Rheumatology

MILAN – Treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus with biologics may enable steroid tapering while ensuring the achievement of remission or low disease activity in more patients with fewer flares and less organ damage, as well as leading to better responses if used early, according to the latest recommendations on the management of SLE from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR).

Dimitrios Boumpas, MD, president of the Athens Medical Society and chair of the European Task force on SLE, presented the recommendations at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. “Although steroids save lives, it is at the expense of excessive collateral damage. They are better for short-term use as a rescue or bridging therapy but may be used in some patients at 5 mg/day of prednisone or less, rather than the previous 7.5 mg/day,” he emphasized.

The 2023 recommendations cover new treatment strategies with more ambitious goals, new data on adverse effects of chronic glucocorticoid use, and newly approved agents and combination therapies.

“Most importantly, we sourced help from experts from all over the world,” said Dr. Boumpas, describing the task force that included 35 rheumatologists, 5 nephrologists, 2 methodologists, 2 patient representatives, and 2 fellows, all brought together from across Europe, North America, Asia, and Australia.

Over 7,000 papers were reviewed, with 437 included in the systematic literature review to inform the updated recommendations.

Session moderator Robert Landewé, MD, PhD, professor of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Amsterdam, said that “the underlying heterogeneity and multisystem involvement of SLE can make it difficult to demonstrate and know which drugs work in the condition. However, these latest recommendations should encourage greater confidence to taper steroids early on and perhaps consider new biologic drugs, so that more patients can achieve better results sooner to prevent flares and organ damage, improve prognosis, and enhance their quality of life.”

Dr. Boumpas provided a summary of the overarching principles that guide the recommendations. These say that SLE requires multidisciplinary individualized management; disease activity should be assessed at each visit; nonpharmacologic interventions such as sun protection, smoking cessation, and following a healthy diet are all important for improving long-term outcomes; pharmacologic interventions are to be directed by patient characteristics, type and severity of organ involvement, treatment-related harms, and patient preferences, among other factors; and early SLE diagnosis is essential to prevent flares and organ damage, improve prognosis, and enhance quality of life.

Referring to each recommendation statement in turn, Dr. Boumpas provided a detailed description of each, and highlighted any changes since the 2019 recommendations.
 

Hydroxychloroquine, glucocorticoids as bridging therapy, and biologics

Referring to statement 1, Dr. Boumpas reported that hydroxychloroquine should be a first-line therapy at a dose of 5 mg/kg, but this dose should be individualized based on risk of flare and retinal toxicity. “There was some discussion about monitoring blood levels, but this was to ensure adherence only,” said Dr. Boumpas.

Continuing to statement 2, he added, “here is one change. With chronic use of glucocorticoids, the maintenance dose is 5 mg/day or less or prednisone equivalent. This pertains to both new onset and relapsing disease.” Previous recommendations advised a maintenance dose of 7.5 mg/day or less.

But he pointed out that “we are discussing using glucocorticoids in lupus as a bridging therapy only, for short, limited periods of time. We should shy away from chronic use of glucocorticoids and only use them for 3 months, and to do this we need to use glucocorticoid-sparing strategies.”

This led to statement 3, which refers to glucocorticoid-sparing strategies. Dr. Boumpas explained that, in patients who are not responding to hydroxychloroquine or unable to reduce glucocorticoids further during chronic use, add immunosuppressive agents, such as methotrexate and/or biologics (for example, belimumab [Benlysta] or anifrolumab [Saphnelo]).

“To allow flexibility for patients and clinicians, it isn’t necessary to use DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] first if you prefer biologics,” he continued. “We are becoming more liberal with the use of biologics because there are new data that confirm the efficacy of belimumab in extrarenal SLE, plus good data with 3-year extension with anifrolumab.”

Statement 4 says that for patients with organ- or life-threatening disease, intravenous cyclophosphamide, “our old friend,” should be considered, while in refractory cases, rituximab may be considered, Dr. Boumpas said. “It’s okay to use cyclophosphamide. It isn’t a sin.”

Statement 5 refers to skin disease, and Dr. Boumpas explained that good data suggested that biologics help, including both belimumab and anifrolumab.

Nothing has changed with statement 6 concerning neuropsychiatric lupus, said Dr. Boumpas. “Glucocorticoids, immunosuppressive, and antithrombotic therapies should be considered.”

Regarding hematologic disease (statement 7), he said, “the new kid on the block is MMF [mycophenolate mofetil]. For acute treatment, still use the same drugs, including rituximab, but for maintenance you may use rituximab, azathioprine, MMF, or cyclosporine.”
 

Lupus nephritis

Turning to what Dr. Boumpas described as the “reason you had all come here, and what you had been waiting for ... what’s changing with lupus nephritis?” he said.

Statement 8 describes initial therapy in active lupus nephritis. Dr. Boumpas said that low-dose, intravenous cyclophosphamide or mycophenolate should be considered, but also that belimumab or a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) should be considered at the start. The changes were based on two successful phase 3 trials of belimumab and voclosporin, with belimumab being associated with a reduced flare rate and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).

“Changes from 2019 include that there is no distinction between classes III/IV and V, which is heretical,” he stressed. Belimumab and CNIs/voclosporin should be considered in all patents as an add-on therapy from the start. “Lupus nephritis has high morbidity, and it’s difficult to predict outcomes at the beginning, but there are clear benefits of add-on therapies. CNIs, although they can be used for all patients, might be more appropriate for membranous or nephrotic-range proteinuria.”

He went on to announce that the “million-dollar question” was whether to use belimumab or voclosporin (or other CNIs), and that this was “a question of gentle, compared with forceful, power and collateral damage.

“For me, voclosporin works very fast, but you worry about side effects, while belimumab is gentle and the response is sustained, preventing flares and organ damage,” he said, adding that “our expert panel discussions showed that nephrologists were more eager to support steroid-free regimens.”

Moving on to statement 9, Dr. Boumpas explained that after initial therapy and renal response, subsequent therapy should continue for at least 3 years. If treated with MMF alone or in combination with belimumab, then these drugs should continue. However, MMF should replace cyclophosphamide if the latter is used initially.

Regarding treat-to-target in lupus nephritis, he said that EULAR now advises to aim for a 25% drop in urine protein/creatinine ratio by 3 months, a 50% drop by 6 months, and a UPCR of less than 0.5-0.7, plus normal eGFR, by 12 months, Dr. Boumpas said.

Statement 10 advises considering high-dose intravenous cyclophosphamide in combination with pulse intravenous methylprednisolone for patients at high risk of renal failure.
 

Tapering drugs in sustained remission, managing antiphospholipid syndrome, giving immunizations

Statement 11 suggests to consider tapering immunosuppressive agents and glucocorticoids in patients achieving sustained remission, starting with glucocorticoids first.

There was no change to statement 12, which recommends that thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome associated with SLE be treated with long-term vitamin K antagonists.

Statement 13 addresses immunizations and adjunct therapies. In addition to conventional immunizations, Dr. Boumpas said that renoprotection should receive attention in case of proteinuria and/or hypertension.

“With [sodium-glucose cotransporter 2] inhibitors, it’s a bit early. They’re promising, and you may consider them, although there are no data for patients with eGFR below 60 mL/min per 1.73 m²,” he remarked, completing his detailed discussion of the updated recommendations.

Dr. Boumpas reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Landewé served as past chair of EULAR’s Quality of Care Committee, which develops recommendations.

MILAN – Treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus with biologics may enable steroid tapering while ensuring the achievement of remission or low disease activity in more patients with fewer flares and less organ damage, as well as leading to better responses if used early, according to the latest recommendations on the management of SLE from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR).

Dimitrios Boumpas, MD, president of the Athens Medical Society and chair of the European Task force on SLE, presented the recommendations at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. “Although steroids save lives, it is at the expense of excessive collateral damage. They are better for short-term use as a rescue or bridging therapy but may be used in some patients at 5 mg/day of prednisone or less, rather than the previous 7.5 mg/day,” he emphasized.

The 2023 recommendations cover new treatment strategies with more ambitious goals, new data on adverse effects of chronic glucocorticoid use, and newly approved agents and combination therapies.

“Most importantly, we sourced help from experts from all over the world,” said Dr. Boumpas, describing the task force that included 35 rheumatologists, 5 nephrologists, 2 methodologists, 2 patient representatives, and 2 fellows, all brought together from across Europe, North America, Asia, and Australia.

Over 7,000 papers were reviewed, with 437 included in the systematic literature review to inform the updated recommendations.

Session moderator Robert Landewé, MD, PhD, professor of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Amsterdam, said that “the underlying heterogeneity and multisystem involvement of SLE can make it difficult to demonstrate and know which drugs work in the condition. However, these latest recommendations should encourage greater confidence to taper steroids early on and perhaps consider new biologic drugs, so that more patients can achieve better results sooner to prevent flares and organ damage, improve prognosis, and enhance their quality of life.”

Dr. Boumpas provided a summary of the overarching principles that guide the recommendations. These say that SLE requires multidisciplinary individualized management; disease activity should be assessed at each visit; nonpharmacologic interventions such as sun protection, smoking cessation, and following a healthy diet are all important for improving long-term outcomes; pharmacologic interventions are to be directed by patient characteristics, type and severity of organ involvement, treatment-related harms, and patient preferences, among other factors; and early SLE diagnosis is essential to prevent flares and organ damage, improve prognosis, and enhance quality of life.

Referring to each recommendation statement in turn, Dr. Boumpas provided a detailed description of each, and highlighted any changes since the 2019 recommendations.
 

Hydroxychloroquine, glucocorticoids as bridging therapy, and biologics

Referring to statement 1, Dr. Boumpas reported that hydroxychloroquine should be a first-line therapy at a dose of 5 mg/kg, but this dose should be individualized based on risk of flare and retinal toxicity. “There was some discussion about monitoring blood levels, but this was to ensure adherence only,” said Dr. Boumpas.

Continuing to statement 2, he added, “here is one change. With chronic use of glucocorticoids, the maintenance dose is 5 mg/day or less or prednisone equivalent. This pertains to both new onset and relapsing disease.” Previous recommendations advised a maintenance dose of 7.5 mg/day or less.

But he pointed out that “we are discussing using glucocorticoids in lupus as a bridging therapy only, for short, limited periods of time. We should shy away from chronic use of glucocorticoids and only use them for 3 months, and to do this we need to use glucocorticoid-sparing strategies.”

This led to statement 3, which refers to glucocorticoid-sparing strategies. Dr. Boumpas explained that, in patients who are not responding to hydroxychloroquine or unable to reduce glucocorticoids further during chronic use, add immunosuppressive agents, such as methotrexate and/or biologics (for example, belimumab [Benlysta] or anifrolumab [Saphnelo]).

“To allow flexibility for patients and clinicians, it isn’t necessary to use DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] first if you prefer biologics,” he continued. “We are becoming more liberal with the use of biologics because there are new data that confirm the efficacy of belimumab in extrarenal SLE, plus good data with 3-year extension with anifrolumab.”

Statement 4 says that for patients with organ- or life-threatening disease, intravenous cyclophosphamide, “our old friend,” should be considered, while in refractory cases, rituximab may be considered, Dr. Boumpas said. “It’s okay to use cyclophosphamide. It isn’t a sin.”

Statement 5 refers to skin disease, and Dr. Boumpas explained that good data suggested that biologics help, including both belimumab and anifrolumab.

Nothing has changed with statement 6 concerning neuropsychiatric lupus, said Dr. Boumpas. “Glucocorticoids, immunosuppressive, and antithrombotic therapies should be considered.”

Regarding hematologic disease (statement 7), he said, “the new kid on the block is MMF [mycophenolate mofetil]. For acute treatment, still use the same drugs, including rituximab, but for maintenance you may use rituximab, azathioprine, MMF, or cyclosporine.”
 

Lupus nephritis

Turning to what Dr. Boumpas described as the “reason you had all come here, and what you had been waiting for ... what’s changing with lupus nephritis?” he said.

Statement 8 describes initial therapy in active lupus nephritis. Dr. Boumpas said that low-dose, intravenous cyclophosphamide or mycophenolate should be considered, but also that belimumab or a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) should be considered at the start. The changes were based on two successful phase 3 trials of belimumab and voclosporin, with belimumab being associated with a reduced flare rate and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).

“Changes from 2019 include that there is no distinction between classes III/IV and V, which is heretical,” he stressed. Belimumab and CNIs/voclosporin should be considered in all patents as an add-on therapy from the start. “Lupus nephritis has high morbidity, and it’s difficult to predict outcomes at the beginning, but there are clear benefits of add-on therapies. CNIs, although they can be used for all patients, might be more appropriate for membranous or nephrotic-range proteinuria.”

He went on to announce that the “million-dollar question” was whether to use belimumab or voclosporin (or other CNIs), and that this was “a question of gentle, compared with forceful, power and collateral damage.

“For me, voclosporin works very fast, but you worry about side effects, while belimumab is gentle and the response is sustained, preventing flares and organ damage,” he said, adding that “our expert panel discussions showed that nephrologists were more eager to support steroid-free regimens.”

Moving on to statement 9, Dr. Boumpas explained that after initial therapy and renal response, subsequent therapy should continue for at least 3 years. If treated with MMF alone or in combination with belimumab, then these drugs should continue. However, MMF should replace cyclophosphamide if the latter is used initially.

Regarding treat-to-target in lupus nephritis, he said that EULAR now advises to aim for a 25% drop in urine protein/creatinine ratio by 3 months, a 50% drop by 6 months, and a UPCR of less than 0.5-0.7, plus normal eGFR, by 12 months, Dr. Boumpas said.

Statement 10 advises considering high-dose intravenous cyclophosphamide in combination with pulse intravenous methylprednisolone for patients at high risk of renal failure.
 

Tapering drugs in sustained remission, managing antiphospholipid syndrome, giving immunizations

Statement 11 suggests to consider tapering immunosuppressive agents and glucocorticoids in patients achieving sustained remission, starting with glucocorticoids first.

There was no change to statement 12, which recommends that thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome associated with SLE be treated with long-term vitamin K antagonists.

Statement 13 addresses immunizations and adjunct therapies. In addition to conventional immunizations, Dr. Boumpas said that renoprotection should receive attention in case of proteinuria and/or hypertension.

“With [sodium-glucose cotransporter 2] inhibitors, it’s a bit early. They’re promising, and you may consider them, although there are no data for patients with eGFR below 60 mL/min per 1.73 m²,” he remarked, completing his detailed discussion of the updated recommendations.

Dr. Boumpas reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Landewé served as past chair of EULAR’s Quality of Care Committee, which develops recommendations.

MILAN – Treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus with biologics may enable steroid tapering while ensuring the achievement of remission or low disease activity in more patients with fewer flares and less organ damage, as well as leading to better responses if used early, according to the latest recommendations on the management of SLE from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR).

Dimitrios Boumpas, MD, president of the Athens Medical Society and chair of the European Task force on SLE, presented the recommendations at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. “Although steroids save lives, it is at the expense of excessive collateral damage. They are better for short-term use as a rescue or bridging therapy but may be used in some patients at 5 mg/day of prednisone or less, rather than the previous 7.5 mg/day,” he emphasized.

The 2023 recommendations cover new treatment strategies with more ambitious goals, new data on adverse effects of chronic glucocorticoid use, and newly approved agents and combination therapies.

“Most importantly, we sourced help from experts from all over the world,” said Dr. Boumpas, describing the task force that included 35 rheumatologists, 5 nephrologists, 2 methodologists, 2 patient representatives, and 2 fellows, all brought together from across Europe, North America, Asia, and Australia.

Over 7,000 papers were reviewed, with 437 included in the systematic literature review to inform the updated recommendations.

Session moderator Robert Landewé, MD, PhD, professor of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Amsterdam, said that “the underlying heterogeneity and multisystem involvement of SLE can make it difficult to demonstrate and know which drugs work in the condition. However, these latest recommendations should encourage greater confidence to taper steroids early on and perhaps consider new biologic drugs, so that more patients can achieve better results sooner to prevent flares and organ damage, improve prognosis, and enhance their quality of life.”

Dr. Boumpas provided a summary of the overarching principles that guide the recommendations. These say that SLE requires multidisciplinary individualized management; disease activity should be assessed at each visit; nonpharmacologic interventions such as sun protection, smoking cessation, and following a healthy diet are all important for improving long-term outcomes; pharmacologic interventions are to be directed by patient characteristics, type and severity of organ involvement, treatment-related harms, and patient preferences, among other factors; and early SLE diagnosis is essential to prevent flares and organ damage, improve prognosis, and enhance quality of life.

Referring to each recommendation statement in turn, Dr. Boumpas provided a detailed description of each, and highlighted any changes since the 2019 recommendations.
 

Hydroxychloroquine, glucocorticoids as bridging therapy, and biologics

Referring to statement 1, Dr. Boumpas reported that hydroxychloroquine should be a first-line therapy at a dose of 5 mg/kg, but this dose should be individualized based on risk of flare and retinal toxicity. “There was some discussion about monitoring blood levels, but this was to ensure adherence only,” said Dr. Boumpas.

Continuing to statement 2, he added, “here is one change. With chronic use of glucocorticoids, the maintenance dose is 5 mg/day or less or prednisone equivalent. This pertains to both new onset and relapsing disease.” Previous recommendations advised a maintenance dose of 7.5 mg/day or less.

But he pointed out that “we are discussing using glucocorticoids in lupus as a bridging therapy only, for short, limited periods of time. We should shy away from chronic use of glucocorticoids and only use them for 3 months, and to do this we need to use glucocorticoid-sparing strategies.”

This led to statement 3, which refers to glucocorticoid-sparing strategies. Dr. Boumpas explained that, in patients who are not responding to hydroxychloroquine or unable to reduce glucocorticoids further during chronic use, add immunosuppressive agents, such as methotrexate and/or biologics (for example, belimumab [Benlysta] or anifrolumab [Saphnelo]).

“To allow flexibility for patients and clinicians, it isn’t necessary to use DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] first if you prefer biologics,” he continued. “We are becoming more liberal with the use of biologics because there are new data that confirm the efficacy of belimumab in extrarenal SLE, plus good data with 3-year extension with anifrolumab.”

Statement 4 says that for patients with organ- or life-threatening disease, intravenous cyclophosphamide, “our old friend,” should be considered, while in refractory cases, rituximab may be considered, Dr. Boumpas said. “It’s okay to use cyclophosphamide. It isn’t a sin.”

Statement 5 refers to skin disease, and Dr. Boumpas explained that good data suggested that biologics help, including both belimumab and anifrolumab.

Nothing has changed with statement 6 concerning neuropsychiatric lupus, said Dr. Boumpas. “Glucocorticoids, immunosuppressive, and antithrombotic therapies should be considered.”

Regarding hematologic disease (statement 7), he said, “the new kid on the block is MMF [mycophenolate mofetil]. For acute treatment, still use the same drugs, including rituximab, but for maintenance you may use rituximab, azathioprine, MMF, or cyclosporine.”
 

Lupus nephritis

Turning to what Dr. Boumpas described as the “reason you had all come here, and what you had been waiting for ... what’s changing with lupus nephritis?” he said.

Statement 8 describes initial therapy in active lupus nephritis. Dr. Boumpas said that low-dose, intravenous cyclophosphamide or mycophenolate should be considered, but also that belimumab or a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) should be considered at the start. The changes were based on two successful phase 3 trials of belimumab and voclosporin, with belimumab being associated with a reduced flare rate and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).

“Changes from 2019 include that there is no distinction between classes III/IV and V, which is heretical,” he stressed. Belimumab and CNIs/voclosporin should be considered in all patents as an add-on therapy from the start. “Lupus nephritis has high morbidity, and it’s difficult to predict outcomes at the beginning, but there are clear benefits of add-on therapies. CNIs, although they can be used for all patients, might be more appropriate for membranous or nephrotic-range proteinuria.”

He went on to announce that the “million-dollar question” was whether to use belimumab or voclosporin (or other CNIs), and that this was “a question of gentle, compared with forceful, power and collateral damage.

“For me, voclosporin works very fast, but you worry about side effects, while belimumab is gentle and the response is sustained, preventing flares and organ damage,” he said, adding that “our expert panel discussions showed that nephrologists were more eager to support steroid-free regimens.”

