Psoriatic Arthritis

TOPLINE:

Treatment of patients with active psoriatic arthritis with sonelokimab — an interleukin (IL)-17A- and IL-17F-inhibiting nanobody — led to a higher percentage of patients with 50% or greater improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR50) compared with the placebo in a phase 2 trial.

METHODOLOGY:

• Sonelokimab is a 40-kDa nanobody that binds to IL-17A, IL-17F, and albumin.
• Eligible patients were at least 18 years old with active PsA (at least three swollen and three tender joints) and had a psoriasis diagnosis.
• A total of 207 patients were randomized 1:1:1:1 to every 4 weeks receive placebo, sonelokimab 60 mg with no induction (NI) period, sonelokimab 60 mg with induction, and sonelokimab 120 mg with induction.
• Induction was once every 2 weeks up to week 8 of the trial.
• The primary endpoint was meeting ACR20 response criteria at 12 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• About 46% of patients in the sonelokimab 120-mg and 60-mg groups achieved ACR50, compared with 36.6% in the sonelokimab 60-mg NI group and 20% of those assigned to placebo.
• ACR20 and 90% or greater reduction in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score response rates were higher in all three sonelokimab groups than in the placebo group.
• There were no unexpected safety findings during the trial, and no cases of inflammatory bowel disease or major cardiovascular events.
• There were two cases of oral candidiasis, which did not lead to study discontinuation.

IN PRACTICE:

These data “support further exploration in phase 3 trials of sonelokimab to evaluate its potential for the treatment of PsA,” the authors noted in the presentation.

SOURCE:

Iain B. McInnes, MD, PhD, of the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, presented these phase 2 trial results at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2024 Annual Congress, held in Vienna.

LIMITATIONS:

The results are from a phase 2 trial, and more research is needed.

DISCLOSURES:

MoonLake Immunotherapeutics funded the research. Dr. McInnes disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Causeway Therapeutics, Cabaletta Bio, Compugen, Evelo, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, MoonLake Immunotherapeutics, Pfizer, Sanofi Regeneron, and UCB. Other authors also disclosed many relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

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

TOPLINE:

Treatment of patients with active psoriatic arthritis with sonelokimab — an interleukin (IL)-17A- and IL-17F-inhibiting nanobody — led to a higher percentage of patients with 50% or greater improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR50) compared with the placebo in a phase 2 trial.

METHODOLOGY:

• Sonelokimab is a 40-kDa nanobody that binds to IL-17A, IL-17F, and albumin.
• Eligible patients were at least 18 years old with active PsA (at least three swollen and three tender joints) and had a psoriasis diagnosis.
• A total of 207 patients were randomized 1:1:1:1 to every 4 weeks receive placebo, sonelokimab 60 mg with no induction (NI) period, sonelokimab 60 mg with induction, and sonelokimab 120 mg with induction.
• Induction was once every 2 weeks up to week 8 of the trial.
• The primary endpoint was meeting ACR20 response criteria at 12 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• About 46% of patients in the sonelokimab 120-mg and 60-mg groups achieved ACR50, compared with 36.6% in the sonelokimab 60-mg NI group and 20% of those assigned to placebo.
• ACR20 and 90% or greater reduction in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score response rates were higher in all three sonelokimab groups than in the placebo group.
• There were no unexpected safety findings during the trial, and no cases of inflammatory bowel disease or major cardiovascular events.
• There were two cases of oral candidiasis, which did not lead to study discontinuation.

IN PRACTICE:

These data “support further exploration in phase 3 trials of sonelokimab to evaluate its potential for the treatment of PsA,” the authors noted in the presentation.

SOURCE:

Iain B. McInnes, MD, PhD, of the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, presented these phase 2 trial results at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2024 Annual Congress, held in Vienna.

LIMITATIONS:

The results are from a phase 2 trial, and more research is needed.

DISCLOSURES:

MoonLake Immunotherapeutics funded the research. Dr. McInnes disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Causeway Therapeutics, Cabaletta Bio, Compugen, Evelo, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, MoonLake Immunotherapeutics, Pfizer, Sanofi Regeneron, and UCB. Other authors also disclosed many relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

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

TOPLINE:

Treatment of patients with active psoriatic arthritis with sonelokimab — an interleukin (IL)-17A- and IL-17F-inhibiting nanobody — led to a higher percentage of patients with 50% or greater improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR50) compared with the placebo in a phase 2 trial.

METHODOLOGY:

• Sonelokimab is a 40-kDa nanobody that binds to IL-17A, IL-17F, and albumin.
• Eligible patients were at least 18 years old with active PsA (at least three swollen and three tender joints) and had a psoriasis diagnosis.
• A total of 207 patients were randomized 1:1:1:1 to every 4 weeks receive placebo, sonelokimab 60 mg with no induction (NI) period, sonelokimab 60 mg with induction, and sonelokimab 120 mg with induction.
• Induction was once every 2 weeks up to week 8 of the trial.
• The primary endpoint was meeting ACR20 response criteria at 12 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• About 46% of patients in the sonelokimab 120-mg and 60-mg groups achieved ACR50, compared with 36.6% in the sonelokimab 60-mg NI group and 20% of those assigned to placebo.
• ACR20 and 90% or greater reduction in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score response rates were higher in all three sonelokimab groups than in the placebo group.
• There were no unexpected safety findings during the trial, and no cases of inflammatory bowel disease or major cardiovascular events.
• There were two cases of oral candidiasis, which did not lead to study discontinuation.

IN PRACTICE:

These data “support further exploration in phase 3 trials of sonelokimab to evaluate its potential for the treatment of PsA,” the authors noted in the presentation.

SOURCE:

Iain B. McInnes, MD, PhD, of the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, presented these phase 2 trial results at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2024 Annual Congress, held in Vienna.

LIMITATIONS:

The results are from a phase 2 trial, and more research is needed.

DISCLOSURES:

MoonLake Immunotherapeutics funded the research. Dr. McInnes disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Causeway Therapeutics, Cabaletta Bio, Compugen, Evelo, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, MoonLake Immunotherapeutics, Pfizer, Sanofi Regeneron, and UCB. Other authors also disclosed many relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

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

A hot topic of PsA research is whether treating psoriasis patients with biologics reduces the risk of developing PsA. Floris and colleagues analyzed data from 1023 patients with psoriasis aged 18 years or older, of whom 29.6% received biologics at least once and 21.0% had PsA. They observed that patients treated at least once vs never treated with biologics had a significantly lower risk for PsA. The "protective" effect of biologics against PsA persisted irrespective of the class of biologic used. However, the study has many built-in biases; it was not a prospective study of psoriasis patients without PsA, but rather a retrospective analysis of data collected at enrollment. Nevertheless, effective psoriasis therapies may indeed reduce the risk for PsA; prospective interventional studies are required and are currently underway.

Development of radiographic damage indicates severe PsA and affects quality of life and physical function. Identifying patients at risk for joint damage may help treatment stratification. Using data from a real-world cohort of 476 patients with early PsA, of whom 14% demonstrated progressive radiographic damage, Koc and colleagues found that female sex was a protective factor whereas old age and initial radiographic damage were risk factors for radiographic progression. These results are consistent with previous studies. Male sex, older age, and presence of radiographic damage at first visit should prompt more aggressive management to prevent further joint damage.

Regarding newer treatments, Gossec and colleagues demonstrated that bimekizumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting both interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F, improved disease effects in a rapid and sustained manner in patients with PsA who had not used biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or had prior inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. Bimekizumab is a welcome addition to the drugs available to manage PsA. Its comparative efficacy against other targeted therapies, especially other IL-17 inhibitors, is yet to be determined.

Finally, a study from the Greek multicenter PsA registry by Vassilakis and colleagues showed that, of 467 patients with PsA, 16.5% had D2T PsA. Compared with non–D2T patients, those with D2T disease were more likely to have extensive psoriasis at diagnosis, higher body mass index, and a history of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Treatment-resistant disease is increasingly prevalent in PsA. Certain diseases and comorbidities, such as IBD and obesity, are associated with D2T PsA. A uniform definition of D2T PsA and prospective studies to identify risk factors, as well as new strategies to manage D2T PsA, are required.

