User login
Oral IL-23 receptor antagonist for psoriasis promising: Phase 2b study
SINGAPORE – across all doses, compared with placebo, according to results of the FRONTIER 1 trial.
In the 16-week phase 2b study, 255 adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis were randomly assigned into six treatment groups: placebo (n = 43), JNJ-2113 25 mg daily (n = 43), 25 mg twice daily (n = 41), 50 mg daily (n = 43), 100 mg daily (n = 43), or 100 mg twice daily (n = 42).
Of those who took the placebo, only 9.3% achieved the study’s primary endpoint of a 75% or greater improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI-75) by week 16. This was compared with 78.6% in the group that took the highest dose.
“Additionally, the onset of action was fairly fast: at week 4, more than 20% of patients had achieved PASI 75,” said Robert Bissonnette, MD, CEO of Innovaderm Research in Montreal, who presented the findings during a late-breaker session at the World Congress of Dermatology.
Patients in the remaining groups demonstrated a response that corresponded to dosing level: with 37.2%, 51.2%, 58.1%, and 65.1% achieving PASI-75 in the 25 mg daily, 25 mg twice-daily, 50 mg daily, and 100 mg daily groups, respectively.
“These results are very interesting because in terms of psoriasis treatment, if this is confirmed in phase 3, it would give us an oral alternative that would be selective for IL-23,” said Dr. Bissonnette, referring to the signaling pathway that plays a critical role in the pathogenesis of several immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, including plaque psoriasis.
Although rarely life-threatening, the skin disorder is often intractable to treatment. In recent years, therapies that block IL-23 signaling and downstream inflammatory cytokine production have proven useful. “We have on the market a number of biological agents targeting IL-23 that we use on a regular basis,” said Dr. Bissonnette. “However, there are currently no orally delivered therapies.”
If successful, JNJ-2113 – a first-in-class oral IL-23 antagonist peptide developed by Janssen – could change the treatment paradigm for patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. “When I was first introduced to the concept, I thought it wouldn’t work as it’s a peptide, that it would be digested by the stomach,” he told the audience. “But because of its GI stability and its potency, when you administer it orally, you can detect pharmacological activity.”
A well-tolerated alternative
Participants in the FRONTIER 1 trial were on average about 44 years old and weighed 88.9 kg (195 lb). Most had been living with psoriasis for about 18 years, with a total PASI score of 19.05. In addition, 43.1% had been treated with phototherapy in the past, 22% with biologics, and 78.4% with systemics.
PASI 90 and 100 were among some of the secondary outcomes measured. Similar to the primary outcome of PASI 75, all treatment groups demonstrated a statistically significant dose-response in PASI 90, compared with placebo. For those on the highest dose of JNJ-2113, 59.5% and 40.5% achieved PASI 90 and PASI 100, respectively, by week 16. The corresponding figures for those receiving placebo were 2.3% and 0%.
The safety profile for JNJ-2113 across all doses was similar to that of placebo, with no evidence of a dose-dependent increase in the occurrence of adverse events (AEs). The most frequently reported AEs were COVID-19 and nasopharyngitis. There were three serious AEs (COVID-19, infected cyst, suicide attempt) among those on the active drug, but the investigators assessed that they were not related to the study intervention. No deaths, major adverse cardiac events, or malignancies were reported during the study.
Approached for an independent comment, Marius-Anton Ionescu, MD, PhD, from the University Hospital Saint Louis, Paris, who specializes in psoriasis, told this news organization that the new development with JNJ-2113 “is really promising.”
Treatment for plaque psoriasis has improved to the point where some biologics, such as risankizumab (Skyrizi), only require patients to have “four shots a year,” he says. “This is the future of psoriasis treatment; it might go down to two shots a year” – a regimen that will be easier than taking an oral medication once or twice a day.
“But it’s good to have an oral option because you will always have some patients who say: ‘Shots are not for me, I’m afraid,’ ” he says.
However, Dr. Ionescu noted that if JNJ-2113 were to pass phase 3 trials, it might face stiff competition from the selective tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor deucravacitinib (Sotyktu), which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved for use in adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis last September. “It has very good results and is the first oral therapy that is comparable with biologics for plaque psoriasis,” he says.
But Dr. Bissonnette remains hopeful for the future. “I think JNJ-2113 goes way beyond psoriasis because this type of strategy using oral peptide–blocking receptors could be used in other immune-mediated diseases, including atopic dermatitis and other diseases outside of dermatology.” In addition to running a phase 3 study for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, Janssen is planning to initiate a phase 2b clinical trial of JNJ-2113 in adults with ulcerative colitis.
The study was funded by Janssen. Dr. Bissonnette reports consulting and investigating for Janssen, and being on advisory panels and receiving research funding from multiple other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Ionescu is an investigator for Psoriasis National Register France Psobioteq (no honoraria), and an investigator and speaker for Uriage cosmetics (honoraria).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
SINGAPORE – across all doses, compared with placebo, according to results of the FRONTIER 1 trial.
In the 16-week phase 2b study, 255 adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis were randomly assigned into six treatment groups: placebo (n = 43), JNJ-2113 25 mg daily (n = 43), 25 mg twice daily (n = 41), 50 mg daily (n = 43), 100 mg daily (n = 43), or 100 mg twice daily (n = 42).
Of those who took the placebo, only 9.3% achieved the study’s primary endpoint of a 75% or greater improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI-75) by week 16. This was compared with 78.6% in the group that took the highest dose.
“Additionally, the onset of action was fairly fast: at week 4, more than 20% of patients had achieved PASI 75,” said Robert Bissonnette, MD, CEO of Innovaderm Research in Montreal, who presented the findings during a late-breaker session at the World Congress of Dermatology.
Patients in the remaining groups demonstrated a response that corresponded to dosing level: with 37.2%, 51.2%, 58.1%, and 65.1% achieving PASI-75 in the 25 mg daily, 25 mg twice-daily, 50 mg daily, and 100 mg daily groups, respectively.
“These results are very interesting because in terms of psoriasis treatment, if this is confirmed in phase 3, it would give us an oral alternative that would be selective for IL-23,” said Dr. Bissonnette, referring to the signaling pathway that plays a critical role in the pathogenesis of several immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, including plaque psoriasis.
Although rarely life-threatening, the skin disorder is often intractable to treatment. In recent years, therapies that block IL-23 signaling and downstream inflammatory cytokine production have proven useful. “We have on the market a number of biological agents targeting IL-23 that we use on a regular basis,” said Dr. Bissonnette. “However, there are currently no orally delivered therapies.”
If successful, JNJ-2113 – a first-in-class oral IL-23 antagonist peptide developed by Janssen – could change the treatment paradigm for patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. “When I was first introduced to the concept, I thought it wouldn’t work as it’s a peptide, that it would be digested by the stomach,” he told the audience. “But because of its GI stability and its potency, when you administer it orally, you can detect pharmacological activity.”
A well-tolerated alternative
Participants in the FRONTIER 1 trial were on average about 44 years old and weighed 88.9 kg (195 lb). Most had been living with psoriasis for about 18 years, with a total PASI score of 19.05. In addition, 43.1% had been treated with phototherapy in the past, 22% with biologics, and 78.4% with systemics.
PASI 90 and 100 were among some of the secondary outcomes measured. Similar to the primary outcome of PASI 75, all treatment groups demonstrated a statistically significant dose-response in PASI 90, compared with placebo. For those on the highest dose of JNJ-2113, 59.5% and 40.5% achieved PASI 90 and PASI 100, respectively, by week 16. The corresponding figures for those receiving placebo were 2.3% and 0%.
The safety profile for JNJ-2113 across all doses was similar to that of placebo, with no evidence of a dose-dependent increase in the occurrence of adverse events (AEs). The most frequently reported AEs were COVID-19 and nasopharyngitis. There were three serious AEs (COVID-19, infected cyst, suicide attempt) among those on the active drug, but the investigators assessed that they were not related to the study intervention. No deaths, major adverse cardiac events, or malignancies were reported during the study.
Approached for an independent comment, Marius-Anton Ionescu, MD, PhD, from the University Hospital Saint Louis, Paris, who specializes in psoriasis, told this news organization that the new development with JNJ-2113 “is really promising.”
Treatment for plaque psoriasis has improved to the point where some biologics, such as risankizumab (Skyrizi), only require patients to have “four shots a year,” he says. “This is the future of psoriasis treatment; it might go down to two shots a year” – a regimen that will be easier than taking an oral medication once or twice a day.
“But it’s good to have an oral option because you will always have some patients who say: ‘Shots are not for me, I’m afraid,’ ” he says.
However, Dr. Ionescu noted that if JNJ-2113 were to pass phase 3 trials, it might face stiff competition from the selective tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor deucravacitinib (Sotyktu), which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved for use in adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis last September. “It has very good results and is the first oral therapy that is comparable with biologics for plaque psoriasis,” he says.
But Dr. Bissonnette remains hopeful for the future. “I think JNJ-2113 goes way beyond psoriasis because this type of strategy using oral peptide–blocking receptors could be used in other immune-mediated diseases, including atopic dermatitis and other diseases outside of dermatology.” In addition to running a phase 3 study for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, Janssen is planning to initiate a phase 2b clinical trial of JNJ-2113 in adults with ulcerative colitis.
The study was funded by Janssen. Dr. Bissonnette reports consulting and investigating for Janssen, and being on advisory panels and receiving research funding from multiple other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Ionescu is an investigator for Psoriasis National Register France Psobioteq (no honoraria), and an investigator and speaker for Uriage cosmetics (honoraria).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
SINGAPORE – across all doses, compared with placebo, according to results of the FRONTIER 1 trial.
In the 16-week phase 2b study, 255 adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis were randomly assigned into six treatment groups: placebo (n = 43), JNJ-2113 25 mg daily (n = 43), 25 mg twice daily (n = 41), 50 mg daily (n = 43), 100 mg daily (n = 43), or 100 mg twice daily (n = 42).
Of those who took the placebo, only 9.3% achieved the study’s primary endpoint of a 75% or greater improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI-75) by week 16. This was compared with 78.6% in the group that took the highest dose.
“Additionally, the onset of action was fairly fast: at week 4, more than 20% of patients had achieved PASI 75,” said Robert Bissonnette, MD, CEO of Innovaderm Research in Montreal, who presented the findings during a late-breaker session at the World Congress of Dermatology.
Patients in the remaining groups demonstrated a response that corresponded to dosing level: with 37.2%, 51.2%, 58.1%, and 65.1% achieving PASI-75 in the 25 mg daily, 25 mg twice-daily, 50 mg daily, and 100 mg daily groups, respectively.
“These results are very interesting because in terms of psoriasis treatment, if this is confirmed in phase 3, it would give us an oral alternative that would be selective for IL-23,” said Dr. Bissonnette, referring to the signaling pathway that plays a critical role in the pathogenesis of several immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, including plaque psoriasis.
Although rarely life-threatening, the skin disorder is often intractable to treatment. In recent years, therapies that block IL-23 signaling and downstream inflammatory cytokine production have proven useful. “We have on the market a number of biological agents targeting IL-23 that we use on a regular basis,” said Dr. Bissonnette. “However, there are currently no orally delivered therapies.”
If successful, JNJ-2113 – a first-in-class oral IL-23 antagonist peptide developed by Janssen – could change the treatment paradigm for patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. “When I was first introduced to the concept, I thought it wouldn’t work as it’s a peptide, that it would be digested by the stomach,” he told the audience. “But because of its GI stability and its potency, when you administer it orally, you can detect pharmacological activity.”
A well-tolerated alternative
Participants in the FRONTIER 1 trial were on average about 44 years old and weighed 88.9 kg (195 lb). Most had been living with psoriasis for about 18 years, with a total PASI score of 19.05. In addition, 43.1% had been treated with phototherapy in the past, 22% with biologics, and 78.4% with systemics.