Moving on to statement 9, Dr. Boumpas explained that after initial therapy and renal response, subsequent therapy should continue for at least 3 years. If treated with MMF alone or in combination with belimumab, then these drugs should continue. However, MMF should replace cyclophosphamide if the latter is used initially.

Regarding treat-to-target in lupus nephritis, he said that EULAR now advises to aim for a 25% drop in urine protein/creatinine ratio by 3 months, a 50% drop by 6 months, and a UPCR of less than 0.5-0.7, plus normal eGFR, by 12 months, Dr. Boumpas said.

Statement 10 advises considering high-dose intravenous cyclophosphamide in combination with pulse intravenous methylprednisolone for patients at high risk of renal failure.
 

Tapering drugs in sustained remission, managing antiphospholipid syndrome, giving immunizations

Statement 11 suggests to consider tapering immunosuppressive agents and glucocorticoids in patients achieving sustained remission, starting with glucocorticoids first.

There was no change to statement 12, which recommends that thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome associated with SLE be treated with long-term vitamin K antagonists.

Statement 13 addresses immunizations and adjunct therapies. In addition to conventional immunizations, Dr. Boumpas said that renoprotection should receive attention in case of proteinuria and/or hypertension.

“With [sodium-glucose cotransporter 2] inhibitors, it’s a bit early. They’re promising, and you may consider them, although there are no data for patients with eGFR below 60 mL/min per 1.73 m²,” he remarked, completing his detailed discussion of the updated recommendations.

Dr. Boumpas reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Landewé served as past chair of EULAR’s Quality of Care Committee, which develops recommendations.

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – A major challenge for clinical trials in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is how to get the placebo response rate down low enough that the effectiveness of a drug can actually be seen. Better patient selection may be the key.

Speaking at an international congress on SLE, Joan Merrill, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, presented on how the heterogeneity of lupus is contributing to the ongoing failure of so many potential therapies in clinical trials.

“It’s a miracle that any drug has been successful in clinical trials,” she told the conference, comparing the few drugs approved for the treatment of lupus with the much larger numbers of approved, targeted biologics that are available for rheumatoid arthritis.

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

The problem is that placebo response rates in clinical trials for lupus are high – well over 40% – Dr. Merrill said, and trials aren’t showing a big difference in response rates between the treatment and placebo arms. “If the placebo response is 40%, wouldn’t an effective drug help 80%?” she said. “If it also affects only 40%, does that mean it’s a failed drug?”

Dr. Merrill suggested that better patient selection could be key to achieving lower placebo response rates, which could in turn reveal if and in whom a drug might be effective. “If we could get the placebo response rate down, at least we’d be able to see a little bit better whether the drug is effective, even if it only could work in 50% of the patients,” she said.

Data from research done by the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation suggested that patients with SLE could be loosely categorized into seven different clusters based on patterns of gene expression in areas such as interferon expression and inflammation pathways.

For example, two of those clusters represented patients with high levels of expression for both interferons and inflammation. “Maybe those are the patients who’d want to be put in a trial for interferon inhibition,” Dr. Merrill said.

This was demonstrated in a trial of type 1 interferon inhibitor anifrolumab (Saphnelo), where patients were sorted into groups according to their level of interferon expression – either high or low – based on expression of certain interferon genes. This revealed that patients in the interferon-high group had a much higher treatment effect than patients in the interferon-low group. But the difference lay in the placebo response.

“The efficacy rate was not that different between the interferon-high and the interferon-low patients,” Dr. Merrill said. “The difference was in the placebo response rate – what they had managed to find was a great marker for sicker patients.”

This phenomenon is not limited to interferon-targeted therapies. Dr. Merrill cited another literature review which looked at subset studies within clinical trials that had delivered disappointing results. This showed consistently that patients who were considered more unwell, by virtue of higher SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) scores, for example, were more likely to show an effect of treatment.

“You begin to see bigger differences between treatment and placebo because the treatment rate might go up, but mostly because the placebo rate goes down,” she said.

Another issue that could be affecting both placebo and treatment response rates is background medication. “Subset analysis of people on less background drugs was showing lower placebo response rates and better differences between treatments and placebo,” Dr. Merrill said. For example, a recent phase 2 study of anifrolumab took the strategy of actively pursuing tapering of glucocorticoids in patients where that could be done safely. That achieved a lowering of the placebo response rate to the point where a greater difference could be seen between the placebo response and the treatment response rates.

The challenge for clinical trials is therefore to identify which patients to include. “If we could figure out which patients would be the most appropriate [to enroll to fit a particular drug’s mechanism of action], then we could really get ahead of the game,” she said.

The unique problem for lupus clinic trials is the heterogeneity of lupus as a disease, Dr. Merrill said in an interview. “We’re going to have to find combinations of treatments that fit right for each patient, and they won’t necessarily be one size fits all,” she said.

Dr. Merrill said that subset analyses at the phase 2 stage could help identify the patients who responded better to the treatment and could therefore be targeted in phase 3 trials. “Once you take that hypothesis, and if you can establish and validate it in phase 3, now you’ve got yourself a biomarker,” she said.

Richard A. Furie, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology at Northwell Health in New York, agreed that the high placebo response rate was a particular nemesis for researchers involved in lupus clinical trials.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Dr. Furie said it could be that selecting sicker patients is a solution to this, as had been suggested in the subset analysis of the anifrolumab studies – which he was involved in – that identified differences in the response rates between interferon-high and interferon-low patients.

But if that was the case, the challenge would be recruiting enough of any particular subset of patients. For example, relatively few patients in the anifrolumab trial were classified as interferon low.

If the interferon expression levels are a marker for patients who are sicker, that could serve as a way to better select patients for clinical trials, he said. But it would also make it harder to achieve recruitment targets.

“I think the major problem in SLE trials is that patients have inflated activity scores, so you can gain SLEDAI scores with a little alopecia and an oral ulcer,” he said. “You can start eliminating those parameters from counting towards entry, but then as soon as you do that, you’re going to have trouble recruiting.”

Dr. Merrill reported consulting for and receiving research support from a range of pharmaceutical companies including Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie, and anifrolumab manufacturer AstraZeneca. Dr. Furie reported financial relationships with Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Kezar Life Sciences, Kyverna Therapeutics, and Takeda.

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – A major challenge for clinical trials in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is how to get the placebo response rate down low enough that the effectiveness of a drug can actually be seen. Better patient selection may be the key.

Speaking at an international congress on SLE, Joan Merrill, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, presented on how the heterogeneity of lupus is contributing to the ongoing failure of so many potential therapies in clinical trials.

“It’s a miracle that any drug has been successful in clinical trials,” she told the conference, comparing the few drugs approved for the treatment of lupus with the much larger numbers of approved, targeted biologics that are available for rheumatoid arthritis.

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

The problem is that placebo response rates in clinical trials for lupus are high – well over 40% – Dr. Merrill said, and trials aren’t showing a big difference in response rates between the treatment and placebo arms. “If the placebo response is 40%, wouldn’t an effective drug help 80%?” she said. “If it also affects only 40%, does that mean it’s a failed drug?”

Dr. Merrill suggested that better patient selection could be key to achieving lower placebo response rates, which could in turn reveal if and in whom a drug might be effective. “If we could get the placebo response rate down, at least we’d be able to see a little bit better whether the drug is effective, even if it only could work in 50% of the patients,” she said.

Data from research done by the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation suggested that patients with SLE could be loosely categorized into seven different clusters based on patterns of gene expression in areas such as interferon expression and inflammation pathways.

For example, two of those clusters represented patients with high levels of expression for both interferons and inflammation. “Maybe those are the patients who’d want to be put in a trial for interferon inhibition,” Dr. Merrill said.

This was demonstrated in a trial of type 1 interferon inhibitor anifrolumab (Saphnelo), where patients were sorted into groups according to their level of interferon expression – either high or low – based on expression of certain interferon genes. This revealed that patients in the interferon-high group had a much higher treatment effect than patients in the interferon-low group. But the difference lay in the placebo response.

“The efficacy rate was not that different between the interferon-high and the interferon-low patients,” Dr. Merrill said. “The difference was in the placebo response rate – what they had managed to find was a great marker for sicker patients.”

This phenomenon is not limited to interferon-targeted therapies. Dr. Merrill cited another literature review which looked at subset studies within clinical trials that had delivered disappointing results. This showed consistently that patients who were considered more unwell, by virtue of higher SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) scores, for example, were more likely to show an effect of treatment.

“You begin to see bigger differences between treatment and placebo because the treatment rate might go up, but mostly because the placebo rate goes down,” she said.

Another issue that could be affecting both placebo and treatment response rates is background medication. “Subset analysis of people on less background drugs was showing lower placebo response rates and better differences between treatments and placebo,” Dr. Merrill said. For example, a recent phase 2 study of anifrolumab took the strategy of actively pursuing tapering of glucocorticoids in patients where that could be done safely. That achieved a lowering of the placebo response rate to the point where a greater difference could be seen between the placebo response and the treatment response rates.

The challenge for clinical trials is therefore to identify which patients to include. “If we could figure out which patients would be the most appropriate [to enroll to fit a particular drug’s mechanism of action], then we could really get ahead of the game,” she said.

The unique problem for lupus clinic trials is the heterogeneity of lupus as a disease, Dr. Merrill said in an interview. “We’re going to have to find combinations of treatments that fit right for each patient, and they won’t necessarily be one size fits all,” she said.

Dr. Merrill said that subset analyses at the phase 2 stage could help identify the patients who responded better to the treatment and could therefore be targeted in phase 3 trials. “Once you take that hypothesis, and if you can establish and validate it in phase 3, now you’ve got yourself a biomarker,” she said.

Richard A. Furie, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology at Northwell Health in New York, agreed that the high placebo response rate was a particular nemesis for researchers involved in lupus clinical trials.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Dr. Furie said it could be that selecting sicker patients is a solution to this, as had been suggested in the subset analysis of the anifrolumab studies – which he was involved in – that identified differences in the response rates between interferon-high and interferon-low patients.

But if that was the case, the challenge would be recruiting enough of any particular subset of patients. For example, relatively few patients in the anifrolumab trial were classified as interferon low.

If the interferon expression levels are a marker for patients who are sicker, that could serve as a way to better select patients for clinical trials, he said. But it would also make it harder to achieve recruitment targets.

“I think the major problem in SLE trials is that patients have inflated activity scores, so you can gain SLEDAI scores with a little alopecia and an oral ulcer,” he said. “You can start eliminating those parameters from counting towards entry, but then as soon as you do that, you’re going to have trouble recruiting.”

Dr. Merrill reported consulting for and receiving research support from a range of pharmaceutical companies including Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie, and anifrolumab manufacturer AstraZeneca. Dr. Furie reported financial relationships with Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Kezar Life Sciences, Kyverna Therapeutics, and Takeda.

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – A major challenge for clinical trials in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is how to get the placebo response rate down low enough that the effectiveness of a drug can actually be seen. Better patient selection may be the key.

Speaking at an international congress on SLE, Joan Merrill, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, presented on how the heterogeneity of lupus is contributing to the ongoing failure of so many potential therapies in clinical trials.

“It’s a miracle that any drug has been successful in clinical trials,” she told the conference, comparing the few drugs approved for the treatment of lupus with the much larger numbers of approved, targeted biologics that are available for rheumatoid arthritis.

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

The problem is that placebo response rates in clinical trials for lupus are high – well over 40% – Dr. Merrill said, and trials aren’t showing a big difference in response rates between the treatment and placebo arms. “If the placebo response is 40%, wouldn’t an effective drug help 80%?” she said. “If it also affects only 40%, does that mean it’s a failed drug?”

Dr. Merrill suggested that better patient selection could be key to achieving lower placebo response rates, which could in turn reveal if and in whom a drug might be effective. “If we could get the placebo response rate down, at least we’d be able to see a little bit better whether the drug is effective, even if it only could work in 50% of the patients,” she said.

Data from research done by the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation suggested that patients with SLE could be loosely categorized into seven different clusters based on patterns of gene expression in areas such as interferon expression and inflammation pathways.

For example, two of those clusters represented patients with high levels of expression for both interferons and inflammation. “Maybe those are the patients who’d want to be put in a trial for interferon inhibition,” Dr. Merrill said.

This was demonstrated in a trial of type 1 interferon inhibitor anifrolumab (Saphnelo), where patients were sorted into groups according to their level of interferon expression – either high or low – based on expression of certain interferon genes. This revealed that patients in the interferon-high group had a much higher treatment effect than patients in the interferon-low group. But the difference lay in the placebo response.

“The efficacy rate was not that different between the interferon-high and the interferon-low patients,” Dr. Merrill said. “The difference was in the placebo response rate – what they had managed to find was a great marker for sicker patients.”

This phenomenon is not limited to interferon-targeted therapies. Dr. Merrill cited another literature review which looked at subset studies within clinical trials that had delivered disappointing results. This showed consistently that patients who were considered more unwell, by virtue of higher SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) scores, for example, were more likely to show an effect of treatment.

“You begin to see bigger differences between treatment and placebo because the treatment rate might go up, but mostly because the placebo rate goes down,” she said.

Another issue that could be affecting both placebo and treatment response rates is background medication. “Subset analysis of people on less background drugs was showing lower placebo response rates and better differences between treatments and placebo,” Dr. Merrill said. For example, a recent phase 2 study of anifrolumab took the strategy of actively pursuing tapering of glucocorticoids in patients where that could be done safely. That achieved a lowering of the placebo response rate to the point where a greater difference could be seen between the placebo response and the treatment response rates.

The challenge for clinical trials is therefore to identify which patients to include. “If we could figure out which patients would be the most appropriate [to enroll to fit a particular drug’s mechanism of action], then we could really get ahead of the game,” she said.

The unique problem for lupus clinic trials is the heterogeneity of lupus as a disease, Dr. Merrill said in an interview. “We’re going to have to find combinations of treatments that fit right for each patient, and they won’t necessarily be one size fits all,” she said.

Dr. Merrill said that subset analyses at the phase 2 stage could help identify the patients who responded better to the treatment and could therefore be targeted in phase 3 trials. “Once you take that hypothesis, and if you can establish and validate it in phase 3, now you’ve got yourself a biomarker,” she said.

Richard A. Furie, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology at Northwell Health in New York, agreed that the high placebo response rate was a particular nemesis for researchers involved in lupus clinical trials.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Dr. Furie said it could be that selecting sicker patients is a solution to this, as had been suggested in the subset analysis of the anifrolumab studies – which he was involved in – that identified differences in the response rates between interferon-high and interferon-low patients.

But if that was the case, the challenge would be recruiting enough of any particular subset of patients. For example, relatively few patients in the anifrolumab trial were classified as interferon low.

If the interferon expression levels are a marker for patients who are sicker, that could serve as a way to better select patients for clinical trials, he said. But it would also make it harder to achieve recruitment targets.

“I think the major problem in SLE trials is that patients have inflated activity scores, so you can gain SLEDAI scores with a little alopecia and an oral ulcer,” he said. “You can start eliminating those parameters from counting towards entry, but then as soon as you do that, you’re going to have trouble recruiting.”

Dr. Merrill reported consulting for and receiving research support from a range of pharmaceutical companies including Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie, and anifrolumab manufacturer AstraZeneca. Dr. Furie reported financial relationships with Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Kezar Life Sciences, Kyverna Therapeutics, and Takeda.

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – B cell–depleting therapies in patients with lupus nephritis have a higher likelihood of complete response if B cells are almost completely depleted, and strategies for achieving more complete B-cell depletion continue to be tested, according to evidence presented by Richard A. Furie, MD, at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

“If you go back about 20 years ago or so, when we designed the LUNAR and EXPLORER trials, we were scared to death of rituximab [Rituxan and biosimilars], about what would happen when you deplete B cells,” said Dr. Furie, chief of the division of rheumatology at Northwell Health in New York.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

The LUNAR trial, which compared rituximab with placebo in patients with lupus nephritis, did not show a statistically significant difference in renal outcomes at 1 year. However, a post hoc analysis done several years later told a different story. It looked at patients who achieved complete peripheral depletion of B cells, defined as zero cells per microliter in peripheral blood. “You can see about a fourfold increase in complete response rates in those who were complete B-cell depleters at 1 year,” Dr. Furie told the conference.

It therefore raises the question of how to achieve greater B-cell depletion rates in patients. Dr. Furie said one strategy might be to first mobilize memory B cells and neutralize B cell–activating factor using belimumab (Benlysta), and then treat with rituximab to eliminate B cells. This strategy of sequential belimumab-rituximab treatment has been taken in several clinical trials.
 

More potent B-cell depletion with obinutuzumab

Another approach is to choose more potent B cell–depleting therapies, such as obinutuzumab (Gazyva), which is an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody that was approved in 2013 for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

The NOBILITY trial compared obinutuzumab with placebo in 125 patients with lupus nephritis who were on background treatment with mycophenolate and corticosteroids. At 1 year, significantly more patients achieved B-cell thresholds either below 5 cells per microliter or even zero cells per microliter than had been seen previously with rituximab.

That also translated into clinical benefit, Dr. Furie said. By week 76, half the patients who had sustained depletion of B cells below 0.4 cells per microliter had a complete response, compared with 35% of those who still had detectable B cells and 18% of the placebo group. Treatment with obinutuzumab did not show any link to higher rates of serious adverse events, serious infections, or deaths.

“I think we’re all pretty much convinced more is better, without introducing safety issues,” Dr. Furie said in an interview.

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

Joan Merrill, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, said the data did suggest that renal outcomes were better with more complete depletion, but raised the question of whether this might increase the risk of infections or infectious severity.

Dr. Furie noted that complete response not only required improvement in proteinuria, complement levels, and anti–double-stranded DNA antibodies, but also in serum creatinine, “because maintenance of eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] is the name of the game with lupus nephritis.”

However, he also pointed out that there may be a ceiling for response rates in patients with lupus nephritis when using stricter endpoints for serum creatinine. The NOBILITY trial required patients to achieve a serum creatinine that did not increase by more than 15% from baseline. But when researchers did an analysis that instead only required patients to achieve a reduction in proteinuria and maintain normal creatinine, the complete response rate in complete B-cell depleters increased to 72%, compared with 50% in partial depleters and 37% in the placebo group.
 

Newer strategies for greater B-cell depletion

A third strategy for achieving greater B-cell depletion is bispecific T-cell engagers, or BiTEs. “I called it a ‘frenemy,’ where it’s taking the activated T cell and introducing it to the B cell, and it can kill it via direct T-cell killing,” Dr. Furie said in an interview. Mosunetuzumab (Lunsumio) is one example, and is currently in a phase 1 clinical trial of patients with SLE.

And the fourth strategy, which has proved so successful in lymphoma, is chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR T). Dr. Furie cited the recent publication of data from a CAR T clinical trial in five patients with refractory SLE. He said the data were impressive but the question for this treatment approach will be which patients are most likely to benefit and whether CAR T will experience the same ceiling effect because of pre-existing kidney damage.

“We won’t be seeing 100% response rates,” he said. “What we’ll be seeing, as a maximum, might be about 70%.” The big question for B-cell depletion in lupus was therefore how best to achieve it. “Is the future a potent monoclonal antibody, or is it in fact CAR T?”

Dr. Merrill said the analyses from B-cell depletion trials, showing greater response rates among more complete depleters, highlighted the importance of a personalized approach to treating lupus.

“One size fits all is never optimal in any disease, but it will prove a nonstarter in lupus, where we ought to be trying to find the optimal treatment regimen for each patient guided by biomarkers,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Furie reported having financial relationships with Genentech/Roche, which manufactures obinutuzumab and rituximab, as well as GlaxoSmithKline, Kezar Life Sciences, Kyverna Therapeutics, and Takeda. Dr. Merrill reported consulting for and receiving research support from a range of pharmaceutical companies including Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie, and AstraZeneca.

