproductive factors and prior mammographic data.”
 

Future of Genetics in Rheumatology

An additional hurdle for using tools like G-PROB was that a patient must have undergone DNA sequencing, and these data must be available to clinicians. Even a decade ago, this type of testing may have seemed unrealistic to incorporate in daily practice, Dr. Liao noted, but technological advancements continue to make genetic sequencing more accessible to the public.

There are already efforts in the United Kingdom to incorporate genetics into healthcare, including trials for PRSs and heart disease, noted Dr. Bowes, as well as large-scale studies such as Our Future Health.

“As these population-based studies expand more, a high proportion of individuals should hopefully have access to this kind of data,” he said.

Brown added that genetic testing is already used to make rheumatology diagnoses.

“[HLA] B-27 testing, for example, is an extremely commonly used test to assist in the diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis. Is it that different to change to a PRS as opposed to a straight HLA testing? I don’t think it is,” he said.

While there would need to be systematic training for clinicians to understand how to calculate and use PRSs in daily practice, Dr. Brown did not think this adjustment would be too difficult.

“There is a lot of exceptionalism about genetics, which is actually inappropriate,” he said. “This is actually just a quantitative score that should be easy for people to interpret.”

Dr. Bowes and Dr. Brown reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Liao worked as a consultant for UCB.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new diagnostic tool can effectively discriminate different rheumatologic conditions and could potentially aid in the diagnosis of early inflammatory arthritis.

The algorithm — called Genetic Probability tool (G-PROB) — uses genetic information to calculate the probability of certain diseases.

University of Manchester

“At such an early stage of disease, it’s not always easy to determine what the final outcome will be with respect to final diagnosis,” said John Bowes, PhD, a senior lecturer in the division of musculoskeletal & dermatological sciences at the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom. He was a senior author of the newest study of G-PROB. “What we are hoping for here is that genetics can help [clinicians] with the decision-making process and hopefully accelerate the correct diagnosis and get individuals onto the correct treatment as early as possible.”
 

Creating the Algorithm

G-PROB was first developed by an international group of scientists with the goal of using genetic risk scores to predict the probabilities of common diagnoses for patients with early signs of arthritis, such as synovitis and joint swelling. According to the study authors, about 80% of these types of patients are eventually diagnosed with the following conditions: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and gout.

The algorithm combines existing knowledge about single-nucleotide polymorphisms from prior genomic studies to create genetic risk scores — also called polygenic risk score (PRS) — for multiple diseases. Using these scores, the program then calculates the probabilities of certain diagnoses for a patient, based on the assumption that at least one disease was present.

In this first study, researchers trained the tool on simulated data and then tested it in three patient cohorts totaling about 1700 individuals from the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics database and Mass General Brigham Biobank. In the initial study, G-PROB identified a likely diagnosis in 45% of patients, with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 64%. Adding these genetic scores to clinical data improved diagnostic accuracy from 39% to 51%.
 

Validating G-PROB

But data from these biobanks may not necessarily be representative of early arthritis in patients appearing in outpatient clinics, noted Dr. Bowes. In this new study, researchers sought to independently validate the original study’s findings using data from the Norfolk Arthritis Register, a community-based, long-term observational study on inflammatory polyarthritis. The team applied G-PROB in this cohort and then compared the tool’s probabilities for common rheumatic conditions to the final clinician diagnosis.

The study ultimately included 1047 individuals with early inflammatory arthritis with genotype data. In the cohort, more than 70% (756 individuals) were diagnosed with RA. Of the remaining patients, 104 had PsA, 18 had SLE, 16 had AS, and 12 had gout. The research team also added an “other diseases” category to the algorithm. A total of 141 patients fell into this category and were diagnosed with diseases including chronic pain syndrome (52 individuals), polymyalgia rheumatica (29 individuals), and Sjögren’s syndrome (9 individuals).

G-PROB was best at excluding diagnoses: Probabilities under 5% for a single disease corresponded to a negative predictive value (NPV) of 96%. If probabilities for two diseases were both < 5%, the NPV was 94%.

For patients with a single probability above 50%, the tool had a PPV of 70.3%. In 55.7% of all patients, the disease with the highest probability ended up being the final diagnosis.

Generally, PRSs, as well as tests using biomarkers, were better at excluding diagnoses than affirming them, noted Matthew Brown, MBBS, MD, a professor of medicine at King’s College London, who was not involved with the research. If disease prevalence is low, then a test aimed at diagnosis of that disease would be better at excluding a diagnosis than affirming it, he explained.

Queensland University of Technology

Can G-PROB Improve Diagnosis?

The new study’s key contribution was that it independently validated findings from a previous study, noted Katherine Liao, MD, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. She coauthored an accompanying editorial to the newest study and coauthored the original G-PROB paper.

Dr. Liao

This new study also brought up an important question about G-PROB that has yet to be tested: Will this tool help clinicians make more efficient and accurate diagnoses in practice?

A prospective trial would be necessary to begin answering this question, both Dr. Bowes and Dr. Liao agreed. For example, one clinician group would have access to G-PROB data, while another would not, and “see if that helps [the first group] make the diagnosis faster or more accurately,” Dr. Liao said.

Dr. Bowes was also interested in exploring if combining G-PROB with other clinical data would improve diagnostic performance.

“Genetics isn’t the full story,” he said. Dr. Bowes saw genetics as one additional, complementary tool in a clinician’s toolbox.

Future studies were needed to understand the clinical utility of genetic information in conjunction with current diagnostic practices, such as imaging, physical exams, and lab results, Dr. Liao and her editorial coauthors argued. 

“For example, in cardiovascular disease, the clinical utility of polygenic risk scores has been defined by their ability to improve risk stratification beyond what is already achieved with more common risk factors and measures such as cholesterol levels, smoking status, and coronary calcium scores,” Dr. Liao and her coauthors wrote. “Similarly, a polygenic risk score for breast cancer would not be clinically implemented alone for risk prediction but rather as one risk factor among others, such as hormonal and reproductive factors and prior mammographic data.”
 

Future of Genetics in Rheumatology

An additional hurdle for using tools like G-PROB was that a patient must have undergone DNA sequencing, and these data must be available to clinicians. Even a decade ago, this type of testing may have seemed unrealistic to incorporate in daily practice, Dr. Liao noted, but technological advancements continue to make genetic sequencing more accessible to the public.

There are already efforts in the United Kingdom to incorporate genetics into healthcare, including trials for PRSs and heart disease, noted Dr. Bowes, as well as large-scale studies such as Our Future Health.

“As these population-based studies expand more, a high proportion of individuals should hopefully have access to this kind of data,” he said.

Brown added that genetic testing is already used to make rheumatology diagnoses.

“[HLA] B-27 testing, for example, is an extremely commonly used test to assist in the diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis. Is it that different to change to a PRS as opposed to a straight HLA testing? I don’t think it is,” he said.

While there would need to be systematic training for clinicians to understand how to calculate and use PRSs in daily practice, Dr. Brown did not think this adjustment would be too difficult.

“There is a lot of exceptionalism about genetics, which is actually inappropriate,” he said. “This is actually just a quantitative score that should be easy for people to interpret.”

Dr. Bowes and Dr. Brown reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Liao worked as a consultant for UCB.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Dermatomyositis (DM) is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular comorbidities, including chronic kidney disease, a new study found.

METHODOLOGY:

• DM is associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD), but US-based data studies on CVD comorbidities in patients with DM are lacking.
• In a cross-sectional analysis of participants in the All of Us research program aged 18 years and older with at least 1 year of electronic health record (EHR) data, researchers identified DM cases and controls with nearest neighbor propensity score matching by age, sex, race/ethnicity, EHR duration, and healthcare visit quantity.
• They used the Pearson’s chi-squared test, Fisher’s exact test, unpaired t-test, or Mann-Whitney U test to compare clinical characteristics and traditional CV comorbidities.
• Multivariable conditional logistic regression was used with backward elimination of comorbidities with P > .1 or evidence of collinearity.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among 235,161 All of Us participants, researchers identified 206 DM cases and 824 matched controls with largely similar demographic characteristics, including smoking status, obesity, and indicators of socioeconomic status.
• Participants with DM were more likely to have a history of atrial fibrillation (10.1% vs 16.0%, respectively), chronic kidney disease (15.2% vs 29.1%), congestive heart failure (9.6% vs 18.0%), coronary artery disease (CAD) (18.2% vs 34.0%), hypertension (52.5% vs 60.7%), myocardial infarction (7.4% vs 15.0), type 2 diabetes (27.3% vs 47.6%), and valvular heart disease (8.7% vs 16.5%) than matched controls.
• In a multivariable analysis that adjusted for potential confounders, three comorbidities remained associated with DM: CAD (odds ratio [OR], 2.0; P < .001), type 2 diabetes (OR, 2.2; P < .001), and chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.7; P = .015).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings are important both for prognosis and clinical care, suggesting DM patients should be screened for CVD risk factors to potentially reduce the increased risk for cardiovascular events and CVD-related mortality in DM,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Alisa N. Femia, MD, of the department of dermatology at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, led the research. The study was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

How DM treatments might influence CVD development was not addressed. EHRs may have diagnostic inaccuracies and omissions and lack data on clinical features and severity.

DISCLOSURES:

The project was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Femia reported consulting fees from Octagon Therapeutics, Timber Pharmaceuticals, and Guidepoint. Study author Michael S. Garshick, MD, reported consulting fees from AbbVie and Horizon Therapeutics. The remaining authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Dermatomyositis (DM) is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular comorbidities, including chronic kidney disease, a new study found.

METHODOLOGY:

• DM is associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD), but US-based data studies on CVD comorbidities in patients with DM are lacking.
• In a cross-sectional analysis of participants in the All of Us research program aged 18 years and older with at least 1 year of electronic health record (EHR) data, researchers identified DM cases and controls with nearest neighbor propensity score matching by age, sex, race/ethnicity, EHR duration, and healthcare visit quantity.
• They used the Pearson’s chi-squared test, Fisher’s exact test, unpaired t-test, or Mann-Whitney U test to compare clinical characteristics and traditional CV comorbidities.
• Multivariable conditional logistic regression was used with backward elimination of comorbidities with P > .1 or evidence of collinearity.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among 235,161 All of Us participants, researchers identified 206 DM cases and 824 matched controls with largely similar demographic characteristics, including smoking status, obesity, and indicators of socioeconomic status.
• Participants with DM were more likely to have a history of atrial fibrillation (10.1% vs 16.0%, respectively), chronic kidney disease (15.2% vs 29.1%), congestive heart failure (9.6% vs 18.0%), coronary artery disease (CAD) (18.2% vs 34.0%), hypertension (52.5% vs 60.7%), myocardial infarction (7.4% vs 15.0), type 2 diabetes (27.3% vs 47.6%), and valvular heart disease (8.7% vs 16.5%) than matched controls.
• In a multivariable analysis that adjusted for potential confounders, three comorbidities remained associated with DM: CAD (odds ratio [OR], 2.0; P < .001), type 2 diabetes (OR, 2.2; P < .001), and chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.7; P = .015).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings are important both for prognosis and clinical care, suggesting DM patients should be screened for CVD risk factors to potentially reduce the increased risk for cardiovascular events and CVD-related mortality in DM,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Alisa N. Femia, MD, of the department of dermatology at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, led the research. The study was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

How DM treatments might influence CVD development was not addressed. EHRs may have diagnostic inaccuracies and omissions and lack data on clinical features and severity.

DISCLOSURES:

The project was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Femia reported consulting fees from Octagon Therapeutics, Timber Pharmaceuticals, and Guidepoint. Study author Michael S. Garshick, MD, reported consulting fees from AbbVie and Horizon Therapeutics. The remaining authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Dermatomyositis (DM) is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular comorbidities, including chronic kidney disease, a new study found.