A hot topic of PsA research is whether treating psoriasis patients with biologics reduces the risk of developing PsA. Floris and colleagues analyzed data from 1023 patients with psoriasis aged 18 years or older, of whom 29.6% received biologics at least once and 21.0% had PsA. They observed that patients treated at least once vs never treated with biologics had a significantly lower risk for PsA. The "protective" effect of biologics against PsA persisted irrespective of the class of biologic used. However, the study has many built-in biases; it was not a prospective study of psoriasis patients without PsA, but rather a retrospective analysis of data collected at enrollment. Nevertheless, effective psoriasis therapies may indeed reduce the risk for PsA; prospective interventional studies are required and are currently underway.

Development of radiographic damage indicates severe PsA and affects quality of life and physical function. Identifying patients at risk for joint damage may help treatment stratification. Using data from a real-world cohort of 476 patients with early PsA, of whom 14% demonstrated progressive radiographic damage, Koc and colleagues found that female sex was a protective factor whereas old age and initial radiographic damage were risk factors for radiographic progression. These results are consistent with previous studies. Male sex, older age, and presence of radiographic damage at first visit should prompt more aggressive management to prevent further joint damage.

Regarding newer treatments, Gossec and colleagues demonstrated that bimekizumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting both interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F, improved disease effects in a rapid and sustained manner in patients with PsA who had not used biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or had prior inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. Bimekizumab is a welcome addition to the drugs available to manage PsA. Its comparative efficacy against other targeted therapies, especially other IL-17 inhibitors, is yet to be determined.

Finally, a study from the Greek multicenter PsA registry by Vassilakis and colleagues showed that, of 467 patients with PsA, 16.5% had D2T PsA. Compared with non–D2T patients, those with D2T disease were more likely to have extensive psoriasis at diagnosis, higher body mass index, and a history of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Treatment-resistant disease is increasingly prevalent in PsA. Certain diseases and comorbidities, such as IBD and obesity, are associated with D2T PsA. A uniform definition of D2T PsA and prospective studies to identify risk factors, as well as new strategies to manage D2T PsA, are required.

A hot topic of PsA research is whether treating psoriasis patients with biologics reduces the risk of developing PsA. Floris and colleagues analyzed data from 1023 patients with psoriasis aged 18 years or older, of whom 29.6% received biologics at least once and 21.0% had PsA. They observed that patients treated at least once vs never treated with biologics had a significantly lower risk for PsA. The "protective" effect of biologics against PsA persisted irrespective of the class of biologic used. However, the study has many built-in biases; it was not a prospective study of psoriasis patients without PsA, but rather a retrospective analysis of data collected at enrollment. Nevertheless, effective psoriasis therapies may indeed reduce the risk for PsA; prospective interventional studies are required and are currently underway.

Development of radiographic damage indicates severe PsA and affects quality of life and physical function. Identifying patients at risk for joint damage may help treatment stratification. Using data from a real-world cohort of 476 patients with early PsA, of whom 14% demonstrated progressive radiographic damage, Koc and colleagues found that female sex was a protective factor whereas old age and initial radiographic damage were risk factors for radiographic progression. These results are consistent with previous studies. Male sex, older age, and presence of radiographic damage at first visit should prompt more aggressive management to prevent further joint damage.

Regarding newer treatments, Gossec and colleagues demonstrated that bimekizumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting both interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F, improved disease effects in a rapid and sustained manner in patients with PsA who had not used biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or had prior inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. Bimekizumab is a welcome addition to the drugs available to manage PsA. Its comparative efficacy against other targeted therapies, especially other IL-17 inhibitors, is yet to be determined.

Finally, a study from the Greek multicenter PsA registry by Vassilakis and colleagues showed that, of 467 patients with PsA, 16.5% had D2T PsA. Compared with non–D2T patients, those with D2T disease were more likely to have extensive psoriasis at diagnosis, higher body mass index, and a history of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Treatment-resistant disease is increasingly prevalent in PsA. Certain diseases and comorbidities, such as IBD and obesity, are associated with D2T PsA. A uniform definition of D2T PsA and prospective studies to identify risk factors, as well as new strategies to manage D2T PsA, are required.

A hot topic of PsA research is whether treating psoriasis patients with biologics reduces the risk of developing PsA. Floris and colleagues analyzed data from 1023 patients with psoriasis aged 18 years or older, of whom 29.6% received biologics at least once and 21.0% had PsA. They observed that patients treated at least once vs never treated with biologics had a significantly lower risk for PsA. The "protective" effect of biologics against PsA persisted irrespective of the class of biologic used. However, the study has many built-in biases; it was not a prospective study of psoriasis patients without PsA, but rather a retrospective analysis of data collected at enrollment. Nevertheless, effective psoriasis therapies may indeed reduce the risk for PsA; prospective interventional studies are required and are currently underway.

Development of radiographic damage indicates severe PsA and affects quality of life and physical function. Identifying patients at risk for joint damage may help treatment stratification. Using data from a real-world cohort of 476 patients with early PsA, of whom 14% demonstrated progressive radiographic damage, Koc and colleagues found that female sex was a protective factor whereas old age and initial radiographic damage were risk factors for radiographic progression. These results are consistent with previous studies. Male sex, older age, and presence of radiographic damage at first visit should prompt more aggressive management to prevent further joint damage.

Regarding newer treatments, Gossec and colleagues demonstrated that bimekizumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting both interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F, improved disease effects in a rapid and sustained manner in patients with PsA who had not used biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or had prior inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. Bimekizumab is a welcome addition to the drugs available to manage PsA. Its comparative efficacy against other targeted therapies, especially other IL-17 inhibitors, is yet to be determined.

Finally, a study from the Greek multicenter PsA registry by Vassilakis and colleagues showed that, of 467 patients with PsA, 16.5% had D2T PsA. Compared with non–D2T patients, those with D2T disease were more likely to have extensive psoriasis at diagnosis, higher body mass index, and a history of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Treatment-resistant disease is increasingly prevalent in PsA. Certain diseases and comorbidities, such as IBD and obesity, are associated with D2T PsA. A uniform definition of D2T PsA and prospective studies to identify risk factors, as well as new strategies to manage D2T PsA, are required.

A hot topic of PsA research is whether treating psoriasis patients with biologics reduces the risk of developing PsA. Floris and colleagues analyzed data from 1023 patients with psoriasis aged 18 years or older, of whom 29.6% received biologics at least once and 21.0% had PsA. They observed that patients treated at least once vs never treated with biologics had a significantly lower risk for PsA. The "protective" effect of biologics against PsA persisted irrespective of the class of biologic used. However, the study has many built-in biases; it was not a prospective study of psoriasis patients without PsA, but rather a retrospective analysis of data collected at enrollment. Nevertheless, effective psoriasis therapies may indeed reduce the risk for PsA; prospective interventional studies are required and are currently underway.

Development of radiographic damage indicates severe PsA and affects quality of life and physical function. Identifying patients at risk for joint damage may help treatment stratification. Using data from a real-world cohort of 476 patients with early PsA, of whom 14% demonstrated progressive radiographic damage, Koc and colleagues found that female sex was a protective factor whereas old age and initial radiographic damage were risk factors for radiographic progression. These results are consistent with previous studies. Male sex, older age, and presence of radiographic damage at first visit should prompt more aggressive management to prevent further joint damage.

Regarding newer treatments, Gossec and colleagues demonstrated that bimekizumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting both interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F, improved disease effects in a rapid and sustained manner in patients with PsA who had not used biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or had prior inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. Bimekizumab is a welcome addition to the drugs available to manage PsA. Its comparative efficacy against other targeted therapies, especially other IL-17 inhibitors, is yet to be determined.