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – B cell–depleting therapies in patients with lupus nephritis have a higher likelihood of complete response if B cells are almost completely depleted, and strategies for achieving more complete B-cell depletion continue to be tested, according to evidence presented by Richard A. Furie, MD, at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

“If you go back about 20 years ago or so, when we designed the LUNAR and EXPLORER trials, we were scared to death of rituximab [Rituxan and biosimilars], about what would happen when you deplete B cells,” said Dr. Furie, chief of the division of rheumatology at Northwell Health in New York.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

The LUNAR trial, which compared rituximab with placebo in patients with lupus nephritis, did not show a statistically significant difference in renal outcomes at 1 year. However, a post hoc analysis done several years later told a different story. It looked at patients who achieved complete peripheral depletion of B cells, defined as zero cells per microliter in peripheral blood. “You can see about a fourfold increase in complete response rates in those who were complete B-cell depleters at 1 year,” Dr. Furie told the conference.

It therefore raises the question of how to achieve greater B-cell depletion rates in patients. Dr. Furie said one strategy might be to first mobilize memory B cells and neutralize B cell–activating factor using belimumab (Benlysta), and then treat with rituximab to eliminate B cells. This strategy of sequential belimumab-rituximab treatment has been taken in several clinical trials.
 

More potent B-cell depletion with obinutuzumab

Another approach is to choose more potent B cell–depleting therapies, such as obinutuzumab (Gazyva), which is an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody that was approved in 2013 for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

The NOBILITY trial compared obinutuzumab with placebo in 125 patients with lupus nephritis who were on background treatment with mycophenolate and corticosteroids. At 1 year, significantly more patients achieved B-cell thresholds either below 5 cells per microliter or even zero cells per microliter than had been seen previously with rituximab.

That also translated into clinical benefit, Dr. Furie said. By week 76, half the patients who had sustained depletion of B cells below 0.4 cells per microliter had a complete response, compared with 35% of those who still had detectable B cells and 18% of the placebo group. Treatment with obinutuzumab did not show any link to higher rates of serious adverse events, serious infections, or deaths.

“I think we’re all pretty much convinced more is better, without introducing safety issues,” Dr. Furie said in an interview.

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

Joan Merrill, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, said the data did suggest that renal outcomes were better with more complete depletion, but raised the question of whether this might increase the risk of infections or infectious severity.

Dr. Furie noted that complete response not only required improvement in proteinuria, complement levels, and anti–double-stranded DNA antibodies, but also in serum creatinine, “because maintenance of eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] is the name of the game with lupus nephritis.”

However, he also pointed out that there may be a ceiling for response rates in patients with lupus nephritis when using stricter endpoints for serum creatinine. The NOBILITY trial required patients to achieve a serum creatinine that did not increase by more than 15% from baseline. But when researchers did an analysis that instead only required patients to achieve a reduction in proteinuria and maintain normal creatinine, the complete response rate in complete B-cell depleters increased to 72%, compared with 50% in partial depleters and 37% in the placebo group.
 

Newer strategies for greater B-cell depletion

A third strategy for achieving greater B-cell depletion is bispecific T-cell engagers, or BiTEs. “I called it a ‘frenemy,’ where it’s taking the activated T cell and introducing it to the B cell, and it can kill it via direct T-cell killing,” Dr. Furie said in an interview. Mosunetuzumab (Lunsumio) is one example, and is currently in a phase 1 clinical trial of patients with SLE.

And the fourth strategy, which has proved so successful in lymphoma, is chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR T). Dr. Furie cited the recent publication of data from a CAR T clinical trial in five patients with refractory SLE. He said the data were impressive but the question for this treatment approach will be which patients are most likely to benefit and whether CAR T will experience the same ceiling effect because of pre-existing kidney damage.

“We won’t be seeing 100% response rates,” he said. “What we’ll be seeing, as a maximum, might be about 70%.” The big question for B-cell depletion in lupus was therefore how best to achieve it. “Is the future a potent monoclonal antibody, or is it in fact CAR T?”

Dr. Merrill said the analyses from B-cell depletion trials, showing greater response rates among more complete depleters, highlighted the importance of a personalized approach to treating lupus.

“One size fits all is never optimal in any disease, but it will prove a nonstarter in lupus, where we ought to be trying to find the optimal treatment regimen for each patient guided by biomarkers,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Furie reported having financial relationships with Genentech/Roche, which manufactures obinutuzumab and rituximab, as well as GlaxoSmithKline, Kezar Life Sciences, Kyverna Therapeutics, and Takeda. Dr. Merrill reported consulting for and receiving research support from a range of pharmaceutical companies including Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie, and AstraZeneca.

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – B cell–depleting therapies in patients with lupus nephritis have a higher likelihood of complete response if B cells are almost completely depleted, and strategies for achieving more complete B-cell depletion continue to be tested, according to evidence presented by Richard A. Furie, MD, at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

“If you go back about 20 years ago or so, when we designed the LUNAR and EXPLORER trials, we were scared to death of rituximab [Rituxan and biosimilars], about what would happen when you deplete B cells,” said Dr. Furie, chief of the division of rheumatology at Northwell Health in New York.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

The LUNAR trial, which compared rituximab with placebo in patients with lupus nephritis, did not show a statistically significant difference in renal outcomes at 1 year. However, a post hoc analysis done several years later told a different story. It looked at patients who achieved complete peripheral depletion of B cells, defined as zero cells per microliter in peripheral blood. “You can see about a fourfold increase in complete response rates in those who were complete B-cell depleters at 1 year,” Dr. Furie told the conference.

It therefore raises the question of how to achieve greater B-cell depletion rates in patients. Dr. Furie said one strategy might be to first mobilize memory B cells and neutralize B cell–activating factor using belimumab (Benlysta), and then treat with rituximab to eliminate B cells. This strategy of sequential belimumab-rituximab treatment has been taken in several clinical trials.
 

More potent B-cell depletion with obinutuzumab

Another approach is to choose more potent B cell–depleting therapies, such as obinutuzumab (Gazyva), which is an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody that was approved in 2013 for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

The NOBILITY trial compared obinutuzumab with placebo in 125 patients with lupus nephritis who were on background treatment with mycophenolate and corticosteroids. At 1 year, significantly more patients achieved B-cell thresholds either below 5 cells per microliter or even zero cells per microliter than had been seen previously with rituximab.

That also translated into clinical benefit, Dr. Furie said. By week 76, half the patients who had sustained depletion of B cells below 0.4 cells per microliter had a complete response, compared with 35% of those who still had detectable B cells and 18% of the placebo group. Treatment with obinutuzumab did not show any link to higher rates of serious adverse events, serious infections, or deaths.

“I think we’re all pretty much convinced more is better, without introducing safety issues,” Dr. Furie said in an interview.

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

Joan Merrill, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, said the data did suggest that renal outcomes were better with more complete depletion, but raised the question of whether this might increase the risk of infections or infectious severity.

Dr. Furie noted that complete response not only required improvement in proteinuria, complement levels, and anti–double-stranded DNA antibodies, but also in serum creatinine, “because maintenance of eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] is the name of the game with lupus nephritis.”

However, he also pointed out that there may be a ceiling for response rates in patients with lupus nephritis when using stricter endpoints for serum creatinine. The NOBILITY trial required patients to achieve a serum creatinine that did not increase by more than 15% from baseline. But when researchers did an analysis that instead only required patients to achieve a reduction in proteinuria and maintain normal creatinine, the complete response rate in complete B-cell depleters increased to 72%, compared with 50% in partial depleters and 37% in the placebo group.
 

Newer strategies for greater B-cell depletion

A third strategy for achieving greater B-cell depletion is bispecific T-cell engagers, or BiTEs. “I called it a ‘frenemy,’ where it’s taking the activated T cell and introducing it to the B cell, and it can kill it via direct T-cell killing,” Dr. Furie said in an interview. Mosunetuzumab (Lunsumio) is one example, and is currently in a phase 1 clinical trial of patients with SLE.

And the fourth strategy, which has proved so successful in lymphoma, is chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR T). Dr. Furie cited the recent publication of data from a CAR T clinical trial in five patients with refractory SLE. He said the data were impressive but the question for this treatment approach will be which patients are most likely to benefit and whether CAR T will experience the same ceiling effect because of pre-existing kidney damage.

“We won’t be seeing 100% response rates,” he said. “What we’ll be seeing, as a maximum, might be about 70%.” The big question for B-cell depletion in lupus was therefore how best to achieve it. “Is the future a potent monoclonal antibody, or is it in fact CAR T?”

Dr. Merrill said the analyses from B-cell depletion trials, showing greater response rates among more complete depleters, highlighted the importance of a personalized approach to treating lupus.

“One size fits all is never optimal in any disease, but it will prove a nonstarter in lupus, where we ought to be trying to find the optimal treatment regimen for each patient guided by biomarkers,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Furie reported having financial relationships with Genentech/Roche, which manufactures obinutuzumab and rituximab, as well as GlaxoSmithKline, Kezar Life Sciences, Kyverna Therapeutics, and Takeda. Dr. Merrill reported consulting for and receiving research support from a range of pharmaceutical companies including Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie, and AstraZeneca.

MILAN – High-intensity interval training (HIIT) has been shown to enhance cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and mitigate cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors in patients with inflammatory joint diseases (IJD) in a randomized trial. Notably, the positive response in CRF did not coincide with changes in pain or fatigue.

Kristine Norden, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases, Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Rehabilitation in Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, presented the late-breaking results of the ExeHeart trial at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. The trial aimed to evaluate the short- and long-term effects of 12 weeks of supervised HIIT in patients with IJD.

Viktor Cap/Thinkstock

Ms. Norden said in an interview that “HIIT is a feasible physiotherapeutic intervention with sustainable effects in patients with IJD. It does not exacerbate symptoms of IJD and can be implemented in primary care settings.”
 

The trial

The ExeHeart trial is a randomized controlled trial designed to assess the effects of HIIT on CRF, CVD risk, and disease activity in patients with IJD. The trial is a collaborative effort with patient research partners and aligns with patients’ requests for effective nonpharmacologic treatments. The outcomes being evaluated include CRF (primary outcome), CVD risk factors, anthropometric measures, disease activity, and patient-reported outcomes related to pain, fatigue, disease, physical activity, and exercise.

A total of 60 patients with IJD were recruited from the Preventive Cardio-Rheuma clinic at Diakonhjemmet. They were randomly assigned to receive either standard care (including relevant lifestyle advice and cardiopreventive medication) or standard care along with a 12-week HIIT intervention supervised by physiotherapists. Assessments were conducted at baseline, at 3 months (primary endpoint), and at 6 months post baseline. There was no supervised intervention between the 3- and 6-month time points.

The median age of the participants was 59 years, with 34 participants (57%) being women. The types of IJD among the participants included rheumatoid arthritis in 45%, spondyloarthritis in 32%, and psoriatic arthritis in 23%. Furthermore, 49 patients (82%) had a high risk for CVD.

The participants were divided into two groups: a control group (n = 30) and a HIIT group (n = 30). The HIIT group underwent a 12-week intervention consisting of twice-a-week supervised 4x4-minute HIIT sessions at 90%-95% of peak heart rate, alternated with moderate activity at 70%. The control group engaged in unsupervised moderate-intensity exercise sessions. The primary outcome measured was the change in CRF, assessed through peak oxygen uptake (VO_{2 max}) using a cardiopulmonary exercise test. Secondary outcomes – pain and fatigue – were evaluated using a questionnaire (Numeric Rating Scale 0-10, where 0 represents no pain or fatigue).

Following HIIT, a statistically significant difference was observed in VO_{2 max} (2.5 mL/kg per min; P < .01) in favor of the exercise group at 3 months, while no significant differences were found in pain and fatigue. This discrepancy in VO_{2 max} between the groups was maintained at 6 months (2.6 mL/kg per min; P < .01), with no notable disparities in pain and fatigue. A per-protocol analysis at 3 months demonstrated a difference in VO_{2 max} between the groups (3.2 mL/kg per min; P < .01).

Ms. Norden concluded that the clinical implications of these findings are significant, as increased CRF achieved through HIIT reflects an improvement in the body’s ability to deliver oxygen to working muscles. Consequently, this enhancement in CRF can lead to overall health improvements and a reduced risk for CVD.
 

Long-lasting effects

Christopher Edwards, MBBS, MD, honorary consultant rheumatologist at University Hospital Southampton (England) NHS Foundation Trust Medicine, University of Southampton, was concerned about future maintenance of increased CRF. “I really wish we had data on these patients at 12 months as well, so we could see if the effects last even longer. Regarding intensity, there are clear indications that engaging in moderate and high-intensity workouts is more beneficial,” Dr. Norden said. “So, I would certainly recommend at least one high-intensity exercise session per week for those patients, while also incorporating lower and moderate-intensity exercises if desired. However, for individuals aiming to maximize their oxygen uptake, high-intensity exercise is considered the most effective approach.”

There is compelling evidence supporting the benefits of physical activity in improving disease activity among patients with IJD, making it a critical component of nonpharmacologic treatment. However, individuals with rheumatic and musculoskeletal conditions generally exhibit lower levels of physical activity, compared with their healthy counterparts. Recognizing the importance of CVD prevention in patients with IJD, EULAR recommends routine CVD screening for individuals diagnosed with IJD.

Ms. Norden and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

MILAN – High-intensity interval training (HIIT) has been shown to enhance cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and mitigate cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors in patients with inflammatory joint diseases (IJD) in a randomized trial. Notably, the positive response in CRF did not coincide with changes in pain or fatigue.

Kristine Norden, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases, Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Rehabilitation in Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, presented the late-breaking results of the ExeHeart trial at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. The trial aimed to evaluate the short- and long-term effects of 12 weeks of supervised HIIT in patients with IJD.

Viktor Cap/Thinkstock

Ms. Norden said in an interview that “HIIT is a feasible physiotherapeutic intervention with sustainable effects in patients with IJD. It does not exacerbate symptoms of IJD and can be implemented in primary care settings.”
 

The trial

The ExeHeart trial is a randomized controlled trial designed to assess the effects of HIIT on CRF, CVD risk, and disease activity in patients with IJD. The trial is a collaborative effort with patient research partners and aligns with patients’ requests for effective nonpharmacologic treatments. The outcomes being evaluated include CRF (primary outcome), CVD risk factors, anthropometric measures, disease activity, and patient-reported outcomes related to pain, fatigue, disease, physical activity, and exercise.

A total of 60 patients with IJD were recruited from the Preventive Cardio-Rheuma clinic at Diakonhjemmet. They were randomly assigned to receive either standard care (including relevant lifestyle advice and cardiopreventive medication) or standard care along with a 12-week HIIT intervention supervised by physiotherapists. Assessments were conducted at baseline, at 3 months (primary endpoint), and at 6 months post baseline. There was no supervised intervention between the 3- and 6-month time points.

The median age of the participants was 59 years, with 34 participants (57%) being women. The types of IJD among the participants included rheumatoid arthritis in 45%, spondyloarthritis in 32%, and psoriatic arthritis in 23%. Furthermore, 49 patients (82%) had a high risk for CVD.

The participants were divided into two groups: a control group (n = 30) and a HIIT group (n = 30). The HIIT group underwent a 12-week intervention consisting of twice-a-week supervised 4x4-minute HIIT sessions at 90%-95% of peak heart rate, alternated with moderate activity at 70%. The control group engaged in unsupervised moderate-intensity exercise sessions. The primary outcome measured was the change in CRF, assessed through peak oxygen uptake (VO_{2 max}) using a cardiopulmonary exercise test. Secondary outcomes – pain and fatigue – were evaluated using a questionnaire (Numeric Rating Scale 0-10, where 0 represents no pain or fatigue).

Following HIIT, a statistically significant difference was observed in VO_{2 max} (2.5 mL/kg per min; P < .01) in favor of the exercise group at 3 months, while no significant differences were found in pain and fatigue. This discrepancy in VO_{2 max} between the groups was maintained at 6 months (2.6 mL/kg per min; P < .01), with no notable disparities in pain and fatigue. A per-protocol analysis at 3 months demonstrated a difference in VO_{2 max} between the groups (3.2 mL/kg per min; P < .01).

Ms. Norden concluded that the clinical implications of these findings are significant, as increased CRF achieved through HIIT reflects an improvement in the body’s ability to deliver oxygen to working muscles. Consequently, this enhancement in CRF can lead to overall health improvements and a reduced risk for CVD.
 

Long-lasting effects

Christopher Edwards, MBBS, MD, honorary consultant rheumatologist at University Hospital Southampton (England) NHS Foundation Trust Medicine, University of Southampton, was concerned about future maintenance of increased CRF. “I really wish we had data on these patients at 12 months as well, so we could see if the effects last even longer. Regarding intensity, there are clear indications that engaging in moderate and high-intensity workouts is more beneficial,” Dr. Norden said. “So, I would certainly recommend at least one high-intensity exercise session per week for those patients, while also incorporating lower and moderate-intensity exercises if desired. However, for individuals aiming to maximize their oxygen uptake, high-intensity exercise is considered the most effective approach.”

There is compelling evidence supporting the benefits of physical activity in improving disease activity among patients with IJD, making it a critical component of nonpharmacologic treatment. However, individuals with rheumatic and musculoskeletal conditions generally exhibit lower levels of physical activity, compared with their healthy counterparts. Recognizing the importance of CVD prevention in patients with IJD, EULAR recommends routine CVD screening for individuals diagnosed with IJD.

Ms. Norden and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

MILAN – High-intensity interval training (HIIT) has been shown to enhance cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and mitigate cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors in patients with inflammatory joint diseases (IJD) in a randomized trial. Notably, the positive response in CRF did not coincide with changes in pain or fatigue.

Kristine Norden, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases, Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Rehabilitation in Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, presented the late-breaking results of the ExeHeart trial at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. The trial aimed to evaluate the short- and long-term effects of 12 weeks of supervised HIIT in patients with IJD.

Viktor Cap/Thinkstock

Ms. Norden said in an interview that “HIIT is a feasible physiotherapeutic intervention with sustainable effects in patients with IJD. It does not exacerbate symptoms of IJD and can be implemented in primary care settings.”
 

The trial

The ExeHeart trial is a randomized controlled trial designed to assess the effects of HIIT on CRF, CVD risk, and disease activity in patients with IJD. The trial is a collaborative effort with patient research partners and aligns with patients’ requests for effective nonpharmacologic treatments. The outcomes being evaluated include CRF (primary outcome), CVD risk factors, anthropometric measures, disease activity, and patient-reported outcomes related to pain, fatigue, disease, physical activity, and exercise.

A total of 60 patients with IJD were recruited from the Preventive Cardio-Rheuma clinic at Diakonhjemmet. They were randomly assigned to receive either standard care (including relevant lifestyle advice and cardiopreventive medication) or standard care along with a 12-week HIIT intervention supervised by physiotherapists. Assessments were conducted at baseline, at 3 months (primary endpoint), and at 6 months post baseline. There was no supervised intervention between the 3- and 6-month time points.

The median age of the participants was 59 years, with 34 participants (57%) being women. The types of IJD among the participants included rheumatoid arthritis in 45%, spondyloarthritis in 32%, and psoriatic arthritis in 23%. Furthermore, 49 patients (82%) had a high risk for CVD.

The participants were divided into two groups: a control group (n = 30) and a HIIT group (n = 30). The HIIT group underwent a 12-week intervention consisting of twice-a-week supervised 4x4-minute HIIT sessions at 90%-95% of peak heart rate, alternated with moderate activity at 70%. The control group engaged in unsupervised moderate-intensity exercise sessions. The primary outcome measured was the change in CRF, assessed through peak oxygen uptake (VO_{2 max}) using a cardiopulmonary exercise test. Secondary outcomes – pain and fatigue – were evaluated using a questionnaire (Numeric Rating Scale 0-10, where 0 represents no pain or fatigue).

Following HIIT, a statistically significant difference was observed in VO_{2 max} (2.5 mL/kg per min; P < .01) in favor of the exercise group at 3 months, while no significant differences were found in pain and fatigue. This discrepancy in VO_{2 max} between the groups was maintained at 6 months (2.6 mL/kg per min; P < .01), with no notable disparities in pain and fatigue. A per-protocol analysis at 3 months demonstrated a difference in VO_{2 max} between the groups (3.2 mL/kg per min; P < .01).