METHODOLOGY:

• DM is associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD), but US-based data studies on CVD comorbidities in patients with DM are lacking.
• In a cross-sectional analysis of participants in the All of Us research program aged 18 years and older with at least 1 year of electronic health record (EHR) data, researchers identified DM cases and controls with nearest neighbor propensity score matching by age, sex, race/ethnicity, EHR duration, and healthcare visit quantity.
• They used the Pearson’s chi-squared test, Fisher’s exact test, unpaired t-test, or Mann-Whitney U test to compare clinical characteristics and traditional CV comorbidities.
• Multivariable conditional logistic regression was used with backward elimination of comorbidities with P > .1 or evidence of collinearity.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among 235,161 All of Us participants, researchers identified 206 DM cases and 824 matched controls with largely similar demographic characteristics, including smoking status, obesity, and indicators of socioeconomic status.
• Participants with DM were more likely to have a history of atrial fibrillation (10.1% vs 16.0%, respectively), chronic kidney disease (15.2% vs 29.1%), congestive heart failure (9.6% vs 18.0%), coronary artery disease (CAD) (18.2% vs 34.0%), hypertension (52.5% vs 60.7%), myocardial infarction (7.4% vs 15.0), type 2 diabetes (27.3% vs 47.6%), and valvular heart disease (8.7% vs 16.5%) than matched controls.
• In a multivariable analysis that adjusted for potential confounders, three comorbidities remained associated with DM: CAD (odds ratio [OR], 2.0; P < .001), type 2 diabetes (OR, 2.2; P < .001), and chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.7; P = .015).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings are important both for prognosis and clinical care, suggesting DM patients should be screened for CVD risk factors to potentially reduce the increased risk for cardiovascular events and CVD-related mortality in DM,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Alisa N. Femia, MD, of the department of dermatology at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, led the research. The study was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

How DM treatments might influence CVD development was not addressed. EHRs may have diagnostic inaccuracies and omissions and lack data on clinical features and severity.

DISCLOSURES:

The project was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Femia reported consulting fees from Octagon Therapeutics, Timber Pharmaceuticals, and Guidepoint. Study author Michael S. Garshick, MD, reported consulting fees from AbbVie and Horizon Therapeutics. The remaining authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Over just a decade, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have revolutionized the second-line treatment of type 2 diabetes by improving the control of blood sugar, and they’re also being used to treat heart failure and chronic kidney disease. Now, there’s growing evidence that the medications have the potential to play a role in the treatment of a variety of rheumatologic diseases — gout, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and lupus nephritis.

“I suspect that SGLT2 inhibitors may have a role in multiple rheumatic diseases,” said rheumatologist April Jorge, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

In gout, for example, “SGLT2 inhibitors hold great promise as a multipurpose treatment option,” said rheumatologist Chio Yokose, MD, MSc, also of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital. Both Dr. Jorge and Dr. Yokose spoke at recent medical conferences and in interviews about the potential value of the drugs in rheumatology.
 

There’s a big caveat. For the moment, SGLT2 inhibitors aren’t cleared for use in the treatment of rheumatologic conditions, and neither physician is ready to recommend prescribing them off-label outside of their FDA-approved indications.

But studies could pave the way toward more approved uses in rheumatology. And there’s good news for now: Many rheumatology patients may already be eligible to take the drugs because of other medical conditions. In gout, for example, “sizable proportions of patients have comorbidities for which they are already indicated,” Dr. Yokose said.
 

Research Hints at Gout-Busting Potential

The first SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana), received FDA approval in 2013, followed by dapagliflozin (Farxiga), empagliflozin (Jardiance), ertugliflozin (Steglatro), and bexagliflozin (Brenzavvy). The drugs “lower blood sugar by causing the kidneys to remove sugar from the body through urine,” reports the National Kidney Foundation, and they “help to protect the kidneys and heart in people with CKD [chronic kidney disease].”

As Dr. Yokose noted in a presentation at the 2023 Gout Hyperuricemia and Crystal Associated Disease Network research symposium, SGLT2 inhibitors “have really become blockbuster drugs, and they’ve now been integrated into multiple professional society guidelines and recommendations.”

These drugs should not be confused with the wildly popular medications known as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) agonists, which include medications such as semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy). These drugs are generally administered via injection — unlike the oral SGLT2 inhibitors — and they’re variously indicated for type 2 diabetes and obesity.

Dr. Yokose highlighted research findings about the drugs in gout. A 2020 study, for example, tracked 295,907 US adults with type 2 diabetes who received a new prescription for an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP1 agonist during 2013-2017. Those in the SGLT2 inhibitor group had a 36% lower risk of newly diagnosed gout (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57-0.72), the researchers reported.

A similar study, a 2021 report from Taiwan, also linked SGLT2 inhibitors to improvement in gout incidence vs. dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors, diabetes drugs that are not linked to lower serum urate levels. In an adjusted analysis, the risk of gout was 11% lower in the SGLT2 inhibitor group (adjusted HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.95).

What about recurrent gout? In a 2023 study, Dr. Yokose and colleagues tracked patients with type 2 diabetes who began SGLT2 inhibitors or DPP4 inhibitors. Over the period from 2013 to 2017, those who took SGLT2 inhibitors were less likely to have gout flares (rate ratio [RR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75) and gout-primary emergency department visits/hospitalizations (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32-0.84).

“This finding requires further replication in other populations and compared to other drugs,” Dr. Yokose cautioned.

Another 2023 study analyzed UK data and reached similar results regarding risk of recurrent gout.

Lower Urate Levels and Less Inflammation Could Be Key

How might SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk of gout? Multiple studies have linked the drugs to lower serum urate levels, Dr. Yokose said, but researchers often excluded patients with gout.

For a small new study presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology but not yet published, Dr. Yokose and colleagues reported that patients with gout who began SGLT2 inhibitors had lower urate levels than those who began a sulfonylurea, another second-line agent for type 2 diabetes. During the study period, up to 3 months before and after initiation, 43.5% of patients in the SGLT2 inhibitor group reached a target serum urate of < 6 mg/dL vs. 4.2% of sulfonylurea initiators.

“The magnitude of this reduction, while not as large as what can be achieved with appropriately titrated urate-lowering therapy such as allopurinol or febuxostat, is also not negligible. It’s believed to be between 1.5-2.0 mg/dL among patients with gout,” Dr. Yokose said. “Also, SGLT2 inhibitors are purported to have some anti-inflammatory effects that may target the same pathways responsible for the profound inflammation associated with acute gout flares. However, both the exact mechanisms underlying the serum urate-lowering and anti-inflammatory effects of SGLT2 [inhibitors] require further research and clarification.”

Moving forward, she said, “I would love to see some prospective studies of SGLT2 inhibitor use among patients with gout, looking at serum urate and clinical gout endpoints, as well as biomarkers to understand better the beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors as it pertains to patients with gout.”

In Lupus, Findings Are More Mixed

Studies of SGLT2 inhibitors have excluded patients with lupus, limiting insight into their benefits in that specific population, said Dr. Jorge of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School. However, “one small phase I/II trial showed an acceptable safety profile of dapagliflozin add-on therapy in adult patients with SLE,” she said.

Her team is working to expand understanding about the drugs in people with lupus. At the 2023 ACR annual meeting, she presented the findings of a study that tracked patients with SLE who took SGLT2 inhibitors (n = 426, including 154 with lupus nephritis) or DPP4 inhibitors (n = 865, including 270 with lupus nephritis). Patients who took SGLT2 inhibitors had lower risks of major adverse cardiac events (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.99) and renal progression (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51-0.98).

“Our results are promising, but the majority of patient with lupus who had received SGLT2 inhibitors also had the comorbidity of type 2 diabetes as a separate indication for SGLT2 inhibitor use,” Dr. Jorge said. “We still need to study the impact of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with SLE and lupus nephritis who do not have a separate indication for the medication.”

Dr. Jorge added that “we do not yet know the ideal time to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors in the treatment of lupus nephritis. Specifically, it is not yet known whether these medications should be used in patients with persistent proteinuria due to damage from lupus nephritis or whether there is also a role to start these medications in patients with active lupus nephritis who are undergoing induction immunosuppression regimens.”

However, another study released at the 2023 ACR annual meeting suggested that SGLT2 inhibitors may not have a beneficial effect in lupus nephritis: “We observed a reduction in decline in eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] after starting SGLT2 inhibitors; however, this reduction was not statistically significant … early experience suggested marginal benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors in SLE,” researchers from Johns Hopkins University, and the University of Maryland, Baltimore, reported.

“My cohort is not showing miracles from SGLT2 inhibitors,” study lead author Michelle Petri, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins, said in an interview.

Still, new European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for SLE now advise to consider the use of the drugs in patients with lupus nephritis who have reduced eGFR. Meanwhile, “the American College of Rheumatology is currently developing new treatment guidelines for SLE and for lupus nephritis, and SGLT2 inhibitors will likely be a topic of consideration,” Dr. Jorge added.

As for mechanism, Dr. Jorge said it’s not clear how the drugs may affect lupus. “It’s proposed that they have benefits in hemodynamic effects as well as potentially anti-inflammatory effects. The hemodynamic effects, including reducing intraglomerular hyperfiltration and reducing blood pressure, likely have similar benefits in patients with chronic kidney disease due to diabetic nephropathy or due to lupus nephritis with damage/scarring and persistent proteinuria. Patients with SLE and other chronic, systemic rheumatic diseases such as ANCA [antineutrophilic cytoplasmic antibody]-associated vasculitis also develop kidney disease and cardiovascular events mediated by inflammatory processes.”
 

Side Effects and Cost: Where Do They Fit In?

According to Dr. Yokose, SGLT2 inhibitors “are generally quite well-tolerated, and very serious adverse effects are rare.” Side effects include disrupted urination, increased thirst, genital infections, flu-like symptoms, and swelling.

Urinary-related problems are understandable “because these drugs cause the kidneys to pass more glucose into the urine,” University of Hong Kong cardiac specialist Bernard Cheung, MBBCh, PhD, who has studied SGLT2 inhibitors, said in an interview.

In Dr. Yokose’s 2023 study of SGLT2 inhibitors in recurrent gout, patients who took the drugs were 2.15 times more likely than the comparison group to have genital infections (hazard ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.39-3.30). This finding “was what we’d expect,” she said.

She added that genital infection rates were higher among patients with diabetes, women, and uncircumcised men. “Fortunately, most experienced just a single mild episode that can readily be treated with topical therapy. There does not appear to be an increased risk of urinary tract infections.”

Dr. Cheung added that “doctors should be aware of a rare adverse effect called euglycemic ketoacidosis, in which the patient has increased ketones in the blood causing it to be more acidic than normal, but the blood glucose remains within the normal range.”

As for cost, goodrx.com reports that several SGLT2 inhibitors run about $550-$683 per month, making them expensive but still cheaper than GLP-1 agonists, which can cost $1,000 or more per month. Unlike the most popular GLP-1 agonists such as Ozempic, none of the SGLT2 inhibitors are in short supply, according to the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

“If someone with gout already has a cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic indication for SGLT2 inhibitors and also stands to benefit in terms of lowering serum urate and risk of recurrent gout flares, there is potential for high benefit relative to cost,” Dr. Yokose said.

She added: “It is well-documented that current gout care is suboptimal, and many patients end up in the emergency room or hospitalized for gout, which in and of itself is quite costly both for the patient and the health care system. Therefore, streamlining or integrating gout and comorbidity care with SGLT2 inhibitors could potentially be quite beneficial for patients with gout.”

In regard to lupus, “many patients with lupus undergo multiple hospitalizations related to their disease, which is a source of high health care costs,” Dr. Jorge said. “Additionally, chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular disease are major causes of disability and premature mortality. Further studies will be needed to better understand whether benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors may outweigh the costs of treatment.”

As for prescribing the drugs in lupus now, Dr. Jorge said they can be an option in lupus nephritis. “There is not a clear consensus of the ideal timing to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors — e.g., degree of proteinuria or eGFR range,” she said. “However, it is less controversial that SGLT2 inhibitors should be considered in particular for patients with lupus nephritis with ongoing proteinuria despite adequate treatment with conventional therapies.”