PASI 90 and 100 were among some of the secondary outcomes measured. Similar to the primary outcome of PASI 75, all treatment groups demonstrated a statistically significant dose-response in PASI 90, compared with placebo. For those on the highest dose of JNJ-2113, 59.5% and 40.5% achieved PASI 90 and PASI 100, respectively, by week 16. The corresponding figures for those receiving placebo were 2.3% and 0%.
The safety profile for JNJ-2113 across all doses was similar to that of placebo, with no evidence of a dose-dependent increase in the occurrence of adverse events (AEs). The most frequently reported AEs were COVID-19 and nasopharyngitis. There were three serious AEs (COVID-19, infected cyst, suicide attempt) among those on the active drug, but the investigators assessed that they were not related to the study intervention. No deaths, major adverse cardiac events, or malignancies were reported during the study.
Approached for an independent comment, Marius-Anton Ionescu, MD, PhD, from the University Hospital Saint Louis, Paris, who specializes in psoriasis, told this news organization that the new development with JNJ-2113 “is really promising.”
Treatment for plaque psoriasis has improved to the point where some biologics, such as risankizumab (Skyrizi), only require patients to have “four shots a year,” he says. “This is the future of psoriasis treatment; it might go down to two shots a year” – a regimen that will be easier than taking an oral medication once or twice a day.
“But it’s good to have an oral option because you will always have some patients who say: ‘Shots are not for me, I’m afraid,’ ” he says.
However, Dr. Ionescu noted that if JNJ-2113 were to pass phase 3 trials, it might face stiff competition from the selective tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor deucravacitinib (Sotyktu), which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved for use in adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis last September. “It has very good results and is the first oral therapy that is comparable with biologics for plaque psoriasis,” he says.
But Dr. Bissonnette remains hopeful for the future. “I think JNJ-2113 goes way beyond psoriasis because this type of strategy using oral peptide–blocking receptors could be used in other immune-mediated diseases, including atopic dermatitis and other diseases outside of dermatology.” In addition to running a phase 3 study for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, Janssen is planning to initiate a phase 2b clinical trial of JNJ-2113 in adults with ulcerative colitis.
The study was funded by Janssen. Dr. Bissonnette reports consulting and investigating for Janssen, and being on advisory panels and receiving research funding from multiple other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Ionescu is an investigator for Psoriasis National Register France Psobioteq (no honoraria), and an investigator and speaker for Uriage cosmetics (honoraria).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT WCD 2023
Study finds subcutaneous spesolimab reduces flares in patients with GPP
SINGAPORE – presented in a late-breaker session at the World Congress of Dermatology,
In the phase 2b study, patients who received the high-dose regimen (a 600-mg subcutaneous loading dose, then 300-mg SC every 4 weeks) of spesolimab experienced 84% fewer GPP fares over 48 weeks, compared with those on placebo, reported Bruce Strober, MD, PhD, Central Connecticut Dermatology, Cromwell, and clinical professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “Additionally, no flares occurred after week 4, and this, in turn, translated into improved patient outcomes.”
GPP is a rare, chronic, systemic neutrophilic skin disease. The resulting flares, characterized by painful pustules all over the body, can lead to sepsis, shock, and other life-threatening complications. “People who have it are considerably burdened by it, so targeted therapy of this disease is incredibly important because it leads to lessened morbidity and, importantly, mortality for these patients,” Dr. Strober said.
“It’s important not only to treat the flares but also to prevent them,” he noted.
The intravenous formulation of spesolimab (Spevigo) was approved for the treatment of GPP flares in adults by the Food and Drug Administration in September 2022. It is now authorized in nearly 40 countries, including Japan, China, and the European Union.
The phase 2 Effisayil 2 study presented at the meeting evaluated the subcutaneous formulation of spesolimab. Data on subcutaneous spesolimab has been submitted to the FDA, and has received breakthrough therapy designation, according to the manufacturer, Boehringer Ingelheim.
Flare prevention
In the study, 123 patients with GPP were randomly assigned 1:1:1:1 to one of four groups: high-dose spesolimab, medium-dose (600-mg SC loading dose, then 300-mg SC every 12 weeks), low-dose (300-mg SC loading dose, then 150-mg SC every 12 weeks), or placebo. In the event of a flare during the randomized treatment period, a patient was administered a single, 900-mg intravenous dose of spesolimab.
Nearly two-thirds of the participants were female and nearly two-thirds were Asian, with a mean age of about 39-43 years.
The mean numbers of GPP flares experienced annually by those in the low-, medium-, and high-dose spesolimab groups were 2.7, 1.9, and 2.4, respectively (2.4% in the placebo group). Fewer than a third had concurrent plaque psoriasis at baseline. Most (48.4%-63.3%) did not have an IL-36RN mutation.
Additionally, the Generalized Pustular Psoriasis Physician Global Assessment total score was 1 in 74.2%-93.5% of participants, and 0 in the remainder.
The primary study endpoint was the time to GPP flare by week 48. The risk of developing a flare among those on high-dose spesolimab was 84% lower, compared with that of those on placebo (hazard ratio, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.54; P = .0005). No patients on the high dose had a flare after the 4th week of the study.
Similarly, for the secondary endpoint (occurrence of at least one GPP flare by week 48). Dr. Strober and his colleagues reported that high-dose spesolimab was superior to placebo with a risk difference of -39% (95% CI, –0.62 to –0.16; P = .0013). By contrast, the risk differences for the medium- and low-dose spesolimab arms were –0.23 (95% CI, –0.46 to 0.01) and -0.31 (95% CI, –0.54 to –0.08), respectively.
The safety profile of subcutaneous spesolimab across all three doses was similar to that of placebo, and there was no dose-dependent trend. Reported adverse events (AEs) were mild. There were five (5.4%) AEs leading to discontinuation of the drug in the medium- and high-dose groups, but none in the low-dose group. Overall, there were nine (9.7%) serious AEs reported in the spesolimab groups, and three (10%) in the high-dose group; no deaths occurred on any dose.
Participants most often reported injection-site erythema, reported in 13 (14%) of the patients on spesolimab versus 1 (3.3%) of those on placebo.
“Overall, the study demonstrates that subcutaneous spesolimab is effective at controlling GPP flares, especially at a high dose relative to placebo, and supports subcutaneous spesolimab for the therapy for GPP flare prevention,” Dr. Strober said at the meeting.
Targeting the IL-36 pathway
In a comment, Todd Schlesinger, MD, Clinical Research Center of the Carolinas, Charleston, S.C., who moderated the session, said: “It’s very exciting to be able to have a subcutaneous version of the medication.”
“I think the IL-36 is a great pathway,” he said, referring to the signaling pathway within the immune system that is central to the pathogenesis of GPP and several other autoinflammatory diseases.
However, Dr. Schlesinger said that he would have liked to have seen data on how many patients ended up treated with intravenous spesolimab.
He added that he would like future studies of subcutaneous spesolimab to examine the effect in different populations that vary by parameters such as weight, race, and disease severity. “Just seeing how somebody who’s flaring five times a year and you give them this medication and they’re now flaring once a year – that’s interesting data that we might like to know in the future.”
Other than for preventing GPP flares, spesolimab is being studied for treating other IL-36–mediated skin diseases, such as palmoplantar pustulosis.
The study was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; both Dr. Strober and Dr. Schlesinger do research and consulting for BI, and receive funding from multiple other pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
SINGAPORE – presented in a late-breaker session at the World Congress of Dermatology,
In the phase 2b study, patients who received the high-dose regimen (a 600-mg subcutaneous loading dose, then 300-mg SC every 4 weeks) of spesolimab experienced 84% fewer GPP fares over 48 weeks, compared with those on placebo, reported Bruce Strober, MD, PhD, Central Connecticut Dermatology, Cromwell, and clinical professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “Additionally, no flares occurred after week 4, and this, in turn, translated into improved patient outcomes.”
GPP is a rare, chronic, systemic neutrophilic skin disease. The resulting flares, characterized by painful pustules all over the body, can lead to sepsis, shock, and other life-threatening complications. “People who have it are considerably burdened by it, so targeted therapy of this disease is incredibly important because it leads to lessened morbidity and, importantly, mortality for these patients,” Dr. Strober said.
“It’s important not only to treat the flares but also to prevent them,” he noted.
The intravenous formulation of spesolimab (Spevigo) was approved for the treatment of GPP flares in adults by the Food and Drug Administration in September 2022. It is now authorized in nearly 40 countries, including Japan, China, and the European Union.
The phase 2 Effisayil 2 study presented at the meeting evaluated the subcutaneous formulation of spesolimab. Data on subcutaneous spesolimab has been submitted to the FDA, and has received breakthrough therapy designation, according to the manufacturer, Boehringer Ingelheim.
Flare prevention
In the study, 123 patients with GPP were randomly assigned 1:1:1:1 to one of four groups: high-dose spesolimab, medium-dose (600-mg SC loading dose, then 300-mg SC every 12 weeks), low-dose (300-mg SC loading dose, then 150-mg SC every 12 weeks), or placebo. In the event of a flare during the randomized treatment period, a patient was administered a single, 900-mg intravenous dose of spesolimab.
Nearly two-thirds of the participants were female and nearly two-thirds were Asian, with a mean age of about 39-43 years.
The mean numbers of GPP flares experienced annually by those in the low-, medium-, and high-dose spesolimab groups were 2.7, 1.9, and 2.4, respectively (2.4% in the placebo group). Fewer than a third had concurrent plaque psoriasis at baseline. Most (48.4%-63.3%) did not have an IL-36RN mutation.
Additionally, the Generalized Pustular Psoriasis Physician Global Assessment total score was 1 in 74.2%-93.5% of participants, and 0 in the remainder.
The primary study endpoint was the time to GPP flare by week 48. The risk of developing a flare among those on high-dose spesolimab was 84% lower, compared with that of those on placebo (hazard ratio, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.54; P = .0005). No patients on the high dose had a flare after the 4th week of the study.
Similarly, for the secondary endpoint (occurrence of at least one GPP flare by week 48). Dr. Strober and his colleagues reported that high-dose spesolimab was superior to placebo with a risk difference of -39% (95% CI, –0.62 to –0.16; P = .0013). By contrast, the risk differences for the medium- and low-dose spesolimab arms were –0.23 (95% CI, –0.46 to 0.01) and -0.31 (95% CI, –0.54 to –0.08), respectively.
The safety profile of subcutaneous spesolimab across all three doses was similar to that of placebo, and there was no dose-dependent trend. Reported adverse events (AEs) were mild. There were five (5.4%) AEs leading to discontinuation of the drug in the medium- and high-dose groups, but none in the low-dose group. Overall, there were nine (9.7%) serious AEs reported in the spesolimab groups, and three (10%) in the high-dose group; no deaths occurred on any dose.
Participants most often reported injection-site erythema, reported in 13 (14%) of the patients on spesolimab versus 1 (3.3%) of those on placebo.
“Overall, the study demonstrates that subcutaneous spesolimab is effective at controlling GPP flares, especially at a high dose relative to placebo, and supports subcutaneous spesolimab for the therapy for GPP flare prevention,” Dr. Strober said at the meeting.
Targeting the IL-36 pathway
In a comment, Todd Schlesinger, MD, Clinical Research Center of the Carolinas, Charleston, S.C., who moderated the session, said: “It’s very exciting to be able to have a subcutaneous version of the medication.”
“I think the IL-36 is a great pathway,” he said, referring to the signaling pathway within the immune system that is central to the pathogenesis of GPP and several other autoinflammatory diseases.
However, Dr. Schlesinger said that he would have liked to have seen data on how many patients ended up treated with intravenous spesolimab.
He added that he would like future studies of subcutaneous spesolimab to examine the effect in different populations that vary by parameters such as weight, race, and disease severity. “Just seeing how somebody who’s flaring five times a year and you give them this medication and they’re now flaring once a year – that’s interesting data that we might like to know in the future.”
Other than for preventing GPP flares, spesolimab is being studied for treating other IL-36–mediated skin diseases, such as palmoplantar pustulosis.