Ms. Norden concluded that the clinical implications of these findings are significant, as increased CRF achieved through HIIT reflects an improvement in the body’s ability to deliver oxygen to working muscles. Consequently, this enhancement in CRF can lead to overall health improvements and a reduced risk for CVD.
 

Long-lasting effects

Christopher Edwards, MBBS, MD, honorary consultant rheumatologist at University Hospital Southampton (England) NHS Foundation Trust Medicine, University of Southampton, was concerned about future maintenance of increased CRF. “I really wish we had data on these patients at 12 months as well, so we could see if the effects last even longer. Regarding intensity, there are clear indications that engaging in moderate and high-intensity workouts is more beneficial,” Dr. Norden said. “So, I would certainly recommend at least one high-intensity exercise session per week for those patients, while also incorporating lower and moderate-intensity exercises if desired. However, for individuals aiming to maximize their oxygen uptake, high-intensity exercise is considered the most effective approach.”

There is compelling evidence supporting the benefits of physical activity in improving disease activity among patients with IJD, making it a critical component of nonpharmacologic treatment. However, individuals with rheumatic and musculoskeletal conditions generally exhibit lower levels of physical activity, compared with their healthy counterparts. Recognizing the importance of CVD prevention in patients with IJD, EULAR recommends routine CVD screening for individuals diagnosed with IJD.

Ms. Norden and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

MILAN – Dazodalibep, an intravenously administered inhibitor of CD40 ligand, shows promise in reducing disease activity and alleviating key subjective symptoms of Sjögren’s syndrome, compared with placebo. These preliminary findings are from the initial phase of the ALISS trial, a phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover clinical trial presented at the annul European Congress of Rheumatology.

Over the course of the 169-day trial, both the disease activity score and the patient-reported symptom score dropped significantly for patients who were treated with dazodalibep, also known as VIB4920 or HZN4920, compared with those treated with placebo, meeting both primary endpoints. This benefit was particularly evident for patients who had limited systemic organ involvement but substantial symptom burden.

Dazodalibep is a fusion protein that functions as an inhibitor by blocking the interaction between T cells and CD40-expressing B cells. This inhibition effectively suppresses costimulatory signaling between immune cells. Unlike previous CD40-targeting biologics, dazodalibep does not belong to the antibody class. According to Horizon Thereapeutics, this distinction is expected to help mitigate safety concerns, particularly those related to blood clot formation that were encountered with antibody-based biologics such as ruplizumab, according to Horizon, which acquired the trial’s sponsor, Viela Bio.
 

Patients with moderate to high systemic disease activity

The trial investigated dazodalibep in two patient populations. Wan-Fai Ng, MBBCh, PhD, professor of rheumatology at Newcastle University and honorary consultant rheumatologist at Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, England, presented results from the first group, which comprised 74 adult patients with Sjögren’s syndrome with moderate to high systemic disease activity. Disease activity was defined as a score of ≥ 5 on the EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI).

A post hoc responder analysis demonstrated that dazodalibep outperformed placebo in patients who achieved a 5- or 6-point improvement on the ESSDAI. Response rates for these patients was 61.1% and 60.0%, respectively, compared with 35.1% and 34.3% for patients who received placebo. Patients who received dazodalibep experienced a reduction of –6.3 ± 0.6 points in ESSDAI score, whereas the placebo group experienced a reduction of –4.1 ± 0.6 points, a difference of –2.2 (P = .0167). However, there was no significant change in any symptom-related score in this population.
 

Patients with unacceptable symptom burden but limited systemic involvement

Also at EULAR 2023, Chiara Baldini, MD, of the University of Pisa, Italy, reported the results from the second group of 109 adult patients with Sjögren’s syndrome who had notable symptom burden but limited systemic organ involvement. “These patients represent a significant portion of individuals with reduced quality of life who are largely excluded from other clinical trials,” Dr. Baldini said in an interview. The study population was defined by having a EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) ≥ 5 and, in contrast to the previous group, an ESSDAI score < 5.

In this case, treatment with dazodalibep correlated with a substantial reduction in symptom burden, compared with placebo. Among the patients who received dazodalibep, 66.7% achieved ≥ 1 point or ≥ 15% reduction in symptoms, as measured by ESSPRI, compared with 32.7% in the placebo group. The ESSPRI score decreased by –1.80 ± 0.23 points in the dazodalibep group, while it decreased by –0.53 ± 0.23 points in the placebo group, a difference of −1.27 ± 0.33 points favoring dazodalibep (P = .0002). The reduction in symptoms in the dazodalibep group was evident from the first data point on day 29 and was statistically significant for each of the three symptom components included in the ESSPRI score: dryness, pain, and fatigue.

Additionally, a significant improvement was observed in one of the secondary endpoints, namely, a reduction in the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue score. The dazodalibep group exhibited a considerably greater reduction (+8.1 ± 1.4, compared with baseline) than did the placebo group (+2.8 ± 1.4; P = .0095).
 

Dazodalibep safety

“Dazodalibep therapy was generally safe and well tolerated,” Dr. Baldini said in her presentation. Adverse events that were reported for both investigations were generally mild and occurred with similar frequency between the treatment groups. The most commonly reported adverse events, each occurring in more than 5% of patients who received dazodalibep, were COVID-19, diarrhea, anemia, dizziness, ligament sprain, upper respiratory tract infection, and nasopharyngitis. The incidence of COVID-19 and nasopharyngitis was comparable between the treatment and placebo arms.

However, in the patient group with moderate to high systemic disease activity, one patient who was treated with dazodalibep experienced two serious adverse events: a grade 3 SARS-CoV-2 infection, and subsequent death from an unknown cause, which occurred 46 days after the last administration of dazodalibep (12 days after COVID-19 diagnosis). Additionally, there was one case of herpes zoster in a patient treated with dazodalibep. In the group with limited systemic organ involvement, three serious adverse events were reported in the dazodalibep group (pneumonia influenza, postacute COVID-19 syndrome [long COVID], and gammopathy); one serious adverse event (neutropenia) was reported in the placebo group. One patient in the dazodalibep group discontinued participation in the study because of an adverse event, compared with two in the placebo group. Investigators determined that, thus far, all serious adverse events in both populations have been unrelated to the medication.

Throughout the trial, eligible participants in both populations were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either intravenous dazodalibep 1,500 mg or placebo every 2 weeks for three doses, followed by every 4 weeks for an additional four doses, up to day 169. The majority of participants in all populations and treatment arms were women (> 90%). Key inclusion criteria were being aged 18 years or older, meeting the 2016 American College of Rheumatology–EULAR classification criteria for Sjögren’s syndrome, and testing positive for anti-SSA and/or rheumatoid factors. Exclusion criteria were having a medical history of thrombosis or anticoagulant use, as well as prior treatment with B cell–depleting therapies. The proportions of patients who received glucocorticoids, antimalarials, or disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs were consistent between both arms of each population.

“Larger clinical trials are necessary to validate the clinical effectiveness and safety of dazodalibep therapy in this specific subgroup of patients,” Dr. Baldini concluded. Currently, dazodalibep is being studied for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and renal transplant rejection, and Horizon Therapeutics has plans to explore its use in focal segmental glomerulosclerosis.

Dr. Ng has served as a consultant to Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, MedImmune, Resolves Therapeutics, Janssen, and UCB. Dr. Baldini has served as a consultant to GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi.

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

MILAN – Dazodalibep, an intravenously administered inhibitor of CD40 ligand, shows promise in reducing disease activity and alleviating key subjective symptoms of Sjögren’s syndrome, compared with placebo. These preliminary findings are from the initial phase of the ALISS trial, a phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover clinical trial presented at the annul European Congress of Rheumatology.

Over the course of the 169-day trial, both the disease activity score and the patient-reported symptom score dropped significantly for patients who were treated with dazodalibep, also known as VIB4920 or HZN4920, compared with those treated with placebo, meeting both primary endpoints. This benefit was particularly evident for patients who had limited systemic organ involvement but substantial symptom burden.

Dazodalibep is a fusion protein that functions as an inhibitor by blocking the interaction between T cells and CD40-expressing B cells. This inhibition effectively suppresses costimulatory signaling between immune cells. Unlike previous CD40-targeting biologics, dazodalibep does not belong to the antibody class. According to Horizon Thereapeutics, this distinction is expected to help mitigate safety concerns, particularly those related to blood clot formation that were encountered with antibody-based biologics such as ruplizumab, according to Horizon, which acquired the trial’s sponsor, Viela Bio.
 

Patients with moderate to high systemic disease activity

The trial investigated dazodalibep in two patient populations. Wan-Fai Ng, MBBCh, PhD, professor of rheumatology at Newcastle University and honorary consultant rheumatologist at Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, England, presented results from the first group, which comprised 74 adult patients with Sjögren’s syndrome with moderate to high systemic disease activity. Disease activity was defined as a score of ≥ 5 on the EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI).

A post hoc responder analysis demonstrated that dazodalibep outperformed placebo in patients who achieved a 5- or 6-point improvement on the ESSDAI. Response rates for these patients was 61.1% and 60.0%, respectively, compared with 35.1% and 34.3% for patients who received placebo. Patients who received dazodalibep experienced a reduction of –6.3 ± 0.6 points in ESSDAI score, whereas the placebo group experienced a reduction of –4.1 ± 0.6 points, a difference of –2.2 (P = .0167). However, there was no significant change in any symptom-related score in this population.
 

Patients with unacceptable symptom burden but limited systemic involvement

Also at EULAR 2023, Chiara Baldini, MD, of the University of Pisa, Italy, reported the results from the second group of 109 adult patients with Sjögren’s syndrome who had notable symptom burden but limited systemic organ involvement. “These patients represent a significant portion of individuals with reduced quality of life who are largely excluded from other clinical trials,” Dr. Baldini said in an interview. The study population was defined by having a EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) ≥ 5 and, in contrast to the previous group, an ESSDAI score < 5.

In this case, treatment with dazodalibep correlated with a substantial reduction in symptom burden, compared with placebo. Among the patients who received dazodalibep, 66.7% achieved ≥ 1 point or ≥ 15% reduction in symptoms, as measured by ESSPRI, compared with 32.7% in the placebo group. The ESSPRI score decreased by –1.80 ± 0.23 points in the dazodalibep group, while it decreased by –0.53 ± 0.23 points in the placebo group, a difference of −1.27 ± 0.33 points favoring dazodalibep (P = .0002). The reduction in symptoms in the dazodalibep group was evident from the first data point on day 29 and was statistically significant for each of the three symptom components included in the ESSPRI score: dryness, pain, and fatigue.

Additionally, a significant improvement was observed in one of the secondary endpoints, namely, a reduction in the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue score. The dazodalibep group exhibited a considerably greater reduction (+8.1 ± 1.4, compared with baseline) than did the placebo group (+2.8 ± 1.4; P = .0095).
 

Dazodalibep safety

“Dazodalibep therapy was generally safe and well tolerated,” Dr. Baldini said in her presentation. Adverse events that were reported for both investigations were generally mild and occurred with similar frequency between the treatment groups. The most commonly reported adverse events, each occurring in more than 5% of patients who received dazodalibep, were COVID-19, diarrhea, anemia, dizziness, ligament sprain, upper respiratory tract infection, and nasopharyngitis. The incidence of COVID-19 and nasopharyngitis was comparable between the treatment and placebo arms.

However, in the patient group with moderate to high systemic disease activity, one patient who was treated with dazodalibep experienced two serious adverse events: a grade 3 SARS-CoV-2 infection, and subsequent death from an unknown cause, which occurred 46 days after the last administration of dazodalibep (12 days after COVID-19 diagnosis). Additionally, there was one case of herpes zoster in a patient treated with dazodalibep. In the group with limited systemic organ involvement, three serious adverse events were reported in the dazodalibep group (pneumonia influenza, postacute COVID-19 syndrome [long COVID], and gammopathy); one serious adverse event (neutropenia) was reported in the placebo group. One patient in the dazodalibep group discontinued participation in the study because of an adverse event, compared with two in the placebo group. Investigators determined that, thus far, all serious adverse events in both populations have been unrelated to the medication.

Throughout the trial, eligible participants in both populations were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either intravenous dazodalibep 1,500 mg or placebo every 2 weeks for three doses, followed by every 4 weeks for an additional four doses, up to day 169. The majority of participants in all populations and treatment arms were women (> 90%). Key inclusion criteria were being aged 18 years or older, meeting the 2016 American College of Rheumatology–EULAR classification criteria for Sjögren’s syndrome, and testing positive for anti-SSA and/or rheumatoid factors. Exclusion criteria were having a medical history of thrombosis or anticoagulant use, as well as prior treatment with B cell–depleting therapies. The proportions of patients who received glucocorticoids, antimalarials, or disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs were consistent between both arms of each population.

“Larger clinical trials are necessary to validate the clinical effectiveness and safety of dazodalibep therapy in this specific subgroup of patients,” Dr. Baldini concluded. Currently, dazodalibep is being studied for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and renal transplant rejection, and Horizon Therapeutics has plans to explore its use in focal segmental glomerulosclerosis.

Dr. Ng has served as a consultant to Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, MedImmune, Resolves Therapeutics, Janssen, and UCB. Dr. Baldini has served as a consultant to GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi.

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

MILAN – Dazodalibep, an intravenously administered inhibitor of CD40 ligand, shows promise in reducing disease activity and alleviating key subjective symptoms of Sjögren’s syndrome, compared with placebo. These preliminary findings are from the initial phase of the ALISS trial, a phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover clinical trial presented at the annul European Congress of Rheumatology.

Over the course of the 169-day trial, both the disease activity score and the patient-reported symptom score dropped significantly for patients who were treated with dazodalibep, also known as VIB4920 or HZN4920, compared with those treated with placebo, meeting both primary endpoints. This benefit was particularly evident for patients who had limited systemic organ involvement but substantial symptom burden.

Dazodalibep is a fusion protein that functions as an inhibitor by blocking the interaction between T cells and CD40-expressing B cells. This inhibition effectively suppresses costimulatory signaling between immune cells. Unlike previous CD40-targeting biologics, dazodalibep does not belong to the antibody class. According to Horizon Thereapeutics, this distinction is expected to help mitigate safety concerns, particularly those related to blood clot formation that were encountered with antibody-based biologics such as ruplizumab, according to Horizon, which acquired the trial’s sponsor, Viela Bio.
 

Patients with moderate to high systemic disease activity

The trial investigated dazodalibep in two patient populations. Wan-Fai Ng, MBBCh, PhD, professor of rheumatology at Newcastle University and honorary consultant rheumatologist at Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, England, presented results from the first group, which comprised 74 adult patients with Sjögren’s syndrome with moderate to high systemic disease activity. Disease activity was defined as a score of ≥ 5 on the EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI).

A post hoc responder analysis demonstrated that dazodalibep outperformed placebo in patients who achieved a 5- or 6-point improvement on the ESSDAI. Response rates for these patients was 61.1% and 60.0%, respectively, compared with 35.1% and 34.3% for patients who received placebo. Patients who received dazodalibep experienced a reduction of –6.3 ± 0.6 points in ESSDAI score, whereas the placebo group experienced a reduction of –4.1 ± 0.6 points, a difference of –2.2 (P = .0167). However, there was no significant change in any symptom-related score in this population.
 

Patients with unacceptable symptom burden but limited systemic involvement

Also at EULAR 2023, Chiara Baldini, MD, of the University of Pisa, Italy, reported the results from the second group of 109 adult patients with Sjögren’s syndrome who had notable symptom burden but limited systemic organ involvement. “These patients represent a significant portion of individuals with reduced quality of life who are largely excluded from other clinical trials,” Dr. Baldini said in an interview. The study population was defined by having a EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) ≥ 5 and, in contrast to the previous group, an ESSDAI score < 5.

In this case, treatment with dazodalibep correlated with a substantial reduction in symptom burden, compared with placebo. Among the patients who received dazodalibep, 66.7% achieved ≥ 1 point or ≥ 15% reduction in symptoms, as measured by ESSPRI, compared with 32.7% in the placebo group. The ESSPRI score decreased by –1.80 ± 0.23 points in the dazodalibep group, while it decreased by –0.53 ± 0.23 points in the placebo group, a difference of −1.27 ± 0.33 points favoring dazodalibep (P = .0002). The reduction in symptoms in the dazodalibep group was evident from the first data point on day 29 and was statistically significant for each of the three symptom components included in the ESSPRI score: dryness, pain, and fatigue.

Additionally, a significant improvement was observed in one of the secondary endpoints, namely, a reduction in the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue score. The dazodalibep group exhibited a considerably greater reduction (+8.1 ± 1.4, compared with baseline) than did the placebo group (+2.8 ± 1.4; P = .0095).
 

Dazodalibep safety

“Dazodalibep therapy was generally safe and well tolerated,” Dr. Baldini said in her presentation. Adverse events that were reported for both investigations were generally mild and occurred with similar frequency between the treatment groups. The most commonly reported adverse events, each occurring in more than 5% of patients who received dazodalibep, were COVID-19, diarrhea, anemia, dizziness, ligament sprain, upper respiratory tract infection, and nasopharyngitis. The incidence of COVID-19 and nasopharyngitis was comparable between the treatment and placebo arms.

However, in the patient group with moderate to high systemic disease activity, one patient who was treated with dazodalibep experienced two serious adverse events: a grade 3 SARS-CoV-2 infection, and subsequent death from an unknown cause, which occurred 46 days after the last administration of dazodalibep (12 days after COVID-19 diagnosis). Additionally, there was one case of herpes zoster in a patient treated with dazodalibep. In the group with limited systemic organ involvement, three serious adverse events were reported in the dazodalibep group (pneumonia influenza, postacute COVID-19 syndrome [long COVID], and gammopathy); one serious adverse event (neutropenia) was reported in the placebo group. One patient in the dazodalibep group discontinued participation in the study because of an adverse event, compared with two in the placebo group. Investigators determined that, thus far, all serious adverse events in both populations have been unrelated to the medication.

Throughout the trial, eligible participants in both populations were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either intravenous dazodalibep 1,500 mg or placebo every 2 weeks for three doses, followed by every 4 weeks for an additional four doses, up to day 169. The majority of participants in all populations and treatment arms were women (> 90%). Key inclusion criteria were being aged 18 years or older, meeting the 2016 American College of Rheumatology–EULAR classification criteria for Sjögren’s syndrome, and testing positive for anti-SSA and/or rheumatoid factors. Exclusion criteria were having a medical history of thrombosis or anticoagulant use, as well as prior treatment with B cell–depleting therapies. The proportions of patients who received glucocorticoids, antimalarials, or disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs were consistent between both arms of each population.

“Larger clinical trials are necessary to validate the clinical effectiveness and safety of dazodalibep therapy in this specific subgroup of patients,” Dr. Baldini concluded. Currently, dazodalibep is being studied for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and renal transplant rejection, and Horizon Therapeutics has plans to explore its use in focal segmental glomerulosclerosis.

Dr. Ng has served as a consultant to Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, MedImmune, Resolves Therapeutics, Janssen, and UCB. Dr. Baldini has served as a consultant to GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi.

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

The introduction of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in the late 1990s revolutionized treatment of rheumatic diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), providing patients with another treatment option when conventional therapies were ineffective. However, when these diseases don’t respond to anti-TNF therapy, it is still difficult to determine the next best course of action.

“One of the big challenges we have in treatment of psoriatic arthritis, and I would say rheumatoid arthritis was well, is how to handle patients who have failed their first biologic therapy,” Christopher T. Ritchlin, MD, MPH, professor of allergy, immunology, and rheumatology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), told this news organization. “In the case of both RA and PsA, that’s quite frequently an anti-TNF agent.”

For an estimated 30% to 40% of patients, TNF inhibitor therapy is discontinued because of nonresponse or intolerance. Clinicians can switch to another biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) or add another conventional DMARD, such as methotrexate. Now, several case studies as well as promising findings from phase 2 clinical trials suggest that combining two biologics could be an alternative strategy to improve patient response to treatment. However, concerns about safety and higher costs remain.
 