Finally, a study from the Greek multicenter PsA registry by Vassilakis and colleagues showed that, of 467 patients with PsA, 16.5% had D2T PsA. Compared with non–D2T patients, those with D2T disease were more likely to have extensive psoriasis at diagnosis, higher body mass index, and a history of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Treatment-resistant disease is increasingly prevalent in PsA. Certain diseases and comorbidities, such as IBD and obesity, are associated with D2T PsA. A uniform definition of D2T PsA and prospective studies to identify risk factors, as well as new strategies to manage D2T PsA, are required.

A hot topic of PsA research is whether treating psoriasis patients with biologics reduces the risk of developing PsA. Floris and colleagues analyzed data from 1023 patients with psoriasis aged 18 years or older, of whom 29.6% received biologics at least once and 21.0% had PsA. They observed that patients treated at least once vs never treated with biologics had a significantly lower risk for PsA. The "protective" effect of biologics against PsA persisted irrespective of the class of biologic used. However, the study has many built-in biases; it was not a prospective study of psoriasis patients without PsA, but rather a retrospective analysis of data collected at enrollment. Nevertheless, effective psoriasis therapies may indeed reduce the risk for PsA; prospective interventional studies are required and are currently underway.

Development of radiographic damage indicates severe PsA and affects quality of life and physical function. Identifying patients at risk for joint damage may help treatment stratification. Using data from a real-world cohort of 476 patients with early PsA, of whom 14% demonstrated progressive radiographic damage, Koc and colleagues found that female sex was a protective factor whereas old age and initial radiographic damage were risk factors for radiographic progression. These results are consistent with previous studies. Male sex, older age, and presence of radiographic damage at first visit should prompt more aggressive management to prevent further joint damage.

Regarding newer treatments, Gossec and colleagues demonstrated that bimekizumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting both interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F, improved disease effects in a rapid and sustained manner in patients with PsA who had not used biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or had prior inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. Bimekizumab is a welcome addition to the drugs available to manage PsA. Its comparative efficacy against other targeted therapies, especially other IL-17 inhibitors, is yet to be determined.

Finally, a study from the Greek multicenter PsA registry by Vassilakis and colleagues showed that, of 467 patients with PsA, 16.5% had D2T PsA. Compared with non–D2T patients, those with D2T disease were more likely to have extensive psoriasis at diagnosis, higher body mass index, and a history of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Treatment-resistant disease is increasingly prevalent in PsA. Certain diseases and comorbidities, such as IBD and obesity, are associated with D2T PsA. A uniform definition of D2T PsA and prospective studies to identify risk factors, as well as new strategies to manage D2T PsA, are required.

VIENNA — The investigational interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor izokibep hit its mark when it came to improving overall disease activity in people with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in a phase 2b/3 trial, but it was no better than placebo at reducing inflammation of the entheses. 

This apparent and unexpected lack of effect in the entheses was a key talking point after Philip J. Mease, MD, presented the late-breaking trial findings at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

At just 18.6 kilodaltons in size, izokibep is just “one tenth the size of a standard monoclonal antibody” and is classed as a small protein therapeutic, Dr. Mease said. It has a “very tight” binding affinity for IL-17A, and because it also binds to albumin, it has a prolonged half-life compared with other IL-17 inhibitors. Potentially, it should be able to “penetrate into difficult areas,” such as the entheses, he said.
 

Prespecified Enthesitis Analysis

However, results of a prespecified secondary analysis conducted in 209 of the 343 trial participants who had received treatment showed no significant difference in the proportions with enthesis resolution at 16 weeks, defined as a Leeds Enthesitis Index (LEI) of 0.

Comparing two dosing regimens of izokibep 160 mg once weekly (QW) vs every other week (Q2W) with placebo, enthesitis resolution was seen in 45%, 56%, and 47%, respectively, of patients.

The LEI is “sometimes subject to problems with evaluation because of placebo response, which is what we see here,” noted Dr. Mease, director of rheumatology research at the Providence Swedish Medical Center and a rheumatology professor at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle.

An exploratory analysis showed that there was a better response for izokibep vs placebo if the analysis included only patients with higher LEI scores at baseline, at 8.0% (n = 12) for placebo, 22.0% (n = 9) for izokibep 160 mg QW, and 50.0% (n = 12) for izokibep 160 mg Q2W.
 

Main Efficacy Data

The primary endpoint for the trial was the proportion of patients who had 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR50) at 16 weeks. This showed a clear advantage for treatment with izokibep 160 QW and Q2W compared with placebo, with a respective 40%, 43%, and 15% of patients meeting this endpoint.

Corresponding ACR20 response rates were 59%, 64%, and 35%, respectively; ACR70 response rates were a respective 25%, 23%, and 5%.

In addition to ACR70, izokibep 160 QW and Q2W met a number of other “high hurdle” efficacy endpoints better than did placebo, Dr. Mease reported. A 90% reduction from baseline in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI90) was achieved by a respective 64%, 58%, and 12% of patients, and a 100% reduction in this index (PASI100) was achieved by a respective 51%, 47%, and 12%. And 41%, 42%, and 14% of patients, respectively, met the criteria for minimal disease activity.
 

Patient Population

Mease pointed out during his presentation that the trial included patients with adult-onset PsA that had been ongoing for ≥ 6 months. Patients had to have at least three tender or swollen joints and an inadequate response, intolerance, or contraindication to commonly used front-line therapies such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi).

In fact, around half of the participants across the three treatment arms had received prior csDMARDs, and almost a quarter had received a TNFi.

The mean duration of disease was around 7 years, the average age was about 50 years, and the majority of the participants were White individuals. There were more women than men in the placebo vs the izokibep arms (43.4% vs about 60.0%).
 

Adverse Events

Injection site reactions were the most common adverse events, most of which were mild to moderate. Very few (< 1% to 4%) led to any need to discontinue the drug.

Serious adverse events occurred at low rates in all study arms: 0.8% for placebo, 2.7% for izokibep QW, and 1.8% for izokibep Q2W.

One patient each (0.9%) in the izokibep arms developed ulcerative colitis, whereas none in the placebo group did. Only two patients developed candidiasis. One was in the placebo group and had a skin infection, and the other was an oral infection in the QW izokibep arm.

There were no cases of uveitis, suicidal ideation, or deaths reported.
 

Comments on the Study

During the discussion that followed the presentation, Walter P. Maksymowych, MBChB, of the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, addressed the dosing regimens used.

“Looking at the side effect profile and then looking at the response rate, comparing the weekly dosing and every 2 weeks, do you think, in hindsight, you might be remiss that there wasn’t an additional dosing on a monthly basis, especially since this is a construct that is meant to prolong the half-life of the molecule?” he asked, adding that perhaps this should be something to consider in future studies.

Mease responded that there had been a fourth dosing arm in the trial — izokibep 80 mg once a month — but because there were only eight patients, the data were not sufficiently robust to analyze. 

Commenting on the study, Laura C. Coates, MBChB, PhD, said: “It’s a pretty standard phase 2b/3 study,” and the outcomes were not wildly different from what has been seen with other IL-17A inhibitors.

“In phase 2, the enthesitis data looked really good; in phase 3, the enthesitis data looks the same as for any other IL-17 inhibitor,” Dr. Coates said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — The investigational interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor izokibep hit its mark when it came to improving overall disease activity in people with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in a phase 2b/3 trial, but it was no better than placebo at reducing inflammation of the entheses. 

This apparent and unexpected lack of effect in the entheses was a key talking point after Philip J. Mease, MD, presented the late-breaking trial findings at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

At just 18.6 kilodaltons in size, izokibep is just “one tenth the size of a standard monoclonal antibody” and is classed as a small protein therapeutic, Dr. Mease said. It has a “very tight” binding affinity for IL-17A, and because it also binds to albumin, it has a prolonged half-life compared with other IL-17 inhibitors. Potentially, it should be able to “penetrate into difficult areas,” such as the entheses, he said.
 

Prespecified Enthesitis Analysis

However, results of a prespecified secondary analysis conducted in 209 of the 343 trial participants who had received treatment showed no significant difference in the proportions with enthesis resolution at 16 weeks, defined as a Leeds Enthesitis Index (LEI) of 0.