As for gout, Dr. Yokose isn’t ready to prescribe the drugs to patients who don’t have comorbidities that can be treated by the medications. However, she noted that those patients are rare.

“If I see a patient with gout with one or more of these comorbidities, and I see that they are not already on an SGLT2 inhibitor, I definitely take the time to talk to the patient about this exciting class of drugs and will consult with their other physicians about getting them started on an SGLT2 inhibitor.”

Dr. Yokose, Dr. Petri, and Dr. Cheung have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Jorge disclosed serving as a site investigator for SLE clinical trials funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Cabaletta Bio; the trials are not related to SGLT2 inhibitors.

Over just a decade, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have revolutionized the second-line treatment of type 2 diabetes by improving the control of blood sugar, and they’re also being used to treat heart failure and chronic kidney disease. Now, there’s growing evidence that the medications have the potential to play a role in the treatment of a variety of rheumatologic diseases — gout, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and lupus nephritis.

“I suspect that SGLT2 inhibitors may have a role in multiple rheumatic diseases,” said rheumatologist April Jorge, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

In gout, for example, “SGLT2 inhibitors hold great promise as a multipurpose treatment option,” said rheumatologist Chio Yokose, MD, MSc, also of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital. Both Dr. Jorge and Dr. Yokose spoke at recent medical conferences and in interviews about the potential value of the drugs in rheumatology.
 

There’s a big caveat. For the moment, SGLT2 inhibitors aren’t cleared for use in the treatment of rheumatologic conditions, and neither physician is ready to recommend prescribing them off-label outside of their FDA-approved indications.

But studies could pave the way toward more approved uses in rheumatology. And there’s good news for now: Many rheumatology patients may already be eligible to take the drugs because of other medical conditions. In gout, for example, “sizable proportions of patients have comorbidities for which they are already indicated,” Dr. Yokose said.
 

Research Hints at Gout-Busting Potential

The first SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana), received FDA approval in 2013, followed by dapagliflozin (Farxiga), empagliflozin (Jardiance), ertugliflozin (Steglatro), and bexagliflozin (Brenzavvy). The drugs “lower blood sugar by causing the kidneys to remove sugar from the body through urine,” reports the National Kidney Foundation, and they “help to protect the kidneys and heart in people with CKD [chronic kidney disease].”

As Dr. Yokose noted in a presentation at the 2023 Gout Hyperuricemia and Crystal Associated Disease Network research symposium, SGLT2 inhibitors “have really become blockbuster drugs, and they’ve now been integrated into multiple professional society guidelines and recommendations.”

These drugs should not be confused with the wildly popular medications known as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) agonists, which include medications such as semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy). These drugs are generally administered via injection — unlike the oral SGLT2 inhibitors — and they’re variously indicated for type 2 diabetes and obesity.

Dr. Yokose highlighted research findings about the drugs in gout. A 2020 study, for example, tracked 295,907 US adults with type 2 diabetes who received a new prescription for an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP1 agonist during 2013-2017. Those in the SGLT2 inhibitor group had a 36% lower risk of newly diagnosed gout (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57-0.72), the researchers reported.

A similar study, a 2021 report from Taiwan, also linked SGLT2 inhibitors to improvement in gout incidence vs. dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors, diabetes drugs that are not linked to lower serum urate levels. In an adjusted analysis, the risk of gout was 11% lower in the SGLT2 inhibitor group (adjusted HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.95).

What about recurrent gout? In a 2023 study, Dr. Yokose and colleagues tracked patients with type 2 diabetes who began SGLT2 inhibitors or DPP4 inhibitors. Over the period from 2013 to 2017, those who took SGLT2 inhibitors were less likely to have gout flares (rate ratio [RR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75) and gout-primary emergency department visits/hospitalizations (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32-0.84).

“This finding requires further replication in other populations and compared to other drugs,” Dr. Yokose cautioned.

Another 2023 study analyzed UK data and reached similar results regarding risk of recurrent gout.

Lower Urate Levels and Less Inflammation Could Be Key

How might SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk of gout? Multiple studies have linked the drugs to lower serum urate levels, Dr. Yokose said, but researchers often excluded patients with gout.

For a small new study presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology but not yet published, Dr. Yokose and colleagues reported that patients with gout who began SGLT2 inhibitors had lower urate levels than those who began a sulfonylurea, another second-line agent for type 2 diabetes. During the study period, up to 3 months before and after initiation, 43.5% of patients in the SGLT2 inhibitor group reached a target serum urate of < 6 mg/dL vs. 4.2% of sulfonylurea initiators.

“The magnitude of this reduction, while not as large as what can be achieved with appropriately titrated urate-lowering therapy such as allopurinol or febuxostat, is also not negligible. It’s believed to be between 1.5-2.0 mg/dL among patients with gout,” Dr. Yokose said. “Also, SGLT2 inhibitors are purported to have some anti-inflammatory effects that may target the same pathways responsible for the profound inflammation associated with acute gout flares. However, both the exact mechanisms underlying the serum urate-lowering and anti-inflammatory effects of SGLT2 [inhibitors] require further research and clarification.”

Moving forward, she said, “I would love to see some prospective studies of SGLT2 inhibitor use among patients with gout, looking at serum urate and clinical gout endpoints, as well as biomarkers to understand better the beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors as it pertains to patients with gout.”

In Lupus, Findings Are More Mixed

Studies of SGLT2 inhibitors have excluded patients with lupus, limiting insight into their benefits in that specific population, said Dr. Jorge of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School. However, “one small phase I/II trial showed an acceptable safety profile of dapagliflozin add-on therapy in adult patients with SLE,” she said.

Her team is working to expand understanding about the drugs in people with lupus. At the 2023 ACR annual meeting, she presented the findings of a study that tracked patients with SLE who took SGLT2 inhibitors (n = 426, including 154 with lupus nephritis) or DPP4 inhibitors (n = 865, including 270 with lupus nephritis). Patients who took SGLT2 inhibitors had lower risks of major adverse cardiac events (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.99) and renal progression (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51-0.98).

“Our results are promising, but the majority of patient with lupus who had received SGLT2 inhibitors also had the comorbidity of type 2 diabetes as a separate indication for SGLT2 inhibitor use,” Dr. Jorge said. “We still need to study the impact of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with SLE and lupus nephritis who do not have a separate indication for the medication.”

Dr. Jorge added that “we do not yet know the ideal time to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors in the treatment of lupus nephritis. Specifically, it is not yet known whether these medications should be used in patients with persistent proteinuria due to damage from lupus nephritis or whether there is also a role to start these medications in patients with active lupus nephritis who are undergoing induction immunosuppression regimens.”

However, another study released at the 2023 ACR annual meeting suggested that SGLT2 inhibitors may not have a beneficial effect in lupus nephritis: “We observed a reduction in decline in eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] after starting SGLT2 inhibitors; however, this reduction was not statistically significant … early experience suggested marginal benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors in SLE,” researchers from Johns Hopkins University, and the University of Maryland, Baltimore, reported.

“My cohort is not showing miracles from SGLT2 inhibitors,” study lead author Michelle Petri, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins, said in an interview.

Still, new European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for SLE now advise to consider the use of the drugs in patients with lupus nephritis who have reduced eGFR. Meanwhile, “the American College of Rheumatology is currently developing new treatment guidelines for SLE and for lupus nephritis, and SGLT2 inhibitors will likely be a topic of consideration,” Dr. Jorge added.

As for mechanism, Dr. Jorge said it’s not clear how the drugs may affect lupus. “It’s proposed that they have benefits in hemodynamic effects as well as potentially anti-inflammatory effects. The hemodynamic effects, including reducing intraglomerular hyperfiltration and reducing blood pressure, likely have similar benefits in patients with chronic kidney disease due to diabetic nephropathy or due to lupus nephritis with damage/scarring and persistent proteinuria. Patients with SLE and other chronic, systemic rheumatic diseases such as ANCA [antineutrophilic cytoplasmic antibody]-associated vasculitis also develop kidney disease and cardiovascular events mediated by inflammatory processes.”
 

Side Effects and Cost: Where Do They Fit In?

According to Dr. Yokose, SGLT2 inhibitors “are generally quite well-tolerated, and very serious adverse effects are rare.” Side effects include disrupted urination, increased thirst, genital infections, flu-like symptoms, and swelling.

Urinary-related problems are understandable “because these drugs cause the kidneys to pass more glucose into the urine,” University of Hong Kong cardiac specialist Bernard Cheung, MBBCh, PhD, who has studied SGLT2 inhibitors, said in an interview.

In Dr. Yokose’s 2023 study of SGLT2 inhibitors in recurrent gout, patients who took the drugs were 2.15 times more likely than the comparison group to have genital infections (hazard ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.39-3.30). This finding “was what we’d expect,” she said.

She added that genital infection rates were higher among patients with diabetes, women, and uncircumcised men. “Fortunately, most experienced just a single mild episode that can readily be treated with topical therapy. There does not appear to be an increased risk of urinary tract infections.”

Dr. Cheung added that “doctors should be aware of a rare adverse effect called euglycemic ketoacidosis, in which the patient has increased ketones in the blood causing it to be more acidic than normal, but the blood glucose remains within the normal range.”

As for cost, goodrx.com reports that several SGLT2 inhibitors run about $550-$683 per month, making them expensive but still cheaper than GLP-1 agonists, which can cost $1,000 or more per month. Unlike the most popular GLP-1 agonists such as Ozempic, none of the SGLT2 inhibitors are in short supply, according to the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

“If someone with gout already has a cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic indication for SGLT2 inhibitors and also stands to benefit in terms of lowering serum urate and risk of recurrent gout flares, there is potential for high benefit relative to cost,” Dr. Yokose said.

She added: “It is well-documented that current gout care is suboptimal, and many patients end up in the emergency room or hospitalized for gout, which in and of itself is quite costly both for the patient and the health care system. Therefore, streamlining or integrating gout and comorbidity care with SGLT2 inhibitors could potentially be quite beneficial for patients with gout.”

In regard to lupus, “many patients with lupus undergo multiple hospitalizations related to their disease, which is a source of high health care costs,” Dr. Jorge said. “Additionally, chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular disease are major causes of disability and premature mortality. Further studies will be needed to better understand whether benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors may outweigh the costs of treatment.”

As for prescribing the drugs in lupus now, Dr. Jorge said they can be an option in lupus nephritis. “There is not a clear consensus of the ideal timing to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors — e.g., degree of proteinuria or eGFR range,” she said. “However, it is less controversial that SGLT2 inhibitors should be considered in particular for patients with lupus nephritis with ongoing proteinuria despite adequate treatment with conventional therapies.”

As for gout, Dr. Yokose isn’t ready to prescribe the drugs to patients who don’t have comorbidities that can be treated by the medications. However, she noted that those patients are rare.

“If I see a patient with gout with one or more of these comorbidities, and I see that they are not already on an SGLT2 inhibitor, I definitely take the time to talk to the patient about this exciting class of drugs and will consult with their other physicians about getting them started on an SGLT2 inhibitor.”

Dr. Yokose, Dr. Petri, and Dr. Cheung have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Jorge disclosed serving as a site investigator for SLE clinical trials funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Cabaletta Bio; the trials are not related to SGLT2 inhibitors.

Over just a decade, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have revolutionized the second-line treatment of type 2 diabetes by improving the control of blood sugar, and they’re also being used to treat heart failure and chronic kidney disease. Now, there’s growing evidence that the medications have the potential to play a role in the treatment of a variety of rheumatologic diseases — gout, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and lupus nephritis.

“I suspect that SGLT2 inhibitors may have a role in multiple rheumatic diseases,” said rheumatologist April Jorge, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

In gout, for example, “SGLT2 inhibitors hold great promise as a multipurpose treatment option,” said rheumatologist Chio Yokose, MD, MSc, also of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital. Both Dr. Jorge and Dr. Yokose spoke at recent medical conferences and in interviews about the potential value of the drugs in rheumatology.
 

