Psoriatic Arthritis

Key clinical point: The second proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint of the right hand and the right knee joint were the most affected in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), particularly in those with older age and an earlier onset of PsA.

Major finding: The second PIP joint of the right hand had the greatest prevalence of swelling (18.9%), and the right knee joint had the highest prevalence of tenderness (24.2%). Older age was a risk factor, whereas an earlier onset of PsA was a protective factor for both swelling of the second PIP joint of the right hand and tenderness of right knee joint (P < .05 for all).

Study details: This cross-sectional study included 264 patients with PsA.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors did not declare any conflicts of interest.

Source: Li J, Xiao J, Xie X, et al. Individual joints involvement pattern in psoriatic arthritis: A cross-sectional study in China. J Dermatol. 2024 (Jul 12). Doi: 10.1111/1346-8138.17369 Source

Key clinical point: The second proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint of the right hand and the right knee joint were the most affected in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), particularly in those with older age and an earlier onset of PsA.

Major finding: The second PIP joint of the right hand had the greatest prevalence of swelling (18.9%), and the right knee joint had the highest prevalence of tenderness (24.2%). Older age was a risk factor, whereas an earlier onset of PsA was a protective factor for both swelling of the second PIP joint of the right hand and tenderness of right knee joint (P < .05 for all).

Study details: This cross-sectional study included 264 patients with PsA.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors did not declare any conflicts of interest.

Source: Li J, Xiao J, Xie X, et al. Individual joints involvement pattern in psoriatic arthritis: A cross-sectional study in China. J Dermatol. 2024 (Jul 12). Doi: 10.1111/1346-8138.17369 Source

Key clinical point: The second proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint of the right hand and the right knee joint were the most affected in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), particularly in those with older age and an earlier onset of PsA.

Major finding: The second PIP joint of the right hand had the greatest prevalence of swelling (18.9%), and the right knee joint had the highest prevalence of tenderness (24.2%). Older age was a risk factor, whereas an earlier onset of PsA was a protective factor for both swelling of the second PIP joint of the right hand and tenderness of right knee joint (P < .05 for all).

Study details: This cross-sectional study included 264 patients with PsA.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors did not declare any conflicts of interest.

Source: Li J, Xiao J, Xie X, et al. Individual joints involvement pattern in psoriatic arthritis: A cross-sectional study in China. J Dermatol. 2024 (Jul 12). Doi: 10.1111/1346-8138.17369 Source

Key clinical point: A dose of 160 mg bimekizumab every 4 weeks demonstrated greater long-term efficacy than 45 or 90 mg ustekinumab every 12 weeks in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were biologic-naïve or showed inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR).

Major finding: At week 52, both biologic-naive (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.33; P < .001) and TNFi-IR (aOR 9.85; P < .001) patients receiving bimekizumab vs 45 mg ustekinumab were more likely to achieve ≥70% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology response, with similar effect observed for bimekizumab vs 90 mg ustekinumab.

Study details: This was matching-adjusted indirect comparison of data from several phase 3 trials of bimekizumab (BE OPTIMAL, BE COMPLETE, and BE VITAL) and ustekinumab (PSUMMIT1 and PSUMMIT2). The trials involved patients with PsA who received bimekizumab (n = 698) or ustekinumab (45 mg: n = 265; 90 mg: n = 262).

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by UCB Pharma and supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, UK. Three authors declared being employees and shareholders of UCB Pharma. Several authors declared having ties with various sources, including UCB Pharma.

Source: Mease PJ, Warren RB, Nash P, et al. Comparative effectiveness of bimekizumab and ustekinumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis at 52 weeks assessed using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Rheumatol Ther. 2024 (Aug 9). Doi: 10.1007/s40744-024-00705-x Source

Key clinical point: A dose of 160 mg bimekizumab every 4 weeks demonstrated greater long-term efficacy than 45 or 90 mg ustekinumab every 12 weeks in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were biologic-naïve or showed inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR).

Major finding: At week 52, both biologic-naive (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.33; P < .001) and TNFi-IR (aOR 9.85; P < .001) patients receiving bimekizumab vs 45 mg ustekinumab were more likely to achieve ≥70% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology response, with similar effect observed for bimekizumab vs 90 mg ustekinumab.

Study details: This was matching-adjusted indirect comparison of data from several phase 3 trials of bimekizumab (BE OPTIMAL, BE COMPLETE, and BE VITAL) and ustekinumab (PSUMMIT1 and PSUMMIT2). The trials involved patients with PsA who received bimekizumab (n = 698) or ustekinumab (45 mg: n = 265; 90 mg: n = 262).

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by UCB Pharma and supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, UK. Three authors declared being employees and shareholders of UCB Pharma. Several authors declared having ties with various sources, including UCB Pharma.

Source: Mease PJ, Warren RB, Nash P, et al. Comparative effectiveness of bimekizumab and ustekinumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis at 52 weeks assessed using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Rheumatol Ther. 2024 (Aug 9). Doi: 10.1007/s40744-024-00705-x Source

Key clinical point: A dose of 160 mg bimekizumab every 4 weeks demonstrated greater long-term efficacy than 45 or 90 mg ustekinumab every 12 weeks in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were biologic-naïve or showed inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR).

Major finding: At week 52, both biologic-naive (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.33; P < .001) and TNFi-IR (aOR 9.85; P < .001) patients receiving bimekizumab vs 45 mg ustekinumab were more likely to achieve ≥70% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology response, with similar effect observed for bimekizumab vs 90 mg ustekinumab.

Study details: This was matching-adjusted indirect comparison of data from several phase 3 trials of bimekizumab (BE OPTIMAL, BE COMPLETE, and BE VITAL) and ustekinumab (PSUMMIT1 and PSUMMIT2). The trials involved patients with PsA who received bimekizumab (n = 698) or ustekinumab (45 mg: n = 265; 90 mg: n = 262).

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by UCB Pharma and supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, UK. Three authors declared being employees and shareholders of UCB Pharma. Several authors declared having ties with various sources, including UCB Pharma.