Comparing two dosing regimens of izokibep 160 mg once weekly (QW) vs every other week (Q2W) with placebo, enthesitis resolution was seen in 45%, 56%, and 47%, respectively, of patients.

The LEI is “sometimes subject to problems with evaluation because of placebo response, which is what we see here,” noted Dr. Mease, director of rheumatology research at the Providence Swedish Medical Center and a rheumatology professor at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle.

An exploratory analysis showed that there was a better response for izokibep vs placebo if the analysis included only patients with higher LEI scores at baseline, at 8.0% (n = 12) for placebo, 22.0% (n = 9) for izokibep 160 mg QW, and 50.0% (n = 12) for izokibep 160 mg Q2W.
 

Main Efficacy Data

The primary endpoint for the trial was the proportion of patients who had 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR50) at 16 weeks. This showed a clear advantage for treatment with izokibep 160 QW and Q2W compared with placebo, with a respective 40%, 43%, and 15% of patients meeting this endpoint.

Corresponding ACR20 response rates were 59%, 64%, and 35%, respectively; ACR70 response rates were a respective 25%, 23%, and 5%.

In addition to ACR70, izokibep 160 QW and Q2W met a number of other “high hurdle” efficacy endpoints better than did placebo, Dr. Mease reported. A 90% reduction from baseline in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI90) was achieved by a respective 64%, 58%, and 12% of patients, and a 100% reduction in this index (PASI100) was achieved by a respective 51%, 47%, and 12%. And 41%, 42%, and 14% of patients, respectively, met the criteria for minimal disease activity.
 

Patient Population

Mease pointed out during his presentation that the trial included patients with adult-onset PsA that had been ongoing for ≥ 6 months. Patients had to have at least three tender or swollen joints and an inadequate response, intolerance, or contraindication to commonly used front-line therapies such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi).

In fact, around half of the participants across the three treatment arms had received prior csDMARDs, and almost a quarter had received a TNFi.

The mean duration of disease was around 7 years, the average age was about 50 years, and the majority of the participants were White individuals. There were more women than men in the placebo vs the izokibep arms (43.4% vs about 60.0%).
 

Adverse Events

Injection site reactions were the most common adverse events, most of which were mild to moderate. Very few (< 1% to 4%) led to any need to discontinue the drug.

Serious adverse events occurred at low rates in all study arms: 0.8% for placebo, 2.7% for izokibep QW, and 1.8% for izokibep Q2W.

One patient each (0.9%) in the izokibep arms developed ulcerative colitis, whereas none in the placebo group did. Only two patients developed candidiasis. One was in the placebo group and had a skin infection, and the other was an oral infection in the QW izokibep arm.

There were no cases of uveitis, suicidal ideation, or deaths reported.
 

Comments on the Study

During the discussion that followed the presentation, Walter P. Maksymowych, MBChB, of the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, addressed the dosing regimens used.

“Looking at the side effect profile and then looking at the response rate, comparing the weekly dosing and every 2 weeks, do you think, in hindsight, you might be remiss that there wasn’t an additional dosing on a monthly basis, especially since this is a construct that is meant to prolong the half-life of the molecule?” he asked, adding that perhaps this should be something to consider in future studies.

Mease responded that there had been a fourth dosing arm in the trial — izokibep 80 mg once a month — but because there were only eight patients, the data were not sufficiently robust to analyze. 

Commenting on the study, Laura C. Coates, MBChB, PhD, said: “It’s a pretty standard phase 2b/3 study,” and the outcomes were not wildly different from what has been seen with other IL-17A inhibitors.

“In phase 2, the enthesitis data looked really good; in phase 3, the enthesitis data looks the same as for any other IL-17 inhibitor,” Dr. Coates said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — The investigational interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor izokibep hit its mark when it came to improving overall disease activity in people with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in a phase 2b/3 trial, but it was no better than placebo at reducing inflammation of the entheses. 

This apparent and unexpected lack of effect in the entheses was a key talking point after Philip J. Mease, MD, presented the late-breaking trial findings at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

At just 18.6 kilodaltons in size, izokibep is just “one tenth the size of a standard monoclonal antibody” and is classed as a small protein therapeutic, Dr. Mease said. It has a “very tight” binding affinity for IL-17A, and because it also binds to albumin, it has a prolonged half-life compared with other IL-17 inhibitors. Potentially, it should be able to “penetrate into difficult areas,” such as the entheses, he said.
 

Prespecified Enthesitis Analysis

However, results of a prespecified secondary analysis conducted in 209 of the 343 trial participants who had received treatment showed no significant difference in the proportions with enthesis resolution at 16 weeks, defined as a Leeds Enthesitis Index (LEI) of 0.

Comparing two dosing regimens of izokibep 160 mg once weekly (QW) vs every other week (Q2W) with placebo, enthesitis resolution was seen in 45%, 56%, and 47%, respectively, of patients.

The LEI is “sometimes subject to problems with evaluation because of placebo response, which is what we see here,” noted Dr. Mease, director of rheumatology research at the Providence Swedish Medical Center and a rheumatology professor at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle.

An exploratory analysis showed that there was a better response for izokibep vs placebo if the analysis included only patients with higher LEI scores at baseline, at 8.0% (n = 12) for placebo, 22.0% (n = 9) for izokibep 160 mg QW, and 50.0% (n = 12) for izokibep 160 mg Q2W.
 

Main Efficacy Data

The primary endpoint for the trial was the proportion of patients who had 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR50) at 16 weeks. This showed a clear advantage for treatment with izokibep 160 QW and Q2W compared with placebo, with a respective 40%, 43%, and 15% of patients meeting this endpoint.

Corresponding ACR20 response rates were 59%, 64%, and 35%, respectively; ACR70 response rates were a respective 25%, 23%, and 5%.

In addition to ACR70, izokibep 160 QW and Q2W met a number of other “high hurdle” efficacy endpoints better than did placebo, Dr. Mease reported. A 90% reduction from baseline in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI90) was achieved by a respective 64%, 58%, and 12% of patients, and a 100% reduction in this index (PASI100) was achieved by a respective 51%, 47%, and 12%. And 41%, 42%, and 14% of patients, respectively, met the criteria for minimal disease activity.
 

Patient Population

Mease pointed out during his presentation that the trial included patients with adult-onset PsA that had been ongoing for ≥ 6 months. Patients had to have at least three tender or swollen joints and an inadequate response, intolerance, or contraindication to commonly used front-line therapies such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi).

In fact, around half of the participants across the three treatment arms had received prior csDMARDs, and almost a quarter had received a TNFi.

The mean duration of disease was around 7 years, the average age was about 50 years, and the majority of the participants were White individuals. There were more women than men in the placebo vs the izokibep arms (43.4% vs about 60.0%).
 

Adverse Events

Injection site reactions were the most common adverse events, most of which were mild to moderate. Very few (< 1% to 4%) led to any need to discontinue the drug.

Serious adverse events occurred at low rates in all study arms: 0.8% for placebo, 2.7% for izokibep QW, and 1.8% for izokibep Q2W.

One patient each (0.9%) in the izokibep arms developed ulcerative colitis, whereas none in the placebo group did. Only two patients developed candidiasis. One was in the placebo group and had a skin infection, and the other was an oral infection in the QW izokibep arm.

There were no cases of uveitis, suicidal ideation, or deaths reported.
 

Comments on the Study

During the discussion that followed the presentation, Walter P. Maksymowych, MBChB, of the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, addressed the dosing regimens used.

“Looking at the side effect profile and then looking at the response rate, comparing the weekly dosing and every 2 weeks, do you think, in hindsight, you might be remiss that there wasn’t an additional dosing on a monthly basis, especially since this is a construct that is meant to prolong the half-life of the molecule?” he asked, adding that perhaps this should be something to consider in future studies.

Mease responded that there had been a fourth dosing arm in the trial — izokibep 80 mg once a month — but because there were only eight patients, the data were not sufficiently robust to analyze. 

