Rheumatology

TOPLINE:

The antimetabolite and immunosuppressant methotrexate, taken orally and in addition to usual analgesia, alleviates pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators conducted a phase 3 randomized controlled trial among 155 patients in the United Kingdom with painful radiographic knee osteoarthritis and an inadequate response to their current medication (PROMOTE trial).
• Patients were assigned to oral methotrexate once weekly (6-week escalation from 10 to 25 mg) or placebo for 12 months, added to usual analgesia.
• The main outcome was average knee pain at 6 months on a numerical rating scale from 0 to 10.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 6 months, mean scores for knee pain had decreased by 1.3 points in the methotrexate group and 0.6 points in the placebo group (difference by intention to treat, 0.79 points; P = .030).
• The former also saw greater benefit in terms of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores for stiffness (difference, 0.60 points; P = .045) and physical function (difference, 5.01 points; P = .008).
• Differences between groups were no longer significant at 12 months.
• Benefit of methotrexate appeared to be dose related.
• The groups were similar with respect to nausea and diarrhea; four serious adverse events (two per group) were deemed unrelated to study treatment.

IN PRACTICE:

“Further work is required to understand adequate methotrexate dosing, whether benefits are greater in those with elevated systemic inflammation levels, and to consider cost-effectiveness before introducing this therapy for a potentially large population,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sarah R. Kingsbury, PhD, University of Leeds and National Institute for Health and Care Research Leeds Biomedical Research Centre, Leeds, England, and was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included a decrease in methotrexate dose between 6 and 12 months, nonallowance of switching to subcutaneous drug for intolerance, and a lack of assessment of the effectiveness of blinding.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Versus Arthritis, a charity that supports people with arthritis. Some authors reported affiliations with Versus Arthritis and/or companies that develop drugs for arthritis.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The antimetabolite and immunosuppressant methotrexate, taken orally and in addition to usual analgesia, alleviates pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators conducted a phase 3 randomized controlled trial among 155 patients in the United Kingdom with painful radiographic knee osteoarthritis and an inadequate response to their current medication (PROMOTE trial).
• Patients were assigned to oral methotrexate once weekly (6-week escalation from 10 to 25 mg) or placebo for 12 months, added to usual analgesia.
• The main outcome was average knee pain at 6 months on a numerical rating scale from 0 to 10.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 6 months, mean scores for knee pain had decreased by 1.3 points in the methotrexate group and 0.6 points in the placebo group (difference by intention to treat, 0.79 points; P = .030).
• The former also saw greater benefit in terms of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores for stiffness (difference, 0.60 points; P = .045) and physical function (difference, 5.01 points; P = .008).
• Differences between groups were no longer significant at 12 months.
• Benefit of methotrexate appeared to be dose related.
• The groups were similar with respect to nausea and diarrhea; four serious adverse events (two per group) were deemed unrelated to study treatment.

IN PRACTICE:

“Further work is required to understand adequate methotrexate dosing, whether benefits are greater in those with elevated systemic inflammation levels, and to consider cost-effectiveness before introducing this therapy for a potentially large population,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sarah R. Kingsbury, PhD, University of Leeds and National Institute for Health and Care Research Leeds Biomedical Research Centre, Leeds, England, and was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included a decrease in methotrexate dose between 6 and 12 months, nonallowance of switching to subcutaneous drug for intolerance, and a lack of assessment of the effectiveness of blinding.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Versus Arthritis, a charity that supports people with arthritis. Some authors reported affiliations with Versus Arthritis and/or companies that develop drugs for arthritis.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The antimetabolite and immunosuppressant methotrexate, taken orally and in addition to usual analgesia, alleviates pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators conducted a phase 3 randomized controlled trial among 155 patients in the United Kingdom with painful radiographic knee osteoarthritis and an inadequate response to their current medication (PROMOTE trial).
• Patients were assigned to oral methotrexate once weekly (6-week escalation from 10 to 25 mg) or placebo for 12 months, added to usual analgesia.
• The main outcome was average knee pain at 6 months on a numerical rating scale from 0 to 10.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 6 months, mean scores for knee pain had decreased by 1.3 points in the methotrexate group and 0.6 points in the placebo group (difference by intention to treat, 0.79 points; P = .030).
• The former also saw greater benefit in terms of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores for stiffness (difference, 0.60 points; P = .045) and physical function (difference, 5.01 points; P = .008).
• Differences between groups were no longer significant at 12 months.
• Benefit of methotrexate appeared to be dose related.
• The groups were similar with respect to nausea and diarrhea; four serious adverse events (two per group) were deemed unrelated to study treatment.

IN PRACTICE:

“Further work is required to understand adequate methotrexate dosing, whether benefits are greater in those with elevated systemic inflammation levels, and to consider cost-effectiveness before introducing this therapy for a potentially large population,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sarah R. Kingsbury, PhD, University of Leeds and National Institute for Health and Care Research Leeds Biomedical Research Centre, Leeds, England, and was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included a decrease in methotrexate dose between 6 and 12 months, nonallowance of switching to subcutaneous drug for intolerance, and a lack of assessment of the effectiveness of blinding.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Versus Arthritis, a charity that supports people with arthritis. Some authors reported affiliations with Versus Arthritis and/or companies that develop drugs for arthritis.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is linked with over a 50% increased risk for lung cancer, with those having RA-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) being particularly vulnerable, facing nearly a threefold higher risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective matched cohort study to evaluate the risk for lung cancer in participants with RA, including those with RA-ILD, within Veterans Affairs (VA) from 2000 to 2019.
• A total of 72,795 participants with RA were matched with 633,937 participants without RA on the basis of birth year, sex, and VA enrollment year.
• Among those with RA, 757 had prevalent RA-ILD and were matched with 5931 participants without RA-ILD.
• The primary outcome was incident lung cancer, assessed using the VA Oncology Raw Domain and the National Death Index.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a mean follow-up of 6.3 years, 2974 incidences of lung cancer were reported in patients with RA, and 34 were reported in those with RA-ILD.
• The risk for lung cancer was 58% higher in patients with RA than in those without RA (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.58; 95% CI, 1.52-1.64), with this association persisting even when only never-smokers were considered (aHR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.22-2.24).
• Participants with prevalent RA-ILD had 3.25-fold higher risk for lung cancer than those without RA (aHR, 3.25; 95% CI, 2.13-4.95).
• Both patients with prevalent and those with incident RA-ILD showed a similar increase in risk for lung cancer (aHR, 2.88; 95% CI, 2.45-3.40).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results highlight RA and RA-ILD as high-risk populations that may benefit from enhanced lung cancer screening,” the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Rebecca T. Brooks, MD, Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. It was published online on July 28, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology. 

LIMITATIONS: 

The study included a predominantly male population, which may have affected the generalizability of the study. Although the study considered smoking status, data on the duration and intensity of smoking were not available. Restriction to never-smokers could not be completed for comparisons between patients with RA-ILD and those without RA because of insufficient sample sizes. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not receive funding from any source. Some authors reported receiving research funding or having ties with various pharmaceutical companies and other sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is linked with over a 50% increased risk for lung cancer, with those having RA-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) being particularly vulnerable, facing nearly a threefold higher risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective matched cohort study to evaluate the risk for lung cancer in participants with RA, including those with RA-ILD, within Veterans Affairs (VA) from 2000 to 2019.
• A total of 72,795 participants with RA were matched with 633,937 participants without RA on the basis of birth year, sex, and VA enrollment year.
• Among those with RA, 757 had prevalent RA-ILD and were matched with 5931 participants without RA-ILD.
• The primary outcome was incident lung cancer, assessed using the VA Oncology Raw Domain and the National Death Index.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a mean follow-up of 6.3 years, 2974 incidences of lung cancer were reported in patients with RA, and 34 were reported in those with RA-ILD.
• The risk for lung cancer was 58% higher in patients with RA than in those without RA (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.58; 95% CI, 1.52-1.64), with this association persisting even when only never-smokers were considered (aHR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.22-2.24).
• Participants with prevalent RA-ILD had 3.25-fold higher risk for lung cancer than those without RA (aHR, 3.25; 95% CI, 2.13-4.95).
• Both patients with prevalent and those with incident RA-ILD showed a similar increase in risk for lung cancer (aHR, 2.88; 95% CI, 2.45-3.40).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results highlight RA and RA-ILD as high-risk populations that may benefit from enhanced lung cancer screening,” the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Rebecca T. Brooks, MD, Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. It was published online on July 28, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology. 

LIMITATIONS: 

The study included a predominantly male population, which may have affected the generalizability of the study. Although the study considered smoking status, data on the duration and intensity of smoking were not available. Restriction to never-smokers could not be completed for comparisons between patients with RA-ILD and those without RA because of insufficient sample sizes. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not receive funding from any source. Some authors reported receiving research funding or having ties with various pharmaceutical companies and other sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is linked with over a 50% increased risk for lung cancer, with those having RA-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) being particularly vulnerable, facing nearly a threefold higher risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective matched cohort study to evaluate the risk for lung cancer in participants with RA, including those with RA-ILD, within Veterans Affairs (VA) from 2000 to 2019.
• A total of 72,795 participants with RA were matched with 633,937 participants without RA on the basis of birth year, sex, and VA enrollment year.
• Among those with RA, 757 had prevalent RA-ILD and were matched with 5931 participants without RA-ILD.
• The primary outcome was incident lung cancer, assessed using the VA Oncology Raw Domain and the National Death Index.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a mean follow-up of 6.3 years, 2974 incidences of lung cancer were reported in patients with RA, and 34 were reported in those with RA-ILD.
• The risk for lung cancer was 58% higher in patients with RA than in those without RA (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.58; 95% CI, 1.52-1.64), with this association persisting even when only never-smokers were considered (aHR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.22-2.24).
• Participants with prevalent RA-ILD had 3.25-fold higher risk for lung cancer than those without RA (aHR, 3.25; 95% CI, 2.13-4.95).
• Both patients with prevalent and those with incident RA-ILD showed a similar increase in risk for lung cancer (aHR, 2.88; 95% CI, 2.45-3.40).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results highlight RA and RA-ILD as high-risk populations that may benefit from enhanced lung cancer screening,” the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Rebecca T. Brooks, MD, Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. It was published online on July 28, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology. 