The study was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; both Dr. Strober and Dr. Schlesinger do research and consulting for BI, and receive funding from multiple other pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
SINGAPORE – presented in a late-breaker session at the World Congress of Dermatology,
In the phase 2b study, patients who received the high-dose regimen (a 600-mg subcutaneous loading dose, then 300-mg SC every 4 weeks) of spesolimab experienced 84% fewer GPP fares over 48 weeks, compared with those on placebo, reported Bruce Strober, MD, PhD, Central Connecticut Dermatology, Cromwell, and clinical professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “Additionally, no flares occurred after week 4, and this, in turn, translated into improved patient outcomes.”
GPP is a rare, chronic, systemic neutrophilic skin disease. The resulting flares, characterized by painful pustules all over the body, can lead to sepsis, shock, and other life-threatening complications. “People who have it are considerably burdened by it, so targeted therapy of this disease is incredibly important because it leads to lessened morbidity and, importantly, mortality for these patients,” Dr. Strober said.
“It’s important not only to treat the flares but also to prevent them,” he noted.
The intravenous formulation of spesolimab (Spevigo) was approved for the treatment of GPP flares in adults by the Food and Drug Administration in September 2022. It is now authorized in nearly 40 countries, including Japan, China, and the European Union.
The phase 2 Effisayil 2 study presented at the meeting evaluated the subcutaneous formulation of spesolimab. Data on subcutaneous spesolimab has been submitted to the FDA, and has received breakthrough therapy designation, according to the manufacturer, Boehringer Ingelheim.
Flare prevention
In the study, 123 patients with GPP were randomly assigned 1:1:1:1 to one of four groups: high-dose spesolimab, medium-dose (600-mg SC loading dose, then 300-mg SC every 12 weeks), low-dose (300-mg SC loading dose, then 150-mg SC every 12 weeks), or placebo. In the event of a flare during the randomized treatment period, a patient was administered a single, 900-mg intravenous dose of spesolimab.
Nearly two-thirds of the participants were female and nearly two-thirds were Asian, with a mean age of about 39-43 years.
The mean numbers of GPP flares experienced annually by those in the low-, medium-, and high-dose spesolimab groups were 2.7, 1.9, and 2.4, respectively (2.4% in the placebo group). Fewer than a third had concurrent plaque psoriasis at baseline. Most (48.4%-63.3%) did not have an IL-36RN mutation.
Additionally, the Generalized Pustular Psoriasis Physician Global Assessment total score was 1 in 74.2%-93.5% of participants, and 0 in the remainder.
The primary study endpoint was the time to GPP flare by week 48. The risk of developing a flare among those on high-dose spesolimab was 84% lower, compared with that of those on placebo (hazard ratio, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.54; P = .0005). No patients on the high dose had a flare after the 4th week of the study.
Similarly, for the secondary endpoint (occurrence of at least one GPP flare by week 48). Dr. Strober and his colleagues reported that high-dose spesolimab was superior to placebo with a risk difference of -39% (95% CI, –0.62 to –0.16; P = .0013). By contrast, the risk differences for the medium- and low-dose spesolimab arms were –0.23 (95% CI, –0.46 to 0.01) and -0.31 (95% CI, –0.54 to –0.08), respectively.
The safety profile of subcutaneous spesolimab across all three doses was similar to that of placebo, and there was no dose-dependent trend. Reported adverse events (AEs) were mild. There were five (5.4%) AEs leading to discontinuation of the drug in the medium- and high-dose groups, but none in the low-dose group. Overall, there were nine (9.7%) serious AEs reported in the spesolimab groups, and three (10%) in the high-dose group; no deaths occurred on any dose.
Participants most often reported injection-site erythema, reported in 13 (14%) of the patients on spesolimab versus 1 (3.3%) of those on placebo.
“Overall, the study demonstrates that subcutaneous spesolimab is effective at controlling GPP flares, especially at a high dose relative to placebo, and supports subcutaneous spesolimab for the therapy for GPP flare prevention,” Dr. Strober said at the meeting.
Targeting the IL-36 pathway
In a comment, Todd Schlesinger, MD, Clinical Research Center of the Carolinas, Charleston, S.C., who moderated the session, said: “It’s very exciting to be able to have a subcutaneous version of the medication.”
“I think the IL-36 is a great pathway,” he said, referring to the signaling pathway within the immune system that is central to the pathogenesis of GPP and several other autoinflammatory diseases.
However, Dr. Schlesinger said that he would have liked to have seen data on how many patients ended up treated with intravenous spesolimab.
He added that he would like future studies of subcutaneous spesolimab to examine the effect in different populations that vary by parameters such as weight, race, and disease severity. “Just seeing how somebody who’s flaring five times a year and you give them this medication and they’re now flaring once a year – that’s interesting data that we might like to know in the future.”
Other than for preventing GPP flares, spesolimab is being studied for treating other IL-36–mediated skin diseases, such as palmoplantar pustulosis.
The study was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; both Dr. Strober and Dr. Schlesinger do research and consulting for BI, and receive funding from multiple other pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT WCD 2023
For psoriasis, review finds several biosimilars as safe and effective as biologics
The effectiveness and safety of biosimilars for psoriasis appear to be similar to the originator biologics, reported the authors of a review of studies comparing the two.
“This systematic review found that there was no clinically or statistically significant difference in the efficacy and safety between biosimilars and originators of adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, and ustekinumab for the treatment of psoriasis,” senior study author and clinical lecturer Zenas Z. N. Yiu, MBChB, PhD, and his colleagues at the University of Manchester, England, wrote in JAMA Dermatology.“The biosimilars evaluated in this study could be considered alongside originators for biologic-naive patients to improve the accessibility of biological treatments,” they added. “Switching patients currently on originators to biosimilars could be considered where clinically appropriate to reduce treatment costs.”
Biologics versus biosimilars
In contrast to most chemically synthesized drugs, biologics are created from living organisms, and they have complex structures that can vary slightly from batch to batch, Luigi Naldi, MD, director of the department of dermatology of Ospedale San Bortolo, Vicenza, Italy, and Antonio Addis, PharmD, researcher in the department of epidemiology, Regione Lazio, in Rome, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
Once the patent on the “originator” biologic expires, U.S. and European regulators allow other manufacturers to develop similar molecules – biosimilars – through an abbreviated approval process. If the results of a limited number of equivalence or noninferiority clinical trials are acceptable, registration for all the indications of the originator is allowed for its biosimilars. Referring to the expense of biologics, Dr. Naldi and Dr. Addis noted that in the United States, “biologics comprise less than 3% of the volume of drugs on the market, but account for more than one-third of all drug spending.”
Systematic review
Dr. Yiu and his colleagues queried standard medical research databases in August 2022, and included 14 randomized clinical trials (10 adalimumab, 2 etanercept, 1 infliximab, and 1 ustekinumab) and 3 cohort studies (1 adalimumab, 1 etanercept, 1 infliximab and etanercept) in their review.
Twelve trials compared biosimilars vs. originators in originator-naive patients, and 11 trials compared switching from originators to biosimilars vs. continuous treatment with the originator.
The researchers found the following:
At week 16, mean PASI75 (Psoriasis Area and Severity Index) response rates ranges from 60.7% to 90.6% for adalimumab biosimilars, vs. 61.5% to 91.7% for the originator. Mean PASI75 responses for the two etanercept biosimilars were 56.1% and 76.7% vs. 55.5% and 73.4% for the originator. In the ustekinumab study, mean PASI75 responses were 86.1% for the biosimilar vs. 84.0% for the originator.
At week 52, mean PASI75 responses were between 86.3% and 92.8% for adalimumab biosimilars vs. 84.9% and 93.9% for the originator. In the one comparison of an etanercept biosimilar, mean PAS175 responses were 80.9% for the biosimilar vs. 82.9% for the originator.
In studies involving patients switching from the originator to a biosimilar vs. continuing treatment with the originator, 32-week response rates ranged from 87.0% to 91.3% for adalimumab biosimilars and from 88.2% to 93.2% for the originator. In the one ustekinumab study, the 32-week mean PASI75 response was 92.6% after switching from the originator to a biosimilar vs. 92.9% with continuous treatment with the originator.
At week 52, mean PASI75 responses to adalimumab were between 84.2% and 94.8% for patients who switched to biosimilars and between 88.1% and 93.9% for those who stayed on the originator.
At week 52, in all the randomized trials, the incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events among those who switched to the biosimilar and those who continued with the originator were similar. Two cohort studies showed similar safety outcomes between originators and biosimilars, but one reported more adverse events in patients who switched to adalimumab biosimilars (P = .04).
Three clinical trials showed low risk for bias, 11 had moderate risk, and all cohort studies had moderate to high risk for bias.
Experts weigh in
Asked to comment on the study, Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., told this news organization that he expects that the results will affect patient care.
However, he added, “I believe the decision of whether to use a biosimilar instead of the originator biologic may be more in the hands of the insurers than in the hands of physicians and patients.
“Biologics for psoriasis are so complicated that even the originator products vary from batch to batch. A biosimilar is basically like another batch of the innovative product,” explained Dr. Feldman, who was not involved in the study. “If we’re comfortable with patients being on different batches of the innovator product, we probably should be comfortable with them being on a biosimilar, as we have more evidence for the similarity of the biosimilar than we do for the current batch of the originator product.”
Aída Lugo-Somolinos, MD, professor of dermatology and director of the Contact Dermatitis Clinic at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, said that “biologics have become the treatment of choice for moderate to severe psoriasis, and the use of biosimilars may be an alternative to reduce psoriasis treatment costs.
“Unfortunately, this study included a comparison of the existing biosimilars, which are drugs that are not the first line of treatment for psoriasis any longer,” added Dr. Lugo-Somolinos, who was not involved in the study.
Neil J. Korman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and codirector of the Skin Study Center at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said the study was an important systematic review.
“This is a very timely publication because in the United States, several biosimilars are reaching the market in 2023,” he said. “The costs of the originator biologics are extraordinarily high, and the promise of biosimilars is that their costs will be significantly lower.”
Because all the studies were short term, Dr. Korman, who was not involved in the study, joins the study authors in recommending further related research into the long-term safety and efficacy of these agents.
Dr. Feldman, as well as one study author and one editorial author, reported relevant relationships with various pharmaceutical companies, including those that develop biosimilars. The remaining study authors, as well as Dr. Lugo-Somolinos and Dr. Korman, reported no relevant relationships. The study was funded by the Psoriasis Association and supported by the NIHR (National Institute for Health and Care Research) Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. All outside experts commented by email.
The effectiveness and safety of biosimilars for psoriasis appear to be similar to the originator biologics, reported the authors of a review of studies comparing the two.
“This systematic review found that there was no clinically or statistically significant difference in the efficacy and safety between biosimilars and originators of adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, and ustekinumab for the treatment of psoriasis,” senior study author and clinical lecturer Zenas Z. N. Yiu, MBChB, PhD, and his colleagues at the University of Manchester, England, wrote in JAMA Dermatology.“The biosimilars evaluated in this study could be considered alongside originators for biologic-naive patients to improve the accessibility of biological treatments,” they added. “Switching patients currently on originators to biosimilars could be considered where clinically appropriate to reduce treatment costs.”
Biologics versus biosimilars
In contrast to most chemically synthesized drugs, biologics are created from living organisms, and they have complex structures that can vary slightly from batch to batch, Luigi Naldi, MD, director of the department of dermatology of Ospedale San Bortolo, Vicenza, Italy, and Antonio Addis, PharmD, researcher in the department of epidemiology, Regione Lazio, in Rome, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
Once the patent on the “originator” biologic expires, U.S. and European regulators allow other manufacturers to develop similar molecules – biosimilars – through an abbreviated approval process. If the results of a limited number of equivalence or noninferiority clinical trials are acceptable, registration for all the indications of the originator is allowed for its biosimilars. Referring to the expense of biologics, Dr. Naldi and Dr. Addis noted that in the United States, “biologics comprise less than 3% of the volume of drugs on the market, but account for more than one-third of all drug spending.”
