Rheumatology

ATLANTA – Gout is associated with an increased risk of both fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular disease events, according to a large population-based health data linkage study in New Zealand.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

“Overall, the survival was quite good within both cohorts, but ... there is a clear and statistically significant difference in the survival between the people with gout and those without gout,” Ken Cai, MBBS, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, noting that a similarly “significant and clear” difference was seen in nonfatal CVD events between the groups.

Of 968,387 individuals included in the analysis, 34,056 had gout, said Dr. Cai, a rheumatology clinical fellow at the University of Auckland (New Zealand). After adjusting for population-level estimated 5-year CVD risk for cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, or other vascular event, the adjusted hazard ratios were 1.20 for fatal and 1.32 for nonfatal first CVD events in patients with gout. The CVD risk score used in the analysis accounted for age, gender, ethnicity, level of social deprivation, diabetes status, previous hospitalization for atrial fibrillation, and baseline dispensing of blood pressure–lowering, lipid-lowering, and antiplatelet/anticoagulant medications.

“To allow for any other differences between the gout and nongout cohorts with respect to gender, age, ethnicity, and social deprivation, we further adjusted for these factors again, even though they had been accounted for within our CVD risk score,” he said, noting that “gout continued to demonstrate an increased adjusted hazard ratio” for fatal and nonfatal events after that adjustment (HRs, 1.40 and 1.35, respectively)

Additional analysis in the gout patients showed that CVD risk was similarly increased both in those who had been dispensed allopurinol at least once in the prior 5 years and those who had not (adjusted HRs for fatal events, 1.41 and 1.33; and for nonfatal, first CVD events, 1.34 and 1.38, respectively), and “there was no significant difference between these two groups, compared to people without gout,” he said.

Adjustment for serum urate levels in gout patients also showed similarly increased risk for fatal and nonfatal events for those with levels less than 6 mg/dL and those with levels of 6 mg/dL or greater (adjusted HRs of 1.32 and 1.42 for fatal events, and 1.27 and 1.43 for nonfatal first CVD events, respectively).

Again, no significant difference was seen in the risk of events between these two groups and those without gout, Dr. Cai said, noting that patients with no serum urate monitoring also had an increased risk of events (adjusted HR of 1.41 for fatal events and 1.29 for nonfatal, first CVD events).

Gout and hyperuricemia have previously been reported to be independent risk factors for CVD and CVD events, and urate-lowering therapy such as allopurinol have been thought to potentially be associated with reduced risk of CVD, he said, noting that the relationships are of particular concern in New Zealand, where gout affects more than 4% of the adult population.

“Maori, who are the indigenous people of New Zealand, and Pasifika people are disproportionately affected by gout; 8.5% of Maori, and 13.9% of Pasifika adults have gout,” he said, adding that an estimated one-third of Maori and Pasifika adults over age 65 years have gout.

To further assess the relationships between gout and CVD risk, he and his colleagues used validated population-level risk-prediction equations and linked National Health Identifier (NHI) data, he said.

National registries of medicines dispensing data, hospitalization, and death were linked to the Auckland/Northland regional repository of laboratory results from Jan. 1, 2012 to Dec. 31, 2016.

“We included all New Zealand residents aged 20 years or older who were in contact with publicly funded services in 2011 and were alive at the end of December, 2011,” he said, adding that those with a previous hospitalization for CVD or heart failure prior to the end of December 2011 were excluded, as were those with primary residence outside of the region for the prior 3 years and those missing predictor variable data.

Although the findings are limited by an inability to adjust for smoking status, body mass index, and blood pressure – as such data are not collected at the national level, and by the population-based nature of the study, which does not allow determination about causation, they nevertheless reinforce the association between gout and an increased estimated risk of CVD events, Dr. Cai said.

“Even after adjustment for estimated 5-year CVD risk and the additional weighting of risk factors within it, gout independently increased the hazard ratio for fatal and nonfatal events,” he said. “In our study, this effect was not ameliorated by allopurinol use or serum urate lowering to treatment target.”

Similar studies are needed in other populations, he said.

Dr. Cai reported grant support from Arthritis Australia.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Cai K et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 2732.

ATLANTA – Gout is associated with an increased risk of both fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular disease events, according to a large population-based health data linkage study in New Zealand.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

“Overall, the survival was quite good within both cohorts, but ... there is a clear and statistically significant difference in the survival between the people with gout and those without gout,” Ken Cai, MBBS, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, noting that a similarly “significant and clear” difference was seen in nonfatal CVD events between the groups.

Of 968,387 individuals included in the analysis, 34,056 had gout, said Dr. Cai, a rheumatology clinical fellow at the University of Auckland (New Zealand). After adjusting for population-level estimated 5-year CVD risk for cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, or other vascular event, the adjusted hazard ratios were 1.20 for fatal and 1.32 for nonfatal first CVD events in patients with gout. The CVD risk score used in the analysis accounted for age, gender, ethnicity, level of social deprivation, diabetes status, previous hospitalization for atrial fibrillation, and baseline dispensing of blood pressure–lowering, lipid-lowering, and antiplatelet/anticoagulant medications.

“To allow for any other differences between the gout and nongout cohorts with respect to gender, age, ethnicity, and social deprivation, we further adjusted for these factors again, even though they had been accounted for within our CVD risk score,” he said, noting that “gout continued to demonstrate an increased adjusted hazard ratio” for fatal and nonfatal events after that adjustment (HRs, 1.40 and 1.35, respectively)

Additional analysis in the gout patients showed that CVD risk was similarly increased both in those who had been dispensed allopurinol at least once in the prior 5 years and those who had not (adjusted HRs for fatal events, 1.41 and 1.33; and for nonfatal, first CVD events, 1.34 and 1.38, respectively), and “there was no significant difference between these two groups, compared to people without gout,” he said.

Adjustment for serum urate levels in gout patients also showed similarly increased risk for fatal and nonfatal events for those with levels less than 6 mg/dL and those with levels of 6 mg/dL or greater (adjusted HRs of 1.32 and 1.42 for fatal events, and 1.27 and 1.43 for nonfatal first CVD events, respectively).

Again, no significant difference was seen in the risk of events between these two groups and those without gout, Dr. Cai said, noting that patients with no serum urate monitoring also had an increased risk of events (adjusted HR of 1.41 for fatal events and 1.29 for nonfatal, first CVD events).

Gout and hyperuricemia have previously been reported to be independent risk factors for CVD and CVD events, and urate-lowering therapy such as allopurinol have been thought to potentially be associated with reduced risk of CVD, he said, noting that the relationships are of particular concern in New Zealand, where gout affects more than 4% of the adult population.

“Maori, who are the indigenous people of New Zealand, and Pasifika people are disproportionately affected by gout; 8.5% of Maori, and 13.9% of Pasifika adults have gout,” he said, adding that an estimated one-third of Maori and Pasifika adults over age 65 years have gout.

To further assess the relationships between gout and CVD risk, he and his colleagues used validated population-level risk-prediction equations and linked National Health Identifier (NHI) data, he said.

National registries of medicines dispensing data, hospitalization, and death were linked to the Auckland/Northland regional repository of laboratory results from Jan. 1, 2012 to Dec. 31, 2016.

“We included all New Zealand residents aged 20 years or older who were in contact with publicly funded services in 2011 and were alive at the end of December, 2011,” he said, adding that those with a previous hospitalization for CVD or heart failure prior to the end of December 2011 were excluded, as were those with primary residence outside of the region for the prior 3 years and those missing predictor variable data.

Although the findings are limited by an inability to adjust for smoking status, body mass index, and blood pressure – as such data are not collected at the national level, and by the population-based nature of the study, which does not allow determination about causation, they nevertheless reinforce the association between gout and an increased estimated risk of CVD events, Dr. Cai said.

“Even after adjustment for estimated 5-year CVD risk and the additional weighting of risk factors within it, gout independently increased the hazard ratio for fatal and nonfatal events,” he said. “In our study, this effect was not ameliorated by allopurinol use or serum urate lowering to treatment target.”

Similar studies are needed in other populations, he said.

Dr. Cai reported grant support from Arthritis Australia.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Cai K et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 2732.

ATLANTA – Gout is associated with an increased risk of both fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular disease events, according to a large population-based health data linkage study in New Zealand.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

“Overall, the survival was quite good within both cohorts, but ... there is a clear and statistically significant difference in the survival between the people with gout and those without gout,” Ken Cai, MBBS, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, noting that a similarly “significant and clear” difference was seen in nonfatal CVD events between the groups.

Of 968,387 individuals included in the analysis, 34,056 had gout, said Dr. Cai, a rheumatology clinical fellow at the University of Auckland (New Zealand). After adjusting for population-level estimated 5-year CVD risk for cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, or other vascular event, the adjusted hazard ratios were 1.20 for fatal and 1.32 for nonfatal first CVD events in patients with gout. The CVD risk score used in the analysis accounted for age, gender, ethnicity, level of social deprivation, diabetes status, previous hospitalization for atrial fibrillation, and baseline dispensing of blood pressure–lowering, lipid-lowering, and antiplatelet/anticoagulant medications.

“To allow for any other differences between the gout and nongout cohorts with respect to gender, age, ethnicity, and social deprivation, we further adjusted for these factors again, even though they had been accounted for within our CVD risk score,” he said, noting that “gout continued to demonstrate an increased adjusted hazard ratio” for fatal and nonfatal events after that adjustment (HRs, 1.40 and 1.35, respectively)

Additional analysis in the gout patients showed that CVD risk was similarly increased both in those who had been dispensed allopurinol at least once in the prior 5 years and those who had not (adjusted HRs for fatal events, 1.41 and 1.33; and for nonfatal, first CVD events, 1.34 and 1.38, respectively), and “there was no significant difference between these two groups, compared to people without gout,” he said.

Adjustment for serum urate levels in gout patients also showed similarly increased risk for fatal and nonfatal events for those with levels less than 6 mg/dL and those with levels of 6 mg/dL or greater (adjusted HRs of 1.32 and 1.42 for fatal events, and 1.27 and 1.43 for nonfatal first CVD events, respectively).

Again, no significant difference was seen in the risk of events between these two groups and those without gout, Dr. Cai said, noting that patients with no serum urate monitoring also had an increased risk of events (adjusted HR of 1.41 for fatal events and 1.29 for nonfatal, first CVD events).

Gout and hyperuricemia have previously been reported to be independent risk factors for CVD and CVD events, and urate-lowering therapy such as allopurinol have been thought to potentially be associated with reduced risk of CVD, he said, noting that the relationships are of particular concern in New Zealand, where gout affects more than 4% of the adult population.

“Maori, who are the indigenous people of New Zealand, and Pasifika people are disproportionately affected by gout; 8.5% of Maori, and 13.9% of Pasifika adults have gout,” he said, adding that an estimated one-third of Maori and Pasifika adults over age 65 years have gout.

To further assess the relationships between gout and CVD risk, he and his colleagues used validated population-level risk-prediction equations and linked National Health Identifier (NHI) data, he said.

National registries of medicines dispensing data, hospitalization, and death were linked to the Auckland/Northland regional repository of laboratory results from Jan. 1, 2012 to Dec. 31, 2016.

“We included all New Zealand residents aged 20 years or older who were in contact with publicly funded services in 2011 and were alive at the end of December, 2011,” he said, adding that those with a previous hospitalization for CVD or heart failure prior to the end of December 2011 were excluded, as were those with primary residence outside of the region for the prior 3 years and those missing predictor variable data.

Although the findings are limited by an inability to adjust for smoking status, body mass index, and blood pressure – as such data are not collected at the national level, and by the population-based nature of the study, which does not allow determination about causation, they nevertheless reinforce the association between gout and an increased estimated risk of CVD events, Dr. Cai said.

“Even after adjustment for estimated 5-year CVD risk and the additional weighting of risk factors within it, gout independently increased the hazard ratio for fatal and nonfatal events,” he said. “In our study, this effect was not ameliorated by allopurinol use or serum urate lowering to treatment target.”

Similar studies are needed in other populations, he said.

Dr. Cai reported grant support from Arthritis Australia.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Cai K et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 2732.

A major gap in interleukin-17 inhibitor (IL-17i) therapy for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) was evidence of efficacy in nonradiographic axSpA. At ACR 2019, we saw two different IL-17i studies showing efficacy in nr-axSpA patients. Now we know that both secukinumab and ixekizumab are effective in the full spectrum of axSpA patients (ankylosing spondylitis [AS] and nr-axSpA).

The majority of clinicians would consider both AS and nr-axSpA to be driven by common processes and so drugs that are effective on one should have the same effect in the other as well. Hence the results are not a big surprise. In certain places, an approved indication for use may be important especially for reimbursement purposes. These results are likely to have maximal impact there.

The COAST-X study on ixekizumab was designed in a way similar to that of the C-axSpAnd study with certolizumab pegol. There was an extended 52-week placebo arm to study the natural history of nr-axSpA patients who are not actively treated with biologics. This design was necessary to respond to the Food and Drug Administration’s concern that, in the absence of this prolonged observation on placebo, we cannot be sure that nr-axSpA patients are not spontaneously remitting (not due to biologics).

However, the results here did surprise me. Unlike in the C-axSpAnd trial where only 13% of actively treated patients (on certolizumab pegol) switched to open-label treatment, in the COAST-X study 40% of patients on both doses of ixekizumab opted for open-label treatment. The number of patients moving out of the placebo arm was around 60% (similar in both studies). There are no straightforward factors evidently explaining this discrepancy. Between 15% and 25% of patients who switched had achieved the primary endpoint of ASAS40. Does this reflect that ASAS40 is not acceptable to patients? As the results show responses plateaued after week 16, it could be that the patients who switched might have done so well into the 52-week observation period.