There’s a big caveat. For the moment, SGLT2 inhibitors aren’t cleared for use in the treatment of rheumatologic conditions, and neither physician is ready to recommend prescribing them off-label outside of their FDA-approved indications.

But studies could pave the way toward more approved uses in rheumatology. And there’s good news for now: Many rheumatology patients may already be eligible to take the drugs because of other medical conditions. In gout, for example, “sizable proportions of patients have comorbidities for which they are already indicated,” Dr. Yokose said.
 

Research Hints at Gout-Busting Potential

The first SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin (Invokana), received FDA approval in 2013, followed by dapagliflozin (Farxiga), empagliflozin (Jardiance), ertugliflozin (Steglatro), and bexagliflozin (Brenzavvy). The drugs “lower blood sugar by causing the kidneys to remove sugar from the body through urine,” reports the National Kidney Foundation, and they “help to protect the kidneys and heart in people with CKD [chronic kidney disease].”

As Dr. Yokose noted in a presentation at the 2023 Gout Hyperuricemia and Crystal Associated Disease Network research symposium, SGLT2 inhibitors “have really become blockbuster drugs, and they’ve now been integrated into multiple professional society guidelines and recommendations.”

These drugs should not be confused with the wildly popular medications known as glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) agonists, which include medications such as semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy). These drugs are generally administered via injection — unlike the oral SGLT2 inhibitors — and they’re variously indicated for type 2 diabetes and obesity.

Dr. Yokose highlighted research findings about the drugs in gout. A 2020 study, for example, tracked 295,907 US adults with type 2 diabetes who received a new prescription for an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP1 agonist during 2013-2017. Those in the SGLT2 inhibitor group had a 36% lower risk of newly diagnosed gout (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57-0.72), the researchers reported.

A similar study, a 2021 report from Taiwan, also linked SGLT2 inhibitors to improvement in gout incidence vs. dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors, diabetes drugs that are not linked to lower serum urate levels. In an adjusted analysis, the risk of gout was 11% lower in the SGLT2 inhibitor group (adjusted HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.95).

What about recurrent gout? In a 2023 study, Dr. Yokose and colleagues tracked patients with type 2 diabetes who began SGLT2 inhibitors or DPP4 inhibitors. Over the period from 2013 to 2017, those who took SGLT2 inhibitors were less likely to have gout flares (rate ratio [RR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75) and gout-primary emergency department visits/hospitalizations (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32-0.84).

“This finding requires further replication in other populations and compared to other drugs,” Dr. Yokose cautioned.

Another 2023 study analyzed UK data and reached similar results regarding risk of recurrent gout.

Lower Urate Levels and Less Inflammation Could Be Key

How might SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk of gout? Multiple studies have linked the drugs to lower serum urate levels, Dr. Yokose said, but researchers often excluded patients with gout.

For a small new study presented at the 2023 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology but not yet published, Dr. Yokose and colleagues reported that patients with gout who began SGLT2 inhibitors had lower urate levels than those who began a sulfonylurea, another second-line agent for type 2 diabetes. During the study period, up to 3 months before and after initiation, 43.5% of patients in the SGLT2 inhibitor group reached a target serum urate of < 6 mg/dL vs. 4.2% of sulfonylurea initiators.

“The magnitude of this reduction, while not as large as what can be achieved with appropriately titrated urate-lowering therapy such as allopurinol or febuxostat, is also not negligible. It’s believed to be between 1.5-2.0 mg/dL among patients with gout,” Dr. Yokose said. “Also, SGLT2 inhibitors are purported to have some anti-inflammatory effects that may target the same pathways responsible for the profound inflammation associated with acute gout flares. However, both the exact mechanisms underlying the serum urate-lowering and anti-inflammatory effects of SGLT2 [inhibitors] require further research and clarification.”

Moving forward, she said, “I would love to see some prospective studies of SGLT2 inhibitor use among patients with gout, looking at serum urate and clinical gout endpoints, as well as biomarkers to understand better the beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors as it pertains to patients with gout.”

In Lupus, Findings Are More Mixed

Studies of SGLT2 inhibitors have excluded patients with lupus, limiting insight into their benefits in that specific population, said Dr. Jorge of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School. However, “one small phase I/II trial showed an acceptable safety profile of dapagliflozin add-on therapy in adult patients with SLE,” she said.

Her team is working to expand understanding about the drugs in people with lupus. At the 2023 ACR annual meeting, she presented the findings of a study that tracked patients with SLE who took SGLT2 inhibitors (n = 426, including 154 with lupus nephritis) or DPP4 inhibitors (n = 865, including 270 with lupus nephritis). Patients who took SGLT2 inhibitors had lower risks of major adverse cardiac events (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48-0.99) and renal progression (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51-0.98).

“Our results are promising, but the majority of patient with lupus who had received SGLT2 inhibitors also had the comorbidity of type 2 diabetes as a separate indication for SGLT2 inhibitor use,” Dr. Jorge said. “We still need to study the impact of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with SLE and lupus nephritis who do not have a separate indication for the medication.”

Dr. Jorge added that “we do not yet know the ideal time to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors in the treatment of lupus nephritis. Specifically, it is not yet known whether these medications should be used in patients with persistent proteinuria due to damage from lupus nephritis or whether there is also a role to start these medications in patients with active lupus nephritis who are undergoing induction immunosuppression regimens.”

However, another study released at the 2023 ACR annual meeting suggested that SGLT2 inhibitors may not have a beneficial effect in lupus nephritis: “We observed a reduction in decline in eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] after starting SGLT2 inhibitors; however, this reduction was not statistically significant … early experience suggested marginal benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors in SLE,” researchers from Johns Hopkins University, and the University of Maryland, Baltimore, reported.

“My cohort is not showing miracles from SGLT2 inhibitors,” study lead author Michelle Petri, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins, said in an interview.

Still, new European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for SLE now advise to consider the use of the drugs in patients with lupus nephritis who have reduced eGFR. Meanwhile, “the American College of Rheumatology is currently developing new treatment guidelines for SLE and for lupus nephritis, and SGLT2 inhibitors will likely be a topic of consideration,” Dr. Jorge added.

As for mechanism, Dr. Jorge said it’s not clear how the drugs may affect lupus. “It’s proposed that they have benefits in hemodynamic effects as well as potentially anti-inflammatory effects. The hemodynamic effects, including reducing intraglomerular hyperfiltration and reducing blood pressure, likely have similar benefits in patients with chronic kidney disease due to diabetic nephropathy or due to lupus nephritis with damage/scarring and persistent proteinuria. Patients with SLE and other chronic, systemic rheumatic diseases such as ANCA [antineutrophilic cytoplasmic antibody]-associated vasculitis also develop kidney disease and cardiovascular events mediated by inflammatory processes.”
 

Side Effects and Cost: Where Do They Fit In?

According to Dr. Yokose, SGLT2 inhibitors “are generally quite well-tolerated, and very serious adverse effects are rare.” Side effects include disrupted urination, increased thirst, genital infections, flu-like symptoms, and swelling.

Urinary-related problems are understandable “because these drugs cause the kidneys to pass more glucose into the urine,” University of Hong Kong cardiac specialist Bernard Cheung, MBBCh, PhD, who has studied SGLT2 inhibitors, said in an interview.

In Dr. Yokose’s 2023 study of SGLT2 inhibitors in recurrent gout, patients who took the drugs were 2.15 times more likely than the comparison group to have genital infections (hazard ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.39-3.30). This finding “was what we’d expect,” she said.

She added that genital infection rates were higher among patients with diabetes, women, and uncircumcised men. “Fortunately, most experienced just a single mild episode that can readily be treated with topical therapy. There does not appear to be an increased risk of urinary tract infections.”

Dr. Cheung added that “doctors should be aware of a rare adverse effect called euglycemic ketoacidosis, in which the patient has increased ketones in the blood causing it to be more acidic than normal, but the blood glucose remains within the normal range.”

As for cost, goodrx.com reports that several SGLT2 inhibitors run about $550-$683 per month, making them expensive but still cheaper than GLP-1 agonists, which can cost $1,000 or more per month. Unlike the most popular GLP-1 agonists such as Ozempic, none of the SGLT2 inhibitors are in short supply, according to the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

“If someone with gout already has a cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic indication for SGLT2 inhibitors and also stands to benefit in terms of lowering serum urate and risk of recurrent gout flares, there is potential for high benefit relative to cost,” Dr. Yokose said.

She added: “It is well-documented that current gout care is suboptimal, and many patients end up in the emergency room or hospitalized for gout, which in and of itself is quite costly both for the patient and the health care system. Therefore, streamlining or integrating gout and comorbidity care with SGLT2 inhibitors could potentially be quite beneficial for patients with gout.”

In regard to lupus, “many patients with lupus undergo multiple hospitalizations related to their disease, which is a source of high health care costs,” Dr. Jorge said. “Additionally, chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular disease are major causes of disability and premature mortality. Further studies will be needed to better understand whether benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors may outweigh the costs of treatment.”

As for prescribing the drugs in lupus now, Dr. Jorge said they can be an option in lupus nephritis. “There is not a clear consensus of the ideal timing to initiate SGLT2 inhibitors — e.g., degree of proteinuria or eGFR range,” she said. “However, it is less controversial that SGLT2 inhibitors should be considered in particular for patients with lupus nephritis with ongoing proteinuria despite adequate treatment with conventional therapies.”

As for gout, Dr. Yokose isn’t ready to prescribe the drugs to patients who don’t have comorbidities that can be treated by the medications. However, she noted that those patients are rare.

“If I see a patient with gout with one or more of these comorbidities, and I see that they are not already on an SGLT2 inhibitor, I definitely take the time to talk to the patient about this exciting class of drugs and will consult with their other physicians about getting them started on an SGLT2 inhibitor.”

Dr. Yokose, Dr. Petri, and Dr. Cheung have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Jorge disclosed serving as a site investigator for SLE clinical trials funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Cabaletta Bio; the trials are not related to SGLT2 inhibitors.

Maintaining remission in patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis who have kept their autoantibodies in check after at least 2 years on rituximab therapy has proved challenging, but a team of nephrologists in Boston have reported that a longer-term strategy that uses a rise in B-cell levels as a threshold for rituximab infusions may be the better of two strategies at reducing relapse risks. 

“The bottom line is with the B-cell strategy, which is that rituximab was redosed when the B cells recovered or started to recover, we only have a 6% rate in relapses by 3 years,” senior study author John L. Niles, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School and director of the Vasculitis and Glomerulonephritis Center at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, told Medscape Medical News.

Massachusetts General Hospital

“Whereas in the other strategy, we were waiting for a serologic relapse and hoping we could prevent clinical relapses, but we still have about 30% rate of relapse by 3 years.”

Dr. Niles and his associates reported their findings from the MAINTANCVAS study (for MAINTenance of ANCA VASculitis) December 11, 2023, in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. Their single-center study compared two different treatment strategies in patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis in remission after completing at least 2 years of fixed-schedule rituximab therapy: an approach that reinfused rituximab upon B-cell repopulation, called the B-cell arm and a strategy that reinfused rituximab when serologic levels of ANCA increased significantly, which they called the ANCA arm. A total of 115 patients were randomly assigned to either arm.
 

Study Results

Median follow-up was 4.1 years from study entry. Throughout the study, 5 of 58 patients in the B-cell arm and 14 of 57 in the ANCA arm had relapses. According to Kaplan-Meier analysis, at 3 years after study entry, 4.1% of patients in the B-cell arm had a relapse vs 20.5% of patients in the ANCA arm. At 5 years, the respective relapse rates were 11.3% and 27.7%. Overall, four major relapses occurred in the B-cell arm and seven in the ANCA arm.

The COVID-19 pandemic caused the researchers to halt the study before it was fully enrolled, Dr. Niles said. The study also attributed high rates of serious adverse events (SAEs) in the B-cell arm to cases of COVID-19 in that study population. The overall number of SAEs was identical in both arms: 22 (P = .95). But the B-cell arm had six cases of COVID-19 vs one in the ANCA arm, including two deaths because of COVID-19.