Systematic review
Dr. Yiu and his colleagues queried standard medical research databases in August 2022, and included 14 randomized clinical trials (10 adalimumab, 2 etanercept, 1 infliximab, and 1 ustekinumab) and 3 cohort studies (1 adalimumab, 1 etanercept, 1 infliximab and etanercept) in their review.
Twelve trials compared biosimilars vs. originators in originator-naive patients, and 11 trials compared switching from originators to biosimilars vs. continuous treatment with the originator.
The researchers found the following:
At week 16, mean PASI75 (Psoriasis Area and Severity Index) response rates ranges from 60.7% to 90.6% for adalimumab biosimilars, vs. 61.5% to 91.7% for the originator. Mean PASI75 responses for the two etanercept biosimilars were 56.1% and 76.7% vs. 55.5% and 73.4% for the originator. In the ustekinumab study, mean PASI75 responses were 86.1% for the biosimilar vs. 84.0% for the originator.
At week 52, mean PASI75 responses were between 86.3% and 92.8% for adalimumab biosimilars vs. 84.9% and 93.9% for the originator. In the one comparison of an etanercept biosimilar, mean PAS175 responses were 80.9% for the biosimilar vs. 82.9% for the originator.
In studies involving patients switching from the originator to a biosimilar vs. continuing treatment with the originator, 32-week response rates ranged from 87.0% to 91.3% for adalimumab biosimilars and from 88.2% to 93.2% for the originator. In the one ustekinumab study, the 32-week mean PASI75 response was 92.6% after switching from the originator to a biosimilar vs. 92.9% with continuous treatment with the originator.
At week 52, mean PASI75 responses to adalimumab were between 84.2% and 94.8% for patients who switched to biosimilars and between 88.1% and 93.9% for those who stayed on the originator.
At week 52, in all the randomized trials, the incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events among those who switched to the biosimilar and those who continued with the originator were similar. Two cohort studies showed similar safety outcomes between originators and biosimilars, but one reported more adverse events in patients who switched to adalimumab biosimilars (P = .04).
Three clinical trials showed low risk for bias, 11 had moderate risk, and all cohort studies had moderate to high risk for bias.
Experts weigh in
Asked to comment on the study, Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., told this news organization that he expects that the results will affect patient care.
However, he added, “I believe the decision of whether to use a biosimilar instead of the originator biologic may be more in the hands of the insurers than in the hands of physicians and patients.
“Biologics for psoriasis are so complicated that even the originator products vary from batch to batch. A biosimilar is basically like another batch of the innovative product,” explained Dr. Feldman, who was not involved in the study. “If we’re comfortable with patients being on different batches of the innovator product, we probably should be comfortable with them being on a biosimilar, as we have more evidence for the similarity of the biosimilar than we do for the current batch of the originator product.”
Aída Lugo-Somolinos, MD, professor of dermatology and director of the Contact Dermatitis Clinic at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, said that “biologics have become the treatment of choice for moderate to severe psoriasis, and the use of biosimilars may be an alternative to reduce psoriasis treatment costs.
“Unfortunately, this study included a comparison of the existing biosimilars, which are drugs that are not the first line of treatment for psoriasis any longer,” added Dr. Lugo-Somolinos, who was not involved in the study.
Neil J. Korman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and codirector of the Skin Study Center at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said the study was an important systematic review.
“This is a very timely publication because in the United States, several biosimilars are reaching the market in 2023,” he said. “The costs of the originator biologics are extraordinarily high, and the promise of biosimilars is that their costs will be significantly lower.”
Because all the studies were short term, Dr. Korman, who was not involved in the study, joins the study authors in recommending further related research into the long-term safety and efficacy of these agents.
Dr. Feldman, as well as one study author and one editorial author, reported relevant relationships with various pharmaceutical companies, including those that develop biosimilars. The remaining study authors, as well as Dr. Lugo-Somolinos and Dr. Korman, reported no relevant relationships. The study was funded by the Psoriasis Association and supported by the NIHR (National Institute for Health and Care Research) Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. All outside experts commented by email.
The effectiveness and safety of biosimilars for psoriasis appear to be similar to the originator biologics, reported the authors of a review of studies comparing the two.
“This systematic review found that there was no clinically or statistically significant difference in the efficacy and safety between biosimilars and originators of adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, and ustekinumab for the treatment of psoriasis,” senior study author and clinical lecturer Zenas Z. N. Yiu, MBChB, PhD, and his colleagues at the University of Manchester, England, wrote in JAMA Dermatology.“The biosimilars evaluated in this study could be considered alongside originators for biologic-naive patients to improve the accessibility of biological treatments,” they added. “Switching patients currently on originators to biosimilars could be considered where clinically appropriate to reduce treatment costs.”
Biologics versus biosimilars
In contrast to most chemically synthesized drugs, biologics are created from living organisms, and they have complex structures that can vary slightly from batch to batch, Luigi Naldi, MD, director of the department of dermatology of Ospedale San Bortolo, Vicenza, Italy, and Antonio Addis, PharmD, researcher in the department of epidemiology, Regione Lazio, in Rome, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
Once the patent on the “originator” biologic expires, U.S. and European regulators allow other manufacturers to develop similar molecules – biosimilars – through an abbreviated approval process. If the results of a limited number of equivalence or noninferiority clinical trials are acceptable, registration for all the indications of the originator is allowed for its biosimilars. Referring to the expense of biologics, Dr. Naldi and Dr. Addis noted that in the United States, “biologics comprise less than 3% of the volume of drugs on the market, but account for more than one-third of all drug spending.”
Systematic review
Dr. Yiu and his colleagues queried standard medical research databases in August 2022, and included 14 randomized clinical trials (10 adalimumab, 2 etanercept, 1 infliximab, and 1 ustekinumab) and 3 cohort studies (1 adalimumab, 1 etanercept, 1 infliximab and etanercept) in their review.
Twelve trials compared biosimilars vs. originators in originator-naive patients, and 11 trials compared switching from originators to biosimilars vs. continuous treatment with the originator.
The researchers found the following:
At week 16, mean PASI75 (Psoriasis Area and Severity Index) response rates ranges from 60.7% to 90.6% for adalimumab biosimilars, vs. 61.5% to 91.7% for the originator. Mean PASI75 responses for the two etanercept biosimilars were 56.1% and 76.7% vs. 55.5% and 73.4% for the originator. In the ustekinumab study, mean PASI75 responses were 86.1% for the biosimilar vs. 84.0% for the originator.
At week 52, mean PASI75 responses were between 86.3% and 92.8% for adalimumab biosimilars vs. 84.9% and 93.9% for the originator. In the one comparison of an etanercept biosimilar, mean PAS175 responses were 80.9% for the biosimilar vs. 82.9% for the originator.
In studies involving patients switching from the originator to a biosimilar vs. continuing treatment with the originator, 32-week response rates ranged from 87.0% to 91.3% for adalimumab biosimilars and from 88.2% to 93.2% for the originator. In the one ustekinumab study, the 32-week mean PASI75 response was 92.6% after switching from the originator to a biosimilar vs. 92.9% with continuous treatment with the originator.
At week 52, mean PASI75 responses to adalimumab were between 84.2% and 94.8% for patients who switched to biosimilars and between 88.1% and 93.9% for those who stayed on the originator.
At week 52, in all the randomized trials, the incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events among those who switched to the biosimilar and those who continued with the originator were similar. Two cohort studies showed similar safety outcomes between originators and biosimilars, but one reported more adverse events in patients who switched to adalimumab biosimilars (P = .04).
Three clinical trials showed low risk for bias, 11 had moderate risk, and all cohort studies had moderate to high risk for bias.
Experts weigh in
Asked to comment on the study, Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., told this news organization that he expects that the results will affect patient care.
However, he added, “I believe the decision of whether to use a biosimilar instead of the originator biologic may be more in the hands of the insurers than in the hands of physicians and patients.
“Biologics for psoriasis are so complicated that even the originator products vary from batch to batch. A biosimilar is basically like another batch of the innovative product,” explained Dr. Feldman, who was not involved in the study. “If we’re comfortable with patients being on different batches of the innovator product, we probably should be comfortable with them being on a biosimilar, as we have more evidence for the similarity of the biosimilar than we do for the current batch of the originator product.”
Aída Lugo-Somolinos, MD, professor of dermatology and director of the Contact Dermatitis Clinic at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, said that “biologics have become the treatment of choice for moderate to severe psoriasis, and the use of biosimilars may be an alternative to reduce psoriasis treatment costs.
“Unfortunately, this study included a comparison of the existing biosimilars, which are drugs that are not the first line of treatment for psoriasis any longer,” added Dr. Lugo-Somolinos, who was not involved in the study.
Neil J. Korman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and codirector of the Skin Study Center at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said the study was an important systematic review.
“This is a very timely publication because in the United States, several biosimilars are reaching the market in 2023,” he said. “The costs of the originator biologics are extraordinarily high, and the promise of biosimilars is that their costs will be significantly lower.”
Because all the studies were short term, Dr. Korman, who was not involved in the study, joins the study authors in recommending further related research into the long-term safety and efficacy of these agents.
Dr. Feldman, as well as one study author and one editorial author, reported relevant relationships with various pharmaceutical companies, including those that develop biosimilars. The remaining study authors, as well as Dr. Lugo-Somolinos and Dr. Korman, reported no relevant relationships. The study was funded by the Psoriasis Association and supported by the NIHR (National Institute for Health and Care Research) Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. All outside experts commented by email.
FROM JAMA DERMATOLOGY
Does colchicine have a role in treating excess ASCVD risk in patients with chronic inflammatory conditions?
The recent Food and Drug Administration approval of colchicine 0.5 mg (Lodoco) for use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) prevention will possibly create opportunities to use the drug to treat residual risk for ASCVD in some patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, particularly in rheumatology.
Potential in rheumatology
The 0.5-mg dose is just a shade under the 0.6-mg, twice daily dosing rheumatologists typically prescribe for gout, Christie Bartels, MD, MS, chief of rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in an interview. Clinicians also use the 0.6-mg dose off-label for pseudogout or calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease (CPPD), Dr. Bartels noted.
The new formulation opens the consideration for using colchicine more in patients with psoriatic arthritis, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis, she said. “I think we could certainly discuss it, particularly, in secondary prevention patients who already had an event or who are at the highest risk and already on optimal traditional agents,” she said.
She cited previous comments by Paul Ridker, MD, director of the center for cardiovascular disease prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and developer of the high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) test for measuring inflammatory markers. “We might not know the answer because Dr. Ridker pointed out he used colchicine 0.5 mg in patients that had a high-sensitivity CRP that was high; we need patients who have had inflammation of unknown origin, so those patients presumably weren’t already on another anti-inflammatory,” she said, noting that hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate, and some biologics provide some protection from cardiovascular risks.
However, a potential role for long-term colchicine 0.5 mg in ASCVD prevention may cause consideration for changing the drug’s role in gout treatment, Dr. Bartels said. “In gout, where we do have an FDA-approved indication for colchicine, we used to use it only for the first 6 months while we were getting patients to goal on allopurinol, which was usually then monotherapy after the first 6 months,” she said. “I think this will likely change how I treat gout patients in that I may also offer to continue both medications [colchicine and allopurinol] if they are tolerating them well.
“And then in patients where I’m using it off-label in CPPD, I might again share with them that in addition to possibly helping their CPPD, there may be this added benefit to reduce inflammation just in discussing the risks and benefits of the medicine.”
However, rheumatologists must be careful in using colchicine beyond the typical 6-month cycle, Dr. Bartels said. “One of the tricky things with colchicine, and part of the reason we did not traditionally continue it specifically past the first 6 months, was that it can cause myopathies or cytopenias, so we still have to counsel patients regarding these risks and monitor that,” she said.
Additionally, colchicine can have drug interactions with statins or calcium channel blockers that can change colchicine levels. “I think the dose here is so low, the 0.5 mg, that it’s probably still safe, but again, it’s something that we have to take a look at in the patient’s whole picture and the rest of their burden of their meds in order to make a decision with them,” Dr. Bartels said.