Patients in the COAST-X study had slightly longer disease duration and marginally lower HLA-B27 prevalence (both factors may indicate lower chance of treatment response).

The primary endpoint of ASAS40 was met at weeks 16 and 52 with significantly higher rates seen with ixekizumab than with placebo. Again the response seems to plateau around 16 weeks with minimal gain up to week 52.

The results from the secukinumab PREVENT study are very similar to those of the COAST-X study showing the superiority of secukinumab over placebo in treating nr-axSpA patients. Interestingly, if we do not use the loading dose for secukinumab, there does not seem to be any difference from standard treatment with loading. This may have economic and administrative implications on the decision to use loading doses of secukinumab. We should carefully consider the MEASURE 4 trial results before making decisions on the utility of loading doses. In the MEASURE 4 study on AS patients, although there was no difference between load and no load arms of secukinumab (around 60% ASAS20 response in both arms), there was no significant gain above placebo with both doses. (The primary endpoint was not met.) This is likely due to the high placebo response (47% ASAS20 response). Similarly, we see a high placebo response in the COAST-X study as well, with an ASAS40 response rate of about 40% in active secukinumab arms vs. 30% in the placebo arm.

The number of patients dropping out over the 52-week follow-up period was not discussed in the PREVENT trial presentation.

There is not much here to favor one IL-17i over the other.

Dr. Haroon is codirector of the Spondylitis Program at University Health Network and associate professor of medicine and rheumatology at the University of Toronto. He is chair of the scientific committee of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network. He disclosed serving as a consultant for Amgen, AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, and UCB.

A major gap in interleukin-17 inhibitor (IL-17i) therapy for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) was evidence of efficacy in nonradiographic axSpA. At ACR 2019, we saw two different IL-17i studies showing efficacy in nr-axSpA patients. Now we know that both secukinumab and ixekizumab are effective in the full spectrum of axSpA patients (ankylosing spondylitis [AS] and nr-axSpA).

The majority of clinicians would consider both AS and nr-axSpA to be driven by common processes and so drugs that are effective on one should have the same effect in the other as well. Hence the results are not a big surprise. In certain places, an approved indication for use may be important especially for reimbursement purposes. These results are likely to have maximal impact there.

The COAST-X study on ixekizumab was designed in a way similar to that of the C-axSpAnd study with certolizumab pegol. There was an extended 52-week placebo arm to study the natural history of nr-axSpA patients who are not actively treated with biologics. This design was necessary to respond to the Food and Drug Administration’s concern that, in the absence of this prolonged observation on placebo, we cannot be sure that nr-axSpA patients are not spontaneously remitting (not due to biologics).

However, the results here did surprise me. Unlike in the C-axSpAnd trial where only 13% of actively treated patients (on certolizumab pegol) switched to open-label treatment, in the COAST-X study 40% of patients on both doses of ixekizumab opted for open-label treatment. The number of patients moving out of the placebo arm was around 60% (similar in both studies). There are no straightforward factors evidently explaining this discrepancy. Between 15% and 25% of patients who switched had achieved the primary endpoint of ASAS40. Does this reflect that ASAS40 is not acceptable to patients? As the results show responses plateaued after week 16, it could be that the patients who switched might have done so well into the 52-week observation period.

Patients in the COAST-X study had slightly longer disease duration and marginally lower HLA-B27 prevalence (both factors may indicate lower chance of treatment response).

The primary endpoint of ASAS40 was met at weeks 16 and 52 with significantly higher rates seen with ixekizumab than with placebo. Again the response seems to plateau around 16 weeks with minimal gain up to week 52.

The results from the secukinumab PREVENT study are very similar to those of the COAST-X study showing the superiority of secukinumab over placebo in treating nr-axSpA patients. Interestingly, if we do not use the loading dose for secukinumab, there does not seem to be any difference from standard treatment with loading. This may have economic and administrative implications on the decision to use loading doses of secukinumab. We should carefully consider the MEASURE 4 trial results before making decisions on the utility of loading doses. In the MEASURE 4 study on AS patients, although there was no difference between load and no load arms of secukinumab (around 60% ASAS20 response in both arms), there was no significant gain above placebo with both doses. (The primary endpoint was not met.) This is likely due to the high placebo response (47% ASAS20 response). Similarly, we see a high placebo response in the COAST-X study as well, with an ASAS40 response rate of about 40% in active secukinumab arms vs. 30% in the placebo arm.

The number of patients dropping out over the 52-week follow-up period was not discussed in the PREVENT trial presentation.

There is not much here to favor one IL-17i over the other.

Dr. Haroon is codirector of the Spondylitis Program at University Health Network and associate professor of medicine and rheumatology at the University of Toronto. He is chair of the scientific committee of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network. He disclosed serving as a consultant for Amgen, AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, and UCB.

A major gap in interleukin-17 inhibitor (IL-17i) therapy for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) was evidence of efficacy in nonradiographic axSpA. At ACR 2019, we saw two different IL-17i studies showing efficacy in nr-axSpA patients. Now we know that both secukinumab and ixekizumab are effective in the full spectrum of axSpA patients (ankylosing spondylitis [AS] and nr-axSpA).

The majority of clinicians would consider both AS and nr-axSpA to be driven by common processes and so drugs that are effective on one should have the same effect in the other as well. Hence the results are not a big surprise. In certain places, an approved indication for use may be important especially for reimbursement purposes. These results are likely to have maximal impact there.

The COAST-X study on ixekizumab was designed in a way similar to that of the C-axSpAnd study with certolizumab pegol. There was an extended 52-week placebo arm to study the natural history of nr-axSpA patients who are not actively treated with biologics. This design was necessary to respond to the Food and Drug Administration’s concern that, in the absence of this prolonged observation on placebo, we cannot be sure that nr-axSpA patients are not spontaneously remitting (not due to biologics).

However, the results here did surprise me. Unlike in the C-axSpAnd trial where only 13% of actively treated patients (on certolizumab pegol) switched to open-label treatment, in the COAST-X study 40% of patients on both doses of ixekizumab opted for open-label treatment. The number of patients moving out of the placebo arm was around 60% (similar in both studies). There are no straightforward factors evidently explaining this discrepancy. Between 15% and 25% of patients who switched had achieved the primary endpoint of ASAS40. Does this reflect that ASAS40 is not acceptable to patients? As the results show responses plateaued after week 16, it could be that the patients who switched might have done so well into the 52-week observation period.

Patients in the COAST-X study had slightly longer disease duration and marginally lower HLA-B27 prevalence (both factors may indicate lower chance of treatment response).

The primary endpoint of ASAS40 was met at weeks 16 and 52 with significantly higher rates seen with ixekizumab than with placebo. Again the response seems to plateau around 16 weeks with minimal gain up to week 52.

The results from the secukinumab PREVENT study are very similar to those of the COAST-X study showing the superiority of secukinumab over placebo in treating nr-axSpA patients. Interestingly, if we do not use the loading dose for secukinumab, there does not seem to be any difference from standard treatment with loading. This may have economic and administrative implications on the decision to use loading doses of secukinumab. We should carefully consider the MEASURE 4 trial results before making decisions on the utility of loading doses. In the MEASURE 4 study on AS patients, although there was no difference between load and no load arms of secukinumab (around 60% ASAS20 response in both arms), there was no significant gain above placebo with both doses. (The primary endpoint was not met.) This is likely due to the high placebo response (47% ASAS20 response). Similarly, we see a high placebo response in the COAST-X study as well, with an ASAS40 response rate of about 40% in active secukinumab arms vs. 30% in the placebo arm.

The number of patients dropping out over the 52-week follow-up period was not discussed in the PREVENT trial presentation.

There is not much here to favor one IL-17i over the other.

Dr. Haroon is codirector of the Spondylitis Program at University Health Network and associate professor of medicine and rheumatology at the University of Toronto. He is chair of the scientific committee of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network. He disclosed serving as a consultant for Amgen, AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, and UCB.

ATLANTA – Patients with systemic sclerosis aged 44 years and younger in the United States now have mortality comparable to that of the general population in that age group, according to recent results presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Mortality for scleroderma has steadily decreased in younger ages for the last 5 decades,” Ram R. Singh, MD, professor of medicine, pathology, and laboratory medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in his presentation.

Using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Vital Statistics System database, Dr. Singh and colleagues analyzed data of adults with systemic sclerosis (SSc) and identified 46,798 adults who died between 1968 and 2015. They divided the adults with and without SSc into three different age groups: 44 and younger, 45-64, and 65 and older. The researchers performed a joinpoint trend analysis, calculating the annual percent change (APC) and average APC as well as the age-standardized mortality rate (ASMR) in each age group.

In 1968, 466 deaths were attributed to SSc, compared with 1,195 deaths in 2015. Between 1968 and 2015, there was a 19% cumulative percentage increase in SSc-related deaths, compared with a 44% decrease in mortality not attributed to SSc; when the researchers analyzed the ratio of SSc-related ASMR to non-SSc-related ASMR, there was an increase of 112%, Dr. Singh said.

When analyzing the mortality of adults with SSc by age group during 1968-2015 using the CDC’s database, Dr. Singh and colleagues found 5,457 deaths in adults 44 and younger (11.7%), 18,395 deaths in adults aged 45-64 (39.3%), and 22,946 deaths in adults aged 65 and older (49.0%), compared with totals for the general population of 10.3 million deaths in adults aged 44 and younger (9.7%), 20.8 million deaths in adults 45-64 years (19.6%), and 74.8 million deaths in adults aged 65 and older (70.6%).

Over the 48-year period, there were three major trends in SSc-related ASMR, Dr. Singh noted. In the first trend period between 1968 and 1988, there was a 1.0% increase per year (95% confidence interval, 0.6%-1.4%). The second trend period, lasting until 2000, saw a 2.2% increase per year (95% CI, 1.6%-2.7%), while the SSc-related ASMR declined by 2.6% per year in the third trend period from 2001 to 2015 (95% CI, –3.1% to –2.2%).

The percentage of annual deaths for adults with SSc decreased between 1968 and 2015, from 23.4% to 5.7%, and the average APC was greater among adults aged 44 and younger with SSc (–2.2%; 95% CI, –2.4% to –2.0%) than for adults without SSc in the same age group (–1.5%; 95% CI, –1.9% to –1.1%).

There was a cumulative 60% decrease in the ASMR of adults with SSc aged 44 and younger between 1968 and 2015 from an ASMR of 1.0 per million (95% CI, 0.8%-1.2%) to an ASMR of 0.4 per million (0.3-0.5). Adults aged 45-64 years with SSc had a cumulative 20.3% decrease in ASMR over the same time period, with an ASMR of 5.9 per million in 1968 (95% CI, 5.2-6.7) and an ASMR of 4.7 per million in 2015 (95% CI, 4.2-5.2). However, adults aged 65 and older with SSc had a 187% cumulative increase in ASMR, with an ASMR of 5.4 per million in 1968 (95% CI, 4.4-6.5) and an ASMR of 15.5 per million in 2015 (95% CI, 14.3-16.6). Adults with non-SSc-related deaths between 1968 and 2015 had a 50.0% cumulative decrease in ASMR in the group aged 44 and under, a 48.0% cumulative decrease in the 45-year to 64-year-old group, and a 42.1% decrease in the 65-year-old or older group.

The ratio of SSc to non-SSc ASMRs between 1968 and 2015 in the group aged 44 and younger declined 20.0%, whereas there was a 53.1% cumulative increase in the 45- to 64-year-old group and a 395.4% cumulative increase in the 65-year-old and older group. In the oldest group, the APC increased by 3.9% each year for 33 years (95% CI, 3.7%-4.1%) before declining by 1.6% until 2015 (95% CI, –2.0 to –1.3). In contrast, the APC for adults 44 and younger never significantly increased over the 48 years, Dr. Singh noted.

“Increasing scleroderma mortality in older age could be due to improving survival and/or increasing age of onset of scleroderma,” he said.

Dr. Singh reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Yen E et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 825.

ATLANTA – Patients with systemic sclerosis aged 44 years and younger in the United States now have mortality comparable to that of the general population in that age group, according to recent results presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Mortality for scleroderma has steadily decreased in younger ages for the last 5 decades,” Ram R. Singh, MD, professor of medicine, pathology, and laboratory medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in his presentation.

Using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Vital Statistics System database, Dr. Singh and colleagues analyzed data of adults with systemic sclerosis (SSc) and identified 46,798 adults who died between 1968 and 2015. They divided the adults with and without SSc into three different age groups: 44 and younger, 45-64, and 65 and older. The researchers performed a joinpoint trend analysis, calculating the annual percent change (APC) and average APC as well as the age-standardized mortality rate (ASMR) in each age group.

In 1968, 466 deaths were attributed to SSc, compared with 1,195 deaths in 2015. Between 1968 and 2015, there was a 19% cumulative percentage increase in SSc-related deaths, compared with a 44% decrease in mortality not attributed to SSc; when the researchers analyzed the ratio of SSc-related ASMR to non-SSc-related ASMR, there was an increase of 112%, Dr. Singh said.

When analyzing the mortality of adults with SSc by age group during 1968-2015 using the CDC’s database, Dr. Singh and colleagues found 5,457 deaths in adults 44 and younger (11.7%), 18,395 deaths in adults aged 45-64 (39.3%), and 22,946 deaths in adults aged 65 and older (49.0%), compared with totals for the general population of 10.3 million deaths in adults aged 44 and younger (9.7%), 20.8 million deaths in adults 45-64 years (19.6%), and 74.8 million deaths in adults aged 65 and older (70.6%).