Targeting multiple mechanisms of action

Rheumatic conditions affect multiple areas of the body and involve different signaling pathways, said Dr. Ritchlin, who heads the Clinical Immunology Research Unit at the University of Rochester. PsA, for example, affects the skin, peripheral joints, the axial skeleton, and the entheses.

“The question is, Are these various manifestations – of which multiple [ones] are often seen in one patient – likely to respond to one therapy that targets one single pathway?” he said.

Combination therapies have been effective in treating leukemia and lymphoma as well as infection with HIV, Melek Yalçin Mutlu, MD, and colleagues from Friedrich Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg and the University Clinic Erlangen (Germany), wrote in a review about combining biologic DMARDs in the treatment of RA and PsA. The review was published in Joint Bone Spine.

“Cumulative evidence on the success of combination therapies in various diseases supports an akin approach in rheumatology, and simultaneous or sequential blockade of multiple mechanisms that generate or propagate arthritis could theoretically enhance efficacy,” the authors wrote. “On the other hand, intervening on multiple targets in the immune system brings about a risk of adverse events, among which infection is a major concern.”
 

Failed clinical trials

Clinical trials of combination biologic therapies for rheumatic disease have been tried before, but these combinations did not show superior efficacy, and they increased patients’ risk for infection. One study published in 2004 compared monotherapy with the TNF inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) to the combination of etanercept and anakinra (Kineret), an interleukin-1 (IL-1) antagonist, in 244 patients with active RA despite methotrexate therapy. Researchers found no statistically significant difference in achieving 20% improvement in modified American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20), ACR50, or ACR70 between the groups that received etanercept and anakinra and those that received etanercept alone. There were nine serious infections among patients given etanercept and anakinra, including one death due to pneumonia. There were no serious infections in the etanercept monotherapy group.

In another RA trial, 121 patients were given etanercept 25 mg twice weekly and were randomly assigned to also receive a placebo or low-dose abatacept (Orencia), a T-cell co-stimulation inhibitor. There was no significant difference in disease improvement between the two groups, although the rate of serious adverse events was nearly six times higher in the etanercept-abatacept group (16.5% vs. 2.8%).

These studies had a “chilling effect on the whole field for some years,” Brian G. Feagan, MD, the senior scientific director of the gastrointestinal contract research firm Alimentiv in London, Ontario, told this news organization. People were reluctant to try new biologic combinations, owing to the fear that these safety issues would plague subsequent trials.

University of Western Ontario, London

Promising combinations

But a recent phase 2 trial, led by Dr. Feagan, suggests that certain combinations can be effective. In the Janssen-sponsored VEGA trial, researchers found that a combination of guselkumab (Tremfya), an IL-23 inhibitor, and golimumab (Simponi), an anti-TNF agent, was more effective than either drug used as monotherapy for initial induction treatment for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. Importantly, there was no difference in adverse events between any of the groups. This same combination therapy is now being tried for patients with active PsA in Janssen’s AFFINITY trial, for which Dr. Ritchlin is one of the lead investigators.

Other trials have also delivered promising results. One study enrolled 51 adults with active RA who were all receiving stable doses of both a TNF inhibitor – either etanercept or adalimumab (Humira) – and methotrexate. Patients were randomly assigned to receive one course of rituximab (Rituxan) or placebo. The researchers found that the safety profile of this TNF inhibitor/methotrexate/rituximab combination was “consistent” with the safety profiles of previous studies of methotrexate/rituximab dual combinations with no TNF inhibitor; there were no new safety signals. At 24 weeks, 30% of the group that received rituximab reached ACR20, compared with 17% of the group that was given placebo. Twelve percent of the rituximab group achieved ACR50, compared with 6% of the group that received placebo.

“B-cell depletion is fundamentally different from cytokine inhibition and even from co-stimulation blockade, making an additive effect more likely,” Dr. Mutlu and colleagues wrote in their review. Reports have also suggested possible benefits of combining a TNF inhibitor and an IL-17 inhibitor in the treatment of RA and PsA, as well as the combination of a TNF inhibitor and an IL-23 antagonist for PsA.

While these combinations require controlled clinical trials, “there’s some smoke signals out there that this might be an effective strategy for some patients,” Dr. Ritchlin said.

In addition to the AFFINITY trial, two clinical trials are underway in France. The first, CRI-RA, is evaluating the combination of baricitinib (Olumiant), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, and adalimumab. Although baricitinib is not a biologic, as a targeted synthetic DMARD, the therapy is more potent than conventional DMARDs, and the same potential safety concerns apply. However, use of a combination of tofacitinib (Xeljanz) and different biologics for RA patients has been reported; no serious side effects were reported over 11 months of therapy. The randomized, placebo-controlled trial began in July 2021 and will enroll 178 patients. The estimated study completion date is July 2025.

“Of note, baricitinib does not directly block signaling downstream of TNF, even if an indirect effect on TNF production is likely to occur,” the CRI-RA entry on clinicaltrials.gov reads. “Targeting multiple inflammatory cytokines in combination may lead to more effective treatment and enhanced clinical responses in patients with RA compared to the current second-line strategies.”

The second trial, SEQUENS-RA, is evaluating the use of TNF inhibitors followed by abatacept for patients with RA who test positive for anticitrullinated protein autoantibodies (ACPAs). In the past, the combination of a TNF inhibitor and abatacept did not lead to promising results, but in this trial, the drugs will be administered sequentially.

“Although abatacept has shown a very good tolerance profile that might be superior to other bDMARDs [biologic DMARDs], rheumatologists might be reluctant to use it as a first line bDMARD as there is a belief of a slower efficacy compared to other bDMARDs or JAK inhibitors,” according to the clinical trial’s description. “Investigators have hypothesized that first rapidly controlling the inflammation phase, using TNF inhibitors, followed by abatacept to induce an immunological remission, would optimize response and tolerance of ACPA-positive patients with RA.”

The randomized trial of 220 participants began in November 2022. The estimated completion date for the study is November 2025.
 

Finding the right patients

Though these studies have had some promising results, the difference in efficacy between biologic monotherapy and dual therapy has been mostly moderate, Dr. Mutlu and coauthors wrote. Identifying disease subtypes for which there might be a higher likelihood of response to dual biologic treatment, especially multidrug-resistant types, could improve efficacies in future trials, they argued. “The good effects of bDMARD combinations in resistant patients in fact point into this direction, though they were observed in uncontrolled studies,” the authors noted.

Insurance coverage remains a “huge challenge” for these dual therapies because of the higher expense, noted Dr. Ritchlin. Better targeting therapies could help convince these companies to pay for these therapies.

“I would say that if we were able to demonstrate a phenotype of a patient that would respond to biologics and not monotherapies, [then] many companies would be amenable to this kind of approach,” he said.

Dr. Ritchlin reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and UCB. Dr. Feagan reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and several other pharmaceutical companies.

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

The introduction of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in the late 1990s revolutionized treatment of rheumatic diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), providing patients with another treatment option when conventional therapies were ineffective. However, when these diseases don’t respond to anti-TNF therapy, it is still difficult to determine the next best course of action.

“One of the big challenges we have in treatment of psoriatic arthritis, and I would say rheumatoid arthritis was well, is how to handle patients who have failed their first biologic therapy,” Christopher T. Ritchlin, MD, MPH, professor of allergy, immunology, and rheumatology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), told this news organization. “In the case of both RA and PsA, that’s quite frequently an anti-TNF agent.”

For an estimated 30% to 40% of patients, TNF inhibitor therapy is discontinued because of nonresponse or intolerance. Clinicians can switch to another biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) or add another conventional DMARD, such as methotrexate. Now, several case studies as well as promising findings from phase 2 clinical trials suggest that combining two biologics could be an alternative strategy to improve patient response to treatment. However, concerns about safety and higher costs remain.
 

Targeting multiple mechanisms of action

Rheumatic conditions affect multiple areas of the body and involve different signaling pathways, said Dr. Ritchlin, who heads the Clinical Immunology Research Unit at the University of Rochester. PsA, for example, affects the skin, peripheral joints, the axial skeleton, and the entheses.

“The question is, Are these various manifestations – of which multiple [ones] are often seen in one patient – likely to respond to one therapy that targets one single pathway?” he said.

Combination therapies have been effective in treating leukemia and lymphoma as well as infection with HIV, Melek Yalçin Mutlu, MD, and colleagues from Friedrich Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg and the University Clinic Erlangen (Germany), wrote in a review about combining biologic DMARDs in the treatment of RA and PsA. The review was published in Joint Bone Spine.

“Cumulative evidence on the success of combination therapies in various diseases supports an akin approach in rheumatology, and simultaneous or sequential blockade of multiple mechanisms that generate or propagate arthritis could theoretically enhance efficacy,” the authors wrote. “On the other hand, intervening on multiple targets in the immune system brings about a risk of adverse events, among which infection is a major concern.”
 

Failed clinical trials

Clinical trials of combination biologic therapies for rheumatic disease have been tried before, but these combinations did not show superior efficacy, and they increased patients’ risk for infection. One study published in 2004 compared monotherapy with the TNF inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) to the combination of etanercept and anakinra (Kineret), an interleukin-1 (IL-1) antagonist, in 244 patients with active RA despite methotrexate therapy. Researchers found no statistically significant difference in achieving 20% improvement in modified American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20), ACR50, or ACR70 between the groups that received etanercept and anakinra and those that received etanercept alone. There were nine serious infections among patients given etanercept and anakinra, including one death due to pneumonia. There were no serious infections in the etanercept monotherapy group.

In another RA trial, 121 patients were given etanercept 25 mg twice weekly and were randomly assigned to also receive a placebo or low-dose abatacept (Orencia), a T-cell co-stimulation inhibitor. There was no significant difference in disease improvement between the two groups, although the rate of serious adverse events was nearly six times higher in the etanercept-abatacept group (16.5% vs. 2.8%).

These studies had a “chilling effect on the whole field for some years,” Brian G. Feagan, MD, the senior scientific director of the gastrointestinal contract research firm Alimentiv in London, Ontario, told this news organization. People were reluctant to try new biologic combinations, owing to the fear that these safety issues would plague subsequent trials.

University of Western Ontario, London

Promising combinations

But a recent phase 2 trial, led by Dr. Feagan, suggests that certain combinations can be effective. In the Janssen-sponsored VEGA trial, researchers found that a combination of guselkumab (Tremfya), an IL-23 inhibitor, and golimumab (Simponi), an anti-TNF agent, was more effective than either drug used as monotherapy for initial induction treatment for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. Importantly, there was no difference in adverse events between any of the groups. This same combination therapy is now being tried for patients with active PsA in Janssen’s AFFINITY trial, for which Dr. Ritchlin is one of the lead investigators.

Other trials have also delivered promising results. One study enrolled 51 adults with active RA who were all receiving stable doses of both a TNF inhibitor – either etanercept or adalimumab (Humira) – and methotrexate. Patients were randomly assigned to receive one course of rituximab (Rituxan) or placebo. The researchers found that the safety profile of this TNF inhibitor/methotrexate/rituximab combination was “consistent” with the safety profiles of previous studies of methotrexate/rituximab dual combinations with no TNF inhibitor; there were no new safety signals. At 24 weeks, 30% of the group that received rituximab reached ACR20, compared with 17% of the group that was given placebo. Twelve percent of the rituximab group achieved ACR50, compared with 6% of the group that received placebo.

“B-cell depletion is fundamentally different from cytokine inhibition and even from co-stimulation blockade, making an additive effect more likely,” Dr. Mutlu and colleagues wrote in their review. Reports have also suggested possible benefits of combining a TNF inhibitor and an IL-17 inhibitor in the treatment of RA and PsA, as well as the combination of a TNF inhibitor and an IL-23 antagonist for PsA.

While these combinations require controlled clinical trials, “there’s some smoke signals out there that this might be an effective strategy for some patients,” Dr. Ritchlin said.

In addition to the AFFINITY trial, two clinical trials are underway in France. The first, CRI-RA, is evaluating the combination of baricitinib (Olumiant), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, and adalimumab. Although baricitinib is not a biologic, as a targeted synthetic DMARD, the therapy is more potent than conventional DMARDs, and the same potential safety concerns apply. However, use of a combination of tofacitinib (Xeljanz) and different biologics for RA patients has been reported; no serious side effects were reported over 11 months of therapy. The randomized, placebo-controlled trial began in July 2021 and will enroll 178 patients. The estimated study completion date is July 2025.

“Of note, baricitinib does not directly block signaling downstream of TNF, even if an indirect effect on TNF production is likely to occur,” the CRI-RA entry on clinicaltrials.gov reads. “Targeting multiple inflammatory cytokines in combination may lead to more effective treatment and enhanced clinical responses in patients with RA compared to the current second-line strategies.”

The second trial, SEQUENS-RA, is evaluating the use of TNF inhibitors followed by abatacept for patients with RA who test positive for anticitrullinated protein autoantibodies (ACPAs). In the past, the combination of a TNF inhibitor and abatacept did not lead to promising results, but in this trial, the drugs will be administered sequentially.

“Although abatacept has shown a very good tolerance profile that might be superior to other bDMARDs [biologic DMARDs], rheumatologists might be reluctant to use it as a first line bDMARD as there is a belief of a slower efficacy compared to other bDMARDs or JAK inhibitors,” according to the clinical trial’s description. “Investigators have hypothesized that first rapidly controlling the inflammation phase, using TNF inhibitors, followed by abatacept to induce an immunological remission, would optimize response and tolerance of ACPA-positive patients with RA.”

The randomized trial of 220 participants began in November 2022. The estimated completion date for the study is November 2025.
 

Finding the right patients

Though these studies have had some promising results, the difference in efficacy between biologic monotherapy and dual therapy has been mostly moderate, Dr. Mutlu and coauthors wrote. Identifying disease subtypes for which there might be a higher likelihood of response to dual biologic treatment, especially multidrug-resistant types, could improve efficacies in future trials, they argued. “The good effects of bDMARD combinations in resistant patients in fact point into this direction, though they were observed in uncontrolled studies,” the authors noted.

Insurance coverage remains a “huge challenge” for these dual therapies because of the higher expense, noted Dr. Ritchlin. Better targeting therapies could help convince these companies to pay for these therapies.

“I would say that if we were able to demonstrate a phenotype of a patient that would respond to biologics and not monotherapies, [then] many companies would be amenable to this kind of approach,” he said.

Dr. Ritchlin reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and UCB. Dr. Feagan reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and several other pharmaceutical companies.

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

The introduction of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in the late 1990s revolutionized treatment of rheumatic diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), providing patients with another treatment option when conventional therapies were ineffective. However, when these diseases don’t respond to anti-TNF therapy, it is still difficult to determine the next best course of action.

“One of the big challenges we have in treatment of psoriatic arthritis, and I would say rheumatoid arthritis was well, is how to handle patients who have failed their first biologic therapy,” Christopher T. Ritchlin, MD, MPH, professor of allergy, immunology, and rheumatology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), told this news organization. “In the case of both RA and PsA, that’s quite frequently an anti-TNF agent.”

For an estimated 30% to 40% of patients, TNF inhibitor therapy is discontinued because of nonresponse or intolerance. Clinicians can switch to another biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) or add another conventional DMARD, such as methotrexate. Now, several case studies as well as promising findings from phase 2 clinical trials suggest that combining two biologics could be an alternative strategy to improve patient response to treatment. However, concerns about safety and higher costs remain.
 

Targeting multiple mechanisms of action

Rheumatic conditions affect multiple areas of the body and involve different signaling pathways, said Dr. Ritchlin, who heads the Clinical Immunology Research Unit at the University of Rochester. PsA, for example, affects the skin, peripheral joints, the axial skeleton, and the entheses.

“The question is, Are these various manifestations – of which multiple [ones] are often seen in one patient – likely to respond to one therapy that targets one single pathway?” he said.

Combination therapies have been effective in treating leukemia and lymphoma as well as infection with HIV, Melek Yalçin Mutlu, MD, and colleagues from Friedrich Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg and the University Clinic Erlangen (Germany), wrote in a review about combining biologic DMARDs in the treatment of RA and PsA. The review was published in Joint Bone Spine.

“Cumulative evidence on the success of combination therapies in various diseases supports an akin approach in rheumatology, and simultaneous or sequential blockade of multiple mechanisms that generate or propagate arthritis could theoretically enhance efficacy,” the authors wrote. “On the other hand, intervening on multiple targets in the immune system brings about a risk of adverse events, among which infection is a major concern.”
 

Failed clinical trials

Clinical trials of combination biologic therapies for rheumatic disease have been tried before, but these combinations did not show superior efficacy, and they increased patients’ risk for infection. One study published in 2004 compared monotherapy with the TNF inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) to the combination of etanercept and anakinra (Kineret), an interleukin-1 (IL-1) antagonist, in 244 patients with active RA despite methotrexate therapy. Researchers found no statistically significant difference in achieving 20% improvement in modified American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20), ACR50, or ACR70 between the groups that received etanercept and anakinra and those that received etanercept alone. There were nine serious infections among patients given etanercept and anakinra, including one death due to pneumonia. There were no serious infections in the etanercept monotherapy group.

In another RA trial, 121 patients were given etanercept 25 mg twice weekly and were randomly assigned to also receive a placebo or low-dose abatacept (Orencia), a T-cell co-stimulation inhibitor. There was no significant difference in disease improvement between the two groups, although the rate of serious adverse events was nearly six times higher in the etanercept-abatacept group (16.5% vs. 2.8%).

These studies had a “chilling effect on the whole field for some years,” Brian G. Feagan, MD, the senior scientific director of the gastrointestinal contract research firm Alimentiv in London, Ontario, told this news organization. People were reluctant to try new biologic combinations, owing to the fear that these safety issues would plague subsequent trials.

University of Western Ontario, London

Promising combinations

But a recent phase 2 trial, led by Dr. Feagan, suggests that certain combinations can be effective. In the Janssen-sponsored VEGA trial, researchers found that a combination of guselkumab (Tremfya), an IL-23 inhibitor, and golimumab (Simponi), an anti-TNF agent, was more effective than either drug used as monotherapy for initial induction treatment for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. Importantly, there was no difference in adverse events between any of the groups. This same combination therapy is now being tried for patients with active PsA in Janssen’s AFFINITY trial, for which Dr. Ritchlin is one of the lead investigators.

Other trials have also delivered promising results. One study enrolled 51 adults with active RA who were all receiving stable doses of both a TNF inhibitor – either etanercept or adalimumab (Humira) – and methotrexate. Patients were randomly assigned to receive one course of rituximab (Rituxan) or placebo. The researchers found that the safety profile of this TNF inhibitor/methotrexate/rituximab combination was “consistent” with the safety profiles of previous studies of methotrexate/rituximab dual combinations with no TNF inhibitor; there were no new safety signals. At 24 weeks, 30% of the group that received rituximab reached ACR20, compared with 17% of the group that was given placebo. Twelve percent of the rituximab group achieved ACR50, compared with 6% of the group that received placebo.

“B-cell depletion is fundamentally different from cytokine inhibition and even from co-stimulation blockade, making an additive effect more likely,” Dr. Mutlu and colleagues wrote in their review. Reports have also suggested possible benefits of combining a TNF inhibitor and an IL-17 inhibitor in the treatment of RA and PsA, as well as the combination of a TNF inhibitor and an IL-23 antagonist for PsA.

While these combinations require controlled clinical trials, “there’s some smoke signals out there that this might be an effective strategy for some patients,” Dr. Ritchlin said.

In addition to the AFFINITY trial, two clinical trials are underway in France. The first, CRI-RA, is evaluating the combination of baricitinib (Olumiant), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, and adalimumab. Although baricitinib is not a biologic, as a targeted synthetic DMARD, the therapy is more potent than conventional DMARDs, and the same potential safety concerns apply. However, use of a combination of tofacitinib (Xeljanz) and different biologics for RA patients has been reported; no serious side effects were reported over 11 months of therapy. The randomized, placebo-controlled trial began in July 2021 and will enroll 178 patients. The estimated study completion date is July 2025.

“Of note, baricitinib does not directly block signaling downstream of TNF, even if an indirect effect on TNF production is likely to occur,” the CRI-RA entry on clinicaltrials.gov reads. “Targeting multiple inflammatory cytokines in combination may lead to more effective treatment and enhanced clinical responses in patients with RA compared to the current second-line strategies.”