LIMITATIONS: 

The study included a predominantly male population, which may have affected the generalizability of the study. Although the study considered smoking status, data on the duration and intensity of smoking were not available. Restriction to never-smokers could not be completed for comparisons between patients with RA-ILD and those without RA because of insufficient sample sizes. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not receive funding from any source. Some authors reported receiving research funding or having ties with various pharmaceutical companies and other sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

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

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

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

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

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

TOPLINE:

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity and inflammatory markers are associated with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) nonusers but not in users, suggesting that biologics may reduce cardiovascular risk in RA even if remission is not achieved.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies reported reduced cardiovascular risk in patients with RA who respond to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors but not in nonresponders, highlighting the importance of controlling inflammation for cardiovascular protection.
• Researchers assessed whether bDMARDs modify the impact of disease activity and systemic inflammation on cardiovascular risk in 4370 patients (mean age, 55 years) with RA without cardiovascular disease from a 10-country observational cohort.
• The severity of RA disease activity was assessed using C-reactive protein (CRP) levels and 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on CRP (DAS28-CRP).
• Endpoints were time to first MACE — a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke — and time to first ischemic cardiovascular event (iCVE) — a composite of MACE plus revascularization, angina, transient ischemic attack, and peripheral arterial disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• The interaction between use of bDMARD and DAS28-CRP (P = .017) or CRP (P = .011) was significant for MACE.
• Each unit increase in DAS28-CRP increased the risk for MACE in bDMARD nonusers (hazard ratio [HR], 1.21; P = .002) but not in users.
• The per log unit increase in CRP was associated with a risk for MACE in bDMARD nonusers (HR, 1.16; P = .009) but not in users.
• No interaction was observed between bDMARD use and DAS28-CRP or CRP for the iCVE risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“This may indicate additional bDMARD-specific benefits directly on arterial wall inflammation and atherosclerotic plaque anatomy, stability, and biology, independently of systemic inflammation,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by George Athanasios Karpouzas, MD, The Lundquist Institute, Torrance, California, was published online in RMD Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Patients with a particular interest in RA-associated cardiovascular disease were included, which may have introduced referral bias and affected the generalizability of the findings. Standard definitions were used for selected outcomes; however, differences in the reporting of outcomes may be plausible. Some patients were evaluated prospectively, while others were evaluated retrospectively, leading to differences in surveillance.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Pfizer. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity and inflammatory markers are associated with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) nonusers but not in users, suggesting that biologics may reduce cardiovascular risk in RA even if remission is not achieved.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies reported reduced cardiovascular risk in patients with RA who respond to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors but not in nonresponders, highlighting the importance of controlling inflammation for cardiovascular protection.
• Researchers assessed whether bDMARDs modify the impact of disease activity and systemic inflammation on cardiovascular risk in 4370 patients (mean age, 55 years) with RA without cardiovascular disease from a 10-country observational cohort.
• The severity of RA disease activity was assessed using C-reactive protein (CRP) levels and 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on CRP (DAS28-CRP).
• Endpoints were time to first MACE — a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke — and time to first ischemic cardiovascular event (iCVE) — a composite of MACE plus revascularization, angina, transient ischemic attack, and peripheral arterial disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• The interaction between use of bDMARD and DAS28-CRP (P = .017) or CRP (P = .011) was significant for MACE.
• Each unit increase in DAS28-CRP increased the risk for MACE in bDMARD nonusers (hazard ratio [HR], 1.21; P = .002) but not in users.
• The per log unit increase in CRP was associated with a risk for MACE in bDMARD nonusers (HR, 1.16; P = .009) but not in users.
• No interaction was observed between bDMARD use and DAS28-CRP or CRP for the iCVE risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“This may indicate additional bDMARD-specific benefits directly on arterial wall inflammation and atherosclerotic plaque anatomy, stability, and biology, independently of systemic inflammation,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by George Athanasios Karpouzas, MD, The Lundquist Institute, Torrance, California, was published online in RMD Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Patients with a particular interest in RA-associated cardiovascular disease were included, which may have introduced referral bias and affected the generalizability of the findings. Standard definitions were used for selected outcomes; however, differences in the reporting of outcomes may be plausible. Some patients were evaluated prospectively, while others were evaluated retrospectively, leading to differences in surveillance.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Pfizer. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity and inflammatory markers are associated with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) nonusers but not in users, suggesting that biologics may reduce cardiovascular risk in RA even if remission is not achieved.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies reported reduced cardiovascular risk in patients with RA who respond to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors but not in nonresponders, highlighting the importance of controlling inflammation for cardiovascular protection.
• Researchers assessed whether bDMARDs modify the impact of disease activity and systemic inflammation on cardiovascular risk in 4370 patients (mean age, 55 years) with RA without cardiovascular disease from a 10-country observational cohort.
• The severity of RA disease activity was assessed using C-reactive protein (CRP) levels and 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on CRP (DAS28-CRP).
• Endpoints were time to first MACE — a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke — and time to first ischemic cardiovascular event (iCVE) — a composite of MACE plus revascularization, angina, transient ischemic attack, and peripheral arterial disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• The interaction between use of bDMARD and DAS28-CRP (P = .017) or CRP (P = .011) was significant for MACE.
• Each unit increase in DAS28-CRP increased the risk for MACE in bDMARD nonusers (hazard ratio [HR], 1.21; P = .002) but not in users.
• The per log unit increase in CRP was associated with a risk for MACE in bDMARD nonusers (HR, 1.16; P = .009) but not in users.
• No interaction was observed between bDMARD use and DAS28-CRP or CRP for the iCVE risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“This may indicate additional bDMARD-specific benefits directly on arterial wall inflammation and atherosclerotic plaque anatomy, stability, and biology, independently of systemic inflammation,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by George Athanasios Karpouzas, MD, The Lundquist Institute, Torrance, California, was published online in RMD Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Patients with a particular interest in RA-associated cardiovascular disease were included, which may have introduced referral bias and affected the generalizability of the findings. Standard definitions were used for selected outcomes; however, differences in the reporting of outcomes may be plausible. Some patients were evaluated prospectively, while others were evaluated retrospectively, leading to differences in surveillance.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Pfizer. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

The estimated number of US adults who consumed at least one of the six most frequently reported hepatotoxic botanicals in the last 30 days is similar to the number of patients prescribed potentially hepatotoxic drugs, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and simvastatin.

METHODOLOGY:

• Herbal and dietary supplements (HDS) are an increasingly common source of drug hepatotoxicity cases, but their prevalence and the reasons for their use among the general population are uncertain.
• This survey study evaluated nationally representative data from 9685 adults (mean age, 47.5 years; 51.8% women) enrolled in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) between January 2017 and March 2020.
• Participants reported their use of HDS and prescription drugs through personal interviews for a 30-day period prior to the survey date.
• Researchers compared the clinical features and baseline demographic characteristics of users of six potentially hepatotoxic botanicals (ie, turmeric, green tea, Garcinia cambogia, black cohosh, red yeast rice, and ashwagandha) with those of nonusers.
• The prevalence of use of these at-risk botanicals was compared with that of widely prescribed potentially hepatotoxic medications, including NSAIDs, simvastatin, and sertraline.

TAKEAWAY:

• In the cohort of 9685 participants, 4.7% of individuals reported consumption of at least one of the six potentially hepatotoxic botanicals in the past 30 days, with turmeric being the most common, followed by green tea.
• Extrapolating the survey data, researchers estimated that 15.6 million US adults use at least one of these six botanicals, which is comparable to the number of those prescribed potentially hepatotoxic drugs, including NSAIDs (14.8 million) and simvastatin (14.0 million). Sertraline use was lower (7.7 million).
• Most individuals used these botanicals without the recommendation of their healthcare provider.
• Those using botanicals were more likely to be older (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.36; P = .04 for 40-59 years; aOR, 3.96; P = .001 for ≥ 60 years), to have some college education (aOR, 4.78; P < .001), and to have arthritis (aOR, 2.27; P < .001) than nonusers.
• The most common reasons for using any of these six potential hepatotoxic botanicals were to improve or maintain health or to prevent health problems or boost immunity.

IN PRACTICE:

“In light of the lack of regulatory oversight on the manufacturing and testing of botanical products, it is recommended that clinicians obtain a full medication and HDS use history when evaluating patients with unexplained symptoms or liver test abnormalities,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Alisa Likhitsup, MD, MPH, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, was published online in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS:

The survey response rate was low at 43.9% for adults aged ≥ 20 years. As NHANES is a cross-sectional study, the causal relationship between consumption of the six botanicals of interest and the development of liver injury could not be determined. The use of HDS products and medications was self-reported in NHANES and not independently verified using source documents. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not report any source of funding. Two authors declared receiving grants from pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

The estimated number of US adults who consumed at least one of the six most frequently reported hepatotoxic botanicals in the last 30 days is similar to the number of patients prescribed potentially hepatotoxic drugs, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and simvastatin.

METHODOLOGY:

• Herbal and dietary supplements (HDS) are an increasingly common source of drug hepatotoxicity cases, but their prevalence and the reasons for their use among the general population are uncertain.
• This survey study evaluated nationally representative data from 9685 adults (mean age, 47.5 years; 51.8% women) enrolled in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) between January 2017 and March 2020.
• Participants reported their use of HDS and prescription drugs through personal interviews for a 30-day period prior to the survey date.
• Researchers compared the clinical features and baseline demographic characteristics of users of six potentially hepatotoxic botanicals (ie, turmeric, green tea, Garcinia cambogia, black cohosh, red yeast rice, and ashwagandha) with those of nonusers.
• The prevalence of use of these at-risk botanicals was compared with that of widely prescribed potentially hepatotoxic medications, including NSAIDs, simvastatin, and sertraline.