Over the 48-year period, there were three major trends in SSc-related ASMR, Dr. Singh noted. In the first trend period between 1968 and 1988, there was a 1.0% increase per year (95% confidence interval, 0.6%-1.4%). The second trend period, lasting until 2000, saw a 2.2% increase per year (95% CI, 1.6%-2.7%), while the SSc-related ASMR declined by 2.6% per year in the third trend period from 2001 to 2015 (95% CI, –3.1% to –2.2%).

The percentage of annual deaths for adults with SSc decreased between 1968 and 2015, from 23.4% to 5.7%, and the average APC was greater among adults aged 44 and younger with SSc (–2.2%; 95% CI, –2.4% to –2.0%) than for adults without SSc in the same age group (–1.5%; 95% CI, –1.9% to –1.1%).

There was a cumulative 60% decrease in the ASMR of adults with SSc aged 44 and younger between 1968 and 2015 from an ASMR of 1.0 per million (95% CI, 0.8%-1.2%) to an ASMR of 0.4 per million (0.3-0.5). Adults aged 45-64 years with SSc had a cumulative 20.3% decrease in ASMR over the same time period, with an ASMR of 5.9 per million in 1968 (95% CI, 5.2-6.7) and an ASMR of 4.7 per million in 2015 (95% CI, 4.2-5.2). However, adults aged 65 and older with SSc had a 187% cumulative increase in ASMR, with an ASMR of 5.4 per million in 1968 (95% CI, 4.4-6.5) and an ASMR of 15.5 per million in 2015 (95% CI, 14.3-16.6). Adults with non-SSc-related deaths between 1968 and 2015 had a 50.0% cumulative decrease in ASMR in the group aged 44 and under, a 48.0% cumulative decrease in the 45-year to 64-year-old group, and a 42.1% decrease in the 65-year-old or older group.

The ratio of SSc to non-SSc ASMRs between 1968 and 2015 in the group aged 44 and younger declined 20.0%, whereas there was a 53.1% cumulative increase in the 45- to 64-year-old group and a 395.4% cumulative increase in the 65-year-old and older group. In the oldest group, the APC increased by 3.9% each year for 33 years (95% CI, 3.7%-4.1%) before declining by 1.6% until 2015 (95% CI, –2.0 to –1.3). In contrast, the APC for adults 44 and younger never significantly increased over the 48 years, Dr. Singh noted.

“Increasing scleroderma mortality in older age could be due to improving survival and/or increasing age of onset of scleroderma,” he said.

Dr. Singh reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Yen E et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 825.

ATLANTA – Patients with systemic sclerosis aged 44 years and younger in the United States now have mortality comparable to that of the general population in that age group, according to recent results presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Mortality for scleroderma has steadily decreased in younger ages for the last 5 decades,” Ram R. Singh, MD, professor of medicine, pathology, and laboratory medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in his presentation.

Using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Vital Statistics System database, Dr. Singh and colleagues analyzed data of adults with systemic sclerosis (SSc) and identified 46,798 adults who died between 1968 and 2015. They divided the adults with and without SSc into three different age groups: 44 and younger, 45-64, and 65 and older. The researchers performed a joinpoint trend analysis, calculating the annual percent change (APC) and average APC as well as the age-standardized mortality rate (ASMR) in each age group.

In 1968, 466 deaths were attributed to SSc, compared with 1,195 deaths in 2015. Between 1968 and 2015, there was a 19% cumulative percentage increase in SSc-related deaths, compared with a 44% decrease in mortality not attributed to SSc; when the researchers analyzed the ratio of SSc-related ASMR to non-SSc-related ASMR, there was an increase of 112%, Dr. Singh said.

When analyzing the mortality of adults with SSc by age group during 1968-2015 using the CDC’s database, Dr. Singh and colleagues found 5,457 deaths in adults 44 and younger (11.7%), 18,395 deaths in adults aged 45-64 (39.3%), and 22,946 deaths in adults aged 65 and older (49.0%), compared with totals for the general population of 10.3 million deaths in adults aged 44 and younger (9.7%), 20.8 million deaths in adults 45-64 years (19.6%), and 74.8 million deaths in adults aged 65 and older (70.6%).

Over the 48-year period, there were three major trends in SSc-related ASMR, Dr. Singh noted. In the first trend period between 1968 and 1988, there was a 1.0% increase per year (95% confidence interval, 0.6%-1.4%). The second trend period, lasting until 2000, saw a 2.2% increase per year (95% CI, 1.6%-2.7%), while the SSc-related ASMR declined by 2.6% per year in the third trend period from 2001 to 2015 (95% CI, –3.1% to –2.2%).

The percentage of annual deaths for adults with SSc decreased between 1968 and 2015, from 23.4% to 5.7%, and the average APC was greater among adults aged 44 and younger with SSc (–2.2%; 95% CI, –2.4% to –2.0%) than for adults without SSc in the same age group (–1.5%; 95% CI, –1.9% to –1.1%).

There was a cumulative 60% decrease in the ASMR of adults with SSc aged 44 and younger between 1968 and 2015 from an ASMR of 1.0 per million (95% CI, 0.8%-1.2%) to an ASMR of 0.4 per million (0.3-0.5). Adults aged 45-64 years with SSc had a cumulative 20.3% decrease in ASMR over the same time period, with an ASMR of 5.9 per million in 1968 (95% CI, 5.2-6.7) and an ASMR of 4.7 per million in 2015 (95% CI, 4.2-5.2). However, adults aged 65 and older with SSc had a 187% cumulative increase in ASMR, with an ASMR of 5.4 per million in 1968 (95% CI, 4.4-6.5) and an ASMR of 15.5 per million in 2015 (95% CI, 14.3-16.6). Adults with non-SSc-related deaths between 1968 and 2015 had a 50.0% cumulative decrease in ASMR in the group aged 44 and under, a 48.0% cumulative decrease in the 45-year to 64-year-old group, and a 42.1% decrease in the 65-year-old or older group.

The ratio of SSc to non-SSc ASMRs between 1968 and 2015 in the group aged 44 and younger declined 20.0%, whereas there was a 53.1% cumulative increase in the 45- to 64-year-old group and a 395.4% cumulative increase in the 65-year-old and older group. In the oldest group, the APC increased by 3.9% each year for 33 years (95% CI, 3.7%-4.1%) before declining by 1.6% until 2015 (95% CI, –2.0 to –1.3). In contrast, the APC for adults 44 and younger never significantly increased over the 48 years, Dr. Singh noted.

“Increasing scleroderma mortality in older age could be due to improving survival and/or increasing age of onset of scleroderma,” he said.

Dr. Singh reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Yen E et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 825.

ATLANTA – Rituximab (Rituxan) is superior to azathioprine (Imuran) for preventing ANCA-associated vasculitis relapses in patients with histories of previous relapses, according to a randomized trial of 170 patients presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Rituximab has been previously shown to be the superior remission maintenance option in the French MAINRITSAN trial (N Engl J Med. 2014 Nov 6;371[19]:1771-80), but mostly in newly diagnosed patients after cyclophosphamide induction. The results expand the finding to those with relapsing disease who previously had remission induced with rituximab, said lead investigator Rona Smith, MD, a clinical lecturer at Cambridge (England) University.

Subjects in the RITAZAREM trial (rituximab versus azathioprine as therapy for maintenance of remission for antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody [ANCA]–associated vasculitis) were enrolled during a relapse of either granulomatosis with polyangiitis or microscopic polyangiitis and underwent remission induction with rituximab 375 mg/m² per week for 4 weeks coupled with prednisone, either 1 or 0.5 mg/kg per day at provider discretion.

After successful induction – defined as a Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score for Wegener’s Granulomatosis of 1 point or less on no more than 10 mg/day prednisone – 85 patients were randomized to rituximab 1 g every 4 months for 20 months and 85 to azathioprine 2 mg/kg per day for 20 months, followed by a taper. Prednisone was tapered per protocol to discontinuation at 20 months.

Eleven rituximab patients (13%) relapsed during the 20-month maintenance phase; two relapses were major. There were 32 relapses (38%) in the azathioprine group, 12 of them (38%) major (hazard ratio for rituximab versus azathioprine, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.15-0.60; P less than .001). ANCA type, glucocorticoid induction regimen, and severity of the enrollment relapse did not affect the outcomes.

Also, “there was an increase in the proportion of patients who became ANCA negative” in the rituximab arm, while “there was really no change” with azathioprine. In short, “rituximab is superior to azathioprine for prevention of disease relapse,” Dr. Smith said.

Her audience had a few questions about the rituximab regimen. The French MAINRITSAN trial dosed rituximab every 6 months instead of every 4, for a cumulative dose of 2.5 g, not 5 g, which an audience member said is the standard approach.

Dr. Smith explained that she and her colleagues have seen relapses with rituximab maintenance at 5 and 6 months, so they wanted to move to a shorter schedule. As for the higher dose, they wanted to “achieve complete B-cell depletion for the duration of the treatment period” to see if it translates into longer lasting remissions. “We will hopefully be able to address that question” with further analysis, she said.

There were no new safety signals; 19 rituximab patients (22%) and 31 azathioprine subjects (36%) had at least one serious adverse event; an infection requiring hospitalization occurred in 7 rituximab patients (8%) and 11 azathioprine patients (13%). Twenty-five (29%) rituximab and 21 (25%) azathioprine subjects developed hypogammaglobulinemia (IgG less than 5 g/L), and about half of each group developed an infection that required antibiotics, but not hospitalization.

There was one death in the azathioprine arm from malignancy, and three in the rituximab group, one from infection and two as of yet unclassified.

The groups were well balanced. Subjects were a median of 59 years old, with a median disease duration of 5.3 years. Refractory patients – those who had not achieved remission during a previous relapse – were excluded, as were patients who had received a B cell–depleting treatment in the previous 6 months and those with eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis or a malignancy in the past 5 years. Among patients in the study, 72% had tested positive for anti–proteinase 3 ANCA, and 28% for myeloperoxidase ANCA.

The work was funded by Versus Arthritis (formerly Arthritis Research UK), the National Institutes of Health, and the makers of rituximab, Roche/Genentech. Dr. Smith reported ties to Roche, Sanofi, and MedImmune.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Smith R et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 806.

ATLANTA – Rituximab (Rituxan) is superior to azathioprine (Imuran) for preventing ANCA-associated vasculitis relapses in patients with histories of previous relapses, according to a randomized trial of 170 patients presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Rituximab has been previously shown to be the superior remission maintenance option in the French MAINRITSAN trial (N Engl J Med. 2014 Nov 6;371[19]:1771-80), but mostly in newly diagnosed patients after cyclophosphamide induction. The results expand the finding to those with relapsing disease who previously had remission induced with rituximab, said lead investigator Rona Smith, MD, a clinical lecturer at Cambridge (England) University.

Subjects in the RITAZAREM trial (rituximab versus azathioprine as therapy for maintenance of remission for antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody [ANCA]–associated vasculitis) were enrolled during a relapse of either granulomatosis with polyangiitis or microscopic polyangiitis and underwent remission induction with rituximab 375 mg/m² per week for 4 weeks coupled with prednisone, either 1 or 0.5 mg/kg per day at provider discretion.

After successful induction – defined as a Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score for Wegener’s Granulomatosis of 1 point or less on no more than 10 mg/day prednisone – 85 patients were randomized to rituximab 1 g every 4 months for 20 months and 85 to azathioprine 2 mg/kg per day for 20 months, followed by a taper. Prednisone was tapered per protocol to discontinuation at 20 months.

Eleven rituximab patients (13%) relapsed during the 20-month maintenance phase; two relapses were major. There were 32 relapses (38%) in the azathioprine group, 12 of them (38%) major (hazard ratio for rituximab versus azathioprine, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.15-0.60; P less than .001). ANCA type, glucocorticoid induction regimen, and severity of the enrollment relapse did not affect the outcomes.

Also, “there was an increase in the proportion of patients who became ANCA negative” in the rituximab arm, while “there was really no change” with azathioprine. In short, “rituximab is superior to azathioprine for prevention of disease relapse,” Dr. Smith said.

Her audience had a few questions about the rituximab regimen. The French MAINRITSAN trial dosed rituximab every 6 months instead of every 4, for a cumulative dose of 2.5 g, not 5 g, which an audience member said is the standard approach.

Dr. Smith explained that she and her colleagues have seen relapses with rituximab maintenance at 5 and 6 months, so they wanted to move to a shorter schedule. As for the higher dose, they wanted to “achieve complete B-cell depletion for the duration of the treatment period” to see if it translates into longer lasting remissions. “We will hopefully be able to address that question” with further analysis, she said.

There were no new safety signals; 19 rituximab patients (22%) and 31 azathioprine subjects (36%) had at least one serious adverse event; an infection requiring hospitalization occurred in 7 rituximab patients (8%) and 11 azathioprine patients (13%). Twenty-five (29%) rituximab and 21 (25%) azathioprine subjects developed hypogammaglobulinemia (IgG less than 5 g/L), and about half of each group developed an infection that required antibiotics, but not hospitalization.

There was one death in the azathioprine arm from malignancy, and three in the rituximab group, one from infection and two as of yet unclassified.

The groups were well balanced. Subjects were a median of 59 years old, with a median disease duration of 5.3 years. Refractory patients – those who had not achieved remission during a previous relapse – were excluded, as were patients who had received a B cell–depleting treatment in the previous 6 months and those with eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis or a malignancy in the past 5 years. Among patients in the study, 72% had tested positive for anti–proteinase 3 ANCA, and 28% for myeloperoxidase ANCA.