Source: Mease PJ, Warren RB, Nash P, et al. Comparative effectiveness of bimekizumab and ustekinumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis at 52 weeks assessed using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Rheumatol Ther. 2024 (Aug 9). Doi: 10.1007/s40744-024-00705-x Source

Key clinical point: First-line targeted therapy, particularly use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), reduced the use of symptomatic treatments, methotrexate, mood disorder treatments, hospitalizations, and sick leave in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: First-line targeted therapy significantly reduced the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID; −15%), prednisone (−9%), methotrexate (−15%), mood disorder treatments (−2%), and rate of hospitalizations (−12%) and sick leave (−4%; all P < 10^-4). TNFi showed greater reductions in NSAID (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.04; 95% CI 1.01-1.07) and prednisone use (aOR 1.04; 95% CI 1.02-1.06) compared with interleukin 17 inhibitors (IL17i), with similar outcomes for IL12/23i.

Study details: This cohort study included 9793 patients with PsA age ≥18 years who had initiated targeted therapies for at least 9 months.

Disclosures: The authors did not declare any specific funding. Two authors declared receiving a subsidy to attend a congress or receiving consulting fees and serving as investigators for various sources.

Source: Pina Vegas L, Iggui S, Sbidian E, Claudepierre P. Impact of initiation of targeted therapy on the use of psoriatic arthritis-related treatments and healthcare consumption: A cohort study of 9793 patients from the French health insurance database (SNDS). RMD Open. 2024;10:e004631 (Aug 7). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2024-004631 Source

Key clinical point: First-line targeted therapy, particularly use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), reduced the use of symptomatic treatments, methotrexate, mood disorder treatments, hospitalizations, and sick leave in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: First-line targeted therapy significantly reduced the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID; −15%), prednisone (−9%), methotrexate (−15%), mood disorder treatments (−2%), and rate of hospitalizations (−12%) and sick leave (−4%; all P < 10^-4). TNFi showed greater reductions in NSAID (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.04; 95% CI 1.01-1.07) and prednisone use (aOR 1.04; 95% CI 1.02-1.06) compared with interleukin 17 inhibitors (IL17i), with similar outcomes for IL12/23i.

Study details: This cohort study included 9793 patients with PsA age ≥18 years who had initiated targeted therapies for at least 9 months.

Disclosures: The authors did not declare any specific funding. Two authors declared receiving a subsidy to attend a congress or receiving consulting fees and serving as investigators for various sources.

Source: Pina Vegas L, Iggui S, Sbidian E, Claudepierre P. Impact of initiation of targeted therapy on the use of psoriatic arthritis-related treatments and healthcare consumption: A cohort study of 9793 patients from the French health insurance database (SNDS). RMD Open. 2024;10:e004631 (Aug 7). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2024-004631 Source

Key clinical point: First-line targeted therapy, particularly use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), reduced the use of symptomatic treatments, methotrexate, mood disorder treatments, hospitalizations, and sick leave in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: First-line targeted therapy significantly reduced the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID; −15%), prednisone (−9%), methotrexate (−15%), mood disorder treatments (−2%), and rate of hospitalizations (−12%) and sick leave (−4%; all P < 10^-4). TNFi showed greater reductions in NSAID (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.04; 95% CI 1.01-1.07) and prednisone use (aOR 1.04; 95% CI 1.02-1.06) compared with interleukin 17 inhibitors (IL17i), with similar outcomes for IL12/23i.

Study details: This cohort study included 9793 patients with PsA age ≥18 years who had initiated targeted therapies for at least 9 months.

Disclosures: The authors did not declare any specific funding. Two authors declared receiving a subsidy to attend a congress or receiving consulting fees and serving as investigators for various sources.

Source: Pina Vegas L, Iggui S, Sbidian E, Claudepierre P. Impact of initiation of targeted therapy on the use of psoriatic arthritis-related treatments and healthcare consumption: A cohort study of 9793 patients from the French health insurance database (SNDS). RMD Open. 2024;10:e004631 (Aug 7). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2024-004631 Source

Key clinical point: Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who achieved disease control despite having an inadequate response to conventional synthetic or biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cs/bDMARD) showed improved patient-reported outcomes (PRO).

Major finding: At week 104, patients who did vs did not achieve minimal disease activity had significant improvements in the Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index (least squares mean change from baseline [Δ] −0.82 vs −0.17; P ≤ .0001), pain (Δ −4.75 vs −1.77; P ≤ .0001), and other investigated PRO.

Study details: This post hoc analysis of two phase 3 trials, SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2, included 1069 and 317 patients with PsA and inadequate response to ≥1 csDMARD or bDMARD, respectively, who were randomly assigned to receive upadacitinib, placebo with crossover to upadacitinib, or adalimumab.

Disclosures: This study was funded by AbbVie, and AbbVie participated in the design of the trial and the publication of its results. Seven authors declared being employees of AbbVie and may own its stock or stock options. Several authors declared having ties with AbbVie and other sources.

Source: Kavanaugh A, Mease P, Gossec L, et al. Association between achievement of clinical disease control and improvement in patient-reported outcomes and quality of life in patients with psoriatic arthritis in the phase 3 SELECT-PsA 1 and 2 randomized controlled trials. ACR Open Rheumatol. 2024 (Aug 1). Doi: 10.1002/acr2.11714 Source

Key clinical point: Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who achieved disease control despite having an inadequate response to conventional synthetic or biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cs/bDMARD) showed improved patient-reported outcomes (PRO).

Major finding: At week 104, patients who did vs did not achieve minimal disease activity had significant improvements in the Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index (least squares mean change from baseline [Δ] −0.82 vs −0.17; P ≤ .0001), pain (Δ −4.75 vs −1.77; P ≤ .0001), and other investigated PRO.

Study details: This post hoc analysis of two phase 3 trials, SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2, included 1069 and 317 patients with PsA and inadequate response to ≥1 csDMARD or bDMARD, respectively, who were randomly assigned to receive upadacitinib, placebo with crossover to upadacitinib, or adalimumab.