The second trial, SEQUENS-RA, is evaluating the use of TNF inhibitors followed by abatacept for patients with RA who test positive for anticitrullinated protein autoantibodies (ACPAs). In the past, the combination of a TNF inhibitor and abatacept did not lead to promising results, but in this trial, the drugs will be administered sequentially.

“Although abatacept has shown a very good tolerance profile that might be superior to other bDMARDs [biologic DMARDs], rheumatologists might be reluctant to use it as a first line bDMARD as there is a belief of a slower efficacy compared to other bDMARDs or JAK inhibitors,” according to the clinical trial’s description. “Investigators have hypothesized that first rapidly controlling the inflammation phase, using TNF inhibitors, followed by abatacept to induce an immunological remission, would optimize response and tolerance of ACPA-positive patients with RA.”

The randomized trial of 220 participants began in November 2022. The estimated completion date for the study is November 2025.
 

Finding the right patients

Though these studies have had some promising results, the difference in efficacy between biologic monotherapy and dual therapy has been mostly moderate, Dr. Mutlu and coauthors wrote. Identifying disease subtypes for which there might be a higher likelihood of response to dual biologic treatment, especially multidrug-resistant types, could improve efficacies in future trials, they argued. “The good effects of bDMARD combinations in resistant patients in fact point into this direction, though they were observed in uncontrolled studies,” the authors noted.

Insurance coverage remains a “huge challenge” for these dual therapies because of the higher expense, noted Dr. Ritchlin. Better targeting therapies could help convince these companies to pay for these therapies.

“I would say that if we were able to demonstrate a phenotype of a patient that would respond to biologics and not monotherapies, [then] many companies would be amenable to this kind of approach,” he said.

Dr. Ritchlin reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and UCB. Dr. Feagan reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and several other pharmaceutical companies.

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

AT EULAR 2023

MILAN – Safety considerations, particularly regarding the use of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, are of utmost importance in the 2023 update to recommendations for managing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR). Additionally, the selection of therapy should now take into account the complete clinical presentation, explicitly considering nonmusculoskeletal manifestations.

Safety considerations with JAK inhibitors

Expanding on the existing six overarching principles from the 2019 recommendations, the PsA EULAR recommendations now introduce a seventh principle: “The choice of treatment should consider safety considerations regarding individual modes of action to optimize the benefit-risk profile.”

This addition was prompted by recent safety data on JAK inhibitors, which revealed serious potential side effects, such as heart attacks, blood clots, cancer, and severe infections, that recently prompted the European Medicines Agency to restrict their use. As indicated by the new principle, safety considerations have been incorporated into several recommendations.

For instance, in the context of peripheral arthritis, JAK inhibitors may now be considered if there is an inadequate response to at least one conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) such as methotrexate, sulfasalazine, or leflunomide, and at least one biologic DMARD (bDMARD).

Alternatively, JAK inhibitors may be utilized when bDMARDs are not suitable for other reasons. However, EULAR now emphasizes caution whenever JAK inhibitors are mentioned. Specifically, “careful consideration is necessary for patients aged 65 or above, current or past long-time smokers, individuals with a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or other cardiovascular risk factors, those with other malignancy risk factors, or individuals with a known risk for venous thromboembolism.”
 

Consider nonmusculoskeletal manifestations in treatment decisions

In another significant update, EULAR now recommends that the choice of therapy should also consider nonmusculoskeletal manifestations associated with PsA. “There is a notable shift in perspective here,” Dr. Gossec told this news organization. Clinically relevant skin involvement should prompt the use of IL-17A or IL-17A/F or IL-23 or IL-12/23 inhibitors, while uveitis should be treated with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors.

In the case of inflammatory bowel disease, EULAR advises the use of anti-TNF agents, IL-12/23 or IL-23 inhibitors, or a JAK inhibitor. The recommended course of action within each treatment category is not ranked in order of preference, but EULAR emphasizes the importance of following EMA recommendations and considering safety.
 

Systemic glucocorticoids removed

Certain medications have been removed from the recommendations, reflecting the heightened focus on treatment safety. The use of systemic glucocorticoids as adjunctive therapy is no longer recommended. “We always had reservations about their use, and now we have eliminated them. We are aware that they are still utilized, with 30% of patients in Germany, for instance, receiving low doses of glucocorticoids. However, the long-term efficacy/safety balance of glucocorticoids is unfavorable in any disease, particularly in patients with psoriatic arthritis and multiple comorbidities,” Dr. Gossec explained.

NSAIDs and local glucocorticoids are now limited to specific patient populations, namely those affected by oligoarthritis without poor prognostic factors, entheseal disease, or predominant axial disease. Their use should be short-term, generally no longer than 4 weeks. Polyarthritis or oligoarthritis with poor prognostic factors should instead be treated directly with csDMARDs.
 

No specific biologic treatment order recommended for peripheral arthritis

Regarding patients with peripheral arthritis, recent efficacy data have led EULAR to refrain from recommending any specific order of preference for the use of bDMARDs, which encompass TNF inhibitors and drugs targeting the IL-17 and IL-12/23 pathways. “We lack the data to propose an order of preference in patients with peripheral arthritis. Different classes of molecules exhibit efficacy in joint inflammation, generally resulting in a 50% response rate and similar overall effects,” said Dr. Gossec, referencing head-to-head trials between biologics that yielded very comparable results, such as the EXCEED trial or SPIRIT-H2H trial.

The updated recommendations now consider two IL-23p19 inhibitors, guselkumab (Tremfya) and risankizumab (Skyrizi), the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq), and the very recently EMA-approved bimekizumab (Bimzelx), an IL-17A/F double inhibitor.

The recommendation for patients with mono- or oligoarthritis and poor prognostic factors now aligns with the previous recommendations for polyarthritis: A csDMARD should be initiated promptly, with a preference for methotrexate if significant skin involvement is present. New data suggest that methotrexate may be beneficial for enthesitis, achieving resolution in approximately 30% of patients. When considering treatment options, JAK inhibitors may also be taken into account, with safety considerations in mind.

In cases of clinically relevant axial disease and an inadequate response to NSAIDs, therapy with an IL-17A inhibitor, a TNF inhibitor, an IL-17A/F inhibitor, or a JAK inhibitor may be considered. This approach now aligns with the most recent axial spondyloarthritis recommendation from EULAR and the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS).
 

Which disease manifestation to treat first?

During the discussion, chairwoman Uta Kiltz, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Rheumatism Center Ruhrgebiet, Herne, Germany, and clinical lecturer at Ruhr University Bochum, inquired about identifying the primary manifestation to guide the course of action.

“Psoriatic arthritis is highly heterogeneous, and determining the predominant manifestation is sometimes challenging,” Dr. Gossec said. “However, we believe that a certain order of preference is necessary when making treatment decisions. Starting with peripheral arthritis, which can lead to structural damage, allows for treatment selection based on that aspect. If peripheral arthritis is not present, attention should be directed towards axial disease, ensuring the presence of actual inflammation rather than solely axial pain, as mechanical origin axial pain can occur due to the patient’s age.”

David Liew, MBBS, PhD, consultant rheumatologist and clinical pharmacologist at Austin Health in Melbourne, commented on the update to this news organization: “We are fortunate to have a wide range of targeted therapy options for psoriatic arthritis, and these guidelines reflect this abundance of choices. They emphasize the importance of selecting therapies based on specific disease manifestations and tailoring care to each patient’s unique type of psoriatic arthritis. It’s worth noting that some changes in these guidelines were influenced by regulatory changes following ORAL Surveillance. In an era of numerous options, we can afford to be selective at times.”

Regarding safety concerns and JAK inhibitors, Dr. Liew added: “It is not surprising to see these guidelines impose certain restrictions on the use of JAK inhibitors, especially in psoriatic arthritis, where other therapies offer distinct advantages. Until high-quality evidence convincingly points away from a class effect, we can expect to see similar provisions in many more guidelines.”

Many of the recommendations’ authors report financial relationships with one or more pharmaceutical companies. These include AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Medac, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, R-Pharma, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB, and Viatris.

EULAR funded the development of the recommendations.

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

AT EULAR 2023

MILAN – Safety considerations, particularly regarding the use of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, are of utmost importance in the 2023 update to recommendations for managing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR). Additionally, the selection of therapy should now take into account the complete clinical presentation, explicitly considering nonmusculoskeletal manifestations.

Safety considerations with JAK inhibitors

Expanding on the existing six overarching principles from the 2019 recommendations, the PsA EULAR recommendations now introduce a seventh principle: “The choice of treatment should consider safety considerations regarding individual modes of action to optimize the benefit-risk profile.”

This addition was prompted by recent safety data on JAK inhibitors, which revealed serious potential side effects, such as heart attacks, blood clots, cancer, and severe infections, that recently prompted the European Medicines Agency to restrict their use. As indicated by the new principle, safety considerations have been incorporated into several recommendations.

For instance, in the context of peripheral arthritis, JAK inhibitors may now be considered if there is an inadequate response to at least one conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) such as methotrexate, sulfasalazine, or leflunomide, and at least one biologic DMARD (bDMARD).

Alternatively, JAK inhibitors may be utilized when bDMARDs are not suitable for other reasons. However, EULAR now emphasizes caution whenever JAK inhibitors are mentioned. Specifically, “careful consideration is necessary for patients aged 65 or above, current or past long-time smokers, individuals with a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or other cardiovascular risk factors, those with other malignancy risk factors, or individuals with a known risk for venous thromboembolism.”
 

Consider nonmusculoskeletal manifestations in treatment decisions

In another significant update, EULAR now recommends that the choice of therapy should also consider nonmusculoskeletal manifestations associated with PsA. “There is a notable shift in perspective here,” Dr. Gossec told this news organization. Clinically relevant skin involvement should prompt the use of IL-17A or IL-17A/F or IL-23 or IL-12/23 inhibitors, while uveitis should be treated with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors.

In the case of inflammatory bowel disease, EULAR advises the use of anti-TNF agents, IL-12/23 or IL-23 inhibitors, or a JAK inhibitor. The recommended course of action within each treatment category is not ranked in order of preference, but EULAR emphasizes the importance of following EMA recommendations and considering safety.
 

Systemic glucocorticoids removed

Certain medications have been removed from the recommendations, reflecting the heightened focus on treatment safety. The use of systemic glucocorticoids as adjunctive therapy is no longer recommended. “We always had reservations about their use, and now we have eliminated them. We are aware that they are still utilized, with 30% of patients in Germany, for instance, receiving low doses of glucocorticoids. However, the long-term efficacy/safety balance of glucocorticoids is unfavorable in any disease, particularly in patients with psoriatic arthritis and multiple comorbidities,” Dr. Gossec explained.

NSAIDs and local glucocorticoids are now limited to specific patient populations, namely those affected by oligoarthritis without poor prognostic factors, entheseal disease, or predominant axial disease. Their use should be short-term, generally no longer than 4 weeks. Polyarthritis or oligoarthritis with poor prognostic factors should instead be treated directly with csDMARDs.
 

No specific biologic treatment order recommended for peripheral arthritis

Regarding patients with peripheral arthritis, recent efficacy data have led EULAR to refrain from recommending any specific order of preference for the use of bDMARDs, which encompass TNF inhibitors and drugs targeting the IL-17 and IL-12/23 pathways. “We lack the data to propose an order of preference in patients with peripheral arthritis. Different classes of molecules exhibit efficacy in joint inflammation, generally resulting in a 50% response rate and similar overall effects,” said Dr. Gossec, referencing head-to-head trials between biologics that yielded very comparable results, such as the EXCEED trial or SPIRIT-H2H trial.

The updated recommendations now consider two IL-23p19 inhibitors, guselkumab (Tremfya) and risankizumab (Skyrizi), the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq), and the very recently EMA-approved bimekizumab (Bimzelx), an IL-17A/F double inhibitor.

The recommendation for patients with mono- or oligoarthritis and poor prognostic factors now aligns with the previous recommendations for polyarthritis: A csDMARD should be initiated promptly, with a preference for methotrexate if significant skin involvement is present. New data suggest that methotrexate may be beneficial for enthesitis, achieving resolution in approximately 30% of patients. When considering treatment options, JAK inhibitors may also be taken into account, with safety considerations in mind.

In cases of clinically relevant axial disease and an inadequate response to NSAIDs, therapy with an IL-17A inhibitor, a TNF inhibitor, an IL-17A/F inhibitor, or a JAK inhibitor may be considered. This approach now aligns with the most recent axial spondyloarthritis recommendation from EULAR and the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS).
 

Which disease manifestation to treat first?

During the discussion, chairwoman Uta Kiltz, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Rheumatism Center Ruhrgebiet, Herne, Germany, and clinical lecturer at Ruhr University Bochum, inquired about identifying the primary manifestation to guide the course of action.

“Psoriatic arthritis is highly heterogeneous, and determining the predominant manifestation is sometimes challenging,” Dr. Gossec said. “However, we believe that a certain order of preference is necessary when making treatment decisions. Starting with peripheral arthritis, which can lead to structural damage, allows for treatment selection based on that aspect. If peripheral arthritis is not present, attention should be directed towards axial disease, ensuring the presence of actual inflammation rather than solely axial pain, as mechanical origin axial pain can occur due to the patient’s age.”

David Liew, MBBS, PhD, consultant rheumatologist and clinical pharmacologist at Austin Health in Melbourne, commented on the update to this news organization: “We are fortunate to have a wide range of targeted therapy options for psoriatic arthritis, and these guidelines reflect this abundance of choices. They emphasize the importance of selecting therapies based on specific disease manifestations and tailoring care to each patient’s unique type of psoriatic arthritis. It’s worth noting that some changes in these guidelines were influenced by regulatory changes following ORAL Surveillance. In an era of numerous options, we can afford to be selective at times.”

Regarding safety concerns and JAK inhibitors, Dr. Liew added: “It is not surprising to see these guidelines impose certain restrictions on the use of JAK inhibitors, especially in psoriatic arthritis, where other therapies offer distinct advantages. Until high-quality evidence convincingly points away from a class effect, we can expect to see similar provisions in many more guidelines.”

Many of the recommendations’ authors report financial relationships with one or more pharmaceutical companies. These include AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Medac, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, R-Pharma, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB, and Viatris.

EULAR funded the development of the recommendations.

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

AT EULAR 2023

MILAN – Safety considerations, particularly regarding the use of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, are of utmost importance in the 2023 update to recommendations for managing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR). Additionally, the selection of therapy should now take into account the complete clinical presentation, explicitly considering nonmusculoskeletal manifestations.

Safety considerations with JAK inhibitors

Expanding on the existing six overarching principles from the 2019 recommendations, the PsA EULAR recommendations now introduce a seventh principle: “The choice of treatment should consider safety considerations regarding individual modes of action to optimize the benefit-risk profile.”

This addition was prompted by recent safety data on JAK inhibitors, which revealed serious potential side effects, such as heart attacks, blood clots, cancer, and severe infections, that recently prompted the European Medicines Agency to restrict their use. As indicated by the new principle, safety considerations have been incorporated into several recommendations.

For instance, in the context of peripheral arthritis, JAK inhibitors may now be considered if there is an inadequate response to at least one conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) such as methotrexate, sulfasalazine, or leflunomide, and at least one biologic DMARD (bDMARD).

Alternatively, JAK inhibitors may be utilized when bDMARDs are not suitable for other reasons. However, EULAR now emphasizes caution whenever JAK inhibitors are mentioned. Specifically, “careful consideration is necessary for patients aged 65 or above, current or past long-time smokers, individuals with a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or other cardiovascular risk factors, those with other malignancy risk factors, or individuals with a known risk for venous thromboembolism.”
 

Consider nonmusculoskeletal manifestations in treatment decisions

In another significant update, EULAR now recommends that the choice of therapy should also consider nonmusculoskeletal manifestations associated with PsA. “There is a notable shift in perspective here,” Dr. Gossec told this news organization. Clinically relevant skin involvement should prompt the use of IL-17A or IL-17A/F or IL-23 or IL-12/23 inhibitors, while uveitis should be treated with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors.

In the case of inflammatory bowel disease, EULAR advises the use of anti-TNF agents, IL-12/23 or IL-23 inhibitors, or a JAK inhibitor. The recommended course of action within each treatment category is not ranked in order of preference, but EULAR emphasizes the importance of following EMA recommendations and considering safety.
 

Systemic glucocorticoids removed

Certain medications have been removed from the recommendations, reflecting the heightened focus on treatment safety. The use of systemic glucocorticoids as adjunctive therapy is no longer recommended. “We always had reservations about their use, and now we have eliminated them. We are aware that they are still utilized, with 30% of patients in Germany, for instance, receiving low doses of glucocorticoids. However, the long-term efficacy/safety balance of glucocorticoids is unfavorable in any disease, particularly in patients with psoriatic arthritis and multiple comorbidities,” Dr. Gossec explained.

NSAIDs and local glucocorticoids are now limited to specific patient populations, namely those affected by oligoarthritis without poor prognostic factors, entheseal disease, or predominant axial disease. Their use should be short-term, generally no longer than 4 weeks. Polyarthritis or oligoarthritis with poor prognostic factors should instead be treated directly with csDMARDs.
 

No specific biologic treatment order recommended for peripheral arthritis

Regarding patients with peripheral arthritis, recent efficacy data have led EULAR to refrain from recommending any specific order of preference for the use of bDMARDs, which encompass TNF inhibitors and drugs targeting the IL-17 and IL-12/23 pathways. “We lack the data to propose an order of preference in patients with peripheral arthritis. Different classes of molecules exhibit efficacy in joint inflammation, generally resulting in a 50% response rate and similar overall effects,” said Dr. Gossec, referencing head-to-head trials between biologics that yielded very comparable results, such as the EXCEED trial or SPIRIT-H2H trial.

The updated recommendations now consider two IL-23p19 inhibitors, guselkumab (Tremfya) and risankizumab (Skyrizi), the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq), and the very recently EMA-approved bimekizumab (Bimzelx), an IL-17A/F double inhibitor.

The recommendation for patients with mono- or oligoarthritis and poor prognostic factors now aligns with the previous recommendations for polyarthritis: A csDMARD should be initiated promptly, with a preference for methotrexate if significant skin involvement is present. New data suggest that methotrexate may be beneficial for enthesitis, achieving resolution in approximately 30% of patients. When considering treatment options, JAK inhibitors may also be taken into account, with safety considerations in mind.

In cases of clinically relevant axial disease and an inadequate response to NSAIDs, therapy with an IL-17A inhibitor, a TNF inhibitor, an IL-17A/F inhibitor, or a JAK inhibitor may be considered. This approach now aligns with the most recent axial spondyloarthritis recommendation from EULAR and the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS).
 

Which disease manifestation to treat first?

During the discussion, chairwoman Uta Kiltz, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Rheumatism Center Ruhrgebiet, Herne, Germany, and clinical lecturer at Ruhr University Bochum, inquired about identifying the primary manifestation to guide the course of action.

“Psoriatic arthritis is highly heterogeneous, and determining the predominant manifestation is sometimes challenging,” Dr. Gossec said. “However, we believe that a certain order of preference is necessary when making treatment decisions. Starting with peripheral arthritis, which can lead to structural damage, allows for treatment selection based on that aspect. If peripheral arthritis is not present, attention should be directed towards axial disease, ensuring the presence of actual inflammation rather than solely axial pain, as mechanical origin axial pain can occur due to the patient’s age.”

David Liew, MBBS, PhD, consultant rheumatologist and clinical pharmacologist at Austin Health in Melbourne, commented on the update to this news organization: “We are fortunate to have a wide range of targeted therapy options for psoriatic arthritis, and these guidelines reflect this abundance of choices. They emphasize the importance of selecting therapies based on specific disease manifestations and tailoring care to each patient’s unique type of psoriatic arthritis. It’s worth noting that some changes in these guidelines were influenced by regulatory changes following ORAL Surveillance. In an era of numerous options, we can afford to be selective at times.”