The work was funded by Versus Arthritis (formerly Arthritis Research UK), the National Institutes of Health, and the makers of rituximab, Roche/Genentech. Dr. Smith reported ties to Roche, Sanofi, and MedImmune.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Smith R et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 806.

ATLANTA – Rituximab (Rituxan) is superior to azathioprine (Imuran) for preventing ANCA-associated vasculitis relapses in patients with histories of previous relapses, according to a randomized trial of 170 patients presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Rituximab has been previously shown to be the superior remission maintenance option in the French MAINRITSAN trial (N Engl J Med. 2014 Nov 6;371[19]:1771-80), but mostly in newly diagnosed patients after cyclophosphamide induction. The results expand the finding to those with relapsing disease who previously had remission induced with rituximab, said lead investigator Rona Smith, MD, a clinical lecturer at Cambridge (England) University.

Subjects in the RITAZAREM trial (rituximab versus azathioprine as therapy for maintenance of remission for antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody [ANCA]–associated vasculitis) were enrolled during a relapse of either granulomatosis with polyangiitis or microscopic polyangiitis and underwent remission induction with rituximab 375 mg/m² per week for 4 weeks coupled with prednisone, either 1 or 0.5 mg/kg per day at provider discretion.

After successful induction – defined as a Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score for Wegener’s Granulomatosis of 1 point or less on no more than 10 mg/day prednisone – 85 patients were randomized to rituximab 1 g every 4 months for 20 months and 85 to azathioprine 2 mg/kg per day for 20 months, followed by a taper. Prednisone was tapered per protocol to discontinuation at 20 months.

Eleven rituximab patients (13%) relapsed during the 20-month maintenance phase; two relapses were major. There were 32 relapses (38%) in the azathioprine group, 12 of them (38%) major (hazard ratio for rituximab versus azathioprine, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.15-0.60; P less than .001). ANCA type, glucocorticoid induction regimen, and severity of the enrollment relapse did not affect the outcomes.

Also, “there was an increase in the proportion of patients who became ANCA negative” in the rituximab arm, while “there was really no change” with azathioprine. In short, “rituximab is superior to azathioprine for prevention of disease relapse,” Dr. Smith said.

Her audience had a few questions about the rituximab regimen. The French MAINRITSAN trial dosed rituximab every 6 months instead of every 4, for a cumulative dose of 2.5 g, not 5 g, which an audience member said is the standard approach.

Dr. Smith explained that she and her colleagues have seen relapses with rituximab maintenance at 5 and 6 months, so they wanted to move to a shorter schedule. As for the higher dose, they wanted to “achieve complete B-cell depletion for the duration of the treatment period” to see if it translates into longer lasting remissions. “We will hopefully be able to address that question” with further analysis, she said.

There were no new safety signals; 19 rituximab patients (22%) and 31 azathioprine subjects (36%) had at least one serious adverse event; an infection requiring hospitalization occurred in 7 rituximab patients (8%) and 11 azathioprine patients (13%). Twenty-five (29%) rituximab and 21 (25%) azathioprine subjects developed hypogammaglobulinemia (IgG less than 5 g/L), and about half of each group developed an infection that required antibiotics, but not hospitalization.

There was one death in the azathioprine arm from malignancy, and three in the rituximab group, one from infection and two as of yet unclassified.

The groups were well balanced. Subjects were a median of 59 years old, with a median disease duration of 5.3 years. Refractory patients – those who had not achieved remission during a previous relapse – were excluded, as were patients who had received a B cell–depleting treatment in the previous 6 months and those with eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis or a malignancy in the past 5 years. Among patients in the study, 72% had tested positive for anti–proteinase 3 ANCA, and 28% for myeloperoxidase ANCA.

The work was funded by Versus Arthritis (formerly Arthritis Research UK), the National Institutes of Health, and the makers of rituximab, Roche/Genentech. Dr. Smith reported ties to Roche, Sanofi, and MedImmune.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Smith R et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 806.

WASHINGTON – A novel antibody, obinutuzumab, enhances renal responses in patients with lupus nephritis, through more complete B-cell depletion, compared with standard immunotherapy, and is well tolerated, according to results from the phase 2 NOBILITY trial.

“We know from our previous trials with anti–B-cell antibodies that results were mixed and we felt that these variable results were possibly due to variability in B-cell depletion with a type 1 anti-CD20 antibody such as rituximab,” Brad Rovin, MD, director, division of nephrology, Ohio State University in Columbus, told a press briefing here at Kidney Week 2019: American Society of Nephrology annual meeting.

“So we hypothesized that if we could deplete B cells more efficiently and completely, we would achieve better results. At week 52, 35% of patients in the obinutuzumab-treated group achieved a complete renal response, compared to 23% in the standard-of-care arm.”

And by week 76, the difference between obinutuzumab and the standard of care was actually larger at 40% vs. 18%, respectively, “and this was statistically significant at a P value of .01,” added Dr. Rovin, who presented the full findings of the study at the conference.

Obinutuzumab, a highly engineered anti-CD20 antibody, is already approved under the brand name Gazyva for use in certain leukemias and lymphomas. The NOBILITY study was funded by Genentech-Roche, and Dr. Rovin reported being a consultant for the company.

Asked by Medscape Medical News to comment on the study, Duvuru Geetha, MBBS, noted that with standard-of-care mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) plus corticosteroids, “the remissions rates we achieve [for lupus nephritis] are still not great,” ranging from 30% to 50%, depending on the patient population.

“This is why there is a need for alternative agents,” added Dr. Geetha, who is an associate professor of medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

With obinutuzumab, “the data look very promising because there is a much more profound and sustained effect on B-cell depletion and the renal response rate is much higher [than with MMF and corticosteroids],” she noted.

Dr. Geetha added, however, that she presumes patients were all premedicated with prophylactic agents to prevent infectious events, as they are when treated with rituximab.

“I think what is definitely different about this drug is that it induces direct cell death more efficiently than rituximab and that is probably what’s accounting for the higher efficacy seen with it,” said Dr. Geetha, who disclosed having received honoraria from Genentech a number of years ago.

“So yes, I believe the results are clinically meaningful,” she concluded.

NOBILITY study design

The NOBILITY trial randomized 125 patients with Class III or IV lupus nephritis to either obinutuzumab plus MMF and corticosteroids, or to MMF plus corticosteroids alone, for a treatment interval of 104 weeks.

Patients in the obinutuzumab group received two infusions of the highly engineered anti-CD20 antibody at week 0 and week 2 and another two infusions at 6 months.

“The primary endpoint was complete renal response at week 52,” the authors wrote, “while key secondary endpoints included overall renal response and modified complete renal response.”

Both at week 52 and week 76, more patients in the obinutuzumab group achieved an overall renal response as well as a modified complete renal response, compared with those treated with immunosuppression alone.

“If you look at the complete renal response over time, you can see that the curves separate after about 6 months but the placebo group starts to decline as you go further out, whereas the obinutuzumab group continues to separate, so my prediction is that we are going to see this trend continue because of the mechanism of action of obinutuzumab,” Dr. Rovin explained.

Phase 3 trials to start early 2020

All of the serologies relevant to lupus and lupus nephritis “including C3 and C4 improved while antidoubled stranded DNA levels declined, as did the urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, although the decline was more rapid and more profound in the obinutuzumab-treated patients,” Dr. Rovin said.

Importantly as well, despite the profound B-cell depletion produced by obinutuzumab, “the adverse event profile of this drug was very similar to the placebo group,” he stressed.

As expected, rates of infusion reactions were slightly higher in the experimental group than the immunosuppression alone group, but rates of serious adverse events were the same between groups, as were adverse infectious events, he noted.

Investigators have now initiated a global phase 3 trial, scheduled to start in early 2020, to evaluate the same treatment protocol in a larger group of patients.


Kidney Week 2019. Abstract #FR-OR136. Presented Nov. 8, 2019.
 

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON – A novel antibody, obinutuzumab, enhances renal responses in patients with lupus nephritis, through more complete B-cell depletion, compared with standard immunotherapy, and is well tolerated, according to results from the phase 2 NOBILITY trial.

“We know from our previous trials with anti–B-cell antibodies that results were mixed and we felt that these variable results were possibly due to variability in B-cell depletion with a type 1 anti-CD20 antibody such as rituximab,” Brad Rovin, MD, director, division of nephrology, Ohio State University in Columbus, told a press briefing here at Kidney Week 2019: American Society of Nephrology annual meeting.

“So we hypothesized that if we could deplete B cells more efficiently and completely, we would achieve better results. At week 52, 35% of patients in the obinutuzumab-treated group achieved a complete renal response, compared to 23% in the standard-of-care arm.”

And by week 76, the difference between obinutuzumab and the standard of care was actually larger at 40% vs. 18%, respectively, “and this was statistically significant at a P value of .01,” added Dr. Rovin, who presented the full findings of the study at the conference.

Obinutuzumab, a highly engineered anti-CD20 antibody, is already approved under the brand name Gazyva for use in certain leukemias and lymphomas. The NOBILITY study was funded by Genentech-Roche, and Dr. Rovin reported being a consultant for the company.

Asked by Medscape Medical News to comment on the study, Duvuru Geetha, MBBS, noted that with standard-of-care mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) plus corticosteroids, “the remissions rates we achieve [for lupus nephritis] are still not great,” ranging from 30% to 50%, depending on the patient population.

“This is why there is a need for alternative agents,” added Dr. Geetha, who is an associate professor of medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

With obinutuzumab, “the data look very promising because there is a much more profound and sustained effect on B-cell depletion and the renal response rate is much higher [than with MMF and corticosteroids],” she noted.

Dr. Geetha added, however, that she presumes patients were all premedicated with prophylactic agents to prevent infectious events, as they are when treated with rituximab.

“I think what is definitely different about this drug is that it induces direct cell death more efficiently than rituximab and that is probably what’s accounting for the higher efficacy seen with it,” said Dr. Geetha, who disclosed having received honoraria from Genentech a number of years ago.

“So yes, I believe the results are clinically meaningful,” she concluded.

NOBILITY study design

The NOBILITY trial randomized 125 patients with Class III or IV lupus nephritis to either obinutuzumab plus MMF and corticosteroids, or to MMF plus corticosteroids alone, for a treatment interval of 104 weeks.

Patients in the obinutuzumab group received two infusions of the highly engineered anti-CD20 antibody at week 0 and week 2 and another two infusions at 6 months.

“The primary endpoint was complete renal response at week 52,” the authors wrote, “while key secondary endpoints included overall renal response and modified complete renal response.”

Both at week 52 and week 76, more patients in the obinutuzumab group achieved an overall renal response as well as a modified complete renal response, compared with those treated with immunosuppression alone.

“If you look at the complete renal response over time, you can see that the curves separate after about 6 months but the placebo group starts to decline as you go further out, whereas the obinutuzumab group continues to separate, so my prediction is that we are going to see this trend continue because of the mechanism of action of obinutuzumab,” Dr. Rovin explained.

Phase 3 trials to start early 2020

All of the serologies relevant to lupus and lupus nephritis “including C3 and C4 improved while antidoubled stranded DNA levels declined, as did the urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, although the decline was more rapid and more profound in the obinutuzumab-treated patients,” Dr. Rovin said.

Importantly as well, despite the profound B-cell depletion produced by obinutuzumab, “the adverse event profile of this drug was very similar to the placebo group,” he stressed.

As expected, rates of infusion reactions were slightly higher in the experimental group than the immunosuppression alone group, but rates of serious adverse events were the same between groups, as were adverse infectious events, he noted.

Investigators have now initiated a global phase 3 trial, scheduled to start in early 2020, to evaluate the same treatment protocol in a larger group of patients.


Kidney Week 2019. Abstract #FR-OR136. Presented Nov. 8, 2019.
 

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON – A novel antibody, obinutuzumab, enhances renal responses in patients with lupus nephritis, through more complete B-cell depletion, compared with standard immunotherapy, and is well tolerated, according to results from the phase 2 NOBILITY trial.

“We know from our previous trials with anti–B-cell antibodies that results were mixed and we felt that these variable results were possibly due to variability in B-cell depletion with a type 1 anti-CD20 antibody such as rituximab,” Brad Rovin, MD, director, division of nephrology, Ohio State University in Columbus, told a press briefing here at Kidney Week 2019: American Society of Nephrology annual meeting.

“So we hypothesized that if we could deplete B cells more efficiently and completely, we would achieve better results. At week 52, 35% of patients in the obinutuzumab-treated group achieved a complete renal response, compared to 23% in the standard-of-care arm.”

And by week 76, the difference between obinutuzumab and the standard of care was actually larger at 40% vs. 18%, respectively, “and this was statistically significant at a P value of .01,” added Dr. Rovin, who presented the full findings of the study at the conference.

Obinutuzumab, a highly engineered anti-CD20 antibody, is already approved under the brand name Gazyva for use in certain leukemias and lymphomas. The NOBILITY study was funded by Genentech-Roche, and Dr. Rovin reported being a consultant for the company.

Asked by Medscape Medical News to comment on the study, Duvuru Geetha, MBBS, noted that with standard-of-care mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) plus corticosteroids, “the remissions rates we achieve [for lupus nephritis] are still not great,” ranging from 30% to 50%, depending on the patient population.

“This is why there is a need for alternative agents,” added Dr. Geetha, who is an associate professor of medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

With obinutuzumab, “the data look very promising because there is a much more profound and sustained effect on B-cell depletion and the renal response rate is much higher [than with MMF and corticosteroids],” she noted.