Disclosures: This study was funded by AbbVie, and AbbVie participated in the design of the trial and the publication of its results. Seven authors declared being employees of AbbVie and may own its stock or stock options. Several authors declared having ties with AbbVie and other sources.

Source: Kavanaugh A, Mease P, Gossec L, et al. Association between achievement of clinical disease control and improvement in patient-reported outcomes and quality of life in patients with psoriatic arthritis in the phase 3 SELECT-PsA 1 and 2 randomized controlled trials. ACR Open Rheumatol. 2024 (Aug 1). Doi: 10.1002/acr2.11714 Source

Key clinical point: Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who achieved disease control despite having an inadequate response to conventional synthetic or biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cs/bDMARD) showed improved patient-reported outcomes (PRO).

Major finding: At week 104, patients who did vs did not achieve minimal disease activity had significant improvements in the Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index (least squares mean change from baseline [Δ] −0.82 vs −0.17; P ≤ .0001), pain (Δ −4.75 vs −1.77; P ≤ .0001), and other investigated PRO.

Study details: This post hoc analysis of two phase 3 trials, SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2, included 1069 and 317 patients with PsA and inadequate response to ≥1 csDMARD or bDMARD, respectively, who were randomly assigned to receive upadacitinib, placebo with crossover to upadacitinib, or adalimumab.

Disclosures: This study was funded by AbbVie, and AbbVie participated in the design of the trial and the publication of its results. Seven authors declared being employees of AbbVie and may own its stock or stock options. Several authors declared having ties with AbbVie and other sources.

Source: Kavanaugh A, Mease P, Gossec L, et al. Association between achievement of clinical disease control and improvement in patient-reported outcomes and quality of life in patients with psoriatic arthritis in the phase 3 SELECT-PsA 1 and 2 randomized controlled trials. ACR Open Rheumatol. 2024 (Aug 1). Doi: 10.1002/acr2.11714 Source

Key clinical point: Patients who received interleukin-23 inhibitors (IL-23i) and interleukin-12/23 inhibitors (IL-12/23i) for the management of psoriasis had a comparable risk for incident psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: Patients treated with IL-23i vs IL-12/23i demonstrated no significant difference in the risk for PsA (hazard ratio 0.96; P = .812) and cumulative incidence of PsA (P = .812).

Study details: This retrospective cohort study included the propensity score–matched data of patients with psoriasis age 18 years or older from the TriNetX database who were treated with either IL-23i (n = 2142) or IL-12/23i (n = 2142).

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Tsai SHL, Yang C-Y, Huo A-P, Wei JC-C. Interleukin 23 versus interleukin 12/23 inhibitors on preventing incidental psoriatic arthritis in patients with psoriasis? A real-world comparison from the TriNetX Global Collaborative Network. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2024 (Jul 27). Doi: 0.1016/j.jaad.2024.07.1473 Source

Key clinical point: Patients who received interleukin-23 inhibitors (IL-23i) and interleukin-12/23 inhibitors (IL-12/23i) for the management of psoriasis had a comparable risk for incident psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: Patients treated with IL-23i vs IL-12/23i demonstrated no significant difference in the risk for PsA (hazard ratio 0.96; P = .812) and cumulative incidence of PsA (P = .812).

Study details: This retrospective cohort study included the propensity score–matched data of patients with psoriasis age 18 years or older from the TriNetX database who were treated with either IL-23i (n = 2142) or IL-12/23i (n = 2142).

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Tsai SHL, Yang C-Y, Huo A-P, Wei JC-C. Interleukin 23 versus interleukin 12/23 inhibitors on preventing incidental psoriatic arthritis in patients with psoriasis? A real-world comparison from the TriNetX Global Collaborative Network. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2024 (Jul 27). Doi: 0.1016/j.jaad.2024.07.1473 Source

Key clinical point: Patients who received interleukin-23 inhibitors (IL-23i) and interleukin-12/23 inhibitors (IL-12/23i) for the management of psoriasis had a comparable risk for incident psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: Patients treated with IL-23i vs IL-12/23i demonstrated no significant difference in the risk for PsA (hazard ratio 0.96; P = .812) and cumulative incidence of PsA (P = .812).

Study details: This retrospective cohort study included the propensity score–matched data of patients with psoriasis age 18 years or older from the TriNetX database who were treated with either IL-23i (n = 2142) or IL-12/23i (n = 2142).

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Tsai SHL, Yang C-Y, Huo A-P, Wei JC-C. Interleukin 23 versus interleukin 12/23 inhibitors on preventing incidental psoriatic arthritis in patients with psoriasis? A real-world comparison from the TriNetX Global Collaborative Network. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2024 (Jul 27). Doi: 0.1016/j.jaad.2024.07.1473 Source

Key clinical point: Bimekizumab demonstrated sustained efficacy and was well tolerated for 52 weeks, regardless of concomitant methotrexate use, in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were biologic-naive or intolerant to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR).

Major finding: Through week 52, nearly half of the patients receiving bimekizumab with or without methotrexate achieved a ≥50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response (biologic-naive ~55%; TNFi-IR ~48-56%) and minimal disease activity (biologic-naive ~55%; TNFi-IR ~47%). The rates of experiencing at least one treatment emergent adverse event were similar across the subgroups.

Study details: This post hoc analysis of phase 3 trials (BE OPTIMAL, BE COMPLETE, and BE VITAL) included biologic-naive (n = 852) or TNFi-IR (n = 400) patients with PsA who received bimekizumab, placebo with crossover to bimekizumab at week 16, or adalimumab, with or without methotrexate.

Disclosures: This study was funded by UCB Pharma and supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, UK. Two authors declared being employees of or holding stocks in UCB. Several authors declared having other ties with UCB and other sources.

Source: McInnes IB, Mease PJ, Tanaka Y, et al. Efficacy and safety of bimekizumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis with or without methotrexate: 52-week results from two phase 3 studies. ACR Open Rheumatol. 2024 (Jul 30). Doi: 10.1002/acr2.11727 Source

Key clinical point: Bimekizumab demonstrated sustained efficacy and was well tolerated for 52 weeks, regardless of concomitant methotrexate use, in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were biologic-naive or intolerant to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR).