The study findings provided insight into how to best individualize treatment in patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis, Dr. Niles said. “We will typically start with the B-cell strategy after 2 years, but to the extent that people have infections or hypogammaglobulinemia, we’ll start stretching a little longer on the B cells, and if the level is too high in terms of infection, we’ll stop and switch to the ANCA strategy,” he said.

He added, “Relapsers get a more strict B-cell strategy, and people with infections get much longer intervals or even switch entirely to the ANCA strategy.”

Because the study ended before it was fully enrolled, it was underpowered for subgroup analyses, Dr. Niles noted. One such potential subgroup was relapsing patients with interstitial lung disease as the primary clinical finding. “The interstitial lung disease doesn’t seem to respond as well to therapy as the other classic features of ANCA disease,” Dr. Niles said. “It’s the one part that’s the most problematic for the long run. It behaves differently, and there’s going to need to be more research on ILD. Fortunately, it’s a fairly small percentage of the total group, but it’s the most difficult part of this disease.”
 

Findings in Context

This study brings clarity on how to best manage patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis, Robert Hylland, MD, an assistant clinical professor of rheumatology at Michigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine, told this news organization.

“Most of us have tried to discern from the literature that exists how to manage [ANCA-associated vasculitis]. There have been a number of different approaches, and they have changed over the course of time,” Dr. Hylland said. “But now this article helps us to understand how to proceed with this disease after we have induced remission. The ability to determine the validity of serology vs B-cell depletion was brought out very nicely in this article.”

Michigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine

The size of the study population was a strength of the study, Dr. Hylland said. 

He credited the study authors for providing insight into using positive myeloperoxidase (MPO)- or proteinase 3 (PR3)-ANCA readings to guide treatment for relapses. The study defined a serologic ANCA flare in the ANCA arm as a fivefold increase in MPO and a fourfold rise in PR3.

“Many of us wouldn’t have recognized that a less than fivefold increase, for example, in the MPO could be watched for a while, where most of us would have been treating that serologic flare,” Hylland said.

The study also highlighted the difficulty of evaluating a patient who has neither a positive ANCA nor a significant increase in their B-cell counts and yet still has clinical signs and symptoms of a relapse, such as with granulomatosis with polyangiitis, also known as Wegener’s granulomatosis.

“A lot of physicians tend to feel a little more relaxed when they see their patient is serologically doing well and yet, when they come in, some of the subtle symptoms of Wegener’s could be ignored if you don’t recognize that there’s a considerable number who will come to you with having had treatment and still have negative serology,” Hylland said.

The study had no specific outside funding source. Dr. Niles and Dr. Hylland report no relevant financial relationships. Two co-authors report financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Maintaining remission in patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis who have kept their autoantibodies in check after at least 2 years on rituximab therapy has proved challenging, but a team of nephrologists in Boston have reported that a longer-term strategy that uses a rise in B-cell levels as a threshold for rituximab infusions may be the better of two strategies at reducing relapse risks. 

“The bottom line is with the B-cell strategy, which is that rituximab was redosed when the B cells recovered or started to recover, we only have a 6% rate in relapses by 3 years,” senior study author John L. Niles, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School and director of the Vasculitis and Glomerulonephritis Center at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, told Medscape Medical News.

Massachusetts General Hospital

“Whereas in the other strategy, we were waiting for a serologic relapse and hoping we could prevent clinical relapses, but we still have about 30% rate of relapse by 3 years.”

Dr. Niles and his associates reported their findings from the MAINTANCVAS study (for MAINTenance of ANCA VASculitis) December 11, 2023, in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. Their single-center study compared two different treatment strategies in patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis in remission after completing at least 2 years of fixed-schedule rituximab therapy: an approach that reinfused rituximab upon B-cell repopulation, called the B-cell arm and a strategy that reinfused rituximab when serologic levels of ANCA increased significantly, which they called the ANCA arm. A total of 115 patients were randomly assigned to either arm.
 

Study Results

Median follow-up was 4.1 years from study entry. Throughout the study, 5 of 58 patients in the B-cell arm and 14 of 57 in the ANCA arm had relapses. According to Kaplan-Meier analysis, at 3 years after study entry, 4.1% of patients in the B-cell arm had a relapse vs 20.5% of patients in the ANCA arm. At 5 years, the respective relapse rates were 11.3% and 27.7%. Overall, four major relapses occurred in the B-cell arm and seven in the ANCA arm.

The COVID-19 pandemic caused the researchers to halt the study before it was fully enrolled, Dr. Niles said. The study also attributed high rates of serious adverse events (SAEs) in the B-cell arm to cases of COVID-19 in that study population. The overall number of SAEs was identical in both arms: 22 (P = .95). But the B-cell arm had six cases of COVID-19 vs one in the ANCA arm, including two deaths because of COVID-19.

The study findings provided insight into how to best individualize treatment in patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis, Dr. Niles said. “We will typically start with the B-cell strategy after 2 years, but to the extent that people have infections or hypogammaglobulinemia, we’ll start stretching a little longer on the B cells, and if the level is too high in terms of infection, we’ll stop and switch to the ANCA strategy,” he said.

He added, “Relapsers get a more strict B-cell strategy, and people with infections get much longer intervals or even switch entirely to the ANCA strategy.”

Because the study ended before it was fully enrolled, it was underpowered for subgroup analyses, Dr. Niles noted. One such potential subgroup was relapsing patients with interstitial lung disease as the primary clinical finding. “The interstitial lung disease doesn’t seem to respond as well to therapy as the other classic features of ANCA disease,” Dr. Niles said. “It’s the one part that’s the most problematic for the long run. It behaves differently, and there’s going to need to be more research on ILD. Fortunately, it’s a fairly small percentage of the total group, but it’s the most difficult part of this disease.”
 

Findings in Context

This study brings clarity on how to best manage patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis, Robert Hylland, MD, an assistant clinical professor of rheumatology at Michigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine, told this news organization.

“Most of us have tried to discern from the literature that exists how to manage [ANCA-associated vasculitis]. There have been a number of different approaches, and they have changed over the course of time,” Dr. Hylland said. “But now this article helps us to understand how to proceed with this disease after we have induced remission. The ability to determine the validity of serology vs B-cell depletion was brought out very nicely in this article.”

Michigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine

The size of the study population was a strength of the study, Dr. Hylland said. 

He credited the study authors for providing insight into using positive myeloperoxidase (MPO)- or proteinase 3 (PR3)-ANCA readings to guide treatment for relapses. The study defined a serologic ANCA flare in the ANCA arm as a fivefold increase in MPO and a fourfold rise in PR3.

“Many of us wouldn’t have recognized that a less than fivefold increase, for example, in the MPO could be watched for a while, where most of us would have been treating that serologic flare,” Hylland said.

The study also highlighted the difficulty of evaluating a patient who has neither a positive ANCA nor a significant increase in their B-cell counts and yet still has clinical signs and symptoms of a relapse, such as with granulomatosis with polyangiitis, also known as Wegener’s granulomatosis.

“A lot of physicians tend to feel a little more relaxed when they see their patient is serologically doing well and yet, when they come in, some of the subtle symptoms of Wegener’s could be ignored if you don’t recognize that there’s a considerable number who will come to you with having had treatment and still have negative serology,” Hylland said.

The study had no specific outside funding source. Dr. Niles and Dr. Hylland report no relevant financial relationships. Two co-authors report financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Maintaining remission in patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis who have kept their autoantibodies in check after at least 2 years on rituximab therapy has proved challenging, but a team of nephrologists in Boston have reported that a longer-term strategy that uses a rise in B-cell levels as a threshold for rituximab infusions may be the better of two strategies at reducing relapse risks. 

“The bottom line is with the B-cell strategy, which is that rituximab was redosed when the B cells recovered or started to recover, we only have a 6% rate in relapses by 3 years,” senior study author John L. Niles, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Harvard Medical School and director of the Vasculitis and Glomerulonephritis Center at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, told Medscape Medical News.

Massachusetts General Hospital

“Whereas in the other strategy, we were waiting for a serologic relapse and hoping we could prevent clinical relapses, but we still have about 30% rate of relapse by 3 years.”

Dr. Niles and his associates reported their findings from the MAINTANCVAS study (for MAINTenance of ANCA VASculitis) December 11, 2023, in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. Their single-center study compared two different treatment strategies in patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis in remission after completing at least 2 years of fixed-schedule rituximab therapy: an approach that reinfused rituximab upon B-cell repopulation, called the B-cell arm and a strategy that reinfused rituximab when serologic levels of ANCA increased significantly, which they called the ANCA arm. A total of 115 patients were randomly assigned to either arm.
 

Study Results

Median follow-up was 4.1 years from study entry. Throughout the study, 5 of 58 patients in the B-cell arm and 14 of 57 in the ANCA arm had relapses. According to Kaplan-Meier analysis, at 3 years after study entry, 4.1% of patients in the B-cell arm had a relapse vs 20.5% of patients in the ANCA arm. At 5 years, the respective relapse rates were 11.3% and 27.7%. Overall, four major relapses occurred in the B-cell arm and seven in the ANCA arm.

The COVID-19 pandemic caused the researchers to halt the study before it was fully enrolled, Dr. Niles said. The study also attributed high rates of serious adverse events (SAEs) in the B-cell arm to cases of COVID-19 in that study population. The overall number of SAEs was identical in both arms: 22 (P = .95). But the B-cell arm had six cases of COVID-19 vs one in the ANCA arm, including two deaths because of COVID-19.

The study findings provided insight into how to best individualize treatment in patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis, Dr. Niles said. “We will typically start with the B-cell strategy after 2 years, but to the extent that people have infections or hypogammaglobulinemia, we’ll start stretching a little longer on the B cells, and if the level is too high in terms of infection, we’ll stop and switch to the ANCA strategy,” he said.

He added, “Relapsers get a more strict B-cell strategy, and people with infections get much longer intervals or even switch entirely to the ANCA strategy.”

Because the study ended before it was fully enrolled, it was underpowered for subgroup analyses, Dr. Niles noted. One such potential subgroup was relapsing patients with interstitial lung disease as the primary clinical finding. “The interstitial lung disease doesn’t seem to respond as well to therapy as the other classic features of ANCA disease,” Dr. Niles said. “It’s the one part that’s the most problematic for the long run. It behaves differently, and there’s going to need to be more research on ILD. Fortunately, it’s a fairly small percentage of the total group, but it’s the most difficult part of this disease.”
 

Findings in Context

This study brings clarity on how to best manage patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis, Robert Hylland, MD, an assistant clinical professor of rheumatology at Michigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine, told this news organization.

“Most of us have tried to discern from the literature that exists how to manage [ANCA-associated vasculitis]. There have been a number of different approaches, and they have changed over the course of time,” Dr. Hylland said. “But now this article helps us to understand how to proceed with this disease after we have induced remission. The ability to determine the validity of serology vs B-cell depletion was brought out very nicely in this article.”

Michigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine

The size of the study population was a strength of the study, Dr. Hylland said. 

He credited the study authors for providing insight into using positive myeloperoxidase (MPO)- or proteinase 3 (PR3)-ANCA readings to guide treatment for relapses. The study defined a serologic ANCA flare in the ANCA arm as a fivefold increase in MPO and a fourfold rise in PR3.

“Many of us wouldn’t have recognized that a less than fivefold increase, for example, in the MPO could be watched for a while, where most of us would have been treating that serologic flare,” Hylland said.

The study also highlighted the difficulty of evaluating a patient who has neither a positive ANCA nor a significant increase in their B-cell counts and yet still has clinical signs and symptoms of a relapse, such as with granulomatosis with polyangiitis, also known as Wegener’s granulomatosis.

“A lot of physicians tend to feel a little more relaxed when they see their patient is serologically doing well and yet, when they come in, some of the subtle symptoms of Wegener’s could be ignored if you don’t recognize that there’s a considerable number who will come to you with having had treatment and still have negative serology,” Hylland said.