TAKEAWAY:

• In the cohort of 9685 participants, 4.7% of individuals reported consumption of at least one of the six potentially hepatotoxic botanicals in the past 30 days, with turmeric being the most common, followed by green tea.
• Extrapolating the survey data, researchers estimated that 15.6 million US adults use at least one of these six botanicals, which is comparable to the number of those prescribed potentially hepatotoxic drugs, including NSAIDs (14.8 million) and simvastatin (14.0 million). Sertraline use was lower (7.7 million).
• Most individuals used these botanicals without the recommendation of their healthcare provider.
• Those using botanicals were more likely to be older (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.36; P = .04 for 40-59 years; aOR, 3.96; P = .001 for ≥ 60 years), to have some college education (aOR, 4.78; P < .001), and to have arthritis (aOR, 2.27; P < .001) than nonusers.
• The most common reasons for using any of these six potential hepatotoxic botanicals were to improve or maintain health or to prevent health problems or boost immunity.

IN PRACTICE:

“In light of the lack of regulatory oversight on the manufacturing and testing of botanical products, it is recommended that clinicians obtain a full medication and HDS use history when evaluating patients with unexplained symptoms or liver test abnormalities,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Alisa Likhitsup, MD, MPH, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, was published online in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS:

The survey response rate was low at 43.9% for adults aged ≥ 20 years. As NHANES is a cross-sectional study, the causal relationship between consumption of the six botanicals of interest and the development of liver injury could not be determined. The use of HDS products and medications was self-reported in NHANES and not independently verified using source documents. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not report any source of funding. Two authors declared receiving grants from pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

The estimated number of US adults who consumed at least one of the six most frequently reported hepatotoxic botanicals in the last 30 days is similar to the number of patients prescribed potentially hepatotoxic drugs, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and simvastatin.

METHODOLOGY:

• Herbal and dietary supplements (HDS) are an increasingly common source of drug hepatotoxicity cases, but their prevalence and the reasons for their use among the general population are uncertain.
• This survey study evaluated nationally representative data from 9685 adults (mean age, 47.5 years; 51.8% women) enrolled in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) between January 2017 and March 2020.
• Participants reported their use of HDS and prescription drugs through personal interviews for a 30-day period prior to the survey date.
• Researchers compared the clinical features and baseline demographic characteristics of users of six potentially hepatotoxic botanicals (ie, turmeric, green tea, Garcinia cambogia, black cohosh, red yeast rice, and ashwagandha) with those of nonusers.
• The prevalence of use of these at-risk botanicals was compared with that of widely prescribed potentially hepatotoxic medications, including NSAIDs, simvastatin, and sertraline.

TAKEAWAY:

• In the cohort of 9685 participants, 4.7% of individuals reported consumption of at least one of the six potentially hepatotoxic botanicals in the past 30 days, with turmeric being the most common, followed by green tea.
• Extrapolating the survey data, researchers estimated that 15.6 million US adults use at least one of these six botanicals, which is comparable to the number of those prescribed potentially hepatotoxic drugs, including NSAIDs (14.8 million) and simvastatin (14.0 million). Sertraline use was lower (7.7 million).
• Most individuals used these botanicals without the recommendation of their healthcare provider.
• Those using botanicals were more likely to be older (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.36; P = .04 for 40-59 years; aOR, 3.96; P = .001 for ≥ 60 years), to have some college education (aOR, 4.78; P < .001), and to have arthritis (aOR, 2.27; P < .001) than nonusers.
• The most common reasons for using any of these six potential hepatotoxic botanicals were to improve or maintain health or to prevent health problems or boost immunity.

IN PRACTICE:

“In light of the lack of regulatory oversight on the manufacturing and testing of botanical products, it is recommended that clinicians obtain a full medication and HDS use history when evaluating patients with unexplained symptoms or liver test abnormalities,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Alisa Likhitsup, MD, MPH, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, was published online in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS:

The survey response rate was low at 43.9% for adults aged ≥ 20 years. As NHANES is a cross-sectional study, the causal relationship between consumption of the six botanicals of interest and the development of liver injury could not be determined. The use of HDS products and medications was self-reported in NHANES and not independently verified using source documents. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not report any source of funding. Two authors declared receiving grants from pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

VIENNA — Nipocalimab, iscalimab, and tibulizumab, but not lusvertikimab, appear to be promising new agents for Sjögren disease that warrant further investigation, suggest the results of four separate early clinical trials reported at the recent annual European Congress of Rheumatology (EULAR).

This is potentially good news for patients, as discovering new treatments that work for managing the various symptoms of Sjögren disease is a high priority, Jacques-Eric Gottenberg, MD, PhD, said when he presented the results of the phase 2 DAHLIAS study of nipocalimab during a late-breaking abstract session.

“All patients suffer from high burden of symptoms — pain, fatigue, and dryness; nearly 50% of patients have systemic complications; mortality is increased, so there is a high unmet need since no specific drug has been accepted so far,” said Dr. Gottenberg, who works at Strasbourg University Hospital in Strasbourg, France.

“The pathogenesis of the disease involves high B-cell activation, resulting in high IgG levels, and secretion of autoantibodies,” such as anti-Ro, anti-La, anti-Sjögren’s syndrome type A (anti-SSA), and anti-Sjögren’s syndrome type B antibodies, Dr. Gottenberg said.

Thus, one approach to reducing the disease burden is to try to lower circulating immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels and IgG-associated autoantibodies, which is how the monoclonal antibody nipocalimab works. Nipocalimab essentially blocks the interaction of IgG with the neonatal fragment crystallizable receptor and has already been shown to have efficacy in other autoimmune conditions such as myasthenia gravis and fetal and neonatal hemolytic disease, although not as hoped in rheumatoid arthritis.
 

The DAHLIAS Phase 2 Study

Now, results from the DAHLIAS study show that nipocalimab may also work in Sjögren disease, with significant improvement vs placebo seen in the primary endpoint of the total EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index (clinESSDAI) at 24 weeks for one of the two doses of the drug that were tested.

The multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind study was conducted in 163 patients with moderate to severely active primary Sjögren disease. The latter was determined by having a clinESSDAI of 6 or higher and seropositivity for anti-Ro60, anti-Ro52, or both autoantibodies.

Dr. Gottenberg reported that the mean age of patients was 48 years; the majority (92.6%) were women and of White ethnicity (90.8%). The baseline clinESSDAI was a mean of 9.9; 98.1% had anti-Ro60, 80.6% had anti-Ro52, and 71.9% had anti-La antibodies.

In addition to standard of care, patients were randomly allocated to receive intravenous treatment every 2 weeks with nipocalimab 5 mg/kg or 15 mg/kg, or placebo.

At 24 weeks, the least squares mean (LSM) change in clinESSDAI from baseline was −3.74 for placebo, −4.08 for nipocalimab 5 mg/kg (P = not significant vs placebo), and −6.40 for nipocalimab 15 mg/kg (P = .02 vs placebo).

Nipocalimab 15 mg/kg also “demonstrated similar and consistent trends in other key efficacy endpoints,” Dr. Gottenberg said. This included improvements in the ESSDAI and EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) and composite measures such as the Sjögren’s Tool for Assessing Response (STAR), Composite of Relevant Endpoints for Sjögren’s Syndrome (CRESS), and the Disease Activity Level. There were also improvements in the unstimulated salivary flow rate.

Safety findings showed no new concerns, with adverse events reported in 62.5% of placebo-treated patients and by 79.2% and 79.6% of patients receiving nipocalimab 5 mg/kg and 15 mg/kg, respectively. Serious adverse events were reported in a respective 5.4%, 7.5%, and 7.4%, including severe infections or infections requiring intravenous anti-infectives in 1.8%, 3.8%, and 1.9% of participants, although none was thought to be related to the study treatment. No opportunistic infections or any deaths were reported.

Thomas Schindler, PhD, senior clinical scientist at F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., in Basel, Switzerland, commented from the audience: “This was a very impressive set of results, and I’m very surprised that its safety profile is so benign.”

Dr. Schindler wanted to know if there were any changes in the serum albumin level and if this manifested as any laboratory abnormalities, but there were no reported cases of severe hypoalbuminemia in the study.
 

The TWINSS Phase 2 Study

Similarly hopeful results were reported for iscalimab, a fully human IgG1 anti-CD40 monoclonal antibody that is given by subcutaneous injection, during a clinical abstracts session. Xavier Mariette, MD, PhD, head of the Rheumatology Department at Bicêtre Hospital, Paris-Saclay University in Paris, France, reported updated results of the phase 2b dose-ranging TWINSS study, showing sustained benefits at 48 weeks. The primary endpoint results at 24 weeks were recently published in The Lancet.

TWINSS was set up to assess the safety and efficacy of iscalimab given every 2 weeks vs placebo in two distinct cohorts of patients with Sjögren disease — one with moderate to severe disease with both systemic and symptomatic involvement and the other with low systemic involvement but high symptom burden.

Whereas patients in the first cohort who had moderate to severe disease (n = 173) were randomly allocated to one of three doses (150, 300, and 600 mg) of iscalimab or placebo for the initial 24 weeks, those in the second cohort (n = 100) were randomly allocated to a 600-mg dose or placebo. After the double-blind period ended, patients taking iscalimab continued on the dose they were taking for another 24 weeks, with those in the placebo arms switching to the 600-mg dose in cohort 1 and the 300-mg dose in cohort 2.

Topline results for those in cohort 1 with moderate to severe Sjögren disease were that the significant improvements in ESSDAI that had been seen at week 24 were maintained in those who continued iscalimab and improved in those who had switched from placebo.