Major finding: Through week 52, nearly half of the patients receiving bimekizumab with or without methotrexate achieved a ≥50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response (biologic-naive ~55%; TNFi-IR ~48-56%) and minimal disease activity (biologic-naive ~55%; TNFi-IR ~47%). The rates of experiencing at least one treatment emergent adverse event were similar across the subgroups.

Study details: This post hoc analysis of phase 3 trials (BE OPTIMAL, BE COMPLETE, and BE VITAL) included biologic-naive (n = 852) or TNFi-IR (n = 400) patients with PsA who received bimekizumab, placebo with crossover to bimekizumab at week 16, or adalimumab, with or without methotrexate.

Disclosures: This study was funded by UCB Pharma and supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, UK. Two authors declared being employees of or holding stocks in UCB. Several authors declared having other ties with UCB and other sources.

Source: McInnes IB, Mease PJ, Tanaka Y, et al. Efficacy and safety of bimekizumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis with or without methotrexate: 52-week results from two phase 3 studies. ACR Open Rheumatol. 2024 (Jul 30). Doi: 10.1002/acr2.11727 Source

Key clinical point: Bimekizumab demonstrated sustained efficacy and was well tolerated for 52 weeks, regardless of concomitant methotrexate use, in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were biologic-naive or intolerant to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR).

Major finding: Through week 52, nearly half of the patients receiving bimekizumab with or without methotrexate achieved a ≥50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response (biologic-naive ~55%; TNFi-IR ~48-56%) and minimal disease activity (biologic-naive ~55%; TNFi-IR ~47%). The rates of experiencing at least one treatment emergent adverse event were similar across the subgroups.

Study details: This post hoc analysis of phase 3 trials (BE OPTIMAL, BE COMPLETE, and BE VITAL) included biologic-naive (n = 852) or TNFi-IR (n = 400) patients with PsA who received bimekizumab, placebo with crossover to bimekizumab at week 16, or adalimumab, with or without methotrexate.

Disclosures: This study was funded by UCB Pharma and supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, UK. Two authors declared being employees of or holding stocks in UCB. Several authors declared having other ties with UCB and other sources.

Source: McInnes IB, Mease PJ, Tanaka Y, et al. Efficacy and safety of bimekizumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis with or without methotrexate: 52-week results from two phase 3 studies. ACR Open Rheumatol. 2024 (Jul 30). Doi: 10.1002/acr2.11727 Source

TOPLINE:

Uptake of infliximab biosimilars rose slowly across private insurance, Medicaid, and Medicare when two were available in the United States during 2016-2020 but increased significantly through 2022 after the third biosimilar became available in July 2020. However, prescriptions in Medicare still lagged behind those in private insurance and Medicaid.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed electronic health records from over 1100 US rheumatologists who participated in a national registry, the Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE), for all infliximab administrations (bio-originator or biosimilar) to patients older than 18 years from April 2016 to September 2022.
• They conducted an interrupted time series to account for autocorrelation and model the effect of each infliximab biosimilar release (infliximab-dyyb in November 2016, infliximab-abda in July 2017, and infliximab-axxq in July 2020) on uptake across Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers.

TAKEAWAY:

• The researchers identified 659,988 infliximab administrations for 37,560 unique patients, with 52% on Medicare, 4.8% on Medicaid, and 43% on private insurance.
• Biosimilar uptake rose slowly with average annual increases < 5% from 2016 to June 2020 (Medicare, 3.2%; Medicaid, 5.2%; private insurance, 1.8%).
• After the third biosimilar release in July 2020, the average annual increase reached 13% for Medicaid and 16.4% for private insurance but remained low for Medicare (5.6%).
• By September 2022, biosimilar uptake was higher for Medicaid (43.8%) and private insurance (38.5%) than for Medicare (24%).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest policymakers may need to do more to allow biosimilars to get a foothold in the market by incentivizing the development and entry of multiple biosimilars, address anticompetitive pricing strategies, and may need to amend Medicare policy to [incentivize] uptake in order to ensure a competitive and sustainable biosimilar market that gradually reduces total drug expenditures and out-of-pocket costs over time,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Eric T. Roberts, PhD, University of California, San Francisco. It was published online on July 30, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

First, while the biosimilar introductions are likely catalysts for many changes in the market, some changes in slopes may also be attributable to the natural growth of the market over time. Second, this study may neither be generalizable to academic medical centers, which are underrepresented in RISE, nor be generalizable to infliximab prescriptions from other specialties. Third, uptake among privately insured patients changed shortly after November-December 2020, raising the possibility that the delay reflected negotiations between insurance companies and relevant entities regarding formulary coverage.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. One author disclosed receiving consulting fees from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Bristol-Myers Squibb and grant funding from AstraZeneca, the Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, and Aurinia.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Uptake of infliximab biosimilars rose slowly across private insurance, Medicaid, and Medicare when two were available in the United States during 2016-2020 but increased significantly through 2022 after the third biosimilar became available in July 2020. However, prescriptions in Medicare still lagged behind those in private insurance and Medicaid.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed electronic health records from over 1100 US rheumatologists who participated in a national registry, the Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE), for all infliximab administrations (bio-originator or biosimilar) to patients older than 18 years from April 2016 to September 2022.
• They conducted an interrupted time series to account for autocorrelation and model the effect of each infliximab biosimilar release (infliximab-dyyb in November 2016, infliximab-abda in July 2017, and infliximab-axxq in July 2020) on uptake across Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers.