The study had no specific outside funding source. Dr. Niles and Dr. Hylland report no relevant financial relationships. Two co-authors report financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a new report, the Midwest Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s (ICER) Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council concluded that the Merck drug sotatercept, currently under review by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has a high certainty of at least a small net health benefit to patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) when added to background therapy. The limited availability of evidence means that the benefit could range from minimal to substantial, according to the authors. 

Sotatercept, administered by injection every 3 weeks, is a first-in-class activin signaling inhibitor. It counters cell proliferation and decreases inflammation in vessel walls, which may lead to improved pulmonary blood flow. The US FDA is considering it for approval through a biologics license application, with a decision expected by March 26, 2024.

There remains a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the long-term benefits of sotatercept. It’s possible that the drug is disease-modifying, but there isn’t yet any proof, according to Greg Curfman, MD, who attended a virtual ICER public meeting on December 1 that summarized the report and accepted public comments. “I’m still wondering the extent to which disease-modifying issue here is more aspirational at this point than really documented,” said Dr. Curfman, who is an associated professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and executive editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Current PAH treatment consists of vasodilators, including phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5i), guanylate cyclase stimulators, endothelin receptor antagonists (ERA), prostacyclin analogues (prostanoids), and a prostacyclin receptor agonist. The 2022 European Society of Cardiology and the European Respiratory Society clinical practice guideline recommends that low- and intermediate-risk patients should be started on ERA/PDE5i combination therapy, while high-risk patients should also be given an intravenous or subcutaneous prostacyclin analogue, referred to as triple therapy.

Sotatercept’s regulatory approval hinges on the phase 3 STELLAR trial, which included 323 patients with World Health Organization functional class (WHO-FC) II and III PAH who were randomized to 0.75 mg/kg sotatercept in addition to background double or triple therapy, or background therapy alone. The mean age was 48 years, and the mean time since diagnosis was 8.8 years. About 40% received infused prostacyclin therapy at baseline. At 24 weeks, the median change in 6-min walking distance (6mWD) was 40.8 m longer in the sotatercept group. More patients in the sotatercept group experienced WHO-FC improvement (29.4% vs 13.8%). Those in the sotatercept group also experienced an 84% reduction in risk for clinical worsening or death. PAH-specific quality of life scales did not show a difference between the two groups. Open-label extension trials have shown that benefits are maintained for up to 2 years. Adverse events likely related to sotatercept included telangiectasias, increased hemoglobin levels, and bleeding events.

Along with its benefits, the report authors suggest that the subcutaneous delivery of sotatercept may be less burdensome to patients than some other PAH treatments, especially inhaled and intravenous prostanoids. “However, uncertainty remains about sotatercept’s efficacy in sicker populations and in those with connective tissue disease, and about the durability of effect,” the authors wrote.

A lack of long-term data leaves open the question of its effect on mortality and unknown adverse effects.

Using a de novo decision analytic model, the authors estimated that sotatercept treatment would lead to a longer time without symptoms at rest and more quality-adjusted life years, life years, and equal value life years. They determined the health benefit price benchmark for sotatercept to be between $18,700 and $36,200 per year. “The long-term conventional cost-effectiveness of sotatercept is largely dependent on the long-term effect of sotatercept on improving functional class and slowing the worsening in functional class; however, controlled trial evidence for sotatercept is limited to 24 weeks. Long-term data are necessary to reduce the uncertainty in sotatercept’s long-term effect on improving functional class and slowing the worsening in functional class,” the authors wrote. 

During the online meeting, Dr. Curfman took note of the fact that the STELLAR trial reported a median value of increase in 6mWD, rather than a mean, and the 40-m improvement is close to the value accepted as clinically meaningful. “So that tells us that half the patients had less than a clinically important improvement in the six-minute walk distance. We should be putting that in perspective,” said Dr. Curfman.

Another attendee pointed out that the open-label PULSAR extension trial showed that the proportion of patients in the sotatercept arm who were functional class I rose from 7.5% at the end of the trial to 20.6% at the end of the open-label period and wondered if that could be a sign of disease-modifying activity. “I think that’s a remarkable piece of data. I don’t recall seeing that in any other open label [trial of a PAH therapy] — that much of an improvement in getting to our best functional status,” said Marc Simon, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Pulmonary Hypertension Center at the University of California, San Francisco, who was a coauthor of the report.

Dr. Curfman has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Simon has consulted for Merck.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a new report, the Midwest Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s (ICER) Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council concluded that the Merck drug sotatercept, currently under review by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has a high certainty of at least a small net health benefit to patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) when added to background therapy. The limited availability of evidence means that the benefit could range from minimal to substantial, according to the authors. 

Sotatercept, administered by injection every 3 weeks, is a first-in-class activin signaling inhibitor. It counters cell proliferation and decreases inflammation in vessel walls, which may lead to improved pulmonary blood flow. The US FDA is considering it for approval through a biologics license application, with a decision expected by March 26, 2024.

There remains a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the long-term benefits of sotatercept. It’s possible that the drug is disease-modifying, but there isn’t yet any proof, according to Greg Curfman, MD, who attended a virtual ICER public meeting on December 1 that summarized the report and accepted public comments. “I’m still wondering the extent to which disease-modifying issue here is more aspirational at this point than really documented,” said Dr. Curfman, who is an associated professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and executive editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Current PAH treatment consists of vasodilators, including phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5i), guanylate cyclase stimulators, endothelin receptor antagonists (ERA), prostacyclin analogues (prostanoids), and a prostacyclin receptor agonist. The 2022 European Society of Cardiology and the European Respiratory Society clinical practice guideline recommends that low- and intermediate-risk patients should be started on ERA/PDE5i combination therapy, while high-risk patients should also be given an intravenous or subcutaneous prostacyclin analogue, referred to as triple therapy.

Sotatercept’s regulatory approval hinges on the phase 3 STELLAR trial, which included 323 patients with World Health Organization functional class (WHO-FC) II and III PAH who were randomized to 0.75 mg/kg sotatercept in addition to background double or triple therapy, or background therapy alone. The mean age was 48 years, and the mean time since diagnosis was 8.8 years. About 40% received infused prostacyclin therapy at baseline. At 24 weeks, the median change in 6-min walking distance (6mWD) was 40.8 m longer in the sotatercept group. More patients in the sotatercept group experienced WHO-FC improvement (29.4% vs 13.8%). Those in the sotatercept group also experienced an 84% reduction in risk for clinical worsening or death. PAH-specific quality of life scales did not show a difference between the two groups. Open-label extension trials have shown that benefits are maintained for up to 2 years. Adverse events likely related to sotatercept included telangiectasias, increased hemoglobin levels, and bleeding events.

Along with its benefits, the report authors suggest that the subcutaneous delivery of sotatercept may be less burdensome to patients than some other PAH treatments, especially inhaled and intravenous prostanoids. “However, uncertainty remains about sotatercept’s efficacy in sicker populations and in those with connective tissue disease, and about the durability of effect,” the authors wrote.

A lack of long-term data leaves open the question of its effect on mortality and unknown adverse effects.

Using a de novo decision analytic model, the authors estimated that sotatercept treatment would lead to a longer time without symptoms at rest and more quality-adjusted life years, life years, and equal value life years. They determined the health benefit price benchmark for sotatercept to be between $18,700 and $36,200 per year. “The long-term conventional cost-effectiveness of sotatercept is largely dependent on the long-term effect of sotatercept on improving functional class and slowing the worsening in functional class; however, controlled trial evidence for sotatercept is limited to 24 weeks. Long-term data are necessary to reduce the uncertainty in sotatercept’s long-term effect on improving functional class and slowing the worsening in functional class,” the authors wrote. 

During the online meeting, Dr. Curfman took note of the fact that the STELLAR trial reported a median value of increase in 6mWD, rather than a mean, and the 40-m improvement is close to the value accepted as clinically meaningful. “So that tells us that half the patients had less than a clinically important improvement in the six-minute walk distance. We should be putting that in perspective,” said Dr. Curfman.

Another attendee pointed out that the open-label PULSAR extension trial showed that the proportion of patients in the sotatercept arm who were functional class I rose from 7.5% at the end of the trial to 20.6% at the end of the open-label period and wondered if that could be a sign of disease-modifying activity. “I think that’s a remarkable piece of data. I don’t recall seeing that in any other open label [trial of a PAH therapy] — that much of an improvement in getting to our best functional status,” said Marc Simon, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Pulmonary Hypertension Center at the University of California, San Francisco, who was a coauthor of the report.

Dr. Curfman has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Simon has consulted for Merck.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a new report, the Midwest Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s (ICER) Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council concluded that the Merck drug sotatercept, currently under review by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has a high certainty of at least a small net health benefit to patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) when added to background therapy. The limited availability of evidence means that the benefit could range from minimal to substantial, according to the authors. 

Sotatercept, administered by injection every 3 weeks, is a first-in-class activin signaling inhibitor. It counters cell proliferation and decreases inflammation in vessel walls, which may lead to improved pulmonary blood flow. The US FDA is considering it for approval through a biologics license application, with a decision expected by March 26, 2024.

There remains a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the long-term benefits of sotatercept. It’s possible that the drug is disease-modifying, but there isn’t yet any proof, according to Greg Curfman, MD, who attended a virtual ICER public meeting on December 1 that summarized the report and accepted public comments. “I’m still wondering the extent to which disease-modifying issue here is more aspirational at this point than really documented,” said Dr. Curfman, who is an associated professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and executive editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Current PAH treatment consists of vasodilators, including phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5i), guanylate cyclase stimulators, endothelin receptor antagonists (ERA), prostacyclin analogues (prostanoids), and a prostacyclin receptor agonist. The 2022 European Society of Cardiology and the European Respiratory Society clinical practice guideline recommends that low- and intermediate-risk patients should be started on ERA/PDE5i combination therapy, while high-risk patients should also be given an intravenous or subcutaneous prostacyclin analogue, referred to as triple therapy.

Sotatercept’s regulatory approval hinges on the phase 3 STELLAR trial, which included 323 patients with World Health Organization functional class (WHO-FC) II and III PAH who were randomized to 0.75 mg/kg sotatercept in addition to background double or triple therapy, or background therapy alone. The mean age was 48 years, and the mean time since diagnosis was 8.8 years. About 40% received infused prostacyclin therapy at baseline. At 24 weeks, the median change in 6-min walking distance (6mWD) was 40.8 m longer in the sotatercept group. More patients in the sotatercept group experienced WHO-FC improvement (29.4% vs 13.8%). Those in the sotatercept group also experienced an 84% reduction in risk for clinical worsening or death. PAH-specific quality of life scales did not show a difference between the two groups. Open-label extension trials have shown that benefits are maintained for up to 2 years. Adverse events likely related to sotatercept included telangiectasias, increased hemoglobin levels, and bleeding events.

Along with its benefits, the report authors suggest that the subcutaneous delivery of sotatercept may be less burdensome to patients than some other PAH treatments, especially inhaled and intravenous prostanoids. “However, uncertainty remains about sotatercept’s efficacy in sicker populations and in those with connective tissue disease, and about the durability of effect,” the authors wrote.

A lack of long-term data leaves open the question of its effect on mortality and unknown adverse effects.

Using a de novo decision analytic model, the authors estimated that sotatercept treatment would lead to a longer time without symptoms at rest and more quality-adjusted life years, life years, and equal value life years. They determined the health benefit price benchmark for sotatercept to be between $18,700 and $36,200 per year. “The long-term conventional cost-effectiveness of sotatercept is largely dependent on the long-term effect of sotatercept on improving functional class and slowing the worsening in functional class; however, controlled trial evidence for sotatercept is limited to 24 weeks. Long-term data are necessary to reduce the uncertainty in sotatercept’s long-term effect on improving functional class and slowing the worsening in functional class,” the authors wrote. 

During the online meeting, Dr. Curfman took note of the fact that the STELLAR trial reported a median value of increase in 6mWD, rather than a mean, and the 40-m improvement is close to the value accepted as clinically meaningful. “So that tells us that half the patients had less than a clinically important improvement in the six-minute walk distance. We should be putting that in perspective,” said Dr. Curfman.