Commenting on the study, Laura C. Coates, MBChB, PhD, said: “It’s a pretty standard phase 2b/3 study,” and the outcomes were not wildly different from what has been seen with other IL-17A inhibitors.

“In phase 2, the enthesitis data looked really good; in phase 3, the enthesitis data looks the same as for any other IL-17 inhibitor,” Dr. Coates said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite an expanding arsenal of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), many patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) still struggle to reach remission even after trying multiple advanced treatments.

Now, international groups of experts are working to better define these “difficult-to-treat” patients to both inform care and improve selection of participants for future clinical trials.

“The idea is rather simple, and the need is relatively ubiquitous,” Denis Poddubnyy, MD, of the Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin and the German Rheumatism Research Center Berlin, both in Berlin, Germany, said in an interview. He is the co-primary investigator for the ongoing Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) project to develop a consensus definition of difficult-to-treat axSpA.

According to ASAS, only 40%-50% of patients with axSpA achieve a 40% improvement in ASAS response criteria (ASAS40), and few (10%-20%) achieve remission in the first 4-6 months of treatment.

Multiple Reasons for Nonresponse

“While the term difficult-to-treat can refer to refractory disease, that is not the only reason why a patient might not be responding to medication. In fact, it’s likely that truly biologically refractory disease makes up only a fraction of cases that respond inadequately to treatment,” said Shikha Singla, MD, who directs the psoriatic arthritis program at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. She is also involved with the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) initiative to define Difficult-to-Treat and Complex-to-Manage PsA.

Medical College of Wisconsin

“Apart from the persistent articular and periarticular inflammation, there could be multiple noninflammatory factors that may be contributing to this treatment-resistant disease, including comorbid conditions such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, fibromyalgia, and even social factors such as limited access to medications,” she told this news organization. “Given these complexities, it is a matter of supreme importance to recognize and carefully delineate the elements that contribute to treatment refractory disease: Is it truly the inflammation, or are there noninflammatory components that are causing the treatment failure, or a combination of the two?”

Other contributing factors could be depression, hypersensitization, and comorbidities that prevent certain treatment approaches, added Fabian Proft, MD, also of Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin. Dr. Proft discussed these difficult-to-treat definition efforts at the recent Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN) annual meeting held in Cleveland. Patients also might not be taking their medication regularly and may be seeking alternative medicine approaches, he said.

Dr. Proft

The Definitions

Terminology for these two groups can vary by professional society. The European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) published a definition for “difficult-to-treat” rheumatoid arthritis (RA) that includes cases with “both inflammatory activity and/or noninflammatory complaints.”

The definition includes three criteria:

1) Treatment according to EULAR recommendation and failure of at least two biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) or targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) (with different mechanisms of action) after failing conventional synthetic DMARD therapy (unless contraindicated)

2) Signs suggestive of active/progressive disease, including at least one of the following:

• Moderate disease activity (according to validated composite measures including joint counts)
• Signs (including acute phase reactants and imaging) and/or symptoms suggestive of active disease, whether joint-related or other
• Inability to taper glucocorticoid treatment
• Rapid radiographic progression (with or without signs of active disease)
• RA symptoms that are causing a reduction in quality of life

3) Symptom/sign management perceived as problematic by the rheumatologist or the patient

All three criteria must be met.

Both GRAPPA and ASAS plan to use the term “difficult-to-treat” or “treatment refractory” to describe true biologically refractory inflammatory disease and are categorizing the larger, heterogeneous group of nonresponders as “difficult-to-manage” (ASAS) or “complex-to-manage” (GRAPPA).

According to Dr. Poddubnyy, the agreed ASAS definition of difficult-to-manage has several similarities with EULAR’s RA definition, including three pillars:

• Treatment according to existing recommendations and failure of at least two different bDMARDs or tsDMARDs with different mechanisms
• Having signs and symptoms of disease (measured by high disease activity by certain disease activity indexes, persistently elevated C-reactive protein, inflammation on MRI, or rapid radiographic spinal progression)
• Symptoms/signs of disease that are considered problematic by the provider or patient

The definition was approved in January, and the manuscript is in the works, Dr. Poddubnyy said.

The GRAPPA project on PsA is still in its early stages, which so far has included a comprehensive literature review as well as a survey of GRAPPA members across 47 countries. The group is generally in agreement that two separate definitions for nonresponse to treatment are necessary, and that the “difficult-to-treat” definition — which identifies true refractory disease — should include objective signs of inflammation, Dr. Singla said.
 

Looking Forward

The next step of the ASAS project is to “define the pathway” from difficult-to-manage axSpA to treatment refractory disease, Dr. Poddubnyy said.

“What should be ruled out in order to exclude so-called noninflammatory causes of pain?” he continued. “It will require some Delphi exercises and [a] consensus approach.”

Proft anticipates that this treatment refractory definition in both axSpA and PsA will be most useful in research, rather than clinical practice.

“It is really important to have unified definition criteria to shape as homogeneous a cohort as possible,” he said, for future clinical trials in this population.

On the other hand, the complex/difficult-to-manage definition may be more useful for clinical practice, Dr. Proft thought.

“If you see a patient not responding to treatment, the easiest thing you can do would be to change treatment,” like swapping one biologic for another, Dr. Poddubnyy added, “but this would not be the right approach in every patient.” One goal of these initiatives is to give guidance on “what things should be looked after or excluded before you conclude this is biological [nonresponse],” he said.

Dr. Singla consults for AbbVie, Janssen, and UCB and received research funding from Eli Lilly. Dr. Poddubnyy disclosed serving as a speaker, consultant, and/or research grant recipient for multiple companies including AbbVie, Lilly, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and UCB. Dr. Proft reported receiving research grants, consultant fees, or support for attending meetings and/or travel from Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Medscape Medical News, Galapagos, and Hexal. Dr. Proft also participants on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite an expanding arsenal of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), many patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) still struggle to reach remission even after trying multiple advanced treatments.

Now, international groups of experts are working to better define these “difficult-to-treat” patients to both inform care and improve selection of participants for future clinical trials.

“The idea is rather simple, and the need is relatively ubiquitous,” Denis Poddubnyy, MD, of the Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin and the German Rheumatism Research Center Berlin, both in Berlin, Germany, said in an interview. He is the co-primary investigator for the ongoing Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) project to develop a consensus definition of difficult-to-treat axSpA.

According to ASAS, only 40%-50% of patients with axSpA achieve a 40% improvement in ASAS response criteria (ASAS40), and few (10%-20%) achieve remission in the first 4-6 months of treatment.

Multiple Reasons for Nonresponse

“While the term difficult-to-treat can refer to refractory disease, that is not the only reason why a patient might not be responding to medication. In fact, it’s likely that truly biologically refractory disease makes up only a fraction of cases that respond inadequately to treatment,” said Shikha Singla, MD, who directs the psoriatic arthritis program at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. She is also involved with the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) initiative to define Difficult-to-Treat and Complex-to-Manage PsA.

Medical College of Wisconsin

“Apart from the persistent articular and periarticular inflammation, there could be multiple noninflammatory factors that may be contributing to this treatment-resistant disease, including comorbid conditions such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, fibromyalgia, and even social factors such as limited access to medications,” she told this news organization. “Given these complexities, it is a matter of supreme importance to recognize and carefully delineate the elements that contribute to treatment refractory disease: Is it truly the inflammation, or are there noninflammatory components that are causing the treatment failure, or a combination of the two?”

Other contributing factors could be depression, hypersensitization, and comorbidities that prevent certain treatment approaches, added Fabian Proft, MD, also of Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin. Dr. Proft discussed these difficult-to-treat definition efforts at the recent Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN) annual meeting held in Cleveland. Patients also might not be taking their medication regularly and may be seeking alternative medicine approaches, he said.

Dr. Proft

The Definitions

Terminology for these two groups can vary by professional society. The European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) published a definition for “difficult-to-treat” rheumatoid arthritis (RA) that includes cases with “both inflammatory activity and/or noninflammatory complaints.”