TAKEAWAY:

• The researchers identified 659,988 infliximab administrations for 37,560 unique patients, with 52% on Medicare, 4.8% on Medicaid, and 43% on private insurance.
• Biosimilar uptake rose slowly with average annual increases < 5% from 2016 to June 2020 (Medicare, 3.2%; Medicaid, 5.2%; private insurance, 1.8%).
• After the third biosimilar release in July 2020, the average annual increase reached 13% for Medicaid and 16.4% for private insurance but remained low for Medicare (5.6%).
• By September 2022, biosimilar uptake was higher for Medicaid (43.8%) and private insurance (38.5%) than for Medicare (24%).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest policymakers may need to do more to allow biosimilars to get a foothold in the market by incentivizing the development and entry of multiple biosimilars, address anticompetitive pricing strategies, and may need to amend Medicare policy to [incentivize] uptake in order to ensure a competitive and sustainable biosimilar market that gradually reduces total drug expenditures and out-of-pocket costs over time,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Eric T. Roberts, PhD, University of California, San Francisco. It was published online on July 30, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

First, while the biosimilar introductions are likely catalysts for many changes in the market, some changes in slopes may also be attributable to the natural growth of the market over time. Second, this study may neither be generalizable to academic medical centers, which are underrepresented in RISE, nor be generalizable to infliximab prescriptions from other specialties. Third, uptake among privately insured patients changed shortly after November-December 2020, raising the possibility that the delay reflected negotiations between insurance companies and relevant entities regarding formulary coverage.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. One author disclosed receiving consulting fees from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Bristol-Myers Squibb and grant funding from AstraZeneca, the Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, and Aurinia.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Uptake of infliximab biosimilars rose slowly across private insurance, Medicaid, and Medicare when two were available in the United States during 2016-2020 but increased significantly through 2022 after the third biosimilar became available in July 2020. However, prescriptions in Medicare still lagged behind those in private insurance and Medicaid.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed electronic health records from over 1100 US rheumatologists who participated in a national registry, the Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE), for all infliximab administrations (bio-originator or biosimilar) to patients older than 18 years from April 2016 to September 2022.
• They conducted an interrupted time series to account for autocorrelation and model the effect of each infliximab biosimilar release (infliximab-dyyb in November 2016, infliximab-abda in July 2017, and infliximab-axxq in July 2020) on uptake across Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers.

TAKEAWAY:

• The researchers identified 659,988 infliximab administrations for 37,560 unique patients, with 52% on Medicare, 4.8% on Medicaid, and 43% on private insurance.
• Biosimilar uptake rose slowly with average annual increases < 5% from 2016 to June 2020 (Medicare, 3.2%; Medicaid, 5.2%; private insurance, 1.8%).
• After the third biosimilar release in July 2020, the average annual increase reached 13% for Medicaid and 16.4% for private insurance but remained low for Medicare (5.6%).
• By September 2022, biosimilar uptake was higher for Medicaid (43.8%) and private insurance (38.5%) than for Medicare (24%).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest policymakers may need to do more to allow biosimilars to get a foothold in the market by incentivizing the development and entry of multiple biosimilars, address anticompetitive pricing strategies, and may need to amend Medicare policy to [incentivize] uptake in order to ensure a competitive and sustainable biosimilar market that gradually reduces total drug expenditures and out-of-pocket costs over time,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Eric T. Roberts, PhD, University of California, San Francisco. It was published online on July 30, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

First, while the biosimilar introductions are likely catalysts for many changes in the market, some changes in slopes may also be attributable to the natural growth of the market over time. Second, this study may neither be generalizable to academic medical centers, which are underrepresented in RISE, nor be generalizable to infliximab prescriptions from other specialties. Third, uptake among privately insured patients changed shortly after November-December 2020, raising the possibility that the delay reflected negotiations between insurance companies and relevant entities regarding formulary coverage.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. One author disclosed receiving consulting fees from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Bristol-Myers Squibb and grant funding from AstraZeneca, the Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, and Aurinia.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Since 2014, opioid use for autoimmune rheumatic diseases decreased by 15% annually while other management modalities increased or stabilized.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed de-identified US claims data from the MarketScan Database from 2007-2021.
• The study included nearly 142,000 patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases: 10,927 with ankylosing spondylitis (AS); 21,438 with psoriatic arthritis (PsA); 71,393 with rheumatoid arthritis (RA); 16,718 with Sjögren disease; 18,018 with systemic lupus erythematosus; and 3468 with systemic sclerosis.
• Primary outcome was opioid use annual trends, with secondary outcomes including trends in the use of anticonvulsants, antidepressants, skeletal muscle relaxants, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), topical pain medications, and physical or occupational therapy.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of opioid use increased annually by 4% until 2014 and decreased annually by 15% after 2014.
• NSAID use increased 2% annually until 2014, then declined by 5% afterward.
• The proportion of patients utilizing physical therapy or anticonvulsants doubled from 2008 to 2020.
• NSAID prescriptions were highest in AS, PsA, and RA, while they were lowest in Sjögren disease and systemic sclerosis.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our work, along with the published literature, highlights the need for future studies to evaluate the effectiveness of pain management modality changes over time and to understand the possible effects that changes have had on outcomes such as quality of life, disability, health status, and function,” wrote the authors of the study. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Titilola Falasinnu, PhD, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. It was published online in The Lancet Rheumatology. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on administrative claims data, which did not contain information on use of over-the-counter medications like NSAIDs and topical analgesics. The study did not include the duration of pain treatment modalities, making it difficult to differentiate between acute and chronic use. The analysis did not include race or ethnicity, which is important for understanding pain outcomes across different sociodemographic groups.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Since 2014, opioid use for autoimmune rheumatic diseases decreased by 15% annually while other management modalities increased or stabilized.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed de-identified US claims data from the MarketScan Database from 2007-2021.
• The study included nearly 142,000 patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases: 10,927 with ankylosing spondylitis (AS); 21,438 with psoriatic arthritis (PsA); 71,393 with rheumatoid arthritis (RA); 16,718 with Sjögren disease; 18,018 with systemic lupus erythematosus; and 3468 with systemic sclerosis.
• Primary outcome was opioid use annual trends, with secondary outcomes including trends in the use of anticonvulsants, antidepressants, skeletal muscle relaxants, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), topical pain medications, and physical or occupational therapy.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of opioid use increased annually by 4% until 2014 and decreased annually by 15% after 2014.
• NSAID use increased 2% annually until 2014, then declined by 5% afterward.
• The proportion of patients utilizing physical therapy or anticonvulsants doubled from 2008 to 2020.
• NSAID prescriptions were highest in AS, PsA, and RA, while they were lowest in Sjögren disease and systemic sclerosis.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our work, along with the published literature, highlights the need for future studies to evaluate the effectiveness of pain management modality changes over time and to understand the possible effects that changes have had on outcomes such as quality of life, disability, health status, and function,” wrote the authors of the study. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Titilola Falasinnu, PhD, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. It was published online in The Lancet Rheumatology. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on administrative claims data, which did not contain information on use of over-the-counter medications like NSAIDs and topical analgesics. The study did not include the duration of pain treatment modalities, making it difficult to differentiate between acute and chronic use. The analysis did not include race or ethnicity, which is important for understanding pain outcomes across different sociodemographic groups.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Since 2014, opioid use for autoimmune rheumatic diseases decreased by 15% annually while other management modalities increased or stabilized.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed de-identified US claims data from the MarketScan Database from 2007-2021.
• The study included nearly 142,000 patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases: 10,927 with ankylosing spondylitis (AS); 21,438 with psoriatic arthritis (PsA); 71,393 with rheumatoid arthritis (RA); 16,718 with Sjögren disease; 18,018 with systemic lupus erythematosus; and 3468 with systemic sclerosis.
• Primary outcome was opioid use annual trends, with secondary outcomes including trends in the use of anticonvulsants, antidepressants, skeletal muscle relaxants, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), topical pain medications, and physical or occupational therapy.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of opioid use increased annually by 4% until 2014 and decreased annually by 15% after 2014.
• NSAID use increased 2% annually until 2014, then declined by 5% afterward.
• The proportion of patients utilizing physical therapy or anticonvulsants doubled from 2008 to 2020.
• NSAID prescriptions were highest in AS, PsA, and RA, while they were lowest in Sjögren disease and systemic sclerosis.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our work, along with the published literature, highlights the need for future studies to evaluate the effectiveness of pain management modality changes over time and to understand the possible effects that changes have had on outcomes such as quality of life, disability, health status, and function,” wrote the authors of the study. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Titilola Falasinnu, PhD, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. It was published online in The Lancet Rheumatology. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on administrative claims data, which did not contain information on use of over-the-counter medications like NSAIDs and topical analgesics. The study did not include the duration of pain treatment modalities, making it difficult to differentiate between acute and chronic use. The analysis did not include race or ethnicity, which is important for understanding pain outcomes across different sociodemographic groups.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among patients who presented to a combined pediatric rheumatology/dermatology clinic (RDC) at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), 24% presented without a confirmed diagnosis, and only 41% received a diagnosis during their first clinic visit, results from a retrospective cohort study showed.