LSM change from baseline in ESSDAI vs placebo at week 24 had been −3.0, −1.4, and −2.9 for the 150-, 300-, and 600-mg doses of iscalimab, respectively. Results at week 48 were a respective −7.6, −5.7, and −7.9. The LSM change for the placebo-treated patients who had switched to the 600-mg dose was −6.7.

Dr. Mariette reported “consistent improvement” in patient-reported outcomes, including ESSPRI, the Sjögren’s Syndrome Symptom Diary, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue measure, and the Impact of Dry Eye on Everyday Life instrument. There was also a significant improvement in stimulated salivary flow rates.

Similar benefits were seen in the second cohort of patients who did not have systemic involvement but had a high burden of symptoms, with improved ESSPRI scores of a LSM change from baseline vs placebo of −2.29 for patients continuing iscalimab 600 mg treatment and −1.14 for those taking the 300-mg dose after being treated with placebo. Improvements were also seen in the other patient-reported outcomes used.

Regarding safety, Dr. Mariette reported that there were “no specific issues” seen in the patients who switched from placebo to iscalimab, either at the 300-mg or 600-mg dose. Any adverse event occurred in around 80% of placebo-treated patients and roughly 90% of those given iscalimab, and serious adverse events occurred in 11.4%, 14.3%, and 11.4% pf patients treated with iscalimab 150, 300, and 600 mg, and 4.9% of those given placebo and then 600 mg iscalimab.

“The safety seems equivalent to patients having received iscalimab from the beginning of the trial,” Dr. Mariette said, adding “the risk-benefit [analysis] seems positive in patients up to week 48.”
 

Phase 1 Trial of Tibulizumab

Further positive early trial results were reported by Michael Howell, PhD, chief scientific officer for Zura Bio, a biotech company based in Henderson, Nevada. During a poster tour at EULAR 2024, Dr. Howell presented some preliminary findings from a phase 1 trial of tibulizumab, a dual antagonist of interleukin (IL)-17A and the B-cell–activating factor (BAFF) engineered by fusing elements of ixekizumab (Taltz) and tabalumab together.

“The headline result for me is that the molecule does what it’s supposed to,” Dr. Howell told this news organization. “We have potent engagement of the IL-17 and BAFF pathways, and this sets the tone for additional exploration in rheumatologic diseases where there’s known activation of those two pathways,” he said.

Dr. Howell reported that total B-cell counts and lower levels of type 1 T helper cells were seen during the trial.

Over the years, Dr. Howell, an immunologist, has been involved in the development of many therapeutics, such as risankizumab (Skyrizi) and spesolimab (Spevigo).

“When I look at the molecules and the opportunity we have to do broader antagonism of pathways in a safe aspect, this is probably one of the most exciting,” he said.

The trial he presented included 25 people with a confirmed diagnosis of Sjögren disease and anti-SSA or anti-SSB antibodies. Patients received tibulizumab or a placebo for a total of 12 weeks via a subcutaneous injection. Various doses were tested: 30 mg, 100 mg, or 300 mg every 4 weeks, or 300 mg every 2 weeks.

Serum levels of both BAFF and IL-17A increased as expected in the tibulizumab-treated patients, and Dr. Howell reported that “it’s well tolerated. There’s no adverse event profile that caused any concern.”

As a phase 1 study, it was not powered to look at efficacy, but there were positive signals, Dr. Howell said, meaning that the drug is likely to be tested further in a phase 2 trial.
 

Lusvertikimab Phase 2 Trial

During the same poster tour, the null findings of a phase 2 trial of the anti-IL-7 monoclonal antibody lusvertikimab were presented by Benjamin Fisher, MD, professor of rheumatology at Birmingham University in Birmingham, England.

Dr. Fisher told this news organization: “It’s a negative study, at least over the 3-month period that we’ve studied it.” Whether longer durations of treatment may be needed is a question that currently cannot be answered, he added.

A total of 48 patients with Sjögren disease had been included in the trial from 19 different centers in Europe, the United States, and Australia. The mean age of the participants was 53.7 years, 87% were women, and the mean duration of disease was 5.0 years. Baseline ESSDAI and ESSPRI were 12.1 and 7.0, respectively. Half were receiving other background treatment, and 72.9% were anti-Ro or anti-SSA positive.

Lusvertikimab 750 mg or a matching placebo was given via intravenous infusion at weeks 0, 2, 4, 7, and 10.

The primary endpoint was the mean change in ESSDAI from baseline to week 13, which was the same, at −3.9, in both groups. There was also no significant difference between the groups in any of the other secondary endpoints that were used, including ESSPRI, Schirmer’s test, the ocular staining score, salivary flow rate, physician and patient global assessment, assessment of fatigue, quality of life, or the composite measures STAR and CRESS.

“This isn’t going anywhere,” said Dr. Fisher, asking what was going to happen next and if this meant the end of IL-7-focused therapy.

“For years, there’s been quite a lot of interest in this,” Dr. Fisher said. Sjögren disease is characterized by a sort of focal inflammation of the saliva glands, which is composed of both T and B cells in the early stages, probably a T-cell component and a B-cell component, he explained.

“IL-7 is thought to be an important cytokine for homeostasis of the T-cell compartment, so for maintenance of T central memory and effector memory cells,” he said. “So, the idea is that, if you block IL-7, you switch off T cells, and you may rebalance the immune system towards a more regulatory phenotype. Just that it didn’t work,” Dr. Fisher said.

“There’s large unmet need,” he said. “Sjögren’s is associated with poor health-related quality of life, [and] a large part that is symptom-driven — dryness and fatigue — which we have no real interventions yet for patients; there’s no licensed therapeutics for it.”

Dr. Fisher cited ianalumab as one of the front-runners for becoming the first licensed treatment for Sjögren disease. The novel BAFF-targeting antibody is already in phase 3 trials and is also showing promise for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus.

“Then there are CD40-targeting drugs; the ones most advanced are dazodalibep and iscalimab.” Commenting on the potential of iscalimab, Dr. Fisher said that it “seems to work — it improves systemic disease activity; it also leads to some symptomatic improvement, which has been difficult to demonstrate in Sjögren’s.”

Dr. Fisher added that “the nipocalimab data looks interesting, as do data on TYK2 inhibition.”

The DAHLIAS study was funded by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Gottenberg has consulted for AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB. The TWINSS study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Mariette has consulted for BMS, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, and Servier. The tibulizumab phase 1 study was funded by Eli Lilly & Company. Dr. Howell is an employee of the developer, Zura Bio. The Institut de Recherches Internationales Servier sponsored the lusvertikimab trial. Dr. Fisher has consulted for Novartis, Roche, BMS, Galapagos, Janssen, Servier, UCB, and Sanofi and received funding to his institution for collaborative research from Janssen, Celgene, Galapagos, and Servier.
 

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

VIENNA — Nipocalimab, iscalimab, and tibulizumab, but not lusvertikimab, appear to be promising new agents for Sjögren disease that warrant further investigation, suggest the results of four separate early clinical trials reported at the recent annual European Congress of Rheumatology (EULAR).

This is potentially good news for patients, as discovering new treatments that work for managing the various symptoms of Sjögren disease is a high priority, Jacques-Eric Gottenberg, MD, PhD, said when he presented the results of the phase 2 DAHLIAS study of nipocalimab during a late-breaking abstract session.

“All patients suffer from high burden of symptoms — pain, fatigue, and dryness; nearly 50% of patients have systemic complications; mortality is increased, so there is a high unmet need since no specific drug has been accepted so far,” said Dr. Gottenberg, who works at Strasbourg University Hospital in Strasbourg, France.

“The pathogenesis of the disease involves high B-cell activation, resulting in high IgG levels, and secretion of autoantibodies,” such as anti-Ro, anti-La, anti-Sjögren’s syndrome type A (anti-SSA), and anti-Sjögren’s syndrome type B antibodies, Dr. Gottenberg said.

Thus, one approach to reducing the disease burden is to try to lower circulating immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels and IgG-associated autoantibodies, which is how the monoclonal antibody nipocalimab works. Nipocalimab essentially blocks the interaction of IgG with the neonatal fragment crystallizable receptor and has already been shown to have efficacy in other autoimmune conditions such as myasthenia gravis and fetal and neonatal hemolytic disease, although not as hoped in rheumatoid arthritis.
 

The DAHLIAS Phase 2 Study

Now, results from the DAHLIAS study show that nipocalimab may also work in Sjögren disease, with significant improvement vs placebo seen in the primary endpoint of the total EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index (clinESSDAI) at 24 weeks for one of the two doses of the drug that were tested.

The multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind study was conducted in 163 patients with moderate to severely active primary Sjögren disease. The latter was determined by having a clinESSDAI of 6 or higher and seropositivity for anti-Ro60, anti-Ro52, or both autoantibodies.

Dr. Gottenberg reported that the mean age of patients was 48 years; the majority (92.6%) were women and of White ethnicity (90.8%). The baseline clinESSDAI was a mean of 9.9; 98.1% had anti-Ro60, 80.6% had anti-Ro52, and 71.9% had anti-La antibodies.

In addition to standard of care, patients were randomly allocated to receive intravenous treatment every 2 weeks with nipocalimab 5 mg/kg or 15 mg/kg, or placebo.

At 24 weeks, the least squares mean (LSM) change in clinESSDAI from baseline was −3.74 for placebo, −4.08 for nipocalimab 5 mg/kg (P = not significant vs placebo), and −6.40 for nipocalimab 15 mg/kg (P = .02 vs placebo).

Nipocalimab 15 mg/kg also “demonstrated similar and consistent trends in other key efficacy endpoints,” Dr. Gottenberg said. This included improvements in the ESSDAI and EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) and composite measures such as the Sjögren’s Tool for Assessing Response (STAR), Composite of Relevant Endpoints for Sjögren’s Syndrome (CRESS), and the Disease Activity Level. There were also improvements in the unstimulated salivary flow rate.