The definition includes three criteria:

1) Treatment according to EULAR recommendation and failure of at least two biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) or targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) (with different mechanisms of action) after failing conventional synthetic DMARD therapy (unless contraindicated)

2) Signs suggestive of active/progressive disease, including at least one of the following:

• Moderate disease activity (according to validated composite measures including joint counts)
• Signs (including acute phase reactants and imaging) and/or symptoms suggestive of active disease, whether joint-related or other
• Inability to taper glucocorticoid treatment
• Rapid radiographic progression (with or without signs of active disease)
• RA symptoms that are causing a reduction in quality of life

3) Symptom/sign management perceived as problematic by the rheumatologist or the patient

All three criteria must be met.

Both GRAPPA and ASAS plan to use the term “difficult-to-treat” or “treatment refractory” to describe true biologically refractory inflammatory disease and are categorizing the larger, heterogeneous group of nonresponders as “difficult-to-manage” (ASAS) or “complex-to-manage” (GRAPPA).

According to Dr. Poddubnyy, the agreed ASAS definition of difficult-to-manage has several similarities with EULAR’s RA definition, including three pillars:

• Treatment according to existing recommendations and failure of at least two different bDMARDs or tsDMARDs with different mechanisms
• Having signs and symptoms of disease (measured by high disease activity by certain disease activity indexes, persistently elevated C-reactive protein, inflammation on MRI, or rapid radiographic spinal progression)
• Symptoms/signs of disease that are considered problematic by the provider or patient

The definition was approved in January, and the manuscript is in the works, Dr. Poddubnyy said.

The GRAPPA project on PsA is still in its early stages, which so far has included a comprehensive literature review as well as a survey of GRAPPA members across 47 countries. The group is generally in agreement that two separate definitions for nonresponse to treatment are necessary, and that the “difficult-to-treat” definition — which identifies true refractory disease — should include objective signs of inflammation, Dr. Singla said.
 

Looking Forward

The next step of the ASAS project is to “define the pathway” from difficult-to-manage axSpA to treatment refractory disease, Dr. Poddubnyy said.

“What should be ruled out in order to exclude so-called noninflammatory causes of pain?” he continued. “It will require some Delphi exercises and [a] consensus approach.”

Proft anticipates that this treatment refractory definition in both axSpA and PsA will be most useful in research, rather than clinical practice.

“It is really important to have unified definition criteria to shape as homogeneous a cohort as possible,” he said, for future clinical trials in this population.

On the other hand, the complex/difficult-to-manage definition may be more useful for clinical practice, Dr. Proft thought.

“If you see a patient not responding to treatment, the easiest thing you can do would be to change treatment,” like swapping one biologic for another, Dr. Poddubnyy added, “but this would not be the right approach in every patient.” One goal of these initiatives is to give guidance on “what things should be looked after or excluded before you conclude this is biological [nonresponse],” he said.

Dr. Singla consults for AbbVie, Janssen, and UCB and received research funding from Eli Lilly. Dr. Poddubnyy disclosed serving as a speaker, consultant, and/or research grant recipient for multiple companies including AbbVie, Lilly, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and UCB. Dr. Proft reported receiving research grants, consultant fees, or support for attending meetings and/or travel from Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Medscape Medical News, Galapagos, and Hexal. Dr. Proft also participants on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite an expanding arsenal of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), many patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) still struggle to reach remission even after trying multiple advanced treatments.

Now, international groups of experts are working to better define these “difficult-to-treat” patients to both inform care and improve selection of participants for future clinical trials.

“The idea is rather simple, and the need is relatively ubiquitous,” Denis Poddubnyy, MD, of the Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin and the German Rheumatism Research Center Berlin, both in Berlin, Germany, said in an interview. He is the co-primary investigator for the ongoing Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) project to develop a consensus definition of difficult-to-treat axSpA.

According to ASAS, only 40%-50% of patients with axSpA achieve a 40% improvement in ASAS response criteria (ASAS40), and few (10%-20%) achieve remission in the first 4-6 months of treatment.

Multiple Reasons for Nonresponse

“While the term difficult-to-treat can refer to refractory disease, that is not the only reason why a patient might not be responding to medication. In fact, it’s likely that truly biologically refractory disease makes up only a fraction of cases that respond inadequately to treatment,” said Shikha Singla, MD, who directs the psoriatic arthritis program at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. She is also involved with the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) initiative to define Difficult-to-Treat and Complex-to-Manage PsA.

Medical College of Wisconsin

“Apart from the persistent articular and periarticular inflammation, there could be multiple noninflammatory factors that may be contributing to this treatment-resistant disease, including comorbid conditions such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, fibromyalgia, and even social factors such as limited access to medications,” she told this news organization. “Given these complexities, it is a matter of supreme importance to recognize and carefully delineate the elements that contribute to treatment refractory disease: Is it truly the inflammation, or are there noninflammatory components that are causing the treatment failure, or a combination of the two?”

Other contributing factors could be depression, hypersensitization, and comorbidities that prevent certain treatment approaches, added Fabian Proft, MD, also of Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin. Dr. Proft discussed these difficult-to-treat definition efforts at the recent Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN) annual meeting held in Cleveland. Patients also might not be taking their medication regularly and may be seeking alternative medicine approaches, he said.

Dr. Proft

The Definitions

Terminology for these two groups can vary by professional society. The European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) published a definition for “difficult-to-treat” rheumatoid arthritis (RA) that includes cases with “both inflammatory activity and/or noninflammatory complaints.”

The definition includes three criteria:

1) Treatment according to EULAR recommendation and failure of at least two biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) or targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) (with different mechanisms of action) after failing conventional synthetic DMARD therapy (unless contraindicated)

2) Signs suggestive of active/progressive disease, including at least one of the following:

• Moderate disease activity (according to validated composite measures including joint counts)
• Signs (including acute phase reactants and imaging) and/or symptoms suggestive of active disease, whether joint-related or other
• Inability to taper glucocorticoid treatment
• Rapid radiographic progression (with or without signs of active disease)
• RA symptoms that are causing a reduction in quality of life

3) Symptom/sign management perceived as problematic by the rheumatologist or the patient

All three criteria must be met.

Both GRAPPA and ASAS plan to use the term “difficult-to-treat” or “treatment refractory” to describe true biologically refractory inflammatory disease and are categorizing the larger, heterogeneous group of nonresponders as “difficult-to-manage” (ASAS) or “complex-to-manage” (GRAPPA).

According to Dr. Poddubnyy, the agreed ASAS definition of difficult-to-manage has several similarities with EULAR’s RA definition, including three pillars:

• Treatment according to existing recommendations and failure of at least two different bDMARDs or tsDMARDs with different mechanisms
• Having signs and symptoms of disease (measured by high disease activity by certain disease activity indexes, persistently elevated C-reactive protein, inflammation on MRI, or rapid radiographic spinal progression)
• Symptoms/signs of disease that are considered problematic by the provider or patient

The definition was approved in January, and the manuscript is in the works, Dr. Poddubnyy said.

The GRAPPA project on PsA is still in its early stages, which so far has included a comprehensive literature review as well as a survey of GRAPPA members across 47 countries. The group is generally in agreement that two separate definitions for nonresponse to treatment are necessary, and that the “difficult-to-treat” definition — which identifies true refractory disease — should include objective signs of inflammation, Dr. Singla said.
 

Looking Forward

The next step of the ASAS project is to “define the pathway” from difficult-to-manage axSpA to treatment refractory disease, Dr. Poddubnyy said.

“What should be ruled out in order to exclude so-called noninflammatory causes of pain?” he continued. “It will require some Delphi exercises and [a] consensus approach.”

Proft anticipates that this treatment refractory definition in both axSpA and PsA will be most useful in research, rather than clinical practice.

“It is really important to have unified definition criteria to shape as homogeneous a cohort as possible,” he said, for future clinical trials in this population.

On the other hand, the complex/difficult-to-manage definition may be more useful for clinical practice, Dr. Proft thought.

“If you see a patient not responding to treatment, the easiest thing you can do would be to change treatment,” like swapping one biologic for another, Dr. Poddubnyy added, “but this would not be the right approach in every patient.” One goal of these initiatives is to give guidance on “what things should be looked after or excluded before you conclude this is biological [nonresponse],” he said.