“This finding highlights the complexity of patients referred to this clinic,” the study’s first author, Jessica Crockett, a fourth-year medical student at UCSF, told this news organization following the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, where the study was presented during a poster session. “Integrated care models such as rheumatology/dermatology clinics (RDCs) have been shown to facilitate complete clinical evaluations, establish new or revised diagnoses, and streamline care for adult patients with complex autoimmune skin diseases. However, few pediatric RDCs exist nationwide, and data therefore is quite limited.”

To advance the understanding of pediatric RDC practice patterns, the influence of the care model on patient care, and professional development for trainees and clinicians, Ms. Crockett collaborated with senior author Kelly Cordoro, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at UCSF, and colleagues to evaluate a cohort of 71 patients who received care at the UCSF pediatric RDC. The clinic, which was launched in 2017, includes two dermatologists, two rheumatologists, trainees, a social worker, and a nurse. Team members participate in a preclinic conference to review patient data and images, discuss relevant literature, and develop an approach to each patient.

In a separate part of the study, the researchers distributed a survey to 17 pediatric dermatologists who participate in unique RDCs in North America. Respondents were asked to describe the variability of clinical operations, participants, administrative/clinical support, and educational value for participating physicians and trainees.

Of the 71 patients cared for at the UCSF pediatric RDC, 69% were female, 44% were White, 51% were aged 13-21 years, 42% were aged 3-12 years, and 7% were aged 0-11 years at their first clinic visit. The top four primary RDC diagnoses were linear morphea (33%), lupus (23%), psoriasis (13%), and juvenile dermatomyositis (10%).

Nearly one in four patients (17, or 24%) presented to the RDC without a confirmed diagnosis. A diagnosis was established at the first RDC visit for 7 of these 17 patients (41%). Among 54 patients who presented with an established diagnosis, the first RDC visit confirmed the diagnosis for 52 (96%) and revised it for 2 (4%). “Initial pediatric RDC evaluation significantly influenced patient care by confirming or revising preexisting diagnoses, rendering new diagnoses, and streamlining additional laboratory and imaging recommendations,” the researchers wrote in their poster.

The evaluation also resulted in modified disease management in the form of systemic medication changes or dosage adjustments as well as the initiation of novel therapies. For example, systemic medication changes were made during the first RDC visit in 34 of the 46 patients (74%) who were on systemic medication at presentation.

“Seeing complex patients together in real time allows specialists and other team members (social work, nursing, PT/OT, for example) to share ideas, communicate clearly to families, and efficiently develop recommendations,” Ms. Crockett said of the UCSF pediatric RDC. “Exposure to other specialists while caring for patients enhances medical knowledge, communication skills, and professional competency of faculty and trainees alike.”

In the survey portion of the study, each of the 17 dermatologists reported that the pediatric RDC is valuable for patient care, and 88% believed the RDC was a valuable use of their time. However, only 59% of respondents reported having administrative support, and only 29% had a dedicated clinic coordinator or navigator.

“We were surprised to find that only a quarter of pediatric RDCs incorporate an educational conference,” Dr. Cordoro told this news organization. “We have found that assembling the care team prior to seeing patients to review clinical data, discuss relevant literature, and define the clinical questions for each patient is an integral part of the clinical operation. The trainees are involved in these conference presentations, and it really enhances their understanding of the complex diagnoses we manage in this clinic and the issues faced by affected children and families. The preclinical conference increases efficiency, positively influences patient care, and supports professional development for all participants.”