Safety findings showed no new concerns, with adverse events reported in 62.5% of placebo-treated patients and by 79.2% and 79.6% of patients receiving nipocalimab 5 mg/kg and 15 mg/kg, respectively. Serious adverse events were reported in a respective 5.4%, 7.5%, and 7.4%, including severe infections or infections requiring intravenous anti-infectives in 1.8%, 3.8%, and 1.9% of participants, although none was thought to be related to the study treatment. No opportunistic infections or any deaths were reported.

Thomas Schindler, PhD, senior clinical scientist at F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., in Basel, Switzerland, commented from the audience: “This was a very impressive set of results, and I’m very surprised that its safety profile is so benign.”

Dr. Schindler wanted to know if there were any changes in the serum albumin level and if this manifested as any laboratory abnormalities, but there were no reported cases of severe hypoalbuminemia in the study.
 

The TWINSS Phase 2 Study

Similarly hopeful results were reported for iscalimab, a fully human IgG1 anti-CD40 monoclonal antibody that is given by subcutaneous injection, during a clinical abstracts session. Xavier Mariette, MD, PhD, head of the Rheumatology Department at Bicêtre Hospital, Paris-Saclay University in Paris, France, reported updated results of the phase 2b dose-ranging TWINSS study, showing sustained benefits at 48 weeks. The primary endpoint results at 24 weeks were recently published in The Lancet.

TWINSS was set up to assess the safety and efficacy of iscalimab given every 2 weeks vs placebo in two distinct cohorts of patients with Sjögren disease — one with moderate to severe disease with both systemic and symptomatic involvement and the other with low systemic involvement but high symptom burden.

Whereas patients in the first cohort who had moderate to severe disease (n = 173) were randomly allocated to one of three doses (150, 300, and 600 mg) of iscalimab or placebo for the initial 24 weeks, those in the second cohort (n = 100) were randomly allocated to a 600-mg dose or placebo. After the double-blind period ended, patients taking iscalimab continued on the dose they were taking for another 24 weeks, with those in the placebo arms switching to the 600-mg dose in cohort 1 and the 300-mg dose in cohort 2.

Topline results for those in cohort 1 with moderate to severe Sjögren disease were that the significant improvements in ESSDAI that had been seen at week 24 were maintained in those who continued iscalimab and improved in those who had switched from placebo.

LSM change from baseline in ESSDAI vs placebo at week 24 had been −3.0, −1.4, and −2.9 for the 150-, 300-, and 600-mg doses of iscalimab, respectively. Results at week 48 were a respective −7.6, −5.7, and −7.9. The LSM change for the placebo-treated patients who had switched to the 600-mg dose was −6.7.

Dr. Mariette reported “consistent improvement” in patient-reported outcomes, including ESSPRI, the Sjögren’s Syndrome Symptom Diary, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue measure, and the Impact of Dry Eye on Everyday Life instrument. There was also a significant improvement in stimulated salivary flow rates.

Similar benefits were seen in the second cohort of patients who did not have systemic involvement but had a high burden of symptoms, with improved ESSPRI scores of a LSM change from baseline vs placebo of −2.29 for patients continuing iscalimab 600 mg treatment and −1.14 for those taking the 300-mg dose after being treated with placebo. Improvements were also seen in the other patient-reported outcomes used.

Regarding safety, Dr. Mariette reported that there were “no specific issues” seen in the patients who switched from placebo to iscalimab, either at the 300-mg or 600-mg dose. Any adverse event occurred in around 80% of placebo-treated patients and roughly 90% of those given iscalimab, and serious adverse events occurred in 11.4%, 14.3%, and 11.4% pf patients treated with iscalimab 150, 300, and 600 mg, and 4.9% of those given placebo and then 600 mg iscalimab.

“The safety seems equivalent to patients having received iscalimab from the beginning of the trial,” Dr. Mariette said, adding “the risk-benefit [analysis] seems positive in patients up to week 48.”
 

Phase 1 Trial of Tibulizumab

Further positive early trial results were reported by Michael Howell, PhD, chief scientific officer for Zura Bio, a biotech company based in Henderson, Nevada. During a poster tour at EULAR 2024, Dr. Howell presented some preliminary findings from a phase 1 trial of tibulizumab, a dual antagonist of interleukin (IL)-17A and the B-cell–activating factor (BAFF) engineered by fusing elements of ixekizumab (Taltz) and tabalumab together.

“The headline result for me is that the molecule does what it’s supposed to,” Dr. Howell told this news organization. “We have potent engagement of the IL-17 and BAFF pathways, and this sets the tone for additional exploration in rheumatologic diseases where there’s known activation of those two pathways,” he said.

Dr. Howell reported that total B-cell counts and lower levels of type 1 T helper cells were seen during the trial.

Over the years, Dr. Howell, an immunologist, has been involved in the development of many therapeutics, such as risankizumab (Skyrizi) and spesolimab (Spevigo).

“When I look at the molecules and the opportunity we have to do broader antagonism of pathways in a safe aspect, this is probably one of the most exciting,” he said.

The trial he presented included 25 people with a confirmed diagnosis of Sjögren disease and anti-SSA or anti-SSB antibodies. Patients received tibulizumab or a placebo for a total of 12 weeks via a subcutaneous injection. Various doses were tested: 30 mg, 100 mg, or 300 mg every 4 weeks, or 300 mg every 2 weeks.

Serum levels of both BAFF and IL-17A increased as expected in the tibulizumab-treated patients, and Dr. Howell reported that “it’s well tolerated. There’s no adverse event profile that caused any concern.”

As a phase 1 study, it was not powered to look at efficacy, but there were positive signals, Dr. Howell said, meaning that the drug is likely to be tested further in a phase 2 trial.
 

Lusvertikimab Phase 2 Trial

During the same poster tour, the null findings of a phase 2 trial of the anti-IL-7 monoclonal antibody lusvertikimab were presented by Benjamin Fisher, MD, professor of rheumatology at Birmingham University in Birmingham, England.

Dr. Fisher told this news organization: “It’s a negative study, at least over the 3-month period that we’ve studied it.” Whether longer durations of treatment may be needed is a question that currently cannot be answered, he added.

A total of 48 patients with Sjögren disease had been included in the trial from 19 different centers in Europe, the United States, and Australia. The mean age of the participants was 53.7 years, 87% were women, and the mean duration of disease was 5.0 years. Baseline ESSDAI and ESSPRI were 12.1 and 7.0, respectively. Half were receiving other background treatment, and 72.9% were anti-Ro or anti-SSA positive.

Lusvertikimab 750 mg or a matching placebo was given via intravenous infusion at weeks 0, 2, 4, 7, and 10.

The primary endpoint was the mean change in ESSDAI from baseline to week 13, which was the same, at −3.9, in both groups. There was also no significant difference between the groups in any of the other secondary endpoints that were used, including ESSPRI, Schirmer’s test, the ocular staining score, salivary flow rate, physician and patient global assessment, assessment of fatigue, quality of life, or the composite measures STAR and CRESS.

“This isn’t going anywhere,” said Dr. Fisher, asking what was going to happen next and if this meant the end of IL-7-focused therapy.

“For years, there’s been quite a lot of interest in this,” Dr. Fisher said. Sjögren disease is characterized by a sort of focal inflammation of the saliva glands, which is composed of both T and B cells in the early stages, probably a T-cell component and a B-cell component, he explained.

“IL-7 is thought to be an important cytokine for homeostasis of the T-cell compartment, so for maintenance of T central memory and effector memory cells,” he said. “So, the idea is that, if you block IL-7, you switch off T cells, and you may rebalance the immune system towards a more regulatory phenotype. Just that it didn’t work,” Dr. Fisher said.

“There’s large unmet need,” he said. “Sjögren’s is associated with poor health-related quality of life, [and] a large part that is symptom-driven — dryness and fatigue — which we have no real interventions yet for patients; there’s no licensed therapeutics for it.”

Dr. Fisher cited ianalumab as one of the front-runners for becoming the first licensed treatment for Sjögren disease. The novel BAFF-targeting antibody is already in phase 3 trials and is also showing promise for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus.

“Then there are CD40-targeting drugs; the ones most advanced are dazodalibep and iscalimab.” Commenting on the potential of iscalimab, Dr. Fisher said that it “seems to work — it improves systemic disease activity; it also leads to some symptomatic improvement, which has been difficult to demonstrate in Sjögren’s.”

Dr. Fisher added that “the nipocalimab data looks interesting, as do data on TYK2 inhibition.”

The DAHLIAS study was funded by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Gottenberg has consulted for AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB. The TWINSS study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Mariette has consulted for BMS, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, and Servier. The tibulizumab phase 1 study was funded by Eli Lilly & Company. Dr. Howell is an employee of the developer, Zura Bio. The Institut de Recherches Internationales Servier sponsored the lusvertikimab trial. Dr. Fisher has consulted for Novartis, Roche, BMS, Galapagos, Janssen, Servier, UCB, and Sanofi and received funding to his institution for collaborative research from Janssen, Celgene, Galapagos, and Servier.
 

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

VIENNA — Nipocalimab, iscalimab, and tibulizumab, but not lusvertikimab, appear to be promising new agents for Sjögren disease that warrant further investigation, suggest the results of four separate early clinical trials reported at the recent annual European Congress of Rheumatology (EULAR).

This is potentially good news for patients, as discovering new treatments that work for managing the various symptoms of Sjögren disease is a high priority, Jacques-Eric Gottenberg, MD, PhD, said when he presented the results of the phase 2 DAHLIAS study of nipocalimab during a late-breaking abstract session.

“All patients suffer from high burden of symptoms — pain, fatigue, and dryness; nearly 50% of patients have systemic complications; mortality is increased, so there is a high unmet need since no specific drug has been accepted so far,” said Dr. Gottenberg, who works at Strasbourg University Hospital in Strasbourg, France.