Regarding safety concerns and JAK inhibitors, Dr. Liew added: “It is not surprising to see these guidelines impose certain restrictions on the use of JAK inhibitors, especially in psoriatic arthritis, where other therapies offer distinct advantages. Until high-quality evidence convincingly points away from a class effect, we can expect to see similar provisions in many more guidelines.”

Many of the recommendations’ authors report financial relationships with one or more pharmaceutical companies. These include AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Medac, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, R-Pharma, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB, and Viatris.

EULAR funded the development of the recommendations.

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

MILAN – Rheumatic disease is not considered a significant risk factor for long COVID, according to the findings of a Dutch prospective cohort study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Although more patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (iRD) report symptoms resembling long COVID, the data suggest that many of these symptoms can be attributed to the underlying rheumatic disease. “Overall, we find the data quite reassuring,” said Laura Boekel, Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center, Amsterdam University Medical Center.

The results were also published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

The risk of developing long COVID after infection with the Omicron variant appeared to be higher in patients with iRD, with 21% meeting the criteria set by the World Health Organization, compared with 13% of healthy individuals (odds ratio, 1.58; P = .037). Fatigue and loss of fitness were the most common long COVID symptoms reported by both iRD patients and controls. However, the difference in risk decreased after accounting for factors that are significantly associated with an increased risk for long COVID, such as body mass index and the severity of the acute COVID-19 infection (adjusted OR, 1.46; P = .081). The duration of symptoms did not show a statistically significant difference.

Kim Lauper, MD, University of Geneva, who chaired the session in which Ms. Boekel reported the study, said in an interview that the data should be interpreted with caution. “The data demonstrate that rheumatic disease itself is not a risk factor for long COVID. However, patients with rheumatic diseases are at a higher risk of severe disease, which in turn increases the likelihood of long COVID. Therefore, as a population, these patients are more susceptible to long COVID overall.”

Moreover, irrespective of their previous COVID-19 infection status, iRD patients often exhibit symptoms similar to those of long COVID even without a prior COVID-19 infection. (There was no history of COVID-19 in 21% of iRD patients vs. 11% of controls.) This suggests that some of the reported long COVID symptoms may actually be clinical manifestations of the underlying rheumatic disease, thereby complicating the diagnosis of long COVID in this population. The study employed the WHO definition of long COVID, which includes persistent symptoms lasting at least 8 weeks, beginning within 3 months of a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, and that cannot be attributed to an alternative diagnosis. However, the data presented in Milan indicate that the WHO definition “is not well suited for patients with iRD due to significant overlap in symptoms and features,” Ms. Boekel concluded.

The cases of Omicron COVID-19 were identified during Jan. 1–April 25, 2022, among iRD patients recruited from the Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center. The population with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection during this period was monitored for long COVID. The total number of patients included in the study consisted of 77 iRD patients and 23 healthy controls. When asked about the potential risk of selection bias in the survey, Ms. Boekel stated that only approximately 8% of participants declined to respond, and the nonresponders were comparable with the respondents. She concluded that “the risk of selection bias is minimal.”

In an editorial published in The Lancet Rheumatology, Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, Cleveland Clinic, provided his insights on the findings. He emphasized that, “at present, long COVID remains an important reality that significantly impacts the lives of millions of individuals, yet it remains incompletely defined. ... These limitations in defining cases should not in any way undermine the experiences of those suffering from long COVID. Instead, they should serve as a reminder that, at this stage of the pandemic, we unfortunately still lack validated classification criteria for long COVID. It is crucial to include non–SARS-CoV-2–infected controls in all studies to further enhance our understanding.”

Ms. Boekel and coauthors, as well as Dr. Lauper and Dr. Calabrese, reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

MILAN – Rheumatic disease is not considered a significant risk factor for long COVID, according to the findings of a Dutch prospective cohort study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Although more patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (iRD) report symptoms resembling long COVID, the data suggest that many of these symptoms can be attributed to the underlying rheumatic disease. “Overall, we find the data quite reassuring,” said Laura Boekel, Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center, Amsterdam University Medical Center.

The results were also published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

The risk of developing long COVID after infection with the Omicron variant appeared to be higher in patients with iRD, with 21% meeting the criteria set by the World Health Organization, compared with 13% of healthy individuals (odds ratio, 1.58; P = .037). Fatigue and loss of fitness were the most common long COVID symptoms reported by both iRD patients and controls. However, the difference in risk decreased after accounting for factors that are significantly associated with an increased risk for long COVID, such as body mass index and the severity of the acute COVID-19 infection (adjusted OR, 1.46; P = .081). The duration of symptoms did not show a statistically significant difference.

Kim Lauper, MD, University of Geneva, who chaired the session in which Ms. Boekel reported the study, said in an interview that the data should be interpreted with caution. “The data demonstrate that rheumatic disease itself is not a risk factor for long COVID. However, patients with rheumatic diseases are at a higher risk of severe disease, which in turn increases the likelihood of long COVID. Therefore, as a population, these patients are more susceptible to long COVID overall.”

Moreover, irrespective of their previous COVID-19 infection status, iRD patients often exhibit symptoms similar to those of long COVID even without a prior COVID-19 infection. (There was no history of COVID-19 in 21% of iRD patients vs. 11% of controls.) This suggests that some of the reported long COVID symptoms may actually be clinical manifestations of the underlying rheumatic disease, thereby complicating the diagnosis of long COVID in this population. The study employed the WHO definition of long COVID, which includes persistent symptoms lasting at least 8 weeks, beginning within 3 months of a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, and that cannot be attributed to an alternative diagnosis. However, the data presented in Milan indicate that the WHO definition “is not well suited for patients with iRD due to significant overlap in symptoms and features,” Ms. Boekel concluded.

The cases of Omicron COVID-19 were identified during Jan. 1–April 25, 2022, among iRD patients recruited from the Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center. The population with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection during this period was monitored for long COVID. The total number of patients included in the study consisted of 77 iRD patients and 23 healthy controls. When asked about the potential risk of selection bias in the survey, Ms. Boekel stated that only approximately 8% of participants declined to respond, and the nonresponders were comparable with the respondents. She concluded that “the risk of selection bias is minimal.”

In an editorial published in The Lancet Rheumatology, Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, Cleveland Clinic, provided his insights on the findings. He emphasized that, “at present, long COVID remains an important reality that significantly impacts the lives of millions of individuals, yet it remains incompletely defined. ... These limitations in defining cases should not in any way undermine the experiences of those suffering from long COVID. Instead, they should serve as a reminder that, at this stage of the pandemic, we unfortunately still lack validated classification criteria for long COVID. It is crucial to include non–SARS-CoV-2–infected controls in all studies to further enhance our understanding.”

Ms. Boekel and coauthors, as well as Dr. Lauper and Dr. Calabrese, reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

MILAN – Rheumatic disease is not considered a significant risk factor for long COVID, according to the findings of a Dutch prospective cohort study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Although more patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (iRD) report symptoms resembling long COVID, the data suggest that many of these symptoms can be attributed to the underlying rheumatic disease. “Overall, we find the data quite reassuring,” said Laura Boekel, Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center, Amsterdam University Medical Center.

The results were also published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

The risk of developing long COVID after infection with the Omicron variant appeared to be higher in patients with iRD, with 21% meeting the criteria set by the World Health Organization, compared with 13% of healthy individuals (odds ratio, 1.58; P = .037). Fatigue and loss of fitness were the most common long COVID symptoms reported by both iRD patients and controls. However, the difference in risk decreased after accounting for factors that are significantly associated with an increased risk for long COVID, such as body mass index and the severity of the acute COVID-19 infection (adjusted OR, 1.46; P = .081). The duration of symptoms did not show a statistically significant difference.

Kim Lauper, MD, University of Geneva, who chaired the session in which Ms. Boekel reported the study, said in an interview that the data should be interpreted with caution. “The data demonstrate that rheumatic disease itself is not a risk factor for long COVID. However, patients with rheumatic diseases are at a higher risk of severe disease, which in turn increases the likelihood of long COVID. Therefore, as a population, these patients are more susceptible to long COVID overall.”

Moreover, irrespective of their previous COVID-19 infection status, iRD patients often exhibit symptoms similar to those of long COVID even without a prior COVID-19 infection. (There was no history of COVID-19 in 21% of iRD patients vs. 11% of controls.) This suggests that some of the reported long COVID symptoms may actually be clinical manifestations of the underlying rheumatic disease, thereby complicating the diagnosis of long COVID in this population. The study employed the WHO definition of long COVID, which includes persistent symptoms lasting at least 8 weeks, beginning within 3 months of a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, and that cannot be attributed to an alternative diagnosis. However, the data presented in Milan indicate that the WHO definition “is not well suited for patients with iRD due to significant overlap in symptoms and features,” Ms. Boekel concluded.

The cases of Omicron COVID-19 were identified during Jan. 1–April 25, 2022, among iRD patients recruited from the Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center. The population with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection during this period was monitored for long COVID. The total number of patients included in the study consisted of 77 iRD patients and 23 healthy controls. When asked about the potential risk of selection bias in the survey, Ms. Boekel stated that only approximately 8% of participants declined to respond, and the nonresponders were comparable with the respondents. She concluded that “the risk of selection bias is minimal.”

In an editorial published in The Lancet Rheumatology, Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, Cleveland Clinic, provided his insights on the findings. He emphasized that, “at present, long COVID remains an important reality that significantly impacts the lives of millions of individuals, yet it remains incompletely defined. ... These limitations in defining cases should not in any way undermine the experiences of those suffering from long COVID. Instead, they should serve as a reminder that, at this stage of the pandemic, we unfortunately still lack validated classification criteria for long COVID. It is crucial to include non–SARS-CoV-2–infected controls in all studies to further enhance our understanding.”

Ms. Boekel and coauthors, as well as Dr. Lauper and Dr. Calabrese, reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Milan – Clinical trial and registry data comparisons between patients with rheumatoid arthritis who take Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) such as tofacitinib (Xeljanz) and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) continue to contribute to a better understanding of their efficacy and cardiovascular safety profile, based on presentations given at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Tofacitinib vs. TNFi efficacy with or without history of atherosclerotic CVD

The efficacy of tofacitinib appears to be at least as good as TNFi, regardless of the presence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and baseline cardiovascular risk, according to a post hoc analysis of the ORAL Surveillance study presented by Maya Buch, MD, PhD, of NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre and University of Manchester, England. ORAL Surveillance was a randomized, open-label, postmarketing safety study sponsored by Pfizer. The study enrolled patients aged 50 or older, with one or more additional CV risk factors, and with active disease despite methotrexate treatment. The cohort included patients treated with the tofacitinib at two different doses (5 mg or 10 mg daily) or TNFi.

Given that a prior “post hoc analysis showed differences in the risk of major adverse CV events (MACE) with tofacitinib versus TNFi, depending on the personal history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Buch and coauthors aimed to further characterize the benefit/risk profile of tofacitinib by evaluating its efficacy, compared with TNFi, in patients with a history of ASCVD and baseline CV risk. Out of the 4,362 patients, 640 (14.7%) had a positive history of ASCVD, while 3,722 (85.3%) did not. For the latter group, the 10-year risk of ASCVD was calculated at baseline, which was high (≥ 20%) in 22.5% and intermediate (≥ 7.5% to < 20%) in 39.4%.

The analysis demonstrated that in patients without a history of ASCVD, the odds of achieving either remission (Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI] ≤ 2.8) or low disease activity (CDAI ≤ 10) were greater with tofacitinib vs. TNFi. With a history of ASCVD, the likelihood of achieving remission or low disease activity (LDA) was not statistically different between tofacitinib and TNFi. Patients with high or intermediate CV risk scores tended to be more likely to reach remission or LDA with tofacitinib vs. TNFi.

Dr. Buch emphasized that selecting the right therapy for each patient requires careful consideration of potential benefits and risks by the rheumatologist, taking into account individual patient history. “Stratification by baseline risk of CV events may help ensure appropriate and effective use of tofacitinib in patients with RA,” she concluded.

Kim Lauper, MD, of the division of rheumatology at Geneva University Hospitals, who was not involved in the study, commented on the importance of this data: “These findings are important because we currently lack information on how the presence of CV comorbidities can impact the efficacy of RA drugs.”
 

A real-world perspective

MACE occurred at similar rates between JAKi and TNFi, as well as for biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) with other modes of action (OMA) vs. TNFi, in the JAK-Pot study, an international collaboration of RA registries, reported Romain Aymon, of Geneva University Hospitals. But a subanalysis of JAK-Pot in patients resembling the population in the ORAL Surveillance trial found that the incidence of MACE was higher in each treatment group, compared with the overall population. However, no significant difference was found between JAKi vs. TNFi and OMA vs. TNFi.

Mr. Aymon said that the analysis is still ongoing, with additional registries being included.

Dr. Lauper, who is the principal investigator of the study presented by Mr. Aymon, noted that “the absence of a difference in MACE risk in the population resembling the ORAL Surveillance study is in contrast with the results from the ORAL Surveillance itself. This may be due to differences in the populations, with the ORAL Surveillance study having a more selected set of patients.”
 

The Dutch perspective

In line with the findings from the JAK-Pot study, a retrospective inception cohort study conducted on a Dutch RA population also revealed no difference in the incidence of cardiovascular events between JAKi starters and bDMARD starters, according to Merel Opdam, MSc, of Sint Maartenskliniek in Ubbergen, the Netherlands, who reported the findings at the meeting. Two subanalyses of the cohort study, funded by Pfizer, also did not show any difference between tofacitinib and baricitinib (Olumiant), compared with DMARDs, or in patients above 65 years of age. The analysis was conducted on 15,191 patients with RA who were initiating treatment with a JAKi or a new bDMARD, selected from IQVIA’s Dutch Real-World Data Longitudinal Prescription database, which covers approximately 63% of outpatient prescriptions in the Netherlands.

“Not all DMARDs have similar effects on cardiovascular outcomes, and observational studies can contribute to understanding the cardiovascular risks associated with JAKi,” Ms. Opdam said.

“Real-world data holds significant importance as it provides insights into a broader spectrum of patients and reflects the actual clinical practice where treatment decisions are tailored to individual patient needs,” commented Anja Strangfeld, MD, PhD, of the German Rheumatism Research Center Berlin, and Charité University Medicine Berlin. She said that registries have a pivotal role in this regard.

Dr. Buch reports serving on a speakers bureau for AbbVie; serving as a consultant to AbbVie, CESAS Medical, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, and Pfizer; and receiving grant/research support from Gilead, Pfizer, and UCB. Mr. Aymon and Ms. Opdam report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Milan – Clinical trial and registry data comparisons between patients with rheumatoid arthritis who take Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) such as tofacitinib (Xeljanz) and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) continue to contribute to a better understanding of their efficacy and cardiovascular safety profile, based on presentations given at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Tofacitinib vs. TNFi efficacy with or without history of atherosclerotic CVD

The efficacy of tofacitinib appears to be at least as good as TNFi, regardless of the presence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and baseline cardiovascular risk, according to a post hoc analysis of the ORAL Surveillance study presented by Maya Buch, MD, PhD, of NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre and University of Manchester, England. ORAL Surveillance was a randomized, open-label, postmarketing safety study sponsored by Pfizer. The study enrolled patients aged 50 or older, with one or more additional CV risk factors, and with active disease despite methotrexate treatment. The cohort included patients treated with the tofacitinib at two different doses (5 mg or 10 mg daily) or TNFi.

Given that a prior “post hoc analysis showed differences in the risk of major adverse CV events (MACE) with tofacitinib versus TNFi, depending on the personal history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Buch and coauthors aimed to further characterize the benefit/risk profile of tofacitinib by evaluating its efficacy, compared with TNFi, in patients with a history of ASCVD and baseline CV risk. Out of the 4,362 patients, 640 (14.7%) had a positive history of ASCVD, while 3,722 (85.3%) did not. For the latter group, the 10-year risk of ASCVD was calculated at baseline, which was high (≥ 20%) in 22.5% and intermediate (≥ 7.5% to < 20%) in 39.4%.

The analysis demonstrated that in patients without a history of ASCVD, the odds of achieving either remission (Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI] ≤ 2.8) or low disease activity (CDAI ≤ 10) were greater with tofacitinib vs. TNFi. With a history of ASCVD, the likelihood of achieving remission or low disease activity (LDA) was not statistically different between tofacitinib and TNFi. Patients with high or intermediate CV risk scores tended to be more likely to reach remission or LDA with tofacitinib vs. TNFi.

Dr. Buch emphasized that selecting the right therapy for each patient requires careful consideration of potential benefits and risks by the rheumatologist, taking into account individual patient history. “Stratification by baseline risk of CV events may help ensure appropriate and effective use of tofacitinib in patients with RA,” she concluded.

Kim Lauper, MD, of the division of rheumatology at Geneva University Hospitals, who was not involved in the study, commented on the importance of this data: “These findings are important because we currently lack information on how the presence of CV comorbidities can impact the efficacy of RA drugs.”
 

A real-world perspective

MACE occurred at similar rates between JAKi and TNFi, as well as for biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) with other modes of action (OMA) vs. TNFi, in the JAK-Pot study, an international collaboration of RA registries, reported Romain Aymon, of Geneva University Hospitals. But a subanalysis of JAK-Pot in patients resembling the population in the ORAL Surveillance trial found that the incidence of MACE was higher in each treatment group, compared with the overall population. However, no significant difference was found between JAKi vs. TNFi and OMA vs. TNFi.

Mr. Aymon said that the analysis is still ongoing, with additional registries being included.

Dr. Lauper, who is the principal investigator of the study presented by Mr. Aymon, noted that “the absence of a difference in MACE risk in the population resembling the ORAL Surveillance study is in contrast with the results from the ORAL Surveillance itself. This may be due to differences in the populations, with the ORAL Surveillance study having a more selected set of patients.”
 

The Dutch perspective

In line with the findings from the JAK-Pot study, a retrospective inception cohort study conducted on a Dutch RA population also revealed no difference in the incidence of cardiovascular events between JAKi starters and bDMARD starters, according to Merel Opdam, MSc, of Sint Maartenskliniek in Ubbergen, the Netherlands, who reported the findings at the meeting. Two subanalyses of the cohort study, funded by Pfizer, also did not show any difference between tofacitinib and baricitinib (Olumiant), compared with DMARDs, or in patients above 65 years of age. The analysis was conducted on 15,191 patients with RA who were initiating treatment with a JAKi or a new bDMARD, selected from IQVIA’s Dutch Real-World Data Longitudinal Prescription database, which covers approximately 63% of outpatient prescriptions in the Netherlands.

“Not all DMARDs have similar effects on cardiovascular outcomes, and observational studies can contribute to understanding the cardiovascular risks associated with JAKi,” Ms. Opdam said.

“Real-world data holds significant importance as it provides insights into a broader spectrum of patients and reflects the actual clinical practice where treatment decisions are tailored to individual patient needs,” commented Anja Strangfeld, MD, PhD, of the German Rheumatism Research Center Berlin, and Charité University Medicine Berlin. She said that registries have a pivotal role in this regard.

Dr. Buch reports serving on a speakers bureau for AbbVie; serving as a consultant to AbbVie, CESAS Medical, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, and Pfizer; and receiving grant/research support from Gilead, Pfizer, and UCB. Mr. Aymon and Ms. Opdam report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Milan – Clinical trial and registry data comparisons between patients with rheumatoid arthritis who take Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) such as tofacitinib (Xeljanz) and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) continue to contribute to a better understanding of their efficacy and cardiovascular safety profile, based on presentations given at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Tofacitinib vs. TNFi efficacy with or without history of atherosclerotic CVD

The efficacy of tofacitinib appears to be at least as good as TNFi, regardless of the presence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and baseline cardiovascular risk, according to a post hoc analysis of the ORAL Surveillance study presented by Maya Buch, MD, PhD, of NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre and University of Manchester, England. ORAL Surveillance was a randomized, open-label, postmarketing safety study sponsored by Pfizer. The study enrolled patients aged 50 or older, with one or more additional CV risk factors, and with active disease despite methotrexate treatment. The cohort included patients treated with the tofacitinib at two different doses (5 mg or 10 mg daily) or TNFi.