Possibilities in dermatology
The LoDoCo2 trial one of two major randomized trials that supported approval of colchicine 0.5 mg, reported that treated patients had a 60% lower rate of gout than the placebo group (1.4% vs. 3.4%). Joel Gelfand, MD, MSCE, the James J. Leyden professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pointed to this in evaluating the dermatologic implications of the drug’s approval. “This may be of particular interest as people with psoriasis have an increased risk of gout,” he said in emailed comments.
Colchicine’s mechanism of action to reduce inflammation parallels that of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors used for dermatologic indications, namely by inhibiting leukocyte adhesion to disrupt the downregulation of TNF receptors, Dr. Gelfand said.
“Interestingly, observational data suggests biologics that target TNF such as adalimumab, etanercept, etc., are associated with a reduction in CV events, and in placebo-controlled trials we conducted in psoriasis patients, it reduced key inflammatory mediators of cardiovascular disease, including IL [interleukin]-6,” he said. “Randomized clinical trials to evaluate the ability of TNF inhibitors, which are now available as biosimilars, to prevent cardiovascular events in high-risk patients, should be conducted, and more work is needed to identify which additional immune-targeted treatments may lower CV risk with an acceptable safety profile.”
Colchicine currently has few indications for rare conditions in dermatology, Dr. Gelfand said, including Sweets syndrome, subcorneal pustular dermatosis, and cutaneous vasculitis. “There are some reports to suggest it may help psoriatic disease, but current data are limited and insufficient to recommend its use for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis,” he said.
The approval of colchicine 0.5 mg for ASCVD could be meaningful for people with psoriasis who are also being treated for CV risk factors, Dr. Gelfand said. “Additional considerations such as signs of residual inflammation (elevated hsCRP) and CV imaging findings may be used to further guide shared decision-making for optimal use,” he said.
Another consideration he noted: “This is also a novel 0.5-mg formulation, and thus cost may be an issue.”
Would side effects bar use in gastroenterology?
Colchicine 0.5 mg may not move the needle much for expanding treatment of ASCVD in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and potentially other gastrointestinal conditions, Edward Loftus Jr., MD, the Maxine and Jack Zarrow Family professor of gastroenterology specifically for IBD at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told MDEdge in emailed comments. “Given the GI side effect profile [of colchicine], I am not sure I would go there,” he said.
“Hopefully, the prescribers of this low-dose formulation are aware of the gastrointestinal side effects, such as diarrhea and nausea, and educate patients about these side effects so that a proper risk-benefit discussion can ensue,” he said.
Dr. Bartels reporting a previous financial relationship with Pfizer. Dr. Gelfand said he has financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celldex, GlaxoSmithKline, Twill, Lilly, Leo, Moonlake, Janssen Biologics, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Neuroderm, and Veolia North America. Dr. Loftus disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Alvotech, Amgen, Arena, Avalo, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene/Receptos, Celltrion Healthcare, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer Bio, Iterative Health, Janssen, KSL Diagnostics, Morphic, Ono, Pfizer, Sun, Surrozen, Takeda, Theravance, and UCB.
The recent Food and Drug Administration approval of colchicine 0.5 mg (Lodoco) for use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) prevention will possibly create opportunities to use the drug to treat residual risk for ASCVD in some patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, particularly in rheumatology.
Potential in rheumatology
The 0.5-mg dose is just a shade under the 0.6-mg, twice daily dosing rheumatologists typically prescribe for gout, Christie Bartels, MD, MS, chief of rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in an interview. Clinicians also use the 0.6-mg dose off-label for pseudogout or calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease (CPPD), Dr. Bartels noted.
The new formulation opens the consideration for using colchicine more in patients with psoriatic arthritis, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis, she said. “I think we could certainly discuss it, particularly, in secondary prevention patients who already had an event or who are at the highest risk and already on optimal traditional agents,” she said.
She cited previous comments by Paul Ridker, MD, director of the center for cardiovascular disease prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and developer of the high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) test for measuring inflammatory markers. “We might not know the answer because Dr. Ridker pointed out he used colchicine 0.5 mg in patients that had a high-sensitivity CRP that was high; we need patients who have had inflammation of unknown origin, so those patients presumably weren’t already on another anti-inflammatory,” she said, noting that hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate, and some biologics provide some protection from cardiovascular risks.
However, a potential role for long-term colchicine 0.5 mg in ASCVD prevention may cause consideration for changing the drug’s role in gout treatment, Dr. Bartels said. “In gout, where we do have an FDA-approved indication for colchicine, we used to use it only for the first 6 months while we were getting patients to goal on allopurinol, which was usually then monotherapy after the first 6 months,” she said. “I think this will likely change how I treat gout patients in that I may also offer to continue both medications [colchicine and allopurinol] if they are tolerating them well.
“And then in patients where I’m using it off-label in CPPD, I might again share with them that in addition to possibly helping their CPPD, there may be this added benefit to reduce inflammation just in discussing the risks and benefits of the medicine.”
However, rheumatologists must be careful in using colchicine beyond the typical 6-month cycle, Dr. Bartels said. “One of the tricky things with colchicine, and part of the reason we did not traditionally continue it specifically past the first 6 months, was that it can cause myopathies or cytopenias, so we still have to counsel patients regarding these risks and monitor that,” she said.
Additionally, colchicine can have drug interactions with statins or calcium channel blockers that can change colchicine levels. “I think the dose here is so low, the 0.5 mg, that it’s probably still safe, but again, it’s something that we have to take a look at in the patient’s whole picture and the rest of their burden of their meds in order to make a decision with them,” Dr. Bartels said.
Possibilities in dermatology
The LoDoCo2 trial one of two major randomized trials that supported approval of colchicine 0.5 mg, reported that treated patients had a 60% lower rate of gout than the placebo group (1.4% vs. 3.4%). Joel Gelfand, MD, MSCE, the James J. Leyden professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pointed to this in evaluating the dermatologic implications of the drug’s approval. “This may be of particular interest as people with psoriasis have an increased risk of gout,” he said in emailed comments.
Colchicine’s mechanism of action to reduce inflammation parallels that of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors used for dermatologic indications, namely by inhibiting leukocyte adhesion to disrupt the downregulation of TNF receptors, Dr. Gelfand said.
“Interestingly, observational data suggests biologics that target TNF such as adalimumab, etanercept, etc., are associated with a reduction in CV events, and in placebo-controlled trials we conducted in psoriasis patients, it reduced key inflammatory mediators of cardiovascular disease, including IL [interleukin]-6,” he said. “Randomized clinical trials to evaluate the ability of TNF inhibitors, which are now available as biosimilars, to prevent cardiovascular events in high-risk patients, should be conducted, and more work is needed to identify which additional immune-targeted treatments may lower CV risk with an acceptable safety profile.”
Colchicine currently has few indications for rare conditions in dermatology, Dr. Gelfand said, including Sweets syndrome, subcorneal pustular dermatosis, and cutaneous vasculitis. “There are some reports to suggest it may help psoriatic disease, but current data are limited and insufficient to recommend its use for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis,” he said.
The approval of colchicine 0.5 mg for ASCVD could be meaningful for people with psoriasis who are also being treated for CV risk factors, Dr. Gelfand said. “Additional considerations such as signs of residual inflammation (elevated hsCRP) and CV imaging findings may be used to further guide shared decision-making for optimal use,” he said.
Another consideration he noted: “This is also a novel 0.5-mg formulation, and thus cost may be an issue.”
Would side effects bar use in gastroenterology?
Colchicine 0.5 mg may not move the needle much for expanding treatment of ASCVD in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and potentially other gastrointestinal conditions, Edward Loftus Jr., MD, the Maxine and Jack Zarrow Family professor of gastroenterology specifically for IBD at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told MDEdge in emailed comments. “Given the GI side effect profile [of colchicine], I am not sure I would go there,” he said.
“Hopefully, the prescribers of this low-dose formulation are aware of the gastrointestinal side effects, such as diarrhea and nausea, and educate patients about these side effects so that a proper risk-benefit discussion can ensue,” he said.
Dr. Bartels reporting a previous financial relationship with Pfizer. Dr. Gelfand said he has financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celldex, GlaxoSmithKline, Twill, Lilly, Leo, Moonlake, Janssen Biologics, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Neuroderm, and Veolia North America. Dr. Loftus disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Alvotech, Amgen, Arena, Avalo, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene/Receptos, Celltrion Healthcare, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer Bio, Iterative Health, Janssen, KSL Diagnostics, Morphic, Ono, Pfizer, Sun, Surrozen, Takeda, Theravance, and UCB.
The recent Food and Drug Administration approval of colchicine 0.5 mg (Lodoco) for use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) prevention will possibly create opportunities to use the drug to treat residual risk for ASCVD in some patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, particularly in rheumatology.
Potential in rheumatology
The 0.5-mg dose is just a shade under the 0.6-mg, twice daily dosing rheumatologists typically prescribe for gout, Christie Bartels, MD, MS, chief of rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in an interview. Clinicians also use the 0.6-mg dose off-label for pseudogout or calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease (CPPD), Dr. Bartels noted.
The new formulation opens the consideration for using colchicine more in patients with psoriatic arthritis, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis, she said. “I think we could certainly discuss it, particularly, in secondary prevention patients who already had an event or who are at the highest risk and already on optimal traditional agents,” she said.
She cited previous comments by Paul Ridker, MD, director of the center for cardiovascular disease prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and developer of the high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) test for measuring inflammatory markers. “We might not know the answer because Dr. Ridker pointed out he used colchicine 0.5 mg in patients that had a high-sensitivity CRP that was high; we need patients who have had inflammation of unknown origin, so those patients presumably weren’t already on another anti-inflammatory,” she said, noting that hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate, and some biologics provide some protection from cardiovascular risks.
However, a potential role for long-term colchicine 0.5 mg in ASCVD prevention may cause consideration for changing the drug’s role in gout treatment, Dr. Bartels said. “In gout, where we do have an FDA-approved indication for colchicine, we used to use it only for the first 6 months while we were getting patients to goal on allopurinol, which was usually then monotherapy after the first 6 months,” she said. “I think this will likely change how I treat gout patients in that I may also offer to continue both medications [colchicine and allopurinol] if they are tolerating them well.
“And then in patients where I’m using it off-label in CPPD, I might again share with them that in addition to possibly helping their CPPD, there may be this added benefit to reduce inflammation just in discussing the risks and benefits of the medicine.”
However, rheumatologists must be careful in using colchicine beyond the typical 6-month cycle, Dr. Bartels said. “One of the tricky things with colchicine, and part of the reason we did not traditionally continue it specifically past the first 6 months, was that it can cause myopathies or cytopenias, so we still have to counsel patients regarding these risks and monitor that,” she said.
Additionally, colchicine can have drug interactions with statins or calcium channel blockers that can change colchicine levels. “I think the dose here is so low, the 0.5 mg, that it’s probably still safe, but again, it’s something that we have to take a look at in the patient’s whole picture and the rest of their burden of their meds in order to make a decision with them,” Dr. Bartels said.
Possibilities in dermatology
The LoDoCo2 trial one of two major randomized trials that supported approval of colchicine 0.5 mg, reported that treated patients had a 60% lower rate of gout than the placebo group (1.4% vs. 3.4%). Joel Gelfand, MD, MSCE, the James J. Leyden professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pointed to this in evaluating the dermatologic implications of the drug’s approval. “This may be of particular interest as people with psoriasis have an increased risk of gout,” he said in emailed comments.
Colchicine’s mechanism of action to reduce inflammation parallels that of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors used for dermatologic indications, namely by inhibiting leukocyte adhesion to disrupt the downregulation of TNF receptors, Dr. Gelfand said.