Dr. Singla consults for AbbVie, Janssen, and UCB and received research funding from Eli Lilly. Dr. Poddubnyy disclosed serving as a speaker, consultant, and/or research grant recipient for multiple companies including AbbVie, Lilly, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and UCB. Dr. Proft reported receiving research grants, consultant fees, or support for attending meetings and/or travel from Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Medscape Medical News, Galapagos, and Hexal. Dr. Proft also participants on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Key clinical point: The leptin/body mass index (BMI) ratio was higher in women with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) than in men with the disease and was also associated with pain intensity in women.

Major finding: The leptin/BMI ratio was significantly higher in women than in men (median 0.8 vs 0.2; P < .001). Pain intensity was associated with the leptin/BMI ratio in women (β 0.29; P < .004), while there was no significant association in men (P = .46).

Study details: This observational cross-sectional study included 203 patients with PsA aged 18 years or older, of whom 46.8% were women.

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

Source: Toledano E, Gómez-Lechón L, Chacón CC, et al. Clinical features and disease activity in psoriatic arthritis: A sex-related perspective on leptin and comorbidity. J Clin Med. 2024;13(10):2959 (May 17). doi: 10.3390/jcm13102959 Source

Key clinical point: The leptin/body mass index (BMI) ratio was higher in women with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) than in men with the disease and was also associated with pain intensity in women.

Major finding: The leptin/BMI ratio was significantly higher in women than in men (median 0.8 vs 0.2; P < .001). Pain intensity was associated with the leptin/BMI ratio in women (β 0.29; P < .004), while there was no significant association in men (P = .46).

Study details: This observational cross-sectional study included 203 patients with PsA aged 18 years or older, of whom 46.8% were women.

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

Source: Toledano E, Gómez-Lechón L, Chacón CC, et al. Clinical features and disease activity in psoriatic arthritis: A sex-related perspective on leptin and comorbidity. J Clin Med. 2024;13(10):2959 (May 17). doi: 10.3390/jcm13102959 Source

Key clinical point: The leptin/body mass index (BMI) ratio was higher in women with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) than in men with the disease and was also associated with pain intensity in women.

Major finding: The leptin/BMI ratio was significantly higher in women than in men (median 0.8 vs 0.2; P < .001). Pain intensity was associated with the leptin/BMI ratio in women (β 0.29; P < .004), while there was no significant association in men (P = .46).

Study details: This observational cross-sectional study included 203 patients with PsA aged 18 years or older, of whom 46.8% were women.

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

Source: Toledano E, Gómez-Lechón L, Chacón CC, et al. Clinical features and disease activity in psoriatic arthritis: A sex-related perspective on leptin and comorbidity. J Clin Med. 2024;13(10):2959 (May 17). doi: 10.3390/jcm13102959 Source

Key clinical point: A real-world study showed that old age and initial radiographic damage were potential risk factors, while female sex was a protective factor, for radiographic progression in patients with early psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: Female sex (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.48; P = .043) was a protective factor, while old age (IRR 1.10; P = .000) and initial radiographic damage (IRR 1.11; P = .000) were risk factors for development of radiographic progression over time. Initial Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis (IRR 1.05; P = .006) and swollen joint count (IRR 1.07; P = .034) could predict radiographic changes in the subgroup of patients with existing progressive damage.

Study details: This study analyzed data from the Dutch South West Psoriatic Arthritis cohort including 476 patients with early PsA of whom 14% demonstrated progressive radiographic damage.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by an unrestricted grant from Janssen. The authors did not declare any conflicts of interest.

Source: Koc GH, Kok MR, do Rosario Y, et al. Determinants of radiographic progression in early psoriatic arthritis: Insights from a real-world cohort. RMD Open. 2024; 10(2):e004080 (may 24). doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2024-004080 Source

Key clinical point: A real-world study showed that old age and initial radiographic damage were potential risk factors, while female sex was a protective factor, for radiographic progression in patients with early psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: Female sex (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.48; P = .043) was a protective factor, while old age (IRR 1.10; P = .000) and initial radiographic damage (IRR 1.11; P = .000) were risk factors for development of radiographic progression over time. Initial Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis (IRR 1.05; P = .006) and swollen joint count (IRR 1.07; P = .034) could predict radiographic changes in the subgroup of patients with existing progressive damage.

Study details: This study analyzed data from the Dutch South West Psoriatic Arthritis cohort including 476 patients with early PsA of whom 14% demonstrated progressive radiographic damage.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by an unrestricted grant from Janssen. The authors did not declare any conflicts of interest.

Source: Koc GH, Kok MR, do Rosario Y, et al. Determinants of radiographic progression in early psoriatic arthritis: Insights from a real-world cohort. RMD Open. 2024; 10(2):e004080 (may 24). doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2024-004080 Source

Key clinical point: A real-world study showed that old age and initial radiographic damage were potential risk factors, while female sex was a protective factor, for radiographic progression in patients with early psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: Female sex (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.48; P = .043) was a protective factor, while old age (IRR 1.10; P = .000) and initial radiographic damage (IRR 1.11; P = .000) were risk factors for development of radiographic progression over time. Initial Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis (IRR 1.05; P = .006) and swollen joint count (IRR 1.07; P = .034) could predict radiographic changes in the subgroup of patients with existing progressive damage.

Study details: This study analyzed data from the Dutch South West Psoriatic Arthritis cohort including 476 patients with early PsA of whom 14% demonstrated progressive radiographic damage.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by an unrestricted grant from Janssen. The authors did not declare any conflicts of interest.

Source: Koc GH, Kok MR, do Rosario Y, et al. Determinants of radiographic progression in early psoriatic arthritis: Insights from a real-world cohort. RMD Open. 2024; 10(2):e004080 (may 24). doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2024-004080 Source

Key clinical point: Fibromyalgia and widespread pain were prevalent and associated with elevated disease activity in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: Fibromyalgia and widespread pain were present in 11.1% and 20.6% of patients, respectively. The scores for Clinical Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis were elevated in patients with vs without fibromyalgia (mean difference [Δ] 13.02; 95% CI 10.42-15.63) and in those with vs without widespread pain (Δ 11.94; 95% CI 9.96-13.92). Fibromyalgia was more prevalent in women (P < .001), patients with increased BMI (P = .002), patients diagnosed with spondyloarthritis (P = .005), and patients with a history of cardiovascular diseases (P = .004) and diabetes (P = .007).

Study details: This cross-sectional study included 1823 patients with PsA (age ≥ 18 years) from the CorEvitas US registry.

Disclosures: This study was funded and supported by the Corrona Research Foundation. The data is licensed to the Corrona Research Foundation by CorEvitas, LLC. All authors declared receiving consulting fees or grants from CorEvitas, LLC; Corrona Research Foundation; and other sources.

Source: Mease P, Reed G, Ogdie A, et al. Prevalence of fibromyalgia and widespread pain in psoriatic arthritis: Association with disease severity assessment in a large US registry. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2024 (May 12). doi: 10.1002/acr.25358 Source

Key clinical point: Fibromyalgia and widespread pain were prevalent and associated with elevated disease activity in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: Fibromyalgia and widespread pain were present in 11.1% and 20.6% of patients, respectively. The scores for Clinical Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis were elevated in patients with vs without fibromyalgia (mean difference [Δ] 13.02; 95% CI 10.42-15.63) and in those with vs without widespread pain (Δ 11.94; 95% CI 9.96-13.92). Fibromyalgia was more prevalent in women (P < .001), patients with increased BMI (P = .002), patients diagnosed with spondyloarthritis (P = .005), and patients with a history of cardiovascular diseases (P = .004) and diabetes (P = .007).

Study details: This cross-sectional study included 1823 patients with PsA (age ≥ 18 years) from the CorEvitas US registry.

Disclosures: This study was funded and supported by the Corrona Research Foundation. The data is licensed to the Corrona Research Foundation by CorEvitas, LLC. All authors declared receiving consulting fees or grants from CorEvitas, LLC; Corrona Research Foundation; and other sources.