The study was indirectly supported by a fellowship grant awarded to Ms. Crockett from the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance. The researchers reported having no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Among patients who presented to a combined pediatric rheumatology/dermatology clinic (RDC) at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), 24% presented without a confirmed diagnosis, and only 41% received a diagnosis during their first clinic visit, results from a retrospective cohort study showed.

“This finding highlights the complexity of patients referred to this clinic,” the study’s first author, Jessica Crockett, a fourth-year medical student at UCSF, told this news organization following the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, where the study was presented during a poster session. “Integrated care models such as rheumatology/dermatology clinics (RDCs) have been shown to facilitate complete clinical evaluations, establish new or revised diagnoses, and streamline care for adult patients with complex autoimmune skin diseases. However, few pediatric RDCs exist nationwide, and data therefore is quite limited.”

To advance the understanding of pediatric RDC practice patterns, the influence of the care model on patient care, and professional development for trainees and clinicians, Ms. Crockett collaborated with senior author Kelly Cordoro, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at UCSF, and colleagues to evaluate a cohort of 71 patients who received care at the UCSF pediatric RDC. The clinic, which was launched in 2017, includes two dermatologists, two rheumatologists, trainees, a social worker, and a nurse. Team members participate in a preclinic conference to review patient data and images, discuss relevant literature, and develop an approach to each patient.

In a separate part of the study, the researchers distributed a survey to 17 pediatric dermatologists who participate in unique RDCs in North America. Respondents were asked to describe the variability of clinical operations, participants, administrative/clinical support, and educational value for participating physicians and trainees.

Of the 71 patients cared for at the UCSF pediatric RDC, 69% were female, 44% were White, 51% were aged 13-21 years, 42% were aged 3-12 years, and 7% were aged 0-11 years at their first clinic visit. The top four primary RDC diagnoses were linear morphea (33%), lupus (23%), psoriasis (13%), and juvenile dermatomyositis (10%).

Nearly one in four patients (17, or 24%) presented to the RDC without a confirmed diagnosis. A diagnosis was established at the first RDC visit for 7 of these 17 patients (41%). Among 54 patients who presented with an established diagnosis, the first RDC visit confirmed the diagnosis for 52 (96%) and revised it for 2 (4%). “Initial pediatric RDC evaluation significantly influenced patient care by confirming or revising preexisting diagnoses, rendering new diagnoses, and streamlining additional laboratory and imaging recommendations,” the researchers wrote in their poster.

The evaluation also resulted in modified disease management in the form of systemic medication changes or dosage adjustments as well as the initiation of novel therapies. For example, systemic medication changes were made during the first RDC visit in 34 of the 46 patients (74%) who were on systemic medication at presentation.

“Seeing complex patients together in real time allows specialists and other team members (social work, nursing, PT/OT, for example) to share ideas, communicate clearly to families, and efficiently develop recommendations,” Ms. Crockett said of the UCSF pediatric RDC. “Exposure to other specialists while caring for patients enhances medical knowledge, communication skills, and professional competency of faculty and trainees alike.”

In the survey portion of the study, each of the 17 dermatologists reported that the pediatric RDC is valuable for patient care, and 88% believed the RDC was a valuable use of their time. However, only 59% of respondents reported having administrative support, and only 29% had a dedicated clinic coordinator or navigator.

“We were surprised to find that only a quarter of pediatric RDCs incorporate an educational conference,” Dr. Cordoro told this news organization. “We have found that assembling the care team prior to seeing patients to review clinical data, discuss relevant literature, and define the clinical questions for each patient is an integral part of the clinical operation. The trainees are involved in these conference presentations, and it really enhances their understanding of the complex diagnoses we manage in this clinic and the issues faced by affected children and families. The preclinical conference increases efficiency, positively influences patient care, and supports professional development for all participants.”

The study was indirectly supported by a fellowship grant awarded to Ms. Crockett from the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance. The researchers reported having no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Among patients who presented to a combined pediatric rheumatology/dermatology clinic (RDC) at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), 24% presented without a confirmed diagnosis, and only 41% received a diagnosis during their first clinic visit, results from a retrospective cohort study showed.

“This finding highlights the complexity of patients referred to this clinic,” the study’s first author, Jessica Crockett, a fourth-year medical student at UCSF, told this news organization following the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, where the study was presented during a poster session. “Integrated care models such as rheumatology/dermatology clinics (RDCs) have been shown to facilitate complete clinical evaluations, establish new or revised diagnoses, and streamline care for adult patients with complex autoimmune skin diseases. However, few pediatric RDCs exist nationwide, and data therefore is quite limited.”

To advance the understanding of pediatric RDC practice patterns, the influence of the care model on patient care, and professional development for trainees and clinicians, Ms. Crockett collaborated with senior author Kelly Cordoro, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at UCSF, and colleagues to evaluate a cohort of 71 patients who received care at the UCSF pediatric RDC. The clinic, which was launched in 2017, includes two dermatologists, two rheumatologists, trainees, a social worker, and a nurse. Team members participate in a preclinic conference to review patient data and images, discuss relevant literature, and develop an approach to each patient.

In a separate part of the study, the researchers distributed a survey to 17 pediatric dermatologists who participate in unique RDCs in North America. Respondents were asked to describe the variability of clinical operations, participants, administrative/clinical support, and educational value for participating physicians and trainees.

Of the 71 patients cared for at the UCSF pediatric RDC, 69% were female, 44% were White, 51% were aged 13-21 years, 42% were aged 3-12 years, and 7% were aged 0-11 years at their first clinic visit. The top four primary RDC diagnoses were linear morphea (33%), lupus (23%), psoriasis (13%), and juvenile dermatomyositis (10%).

Nearly one in four patients (17, or 24%) presented to the RDC without a confirmed diagnosis. A diagnosis was established at the first RDC visit for 7 of these 17 patients (41%). Among 54 patients who presented with an established diagnosis, the first RDC visit confirmed the diagnosis for 52 (96%) and revised it for 2 (4%). “Initial pediatric RDC evaluation significantly influenced patient care by confirming or revising preexisting diagnoses, rendering new diagnoses, and streamlining additional laboratory and imaging recommendations,” the researchers wrote in their poster.