Dr. Geetha added, however, that she presumes patients were all premedicated with prophylactic agents to prevent infectious events, as they are when treated with rituximab.

“I think what is definitely different about this drug is that it induces direct cell death more efficiently than rituximab and that is probably what’s accounting for the higher efficacy seen with it,” said Dr. Geetha, who disclosed having received honoraria from Genentech a number of years ago.

“So yes, I believe the results are clinically meaningful,” she concluded.

NOBILITY study design

The NOBILITY trial randomized 125 patients with Class III or IV lupus nephritis to either obinutuzumab plus MMF and corticosteroids, or to MMF plus corticosteroids alone, for a treatment interval of 104 weeks.

Patients in the obinutuzumab group received two infusions of the highly engineered anti-CD20 antibody at week 0 and week 2 and another two infusions at 6 months.

“The primary endpoint was complete renal response at week 52,” the authors wrote, “while key secondary endpoints included overall renal response and modified complete renal response.”

Both at week 52 and week 76, more patients in the obinutuzumab group achieved an overall renal response as well as a modified complete renal response, compared with those treated with immunosuppression alone.

“If you look at the complete renal response over time, you can see that the curves separate after about 6 months but the placebo group starts to decline as you go further out, whereas the obinutuzumab group continues to separate, so my prediction is that we are going to see this trend continue because of the mechanism of action of obinutuzumab,” Dr. Rovin explained.

Phase 3 trials to start early 2020

All of the serologies relevant to lupus and lupus nephritis “including C3 and C4 improved while antidoubled stranded DNA levels declined, as did the urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, although the decline was more rapid and more profound in the obinutuzumab-treated patients,” Dr. Rovin said.

Importantly as well, despite the profound B-cell depletion produced by obinutuzumab, “the adverse event profile of this drug was very similar to the placebo group,” he stressed.

As expected, rates of infusion reactions were slightly higher in the experimental group than the immunosuppression alone group, but rates of serious adverse events were the same between groups, as were adverse infectious events, he noted.

Investigators have now initiated a global phase 3 trial, scheduled to start in early 2020, to evaluate the same treatment protocol in a larger group of patients.


Kidney Week 2019. Abstract #FR-OR136. Presented Nov. 8, 2019.
 

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.

MADRID – Oral apremilast’s beneficial effects on Behçet’s disease oral ulcer disease severity and patient quality of life were sustained through week 64 of the long-term extension phase of the pivotal RELIEF trial, Alfred Mahr, MD, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“We now have strong evidence that apremilast is an effective and safe therapy to treat oral ulcers in patients with Behçet’s syndrome. I think this is a major advance in the field,” declared Dr. Mahr, a rheumatologist at St. Gallen (Switzerland) Cantonal Hospital.

Based largely upon the results of the 12-week, double-blind portion of the phase 3 RELIEF trial, the Food and Drug Administration approved apremilast (Otezla) for the treatment of oral ulcers in patients with Behçet’s disease in the summer of 2019.

The safety profile of the oral phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor was as seen in other studies, including in patients with psoriatic arthritis, an FDA-approved indication for the drug since 2014. The main side effects in the long-term extension of RELIEF were diarrhea and nausea, typically mild or moderate in nature and roughly twice as frequent as in placebo-treated controls in the double-blind study phase.

“At the end of the day, at week 64, only 12% of patients treated with apremilast during the entire 64 weeks discontinued the drug due to a treatment-emergent adverse event, which I believe is a good indicator of the safety of this medication,” the rheumatologist said. “The overall feeling is that the benefit-to-risk ratio is very good and it’s a safe drug to prescribe.”

At the close of the initial 12-week, double-blind phase of RELIEF, 178 of the original 207 participants elected to enter the long-term extension, either staying on apremilast at 30 mg twice a day for an additional 52 weeks or switching to that regimen from placebo.

The focus of the long-term extension was on disease activity and quality of life outcomes. The results in patients who had switched from placebo to apremilast after 12 weeks proved to be reassuringly similar to outcomes in patients on the drug for the full duration. For example, the mean improvement on the patient-reported Behçet’s Syndrome Activity Scale was 18.6 points after 12 weeks of double-blind apremilast, 16.9 points after 64 weeks of continuous apremilast, and 16.8 points with 12 weeks of placebo followed by 52 weeks of active therapy.

After 12 weeks of double-blind apremilast, patients averaged a 3.4-point improvement on the Behçet’s Disease Quality of Life measure. After 64 weeks on the drug, the improvement over baseline was 3.6 points, while in the switch group it was 3.4 points. Similarly, on all three components of the SF-36 quality of life metric, the continuous apremilast group showed maintenance of effect from week 12 to week 64, while the placebo-to-apremilast group caught up. The same was true with regards to the Behçet’s Disease Current Activity Index, which encompasses measures of both the patient’s and clinician’s perception of disease activity.

At the outset of the RELIEF trial, participants averaged four oral ulcers. At week 64, the continuous apremilast group averaged 1.4 and the switch group 0.8, a nonsignificant difference.

Asked if apremilast had a favorable impact upon other manifestations of Behçet’s disease besides the oral ulcers, Dr. Mahr replied, “This is a very good question. People often wonder about it. We do, too. But this trial was not designed to capture less common manifestations of Behçet’s syndrome, such as genital ulcers. There have been some analyses done, but the number of patients who had genital ulcers at 12 weeks were very few. The same was true for eye manifestations. There was sort of a signal that it works, but we can’t prove it in a placebo-controlled trial.”

Dr. Mahr reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to Celgene, the study sponsor.

[email protected]

MADRID – Oral apremilast’s beneficial effects on Behçet’s disease oral ulcer disease severity and patient quality of life were sustained through week 64 of the long-term extension phase of the pivotal RELIEF trial, Alfred Mahr, MD, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“We now have strong evidence that apremilast is an effective and safe therapy to treat oral ulcers in patients with Behçet’s syndrome. I think this is a major advance in the field,” declared Dr. Mahr, a rheumatologist at St. Gallen (Switzerland) Cantonal Hospital.

Based largely upon the results of the 12-week, double-blind portion of the phase 3 RELIEF trial, the Food and Drug Administration approved apremilast (Otezla) for the treatment of oral ulcers in patients with Behçet’s disease in the summer of 2019.

The safety profile of the oral phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor was as seen in other studies, including in patients with psoriatic arthritis, an FDA-approved indication for the drug since 2014. The main side effects in the long-term extension of RELIEF were diarrhea and nausea, typically mild or moderate in nature and roughly twice as frequent as in placebo-treated controls in the double-blind study phase.

“At the end of the day, at week 64, only 12% of patients treated with apremilast during the entire 64 weeks discontinued the drug due to a treatment-emergent adverse event, which I believe is a good indicator of the safety of this medication,” the rheumatologist said. “The overall feeling is that the benefit-to-risk ratio is very good and it’s a safe drug to prescribe.”

At the close of the initial 12-week, double-blind phase of RELIEF, 178 of the original 207 participants elected to enter the long-term extension, either staying on apremilast at 30 mg twice a day for an additional 52 weeks or switching to that regimen from placebo.

The focus of the long-term extension was on disease activity and quality of life outcomes. The results in patients who had switched from placebo to apremilast after 12 weeks proved to be reassuringly similar to outcomes in patients on the drug for the full duration. For example, the mean improvement on the patient-reported Behçet’s Syndrome Activity Scale was 18.6 points after 12 weeks of double-blind apremilast, 16.9 points after 64 weeks of continuous apremilast, and 16.8 points with 12 weeks of placebo followed by 52 weeks of active therapy.

After 12 weeks of double-blind apremilast, patients averaged a 3.4-point improvement on the Behçet’s Disease Quality of Life measure. After 64 weeks on the drug, the improvement over baseline was 3.6 points, while in the switch group it was 3.4 points. Similarly, on all three components of the SF-36 quality of life metric, the continuous apremilast group showed maintenance of effect from week 12 to week 64, while the placebo-to-apremilast group caught up. The same was true with regards to the Behçet’s Disease Current Activity Index, which encompasses measures of both the patient’s and clinician’s perception of disease activity.

At the outset of the RELIEF trial, participants averaged four oral ulcers. At week 64, the continuous apremilast group averaged 1.4 and the switch group 0.8, a nonsignificant difference.

Asked if apremilast had a favorable impact upon other manifestations of Behçet’s disease besides the oral ulcers, Dr. Mahr replied, “This is a very good question. People often wonder about it. We do, too. But this trial was not designed to capture less common manifestations of Behçet’s syndrome, such as genital ulcers. There have been some analyses done, but the number of patients who had genital ulcers at 12 weeks were very few. The same was true for eye manifestations. There was sort of a signal that it works, but we can’t prove it in a placebo-controlled trial.”

Dr. Mahr reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to Celgene, the study sponsor.

[email protected]

MADRID – Oral apremilast’s beneficial effects on Behçet’s disease oral ulcer disease severity and patient quality of life were sustained through week 64 of the long-term extension phase of the pivotal RELIEF trial, Alfred Mahr, MD, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“We now have strong evidence that apremilast is an effective and safe therapy to treat oral ulcers in patients with Behçet’s syndrome. I think this is a major advance in the field,” declared Dr. Mahr, a rheumatologist at St. Gallen (Switzerland) Cantonal Hospital.

Based largely upon the results of the 12-week, double-blind portion of the phase 3 RELIEF trial, the Food and Drug Administration approved apremilast (Otezla) for the treatment of oral ulcers in patients with Behçet’s disease in the summer of 2019.

The safety profile of the oral phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor was as seen in other studies, including in patients with psoriatic arthritis, an FDA-approved indication for the drug since 2014. The main side effects in the long-term extension of RELIEF were diarrhea and nausea, typically mild or moderate in nature and roughly twice as frequent as in placebo-treated controls in the double-blind study phase.

“At the end of the day, at week 64, only 12% of patients treated with apremilast during the entire 64 weeks discontinued the drug due to a treatment-emergent adverse event, which I believe is a good indicator of the safety of this medication,” the rheumatologist said. “The overall feeling is that the benefit-to-risk ratio is very good and it’s a safe drug to prescribe.”

At the close of the initial 12-week, double-blind phase of RELIEF, 178 of the original 207 participants elected to enter the long-term extension, either staying on apremilast at 30 mg twice a day for an additional 52 weeks or switching to that regimen from placebo.

The focus of the long-term extension was on disease activity and quality of life outcomes. The results in patients who had switched from placebo to apremilast after 12 weeks proved to be reassuringly similar to outcomes in patients on the drug for the full duration. For example, the mean improvement on the patient-reported Behçet’s Syndrome Activity Scale was 18.6 points after 12 weeks of double-blind apremilast, 16.9 points after 64 weeks of continuous apremilast, and 16.8 points with 12 weeks of placebo followed by 52 weeks of active therapy.

After 12 weeks of double-blind apremilast, patients averaged a 3.4-point improvement on the Behçet’s Disease Quality of Life measure. After 64 weeks on the drug, the improvement over baseline was 3.6 points, while in the switch group it was 3.4 points. Similarly, on all three components of the SF-36 quality of life metric, the continuous apremilast group showed maintenance of effect from week 12 to week 64, while the placebo-to-apremilast group caught up. The same was true with regards to the Behçet’s Disease Current Activity Index, which encompasses measures of both the patient’s and clinician’s perception of disease activity.

At the outset of the RELIEF trial, participants averaged four oral ulcers. At week 64, the continuous apremilast group averaged 1.4 and the switch group 0.8, a nonsignificant difference.

Asked if apremilast had a favorable impact upon other manifestations of Behçet’s disease besides the oral ulcers, Dr. Mahr replied, “This is a very good question. People often wonder about it. We do, too. But this trial was not designed to capture less common manifestations of Behçet’s syndrome, such as genital ulcers. There have been some analyses done, but the number of patients who had genital ulcers at 12 weeks were very few. The same was true for eye manifestations. There was sort of a signal that it works, but we can’t prove it in a placebo-controlled trial.”

Dr. Mahr reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to Celgene, the study sponsor.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared adalimumab-afzb (Abrilada) as the fifth approved Humira biosimilar and the 25th approved biosimilar drug overall, the agency said in a Nov. 15 announcement.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

According to a press release from Pfizer, approval for Abrilada was based on review of a comprehensive data package demonstrating biosimilarity of the drug to the reference product. This included data from a clinical comparative study, which found no clinically meaningful difference between Abrilada and the reference in terms of efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In addition to RA, Abrilada is indicated for juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, adult Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and plaque psoriasis.

Common adverse events in adalimumab clinical trials included infection, injection-site reactions, headache, and rash.

Pfizer said that it “is working to make Abrilada available to U.S. patients as soon as feasible based on the terms of our agreement with AbbVie [the manufacturer of Humira]. Our current plans are to launch in 2023.”

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared adalimumab-afzb (Abrilada) as the fifth approved Humira biosimilar and the 25th approved biosimilar drug overall, the agency said in a Nov. 15 announcement.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

According to a press release from Pfizer, approval for Abrilada was based on review of a comprehensive data package demonstrating biosimilarity of the drug to the reference product. This included data from a clinical comparative study, which found no clinically meaningful difference between Abrilada and the reference in terms of efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In addition to RA, Abrilada is indicated for juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, adult Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and plaque psoriasis.

Common adverse events in adalimumab clinical trials included infection, injection-site reactions, headache, and rash.

Pfizer said that it “is working to make Abrilada available to U.S. patients as soon as feasible based on the terms of our agreement with AbbVie [the manufacturer of Humira]. Our current plans are to launch in 2023.”