“Interestingly, observational data suggests biologics that target TNF such as adalimumab, etanercept, etc., are associated with a reduction in CV events, and in placebo-controlled trials we conducted in psoriasis patients, it reduced key inflammatory mediators of cardiovascular disease, including IL [interleukin]-6,” he said. “Randomized clinical trials to evaluate the ability of TNF inhibitors, which are now available as biosimilars, to prevent cardiovascular events in high-risk patients, should be conducted, and more work is needed to identify which additional immune-targeted treatments may lower CV risk with an acceptable safety profile.”
Colchicine currently has few indications for rare conditions in dermatology, Dr. Gelfand said, including Sweets syndrome, subcorneal pustular dermatosis, and cutaneous vasculitis. “There are some reports to suggest it may help psoriatic disease, but current data are limited and insufficient to recommend its use for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis,” he said.
The approval of colchicine 0.5 mg for ASCVD could be meaningful for people with psoriasis who are also being treated for CV risk factors, Dr. Gelfand said. “Additional considerations such as signs of residual inflammation (elevated hsCRP) and CV imaging findings may be used to further guide shared decision-making for optimal use,” he said.
Another consideration he noted: “This is also a novel 0.5-mg formulation, and thus cost may be an issue.”
Would side effects bar use in gastroenterology?
Colchicine 0.5 mg may not move the needle much for expanding treatment of ASCVD in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and potentially other gastrointestinal conditions, Edward Loftus Jr., MD, the Maxine and Jack Zarrow Family professor of gastroenterology specifically for IBD at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told MDEdge in emailed comments. “Given the GI side effect profile [of colchicine], I am not sure I would go there,” he said.
“Hopefully, the prescribers of this low-dose formulation are aware of the gastrointestinal side effects, such as diarrhea and nausea, and educate patients about these side effects so that a proper risk-benefit discussion can ensue,” he said.
Dr. Bartels reporting a previous financial relationship with Pfizer. Dr. Gelfand said he has financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celldex, GlaxoSmithKline, Twill, Lilly, Leo, Moonlake, Janssen Biologics, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Neuroderm, and Veolia North America. Dr. Loftus disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Alvotech, Amgen, Arena, Avalo, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene/Receptos, Celltrion Healthcare, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer Bio, Iterative Health, Janssen, KSL Diagnostics, Morphic, Ono, Pfizer, Sun, Surrozen, Takeda, Theravance, and UCB.
Commentary: Evaluating new and established treatments for PsA, July 2023
Despite using methotrexate (MTX) in the management of psoriasis and PsA for more than 50 years, there is paucity of data on its effectiveness in PsA. It is also largely assumed that MTX is more effective for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) than for PsA. To evaluate MTX effectiveness vis-à-vis RA, Lindström and colleagues conducted an observational study with disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)–naive patients with newly diagnosed PsA (n = 3642) who initiated MTX and matched comparator patients with RA (n = 3642) from national Swedish registers. At 6 months, although both groups of patients had improvement in pain, global health, and remission, the rates were higher in RA compared with PsA. Overall, 71% of patients with PsA and 76% of patients with RA were still taking MTX 2 years after initiating MTX. The time to starting another DMARD was shorter in RA compared with PsA. Thus, in early PsA, MTX treatment seems to provide significant benefits. However, the improvements are less impressive than they are for RA.
Biologic agents are generally safe and effective in the treatment of PsA. However, there are limited data on the safety and effectiveness in older and younger populations with PsA. Gossec and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of the PsABio trial that included patients with PsA who received ustekinumab, an interleukin 12/23 inhibitor, and were subgrouped into those < 60 years (n = 336) and ≥ 60 years (n = 103). At 6 months, a numerically higher proportion of patients < 60 years achieved clinical Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis low disease activity compared with those ≥ 60 years. The proportions of patients reporting at least one (32.7% vs 40.9%) or serious (5.3% vs 9.6%) adverse events were numerically higher in the older population. However, treatment persistence was numerically higher in the older subgroup. These differences were not clinically meaningful; thus, ustekinumab may be safely used in older populations.
There are also limited data on the effectiveness of biologics in patients with juvenile PsA (jPsA). To address this, Correll and colleagues evaluated the safety and effectiveness of etanercept, an anti–tumor necrosis factor agent, in patients with jPsA using data from the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Registry. In 226 patients, the overall incidence of adverse events of special interest and serious adverse events were low and included three cases of uveitis (incidence rate [IR]/100 person-years 0.55; 95% CI 0.18-1.69), one of neuropathy (IR/100 person-years 0.18; 95% CI 0.03-1.29), and one of cancer (IR/100 person-years 0.13; 95% CI 0.02-0.90). The ACR provisional criteria for inactive disease were achieved by 51.9% and 43.8% of patients at 6 and 12 months. Thus, etanercept is safe and effective in jPsA.
Despite using methotrexate (MTX) in the management of psoriasis and PsA for more than 50 years, there is paucity of data on its effectiveness in PsA. It is also largely assumed that MTX is more effective for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) than for PsA. To evaluate MTX effectiveness vis-à-vis RA, Lindström and colleagues conducted an observational study with disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)–naive patients with newly diagnosed PsA (n = 3642) who initiated MTX and matched comparator patients with RA (n = 3642) from national Swedish registers. At 6 months, although both groups of patients had improvement in pain, global health, and remission, the rates were higher in RA compared with PsA. Overall, 71% of patients with PsA and 76% of patients with RA were still taking MTX 2 years after initiating MTX. The time to starting another DMARD was shorter in RA compared with PsA. Thus, in early PsA, MTX treatment seems to provide significant benefits. However, the improvements are less impressive than they are for RA.
Biologic agents are generally safe and effective in the treatment of PsA. However, there are limited data on the safety and effectiveness in older and younger populations with PsA. Gossec and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of the PsABio trial that included patients with PsA who received ustekinumab, an interleukin 12/23 inhibitor, and were subgrouped into those < 60 years (n = 336) and ≥ 60 years (n = 103). At 6 months, a numerically higher proportion of patients < 60 years achieved clinical Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis low disease activity compared with those ≥ 60 years. The proportions of patients reporting at least one (32.7% vs 40.9%) or serious (5.3% vs 9.6%) adverse events were numerically higher in the older population. However, treatment persistence was numerically higher in the older subgroup. These differences were not clinically meaningful; thus, ustekinumab may be safely used in older populations.
There are also limited data on the effectiveness of biologics in patients with juvenile PsA (jPsA). To address this, Correll and colleagues evaluated the safety and effectiveness of etanercept, an anti–tumor necrosis factor agent, in patients with jPsA using data from the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Registry. In 226 patients, the overall incidence of adverse events of special interest and serious adverse events were low and included three cases of uveitis (incidence rate [IR]/100 person-years 0.55; 95% CI 0.18-1.69), one of neuropathy (IR/100 person-years 0.18; 95% CI 0.03-1.29), and one of cancer (IR/100 person-years 0.13; 95% CI 0.02-0.90). The ACR provisional criteria for inactive disease were achieved by 51.9% and 43.8% of patients at 6 and 12 months. Thus, etanercept is safe and effective in jPsA.
Despite using methotrexate (MTX) in the management of psoriasis and PsA for more than 50 years, there is paucity of data on its effectiveness in PsA. It is also largely assumed that MTX is more effective for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) than for PsA. To evaluate MTX effectiveness vis-à-vis RA, Lindström and colleagues conducted an observational study with disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)–naive patients with newly diagnosed PsA (n = 3642) who initiated MTX and matched comparator patients with RA (n = 3642) from national Swedish registers. At 6 months, although both groups of patients had improvement in pain, global health, and remission, the rates were higher in RA compared with PsA. Overall, 71% of patients with PsA and 76% of patients with RA were still taking MTX 2 years after initiating MTX. The time to starting another DMARD was shorter in RA compared with PsA. Thus, in early PsA, MTX treatment seems to provide significant benefits. However, the improvements are less impressive than they are for RA.
Biologic agents are generally safe and effective in the treatment of PsA. However, there are limited data on the safety and effectiveness in older and younger populations with PsA. Gossec and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of the PsABio trial that included patients with PsA who received ustekinumab, an interleukin 12/23 inhibitor, and were subgrouped into those < 60 years (n = 336) and ≥ 60 years (n = 103). At 6 months, a numerically higher proportion of patients < 60 years achieved clinical Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis low disease activity compared with those ≥ 60 years. The proportions of patients reporting at least one (32.7% vs 40.9%) or serious (5.3% vs 9.6%) adverse events were numerically higher in the older population. However, treatment persistence was numerically higher in the older subgroup. These differences were not clinically meaningful; thus, ustekinumab may be safely used in older populations.
There are also limited data on the effectiveness of biologics in patients with juvenile PsA (jPsA). To address this, Correll and colleagues evaluated the safety and effectiveness of etanercept, an anti–tumor necrosis factor agent, in patients with jPsA using data from the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Registry. In 226 patients, the overall incidence of adverse events of special interest and serious adverse events were low and included three cases of uveitis (incidence rate [IR]/100 person-years 0.55; 95% CI 0.18-1.69), one of neuropathy (IR/100 person-years 0.18; 95% CI 0.03-1.29), and one of cancer (IR/100 person-years 0.13; 95% CI 0.02-0.90). The ACR provisional criteria for inactive disease were achieved by 51.9% and 43.8% of patients at 6 and 12 months. Thus, etanercept is safe and effective in jPsA.
Commentary: Evaluating new and established treatments for PsA, July 2023
Despite using methotrexate (MTX) in the management of psoriasis and PsA for more than 50 years, there is paucity of data on its effectiveness in PsA. It is also largely assumed that MTX is more effective for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) than for PsA. To evaluate MTX effectiveness vis-à-vis RA, Lindström and colleagues conducted an observational study with disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)–naive patients with newly diagnosed PsA (n = 3642) who initiated MTX and matched comparator patients with RA (n = 3642) from national Swedish registers. At 6 months, although both groups of patients had improvement in pain, global health, and remission, the rates were higher in RA compared with PsA. Overall, 71% of patients with PsA and 76% of patients with RA were still taking MTX 2 years after initiating MTX. The time to starting another DMARD was shorter in RA compared with PsA. Thus, in early PsA, MTX treatment seems to provide significant benefits. However, the improvements are less impressive than they are for RA.
Biologic agents are generally safe and effective in the treatment of PsA. However, there are limited data on the safety and effectiveness in older and younger populations with PsA. Gossec and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of the PsABio trial that included patients with PsA who received ustekinumab, an interleukin 12/23 inhibitor, and were subgrouped into those < 60 years (n = 336) and ≥ 60 years (n = 103). At 6 months, a numerically higher proportion of patients < 60 years achieved clinical Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis low disease activity compared with those ≥ 60 years. The proportions of patients reporting at least one (32.7% vs 40.9%) or serious (5.3% vs 9.6%) adverse events were numerically higher in the older population. However, treatment persistence was numerically higher in the older subgroup. These differences were not clinically meaningful; thus, ustekinumab may be safely used in older populations.
There are also limited data on the effectiveness of biologics in patients with juvenile PsA (jPsA). To address this, Correll and colleagues evaluated the safety and effectiveness of etanercept, an anti–tumor necrosis factor agent, in patients with jPsA using data from the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Registry. In 226 patients, the overall incidence of adverse events of special interest and serious adverse events were low and included three cases of uveitis (incidence rate [IR]/100 person-years 0.55; 95% CI 0.18-1.69), one of neuropathy (IR/100 person-years 0.18; 95% CI 0.03-1.29), and one of cancer (IR/100 person-years 0.13; 95% CI 0.02-0.90). The ACR provisional criteria for inactive disease were achieved by 51.9% and 43.8% of patients at 6 and 12 months. Thus, etanercept is safe and effective in jPsA.
Despite using methotrexate (MTX) in the management of psoriasis and PsA for more than 50 years, there is paucity of data on its effectiveness in PsA. It is also largely assumed that MTX is more effective for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) than for PsA. To evaluate MTX effectiveness vis-à-vis RA, Lindström and colleagues conducted an observational study with disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)–naive patients with newly diagnosed PsA (n = 3642) who initiated MTX and matched comparator patients with RA (n = 3642) from national Swedish registers. At 6 months, although both groups of patients had improvement in pain, global health, and remission, the rates were higher in RA compared with PsA. Overall, 71% of patients with PsA and 76% of patients with RA were still taking MTX 2 years after initiating MTX. The time to starting another DMARD was shorter in RA compared with PsA. Thus, in early PsA, MTX treatment seems to provide significant benefits. However, the improvements are less impressive than they are for RA.