“The pathogenesis of the disease involves high B-cell activation, resulting in high IgG levels, and secretion of autoantibodies,” such as anti-Ro, anti-La, anti-Sjögren’s syndrome type A (anti-SSA), and anti-Sjögren’s syndrome type B antibodies, Dr. Gottenberg said.

Thus, one approach to reducing the disease burden is to try to lower circulating immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels and IgG-associated autoantibodies, which is how the monoclonal antibody nipocalimab works. Nipocalimab essentially blocks the interaction of IgG with the neonatal fragment crystallizable receptor and has already been shown to have efficacy in other autoimmune conditions such as myasthenia gravis and fetal and neonatal hemolytic disease, although not as hoped in rheumatoid arthritis.
 

The DAHLIAS Phase 2 Study

Now, results from the DAHLIAS study show that nipocalimab may also work in Sjögren disease, with significant improvement vs placebo seen in the primary endpoint of the total EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index (clinESSDAI) at 24 weeks for one of the two doses of the drug that were tested.

The multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind study was conducted in 163 patients with moderate to severely active primary Sjögren disease. The latter was determined by having a clinESSDAI of 6 or higher and seropositivity for anti-Ro60, anti-Ro52, or both autoantibodies.

Dr. Gottenberg reported that the mean age of patients was 48 years; the majority (92.6%) were women and of White ethnicity (90.8%). The baseline clinESSDAI was a mean of 9.9; 98.1% had anti-Ro60, 80.6% had anti-Ro52, and 71.9% had anti-La antibodies.

In addition to standard of care, patients were randomly allocated to receive intravenous treatment every 2 weeks with nipocalimab 5 mg/kg or 15 mg/kg, or placebo.

At 24 weeks, the least squares mean (LSM) change in clinESSDAI from baseline was −3.74 for placebo, −4.08 for nipocalimab 5 mg/kg (P = not significant vs placebo), and −6.40 for nipocalimab 15 mg/kg (P = .02 vs placebo).

Nipocalimab 15 mg/kg also “demonstrated similar and consistent trends in other key efficacy endpoints,” Dr. Gottenberg said. This included improvements in the ESSDAI and EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) and composite measures such as the Sjögren’s Tool for Assessing Response (STAR), Composite of Relevant Endpoints for Sjögren’s Syndrome (CRESS), and the Disease Activity Level. There were also improvements in the unstimulated salivary flow rate.

Safety findings showed no new concerns, with adverse events reported in 62.5% of placebo-treated patients and by 79.2% and 79.6% of patients receiving nipocalimab 5 mg/kg and 15 mg/kg, respectively. Serious adverse events were reported in a respective 5.4%, 7.5%, and 7.4%, including severe infections or infections requiring intravenous anti-infectives in 1.8%, 3.8%, and 1.9% of participants, although none was thought to be related to the study treatment. No opportunistic infections or any deaths were reported.

Thomas Schindler, PhD, senior clinical scientist at F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., in Basel, Switzerland, commented from the audience: “This was a very impressive set of results, and I’m very surprised that its safety profile is so benign.”

Dr. Schindler wanted to know if there were any changes in the serum albumin level and if this manifested as any laboratory abnormalities, but there were no reported cases of severe hypoalbuminemia in the study.
 

The TWINSS Phase 2 Study

Similarly hopeful results were reported for iscalimab, a fully human IgG1 anti-CD40 monoclonal antibody that is given by subcutaneous injection, during a clinical abstracts session. Xavier Mariette, MD, PhD, head of the Rheumatology Department at Bicêtre Hospital, Paris-Saclay University in Paris, France, reported updated results of the phase 2b dose-ranging TWINSS study, showing sustained benefits at 48 weeks. The primary endpoint results at 24 weeks were recently published in The Lancet.

TWINSS was set up to assess the safety and efficacy of iscalimab given every 2 weeks vs placebo in two distinct cohorts of patients with Sjögren disease — one with moderate to severe disease with both systemic and symptomatic involvement and the other with low systemic involvement but high symptom burden.

Whereas patients in the first cohort who had moderate to severe disease (n = 173) were randomly allocated to one of three doses (150, 300, and 600 mg) of iscalimab or placebo for the initial 24 weeks, those in the second cohort (n = 100) were randomly allocated to a 600-mg dose or placebo. After the double-blind period ended, patients taking iscalimab continued on the dose they were taking for another 24 weeks, with those in the placebo arms switching to the 600-mg dose in cohort 1 and the 300-mg dose in cohort 2.

Topline results for those in cohort 1 with moderate to severe Sjögren disease were that the significant improvements in ESSDAI that had been seen at week 24 were maintained in those who continued iscalimab and improved in those who had switched from placebo.

LSM change from baseline in ESSDAI vs placebo at week 24 had been −3.0, −1.4, and −2.9 for the 150-, 300-, and 600-mg doses of iscalimab, respectively. Results at week 48 were a respective −7.6, −5.7, and −7.9. The LSM change for the placebo-treated patients who had switched to the 600-mg dose was −6.7.

Dr. Mariette reported “consistent improvement” in patient-reported outcomes, including ESSPRI, the Sjögren’s Syndrome Symptom Diary, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue measure, and the Impact of Dry Eye on Everyday Life instrument. There was also a significant improvement in stimulated salivary flow rates.

Similar benefits were seen in the second cohort of patients who did not have systemic involvement but had a high burden of symptoms, with improved ESSPRI scores of a LSM change from baseline vs placebo of −2.29 for patients continuing iscalimab 600 mg treatment and −1.14 for those taking the 300-mg dose after being treated with placebo. Improvements were also seen in the other patient-reported outcomes used.

Regarding safety, Dr. Mariette reported that there were “no specific issues” seen in the patients who switched from placebo to iscalimab, either at the 300-mg or 600-mg dose. Any adverse event occurred in around 80% of placebo-treated patients and roughly 90% of those given iscalimab, and serious adverse events occurred in 11.4%, 14.3%, and 11.4% pf patients treated with iscalimab 150, 300, and 600 mg, and 4.9% of those given placebo and then 600 mg iscalimab.

“The safety seems equivalent to patients having received iscalimab from the beginning of the trial,” Dr. Mariette said, adding “the risk-benefit [analysis] seems positive in patients up to week 48.”
 

Phase 1 Trial of Tibulizumab

Further positive early trial results were reported by Michael Howell, PhD, chief scientific officer for Zura Bio, a biotech company based in Henderson, Nevada. During a poster tour at EULAR 2024, Dr. Howell presented some preliminary findings from a phase 1 trial of tibulizumab, a dual antagonist of interleukin (IL)-17A and the B-cell–activating factor (BAFF) engineered by fusing elements of ixekizumab (Taltz) and tabalumab together.

“The headline result for me is that the molecule does what it’s supposed to,” Dr. Howell told this news organization. “We have potent engagement of the IL-17 and BAFF pathways, and this sets the tone for additional exploration in rheumatologic diseases where there’s known activation of those two pathways,” he said.

Dr. Howell reported that total B-cell counts and lower levels of type 1 T helper cells were seen during the trial.

Over the years, Dr. Howell, an immunologist, has been involved in the development of many therapeutics, such as risankizumab (Skyrizi) and spesolimab (Spevigo).

“When I look at the molecules and the opportunity we have to do broader antagonism of pathways in a safe aspect, this is probably one of the most exciting,” he said.

The trial he presented included 25 people with a confirmed diagnosis of Sjögren disease and anti-SSA or anti-SSB antibodies. Patients received tibulizumab or a placebo for a total of 12 weeks via a subcutaneous injection. Various doses were tested: 30 mg, 100 mg, or 300 mg every 4 weeks, or 300 mg every 2 weeks.

Serum levels of both BAFF and IL-17A increased as expected in the tibulizumab-treated patients, and Dr. Howell reported that “it’s well tolerated. There’s no adverse event profile that caused any concern.”

As a phase 1 study, it was not powered to look at efficacy, but there were positive signals, Dr. Howell said, meaning that the drug is likely to be tested further in a phase 2 trial.
 

Lusvertikimab Phase 2 Trial

During the same poster tour, the null findings of a phase 2 trial of the anti-IL-7 monoclonal antibody lusvertikimab were presented by Benjamin Fisher, MD, professor of rheumatology at Birmingham University in Birmingham, England.

Dr. Fisher told this news organization: “It’s a negative study, at least over the 3-month period that we’ve studied it.” Whether longer durations of treatment may be needed is a question that currently cannot be answered, he added.

A total of 48 patients with Sjögren disease had been included in the trial from 19 different centers in Europe, the United States, and Australia. The mean age of the participants was 53.7 years, 87% were women, and the mean duration of disease was 5.0 years. Baseline ESSDAI and ESSPRI were 12.1 and 7.0, respectively. Half were receiving other background treatment, and 72.9% were anti-Ro or anti-SSA positive.

Lusvertikimab 750 mg or a matching placebo was given via intravenous infusion at weeks 0, 2, 4, 7, and 10.

The primary endpoint was the mean change in ESSDAI from baseline to week 13, which was the same, at −3.9, in both groups. There was also no significant difference between the groups in any of the other secondary endpoints that were used, including ESSPRI, Schirmer’s test, the ocular staining score, salivary flow rate, physician and patient global assessment, assessment of fatigue, quality of life, or the composite measures STAR and CRESS.

“This isn’t going anywhere,” said Dr. Fisher, asking what was going to happen next and if this meant the end of IL-7-focused therapy.

“For years, there’s been quite a lot of interest in this,” Dr. Fisher said. Sjögren disease is characterized by a sort of focal inflammation of the saliva glands, which is composed of both T and B cells in the early stages, probably a T-cell component and a B-cell component, he explained.

“IL-7 is thought to be an important cytokine for homeostasis of the T-cell compartment, so for maintenance of T central memory and effector memory cells,” he said. “So, the idea is that, if you block IL-7, you switch off T cells, and you may rebalance the immune system towards a more regulatory phenotype. Just that it didn’t work,” Dr. Fisher said.