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared adalimumab-afzb (Abrilada) as the fifth approved Humira biosimilar and the 25th approved biosimilar drug overall, the agency said in a Nov. 15 announcement.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

According to a press release from Pfizer, approval for Abrilada was based on review of a comprehensive data package demonstrating biosimilarity of the drug to the reference product. This included data from a clinical comparative study, which found no clinically meaningful difference between Abrilada and the reference in terms of efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In addition to RA, Abrilada is indicated for juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, adult Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and plaque psoriasis.

Common adverse events in adalimumab clinical trials included infection, injection-site reactions, headache, and rash.

Pfizer said that it “is working to make Abrilada available to U.S. patients as soon as feasible based on the terms of our agreement with AbbVie [the manufacturer of Humira]. Our current plans are to launch in 2023.”

[email protected]

ATLANTA – Patients with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis who received secukinumab with or without loading doses showed improvements in physical function, quality of life, inflammation, and other disease signs and symptoms, according to results from a phase 3 study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

For patients with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis in the double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled PREVENT trial, these benefits persisted up to 52 weeks, Atul A. Deodhar, MD, professor of medicine in the division of arthritis and rheumatic diseases at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in his presentation.

“This is the largest study done for a biologic agent in nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis,” Dr. Deodhar said. The trial enrolled 185 patients who received subcutaneous secukinumab (Cosentyx) at a dose of 150 mg, 184 patients who received the medication without a loading dose, and 186 patients who received placebo.

Patients were included if they were aged at least 18 years with 6 months or more of inflammatory back pain, had objective signs of inflammation (sacroiliitis on MRI and/or C-reactive protein [CRP] at 5.0 mg/dL or higher), had active disease and spinal pain according to the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), had total back pain with a visual analog scale of 40 mm or greater, and had not received a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) or had an inadequate response to no more than one TNFi. Patients were also stratified by inflammation measured on MRI and CRP. A little more than half of the patients in each group were women, and at baseline their mean age was 39 years, with a mean symptom duration of more than 8 years and mean Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score of 3.5-3.7.

The primary endpoint was at least 40% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS40) at 16 weeks to meet European Union regulatory requirements and at 52 weeks for the Food and Drug Administration. Escape to open-label secukinumab or standard of care was permitted any time after week 20 for patients deemed to have inadequate response based on clinical judgment of disease activity by the investigator and patient; at 52 weeks, the trial became open label and patients in the placebo group could begin secukinumab or standard of care. The U.S. and European Union analyses were performed independently, with the European analysis including only secukinumab with loading doses and the U.S. analysis including secukinumab without loading.

At 16 weeks, an analysis of the overall population showed that 40.8% of patients in the secukinumab nonloading group had an ASAS40 response, compared with 40.0% in those who got a loading dose and 28.0% with placebo (P less than .05 for both). Among the 90% of patients who were TNFi naive, ASAS40 responses occurred in 42.2% of patients in the nonloading group, 41.5% who received a loading dose, and 29.2% with placebo (P less than .05 for both). ASAS40 response rates persisted at 52 weeks for patients in the nonloading (39.8%), loading (35.4%), and placebo (19.9%) groups (P less than .05).

Over the same time period, the least-square mean changes in total BASDAI score improved from baseline by 2.43 in the nonloading group, 2.35 in the loading group, and 1.46 in the placebo group (P less than .05). The percentage of patients who had 50% or greater improvement in BASDAI was 37% in both treatment groups, compared with 21% with placebo (P less than .05).

Function score as measured by the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index also showed significantly greater improvements at 16 weeks for both loading and nonloading patients versus placebo (–1.75 and ­–1.64 vs. –1.01; P less than .05). Treatment with or without a loading dose led to significant reductions in sacroiliac joint edema on MRI and high-sensitivity CRP. The percentage patients who met ASAS partial remission criteria were significantly higher in the loading (21.6%) and nonloading (21.2%) groups, compared with placebo (7.0%; P less than .05).

Physical function and quality of life assessments at 16 weeks using the 36-item Short Form Health Survey physical component score and the Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life questionnaire showed significant improvements both with and without a loading dose.

There were no new safety concerns with secukinumab that arose in the trial, Dr. Deodhar said.

Dr. Deodhar admitted the placebo effect was high in the PREVENT study, but noted that this was a reoccurring problem in other areas of rheumatology. “The rates are going up in several studies, including in RA, so [in terms of] axial spondyloarthritis and why that happens, we really don’t know.”

When asked about the effect of the loading dose, Dr. Deodhar said that “the load is not really going to take over or have different response by 52 weeks; the load would have a response by 8 weeks or maybe 12 weeks, but then beyond that, I don’t think the load would have any response at all.

“In my clinical experience, speaking outside this trial, load obviously helps the patient quickly to feel better, and so that’s the way I practice my medicine,” he added.

The PREVENT study was sponsored by Novartis, which markets secukinumab. Some of the authors reported relationships with Novartis and many other pharmaceutical companies. Four authors were employees of Novartis.

SOURCE: Deodhar AA et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract L21.

ATLANTA – Patients with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis who received secukinumab with or without loading doses showed improvements in physical function, quality of life, inflammation, and other disease signs and symptoms, according to results from a phase 3 study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

For patients with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis in the double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled PREVENT trial, these benefits persisted up to 52 weeks, Atul A. Deodhar, MD, professor of medicine in the division of arthritis and rheumatic diseases at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in his presentation.

“This is the largest study done for a biologic agent in nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis,” Dr. Deodhar said. The trial enrolled 185 patients who received subcutaneous secukinumab (Cosentyx) at a dose of 150 mg, 184 patients who received the medication without a loading dose, and 186 patients who received placebo.

Patients were included if they were aged at least 18 years with 6 months or more of inflammatory back pain, had objective signs of inflammation (sacroiliitis on MRI and/or C-reactive protein [CRP] at 5.0 mg/dL or higher), had active disease and spinal pain according to the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), had total back pain with a visual analog scale of 40 mm or greater, and had not received a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) or had an inadequate response to no more than one TNFi. Patients were also stratified by inflammation measured on MRI and CRP. A little more than half of the patients in each group were women, and at baseline their mean age was 39 years, with a mean symptom duration of more than 8 years and mean Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score of 3.5-3.7.

The primary endpoint was at least 40% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS40) at 16 weeks to meet European Union regulatory requirements and at 52 weeks for the Food and Drug Administration. Escape to open-label secukinumab or standard of care was permitted any time after week 20 for patients deemed to have inadequate response based on clinical judgment of disease activity by the investigator and patient; at 52 weeks, the trial became open label and patients in the placebo group could begin secukinumab or standard of care. The U.S. and European Union analyses were performed independently, with the European analysis including only secukinumab with loading doses and the U.S. analysis including secukinumab without loading.

At 16 weeks, an analysis of the overall population showed that 40.8% of patients in the secukinumab nonloading group had an ASAS40 response, compared with 40.0% in those who got a loading dose and 28.0% with placebo (P less than .05 for both). Among the 90% of patients who were TNFi naive, ASAS40 responses occurred in 42.2% of patients in the nonloading group, 41.5% who received a loading dose, and 29.2% with placebo (P less than .05 for both). ASAS40 response rates persisted at 52 weeks for patients in the nonloading (39.8%), loading (35.4%), and placebo (19.9%) groups (P less than .05).

Over the same time period, the least-square mean changes in total BASDAI score improved from baseline by 2.43 in the nonloading group, 2.35 in the loading group, and 1.46 in the placebo group (P less than .05). The percentage of patients who had 50% or greater improvement in BASDAI was 37% in both treatment groups, compared with 21% with placebo (P less than .05).

Function score as measured by the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index also showed significantly greater improvements at 16 weeks for both loading and nonloading patients versus placebo (–1.75 and ­–1.64 vs. –1.01; P less than .05). Treatment with or without a loading dose led to significant reductions in sacroiliac joint edema on MRI and high-sensitivity CRP. The percentage patients who met ASAS partial remission criteria were significantly higher in the loading (21.6%) and nonloading (21.2%) groups, compared with placebo (7.0%; P less than .05).

Physical function and quality of life assessments at 16 weeks using the 36-item Short Form Health Survey physical component score and the Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life questionnaire showed significant improvements both with and without a loading dose.

There were no new safety concerns with secukinumab that arose in the trial, Dr. Deodhar said.

Dr. Deodhar admitted the placebo effect was high in the PREVENT study, but noted that this was a reoccurring problem in other areas of rheumatology. “The rates are going up in several studies, including in RA, so [in terms of] axial spondyloarthritis and why that happens, we really don’t know.”

When asked about the effect of the loading dose, Dr. Deodhar said that “the load is not really going to take over or have different response by 52 weeks; the load would have a response by 8 weeks or maybe 12 weeks, but then beyond that, I don’t think the load would have any response at all.

“In my clinical experience, speaking outside this trial, load obviously helps the patient quickly to feel better, and so that’s the way I practice my medicine,” he added.

The PREVENT study was sponsored by Novartis, which markets secukinumab. Some of the authors reported relationships with Novartis and many other pharmaceutical companies. Four authors were employees of Novartis.

SOURCE: Deodhar AA et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract L21.

ATLANTA – Patients with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis who received secukinumab with or without loading doses showed improvements in physical function, quality of life, inflammation, and other disease signs and symptoms, according to results from a phase 3 study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

For patients with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis in the double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled PREVENT trial, these benefits persisted up to 52 weeks, Atul A. Deodhar, MD, professor of medicine in the division of arthritis and rheumatic diseases at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in his presentation.

“This is the largest study done for a biologic agent in nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis,” Dr. Deodhar said. The trial enrolled 185 patients who received subcutaneous secukinumab (Cosentyx) at a dose of 150 mg, 184 patients who received the medication without a loading dose, and 186 patients who received placebo.

Patients were included if they were aged at least 18 years with 6 months or more of inflammatory back pain, had objective signs of inflammation (sacroiliitis on MRI and/or C-reactive protein [CRP] at 5.0 mg/dL or higher), had active disease and spinal pain according to the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), had total back pain with a visual analog scale of 40 mm or greater, and had not received a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) or had an inadequate response to no more than one TNFi. Patients were also stratified by inflammation measured on MRI and CRP. A little more than half of the patients in each group were women, and at baseline their mean age was 39 years, with a mean symptom duration of more than 8 years and mean Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score of 3.5-3.7.

The primary endpoint was at least 40% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS40) at 16 weeks to meet European Union regulatory requirements and at 52 weeks for the Food and Drug Administration. Escape to open-label secukinumab or standard of care was permitted any time after week 20 for patients deemed to have inadequate response based on clinical judgment of disease activity by the investigator and patient; at 52 weeks, the trial became open label and patients in the placebo group could begin secukinumab or standard of care. The U.S. and European Union analyses were performed independently, with the European analysis including only secukinumab with loading doses and the U.S. analysis including secukinumab without loading.

At 16 weeks, an analysis of the overall population showed that 40.8% of patients in the secukinumab nonloading group had an ASAS40 response, compared with 40.0% in those who got a loading dose and 28.0% with placebo (P less than .05 for both). Among the 90% of patients who were TNFi naive, ASAS40 responses occurred in 42.2% of patients in the nonloading group, 41.5% who received a loading dose, and 29.2% with placebo (P less than .05 for both). ASAS40 response rates persisted at 52 weeks for patients in the nonloading (39.8%), loading (35.4%), and placebo (19.9%) groups (P less than .05).

Over the same time period, the least-square mean changes in total BASDAI score improved from baseline by 2.43 in the nonloading group, 2.35 in the loading group, and 1.46 in the placebo group (P less than .05). The percentage of patients who had 50% or greater improvement in BASDAI was 37% in both treatment groups, compared with 21% with placebo (P less than .05).

Function score as measured by the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index also showed significantly greater improvements at 16 weeks for both loading and nonloading patients versus placebo (–1.75 and ­–1.64 vs. –1.01; P less than .05). Treatment with or without a loading dose led to significant reductions in sacroiliac joint edema on MRI and high-sensitivity CRP. The percentage patients who met ASAS partial remission criteria were significantly higher in the loading (21.6%) and nonloading (21.2%) groups, compared with placebo (7.0%; P less than .05).

Physical function and quality of life assessments at 16 weeks using the 36-item Short Form Health Survey physical component score and the Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life questionnaire showed significant improvements both with and without a loading dose.

There were no new safety concerns with secukinumab that arose in the trial, Dr. Deodhar said.

Dr. Deodhar admitted the placebo effect was high in the PREVENT study, but noted that this was a reoccurring problem in other areas of rheumatology. “The rates are going up in several studies, including in RA, so [in terms of] axial spondyloarthritis and why that happens, we really don’t know.”

When asked about the effect of the loading dose, Dr. Deodhar said that “the load is not really going to take over or have different response by 52 weeks; the load would have a response by 8 weeks or maybe 12 weeks, but then beyond that, I don’t think the load would have any response at all.

“In my clinical experience, speaking outside this trial, load obviously helps the patient quickly to feel better, and so that’s the way I practice my medicine,” he added.

The PREVENT study was sponsored by Novartis, which markets secukinumab. Some of the authors reported relationships with Novartis and many other pharmaceutical companies. Four authors were employees of Novartis.

SOURCE: Deodhar AA et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract L21.

ATLANTA – The benefits of tocilizumab for giant cell arteritis (GCA), as demonstrated in the pivotal phase 3 GiACTA trial, proved durable in nearly half of the patients treated weekly during the trial, according to findings from a 2-year long-term extension period.