Biologic agents are generally safe and effective in the treatment of PsA. However, there are limited data on the safety and effectiveness in older and younger populations with PsA. Gossec and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of the PsABio trial that included patients with PsA who received ustekinumab, an interleukin 12/23 inhibitor, and were subgrouped into those < 60 years (n = 336) and ≥ 60 years (n = 103). At 6 months, a numerically higher proportion of patients < 60 years achieved clinical Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis low disease activity compared with those ≥ 60 years. The proportions of patients reporting at least one (32.7% vs 40.9%) or serious (5.3% vs 9.6%) adverse events were numerically higher in the older population. However, treatment persistence was numerically higher in the older subgroup. These differences were not clinically meaningful; thus, ustekinumab may be safely used in older populations.
There are also limited data on the effectiveness of biologics in patients with juvenile PsA (jPsA). To address this, Correll and colleagues evaluated the safety and effectiveness of etanercept, an anti–tumor necrosis factor agent, in patients with jPsA using data from the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Registry. In 226 patients, the overall incidence of adverse events of special interest and serious adverse events were low and included three cases of uveitis (incidence rate [IR]/100 person-years 0.55; 95% CI 0.18-1.69), one of neuropathy (IR/100 person-years 0.18; 95% CI 0.03-1.29), and one of cancer (IR/100 person-years 0.13; 95% CI 0.02-0.90). The ACR provisional criteria for inactive disease were achieved by 51.9% and 43.8% of patients at 6 and 12 months. Thus, etanercept is safe and effective in jPsA.
Despite using methotrexate (MTX) in the management of psoriasis and PsA for more than 50 years, there is paucity of data on its effectiveness in PsA. It is also largely assumed that MTX is more effective for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) than for PsA. To evaluate MTX effectiveness vis-à-vis RA, Lindström and colleagues conducted an observational study with disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)–naive patients with newly diagnosed PsA (n = 3642) who initiated MTX and matched comparator patients with RA (n = 3642) from national Swedish registers. At 6 months, although both groups of patients had improvement in pain, global health, and remission, the rates were higher in RA compared with PsA. Overall, 71% of patients with PsA and 76% of patients with RA were still taking MTX 2 years after initiating MTX. The time to starting another DMARD was shorter in RA compared with PsA. Thus, in early PsA, MTX treatment seems to provide significant benefits. However, the improvements are less impressive than they are for RA.
Biologic agents are generally safe and effective in the treatment of PsA. However, there are limited data on the safety and effectiveness in older and younger populations with PsA. Gossec and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of the PsABio trial that included patients with PsA who received ustekinumab, an interleukin 12/23 inhibitor, and were subgrouped into those < 60 years (n = 336) and ≥ 60 years (n = 103). At 6 months, a numerically higher proportion of patients < 60 years achieved clinical Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis low disease activity compared with those ≥ 60 years. The proportions of patients reporting at least one (32.7% vs 40.9%) or serious (5.3% vs 9.6%) adverse events were numerically higher in the older population. However, treatment persistence was numerically higher in the older subgroup. These differences were not clinically meaningful; thus, ustekinumab may be safely used in older populations.
There are also limited data on the effectiveness of biologics in patients with juvenile PsA (jPsA). To address this, Correll and colleagues evaluated the safety and effectiveness of etanercept, an anti–tumor necrosis factor agent, in patients with jPsA using data from the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Registry. In 226 patients, the overall incidence of adverse events of special interest and serious adverse events were low and included three cases of uveitis (incidence rate [IR]/100 person-years 0.55; 95% CI 0.18-1.69), one of neuropathy (IR/100 person-years 0.18; 95% CI 0.03-1.29), and one of cancer (IR/100 person-years 0.13; 95% CI 0.02-0.90). The ACR provisional criteria for inactive disease were achieved by 51.9% and 43.8% of patients at 6 and 12 months. Thus, etanercept is safe and effective in jPsA.
PsA Differential Diagnosis
Methotrexate does not impair sperm quality, small study finds
TOPLINE:
Methotrexate (MTX) is not associated with testicular toxicity, so therapy can be safety started in men pursuing parenthood, a small study finds.
METHODOLOGY:
- Lack of evidence regarding MTX’s effect on sperm quality has resulted in inconsistent recommendations for men actively pursuing parenthood.
- Researchers enrolled 20 men aged 18 years or older with an immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID) who were about to begin MTX therapy and 25 healthy men as controls.
- Participants provided semen samples prior to beginning MTX therapy and 13 weeks after beginning therapy.
- Researchers tested samples in both groups for markers of testicular toxicity.
- Also evaluated whether MTX polyglutamates could be detected in sperm of seminal fluid, as a secondary outcome.
TAKEAWAY:
- Found no significant differences in conventional semen parameters, sperm DNA damage, or male reproductive endocrine axis between the MTX group and controls.
- The concentration of MTX polyglutamates is low in both sperm and seminal fluid and is particularly low in sperm.
IN PRACTICE:
“Therapy with MTX can be safely started or continued in men diagnosed with an IMID and with an active wish to become a father,” the authors write.
STUDY DETAILS:
Luis Fernando Perez-Garcia, MD, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, led the research. The study was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases on June 1, 2023.
LIMITATIONS:
The small number of participants and that the study included only MTX starters and not those who have taken MTX longer term.
DISCLOSURES:
Grants from the Dutch Arthritis Foundation, The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, and Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia funded the project. Researchers disclosed financial relationships with Galapagos NV and UCB.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Methotrexate (MTX) is not associated with testicular toxicity, so therapy can be safety started in men pursuing parenthood, a small study finds.
METHODOLOGY:
- Lack of evidence regarding MTX’s effect on sperm quality has resulted in inconsistent recommendations for men actively pursuing parenthood.
- Researchers enrolled 20 men aged 18 years or older with an immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID) who were about to begin MTX therapy and 25 healthy men as controls.
- Participants provided semen samples prior to beginning MTX therapy and 13 weeks after beginning therapy.
- Researchers tested samples in both groups for markers of testicular toxicity.
- Also evaluated whether MTX polyglutamates could be detected in sperm of seminal fluid, as a secondary outcome.
TAKEAWAY:
- Found no significant differences in conventional semen parameters, sperm DNA damage, or male reproductive endocrine axis between the MTX group and controls.
- The concentration of MTX polyglutamates is low in both sperm and seminal fluid and is particularly low in sperm.
IN PRACTICE:
“Therapy with MTX can be safely started or continued in men diagnosed with an IMID and with an active wish to become a father,” the authors write.
STUDY DETAILS:
Luis Fernando Perez-Garcia, MD, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, led the research. The study was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases on June 1, 2023.
LIMITATIONS:
The small number of participants and that the study included only MTX starters and not those who have taken MTX longer term.
DISCLOSURES:
Grants from the Dutch Arthritis Foundation, The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, and Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia funded the project. Researchers disclosed financial relationships with Galapagos NV and UCB.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Methotrexate (MTX) is not associated with testicular toxicity, so therapy can be safety started in men pursuing parenthood, a small study finds.
METHODOLOGY:
- Lack of evidence regarding MTX’s effect on sperm quality has resulted in inconsistent recommendations for men actively pursuing parenthood.
- Researchers enrolled 20 men aged 18 years or older with an immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID) who were about to begin MTX therapy and 25 healthy men as controls.
- Participants provided semen samples prior to beginning MTX therapy and 13 weeks after beginning therapy.
- Researchers tested samples in both groups for markers of testicular toxicity.
- Also evaluated whether MTX polyglutamates could be detected in sperm of seminal fluid, as a secondary outcome.
TAKEAWAY:
- Found no significant differences in conventional semen parameters, sperm DNA damage, or male reproductive endocrine axis between the MTX group and controls.
- The concentration of MTX polyglutamates is low in both sperm and seminal fluid and is particularly low in sperm.
IN PRACTICE:
“Therapy with MTX can be safely started or continued in men diagnosed with an IMID and with an active wish to become a father,” the authors write.
STUDY DETAILS:
Luis Fernando Perez-Garcia, MD, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, led the research. The study was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases on June 1, 2023.
LIMITATIONS:
The small number of participants and that the study included only MTX starters and not those who have taken MTX longer term.
DISCLOSURES:
Grants from the Dutch Arthritis Foundation, The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, and Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia funded the project. Researchers disclosed financial relationships with Galapagos NV and UCB.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
After Yusimry’s steep discount, little clarity on future adalimumab biosimilar pricing
Adalimumab, sold under the brand name Humira, enjoyed a long run as one of the world’s best-selling medicines. But its 20-year, competition-free period has ended, and despite its best efforts to delay their arrival, drug manufacturer AbbVie now faces increasing competition from biosimilars entering the marketplace.
But one biosimilar about to be launched may be something of a game changer. Coherus BioSciences has announced plans to market its biosimilar Yusimry (adalimumab-aqvh) at a cost of $995 for two autoinjectors. This represents an approximate 85% discount over Humira’s sale list price of $6922.
This price, however, is slated to plunge even further as Coherus has also revealed that it will work with the Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company (MCCPDC) to offer an even lower price. When Yusimry launches in July, it will sell for about $579 for two autoinjectors, making it the lowest-priced adalimumab biosimilar on the market.
“Coherus and Cost Plus Drug Company share a common mission, to increase access to high-quality medicine for patients at an affordable price,” said Dennis Lanfear, MBA, president, CEO and chairman of Coherus. “Mark Cuban and his team offer innovative solutions to health care problems, and Coherus is also a highly innovative company focused on unmet patient needs.”
He noted that, with adalimumab biosimilar pricing, this translates to a low list price approach. “We are pleased that Yusimry will be a part of that, as the first biologic they carry,” Mr. Lanfear said.
MCCPDC prices are based on the cost of ingredients and manufacturing plus 15% margin, a $3 pharmacy dispensing fee, and a $5 shipping fee. The company has expanded its inventory from 100 generics to more than 350 medications since it launched in January 2022. While MCCPDC is primarily directed to people who are paying cash for drugs, it does take insurance from select plans. And even for people who are covered by other insurers, the cost of drugs from Mr. Cuban’s company may be less than their out-of-pocket costs if they did go through their payer.
The low pricing of Yusimry is welcome, said Marcus Snow, MD, an assistant professor in the division of rheumatology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, but he pointed out that it is still a very expensive drug. “For patients who can’t afford Humira due to poor insurance coverage and high out-of-pocket costs, it is a welcome option. But it’s also unclear how many patients who lack adequate health insurance coverage can afford to pay $579 a month out of their own pockets.”
The biosimilars are coming
By early December 2022, the Food and Drug Administration had approved seven Humira biosimilars, and Amgen launched the first biosimilar to come on the market, Amjevita, soon afterward. By July 2023, half a dozen more are expected to enter the marketplace, said Steven Horvitz, managing director of EMC Analytics Group, a pharmaceutical research firm.
Mr. Horvitz agrees that the system is out of control, but it is unclear how much of an effect the low price tag on the Coherus product will have. “Some insurers may say, ‘we want the lowest price, and we don’t care about rebates,’ and will go with it,” he said. “PBMs [pharmacy benefit managers] are all about economics, so we have to see how many of their major clients will ask for the lowest price.”
Amgen has more or less followed the status quo on pricing for its biosimilar, but with a twist. It›s being offered at two different prices: $85,494 a year, which is only a 5% discount from Humira’s list price, or at $40,497 a year, a 55% discount. However, to date, the lower price has generally not been granted favorable formulary placement by PBMs. The plans that adopt the higher-priced biosimilar will get bigger rebates, but patients with coinsurance and deductibles will pay more out of pocket.