“There’s large unmet need,” he said. “Sjögren’s is associated with poor health-related quality of life, [and] a large part that is symptom-driven — dryness and fatigue — which we have no real interventions yet for patients; there’s no licensed therapeutics for it.”

Dr. Fisher cited ianalumab as one of the front-runners for becoming the first licensed treatment for Sjögren disease. The novel BAFF-targeting antibody is already in phase 3 trials and is also showing promise for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus.

“Then there are CD40-targeting drugs; the ones most advanced are dazodalibep and iscalimab.” Commenting on the potential of iscalimab, Dr. Fisher said that it “seems to work — it improves systemic disease activity; it also leads to some symptomatic improvement, which has been difficult to demonstrate in Sjögren’s.”

Dr. Fisher added that “the nipocalimab data looks interesting, as do data on TYK2 inhibition.”

The DAHLIAS study was funded by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Gottenberg has consulted for AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB. The TWINSS study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Mariette has consulted for BMS, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, and Servier. The tibulizumab phase 1 study was funded by Eli Lilly & Company. Dr. Howell is an employee of the developer, Zura Bio. The Institut de Recherches Internationales Servier sponsored the lusvertikimab trial. Dr. Fisher has consulted for Novartis, Roche, BMS, Galapagos, Janssen, Servier, UCB, and Sanofi and received funding to his institution for collaborative research from Janssen, Celgene, Galapagos, and Servier.
 

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

TOPLINE:

Chronic exposure to air pollutants such as fine particulate matter ≤ 2.5 μm in diameter (PM_2.5), particulate matter ≤ 10 μm in diameter (PM₁₀), nitrogen dioxide (NO₂), and nitrogen oxides (NO_X) increased the risk for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) onset. The risk was highest among those with high genetic risk and high air-pollution exposure. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers prospectively investigated the association between long-term exposure to air pollutants and incident SLE in 459,815 participants from the UK Biobank.
• A land-use regression model was used to quantify the annual average air pollution concentrations, including PM_2.5, PM₁₀, NO₂, and NO_X.
• The genetic susceptibility to lupus was assessed using polygenic risk scores (PRS), and the participants were classified into low–, intermediate–, or high–genetic-risk groups based on the tertiles of PRS.
• The joint effect of air pollutants and genetic susceptibility to lupus on the risk for incident SLE was evaluated, with the reference group consisting of participants with a low genetic risk and low exposure to air pollution.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Over a median follow-up period of 11.77 years, 399 new cases of SLE were identified.
• The odds of developing SLE were higher among participants with high genetic risk than among those with low genetic risk (hazard ratio [HR], 3.45; P < .001 for trend).
• The risk for developing SLE was even higher among participants with a high genetic risk and high exposure to PM_2.5 (adjusted HR [aHR], 4.16; 95% CI, 2.67-6.49), PM₁₀ (aHR, 5.31; 95% CI, 3.30-8.55), NO₂ (aHR, 5.61; 95% CI, 3.45-9.13), and NO_X (aHR, 4.80; 95% CI, 3.00-7.66) than among with those with a low genetic risk and low exposure to air pollutants.

IN PRACTICE:

“Findings can inform the development of stricter air quality regulations to mitigate exposure to harmful pollutants, thereby reducing the risk of SLE,” the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Meiqi Xing, MASc, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. It was published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study participants were enrolled voluntarily, which may have led to selection bias because they might have been healthier or more health conscious. The study did not consider the specific components of air pollutants, particularly particulate matter, which may have varying effects on the incidence of SLE. Other air pollutants such as ozone, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide were not included in the analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not disclose any funding source. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Chronic exposure to air pollutants such as fine particulate matter ≤ 2.5 μm in diameter (PM_2.5), particulate matter ≤ 10 μm in diameter (PM₁₀), nitrogen dioxide (NO₂), and nitrogen oxides (NO_X) increased the risk for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) onset. The risk was highest among those with high genetic risk and high air-pollution exposure. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers prospectively investigated the association between long-term exposure to air pollutants and incident SLE in 459,815 participants from the UK Biobank.
• A land-use regression model was used to quantify the annual average air pollution concentrations, including PM_2.5, PM₁₀, NO₂, and NO_X.
• The genetic susceptibility to lupus was assessed using polygenic risk scores (PRS), and the participants were classified into low–, intermediate–, or high–genetic-risk groups based on the tertiles of PRS.
• The joint effect of air pollutants and genetic susceptibility to lupus on the risk for incident SLE was evaluated, with the reference group consisting of participants with a low genetic risk and low exposure to air pollution.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Over a median follow-up period of 11.77 years, 399 new cases of SLE were identified.
• The odds of developing SLE were higher among participants with high genetic risk than among those with low genetic risk (hazard ratio [HR], 3.45; P < .001 for trend).
• The risk for developing SLE was even higher among participants with a high genetic risk and high exposure to PM_2.5 (adjusted HR [aHR], 4.16; 95% CI, 2.67-6.49), PM₁₀ (aHR, 5.31; 95% CI, 3.30-8.55), NO₂ (aHR, 5.61; 95% CI, 3.45-9.13), and NO_X (aHR, 4.80; 95% CI, 3.00-7.66) than among with those with a low genetic risk and low exposure to air pollutants.

IN PRACTICE:

“Findings can inform the development of stricter air quality regulations to mitigate exposure to harmful pollutants, thereby reducing the risk of SLE,” the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Meiqi Xing, MASc, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. It was published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study participants were enrolled voluntarily, which may have led to selection bias because they might have been healthier or more health conscious. The study did not consider the specific components of air pollutants, particularly particulate matter, which may have varying effects on the incidence of SLE. Other air pollutants such as ozone, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide were not included in the analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not disclose any funding source. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Chronic exposure to air pollutants such as fine particulate matter ≤ 2.5 μm in diameter (PM_2.5), particulate matter ≤ 10 μm in diameter (PM₁₀), nitrogen dioxide (NO₂), and nitrogen oxides (NO_X) increased the risk for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) onset. The risk was highest among those with high genetic risk and high air-pollution exposure. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers prospectively investigated the association between long-term exposure to air pollutants and incident SLE in 459,815 participants from the UK Biobank.
• A land-use regression model was used to quantify the annual average air pollution concentrations, including PM_2.5, PM₁₀, NO₂, and NO_X.
• The genetic susceptibility to lupus was assessed using polygenic risk scores (PRS), and the participants were classified into low–, intermediate–, or high–genetic-risk groups based on the tertiles of PRS.
• The joint effect of air pollutants and genetic susceptibility to lupus on the risk for incident SLE was evaluated, with the reference group consisting of participants with a low genetic risk and low exposure to air pollution.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Over a median follow-up period of 11.77 years, 399 new cases of SLE were identified.
• The odds of developing SLE were higher among participants with high genetic risk than among those with low genetic risk (hazard ratio [HR], 3.45; P < .001 for trend).
• The risk for developing SLE was even higher among participants with a high genetic risk and high exposure to PM_2.5 (adjusted HR [aHR], 4.16; 95% CI, 2.67-6.49), PM₁₀ (aHR, 5.31; 95% CI, 3.30-8.55), NO₂ (aHR, 5.61; 95% CI, 3.45-9.13), and NO_X (aHR, 4.80; 95% CI, 3.00-7.66) than among with those with a low genetic risk and low exposure to air pollutants.

IN PRACTICE:

“Findings can inform the development of stricter air quality regulations to mitigate exposure to harmful pollutants, thereby reducing the risk of SLE,” the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Meiqi Xing, MASc, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. It was published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study participants were enrolled voluntarily, which may have led to selection bias because they might have been healthier or more health conscious. The study did not consider the specific components of air pollutants, particularly particulate matter, which may have varying effects on the incidence of SLE. Other air pollutants such as ozone, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide were not included in the analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not disclose any funding source. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

About 40% of patients with osteoarthritis (OA) and 36% with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) screened positive for anxiety, depression, and/or fibromyalgia as part of routine visits to an academic medical center, and these comorbidities were linked to poorer patient status measures, highlighting the need for routine screening in clinical practice. 

METHODOLOGY:

• This retrospective cross-sectional study analyzed the prevalence of anxiety, depression, and fibromyalgia in 366 patients with OA (mean age, 66.6 years) and 488 patients with RA (mean age, 56.9 years) who were in routine care at an academic center from 2011 to 2022.
• All participants were required to have complete Multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire (MDHAQ) data available for the analysis.
• The MDHAQ included indices to assess the overall patient status and screen for anxiety, depression, and fibromyalgia.
• The overall patient status was measured using the Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3), which comprised the physical function, pain, and patient global scores.
• The prevalence of each comorbidity and its association with patient status was analyzed using unadjusted and age-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the patients with OA, 40.4% were screened positive for at least one of the three indices indicating patient distress (anxiety, depression, and fibromyalgia). Among patients with RA, the proportion was 36.3%.
• Among the patients who screened positive for at least one index, about 20% screened positive for all three indices related to anxiety, depression, and fibromyalgia.
• In patients with OA, a poorer patient status (RAPID3, ≥ 12 vs < 12) increased the likelihood of anxiety (OR, 3.93; 95% CI, 2.24-7.23), depression (OR, 3.79; 95% CI, 2.01-7.73), and fibromyalgia (OR, 6.70; 95% CI, 3.36-14.99).
• Similarly, the odds of all three comorbidities increased in the patients with RA who had worsened patient status.

IN PRACTICE:

“Screening for [anxiety, depression, and/or fibromyalgia] can be incorporated feasibly into routine clinical care using a single MDHAQ to better inform health professionals concerning patient status, prognosis, and response to treatments,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Juan Schmukler, MD, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, and was published online on July 16, 2024, in ACR Open Rheumatology. 