The evaluation also resulted in modified disease management in the form of systemic medication changes or dosage adjustments as well as the initiation of novel therapies. For example, systemic medication changes were made during the first RDC visit in 34 of the 46 patients (74%) who were on systemic medication at presentation.

“Seeing complex patients together in real time allows specialists and other team members (social work, nursing, PT/OT, for example) to share ideas, communicate clearly to families, and efficiently develop recommendations,” Ms. Crockett said of the UCSF pediatric RDC. “Exposure to other specialists while caring for patients enhances medical knowledge, communication skills, and professional competency of faculty and trainees alike.”

In the survey portion of the study, each of the 17 dermatologists reported that the pediatric RDC is valuable for patient care, and 88% believed the RDC was a valuable use of their time. However, only 59% of respondents reported having administrative support, and only 29% had a dedicated clinic coordinator or navigator.

“We were surprised to find that only a quarter of pediatric RDCs incorporate an educational conference,” Dr. Cordoro told this news organization. “We have found that assembling the care team prior to seeing patients to review clinical data, discuss relevant literature, and define the clinical questions for each patient is an integral part of the clinical operation. The trainees are involved in these conference presentations, and it really enhances their understanding of the complex diagnoses we manage in this clinic and the issues faced by affected children and families. The preclinical conference increases efficiency, positively influences patient care, and supports professional development for all participants.”

The study was indirectly supported by a fellowship grant awarded to Ms. Crockett from the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance. The researchers reported having no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

More gastrointestinal and nervous symptom adverse events (AEs) are linked to apremilast than deucravacitinib, which is associated with more cutaneous AEs, according to a retrospective comparison using US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) data.

METHODOLOGY:

• To evaluate the adverse events associated with apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE4) inhibitor, and deucravacitinib, an oral tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor, data were drawn from the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System database.
• The Medex_UIMA_1.8.3 system was used to standardize drug names, and MedDRA terminology was used to encode, categorize, and localize signals.
• AE event signals were grouped by skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders, gastrointestinal disorders, infections and infestations, and nervous system disorders.

TAKEAWAY:

• There were 95,734 AE reports for apremilast and 760 AE reports for deucravacitinib, and AEs were found to be significant over time.
• The more common cutaneous AEs were psoriasis recurrence and acne (associated with apremilast) and skin burning and erythema (associated with deucravacitinib).
• The more common gastrointestinal AEs were diarrhea and nausea (apremilast) and mouth ulceration (deucravacitinib).
• Deucravacitinib-related pruritus and rash, as well as apremilast-related tension headache, were more common in women than men; deucravacitinib-related skin burning was more common in men.

IN PRACTICE:

The results “can help the doctors to choose the right treatment options based on the baseline characteristics of different patients,” said Yuanyuan Xu, a graduate student in the Department of Dermatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.

SOURCE:

Mr. Xu presented the study as a poster at the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis 2024 annual meeting.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective and cannot prove causality, and there were far fewer AE reports related to deucravacitinib, likely because the drug was introduced more recently.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no funding, and the authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

More gastrointestinal and nervous symptom adverse events (AEs) are linked to apremilast than deucravacitinib, which is associated with more cutaneous AEs, according to a retrospective comparison using US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) data.

METHODOLOGY:

• To evaluate the adverse events associated with apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE4) inhibitor, and deucravacitinib, an oral tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor, data were drawn from the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System database.
• The Medex_UIMA_1.8.3 system was used to standardize drug names, and MedDRA terminology was used to encode, categorize, and localize signals.
• AE event signals were grouped by skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders, gastrointestinal disorders, infections and infestations, and nervous system disorders.

TAKEAWAY:

• There were 95,734 AE reports for apremilast and 760 AE reports for deucravacitinib, and AEs were found to be significant over time.
• The more common cutaneous AEs were psoriasis recurrence and acne (associated with apremilast) and skin burning and erythema (associated with deucravacitinib).
• The more common gastrointestinal AEs were diarrhea and nausea (apremilast) and mouth ulceration (deucravacitinib).
• Deucravacitinib-related pruritus and rash, as well as apremilast-related tension headache, were more common in women than men; deucravacitinib-related skin burning was more common in men.

IN PRACTICE:

The results “can help the doctors to choose the right treatment options based on the baseline characteristics of different patients,” said Yuanyuan Xu, a graduate student in the Department of Dermatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.

SOURCE:

Mr. Xu presented the study as a poster at the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis 2024 annual meeting.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective and cannot prove causality, and there were far fewer AE reports related to deucravacitinib, likely because the drug was introduced more recently.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no funding, and the authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

More gastrointestinal and nervous symptom adverse events (AEs) are linked to apremilast than deucravacitinib, which is associated with more cutaneous AEs, according to a retrospective comparison using US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) data.

METHODOLOGY:

• To evaluate the adverse events associated with apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE4) inhibitor, and deucravacitinib, an oral tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor, data were drawn from the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System database.
• The Medex_UIMA_1.8.3 system was used to standardize drug names, and MedDRA terminology was used to encode, categorize, and localize signals.
• AE event signals were grouped by skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders, gastrointestinal disorders, infections and infestations, and nervous system disorders.

TAKEAWAY:

• There were 95,734 AE reports for apremilast and 760 AE reports for deucravacitinib, and AEs were found to be significant over time.
• The more common cutaneous AEs were psoriasis recurrence and acne (associated with apremilast) and skin burning and erythema (associated with deucravacitinib).
• The more common gastrointestinal AEs were diarrhea and nausea (apremilast) and mouth ulceration (deucravacitinib).
• Deucravacitinib-related pruritus and rash, as well as apremilast-related tension headache, were more common in women than men; deucravacitinib-related skin burning was more common in men.

IN PRACTICE:

The results “can help the doctors to choose the right treatment options based on the baseline characteristics of different patients,” said Yuanyuan Xu, a graduate student in the Department of Dermatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.

SOURCE:

Mr. Xu presented the study as a poster at the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis 2024 annual meeting.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective and cannot prove causality, and there were far fewer AE reports related to deucravacitinib, likely because the drug was introduced more recently.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no funding, and the authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

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