It is yet unknown how the pricing on Yusimry will affect the biosimilars ready to launch. “Will it give them pause for thought or not make any difference?” Mr. Horvitz said. “The companies do not reveal their pricing before the fact, so we have to wait and see.”
Large PBMs have not jumped at the opportunity to offer the Coherus biosimilar, but SmithRx, which bills itself as “next-generation pharmacy benefits management,” announced that it will offer Yusimry to its members at a discount of more than 90%.
“Unlike traditional PBMs, SmithRx prioritizes transparency and up-front cost savings. Humira is often an employer’s top drug expense so offering a low-cost alternative will have significant impact,” Jake Frenz, CEO and founder of SmithRx, said in a statement. “We’re excited to work with Cost Plus Drugs to bring this biosimilar to our members – and significantly reduce costs for them and their employers.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Adalimumab, sold under the brand name Humira, enjoyed a long run as one of the world’s best-selling medicines. But its 20-year, competition-free period has ended, and despite its best efforts to delay their arrival, drug manufacturer AbbVie now faces increasing competition from biosimilars entering the marketplace.
But one biosimilar about to be launched may be something of a game changer. Coherus BioSciences has announced plans to market its biosimilar Yusimry (adalimumab-aqvh) at a cost of $995 for two autoinjectors. This represents an approximate 85% discount over Humira’s sale list price of $6922.
This price, however, is slated to plunge even further as Coherus has also revealed that it will work with the Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company (MCCPDC) to offer an even lower price. When Yusimry launches in July, it will sell for about $579 for two autoinjectors, making it the lowest-priced adalimumab biosimilar on the market.
“Coherus and Cost Plus Drug Company share a common mission, to increase access to high-quality medicine for patients at an affordable price,” said Dennis Lanfear, MBA, president, CEO and chairman of Coherus. “Mark Cuban and his team offer innovative solutions to health care problems, and Coherus is also a highly innovative company focused on unmet patient needs.”
He noted that, with adalimumab biosimilar pricing, this translates to a low list price approach. “We are pleased that Yusimry will be a part of that, as the first biologic they carry,” Mr. Lanfear said.
MCCPDC prices are based on the cost of ingredients and manufacturing plus 15% margin, a $3 pharmacy dispensing fee, and a $5 shipping fee. The company has expanded its inventory from 100 generics to more than 350 medications since it launched in January 2022. While MCCPDC is primarily directed to people who are paying cash for drugs, it does take insurance from select plans. And even for people who are covered by other insurers, the cost of drugs from Mr. Cuban’s company may be less than their out-of-pocket costs if they did go through their payer.
The low pricing of Yusimry is welcome, said Marcus Snow, MD, an assistant professor in the division of rheumatology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, but he pointed out that it is still a very expensive drug. “For patients who can’t afford Humira due to poor insurance coverage and high out-of-pocket costs, it is a welcome option. But it’s also unclear how many patients who lack adequate health insurance coverage can afford to pay $579 a month out of their own pockets.”
The biosimilars are coming
By early December 2022, the Food and Drug Administration had approved seven Humira biosimilars, and Amgen launched the first biosimilar to come on the market, Amjevita, soon afterward. By July 2023, half a dozen more are expected to enter the marketplace, said Steven Horvitz, managing director of EMC Analytics Group, a pharmaceutical research firm.
Mr. Horvitz agrees that the system is out of control, but it is unclear how much of an effect the low price tag on the Coherus product will have. “Some insurers may say, ‘we want the lowest price, and we don’t care about rebates,’ and will go with it,” he said. “PBMs [pharmacy benefit managers] are all about economics, so we have to see how many of their major clients will ask for the lowest price.”
Amgen has more or less followed the status quo on pricing for its biosimilar, but with a twist. It›s being offered at two different prices: $85,494 a year, which is only a 5% discount from Humira’s list price, or at $40,497 a year, a 55% discount. However, to date, the lower price has generally not been granted favorable formulary placement by PBMs. The plans that adopt the higher-priced biosimilar will get bigger rebates, but patients with coinsurance and deductibles will pay more out of pocket.
It is yet unknown how the pricing on Yusimry will affect the biosimilars ready to launch. “Will it give them pause for thought or not make any difference?” Mr. Horvitz said. “The companies do not reveal their pricing before the fact, so we have to wait and see.”
Large PBMs have not jumped at the opportunity to offer the Coherus biosimilar, but SmithRx, which bills itself as “next-generation pharmacy benefits management,” announced that it will offer Yusimry to its members at a discount of more than 90%.
“Unlike traditional PBMs, SmithRx prioritizes transparency and up-front cost savings. Humira is often an employer’s top drug expense so offering a low-cost alternative will have significant impact,” Jake Frenz, CEO and founder of SmithRx, said in a statement. “We’re excited to work with Cost Plus Drugs to bring this biosimilar to our members – and significantly reduce costs for them and their employers.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Adalimumab, sold under the brand name Humira, enjoyed a long run as one of the world’s best-selling medicines. But its 20-year, competition-free period has ended, and despite its best efforts to delay their arrival, drug manufacturer AbbVie now faces increasing competition from biosimilars entering the marketplace.
But one biosimilar about to be launched may be something of a game changer. Coherus BioSciences has announced plans to market its biosimilar Yusimry (adalimumab-aqvh) at a cost of $995 for two autoinjectors. This represents an approximate 85% discount over Humira’s sale list price of $6922.
This price, however, is slated to plunge even further as Coherus has also revealed that it will work with the Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company (MCCPDC) to offer an even lower price. When Yusimry launches in July, it will sell for about $579 for two autoinjectors, making it the lowest-priced adalimumab biosimilar on the market.
“Coherus and Cost Plus Drug Company share a common mission, to increase access to high-quality medicine for patients at an affordable price,” said Dennis Lanfear, MBA, president, CEO and chairman of Coherus. “Mark Cuban and his team offer innovative solutions to health care problems, and Coherus is also a highly innovative company focused on unmet patient needs.”
He noted that, with adalimumab biosimilar pricing, this translates to a low list price approach. “We are pleased that Yusimry will be a part of that, as the first biologic they carry,” Mr. Lanfear said.
MCCPDC prices are based on the cost of ingredients and manufacturing plus 15% margin, a $3 pharmacy dispensing fee, and a $5 shipping fee. The company has expanded its inventory from 100 generics to more than 350 medications since it launched in January 2022. While MCCPDC is primarily directed to people who are paying cash for drugs, it does take insurance from select plans. And even for people who are covered by other insurers, the cost of drugs from Mr. Cuban’s company may be less than their out-of-pocket costs if they did go through their payer.
The low pricing of Yusimry is welcome, said Marcus Snow, MD, an assistant professor in the division of rheumatology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, but he pointed out that it is still a very expensive drug. “For patients who can’t afford Humira due to poor insurance coverage and high out-of-pocket costs, it is a welcome option. But it’s also unclear how many patients who lack adequate health insurance coverage can afford to pay $579 a month out of their own pockets.”
The biosimilars are coming
By early December 2022, the Food and Drug Administration had approved seven Humira biosimilars, and Amgen launched the first biosimilar to come on the market, Amjevita, soon afterward. By July 2023, half a dozen more are expected to enter the marketplace, said Steven Horvitz, managing director of EMC Analytics Group, a pharmaceutical research firm.
Mr. Horvitz agrees that the system is out of control, but it is unclear how much of an effect the low price tag on the Coherus product will have. “Some insurers may say, ‘we want the lowest price, and we don’t care about rebates,’ and will go with it,” he said. “PBMs [pharmacy benefit managers] are all about economics, so we have to see how many of their major clients will ask for the lowest price.”
Amgen has more or less followed the status quo on pricing for its biosimilar, but with a twist. It›s being offered at two different prices: $85,494 a year, which is only a 5% discount from Humira’s list price, or at $40,497 a year, a 55% discount. However, to date, the lower price has generally not been granted favorable formulary placement by PBMs. The plans that adopt the higher-priced biosimilar will get bigger rebates, but patients with coinsurance and deductibles will pay more out of pocket.
It is yet unknown how the pricing on Yusimry will affect the biosimilars ready to launch. “Will it give them pause for thought or not make any difference?” Mr. Horvitz said. “The companies do not reveal their pricing before the fact, so we have to wait and see.”
Large PBMs have not jumped at the opportunity to offer the Coherus biosimilar, but SmithRx, which bills itself as “next-generation pharmacy benefits management,” announced that it will offer Yusimry to its members at a discount of more than 90%.
“Unlike traditional PBMs, SmithRx prioritizes transparency and up-front cost savings. Humira is often an employer’s top drug expense so offering a low-cost alternative will have significant impact,” Jake Frenz, CEO and founder of SmithRx, said in a statement. “We’re excited to work with Cost Plus Drugs to bring this biosimilar to our members – and significantly reduce costs for them and their employers.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
High physical activity reduces visceral fat mass and percentage body fat in PsA
Key clinical point: The visceral fat mass and percentage body fat were significantly higher in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) compared with control individuals, and moderate-to-high physical activity was associated with reduced visceral fat mass and percentage body fat.
Major finding: PsA was associated with a mean increase in visceral fat mass of 2.0 kg (95% CI 1.2-2.8 kg) and in percentage body fat of 2.7% (95% CI 1.6%-3.8%). Moderate and high vs low physical activity were associated with lower visceral fat mass and percentage body fat in patients with PsA and control individuals (P < .001).
Study details: The data come from a retrospective study including 356 patients with PsA and 47,470 control individuals.
Disclosures: This study was funded by the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences at Norwegian University of Science and Technology. M Hoff declared receiving speaker honoraria from AbbVie and Janssen Pharmaceuticals. No other conflicts of interest were declared.
Source: Osman AA et al. High physical activity in persons with psoriatic arthritis is associated with reduced visceral fat mass and percentage body fat: The Trøndelag Health study. Rheumatol Int. 2023 (Jun 5). doi: 10.1007/s00296-023-05348-9
Key clinical point: The visceral fat mass and percentage body fat were significantly higher in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) compared with control individuals, and moderate-to-high physical activity was associated with reduced visceral fat mass and percentage body fat.
Major finding: PsA was associated with a mean increase in visceral fat mass of 2.0 kg (95% CI 1.2-2.8 kg) and in percentage body fat of 2.7% (95% CI 1.6%-3.8%). Moderate and high vs low physical activity were associated with lower visceral fat mass and percentage body fat in patients with PsA and control individuals (P < .001).
Study details: The data come from a retrospective study including 356 patients with PsA and 47,470 control individuals.
Disclosures: This study was funded by the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences at Norwegian University of Science and Technology. M Hoff declared receiving speaker honoraria from AbbVie and Janssen Pharmaceuticals. No other conflicts of interest were declared.
Source: Osman AA et al. High physical activity in persons with psoriatic arthritis is associated with reduced visceral fat mass and percentage body fat: The Trøndelag Health study. Rheumatol Int. 2023 (Jun 5). doi: 10.1007/s00296-023-05348-9
Key clinical point: The visceral fat mass and percentage body fat were significantly higher in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) compared with control individuals, and moderate-to-high physical activity was associated with reduced visceral fat mass and percentage body fat.
Major finding: PsA was associated with a mean increase in visceral fat mass of 2.0 kg (95% CI 1.2-2.8 kg) and in percentage body fat of 2.7% (95% CI 1.6%-3.8%). Moderate and high vs low physical activity were associated with lower visceral fat mass and percentage body fat in patients with PsA and control individuals (P < .001).
Study details: The data come from a retrospective study including 356 patients with PsA and 47,470 control individuals.
Disclosures: This study was funded by the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences at Norwegian University of Science and Technology. M Hoff declared receiving speaker honoraria from AbbVie and Janssen Pharmaceuticals. No other conflicts of interest were declared.
Source: Osman AA et al. High physical activity in persons with psoriatic arthritis is associated with reduced visceral fat mass and percentage body fat: The Trøndelag Health study. Rheumatol Int. 2023 (Jun 5). doi: 10.1007/s00296-023-05348-9