LIMITATIONS:

The analyses were cross-sectional, and whether anxiety, depression, and fibromyalgia had preceded or followed the onset of OA or RA was not known. Information on the clinical variables associated with anxiety, depression, and fibromyalgia, such as body mass index, medication history, and other comorbid conditions, was not available. All the patients were seen at a single rheumatology site, which may have limited the generalizability of the observations. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not disclose any sources of funding. One author disclosed receiving grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. One author reported numerous financial relationships with companies in the medical industry, and another reported holding a copyright and trademark on MDHAQ and RAPID3. 

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

TOPLINE:

About 40% of patients with osteoarthritis (OA) and 36% with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) screened positive for anxiety, depression, and/or fibromyalgia as part of routine visits to an academic medical center, and these comorbidities were linked to poorer patient status measures, highlighting the need for routine screening in clinical practice. 

METHODOLOGY:

• This retrospective cross-sectional study analyzed the prevalence of anxiety, depression, and fibromyalgia in 366 patients with OA (mean age, 66.6 years) and 488 patients with RA (mean age, 56.9 years) who were in routine care at an academic center from 2011 to 2022.
• All participants were required to have complete Multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire (MDHAQ) data available for the analysis.
• The MDHAQ included indices to assess the overall patient status and screen for anxiety, depression, and fibromyalgia.
• The overall patient status was measured using the Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3), which comprised the physical function, pain, and patient global scores.
• The prevalence of each comorbidity and its association with patient status was analyzed using unadjusted and age-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the patients with OA, 40.4% were screened positive for at least one of the three indices indicating patient distress (anxiety, depression, and fibromyalgia). Among patients with RA, the proportion was 36.3%.
• Among the patients who screened positive for at least one index, about 20% screened positive for all three indices related to anxiety, depression, and fibromyalgia.
• In patients with OA, a poorer patient status (RAPID3, ≥ 12 vs < 12) increased the likelihood of anxiety (OR, 3.93; 95% CI, 2.24-7.23), depression (OR, 3.79; 95% CI, 2.01-7.73), and fibromyalgia (OR, 6.70; 95% CI, 3.36-14.99).
• Similarly, the odds of all three comorbidities increased in the patients with RA who had worsened patient status.

IN PRACTICE:

“Screening for [anxiety, depression, and/or fibromyalgia] can be incorporated feasibly into routine clinical care using a single MDHAQ to better inform health professionals concerning patient status, prognosis, and response to treatments,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Juan Schmukler, MD, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, and was published online on July 16, 2024, in ACR Open Rheumatology. 

LIMITATIONS:

The analyses were cross-sectional, and whether anxiety, depression, and fibromyalgia had preceded or followed the onset of OA or RA was not known. Information on the clinical variables associated with anxiety, depression, and fibromyalgia, such as body mass index, medication history, and other comorbid conditions, was not available. All the patients were seen at a single rheumatology site, which may have limited the generalizability of the observations. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not disclose any sources of funding. One author disclosed receiving grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. One author reported numerous financial relationships with companies in the medical industry, and another reported holding a copyright and trademark on MDHAQ and RAPID3. 

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

TOPLINE:

About 40% of patients with osteoarthritis (OA) and 36% with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) screened positive for anxiety, depression, and/or fibromyalgia as part of routine visits to an academic medical center, and these comorbidities were linked to poorer patient status measures, highlighting the need for routine screening in clinical practice. 

METHODOLOGY:

• This retrospective cross-sectional study analyzed the prevalence of anxiety, depression, and fibromyalgia in 366 patients with OA (mean age, 66.6 years) and 488 patients with RA (mean age, 56.9 years) who were in routine care at an academic center from 2011 to 2022.
• All participants were required to have complete Multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire (MDHAQ) data available for the analysis.
• The MDHAQ included indices to assess the overall patient status and screen for anxiety, depression, and fibromyalgia.
• The overall patient status was measured using the Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3), which comprised the physical function, pain, and patient global scores.
• The prevalence of each comorbidity and its association with patient status was analyzed using unadjusted and age-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the patients with OA, 40.4% were screened positive for at least one of the three indices indicating patient distress (anxiety, depression, and fibromyalgia). Among patients with RA, the proportion was 36.3%.
• Among the patients who screened positive for at least one index, about 20% screened positive for all three indices related to anxiety, depression, and fibromyalgia.
• In patients with OA, a poorer patient status (RAPID3, ≥ 12 vs < 12) increased the likelihood of anxiety (OR, 3.93; 95% CI, 2.24-7.23), depression (OR, 3.79; 95% CI, 2.01-7.73), and fibromyalgia (OR, 6.70; 95% CI, 3.36-14.99).
• Similarly, the odds of all three comorbidities increased in the patients with RA who had worsened patient status.

IN PRACTICE:

“Screening for [anxiety, depression, and/or fibromyalgia] can be incorporated feasibly into routine clinical care using a single MDHAQ to better inform health professionals concerning patient status, prognosis, and response to treatments,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Juan Schmukler, MD, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, and was published online on July 16, 2024, in ACR Open Rheumatology. 

LIMITATIONS:

The analyses were cross-sectional, and whether anxiety, depression, and fibromyalgia had preceded or followed the onset of OA or RA was not known. Information on the clinical variables associated with anxiety, depression, and fibromyalgia, such as body mass index, medication history, and other comorbid conditions, was not available. All the patients were seen at a single rheumatology site, which may have limited the generalizability of the observations. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not disclose any sources of funding. One author disclosed receiving grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. One author reported numerous financial relationships with companies in the medical industry, and another reported holding a copyright and trademark on MDHAQ and RAPID3. 

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

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

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

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

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

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

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

TOPLINE:

Rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) do not differ significantly among individual biologics used for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA), a database analysis finds. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Data from the TriNetX health records database included 32,758 patients treated with TNF inhibitors (TNFi, 62.9%), interleukin-17 inhibitors (IL-17i, 15.4%), IL-23i (10.7%), and IL-12i/IL-23i (10.7%).
• The researchers calculated time-dependent risk for MACE using multinomial Cox proportional hazard ratios. The reference was TNFi exposure.
• Subset analyses compared MACE in patients with and without existing cardiovascular disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with TNFi use, there was no difference in the incidence of MACE events in the IL-17i, IL-23i, or IL-12i/IL-23i group.
• There were also no significant differences between biologic groups in the incidence of congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, or cerebral vascular accident/stroke.

IN PRACTICE:

Despite some concern about increased risk for MACE with TNFi use, this study suggests no special risk for patients with psoriasis or PsA associated with TNFi vs other biologics. “Given our results, as it pertains to MACE, prescribers shouldn’t favor any one biologic class over another,” said lead investigator Shikha Singla, MD, medical director of the Psoriatic Arthritis Program at Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

SOURCE:

Bonit Gill, MD, a second-year fellow at Medical College of Wisconsin, presented the study as a poster at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s retrospective nature makes it impossible to prove causation and the patients included in the study were from Wisconsin, which may limit generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Gill had no relevant financial disclosures. Other study authors participated in trials or consulted for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and UCB.

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

TOPLINE:

Rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) do not differ significantly among individual biologics used for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA), a database analysis finds. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Data from the TriNetX health records database included 32,758 patients treated with TNF inhibitors (TNFi, 62.9%), interleukin-17 inhibitors (IL-17i, 15.4%), IL-23i (10.7%), and IL-12i/IL-23i (10.7%).
• The researchers calculated time-dependent risk for MACE using multinomial Cox proportional hazard ratios. The reference was TNFi exposure.
• Subset analyses compared MACE in patients with and without existing cardiovascular disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with TNFi use, there was no difference in the incidence of MACE events in the IL-17i, IL-23i, or IL-12i/IL-23i group.
• There were also no significant differences between biologic groups in the incidence of congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, or cerebral vascular accident/stroke.

IN PRACTICE:

Despite some concern about increased risk for MACE with TNFi use, this study suggests no special risk for patients with psoriasis or PsA associated with TNFi vs other biologics. “Given our results, as it pertains to MACE, prescribers shouldn’t favor any one biologic class over another,” said lead investigator Shikha Singla, MD, medical director of the Psoriatic Arthritis Program at Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

SOURCE:

Bonit Gill, MD, a second-year fellow at Medical College of Wisconsin, presented the study as a poster at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s retrospective nature makes it impossible to prove causation and the patients included in the study were from Wisconsin, which may limit generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Gill had no relevant financial disclosures. Other study authors participated in trials or consulted for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and UCB.

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

TOPLINE:

Rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) do not differ significantly among individual biologics used for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA), a database analysis finds. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Data from the TriNetX health records database included 32,758 patients treated with TNF inhibitors (TNFi, 62.9%), interleukin-17 inhibitors (IL-17i, 15.4%), IL-23i (10.7%), and IL-12i/IL-23i (10.7%).
• The researchers calculated time-dependent risk for MACE using multinomial Cox proportional hazard ratios. The reference was TNFi exposure.
• Subset analyses compared MACE in patients with and without existing cardiovascular disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with TNFi use, there was no difference in the incidence of MACE events in the IL-17i, IL-23i, or IL-12i/IL-23i group.
• There were also no significant differences between biologic groups in the incidence of congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, or cerebral vascular accident/stroke.

IN PRACTICE:

Despite some concern about increased risk for MACE with TNFi use, this study suggests no special risk for patients with psoriasis or PsA associated with TNFi vs other biologics. “Given our results, as it pertains to MACE, prescribers shouldn’t favor any one biologic class over another,” said lead investigator Shikha Singla, MD, medical director of the Psoriatic Arthritis Program at Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

SOURCE:

Bonit Gill, MD, a second-year fellow at Medical College of Wisconsin, presented the study as a poster at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s retrospective nature makes it impossible to prove causation and the patients included in the study were from Wisconsin, which may limit generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Gill had no relevant financial disclosures. Other study authors participated in trials or consulted for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and UCB.

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