Source: Mease P, Reed G, Ogdie A, et al. Prevalence of fibromyalgia and widespread pain in psoriatic arthritis: Association with disease severity assessment in a large US registry. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2024 (May 12). doi: 10.1002/acr.25358 Source

Key clinical point: Fibromyalgia and widespread pain were prevalent and associated with elevated disease activity in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: Fibromyalgia and widespread pain were present in 11.1% and 20.6% of patients, respectively. The scores for Clinical Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis were elevated in patients with vs without fibromyalgia (mean difference [Δ] 13.02; 95% CI 10.42-15.63) and in those with vs without widespread pain (Δ 11.94; 95% CI 9.96-13.92). Fibromyalgia was more prevalent in women (P < .001), patients with increased BMI (P = .002), patients diagnosed with spondyloarthritis (P = .005), and patients with a history of cardiovascular diseases (P = .004) and diabetes (P = .007).

Study details: This cross-sectional study included 1823 patients with PsA (age ≥ 18 years) from the CorEvitas US registry.

Disclosures: This study was funded and supported by the Corrona Research Foundation. The data is licensed to the Corrona Research Foundation by CorEvitas, LLC. All authors declared receiving consulting fees or grants from CorEvitas, LLC; Corrona Research Foundation; and other sources.

Source: Mease P, Reed G, Ogdie A, et al. Prevalence of fibromyalgia and widespread pain in psoriatic arthritis: Association with disease severity assessment in a large US registry. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2024 (May 12). doi: 10.1002/acr.25358 Source

Key clinical point: Aortic stiffness was significantly higher in individuals with vs without psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and a longer disease duration was a predictor of increased aortic stiffness in the PsA population.

Major finding: Aortic stiffness, measured by carotid femoral pulse wave velocity, was significantly higher in patients with PsA than in healthy individuals without systemic inflammatory disease (7.80 vs 6.76 m/s; regression coefficient [β] 0.457; P_adj = .034). Aortic stiffness was positively associated with disease duration (β 0.028; P_adj = .020), red cell distribution width (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.190; P = .020), and systolic blood pressure (Spearman correlation coefficient [ρ] 0.351; P < .001), and inversely associated with glomerular filtration rate (ρ −0.264; P = .001).

Study details: This prospective PSOriatic Arthritis CARDiovascular Disease cohort included 150 patients with PsA and 88 healthy individuals without systemic inflammatory disease.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. One author declared being an editorial board member of Rheumatology and Therapy. Other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Triantafyllias K, Liverakos S, Muthuraman M, et al. Cardiovascular risk evaluation in psoriatic arthritis by aortic stiffness and the Systemic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE): Results of the prospective PSOCARD cohort study. Rheumatol Ther. 2024 (May 31). doi: 10.1007/s40744-024-00676-z Source

Key clinical point: Aortic stiffness was significantly higher in individuals with vs without psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and a longer disease duration was a predictor of increased aortic stiffness in the PsA population.

Major finding: Aortic stiffness, measured by carotid femoral pulse wave velocity, was significantly higher in patients with PsA than in healthy individuals without systemic inflammatory disease (7.80 vs 6.76 m/s; regression coefficient [β] 0.457; P_adj = .034). Aortic stiffness was positively associated with disease duration (β 0.028; P_adj = .020), red cell distribution width (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.190; P = .020), and systolic blood pressure (Spearman correlation coefficient [ρ] 0.351; P < .001), and inversely associated with glomerular filtration rate (ρ −0.264; P = .001).

Study details: This prospective PSOriatic Arthritis CARDiovascular Disease cohort included 150 patients with PsA and 88 healthy individuals without systemic inflammatory disease.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. One author declared being an editorial board member of Rheumatology and Therapy. Other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Triantafyllias K, Liverakos S, Muthuraman M, et al. Cardiovascular risk evaluation in psoriatic arthritis by aortic stiffness and the Systemic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE): Results of the prospective PSOCARD cohort study. Rheumatol Ther. 2024 (May 31). doi: 10.1007/s40744-024-00676-z Source

Key clinical point: Aortic stiffness was significantly higher in individuals with vs without psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and a longer disease duration was a predictor of increased aortic stiffness in the PsA population.

Major finding: Aortic stiffness, measured by carotid femoral pulse wave velocity, was significantly higher in patients with PsA than in healthy individuals without systemic inflammatory disease (7.80 vs 6.76 m/s; regression coefficient [β] 0.457; P_adj = .034). Aortic stiffness was positively associated with disease duration (β 0.028; P_adj = .020), red cell distribution width (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.190; P = .020), and systolic blood pressure (Spearman correlation coefficient [ρ] 0.351; P < .001), and inversely associated with glomerular filtration rate (ρ −0.264; P = .001).

Study details: This prospective PSOriatic Arthritis CARDiovascular Disease cohort included 150 patients with PsA and 88 healthy individuals without systemic inflammatory disease.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. One author declared being an editorial board member of Rheumatology and Therapy. Other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Triantafyllias K, Liverakos S, Muthuraman M, et al. Cardiovascular risk evaluation in psoriatic arthritis by aortic stiffness and the Systemic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE): Results of the prospective PSOCARD cohort study. Rheumatol Ther. 2024 (May 31). doi: 10.1007/s40744-024-00676-z Source

Key clinical point: Treatment with biologics significantly reduced the risk for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) development, including peripheral and axial PsA development, in patients with psoriasis.

Major finding: Patients treated at least once vs never treated with biologics had a significantly lower risk for PsA (8.9% vs 26.1%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.228; P < .001), including for peripheral PsA (aOR 0.182; P < .001) and peripheral PsA with axial involvement (aOR 0.115; P = .039). The protective effect of biologics against PsA persisted irrespective of the class of biologic used.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of a cohort study that included 1023 patients with psoriasis aged 18 years or older, of whom 29.6% received biologics at least once and 21.0% had PsA.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. Four authors declared receiving consulting or speaking fees or having other ties from various sources. Other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Floris A, Mugheddu C, Sichi L, et al. Treatment of psoriasis with different classes of biologics reduces the likelihood of peripheral and axial psoriatic arthritis development. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2024 (May 23). doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keae257 Source

Key clinical point: Treatment with biologics significantly reduced the risk for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) development, including peripheral and axial PsA development, in patients with psoriasis.

Major finding: Patients treated at least once vs never treated with biologics had a significantly lower risk for PsA (8.9% vs 26.1%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.228; P < .001), including for peripheral PsA (aOR 0.182; P < .001) and peripheral PsA with axial involvement (aOR 0.115; P = .039). The protective effect of biologics against PsA persisted irrespective of the class of biologic used.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of a cohort study that included 1023 patients with psoriasis aged 18 years or older, of whom 29.6% received biologics at least once and 21.0% had PsA.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. Four authors declared receiving consulting or speaking fees or having other ties from various sources. Other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Floris A, Mugheddu C, Sichi L, et al. Treatment of psoriasis with different classes of biologics reduces the likelihood of peripheral and axial psoriatic arthritis development. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2024 (May 23). doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keae257 Source

Key clinical point: Treatment with biologics significantly reduced the risk for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) development, including peripheral and axial PsA development, in patients with psoriasis.

Major finding: Patients treated at least once vs never treated with biologics had a significantly lower risk for PsA (8.9% vs 26.1%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.228; P < .001), including for peripheral PsA (aOR 0.182; P < .001) and peripheral PsA with axial involvement (aOR 0.115; P = .039). The protective effect of biologics against PsA persisted irrespective of the class of biologic used.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of a cohort study that included 1023 patients with psoriasis aged 18 years or older, of whom 29.6% received biologics at least once and 21.0% had PsA.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. Four authors declared receiving consulting or speaking fees or having other ties from various sources. Other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Floris A, Mugheddu C, Sichi L, et al. Treatment of psoriasis with different classes of biologics reduces the likelihood of peripheral and axial psoriatic arthritis development. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2024 (May 23). doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keae257 Source