Given that a prior “post hoc analysis showed differences in the risk of major adverse CV events (MACE) with tofacitinib versus TNFi, depending on the personal history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Buch and coauthors aimed to further characterize the benefit/risk profile of tofacitinib by evaluating its efficacy, compared with TNFi, in patients with a history of ASCVD and baseline CV risk. Out of the 4,362 patients, 640 (14.7%) had a positive history of ASCVD, while 3,722 (85.3%) did not. For the latter group, the 10-year risk of ASCVD was calculated at baseline, which was high (≥ 20%) in 22.5% and intermediate (≥ 7.5% to < 20%) in 39.4%.

The analysis demonstrated that in patients without a history of ASCVD, the odds of achieving either remission (Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI] ≤ 2.8) or low disease activity (CDAI ≤ 10) were greater with tofacitinib vs. TNFi. With a history of ASCVD, the likelihood of achieving remission or low disease activity (LDA) was not statistically different between tofacitinib and TNFi. Patients with high or intermediate CV risk scores tended to be more likely to reach remission or LDA with tofacitinib vs. TNFi.

Dr. Buch emphasized that selecting the right therapy for each patient requires careful consideration of potential benefits and risks by the rheumatologist, taking into account individual patient history. “Stratification by baseline risk of CV events may help ensure appropriate and effective use of tofacitinib in patients with RA,” she concluded.

Kim Lauper, MD, of the division of rheumatology at Geneva University Hospitals, who was not involved in the study, commented on the importance of this data: “These findings are important because we currently lack information on how the presence of CV comorbidities can impact the efficacy of RA drugs.”
 

A real-world perspective

MACE occurred at similar rates between JAKi and TNFi, as well as for biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) with other modes of action (OMA) vs. TNFi, in the JAK-Pot study, an international collaboration of RA registries, reported Romain Aymon, of Geneva University Hospitals. But a subanalysis of JAK-Pot in patients resembling the population in the ORAL Surveillance trial found that the incidence of MACE was higher in each treatment group, compared with the overall population. However, no significant difference was found between JAKi vs. TNFi and OMA vs. TNFi.

Mr. Aymon said that the analysis is still ongoing, with additional registries being included.

Dr. Lauper, who is the principal investigator of the study presented by Mr. Aymon, noted that “the absence of a difference in MACE risk in the population resembling the ORAL Surveillance study is in contrast with the results from the ORAL Surveillance itself. This may be due to differences in the populations, with the ORAL Surveillance study having a more selected set of patients.”
 

The Dutch perspective

In line with the findings from the JAK-Pot study, a retrospective inception cohort study conducted on a Dutch RA population also revealed no difference in the incidence of cardiovascular events between JAKi starters and bDMARD starters, according to Merel Opdam, MSc, of Sint Maartenskliniek in Ubbergen, the Netherlands, who reported the findings at the meeting. Two subanalyses of the cohort study, funded by Pfizer, also did not show any difference between tofacitinib and baricitinib (Olumiant), compared with DMARDs, or in patients above 65 years of age. The analysis was conducted on 15,191 patients with RA who were initiating treatment with a JAKi or a new bDMARD, selected from IQVIA’s Dutch Real-World Data Longitudinal Prescription database, which covers approximately 63% of outpatient prescriptions in the Netherlands.

“Not all DMARDs have similar effects on cardiovascular outcomes, and observational studies can contribute to understanding the cardiovascular risks associated with JAKi,” Ms. Opdam said.

“Real-world data holds significant importance as it provides insights into a broader spectrum of patients and reflects the actual clinical practice where treatment decisions are tailored to individual patient needs,” commented Anja Strangfeld, MD, PhD, of the German Rheumatism Research Center Berlin, and Charité University Medicine Berlin. She said that registries have a pivotal role in this regard.

Dr. Buch reports serving on a speakers bureau for AbbVie; serving as a consultant to AbbVie, CESAS Medical, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, and Pfizer; and receiving grant/research support from Gilead, Pfizer, and UCB. Mr. Aymon and Ms. Opdam report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with gout may have smaller brain volumes and higher brain iron markers than people without gout, and also be more likely to develop Parkinson’s disease, probable essential tremor, and dementia, researchers in the United Kingdom report.

“We were surprised about the regions of the brain affected by gout, several of which are important for motor function. The other intriguing finding was that the risk of dementia amongst gout patients was strongly time-dependent: highest in the first 3 years after their gout diagnosis,” lead study author Anya Topiwala, BMBCh, DPhil, said in an interview.

“Our combination of traditional and genetic approaches increases the confidence that gout is causing the brain findings,” said Dr. Topiwala, a clinical research fellow and consultant psychiatrist in the Nuffield Department of Population Health at the University of Oxford, England.

“We suggest that clinicians be vigilant for cognitive and motor problems after gout diagnosis, particularly in the early stages,” she added.


 

Links between gout and neurodegenerative diseases debated in earlier studies

Gout, the most common inflammatory arthritis, affects around 1%-4% of people, the authors wrote, with monosodium urate crystal deposits causing acute flares of pain and swelling in joints and periarticular tissues.

Whether and how gout may affect the brain has been debated in the literature. Gout and hyperuricemia have been linked with elevated stroke risk; and although observational studies have linked hyperuricemia with lower dementia risk, especially Alzheimer’s disease, Mendelian randomization studies have had conflicting results in Alzheimer’s disease.
 

A novel approach that analyzes brain structure and genetics

In a study published in Nature Communications, Dr. Topiwala and her colleagues combined observational and Mendelian randomization techniques to explore relationships between gout and neurodegenerative diseases. They analyzed data from over 303,000 volunteer participants between 40 and 69 years of age recruited between 2006 and 2010 to contribute their detailed genetic and health information to the U.K. Biobank, a large-scale biomedical database and research resource.

Patients with gout tended to be older and male. At baseline, all participants’ serum urate levels were measured, and 30.8% of patients with gout reported that they currently used urate-lowering therapy.
 

MRI shows brain changes in patients with gout

In what the authors said is the first investigation of neuroimaging markers in patients with gout, they compared differences in gray matter volumes found in the 1,165 participants with gout and the 32,202 controls without gout who had MRI data.

They found no marked sex differences in associations. Urate was inversely linked with global brain volume and with gray and white matter volumes, and gout appeared to age global gray matter by 2 years.

Patients with gout and higher urate showed significant differences in regional gray matter volumes, especially in the cerebellum, pons, and midbrain, as well as subcortical differences in the nucleus accumbens, putamen, and caudate. They also showed significant differences in white matter tract microstructure in the fornix.

Patients with gout were more likely to develop dementia (average hazard ratio [HR] over study = 1.60), especially in the first 3 years after gout diagnosis (HR = 7.40). They were also at higher risk for vascular dementia (average HR = 2.41), compared with all-cause dementia, but not for Alzheimer’s disease (average HR = 1.62).

In asymptomatic participants though, urate and dementia were inversely linked (HR = 0.85), with no time dependence.

Gout was linked with higher incidence of Parkinson’s disease (HR = 1.43) and probable essential tremor (HR = 6.75). In asymptomatic participants, urate and Parkinson’s disease (HR = 0.89), but not probable essential tremor, were inversely linked.
 

Genetic analyses reinforce MRI results

Using Mendelian randomization estimates, the authors found that genetic links generally reflected their observational findings. Both genetically predicted gout and serum urate were significantly linked with regional gray matter volumes, including cerebellar, midbrain, pons, and brainstem.

They also found significant links with higher magnetic susceptibility in the putamen and caudate, markers of higher iron. But while genetically predicted gout was significantly linked with global gray matter volume, urate was not.

In males, but not in females, urate was positively linked with alcohol intake and lower socioeconomic status.

Dr. Topiwala acknowledged several limitations to the study, writing that “the results from the volunteer participants may not apply to other populations; the cross-sectional serum urate measurements may not reflect chronic exposure; and Parkinson’s disease and essential tremor may have been diagnostically confounded.”
 

A novel approach that suggests further related research

Asked to comment on the study, Puja Khanna, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist and clinical associate professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, called its novel use of neuroimaging interesting.

Dr. Khanna, who was not involved in the study, said she would like to know more about the role that horizontal pleiotropy – one genetic variant having independent effects on multiple traits – plays in this disease process, and about the impact of the antioxidative properties of urate in maintaining neuroprotection.

“[The] U.K. Biobank is an excellent database to look at questions of association,” John D. FitzGerald, MD, PhD, MPH, MBA, professor and clinical chief of rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

Early diagnosis benefits patients

Dr. Khanna and Dr. FitzGerald joined the authors in advising doctors to monitor their gout patients for cognitive and motor symptoms of neurodegenerative disease.

“It is clearly important to pay close attention to the neurologic exam and history in gout, especially because it is a disease of the aging population,” Dr. Khanna advised. “Addressing dementia when gout is diagnosed can lead to prompt mitigation strategies that can hugely impact patients.”

Dr. Topiwala and her colleagues would like to investigate why the dementia risk was time-dependent. “Is this because of the acute inflammatory response in gout, or could it just be that patients with gout visit their doctors more frequently, so any cognitive problems are picked up sooner?” she asked.

The authors, and Dr. Khanna and Dr. FitzGerald, report no relevant financial relationships. The Wellcome Trust; the U.K. Medical Research Council; the European Commission Horizon 2020 research and innovation program; the British Heart Foundation; the U.S. National Institutes of Health; the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council; and the National Institute for Health and Care Research funded the study.

Patients with gout may have smaller brain volumes and higher brain iron markers than people without gout, and also be more likely to develop Parkinson’s disease, probable essential tremor, and dementia, researchers in the United Kingdom report.

“We were surprised about the regions of the brain affected by gout, several of which are important for motor function. The other intriguing finding was that the risk of dementia amongst gout patients was strongly time-dependent: highest in the first 3 years after their gout diagnosis,” lead study author Anya Topiwala, BMBCh, DPhil, said in an interview.

“Our combination of traditional and genetic approaches increases the confidence that gout is causing the brain findings,” said Dr. Topiwala, a clinical research fellow and consultant psychiatrist in the Nuffield Department of Population Health at the University of Oxford, England.

“We suggest that clinicians be vigilant for cognitive and motor problems after gout diagnosis, particularly in the early stages,” she added.


 

Links between gout and neurodegenerative diseases debated in earlier studies

Gout, the most common inflammatory arthritis, affects around 1%-4% of people, the authors wrote, with monosodium urate crystal deposits causing acute flares of pain and swelling in joints and periarticular tissues.

Whether and how gout may affect the brain has been debated in the literature. Gout and hyperuricemia have been linked with elevated stroke risk; and although observational studies have linked hyperuricemia with lower dementia risk, especially Alzheimer’s disease, Mendelian randomization studies have had conflicting results in Alzheimer’s disease.
 

A novel approach that analyzes brain structure and genetics

In a study published in Nature Communications, Dr. Topiwala and her colleagues combined observational and Mendelian randomization techniques to explore relationships between gout and neurodegenerative diseases. They analyzed data from over 303,000 volunteer participants between 40 and 69 years of age recruited between 2006 and 2010 to contribute their detailed genetic and health information to the U.K. Biobank, a large-scale biomedical database and research resource.

Patients with gout tended to be older and male. At baseline, all participants’ serum urate levels were measured, and 30.8% of patients with gout reported that they currently used urate-lowering therapy.
 

MRI shows brain changes in patients with gout

In what the authors said is the first investigation of neuroimaging markers in patients with gout, they compared differences in gray matter volumes found in the 1,165 participants with gout and the 32,202 controls without gout who had MRI data.

They found no marked sex differences in associations. Urate was inversely linked with global brain volume and with gray and white matter volumes, and gout appeared to age global gray matter by 2 years.

Patients with gout and higher urate showed significant differences in regional gray matter volumes, especially in the cerebellum, pons, and midbrain, as well as subcortical differences in the nucleus accumbens, putamen, and caudate. They also showed significant differences in white matter tract microstructure in the fornix.

Patients with gout were more likely to develop dementia (average hazard ratio [HR] over study = 1.60), especially in the first 3 years after gout diagnosis (HR = 7.40). They were also at higher risk for vascular dementia (average HR = 2.41), compared with all-cause dementia, but not for Alzheimer’s disease (average HR = 1.62).

In asymptomatic participants though, urate and dementia were inversely linked (HR = 0.85), with no time dependence.

Gout was linked with higher incidence of Parkinson’s disease (HR = 1.43) and probable essential tremor (HR = 6.75). In asymptomatic participants, urate and Parkinson’s disease (HR = 0.89), but not probable essential tremor, were inversely linked.
 

Genetic analyses reinforce MRI results

Using Mendelian randomization estimates, the authors found that genetic links generally reflected their observational findings. Both genetically predicted gout and serum urate were significantly linked with regional gray matter volumes, including cerebellar, midbrain, pons, and brainstem.

They also found significant links with higher magnetic susceptibility in the putamen and caudate, markers of higher iron. But while genetically predicted gout was significantly linked with global gray matter volume, urate was not.

In males, but not in females, urate was positively linked with alcohol intake and lower socioeconomic status.

Dr. Topiwala acknowledged several limitations to the study, writing that “the results from the volunteer participants may not apply to other populations; the cross-sectional serum urate measurements may not reflect chronic exposure; and Parkinson’s disease and essential tremor may have been diagnostically confounded.”
 

A novel approach that suggests further related research

Asked to comment on the study, Puja Khanna, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist and clinical associate professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, called its novel use of neuroimaging interesting.

Dr. Khanna, who was not involved in the study, said she would like to know more about the role that horizontal pleiotropy – one genetic variant having independent effects on multiple traits – plays in this disease process, and about the impact of the antioxidative properties of urate in maintaining neuroprotection.

“[The] U.K. Biobank is an excellent database to look at questions of association,” John D. FitzGerald, MD, PhD, MPH, MBA, professor and clinical chief of rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

Early diagnosis benefits patients

Dr. Khanna and Dr. FitzGerald joined the authors in advising doctors to monitor their gout patients for cognitive and motor symptoms of neurodegenerative disease.

“It is clearly important to pay close attention to the neurologic exam and history in gout, especially because it is a disease of the aging population,” Dr. Khanna advised. “Addressing dementia when gout is diagnosed can lead to prompt mitigation strategies that can hugely impact patients.”

Dr. Topiwala and her colleagues would like to investigate why the dementia risk was time-dependent. “Is this because of the acute inflammatory response in gout, or could it just be that patients with gout visit their doctors more frequently, so any cognitive problems are picked up sooner?” she asked.

The authors, and Dr. Khanna and Dr. FitzGerald, report no relevant financial relationships. The Wellcome Trust; the U.K. Medical Research Council; the European Commission Horizon 2020 research and innovation program; the British Heart Foundation; the U.S. National Institutes of Health; the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council; and the National Institute for Health and Care Research funded the study.

Patients with gout may have smaller brain volumes and higher brain iron markers than people without gout, and also be more likely to develop Parkinson’s disease, probable essential tremor, and dementia, researchers in the United Kingdom report.

“We were surprised about the regions of the brain affected by gout, several of which are important for motor function. The other intriguing finding was that the risk of dementia amongst gout patients was strongly time-dependent: highest in the first 3 years after their gout diagnosis,” lead study author Anya Topiwala, BMBCh, DPhil, said in an interview.

“Our combination of traditional and genetic approaches increases the confidence that gout is causing the brain findings,” said Dr. Topiwala, a clinical research fellow and consultant psychiatrist in the Nuffield Department of Population Health at the University of Oxford, England.

“We suggest that clinicians be vigilant for cognitive and motor problems after gout diagnosis, particularly in the early stages,” she added.


 

Links between gout and neurodegenerative diseases debated in earlier studies

Gout, the most common inflammatory arthritis, affects around 1%-4% of people, the authors wrote, with monosodium urate crystal deposits causing acute flares of pain and swelling in joints and periarticular tissues.

Whether and how gout may affect the brain has been debated in the literature. Gout and hyperuricemia have been linked with elevated stroke risk; and although observational studies have linked hyperuricemia with lower dementia risk, especially Alzheimer’s disease, Mendelian randomization studies have had conflicting results in Alzheimer’s disease.
 

A novel approach that analyzes brain structure and genetics

In a study published in Nature Communications, Dr. Topiwala and her colleagues combined observational and Mendelian randomization techniques to explore relationships between gout and neurodegenerative diseases. They analyzed data from over 303,000 volunteer participants between 40 and 69 years of age recruited between 2006 and 2010 to contribute their detailed genetic and health information to the U.K. Biobank, a large-scale biomedical database and research resource.

Patients with gout tended to be older and male. At baseline, all participants’ serum urate levels were measured, and 30.8% of patients with gout reported that they currently used urate-lowering therapy.
 

MRI shows brain changes in patients with gout

In what the authors said is the first investigation of neuroimaging markers in patients with gout, they compared differences in gray matter volumes found in the 1,165 participants with gout and the 32,202 controls without gout who had MRI data.

They found no marked sex differences in associations. Urate was inversely linked with global brain volume and with gray and white matter volumes, and gout appeared to age global gray matter by 2 years.

Patients with gout and higher urate showed significant differences in regional gray matter volumes, especially in the cerebellum, pons, and midbrain, as well as subcortical differences in the nucleus accumbens, putamen, and caudate. They also showed significant differences in white matter tract microstructure in the fornix.

Patients with gout were more likely to develop dementia (average hazard ratio [HR] over study = 1.60), especially in the first 3 years after gout diagnosis (HR = 7.40). They were also at higher risk for vascular dementia (average HR = 2.41), compared with all-cause dementia, but not for Alzheimer’s disease (average HR = 1.62).

In asymptomatic participants though, urate and dementia were inversely linked (HR = 0.85), with no time dependence.

Gout was linked with higher incidence of Parkinson’s disease (HR = 1.43) and probable essential tremor (HR = 6.75). In asymptomatic participants, urate and Parkinson’s disease (HR = 0.89), but not probable essential tremor, were inversely linked.
 

Genetic analyses reinforce MRI results

Using Mendelian randomization estimates, the authors found that genetic links generally reflected their observational findings. Both genetically predicted gout and serum urate were significantly linked with regional gray matter volumes, including cerebellar, midbrain, pons, and brainstem.

They also found significant links with higher magnetic susceptibility in the putamen and caudate, markers of higher iron. But while genetically predicted gout was significantly linked with global gray matter volume, urate was not.

In males, but not in females, urate was positively linked with alcohol intake and lower socioeconomic status.

Dr. Topiwala acknowledged several limitations to the study, writing that “the results from the volunteer participants may not apply to other populations; the cross-sectional serum urate measurements may not reflect chronic exposure; and Parkinson’s disease and essential tremor may have been diagnostically confounded.”
 

A novel approach that suggests further related research

Asked to comment on the study, Puja Khanna, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist and clinical associate professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, called its novel use of neuroimaging interesting.

Dr. Khanna, who was not involved in the study, said she would like to know more about the role that horizontal pleiotropy – one genetic variant having independent effects on multiple traits – plays in this disease process, and about the impact of the antioxidative properties of urate in maintaining neuroprotection.

“[The] U.K. Biobank is an excellent database to look at questions of association,” John D. FitzGerald, MD, PhD, MPH, MBA, professor and clinical chief of rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

Early diagnosis benefits patients

Dr. Khanna and Dr. FitzGerald joined the authors in advising doctors to monitor their gout patients for cognitive and motor symptoms of neurodegenerative disease.

“It is clearly important to pay close attention to the neurologic exam and history in gout, especially because it is a disease of the aging population,” Dr. Khanna advised. “Addressing dementia when gout is diagnosed can lead to prompt mitigation strategies that can hugely impact patients.”

Dr. Topiwala and her colleagues would like to investigate why the dementia risk was time-dependent. “Is this because of the acute inflammatory response in gout, or could it just be that patients with gout visit their doctors more frequently, so any cognitive problems are picked up sooner?” she asked.

The authors, and Dr. Khanna and Dr. FitzGerald, report no relevant financial relationships. The Wellcome Trust; the U.K. Medical Research Council; the European Commission Horizon 2020 research and innovation program; the British Heart Foundation; the U.S. National Institutes of Health; the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council; and the National Institute for Health and Care Research funded the study.