Another attendee pointed out that the open-label PULSAR extension trial showed that the proportion of patients in the sotatercept arm who were functional class I rose from 7.5% at the end of the trial to 20.6% at the end of the open-label period and wondered if that could be a sign of disease-modifying activity. “I think that’s a remarkable piece of data. I don’t recall seeing that in any other open label [trial of a PAH therapy] — that much of an improvement in getting to our best functional status,” said Marc Simon, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Pulmonary Hypertension Center at the University of California, San Francisco, who was a coauthor of the report.

Dr. Curfman has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Simon has consulted for Merck.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, which has transformed the treatment landscape for B-cell malignancies, is now showing great promise in at least three distinct autoantibody-dependent autoimmune diseases.

A single infusion of autologous CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapy led to persistent, drug-free remission in 15 patients with life-threatening systemic lupus erythematosus, idiopathic inflammatory myositis, or systemic sclerosis, according to research presented at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.

The responses persisted at 15 months median follow-up, with all patients achieving complete remission, reported Fabian Mueller, MD, of the Bavarian Cancer Research Center and Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Bavaria, Germany.

The CAR T-cell treatment appears to provide an “entire reset of B cells,” possibly even a cure, for these 15 patients who had run out of treatment options and had short life expectancies, Dr. Mueller said. “It’s impressive that we have treated these patients.”

Some of the cases have been described previously — including in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases earlier this year, Nature Medicine in 2022, and the New England Journal of Medicine in 2021. 

Now with substantially longer follow-up, the investigators have gained a greater understanding of “the B-cell biology behind our treatment,” Dr. Mueller said. However, “we need longer follow-up to establish how effective the treatment is going to be in the long run.” 

All 15 patients included in the analysis were heavily pretreated and had multi-organ involvement. Prior to CAR T-cell therapy, patients had a median disease duration of 3 years, ranging from 1 to as many as 20 years, and had failed a median of five previous treatments. Patients were young — a median age of 36 years — which is much younger than most oncology patients who undergo CAR T-cell therapy, Dr. Mueller said. 

The 15 patients underwent typical lymphodepletion and were apheresed and treated with a single infusion of 1 x 10⁶ CD19 CAR T cells per kg of body weight — an established safe dose used in a phase 1 trial of B cell malignancies. 

The CAR T cells, manufactured in-house, expanded rapidly, peaking around day 9. B cells disappeared within 7 days and began to reoccur in peripheral blood in all patients between 60 and 180 days. However, no disease flares occurred, Dr. Mueller said.

After 3 months, eight patients with systemic lupus erythematosus showed no sign of disease activity and dramatic improvement in symptoms. Three patients with idiopathic inflammatory myositis experienced major improvements in symptoms and normalization of creatinine kinase levels, the most clinically relevant marker for muscle inflammation. And three of four patients with systemic sclerosis demonstrated major improvements in symptoms and no new disease activity. These responses lasted for a median of 15 months, and all patients stopped taking immunosuppressive drugs. 

Patients also tolerated the CAR T-cell treatment well, especially compared with the adverse event profile in oncology patients. Only low-grade inflammatory CAR T-related side effects occurred, and few patients required support for B-cell-derived immune deficiency. 

However, infectious complications occurred in 14 patients, including urinary tract and respiratory infections, over the 12-month follow-up. One patient was hospitalized for severe pneumonia a few weeks after CAR T therapy, and two patients experienced herpes zoster reactivations, including one at 6 months and one at 12 months following treatment. 

During a press briefing at the ASH conference, Dr. Mueller addressed the “critical question” of patient selection for CAR T-cell therapy, especially in light of the recently announced US Food and Drug Administration investigation exploring whether CAR T cells can cause secondary blood cancers. 

Although the T-cell malignancy risk complicates matters, CAR T cells appear to behave differently in patients with autoimmune diseases than those with cancer, he said.

“We don’t understand the biology” related to the malignancy risk yet, Dr. Mueller said, but the benefit for end-of-life patients with no other treatment option likely outweighs the risk. That risk-benefit assessment, however, is more uncertain for those with less severe autoimmune diseases.

For now, it’s important to conduct individual assessments and inform patients about the risk, Dr. Mueller said.

Dr. Mueller disclosed relationships with BMS, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Janssen, Miltenyi Biomedicine, Novartis, Incyte, Abbvie, Sobi, and BeiGene.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, which has transformed the treatment landscape for B-cell malignancies, is now showing great promise in at least three distinct autoantibody-dependent autoimmune diseases.

A single infusion of autologous CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapy led to persistent, drug-free remission in 15 patients with life-threatening systemic lupus erythematosus, idiopathic inflammatory myositis, or systemic sclerosis, according to research presented at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.

The responses persisted at 15 months median follow-up, with all patients achieving complete remission, reported Fabian Mueller, MD, of the Bavarian Cancer Research Center and Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Bavaria, Germany.

The CAR T-cell treatment appears to provide an “entire reset of B cells,” possibly even a cure, for these 15 patients who had run out of treatment options and had short life expectancies, Dr. Mueller said. “It’s impressive that we have treated these patients.”

Some of the cases have been described previously — including in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases earlier this year, Nature Medicine in 2022, and the New England Journal of Medicine in 2021. 

Now with substantially longer follow-up, the investigators have gained a greater understanding of “the B-cell biology behind our treatment,” Dr. Mueller said. However, “we need longer follow-up to establish how effective the treatment is going to be in the long run.” 

All 15 patients included in the analysis were heavily pretreated and had multi-organ involvement. Prior to CAR T-cell therapy, patients had a median disease duration of 3 years, ranging from 1 to as many as 20 years, and had failed a median of five previous treatments. Patients were young — a median age of 36 years — which is much younger than most oncology patients who undergo CAR T-cell therapy, Dr. Mueller said. 

The 15 patients underwent typical lymphodepletion and were apheresed and treated with a single infusion of 1 x 10⁶ CD19 CAR T cells per kg of body weight — an established safe dose used in a phase 1 trial of B cell malignancies. 

The CAR T cells, manufactured in-house, expanded rapidly, peaking around day 9. B cells disappeared within 7 days and began to reoccur in peripheral blood in all patients between 60 and 180 days. However, no disease flares occurred, Dr. Mueller said.

After 3 months, eight patients with systemic lupus erythematosus showed no sign of disease activity and dramatic improvement in symptoms. Three patients with idiopathic inflammatory myositis experienced major improvements in symptoms and normalization of creatinine kinase levels, the most clinically relevant marker for muscle inflammation. And three of four patients with systemic sclerosis demonstrated major improvements in symptoms and no new disease activity. These responses lasted for a median of 15 months, and all patients stopped taking immunosuppressive drugs. 

Patients also tolerated the CAR T-cell treatment well, especially compared with the adverse event profile in oncology patients. Only low-grade inflammatory CAR T-related side effects occurred, and few patients required support for B-cell-derived immune deficiency. 

However, infectious complications occurred in 14 patients, including urinary tract and respiratory infections, over the 12-month follow-up. One patient was hospitalized for severe pneumonia a few weeks after CAR T therapy, and two patients experienced herpes zoster reactivations, including one at 6 months and one at 12 months following treatment. 

During a press briefing at the ASH conference, Dr. Mueller addressed the “critical question” of patient selection for CAR T-cell therapy, especially in light of the recently announced US Food and Drug Administration investigation exploring whether CAR T cells can cause secondary blood cancers. 

Although the T-cell malignancy risk complicates matters, CAR T cells appear to behave differently in patients with autoimmune diseases than those with cancer, he said.

“We don’t understand the biology” related to the malignancy risk yet, Dr. Mueller said, but the benefit for end-of-life patients with no other treatment option likely outweighs the risk. That risk-benefit assessment, however, is more uncertain for those with less severe autoimmune diseases.

For now, it’s important to conduct individual assessments and inform patients about the risk, Dr. Mueller said.

Dr. Mueller disclosed relationships with BMS, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Janssen, Miltenyi Biomedicine, Novartis, Incyte, Abbvie, Sobi, and BeiGene.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, which has transformed the treatment landscape for B-cell malignancies, is now showing great promise in at least three distinct autoantibody-dependent autoimmune diseases.

A single infusion of autologous CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapy led to persistent, drug-free remission in 15 patients with life-threatening systemic lupus erythematosus, idiopathic inflammatory myositis, or systemic sclerosis, according to research presented at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.

The responses persisted at 15 months median follow-up, with all patients achieving complete remission, reported Fabian Mueller, MD, of the Bavarian Cancer Research Center and Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Bavaria, Germany.

The CAR T-cell treatment appears to provide an “entire reset of B cells,” possibly even a cure, for these 15 patients who had run out of treatment options and had short life expectancies, Dr. Mueller said. “It’s impressive that we have treated these patients.”

Some of the cases have been described previously — including in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases earlier this year, Nature Medicine in 2022, and the New England Journal of Medicine in 2021. 

Now with substantially longer follow-up, the investigators have gained a greater understanding of “the B-cell biology behind our treatment,” Dr. Mueller said. However, “we need longer follow-up to establish how effective the treatment is going to be in the long run.” 

All 15 patients included in the analysis were heavily pretreated and had multi-organ involvement. Prior to CAR T-cell therapy, patients had a median disease duration of 3 years, ranging from 1 to as many as 20 years, and had failed a median of five previous treatments. Patients were young — a median age of 36 years — which is much younger than most oncology patients who undergo CAR T-cell therapy, Dr. Mueller said. 

The 15 patients underwent typical lymphodepletion and were apheresed and treated with a single infusion of 1 x 10⁶ CD19 CAR T cells per kg of body weight — an established safe dose used in a phase 1 trial of B cell malignancies. 

The CAR T cells, manufactured in-house, expanded rapidly, peaking around day 9. B cells disappeared within 7 days and began to reoccur in peripheral blood in all patients between 60 and 180 days. However, no disease flares occurred, Dr. Mueller said.

After 3 months, eight patients with systemic lupus erythematosus showed no sign of disease activity and dramatic improvement in symptoms. Three patients with idiopathic inflammatory myositis experienced major improvements in symptoms and normalization of creatinine kinase levels, the most clinically relevant marker for muscle inflammation. And three of four patients with systemic sclerosis demonstrated major improvements in symptoms and no new disease activity. These responses lasted for a median of 15 months, and all patients stopped taking immunosuppressive drugs. 

Patients also tolerated the CAR T-cell treatment well, especially compared with the adverse event profile in oncology patients. Only low-grade inflammatory CAR T-related side effects occurred, and few patients required support for B-cell-derived immune deficiency. 

However, infectious complications occurred in 14 patients, including urinary tract and respiratory infections, over the 12-month follow-up. One patient was hospitalized for severe pneumonia a few weeks after CAR T therapy, and two patients experienced herpes zoster reactivations, including one at 6 months and one at 12 months following treatment. 

During a press briefing at the ASH conference, Dr. Mueller addressed the “critical question” of patient selection for CAR T-cell therapy, especially in light of the recently announced US Food and Drug Administration investigation exploring whether CAR T cells can cause secondary blood cancers. 

Although the T-cell malignancy risk complicates matters, CAR T cells appear to behave differently in patients with autoimmune diseases than those with cancer, he said.

“We don’t understand the biology” related to the malignancy risk yet, Dr. Mueller said, but the benefit for end-of-life patients with no other treatment option likely outweighs the risk. That risk-benefit assessment, however, is more uncertain for those with less severe autoimmune diseases.

For now, it’s important to conduct individual assessments and inform patients about the risk, Dr. Mueller said.

Dr. Mueller disclosed relationships with BMS, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Janssen, Miltenyi Biomedicine, Novartis, Incyte, Abbvie, Sobi, and BeiGene.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Women with autoimmune skin diseases are at increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes and may benefit from multidisciplinary care with maternal-fetal medicine specialists, results from a large case-control study suggest.