Of 250 patients treated in the double-blind portion of the trial, 215 entered the extension period (part 2 of the trial), and 197 (92%) completed all 3 years of the trial. A total of 38 of 81 (47%) extension participants in clinical remission (CR) at week 52 after receiving tocilizumab (Actemra) weekly maintained it throughout the extension, and 13 of 36 (36%) treated every other week maintained it, John Stone, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Notably, more of those 51 patients treated with tocilizumab who maintained CR throughout the extension were treatment free at the end of the extension, compared with those originally assigned to the placebo groups (65% vs. 45%), and their median time to first flare after stopping treatment was longer, said Dr. Stone, director of clinical rheumatology at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

For example, times to first flare were 575 and 428 days for the weekly and biweekly tocilizumab dosing groups – which each had 26-week prednisone tapering – but they were only 162 days in a placebo group with 26-week prednisone tapering and 295 days for patients in another placebo group with 52-week prednisone tapering, Dr. Stone explained. Retreatment with tocilizumab restored CR in patients who experienced flares after discontinuing treatment, he added.

Importantly, cumulative glucocorticoid doses over the 3 years were also lower in the tocilizumab groups (2,647 and 3,782 mg/day with weekly and biweekly tocilizumab and 5,248, and 5,323 mg/day in the placebo groups, respectively), Dr. Stone said.

No new safety signals were observed during the extension. Rates of serious adverse events (SAEs) and serious infections per 100 patient-years during the entire 3 years of the study were comparable among those who never received tocilizumab and those who received at least 1 dose (23.2 and 25.4 for SAEs and 4.6 and 3.5 for serious infections).
 

Detailed results of the extension period

GiACTA enrolled patients with GCA and randomized them to receive weekly or biweekly treatment with the interleukin-6 receptor–alpha inhibitor tocilizumab at doses of 162 mg delivered subcutaneously with a 26-week prednisone taper, or to the placebo groups with a 26- or 52-week prednisone taper. The results, reported in 2017, demonstrated the superiority of tocilizumab over placebo for providing sustained glucocorticoid-free remission and ultimately led to approval from Food and Drug Administration of the biologic agent for the treatment of GCA.

The current analysis was carried out to determine long-term safety, to explore maintenance of efficacy after discontinuation, and to “gain insight into the long-term glucocorticoid-sparing effects of tocilizumab,” Dr. Stone said.

He noted that the extension period was not randomized because of the way that patients in the “original four randomized groups had sorted themselves out into very different groups by virtue of their response in part 1 [of the trial],” which made randomization impossible because of the varying categories of patients.

Patients in the extension were also treated at investigators’ discretion to prevent “catastrophic GCA flares, vision loss, and other problems” that could potentially occur with discontinuation of the blinded injections in part 1, he said.

Nevertheless, the analysis “provides some incredibly important information about the management of GCA now,” he said, adding that the dramatic effect of the original randomization was still profound at 3 years “despite the fact that investigators could treat the patients as they wished.”

“Even at 3 years there was still a profound difference in the cumulative glucocorticoid [use], compared to those patients who were randomized to one of the placebo versus prednisone groups,” he explained.

However, the most important question from this study relates to what happened when weekly tocilizumab was stopped: Of the 81 patients in part 2 who were in CR on tocilizumab after part 1 of the study, 59 (73%) were not started on any treatment by their investigator, and of those, 25 (42%) maintained treatment-free remission for 2 full years following discontinuation of tocilizumab, he said.
 

What happened when prednisone was stopped?

In the absence of a direct comparison group (since the extension wasn’t a randomized, controlled part of the trial), the best comparison to that is what happens when prednisone is stopped, he noted.

“And we did that experiment in part 1” of the trial, he said. Overall, 68% of patients in the prednisone/placebo groups flared in 1-year of follow-up, and most of those did so even before they stopped prednisone. In the group that received placebo plus a 52-week prednisone taper, 49% of patients flared and “every single one of those patients flared before they got off prednisone,” he said.

“So in that context, 2 years of treatment-free remission following weekly tocilizumab discontinuation seems very good,” he added.

Of the patients who flared in part 2 of the trial, 11 whose investigator elected to treat them with only tocilizumab reentered remission in a median of 15.8 days, 13 treated with tocilizumab and glucocorticoids reentered remission in a median of 8.5 days (1 didn’t reenter remission at all), and 15 treated with only glucocorticoids reentered remission in a median of 38 days.

“There are a number of biases in these data, but they do point out the fact that some patients can be treated with tocilizumab alone,” Dr. Stone said. “I would be very careful doing that.”

The trial was not powered for the comparison of weekly versus biweekly dosing, he said. However, “multiple lines of investigation and analysis support the idea that weekly tocilizumab is more effective at controlling disease,” he added. But “if you want to be assured that you are doing everything you can to control the disease, weekly tocilizumab would be better than every-other-week tocilizumab,” he said.

GiACTA was funded by Roche. Dr. Stone reported research grants from Roche/Genentech and consulting fees from Chugal, Roche/Genentech, and Xencor.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Stone J et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 808.

ATLANTA – The benefits of tocilizumab for giant cell arteritis (GCA), as demonstrated in the pivotal phase 3 GiACTA trial, proved durable in nearly half of the patients treated weekly during the trial, according to findings from a 2-year long-term extension period.

Of 250 patients treated in the double-blind portion of the trial, 215 entered the extension period (part 2 of the trial), and 197 (92%) completed all 3 years of the trial. A total of 38 of 81 (47%) extension participants in clinical remission (CR) at week 52 after receiving tocilizumab (Actemra) weekly maintained it throughout the extension, and 13 of 36 (36%) treated every other week maintained it, John Stone, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Notably, more of those 51 patients treated with tocilizumab who maintained CR throughout the extension were treatment free at the end of the extension, compared with those originally assigned to the placebo groups (65% vs. 45%), and their median time to first flare after stopping treatment was longer, said Dr. Stone, director of clinical rheumatology at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

For example, times to first flare were 575 and 428 days for the weekly and biweekly tocilizumab dosing groups – which each had 26-week prednisone tapering – but they were only 162 days in a placebo group with 26-week prednisone tapering and 295 days for patients in another placebo group with 52-week prednisone tapering, Dr. Stone explained. Retreatment with tocilizumab restored CR in patients who experienced flares after discontinuing treatment, he added.

Importantly, cumulative glucocorticoid doses over the 3 years were also lower in the tocilizumab groups (2,647 and 3,782 mg/day with weekly and biweekly tocilizumab and 5,248, and 5,323 mg/day in the placebo groups, respectively), Dr. Stone said.

No new safety signals were observed during the extension. Rates of serious adverse events (SAEs) and serious infections per 100 patient-years during the entire 3 years of the study were comparable among those who never received tocilizumab and those who received at least 1 dose (23.2 and 25.4 for SAEs and 4.6 and 3.5 for serious infections).
 

Detailed results of the extension period

GiACTA enrolled patients with GCA and randomized them to receive weekly or biweekly treatment with the interleukin-6 receptor–alpha inhibitor tocilizumab at doses of 162 mg delivered subcutaneously with a 26-week prednisone taper, or to the placebo groups with a 26- or 52-week prednisone taper. The results, reported in 2017, demonstrated the superiority of tocilizumab over placebo for providing sustained glucocorticoid-free remission and ultimately led to approval from Food and Drug Administration of the biologic agent for the treatment of GCA.

The current analysis was carried out to determine long-term safety, to explore maintenance of efficacy after discontinuation, and to “gain insight into the long-term glucocorticoid-sparing effects of tocilizumab,” Dr. Stone said.

He noted that the extension period was not randomized because of the way that patients in the “original four randomized groups had sorted themselves out into very different groups by virtue of their response in part 1 [of the trial],” which made randomization impossible because of the varying categories of patients.

Patients in the extension were also treated at investigators’ discretion to prevent “catastrophic GCA flares, vision loss, and other problems” that could potentially occur with discontinuation of the blinded injections in part 1, he said.

Nevertheless, the analysis “provides some incredibly important information about the management of GCA now,” he said, adding that the dramatic effect of the original randomization was still profound at 3 years “despite the fact that investigators could treat the patients as they wished.”

“Even at 3 years there was still a profound difference in the cumulative glucocorticoid [use], compared to those patients who were randomized to one of the placebo versus prednisone groups,” he explained.

However, the most important question from this study relates to what happened when weekly tocilizumab was stopped: Of the 81 patients in part 2 who were in CR on tocilizumab after part 1 of the study, 59 (73%) were not started on any treatment by their investigator, and of those, 25 (42%) maintained treatment-free remission for 2 full years following discontinuation of tocilizumab, he said.
 

What happened when prednisone was stopped?

In the absence of a direct comparison group (since the extension wasn’t a randomized, controlled part of the trial), the best comparison to that is what happens when prednisone is stopped, he noted.

“And we did that experiment in part 1” of the trial, he said. Overall, 68% of patients in the prednisone/placebo groups flared in 1-year of follow-up, and most of those did so even before they stopped prednisone. In the group that received placebo plus a 52-week prednisone taper, 49% of patients flared and “every single one of those patients flared before they got off prednisone,” he said.

“So in that context, 2 years of treatment-free remission following weekly tocilizumab discontinuation seems very good,” he added.

Of the patients who flared in part 2 of the trial, 11 whose investigator elected to treat them with only tocilizumab reentered remission in a median of 15.8 days, 13 treated with tocilizumab and glucocorticoids reentered remission in a median of 8.5 days (1 didn’t reenter remission at all), and 15 treated with only glucocorticoids reentered remission in a median of 38 days.

“There are a number of biases in these data, but they do point out the fact that some patients can be treated with tocilizumab alone,” Dr. Stone said. “I would be very careful doing that.”

The trial was not powered for the comparison of weekly versus biweekly dosing, he said. However, “multiple lines of investigation and analysis support the idea that weekly tocilizumab is more effective at controlling disease,” he added. But “if you want to be assured that you are doing everything you can to control the disease, weekly tocilizumab would be better than every-other-week tocilizumab,” he said.

GiACTA was funded by Roche. Dr. Stone reported research grants from Roche/Genentech and consulting fees from Chugal, Roche/Genentech, and Xencor.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Stone J et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 808.

ATLANTA – The benefits of tocilizumab for giant cell arteritis (GCA), as demonstrated in the pivotal phase 3 GiACTA trial, proved durable in nearly half of the patients treated weekly during the trial, according to findings from a 2-year long-term extension period.

Of 250 patients treated in the double-blind portion of the trial, 215 entered the extension period (part 2 of the trial), and 197 (92%) completed all 3 years of the trial. A total of 38 of 81 (47%) extension participants in clinical remission (CR) at week 52 after receiving tocilizumab (Actemra) weekly maintained it throughout the extension, and 13 of 36 (36%) treated every other week maintained it, John Stone, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Notably, more of those 51 patients treated with tocilizumab who maintained CR throughout the extension were treatment free at the end of the extension, compared with those originally assigned to the placebo groups (65% vs. 45%), and their median time to first flare after stopping treatment was longer, said Dr. Stone, director of clinical rheumatology at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

For example, times to first flare were 575 and 428 days for the weekly and biweekly tocilizumab dosing groups – which each had 26-week prednisone tapering – but they were only 162 days in a placebo group with 26-week prednisone tapering and 295 days for patients in another placebo group with 52-week prednisone tapering, Dr. Stone explained. Retreatment with tocilizumab restored CR in patients who experienced flares after discontinuing treatment, he added.

Importantly, cumulative glucocorticoid doses over the 3 years were also lower in the tocilizumab groups (2,647 and 3,782 mg/day with weekly and biweekly tocilizumab and 5,248, and 5,323 mg/day in the placebo groups, respectively), Dr. Stone said.

No new safety signals were observed during the extension. Rates of serious adverse events (SAEs) and serious infections per 100 patient-years during the entire 3 years of the study were comparable among those who never received tocilizumab and those who received at least 1 dose (23.2 and 25.4 for SAEs and 4.6 and 3.5 for serious infections).
 

Detailed results of the extension period

GiACTA enrolled patients with GCA and randomized them to receive weekly or biweekly treatment with the interleukin-6 receptor–alpha inhibitor tocilizumab at doses of 162 mg delivered subcutaneously with a 26-week prednisone taper, or to the placebo groups with a 26- or 52-week prednisone taper. The results, reported in 2017, demonstrated the superiority of tocilizumab over placebo for providing sustained glucocorticoid-free remission and ultimately led to approval from Food and Drug Administration of the biologic agent for the treatment of GCA.

The current analysis was carried out to determine long-term safety, to explore maintenance of efficacy after discontinuation, and to “gain insight into the long-term glucocorticoid-sparing effects of tocilizumab,” Dr. Stone said.

He noted that the extension period was not randomized because of the way that patients in the “original four randomized groups had sorted themselves out into very different groups by virtue of their response in part 1 [of the trial],” which made randomization impossible because of the varying categories of patients.

Patients in the extension were also treated at investigators’ discretion to prevent “catastrophic GCA flares, vision loss, and other problems” that could potentially occur with discontinuation of the blinded injections in part 1, he said.

Nevertheless, the analysis “provides some incredibly important information about the management of GCA now,” he said, adding that the dramatic effect of the original randomization was still profound at 3 years “despite the fact that investigators could treat the patients as they wished.”

“Even at 3 years there was still a profound difference in the cumulative glucocorticoid [use], compared to those patients who were randomized to one of the placebo versus prednisone groups,” he explained.