Patients with systemic autoimmune conditions are known to have an increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes, “but we weren’t sure if that was the case for patients with autoimmune skin conditions,” presenting study author Heejo Keum, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview during a poster session at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2023 annual meeting. “There are case reports or nationwide population-based studies on patients with alopecia areata and vitiligo, but those were outside of the US, so we wanted to see if these outcomes could be studied in a larger population-based study in the US.”

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

Drawing from the TriNetX US Collaborative Network, a database of electronic medical records of 94 million patients in the United States, the researchers identified pregnant patients aged 15-44 years between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2021. Cases were defined as patients diagnosed with at least one autoimmune skin disease (ASD) prior to the end of pregnancy, including alopecia areata, bullous pemphigoid, cicatricial pemphigoid, dermatitis herpetiformis, cutaneous lupus erythematosus, epidermolysis bullosa acquisita, morphea, pemphigus foliaceus, pemphigus vulgaris, vitiligo, and amyopathic DM. There were two control groups: healthy controls (those without ASDs, systemic lupus erythematosus or rheumatoid arthritis) and disease controls (those with SLE or RA). The researchers used ICD-10 codes to identify pregnancy endpoints, including live births, spontaneous abortion, and stillbirth. Patients with a history of hidradenitis suppurative were excluded from the analysis, as were those with common autoimmune disease such as Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, Grave’s disease, and type 1 diabetes.

The primary outcomes were adverse pregnancy outcomes defined as spontaneous abortion, gestational hypertension, preeclampsia/eclampsia, gestational diabetes, intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR), preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM), and preterm birth. The researchers used 1:1 propensity scoring to match patients with ASDs to controls by age, race, ethnicity, comorbidities, obesity, and substance use, and used odds ratio (OR) analysis with a 95% confidence interval (CI) to calculate each outcome.

Ms. Keum reported results from 3,654 women with ASDs, 3,654 healthy controls, 2,147 women with SLE, and 889 women with RA.

The three most common ASDs were vitiligo (30%), alopecia areata (30%), and cutaneous lupus erythematosus (27%). Compared with healthy controls, patients with ASDs were more likely to have spontaneous abortions (OR=1.5 [1.4-1.7], P<.001), and preeclampsia/eclampsia (OR=1.2 [1.0-1.3], P=.04). Compared with women with SLE, women with ASDs were less likely to have preeclampsia/eclampsia (OR=0.7 [0.6-0.9, P=.001); preterm birth (OR= 0.5 [0.4-0.7], P<.001); PPROM (OR=0.6 [0.4-0.9], P=.004), or an infant with IUGR (OR=0.6 [0.5-0.8], P<.001), but they were more likely to have a spontaneous abortion (OR=1.2 [1.1-1.3], P=.003). Overall, patients with ASDs had similar risks for adverse pregnancy outcomes as patients with RA.

“We found that patients with cutaneous lupus and vitiligo had higher rates of spontaneous abortion, which is interesting because we didn’t expect that,” Ms. Keum told this news organization. “Studies have shown that vitiligo patients might have an increased risk of pregnancy loss, so I think it’s important to have that discussion with those patients. It might benefit them to talk to a maternal-fetal medicine specialist. As for next steps, we want to look at how medication use and disease flare or disease severity play a role in APOs.”

In their poster, the researchers acknowledged limitations of the study, including the inability to verify diagnoses or assess disease severity. Also, while medication use and concomitant antiphospholipid syndrome were evaluated as risk factors for advanced pregnancy outcomes, the number of patients per group was too small for analysis.

Karl Saardi, MD, director of the inpatient dermatology service at George Washington University Hospital, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said that in his view, the choice of disease states included in the analysis “is a bit arbitrary.” He added that “it would have been more helpful to compare controls versus discoid lupus versus systemic lupus or controls versus amyopathic dermatomyositis versus dermatomyositis with myopathy.”

The study received funding support from the Rheumatology Research Foundation and the UT Southwestern Dean’s Research Scholar program. Neither Ms. Keum nor Dr. Saardi reported having relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — Women with autoimmune skin diseases are at increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes and may benefit from multidisciplinary care with maternal-fetal medicine specialists, results from a large case-control study suggest.

Patients with systemic autoimmune conditions are known to have an increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes, “but we weren’t sure if that was the case for patients with autoimmune skin conditions,” presenting study author Heejo Keum, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview during a poster session at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2023 annual meeting. “There are case reports or nationwide population-based studies on patients with alopecia areata and vitiligo, but those were outside of the US, so we wanted to see if these outcomes could be studied in a larger population-based study in the US.”

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

Drawing from the TriNetX US Collaborative Network, a database of electronic medical records of 94 million patients in the United States, the researchers identified pregnant patients aged 15-44 years between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2021. Cases were defined as patients diagnosed with at least one autoimmune skin disease (ASD) prior to the end of pregnancy, including alopecia areata, bullous pemphigoid, cicatricial pemphigoid, dermatitis herpetiformis, cutaneous lupus erythematosus, epidermolysis bullosa acquisita, morphea, pemphigus foliaceus, pemphigus vulgaris, vitiligo, and amyopathic DM. There were two control groups: healthy controls (those without ASDs, systemic lupus erythematosus or rheumatoid arthritis) and disease controls (those with SLE or RA). The researchers used ICD-10 codes to identify pregnancy endpoints, including live births, spontaneous abortion, and stillbirth. Patients with a history of hidradenitis suppurative were excluded from the analysis, as were those with common autoimmune disease such as Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, Grave’s disease, and type 1 diabetes.

The primary outcomes were adverse pregnancy outcomes defined as spontaneous abortion, gestational hypertension, preeclampsia/eclampsia, gestational diabetes, intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR), preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM), and preterm birth. The researchers used 1:1 propensity scoring to match patients with ASDs to controls by age, race, ethnicity, comorbidities, obesity, and substance use, and used odds ratio (OR) analysis with a 95% confidence interval (CI) to calculate each outcome.

Ms. Keum reported results from 3,654 women with ASDs, 3,654 healthy controls, 2,147 women with SLE, and 889 women with RA.

The three most common ASDs were vitiligo (30%), alopecia areata (30%), and cutaneous lupus erythematosus (27%). Compared with healthy controls, patients with ASDs were more likely to have spontaneous abortions (OR=1.5 [1.4-1.7], P<.001), and preeclampsia/eclampsia (OR=1.2 [1.0-1.3], P=.04). Compared with women with SLE, women with ASDs were less likely to have preeclampsia/eclampsia (OR=0.7 [0.6-0.9, P=.001); preterm birth (OR= 0.5 [0.4-0.7], P<.001); PPROM (OR=0.6 [0.4-0.9], P=.004), or an infant with IUGR (OR=0.6 [0.5-0.8], P<.001), but they were more likely to have a spontaneous abortion (OR=1.2 [1.1-1.3], P=.003). Overall, patients with ASDs had similar risks for adverse pregnancy outcomes as patients with RA.

“We found that patients with cutaneous lupus and vitiligo had higher rates of spontaneous abortion, which is interesting because we didn’t expect that,” Ms. Keum told this news organization. “Studies have shown that vitiligo patients might have an increased risk of pregnancy loss, so I think it’s important to have that discussion with those patients. It might benefit them to talk to a maternal-fetal medicine specialist. As for next steps, we want to look at how medication use and disease flare or disease severity play a role in APOs.”

In their poster, the researchers acknowledged limitations of the study, including the inability to verify diagnoses or assess disease severity. Also, while medication use and concomitant antiphospholipid syndrome were evaluated as risk factors for advanced pregnancy outcomes, the number of patients per group was too small for analysis.

Karl Saardi, MD, director of the inpatient dermatology service at George Washington University Hospital, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said that in his view, the choice of disease states included in the analysis “is a bit arbitrary.” He added that “it would have been more helpful to compare controls versus discoid lupus versus systemic lupus or controls versus amyopathic dermatomyositis versus dermatomyositis with myopathy.”

The study received funding support from the Rheumatology Research Foundation and the UT Southwestern Dean’s Research Scholar program. Neither Ms. Keum nor Dr. Saardi reported having relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — Women with autoimmune skin diseases are at increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes and may benefit from multidisciplinary care with maternal-fetal medicine specialists, results from a large case-control study suggest.

Patients with systemic autoimmune conditions are known to have an increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes, “but we weren’t sure if that was the case for patients with autoimmune skin conditions,” presenting study author Heejo Keum, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview during a poster session at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2023 annual meeting. “There are case reports or nationwide population-based studies on patients with alopecia areata and vitiligo, but those were outside of the US, so we wanted to see if these outcomes could be studied in a larger population-based study in the US.”

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

Drawing from the TriNetX US Collaborative Network, a database of electronic medical records of 94 million patients in the United States, the researchers identified pregnant patients aged 15-44 years between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2021. Cases were defined as patients diagnosed with at least one autoimmune skin disease (ASD) prior to the end of pregnancy, including alopecia areata, bullous pemphigoid, cicatricial pemphigoid, dermatitis herpetiformis, cutaneous lupus erythematosus, epidermolysis bullosa acquisita, morphea, pemphigus foliaceus, pemphigus vulgaris, vitiligo, and amyopathic DM. There were two control groups: healthy controls (those without ASDs, systemic lupus erythematosus or rheumatoid arthritis) and disease controls (those with SLE or RA). The researchers used ICD-10 codes to identify pregnancy endpoints, including live births, spontaneous abortion, and stillbirth. Patients with a history of hidradenitis suppurative were excluded from the analysis, as were those with common autoimmune disease such as Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, Grave’s disease, and type 1 diabetes.

The primary outcomes were adverse pregnancy outcomes defined as spontaneous abortion, gestational hypertension, preeclampsia/eclampsia, gestational diabetes, intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR), preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM), and preterm birth. The researchers used 1:1 propensity scoring to match patients with ASDs to controls by age, race, ethnicity, comorbidities, obesity, and substance use, and used odds ratio (OR) analysis with a 95% confidence interval (CI) to calculate each outcome.

Ms. Keum reported results from 3,654 women with ASDs, 3,654 healthy controls, 2,147 women with SLE, and 889 women with RA.

The three most common ASDs were vitiligo (30%), alopecia areata (30%), and cutaneous lupus erythematosus (27%). Compared with healthy controls, patients with ASDs were more likely to have spontaneous abortions (OR=1.5 [1.4-1.7], P<.001), and preeclampsia/eclampsia (OR=1.2 [1.0-1.3], P=.04). Compared with women with SLE, women with ASDs were less likely to have preeclampsia/eclampsia (OR=0.7 [0.6-0.9, P=.001); preterm birth (OR= 0.5 [0.4-0.7], P<.001); PPROM (OR=0.6 [0.4-0.9], P=.004), or an infant with IUGR (OR=0.6 [0.5-0.8], P<.001), but they were more likely to have a spontaneous abortion (OR=1.2 [1.1-1.3], P=.003). Overall, patients with ASDs had similar risks for adverse pregnancy outcomes as patients with RA.

“We found that patients with cutaneous lupus and vitiligo had higher rates of spontaneous abortion, which is interesting because we didn’t expect that,” Ms. Keum told this news organization. “Studies have shown that vitiligo patients might have an increased risk of pregnancy loss, so I think it’s important to have that discussion with those patients. It might benefit them to talk to a maternal-fetal medicine specialist. As for next steps, we want to look at how medication use and disease flare or disease severity play a role in APOs.”

In their poster, the researchers acknowledged limitations of the study, including the inability to verify diagnoses or assess disease severity. Also, while medication use and concomitant antiphospholipid syndrome were evaluated as risk factors for advanced pregnancy outcomes, the number of patients per group was too small for analysis.

Karl Saardi, MD, director of the inpatient dermatology service at George Washington University Hospital, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said that in his view, the choice of disease states included in the analysis “is a bit arbitrary.” He added that “it would have been more helpful to compare controls versus discoid lupus versus systemic lupus or controls versus amyopathic dermatomyositis versus dermatomyositis with myopathy.”

The study received funding support from the Rheumatology Research Foundation and the UT Southwestern Dean’s Research Scholar program. Neither Ms. Keum nor Dr. Saardi reported having relevant disclosures.