However, the most important question from this study relates to what happened when weekly tocilizumab was stopped: Of the 81 patients in part 2 who were in CR on tocilizumab after part 1 of the study, 59 (73%) were not started on any treatment by their investigator, and of those, 25 (42%) maintained treatment-free remission for 2 full years following discontinuation of tocilizumab, he said.
 

What happened when prednisone was stopped?

In the absence of a direct comparison group (since the extension wasn’t a randomized, controlled part of the trial), the best comparison to that is what happens when prednisone is stopped, he noted.

“And we did that experiment in part 1” of the trial, he said. Overall, 68% of patients in the prednisone/placebo groups flared in 1-year of follow-up, and most of those did so even before they stopped prednisone. In the group that received placebo plus a 52-week prednisone taper, 49% of patients flared and “every single one of those patients flared before they got off prednisone,” he said.

“So in that context, 2 years of treatment-free remission following weekly tocilizumab discontinuation seems very good,” he added.

Of the patients who flared in part 2 of the trial, 11 whose investigator elected to treat them with only tocilizumab reentered remission in a median of 15.8 days, 13 treated with tocilizumab and glucocorticoids reentered remission in a median of 8.5 days (1 didn’t reenter remission at all), and 15 treated with only glucocorticoids reentered remission in a median of 38 days.

“There are a number of biases in these data, but they do point out the fact that some patients can be treated with tocilizumab alone,” Dr. Stone said. “I would be very careful doing that.”

The trial was not powered for the comparison of weekly versus biweekly dosing, he said. However, “multiple lines of investigation and analysis support the idea that weekly tocilizumab is more effective at controlling disease,” he added. But “if you want to be assured that you are doing everything you can to control the disease, weekly tocilizumab would be better than every-other-week tocilizumab,” he said.

GiACTA was funded by Roche. Dr. Stone reported research grants from Roche/Genentech and consulting fees from Chugal, Roche/Genentech, and Xencor.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Stone J et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 808.

ATLANTA – Opportunities to escalate or deescalate medications for patients with rheumatoid arthritis via an electronic health record at the point of care led rheumatologists at the Geisinger Medical Center in Danville, Pa., to increase the number of such decisions in their practice.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

“Opportunities for escalation and de-escalation of therapy are common, even in a well-managed RA population,” Eric D. Newman, MD, director of the department of rheumatology at Geisinger, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. “In our hands, over a third of the time, there was an opportunity to change therapy.”

Dr. Newman and colleagues developed a new treat-to-target tab for their (Patient Centric Electronic Redesign) PACER project, an EHR-adjacent system that captures patient and provider data and presents the information in different views, based on desired action items. The target in the study was low disease activity or remission, which was assessed using Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) scores.

The treat-to-target tab offered three options to rheumatologists in real time when meeting with a patient: an escalation opportunity, which was defined as the patient’s two most recent CDAI scores showing moderate to high disease activity; and a deescalation opportunity, defined as a look-back up to 1 year during which at least two CDAI measures were within low to-moderate disease range. There was also a third “leave-alone” option to neither escalate nor deescalate therapy, but the rheumatologist was prompted to explain why if that option is selected, Dr. Newman noted.

In the first phase of releasing the treat-to-target tab, there was low adoption among the 17 rheumatologists at Geisinger: 82% of rheumatologists did not use the tab for escalation therapy, and 64% did not use the tab for deescalation therapy.

That prompted Dr. Newman and colleagues to develop a new version of the treat-to-target tab for phase 2 of the program. “Once they complete their CDAI, if there’s an opportunity, there would be a bright orange button that would glow right in front of them,” Dr. Newman said. “It was really hard to miss, and all they would have to do is click it and it would bring them right to the treat-to-target tab.”

To increase rheumatologists’ use of the new treat-to-target tab, the amount of time spent using the tab and making decisions is presented to them, he said. “It’s actually now part of our quality measure bundle, so every month, they get a leaderboard to see how they compare with their partners,” he noted. “It’s a great way to drive down variability and get everybody approaching the same sort of mean.”

Overall, between July 2018 and May 2019, there were 1,428 treat-to-target opportunities, consisting of 34.2% of RA office visits. Of these, 11.3% were escalation opportunities and 22.9% were deescalation opportunities, Dr. Newman said.

Between phase 1 and phase 2, the rheumatologists’ nonuse of the treat-to-target tab decreased from 82% to 36% for escalation opportunities, and decisions to escalate therapy increased from 10% to 46%. Similarly, nonuse of the treat-to-target tab for deescalation therapy decreased from 64% to 34%, and decisions to deescalate therapy increased from 5% to 17%.

In 49% of escalation opportunities and 80% of deescalation opportunities in phase 2 of the program, rheumatologists made the decision to leave the patient alone. The reasons for not escalating therapy for a patient included an inaccurate CDAI (34%), patient decision (15%), risks outweighing the benefits (15%), and other (37%). “This is interesting, because if you take 49% times 34%, that means that only 17% of the time they felt it didn’t represent what was going on in our department, which is not what we heard from them verbally before this project,” he said. For deescalation opportunities in which the rheumatologist left the patient alone, the most common reasons were hard-to-control disease (46%), patient preference (29%), and poor prognostic factors (25%).

“Keep in mind, some of these patients may have actually already been deescalated prior to this,” Dr. Newman noted. “We’ve actually done some previous work 3 years ago – we provided a visual signal to our physicians that there was a deescalation opportunity, so we may have already accounted for that portion of the population to some extent.”

Dr. Newman said a future goal of the treat-to-target system is to developed more specific treat-to-target strategies to improve the “signal-to-noise” ratio in the system. “Now [that] it’s fully embedded into our routine RA care delivery across our system, our next steps are going to be to use this tool to proactively drive value-concordant decision making and monitor the effect this has on both disease control as well as cost of care,” he said.

Dr. Newman reported no relevant financial disclosures.
 

SOURCE: Newman ED et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10). Abstract 1862.

ATLANTA – Opportunities to escalate or deescalate medications for patients with rheumatoid arthritis via an electronic health record at the point of care led rheumatologists at the Geisinger Medical Center in Danville, Pa., to increase the number of such decisions in their practice.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

“Opportunities for escalation and de-escalation of therapy are common, even in a well-managed RA population,” Eric D. Newman, MD, director of the department of rheumatology at Geisinger, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. “In our hands, over a third of the time, there was an opportunity to change therapy.”

Dr. Newman and colleagues developed a new treat-to-target tab for their (Patient Centric Electronic Redesign) PACER project, an EHR-adjacent system that captures patient and provider data and presents the information in different views, based on desired action items. The target in the study was low disease activity or remission, which was assessed using Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) scores.

The treat-to-target tab offered three options to rheumatologists in real time when meeting with a patient: an escalation opportunity, which was defined as the patient’s two most recent CDAI scores showing moderate to high disease activity; and a deescalation opportunity, defined as a look-back up to 1 year during which at least two CDAI measures were within low to-moderate disease range. There was also a third “leave-alone” option to neither escalate nor deescalate therapy, but the rheumatologist was prompted to explain why if that option is selected, Dr. Newman noted.

In the first phase of releasing the treat-to-target tab, there was low adoption among the 17 rheumatologists at Geisinger: 82% of rheumatologists did not use the tab for escalation therapy, and 64% did not use the tab for deescalation therapy.

That prompted Dr. Newman and colleagues to develop a new version of the treat-to-target tab for phase 2 of the program. “Once they complete their CDAI, if there’s an opportunity, there would be a bright orange button that would glow right in front of them,” Dr. Newman said. “It was really hard to miss, and all they would have to do is click it and it would bring them right to the treat-to-target tab.”

To increase rheumatologists’ use of the new treat-to-target tab, the amount of time spent using the tab and making decisions is presented to them, he said. “It’s actually now part of our quality measure bundle, so every month, they get a leaderboard to see how they compare with their partners,” he noted. “It’s a great way to drive down variability and get everybody approaching the same sort of mean.”

Overall, between July 2018 and May 2019, there were 1,428 treat-to-target opportunities, consisting of 34.2% of RA office visits. Of these, 11.3% were escalation opportunities and 22.9% were deescalation opportunities, Dr. Newman said.

Between phase 1 and phase 2, the rheumatologists’ nonuse of the treat-to-target tab decreased from 82% to 36% for escalation opportunities, and decisions to escalate therapy increased from 10% to 46%. Similarly, nonuse of the treat-to-target tab for deescalation therapy decreased from 64% to 34%, and decisions to deescalate therapy increased from 5% to 17%.

In 49% of escalation opportunities and 80% of deescalation opportunities in phase 2 of the program, rheumatologists made the decision to leave the patient alone. The reasons for not escalating therapy for a patient included an inaccurate CDAI (34%), patient decision (15%), risks outweighing the benefits (15%), and other (37%). “This is interesting, because if you take 49% times 34%, that means that only 17% of the time they felt it didn’t represent what was going on in our department, which is not what we heard from them verbally before this project,” he said. For deescalation opportunities in which the rheumatologist left the patient alone, the most common reasons were hard-to-control disease (46%), patient preference (29%), and poor prognostic factors (25%).

“Keep in mind, some of these patients may have actually already been deescalated prior to this,” Dr. Newman noted. “We’ve actually done some previous work 3 years ago – we provided a visual signal to our physicians that there was a deescalation opportunity, so we may have already accounted for that portion of the population to some extent.”

Dr. Newman said a future goal of the treat-to-target system is to developed more specific treat-to-target strategies to improve the “signal-to-noise” ratio in the system. “Now [that] it’s fully embedded into our routine RA care delivery across our system, our next steps are going to be to use this tool to proactively drive value-concordant decision making and monitor the effect this has on both disease control as well as cost of care,” he said.

Dr. Newman reported no relevant financial disclosures.
 

SOURCE: Newman ED et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10). Abstract 1862.

ATLANTA – Opportunities to escalate or deescalate medications for patients with rheumatoid arthritis via an electronic health record at the point of care led rheumatologists at the Geisinger Medical Center in Danville, Pa., to increase the number of such decisions in their practice.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

“Opportunities for escalation and de-escalation of therapy are common, even in a well-managed RA population,” Eric D. Newman, MD, director of the department of rheumatology at Geisinger, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. “In our hands, over a third of the time, there was an opportunity to change therapy.”

Dr. Newman and colleagues developed a new treat-to-target tab for their (Patient Centric Electronic Redesign) PACER project, an EHR-adjacent system that captures patient and provider data and presents the information in different views, based on desired action items. The target in the study was low disease activity or remission, which was assessed using Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) scores.

The treat-to-target tab offered three options to rheumatologists in real time when meeting with a patient: an escalation opportunity, which was defined as the patient’s two most recent CDAI scores showing moderate to high disease activity; and a deescalation opportunity, defined as a look-back up to 1 year during which at least two CDAI measures were within low to-moderate disease range. There was also a third “leave-alone” option to neither escalate nor deescalate therapy, but the rheumatologist was prompted to explain why if that option is selected, Dr. Newman noted.

In the first phase of releasing the treat-to-target tab, there was low adoption among the 17 rheumatologists at Geisinger: 82% of rheumatologists did not use the tab for escalation therapy, and 64% did not use the tab for deescalation therapy.

That prompted Dr. Newman and colleagues to develop a new version of the treat-to-target tab for phase 2 of the program. “Once they complete their CDAI, if there’s an opportunity, there would be a bright orange button that would glow right in front of them,” Dr. Newman said. “It was really hard to miss, and all they would have to do is click it and it would bring them right to the treat-to-target tab.”

To increase rheumatologists’ use of the new treat-to-target tab, the amount of time spent using the tab and making decisions is presented to them, he said. “It’s actually now part of our quality measure bundle, so every month, they get a leaderboard to see how they compare with their partners,” he noted. “It’s a great way to drive down variability and get everybody approaching the same sort of mean.”

Overall, between July 2018 and May 2019, there were 1,428 treat-to-target opportunities, consisting of 34.2% of RA office visits. Of these, 11.3% were escalation opportunities and 22.9% were deescalation opportunities, Dr. Newman said.

Between phase 1 and phase 2, the rheumatologists’ nonuse of the treat-to-target tab decreased from 82% to 36% for escalation opportunities, and decisions to escalate therapy increased from 10% to 46%. Similarly, nonuse of the treat-to-target tab for deescalation therapy decreased from 64% to 34%, and decisions to deescalate therapy increased from 5% to 17%.

In 49% of escalation opportunities and 80% of deescalation opportunities in phase 2 of the program, rheumatologists made the decision to leave the patient alone. The reasons for not escalating therapy for a patient included an inaccurate CDAI (34%), patient decision (15%), risks outweighing the benefits (15%), and other (37%). “This is interesting, because if you take 49% times 34%, that means that only 17% of the time they felt it didn’t represent what was going on in our department, which is not what we heard from them verbally before this project,” he said. For deescalation opportunities in which the rheumatologist left the patient alone, the most common reasons were hard-to-control disease (46%), patient preference (29%), and poor prognostic factors (25%).

“Keep in mind, some of these patients may have actually already been deescalated prior to this,” Dr. Newman noted. “We’ve actually done some previous work 3 years ago – we provided a visual signal to our physicians that there was a deescalation opportunity, so we may have already accounted for that portion of the population to some extent.”

Dr. Newman said a future goal of the treat-to-target system is to developed more specific treat-to-target strategies to improve the “signal-to-noise” ratio in the system. “Now [that] it’s fully embedded into our routine RA care delivery across our system, our next steps are going to be to use this tool to proactively drive value-concordant decision making and monitor the effect this has on both disease control as well as cost of care,” he said.

Dr. Newman reported no relevant financial disclosures.
 

SOURCE: Newman ED et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10). Abstract 1862.